Pope Francis to wash feet of prisoners in pre-Easter Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Luigi_Daniele said:
Sorry. Let’s say that the feet washing at diocese XYZ is “done on” 6 priests, 4 deacons and 2 lay persons.

If this is true (the numbers don’t matter, as long as even 1 lay person has his feet washed), then the annual washing of the feet is already not the same as at the Last Supper. Given that, it means that it is already not an exact reenactment, so the Pope is free to choose whom he wants to have their feet washed.

If this is true, then I see no problem at all with women’s feet being washed.

I do, I must admit, have (at least at first inspection) a bit of a problem with non Catholics being “done”, but if I understand correctly, the Pope can suspend rules of ritual.
Click to expand...
The Last Supper is repeated in The Eucharist, not The Foot Washing.

And Our Lord clearly indicated that He intentionally chose men.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Christ makes a clear and intended distinction in the passage of The Washing of the Disciples’ Feet and about those whom He chose:

His choice of men was clearly intentional. Of this, there is no debate.
Click to expand...
As priests: absolutely.

But He chose the priests (bishops) and showed them what to do. It doesn’t say anywhere that He limited to whom they could do it.

After all, by that logic He was limiting the reception of the Eucharist to men only, as He only gave the Precious Body and Blood to men at the Last Supper.😉

EDIT: I honestly hadn’t seen your response above when I typed the last lines. Great minds:D
 
In view of the atrocities against Christians,during and after the “Arab Spring”,throughout
the world.

Nothing yet on this but washing and kissing the feet of Muslims ???
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
As priests: absolutely.

But He chose the priests (bishops) and showed them what to do. It doesn’t say anywhere who that He limited to whom they could do it.

After all, by that logic He was limiting the reception of the Eucharist to men only, as He only gave the Precious Body and Blood to men at the Last Supper.😉
Click to expand...
Where did He tell them to wash just anyone’s feet?
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
As priests: absolutely.

After all, by that logic He was limiting the reception of the Eucharist to men only, as He only gave the Precious Body and Blood to men at the Last Supper.😉
Click to expand...
Foot Washing and the Holy Eucharist are NOT synonymous.

Foot Washing is NOT a Sacrament. - no?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Foot Washing and the Holy Eucharist are NOT synonymous.

Foot Washing is NOT a Sacrament. - no?
Click to expand...
I see your point. I doubt that our Lord would have sent such confusing messages, though.

To me the central point of the Last Supper was the institution of the Eucharist (obviously).
The unbroken line for that was obviously meant to be men. There can therefore never be women priests. Period.

But if you use the argument that the “less important” washing of the feet was for men only, because He didn’t do it to women because there were no women present, then that logic has to follow for the “men onlyness” of the 1st Eucharist/Mass.

Now, you say, “but Lou, obviously He meant the Eucharist for everyone”. I agree 😃 I am just saying that one can not have it both ways: one can not infer what our Lord meant by giving the Eucharist to men only as meaning “no, no: he meant everybody” and while at the same time maintaining that He didn’t mean everyone when He instituted the washing of the feet.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
So Liturgical law by omission? Really?

Where did Jesus condemn masturbation? Abortion? Cannibalism? Homosexuality? Etc etc etc…
Click to expand...
He did not. He left Peter with the Keys of the Kingdom for this very reason: it would have been impossible to mention all the rules for all time in 33 years.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
But if you use the argument that the “less important” washing of the feet was for men only, because He didn’t do it to women because there were no women present, then that logic has to follow for the “men onlyness” of the 1st Eucharist/Mass.

Now, you say, “but Lou, obviously He meant the Eucharist for everyone”. I agree 😃 I am just saying that one can not have it both ways: one can not infer what our Lord meant by giving the Eucharist to men only as meaning “no, no: he meant everybody” and while at the same time maintaining that He didn’t mean everyone when He instituted the washing of the feet.
Click to expand...
Do you think the Good Lord simply made due at the Washing Of The Feet with the people who were present? He clearly said He CHOSE those who were present.

But the Eucharist (as an actual Sacrament AND the source and summit of the Faith) was meant for all. And that is evident by the actions of the early Church.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
He did not. He left Peter with the Keys of the Kingdom for this very reason: it would have been impossible to mention all the rules for all time in 33 years.
Click to expand...
Actually not quite. Those sins were already well known as evil acts by the Jews. Peter, nor any other Pope could ever change those moral doctrines.
 
A better way of putting it might be:

The Last Supper was about who would be preforming (I know, horrible way of putting it, but I can’t think of a better word :o ) the Mass (Eucharist) and the Washing of the Feet, not about who could receive them.

Only a man could offer Mass and wash feet, but it does not say anything about who could receive them.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
A better way of putting it might be:

The Last Supper was about who would be preforming (I know, horrible way of putting it, but I can’t think of a better one :o ) the Mass (Eucharist) and the Washing of the Feet, not about who could receive them.

Only a man could offer Mass and wash feet, but it does not say anything about who could receive them.
Click to expand...
Actually it does. For the Eucharist Christ said: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” - Matthew 26:28

But for the Washing of the Feet He clearly says: “I am not speaking of all of you. I know those whom I have chosen.” - John 13:18
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Actually it does. For the Eucharist Christ said: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” - Matthew 26:28

But for the Washing of the Feet He clearly says: “I am not speaking of all of you. I know those whom I have chosen.” - John 13:18
Click to expand...
Wow, that’s a devastating point. :o

Thank you for that. 🙂

OK, so then we are left with the point that Francis, as Pope, is not bound by ritual?
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Wow, that’s a devastating point. :o

Thank you for that. 🙂

OK, so then we are left with the point that Francis, as Pope, is not bound by ritual?
Click to expand...
I would argue (and I cite no infallibility of my own ;)) that the entire ritual established by Christ Himself should be limited entirely to the clergy:

“So when he had washed their feet [and] put his garments back on and reclined at table again, he said to them, “Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I,* therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash** one another’s feet***. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do. Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it.** I am not speaking of all of you. I know those whom I have chosen.** But so that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘The one who ate my food has raised his heel against me.’” - John 13:12-18
 
I’ll ask again:

At the diocesan level is the Washing of the Feet limited to priests only?:o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top