Holy Thursday - Foot Washing Ritual

  • Thread starter Thread starter AwaitingHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AwaitingHeaven

Guest
I have a question regarding the ritual washing of feet on Holy Thursday Mass.

In a nutshell, is it valid for women’s feet to be washed in that ritual?

I live in the Archdiocese of Washington DC and I’ve heard conflicting stories on this matter.

Some parishes do, others don’t. In fact, in my own parish, the Hispanic community has only ever washed men’s feet, whereas the english speaking community has washed both men and women’s feet for some time (some say as long as 30 years). The 30 years is significant (ref Canon 22 - 28):

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4.HTM

That being said, I’ve seen other links that seem to say that only men may have their feet washed. Ref:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=71

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR26.HTM

Finally, here’s something from the ADW:

usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/general/feet.shtml

Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this matter.
 
“Valid?” realy isn’t the question because since it’s not a sacrament, the issue of validity simply doesn’t apply here. Is it licit? would be the better question.

The answer, though, is no. It is not licit. The ritual calls for 12 men. Rome has taken an “interresting” position on this one in that while it isn’t licit, they have chosen to officially “look the other way” and not put a stop to it.

The ritual is an “anamnesis” of the Last Supper (a sort of remembering which makes the events themselves real to us in the here-and-now). Remember that in the Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper, the prayers say “on THIS night” and not “on that night.”

Since only men were present at the Last Supper, by Divine decision, it is a false notion to say that we should “modernize” the ritual in order to make it more relevant to contemporary sensibilities. We need to do the opposite.
 
Thx FrDavid for you reply. I’ve heard people say that it was the disciples of Jesus there at the Last Supper, which may have included men and women, not just the apostles.

Can you add more thoughts here?
 
AwaitingHeaven said:
Thx FrDavid for you reply. I’ve heard people say that it was the disciples of Jesus there at the Last Supper, which may have included men and women, not just the apostles.

Can you add more thoughts here?
Click to expand...
Only the 12 (and they were 12 men).

Our faith is based on Revelation not imagination.
 
From the USSB website. It explains my understanding of it:

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.

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.
 
Fr_Larry said:
From the USSB website. It explains my understanding of it:

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.

**While this variation may differ from the rubric of the Sacramentary **
[emphasis not in the original]
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.
Click to expand...
That’s a long way of saying “we know it’s illicit, but we’re going to do it anyway.”

At least that’s my way of reading the above quote in your post.
 
I wonder how many parishes, then, are departing from the approved format?

A local, well-attended, popular liberal parish has always included women in this Holy Thursday event. Before I was acquainted with this parish, I didn’t happen to attend H.T. services (Triduum only), so I’ve never been aware of any other way of doing it.

(I have mixed feelings about this parish; I do sometimes go because some of their services are very reverent & inspired. At other times they seem quite non-canonical. For example, on a recent EWTN televised Mass the point was made that the Annointing of the Sick is subject to abuse. There’s no question that this sacrament is being abused in this parish, so I’m not always comfortable with their decisions.)

But in any case, I never knew that the washing of the feet was men-only. From a pastoral point of view, it makes sense to me, since, among other things, it signifies service.
 
Every year we get into this discussion (at least this is my second go around here). This is what Paschale Solemnitatis (the circular letter on Holy Week issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) says concerning this:
51. 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.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, unless something from the USCCB has the recognitio from Rome, I would rather go with what the Holy See has indicated. Please know that this is not a slight at the USCCB; however, there have been some misconceptions about official documents. “Built on Living Stones” and “Sing to the Lord”, while documents of the USCCB, are teaching documents. Because they lack the recogitio from the Holy See, they do not have the force of law.
 
Our [normally] by-the-book pastor explained to us last year that we would wash and dry each others’ hands. 🤷 :confused:
 
My understanding is that before Jesus made his Apostles priests at the Last Supper (when he told them “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19), he washed their feet to illustrate that they are being called to serve in humility.
 
There is something incredibly creepy about watching a celibate man washing the feet of women.
 
. I’ve heard people say that it was the disciples of Jesus there at the Last Supper, which may have included men and women, not just the apostles.

There’s nothing in the Bible or Tradition to suggest this.

The Maundy was always practiced in monasteries, even women’s monasteries. Abbess Catherine in IN THIS HOUSE OF BREDE would wash the feet of 12 nuns chosen by lot.
 
In the Gospels – the Passover and the washing of feet, only John describes the ritual washing, but it is in the context of the Last Supper. The other Gospel’s do not mention the washing event, but they do provide the context of our Lord’s Last Supper. Here are the links:

Matthew 26:17-25 (verse 20) “When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples”

Mark 14:12-21 (verse 17) “And when it was evening he came with the twelve.”

Luke 22:7-23 (verse 14) “And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him”

John 13:1-20 (verses 3-5) “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, 4 rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel. 5 Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.”

I’ve heard it said that Jesus’ disciples were there at the Last Supper and the term “disciple” applies to more than just His apostles. In general, the term “disciple” does apply to a wider group than His apostles, but as best I can tell, from reading the Gospels where the Last Supper is described, the word “disciple” in that context appears to imply the 12 apostles.

Just my observations. Other thoughts & insights are welcome.
 
1holycatholic said:
There is something incredibly creepy about watching a celibate man washing the feet of women.
Click to expand...
My parish is even more strange. We have a big ole foot washing fest. There are wash basins set up all around the church. Everybody gets up and washes each other’s feet.

We are very creative!
 
AwaitingHeaven said:
In the Gospels – the Passover and the washing of feet, only John describes the ritual washing, but it is in the context of the Last Supper. The other Gospel’s do not mention the washing event, but they do provide the context of our Lord’s Last Supper. Here are the links:

Matthew 26:17-25 (verse 20) “When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples”

Mark 14:12-21 (verse 17) “And when it was evening he came with the twelve.”

Luke 22:7-23 (verse 14) “And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him”

John 13:1-20 (verses 3-5) “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, 4 rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel. 5 Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.”

I’ve heard it said that Jesus’ disciples were there at the Last Supper and the term “disciple” applies to more than just His apostles. In general, the term “disciple” does apply to a wider group than His apostles, but as best I can tell, from reading the Gospels where the Last Supper is described, the word “disciple” in that context appears to imply the 12 apostles.

Just my observations. Other thoughts & insights are welcome.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this is the kind of stuff that comes out in the History Channel and in the Discovery Channel. It is their interpretation of who was there, not necessarily the Church’s.
 
We have to remember that from scripture we know Jesus was a devout Jew and practiced the faith to its fullness. To say no women were present at the Passover meal is simply wrong. As sacred as the mass is to us, the Passover ws and is as equally sacred to the Jews. For the Passover ritual to be carried out women and children had to be there. This is true to the present. We will never know whether anyone else but the 12 had their feet washed. But it was the calling of the 12, also a sign of service and humility to us all. So since it is not a sacrament I see no problem with it having multiple meanings. We are all called by Jesus to service and humilty and some are called to a special service and humility. And indeed if you have ever had the opportunity to take part it in you cannot even begin imagine the effect it has on one. It is a deeply moving and spiritual experience. Why would anyone be adverse to this…we need a greater sense of humility and service in this crazy world of ours today. The richness of our faith needs to be shared by all. Just my opinion.
 
cspb56 said:
We have to remember that from scripture we know Jesus was a devout Jew and practiced the faith to its fullness. To say no women were present at the Passover meal is simply wrong. As sacred as the mass is to us, the Passover ws and is as equally sacred to the Jews. For the Passover ritual to be carried out women and children had to be there. This is true to the present. We will never know whether anyone else but the 12 had their feet washed. But it was the calling of the 12, also a sign of service and humility to us all. So since it is not a sacrament I see no problem with it having multiple meanings. We are all called by Jesus to service and humilty and some are called to a special service and humility. And indeed if you have ever had the opportunity to take part it in you cannot even begin imagine the effect it has on one. It is a deeply moving and spiritual experience. Why would anyone be adverse to this…we need a greater sense of humility and service in this crazy world of ours today. The richness of our faith needs to be shared by all. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
However, I would remind you that the Holy See has already issued a document, Paschales Solemnitatis, which specifically states that 12 men should be the ones partaking in this.

The problem is that well-intentioned folks have taken it upon themselves to interpret this document in ways that wnid up being contrary to what Paschales Solemnitatis indicated. I remember one Holy Thursday being at my former Paulist Parish where 12 people were chosen who then went to wash the feet of 12 others. That is not what the ritual calls for us to do. It is very clear-cut.

With all due respect, we are called to receive what the Church gives us with fidelity and obedience, not to be creative.
 
Shemp,

My parish has done this for years, and many people are very attached to it. Now the new priest, who sticks to the rubrics much more, has to figure out how to handle it. I wonder sometimes if there isn’t some way to have a non-liturgical celebration of service outside the Triduum, and including the foot-washing fest. I don’t think there is necessarily anything wrong with a foot-washing fest per se, it just doesn’t belong in that liturgy.
 
AwaitingHeaven said:
I have a question regarding the ritual washing of feet on Holy Thursday Mass.

In a nutshell, is it valid for women’s feet to be washed in that ritual?

I live in the Archdiocese of Washington DC and I’ve heard conflicting stories on this matter.

Some parishes do, others don’t. In fact, in my own parish, the Hispanic community has only ever washed men’s feet, whereas the english speaking community has washed both men and women’s feet for some time (some say as long as 30 years). The 30 years is significant (ref Canon 22 - 28):

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4.HTM

That being said, I’ve seen other links that seem to say that only men may have their feet washed. Ref:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=71

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR26.HTM

Finally, here’s something from the ADW:

usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/general/feet.shtml

Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this matter.
Click to expand...
Technically, that thirty years is only significant when the law has been stable. But the Roman Missal has been reissued in 1975 and then in 2002, which some might argue resets the clock on customs relative to that book. Or you could argue from the new code of canon law in 1983, which also reset the clock on developing customs.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
Technically, that thirty years is only significant when the law has been stable. But the Roman Missal has been reissued in 1975 and then in 2002, which some might argue resets the clock on customs relative to that book. Or you could argue from the new code of canon law in 1983, which also reset the clock on developing customs.
Click to expand...
I see the notion of custom thrown out a lot on these forums with regard to liturgical law. The principle simply does not apply, in spite of what “internet experts” might claim. Custom which is specifically contrary to the law is not in-fact “custom” unless it has been observed for at least 100 continuous years–and there are other conditions.

People should not be relying on internet posts which quote one single canon without understanding what the canon means, or putting it into the context of complementary canons.

Andreas, I realize that you’re not the one making that argument, so that isn’t directed at you, but at the people who try to use a legal concept which they don’t understand to justify something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top