Sentire Cum Ecclesia

See here.

Yesterday I debated whether I should post two predictions that had formed fairly definitely in my mind:

1) That, at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper at Casal del Marmo Juvenile Detention Centre, Pope Francis would wash the feet not only of boys but also of girls.

2) That this would be followed by an intense about of handwringing throughout the Catholic blogosphere.

I decided not to publish these prognostications on the grounds of there being no point to stirring up a sh*tstorm if it was unnecessary to do so. But hey, there it is. Last night he went and did it:

Pope Francis washed the feet of 10 young men and two young women – two of whom were Muslims – during the Mass of the Lord’s Supper at the Casal del Marmo young offenders’ institute in Rome this evening.

Now, I can just hear some of my non-Catholic readers saying “So what? What’s the problem?” Well, this is one of those in-house Catholic arguments that has been bubbling along merrily ever since the publication of the revised holy week ceremonies in the 1970’s.

You see, one thing that the new ceremonial did not revise was the rubric which stated that, if the foot washing were to be done (and note, it is optional – more on that in a moment), “Viri selecti deducuntur a ministris ad sedilia loco apto parata“, or, as the English Missal has it: “The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to seats prepared in a suitable place.” “Viri” in Latin means “male human beings” in English. There is no doubt about that.

Why is this significant? Because

a) the foot washing is taken of being symbolic of Jesus washing the feet of his apostles (no argument there on any score – that’s pretty obvious), and

b) because there is a fairly long line of tradition which takes the foot washing ceremony to be connected to Jesus’ “ordination” of the apostles at the Last Supper.

Taken together, and in the context of a fairly lively and divisive debate about whether or not women can be ordained to the priesthood, that made the foot washing ceremony at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper something of a powder keg each year.

So, there are the facts. The rubrics say “viri” (although, you must admit that they use this term somewhat incidentally – the rubrics do not say that those selected MUST be men, it simply observes that those selected ARE men).

Yet, I must admit, that I rather felt on the side of those who thought there was something not quite right about the way the foot washing ceremony panned out each year. It did seem to convey a note of “privilege” on the part of those who were chosen to have their feet washed. “Why did Father choose to wash their feet and not mine?”

If it was about ordination, on the other hand, I rather agree with Dr Ed Peter’s suggestion that it should be shifted to the Chrism Mass and the bishop should wash the feet of his priests. But in the parishes we are not “ordaining” the twelve men whose feet get washed – they are and remain lay men. I think the ordination connection is therefore a little tenuous. But, but, you say, it is symbolic of the twelve disciples. Okay, but among Jesus’ disciples there were women also AND neither the scripture text nor the Missal rubric specify twelve men (as far as I can see).

Two things we must be clear about in relation to the foot washing ceremony: 1) the ceremony is optional, 2) the ceremony IS NOT A SACRAMENT. In other words, it does not belong to the essence of the Church’s liturgical tradition.

The question we should then ask is: “What does the ceremony mean?” And this is a fair question. After all, Jesus himself said to his disciples: “Do you understand what I have done for you?” (John 13:12). And here is the answer Pope Francis gave last night:

This is moving: Jesus who washes the feet of his disciples, Peter did not understand anything and refused but Jesus explained to him.

Jesus, God, has done this and he himself explains to the disciples, “Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet” I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.” (Jn. 13, 12-15)

This is the example of the Lord, he is the most important and he washes their feet because among us, he who is greatest should be at the service of others and this is a symbol and a sign.

To wash the feet means ‘I am at your service’ and also us, among us, its not that we have to wash everyone’s feet everyday, but what does this mean? That we should help each other, [to help] one another. There are sometimes where I am a little angry with one, with another, and well, forget it and if they ask you for a favor, do it.

To help each other; this is what Jesus teaches us and this what I [will] do, I do it from the heart because it is my duty, as a priest and as a bishop, to be at your service. It is a duty that comes from my heart, I love it. I love it and I love doing it because the Lord has taught me so, but you must also help each other. Always help each other, the one for the other and in helping each other, we will do good.

And now we will do this ceremony of washing the feet, and we must think. Each one of us must think, ‘Am I really willing to help the other?’ Think only of that and think that this sign is a caress of Jesus, because Jesus came specifically for this: to serve, to help us.”

So, in a word, the ceremony is about service. And if it is about service, rather than ordination, then it really does not work as a symbol if we are selective about those who are eligible to receive this humble act of service.

None of us should be surprised for one moment that Francis, Bishop of Rome, included a couple of women in his group. This was SO predictable, I almost regret not now having predicted it publicly. Here is a man whose middle name is “humble-service” (okay, it’s a hyphenated middle name), and here is the quintessential symbolic act of service, and here are a bunch of kids both male and female – what did you think he was going to do?

The thing is, Pope Francis has basically told us that the core meaning of this (optional, non-sacramental) rite is SERVICE. And if that is the core meaning, it probably shouldn’t be obscured with other overtones which cut across that message and suggest that the priest is only there to serve one half of the population.

Does that mean that I think any priest can now do as he likes with that particular “viri” rubric? No, I am not advocating that – not until there is an official change or decree granting licence to include women in the foot washing. It is still there, still “written”, as they say. Before making any changes, priests should wait for the official word from competent authority*. I believe a local bishop would have the right to make such a change to the liturgical norms. And perhaps the Bishop of Rome is suggesting to his brother bishops that this would be a good change to make, so that the symbolic act actually conveys what it means, and so that in the future this beautiful ceremony can be surrounded by a little less angst and argy-bargy.
_________

* Competent authority was defined by the Second Vatican Council, in Sacrosanctum Concilium paragraph 22:

22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

I read this article (“From Mount of Olives to Jerusalem, world’s Christians mark Jesus’ entry”) on CNS and it got me thinking…

Catholic Christians in the Holy Land have made the amazingly humble and gracious gesture of unity to their Eastern Christian counterparts: Catholics and Orthodox celebrate Easter according to the Julian calendar:

Most of the Catholic communities in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Cyprus are preparing to celebrate the liturgies of Holy Week not these days but in the first week of May, according to the Julian Calendar followed by the Orthodox communities. The unification of the Easter dates in most of the area is an application of the directive issued on October 15, 2012 by the Assembly of ordinary Catholic bishops in Holy Land, where it was established that within two years all Catholics in the Diocese of Latin Rite and the various Eastern rites will celebrate Easter according to the Julian calendar, coinciding with the Easter liturgies celebrated in the Orthodox churches.

The CNS article, however, describes activities in Jerusalem for Palm Sunday this past week, and while it acknowledges the decision of the Catholic bishops, they can’t really do anything about all the pilgrims who show up wanting to celebrate Western Easter in situ (so to speak).

Which seems to raise for me the really hairy problem that while we are celebrating Easter here this weekend, at the very place where the events we commemorate took place, they will still be at the start of Lent.

I know that the issue of the divided Easter date needs resolution. Personally, since we all agree on the “first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox” rule (which was, as I understand it, mandated at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea), I think we should all simply adopt the most accurate astronomical method of counting that date – with the proviso that we also follow the other old rule of never celebrating Easter before Passover.

According to, this FAQ sheet, the only difference this would produce to our current western Easter would take place in 2877. I know that the Greek Orthodox bishops decided to go down this root some time ago, but it is a decision that has yet to be implemented because of the issues it would cause in the Orthodox world – especially among the Russians.

I used the expression “Eccles’ third boot” in the previous post, and just realised that only close readers of this blog would realise what I meant (I have used the expression in the combox before).

It is a fine thing to speak of “waiting for the other boot to fall” if you are waiting for the completion of a pair of things, but what if you are waiting for the completion of a trio – or more? That’s where the law of “Eccles’ third boot” comes in. The reference is, of course, to a Goon Show script, and here it is:

GRAMS:
Loud dull thuds, continue under following conversation:

MINNIE:
Ohhhhhhhheeoh. What, what’s that? What’s that? Ohhh.

HENRY:
It’s all right Min, it’s just those noisy people in the tent upstairs. (calls) Who’s that walking about upstairs?

ECCLES:
(off) I’m the famous Eccles! I got friends in.

HENRY:
He’s the famous Eccles and he’s got friends in, Min. (calls) Do you mind taking those noisy boots off?

ECCLES:
(off) OK.

FX:
Two thuds.

MINNIE:
Ahh, that’s better.

FX:
Thud

MINNIE:
Ohh, I didn’t know he had three legs, Henry.

HENRY:
He hasn’t, Min, he hasn’t, he has a one legged friend. Goodnight Min.

MINNIE:
Goodnight, buddy.

FX:
Thud.

MINNIE and HENRY:
Ohh!

HENRY:
He’s got two one legged friends!

FX:
Thud.

MINNIE:
That, or one three legged friend, Henry.

HENRY:
Yes. Well goodnight Min.

MINNIE:
Goodnight, little mmnnnn naughty Henry. Goodnight little Henry! … Goodnight.

So much for those who argue that Papa Cisco is criticising Papa Benny! Whatever vestments/clothes he chooses to wear, Pope Francis is singing from Pope Benedict’s hymnsheet. He has already quoted the two of the most memorable phrases from Pope Benedict’s magisterium.

In his speech to the diplomats at the meeting last Friday, he used the term “dictatorship of relativism”.

And yesterday in his homily for Palm Sunday of the Passion of our Lord, he took a phrase right out of the first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est:

Ours is not a joy that comes from having many possessions, but it comes from having encountered a Person, Jesus, who is among us.

Benedict’s original and memorable words were:

Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

The next boot to fall (on Eccles’ three legged man) will be for him to use the actual terminology of “hermeneutic of continuity”…

But it really was the nicest possible criticism to receive. During an interview for Vatican Radio on the day of his enthronement (March 21), Justin Welby told Philippa Hitchen, that he did have one very serious criticism of the Catholic Church: “You lot have kept Catholic Social Teaching far too well hidden.”

“It is one of the greatest treasures that the Churches globally have to offer, and even many Catholics don’t know much about it. Starting with Rerum Novarum in the late 19th Century and going through to the remarkable development under John Paul II and Benedict XVI, with a lot in between, particularly around Vatican II. I think in those you see a comprehensively thought through structure of approach to the way we order society in a way that reflects Christian teaching, Christian values: the love, the integrity of Jesus Christ. I think it is a huge treasure for the whole Church to learn from, and I think it will lead us into much closer cooperation.”

Watching the video of our two Holy Fathers sharing brotherly and mutual consolation was a great joy for me – BUT it was a real shock to see how frail dear Benedict has become in such a short time. The contrast was much greater than the nine or ten years age difference would seem to suggest. Please pray for Pope Emeritus Benedict. I no longer have any doubt as to the wisdom of his decision to abdicate.

When Pope Francis was elected, our extraordinary Ordinary, +Denis, described the rumour that Bergoglio had been the “runner up” at the last conclave as “scuttlebutt”. It was such a delightful term for the rather silly way in which rumour becomes fact (as my EV says: “it was rumoured that” becomes “fact” simply by constant repetition being in the press) that I have decided to add it to my vocabulary henceforth and forthwith.

So I have paid no attention at all to the “carnival is over” comment that Pope Francis is rumoured to have said at his initial vesting. Beyond the fact that it would have been a terribly cruel thing to say, it would mean that all Pope Francis’ humility was a front – something I am also not prepared to believe (rose colored glasses or not, Tony).

Now, thank God, the most trusted vaticanista in the English language has declared: It is all SCUTTLEBUTT!

We live in interesting times.

Mere days after the “inauguration” of the Bishop of Rome, the world witnesses another major ecclesiastical event: the “enthronement” of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

And just as the Patriarch of Constantinople attended the event of the Roman Pontiff, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, attended the event of the Anglican prelate, and – according to this schedule – read the lesson (look down to 3:25pm). (I haven’t been able to find any more detail on this). (Nb. in the picture above, I can also spot Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal Kurt Koch, centre left).

To make the occasion even more interesting, while the Roman Bishop was installed on the Feast Day of St Joseph, Protector of the Church, the Anglican Archbishop was installed on the day of the execution of his predecessor Archbishop Thomas Cranmar.

But amid all these similarities and contrasts, the greatest contrast of all would have to be the ceremony itself. Again, see the link above for details, and this page at The Daily Mail for all the colour photographs.

In comparison, one can perhaps be a little appreciative of the new style at our own HQ.

There has been a lot of talk about Pope Francis’ “style”. I must candidly admit that it has rather “wrong-footed” me, and I am sure I am not alone. From his master of ceremonies to his security guards, from media commentators to people on the other end of the telephone, no one seems sure of what Pope Francis will do or say next. What does it all mean?

One thing it emphatically does not mean is this: New pope’s style is an implicit criticism of Benedict’s papacy. Not unless we are to say that St Paul’s “style” was an “implicit criticism” of St Peter’s “style”. (Of course, there are some who would say that).

A better take on things is this: Both Benedict and Francis are holy men – but with naturally different personal styles

Let’s be quite clear: there were many, including many younger Catholics (and, of course, the host of this ‘ere blog) who were attracted by Pope Benedict’s “style” – especially in regard to liturgical or ceremonial matters. We felt that he brought a great dignity to the papal office and with that to the whole Church. He was obviously different from his predecessor – whom some dismissively called “a show man” – but that didn’t matter, we knew and loved them both.

Pope Francis has again and again shown us that his style will be much simpler. But what would you expect from a man who took the name of St Francis as his own? It was a radical decision, and it seems to me to reflect in our new Pope that same deep and radical fervour for the Gospel that St Francis showed. Was St Francis’ radical poverty a “criticism”? Well, yes, let’s be honest, it was. And a deeply challenging one at that for the Church of his day. I expect that those of us who are comfortable within the fold of the Church will also feel ourselves challenged by our new Holy Father. But I don’t think this is about us.

I read this morning this article in The Telegraph: “Why even atheists love Pope Francis”. This article got me thinking. I am very much inclined to think that Pope Francis’ simplicity is not simply “simplicity for simplicity’s sake”. He knows what he is doing.

There was a time when ceremonial grandeur attracted people to the Church. There some societies in which it still does. Unfortunately, our western society is no longer such. While the grandeur of the Church remains very attractive to some of us, there are a lot of others for whom (rightly or wrongly – and I would definitely say wrongly) this grandeur interpreted as a display of wealth in the face of the overwhelming poverty of many in the world. In a word, it spells “hypocrisy”. To many has become an impenetrable barrier to hearing the message of the Gospel.

Now I know that many of us have suffered the horrors of banality in the last 50 years or so in the Church – where the beautiful has been ditched for the common, and the lowest-common-denominator at that. So I am not talking about that. But we are mistaken if we think that the only kind of beauty that can be put up against such banal ugliness is grandeur. There is beauty in simplicity too. Or, to put it otherwise, simplicity can be as beautiful as grandeur. And attractive.

So, I think Pope Francis has judged that – in order that the Church’s message be heard – a new kind of beauty needs to shine forth from the Church at the highest level: the beauty of simplicity. This is not a criticism of his predecessor, or of those of us who happen to find grandeur attractive. It is an “evangelical strategem”, if I may call it that. It is the Pauline principle, so well explained by that apostle in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

We are living in an emergency situation: and the emergency is the New Evangelisation. We can live without mozzettas and red shoes for a bit. We can’t live without the Gospel. And neither can the world.