Foot Washing

[PassionistF]

[quote]You STOP always before Jesus explains this passage, and I know why, for it negates the Catholic Church position.[/quote]

What my intention is here, is not something that is sinister or an effort to "cover up something. Why would I make myself so open to such an easy response and argument by you?

My intention was to take a look at not so much what was being said, but to examine the reaction of the Disciples who found this saying by Jesus so hard to accept. [b][u]They left, they never came back ...... they returned to their "former way of life"[/u][/b], presumably sinful.

I read this Scripture passage time and time again and keep going back to the same question: Why did they leave? What frightened them so much? If this was simply a play on words (as if Christ "couched" something as important as eternal life by playing word games), why would certain Disciples choose eternal "death" of returning to a former life of sin, over an eternal life in glory? Are you suggesting that they banked their salvation on a mere misinterpretation?

I doubt it ... Something serious was said there that day and I contend that those who left Jesus' side and His teachings forever were afraid that they were hearing the very same thing that I hear, "cannibalism".

In fact, many early Christians were persecuted under Nero (and others) who he considered cannibals because they claimed to eat flesh and drink blood. Whose flesh and blood were they drinking Bruce? Were they wrong in their "translation" of teachings by the Church? Why then, were they so willing to die as martyrs (accused of being cannibals) if they truly were not cannibals?

After all, they could have defended themselves by saying: [i]"Hey, We aren't really eating flesh and drinking blood here, you have us all wrong Nero, spare us."[/i] They could have done that and according to you, not been found at fault for their cowardice. Instead, they calmly and prayerfully chose to follow the command of Christ and die for it. Many times, their deaths were extremely horrible, painful and took days to complete. I don't know about you, but I try to clarify myself very quickly when I'm threatened with having been accused of merely offending someone.

Again, I am pointing toward the [b][u]human reaction[/u][/b] to what Jesus taught and said. You seem more interested in literal vs. figurative semantics.

Your taglines indicate that you are a big follower of Luther. From what I have learned of "Lutherans", they believe that their Communion is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, they simply do not agree with Catholics regarding transubstantiation. So, the teachings of your Martin Luther do not appear to jibe with your translation here.

Another translation that continues into fission ......

Peace to you Bruce, keep going to Mass. I hope that Holy Thursday's Mass is meaningful and spiritually uplifting for you.

Despite what you may think, my arguments are offered in love and charity.

His Peace,

Edited April 7, 2004 by PassionistF

[HS_Dad]

Back on the original topic... Some might find it interesting that Mennonites do still practice foot washing as well. As I was investigating Catholicism, I found it fascinating that all of these "good" pieces in different Protestant groups were still retained in one form or another in Catholicism..... I do agree that the command should be taken seriously... (Although clearly the humility aspect is central. In middle eastern cultures, the bottom of the foot is the most despised part of the body.) Mary Jo Copeland, a Catholic homeless shelter and orphanage activist in Minneapolis, regularly washes the feet of the homeless when they come into her shelters. I think this is great... We don't practice "incarnating" humility enough.

[Sojourner]

So, I have kind of a funny thing on this topic. The services I've been to in Protestant churches, everybody can get their feet washed -- the congregants wash each others' feet.

So when someone asked for volunteers to be part of the foot-washing ceremony at our parish, I thought I was volunteering to [i]wash [/i]feet.

Turns out, I was volunteering to get [i]my[/i] feet washed -- the priest will be doing it during the Gospel reading.

I guess if I'd thought about it, I would have realized what was going to be happening ... I felt a little dense when the light finally clicked on.

[PedroX]

Sojourner,

We're having women get their feet washed? Please tell me that I misunderstood. The rubrics are so clear on this.

Ahhh!

peace...

[Sojourner]

PedroX,
As far as I understand, that's the case ... didn't you have to recruit a representative from your Disciples In Mission group to participate in the foot washing? I'm the rep from our group.

I'm assuming the rubrics say no women get feet washed? I'm fairly clueless on this ... didn't really research it or ask enough questions, I guess.

[Sojourner]

I asked our seminarian about this question this morning, and this is what he said,

"An all male feet-washing does not hold true any longer. Maybe in pre-90's but now the understanding and symbolism focus not on the gender but on the fact that we are called to serve everyone we encounter regardless of gender, race, creed...etc."

[PedroX]

Sojourner,

I'm sorry but the seminarian is just wrong. The Vatican is very clear on this, and the Atlanta Bishop is enforcing it this year. The symbolism remains the same as it always has it is an act showing what Christ did for His apostles. Since no women were apostles, no women should be having their feet washed. Its really very simple.

peace...

[Sojourner]

PedroX,
I figured that was probably the case ... maybe you could drop him an e-mail?

[PedroX]

Copied from the ZENIT website

Date: 2004-03-23

Washing of Women's Feet on Holy Thursday?


ROME, MARCH 23, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

Question 1: Is it proper to have holy water receptacles empty from Ash Wednesday on, through all of Lent? -- F.D., Scandia, Minnesota

Q-2: I have learned today about the Washing of the Feet ceremony at Mass in my parish on Holy Thursday. To take the place of the Twelve Apostles, we are to have six gentlemen and six ladies. I would welcome your comments about this innovation. -- M.R., Melbourne, Australia

Q-3: Each year I find it increasingly difficult to perform the washing of parishioners' feet at the celebration of the Lord's Supper because of stiffness in my knee joints which make it almost impossible to get back up on my feet when moving from one parishioner to the next. Is it permissible to delegate this function to an older server? -- C.D., Archdiocese of New York

Q-4: For the adoration of the cross on Good Friday, can we use a crucifix (with Jesus' body on it) or should we look for a plain cross? -- F.M., Antique, Philippines

Answer 1: The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments recently responded to a similar question (3/14/03: Prot. N. 569/00/L) giving a clear answer: "This Dicastery is able to respond that the removing of Holy Water from the fonts during the season of Lent is not permitted, in particular, for two reasons:

"1. The liturgical legislation in force does not foresee this innovation, which in addition to being 'praeter legem' is contrary to a balanced understanding of the season of Lent, which though truly being a season of penance, is also a season rich in the symbolism of water and baptism, constantly evoked in liturgical texts.

"2. The encouragement of the Church that the faithful avail themselves frequently of the sacraments is to be understood to apply also to the season of Lent. The 'fast' and 'abstinence' which the faithful embrace in this season does not extend to abstaining from the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church.

"The practice of the Church has been to empty the Holy Water fonts on the days of the Sacred Triduum in preparation of the blessing of the water at the Easter Vigil, and it corresponds to those days on which the Eucharist is not celebrated (i.e., Good Friday and Holy Saturday)."

A-2: 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.

The rubrics describing this rite are limited to the essentials (selected men sit in a suitable place) and so allow for practical adaptations to the realities of place, time and circumstances.

Thus, taking the example of our Holy Father, as he has grown older, and less able to bend over, the seats of those whose feet he washed were first elevated so that he could continue to perform the rite. But in the last year or so he has been substituted by a cardinal.

Thus, if possible, the seats used by those whose feet are to be washed should be elevated, so that an elderly priest need not stoop too much.

If this solution is not feasible, I do not think it is contrary to the overall sense of the rite to find other practical solutions resulting in a similar effect, provided the rite be carried out with decorum.

A-4: The use of the crucifix, a cross with the figure of Christ crucified, is obligatory for the Good Friday celebrations of the Adoration of the Cross.

This is made clear by the rubrics which, in one form of the rite, describe how this cross may be progressively unveiled, showing first the top of the cross but not the face, then the right arm, and finally the entire body.

After this celebration on Good Friday afternoon, and until the Easter Vigil, Catholics genuflect before the crucifix; they would not do so before a simple cross.

This liturgical situation is different from the pious practice of the Way of the Cross, where widespread custom prefers the use of a simple cross rather than a crucifix. This is the practice followed in the Holy Father's widely televised Good Friday "Via Crucis" at the Colosseum.

[PedroX]

From EWTN

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 04-05-2004:
It OUGHT to be enough that the Missal clearly states it. The rubric, which can be found in the text for the Mass of the Lord's Supper states,

"Depending on pastoral circumstances, the washing of feet follows the homily.
The men 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."

This rubric clearly intends that the principal celebrant, as the sacramental sign of Christ, perform this act so that it is clear that authority is service, not lording it over others as the pagans do. Secondarily, it certainly is a general expression of Christian charity, but to have multiple people, both clerical and lay, washing others feet, waters down the principal meaning that for the Christian, no matter who you are, you are called to serve. I would think a liberal progressive pastor would appreciate that. I would also say that it seems a little like "lording over" people for leaders to set themselves above the law by not following it. The whole point of law is to protect the common good. When leaders violating the law they teach, "You're subject to the law, but I'm not."

While we are on the subject, there is the question of women's feet being washed. Although the bishops' conference has a response on its website based on a 1987 opinion of the BCL Chairman at that time, pointing to a customary practice of washing the feet of both men and women as "a variation of the rite" in the United States, this is really only a statement of fact, as Rome alone is the interpreter of its laws. The GIRM makes clear that adaptations/variations must be approved by the Holy See. As I did last year at this time, I invite anyone who can produce an Indult for this variation to send me a copy.

As for the theological merit of this "variation," I would argue that any time that the liturgical tradition, and the current law, calls for men, introducing women without the permission of Rome, that is, without the judgment of the Holy See that this really is a case of indifference, sends the message that the Church is unjust by withholding a liturgical role from women. After all, here we have an historical reenactment of Christ and His apostles, and some of the roles of the apostles are being taken by women. There is no injustice in excluding women from the mandatum, and no good reason to include them.

[Jake Huether]

37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38Whoever believes in me, as[3] the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.


[quote]
Clearly, the first command was couched in actual language, and seems clear, yet further on, He clarified that this was spiritual and not literal. [/quote]


No, Bruce, this has been coverd over and over again. But you seem to not want to pay attention.

For the sake of those who will pay attention...


The people think that Jesus wants them to eat his Flesh and drink His Blood for a carnal benefit. They don't know that "eternal life" is refering to an eternal spiritual life. They think that if they eat His Body, they will physically live forever. But Jesus tells them No! They indeed must eat His Body, REALLY, but it won't be of benefit to their flesh (their flesh is of no profit). If they eat His physical Flesh, it is of benefit to them Spiritually. They will have Spiritual LIFE if they eat His Body and drink His Blood.

[mulls]

i took part in some feet washing tonight

[Bruce S]

[quote]My intention was to take a look at not so much what was being said, but to examine the reaction of the Disciples who found this saying by Jesus so hard to accept. They left, they never came back ...... they returned to their "former way of life", presumably sinful.

I read this Scripture passage time and time again and keep going back to the same question: Why did they leave? What frightened them so much? If this was simply a play on words (as if Christ "couched" something as important as eternal life by playing word games), why would certain Disciples choose eternal "death" of returning to a former life of sin, over an eternal life in glory? Are you suggesting that they banked their salvation on a mere misinterpretation?
[/quote]

Now we need to put ourselves in the MINDSET of the people who actually listened to Jesus that day, the Jews. Remember, at that time, they did NOT fully accept Jesus as the Messiah, even the followers, for he, at that time, had not resurrected, nor fulfilled all the expected requirements of the fortold Messiah to the Jews, his apostles still were grappling with this, and wouldn't fully connect the dots until after the resurrection. Now, one needs to believe that at this POINT IN TIME, the followers were there for the miracle worker, the RABBI [not Messiah figure] and were wonder who Y'shua/Jesus was. And they WERE JEWS not Christians, and had Jewish training in THEIR scriptures, so contrast what Jesus was saying, with what they KNEW they were commanded, pay attention to God's words and contrast them with the NEW words and instructions that Jesus was now giving to see why many left him that day...

[quote]Prohibition against eating blood - March 22, 2003

In this week’s Torah reading (Tzav, Leviticus 6:1 - 8:36) we see a very important prohibition, against eating blood. In the midst of talking about the various kinds of korbanot (gifts, offerings)[b] we see in Leviticus 7:26-27 “And ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwelling. Whosoever it be [u]that eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people[/u].” [/b]

The phrase “cut off from his people” is a distinct phrase, a clue, used in the Bible several times for very serious infractions of the Torah.  Things like breaking the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17:14); eating leavening bread during the Feast of Unleavened bread (Exodus 12:15); defiling the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14); eating the flesh of the peace offering that belonged to the L-rd (Lev 7:20); touching an unclean thing and eating of the peace offerings (Lev. 7:21); eating the fat of a beast (Lev. 7:25); people dealing with familiar spirits and wizards (Lev. 20:6); going into the Holy thing in a state of uncleanness (Lev. 22:3); a person who will not afflict his soul on the day of coverings or Yom Kippurim (Lev. 23:29); also not bringing the Passover sacrifice (Num. 9:13); the person that acts presumptuously/arrogantly (Num. 15:30); and touching a dead body then while not being purified going into the Tabernacle to defile it (Num. 19:13).

[b]However the prohibition against eating of blood is even more serious than all the prohibitions listed above, because it is mentioned nine times in the Torah (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Lev. 7:26; Lev. 17:12; Lev. 17:14; Lev. 19:26; Deut. 12:16; Deut. 12:23; and Deut. 15:23).  And that “soul being cut off from his people” means either punishment at the hands of G-d, or expulsion from the community. [/b]

[b]In addition we have another clue that seems to indicate that the eating of blood is analogous to idolatry. This second clue is a phrase “I will set my face against the soul”… in this case of the soul that eats blood (mentioned in Leviticus 17:11). [/b]But there are three other places wherein G-d says that He will set His face against the individual: 1.) at Leviticus 20:3-6, for the sin of giving one’s children to Molech (a foreign god); 2.) at Leviticus 26:13-17 for that soul who willingly chooses to not listen to the L-rd and who rejects the decrees (statutes) and abhors   G-d’s Laws, and,  3.) at Ezekiel 14:7-8, and 15:8 for the rank sin of idolatry and for the people being unfaithful to their G-d.

[/quote]

That is WHY the Jews left him, NOT for the reasons NOW we put forth, they knew the scriptures, and Y'shua/Jesus was commanding them to DO something that was DIRECTLY commanded of God NOT TO do.

You guys need context, bad. I guess my sojourn in the Messianic Jewish community is coming in handy here. Catholics especially need to STUDY HARD THE REASONS WHY John 6 is really interpreted right, of course, NOW we know that Y'shua/Jesus was foretelling the death on the cross and the Last Supper/Passover/Seder night, but THEN, those listening heard BLASHPEMY out of his mouth [to thier ears] and that is why they left. They would NOT go against such a direct command of their scriptures.

Edited April 9, 2004 by Bruce S

[Bruce S]

[quote]Your taglines indicate that you are a big follower of Luther. From what I have learned of "Lutherans", they believe that their Communion is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, they simply do not agree with Catholics regarding transubstantiation. So, the teachings of your Martin Luther do not appear to jibe with your translation here.[/quote]

Theologically Luther was a Catholic trying to CORRECT HIS CHURCH, and at first failed, as always the pride and "We are right, and YOU are wrong" attitude resulted in HIM being tossed out...but LATER, after 1/2 of the ENTIRE Catholic Church church walked out of the door, REFORM internally began. Luther was a brave man, but a product of his day, I love him, for he is so human, foibles, anger, drinking, and such, but he loved God, so much so, that at risk to his life, his very life he tried valiently to bring change, and ONLY after the corrupt Catholic Church did it's turtle routine, lashed back, in what, history has shown to be a move of God, for there is no reason otherwise that more than 1/2 [and they were not all sinners, so don't try that number here] went on to seek a more direct connection to God, unbundle worship from what was a secular state on earth, and the tyranny of the clergy.

Yes, I admire Luther greatly, but I'm not a Lutheran, nor will I ever be, I take from all, the Catholic Church, the Reformers, the Messianic Jews, and the better Mainline denominations, and feed weekly my spirit in Pentecostalism.

And, shhh...

I've been seen at Morning Mass to, so .. I'm not the average THIS OR THAT guy, I believe no denomination has it "right" and all have a little piece of "it" ..

So, I'm a sojourner, one who is a Christian first, NOT a DENOMINATIONAL bigot.

[Livin_the_MASS]

The New Testament

The Gospels
The New Testament accounts describe the Holy Eucharist as Jesus gave it to us. The term "bread from heaven" becomes fully clear only when we reach the Revelation to John. The Gospels Christ said at Capernaum. Jn 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My Flesh."

Jewish life is rich in symbolism. The Seder table is filled with symbolic foods. Jesus said, Mt 26:23 "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with Me, will betray Me." He referred to the urhatz, the first washing; slaves eat quickly without stopping to wash their hands, but now Jews wash their hands in a bowl of warm water as a symbol of their freedom. The moror, bitter herbs which remind Jews that the Egyptians made their ancestors' lives bitter with hard labor, are dipped in charoset, a sweet mixture of chopped apples, nuts, and wine, to recall that even hard lives have their sweet moments. The matzo is the bread of haste that the Hebrews ate as they fled from Egypt. The karpas, green vegetables, represent the coming of Spring with its renewal of life, symbolizing the journey from slavery to the promised land; Jews dip them in salt water before eating to recall the tears shed along the way. If Jesus had said the Holy Eucharist was a symbol the Jews at Capernaum would instantly have accepted it.

The Jews knew that He was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 "How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?" On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 "door" or a Jn 15:1 "vine," nobody said, "How can this man be made of wood?" or "How can this man be a plant?" They recognized these as metaphors. But when Jesus insisted, Jn 6:53 "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life." The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" They remembered God's command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 "I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people." It was only after Christ's redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit's enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father's next words. Lv 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life." In the Old Covenant our Father in heaven had commanded His children not to eat the blood of animals because we are not to participate in the life of animals. Animals, having no immortal souls, are lower than man in the order of created nature. However, in the New and Everlasting Covenant we consume the Blood of Christ to participate in Christ's eternal life.

Jesus knew we would need a lot of help to become accustomed to the Holy Eucharist. He performed the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes in the dim light of the original Passover sacrifice Ex 12:6 and of His Crucifixion. Mt 27:45 He performed the four great Eucharistic actions: He took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His apostles to feed the people: Mt 14:15 "When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, 'This is a lonely place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves.' Jesus said, 'They need not go away; you give them something to eat.' They said to him, 'We have only five loaves here and two fish.' And he said, 'Bring them here to me.' Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over."

The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 "This is My Body." 26:27 "This is My Blood…" Mark: 14:22 "This is My Body." 14:24 "This is My Blood…" Luke: 22:19 "This is My Body." 22:20 "This … is the New Covenant in My Blood." Jesus' next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 "Do this in remembrance of Me."

Jesus assured the Apostles that the Holy Eucharist is a reflection of the heavenly banquet. Mt 26:29 "I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

After His resurrection, Jesus walked with two disciples to Emmaus. When they arrived, He celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for them; Lk 24:30 "While He was at table with them, He took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them."

Shhh Bruce needs to get his facts straight!

Edited April 9, 2004 by Jason