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

  • Thread starter Thread starter aetratus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
Go back and read through the thread, there are also quotes which say otherwise.

In my diocese, the Bishop has allowed for the washing of the feet of women. It has been this way for many years.

Jim
Click to expand...
None of the quotes otherwise are authoratative as they are not from the Vatican.
We have the one quote which is a comment from the USCCB site which is just a comment, and some vague statements.

My Bishop sometimes does things that are improper.
There is a Cardinal who continues to consecrate wine in glass pitchers, that doesn’t make it right.
Even when he says it is a custom.

My parish continues to do things wrong, doing things wrong do not make it right.
If I get up there with the Priest and concelebrate as a layman, and it becomes our parishes’ custom does it make it right?

So again it is wrong to permit foot washing of women on Holy Thursday, it is disobedient.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Can we have a moratorium on talking about foot washing until, say, Divine Mercy Sunday?

Seriously, enough with it.
 
scylla said:
None of the quotes otherwise are authoratative as they are not from the Vatican.

So again it is wrong to permit foot washing of women on Holy Thursday, it is disobedient.

God Bless
Scylla
Click to expand...
Again, it is my understanding that Archbishop O’Malley received a response to a dubium that he had the pastoral ability to otherwise. I do not have a copy of the dubium, but I do not have reason to question particularly that it exists.

And if Rome has said that it is within the pastoral judgement of the bishop to do otherwise, then it is not disobedience.
 
It is wrong and broken down says this…
The rubrics state that only men should have their feet washed.

It has become customary in many places to not follow the rubrics.​

So what is a good Catholic to do?
What is the right thing to do, does it represent Jesus and the Disciples or not? Can I wash someone’s hair at Mass?
Follow the rubrics or continue to disobey?

God Bless
Scylla
 
What about U18s? Is this forbidden? Eg at my parish 2 of the 15-year olds from the Confirmation group are going forward.
 
I could be wrong, so please post a link to this authorization to wash women’s feet from the Vatican.

All I have seen is statements to the negative, even the one from the USCCB site which essentially states, that the rubrics state that only men should have their feet washed and it has become the practice to do otherwise.

God Bless
Scylla
 
introibo said:
Can we have a moratorium on talking about foot washing until, say, Divine Mercy Sunday?

Seriously, enough with it.
Click to expand...
But then the problem will continue and everyone will forget about it.

Truth must be defended even if it is uncomfortable.

Why not merge this with the other thread…

God Bless
Scylla
 
At our parish, the First Communion class reenacts the Last Supper at the Holy Thursday Mass. After they finish their play, each child pulls someone from the congregation (usually a parent or sibling) and washes that person’s foot.

It has the potential to be cute, but the holy Mass is not the place for cute skits.
 
scylla said:
I could be wrong, so please post a link to this authorization to wash women’s feet from the Vatican.

All I have seen is statements to the negative, even the one from the USCCB site which essentially states, that the rubrics state that only men should have their feet washed and it has become the practice to do otherwise.

God Bless
Scylla
Click to expand...
It appears that the Cardinal did not release the response from the Vatican. The information was noted in a public newspaper in Boston, and in the Q & A of Adoremus.

The bottom line is that it makes better theological sense to wash only men’s feet, it is the rubric, it it seems to have become a point of battle, and it appears that Rome is not willing to wade further into the issue.

And if it is correct that Rome does not wish to make a point of the issue, then it would seem that it will be more of an issue of educating those who wish otherwise on the local level.

Not to make to sharp a point of it, but it appears that John Paul’s statement concerning the issue of ordaining women in 1994 has not had the effect of educating those who wish otherwise. It may be that the issue of washing feet will not be resolved until a generation or two - bluntly, the death of those who so adamantly protest the issue of ordination. More conservative dioceses will probably enforce the viri selectii; or perhaps not have to enforce it as it will come naturally. And those which are more liberal, or those with a farily vocal liberal contingent, will pick other battles.
 
O’Malley’s spokeswoman said yesterday that, as he promised last year, the archbishop had consulted with Vatican officials about his practice of washing the feet only of men on Holy Thursday, a ritual that imitates Jesus’s washing of the feet of his disciples at the Last Supper. The Vatican said, according to the spokeswoman, that O’Malley could wash women’s feet, as is the practice of many priests, including O’Malley’s predecessor, Cardinal Bernard F. Law.
Click to expand...
boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/03/19/omalley_to_wash_womens_feet_in_rite/

Jim
 
Every year on Holy Thursday, we have to suffer through a trilingual ceremony in which each reading is read in another language (English, Spanish, or Vietnamese), and three homilies are preached in these languages by two or three different priests. One year, a Mexican priest asked for a show of hands as to who belonged to which of these three ethnic communities (i.e. “raise your hand if you’re Hispanic”). Not only was this insulting, but African-American parishioners as well as our large contingent of Filipinos were upset at being omitted. Aaargh! That’s what LATIN is for!!!
Also, almost every parish in this area permits and encourages women to get their feet washed, and priests are afraid to uphold the Church’s teaching for fear of castigation by parishioners.
 
I am girding myself for the string of abuses about to be perpetrated at my parish in Pasadena this Thursday night. Not only do they wash women’s feet, they have now begun a “communal” foot washing, in which anyone who wants to can come up and get a foot washed, and then wait until someone else comes up to have their foot washed by the previous person. Last year it went on for 20 minutes while the Mass just stopped. Horrendous, and completely against the GIRM.

EDIT
 
Well, at least everyone gets to spread the Spirit at the same time as they’re spreading athlete’s foot.😃
 
Which was this result…

“’'The Congregation [for Divine Worship] affirmed the liturgical requirement that only the feet of men be washed at the Holy Thursday ritual.” However, the Congregation did ''provide for the archbishop to make a pastoral decision."
From that article cited…

So again I ask do you have a link to a statement from the Vatican authorizing the washing of womens feet.

It seems it is required to wash only mens feet, of course I again state that I could be wrong and would concede the point if anyone can prove otherwise.
It seems to me, the obedient thing to do is follow the rubrics.

Which is the good thing to do, follow the rules or disobey.
What was the sin of Adam, I believe it was disobedience.

God Bless
Scylla
 
We go the the Chrism Mass or another more Traditional Mass that is very far away from us. I had the church secretary tell me to close my eyes and pray when they washed the feet.:confused:
 
otjm said:
However, it is my understanding that Archbishop O’Malley submitted a dubium to Rome concerning this, and Rome’s answer was in two parts: 1) yes, we mean men; and 2) use your pastoral judgement.

The second part of this in plain English is that Rome intends that men be selected, but Rome is not going to interfere, correct, punish, adjudicate, or otherwise get involved with a decision in a diocese where the rubrics are clear, but the diocese either allows or directs otherwise.

In other words, we can use the language of “absolutely not”, and “rebellious wills”, and “the Vatican’s declining to pounce on offenders as a license to disobey”, but the response from Rome seems to indciate that they are entirely aware of the issue, and they are not granting a “license to disobey”, but rather, saying that they would prefer that the rubrics be followed, but that these specific rubrics do not rise to the level of a need for correction.

One could call it a license to disobey; but one could also call it permission to do otherwise if in the pastoral judgement of the bishop, it is deemed prudent. Particularly since Rome has done so.
Click to expand...
The problem, though, is that the supposed responsum to the dubium was never released to the public, by Abp. O’Malley or by the Vatican, meaning that reports of what it may have contained are entirely hearsay and we also have no reason whatsoever to conclude that the Vatican wanted the unknown response to operate as a general principle. I know John Paul II was one to tolerate much disobedience because he would rather “propose” than “impose” correct behavior, which makes it somewhat believable that a communique would be phrased so as to give a clear answer but invoke pastoral judgment along the lines of “you get to choose whether to do the right thing,” but I also know that Cdl. McCarrick flat out lied to the USCCB about a letter he received from Cdl. Ratzinger, so I also wouldn’t put it past the journalists’ source to tweak the contents. That’s a lot of words to say something simple: the only thing we know for sure is what the rubrics say, and in the absence of publicly released responsa from Rome we’re bound to the rubrics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top