Mandatatum - washing of feet on Holy Thursday

[Spudbynight]

A continuation on a topic that went a little bit off topic elsewhere.

Since you live in England…I’m not going to argue about it being prohibited…as I have a link from the USCCB that says otherwise…but since you are not under them:shrug:

I didn’t watch the video…but I’m assuming that he is for women’s ordination…then ya that is wrong…to me those are the things to concentrate on…

Fr.Z has written on the subject several times. This is from last year.

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/quaeritur-holy-thursday-mandatum-and-female-feet-wherein-advice-is-sought-and-fr-z-ranteth/

He is of the belief that no Bishop in the US has ever received explicit approval for a variation from the Holy See. If you have a link to confirm otherwise I think he would be interested to see it.

I have read the statement from the USCCB here but that is from 1987 - i.e. it predates Paschales Solemnitatis which was circulated by the CDW in 1988. The statement from the USCCB includes a footer “This is the latest statement of this Secretariat on the question. No subsequent legislation or instructions have necessitated a modification in the statement.” which really doesn’t sit easily with me.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

A continuation on a topic that went a little bit off topic elsewhere.



Fr.Z has written on the subject several times. This is from last year.

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/quaeritur-holy-thursday-mandatum-and-female-feet-wherein-advice-is-sought-and-fr-z-ranteth/

He is of the belief that no Bishop in the US has ever received explicit approval for a variation from the Holy See. If you have a link to confirm otherwise I think he would be interested to see it.

I have read the statement from the USCCB here but that is from 1987 - i.e. it predates Paschales Solemnitatis which was circulated by the CDW in 1988. The statement from the USCCB includes a footer “This is the latest statement of this Secretariat on the question. No subsequent legislation or instructions have necessitated a modification in the statement.” which really doesn’t sit easily with me.

In his blog dated April 10, 2010, Fr. Z himself acknowledged that, concerning Cardinal O’Malley and the Archdiocese of Boston, “Rome gave him permission for pastoral reasons to wash the feet of women, too.” That’s a direct quote. So I am puzzled at this apparent inconsistency.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

A continuation on a topic that went a little bit off topic elsewhere.



Fr.Z has written on the subject several times. This is from last year.

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/quaeritur-holy-thursday-mandatum-and-female-feet-wherein-advice-is-sought-and-fr-z-ranteth/

He is of the belief that no Bishop in the US has ever received explicit approval for a variation from the Holy See. If you have a link to confirm otherwise I think he would be interested to see it.

I have read the statement from the USCCB here but that is from 1987 - i.e. it predates Paschales Solemnitatis which was circulated by the CDW in 1988. The statement from the USCCB includes a footer “This is the latest statement of this Secretariat on the question. No subsequent legislation or instructions have necessitated a modification in the statement.” which really doesn’t sit easily with me.

Well…Fr. Z…is just Fr. Z–he’s a priest but no more. The fact that he has a blog where he puts his opinion on does not override the usccb nor does it override each individual diocese’s Bishop.

So…either the USCCB is in total non-compliance with Rome or there are other things at play here.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Now I know we are getting close to Holy Week…the annual washing of the feet argument has begunopcorn::

 

[aemcpa]

Now I know we are getting close to Holy Week…the annual washing of the feet argument has begunopcorn::

LOL.

 

[Kevin812]

My Parish offers foot washing to anyone who wants it at the Holy Thursday service. We have five stations set up. In fact there is a lot of peer pressure against us few (me) who do not want our (my) foot washed.

 

[Phemie]

For the last several years in my parish only men have had their feet washed. It might not always have been 12, but it was men. It was also very well planned, laid out and done.

This year the new Pastor has called for men, women and children and had no plan to limit it to 12. Anyone who wanted to leave their pew and come up was free to do so. When it was explained that we didn’t function that way he consented to a sign-up sheet the way it had been done for at least a decade. Only men have signed up and now he’s beating the bushes for women and kids.:banghead:

Oh, he also informed us that we were doing other things wrong: there should be no holy water in the stoups and we should not be using a processional cross during Lent.

 

[Spudbynight]

In his blog dated April 10, 2010, Fr. Z himself acknowledged that, concerning Cardinal O’Malley and the Archdiocese of Boston, “Rome gave him permission for pastoral reasons to wash the feet of women, too.” That’s a direct quote. So I am puzzled at this apparent inconsistency.

If that is the case then it is only within the Archdiocese of Boston and it would remain forbidden everywhere else.

 

[Spudbynight]

Well…Fr. Z…is just Fr. Z–he’s a priest but no more. The fact that he has a blog where he puts his opinion on does not override the usccb nor does it override each individual diocese’s Bishop.

So…either the USCCB is in total non-compliance with Rome or there are other things at play here.

However I believe the CDW overrides the USCCB does it not?

 

[Phemie]

In Canada, the ORDO, only one is published by the CCCB for the entire country, calls for a ‘cross-section of parishioners’. Hard to have a cross-section when you eliminate more than 65% of them.

When the ORDO contradicts the Roman Missal it’s hard to convince anyone that only men should have their feet washed.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

However I believe the CDW overrides the USCCB does it not?

Well, has it? Has it stopped the horrid rolleyes washing of women’s feet? It’s really hard to argue with a priest about it when the USCCB has come out as they have with no additional information apparently seen as necessary. Nor is it anything I am about to lose any sleep over…and certainly not for Joe CAF’er theologian…

 

[Lapey]

In Canada, the ORDO, only one is published by the CCCB for the entire country, calls for a ‘cross-section of parishioners’. Hard to have a cross-section when you eliminate more than 65% of them.

When the ORDO contradicts the Roman Missal it’s hard to convince anyone that only men should have their feet washed.

The ordo is a guide to the Liturgical seasons, feasts, and vestmants of teh calendar, not the rubrics. The rubrics are clear men only. Jesus instituted the priesthood at this Last Supper celebration, 12 men. Nothing more nothing less.

Outside of the HT Mass a pastor can choose to do whatever he wants, inside the Mass of the Lord’s Supper he cannot.

This is not required, but if chosen it must be done according to the rubrics.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The ordo is a guide to the Liturgical seasons, feasts, and vestmants of teh calendar, not the rubrics. The rubrics are clear men only. Jesus instituted the priesthood at this Last Supper celebration, 12 men. Nothing more nothing less.

Outside of the HT Mass a pastor can choose to do whatever he wants, inside the Mass of the Lord’s Supper he cannot.

This is not required, but if chosen it must be done according to the rubrics.

But Deacon, what happens to a priest who does wash womens feet as the USCCB itself appears to have conflicting information? Or if his Bishop allows it?

 

[Lapey]

But Deacon, what happens to a priest who does wash womens feet as the USCCB itself appears to have conflicting information? Or if his Bishop allows it?

Except for the fact that they are being disobediant, nothing really. This is the problem, this is why we have so much confusion, there are too many ready to be disobediant but very few ready to reprimand those that are.

Are you saying you are in favor of this disobedience?

 

[adrift]

At one parish I attended the priest washed one mans feet. Then the congregation proceeded to wash everyones feet. Women were washing children’s feet. Men washed priest feet. It lasted for about a half hour. I did send a letter to the bishop and was answered that the parish priest knew what was best for his parish.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Except for the fact that they are being disobediant, nothing really. This is the problem, this is why we have so much confusion, there are too many ready to be disobediant but very few ready to reprimand those that are.

Are you saying you are in favor of this disobedience?

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.

 

[aemcpa]

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.

A priest does not promise obedience to the USCCB. And besides, a bishop saying something is permitted when Rome says it is not has no bearing on a priest’s promise of obedience. If a bishop commands his priests to wash the feet of women on Holy Thursday, then the priest’s promise of obedience would come into play, and I would say in that case the priest should follow the bishop’s order. But the bishop would be in the wrong.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

A priest does not promise obedience to the USCCB. And besides, a bishop saying something is permitted when Rome says it is not has no bearing on a priest’s promise of obedience. If a bishop commands his priests to wash the feet of women on Holy Thursday, then the priest’s promise of obedience would come into play, and I would say in that case the priest should follow the bishop’s order. But the bishop would be in the wrong.

Where did I say a priest promised obedience to the USCCB??? Please quote me if I did…

 

[aemcpa]

Where did I say a priest promised obedience to the USCCB??? Please quote me if I did…

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.

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

 

[Phemie]

The ordo is a guide to the Liturgical seasons, feasts, and vestmants of teh calendar, not the rubrics. The rubrics are clear men only. Jesus instituted the priesthood at this Last Supper celebration, 12 men. Nothing more nothing less.

Outside of the HT Mass a pastor can choose to do whatever he wants, inside the Mass of the Lord’s Supper he cannot.

This is not required, but if chosen it must be done according to the rubrics.

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.”