Pope Francis ‘opens Holy Thursday foot-washing rite to women’

[otjm]

While the legality of the changes is clearly established, I’ve taken the Holy Father’s words about obstinacy (which requires opposition to reason) to heart and reflected on changes, using reason as my guide.

Obviously literal cleanliness is not the point of this ritual as performed today or by Jesus. The actions of Jesus were meant to symbolize something, and the rite today is meant to symbolize something. There are basically two mutually exclusive options about what this new rite means:

**Option A: The new rite is a symbol intended to convey *the same ***meaning as Jesus’ symbolic actions after the Last Supper.

If this is true, then the change implies that we consider ourselves superior to Jesus in our ability to construct symbols that convey the mind of Jesus. Jesus had extremely holy women in his company, and the Eternal Logos was not subject to peer pressure from anti-woman attitudes of His time. He voluntarily chose to exclude them from this ritual. To say the change is an improvement is to say that Jesus’ own choices can be improved by man’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

**Option B: The new rite is a symbol intended to convey *a different ***meaning than Jesus’ symbolic actions after the Last Supper.

If this is true, then the new rite has the priest publicly wash the feet of a group of 12 people (men and women), to symbolize something to somebody. The question is, what and to whom?

Obviously, Option A is prideful and offensive, and Option B means we’ve introduced a novel ceremony into the liturgy that symbolizes a novel idea. Both are problematic and that is why, with no trace of obstinacy, I find this change problematic.

I think that you narrow it down too much.

It was done to the Apostles, who were to be the bishops of the Church. But it was first and foremost an act of extreme humility and extreme charity, if one has any understanding of Jewish culture at the time of Christ. In fact, there are profound messages in many of the scenes in the Gospels, which, if one has no understanding of Jewish culture, don’t even “go in one ear and out the other”; they simply do not go in the ear.

Over time (and this is a ritual which has been done at some times in Church history, and not done at other times), the connection of this being done to the Apostles, and then only to men, has moved away from the focus of humility and charity, and focused on ordination and priesthood.

So if it was really about ordination and priesthood, then it would seem, to be accurate, that it would only be done by the Pope, and only to bishops. I don’t know the history enough to say if that was ever the case, but certainly that case could be made if the focus is on ordination (and particularly the Apostles’ ordinations).

Or it could be that only a bishop would do the washing, or selected priests of his diocese. Again, it appears it was not limited to a bishop being the only person washing feet.

At the point that it gets to the parish, a priest washing the feet of only men loses a major connection to Christ and the Apostles, if such washing is to be about priesthood.

And arguably, as it is done and has been done for some period of time by parish priests, then the symbolism of the Apostles is being turned into at best a weakly connected symbolism, far removed from the issue of ordination, and restricted only to males - why? Because of the ordination? If that was such a central meaning of the act, then it should have only been done, either by the Pope and no one else, or at least limited to an act to be carried out by the bishop (presumably in the cathedral).

Which loops us back to the issue - what was the primary symbolism? And it appears that the Pope is telling us that the primary symbolism is first and foremost, an act of humility and charity, and secondarily related to priesthood in that it is done on Holy Thursday.

Which may be another way of saying that the humility and charity which Christ showed to his Apostles was a message, less about the Apostles being ordained bishops, than it was that those He chose to lead his Church were to treat all - not just bishops, and not just priests, but all - with that same profound attitude of charity and humility.

I don’t see the issue as being either/or; but rather both/and. However, it would appear that while it can be both/and, the primary message is that of humility and charity. There is no need to see the two symbols as mutually exclusive.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

From the Gospel of John, chapter 13
*12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. *
When this rite is done in monasteries…of men AND of women…and it is the Superior who undertakes to wash the feet of those s/he governs, it is assuredly not with reference to the priesthood. It is with reference to the example of Jesus who is Teacher and Lord washing the feet of His disciples and how each must do likewise relative to anyone they are placed over. They do it on Holy Thursday because that is when Jesus did it.

In the same way, when monarchs performed this rite, it was not about the priesthood. Rather, it was about “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them” – being called to serve and not simply to be served. Today, in the United Kingdom, the Queen does not wash feet but she does bestow special ceremonial gifts on those whom she has chosen to be with her for the celebration of the Maundy Thursday service, in her presence, at one of the Anglican Cathedrals where she serves those she has selected to receive this honour; her ancestors actually did literally wash feet. Now, the number of people for whom she does this gesture of service is equivalent to the number of her years.

In the context of the Mass of the Lord’s Supper in Rome as celebrated by the Pope, it was historically at the cathedral, Saint John Lateran. And it was 12 priests who had a foot washed. It was a fitting gesture relative to the bishop and his priests. That is a luxury Rome has that many dioceses do not because of the shortage of priests, however.

Pope Francis though chose to set aside that custom and take up a very different one from that of his predecessors…choosing to go to places for this Mass more in keeping with where a priest would be and what a priest would do for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

After celebrating the Chrism Mass in the morning, he goes to his much loved periphery for the evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper, to focus on a community that is marginalised and not thought of as much as it perhaps should be, in order for him to bring the love of Christ to them and, at the same time, to focus a light on places where we are all called to make a difference.

This is not simply a rite to be accomplished at Mass in a parish church, although that is where it will occur the most, numerically speaking. It is, however, the expression of what is supposed to be lived daily by those who have been placed in a position of authority – be it a prelate or a priest…be it an abbess…be it a monarch…OR be it with each other; we are to be servants to all as Jesus made Himself to be. The choice of Pope Francis to leave behind his cathedral to go and serve those on the periphery is itself a gesture of what Jesus mandated on Maundy Thursday every bit as much as when, in the sacred liturgy, he is washing the feet of the people that he finds there.

In parishes, it can be very easy, since Holy Thursday has many themes that are complementary but not coterminous, to associate the foot washing with the origin of the priesthood…but, as the above examples show, monastics and monarchs would not agree that is the only – or even the most appropriate – interpretation of the rite. And the Pope is also reminding us of that in his own way.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I think that you narrow it down too much.

It was done to the Apostles, who were to be the bishops of the Church. But it was first and foremost an act of extreme humility and extreme charity, if one has any understanding of Jewish culture at the time of Christ. In fact, there are profound messages in many of the scenes in the Gospels, which, if one has no understanding of Jewish culture, don’t even “go in one ear and out the other”; they simply do not go in the ear.

Over time (and this is a ritual which has been done at some times in Church history, and not done at other times), the connection of this being done to the Apostles, and then only to men, has moved away from the focus of humility and charity, and focused on ordination and priesthood.

So if it was really about ordination and priesthood, then it would seem, to be accurate, that it would only be done by the Pope, and only to bishops. I don’t know the history enough to say if that was ever the case, but certainly that case could be made if the focus is on ordination (and particularly the Apostles’ ordinations).

Or it could be that only a bishop would do the washing, or selected priests of his diocese. Again, it appears it was not limited to a bishop being the only person washing feet.

At the point that it gets to the parish, a priest washing the feet of only men loses a major connection to Christ and the Apostles, if such washing is to be about priesthood.

And arguably, as it is done and has been done for some period of time by parish priests, then the symbolism of the Apostles is being turned into at best a weakly connected symbolism, far removed from the issue of ordination, and restricted only to males - why? Because of the ordination? If that was such a central meaning of the act, then it should have only been done, either by the Pope and no one else, or at least limited to an act to be carried out by the bishop (presumably in the cathedral).

Which loops us back to the issue - what was the primary symbolism? And it appears that the Pope is telling us that the primary symbolism is first and foremost, an act of humility and charity, and secondarily related to priesthood in that it is done on Holy Thursday.

Which may be another way of saying that the humility and charity which Christ showed to his Apostles was a message, less about the Apostles being ordained bishops, than it was that those He chose to lead his Church were to treat all - not just bishops, and not just priests, but all - with that same profound attitude of charity and humility.

I don’t see the issue as being either/or; but rather both/and. However, it would appear that while it can be both/and, the primary message is that of humility and charity. There is no need to see the two symbols as mutually exclusive.

I have always thought, if a parallel was really sought on the level of the parish, it is for the priest, assisted by the deacons, to wash the feet of the altar servers. Every Sunday (and at every daily Mass) the congregation sees the altar servers serving the priest and deacon at the altar and, in a moment, on Holy Thursday, the congregation having heard the gospel of what Jesus did that night, then see the priest set aside his vestment and, in humble service and assisted by the deacons, wash the feet of those who have been serving him. It is an expression in itself and the reminder that the congregation, in turn, is called to do likewise in their own lives and circumstance.

 

[simpleas]

Yay Pope Francis, totally a 21st century pope!

 

[Brendan_64]

As this is a minor issue in itself - as can be seen from history where sometimes it was part of the Holy Thursday Mass, and sometimes it ceased to exist, only to be brought back later, I sincerely doubt that it is going to be any motivation to violate liturgical laws elsewhere. Which is not to say that they are not violated elsewhere, although as older priests have retired and/or died, that attitude of laissez faire has become less and less frequent.

Which is another way of saying that those who play fast and loose don’t need this as a prompt, and those who don’t, aren’t likely to start. It is an exceedingly minor matter.

I agree with you up to a point in that this won’t encourage those who don’t already play ‘fast and loose’ with the liturgy to do so, and also with your point about younger priests tending to be less ‘laissez faire’ with the liturgy.

However what this may do regarding priests who have already been ignoring discipline on certain issues (including washing women’s feet) is to reinforce a view that in order to change Church practice you ignore the rules on things you have disagreements with, hope that this disobedience gains ground to the point of becoming relatively common practice, and then hope that Rome will eventually relent and change the rules. This philosophy of using disobedience of the Church as a ‘legitimate’ tool for ‘reform’ of the Church is held by some of the clergy within our Church. This is not a view that ought to be encouraged.

 

[josh987654321]

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/01/21/pope-francis-opens-holy-thursday-foot-washing-rite-to-women/

I don’t think this is right because the whole idea is to represent the Disciples, who were all men (no offense to any women) hence little things like this I believe can easily muddy the waters and before we know it people will be arguing for women ordination in the Catholic Church (They probably already are).

I also head about the washing of the feet of people of different faiths etc and I think this is wrong too, while I admire the humility and zeal one is trying to express in doing so, I believe it is mistaken and muddies the waters, as I said above, it’s supposed to be a re-enactment of the last supper.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t think this is right because the whole idea is to represent the Disciples, who were all men (no offense to any women) hence little things like this I believe can easily muddy the waters and before we know it people will be arguing for women ordination in the Catholic Church (They probably already are).

I once had a supporter of female ordination (herself a Catholic and part of a ‘fringe’ liberal group that had actually met with the then diocesan bishop) argue with me, saying that women would indeed have been present at the Last Supper. She argued that Christ would not have simply turned the women who came with him away and went off to the upper room just with twelve men to celebrate the Passover meal, but that He would have included all who accompanied Him into Jerusalem, and that He would have had his family and friends around Him during this meal. This argument was then used as support for female ordination, since that is what Christ instituted during the Last Supper.

Once we start washing women’s feet during the Maundy Thursday Mass we are implying that there were women present at the Last Supper when Christ instituted the priesthood, (and that they were treated on a par with the men there). That gives oxygen to those who are already arguing that women were present at the Last Supper, and who use this to justify false notions of female ordination.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I once had a supporter of female ordination (herself a Catholic and part of a ‘fringe’ liberal group that had actually met with the then diocesan bishop) argue with me, saying that women would indeed have been present at the Last Supper. She argued that Christ would not have simply turned the women who came with him away and went off to the upper room just with twelve men to celebrate the Passover meal, but that He would have included all who accompanied Him into Jerusalem, and that He would have had his family and friends around Him during this meal. This argument was then used as support for female ordination, since that is what Christ instituted during the Last Supper.

Once we start washing women’s feet during the Maundy Thursday Mass we are implying that there were women present at the Last Supper when Christ instituted the priesthood, (and that they were treated on a par with the men there). That gives oxygen to those who are already arguing that women were present at the Last Supper, and who use this to justify false notions of female ordination.

With all due respect…people who are for women’s ordination are going to argue this regardless of whether women’s feet are washed or not. Just as those who don’t want women in the sanctuary are still arguing that. It’s what people do. To me the whole argument is not about whose feet Jesus washed…heck he washed Judas’s feet. The argument against female priest comes to this…a priest is a stand in for Christ…Christ was male…end of story.

I appreciate the fact that it was included that this is to be an act of humility for the priest…not about the installation of the priesthood. And to me as such…I do think the washing of the feet (as an act of humility for the priest) should be on Holy Thursday–the anniversary of the priesthood-as a reminder for priest that they are not ordained for themselves but to serve.

 

[Brendan_64]

With all due respect…people who are for women’s ordination are going to argue this regardless of whether women’s feet are washed or not. Just as those who don’t want women in the sanctuary are still arguing that. It’s what people do. To me the whole argument is not about whose feet Jesus washed…heck he washed Judas’s feet.

Christ chose to wash the feet of His twelve Apostles at the Last Supper, nobody else, just the twelve men who were to be His first priests. And regardless of what Judas subsequently did, he was one of the twelve specifically chosen by Christ, it is not about whether or not Judas was worthy of this, it was about the fact that he was one of the twelve.

The argument against female priest comes to this…a priest is a stand in for Christ…Christ was male…end of story.

They don’t accept that at all, they seem to see Christ’s gender as being not relevant. They do seem to hold out that there were women present at the Last Supper (even though there is no evidence at all of this) and that this is indeed significant as regards the ordination of women. The allowing of washing of women’s feet during the Maundy Thursday Mass will, in their minds, be a confirmation of their belief that Christ washed the feet of women at the Last Supper where he instituted the priesthood, hence a signal of ‘equality’ of men and women in ordained ministry.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Christ chose to wash the feet of His twelve Apostles at the Last Supper, nobody else, just the twelve men who were to be His first priests. And regardless of what Judas subsequently did, he was one of the twelve specifically chosen by Christ, it is not about whether or not Judas was worthy of this, it was about the fact that he was one of the twelve.

They don’t accept that at all, they seem to see Christ’s gender as being not relevant. They do seem to hold out that there were women present at the Last Supper (even though there is no evidence at all of this) and that this is indeed significant as regards the ordination of women. The allowing of washing of women’s feet during the Maundy Thursday Mass will, in their minds, be a confirmation of their belief that Christ washed the feet of women at the Last Supper where he instituted the priesthood, hence a signal of ‘equality’ of men and women in ordained ministry.

My point was that REGARDLESS of whose feet get washed…those people that want woman’s ordination will have some argument --regardless of how ridiculous it is. This is not the straw that will break the camel’s back. Look at the “women’s ordination” that is going on–they don’t care that it’s not Catholic…they will be disobedient regardless.

But I trust the Holy Spirit in this matter to keep ordination to men… I just highly doubt that woman’s feet being washed is going to overcome Him on that…

 

[twf]

That is a unique definition of “full” and “supreme.” … It seems to me that we’ve taken a trip “beyond the mountains” and I have found the journey to be rather chilling.

Dan

Indeed. Ultramontanism of an extreme sort is alive and well in some quarters…and as long as it is, there is absolutely no hope of reconciliation with our Orthodox brethren. I think many Catholics would be well to remember that the supreme authority of the Church is the Pope AND bishops in union with him… The Pope is absolutely not an absolute monarch and Francis and Benedict would both be the first to acknowledge as such. He is bound by tradition more so than any other man for he is the custodian of tradition. As some canons are rooted in Sacred Tradition going back to the Apostles themselves, and canons have been solemnly promulgated by popes and councils since the beginning, the idea that the Pope can simply “chuck” all canon law is absurd (though he could revise the code as has happened before).
The Pope is certainly bound by justice…and to excommunicate everyone in the Church, save himself, as one poster suggested, would without a doubt be a very grave sin on the Pope’s part…a grave sin of injustice in direct violation of his divine obligation to do all possible for the salvation of those in his charge.

 

[ringil]

Good for the Pope.

In my book if a Pope does it- it is the right thing.

I’m pretty simple that way. I know my place.

 

[OraLabora]

Once we start washing women’s feet during the Maundy Thursday Mass we are implying that there were women present at the Last Supper when Christ instituted the priesthood, (and that they were treated on a par with the men there). That gives oxygen to those who are already arguing that women were present at the Last Supper, and who use this to justify false notions of female ordination.

“We” being whom?

The abbesses that have been doing this to the nuns of their abbeys for who knows how long? I haven’t heard of too many nuns extending this to meaning they should be ordained.

 

[ProVobis]

Look at the “women’s ordination” that is going on–they don’t care that it’s not Catholic…they will be disobedient regardless.

Good point. At last count there were some 200 of these “ordinations” that have occurred. The penalty of course is excommunication but I can easily see this excommunication be lifted or dropped eventually. This would be an invalid back-door approach but nevertheless some progressive spin is sure to follow.

 

[Brendan_64]

“We” being whom?

The abbesses that have been doing this to the nuns of their abbeys for who knows how long? I haven’t heard of too many nuns extending this to meaning they should be ordained.

We being the Catholic Church.

The difference in the example you give is that foot washing by the abbess is not done as part of the Mass and the abbess is not in persona Christi.

Foot washing isn’t the problem, its the foot washing of twelve people within the context of the Maundy Thursday Mass (if this includes women). Move this ritual outside of the Mass of the Last Supper and ditch the stipulation of having twelve people and the issue is solved.

 

[peter26]

Good point. At last count there were some 200 of these “ordinations” that have occurred. The penalty of course is excommunication but I can easily see this excommunication be lifted or dropped eventually. This would be an invalid back-door approach but nevertheless some progressive spin is sure to follow.

There is no such thing as female ordination. Any attempts are described in canon law as “simulating” the act of ordination. That means that the indelible mark put on a person’s soul in ordination does not occur without, for want of a better term, valid matter for the sacrament.

 

[ProVobis]

There is no such thing as female ordination. Any attempts are described in canon law as “simulating” the act of ordination. That means that the indelible mark put on a person’s soul in ordination does not occur without, for want of a better term, valid matter for the sacrament.

True, and I can understand especially the Ordinariate’s sensitivity on this issue.

 

[otjm]

I have always thought, if a parallel was really sought on the level of the parish, it is for the priest, assisted by the deacons, to wash the feet of the altar servers. Every Sunday (and at every daily Mass) the congregation sees the altar servers serving the priest and deacon at the altar and, in a moment, on Holy Thursday, the congregation having heard the gospel of what Jesus did that night, then see the priest set aside his vestment and, in humble service and assisted by the deacons, wash the feet of those who have been serving him. It is an expression in itself and the reminder that the congregation, in turn, is called to do likewise in their own lives and circumstance.

 

[otjm]

I don’t think this is right because the whole idea is to represent the Disciples, who were all men (no offense to any women) hence little things like this I believe can easily muddy the waters and before we know it people will be arguing for women ordination in the Catholic Church (They probably already are).

I also head about the washing of the feet of people of different faiths etc and I think this is wrong too, while I admire the humility and zeal one is trying to express in doing so, I believe it is mistaken and muddies the waters, as I said above, it’s supposed to be a re-enactment of the last supper.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

See post 79, and in particular the beginning with the quote from John 13, where Christ Himself explains why it was done, and what it is meant to show.

 

[otjm]

I agree with you up to a point in that this won’t encourage those who don’t already play ‘fast and loose’ with the liturgy to do so, and also with your point about younger priests tending to be less ‘laissez faire’ with the liturgy.

However what this may do regarding priests who have already been ignoring discipline on certain issues (including washing women’s feet) is to reinforce a view that in order to change Church practice you ignore the rules on things you have disagreements with, hope that this disobedience gains ground to the point of becoming relatively common practice, and then hope that Rome will eventually relent and change the rules. This philosophy of using disobedience of the Church as a ‘legitimate’ tool for ‘reform’ of the Church is held by some of the clergy within our Church. This is not a view that ought to be encouraged.

considering that I have a shirt-tail relative who was ordained prior to Vatican 2, and have had ample experience with numerous priests ordained precious to, and after him, and it is my experience with those who have played fast and loose that they need no prompting; their attitudes appear to be thoroughly set in stone.

If anything, the reaction is more likely to be along the lines of “we got it long before you ever did…”