RE: Do the rules permit the foot washing of women on Holy Thursday?

[scylla]

You are correct, if you had no clue it was wrong you have done nothing wrong, as it is an obedience issue.

Those who do disobey and continue to do so knowing it is wrong are sinning by their disobedience. We should always place the will of God and obedience to God above our own desires.

I will just sit there tomorrow and pray silently as they do this in my parish. No need to cause a scene, the first thing I should worry about is my own personal salvation, but always speak truth without alienating myself.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[YADA]

A Paschal Feast was a family meal so I am fairly sure that more than just Jesus and the twelve were present at the Passover. Luke stating that the twelve were with him does not preclude the presence of others or it would state that ONLY the twelve were with Him.

Do not get me wrong, I am not spreading feminist theology and I follow what the Church teaches and listen to my Bishop. I abhor Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice and all heretical groups that have an ax to grind. I assume you meant no insult, but you should be careful how you try to lump poeple.

John Chapter 6 is a Eucharistic passage but it is not the institution of the Eucharist, which occurred at the Last Supper. Even your appeal to Luke and the twelve would have Jesus instituting the Eucharist with [only] the twelve receiving…

Now we have in practice that the Eucharist is for all but not the foot washing…my question is why…

Why is the institution of the Eucharist for everyone not just the successors of the twelve IF at the institution of this Rite by Jesus [himself] it was limiteed to those present?

And I assert that Jesus had many followers…one could believe [or argue] that this Passover meal the Mother of our Lord would be present. Again, the passover meal was a family celebration and Mary had [at that time] no husband or other chilldren. Obvously Joseph had died and Jesus was her only child. That the twelve were present and noted does not mean that others would not have been present as well.

 

[scylla]

A Paschal Feast was a family meal so I am fairly sure that more than just Jesus and the twelve were present at the Passover. Luke stating that the twelve were with him does not preclude the presence of others or it would state that ONLY the twelve were with Him.

Do not get me wrong, I am not spreading feminist theology and I follow what the Church teaches and listen to my Bishop. I abhor Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice and all heretical groups that have an ax to grind. I assume you meant no insult, but you should be careful how you try to lump poeple.

John Chapter 6 is a Eucharistic passage but it is not the institution of the Eucharist, which occurred at the Last Supper. Even your appeal to Luke and the twelve would have Jesus instituting the Eucharist with [only] the twelve receiving…

Now we have in practice that the Eucharist is for all but not the foot washing…my question is why…

Why is the institution of the Eucharist for everyone not just the successors of the twelve IF at the institution of this Rite by Jesus [himself] it was limiteed to those present?

And I assert that Jesus had many followers…one could believe [or argue] that this Passover meal the Mother of our Lord would be present. Again, the passover meal was a family celebration and Mary had [at that time] no husband or other chilldren. Obvously Joseph had died and Jesus was her only child. That the twelve were present and noted does not mean that others would not have been present as well.

The difference is the Eucharist is a real miracle which only successors of the Apostles can confect and as a reality is not something we practice as a symbol. This is why we don’t just limit it to 12 Apostles it is not a symbolic act representing his actions that night.

The foot washing is a symbolic act which represents Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles. Just like us depicting Jesus as a man on the crucifix.
But who really cares about my personal interpretation or yours of the Bible. It really doesn’t matter, as all we are doing then are playing the Protestant game. If you don’t accept my interpretation and I don’t accept yours then where do we go?

Not only this, it is as I have stressed an obedience issue,which demands a special respect which we give to the Church. We look for maximum obedience not the opposite. This makes even discussion seeking a way around what the Church practices something that could very well lead to the sin of disobedience.
If you do not identify with Call to Action or any of the sort then I am glad and assume you repudiate those type thoughts. If you do not associate with this type thought then you would have no reason to be offended.

By seeking any leeway we are not practicing obedience, faithfulness but a spirit of inclusion and disobedience.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[YADA]

I do practice obedience to the teacing authority of the Church. Who said that I did not. Also I am fully aware of the difference between the Washing of Feet and the Eucharist.

However, there is nothing wrong in exploring the liturgical practices and scriptural understandings. Nor is the study of how liturgy has changed [and why] through the history of the church acting in disobedience. I study scripture and theology and church history and Chritianity. And this discussion is prompted by the arguments presented.

I work with RCIA nd have for over a decade. I have never taught any principal, doctrine nor theology in opposition to church teacing or authority.

I am not advocating for washing the feet of women nor with holding the Eucharist from laity.

There was a time in the Church when the laity only received the Eucharist once a year and only the priest received at every mass. You can say that was what done then, now we do this… some of the faithful can desire to know the “why…s” without being dissidents.

Asking questions, pondering the Word and exploring the faith have sustained Christianity, advanced Christianity, preserved Christianity and strengthened Christianity and developed Christianity…it is how we developed an understanding of the two natures of Christ, the Trinity, etc. Some times people fall into heresy…far more deepen their faith and the faith of the Church…

 

[dessert]

We are having the foot washing but haven’t signed up yet but am glad i can go as I am off work. I’m a woman but it doesn’t matter to me I think the hand wahing would be a better ider.
Have a blessed holy thursday and congrats to those being confirmed Dessert

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The spirit of the message is not how you obey, this is what leads to personal preference taking precedence over obedience. It doesn’t say that monkeys should stand in for the priest when he washes the feet does that mean it should be allowed?

Your personal spirit of what should be done can be different from the spirit of Father so and so.

It is not an issue of inclusion or exclusion or else then it would be perfectly valid for me to go up and try and concelebrate the Mass with the Priest.

It is a matter of obedience and to disobey is wrong. It is the spirit of original sin that leads to people not obeying and seeking their own inclusion.
Why shouldn’t I eat the apple?
Should I look for wiggle room or just obey?

We should all be obedient to the defined methods of practicing our unified expression of faith. When I want to do my own personal expressions, that is fine for choosing to pray the Rosary outside of Mass, Stations of the Cross, Divine Mercy. Kneel, meditate, go off to the desert, etc… yet in unified expression of faith obedience is more important than personal desires.

God Bless
Scylla

You miss what message I was referring to, and it was that of Jesus message of service to the least among us.

Lack of obedience, there isn’t any lack of obedience because Cardinal OMalley asked Rome on clarification and Rome as they should, said it was left up to his pastoral decision. So, he was not disobedient.

Yes, excluding women in this ceremony, would show that the message Jesus gave was limited in our understanding and that the observance is nothing more than historical reenactment.

Jim

 

[athanasiusrc]

If you look back through the information regarding the “permission” Cardinal O’Malley received, you will find that no one has ever been able to produce the letter, document, sticky note that supposedly gave this permission.

If it isn’t approved in writing through official channels it isn’t legit.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If you look back through the information regarding the “permission” Cardinal O’Malley received, you will find that no one has ever been able to produce the letter, document, sticky note that supposedly gave this permission.

If it isn’t approved in writing through official channels it isn’t legit.

It was posted in Zenit News and given by a spokesperson of the Cardinals Office.

Jim

 

[athanasiusrc]

I saw a claim to such a document but nothing was ever released and inquirers asking for the actual text of the document were told that the letter had been “misplaced”.

Like I said, if it isn’t produced in writing, I don’t believe it. I have had enough experience with this very thing where some priest / bishop claims that such and such a document or letter gives permission to engage in some liturgical abuse but when pressed, either never provides the document or tells you to go find it yourself.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I saw a claim to such a document but nothing was ever released and inquirers asking for the actual text of the document were told that the letter had been “misplaced”.

Like I said, if it isn’t produced in writing, I don’t believe it. I have had enough experience with this very thing where some priest / bishop claims that such and such a document or letter gives permission to engage in some liturgical abuse but when pressed, either never provides the document or tells you to go find it yourself.

Like I said, Zenet quoted the Cardinal’s spokesperson, the Cardinal did wash the feet of women, as he will do so again this year. The first year he did not, so obviously, he’s not in the habit of disobedience, but in fact, Cardinal O’Malley is a Franciscan and has made a vow of obedience.

Jim

 

[athanasiusrc]

And Jesuits are supposed to be the front-line defenders of Church teaching.

Call me cynical, but unless it is produced in writing, I don’t believe it.

 

[otjm]

If you look back through the information regarding the “permission” Cardinal O’Malley received, you will find that no one has ever been able to produce the letter, document, sticky note that supposedly gave this permission.

If it isn’t approved in writing through official channels it isn’t legit.

There may be any number of reasons that what the Cardinal received was not published. That does not mean that it was not an official document, nor does it mean that it did not say what the Cardinal said that it said.

I presume you do not wnat to call him a liar. As there is no evidence in his prior actions before becoming the Archbishop of Boston, and none produced so far to indicate that he has lied while in Boston, there is no basis to presume that he ha been anything but honest.

Further, if you actully read the posts in which the message he received was laid out, it is not an issue of giving permission. Rome stated clearly that the rule was that the foot washing was reserved to men. What they added was that he was to use his pastoral judgement; that is not permission, per se; it is simply a comment that Rome wants it done one way, and if it is done another, they are not going to enforce the issue; that is, varience is within the prudential judgement of the bishop.

In plain English, they said that there is a rule; there is a reason for the rule, and that the rule is not an absolute (such as they have made about pouring the Precious Blood into chalices after Consecration). another way of saying it is that there are rules with levels of importance; Rome feels that this is one that for prudential reasons can be done differently.

Some people are uncomfortable with that way of looking at a law; they are, for lack of a better term, absolutists.They seem to feel that if a law is made, then it must be obeyed. Rome seems to feel that the law shoudl be obeyed, all things being equal, and that in some circumstances there may be a higher reason to do differently.

The fact that O’Malley has not published the letter does not mean that it did not occur; or that it is not legitimate, or that it was not through officail channels. Neither Rome nor Canon Law require that a response to his letter from Rome be published to be legitimate.

 

[otjm]

You miss what message I was referring to, and it was that of Jesus message of service to the least among us.

Lack of obedience, there isn’t any lack of obedience because Cardinal OMalley asked Rome on clarification and Rome as they should, said it was left up to his pastoral decision. So, he was not disobedient.

Yes, excluding women in this ceremony, would show that the message Jesus gave was limited in our understanding and that the observance is nothing more than historical reenactment.

Jim

Or, it could be that the message Jesus gave was not one of general service to all, but a specific message that those in authority were to act as servants.

The foot washing was specific in the Gospels, that it was done to the Apostles, not to the disciples. As such, it has been interpreted as a specific message to a specific group. That is how Rome sees it, and why Rome wrote the law to say mne (males) as opposed to people (men and women).

Christ also gave a specific message to Peter, not to all the Apostles, nor to His disciples: You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church. He most certainly built it upon the Apostles also; but the message to Peter was specific to Peter. Rome sees the message of foot washing as one specific to the Apostles, and from that, to the bishops. As such, it would seem that it might be better if it were simply eliminated from Holy Thursday service, but Rome has not seen fit to do that, either.

The bottom line is that the rule is there, and if it is not followed, appeals to the bishop most likely will fall on deaf ears. another way to say it is that if you want to be effective in liturgical complaints, that is not a battle to pick.

And yes, I do understand the symbolism of a priest, the one in authority in the parish, washing others’ feet as a sign of his being a servant. Rome sees it somewhat differently, a distinction that is lost on many people.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The bottom line is that the rule is there, and if it is not followed, appeals to the bishop most likely will fall on deaf ears. another way to say it is that if you want to be effective in liturgical complaints, that is not a battle to pick.

The rule is a general rule is per the title of the GIRM, and just as the GIRM states in the very beginning, it us up to the Bishop, to determine the specifics.

Unless Rome comes out with a prohibition against the washing of the feet of women, it will become and remain the norm.

Jim

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The rule is a general rule is per the title of the GIRM, and just as the GIRM states in the very beginning, it us up to the Bishop, to determine the specifics.

Unless Rome comes out with a prohibition against the washing of the feet of women, it will become and remain the norm.

Jim

Would you like to cite your passage leaving all these things up to the determination of the bishop? The only power to alter the liturgy below the level of Rome comes through explicit delegation. And recourse to Sacrosanctum Concilium gets you nowhere because that document makes clear a point wuite recently reiterated by Redemptionis Sacramentum: no one may add or remove anything from the prescribed norms on his own.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

There may be any number of reasons that what the Cardinal received was not published. That does not mean that it was not an official document, nor does it mean that it did not say what the Cardinal said that it said.

I presume you do not wnat to call him a liar. As there is no evidence in his prior actions before becoming the Archbishop of Boston, and none produced so far to indicate that he has lied while in Boston, there is no basis to presume that he ha been anything but honest.

Further, if you actully read the posts in which the message he received was laid out, it is not an issue of giving permission. Rome stated clearly that the rule was that the foot washing was reserved to men. What they added was that he was to use his pastoral judgement; that is not permission, per se; it is simply a comment that Rome wants it done one way, and if it is done another, they are not going to enforce the issue; that is, varience is within the prudential judgement of the bishop.

In plain English, they said that there is a rule; there is a reason for the rule, and that the rule is not an absolute (such as they have made about pouring the Precious Blood into chalices after Consecration). another way of saying it is that there are rules with levels of importance; Rome feels that this is one that for prudential reasons can be done differently.

Some people are uncomfortable with that way of looking at a law; they are, for lack of a better term, absolutists.They seem to feel that if a law is made, then it must be obeyed. Rome seems to feel that the law shoudl be obeyed, all things being equal, and that in some circumstances there may be a higher reason to do differently.

The fact that O’Malley has not published the letter does not mean that it did not occur; or that it is not legitimate, or that it was not through officail channels. Neither Rome nor Canon Law require that a response to his letter from Rome be published to be legitimate.

I’m not prepared to say Abp. O’Malley lied (though I wouldn’t have to, since his spokesperson would be the culprit in this case). Rather, the point is that even if now-Cdl. O’Malley did receive some sort of green light through this practically secret communique, that is not information that anyone outside of the Archdiocese of Boston can operate on. This is for the already obvious reason that no one beyond the cardinal’s chancery has ever seen the specifics of the document, but also because we have no indication that this was meant to be generalized advice for all bishops. The Vatican is aware that this is an issue in basically the entire US, if not much of the Western world, yet no bishops outside of Boston have ever claimed this sort of green light (which, once again, flies in the face of SC and RS), and the Vatican has never made any effort to convey such a “pastoral provision” to the rest of the world.

 

[scylla]

You miss what message I was referring to, and it was that of Jesus message of service to the least among us.

Lack of obedience, there isn’t any lack of obedience because Cardinal OMalley asked Rome on clarification and Rome as they should, said it was left up to his pastoral decision. So, he was not disobedient.

Yes, excluding women in this ceremony, would show that the message Jesus gave was limited in our understanding and that the observance is nothing more than historical reenactment.

Jim

Please read my messages carefully, I never objected to washing womens feet outside the liturgy, serving others or Jesus’s message of service to others…

What I am concerned with is obedience, respect for the liturgy and for God.

Excluding me (a man) from portraying Mary at a nativity story, would that exclude me from a call to holyness?
It is pure pride and selfishness to desire without permission.

I am still waiting for a link to this document giving permission to do this…
All that has been produced is substantial evidence to the contrary with the Vatican explicitly stating the men are to be used in the liturgy and no evidence except for “someone said” to the positive.

This is akin to me stating that Cardinal Mahoney lets guys in tights prance around during the religious congress, so I am allowed to.
Actually, it is more like me saying that I heard someone say that Cardinal Mahoney says it’s ok to allow guys to prance around during religious congress liturgies.
I am not saying someone lied but we should have a statement before we continue even consider the possibility of it being ok, otherwise it is just disobedience to the Church to continue doing so.

So where is the evidence that it is ok, other than evidence that says it is not ok, but we do it anyways…

God Bless
Scylla

The Vatican is aware of much more evils all around the world, isn’t obedience better than just giving Rome more to worry about?
Again I will continue to state that it is wrong to allow women or even mass communal foot washing at Thursday’s Mass.

 

[LilyM]

Or, it could be that the message Jesus gave was not one of general service to all, but a specific message that those in authority were to act as servants.

The foot washing was specific in the Gospels, that it was done to the Apostles, not to the disciples. As such, it has been interpreted as a specific message to a specific group. That is how Rome sees it, and why Rome wrote the law to say mne (males) as opposed to people (men and women).

Interesting - so what was this specific message passed on by the fact that Jesus only washed the Apostles’ feet that isn’t one of general service? One can see both internal logic and very clear and explicit example for a male-only priesthood, for example. But none such for the idea that only the feet of men are to be washed.

Sounds like if there’s some significance here to the fact that he washed only the Apostles’ feet then we should have priests only washing the feet of other priests, no? Internal consistency would seem to demand as much.

 

[scylla]

Only men can become priests, that is the core of the symbolism.
I think this is the reason that those who want to disobey the Church and allow women to have their feet washed are influenced by the ultra feminist agenda to deny the differences between men and women and promote women priests.
Those who realize that women have their own dignity being women and don’t need to prove themselves somehow by doing what men do realize to try and always include women insults women. (like they are not as good if they are not included)

It is fine to discuss the reasons behind the reasons why we only wash mens feet in the Thursday liturgy.
To practice contrary to Church rule is sinful, and it is sinful to encourage disobedience.

God Bless,
Scylla

Why isn’t there a push for men to want to dress up like women and even become nuns? Oh wait, the gays promote inclusion maybe that is why ultra-feminists and gays are so closely entwined. We need to love the person, not promote sin.

 

[ziggernaut]

I could be wrong, so please post a link to this authorization to wash women’s feet from the Vatican.

All I have seen is statements to the negative, even the one from the USCCB site which essentially states, that the rubrics state that only men should have their feet washed and it has become the practice to do otherwise.

God Bless
Scylla

St. Augustine once wrote somewhere, “Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it.”

What an awful shame that so many priests and bishops insist on doing so many things the way they want, rather than they way(s) the Church has given us!

And isn’t it interesting how frequently litugical abuses occur in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church and how infrequently (in my experience) they occur in the Easter Rites and in the Orthodox Church?