The Mandatum

[NetNuncio]

Well here we go again…

We’re getting close to Holy Week so the yearly debate about women having their feet washed in the Mandatum rears it’s ugly head…

I would generally ignore the conversation, but this time I’m in a position where I need to make a recommendation to some powerful folks.

Now, I don’t want to debate about wording. I’ve got my degree, so I know about viri selecti. My frustration is more with the USCCB’s statements on the issue. For example:

“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.” usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.shtml

Now, Paschale Solemnitatis, of course, says: “The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on
this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came ‘not to be served, but to
serve’. This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.” liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/Seasons/Documents/Paschale-Solemnitatis.pdf

I have been searching and searching for a clarifying note from Rome or for an answer to a dubium that a bishop may have sent, but nothing.

Now, I have seen things come out of the USCCB that have been questionable, but those have always been expansions or interpretations, not absolute contradictions. I know that one bishop was once allowed to wash women’s feet, but that was special circumstances that were meant for that once bishop in that once diocese that one time. It would be my hope that if a national bishops committee had a directive that was directly in conflict with Roman directive, that the committee would correct, or at least suppress, the directive.

Really, this isn’t about washing women’s feet. We’ve beaten that topic up. This is about the fact that we have conflicting directives from authoritative organizations, the lesser of which has not come into line with the greater. Are we stuck with this quandry until a bishop issues a dubium to the Holy See?

 

[benedictgal]

Paschales Sacranementalis clearly states that it should be “men”. This whole document came about to clear up any and all ambiguities. In fact, I am going to give my pastor a copy of this document.

 

[NetNuncio]

Benedictgal,

Yes, I understand that. The frustrating thing is that PS comes to us circa 1988. The BCL documents are from just a few years ago.

How can we reconcile the two? Does it really take 20 years to rectify a mistake? The BCDW (formerly BCL) has YET to rectify this directive and it leading to a GREAT amount of confusion and serious difficulties to those of us who are trying to enforce liturgical law.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Personally, I thought this thread was about the mandatum that states professors of theology and related disciplines teaching in Catholic universities must state before the bishop they will teach in fidelity to Church teaching.

I’m glad it was this mandatum.

I think United States pastors should get off their keesters and contact the Knights of Columbus NOW, and line up twelve guys.

 

[NetNuncio]

Hey folks,

Thanks so much for your opinions. I agree about getting twelve men. However, my big questions is trying to reconcile the documents from the Holy See and the BCL. It’s been 20 years and we haven’t seen a correction, despite Paschalis Solemnitatis. I guess I meant to have this be less about whose feet should get washed (as I said, we’ve talked about that EVERY year since this forum has been started) and more about the fact that we have conflicting directives.

 

[Joannm]

the Mandatum is optional. Every year I ask people to get their feet washed and every year it is mostly women because the men say “no.” So, the only other courese of action would be not to do it.

 

[japhy]

The frustrating thing is that PS comes to us circa 1988. The BCL documents are from just a few years ago.

Actually, the timeline shows that the BCL statement came a year before PS!
Regarding the phrase viri selecti, the Chairman of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy, after a review of the matter by the committee, authorized the following response which appeared in the BCL Newsletter of February 1987:
…
This is the latest statement of this Secretariat on the question. No subsequent legislation or instructions have necessitated a modification in the statement.
Perhaps now that we have a new head of the Committee on Divine Worship in the USCCB, we’ll get some sort of Holy Week clarification-document.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

the Mandatum is optional. Every year I ask people to get their feet washed and every year it is mostly women because the men say “no.” So, the only other courese of action would be not to do it.

It actually is OPTIONAL!!

 

[John_Lilburne]

I expect things will be clearer when the USA translation of the 2002 Missale Romanum is published. Either they will have an approved modification of the rubrics, or they will not.

The 1987 response came from one person, the Chairman of the Bishops Committee for the Liturgy.

The 1994 Varietates Legitimae (Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy) is at adoremus.org/doc_inculturation.html . It gives procedures for modifying what is in the liturgical books for a particular country.

A few extracts:

“32. Conferences may determine, according to the procedure given below (cf. Nos. 62 and 65-69), whether the introduction into the liturgy of elements borrowed from the social and religious rites of a people, and which form a living part of their culture, will enrich their understanding of liturgical actions without producing negative effects on their faith and piety. They will always be careful to avoid the danger of introducing elements that might appear to the faithful as the return to a period before evangelization (cf. below No. 47).
In any case, if changes in rites or texts are judged to be necessary, they must be harmonized with the rest of the liturgical life and, before being put into practice, still more before being made mandatory, they should first be presented to the clergy and then to the faithful in such a way as to avoid the danger of troubling them without good reason (cf. below, Nos. 46 and 69).”

"… 66. The episcopal conference will present the proposal to the congregation before any experimentation takes place. The presentation should include a description of the innovations proposed, the reasons for their adoption, the criteria used, the times and places chosen for a preliminary experiment and an indication which groups will make it, and finally the acts of the discussion and the vote of the conference.

After an examination of the proposal carried out together by the episcopal conference and the congregation, the latter will grant the episcopal conference a faculty to make an experiment for a definite period of time, where this is appropriate.[141]

1. The episcopal conference will supervise the process of experimentation,[142] normally with the help of the national or regional liturgical commission. The conference will also take care to ensure that the experimentation does not exceed the limits of time and place that were fixed. It will also ensure pastors and the faithful know about the limited and provisional nature of the experiment, and it will not give it publicity of a sort which could have an effect on the liturgical practice of the country. At the end of the period of experimentation, the episcopal conference will decide whether it matches up to the goal that was proposed or whether it needs revision, and it will communicate its conclusions to the congregation along with full information about the experiment. …"

Has this procedure been followed on this issue? Not that I am aware of.

From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]
[28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.[65]”

Cardinal Arinze wrote about the refusal to allow purifications in the USA by Extraordinary Ministers who were not instituted acolytes. His letter, of 12 October 2006, included:

“… 4. Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church. …”

There seems to have been a recent strengthening of the Roman Missal as a legislative text, making it more difficult to modify its instructions.

 

[benedictgal]

I expect things will be clearer when the USA translation of the 2002 Missale Romanum is published. Either they will have an approved modification of the rubrics, or they will not.

The 1987 response came from one person, the Chairman of the Bishops Committee for the Liturgy.

The 1994 Varietates Legitimae (Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy) is at adoremus.org/doc_inculturation.html . It gives procedures for modifying what is in the liturgical books for a particular country.

A few extracts:

“32. Conferences may determine, according to the procedure given below (cf. Nos. 62 and 65-69), whether the introduction into the liturgy of elements borrowed from the social and religious rites of a people, and which form a living part of their culture, will enrich their understanding of liturgical actions without producing negative effects on their faith and piety. They will always be careful to avoid the danger of introducing elements that might appear to the faithful as the return to a period before evangelization (cf. below No. 47).
In any case, if changes in rites or texts are judged to be necessary, they must be harmonized with the rest of the liturgical life and, before being put into practice, still more before being made mandatory, they should first be presented to the clergy and then to the faithful in such a way as to avoid the danger of troubling them without good reason (cf. below, Nos. 46 and 69).”

"… 66. The episcopal conference will present the proposal to the congregation before any experimentation takes place. The presentation should include a description of the innovations proposed, the reasons for their adoption, the criteria used, the times and places chosen for a preliminary experiment and an indication which groups will make it, and finally the acts of the discussion and the vote of the conference.

After an examination of the proposal carried out together by the episcopal conference and the congregation, the latter will grant the episcopal conference a faculty to make an experiment for a definite period of time, where this is appropriate.[141]

1. The episcopal conference will supervise the process of experimentation,[142] normally with the help of the national or regional liturgical commission. The conference will also take care to ensure that the experimentation does not exceed the limits of time and place that were fixed. It will also ensure pastors and the faithful know about the limited and provisional nature of the experiment, and it will not give it publicity of a sort which could have an effect on the liturgical practice of the country. At the end of the period of experimentation, the episcopal conference will decide whether it matches up to the goal that was proposed or whether it needs revision, and it will communicate its conclusions to the congregation along with full information about the experiment. …"

Has this procedure been followed on this issue? Not that I am aware of.

From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]
[28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.[65]”

Cardinal Arinze wrote about the refusal to allow purifications in the USA by Extraordinary Ministers who were not instituted acolytes. His letter, of 12 October 2006, included:

“… 4. Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church. …”

There seems to have been a recent strengthening of the Roman Missal as a legislative text, making it more difficult to modify its instructions.

John, what about the directives from Paschale Solemnitatis? I noticed that you did not include them in your post. The document clearly states:

1. The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came “not to be served, but to serve.” [58] This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.

Now, inasmuch as there are those who say it is optional, it is truly a beautiful custom when done properly.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

“When done properly” is the catch. And washing the feet, not hands, not “symbolizing” not restyling and retooling!

 

[benedictgal]

“When done properly” is the catch. And washing the feet, not hands, not “symbolizing” not restyling and retooling!

That is so true. Then, you also get the weird interpretations. One involved the priest washing the feet of 12 people, and then those folks go and wash 12 more pairs of feet. It reminds me of that old shampoo commercial that was popular when I was little “and so on, and so on…”

A friend of mine told me that a priest friend of hers came up to her during the Mandatum and washed her feet, much to her chagrin. She said that it was the most awkward thing in the world.

Holy Week is the time for solemnity and not creativity.