RE: Do the rules permit the foot washing of women on Holy Thursday?

[dessert]

Only men can become priests, that is the core of the symbolism.
I think this is the reason that those who want to disobey the Church and allow women to have their feet washed are influenced by the ultra feminist agenda to deny the differences between men and women and promote women priests.
Those who realize that women have their own dignity being women and don’t need to prove themselves somehow by doing what men do realize to try and always include women insults women. (like they are not as good if they are not included)

It is fine to discuss the reasons behind the reasons why we only wash mens feet in the Thursday liturgy.
To practice contrary to Church rule is sinful, and it is sinful to encourage disobedience.

God Bless,
Scylla

Why isn’t there a push for men to want to dress up like women and even become nuns? Oh wait, the gays promote inclusion maybe that is why ultra-feminists and gays are so closely entwined. We need to love the person, not promote sin.

Like was said in one post that this is a pastoral descision which must have been handed down as the priests are not as against authority as you may think.

Our priest is leaving this up to us as individuals as how aften do you go to confession, do you want them telling us we have to repent 3X’s aweek?

I am not confortable with this but will let you know tomoorrow how it happens, by the way I don’t like my DH to wash my feet and or wash my Hair but maybe even another women as now we will know who paints their nails or hass a tatoo on their foot

But I do go to a mause and it woould never be a man other than my DH, but I am uncomfortable with this as sometimes i was uncomfortable holding hands with toher men in my other church to pray the Our FAther, so much I woould deliberately sit next to a woman because my DH doesn ot attend the Catholic Ccchurch and we doon’t do this in the CC Iam in now so no problem but I won’t was my feet as this seems like it will take a long time.

Maybe they are trying to ORthodox us? Dessert

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Only men can become priests, that is the core of the symbolism.

I don’t agree. The teaching Jesus was giving was that of humble service, and it would be the attitude that the Apostles were to have if they were to follow Him. Remember what Jesus said wen Peter first refused to have his feet washed? No one of them could consider themselves as greater than the other, because Jesus, their master, placed Himself at their feet, as a servant. Those who would be great would serve the lowly.

If Jesus was providing the teaching to tell us only men could become priest, then the Holy Thursday Mass, the Bishop’s would be washing the feet of priest only, because not all lay people can become priest. However this isn’t the lesson that was given.
The priest washes the feet of laymen, as a symbol of humble service. This humble service is extended to women as well as men. I challenge any priest to say it isn’t so.

Jim

 

[scylla]

I would agree that the message of Jesus washing the feet of others is an expression of humble service, I even endorse washing the feet of everyone or anyone after Mass.

To take the message and twist it to disobey what is stated as what should be done in the Mass is wrong.

Yet again, I have no problem following the rules of the Church…​

Men are specified as the ones who are to have their feet washed in the Mass on Thursday, to promote otherwise is to promote disobedience and to encourage sin. It is generally much more difficult to do the right thing which is why we have so many parishes which deviate from doing things correctly.

---

I agree that service to others includes women and should be practiced everyday. Women should serve men and men should serve women. (I deliberately put women first in that sentence to promote equality )

You are right not all lay men can become priests some are called to be married and be fathers of children or lay religious etc…
It is much more accurate to state laymen instead of laypeople, if this was unintentional then dismiss this.
(using laypeople instead of laymen when discussin priests in these type threads, usually indicates a desire for women priests)
I hope you are not considering this type dissent.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[ziggernaut]

Yesterday in Rome, the Pope washed the feet of 12 men.

Yesterday in Washington, D.C., the Papal Nuncio washed the feet of 12 men.

If this is good enough for them, why is it not good enough for all of our Catholic priests and bishops? Or are they somehow better than the Holy Father and his Nuncio, or are they in possession of some knowledge that the Holy Father and the Papal Nuncio do not have?

 

[otjm]

Yesterday in Rome, the Pope washed the feet of 12 men.

Yesterday in Washington, D.C., the Papal Nuncio washed the feet of 12 men.

If this is good enough for them, why is it not good enough for all of our Catholic priests and bishops? Or are they somehow better than the Holy Father and his Nuncio, or are they in possession of some knowledge that the Holy Father and the Papal Nuncio do not have?

If you have read your way through all of the posts, then you should understand that it may not be as simple as you wish to propose, and that it is not an issue of “good enough”.

The Papal Nuncio doesn’t run a diocese, and is not going to take the firestorm or reaction that the bishops will.

There are those who sifmply want to say “Invoke and enforce all the laws, and those who don’t like it can leave the Church; tell them to not let the door hit them on the backside as they go through it”.

That is an easy statement to make when the one making it is not responsible for the souls potentially lost. The bishops are responsible for those souls. Like it or not, we have endured a firestorm of reaction ever since Humanae Vitae was issued. We have gone from a Church with about 70% attendance on a weekly basis, to a Church with about 30-35% attendance weekly. Rome has indicated to Archbishop O’Malley that the rule is “use men” and he is to use his pastoral discretion. You and I may agree that it would be much better to follow the law and use men only; however, we are not responsible for whatever results from that. Rome’s postion is that some rules must be enforced, some should be enforced, and some should be followed but will not be enforced.

It is not an issue of “being better” nor is it one of having “special knowledge”. It is one of being where the rubber meets the road, that is, in a diocese and charged with the salvation of the souls therein, and using the pastoral discretion which Rome acknowleges.

 

[ziggernaut]

If you have read your way through all of the posts, then you should understand that it may not be as simple as you wish to propose, and that it is not an issue of “good enough”.

The Papal Nuncio doesn’t run a diocese, and is not going to take the firestorm or reaction that the bishops will.
otjm;2074882:

–This is true-he doesn’t. However, I can’t help but wonder if the laity had been better catechized by their priests and bishops that there might be less of the firestorm you refer to. And perhaps fewer people choosing not to attend Mass. Just speculating here, of course, as we will never know in retrospect.
otjm;2074882:

There are those who sifmply want to say “Invoke and enforce all the laws, and those who don’t like it can leave the Church; tell them to not let the door hit them on the backside as they go through it”.
otjm;2074882:

–I did not say (or mean) this, though I have heard it said–and I don’t particularly agree with it.
otjm;2074882:

That is an easy statement to make when the one making it is not responsible for the souls potentially lost. The bishops are responsible for those souls. Like it or not, we have endured a firestorm of reaction ever since Humanae Vitae was issued. We have gone from a Church with about 70% attendance on a weekly basis, to a Church with about 30-35% attendance weekly. Rome has indicated to Archbishop O’Malley that the rule is “use men” and he is to use his pastoral discretion. You and I may agree that it would be much better to follow the law and use men only; however, we are not responsible for whatever results from that. Rome’s postion is that some rules must be enforced, some should be enforced, and some should be followed but will not be enforced.
otjm;2074882:

–So you think that Humae Vitae is responsible for the drop in attendance. Perhaps. Begs the question of why, though, doesn’t it? Could it be at least in part the result of, again, Catholics not being properly catechized? And of Catholics coming of age in what has been rightly referred to as a Culture of Death–a culture, by definition, not open to life? A culture that puts “me” before “you” or “them”? And I would, unfortunately, include some priests and bishops in that, too.

Where do all the abuses, many of which I have seen in my own (former) parish church and are, at the very least, overlooked if not actually condoned by the bishop, that the Latin Rite of the Catholic CHurch experiences come from, anyway? Could it be, at least in part, because of bishops and priests and influential lay people putting themselves and their own agendas (“me”) before the Magisterium of the Church and those very souls you referred to earlier that the bishops are responsible for ('you" & “them”)?
otjm;2074882:

It is not an issue of “being better” nor is it one of having “special knowledge”. It is one of being where the rubber meets the road, that is, in a diocese and charged with the salvation of the souls therein, and using the pastoral discretion which Rome acknowleges.

–Ok, I would agree with you about that. I would only add that some of those, and I personally know a few, charged with the salvation of souls may, and I stress the word “may”, be in for a big surprise one day. And perhaps not a very nice one at that.

There is more I could say in response to you here, but I’m about to head out and won’t be back until Monday, so…

God Bless You!
Christos Voskrese!

 

[otjm]

–This is true-he doesn’t. However, I can’t help but wonder if the laity had been better catechized by their priests and bishops that there might be less of the firestorm you refer to. And perhaps fewer people choosing not to attend Mass. Just speculating here, of course, as we will never know in retrospect.

I was around when HV was published. The reaction was immediate and truly intense. there had been so much speculation concerning what Paul 6th would do, especially when the majority report was leaked. Many priests and bishops tried to catechize, and it didn’t go much of anywhere.

–So you think that Humae Vitae is responsible for the drop in attendance. Perhaps. Begs the question of why, though, doesn’t it? Could it be at least in part the result of, again, Catholics not being properly catechized? And of Catholics coming of age in what has been rightly referred to as a Culture of Death–a culture, by definition, not open to life? A culture that puts “me” before “you” or “them”? And I would, unfortunately, include some priests and bishops in that, too.

No, I think the issues are much more complex than just blaming HV; but that is certainly the epicenter of the quake. It is hard to catechize anyone in a world so thoroughly saturated with sex just about everywhere you look. It has gotten to the kids before they have enough common sense to be able to separate out what they are being taught through the media daily from what the Church may teach them about what - one or two days in a class that already bores them? And parents don’t seem to know how to overcome or deal with the issue at all. In fact, parents seem oblivious to what the children are seeing; perhaps because they too have become anesthetized.

Where do all the abuses, many of which I have seen in my own (former) parish church and are, at the very least, overlooked if not actually condoned by the bishop, that the Latin Rite of the Catholic CHurch experiences come from, anyway? Could it be, at least in part, because of bishops and priests and influential lay people putting themselves and their own agendas (“me”) before the Magisterium of the Church and those very souls you referred to earlier that the bishops are responsible for ('you" & “them”)?

Again, no. It started right after changes started in the liturgy. There had been experimentation in the liturgy before the changes occured; but that was pretty much under the supervision of the Church (that will surprise some, but liturgical thinking actually did occur prior to Vatican 2, and it was certainly not all outside the permission of the Church). What happened wass that there was perceived to be a permission to do further experimentation - whther or not it was cctually given. And it was not, in spite of many’s feelings, done with an attitude of purposeful illitness. Many who did experiment were wanting to do things well; there was, however, a pervasive lack of common sense. One needs to keep in mind that it was occuring at the same time that there were massive changes going on in society.

We agree that all of us are going to be called to an accounting. may God be merciful.

 

[dessert]

Well it is late Saturday and very soon Easter Hholy Sunday so God Bless you all thhis day.

We had a wonderful mass on Thursday, it started at 7pm and our priest started it out by prostrating himself for prayer in front of the chair he sits at. this was different and he did not ask us to only to stand and pray. Then we had some wonderful readings and music and then he went around just him and wahed peoples feet just the one foot and they sat at the ouside of the pew and it was a choice of anyone who liked and I woould say he had about a couple dozen , I did not look so I can’t say if he did wash a woman foot. But I think he did (He just rinsed the foot and dried it )
Then the rest of mass and then he used inscence and a procession out and we all weent to the adoration room(chapel) to pray a moment or till 10 pm and I stayed as we don’t have this all the time so I was there from 7p till 10p and it was a very respectfull mass.

Saturday started at 1p and this was led by a procession of the cross to the front large wood one and then the reading of the passion by three men, this took awhile and I was a little disappoointed that Mary did not have a part in it but i think they could have let her say something at the cross, didn’t she?
Then he had us do a procession up to the altar like communion and kiss the cross or touch and kneel and this took quite awhile and then the rest was communion and the rest of mass and so I got out in time to go to work about 2;30 or so .

May you all have a wonderful day tomoorow I have to work a few hoours but not all day.

‘Jesus, thank you for your death for me. Help me to empty my life before you. May your Spirit reshape my heart, so that my heart becomes a fit place in which you may abide forever.’
WoAUs pub. Dessert

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

That is an easy statement to make when the one making it is not responsible for the souls potentially lost. The bishops are responsible for those souls. Like it or not, we have endured a firestorm of reaction ever since Humanae Vitae was issued. We have gone from a Church with about 70% attendance on a weekly basis, to a Church with about 30-35% attendance weekly.

You could insert lots of issues into the same scenario, but if souls are lost because a priest or bishop obediently followed a rubric, they were quite possibly lost long ago, and perhaps never “had/found/saved” to begin with.

 

[dessert]

You could insert lots of issues into the same scenario, but if souls are lost because a priest or bishop obediently followed a rubric, they were quite possibly lost long ago, and perhaps never “had/found/saved” to begin with.

I get the point but are we suppose to be blindly obedient?
To our priest when they change directions about 180 as now in fact I noticed this Lenten season he does not say the full creed anymore and we just say I do. This is fine with me but there are people that can not handle such a change. They cannot and it is not because they are lost souls and not because they are not saved. We are human beings not robots and it seems to me the bishops are giving the priests orders but we are not told before hand not because we have any say in the matter but just because why 's and is there something wrong with a why/ It is usually followed by and ! explanation. I’m lost. Is there something wrong with being explained or is it if you don’t like it lump it or get out.
So this pastoral descision is spoken like a dictator and not in charity. and otheres are thinking well I will just go to another church but hello wake up and smell the coffee it is happening everywhere. i think a little consideration is in order along with the order. IMHO Dessert

 

[hopefull]

Well, last year we had women washing the pastor’s feet. (Yes, you read that right.) Figure that one. That was one of the reasons (among many) that I went to a different church this year, where only men’s feet were washed,and all by the priest.

 

[ziggernaut]

I can see that this issue could be discussed *ad infinitum *without much, if any, consensus or resolution being reached even though we can certainly learn much from each other, which is always useful.

It seems to me that it is really up to Rome to choose bishops wisely, to instruct them thoroughly and properly, to oversee them diligently and lovingly, and to help them and us to resolve these issues with some kind of finality. All of which is out of our hands. And yes, I am aware that there has been, is, & will continue to be experimentation and attempts to change things. However, I really do fail to see what the tremendous difficulty is in following the Magisterium, and in following the rules as they have been handed down by Rome. If bishops and parish priests are afraid of “firestorms” to such an extent that they would run the other way, then God help us, and them.

As an example, I have heard that upwards of 90% of Catholics practice artificial birth control(abc). Many of them may not know that that is a grave sin and are therefore not culpable. If they are church-goers and do not know, who then is responsible for that? If they are church goers and do know, and still receive communion, they are obviously culpable before God. If the priest were to inform (remind?) his parishioners in his homilies (or via some other method) that using abc was a grave sin and needed to be confessed (and discontinued!) before receiving communion, I wonder how many would do that, and how many would just stop coming to church. With that knowledge, who would be responsible for the drop in attendance, should that happen? The priest, who also has a soul to save? Or those people who, with full knowledge that what they are doing is a grave sin, choose to continue to do so and to stop coming to church? My guess is that it would be the latter, not the former. And there may, indeed, be a firestorm of protest and the vacating of pews. So what is more important here, the number of rear-ends in pews, or faithful adherence to the doctrines of the Church no matter how many or how few rear-ends are in those pews?

Are we Catholics because we attend a Catholic church on Sunday, or because we actually believe what the Nicene Creed says, are willing to adhere to the doctrines and the Magisterium of the Church (even if we don’t like some of them) and attend a Catholic church on Sunday?

Now, I’m not equating the use of abc with the foot washing of women. At least not in terms of seriousness. One is obvioiusly a grave sin while the other is a “mere” illicit practice in the liturgy. There seems to me to be a parallel, however, though not necessarily a strict one, between the two when it comes to principle and to the principle of obedience. If certain priests and bishops have a problem with what is handed down from Rome, are there not ways and means in place for addressing them short of just saying, “I’ll do it my way”? There is discretion, and discretion that remains within the context of fealty to the letter and spirit of the “law”. Kind of like the difference between an informed conscience and a properly* informed conscience.

My wife and I have attended a Roman Catholic church for the past 3 years, for a number of family/personal reasons, in a parish where liturgical abuses abound. The bishop, unless he is deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid, having presided at Mass a number of times over those 3 years, has got to be aware of them, and has obviously chosen to overlook them, thus depriving the parishioners of the Mass the Church has approved and given them and which they deserve. I have written to the pastor and received no reply. I have emailed him and have received no reply. The bishop obviously is not interested. I guess my next step is a letter to the Papal Nuncio–you know, that guy who has no diocese, who washed the feet of 12 men . Well, actually, my next step is to start attending, thanks be to God, a Byzantine Catholic church again. And when I get around to it, then I’ll write the Nuncio.

The Byzantine Church has plenty of its own problems, but liturgical abuse and faithful adherence to the Divine Liturgy as it has been handed down to us do not seem to be among them.

Wow, I really didn’t mean to be this wordy-guess I had to get all that off my chest!

God Bless and Christos Voskrese!*

 

[MaryBeth]

We are wondering if there is an official church teaching on only washing men’s feet at the Holy Thursday mass. If so, can someone direct me to that teaching?

Thanks you! Mary

 

[dylanschrader]

The liturgical rubrics describing the rite of the Mandatum at Mass on Holy Thursday use the Latin word viri, that is, “men” in the sense of males. It says that the priest washes the feet of twelve men.

The document Paschale Solemnitatis does the same.

1. 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.

There was a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship to Bishop O’Malley, permitting him to allow women to take the place of men in the Mandatum, but this permission was for that particular case and has not been extended outside of that diocese.

 

[Lizard]

Last year, our bishop told all the parishes that they could include only men in the Mandatum. If you go to charlottediocese.org/bishopjugis.html and scroll down to “Washing of feet on Holy Thursday (April 2006),” you can read the statement he published in our diocesan newspaper.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

We are wondering if there is an official church teaching on only washing men’s feet at the Holy Thursday mass. If so, can someone direct me to that teaching?

Thanks you! Mary

You won’t find a Church “teaching” on the matter, because the rite of foot washing is not a doctrine of the Church but a disciplinary practice, a matter of her positive law. The Church’s discipline on the matter can be found in the liturgical rubrics, which have been cited at various points throughout the thread. All clearly show that “men,” not “human beings,” are to be used.