The Pope decrees that not only men may be chosen for the washing of the feet in the Liturgy of Holy Thursday

[bardegaulois]

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Are priests free to still choose altar boys for this ceremony if they want? Especially in the TLM where they just stick to the 1962 way of doing things. I'm a bit confused what the washing of the feet means. From what I read it was an example but also a way Jesus purified the Apostles before the Communion. Is this so? Also this recent change, is it under infallibility or just pastoral? If the latter, does it mean priests can choose the older way too?

For those who use the 1962 missal, the rubrics of 1962 remain in place. This only affects the Novus Ordo. Moreover, a priest celebrating the Novus Ordo "may," not "must," choose women for the mandatum. If a priest wishes to choose only men, he may as well. If he wishes to omit the entire ceremony altogether, it being optional, he may also do that.

[superblue]

11 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

The liturgy is very important which is why these topics are discussed. Its not just a human thing, its divine worship and sharing in the worship of Heaven. If we saw the spiritual reality of it we would see Calvary, Our Lady and countless Angels. 

I personally don't think its unimportant to discuss aspects of the liturgy 

this has nothing to do with divine worship, Christ never said, and please make sure to re create this symbolic gesture of what I want you to do. This is a humanly created addition to the mass to be demonstrated only once during Holy week and nothing more, and it became blown out of proportion when Pope Francis decided to do something different to include women. An then when all the self righteous started crying about oh no not this ! PLEASE LORD NOT THIS ATROCITY !   Taking out this washing of the feet, having only men or women being washed, means nothing to the sacrifice at the altar.  I am not disagree with discussing aspects of liturgy, I am disagreeing that the washing of the feet should even be considered important to the mass. It is nothing more than a distraction. An is just sad all the way across the board that it only became an issue once the pope decided to have women for a change, as if it was some giant in your face move of holiness, my diocese has had varying priests do just that before the pope ever did, and it never made the news let alone was considered an issue, probably because thankfully I do not completely live in an area of complete morons.

You know what the next idiotic topic should be, is what is the proper sign of peace, should it be a kiss, a hug, a nod, a handshake, and which hand if you shake hands, how about a fist bump, or better yet, how about a high 5 followed by a hug. Then lets dissect who should give the sign to whom, should men only give the sign of peace to men and women to women, but in turn children should sit down with their hands folded.

The Pope has bigger fish to fry and hopefully he doesn't get bogged down with having to be accountable to the public eye on issues that they create to be a problem because they have their own stupid agenda attached to it.  Someone should do an actual study to see if people in the congregation when this takes place during holy week, even knows why it is done in the first place, and what the viewer is meant to take away from the act. Half the congregation would not even know what day it was, and the remainder would vary.

Just like I am not going to change anyones mind here on the non importance of this issue, no one here will be able to convince me that it is important and why, because in the end it is just left up to this idea of mystical spirituality that some how connects us to a made up idea of whatever that is just more nonsense.

 

1 minute ago, bardegaulois said:

For those who use the 1962 missal, the rubrics of 1962 remain in place. This only affects the Novus Ordo. Moreover, a priest celebrating the Novus Ordo "may," not "must," choose women for the mandatum. If a priest wishes to choose only men, he may as well. If he wishes to omit the entire ceremony altogether, it being optional, he may also do that.

YES A THREAD DERAILING TOPIC ! and really it should be altar boys vs altar girls. Adults are sparse as altar servers usually due to lack of children in a community. But yes a very  serious topic in deed ,lol, should ONLY males or females be allowed as an altar server while the priest is conducting liturgical abuses.   

[MarysLittleFlower]

I guess I just disagree Superblue. Its not self righteous to care about more detailed parts of the liturgy because this has nothing to do with the self. The Mass is the whole liturgy not only the canon. Anyway I've said all I wanted to say, I'll just leave it. 

[NadaTeTurbe]

Good news  

[KnightofChrist]

I'm afraid this will encourage those who are disobedient and abuse rites and the liturgy. If they do it long enough they are rewarded.

[DominicanHeart]

I really..don't know. My pastor won't do it. Would that be considered disobeying the Holy Father?

[NadaTeTurbe]

No. The priest can do it, it doesn't mean that they must do it. 

[MIKolbe]

I trust the Pope in this matter.

[superblue]

6 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I guess I just disagree Superblue. Its not self righteous to care about more detailed parts of the liturgy because this has nothing to do with the self. The Mass is the whole liturgy not only the canon. Anyway I've said all I wanted to say, I'll just leave it. 

thank you for not saying " lets agree to disagree ". 

[vee]

I didnt know the whole foot washing part was optional!!  Im so in favor of omitting the whole thing!!!

[superblue]

2 hours ago, vee said:

I didnt know the whole foot washing part was optional!!  Im so in favor of omitting the whole thing!!!

That would have been the best answer to the entire situation since people want to make an issue out of it, kind of like threatening to turn the car around and go home if the kids in the back seat don't stop fighting. Instead of negotiating with the children.

I'd also be interested in seeing in some form of a document where it is mandated that there must be a foot washing . Because there is none. It is nothing more than a performance to give people a visual understanding to a deeper meaning. It really has nothing to do with liturgy or cannon anything.

[Nihil Obstat]

Superglue is entirely wrong. The Mandatum is absolutely part of the Liturgy. It is simply an optional part, rather like the people's offering of the sign of peace.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

20 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Superglue is entirely wrong. The Mandatum is absolutely part of the Liturgy. It is simply an optional part, rather like the people's offering of the sign of peace.

Something tells me he will hold fast to his position. 

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

Something tells me he will hold fast to his position. 

He will. His is a mind unfettered by the tyranny of reason and sanity.

[Ice_nine]

7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

He will. His is a mind unfettered by the tyranny of reason and sanity.

don't knock it til you've tried it