On Holy Thursday, the Pope held Mass at Rome’s Casal del Marmo prison for minors. During the Mass, as is the practice worldwide in the Catholic Church, the Pope (as the celebrant of the Mass) washed the feet of 12 persons. A minor controversy as arisen on the manner in which the Pope chose to carry out this practice.

1. The 12 persons included 2 women.
2. The 12 persons included 2 Muslims.
3. He also kissed the feet of all 12 persons.

The complaint is that the rubrics for this practice of washing feet states that the celebrant will wash the feet of the “men who have been chosen (viri selecti)”, and that the Church has never had a practice of washing the feet of non-Catholics or non-Christians, nor of kissing feet during that ceremony.

The mass media have claimed that the practice violated Church law. But as a matter of fact, there is nothing in Canon Law about the washing of feet. The liturgical norms are mostly extra-juridical; they are ruled by instructions, not per se by law. The document Paschalis Sollemnitatis by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments (1988) has the only instruction on this point of which I am aware:

51. The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came “not to be served, but to serve.” This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.

The USCCB offers a document which comments on this point:

Because the gospel of the mandatum read on Holy Thursday also depicts Jesus as the “Teacher and Lord” who humbly serves his disciples by performing this extraordinary gesture which goes beyond the laws of hospitality, the element of humble service has accentuated the celebration of the foot washing rite in the United States over the last decade or more. In this regard, it has become customary in many places to invite both men and women to be participants in this rite in recognition of the service that should be given by all the faithful to the Church and to the world. Thus, in the United States, a variation in the rite developed in which not only charity is signified but also humble service.

While this variation may differ from the rubric of the Sacramentary which mentions only men (“viri selecti”), it may nevertheless be said that the intention to emphasize service along with charity in the celebration of the rite is an understandable way of accentuating the evangelical command of the Lord, “who came to serve and not to be served,” that all members of the Church must serve one another in love.

Therefore, it has long been a permissible practice, in many dioceses and parishes, for the celebrant to wash the feet of men and women, indicating the humble service to which we are all called in imitation of Christ.

So the washing of feet has two meanings: (1) as an indication of the relationship between Christ and the Apostles, and as a sign of their call to serve, rather than be served, (2) as an indication of our role to serve others, in imitation of Christ. To emphasize the former meaning, only men might be chosen to have their feet washed. To emphasize the latter meaning, men and women and children might be chosen. And the Pope specifically stated his intention to emphasize this latter meaning:

This is moving. Jesus, washing the feet of his disciples. Peter didn’t understood it at all, he refused. But Jesus explained it for him. Jesus – God – did this! He himself explains to his disciples: “Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord – and you are right, for that is what I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you” (Jn 13:12-15).

It is the Lord’s example: he is the most important, and he washes feet, because with us what is highest must be at the service of others. This is a symbol, it is a sign, right? Washing feet means: “I am at your service”. And with us too, don’t we have to wash each other’s feet day after day? But what does this mean? That all of us must help one another. Sometimes I am angry with someone or other … but… let it go, let it go, and if he or she asks you a favour, do it.

Help one another: this is what Jesus teaches us and this what I am doing, and doing with all my heart, because it is my duty. As a priest and a bishop, I must be at your service. But it is a duty which comes from my heart: I love it. I love this and I love to do it because that is what the Lord has taught me to do. But you too, help one another: help one another always. One another. In this way, by helping one another, we will do some good.

Now we will perform this ceremony of washing feet, and let us think, let each one of us think: “Am I really willing, willing to serve, to help others?”. Let us think about this, just this. And let us think that this sign is a caress of Jesus, which Jesus gives, because this is the real reason why Jesus came: to serve, to help us. (Source)

The Authority of Bishops

Bishops and Bishops’ Conferences can adapt and change liturgical norms. For example, they can decide if the celebration of a holy day of obligation, under Canon Law, can be moved to Sunday, removing the obligation. They can also decide to depart from the general norms on many different aspects of liturgical form.

For a while, there was a controversy in the U.S. over girls as altar servers. Some Bishops chose to have altar girls, and others did not. I believe that it is still the case that a few Bishops in the U.S. have decided not to have altar girls, even though the practice is now approved. Before it was approved, some individual Bishops chose to allow altar girls.

Now the traditionalist and the Pharisee will say that it is against the rules to allow altar girls. But I say that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles; they have Apostolic authority. The Pope is the successor of Peter, so he has authority over the other Bishops and the whole Church.

And as true Apostles, the individual Bishops are not mere servants of the Pope; they are called directly by Christ to the Apostolate of their office as Bishops. The bishops derive this right and duty to the apostolate from their union with Christ the head; incorporated into Christ’s Mystical Body through Baptism, strengthened by Confirmation, and chosen by and for Christ through Holy Orders to the Episcopal degree, they are assigned to this Apostolate by the Lord Himself.

An individual Bishop has the authority to make changes for his diocese in matters of discipline. He also has the authority, to some extent, to grant dispensations from Canon Law. And he can licitly alter the form of the Mass, to some limited extent. All this pertains to his authority as a successor to the Apostles. Thus, even an individual Bishop can licitly choose to allow the washing of the feet of men and women, not women only. He does not need to obtain special permission from the Holy See, nor does he need to formally issue a document on the subject.

Any authority possessed by the individual Bishops is also possessed by the holy Roman Pontiff. In addition, the Pope has the authority “motu proprio” — on his own initiative, meaning without review or approval or participation in the decision by anyone else — to make changes to Canon Law and to any practices or disciplines in the Church.

So this claim, by a popular traditionalist blogger, is foolish:

Of course the optional mandatum is something that, while widely symbolic of the link between Christ and His Apostles, is ruled by pure Ecclesiastical Law, not Divine Law, and, regarding it, the Supreme Legislator can do (almost) as he pleases, even remove its presence from a liturgical environment. As long as there are specific standing rules about it (viri, men), however, even the Supreme Authority is bound to humbly obey them, unless he formally changes them beforehand. It really is not that hard to understand this basic matter of legal logic, is it?

If the Pope is the Supreme Authority, how is it that a priest-blogger can judge and condemn him? If the Pope is the Supreme Authority, then by that very fact he is NOT bound to obey a mere rule. For ALL the rules are under his authority, to bind or to loosen. And there has NEVER been a teaching by any Pope or Council, nor by Tradition or Scripture, teaching that the eternal moral law requires the Pope to formally change a rule before doing the contrary. IN FACT, our Lord Jesus Christ (who some Catholics treat as a mere figurehead, not as a true ruler over them) specifically and explicitly taught the contrary:

[Matthew 12]
{12:1} At that time, Jesus went out through the ripe grain on the Sabbath. And his disciples, being hungry, began to separate the grain and to eat.
{12:2} Then the Pharisees, seeing this, said to him, “Behold, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbaths.”
{12:3} But he said to them: “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him:
{12:4} how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?
{12:5} Or have you not read in the law, that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath, and they are without guilt?
{12:6} But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here.
{12:7} And if you knew what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would never have condemned the innocent.
{12:8} For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Jesus taught that David did nothing wrong when he violated the discipline of the Old Testament, a discipline established by Divine Revelation, when he ate the bread of the Presence. Jesus taught that the priests of the Old Testament “are without guilt” when they violate the Sabbath (in certain ways).

So the assertion of Fr. A.-Joseph Chauvin S.S.S. at the blog Rorate Caeli that the Pope is required to change a law or practice formally before doing the contrary IS PROVEN FALSE by the words of Christ and by the example of the Apostles.

[Luke 6]
{6:1} Now it happened that, on the second first Sabbath, as he passed through the grain field, his disciples were separating the ears of grain and eating them, by rubbing them in their hands.
{6:2} Then certain Pharisees said to them, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbaths?”
{6:3} And responding to them, Jesus said: “Have you not read this, what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him?
{6:4} How he entered into the house of God, and took the bread of the Presence, and ate it, and gave it to those who were with him, though it is not lawful for anyone to eat it, except the priests alone?”
{6:5} And he said to them, “For the Son of man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.”
{6:6} And it happened that, on another Sabbath, he entered into the synagogue, and he taught. And there was a man there, and his right hand was withered.
{6:7} And the scribes and Pharisees observed whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might thereby find an accusation against him.
{6:8} Yet truly, he knew their thoughts, and so he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Rise up and stand in the middle.” And rising up, he stood still.
{6:9} Then Jesus said to them: “I ask you if it is lawful on the Sabbaths to do good, or to do evil? To give health to a life, or to destroy it?”
{6:10} And looking around at everyone, he said to the man, “Extend your hand.” And he extended it. And his hand was restored.
{6:11} Then they were filled with madness, and they discussed with one another, what, in particular, they might do about Jesus.

The Pharisees treated rules as if they were infallible dogmas on faith and morals. Then, by exalting rules to become dogmas, they also deprecated the dogmas of faith and morals as if they were mere rules. They denigrated the command to love your neighbor as yourself. And they exalted and distorted every rule, the greater and the lesser, as if each were the highest commandment. Many Catholics today behave the same way. They treat every rule, every minor point of form in the Mass, and every slight point of traditional practice as if it were an infallible dogma on faith or morals, necessary for salvation. They are the Pharisees of today. They are not imitating Christ.

Consider the practices of Pope John Paul II, who is on his way to sainthood. He permitted variations from the form of the Mass, for example, when he visited Africa; he allowed traditional African dances at Mass. He permitted girls to serve at the altar. He permitted women lectors.

At one point, Pope John Paul II appointed more Cardinals of papal conclave voting age (under 80) than the maximum number, 120, given in his own instruction (UDG) on the rules for a papal conclave. What would have happened if there were more than 120 electors in the subsequent conclave? They would all be able to vote, for the Pope chose them, and by that action, he nullified his own prior written instruction, limiting the maximum electors to 120.

All of these actions irk the ultra-traditionalists who have decided that Catholicism is nothing other than what they understand to be traditional.

Many of the more extreme traditionalists have indeed abandoned the teachings of Christ, and are in the process of developing their own new religion. They have become attached to mere rubrics. They set themselves up as judges over each Ecumenical Council and each Pope. They and they alone determine what is or is not Catholic. Does the Pope hold the keys of the Apostle Peter, the keys to bind and to loosen on heaven and on earth? They speak and act as if they have the keys, not the Pope.

[Matthew]
{16:17} And in response, Jesus said to him: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven.
{16:18} And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
{16:19} And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”

But the main point to understand in this controversy is that discipline is not dogma. The Pope who violates the eternal moral law in the least way commits a sin, at least a venial sin. A Pope can possibly commit a mortal sin. No Pope is above the eternal moral law, not Peter and not any of his successors. Concerning doctrines on faith and morals, the Popes can only teach the truths found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. But concerning discipline, practices, norms, and laws (per se) of the Church, the Pope can do as he sees fit. Discipline is not dogma. Practices are not infallible teachings. Norms are not unchanging and unchangeable truths of the eternal moral law.

The Pope is free to eat from the grain fields, to heal on the Sabbath, and to act contrary to discipline and norms. And the individual Bishops are free to follow his example. If the Bishops wished to do so, they could follow the example of Pope Francis and wash the feet of women as well as men on Holy Thursday.

The Pope’s Authority

There are many Catholics who seem to think (based on their behavior) that they have been given the authority to judge the Pope. Whence do they derive this authority? From the internet. As soon as Pope Francis was elected, hoards of commentators began to judge his every word and deed and attempt to define his papacy. They show no restraint and no limits in their exercise of freedom of speech. They show no fear of proper authority in the Church, nor any true obedience to the Pope.

Some of these commentators have cried out against Pope Francis for his supposed disobedience to the Church’s laws, rules, and practices. Who has the greater authority, the Pope or an internet commentator? If it is the Pope, then how did these commentators attain to sufficient authority that they would be judges over the Pope?

7. Therefore, if the earthly power goes astray, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a lesser spiritual power goes astray, [it will be judged] by its superior; and truly, if the highest [power] goes astray, it will not be able to be judged by man, but by God alone. And so the Apostle testifies, “The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one.” [1 Corinthians 2:15]

8. But this authority, even though it may be given to a man, and may be exercised by a man, is not human, but rather divine [power], having been given by the divine mouth [of Christ] to Peter, and to him as well as to his successors, by [Christ] Himself, [that is, to him] whom He had disclosed to be the firm rock, just as the Lord said to Peter himself: “Whatever you shall bind,” [Matthew 16:19] etc. Therefore, whoever resists this authority, such as it has been ordain by God, resists the ordination of God. [Romans 13:2] Otherwise, he would be proposing two principles to exist, as did Manichaeus, and this we judge to be false and heretical. For Moses testified that God created heaven and earth, not in the beginnings, but “in the beginning.” [Genesis 1:1]

9. Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation. (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)

The Pope is the highest authority in the Church on earth, and we are all subject to him. If the Pope chooses to wash the feet of women, or of non-Christians, he violates no provision of the eternal moral law. And since he has supreme authority over ecclesiastical law and discipline and practices, he is without blame, even if he violates Canon law (as long as it is per se of law, and not also an expression of a teaching on faith or morals) or departs from immemorial custom. All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.