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.
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.’
