John 13:3-6
How many people ate the Last Supper - we don’t really know. In Matthew’s Gospel it says that Jesus was reclining at table with the Twelve (Matthew 26:20) however in an earlier verse it’s the disciples who ask where Jesus would like to celebrate the Passover.
In the various Gospels were women included as disciples?
So, it’s possible that Christ not only washed the Apostle’s feet, but all those who were present, and that some of them were women. We don’t know how many were present. We do know that he was with the Twelve, but was it ONLY the Twelve?
We DO know, however that he washed Judas’s feet, knowing that He was to be betrayed
… not just those who would remain true to the end - Oh that would be 1 Apostle, John, and the “women.”
So why anyone thinks the Washing of Feet is anything BUT a symbol of Christ’s humility is beyond me: it gives NO status at all to those whose feet were washed.
If there were others present, but the authors only wrote about the Apostles, then doesn’t that mean either the others didn’t have their feet washed, or if they did, the authors didn’t think it was too important? Clearly the authors were trying to communicate something by writing that he washed the
Apostles’ feet.
Well… I guess I don’t see why the fact that there were twelve or that it occured on the day Jesus did this is a problem. The Pope used this to represent the importance of leaders leading through serving others, just as Jesus did on Holy Thursday by washing the feet of the twelve people with him. So why does doing it on Holy Thursday and having twelve people need to be anything more than a representation of Christ’s original act?
12 is the number of the Apostles. Having women included “among the twelve” at a foot washing ceremony on Holy Thursday is confusing symbolism. It breaks no divine law, but it is confusing symbolism.
Here is a thought that came to me. The Eucharist, instituted on that very same occasion, was certainly “about the Apostles” but just as certainly was not limited to be about only the Apostles. It struck me that the same could be said about the washing of the feet and what I understand to be the primary message, i.e. to be of service.
Cogent argument, that, and I won’t argue against it, but having the number of twelve and including women in it is still confusing symbologically. If the total number was 13, or 11, or any other number but 12, this could be argued even better. But it was 12 at this event.
So… what was the message? If service was the message, why was the number of participants 12? As I said, this is confusing symbolism. About Apostles, or not about Apostles? This is regrettable.
Some people might say some are reading too far in to this, and I understand that concern. However, the number 12 has profound associations with the Christian feast of Holy Thursday, and the fact that 12 and not some other number was chosen for participants in the mandatum rite was almost
certainly a conscious choice.
It seems we have no clarity here, and that is something that would help greatly, since, whether he wants to or not, the Pope is setting precedent not only for liturgy, but for everything. If this was 1245, no one would care, since there was no television and internet. But now that there is, every public act of the Pope, every act of the Pope that could possibly be recorded in image form, has meaning, simply because it is recorded.
The Pope can exercise his ministry in any way he wants, as long as he upholds faith and morals. Fine, I accept that. I’m not saying he can’t. I’m just saying that little things add up and have unintended consequences. Already people are hailing this as a sign that “women’s ordination” is coming. That’s impossible, of course, but why give that base ammunition?
This is why National Catholic Reporter is rejoicing. They don’t see this as a sign of service, they see it as a step towards women’s ordination. Even they see and acknowledge–if only in subtext–the association between washing 12 people’s feet on Holy Thursday and the Apostles. Again, it won’t happen, but in this day and age of instant communication, a public figure’s actions are endlessly dissected. And people can say, “Women’s ordination will never happen,” but do you think people listen to that?
