Tuesday, 19 April 2011

The Maundy...

If Our Lord washed the feet of His Disciples after they had supped, why, in the Pius XII rite of Maundy Thursday, is the Mandatum generally done after the Gospel at the novel evening Mass? This is leaving aside the question of rubrics per se, but I think that this involves very serious traditional and scriptural implications - almost a complete inversion of the received praxis, and therefore doubly inappropriate. I would say that it is better to omit the ceremony entirely (so meaningful and integral to the mystery of the Triduum) rather than pay homage to the innovation - indeed, if you're going to fly in the face of Tradition in this way, why not blaspheme the Lord by exchanging the Pax, which Judas defiled on this day?

Of course nobody listens to the ramblings of an ''extremist.'' Although I guess that what many might misname ''extremism'' I would say is simply going to church expecting the real thing...


  1. He should have left the Mandatum after the Mass, where it belongs.

    I think it was placed in the liturgy of the Mass as a first sign of the 'active participation' in the later Novus Ordo.

  2. Nothing is extremist about your distaste for the Pacelli rite of Holy Week and his trampling of the liturgy in general. What some may find extreme is what you do about it, that is blogging. It would be far more productive to:
    - Become a priest and when you are eventually put in charge implement the Roman rite over Pacelli's.
    - Become wealthy, start funding the costly OHS rites in a local parish, and, in two or three years time when they have begun to rely on and expect and need your support, pull out unless the Roman rite is implemented.
    - Become MC at a parish where the priest is interested in celebrating the "old rite" but doesn't know better. Slip the Roman rite in over the Pacelli rite.
    - If writing is indeed your calling (and you are skilled at it), write persuasively rather than polemically and lose the anger.
    - Most of all, pray!

  3. The reformers did become obsessed about placing things after the Gospel. When they had accomplished their work we ended up with marriages, baptisms, receptions, etc, etc.

    I fail to see why the Mandatum had to be changed (along with nearly everything else) and share Tom L's view above.

  4. Thanks for your comments.

    Ben, I was a Master of Ceremonies in a parish where the rector was interested in pre-'62, only I was seldom (if ever) listened to, and so my efforts were wasted there and I left. As for becoming a priest, I am of the opinion that priests undergo some sort of mental process in seminaries which drains them of all liturgical knowledge and competence, and so that is out of the question (I have no such vocation anyway). As for becoming rich and funding a church/chapel, that is the most attractive option, though I fear that I am still very hard up and so blogging is one of a few options in order to counter the menace of '62ism and Traddieland.

  5. The "put it in after the Gospel" craze comes from the Liturgical Movement's "re-discovery" of the two "parts" of Mass - the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

    Skipping over the business of such a "re-discovery," the wise old liturgists, with a skip-and-hop, concluded that there was some pause in the liturgical action between the two which we could use to place celebrations actually in the liturgy.

    They were trying to show that all other rituals derive their power from the Liturgy. A good and proper idea, though the praxis (placing all such rituals in the liturgy) was simply damaging. It also gave us the "celebration of any sort = have a Mass" craze, thus demeaning the whole act.


    Sigh, y'all are rubbing off on me. I need to stop reading traditionalists...

  6. Tomas,

    Well good, join the rest of us sinners!

    A public apology from me for not having moved ten feet across the room to look at my files of 'Worship'.

    May you and yours have a blessed Pascha!