Washing of the feet Maundy Thursday

[Phemie]

My concern for the focus on men only and perhaps men-to-be-ordained has the potential to redirect the focus of the practice to the recipeint (the foot washed) rather than to the foot wash-er…i.e. a remembrance of Christ’s self-service. As such, I see no real problem in washing the feet of women or children in the current day practice.

Unless the practice is meant to be a recreation, more story-telling than symbolism, which it doesn’t seem to me to be, then I don’t see a compelling reason not to be “inclusive”. On the other hand, I see it OK if a particular parish or priest would prefer to have all men.

The compelling reason to not be inclusive is that the Church tells them not to be. If she wanted them to be inclusive (children, women, men) she would have used the word ‘persons’ NOT ‘men’.

 

[Newbie2]

The compelling reason to not be inclusive is that the Church tells them not to be. If she wanted them to be inclusive (children, women, men) she would have used the word ‘persons’ NOT ‘men’.

See, that’s what irritates me about such things. Why don’t they add in a sentence that says something to the effect of men only and why men only?

In any case, what do you think is the most important symbolism here, Christ as servant or Apostles/men as the served?

 

[MarkThompson]

See, that’s what irritates me about such things. Why don’t they add in a sentence that says something to the effect of men only and why men only?

In any case, what do you think is the most important symbolism here, Christ as servant or Apostles/men as the served?

The sentence does say “men” (viri). However, people should be able to distinguish (1) given the way the rubrics are currently written, should a priest wash the feet of men only, or men and women?, from (2) is the rubric a good idea? should it be written differently?

My own view on (1) is, men only; the rubric is perfectly clear. As to (2), I see no theological reason to go either way, so you’re left with pragmatic concerns. On one hand, restricting it to men helps duplicate the circumstances of the original event, which has a sort of teaching effect; it reminds us that the Church recognizes the distinction between men and women; and it emphasizes that the Church is willing to be “politically incorrect” about the liturgy and does not always bow to modern conceptions of everything. On the other hand, as mentioned above, it shifts the emphasis from the priest’s act of service to the “worthiness” of those people chosen to be served; it’s bad publicity and makes us look sexist for the sake of something with no theological significance; and it may cause women to feel that the Church does not esteem them as being as worthy to be served as men.

 

[Phemie]

The sentence does say “men” (viri). However, people should be able to distinguish (1) given the way the rubrics are currently written, should a priest wash the feet of men only, or men and women?, from (2) is the rubric a good idea? should it be written differently?

My own view on (1) is, men only; the rubric is perfectly clear. As to (2), I see no theological reason to go either way, so you’re left with pragmatic concerns. On one hand, restricting it to men helps duplicate the circumstances of the original event, which has a sort of teaching effect; it reminds us that the Church recognizes the distinction between men and women; and it emphasizes that the Church is willing to be “politically incorrect” about the liturgy and does not always bow to modern conceptions of everything. On the other hand, as mentioned above, it shifts the emphasis from the priest’s act of service to the “worthiness” of those people chosen to be served; it’s bad publicity and makes us look sexist for the sake of something with no theological significance; and it may cause women to feel that the Church does not esteem them as being as worthy to be served as men.

I’ve had my feet washed a couple of times, now I don’t volunteer. It’s not about worthiness really. If anything it’s about the propriety of a priest performing as intimate a gesture as washing a woman’s feet. Perhaps one could concede that that alone was a good reason for the Church to say ‘men only’.

 

[diggerdomer]

Will this help? It’s from the Bishops’ website:

"My parish liturgy committee has decided to allow both men and women to take part in the washing of the feet at the liturgy on Holy Thursday. I have always heard that only men may have their feet washed. Which does the Church allow?

The rubric for Holy Thursday, under the title WASHING OF FEET, reads:

“Depending on pastoral circumstance, the washing of feet follows the homily. The men who have been chosen (viri selecti) are led by the ministers to chairs prepared at a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers he pours water over each one’s feet and dries them.”

usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.shtml

I know a lot of parishes will wash women’s feet as well, but they are wrong. I know of one parish where everyone washes feet, which is completely incorrect.

As you’re in the U.S., this is also relevant from the U.S. Bishops’ web site: usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.shtml

 

[Newbie2]

The sentence does say “men” (viri). However, people should be able to distinguish (1) given the way the rubrics are currently written, should a priest wash the feet of men only, or men and women?, from (2) is the rubric a good idea? should it be written differently?

My own view on (1) is, men only; the rubric is perfectly clear. As to (2), I see no theological reason to go either way, so you’re left with pragmatic concerns. On one hand, restricting it to men helps duplicate the circumstances of the original event, which has a sort of teaching effect; it reminds us that the Church recognizes the distinction between men and women; and it emphasizes that the Church is willing to be “politically incorrect” about the liturgy and does not always bow to modern conceptions of everything. On the other hand, as mentioned above, it shifts the emphasis from the priest’s act of service to the “worthiness” of those people chosen to be served; it’s bad publicity and makes us look sexist for the sake of something with no theological significance; and it may cause women to feel that the Church does not esteem them as being as worthy to be served as men.

Good answer.

I am in a little doubt about the clarity of the rubric. It would be better, methinks, to include a sentence about the reasoning for men being chosen; “As the Lord chose only men for his Apostles, we reflect this by having only men being chosen by the parish to have their feet washed in this remembrance”. Something like that.

The Church writes volumes in explaining other things. Exactly for the reason you wrote above (bolded), I think this practice deserves a bit more clarity and explanation.

 

[benedictgal]

As you’re in the U.S., this is also relevant from the U.S. Bishops’ web site: usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.shtml

However, the statement predates the promulgation of Paschalis Sollemnitatis, which is the authoritative document from the Holy See. Thus, as I see it, the document from the Holy See is the prevailing document, as is what is written in the Roman Missal, which we have already seen specifically states the word “men”.

 

[Newbie2]

Does anyone have the quote directly from the GIRM? Maybe I missed it in an earlier post. (Too lazy to go and read them all again )

 

[Phemie]

Does anyone have the quote directly from the GIRM? Maybe I missed it in an earlier post. (Too lazy to go and read them all again )

It’s not in the GIRM, it’s in the Rubrics for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper:

Depending on pastoral circumstances, the washing of the feet follows the homily.

The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to chairs prepared in a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each** man**. With the help of the ministers, he pours water over each one’s feet and dries them. (Bold text mine).

Paschale Solemnitatis says:

1. The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came "not to be served, but to serve.[58] This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.

 

[VociMike]

Good answer.

I am in a little doubt about the clarity of the rubric. It would be better, methinks, to include a sentence about the reasoning for men being chosen; “As the Lord chose only men for his Apostles, we reflect this by having only men being chosen by the parish to have their feet washed in this remembrance”. Something like that.

The Church writes volumes in explaining other things. Exactly for the reason you wrote above (bolded), I think this practice deserves a bit more clarity and explanation.

I agree with you. I’m pretty conservative, liturgically-speaking. But this restriction to men only doesn’t make sense. Or, rather, the Church has offered no explanation as to why it might make sense. Either only wash the feet of future bishops, or wash the feet of disciples (who were and are both men and women). In either case, “any man but no women” doesn’t fit the bill.

The Church is really hanging people out to dry who want to understand, defend and explain her position on this.

 

[zab]

I guess you can say that our pastor has avoided choosing “men” and women to get their feet washed. Twelve altar servers (boys- young and teenage) are chosen by the pastor to have their feet washed.

 

[diggerdomer]

I agree with you. I’m pretty conservative, liturgically-speaking. But this restriction to men only doesn’t make sense. Or, rather, the Church has offered no explanation as to why it might make sense. Either only wash the feet of future bishops, or wash the feet of disciples (who were and are both men and women). In either case, “any man but no women” doesn’t fit the bill.

The Church is really hanging people out to dry who want to understand, defend and explain her position on this.

I agree. I think the U.S. Bishops are struggling with this too from what we see on their web site.

 

[Brendan]

I agree with you. I’m pretty conservative, liturgically-speaking. But this restriction to men only doesn’t make sense. Or, rather, the Church has offered no explanation as to why it might make sense.

Why does the Church owe us an explaination at all?

 

[diggerdomer]

Why does the Church owe us an explaination at all?

See Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy para 14. Also Catechism para 1141. For the faithful to be led to “full, conscious, and active participation” in liturgy requires understanding. If the faithful do not understand, the Magisterium is obliged to explain.

 

[Brendan]

See Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy para 14. Also Catechism para 1141. For the faithful to be led to “full, conscious, and active participation” in liturgy requires understanding. If the faithful do not understand, the Magisterium is obliged to explain.

Perhaps you should read Pope Benedicts “Spirit of the Liturgy”, specifically the final chapter, “The Body and the Liturgy”. It discusses what is meant by 'active and conscience participation.

The faithful are asked participate in the actio of the Mass. In the liturgy of the Word, that means listening attentively to the Word of God proclaimed and the lesson taught in the Homily. In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the primary actio of the Mass, we are to offer ourselves fully and completely to God as our personal Sacrifice, in conjunction with the Sacrifice of the Altar being offered by the priest on our behalf.

The Church has provided more than sufficent instruction for us to actively and consciencely participate in the way called for by Vatican II.

 

[diggerdomer]

Perhaps you should read Pope Benedicts “Spirit of the Liturgy”, specifically the final chapter, “The Body and the Liturgy”. It discusses what is meant by 'active and conscience participation.

The faithful are asked participate in the actio of the Mass. In the liturgy of the Word, that means listening attentively to the Word of God proclaimed and the lesson taught in the Homily. In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the primary actio of the Mass, we are to offer ourselves fully and completely to God as our personal Sacrifice, in conjunction with the Sacrifice of the Altar being offered by the priest on our behalf.

The Church has provided more than sufficent instruction for us to actively and consciencely participate in the way called for by Vatican II.

I’ve read it.

You mean conscious, right, not “conscience”?

 

[Catholicben]

I just noticed that our parish doesn’t only wash the feet of 12 men, but 12 seminarians.

I’m not really surprised, now that I think about it. Our bishop tries very hard to imitate the Holy Father’s Mass in Rome, and he washed the feet of 12 priests. Obviously, 12 priests weren’t available, but 12 seminarians is pretty close…

 

[diggerdomer]

I just noticed that our parish doesn’t only wash the feet of 12 men, but 12 seminarians.

I’m not really surprised, now that I think about it. Our bishop tries very hard to imitate the Holy Father’s Mass in Rome, and he washed the feet of 12 priests. Obviously, 12 priests weren’t available, but 12 seminarians is pretty close…

The problem with that is that the rubrics for the Mass simply say 12 men. There is no indication of any preference for priests or seminarians. Those who restrict the Rite to priests/seminarians are reading something into the rubrics that is not there or required (or necessarily beneficial).

 

[benedictgal]

The problem with that is that the rubrics for the Mass simply say 12 men. There is no indication of any preference for priests or seminarians. Those who restrict the Rite to priests/seminarians are reading something into the rubrics that is not there or required (or necessarily beneficial).

With all due respect, then, what are you accusing the Holy Father of doing? For that matter, Pope John Paul II always washed the feet of 12 priests. The Last Supper was also the ordination of the Apostles. It was a priestly act.

 

[diggerdomer]

With all due respect, then, what are you accusing the Holy Father of doing? For that matter, Pope John Paul II always washed the feet of 12 priests. The Last Supper was also the ordination of the Apostles. It was a priestly act.

With all due respect, I didn’t accuse the Pope of anything.