O
otjm
Guest
So you see God’s law as not requiring humility and charity?
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
We have not changed the meaning of Christ’s actions’ actually, we have made it clearer. Nor have we changed the actions themselves; feet are still washed (as this was the action of Christ).
Perhaps you see other actions in the passage from John?
It most certainly was not the ordination of the Apostles, otherwise, why has the Church ever since not had that as part of the Sacrament of Orders?
And as the actionshave not changed, your question concerning “the actions we think he would have taken if he had lived in our culture?” is completely and totally irrelevant. No action have been changed.
Again, your question is irrelevant as you start with the premise that the actions have been changed. They have not. And thus your wandering off into the weeds with the bit about re-writing the Gospels is just as irrelevant. Nothing in the change of the washing of feet is a re-writing of anything. There was only one time in history the Apostles feet were washed, so that cannot be duplicated. And as I noted in other posts, if the Church were to maintain the premise you seem to have, that this is only symbolical of the Apostles, then only the Pope should ever do it, and only of bishops. Nothing in the history of the Church indicates that, so that is a wrong premise.
The short of this is very simple; in fact, exceedingly simple. You don’t like it.
And that is perfectly fine; but the machinations you go through to protest it get farther and farther from the ceremony itself, and propose things that neither existed before, nor now; and suggest changes that have not been made.
In short, your protests seems to say that the message of Christ was only to the Apostles; which logically would indicate that this ceremony should never have been done ever again.
The Church obviously disagrees with you, if that is the case.
This was not the first time that Christ addressed with the Apostles the issue of pride and desire for glory; one only has to go to the scene where two of the Apostles request to be on Christ’s left and right hand.
To maintain that the washing of the feet was a lesson only to the Apostles, carried out logically, is to imply that everything else he taught the Apostles, and everything else he showed the Apostles, was only for them. That is beyond silly. The Church has clearly held that certain things apply only to the Apostles, and those they chose, and clearly the sacrament of priesthood is within that. It has never taught that everything Christ said applied only to them, a position you seem to take.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
First, the novus ordo rubrics do not require that those having their foot washed number twelve.
Second, the Roman missal, for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper speaks of "…the principle mysteries that are commemorated in this Mass, namely, the institution of the Holy Eucharist and of the priestly Order, and the commandment of the Lord concerning fraternal charity.
Some people have read into the gesture of the washing of feet a narrownness that simply cannot be sustained by an exegesis of the gospel text or the Church’s own practice across centuries. One simply cannot conflate the second and the third of the principle mysteries, which are articulated by the missal. To do so is not theologically correct.
If that conflation were to be sustained, this rite would have no meaning or purpose in monasteries and friaries composed of unordained Relgious, in houses of women Religious, and by being undertaken ritually by Christian monarchs.
If anyone thinks the gospel passage is simply about how successors of the apostles are to wash each others feet, they have a woefully inadequate hermeneutic.
If this actually only had meaning and purpose for the College of Bishops, then it is a gesture proper only to synods of bishops and has no place in a parish liturgy or monastic setting at all. As it is, the Church has always understood it in a much broader context, namely: “the commandment of the Lord concerning fraternal charity”.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Seriously? You understand every Greek nuance?
P
ProVobis
Guest
What are you implying? That I’m not? How do you know how I treat my neighbors?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
No, I trust in the Seat of Peter ordained by Christ to interpret Scripture for me. You are the one rolling your eyes because women aren’t keeping their traps shut in Church any more as is scripturaly prescribed. Didn’t you imply some break with the spirit of the Church with your snarky retort?
P
ProVobis
Guest
With all due respect, I think you’ve already done your own interpretation. You were the one who brought it up, after all. What response were you looking for?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
You are mistaken about the concept of Benedictine thought and who acts in the person of Christ. How Saint Benedict saw those acting in the person of Christ went well beyond the sacrament of holy order, which was in any event the exception in monastic life in his day and beyond.
The abbess does not act sacramentally* in persona Christi capitis* – but then when Saint Benedict wrote his rule in the sixth century, abbots were typically not ordained and so they also were not sacramentally configured to Christ. In neither case does sacramental configuration enter into Benedict’s thought – neither for monks or nuns.
Indeed, by Benedict’s prescription any priest received into the monastery was not only under the abbot, precisely because it is the abbot who held the place of Christ for the monastery but even more…because of his priesthood, the priest must be even more assiduous in placing himself under the abbot’s jurisdiction. See Chapter 62 .
So as specified in chapter 2 of the Holy Rule, as head of the monasteries, the abbot was to be regarded as holding the place of Christ. And in the monasteries of women, of which the first was governed by his twin sister Saint Scholastica, the place of the abbot was taken by the abbess. And she held the place of Christ in her monastery, relative to her nuns.
That is why this gesture of the washing of the feet, which has been performed in the monasteries across centuries, is indeed most relevant in the light of the customs which descend from the Benedictines abbesses from antiquity.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
My own interpretation? I was just defending the Church and Pope Francis who has given the ok for a wider variety of Gods people to take part in the foot washing in accordance with the spirit of the teaching. I’m not dissenting or proposing anything outside Church teaching. Just defending the teaching of Francis. If you recall post #110 … you are the party challenging the Churchs change of teaching. C’mon. Some honesty here please.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Would you please explain where, precisely, Our Lord Himself provides an interpretation outside of what His own words say in the sacred text itself?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Some honesty? I have never attended a feet-washing event in my life and I don’t plan to. So believe and do what you want.
Now if you’ll excuse me while I’ll revert to the ignore option.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I simply don’t believe you’ve never attended Holy Thursday Mass where there is the traditional foot washing ritual. You have claimed to be very familiar with the Church and her life.
L
Louie1983
Guest
Through his church.
My point was in addition to what you explained It is also about the institution of the priesthood and there are several texts I’ve read that relate the washing of the feet to the priesthood and when Jesus stated " do this in memory of me" at the first mass.
Looking back on my comment it may have come across as a bit blunt, so apologies if I caused offence.
However I feel what you explained and the institution of the priesthood are equally Important for Holy Thursday.
O
otjm
Guest
Perhaps I misunderstood your reply to Longing Soul - you were more than a bit cryptic.
P
pnewton
Guest
Whenever the subject comes up about the change of the Mass after Vatican II, the question always comes up that growth and changes need to be “organic”. When practices spread like this, then the idea that this could be organic is not considered and “liberals” are condemned for starting illicit practices. I have notice over the last two papacies that the Pope has a no problem with practices arising spontaneously from the faithful and implementing them as organic growth. I get the sense that stagnation is what is really being sought when the complain is made we need organic growth.
P
pnewton
Guest
Then let us accept that “through his church” we now have a deeper understanding of this rite that goes beyond the priesthood. The question is do we learn what the Holy Father is teaching, or do we “lean onto our own understanding.”
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
We wanted to start early in case you give up CAF for lent, that way you don’t miss out on all the fun! :whacky:
:slapfight: :blackeye: :stretcher: :crutches:
For the record: There’s never any fighting on CAF! Fighting is a mortal sin and we know how much people on CAF love to debate who and who isn’t in mortal sin. :slapfight:
P
pnewton
Guest
This place is never short one people with an opinion about what the Holy Father can or cannot do, especially when he actual takes some action. I would rather hold out the Pope’s own opinion of his role as a standard than my own, or anyone else’s here.
P
ProVobis
Guest
For the record, there were changes to Holy Week prior to Vatican II. Also St. Joseph was added to the Canon in 1962, arguably the most serious violation of Quo Primum up to that time. I was probably too young to notice any significant opposition to them.
This was also before internet forums, though.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not doubt that the internet, for all its uses, will prove to be one of the biggest challenges of the next generation.This was also before internet forums, though.
- Status