No Holy Thursday Foot Washing

[Spyridon]

The Gospel account in John is amibigous. It doesn’t specify whose feet Jesus washed (aside from Peter), and presumably there would have been female disciples of his in the building where he was eating the Last Supper. The Twelve were at table with him, but there’s a good chance some women were present serving - possibly Martha and her sister Mary, and the Virgin Mary.

It is possible Jesus washed the feet of his mother at the last supper - not likely, but not impossible either.

Next up, the washing of feet is symbolic of two things - baptism, and service to others.

Since women are baptized and called to service, I see no issue with washing their feet.

On a personal level, I’d prefer to have either the Bishop or Priest wash the feet of 12 other priests or male ministers. But there is no issue with washing the feet of women.

More problematic than washing the feet of women, is washing the feet of non Christians. The baptismal symbology is totally absent in such cases, but an argument could still be made for the symbology of service to others.

 

[babochka]

Provide Scriptural evidence that Jesus washed the feet of women.

This is not possible, of course. It’s like saying “provide scriptural evidence that Jesus walked down this or that particular street in Nazaraeth.” Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. And we are not Sola Scriptura Christians.

Regardless of whether or not he ever washed the feet of women, he was giving a model of service to all people for all times, not just to be narrowly interpereted to apply only to those whose feet he washed .

 

[CilladeRoma]

Provide proof he did not.

You can’t. And you don’t need too. I believe that the act is one of service and love. One that He calls each of us to, regardless of our “station” in life. He who humbles himslef with be exaulted. I know that is a lesson I need a lot more work in. Seems like lots of us do lately.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
The whole point of his washing the apsotle’s feet was to shake up the convential thinking of the religious people of the time.

No. That was not the point.

The point was to make an example of service.

 

[FrDavid96]

I stopped doing it about 8 or 9 years ago.

Too much controversy. Too much baggage. Too much misunderstanding and other nonsense.

For about 2 years, a very few people said that they missed it. After that, no one seems to care anymore, and if anything does get said it’s all positive comments to see it gone.

 

[Allegra]

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[Augustinian]

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

“Allegra” is the name of the daughter of Johnny Sac in the Sopranos television program.

 

[Spyridon]

Oof madonne! Someone got it!

 

[alice24]

Next up, the washing of feet is symbolic of two things - baptism, and service to others.

Since women are baptized and called to service, I see no issue with washing their feet.

On a personal level, I’d prefer to have either the Bishop or Priest wash the feet of 12 other priests or male ministers. But there is no issue with washing the feet of women.

I feel the same way.
I don´t get why it would be downgrading or violating the modesty of a woman. First, I do see myself during mass in some kind of lower state than my priest. He represents while doing his duty a far more importand thing than me, I feel.
But I wouldn´t like such a close physical contact with another man in this context.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Thing is, your feelings and opinions are shaped by the world in which you live.

A 1st Century Palestinian Jewess would not feel the same way as you do. She would have been scandalized at the thought of mixed seating in the synagogue or of going out to lunch with a man.

 

[alice24]

Right- but Jesus didn’t acted in an apropriate way with women. He had almost rule breaking close contact to women and outsider-women as the bloodflossing women. So, the historicial perspective is not always a foundation for our faith. If it was, faith would be dead for me as an historian.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Right- but Jesus didn’t acted in an apropriate way with women. He had almost rule breaking close contact to women and outsider-women as the bloodflossing women. So, the historicial perspective is not always a foundation for our faith. If it was, faith would be dead for me as an historian.

What’s bloodflossing?

 

[Phemie]

alice24:

Right- but Jesus didn’t acted in an apropriate way with women. He had almost rule breaking close contact to women and outsider-women as the bloodflossing women. So, the historicial perspective is not always a foundation for our faith. If it was, faith would be dead for me as an historian.

What’s bloodflossing?

Probably a typo or autocorrect error. I’m deducing the poster is referring to the bleeding woman who was constantly bleeding and touched Jesus’ cloak. She would immediately have rendered him unclean as she was considered herself.

 

[Gorgias]

Right- but Jesus didn’t acted in an apropriate way with women. He had almost rule breaking close contact to women and outsider-women

I agree that Jesus didn’t let cultural mores dictate His ministry. However, I think that @TheLittleLady is onto something valid here. Allowing a woman touch you is one thing; in that culture, however, reaching out and touching a woman – who is neither a relative nor a spouse – is completely different.

Even today, I would suggest, there’s something quite intimate to the gesture. Not as it is practiced during the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, of course – pouring water over a woman’s feet and placing a towel on them isn’t all that intense. However, imagine it as it happened on that evening: washing the dirt off a woman’s feet, massaging and cleaning them, and drying them off. That might just come off as something far more physically intimate than “service”.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Jesus was always a gentleman.

 

[JButky]

Its was always taught to me that that the foot washing was bound to the institution of the priesthood. Two articles below that explain it pretty well, the latter from a Jewish perspective…

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/04/09/holy-thursday-footwashing-and-the-institution-of-the-priesthood/

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6051-feet-washing-of

 

[Roseeurekacross]

This has become that age old

do we follow the example of Our Lord Jesus, or the cultural secular world of His and our time.

Argument.

Now don’t we become disciples and enter the Priesthood of the People in our Baptism.
We should ask our newly minted Catholics.

 

[GoGoDiego]

Out of all the Masses of the Lord’s Supper I attended these past years, the Washing of the Feet is carried out. In some parishes, they stick to the traditional twelve men; each wear a sash with a name of an apostle and join the Entrance Procession of that Mass.

Last Holy Thursday, the outgoing Cathedral Rector (the clergy assignments were announced earlier that day during the Chrism Mass) celebrated the Evening Mass, with the Bishop in attendance (in choro). He was to to the point of breaking down in tears when he washed the feet of the twelve people (men and women). Then emotions went loose as he washed the feet of the Bishop after washing the twelve. I have to admit, I shed a tear or two at that moment when the Rector embraced the Bishop. He had been weeping after that when he had put on his chasuble.

Now, in answer to the OP’s question…
Personally, if my Cathedral-Parish would stop with the footwashing, it wouldn’t make any difference. If the Bishop or the Rector can omit the footwashing, it is his choice. After all, the main point of the MOTLS for me is the institution of the Eucharist and the Priesthood - which is greatly shown during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. We aren’t called to love one another and be humble just on Holy Thursday, we should do it EVERYDAY.

 

[alice24]

Right- but Jesus didn’t acted in an apropriate way with women. He had almost rule breaking close contact to women and outsider-women as the bloodflossing women. So, the historicial perspective is not always a foundation for our faith. If it was, faith would be dead for me as an historian.

What’s bloodflossing?

Probably a typo or autocorrect error. I’m deducing the poster is referring to the bleeding woman who was constantly bleeding and touched Jesus’ cloak. She would immediately have rendered him unclean as she was considered herself.

I meant exactly this, sorry. I sometimes don´t notice autocorrect errors when I type on my mobile phone, sorry.

 

[alice24]

Jesus was always a gentleman.

I think I know whta you want to say, but I still think this is a bit confusing and probably misleading. If Jesus acted in the way a proper first century jewish “gentleman” (ignore the anachronism) would have acted, he would not have been the visible son of god. He was sometimes a reformer, sometimes acted against his society´s norms and especially with the woman he acted more “modern” than normal in his time.