Ship of Fools: Maundy Thursday and Female Feet

Thread: Maundy Thursday and Female Feet Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027884

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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?

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

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.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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?

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

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]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Eh?

We're the Magazine of Christian Unrest. What do you expect?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

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?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

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

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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]

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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?

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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]

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"! [Big Grin]

]

[ 09. April 2014, 19:17: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]

Posted by Not (# 2166) on :

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...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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).

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Big Grin]

Dang. I can only wish my feet were such as to pose a temptation to anybody.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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?

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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."

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I can't speak for other Anglican provinces. I have enough trouble speaking for my own! Anyone from the C of E or elsewhere know what your official canons say about how foot washing is to be conducted?

The C of E's 'Times and Seasons' says that 'The president may wash the feet...'

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

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?

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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?]

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

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."

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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?

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

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.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

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?

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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!]

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It may be a bit, Real Life calls and I've only just finished work for the evening...

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

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

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.)

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

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.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I get that Jesus washed the Apostles' feet at the Last Supper and that all the Apostles were male.

He did his Mum's too. Her bunions were killing her after that walk in from Bethany.

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

The trouble with feet washing is we don't do it. Presumably when Jesus got down like a slave or servant those present were shocked that he was washing their feet not that someone was. Should we do this as people come into the church? should we offer hand washing, taking coats (in cold climates) Should we ask incomers "can we help you?" like a McD person at the counter. The awkwardness of feet washing in local culture often takes over from the real scandal of the original occasion.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We did a version of feetwashing that shocked our Asian congregation. It was a church potluck, and the pastor and I (another high-status leader) grabbed the rolling garbage cans and began walking them around the tables, collecting used napkins and paper plates, etc. Well, in Vietnam the leaders don't sully their hands with such menial tasks on their own behalf, let alone serving the ordinary folk that way. It was a stunner (and shortly afterward we had a real downturn in squabbles in the congregation over status, yay!).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's difficult to think of a common servile action that we would expect someone of very low status do for us. It may have been the case a few generations ago that certain tasks would have been considered menial - preparing food, cleaning dishes, washing clothing, cleaning the house. But, for the majority of us, they have becomes less menial thanks to technology and things that everyone would do with the exception of the minority who can afford to pay someone to do that.

I can't think of many things that would be automatically assumed to be below our dignity for the majority of the people in church. And, even if I could what in that list could be translated into a liturgical action?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Lamb Chopped, my post was written while you were writing.

In my experience it is not unusual to find the minister in the kitchen washing dishes or helping with clearing up after a church lunch.

Yes, it's a great example of service in action. But, how could that be used in a liturgical context?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

The local bishops took to cleaning people's shoes for them as a 'substitute in kind'. The symbolism isn't quite the same but I think it works well nonetheless ...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Our Maundy Thursday worship is held in the context of a church potluck, so it works very well for us. The garbage-gathering is, I suppose, a liturgical action. [Big Grin]

But I don't know what we'd do if we were limited to a non-eating space.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.

I've seen it this way for quite a while, though with the reservation that the disciples, having left their homes ad families, formed a surrogate family, a bit like a bikie gang.

GG

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Snigger]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I'm not in favor of going away from foot washing in the Maundy Thursday service, but you could add outside of worship or even Holy Week having people in the parish clean each others' toilets and having the pastor clean 12 people's toilets. The only problem becomes one of status when some parishioners might not have a toilet that is private enough for them to be able to give permission for someone else to clean it (and some parishioners may be homeless, too).

I shudder at the thought of it and would find any excuse possible to avoid doing it, so that probably means it's a good idea, although maybe too impractical.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Maybe only men have dirty smelly feet [Killing me]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe only men have dirty smelly feet

I suspect that Bib has never been on the Camino to Santiago de Compostela. I am happy to provide the assurance that there are thousands of female feet which can be easily characterized as smelly and dirty.

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :

Unfortunately, I can confirm from personal experience that female feet can be smelly. Mr Bug calls my feet 'Damp Things'. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I recall, post-my first Camino, two GLEs grilling me on what might have been my most remarkable spiritual experience on the Camino, and I told them that it was in a pilgrims' albergue in (I think) Najera which had about a dozen people in a circle attending the blisters and bruises of each other's feet. There was no common language among them, and they were all dog tired, and would soon have their own feet tended to.

Apparently it was the wrong answer.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
I've seen it this way for quite a while, though with the reservation that the disciples, having left their homes ad families, formed a surrogate family, a bit like a bikie gang.

GG

One of my books tells of a priest in Beirut who pointed out that Jesus was offering to host the gathering that had already been planned in the Jerusalem house. Otherwise there would have been two Passovers eaten in the house, which wouldn't be right. That seems reasonable to me.

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Lamb Chopped, my post was written while you were writing.

In my experience it is not unusual to find the minister in the kitchen washing dishes or helping with clearing up after a church lunch.

Yes, it's a great example of service in action. But, how could that be used in a liturgical context?

TARPing?

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

No. TAWPing.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Anyone care to offer an explanation why Pope Francis deliberately breaks the rules he has the power to change regarding the washing of Female Feet in the Maundy Thursday service, but does not change the rules themselves (and thereby allow other priests to do the same)? (The explanation offered by the Papal spokesman is that the Pope is free to change his own Liturgy, but that unless he changes the Rubrics - which he can also do at any time - all other Priests in the Roman Rite must still do that which the Pope himself does not do.)

Does this have anything to do with the complications of having a serving Pope and a Pontiff Emeritus? If Pope Francis went too far and started making large changes to Canon Law and Liturgical Rubrics (which, as long as he does not change doctrine, he is free to do at any time), would there be possible challenges to his legitimacy from supporters of Benedict XVI, even though the former pope is 100% retired and Francis is 100% the current Pope with full authority? Is there any chance that some of Francis' current rhetoric might be met with larger concrete changes to Canon Law than we have seen so far when (god forbid), Benedict XVI passes from this life, assuming that Francis outlives him?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

For RC neo-conservatives tradition is whatever the current pope says it is, so if the current pope washes the feet of women, for instance, contrary to the long held norms that's fine and if you dare disagree you're a fanatic, heretic, schismatic, sedevacantist or whatever (I had all those insults thrown at me back when I belonged to the RC traditionlist movement).

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

At our church we had quite a lot of people, women and men, having their feet washed and dried by the ministers. They all went and sat down at the front on a circle on seats.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
At our church we had quite a lot of people, women and men, having their feet washed and dried by the ministers. They all went and sat down at the front on a circle on seats.

Are, but were they Roman Catholics?

I don't know anything about Orthodox practice on this, but am under the impression that as far as the West is concerned, it is only in the RCC that there's an issue about who is allowed to wash and whether female feet can be washed.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

St John's is an Anglican church.

www.stjohns-hydepark.com

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
For RC neo-conservatives tradition is whatever the current pope says it is, so if the current pope washes the feet of women, for instance, contrary to the long held norms that's fine and if you dare disagree you're a fanatic, heretic, schismatic, sedevacantist or whatever (I had all those insults thrown at me back when I belonged to the RC traditionlist movement).

There's a certain brand of liturgical traditionalist that were all about that under Benedict. "The Pope has six candles and a crucifix on the altar. Why don't you? Do you think you know better than the Pope?" Upon Francis's arrival, many of those were quick to point out that fidelity to Rome doesn't mean an ultramontanist slavish copying of every Papal practice.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
"The Pope has six candles and a crucifix on the altar.

seven

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Fair.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0