|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Maundy Thursday and Female Feet
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Can someone explain to me why at least in the Church-wide rubrics of the RCC it is not technically allowed to let women be among the people who's feet are washed by the principal celebrant of the Mass on Holy Thursday? I don't know if this restriction exists in other denominations.
Pope Francis washed the feet of girls and even non-Christians last year, but his spokesman said afterward that the Pope can basically make up his own Liturgical rules for what he does himself, but that unless he issues a new GIRM with revisions to the existing rubrics, those rubrics remain in force for everyone else.
I get that Jesus washed the Apostles' feet at the Last Supper and that all the Apostles were male. But does that matter for the Maundy Thursday foot washing in the same way that it matters for that Dead Horse that would have a woman doing the foot washing that we shan't talk about here?
I know this rule is widely ignored - women's feet are frequently washed and in some places they have the whole congregation, male and female, wash each other's feet - or a representative sample. I'm a legalist - even if I want the rubrics to be changed - so I'm interested in talking about the laws themselves and the thinking behind them, not what actually goes on.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I get that Jesus washed the Apostles' feet at the Last Supper and that all the Apostles were male.
Really?!
Care to offer us a citation or two to support your basic supposition?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JeffTL
Apprentice
# 16722
|
Posted
It's more or less to avoid interjecting any Dead Horses into the service by not having the Apostles symbolized by anyone who could not theoretically succeed them, though the rubric's success in this matter doesn't seem evident. A priest might be wise to avoid complaints of "but last year the Holy Father did x" and "but the rubrics say y" by availing himself of the option of skipping the rite altogether, which speeds up mass anyhow and has historical precedent.
Omitting the Mandatum also avoids the situation I once perpetrated as a member of the Altar Guild by using a bucket that had been used for dumping footwashing basins to fill the baptismal font for the Easter Vigil. No proper cleaning thereof having taken place meanwhile and that being the first vessel we could find of sufficient size, the Easter water smelled like gym socks that year.
Posts: 49 | From: Chicago | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I get that Jesus washed the Apostles' feet at the Last Supper and that all the Apostles were male.
Really?!
Care to offer us a citation or two to support your basic supposition?
Eh? Is there any doubt?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
Isn't it pretty consistent with not having women be priests, altar servers, communion distributors etc? Basically, "no women on the stage" unless they're there after hours to do the cleaning.
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Isn't it pretty consistent with not having women be priests, altar servers, communion distributors etc? Basically, "no women on the stage" unless they're there after hours to do the cleaning.
But women can be altar servers and eucharistic ministers in the RCC. That's why not being allowed to participate in the foot washing seems so strange.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Is the foot washing supposed to only represent Christ washing the Apostles' feet or is it supposed to represent the carrying out of Christ's command to the Apostles to wash each others' feet? And did that command mean that the Apostles should only wash other Apostles' feet, or that bishops and priests should wash other Christians' feet, or that all Christians should wash other Christians' feet (or that all Christians should wash anyone's feet)? Which of these is the foot washing supposed to represent. Note that foot washing only occurs in the Liturgy at this time, as far as I know - so although Christians are supposed to do corporal acts of mercy all the time, the only time foot washing is Liturgically represented is at this Mass.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I get that Jesus washed the Apostles' feet at the Last Supper and that all the Apostles were male.
Really?!
Care to offer us a citation or two to support your basic supposition?
Eh? Is there any doubt?
If those present at the Last Supper were just the 12 named men that had been appointed Apostles, then probably little doubt. If those present included many of the rest of the small group who had travelled to Jerusalem with Jesus then that would have included women.
Although, if some women were present it's quite probable that they'd have been washing feet before Jesus got a chance to get up and do it himself.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
stonespring and Ad Orientem, it's not really that hard of a question. quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I get that Jesus washed the Apostles' feet at the Last Supper and that all the Apostles were male.
Really?!
Care to offer us a citation or two to support your basic supposition?
Where does the bible tell us so?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I don't see any mention in Scripture that there were no additional people at the Last Supper, but that doesn't mean that there were more people there. Maybe there were more people there. I don't know. As for the 12 Apostles being male, they had male names and were referred to with male pronouns. In talking about the 12 and not to anyone later called an apostle. So, the silent acolyte, what are you getting at?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Why is this thread being permitted not only to question, but in some cases, sneer at RC rubrics?Not just the OP, so much, but other posts, as well? Doesn't that make it eligible for purgatory? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Eh?
We're the Magazine of Christian Unrest. What do you expect?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Why is this thread being permitted not only to question, but in some cases, sneer at RC rubrics?Not just the OP, so much, but other posts, as well? Doesn't that make it eligible for purgatory?
Bump it to purg if you want. It's a rubric so often broken that many RC's don't know about it. I just wonder what the thinking is behind it, since it's not exactly a dead horse issue. There are non-RC churches who limit the foot washing to men. It looks like an Anglo- Catholic has already talked about men only at his parish here.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JeffTL:
the Easter water smelled like gym socks that year.
Oy veh! Doesn't speak well for your congregation's hygienic habits.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Alan: quote:
If those present at the Last Supper were just the 12 named men that had been appointed Apostles, then probably little doubt. If those present included many of the rest of the small group who had travelled to Jerusalem with Jesus then that would have included women.
This is an issue I've never thought about before, so I've had a quick look at the gospels. Matthew and Mark say Jesus was with the twelve, Luke with the apostles, John (the only one to mention foot washing, of course) talks generally about disciples. Even with the Synoptics, I can't see any suggestion that these categories were meant to be determinative, that is, it seems likely to me that others were present as well as the twelve. After all, we know his mother and other women were present the very next afternoon, at the crucifixion. Where were they the night before Jesus died?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
The delineation between Ecclesiantics and Purgatory relates to subject matter not to the rules of debate. The rubrics of the Catholic Church (or of any other denomination for that matter) are perfectly reasonable topics of debate in Ecclesiantics. So far, I haven't seen any sneering that comes close to warranting action under the 10 Commandments or the Board Guidelines.
As you were.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Why is this thread being permitted not only to question, but in some cases, sneer at RC rubrics?Not just the OP, so much, but other posts, as well? Doesn't that make it eligible for purgatory?
What would Ecclesiantics be without "sneering" at rubrics?! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Anyway, on this issue, as on many other issues, "the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith."
In John 13:13-15, Jesus is quoted as saying, "You call me Teacher and Lord--and you are right, for that is what I am. So, if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have set you an example, that you should do as I have done to you."
The exegetical question here is pretty simple. Does the "you" addressed by Jesus include only the immediate circle of apostles (and those who can be identified as following in their leadership office), or does it include all Christians who "hear" Jesus speaking to them from this passage?
It's the exact same question that could be asked about the passages in the Synoptics where Jesus institutes the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. When Jesus tells the disciples, "Do this," is he addressing it only to them or to all Christians?
Many of us are quite sure that, in John 13:13-15, Jesus is talking to all Christians, lay and ordained, male and female. We're all supposed to wash one another's feet. Just as we're all meant to take part in the Lord's Supper.
Pope Francis had it right in practice last year. Doubtless, he'll get it right again this year. Now all that needs to happen is for the rubrics to get it right too!
Meanwhile, at my schismatic and heretical TEC shack, we'll all be engaged in promiscuous foot-washing as we have for years. We think that's what Jesus wants.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Doubting Thomas,
Wait, are you saying that Christ commanded all Christians to preside at the eucharist?
Does the TEC or any Anglican province allow the "everyone wash everyone's feet" option (officially, that is)? Are there any TEC, C of E, or other rubrics about foot washing at the Holy Thursday service?
Do the Orthodox have foot washing in their Liturgy on the Thursday before Easter or at any other time? If so, is there any restriction on women having their feet washed in the Liturgy?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Doubting Thomas,
Wait, are you saying that Christ commanded all Christians to preside at the eucharist?
Yes, I suppose I am! (I'm a Protestant heretic, after all; we don't believe in a sacramental priesthood, only in an ordered ministry.) But that's really a different issue with regard to the exegesis of the Synoptic passages on the Eucharist than the one I'm pointing to here. When Jesus says, "Do this," he isn't just saying "preside at the Eucharist"; he's also saying that everyone should eat and drink. So, I'll ask in return: Are you saying that Christ commanded only priests to consume the consecrated elements?
quote:
Does the TEC or any Anglican province allow the "everyone wash everyone's feet" option (officially, that is)? Are there any TEC, C of E, or other rubrics about foot washing at the Holy Thursday service?
As far as I know, "everyone wash everyone's feet" is "officially" allowed in TEC; or, more accurately, it isn't "forbidden". There must be rubrics about this somewhere, although I can't lay my fingers on them. The foot washing service is referred to as an option in our 1979 Prayer Book (pg. 274). But no details are given for how it is to be conducted. Looking at a couple of other resources, it looks like the original idea was that the parish priest would wash the feet of representatives of the congregation--and in 1979 the assumption definitely was that male and female priests would wash the feet of male and female laypeople. The current widespread practice of members of the congregation washing one another's feet is clearly a development out of that more "traditional" form.
I can't speak for other Anglican provinces. I have enough trouble speaking for my own! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Anyone from the C of E or elsewhere know what your official canons say about how foot washing is to be conducted?
quote:
Do the Orthodox have foot washing in their Liturgy on the Thursday before Easter or at any other time? If so, is there any restriction on women having their feet washed in the Liturgy?
As far as I know, their rules are even stricter than the RC ones.
[P.S. -- It's "Dubious Thomas"! ]
[ 09. April 2014, 19:17: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Not
Ship's Quack
# 2166
|
Posted
This has always seemed a bit of a case of 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' case to me.
Who do we think cooked the meal, served it, cleared it up?
Jesus and the disciples were Jews, not Romans. As far as I'm aware, there was no Jewish tradition of all male meals (and especially if it was a passover)
It would be far from the first time that women were, perhaps not deliberately written out, but simply never written in. The gospel writers may be saints; they were also first century middle eastern men.
I would love to read one of the women's accounts of that meal...
--------------------
Was CJ; now Not
Posts: 600 | From: the far, far West | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
My Greek prof was convinced that there were women and children present, at least for the main meal. A seder is, after all, a family meal.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Unfortunately, a common reply I hear from conservatives regarding that Dead Horse involving women's career options is that Christ was such a radical for the day regarding gender that surely if he had wanted to include women in this or that role he would have. So maybe Christ was so radical that he and the 12 Apostles made dinner by themselves and served and ate it with no help from women or anyone else.
Female altar servers are allowed (and have been Pope approved for some time now) - but they still only exist through a kind of loophole (altar servers serve in the absence of acolytes - the real "altar servers" - but acolytes can only be male, and acolytes only tend to exist in seminaries) - this has nothing to do with the minor order of acolytes, since minor orders are suppressed in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. I think there is this hesitation in Rome of officially allowing women to stand anywhere near the altar except though some kind of loophole. So that's probably why only men are allowed to have their feet washed - unless the church is huge, the chairs tend to be put near the altar or in what used to be the "ordained ministers and altar boys only" parts of the Church. Like many RCC rules, it is made to be broken, but exists on the books so that the Church doesn't have to deal with the headache of what other things people might press for if they give license to what people are doing anyway. The problem is that some of the Bishops consecrated in the past couple of decades have gotten it in their head that rubrics like these are supposed to be enforced (like Bishop Molino of Madison, WI, who has told his priests that if they do not want to wash only men's feet they are free to omit the foot washing altogether, but no women's feet will be washed at Holy Thursday Mass in his diocese).
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
There's a lot of debate over whether the Last Supper was a seder, or a Passover, or neither, or both. We can say fairly much for certain that no women are mentioned in the canonical Gospels as being there, but beyond that it is all a matter of symbolism.
As far as the OP goes, I suspect that the rubric does not indicate anything other than a general feeling on the part of Holy Church that it would be more decorous to avoid the celibate [male] clergy washing the feet of women.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I have often wondered how many apostles there were - 12, or 12 plus some women.
For example, look at the feeding of the 5000 - from Mark Luke and John you would think there were 5000, all male. But Matthew slips in that there were 5000 males PLUS women and children. So I guess it's really the feeding of the 15,000?
"they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children" Matt 14:31
"they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men." Mark 6:44
"they were about five thousand men" Luke 9:14
"the men sat down, in number about five thousand" John 6:10
If the definite statement is usually made it was 5000 men, and one writer lets slip that there were also women present in addition to the 5000 men, why couldn't there be additional apostles to the 12 men?
One writer mentioned that the upper room contained disciples - not just Apostles but the broader word. So some writers focus on just the "important" people - men, apostles - and occasionally someone lets slip that women were present at the male description events, why shouldn't the presence of women (rather than their absence) be the usual assumption?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
Many contributors to this thread seem to be focusing (fixating?) on the question of whether there were any women at the Last Supper. But is that really the crucial issue? If Jesus only washed the feet of the Twelve, would that fact automatically mean that women can't have their feet washed?
What if it was only the Twelve who received the Bread and Wine of the First Eucharist from Jesus? Would that mean that women can't be given communion?
On a Kerygmaniacal note, picking up on something posted by someone else in this thread: John and the Synoptics don't agree about the Last Supper being a Passover meal. While the Synoptics clearly say that it was, John, in contrast, has it happen "before the festival of the Passover" (John 13:1), so that Jesus is crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover (John 19:14), the day before the Passover meal would be eaten. So John, quite naturally, doesn't give the slightest hint that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Therefore, the question of whether women would normally be present at a Passover meal doesn't strike me as relevant if our concern is with what John meant to portray, since he clearly didn't mean to portray a Passover meal!
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Many contributors to this thread seem to be focusing (fixating?) on the question of whether there were any women at the Last Supper. But is that really the crucial issue?
I'm having trouble working out what if anything the question is here. Except maybe someone being a bit hyper-legalistic about RCC traditions and then a bit precious when others question them. And the usual "my tradition is better than your tradition" sniping.
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
...a general feeling on the part of Holy Church that it would be more decorous to avoid the celibate [male] clergy washing the feet of women.
Its meant to be indecorous. The disciples were shocked.
Which is why the best way to do it liturgically if for the most ecclesiastically senior person present to wash everyone elses's feet. Which is why when we had a bishop visiting our parish that day, he did it. And why once-upon-a-time kings did it. Now sadly commuted into money, not because we are more squeamish than our ancestors, but because we don't believe in kings in the same way. Nothing wrong with giving out the money to the poor, but would be better if they did the footwashing as well. And if it seems embarrassing or shocking or indecorous, so much the better.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
On a Kerygmaniacal note, picking up on something posted by someone else in this thread: John and the Synoptics don't agree about the Last Supper being a Passover meal. While the Synoptics clearly say that it was, John, in contrast, has it happen "before the festival of the Passover" (John 13:1), so that Jesus is crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover (John 19:14), the day before the Passover meal would be eaten.
Thank you, thank you, you've finally cleared up a point that has confused me for a long time! I could never understand why people thought John put Jesus' crucifixion before the Seder, but if it's focusing on this one verse, All Is Explained (and I am no longer a confused lamb). The text says "the day of preparation" without specifying what the preparation is for. I had always read this as "the day of preparation for the Sabbath," i.e. Friday, which would be important even at Passover-tide--and perhaps doubly so, given that that particular Sabbath would be doubly holy, falling as it did during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Is that not a possible reading?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
If unmentioned (therefore uncounted) people were in the room along with The 12, of course Jesus' washing their feet was unmentioned! People not mentioned means anything they did or that was done to them was not mentioned; but like the women and children at the "feeding of 5000," others there would be fully participating.
The writers focused on the "important people" but does Jesus himself consider some people more important than others?
Going back to the feeding of the 15,000, the writers thought only males were worth mentioning or counting, but does anyone think the not-worth-mentioning weren't sat down with the groups of 100 and fed, were they instead shunted to the side and left hungry?
Does Jesus ever leave out anyone who is present? Especially does Jesus ever leave out "the least of these" - the people the rest of the world (including the Gospel writers) think beneath notice (or perhaps assume everyone knows are present if you mention the men)?
But I do see one reason women might not have had to be told "wash the feet of others" - if that was already woman's work (or servant work but all women were considered servants) it would have been redundant for Jesus to tell them to do that. Like, if he told women to bake bread and feed the kids, Duh! But tell the men to do women's work and he's upsetting traditional concepts about work that is "beneath a man."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
On a Kerygmaniacal note, picking up on something posted by someone else in this thread: John and the Synoptics don't agree about the Last Supper being a Passover meal. While the Synoptics clearly say that it was, John, in contrast, has it happen "before the festival of the Passover" (John 13:1), so that Jesus is crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover (John 19:14), the day before the Passover meal would be eaten.
Thank you, thank you, you've finally cleared up a point that has confused me for a long time! I could never understand why people thought John put Jesus' crucifixion before the Seder, but if it's focusing on this one verse, All Is Explained (and I am no longer a confused lamb). The text says "the day of preparation" without specifying what the preparation is for. I had always read this as "the day of preparation for the Sabbath," i.e. Friday, which would be important even at Passover-tide--and perhaps doubly so, given that that particular Sabbath would be doubly holy, falling as it did during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Is that not a possible reading?
Yes, that is the correct reading.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm sorry, did you mean "for the Sabbath" or "for the Passover" as the correct reading? And in either case, what evidence are you using? Inquiring minds would love to know.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But women can be altar servers and eucharistic ministers in the RCC.
Only if there aren't enough men to do it.
Unless that was an untruth told to me by a particularly sexist priest?
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, please consult my post to you in the Purgatory thread on "universalism," re. a "hermeneutic of good-will." I'm hearing sarcasm in your post here -- and, I'll be honest, I don't respond well to sarcasm, especially when it is directed against views I have expressed in good faith and on the basis of solid scholarship.
But, if I've "misheard" you, then my call for a hermeneutic of good-will applies just to me, and I apologize....
With that in mind: The irreconcilable difference between John's chronology and that of the Synoptics is a "given" for NT scholars who do not have a prior commitment to the belief that the Bible cannot contain contradictions. There is a contradiction here -- one of the many between John and the Synoptics.
The crucial detail here is in John 13:1, which I referenced in my previous post. It's unambiguous: "Now before the festival of the Passover...." That's John's "date" for the Last Supper, where Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. Fully agreeing with this "date" for the Last Supper, John then states that Jesus' trial before Pilate took place on "the day of the Preparation for the Passover" (John 19:14). The text here does not say just, "day of preparation" -- that's the Synoptics. Feel free to check the Greek, as I did before writing this post.
John has Jesus crucified on 14 Nisan, at the very time that the Passover lambs are being slaughtered, to make it clear that Jesus is the True Paschal Lamb. He's also the only Evangelist to refer to Jesus' bones not being broken, precisely to make that point about Jesus being the Paschal Lamb (John 19:31-36, esp. verse 36). He's shaping the narrative to make a theological point. That's what biblical writers do, constantly. They're not modernist historians devoted to "the facts." Not even Luke was, despite his "bluster" about his careful research.
The Synoptics, on the the other hand, just as clearly have Jesus crucified on 15 Nisan, the day after the Passover meal. They're the ones that use "day of preparation" to mean only the day before the Sabbath.
It's only a one-day difference between John and the Synoptics. But that one day is quite significant!
[Apologies to the Ecclesiantics hosts if this is getting too Kerygmaniacal! Should we move this discussion to Kerygmania?]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
A quick follow-up to my post. Re-reading Lamb Chopped's post, I think I heard sarcasm where none was intended. So, my apologies ... and never mind the first bit .... The relevant stuff is in my explanation of John's chronology, etc.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Our diocesan newspaper has just arrived in my box. Bishop's column this week is a preview of Triduum. Rather diplomatically, he writes, "the priest washes the feet of twelve people, recalling Jesus' washing the feet of the Twelve Apostles."
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Our diocesan newspaper has just arrived in my box. Bishop's column this week is a preview of Triduum. Rather diplomatically, he writes, "the priest washes the feet of twelve people, recalling Jesus' washing the feet of the Twelve Apostles."
Yay! A wise Roman Catholic appears! (Pardon the Pokemon reference)
Has there ever been much of an explanation especially from the Vatican on the gender of whose feet are being washed? Also, has there been an explanation of whether the foot washing on Holy Thursday is more of a commemoration of Jesus' washing of the 12 Apostles' feet (even if he may have washed other feet at the same time), or whether it is an enactment of the command to the Disciples to wash each other's feet irrespective of title or gender (but with emphasis on those with more spiritual authority washing the feet of those with less) - of course the Church believes it's both, but how does the Chuch explain that by clarifying the depiction of the 12 apostles (who were all male), it is making less clear the command to wash all disciples' feet?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
John has Jesus crucified on 14 Nisan, at the very time that the Passover lambs are being slaughtered, to make it clear that Jesus is the True Paschal Lamb. He's also the only Evangelist to refer to Jesus' bones not being broken, precisely to make that point about Jesus being the Paschal Lamb (John 19:31-36, esp. verse 36). He's shaping the narrative to make a theological point.
I agree that the Synoptics and John differ as to their date of the death of Jesus. However I would argue that it's John's Gospel which is correct historically. If we accept his chronology, then even aspects of the Synoptic narrative make more sense e.g. the timing of the Jewish hearings before the festival and Simon of Cyrene "coming out of the country" before being made to carry the cross.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Also, has there been an explanation of whether the foot washing on Holy Thursday is more of a commemoration of Jesus' washing of the 12 Apostles' feet (even if he may have washed other feet at the same time), or whether it is an enactment of the command to the Disciples to wash each other's feet irrespective of title or gender
I'm not aware of anything official from the Vatican, except the rubrics of the rite itself (lex docet and all that). The ritual as it stands in the (OF of the) Roman Rite is a re-presentation of Jesus' act, not a fulfillment of his command of mutual footwashing. Our bishop clarified that a few years ago when he told parishes not to do mutual footwashing during the Mass. The priest celebrant re-presents Christ's act to us and we simultaneously rejoice in Jesus' compassion and discern how to best practice that in our own lives.
Pope Francis summed up this dynamic in his recent exhortation:
quote:
For if we have received the love which restores meaning to our lives, how can we fail to share that love with others?
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I agree that the Synoptics and John differ as to their date of the death of Jesus. However I would argue that it's John's Gospel which is correct historically. If we accept his chronology, then even aspects of the Synoptic narrative make more sense e.g. the timing of the Jewish hearings before the festival and Simon of Cyrene "coming out of the country" before being made to carry the cross.
I think I would agree with you -- as you put it, John's account appears more historically credible. But I would also consider the possibility that none of the Gospels has the "right" date. All of them seem to have a date that is a bit too theologically "convenient." But, yes, if I had to go with the one that is most believable as it is, John's would win the contest.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
No sarcasm was intended, no. Just the opposite in fact, as I want to do some research. And no, I haven't got the Greek handy at the mo, I'm supposed to be doing some work . ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
No sarcasm was intended, no. Just the opposite in fact, as I want to do some research. And no, I haven't got the Greek handy at the mo, I'm supposed to be doing some work .
Sure. And sorry again for taking your post the wrong way to start with.
I look forward to your thoughts once you've had a chance to do some research. If I can find the time, I might review a couple of things -- it's been a while since I actually worked on this in any serious way.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
It would certainly be a good idea if the discussion about the date of the Last Supper, John vs the Synoptics and all that went to a new thread in Kerygmania.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
... Our bishop clarified that a few years ago when he told parishes not to do mutual footwashing during the Mass. The priest celebrant re-presents Christ's act to us and we simultaneously rejoice in Jesus' compassion and discern how to best practice that in our own lives. ...
Am I the only person who would regard that as taking episcopal micromanagement to levels where it shouldn't go? Or is that simply one of the marks of difference that labels me as a Protestant?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That would make the basis for a quite reasonable Maundy Thursday sermon/homily (delete as appropriate). Especially if the sermon then guides the congregation in discerning how best to practice that in their own lives.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Also, has there been an explanation of whether the foot washing on Holy Thursday is more of a commemoration of Jesus' washing of the 12 Apostles' feet (even if he may have washed other feet at the same time), or whether it is an enactment of the command to the Disciples to wash each other's feet irrespective of title or gender
I'm not aware of anything official from the Vatican, except the rubrics of the rite itself (lex docet and all that). The ritual as it stands in the (OF of the) Roman Rite is a re-presentation of Jesus' act, not a fulfillment of his command of mutual footwashing. Our bishop clarified that a few years ago when he told parishes not to do mutual footwashing during the Mass. The priest celebrant re-presents Christ's act to us and we simultaneously rejoice in Jesus' compassion and discern how to best practice that in our own lives.
Pope Francis summed up this dynamic in his recent exhortation:
quote:
For if we have received the love which restores meaning to our lives, how can we fail to share that love with others?
To avoid straying into DH territory - how is the re-presentation of the washing of the Apostles' feet a different kind of re-presentation than that of a priest re-presenting Christ celebrating the Eucharist? How does re-presenting an Apostle whose feet are being washed differ from re-presenting Christ in the offering of the Paschal Sacrifice? I would argue that they are very different. Does gender really matter in the re-presentation of the foot washing of the Apostles'? If so, how? (This is a question for everyone here.)
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
It would certainly be a good idea if the discussion about the date of the Last Supper, John vs the Synoptics and all that went to a new thread in Kerygmania.
seasick, Eccles host
Certainly!
I've started the thread in Kerygmania.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We wash women and men's feet - as many as come forward, not just 12.
And the washing is done by lay people as well as clergy.
We are all christs to each other, not just the ordained.
I St Johns also, we have both men and women who have their feet washed by the Ministers, quite a few get that done, while they sit down at the front.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
