Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
docyabut2

New pope's washing of women's feet is final

27 posts in this topic

I have heard that Jesuits tend to shake things up a bit and like to stray from tradition. Good for him!! I may not believe in nor like everything he does and stands for, but I'm all for anyone who shakes the dust off things.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

washing women's feet? Whatever next. it'll be like 50 Shades of Green before you know it. :blush:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, though, seriously for a moment, all this

While serving as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Francis' efforts to revive the old Latin Mass so dear to Benedict and traditionalists were "non-existent."

As a result, no one should have been surprised when Francis emerged from the loggia of St. Peter's Basilica on the night of March 13 without the ermine-rimmed red velvet cape, or mozzetta, used by popes past for official duties, wearing instead the simple white cassock of the papacy.

does sound suspiciously like the kind of embarassing dress-down "informality" that people like "Call me Tony" Blair thought was Modern and Dynamic. I do think a Pope ought to be surrounded by Pomp and all that kind of thing, really, it does kind of show that you have respect for the position and you do recognise how influential it is. It only seems right, somehow. It needn't mean that you don't have to want to do good works or want to make the Church more relevant, which is an entirely admirable thing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not catholic but the man is a character. Keep it coming Francis and get rid of the traditional pomp, its outlived itself.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does sound suspiciously like the kind of embarassing dress-down "informality" that people like "Call me Tony" Blair thought was Modern and Dynamic. I do think a Pope ought to be surrounded by Pomp and all that kind of thing, really, it does kind of show that you have respect for the position and you do recognise how influential it is. It only seems right, somehow. It needn't mean that you don't have to want to do good works or want to make the Church more relevant, which is an entirely admirable thing.

Well since he is the head of the church, he can change things as he sees fit. A lot of people think the pomp and circumstance is over the top. I am all for tradition. I think it's cool, to be honest, but if they want to draw people back into the fold, change needs to happen. All the cardinals recognised this when they put Francis in place.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of some of the Templar stories I've read. Like how the Templars stayed overnight in Mosques etc when traveling and they said how kind the Muslim people where to them and how they treated them with respect etc.... Then the Vatican and King of France both called it Heresy and made up loads of horrible things about them being involve din Satanic rituals.

I think the fact he washed a Muslims feet shows that he might well follow god and not the corrupt Vatican. This could be a very good thing.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of some of the Templar stories I've read. Like how the Templars stayed overnight in Mosques etc when traveling and they said how kind the Muslim people where to them and how they treated them with respect etc.... Then the Vatican and King of France both called it Heresy and made up loads of horrible things about them being involve din Satanic rituals.

I think the fact he washed a Muslims feet shows that he might well follow god and not the corrupt Vatican. This could be a very good thing.

And of course, for once, there is a sound Biblical precedent for this tradition, which those who are criticising seem to forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, for once, there is a sound Biblical precedent for this tradition, which those who are criticising seem to forget.

How do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ah I see...

Well the pope being elected by human beings isn't biblical either. God chose the pope, not some humans. Yet they don't mind that. That is what annoys me about people who follow it to the extreme, they always say it has to be the way it is written etc, but they pick and chose other things if it suits them. lol

Edited by Coffey
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"Pope Francis has won over many hearts and minds with his simple style and focus on serving the world's poorest, but he has devastated traditionalist Catholics who adored his predecessor, Benedict XVI, for restoring much of the traditional pomp to the papacy."

That made me LOL! Come on! Is Nicole Winfield a Catholic working for Fox?

Edited by Star of the Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is Nicole Winfield a Catholic working for Fox?

No, she's an Associated Press writer, a syndication service that many American news outlets subscribe to. I am unsure why this article was posted fron Fox, but here it is at the AP site, with a much nicer layout:

http://bigstory.ap.o...traditionalists

She's obviously been filing from Rome a lot lately. I don't know whether she's Catholic, or it's just that Rome is very pleasant this time of year :) .

http://bigstory.ap.o...nicole-winfield

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, she's an Associated Press writer, a syndication service that many American news outlets subscribe to. I am unsure why this article was posted from Fox, but here it is at the AP site, with a much nicer layout:

http://bigstory.ap.o...traditionalists

She's obviously been filing from Rome a lot lately. I don't know whether she's Catholic, or it's just that Rome is very pleasant this time of year :) .

http://bigstory.ap.o...nicole-winfield

Thanks 8ty! She obviously loves spring in Rome :whistle: There maybe Catholics who are a little surprised, but devasted?

But, lest one become lost in minutiae, we are talking about the pope, here. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states that “the bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely” (1983 CIC c. 331). Of course, there are things that no pope could ever do. For instance, popes can neither ordain women to the priesthood nor consecrate invalid matter at the altar. But we’re talking about an optional rite—the so-called mandatum—and not one of those things.

He can wash the feet of whom ever he chooses. The Cardinals chose a 'Jesuit' Pontiff knowing full well the implications. The 'S.J.'s (Society of Jesuits) are not called 'God's Marines' for nothing. This is only the beginning :gun:

Edited by Star of the Sea
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He can wash the feet of whom ever he chooses.

So I would have thought. I am mystified how anybody could call themselves a "Catholic traditionalist" and think that a Pope would need somebody else's permission for something like this.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I would have thought. I am mystified how anybody could call themselves a "Catholic traditionalist" and think that a Pope would need somebody else's permission for something like this.

People don't like change, so it's bound to cause a stir. What is very interesting though is the response of the media, far too much hyperbole as usual. When he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires Pope Francis made a point of celebrating Mass with the prostitutes of Buenos Aires, kissing the feet of AIDS victims and celebrated mass in the streets with the homeless. He has also celebrated Mass in prisons before.

It's the RCC Curia who are next on the list!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this Pope he showed respect for women as Jesus may have done, to even kiss a muslim women`s feet shows man is no higher then women in that respect for all women, that the muslin`s religion does`nt seem to get.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't image how anybody could think Peter was the first Pope. Jesus called Peter a stone, not a rock. A stone was used to build upon the rock foundation. Like stones built one upon another until walls are made.

That rock is (and I quote from Jesus) "flesh and blood hath not revealed it (that Jesus is the Christ - revealed to Peter but not to the others who were guessing incorrectly who Jesus was) "unto you but my Father which is in Heaven. UPON THIS ROCK WILL I BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL CANNOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT." That does away with all "free will doctrine churches. The Father in heaven did not identify "it" to the other disciples at that time in order to make the point that it is by God's election that Jesus is revealed to one as the Christ. A preacher, priest, or missionary cannot reveal that Jesus is the Christ. Only by a supernatural intervention to individuals from heaven can one know. The church that believes in election are stones on that rock foundation. There are many worldly, powerful, rich false churches. Are you beginning to see a picture of the harlot of Revelation?????????

In the Old Testament there were priests and ONE high priest. There was never more than ONE high priest at any time. The high priest was a foreshadow of Jesus Christ, now our High Priest. Just as lambs are no longer sacrificed for sin, and the temple torn down so that there are no more high priests on earth because we are never to look backwards. We no longer need a High Priest to make intercession for us on earth because we have one now in Heaven. The Pope is a farce and a sham with an insatiable appetite for your money . I don't care how many humanitarian programs they are involved in, they still are worshipping Mary and other saints and belittling what Jesus did by adding all these false things man must do in order to be saved. Eternal salvation is 100% by the blood of the Lamb. Add anything to that and the blood is diluted.

The worldly pomp and pageantry of the free will churches and Catholic church are disgustingly worldly. Peter must be flipping in his grave.

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I can't image how anybody could think Peter was the first Pope. Jesus called Peter a stone, not a rock. A stone was used to build upon the rock foundation. Like stones built one upon another until walls are made.

That rock is (and I quote from Jesus) "flesh and blood hath not revealed it (that Jesus is the Christ - revealed to Peter but not to the others who were guessing incorrectly who Jesus was) "unto you but my Father which is in Heaven. UPON THIS ROCK WILL I BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL CANNOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT." That does away with all "free will doctrine churches. The Father in heaven did not identify "it" to the other disciples at that time in order to make the point that it is by God's election that Jesus is revealed to one as the Christ. A preacher, priest, or missionary cannot reveal that Jesus is the Christ. Only by a supernatural intervention to individuals from heaven can one know. The church that believes in election are stones on that rock foundation. There are many worldly, powerful, rich false churches. Are you beginning to see a picture of the harlot of Revelation?????????

In the Old Testament there were priests and ONE high priest. There was never more than ONE high priest at any time. The high priest was a foreshadow of Jesus Christ, now our High Priest. Just as lambs are no longer sacrificed for sin, and the temple torn down so that there are no more high priests on earth because we are never to look backwards. We no longer need a High Priest to make intercession for us on earth because we have one now in Heaven. The Pope is a farce and a sham with an insatiable appetite for your money . I don't care how many humanitarian programs they are involved in, they still are worshipping Mary and other saints and belittling what Jesus did by adding all these false things man must do in order to be saved. Eternal salvation is 100% by the blood of the Lamb. Add anything to that and the blood is diluted.

The worldly pomp and pageantry of the free will churches and Catholic church are disgustingly worldly. Peter must be flipping in his grave.

God bless.

Your entitled to your opinion, but just look at all the different interpretations of Christianity over the years. Who, since Christ has defended it? Please don't say Catholics worship the Blessed Mother that one has been flogged to death and is completely untrue just as the rest of your false claims . I don't normally feel offended at anyone one on here but by saying Catholics 'belittle Jesus' is honestly offensive to me Copen. Perhaps it maybe best to try to educate yourself on the Catholic faith before you make false judgements?

Just a thought Copen... I do not and never will judge anyone on their faith or lack of faith, perhaps you could ponder on that.

Edited by Star of the Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the hard-line traditionalists would have been pallid with shock when they anointed a Jesuit Pope.

Jesuits are the biggest bunch of "pfft, what would Jesus have done?" doctrine challenging troublemakers in all of Christendom. I fully expect a Papal Bull in the next year to the tone of "find yourself a new job if you're found guilty in a secular court of paedophilia". Maybe with a dose of "and here's an excommunication for good measure", but I doubt it, that sounds too much like an admission of collective guilt, but saying "you're guilty of X, society has ruled and we're society's servants" fits with a Jesuit outlook and a "stepforward" for us Liberal Catholics but just small enough to not offend the Traditionalists.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't image how anybody could think Peter was the first Pope. Jesus called Peter a stone, not a rock. A stone was used to build upon the rock foundation. Like stones built one upon another until walls are made.

it was all a Greek pun in any case, based on the word "Petros", which can mean stone or rock, and as Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, it's probably a moot point anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

it was all a Greek pun in any case, based on the word "Petros", which can mean stone or rock, and as Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, it's probably a moot point anyway.

Hi Colonel!

We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

In 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

Edited by Star of the Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

it was all a Greek pun in any case, based on the word "Petros", which can mean stone or rock, and as Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, it's probably a moot point anyway.

Correction:- - - "...thou art Peter (petros - meaning a stone) and upon this rock (petra - meaning a massive rock) I will build my church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it."

Peter, a stone, was one of many built, one on top of the other, to form the walls upon this massive rock. That rock was "flesh and blood hath not revealed it (that Jesus is the Christ) but my Father, who is in heaven." That statement does away with the free-will doctrine churches being the true church and says that election and predestination (not predestination of events) is the true church that will never die. For if flesh and flood (missionaries and preachers) cannot reveal Jesus to an unbeliever, then it has to happen by an individual act of God first. Then the feet of the missionary/preacher can bring good news and make a child of God into a disciple.

There is a big difference in the words "petros" and "petra." So it is not a moot point.

God bless

Edited by Copen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your entitled to your opinion, but just look at all the different interpretations of Christianity over the years. Who, since Christ has defended it? Please don't say Catholics worship the Blessed Mother that one has been flogged to death and is completely untrue just as the rest of your false claims . I don't normally feel offended at anyone one on here but by saying Catholics 'belittle Jesus' is honestly offensive to me Copen. Perhaps it maybe best to try to educate yourself on the Catholic faith before you make false judgements?

Just a thought Copen... I do not and never will judge anyone on their faith or lack of faith, perhaps you could ponder on that.

I never mind anyone differing with my opinion. I have learned a lot by further investigating what someone else says.

In this case, so far at least, I see nothing to retract. Any time a church sets aside a day for the Blessed Virgin Mary and calls her the Queen of Heaven, which the OT forbids -- then that statement is not false on my part. When John in Revelation went to kiss an angel's hand, he was told not to do it for they were equal. The Virgin Mary in worshipped in statues where they say she sheds tears. Immaculate conception??? She had other children. She died like everyone else.

When they teach to pray to her and other saints, they are making someone other than Jesus the mediator. That belittles Jesus.

When they say you have to be sprinkled (they call it a baptism in order to be eternally saved )--- they have added a work to the blood of Jesus. That dilutes the blood and belittles Jesus' shed blood being 100% the way of salvation. If there is anything man must do in order to be saved eternally (believe, accept, repent, confess, be sprinkled and call it baptism) then man has elevated himself to being at least part savior for his work trumps the blood making man's will stronger than God. The Bible teaches quite the opposite. His are is not short concerning thy salvation.

"Whosoever believeth HATH (PAST TENSE -- ALREADY HAS) everlasting life." That says believing is the evidence not the work in which man must accomplish in order to be saved.

Thanks for the jacking up. I did reflect on my previous comments and sincerely appreciate that your thoughts.

God bless us all is my prayer.

Catholics are not the only ones teaching such Christ belittling things; but most other Christian denominations know not to worship the Virgin Mary and other saints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I never mind anyone differing with my opinion. I have learned a lot by further investigating what someone else says.

In this case, so far at least, I see nothing to retract. Any time a church sets aside a day for the Blessed Virgin Mary and calls her the Queen of Heaven, which the OT forbids -- then that statement is not false on my part. When John in Revelation went to kiss an angel's hand, he was told not to do it for they were equal. The Virgin Mary in worshipped in statues where they say she sheds tears. Immaculate conception??? She had other children. She died like everyone else.

When they teach to pray to her and other saints, they are making someone other than Jesus the mediator. That belittles Jesus.

When they say you have to be sprinkled (they call it a baptism in order to be eternally saved )--- they have added a work to the blood of Jesus. That dilutes the blood and belittles Jesus' shed blood being 100% the way of salvation. If there is anything man must do in order to be saved eternally (believe, accept, repent, confess, be sprinkled and call it baptism) then man has elevated himself to being at least part savior for his work trumps the blood making man's will stronger than God. The Bible teaches quite the opposite. His are is not short concerning thy salvation.

"Whosoever believeth HATH (PAST TENSE -- ALREADY HAS) everlasting life." That says believing is the evidence not the work in which man must accomplish in order to be saved.

Thanks for the jacking up. I did reflect on my previous comments and sincerely appreciate that your thoughts.

God bless us all is my prayer.

Catholics are not the only ones teaching such Christ belittling things; but most other Christian denominations know not to worship the Virgin Mary and other saints.

Copen see.... you are just showing your 'ignorance' (in the nicest possible way) about Catholicism. You need to educate yourself on Catholic theology then come to the table with an argument.

Pax et lux

Edited by Star of the Sea
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.