The following comes from a January 20 LifeSiteNews article by John-Henry Westen:
As if readying the Church for a coming change, Pope Francis has significantly raised the stakes for those apprehensive about the possibility that he has new innovations in store for the Church. A Vatican Radio summary of his homily on January 18 reads:
“Christians who say ‘it’s always been done that way,’ and stop there have hearts closed to the surprises of the Holy Spirit. They are idolaters and rebels who will never arrive at the fullness of the truth.”
In his homily yesterday, Pope Francis used harsh language against those unwilling to accept yet unspecified “change.” “It is the sin of so many Christians who cling to what has always been done and who do not allow others to change. And they end up with half a life, [a life that is] patched, mended, meaningless,” he said. The sin, he said, “is a closed heart,” that “does not hear the voice of the Lord, that is not open to the newness of the Lord, to the Spirit that always surprises us.”
What changes Pope Francis has in mind for the Church remain to be seen. However, Catholics feeling the sting of the pope’s harsh language can consider themselves in good company. Some Synod Fathers who battled to defend the Church’s moral teachings on divorce, homosexuality, and papal authority felt themselves chastised by the pope during his final address to the Synod, when he said: “true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit; not ideas but people; not formulae but the gratuitousness of God’s love and forgiveness.”
The pope said there was a need to overcome “the recurring temptations of the elder brother (cf. Lk 15:25-32) and the jealous labourers (cf. Mt 20:1-16)” and that “the Church’s first duty is not to hand down condemnations or anathemas, but to proclaim God’s mercy…”
The Pope decrees that not only men may be chosen for the washing of the feet in the Liturgy of Holy Thursday
The following comes from a January 21 Vatican Information Service article :
The Holy Father has written a letter, dated 20 December and published today, to Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in which he decrees that from now on, the people chosen for the washing of the feet in the liturgy of Holy Thursday may be selected from all the People of God, and not only men and boys.
The Pope writes to the cardinal that he has for some time reflected on the “rite of the washing of the feet contained in the Liturgy of the Mass in Coena Domini, with the intention of improving the way in which it is performed so that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus’ gesture in the Cenacle, His giving of Himself unto the end for the salvation of the world, His limitless charity”.
Some of us Christians cling to what has always been done because we need the structure of the Church to help us keep our fragile Faith. The world is being torn asunder by leaders that create straw men and false oppositions while we just struggle to keep believing. We Neo-Pelagians always receive the ire of the Santa Marta Pope. Yet we are there at Mass and provide substantial monetary support for the upkeep of our Faith. Vatican II is stale yet these old revolutionary men think it contains the solution to the problems that afflict the spirit of modern man.
If Christ would of wanted to wash women’s feet he would of gave us that with “his” teaching. Change back and maybe mother church can be saved along with the souls of Gods children. As for Pope Francis, isn’t intimidation sinful, shame on him and his latest homily. I will follow the teachings of Christ and not those as wrong as this from Francis.
women according to jewish custom were not given the same religious righta as men. they were separate at all religious ceremonies so at the last supper they were required to sit upstairs. our lord only followed jewish custom at the time that is the reason jesus only washed the feet of men his women followers observed the lord came to save al humity not just men
Thomas Nawn, Jewish men and women during the time of Christ were separated to avoid distractions during worship and to avoid too much familiarity of men with women not their relatives, so adultery did not take place; sexual diseases were not passed around and families were not destroyed. The Old Testament warns men not to hang around the house of another man when he is not there and become too friendly with his wife.
in jewish temples today, it is my belief only men can sit within the confines, I once attended a bat mitvah for a 12 year old girl the men were given the little black heat to recall the wemen were somewhere in the building like on the side my knowledge of jewish rituals is almost nothing I mean hat a yamakua a head covering
I have been married to the same man for over fifty years, and one reason is that I do not bring men into my house when he is not home, unless they are relatives, and he knows about it. A few emergencies have been the exceptions.
Now many men and women are far too familiar with one another and divorce is rampant.
I am not saying that we need to go back to separating men and women during worship, but we do need to use discretion. The Reverent William (Billy) Graham has been married to the same woman all his life and has never been involved in any sexual scandal. One reason is that he has written that he follows the Orthodox Jewish law about not being alone with non related females.
So Tom I take it you were there ?
Joe: file Tom’s comment under the “Nawnsense”. And forget it.
Thank You Steve, I do need to be reminded of that on occasion.
The whole point of the foot washing was that Jesus was taking on the role of a slave washing the feet of the slave owners. Slave owners in those days weren’t women. And today, we don’t have slave owners, thankfully. So somebody has to do some deeper thinking about what was going on there, and thankfully our Pope has.
The whole point is also to not forget the reality of our fallen human nature and to keep ourselves from the occasion of sin. It can often be sinful to presume ‘why’ people did certain things out of context.
While current day norms may use the excuse of the ‘hateful’ repression of women as a vehicle to enforce the blurring of all realistic lines that define gender, it was common sense to separate men/women. It still is to a certain degree.
So let’s not become slaves to those who would uproot practice from reality. That is men and women are NOT the same. Thank goodness. And having men kneel to wash/kiss women’s feet is not a sanctuary activity – sorry. Especially not when said men are still, despite their office, in…
… possession of testosterone and a fallen human nature. Time to stop playing insensate robot.
Are you kidding me? You really think adding women to people whose feet can get washed in a ceremony threatens to bring down the Church? WHAT FRUITING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? Maybe God will condemn us to eternal torment for failing to say “And with your spirit”.
….the fruiting difference is that while fruits are all fruits they are also not always interchangeable in recipes. To mix things up sounds fun and fresh and exciting, but the end result can often pucker the mouth or make one ill – not the intention, perhaps, but the result of blind let’s-try-this-combo because, perhaps, the colors look good together.
That’s why, when cooking, one always needs to keep in mind that the cooking process is only the means, not the end. That is why if one wants to be a good cook and/or a chef, one needs to understand what blends well and what does not. And not to push novelty for the sake of fun in the kitchen at the expense of those being forced to eat what we feel like creating. That’s not the point…
By attacking a person to undermine his point and substitute your own is the logic fallacy called the ad hominum argument, the argument against the man instead of the idea. It can be very effective to those who don’t understand it, making people feel bad so that they adopt the new idea, win the praise of the speaker and feel good. Doesn’t fool me on this one.
Amen. The Holy Father is the supreme legislator respecting the Church’s liturgy so long as his decrees do not contradict Divine law. There is no Divine law mandating the specifics as to how the ceremonial washing of feet at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper is to be carried out; if there were, the Church could not have made numerous changes to it over the centuries, as it has. The Holy Father has given specific (and in my view) laudable reasons for the larger inclusion. Moreover, the changes he authorized are permissive, not mandatory. [The ItaIian text of the Decree uses the verb “puo’ ” (“it may be done”) rather than the verb “deve” (“it should,or must, be done”.]
The man is not evil. He may be in error, but he is not evil. He is human and prone to error with all matters outside of faith and morals. This idea, on the other hand, is just another post-modern innovation to make God more relative to man. A very bad innovation for it contradicts what Jesus Himself did. Mind you, He could have easily washed Mary’s feet…both Mary’s mind you, but He did not. I don’t pretend to know His purpose and reasoning and I can only go by what the Gospels say.
What did Jesus intend to teach by washing the feet of the Apostles?
I read where the washing of the feet was a part of the institution of the priesthood by Jesus on His Apostles. Thereby men would only be in the act. This is where a knowledge of what has been taught about that would be helpful. I can see some merit in the way Jesus did it should be respected. But the understanding of any theological part of the act would help.
The text in John 13:5 says he washed his disciples feet. Jesus had women disciples, or do you think it was only the 12 at the last supper?
I think Tradition has held that it was the Apostles who had their feet washed. John does not use the term apostles. He sometimes uses the term “the Twelve”. He uses the term disciples, it seems, alternately for the twelve and a for larger group. Only four names are included with the term disciple: Andrew, Simon Peter, Thomas and Judas Iscariet and the author refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Raymond Moon (“..Jesus had women disciples”), can you cite one scriptural passage in John’s Gospel where Jesus refers to a woman as a “disciple” (Greek, mathaton)?
And yes, Mr. Moon, all of Catholic Scripture and tradition has clearly and consistently stated only Jesus and the 12 were in the Upper Room (..”Do you think it was only the 12 at the Last Supper?”) What tradition are you citing? Matthew Fox, perhaps?
Rather presumptuous, Deacon Moon, and dismissive of those who were actually there. What, pray, lends itself to such robust clarity of what must have been when the written record is what it is? Are we presuming to be clairvoyant? Are we now basing reality on assumptions? Are we intimating that people back then were inclined to mass conspiracy to subjugate women, but today, well, we’re all pure and loving and only seeking truth without hidden motives?
Times change. People don’t, ‘Deacon’ Moon.
So when you inadvertently cast aspersions on those who were at the Last Supper and those subsequently taught by them you cast aspersions as to the purity of your own motives in dismissing the written record. What pray is your…
…motive? You do have one. Perhaps it is what ‘you’ think is right. Not necessarily what is or was in truth. That’s why we are called to protect and pass on the Deposit of Faith, not the Deposit of Doubt.
Give it up, Ann Malley, I didn’t think we would get an answer back from Rev. Mr. Moon on where exactly in John’s Gospel, or in fact in any of the Gospels, does Our Lord call any specific woman “disciple” (Gr., mathaton), nor specifically any among the 12 in the Upper Room (cenaculum, Jerome Vulgate). Starting in John 1:35-ff, all those called—ex. Andrew, John, Philip, Nathaniel–who are called disciples are all—let the screaming and yelling begin—men. Imagine that.
But I like that observation—instead of the “Sacred Deposit of Faith”, cited even by V2, we have the “Deposit of Doubt.”
I am going to modify that a little: “The Sacred Deposit of Change”.
….and with the Sacred Deposit of Change, of course, goes the superdogma of change for the sake of change. The substantiating miracles, those that serve no meaty purpose, like dancing sugar cubes and being able to guess accurately when the skirt lengths with rise or fall, will now abound. Wow! What great mysteries ;^)
Yes you do doubt but we are praying for you both.
Peace and Love, Mercy and Hope, Faith and Virtue to you both.
Methinks you think “Tradition” is the same as “tradition. Not so!
Please open your mind. Or your heart. Each will tell you the same truth.
Rightly said father. It will be a battle of those trained in theology but the other side albeit for lay people may sound very theological it’s in reality evil and empty.
Rebels are those who want to change the statis quo. The Holy Spirit is truth, and He will never condone lies or deceit. He inspires and builds up, and does not scandalize and destroy.
“The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the Bishops and the priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops against other Bishops. The priests who venerate Me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises, and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.” – Church approved messages of Our Lady of Akita, Japan.
God WAS.. IS…and always WILL BE known as merciful for handing down formulae such as The 10 Commandments to Moses. Thou Shalt not commit adultery and Thou Shall not kill. Mercy without teaching formulae = The Ten clueless Suggestions. Charitably taught formulae + oceans of Mercy = The fullness of Truth
THE SECOND LETTER OF ST. PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS
2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions
which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. Douay-Rheims
Pope Francis was giving a homily on the Gospel where the Pharisee’s ask Him why His disciples do not fast. I think his mentioning of Christians who do not want change is about little things that block the Holy Spirit..
My Church does not have Mass one morning a week. We used to have them 7 days a week like most Churches. Almost 2 decades ago, we lost a priest so the only preist we had stopped saying Mass once a week so he could have a morning off. Now, it’s entrenched that we don’t have Mass on that day even though we have two priests and have for many years.
That is very interesting (Anon. 1/22/16, 10:50am) that now the progression of “accepted practice” is to skip [Novus Ordo] Mass once a week.
It appears it is a statement that it (Mass) isn’t that important.
Perhaps it will progress to the Anglican usage: Cranmer also didn’t believe in the need for a daily sacrifice of the Mass either (since he was adamant against “sacrifice” at all). It’s just not that important.
The missions don’t even have them 6 days a week. Most only have Sunday Mass. One other has Mass 5 days a week.. (Not the Old CA missions. New, recently established missions.)
The woman second fro left looks like she’s crying. What a wonderful, uplifting spiritual experience it must have been forthem.
Again, a focus on “feelings.”
Christ came to the Human race not the stoic, excusivly logical, Star Trek Vulcan race.
Typical childish response from a liberal…whose main concern is Feelings……
OH PLEASE !!!!
ireall think the holy father owes it to us to be more specific about what he means by ‘change. he clearly has something or some things in mind and is so good at giving vivid examples so many other times. let’s just hope it’s his way of speaking to members of the curia he is fighting up close in areas like financial reform. i still give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not alluding to upcoming substantial doctrinal reversals. it’s that we have never seen a publicly-venting pope before. he said he wants direct frank speech, parrhesia, but it;s coming out blunt but vague.
Dear drewelow: The Holy Father gave clear and specific guidance as to why he made the changes (which are permissive, not mandatory). They appear in a (published) letter to Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, which accompanied the Decree. So far, I could only find the Italian text. Lucky for me, I read Italian.
Sorry, drewelow. I left out the Pope’s reasons. He wrote that it he wished to add more emphasis to the undeniable Catholic doctrine that Christ came to offer salvation to ALL, rather than limit the impression that the washing the feet of was limited to the Apostles. So the Pope allowed it to be open to men and women; clergy, religious and lay people; and the sick and the well. That’s what his letter to Card. Sarah said. I hope this helps.
Vague like hope n change.
In the last twenty to thirty years, I can’t remember once when the Priest washed the feet of only 12 men. In nearly all of those years the Priest washed the feet of a parishioner who then washed the feet on the person behind him/her in line until all in the church had ad the opportunity to wash the feet of another person. The foot washing ritual may be one of the most ignored rules. We don’t live in the time of Christ who did much to teach us using cultural norms of the time. That doesn’t mean that rituals can’t change to fit the times, especially if they are not doctrine, but ritual. Besides its all optional anyway.
That is a unique innovation.
Bob One I wish there was a Las Vegas line on how you would respond to this, I could’ve retired if there was…
Canisius, you lose! I have no opinion.
Bob One, your lack of opinion proved my point….
Vegas doesn’t make bank taking bets on the inevitable, apparently.
In direct violation of the pulished rubrics of the time.
This article is good for those interested in the modification of the ritual of Washing the Feet on Holy Thursday.
caritas, if you will notice paragraph 5 of the article tells us that the changes the pope has in mind seem to be more than those you allude to in the cdl sarah letter and are not clearly defined . anche io seguo la stampa italiana.
It was a homily…Click the link.
drewelow, did you mean to write “anch’ io lego la stampa italiana”? i’m sure you didn’t mean to say you literally “follow” (as in “accompany” or walk behind”) the press—as the use of the verb “seguire” would convey.
The washing of feet has changed much over the centuries and is not intrinsic to the Mass. Writing in L’Osservatore Romano, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Archbishop Arthur Roche, commented on the Congregation’s new decree concerning the rite of the washing of the feet, which was issued at Pope Francis’s request. He traced the history of the foot-washing rite from the seventh century, when a liturgical ordo called upon a bishop to wash the feet of the clerics who lived in his home. In the 12th century, the Roman Pontifical assigned the rite of foot washing to after Vespers on Holy Thursday, with the feet of 12 subdeacons being washed from the thirteenth century in Rome. This…
“The washing of feet has changed much over the centuries [ going back to the 7th century]…In the 12th century, the Roman Pontifical assigned the rite of foot washing to after Vespers on Holy Thursday, the feet of 12 subdeacons being washed from the thirteenth century in Rome.”
Ah, yes, a tradition of at least 13 centuries is not a tradition at all, but a history of change. I understand the logic: change for the sake of change. Or, another way to put it: everything is meaningless. So, let’s change everything.
I am all for change now: for a long time I thought we should preserve our ancient Roman Catholic traditions: but enough of all that dusty stuff.
Now, in light of documents calling for radical change and mutual understanding of a common god (=may not be capitalized anymore, “too authoritarian”), I think since we have a Church defined by change, not by tradition, LET’S CHANGE EVERYTHING!
In the light of Nostra Aetate and “common understanding”, let’s eliminate deacons (=clerical male patriarchy, after all) altogether, and replace them with Muslim imams (more ecumenical and they believe in the same god according to NA and PF and even JP2), and eliminate priests altogether, replacing them with secular atheist women parish administrators, usually clip-haired steely-eyed Future Church-women’s religious (Oops! I was a little late on that one!). In fact, do we need bishops?…
It seems like a small thing, but it is really important. Christ washed the feet of His Apostles, who were all men, and whom He had already ordained as priests. (Do this in memory of ME) proves my point. By having everyone wash each other’s feet, is a circus. Before 1956 (or so), the washing of feet was done outside of Mass. As far as I klnow, it is still optional.
I think people are just over reacting, imagining things that were not actually said and filling the gaps with their own fears. Doctrine is still the same. There’s no watering down. It’s just that the way of doing things might have changed but without contradicting Church doctrine. There are many roads but all of them lead to Rome.
I agree. The headline, which is meaningless, doesn’t help. If people click the link and read the homily, they could see what he was really talking about. But people believe what they want to believe. And, to be honest, people with anxiety do not think well. Fear and anger shut down the reasoning parts of the brain.
I would think that Il Papa would therefore not want to accept Peter’s Pence money or filthy lucre for his other causes, neither would his avid lieutenants like Blaise Cupich or Bp. PJ McGrath of San Jose, or others elsewhere, accept any donations for their ADA (Annual Diocesan Appeal) from “those who cling to what has always been done and who do not allow others to change.” After all, we/they are the enemy.
Yet I received my ADA (Annual Diocesan Appeal) letter promptly early this month, for the Diocese of San Jose (even tho’ I have been a Franciscano for some time: I still am actively contributing in a couple San Jose parishes).
A conumdrum: yet I am sure accepting $$ from “the Pharisees” must violate the…
… must terribly violate the well-known moral sensitivities of the aforementioned progressive clerics. Or are they much more like their inspired leader, V.I. Lenin, who considers us all “useful idiots” for their cause.
And yet, every month, there is the hand stretched out to me for tainted silver. It must terribly prick their socially aware conscience so.
Oh, the Francis Pontificate is succeeding!
” On August 26, 2015, the statistics released by the Papal Household Prefecture show::
•1,548,500 were present at the 30 audiences of 2013;
•1,199,000 present at the 43 audiences of 2014;
•400,100 present at the 27 audiences of 2015.”
So, the average number of persons present at each audience is as follows (from the same source):
•51,617 in 2013;
•27,883 in 2014;
•14,818 in 2015.
The numbers don’t lie: it is a reduction by 1/2 from each previous year. So, Catholics are running from this papacy.
I admit to confusion, and some apprehension, after reading this.
The latter isn’t necessarily a bad thing, We are All Sinners and any complacency about our own status invites a fall – which such apprehension might help us avoid or at least mitigate and enable a recovery.
We All Hope for God’s Great Mercy. Impeding others from accessing it is wrong. This is not the same as adopting / approving / promoting Behaviors that are deeply hostile to the Magisterium, which is not a required component of Mercy.
No Simple Solutions here folks – We have a Duty to All God’s Children. How We meet it isn’t the same as agreeing it Exists. But the Math of the Soul is deep as God’s Love is Infinite.
Pray We All both Receive and Share His…
One doesn’t know what to think these days, but though heresy come through the mouth of an angel, it must be rejected.
caritas, the definitions of seguire you have given is quite correct, as the primary, literal meaning. however, if you check reverso,net you will notice that secondary meaning s include,among many,’ to pay attention to’ as in ‘seguire instruzioni’ , and ‘to monitor’ or track. i have found that many online dictionaries seem to limit themselves to sparse, basic definitions that do not do justice to the fuller range of meanings and nuances in colloquial language production. i have noticed that pope francis’ lexikon is constantly going beyond the average spanish dictionary which hasn’t caught up with the culture.
drewelow— you’re right. modern languages have adapted to add a lot of colloquialisms. italian itself provides a good example: “le nozze avranno luogo…”, “the wedding will take place…”.
Another in a long line of good reasons to attend the Traditional Latin Mass – we are not bound by this innovation, thankfully we follow the 1962 missal :) Use a search engine like google to help you find a Latin Mass in your area.
caritas, the best online dictionary that i have found for current italian is from the corriere della sera, dizionari.corriere.it , surprisingly enough. but the corriere always had a literary flair at its core, like the mostly bygone journalistic tradition of 19th century america.
So, it is a sin to cling to Catholic Tradition!
Was it Pius X who suggested that one of the priorities exercised by the modernist clergy was to redefine sin?
traditions: but enough of all that dusty stuff.
Now, in light of documents calling for radical change and mutual understanding of a common god (=may not be capitalized anymore, “too authoritarian”), I think since we have a Church defined by change, not by tradition, let’s change everything.
In the light of Nostra Aetate and “common understanding”, let’s eliminate deacons (more clerical male patriarchy, after all) altogether, and replace them with Muslim imams (more ecumenical and they believe in the same god according to NA and PF and even JP2), and eliminate priests altogether, replacing them with secular atheist women parish administrators, usually clip-haired angry-faced Future Church quasi-women’s religious (Oops! I was…
(Oops! I was a little late on that one!). In fact, do we need bishops? Replace them with Catholic Charities, so they can still collect all the money and distribute it to anti-Church Valley Interfaith projects, designed to whip everyone into a fury of angry community-organizing.
I have been to the mountain, I have seen the future, and it is [dying] American Protestantism. Marana tha!
So tell me again, the document says
… exactly how many are to participate?
… and who are they to be?
Looks like people will STILL violate the rubrics.
What more is it going to take for people to finally wise up and see the truth? The implosion of the V2 Church, the deception that it is catholic, and more changes are to come countering Jesus’ teachings? Guess just more of Francis’ revolutionary changes of the V2 Church; however, only by the grace of God will people see the truth. Pray the rosary to receive God’s grace to see the truth and ask God for His guidance to show you His Way, Truth, and Life!
The only future for the Roman Catholic Church rests in the Roman Catholic Parishes that practice the traditional 7 Holy Sacraments in latin and the Tridentine Latin Mass, all as they were before V2, because our Lord stands beside them. Search for traditio in your browser to find a directory where they exist. You will be glad and thankful you did for eternity! Discover your ancient Roman Catholic Heritage, the faith of your great grand parents. May God bless you on your journey, back to the road leading to Heaven. Pray the rosary for world peace!