Liturgical Brain Washing

+JMJ+

I’m turning green with envy at all of those whose priests are faithfully following the rubrics.

I found out today (after I had asked) that my parish priest will be washing the feet of six men and six women on Holy Thursday. When I told him that the Vatican had said very explicitly in 1988 that only men’s feet should be washed, he actually said to me, “That was fifteen years ago! We shouldn’t do _everything_ the Vatican says!”

Then he turned to another parishioner, who had overheard the entire thing, and chuckled about how “conservative” I am. (Perhaps it is because I see something worth conserving?)

It’s very frustrating.

In my second assignment as a young pastoral vicar, the pastor assigned me as main celebrant for the Holy Thursday Mass, and so I began to assemble a list of twelve men whose feet I would wash. The RCIA director heard that I was doing this. She had been the one to select those whose feet would be washed, and she always selected six men and six women. She came to me and told me that she would be getting the people for the foot washing. I thanked her but said that I had already taken care of it. When she saw my list, she thanked me and then went to the pastor. She informed him thatand she went to the pastor, explaining that I was not going to wash the feet of any women and that this was wrong and contrary to the tradition of the parish for the past twenty years. I waited for the pastor to come and question me.

He came to my office about an hour later, and very smugly asked me what was my problem with women. Not waiting for an answer, he asked point blank if I was a misogynist. Continuing without seeming to take a breath, he asked why I would do such a thing to the liturgy, to insert my misogynist views on the parish.

I took a breath and explained to him that this was not my “view” but the rubric of the Church, and further explained that this parish has been in error for the past ho- many years, that a dubium had been sent to Rome by the US bishops and the response had come back that the rubric said explicitly that twelve men were exclusively to have their feet and only their feet washed by the priest.

I went on and explained that I have nothing against women, and that I would be happy to wash women’s feet any time, any day, except Holy Thursday during the Mandatum. The pastor listened and shook his head. He said, “You obviously have thought this through, and I cannot argue with you. But I make no secret that this is upsetting to me and to the parish and that if you go ahead with this, there will be great anger at you and at me for allowing you to do this.”

I told him that it shouldn’t be about what he “allows” me to do as celebrant — it is about what the Church teaches, and that he should not think of himself as over the Church’s rubrics and practice, nor should he encourage the parishioners that they can overrule the Church’s practice. This did not sit well with him either, but I could see that he had no argument in response. At that point, I did something that I regretted immediately, and regret to this day: I offered to withdraw as main celebrant for that liturgy, thinking that he would not accept. Big strategic mistake: he quickly accepted the offer. He said that I would be better to lead the Good Friday liturgy, since I no doubt saw myself as a martyr for the rubrics. He invited me to concelebrate the Holy Thursday Mass, so that I could see it celebrated “correctly.” I accepted his invitation. He added puckishly, “Don’t worry — I won’t be washing your feet.” I shrugged and said, “Whatever, Father.” He went and said, “You’ve got a long way to go before you become pastor, and you have a lot to learn.” He turned and left the office, closing the door firmly behind him.

I was made a pastor 53 days later, on the feast of Pentecost, and I have washed the feet of men on Holy Thursday ever since. And I pray for my former pastor, and encourage all readers to pray for him as well. And I still have a lot to learn, though not necessarily the things my former pastor thought I should.

I second what Elena said, Good For you Fr. Stanley! How blessed your parishioners are! They started adding women to the roster a few years ago in my parish. We have a new pastor now, I will hope for the best.

Peace, all.

I just think we should be glad that the Eucharist wasn’t also interpreted for men only. I’m so relieved the bishops have nailed down their administration problems with pedophiles so well that they can now concentrate on the really important things. Bravo Atlanta!

Todd, I gotta ask, what does the Scandal have to do with the fact that the washing of the feet is to commemorate what Christ did with His Apostles? Had there been NO Scandal, would it then be okay to follow the rubrics in this matter?

As a woman, I gotta wonder: why am I not offended that only men would be having their feet washed during the Mass? Why is it enough for me to witness the Washing of the Feet, and remember that Christ did this and why He did this, and not get my panties in a bunch about the gender of the people at the altar having their feet washed? If Jesus wasn’t pimping me when he only washed the feet of men, why should I feel like my Pastor is pimping me if no women are having their feet washed at the Holy Thursday Mass.

What is WRONG with me?!!!

Dear Todd — and you are dear to me —

One might read your comment and conclude that the sole focus of the bishops’ attention should be The Situation [as Fr. Wilson calls it]. Should that be my sole focus as well as pastor? The Scandals have not touched our parish here, nor has it touched our diocese: there have been no cases of abuse found or reported. So, the archbishop of Atlanta is not allowed to address any other problem or question until all the administrative difficulties are completely worked out concerning the abuse of children? I’ll be sure to send him your recommendation.

Honestly, Todd. Bringing up the Scandals is a typical ploy of the progressives, to paint the hierarchy not only as the most insensitive group of misogynists in the universe, but the protectors of child abusers. Why not bring up the war in Iraq while you’re at it? The bishops obviously did not do everything they could have done to prevent this from happening. After all, they could have withheld communion from all Catholics in the US Military or in the Congress or Executive branch of government. I’m so sorry that the archbishop of Atlanta has not adopted your agenda of priorities.

Actually, Fr. Stanley, there were a few problems in this diocese (3, I believe), but I think they have been taken care of as well as can be expected. I say this with some assurance because although I am a bit of a cynic on some things (I’m being honest), I believe that things are better here.

Some priests, after they commit an indiscretion tend to rationalize it personally and then use it in their own paradigms. (The tipoff for observers often is, of course, that you can’t get a straight non-emotive answer out of these guys. You get this angry startling thing.) This gets into their pastoral practice and even their sacramental practice and outlook pretty fast. Then it foments scandalous behavior among those around them just about as fast. Father says this and Father says that…etc.

This sort of thing is actually linked to liturgical irregularities in that it gives a priest an angry or subversive attitude which then can buy into alternate priorities and agendas in the parish.

Much of the subversive attitude here is in the laity surrounding priests, I believe. I’d be interested in hearing your take on this. I also know, from people I know, that some of the clergy in our area are *soft* subversive–i.e. not literally into moral trouble but soft on alternate priorities and/or agendas. That I would readily believe.

So, as regards liturgical abuse, yes, there are some problems here. But things are getting better. Why? Because of the growing number of great faithful priests like you. I can name off a handful now who are thoroughly orthodox and visible enough to make a difference, whereas 10 years ago the picture was very bleak, very bleak indeed.

As younger priests come into the diocese, I think the situation will improve locally. It is the future for the Catholic Church in the USA, I think, that we will recover some of what we have lost…… I hope I live long enough to see it. I”m not a young one myself and I know these things take time. =)

Todd,

Within the tradition of the Church the foot washing was never seen as being for other than the Apostles. There is no doubt that there were other than the Apostles at the last supper, but the verse in john talks about washing the feet and coming to Peter – the head of the Apostles. It is no surprise that religious art has most always had only the Apostles at the last supper. Going by scripture alone there is no positive verse to say that Jesus washed other than the feet of the Apostles. The Church traditionally has always seen the last supper as the institution of the Priesthood and the Mass.

Another big factor in proving what the Church means by what you call play-acting is that the number chosen is twelve, the exact number of the Apostles. The Church truly meant that this ceremony be a representation of the Apostles.

Regardless, Church liturgical law has specifically ruled on this and people acting contrary are thumbing their nose at the Church. Jesus said if they hear you they hear me. The Church has the authority given by Jesus to control some aspects of the liturgy.

This would never have become a point of controversy if “Spirit of Vatican II” types had not tried to subvert the liturgy to their own agenda. That they want women priest and try to use our rituals as a wedge issue. Of course since your blog seems to say a female priesthood is possible it is no surprise that you hold this view towards the foot washing. If I am wrong about your position I apologize.

You might not realize that discussing the possibility of women being ordained is in itself disobedience.

The Pope in his Apostolic Letter Ordination Sacerdotalis concluded with this:

4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Official teachings on faith and morals by the pope as per Vatican II requires “Religious submission of intellect and will” Those who keep arguing about this are being disobedient. The very act of arguing for it shows that they do not have a Religious submission of intellect and will.

Cardinal Ratzinger in a Dubium about this issue replied.

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

To reject an item declared a deposit of the faith is to reject the very authority of the teaching church.

Michigan Catholic,
As much as I share a concern in some of the things that you address in your e-mail, I’m not sure that I could comment without it being gossip. I am of the opinion that the situation in Kalamazoo is of a generational nature, and like the Israelites in the desert for forty years, we are going to have to carry on the best we can while we await the permanent retirement of the “soft” subversives. I would agree with your general assessment.

As for the three cases you mention, all three of those cases in this diocese were well-known before the Situation became a Media Event [TM]. There were no priests from the diocese of Kalamazoo [or it’s mother diocese, Lansing] currently serving in the diocese of Kalamazoo, who were suspended or laicized. One priest, from another diocese, who had transferred to Kalamazoo, has been suspended. Still, our diocese has been pretty much unscathed by these terrible crimes.

If you have a specific question about policy, or “philosophical trends” among the clergy of the Kalamazoo diocese, I would be willing to respond, but not in this particular forum.

Todd writes:

“I applaud pastors and parishes with the good sense to open footwashing to all, not just twelve hand-picked pseudo-apostles.”

Where does it stop, Todd? What’s the point of having a sacramentary, or any ritual books at all, if there are Monday morning quarterbacks like you who are willing to second guess the Congregation for Worship? For instance, certainly Jesus did not intend to limit the Eucharist to only men, for surely women were there. Why, I’m sure there was a dog and cat in the room as well, and as Scripture points out, even the dogs get the crumbs from the table. Certainly, you can see how reasonable it is to say that pets can receive the Eucharist as well.

If pastors can pick and choose what parts of the rubrics they’re going to follow, then the rubrics no longer function. It’s attitudes like yours, which applaud dissent and foment disobedience on the basis of a political agenda wrapped in the kind of liturgical research which basically says “Those guys back then didn’t know what they were doing, those stupid misogynists.” I still promote the principle from Vincent of Lerins, and the tradition among women was hardly a universal usage. I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked, Catholic usage was determined by the Congregation for Worship in Rome, not Kansas City or Kalamazoo. As learned as you may be, Todd, you are most certainly NOT the Magisterium. But what comes across in your comment is that you are most certainly full of yourself. Where’s the humility in obedience? All I read here in your comment is the fullness of your own self-anointed expertise, and your willingness to judge Rome incompetent in this matter. I defer to Rome in this, as there is no sin or injustice being committed, any more than there was no injustice committed by Our Lord when He washed the feet of His apostles.

And please, Todd, we already know that Rome has messed up mightily in other matters concerning problems here. But that doesn’t mean all of Rome’s direction is to be voided. But that is the logical extension of your line of reasoning here. If you want to revise the liturgy, get yourself appointed to the Congregation for Worship and work there, through the means that the Church provides. Don’t foment this kind of dissent, because there is no real end to it until the Sacramentary is eviscerated, and clergy and laity do as they please. Your applause is an echo of Martin Luther’s “reform,” and that is not a compliment.

Peace, friends.

My goodness, this has sure touched a nerve. The Roman Missal doesn’t even specify that “twelve” are to be “selected.” Have you missed that? How could there possibly be a connection to apostles if the IGRM itself lacks the specificity?

Fr Brian, I note the skill with which you’ve slipped over the distinction of men, women, and pets. If a bishop has a problem or not with men, women, or open foot-washing, the bishop, lacking specific guidance from Rome, certainly has the authority locally to allow or forbid the practice. I need no other authority than the word of a bishop or pastor, unlike some conservative-leaning Catholics who, finding they cannot back up a position with a reasonable argument, need something flimsy to cover the point.

But it does seem rather arrogant of you to question my humility when I bring up a reasonable objection to such a flimsy explanation. Archbishop Donoghue would be better off just banning women, mandating twelve, and saying he just wants it that way. That’s more acceptable than giving a poor reason.

I note also that you, as a traditional Catholic, have yourself brought up Rome’s “messing up mightily” today, not I. I’m slightly relieved you now see this as a general failing of all, not just the Left. For my part, I intend to veer far away from there and stick to the topic.

I’m saddened that when confronted with reason and good sense you and Jeff stammer and start calling me a Protestant. Interesting. That kind of name-calling is really beneath either of you.

Todd,

Your memory is slipping. You’re the one who earlier brought up the notion that the archbishop has administrative problems enough, ‘tho they have time to deal with these minor liturgical issues. My point is that this was brought to Rome in the form of a question that has been settled, explicitly, so that you and other ruminators would not have to re-invent the wheel. But, oh no, you applaud those who show some independence of thought from Rome. How magnanimous of you.

My definition of a Protestant is one who protests against Rome’s authority, and encourages those to go one’s own way, e.g., Martin Luther. Go back and re-read who/what you are applauding. I didn’t call you a Protestant; I merely said your applause evoked the memory of said reformer. If the shoe fits….

I went over your reasons one more time, to make sure I wasn’t missing something essential. Roma locutus est: causa finita est. Your principle seems to be Todd locutus est…. My response to you is the same as to my former pastor: I have no problem washing women’s feet. But this issue of the Mandatum during the Holy Thursday liturgy has been settled since NINETEEN EIGHTY-EIGHT! Ask for a dispensation: I have no problem with it. But don’t make yourself out to be the final authority, because neither you nor I nor our local bishops are that final authority. Hence, we belong to the Universal Church, the administrative headquarters for which is Vatican City.

Your holding on to your own opinion and not deferring to Rome’s competence in this matter reminds me of a liturgy professor I had several years ago. The issue about kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer was being discussed, and he was of the expert opinion that the rubrics allowed for standing during the Eucharistic prayer, and that kneeling should be done away with altogether, and that American churches should be designed and built without kneelers. When shown the US addendum to the GIRM, he responded that “the bishops didn’t know what they were voting for.” He knew better, in other words. He no longer teaches at the seminary, and he is pastor of a church where he was told very clearly by the archbishop that there would be kneelers in the church and the people would use them, especially and particularly during the Eucharistic prayer.

The issue isn’t about how many historical precedents you can produce to substantiate your position. The issue is why you don’t accept Rome’s competence in this matter, and why don’t you see that the logical progression of thought from your position leads away from Rome’s competence and authority in the liturgy. As I recall, the dubium was sent to Rome, not to Kansas City or Coldwater. And the response that has been followed by those who deem it important came from Rome, not from Kansas City nor from Coldwater. And that’s the source of the issue of humility. It’s about deferring to Rome.

I apologize if you thought I called you a Protestant, but I said your applause was Protestant. Heck, my hymn-singing has been called Protestant, because I like singing all the verses! And just because Rome doesn’t produce the sufficient response for your tastes or understanding, doesn’t mean that Rome’s answer isn’t correct. I think you have the relationship a little backward. We answer to Rome [in liturgical issues], not the other way around. It’s your argument that needs be proven, not Rome’s. And evidently, you haven’t made it. The benefit of the doubt resides with the Congregation for Worship, not for the exception you promote.

A lot of testosterone flowing around this site!Go, boys. We women will be sustaining the parishes by word and deed while you guys are slugging it out.

“Lastly, without the connection to the “Twelve” or to the “Apostles” I don’t think one can assert Washing of Feet is in any way connected to Holy Orders, as some have attempted to argue.”

Go here.

To summarize what I think is Old Oligarch’s most important point: The washing of Aaron and his sons’ feet was a part of their ordination to the High Priesthood. Thus it is perfectly logical to argue that the washing of the feet is very connected to Holy Orders. It was Jesus, the new High Priest, ordaining his successors. I’d recommend reading the whole thing, as he explains it far better than that.

Lisa,

I don’t know if you were serious or not, but the rubric we are referring to only applies to Holy Thursday’s foot washing and has nothing to do with Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers.

Peace, all.

While Fr Brian and I disagree on particulars, and do manage respect for each other in it (or despite it), I do wish to clarify a misrepresentation of my position. There is an important distinction between the notions of competence and authority.

A supervisor might tell an employee to do a job. The person does it, hence a situation of authority. A person in another department might criticize the order, citing evidence that the whole notion was flawed in some serious way. So the issue of competence is raised. The critic’s supervisor might then put in a gag order, and if the critic complies, authority is maintained. But the issue of competence remains.

Unlike Rome, I have no wish to impose my interpretation of Holy Thursday on other parishes. Such an interpretation existed in my present parish long before I arrived, and I have no willingness to buck local authority for what I view as a competent decision.

I’ve read the Old Oligarch’s post on washing feet. It’s not convincing. If footwashing was so essentially a priestly act, it would have been restored to the ordination rites. (One could argue that if it were essential, it never would have been lost.) O.O. also fails to explain why footwashing was restored to Holy Thursday and not the Chrism Mass. O.O. also fails to note that in baptism, we are all marked (women, too) as priestly, as prophetic, and as royalty in the household of God.

I have been and would be a critic of bishops for administrative incompetence in sheltering criminals. I have been and would be a critic of bishops for poor liturgical decisions and poor justifications for poor decisions. Fr Brian far overstates his case and drips too much sarcasm for me to take seriously his claim of my arrogance. I don’t need or require my case to be made with the CDWDS. I’m making it here. Men-only cannot be substantiated by Scripture or liturgical tradition. The link of footwashing to priesthood can be attempted, but far too much is working against that claim. I think it an apt metaphor, but metaphors themselves do not drive theology for Catholics. It is the other way around.

And lastly, Fr Brian, I wish you a good remainder of Triduum, with all the Protestant-style singing your parish can muster for the praise of God. I will keep you in my prayers, as I humbly request you think of my family in yours once or twice.

Peace, Fr Brian.

I don’t think I set myself up as the judge of anyone — not any more so than others who opine on the competence or lack thereof in particular bishops, clergy, or other authorities. The bishops, for example, have the authority to reassign clergy. No serious Catholic disputes this. However, many serious Catholics question a reassignment from the viewpoint of competence. They might opine, “Bishop can move my favorite pastor who favors Latin Masses, but he’s still a jerk for doing so.”

You asked, “Where does it end, this questioning of authority?” Reasonable. On the internet, questioning can go quite far. When our blog host throws down the gauntlet with the phrase “liturgical brainwashing,” I think quite a wide scope for discussion has been laid. St Blog’s, whayever its majority pretensions to “orthodoxy” may be, is at its root, a setting for questioning authority, especially in the realm of competence, though not necessarily limited there.

The bishops and Rome are in a position in which their competence in many areas is in doubt. So Catholics, liberal, “orthodox,” and in between question. Where will it end? Where we reach the point at which the bishops have achieved recognition they have fully integrated the Mandatum, I suspect. Not likely before.

Perhaps you are asking where I end. That’s an even more reasonable question. A concrete thought experiment: if I worked for you in Coldwater. I do not publicly question a pastor’s decision. But I would not shy away from spirited private discussions.

Indeed, no person may “have a right” to have their feet washed. But pastors have a duty to ensure the meaning of the rite is absorbed. People do have a right to know what the Mandatum means and how it can be lived out in real life.

Peace, Fr Brian.

The Sacramentary’s witness on the Mandatum-ordination connection is interesting, but not necessarily authoritative or competent.

It is indeed a human trait to avoid conflict, even spirited respectful disagreement. Witness the track this discussion has taken here and in other places. People get tired of dealing with logic and theology. They want to fall back on their perception of authority so they don’t have to think about hard stuff like why women are included in the Eucharist, but not in the modern Mandatum.

As I’ve said above, I have no problem conceding a pastor’s authority to do as he pleases with this ritual. But a pastor’s poor reasoning is not above criticism. In the spirit of my many “orthodox” sisters and brothers, I find St Blog’s an ideal place to discuss such things. Those who feel uncomfy about that can go to Atlanta, Coldwater, or other warm-fuzzy climes and not worry about the call to humble service.

The KISS method of liturgy has much to offer. So long as it keeps the parish on track toward sanctification.

You know, on further reflection, the more I think about this ritual, with its potential for divisiveness, that I would be in favor of suppressing it. It had fallen out of practice for centuries, and was only reinstituted under Pius XII. There is no requirement that it be done [in fact, my retired “associate” celebrated the Holy Thursday Mass at our mission parish, and his physical debility from a stroke prevents him from doing this ritual, so it was omitted there]. If the ritual is going to be used for political purposes, better that it be suppressed than abused.

I’ve worked for the Catholic Church for 26 years and have been blessed to have known many good and decent priests. Priests who understand the intrinsic value of each person. Priests who validate and at least attempt to treat women with equality. I’ve also worked with many religious, men and women, who have given their lives in service to HIS church. I in no way believe that if HE were here today, HE would not wash the feet of those who have worked and fought for HIS church, including women. I also believe that HE would question those who made it possible for evil men to perpetrate evil crimes against our children. And even more evil, the seemingly “well” people that covered it up for decades at the additional risk of the children. That includes those that lived with the sick priests, had to be aware of some very bad habits and did nothing to stop it. “Everybody knew that Fr. X was funny with kids.” It also includes those superiors that punished good priests who tried to do something to stop abuse. That, I believe, was due to a missive from Rome that priests were to keep these problems in-house, handle in-house, and avoid a scandal! The fact that the #1 concern should have been to avoid abuse of children is lost in the shuffle, isn’t it? I guess I’d have to say the scandal they brought on themselves is far greater than if they had stepped up to the plate and did what was correct and moral in the first place: remove and turn over to the police suspected pedophile and ephebophile men. So now all lay people, employees, volunteers, children, etc., are going through intensive background checks, programs to train on sex abuse, etc. What programs in the various dioceses have been put in place to train priests to spot fellow priest pedophiles. What programs have been put in place to teach them what to do when they suspect abuse? What training sessions or tests have been implemented or upgraded to weed out emotionally deficient priests and priest candidates? Jesus drew the line in sand to protect a woman. I believe he would do the same today!