S
steymard
Guest
To put it a different way: The Pope is the Supreme Legislator. Let him legislate this and it would all be much more clear.
- Status
L
Lapey
Guest
The Holy Father is not subject to the Liturgical “law” as you see it. He washed teh feet of a Muslum woman/teen last year.
This year he is scheduled to be at a retirement home or a rehabilitation facility to say Mass on Holy Thursday.
I assure you he will wash the feet of women, unless there are none there.
I have a new bishop and this came up at a recent deanery meeting with priests and deacons and our bishop; he reminded us this is not required and it could be left out completely and done outside of Mass for the entire community if you like. But in the Mass he stated that if the theme of the Mass is about the institution of the priesthood and the 12 Apostles then it should be 12 men period.
If a pastor chooses to wash the feet of women it should not be 12 and the theme of the Mass cannot be about the institution of the priesthood and the Apostles. By theme he meant the introduction a and homily should explain in a sense as to why there are women included. He was quite firm on the thought of washing the whole congregation, he said "that is liturgical over-kill and should not be done.
S
SuscipeMeDomine
Guest
[Insert disclaimers here that I’m being a bit snarky and this is meant along with a wink…]
Is he then going to offer to communion to 12 men and exclude everyone else so that the play-acting can continue through the rest of Mass?
And, of course, Scripture doesn’t say anything about instituting the priesthood. According to John, what Jesus told his followers after washing their feet was:
If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet,
you ought to wash one another’s feet.
I have given you a model to follow,
so that as I have done for you, you should also do.
Are women not also called to loving service of others?
L
Lapey
Guest
The Church has always recognised the institution of th epriesthood and the Eucharist on this night at this celebration; that is fact. Can’t change that.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying at all that a pastor cannot choose to wash both. I really do not have a dog in the fight. I see the Liturgical law and I know what it means; it means men only. With that said, Pope Francis made it quite clear last year that he doesn’t hold much credence in that liturgical law and this is what the majority, at least in my diocese, think he meant. I agree with my bishop 100%.
As to your wise crack in the beginning, all I can say is ha ha.
F
fencersmother
Guest
Not knowing any of the “rules” regarding this, but giving my 2 cents from the far back pews - I find it close to offensive to see the women on the altar (at all, but that’s another issue) in their fancy flowing skirts, having their bare feet washed by a priest - to whom they are not… married. It just seems far too familiar for my personal taste though I have watched it done for years - from those far-back pews.
From the standpoint of a married woman, I don’t think my husband would take kindly to ANY man washing my feet, or hands, or hair, or anything.
From the standpoint of a married woman, I don’t think my husband would take kindly to ANY man washing my feet, or hands, or hair, or anything.
P
Phemie
Guest
I can understand you. But in my parish when we started washing feet, instead of drying everyone’s hands
, no men wanted to volunteer. Don’t know why; it’s just as humbling to have your feet washed as it is to wash someone else’s.Over the years we added a few men and that’s how it stood until we gave the task of recruiting those to have their feet washed to the oldest member of the KofC. He rounded up men and for a few years there were no women.
New pastor, new practice: men, women and children, no gender or age excluded. I don’t agree with him but there’s nothing I can say or do that will change his mind.
F
fencersmother
Guest
This is almost totally off-topic but this discussion made me recall the days of my mis-spent youth, when my folks were so glad that our denomination was "foot-washin’ but ne-er snake handlin’ " Wore that as a regular badge of honor.
T
Tigg
Guest
I find it incredibly sad that still, every year we must engage in the Lenten foot fight and even more to our discredit, to imply that women are unwelcome. It’s also incredibly sad that we can no longer believe what we have always been taught - that the priest represents Christ and that 12 men symbolize the male Apostles, who on that very night became our first priests. I think there is much more than liturgical rubrics at stake here and it just might be tradition. That is not to say the rules cannot be changed – maybe that would be best to alleviate all the disorder in the minds of Catholics.
O
otjm
Guest
Obviously you don’t get what I was saying about Christ. Keeping holy the Sabbath - by not working - was something more than simply a liturgical act about washing only men’s feet, or how high the Eucharist is to be held at the exposition. It was part and parcel of the moral law to keep holy the Sabbath; work was absolutely forbidden; not only work, but such small details as how many steps one could take on the Sabbath. For those Jews who sought to obey the moral commandment, Christ’s healing was a violation of significant proportions of one of the most significant moral laws. Christ obviously was making a point.
Christ also was making a point when He washed the feet of the apostles.
We have become stuck; what we see is the apostles; and it becomes thoroughly focused on the fact that He only washed the apostles’ feet. It misses entirely what Christ sought to teach - not just the apostles, but all of us.
Christ - the Lord of all; the King of kinds, God incarnate, did an act which a Jew would not and could not do to another, unless that Jew were a slave, and that is, He took the position of a slave to the master, and was trying to teach us all that we need to treat one another as if we were their slave. That is, we were to have the humility of that relationship.
I have no problem with a parish having 12 men - or less than 12; or for that matter, not washing anyone’s feet, as it is a permissible act, not a mandatory one. At the same time, I understand what the symbol of washing feet is to convey, and changing it from men to include others - children, women, non Catholics, non Christians - removes the focus about apostles, and applies the focus on the humility of the act.
As to this Pope, may I remind you that he is the alter Christus; that he stands in the place of Christ and in doing so, is charged with teaching us how to follow Christ. Following Christ is not about laws; it is about metanoia, about a turning around, about focusing on other and not on self; it is about humility.
The Pope chose a teaching act; and the furor shows that people are not paying attention to what he - the Pope - is teaching; they are paying attention to a minor rule about something that is not even mandatory. He has that authority; and when he exercises it, people criticize him as grand standing, as showing off, and those are some of the milder comments. Another way of saying it is that people are focusing on form, while the Pope is focusing on substance.
The Pope is delivering a hard message; some don’t want to hear it because humility is not their choice. Others can’t hear it, because they are focused on form and can’t see substance.
O
otjm
Guest
The Pope is not obedient to liturgical law; he is liturgical law. He is the law giver.
And being Jesuit trained, he understands the concepts of form and substance; and having a Franciscan spirituality, he understands the concept of humility and is trying to teach us that.
S
sjays
Guest
The Alter Christus / Persona Christi Capitis (may I remind you) is not peculiar to the Pope but is shared by the entire priesthood, of whom the Bishop of Rome is servant of servants and first among equals before God.
Contrary to what has been claimed by some on this thread, the Holy Father does not, of himself, have the power to fly in the face of the Magisterium of the Church and abrogate laws at whim and exclusively for himself.
When Christ broke the Sabbath law he did so as God who had formed the law. This is exactly what the Pharisees saw – a man claiming to be on par with God, and Jesus knew this, and the likely repercussions, which is exactly why he did it. As God he abrogated the law regarding rest on the Sabbath not just for himself but for all that would seek to do the work of God on the day of rest.
Like it or not, as Catholics, we are bound not only by a personal faith in Christ but by the Magisterium – the law and teachings of the Holy Church. And the Church is ‘bigger’ than any individual Pope, for which – given our history – we may be truly thankful for.
Our Holy Father has the duty to teach and we, who profess our faith in one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church have the duty of obedience to that teaching. But the teaching must be expounded through the Magisterium, not by actions that say ‘I can do it because I’m Pope but you cannot because you’re just a priest’, because both Pope and priest act in persona Christi.
The sacred office that every priest holds in the name of Christ and personifying Christ must be in obedience to the teachings of Christ and his Church. I might be moved to ad lib the whole Canon of the Mass and it might be beautiful and meaningful but it would still invalidate the Sacrament. It might be humbling for the Pope to invite a very holy Buddhist monk to preach the homily at Mass in St. Peter’s Square on Easter Sunday and there might be some insights that people could gain from such preaching but it cannot and will not happen because the law of the Church does not permit it.
Personally, I, like you, do not mind the number, colour, age or sex of the feet washed during the Maundy Thursday liturgy. I agree totally that it is a symbolic act that goes beyond the imagery of Christ and the Apostles. However, until such a time as the Holy Father, through the Magisterium changes the standing instructions that those feet be 12 pairs and male, every priest, each exercising his ministry in persona Christi are obligated to follow not the current Pope but the clear teaching of the Church, or to seek dispensation to lead the liturgy to the contrary.
As it stands, there may be great humility and a profound teaching example in the actions of Pope Francis, but the furor you quite rightly mention, suggests that this teaching in its current form has not been successful.
T
Tigg
Guest
I was not speaking of the Holy Father. I was speaking of priests who by their very sacrificial calling are to be examples of obedience and humble submission to the law. And as Redemptionis Sacramentum says, the Liturgy is not theirs to do with as they please.
T
Tigg
Guest
I can expand my vision and concede your point that all members of the Church must serve one another in love, however, we would be wise and not naive to understand that there are hidden currents and agendas within the action of washing the feet of females. (You may read between the lines.) By the simple act of including women, a disobedience in and of itself, it gives rise and occasion to commit other follies of which I have witnessed. Last year as individuals were being called forward by name, a litany of their individual ministries and service to the Church was recited. The focus immediately shifted from Christ to man. The amazing example about the act of humility at the Last Supper was that our Divine and Supreme Lord washed the feet of his creatures! So let’s see now…I am not to emulate this very profound example of humility because my Lord did it Himself, but I am to emulate my fellow (and sinful) neighbor who may or may not be serving community with a pure motivation.
My main and (somewhat obscure) point is that we are called to holiness by doing good and practicing virtue. How does this translate to God’s people if our priests cannot be obedient to something so simple as obeying church law? And is the humility of which you speak above, a higher virtue than obedience? The spirit of rebellion is everywhere and it is insidious. I wonder why we do not see it.
O
otjm
Guest
This issue is running on several threads; you might want to read what has been written elsewhere.
Your point about the Pope is fairly close to what prompted a Moderator’s warning on one of the other threads. You might want to read that thread and contemplate what you have just said about the authority of the Pope.
This matter has been going on since at least 1987 (see the USCCB notes on the matter). Rome has undoubtedly been aware over multiple years of the issue and for at least 25+ years has ignored the matter.
Part of this may be due to two general ways of looking at law; the Germanic and the Mediterranean. The Germanic, in short, is that whatever is not allowed is prohibited; the Mediterranean is that whatever is not forbidden is allowed. I would point out that when the GIRM indicated that people after receiving Communion were to remain standing until all had received, Cardinal George of Chicago submitted a dubium to Rome asking if that was intended as a change to prior practice; Cardinal Arinze’ response was that Rome did not intend to be that rigid about posture. His response is characteristic of the Mediterranean attitude towards law.
This is a minor rule concerning a non-mandatory liturgical act. I am not suggesting that one ignore any and all rules of liturgy; but it is also clear that we have a Pope who is Jesuit trained, with a Franciscan spirituality, who on his legitimate authority determined that the substance of the liturgical act - humility, and how we are charged to treat one another - was more important than the form - all men. People who cannot separate form from substance, and/or who are not aware of the authority the Pope has as chief liturgist, are upset about the matter.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I understand both sides. I understand the Pope’s authority and I understand what he is trying to teach us about following Christ and what that means and encompasses. I am also aware of the rule and from where it stems.
My own personal opinion is that the ceremony disturbs the flow of the Holy Thursday liturgy; if it is not done; I would not miss it. If it is done, I would understand the symbolism if 12 men are used. And I would also understand the message, as opposed to symbolism, if women an/or children are used. I also understand how Rome acts, which is not always how we, as Americans, would have them act; and I understand there is a subtle message in that - one that escapes many.
People are free to address the issue with their pastor; then their bishop, and then with Rome. If enough people address it with Rome, we may see that Rome repeats and strengthens the rule. Given who is Pope now, I would think it entirely possible that the result would be different, that they would allow women and children to be used; and such a result would upset a number f people. However, those who are unhappy with the current practice are free to petition Rome.
O
otjm
Guest
Christ said we will always have the poor with us. I wish he had also said that we will always have the crazies with us.
The best I can say is read my most recent response to sjays. I am not ignorant of those who cannot understand what Pope John Paul 2 issued concerning ordaining women; in part that has to do with a significant lack of catechesis concerning doctrine. I would caution, however, a presumption that anyone who includes women in the feet washing has that agenda.
Should the Church change the rule to include women, there are going to be a number of people who will be mighty unhappy about it. It is entirely possible that could be part of the reason Rome chooses not to act; and it is entirely possible that Rome chooses not to act because Rome does not see the use of women as a significant issue; that is, they do not see the rule as rigid. Why else the silence for 25+ years? It is not as if, among the thousands of parishes in the US, this is a matter of 10 or 20; or for that matter 100 or 200; or even 1,000. I suspect it is very widely done.
And it is quite clear the Pope sees the issue of substance as far more important than form.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think some are missing the purpose of the General Instructions on the Roman Missal. The interpretation and implementation for this is given to bishops then to priests, not us. If a bishop allows men and women, as does the Bishop of Rome, then that is not disobedience. That is his job. On the other hand, judging him, the Pope or any priest because what they do is not what we think is a profound act of arrogance in that it elevates our own opinions over those in authority. There have been many times, many place and many languages where “men” was allowable to be interpreted as human. The same people the bewail the practice of using women on Holy Thursday also bewail inclusive language. You can’t have it both ways.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not know what that quote has to do with the price of tea in China. Are you saying we should strive to be hated?
Try this one.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way
Do you think calling something a publicity stunt is favorable?
P
pnewton
Guest
Hmm. So what is the point? Is it apostolic? I really do not think so because lay people have been used for this. So, I really do not think the symbolism is that these are the people who are apostles. Discipleship? That seems more to the point. Maybe the emphasis should be more on the priest and not those being washed, that it is he that walks as the servant of all disciples. This would seem to fit into more of what Pope Francis does.
O
otjm
Guest
It has been a little while since I took Latin; but my recollection is that Hominem is used for “men”, as in “people”, and when “vir” is used, it means “males”.
But it has been 48 years, so I could be wrong.
As to your last comment; it has amazed me that people who call themselves “conservative” have shown the amount of disdain for the Pope that some of them have.
J
jamessmith
Guest
That is correct. When the missal talks about men (vir) at the washing on holy Thursday, it is talking about those of the male sex, not humans,
- Status