I am curious as to why you maintan your stance. Are you a deacon? Why do you think that the deacon’s role is downplayed simply because it does not fall to him to do the Mandatum?
I’m not a deacon. I’m a layman. Nor am I trying to downplay the importance of the priest. I do think that the reinstitution of permanent diaconate is definitely a new thing in the whole history of the Church and it deserves a little more doctrinal and theological development. I agree with the deacon that was on here before that most people, and a lot of priests have a very poor understanding of the diaconate. I also think there is a paranoia among priests that deacons want to “take over” the priestly ministry. I don’t think that is true, and it is exactly that kind of rivalry that led to the decline of the diaconate in the first place.
The fact of the matter is there is a proper role for the deacon and a proper role for the priest. Both of these roles should be respected and honored. No one is disputing that Christ instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper or that the Apostles were priests in the sense that their Holy Orders were sacerdodal. All I’m saying is that the archetype of Christ they Servant (diakonos) is the washing of the feet. It just seems to me that it would be a greater symbolism if it was the deacon who washed the feet. That is all. I don’t think that diminishes the dignity of the presbyterate at all, nor does it deny the fact that Christ ordained the Apostles with a sacerdodal character. Nor am I saying that is is inappropriate for a priest or bishop to wash feet. I’m just saying I think it would seem to be plenty appropriate for a deacon to wash feet, and I don’t understand why the ritual doesn’t reflect that.
You have not provided any authoritative proof to support your observations, except for a statement made by a bishops’ conference. I am not necessarily downplaying that, either, but, the authoritative statements and documents proceed forth from the Holy See. A national episcopal conference certainly makes statements, but, unless they carry the recognitio from the Holy See, they are simply opinions.
That is not true. A bishops’ conference (or any single bishop in communion with Rome for that matter) is not stating a matter of opinion when they put forward a magisterial document. As a successor to the Apostles, every bishop has the mission to “teach all that I have command you”. The only reason to doubt the teaching of any bishop is if it is contrary to Rome. If Rome has not spoken in objection, then there is no reason to doubt the validity of the teaching.
Furthermore, the priest and the bishop (inclusive of a cardinal and the Pope) act in persona Christi when they celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Have you not heard of the phrase Alter Christus?
Again, “alter Christus” is another term that doesn’t have much meaning without understanding the context it is used in. Deacons are also ordained to be alter Christus. Not in the same way that priest is, certainly. Just like a priest isn’t ordained to be alter Christus the same way a bishop is. Of course a deacon isn’t alter Christus at the Eucharist in the same way a priest is. That doesn’t mean that the deacon isn’t alter Christus at Mass at all? Who is it that properly offers the intercessory prayer? It is the deacon. Who is it that is the proper minster of the Gospel? It is the deacon. Every ordained member of the clergy is alter Christus, but they have different roles though which they live that out.
If we hold to your logic, why, then, did the Holy Father not allow the deacon to do this? The answer is simple. It is not the deacon’s duty to do this.
Listen, I’m not arguing that it is the practice of having the celebrant wash the feet is illicit according to the ritual. I have the rite on my bookshelf. As it is the Holy Father who is ultimately responsible for liturgy of the Latin Rite, obviously the Pope can’t be wrong in how he celebrates mass. Also, you aren’t following my logic properly. The Holy Father is “diakonos.” His deacons only share in his Holy Orders. Again, this is why a bishop wears a dalmatic.
There is an interesting story from Vatican II. I believe it was Bl. John XXIII who one day at the council wanted to read the gospel. He was told by the cardinals that he could not as it was the role proper to the deacon. Later that day in his journal he wrote, “but am I not also deacon?”
All I’m saying is that the washing of the feet has a certain diaconal character about it, and it would seem to lend to a greater sacramentality of the whole thing if it was the deacon who the ritual said should do it. Unless there is a greater sacramentality that I’m over looking in the current rite. So far you folks have only sought to deny that the diaconal character of Holy Orders was even present at the Last Supper.
