Washing of the Feet on Holy Thursday

[paramedicgirl]

Now you’re talking. I like to see a woman who knows her proper place.

 

[paramedicgirl]

IF they know so well what they’re doing then they should be able to TELL US why they’re preserving it - in a way which at least makes some sense!

They’ve successfully done so with women’s ordination, with their teachings on sexuality, loads of other things - if this is so all-fired important to preserve, then why is it that not one of us can give a decent reason as to why? And why was it dumped for who-knows-how-long prior to 1955?

Ummm…they did tell us. Didn’t you read the article that Uxor posted in the OP?

 

[John_Higgins]

His Eminence, Francis Eugene George, Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, washed the feet of men and women at Holy Name Cathedral yesterday.

Good for him.

John

 

[paramedicgirl]

His Eminence, Francis Eugene George, Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, washed the feet of men and women at Holy Name Cathedral yesterday.

Good for him.
John

Hope he had the permission of the Holy See.

 

[LilyM]

Ummm…they did tell us. Didn’t you read the article that Uxor posted in the OP?

Didn’t follow all the links the initial link was just a repetition of opinion that has already been said. My bad.

It would be a lot easier if someone could just find and quote the actual rubric for us rather than quoting a load of fluff and opinion.

In any event I’m not going to assume that Bishops and priests who do so are necessarily acting in disobedience to the Holy See.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Didn’t follow all the links the initial link was just a repetition of opinion that has already been said. My bad.

It would be a lot easier if someone could just find and quote the actual rubric for us rather than quoting a load of fluff and opinion.

In any event I’m not going to assume that Bishops and priests who do so are necessarily acting in disobedience to the Holy See.

Here ya go - From Father McNamara, a trusted source:

The rubrics for Holy Thursday clearly state that the priest washes the feet of men (“viri”) in order to recall Christ’s action toward his apostles. Any modification of this rite would require permission from the Holy See.

Also:

Canon 846: The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Our pastoral administrator (we have a new one) washed the feet of both men and women. Our old pastor hewed to the norm and only men’s feet were washed.

Like the illicit consecration of the Most Precious Blood in flagons, I don’t understand why simple directives from the legitimate authority are so difficult to undertake.

 

[patrick457]

I don’t know about here in Japan, but in the Philippines, men are selected. In fact, the only women I see in the Altar are the lectors.

 

[scylla]

teachccd is in Lost Angeles…
This explains the disregard for Church rule.

To disregard Church rule is sinful as it is disobedience.

In my parish the nun walked up to the chair and had her feet washed first then it spread on up the aisles and everyone washed others feet with a complete disregard for Church rule and respect.

I kneeled and prayed so some good came out of it as it inspired me to pray more.
We have a parish administrator who advocates women priests in RCIA and complains about the oppressive Church. But things are getting better, slowly but surely these people who prefer their own agenda over obedience are getting older.
When I asked about the reasons behind the disobedience and washing womens feet I heard the same dodging of truth answers.
Apparantly when you disobey the Church you gain an ability to answer questions with silly statements about service to others and what would Jesus do.

The Church in the next town does Holy Thursday obediently my parents went there and they have none of the hippy communal feet washing during Mass junk we have.

Why can’t the hippies leave the Mass alone? Next well have twirling ribbons and wicker baskets ooops, already got that at religious ed congress.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[bear06]

Should we be happy with small t traditions being set in stone when the rationale behind them is so darn unsatisfactory and nearly non-existent? ‘It was always done this way’. Big whoop. We know what Jesus thought of the things that were done in his day merely because they ‘were always done this way’. He knew how to separate mere trappings from essential points of faith and practice. And so should we. What were we given brains for if not?

Let me clarify. I’m perfectly fine with male priests, celibate clergy and religious, the entirety of the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality and 98% of other matters that many others have problems with, but this one is totally beyond me.

I mean Jesus only gave the Eucharist to men as well. It would make EVERY BIT as much sense to me, then, if the Eucharist itself were only be given to males. Jesus had the last supper with 12 others. If the sole aim is to recreate it then why not mandate 12 priests concelebrating for a true and correct re-creation, and one other to disappear in the middle?

It’s as frustrating as my first day of algebra, put it that way.

Hears something else to be gleaned from Paschale Solemnitatis:

1. Careful attention should be given to the mysteries that are commemorated in this Mass: the institution of the Eucharist, the institution of the priesthood, and Christ’s command of brotherly love; the homily should explain these points.

The fact that the Magisterium has deemed that 12 men is the norm ties into the institution of the priesthood. This is why the Vatican has specified this in Pashale Solemnitatis. This isn’t the institution of the Eucharist part. And the fact that the Magisterium didn’t put forth “whoever wants to have their feet washed” tells us that this isn’t the brotherly love part or that would be the part everyone should participate in like the Eucharist.

Jimmy Akin also has a piece on this that draws on why we are not aloud to canonically do it:
jimmyakin.org/2005/02/foot_washing.html

and EWTN mentions the “particular case” situation:
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur123.htm

 

[LilyM]

Here ya go - From Father McNamara, a trusted source:

Also:

Yah, I read Fr MacNamara already - not to mention Jimmy Akin who (FINALLY!) gives the complete wording of the rubrics covering footwashing. Doesn’t say there or anywhere else that I’ve seen that they are representing the Apostles.

Pachale Solemnitatis says nothing about it either, nor about the footwashing specifically being to do with the institution of the priesthood - rather about the Mass of the Lord’s Supper as a whole.

As for the institution of the priesthood - the Gospel account of the Last Supper is read at Holy Thursday Mass, is it not? Including Christ’s command to ‘do this in memory of me’? This is the precise moment where the priesthood is instituted, in order that the Eucharist may be perpetuated in solemnity, not the footwashing.

As I have said before - there was a period of time prior to 1955 where the ritual of footwashing was abandoned. Clearly it does not appear to have been an absolutely critical moment in Christ’s instution of the priesthood if this was the case. So it beats me really why we’re blathering about it as if it mattered.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Yah, I read Fr MacNamara already - what are the ACTUAL words in toto of the rubrics covering the footwashing? He doesn’t give them, and frankly I’ve read so much dodgy interpretation of canons, rubrics and blessed scripture itself that I find it difficult to trust anything without going back to the source myself.

Pachale Solemnitatis says nothing of the sort about the footwashing specifically - rather about the Mass of the Lord’s Supper as a whole.

As for the institution of the priesthood - the Gospel account of the Last Supper is read at Holy Thursday Mass, is it not? Including Christ’s command to ‘do this in memory of me’? This is the precise moment where the priesthood is instituted, in order that the Eucharist may be perpetuated in solemnity, not the footwashing.

As I have said before - there was a period of time prior to 1955 where the ritual of footwashing was abandoned. Clearly it does not appear to have been an absolutely critical moment in Christ’s instution of the priesthood if this was the case. So it beats me really why we’re blathering about it as if it mattered.

From the USCCB website here are the words of the rubrics:
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.”

 

[LilyM]

From the USCCB website here are the words of the rubrics:
The rubric for Holy Thursday, under the title WASHING OF FEET, reads:

In other words it doesn’t say twelve, so there’s absolutely no indication that they’re there specifically to represent the Apostles. So still no reason of any description as to why not women.

 

[paramedicgirl]

In other words it doesn’t say twelve, so there’s absolutely no indication that they’re there specifically to represent the Apostles. So still no reason of any description as to why not women.

I guess you didn’t really read it:

“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.”

If you want more, get a hold of this:

Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction on the Correct Use of the Restored Ordo of Holy Week, November 16, 1955 (Washington, DC: National Catholic Welfare Conference Publications Office, 1955), page 6

 

[LilyM]

I guess you didn’t really read it:

:banghead: I can read perfectly well what it says, I want to know the WHY behind it !!!

As in 'artificial contraception is sinful because … (it goes against God’s plan for sex and marriage and leads to wrongful uses of human sexuality), women shouldn’t be priests because … (the priest is there in persona Christi, Christ being the bridegroom, and therefore must be male), only men should have their feet washed on Holy Thursday because … ???

It DOESN’T say they’re there to represent the Apostles, even if they are specially chosen (that could just be so they know to get a pedicure and not show up if they have foot fungus). What reason is there?

 

[paramedicgirl]

:banghead: I can read perfectly well what it says, I want to know the WHY behind it !!!

As in 'artificial contraception is sinful because … (it goes against God’s plan for sex and marriage and leads to wrongful uses of human sexuality), women shouldn’t be priests because … (the priest is there in persona Christi, Christ being the bridegroom, and therefore must be male), only men should have their feet washed on Holy Thursday because … ???

It DOESN’T say they’re there to represent the Apostles, even if they are specially chosen (that could just be so they know to get a pedicure and not show up if they have foot fungus). What reason is there?

Why do you continually question the authority of the Holy See?

Your question of why can be answered with “tradition”.

 

[YADA]

the significance is the context.
The context is the Last Supper at which only the apostles, the first priests and bishops, were present with Christ. The context is the night when Christ instituted the priesthood, and the washing of their feet was a specific action, which he told Peter would be understood only much later, by which he reminded these new priests and bishops that their proper role in the Church is to serve, not to be served. In reading the entire Last Supper discourse in John’s gospel, where this act is recorded (the proper meditation for Holy Saturday) the context and meaning will become much clearer, as will the reason the ritual should be limited to men, as is the priesthood itself.

A Passover Meal was a family affair and no where in scripture does it day that ***only ***the twelve apostles was present at the Last Supper. Scripture records that Jesus washed the feet of the “disciples” and Peter is mentioned by name, no other ‘disciples’ are named.

Now I am not disputing that the Church is using this ‘foot washing’ as a representation of the institution of the priesthood and rightly so, the Church has the authority to organize liturgy s it wills.

It is a stretch to say that at this Last Supper when the Eucharist and the priesthood was instituted that only the twelve [who are succeeded by the bishops were present]. Again the question then follows why is the Eucharist shared with all believers but not the service…Did the priesthood only come to serve itself?

Again I fully understand the rubrics whhich dictate only the washing of men’s feet…it is the stretch beyond ecclesial discipline that seems wanting…

 

[LilyM]

Why do you continually question the authority of the Holy See?

I’m not questioning their authority (or at least not that they have the capacity), just trying to accept their use of that authority, on this point at least, wholeheartedly and with understanding rather than leaving it at ‘they say so because they say so because they say so’.

If it were capital T Tradition rather than being, as it clearly is, a small t tradition then your answer would be sufficient. Even then - every other discipline and small or large t tradition has something comprehensible behind it - an explanation as to why the belief is reasonable and/or necessary.

And puzzleannie - I accept that the footwashing is related to the institution of the priesthood. That explains why it’s priests that wash feet and why laypeople shouldn’t wash each others. There is no such apparent reason why the recepients should be limited to men. Like I said, if we want to be totally logically consistent it should be limited to other PRIESTS, should it not?

 

[paramedicgirl]

I’m not questioning their authority in the slightest, just trying to accept their use of that authority, on this point at least, wholeheartedly and with understanding rather than leaving it at ‘they say so because they say so because they say so’.

Well, they say so because it’s tradition. It’s tied to the historical circumstances of the Last Supper.

 

[LilyM]

Well, they say so because it’s tradition. It’s tied to the historical circumstances of the Last Supper.

:banghead:

Is that verified in the Gospels or ECFs or anywhere else? I don’t see ANY way that that we can possibly know that Jesus only washed the feet of the 12!

And if we DID know that, why would it not mean that priests should only wash the feet of other priests then?