|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: White Smoke! Discuss the new pope...
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
PeteC, what you describe is the de facto position that is used by every liturgical innovator to justify following their own instincts rather than the liturgy of the Church. The "pastoral" justification is what has created the liturgical free-for-all from which we suffer. It always brings me up short when I hear Eastern clerics refer to "serving" the liturgy. I would suggest that Fr Dickson has the right attitude.
lilBuddha, it's not a sexist thing at all. The rite recalls Christ washing the feet of the Apostles. The simple, but inconvenient fact is that the Apostles were men and so that's what the rite has always (although only since1955 in the Roman Rite as part of the Mass of the Lord's Supper) required. This requirement has been widely and, I suspect, increasingly ignored over the last forty years or so, creating a situation where any priest wanting to be faithful to the liturgy has encountered opposition. Those priests had, until last Thursday, been able to fall back on the "I'm only doing what the Church prescribes" and now feel that Pope Francis has cut the ground out from underneath them. IngoB and many others feel that it would have been better for the Pope to have changed the rules first, rather than to have dispensed himself from the existing rules. The Pope undoubtedly has the authority to dispense himself - or anyone else - from this liturgical prescription. It would seem that, in the past, the Pope has dispensed other Bishops (including Sean Cardinal O'Malley of Boston) from this rule for serious pastoral reasons - probably that the practice was so ingrained locally that the proper pastor (i.e. the Bishop) judged that correcting it would cause greater scandal and pastoral damage to the faithful than simply letting it pass. Bishops do not have the power to grant this dispensation themselves and, as a general rule, no one may dispense him/herself from the provisions of the law except the Pope.
What this step by Francis has done is to call into question the meaning of the Mandatum rite. By his act he has given credence to those who would argue that the rite as set out, washing the feet of adult men only, obscures rather than reveals the truth it proclaims. In the toxic atmosphere that surrounds gender-identity politics in the west and, particularly, in the Church in what Aidan Nichols so aptly calls "North Atlantic civilisation", this was hardly going to be uncontroversial.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
lilBuddha, it's not a sexist thing at all. The rite recalls Christ washing the feet of the Apostles. The simple, but inconvenient fact is that the Apostles were men and so that's what the rite has always (although only since1955 in the Roman Rite as part of the Mass of the Lord's Supper) required.
But the Apostles were all Jewish. Why is it okay to ignore this element of the Apostles' identity but not their gender?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I can't believe that people are complaining that the Pope washed a woman's feet!!!
It just goes to show that some of you value the ritual rather than the meaning behind it!
What a bunch of Pharisees you all are.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can anyone explain to me how excluding women from the foot-washing is anything other than neanderthal sexist rubbish? ...
I suspect it was fear that letting men wash women's feet or women have their feet washed by men in fancy outfits, might arouse suggestive and unholy thoughts that would be inappropriate in a liturgical context.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
lilBuddha, it's not a sexist thing at all. The rite recalls Christ washing the feet of the Apostles. The simple, but inconvenient fact is that the Apostles were men and so that's what the rite has always (although only since1955 in the Roman Rite as part of the Mass of the Lord's Supper) required.
But the Apostles were all Jewish. Why is it okay to ignore this element of the Apostles' identity but not their gender?
This rather goes, as I think Trisagion has indeed recognised, to the question about what the point of the exercise is. Just how important is the identity of the original people in the original foot-washing that is being commemorated?
For my part, I would think that insisting on the participants being male would, in and of itself, miss the point of Jesus' gesture rather spectacularly. He wasn't washing these people's feet because they were males.
There MIGHT be an argument that their position as the leaders of the church after Jesus was gone was important. In which case the fact that the church in question continues to insist on male leaders would have the end result that the people who got their feet washed were all male.
I would think there's a slightly better argument that being Jesus' disciples was more relevant to the ceremony, with the role reversal. In which case, any member of the Roman Catholic church would be a relevant choice.
Francis has gone one step further and said it's not about role reversal in that sense, it's simply about me being a servant - to anyone and anybody.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I found this page on Facebook. The Pope saying he's not going to use the infallibility clause is hardly news, since it has been so rarely invoked in the past. What I find more surprising is the author's prediction that Anglican orders will be recognised as valid, and that there may be substantial moves towards unity between Canterbury and Rome. I know nothing about the author, or how reliable he is as a commentator - does anyone else have any insights?
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Mudfrog your judgementalism and lack of sensitivity to the points that have been made about the question of what the ritual is to symbolise says all that needs to be said about the value of your condemnation.
I propose a SoF specific version of Godwin's Law called Mudfrog's Law, whereby anybody accusing another of being a Pharisee or of pharasaical behaviour is immediately deemed to have lost the argument.
Oh, this, and what Orfeo said, largely.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I found this page on Facebook. The Pope saying he's not going to use the infallibility clause is hardly news, since it has been so rarely invoked in the past. What I find more surprising is the author's prediction that Anglican orders will be recognised as valid, and that there may be substantial moves towards unity between Canterbury and Rome. I know nothing about the author, or how reliable he is as a commentator - does anyone else have any insights?
Check the date, Robert.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Mudfrog your judgementalism and lack of sensitivity to the points that have been made about the question of what the ritual is to symbolise says all that needs to be said about the value of your condemnation.
I propose a SoF specific version of Godwin's Law called Mudfrog's Law, whereby anybody accusing another of being a Pharisee or of pharasaical behaviour is immediately deemed to have lost the argument.
Oh, this, and what Orfeo said, largely.
That's what the Pharisees would have said about Jesus condemning the rituals and traditions of the Pharisees!
Why do you think you are beyond contradiction?
Ritual should never become more important than people.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Mudfrog, it is worth remembering that Jesus didn't merely condemn the rituals. He basically told the Pharisees that they had missed the point. Or the principles involved.
Personally I think Francis is spot on, in that I think the principle of the foot washing was "be a servant".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mudfrog, it is worth remembering that Jesus didn't merely condemn the rituals. He basically told the Pharisees that they had missed the point. Or the principles involved.
Personally I think Francis is spot on, in that I think the principle of the foot washing was "be a servant".
Indeed. My point exactly.
As a Salvationist - the church most near to Rome in many respects - I really do like this Pope ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I found this page on Facebook. The Pope saying he's not going to use the infallibility clause is hardly news, since it has been so rarely invoked in the past. What I find more surprising is the author's prediction that Anglican orders will be recognised as valid, and that there may be substantial moves towards unity between Canterbury and Rome. I know nothing about the author, or how reliable he is as a commentator - does anyone else have any insights?
Check the date, Robert.
If it is just an April 1st spoof, I'm disappointed. I hoped there was a germ of truth in it somewhere.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If it is just an April 1st spoof, I'm disappointed. I hoped there was a germ of truth in it somewhere.
'Fraid it is. The Latin bit at the end says so - "Have a good April Fool's Day."
I like the idea of the Archbishop out jogging in purple lycra, though.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I do not think I am above contradiction and if you were to read rather more for comprehension than judgement, you would see that AI was doing no more than setting the situation within the framework and content of Catholic teaching, practice and law. As it happens, and as I said in the rather nasty spat with IngoB further up the thread, I think that the Pope was suggesting that the proper meaning of the rite is that all Christian leadership is about service and that other considerations, interpretations and law should be conformed to that.
As for Salvationism being, in many ways, closest to Catholicism: what aspects of Salvationism did you have in mind? The rejection of the sacramental system, the soteriology, the ecclesiology, the liturgy?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
"Of all the Protestant groups today, it is The Salvation Army that represents the best chance of entering into full communion with Rome... I'm serious, for I see The Salvation Army as an authentic expression of classical Christianity. (They) are clear about the person and nature of Jesus Christ. You are close to Rome on many ethical issues. The ordination of your officers is for function and good order within the denomination and would not be an issue affecting priesthood."
Cardinal Bernard Law
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
"Of all the Protestant groups today, it is The Salvation Army that represents the best chance of entering into full communion with Rome... I'm serious, for I see The Salvation Army as an authentic expression of classical Christianity. (They) are clear about the person and nature of Jesus Christ. You are close to Rome on many ethical issues. The ordination of your officers is for function and good order within the denomination and would not be an issue affecting priesthood."
Cardinal Bernard Law
You are quoting Cardinal Bernard Law on this, the poster child of the sex scandal cover-ups in the US? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think what you refer to as spiritual director/advisor is akin to the Orthodox "starets". Someone outside the formal hierarchy but identified as an effective spiritual guide.
A spiritual director can be a priest, and indeed, that would have a key advantage (namely, that he can provide the sacrament of confession). But it would not usually be one's parish priest. And given the usual time constraints on today's clergy, it won't be easy to find one who has the time. In principle though, and I think this is a very good principle, it could be anyone whom one trusts to provide "personalised wisdom". No matter whether lay, religious or clergy, no matter whether male or female, and within limits, no matter what age and station in life. (Though wisdom tends to come with experience.)
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But the GP/MP (and higher hierarchical roles in medicine and politics) doesn't really work for me as a description of the priestly role. In your terms, the analogies seem to miss the need for the priest to be "an icon of Christ". Someone who conveys something of the Lord by word and deed.
First, I don't really know what to do with "doesn't really work for me". I do not believe that there is any choice for you or me in this matter. This is not, specifically, an issue that you can point to in order to motivate a choice of denomination, in my opinion. Second, in a specific sense, I assign much greater "icon of Christ"-ness to any Catholic priest than you do to any of your ministers/elders. For of course I believe that every Catholic priest can literally act "in the person of Christ" and through the sacramental system perform acts that are strictly reserved to God (like forgiving sins). Third, by the same token, I have no major expectations about the personal "inspirational value" of any priest for me. Let me hasten to add that unlike most people, I'm fully aware that communication is a two-way street, and that if I am "not being fed" then it might well be because I'm bloody refusing to open my mouth. Still, I've met priest that have taught me something. I've met priests that seemed to me to be on a good path with Christ for themselves. But no shiny "icon of Christ" to run after for me so far, I'm afraid to say. (And frankly, quite a few priests too who manage to spiritually down me consistently...)
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Fundamentally, it is the Christ-likeness which is the looked for characteristic of the Christian shepherd. Sheep look to the shepherd to lead beside still waters, to restore souls, to lead in the paths of righteousness, to be with them in the valley of the shadow of death. I'm not saying that GPs/MPs can't do some of that, but they are not noted for being in the business of restoring souls or leading in the paths of righteousness. But I appreciate it is just an analogy. I can see some sense in it, but these are my reservations.
Well, a GP/MP combination in religious matters, as I stressed, would of course precisely be "in the business of restoring souls or leading in the paths of righteousness". That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at with the analogy. (That a priest is a "spiritual doctor" isn't exactly a new analogy. And a local political leader is perhaps not a bad update for the "shepherd - sheep" image among us sedentary non-herdsmen.)
But personally speaking, I'm very careful with these "poetic" images of spiritual leadership. When things get too "romantic" my bullshit detectors go into overdrive. Not that I don't do poetry. Not that I don't do mysticism. To the contrary, that's where my own spirituality is at. But I like the quiet wiping of a tear after deep silence. The holy is something like an orchid, sometimes the mundane sort of peels away and you catch a glimpse of something precious and vulnerable. But the usual spiritual kitsch is like someone throwing paint buckets at a wall and then saying: "see, as colourful as any orchid." So frankly, when I hear talk of the valley of the shadow of death, I'm starting to grit my death and prepare a fight or flight response.
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
This can been done in two ways. One, that the priest deemed it seemly, for pastoral reasons, or 2) he sought and received the dispensation from the (Arch)bishop.
Both of which would be illicit in this matter, at least in general. Neither a priest nor an (arch)bishop have the right to unilaterally change the universal liturgy like that.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can anyone explain to me how excluding women from the foot-washing is anything other than neanderthal sexist rubbish? Whilst I do not think Francis will exactly change the tides of sexism built into the RCC, at least this is a positive thing he did.
In terms of "gender egalitarianism", which you will invariably apply to this as primary principle, this of course is sexist. As is the RCC as a whole with her all-male clergy and her insistence that women do not have absolute rights over the fruits of their womb. That doesn't get you very far though, you are merely preaching to your choir. In your terms, we Catholics (or at least the conservative ones, including most likely Pope Franics) are proud little sexists, who amazingly think that your morals are out of whack. So if you really want to talk with us Neanderthals, instead of just strutting your liberal credentials by making some disparaging remarks to the inevitable applause of your peers, then you have to descend into a world where symbols are not vetted for their political correctness and gender/LBGT compatibility first, and nevertheless are taken enormously seriously. It's the dark and mysterious Neanderthal way... there are even rumours of ritual cannibalism!
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But the Apostles were all Jewish. Why is it okay to ignore this element of the Apostles' identity but not their gender?
Well, normally the people getting their feet washed would all be Catholics. And by Catholic standards, that would be a sufficient appropriation (since of course Catholics claim the Jewish apostles as their own). I would suggest that the lawmaker did not in fact envisage that this rite would be ripped out of a parish context, and hence has given no explicit rule about the religious identity of those who have their feet washed. Pope Francis also innovated there, by washing Muslim feet. This is indeed a further departure from the once likely intended symbolism then. Except this time the "apostolic" symbolism was not encoded in law, but left implicit. (I note that also the number of men who would have their feet washed was not specified as twelve. I do not think that this was negligence on the part of the law maker, but simply an attempt to provide flexibility - in particular so that it could be carried out with fewer volunteers.)
Anyway, since law did not specify this, this is simply not explicit part of my own complaint (namely about changing canon law "on the fly").
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Typo: Grit my "death"? "Teeth", of course.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Typo: Grit my "death"? "Teeth", of course.
And you reversed LGBT
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Typo: Grit my "death"? "Teeth", of course.
And you reversed LGBT
Ha. Which is more often written GLBT. But I don't really think we have a priority system going on here.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
I think I am quite aware that the Universal liturgy cannot be changed. I lived through the 70s by gritting my teeth, when it seemed it was being tweaked every week. It sure felt like that.
There are many things a bishop or priest can do for pastoral reasons that do not involve the Liturgy.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
IngoB
Thanks for the further clarification of the GP/MP metaphor; I'm with you now.
So far as general "shininess" is concerned, that does seem pertinent to consideration of the new Pope. Most of us learn at some stage that "all that glitters is not gold". But the converse is also true "all that glitters is not copper pyretes, or fools gold". Media-savvyness may be a potentially dangerous understanding, but it can be used constructively with the aid of a long enough spoon.
Under the sole influence of "all that glitters is not gold", we may see Moses coming down from the mountaintop and wonder what he used for luminous paint. Or we may see Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration and wonder, well, what kind of physical manifestation caused that. Sometimes, when faced with shininess, we just wonder. Or rather, we are wonder-struck.
There's an analogous observation re the use of poetic scripture. To quote a current modern advert "I mean, what does that mean?". Well, I prayed Psalm 23 over my father when he was dying and in great pain. There was more than just a recital of poetry going on that day.
Interacting with holiness somehow embodied in the church, the Body of Christ, is not just a cerebral matter, nor is the mind the only judge of what is true, or, alternatively, what is bullshit, false, copper pyretes. Which means that we are in danger of being misled of course. But a cerebral defence can also mislead us. It can disguise self-interest, even to ourselves. The wheat and the weeds grow up together. Sometimes it takes a while to be sure which is which.
That being said, I'm generally in favour of cerebral voices asking "yes, that's all very well, but what does it really mean?" They produce some good critical considerations, but they do not necessarily answer all the questions of wonder.
If this is making your teeth grate some more, my apologies.
[ 02. April 2013, 05:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There MIGHT be an argument that their position as the leaders of the church after Jesus was gone was important. In which case the fact that the church in question continues to insist on male leaders would have the end result that the people who got their feet washed were all male.
I would think there's a slightly better argument that being Jesus' disciples was more relevant to the ceremony, with the role reversal. In which case, any member of the Roman Catholic church would be a relevant choice.
Francis has gone one step further and said it's not about role reversal in that sense, it's simply about me being a servant - to anyone and anybody.
Yes, agreed. This would certainly be a consistent position but, as IngoB notes, Pope Francis obviously went beyond this by washing the feet of people not under his direct pastoral / discipling care. I like the iconoclasm inherent in what he did but I suppose I also understand the concerns of folks like IngoB
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I found this page on Facebook. The Pope saying he's not going to use the infallibility clause is hardly news, since it has been so rarely invoked in the past. What I find more surprising is the author's prediction that Anglican orders will be recognised as valid, and that there may be substantial moves towards unity between Canterbury and Rome. I know nothing about the author, or how reliable he is as a commentator - does anyone else have any insights?
Check the date, Robert.
If it is just an April 1st spoof, I'm disappointed. I hoped there was a germ of truth in it somewhere.
Fools for Christ often express a truth unpalatable to rational folk.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Surely it depends as to whether we are seeing this ceremony as a re-enactment of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples or whether we see it as a symbol of the way in which Christians,spurred on by their divine master,wish to serve all of humanity,men and women,Chirstians,Jews,Muslims and all of humanity.
Mandatum novum do vobis -' a new commandment I give you,that you love one another,as I have loved you.' Was Jesus in this instance only speaking to his rather small group of disciples or were they to carry the message to all of humanity ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Surely it depends as to whether we are seeing this ceremony as a re-enactment of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples or whether we see it as a symbol of the way in which Christians,spurred on by their divine master,wish to serve all of humanity,men and women,Christians,Jews,Muslims and all of humanity.
Who says these have to be alternatives, and on what basis?
quote:
Mandatum novum do vobis -' a new commandment I give you,that you love one another,as I have loved you.' Was Jesus in this instance only speaking to his rather small group of disciples or were they to carry the message to all of humanity ?
If Jesus was only speaking to the disciples, this would not have been recorded, yet alone re-enacted liturgically.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Even if we look at John 13, it says he washed his disciples' feet, not his apostles' feet. The church sees the latter as the proto-bishops, and teaches they were all male. But is the former group all male?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Most certainly not.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Even if we look at John 13, it says he washed his disciples' feet, not his apostles' feet. The church sees the latter as the proto-bishops, and teaches they were all male. But is the former group all male?
The gospel of John does not used the noun "apostle" (except for once, in 13:16 as it happens, and then precisely not to indicate Christ's followers but simply general "messengers"). It's "disciples" for the twelve apostles throughout the Fourth Gospel, and yes, sometimes also for others (St John the Baptist's disciples) and in a more general sense for larger groups of Christ's disciples. But in chapter 13 it's pretty clearly Jesus and the twelve having supper together.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can anyone explain to me how excluding women from the foot-washing is anything other than neanderthal sexist rubbish? Whilst I do not think Francis will exactly change the tides of sexism built into the RCC, at least this is a positive thing he did.
In terms of "gender egalitarianism", which you will invariably apply to this as primary principle, this of course is sexist. As is the RCC as a whole with her all-male clergy and her insistence that women do not have absolute rights over the fruits of their womb. That doesn't get you very far though, you are merely preaching to your choir. In your terms, we Catholics (or at least the conservative ones, including most likely Pope Franics) are proud little sexists, who amazingly think that your morals are out of whack. So if you really want to talk with us Neanderthals, instead of just strutting your liberal credentials by making some disparaging remarks to the inevitable applause of your peers, then you have to descend into a world where symbols are not vetted for their political correctness and gender/LBGT compatibility first, and nevertheless are taken enormously seriously. It's the dark and mysterious Neanderthal way... there are even rumours of ritual cannibalism!
Oh, that is so cute!
One can defend RCC interpretation of the Eucharist. Defense of male-only feet washing is considerably more tenuous. The best you can do for not including women is Jesus did not explicitly say you can. For a church which often prides itself as a reasoning faith, this is most disturbing.
[ 01. April 2013, 20:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Defense of male-only feet washing is considerably more tenuous. The best you can do for not including women is Jesus did not explicitly say you can. For a church which often prides itself as a reasoning faith, this is most disturbing.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Simple historical reenactment: Jesus did wash the feet of the twelve, who were all male. The end.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
read thread this is not obvious from the text.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Do all recipients of foot-washing have to be bearded and circumsized too?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Do all recipients of foot-washing have to be bearded and circumsized too?
Yes. And not ride unicycles. Jesus did not give us permission to ride unicycles.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Same age, marital and disability status as the disciples ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
read thread this is not obvious from the text.
Read thread and bible, it is.
Anyway, your knight in the shiny white soutane has already arrived and restored the gender balance. Maybe we can just leave it at that?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Do all recipients of foot-washing have to be bearded and circumsized too?
Yes. And not ride unicycles. Jesus did not give us permission to ride unicycles.
You know, I was wondering overnight, which web browser did Jesus use? Shipmates who are keen to walk in his footsteps need to know that they are accessing the Ship in a divinely sanctioned fashion.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
I'm no fan of political correctness.
If the Holy Thursday liturgy seeks to re-enact what Jesus did for his disciples, then it makes sense that the recipients would be male. However, if the liturgy is directed in living out Jesus' teaching, as he urges us to do, then it makes absolutely no matter who's feet we wash: male, female, Christian, Muslim or atheist. The point is that Jesus as our Lord and Teacher calls us to follow his act of service to one another.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
I'm no fan of political correctness.
If the Holy Thursday liturgy seeks to re-enact what Jesus did for his disciples, then it makes sense that the recipients would be male. However, if the liturgy is directed in living out Jesus' teaching, as he urges us to do, then it makes absolutely no matter who's feet we wash: male, female, Christian, Muslim or atheist. The point is that Jesus as our Lord and Teacher calls us to follow his act of service to one another.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Same age, marital and disability status as the disciples?
Well, marital status is a bit of a thorny issue. According to scripture, the first pope was married.
[ 02. April 2013, 03:41: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, your knight in the shiny white soutane has already arrived and restored the gender balance. Maybe we can just leave it at that?
You're not gonna like this, but Quotes File. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, your knight in the shiny white soutane has already arrived and restored the gender balance. Maybe we can just leave it at that?
Now I'm feeling all Moody Blues:
Knights in white soutanes, world without end
Epistles I've written, never meaning to send
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
And another for the quotes file.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Defense of male-only feet washing is considerably more tenuous. The best you can do for not including women is Jesus did not explicitly say you can. For a church which often prides itself as a reasoning faith, this is most disturbing.
Simple historical reenactment: Jesus did wash the feet of the twelve, who were all male. The end.
Since when has liturgy (especially that of Holy Week) been 'simple historical re-enactment'?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Defense of male-only feet washing is considerably more tenuous. The best you can do for not including women is Jesus did not explicitly say you can. For a church which often prides itself as a reasoning faith, this is most disturbing.
Simple historical reenactment: Jesus did wash the feet of the twelve, who were all male. The end.
Indeed, liturgy is more than re-enactment. And the exact historicity might also be debated...and it is even possible that more than the twelve had their feet washed by Him...
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
I think the real point to this which I outlined earlier is that in the washing of his disciples' feet, Jesus sets an example for us to follow to serve and wash the feet of others. In fact, Jesus specifically states that is what he is doing in this action.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The gospel of John does not used the noun "apostle" (except for once, in 13:16 as it happens, and then precisely not to indicate Christ's followers but simply general "messengers"). It's "disciples" for the twelve apostles throughout the Fourth Gospel, and yes, sometimes also for others (St John the Baptist's disciples) and in a more general sense for larger groups of Christ's disciples. But in chapter 13 it's pretty clearly Jesus and the twelve having supper together.
In Da Vinci's "Last Supper" it's clear that it's just Jesus and the 12. In John, I don't see it. I've always just assumed "disciples" in John 13 refers to the 12, but now that I'm looking for it, I don't find justification for that assumption.
But I take it that you do -- what are you seeing that I'm not?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Briefly, concerning historical reenactment: my claim is not that this is the be all and end all of the religious rite - clearly the Church is not a historical society staging an accurate replay. My claim is simply that this is a legitimate reason to structure the rite in a particular way.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In Da Vinci's "Last Supper" it's clear that it's just Jesus and the 12. In John, I don't see it. I've always just assumed "disciples" in John 13 refers to the 12, but now that I'm looking for it, I don't find justification for that assumption. But I take it that you do -- what are you seeing that I'm not?
This is IMHO perfectly plain from the circumstances, which paint an intimate setting. The disciples gather for a supper, key players make personal appearances (in particular Peter vs. Judas, but also John himself resting on Christ's breast). It follows a very long set of final instructions (chapter 14-17!), with Jesus clearly speaking "in the plain" to his disciples and taking more "by name" questions (Thomas, Philip, the other Judas). And at the end of this (chapter 18), they actually rise together and go to the garden of Gethsemane, for the showdown with Judas. There is not the slightest hint in any of this of the presence of a larger number of "second tier" disciples. I think it simply makes no sense to assume here a larger gathering, words like in 15:15 just would not apply outside of the circle of the twelve. Indeed, in some sense the very act we are discussing is a rather clear indicator of an intimate setting. Of course it is theoretically possible for Christ to have washed say 72 pairs of feet. But actually, this sign makes a lot more sense - timing wise - if he only had to go through a dozen. I really don't see a two hour long wash-a-thon there, but rather a prophetic sign, relatively short (perhaps twenty to thirty minutes) and sweet.
Finally, I think the discussion is probably besides the point. I bet that if there had been a larger group of disciple present, among them women, and if they all had their feet washed by Jesus, then we would have heard about these women getting their feet washed. That surely would have been a reversal of the usual social hierarchy of service that would have been remarkable beyond a mere reversal of the master - servant relationship, and hence would have been remarked upon, back then! The idea that we can read off a gender-egalitarian treatment from silence in the gospel seems anachronistic to me. In short, never mind the argument that this almost certainly only involved the twelve. I very much think so, but if any woman had had her feet washed by Jesus there, I'm pretty sure we would have been told about that explicitly anyway.
[ 03. April 2013, 00:16: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
if any woman had had her feet washed by Jesus there, I'm pretty sure we would have been told about that explicitly anyway.
given the patchiness of the gospel accounts, I'm not so sure about that. IMHO it is pretty bad theology to base any argument on something that is not mentioned in the gospels. Again, they are way too patchy for that. In that sense I have some sympathy for the slightly flippant "unicycle" argument.
I don't want to saddle a dead horse here (just prodding the carcass), but the whole business of women in the church (from getting their feet washed by the Pope to being ordained as deacons and, maybe, priests) is much deeper than that. I understand, and so far respect, the argument of tradition, as much as the (unspoken) argument of culture. One should not shake those up easily for the sake of the prevailing Zeitgeist. A Chuch should not jump on the bandwagon of any current PC'ness, and (sorry for being flippant again) I for one would not enjoy a brigade of extreme feminists in their dungarees taking over our Church. (/flippancy ended).
But in the long run, there needs to be a theologically, spiritually(these two are, alas, much different)and possibly also pastorally convincing argument for the way things are done, and maintained, with regard to women.
(/dismounting dead horse)
It is very early days, but from what I've seen and read concerning Pope Francis it seems that he is, in many respects (not just the thorny women business, but also concerning liberation theology & other hot irons), trying to find an approach that is guided by spiritual wisdom, common sense, love for his Church and, importantly, an understanding of human nature and its current predicaments. The man Bergoglio was a cura villero in Buenos Aires, he knows a thing or two about humans & their mental, spiritual and material frailties, politics, and The Real World.
He's no social romantic, but neither a Curia flunkey. And, as a Jesuit, he would know about discernment.
[ 03. April 2013, 08:35: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
if any woman had had her feet washed by Jesus there, I'm pretty sure we would have been told about that explicitly anyway.
Ah, the old argumentum a silentio. I guess Aquinas didn't teach that that's a fallacy.
--------
(tr: argument from silence)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
