Holy thursday foot washing

[Lapey]

“Someone” does not decide deviations from the approved liturgical norms of the Church.

Whoever did it (singular or plural) lacked any competence, lacked any legitimate authority, to make such a statement.

Without approval/recognition from the Congregation in Rome, what was posted there is still nothing more than someone (again, singular or plural) expressing a personal opinion which contradicts the Church’s norms.

Normally I agree with you as we are on the same team, however many bishops including the last three and current bishop for my diocese have made the statement in which you say they lack the competence to make. Also our Pope has made the statement by his actions. I understand your point and I used to be in full agreement with it, but I am of the thought now that we will see some statement (hopefully soon) by the competent authorities either way. It is at a point now that the bishops who are still of the line of thinking that you hold are in the minority, so some statement has to me made either correcting or endorsing the “innovation.”

 

[1ke]

If Pope Francis is washing the feet of males and females with some of them being non Catholic of various ages and backgrounds

As the supreme legislator, he can do so. It is within his authority. He can do what he has done by virtue of this authority.

Those who are not Pope cannot, because they have no such authority. To do so would require a change in the rubrics or an official approval of an indult or other deviation from the rubrics coming from Rome.

 

[dans0622]

Normally I agree with you as we are on the same team, however many bishops including the last three and current bishop for my diocese have made the statement in which you say they lack the competence to make. …

Hello,

On any number of matters, individual, diocesan bishops have authority the USCCB (either in a committee or as a whole) does not. There is no question that the USCCB has no ability to alter this rubric or state that it can be disregarded. Again, I point out the fact that the aforementioned statement does nothing of the sort. It merely says (in a supportive tone, admittedly) that some people ignore the rubric for this or that reason.

Whether or not a diocesan bishop has the authority to dispense from certain liturgical rubrics (like the one under discussion) is a matter of debate. I don’t know if any bishop has actually tried to dispense (in the proper meaning of the term, in the proper way) a priest from this requirement.

Dan

 

[angell1]

As the supreme legislator, he can do so. It is within his authority. He can do what he has done by virtue of this authority.

Those who are not Pope cannot, because they have no such authority. To do so would require a change in the rubrics or an official approval of an indult or other deviation from the rubrics coming from Rome.

which I really wish would happen, since there’s this discussion every year. a clarification, I mean

should I say something about this? or just let it go? it does bother me that many priests are disobeying on this matter. not that it’s a big thing, it’s a disciplinary custom, I think. but ignoring the current instructions by the church is no small matter

and makes me wonder what else is going on that shouldn’t be?

 

[Lapey]

which I really wish would happen, since there’s this discussion every year. a clarification, I mean

should I say something about this? or just let it go? it does bother me that many priests are disobeying on this matter. not that it’s a big thing, it’s a disciplinary custom, I think. but ignoring the current instructions by the church is no small matter

and makes me wonder what else is going on that shouldn’t be?

Unless we are ready to write the Vatican, I guess we’ll have to go along. Most bishops in the US at least have gone along.

 

[FrDavid96]

There is a right way to go about making changes to the Mass, and there is a wrong way.

The wrong way is to disregard the rubrics. The diocesan bishops do not have the authority to do that. That is not a personal comment directed at any bishop(s) in particular. It is simply an objective fact. It is not within the competence of the diocesan bishop to authorize this change to the rubrics.

Do some bishops do it? We all know that they do. There is, however, an important distinction to be made between what a bishop is competent to do (what is within his legitimate authority) and what might (or might not) actually be done in reality.

I’ve seen bishops who change the words of Consecration. Does that make it right? Of course not. Being a bishop does not mean that whatever he does is legitimate. Bishops are bound to follow the rubrics of the Mass as much as anyone else.

The other way is the right way.

1. If the bishops truly feel that the rite should be open to women, they should propose it at a Conference meeting, make the request to the Holy See and receive the permission to do it that way. Given the actions of our current Holy Father, I personally think that such permission would be readily given.
2. Ask for an individual dispensation from the Congregation for Divine Worship. That is what one bishop (whom I won’t name, but he is well known, and a Cardinal no less) did. He requested a dispensation. He received a dispensation. I personally do not agree with the change, but I admire and respect him for having the integrity to do what he did by legitimate means rather than the disregard for the rubrics that other clerics have shown.

Now, having said all that, my own take on things is this:
It was a mistake to insert the washing of the feet into the Holy Thursday Mass in the first place*. It was never there. It doesn’t belong there. It disrupts the Mass; and it presents entirely too much of an opportunity for liturgical abuses.

I would be perfectly happy if the Church simply dropped the whole ceremony from the Mass. Put it back where it belongs, attached to the Liturgy of the Hours, or as a separate ceremony. Let’s just all realize that inserting it into the Mass itself seemed like a good idea at the time, but has proven to be more trouble than it’s worth.

---

*This was started in 1955, so neither Vatican II nor Bl Pope Paul VI innovated anything.

 

[FrDavid96]

Unless we are ready to write the Vatican, I guess we’ll have to go along. Most bishops in the US at least have gone along.

And that is exactly the problem.

Disregard for the Church’s liturgical laws only leads to more disregard. It is not helpful, and it is not good for the Church when the very people who are supposed to be safeguarding the Church’s liturgy are the ones disregarding it.

There is a right way and there is a wrong way.

 

[Lormar]

Actually, that did not happen.

“The USCCB” did not answer the question. The chairman of the then-Committee on Liturgy answered it with his own personal opinion—a personal opinion that conflicts with the liturgical norms of the Church, and clearly contradicts the rubrics printed in the then-Sacramentary and the current Roman Missal.

Just because something happens to be posted on the USCCB website, that does not mean we can attach the words “The USCCB said…” or “The USCCB answered…”

You closed by asking “Can we move on?”

I ask “Can we do the red and read the black?”

 

[Lormar]

There is a right way to go about making changes to the Mass, and there is a wrong way.

The wrong way is to disregard the rubrics. The diocesan bishops do not have the authority to do that. That is not a personal comment directed at any bishop(s) in particular. It is simply an objective fact. It is not within the competence of the diocesan bishop to authorize this change to the rubrics.

Do some bishops do it? We all know that they do. There is, however, an important distinction to be made between what a bishop is competent to do (what is within his legitimate authority) and what might (or might not) actually be done in reality.

I’ve seen bishops who change the words of Consecration. Does that make it right? Of course not. Being a bishop does not mean that whatever he does is legitimate. Bishops are bound to follow the rubrics of the Mass as much as anyone else.

The other way is the right way.

1. If the bishops truly feel that the rite should be open to women, they should propose it at a Conference meeting, make the request to the Holy See and receive the permission to do it that way. Given the actions of our current Holy Father, I personally think that such permission would be readily given.
2. Ask for an individual dispensation from the Congregation for Divine Worship. That is what one bishop (whom I won’t name, but he is well known, and a Cardinal no less) did. He requested a dispensation. He received a dispensation. I personally do not agree with the change, but I admire and respect him for having the integrity to do what he did by legitimate means rather than the disregard for the rubrics that other clerics have shown.

Now, having said all that, my own take on things is this:
It was a mistake to insert the washing of the feet into the Holy Thursday Mass in the first place*. It was never there. It doesn’t belong there. It disrupts the Mass; and it presents entirely too much of an opportunity for liturgical abuses.

I would be perfectly happy if the Church simply dropped the whole ceremony from the Mass. Put it back where it belongs, attached to the Liturgy of the Hours, or as a separate ceremony. Let’s just all realize that inserting it into the Mass itself seemed like a good idea at the time, but has proven to be more trouble than it’s worth.

---

*This was started in 1955, so neither Vatican II nor Bl Pope Paul VI innovated anything.

Father, I was under the impression that the foot washing ceremony was optional?

 

[Lapey]

There is a right way to go about making changes to the Mass, and there is a wrong way.

The wrong way is to disregard the rubrics. The diocesan bishops do not have the authority to do that. That is not a personal comment directed at any bishop(s) in particular. It is simply an objective fact. It is not within the competence of the diocesan bishop to authorize this change to the rubrics.

Do some bishops do it? We all know that they do. There is, however, an important distinction to be made between what a bishop is competent to do (what is within his legitimate authority) and what might (or might not) actually be done in reality.

I’ve seen bishops who change the words of Consecration. Does that make it right? Of course not. Being a bishop does not mean that whatever he does is legitimate. Bishops are bound to follow the rubrics of the Mass as much as anyone else.

The other way is the right way.

1. If the bishops truly feel that the rite should be open to women, they should propose it at a Conference meeting, make the request to the Holy See and receive the permission to do it that way. Given the actions of our current Holy Father, I personally think that such permission would be readily given.
2. Ask for an individual dispensation from the Congregation for Divine Worship. That is what one bishop (whom I won’t name, but he is well known, and a Cardinal no less) did. He requested a dispensation. He received a dispensation. I personally do not agree with the change, but I admire and respect him for having the integrity to do what he did by legitimate means rather than the disregard for the rubrics that other clerics have shown.

Now, having said all that, my own take on things is this:
It was a mistake to insert the washing of the feet into the Holy Thursday Mass in the first place*. It was never there. It doesn’t belong there. It disrupts the Mass; and it presents entirely too much of an opportunity for liturgical abuses.

I would be perfectly happy if the Church simply dropped the whole ceremony from the Mass. Put it back where it belongs, attached to the Liturgy of the Hours, or as a separate ceremony. Let’s just all realize that inserting it into the Mass itself seemed like a good idea at the time, but has proven to be more trouble than it’s worth.

---

*This was started in 1955, so neither Vatican II nor Bl Pope Paul VI innovated anything.

Exactly! When a typical parishioner is asked, "what does Holy Thursday mean to you? The answer will undoubtedly be, Jesus washing the feet of the apostles. No mention of the institution of the Eucharist, which is supposed to be the “source and summit” of our faith. No mention of the institution of the priesthood; no, washing feet.

Although this is a good and meaningful message, it should be done outside of Mass-(my 2 cents!)

 

[Lapey]

Father, I was under the impression that the foot washing ceremony was optional?

It is optional, but it is almost never omitted.

 

[pianistclare]

I wish it was omitted permanently.
Too much drama.
Drives me bonkers.

 

[1ke]

Father, I was under the impression that the foot washing ceremony was optional?

I believe he meant take it out entirely, even as an option.

 

[revert_jen]

My opinion is that in ordinary circumstances it is inappropriate for a celibate male priest to be fondling the bare feet of women, but that’s maybe just me. I wouldn’t do it anyway because I always wear skirts (because I look bad in pants ) and that would be awkward.

We only have men in my parish–actually I think several years ago our bishop said specifically that it wasn’t allowed to have women’s feet washed (at least in our diocese?). But I may not be remembering that right.

–Jen

 

[Lormar]

I believe he meant take it out entirely, even as an option.

Yes, I know what he meant, but if it is optional, then don’t include it.

 

[Lormar]

My opinion is that in ordinary circumstances it is inappropriate for a celibate male priest to be fondling the bare feet of women, but that’s maybe just me. I wouldn’t do it anyway because I always wear skirts (because I look bad in pants ) and that would be awkward.

We only have men in my parish–actually I think several years ago our bishop said specifically that it wasn’t allowed to have women’s feet washed (at least in our diocese?). But I may not be remembering that right.

–Jen

A priest who was assigned to be the pastor of our parish, and who would still be pastor of our parish had not this occurred, told the women he would only be washing the feet of males on Holy Thursday. Well, our parish is made up of many would be priestesses. They went not only to the bishop in a huff, but to the local newspaper too. Long story short, he was removed as pastor of our parish.

 

[dans0622]

If the foot washing ritual was removed from the Missal (I wouldn’t miss it) a certain number of parishes would continue to have it anyway.

Dan

 

[UnumCorpus]

I wish it was omitted permanently.
Too much drama.
Drives me bonkers.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you here…I personally love the symbolism behind the foot washing. It is such a powerful visual representation of servant leadership. There is something so beautiful and amazing about Jesus, the Son of Almighty God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, bending down to wash the feet of mere human beings. I am glad that Christ’s stunning example of humility has been remembered in this way, whether it be through washing the feet of men only or men & women.

When I saw those photos of Pope Francis washing the feet of prisoners last year, it reminded me so much of Christ’s love for the poor and lowly among us. It almost made me weep, it was so beautiful. So there are at least some of us who find profound meaning in this service.

My opinion is that in ordinary circumstances it is inappropriate for a celibate male priest to be fondling the bare feet of women, but that’s maybe just me. I wouldn’t do it anyway because I always wear skirts (because I look bad in pants ) and that would be awkward.

In our diocese, they made sure to tell the women to wear trousers rather than a skirt for obvious reasons.

 

[pianistclare]

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you here…I personally love the symbolism behind the foot washing. It is such a powerful visual representation of servant leadership. There is something so beautiful and amazing about Jesus, the Son of Almighty God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, bending down to wash the feet of mere human beings. I am glad that Christ’s stunning example of humility has been remembered in this way, whether it be through washing the feet of men only or men & women.

**Well of course. But that’s not what we are discussing here. If it were simply THAT, no one would take issue.
But as we can see, many folks make it about correctness in liturgy. THAT’s why it upsets me. If we could leave it as a lesson? Fine. But every year it’s the same thing…people getting all worked up. I’d rather just not do it. As has been stated, it was never meant to be part of the Holy Thursday Liturgy in the first place. It was added by Pius XII. **

When I saw those photos of Pope Francis washing the feet of prisoners last year, it reminded me so much of Christ’s love for the poor and lowly among us. It almost made me weep, it was so beautiful. So there are at least some of us who find profound meaning in this service.

In our diocese, they made sure to tell the women to wear trousers rather than a skirt for obvious reasons.

 

[Lapey]

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you here…I personally love the symbolism behind the foot washing. It is such a** powerful visual representation of servant leadership.** There is something so beautiful and amazing about Jesus, the Son of Almighty God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, bending down to wash the feet of mere human beings. I am glad that Christ’s stunning example of humility has been remembered in this way, whether it be through washing the feet of men only or men & women.

When I saw those photos of Pope Francis washing the feet of prisoners last year, it reminded me so much of Christ’s love for the poor and lowly among us. It almost made me weep, it was so beautiful. So there are at least some of us who find profound meaning in this service.

In our diocese, they made sure to tell the women to wear trousers rather than a skirt for obvious reasons.

No one is disagreeing with you in this point; however, there are bigger Liturgical meanings being “remembered” on this night. Namely the institution of the priesthood and the source and summit of our faith, the Eucharist itself. We can wash feet another time, don’t you agree?