What did I just do?

[FrDavid96]

Maybe. If so I would think that the USCCB would have revised or removed it though.

Either way, I trust each diocesan Bishop to incorporate all Church teaching in making their liturgical decisions.

Well, here’s the thing. Not everything posted on their webpage is actually an official act of the USCCB. The same can be said of any organization of comparable size, lest anyone read anything into that.

What we see on the webpage is merely a quote taken from a USCCB committee newsletter first published in 1987. Those newsletters do not have any “force of law” except when they are actually quoting the law itself. It’s interresting to note here what has not happened. What hasn’t happened is that the USCCB has voted as a Conference to petition Rome to make an exception (an indult) to allow both women and men to be the 12 Apostles on Holy Thursday. So unless that happens, the GIRM still applies. The most telling part of the entire article printed on the webpage is an admission that what the article is saying is not in conformity with the GIRM. That’s not just my opinion. The article itself says that it’s not in conformity.

So we have a non-authoritative source saying that what they are suggesting is NOT in harmony with the GIRM, but suggesting that it be done anyway. For my part, I choose to accept what they say “it’s not allowed” but choose not to draw the same conclusion that we may do things which are not allowed by Rome.

And that’s realy the most interresting part. I don’t even have to “prove” that it isn’t allowed because the USCCB website says it’s not allowed–the same website and the same article that people are using to justify the practice is itself admitting that what they are advocating is illicit. Most interresting indeed.

 

[diggerdomer]

the USCCB website says it’s not allowed–the same website and the same article that people are using to justify the practice is itself admitting that what they are advocating is illicit. Most interresting indeed.

Not exactly. What the statement actually says is:

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.

“May differ.” That is not the same as saying it “doesn’t conform” and certainly does not say the Bishops are advocating anything illicit. It is most interesting that you would choose to interpret the US Bishops that way.

 

[FrDavid96]

Not exactly. What the statement actually says is:

“May differ.” That is not the same as saying it “doesn’t conform” and certainly does not say the Bishops are advocating anything illicit. It is most interesting that you would choose to interpret the US Bishops that way.

To say that it “may differ from the rubrics of the Sacramentary” is a pretty clear statement. What’s the difference between “differing” and “not conforming”? Two ways of saying the same thing.

As for “illicit” the very definition of that word is that it “differs” from the law.

Try that same line of arguing with a judge in a court of law and see how far that gets you*. “Well, your honor, I admit that I didn’t stop for the stop-sign, but by driving through the intersection, I only ‘differed’ from the law, I didn’t actually break the law…”

And again, I am not interpreting the “US Bishops” I am interpreting a committee newsletter. The US Bishops have said no such thing. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make but it doesn’t seem to be getting across. The conference of bishops did NOT make this statement. If they did, it would have to be submitted to Rome for approval or rejection. That hasn’t happened.

*(and the pronoun “you” is merely meant in the generic sense, not the 2nd person)

 

[diggerdomer]

Two ways of saying the same thing.

No.

If the Bishops for example said “holding hands during the Our Father is acceptable” that would differ from the rubrics (the rubrics do not say that) but would still conform with them (the rubrics don’t say you can’t).

 

[japhy]

If the Bishops for example said “holding hands during the Our Father is acceptable” that would differ from the rubrics (the rubrics do not say that) but would still conform with them (the rubrics don’t say you can’t).

Granted. But the rubric says the priest washes the feet of selected males, and washing the foot of a female fails to follow that rubric.

The holding-hands-during-the-Our-Father is different because there is no rubric at all; here, there is a rubric, and not to follow it is to do something illicit.

 

[FrDavid96]

No.

If the Bishops for example said “holding hands during the Our Father is acceptable” that would differ from the rubrics (the rubrics do not say that) but would still conform with them (the rubrics don’t say you can’t).

The Our Father aside, when did “the bishops” say that the rubrics could be changed from “select men” (viri selecti) to “men and women”? And when did the Holy See approve this change?

 

[benedictgal]

Maybe. If so I would think that the USCCB would have revised or removed it though.

Either way, I trust each diocesan Bishop to incorporate all Church teaching in making their liturgical decisions.

We have had this debate before. What you quoted predates Paschale Solemnitatis, the authoritative document of the Holy See on what should and should not be done during Lent and Holy Week. This is what PS says about the washing of the Feet:

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.

Thus, Rome has spoken twice within a 20-year span, first in 1988 when PS came out and second, when the document from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments published its letter in 2008.