# What is Maundy Thurday?



## tcalbrecht (Mar 22, 2005)

From a local PCA church:



> Maundy Thurday Service (Church General) Thursday, March 24
> 
> On Maundy Thursday or Holy Thursday, March 24th, you will have opportunity to participate in one of the most memorable services of the church year. This communion service will be held in the Faith Sanctuary for the first time since 1978. Friendship hall was completed in 1978 and became the continual venue for this very special time of preparation for our experiencing two of the greatest events in history, Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.
> 
> ...



Why the Lord's Supper on Thursday? If they're having the Lord's Supper, would members be required to attend?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 22, 2005)

It's another Roman Catholic holiday that has been imported into Protestant churches, which is intended to commemorate the institution of the Lord's Supper in the week before Christ's death, sometimes called Holy Thursday. More info here and here.

[Edited on 3-22-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> From a local PCA church:
> 
> 
> ...



Its on Thursday because that was the night that the Lord's Supper was initiated. 

The Session of this Church should make the determination as to whether this will be a called regular annual worship service, which everyone should attend or that it is optional. In my humble opinion, when the Church has a worship service all should be expected to attend (WCF 21.6).


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> Its on Thursday because that was the night that the Lord's Supper was initiated.



Some folks believe it was on Wednesday. Wouldn't God have been a bit more careful in identifying the day if He wanted us to celebrate it specially?



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> The Session of this Church should make the determination as to whether this will be a called regular annual worship service, which everyone should attend or that it is optional. In my humble opinion, when the Church has a worship service all should be expected to attend (WCF 21.6).



An optional worship service?? A mandatory annual worship service?? Either way you're in a pickle.

Sounds like Anglicanism:

"Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren." (XXXIV of the Articles of Religion)

The Session's jurisdiction is only ministerial and declarative. If they cannot say, thus saith the Lord, then they should not speak. Otherwise we will soon have holy water and genuflecting in the sanctuary.

The decision such as you have described is begging for a complaint to presbytery.


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...




Why even pose the questions if you are already convinced of the right answers? It almost appears like looking for an argument.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> Why even pose the questions if you are already convinced of the right answers? It almost appears like looking for an argument.



Discussion.

Perhaps I should have labeled it "Where do Presbyterians get this Maundy Thursday stuff?"


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 22, 2005)

I had never heard of this, and am thankful I had not.


----------



## Authorised (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...



Perhaps you should have correctly spelled "Thursday"


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 22, 2005)

> An optional worship service?? A mandatory annual worship service?? Either way you're in a pickle.
> 
> Sounds like Anglicanism:
> 
> "Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren." (XXXIV of the Articles of Religion)



Do you think Sunday services are mandatory or optional? We only have to show up for Church when the Spirit moves us? Unless a person is providentially hindered they need to be in Church on the Lord's Day, the Christian Sabboth. And the Lord's Day is the only day the church can expect members to come, with the exceptions noted in WCF 21.5. 




> The Session's jurisdiction is only ministerial and declarative. If they cannot say, thus saith the Lord, then they should not speak. Otherwise we will soon have holy water and genuflecting in the sanctuary.
> 
> The decision such as you have described is begging for a complaint to presbytery.



You might have a problem with thus saith the Lord. I don't know of any verse in Scripture that says "thus saith the Lord, the Church will have Sunday School".

But then again, we don't have to have a direct quote from Scripture to understand what God requires of us. We can discern through good and necessary consequences.


----------



## DTK (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> The Session's jurisdiction is only ministerial and declarative. If they cannot say, thus saith the Lord, then they should not speak.


This is most clearly a non sequitur. For example, no session can declare "thus saith the Lord" with respect to what is the appointed/designated _hour_ (precise time) of the day for when God's people will assemble on the Lord's day for worship. But someone has to speak and designate such a time. As the Westminster Confession explains it, such a decision falls under that which is "to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence." And the session has not only the right to do this, but the duty as well, all within the perimeters of its ministerial and declarative authority.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## ARStager (Mar 22, 2005)

I'm very much looking forward to word and sacrament on Thursday night at my church. Since our church only (sadly) has the supper quarterly, I am assuming that they expect full attendance at this specially designated worship service. 

interesting discussion, though. The way I see it, if you just have the sacrament more often on the Lord's Day, there's no need to quibble about having it on Thursday night.


----------



## Archlute (Mar 22, 2005)

The incorporation of Maundy Thursday by a congregation within the PCA is not the only example of reformed protestants succumbing to the seduction of the Roman calander. There are several PCA's on the West coast that are making use of the Lenten season in their worship, a season that is directly tied to the RC penitential system. It is possible that these churches are using this as a foil for evangelical preaching, but the one that I am most familiar with is not. It is to them merely a trendy worship idea, I do believe.


----------



## tdowns (Mar 22, 2005)

*Re-enactment*

How about this, my church re-enacts the Davinci version of the Lord's supper up on stage with actors (including Jesus with huge monologues) and musical interludes while the actors "freeze" on stage. Supposedly looks cool, but of course half the actors look nothing like the old guys in Leo's portrait, so they have fake gray hair and beards....classic. My church is non-denominational, and I don't agree with the practice, (I actually participated in it a couple of years ago, but didn't like it so didn't accept after that) but I thought I'd throw it out there for you guys to slaughter!

Just another reason I'm looking into reformed churches.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should have correctly spelled "Thursday"



Sorry. I just did a cut and paste from the church's web site that is hosting the event.


----------



## Robin (Mar 22, 2005)

I don't want to argue with anybody...but if you guys want to learn what the Reformed tradition of Maundy Thursday is - in the context of Holy Week - check-out my churche's website for audio-sermons:

http://www.christreformed.org/real/index.shtml?main

All I can add is - since I've experienced the entire Holy Week worship services for the past 6 years...as they were observed by Calvin....I have gained an increasing deep, fulfilling, reverent and grateful attitude towards the Gospel and the knowledge of Christ. It is completely awe inspiring!

(Mind you, listen/study these audio files of Holy Week IN ORDER --- tracing the steps our Lord's passion week and resurrection.) May God grant that more and more Protestant churches retrieve this most enriching worship practice.



Robin


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> Do you think Sunday services are mandatory or optional? We only have to show up for Church when the Spirit moves us? Unless a person is providentially hindered they need to be in Church on the Lord's Day, the Christian Sabboth. And the Lord's Day is the only day the church can expect members to come, with the exception noted in WCF 21.5.



Sunday worship services are mandatory. I think the case can be made from the Bible as it is done in the Confession. That seems to be a reasonable interpretation.

"As it is the law of nature, that, in general, *a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God*; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, He hath particularly appointed *one day in seven*, for a Sabbath, *to be kept holy unto Him*: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath."



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> You might have a problem with thus saith the Lord. I don't know of any verse in Scripture that says "thus saith the Lord, the Church will have Sunday School".



You are correct. And I would not require a member to attend Sunday school. It is not worship. It is a tradition. I would be hard-pressed to discipline someone who took his family home and continued to worship with his family. There may be good practical reasons to attend SS, but none that make it obligatory.



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> But then again, we don't have to have a direct quote from Scripture to understand what God requires of us. We can discern through good and necessary consequences.



Correct. What are the good and necessary consequences for the Session to institute a mandatory Maundy Thursday service?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> This is most clearly a non sequitur. For example, no session can declare "thus saith the Lord" with respect to what is the appointed/designated _hour_ (precise time) of the day for when God's people will assemble on the Lord's day for worship. But someone has to speak and designate such a time. As the Westminster Confession explains it, such a decision falls under that which is "to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence." And the session has not only the right to do this, but the duty as well, all within the perimeters of its ministerial and declarative authority.
> 
> Cheers,
> DTK



The time, place and length of the sabbath-day service are such circumstances that are "ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence". No problem there. I would fine it difficult, if not impossible, to make such activities as Maundy Thursday worship services fall under the category of circumstances. The timing of extra-sabbath services are elements, since they are not orded by the light of nature, etc.

So it's not a non sequitur since it has direct bearing on the discussion.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 22, 2005)

> That there are positive institutions of worship appointed in connection with the Church, few will be disposed to deny. That there are ordinances of an arbitrary kind, framed and designed to express the homage of the collective body of believers in their act of worship to God, admits of no dispute. And it cannot be doubted that, since these ordinances cannot administer themselves, it is the office of the Church, in virtue of her authority, to dispense and carry them out for the benefit of the members. The office and authority of the Church in reference to the institutions of public worship, enacted by Christ for His people, are precisely parallel to the office and authority of the Church in reference to the doctrines He has revealed. It is simply and exclusively ministerial in both cases. *There is no more warrant in Scripture for the Church to add to the institutions, than there is for the Church to add to the doctrines of Christ. The very same principles that limit the authority of the Church in matters of faith, making its office declaratory of the truths before revealed, and not creative of new truths not revealed, in like manner limit the authority of the Church in matters of public worship, making its office executive of ordinances and institutions previously established, and not invested with power to decree new observances not previously established.* It is as steward and administrator of the mysteries instituted by Christ, and not as the inventor or framer of new mysteries of its own, that the Church is uniformly exhibited to us in Scripture. These mysteries can derive no authority from their appointment by human power; the ordinances which the Church administers are authoritative only in so far as, and no further than, they are ordinances of Christ. Their virtue as means of grace depends upon their being institutions not of men, but of Christ; and public worship, whereby sinners in their Church state approach to God, and hold intercourse with Him, is only lawful and only blessed when it can claim its origin not from ecclesiastical persons or authority, but from express Divine appointment. *When the Church goes beyond the warrant of Scripture in devising ordinances or appointing worship, it trespasses into a province not its own, and into which it can carry with it neither the stamp of authority from on high, nor the virtue of a blessing from on high. Any worship beyond the limits of Scripture direction is an approach to God unwarranted and unblessed; any attempt at intercourse with God, except through the regulated channel and authorized manner of such intercourse, is presumptuous and unsanctioned.* The worship of the Church´s own invention or appointment is "œwill-worship" [Col. 2:3; Greek, p. 344]; the addition to God´s words or God´s ordinances being as impious and unlawful as any alteration or diminution. The command, "œThou shalt not add unto them," when applied either to the truths or the ordinances of Christ, is as valid and binding as the precept, "œThou shalt not take from them." [Deut. 4:2, 12:32; Matt. 28:20] The proper walk of the Church in both cases is within the boundaries of what is expressly revealed in Scripture, and up to those boundaries. *The sin of addition errs as decidedly as the sin of omission. Beyond the limits of what is expressly appointed for sinners in the way of institutions of worship, the Church can have no authority for its doings, and can expect no blessing from its Lord.* Worship in a way not appointed and explicitly warranted by God can carry with it no authority as a Church appointment, and convey no blessing as a means of grace." {emph. added}
> 
> James Bannerman, _Rites & Ceremonies in Public Worship_


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 23, 2005)

> Correct. What are the good and necessary consequences for the Session to institute a mandatory Maundy Thursday service?



There isn't one! But then again there are no good and necessary consequences for the Session to institute a Maundy Thursday Service! I think a Session would have a hard time justifying a Maundy Thursday Service or even a Good Friday or Christmas Eve Service based on WCF 21.5.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 23, 2005)

I'm not interested in attending or having Maundy Thursday optional services, but how is that different from say, the services held during the weekdays by Calvin or that produced the _Morning Exercises_?

Surely we can't say that only mandatory services are permissible?


----------



## DTK (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by DTK_
> ...



You had written, and this is precisely what I was responding to, not your concern over a Maundy Thursday service...


> Originally posted by tcalbrecht
> The Session's jurisdiction is only ministerial and declarative. If they cannot say, thus saith the Lord, then they should not speak.


That statement is, in and of itself, a non sequitur, because the session must (as I provided an example) make many decisions for which they can provide no "thus saith the Lord." Your remark, if taken as you posted it, suggests the session has no authority to speak on anything unless they can speak infallibly ("thus saith the Lord"). That simply isn't so. When they set the times on the Lord's day when the flock will gather for worship, they are speaking, but not with a "thus saith the Lord." Nonetheless, members are expected to gather at the stated, appointed times for worship. Again, I am not addressing Maundy Thursday services.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



Since my original comment was only given in the context of the Maundy Thursday service, and not in the context of something like whether the Sunday service should be at 10 am or 11 am, I don't see how it can be confusing or a non sequitur.

Is someone really trying to argue that calling a special service one day a year and labeling it "Maundy Thursday" is merely a circumstance of worship as understood by the Westminster divines and therefore within the ministerial authority of a local Session?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 23, 2005)

I'm not. What I am curious about is how we can distinguish between that and a called service like the Morning Exercises, or Calvin's Tuesday morning worship services.

Really. I am not advocating Maundy Thursday - just trying to have the best objections answered.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I'm not interested in attending or having Maundy Thursday optional services, but how is that different from say, the services held during the weekdays by Calvin or that produced the _Morning Exercises_?
> 
> Surely we can't say that only mandatory services are permissible?



I don't know the nature of Calvin's mid week services other than he preached the word.

But the question for a Presbyterian would be, what biblically or confessionally would suggest that a Session can institute such services? (And for the record I'm not talking about the sort of "thanksgivings upon special occasions" services envisioned in WCF XXI:5.)

Are we permitted to serve the Lord's Supper at a non-mandatory service?

Are we permitted to move the Lord's Supper from Sunday to Maundy Thursday?

Are we permitted to schedule regular annual services and give them special names?

Are we permitted to make additional services either de facto or de jure mandatory? I would think that scheduling the Lord's Supper on Thurdsay makes it de facto mandatory.

I don't think these questions get asked. I think it's as much tradition as anything else today.


----------



## Robin (Mar 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I'm not. What I am curious about is how we can distinguish between that and a called service like the Morning Exercises, or Calvin's Tuesday morning worship services.
> 
> Really. I am not advocating Maundy Thursday - just trying to have the best objections answered.



I'll have to check into it, Fred, but I think the difference is based on Maundy Thursday being a part of Holy Week - and the specialness of the marking these moments in Redemptive history: (Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Resurrection Sunday.) Our church will be presenting a "lessons & carols" sort of liturgy to serve as catechetical worship. (This is not to be confused with a re-enactment in an entertainment sense.) The Supper is served during Maundy Thursday service, btw. 



Robin

[Edited on 3-25-2005 by Robin]


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 24, 2005)

> Are we permitted to serve the Lord's Supper at a non-mandatory service?
> 
> Are we permitted to move the Lord's Supper from Sunday to Maundy Thursday?
> 
> ...



Tom,

I agree that these questions don't get asked at all, especially at the Session level. I also agree that it is either tradition or herd mentality for having these extra-biblical services. Growing up in Presbyterian Churches, I found it to be the norm to have a Maundy Thursday Service and at least a Christmas Eve Candle Light Service. But I believe that if we don't start questioning these services, we will end up going down the same road the PCUSA went and start recognizing the Lenten Season and having Ash Wednesday Services. 

I don't see anything in Scripture or the Standards that would allow for a regular worship service (excluding WCF 21.5 exceptions) with or without the sacraments, being held other than the Lord's Day.

But I do think that Robin's comments highlights one of the differences between the URC and the 3FU and the Presbyterian denominations that subscribe to the Standards.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Tom,
> 
> I agree that these questions don't get asked at all, especially at the Session level. I also agree that it is either tradition or herd mentality for having these extra-biblical services. Growing up in Presbyterian Churches, I found it to be the norm to have a Maundy Thursday Service and at least a Christmas Eve Candle Light Service. But I believe that if we don't start questioning these services, we will end up going down the same road the PCUSA went and start recognizing the Lenten Season and having Ash Wednesday Services.
> ...



I agree with what you've said. I would just say that in this regard we are already going down the road traveled by the PCUSA. 

The last point is well taken. I fact I've read material from the Christian Reformed Church specifically denying that they subscribe to what Presbyterians call the regulative principle of worship.


----------



## Robin (Mar 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> .. I've read material from the Christian Reformed Church specifically denying that they subscribe to what Presbyterians call the regulative principle of worship.



Boy, you've got that right, Tom! 

The real problem is they're neglecting the Gospel...if we forget to uphold the "public placarding of Christ" each Lord's Day - preaching Christ, alone, from the pulpit....there will always be a slide in a bad direction.

Btw, our Holy Week services have a cohesiveness that points to Christ at each turn. The theology is tight, focused and in the hands of a pastor who will not capitulate to cultural trends. Sadly, this is not frequently the case....too many pastors are either unsupported; confused; and just plain lazy or heretical. The point is, Maundy Thursday - like Easter and/or Christmas "anniversaries" are (and can be) useful to proclaim the knowledge of Christ to both the congregation and visitors (unbelievers) IF done with the right theology - and heart for the Gospel.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 25, 2005)

Robin,

I am sure that does an excellent job of preaching the gospel during these services. The question is does Scripture allow for the calling of regular Worship services other than on the Lord's Day and are members of the church expected to attend?

The URC and other Dutch Reformed Churches subscribes to the 3FU while the PCA and the OPC subscribe to the Westminster Standards. (assuming I remember this correctly) The Continental Confessions differ from the Standards in this area.


----------



## Robin (Mar 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Robin,
> 
> I am sure that does an excellent job of preaching the gospel during these services. The question is does Scripture allow for the calling of regular Worship services other than on the Lord's Day and are members of the church expected to attend?
> ...



We do hold to the standards - however we are not "legalistic" about church attendence -- even about the Lord's Day. To recap, these "special" services are during Holy Week, Advent and Thanksgiving...these services are catechetical and are definitely not imposed upon the congregation to be attended. (Many of our husbands need to work on Sunday, btw, and therefore attend other services during the week.) A bible study is a "worship service" btw.

Christ *IS* the Sabbath. There is true freedom in Christ about worship practices. If we begin to emphasize requirements that we must worship on certain days "or else"...do we not then act like the Judaizers? If we truly receive Christ and R E S T in Him --- then our attitude about the Sabbath will truly be one of resting *IN* Him. Attending church is about receiving Christ's benefits so we may have the strength to sojourn in the "desert" before a watching, unbelieving world that we are His.

To anyone about to jump on my case --- remember, I'm bound to vows under our Confessions....so I do know the guardrails that must be kept in place theologically - with that in mind, I speak.

Christ's burden is light.

 

Robin



[Edited on 3-25-2005 by Robin]


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 25, 2005)

Robin,

I didn't know that the URC required their officers to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. I thought they were strictly 3FU. Learn something new everyday!

FYI, no one is advocating going to peoples homes and dragging them to church. And as far as Worship is concerned, we are free to worship God as He has prescribed it in Scripture.


----------



## Robin (Mar 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Robin,
> 
> I didn't know that the URC required their officers to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. I thought they were strictly 3FU. Learn something new everyday!
> ...



Hi Wayne,

The URC does not require submission to WS -- yet we (pastor/elders) agree with and refer to them often.

Here's a link to our doctrinal requirements:

http://www.christreformed.org/doctrinevision/index.shtml?main

Cheers,

Robin


----------



## tdowns (Mar 25, 2005)

*Thanks Robin...*

Your post finally answers some of my questions regarding diff. of URC and some other mentioned. I like the way you're putting it!!!

Thanks


----------

