Foot washing on Holy Thursday

[stephraim]

I don’t believe there has been an official dubium on the matter, but Rome has responded to private letters questioning the action (see attachment) in 2008.

 

[NPC]

I don’t believe there has been an official dubium on the matter, but Rome has responded to private letters questioning the action (see attachment) in 2008.

That letter, while being a piece of private correspondance, is indeed quite clear on the matter. One wonders, however, how, according the link posted by InspiritCarol earlier, Sean Cardinal O’Malley was apparently advised (albeit in 2005) by the same Congregation that he could “make a pastoral decision that is best suited for his diocese” - in that particular case the “pastoral decision” in question seemed to be to keep protestors happy rather than expound the significance attached to what is actually laid down in the rubrics. The Congregation, as is clear from the letter, says that it wishes to add nothing to the existing rubrics - yet, if Archbishop O’Malley’s spokesperson is to be believed, the Congregation for Divine Worship permitted the good Archbishop himself to alter the rubrics as he saw fit.

Something somewhere simply doesn’t add up.

 

[TheMc]

oh…people argue about the interpretation of the current rules alright…

I think we are at a standstill…I will follow the Church through my Priests, Bishop, and USSCB. For me…there is nothing else to be done.

If you feel that is what the Church wants…then maybe you should address it with them.

Have a good night

I must point out that this letter from Rome makes it quite clear. They even reiterate the need to correct this. The letter is quite clear.

May 20, 2008
This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments gratefully acknowledges your letter dated 13 April 2008, in which you inquire about the rubrics for the washing of feet during the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Maundy Thursday.

According to the Missale Romanum (tertia editio typica 2002), Feria V in Cena Domini,Ad Missam vespertinam, no. 11,** the washing of feet is reserved to “chosen men”** (viri selecti), that is, male persons. This is also stated in the Cmerenmniale Eyrismporum (editio typica 1984,reimpressio 1995), no. 301. This Dicastery considers this legislation clear and wishes to add nothing further.

Should your problems persist, the Congregation would remind you that you write
again to the Diocesan Bishop who is the moderator, promoter and guardian of the liturgical
life of the diocese (cf. canon 835 § 1). He would be the appropriate person to contact.

With every prayerful good wish, I am
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fr Anthony S.M.
Undersecretary​

It even points out in the last paragraph that those not following this should be reported.

NPC:

That letter, while being a piece of private correspondance, is indeed quite clear on the matter. One wonders, however, how, according the link posted by InspiritCarol earlier, Sean Cardinal O’Malley was apparently advised (albeit in 2005) by the same Congregation that he could “make a pastoral decision that is best suited for his diocese” - in that particular case the “pastoral decision” in question seemed to be to keep protestors happy rather than expound the significance attached to what is actually laid down in the rubrics. The Congregation, as is clear from the letter, says that it wishes to add nothing to the existing rubrics - yet, if Archbishop O’Malley’s spokesperson is to be believed, the Congregation for Divine Worship permitted the good Archbishop himself to alter the rubrics as he saw fit.

Something somewhere simply doesn’t add up.

This is, in my opinion, the final ruling because:

• It is at a later date
• It is in writing, direct from Rome

Anyways, I doubt that the CDWDS actually allowed this.

 

[dans0622]

…The Congregation, as is clear from the letter, says that it wishes to add nothing to the existing rubrics - yet, if Archbishop O’Malley’s spokesperson is to be believed, the Congregation for Divine Worship permitted the good Archbishop himself to alter the rubrics as he saw fit.

Something somewhere simply doesn’t add up.

Hello NPC,

On this issue, it seems that a bishop can legitimately “alter the rubrics.” A bishop is certainly capable of dispensing an ecclesiastical, disciplinary law (see canon 87.1). This liturgical law would seem to fall within that category. That being said, such a “dispensation” should be publicly and properly granted and not just done on the spot or presumed. Although he doesn’t address it from the dispensation angle, here are the thoughts of Dr. Peters:

canonlaw.info/a_footfight.htm

A parish priest, on the other hand, would not be able to dispense himself from the regulations of the rubrics. That is the subject of this thread, I think. So, the question would be: was this particular priest given a dispensation from the bishop so that he can legitimately not follow this law?

Dan

 

[benedictgal]

oh…people argue about the interpretation of the current rules alright…

I think we are at a standstill…I will follow the Church through my Priests, Bishop, and USSCB. For me…there is nothing else to be done.

If you feel that is what the Church wants…then maybe you should address it with them.

Have a good night

With all due respect, there is one thing missing from your equation is Rome. The USCCB must also submit to Rome’s authority.

As for the issue of obedience, when a bishop is ordained, he, too, is obliged to obey, only his obedience is pledged to the Holy Father. The various Congregations (including the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) act in the name and with the authority of the Holy Father. The hierarchy does not end with the USCCB. The buck stops at Rome.

 

[benedictgal]

Hello NPC,

On this issue, it seems that a bishop can legitimately “alter the rubrics.” A bishop is certainly capable of dispensing an ecclesiastical, disciplinary law (see canon 87.1). This liturgical law would seem to fall within that category. That being said, such a “dispensation” should be publicly and properly granted and not just done on the spot or presumed. Although he doesn’t address it from the dispensation angle, here are the thoughts of Dr. Peters:

canonlaw.info/a_footfight.htm

A parish priest, on the other hand, would not be able to dispense himself from the regulations of the rubrics. That is the subject of this thread, I think. So, the question would be: was this particular priest given a dispensation from the bishop so that he can legitimately not follow this law?

Dan

However, there is something else to consider. I submit this section from the GIRM for your review:

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

Since the mandatum ritual actually appears in the Roman Missal itself, it is part of liturgical law. Furthermore, the permissions that the Holy See grants are for individual bishops, not a whole national episcopal conference.

As much as I respect Dr. Peters, he is not the Holy See.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t believe there has been an official dubium on the matter, but Rome has responded to private letters questioning the action (see attachment) in 2008.

However, the problem is that when you posted this, you blacked out the Protocol No., a very important part of the document. The name of the addressee is not important; however, the protocol is. It makes it hard for one to make a case if the Protocol number is missing.

 

[NPC]

Hello NPC,

On this issue, it seems that a bishop can legitimately “alter the rubrics.” A bishop is certainly capable of dispensing an ecclesiastical, disciplinary law (see canon 87.1). This liturgical law would seem to fall within that category. That being said, such a “dispensation” should be publicly and properly granted and not just done on the spot or presumed. Although he doesn’t address it from the dispensation angle, here are the thoughts of Dr. Peters:

canonlaw.info/a_footfight.htm

A parish priest, on the other hand, would not be able to dispense himself from the regulations of the rubrics. That is the subject of this thread, I think. So, the question would be: was this particular priest given a dispensation from the bishop so that he can legitimately not follow this law?

Dan

Thanks Dan. That may well be the case - and I am certainly no canon lawyer - but that really only throws up more questions. For one, why should the Holy See even bother to describe rubrics when in so many cases, apparently, a bishop is able to so easily dispense with them - canon law of course, seems to give permission to dispense with certain things if it be for the spiritual good of the people, yet Archbishop O’Malley, it seems, dispensed with the rubrics because some people protested, not because he thought it was necessarily for the good of their spiritual welfare. Up to that point he evidently thought that following the prescribed rubrics was for the spiritual good of the people. Perhaps he had a Pauline conversion.

Next question which arises for me is, why in the letter from the CDWDS which was posted earlier by Stephraim was it not stated that individual bishops have the authority to dispense with the “viri selecti” rubric? The letter, in fact, is clear that the CDWDS does not envisage any leeway on this matter. Surely, if it were licit for a bishop to do such a thing, the CDWDS would have advised the letter-writer to check with the bishop as to whether he had licitly dispensed with the rubric. Yet, it did not do so.

Thirdly, on the USCCB website, the earlier quoted response from the 1987 newsletter gives the impression that every priest has the authority to have both men and women for the washing of the feet. It gives no indication that this is only possible if the bishop himself dispenses with the rubric or that he subsequently gives permission to a priest (or priests) to dispense with it also. It is, therefore, even more ambiguous than I previously realised.

Fourthly, with regard to the O.P. - while the initial question was not about having women during the mandatum, the parish priest was very clear on the rubrics: he told the committee that he knew that washing each others feet wasn’t in the rubrics. Nonetheless, the committee decided to go against him and what he knew to be right, and he accepted their vote on the matter. So whatever illicit practice is happening in that parish is down to the priest himself who is playing second-fiddle to the committee, not to a bishop who has excercised a right (if he indeed has such a right) to dispense with certain rubrics. Which only begs the question once again, what exactly would be the point of Rome issuing rubrics if every bishop - indeed, every priest - can, with reckless abandon, simply do what they like.

 

[Cristiano]

I don’t believe there has been an official dubium on the matter, but Rome has responded to private letters questioning the action (see attachment) in 2008.

I do not understand what you mean with “official dubium”. However, any answer that relates to forms and modes of a Liturgy is not a private answer but a public answer even when given to an individual and not to an organization.I state that because by its definition the Liturgy is a public action, it is established as a public action and it is regulated as a public action.

 

[benedictgal]

I do not understand what you mean with “official dubium”. However, any answer that relates to forms and modes of a Liturgy is not a private answer but a public answer even when given to an individual and not to an organization.I state that because by its definition the Liturgy is a public action, it is established as a public action and it is regulated as a public action.

The answer bears a protocol number and this means that it has been published in Notitae. The problem is that the number was blacked out.

 

[Cristiano]

The answer bears a protocol number and this means that it has been published in Notitae. The problem is that the number was blacked out.

The point that I was trying to make is that even when the protocol number is published some people could still state that it is simply the documentation of a private answer. A protocol number does not automatically make a document a general (applicable to the whole public) answer even when published in the public domain.

 

[FAB]

Paschalis Sollemnitatis, which was promulgated in 1988, is the prevailing authority here. Furthermore, the rubrics for the Roman Missal specifically state men. Thus, since the CDWDS is the highest authority (acting in the name of and with the authority of the Holy Father), its ruling is what stands.

Tell that to the bishops, You can say it all day long but have you ever seen the CDWDS come down on a bishop. At least mine seem s to have disregarded this document.

 

[benedictgal]

The point that I was trying to make is that even when the protocol number is published some people could still state that it is simply the documentation of a private answer. A protocol number does not automatically make a document a general (applicable to the whole public) answer even when published in the public domain.

But, because it bears a protocol, it is also published in Notitae, the official publication of the CDWDS. Thus, it is not a private affair anymore.

 

[benedictgal]

Tell that to the bishops, You can say it all day long but have you ever seen the CDWDS come down on a bishop. At least mine seem s to have disregarded this document.

However, as indicated in the document that one of the CAF members posted, the CDWDS restates the rubric quite clearly.

For bishops, obedience goes both ways. While the clergy take a vow of obedience to the bishop, the bishop, in turn, is obliged to obey the Holy Father and his agents.

 

[Cristiano]

But, because it bears a protocol, it is also published in Notitae, the official publication of the CDWDS. Thus, it is not a private affair anymore.

It can still be a private (as in specific to an individual) affair even when notified to the public. A lot of disciplinary matters can be private (as in specific to an individual) but still published in the public domain with a protocol number.

 

[benedictgal]

It can still be a private (as in specific to an individual) affair even when notified to the public. A lot of disciplinary matters can be private (as in specific to an individual) but still published in the public domain with a protocol number.

However, even if one may consider this a private matter, the fact that the letter does quote and reaffirm existing law does not make it so easily dismissable.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

From: ROME, 23 MARCH 2004 (ZENIT).
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 read:

"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 that 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.”

One correspondent, a woman, asks: “Did the U.S. conference have the authority to change the rubric of the Sacramentary? Did it get the approval of Rome? Certain dioceses will allow men only to have their feet washed; Jesus chose 12 men, his apostles.”

I was not unaware of this statement. But since the entire text is couched in ambiguous terms and does not claim any authority whatsoever (in spite of the aura of officialdom in its being published by the liturgy committee) I did not consider it a relevant source.

The whole article can be read here: ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR26.HTM

Since there doesn’t seem to be a definitive answer that would satisfy all interested, I am closing this thread and putting a moratorium on the topic. Thank you, all for your participation in the discussion.