Pope Francis washes feet

[Brendan_64]

I brought it up because it is what Jesus did. He washed the feet of His closest disciples and no one else. I do not think that was insignificant and I believe that it had some meaning and relevance. I am not going to speculate as to what that meaning was, but Jesus typically did things that meant something, even if that meaning wasn’t clear at the time.

Jesus washed the feet of His disciples and told them to do the same to others.He did not stipulate that they should only wash the feet of other men.

The washing of feet at Holy Thursday Mass symbolises the priest doing as Christ commanded (i.e. washing the feet of others symbolising humility and service to others). Since the priest serves both men and women alike it is entirely appropriate for him to wash the feet of women as well as men.

 

[Brendan_64]

I have no issue with the choice of the Holy Father to do what he wished at this Mass. To me, he is showing that he is here to serve and not be served, and also that Jesus did many things for many people during His ministry without once saying I only came for 1 group, he came for many: the poor, sinners, criminals, marginalized, women, pagans, etc.

 

[Mike30]

Jesus washed the feet of His disciples and told them to do the same to others.He did not stipulate that they should only wash the feet of other men.

The washing of feet at Holy Thursday Mass symbolises the priest doing as Christ commanded (i.e. washing the feet of others symbolising humility and service to others). Since the priest serves both men and women alike it is entirely appropriate for him to wash the feet of women as well as men.

I will repeat. I never mentioned that the Holy Father would wash the feet of women. I merely found it interesting that he chose to include non-Christians in the ritual.

The fact that he also chose to wash the feet of a Muslim female though, could prove to be problematic with the Muslims who in general would not see the act in quite the same way that we might see it and in fact might see it as being offensive in the highest degree.

 

[crazzeto]

Some wonderful comments here. I think this was a wonderful gesture by the Holy Father and I appreciate he is highlighting this aspect of the Christ like life (poverty, humility, what it means to believe we are created in Gods image).

 

[OraLabora]

I brought it up because it is what Jesus did. He washed the feet of His closest disciples and no one else.

What then, did Jesus tell the Apostles to do after He washed their feet? He told them to go out and do the same thing (hint: reread yesterday evening’s Gospel).

To fail to notice that is to selectively read the Gospels. Note too that Jesus didn’t say “and go out and do the same thing to only men”.

 

[Mike30]

What then, did Jesus tell the Apostles to do after He washed their feet? He told them to go out and do the same thing (hint: reread yesterday evening’s Gospel).

To fail to notice that is to selectively read the Gospels. Note too that Jesus didn’t say "and go out and do the same thing to only men".

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

To add to it the reading your own personal preferences could also be termed selective.

Again I wil repeat, I never even mentioned women in my posts, except in the case of the Muslim female which I just posted.

 

[Halo]

Jesus washed the feet of his 12 Apostles before the last supper, to show how clean they needed to be before their Ordination as the first Bishops of the Church and before their first reception of Holy Communion. When he said that they did not understand now what he was doing but would understand later, he was of course referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit when he “breathed” on them. I wish more importance would be given to the Institution of the Holy Eucharist on Holy Thursday rather than to foot washing.

 

[ziapueblo]

Greetings and blessed Good Friday,

I may be wrong, but with the washing of the feet of a non-Christian seems that it is an extraordinary way of evangelization. I must admit that I am clueless when it comes to the Muslim faith, but I can imagine that a Muslim woman having her feet washed by not only a man, but the Pope himself, would be a profound experience. Like I said, I know nothing of the Muslim beliefs, but I have see in the news Muslim women being persecuted by the Taliban, Muslim women covered up and I have heard of Muslim women having strict consequences by their husbands or fathers for shaking the hand of another man, all in some of these very strict Islamic countries.

The experience that this Muslim woman had, having her feet washed by the Pope, may have planted the seed of the Catholic faith and she, God willing, may be brought to Christ one day.

Just a thought.

Blessings,
ZP

 

[shelby_sun]

There is no issue per se. The Pope is the Pope. I do not doubt for one second that he had the best of intentions in doing as he did.

The only problem is that of perception. It works both ways. The actions themselves were clear but the reason behind is ambiguous. And the fact that the actions, however good the intention may have been, would NOT have been permitted to any other bishop or priest, sends a ‘perceptual message’ that the Pope does not think the rules are correct (in which case one might have expected him to CHANGE said rules before ‘ignoring’ them), and thus, they don’t have to follow that rule either. Which will quickly lead to 'we don’t need to follow any rule we don’t like.'

God knows the last 40 years of liturgy have been experimental horrors for many. We were just hearing in the last Pontificate that we need to abide by liturgy. Now the PERCEPTION will be that Benedict was ‘focusing on the unessential’ and the whole circus will, for MANY (not all), start again (or continue ramped up). Where I am, for example, the priests already tweak the liturgy in many ways. I hate to think what will happen now, here. . .

First of all, I don’t think it ever crossed his mind to become Pope, it certainly was never his plan joining the Jesuit, so he probably never gave thought to these events as the Pope.

Second, he has not been Pope that long and really had no time to change laws; however, he obviously felt a deep need to do what he did, IMO a wonderful thing.

Third, the bigger perception, whether he meant to give one or not, might just be that the world will see his true openness all of God’s children around the world, but more importantly he showed those prisoners, male and female, Catholic and non-catholic that God loves them.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

\

The experience that this Muslim woman had, having her feet washed by the Pope, may have planted the seed of the Catholic faith and she, God willing, may be brought to Christ one day.

Just a thought.

Blessings,
ZP

And maybe her entire religion

 

[CradleJourney]

A theme in the early days of Francis’ pontificate has for the Church not to be turned in on itself but to flow out to the the people at the edges of faith or even at the edges of humanity. In that respect these days read a little like the Gospels. The Pope is, in a matter of speaking, the maker of tradition. But the newness of these ablutions seem to reflect on someone else who sought out the marginalized and was criticized by the establishment for it.

Since I didn’t wash any prisoner’s feet today, I won’t criticize anyone who did.

John

 

[thewanderer]

Jesus washed the feet of his 12 Apostles before the last supper, to show how clean they needed to be before their Ordination as the first Bishops of the Church and before their first reception of Holy Communion. When he said that they did not understand now what he was doing but would understand later, he was of course referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit when he “breathed” on them. I wish more importance would be given to the Institution of the Holy Eucharist on Holy Thursday rather than to foot washing.

While that may have been another reason for the feet washing, that is not the reason Christ gave the apostles. His reason was that even though He is Lord, he must be humble and serve others, and that similarly, the apostles who were being given positions of authority must live their authority as servants to others rather than as kings to be served.

 

[otjm]

There is no issue per se. The Pope is the Pope. I do not doubt for one second that he had the best of intentions in doing as he did.

The only problem is that of perception. It works both ways. The actions themselves were clear but the reason behind is ambiguous. And the fact that the actions, however good the intention may have been, would NOT have been permitted to any other bishop or priest, sends a ‘perceptual message’ that the Pope does not think the rules are correct (in which case one might have expected him to CHANGE said rules before ‘ignoring’ them), and thus, they don’t have to follow that rule either. Which will quickly lead to 'we don’t need to follow any rule we don’t like.'

God knows the last 40 years of liturgy have been experimental horrors for many. We were just hearing in the last Pontificate that we need to abide by liturgy. Now the PERCEPTION will be that Benedict was ‘focusing on the unessential’ and the whole circus will, for MANY (not all), start again (or continue ramped up). Where I am, for example, the priests already tweak the liturgy in many ways. I hate to think what will happen now, here. . .

I think sometimes we stand so close to an issue that our view becomes distorted - sort of the “forest for the trees”, if you will.

Most of the chaos in the liturgy (and for that matter, elsewhere in the Faith) started in the 1970’s and seemd to peak somethere in the late 1980’s - early 1990’s, if one was to step back and look at matters overall. If one is right in the middle of everything, it is easy to lose sight of changes, particularly when they are gradual and when they are over a much larger area (as in, for example, the US as opposed to your own diocese, or your diocese as opposed to your parish - of for that matter, the world Church as opposed to the US). John Paul 2 started the process of cleaning up many of the problems; Benedict 16 was forthright in saying that we need to look at Vatican 2 in light of the history of the Church and dogma, and many do not see that things have been moving away from the sillines, sometimes outright stupidity, and anchorless experimentation (whether liturgical, or in moral or dogmatic theology) of the past through the leadership both Popes have given us.

There are always going to be people who “don’t get it”. That has been going on for 2000 years or so, and going into a rigid “nothing can change” mode is not going to impact that one way or another.

One of the biggest problems laity have had in the last 40+ years has been the lack of adequate catechesis. What the Pope has done is just that - catechesis; read what Brother JR has posted.

For those poor souls who simply cannot absorb any instruction, there is not much that can be done. That however, is not a reason to stop instructing those who can learn, and in learning, can grow in their faith.

Far too many people have become hide-bound in their views of many rubrics, presuming that whatever is the first appearance of the meaning of the rubric, is the only meaning of the rubric. As in, many have been so caught up in, for example, the possible meaning of the 12 to be washed, that they missed the other points, particulalry service. On occasion, we need to have our preconceived notions challenged as they are limiting our fuller understanding of what Christ wants to teach us.

I suspect this Pope will have much to teach us; but we can learn only if we do not react in fear, do not have a knee-jerk response to the lesson, and quitely listen.

 

[Francoist]

When you meditate can you do me one favor?

Can you pray for my soul?

Of course, Brother.

 

[johnmann]

This is a much more interesting debate than I originally thought. So the facts are that there’s no clear link between the washing rite and the 12 Apostles, either in Scripture, the rubrics, or actual practice in many places. But the rubrics do clearly indicate that it’s restricted to men. The two ways to interpret that are that it should be connected to the 12 Apostles or that the rubric is unnecessary. If the latter, Pope Francis should’ve abolished it. If the former, it should be much more explicit. Someone suggested that it should be the bishop who washes the feet of 12 priests.

The Vatican is trying to say that the circumstances demanded a deviation from the rules. But if the bar for deviating is so low, the rule really has no force and such a justification undermines liturgical laws in general. Better to abolish it explicitly.

But there’s a larger debate. Pope Francis, it’s suggested, is not a stickler for liturgical rules and tradition. He seems to believe those are all in the service of service and that we shouldn’t allow liturgical rules and traditions to hamper the new evangelization. For those of use who are sticklers for liturgical rules and tradition, it’s a hard lesson. We personally may not like it but I think it’s helpful that we have a pope who keeps us grounded to what’s ultimately important.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think sometimes we stand so close to an issue that our view becomes distorted - sort of the “forest for the trees”, if you will.

Most of the chaos in the liturgy (and for that matter, elsewhere in the Faith) started in the 1970’s and seemd to peak somethere in the late 1980’s - early 1990’s, if one was to step back and look at matters overall. If one is right in the middle of everything, it is easy to lose sight of changes, particularly when they are gradual and when they are over a much larger area (as in, for example, the US as opposed to your own diocese, or your diocese as opposed to your parish - of for that matter, the world Church as opposed to the US). John Paul 2 started the process of cleaning up many of the problems; Benedict 16 was forthright in saying that we need to look at Vatican 2 in light of the history of the Church and dogma, and many do not see that things have been moving away from the sillines, sometimes outright stupidity, and anchorless experimentation (whether liturgical, or in moral or dogmatic theology) of the past through the leadership both Popes have given us.

There are always going to be people who “don’t get it”. That has been going on for 2000 years or so, and going into a rigid “nothing can change” mode is not going to impact that one way or another.

One of the biggest problems laity have had in the last 40+ years has been the lack of adequate catechesis. What the Pope has done is just that - catechesis; read what Brother JR has posted.

For those poor souls who simply cannot absorb any instruction, there is not much that can be done. That however, is not a reason to stop instructing those who can learn, and in learning, can grow in their faith.

Far too many people have become hide-bound in their views of many rubrics, presuming that whatever is the first appearance of the meaning of the rubric, is the only meaning of the rubric. As in, many have been so caught up in, for example, the possible meaning of the 12 to be washed, that they missed the other points, particulalry service. On occasion, we need to have our preconceived notions challenged as they are limiting our fuller understanding of what Christ wants to teach us.

I suspect this Pope will have much to teach us; but we can learn only if we do not react in fear, do not have a knee-jerk response to the lesson, and quitely listen.

I absolutely agree on no knee jerk reaction. But it is true that while liturgical experimentation may have 'peaked ’ in many places in the 1990s, there are areas of the country where it is still going on, even after the last 8 years, even in the face of the BISHOP giving guidelines, etc. The priests just ‘wink’ and keep doing ‘what the people (supposedly) WANT us to do’.

I was away for nearly 4 HALCYON years in another part of the country, and when I had to return I have borne as a cross the fact that things back here have NOT changed for the better and continue on in the “Spirit of Vatican 2”. . .

I know that for very many, things will not change for the worse, or will at least remain static. But in some places, things WILL change, because even when in other areas they improved, some places did not. Where I am, sadly, will probably always be a place where ‘what the people want’ will trump what the Church teaches, especially in liturgy. . .

 

[shelby_sun]

I absolutely agree on no knee jerk reaction. But it is true that while liturgical experimentation may have 'peaked ’ in many places in the 1990s, there are areas of the country where it is still going on, even after the last 8 years, even in the face of the BISHOP giving guidelines, etc. The priests just ‘wink’ and keep doing ‘what the people (supposedly) WANT us to do’.

I was away for nearly 4 HALCYON years in another part of the country, and when I had to return I have borne as a cross the fact that things back here have NOT changed for the better and continue on in the “Spirit of Vatican 2”. . .

I know that for very many, things will not change for the worse, or will at least remain static. But in some places, things WILL change, because even when in other areas they improved, some places did not. Where I am, sadly, will probably always be a place where ‘what the people want’ will trump what the Church teaches, especially in liturgy. . .

I think you are right. Different parts of the world will see every pope differently. Since its onset the Church has continued to change, sometime for the better, sometimes not (at least for some). A major difference today is the technology allows us to debate what happens 24/7 with people all over the world. As seen on this site, sometimes that gives people health and educational interaction and sometimes it doesn’t. There is no way 1.6 billion people are going to like every pope or agree on every action these popes take. IMO, this best thing to do is look at things with a positive perspective and give the benefit of the doubt to believe that Pope Francis is doing things with the very best intentions of serving the church and all of God children.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think you are right. Different parts of the world will see every pope differently. Since its onset the Church has continued to change, sometime for the better, sometimes not (at least for some). A major difference today is the technology allows us to debate what happens 24/7 with people all over the world. As seen on this site, sometimes that gives people health and educational interaction and sometimes it doesn’t. There is no way 1.6 billion people are going to like every pope or agree on every action these popes take. IMO, this best thing to do is look at things with a positive perspective and give the benefit of the doubt to believe that Pope Francis is doing things with the very best intentions of serving the church and all of God children.

Your last statement is a very good summation!

 

[JReducation]

This is a much more interesting debate than I originally thought. So the facts are that there’s no clear link between the washing rite and the 12 Apostles, either in Scripture, the rubrics, or actual practice in many places. But the rubrics do clearly indicate that it’s restricted to men. The two ways to interpret that are that it should be connected to the 12 Apostles or that the rubric is unnecessary. If the latter, Pope Francis should’ve abolished it. If the former, it should be much more explicit. Someone suggested that it should be the bishop who washes the feet of 12 priests.

The Vatican is trying to say that the circumstances demanded a deviation from the rules. But if the bar for deviating is so low, the rule really has no force and such a justification undermines liturgical laws in general. Better to abolish it explicitly.

But there’s a larger debate. Pope Francis, it’s suggested, is not a stickler for liturgical rules and tradition. He seems to believe those are all in the service of service and that we shouldn’t allow liturgical rules and traditions to hamper the new evangelization. For those of use who are sticklers for liturgical rules and tradition, it’s a hard lesson. We personally may not like it but I think it’s helpful that we have a pope who keeps us grounded to what’s ultimately important.

I would agree with the essence of your post, but we have to be careful with how we word our responses for a number of reasons.

1. The fact that the Holy Father bypasses the rule does not mean that the bar is lower or that the rule is gone. The one thing that all of us in diocese and religious orders know, if we are faithful to the Church, is that we’re not the pope. The pope can bypass any law he wants and it does not mean that we can do so. As we all know, those who think they are popes, will do whatever they want regardless of what the pope does.
2. Are the laws in the service of service? We have to reflect on our laws and rubrics from the biblical point. The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Church creates laws that structure our lives and activities so that they may be pleasing to God and charitable to man. If the Pontiff feels that there is something that may be even more pleasing to God and more charitable, even if it’s from one single event or person, he may have a moral obligation to go down that route, as we must always choose the greater good. I’m not trying to get into the Pope’s head. I think we need to avoid going into people’s heads and limit ourselves to speak objectively about concepts rather than individual thoughts.
3. I’ve never felt comfortable withe the expression “stickler for” whatever. I guess that in my mind this may make it sound as if it’s a weakness to stay as close to the law as possible. But the fact is that the law is like the lines on the road. If you travel between them, your chances of getting hurt are significantly reduced. This does not mean that you never move into the oncoming lane for a greater good. The key is that only when you have the right to do so, may you move out of your lane and you must return to it as soon as the circumstances allow. Popes certainly have rights.

During my tenure in South America what I found is that they are much more relaxed about liturgy than we are in the northern hemisphere. From my experience it has nothing to do with disobedience or some other negative trait. In South America, faith has a very strong affective component not found in the northern hemisphere. In the northern hemisphere the affective dimension of faith is less pronounced and the intellectual stands out. The difference is that they come from the heart to the head. We go from the head to the heart.

I would like to add one more thing. This pope is definitely very Franciscan. Franciscans are very heart oriented, if there is such a term.

 

[seekerz]

Good question. Tradition.?? Custom?? Imitation of Jesus??. Humility??,

Who can really say what the exact reason is now and why Jesus actually did it in the first place?..

We can guess and assume, but thats really about it.

Jesus told us very specifically in the Gospel why He washed His disciples feet.