Last year the Holy See made plain that the ritual of the washing of feet during the Holy Thursday Mass was restricted to men. That is, the one washing the feet has to be a priest and those getting their feet washed have to be men. The reason is that the washing of feet originally done by Our Lord to His disciples is seen as part and parcel of the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. A good write-up is found here. Here's another.
Michael Voris of the Vortex predicted that this would provoke some, uh, "liturgical creativity", shall we say? Click here if you cannot see embedded video.
Here's the link to the book on the Mandatum.
This past Holy Thursday, this abuse happened at the Cathedral of St Matthew. I'm sure it happened elsewhere in the Archdiocese of Washington. So what makes this one so noteworthy? Well, see for yourselves (from the Washington Times). That's right! Cardinal Wuerl himself is washing the feet of women. More "pastoral style", I suppose?
In my last post, I mentioned three priests unjustly treated for their fidelity to the Magisterium - one of them by the Archdiocese of Washington. I cannot imagine any one of these priests disobeying the Vatican on this manner. Perhaps that is why they (at least Fr Guarnizo) are being thrown under the bus.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, let's just wait and see how long it takes the Holy See to rebuke His Eminence for this violation. Some years back when the Holy See "mandated" that we were not to consecrate the Precious Blood in flagons but chalices, Cardinal Mahony respnnded that he was the Archbishop of Los Angeles and he would make decisions for his archdiocese. He was never challenged and his ruling stood until his retirement--it may still for all I know. You see, when you're a Cardinal there are a different set of Rules.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes the disobedience even more deceitful is that when they show picture in Catholic Standard (of what goes on at their gay friendly parish) they show 6 men getting their feet washed - but the other six (the women) are not in the photo (I've also seen this done in pictures of service "men" getting their feet washed) - so no evidence to send to Rome. Comments: (1) God sees everything (too bad Cardinal Wuerl serves himself and performs for money); (2) Does Cardinal Wuerl think he is BETTER than Jesus Christ--and is that what he and his ilk are teaching women--will women too prideful to don an apron and serve their husband and children get to heaven (no matter how many times Cardinal Wuerl washes their feet)? While these women are invited against Church law to "serve" in the sanctuary reading, singing and handing out bread (and helping parishioners plan their relatives' funerals before they are dead (as long as they don't request Panis Angelicus to be sung), their undisciplined, dressed-down families "feast" off catered meals served on paper plates. For turning their boy children into girls and their girls into boys and sacrificing their unborn children through contraception and abortion and starving their parents to death and spending 24/7 powdering their corpses and making their husbands worship the breast and wear "pink" - does Cardinal Wuerl confer the priesthood (I guess it's no worse than recruiting homosexual waiters to serve God in His sanctuary)? (3) By his example Cardinal Wuerl teaches obedience and submission to God's will or what goes around comes around (Cafeteria Catholicism began w/those now running the church; I wonder if the pope finds trying to shepherd his bishops a bit like trying to herd cats (as Msgr. Pope put it recently - "cat" is a word that does not appear in the Bible - animals that were considered holy and found in Egyptian temples that worshiped Pharoh (a picture of the Anti-Christ))).
ReplyDeleteI hope by "bread" this last person did not mean the Body of Christ.
ReplyDeleteI sent a link to this to my uncle who is a priest and teaches Bible in Rome at some seminary the Vatican runs and he said that Michael Voris is right, only men should have their feet washed on Holy Thursday but it has nothing to do with priesthood and that Voris is making that part up. My uncle said that the washing of the feet is about being the lowest slave in the household and that is what Jesus was showing his apostles that they should be. He said that in the Old Testament priests were required to bathe before they served at the altar—but not only their feet but their whole bodies and that they were to bathe but no one “washed” them—that that would be considered to be improper since they would have to be naked to bathe. My uncle also said that when Jesus tells Peter that whoever has bathed needs not wash his head or his hands, but only his feet that that “bathed” refers to baptism and not to ordination. He said that maybe Mr. Voris should come to Rome and get his STD or at least his STL if he wants to teach people about the faith. He said that everybody who completes just three years of school in Rome gets an STB and its only a bachelor’s degree
ReplyDeleteVoris isn't alone in aligning the washing of feet with the institution of the priesthood. See http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=71 and http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2009/03/holy-thursday-washing-feet.html. Note that the second one gives an account of the institution of the Aaronic priesthood. In that we see that Moses does wash Aaron and his sons. Your uncle cited the Old Testament priests who washed themselves before they served at the altar - but they were already priests who were merely preparing to serve.
DeleteI asked a priest who says Mass in our parish but who teaches at Catholic University and he said that the priest in Rome is right and Michael Voris is wrong about the washing of feet having to do with ordination. Father said that is a late medieval legend but was not the intention of Saint John in writing his gospel, He said that if it were, Jesus would not have refused to wash Peter’s head and hands and said that he who has bathed is clean already.
ReplyDeleteI suppose there are various schools of thought on that point, but I don't want attention to drift too far away from the main point. That is, that those having their feet washed on Holy Thursday must be adult men - and that any variation of that requirement constitutes liturgical abuse. That abuse happened at way too many churches on Holy Thursday, including the Cathedral of St Matthew the Apostle in Washington DC.
DeleteHere's a bishop that disagrees w/anon's "uncle" (hopefully not his "Uncle" Ted McCarrick btw):
ReplyDelete"On March 19, Archbishop John Donoghue sent a letter to parish priests telling them that only men should be chosen for the solemn rite of foot washing, which takes place on Holy Thursday as parishes observe the Last Supper of Jesus. Women and children have been included in the rite for years, but Donoghue's letter specifically states that 12 men should be selected to REPRESENT THE PRIESTHOOD." (my emphasis)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1110591/posts
Another source:
"In conclusion, according to the instructions handed down from the Vatican, only men can participate in the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday. This all male implementation is to reflect that the Apostles of Jesus were all men.
Would it be appropriate to have a baby girl on Christmas Day to represent the birth of Jesus? Certainly not because Jesus was a boy! Accordingly, it is not appropriate to have females for the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday when the Apostles were all males."
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu71.htm
I guess these people need to go to Rome (or Notre Dame University) to get their STD (sexually transmitted disease) from an "uncle".
I’m sure if it is all that serious His Eminence will get his knuckles rapped and we won’t see it next year at the Cathedral and if we see it next year at the Cathedral it will mean that His Eminence didn’t get his knuckles rapped and it isn’t all that serious. I think it is all a tempest in a teapot, but time will tell
ReplyDeleteIt's never a "tempest in a teapot" when rubrics are deliberately and repeatedly violated. These rubrics exist for good reasons. Let's face it - they're often violated for nefarious reasons. At best, violations of these indicate carelessness and pandering to secular influences.
DeleteIts now most certainly a full blown return to the Pharisees. Does anyone really believe that if Christ or Paul walked into the middle of such useless disputes they would be on the side of the legalists?
ReplyDeleteThis isnt Christianity. It has nothing in common with it and more in common with what Jesus condemned
Mr Burger, from your profile it appears that you're an atheist. Therefore I daresay you don't give a rip about what Christ or Paul would say of such matters. BUT, if you (or anyone else) are truly interested, may I refer you to Matthew 7:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.
DeleteI'll be very up front. If you are an atheist, you don't know squat about Christianity. You think by mentioning the names of Christ and Paul that you can silence those who call the violations of the Church's commands for the sins that they are. Mr. Burger, that won't fly on this blog. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and being united with Him. That means total belief in Him - and total obedience to Him and His Laws as promulgated by His Church. Matthew 5:17-20.
I will thank you for reminding me of the sorry spectacle during the 2012 Last Supper. Cardinal Wuerl's disobedience to Canon Law was especially despicable after the horrible way he treated Father Marcel Guarnizo when the latter had the courage and integrity to uphold Church law.