Posted on 04/07/2015 5:36:23 PM PDT by ebb tide
"The Pope and the transsexual", is how the media similarly described the Holy Thursday liturgy of Pope Francis in the Roman prison Regina Coeli. On the first day of the Triduum Paschale, the Pope again followed his practice of having deserted the liturgically provided cathedral church of Rome and went to the "margins".
This year the Pope visited the Roman prison Regina Coeli. He washed the feet of male and female prisoners and celebrated in the "Lord's Supper" in the prison hall.
Vatican Television rendered images all over the world
Among the prisoners, whose feet the Pope washed, there was also a transsexual. He then also received Holy Communion from another priest. The Pope's visit was accompanied by numerous television cameras that transmitted the Liturgy on Vatican Television and on other television stations around the world.
The sight was for pious Catholic, and perhaps unbelievers, a scandal. "At first glance", the most famous of Catholic bloggers, Francisco Fernández de la Cigoña did not make it out. De la Cigoña is known for his direct language and has already even criticized Pope Francis "with respect for his office and his dignity."
In prison one meets the prisoners
"The Pope has celebrated the Last Supper in prison. There are even murderers, robbers, pedophiles, cheaters, rapists, prostitutes ... " The Pope could not count on anything else "and we could expect nothing less in a prison."
"This time it was just a transsexual offender. Is it worse than a pedophile, rapist or murderer? Innocent convicts are rarely found in a prison," said de la Cigoña. The Church doesn't go on the Penal Code, but the soul of man. " The transsexual has been excommunicated? Can they not be pardoned for sin? Even a transsexual can become a saint."
Transsexuals are not the problem, but the impression
"It has even me, a little astonished," said de la Cigoña, "that one of the persons whom the Pope washed in prison, is a transsexual." But Jesus washed the feet of Judas Iscariot. The problem was not that person or other offenders. The question is whether those who were invited for Communion, were in a state of grace. However, the Church doesn't require a statement of confession. Why would they need one in a prison?
Precisely because of this connection: penitence, confession, contrition, forgiveness are not conditions for receiving Holy Communion and even faithful Catholics often are familiar with the scandal of the offense of images from prison that were carried into all the world. The Church has helped sinners at all times. She has done well, not to broadcast certain things out loud. Not to excite or give offense, but to avoid confusion. "We do not know what happened in the prison. But the wrong impression, however, should always be avoided: all were able to unconditionally receive the Lord."
We are in a period in which the gender ideology and the homosexualization are imposed by force, nor is this a question of whether there was an accidental or deliberate play with gestures and pictures. Someone had chosen those who were to be admitted to the washing of the feet, like two years ago someone had selected prisoners of various religions in youth prison in Rome. It is difficult to accept that it was done without consultation with the Vatican.
Your link to a photo of Pope St John Paul II washing priests’ feet on Holy Thursday totally contradicts you defense of Francis’ egotistical theatrics with non-Catholics and perverts.
“Once again, you misunderstood.”
No, once again, you misunderstood.
“How many of Francis’ predecessors have washed the feet of a woman, or of a muslim, or a non-Catholic outside a Catholic church during a Holy Thursday service?”
It doesn’t matter. How many popes altered the Holy Week liturgies like Pope Pius XII? How many popes added a name - St. Joseph’s - to the canon of the Mass like Pope John XXIII did? How many popes decided to create something new - like indulgences - as Pope Urban II did?
“Only a huge ego would drive a prelate to degrade Holy Thursday like Francis has once again done just for a publicity stunt.”
Only a huge ego would drive a prelate to alter the Holy Week liturgies like Pius XII did, right?
“Not so.”
Effectively, in his case and about his own rights, yes. That’s the point.
“Here’s what a canon lawyer says about it:”
I know Peters. He isn’t saying anything that changes anything I said.
The end result is the same: Pope Francis will do what he thinks is best. You probably will be frustrated and stamp your feet. He’ll never know about it.
ebb tide, you rightly point out what vladimir998 misses: The Washing of Feet on Holy Thursday imitates Christ’s washing of his apostles’ feet. This ceremony includes men, usually priests. It is not intended to be a washing of anyone in the congregation’s feet. The Francine pontiff has distorted the meaning of this ritual by washing the feet of unbelievers, women, and transsexuals. He has politicized this liturgical act.
Well-respected canon lawyer Edward Peters is spot-on in describing how the Francine pontiff’s actions undermine and negate the meaning of the ritual. As Peters observes, the Pope’s breaking Church law does not change the law.
In addition, the Eucharist should not be given to public sinners, such as pro-abortion politicians, and also transsexuals, who embrace a life of sexual perversion.
The Pope’s collusion in advancing the homosexual agenda is a scandal and a disgrace. The Francine pontiff’s allowing such desecration of the Blessed Sacrament is hard to understand, except as a means to further the notion of a fake “charity” which endangers the salvation of souls.
“Your link to a photo of Pope St John Paul II washing priests’ feet on Holy Thursday totally contradicts you defense of Francis’ egotistical theatrics with non-Catholics and perverts.”
No, it just contradicts what you said: “He did it in front of cameras as a publicity stunt. However, Jesus Chris did otherwise; just as all of Francis’ predecessors have.”
I have no problem with him washing different people’s feet, etc. except when he does it on Holy Thursday in the rite intended to imitate Jesus’s washing of the Apostles’ feet. The Francine pontiff does not have enough respect for the liturgy to follow it.
He could publicly wash all these other people’s feet at some other time; if only he would do so rather than dishonor and denigrate a beautiful and historical Church ritual followed by his predecessors.
Also, his washing the transsexual’s feet and allowing the transsexual to receive Communion—all filmed and publicized by the Vatican’s own TV channel—can only confuse the faithful about this sinful lifestyle and make the way easier for advocates of other abuses that are abominable—such as “gay marriage.”
Unfortunately—without Francis’ ordaining them—we already have the scandal of “gay” priests. However, Francis defends them, such as his right-hand man, Msgr. Battista Ricca. For a militant homosexual’s take on Msgr’s actions in 2013, see http://www.back2stonewall.com/2013/07/pope-franciss.html
Is he a vain fool or is he a manipulative modernist to whom clings the scent of lavender rather than the "smell of the sheep"?
“Effectively”: that’s a cop-out word.
You seem to know a lot of people; but your logic doesn’t agree with any of them.
Peters proved you wrong. You can’t weasel out of this one.
I didn’t know the first apostles had cameras.
Did Jesus wash the feet of unrepentant sodomites?
“Did Jesus wash the feet of unrepentant sodomites?”
Did Jesus wash the feet of a Jesus-betraying Apostle named Judas?
“I didn’t know the first apostles had cameras.”
You really think that comment even makes sense when YOU were clearly talking about modern times: “He did it in front of cameras as a publicity stunt. However, Jesus Chris did otherwise; just as all of Francis’ predecessors have.”
Cameras. Francis’ predecessors.
Modern times.
Not the “first apostles”.
““Effectively”: that’s a cop-out word.”
No, that’s an appropriate term.
“You seem to know a lot of people;”
Some.
“but your logic doesn’t agree with any of them.”
Do you think for a single second that Edward Peters agrees with you on much of anything? He’s a Methodist covert to Catholicism with training in the classics and a decent scholar. You two couldn’t be much further apart within the Catholic Church.
“Peters proved you wrong.”
No, he didn’t. You seem to do this again and again; you fail to make proper distinctions. Peters said, “For the sake of good order...” In other words, he realizes the pope is not bound by canon law on liturgy (just as I said: “He need not issue a new law or revise a law to do something different. Any canon lawyer can tell you that.”)
“You can’t weasel out of this one.”
There’s never anything to weasel out of. You just keep making mistakes over and over again. I don’t.
Did Jesus not wash St. Peter’s feet, also? He betrayed Christ three times.
Your juvenile logic ceases to amaze me.
“Did Jesus not wash St. Peter’s feet, also? He betrayed Christ three times.”
Exactly, thanks for proving my point for me. Again.
“Your juvenile logic ceases to amaze me.”
Probably because you just used that “juvenile logic” yourself. Kettle. Pot.
Your “point” appears to be that a tranny, a female, or a muslim is equal to the first pope.
Neither Jesus Christ, nor any of St. Peter’s successors, washed the feet of non-Catholics, women, or homos on Holy Thursday, until Humble Jorge comes along and has now repeated his publicity stunt.
The fact that you defend this sacrilege, and the material heretic performing it, speaks for itself.
“Your “point” appears to be that a tranny, a female, or a muslim is equal to the first pope.”
Which one of the following is/was not a sinner?:
a) “a tranny”
b) “a female”
c) “a muslim”
d) “first pope”
e) all the above were sinners
“Neither Jesus Christ, nor any of St. Peter’s successors, washed the feet of non-Catholics, women, or homos on Holy Thursday, until Humble Jorge comes along and has now repeated his publicity stunt.”
You’ll have to deal with that.
“The fact that you defend this sacrilege, and the material heretic performing it, speaks for itself.”
The fact that you apparently believe you have the right to judge a pope as a material heretic and falsely accuse me of defending any sacrilege speaks for itself.
>>“Neither Jesus Christ, nor any of St. Peter’s successors, washed the feet of non-Catholics, women, or homos on Holy Thursday, until Humble Jorge comes along and has now repeated his publicity stunt.”<<
>>You’ll have to deal with that.<<
Nope. I won’t have to deal with that; Francis will. And so will you for your defense of him.
I'm not judging the pope, I'm merely stating a fact that you can't refute. Likewise, my accusation is true. Ask Ed Peters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.