O
otjm
Guest
Actually, it would appear that the issue is solved as-is, particularly in light of the reading of John 13.
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
Perhaps you feel that the implication is being made. So let’s look at that.
Why were the Gospels written? Hint: it was not because the writers had the mindset of a 20th century historian; they were not writing to give a blow-by-blow articulation of who was there and who was not.
The Gospel accounts of the Last Supper tell us both of the institution of the Eucharist, and the institution of the new priesthood. As such, it focuses on the 12 Apostles.
All I can find at the moment is my copy of the Jerusalme Bible; John 13, vss 4-5 “and he got up from table, removed his oputer garment and, taking a towel, wrapped it around his waist; he then poured water into a basing and began to wash the disciples feet and to wipe them with a towel he was wearing.”
The note in that quotes says “The dress and duty are those of a slave.”
2 comments: the word “disciples” is used, not Apostles, or The 12. And the image of the one who was Rabbi, Teacher, and as the one acknowledged as Lord and Christ (Anointed) becoming as a slave is indicative that the message of washing feet is that of humility, charity and service. Not priesthood per se.
Mark is interesting; Luke identifies the two who went to prepare the room as Peter and John; Mark only as 2 disciples, and then says “He arrived with the Twelve” (Mark 14, 17). Further, He responds to their question of who will betray: "It is one of the Twelve, one who is dipping into the same dish with me. (vs. 20). If only the Twelve were there, then it seems an awkward statement - why not just “one of you”? Stating the Twelve would seem to imply others were present.
Matthew does not note that two disciples went to prepare the room, but only “the disciples”. However in 26, 20 Matthew refers to the twelve disciples as those at the table.
The short of it is that the scripture passages could be read as only the Apostles present, or as others present. As the focus is on Christ and the Apostles, there was no particular need for any of the writers to note others present; and they are written in a way that it is possible that others were present; it is clear the 12 were.
But the assumption that no one else being mentioned means that no one else was there, is looking at the scriptures as a historical reporting of all the facts. As others possibly being present that night is irrelevant to what the writers were conveying, there was no need for them to report.
It is entirely possible that only the 12 were; but the scriptures were not focused on that matter, and so we conjecture.
L
Louie1983
Guest
No, not really.
That seems more like don ruggero’s interpretation rather than Christ’s.
There are many references in the teachings of the church it explains the relationship between the washing of the feet to the priesthood.
This seems to be ignored for some reason.
L
Louie1983
Guest
Matthew 26: 17-20
Christ clearly states that he is “keeping the Passover with his disciples”. He mentioned no-one else, further more why would he choose a particular person’s house? Why not choose a place that is easily accessible to others if he wanted others there.
It was Christ and his 12 apostles, no-one else.
L
LilyM
Guest
But you’re not worried if that same wife or girlfriend is confessing intimate details of her sexual sins to that same priest - possibly face to face with him? The one action is no more or less likely to lead to impropriety than the other, it seems to me.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Point taken but in my case it’s all hypothetical. I did use the subjunctive.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I disagree that there were others present other that Christ and the Twelve, but if we put aside that disagreement, then why do the rubrics of the Mandatum call for twelve people to have their feet washed? That indicates that Christ did indeed specifically choose to wash the feet of twelve people. And if there were indeed (as you imply there may have been) other people present at the Last Supper, then why does the Church symbolise in this ritual taht Christ specifically choose Twelve people?
Why twelve? Is this just a mere coincidence or is this meant to represent Christ washing the feet of The Twelve? The feet of His chose Apostles, the men who He chose to be His first priests?
O
otjm
Guest
The Church has many teachings which are not doctrine, but rather practice. For example, the requirement for a celibate priesthood is not doctrine; the Church has had married clergy since its earliest days; only the Roman rite requires it - and currently, not even absolutely. Confusing Church teachings about the meaning of this ritual is not binding doctrine in any way, shape or form.
O
otjm
Guest
Whether Christ washed the feet of more than just the Apostles, or even if there were or were not more than just the 12 there is irrelevant to what Christ was trying to convey. He was clearly (as in, John 13) giving a message to the Apostles that they were to be as servants. Re-read the part from John 13 that Don Ruggero posted; it should be clear.
You seem to be implying that it is only the bishops who are called to service. I am not going to do an exegesis of the Gospels on the matter (or St Paul, either). It is clear from the Gospels that Christ expects humility and service by all followers towards one another. He expects us to treat others as a slave would treat their master.
Why 12? Because the act comes from the same night we celebrate on Holy Thursday. You want to put the emphasis on the Apostles, and by some mental juggling, restrict any foot washing to men only. The emphasis on the act was to the twelve who would be the leaders of the Church, and it clearly was a message that they were to be servants; but there is no reason to restrict it only to the 12 (aws I noted, all are called to serve one another); nor is there reason to make secondary the emphasis of the message of service. That message of service to all is exemplified by not restricting it simply to men.
Who is it that Christ is telling the Apostles to not “lord” it over? Simply other bishops? Really?
Or just not “lord” it over priest? Really?
Or over everyone?
Washing the feet of the Apostles was not a rite of ordination. It was an instruction which was so dramatic an act - here, the one they acknowledge as Lord, as the Anointed One, physically dresses down as a slave and does what no Jewish person would have done for another their slave would have done so). Peter was appalled. And perhaps Peter was the one most in need of the lesson, since it is his reaction, and the dialogue following, which is noted in the Gospel.
The use of 12 people at our foot washing ceremonies echos that this was originally done to the Apostles. The use of women as well as men (and for that matter, children) reminds us that the message of service is to all. It really is not that hard to understand, or to wrap one’s mind around. And we are called to serve one another in humility and charity no less than the Apostles were; and women are called to that service just as much as men are; and the young just as much as the old.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
So what happens in the Liturgy isn’t to imitate the actions of Christ? Christ washed the feet of His Apostles who were all men, but we’ll take this ‘one-step further’ and improve upon this in light of how we now view His actions?
And the fact that the Mandatum had a dual meaning in terms of the Christ and the priesthood AND humility and service to others is of no consequence any more? Change the ritual so that it ditches one of these meanings, after all that meaning must have been wrong anyway?
O
otjm
Guest
This is not only irrelevant to the subject, but speculative. If you have an issue with something else, then perhaps you can start a separate thread.
why do you say it is of no consequence? Because women have been added? It still has the same dual meaning; but the emphasis on humility and service to others has been emphasized. No meaning has been ditched; but rather, the meaning was obfuscated by over-emphasizing the Apostles themselves, and under emphasizing that the Apostles were being given an astounding example of service that was clearly contrary to the then status quo, to wit: the Master became the slave to them.
What was the meaning of the ritual with 12 men having their feet washed? They were not even seminarians, let alone priests, let alone bishops. What was it - a pretend that they were “sort of” the Apostles? Liturgy is not a play act.
If the meaning of having 12 men was, as you say, “a dual meaning in terms of Christ and the priesthood AND humility and service to others”, then that has not changed. The fact of having 12 still is there; but I think you had an over-emphasis on the priesthood, to the point of not seeing that the service the priests and/or bishops were to give was to all - not just 12 men.
The meaning was wrong? I did not use that term. And nothing has been “ditched”. The washing of the feet was not the ordination of the Apostles. It was an instruction to the Apostles, that they were to be as slaves to others.
Whose feet are the Apostles to wash? Others. And on Holy Thursday, the priest carries out that command of Christ, to serve others with the degree of humility and charity of a slave, by washing the feet of others - with “others” now being both men and women, young and old.
If anything, the change makes more clear the command of Christ; one that perhaps was unclear as it seems to have been over-focused on the Apostles themselves, rather than being focused on what the Apostles were to do.
Perhaps that over-emphasis on the 12 representing the Apostles made easier, in history for bishops and Cardinals to be seen as the “princes” of the Church, with pomp and ceremony, rather than as servants (as in, clericalism).
Nothing has been done away with or abandoned. Only emphasis has been changed.
What was the mandatum which Christ gave? To love one another as He has loved us. And who did He give that mandatum to? Those who would be the leaders of the Church; and He clearly wanted them to see their position as being as humble as a slave, to the point of doing what ordinary people, let alone leaders would not do.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
When something is changed it doesn’t mean that it was previously ‘wrong’. It reflected the culture. In fact the Churchs job is to present Christ in a way that He is known most fully in a personal way and that depends on recognising cultural meaning of things. Imagine how this early rule would seem to us today were it still enforced…
**1 Cor 14 ** 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yeh, about that. It is something else that is scripturally based that has been dumped. Why? Because it doesn’t fit today’s culture? Are you listening to yourself?
If the Church keeps meeting the world half way, pretty soon there will be no Catholic identity left. (Principle of half-life)
L
LongingSoul
Guest
What do you think of this scriptural instruction?
Matt 23 8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
So we change what is meant to be the imitation of the actual actions of Christ, and replace it with different actions that reflect our culture more accurately? We don’t reflect Christ in the Liturgy through the actions he actually took, but through the actions we think he would have taken if he had lived in our culture?
Why stop just at actions though? After all words, like actions, are just as much bound by culture? Why not rewrite the Gospels to more accurately reflect the culture we live in?
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s a linguistics issue. Another problem.
I
I
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s a linguistics issue, another problem.
I’m a physics major, not a theologian. I see God’s Laws in a different way.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Here is St Thomas Aquinas explanation of the symbolism of the washing of the feet from his Meditations for Lent. There is very clearly no gender relevance. It is not symbolic of any sort of ordination or Priestly role. It’s meaning clearly pertains to all people.
After that, he putteth water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded (John 13:5).
There are three things which this can be taken to symbolize.
- The pouring of the water into the basin is a symbol of the pouring out of His blood upon the earth. Since the blood of Jesus has a power of cleansing it may in a sense be called water. The reason why water, as well as blood, came out of His side, was to show that this blood could wash away sin.
- By the words and began to wash it is human imperfection that is symbolized. For the Apostles, after their living with Christ, were certainly more perfect, and yet they needed to be washed; there were still stains upon them. We are here made to understand that no matter what is the degree of any man’s perfection he still needs to be made more perfect still; He is still contracting uncleanness of some kind to some extent. So in the Book of Proverbs we read, Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin (Prov. 20:9).
There are however others who are infected, not only in their feet, but wholly and entirely. Those who make their bed upon the soiling attractions of the world are made wholly unclean thereby. Those who wholly, that is to say, with their senses and with their wills, cleave to their desire of earthly things, these are wholly unclean.
But they who do not thus lie down, they who stand, that is, they who, in the mind and in desire are tending towards heavenly things, contract this uncleanness in their feet. Whoever stands must, necessarily, touch the earth at least with his feet. And we, too, in this life, where we must, to maintain life, make use of earthly things, cannot but contract a certain uncleanness, at least as far as those desires and inclinations are concerned which begin in our senses.
Therefore Our Lord commanded His disciples to shake of the dust from their feet. The text says, He began to wash, because this washing away on earth of the affection for earthly things is only a beginning. It is only in the life to come that it will be really complete.
Thus by putting water into the basin, the pouring out of His blood is signified, and by His beginning to wash the feet of His disciples the washing away of our sins.
- There is symbolized finally Our Lord’s taking upon Him the punishment due to our sins. Not only did He wash away our sins but He also took upon Himself the punishment that they had earned. For our pains and our penances would not suffice were they not founded in the merit and the power of the Passion of Christ. And this is shown in His wiping the feet of the disciples with the linen towel, that is the towel which is His body.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Sorry what? It clearly says no one should be called father. No blah blah thanks. Take it for what it says. If you don’t you must feel the hypocrisy of your position?
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
:bounce:- Status