Thursday, January 21, 2016

Statement on allowing the washing of the feet of women at the OF mandatum

IMG_6926
The Stripping of the Altars on Maundy Thursday, with the FSSP in Reading.
Until 1955, the Mandatum took place after this, final ceremony of the Mass of Maundy Thursday.

I've been asked for a statement on the decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship allowing the washing of the feet of women as well as men in the 'mandatum' of Maundy Thursday.

I feel very sorry for priests who have been trying to obey liturgical law on this issue, as on other issues in the Ordinary Form. They may well feel betrayed. Equally, I can see that from the Roman perspective, the rule has become meaningless - and did so even before the Holy Father broke it himself. This has happened again and again since Vatican II. The traditions of the Roman liturgy, as preserved in the Ordinary Form, are being stripped away one by one.

An important aspect, which is generally neglected is the question of the etiquette of men washing the feet of women. This would have been considered inappropriate only a few decades ago in the West, and such a view persists in many cultures. In many developing countries there is serious conflict between people trying to be as progressive as possible on such matters, and others reasserting traditional sexual constraints and gender roles. This decree is not going to help priests in those places.


Here's the statement.



This decree can be seen as a concession to existing practice, and its good intentions are evident. It nevertheless undermines attempts to 'resacralise' the Ordinary Form, and it reinforces the trend which has seen priests increasingly surrounded by women during Mass, serving, doing the readings, and as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. This inevitably makes the all-male priesthood itself harder to understand.

Liturgical conservatives who have sought in recent decades to keep the rules of the Roman Missal by admitting only men to the ceremony of the mandatum, often in the face of considerable pressure, may well feel the rug has been pulled from under them by this decree. This has happened many times, as Rome has felt unable to hold the line on liturgical abuses, and has simply allowed them: notably female altar servers and Communion in the hand.

These concessions have moved many to reconsider the Extraordinary Form, which is not affected by this decree, or similar concessions to liturgical abuses in the past. It is in the Extraordinary Form that the Church's liturgical traditions are maintained.

Background

The ceremony of washing of feet on Maundy Thursday was based on Our Lord washing the feet of the disciples, which was adopted first by Abbots washing the feet of their monks, and Bishops washing the feet of their clergy. Outside the liturgy, Kings would wash the feet of poor men - and queens of women. For men to wash the feet of women would have been unthinkable until very recently, and would be problematic in many cultures today.

Before 1955 the mandatum did not take place after the Gospel, but after the end of Mass; it is optional, and it is not always done in celebrations of the Extraordinary Form. The 1955 reform indicated that it should take place in the choir (or sanctuary) of the church, which is properly speaking an area reserved for the clergy, and the servers assisting them. Opening this area to laymen, and now women, weakens the symbolism of the separation of nave and sanctuary. Women were forbidden to go into the sanctuary of the church, even to read a reading, as recently as the 1974 General Instruction of the Roman Missal.


Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.

33 comments:

  1. No worry for the etiquette: if somebody has his way, he'll appoint priestesses to the job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm so disappointed - for years as a priest I have been against the idea that foot washing was seen as the central focus and ' the show' on Holy Thursday. I object to this inordinate focus, as some have seen it, simply because many still don't understand the reality of the Mass - its origins, significance and real presence. Foot washing has been abused and misused and has detracted, in my opinion, from the Great Mystery that was given on that special night. The night of the Passover was forever changed by Jesus Himself to what we now celebrate as the Mass - the Eucharist. The apostles now saw, would learn and practice the priestly rubrics of celebrating in His memory the Passion Death & Resurrection of Jesus Christ. They saw and intitutionalized - The breaking of the bread, the words that have been institutionalized as the consecration and the sign of the everlasting Covenant. It came from this very night. They would understand what they knew from Sacred Scripture and witnessed, and put together the manna from heaven and Passover lamb, to the meaning of the feeding of the multitude and the hard sayings in St. John where many left Him. It was the night of the institution of the priesthood for heavens sake! Yes, they will be humbly obliged to call upon God to transform the bread & wine to the Body & Blood of Jesus Himself, and to serve the followers as Jesus did. But to put the main focus of this momentous night that the Catholic Church now has practically and mystically prayed in every Mass since St. Paul - on an act of humility seems so minimal, and can detract from the monumental everlasting Sacrifice of the Mass Our Blessed Lord gave to the Church. In this era of unbelief or lack of faith and knowledge in the Real Presence I preach the awesome ( truly ) reality of this night, its one of the top feasts in my book. Yes, I do believe foot washing conveys a sense to the congregation of service, humility and love, yet it was done to those who would go out, His priests, to do this in Me - the Mass and serving the sheep. It was the men whom He washed and ordained that night. We don't wash feet anymore as in those days, yet we do serve the poor, console the sorrowing, feed the hungry etc. To change this symbolic act to one of inclusiveness changes the more far reaching meaning of Holy Thursday, for me. I would prefer as was done in the early liturgies to separate it from the Mass and I'd even be willing to wash the whole congregation feet on spy Wednesday if it so important a rubric. But let us educate and help the poor in spirit to believe in the Mass the history and development of our Mass, the Real Presence and to excite others tell of this great gift we have in the Catholic Church.

      Delete
    2. At long last a comment by someone knowing what he's talking about! It immediately brought to my mind the remark, "he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law."

      You see, our human condition is such that we naturally tend to backslide from a God-directed faith to a man-centered faith. It takes good will, honesty and effort, holiness in short, to put things back in their proper place. It's critically important. Everything depends ultimately on us thinking and feeling as God, not as men. This vision of the mass in connection with the Last Supper appears as what is in God's mind. I fear it will be ignored, in favor of others more accommodating to human concepts and interests.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. Priests unhappy about this will likely opt to skip the mandatum altogether; indeed, this has been happening with more and more young pastors in the U.S. in recent years. Sometimes, of course, aggrieved laypeople unhappy that they did not get their feet washed sometimes complain when this happens; but this is is seen as preferable to the scrums that would ensue if it were celebrated.

    2. As with altar girls, now that this box has been opened as a matter of law, it will be that much harder to close again.

    3. Celebrations of the Extraordinary Form are not affected by this legislation, but just the same, it seems to be yet another argument for returning to the ancient, pre-1955 Holy Week.

    4. "Opening this area to laymen, and now women, weakens the symbolism of the separation of nave and sanctuary." As Dr. Shaw surely knows, progressives who advocate for this reject the symbolism of any separation of the nave and sanctuary to begin with. For conservatives who work to accept whatever is handed down by Rome these days, the friction will be real, however.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd really like to query what the pre-55 rite has to do with this, since as far as I'm aware, there is no difference in the Mandatum between '55 and '63.

      Delete
    2. Because before the Pian Holy Week reforms, the longstanding tradition was to employ the mandatum (with clergy) after Vespers - NOT in the Holy Thursday Mass.

      Remove it altogether from the Mass, and the question becomes that much less relevant at all. But it was Pius XII who first inserted it into the Mass. And if there seems no danger of it being imposed on the Extraordinary Form (what a row that would trigger!), it illustrates how problematic the idea can be in this context.

      Delete
    3. The time and place of the Mandatum was changed in the Pacelli reforms as Athelstane notes above. However, the rite was certainly not restricted to clergy - although in practice was not common in parishes - and instead of viri (which made it first appearance in the OHSI rubrics) thirteen, not twelve, pauperes were indicated. The rubrical commentators indicated that after the Mandatum the paupers were to be given a meal, clothing and money.

      Delete
  4. As an ordinary layman, I am so confused. If this is all that serious, why aren't they more careful what they decide to do? If it is not that serious, why all the fuss. God can't be very pleased with this confrontation, which I'm not sure is worth the while.

    Two things do I see clearly, though.

    First, the ceremony of washing of feet on Maundy Thursday being based on Our Lord washing the feet of the disciples, the logical thing to do is keep it as it was, unless we were sure changing it would add something Our Lord would have intended. This is a matter of realistic common sense.

    Second, an ordained normal man should have trouble with so many women around, especially while washing their feet. After all, it's alike to having pederast priests working with children. Haven't we learned the lesson? What good is achieved by putting them at risk? This is a matter of common sense realism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is a demonstrable fact that the pope, while ordinary of Buenos Aires, disobeyed the Church's liturgical rules established by popes.

    Now that he is pope, I fail to see why anyone would feel compelled to follow some of the rules he promulgates.

    Why should they not treat him in the same manner he treated his superiors? He certainly would have no room to complain.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Surely, if we are to follow the example of the Holy Father we should ignore this lest we be accused of legalism?

    ReplyDelete
  7. yea in durango, colorado last year the mass of the Lord's supper took forever? The priest invited the ENTIRE congregation to have their feet washed. FOMO insisted nearly everyone did. Of course, other important parts of the liturgy were omitted to accommodate. Typical here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another scourge of Our Lord's body.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another scourge of Our Lord's body.

    ReplyDelete
  10. All bishops have the power to dispense in individual cases from merely ecclesiastical disciplinary laws, except for divine, constitutional, penal and juridic procedural laws (can. 87, §1). The rules regarding the mandatum are not divine law; they do not essentially constitute a valid act; they are not penal; they have nothing to do with juridic process; in fact they are merely disciplinary. The fact that Archbishop Bergoglio did for himself in Buenos Aires was wholly lawful. Now he has extended this to the whole Church, and in fact seems to have been acceding to the development of a customary practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I very much doubt Cardinal Bergoglio bothered to issue a decree dispensing himself and his clergy from liturgical law in this case.

      Delete
  11. "These concessions have moved many to reconsider the Extraordinary Form"

    Except that the Pope is the lord of the Extraordinary Form, too. Remember the Good Friday prayer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You assert that '[this decree's] good intentions are evident'. In the normal sense of good intentions, i.e. intentions to do something good, this is obviously false.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am quite sure Pope Francis is sincere in seeking to do good by this reform.

      Delete
    2. What are your grounds for being sure about this?

      Delete
    3. What are your grounds for being sure about this?

      Delete
  13. I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BECAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE SAY, YET CHANGING THINGS IN MANNER THAT MAKES PEOPLE OF COMMON FAITH FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE OR CONFUSED SHOULD BE AVOIDED. I THINK GOOD INTENTIONS SHOULD BE EXPRESSED IN A WAY THAT IS UNDERSTOOD

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's all in the toilet. I give up on the Novus Ordo. Pope Francis is a disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "For men to wash the feet of women would have been unthinkable until very recently, and would be problematic in many cultures today."

    Really? If I found some man so much as offering to wash my wife's feet I would be inclined to punch him on the nose - at least metaphorically. Perhaps I lead a sheltered life and do not attend the more with it dinner parties.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Goodness, the Mandatum is not based on Our Lord's washing the feet of the disciples, its based on Our Lord's washing the Feet of the Apostles, i.e. of the clergy during His establishment of both the Sacrifice and the priesthood of the New and Everlasting Covenant!

    ReplyDelete
  17. You can tell a tree by his fruits. I challenge anyone to find another diocese in the world where the desertion from the faith has been quicker than during the reign of Bergoglio in Buenos Aries-- and you can add Tagle, Weurl, Marx, Ortega, Kasper that list. Under their stewardship as Cardinals I estimate 150 million left the faith. If catholic church were a business it would have gone bankrupt by these guys a long time ago. Thankfully there is some resilence in Africa as well as parts of Asia and a new batch of clerics who have revisited tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The reason the priests are surrounded by women at the alter is that there are not enough men stepping up to the plate. At my church the women who volunteer are at least 3 to 1 on the men. STEP UP MEN!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have serious doubts about the purpose of some of these contributions, whether they are serving or self-serving. Anyhow, they don’t seem to be aware that when we talk about this pope or any other, we are talking about the Vicar of Christ, representing Him in the same function as St. Peter. (Or maybe they are aware, and that’s precisely why they say what they say.)

    If not with the charity that is the essence of Christianity, he should at least be treated with the respect and good faith I assume his critics want for themselves. In any case, I must say—stress on must—I’m glad it is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, not they, who is pope. It is my hope that they will pray for him with at least as much fervor as they criticize him.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was told by a Ruthenian priest that in the Byzantine tradition only the bishop does it with priests and sometimes seminarians when there are not enough priests being chosen to be footwashed, but I don't remember when it occurs. The priestly understanding is thus maintained.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I was told by a Ruthenian priest that in the Byzantine tradition only the bishop does it with priests and sometimes seminarians when there are not enough priests being chosen to be footwashed, but I don't remember when it occurs. The priestly understanding is thus maintained.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Joe Shaw's logic seems to be that the Novus Ordo is so bad that we can actually enjoy watching its on going destruction of the Catholic faith among the faithful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you infer that?

      On second thoughts, don't bother to reply.

      Delete