washing of feet - how did it go?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fergal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
smrn:
Im sorry that your experience was not a pleasant one…however what my church did was have 12 clergy (priests and deacons) get their feet washed, and then went out to different stations around the church to wash anyones feet who came forward. it was a very communal experience. also very humbling. i do prefer it this way, so that no one is excluded and only some are “chosen”. just my thoughts! but no need to dwell on the bad times! Happy Easter! Our Lord has risen!
Click to expand...
The whole point of the washing of the feet of 12 men is that this is the Mass of the Last Supper, and the chief celebrant represents Jesus. The 12 men whose feet the priest washes represent the 12 apostles.

It is not meant to be a “communal experience” with “no one excluded”. Talking about “no one being excluded” shows a lack of understanding of the meaning and intent of this part of the liturgy.

Furthermore, the liturgy is the liturgy of the Church, and no one, not even a priest, has the authority to change anything in it.

I just wish that all our priests and bishops would realize that the liturgy is not about them and their preferences. It is about worshipping God in the manner laid down by the Church.

I am so tired by all the disobediences. We, the laity, are entitled to a true and authentic liturgy - exactly as laid down by the Church. Love is in the details.
 
40.png
Timidity:
That’s one possibility.

Another possibility is that there’s a bunch of lay people who think they know what they’re talking about, but really don’t have a clue.

So far two people in this thread have told me that the men only requirement is in the GIRM. They’re both wrong. It only takes a second or so to check the facts before posting, but both of these people were so convinced that they were right that they didn’t even bother. One poster (the one you quoted) went as far as to post the relavent paragraph from the GIRM–a paragraph that is no where in the document!

The truth of the matter (as far as I’ve been able to research), is that:


  1. *]The requirement is found in the Sacramentary, not the GIRM.
    *]The priests seem following the guidelines set for them by National (U.S.) Conference’s Committee of the Liturgy.

    It seems very unfair to me to accuse a priest of pride and disobedience when he turns to his bishops for advice, and then follows the advice that they give him.
Click to expand...

  1. Well, I can’t speak to the quotes. People on this board have been known to quote things that are fabrications, provide links and lift quotes that never appear in those links and directly misquote various documents. The internet is a vast sea of information as well as misinformation.

    What I can speak to is this: The symbolism of washing the feet of 12 **men **seems perfectly clear and unambiguous to me. As the symbolism of including women in this action seems just as clear, viz. an attempt by man-hating radicals to co-opt my faith and use it to push their peculiar political agenda. I find it offensive and repugnant.

    But then, people have been using religion to push their personal agendas for centuries, now haven’t they? :nope:
 
Dr. Bombay:
What I can speak to is this: The symbolism of washing the feet of 12 **men **seems perfectly clear and unambiguous to me. As the symbolism of including women in this action seems just as clear, viz. an attempt by man-hating radicals to co-opt my faith and use it to push their peculiar political agenda. I find it offensive and repugnant.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with the symbolism that you perceive from including non-men, I must admit that I have a personal preference for just men getting their feet washed.
Dr. Bombay:
But then, people have been using religion to push their personal agendas for centuries, now haven’t they?
Click to expand...
Sad, but true.
 
As the master of ceremonies, I take care of setting up and getting MEN for the washing of feet, in our parish. We usually have only 6 men getting their feet washed, due to the fact that our church is too small to fit 12 men up front, this year, however I was only able to get 4 men.
 
12 people, a mixture of men, women, and children.(Including babies!) I could handle that but not the conglomerated single reading-a “fusion” of all three into a continuous reading(read in parts by 3 people) or the running commentary as to the meaning and significance of the Holy Oils as they were brought forward.(The Oil of Catechumens was brought forth by a young girl who promptly dropped it on the carpet before presenting it to the priest.) I’m also a stickler for proper dress, especially if you’re participating in a ceremony, and the teens wore ratty jeans and tennis shoes, and no socks!
 
We had even mix, 6 men, 6 women. The bishop himself did the washing, i held the tray for used towels 😃 …i had read previously about washing womens feet being incorrect, and when i asked our bishop about it, he said “i see nothing wrong with it, and besides, the bishop of boston is doing it”… i was not satisfied with that, although i have not had time to show him my findings since
 
40.png
jax8686:
i was not satisfied with that, although i have not had time to show him my findings since
Click to expand...
Do your finding include the 1987 statement from the Chairman of the (U.S.) Bishops Committee on the Liturgy?
 
I believe it was our confirmation class that had their feet washed. All teenagers, boys and girls.
 
I noticed that at the Holy Thursday Mass at St. Pete’s, 12 men (priests in fact) had their feet washed.

It was good to see the home office following the directives of the Church, and not the cravings of popular culture.
 
40.png
Timidity:
Do your finding include the 1987 statement from the Chairman of the (U.S.) Bishops Committee on the Liturgy?
Click to expand...
You are speaking of the Holy Thursday Mandatum. HTM never received approval by the Holy See to have legislative force.

You should consider reading the circular letter Paschale Solemnitatis that was released on January 16, 1988 – almost a year after HTM.

Many of our bishops seem to be knuckling under to the pressures of sexism. Just another example of many of them loosing credibility by following popular culture and not the Church.
 
40.png
Timidity:
That’s one possibility.

Another possibility is that there’s a bunch of lay people who think they know what they’re talking about, but really don’t have a clue.

So far two people in this thread have told me that the men only requirement is in the GIRM. They’re both wrong. It only takes a second or so to check the facts before posting, but both of these people were so convinced that they were right that they didn’t even bother. One poster (the one you quoted) went as far as to post the relavent paragraph from the GIRM–a paragraph that is no where in the document!

The truth of the matter (as far as I’ve been able to research), is that:

  1. *]The requirement is found in the Sacramentary, not the GIRM.
    *]The priests seem following the guidelines set for them by National (U.S.) Conference’s Committee of the Liturgy.

    It seems very unfair to me to accuse a priest of pride and disobedience when he turns to his bishops for advice, and then follows the advice that they give him.
Click to expand...

  1. 1.) Both the Sacramentary and the GIRM are part of the *Roman Missal. *Clergy do not have the perogative to ignore the Sacramentary.

    2.) Those “guidelines” you carry no legislative force whatsoever. You want to change the Holy Thursday Mass Rubrics? Petition the Holy See.

    3.) A priest should understand that he is to follow the Sacramentary unless a change approved by the Holy See has been implemented.
 
40.png
Fergal:
I was pleasently suprised for the second year in a row!
All men chosen for the washing of the feet.

How did it go at your Church?
Click to expand...
I was greatly dissapointed once again. Not only those washing, but those(laypersons) doing the washing of both genders.
 
40.png
Fergal:
I was pleasently suprised for the second year in a row!
All men chosen for the washing of the feet.

How did it go at your Church?
Click to expand...
Finally 12 men, for the first time (though I’ve only been a Catholic for a whopping 3 years). A woman did approach the altar, but she was only there to take pictures. Not sure why…
 
I believe Rome has said washing the feet of women is OK. Our Archbishop has approved it. Even though I’m very concerned that the service aspect is emphasized over the priesthood aspect (and we really need continual reminders about the Eucharist and the importance of the priesthood), it is licit, so maybe we need to figure the Holy Spirit will sort this all out, and quit worrying so much. (And I tend to be on the traditional side of things, but if Rome and the bishop say OK, who am I to argue?) Also, when the RCIA candidates’ feet are washed, it’s really humbling and beautiful.

My 2 cents!
 
40.png
Lamb100:
I believe Rome has said washing the feet of women is OK. Our Archbishop has approved it. Even though I’m very concerned that the service aspect is emphasized over the priesthood aspect (and we really need continual reminders about the Eucharist and the importance of the priesthood), it is licit, so maybe we need to figure the Holy Spirit will sort this all out, and quit worrying so much. (And I tend to be on the traditional side of things, but if Rome and the bishop say OK, who am I to argue?) Also, when the RCIA candidates’ feet are washed, it’s really humbling and beautiful.

My 2 cents!
Click to expand...
1.) If “Rome” said it was “OK” they would have had to change the Roman Missal. That change would have garnered more press than a short story in the Boston Globe.

2.) Your Archbishop does not have the authority to change the Sacramentary on his own.

3.) It is not “licit.”
 
Father Levis (“Web of Faith”) from the EWTN Q & A boards would seem to disagree with you, saying that Rome seems to have allowed it. I tried looking online for related articles.

Whether a speculative story that hasn’t happened yet may or may not garner more press attention isn’t relevant.

The Vatican told Boston’s archbishop that, regarding washing of women’s feet, he could do whatever he thought best for Boston. By extension, I suppose, that opened the doors.

While I don’t like it, my archbishop (Wilton Gregory) said it was OK. He’s trying to heal bitter divisions in our diocese. If we can’t follow the directives of our Archbishop, who appears to be in line with Rome, who can we follow? Are you saying we are free to substitute our own firmly held beliefs for those of the bishops?

Whether we like it or not, it is licit. Rome has spoken. How much speaking does Rome have to do before people will agree to obey?
 
I apologize for responding in kind to a rather blunt post; Pirana, you are aptly named! 😉 Sorry to be rude–I was just trying to point out that there was a source for my belief that Rome has addressed this issue in favor of allowing women’s feet to be washed; therefore, the bishops have a reason to allow it. I admit the whole thing is a source of much confusion–hopefully Rome will come out with something a little clearer. I’m sorry again if I hurt anyone’s feelings.😦
 
40.png
Lamb100:
Father Levis (“Web of Faith”) from the EWTN Q & A boards would seem to disagree with you, saying that Rome seems to have allowed it. I tried looking online for related articles.

Whether a speculative story that hasn’t happened yet may or may not garner more press attention isn’t relevant.

The Vatican told Boston’s archbishop that, regarding washing of women’s feet, he could do whatever he thought best for Boston. By extension, I suppose, that opened the doors.

While I don’t like it, my archbishop (Wilton Gregory) said it was OK. He’s trying to heal bitter divisions in our diocese. If we can’t follow the directives of our Archbishop, who appears to be in line with Rome, who can we follow? Are you saying we are free to substitute our own firmly held beliefs for those of the bishops?

Whether we like it or not, it is licit. Rome has spoken. How much speaking does Rome have to do before people will agree to obey?
Click to expand...
You have provided no proof, other than an isolated story from the Boston Globe (which means absolutely nothing) and the opinion of Fr. Levis and Bp. Gregory.

What I am saying that that no bishop (except the bishop of Rome of course) can choose to ignore the Roman Missal. Simply put, they lack the authority.

Until the Holy See approves an indult for the Roman Missal, there has been no change…
 
40.png
Lamb100:
I apologize for responding in kind to a rather blunt post; Pirana, you are aptly named! 😉 Sorry to be rude–I was just trying to point out that there was a source for my belief that Rome has addressed this issue in favor of allowing women’s feet to be washed; therefore, the bishops have a reason to allow it. I admit the whole thing is a source of much confusion–hopefully Rome will come out with something a little clearer. I’m sorry again if I hurt anyone’s feelings.😦
Click to expand...
I find this to be a horribly sleazy issue…

The Holy See approved female altar servers after parishes used them without permission long time. My guess is the same thing will happen here.

This isn’t the Holy Spirit working – this is PCism/sexism and it’s creepy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top