![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Holy Thursday Mass - optional washing of feet - only MALES
There is a translation point regarding the optional rite of washing feet (the “Mandatum” or “Command” – whence the word Maundy) on Holy Thursday.
In many places women are invited to have their feet washed.
This is against the Church’s laws which are based on divine revelation Scripture (cf. Matthew 20:28).
This rite, optional in the Novus Ordo, was reintroduced by Pope Pius XII in 1955.
Two main excuses are offered in defense of the abuse of washing the feet of women.
The first excuse concerns a false sense of service and charity: “hospitality” suggests women must be “included”. 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 stems from “inclusive” language: the English words in the ICEL Sacramentary, “men” and “man”, can’t possibly mean “males”. That would be sexist! Therefore women must be included.
On the contrary, the Latin rubrics for the foot washing rite has words viri selecti, “chosen men”.
Vir means “a male person”. The mighty Lewis & Short Dictionary say vir is "a male person, a man (opp. femina; cf. mas)."
If you have been properly informed about this, to insist that “men” (viri) means “men and women” is really to lie. Homo or plural homines might be argued to be of both sexes, but absolutely not vir.
If you have been informed that vir means only "men" and that excludes boys or youths, then you were probably misinformed.
The word vir can tempt a strict interpretaion of "man" in the sense of "adult male", but that would be too strict. Also, while clearly the Apostles were men, not boys or youths, the point is that they were "male", not that they were this age or that age. The Apostles were present in the Upper Room because they were chosen by Christ to be priests. And there is only a juridical, not an ontological, limitation on the age a male can be ordained.
Also, keep in mind that the age of reason is around 7 and young people are bound to fasting and abstinence in their teens.
In any event, this whole debate has been cleared up more than once by the Holy See, especially in the 1988 document Paschales sollemnitatis of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. The rubrics of the 2002 Missale Romanum retain the viri selecti.
I believe that no Conference of Bishops has ever received approval from the Holy See for a variation.
Legally, linguistically, and theologically the issue is clear.
No conference of bishops, individual bishop, or pastor has the authority to change this.
Only the Holy See can grant particular exceptions.
Year after year, our parish has the priests wash the feet of a few men AND women, and then those men and women in turn wash the feet of anyone who wants to come up, including the feet of priests.
Sigh…
“Say the black, do the red.” When, O Lord?! :-(
Comment by Geoffrey — 12 March 2008 @ 2:32 pmBe that as it may, it won’t stop many (most?) pastors of parishes in the US, desiring to pander to the sensibilities of their ‘enlightened’ flock, from ignoring the Vatican, as they do with blithe regularity.
One almost wishes something appearing in the MSM to the effect of:
“His Holiness, via (name your congregation) wishes to restate for the record that, in mirroring the Lord’s washing of the feet of his 12 male apostles at the Last Supper, that priests, ordinaries, or others who, in the attempt to pander to the false sensibilities of the modern age, include women in this ritual are being disobedient to Our express wishes and are indicating their open dissent and disobedience to their sacred vows in a false sense of charity in truth.”
Never see or hear that. Sadly. May be because it would fly in the face of the widespread adherence by many of the hierarchy to man’s truth rather than God’s truth.
I just close my eyes at this point in the Mass on Holy Thursday and pray for the misguided who are leading their flocks in disobedience.
Comment by bryan — 12 March 2008 @ 2:33 pmBack in 2004, the Old Oligarch had a startling (to me) reflection on the viri selecti: http://old-oligarch.blogspot.com/search?q=washing+feet
Comment by Rob F. — 12 March 2008 @ 2:38 pmDidn’t the Archdiocese of Boston say they had some special grant from Rome to allow women in this?
Comment by Roman Sacristan — 12 March 2008 @ 2:46 pmI don’t quite understand why that would be allowed (aside from caving in to certain agendas).
I did not even know this. But now that I do, I’ll be sure to promote this.
Comment by Joe of St. ThĂ©rèse — 12 March 2008 @ 2:46 pmTo risk sounding crass, I think the footwashing ceremony is a bit
“silly” to begin with.
I’m not sure what symbolism the faithful are supposed to come away with,
except some vague social justice theme….this Last Supper ritual
is so closely tied to the concept of priesthood that even washing regular
laymen’s feet still begs the question (and here is where the sillyness
comes in…men only. Okay, fine, yet the men only bit is only because the
apostles were priests….but yet these men are NOT priests themselves, so rightly
the feminist element has an issue with the ban…again whyy have the
ceremony AT all?). It’s bascially a “let’s pretend” historic skit
where men get to act in the role of Apostles for a day.
I think the best option is not to do it at all.
Comment by Matt — 12 March 2008 @ 2:56 pm