Pope Francis washes feet

[Julianna]

I still don’t see what the big deal is? So the Pope washed the feet of women…and??? so???

muchado about nothin’

 

[triumphguy]

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.

The washing of feet is ONLY in John’s Gospel.
John’s Gospel only states that Jesus washed the Disciples’ feet. And it doesn’t say how many

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.

The washing of feet is ONLY in John’s Gospel.
John’s Gospel only states that Jesus washed the Disciples’ feet. And it doesn’t say how many

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.

The washing of feet is ONLY in John’s Gospel.
John’s Gospel only states that Jesus washed the Disciples’ feet. And it doesn’t say how many

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?

The washing of feet is ONLY in John’s Gospel.
John’s Gospel only states that Jesus washed the Disciples’ feet. And it doesn’t say how many

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The washing of feet is ONLY in John’s Gospel.
John’s Gospel only states that Jesus washed the Disciples’ feet. And it doesn’t say how many

Here are the notes from the Bible on the USCCB site.

*** [13:1–20] Washing of the disciples’ feet. This episode occurs in John at the place of the narration of the institution of the Eucharist in the synoptics. It may be a dramatization of Lk 22:27—“I am your servant.” It is presented as a “model” (“pattern”) of the crucifixion. It symbolizes cleansing from sin by sacrificial death.

• [13:1] Before the feast of Passover: this would be Thursday evening, before the day of preparation; in the synoptics, the Last Supper is a Passover meal taking place, in John’s chronology, on Friday evening. To the end: or, “completely.”
• [13:5] The act of washing another’s feet was one that could not be required of the lowliest Jewish slave. It is an allusion to the humiliating death of the crucifixion.
• [13:10] Bathed: many have suggested that this passage is a symbolic reference to baptism. The Greek root involved is used in baptismal contexts in 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Ti 3:5; Heb 10:22.**

usccb.org/bible/john/13#51013005-d

 

[dans0622]

Dan, I’ll stand by the “inaccurate” label. Perhaps it’s because I"ve spent the last hour and a half reading several days worth of posts on related threads here including volumes that Brother JR, God bless him, has posted about why the pope,any pope, is not bound by such laws that I also said “ridiculous.”

May I suggest that you search out a few of Brother’s recent posts which explain far more eloquently then I ever could why I hold this view.

Hello,

There is difference between saying a Pope is “bound” to a merely ecclesiastical law and saying that it is ridiculous/inaccurate to hold that it is possible for a Pope to disregard such a law (surely he can). This was a topic I had to address in one of my first tests in canon law school. I passed the test so I’ll stick to my answer.

Dan

 

[triumphguy]

Here are the notes from the Bible on the USCCB site.

*** [13:1–20] Washing of the disciples’ feet. This episode occurs in John at the place of the narration of the institution of the Eucharist in the synoptics. It may be a dramatization of Lk 22:27—“I am your servant.” It is presented as a “model” (“pattern”) of the crucifixion. It symbolizes cleansing from sin by sacrificial death.

• [13:1] Before the feast of Passover: this would be Thursday evening, before the day of preparation; in the synoptics, the Last Supper is a Passover meal taking place, in John’s chronology, on Friday evening. To the end: or, “completely.”
• [13:5] The act of washing another’s feet was one that could not be required of the lowliest Jewish slave. It is an allusion to the humiliating death of the crucifixion.
• [13:10] Bathed: many have suggested that this passage is a symbolic reference to baptism. The Greek root involved is used in baptismal contexts in 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Ti 3:5; Heb 10:22.**

usccb.org/bible/john/13#51013005-d

And it is only in John’s Gospel that Jesus washes anyone’s feet.

John 13:1-5
It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

 

[seagal]

Jimmy Akin has a very good exegesis on the whole foot washing incident on his blog.
Here’s a snippet

** 3. Can Pope Francis just do things that aren’t provided for in the law?**

  Yes. The pope does not need anybody's permission to make exceptions to  how ecclesiastical law relates to him. He is canon law's ultimate  legislator, interpreter, and executor.
  And it's not uncommon, at least in recent decades, for a pope to make  exceptions to the law in how papal ceremonies are performed.
  John Paul II frequently held liturgies that departed from what the  Church's liturgical texts provide, particularly when he was making a  form of dramatic outreach, and Pope Francis seems to be following in his  footsteps.

** 4. If he can do this, can others?**

  Technically speaking, no. If a pope judges that, due to the particular  circumstances of a papal celebration, an exception should be made, that  does not create a legal precedent allowing others to do so.
  After all, not everybody is in the same situation as the pope. They  don't have the same pastoral circumstances or the same legal authority,  and so if he makes an exception in his application of the law in his own  case, it does not create a legal precedent for others doing so who do  not have his circumstances or authority.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/how-should-we-understand-pope-francis-washing-womens-feet/#ixzz2Oynozaib

 

[thewanderer]

Not wearing a mozzetta is not confusing symbolism, I’m not sure how that, or not wearing red shoes, for example, could be confusing symbolism. Some might not like it, but it’s not confusing.

But washing women’s feet among a group of twelve on Holy Thursday of all days can very easily be confusing symbolism. We can sit around all day and discuss the Pope’s intention, which I would not dare to assume was anything but good, but do the secular media care about the Pope’s good intention?

Like, I said, I’m not talking about you specifically, but there **are people claiming such things, and many others, are confusing to the people and that the Pope needs to explain all of his actions. One person even said that the Pope kissing and washing peoples feet (from before Holy Thursday) was confusing and might lead people to think that we don’t have to actually preach the Gospel and another claimed that since the Pope distributed communion to the prisoners on Holy Thursday he needed to clarify that no non-catholics received it, because somehow, without such a clarification, the fact that the Pope distributed communion to the prisoners might lead people to believe that non-catholics are allowed to receive communion :banghead: (I should note that some, specific non-catholics such as the orthodox are **allowed to receive communion, but that is besides the point.) Honestly, I’m tired of traditionalists searching to find anything and everything the Pope does as confusing. The Pope is an orthodox Catholic, so if there is a reasonable orthodox explanation as to what he is doing just accept it as the most likely explanation and encourage others to do so as well. There is a very reasonable explanation as to why there were 12 people, thats just the way this tradition has been carried out in the past as a representation of what happened. Nobody needs to read any more into it than that and I don’t really see the value to discussing in depth how the Popes actions can be seen as confusing. Again, why not just accept and spread the most reasonable orthodox explanation unless and until something clearly shows that is not a possible explanation. That way instead of talking about how the Pope’s actions should have been done differently so as not to confuse people, and so talking about how you believe you know better than the Pope what he should have done (and who knows, maybe you do. ) people can just help dispel the confusion they think is present. I’m sorry if this comes off a little harsh, I am just very tired of traditionalists sounding as though they are looking for every possible excuse to complain about the Pope that they can, again, not that you personally are doing this, but it is happening.

 

[shelby_sun]

I am wondering why some want to focus on certain things Jesus did and not focus on other things he did not do. Yes, Jesus, washed the feet of twelve men; however, Jesus never wore red shoes and ornate robes. So why should we be concerned about certain traditions being followed yet let men create other traditions that had nothing to do with what Jesus did.

Times change, the Church has changed. We are talking about something that happened 2000 thousand years ago; 2000 thousand years! Maybe the actions of Pope Francis should have happened long before now. Maybe that should be the scandal being discussed.

I don’t know how anyone else was raised, but I was raised with the Jesuits that taught us about an all loving God. A God that knew we were sinners and a forgiving God because he wanted us to live in heaven with him. What parent wouldn’t want that? God created all of us and knew we were all going to be sinners. Who among all of you would abandon your child when they were lost?

These prisoners were children. Children that might have been completely rejected by there family, only to have the most holy man in the world come and tell them God loves them. Who really cares if they are female or Catholic if this helps them move on to find peace. Really?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I don’t understand all the fuss over feet. How does washing women’s feet translate to allowing women to be ordained? This fear of women in power mystifies me, but then again - I’m not Catholic. I’ve never understood the complex hierarchy, and it seemed strange for people who devote themselves to the service of Christ (and take vows of poverty) to be covered in gold, jewels and silks. I have heard the argument that the finery of bishops, cardinals, et al. is the property of the church - not the individual that wears it, but still - shouldn’t resources go toward feeding the poor, healing the sick, comfort the dying, etc.? I like Pope Francis so far. I hope he continues this course of leading by example.

 

[Hasire]

As an ex-traditionalist, I can say he is indeed ending all the work Benedict XVI did. Pope Francis dislikes traditionalism.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

As an ex-traditionalist, I can say he is indeed ending all the work Benedict XVI did. Pope Francis dislikes traditionalism.

Traditionalists may perceive that he is “ending all the work Benedict XVI did” and that he “dislikes traditionalism”. What they think does not make it so however.

As many others have said our new Holy Father is a vowed Religious. Many of the things he has done have been to follow the traditions of his order.

If they think about it, I doubt too many traditionalists would say they want to get rid of the traditions of the religious orders. Or if they did, they have a very narrow view of the Church.

 

[Megan7]

The directive to wash the feet of men, and only men, was found in paragraph 51 of PASCHALIS SOLLEMNITATIS, The Preparation And Celebration Of The Easter Feasts, Given at Rome, at the Offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship, January 16, 1988. The English translation of paragraph 51 reads:

1. The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came "not to be served, but to serve. This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.

The document was originally circulated in Latin, and the word translated into English as ‘men’ is ‘vir’, literally ‘adult men’. Barely a year ago, an alert CA Forum Member also referenced the Sacramentary which reads:

The men vir] who have been chosen are led by the ministers to chairs prepared in a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers, he pours water over each one’s feet and dries them.

Pope Francis had already broken with that instruction in 2005, when he washed the feet of women at Buenos Aires’ Sarda maternity hospital. It’s no surprise that he did it again yesterday.

I just went to the Vatican’s website to search for Paschalis Sollemnitatis. The document appears to have been taken down.

So it appears I must relax my opposition to having my (female) feet washed by the priest, as I did a decade ago when I refused because of Paschalis Sollemnitatis and the Sacramentary. However I still see no instruction from the Vatican which approves of a group-participation foot-bath, so commonly practiced in American parishes.

Thank you, I will read this later on.

 

[Hasire]

Traditionalists may perceive that he is** “ending all the work Benedict XVI did” and that he “dislikes traditionalism”.** What they think does not make it so however.

As many others have said our new Holy Father is a vowed Religious. Many of the things he has done have been to follow the traditions of his order.

If they think about it, I doubt too many traditionalists would say they want to get rid of the traditions of the religious orders. Or if they did, they have a very narrow view of the Church.

Instead he does.
Haven’t seen him celebrating the Tridentine Rite. He basically prohibited Summorum Pontificum in Buenos Aires. Refused to use Traditional Pontifical garments.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-summorum-pontificum-was-blocked-and.html
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/leonardo-boff-pope-francis-is-much-more.html
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/reset-to-1977-and-final-point.html
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-official-end-of-reform-of-reform-by.html

He follows the “traditions of his order”? Is disregarding Tradition his order’s “tradition”?

 

[Megan7]

More…
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_VATICAN_POPE_TRADITIONALISTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-29-16-43-17

Thanks for the link.

 

[felsguy]

Hello,

There is difference between saying a Pope is “bound” to a merely ecclesiastical law and saying that it is ridiculous/inaccurate to hold that it is possible for a Pope to disregard such a law (surely he can). This was a topic I had to address in one of my first tests in canon law school. I passed the test so I’ll stick to my answer.

Dan

My canon law class was so long ago that I can’t possibly remember any of the test questions and it was on the 1917 Code anyway.

I was objecting to the word “disregarded,” thinking that it implied that the pope “violated” a law which he was obligated to follow. This point has been argued, you might say beaten to death, on several threads here lately. However in the sense that “disregarded” means that he can or did “pay no attention to,” even “ignore,” a law that he is not obligated to follow, then I have no problem.

I’m not sure whether this means we are on the same page or not.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Instead he does.
Haven’t seen him celebrating the Tridentine Rite. He basically prohibited Summorum Pontificum in Buenos Aires. Refused to use Traditional Pontifical garments.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-summorum-pontificum-was-blocked-and.html
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/leonardo-boff-pope-francis-is-much-more.html
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/reset-to-1977-and-final-point.html
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-official-end-of-reform-of-reform-by.html

He follows the “traditions of his order”? Is disregarding Tradition his order’s “tradition”?

Blogs are one person (or a group of persons) opinions. And that blog in particular is not an unbiased view, but has an axe to grind.

I will not read that blog and will not respond to their ridiculous charges.

Please review the sticky at the top of the forum for the rules on how we are to speak of the Holy Father while on this forum.

 

[Hasire]

Blogs are one person (or a group of persons) opinions. And that blog in particular is not an unbiased view, but has an axe to grind.

I will not read that blog and will not respond to their ridiculous charges.

Please review the sticky at the top of the forum for the rules on how we are to speak of the Holy Father while on this forum.

I just presented facts. If you think those facts are somehow false, prove it.
I have nothing more to say.

 

[coco2]

I have been going to Holy Thursday Masses for years, and have seen men, women, and children’s feet being washed. I believe it symbolizes how Christ’s disciples need to serve, not be served. I am SHOCKED at all the comments, especially in the National Catholic Registry under Jimmy Akin’s blog about it.

Pope Francis is taking people out of their comfort zone, just as Christ did. Praise God!

 

[paulrus]

It’s hard to take the article too seriously seeing as how not once, not twice, but three times, wrote “Massachusetts” instead of “Mass”, e.g. “celebrating the old Latin Massachusetts”.

Does the AP no longer employ editors?

 

[severus68]

This event is another daily surprise from the Holy Father that has invoked strong feelings amount some of the faithful. As was noted, one thread on this site was closed for violation of forum rules.

Some have objected because the feet were not attached to Priests but were, in some instances, attached to girls and even to one Muslim. This breaks with tradition.

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

All I can say to this post is:thumbsup: