Holy Thursday Mass, women had their feet washed

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Mar 25 2005, 11:47 AM'] it has gone to equality.....we are to wash everyones feet.....are women excluded, even if it is symbolic.........women are discilpes too ya know......

should we have to priest grow a beard and make him look like christ?...... [/quote]
The apostles work as priest (leaders serving the community). While it would seem hardly innappropriate to allow women's feet to be washed, it is even less appropriate to break with tradition. Even tradition is of great importance (nothing like Tradition, but you know), and when we break from it we sever ourself a bit more from the apostles. Besides, it is only when we think we know better than the Church that we are the most incorrect.

God bless,
Mikey

[Paladin D]

I really don't care if women's feet are washed or not, I have no problem with that; but, I [b]do care[/b] when authority is clearly disobeyed.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Mar 25 2005, 01:43 PM'] The apostles work as priest (leaders serving the community). While it would seem hardly innappropriate to allow women's feet to be washed, it is even less appropriate to break with tradition. Even tradition is of great importance (nothing like Tradition, but you know), and when we break from it we sever ourself a bit more from the apostles. Besides, it is only when we think we know better than the Church that we are the most incorrect. [/quote]
Actually, the tradition of feet washing was carried out by nuns as well as monks. When it was instituted by Pius XII, it was of course limited to men, as were other Liturgical roles; but this may have also had a practical reason, in worries about women removing stockings and what not.

It all depends on what the Church intends the rite of foot washing to accomplish. If it is intended to be a symbolic reenactment of Christ washing the Apostle's feet, then it should be limited to men. If, however, it is only meant as a general display of humility, IN IMITATION OF Christ at the last supper, then there would be no symbolic hindrance to women having their feet washed.

Edited March 25, 2005 by Eremite

[StPiusVPrayForUs]

I don't see what the big deal. If women and lay men can give out Holy Communion, then the weshing of the feet is just the tip of the iceburg.

Oh yeah. But somehow they are in "union" with Rome.

[toledo_jesus]

Women. Feh.
At least His Excellency consulted the Vatican.

[Thurifer]

Off Topic-

I got my feet washed!!!!!!

[yiannii]

[quote]Liturgical law does specify MALES (not just the generic "men"). [/quote]

Then surley there can be no other way....

[Aloysius]

it is symbolic to the priesthood, it was when Christ was ordaining them.

anyway, I really wasn't saying (or intending to say) one way or the other IF they should be banned. I'm just saying that because the Church currently says it is washing males feet, I think it is arrogant of women to demand to get their feet washed. Now, if they did it through respecitble channels and filed some canon law petition or something or submitted a question to either the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Congregation for the Sacred Liturgy then I'd be fine. But basically they just got all up in arms and completely disrespected the Apostolic Office of this bishop (this quite holy bishop, isn't he the Francisican bishop who still wears his robe, lives out of his car in true poverty, and gave that awesome homily when he was appointed?).

It is up to the Church to regulate such rituals, there is no reason for the laity to demand this as if it was some sort of rite. THey could use a lesson in obedience and humility, that's what washing the feet is all about anyway.

And when I refer to "modernist feminism" I am actually talking about what I consider the masculinization of the female gender. The kind that demands "equality" and then really destroys the sacred and holy dignity women have that ought to be respected (when men try to respect it, these "feminists" think it's "degrading") and try to make women more and more like men (when the differences should be more and more embraced and understood). A true feminist is not a modern feminist. A modern feminist seems to me to be a masculinist feminist.

Anyway, when they washed the women's feet at St. Ferd's, I wasn't offended or anything. I found it perfectly fine. But if next year St. Ferd's were to strictly follow the rubics and the laity got offended, I would be offended at the laity's arrogance and disobedience for demanding something as a right that should really be a RITE (like my play on words? lol) (rites are to be regulated so that the present they faith accurately and promote holiness and true understanding of God by the Patriarch of that rite, in our case the Latin Patriarch who is Pope John Paul II)

PSPVPray for us, actually, there is an increasing awareness by the bishops in the wake of Redemptionis Sacramentum that "Eucharistic Ministers" are really supposed to be "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion" and do not hold a PERMANENT ministry but are only supposed to be used in case of unforeseen events that would make the distribution of the Eucharist nearly impossible for a congregation. They are also becoming more aware that the solution is to institute more male acolytes, since ever since Paul VI supressed the minor orders we can have acolytes who are not on the road to the priesthood (something that is completely doctrinally sound and the discipline is in fact good for the latin rite in its present crises)

don't be surprised if we see more Acolytes replacing "Eucharistic Ministers". The whole point of that is simply to show our reverence to the Eucharist and to the role of the priest. Acolytes have a stable minutely "ordained" ministry that is more fruitful to the Church.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Then surley there can be no other way....[/quote]

The Holy See frequently grants indults from a particular universal law for local custom. Whether this particular indult is meant for Archbishop O'Malley alone, or is an acknowledgement of a legitimate flexibility on the part of all the bishops on this matter, is unclear. We'll have to wait and see the official reply from Rome.

[Aloysius]

yeah, I want to see some official respecful discussion with the Magisterium. Disobeying is never good unless they thing you are disobeying is an order to actually sin. It is not a sin to wash only men's feet at mass.

See, the Holy See did tell him he could, and that's fine. What I really hate about this is that it was because he was getting a lot of public irreverent outcry about it from people who are supposed to be faithful members of his flock. I see that as arrogance and as a pastoral matter if I were him might stick even firmer to only washing guys' feet and preach homily after homily about humility and obedience and respect for the Apostolic Office of Bishop and the authority of the Latin Patriarch to determine the rituals for the Roman Rite as best he sees fit to promote good faith.

the question is: what does the Church need more today? does it need ot see everyone getting their feet washed, or does it need to see some distinction between gender roles? I think in some senses it really does need to see genders complimenting each other with their differences more, and that becomes symbolic in the way the genders participate in the liturgy. It's up to the Church to decide, we are free to discuss until we're blue in the face. It's not particularly wrong for girls to have their feet washed, thoguh it is particualary wrong to disobey a lawful proscription of the magisterium.

[traichuoi]

i've never heard of the "washing of men's feet only" before.

but i'm thinking, if the argument is to wash men's feet like Christ did to the apostles, then shouldn't the priest only be washing other priest's feet...not just any male???

[argent_paladin]

I hope this answers your question:

[quote]Washing Feet on Holy Thursday

Question Can the priest wash women's feet on Holy Thursday?

Answer According to the sacramentary, "The men [vir] who have been chosen are led by the ministers to chairs prepared in a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers, he pours water over each one's feet and dries them."

In 1988 the Congregation for Divine Worship reaffirmed that only men's feet are supposed to be washed: "The washing of the feet of chosen men [vir] which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came 'not to be served, but to serve' (Matt. 20:28). This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained."--Paschales Solemnitatis, 51.

In both cases the latin word vir is used which means that men is not referring to mankind but only to males. Therefore, only men may have their feet washed on Holy Thursday. The practice of having the congregation wash each other's feet is also not allowed as the instruction refers only to the priest as the washer of feet.[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/LawText/Index/6/SubIndex/97/LawIndex/31"]http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/F.../97/LawIndex/31[/url]

[journeyman]

For what it's worth, and half of this is hearsay.

Footwashing comes from John's gospel, which is the only one to relate this particular episode of the Last Supper, and also the only gospel not to go into the details of the eucharist (bread and wine).

1
Before the feast of Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to pass from this world to the Father. He loved his own in the world and he loved them to the end.
2
The devil had already induced Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot, to hand him over. So, during supper,
3
fully aware that the Father had put everything into his power and that he had come from God and was returning to God,
4
he rose from supper and took off his outer garments. He took a towel and tied it around his waist.
5
Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and dry them with the towel around his waist.
6
He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Master, are you going to wash my feet?"
7
Jesus answered and said to him, "What I am doing, you do not understand now, but you will understand later."
8
Peter said to him, "You will never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me."
9
Simon Peter said to him, "Master, then not only my feet, but my hands and head as well."
10
Jesus said to him, "Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all."
11
For he knew who would betray him; for this reason, he said, "Not all of you are clean."
12
So when he had washed their feet (and) put his garments back on and reclined at table again, he said to them, "Do you realize what I have done for you?
13
You call me 'teacher' and 'master,' and rightly so, for indeed I am.
14
If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another's feet.
15
I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.
16
Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him.
17
If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it.


The language in verse 15 is deemed mandatory - and I'm told the name Maundy Thursday is derived from "Mandatum" Thursday

Bishop Anthony Bosco issued a pastoral letter in 2001 called [url="http://www.catholicgbg.org/DOGWeb/wsotft3.nsf/SubByKey/96F9DF3905AB442085256F0A006794BE.html"]On Bended Knee . . . The Eucharist and Service[/url]. The Bishop thinks "Peter's response should be a model for all Christians. We cannot follow Christ half-heartedly. In responding to Christ there should be no halfway measures, no negotiations, and no ifs."


I don't think the Bishop was talking about ordination, he was talking about service. And not just in the sense of works, but as a direct result of participating in the Eucharist.

There may be another layer of meaning . . . that wouldn't surprise me . . . but can we ignore the plain meaning of the words and actions? .

[Aloysius]

it's not the washing of women's feet that's inherently wrong. it is disobedience and lay disrespect to bishops that is wrong.

there are many paths we can follow with the symbolism of this action. the Church has chosen currently the path in which male feet are washed symbolic to the Last Supper, the Apostles, the necessity of a distinction between genders, et cetera. it is also symbolic of service, obviously. in only having men's feet washed, the Church chooses to make a statement of all of these symbols through this one action. She could, if she wished, change and say that the symbolism she wants to emphasize more is service and there is no need in this particular instance to make distinction between the genders. but again, the Latin Patriarch decides the rituals of the Latin Rite as he sees to be most necessary of a message to the faithful. considering the uproar that came over this, perhaps it is the right decision because this is a lesson the faithful are not understanding so it should be re-emphasized.

anyway, I personally don't even have a preference one way or the other. There is merit to both sides. There is no merit in publically disrespecting a bishop over such a matter causing scandal and division amongst the faithful and pressuring the bishop to give into your whims.

[CarpeDiem88]

So St. Ferd's Favourite Radical Catholic, it's lay disrespect to wash a woman's foot. Hmmmm... c'est en tout interressant.