Mandatatum - washing of feet on Holy Thursday

[Lapey]

I’m aware of what the rubrics say in the Roman Missal. But most priests read the “Notes” in the front of the ORDO and those notes, at least in the Canadian one, give advise on how things are to be done. They seem to be taken as seriously as the notes in the ritual books (i.e. Marriage Rite). Sometimes those notes contradict the Roman Missal and seem more interested in political correctness than liturgical correctness. But that’s Canada for you. To quote a priest who was wagging his finger and yelling at me, “We’ve never listened to Rome before and we’re not about to start now.”/QUOTE]

Precisely why there is so much dissention, desertion and confusion…

I think its time we listen to Rome. The ritual, “rites” books are binding, the “front of the ordo” is not.

If it makes you feel any better, I get yelled at and a finger wagged at me too by one particular priest who is retired but helps in our parish one Mass a weekend. He has very heretical views on gay “marriage”, ordination of women, etc. He and I get along as long as he keeps his personal thoughts out of his homilies and conversations around the parish. We have had a couple of VERY heated discussions.

 

[Lapey]

No I’m not saying I’m in favor of disobedience. Please don’t put words into my mouth. It was a question.

You have to admit it is confusing especially with the USCCB’s words on their website. A priest promises obedience to their bishop…so I find it even more confusing.

I guess I just don’t see it the same way as you…

It’s not as clear cut as the visiting priest that was here last week and was still using the old translation…that is clearly disobedience.

Sorry, that didn’t come out as I intended…this is what I meant, doing this in the Mass, anything other than 12 men, is a disobedience according to the rubrics. (The number 12 is debatable, women being included is not.) I was simply asking if you were in support of women having their feet washed in the HT Mass. It was hard to tell what your stance was by your comments. That is all…

It doesn’t really matter if you and I see it the same, it matters that the liturgy is celebrated correctly. The 3rd edition of the Roman Missal is clear, 12 men as it was at the first Lord’s Supper.

I know many have seen this done other ways for probably two generations, with bishop’s apparent approvals, or at least their silence, but it doesn’t mean it is proper. It’s past time to bring the special nature back to the Liturgy. It’s time to get back to what the purpose of Mass is, heavenly worship of God, not inclusion and entertainment. The Mass is much bigger than anything human, it is supernatural.

I don’t blame those who like these innovations, this is what has been taught and tolerated for over two generations. Pope Emeritus B16 has made some strides to “fixing” the liturgies, but there is much more work to be done.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

You either implied it, or you stated a complete non sequitur.

Neither…what I clearly stated was that a priest promises obedience to the bishop.

You wanted to take off and run with it…but because you misuse how I said it does not then make your argument what I said.

Please calm down when you are reading what people write.

 

[aemcpa]

Neither…what I clearly stated was that a priest promises obedience to the bishop.

You wanted to take off and run with it…but because you misuse how I said it does not then make your argument what I said.

Please calm down when you are reading what people write.

Since a priest promises obedience to his bishop, then what the USCCB says is irrelevant, so any reference to what the USCCB states is a non sequitur.

I assure you that my heart rate is a steady 72 BPM.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Since a priest promises obedience to his bishop, then what the USCCB says is irrelevant, so any reference to what the USCCB states is a non sequitur.

I assure you that my heart rate is a steady 72 BPM.

These are seperate statements by me.

First yes…a priest promises obedience to his Bishop…if the Bishop does not address it, allows it, or wants it (both men and women) is he in disobedience.

Secondly…especially for the lay person…the USCCB statement is confusing and one could assume by it that this is what the bishop wants or is allowed…no? As it is the USCCB which is the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops…and I live in the US…that is a logical assumption…especially given any lack of statement from my bishop on the matter.

You keep using that word (non sequitur). I do not think it means what you think it means. --a little princess bride humour.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Sorry, that didn’t come out as I intended…this is what I meant, doing this in the Mass, anything other than 12 men, is a disobedience according to the rubrics. (The number 12 is debatable, women being included is not.) I was simply asking if you were in support of women having their feet washed in the HT Mass. It was hard to tell what your stance was by your comments. That is all…

It doesn’t really matter if you and I see it the same, it matters that the liturgy is celebrated correctly. The 3rd edition of the Roman Missal is clear, 12 men as it was at the first Lord’s Supper.

I know many have seen this done other ways for probably two generations, with bishop’s apparent approvals, or at least their silence, but it doesn’t mean it is proper. It’s past time to bring the special nature back to the Liturgy. It’s time to get back to what the purpose of Mass is, heavenly worship of God, not inclusion and entertainment. The Mass is much bigger than anything human, it is supernatural.

I don’t blame those who like these innovations, this is what has been taught and tolerated for over two generations. Pope Emeritus B16 has made some strides to “fixing” the liturgies, but there is much more work to be done.

USCCB_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.

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.

The liturgy is always an act of ecclesial unity and Christian charity, of which the Holy Thursday foot washing rite is an eminent sign. All should obey the Lord’s new commandment to love one another with an abundance of love, especially at this most sacred time of the liturgical year when the Lord’s passion, death, and resurrection are remembered and celebrated in the powerful rites of the Triduum.

So I guess what I thought you were asking was I in favor of disobedience. I think we disagree on what disobedience is. In light of what is stated above I don’t see it as such…and obviously neither does my priest. I’ve actually had my feet washed twice…so I guess I don’t see the big problem with it. If there was no statement from the USCCB that might be a different story.

I have seen my priest talk about disobedience such as refusing to say the new translation…not him…but others who were. He always reminds us of why obedience is important. Of course we also hear about forgiveness, reconciliation, the evil of abortion, etc. that many here say they don’t hear about in a homily.

I’m a little confused from your statement above though how the Mass is the worship of God–and would be ok with the washing of the feet of men…but if we include women it becomes entertainment???

I guess in the long run…this is not super important to me…I believe there are much more important things to worry about other then if a woman gets her feet washed on HT or not. Such as abortion, the high number of people cohabitation, using contracteption, not going to confession, thinking women’s ordination would be ok, etc… Especially here in liberal Oregon. I also worry alot about lapsed Catholics and how do we get them home again. Those are the things that worry me…

 

[aemcpa]

You keep using that word (non sequitur). I do not think it means what you think it means. --a little princess bride humour.

Princess Bride quotes are always appreciated.

 

[Spudbynight]

Princess Bride quotes are always appreciated.

It made me smile (and after a long day I needed it)

 

[aemcpa]

I guess in the long run…this is not super important to me…I believe there are much more important things to worry about other then if a woman gets her feet washed on HT or not. Such as abortion, the high number of people cohabitation, using contracteption, not going to confession, thinking women’s ordination would be ok, etc… Especially here in liberal Oregon. I also worry alot about lapsed Catholics and how do we get them home again. Those are the things that worry me…

This issue and yours are symptoms of the same disease. People are attracted to Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. The Church is failing at providing all three.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

This issue and yours are symptoms of the same disease. People are attracted to Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. The Church is failing at providing all three.

I would say that is like equating venial and mortal sins…

So washing a women’s foot is having the church fail at goodness, truth, and beauty??

 

[aemcpa]

I would say that is like equating venial and mortal sins…

So washing a women’s foot is having the church fail at goodness, truth, and beauty??

Venial and mortal sins are both sins. Venial sins lead to mortal sin, and so they must be rooted out. And washing a woman’s foot at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper is not just “washing a woman’s foot”, it is a distortion of the Liturgy, a misrepresentation of the theology of the priesthood, and it is disobedience.

 

[Lapey]

USCCB_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.

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.

The liturgy is always an act of ecclesial unity and Christian charity, of which the Holy Thursday foot washing rite is an eminent sign. All should obey the Lord’s new commandment to love one another with an abundance of love, especially at this most sacred time of the liturgical year when the Lord’s passion, death, and resurrection are remembered and celebrated in the powerful rites of the Triduum.

So I guess what I thought you were asking was I in favor of disobedience. I think we disagree on what disobedience is. In light of what is stated above I don’t see it as such…and obviously neither does my priest. I’ve actually had my feet washed twice…so I guess I don’t see the big problem with it. If there was no statement from the USCCB that might be a different story.

I have seen my priest talk about disobedience such as refusing to say the new translation…not him…but others who were. He always reminds us of why obedience is important. Of course we also hear about forgiveness, reconciliation, the evil of abortion, etc. that many here say they don’t hear about in a homily.

I’m a little confused from your statement above though how the Mass is the worship of God–and would be ok with the washing of the feet of men…but if we include women it becomes entertainment???

I guess in the long run…this is not super important to me…I believe there are much more important things to worry about other then if a woman gets her feet washed on HT or not. Such as abortion, the high number of people cohabitation, using contracteption, not going to confession, thinking women’s ordination would be ok, etc… Especially here in liberal Oregon. I also worry alot about lapsed Catholics and how do we get them home again. Those are the things that worry me…

You and I had the same argument last year. You were wrong then and still wrong. 12 men. Done with this.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

You and I had the same argument last year. You were wrong then and still wrong. 12 men. Done with this.

Nice to see you haven’t lost your pastoral sensativity. Why do you sign peace when it seems you don’t really mean it?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Question for those still left in the thread…in general…

Can we trust our Bishops and the USCCB? If not…what are they there for?

I mean I go to the USCCB website to check for all sorts of things…one of them is which movies might be appropriate…but for other things as well. When I became a sacristian/MC…I checked all over there to see if it was appropriate for a woman. I mean we have them in our parish already…but I wanted to check for some official information.

If the USCCB can not be trusted…then where is average Joe Catholic to go??

 

[aemcpa]

Question for those still left in the thread…in general…

Can we trust our Bishops and the USCCB? If not…what are they there for?

I mean I go to the USCCB website to check for all sorts of things…one of them is which movies might be appropriate…but for other things as well. When I became a sacristian/MC…I checked all over there to see if it was appropriate for a woman. I mean we have them in our parish already…but I wanted to check for some official information.

If the USCCB can not be trusted…then where is average Joe Catholic to go??

The Church does not require that the USCCB receive the recognitio of the Holy See before it can issue movie reviews, but she does require that before the USCCB can issue particular rubrics that vary from the rubrics specified in the Roman Missal. In fact, the USCCB never even claimed to give permission to wash women’s feet, much less had such permission approved by Rome.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The Church does not require that the USCCB receive the recognitio of the Holy See before it can issue movie reviews, but she does require that before the USCCB can issue particular rubrics that vary from the rubrics specified in the Roman Missal. In fact, the USCCB never even claimed to give permission to wash women’s feet, much less had such permission approved by Rome.

Well…what therefore does that link say to you?

 

[Lapey]

You and I had the same argument last year. You were wrong then and still wrong. 12 men. Done with this.

Nice to see you haven’t lost your pastoral sensativity. Why do you sign peace when it seems you don’t really mean it?

I admit I was a little harsh, for that I am sorry. However, making adaptations in the liturgy for “pastoral” reasons doesn’t make it proper.

What I meant by my statement is the argument is over as far as the rubrics governing the Mass of the Lord’s Supper. Women are not were never and won’t ever be ordained priests so IN THE MASS there should not be any women involved in the washing of the feet. Washing of the feet in the HT Mass has significance much greater than what pastoral reasons are worth; most women understand this. That is all.

And just in case you do not believe my signature, May the Peace of Christ be with YOU!!!

 

[Lapey]

Question for those still left in the thread…in general…

Can we trust our Bishops and the USCCB? If not…what are they there for?

I mean I go to the USCCB website to check for all sorts of things…one of them is which movies might be appropriate…but for other things as well. When I became a sacristian/MC…I checked all over there to see if it was appropriate for a woman. I mean we have them in our parish already…but I wanted to check for some official information.

If the USCCB can not be trusted…then where is average Joe Catholic to go??

To your local odinary, he is the leader of his diocese, not teh USCCB. Then you would go to your pastor, who operates under the direct supervision of the bishop.

The pastoral provision you site is in the cases where it is customary, but it is still suggested to follow the rubrics. For pastoral reasons it is allowed to continue…for now.

In areas where it is not customary, as in my home diocese, the rubrics are to be followed.

 

[Lapey]

Well…what therefore does that link say to you?

Exactly what I stated here…

To your local odinary, he is the leader of his diocese, not teh USCCB. Then you would go to your pastor, who operates under the direct supervision of the bishop.

The pastoral provision you site is in the cases where it is customary, but it is still suggested to follow the rubrics. For pastoral reasons it is allowed to continue…for now.

In areas where it is not customary, as in my home diocese, the rubrics are to be followed.

 

[aemcpa]

Well…what therefore does that link say to you?

It says exactly what it says, that a variation developed in the US that is at odds with the rubrics. Nowhere in that link does it state that the variation is actually permissible, only that it “has become customary”. The Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy certainly seems to be sympathetic to this particular liturgical abuse, there is nothing in this statement claiming to actually establish the abuse as a change in law. That is mostly because the Committee on Liturgy has no authority whatsoever to change the law on its own - such an action can only occur when the entire Conference votes to approve a change and then has that change approved by Rome.