SIR – Thomas O’Loughlin’s article on the Mandatum (March 18) half-cites modern biblical research in defence of his argument that foot-washing is all about mercy and mutual service, and not at all about the priesthood. Au contraire. Equally modern research (in this case, that of the Methodist scholar Margaret Barker) provides another perspective.
In the ritual washing on the Day of Atonement, the priests washed themselves five times, but their feet were washed 10 times: “he who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet” (John 13:10). As the synoptic Gospels tell us, Jesus at the Last Supper transforms the meaning of ancient things, and incorporates them into his own priestly oblation which commences in the Upper Room. The same is happening in John: here Jesus inaugurates his new priesthood for service in the Temple, and he purifies it by washing it. It is not the normal foot-washing of guests, since this happens after the meal, not upon their arrival. Washing the feet of the Apostles was a priestly ordination, anticipated in the Book of Numbers (8-11) and by Ezekiel (44).
The Mandatum is unequivocally about the priesthood, and the ancient liturgical practice of the Byzantines confirms this Latin understanding. The symbolism of mercy and service flow from the priesthood, since the priesthood is about the Cross, and the Cross is about mercy. Is this debate really about revealing the Crucified and Risen Lord, or is it about social mores?
Yours faithfully,
Brother Gregory Davies O.Praem
St Philip’s Priory, Chelmsford, Essex
SIR – The reported plot (Cover story, February 26) to remove the obligation of normative clerical celibacy may be considered as but one more assault on the historic bastions of classical Catholicism, understood as the religion of the martyrs and the great defining Councils of the Church.
Neither the existence of such pressure for unwarranted change nor its origin should surprise anyone. A movement in opposition to organic development and in favour of discontinuity, it has plagued the Church for decades. Its mindset is secularist and its methods subversive. It follows logically – like all revolutions – the gradual undermining of foundations and the destruction of signposts, confusion being the genesis of the control favoured by all revolutionaries.
In this instance, its first onslaught on tradition was the drive – ultimately challenged by Summorum Pontificum – to negate and deny to future generations the corpus of liturgical development of centuries, together with its converging symbols of piety and reverence, being justified at that time and subsequently by flawed scholarship and motivated by cultural iconoclasm masquerading as noble simplicity. It was also against the expressed will of the bishops of the Church in council.
As in liturgical experimentation, appeals to antiquity and paleo-Christian practice are also invalidly invoked to justify the abandonment of mandated celibacy. This method of forcing the pace of change by preferential appeal to the practice of early centuries – thus discounting all the insights and expansion of understanding throughout succeeding centuries – has been a hallmark of would-be reformers in later centuries.
The proponents of repudiation of venerable customs and disciplines are in some sense comparable to religious fundamentalists. They appear to see nothing of value in the sacred traditions hallowed by centuries of use and incalculable spiritual benefit to the Church.
In defence of tradition and continuity, it is at least arguable that, like so many other organic and complementary developments over the centuries, clerical celibacy might represent, in a significant sense, precisely the kind of deepening of understanding traced by Blessed John Henry Newman in the 19th century.
The end of celibacy as the norm for priests and bishops in the Roman Catholic tradition would mark the termination – traceable to the falsifying of the conciliar spirit of the 1960s – of an epoch of spiritual expansion and cultural enrichment that evangelised five continents. It should be resisted at every level.
Yours faithfully,
Antony Conlon (Rev Dr)
Goring-on-Thames, Oxfordshire
SIR – Fr Brian Storey (letter, March 18) equates celibacy with a love of God apparently unobtainable by married people (or those in “human relationships”). Unique vistas and clear insights are available to celibates, he claims. Yes, as a celibate myself I can see some advantages in the single life, but what I miss are the insights provided by a partner, in my case, those of a man.
Celibate clergy, missing proximity with women, fail to see life through the eyes of a gender other than their own. That is a loss that has had disastrous consequences throughout history: the male view is stamped upon Church teaching in every field, just as my world is understood through solely female eyes.
Yours faithfully,
Deborah Jones (Dr)
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
SIR – The recent commercium epistolarum about Latin (March 18 and especially the sneer of March 11) moves me, who often expound on that excellent language in these pages, to offer the following. First, converse with exorcists long enough and you will hear that the Latin rite is more effective. Next, on a less diabolical plane, the Italian humorist and cartoonist Giovanni Guareschi (d 1968), who penned the amusing and insightful Don Camillo stories, explained why many today don’t care for the Latin Church’s sacred language: “Latin is a precise, essential language. It will be abandoned, not because it is unsuitable for the new requirements of progress, but because the new men will not be suitable for it. When the age of demagogues and charlatans begins, a language like Latin will no longer be useful, and any oaf will be able to give a speech in public and talk in such a way that he will not be kicked off the stage. The secret to this will consist in the fact that, by making use of words that are general, elusive and sound good, he will be able to speak for an hour without saying anything. With Latin, this is impossible.”
Yours faithfully,
Fr John Zuhlsdorf
By email
SIR – Your items regarding the greater efficacy of exorcisms in Latin make me wonder what language Jesus used to address the Devil. There may be clues in the common Greek used for the Gospels. A London priest-friend heard a Reverend Mother in his parish saying after Mass how much she enjoyed “those Latin kyries”. Liturgists might be able to tell us if Latin displaced Greek in the Western Rite when that efficacy was realised. Have Eastern Rite Christians been missing out?
Yours faithfully,
Fr Robert Miller
The Sacred Heart, Tisbury, and All Saints, Wardour, Wiltshire
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.