Holy Thursday: Washing of the feet

[Kathryn_Ann]

No, that is not permission (nor does the USCCB have authority to override Mass rubrics in the first place). Please look at how carefully it is worded, and what it actually says:
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.
In simpler terms, all it actually manages to say is:
This is against the rubrics, but you can definitely see why people would want to do it.

Hi, I do see what you mean in your statement above.
This thread is of great interest to me and I’m just wanting to know more: If the Vatican states something different, then I’m concerned to see the USCCB’s meaning being mis-understood, or mis-used. I’m just wondering then, is it not always best to conform to the Vatican’s official teaching? I’m a convert (just since 2004) so I just want to understand this issue. It does seem that the above statement would allow the U.S. Bishops and their dioceses, room to allow women to participate. Yet should we do that in so many cases? I tend to be conservative on most issues, only because I am new and trying to learn. If I thought that the Official Church teaching was that women should not participate in this, then I would want to respect that. I thank you for help on this.:heaven:
Blessings,
Kathryn Ann

 

[MarkThompson]

Hi, I do see what you mean in your statement above.
This thread is of great interest to me and I’m just wanting to know more: If the Vatican states something different, then I’m concerned to see the USCCB’s meaning being mis-understood, or mis-used. I’m just wondering then, is it not always best to conform to the Vatican’s official teaching? I’m a convert (just since 2004) so I just want to understand this issue. It does seem that the above statement would allow the U.S. Bishops and their dioceses, room to allow women to participate. Yet should we do that in so many cases? I tend to be conservative on most issues, only because I am new and trying to learn. If I thought that the Official Church teaching was that women should not participate in this, then I would want to respect that. I thank you for help on this.:heaven:
Blessings,
Kathryn Ann

As I have also said before, “The Church doesn’t really ‘teach’ anything about whose feet should be washed. It’s just a rubric.”

To be honest, my sense is that the Church considers this rubric outdated and an embarrassment, and would much rather simply have it forgotten than go to the effort of changing it or, heaven forbid, of enforcing it. Thus the statement from the USCCB very carefully avoids any tinge of granting official permission to wash the feet of women, and yet at the same time is a very strong statement that the people in charge are happy enough to see it done. To cast it as an analogy:
Teen: Mom, can I stay out past my curfew just this one night to go to a concert with my friends?

Mom: That concert sure sounds like a lot of fun! I’d love to have gone myself. Well, I’ll be in bed anyway, so I won’t know what time you get back. Wink!
You’ll notice which little three-letter word is conspicuous in its absence: “yes.”

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

As I have also said before, “The Church doesn’t really ‘teach’ anything about whose feet should be washed. It’s just a rubric.”

To be honest, my sense is that the Church considers this rubric outdated and an embarrassment, and would much rather simply have it forgotten than go to the effort of changing it or, heaven forbid, of enforcing it. Thus the statement from the USCCB very carefully avoids any tinge of granting official permission to wash the feet of women, and yet at the same time is a very strong statement that the people in charge are happy enough to see it done. To cast it as an analogy:
Teen: Mom, can I stay out past my curfew just this one night to go to a concert with my friends?

Mom: That concert sure sounds like a lot of fun! I’d love to have gone myself. Well, I’ll be in bed anyway, so I won’t know what time you get back. Wink!
You’ll notice which little three-letter word is conspicuous in its absence: “yes.”

If you can help me out further, what is the difference between “rubrics” and official teaching of the Church Magisterium? Are rubrics “traditions” in a different way? I understand your analogy. I’m just wondering why people would not want to follow the rubrics as well as “official teachings.” Appreciate your patience.

 

[thomas_jd]

Last week we received a call from our priest asking if he can wash my feet and my wifes feet this upcoming thursday. My wife questioned him regarding the washing of womens feet. He stated that the Cardinal washes womens feet in our Archdiocese.

 

[Califman831]

If you can help me out further, what is the difference between “rubrics” and official teaching of the Church Magisterium? Are rubrics “traditions” in a different way? I understand your analogy. I’m just wondering why people would not want to follow the rubrics as well as “official teachings.” Appreciate your patience.

newadvent.org/cathen/13216a.htm

 

[celticcrusader]

after watching M. Voris’s video last week I did read the document from the Vatican ( in English ) and did some study on the subject and I con clude M. Voris is correct. I have E-Mailed the question to my Bishop , Parish Priest and other Priest’s i know and am waiting for an answer. I have posted questions on Facebook to see what people know, and I find most people have no idea about the ritual of washing of feet, ( even some Deacons !!! ) This all has to do with the starting of the Priesthood.so that is why it is 12 men and no women.

 

[Hopey]

My understanding is that exceptions can be granted. But reality is that the exception has become the norm. If you are not comfortable with having your feet washed, I would respectfully decline. I wouldn’t let it upset my peace either. They will have to answer one day.

 

[Hopey]

I’ll quote an answer from EWTN. In a previous Q&A, he did mention that the Bishop had no authority on his own to change this. It takes 2/3 Episcopal Conference. But, there have been exceptions granted to Bishops/Cardinal. Again, we are seeing exceptions become norms. We have other variations where I am, such as the DRE washing the feet too which is a “no-no” but it is the Bishop who does that correcting. Yes, I am aware that a parishioner has a right to ask about things and correct if needed. This particular parish is hostile to anything questioning his “authority”.
*ROME, 28 MARCH 2006 (ZENIT)

Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I understand that it is in fact liturgically incorrect to have the main celebrant at the Holy Thursday Mass wash the feet of women. Correct? — J.C., Ballina, Ireland. During the Holy Thursday liturgy at our parish, there are a number of foot-washing stations set up around the Church, and the people in the pews get up and bring someone else to one of the stations and wash their feet. Most of the people in Church take part in this, washing feet and in turn having their feet washed. It takes quite a while. Is this liturgically correct? Are there any norms for foot-washing during the Holy Thursday Mass? — B.S., Naperville, Illinois. On Holy Thursday, at the washing of feet, the people, mostly youth, after having their foot washed, preceded to wash the next person’s foot. Then they placed four bowls of water and four places before the altar, and the congregation was told to come forward and have their hands washed by the same people who just had their foot washed. We didn’t. Everything felt out of order. — E.K., Freehold, New Jersey

A: We already addressed the theme of washing women’s feet in our column of March 23, 2004, and the subsequent follow-up on April 6.

Since then, there has been no change in the universal norm which reserves this rite to men as stated in the circular letter “Paschales Solemnitatis” (Jan. 16, 1988) and the rubrics of the 2002 Latin Roman Missal.

No. 51 of the circular letter states: “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.’ This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.”

About a year ago, however, the Holy See, while affirming that the men-only rule remains the norm, did permit a U.S. bishop to also wash women’s feet if he considered it pastorally necessary in specific cases. This permission was for a particular case and from a strictly legal point of view has no value outside the diocese in question.

I believe that the best option, as “Paschales Solemnitatis” states, is to maintain the tradition and explain its proper significance.*

[edited]

 

[Hopey]

con’t
*Follow-up: Washing of the Feet on Holy Thursday [04-11-2006]

In the wake of our article on foot washing (March 28), one reader “begged to differ” that the rubric in the missal stipulated that only men’s feet be washed.

He wrote: “Clearly, as we have been told a million times, in churchspeak ‘men’ means both males and females, as in ‘who for us men and our salvation.’ As we also know, since ‘Liturgicam Authenticam’ the Church has forbidden the use of modern English that would avoid the possible confusion, and so those who produced these statements are obligated to use the term ‘men’ instead of simply saying ‘those who.’ Either we have a univocal use of the term ‘men’ or we have nothing.”

Our reader apparently did not have access to the original Latin text of the rubric in question. That rubric does not use the generic “Homo” which in some contexts includes both sexes, but rather the specific “Vir” which refers only to males.

I also fear he has caricatured the translation norms of “Liturgicam Authenticam.” Rather than mandating the generic “man” as a univocal translation for “Homo,” the document inculcates prudence in translating this term whenever it is subject to several shades of theological meaning.

For example, the expression “son of man” in the Old Testament can mean simply “human being” but in some cases Church tradition has interpreted it prophetically as referring to Christ.

I am likewise not convinced that the generic use of man to include all human beings no longer forms part of “modern English.”

Certainly the language needs to adapt to acknowledge the fact that women participate in many endeavors which were formally male preserves. But I see no reason to engage in linguistic contortions so as to avoid the generic use of “man” when this is the best literary option.
Finally, a reader from Belgium wrote a thought-provoking — albeit somewhat tongue in cheek — note on those who proposed hand washing instead of foot washing on Holy Thursday: “It is worthwhile pointing out … that the only hand washing mentioned in the Scriptures around Holy Week is that done by Pontius Pilate — hardly a positive example to be followed.” ZE06041120*

 

[Califman831]

I went to the morning rosary, and would have stayed for mass. The thought hit me that if the bishops in the United States have changed the ritual in the washing of the feet, no matter how good their intentions may have been, what else have they changed? Am I even a Roman Catholic, or have I become something else? Have we been lied to by American clerics?

 

[celticcrusader]

I went to the morning rosary, and would have stayed for mass. The thought hit me that if the bishops in the United States have changed the ritual in the washing of the feet, no matter how good their intentions may have been, what else have they changed? Am I even a Roman Catholic, or have I become something else? Have we been lied to by American clerics?

Maybe you are now a member of The American catholic church,

 

[Mintaka]

It’s not being lied to. It’s a lack of education of priests, or an abundance of teaching them things that weren’t true.

If you want to worry about lies – or at least, about irresponsible teaching of untrue things and urban academic legends – you need to look to the academic establishment that taught the Vatican II generation to believe and expect all kinds of crazy things. Since then, it’s all been trying to gain back the ground they lost for us.

If footwashing is about Jesus doing what high priests did for priests of the Temple before going onto holy ground, and bidding the Apostles to extrapolate that, that’s totally in line with the Last Supper’s purpose as Catholics understand it – the institution of the Eucharist.

(And since “picked, proven adult men” (viri selecti) are the “head priests” of their households, they can stand in for the clergy that the bishop originally was washing the feet of, just like the bishop originally donned special footwear that he only wore at Mass, so that his feet were clean on holy ground.)

If footwashing is just about Jesus doing what Abigail did for David, then that’s totally in line with the Last Supper as Protestants understand it – the institution of a nice holy family meal together.

So are we talking about a priestly task or that of a banquet host? That should tell you who gets their feet washed.

 

[celticcrusader]

In the O.T. There is significant spiritual implications to foot washing as mentioned in various books.

 

[Hopey]

As this ritual is new in being (re)introduced, and there are some who focus more on it being a symbol of serving over priesthood, I wouldn’t be surprised if more clarification is needed, if not more discussion needed. IF it is a symbol of washing the feet of those who serve, then they include women in this. IF it is a symbol of the priesthood, then 12 men are needed. IF it is both, then I could see where exceptions are made. But exceptions are not the norm. I have even seen children brought up. This ritual doesn’t have to be done either especially if it is an elderly priest who can not physically do it.

 

[celticcrusader]

As this ritual is new in being (re)introduced, and there are some who focus more on it being a symbol of serving over priesthood, I wouldn’t be surprised if more clarification is needed, if not more discussion needed. IF it is a symbol of washing the feet of those who serve, then they include women in this. IF it is a symbol of the priesthood, then 12 men are needed. IF it is both, then I could see where exceptions are made. But exceptions are not the norm. I have even seen children brought up. This ritual doesn’t have to be done either especially if it is an elderly priest who can not physically do it.

It is a symbol of the Priesthood and the latest last word came from the Vatican in 1988 saying Men only… Have a great Holy Week !!!

 

[Hopey]

It is a symbol of the Priesthood and the latest last word came from the Vatican in 1988 saying Men only… Have a great Holy Week !!!

You too.

 

[EasterJoy]

Be that as it may, in the Archdiocese of Portland, the instructions include the following:

“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.” Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, 1987.
It is not necessary that the number of persons whose feet are washed be twelve.

archdpdx.org/Lenten%20Regulations%202012.pdf

Obviously, as earlier posts note in detail, the matter has been addressed by the Vatican since 1987, but if your bishop is directing the pastors to allow it, it is hard to fault the pastors if they do. As someone posted, there has been permission given to some bishops to do this in their dioceses. If your bishop says it is not allowed in his diocese, then that is the way it is.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Be that as it may, in the Archdiocese of Portland, the instructions include the following:

“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.” Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, 1987.
It is not necessary that the number of persons whose feet are washed be twelve.

archdpdx.org/Lenten%20Regulations%202012.pdf

Obviously, as earlier posts note in detail, the matter has been addressed by the Vatican since 1987, but if your bishop is directing the pastors to allow it, it is hard to fault the pastors if they do. As someone posted, there has been permission given to some bishops to do this in their dioceses. If your bishop says it is not allowed in his diocese, then that is the way it is.

And as someone else linked above the USCCB seems to allow both men and women. As it talks about Christ coming to serve and not to be served. So…since I’ve been asked…I will be up there on Thursday having my feet washed by our priest.

 

[celticcrusader]

Be that as it may, in the Archdiocese of Portland, the instructions include the following:

“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.” Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, 1987.
It is not necessary that the number of persons whose feet are washed be twelve.

archdpdx.org/Lenten%20Regulations%202012.pdf

Obviously, as earlier posts note in detail, the matter has been addressed by the Vatican since 1987, but if your bishop is directing the pastors to allow it, it is hard to fault the pastors if they do. As someone posted, there has been permission given to some bishops to do this in their dioceses. If your bishop says it is not allowed in his diocese, then that is the way it is.

This is exactly what prompted The Vatican to very quickly in 1988 come out with a document saying the USCCB was wrong , and as we all know The Vatican hardly ever moves fast except for good reason .

 

[archangel04]

Without change, Holy Thursday feet washing for example, women of the church would still be just cleaning the churches of the world. Jesus stepped “out of the box” and so did Benedict XVI recently in Cuba, when he had the courage to ask for freedom of religion and openness.
It is time for women to “step out of the box”.
Respectfully submitted to those to disagree with me.

Let me guess you want women “priest” as well?