Can women be included in the washing of feet on Holy Thursday?

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Refresh my memory. Is it permitted to include women in the washing of feet on Holy Thursday? I think the answer is no, but I need some documentation.

No, not without permission from Rome, and I doubt you would get it. The “Washing of the Feet” is actually OPTIONAL. So if it causes too many issues, it does not need to be included in the Mass of the Last supper on Holy Thursday evening.

 

[whatevergirl]

This question came up in March 2008 too (and probably every year before that )

This was my response then:

Thank you for posting this, so our church was not abusing anything, back in PA. That must have been what happened.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m just ‘thinking out loud,’ but I personally don’t imagine Jesus coming back today, only washing men’s feet, as if women were not to be called as servants also. He chose His Apostles who were all men…but I don’t see Jesus only washing the feet of priests, TODAY, if He were to reenact this. This is not to say I am in disagreement with the document here, and this isn’t a feminist point of view. It’s a human being point of view…I don’t imagine that Jesus would exclude people like this, today.I would like to know why the Church teaches this. I need to understand better, perhaps.

That line of thinking is very popular today; “what if Christ were here today?” But the problem with that line of reasoning is that the Incarnation is not happening today. It happened at a given moment in history, in a certain place. Once we start applying that principle of forcing the thinking of a different time or place to the Incarnation, then the Incarnation itself loses it’s essential meaning. The birth, ministry, death, and resurrection (etc.) become merely events of speculation and hypothesis rather than true events of human and salvation histories.

If Christ were Incarnate today, neither would he be “crucified under Pontius Pilate” is a good illustration of where that kind of thinking leads. In other words, once we start thinking that way, our faith loses all meaning because it loses its context. The events of Christ’s life cease to be real events and become mere fictional stories to be adapted and contemporized.

We can change and adapt fiction all we want. But we cannot change the facts of history, most especially the reality of Salvation History.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The instruction was given…where? He DEMONSTRATED servanthood to men, yes…where did He instruct that only men’s feet be washed? Please, show me this.

He has spoken through His Church! What more is needed?

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m just ‘thinking out loud,’ but I personally don’t imagine Jesus coming back today, only washing men’s feet, as if women were not to be called as servants also. He chose His Apostles who were all men…but I don’t see Jesus only washing the feet of priests, TODAY, if He were to reenact this. This is not to say I am in disagreement with the document here, and this isn’t a feminist point of view. It’s a human being point of view…I don’t imagine that Jesus would exclude people like this, today.I would like to know why the Church teaches this. I need to understand better, perhaps.

That line of thinking is very popular today; “what if Christ were here today?” But the problem with that line of reasoning is that the Incarnation is not happening today. It happened at a given moment in history, in a certain place. Once we start applying that principle of forcing the thinking of a different time or place to the Incarnation, then the Incarnation itself loses it’s essential meaning. The birth, ministry, death, and resurrection (etc.) become merely events of speculation and hypothesis rather than true events of human and salvation histories.

If Christ were Incarnate today, neither would he be “crucified under Pontius Pilate” is a good illustration of where that kind of thinking leads. In other words, once we start thinking that way, our faith loses all meaning because it loses its context. The events of Christ’s life cease to be real events and become mere fictional stories to be adapted and contemporized.

We can change and adapt fiction all we want. But we cannot change the facts of history, most especially the reality of Salvation History.

PS-I seem to be having some problems with reading this thread, so if this post is a “repeat” my apologies.

 

[Among_Strangers]

I’m just ‘thinking out loud,’ but I personally don’t imagine Jesus coming back today, only washing men’s feet, as if women were not to be called as servants also. He chose His Apostles who were all men…but I don’t see Jesus only washing the feet of priests, TODAY, if He were to reenact this. This is not to say I am in disagreement with the document here, and this isn’t a feminist point of view. It’s a human being point of view…I don’t imagine that Jesus would exclude people like this, today.I would like to know why the Church teaches this. I need to understand better, perhaps.

I think the idea is, and I completely leave open that I could be wrong, is that this window that we are allowed to see tells a particular story in and about Salvation history.

Jesus washes his Apostles feet, not all of the disciples. It was the Apostles that were given the power to bind and loosen and the washing of the feet ties to forgiveness and the sacrament of reconciliation. These Apostles became the first Bishops.

Although the general idea of forgiveness is to be from all to all and we all should have a servant’s heart and lead as Jesus did. This event is particular for a reason and the Church attempts to focus on that particular event as it has been handed down to us from Jesus through those same Apostles.

Altering of the retelling of this event alters the Gospel thus it should not be done.

Again I could be wrong.

 

[benedictgal]

This question came up in March 2008 too (and probably every year before that )

This was my response then:

Michelle Arnold and I went back and forth on this one. Inasmuch as I respect her, the response she gave and the example she cited are not necessarily the official word from the Holy See. The letter in the link that Lepanto posted should be sufficient reason enough not to deviate from the norm for the washing of the feet.

Incidentally, with regard to the issue of men’s feet only, one need only to look at the example that the Holy Father sets year fter year when celebrating the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper at the Lateran basilica. He is the Vicar of Christ. He washes the feet of 12 men. On many occasions, these men have been elderly priests.

 

[MrS]

He has spoken through His Church! What more is needed?

At the very least, this question should provide an opportunity to teach those who reject the tradition (even if their pastor says okay), to teach those who are unsure, and even to teach those who are seeing/hearing the discussion for a first time.

Thanks to FrDavid96, to Br. Rich, and to Fr Z.

.

 

[benedictgal]

I think the idea is, and I completely leave open that I could be wrong, is that this window that we are allowed to see tells a particular story in and about Salvation history.

Jesus washes his Apostles feet, not all of the disciples. It was the Apostles that were given the power to bind and loosen and the washing of the feet ties to forgiveness and the sacrament of reconciliation. These Apostles became the first Bishops.

Although the general idea of forgiveness is to be from all to all and we all should have a servant’s heart and lead as Jesus did. This event is particular for a reason and the Church attempts to focus on that particular event as it has been handed down to us from Jesus through those same Apostles.

Altering of the retelling of this event alters the Gospel thus it should not be done.

Again I could be wrong.

No, you are on the right train of thought. The Gospel of St. Luke tells us that there were 72 additional disciples. Furthermore, there were women who ministered to Jesus, including Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Salome (not Herod’s daughter). And, the Blessed Mother was no doubt there as well. However, only the 12 are mentioned in St. John’s account. Only the 12 are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels as actually being present in the Upper Room.

In the Jewish sacrificial rite, the priest had to purify himself before offering the sacrifice. This was ritual purification. Jesus was already preparing to offer His Body and Blood in the Last Supper. He was, in effect, purifying them in order so that they could have a share in his ministry, Peter, moreso, than the others, since he would be his Vicar on earth.

It is not that Jesus considered the role of women important. Do you not think that he would have included His own beloved Mother in this ritual? No. However, her role and that of the rest of the women, while important (and Mary’s was supremely important, in fact, Jesus gives her a new role while he is on the Cross), is not the same as that of the Apostles. This was their ordination, so to speak.

 

[Gertabelle]

No, not without permission from Rome, and I doubt you would get it. The “Washing of the Feet” is actually OPTIONAL. So if it causes too many issues, it does not need to be included in the Mass of the Last supper on Holy Thursday evening.

When I was in a Benedictine monastery, we had the ritual of the washing of the feet before mass on Holy Thursday. So the guests and outside community could join us in the prayers, we held the ritual in the guest dining room. The prioress tied a towel around her feast day habit and got down on her hands and knees and washed the feet of some of the nuns, including one very nervous postulant (me ).

It was very moving and very beautiful. But it was most definitely OUTSIDE of the mass, and a monastic tradition that had been handed down through generations of nuns.

I would rather see it eliminated than continue to see the irreverant and goofy ways it has been done at several parishes to which I have belonged over the years.

But that’s just my two cents. Gertie

 

[CHRISTINE77]

One of the Pharisees invited him to a meal. When he arrived at the Pharisee’s house and took his place at table, a woman came in, who had a bad name in the town. She had heard he was dining with the Pharisee and had brought with her an alabaster jar of ointment. She waited behind him at his feet, weeping, and her tears fell on his feet, and she wiped them away with her hair; then she covered his feet with kisses and anointed them with the ointment.
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet, he would know who this woman is that is touching him and what a bad name she has’.
Then Jesus took him up and said, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you’. ‘Speak, Master’ was the reply.
‘There was once a creditor who had two men in his debt; one owed him five hundred denarii, the other fifty. They were unable to pay, so he pardoned them both. Which of them will love him more?’
‘The one who was pardoned more, I suppose’ answered Simon. Jesus said, ‘You are right’.
Then he turned to the woman. ‘Simon,’ he said ‘you see this woman? I came into your house, and you poured no water over my feet, but she has poured out her tears over my feet and wiped them away with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but she has been covering my feet with kisses ever since I came in. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. For this reason I tell you that her sins, her many sins, must have been forgiven her, or she would not have shown such great love. It is the man who is forgiven little who shows little love.’ Then he said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven’.
Those who were with him at table began to say to themselves, ‘Who is this man, that he even forgives sins?’
But he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace’.

 

[benedictgal]

One of the Pharisees invited him to a meal. When he arrived at the Pharisee’s house and took his place at table, a woman came in, who had a bad name in the town. She had heard he was dining with the Pharisee and had brought with her an alabaster jar of ointment. She waited behind him at his feet, weeping, and her tears fell on his feet, and she wiped them away with her hair; then she covered his feet with kisses and anointed them with the ointment.
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet, he would know who this woman is that is touching him and what a bad name she has’.
Then Jesus took him up and said, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you’. ‘Speak, Master’ was the reply.
‘There was once a creditor who had two men in his debt; one owed him five hundred denarii, the other fifty. They were unable to pay, so he pardoned them both. Which of them will love him more?’
‘The one who was pardoned more, I suppose’ answered Simon. Jesus said, ‘You are right’.
Then he turned to the woman. ‘Simon,’ he said ‘you see this woman? I came into your house, and you poured no water over my feet, but she has poured out her tears over my feet and wiped them away with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but she has been covering my feet with kisses ever since I came in. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. For this reason I tell you that her sins, her many sins, must have been forgiven her, or she would not have shown such great love. It is the man who is forgiven little who shows little love.’ Then he said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven’.
Those who were with him at table began to say to themselves, ‘Who is this man, that he even forgives sins?’
But he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace’.

These are two very different stories. The contexts are also very different. The woman in this Gospel account showed Jesus an act of great love, seeking forgiveness.

The account of the Last Supper was done in the context of a sacred liturgical act, the Passover. Jesus was instituting the new and everlasting covenant, a covenant that would be sealed in His Blood. He was charging the 12 with doing the same. Doing the same meant that they would have to be ordained. Here, Jesus was the new Aaron, offering the new sacrifice and instituting a new priesthood. That is also why, in some locations, the Chrism Mass is also celebrated on Holy Thursday to show the intimate connection between the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the bishops and priests.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am taking a Collaborative Ministry course as offered by CLI and its being held in my local Church on Saturday mornings. This past Saturday was the first class. In the class the instructor stated that she was involved in a parish where all the parish lay ministers participated in the washing of the feet to show that all ministers were servants of the congregation. I know this is incorrect and I think that only the Ordinary takes this role. However, what I don’t know is where the official Church teaching is on this.

Can you liturgy experts here on CAF help me out? I want to write up a short essay to give to the instructor as well as to the other students on this topic and I will need verifiable sources.

I want to do this because:

1. 
   *]three of the students in the class are preparing for acceptance into the permanent Deaconate and I want them to know that what she described is a liturgical abuse and when they are in leadership they need to squelch this sort of activity;
   *]I know it’s wrong and the instructor of any Catholic based class should not putting forth information that is contrary to the teachings of the Church.
   
   Thanking you in advance,
   A.S.

1. 
   Another point to be made is that at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday, we are not merely remembering an event of the past, but that event is real and immediate for us at that particular moment. We are experiencing the Last Supper, not merely recalling it.
   
   Here’s some more information for your research:
   
   On Holy Thursday, note the words of the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I)
   “The day before he suffered
   to save us and all men,
   that is today,…”
   
   The Last Supper is “today” not 2,000 years ago, but right here, right now. We are not at liberty to change the Last Supper.
   
   We are the participants in the Last Supper, not the authors of it. Too many people today tend to forget that.

 

[Gertabelle]

These are two very different stories. The contexts are also very different. The woman in this Gospel account showed Jesus an act of great love, seeking forgiveness.

The account of the Last Supper was done in the context of a sacred liturgical act, the Passover. Jesus was instituting the new and everlasting covenant, a covenant that would be sealed in His Blood. He was charging the 12 with doing the same. Doing the same meant that they would have to be ordained. Here, Jesus was the new Aaron, offering the new sacrifice and instituting a new priesthood. That is also why, in some locations, the Chrism Mass is also celebrated on Holy Thursday to show the intimate connection between the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the bishops and priests.

 

[patg]

It is quite entertaining how every time we discuss phrases such as “…for us men and for our salvation…” we are told by many on these forms that “of course we all know that the term men stands for mankind or *humans *so get over it, it is not sexist at all and it is heretical political correct liberalism to see it any other way.”.

But then we read " The washing of the feet of **chosen men **which,…" Of course here it means only the male of the species to the same posters as above because that is just the way it should be. I thank God my parish performs this ceremony without discrimination. Of course there is always the possibility that only the men had dirty feet and Jesus was making a statment…

 

[diggerdomer]

The USCCB offers this guidance for pastoral planning:

usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.shtml

 

[aimee]

It is quite entertaining how every time we discuss phrases such as “…for us men and for our salvation…” we are told by many on these forms that “of course we all know that the term men stands for mankind or *humans *so get over it, it is not sexist at all and it is heretical political correct liberalism to see it any other way.”.

But then we read " The washing of the feet of **chosen men **which,…" Of course here it means only the male of the species to the same posters as above because that is just the way it should be. I thank God my parish performs this ceremony without discrimination. Of course there is always the possibility that only the men had dirty feet and Jesus was making a statment…

I don’t think it entertaining:shrug: Holy Thursday …washing of the feet is part of the institution of the priesthood…no women. I am unfortunately of the same type parish as you and I see it as thumbing your nose at the magisterium.

 

[maize]

im taking part in the holy thursady mass (carrying the chrism oil up front, not sure what all it entails, ill find out) i decided to see if i could find a mass to watch on youtube and i found this…

youtube.com/watch?v=4iEYxFFGkcA

 

[benedictgal]

It is quite entertaining how every time we discuss phrases such as “…for us men and for our salvation…” we are told by many on these forms that “of course we all know that the term men stands for mankind or *humans *so get over it, it is not sexist at all and it is heretical political correct liberalism to see it any other way.”.

But then we read " The washing of the feet of **chosen men **which,…" Of course here it means only the male of the species to the same posters as above because that is just the way it should be. I thank God my parish performs this ceremony without discrimination. Of course there is always the possibility that only the men had dirty feet and Jesus was making a statment…

However, we need to look at the context behind this ritual. The Apostles were men. Not only were they going to partake of this particular passover, but this passover was going to turn into the complete fulfillment, the sacrifice of the True Paschal Lamb, Jesus Christ. In effect, the apostles were going to be charged with celebrating these sacred mysteries. Furthermore, since Jesus, as the new Aaron (high priest) and the new Moses (the deliverer of the people), was going to institute this, he needed to ordain the new priests of the covenant, the Apostles, who, in turn, would be ordaining men to succeed them in office.

I hope this helps.

 

[whatevergirl]

That line of thinking is very popular today; “what if Christ were here today?” But the problem with that line of reasoning is that the Incarnation is not happening today. It happened at a given moment in history, in a certain place. Once we start applying that principle of forcing the thinking of a different time or place to the Incarnation, then the Incarnation itself loses it’s essential meaning. The birth, ministry, death, and resurrection (etc.) become merely events of speculation and hypothesis rather than true events of human and salvation histories.

If Christ were Incarnate today, neither would he be “crucified under Pontius Pilate” is a good illustration of where that kind of thinking leads. In other words, once we start thinking that way, our faith loses all meaning because it loses its context. The events of Christ’s life cease to be real events and become mere fictional stories to be adapted and contemporized.

We can change and adapt fiction all we want. But we cannot change the facts of history, most especially the reality of Salvation History.

I understand this, I do.
Not everything we do, should have to explained or completely understood, but Jesus’ washing of the feet was at a certain place and time–if women were present, do you suppose He would exclude them? I believe we all know that Jesus was only present with the 12 Apostles, during the Last Supper…and thus, that is why the Church has only men involved in the present day washing of feet.

If it were a grave offense, why would the Pope allow bishops of local dioceses to ‘permit’ women to have their feet washed. And children?

I don’t want my feet washed, let me say that, lol. I just don’t think that this can be summed up as based on the historical recounting of the Last Supper…the Last Supper only had men in attendance. How the Church deducts that that means only men forever, should have their feet washed in symbolization, that is what I’m not understanding.