|
On pages 17-18 Monsignor Anthony A. La Femina writes:
2.2. The Nature of the Analogy
Having
examined all the eucharistic circumstances, attributes and
effects that John attributed to the Footwashing, the question arises as to
what
kind of analogy John used for these two actions so
different in themselves.
The answer depends upon whether these Eucharistic
characteristics truly belong to the essential makeup of the Footwashing. The answer
is that those eucharistic characteristics alleged by John
about the Footwashing really belong
intrinsically and formally only to the Eucharist.
Therefore the analogy
constructed by John is the
analogy of improper proportionality.
It is clear from the belief and practice of the Church that the eucharistic
characteristics attributed to the Footwashing do not belong
to its essential
makeup. The Church has never understood the command to
repeat the
Footwashing in the same way as it has for the Eucharist. The
command for
washing feet has not been rigorously observed despite the
fact that the liturgical
observance of that command is called by the Latin word
mandatum,
meaning "command." In fact, the Mandatum had long fallen
into disuse and
was only restored to the Liturgy in 1955 by Pope Pius XII as
a part of the reform
of Holy Week. Moreover, the faith of the Church has always
professed
that the Eucharist, not the Footwashing, is the action that
established the Christian covenant for the forgiveness of
sins at the Last Supper. Therefore
the only logical conclusion is that John made his analogy
knowing well that
his analogy is simply a metaphor
for teaching purposes. |
