Originally posted by Boogie:
I was very taken with that seagull.
An image of the Holy Spirit?
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Well, it's the age of the internet and I'm watching live footage on the web while hacking in posts on a BB. That's certainly one changed aspect of the world of great interest to the papacy now, I would say. (Not what I do personally...
Originally posted by Sparrow:
You're quick off the mark!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The rise of the web.)
quote:Cute!
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe his first job is to close the gay sauna that the Vatican recently purchased according to this.
quote:Ummm, no. The whole point of the Schrödinger box is that it's only fatal to the cat 50% of the time. It's the uncertainty that the thought experiment is supposed to illustrate.
Originally posted by Zach82:
True story: I once got into an argument with one of my confirmation kids trying to explain that Schroedinger's cat is a thought experiment about the quantum level of existence, and that an actual cat in the experiment would certainly be dead, even if no one looked.
quote:Seems a more apt image for a church that characterizes itself as "fishers of men" than an herbivore like a dove.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I was very taken with that seagull.
An image of the Holy Spirit?
quote:Well, doves do exactly the same, but the crap tends to pile up in one place! (I know, I used to keep them)
Originally posted by Chorister:
What, flies in and craps all over the place (or worse)? Maybe not....
quote:Ditto.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, whoever he is, I'll always have a deep respect for Joseph Ratzinger.
quote:You're not wrong. One of the commentators actually just said "Well John, we don't really know anything about anything". Can't argue with that.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Commentators are properly babbling about bugger all.
quote:They have now, and yes, you're right Doublethink - however, they've told us that the name will be announced imminently.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm watching "Russia Today" but they haven't mentioned it yet...
quote:It's a phenomenon more common in sports broadcasting than in news, where the commentators have keep commenting regardless of whether anything is actually going on or not. For an extended stoppage in play they can go off on some pretty weird tangents.
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
quote:You're not wrong. One of the commentators actually just said "Well John, we don't really know anything about anything". Can't argue with that.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Commentators are properly babbling about bugger all.
quote:It would have been a little more dignified if they had done a bulletin then played some appropriate liturgical music - and just let the scrolling across the bottom of the screen give the basic info.
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
quote:You're not wrong. One of the commentators actually just said "Well John, we don't really know anything about anything". Can't argue with that.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Commentators are properly babbling about bugger all.
quote:Having spent some time with a number of Argentinians, they wouldn't have let you get away with that without comment. They don't lack for national esteem...
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Oops - Argentinian.
quote:Actually, the point is that on the macro scale, this doesn't happen. But if this was on the subatomic scale, the "cat" would be both alive and dead.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Ummm, no. The whole point of the Schrödinger box is that it's only fatal to the cat 50% of the time. It's the uncertainty that the thought experiment is supposed to illustrate.
Originally posted by Zach82:
True story: I once got into an argument with one of my confirmation kids trying to explain that Schroedinger's cat is a thought experiment about the quantum level of existence, and that an actual cat in the experiment would certainly be dead, even if no one looked.
quote:Francis I -- already he's a blessing to Catholic school children everywhere.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Jorge Maria Cardinal Bergoglio! Francis I! A Jesuit!
Wow.
quote:Please note that being "certainly either alive or dead" is very different than "certainly be dead".
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:On the macro scale, the cat is most certainly either alive or dead, if you were to conduct the experiment.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Ummm, no. The whole point of the Schrödinger box is that it's only fatal to the cat 50% of the time. It's the uncertainty that the thought experiment is supposed to illustrate.
Originally posted by Zach82:
True story: I once got into an argument with one of my confirmation kids trying to explain that Schroedinger's cat is a thought experiment about the quantum level of existence, and that an actual cat in the experiment would certainly be dead, even if no one looked.
quote:versus
Q: How's Benedict XIV?
A: He's dead.
quote:These are not even remotely equivalent to each other.
Q: How's Benedict XIV?
A: He's either alive or dead.
quote:And if extraneous influences, such as fresh air, are excluded, we can take a pretty good guess at which...
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
On the macro scale, the cat is most certainly either alive or dead...
quote:By fulfilling certain conditions one can have the temporal punishment (purgatory) removed for all sins already forgiven. All nonsense, of course, but that's what it means.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What is a plenary indulgence ? (Impressed with the shout out to twitter.)
quote:Commentators implying he goes with more stripped down, less ornate, liturgy. They noted particularly he didn't sing the blessing.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
First Argentinian pope.
First South American pope.
First Jesuit pope.
First Francis.
Anyone know how he stands on liturgy?
quote:So where does he stand with regards to Benedict's reform of the reform and the Tridentine rite?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Commentators implying he goes with more stripped down, less ornate, liturgy. They noted particularly he didn't sing the blessing.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
First Argentinian pope.
First South American pope.
First Jesuit pope.
First Francis.
Anyone know how he stands on liturgy?
quote:It's hard to know for certain so soon, but I suspect it's not as important to him as it was to Benedict.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
So where does he stand with regards to Benedict's reform of the reform and the Tridentine rite?
quote:The Tridentine rite is not his bag at all. Look at the comments on the Rorate Caeli website for wailing and gnashing of teeth which may answer your question. He has not been a promoter of Summorum Pontificum.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:So where does he stand with regards to Benedict's reform of the reform and the Tridentine rite?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Commentators implying he goes with more stripped down, less ornate, liturgy. They noted particularly he didn't sing the blessing.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
First Argentinian pope.
First South American pope.
First Jesuit pope.
First Francis.
Anyone know how he stands on liturgy?
quote:Nonsense or not, as my wife's Jewish aunt and uncle said at our Christian wedding when offered a blessing, I'll take any blessing I can get!
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:By fulfilling certain conditions one can have the temporal punishment (purgatory) removed for all sins already forgiven. All nonsense, of course, but that's what it means.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What is a plenary indulgence ? (Impressed with the shout out to twitter.)
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
.
quote:Given the simplicity of his presentation, I would say S. Francis of Assisi.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I wonder what his name signifies. I'd been assuming it was a reference to St Francis of Assisi, which could signify a desire to purify and rebuild the RCC. Certainly all that Channel 4 could say about him was very positive: a humble man, as Archbishop lived in a modest flat rather than the palace, and did his own cooking. Well, whatever qualities he turns out to have may God bless him, and use him to bless the whole Church
quote:That's what I was afraid of.
Originally posted by bad man:
quote:The Tridentine rite is not his bag at all. Look at the comments on the Rorate Caeli website for wailing and gnashing of teeth which may answer your question. He has not been a promoter of Summorum Pontificum.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:So where does he stand with regards to Benedict's reform of the reform and the Tridentine rite?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Commentators implying he goes with more stripped down, less ornate, liturgy. They noted particularly he didn't sing the blessing.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
First Argentinian pope.
First South American pope.
First Jesuit pope.
First Francis.
Anyone know how he stands on liturgy?
He came out in the simplest "piano" dress, with no mozzetta. He took the stole off. He prayed with the people and spoke conversationally with them before and after the formal parts. He did not intone; he spoke.
He's not your man, Ad Orientem.
quote:This. I have a good feeling about this.
Originally posted by Truman White:
Says a lot about the cardinals that they reckon he's the man for the next phase of the life of the church.
Good day for Christendom I reckon.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Actually, since he is a Jesuit I would say that St Francis Xavier (co-founder of the Society of Jesus) is as likely. In fact, given that St Francis Xavier was a famous missionary, I think the name choice very cleverly point to both saints.
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Given the simplicity of his presentation, I would say S. Francis of Assisi.
quote:Yes, that was what I thought. This one could be the best thing that's happened to the church in years. He's someone who could win a lot of people over, I think - an engaging personality.
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
After watching his initial blessing, I haven't felt this good about a new Pope since +++John Paul I of short but blessed memory.
quote:Yes, that entirely makes sense.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Actually, since he is a Jesuit I would say that St Francis Xavier (co-founder of the Society of Jesus) is as likely. In fact, given that St Francis Xavier was a famous missionary, I think the name choice very cleverly point to both saints.
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Given the simplicity of his presentation, I would say S. Francis of Assisi.
quote:I guess it does point very cleverly to both saints--except surely a bit more towards St Francis of A, as don't you usually pick Xavier or Javier when calling someone after St Francis Xavier?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Actually, since he is a Jesuit I would say that St Francis Xavier (co-founder of the Society of Jesus) is as likely. In fact, given that St Francis Xavier was a famous missionary, I think the name choice very cleverly point to both saints.
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Given the simplicity of his presentation, I would say S. Francis of Assisi.
quote:As a gay person (and an Anglican), I didn't expect much nor did I receive it, but I too prayed for him in his new ministry.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
I don't agree with everything he has said and done, but he seems nice and I like the name he has chosen.
Just prayed for him at EP. I know other Anglicans are doing so.
quote:Not sure how it could have been leaked. They went through three more voting rounds today. It was probably just a pretty shrewd guess based on knowing the personalities as he did.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Monseigneur Strange predicted this last night - including the name I think (according to BBC news) I wonder if the conclave leaked.
quote:Translation, please?
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Una Papa ab ultra leuia!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Rumour here is that he received a lot of votes at the previous conclave, so he started as a known papabile.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Does it say anything that he was chosen so quickly?
A South American! . A man who lived in a small flat in Buenos Ares and who spoke up for the poor. A man who, like the saint whose name he has taken on and the Jewish rabbi all Christians worship, seems to value gospel simplicity. May it be so. He seemed awed at first, when he appeared on the balcony, then very warm and personable. .
quote:I missed this on my first read-through distracted by my interest in the news, but yes. Translation please. This is an English board.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:Translation, please?
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Una Papa ab ultra leuia!
quote:*A Pope from across the Seas!
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Una Papa ab ultra leuia!
quote:Well, let's not forget that there's also St Francis Borgia, who among Jesuits is usually considered their second founder (as their arguably most successful General, who nevertheless was considered a humble saint even in his lifetime).
Originally posted by Cara:
I guess it does point very cleverly to both saints--except surely a bit more towards St Francis of A, as don't you usually pick Xavier or Javier when calling someone after St Francis Xavier?
quote:Right, because if there's anything an incoming Pope wants to be associated with, it's the name "Borgia".
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, let's not forget that there's also St Francis Borgia, who among Jesuits is usually considered their second founder (as their arguably most successful General, who nevertheless was considered a humble saint even in his lifetime).
So I'm thinking that St Francis is already the intersection of two famous Jesuits, before we start considering the Franciscan St Francis.
quote:As the Catholic Encyclopedia remarks on St Francis Borgia: "It is with good reason that Spain and the Church venerate in St. Francis Borgia a great man and a great saint. The highest nobles of Spain are proud of their descent from, or their connexion with him. By his penitent and apostolic life he repaired the sins of his family and rendered glorious a name, which but for him, would have remained a source of humiliation for the Church." Of course, nothing brings you greater joy than a humiliation of the Church. Nevertheless, maybe even you can concede that a man should not be judged by his last name, but by his deeds.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Right, because if there's anything an incoming Pope wants to be associated with, it's the name "Borgia".
quote:A spokesman for the Vatican, speaking to CNN, has said that Pope Francis I specifically chose his papal name because of his devotion to St. Francis of Assisi and the Pope's own love and care for the poor.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Well, let's not forget that there's also St Francis Borgia, who among Jesuits is usually considered their second founder (as their arguably most successful General, who nevertheless was considered a humble saint even in his lifetime).
Originally posted by Cara:
I guess it does point very cleverly to both saints--except surely a bit more towards St Francis of A, as don't you usually pick Xavier or Javier when calling someone after St Francis Xavier?
So I'm thinking that St Francis is already the intersection of two famous Jesuits, before we start considering the Franciscan St Francis.
quote:No one in the media has said that yet (that I've noticed) but if he makes it to 85 and then retires, that would be 9 years--not particularly short, but not really very long either. Not surprisingly for 76, I guess, his health seems stable but not particularly robust.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
What does his age mean? Is he considered transitional, like his predecessor was called?
quote:Yeah, we can only guess what kind of scandal would have ensued if something like that had happened!
What one did not hear from any senior member of the Argentine hierarchy was any expression of regret for the church's collaboration and in these crimes. The extent of the church's complicity in the dark deeds was excellently set out by Horacio Verbitsky, one of Argentina's most notable journalists, in his book El Silencio (Silence). He recounts how the Argentine navy with the connivance of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now the Jesuit archbishop of Buenos Aires, hid from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission the dictatorship's political prisoners. Bergoglio was hiding them in nothing less than his holiday home in an island called El Silencio in the River Plate. The most shaming thing for the church is that in such circumstances Bergoglio's name was allowed to go forward in the ballot to chose the successor of John Paul II. What scandal would not have ensued if the first pope ever to be elected from the continent of America had been revealed as an accessory to murder and false imprisonment
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Hell, I lost ten bucks because during the waiting I doubled down on an earlier bet that the next Pope would be Italian and insisted it would be Scola.
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
The BBC spent ten minutes telling us all about Scola before the name was announced!
quote:Benedict XIV is certainly dead (though alive in Christ we hope).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:versus
Q: How's Benedict XIV?
A: He's dead.
quote:
Q: How's Benedict XIV?
A: He's either alive or dead.
quote:Except that if the deed is selecting a new, symbolic name the symbolism involved is important, requiring careful consideration of all the symbolism involved. Francis Borgia couldn't help being related to one of the more infamous Popes, but the new pontiff probably shouldn't cite the nominal connection since most people's minds go to very different places when they hear the words "Borgia" and "Pope" in the same sentence.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Nevertheless, maybe even you can concede that a man should not be judged by his last name, but by his deeds.
quote:And who didn't drive, but rather took public transportation. What does this mean for the fate of the Popemobile?
Originally posted by Laurelin:
A man who lived in a small flat in Buenos Ares and who spoke up for the poor.
quote:That account is
Originally posted by Crœsos:
An article from two years ago:
quote:Yeah, we can only guess what kind of scandal would have ensued if something like that had happened!
What one did not hear from any senior member of the Argentine hierarchy was any expression of regret for the church's collaboration and in these crimes. The extent of the church's complicity in the dark deeds was excellently set out by Horacio Verbitsky, one of Argentina's most notable journalists, in his book El Silencio (Silence). He recounts how the Argentine navy with the connivance of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now the Jesuit archbishop of Buenos Aires, hid from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission the dictatorship's political prisoners. Bergoglio was hiding them in nothing less than his holiday home in an island called El Silencio in the River Plate. The most shaming thing for the church is that in such circumstances Bergoglio's name was allowed to go forward in the ballot to chose the successor of John Paul II. What scandal would not have ensued if the first pope ever to be elected from the continent of America had been revealed as an accessory to murder and false imprisonment
But hey, the guy lived in a simple apartment and used to cook his own food, so I guess it balances out.
quote:Well, that spin was particularly nasty. In this AP article we find a more measured assessment of his actions under the dictatorship. Not perhaps a hero, but also not a villain. In particular, the incident you highlighted looks to be just the opposite there.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, we can only guess what kind of scandal would have ensued if something like that had happened! But hey, the guy lived in a simple apartment and used to cook his own food, so I guess it balances out.
quote:You know you have been hanging around the Ship for too long when you expect most people to give you anything other than a blank look when they hear the words "Borgia" and "Pope" in the same sentence. We are an odd subset of society here.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
since most people's minds go to very different places when they hear the words "Borgia" and "Pope" in the same sentence.
quote:If he is named for Assisi, this legend springs to my mind:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:A spokesman for the Vatican, speaking to CNN, has said that Pope Francis I specifically chose his papal name because of his devotion to St. Francis of Assisi and the Pope's own love and care for the poor.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Well, let's not forget that there's also St Francis Borgia, who among Jesuits is usually considered their second founder (as their arguably most successful General, who nevertheless was considered a humble saint even in his lifetime).
Originally posted by Cara:
I guess it does point very cleverly to both saints--except surely a bit more towards St Francis of A, as don't you usually pick Xavier or Javier when calling someone after St Francis Xavier?
So I'm thinking that St Francis is already the intersection of two famous Jesuits, before we start considering the Franciscan St Francis.
quote:(from the Catholic Encyclopedia article). St Francis initially rebuilt that ruined chapel, but many feel he went on to rebuild the Church, which had fallen into disrepute. If that is the task the new Pope feels called to, may God bless his endeavours.
Not long after his return to Assisi, whilst Francis was praying before an ancient crucifix in the forsaken wayside chapel of St. Damian's below the town, he heard a voice saying: "Go, Francis, and repair my house, which as you see is falling into ruin."
quote:That article contains a lot of food for thought. Clearly he is a complex man, who can't be summed up easily. However, this my heart was warmed by this extract:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Slightly more balanced source.
(Crosspost snap)
quote:
"In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don't baptize the children of single mothers because they weren't conceived in the sanctity of marriage," Bergoglio [AKA Pope Francis] told his priests. "These are today's hypocrites. Those who clericalize the Church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it's baptized!"
quote:Yes, indeed. Let us all pray for the new Patriarch of the West.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
What a wonderful choice: a Latin American pope who lives simply and chose the name Francis seems to embody the gospel.
quote:Sorry, the Pope gave up that title some time ago.
Yes, indeed. Let us all pray for the new Patriarch of the West.
quote:Translation?
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum...
quote:"I announce to you a great joy ..." - the first words of the proclamation of the new Pope, followed by "Habemus Papam" - "we have a Pope".
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:Translation?
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum...
quote:Now please do not take this as an attack, it is not. But the thought that went through my head was "worried that he might drag the RCC kicking and screaming into the 15th century?"
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
TradWorld is in fits. We're all doomed. I think they're right to be worried even if it is a bit ironic seeing as they're committed papalists.
quote:That doesn't seem right. If that's the case then why don't Popes like Hilarius or Valentine get a numeral? At least, I've never seen them given a numeral.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
According to IngoB on the Papal Name Game thread in the Circus, you get the numeral, so it's Pope Francis I.
quote:In Benedict they had a pope who understood the traditionalists or at least sympathised with them. He was patristic, a mystic, deeply liturgical etc. In the new pope they have a man who cares little for the reform of the reform which Benedict initiated or for the old Roman liturgy, an ecumenicalist etc.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Now please do not take this as an attack, it is not. But the thought that went through my head was "worried that he might drag the RCC kicking and screaming into the 15th century?"
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
TradWorld is in fits. We're all doomed. I think they're right to be worried even if it is a bit ironic seeing as they're committed papalists.
As has been said, it is unlikely the Dead horse issues will change. What are the traditionalists worried about? Genuine curiosity from someone who sees most of the official church positions as very traditional.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:The Trad World would have had a fit of the vapours whoever was elected with the exception of the saintly corpse of Marcel Lefebvre.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
TradWorld is in fits. We're all doomed. I think they're right to be worried even if it is a bit ironic seeing as they're committed papalists.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Perhaps.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:The Trad World would have had a fit of the vapours whoever was elected with the exception of the saintly corpse of Marcel Lefebvre.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
TradWorld is in fits. We're all doomed. I think they're right to be worried even if it is a bit ironic seeing as they're committed papalists.
The trouble with the traditionalists is that they're too bound to the papacy. Far from being too radical they were never radical enough. It will be interesting to see how this works out and I say that with no malice but something is definately up.
quote:Well, I couldn't really figure out what was correct. So I looked for the last known example of a "first", and ended up with John Paul I, of whom I could find a "habemus papam" video on YouTube. And he was indeed John Paul I, i.e., he called himself that (with the "first"). So I thought that that must be the standard then. Now it looks more like JPI was the odd one out.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That doesn't seem right. If that's the case then why don't Popes like Hilarius or Valentine get a numeral? At least, I've never seen them given a numeral.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
According to IngoB on the Papal Name Game thread in the Circus, you get the numeral, so it's Pope Francis I.
quote:Maybe it was papal infallibility?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, I couldn't really figure out what was correct. So I looked for the last known example of a "first", and ended up with John Paul I, of whom I could find a "habemus papam" video on YouTube. And he was indeed John Paul I, i.e., he called himself that (with the "first"). So I thought that that must be the standard then. Now it looks more like JPI was the odd one out.
quote:Well, this is Church Latin, after all -- the same dialect that allows "Et iterum venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos." Caesar and Cicero must turn over in their graves each time they hear that.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
For the latinists, an interesting aside as the name can be given in either the genitive or the accusative - Paul VI was announced in the accusative, Paulum sextum, as was Francis this evening - Franciscum. By contrast Benedict XVI was in the genitive - Benedicti Decimi sexti - as were the John Pauls.
quote:the Ship of Fools: Where Latin is a necessary second language.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Well, this is Church Latin, after all -- the same dialect that allows "Et iterum venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos." Caesar and Cicero must turn over in their graves each time they hear that.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
For the latinists, an interesting aside as the name can be given in either the genitive or the accusative - Paul VI was announced in the accusative, Paulum sextum, as was Francis this evening - Franciscum. By contrast Benedict XVI was in the genitive - Benedicti Decimi sexti - as were the John Pauls.
quote:The last pope to try out a name not used by any of his predecessors before John-Paul I was Pope Lando, who was elevated to the papacy in 913. His papacy lasted about six months. For some reason his "habemus papam" is not available on YouTube. We do, however, have a pretty good picture of what he looked like.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, I couldn't really figure out what was correct. So I looked for the last known example of a "first", and ended up with John Paul I, of whom I could find a "habemus papam" video on YouTube. And he was indeed John Paul I, i.e., he called himself that (with the "first").
quote:My remnants of high school Latin are good enough to match this up with the Nicene creed and come up with "and he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" but I don't know enough (and maybe never did) to spot the grammatical problem.
Well, this is Church Latin, after all -- the same dialect that allows "Et iterum venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos." Caesar and Cicero must turn over in their graves each time they hear that.
quote:And then there are those who thought he should have gone with George Ringo.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, I couldn't really figure out what was correct. So I looked for the last known example of a "first", and ended up with John Paul I, of whom I could find a "habemus papam" video on YouTube. And he was indeed John Paul I, i.e., he called himself that (with the "first"). So I thought that that must be the standard then. Now it looks more like JPI was the odd one out.
quote:This, pretty much. It was nice to know that in Benedict, we had someone who had our back. I neither want or desire a pope that would take the church back to the 60's, but it's nice to have someone who sympathises with you, understands your views, and is willing to grant you pastoral cares to that effect. Unfortunate, Pope Francis was not a friend to the older Roman mass as a bishop, some of us are a little afraid he'll rescind Benny's little motu proprio, leaving us with nothing and no one on our side.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:In Benedict they had a pope who understood the traditionalists or at least sympathised with them. He was patristic, a mystic, deeply liturgical etc. In the new pope they have a man who cares little for the reform of the reform which Benedict initiated or for the old Roman liturgy, an ecumenicalist etc.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Now please do not take this as an attack, it is not. But the thought that went through my head was "worried that he might drag the RCC kicking and screaming into the 15th century?"
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
TradWorld is in fits. We're all doomed. I think they're right to be worried even if it is a bit ironic seeing as they're committed papalists.
As has been said, it is unlikely the Dead horse issues will change. What are the traditionalists worried about? Genuine curiosity from someone who sees most of the official church positions as very traditional.
quote:Thank you, I had missed that. We shall respect and honour him though as if he had retained the title, just as we do the other holders of the ancient titles. It's strange that it was drop as a hindrance to ecumenism - I would have thought the opposite, as the title is a substantial step away from the concept of magisterium now well and truly built into the title "Pope".
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:Sorry, the Pope gave up that title some time ago.
Yes, indeed. Let us all pray for the new Patriarch of the West.
I'd love to still think of him as patriarch of the West. But if he says he ain't, then he ain't.
quote:OK, I do understand that people would wish to feel support. And, though my previous post might not seem so, I do not dismiss tradition off-hand. From my POV, it seems the RCC changes at a glacial pace, but this is subjective, yes. And, of course, not everyone feels change is necessary. So I apologise if my tone appears a bit sharp.
Originally posted by Edgeman:
It was nice to know that in Benedict, we had someone who had our back. I neither want or desire a pope that would take the church back to the 60's, but it's nice to have someone who sympathises with you, understands your views, and is willing to grant you pastoral cares to that effect. Unfortunate, Pope Francis was not a friend to the older Roman mass as a bishop, some of us are a little afraid he'll rescind Benny's little motu proprio, leaving us with nothing and no one on our side.
quote:From what I read, the Summorum Pontificum gives the choice to priests and laity may ask to join. If clergy have no interest, how would keeping the SP change anything?
Originally posted by Edgeman:
There are still some clergy who are not interested in or refuse to implement Summorum Pontificum, and if the pope and the curia don't want to do it either, we've got nobody to help us. That Francis' ideas for liturgy are for simpler, more stripped down worship is ok with me, but many of us fear that those personal views will become the views that will effect all of us in ways we may not want them to.
quote:Why? God knows there have been more than enough that spoke Italian.
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm just so glad it is someone speaking a Romance language.
quote:Oh. When I first heard this mentioned, I thought that it was a cynical reference to the Vatican itself.
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe his first job is to close the gay sauna that the Vatican recently purchased [URL= http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/03/vatican-purchases-europes-largest-gay-sauna/]according to this.[/URL]
quote:Yep. I've been scandalised - although not in the slightest surprised - by some of the comments in the Trad blogosphere about the Holy Father. I have long thought that their lack of docility was essentially a rather Protestant failure to develop a Catholic habit of mind of thinking with the Church. It is, I suspect, the natural concomitant of the experience of schism, de facto or de jure.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Is that really you, diakonos?
quote:It has more to do with than just liturgy. Nevertheless, many people do understand the old rite. And many traditionalists are not against
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Right, so I googled and read a bit. And the jist is, in part, that the Traditionalists* prefer a Mass which nobody understands and would like this to be the standard Mass. Pope Benny made it more OK to say a Latin Mass, but kept the default Mass in local vernacular. Is that part correct?
*As apposed to the, erm, "Ultra-Traditionalists" who think every pope from Paul VI on to be successive antichrists.
quote:I couldn't find any either. Huge relief. The apocalypse is now averted. I have to say the lightning striking the Vatican, the rumbles of thunder during the election, then the appearance of that seagull on The Chimney were definitely pause for thought.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does anyone know if St Malachy has left the building yet?
Or is there any indication from anywhere on how the Argentinian Francis I can possibly be described as Peter the Roman?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Sort of. Except that the "Mass which nobody understands" was the mass of the Church for centuries and arguably is a grown product of cultural beauty. Whereas the "default mass in the local vernacular" is a recent innovation and a pastiche produced by liturgical committees. In trying to make Catholics switch from one to the other, the Church came down rather hard on people that liked the old style. And even when that attitude officially got relaxed, many local bishops did nothing for aficionados of the old style and arguably in some cases did their utmost to block any return to the old style anywhere in any manner under their reign. What BXVI did was to issue a document that officially at least made that impossible. In Pope Francis, traditionalists fear that one of these "blockers" has become pope.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the jist is, in part, that the Traditionalists* prefer a Mass which nobody understands and would like this to be the standard Mass. Pope Benny made it more OK to say a Latin Mass, but kept the default Mass in local vernacular. Is that part correct?
*As apposed to the, erm, "Ultra-Traditionalists" who think every pope from Paul VI on to be successive antichrists.
quote:Always ready to defer to people who know better, I will hazard a guess -- looking at the list of popes on the repository of all knowledge, the most recent one I could see with a known, non-European birthplace is Gregory III, reigned 731-741, born in Syria.
Originally posted by Sparrow:
The BBC keeps telling us that he is the first non-European pope for "more than a millennium". So who was the last?
quote:In Classical Latin you don't normally use the infinitive to show purpose ('come in order to judge'). You would have to say something like iterum venturus est cum gloria ut vivos et mortuos judicet.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:My remnants of high school Latin are good enough to match this up with the Nicene creed and come up with "and he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" but I don't know enough (and maybe never did) to spot the grammatical problem.
Well, this is Church Latin, after all -- the same dialect that allows "Et iterum venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos." Caesar and Cicero must turn over in their graves each time they hear that.
quote:I've done the Classical World and now Religion in History as part of my OU degree - seriously considering a Latin extra mural course!
Originally posted by comet:
quote:the Ship of Fools: Where Latin is a necessary second language.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Well, this is Church Latin, after all -- the same dialect that allows "Et iterum venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos." Caesar and Cicero must turn over in their graves each time they hear that.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
For the latinists, an interesting aside as the name can be given in either the genitive or the accusative - Paul VI was announced in the accusative, Paulum sextum, as was Francis this evening - Franciscum. By contrast Benedict XVI was in the genitive - Benedicti Decimi sexti - as were the John Pauls.
I need lessons.
quote:I read somewhere a couple of days ago, that yes, John Paul I specifically taking the I was an innovation.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Well, I couldn't really figure out what was correct. So I looked for the last known example of a "first", and ended up with John Paul I, of whom I could find a "habemus papam" video on YouTube. And he was indeed John Paul I, i.e., he called himself that (with the "first"). So I thought that that must be the standard then. Now it looks more like JPI was the odd one out.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That doesn't seem right. If that's the case then why don't Popes like Hilarius or Valentine get a numeral? At least, I've never seen them given a numeral.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
According to IngoB on the Papal Name Game thread in the Circus, you get the numeral, so it's Pope Francis I.
quote:Assuming Benedict (if that's still his name) wants to be involved. I thought he was opting for seclusion and a life of prayer and getting away from it all.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If this pope is really cunning, then he would draft BXVI as "special envoy" for dealing with matters of the traditional liturgy and/or the SSPX.
(hope I haven't missed anyone out!).
quote:Seriously? Humility is hardly the opposite of dignity.
Originally posted by IngoB:
while it appears that he on occasion overdoes the humility to the point of damaging the dignity of his office
quote:There was a Michal in the OT who certainly thought it was.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously? Humility is hardly the opposite of dignity.
quote:Maybe it's one of those lovely little details where it's a case of "I'm Pope and I can do what I like."
Originally posted by orfeo:
I read somewhere a couple of days ago, that yes, John Paul I specifically taking the I was an innovation.
quote:And a Peter in the New Testament who got seriously offended at the undignified sight of his Master washing his disciples' feet
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:There was a Michal in the OT who certainly thought it was.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously? Humility is hardly the opposite of dignity.
!quote:I think most liberal Catholics, me included, will be happy with a greater emphasis over the next few years on orthopraxis. Perhaps softening the harsh bark of the "New Liturgical Movement" may be part of a price worth paying for a more humble and eirenic Catholic Church.
Originally posted by IngoB:
What nobody seems to realize - including the rad-trads, remarkably - is the importance of the Bishop of Rome Emeritus BXVI concerning this papacy. But Pope Francis asked the crowd to pray for BXVI from the balcony as the very first thing he did as pope (!), and one of his first stops today will be to BXVI.
Now, popes are usually reluctant to counter-act previous acts of other popes. They are doubly so when it comes to counter-acting their predecessor. But now that predecessor is alive! It would take enormous chutzpah to counter-act BXVI to his face. Thus, while there can be no doubt that Pope Francis is a liturgical disaster, as is de rigeur for Jesuits, and while it appears that he on occasion overdoes the humility to the point of damaging the dignity of his office, I see no imminent threat for the "reform of the reform" of the liturgy.
While BXVI is still alive, I think any attempt to roll back the "reform of the reform" will be effectively blocked. What we may see instead is a further widening of the liturgical scope. This pope has for example charismatic leanings, so I can imagine that we will see allowances made for that. I've predicted elsewhere that I see the liturgy returning to pre-Trent variety (rather than fusing to a new Tridentine mass). This process may now accelerate significantly with this pope.
If this pope is really cunning, then he would draft BXVI as "special envoy" for dealing with matters of the traditional liturgy and/or the SSPX. That would give him plausible deniability for failures in that field, while freeing himself for work he clearly cares a lot more about. Nobody really knows what to do with an ex-pope, so maybe we will see something equivalent to the "elder statesman" activity in politics now. This depends on the state of BXVI though, which may not be good enough.
As for other agendas, I think the honeymoon period of the liberals with this pope will end rather soon. As their main concern - sex - reasserts itself, the bitterness will accumulate again, no matter how humble or socially progressive he may prove to be. In this regrad, the new pope will be rather revealing about the liberal side. Just as he has already been revealing about the rad-trad side and their "Liturgie über alles" (German: "liturgy above everything", with intended Nazi vibes)...
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I read somewhere a couple of days ago, that yes, John Paul I specifically taking the I was an innovation.
quote:It seems a relatively slight liberty to have taken compared with the excesses of the afore-mentioned Borgia.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Maybe it's one of those lovely little details where it's a case of "I'm Pope and I can do what I like."
quote:So .. he looked after his own, while the country went to hell in a handbasket. That seems to be more the actions of a politician than that of a moral exemplar.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Slightly more balanced source.
(Crosspost snap)
quote:That's probably true. But the Borgia Pope - in his own context - was not, in some respects, a bad Papal ruler compared to some of his predecessors. Still not a name to be proud of, but there were much worse examples of personal and papal excess than Borgia. The post-rennaissance bunch has largely been a shining light of propriety, in comparison! But all this is relative. It's unlikely Pope Alexander (VI) was seen as being particularly unusual in his pontificate, or his personal life, at the time.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems a relatively slight liberty to have taken compared with the excesses of the afore-mentioned Borgia.
quote:I think you're saying something important, and I don't understand it at all.
Originally posted by Trisagion
The Pope has been a member of three very important dicasteries over the last 12 years. He is not an insider but he knows well how the place works...
quote:Eh? Liturgy belongs to orthopraxis. Thr prayer of the Church is the faith of the Church, which is why it's so important to get it right.
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
quote:I think most liberal Catholics, me included, will be happy with a greater emphasis over the next few years on orthopraxis. Perhaps softening the harsh bark of the "New Liturgical Movement" may be part of a price worth paying for a more humble and eirenic Catholic Church.
Originally posted by IngoB:
What nobody seems to realize - including the rad-trads, remarkably - is the importance of the Bishop of Rome Emeritus BXVI concerning this papacy. But Pope Francis asked the crowd to pray for BXVI from the balcony as the very first thing he did as pope (!), and one of his first stops today will be to BXVI.
Now, popes are usually reluctant to counter-act previous acts of other popes. They are doubly so when it comes to counter-acting their predecessor. But now that predecessor is alive! It would take enormous chutzpah to counter-act BXVI to his face. Thus, while there can be no doubt that Pope Francis is a liturgical disaster, as is de rigeur for Jesuits, and while it appears that he on occasion overdoes the humility to the point of damaging the dignity of his office, I see no imminent threat for the "reform of the reform" of the liturgy.
While BXVI is still alive, I think any attempt to roll back the "reform of the reform" will be effectively blocked. What we may see instead is a further widening of the liturgical scope. This pope has for example charismatic leanings, so I can imagine that we will see allowances made for that. I've predicted elsewhere that I see the liturgy returning to pre-Trent variety (rather than fusing to a new Tridentine mass). This process may now accelerate significantly with this pope.
If this pope is really cunning, then he would draft BXVI as "special envoy" for dealing with matters of the traditional liturgy and/or the SSPX. That would give him plausible deniability for failures in that field, while freeing himself for work he clearly cares a lot more about. Nobody really knows what to do with an ex-pope, so maybe we will see something equivalent to the "elder statesman" activity in politics now. This depends on the state of BXVI though, which may not be good enough.
As for other agendas, I think the honeymoon period of the liberals with this pope will end rather soon. As their main concern - sex - reasserts itself, the bitterness will accumulate again, no matter how humble or socially progressive he may prove to be. In this regrad, the new pope will be rather revealing about the liberal side. Just as he has already been revealing about the rad-trad side and their "Liturgie über alles" (German: "liturgy above everything", with intended Nazi vibes)...
quote:I'm kind of chuffed to see the top 5 includes the 2 responsible for digging up the body of Pope Formosus. Yep, twice.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I believe some of his successors compared Borgia to St Peter.
Here is a parade of bad popes.
They rank Borgia as the worst, but I'm not sure that seems justified based on the information given in the paragraphs.
quote:Howzabout you make the ecumenical gesture of not using "Protestant" as a dirty word for Catholics you don't like?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I have long thought that their lack of docility was essentially a rather Protestant failure to develop a Catholic habit of mind of thinking with the Church.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:They also say that for most it is best if their novel stays in them.
Originally posted by orfeo:
They say everyone has one novel in them. Mine involves the goings on in that period, because when I first read about them I was utterly transfixed.
quote:As usual, you miss my point. But I guess this is partly my fault here, since I was being vague on purpose. FWIW, I was thinking of gestures like this one (the picture). Now, on one hand it is a sign of humility to kneel publicly before a Protestant minister (and Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, a well-known RC charismatic) to receive a blessing. Or at least I choose to interpret this as a sign of humility, rather than say as direct support for Protestantism or spiritual egalitarianism. On the other hand, I think it is injurious to the dignity of his office as RC archbishop, in particular to do so publicly. This is not about "talking down" to people, this is about letting your actions in office represent that office properly. And while I do not agree with the rad-trad hatred, I do not believe that he should have done that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Humility is hardly the opposite of dignity. I've worked with/for some reasonably high-powered people in the past, and if you ask me the ones who came out looking more dignified were the ones who treated me like a proper human being rather than relegating me to an afterthought just because I didn't have an impressive position like they did.
quote:True. And in some sense it surely succeeded. In other senses, not so much. By the way, with reference to your handle here: I used to be into Zen Buddhism, and a pretty "strict" version at that (led by a monk who used to train the novices at Eiheiji temple). I was very lucky to have the "old style" mass readily available when I became interested in Christianity and later Catholicism. Even when done badly, it still is compatible with contemplation (Buddhist "meditation" roughly is comparable with what Christians call "contemplation"), but if it is done well it is very encouraging for contemplation. If you have anything to do with seriously practising Buddhism, then I can basically guarantee that you will enjoy the "old style" mass. It really is a different beast to the "new style" mass.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thank you, Ad Orientem and IngoB. I will have to read more. My understanding of Vatican II was that it intended to make liturgy more accessible to all Catholics.
quote:The done thing was (and is) to have a bi-lingual missal. But other than for the readings, I think the relevance is less than you would think. On one hand, you quickly learn by heart the necessary parts, in particular the key phrases and your responses. On the other hand, the whole approach is much more about "doing" (or indeed "not doing") than "understanding". If you are from a Buddhist background, then I may not have to explain at length why this can be a good thing. In Zen I used to chant the Heart Sutra. In Japanese. Of course it was good to study it in a version I could understand (at least by language). But it would be simplistic to say that it would have been much better if I had chanted it in English. It would also be simplistic to say that there would not have been any advantage to chanting it in English. It just isn't that simple.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To that, Robert Armin, how much of the church body actually do understand Latin? Especially at a level of serious comprehension. And given the rate of travel amongst the general population of Catholics* in the world, how important is that?
quote:Here's a somewhat more detailed description of why Alexander VI was "a very very, very very, very, very bad pope", even by the standards of his time. The short version:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
That's probably true. But the Borgia Pope - in his own context - was not, in some respects, a bad Papal ruler compared to some of his predecessors. Still not a name to be proud of, but there were much worse examples of personal and papal excess than Borgia. The post-rennaissance bunch has largely been a shining light of propriety, in comparison! But all this is relative. It's unlikely Pope Alexander (VI) was seen as being particularly unusual in his pontificate, or his personal life, at the time.
quote:
I applauded her concision at the time, but when she had moved on my friends immediately turned on me and (with the full pressure of a common language demanding thoroughness) asked, “Why was he so bad? I mean, this is the high Renaissance right before the Reformation – weren’t all the popes incredibly corrupt and terrible? You’ve been telling us stories about catamites and elephants and brothels all day; what made Alexander VI so exceptional?”
It is a fair question. The papal throne was indeed at its most politicized at this point, a prize tossed back and forth among various powerful Italian families and the odd foreign king, and Italy remains littered with the opulent palaces built with funds embezzled by families who scored themselves a pope. My best short answer is this:
1. They were Spaniards, and the Italians hated that, so all possible tensions were hyper-inflamed.
2. Instead of the usual graft and simony, they tried to permanently carve out a personal Borgia duchy in the middle of Italy, and when that was going well, they tried to turn the papacy into a hereditary monarchy.
3. They very nearly succeeded.
quote:Indeed! They've missed out Julius II; my favourite bad pope. Surely he and Alexander VI have to be wrestling for the top title?
Originally posted by mdijon:
I believe some of his successors compared Borgia to St Peter.
Here is a parade of bad popes.
They rank Borgia as the worst, but I'm not sure that seems justified based on the information given in the paragraphs.
quote:I wasn't aiming to suggest otherwise...
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:They also say that for most it is best if their novel stays in them.
Originally posted by orfeo:
They say everyone has one novel in them. Mine involves the goings on in that period, because when I first read about them I was utterly transfixed.
quote:Here's the same author I cited in my last post dealing with Giuliano della Rovere, a.k.a. Pope Julius II. The write-up deals mostly with the downfall of Borgia power and its influence on the philosophy of Machiavelli, but the packet version of Julius II goes something like this:
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
Indeed! They've missed out Julius II; my favourite bad pope. Surely he and Alexander VI have to be wrestling for the top title?
quote:
Julius II brought peace to Italy and saved thousands of lives. Then he started a new war. This is Giuliano della Rovere, referred to in his own lifetime and after as the Warrior Pope, and as “Il Papa Terribile”. This is an infinitely ambitious man made tired and bitter by thirty years of waiting, ten of them wrestling with terrible Borgia enemies. This is a pope who likes to ride in armor. His is not an ambition which ends with wealth and power. He is “Julius” and will remind the world that the pope is Emperor, successor to the Caesars. . . . He also brings more humanism to the Vatican, stocks its libraries, has his beloved Michelangelo (a complicated dynamic if ever there was one) decorate the new Sistine Chapel with neoclassical art and figures of pagan sibyls mixed among the Hebrew prophets to reinforce the fact that the ancient philosophies revived by the humanists are part of his Christianity as much as anything. But the humanism he brings is all in service of power: empire, law, Rome, Constantine, reminders of the sovereignty of Rome and Italy and the higher sovereignty of Julius. He is a pope for whom means seems to mean nothing, and ends everything. And he is incredibly effective, and remakes the papacy as no one had imagined it could be remade.
quote:I'm sorry, Moo. I should not have used a jargon word - "dicasteries" - without explaining it.
Originally posted by Moo:
I think you're saying something important, and I don't understand it at all.
Please explain.
Moo
quote:Lord Harries, former Bishop of Oxford, wrote in a book review in the Guardian:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:They also say that for most it is best if their novel stays in them.
Originally posted by orfeo:
They say everyone has one novel in them. Mine involves the goings on in that period, because when I first read about them I was utterly transfixed.
quote:
“It is said that everyone has two books in them: a good book and a bad one. The good book is the story of their life and the bad one is an account of what they believe.”
quote:I love hearing that!
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Croeses, you're quite right.
quote:I think you're underestimating the Borgias. Their activities went well beyond the usual graft and simony of the day.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Borgia was only less bad compared to some others. Maybe I should've said that more clearly. However, I said he wasn't 'unusual' for his time. Which clearly he wasn't! Popes with children being moved into high places, powerful mistresses, warlike aspirations, capacity for settling personal vendettas, phenomenal abuse of church wealth etc etc - par for the course, I'd say. People may have been appalled, but few of them surely would've been surprized, and of the 'surprized' fewer still could've been cardinals or vatican-dwellers.
quote:
What Alexander and Cesare made now was different. Alexander gave a big hunk of the papal states to Cesare, as a permanent gift. The cities within the Papal States were governed by papal “Vicars,” i.e. nobility granted rule over sub-territories within the papal lands much as Dukes and Counts are granted sub-territories in a kingdom by a king or emperor. These vicars were in theory appointed by the pope and could be replaced by him, though in practice the position was by custom passed along noble lines from father to son. To depose them all and give their lands to his son as the new vicar was thus technically legal but practically unthinkable, and an as great a shock to the political scene as if a king of France had suddenly deposed half his top nobles. It also implied Alexander’s intention to leave these territories in Borgia hands permanently. Next Cesare raised armies and started, on small pretexts, attacking neighboring city-states and territories, ejecting the current rulers and adding them to his private Borgia kingdom. (“What’re ya gonna do about it? My dad’s the pope!”) A new blotch appeared on the European map. Let me repeat: a new blotch appeared on the European map, a kingdom out of nowhere, carved out in the heart of Italy, a kingdom which no longer belonged to the pope, or any Italian house, but to the Borgias. Whether Cesare became pope next or not, he would be Duke — perhaps soon King — of an ever-growing chunk of the world. No pope had done this. No pope had done anything close to this.
quote:Yes, saying mass in Latin facing east is so much more important than an emphasis on pastoral ministry to the poor.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
TradWorld is in fits. We're all doomed. I think they're right to be worried even if it is a bit ironic seeing as they're committed papalists.
quote:They are equally important, and shockingly were done together for a thousand years. One does not preclude the other (unless, of course, one is trying to demonize traditionalists).
Yes, saying mass in Latin facing east is so much more important than an emphasis on pastoral ministry to the poor.
quote:One commentator I heard yesterday suggested that for good or ill, the cardinals don't seem to think a long papacy is necessarily good for the church. Certainly JPII's early years were more vibrant than his later years. I can remember that well, and I'm 55 and not Catholic!
Originally posted by PeteC:
An interesting, transitional choice.
quote:Yes--I suppose that I should expect this, but if I facepalmed every time I saw a comment to the effect of "He's so conservative--he doesn't support women's ordination, abortions, or same-sex marriage!" then my forehead would be one massive, throbbing bruise.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Someone at the New York Times seems horrified that the new pope is a Catholic.
quote:The point about the Latin Mass, as I was taught growing up, was that you could go anywhere and understand it, follow it, feel at home. I had a missal with the Latin on one side and the English on the other. After hearing the Latin week after week, and being able to refer simultaneously to the English, of course I learned, what all the Latin prayers meant. I didn't mean I could get to grips with Cicero! But I could follow, and participate in, the Mass. Of course the scripture readings and the sermon were in English, and if I'd gone to Japan they'd have been in Japanese--but I'd have been at home with the liturgy itself.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thank you, Ad Orientem and IngoB. I will have to read more. My understanding of Vatican II was that it intended to make liturgy more accessible to all Catholics.
To that, Robert Armin, how much of the church body actually do understand Latin? Especially at a level of serious comprehension. And given the rate of travel amongst the general population of Catholics* in the world, how important is that?
*Assuming that to be consistent with the general world population.
quote:I've been to precisely one "old liturgy". It was in a chapel of the London Oratory. It was in Latin, but that was really irrelevant as most of the priest's words were said in an inaudible mutter. It was a dispassionate affair, over within twenty minutes. The priest presided like someone fulfilling a tedious duty - joyless, and with an expression on his face (the few times we saw it) as if he had just found a decaying gerbil in the chalice. But at some point, the gerbil must have been disposed of, because the priest received Communion. Alone.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It can't be reduced to an argument between Latin versus vernacular. It's about what the prayers actually say and continuity. Most traditionalists would rather have the old liturgy in the vernacular than the new in Latin. Unfortunately there is no provision to use the vernacular in the old liturgy and this needs to be addressed. By not addressing this the traditionalists have shot themselves in the foot somewhat. I'm no longer RC so I guess it's a little irrelevant but I understand the discomfort of the traditionalists regarding the new pope.
quote:This has been my experience at Extraordinary Form celebrations also.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've been to precisely one "old liturgy". It was in a chapel of the London Oratory. It was in Latin, but that was really irrelevant as most of the priest's words were said in an inaudible mutter. It was a dispassionate affair, over within twenty minutes. The priest presided like someone fulfilling a tedious duty. . . . Throughout, three black-mantilla'd ladies clicked their rosaries like Norns in a bad production of Götterdämmerung.
quote:I thought that Trisagion's comment was absolutely on the mark. Schism is habit-forming. I've seen it TEC as well, when some of the brittlest Anglo-Catholics make alternative oversight for themselves almost an ultimatum. This would make sense, I grant, if the diocesan were a woman, so that they doubt that she were a bishop at all. But otherwise, WTF? There's nothing Catholic, and everything Protestant in the worst way, about rejecting, merely on subjective personal preference, the ministry of those assigned to care for you by the collegial decisions of the body to which you belong.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Howzabout you make the ecumenical gesture of not using "Protestant" as a dirty word for Catholics you don't like?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I have long thought that their lack of docility was essentially a rather Protestant failure to develop a Catholic habit of mind of thinking with the Church.
quote:That is about as Argentinian as it gets, unless one of his parents was Spanish. I used to run around with a native-born Argentinian mining lawyer (even their mining lawyers are a lot of fun to drink with, by the way,) named Diego Paravicini. Only about 10% of Argentinians are Mestizo, and less than 2% are of full-blooded indigenous descent.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Can a Pope who had two Italian parents really be considered non-European?
quote:Prioritizing one's personal preferences may be a common vice for Protestants, but none of the Reformers framed the Reformation or their theologies in such a manner, and indubitably would have been disgusted by such an attitude.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I thought that Trisagion's comment was absolutely on the mark. Schism is habit-forming. I've seen it TEC as well, when some of the brittlest Anglo-Catholics make alternative oversight for themselves almost an ultimatum. This would make sense, I grant, if the diocesan were a woman, so that they doubt that she were a bishop at all. But otherwise, WTF? There's nothing Catholic, and everything Protestant in the worst way, about rejecting, merely on subjective personal preference, the ministry of those assigned to care for you by the collegial decisions of the body to which you belong.
quote:Unfortunately, to celebrate a High Mass you need a deacon and subdeacon, and I haven't seen many of them dropping out of the sky recently. If the old liturgy were restored as the norm, most parishes would go for years on Low Masses - or, at best, Low Mass with a couple of Norn-type hymns.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Ah! Low mass. Don't even get me started on that as I would consider it an abuse. As for some parts being inaudible that is the norm in both the Roman and Byzantine rites, for instance, but usually the choir sings during those points but then in a low mass there is no choir or anything else for that matter. In the East low mass is unheard of.
quote:<Start of Ecclesiantical tangent, made only to respond to the above>
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:They are equally important, and shockingly were done together for a thousand years. One does not preclude the other (unless, of course, one is trying to demonize traditionalists).
Yes, saying mass in Latin facing east is so much more important than an emphasis on pastoral ministry to the poor.
quote:And a master of ceremonies who really knows his stuff, to say nothing of thurifer, boat boy and acolytes who know what they're there for and won't just stand around giggling.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Unfortunately, to celebrate a High Mass you need a deacon and subdeacon.
quote:Inaudible, rushed Low Masses without communicating was the experience of the vast majority of Irish Catholics. The only Latin Mass Society of Ireland people I ever met were not very pleasant people, two of whom had a very serious go at a priest friend of mine for having the "wrong" sort of chalice.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:I've been to precisely one "old liturgy". It was in a chapel of the London Oratory. It was in Latin, but that was really irrelevant as most of the priest's words were said in an inaudible mutter. It was a dispassionate affair, over within twenty minutes. The priest presided like someone fulfilling a tedious duty - joyless, and with an expression on his face (the few times we saw it) as if he had just found a decaying gerbil in the chalice. But at some point, the gerbil must have been disposed of, because the priest received Communion. Alone.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It can't be reduced to an argument between Latin versus vernacular. It's about what the prayers actually say and continuity. Most traditionalists would rather have the old liturgy in the vernacular than the new in Latin. Unfortunately there is no provision to use the vernacular in the old liturgy and this needs to be addressed. By not addressing this the traditionalists have shot themselves in the foot somewhat. I'm no longer RC so I guess it's a little irrelevant but I understand the discomfort of the traditionalists regarding the new pope.
Throughout, three black-mantilla'd ladies clicked their rosaries like Norns in a bad production of Götterdämmerung.
Please - I don't need any more reasons not to be a Catholic.
quote:You can't possibly be serious.
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:They are equally important,
Yes, saying mass in Latin facing east is so much more important than an emphasis on pastoral ministry to the poor.
quote:So I believe. I was interested to hear of the long historical links between Argentina and Italy. I think the new Pope's father was a miner. (Just seen a photo on a news-feed of Francis holding up an Argentina football shirt - so no split loyalties in that direction!)
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:That is about as Argentinian as it gets, unless one of his parents was Spanish.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Can a Pope who had two Italian parents really be considered non-European?
quote:And in Argentina, ethnically the most European of Latin American nations, persons of Italian descent outnumber persons of Spanish descent.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:That is about as Argentinian as it gets, unless one of his parents was Spanish. I used to run around with a native-born Argentinian mining lawyer (even their mining lawyers are a lot of fun to drink with, by the way,) named Diego Paravicini. Only about 10% of Argentinians are Mestizo, and less than 2% are of full-blooded indigenous descent.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Can a Pope who had two Italian parents really be considered non-European?
quote:It led me to wonder if Francis regards himself as in some sense providing a service to the Pope Emeritus, (allowing him to retreat).
For the Church establishment, it will be a novelty to have a Jesuit in charge - members are supposed to avoid ecclesiastical honours and serve the Pope himself.
!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Is it safer to have a person living out their 8th decade of life than someone with time and inclination to change things? Mid to late 70s is old, and the most like things to be changing is the remaining years of life are related to failing bodily functions.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:One commentator I heard yesterday suggested that for good or ill, the cardinals don't seem to think a long papacy is necessarily good for the church. Certainly JPII's early years were more vibrant than his later years. I can remember that well, and I'm 55 and not Catholic!
Originally posted by PeteC:
An interesting, transitional choice.
So if the Cardinals--who are almost all older than I am--are indeed somewhat suspicious of the prospect of a 20+ year long papacy, these shorter-term popes may become the norm--may indeed be the norm--instead of being considered transitional.
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time some commentator was pulling his remarks out of his ass to fill air time.
quote:Every person I have ever met or read who lived through a situation like that has said judging how people made decisions is very difficult, even for those who were there at the time. War, be it external or one waged by the state on its citizens, is messy.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:So .. he looked after his own, while the country went to hell in a handbasket. That seems to be more the actions of a politician than that of a moral exemplar.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Slightly more balanced source.
(Crosspost snap)
quote:I'm sure that there were "masses done badly" in the extraordinary form when it still was the only form. I'm even quite willing to believe that back then most masses were done badly. For one can say the same thing about the new form now, if one has high standards.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I am no longer Catholic either, but I would really like to see a celebration of the old liturgy, in Latin, by a priest who understood what he was saying and said it out loud, with conviction -- not in an inaudible mutter as part of a tedious duty.
quote:Because, Summorum Pontificum says that if a group of the laity ask for a tridentine mass to be said somewhere, the diocesan bishop, the pastor of the parish, rector of the chapel, shrine, whatever, should provide one. If they all dislike the tridentine mass, they'll refuse to provide one. Bishops are also expected to teach the tridentine mass in the seminaries, as well as other training for them.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From what I read, the Summorum Pontificum gives the choice to priests and laity may ask to join. If clergy have no interest, how would keeping the SP change anything?
quote:Yes, I quite like it too.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, I do like the first homily of Pope Francis!
quote:Researching the Jesuits, I just noticed a little interesting historical quirk: AIUI, in 1773 Pope Clement XIV signed a decree to suppress the Jesuit Order, which would have wiped out the Order except that, in Russia, Catherine the Great forbade the papal decree to be put into effect. (Say what you will about Cathy, but she was Great.) It was not until 1814 that the Jesuits were fully restored and the suppression decree reversed (by Pope Pius VII). But the interesting quirk is: Clement XIV was…a Franciscan. And now the first Jesuit to become Pope then takes the name "Francis."
When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, but not disciples of the Lord.
quote:That could well have been the verdict on the election of John XXIII.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Isn't it that the signal with a old guy pope voted in by a group of old guy cardinals is that they distinctly do not want change. Transitional really means 'no change wanted' methinks.
quote:All the more suspicious it should be, then, that we don't have just one Lutheran and one Calvinist community today, but hundreds and hundreds. Naturally, a schismatic ringleader will be "disgusted" if some of those who followed him in schism no. 1 decide to desert him with schism no. 2. There may have been excellent reasons for schism no. 1 (if I lived in 1517, given my distaste for overweening, coercive institutional power, I would probably have cheered Luther on) but we can't deny that a dangerous precedent has been set. Under most circumstances, I'll want to throw my lot in with people more eager to co-operate than to pick fights.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Prioritizing one's personal preferences may be a common vice for Protestants, but none of the Reformers framed the Reformation or their theologies in such a manner, and indubitably would have been disgusted by such an attitude.
quote:Like?
Originally posted by Pancho:
b. they'll be taken by surprise if and when he does something that's been a long time in coming.
quote:I don't know why that is more suspicious. I am not saying the Protestants are better than Catholics in maintaining unity. No doubt we are worse at it, but that still doesn't mean schismatic self-righteousness is uniquely Protestant, or that it is a defining feature of Protestantism.
Originally posted by Alogon:
All the more suspicious it should be, then, that we don't have just one Lutheran and one Calvinist community today, but hundreds and hundreds. Naturally, a schismatic ringleader will be "disgusted" if some of those who followed him in schism no. 1 decide to desert him with schism no. 2. There may have been excellent reasons for schism no. 1 (if I lived in 1517, given my distaste for overweening, coercive institutional power, I would probably have cheered Luther on) but we can't deny that a dangerous precedent has been set. Under most circumstances, I'll want to throw my lot in with people more eager to co-operate than to pick fights.
quote:Didn't Francis refer to himself as the new Bishop of Rome? If he did, then it would be consistent to refer to Benedict as Bishop emeritus.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Thus it is interesting that Francis, in referring to Benedict, used the term "Bishop emeritus" rather than "Pope emeritus" (the term supposedly preferred by Benedict)
quote:Like in dealing with the issue of communion and pro-abortion politicians.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Like?
Originally posted by Pancho:
b. they'll be taken by surprise if and when he does something that's been a long time in coming.
quote:Haha yes. I can't remember the name of the Cardinal (very long dead), who no longer recited the breviary as it upset his Latin.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Well, this is Church Latin, after all -- the same dialect that allows "Et iterum venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos." Caesar and Cicero must turn over in their graves each time they hear that.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
For the latinists, an interesting aside as the name can be given in either the genitive or the accusative - Paul VI was announced in the accusative, Paulum sextum, as was Francis this evening - Franciscum. By contrast Benedict XVI was in the genitive - Benedicti Decimi sexti - as were the John Pauls.
quote:Who is pro-abortion? I know anyone who is pro-abortion.
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:Like in dealing with the issue of communion and pro-abortion politicians.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Like?
Originally posted by Pancho:
b. they'll be taken by surprise if and when he does something that's been a long time in coming.
quote:Well, he has said something about it before - when presenting the "Aparecida Document" in 2007 he said:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Pancho, what do you think he will do? Admonish them? Bar them from communion?
quote:
“we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.”
quote:Golly! I see what you mean, having just glanced at some. Not nice, to say the least.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I've been scandalised - although not in the slightest surprised - by some of the comments in the Trad blogosphere about the Holy Father. I have long thought that their lack of docility was essentially a rather Protestant failure to develop a Catholic habit of mind of thinking with the Church. It is, I suspect, the natural concomitant of the experience of schism, de facto or de jure.
quote:Perhaps those who take the tube will reap preferment!
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:Golly! I see what you mean, having just glanced at some. Not nice, to say the least.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I've been scandalised - although not in the slightest surprised - by some of the comments in the Trad blogosphere about the Holy Father. I have long thought that their lack of docility was essentially a rather Protestant failure to develop a Catholic habit of mind of thinking with the Church. It is, I suspect, the natural concomitant of the experience of schism, de facto or de jure.
I wonder what the future new bishops of England and Wales will look like now!
. And actually, Archbishop Vincent Nichols did catch the bus when he came to visit us a few years ago. I was rather taken aback. Don't know if he still does that. Archbishop George Stack of Cardiff is an avid rider of the omnibus as well.
quote:As Garrison Keillor does! They should get together for lunch. Keillor can teach him how to run a big show.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm wondering if he'll wear the red shoes.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Fr Malachi Martin, who looked into the possibility that he was murdered, concluded that it was a matter of neglect rather than direct action. I hope Francesco has good people to watch his health...and his back.
quote:Ruth,
Originally posted by RuthW:
Pancho, what do you think he will do? Admonish them? Bar them from communion?
quote:So did he say the Church was in danger of becoming a "pitiful NGO " or merely a "compassionate NGO" (BBC translation)?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, I do like the first homily of Pope Francis!
quote:I don't know if it's considered a difficult immigration. Argentina received a wave of Italian immigrants around the same time the U.S. did: from the late 19th century to the first half of the 20th. Most Argentines are of Italian or Spanish descent and about half have Italian ancestry (etathough I saw a statistic that even more have at least some Italian ancestry). The Northwest, however, shares a lot in common with Peru and Bolivia. Many people there have Indian ancestry and in some areas where Quechua (the Inca language) is still spoken.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He is the son of an immigrant. However, immigrants from Italy to Argentina, is this considered a difficult immigration?
quote:Eh? Have you even read the link?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:So .. he looked after his own, while the country went to hell in a handbasket. That seems to be more the actions of a politician than that of a moral exemplar.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Slightly more balanced source.
(Crosspost snap)
quote:Perhaps Francis could have done more publically, as well as his Schindler-esque activity in secret. But if he had done so would he have been disappeared too, and thus his good work behind the scenes would have stopped? It's impossible to say, from our great distance away.
Both men were freed after Bergoglio took extraordinary, behind-the-scenes action to save them, including persuading dictator Jorge Videla's family priest to call in sick so that Bergoglio could say Mass in the junta leader's home, where he privately appealed for mercy. His intervention likely saved their lives, but Bergoglio never shared the details until Rubin interviewed him for the 2010 biography.
Bergoglio told Rubin that he regularly hid people on church property during the dictatorship, and once gave his identity papers to a man with similar features, enabling him to escape across the border. But all this was done in secret, at a time when church leaders publicly endorsed the junta and called on Catholics to restore their "love for country" despite the terror in the streets.
quote:Well, that's ... reassuring.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He reminds me a bit of JP1, who I liked very much. My sense at the time was that he was going to kick butt in the Curia...and he didn't get the chance...
quote:So do I!
I hope Francesco has good people to watch his health...and his back.
quote:Perhaps those who take the tube will reap preferment! [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I wonder what the future new bishops of England and Wales will look like now!
quote:Don't forget the Latin Mass Society which has been going since 1965, and organises many beautifully celebrated Masses in England. I think it's unlikeley that Pope Francis will make any attempt to rescind the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. He may feel that his has bigger issues, such as world poverty and a necessary cleaning of house, but under the watchful, if silent gaze of his predecessor, he will leave in place the provisions already made.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Generally speaking, look out for the FSSP or the ICKSP, and you should find some well done liturgies.
quote:Yes, I did:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Eh? Have you even read the link?
quote:Again .. it's the action of a politician to focus on what is 'reasonable'.
But rights attorney Bregman said Bergoglio's own statements proved church officials knew from early on that the junta was torturing and killing its citizens, and yet publicly endorsed the dictators.
"The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support," she said.
Bergoglio also was accused of turning his back on a family that lost five relatives to state terror, including a young woman who was five months' pregnant before she was kidnapped and killed in 1977. The De la Cuadra family appealed to the leader of the Jesuits in Rome, who urged Bergoglio to help them; Bergoglio then assigned a monsignor to the case. Months passed before the monsignor came back with a written note from a colonel: The woman had given birth in captivity to a girl who was given to a family "too important" for the adoption to be reversed.
Despite this written evidence in a case he was personally involved with, Bergoglio testified in 2010 that he didn't know about any stolen babies until well after the dictatorship was over.
"Bergoglio has a very cowardly attitude when it comes to something so terrible as the theft of babies. He says he didn't know anything about it until 1985," said the baby's aunt, Estela de la Cuadra, whose mother, Alicia, co-founded the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in 1977 in hopes of identifying these babies.
"He doesn't face this reality and it doesn't bother him," the aunt said. "The question is how to save his name, save himself. But he can't keep these allegations from reaching the public. The people know how he is."
quote:I would be interested to know how you define 'personal holiness'. I'm thinking on the lines of as opposed to personal kindness, goodness, thoughtfulness, etc, for which the word 'holiness' is unnecessary..
Originally posted by Pancho:
1. The new Pope is a man of personal holiness. A number of observers, before and during the conclave, said that this was a quality that the cardinals greatly desired in a future Pope.
quote:Christians see holiness as the quality that makes a person pure before God. It also has the meaning of being 'set apart', consecrated to God and His purposes. Being a man (or woman) of prayer is very much part of that.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I would be interested to know how you define 'personal holiness'. I'm thinking on the lines of as opposed to personal kindness, goodness, thoughtfulness, etc, for which the word 'holiness' is unnecessary.
What was He like? Kind, good, thoughtful, compassionate, etc etc etc. And close to God. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Wow. This could have profound consequences for Catholic politicians, if carried to individuals. They could become unelectable in many places, due to supporting laws and policies that go very much against what the people in their various jurisdictions want, and perhaps also because people will see them as representatives of the Church, not of the voters. I can't help but think of John F. Kennedy having to say he wouldn't be taking his orders from the pope were he to be elected president -- a smart politician going up against a Catholic opponent could easily find a way to leverage something like this, at least in places like where I live.
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:Ruth,
Originally posted by RuthW:
Pancho, what do you think he will do? Admonish them? Bar them from communion?
I was thinking of the "Aparecida Document" that Triple Tiara quoted above. I think he will begin by making more plain and direct statements on the subject. If I was forced to guess at gunpoint, I would say we might then see a few test cases, not of politicians directly, but of Catholic institutions who for instance, might grant an honor on a Catholic figure who supports abortion rights or euthanasia. I think those institutions (like colleges and universities) might be the first to feel any repercussions. After that it's really hard to say but I think things in some way will eventually come to a head.
quote:On this point, of course, I hope he is heard!
Besides that, I think he will be more explicit in expressing the Church's teaching on the poor and the immigrants (remember he is the son of an immigrant) and making for less wiggle room in following that teaching.
quote:If we knew it wouldn't be a surprise, would it?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Like?
Originally posted by Pancho:
b. they'll be taken by surprise if and when he does something that's been a long time in coming.
quote:It is stated simply and clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Scroll down to 2270 at this link.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can someone clarify briefly, and without spinning off into major debate, what the RCC position on abortion is?
quote:[drafting hat on]
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Well, I'll let the RCs speak for themselves, but it is the canonical terminology they use.
quote:Thanks Pancho. Much appreciated.
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:It is stated simply and clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Scroll down to 2270 at this link.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can someone clarify briefly, and without spinning off into major debate, what the RCC position on abortion is?
quote:That is why the Catechism says "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely..." and it is where the Church's other teachings on the dignity of the human person come in.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Although it seems to be rather overstating the case, given that human life isn't "protected absolutely" after birth and never has been.
quote:I'm not saying the new Pope going to come in like gangbusters right away and excommunicate people left and right (as much as certain Catholics would like that). I do think he won't be shy about stating clearly not only the Church's teaching but it's consequences and that may lead to some confrontations, perhaps sooner than later.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Wow. This could have profound consequences for Catholic politicians...
quote:You know, I really wonder what his first encyclical is going to be like. I wouldn't be surprised if it's going to be a social encyclical dealing with poverty (perhaps drawing a connection between spiritual poverty and material poverty?). I might even bet on it (I'm on a roll!) but I don't want to push my luck.
quote:On this point, of course, I hope he is heard!
Besides that, I think he will be more explicit in expressing the Church's teaching on the poor and the immigrants (remember he is the son of an immigrant) and making for less wiggle room in following that teaching.
quote:Pope John XXIII was supposed to be a "transitional pope". Boy, was he a surprise! A man can get a lot done in a short time.
My main point, though, was to not think of him as a transitional Pope, not just because of whatever surprises his pontificate might hold in store for us but also because it can lull people into thinking of him as a "caretaker" Pope rather than an active one.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Pope John XXIII was supposed to be a "transitional pope". Boy, was he a surprise! A man can get a lot done in a short time.
Great example.
quote:Where in your quote does it say he focused only on what was reasonable? It says instead that "Bergoglio took extraordinary, behind-the-scenes action". This is why I asked you whether you even read the link.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Yes, I did:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Eh? Have you even read the link?
...Again .. it's the action of a politician to focus on what is 'reasonable'.
quote:But it simply isn't Biblical to treat it as an absolute. The exceptions should be kept as small as possible, sure. But the Bible certainly has exceptions. People get killed, and the act of killing is not treated as absolutely, always, morally wrong.
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:That is why the Catechism says "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely..." and it is where the Church's other teachings on the dignity of the human person come in.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Although it seems to be rather overstating the case, given that human life isn't "protected absolutely" after birth and never has been.
quote:Of course the term "pro-abortion politician" does not occur in canon law. Typically it is Canon 915 which is brought into play: "Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." Persistent and public lobbying for abortion provisions is then considered to be manifest grave sin, whereupon the Eucharist can be denied (without excommunication). Note that in general it is an explicit right of Catholics to receive the Eucharist: "Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion." So this is not simply a decision that a priest or bishop can take by whim. Abortion itself is clearly grave sin; the only serious canon-legal issue here is whether the support of a politician for institutionalizing grave sin is itself a grave sin. If so, then Canon 915 clearly grips and not only can the Eucharist be denied, but should be.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, that's at least the second person who has referred to 'pro-abortion' politicians. Even as someone who tends to think more on the 'pro-life' side of that particular Dead Horse, I don't think 'pro-abortion' is a good term at all.
quote:Not in rape cases, not directly to save the mother, but indirectly through double effect. The point is simply that abortion is the killing of an innocent, an intrinsic evil, and hence is not available as a direct action no matter what (one may not do evil to achieve good). However, one can do something that saves the mother, which unintentionally (though possibly predictably) kills the unborn child, if the outcome is preferable. So, for example, in ectopic pregnancies it is allowed to cut out the fallopian tube containing the fetus, indirectly killing it, but not to destroying it directly with chemicals or by mechanically removing it from the tube. Obviously, this is the kind of advanced hair-splitting, which leaves a bitter taste in most people's mouths. Nevertheless, I think the moral principles are sound. They are merely stretched to near breaking point by really tough cases.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not in rape cases, not in medical emergencies where the death of the unborn child will help the mother survive?
quote:Wasn't there a bit of discussion at the time whether the number of Johns or the number of Pauls should be the number attached to his Papal name? The answer: 1.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I read somewhere a couple of days ago, that yes, John Paul I specifically taking the I was an innovation.quote:It seems a relatively slight liberty to have taken compared with the excesses of the afore-mentioned Borgia.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Maybe it's one of those lovely little details where it's a case of "I'm Pope and I can do what I like."
quote:Our Archbishop Emeritus, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor put it brilliantly today: "I would rather have 5 years of an evangelical pope than 15 years of an administrator".
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Pope John XXIII was supposed to be a "transitional pope". Boy, was he a surprise! A man can get a lot done in a short time.
quote:Canon law is not a general tool to beat RC politicians around the ears with. Abortion is intrinsically and gravely evil, the death penalty can be morally licit. The former is rejected in principle, the latter only through the prudent consideration of the socio-political circumstances. The former cannot be supported without injury to core RC moral teaching, the latter can. Therefore the former is a potential matter for RC canon law, whereas the latter is essentially a matter for the prudential judgement of lay people (including RC lay people). It is after all actually the vocation of lay people, not of the religious hierarchy, to keep society running. One can expect the RC bishops to teach concerning the death penalty, possibly publicly and severely, so that the RC faithful are suitably informed about what RC faith and morals say on the subject. But the prudential political decision remains in the hands of lay people. It is for RC bishops to judge RC politicians on abortion though, precisely because that is not about prudential politics but about their fundamental morals as RCs.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, it'll be interesting to see if Catholic politicians who vote in what the Catholic Church considers "the wrong way" on this bill will suffer any consequences for it.
quote:But if, as you seem to be saying, the RC position on state-ordered executions is essentially "meh, whatever, work it out for yourself", what exactly would the bishops be teaching? That whatever "prudential judgement" the government comes up with for applying lethal force (trial by jury? coin flip? whim of local death squad?) is okey-dokey with the Vatican?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Therefore the former is a potential matter for RC canon law, whereas the latter is essentially a matter for the prudential judgement of lay people (including RC lay people). It is after all actually the vocation of lay people, not of the religious hierarchy, to keep society running. One can expect the RC bishops to teach concerning the death penalty, possibly publicly and severely, so that the RC faithful are suitably informed about what RC faith and morals say on the subject. But the prudential political decision remains in the hands of lay people.
quote:Well, you could simply read this. Basically:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But if, as you seem to be saying, the RC position on state-ordered executions is essentially "meh, whatever, work it out for yourself", what exactly would the bishops be teaching? That whatever "prudential judgement" the government comes up with for applying lethal force (trial by jury? coin flip? whim of local death squad?) is okey-dokey with the Vatican?
quote:It is however not the job of bishops to micro-manage political decisions.
In Catholic teaching the state has recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only available means to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right should not be exercised when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life. In these pastoral reflections, we do not offer new teaching or doctrine but rather hope to help Catholics better understand and apply this teaching in our own time and situation.
quote:I'm pretty sure you mean it's only the bishops' job to micromanage certain specific political decisions. Enacting/enforcing a legal code based on double effect would involve an incredible amount of micromanagement.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is however not the job of bishops to micro-manage political decisions.
quote:Is voting against making it illegal the same as institutionalizing it? In what dictionary?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Abortion itself is clearly grave sin; the only serious canon-legal issue here is whether the support of a politician for institutionalizing grave sin is itself a grave sin.
quote:Hardly. Double effect is a standard principle in the medical world. Why do you think a surgeon is allowed to cut you open, which is after all causing you grievous bodily harm? Also, arguing for regulations according to moral law is something else than turning those arguments into efficient regulations. For example, a simple list of allowed practices can do. In particular if there's really only one entry...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Enacting/enforcing a legal code based on double effect would involve an incredible amount of micromanagement.
quote:Do you have a point? If the politician is merely voting against making abortion illegal, then the only serious canon-legal issue is whether that is in itself a grave sin.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is voting against making it illegal the same as institutionalizing it? In what dictionary?
quote:Outside of the specific instance, do you believe that what is morally right in a new or disputed situation can always be arrived at by distilling principles from existing, agreed upon moral situations? Are there not circumstances where the consequences of moral reasoning of this kind are so contrary to our natural sense of justice that the principles are in fact stretched well beyond breaking point? I would venture that the bitter taste is the aroma of Pharisee.
Obviously, this is the kind of advanced hair-splitting, which leaves a bitter taste in most people's mouths. Nevertheless, I think the moral principles are sound. They are merely stretched to near breaking point by really tough cases.
quote:Politeness in short supply in your town? Yes, my point is that politicians do not "institutionalize" abortion, so the whole concept is moot. There's no such thing as "institutionalizing" abortion.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Do you have a point?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is voting against making it illegal the same as institutionalizing it? In what dictionary?
quote:Polite as "In what dictionary"?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Politeness in short supply in your town?
quote:First, my actual point was that it is not abortion itself, but merely whatever politicians do about abortion, that needs to be evaluated concerning canon 915. Because abortion is intrinsically evil for RC morals, hence there are no circumstances where politics that aids and abets it becomes morally licit. The question is precisely whether what politicians in fact do rises itself to the level of grave sin (canon 915 applies), or not. Second, this is not the place for a full scale analysis of the politics of abortion. However, washing your hands of things and leaving it to others to take matters in their hands in a rather predictable manner does not necessarily shed all moral responsibility, Pontius.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, my point is that politicians do not "institutionalize" abortion, so the whole concept is moot. There's no such thing as "institutionalizing" abortion.
quote:I'm against the death penalty, personally, so I'm not going to make a case for it. But there are certainly circumstances where I can see this being the case. Imagine a hunter and gatherer tribe somewhere: you do not have the resources to keep a psychopathic murderer confined and under treatment for decades, and if let loose, he can seriously harm you from the outside. For the US, you would have to claim that only the threat of the death penalty stops the society from descending into chaos, or some such. Again, not my argument, and I would consider all such argument ridiculously weak, but I'm sure some will make it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Since when was the death penalty EVER the "only available means to protect society from a grave threat to human life"? Are there no locks on the jail cell doors where these people come from?
quote:Thank you for your reply; straightforward and clear ... and much appreciated.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Christians see holiness as the quality that makes a person pure before God. It also has the meaning of being 'set apart', consecrated to God and His purposes. Being a man (or woman) of prayer is very much part of that.
Being 'holy' doesn't mean one has to be a puritan about enjoying oneself.
And I would be very worried if any definition of holiness did NOT include kindness, thoughtfulness and all the rest. To be holy is to aim to be like Jesus.
quote:A wise cleric of my acquaintance once defined agape as "willing (not just wishing) the highest good" for people. What should matter to the leaders of the RC Church, and those of any other institution purporting to represent Christ, is whether their practices are willing the highest good for those they say they serve.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And in a time when all we think about when Catholicism is mentioned is scandals financial and sexual, the debate on women priests and the celibate and other such issues, Francis has the guts of pointing us to what should really matter to the church as an institution: the poor.
quote:That doesn't work for me - you have to download and install Silverlight first.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Ah. May have found it on Vatican Radio video-on-demand, direct link here!
quote:And then they'll realise he is stridently orthodox on Dead Horses and bugger off again.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a resurgence of interest in the coming weeks from people who have drifted away.
quote:Please. Tell me you're joking.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Polite as "In what dictionary"?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Politeness in short supply in your town?
quote:Yep. Worked on IE (which I normally don't use) and have updated the Silverlight plug-in for Firefox. If there's a way to watch w/o Silverlight, I'd be happy to find out.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:That doesn't work for me - you have to download and install Silverlight first.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Ah. May have found it on Vatican Radio video-on-demand, direct link here!
quote:Strident Orthodoxy on Dead Horses is expected but a bit of strident Orthopraxis hasn't been by the wider world. And words are only incidental to that sort of preaching.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:And then they'll realise he is stridently orthodox on Dead Horses and bugger off again.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a resurgence of interest in the coming weeks from people who have drifted away.
quote:I can see how one could view it that way. But as a non-Catholic, I appreciated his respect for others' consciences. I think, too, that that approach to blessing people does a lot more to attract non-Catholics than offering a distinctly Catholic blessing to non-Catholics. If you want people to change, you first have to take them as they are.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The only thing I didn't take to was the silent blessing. Given the reasons he gave, it was suggestive of faith being silenced in the face of disbelief.
quote:Brilliant, thanks for that. The radio even works just with Flash.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Yep. Worked on IE (which I normally don't use) and have updated the Silverlight plug-in for Firefox. If there's a way to watch w/o Silverlight, I'd be happy to find out.
Vatican Radio site in English is here: http://en.radiovaticana.va/index.asp
quote:I made the same mental comparison.
Originally posted by Galilit:
Francis reminds me a bit of the Dalai Lama in his openness, frankness, simple vocab expressing Great Truths, humour.
(This is a compliment from me, just to be clear)
quote:Perhaps I am missing something here, but how is a blessing in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit from a Christian going to offend another Christian? Even if you are not Christian and you go where a Christian is speaking and is likely to end with a blessing, surely you just accept it in the spirit in which it is offered? Where I am presently living I am often the recipient of Hindu and Muslim blessings. I accept them because you can never have too many blessings, and to ignore them causes needless offense.
But as a non-Catholic, I appreciated his respect for others' consciences. I think, too, that that approach to blessing people does a lot more to attract non-Catholics than offering a distinctly Catholic blessing to non-Catholics.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:I know, I know, CL -- makes one's head hurt, doesn't it?
Originally posted by CL:
Oh for the love of God.
quote:Well, he wasn't even an auxiliary bishop until almost ten years after the fall of the military régime, so I'm not sure that I would have called him a leader. With two bishops and several dozen clergy being murdered by the hoodlums-with-epaulettes running Argentina, public opposition was something one engaged in only after careful thought. Having had, in my former RL, the occasion to review the testimony of over a hundred Argentine refugees and having met with diplomats facilitating their flight -- the confessional booths in the metropolitan cathedral and San Ignacio's were both used for interviews as the Canadian Embassy was watched--it is clear that the climate was one of extraordinary terror. That a priest pulled what strings he had for those he could, is admirable, when we realize that even enquiring after someone could lead one into some very dark rooms.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawk:
Where in your quote does it say he focused only on what was reasonable? It says instead that "Bergoglio took extraordinary, behind-the-scenes action". This is why I asked you whether you even read the link.
He was amongst the leaders of the church in a country under a dictatorship. A dictatorship which seems to have drawn succour from the fact that it had the tacit approval of the church. There's some evidence that the two people involved were arrested because the regime didn't think they had his support .. but he intervened in secret once they were, whilst never actually using his platform publicly.
He appears to have adopted a see no evil approach to the children of the disappeared - which is a huge issue in Argentina.
In all this his actions have been in character with the rest of the Argentine church - a church that felt compelled to apologise for it's conduct. A church which acted with significantly less courage than - say - the polish catholics.
quote:I take it that remark was a response to my post; would you like to expand on that, please?
Originally posted by CL:
Oh for the love of God.
quote:Let's hope he doesn't get bumped off like John Paul 1st (if the conspiracy theory is right).
Originally posted by Ariel:
I think he'll also make a few enemies in the Vatican with people who have been enjoying things the way they are, the perks and privileges etc. About time that was shaken up.
quote:I can think of some Presyberian/Wee Free and other Protestant types who would think receiving a blessing from the Pope - and possibly any Catholic priest - would be like receiving the mark of the Beast! Or at best being patronized by a spiritually deluded inferior.
Originally posted by PeteC:
But my question remains: Why would a non-Catholic Christian find it difficult to accept a Catholic Christian's blessing? Or indeed vice-versa? Not so many blessings going around that we can afford to be choosy it seems to me.
I am probably still missing something.
quote:I haven't read the first homily but....
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Although the first homily is still fundamentally, ironically p roblematic. That living compassionately is not enough. That there must be an agenda.
quote:Of course! And likewise I take blessings from the clergy of other faiths in the spirit in which they are offered. But in such cases, the recipient of the blessing is the one making allowances for the differences between the people involved. What Pope Francis did was make those allowances himself, instead of asking those assembled to do so. He met them where they were, accepted them as they are. I find that very powerful, and very touching.
Originally posted by PeteC:
Even if you are not Christian and you go where a Christian is speaking and is likely to end with a blessing, surely you just accept it in the spirit in which it is offered?
quote:Sorta like Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. The proof wasn't in the pudding. Hopefully +++Francis will live up to his early billing.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But admiration is cheap, as is obvious by the fact how easily it has been won. It's not like Pope Francis has actually done anything of significance so far.
quote:True. But. Let's just say that I hope that what I've heard so far has been heavily biased. Otherwise my episcopal score is at: questionable actions vs. the military dictatorship, questionable ecclesiology vs. the Anglicans, questionable ecumenism vs. Protestants / other religions, and questionable on the liturgy. Admittedly, my sources on all this are ... highly questionable. But I've not been overwhelmed by good news reports from Buenos Aires either.
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: He hasn't done anything of significance so far as pope. He was a bishop for a while, and did some stuff then.
quote:I get the "he is from the South" feeling. Though frankly, an Argentinian, son of Italian immigrants, is not necessarily representative of sub-Saharan Africa either. I would have preferred a more radical choice, as far as that goes.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
Out here in southern Africa the point isn't what the new Pope has done, it is where he is from. He is the first Pope from the Third World and that signifies a 'shift in gravity' (quoting Fr Chris Townsend) to Catholics in the southern hemisphere. Of course, his mentioning a love for the poor would mean a great deal since poverty and destitution is so wide spread in rural areas here, but both JPII and Benedict XVI were also deeply loved. Many Catholics here are both conservative and deeply concerned with social justice.
quote:Well, after a couple of millennia and no new Scriptures, I'd say all the theologians can pack up and go home. It's all sorted.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is not much Pope Francis can add theologically, if you ask me.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB: There is not much Pope Francis can add theologically, if you ask me.
quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:[As it is, an abundance of Catholic funds are flowing into southern Africa, to Catholic Relief Services, Catholic educational institutes, Catholic health initiatives. Next month I will be back in Luanda for a week and it will be interesting to see if a more Lusaphone region of Africa identifies as strongly with an Argentinian Pope. By contrast Luanda is booming with prosperity (due in part to the off-shore oil drilling) and certainly not expecting any papal hand-outs.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
)![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
), but that does not make him less of a theologian.quote:Quotes file!
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well, after a couple of millennia and no new Scriptures, I'd say all the theologians can pack up and go home. It's all sorted.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is not much Pope Francis can add theologically, if you ask me.
quote:Unconstitutional. She has to say what she's told to say or else we cut her head off.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I love the fact that he's been speaking without notes instead of reading from a script as his precedessors did. Now, if only you Brits could get Her Majesty to do likewise . . . .
quote:We all know what happened to HRH "Something must be done for these people" (well, he was HRH at the time, before beoming HM, and then HRH again).
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Unconstitutional. She has to say what she's told to say or else we cut her head off.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I love the fact that he's been speaking without notes instead of reading from a script as his precedessors did. Now, if only you Brits could get Her Majesty to do likewise . . . .
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:(I assume they mean Tuesday's mass as it is taking place this morning.)
The list of attendees for Monday's Mass includes US Vice-President Joe Biden and the spiritual head of the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew.
He will be the first Orthodox patriarch to attend a papal inauguration Mass since the two branches of Christianity split more than 1,000 years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
OK - I will give you an agenda (in no particular order) I think he *could* do in four years if he pushed it:
- Somewhat simpler public worship - though frankly I don't see that as some massive priority, they already have the stuff and personnel to do things as ornately or simply as they wish. It would be nice to see a mix maybe, to reflect the mixture of practice in the church.
- Speaking truth to power about economics
- Rationalisation of structure of church + clarity to the faithful and the world at large about what is centralised and what is devolved to the national clergy
- Widen acceptance of married priests (possibly following the orthodox model) whilst also promoting a renewal of the monastic movement.
- Clear teaching to the faithful, and the world at large, about how the church sees its responsibility to and for priests who seriously transgress secular law.
- Would like to see the establishment of the equivalent of a criminal injuries compensation board - with criteria for payouts, so victims do not have to launch expensive law suits. But also to free the church itself of a stream of legal cost re law suits.
- Would like to see orthodox teaching on sexual morality complimented by an equal focus on fundamental human rights. I.e. I have no problem with the RC church campaigning against gay marriage - but I would like to see equally prominent campaigns against community violence directed at sexual minority groups. If you want to believe in hate the sin not the sinner, you need to walk the walk.
- Sort out the Vatican bank
- Proclaim and promote the gospel, not esoteric bits of it - the basic story in plain vernacular - because I now meet more and more people (especially the poor in fact) who know bugger all about Christianity. This would be a good focus for ecumenical work, because it would be the promotion of the narrative of basic Christianity - not the doctrine of specific churches.
- Teach on gluttony/greed - would mesh well with concerns about poverty, and the environment
For starters ...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
No argument from me there
quote:Just to say it shouldn't matter a jot what Pope Francis or President think. The people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination and have made their choice, clearly and loudly.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
An interesting Time article here about the working relationship between the former Bishop Bergoglia and the President of Arentina.
quote:But why do the hard work when you can appease the masses by posturing over some islands and nationalising some industries instead?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
If the President could just get on with actually fixing the country she is supposed to lead
quote:I'll remind you that three whole votes out of the 1,517 ballots cast in the recent referendum were cast against remaining a UK territory. Possibly as many as four, since one of the ballots was discarded. I suppose some would call that "clear" and "loud", but if they were really clear wouldn't the vote be unanimous?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination and have made their choice, clearly and loudly.
quote:Misguided sycophants appear in all places, they are to be prayed for and given all the help that can be.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'll remind you that three whole votes out of the 1,517 ballots cast in the recent referendum were cast against remaining a UK territory. Possibly as many as four, since one of the ballots was discarded. I suppose some would call that "clear" and "loud", but if they were really clear wouldn't the vote be unanimous?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination and have made their choice, clearly and loudly.
quote:Augh! He is NOT the spiritual head of the Orthodox Church! Fecking stupid secular press. We don't have a universal spiritual head. We're not Catholics already.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Beeb is reporting:
quote:
The list of attendees for Monday's Mass includes US Vice-President Joe Biden and the spiritual head of the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew.
quote:President Kirchner doesn't have that much time...
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Assuming that everyone wanted to remain British in 1982 and given that three don't in 2013, I think Argentina should call for a referendum in, say, 2682. I think it could be quite a close result.
quote:I thought he was still Prince of Wales at the time of that remark, and not yet King? I guess I've forgotten. Anyway, he was skating on thin ice in more ways than one.
Originally posted by PeteC:
Something must be done- this was said by HM King Edward VIII on a visit to Wales a week or so before he decided to abdicate as he could no longer carry the burden of kingship without the woman he loved at his side.
So he did something. Poor Wales had to stagger on for a time yet.
Pity that.
quote:Mousie, it's that claim to be the Ecumenical Patriarch what confuses 'em.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Augh! He is NOT the spiritual head of the Orthodox Church! Fecking stupid secular press. We don't have a universal spiritual head. We're not Catholics already.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Beeb is reporting:
quote:
The list of attendees for Monday's Mass includes US Vice-President Joe Biden and the spiritual head of the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew.
quote:Could be. I pity the fools.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Mousie, it's that claim to be the Ecumenical Patriarch what confuses 'em.
quote:Since organizing economies and societies is the job of the Catholic laity, I think it would be very nice if certain bishops allowed duly elected Catholic laity to get on with it, rather than twisting their arms with threats of excommunication should they dare to speak or vote the wrong way.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is primarily the job of the RC laity to alleviate poverty. Lay people have serious responsibilities in the RCC, they are different from those in the RC hierarchy, and organizing economies and societies of the world to be just and charitable is very much their job. So maybe the pope should elect a new RC laity to deal better with poverty?!
quote:Constantinople and her pretensions. Tut, tut.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:Mousie, it's that claim to be the Ecumenical Patriarch what confuses 'em.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Augh! He is NOT the spiritual head of the Orthodox Church! Fecking stupid secular press. We don't have a universal spiritual head. We're not Catholics already.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Beeb is reporting:
quote:
The list of attendees for Monday's Mass includes US Vice-President Joe Biden and the spiritual head of the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew.
quote:Transitional pope = one not expected to reign for more than 5 years. It's a stupid expression and a crass import from the world of politics.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Whence comes this silly argument as to whether a pope might be a transitional pope? All popes are transitional, and will be until the Lord returns to say 'well done thou good and faithful servant' or otherwise. It is of the nature of being a human being, yet alone of being one who takes office at an age when most people have retired.
Until that day, the notion that there is some perfect, fulfilled, static and platonic papacy is a delusion.
quote:You must not be an American. We don't do irony.
Originally posted by CL:
Constantinople and her pretensions. Tut, tut.
quote:Isn't the conventional wisdom that Jesus' ministry on earth lasted less than five years? Does that make him a Transitional Messiah?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Transitional pope = one not expected to reign for more than 5 years. It's a stupid expression and a crass import from the world of politics.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Whence comes this silly argument as to whether a pope might be a transitional pope? All popes are transitional, and will be until the Lord returns to say 'well done thou good and faithful servant' or otherwise. It is of the nature of being a human being, yet alone of being one who takes office at an age when most people have retired.
Until that day, the notion that there is some perfect, fulfilled, static and platonic papacy is a delusion.
quote:Any fundamental moral evils you'd allow Bishops to call out politicians on? Permitting the slaughter of the first-born because "I don't want to impose my private religious views on other, equally devout people of other religions or none"? Or is it that the rubber hits the road around that great sacrament of liberal politics, abortion?
Originally posted by Alogon:
Since organizing economies and societies is the job of the Catholic laity, I think it would be very nice if certain bishops allowed duly elected Catholic laity to get on with it, rather than twisting their arms with threats of excommunication should they dare to speak or vote the wrong way.
On these issues, at least, I think that Catholics in political office are a very good influence. Therefore it's too bad that bishops' attempts to coerce them with the strongest trump card in their hand will only revive the same reservations on the part of American voters that J.F. Kennedy had to put to rest fifty years ago before they would elect him.
quote:First, I'm not aware that politicians have been threatened with excommunication. Withholding the Eucharist due to manifest and obstinate grave sin is not excommunication. Second, there are matters on which Catholics can reasonably disagree, and there are matters on which they cannot. Or at least they cannot and remain Catholics in good standing. And it is the bishops who call the shots on that. As it happens, the precise organisation of Caesar's political and economical realm is not subject to sine qua non Catholic doctrine. Some matters of human sexuality are. Third, maybe JFK needed to play the independence card to get elected. Is that a good thing? Does it have to remain that way? I think lots of politicians have deeply held convictions, to which they are beholden just as much as a faithful Catholic might be beholden to some (hardly all!) things bishops say. If you don't like the principles, don't elect the politician - at least not into a position of power where he or she can force their principles through without hindrance. And I don't think that even the POTUS is able to do whatever he wants, politically. Fourth, all that said, I'm not sure that the ongoing "culture wars" at the political level are all that helpful. I think Christianity is much better at a "bottom-up" reform of society than at a "top-down" governance thereof. Bishops should not primarily teach through participation in shrill political battles. And if the faithful need that much prompting about what is important when voting, then it seems that their formation has been sorely lacking.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Since organizing economies and societies is the job of the Catholic laity, I think it would be very nice if certain bishops allowed duly elected Catholic laity to get on with it, rather than twisting their arms with threats of excommunication should they dare to speak or vote the wrong way.
quote:Yes, absolutely.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure that the ongoing "culture wars" at the political level are all that helpful. I think Christianity is much better at a "bottom-up" reform of society than at a "top-down" governance thereof.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think Bishops (or anyone else) should be silenced in calling out politicians where they see a moral wrong. Let them contribute to the argument with all the moral force and conviction they can muster.
I think the real issue is the use of influence. There's a difference between vigorous debate and the processes of lobbying for a result based on the power and influence you may have. That tends to make winning more important than convincing, which is not so smart in the long run. Nor all that moral either.
quote:Agree with IngoB’s ‘primarily’, but otherwise more with Barnabas. Surely religious figures are entitled to engage vigorously with the debate?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Bishops should not primarily teach through participation in shrill political battles. And if the faithful need that much prompting about what is important when voting, then it seems that their formation has been sorely lacking.
quote:Spiritual head or not, this is utterly amazing!!!
Originally posted by mousethief:
Augh! He is NOT the spiritual head of the Orthodox Church! Fecking stupid secular press. We don't have a universal spiritual head. We're not Catholics already.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:How hard is it to say "first among equals"? Sheesh.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Commentator named the Patriarch the "main leader" of the Orthodox Church, which may be more correct, no?
quote:All of those people? That would be some tour. Even Rolling Stone would find it bizarro.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I also read that they are going to tour the Holy Land together?
quote:I find myself liking him more and more... let's hope he keeps it up and doesn't become, as Sir Humphrey would say, "house-trained in no time."
Originally posted by PeteC:
He's not finished with his surprises. It now seems that the Mass of the Last Supper, with the washing of the feet will now be said in a juvenile corrections facility rather than the Basilica of S. John Lateran.
quote:Kirill would probably be more than happy to attend but for the fact that his hands are tied by internal ROC politics.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Just invite the Patriarch of Moscow and be done with it.
quote:If Putin gave him permission, he could jump off his lap and run down there.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Kirill would probably be more than happy to attend but for the fact that his hands are tied by internal ROC politics.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Just invite the Patriarch of Moscow and be done with it.
quote:The problems begin and end with the Secretariat of State and more generally with time-serving Spirit of VII middle management. The heads and secretaries of the important Congregations and offices are mostly good men; Muller, Canizares, Burke, DiNoia, Ouellet, Piacenza, etc. Bertone, Sodano, their cronies and fellow travellers are the cancer that need to be excised.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The big shock for him will be reading the dossiers about the goings-on in the curia compiled on orders of B XVI by the three cardinals.
And the next big question will be the appointments he will make. That will say a lot about the intended course of his papacy.
quote:Misplaced cynicism. Putin is a non-issue, the problem is the hardcore nationalist constituency of ROC who would have preferred Kliment to have become Patriarch.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:If Putin gave him permission, he could jump off his lap and run down there.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Kirill would probably be more than happy to attend but for the fact that his hands are tied by internal ROC politics.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Just invite the Patriarch of Moscow and be done with it.
quote:I doubt he gives it a second thought.
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I wonder what Benedict XVI makes of so may people saying things along the lines of, "Isn't it great now that we have a nice Pope"?
quote:Good for him!
Originally posted by PeteC:
He's not finished with his surprises. It now seems that the Mass of the Last Supper, with the washing of the feet will now be said in a juvenile corrections facility rather than the Basilica of S. John Lateran.
quote:Celebrating Mass at a young offenders' institute is surely something to still take notice of, though? I mean one would assume it would normally be held in a church even if the Pope hadn't taken possession of St John Lateran's yet.
Originally posted by CL:
He isn't celebrating Maundy Thursday mass at St. John Lateran's because he hasn't taken possession of it yet. Sorry to burst the iconoclast bubble.
quote:A more careful reading of Vatican website notes that it had been scheduled for the Vatican Basilica, but has now been moved to the youth prison. So your bubble burst too. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by CL:
He isn't celebrating Maundy Thursday mass at St. John Lateran's because he hasn't taken possession of it yet. Sorry to burst the iconoclast bubble.
quote:There is a formal ceremony in which a Bishop takes possession of the Cathedral of his See. In this case, St John Lateran is the seat of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)
Originally posted by mousethief:
Have they mislaid the keys or what? Why wouldn't he have "taken possession" of it yet?
quote:Crazy Latins. (I wonder if our bishops have to go through something like this? It's like those bloody hobbits having to have seven signatures in red ink to sell a desk lamp to a blind man.)
Originally posted by PeteC:
quote:There is a formal ceremony in which a Bishop takes possession of the Cathedral of his See. In this case, St John Lateran is the seat of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)
Originally posted by mousethief:
Have they mislaid the keys or what? Why wouldn't he have "taken possession" of it yet?
It hasn't happened yet.
quote:Hmmm. Maybe I'm on to something...
Originally posted by Pancho:
You know, I really wonder what his first encyclical is going to be like. I wouldn't be surprised if it's going to be a social encyclical dealing with poverty (perhaps drawing a connection between spiritual poverty and material poverty?).
quote:
“Fighting poverty, both material and spiritual, building peace and constructing bridges: these, as it were, are the reference points for a journey that I want to invite each of the countries here represented to take up,” Pope Francis said March 22.
quote:
“But there is another form of poverty!” he told the diplomats.
“It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously.
“It is what my much-loved predecessor, Benedict XVI, called the ‘tyranny of relativism,’ which makes everyone his own criterion and endangers the coexistence of peoples,” he said.
quote:I'm well aware of that.
Originally posted by PeteC:
quote:A more careful reading of Vatican website notes that it had been scheduled for the Vatican Basilica, but has now been moved to the youth prison. So your bubble burst too. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by CL:
He isn't celebrating Maundy Thursday mass at St. John Lateran's because he hasn't taken possession of it yet. Sorry to burst the iconoclast bubble.
quote:What iconoclasm? I think visiting the imprisoned is a beautiful icon of Christian charity.
Originally posted by CL:
Sorry to burst the iconoclast bubble.
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:What iconoclasm? I think visiting the imprisoned is a beautiful icon of Christian charity.
Originally posted by CL:
Sorry to burst the iconoclast bubble.
quote:It's one of the acts of charity, and one which (at least) Canadian Xns are not too keen on--- it is a totally admirable way for a new bishop to being his ministry in a new diocese. Would that Anglican prelates follow his example.
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:What iconoclasm? I think visiting the imprisoned is a beautiful icon of Christian charity.
Originally posted by CL:
Sorry to burst the iconoclast bubble.
quote:I second your
Originally posted by IngoB:
XVI appears very frail.
quote:It sheds quite a bit of light on what Pope Francis is bringing to the table. Yeah, definitely we in the West waste incredible amounts on vain delights while the seriously poor suffer.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And interview with Pope Francis, then Cardinal Bergoglio, is here.
He does indeed look frail.
quote:He is quite an unusual man. As a priest and archbishop he was also unusual.
I accept this [the papacy] as a cross
quote:Indeed he is. But what, of course, Papa Benedetto's retirement has shown us is the importance of the office rather than that of the office-holder. As a consequence, "when the time comes" is entirely in the Holy Father's hands (well, and God's!)
Originally posted by Ariel:
He's going to be a very hard act to follow at this rate (I mean when the time comes for another new Pope), if he keeps this up.
quote:I was watching the interview but about halfway through it froze up. I base my comments on what I heard him say about pets in the first half of the interview that I heard. If he had further comments in the 2nd half of the interview i didn't hear them.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:It sheds quite a bit of light on what Pope Francis is bringing to the table. Yeah, definitely we in the West waste incredible amounts on vain delights while the seriously poor suffer.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And interview with Pope Francis, then Cardinal Bergoglio, is here.
But for a Pope named Francis to dislike pets? Que horrible! There goes the annual Blessing of the Animals.
quote:I would second this-- I have had very pleasant strolls (aside from the dog poo, as nobody in any sector of Buenos Aires or any level of society picks up after their dogs--- avoid sandals if you can) through the Recoleta (with its incredible cemetery), and have seen the dogwalkers at work, as well as the many many many petshops with their expensive food and animal toys. And then have taken the collectivo (the local buses), filing through little posses of street kids selling pencils or candies to make enough pesos for their dinner... I would think that the then-cardinal's words were worth saying.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
One has to see the man Bergoglio in context.
I am no Che Guevara, but anyone who has ever watched the burghers of Recoleta or other bourgeois quarters of Buenos Aires walk their pooches (or rather, have them walked by professional dog-walkers) across the lawns of their leafy enclaves will come to say similar things... I've seen few places where pooch-mania has taken to such collective heights of absurdity as it has in parts of Buenos Aires.
I love animals. I sometimes even think I prefer them to people. But I fully understand in this case where Bergoglio was coming from.
quote:Scandalised by love - excellent. Just like Jesus did it
Originally posted by Mary LA:
My Somali neighbour from up the road who is militantly Muslim was scandalised...
quote:Putting Canon Law as the centre on which the Church hinges, accusing the Pope of having "damaged" the Church??
Originally posted by IngoB:
There exists canon law about this rite. The pope broke it. Of course, the pope is the supreme law maker of the Church, and concerning this particular rite he could have legislated near anything he wanted, in advance. But he didn't. He broke his own law as it stood. So what precedent does this set for other Catholics?
Seriously, this is not about washing the feet of a woman. If he had changed the canon law for all so that this is possible in the rite, I would have had no complaints. But instead he has broken the canon law before all. I guess the consequences in the first instance are similar: priests will now wash whomsoever's feet they like. But they will now do so by ignoring canon law as the pope did, not by following an updated law. What other canon law might they then be inspired to disregard on their own devices?
This pope needs to understand that he is pope. Soon. He has already damaged the Church here. It's only a dent, but this could get worse.
quote:The Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law is of course a "civil law", not a "common law". So no, this was not at all licit.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does cannon law recognise precedent ? I other words is this a valid way for the pontiff to change cannon law - does it always have to be done in writing ?
quote:No, not really. If there is an established custom (30 years of continued use counts as established) that is not contrary to the law, then that has the force of law unless explicitly abolished.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does cannon law recognise precedent ? I other words is this a valid way for the pontiff to change cannon law - does it always have to be done in writing ?
quote:Or from a third: that the act is simply not capable of falling within the conditions for his act to have been otherwise.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... the Pope may have been guilty of a fallible act from two POV.
quote:Apart from this being another manifestation of your continual attempt to claim for non-conformism anybody who does stuff you like, it is quite simply completely untrue. He is a 76 year old Jesuit Bishop. It seems to me that he is behaving in an entirely conformist way: conforming to the liturgical approach of his age, his order and his Order. The true non-conformist was his predecessor.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He seems to have creative nonconformist tendencies. Takes one to spot one.
quote:Whereas that of any of those of the last two hundred years have been what exactly?
This Papacy could be a bit of a roller-coaster ride.
quote:So assuming he dispensed himself, it was licit ? I imagine he could then change cannon law later if he wanted to.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:No, not really. If there is an established custom (30 years of continued use counts as established) that is not contrary to the law, then that has the force of law unless explicitly abolished.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does cannon law recognise precedent ? I other words is this a valid way for the pontiff to change cannon law - does it always have to be done in writing ?
This rite, which has only been part of the Mass of the Lords Supper since 1955 (before which it was a separate right for the vending of Holy Thursday rather than part of the Mass), is an optional part of the Mass and there are a number of fairly well documented occasions of diocesan bishops asking for a dispensation from the requirement that those washed are "viri selecti" for pastoral reasons. The most well-known of these is that granted to Sean Cardinal O'Malley in Boston, who was told by the Holy See to do what he judged to be pastorally expedient. I imagine that the Pope decided that what he was doing was pastorally expedient and dispensed himself. Whether that prudential judgement on his part as wise or not is a different question from whether it is licit or not and it doesn't belong to me to judge that.
quote:Correct on both points (except the spelling of canon). In fact, since what he did was a voluntary act, there is no other possible explanation than that he did dispense himself. The suggestion that he was ignorant of the liturgical provisions around this rite is simply not credible, having regard to the number of ceremoniarii around him.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So assuming he dispensed himself, it was licit ? I imagine he could then change cannon law later if he wanted to.
quote:I agree.
I would have thought there is a reasonable theological argument that Jesus washed apostles feet as a demonstration of service - so to widen the circle of people to whom you offer this service is in keeping with the principle he is thought to have been promoting.
quote:...or both.
In other words, either you are a) are trying to imitate a specific act done to specific people so you don't forget it happened, or b) are you trying enact the principles demonstrated in a specific act done to specific people. The pope seems to be going with b.
quote:Echoing PeteC, is all.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Whereas that of any of those of the last two hundred years have been what exactly?
This Papacy could be a bit of a roller-coaster ride.
quote:I guess so, and hence what I said above (that this was "not at all licit") is wrong. If he indeed did dispense himself, then he obviously removed the contrary law for himself. Question for Trisagion: for this dispensation to be formally correct, would he have to have made that official somehow in advance? So that somewhere in the Vatican there's now a document (be it a short note) with his signature about this. Or can he just do this "on the fly" and "in the act", as it were?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So assuming he dispensed himself, it was licit ?
quote:Apologies and thanks for the heads up. Corrected in situ.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The link doesn't work.
quote:No.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Question for Trisagion: for this dispensation to be formally correct, would he have to have made that official somehow in advance?
quote:He can do it however he likes.
So that somewhere in the Vatican there's now a document (be it a short note) with his signature about this. Or can he just do this "on the fly" and "in the act", as it were?
quote:I guess you're entitled to your opinion but I don't know how you can presume to judge the prudential judgements of another - especially one whose sacramental responsibilities you don't share - without a great deal more information than we can have.
At any rate, even if he can and formally did bypass the canon legal issues, I still think doing so is bad form.
quote:You've every business saying it.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As a non-RC I probably have no business saying this, but it dismays me that such a luminously Christlike act is condemned because it's not licit. There were those, too, in Jesus's time who were scandalised when he stepped beyond the Law.
quote:Enoch, have sympathy for those of us who spend not our scarce leisure hours but our working ones scouring Catholic Canon Law.
Originally posted by Enoch:
For those of us who are not Roman Catholics and do not spend our scarce leisure hours scouring Catholic Canon Law, what canon is Pope Francis being accused of having broken please?
Is it washing someone's feet, rather than having a Cardinal do it for him? Is it washing the feet of someone who is not in holy orders? Is it washing a woman's feet? Is it washing the feet of someone who is not a Catholic? Is it wearing the wrong garment while washing someone's feet? I have to admit, that if it is any of those, that would ilustrate the adage that the law is an ass, and Pope Francis is a better example to follow.
Or is it something else I haven't thought of?
quote:I can share mine, for what they are worth (which is not very much). I really, really like him, more and more as I hear about him. I like the lack of pomp and circumstance (and as an Orthodox, I certainly don't have any objection to pomp and circumstance as a general principle). I like his humble attitude, and wish more high level clerics did this.
Originally posted by Truman White:
Bit of a tangent here - sorry if we've covered this up thread. What do our Orthodox pals make of Francis? I know that Francis got a Marian icon as a gift from Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, and three days later the Pope gave the icon as a gift to Pope Emeritus Benedict.
Apparently this passing on a gift as a gift went down a storm with the Ruskies.
Any other views from the East?
quote:I am amazed at all this fuss.
Originally posted by IngoB:
He has already damaged the Church here. It's only a dent, but this could get worse.
quote:For exactly the wrong reasons.
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of people are seeing him to be a sign of hope.
quote:From an ex-traditionalist RC now Orthodox, I miss Benedict.
Originally posted by Truman White:
Bit of a tangent here - sorry if we've covered this up thread. What do our Orthodox pals make of Francis? I know that Francis got a Marian icon as a gift from Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, and three days later the Pope gave the icon as a gift to Pope Emeritus Benedict.
Apparently this passing on a gift as a gift went down a storm with the Ruskies.
Any other views from the East?
quote:Is that always the case, or might it be possible that a one-off enactment of the Liturgy was just that? I hear you saying that the Pope can effect a permanent change in the Liturgy "on the fly" if he wants to. But he may not want to. He may want to do a thing just once.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Well not quite, Barnabas. If the Pope makes a definitive, positive magisterial change to the Liturgy then that is of general application, whereas a dispensation is just that.
quote:Care to expand on that a bit?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:For exactly the wrong reasons.
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of people are seeing him to be a sign of hope.
quote:Your good sense about all this makes me proud to be your brother in the Order of Deacons.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Nevertheless, in this particular case, there is more than a little of the whited sepulchres about those making the criticism of what you so accurately call "a luminously Christlike act".
quote:I can remember the feeling on The Ship at the time Benedict XVI was elected. That too was seen as a "sign of hope" mostly by those who wanted to see change but were not necessarily members of the RCC.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:Care to expand on that a bit?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:For exactly the wrong reasons.
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of people are seeing him to be a sign of hope.
quote:Isn't memory odd? I thought there was general dismay on the Ship when B16 was elected, which gradually lifted when he turned out to be not as bad as people feared.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I can remember the feeling on The Ship at the time Benedict XVI was elected. That too was seen as a "sign of hope" mostly by those who wanted to see change but were not necessarily members of the RCC.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:Care to expand on that a bit?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:For exactly the wrong reasons.
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of people are seeing him to be a sign of hope.
Things are much the same now.
quote:Wow.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Enoch, have sympathy for those of us who spend not our scarce leisure hours but our working ones scouring Catholic Canon Law.
The issue is two-fold:
1. The missal refers to viri selecti - that is to men who have been chosen to have their feet washed and the word is gender specific;
2. The Code of Canon Law (canon 846.1) forbids anyone to add to, omit or alter anything prescribed in the rite on their own authority.
Since, however, the Pope is the supreme legislator within the Church and can alter whatever he wishes in matters that are not of Divine Law, he could change the provision from the gender exclusive "viri" to the inclusive "hominis". IngoB, together with others elsewhere, have claimed that had he done so they would have no objection to what has happened. This misses the point that the canonical maxim salus anima rum suprema lex - the salvation of souls is the supreme law - allows for those with the appropriate authority to dispense from the specific provisions of the law for appropriate reasons. There is a whole worked out system of who has the authority to dispense with which provisions (as you might expect) but what is not in doubt is that the Pope has the authority to dispense with this provision for himself or others if he thinks that there is a sufficiently important reason related to the salvation of souls. This being so, the debate simply becomes one about whether his prudential judgement in this or that case is correct. I maintain that I don't have either the position or the information necessary to make such a judgement.
I just hope Francis won't let us down.
quote:That's a curious comparison. For this to hold, one has to declare canon law to be equivalent to Leviticial law and/or Pharisaic regulations of late Judaism. If so, then we should simply abandon it outright. Furthermore, Jesus was quite insistent that law be maintained, even before unworthy judges. What he did do - by Divine power - is to remove uncharitable interpretations of the law, like counting healing as work on Sabbath. Again, are we saying then that canon law is uncharitable? This banging on about the supposed "law breaker" Christ is simplistic, and the immediate condemnation of those who prefer their liturgical rules to not be created by the ad-libbing of anyone, including the pope, is telling.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As a non-RC I probably have no business saying this, but it dismays me that such a luminously Christlike act is condemned because it's not licit. There were those, too, in Jesus's time who were scandalised when he stepped beyond the Law.
quote:Nicely self-contradictory. I will go with your second opinion, it is indeed obvious enough what is going on. But the pope isn't just the bishop of Rome, and whatever advantage it has to keep the "humble rebel" media image up for a while longer, in the long term one cannot both rule and rebel. Neither is humility necessarily found in throwing out all signs of office. Also the washing of feet is not new liturgical battleground. All those priests and perhaps bishops who ignored liturgical law on this before, without dispensation, will feel that they have done the right thing. That may not be formally true, given that they could not dispense themselves, but that's how it will be perceived. Do we need that kind of signal?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I guess you're entitled to your opinion but I don't know how you can presume to judge the prudential judgements of another - especially one whose sacramental responsibilities you don't share - without a great deal more information than we can have. ... However, it seems crystal clear what the Pope is seeking to do and why.
quote:You are not John the Baptist, and he is not Jesus Christ. Can we tone down the shouts of "santo subito" ("saint now") until the new pope has actually achieved something of substance for the Church?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I am not fit to tie his sandals (black shoes) let alone judge his pastoral initiatives.
quote:Let's be clear that this is a complete straw man. I know of nobody who has claimed that this is "the act by which the priesthood was instituted", on any side, ever. The association has always been via John 13. Since Christ was washing the feet of the apostles in scripture, the sex of those who were getting their feet washed has been associated with the sex of the apostles. Whether one agrees with this interpretation or not, that view was and is common. And of course one has to wonder what the lawgiver was thinking about in specifying that only the feet of men should be washed, if not this association.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
More pertinent to the current controversy is that, if it were the act by which the priesthood was instituted then those currently outraged would have reason to be concerned since the gender of those washed, in the context of the rite, would then have significance within the debate around certain well-known DH issues. Since the act is not that, then the concern seems completely misplaced.
quote:I wish I could conjure up an un-ending stream of liturgical abuses for you to deal with, each and every one ferociously argued to "preserve the truth of the liturgical act", just - you know - updated for modern times and people. Unfortunately, other people would suffer as well if this happened, so I cannot really wish for this. But it would serve you right.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Again, the problem here is that the Church has always done this: the only real question is whether a particular change is made in order to preserve the truth of the liturgical act or to alter it.
quote:Well, he certainly earned the applause and admiration of the secular world, the mainstream media, and our separated brethren - I'll leave it up to the Father what further reward he can expect for this.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Nevertheless, in this particular case, there is more than a little of the whited sepulchres about those making the criticism of what you so accurately call "a luminously Christlike act".
quote:And if this is really such a "luminously Christlike act", wouldn't it have been better to allow it for every priest and bishop of the world? Wouldn't that have been an even more convincing sign, one that doesn't direct our attention so exclusively to the wonderful deeds of Pope Francis? And what about the salvation of the conservative, and yes, even traditional, souls entrusted to his care? Wouldn't this have avoided at least some hardship for them, without compromising the sign he was about to set? This liturgical change could have been handled better, better by any measure other than maximising publicity.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
IngoB, together with others elsewhere, have claimed that had he done so they would have no objection to what has happened. This misses the point that the canonical maxim salus anima rum suprema lex - the salvation of souls is the supreme law - allows for those with the appropriate authority to dispense from the specific provisions of the law for appropriate reasons.
quote:And your gracious response, Trisagion, humbles my earlier dismay.
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:Your good sense about all this makes me proud to be your brother in the Order of Deacons.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Nevertheless, in this particular case, there is more than a little of the whited sepulchres about those making the criticism of what you so accurately call "a luminously Christlike act".
quote:Perhaps - I only say perhaps - that's a question that might be considered, rather than merely being posed rhetorically.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Again, are we saying then that canon law is uncharitable?
quote:You say it if you want; it's just what I was thinking.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As a non-RC I probably have no business saying this, but it dismays me that such a luminously Christlike act is condemned because it's not licit. There were those, too, in Jesus's time who were scandalised when he stepped beyond the Law.
quote:I don't know about parish practices, but I can sort of see why the tradition has been for the pope washing the feet of his bishops or cardinals, since he in the RCC most closely represents Christ and his bishops are most like the apostles. None-the-less, Pope Francis' variant brilliantly demonstrates the highest serving the lowest.
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
Frankly, I'm a little baffled. I've genuinely never heard of women being involved in the Maundy Thursday footwashing being against citing Canon Law, or even that the washees represent Apostles. Women have been having their feet washed at least since the early 90s, not just in my church, but my more conservative sister church nearby and IIRC my Cathedral. Having checked in with my cradle-Catholic-67-year-old Mother, she hadn't heard of this either. At the very least, it suggests that noone seems to be so bothered as to be spreading the word/cracking down on the practise.
quote:I think that some of us are implying that this accusation is not totally unfounded. I don't think one can make the equations,
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That's a curious comparison. For this to hold, one has to declare canon law to be equivalent to Leviticial law and/or Pharisaic regulations of late Judaism. If so, then we should simply abandon it outright. Furthermore, Jesus was quite insistent that law be maintained, even before unworthy judges. What he did do - by Divine power - is to remove uncharitable interpretations of the law, like counting healing as work on Sabbath. Again, are we saying then that canon law is uncharitable? This banging on about the supposed "law breaker" Christ is simplistic, and the immediate condemnation of those who prefer their liturgical rules to not be created by the ad-libbing of anyone, including the pope, is telling.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As a non-RC I probably have no business saying this, but it dismays me that such a luminously Christlike act is condemned because it's not licit. There were those, too, in Jesus's time who were scandalised when he stepped beyond the Law.
quote:It is obvious to you that he is deliberately cultivating a "humble rebel" media image? And that is what you think Trisagion means by obvious?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Nicely self-contradictory. I will go with your second opinion, it is indeed obvious enough what is going on. But the pope isn't just the bishop of Rome, and whatever advantage it has to keep the "humble rebel" media image up for a while longer, in the long term one cannot both rule and rebel. Neither is humility necessarily found in throwing out all signs of office. Also the washing of feet is not new liturgical battleground. All those priests and perhaps bishops who ignored liturgical law on this before, without dispensation, will feel that they have done the right thing. That may not be formally true, given that they could not dispense themselves, but that's how it will be perceived. Do we need that kind of signal?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I guess you're entitled to your opinion but I don't know how you can presume to judge the prudential judgements of another - especially one whose sacramental responsibilities you don't share - without a great deal more information than we can have. ... However, it seems crystal clear what the Pope is seeking to do and why.
quote:In my tradition, the major moral imperative is to demonstrate leadership in humble service to others. A kind of hierarchical upside-downness is seen as Christ-like. And such servant-heartedness is not to be confined to the faithful community (though it is to be demonstrated there) it is the principle behind all service to the wider community as well. That is taken as the meaning of "slave (or servant) of all" in the Mark passage. There is an old children's song, which says "If you want to be great in God's kingdom, learn to be the servant of all".
12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
quote:This "banging on" about the Magisterium being God-given is simplistic, too.
Originally posted by IngoB:
This banging on about the supposed "law breaker" Christ is simplistic
quote:This is quite typical for a convert who apparently needs to find ongoing reassurance in reading and re-reading the fine print above the dotted line he once signed, and I've seen it before, elsewhere.
Originally posted by IngoB:
So if I'm not "insulting" you, who else will point out these rather serious flaws of your Catholicism to you? I have no particular illusions about my own pastoral abilities. It is quite likely that nothing I say will do anything for you. But what will? And which pastor will "gently rebuke" you to get you back on track?
quote:If not already clear from my post; seconded.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Again, I would ask you, do you not believe that he is entitled to the presumption of good faith? Does he not enjoy the same right as you: that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should assume that he is both sincere in his acts and prudent in his judgements?
quote:But there was no discussion here on the finer points of canon law and what would be charitable for all concerned. I pointed to a setting aside of a canon law, and got the instant "you Pharisee, Jesus hates your kind" response. Well, I simply dismiss such kneejerk responses for what they are.
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is quite possible to treat both one's Canon Law and one's Church's teaching on Ethics in the same way - and that is true whichever church tradition one belongs to. Being Catholic does not somehow give one a bypass round that particular pothole.
quote:I don't think that it is him faking all this for the media, but he sure isn't above milking the media attention for what it is worth. And I have no idea what Trisagion considers "obvious". He obviously is impressed by Pope Francis in a way that I'm not.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is obvious to you that he is deliberately cultivating a "humble rebel" media image? And that is what you think Trisagion means by obvious?
quote:Well, hopefully Pope Francis is listening. Because so far he's been focusing near exclusively on the "servant" bit. My complaint here is precisely that he needlessly sacrificed "leadership" for "service" in this matter. It was up to him to change the rules instead of dispensing himself from obeying the rules everybody else has to follow. That would have been leadership. This was the opposite.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a paradox in Christ-likeness, sometimes referred to as servant-leadership.
quote:Well, I'm glad you like the rite. It was not invented by Pope Francis. It is optional but quite common all around the world. What was up to this point a liturgical abuse in the absence of dispensation (letting women have their feet washed) was not done first by Pope Francis. It is a quite common thing, so common (as you could read above) that some Catholics are astonished that there is a rule about it. The argument that washing the feet indiscriminate of gender is a better sign of universal service is not new to Pope Francis or his defenders here. This is the oldest argument in the book for changing the regulation, and yes, it is a perfectly good argument - it just hadn't won the day yet. Probably washing feet in prison and washing non-Christian feet is not unheard of either, though this will have been rare previously. Unlike Pope Francis who was mostly feeding the media with this, other pastors generally do this for and within their community. So perhaps some prison chaplain has done this before to the inmates in his spiritual care.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Footwashing is a picture of this view of service both within the faith community and to the wider community. That is what I see Pope Francis doing here. It may indeed be media savvy at this time but there are very good reasons for seeing it as a sincere modelling of Christ-likeness.
quote:You think it's a perfectly fine expression of your humility, I think it's something that conceivably could be said if one were to meet the real St Francis, and then only in spontaneous awe. Otherwise it is simply sickening spiritual kitsch. You don't like my style, I gather. Well, I don't like yours. Somehow we will manage to live with that.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It happens to me several times a day and involves no idolatry on my part to either recognise or voice it, merely a keen sense of both who I am and of those to whom I minister.
quote:No, it's not just "we have a law". That would be me complaint if he was just your typical Jesuit playing fast and loose with liturgical rules. It's "we have a law, he is the supreme law maker, and he could bloody well behave like it!" Again, if he thinks that this rite should be celebrated with men and women, then let him decree so. That's what he's the successor of St Peter for. Let him not however break his own bloody law just because it makes good TV. Oh yes, I forget, he can't break his own law any longer because he's now a personified dispensation from law. Clearly that makes his act even more exemplary and saintly. Not.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Your assertion now being clear, what is now much less clear is what your objection to the Pope's action was other than "We have a law".
quote:Well, not quite. I'm starting to think however that this pope unfortunately turns out to be a real Jesuit. A detailed analysis why I so viscerally dislike Jesuits should be reserved to a different thread, given that there are way too many words being wasted on my own personality already. But to give a rough idea: if you are very intelligent, highly educated and follow complex agendas, then assuming an air of simplicity - even if this is done honestly, from deep spiritual conviction and with the best of intentions - becomes a shtick.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The sneer behind your remark about what the Pope is up to is beneath you. It carries the unmistakeable whiff of accusing him of being a fake. The presumption behind your attitude speaks volumes.
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Again, I would ask you, do you not believe that he is entitled to the presumption of good faith? Does he not enjoy the same right as you: that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should assume that he is both sincere in his acts and prudent in his judgements?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Have you read this thread? Have you read your own words on this thread or indeed in Hell, about me? I can go on about Pope Francis in the manner that I've been treated here - including by you. But indeed, that would go way beyond reasonable critique.
quote:Well, but what's the alternative? You can say stuck in complexity, but if you believe your path should take you beyond that, what else can you do? Was Jesus' simplicity just a shtick, too, or was he genuinely simple? If God can become human, why can't a Jesuit honestly strive for simplicity?
Originally posted by IngoB:
A detailed analysis why I so viscerally dislike Jesuits should be reserved to a different thread.... But to give a rough idea: if you are very intelligent, highly educated and follow complex agendas, then assuming an air of simplicity - even if this is done honestly, from deep spiritual conviction and with the best of intentions - becomes a shtick.
quote:But milking the media attention for what it is worth/using the media to convey a message is a very big part of the Pope's job. B16, for his other virtues (to my mind, cats and Mozart) was like Rowan Williams in that, no matter how towering their intellects, they were signally unable to do that. Francis seems to have caught the press' imagination and appears to have diverted their attention to messages of humility and inclusiveness in a way no hour-long lecture or even a power-point presentation ever could.
I don't think that it is him faking all this for the media, but he sure isn't above milking the media attention for what it is worth. And I have no idea what Trisagion considers "obvious". He obviously is impressed by Pope Francis in a way that I'm not.
quote:I think this is a binary view, whereas the deeper challenge is to integrate both servant and leader. Leaders also have a responsibility to set a tone, give an example, not just manage the rules. You seem to me to have missed that.
quote:Well, hopefully Pope Francis is listening. Because so far he's been focusing near exclusively on the "servant" bit. My complaint here is precisely that he needlessly sacrificed "leadership" for "service" in this matter. It was up to him to change the rules instead of dispensing himself from obeying the rules everybody else has to follow. That would have been leadership. This was the opposite.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a paradox in Christ-likeness, sometimes referred to as servant-leadership.
quote:I understand the point about the difference between private acts of service and public demonstrations. However, what Jesus did in the Upper Room is no longer private. Of many memorable actions, this is amongst the most memorable. His private actions as servant leader set an eternal tone. And they have been incorporated in an annual public event.
Probably washing feet in prison and washing non-Christian feet is not unheard of either, though this will have been rare previously. Unlike Pope Francis who was mostly feeding the media with this, other pastors generally do this for and within their community. So perhaps some prison chaplain has done this before to the inmates in his spiritual care.
And you know what, that was probably a heck of a lot more meaningful than being part of a gigantic media event, where you get your feet washed and kissed by some weird man in white, who next talks about being your humble servant and then vanishes to never be seen or heard of again. Where's the spiritual follow-through for that celebrated young Muslim woman then? Where is "her servant" when she actually needs him? Busy governing a Church of 1+ billion people? Well, maybe Pope Francis should stick to symbolism on which he can deliver... But it wouldn't make for such great press if he had washed the feet of the Curia, right? Just because those are his actual "servants", and the people he will have to deal with primarily in a Christ-like servant-leader manner doesn't mean anything here. Oh no. We have to go for the iconic image...
quote:It is binary but I think you fall into a related error, B62, of seeing leadership and servanthood as things needing integration the one with the other. Within a Christian context, I would argue that the way in which leadership is exercised is precisely through servanthood. It's not about integration of two distinct ideas, it's about understanding that the one idea is, in fact, only to be exercised as the other. That is why the Papal title assumed by Gregory the Great is so important - servus servorum Dei, servant of the servants of God. The washing of the feet, the hymn in Philippians 2, these are all the clues.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think this is a binary view, whereas the deeper challenge is to integrate both servant and leader. Leaders also have a responsibility to set a tone, give an example, not just manage the rules. You seem to me to have missed that.
quote:Well, quite. Is he supposed to evangelize by sidling discreetly up to people one at a time when nobody's looking and whisper in their ears?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
But milking the media attention for what it is worth/using the media to convey a message is a very big part of the Pope's job. B16, for his other virtues (to my mind, cats and Mozart) was like Rowan Williams in that, no matter how towering their intellects, they were signally unable to do that. Francis seems to have caught the press' imagination and appears to have diverted their attention to messages of humility and inclusiveness in a way no hour-long lecture or even a power-point presentation ever could.
quote:What's so wrong with the Jesuits? And is this something about St Ignatius, or how they are now? Or is this just the 'flu speaking?
Originally posted by IngoB:
... I'm starting to think however that this pope unfortunately turns out to be a real Jesuit. A detailed analysis why I so viscerally dislike Jesuits should be reserved to a different thread, given that there are way too many words being wasted on my own personality already. ...
quote:Amen!
Originally posted by PeteC:
I pray for Francis, the Pope. Vivat.
!
quote:Jesus sure as heck wasn't simplistic. I also do not believe that Jesus was particularly simple, certainly not in the terms of His own time. (Remember Him astonishing the teachers in the temple as a child, how he needs to explain His parables to His disciples, how He stumps Pharisaic questioners ...) That said, I do not believe that Jesus intended us to see His own "level of sophistication" as somehow normative. Perhaps the best indication is simply whom He picked as disciples. A mixed bunch.
Originally posted by QLib:
Well, but what's the alternative? You can say stuck in complexity, but if you believe your path should take you beyond that, what else can you do? Was Jesus' simplicity just a shtick, too, or was he genuinely simple? If God can become human, why can't a Jesuit honestly strive for simplicity?
quote:I'm so glad that your own thinking is not at all binary and that you approach everybody filled to the brim with respect and positivity. However, let's be clear about this. You've just put words in my mouth that I not only did not say. Rather I explicitly denied them in answer to you when you made the precursor to these accusation in the previous post! I could also call this behaviour of yours names, indeed, perhaps the same names. But you have simply stopped listening to what I am really saying. You are on reactive autopilot. Gain back manual control, please.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
IngoB, I am so glad you've broken cover. Your sneering contempt for the Pope, your belief that its all a front for the benefit of the media is now in open view. What part of calumny and detraction is no longer grave matter in the world you inhabit?
quote:Here's a video.
Originally posted by Forthview:
I thought that this Mass of the Lord's supper at which the pope washed the feet of inmates at the juvenile prison was not to be broadcast.I have seen some photographs of the event but nothing more.
quote:Well, it can. And one never knows what the Holy Spirit is up to... However, I have some difficulties with imagining what exactly this ritual would mean to a Muslim girl.
Originally posted by Forthview:
We have to view the ceremony as symbolic,but even for the young Muslim girl the memory of a day when the pope came to prostrate himself before her can remain in her memory for the rest of her life and be a comfort to her on her way through life.
quote:Says who?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
But milking the media attention for what it is worth/using the media to convey a message is a very big part of the Pope's job.
quote:*facepalm* OK, this is what I said, and you quoted it above, so presumably you have read it: "All those priests and perhaps bishops who ignored liturgical law on this before, without dispensation, will feel that they have done the right thing. That may not be formally true, given that they could not dispense themselves, but that's how it will be perceived. Do we need that kind of signal?" I was precisely saying that the pope set a bad example. Not as far as the washing of feet of Muslim girls or whoever else is concerned as such. But in disregarding liturgical law and the due process of changing law, as the supreme law maker.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Leaders also have a responsibility to set a tone, give an example, not just manage the rules. You seem to me to have missed that.
quote:Yeah. Everybody else but me has been really careful to keep their assessments provisional.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nothing wrong in using critical faculties, IngoB, but it's a good idea in these early days to keep all such assessments provisional.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:I'm sorry, but what on earth are you going on about? The only one I have ultimately submitted to is the Lord. The pope certainly plays an important role in the institution that the Lord has set up for my (and your) salvation. Hence vicariously, He can lay claim to and direct some of my obedience to the Lord. By that same token however he cannot simply fuck around with me like some spiritual version of Louis XIV. He is supposed to be my shepherd, he is supposed to lead me to green pastures and see to it that I'm well fed. That's his calling, and if he fails at it culpably, then he will burn in hell - and burn a good deal worse than I potentially would, with my petty sheepish sins. I fear no pope, why would I? He can do nothing but lead me to Christ or doom himself, the poor man.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And when the person in question is your "ultimate boss" to whom you are formally "ultimately submitted" certainly in earthly terms, it's just wise not to rush to judgment.
quote:Maybe Obama should run for pope?
Originally posted by Ariel:
Is that really what you want, a dull nonentity who makes no impact on people, easily forgotten, barely relevant or meaningful to many, but who can be praised for sticking within the letter of the law?
quote:Well, I've give a partial answer just below the bit that you quoted. I'm not sure whether I'm "historically fair" in my judgement. I don't know much about Jesuit history or indeed St Ignatius. And thanks for asking, my flu is getting better and today was my first day in a week in which I was not bed-bound.
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's so wrong with the Jesuits? And is this something about St Ignatius, or how they are now? Or is this just the 'flu speaking?
quote:I'm sorry, but this is simply blatant and vicious misrepresentation.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
For - it seems - years you've been berating us poor ignorant Prods for daring to criticize the behaviour of Popes and clerics who fornicated, murdered and sold the Church in exchange for worldly wealth.
quote:Well, yes, I'm absolutely certain that the Church will not get destroyed by Pope Francis.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
'The gates of hell will not prevail against her' is the usual thing trundled out, whenever it's suggested that the RCC's claim of unique Truth might be somewhat undermined here and there by the appalling behaviour of some clerics.
quote:He has given canon law, and liturgical law in particular, an entirely unnecessary dent. And in case you didn't catch that, the problem there was not what he did, certainly not the following of scriptural precedent, but how he went about doing it.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But you say it yourself; this Pope has 'damaged' the Church! 'Damaged' - not through nepotism, avarice or bloodshed or even neglect and bad management - but through following a scriptural precedent.
quote:Either you are mistaking me for someone else, or you are mistaking doctrines for people. I tend to post a lot about philosophy, theology and scientific theory, not people.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Normally, even looking slightly askance at God's elect is enough to bring your wrath down on our heads!
quote:It is entirely possible that the conclave got it wrong. It has done so before. And if you ever were to try praying to God for your needs, then you would find out that prayers are not always answered by God in a straight "wish fulfilment" fashion.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Did the conclave get it wrong? Didn't God answer the peoples' prayer?
quote:Naw, Protestantism is too boring. But I do think that I'm a bit more unrestful than people give me credit for.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
IngoB, you're just a big fat protestant at heart after all
quote:I have seen this come up before, I don't remember if it was in Ecclesiantics or somewhere else on the Net.
Originally posted by IngoB:
By the way, since this old rule may speak to the point: where the old manner of genuflecting to prelates is still being maintained, it should be done with the left leg. Genuflections before the Holy Sacrament are done with the right leg. There is respect, and then there is RESPECT. There are kings, and then there is the KING. And your muscle memory here will leave you in no doubt that you are doing something similar yet essentially different. Clever people, the ritualists of old, really clever people...
quote:Well, I don't know that either. In fact, I don't even know if that rule is particularly ancient. I was just going by my usual experience that when I encounter a small but meaningful, clever liturgical detail, then it tends to be old. Anyway, my real point was that in terms of this little ritual, my real "ultimate ruler" get's the right leg, but popes and bishops do not, they will have to make do with the left leg. I find that rather fitting psychosomatic theology...
Originally posted by Pancho:
Anyhoo, my point is that I'm not sure that genuflecting on one knee to a prelate and on another to the Blessed Sacrament has always been a hard and fast rule.
quote:There is a certain irony in this. From my neck of the woods, we tend to be more than a little equivocal about the following guideline from scripture from the 13th Chapter of the Book of Hebrews.
Originally posted by IngoB:
OK, this is what I said, and you quoted it above, so presumably you have read it: "All those priests and perhaps bishops who ignored liturgical law on this before, without dispensation, will feel that they have done the right thing. That may not be formally true, given that they could not dispense themselves, but that's how it will be perceived. Do we need that kind of signal?"
quote:I'm sorry, but what on earth are you going on about? The only one I have ultimately submitted to is the Lord. The pope certainly plays an important role in the institution that the Lord has set up for my (and your) salvation. Hence vicariously, He can lay claim to and direct some of my obedience to the Lord. By that same token however he cannot simply fuck around with me like some spiritual version of Louis XIV. He is supposed to be my shepherd, he is supposed to lead me to green pastures and see to it that I'm well fed. That's his calling, and if he fails at it culpably, then he will burn in hell - and burn a good deal worse than I potentially would, with my petty sheepish sins. I fear no pope, why would I? He can do nothing but lead me to Christ or doom himself, the poor man.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And when the person in question is your "ultimate boss" to whom you are formally "ultimately submitted" certainly in earthly terms, it's just wise not to rush to judgment.
quote:Of course Pope Francis' authority is vicarious, given by the Lord. And of course he will have to give an account to the Lord for his exercise of that vicarious authority to the Lord. And of course you are entitled to have a critical opinion on the way that is exercised. That is common ground. I'm a protestant. I protest about things I see which are wrong. It's what we do. It's what Luther did.
17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.
quote:I have never, ever known this practice. Seems like some sort of joke.
Originally posted by IngoB:
this old rule may speak to the point: where the old manner of genuflecting to prelates is still being maintained, it should be done with the left leg. Genuflections before the Holy Sacrament are done with the right leg.
quote:No, it's true, though I think you'd befuddle most Anglican prelates if you tried it.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I have never, ever known this practice. Seems like some sort of joke.
Originally posted by IngoB:
this old rule may speak to the point: where the old manner of genuflecting to prelates is still being maintained, it should be done with the left leg. Genuflections before the Holy Sacrament are done with the right leg.
quote:That's evil what you've done there.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I swear I didn't mean to, but I just got the Hokey Pokey stuck in my head...
quote:No. I expect the Vatican will provide a quiet update of the regulations of this rite that makes the papal practice the new norm. Eventually.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Do the think the Vatican will - or should - issue a formal clarification along the lines of "he's the Pope he can do this all you others shouldn't"?
quote:An analogy, that hopefully gives a somewhat more accurate picture: Liturgical law is like traffic law, and priests are like car drivers. Is it true to say that car drivers obey traffic law? Yeah, well, largely, most of them. One could also say that most of them are on some occasions a bit ... sloppy. In a "making driving better for all" way, they would say, and perhaps there is truth to that. Nevertheless, there is a notable tension in most drivers when a police car is in the vicinity, as if suddenly rules matter just a tad more. Anyway, there are also horrible drivers. And some of them are plain reckless, ignoring traffic law quite on purpose. They may explain how this is good in their opinion ("the speed limits are all nonsense, I need to get where I want as fast as I want"), but they do not make driving better for all, surely. And now we have the minister of transport, who in a televised car procession runs a stop sign. But he can do that because he has ultimate power over traffic law, and can dispense himself of it. And yes, the procession was not about stop signs. It was about something else. Still, I think the minister of transport should stop at a stop sign. Or have it taken down in advance, if it disturbs whatever he is trying to do. Running a stop sign sends the wrong kind of message to other drivers, in particular the ones that aren't particularly careful drivers.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"If the Pope can do that, why can't I". Well, canon law says to the priests that he can dispense himself and they can't. That isn't new, is it?
quote:On matters of faith and morals, yes. But neither does all of life consist of faith and morals, nor does the exercise of that authority imply some kind of master - slave relationship between him and me. In fact, there isn't much of a personal relationship at all, really. The pope appears in my life, if at all, as a largely abstract force that rearranges some of the rule system that I more or less adhere to. And I would have to go to rather extraordinary lengths of systematic and public misbehavior (or perhaps heroic sanctity) to appear even as a minor blip on the pope's radar. In fact, the pope relies for his impact largely on the good will of Catholics paying attention to him. Which by and large they do not. Go to the next Catholic parish and ask the people there what they actually ever read or listened to of the many teachings of the previous pope. How many Catholics will you find who have read even one of his encyclicals, never mind all three?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For Catholics, the Pope is however the ultimate human authority on earth, isn't he?
quote:d) Following the glorious tradition of St Jerome and countless other lesser saints and curse, bitch or moan about it, if need be publicly, until one has let off sufficient steam. Seems perfectly Christian to me, positively scriptural.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
With Catholicism, the prudent remedies look like a) recognising the problem b) talking to the priest c) praying for the person in whom one has lost confidence.
quote:Indeed, there is that at least.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
quote:No - they nod and give a personal blessing when i do it. (Well, the high church ones do; I genuflect to low church ones too, in recognition of their orders)
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:No, it's true, though I think you'd befuddle most Anglican prelates if you tried it.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I have never, ever known this practice. Seems like some sort of joke.
Originally posted by IngoB:
this old rule may speak to the point: where the old manner of genuflecting to prelates is still being maintained, it should be done with the left leg. Genuflections before the Holy Sacrament are done with the right leg.
quote:And I somehow think that the Lord will have issues other than canon law to ask about at the Judgement.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course Pope Francis' authority is vicarious, given by the Lord. And of course he will have to give an account to the Lord for his exercise of that vicarious authority to the Lord.
quote:Barnabas, I think what you are talking about there is something we would consider as a "spiritual director / advisor". This is certainly a most useful institution, but it is precisely one that is sought by individuals out of their own free choice and with the aim to deepen their faith.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks for letting me know your circumstances. It helps me to understand your arguments better. Though I'm not sure whether it leaves me with any clearer understanding about what it means to the Catholic to be in submission, in any meaningful way, to the Pope. I can see why my analogy and experience doesn't really work for you, but I feel something ought to! That's probably a matter for other Catholics on board.
quote:Jesuits are usually excellent.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I fully intend to find myself one. But that's a lot more tricky than finding your local priest, obviously. If I manage to stay in a place for more than a couple of years, I will have a better chance of meeting someone whom I feel comfortable with. Monastics tend to be good, I hear, though they are of course rare beasts these days...
quote:Extending the tangent further, the above point is why I'm such a fan of home groups. When done well, you get a small group of people who can support, nurture and challenge one another (and 'one another' is a common refrain in the New Testament...).
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course you are quite right to point to the limited time available for one-one guidance between any pastor and any member of his flock.
quote:No, the Blessing was in Latin , but I do miss it sung
Originally posted by Ariel:
The Urbi et Orbi was short and sweet this morning! Out with the multiplicity of greetings in every language, a simple blessing in Italian, a wave to the crowd and that was it, leaving broadcasters everywhere frantically scrabbling for something to fill in an unexpected 20-minute gap between programmes.
.
quote:But the Apostles were all Jewish. Why is it okay to ignore this element of the Apostles' identity but not their gender?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
lilBuddha, it's not a sexist thing at all. The rite recalls Christ washing the feet of the Apostles. The simple, but inconvenient fact is that the Apostles were men and so that's what the rite has always (although only since1955 in the Roman Rite as part of the Mass of the Lord's Supper) required.
quote:I suspect it was fear that letting men wash women's feet or women have their feet washed by men in fancy outfits, might arouse suggestive and unholy thoughts that would be inappropriate in a liturgical context.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can anyone explain to me how excluding women from the foot-washing is anything other than neanderthal sexist rubbish? ...
quote:This rather goes, as I think Trisagion has indeed recognised, to the question about what the point of the exercise is. Just how important is the identity of the original people in the original foot-washing that is being commemorated?
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:But the Apostles were all Jewish. Why is it okay to ignore this element of the Apostles' identity but not their gender?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
lilBuddha, it's not a sexist thing at all. The rite recalls Christ washing the feet of the Apostles. The simple, but inconvenient fact is that the Apostles were men and so that's what the rite has always (although only since1955 in the Roman Rite as part of the Mass of the Lord's Supper) required.
quote:Check the date, Robert.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I found this page on Facebook. The Pope saying he's not going to use the infallibility clause is hardly news, since it has been so rarely invoked in the past. What I find more surprising is the author's prediction that Anglican orders will be recognised as valid, and that there may be substantial moves towards unity between Canterbury and Rome. I know nothing about the author, or how reliable he is as a commentator - does anyone else have any insights?
quote:That's what the Pharisees would have said about Jesus condemning the rituals and traditions of the Pharisees!
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Mudfrog your judgementalism and lack of sensitivity to the points that have been made about the question of what the ritual is to symbolise says all that needs to be said about the value of your condemnation.
I propose a SoF specific version of Godwin's Law called Mudfrog's Law, whereby anybody accusing another of being a Pharisee or of pharasaical behaviour is immediately deemed to have lost the argument.
Oh, this, and what Orfeo said, largely.
quote:Indeed. My point exactly.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mudfrog, it is worth remembering that Jesus didn't merely condemn the rituals. He basically told the Pharisees that they had missed the point. Or the principles involved.
Personally I think Francis is spot on, in that I think the principle of the foot washing was "be a servant".
quote:If it is just an April 1st spoof, I'm disappointed. I hoped there was a germ of truth in it somewhere.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Check the date, Robert.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I found this page on Facebook. The Pope saying he's not going to use the infallibility clause is hardly news, since it has been so rarely invoked in the past. What I find more surprising is the author's prediction that Anglican orders will be recognised as valid, and that there may be substantial moves towards unity between Canterbury and Rome. I know nothing about the author, or how reliable he is as a commentator - does anyone else have any insights?
quote:'Fraid it is. The Latin bit at the end says so - "Have a good April Fool's Day."
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If it is just an April 1st spoof, I'm disappointed. I hoped there was a germ of truth in it somewhere.
quote:
"Of all the Protestant groups today, it is The Salvation Army that represents the best chance of entering into full communion with Rome... I'm serious, for I see The Salvation Army as an authentic expression of classical Christianity. (They) are clear about the person and nature of Jesus Christ. You are close to Rome on many ethical issues. The ordination of your officers is for function and good order within the denomination and would not be an issue affecting priesthood."
Cardinal Bernard Law
quote:You are quoting Cardinal Bernard Law on this, the poster child of the sex scandal cover-ups in the US?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
"Of all the Protestant groups today, it is The Salvation Army that represents the best chance of entering into full communion with Rome... I'm serious, for I see The Salvation Army as an authentic expression of classical Christianity. (They) are clear about the person and nature of Jesus Christ. You are close to Rome on many ethical issues. The ordination of your officers is for function and good order within the denomination and would not be an issue affecting priesthood."
Cardinal Bernard Law
quote:A spiritual director can be a priest, and indeed, that would have a key advantage (namely, that he can provide the sacrament of confession). But it would not usually be one's parish priest. And given the usual time constraints on today's clergy, it won't be easy to find one who has the time. In principle though, and I think this is a very good principle, it could be anyone whom one trusts to provide "personalised wisdom". No matter whether lay, religious or clergy, no matter whether male or female, and within limits, no matter what age and station in life. (Though wisdom tends to come with experience.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think what you refer to as spiritual director/advisor is akin to the Orthodox "starets". Someone outside the formal hierarchy but identified as an effective spiritual guide.
quote:First, I don't really know what to do with "doesn't really work for me". I do not believe that there is any choice for you or me in this matter. This is not, specifically, an issue that you can point to in order to motivate a choice of denomination, in my opinion. Second, in a specific sense, I assign much greater "icon of Christ"-ness to any Catholic priest than you do to any of your ministers/elders. For of course I believe that every Catholic priest can literally act "in the person of Christ" and through the sacramental system perform acts that are strictly reserved to God (like forgiving sins). Third, by the same token, I have no major expectations about the personal "inspirational value" of any priest for me. Let me hasten to add that unlike most people, I'm fully aware that communication is a two-way street, and that if I am "not being fed" then it might well be because I'm bloody refusing to open my mouth. Still, I've met priest that have taught me something. I've met priests that seemed to me to be on a good path with Christ for themselves. But no shiny "icon of Christ" to run after for me so far, I'm afraid to say. (And frankly, quite a few priests too who manage to spiritually down me consistently...)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But the GP/MP (and higher hierarchical roles in medicine and politics) doesn't really work for me as a description of the priestly role. In your terms, the analogies seem to miss the need for the priest to be "an icon of Christ". Someone who conveys something of the Lord by word and deed.
quote:Well, a GP/MP combination in religious matters, as I stressed, would of course precisely be "in the business of restoring souls or leading in the paths of righteousness". That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at with the analogy. (That a priest is a "spiritual doctor" isn't exactly a new analogy. And a local political leader is perhaps not a bad update for the "shepherd - sheep" image among us sedentary non-herdsmen.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Fundamentally, it is the Christ-likeness which is the looked for characteristic of the Christian shepherd. Sheep look to the shepherd to lead beside still waters, to restore souls, to lead in the paths of righteousness, to be with them in the valley of the shadow of death. I'm not saying that GPs/MPs can't do some of that, but they are not noted for being in the business of restoring souls or leading in the paths of righteousness. But I appreciate it is just an analogy. I can see some sense in it, but these are my reservations.
quote:Both of which would be illicit in this matter, at least in general. Neither a priest nor an (arch)bishop have the right to unilaterally change the universal liturgy like that.
Originally posted by PeteC:
This can been done in two ways. One, that the priest deemed it seemly, for pastoral reasons, or 2) he sought and received the dispensation from the (Arch)bishop.
quote:In terms of "gender egalitarianism", which you will invariably apply to this as primary principle, this of course is sexist. As is the RCC as a whole with her all-male clergy and her insistence that women do not have absolute rights over the fruits of their womb. That doesn't get you very far though, you are merely preaching to your choir. In your terms, we Catholics (or at least the conservative ones, including most likely Pope Franics) are proud little sexists, who amazingly think that your morals are out of whack. So if you really want to talk with us Neanderthals, instead of just strutting your liberal credentials by making some disparaging remarks to the inevitable applause of your peers, then you have to descend into a world where symbols are not vetted for their political correctness and gender/LBGT compatibility first, and nevertheless are taken enormously seriously. It's the dark and mysterious Neanderthal way... there are even rumours of ritual cannibalism!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can anyone explain to me how excluding women from the foot-washing is anything other than neanderthal sexist rubbish? Whilst I do not think Francis will exactly change the tides of sexism built into the RCC, at least this is a positive thing he did.
quote:Well, normally the people getting their feet washed would all be Catholics. And by Catholic standards, that would be a sufficient appropriation (since of course Catholics claim the Jewish apostles as their own). I would suggest that the lawmaker did not in fact envisage that this rite would be ripped out of a parish context, and hence has given no explicit rule about the religious identity of those who have their feet washed. Pope Francis also innovated there, by washing Muslim feet. This is indeed a further departure from the once likely intended symbolism then. Except this time the "apostolic" symbolism was not encoded in law, but left implicit. (I note that also the number of men who would have their feet washed was not specified as twelve. I do not think that this was negligence on the part of the law maker, but simply an attempt to provide flexibility - in particular so that it could be carried out with fewer volunteers.)
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But the Apostles were all Jewish. Why is it okay to ignore this element of the Apostles' identity but not their gender?
quote:And you reversed LGBT
Originally posted by IngoB:
Typo: Grit my "death"? "Teeth", of course.
quote:Ha. Which is more often written GLBT. But I don't really think we have a priority system going on here.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:And you reversed LGBT
Originally posted by IngoB:
Typo: Grit my "death"? "Teeth", of course.
quote:Yes, agreed. This would certainly be a consistent position but, as IngoB notes, Pope Francis obviously went beyond this by washing the feet of people not under his direct pastoral / discipling care. I like the iconoclasm inherent in what he did but I suppose I also understand the concerns of folks like IngoB
Originally posted by orfeo:
There MIGHT be an argument that their position as the leaders of the church after Jesus was gone was important. In which case the fact that the church in question continues to insist on male leaders would have the end result that the people who got their feet washed were all male.
I would think there's a slightly better argument that being Jesus' disciples was more relevant to the ceremony, with the role reversal. In which case, any member of the Roman Catholic church would be a relevant choice.
Francis has gone one step further and said it's not about role reversal in that sense, it's simply about me being a servant - to anyone and anybody.
quote:Fools for Christ often express a truth unpalatable to rational folk.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:If it is just an April 1st spoof, I'm disappointed. I hoped there was a germ of truth in it somewhere.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Check the date, Robert.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I found this page on Facebook. The Pope saying he's not going to use the infallibility clause is hardly news, since it has been so rarely invoked in the past. What I find more surprising is the author's prediction that Anglican orders will be recognised as valid, and that there may be substantial moves towards unity between Canterbury and Rome. I know nothing about the author, or how reliable he is as a commentator - does anyone else have any insights?
quote:Who says these have to be alternatives, and on what basis?
Originally posted by Forthview:
Surely it depends as to whether we are seeing this ceremony as a re-enactment of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples or whether we see it as a symbol of the way in which Christians,spurred on by their divine master,wish to serve all of humanity,men and women,Christians,Jews,Muslims and all of humanity.
quote:If Jesus was only speaking to the disciples, this would not have been recorded, yet alone re-enacted liturgically.
Mandatum novum do vobis -' a new commandment I give you,that you love one another,as I have loved you.' Was Jesus in this instance only speaking to his rather small group of disciples or were they to carry the message to all of humanity ?
quote:The gospel of John does not used the noun "apostle" (except for once, in 13:16 as it happens, and then precisely not to indicate Christ's followers but simply general "messengers"). It's "disciples" for the twelve apostles throughout the Fourth Gospel, and yes, sometimes also for others (St John the Baptist's disciples) and in a more general sense for larger groups of Christ's disciples. But in chapter 13 it's pretty clearly Jesus and the twelve having supper together.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Even if we look at John 13, it says he washed his disciples' feet, not his apostles' feet. The church sees the latter as the proto-bishops, and teaches they were all male. But is the former group all male?
quote:Oh, that is so cute!
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:In terms of "gender egalitarianism", which you will invariably apply to this as primary principle, this of course is sexist. As is the RCC as a whole with her all-male clergy and her insistence that women do not have absolute rights over the fruits of their womb. That doesn't get you very far though, you are merely preaching to your choir. In your terms, we Catholics (or at least the conservative ones, including most likely Pope Franics) are proud little sexists, who amazingly think that your morals are out of whack. So if you really want to talk with us Neanderthals, instead of just strutting your liberal credentials by making some disparaging remarks to the inevitable applause of your peers, then you have to descend into a world where symbols are not vetted for their political correctness and gender/LBGT compatibility first, and nevertheless are taken enormously seriously. It's the dark and mysterious Neanderthal way... there are even rumours of ritual cannibalism!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can anyone explain to me how excluding women from the foot-washing is anything other than neanderthal sexist rubbish? Whilst I do not think Francis will exactly change the tides of sexism built into the RCC, at least this is a positive thing he did.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Defense of male-only feet washing is considerably more tenuous. The best you can do for not including women is Jesus did not explicitly say you can. For a church which often prides itself as a reasoning faith, this is most disturbing.
Simple historical reenactment: Jesus did wash the feet of the twelve, who were all male. The end.
quote:Yes. And not ride unicycles. Jesus did not give us permission to ride unicycles.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Do all recipients of foot-washing have to be bearded and circumsized too?
quote:Read thread and bible, it is.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
read thread this is not obvious from the text.
quote:You know, I was wondering overnight, which web browser did Jesus use? Shipmates who are keen to walk in his footsteps need to know that they are accessing the Ship in a divinely sanctioned fashion.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Yes. And not ride unicycles. Jesus did not give us permission to ride unicycles.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Do all recipients of foot-washing have to be bearded and circumsized too?
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
I'm no fan of political correctness.
If the Holy Thursday liturgy seeks to re-enact what Jesus did for his disciples, then it makes sense that the recipients would be male. However, if the liturgy is directed in living out Jesus' teaching, as he urges us to do, then it makes absolutely no matter who's feet we wash: male, female, Christian, Muslim or atheist. The point is that Jesus as our Lord and Teacher calls us to follow his act of service to one another.
quote:Well, marital status is a bit of a thorny issue. According to scripture, the first pope was married.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Same age, marital and disability status as the disciples?
quote:You're not gonna like this, but Quotes File.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, your knight in the shiny white soutane has already arrived and restored the gender balance. Maybe we can just leave it at that?
quote:Now I'm feeling all Moody Blues:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, your knight in the shiny white soutane has already arrived and restored the gender balance. Maybe we can just leave it at that?
quote:Since when has liturgy (especially that of Holy Week) been 'simple historical re-enactment'?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Defense of male-only feet washing is considerably more tenuous. The best you can do for not including women is Jesus did not explicitly say you can. For a church which often prides itself as a reasoning faith, this is most disturbing.
quote:Indeed, liturgy is more than re-enactment. And the exact historicity might also be debated...and it is even possible that more than the twelve had their feet washed by Him...
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Defense of male-only feet washing is considerably more tenuous. The best you can do for not including women is Jesus did not explicitly say you can. For a church which often prides itself as a reasoning faith, this is most disturbing.
quote:In Da Vinci's "Last Supper" it's clear that it's just Jesus and the 12. In John, I don't see it. I've always just assumed "disciples" in John 13 refers to the 12, but now that I'm looking for it, I don't find justification for that assumption.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The gospel of John does not used the noun "apostle" (except for once, in 13:16 as it happens, and then precisely not to indicate Christ's followers but simply general "messengers"). It's "disciples" for the twelve apostles throughout the Fourth Gospel, and yes, sometimes also for others (St John the Baptist's disciples) and in a more general sense for larger groups of Christ's disciples. But in chapter 13 it's pretty clearly Jesus and the twelve having supper together.
quote:This is IMHO perfectly plain from the circumstances, which paint an intimate setting. The disciples gather for a supper, key players make personal appearances (in particular Peter vs. Judas, but also John himself resting on Christ's breast). It follows a very long set of final instructions (chapter 14-17!), with Jesus clearly speaking "in the plain" to his disciples and taking more "by name" questions (Thomas, Philip, the other Judas). And at the end of this (chapter 18), they actually rise together and go to the garden of Gethsemane, for the showdown with Judas. There is not the slightest hint in any of this of the presence of a larger number of "second tier" disciples. I think it simply makes no sense to assume here a larger gathering, words like in 15:15 just would not apply outside of the circle of the twelve. Indeed, in some sense the very act we are discussing is a rather clear indicator of an intimate setting. Of course it is theoretically possible for Christ to have washed say 72 pairs of feet. But actually, this sign makes a lot more sense - timing wise - if he only had to go through a dozen. I really don't see a two hour long wash-a-thon there, but rather a prophetic sign, relatively short (perhaps twenty to thirty minutes) and sweet.
Originally posted by RuthW:
In Da Vinci's "Last Supper" it's clear that it's just Jesus and the 12. In John, I don't see it. I've always just assumed "disciples" in John 13 refers to the 12, but now that I'm looking for it, I don't find justification for that assumption. But I take it that you do -- what are you seeing that I'm not?
quote:given the patchiness of the gospel accounts, I'm not so sure about that. IMHO it is pretty bad theology to base any argument on something that is not mentioned in the gospels. Again, they are way too patchy for that. In that sense I have some sympathy for the slightly flippant "unicycle" argument.
Originally posted by IngoB:
if any woman had had her feet washed by Jesus there, I'm pretty sure we would have been told about that explicitly anyway.
quote:Ah, the old argumentum a silentio. I guess Aquinas didn't teach that that's a fallacy.
Originally posted by IngoB:
if any woman had had her feet washed by Jesus there, I'm pretty sure we would have been told about that explicitly anyway.
quote:Did you not have enough egg on your face already? An argument from silence is not generally a fallacy, but can be a legitimate tool depending on circumstances. In this case, all the text tells us for certain is that "disciples" had their feet washed. I have argued above why that most likely means the twelve only (and hence no women). But beyond that it is perfectly legitimate to point out that Christ washing women's feet would have been rather remarkable at that historical time, and hence likely would have been remarked upon. That's not proof negative, of course, but it sure does lessen the likelihood of any female feet having been washed there even further.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, the old argumentum a silentio. I guess Aquinas didn't teach that that's a fallacy. (tr: argument from silence)
quote:I think you're projecting a modern sensibility which focuses on gender onto an ancient system much more interested in social hierarchy. To consider an historical example from another time entirely, as moderns we're titillated/intrigued by the fact that male actors played female roles in Shakespeare's time. To an Elizabethan, a male actor dressing up like a woman was nowhere near as transgressive as a commoner dressing up like a king.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I bet that if there had been a larger group of disciple present, among them women, and if they all had their feet washed by Jesus, then we would have heard about these women getting their feet washed. That surely would have been a reversal of the usual social hierarchy of service that would have been remarkable beyond a mere reversal of the master - servant relationship, and hence would have been remarked upon, back then! The idea that we can read off a gender-egalitarian treatment from silence in the gospel seems anachronistic to me.
quote:I put forward a fact and asked a question. Asking a question puts egg on one's face? In what private Hell?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Did you not have enough egg on your face already?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, the old argumentum a silentio. I guess Aquinas didn't teach that that's a fallacy. (tr: argument from silence)
quote:I've read that sentence several times and I still don't understand it. The fact that the Church is unable to to ordain women is either true or false. No argument on any grounds will alter the fact that it is either possible or impossible. Accusations of sexism or otherwise are totally irrelevant. The whole reason why the ritual is restricted to men is because of the enormous confusion doing otherwise causes. Frankly I wish the ritual didn't exist as it is an innovation only a few decades old and subject to massive amounts of abuse. A small mercy is that it is optional so a priest can refuse to do it.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't buy the argument from silence either, especially as John's gospel says at the end that there was a whole lot more that Jesus did that wasn't included. IngoB's argument that it was an intimate gathering only supports that there wasn't a big crowd. But perhaps there were 15 or 16 people present. Maybe a couple of them were female. We don't know. The point is that they were Jesus' disciples, and we women too claim to follow Jesus. Gender shouldn't matter here. The claim that the Catholic Church's reasons for excluding women from the priesthood aren't rooted in institutional sexism is badly undercut if women can't be included in the foot-washing ritual.
quote:Indeed, except if one goes one deeper and asks why it is, as it claims, unable (I assume you refer to the "non possumus (tr. "we cannot")).
Originally posted by CL:
The fact that the Church is unable to to ordain women is either true or false. No argument on any grounds will alter the fact that it is either possible or impossible.
quote:Ruth - of course da Vinci is authoritative! Haven't you read Dan Brown?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:In Da Vinci's "Last Supper" it's clear that it's just Jesus and the 12. In John, I don't see it. I've always just assumed "disciples" in John 13 refers to the 12, but now that I'm looking for it, I don't find justification for that assumption.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The gospel of John does not used the noun "apostle" (except for once, in 13:16 as it happens, and then precisely not to indicate Christ's followers but simply general "messengers"). It's "disciples" for the twelve apostles throughout the Fourth Gospel, and yes, sometimes also for others (St John the Baptist's disciples) and in a more general sense for larger groups of Christ's disciples. But in chapter 13 it's pretty clearly Jesus and the twelve having supper together.
But I take it that you do -- what are you seeing that I'm not?
quote:We are not discussing Shakespeare's England, and we are certainly not discussing transvestism (WTF? here's my bet how 1stC Palestine Jews would have handled transvestism: stone first, ask questions later). The society of 1stC Palestine was indeed highly interested in social hierarchy. And as a general rule, if you were a woman, then all other things equal your social status was a crapload lower. Do you have an serious doubts that we are talking about a patriarchy there? So Christ acting against that would have been remarkable.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think you're projecting a modern sensibility which focuses on gender onto an ancient system much more interested in social hierarchy. To consider an historical example from another time entirely, as moderns we're titillated/intrigued by the fact that male actors played female roles in Shakespeare's time. To an Elizabethan, a male actor dressing up like a woman was nowhere near as transgressive as a commoner dressing up like a king. I'm not intimately familiar with sumptuary laws in first century Judea versus laws dealing with transvestism, but it seems like a modernist assumption that of course gender distinctions are more important than distinctions of social hierarchy.
quote:But of course, if in this setting Christ - an unmarried Rabbi - had started washing women's feet, nobody would have batted an eyelid...?
Jewish Encyclopedia
FEET, WASHING OF. ... —In Rabbinical Literature:
This was a service which the wife was expected to render her husband (Yer. Ket. v. 30a); according to Rab Huna, it was one of the personal attentions to which her husband was entitled, no matter how many maids she may have had; likewise, according to the Babylonian Talmud (Ket. 61a), besides preparing his drink and bed, the wife had to wash her husband's face and feet (comp. Maimonides, "Yad," Ishut, xxi. 3; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 80, 4).
quote:The explicit context (John 13:12-16) for this was simply that of "master - servant". I have not read any claim that washing of feet was exclusively done by women (wives). Rather, I read that normally it was done by the person themselves, and in a rich place perhaps by a slave. Actually, that precisely is indicated by the Talmud rule that a husband could ask this of a wife even if there were servants (i.e., the normal thing would have been to let the servants do it, but this was considered as a symbolic gesture between husband and wife). The point I made was simply that it likely would have been mentioned if Jesus had washed the feet of a woman there.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Are we agreeing that the historical reference indicated seems to define Jesus's foot-washing as a wifely act?
quote:It makes perfect sense to me. The Catholic Church has some teachings which present a greater cross to women than to men. I don't see how this simple fact can be evaded. It also has teachings that could have arisen out of misogyny, or at least androcentrism. In fact, misogyny and androcentrism both exist in the Church. I'd like to think they exist to a lesser extent than they do in a society as a whole, but that may well be wishful thinking on my part.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:I've read that sentence several times and I still don't understand it.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The claim that the Catholic Church's reasons for excluding women from the priesthood aren't rooted in institutional sexism is badly undercut if women can't be included in the foot-washing ritual.
quote:Uh, no. You still need to prove that a servant washing feet wouldn't wash both the men and women's feet (and that a male servant would not wash women's feet). If Jesus is washing the feet of his disciples and taking on a servants role to all the honoured guests, then unless women were specifically excluded from having their feet washed by a male servant, it wouldn't be a problem. Now I'm no authority on Second Temple Jewish foot-washing practices, so I can't answer that question.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:The explicit context (John 13:12-16) for this was simply that of "master - servant". I have not read any claim that washing of feet was exclusively done by women (wives). Rather, I read that normally it was done by the person themselves, and in a rich place perhaps by a slave. Actually, that precisely is indicated by the Talmud rule that a husband could ask this of a wife even if there were servants (i.e., the normal thing would have been to let the servants do it, but this was considered as a symbolic gesture between husband and wife). The point I made was simply that it likely would have been mentioned if Jesus had washed the feet of a woman there.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Are we agreeing that the historical reference indicated seems to define Jesus's foot-washing as a wifely act?
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by Hart:
If you understand that rite as symbolizing God's kenotic love for humanity, but the only members of humanity you depict are men, you start ferment suspicion in people's heads: "Do they really think that God only emptied himself for men?"
quote:I'm no expert in that either. But even if male servants were in fact washing the feet of the lady of the house or her female guests, I would still expect that Christ washing women's feet would have been remarkable beyond Christ washing His (male) disciples feet. Because Christ would have reversed not only the teacher - student hierarchy, but also the male - female hierarchy at the same time. Admittedly through adopting a single lowly role (the servant), but I doubt that this "extra reversal" would have gone unnoticed in a deeply patriarchal society. But perhaps male servants did not wash female feet anyway. Again, patriarchal societies tend to be rather cagey about women showing too much of their body to men other than their husbands. All in all, I just don't think that this would have been glossed over.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Uh, no. You still need to prove that a servant washing feet wouldn't wash both the men and women's feet (and that a male servant would not wash women's feet). If Jesus is washing the feet of his disciples and taking on a servants role to all the honoured guests, then unless women were specifically excluded from having their feet washed by a male servant, it wouldn't be a problem. Now I'm no authority on Second Temple Jewish foot-washing practices, so I can't answer that question.
quote:Good question, though I think it overthinks the matter. The Last Supper was, or at least stands in the tradition of, the Jewish Passover meal. And that is celebrated with all the family, irrespective of gender. So in that case the gender of the apostles could be seen as accidental (as far as partaking in the celebration goes). Furthermore, clearly Christ gave instructions on how to use the Eucharist. It was a celebration explicitly passed on by Him to the apostles. So we can assume that what we have now was built on His instructions initially. Whereas in the case of the washing of the feet, we have ourselves turned something that Christ did not command us to repeat into a rite. And while the washing of feet certainly was ancient custom, the role reversal wasn't, and there's no long Jewish tradition to connect to. Again, I think it really is fair to assume that behind the old rule "only men" nothing deeper (or more sinister) is to be found than a simple "historical match" to what actually happened back then. A bit like a passion play also goes for a "quasi-accuracy", because the intention is to depict the events of the past (albeit in a stylised form).
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm still puzzling over the comment a few pages back that because only men's feet were washed at the Last Supper, that therefore only men's feet should be washed at our (or at least, the Roman Catholic) ritual use of that action. Makes me wonder why, on that logic, women are admitted to the Eucharist, another ritual action going back to the Last Supper.
quote:For once, we seem to be in near perfect agreement. The only thing I would quibble with is that you are by no means a "non-entity", and are not excused of following the law due to that. Not even I can say that of myself. (I'm guessing you did not mean it quite that way, but it could be read like that.)
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That being said, the main issue that is at stake is that the Pope has acted lawlessly. It's one thing for me to do that because I am a non-entity, quite another for the supreme authority in the Church. That's despotism - "I make the law for you but I do not feel constrained by it myself". That's the real criticism of the pope's action. As it happens, I think what he did was a magnificent display of exactly what the rite is about - seek to serve not to be served, and that means all people, and especially the poor and the outcast. But better to clarify the liturgical law to reflect that and then act upon it, rather than simply thumb his nose at it.
quote:Hell, we've been saying that about the pope for 1500 years.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That being said, the main issue that is at stake is that the Pope has acted lawlessly. It's one thing for me to do that because I am a non-entity, quite another for the supreme authority in the Church. That's despotism - "I make the law for you but I do not feel constrained by it myself". That's the real criticism of the pope's action.
quote:Do you really mean that or are you using 'demonic' rhetorically? Isn't it a bit of a cop out to attribute our prejudices and misuse of scripture to bolster up our own authority to the malign activity of demons?
Originally posted by Hart:
... I really want people to believe that those teachings do not have as their chief cause misogyny and androcentrism (even though these demonic forces were at times complicit in the determination and promotion of the church's teaching). ...
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm still puzzling over the comment a few pages back that because only men's feet were washed at the Last Supper, that therefore only men's feet should be washed at our (or at least, the Roman Catholic) ritual use of that action. Makes me wonder why, on that logic, women are admitted to the Eucharist, another ritual action going back to the Last Supper.
quote:No, I was not using it as an excuse for not keeping the law, but rather that the consequences of my defaulting are not as grave as the consequences of the supreme authority not keeping the law.
Originally posted by IngoB:
For once, we seem to be in near perfect agreement. The only thing I would quibble with is that you are by no means a "non-entity", and are not excused of following the law due to that. Not even I can say that of myself. (I'm guessing you did not mean it quite that way, but it could be read like that.)
quote:You may well have been, but then you may have been tilting at windmills. It's not usual for a pope simply to ignore a universal law. Indeed, they are usually rather fastidious about it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hell, we've been saying that about the pope for 1500 years.
quote:I'm sorry; but does that negate everything he ever said on other matters?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:You are quoting Cardinal Bernard Law on this, the poster child of the sex scandal cover-ups in the US?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
"Of all the Protestant groups today, it is The Salvation Army that represents the best chance of entering into full communion with Rome... I'm serious, for I see The Salvation Army as an authentic expression of classical Christianity. (They) are clear about the person and nature of Jesus Christ. You are close to Rome on many ethical issues. The ordination of your officers is for function and good order within the denomination and would not be an issue affecting priesthood."
Cardinal Bernard Law
quote:This is both rather off-topic for the thread, and deserves a longer response than I have time for now, but I'll offer a few thoughts.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do you really mean that or are you using 'demonic' rhetorically? Isn't it a bit of a cop out to attribute our prejudices and misuse of scripture to bolster up our own authority to the malign activity of demons?
quote:Sometimes I think that tilting at windmills is what the Orthodox do best. Sigh.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You may well have been, but then you may have been tilting at windmills.
quote:Yeah, it kinda does. You have a major lapse in a given arena, you lose all credibility in anything related. Does his cock-up mean everything else he says is incorrect? No. Does it mean he loses massive amounts of credibility? Yes.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I'm sorry; but does that negate everything he ever said on other matters?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:You are quoting Cardinal Bernard Law on this, the poster child of the sex scandal cover-ups in the US?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
"Of all the Protestant groups <snip>
Cardinal Bernard Law
quote:And adding a word to the creed agreed by the universal church in council isn't ignoring/breaking a universal law?
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You may well have been, but then you may have been tilting at windmills. It's not usual for a pope simply to ignore a universal law. Indeed, they are usually rather fastidious about it.
quote:The Pope is allowed to do whatever he wants in spite of established custom or even the rulings of universal councils when it matters; he's not allowed to only when it doesn't.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
No.
quote:Well, it is interesting that so many of these theological stances, supposedly having nothing to do with sexism, seem to have the effect of "confusing" many into thinking that these same stances (always promulgated by males) are indeed designed to keep women in a place inferior to those making the promulgations. As Dana Carvey's Church Lady character would say, "How con-VEEN-ient!"
Originally posted by CL:
The fact that the Church is unable to to ordain women is either true or false. No argument on any grounds will alter the fact that it is either possible or impossible. Accusations of sexism or otherwise are totally irrelevant. The whole reason why the ritual is restricted to men is because of the enormous confusion doing otherwise causes.
quote:No conspiracy theory (I'm definitely not into that sort of thing) -- just observing what is out there to be openly seen. I'm not even saying that, on an abstract theoretical level anyway, that it is possible that sexism is irrelevant to the issue, but on a human experience and a "by their fruits you shall know them" level, many humans might not find it irrelevant.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It seems to me a most inconVEENient matter, frankly...unless one subscribes to some kind of conspiracy theory.
quote:Well, TT, there is this other term which might be more accurate. If indeed the Pope was signalling a general change to a Rite, rather than dispensing himself specifically for a particular occasion, I think I'd describe it as an isolated act of benevolent dictatorship!
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That being said, the main issue that is at stake is that the Pope has acted lawlessly. It's one thing for me to do that because I am a non-entity, quite another for the supreme authority in the Church. That's despotism - "I make the law for you but I do not feel constrained by it myself". That's the real criticism of the pope's action.
quote:Wrong again. My bland "No" in response to the filioque issue, as raised by MarsmanTJ, is because it is a woefully misinformed idea to suggest that a Pope simply willy-nilly inserted the clause off his own bat. It took a long time, with much discussion (including with Eastern Fathers) and repeated petitions from Synods and others before a Pope eventually made the formal insertion of "filioque". And that's the right way round: he formalised the insertion, he didn't just decide one day to say it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The Pope is allowed to do whatever he wants in spite of established custom or even the rulings of universal councils when it matters; he's not allowed to only when it doesn't.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
No.
quote:Fair comment.
Originally posted by malik3000:
No conspiracy theory (I'm definitely not into that sort of thing) -- just observing what is out there to be openly seen. I'm not even saying that, on an abstract theoretical level anyway, that it is possible that sexism is irrelevant to the issue, but on a human experience and a "by their fruits you shall know them" level, many humans might not find it irrelevant.
quote:Not to mention the two on the road to Emmaus who return to meet the Twelve (possibly the same two?) having recognised Jesus in that most iconic of actions--the breaking of bread...
Originally posted by hatless:
Incidentally, in at least one of the synoptics (I'm too lazy to look this up) Jesus sends two disciples on ahead to prepare the room for the his last supper, then arrives later with the twelve. So there were at least fifteen people present, unless the two skivvies were expected to go down the chippy for their supper.
quote:It is as it should be - and is just like his predecessor's. He recently credited Benedict XVI as pointing the way here. But you wouldn't know that from reading the MSM.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I LIKE this Pope. [...] His attitude on sexual abuse by priests - superb.
quote:Given that he's recently washed a female Muslim prisoner's, I'd say you were in with a chance.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Anyway, Francis is MY Pope too. I'd wash his feet any time. If he'd let me. Would he wash mine?
quote:Perhaps you've only heard of the abuse by English Speakers.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Tangent, what I find intriguing about the abuse: it's by English speakers. I've heard that it's further correlated with a particular U.S. seminary in the '70s. Worth a thread?
quote:Well, the US seminary can't be blamed for the abuse in Canada, or for the abuse in Ireland, or for the abuse in Germany, or for the abuse in Australia, or for the abuse in the UK, or for the abuse....
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Tangent, what I find intriguing about the abuse: it's by English speakers. I've heard that it's further correlated with a particular U.S. seminary in the '70s. Worth a thread?
