Fr. Z rants; Holy Thursday Foot Washing

[Denise]

Foot washing on Holy Thursday. Wherein Fr. Z rants.
Posted on 31 March 2015
by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In the Roman Rite, the washing of feet on Holy Thursday is an option. It may be left out without disturbing the integrity of the Holy Thursday Mass of the Last Supper (otherwise, it wouldn’t be a legitimate option).

Watch now as all sorts of people demand that bishops and priests violate the law because of what His Holiness Pope Francis did last year and plans to do this year. Watch as all manner of clerics hide behind the Pope when they choose openly to break the law and violate their promise to uphold the Church’s laws.

The problem with that is, liturgical law is real law. It must be obeyed.

The Church’s liturgical law is not ambiguous: only males can be chosen for this optional rite, and they should be men: viri selecti. Vir means “man”. Vir cannot, period, mean a female. And despite what Facebook says, there are two sexes, not dozens. Also, you really don’t get to choose which you are. Vir is male.

Also, lest it go unsaid, I am not speciesist, but the Church still limits this foot-washing rite to human beings.

Next, the Pope, who is the Church’s Legislator, can do A, B or C as it pleaseth him to do. If he wants to set aside the law, so be it.

The rest of us, however, are obliged, to obey the law. The ordained made promises at ordination to obey the Church’s laws.

So, we have a couple choices when it comes to the foot-washing rite (the “Mandatum” or “Command” – whence the word Maundy): don’t do the rite, or do the rite properly.

Two main excuses are offered in defense of the abuse of washing the feet of women.

The first excuse is that of “hospitality”. “Hospitality” suggests women must be “included”. Never mind that Mass isn’t that sort of “meal”. In the USA some might obtusely cite a note – having no canonical authority – from the (then) NCCB’s Committee on Liturgy in 1987 which uses this “hospitality” argument.

The second excuse is that of “inclusive” language, to which some of a certain age still cling. Keep in mind that quite a few clerics, of a certain age, haven’t really updated themselves by looking at the most recent edition of the Roman Missal, in English much less in Latin. They are snug in their fading memories that the English words in the now long-obsolete ICEL Sacramentary, “men” and “man”, couldn’t possibly mean “males”! That would be sexist! Again, Latin “vir” means “male”.

To repeat, when the Pope decides to derogate for himself from the liturgical law, that derogation doesn’t abolish the law for everyone else. The law remains.

We priests – and bishops – must obey the liturgical law which we do not have the authority to break or change.

The Church is not lawless. The Church is not merely a display case for people’s passing whims and changing fashions.

When and if the Holy Father wants the law to change for everyone, he will make sure that it is changed for everyone in the proper way and he will let everyone in the world know about it. The Holy Father knows how to change laws and promulgate the changes. Doing something in private on his own doesn’t change the law.

Until the Roman Pontiff changes the law, the law stands.

Men only, or no foot washing at all. Those are the two legitimate options.

Fathers, if you are afraid of the women in your parish, just opt out of the foot washing rite entirely. It is only an option. Fathers, if you don’t want the headaches and complaints and threats and tears and anger and hate-mail and voice-mail and glares and accusations, just say “no” to the foot washing option. Let the Mass be the Mass without the controversy. You are not obliged to violate the law and your promises.

[MarieT]

Fr Z raises many interesting concerns here ~ 2 of which :

!) Pope Francis ...

.... when the Pope decides to derogate for himself from the liturgical law, that derogation doesn’t abolish the law for everyone else. The law remains.

interesting choice of word by Father Z.....derogate = denigrate, detract, discredit, humiliate, slander

What are Pope Francis' motives for this? The media portrays as reaching out to the poor and marginalised of society. All have heard of the "Francis Factor"

Personally, I wasnt comfortable with the washing of my feet at Holy Thursday Mass nor my former parish priest summoning and saying it must be done.

The way around this is to throw back Canon Law at the objecting parties, especially women as Fr Z mentions in my second point below.

The women in our parish are very 'bossy' with our priest and sadly their "do it our way or we dont assist anymore..." attitude is rather bizarre.

I recall when our current priest commenced in our parish and one of our "leading ladies" responded to him with "we dont do that here"......Poor Fr. was stunned, but not as stunned as the dear lady when i responded "Fr. u are the priest here now, u do according to what u know to be right (rite) (scuse my pun)


2)

Fathers, if you are afraid of the women in your parish...

lol at this comment....it really resonates close to home.....
again the solution, throw back at them Canon law and watch them try and respond

Present liturgical law is clear that only adult males (viri) may have their feet washed at the Mass of the Last Supper: “Lotio pedum …11. Viri selecti deducuntur a ministris ad sedilia loco apto parata. Tunc sacerdos … accedit ad singulos, eisque fundit aquam super pedes et abstergit …” (Mass of the Lord's Supper, Roman Missal 2002). Therefore, if someone is washing the feet of any females (or, it seems, even of males under 18, per 1983 CIC 97), he is in violation of the Holy Thursday rubrics.

Canon law

[MarieT]

Other factors involved.....

Rome does give bishops permission on some occasions to permit women to participate as part of the 12 people to have their feet washed at the "Last Supper Holy Thursday " Mass

Under canon law, such variations do not constitute a change in universal norms nor do they provide others a precedent upon which to adopt practices contrary to law (see 1983 CIC 16 § 3).

Still, such exceptions inevitably make people wonder why something like this is illicit in one diocese yet permissible in another.

Moreover, Rome’s practice of granting such permissions privately makes it difficult to know the level of authority involved in making the exception and to refute rumors that others were granted.

Besides the fact that the entire rite is optional and so need not be done at all, consider:

no specific number of men is required for the rite, so the connection asserted between 12 men and the 12 Apostles is at best ambiguous;

indeed, there are no references to “apostles” in the mandatum rubrics or the circular letter, which instead explain the rite in terms of “Christ’s gesture of service and charity”, a ministry obviously not limited to apostles; and,

Christ’s explicit mandate at the Last Supper was “you also should do as I have done to you”, a command no one reads as restricting the recipients of ordained ministry to apostles or their successors.

But bishops know something else: they know that virtually every time a provision of liturgical (not divine) law has been challenged in recent decades (by people who love the Church, or otherwise) on such topics as Saturday Mass of anticipation, Communion in the hand, female altar servers, regular distribution of Precious Blood, lay service as extraordinary ministers—the list goes on and on—virtually every time, I say, that such restrictions have been challenged, Rome has changed the rule after a lot of hard feelings were generated in trying to defend it. And that is truly regrettable. Liturgical law should protect and enhance the essentials and beauty of divine worship; it should not become a proving ground of episcopal willingness to enforce Roman decrees.

source

[Johnna]

My old parish stopped the foot washing thing. My new parish, here in Indy, does so many things wonderfully and correctly, but I do not like the way they handle the foot washing.

[Denise]

Marie, print pout or send Fr. Z's article to your priest. Maybe he should choose the "don't even do it" option.

[MarieT]

sissy,
i was thinking of that ~ but our current priest has NEVER allowed women in the foot washing ceremony......that was the former priest. Our former priest was a nice person but the foot washing of women made me uncomfortable as well as his (sit in positioned chairs around the altar for weekday mass)

My youngest son wasnt in school at that stage so would attend Mass with me Monday to Fridays. Sadly i used him as an excuse to sit back in the pews but Fr. always said "we sit here for weekend mass around the altar...if he misbehaves we will sit on him"

Not sure if the pastoral associate's idea of "community' sharing meal ~ Sr. had some very 'unusual' ideas ~ just to be different

Bless them in their new parishes

[Denise]

Marie, print pout or send

I meant print out!

Hope your former priest and the sister get a wake-up call.

[MarieT]

lol sissy at 'pout'...i did understand what u meant

our former parish priest is now relieved of duties after a heart condition

we found it most unusual as he was always a fit man and very energetic
and 10 years younger than his replacement parish priest (our current priest)