Mandatatum - washing of feet on Holy Thursday

[Annabelle_Marie]

To your local odinary, he is the leader of his diocese, not teh USCCB. Then you would go to your pastor, who operates under the direct supervision of the bishop.

The pastoral provision you site is in the cases where it is customary, but it is still suggested to follow the rubrics. For pastoral reasons it is allowed to continue…for now.

In areas where it is not customary, as in my home diocese, the rubrics are to be followed.

Maybe that is where we differ…location. In my diocese the bishop approves it and it is customary. My priest follows the bishop.

For the record…the signifance given on the USCCB website…is the teaching given…service. Nowhere is it taught that this institutes the priesthood…I.e…no one could make the assumption that this means that women are allowed to the priesthood. This is also not something I am arguing…IMHO women should never be priests…heck I’m uncomfortable with women Protestant ministers…but that’s a different thread.

Anyway…it’s not something I am going to let rob my peace or chastise our priest for…especially in the teaching given about the washing of the feet. If asked, I will do it…but being as the last two out of three years since my return to the church I’ve had it done…I would allow someone else to take a turn-man or woman.

Maybe that will change with our new bishop…we shall see:shrug:

 

[Spudbynight]

The issue I (and I suspect others) have is not so much with the act of washing of feet. It is with the disobedience.

Bishops do not have the authority to make a variation to the rubrics. I (and I think others as well) do not suggest to know better than any priest or bishop - what I do believe through is that no priest or bishop knows better than the Church.

In order to make a variation to the rubrics permission must be granted by the Holy See. From what I can ascertain only a single diocese in the entire world has been granted this variation.
My own diocese is covered by the Bishops of England and Wales. No variation has been granted and as such is prohibited in all of our parishes.

The only variation that has been granted (within a single diocese) is for women to be included in those selected.

There has been no variation approved by Rome in any diocese that any bishop has made mention of for anyone other than the celebrant to wash 12 feet. It is not permitted for members of the faithful to wash the feet of anyone during the liturgy. Neither a parish priest or a bishop or even a conference of bishops has the authority to approve this.

Why am I bothered so much with what to many might be a trivial matter? Because for a priest or bishop to go against the Church is a big deal. If they show disobedience towards the Church in one area why not another?

Disobedience to the Chuch is the road to protestantism.

 

[KCCatechist]

Does Annabelle have an agenda supporting women priests?

 

[Michael_Allen]

Pope Francis, once again, leads by example.- he washed the feet of those in prison, including two women and one Muslim.

Wonderful to see him reaching out and leading the way in such a personal style.

 

[aemcpa]

Pope Francis, once again, leads by example.- he washed the feet of those in prison, including two women and one Muslim.

Wonderful to see him reaching out and leading the way in such a personal style.

This is a fundamental change to the rite and a complete reordering of the theology behind it.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Does Annabelle have an agenda supporting women priests?

Not according to her:

For the record…the signifance given on the USCCB website…is the teaching given…service. Nowhere is it taught that this institutes the priesthood…I.e…no one could make the assumption that this means that women are allowed to the priesthood. This is also not something I am arguing…IMHO women should never be priests…heck I’m uncomfortable with women Protestant ministers…but that’s a different thread.

It helps to actually read other people’s posts before making assumptions about what they think or believe.

 

[KCCatechist]

Not according to her:

It helps to actually read other people’s posts before making assumptions about what they think or believe.

I did read some of her statements. She favors the USCCB version of the washing of the feet over that of the Vatican. I am just wondering why? Granted she is female and naturally biased against being discriminated, but Jesus did not wash the feet of all his disciples both men and women, but rather he washed the feet of his Apostles, which were all men. I have also noticed that people favor using the word “disciple” maybe because it is more inclusive of the sexes and injects a modernist notion of equality.

 

[LilyM]

This is a fundamental change to the rite and a complete reordering of the theology behind it.

Like the imposition of celibacy on Latin priests was? The positive reformulation of ‘outside of the Church there is no salvation’? The introduction of vernacular languages into liturgy?

Or is it just acknowledging a ‘both/and’ meaning behind the rite - Christ was indeed ministering to His apostles but at the same time was exhorting them to be last of all and servants of ALL (including women and non-Catholics, shock horror).

The ‘theology’ has never been completely crystal clear to me anyways. If the foot washees are meant to represent the Apostles then why may any man be invited - why not priests only - or more properly Bishops only? And why not specify that it must be 12, no more and no less?

 

[aemcpa]

Like the imposition of celibacy on Latin priests was? The positive reformulation of ‘outside of the Church there is no salvation’? The introduction of vernacular languages into liturgy?

Yes. And the wisdom of those decisions are known by their fruits, for better or for worse. At least celibacy has the backing of St. Paul.

 

[LilyM]

Yes. And the wisdom of those decisions are known by their fruits, for better or for worse. At least celibacy has the backing of St. Paul.

So priestly celibacy has been an unmitigated disaster for the 1000 years it has been in place?

I added to my post by the way - care to respond to the second or third paragraphs?

 

[KendraDZ1902]

 

[aemcpa]

Or is it just acknowledging a ‘both/and’ meaning behind the rite - Christ was indeed ministering to His apostles but at the same time was exhorting them to be last of all and servants of ALL

Could be, but the fact remains that that has not been the expressed meaning of this ritual in the past. It was specifically tied to the priesthood and the establishment thereof, as is the entire Holy Thursday liturgy. The Pope is free to make that change, of course, but it seems that a more appropriate way to do that is to change the rubric and be clear about it.

(including women and non-Catholics, shock horror).

And smug Catholic women on the Internet, I suppose.

The ‘theology’ has never been completely crystal clear to me anyways. If the foot washees are meant to represent the Apostles then why may any man be invited - why not priests only - or more properly Bishops only? And why not specify that it must be 12, no more and no less?

What IS crystal clear is that the rubric says “men”. Small communities might not have 12 men, or room for 12 men, and nobody has 12 priests lying around except the Bishop.

 

[aspirant]

She favors the USCCB version of the washing of the feet over that of the Vatican… Jesus did not wash the feet of all his disciples both men and women, but rather he washed the feet of his Apostles, which were all men.

So… the Pope favors the “USCCB version over that of the Vatican”… Is the pope Catholic?

 

[KCCatechist]

So… the Pope favors the “USCCB version over that of the Vatican”… Is the pope Catholic?

The authority of the Pope is different from the priests,bishops, and laity who choose to ignore the rubics of the church. The rubic still stands and should be supported.

 

[LilyM]

Could be, but the fact remains that that has not been the expressed meaning of this ritual in the past. It was specifically tied to the priesthood and the establishment thereof, as is the entire Holy Thursday liturgy. The Pope is free to make that change, of course, but it seems that a more appropriate way to do that is to change the rubric and be clear about it.

I think none of that is lost. In washing the eet of women or non-Catholics it becomes not one iota less about the priesthood and the establishment thereof. Christ did not establish priests to only or principally or in any especial way be served, nor serve each other, but to serve all.

And smug Catholic women on the Internet, I suppose.

I never have had, and never would want to have, my feet washed on Holy Thursday. It is an honour that I, like Peter, do not consider myself worthy of. So not so much of the smug please. But that has zero to do with my gender. Nor do I expect others to adhere to my philosophy.

What IS crystal clear is that the rubric says “men”. Small communities might not have 12 men, or room for 12 men, and nobody has 12 priests lying around except the Bishop.

Many parishes do not have a full-time priest. They do without Mass when a priest is unavailable. If your (and what you suppose to be Rome’s) theological take on the footwashing is important, then why not do without it where 12 of the ordained are not available? Chrism Masses are only held in one location in each diocese, due to the Bishoo being required, so why not the footwashing?

Besides which, we may well see the rubric changed shortly. There certainly has been precious little time for His Holiness to do so since his election. In the meantime why not start as he means to go on?

 

[Stuart_Sexton]

From what I’ve read elsewhere, Pope Francis was stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place, when he washed the feet of two girls and one Muslim in the prison where he celebrated the Mass. It was the Prison Chancery who put the Pope on the spot by picking twelve inmates, which included the two girls and the Muslim, and the Pope found himself being stuck with their choice. In other words, the Prison Chancery acted in direct contradiction to the norms, and the Pope had nothing to do with the choice. Given the circumstances (and his charitable nature), he couldn’t very well refuse them without causing scandal, and he couldn’t wash their feet without causing scandal, so, out of charity, he chose the latter, since the former would have been uncharitable. I think we’ll have to wait and see what is said to the Prison Chancery after this.

 

[shelby_sun]

From what I’ve read elsewhere, Pope Francis was stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place, when he washed the feet of two girls and one Muslim in the prison where he celebrated the Mass. It was the Prison Chancery who put the Pope on the spot by picking twelve inmates, which included the two girls and the Muslim, and the Pope found himself being stuck with their choice. In other words, the Prison Chancery acted in direct contradiction to the norms, and the Pope had nothing to do with the choice. Given the circumstances (and his charitable nature), he couldn’t very well refuse them without causing scandal, and he couldn’t wash their feet without causing scandal, so, out of charity, he chose the latter, since the former would have been uncharitable. I think we’ll have to wait and see what is said to the Prison Chancery after this.

I don’t tend to believe that. I have no doubt that the Pope probably inquired if there were women and those of other religions available. This is a man trying to teach the world to love an accept each other as Christ would. We are all God children and he wants us to remember that. Some of us have a hard time with that than others.

 

[jimcintosh]

I don’t tend to believe that. I have no doubt that the Pope probably inquired if there were women and those of other religions available. This is a man trying to teach the world to love and accept each other as Christ would. We are all God children and he wants us to remember that. Some of us have a hard time with that than others.

Amen! Well said.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t tend to believe that. I have no doubt that the Pope probably inquired if there were women and those of other religions available. This is a man trying to teach the world to love an accept each other as Christ would. We are all God children and he wants us to remember that. Some of us have a hard time with that than others.

I’ve also read that HH did the same when Archbishop of Buenos Aires, so it is unlikely that it is something that was merely forced on him against his wishes by others.

 

[CB_Catholic]

From what I’ve read elsewhere, Pope Francis was stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place, when he washed the feet of two girls and one Muslim in the prison where he celebrated the Mass. It was the Prison Chancery who put the Pope on the spot by picking twelve inmates, which included the two girls and the Muslim, and the Pope found himself being stuck with their choice. In other words, the Prison Chancery acted in direct contradiction to the norms, and the Pope had nothing to do with the choice. Given the circumstances (and his charitable nature), he couldn’t very well refuse them without causing scandal, and he couldn’t wash their feet without causing scandal, so, out of charity, he chose the latter, since the former would have been uncharitable. I think we’ll have to wait and see what is said to the Prison Chancery after this.

I don’t buy that for one minute. Somebody is trying to make excuses for the Pope. This Pope does not need any excuses made for him–he knows exactly what he is doing. He is a brilliant man and can handle himself. He does have a history of standing up to people when he needs to (like the President of Argentina). If he did not think the choice was proper, he would have said so, just because he is charitable does not mean he is afraid to speak up if he thinks something is wrong.