Diaconate and the Washing of the Feet

[stbruno]

For years at our parish, when our pastor washed the feet of chosen people on Holy Thursday, the deacon dried their feet. So service was being done by both of these men. It was a humbling occasion for those who watched the service.

 

[benedictgal]

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.

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.

First of all, you are quoting a link that has some outdated information in it and does not reflect the fact that Paschale Solemnitatis, the Circulator on Holy Week and Lent, and an authoritative document of the Holy See, clearly indicates that the washing of the feet is for the chosen men. The statement that you keep quoting dates back to 1987. PS came out in 1988. Some 20 years later, the CDWDS reaffirmed that statement stressing that the Mandatum is only for me. Permission given to an individual Metropolitan, in this case, the one from Boston, was only granted to him and not meant to be universal. In fact, the CDWDS response came some time after the Boston matter.

Regarding the other Apostles and their successors, they still must obey St. Peter and the Holy Father. Even Paul (though he challeneged Peter at times) showed difference to the Peter on many occasions. Paul was merely asserting the fact that even though he was not a member of the original Apostolic band, he was just as much an Apostle as they were. Remember that Paul was still carrying on some serious baggage from his days as Saul and had to reaffirm that he was an Apostle. There was still some skepticism about him, even from the Christians in Jerusalem.

 

[Michael_Welter]

What I’m getting out of this discussion is a classic example of why the Church doesn’t allow lay persons to interpret Church teaching. That is left up to the Bishops. When conflicting documents exist, does the newer one apply? One would think so. But it’s up to the Bishops to decide.

 

[benedictgal]

What I’m getting out of this discussion is a classic example of why the Church doesn’t allow lay persons to interpret Church teaching. That is left up to the Bishops. When conflicting documents exist, does the newer one apply? One would think so. But it’s up to the Bishops to decide.

Actually documents and statements by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments override anything from the national episcopal conferences. The CDWDS is the Holy See curial office overseeing the liturgy and speaks with the authority of the Holy Father, since he is the one promulgating these documents.

One glaring example is the USCCB document Sing to the Lord which recommends singing different tropes for the Agnus Dei. This puts it into conflict with the GIRM and Liturgiam Authenticam, the authoritative documents of the Holy See, which clearly state that paraphrasing of the texts of the Mass is not allowed. In fact, when the CDWDS released the first portion of the new translation, Francis Cardinal Arinze, then-prefect for the Congregation, made it crystal clear that paraphrasing is not allowed. Furthermore, since the document did not receive the necessary 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops, it was not sent to Rome for the required recognitio.

 

[csoup223]

The best advice I would have for you in matters of liturgical practice is to consult your bishop’s office. The bishop is the chief liturgist of the diocese, and ultimately if he’s in conflict, it is his hide and not yours.

 

[Michael_Welter]

The best advice I would have for you in matters of liturgical practice is to consult your bishop’s office. The bishop is the chief liturgist of the diocese, and ultimately if he’s in conflict, it is his hide and not yours.

Excellent point.

 

[diggerdomer]

So now you are saying that bishops do not have to obey the Holy Father. .

No. Again, I am not saying what you accuse me of.

The bottom line is that the Holy Father is the supreme authority.

Ok…that’s a good starting point…but the “bottom line” is much bigger than that. There’s simply more to it. Read Lumen Gentium. Read the Catechism para 880 ff. If you consider what the Church teaches (e.g. in those sources) I just don’t think it’s adequate to say what you said above and “walk away” as if that’s sufficient. The bottom line is bigger. Bishops are not merely “vicars” of the Pope. The college of bishops ALSO has “supreme” authority. So, you see, “supreme” authority is not simply something given to one person/office.

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.

No, I think it’s the opposite. Peter was named the “rock” of the Church (see CCC 881). Jesus didn’t start with Peter and then build a Church.

Again, it would really be better, I think, to rephrase that thought after considering e.g. Catechism para 880 ff. and Lumen Gentium. I really think “collaborators” does not adequately express what the Church teaches. I also think it’s better to say that the Popes are the visible source and foundation of the UNITY of the Church…better than saying of the Church itself. That’s the theological import, as I read the CCC anyway (sorry to keep citing the Catechism!). Yes, de facto, nowadays, the Pope seems to frequently function and/or appear to many as the visible head of the Church (which is fine) but I don’t think that’s the best characterization of what the Church teaches (again in sources like the Catechism and Vatican II teachings).

Too long. Sorry. And too many references to the Catechism. I’ll stop.

 

[diggerdomer]

Excellent point.

Ditto!

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually documents and statements by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments override anything from the national episcopal conferences. The CDWDS is the Holy See curial office overseeing the liturgy and speaks with the authority of the Holy Father, since he is the one promulgating these documents.

That may be true often, but it’s far too simplistic an understanding of the various means of teaching and communicating that exist among bishops and the Curia (there are a variety of means of communicating, each method having its own canonical weight, legislative or executive nature, etc–can’t simply lump everything together coming from the CDWDS and pretend it’s all equivalent), and fails to account for the difference between the Pope and the Bishops (who have legislative authority) and Curial departments (who are primarily “executive” and MAY have legislative authority but only as determined by the Pope/bishops). The only way to know if the Pope is promulgating something put out by the CDWDS is to look at the specific document itself. One also has to consider to whom a given document is addressed to assess the relative weight it should be given compared with other sources of Magisterial teaching.

 

[benedictgal]

That may be true often, but it’s far too simplistic an understanding of the various means of teaching and communicating that exist among bishops and the Curia (there are a variety of means of communicating, each method having its own canonical weight, legislative or executive nature, etc–can’t simply lump everything together coming from the CDWDS and pretend it’s all equivalent), and fails to account for the difference between the Pope and the Bishops (who have legislative authority) and Curial departments (who are primarily “executive” and MAY have legislative authority but only as determined by the Pope/bishops). The only way to know if the Pope is promulgating something put out by the CDWDS is to look at the specific document itself. One also has to consider to whom a given document is addressed to assess the relative weight it should be given compared with other sources of Magisterial teaching.

No. It is not simplistic. The documents of the Holy See, whether they are from the CDWDS, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Clergy, or from several discasteries, carry much more weight than anything issued by a national episcopal conferences. The 1987 document from the USCCB that you keep citing is in conflict (and is outdated) with Paschale Solemnitatis, which came out a year later. Furthermore, you keep discounting the 2008 statement by the CDWDS as a private letter even though it carries a protocol number. When such statements carry a protocol number, they appear in the official publication of the CDWDS, Notitiae.

Furthermore, might I remind you that statements by the USCCB are just that, statements, unless they carry the recognitio of the Holy See making them binding and having the force of law.

Thus, unless the Holy See makes changes to the norm, it is not the purview of the deacon (or anyone else, for that matter) to be washing feet. That belongs to the celebrant, be he a bishop or priest.

 

[csoup223]

Yes, de facto, nowadays, the Pope seems to frequently function and/or appear to many as the visible head of the Church (which is fine) but I don’t think that’s the best characterization of what the Church teaches (again in sources like the Catechism and Vatican II teachings).

Digger, as much as I hate to disagree with you as I definitely disagree with benedictgal’s formulation, it sounds to me like you are selling the pope just a little bit short. I think a better way of putting it is that college of bishops makes up the head of the Church and the pope is the head of the the college of bishops. As Lumen Gentium states:

“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.” – LG 22

Now, that doesn’t mean that the college of bishops doesn’t have authority on it’s own, but only that these powers have to be considered within the organic unity of the whole body, which has the pope a it’s head. I tend to think of bishops who aren’t in communion with Rome a lot like chickens without their heads on. Sure they can still move and act, but there is obviously something very wrong.

However I also think it is very important to recognize that Lumen Gentium doesn’t get into papal authority until it first establishes the great dignity and authority of the bishops as successors of the Apostles. While certainly the head is the most important part of the body, the head cannot act independently of the body either. As I believe digger said, the papacy doesn’t operate in a vacuum either. We should consider Christ’s instructions to His Apostles in Matthew’s gospel:

“Jesus summoned them and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.’” – Mt 20:25-27

This is why one of the pope’s titles is the Servant of the Servants of God. While the pope is most definitely the supreme head with all authority in the Church, it is also important to be aware that Rome is mindful of the rights and dignity of other bishops. The Holy Father’s office is one that is service to the whole Church, not in lordship over it. A subtle distinction perhaps, but an important one. benedictgal, I think this is why your insistence on the overriding nature of anything coming from Rome steamrolling anything another bishops says. That simply isn’t Rome’s attitude. Bishops do have their own authority which they have a right to exercise. Keep in mind that the Church is the champion of the principle of subsidiarity, namely that lower governing bodies should be respected and allowed to govern.

The 1987 document from the USCCB that you keep citing is in conflict (and is outdated) with Paschale Solemnitatis, which came out a year later.

That may be. I’m not exactly an expert liturgist, so I’ll leave that to the experts… who are the bishops. I’m assuming that the USCCB webpage was put up sometime after 1988, and their statement at the end of the page and which follows the article states: “This is the latest statement of this Secretariat on the question. No subsequent legislation or instructions have necessitated a modification in the statement.”

So again, I’m not an expert, and I’m going to take the advice of my bishop. However it would appear to me from the US bishops website that they do not interpret the conflict that you do.

Furthermore, might I remind you that statements by the USCCB are just that, statements, unless they carry the recognitio of the Holy See making them binding and having the force of law.

Except where Rome has already deferred to the judgement of the bishops, as it often does in matters of liturgical custom. Again I’m not a liturgical expert, so I don’t have document off the top of my head, and frankly I don’t want to take the time to go looking. Suffice to say, I’m just going to follow the example of my bishop.

Thus, unless the Holy See makes changes to the norm, it is not the purview of the deacon (or anyone else, for that matter) to be washing feet. That belongs to the celebrant, be he a bishop or priest.

I agree. I also don’t think anyone is arguing against this point. I think we are simply discussing a theoretical change in the norms. Until such a point that theory becomes reality, our practice should not change. However norms can and do change, and theoretical discussion on theology and liturgy is entirely permissible.

 

[diggerdomer]

Digger, as much as I hate to disagree with you as I definitely disagree with benedictgal’s formulation, it sounds to me like you are selling the pope just a little bit short. I think a better way of putting it is that college of bishops makes up the head of the Church and the pope is the head of the the college of bishops. As Lumen Gentium states:

“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.” – LG 22

Now, that doesn’t mean that the college of bishops doesn’t have authority on it’s own, but only that these powers have to be considered within the organic unity of the whole body, which has the pope a it’s head. I tend to think of bishops who aren’t in communion with Rome a lot like chickens without their heads on. Sure they can still move and act, but there is obviously something very wrong.

However I also think it is very important to recognize that Lumen Gentium doesn’t get into papal authority until it first establishes the great dignity and authority of the bishops as successors of the Apostles. While certainly the head is the most important part of the body, the head cannot act independently of the body either. As I believe digger said, the papacy doesn’t operate in a vacuum either. We should consider Christ’s instructions to His Apostles in Matthew’s gospel:

Thank you. I hope I wasn’t selling the Pope short. I agree with everything you said. Maybe you said it better than I did, but it was nice to read what you wrote and feel that “oh, yes, someone else reads the teachings of Vatican II!” (which were, of course, foundational in the preparation of the Catechism).

I agree with what you shared 100%. Please, if there’s something I wrote that you’re not comfortable with, or don’t think was clear, let me know, I’d be more than happy to clarify. I think I agree with everything you said (primarily because it seems completely coherent with Church teaching) but if you think I’m off base or unclear on something just let me know. I would be happy to clarify and/or learn as appropriate.

Peace.