Foot Washing/Holy thursday

[quote=buffalo]Do you think Jesus invited only His Apostles for a reason or was it just luck?
[/quote]

Come on! Every body knows Mary Madgeline was there-she was sitting to his right. I know this is true-i read it in a book! %between%

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_12.gif

[quote=buffalo]Do you think Jesus invited only His Apostles for a reason or was it just luck?
[/quote]

Is the reason that He wouldn’t wash their feet?

[quote=dulcissima]Does your parish allow women to participate in communion, or do they think that because no women were present at the Last Supper that Jesus did not intend for women to receive His Body and His Blood?

Don’t you think IF there had been women present at the Last Supper that Jesus would have washed their feet too?
[/quote]

I don’t really know if if would or wouldn’t. Since there were apparently no women there at that time I would say he didn’t. And if there were no women present there was a reason.

I have the opinion that Christ did what He did for certain specific reasons, that perhaps we don’t yet fully understand. As to the whole theory that women were much more highly involved in his ministry than are given credit for, I don’t agree for several compelling reasons. The most shameful aspects of the Lords passion were his denial and virtual abandonment by the apostles, all men. Who remained at the crucifixition, Mary the Blessed Virgin, Mary Magdalene and possibly Mary the mother of James and the apostle that Jesus loved, (James). No one else. Afterwards The discovery of the missing body and the pronouncement of his resurrection was made to who? One or more of the women. Certainly not facts that were very supportive of the Apostles themselves and their relationship toChrist. In fact, those passages actually make the Apostles look very cowardly…

If the writers of scripture left those facts in, embarrasing as they were to the Apostles, I think it plausible had there been more involvement by the women and had Jesus desired more involvement by the women it would have been noted too. The men already looked pretty bad, they couldn’t have looked much worse.

As Marian Carroll pointed out, the Vatican sees nothing wrong with washing women’s feet:

O’Malley to wash women’s feet in rite
Consults Vatican, changes policy
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | March 19, 2005

Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley, who angered many Catholic women last year by inviting only men to participate in a ritual Holy Thursday foot-washing ceremony, has decided that this year he will wash the feet of women and men.

O’Malley’s spokeswoman said yesterday that, as he promised last year, the archbishop had consulted with Vatican officials about his practice of washing the feet only of men on Holy Thursday, a ritual that imitates Jesus’s washing of the feet of his disciples at the Last Supper. The Vatican said, according to the spokeswoman, that O’Malley could wash women’s feet, as is the practice of many priests, including O’Malley’s predecessor, Cardinal Bernard F. Law.

boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/03/19/omalley_to_wash_womens_feet_in_rite/

Perhaps Fr. Jerry will have to update his article: adoremus.org/97-03_pokorsky.htm

The CE states nothing about the theological or liturgical nature of the act which would bar women in fact it is quite the contrary: newadvent.org/cathen/15557b.htm

Since Fr. McNamara notes that the washing of the feet can be ommited in the ceremony, Cardinal Law, Cardinal O’Malley and others have found it legitimate to substitute another ceremony in its place thus avoiding the rubics and avoiding the canon law problems Jimmy Akin points out jimmyakin.org/2005/02/foot_washing.html

According to this website the Vatican has issued a clarification that it is up to the local custom but it does not offer a link

In 2005, the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments offered another clarification to bishops who requested, stating that it is up to the local custom and pastoral sensitivity of each bishop to allow women to participate in this ritual.

blessedsacrament.com/theology/q200.html

It would seem that Rome has spoken in favour of it.

In my parish the women already have clean feet.

At St. Margaret Mary in Naperville, Illinois:

The laity wash each others feet on Holy Thursday.

[quote=SHEMP]At St. Margaret Mary in Naperville, Illinois:

The laity wash each others feet on Holy Thursday.
[/quote]

In this link from Zenit, it is stated it is the role of the priest to wash the feet of men on Holy Thursday.

The rubrics for Holy Thursday clearly state that the priest washes the feet of men (“viri”) in order to recall Christ’s action toward his apostles. Any modification of this rite would require permission from the Holy See.

It is certainly true that in Christ there is neither male nor female and that all disciples are equal before the Lord. But this reality need not be expressed in every rite, especially one that is so tied up to the concrete historical circumstances of the Last Supper.

A-3: The rite of the washing of feet is not obligatory and may be legitimately omitted. However, this is usually not pastorally advisable.

While the rite may not be delegated to a non-priest, a concelebrant may substitute the main celebrant for a good reason.

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=51112

[quote=coyote]WHAT is the big deal?

Is foot fetishism rampant or something? Ridiculous concerns like this cost the Church credibility in my mind. I am aghast with the absurdity of such anxiety over nothing.
[/quote]

Thank you.

The splitting of hairs and the discussions of who is worthy/unworthy, sinners/nonsinners, holy/holier-than-thou, blah, blah, blah makes me start to wonder who among us is going to pass muster. Let’s hope God’s sense of justice is a little more forgiving and understanding than our (human beings) sense of what is right and wrong.

[quote=paramedicgirl]In this link from Zenit, it is stated it is the role of the priest to wash the feet of men on Holy Thursday.

The rubrics for Holy Thursday clearly state that the priest washes the feet of men (“viri”) in order to recall Christ’s action toward his apostles. Any modification of this rite would require permission from the Holy See.

It is certainly true that in Christ there is neither male nor female and that all disciples are equal before the Lord. But this reality need not be expressed in every rite, especially one that is so tied up to the concrete historical circumstances of the Last Supper.

A-3: The rite of the washing of feet is not obligatory and may be legitimately omitted. However, this is usually not pastorally advisable.

While the rite may not be delegated to a non-priest, a concelebrant may substitute the main celebrant for a good reason.

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=51112
[/quote]

“Viri” would be the plural of men or men AND women. In Latin, if there is a single man in a crowd of women, that crowd would be referred to as “viri”.

Usually our parish included men and women. I didn’t go to Holy Thursday Mass for a few years because of that. It just was not good for my inner peace. Last year, I went back (I had convinced myself that I was being petty). They didn’t include men OR women. All of the washees were elementary school children. :eek: So, I am not going back this year. My kids are at impressionable ages and I would love to have them attend an authentic Holy Thursday Mass. I just have to find one. :smiley:

I personally don’t see anything wrong with bare feet, men or women. I don’t see anything wrong with a priest touching a woman’s foot to ceremonially wash the foot. Who can the priest get to volunteer to sit up front and have his or her feet washed? Very, very few. There are bigger and better things about which to carp, in my opinion.

But unless Father is willing to wash my socks, too, it is just not going to be MY feet, St. Peter’s and Jesus’ verbal exchange notwithstanding. I do not like my feet. I esp. do not like my toenails, which are getting on and tending to color a bit with age. I would feel the need if I volunteered for this detail not merely to make sure I had clean feet, or a pedicure, but foot plastic surgery.

[quote=buffalo]Washing of Women’s Feet on Holy Thursday?

Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
****[

](“http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR26.HTM”)****
[/quote]

Interesting article - I noticed something else our parish does incorrectly according to this article - we use a plain cross for veneration on Good Friday instead of a crucifix.

[quote=dulcissima]Does your parish allow women to participate in communion, or do they think that because no women were present at the Last Supper that Jesus did not intend for women to receive His Body and His Blood?

Don’t you think IF there had been women present at the Last Supper that Jesus would have washed their feet too?
[/quote]

EXCELLENT Point!

[quote=dulcissima]Does your parish allow women to participate in communion, or do they think that because no women were present at the Last Supper that Jesus did not intend for women to receive His Body and His Blood?

Don’t you think IF there had been women present at the Last Supper that Jesus would have washed their feet too?
[/quote]

That really isn’t a good analogy because the words of the consecration make it clear that Jesus intended Holy Communion to be for many: *The Novus Ordo phrases it this way: “This is my body, which will be given up for you . . . This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. **It will be shed for you and for all [Latin, “for many”] ** so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.” *

The rite of washing of the feet shows the humble act that Jesus performed toward His apostles, all men. The historical significance of this act is diminished if women (and children) are taking the place of the apostles. Equality for women has no place here. Even though we are all his disciples, the apostles were all men.

[quote=Corki]Usually our parish included men and women. I didn’t go to Holy Thursday Mass for a few years because of that. It just was not good for my inner peace. Last year, I went back (I had convinced myself that I was being petty). They didn’t include men OR women. All of the washees were elementary school children. :eek: So, I am not going back this year. My kids are at impressionable ages and I would love to have them attend an authentic Holy Thursday Mass. I just have to find one. :smiley:
[/quote]

I not miss any part of the Triddum becuase of a disagreement with how the Priest conducted the liturgy.I am there to worship the Lord-not crtitique the Priest.

[quote=paramedicgirl]. The historical significance of this act is diminished if women (and children) are taking the place of the apostles. Equality for women has no place here. Even though we are all his disciples, the apostles were all men.
[/quote]

There was a good point in answer to this in one article quoted - can’t remember which - the fact that this ritual was reintroduced only in 1955 suggests that any “historical significance” is actually not that significant.

[quote=paramedicgirl] The historical significance of this act is diminished if women (and children) are taking the place of the apostles. Equality for women has no place here. Even though we are all his disciples, the apostles were all men.
[/quote]

How comforting to know that women “diminish” the value and pertinance of an act.

[quote=paramedicgirl]That really isn’t a good analogy because the words of the consecration make it clear that Jesus intended Holy Communion to be for many: *The Novus Ordo phrases it this way: “This is my body, which will be given up for you . . . This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. **It will be shed for you and for all [Latin, “for many”] *** so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

The rite of washing of the feet shows the humble act that Jesus performed toward His apostles, all men. The historical significance of this act is diminished if women (and children) are taking the place of the apostles. Equality for women has no place here. Even though we are all his disciples, the apostles were all men.
[/quote]

Jesus chose all men as His apostles, not because He would only humble Himself before men, but rather because these men, and their successors, were chosen to stand in persona Christi, to re-present Christ to all.

Furthermore, the following statement: “The rubrics for Holy Thursday clearly state that the priest washes the feet of men (“viri”) in order to recall Christ’s action toward his apostles” can not be correct. “Viri”, even if it is referring specifically to men, can not possibly be “of men” because it is the nominative plural, meaning that it is the subject of the sentence and would refer to the men who are doing the washing. Had the intention been to refer to the feet “of men” the genitive plural, or “virorum”, would have been used.

[quote=coyote]How comforting to know that women “diminish” the value and pertinance of an act.
[/quote]

Women and children should be seen and not heard…or touched.

Kendy

[quote=Kendy]Women and children should be seen and not heard…or touched.

Kendy
[/quote]

Well I think its OK to hear women cooking dinner, cleaning the house, taking care of the kids-you know all the things God made them to do… smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_6_213.gif

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.