|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: White Smoke! Discuss the new pope...
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
What I take from IngoB's posts is
1) That the Pope was right to act as he did in a Christ-like way.
2) he was wrong not to amend the 'rules' in advance of so acting.
My inclination is to go with the Pope's approach. If amendment is necessary in the light of Christian 'charity' then let it be done retrospectively since rules cannot anticipate future possibilities.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
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.
You say it if you want; it's just what I was thinking.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ArachnidinElmet
Shipmate
# 17346
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'If a pleasant, straight-forward life is not possible then one must try to wriggle through by subtle manoeuvres' - Kafka
Posts: 1887 | From: the rhubarb triangle | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The rules were made for man, not man for the rules.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
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.
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.
I think that some of us are implying that this accusation is not totally unfounded. I don't think one can make the equations,
Torah = Judaism = Pharisee = Bad = Superseded.
Canon Law = Catholic = Good = Totally different.
The Torah is praised in the Scriptures. Jesus did not condemn it outright. He did condemn the Pharisees for not seeing the wood for the trees, operating the law in a way that indicating that they did not understand what God was about, and preferred the law because you could keep everything tied up that way. It was hard work keeping it, but that was a lot easier than trying to understand God or relate to him.
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
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.
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?
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?
It may be that this Pope is more media savvy than, for example, his predecessor. That doesn't make him disingenuous. Why can he not be both media savvy and sincere in carrying out these actions?
There is a paradox in Christ-likeness, sometimes referred to as servant-leadership. In my tradition, (where there is quite a lot of footwashing) this act of footwashing is seen as a practical demonstration of the truth revealed by this famous incident from the synoptics.
"Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
And then there is this from John 13
quote:
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.
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".
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.
The Pope's actions are clearly some kind of extension of what was regarded as normal practice, but I take Trisagion's word for it that they are licit. They seem Christ-like to me and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, rather than some kind of playing to the gallery.
Trisagion was also right to chide me for seeing nonconformism in this. We may indeed believe that within nonconformism, but the principle being enacted is a demonstration of mainstream Christian belief.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This banging on about the supposed "law breaker" Christ is simplistic
This "banging on" about the Magisterium being God-given is simplistic, too.
OK, I admit to being just a Tablet-reading cradle Catholic who hangs out with the Jesuits, and, according to Ingo, my resulting attitude once merited this from his side:
quote:
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?
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.
So be it.
Just as with any fundamentalist, one cannot have a discussion with someone whose (however elaborate) argument is built up on an a-priori assumption which one does not, or cannot, share.
But I guess it is only a matter of time before some charitable host moves this whole issue to the Dead Horses' realm, because we do not get anywhere.
The whole thing will lead nowhere. But at least it demonstrates that RCs have their rightful place on the decks of a Ship of Fools ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
IngoB, there is nothing self-contradictory or papalolatrous about my earlier post. The Pope is entitled to the courtesy of the presumption of good faith. The point being that we can know the reasons that can be reasonably inferred from his public statements but, in order to bring in a negative judgement of his actions, we would need to know even those reasons to which he has not adverted. I say that you can't have enough information for the latter, whilst we all have sufficient or, at least, quite a lot of data for the former.
If you have never met another of whom you could use the John the Baptist/Jesus analogy without being guilty of idolatry, then I am genuinely, deeply sorry for you. 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.
I am sorry to have ascribed to you opinions that you do not hold relating to the purpose of the rite. 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". It does not require any desire to seek an equivalence between the customs of pharasaical Judaism and the law of the Church to say that. You seem to have a problem distinguishing between equivalence and the use of analogy: how very Barthian.
Your approach to theology, liturgy and canon law is very thorough and clear. The clarity and candour with which you express the Faith here is often commendable. However, the way in which you write does suffer from the defect of being almost always binary. It is an approach often found in scientists in their approach to religion but more often in biologists than in physicists, especially those working in the field of theoretical physics. I have been doing some teaching of Theology for five years now (in a Pontifical faculty and in a secular University) and practicing Canon Law for nearly twenty. I have encountered this in several students and in not a few canonists. Taken piece by piece their assertions are more of less correct and precise but taken together the whole is always less than the sum of the parts. There is something about failing to see the wood for the trees about it. Your posts about matters of liturgical law - in this case in particular - reveal an understanding of the particular, whilst ignoring the overarching principles that need to be borne in mind.
I repeat, neither you nor I can judge whether the pastoral concerns, both publicly stated or reasonably inferred and privately held, satisfy the tests against which a decision to dispense from a particular provision might be weighed and the only proper and charitable position to take is that the Pope had his reasons, those reasons were sufficient and he was entitled to act upon those reasons in the manner that he did.
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. 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?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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?
If not already clear from my post; seconded.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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?
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:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a paradox in Christ-likeness, sometimes referred to as servant-leadership.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
quote:
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".
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.
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
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.
I didn't know that it was supposed to be only men who had their feet washed.There is perhaps a point in bishops washing the feet of their priests in commemoration of the apostles but it in ordinary parish,certainly here in Scotland it is not uncommon for women to be among the volunteers.
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. Many of us will carry with us the memory of some small (possibly symbolic) ceremony
which has made us proud (in a good sense) to have been associated with.
Okay it is a liturgical service,but it can also been seen simply as a symbol of the service which the new bishop of Rome wants to offer to the whole of humanity.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
IngoB writes, among other things: 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.
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Greatly daring, and conscious as a Host of the potentially Hellish turn hereabouts, I'm going to try and address some of your substantive issues IngoB. And I'm going to try to be eirenic in doing that.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a paradox in Christ-likeness, sometimes referred to as servant-leadership.
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.
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:
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...
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.
So Pope Francis may very well have been using this public event to "re-set the tone", and in keeping with his earlier pronouncements about ministry to the poor. That seems to me to be both in keeping with Jesus' original private actions and his already expressed intentions.
Your follow up point is worth making. If in any sense the Muslim girl has simply been used to make a point, set the tone, that would be sad. But we cannot know that to be true at this point.
I am not sure what follow up there may be. I would be surprised if it were to be zero. Even in terms of media savvy, there will be some awareness that, on that point, the world may be watching. And on a purely personal level, I have no reason to believe that this Pope will not see the need for follow up as a moral imperative.
Had we not better wait and see, if we have doubts?
So far as his handling of the Curia is concerned, we have very little to go on. How will he integrate servant and leader in that context?
Well, here's a thought from the world of work. We always used to say at my place of work that there were two approaches to assuming a new leadership responsibility. The first was "new broom", the second was "listen and learn". I always thought that was also too binary. My own view was that there things you needed to tackle right away, and other things where listen and learn was right. Part of the wisdom of "assuming command" is to tell which is which. I hope and pray the Pope will have such wisdom; right at the moment it just seems far too soon to draw any sort of conclusions on that matter.
Nothing wrong in using critical faculties, IngoB, but it's a good idea in these early days to keep all such assessments provisional. 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. You may say things you regret, have to eat your words etc. Your call of course.
[ 30. March 2013, 11:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
He's the Pope. He's the visible representative of the head of the faith. We've already had plenty of popes who get the job and only seem to emerge for state visits or the Urbi Et Orbi. 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?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Trisagion
That is actually a much better expression of what I really meant, Trisagion. Integration was too imprecise. The poles are not equal and opposite. I think we are often "disintegrated" as human beings precisely because we miss the primary importance of servanthood when we attempt to lead.
[ 30. March 2013, 13:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
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. ...
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?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The role of Pope is inevitably wrapped up in symbolism. That's just as true when a Pope is standing in front of large numbers of people dressed in fine robes as it is when washing the feet of a Muslim girl. It doesn't suddenly become all terribly symbolic just because there's a change in the symbolism.
If you're the leader of any large organisation, your actions are constantly about 'setting the tone' for the organisation.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
I pray for Francis, the Pope. Vivat.
Amen! ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Amen.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Oh my goodness, IngoB. I can't believe what you've just posted. It's like the wizard of Oz stepping out from behind the curtain!
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. And you're having a paddy over one who breaks a canon law in order to follow the example of Jesus Christ?
'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. 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. Admittedly, rather creatively and in a freshly contextual way which I appreciate might not agree with the (arguably dead) letter of canon law.
But your personal comments on the guy. You know, you might well be right. You might well have an insight into his soul and conscience and ministry that nobody else here has. You clearly think you do, anyway. Though God help us if it had been a Protestant who had come up with anything like the stuff you're saying about your own new Holy Father. Normally, even looking slightly askance at God's elect is enough to bring your wrath down on our heads!
Or maybe Francis isn't God's elect? 'Unfortunately' - he's a 'real' Jesuit? Did the conclave get it wrong? Didn't God answer the peoples' prayer?
IngoB, you're just a big fat protestant at heart after all !
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Generally speaking, again, this thread needs to be less personal.
Thankyou,
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
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?
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.
I'm somewhat skeptical of Pope Francis due to what he has done so far as pope, and I find the current ado about him here mildly embarrassing. But I guess there will be many years during which Pope Francis can convince me of his qualities, or the lack thereof.
quote:
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.
Here's a video.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
Says who?
quote:
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.
*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.
quote:
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.
Yeah. Everybody else but me has been really careful to keep their assessments provisional. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
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.
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.
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:
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?
Maybe Obama should run for pope?
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
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.
I'm sorry, but this is simply blatant and vicious misrepresentation.
quote:
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.
Well, yes, I'm absolutely certain that the Church will not get destroyed by Pope Francis.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Normally, even looking slightly askance at God's elect is enough to bring your wrath down on our heads!
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Did the conclave get it wrong? Didn't God answer the peoples' prayer?
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
IngoB, you're just a big fat protestant at heart after all !
Naw, Protestantism is too boring. But I do think that I'm a bit more unrestful than people give me credit for.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
I only have time for a brief comment, but first let me say I hope this thread doesn't get locked for whatever reason because I'd like to come back when I have time and comment on something from a couple of pages ago. For now, for what it's worth I can't resist commenting on something:
quote:
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...
I have seen this come up before, I don't remember if it was in Ecclesiantics or somewhere else on the Net.
Now, it could be that we are just a bunch of peasants but my family is old-fashioned enough that when we would visit my grandparents in Old Mexico, as soon as we got out of the station wagon and greeted my grandparents we would first genuflect and kiss their right hand. We would genuflect on our right knee just like in church.
Now this is is a very, very old-fashioned way of doing things but that part of the family is from a vert rural part of Mexico and as I once described to a friend that growing up was like having one foot in the present-day and one foot in "Death Comes for the Archbishop". If you don't believe you can see this way of greeting an elder in an old classic movie of Mexican cinema called Maclovia.
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. At least among us rural folk of a certain part of the world (known for it's love of ritual) the distinction became lost, at least when it came to family elders.
Also, whatever reservations I might have, I remain very hopeful and even excited but I'll have to wait for another day to explain myself.
[ 31. March 2013, 02:13: Message edited by: Pancho ]
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
@IngoB. Who says? Moi. It's my interpretation-- no more. Let's remember that media attention on religious matters is generally negative and dismissive, and rarely informed. Popes, by their primacy, visible singularity (that white outfit and the golf cart!), and sovereign status, have a rare opportunity to bring the Xn message to a wider audience--- allow me to assure IngoB that non-RCs really appreciate this, as their own leaders can never dream to have that access and presence (and generally shouldn't, but that's another thread).
Popes' electronic presence is a manifestation of their teaching role and, instead of encyclicals and motu proprios, sound bites are the means.
For RCs, how he goes about this is his business. Chapter 3, para 25 of Lumen Gentium tells us: His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. Pius XII used the radio, John XXIII used his visibility (his prison visits in Rome may have been the inspiration for Pope Frank's Maundy Thursday efforts), and J2P2's theatricality is too well-known for repetition..
But, as I am not a minion of the Scarlet Lady (to use the terminology of one of my former schoolmates from Co.Armagh), I suppose that it's for others to say. Still, IngoB did ask.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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...
P.S.: I'm personally familiar with Filipino "Mano po!" (having been on both sides of this custom, as it happens), which I reckon is not a world away from what you are describing. But no genuflection there.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Oy vey!
Happy Easter to all.
IngoB, I certainly appreciate your concern about priests who have violated liturgical law in the past (and continue to do so) will feel vindicated by Francis' violation of it on Holy Thursday. Of course, he's the Pope, so he can dispense himself.
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"?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
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:
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.
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
So far as I can see, you are not directly affected by what the Pope has done. Nor is any priest compelled to make the assumptions you say they might.
"Do we need that kind of signal?" Presumably you mean that canon law can be dispensed with? Canon law says there are dispensations and the Pope can dispense himself. So his actions are licit.
But other priests are not the Pope. In Catholic terms he has a particular call on his life that puts him in a more exposed position. He can also exercise authority in a unique way. Other catholic priests know that.
"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?
On the general point of submission, you are right that the ultimate authority is the Lord. Which is why I said "certainly on earth". For Catholics, the Pope is however the ultimate human authority on earth, isn't he? You are also under orders to submit with confidence to the "ἡγέομαι hēgeomai" - that's the Greek, literally those in authority over you. That means priests, bishops, Cardinals and ultimately the Pope within the church. There is a hierarchy of human authority within Catholicism and the Pope is at the head of that, and Christ is the head over him. That's what I meant by "certainly on earth". I am also submitted, just within a different structure. Doesn't mean I don't make my mouth go at times. But when my confidence is dented in my elders, that means I've certainly got a problem of personal submission within the church I belong to. They may have a problem, but it's a different problem! They are answerable to a higher authority.
Now in my structure, we have a kind of compromise. In independent congregational churches, elders are indeed seen as responsible to God but they are also answerable for their charge to a meeting of the whole congregation. The Baptists, for example, can declare a corporate vote of no confidence in their minister at a properly convened meeting of members. Unless and until that happens, they are under a call of submission to the spiritual guidance and direction of their minister, following Hebrews 13:17. There's a certain tension in that, but that's the way it works.
From your posts, it does seem as though your personal confidence in this Pope has been dented because as you see it he has dented the authority of canon law by dispensing himself. Mine would not be, if I were a Catholic. So that's probably why we differ. I'm suggesting "wait and see, the dent in your confidence seems real enough, but why not cut him and yourself a bit of slack?"
Within the church to which you belong, you can't call for an authoritative public meeting of members to discuss the matter to see what support your view may have. So if you have a problem of confidence which is in your interests to resolve, what might your remedies be, apart from sounding off here. Which for all I know may be helpful in some ways?
Before that, here is a truth I have seen demonstrated many times in congregational churches. If anyone loses confidence in the minister, or chief elder, or the elders in general, and does not do anything to seek restoration of that confidence, they have taken the first step towards becoming an underminer.
A loss of confidence, unless remedied, increasingly distorts the view taken of anything the minister or elder does. If confidence cannot be restored, trust goes, and if trust goes there are only two possible end results. Either the member goes (normal) or the minister goes (exceptional, because the loss of confidence has become general).
That's independent ecclesiology. 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.
Best wishes, IngoB. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. I'm just off to celebrate that.
[ 31. March 2013, 12:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
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.
Well, good for him. While I used to enjoy the greetings in many different languages, it is admittedly time-consuming, and JPII used to give them all in so strong an accent that all the 60 languages he was speaking in sounded just like Polish.
[ 31. March 2013, 13:23: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
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.
I have never, ever known this practice. Seems like some sort of joke.
No, it's true, though I think you'd befuddle most Anglican prelates if you tried it.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I swear I didn't mean to, but I just got the Hokey Pokey stuck in my head...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I swear I didn't mean to, but I just got the Hokey Pokey stuck in my head...
That's evil what you've done there.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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"?
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.
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For Catholics, the Pope is however the ultimate human authority on earth, isn't he?
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?
As a matter of fact, under regular circumstances my "line manager" is my local bishop, not the pope. And even that is very largely theoretical. I've never met the bishop supposedly responsible for me, in all my time as Catholic in various parishes in different countries. I've never heard "my" bishop preach other than by some priest reading a pastoral letter now and then. Even this "boss" is largely a theoretical construct unless I make a serious nuisance of myself. As for priests, I suffer their trite and half-heretic sermons and they suffer my banal and sad sins in confession, and by and large that is the sum total of our spiritual interaction (well, plus the Eucharist obviously, which is however practically speaking not an occasion for individual nuances). Now, of course we can give an account of all the various powers in faith and morals that these people have over me, in a manner of speaking. Likewise we can tell grand stories about their responsibilities to me. But to turn this into some kind romantic story about spiritual serfdom has laughably little to do with any actual Catholicism that I have ever seen.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Indeed, there is that at least.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There's an interesting contrast there, IngoB. In independent congos, where we are known to be a stroppy lot, there is a general understanding that submission to elders has considerable practical merit. It's not at all like serfdom, but it is often a good exercise in practical humility. I've known personally all the ministers and elders in my local congo, have certainly not always agreed with them, but have recognised their authority in our form of "local government". And through knowing them, I've found out what it means in practice to trust them when I disagree with them. That trust has been under strain sometimes, but has never seemed to me to have been displaced. It seems to me to be a really important part of our local community life that this should be the case. It helps us work and worship together.
Whereas in your situation as described, personal submission to the one who has charge of you seems to be a much more remote matter. I hadn't fully appreciated that. Personally, I wouldn't like it at all. It seems to me to leave your understanding and application of faith very much up to your interpretation of the magisterium and canon law. Of course I appreciate the inestimable value of the sacraments in your feeding. It's just that for me the whole "members one of another" experience of faith works very well with folks I know under a leadership I know and trust. I love the community I belong to. It has helped me enormously in my journey of faith.
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.
[ 31. March 2013, 16:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
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.
I have never, ever known this practice. Seems like some sort of joke.
No, it's true, though I think you'd befuddle most Anglican prelates if you tried it.
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)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I express this tentatively, not being a Catholic, but I hope that the Vatican do confirm a change in the rules for other priests. Saying that as Pope he can excuse himself from the rules could be mistaken for saying that he's the only one who gets to be humble, which would be a pity.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
That's not the same as the relationship with the hierarchy though. (And indeed, in general I would consider it to be a bad idea if one picks the same people one is "obedient to" by location or individual circumstance in the hierarchy as "spiritual director / advisor".) Really, there's nothing deeply mysterious about the hierarchy. Your priest is a bit like having your GP and MP rolled into one, except concerning matters religious. And your local bishop is like the Professor at the University Hospital and the Party Whip rolled into one. And the pope is like the Surgeon General and the PM rolled into one.
Depending on your preferences, you can of course be more or less cozy with your local GP/MP (or even higher up). Some people like that relationship to be "chummy", other like it to be professional and limited to the necessary interactions. The latter is more my sort of preference. But in the end, your GP/MP has a job to do, and you are in some sense the very job they are doing, so there is always a sense of professional distance. Certainly from their side, I feel. If for no other reason that like any GP/MP, you are not the only one on their mind. They have, practically speaking, only limited time to deal with you. If you are looking more for an experienced guide, like an "older friend" or perhaps a "grandfather figure" or indeed a "guru" in the positive sense, then that would be more a spiritual director / advisor.
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...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
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...
Jesuits are usually excellent. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Using a dreadful football analogy because it seems to fit, I think that in my "world", pastors/shepherds and spiritual directors are "overlapping goalkeepers". You seem to see a much sharper distinction. 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. Very helpful for folks in training, or exploring a call, or already carrying out some pastoral role themselves; also for people experiencing particular difficulties where they are in the Christian journey and needing more time to work those through.
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. 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. That benefit which we derive from a starets in depth is also available from the priest as a kind of broadcast. Such "starets" exist in my neck of the woods also. In fact I've got one (specifically for a course of study) and very good he is too.
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.
And I appreciate we have wandered a good way away from the main purpose of the thread. There has been some point to the journey I think. We'll see if anyone else is interested in the tangent.
[ 31. March 2013, 22:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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...).
The leader(s) of each home group will only have, say, ten people under their wing and, in any case, the 'one another' nature of home groups can result in the leaders not actually doing all that much pastoring themselves. Their role is more about making sure that pastoring happens, likewise teaching, guidance, outreach, service and so on; not that they do it all themselves.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
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.
.
No, the Blessing was in Latin , but I do miss it sung
The Pope's talk beforehand was very good and of course, I love that he uses the open Popemobile (the interactions with the crowd are irresistible , with all the flags flying)
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
Originally posted by Angloid: Jesuits are usually excellent.
Indeed they are - the superior at Sydney's Jesuit seminary happens to be the S.A for this Anglo-Catholic as we know from where we both come from in terms of understanding, etc.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Barnabas' and Ingo's colloquium had it beginnings in whether the Pope, having dispensed himself from canon law, needs now to clarify for his brother priests that is now licit to wash the feet of women, I mentioned that a parish priest of my acquaintance (and others besides) have been washing the feet of women for a few decades.
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.
The parish priest has a certain amount of local authority. Many things which might seem contrary to Catholic teaching or liturgy are handled "for pastoral reasons". He can also discuss such things with the regular meetings that all priests in the diocese attend, either informally, or at the behest of the bishop.
The local (Arch)bishop has a great deal of power in his hands, and canon lawyers to advise him. What he decides to do, or not, in his diocese is up to him.
The bishop reports to the pope every 5 years or so in a report delivered in person. Should there be quandaries, he can discuss with his fellow bishops conference or appeal to Rome.
Any ways you look at it, the Pope is both very close and very distant from the troops on the ground. The chain of command is very long until the Pope is reached.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks Pete, that makes a lot of sense to me.
I think I understand the general principle of dispensation - including permission to do the "wrong thing" at the "right time" because it's "right in this case". It's a kind of variant on "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men". Exceptions are allowed for a perceived greater good. But in general, you can't dispense yourself unless you are no 1 in the hierarchy.
So I'm not surprised that there are delegated means of dispensation, a good deal of trust as well as accountability in how they are exercised. "Even secular bureaucracies do the same" - well a little bit anyway. Even there, rules are monitored by people with brains and hearts and souls, not calculating ciphers.
The more extensive the "code of practice" - or the more draconian the leader - the less scope there is for the leavening of human discretion - and I suppose the less scope for error or willful disobedience to the intention of the leader, the "spirit" of the rules. The converse is also true; the more scope there is for discretion, the greater the need for good and trustworthy character in the leader (at any level) and the greater the scope for abuse if someone of defective character gets in charge.
The common feature in the church, however large or small it may be, (or so it seems to me at any rate), is the vital importance of Christ-character in those who have authority over us. On the simplest of levels, we have this compelling scripture "my sheep hear my voice".
What is interesting to me is that lots of us up and down the candle have somehow connected to this action of the Pope as displaying Christ-character in a very obvious "luminous" way. And for folks outside the church altogether, there is a perceived goodness in this.
Which doesn't mean that those who demur, wave warning signals, haven't got a point. I think IngoB's follow up point was very pertinent, for example.
I'm clearly in trouble at this point because I keep hearing in my mind the importance of "trust, but verify!" I think the less we trust someone, the more time we spend on verification processes.
I guess for Catholics the whole process of selection of the Pope is in the end a "trust in God" thing. Do we get God's man for this time this way? Which I suppose is why my instinct says that in the early stages trust is very much in play, even if actions cause us to scratch our heads. And verification remains some sort of personal factor, even if actions cause us to applaud.
My understanding of fallibility is that the Pope's statements and actions are only infallible if that principle is specifically invoked. Outside of that, there is a self-recognition of fallibility. "Pray for me. I too am a man". So some measure of verification is clearly OK, and everyone will form an opinion. But trust seems to come first at this stage, certainly for Catholics; misgivings get noted for the future. That's the way goodwill works; it's also the way submission in accordance with conscience works. We cut slack for as long as we can.
Something like that anyway seems to me to work at both the "micro" (local church) level and "macro" (global church) level.
I hope that makes some kind of sense. It does to me, anyway!
[ 01. April 2013, 07:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
