Is foot washing on Holy Thursday part of sacred tradition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter angell1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The rubrics here are very clear; the feet to be washed are to be those of men.

It is true that last year the pope ignored the rubric, but this does not mean that it’s right or proper or what have you simply because the pope did it. The pope is a servant of tradition. It’s a perfectly reasonable Catholic position to argue that the pope acted inappropriately when he ignored this rubric of the liturgy of his rite.
 
AlexV said:
The rubrics here are very clear; the feet to be washed are to be those of men.

It is true that last year the pope ignored the rubric, but this does not mean that it’s right or proper or what have you simply because the pope did it.

The pope is a servant of tradition.

It strikes me that you (and the OP) are confusing “various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time” with Sacred Tradition, "the living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church, flowing from the oral preaching of the Apostles and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Scripture)

It’s a perfectly reasonable Catholic position to argue that the pope acted inappropriately when he ignored this rubric of the liturgy of his rite.
Click to expand...
IMO this is an unreasonable opinion.

.
 
otjm said:
That is one person’s opinions, and appears a bit stretched; it would perhaps be better to say that ordination occurred after the Resurrection when Christ breathed on them and said “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you…”
Click to expand...
It is more than one person’s opinion. I do not have any survey data, but I have read it elsewhere as well. The Mitch-Hahn Ignatius Study New Testament for example.

The foot washing may be a sign of priestly ordination as in the OT (Ex 40:12, 30-32). Against this background, Jesus washing Peter and the disciples parallels the scene of Moses washing Aaron and his sons on the day of their consecration to the priesthood (Lev 8:6). Likewise, the apostles’ receiving a “part” (Gk. meros) in Jesus (Jn 13:8) recalls how the Levites had their “portion” (Gk. meris) in the Lord God alone (Num 18:20 and Deut 10:9 in the LXX). On the Institution of Holy Orders in the upper room, see note on Luke 22:19.

Apart from the foot washing, there is also the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The Council of Trent also links the Apostles’ ordination to the Last Supper in Christ’s command to “do this.”

CANON II. If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

The question is not even whether this was when the Apostles received the fulness of orders, but whether this has any symbolism of the priesthood. The answer may be no, as you seem to think, but this is the opinion of some and the chief reason why they believe the foot washing should be reserved to men, which was OP’s question.
 
Priesthood and the episcopacy were conferred on the first Holy Thursday. And that is indeed the reason for the original establishment of the rubric, which remains in force, edited my moderator
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

CAF remains faithful to the Holy See. On TC Forum, we require that all posts be faithful to the Holy See as fidelity is part of our Catholic tradition.

With regards to this topic, Church law binds everyone but the pope. Therefore, it is inappropriate to post contrary to this legal tradition and to call into question the pope’s authority to dispense himself from a law when he can dispense others.

Posts that question the pope’s rights will be removed. It is one thing to ask a question and another to question the integrity and fidelity of a reigning pope. Such behavior is very serious.
 
The pope can certainly change the rubric for the washing of the feet should he wish to do so (whether he should do so is an entirely different question, and completely fair and reasonable to ask…since Catholics are not bound to refrain from criticism of the pope: cf. St. Catherine of Siena, for one).

But dispensation from the law…whether of oneself as pontiff or of others…is a formal act. One problem of what we might call “informal” dispensation (not a legal category) is that it does serve to encourage others to do something contra legem (cf. the posters on this thread who think washing the feet of women is fine because the pope did it in 2013).

It’s not entirely clear the pope intended to dispense himself (let alone anyone else) from this law in 2013. But it simply not founded in Catholic tradition (capital or small “t”) that the pope can do whatever he pleases with the liturgy. That has never been the belief of orthodox Catholics. Edited by moderator
 
LAST REMINDER

When speaking about the Pontiff, keep it respectful and reverent.
 
janeway529 said:
Considering that the Holy See has allowed for countries such as the United States to allow women’s feet to be washed, then perhaps the symbolic meaning can be expanded. It’s more of a small ‘t’ tradition, because the ritual itself is optional.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for that? The last time I looked, the USCCB acknowledged that there was a custom in some parts of the US to include women but they stopped short of anything that would explicitly allow it. For the Holy See to allow it in the US, it would first have to be voted upon by the USCCB and then submitted as part of the US adaptations to the GIRM. Forgive me if I am wrong but I have not heard of any of these steps occurring.
 
Corki said:
Do you have a source for that? The last time I looked, the USCCB acknowledged that there was a custom in some parts of the US to include women but they stopped short of anything that would explicitly allow it. For the Holy See to allow it in the US, it would first have to be voted upon by the USCCB and then submitted as part of the US adaptations to the GIRM. Forgive me if I am wrong but I have not heard of any of these steps occurring.
Click to expand...
When I say that the Holy See “allows the United States to allow,” it means that unless it is strictly forbidden, it is allowed. This is the correct interpretation of Roman Law. Our Germanic way of interpreting law (if it’s not explicit, it’s not allowed) is not how the Holy See interprets laws. (I learned this when working with Canon Law in a Tribunal.) In practice, local custom usually trumps when the local Ordinary continues the practice and the Holy See does not explicitly disagree.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/triduum/holy-thursday-mandatum.cfm
What is surprising in this document is that it does not question the premise that a pastor or even a bishop has the authority to change or vary a specific rite at his own behest. He does not have such authority except where the law specifically allows him to do so.
Click to expand...
This said, other paragraphs of the above statement correctly recall that this rite was reintroduced into parish celebrations relatively recently (1955) and so, as a rite, cannot claim a long liturgical tradition directly linking it to Christ’s action on Holy Thursday — although this is the obvious interpretation.
Click to expand...
Thus, at least hypothetically, it could be subject to a reinterpretation to “emphasize service along with charity” in such a way as to be also open to women.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR26.HTM
 
The Holy See doesn’t have the time to write to each and every dicastery around the world and tell them, “Yeah, hello, actually, we really mean for you to follow that one rubric a few of your parishes…including your cathedral…can’t seem to grasp.”

The rubric in the missal here is very clear. The feet of men are to be washed. There hasn’t been any special permission granted to dispense from this rubric.
 
AlexV said:
The Holy See doesn’t have the time to write to each and every dicastery around the world and tell them, “Yeah, hello, actually, we really mean for you to follow that one rubric a few of your parishes…including your cathedral…can’t seem to grasp.”

The rubric in the missal here is very clear. The feet of men are to be washed. There hasn’t been any special permission granted to dispense from this rubric.
Click to expand...
There are two links in post 32. They make for interesting reading; in particular, the issue of the original response in 1987 (noted in the fist link, just below the boxed-in note).

You are correct that Rome dose not micro manage the Church. Given that washing the feet of women has been going on now for over 25 years, it stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point to assume that the dicastery in Rome in charge of the liturgy has not been informed of the widespread practice. In fact, it is beyond imagination that they have not had multiple comments made over multiple years.

That certainly does not mean that they cannot come out and make specific that men alone are to be used. Some people will hold that silence doe s not mean acceptance of the variation.

Others might look to Cardinal Arinze’ comment, some time ago, when a specific dubium was sent concerning the note in the GIRM which fairly clearly indicated that people, after receiving Communion and returning to their pew, were to remain standing until all had received (the dubium was sent by Cardinal George of Chicago). The Cardinal’s response was that Rome had no intention of being that rigid as to posture.

That comment is indicative of the comment made in post 32 concerning the difference between a gerrmanic approach to law (which is typical of American’s approach) and a Mediterranean approach.

People who are disturbed by the use of women in the foot washing ceremony are certainly welcome to address the matter with their pastor, then their bishop, and then Rome if Rome’s 25 years+ of non-responsiveness is not sufficient to assure them that it is essentially a non-issue with Rome.

I would suggest that any approach to Rome be to the proper dicastery, as the Pope has already determined the matter as far as he is concerned, and given that he is the chief legislator of Church law, that should be thoroughly laid to rest at this point.

The bottom line is that I don’t have a dog in this fight. I can understand both sides of the issue. It would be preferable, IMHO, if Rome spoke, if for no other reason than to assuage the concern people have when women are used in the ceremony. Perhaps if enough people were to address the issue with the proper dicastery, this issue could be resolved.

On the other hand, given our current chief legislator, it is entirely possible that Rome could say that using women is permissible, a point that will not sit well at all with those who wish to emphasize that the origin of the ceremony was the apostles. And that, we can all admit, was the origination.
 
“I would suggest that any approach to Rome be to the proper dicastery, as the Pope has already determined the matter as far as he is concerned, and given that he is the chief legislator of Church law, that should be thoroughly laid to rest at this point.”

In other words, just as I indicated, the bottom line for some on this issue = “If the pope did it, it’s now okay for others to do it.”
 
AlexV said:
“I would suggest that any approach to Rome be to the proper dicastery, as the Pope has already determined the matter as far as he is concerned, and given that he is the chief legislator of Church law, that should be thoroughly laid to rest at this point.”

In other words, just as I indicated, the bottom line for some on this issue = “If the pope did it, it’s now okay for others to do it.”
Click to expand...
That, and 25+ years of silence.
 
angell1 said:
i always thought the foot washing ritual was something only the pope did for his college of cardinals, which would make perfect sense.

now i’m discovering that othe parishes do it too and that’s it’s ordinarily only supposed to be for men. what’s up with that?

if you’re going to keep it traditional, then keep it within the vatican, i think. if you want to show self-sacrifice and service, then do it to everyone. how do you justify only selecting lay men and not women for this?

someone please explain it to me. thanks
Click to expand...
Now back to the original question.

The practice has been followed in local parishes, religious houses, seminaries, Cathedrals and by the Pope from the earliest days of the Church in both the East and West. While up until recently it was primarily the feet of men, usually clerics if 12 were available, (more common earlier as men in minor orders served their liturgical roles in parishes and many never advanced to major orders. Up until the reforms of the Holy Week Rites in 1955 the place of the washing of the feet was outside of the Liturgy itself. It was the practice of the Pope to participate in the washing after the Liturgy, and then after a light supper he would go out into the streets of Rome and preform the washing of the feet a second time, this time it was not clerics that he washed the feet of, but 12 men who were beggars, He would wash their feet, dry them, kiss them, and a Cardinal or assistant would give the beggar alms. This was changed after the 1955 Reform of the Triduum, and as today the Pope only washes the feet of (usually 12) during the Holy Thursday Liturgy of the Institution of the Holy Eucharist.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
One of reasons that ritual footwashing is normally confined to males is that it represents the conferral of holy orders.

catholicexchange.com/the-footwashing-ritual-and-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-a-new-look-at-john-13
Click to expand...
It is true that the Church has *always * taught the priesthood was instituted at the Last Supper and is stated so in most all catechisms. It is the reason I find it hard to accept women in the foot washing as it challenges what we have always been taught - that the priest represents Jesus and the men symbolize the male Apostles who were ordained by Christ on that very night. Of course those who continue to hope that women will one day be Catholic priests erroneously look to the practice of including women as hope for their cause. It is done by pastors (I’m not speaking of the Holy Father who is not bound) contrary to the universal rubric which states “viri selecti.” (Note: Even the USCCB Mandatum does not say it is licit; only that it is a widespread practice.) Many things of varying degrees continue to cause confusion and sadly traditions (and even possibly Tradition), in this current day, seem not to be so highly prized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top