Washing of the Feet on Holy Thursday

[bear06]

OK, Lily. I found a document that talks about the significance of the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday. If you read the preceding passages the Holy Father shows the difference between the “universal priesthood” and the “ministerial priesthood” and he shows that the washing of the feet has to do with the “ministerial priesthood”

1. In that Dogmatic Constitution, the chapter on the People of God is followed by the one on the hierarchical structure of the Church. Here reference is made to the ministerial priesthood, to which by the will of Christ only men are admitted. Today in some quarters the fact that women cannot be ordained priests is being interpreted as a form of discrimination. But is this really the case?

Certainly, the question could be put in these terms if the hierarchical priesthood granted a social position of privilege characterized by the exercise of “power”. But this is not the case: the ministerial priesthood, in Christ’s plan, is an expression not of domination but of service! Anyone who interpreted it as “domination” would certainly be far from the intention of Christ, who in the Upper Room began the Last Supper by washing the feet of the Apostles. In this way he strongly emphasized the “ministerial” character of the priesthood which he instituted that very evening. “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45).

Yes, dear Brothers, the priesthood which today we recall with such veneration as our special inheritance is a ministerial priesthood! We are at the service of the People of God! We are at the service of its mission! This priesthood of ours must guarantee the participation of everyone - men and women alike - in the threefold prophetic, priestly and royal mission of Christ. And not only is the Sacrament of Holy Orders ministerial: above all else the Eucharist itself is ministerial. When Christ affirms that: “This is my Body which is given for you… This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my Blood” (Lk 22:19, 20), he reveals his greatest service: the service of the Redemption, in which the Only-Begotten and Eternal Son of God becomes the Servant of man in the fullest and most profound sense.

 

[blackrobe]

I’m not sure whether this has been mentioned, but in addition to all the arguments offered, it seems to me that a priest washing women’s feet is . . . unseemly at best.

JSA

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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

This is a good question that all of us should ask ourselves.

 

[teachccd]

:yawn:

 

[AJV]

In fact it appears that the whole ritual of footwashing was dispensed with for some time prior to 1955 - so clearly the practice is far from crucial in the functions of the Holy Thursday Mass, which are ALL adequately served by the reading of the Last Supper Gospel and the Scripture preceding it as well.

No, it was there- but not during Mass. It took place after Mass when the altars had been stripped. It was of precept for the clergy- and the number of feet washed varied- originally it was 12, but the old Ceremonial of Bishops specified thirteen men (Christ + apostles).

The only time in history when the feet of women have been washed is for the non-liturgical Maundy’s of rulers (in which case the 12/13 number was not adhered to all the time: in some cases it was number equivalent to the age or the number of years on the throne. In Catholic Spain, it was semi-liturgical and the king washed the feet of 12 men and the queen of 12 women)

The Holy Thursday Gospel for many centuries has curiously not been, as one might expect, the account of the Institution of the Eucharist, but the Gospel of the Washing of the Feet- even though the washing was not done during the Mass. In the Traditional Mass the only time the account of the Institution was read was in the reading of the Passions (removed from them in 1956) and from 1935 in the Votive Mass of Christ the High Priest.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I’m not sure whether this has been mentioned, but in addition to all the arguments offered, it seems to me that a priest washing women’s feet is . . . unseemly at best.

JSA

Get someone to massage your feet and it feels kind of nice. The reason, we know now, is that the nerves from the foot map onto an adjacent area of the brain to the genitals.

 

[LilyM]

I disagree that no reason has been provided. The feet washing takes place in the context of the Last Supper where Jesus washed His Apostles feet. The washing of the feet is a remembrance of this hence the rubrics state men.

catholic-pages.com/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=7451

In other words we’re expected to work backwards - ‘the rubric states this, it only makes sense if we take the meaning to be xyz, therefore the meaning is xyz’ … again it’s only opinion, and a sloppy bit of work at that. For starters the number 12 isn’t stated in the rubric anywhere - is it stated anywhere else, such as the GIRM?

Didn’t Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth? All truth means not just right action, but also correct belief and understanding, does it not? I can’t imagine the Holy Spirit saying ‘here’s what you’ve got to do boys and girls (or boys but not girls), you’ll be in for it if you don’t do it exactly so, but you’ve got to figure out why for yourselves’ :nope:

 

[adrift]

In other words we’re expected to work backwards - ‘the rubric states this, it only makes sense if we take the meaning to be xyz, therefore the meaning is xyz’ … again it’s only opinion, and a sloppy bit of work at that. For starters the number 12 isn’t stated in the rubric anywhere - is it stated anywhere else, such as the GIRM?

Didn’t Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth? All truth means not just right action, but also correct belief and understanding, does it not? I can’t imagine the Holy Spirit saying ‘here’s what you’ve got to do boys and girls (or boys but not girls), you’ll be in for it if you don’t do it exactly so, but you’ve got to figure out why for yourselves’ :nope:

I am finding it hard to follow your reasoning. This is not at the level of say believing in the real presence of Jesus in the Euchrist. This falls under the category of the Church ruling how the liturgy is to be conducted. Your question, if I understand it, could extend to the whole of Mass. Why is Mass conducted as it is. One answer is tradition, another is that this is the way the Church says to do it.

The Sacramentary, the book that provides the instructions for the liturgy, clearly states that the ritual is optional. As the instructions note: “Depending on pastoral circumstances, the washing of feet follows the homily… The general intercessions follow the washing of feet, or, if this does not take place, they follow the homily” (emphasis added). The instructions do not allow for a substitution of the rite, only the choice to have it or not.

The instructions specifically require men to represent the Apostles during the ritual:

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.

“The men who have been chosen” is a translation of the original Latin “viri selecti,” which can only be translated as “chosen men” (males). Because of ongoing debate on this issue, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the circular letter, “Concerning the Preparation and Celebration of the Easter Feasts” (Paschales Solemnitatis) on January 16, 1988. The document notes, “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” (no. 51, emphasis added).

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=71

A-2: 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.

It is certainly true that in Christ there is neither male nor female and that all disciples are equal before the Lord. But this reality need not be expressed in every rite, especially one that is so tied up to the concrete historical circumstances of the Last Supper.

A-3: The rite of the washing of feet is not obligatory and may be legitimately omitted. However, this is usually not pastorally advisable.

While the rite may not be delegated to a non-priest, a concelebrant may substitute the main celebrant for a good reason.

The rubrics describing this rite are limited to the essentials (selected men sit in a suitable place) and so allow for practical adaptations to the realities of place, time and circumstances.

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=51112

 

[paramedicgirl]

I am finding it hard to follow your reasoning. This is not at the level of say believing in the real presence of Jesus in the Euchrist. This falls under the category of the Church ruling how the liturgy is to be conducted. Your question, if I understand it, could extend to the whole of Mass. Why is Mass conducted as it is. **One answer is tradition, another is that this is the way the Church says to do it. **

:yup: My point all along.

 

[LilyM]

I am finding it hard to follow your reasoning. This is not at the level of say believing in the real presence of Jesus in the Euchrist. This falls under the category of the Church ruling how the liturgy is to be conducted. Your question, if I understand it, could extend to the whole of Mass. Why is Mass conducted as it is. One answer is tradition, another is that this is the way the Church says to do it.

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=71

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=51112

But every part of the Mass, if not every* word* of it, is both based in Scripture and also has very clear and explicitly stated body of logical explanation behind it.

We start with a penitential rite because we need to be purified of our sins in order to offer a worthy sacrifice, we use precious metals for the vessels both because they’re unbreakable and because we offer our best to God.

Priests are male because Christ explicitly had equally worthy women to chose from for the role and explicitly didn’t. Priests are celibate because, as St Paul states, it is better and easier for them to be so. Every peace of vesture that the priest wears has its unique and specified significance.

All of this is explicit and explicitly stated in Church documents covering these disciplines, we’re not just expected to figure the meaning out for ourselves. This one appears to be entirely different.

 

[adrift]

But every part of the Mass, if not every* word* of it, is both based in Scripture and also has very clear and explicitly stated body of logical explanation behind it.

All of this is explicit and explicitly stated in Church documents covering these disciplines, we’re not just expected to figure the meaning out for ourselves. This one appears to be entirely different.

Didn’t you read the quotes I provided? It is not different.

A-2: 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.

 

[LilyM]

Didn’t you read the quotes I provided? It is not different.

These:

**“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.” **

are the exact and complete words of the Rubrics. No mention of 12, no mention of apostles.

This:

A-2: 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.

is OPINION. Note well the difference. It is the opinion of Fr MacNamara who is a professor of liturgy, sure. But how does this fact give him any authority to interpret the Rubrics that is greater than the authority of my own bishop or local priest to interpret them? Or the authority of any bishop or priest who sees fit to allow the feet of women to be washed? Or who chooses themselves to wash the feet of women?

 

[bear06]

I just realized I forgot to link to this letter from Pope John Paul so I’m reposting the whole thing with the link:

---

OK, Lily. I found a document that talks about the significance of the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday. If you read the preceding passages the Holy Father shows the difference between the “universal priesthood” and the “ministerial priesthood” and he shows that the washing of the feet has to do with the “ministerial priesthood”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_25031995_priests_en.html

1. In that Dogmatic Constitution, the chapter on the People of God is followed by the one on the hierarchical structure of the Church. Here reference is made to the ministerial priesthood, to which by the will of Christ only men are admitted. Today in some quarters the fact that women cannot be ordained priests is being interpreted as a form of discrimination. But is this really the case?

Certainly, the question could be put in these terms if the hierarchical priesthood granted a social position of privilege characterized by the exercise of “power”. But this is not the case: the ministerial priesthood, in Christ’s plan, is an expression not of domination but of service! Anyone who interpreted it as “domination” would certainly be far from the intention of Christ, who in the Upper Room began the Last Supper by washing the feet of the Apostles. In this way he strongly emphasized the “ministerial” character of the priesthood which he instituted that very evening. “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45).

Yes, dear Brothers, the priesthood which today we recall with such veneration as our special inheritance is a ministerial priesthood! We are at the service of the People of God! We are at the service of its mission! This priesthood of ours must guarantee the participation of everyone - men and women alike - in the threefold prophetic, priestly and royal mission of Christ. And not only is the Sacrament of Holy Orders ministerial: above all else the Eucharist itself is ministerial. When Christ affirms that: “This is my Body which is given for you… This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my Blood” (Lk 22:19, 20), he reveals his greatest service: the service of the Redemption, in which the Only-Begotten and Eternal Son of God becomes the Servant of man in the fullest and most profound sense.

 

[paramedicgirl]

These:

“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.”

are the exact and complete words of the Rubrics. No mention of 12, no mention of apostles.

This:

is OPINION. Note well the difference. It is the opinion of Fr MacNamara who is a professor of liturgy, sure. But how does this fact give him any authority to interpret the Rubrics that is greater than the authority of my own bishop or local priest to interpret them? Or the authority of any bishop or priest who sees fit to allow the feet of women to be washed? Or who chooses themselves to wash the feet of women?

Father McNamara’s *opinion *is based on Canon law, as I already posted, but here it is again:

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

 

[LilyM]

The Holy Father’s Letter says absolutely nothing about washing only the feet of men. Or that the ministerial priesthood necessarily means ministering in this way only to men. It means that the priesthood, as he explicitly says, is only OPEN to men.

On the contrary it seems more to support the idea that priests are not to discriminate as regards the objects of that service:

“Holy Thursday, by taking us back to the origins of our priesthood, reminds us also of the duty to strive for holiness, to be “ministers of holiness” to the men ***and women ***entrusted to our pastoral service”.

No differentiation between the objects of service, men and women to be served equally, as the Holy Father says, so why why why should this service not be rendered to women as well? Absolutely nothing approximating a good reason, or any reason really.

Again we come back to ‘do as you’re told, even if there’s absolutely no intelligible reason for it, not even the proven example of Our Saviour or the Apostles or anything known to be handed down from them’.

And why should we hold fast to this tradition which is not proven to be of any value?

 

[paramedicgirl]

The Holy Father’s Letter says absolutely nothing about washing only the feet of men. Or that the ministerial priesthood necessarily means ministering in this way only to men. It means that the priesthood, as he explicitly says, is only OPEN to men.

On the contrary it seems more to support the idea that priests are not to discriminate as regards the objects of that service:

“Holy Thursday, by taking us back to the origins of our priesthood, reminds us also of the duty to strive for holiness, to be “ministers of holiness” to the men ***and women ***entrusted to our pastoral service”.

No differentiation between the objects of service, men and women to be served equally, as the Holy Father says, so why why why should this service not be rendered to women as well? Absolutely nothing approximating a good reason, or any reason really.

Again we come back to ‘do as you’re told, even if there’s absolutely no intelligible reason for it, not even the proven example of Our Saviour or the Apostles or anything known to be handed down from them’.

And why should we hold fast to this tradition which is not proven to be of any value?

Honestly, Lily, I can’t believe you are still going on about this. And you even mention discrimination. Haven’t you made the connection to tradition yet?

http://www.robhines.com/gallery2/main.php/d/960-1/BeatDeadHorse.gif

 

[bear06]

The Holy Father’s Letter says absolutely nothing about washing only the feet of men. Or that the ministerial priesthood necessarily means ministering in this way only to men. It means that the priesthood, as he explicitly says, is only OPEN to men.

On the contrary it seems more to support the idea that priests are not to discriminate as regards the objects of that service:

“Holy Thursday, by taking us back to the origins of our priesthood, reminds us also of the duty to strive for holiness, to be “ministers of holiness” to the men ***and women ***entrusted to our pastoral service”.

No differentiation between the objects of service, men and women to be served equally, as the Holy Father says, so why why why should this service not be rendered to women as well? Absolutely nothing approximating a good reason, or any reason really.

Again we come back to ‘do as you’re told, even if there’s absolutely no intelligible reason for it, not even the proven example of Our Saviour or the Apostles or anything known to be handed down from them’.

And why should we hold fast to this tradition which is not proven to be of any value?

I’m starting to think that we are reading two separate documents, Lil. There is quite tangent reasons for it but you don’t seem to be getting them. EWTN, Adoremus, the Pope, etc. have all explained it wonderfully and, incidently, when these groups (pope included) do a HolyThursday Mass, they have 12 men. Is it just their opinion or are you missing something? The tradition seems to have proven value if the Holy Father himself follows it and since when would it be a bad thing to hold to a tradition/rubrics as the Magisterium sets it?

 

[LilyM]

I’m starting to think that we are reading two separate documents, Lil. There is quite tangent reasons for it but you don’t seem to be getting them.

Then explain it to me precisely, in your own words, and not just tossing out stock phrases like “ministerial priesthood”, which one or other of us appears to be misunderstanding.

His Holiness is definitely NOT saying that the men whose feet are washed are there to represent the Apostles - haven’t seen any hint of such reasoning either in the rubric or the letter. And there’s no other reason that makes the slightest bit of sense. If you say this is the reason then it’s a facile explanation that’s been imposed on the rubric after the fact - which is not the way the Holy Spirit ever works, even in regard to rubrics. Even rubrics are always comprehensible in their own right and well explained at or before the point at which they’re stated.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding of ministerial priesthood is that it refers to the unique position held by bishops and priests - fine, I understand and accept that, and that their priesthood is to be differentiated from the priesthood of all believers.

I accept that as a reason why on Holy Thursday it is priests and priests only who wash people’s feet. I would even understand if priests were only to wash the feet of other priests.

But for the life of me I can’t understand why the PEOPLE whose feet are washed should only be men. Men as a gender, as opposed to ordained clergy, don’t form a discrete group in liturgical terms. Laity and clergy do, sure, and clergy are restricted only to men, sure. But betwen lay men and lay women there is and should be no distinction in terms of status or function that I’m aware of.

EWTN, Adoremus, the Pope, etc. have all explained it wonderfully and, incidently, when these groups (pope included) do a HolyThursday Mass, they have 12 men. Is it just their opinion or are you missing something? The tradition seems to have proven value if the Holy Father himself follows it and since when would it be a bad thing to hold to a tradition/rubrics as the Magisterium sets it?

What is the proven value of washing the feet of only men? Point it out to me. The advantages of all the other rubrics - even down to the use of precious metal in the utensils - are pretty well self-evident or at least explicity reasoned out. This isn’t.

As for the simple fact that it’s tradition - not good enough. Plenty of small t traditions and rubrics have been imposed by magisteriums past and plenty have gone by the wayside as well. This has happened precisely because people (priests and laity) have realised there was no real basis for holding to them, and questioned them, and they were changed.

If it were capital T Tradition - as in handed down from the Apostles and confirmed by the Church Fathers, then you’d have a point.

In other words their attitude was, as St Paul said so well, to ‘prove all things (and yes, that includes small t traditions and rubrics - and more besides!) and hold fast to that which is good’. Not ‘hold to everything good bad or indifferent and don’t ever question or seek understanding or try to change things.’

 

[TNT]

Ok LILYM, times up. The last foot wash was last Thu. Midnight. All unused tickets r expired.
However, next foot washing season, I’ll have some Aussie wash yur feet if yur still interested by then.

But if yur struck b lightnin, ya got none to blame but yurself.

 

[LilyM]

Ok LILYM, times up. The last foot wash was last Thu. Midnight. All unused tickets r expired.
However, next foot washing season, I’ll have some Aussie wash yur feet if yur still interested by then.

But if yur struck b lightnin, ya got none to blame but yurself.

Don’t worry, there’s no way I’d ever inflict my feet on anyone else for washing - they’re pretty awful at the best of times!