mar 212017

Dokumentet Liturgiam authenticam beskriver hvordan oversettelsen av katolsk liturgi fra latin til folkespråkene skal skje, og det gjelder både selve messen (for alle årets dager), andre liturgier (dåp, vigsel o.a.) og bibeloversettelser (som ikke alltid trenger være katolske, men må kunne godtas av Den katolske kirke).

Under har jeg tatt med et utdrag (funnet her) fra L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 30 May 2001, page 13. (L’Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See), som beskriver mange tekniske ting som rettigheter til tekstene, verdensspråk som skal ha en felles oversettelse, bispekonferansenes plass i arbeidet, godkjenningen fra Vatikanet o.a., men som også sier dette om hva slags språk og hvilke oversettelsesprinsipper man skal bruke:

… The Instruction next gives a careful updated outline of the process to be followed by the Conferences of Bishops in communion with the Holy See in deciding upon full or partial introduction into liturgical use of a given language.

The Translation of Liturgical Texts

The heart of the Instruction is a fresh exposition with a reflective tone of principles that should govern the vernacular translation of liturgical texts. From the outset this section stresses the sacred nature of the Liturgy, which the translated texts must carefully safeguard.

The Roman Rite, like all the great historical liturgical families of the Catholic Church, has its own style and structure that must be respected in so far as possible in translation. The Instruction repeats the call of earlier papal documents for an approach to the translation of liturgical texts that sees it not so much a work of creative inventiveness as one of fidelity and exactness in rendering the Latin texts into a vernacular language, with all due consideration for the particular way that each language has of expressing itself. The special needs that must be addressed when making translations intended for newly evangelized territories are mentioned, and the Instruction also discusses the conditions under which more significant adaptations of texts and rites may occur, referring the regulation of these issues to the Instruction Varietates legitimae.

Using Other Texts as Aids

The usefulness of consulting ancient source texts is acknowledged and encouraged, though it is noted that the text of the editio typica, the official modern Latin edition, is always the point of departure for the translation. When the Latin text employs certain words from other ancient languages (e.g., alleluia, Amen, or Kyrie eleison), such terms may be retained in their original languages. Liturgical translations are to be made only from the editio typica of the Latin and never from other translations in turn. The Neo-Vulgate, the current Catholic version of the Latin Bible, should be employed as an auxiliary tool in preparing biblical translations for use in the Liturgy.


The vocabulary chosen for liturgical translation must be at one and the same time easily comprehensible to ordinary people and also expressive of the dignity and oratorical rhythm of the original: a language of praise and worship which fosters reverence and gratitude in the face of God’s glory. The language of these texts is, therefore, not intended primarily as an expression of the inner dispositions of the faithful but rather of God’s revealed word and his continual dialogue with his people in history.

Translations must be freed from exaggerated dependence on modern modes of expression and in general from psychologizing language. Even forms of speech deemed slightly archaic may on occasion be appropriate to the liturgical vocabulary.

The liturgical texts are neither completely autonomous nor separable from the general context of Christian life. There are in the Liturgy no texts that are intended to promote discriminatory or hostile attitudes to non-Catholic Christians, to the Jewish community or other religions, or which in any way deny universal equality in human dignity. If incorrect interpretation arises, the matter should be clarified, but this is not primarily the business of translations. The homily and catechesis are there to help fill out and explain their meaning and to clarify certain texts.


Many languages have nouns and pronouns capable of referring to both the masculine and the feminine in a single term. The abandonment of these terms under pressure of criticism on ideological or other grounds is not always wise or necessary nor is it an inevitable part of linguistic development. Traditional collective terms should be retained in instances where their loss would compromise a clear notion of man as a unitary, inclusive and corporate yet truly personal figure, as expressed, for example, by the Hebrew term adam, the Greek anthropos or the Latin homo. Similarly, the expression of such inclusivity may not be achieved by quasi-mechanical changes in grammatical number, or by the creation of pairs of masculine and feminine terms.

The traditional grammatical gender of the persons of the Trinity should be maintained. Expressions such as Filius hominis (Son of Man) and Patres (fathers) are to be translated with exactitude wherever found in biblical or liturgical texts. The feminine pronoun must be retained in referring to the Church. Kinship terms and the grammatical gender of angels, demons and pagan deities should be translated, and their gender retained, in light of the usage of the original text and of the traditional usage of the modern language in question.

The Translation of a Text

Translations should try not to extend or to restrict the meaning of the original terms, and terms that recall publicity slogans or those that have political, ideological or similar over-tones should be avoided. Academic and secular style-books on vernacular composition should not be used uncritically, since the Church has distinctive things to say and a style of expression that is appropriate to them.

Translation is a collaborative effort that should maintain continuity as much as possible between the original and vernacular texts. The translator must possess not only special skills, but also a trust in divine mercy and a spirit of prayer, as well as a readiness to accept review of his work by others. When substantial changes are needed to bring a given liturgical book into conformity with this Instruction, such revisions must be made all at once so as to avoid repeated disturbances or a sense of continual instability in liturgical prayer.

Scriptural Translations

Special consideration is given to the translation of the Scriptures for use in the Liturgy. A version should be developed which is exegetically sound and also suitable for the Liturgy. Such a translation should be used universally within the area of a single Bishops’ Conference and be the same for a given passage in all parts of the liturgical books. The aim should be a distinctive sacred style in each language that is consonant, as far as possible, with the established vocabulary of popular Catholic usage and major catechetical texts. All doubtful cases regarding canonicity and the ordering of verses should be resolved by reference to the Neo-Vulgate.

Concrete images found in words referring in figurative language that speaks, for example of the «finger», the «hand», the «face» of God, or of his «walking», and terms like «flesh» and the so on, should usually be translated literally and not replaced by abstractions. These are distinctive features of the biblical text that are to be maintained.

Other Liturgical Texts

Norms for the translation of the Bible as used in the Liturgy apply also in general to the translation of liturgical prayers. At the same time it must be acknowledged that while liturgical prayer is formed by the culture which practices it, it is also formative of culture so that the relationship is not merely passive. As a result, liturgical language can be expected to diverge from ordinary speech, as well as to reflect its better elements. The ideal is to develop a dignified vernacular fit for worship in a given cultural context.

Liturgical vocabulary must include the major characteristics of the Roman Rite, and should be drawn from patristic sources and harmonized with biblical texts. The vocabulary and usage of the vernacular translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be respected as far as this is feasible, and the proper distinctive terms should be used for sacred persons or things, rather than employing the same words as for the persons or things of everyday domestic life.

Syntax, style and literary genre are also key elements to be considered in rendering a faithful translation. The relationship between clauses, especially as expressed through subordination and devices such as parallelism, must be accurately conveyed. Verbs must be translated precisely in respect of person, number and voice while some latitude will be needed in rendering more complex syntactical structures.

A prime consideration should be the fact that liturgical texts are intended to be publicly proclaimed aloud and even sung.

Particular Types of Texts

Specific norms are then given for the translation of Eucharistic Prayers, the Creed, (which is to be translated in the first person singular: «I believe … «), and the general ordering and layout of liturgical books and their preliminary decrees and introductory texts. This is followed by a description of the preparation of translations by Bishops’ Conferences and the processes to be used for obtaining the approval and confirmation of liturgical texts from the Holy See. The present special requirements of papal approbation for sacramental formulae are reaffirmed, as is the insistence on the desirability of a single translation of the Liturgy, especially the Order of Mass, within each language group. …

mar 192017

(Den ganske liberale) liturgibloggen som jeg leser en del, Pray Tell, skriver om medlemmene av en komité som skal se på dokumentet som beskriver hvordan oversettelser av katolsk liturgi fra latin til folkespråkene skal foregå. Listen over medlemmer er ikke ofiisiell, men lekkasjer viser visst at dette sannsynligvis er medlemmene – de er listet opp i slutten av artikkelen.

Pray Tell skriver her nokså dramatisk om hva som skal (eller bør) skje:

… Presented in a mild way, as one must, this has been described as a sort of routine review. But nobody with any sense should believe that. Since when are instructions on the right implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium subject to routine reviews? Never. This step can only have been taken because Francis became convinced that the project is on the rocks. By that I mean that it has not been received well and a new approach has become a pastoral necessity. How much course correction is required is unclear. And how much the commission will tiptoe around the elephant in the living room, for fear of offending Benedict, is also an open question.

One cannot emphasize too strongly however that the real task before this commission is not merely one of tweaking a few details. Liturgiam authenticam can be analyzed with respect to texts and rules of translation, but it is not only about that. It is about the nature of church, the nature of reform, and the nature of liturgy itself. That is the reason why it has aroused so much ire on the one hand, and expectations of grandeur on the other. If the review and revision confines itself to cosmetic improvements only, it will fall short of what is needed. …

Det er litt vanskelig å forstå at dette skal være så veldig viktig (jeg kjenner ikke til slike oversettelsesdebatter i Norge, verken av katolsk liturgi fra latin til norsk, eller norske bibeloversettelser), men i noen andre land er dette svært omdiskutert – en del personer har fortsatt ikke forsonet seg med den nye (og nøyaktige) oversettelsen av hele messen til engelsk som kom i 2011. Jeg kan forsikre alle om at den norske Liturgikommisjonen (der jeg nå er sekretær) ikke har noen som helst problemer med Liturgiam authenticam, som ble utgitt i 2001.

jan 252017

Dette blir siste bok jeg får tid til å lese denne vinterferien (på Gran Canaria), i morgen reiser jeg tilbake til Oslo og mitt vanlige arbeid. Bokas fullstendige tittel er Liturgy in the Twenty-First Century, Contemporary Issues and Perspectives, og den er en samling av foredragene som ble holdt på konferansen Sacra Liturgia USA 2015 – beskriver den bl.a. slik:

Liturgy in the Twenty-First Century makes available the different perspectives on this from leading figures such as Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Abbot Philip Anderson, Father Thomas Kocik, Dom Alcuin Reid, and Dr Lauren Pristas.

Considering questions of liturgical catechetics, music, preaching, how young people relate to the liturgy, matters of formation and reform, etc., Liturgy in the Twenty-First Century is an essential resource for all clergy and religious and laity involved in liturgical ministry and formation. Bringing forth ‘new treasures as well as old,’ its contributors identify and address contemporary challenges and issues facing the task of realising the vision of Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and the Second Vatican Council.

jan 232017

Nå har jeg også lest The Development of the Liturgical Reform: As Seen by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli from 1948 to 1970, skrevet av Nicola Giampietro – ingen ferie uten å lese bøker om liturgien! Det var en interessant bok, og viser (ifølge forfatteren og Antonelli) at den liturgiske bevegelsen var sunn og nyttig fram til ca 1965, da for mange ukyndige ble involvert og noen av ekspertene mistet alle hemninger. Alcuin Reid skriver om boka på bl.a.:

… The appearance in English of Msgr Giampietro’s book is long overdue. It details the involvement in and contribution to liturgical reform by Father Fernando Antonelli OFM (created Cardinal in 1973) from the 1940’s until 1970, publishing for the first time Antonelli’s personal writings as well as archival material from the Commissions on which he served. …

… Antonelli was an, if not the most, influential member of the Commission for Liturgical Reform established by Pope Pius XII in 1948, and served as the Secretary for the Liturgical Commission of the Second Vatican Council. He was a member of the post-conciliar Consilium throughout and was appointed Archbishop Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Rites in 1965 (Those who have read Bugnini and Marini will be aware of the political battle for control of the liturgical reform waged by the Consilium against the Congregation for Rites). Giampietro’s study of Antonelli’s diaries and papers allows another voice on this and on other issues to be heard.

Antonelli was no `tweedy young traditionalist’ for whom a there is a given year after which liturgical reform is anathema and for whom the name «Bugnini» is synonymous with the root of all evil. The work of liturgical reform was his business for more than two decades. That is not to approve of all that he did. Indeed, it is the opinion of the present author that some of the principles of reform espoused by Pius XII’s Commission, and some of their applications, require critical re-evaluation: we stand in great need of a detailed and dispassionate study of the liturgical reform of Pope Pius XII.

For Antonelli continues to refer to the need to respect «genuine», «best» or «original» liturgical tradition in liturgical reform. But quite how this can be discerned is not clear. «The surest» historical research was seen as fundamental, though some decades later we are clear¯most notably in the case of the so-called anaphora of Hippolytus¯that the final word in historical research had not been uttered in the 1950s. Yet the minutes of the Pian Commission¯published here in a 112 page appendix, which are themselves of enormous historical worth¯reveal that their reforms were largely based on such assumptions. So too they reveal the influence of a pastoral expediency and an archaeologism (which deprecated later, especially medieval developments, and sought to reduce rites to their «severe and original lines») that may well have been injurious to received liturgical tradition. There are no simple answers to be found here, but there is plenty of primary material with which to inform further scholarship.

Antonelli describes the work of pre-conciliar reform as «a kind of novitiate» for what followed. Due to other responsibilities, he was not involved with the liturgical Preparatory Commission. Although he was an official of the Congregation for Rites, it was with some surprise, then, that Antonelli was named Secretary of the liturgical Commission for the Council instead of Father Bugnini, who «reacted violently». …

Bugnini, not Antonelli, was named Secretary of the post-conciliar Concilium, though Antonelli remained a member. His view of its work is again not without historical importance. At the end of its first meeting he reflected:

«I am not enthusiastic about this work. I am unhappy about how much the Commission has changed. It is merely an assembly of people, many of them incompetent, and others of them well advanced on the road to novelty. The discussions are extremely hurried. Discussions are based on impressions and the voting is chaotic. What is most displeasing is that the expositive Promemorias and the relative questions are drawn up in advanced terms and often in a very suggestive form. The direction is weak.»

As the Consilium’s work proceeded, Antonelli’s concerns about its competence, its predilection for innovation and its consuming haste, grew. After some years’ experience of the Consilium he wrote that the liturgical reform was becoming «more chaotic and deviant», adding:

«That which is sad…however, is a fundamental datum, a mutual attitude, a pre-established position, namely, many of those who have influenced the reform…and others, have no love, and no veneration of that which has been handed down to us. They begin by despising everything that is actually there. This negative mentality is unjust and pernicious, and unfortunately, Paul VI tends a little to this side. They have all the best intentions, but with this mentality they have only been able to demolish and not to restore.» …..

jan 102017

Avisa Dagen skriver om Kirkelig fornyelse bl.a.:

Helgens kirkestevne på Gran på Hadeland satte punktum for bønne- og arbeidsfellesskapet Kirkelig Fornyelse (KF). …

Fellesskapet ble opprettet i 1967 som en prestegruppe under navnet Pro Ecclesia, og ble i 1976 konstituert på nytt som en sammenslutning for prester og lekfolk innenfor Den norske kirke.

Kirkelig Fornyelse har i løpet av sin 50 år lange virksomhet vært en omfavnet og omstridt aktør i norsk kirkeliv. Organisasjonen var blant annet en sentral aktør i lærestriden i Den norske kirke på 1990-tallet. …

Bernt T. Oftestad, som er professor emeritus i ved Menighetsfakultetet, var med fra starten av. Han gikk gjennom KFs 50 årige historie i sitt foredrag om «KF som nødhavn og provokasjon».

KF hadde sitt første stevne på Gran i 1967. To år senere ble basisdokumentet vedtatt, og Thelle ble valgt til talsmann utad.

Oftestad påpekte at KF startet som en høykirkelig bevegelse på norsk og luthersk grunn. Han kom inn på avskallinger i bevegelsen, etter at den uttalte at KF uttalte seg mot provosert abort og fastholdt sin motstand mot kvinnelig prestetjeneste.

KF hadde en stor vekst på 70-tallet og ble enda større på 80-tallet, med opptil 250 deltagere på Granstevnet, sa teologiprofessoren.

Selv var jeg aldri med i Kirkelig fornyelse, heller ikke på de årlige møtene på Gran. Jeg tenkte faktisk aldri på den muligheten, og jeg ble ikke katolikk pga en stor interesse for liturgi – selv om den liturgiske interessen har komet etter hvert.

Msgr Torbjørn Olsen skriver også om nedleggelsen av Kirkelig fornyelsen på

des 262016

Dette hører vi i dagens messe:

Himmelens porter åpnet seg for den hellige Stefan, den første av martyrskaren. Derfor jubler han i himmelen med seierens krone.

Herre, vi ber deg, hjelp oss å etterligne ham vi ærer, så vi kan lære å elske også våre fiender. For i dag feirer vi den hellige Stefans fødselsfest, han som du gav kraft til å be endog for sine forfølgere. Ved vår Herre Jesus Kristus …

De stenet Stefan, som bad: Herre Jesus, motta min ånd.

Les alle messens bønner, antifoner og tekster her.

I dag sa pave Frans også dette i sin preken:

On the feast day of Christianity’s original martyr, Pope Francis issued a strong call not to forget the testimony of today’s victims of anti-Christian persecution around the world, a stunning number of whom have made the supreme sacrifice in recent years.

“Even today the Church, to render witness to the light and the truth, is beset in various places by hard persecutions, up to the supreme test of martyrdom,” Francis said on Monday.

“How many of our brothers and sisters in the faith suffer abuses and violence, and are hated because of Jesus!”
“I’ll tell you something,” the pope said. “The number of martyrs today is greater than in the early centuries [of the Church]. When we read the history of the early centuries, here in Rome, we read about so much cruelty to Christians. It’s happening today too, in even greater numbers.”

“Today we want to think of them and be close to them with our affection, our prayer and also our tears,” the pontiff said. “In these days, in Iraq, the Christians celebrated Christmas in a cathedral that had been destroyed. That’s an example of fidelity.
“The hardships and dangers notwithstanding, they offer courageous witness by belonging to Christ, and they live the Gospel committing themselves in favor of the least, of the most overlooked, doing good to all without distinction. …

des 212016

Jeg besøker forholdsvis ofte nettsidene til Corpus Christi Watershed, som redigeres av «Jeff Ostrowski (B.M. in Music Theory, 2004, and did graduate work in Musicology). He serves as choirmaster for the new FSSP parish in Los Angeles, where he lives with his wife and two children.» I dag tidlig så/ lyttet jeg til dette korte Kyriet av Palestrina (i videoen over) som beskrives slik her:

Back in 2013, I released a “simple plan” to improve music at Mass. In that article, I mentioned my belief that an a priori decision made after Vatican II — which eliminated the ancient praxis of simultaneous song & prayer — will someday be corrected. However, waiting for that day would be foolish; we must do our best with the current situation. As I’ve said before, the most “painless” way to introduce worthy music to the Ordinary Form (without irritating your pastor) is choral extensions, which embellish the music while still allowing congregational participation.

For the first few years, this will require polyphony that isn’t too long. Did you know Palestrina set entire litanies to polyphony? 1 The “Kyrie Eleison” from such works can be excerpted, and a simple plainsong melody can be sung by the congregation as shown here.

des 202016

Jeg holder nå på å sette opp tekstene til katolske messer ved hjelp av Bibelselskapets nye oversettelse, Bibel 2011, og torsdag sist uke så evangeliet slik ut:

☩ Lesning fra det hellige Evangelium etter Lukas (7,24-30)

Da sendebudene fra Johannes var gått, begynte Jesus å tale til folket om Johannes: «Hva gikk dere ut i ødemarken for å se? Et siv som svaier i vinden? Nei! Hva gikk dere ut for å se? En mann kledd i fine klær? De som går i praktfulle klær og lever i luksus, bor i slott. Hva gikk dere da ut for å se? En profet? Ja, jeg sier dere: mer enn en profet! Det er om ham det står skrevet:

Se, jeg sender min budbærer foran deg, han skal rydde veien for deg.

Jeg sier dere: Blant dem som er født av kvinner, er ingen større enn Johannes. Men den minste i Guds rike er større enn han.

Hele folket, også tollerne, lyttet og ga Gud rett; de lot seg døpe med Johannes-dåpen. Men fariseerne og de lovkyndige viste Guds plan fra seg; de lot seg ikke døpe av ham.

Slik lyder Herrens ord.

John Allen skriver om denne teksten, hvordan en prest klarte å holde en svært kort, men svært innholdsfull preken om dette budskapet fra Jesus om Johannes døperen, og hans oppgave. Slik skriver Allen i dag:

Thursday’s Gospel was drawn from Luke 7, in which Jesus speaks of John the Baptist, the key line from which is the following: “Among those born of women, no one is greater than John; yet the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than he.”

In all, the Gospel reading that morning ran to 171 words, featuring the typically crisp language for which the public utterances of Christ are justifiably renowned.

After the Gospel, Dennison paused to deliver his homily. There were the usual signs of people settling in, getting comfortable, perhaps trying to sneak in a quick check of messages or a peek at the bulletin, that usually precede an experience people expect will stretch on for a least a few minutes.

Here’s Dennison’s entire homily, word-for-word, which was immediately burned into my memory.

To be entirely clear, Jesus said that among those born of women, John was the greatest. To be equally clear, we should listen to him and respond.

Frankly, the brevity was so stunning my colleagues and I did a double-take, unable to process at first that Dennison was actually finished and was moving to the altar to begin the liturgy of the Eucharist.

The next day, the reading was from John 5 about how John the Baptist brought a lamp to light the way to Christ, a robust 85 words in total. Once again Dennison summarized the reading, and then added this: “John brought light, but there are those who still refuse to see.” Twelve words, start to finish.

After I heard him do it so succinctly again, I said: “He’s my new candidate for the greatest homilist I’ve ever heard!”
To some extent, I was being facetious – breakfast and a day in Key West awaited, and two 10-second homilies in a row were an unexpected bonus. Plus, this was daily Mass in front of a small congregation.

On the other hand, I wasn’t entirely kidding. If you look at Dennison’s utterances, the heart of the matter in each case was all there. As one of my colleagues put it, it was the “kerygma” itself, entirely unadorned.

As anyone who’s sat through a random sample of Catholic homilies recently could confirm, that’s often not the typical experience. Too often, it’s hard to detect the evangelical forest for the verbal trees.

On Friday, I went up to compliment Dennison on his economy of expression. He told me it’s deliberate, something he’s been doing at daily Mass for years, ever since he arrived in Key West.

“Anybody can talk for five minutes and maybe have a vague idea of their opening point,” he said. “To do it all in one sentence, you really have to think about it.”

des 162016

Jeg feirer i dag den tradisjonelle messen (i Porsgrunn), og feirer den andre av vinterens imbredager, det er alltid onsdag, fredag og lørdag (og minnes også den hellige Eusebius). Den tradisjonelle kalenderen er enkelte dager og uker ganske forskjellig fra den nye liturgiske kalenderen, mens andre ganger er nesten alt likt. Den norske messeboken fra 1961 beskriver imbredagene slik:

Som hver uke blir innledet, likesom vigslet, ved søndagsfesten, så blir de fire årstider vigslet ved Imbredagene (Feriæ Quatuor Temporum).

Det norske navnet våre fedre brukte, kommer fra et angelsaksisk ord (engelsk emberdays) som betydde omløp, periode. Til imbrehøytiden hører tre dager: onsdag, fredag og lørdag. Imbreuken om vinteren er tredje adventuke, om våren første fasteuke, om sommeren pinseuken, om høsten uken etter Korsmesse, 14. sept.

Imbredagene er bots- og fastedager. Sjelen søker seg bort fra verden til bønn under faste og abstinens. Men samtidig skal vi be Gud signe årstiden, takke ham for markens grøde, og endelig hjelpe de fattige med almisse. Bønn, faste og almisse blir da oppgaven for oss alle på imbredagene.

Engelsk Wikipedia skriver om dette, bl.a.:

In the liturgical calendar of the Western Christian churches, Ember days are four separate sets of three days within the same week — specifically, the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday — roughly equidistant in the circuit of the year, that are set aside for fasting and prayer. These days set apart for special prayer and fasting were considered especially suitable for the ordination of clergy. The Ember Days are known in Latin as the quattuor anni tempora (the «four seasons of the year»), or formerly as the jejunia quattuor temporum («fasts of the four seasons»). …

… The Latin name has remained in modern languages, though the contrary is sometimes affirmed, Quatuor Tempora, the Four Times. In French and Italian the term is the same; in Spanish and Portuguese they are simply Temporas. The German converts them into Quatember, and thence, by the easy corruption of dropping the first syllable, a corruption which also takes place in some other words, we get the English Ember. Thus, there is no occasion to seek after an etymology in embers …

nov 042016

I dag feirer Kirken den hellige Carlo Borromeo, og på kan vi lese om ham bl.a.:

… Karl (Carlo) var utrettelig og energisk og alltid på farten, men han slet seg helt ut, og hans helse ble verre. I 1584 ble han angrepet av erysipelas (rosen) i en fot, noe som tvang ham til sengs. I oktober 1584 dro han til Mante Varallo for sin årlige retrett. Med seg hadde han jesuittpateren Adorno. Han sa til flere at han ikke ville bli lenge i denne verden, og den 24. oktober ble han syk med feber. Den 29. oktober dro han mot Milano, på Allehelgensdag 1. november feiret han sin siste messe i Arona, sitt fødested, og dagen etter kom han til Milano. Han gikk rett til sengs og ba om de siste sakramentene. Disse fikk han av erkepresten i katedralen. Om kvelden den 3. november 1584 døde han fredelig, bare 46 år gammel, i armene på sin walisiske skriftefar Griffith Roberts. Hans siste ord var: «Se, Herre, jeg kommer. Skje din vilje».

Da kirkeklokkene i domkirken forkynte budskapet om overhyrdens død, brøt det ut en så stor forvirring som om en fiende hadde besatt byen. Overalt lød klageskrik og tårer. Særlig de fattige, som Karl hadde vært som en far for, var utrøstelige. Det var en så stor trengsel for å se den døde at man måtte slå i stykker veggene for å gi massene en utgang. Rekviemmessen ble feiret av kardinal Nicolò Sfondrato den 7. november. Selv hadde Karl angitt begravelsesstedet og en enkel gravskrift, og han ble bisatt om natten i krypten i domkirken i Milano. I kirken San Carlo i Arona er det et relikvar med en kopi av hans dødsmaske. Snart etter ble folket enige om å bygge et monument for ham, en 28 m høy statue på en 14 m høy sokkel. Statuen ble kalt «Carlone» eller «Store Karl». …

… Karl ble saligkåret i 1602 av pave Klemens VIII (1592-1605) og helligkåret den 1. november 1610 av pave Paul V (1605-21). I 1613 ble hans fest tatt inn i den romerske kalenderen. Den var opprinnelig 5. november, men siden 1652 har hans minnedag vært feiret den 4. november. Hans navn står i Martyrologium Romanum.

Øverst ser man den omtalte dødsmasken, og i bildene under den berømte statuen av Carlo Borromeo i Arona ved Lago Maggiore, som vi besøkte i juli 2015 – statuen er kjempestor, og man kan klatre helt opp til hodet – der jeg stikker hodet ut i det siste bildet.



okt 072016

The Catholic World Report har et langt intervju med kardinal Robert Sarah, i forbindelse med boken «La Force du Silence» han nylig fikk utgitt. De introduserer intervjuet slik: In a wide-ranging interview with «La Nef», Cardinal Sarah discusses his new book, published in France, saying, «By living with the silent God, and in Him, we ourselves become silent.» Og i intervjuet finner vi bl.a. følgende spørsmål og svar:

After your conference in London last July, you are returning to the topic of the orientation of the liturgy and wish to see it applied in our churches. Why is this so important to you, and how would you see this change implemented?

Cdl. Sarah: Silence poses the problem of the essence of the liturgy. Now the liturgy is mystical. As long as we approach the liturgy with a noisy heart, it will have a superficial, human appearance. Liturgical silence is a radical and essential disposition; it is a conversion of heart. Now, to be converted, etymologically, is to turn back, to turn toward God. There is no true silence in the liturgy if we are not—with all our heart—turned toward the Lord. We must be converted, turn back to the Lord, in order to look at Him, contemplate His face, and fall at His feet to adore Him. We have an example: Mary Magdalene was able to recognize Jesus on Easter morning because she turned back toward Him: “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” “Haec cum dixisset, conversa est retrorsum et videt Jesus stantem. – Saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there” (Jn 20:13-14).

How can we enter into this interior disposition except by turning physically, all together, priest and faithful, toward the Lord who comes, toward the East symbolized by the apse where the cross is enthroned?

The outward orientation leads us to the interior orientation that it symbolizes. Since apostolic times, Christians have been familiar with this way of praying. It is not a matter of celebrating with one’s back to the people or facing them, but toward the East, ad Dominum, toward the Lord.

This way of doing things promotes silence. Indeed, there is less of a temptation for the celebrant to monopolize the conversation. Facing the Lord, he is less tempted to become a professor who gives a lecture during the whole Mass, reducing the altar to a podium centered no longer on the cross but on the microphone! The priest must remember that he is only an instrument in Christ’s hands, that he must be quiet in order to make room for the Word, and that our human words are ridiculous compared to the one Eternal Word.

I am convinced that priests do not use the same tone of voice when they celebrate facing East. We are so much less tempted to take ourselves for actors, as Pope Francis says!

Of course, this way of doing things, while legitimate and desirable, must not be imposed as a revolution. I know that in many places preparatory catechesis has enabled the faithful to accept and appreciate the orientation. I wish that this question would not become the occasion for an ideological clash of factions! We are talking about our relationship with God.

As I had the opportunity to say recently, during a private interview with the Holy Father, here I am just making the heartfelt suggestions of a pastor who is concerned about the good of the faithful. I do not intend to set one practice against another. If it is physically not possible to celebrate ad orientem, it is absolutely necessary to put a cross on the altar in plain view, as a point of reference for everyone. Christ on the cross is the Christian East.

okt 062016

Kardinal Sarah har nylig utgitt en bok (så langt bare på fransk) med tema/tittel «Stillhetens styrke», og WWW.CHIESA skriver om boken og har fått noen utdrag av den oversatt til engelsk. Om den såkalte reformen av den liturgiske reformen skriver han bl.a.:



I refuse to waste time in opposing one liturgy to another, or the rite of Saint Pius V to that of Blessed Paul VI. What is needed is to enter into the great silence of the liturgy; one must allow oneself to be enriched by all the Latin or Eastern liturgical forms that favor silence. Without this contemplative silence, the liturgy will remain an occasion of hateful divisions and ideological confrontations instead of being the place of our unity and our communion in the Lord. It is high time to enter into this liturgical silence, facing the Lord, that the Council wanted to restore.

What I am about to say now does not enter into contradiction with my submission and obedience to the supreme authority of the Church. I desire profoundly and humbly to serve God, the Church, and the Holy Father, with devotion, sincerity, and filial attachment. But this is my hope: if God wills, when he may will and how he may will, in the liturgy, the reform of the reform will take place. In spite of the gnashing of teeth, it will take place, because the future of the Church is at stake.

Damaging the liturgy means damaging our relationship with God and the concrete expression of our Christian faith. The Word of God and the doctrinal teaching of the Church are still listened to, but the souls that want to turn to God, to offer him the true sacrifice of praise and worship him, are no longer captivated by liturgies that are too horizontal, anthropocentric, and festive, often resembling noisy and vulgar cultural events. The media have completely invaded and turned into a spectacle the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the memorial of the death of Jesus on the cross for the salvation of our souls. The sense of mystery disappears through changes, through permanent adaptations, decided in autonomous and individual fashion in order to seduce our modern profaning mentalities, marked by sin, secularism, relativism, and the rejection of God.

In many western countries, we see the poor leaving the Catholic Church because it is under siege by ill-intentioned persons who style themselves intellectuals and despise the lowly and the poor. This is what the Holy Father must denounce loud and clear. Because a Church without the poor is no longer the Church, but a mere “club.” Today, in the West, how many temples are empty, closed, destroyed, or turned into profane structures in disdain of their sacredness and their original purpose. So I know how many priests and faithful there are who live their faith with extraordinary zeal and fight every day to preserve and enrich the dwellings of God.

sep 082016


Consider what our prospects were before the birth not only of Our Lord, but from before the birth of His Mother, from whom He took our human nature, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Today’s feast is older than the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which was precisely nine months ago. Holy Church, in celebrating liturgically her holy birth for a long time, ultimately reasoned back to Mary’s holy conception. As St. Thomas Aquinas argued, “The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady’s Nativity. Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those who are holy. Therefore, even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy. Therefore, she was sanctified in the womb.” (STh III, q. 27, a. 1)

Lex Orandi Lex CredendiAs we worship, so do we believe. As we believe, so do we worship. Change our worship you change belief, and vice versa.

Here is the entry in the Roman Martyrology for today’s feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary: Festum Nativitatis beatae Mariae Virginis, ex semine Abrahae, de tribu Iuda ortae, ex progenie regis David, e qua Filius Dei natus est, factus homo de Spiritu Sancto, ut homines vetusta servitute peccati liberaret. – The feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, sprung from the seed of Abraham [and] from the tribe of Judah, from the line of David the king, from which was born the Son of God, made man of the Holy Ghost, that he might free men from the ancient slavery to sin.

Denne tekster er tatt fra Father Z. Dagens feiring er også omtalt på

Jeg ble også diakonviet på denne dagen i 1999.

aug 082016

Eller mer presis stilt er vel spørsmålet heller; hva slags rytme og hastighet skal liturgien ha? På NLM-bloggen stod det for noen dager siden en artikkel om dette, der man innledningsvis kan lese: «Tempo and pacing are crucial parts of the success of any endeavor, and especially the liturgical arts, music, and education. The speed of delivery, the space between events and ideas, and the overall energy of one’s demeanor form a significant part of the tone of one’s message. Fish bite when the lure is in motion.»

Så skrives det noe om hva dette betyr for bl.a. undervisning, før vi kan lese:

An effective liturgist will establish exactly the right pace and habits in order to focus on the content itself. Conservatives often say “reverence takes time.” This is a fair statement, a worthy maxim, and a good drumbeat to rally fellow conservatives against Fr. Hasty Minute-Mass. But the tendency here is toward being slow, which may not be the most effective or appropriate tempo. The adage “festina lente” or “make haste slowly” conveys prudence, however quickness can convey strength, enthusiasm, and engagement. Just because something is slow, doesn’t mean it is rich and reverent. Slow liturgy might even be boring and anemic. So the question remains, “What pace makes an effective liturgy?”

Current educational research suggests there can be multiple «speeds» in one classroom. The traditional mass allowed for flexible pace and tempo in various parts of the liturgy, because the priest, choir, and faithful could occupy themselves in their own tasks without remaining necessarily in lockstep with each other. Similarly, effective liturgists today allow for a similar flexibility in the tempo; if the altar is delayed, the organist plays; if the choir is still singing, the priest slows his pace to wait for them to catch up. All things to be done are done well and given their proper amount of time, which may be a few moments or a few minutes.

Nonetheless, impatience has no place in the liturgy. An effective liturgist never “twiddles his thumbs” while waiting. Let me provide a key example: It is not uncommon in many parishes for the opening procession to reach the sanctuary before the organist has finished the introduction to the opening hymn. Having arrived at the altar, the priest sits there and looks at everyone, as they look at him; and together they glare and wait for those annoying few people to stop singing verses one and two, so that Mass can begin… forget about singing verses three and four! If we wonder why people don’t sing, it may have nothing to do with the song selections, the music, or the musicians– and it may have everything to do with the pastor and the altar servers. ….

Focusing on the content requires obedience to the liturgy. All analogous educational research suggests that an ordered “liturgical” environment fosters greater learning and participation. ….

jul 212016

Den kjente (og ikke spesielt konservative) liturgen og jesuitten John F. Baldovin skriver i magasinet America om hva som er fakta og hva som er misforståelsen når det gjelder prestens retning foran alteret, bl.a.:

Turning toward the East, or ad orientem, is technical liturgical language for the priest and people facing in the same direction. The suggestion is nothing new. The decision to allow Mass facing the people has had its opponents since it was allowed shortly after the end of the Second Vatican Council. And more recently it has been championed by none less than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in his many writings on the liturgy. …

… Opponents of Mass facing the people often point out that the Second Vatican Council’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” contains no provision for the practice. They are correct. The issue was discussed in the commission that produced the document as well as in the debates on the floor of the council. … But shortly after the constitution was approved in December 1963, the first instruction for implementing the reform appeared. “Inter Oecumenici” (1964) stated: “The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. …

The alert reader will observe several things. First, the altar is described as both the place where the “Sacrifice of the Cross is made present” and “the table of the Lord.” … Second, it is interesting to note that facing the people is not mandated. That is, it has never been forbidden, perhaps because too many chapels were built in such a way that having an altar separate from the wall was not architecturally feasible. Nonetheless, the preference is clear that the main altar of a church is to be separated from the wall to make Mass facing the people possible.

Another “fiction” that is sometimes repeated is that the General Instruction presumes that the priest will face East. Critics point to four points in the description of the Mass (Nos. 124, 146, 157 and 165) when the priest is directed to turn towards the people. Two cautions are appropriate here. These directives may be in place to deal with the possibility that the priest can face East, in which case the Instruction makes clear that there are times when he must face the people. But the document does not direct the priest to turn around again to the altar after the prayer over the gifts and the eucharistic prayer—that is, it does not presume that he will be facing East.

One last fact: At the time of Vatican II some argued that the original position of the priest was facing the people. This, too, seems to have been a fiction. All of the evidence we have from the early church shows that facing East whence the Lord was expected to make his final coming was expected. In church building that could not be oriented (e.g., St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome) the priest faced East, which was also toward the people.

Baldovin skriver en hel del mer i denne artikkelen, bl.a. om hvorfor dette spørsmålet er blitt så veldig viktig i Kirken i vår tid: «A reversion to the pre-conciliar position of the priest at Mass would be a profound signal that the forward steps the church took in Vatican II are in question.»

jul 172016

Hos Corpus Christi Watershed kan vi lese at en biskop i USA har nektet alle feiring av messen ad orientem i sitt bispedømme, men et dokument fra Vatikanet fra år 2000 nekter biskoper å komme med slike bestemmelser:

When the 2000 (2002) Missal was promulgated, the Vatican’s CDW was asked whether bishops have authority to forbid “ad orientem” celebration. Dated 10 April 2000, the CDW response was unequivocal:

HIS DICASTERY [i.e. the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship] wishes to state that Holy Mass may be celebrated versus populum or versus apsidem. Both positions are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct.

There is no preference expressed in the liturgical legislation for either position. As both positions enjoy the favor of law, the legislation may not be invoked to say that one position or the other accords more closely with the mind of the Church.

This letter (PROTOCOL NO. 564/00/L) specifically addresses whether a bishop can forbid “ad orientem.” They stated that, while exercising his rightful role as “moderator of the Sacred Liturgy in the particular Church entrusted to his pastoral care,” the Diocesan Bishop can neither “exclude nor mandate the use of a legitimate option.”

This letter was sent by the same congregation responsible for drafting the 2000 (2002) Missal and GIRM, which was approved by Pope St. John Paul II. The letter was signed by Cardinal Medina, CDW Prefect, and Archbishop Tamburrino, CDW Secretary. I have no idea why so many people commenting on this issue refuse to make reference to it.

jul 152016

Andre dag under Sacra Liturgia konferansen var det også en interessant sesjon (foredrag og videre samtale) om sangen som naturlig hører (hørte) med i messen:

After lunch, Dr Jennifer Donelson (of NLM) gave her paper, Origins and Effects of the Missa Lecta: Priestly Musical Formation in a Low Mass Culture. She began with an examination of solemnity, noting that the reference and norm in Sacrosanctum Concilium is the Solemn Mass (cf. SC 112-113). However, these sorts of Masses were rare before the Second Vatican Council, and are rare today. The general experience today is effectively that of a Low Mass with hymns replacing the Propers, and perhaps some singing of the Ordinary. The notion of solemnity is informed more by civic considerations than by liturgical ones – more people, more flowers, more applause sometimes seem to be what makes liturgical celebrations «solemn».

The Low Mass, however, cannot be understood properly without reference to the Solemn Mass …

Dr Donelson went on to look at the history of the relationship between speaking and singing in the liturgy. Up until roughly the end of the first millennium, liturgical texts were either spoken in near silence (as the Roman Canon is in the EF), or sung aloud. The number of texts spoken in a quiet voice increased between the 9th-11th centuries – for example, the prayers at the foot of the altar – and by the 12th century the rise of the missa lecta for various reasons had caused a rupture between text and music in the Western Church.

Why did this rupture persist? Low Mass made daily Mass possible, and an increased devotion to the Blessed Sacrament was thus also nourished, enabling more frequent reception of Holy Communion. Considerations of validity/liceity also contributed to the increasing neglect of music in the Roman Rite, resulting ultimately in minimalistic celebrations and a mechanistic, overly-rubrical approach to the liturgy: «It is in this way that one comes to think of the sacred liturgy in terms of power and control rather than in humble reception of what has been handed on.» (Dr Donelson)

Dr Donelson argued passionately against what she termed «liturgical sloth», the idea that if it takes 1 hour 15 minutes to sing a Solemn Mass, but 45 minutes to say a Low Mass, then why bother singing? Such an attitude is damaging and corrosive, as well as lacking in love. …

jul 142016

Andre dag under Sacra Liturgia konferansen holdt Dom Alcuin Reid et interessant foredrag han hadde kalt: On the Council Floor: The Council Fathers’ Debate of the Schema on the Sacred Liturgy. Der stilte han spørsmålet: «What did the Fathers of Vatican II think they were approving in Sacrosanctum Concilium – liturgical evolution or revolution?»

Dom Alcuin began by outlining the hermeneutical principles to be borne in mind: «What happened in the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution is an important and potent area for study, but we shall be unable to do that well if we do not read the Constitution in a manner that is consistent with the minds of the Council Fathers. We must be good historians: understanding the historical context of the principles and measures they laid down is crucial. An a posteriori isogesis of the Constitution, as is fashionable in some circles, is simply bad scholarship.»

He then moved to the conciliar discussion of article 37 of the schema, which would later become article 50 of SC, demonstrating the importance of reading the Council Fathers’ interventions in their entirety. To take two examples: Cardinal Spellman and Cardinal Ottaviani are often depicted as arch-conservatives, liturgical dinosaurs, resistant to any sort of possible liturgical reform, but this is based on a certain cherry-picking of their interventions regarding the liturgy constitution. If one reads the whole of their speeches, it is clear that they both accepted the need for genuine liturgical reform. The principle of enhancing actual participation in the liturgy «cannot be disputed» (Spellman), and the positive effect of «the pastoral work on the liturgy» (Ottaviani). They, along with other Council Fathers, were concerned that article 37 needed some clarification, but they were not opposed to genuine (one could say organic) progress in the area of liturgical reforms.

Only one bishop, Wilhelm Duschak, made an intervention that was revolutionary, in which he outlined his idea for an ecumenical «Mass of the World». But, as Dom Alcuin mentioned: «If we do read the Fathers’ interventions—all of them—it is simply impossible to assert that revolution (Duschakian or otherwise) was what they intended. Indeed, the debate on article 37 (50) proves the opposite. It shows that the Fathers accepted the principle that, so as to achieve a greater participatio actuosa a moderate reform of the Order of Mass was desirable.»

Dom Alcuin went on to point out that the work of Group 10 of the Consilium, who were responsible for the reform of the Ordo Missae, seems to have gone a long way beyond the intentions of the Council Fathers as expressed at Vatican II – where, almost right at the start of the discussion about the liturgy constitution, Bishop Henry Jenny, a member of the Preparatory and Conciliar Commissions on the Liturgy (and later of the Consilium) said that «The current Ordo Missae, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, certainly is to be retained» (General Congregation XII). ….

jul 142016

Sacra Liturgia UK har nylig hatt en interessant konferanse i London, og på NLM-bloggen har de offentliggjort referater fra konferansens fire dager.

Her er referatet fra første dag med (det svært mye omtalte) innledningsforedraget til kardinal Robert Sarah. Hele dette foredraget kan leses her.

Andre dag inneholder følgende referater:
The day began with Dom Alcuin Reid and his paper entitled On the Council Floor: The Council Fathers’ Debate of the Schema on the Sacred Liturgy, in which the question was posed: what did the Fathers of Vatican II think they were approving in Sacrosanctum Concilium – liturgical evolution or revolution? …

Dom Charbel Pazat de Lys then gave a paper entitled The Public Nature of the Liturgy, in which he examined the practical, sociological, institutional and christological meanings of the word «public». …

Prof. Peter Stephan’s paper was entitled The Vicissitudes of Liturgy and Architecture Shown at the Example of Berlin’s Cathedral of St Hedwig, in which he explored the «anti-liturgical modification» of historical churches. …

After lunch, Dr Jennifer Donelson (of NLM) gave her paper, Origins and Effects of the Missa Lecta: Priestly Musical Formation in a Low Mass Culture. …

A panel discussion on Sacred Music followed, which included Prof. William Mahrt, the publisher of NLM. There were lively discussions and exchanges regarding the best ways to introduce into a parish the singing of the propers and the resources available to help with this, along with other topics. …

Tredje dag er det referat fra:
Dr Clare Hornsby gave a lecture with the title: The Council of Florence of 1439: Diplomacy, Theology and the Arts in Early Renaissance Italy.

Fr Uwe Michael Lang was next to speak, with a paper entitled The Tridentine Liturgical Reform in Historical Perspective.

The next paper was delivered by Bishop Alan Hopes, entitled Sing a New Song to the Lord: Towards a Revised Translation of the Liturgy of the Hours.

The fourth paper of the day was by Prof. Joris Geldhof, entitled Liturgy Beyond the Secular.

The final paper of the day was «Especially in Mission Territories» (SC 38)? New Evangelisation and Liturgical (Reform of the) Reform was given by Dr Stephen Bullivant,

Fra fjerde dag er det følgende referater:
Prof. Helmut Hoping’s paper on one of the most fundamental aspects of our liturgy, Liturgy and the Triune God: Rethinking Trinitarian Theology.

Fr Michael Cullinan then gave us a slightly different perspective as a moral theologian in his paper The Ethical Character of the Mysteries: Observations from a Moral Theologian.

The next paper was given by Prof. David Fagerberg on Doing the World Liturgically: Stewardship of Creation and Care for the Poor.

The fourth talk was given by Mgr Andrew Burnham, on Divine Worship: The Missal and «the liturgical books proper to the Anglican Tradition» (Anglicanorum Coetibus, III).

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone then offered some concluding reflections, summing up the talks and liturgies of the conference. He urged patience with regard to the upcoming work of the CDWDS regarding the question of the reform of the reform, but said that the celebration of the Mass ad orientem in the usus recentior would go a long way towards preparing the way for it, and reiterated Cardinal Sarah’s appeal to priests to begin celebrating Mass eastwards from the 1st Sunday of Advent this year. He encouraged all present to pay attention to the details of the liturgy in the celebration of it, holding up the London Oratory as an model and exemplar.

jul 132016

Det er litt underlig at hvilken vei presten står ved alteret har blitt så veldig kontroversielt i Den katolske kirke; i den lutherske og den anglikanske kirke (der prestene ofte(st) vender seg ad orientem) er det ikke slik. Og det handler jo også bare om hvilken vei presten vender seg ca 10 minutter i løpet av messen. På (den nokså liberale/ moederne) liturgibloggen Pray Tell fikk et innlegg om kardinal Sarahs forslag om at prestene bør vende seg ad orientem 148 kommentarer på tre dager før debatten ble stoppet.

I et annet innlegg på samme liturgiblogg kan vi lese ganske treffende i kommentar 35 og 36:

… Cardinal Sarah said nothing controversial about ad orientem, unless ad orientem, the ancient and traditional Catholic practice, which is alive in the Church today, is controversial.

Eastern Catholics celebrate ad orientem. Catholics who offer the Mass of Pope Saint John XIII celebrate ad orientem. Catholics in the Ordinariates celebrate ad orientem. Catholic bishops and priests offer the Ordinary Form ad orientem.

Pope Francis has celebrated ad orientem.

The Orthodox celebrate ad orientem.

Never did Cardinal Sarah say even one word that should have led anyone to say that Pope Francis planned to implement ad orientem Mass at Advent.

There wasn’t anything “controversial” (unless an ancient and totally acceptable Catholic liturgical practice, which is alive today) about ad orientem. There isn’t anything controversial about promoting ad orientem.

Cardinal Sarah did nothing wrong. I also don’t accept the interpretation that the press release indicated that Pope Francis “slapped down” Cardinal Sarah. …

If the explosion on the blogosphere in the last few days have shown anything, it is that promoting ad orientem it is highly controversial!

Note, I am not one to condemn ad orientem, nor have I done so. I have celebrated ad orientem. But I’m perfectly aware that promoting it – which I don’t do – is highly controversial.

I suppose one should that that it SHOULDN’T be controversial, that there’s NO REASON why it should be. But yet, it is. I state that as a fact, apart from my judgment of it.