Can women be included in the washing of feet on Holy Thursday?

[Little_Dove]

BIG OOPS!!! I’ve had my feet washed on Holy Thursday on numerous occasions, once by an Archbishop. It didn’t even occur to me to question if it was ok or not…(I am female) after reading this post I’ll be sure to decline in the future. The washing of the feet is just a beautiful rite, but as was mentioned above, is not mandatory in the Holy Thursday mass… And if it is not what Jesus intended for women, it’s not for me.

I will instead meditate on all of the beautiful actions that women performed for Our Lord, Mary’s tears bathing Jesus’ feet, and her hair wiping them dry, Veronica wiping Jesus’ face, the Holy Women crying in empathy for Jesus, and of course, the incomprehensible sorrow of the Blessed Virgin under the cross of Her Son…and then I’ll try to put all of my yearning and love for Him into my offering at the consecration and at my adoration of the Blessed Sacrament which follows Holy Thursday Mass.(which is, for me, the most beloved part of the Holy Thursday observance).

God Bless you and thank you to all who posted. I really learned a part of my Faith that I never knew before!!!

To Jesus, through Mary!

 

[benedictgal]

A statement is found on this matter on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website at usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.htm. Paragraphs 4 and 5 state:

"4. Because the gospel of the mandatum read on Holy Thursday also depicts Jesus as the “Teacher and Lord” who humbly serves his disciples by performing this extraordinary gesture which goes beyond the laws of hospitality,2 the element of humble service has accentuated the celebration of the foot washing rite in the United States over the last decade or more. In this regard, it has become customary in many places to invite both men and women to be participants in this rite in recognition of the service that should be given by all the faithful to the Church and to the world. Thus, in the United States, a variation in the rite developed in which not only charity is signified but also humble service."

"5 .While this variation may differ from the rubric of the Sacramentary which mentions only men (“viri selecti”), it may nevertheless be said that the intention to emphasize service along with charity in the celebration of the rite is an understandable way of accentuating the evangelical command of the Lord, “who came to serve and not to be served,” that all members of the Church must serve one another in love."

I found this just now, searching some Catholic sites…

What do you think of this? It seems like in the U.S., over say the past 30+ years, this has changed to women being included.

Where I’m starting to see The Light…is that if women are included, then only *one part *of that dual meaning is left. (using my own words)

Hmm…Ok, I somewhat see things differently now.

However, as I indicated in a previous post, what you quoted comes from a statement made back in 1987. Paschale Solemntatis, the official statement from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, came out a year later. When the higher rule-making authority makes a statement like that, then the lower body should pay attention. The higher rule-making authority, in this case, is the Congregation for Divine Worship since this is the Roman curial office.

I am happy that this discussion has been fruitful for you, contentious in some occasions, but fruitful.

 

[FrDavid96]

A statement is found on this matter on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website at usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.htm. Paragraphs 4 and 5 state:

“4. Because the gospel of the mandatum read on Holy Thursday also depicts Jesus as the “Teacher and Lord” who humbly serves his disciples by performing this extraordinary gesture which goes beyond the laws of hospitality,2 the element of humble service has accentuated the celebration of the foot washing rite in the United States over the last decade or more. In this regard, it has become customary in many places to invite both men and women to be participants in this rite in recognition of the service that should be given by all the faithful to the Church and to the world. Thus, in the United States, a variation in the rite developed in which not only charity is signified but also humble service.”

"5 .While this variation may differ from the rubric of the Sacramentary which mentions only men (“viri selecti”), it may nevertheless be said that the intention to emphasize service along with charity in the celebration of the rite is an understandable way of accentuating the evangelical command of the Lord, “who came to serve and not to be served,” that all members of the Church must serve one another in love."

I found this just now, searching some Catholic sites…

What do you think of this? It seems like in the U.S., over say the past 30+ years, this has changed to women being included.

Where I’m starting to see The Light…is that if women are included, then only *one part *of that dual meaning is left. (using my own words)

Hmm…Ok, I somewhat see things differently now.

I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the most relevant sentence in that statement from the USCCB: “While this variation may differ from the rubric of the Sacramentary…”
That simple sentence speaks volumes. It is a statement by the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship which is essentially telling the reader that the rubrics of the Mass are optional. Local communities are free to either follow the rubrics, or to ignore them, or to invent their own variations. This variation has never been approved by the Holy See, so what does that say about the guiding principles being employed by the USCCB Cte. on Liturgy? If the liturgy committee is free to ignore and disobey the Holy See, then it stands to reason that local parishes and pastors are likewise free to treat the USCCB office of liturgy with the same degree of deference. That is a disturbing thought, yet there it is.

Qui custodiet custodes?

 

[whatevergirl]

BIG OOPS!!! I’ve had my feet washed on Holy Thursday on numerous occasions, once by an Archbishop. It didn’t even occur to me to question if it was ok or not…(I am female) after reading this post I’ll be sure to decline in the future. The washing of the feet is just a beautiful rite, but as was mentioned above, is not mandatory in the Holy Thursday mass… And if it is not what Jesus intended for women, it’s not for me.

I will instead meditate on all of the beautiful actions that women performed for Our Lord, Mary’s tears bathing Jesus’ feet, and her hair wiping them dry, Veronica wiping Jesus’ face, the Holy Women crying in empathy for Jesus, and of course, the incomprehensible sorrow of the Blessed Virgin under the cross of Her Son…and then I’ll try to put all of my yearning and love for Him into my offering at the consecration and at my adoration of the Blessed Sacrament which follows Holy Thursday Mass.(which is, for me, the most beloved part of the Holy Thursday observance).

God Bless you and thank you to all who posted. I really learned a part of my Faith that I never knew before!!!

To Jesus, through Mary!

Me, too.
Thanks to everyone who helped me see things…and caused me to seek some things out on my own. And thank you to the Holy Spirit who enlightened me.

I see the dual meaning behind what Jesus did…I am wondering if somehow, some of us have become stubborn, because parishes we have belonged to have ‘broken the rules.’

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

When I was in a Benedictine monastery, we had the ritual of the washing of the feet before mass on Holy Thursday. So the guests and outside community could join us in the prayers, we held the ritual in the guest dining room. The prioress tied a towel around her feast day habit and got down on her hands and knees and washed the feet of some of the nuns, including one very nervous postulant (me ).

It was very moving and very beautiful. But it was most definitely OUTSIDE of the mass, and a monastic tradition that had been handed down through generations of nuns.

I would rather see it eliminated than continue to see the irreverant and goofy ways it has been done at several parishes to which I have belonged over the years.

But that’s just my two cents. Gertie

Especially the “Washing of the Hands” instead of the “Washing of the Feet”, or the “MASS foot washing” where everyone is invited to come on down and have their feet washed, and wash others feet.

It is important for those reading this to understand that what goes on in Religious Institutes and Monasteries is not “Public Liturgy” and therefore may be done under different rules.

 

[Phemie]

I know what the rubrics say and I will never have my feet washed again (I did, twice) but my pastor would just smirk at me if I were to suggest that only men get their feet washed and he would give me the same song and dance as he did when I tried to cite documents about EMCHs not distributing Communion while priests sat.

 

[Lepanto]

The instruction was given…where? He DEMONSTRATED servanthood to men, yes…where did He instruct that only men’s feet be washed? Please, show me this.

This might be what a Protestant fundamentalist might ask. (If it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible it doesn’t exist.)

 

[whatevergirl]

This might be what a Protestant fundamentalist might ask. (If it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible it doesn’t exist.)

I’ve moved past this now…scroll up.

 

[adelore]

If my understanding of this topic is right…Women should not have their feet washed.

Does this bother me as a Woman? No it does not, why would it? I don’t feel left out, it was something Jesus did and instructed with men.

Woman, (those that choose to anyway) have the wonderful Veil, (or head covering). Now from my understanding, it honors Jesus and from what I’ve read, (although for the life of me I can’t remember where I read it…) a Woman who Veils (or covers her head) in Mass has Angles around her. I must confess without a doubt…there is a Big Difference in the Mass for me since I started to wear a Head Covering.

Ok so on Holy Thursday, Jesus did the foot washing with men, this did not be little women in any way.

 

[diggerdomer]

However, as I indicated in a previous post, what you quoted comes from a statement made back in 1987. Paschale Solemntatis, the official statement from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, came out a year later. When the higher rule-making authority makes a statement like that, then the lower body should pay attention. The higher rule-making authority, in this case, is the Congregation for Divine Worship since this is the Roman curial office.

I am happy that this discussion has been fruitful for you, contentious in some occasions, but fruitful.

I am aware of the dating of both documents. Paschale Solemnitatis, however, did not change the existing rubrics for the Mandatum, it merely repeated what was already in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. It’s topic, remember, was the whole cycle of Easter feasts (Lent and Triduum), not just one element of one liturgical celebration.

If the USCCB saw fit to provide some pastoral guidance, as bishops that’s part of their job and authority of course, well I can’t say for sure it was not in their rights to do that as a Conference. Conferences of bishops are in general given more latitude with liturgical law than other aspects of canon law. If it was not within the rights of the Conference, why aren’t any of the over 200 bishops aware of this and removing the guidance? Why hasn’t Rome insisted they remove that page? It’s been 20 years, I’m sure this issue comes up every year in many dioceses, I’d have a hard time believing they’re oblivious to it.

 

[benedictgal]

I am aware of the dating of both documents. Paschale Solemnitatis, however, did not change the existing rubrics for the Mandatum, it merely repeated what was already in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. It’s topic, remember, was the whole cycle of Easter feasts (Lent and Triduum), not just one element of one liturgical celebration.

If the USCCB saw fit to provide some pastoral guidance, as bishops that’s part of their job and authority of course, well I can’t say for sure it was not in their rights to do that as a Conference. Conferences of bishops are in general given more latitude with liturgical law than other aspects of canon law. If it was not within the rights of the Conference, why aren’t any of the over 200 bishops aware of this and removing the guidance? Why hasn’t Rome insisted they remove that page? It’s been 20 years, I’m sure this issue comes up every year in many dioceses, I’d have a hard time believing they’re oblivious to it.

However, what one may not take into consideration is that, on its own, the USCCB really has no rule-making authority. Furthermore, whatever “latitude” you claim they have can only come from adaptations approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Let’s take the ritual for the Blessing of the Young Person on their 15th Birthday. The USCCB had to pretty much draw up the ritual, borrowing heavily from what is used by the Mexican Episcopal Conference. They sent this ritual up to Rome for the necessary recogntio (having, of course, voted on the issue by a 2/3 majority of the Latin-Rite bishops). Rome granted the recognitio.

Let’s take the flip side of the issue, the document Sing to the Lord, which was supposed to bring the United States into conformity with Liturgiam Authenticam. What wound up passing was something that was watered down and it did not pass with the necessary 2/3 vote to get the recogitio from Rome. Hence, it is merely a recommendation and not a document with any serious teeth to it.

Thus, what they said in 1987 regarding the Mandatum is pretty much overruled by Paschale Solemnitatis, since PS is a universal document released by the Congregation overseeing the Divine Worship of the entire Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

However, what one may not take into consideration is that, on its own, the USCCB really has no rule-making authority. Furthermore, whatever “latitude” you claim they have can only come from adaptations approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Let’s take the ritual for the Blessing of the Young Person on their 15th Birthday. The USCCB had to pretty much draw up the ritual, borrowing heavily from what is used by the Mexican Episcopal Conference. They sent this ritual up to Rome for the necessary recogntio (having, of course, voted on the issue by a 2/3 majority of the Latin-Rite bishops). Rome granted the recognitio.

Let’s take the flip side of the issue, the document Sing to the Lord, which was supposed to bring the United States into conformity with Liturgiam Authenticam. What wound up passing was something that was watered down and it did not pass with the necessary 2/3 vote to get the recogitio from Rome. Hence, it is merely a recommendation and not a document with any serious teeth to it.

Thus, what they said in 1987 regarding the Mandatum is pretty much overruled by Paschale Solemnitatis, since PS is a universal document released by the Congregation overseeing the Divine Worship of the entire Church.

I think we need a canon lawyer with a lot of liturgy expertise here. I sure don’t have it.

Part of what I was wondering about though is that PS didn’t change anything, so when the USCCB wrote their document the same guide that is PS was already in existence. I’m just not convinced that 200+ bishops wrote something that over-stepped their authority, and even if they did that it’s not been corrected in over 20 years.

And of course there are varying degrees of authority, or canonical weight, concerning documents like the ones we’re discussing. “Letters” are lower on the totem pole that Decrees, Instructions, and Declarations. So, again, I am not sure it’s a case of one thing simply trumping another.

Now, before anyone jumps on me, I’m not saying that PS is not important because it’s not as “high up” as e.g. the GIRM. I’m saying these documents need to be read in light of each other, the GIRM, the history, to make a pastoral judgment.

 

[benedictgal]

I think we need a canon lawyer with a lot of liturgy expertise here. I sure don’t have it.

Part of what I was wondering about though is that PS didn’t change anything, so when the USCCB wrote their document the same guide that is PS was already in existence. I’m just not convinced that 200+ bishops wrote something that over-stepped their authority, and even if they did that it’s not been corrected in over 20 years.

And of course there are varying degrees of authority, or canonical weight, concerning documents like the ones we’re discussing. “Letters” are lower on the totem pole that Decrees, Instructions, and Declarations. So, again, I am not sure it’s a case of one thing simply trumping another.

Now, before anyone jumps on me, I’m not saying that PS is not important because it’s not as “high up” as e.g. the GIRM. I’m saying these documents need to be read in light of each other, the GIRM, the history, to make a pastoral judgment.

However, look at the timeline. The link that both you and whatevergirl provided was written a year before PS was promulgated. PS came about because there were abuses that were creeping into the Holy Week liturgies. The Easter Vigil was being celebrated way too early (unfortunately, there are parishes down here that are still doing it, ignoring the sundown rule), the Monstrance was being used, Good Friday services were substitued by Stations and Passion Plays and the washing of the feet needed to be reigned in because things were going on that should not have been happening.

What makes me curious is why the USCCB does not have links to all of the documents of the Holy See that govern liturgy. While some people may not agree with Adoremus, they do have most, if not all, of the pertinent liturgical documents of the Holy See online. Oddly enough, the USCCB does not even have the note from Notitiae regarding the Holy See’s position in the negative (for the time being) on blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion.

 

[Among_Strangers]

This link: usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.htm is not working

It was working yesterday but not this morning.

With conflicting info between the USCCB and the Holy See of Rome, it’s no wonder there is confusion and varying ideas and practices. It’s not as cut and dry as I first thought. What can we do about this? Do we talk to our local pastors first, or do we by-pass the local pastor and write to the our local Bishop since it’s obviously a conflict at that level?

I can’t be the only guy out there that would like a clear understanding of this and would like the teaching of the local conference to be in line with the Holy See.

 

[James0235]

At best Michelle Arnold’s answer is misleading. :tsktsk:

She says:
**If your diocese allows for it, then your parish can allow women to participate in the ritual. **
when she knows full well that, with one exception, the Church has not left this matter up to the bishops.

It is irresponsible answers like this that call into question the usefulness of the Ask an Apologist Forum. At the very least someone asking a question deserves a “Catholic Answer” and not some amateurish license to disobey the Catholic Church under the guise of obeying a dissident bishop.

James

 

[Michelle_Arnold]

At best Michelle Arnold’s answer is misleading. :tsktsk:

She says:
**If your diocese allows for it, then your parish can allow women to participate in the ritual. **
when she knows full well that, with one exception, the Church has not left this matter up to the bishops.

It is irresponsible answers like this that call into question the usefulness of the Ask an Apologist Forum. At the very least someone asking a question deserves a “Catholic Answer” and not some amateurish license to disobey the Catholic Church under the guise of obeying a dissident bishop.

James

Responses from the CDW are not given for the benefit of just one bishop (or archbishop, as the case may be). The clarification that Cardinal O’Malley received on the question of the washing of women’s feet on Holy Thursday may validly be used as precedent by other bishops when considering the pastoral situation in their dioceses.

At best, we can say that this Q&A from the CDW apparently was not published in its entirety and so we do not have the entire text of the document to which we can refer. It was merely quoted by the Archdiocese of Boston in explaining Cardinal O’Malley’s decision to begin washing women’s feet on Holy Thursday. Until the text is published in its entirety, there is still room for doubt for all that it covers and how far its directive extends. But it would also be uncharitable to fault bishops who avail themselves of the precedent it sets.

 

[Therese_Martin]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.