John XIII: 12-15 : When he had washed their feet, and taking his garments, and resumed his place, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. (RSV) Additum (6 apr 2013) : Grüße zu deutschen Lesern! Tut mir leid. Ich kann nicht gutes Deutsch schreiben, aber ich habe auf diesen Artikel auf Englisch hier geantwortet. Herzlich, Dr. Peters.

The foot-washing rite, called the Mandatum (command), was re-introduced into the liturgy by Pope Pius XII in 1955. A recent circular letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship explains its purpose: “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’ (Matt XX: 28). This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.” CDW, Paschales Solemnitatis (16 ian 1988), n. 51. Present liturgical law is clear that only adult males (viri) may have their feet washed at the Mass of the Last Supper: “Lotio pedum …11. Viri selecti deducuntur a ministris ad sedilia loco apto parata. Tunc sacerdos … accedit ad singulos, eisque fundit aquam super pedes et abstergit …” (Mass of the Lord's Supper, Roman Missal 2002). Therefore, if someone is washing the feet of any females (or, it seems, even of males under 18, per 1983 CIC 97), he is in violation of the Holy Thursday rubrics. But there are two significant problems. First, it is common knowledge that permissions have been granted to individual bishops to permit women to have their feet washed. Under canon law, such variations do not constitute a change in universal norms nor do they provide others a precedent upon which to adopt practices contrary to law (see 1983 CIC 16 § 3). Still, such exceptions inevitably make people wonder why something like this is illicit in one diocese yet permissible in another. Moreover, Rome’s practice of granting such permissions privately makes it difficult to know the level of authority involved in making the exception and to refute rumors that others were granted. Second, the rubric provokes the bigger question of why the rite is restricted to adult men in the first place. Most commonly, it is argued that the rite represents Christ’s actions at the Last Supper and therefore it must be done as He did it. Consider two liturgical experts, ambo resplendentes in scientia et fide: Rev. Edward McNamara: “This means preparing the rite following liturgical law to the letter, [and to] explain its meaning as an evocation of Christ's gesture of service and charity to his apostles, and avoid getting embroiled in controversies that try to attribute to the rite meanings it was never meant to have.” (Zenit, 28 March 2006) And Mr. Jimmy Akin: “Since the rite re-enacts Jesus' washing of the Twelve Apostles' feet (all of whom were men) and since the text for the rite in Latin refers to it being performed on viri selecti ("selected men") ... only men should be used." (Blog, 21 Mar 2005) and "This rubric requires twelve males because they are representing the Twelve Apostles whose feet Jesus washed." (Blog, 28 Feb 05). There are problems with both of these explanations. Besides the fact that the entire rite is optional and so need not be done at all, consider: no specific number of men is required for the rite, so the connection asserted between 12 men and the 12 Apostles is at best ambiguous;

indeed, there are no references to “apostles” in the mandatum rubrics or the circular letter, which instead explain the rite in terms of “Christ’s gesture of service and charity”, a ministry obviously not limited to apostles; and,

Christ’s explicit mandate at the Last Supper was “you also should do as I have done to you”, a command no one reads as restricting the recipients of ordained ministry to apostles or their successors. Thus, Fr. McNamara’s claim that the rite evokes “Christ's gesture of service and charity to his apostles” and Mr. Akin’s statement that the rite “requires twelve males because they are representing the Twelve Apostles” are eisegetical. Ironically, both men might still have a point, but one would have to look beyond what Rome has actually said to find it. In the meantime, we are left wondering, just what is the value served by restricting the rite to adult men?