Diaconate and the Washing of the Feet

[Digitonomy]

The fact that the Apostles recognized that there was a need for the diaconate and the fact that Peter had been given the authority to bind and loosen should be enough justification. They were not instituting a new sacrament; they were adding another dimension to an already existing one.

So it stands to reason that if the successors to the Apostles recognize the need, and since the pope has been given the authority to bind and loosen, the Church could in theory institute the order of sub-priest or confessor, who could administer the Sacraments of Penance and of the Sick, but who could not confect the Eucharist.

benedictgal:

The subdiaconate was not a major sacramental order.

On what basis do you say this? Certainly the author of the last part of the Summa disagreed with you, and we can presume Aquinas did as well. Is there any way a person in say 1400 would know that the subdiaconate is not a sacramental order?

benedictgal:

Furthermore, why would the Church want to add another major order?

One legitimate reason is apparently if the Greek widows are being neglected in the daily distribution. I can’t speculate on another reason off the top of my head, as the idea that the Church has the ability to add another major order is new to me.

 

[csoup223]

You have only provided a YouTube broadcast, which is hardly magisterial.

I did provided a Youtube broadcast (in addition to the documents I mentioned) of an archbishop giving a catechesis on the diaconate. I would definitely say that a bishop giving a catechesis is a bishop exercising his magisterial office. But then I also gave you other documents. Why is it you ignore them?

What you seem to ignore, as I see it, is the fact that the washing of the feet is reserved to the celebrant, not the deacon.

I am not ignoring that fact. In fact my whole question revolves around that fact. The current ritual does reserve the washing of the feet to the celebrant. However as the washing of the feet is not a sacrament, and as you so aptly pointed out Rome certainly has the power to bind and loose, this practice could be changed in subsequent revisions of the ritual. A liturgical rite is not intended to be the last word on a matter of theology.

You are answering questions with questions. Just answer the questions so that we can clearly understand your position.

Yes or no: does the deacon share in the Holy Orders of his bishop?

Also, I think that Digitonomy’s questions are in need of a yes or no answers as well. Feel free to defend your position, but please at least give us a yes or no so that we know what position you are defending. All I’m looking for is a clear yes or no.

 

[benedictgal]

I did provided a Youtube broadcast (in addition to the documents I mentioned) of an archbishop giving a catechesis on the diaconate. I would definitely say that a bishop giving a catechesis is a bishop exercising his magisterial office. But then I also gave you other documents. Why is it you ignore them?

I am not ignoring that fact. In fact my whole question revolves around that fact. The current ritual does reserve the washing of the feet to the celebrant. However as the washing of the feet is not a sacrament, and as you so aptly pointed out Rome certainly has the power to bind and loose, this practice could be changed in subsequent revisions of the ritual. A liturgical rite is not intended to be the last word on a matter of theology.

You are answering questions with questions. Just answer the questions so that we can clearly understand your position.

Yes or no: does the deacon share in the Holy Orders of his bishop?

Also, I think that Digitonomy’s questions are in need of a yes or no answers as well. Feel free to defend your position, but please at least give us a yes or no so that we know what position you are defending. All I’m looking for is a clear yes or no.

I have already given you my answers. The deacon cannot celebrate Mass, hear confessions and confirm. While the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, he delegates this to the priest for the Easter Vigil. He does not delegate anything to the deacon.

Furthermore, Magesterial documents come from the Holy See. What you submitted are opinions and statements, not anything that is authoritative from the Holy See.

You and Digitonomy remind me of the wife of the deacon at our Cathedral. She insists that he can and should do things that are the purview of the priest and insists on reminding us that he is clergy. The deacon, to his credit, is not like that at all.

I am not denigrating the ministry of the diaconate. However, I do believe that your interpretation regarding the Mandatum is inconsistent with the Tradition of the Church and with the authoritative, liturgical documents of the Holy See on this matter.

 

[Digitonomy]

You and Digitonomy remind me of the wife of the deacon at our Cathedral. She insists that he can and should do things that are the purview of the priest and insists on reminding us that he is clergy.

Can you point to where I insisted that deacons should do things that are the purview of the priest? I don’t know how anything I’ve said in this thread could be interpreted that way.

 

[csoup223]

Magesterial documents come from the Holy See. What you submitted are opinions and statements, not anything that is authoritative from the Holy See.

Magisteral documents do not necessarily come from the Holy See. Read the Catechism:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. – CCC 85

So unless you can demonstrate that a bishop is not in communion with Rome, you have no right to question his teaching authority. The Pope and all the bishops in communion with him make up the ordinary Magisterium. What they teach, regardless if it comes from Rome or from your local bishop, it is magisterial.

I have already given you my answers. The deacon cannot celebrate Mass, hear confessions and confirm. While the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, he delegates this to the priest for the Easter Vigil. He does not delegate anything to the deacon.

So I’m going to take this a “no” to my question. You believe that a deacon does not share in the Holy Orders of his bishop. If I misunderstand your position please correct me but this is what I can gather from your statements.

You and Digitonomy remind me of the wife of the deacon at our Cathedral. She insists that he can and should do things that are the purview of the priest and insists on reminding us that he is clergy.

I’m not trying to say that a deacon should do those things a priest alone can do, namely offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, hear confessions, anoint the sick, or confirm people as the delegate of the bishop. These are sacramental functions. Nor am I saying that a deacon should supersede a priest as pastor or presider at Mass. And I’m not arguing that the current rubrics allow the deacon to wash the feet.

I am arguing that rubrics can be revised and modified. I am arguing that a deacon shares in the Holy Orders of his bishop. I am arguing that the diaconate was instituted at the Last Supper. These are doctrinal and theological points of importance.

And I am arguing that there is a diaconal character to the washing of the feet that (in my opinion) would seem to be better carried out by the deacon rather than a priest. This is a liturgical opinion based a the theological understanding above.

 

[benedictgal]

Magisteral documents do not necessarily come from the Holy See. Read the Catechism:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. – CCC 85

So unless you can demonstrate that a bishop is not in communion with Rome, you have no right to question his teaching authority. The Pope and all the bishops in communion with him make up the ordinary Magisterium. What they teach, regardless if it comes from Rome or from your local bishop, it is magisterial.

So I’m going to take this a “no” to my question. You believe that a deacon does not share in the Holy Orders of his bishop. If I misunderstand your position please correct me but this is what I can gather from your statements.

I’m not trying to say that a deacon should do those things a priest alone can do, namely offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, hear confessions, anoint the sick, or confirm people as the delegate of the bishop. These are sacramental functions. Nor am I saying that a deacon should supersede a priest as pastor or presider at Mass. And I’m not arguing that the current rubrics allow the deacon to wash the feet.

I am arguing that rubrics can be revised and modified. I am arguing that a deacon shares in the Holy Orders of his bishop. I am arguing that the diaconate was instituted at the Last Supper. These are doctrinal and theological points of importance.

And I am arguing that there is a diaconal character to the washing of the feet that (in my opinion) would seem to be better carried out by the deacon rather than a priest. This is a liturgical opinion based a the theological understanding above.

But, there is a serious flaw in your understanding. The diaconate was not instituted on Holy Thursday. The priesthood was. Even the YouTube broadcast that you believe to be magisterial indicates that the diaconate was instituted by the Apostles themselves and that such institution occurred in the Acts of the Apostles.

The bishop/priest is the leader of his diocese/parish. Jesus’ act of the Mandatum indicated that those who are the leaders (bishop/priest) should humble themselves to serve their brethren. The bishop and the priest, for all practical purposes, are the leaders of their particular groups, with the priest acting in communion with his bishop because he receives his parish from his ordinary. Thus, those who are the leaders should become the servants of all. That is why Jesus said that while He is rightfully Lord and Master, He came to serve and not be served. That is why the one of the Holy Father’s titles is Servant of the Servants of God.

While you say that you do not want to make the deacon more important, as I read your words, that is where you are heading. It does not belong to the deacon to do the Mandatum. Furthermore, why would the late Pope John Paul II direct his annual Holy Thursday letter to only the priests? It is the Tradition that the priesthood was instituted on Holy Thursday. The diaconate did not happen until later and it was done by the Apostles themselves, with St. Peter using his the authority given to him by no less than Jesus, Himself.

 

[Michael_Welter]

In my parish, we have no pastor. We have a lay Pastoral Coordinator. At our Mass of the Last Supper, he and the priest each washed the feet of 6 people. Of the twelve who’s feet were washed, 8 were women, and 4 were men.

Is there a problem with this?

 

[NCSue]

We have no deacon in our parish so the question at hand is moot, but I was disappointed to note that our priest didn’t bother with the foot-washing at all this year. Seems like something rather important was missing, or at least so it seemed to me.

NCSue
acts17verse28.blogspot.com/

 

[benedictgal]

In my parish, we have no pastor. We have a lay Pastoral Coordinator. At our Mass of the Last Supper, he and the priest each washed the feet of 6 people. Of the twelve who’s feet were washed, 8 were women, and 4 were men.

Is there a problem with this?

Yes. Here are two citations against this. The first is from Paschale Solemnitatis:

1. The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came “not to be served, but to serve.” [58] This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.

It falls to the priest and not to anyone else to do the Mandatum. Here is what the norm is:

“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.”

The layman could certainly help hold the water jug and carry the basin, but, it falls to the celebrant to wash the feet.

In addition, here is what Ecclesia de Mysterio notes. Although it does not address the Mandatum per se, these notations would, as I see it, also apply here:

It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as “pastor”, “chaplain”, “coordinator”, " moderator" or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest.(58)

1. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers – e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology – or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

To avoid any confusion between sacramental liturgical acts presided over by a priest or deacon, and other acts which the non-ordained faithful may lead, it is always necessary to use clearly distinct ceremonials, especially for the latter.

Unfortunately, as I read it, this misplaced gesture of inclusivity on the part of the priest was not the right thing to do. The lay administrator is only in charge of the administrative segment of the parish, not the sacramental and pastoral aspect.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Benedictgal, thank you so much for the references. Our Bishop, on more than one occasion, has referred to our Pastoral Coordinator as our Pastor. The Pastoral Coordinator was initially surprised by this reference, but has since accepted it.

 

[diggerdomer]

While the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, he delegates this to the priest for the Easter Vigil. .

No, priests confirm at the Easter Vigil as a matter of law (RCIA e.g.) not by delegation.

 

[diggerdomer]

Furthermore, Magesterial documents come from the Holy See. .

Um, yes, but not everything that comes from the “Holy See” is Magisterial in the same sense. Some of it is an official act of the Magisterium, binding on all Catholics, other statements/teachings are not.

And not everything Magisterial is from the Holy See, each Bishop in his diocese exercises the Ordinary Magisterium.

 

[diggerdomer]

The bishop/priest is the leader of his diocese/parish. Jesus’ act of the Mandatum indicated that those who are the leaders (bishop/priest) should humble themselves to serve their brethren. The bishop and the priest, for all practical purposes, are the leaders of their particular groups, with the priest acting in communion with his bishop because he receives his parish from his ordinary. Thus, those who are the leaders should become the servants of all. That is why Jesus said that while He is rightfully Lord and Master, He came to serve and not be served. That is why the one of the Holy Father’s titles is Servant of the Servants of God.

While you say that you do not want to make the deacon more important, as I read your words, that is where you are heading. It does not belong to the deacon to do the Mandatum. Furthermore, why would the late Pope John Paul II direct his annual Holy Thursday letter to only the priests? It is the Tradition that the priesthood was instituted on Holy Thursday. The diaconate did not happen until later and it was done by the Apostles themselves, with St. Peter using his the authority given to him by no less than Jesus, Himself.

It might help if you would do better at distinguishing from the New Testament and what we know of the New Testament and sub-Apostolic period vs. our contemporary experiences and understandings.

For instance, the term you use “priest/bishop” is very ambiguous when one is referring to the New Testament. It is of course related to our contemporary understanding, experience, and theology, but it’s nowhere clear in the New Testament that much of our current understanding, experience, and theology was clearly expressed, understood, or practiced.

Even the terms themselves are open to a broader interpretation than many are comfortable with:

episkopos = overseer = bishop

presbyter = elder = “priest” in some sense but not the sacramental/sacrificial nature of the Levitic priesthood nor of our current (by and large) understanding of the sacramental priesthood. This word in the NT (presbyter) simply means “elder.”

diakonos = minister = deacon

sacerdos = “priest” as we would commonly understand it today. “Priest” in this sense is only used in the New Testament to refer to (1) Jesus Christ and (2) all Christians. Nothing hierarchical, exclusive, or sacramentally limiting about it.

And just because the first record of “deacons” as you tend to use the term is supposedly in Acts does not mean that “deacons” as you use and understand the term/office did not exist earlier.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m not trying to say that a deacon should do those things a priest alone can do, namely offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, hear confessions, anoint the sick, or confirm people as the delegate of the bishop. These are sacramental functions. Nor am I saying that a deacon should supersede a priest as pastor or presider at Mass. And I’m not arguing that the current rubrics allow the deacon to wash the feet.

I am arguing that rubrics can be revised and modified. I am arguing that a deacon shares in the Holy Orders of his bishop. I am arguing that the diaconate was instituted at the Last Supper. These are doctrinal and theological points of importance.

And I am arguing that there is a diaconal character to the washing of the feet that (in my opinion) would seem to be better carried out by the deacon rather than a priest. This is a liturgical opinion based a the theological understanding above.

Excellent points. Thanks. I agree, and your good points at the end are in harmony with what the U.S. Bishops have taught regarding the specific example of the Mandatum, i.e. it’s not about the priesthood but about the service. I have no problem with the priest washing feet…but I also have no problem if others did it and if those whose feet were washed were more than 12 and of any gender (none of which would necessitate violating any current rubrics).

 

[benedictgal]

Um, yes, but not everything that comes from the “Holy See” is Magisterial in the same sense. Some of it is an official act of the Magisterium, binding on all Catholics, other statements/teachings are not.

And not everything Magisterial is from the Holy See, each Bishop in his diocese exercises the Ordinary Magisterium.

But, unlike the Anglican Communion, no ordinary or Metropolitan is an island acting independently of the Holy See. Thus, they need to be in conformity with the Holy See, which is the ultimate authority. In other words, the lower body cannot overrule and override what the supreme authority has mandated.

 

[diggerdomer]

But, unlike the Anglican Communion, no ordinary or Metropolitan is an island acting independently of the Holy See. Thus, they need to be in conformity with the Holy See, which is the ultimate authority. In other words, the lower body cannot overrule and override what the supreme authority has mandated.

Um…yes…maybe…but the ultimate authority is of course God.

Read Lumen Gentium.

Bishops are not simply “lower” than the Pope. That’s too simplistic and reductionist for the reality of the Mystery of the Church. It’s convenient to think that way, it’s easier, but it’s not what the Church teaches.

Read Lumen Gentium.

 

[benedictgal]

Um…yes…maybe…but the ultimate authority is of course God.

Read Lumen Gentium.

Bishops are not simply “lower” than the Pope. That’s too simplistic and reductionist for the reality of the Mystery of the Church. It’s convenient to think that way, it’s easier, but it’s not what the Church teaches.

Read Lumen Gentium.

But, the Holy Father is not the “first among equals.” That is how the Greek Orthodox look at Bartholomew I. The bishops do not have authority over the Pope nor can they overrule the Holy Father and override him. The bishops do not act in a vaccuum, nor do the episcopal conferences.

In fact, I contacted the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship about an issue with an ilicit version of the Exultet. The administrativce assistant told me that they really don’t have any jurisdiction and referred me first to my bishop (who has not done anything about it) and then the Holy See. Redemptionis Sacramentum gives the chain of command regarding liturgical abuse as the following: contact the pastor; if that does not work, go to the bishop. If that does not work, then go to the Holy See.

Furthermore, the Australian bishops, back in 2000, were ilicitly applying General Absolution on a wholesale basis on their own authority. The late Pope John Paul II took them to the sacramental woodshed and told them that this must stop. In fact, he had the CDWDS issue a Circular Letter concerning the Integrity of the Sacrament of Penance. Thus, the bishops do not have wholesale authority.

You also forget that obedience is something not just mandated to the laity and the clergy under a bishop’s see. The bishops also must obey the Holy Father.

St. Peter received the authority to bind and loosen in the fullest sense of the word because Jesus charged him to be His vicar on earth. The apostles and their successors the bishops have some share in that binding and loosening (as it appears in St. Matthew shortly after St. Peter’s declaration) but, it is not the same as the Holy Father.

The problem when citing Vatican II documents is that there are those, as I see it, who would rather read the spirit of the text than what the words actually say.

 

[diggerdomer]

But, the Holy Father is not the “first among equals.” That is how the Greek Orthodox look at Bartholomew I. The bishops do not have authority over the Pope nor can they overrule the Holy Father and override him. The bishops do not act in a vaccuum, nor do the episcopal conferences.

I never said the Pope was what you are quoting. Of course the bishops and the episcopal conferences don’t act in a vacuum. AGAIN I never said nor implied anything different.

I think you need to consider a related truth: neither does the Pope act in a vacuum.

The bishops also must obey the Holy Father.

Where in Church teaching is this stated?

The problem when citing Vatican II documents is that there are those, as I see it, who would rather read the spirit of the text than what the words actually say.

And the problem with not reading them, and ignoring them, is that you neglect what the words actually say.

 

[benedictgal]

I never said the Pope was what you are quoting. Of course the bishops and the episcopal conferences don’t act in a vacuum. AGAIN I never said nor implied anything different.

I think you need to consider a related truth: neither does the Pope act in a vacuum.

Where in Church teaching is this stated?

And the problem with not reading them, and ignoring them, is that you neglect what the words actually say.

So now you are saying that bishops do not have to obey the Holy Father. I believe that you are mistaken. The bottom line is that the Holy Father is the supreme authority. Jesus built his Church on the rock of St. Peter, not the other 11. The rest of the Apotles are his collaborators, but, St. Peter and his successors are the visible head of the Church.

 

[csoup223]

Michael,

As far as I know it isn’t illicit in the United States to have both men and women participate in the Mandatum. Here’s a link to the USCCB’s website from the Committee on Divine Worship. The current understanding of the rubics are that it can be inclusive of women. Unless Rome were to clarify the position or if your bishop has decided to restrict this practice, then what the Committee on Divine Worship should stand. The main issue here is one of understanding the language, and the intention of the text. The Church doesn’t use gender inclusive language (which I agree with), but as a result we have to be careful in our interpretation. There are times when “men” is meant literally only males, and when “men” is intended to mean human. benedictgal is giving you a very literal interpretation, but it appears this is not the understanding of the US bishops. And again, unless Rome clarifies its position (which it has not) then the we should not question the Committee.

That said, the rubic also clearly states it should be the celebrating priest who actually washes the feet.

Ok, back to benedictgal.

While I don’t exactly agree with diggerdomer saying that bishops don’t have to obey the pope, I think he is exaggerating his point to counter your exaggerated emphasis on papal authority to the point of minimalizing the authority of the bishop. The fact of the matter is that bishops aren’t simply, for lack of a better word, vassals to the pope. As successors to the Apostles, they have their own authority and power, their own Holy Orders. Consider the words of St. Paul:

“Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” – 1 Cor 9:1-2

As long as he is in communion with Rome, a bishop is part of the ordinary Magisterium, and what he says should be obeyed on our faith, morals, and liturgy until Rome says otherwise. Who are you to question the teaching authority of Sts. Paul, James, John, or Andrew? Then why would you call into question the authority of their successors. Only Peter can call them into question. Only Peter, as the head of the body of bishops has that kind of authority.

“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’” – Dei Verbum 7

“Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ… And the Sacred Council teaches that by episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry.” – Lumen Gentium 20, 21

Yes, the Holy Father is the supreme authority, but that doesn’t mean a bishop doesn’t have the authority too. So unless you show that a bishop has is no longer in communion with Rome, you had better listen to them, as they have authority to teach.

St. Peter received the authority to bind and loosen in the fullest sense of the word because Jesus charged him to be His vicar on earth. The apostles and their successors the bishops have some share in that binding and loosening (as it appears in St. Matthew shortly after St. Peter’s declaration) but, it is not the same as the Holy Father.

This is incorrect. The Apostles received their own powers to bind and loose in Mt 18:18. However only Peter is given the keys, and he is called the rock of the Church. However it is important to recognize the rest of the Apostles don’t share in Peter’s power to bind and loose, they were given their own from Jesus. This doesn’t deny the primacy of Peter, (the keys symbolize his supreme authority), but only acknowledges the powers that the other Apostles did in fact have.