There is a knack in doing this kind of thing unpretentiously and the Pope seems to have it:
Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of dozens of young prisoners in a Holy Thursday ritual in a gesture of ‘love and service’.
He continued a tradition he began as archbishop of Buenoes Aires by holding a Mass in the Casal del Marmo facility in Rome, where 46 young men and women currently are detained.
Two of the 12 were young women, a remarkable choice given that the rite re-enacts Jesus’ washing of the feet of his male disciples.
[….]
‘This is a symbol, it is a sign -washing your feet means I am at your service,’ Francis told the youngsters. ‘Help one another. This is what Jesus teaches us. This is what I do. And I do it with my heart. I do this with my heart because it is my duty, as a priest and bishop I must be at your service.’
And, of the two women, one was a Muslim. Another receiving the foot washing was an Orthodox Christian. Very interesting, this pope.
I care not for the new pope. Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, the foundation of His Church, not just any old bipeds’.
The Church needs to be restored to discipline and order, whereby it may fully reassert the majesty of its moral authority. Of course, it should not lose touch with simplicity, but primitivism presents no counterpoint at all to an abysmally degraded culture.
Christianity is not a pacifist cult of the effete. And I don’t know when it became so emasculated. Jesus said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
“And take the helmet of salvation, and the SWORD of the
spirit, which is THE WORD OF GOD.” Eph.6:17
The N.E.B. translation reads: “words that come from God.”
When tested in the desert our Lord, filled with the Spirit, resisted the devil by quoting scriptures, the weapon used by our Lord was the Word of God. Our Lord continually used “The sword the Spirit” when attacked,eg.: Luke10:25-26,
John 10:31-6.
“My peace I leave with you, My peace I give to yoU; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled,, niether let it be afraid.” John 14: 27
Matthew 10:34-35.
Luke 22:35-38
This Argentine Jesuit Pope is effete? I doubt it.
I also doubt you could have any idea whether some of those people whose feet the Pope washed may turn out to be disciples.
However, I do agree that Christianity is not a cult of the effete. So, please do venture forth and at the very least take on the hard questions and often-brilliant anti-Christian commentators on secular boards. We need leaders to start reasserting that moral authority.
Matthew 10.
It would help if your replies were focused. In any event I wasn’t talking about the apostles Jesus picked from his larger group of disciples at the time.
I rather like John 13, and in particular verses 34 to 35.
Yes-Yes. It is all about love for others, serving others as Christ does, acts of humble service done with love from the heart of Christ, for Christ, and in Christ. No matter to whom, no matter where, no matter when, are what He asks of us. As this motto of this Pope is;
“Miseranto atque eleigando”—Humble but chosen”
‘Anonysume’ would be a better moniker.
If the prisoners were in jail for the faith I could understand it but this pope is just another liberal sucking up to the criminal element. He should be looking after the faithful and as for washing the feet of a Muslim, well if that is what the Pope thinks of the Catholic faith I don’t want any part of it.
Yes, the effete Argentine Jesuit Pope is big on ‘social justice,’ which is merely code for Marxism.
I think by social justice many Christians are referring to such things as relief from slavery, desperate poverty, disease, malnutrition, illiteracy and more. Maybe sort of Matthew 25:31-46, and the loving your neighbour thing?
I don’t see how Marxism is involved. That has not been much of an influence since the earliest Marxist-Leninists made the Mensheviks an historical footnote.
I agree, Lisa. Catholics who haven’t succumbed to relativism and the rest of the left-wing nonsense — otherwise known as “traditionalists” — are not too happy about this new Pope. He isn’t much different from the ACofC higher-ups, in fact. The Jesuits have been heavily and suspiciously involved in the liberation theologies, or Marxism, for many decades now. They were actually considered by many to be the enemies of true Catholicism. All that brotherly social justice talk by the early Soviet Communists didn’t exactly lead to Heaven on Earth, did it? Oh well…..there goes all the good work that was done by Pope Bendict. Sigh.
I suggest all that brotherly social justice talk, turned into real action, by many Christian organizations, Social Democratic parties, and Conservative and Liberal governments which adopted many of the social democratic policies, has done much to alleviate suffering in the world and improve the lives of people in the last 150 years.
You need to do some homework, Anonymuse. It was actually the traditional conservative branch of Catholicism that worked the hardest, and was the most successful, in making practical improvements to the lives of great numbers of people over centuries. There is the silly myth still making the rounds that social conservatives sit on their hands, while the left-wingers are busy bees. I have to laugh at the contrariness of it. The social democratic types, as usual, draw a lot of attention to themselves and their supposed virtues, but fail to make lasting changes. What they tend to be good at are Public Relations stunts. Puts me in mind of the Trudeaus, father and son.
As I said, have you somehow skipped over the great world failure of Communism?
Anonymous, you are the one that needs homework.
“It was actually the traditional conservative branch of Catholicism that worked the hardest, and was the most successful, in making practical improvements to the lives of great numbers of people”
The performance record of the “traditional” branch is inconsistent. If you want to go back centuries to see this, Latin America can serve as a case study, but you can look at pre-civil war Spain for a start. The greatest improvements in the Western democracies were the result of liberal movements, even if some of the programs were introduced by conservatives, such as in the 1930s.
“over the centuries”
I specifically referred to only the last 150 years. That would be from about the time of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. I suppose I could have started with Wilberforce, or as late as the Great Depression, but that was a good enough time frame.
“The social democratic types, as usual, draw a lot of attention to themselves and their supposed virtues, but fail to make lasting changes.”
An utterly ridiculous statement that needs no further comment.
“Puts me in mind of the Trudeaus, father and son.”
I am no fan of either of the Trudeaus. However, I suspect I know more about them than you do.
“As I said, have you somehow skipped over the great world failure of Communism?”
Actually, you didn’t say. However, Communism, in any form, was not relevant to the discussion and I am not sure why you even mentioned it. If you read my post you will clearly see I was referring, among other things, to the Social Democratic political movement.
Well said, Anonymous.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-expert-details-39huge-homosexual-underground-in-the-church39
Thank you, Lisa. I stand by what I wrote. I thoroughly disagree with Anonymuse; he has not convinced me in the least, though he is welcome to his opinion.
William Wilberforce, for instance, was deeply socially conservative — morally conservative as well. He would be shocked to see himself written up in the 21st century as a politically correct type. God forbid!
There are hordes of unthoughtful types who still cling to misguided belief in left-wing social saviours. The left-wingers make a lot of noise, it’s true, but they do not actually accomplish much. You just have to see who actually supports most of the individual churches and charities in North America these days, and it isn’t the “progressives”. As I said, they simply have their misguided fans.
Anonymuse, Communisim is not a great leap from “social democracy”. Not a great leap at all. That is why I mentioned it. I thought the link was so obvious every reader would understand.
As you say, the shallow misguided belief in left-wing government or social policy misses the point of love thy neighbour as thyself – the corollary whose antecedant is loving God with all our heart (Luke 10:27). Just as we render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s – or savour the things which are God’s versus the things merely of men (Matthew 16:23) – government is not our proxy for neighbourly love.
Loving our neighbour as ourselves means our relations with our neighbour are not reduced to the quid pro quo. It means being willing to tell our neighbour unpleasant truths as necessary, just as we impose self-discipline. Government is not anymore capable of those kind of finely-tuned relationships between human beings than it is of running our individual lives. To return to where we began, Jesus’ footwashing illustrates what this kind of intimate engagement with our neighbour (Matthew 12:50) looks like. It’s no less than what he built His church upon.
Sadly, the toll of all this sustained emphasis on statist solutions is people are more ill-mannered than they have ever been, the social fabric is rent [as distinct from the inter-connectivity and propagandizing of the mob], our institutions and traditions are thoroughly undermined and society – like the individuals of which it is composed – really is losing the capacity for self-government. And, as to the objection only government or quasi-government action is far-reaching enough …. well, wouldn’t the world be fixed if – AFTER loving God with all our might – we all loved our neighbours as ourselves?
In Jesus’ time, the dusty and dirty conditions of the area and the wearing of sandals necessitated foot-washing. The disciples were surprised when they saw Jesus take a basin of water, and wash their feet. It was a lowly task. Jesus gave His disciples a lesson in humility. Today, there is no need for us to practice literal foot-washing. We wear shoes, not sandals. We have paved roads and sidewalks. If we use one basin of water and the same towel (keeping the symbolism), who would like to be the last one to be washed? We must remind oursselves that the foot-washing was only an example of servanthood. Jesus calls us to the way of service. Our Christian calling is not to go do what Jesus did, but to do what Jesus said. We are not going to die on the cross; we are called to share the Gospel in words and in deeds.
Psalm 69:20.
What is the connection between Psalm 69:20 and foot-washing?
As I said before, I think this is all wrong. The foot-washing was part of the ceremony of the Last Supper, in which Jesus bound Himself and His disciples together. Both as the foundation of the Church His disciples would found in His absence and, in Jesus’ being fully human, as a way to bring to Himself comfort and consolation on the eve of Good Friday’s condemnation and suffering.
The Bible makes sense and this gesture is so disordered it respects none of that. It doesn’t, as Sandy said, respect the faithful within the church. Nor does it respect Jesus’ experience as a human being. If you were facing condemnation and execution, is going out and washing the feet of total strangers rather than gathering together with your closest family and friends (Matthew 12:49) what you would do? This interpretation makes Jesus seem neurotic, or worse.
Do I consider the passive-aggression expressed toward the faithful thereby or the possible phariseeism of the Pope’s footwashing to be effete and unworthy of his office? Well, what do you think?
Anonymous:
“William Wilberforce, for instance, was deeply socially conservative — morally conservative as well. He would be shocked to see himself written up in the 21st century as a politically correct type.”
Where, oh where, did I write him up as a 21st century politically correct type? The fact is, I did not. Wilberforce was an example of a Christian working toward social reform. But, you undoubtedly knew that and twisted my words anyway. I ask you to ask yourself why you repeatedly do that sort of thing.
“Communisim is not a great leap from “social democracy”. Not a great leap at all. That is why I mentioned it. I thought the link was so obvious every reader would understand.”
Whereas there has been infiltration or corruption of some social democratic parties by communist elements, I think every reader who has taken some basic political theory in university, or even some 20th century history, would understand the difference well enough. The social democrats who devoted, and sometimes gave, their lives supporting democracy against the tyranny of communism did as well. That you appear not to is enlightening.
Enough of this. Enjoy your benefits.
I seem to have touched a raw nerve in you, Anonymuse. You are becoming plain silly now. You need more depth of insight. Christian social reform has been going on for 2000 years, although mainly not in the narrow style that you like to portray. You have the idea that only social democrats can perform good works….that is the nonsense of your argument. Wilberforce was certainly not of this persuasion. Some of those who would least fit your “social democrat” description have been most active in good works for society as a whole. That is what this whole discussion began from.
My words:
A. “by social justice many CHRISTIANS are referring to such things as relief from slavery, desperate poverty, disease, malnutrition, illiteracy and more. Maybe sort of Matthew 25:31-46, and the loving your neighbour thing?”
B. “brotherly social justice talk, turned into real action, by
1. MANY CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS,
2. Social Democratic parties, and
3. Conservative and Liberal governments which adopted many of the social democratic policies”
C. “Wilberforce was an example of a CHRISTIAN working toward social reform.”
D. “If you read my post you will clearly see I was referring, AMONG OTHER THINGS, to the Social Democratic political movement.”
Of course Christian social reform has been going on for about 2,000 years. I never said it hadn’t. I just referred to the last 150. Wilberforce’s struggles against the institution of slavery did, of course, impact the United States and ultimately led, in part, to the Emancipation Proclamation, however politically expedient that proclamation was for the Union at the time.
I did not engage in narrow or wide definitions. You did, in response to which I made a distinction.
I again ask you to ask yourself why you repeatedly misrepresent what is said.
Anonymuse, I see that David has posted the following, today, and that it is another example of the thought I have been trying to put across to you about the miserable left-wingedness of “social democracy” and the fact that it hasn’t much to do with what Christianity is meant to be about; you badly confuse the two concepts:
Living through the Harold Wilson years provided me more than sufficient empirical evidence that Socialism doesn’t work. It is a lazy form of Communism, lacking Communism’s demonic fervour but immersed in the same blinkered utopianism: Communism for dilettantes. Ironically, in Canada, socialism is now the official religion of the Anglican Church; it is enthusiastically embraced by witless Anglican clergy willing to try anything to avoid the embarrassment of reciting Creeds in which they no longer believe.
I clearly have never confused the two concepts. I cannot help your comprehension problem.
That you would apparently lump someone like Roy Romanow with the likes of Mao Zedong speaks for itself.
Lisa, your post 4.1.2.2.3 of April 3 at 1:45 pm. is excellent.
Thank you.