This Professor Kwasinutkase really gets on my nerves. In yet another piss poor article on the Aliturgical Bowel Movement, written in his accustomed verbose and pretentious style, he has referenced the Cistercian tradition as a stimulant for reform in the liturgical vacuum of modern Roman Maundy ceremonies. The great shibboleth is the involvement of women in the ceremony when the rubrics stipulate viri (I humbly suggest that the liturgical books say a good many other things that the traddies conspicuously ignore, but that's for another post) since, he claims, this undermines the doctrine of the male priesthood. He goes on to suggest that the ultimate symbolism of the Maundy is the "ordination" of the Apostles into the first bishops of the Church at the LORD's Supper, at which they concelebrate the first "Mass." After a lengthy quotation from a history of the Cistercians, he says:
"Could there be a washing of the feet of (e.g.) prisoners or the elderly or the handicapped that was not embedded, misleadingly and acontextually, in the liturgical commemoration of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday?"
Boob. The article makes no mention of the fact that the incorporation of the Maundy into the Mass rite is itself an innovation, having its uttermost origins in the mutilations of Pius XII, so why does he make such a fuss about "disregard for the wisdom of Catholic tradition," and those who claim to "know better than our benighted forebears?" It seems to me that if the praxis has become so obnoxious and objectionable, why not omit it altogether in parishes and petition bishops conferences to restrict it to cathedral and collegiate churches? Surely that would be better expressive of the apostolicity of the bishops? And since Christ our LORD washed the feet of the Disciples after they had supped, the current position of the Maundy in the Roman Rite is especially odious and not in keeping with Catholic tradition by any stretch of the imagination. Traditionally, the Mandatum had no connexion to the Mass rite whatsoever, there was no requirement that it take place in the church and the feet of thirteen men were washed, not twelve as in the bastardised rite of Pius XII, so venerated by the traddies. Yes, let's all idolize the early 1960's as the most sublime era in liturgical history.
Dr Kwasniewski needs revision if you ask me. Furthermore, it would seem proper for the Traddies to order their own houses before they questioned the mess of others.
I do agree with you on this. The idea that the Last Supper has anything to do with the 'ordination' of the Twelve is a dangerously misleading novelty and distracts from both the unique High Priesthood of Christ, which is what all the rites of Maundy Thursday relate to, and the significance of Pentecost.
ReplyDeleteIt is in some ways a shame that the Mandatum ceremony has been added to the evening mass, where it can become a rather fidgety interruption. The older form, as a separate rite taking place in the Chapter House or other place, must have been rather impressive. The fact that throughout the centuries Prelates (and Princes) have washed the feet of poor laymen on Maundy Thursday shows the NLM article is in error trying to clericalise the matter.
Quite. Clericalism rears its ugly head once again, just like low Mass. One wonder's if Dr Kwasniewski would object if a church decided to excise the Mandatum from the Mass rite and have it as a separate rite, in a side hall or, as you say, the chapter house of a cathedral. Even if there were women present at this, so long as there were thirteen and the ceremony took place out of the context of the Mass, I would find this more liturgical and in keeping with Catholic tradition than current Roman praxis, which this professor has clearly not called for in his article.
DeleteI don't know how far back Dr Kwasniewski's interpretation goes but I'll wager it is no older than the Council of Trent, and probably a lot more recent. It's supposed to be paupers, not priests!
The Royal Maundy is most impressive, I must say.
I notice that those who have left comments on the NLM article are calling for additional Maundy ceremonies. Why? Can anyone tell me what precedent there is for that?
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct. The Mandatum should take place following the Mass of the Lord's Supper and be conducted by a bishop in a place other than the church.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note that the Bishop was also to give dinner the 13 poor men following the Mandatum and it was the bishop himself who was to serve them.
A Prince of the Church serving the mere laity with his own hand? Heaven forbid!
DeleteFood for thought: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3074/holy_thursday_footwashing_and_the_institution_of_the_priesthood.aspx
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly based on an interesting piece of exegesis, but I do not think that Neyrey's identification of Jesus' footwashing as a 'status transformation ritual' is entirely convincing. Huizenga traces a parallel between the washing in Jn 13 and the washing in the institution of the Aaronic priesthood. But the Aaronic priesthood is shortly going to be abrogated for all time by the Sacrifice of the Cross!
DeleteThe principal reason I find it highly difficult to regard Jn 13 as an ordination is that the Church does not appear to do so. Ordination in the Catholic Church is by the bestowal of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, and there is no washing involved. The Apostles themselves ordained by the laying on of hands (Acts 6.6 and 13.3, II Tim 1.6 etc.) and neither in Acts nor elsewhere is there any mention of washing, as one would expect if this was the way Christ ordained the first bishops.
I agree with your assessment of the article. It's a bit of straining, too. When does one not take off ones clothes and the put then on when bathing? I think the parallel with the Aaronic priesthood would be the laver of Baptism and the chrism of anointing received by all Christians, members of the royal priesthood of Christ. The mini-Pentecost of Pascha evening and Pentecost itself was what made the Twelve to be apostles as the reconstituted patriarchs of a messianic New Israel. It is anachronistic to speak of the apostles as bishops. Their successors are the bishops, and those bishops received the laying on of hands which was instituted in practice by the apostles themselves.
DeleteQuite - you put it far more clearly and concisely than I could. I take your point about anachronism.
DeleteIt does of course all beg the question of what was wrong with the traditional service in the liturgical books. The word 'viri' comes in with the new ritual and clearly does not have the same meaning as 'pauperes'.
ReplyDelete