|
Hot When the foot of the person who is having their foot washed comes into
The Foot Washing 2000 maintains an electronic log that automatically This device has been tested formally by the Vatican and meets with all "The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to chairs This device has been condemned by all American liturgists so you know |
The Old Oligarch has an excellent post on the theological meaning of “The Washing of the Feet”
28 comments
I think the 30 second delay on the mild shock is too kind. Oh, maybe I’m just being mean, expecting feminine feet to know that they should not be there in the first place. Poorly catechized feet abound, dontcha know…. 🙂
You know, I’ve always wondered but have been afraid to ask, do priests dread having to do the whole foot-washing thing every year? It’s one thing to deal in feet as part of your word if you’re a pedicurist, but when you are a priest, it’s probably not exactly what you joined the seminary to do. Hopefully those who are selected to be washed have the courtesy to pick the lint from between their toes before heading to Mass.
Actually, the last 2 years, neither parish I’ve been to for the Holy Thursday Mass has done it. The priest last year really had no excuse, though since he probably would have included women, it may have been better he was lazy about it.
This year, I visited the Jesuits, and I think the fact that they’re all in their 70s and 80s and can hardly bend might have been why they skipped it. Otherwise, it went very well – the local Jesuits are very solid priests, even if in their old age, they slip now and then in the liturgy.
I’d also rather it be skipped. It’s seems extraneous to me, especially since the abuses have occurred so often… Oh yes, I know the symbolism, but the symbolism fails when selfish subversion of church law occurs. That’s NOT service.
Of course, the real way to deal with it is not go. If you don’t go, you can’t get a rude surprise.
Peace, all.
Sadly, in all the discussion on gender, the real point has been missed. Jesus instituted the ritual, saying, “I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.” (John 13.15)
A parish that has absorbed the meaning of the Mandatum (serving others humbly — regardless of gender, I might add) may have no need for the ritual. But rituals such as this amplify and celebrate realities already present. They also serve to teach the young and uninitiated. I think footwashing is something more than a “symbol.”
Clearly, who can do the ritual is a disputed point. That all Christians are charged to “do this” is not. Does the men-only or priest-only rule make sense? Only if people have gotten the message.
There comes a time when all the nonsence has to stop and we have got to get real when it comes to Jesus Christ the living Son of God. Did Jesus in fact wash the feet of The Apostles? And were they not all men? This was HIS decision not ours. And did HE tell them to follow his example? No where does it say that he washed the feet of women.If you start to use this argument of DNA, and I’ve seen this stupidy many times before. It is an old argument that frustrated Nuns and women and weak priest and layman use when they look not to Jesus and what he said and did,And what HIS Church demands in obedience on all of us. but rather to fulfill there own selfish grab for power. Power is what it is all about.This act of saying that women and men are women are the same is wrong. There are quite different and thank God for that. Women are the most beautiful creatures God created and he has given to them so many marveous roles in the lives of men and mankind that it is really their infulence that eventually rules the world and the hearts of men. Give us Saintly women and you will find the world and the Catholic Church a far better place to live in and die in. And we are all going to die and have to face Jesus in the final monent.Lets hope he ask not if some nuns or women got her feet wet but rather did she in fact listen to the Gospels and wash the feet of those who were in need of her. Oh yes and contrary to popular option God knows all about DNA. ” PEACE AND ALL THAT IS GOOD” Samuel J.McGovern Jr. National Lay Director National Shrine Centre of Our Lady of Guadalupe
Peace, Sam.
Nice try.
“Did Jesus in fact wash the feet of The Apostles?”
According to St John, he washed the feet of his disciples.
“And were they not all men?”
No. Some disciples were women. And even if he did only wash the feet of men (a possibility) by the same token he only distributed his Body and Blood to men. But we know where that went, don’t we?
Have a Happy Easter.
Todd, the essential meaning of what Christ did wasn’t merely humbly serving others in this action. Remember, Peter was told he wouldn’t have any inheritance in Christ unless his feet were washed. And, if you had bothered reading Oligarch’s explanation, that inheritance would seem to be ordination, which is exclusive to men.
By the way, your idea that mixed company had their feet washed seems pretty flimsy. Even the inclusive language NAB has Christ speaking only of males. “Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over.” Hardly words you would expect to be used if women were having feet washed too.
It’s extraneous. It was added to the Holy Thursday Mass in 1956. Who knows why. It is a distraction now with all this awful fighting. Let’s just skip it. That’s my 2 cents worth. I don’t go to it anymore. I’m tired of the abuse.
Consider all of us tired ones as the ones whose rhetorical feet you must wash, ok? So the way to wash our rhetorical feet is just to shut up and behave for once. Think you can handle that?
Peace, Justice.
I did bother to read O.O.’s explanation. The Jesus-Peter inheritance discussed in John 13 could be orders, but it also might not be. It’s not very catechism-specific, is it?
Also, the key translation would not be the NAB inclusive, but the Greek. And while we were in the neighborhood of the Last Supper, we’d need to also check the language used at the Eucharist too, wouldn’t we?
And mc, the point isn’t the washing of your feet, as if sacramentals and sacraments are always about what we can “get” out of God. The point is loving and serving others as Jesus served. If you catch that drift, I have no worries about your missing Mass.
Going back to the original languages sounds like a great idea Todd. In fact, a priest yesterday reminded me that when the Bible speaks of Christ, it doesn’t speak of a “servant” in the Greek, but a “slave.”
Now, I think that’s a very wonderful example to be followed. Be slaves to Christ and the Church. Slaves, unlike servants, are called to obedience with no ifs, ands, or buts about anything. No fiddling around with the liturgy or questioning of doctrine for the slaves of Christ. =)
Peace, all.
Expressing an opinion and backing it up is hardly terrorism. Very poor choice of words, there. Unless someone is still living in Biblical times, remember Jesus has abrogated the term “slave.” Later in John’s Gospel, he calls us “friends,” which I’m sure doesn’t translate to “slave” in Greek. Moreso, the Apostle Paul repeatedly writes of our familial relationship to Christ, namely that He is our brother.
Prooftexting Scriptures (finding passages to support one’s pet opinions) is not intellectually sound practice. I’m pleased to note no one has countered my claim that if footwashing were meant for men or priests only, then surely the Eucharist would have fallen under the same prescription. The apostle-footwashing link is further weakened by the ritual’s placement at the parish Mass, not the Chrism Mass. Also there is the failure of the Roman Missal to specify a number to wash. At the very least they would have suggested an ideal of twelve, which could be fewer for smaller parishes. But they didn’t.
Sorry to terrorize your clear thinking on this one, but the point remains in hot dispute.
Todd, it’s “friends” in the English version; perhaps you should look at the Aramaic or Greek version if you want to argue about words. It sounds like Sesame Street in some English versions.
I still think they’d ought to drop it. It’s an extraneous bit which simply causes controversy.
You know, there’s this really obnoxious tendency that catholics have of being gonzo on the symbolism and then acting like totally vicious pagans when it really counts. Service is pretty much missing in 90% of the Catholics who insist that womens’ feet should be washed. It’s just talk, talk, talk.
In fact, that’s one of my biggest beefs about progressives–they go on and on poetically (sort of) waxing about all the euphoric experiences they’ve had and how they love, love, love everyone….and then they treat the rest of us like crap. It’s not credible and never has been. It’s the pharisees all over again.
And besides taht, what they do is dime-store emotivism, pure and simple and has zip to do with God. In a phrase, you pull it out of your ass on command. The image that pops into my mind is those sappy artsy creative readings that people try to do with the scripture readings. “And now here’s the “Days of Our Lives version of the Gospel of Mark…” I’m embarrassed for them.
The rest of us are sick of looking at it, and sick of having to put up with it. Individual progressives may have themselves fooled and they may get together in groups and act “oh so holy” but the rest of us aren’t fooled for a minute. Put that in your hymnal, bud.
Sorry Todd, you didn’t read me right. The substitution of “slave” was for Christ’s description as “servant”, since slave is how the Greek reads. My point was true imitation of Christ in this regard involves acting more like the former in just accepting things and doing what you’re told, instead of always questioning the nature of the process, like Peter in this episode.
Since you insist, I will check a copy of the Roman Missal I have on me on Monday to see what the text says.
Peace, mc.
Happy Easter, by the way.
You spoke of the “tendency … of being gonzo on the symbolism and then acting like totally vicious pagans.” Interesting. On the same day, you write of others being “pharisees,” and make a creative turn of words like “pull it out of your ass.” As you say, you didn’t go to your church Thursday night. I didn’t notice any Michigan plates in the parking lot here that night, so I presume you weren’t scandalized directly by my parish’s practice. While not denying a pastor’s authority to oversee the practice of footwashing, poor and unsubstantiated reasoning is fair game for critique. And so long as you aren’t personally made to wash feet or be washed, if some other woman does it elsewhere, what concern is that of yours? (Luke 10:38-42)
Justice, you posted, “My point was true imitation of Christ in this regard involves acting more like the former in just accepting things and doing what you’re told, instead of always questioning the nature of the process, like Peter in this episode.”
And you are right, to a point. Technically, I would be imitating Peter’s humble submission to wash feet by meekly accepting the modern trend from the CDWDS. Jesus, however, routinely flaunted religious authority when he believed it to be unjust. If Jesus had practiced obedience as a matter of daily business with the religious leaders, he would not have likely made it to the cross. Which Christ do I imitate? The lion or the lamb? The one who called out Pharisees and Scribes? The one who accepted his Passion for a greater purpose?
The trouble is, you have no authority to decide what is just and what is not within the Church and its liturgy. You are like Core and his followers, who rebelled against Moses and Aaron because they wanted to serve at the altar. They were devoured by the earth for their sin. Check out Numbers 16-17 for that.
Peace, Happy Easter, Justice.
I haven’t said I possessed the authority “to decide what is just and what is not within the Church and its liturgy.” Repeatedly, I have said that belongs to bishops and pastors.
Women have their feet washed on Holy Thursday with the permission of bishops and pastors. That might be unpleasant for some, but that is the current practice. Archibishop Donoghue, for example, has stated the contrary will occur in Atlanta. I do not quibble with his authority, only his reasons.
Your metaphor is as imperfect as Jesus permitting his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath. I have no wish to be either Korah or Jesus, but only a disciple of Christ. Those who would suggest women washing feet and being washed is not appropriate have a battle on their hands from me. I do not wish the power to impose such a view on others — I merely argue the points as I see them.
Todd, women having their feet washed during Holy Thursday service may be “current practice” but it’s bastard practice and against church liturgical law. Look it up. I know you can read. You might like it, you might find priests who will do it to please you and others who are into feel-good emotivism and shallow symbolism. That doesn’t make it right.
Todd, we all know what transpired after the council and since. You have no grounds for ever accusing someone of being nasty to others about liturgical matters. History has been written and non-progressives will NEVER be able to match what progressives did to millions of innocent families. Millions left the church because of the despicable behavior of progressive self-proclaimed “reformers.”
Well, the lights have been switched on now. History is what it is.
People who insist on political symbolism which is in violation to liturgical law do pull it out of their ass. It is of their own making in order to manufacture an emotion. Pure and simple.
The progressivists made a huge fatal error–latent for years but now starting to become visible.
They enabled a certain considerable number of people to endure abuses, and by enduring them, grow in obedience to the will of God and strength to endure.
That core of people will spread and grow into many and they remember history, Todd.
It is the church’s mission to teach, to heal and to offer the sacraments to the faithful. In order to do this, laws are necessary, people being what they are. Not all laws are pharisaical either, Todd.
There are current abuses in church law. Interestingly enough, they are of a political type (womens’ rights, gay political status–marriage, etc, divorce, etc.) which I don’t remember Christ ever championing. He didn’t argue politics with the Roman senate unless I missed that chapter. 😉
He didn’t get into organized economic structures, womens’ rights movements, liberation theology type things (wow–was Israel ripe for that! The Sanhedrin was panting over ousting the romans which was one of the motivations for carrying on with Christ–anything for a riot that would upset Pilate’s boss, eh?).
Christ said “I come NOT to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.” The laws of the church have the same purpose and we understand them in the same way as Catholics, if we know what we are doing, eh?
So, the mass and the institution of the male priesthood and the Eucharist for the purpose of carrying the faith to the world is the point here.
Washing feet is in scripture and it’s nice and all, but hardly the main point taken out of the context above. (To insist that it is, is to insert something extraneous to the process….political womens’ rights, eh?)
The whole friendly neighborhood “recognition of ministry” thing is totally off-topic here. That’s something for an end-of-the-year congratulatory pot luck or something like that.
Give them a watch or whatever at a meeting, and keep it out of the solemn liturgy.
I know this goes on because in my early days as a catholic I had my feet washed without knowing it was against church law. These people told me it was all right. I know better now and they’d ought to be horse-whipped.
Todd, the pastors and bishops are in the exact same situation as Core that I mentioned, challenging the legitimate authority God had established. If they can’t be faithful in little things, they’re not going to be faithful in great things, and are going to let their people merrily stroll down the wide lane to hell.
Being a disciple of Christ means following the authority Christ left for all of us to follow in the Church. The highest authority to speak on this matter has rejected the washing of women’s feet. For faithful disciples, that will be enough – the master has spoken. For those not, they will find others who follow their dissent, eventually into schism and heresy.
Peace, mc.
As usual, I enjoy our fascinating exchanges. I’m still curious as to the terrorist-progressive connection, as it is you, my friend, who speak of anal things and horse-whipping. I point out also that our host finds it amusing to impart electric shocks. To be sure, I’m not scandalized by such humor — it gives me a guilty chuckle from time to time. But it is hardly in keeping with a logical argument to suggest one’s opponents are terrorists and such, while maintaining a certain degree of violent thinking, even if in jest. I submit that it is human nature, not Leftist nature, to lean on others to further a pet position. This thread has made clear to me that some conservative Catholics advocate (in jest, I hope) semi-terrorist tactics, painting themselves with the same brush they are so fond of using on others.
If anyone wants to get back to the original subject, check my own blog in the next few days.
The Latin text of the Roman Missal specifically calls for “duodecim viris” or twelve men in its directions for the feet washing. There’s absolutely no vagueness there about what the Church intends.
I came across your comments on this site during my search for some very specific information on the Catholic foot washing ritual. I hope you all don’t mind my asking a question. Does anyone know if the practice of the priest kissing the foot of the participant is normal practice? Any information would be appreciated. Thanks.