Washing Feet on Maundy Thursday

[pnewton]

FYI - In my diocese, we are not mandated to use males only.

 

[otjm]

FYI - In my diocese, we are not mandated to use males only.

I wonder how many dioceses do mandate that, and how successful they are. Given that the bishop is the chief liturgist in his diocese, that would be interesting.

 

[pnewton]

I wonder how many dioceses do mandate that, and how successful they are. Given that the bishop is the chief liturgist in his diocese, that would be interesting.

I found here where Bishop Morlino does not allow women in his diocese to have their feet washed. The only resistance was two priests who passed on the rite, but did not wash the feet of women.

patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/03/wisconsin-bishop-enforces-ban-on-washing-feet-of-women-on-holy-thursday/

I also found this on the USCCB website:

In this regard, it has become customary in many places to invite both men and women to be participants in this rite in recognition of the service that should be given by all the faithful to the Church and to the world. Thus, in the United States, a variation in the rite developed in which not only charity is signified but also humble service.

The meaning of the word becomes irrelevant if a variance is granted. I would hope though that no priest or lay would take umbrage at a bishop who banned women. Such a move in no way reflects a “more Catholic than the Pope” attitude. I can see where a bishop with a serious uprising of the women priests movement might need to take a harder line than the Holy Father on this. That is what bishops get to do.

 

[otjm]

I found here where Bishop Morlino does not allow women in his diocese to have their feet washed. The only resistance was two priests who passed on the rite, but did not wash the feet of women.

patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/03/wisconsin-bishop-enforces-ban-on-washing-feet-of-women-on-holy-thursday/

I also found this on the USCCB website:

The meaning of the word becomes irrelevant if a variance is granted. I would hope though that no priest or lay would take umbrage at a bishop who banned women. Such a move in no way reflects a “more Catholic than the Pope” attitude. I can see where a bishop with a serious uprising of the women priests movement might need to take a harder line than the Holy Father on this. That is what bishops get to do.

Thanks!

This, like not a few other issues, is one where there would seem to be no “winners”. If the bishop (or the priest) does not hue to the published rule, they are in trouble (as can be seen by comments posted - not only for priests and bishops, but for the Pope himself). And if the bishop (or priest) doe follow the published rule, he is bound to take heat from others who are offended, particularly when the USCCB and who knows how many bishops have for 25 years focused on the substance and not the form.

One side wants to focus on a rule for a non-mandatory minor liturgical act, raising it to the level of serious mandatory major liturgical acts, or wants to focus on the apostles while ignoring the message; the other side wants to focus on the substance while ignoring the rule and the rule making authority rather than petitioning for a change, and too often includes people with a hidden or not so hidden agenda.

And neither side seems capable of listening to the other, or acknowledging that there may be some truth in the other’s position.

And then we have our chief liturgist, who appears to be doing everything in his power to evangelize us, who is dissed with accusations of show boating.

It leaves one to sometimes wonder if anyone is really seeking to know and follow Christ more closely.

 

[roadsend]

This rubric of liturgical law clearly says male. This rubric is clearly ignored in many places without being corrected by those in authority.
Lesson learned - it is clearly OK to ignore liturgical law whenever we feel like doing so.
(sarc.)

 

[felsguy]

This rubric of liturgical law clearly says male. This rubric is clearly ignored in many places without being corrected by those in authority.
Lesson learned - it is clearly OK to ignore liturgical law whenever we feel like doing so.
(sarc.)

Might it be more correct to say it is always OK to ignore liturgical law whenever you are the lawgiver.

.

 

[pnewton]

This rubric of liturgical law clearly says male.

That is not the word used in the translation. The correct word is “men”. Even then, there is much more in canon law, like the assignment of the bishop as the one who implements liturgy (not us) and the right of the national church councils to change with permission different parts of the GIRM.

This rubric is clearly ignored in many places without being corrected by those in authority.
Lesson learned - it is clearly OK to ignore liturgical law whenever we feel like doing so.
(sarc.)

Or the lesson could more personal. I will let you work that one out for yourself.

Again, let us recall what the “G” stands for in GIRM.

 

[otjm]

This rubric of liturgical law clearly says male. This rubric is clearly ignored in many places without being corrected by those in authority.
Lesson learned - it is clearly OK to ignore liturgical law whenever we feel like doing so.
(sarc.)

It may be that you are choosing to be sarcastic. But I think that is neither a fair comment nor one based in reality. 30 years ago, there was widespread experimentation and/or ignoring of any number of liturgical laws. That has been abating for quite some time.

As I have noted, we could quibble as to whether this is a law or a rule, something less serious than a law (such as the issues treated in Redemptionis Sacramentum). It is a minor, non-mandatory liturgical practice, to which there has been a significant and wide-spread variation for over 25 years, and one that without any doubt Rome is fully aware. It is not a matter of the GIRM; but if one wants to take the rules of the GIRM as law (and I would), Cardinal Arinze, when questioned about the specific requirement in the GIRM that people remain standing after reception of Communion until all others had received, responded (again, to a specific requirement) that Rome had no intention of being that strict about posture.

And this is not simply a matter of sporadic, “from the bottom up” changes; the USCCB has spoken about the matter publicly - something that I seriously doubt of which Rome is unaware.

 

[otjm]

Might it be more correct to say it is always OK to ignore liturgical law whenever you are the lawgiver.

.

To say that one is ignoring the law is by implication to say that they are bound by it. The Pope is not bound by the law; the Pope is the lawgiver and does not need your permission, mine, the bishops of the United States or anywhere else, any dicastery in Rome, or anyone else’s permission to modify the law. He is the law giver. To imply or say he is bound by the law is a complete oxymoron.

Further, neither he nor any other Pope ignores the law. He clearly intended to teach all of us something.

What he is trying to teach is completely consistent with what else he has been saying; it is not some aberration. The reasons people cannot hear what he is teaching is that they are ignorant of his position as law giver, and they insist on putting form over substance, ignoring the substance by which he seeks to teach. The problem is not with the teacher; it is with the student.

 

[pnewton]

I was just thinking that this is really a rather academic question. I bet few if any at all here have ever had to decide whose feet to wash.

 

[felsguy]

Lesson learned - it is clearly OK to ignore liturgical law whenever we feel like doing so.
(sarc.)

Might it be more correct to say it is always OK to ignore liturgical law whenever you are the lawgiver. .

To say that one is ignoring the law is by implication to say that they are bound by it. The Pope is not bound by the law; the Pope is the lawgiver and does not need your permission, mine, the bishops of the United States or anywhere else, any dicastery in Rome, or anyone else’s permission to modify the law. He is the law giver. To imply or say he is bound by the law is a complete oxymoron.

Further, neither he nor any other Pope ignores the law. He clearly intended to teach all of us something.

What he is trying to teach is completely consistent with what else he has been saying; it is not some aberration. The reasons people cannot hear what he is teaching is that they are ignorant of his position as law giver, and they insist on putting form over substance, ignoring the substance by which he seeks to teach. The problem is not with the teacher; it is with the student.

I agree with you completely.

Apparently it wasn’t clear that I was responding to the previous sarcastic comment in kind.

But it did give you an opening for your very well stated explanation.

.

 

[FrDavid96]

That is not the word used in the translation. The correct word is “men”. Even then, there is much more in canon law, like the assignment of the bishop as the one who implements liturgy (not us) and the right of the national church councils to change with permission different parts of the GIRM.

Or the lesson could more personal. I will let you work that one out for yourself.

Again, let us recall what the “G” stands for in GIRM.

The bishop implements the Liturgy, yes.

He is not competent to change the Liturgy. Which is exactly why a certain Cardinal in Boston realized that if he wanted to do that in his diocese he had to ask for a dispensation (or permission or indult, I’m not exactly sure but that’s academic) from Rome, which he received for his diocese. Without a similar dispensation, no other bishop has the authority to make that same change within his own diocese.

Neither is the USCCB committee on liturgy competent to change the Church’s liturgical norms on their own (although there are a few examples that certain members do/did not seem to grasp this concept). The Conference (not the committee, but the Conference) may propose changes, but those changes must be approved by the Holy See. That has not happened.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Ok…now I know it’s Holy Week as we have the annual fight of the washing of the feet. Kind of a shame that we have such fights when we should be concentrating on our Lord’s passion…

Well…Our bishop allowed women in the past and our new bishop has not changed it. In the past I have had my feet washed but I don’t care to do so this week. However our priest is very, very careful to explain it’s about service. Christ came to serve and our priests are not priests just for themselves but for the service of the parish that they serve.

To me…the Chrism Mass which I will go to tonight is much more about the priesthood. At least I love to see all the priests there and have them renew their vows if you will and to have us promise to pray for them. This will be the first Chrism Mass with our new Archbishop so it will be interesting.

 

[dans0622]

The Pope is not obedient to liturgical law; he is liturgical law. He is the law giver. …

Hello,

You may want to put a nuance or two into those comments. Consider:

After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, … Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not ‘manufactured’ by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . . The greatness of the liturgy depends—we shall have to repeat this frequently—on its unspontaneity (Ratzinger, Spirit of the Liturgy, pp. 165-66).

I think Ratzinger’s principles on how everyone, Pope included, relates to the liturgy are worth noting. I find them to be compelling, even when it is in regard to a rite that was composed only recently, by a Pope.

Dan

 

[otjm]

I agree with you completely.

Apparently it wasn’t clear that I was responding to the previous sarcastic comment in kind.

But it did give you an opening for your very well stated explanation.

.

No, it wasn’t, but that my be due to the fact that I was well beyond a civil bedtime. I sort of had a hint that you seemed to be swapping ends.

 

[otjm]

The bishop implements the Liturgy, yes.

He is not competent to change the Liturgy. Which is exactly why a certain Cardinal in Boston realized that if he wanted to do that in his diocese he had to ask for a dispensation (or permission or indult, I’m not exactly sure but that’s academic) from Rome, which he received for his diocese. Without a similar dispensation, no other bishop has the authority to make that same change within his own diocese.

Neither is the USCCB committee on liturgy competent to change the Church’s liturgical norms on their own (although there are a few examples that certain members do/did not seem to grasp this concept). The Conference (not the committee, but the Conference) may propose changes, but those changes must be approved by the Holy See. That has not happened.

Again, I would reference the comment by Cardinal Arinze, to Cardinal George’s dubium, (which, by the way, was not a private one, but was on behalf of the USCCB, which was wrestling with the question). Cardinal Arinze seems to have a sense of lesser and greater strictness concerning liturgical rules and said as much. And his answer is consistent with the Mediterranean model of looking at law, while yours is clearly the Germanic approach.

Do you really, truly believe that Rome has not been aware of a significant number of incidents over the last 25 years and by silence has not indicated that they are not going to step in and correct the matter?

I am not promoting one side or the other. I have no problem whatsoever if 12 men are chosen. The angst, however, never seems to abate, and all the while, the silence is deafening from Rome.

 

[otjm]

Hello,

You may want to put a nuance or two into those comments. Consider:

I think Ratzinger’s principles on how everyone, Pope included, relates to the liturgy are worth noting. I find them to be compelling, even when it is in regard to a rite that was composed only recently, by a Pope.

Dan

I agree with you about nuance; I would never presume that the Pope would alter significant liturgical elements of the Mass on his own. I do not question that he could do so, but would not do so; the likelihood of our ever getting a pope that was free wheeling with the liturgy in general is something less than zero.

Again, in general and to a very significant degree, Americans are notoriously Germanic in their approach to law, which is another way of saying rigid. Rome does not appear to be fast and loose; but neither would I characterize it as rigid.

I am not in the least surprised by Pope Francis’ washing the feet of a Muslim girl, and teenage delinquents. But as the lawgiver of the Church, whether that is normally and in most circumstances exercised after significant consultation, it is within his right in a minor, non mandatory liturgical ritual, to differently than what is on the books. And it is not like this has not been going on for 25+ years at least in the US (and I suspect, it is not a secret in other parts of the world).

Again, he is trying his mightiest to teach. The reactions are indicative that the students in at least some circumstances are not in a position to be taught.

In my posts, I do not presume that we should expect all sorts of liturgical changes. But the chatter that, for example, he has to do this with the Magisterium (I presume they meant with the proper dicasteries) is simply wrong.

What is said, is significant. What is not said, especially for long periods of time when one would expect it to be addressed, is every bit as significant.

 

[FrDavid96]

Again, I would reference the comment by Cardinal Arinze, to Cardinal George’s dubium, (which, by the way, was not a private one, but was on behalf of the USCCB, which was wrestling with the question). Cardinal Arinze seems to have a sense of lesser and greater strictness concerning liturgical rules and said as much. And his answer is consistent with the Mediterranean model of looking at law, while yours is clearly the Germanic approach.

Do you really, truly believe that Rome has not been aware of a significant number of incidents over the last 25 years and by silence has not indicated that they are not going to step in and correct the matter?

I am not promoting one side or the other. I have no problem whatsoever if 12 men are chosen. The angst, however, never seems to abate, and all the while, the silence is deafening from Rome.

I’ve often read you comment about Mediterranean versus Germanic interpretations of law. That has nothing to do with Catholic liturgical norms. Nothing. We have a Roman Missal and we follow the Roman Missal. It’s that simple. The way the liturgical norms functions is neither Italian, nor German, nor Argentine.

What intentions the Holy See might have, I cannot comment on them, because I’m in no position to know anything about what happens behind the closed doors, beyond what’s released to the public. Speculating about “why” Rome has not done more to address this issue is really pointless. I do, however, agree entirely with your comment that the silence is deafening on this issue. That I do see as problematic. As far as I’m concerned, if they want to allow the change, then come right out and say that it’s allowed. If they don’t want to allow it, then they need to be more firm in dealing with situations of persons acting beyond their own competence. The current silence sets a bad precedent, and precedent is of extreme importance when it comes to matters liturgical.

What I do know is what I posted earlier. That it is not within the competence of the local pastor or even the bishop to alter what’s clearly stated in the Roman Missal. It’s likewise not within the competence of a committee; and while they don’t outright say that it’s allowed, they comment on the issue in such a way that it makes it seem as if they’re saying it’s allowed.

Personally, I’d like to see the whole foot washing thing removed from the Mass of the Lord’s Supper. I’ve always done it at my own parishes over the years even though it’s an option because it’s “expected.” But frankly, every year I get closer and closer to finally dropping it. If I ever get transferred to a parish where the previous pastor was not doing it, I would not hesitate one bit in continuing to omit it.

 

[Tigg]

**I’ve often read you comment about Mediterranean versus Germanic interpretations of law. That has nothing to do with Catholic liturgical norms. Nothing. We have a Roman Missal and we follow the Roman Missal. It’s that simple. The way the liturgical norms functions is neither Italian, nor German, nor Argentine.
**
What intentions the Holy See might have, I cannot comment on them, because I’m in no position to know anything about what happens behind the closed doors, beyond what’s released to the public. Speculating about “why” Rome has not done more to address this issue is really pointless. I do, however, agree entirely with your comment that the silence is deafening on this issue. That I do see as problematic. As far as I’m concerned, if they want to allow the change, then come right out and say that it’s allowed. If they don’t want to allow it, then they need to be more firm in dealing with situations of persons acting beyond their own competence. The current silence sets a bad precedent, and precedent is of extreme importance when it comes to matters liturgical.

What I do know is what I posted earlier. That it is not within the competence of the local pastor or even the bishop to alter what’s clearly stated in the Roman Missal. It’s likewise not within the competence of a committee; and while they don’t outright say that it’s allowed, they comment on the issue in such a way that it makes it seem as if they’re saying it’s allowed.

Personally, I’d like to see the whole foot washing thing removed from the Mass of the Lord’s Supper. I’ve always done it at my own parishes over the years even though it’s an option because it’s “expected.” But frankly, every year I get closer and closer to finally dropping it. If I ever get transferred to a parish where the previous pastor was not doing it, I would not hesitate one bit in continuing to omit it.

Thank you for your post, Father. There is another thread regarding the bolded above. See specially Post #32. Would you be willing to duplicate your comments above to this thread so as to clear up some apparent confusion? Thank you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=874040&page=3

 

[fre803]

I couldn’t care less if the Church should decide to change the rubric to permit the washing of women’s feet, or to eliminate the Mandatum entirely, but the rubric currently says “viri selecti,” and so the feet washed ought to be those of “viri selecti.” Period.

Washing women’s feet is an arrogant act of willfulness and—even if one happens to be the pope—disobedience. (The pope has the authority to change the law, even to dispense himself from following the law, but unless he does one or the other of those things, he is still legally and morally obligated to follow the law. That the pope is Supreme Judge and Legislator does not mean ‘when the pope does it, that means it is not unlawful’ as Pope Nixon I would have had it.)

Viri selecti. Change it or obey it. I couldn’t care less which.