Washing of the Feet on Holy Thursday

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uxor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tradition how far back? That is something I posted back several pages this thread.

This is a tradition that is fairly recent [in church time] as a practice during the Holy Thursday Liturgy. It was obviously not a part of the litugy for some period of time before that. What information do we have about when [how long ago] this was regularly a part of the liturgy and how was it understood [service, institution of the priesthood, other?] Was it part of the mass? Was it ever a part of an ordination rite? It is not a part of the ordination of a priest currently nor is it a part of any step along the way to priestly ordination [acolyte, transitional deacon, priest].

Now the Church can decide to use this “foot washing” by Jesus at the ast supper to signify the priesthood liturgically, but aas I have state before we cannot know from scripture that only the twelve were present at the Last Supper.

The Last Supper was a passover meal, as such it was a family meal, eaten communally with families joining together. There coulld/would have been women and children present. Cousins, aunts, etc.

Where was the Blessed Mother this Paschal celebration? Left alone to ceclebrate the Pashal Mystery? What of the fa,ilies of the other disciples and the apostles? A Paschal Meal that involved only men would have been unheard of. Also, the Gopel accounts mention the ‘disciples’ it is not indicative of number nor gender exclusive.

Yes the twelve apostles were all male but by the time Jesus came into His Passion he had far more followers than twelve; including women. Those women were at the foot of the cross, they were in Jerusalem for the Feast of he Passover [inluding the Blessed Mother] but excluded from the “FAMILY” feast…Not hardly…
 
As for why the Church isn’t too clear about this, just as I said at one thread in these forums, it is because Italy (and by extension, the Vatican) is what we call a High-Context Culture Area.

In a High-Context Culture Area, you are expected to know what something is without being told thoroughly what it is. Many things are left unsaid, letting the culture explain.
Incidentally, the Middle East is also a High-Context Culture Area, which explains why the Bible doesn’t go at length to explain something and is difficult to understand without knowing the things behind it.

In contrast, A Low-Context Culture Area like America for example is the opposite. In a Low-Context Culture Area, things are explained thoroughly and clearly.

Perhaps the same goes here.
Take this scenario, for example. Let’s say the Pope has issued a new directive and passes it on to the Universal Church.

Since the directive is not too clear, because the issuers of the directive expects the recipients to know the WHY’s of the directive and just obey it (For example it says in the directive ‘Don’t do etc. etc.’ without further explanation), people from Low-Context Culture Areas will be confused as to WHY this thing is not allowed, which leads to confusion and disputes over the meaning of the directive.
 
I live in Berkeley, and the local parish here as you can imagine is probably going to be slightly more liberal. But, we have a great pastor. This time we did both women and men and whoever came up, im sure they did more than just 12. It was a Novus Ordo but the tantum ergo was chanted, ubi caritas sung, agnus dei sung, there was some latin, that kinda surprised me as we usually dont use any during regualr Sunday Mass. I think something like the washing of feet is kinda trivial in comparison to say something like ordination of women. As for alter servers, I think only boys should be alter servers. As it was traditional, altar serving was sort of a way to help foster vocations, sorta like training for teh priesthood in a way. However, girls should be involved in different ministries as well but not necessaritly altar serving. Sry, the end kinda got random.
 
LilyM said:
:banghead:

Is that verified in the Gospels or ECFs or anywhere else? I don’t see ANY way that that we can possibly know that Jesus only washed the feet of the 12!

And if we DID know that, why would it not mean that priests should only wash the feet of other priests then?
Click to expand...
Sometimes you just gotta trust the Church, Lily. Why get all riled up over this? This is exactly how people start imposing their own ideas on the liturgy to make it something they desire, rather than abiding by the rubrics of the Church.
 
paramedicgirl said:
Sometimes you just gotta trust the Church, Lily. Why get all riled up over this? This is exactly how people start imposing their own ideas on the liturgy to make it something they desire, rather than abiding by the rubrics of the Church.
Click to expand...
“But prove all things: hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

I can’t prove this practice, to determine that it is even remotely rational or justified in any way, let alone good. Neither, apparently, can you nor anyone else. Unlike every other discipline, doctrine or dogma that I have ever come across. Why then should any of us hold to it?

It has nothing to do with what I personally desire - as a personal thing I couldn’t care less. I have no particular burning desire to see women’s feet washed, but if it’s only going to be men then at least let it be only men for a reason. And no, ‘because the Church says so’ and ‘trust the Church’ aren’t proof nor acceptable on their own. Not only am I not five-year-old child nor a dumb animal, but doing such a thing without understanding is only marginally better, if that, than not doing it at all.
 
Not to change the subject back to the subject, but at our parish the two resident priests washed the feet of six (three each) men, women and children. Following that we were all instructed to form a line and wash the hands of the person next in line behnd us. I have never heard of such a thing.

We have also gotten into the habit of of showing music videos of contemporary Chirstiean music during Mass and were treated to videos both on Holy Thursday and Good Friday. Tacky, tacky, tacky…
 
LilyM said:
“But prove all things: hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

I can’t prove this practice, to determine that it is even remotely rational or justified in any way, let alone good. Neither, apparently, can you nor anyone else. Unlike every other discipline, doctrine or dogma that I have ever come across. Why then should any of us hold to it?

It has nothing to do with what I personally desire - as a personal thing I couldn’t care less. I have no particular burning desire to see women’s feet washed, but if it’s only going to be men then at least let it be only men for a reason. And no, ‘because the Church says so’ and ‘trust the Church’ aren’t proof nor acceptable on their own. Not only am I not five-year-old child nor a dumb animal, but doing such a thing without understanding is only marginally better, if that, than not doing it at all.
Click to expand...
Unlike you, the word of the Church is good enough for me. I don’t feel the need to question it.
 
paramedicgirl said:
Unlike you, the word of the Church is good enough for me. I don’t feel the need to question it.
Click to expand...
Unlike St Paul too, who obviously did see a need to question it 😉 and a whole lot more besides by the sound of it :yup:
 
MICATH said:
Not to change the subject back to the subject, but at our parish the two resident priests washed the feet of six (three each) men, women and children. Following that we were all instructed to form a line and wash the hands of the person next in line behnd us. I have never heard of such a thing.

We have also gotten into the habit of of showing music videos of contemporary Chirstiean music during Mass and were treated to videos both on Holy Thursday and Good Friday. Tacky, tacky, tacky…
Click to expand...
Father McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university, says this about those practices:
The variations described above – of washing the feet of the entire congregation, of people washing each other’s feet (or hands), or doing so in situations that are not visible to all --** tend to undermine the sense of this rite within the concrete context of the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.**
Click to expand...
Such practices, by greatly extending the time required, tend to convert a meaningful, but optional, rite into the focal point of the celebration**. And that detracts attention from the commemoration of the institution of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday, the principal motive of the celebration**.
Click to expand...
 
MICATH said:
Not to change the subject back to the subject, but at our parish the two resident priests washed the feet of six (three each) men, women and children. Following that we were all instructed to form a line and wash the hands of the person next in line behnd us. I have never heard of such a thing.

We have also gotten into the habit of of showing music videos of contemporary Chirstiean music during Mass and were treated to videos both on Holy Thursday and Good Friday. Tacky, tacky, tacky…
Click to expand...
Videos and Female Deacons are the new trend. I know of a church that is being rebuilt and are thinking of introducing audio visual and removing Tabernacle to another room. I posted one video of a music video that was shown in a Church but it was removed. People say here preference, but what is happening is, people are litterally being driven from their parishes. IMO I think it will get to the point God will remove His Lamp.
 
LilyM said:
No, just saying it’s not a bad thing to be like him in this regard.
Click to expand...
And if we disagree about weither something is good or not, Christ said we are to take it to the Church.

And the Church says…
 
Brendan said:
And if we disagree about weither something is good or not, Christ said we are to take it to the Church.

And the Church says…
Click to expand...
The Church said married clergy were ok for a millenium, and have said they’re not (at least among Latin Rite Catholics) for another millenium. The Church went from (probably) Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek, then to Latin for a long time, then to permitting vernacular. The church went from fasting from midnight the night before receiving Communion to three hours to one hour.

While we certainly are to obey in matters of discipline (as opposed to doctrine or dogma) it most certainly doesn’t mean we must do so unthinkingly or blindly. That’s almost as bad as non-obedience. St Paul practically if not actually commands us to examine all that is proposed to us thoroughly rather than doing so.

Would anyone believe in the Immaculate Conception or obey the Church dictates on contraception if these hadn’t been thoroughly explained? If no intelligible reason had been given for why these doctrines were proclaimed? A lot of us seem to find these difficult enough even so, without they would be impossible.

The church demands that we follow our well-formed and informed consciences - well there’s nothing, in this instance, given to us with which to form them! Nothing beyond ‘because we say so’. And that doesn’t wash even for children.
 
LilyM said:
While we certainly are to obey in matters of discipline (as opposed to doctrine or dogma) it most certainly doesn’t mean we must do so unthinkingly or blindly.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you recognize that obedience is still required, even if one cannot understand the Church’s position. But obedience is still required, even in matters of strictly discipline.
That’s almost as bad as non-obedience. St Paul practically if not actually commands us to examine all that is proposed to us thoroughly rather than doing so.
Click to expand...
Correct, but if we disagree with the Church, what then? And if two people arrive at different conclusions, who decides which is the correct route.

And if the decision goes against ones viewpoint, does not humility require that the person admit to error?

Would anyone believe in the Immaculate Conception or obey the Church dictates on contraception if these hadn’t been thoroughly explained? If no intelligible reason had been given for why these doctrines were proclaimed? A lot of us seem to find these difficult enough even so, without they would be impossible.
The church demands that we follow our well-formed and informed consciences - well there’s nothing, in this instance, given to us with which to form them! Nothing beyond ‘because we say so’. And that doesn’t wash even for children.
Click to expand...
But the Church always presents it’s reasons for it’s decisions. The Church is a big fan of Reason.

It’s when the Reasons are presented, and those who then think they know more that the Church on the subject ( often in an example of arrogance) and then reject the Church’s Reasoning.

Even children recognize that the parent generally knows more than they (or should).
 
Brendan said:
And if the decision goes against ones viewpoint, does not humility require that the person admit to error?
Click to expand...
Not in matters of discipline - those who were arguing for the inclusion of vernacular in the Mass before Vatican 2 were not wrong to argue, nor to disagree - they would have been wrong to disobey. Same with SSPX arguing that the church needs to be stricter on the freedoms that were taken with the Mass, again they have only been wrong in being unrepentantly disobedient.
But the Church always presents it’s reasons for it’s decisions. The Church is a big fan of Reason.
Click to expand...
It’s when the Reasons are presented, and those who then think they know more that the Church on the subject ( often in an example of arrogance) and then reject the Church’s Reasoning.
Click to expand...
Not in this case - no reasons at all have been presented for this rubric. Just a lot of opinion and speculation - far from official and far from sensible or convincing. This is what I am having difficulties with. Even other rubrics in the celebration of the mass have easily discoverable, clearly explained and comprehensible reasoning behind them. For this one I see absolutely none.
Even children recognize that the parent generally knows more than they (or should).
Click to expand...
But if the child is intelligent and capable of understanding they should be treated as such, not just ordered around as if they were mindless robots with no explanation offered.
 
LilyM said:
In other words it doesn’t say twelve, so there’s absolutely no indication that they’re there specifically to represent the Apostles. So still no reason of any description as to why not women.
Click to expand...
If they weren’t supposed to represent the Apostles then why would the norm be limited to men. There would be no reason for it. In the piece I sent that you concluded and opinion piece he makes some very good points:
If the washing of feet were only symbolic of charity and service, why did Jesus not wash the feet of the sick, or the hungry, or the lepers, or His friends in the house of Lazarus, or at the feeding of the five thousand? The Lord might have have found other occasions to give a lesson in charity and service in the presence of all His disciples, both men and women. But He did not.
Click to expand...
Christ chose an occasion which was not open to all His followers, but only to those twelve men He had chosen and called as Apostles. We must conclude, then, that the ritual is intimately connected to the priesthood and the institution of the Eucharist. Its symbolism cannot be reduced to a general theme of service to the whole Church.
Click to expand...
The Lord’s example is given to those who would serve the people of God in His name, calling them to humility and self-abnegation in their priestly ministry. Hence, the ceremonial recalling of this act is liturgically related to the whole mystery of Holy Thursday – to the priesthood and the Eucharist. To include women confuses this focus and obscures the theological meaning of these solemn acts.
Click to expand...
 
LilyM said:
Not in this case - no reasons at all have been presented for this rubric. Just a lot of opinion and speculation - far from official and far from sensible or convincing. This is what I am having difficulties with. Even other rubrics in the celebration of the mass have easily discoverable, clearly explained and comprehensible reasoning behind them. For this one I see absolutely none.
Click to expand...
I disagree that no reason has been provided. The feet washing takes place in the context of the Last Supper where Jesus washed His Apostles feet. The washing of the feet is a remembrance of this hence the rubrics state men.
Thus, the logical sense of the rubric requires the priest, representing Christ, washing feet of a group of men taken from the assembly, symbolizing the apostles, in a clearly visible area.
Click to expand...
catholic-pages.com/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=7451
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top