Maundy Thursday Masses - a brief history

On the Zenit news website there was recently a post answered by Legionary of Christ Fr Edward McNamara, Professor of Liturgy and Dean of Theology at the Regina Apostolorum University which provides a brief but useful history of the variety of Masses which have been offered over the centuries on Maundy Thursday. I have copied and pasted it in its entirety.


Q: When was the modern practice of an evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper instituted? What was the format of commemorating the Lord’s Supper prior to that, when all Masses had to said before noon? Also, could you discuss the development of the sacred triduum over the last two millennia? I realize it has changed over time, especially when infant baptism became more common in the West, and then during the 1960s and 1970s during the “restoration” of the RCIA. — D.S., Peoria, Illinois

A: I will attempt a summarized response, because these are questions that would require a book in itself. I will briefly address the general question of the sacred triduum (or Easter triduum) and then move on to Holy Thursday. God willing, we can address the other days on some other occasion.

The earliest mentions of a triduum did not usually include Holy Thursday. For example, St. Ambrose (337-397) wrote of a sacred triduum in which Christ “died, rested and rose.” Around the year 1000, due to the fact that the Easter Vigil began to be celebrated on Holy Saturday morning, the concept of the triduum began to include Holy Thursday. After Pope Pius XII restored the Easter Vigil in 1951 and then, in 1955, reformed the entire structure of Holy Week, the triduum began with the evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

The substance of Pius XII’s reform is the same as today, although the current celebrations differ in many details.

Originally, it would appear that in Rome there was no celebration of Mass at all on Thursdays of Lent, Holy Thursday included. There was, however, a rite of reconciliation of penitents held on the morning of this day so that they could receive Communion at the Easter Vigil.

Outside of Rome a Mass was celebrated. This was especially true of the Church of Jerusalem where Christians tended to relive the events of Holy Week in their original settings. Thus pilgrims to the Holy Land, such as the famous woman Egeria (around 380), described celebrations such as the evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

These pilgrims would often bring these customs back to their homelands.

There is clear evidence, from about 450, that the celebration of Mass was eventually introduced into Rome, together with the separate consecration of the holy oils. The two rites were fused into one about a century later, where it is found in a manuscript composed in 546-47. It is not until the seventh century that we find the Mass of the Lord’s Supper. By the early eighth century, the Masses became three: one for reconciliation, one for blessing the holy oils and a third for the Last Supper. The last two were in reduced form, being without the Liturgy of the Word.

With the abandonment of public penance, the Mass of reconciliation eventually disappeared and is no longer found in manuscripts after 790. The Chrism Mass also practically disappeared, and the rite of blessing the holy oils was inserted into the Mass of the Lord’s Supper certainly no later than under Pope Gregory II (715-731).

Pope Pius V’s reforms in 1570 forbade the celebration of Mass after noon, and the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, the only Mass now celebrated on Holy Thursday, became a morning Mass. Traditions such as venerating the altar of reposition were simply anticipated to whenever the Mass concluded.

This remained the situation until Pius XII’s reforms restored it to the evening. Until the restoration of concelebration during the Second Vatican Council, this Mass was celebrated by the bishops in the cathedral (with the blessing of the oils) and by one priest in other churches. All other priests assisted at the Mass and did not celebrate on this day.

In his reform, Pius XII restored the morning Chrism Mass celebrated by the bishop. Pope Paul VI’s reform introduced it as a concelebrated Mass with the renewal of priestly promises before the bishop.

Pius XII also restored the evening Mass with the possible rite of the washing of the feet. To make an evening Mass feasible, the Pope had earlier decreed the reduction of the Eucharistic fast from midnight the day of communion to three hours before reception.

Ordinariate Chrism Mass

Yesterday morning I went to London to attend the Chrism Mass for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham which was celebrated by the Papal Nuncio, H.E. Archbishop Antonio Mennini, at St James Spanish Place.

The setting was splendid, there was a good line-up of priests in choir and the body of the church was filled by the laity as well as some non-participating priests.

The Papal Nuncio, the Ordinary and the clergy of the Ordinariate.
The photograph also indicates how splendid setting for the liturgy is the church.

Image: Ordinariate

The New Liturgical Movement blog has an illustrated report in First Chrism Mass of UK Ordinariate at St. James, Spanish Place. The Ordinariate Portal has a link to a full set of photographs of the liturgy here.

The Archbishop mixes the Chrism

Image:Ordinariate on Flickr/© Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk

The Archbishop bestows the blessing at the end of Mass

Image: Ordinariate on Flickr/© Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk

Beforehand a friend had expressed the view that the Chrism Mass is merely a modern invention. Whilst it is true tht it is, in its present form, a product of the liturgical changes of the 1950s and 1960s, it is nonetheless a restoration of an ancient practice. My 1930s edition of the St Andrew's Missal refers to its former existence. I assume that at some point the idea that there should only be one solemn Mass on Maundy Thursday, or sheer fatigue at the liturgical schedule, led to it being subsumed within the Bishop's Mass in his cathedral (or wherever he was celebrating Easter), accompanied by twelve priests, seven deacons and seven sub-deacons.

Reinstating a separate liturgy strikes me as a recovery of tradition rather than the invention of tradition. Once the ceremonies of Maundy Thursday moved back to the evening there are practical issues of time to determine events. In its present form, with the modern re-statement of priestly vows, it does serve to be a reaffirmation of priestly responsibility and duty, and, in a somewhat demotic way, by making it a public liturgy, brings that home to the laity as well.

In the context of the novus ordo liturgy and the thought which inspired it this does seem an appropriate occasion for concelebration, as is indicated by the interview to which I linked in my recent post Concelebration. The liturgy so celebrated does assert the unity of the local church around the bishop.

On the other hand it can equally well be argued, on a more traditionalist basis, that here, as elsewhere, concelebrants are not necessary at all, and that the key figure is the bishop as celebrant. Indeed it is important to stress the episcopal function as consecrator of the oils, that this is an hierarchical event, indeed a quintessentially one. The bishop is the mediator of the descent of Grace through tangible sacramental means, and requires no more than the appropriate traditional priestly and diaconal support.

Looking at the older liturgy I see that there, following the blessing of the oil of the sick, the oil of Chrism was consecrated first, and then the oil of the catechumens was blessed. The modern rite reverses this, concluding with the Chrism. This suggests an element of theatricality in the minds of the compilers, rather than adhering to the traditional order of proceeding, and is, I think, to be regretted.

So perhaps I favour restoring a separate Chrism Mass, but would favour a more traditional form, and indeed understanding of its theology.