Documentation for women's feet being washed on Holy Thursday

  • Thread starter Thread starter philosoph0123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

philosoph0123

Guest
Hi there…I am aware of the Vatican directive about how the people whose feet are to be washed are to be viri selecti (chosen men), but unfortunately, the USCCB website argues that the interpretation of this should be extended to women as well. Realizing that this is clearly not the intent of the original document, do the American bishops have the authority to ‘extend’ the language to include women? Either individually or corporately? If not, where can I find documentation about this, so that I can convince at least one skeptical nun and a priest who probably would rather just have this issue away? The documentation is not meant to be about these specific documents, but about the authority to ‘interpret’ them in an obviously misleading manner…thank you so much!

And, just as a side note, is it permissible for the Scrutinies for RCIA (the readings from the Gospel) to be ‘acted out’ by parishioners (including the celebrant)? Again, thanks!
 
40.png
philosoph0123:
Hi there…I am aware of the Vatican directive about how the people whose feet are to be washed are to be viri selecti (chosen men), but unfortunately, the USCCB website argues that the interpretation of this should be extended to women as well. Realizing that this is clearly not the intent of the original document, do the American bishops have the authority to ‘extend’ the language to include women? Either individually or corporately? If not, where can I find documentation about this, so that I can convince at least one skeptical nun and a priest who probably would rather just have this issue away? The documentation is not meant to be about these specific documents, but about the authority to ‘interpret’ them in an obviously misleading manner…thank you so much!

And, just as a side note, is it permissible for the Scrutinies for RCIA (the readings from the Gospel) to be ‘acted out’ by parishioners (including the celebrant)? Again, thanks!
Click to expand...
The USCCB does not have authority to change ‘meaning’ and ‘intent’ of any deposit of the faith or document from the Vatican. Liturgicum Authenticum (sp?) clearly states the purpose of translation is to have and keep fidelity to the meaning and intent of the latin as its promulgated (this goes for the Mass and other documents).

I’m sure the site on the USCCB website was never ‘voted’ on by the bishops but was put in place by the modernist heretics that comprise the staff of the USCCB.

For you second statement I would have to know if those things being ‘acted’ out were a part of the reading or an excercise in teaching during the homily. There is much liberty with the Homily and I’m not familiar with the rubrics on that issue.

As for the USCCB…it just is one more straw added to the pile that shows America is in Schism. Perhaps it would be better to disband the USCCB and send in a Papal Legate to bring America back into the faith.
 
Agomenmom,

The more I pray the more I think you are right. How can it be that Vatican II states that Latin, Gregorian Chant, etc. is to be preserved? Yet, in my diocese there is ONE church out of maybe some 70 that have a tad bit of Latin! By a tad bit, I mean the Lord/Christ have mercy, Lamb of God, and maybe one other item. Not one traditional high altar stands, altar girls are running rampant getting their feet washed later on, another sex abuse scandal hit home, etc. Then you go up to a priest, confront him nicely about this and he goes around saying you have a problem “with religion.” Unbelievable. I at times have doubt about the Church in America, but the Fathers at EWTN keep me sane with hope for the future along with my few Tridentine Mass videos. I’ll never forgot Father Pablo’s homilies these past two days! What a great man! You can really tell he is a man of the faith with his homilies unlike the homilies in my diocese that kisses the rear of the UN, share made up stories that have no prurpose to the faith, etc.
 
Thanks for the answers so far…and I’ll look up the information on (sp.?) Liturgiam Authenticam, but where can I find, in black and white, the documentation that indicates that the USCCB’s interpretation is not merely invalid, but that they lack the authority to do so, and that it is also wrong for individual liturgies to follow this practice?

About the Scrutinies: these are acted out in place of the reading of the Gospel, rather than being used to explicate the readings.
 
40.png
EddieArent:
Agomenmom,

The more I pray the more I think you are right. How can it be that Vatican II states that Latin, Gregorian Chant, etc. is to be preserved? Yet, in my diocese there is ONE church out of maybe some 70 that have a tad bit of Latin! By a tad bit, I mean the Lord/Christ have mercy, Lamb of God, and maybe one other item. Not one traditional high altar stands, altar girls are running rampant getting their feet washed later on, another sex abuse scandal hit home, etc. Then you go up to a priest, confront him nicely about this and he goes around saying you have a problem “with religion.” Unbelievable. I at times have doubt about the Church in America, but the Fathers at EWTN keep me sane with hope for the future along with my few Tridentine Mass videos. I’ll never forgot Father Pablo’s homilies these past two days! What a great man! You can really tell he is a man of the faith with his homilies unlike the homilies in my diocese that kisses the rear of the UN, share made up stories that have no prurpose to the faith, etc.
Click to expand...
Pray!
We are coming around!
Pray for good priests and that those who are like you are brave enough to speak up.
 
One must remember that these vatican pronouncements are made by male chauvinists who do not have wives to tell them where they are going wrong! I have seen women employed in the washing of the feet in various places. The churches in question did not burst into flames, nor did the earth shake.
 
I have seen women employed in the washing of the feet in various places. The churches in question did not burst into flames, nor did the earth shake.
Click to expand...
And we’ve seen 30 plus years of abortion in this country, to the tune of some 40 million innocent lives obliterated. And our churches have not burst into flames, etc.

So, what’s your point?

God sends His rain on the just and the unjust alike. And the wicked can flourish. . . on earth. . .but when it comes to the Judgment, even if they bleat, “But Lord, we thought we were doing Your will! I mean, when we sinned against you the churches didn’t burst into flames, so how could we* know* we were wrong?” do you really think they’ll get a “bye” because they thought they had to have a SIGN directly from God to discern sin?

We have the Law, the Prophets, and our Savior, Jesus. We have the Bible, we have the Catechism, heck nowadays we even have great internet sites. There’s no excuse that “we didn’t know” available to the average adult today. We aren’t children anymore. If we had improper, incomplete catechesis then, we are surely old enough to get ourselves educated now. If most of us have been able to become proficient enough to use our computers and our TV remotes, we’re certainly capable of finding, reading, understanding and implementing authentic Catholicism in order to form a proper conscience and to discern “sin”. . .whether we see flaming churches around us or not. IMO.
 
Tantum ergo:
If most of us have been able to become proficient enough to use our computers and our TV remotes, we’re certainly capable of finding, reading, understanding and implementing authentic Catholicism in order to form a proper conscience and to discern “sin”. . .whether we see flaming churches around us or not. IMO.
Click to expand...
Good post!
 
40.png
philosoph0123:
Hi there…I am aware of the Vatican directive about how the people whose feet are to be washed are to be viri selecti (chosen men), but unfortunately, the USCCB website argues that the interpretation of this should be extended to women as well. Realizing that this is clearly not the intent of the original document, do the American bishops have the authority to ‘extend’ the language to include women? Either individually or corporately? If not, where can I find documentation about this, so that I can convince at least one skeptical nun and a priest who probably would rather just have this issue away? The documentation is not meant to be about these specific documents, but about the authority to ‘interpret’ them in an obviously misleading manner…thank you so much!
Click to expand...
philosoph0123,

I realize this doesn’t exactly answer your question but I wanted to mention one observation. If you are looking at the same USCCB document I found, you might notice some interesting wording.
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,2 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.
Click to expand...
This is VERY carefully worded. The USCCB doesn’t come right out and say it is approved, in fact in mentions in the next paragraph that this differs from the rubric. It talks about custom developing and a variation being deveoloped. It goes on to expound on how this variation could be good liturgically, scripturally and for the community. But it DOESN’T actually give permission. It just explains what may be the reasons behind some parishes doing it this way.

This makes it hard to argue since there are no conflicting mandates that you can point to and determine which is more authoritative. Many bishops have giving instructions one way or the other (all men or both genders) for thier own diocese. The only hope, right now, to contradict this would be if you are in a diocese where the Bishop says “men only” and the pastor tries to include women. Then it’s an obedience issue.

Good luck.
 
The Lord has said, I will send my angels to bring me the souls of the wicked for Judgment will be swift and merciless. The good I will raise on earth and Heaven for the greater of my Glory.
 
40.png
philosoph0123:
And, just as a side note, is it permissible for the Scrutinies for RCIA (the readings from the Gospel) to be ‘acted out’ by parishioners (including the celebrant)? Again, thanks!
Click to expand...
This question came up last Easter when Bishop Sean O’Malley of Boston was criticized for keeping it to all men as it has always been until the “recent innovations” - he said at that time he would direct the question to Rome as to whether he could include women as this act is supposed to be symbolic between Christ and the first apostles. I do not know if the Bishop ever published his response from Rome but you may wish to send an email to him and see what they tell you.
 
I always thought this practice was fairly harmless, BUT: if we’ve been asked by the Holy See to do otherwise, we should submit with humble obedience. I wish our bishops would be a little more eager to obey the desires of the Holy Father. We should pray for them. They have heavy burdens.
 
40.png
Agomemnon:
The USCCB does not have authority to change ‘meaning’ and ‘intent’ of any deposit of the faith or document from the Vatican. Liturgicum Authenticum (sp?) clearly states the purpose of translation is to have and keep fidelity to the meaning and intent of the latin as its promulgated (this goes for the Mass and other documents).

As I am not a Latin scholar and I agree with you–about changing intent–I am unclear as to what viri selecti (sp) really means–does it mean “men” or can it be interpreted to mean person? Often in English–we write and say men when we mean both men and women–rather than saying both–it is used generically. Is it possible that this Latin phrase was used that way? I ask because when I read the English translation of the original document reinstating the practice of washing the feet–it seems to have nothing to do with instituting the preisthood and all to do with service.

I’m sure the site on the USCCB website was never ‘voted’ on by the bishops but was put in place by the modernist heretics that comprise the staff of the USCCB.

As for the USCCB…it just is one more straw added to the pile that shows America is in Schism. Perhaps it would be better to disband the USCCB and send in a Papal Legate to bring America back into the faith.
Click to expand...
I would consult the New Testament regarding those placed in authority over us.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
 
The term ‘viri’ can properly only be translated as man (or, more properly, in this case is the plural nominative form of vir, which would then mean ‘men’. And specifically male. The term ‘homo’ is the generic term for person in Latin, which is often translated as ‘man’ but can also mean ‘person’ in general. The term 'viri’ cannot…and was chosen for this reason. It is the term also used in reference to ordination…
 
40.png
philosoph0123:
The term ‘viri’ can properly only be translated as man (or, more properly, in this case is the plural nominative form of vir, which would then mean ‘men’. And specifically male. The term ‘homo’ is the generic term for person in Latin, which is often translated as ‘man’ but can also mean ‘person’ in general. The term 'viri’ cannot…and was chosen for this reason. It is the term also used in reference to ordination…
Click to expand...
And in this case particularly correct as the washing of the feet has to do with Jesus the apostles and the priesthood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top