Beautiful video of our Holy Father washing female prisoner's feet

[BarbTherese]

For me it has several layers of meaning.  First a reminder of the Last Supper and the night traditionally when Jesus instituted Holy Orders.  It is also a reminder to us all that no matter who or what we might be in life, our vocation and call is to service and to all without exemption.

[Aragon]

 

​Which is... a "re-enactment" (I know there's a better word...) of Jesus washing his disciples' feet?

Am I missing something?

I think the idea is that because Holy Thursday commemorates the institution of the Mass and the priesthood only the men should have their feet washed because they're representing priests. However, as another member noted, the night has layers of meaning. One layer is certainly the priesthood but I think the actual event of Christ washing the feet of the disciples also signifies how we're called to serve one another, and obviously that's something that is not just applicable to priests but to all of us. 

I think that to see Christ's washing of his disciples feet as only about the priesthood (and to therefore believe only men should participate in the mandatum) is a very myopic and clericalist interpretation of Christ's actions on Holy Thursday. If His action also teaches us something about the call to serve others (which undoubtedly it does, I'd be surprised if the most hardened trad disagreed with that) then there's no reason why female laity can't participate in the ritual too.

[BarbTherese]

In my parish, Father was having a hard time finding 12 feet to wash and so when he asked me to participate, I was happy to be in the line-up.  It was important to me to relieve any anxiety Father might have re the Holy Thursday liturgy and I was not the only female.  Mine was a service, while a quite minute one and an honour, service nonetheless.There seemed to be a balance of both genders.  We all remained in an isle seat and Father came round the Church with his bowl and a server with towels and jug of what was warm water. and Father went down on both knees to wash and then dry each foot.  I found it a very moving part of Holy Thursday - it was a reminder too to me that the priesthood with its Ultimate human dignity is called into service equally with us all, as indeed Jesus was called by The Father to service.  We are all called without exception to service - how we serve is what might vary even in each day.  It was a reminder to me:

Paul to the Galatians Ch3

[26] For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. [27] For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you be Christ' s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

Another something that came home to me through the comment of another parishioner - we need to have the interior disposition of humility too not only to serve, but to be ready to permit others to serve us. 

[puellapaschalis]

The Mandatuum is an optional part of Maundy Thursday Mass. It doesn't need to be done at all, and if twelve suitable men cannot be found then it would be best to omit it.

[AccountDeleted]

[Nihil Obstat]

​It is not our fault the Pope did something which is illicit for every other priest.

[puellapaschalis]

Nor if, subsequently, everyone then says it's fine and dandy because, yannow, the Pope did it. Hagan lio!*

 

*Language nerd disclaimer

[AccountDeleted]

 

[BarbTherese]

I read the following:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-female-foot-wash-upsets-traditionalists-article-1.1303260

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said there was nothing wrong with showing women sole support.

“Here, the rite was for a small, unique community made up also of women,” Lombardi wrote in an email. “Excluding the girls would have been inopportune in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to all, in a group that certainly didn’t include experts on liturgical rules.”

I also found the following an interesting statement on New Advent :

 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13216a.htm It is true that many others admit the distinction between preceptive and directive rubrics, as De Herdt does, but they write from the standpoint of conscience, and when they excuse infractions of the rule it is in virtue of special reasons due to circumstances.

But all things being said, I am not one personally to demand in all circumstances that the letter of the law must apply absolutely.

[Gabriela]

Okay, hopefully this isn't going to start a flame war or tick people off as irrelevant, cuz I can't help but see the connection between this topic and the all-male priesthood itself. Which brings up something that's been bothering me. So I'm going to ask here.

DISCLAIMER: I am not for women priests. But...

I'm surrounded by feminists all day, almost every day. And when they ask about why Catholics won't have female priests, I tell them it's because Christ selected only male apostles, so we do what Christ did. I tell them that because it's the only argument I've ever heard for the all-male priesthood, but no lies, y'all, it's a terrible argument. So my question is: Is that the only reason we have for the all-male priesthood? Cuz if we've got better ones, I would really like to know them!

[dUSt]

 

I tell them it's because Christ selected only male apostles, so we do what Christ did. I tell them that because it's the only argument I've ever heard for the all-male priesthood, but no lies, y'all, it's a terrible argument. So my question is: Is that the only reason we have for the all-male priesthood? Cuz if we've got better ones, I would really like to know them!

​The priesthood is a covenant, like a marriage. The Church is the bride, and Christ is the bride groom. Since priests are representing Christ, the masculine role, married to the Church, the feminine role, having a woman priest would be like having two brides.

[Gabriela]

​The priesthood is a covenant, like a marriage. The Church is the bride, and Christ is the bride groom. Since priests are representing Christ, the masculine role, married to the Church, the feminine role, having a woman priest would be like having two brides.

​Okay, that's better. Thank you, dUSt!

What else have we got?

[Era Might]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-female-foot-wash-upsets-traditionalists-article-1.1303260

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said there was nothing wrong with showing women sole support.

“Here, the rite was for a small, unique community made up also of women,” Lombardi wrote in an email. “Excluding the girls would have been inopportune in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to all, in a group that certainly didn’t include experts on liturgical rules.”

Sounds reasonable. ​Being a man or a woman doesn't tell you who you are, only what you are. If anyone needs to know they are a "who" and not just a "what," it's prisoners.

[Anomaly]

​The priesthood is a covenant, like a marriage. The Church is the bride, and Christ is the bride groom. Since priests are representing Christ, the masculine role, married to the Church, the feminine role, having a woman priest would be like having two brides.

Sorry, but that's an even worse argument for an all make priesthood. 

I see no justification for ascribing "gender" roles to a relationship or promise.  

Relegating female/bride characteristics are nonsensical other than to bolster the idea that males are more able and females are inherently incapable to fulfill a promise.  

 

[Gabriela]

Sorry, but that's an even worse argument for an all make priesthood. 

I see no justification for ascribing "gender" roles to a relationship or promise.  

Relegating female/bride characteristics are nonsensical other than to bolster the idea that males are more able and females are inherently incapable to fulfill a promise.  

 

​I think it's better because it situates the status quo in the context of a larger relational metaphor that is unobjectionable (and timeless) to Catholics. Whereas the "Jesus only chose male Apostles" argument could easily be countered with the claim that of course He did, because women would have been shunned as "public figures" roaming about in ancient times (and were totally without credibility to Jews), whereas nowadays women are accepted as credible and legitimate public figures and so there's no reason not to ordain them.

However, I do think that we need an arsenal of arguments for this situation (of only-male priests), because a "cumulative case" is always stronger than just one or two reasons. So I would like to continue hearing arguments, if others know of any.

Also, Nihil: Because I respect your opinion so much, I'm curious what your view is on the bit posted above:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-female-foot-wash-upsets-traditionalists-article-1.1303260

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said there was nothing wrong with showing women sole support.

“Here, the rite was for a small, unique community made up also of women,” Lombardi wrote in an email. “Excluding the girls would have been inopportune in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to all, in a group that certainly didn’t include experts on liturgical rules.”