Washing of the Feet on Holy Thursday

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uxor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We had 12 men - 1st time I’ve ever seen this ritual properly performed. Also only male altar servers. We don’t have any deacons. We had several nuns in black habits in attendance, and a full church - latin was sung and chanted - it was a very prayerful and moving experience.
 
We had women … should we say something to the priest for next year ?
I was listening to Catholic Answers on the radio last week and a caller asked about whether it was permissible for women to have their feet washed as part of the Holy Thursday liturgy. The answer went something like this: a certain Cardinal (I forget his name) wrote to the Congregation for Sacred Liturgy (or is it Divine Worship?) and asked for a ruling as to whether women could have their feet washed. The answer was that a bishop, and only a bishop, could alter the liturgy in a diocese. This goes along with Sacrosanctum Concilium which essentially gives the local ordinary unlimited authority in altering the local liturgy (subject only to Rome over-ruling him after the fact). The point was that no priest could take it upon himself to decide that he was going to change the liturgy. If a priest were to do so it would be the unlawful usurpation of a power that doesn’t belong to him, which in legal-speak would be a de facto act of schism (and probably would incur excommunication latae sentensiae but I don’t know for sure).

The point being, if any priest anywhere washed the feet of women as part of the Holy Thursday liturgy and this was not explicitly approved by the local ordinary, then it would seem that Catholics in that parish might be bound to avoid that priest as though he were a formal schismatic because he would be so materially.
 
We had 12 men - 1st time I’ve ever seen this ritual properly performed. Also only male altar servers. We don’t have any deacons. We had several nuns in black habits in attendance, and a full church - latin was sung and chanted - it was a very prayerful and moving experience.
sounds like you were in a time machine that went back to the '50’s
 
The point being, if any priest anywhere washed the feet of women as part of the Holy Thursday liturgy and this was not explicitly approved by the local ordinary, then it would seem that Catholics in that parish might be bound to avoid that priest as though he were a formal schismatic because he would be so materially.
Wow! There go all of our parish priests. Oh well, thank God for our lone deacon. Now he helped in the washing of the feet. Do I avoid him also??:confused:
 
So, does Christ’s model for serving other people only count for priests?
 
zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=86762

there has been no change in the universal norm which reserves this rite to men as stated in the circular letter “Paschales Solemnitatis” (Jan. 16, 1988) and the rubrics of the 2002 Latin Roman Missal.

No. 51 of the circular letter states: “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.’ This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.”

At your parish were only men chosen for the foot washing ritual?
Bishop Arthur of Leeds washed the feet of six men and six women. He’s not a left-wing trendy type bishop by any means.
 
Yep at my Church. Too bad I didn’t get to go to mine. 😦 We had the washing anyone who wanted to have their feet washed. Didn’t know there were 200 apostles.:confused:
Same thing happened at my parish. I didn’t know it was an abuse, but I did feel quite uneasy about it, so I didn’t have my feet washed. I took a shower before I went to Mass anyway. 😉

In Pax Christi
Andrew
 
Some of you are sad.

That said, we had men, women, children… you name it.

Which is, to say, also sad.
 
Do you perceive only washing the feet of men as being unfair to women?
Not unfair exactly - and I certainly wouldn’t inflict my feet upon anyone!

Just 🤷 I don’t see that the distinction is entirely comprehensible or even necessary in that particular context.
 
Jesus — man.
Apostles — men.

Priest who reprsents Jesus — man.
Chosen 12 who represent apostles — women.

Mmmm,.somethin’s not right about that…
 
Jesus — man.
Apostles — men.

Priest who reprsents Jesus — man.
Chosen 12 who represent apostles — women.

Mmmm,.somethin’s not right about that…
But they’re not just there to represent the Apostles - I know for a fact that there aren’t always and invariably 12 of 'em for starters!!!

They’re there for the priests to fulfil Christ’s command that ‘he who would be greatest of all must be last of all and servant of all’ not just ‘servants of each other’ or ‘servants of 12 other adult males’.

Something not entirely right about only applying this command in a literalistic way …
 
But they’re not just there to represent the Apostles - I know for a fact that there aren’t always and invariably 12 of 'em for starters!!!.
Well there SHOULD be 12 and only 12. That is what the instructions from the Vatican say.
 
well, each year, the Pope washes the feet of 12 priests, is the example of the Pope not worthy of being followed?
The Pope is a man and unmarried - that automatically precludes 90% of us from following his example on all matters, however worthy it may be!

And it does sound pretty clear that he gave local Bishops authority in regard to the regulation of the footwashing. In charity we should not jump to presume that priests who wash the feet of women are being disobedient, either knowingly or unknowingly.
 
The Pope is a man and unmarried - that automatically precludes 90% of us from following his example on all matters, however worthy it may be!
You heard it folks! If you’re not a male, and you are married, then you don’t have to listen to the Pope! Wow!
 
But they’re not just there to represent the Apostles - I know for a fact that there aren’t always and invariably 12 of 'em for starters!!!

They’re there for the priests to fulfil Christ’s command that ‘he who would be greatest of all must be last of all and servant of all’ not just ‘servants of each other’ or ‘servants of 12 other adult males’.

Something not entirely right about only applying this command in a literalistic way
It’s called tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top