Every year when I hear the same central readings of the Triduum I think I’ve heard it all – all the readings and all the angles of approaching those readings. But I haven’t; the words of the proclamations are the same, but as is the case with everyone, I’m different this year, others are in a different place, it is proclaimed differently, the world is different – these contexts are a large part of the reception and processing of scripture we annually anticipate and celebrate. So, may I call us back to Holy (or Maundy) Thursday’s gospel through a historical/scriptural lens, a theological lens, and a pastoral lens.
A number of years ago I was invited to speak at a wonderful conference for which I fell down an academic rabbit-hole to explore a fascinating (and obscure) liturgical history puzzle. It took several years for the papers to be published, but when they came out this past year the gap in time rekindled my curiosity around the puzzle of footwashing and its many interpretations in our ecclesial and theological history (“Welcoming the Stranger and Practicing Humility” in Liturgische Bibel Rezeption/Liturgical Reception of the Bible). What had caught my eye was at the heart of the scriptural puzzle of John 13:3-17 and its two parts (and how the two parts of the pericope actually fit together – understanding the pericope has an additional interpretive conclusion in verses 31b-35). Biblical scholarship on the Johannine gospel and the community for whom it was originally compiled has suggested this passage has more to do with baptism than with eucharist, and for the particular study I was drawn too, I started there and explored how that fits in the particular historical setting of Christian Merovingian Gaul.
The scriptural work is well documented and centres on the focus of verses 3-11 as being primarily about “sanctification”, whereas the second part (verses 12-17) points to humble service. What I wrote several years ago was
as scholars and theologians have pointed out since Ambrose of Milan, the first part of the pericope (3-11) is about “sanctification” or soteriology – having a “share” in the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ. The second part (12-17) is interpreted as an exemplar of humble service. The puzzle, therefore, is how the narrative section (6-11) fits with the discourse (12-20 in most analyses). The literary questions turn to redactional issues regarding the reception of the discourse by 1 John with an emphasis on humble service, in spite of the better contextualized ‘fit’ of the narrative in the Johannine passion narrative, and the strong link to verse 8 to seeing both sections as best interpreted by the events of the cross.
(with thanks to Andrew McGowan, Martin Connell and John Christopher Thomas)
The historical use (or lack of use) of John 13 on Holy Thursday was part of an interest for me in how the Missale Gothicum, the Missale Gallicanum Vetus, and the Bobbio Missal describe the meaning of footwashing at initiation (following baptism and chrismation but before the eucharist) in their ritual texts for Easter Vigil. While the ritual formulae are clearly based on John 13:4-11, the Johannine readings was not heard at the Easter Vigil, (nor was it the primary gospel for Holy Thursday). In that particular study, I went on to other understandings of the “chain” of traditio around footwashing: Jesus begins, and at verse 14 says that “you should also do as I have done to you” which leads to “Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, so I (the priest or bishop) wash the feet of the newly baptized, and charge you, the new Christ, to wash the feet of pilgrims and strangers.” (493)
Returning to the Triduum of 2023, I was again reminded that I never hear of the sanctification aspect of the John 13 reading – ‘do this, follow this, and you will have a share in me through the suffering and death of the cross…’, and this year was no exception. Instead the homily I listened to was focused on the “institution of the Eucharist’ and the intimately related institution of the priesthood (not a wayward topic at all on this night – just one I struggle with theologically). Setting aside the priesthood focus, the institution of the eucharist always strikes me as theologically problematic because, first, the eucharist is something the church does between the Ascension and the Second Coming (it’s the “in the meantime” action); second, the eucharist centred on the body and blood of Christ is a reality predicated on the passion and death (and resurrection) of Christ – how can it be the institution of that sacrament before the death and resurrection of Christ? (and yes, none of this is original with me). So, what we have is the anticipation of the eucharist (a proleptic eucharist?) Or the ritual rehearsal of what will be the eucharist? At any rate, this theological question links back to John 13 and the context of the footwashing – what has the footwashing to do with the eucharist? Perhaps eucharistic participation leads to footwashing as an example of service to others (Chauvet’s ‘pay it forward’ connection of liturgy and ethics) What has footwashing to do with participation in the suffering and death of Christ? Perhaps that question would make more sense if the footwashing of the Johannine community was a one-time ritual of baptism, rather than a repeatable act symbolizing service to one another. Or, perhaps more if baptismal and eucharistic participation were more boldly linked to a commitment to walk in the potential of suffering and death as a follower of Jesus. What might a different homily, different music, and even a different setting (Thursday night is, after all, already Good Friday) make in theological interpretation?
Finally I mentioned at the beginning of this blog I would conclude with a pastoral reflection. We’re all trying to figure out a post-pandemic way of being church. Things are different (the phone on its stand livestreaming the liturgy this Triduum was just one reminder, the smaller in-person gatherings are another). What happened at your parishes when it was time for the footwashing? What I observed was a whole-hearted embrace of the ritual action. There were instructions for washing each other’s feet before we began, there was a team of 2-3 parishioners at each of the 4 footwashing stations who discreetly kept a supply of clean water and clean towels coming, there was participation by young and old, there were smiles and gestures of invitation to those hesitant, and the footwashing was done in an un-rushed and attentive way. As in many places, the musical texts interpreted the action and the focus was solely on loving one another, caring for one another, carried by simple ritual responsorial music shared by choir and congregation. It was completely reflective of one aspect of John 13 – serve one another. The disparity of Johannine complexity appeared to ruffle no feathers as this Triduum began. Almost the opposite – a return to the ability to sit close, to touch each other, to know oneself as part of a community that “does this” was sufficient. And I suspect that it was sufficient for this time of the church – but, it does make you wonder what might emerge if another aspect of John 13 were to be drawn out, right?
Please leave a reply.