Light On Dark Water

About That Foot-Washing Business

As most everybody knows (well, most everybody who would be reading this blog, anyway), Pope Francis stirred up some controversy in the Maundy Thursday service by including women, including a Muslim, in the group of people whose feet he washed. Some think it a liturgical outrage, some think that outrage is an outrage.

For my part, I'm somewhere in between. It was a beautiful gesture in itself, but I have some misgivings as to whether it was wise to do it in this context. And by "this context" I don't mean only the liturgy itself, but the whole history of liturgical travail and controversy that has so troubled the Church since Vatican II. It's not so much the thing itself as the possible encouragement it may give to those who think the liturgy can be tinkered with to any extent they choose.

Over at Caelum et Terra, Daniel Nichols is firmly among those who decry the objections as "rubrical fundamentalism". I sympathize, and yet, although no one who knows me could rationally accuse me of being a stickler for perfect adherence to liturgical rules, I also have some sympathy for the objectors. There are some comments by Teena Blackburn on that CetT post which strikes me as the wisest thing I've read on the subject. Here is one that pretty well sums up her view, though there are others, and if you click on the "rubrical fundamentalism" link above you can read both the post and all the comments (some of which are on the recondite side). Here's her conclusion:

What the Pope did would probably not matter much except a huge number
of Catholics are shell shocked and exhausted from the liturgy wars of
the past decades-and everyone, both clown Mass fan and Latin Mass
attendee, are looking to Rome to see what happens next. The Pope did no
favors to those who are the most likely to obey him in other matters.

In fact, I don't really expect a great resurgence of banalization in the liturgy, because I think that the energy of that movement and the enthusiasm for it among Catholics at large have waned considerably. At least I hope it has.

Maclin Horton

17 responses to “About That Foot-Washing Business”

  1. Janet

    The Pope did no favors to those who are the most likely to obey him in other matters. Well, is that what he is supposed to be doing? Does he owe us something because we are faithful to the magisterium?
    He may not have done any favors to those who know their faith, who are secure enough in the rest or their life to have time to worry about the liturgy. He did perhaps do a favor for those who are lost to the faith and to their basic place in the brotherhood of man.
    I’m sorry but to me so much of this complaining about what the Holy Father is doing reminds me of the sort of things that people said about Jesus–“He eats with sinners,” etc., etc.
    And it all seems so personal. He didn’t do any favors for ME. So?
    AMDG

    Reply
  2. Janet

    The Holy Father from yesterday’s homily.
    The disciples had had such high hopes that Jesus would be the one who would redeem Israel, but they thought their hopes were destroyed, he said.
    “And they stewed, so to speak, their lives in the juice of their complaints and kept going on and on and on with the complaining,” the pope said. “I think that many times when difficult things happen, including when we are visited by the cross, we run the risk of closing ourselves off in complaints.”
    When all people can think of is how wrong things are going, Pope Francis said, the Lord is close, “but we don’t recognize him. He walks with us, but we don’t recognize him.”
    Like the disciples joined by the risen Lord on the road to Emmaus, people can hear beautiful things, but deep down, they continue to be afraid, the pope said.
    “Complaining seems safer. It’s something certain. This is my truth: failure,” he said.
    AMDG

    Reply
  3. Janet

    Sorry about the italics. Does this help?

    Reply
  4. Mac

    I think, re “favor,” you’re making too much of a casual figure of speech used in a blog comment. Notice, btw, that the person I linked to said explicitly that he should have done it, just preferably not in the liturgy. Also, she’s not Catholic, so her comments weren’t self-centered.

    Reply
  5. Marianne

    There’s also an interesting discussion of this over at First Things. These comments especially:
    ThomasL says:

    The rubrics specifically say viri (men) and canon 837 has that, ‘Liturgical actions are not private but are celebrations of the Church itself as the ‘sacrament of unity’, that is, the holy people united and ordered under the Bishops.’ (ie, you don’t get to have your own liturgy your own way, but must be united in the liturgy.)

    Mr. Richard Miesel, O.P. says:

    The history of interpretation of this passage is an interesting one, including the role a textual variant “except for the feet” in Jesus’ response to Peter may have played in the flourishing of the interpretation of foot-washing as penance. I am persuaded that the larger interpretive key is to see the foot-washing in relation to the Cross of Christ. (I’m just following Raymond Brown here.) Jesus said, “And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.” If that is the character of his cross, then it ought also to be reflected (in some way) in our ritual of foot-washing. It has an evangelical dimension, a witness to the servant Christ who has come to suffer the cross for the sake of the world.

    ThomasL says:

    Few if anyone says washing the feet is a bad thing. This passage though has been interpreted as meaning:

    1) Jesus promising grace to cleanse us from post-baptismal sin (cf. earlier comment).
    2) The commissioning / institution of the priesthood.
    3) An example to the apostles, to whom He was entrusting His Church, that if He as Lord can serve, so much more should they serve.
    4) An act of humility and kindness.

    If you follow the rubrics, you get every single one of those meanings at the same time.

    If you don’t follow the rubrics, you get some of them. Washing the feet of non-Christians knocks out meaning (1), of women knocks out meaning (2), (3) is more general, but makes the most sense if the feet of clergy are washed, which is why that is normally done when possible, (4) is universal.

    So, yes, absolutely (4) is a great thing, it means a lot to people for someone in high estate to serve someone in low estate, it is a very good thing. But, is it such a good thing that you cannot have all of 1, 2, 3, and 4? Do you need to throw the others out to make 4 more obvious?

    The way this is presented is a false choice. There is no conflict between liturgy and humility, or between following the obedience to tradition and evangelism to force one to choose only one or the other. The liturgy and the tradition expound and embody humility and evangelism.

    “There is no conflict between liturgy and humility, or between following the obedience to tradition and evangelism to force one to choose only one or the other. The liturgy and the tradition expound and embody humility and evangelism.” Perfect description of Benedict’s papacy?

    Reply
  6. Grumpy

    I’m with Janet. It was unwise to eat with whores, taxcollectors and other riffraff.

    Reply
  7. Mac

    Yes, that is a good description of Benedict’s papacy.
    I personally would probably not have given this whole thing more than 10 minutes’ thought, but the controversy sort of forced me to think about it, and I concluded that although there was a lot of over-reaction on the objectors’ side, they did have a point.
    Erin Manning has a good rundown of the history of this actually-not-so-old ritual (not so old as a part of the Holy Thursday Mass, that is).

    Reply
  8. Mac

    Yes, Grumpy and Janet, but that argument can be used against a lot of other things that I don’t think you would want to see subjected to it. For instance, receiving communion. There are legions of people, many of them Catholic, who believe that it’s decidely un-Christ-like to withhold communion from anyone.
    I’m not saying this is the same thing, because clearly it’s not, but I’m not persuaded by that line of argument.
    One thing that maybe makes me more sympathetic to the objectors than I might otherwise have been is that this has been used to bash Benedict in a most unfair way.

    Reply
  9. Janet

    Well, I’m glad you said that wasn’t the same thing, because it’s not the same thing at all. And if anybody suggested to me that it was okay to give Communion to non-Catholics, I could give them good reasons why it’s not. It’s a doctrinal matter. This is liturgical practice, which can change.
    One thing that maybe makes me more sympathetic to the objectors than I might otherwise have been is that this has been used to bash Benedict in a most unfair way.
    I’m not sure what that has to do with Pope Francis and the choices he made at all. I can’t believe that he did it to make Benedict look bad, and I’m sure you don’t believe that either. Why would that make you sympathize with their arguments? Believe me, I’m just as distressed about the Benedict-bashing as I am about the Francis-bashing.
    And this particular objector (I hadn’t read CetT when I wrote before.) isn’t just not Catholic, she’s an ex-Catholic. She chose to leave the Catholic Church–maybe under Benedict, and if not, certainly John Paul. Why is it so important to her to prove that the Holy Father is wrong? She dissented in the ultimate way–she left–I don’t think she really has anything else to say.
    I’m glad to see you, Grumpy, because I’ve been longing to hear your opinion about all this for weeks. I thought maybe you could explain to me why I might be wrong about stuff.
    AMDG

    Reply
  10. Janet

    And, you know, I really care about good liturgy. Who else here has a Mass kit in their bedroom, or spends their time sitting around sewing little chasubles for dolls!
    AMDG

    Reply
  11. Louise

    For my part, I’m somewhere in between. It was a beautiful gesture in itself, but I have some misgivings as to whether it was wise to do it in this context.
    I am with you here. I like our new Pope and I have dearly loved our retired Pope. I’m very open to Pope Francis. I don’t like the excessiveness of criticisms against either man.
    I am inclined to sympathise with those who object to liturgical abuse, because there has been just far too much of that in recent decades. It’s probably time for more faithfulness to the rubric. It’s there for a reason. I am, however, quite interested in the positive reception Pope Francis is getting from people who have been distant from the Church. I guess I wish he had done something like this in a paraliturgy, not the Mass. I don’t think I’m immoderate in any of my wishes/observations.
    As for the general disobedience of Catholics in various moral issues (and disobedience against the Church in matters liturgical has a knock on effect in this regard) I can tell you that my life has been much, much harder in recent times because there was hardly anyone around me to lend moral support to me personally when I came up hard against extreme circumstances which severely tempted me to disobedience. Thankfully, that lack of support did not result in my downfall. I was reminded again that no-one is exempt from severe testing and the bad example of nearly everyone around us only adds to the test.
    I’m certain I would be very grateful if more Catholics, including the clergy, would be just that bit more faithful. What could it hurt?

    Reply
  12. Janet

    Well, you will find lax and disobedient Catholics in Texas, but you should also be able to find a good number of really solid, obedient ones. Hopefully things will be easier for you in that respect.
    AMDG

    Reply
  13. Mac

    I’m pressed for time, but just briefly: the fact that the Mass is doctrine and the foot-washing is not doesn’t change the fact that the what-would-Jesus-do argument can be and is used against just about every aspect of the Catholic Church. It doesn’t settle anything. I could have chosen a better example. It wouldn’t have to be a dogmatic matter: I’m sure there are any number of liturgical abuses which everyone here would agree in deploring.
    I don’t see that Teena Blackburn’s standing as an ex-Catholic invalidates what she says, although I can see how you might find it irritating.
    The role of the Benedict-bashers is not an important point. They just caused me to listen a little more carefully to those who voiced respectful reservations than I might otherwise have done. I didn’t like the strident critics of Francis, but I also didn’t like the equally strident denunciations of the calm and respectful people who were troubled by the incident. As I said in the post, I’m not seriously worried that this is a slippery slope toward using Twinkies and Kool-Aid for communion.

    Reply
  14. Louise

    I hope so, Janet.

    Reply
  15. Janet

    I didn’t use the “What would Jesus do?” argument. I know that people use that for all sorts of spurious things. I said that people are saying the same sorts of things about Francis that they said about Jesus. Those are two very different things.
    I’m very unhappy about the arguments coming from both sides. I mentioned somewhere before that both Benedict and Francis must detest this.
    And Maclin, you don’t go to Methodist and Episcopal blogs and tell them what their leaders are doing wrong. This is what irritates me. I think she says quite a few good things, but everything she says about what the pope does is colored by the fact that she has rejected the papacy. And this, “I hope a little ‘prophetic’ statement was worth it,” is just snide.
    I have refused to have my feet washed over and over again to the point where nobody asks me anymore. I really do understand why people feel this way. I mean, I could even say, and I haven’t heard anyone else say this, that Holy Thursday is the priests’ big day, and I can understand why not washing the feet of retired priests is a problem.
    I should go to bed.
    AMDG

    Reply
  16. Mac

    I agree with you that TB’s parting line was snide. It should not have been there, and marred her view. The overall tenor of her comments, though, struck me less as hostile to Francis as sympathetic to the faithful and suddenly apprehensive laity. (I wouldn’t be at all averse to joining Episcopal or Methodist traditionalists in lamenting some of their leaders, btw.)
    To repeat, though, and emphasize: I really don’t think this is cause for much alarm. Much as people like Cardinal Mahoney seem to want it to be. He made some obnoxious remarks of a “Ding dong the witch is dead” sort of tenor.

    Reply
  17. Louise

    I mentioned somewhere before that both Benedict and Francis must detest this.
    Now that is surely true.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Louise Cancel reply

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress