Washing Feet on Maundy Thursday

[pnewton]

No. I won’t agree to disagree.

To quote Galileo, “And yet it moves.” In other words, there are many priests as well as bishops that have not chosen to agree. This reality remains.

For me, this whole topic is academic. I have no say over the matter. If I did, I would use twelve men, or not do it at all, or wash the feet of all who wish after Mass, that way there are no rubrics. I have always though singling out twelve people in a parish is a little of a minefield.

 

[zab]

For over 20 years now, our last three pastors have only washed the feet of altar servers, all boys (we have no girl altar servers).

 

[FrDavid96]

To quote Galileo, “And yet it moves.” In other words, there are many priests as well as bishops that have not chosen to agree. This reality remains.

For me, this whole topic is academic. I have no say over the matter. If I did, I would use twelve men, or not do it at all, or wash the feet of all who wish after Mass, that way there are no rubrics. I have always though singling out twelve people in a parish is a little of a minefield.

It’s not that they disagree with me, but they disagree with the Church, and they choose to defy the Church.

The problem with what you wrote above is that it’s the equivalent of saying that there’s no law against bank robbery because people rob banks.

Do I know that there are pastors out there doing it? Of course I do. The fact that they are doing it doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t change the fact that they are acting beyond their own competence–there is no way around this. It’s an act of disobedience to the Church—that fact remains unless the law is changed or some kind of dispensation is granted.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

It’s not that they disagree with me, but they disagree with the Church, and they choose to defy the Church.

The problem with what you wrote above is that it’s the equivalent of saying that there’s no law against bank robbery because people rob banks.

Do I know that there are pastors out there doing it? Of course I do. The fact that they are doing it doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t change the fact that they are acting beyond their own competence–there is no way around this. It’s an act of disobedience to the Church—that fact remains unless the law is changed or some kind of dispensation is granted.

So everyone is defying the Church including the Pope? Including the UCCB as you can see what they have written on it.

With all due respect Fr, what makes your interpretation the final say so? Why doesn’t the Pope have the final say?

I just find that in a world that is rapidly going to hell that its fascinating that every year there is this same argument over the washing of the feet. And we can’t even agree to disagree.

In the grand scheme of things I have to worry about and crosses I have to bear…this is not even on the radar. So whether you agree to disagree or not…the world goes on and this argument about whether the Pope is right or not or has the authority to wash woman’s feet does no good. Definitely no good in winning souls.

 

[FrDavid96]

So everyone is defying the Church including the Pope? Including the UCCB as you can see what they have written on it.

With all due respect Fr, what makes your interpretation the final say so? Why doesn’t the Pope have the final say?

I just find that in a world that is rapidly going to hell that its fascinating that every year there is this same argument over the washing of the feet. And we can’t even agree to disagree.

In the grand scheme of things I have to worry about and crosses I have to bear…this is not even on the radar. So whether you agree to disagree or not…the world goes on and this argument about whether the Pope is right or not or has the authority to wash woman’s feet does no good. Definitely no good in winning souls.

You obviously don’t know what you’re writing about.

First, it is not “my interpretation” not by a long shot. It’s the liturgical law of the Church.

Your assumption that “the USCCB has written on it” is an expression of your own ignorance. The USCCB wrote no such thing. One person wrote it as a personal opinion published in a newsletter. It has no force of law. In fact, the opposite is true because it contradicts the Church and suggests disobedience to the Church’s norms.

There’s no reason for me to answer “why doesn’t the pope have the final say?” because you’re just spewing nonsense. If you were actually aware of the situation, you would know that the law of the Church, which the Pope has chosen NOT to change is that only men participate in the rite. So, I’m not the one who disagrees with the Pope; you are.

You have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.

Just because you think that you know more than the Pope and the Catholic Church doesn’t give you any right to try to impose what you want on the rest of the Church. The Catholic Church isn’t Burger King. We don’t have the slogan “have it your way.”

 

[pnewton]

The problem with what you wrote above is that it’s the equivalent of saying that there’s no law against bank robbery because people rob banks.

It would be the equivalent if most of the people out there were robbing banks, not a handful of criminals.

It’s an act of disobedience to the Church-

Let me just say that I would never be as comfortable saying that about any priest as you are. I will not believe it is a very serious issue, right or wrong, until someone authoritatively speaks.

I also note that in one diocese where the bishop did address this, all his priest but two complied and those two declined to wash any feet. I do not see the disobedience as strongly as you do, or feel as strongly about it at all. I am sorry if those that are engaging in this practice makes you angry.

 

[FrDavid96]

It would be the equivalent if most of the people out there were robbing banks, not a handful of criminals.
Let me just say that I would never be as comfortable saying that about any priest as you are. I will not believe it is a very serious issue, right or wrong, until someone authoritatively speaks.

Someone with authority HAS spoken. It’s in the Roman Missal.
It’s like your reference to Galileo, you can deny that it’s there, but it won’t change the fact that it is there.
Vatican II clearly states, and the Church has reiterated many times over the past 50 years that the Church’s liturgy cannot be changed except by the supreme authority of the Church.

I also note that in one diocese where the bishop did address this, all his priest but two complied and those two declined to wash any feet. I do not see the disobedience as strongly as you do, or feel as strongly about it at all. I am sorry if those that are engaging in this practice makes you angry.

Complied with what? Complied with the Roman Missal, or complied with instructions to disregard what’s in the Missal? (frankly I’d rather leave that as a rhetorical question because it could lead to naming names).

It’s not the engaging in the practice that makes me angry. I get upset when people make false accusations against me, when they don’t even know what they’re writing about and are wrong about the facts. I get upset when people disobey the Church by thinking that they can ignore the Roman Missal and do whatever they please. That worries me. I don’t like it when the SSPX says that they know better than the Church what the Missal should say, and I don’t like it when others say that they know better. Is that a problem?

 

[pnewton]

Complied with what?

Their bishop. They obeyed their bishop. This was in Wisconsin.

lacrossetribune.com/news/local/in-the-spirit-diocesan-ban-on-washing-women-s-feet/article_0629d6d4-b814-11e3-b28a-0019bb2963f4.html

Last year, at least two priests — at Our Lady Queen of Peace in Madison and Nativity of Mary in Janesville — took a pass on the ritual due to the male-only rule.

Quick note on lousy reporting - If two priests declined the ritual, it is hardly a conclusion that this rule is the reason, as the ritual is required.

I also hope that no one will take what the Holy Father does tomorrow night as any evidence to this issue. It isn’t. He’s the boss and will do what he wants.

I get upset when people make false accusations against me, when they don’t even know what they’re writing about and are wrong about the facts. I get upset when people disobey the Church by thinking that they can ignore the Roman Missal and do whatever they please.

I understand that first part. No one likes that. As to the last part here, I think we might be stretching to think that all who engage in this are doing it as an act of disobedience or are ignoring the Missal and doing whatever they please. There is a credible possibility that some priests just do not see this. Whether from ignorance or some thought practice, right or wrong, I have to think with the number of priest that wash the feet of women yet obey everything their bishop says and take serious every papal statement, there may not be any sense of doing as they please. Sometimes “pastoral” just keeps getting stretched and stretched without realizing how far it has been stretched. Then we need something like Redeptionis Sacramentum.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

You obviously don’t know what you’re writing about.
First, it is not “my interpretation” not by a long shot. It’s the liturgical law of the Church.

Your assumption that “the USCCB has written on it” is an expression of your own ignorance. The USCCB wrote no such thing. One person wrote it as a personal opinion published in a newsletter. It has no force of law. In fact, the opposite is true because it contradicts the Church and suggests disobedience to the Church’s norms.

There’s no reason for me to answer “why doesn’t the pope have the final say?” because you’re just spewing nonsense. If you were actually aware of the situation, you would know that the law of the Church, which the Pope has chosen NOT to change is that only men participate in the rite. So, I’m not the one who disagrees with the Pope; you are.

You have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.

**Just because you think that you know more than the Pope and the Catholic Church **doesn’t give you any right to try to impose what you want on the rest of the Church. The Catholic Church isn’t Burger King. We don’t have the slogan “have it your way.”

Wow Father…I’ve never had a priest be so disrespectful…We are done here.

BTW…since the Pope has chosen to wash women’s feet…I guess that signals that he agrees that only men should have their feet washed…

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

BTW…for everyone else…it’s on the UCCB website…so if they don’t agree with it…it wouldn’t still be on there…just saying…

 

[pnewton]

Wow Father…I’ve never had a priest be so disrespectful

LOL. I sure have. Don’t forget that we are family and family’s squabble. We are all still human, after all and we hold different “hot buttons” sometimes with good reason.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

"Accounts of Christian foot-washing rituals go back as far as the sixth century. As Peter Jeffrey writes in his 1985 book, A New Commandment: Toward a Renewed Rite for the Washing of Feet, there were generally two forms: the “Mandatum Pauperam,” or washing of the feet of poor people, and the “Mandatum Fratrum,” the washing of the feet of “the brothers.”

Neither were part of the Holy Thursday liturgy, and popes and clerics routinely washed the feet of poor people as a sign of service and humility. In convents, as well, “woman washed feet and had their feet washed,” and they washed the feet of guests and children, said Rita Ferrone, the author of several books about liturgy and a consultant to U.S. dioceses on liturgical matters.

“Foot washing does have a long tradition,” Ferrone said, “and it didn’t exclude women up until 1955.”

That’s when Pope Pius XII simplified the Holy Week rites, a reform that included folding the foot-washing ritual into the Holy Thursday Mass before marking Jesus’ crucifixion on Good Friday.

The problem is that back then, Catholic women were not allowed into the restricted space near the altar and, unlike today, they could not have any part in the Mass. So the rule was that 12 chosen men — “viri selecti” in the Latin — would have their feet washed by the priest or bishop.

With that change, the foot-washing rite also came to be seen as a kind of recreation of the Last Supper and the institution of the priesthood.

“The tradition was not to have it be a dramatization of what Jesus did at the last Supper but to be a response to the command to humble service,” Ferrone said."

And I would guess that since the Pope has washed women’s feet last year and is said to do so again this year…then it seems like he might see it the same way…but that is speculation…as it is to say that he does not see it that way. Could be that he wants it to be men…or could be that he is much more worried about other things then he is about this issue. All speculation from both sides.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

LOL. I sure have. Don’t forget that we are family and family’s squabble. We are all still human, after all and we hold different “hot buttons” sometimes with good reason.

I’ve been lucky…and have known several good priests…and a few not so good ones (who don’t purify the chalices) but they still have all been civil. But I do hear about the other kind being on the Catholic Can Come Home team at our parish. Problem is a cross word from a priest bears much more on souls then a cross word from you and I. But like good family I will pray for him.

 

[otjm]

Someone with authority HAS spoken. It’s in the Roman Missal.

There is that - which no one here in any response to the OP or to others has denied. There is also 25+ years of Rome ignoring something that is not a minor isolated incident, but rather a very widespread practice. And given the proclivity in the past for people to petition Rome, there is no credible presumption that Rome has not been thoroughly apprised of the matter.

Vatican II clearly states, and the Church has reiterated many times over the past 50 years that the Church’s liturgy cannot be changed except by the supreme authority of the Church.

Of course, there is the specifically written rule that people who had received were to remain standing until all had received, and Cardinal Arinze’s response that Rome did not intend to be that rigorous. I can understand a fear that if any rubric is not scrupulously followed, that liberty with all rubrics will follow, but that simply has not been the case. The laxity towards rubrics was a child of the 60’s, and followed along through the 80’s to the very early 90’s, but the influx of John Paul 2 priests has lead the reform to “saying the black and doing the red”.

I get upset when people disobey the Church by thinking that they can ignore the Roman Missal and do whatever they please. That worries me. I don’t like it when the SSPX says that they know better than the Church what the Missal should say, and I don’t like it when others say that they know better. Is that a problem?

Well, it would appear that you have a problem with the majority of bishops in the US; potentially, the great majority if not the vast majority. That is a sad position to be in. It is highly unlikely that they are secretly in sympathy with those agitating for women to be ordained; and given that the 60’s are about 50 years ago, unlikely that that many bishops are liturgical revisionists. Not having spoken with any of them, nor bothered to research if any of them have spoken publicly as to why they do not follow the rubric as written.

The problem is not between the bishops and I; nor is it between you and I ; I don’t have a dog in the fight, and if it did not occur tomorrow at all, I would not miss it. It seems that the issue is between you and a whole lot of bishops, who would appear to see things differently than you do. As to why, I have no idea.

 

[pnewton]

; I don’t have a dog in the fight, and if it did not occur tomorrow at all, I would not miss it. It seems that the issue is between you and a whole lot of bishops, who would appear to see things differently than you do. As to why, I have no idea.

Here, that “tomorrow” is today. So everyone have a blessed Holy Thursday. For me, I will have to miss for work. I think this is the first time since I was Catholic I will miss. I really enjoyed going to the music practice though as it gave me the sense of Triduum. I will make the next three days, and in fact, have to as I do the music.

 

[ringil]

You obviously don’t know what you’re writing about.

First, it is not “my interpretation” not by a long shot. It’s the liturgical law of the Church.

Your assumption that “the USCCB has written on it” is an expression of your own ignorance. The USCCB wrote no such thing. One person wrote it as a personal opinion published in a newsletter. It has no force of law. In fact, the opposite is true because it contradicts the Church and suggests disobedience to the Church’s norms.

There’s no reason for me to answer “why doesn’t the pope have the final say?” because you’re just spewing nonsense. If you were actually aware of the situation, you would know that the law of the Church, which the Pope has chosen NOT to change is that only men participate in the rite. So, I’m not the one who disagrees with the Pope; you are.

You have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.

Just because you think that you know more than the Pope and the Catholic Church doesn’t give you any right to try to impose what you want on the rest of the Church. The Catholic Church isn’t Burger King. We don’t have the slogan “have it your way.”

Father,

I really haven’t seen any priest or religious on CAF post in this kind of tone. Certainly, many of us do this but coming from a Priest- your post comes across as a bit harsh.

I mean this with respect- it just leaves me with a negative impression.

 

[Lapey]

You obviously don’t know what you’re writing about.

First, it is not “my interpretation” not by a long shot. It’s the liturgical law of the Church.

Your assumption that “the USCCB has written on it” is an expression of your own ignorance. The USCCB wrote no such thing. One person wrote it as a personal opinion published in a newsletter. It has no force of law. In fact, the opposite is true because it contradicts the Church and suggests disobedience to the Church’s norms.

There’s no reason for me to answer “why doesn’t the pope have the final say?” because you’re just spewing nonsense. If you were actually aware of the situation, you would know that the law of the Church, which the Pope has chosen NOT to change is that only men participate in the rite. So, I’m not the one who disagrees with the Pope; you are.

You have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.

Just because you think that you know more than the Pope and the Catholic Church doesn’t give you any right to try to impose what you want on the rest of the Church. The Catholic Church isn’t Burger King. We don’t have the slogan “have it your way.”

Fr. David,

I tried to send you a private message but evidently you have that option blocked in your settings. So I will try my best to be as respectful of you and the office in which you hold is required of me. I am ordained to serve the people of God in everyday life and the priests in the liturgies. I have promised to be subordinate to my bishop and his successors and be a herald of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My bishop assigned me to a parish and instructed me that I am to be obedient to him by being obedient to me pastor; and I take that role very seriously along with being a servant to every priest I serve with or come in contact with.

With all that being said, there come times when my obedience forces me to go against words or actions of priests; this is one of those times Father. Part of my mission given to me by Mother Church is to be the eyes and ears of the bishop. Your post here is uncharitable and rude to Annabelle and not necessary. The office you hold deserves more dignity than this post holds and so does Annabelle. We may not agree with her, and I often do not, but we must respect her.

Now, back to this subject. The entire history of the Church has been filled with evolution and change. Confession was not always like it is celebrated today, age of baptism has changed repeatedly, women in the sanctuary or not, and so many other issues have changed. There is much evidence that this change at times has come from the laity and not from the top down; rather from the bottom up. In my opinion you are witnessing one of those changes as it evolves. Like it or not, this change is happening and within a reasonable amount of time the Vatican will have to address it directly. But in the mean time we have what we have. Many members of the magisterium, including Holy Father Pope Francis, have chosen to leave it up to the local bishops and most of the bishops have left this decision up to local pastors. As I have already shared, this is the route my bishop has taken. He leaves the decision to the pastor, with some guidelines.

Fr. David, in my diocese you would have the right to enforce the current written liturgical rule strictly as you see it, men only. However, you would have no say in the neighboring parish who’s pastor washes a cross sectional representation of the parish with inclusion of women and children. This competency you do not hold; neither does your competency level include telling everyone here that their pope, bishop and pastor are outside of their competency and being “disobedient” to the liturgical law, all you can do is state your opinion just like us.

I personally am in agreement with the law as it is, men only; simply because this night is about the institution of the Eucharist and the Priesthood. However, I am obedient to my bishop and he allows it to be decided by the local pastor; my pastor has always held to the law of the missal, men only. There are many parishes in my diocese where they have for years washed the feet of women. One of my deacon classmates has a pastor who allows this and he has struggled with it and has in the past refused to be at the Mass. I do not agree with his action of “protest”; I believe he is going to attend the Mass tonight, but we’ll see.

The only thing consistent in life is change.

 

[dans0622]

BTW…for everyone else…it’s on the UCCB website…so if they don’t agree with it…it wouldn’t still be on there…just saying…

Hello,

It’s hard to disagree with what is said there. It’s a statement of fact as to what happens in some places and gives an explanation (justification) as to why. It does not allow any practice, or forbid any practice. It is entirely irrelevant as far as what is determined in the ritual and who is bound by it.

This controversy is really not that complicated. Everyone (Pope included) who celebrates the liturgy has an obligation to honor and observe the Rites as they are. The law is what it is. Some people don’t follow it and justify their actions in various ways. Fine. There are ways for some stipulations to be dispensed or relaxed. But, on this issue, that simple step is hardly ever–if ever–taken. The regulation is simply ignored or disregarded. This happens with regularity, on a whole range of issues, not just with washing feet.

People who are more “legalistic” (I’ll put myself in that camp) would have nothing to argue about or complain about if those who did not observe the rubric went through the simple process of being dispensed from it. Some smart people think the bishop himself, in virtue of his power of dispensing from ecclesiastical law, could dispense priests from having to observe the law regarding men only foot washing. It is said that Card. O’Malley received some sort of permission to dispense (or something…it’s hard to say what it was, since there is apparently no actual documentation of what was asked for or received) from the Holy See. If that’s the way it has to happen, fine. That is also a simple process, although it takes more time.

I am glad that the Vatican press office has put out a preemptory notification (this year) that the Pope will be washing feet of various people, of whatever faith. Even though I’m legalistic and this doesn’t quite match up with it, I’ll take that as his dispensation of himself from this law.

Dan