Jeg har skrevet noen ganger tidligere om boka til John F. Baldovin, SJ: “Reforming the Liturgy. A Response to Critics” – ei bok som altså ikke er enig i kritikken av dagens katolske liturgi. Før jeg gjorde meg helt ferdig med hans bok, tar jeg med noe av hans vurdering av neste bok “jeg kaster meg over”: Thomas Kocik, The Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate: Reform or Return? – Ignatius Press 2003.
Certainty one of the phrases most frequently employed by the critics has been the idea of a «reform of the reform.» It has been championed by Klaus Gamber, Joseph Ratzinger, Joseph Fessio, Aidan Nichols, Laszlo Dobszay, Thomas Kocik, the Adoremus Movement in general, and others. Each of these critics proposes a program for reforming the reform, and all of the programs share a family resemblance. In this final section of this part I would like to take a look at one of these proposals. ‘
Much of Thomas Kocik’s book, The Reform of the Reform? consists of a debate between a proponent of the «reform of the reform» party and traditionalist who insists on returning to the pre-Vatican II Missal tout court. … … Kocik provides a number of appendices. Among them is a proposal for a reform of the reform by Brian Harrison. It is based on the arguments of Klaus Gamber – here is what he proposes:»
1. The retention of Latin for everything in the Mass except for the readings, prayer of the faithful, and proper prayers and chants (Collects, Introits, etc.)
2. Retention of only the Roman Canon-somewhat adjusted to include an epiclesis and with a sung doxology and elevation at the end. Also some of the signs of the cross removed
3. Retrieval of all the offertory prayers of the 1962 Missal
4. Return to the proper prayers of the 1962 Missal
5. Offertory prayers and Roman Canon recited in a low voice
6. Communion to be received kneeling and on the tongue
7. Elimination of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, a practise he calls the «clericalization» of the laity
8. Eastward orientation of the priest
As I have already stated, these eight proposals are fairly representative of what most of the critics think would be a better eucharistic liturgy. Let us address them one by one:
1. We have already seen that, within a few years of the council, the vast majority of the world’s bishops were requesting that the entire liturgy be translated into the vernacular. … …
At the same time, for the sake of tradition, and in multilingual and multinational assemblies, it would be helpful for everyone to learn some of the basic Latin chants as well as some traditional hymns like the Salve Regina and Pange Lingua. It can be very stirring to sing Credo III or the Lord’s Prayer in an international setting.
2. It is true that SC did not envisage multiple eucharistic prayers in the reformed rite. But once again, the experience of the Consilium showed that «tinkering» with the Roman Canon (about which a great deal of dissatisfaction had been expressed) was not going to be sufficient. In any case we are seeing that in practice only two of the prayers of the current Sacramentary get a good deal of use (Eucharistic Prayers II and III). However ranch professional liturgists may lament this development (and I do, since some of the prayers, e.g., for reconciliation and for special occasions, are excellent) there is a kind of evolutionary development of liturgical practice that will win out.
3. With good reason Josef Jungmann referred to the old offertory prayers as a kind of jungle. They certainly (and confusingly) repeated the ideas of the Canon and communicated a notion of individual priestly offering (prayers said in the first-person singular) which I think one would be hard put to defend in terms of the proper role of the ordained minister. Of course, the role of the priest is precisely one of the most contested issues in contemporary sacramental/liturgical theology. I would maintain that we are far from finding a satisfactory theological approach to exactly how the priest functions ministerially at the liturgy, especially if we deem it important that the whole church offers the eucharistic sacrifice. …
4. Harrison refers to the study of Anthony Cecada, which found that the 1970 missal retained only 17 percent of the prayers of the older rite.» We have already seen a similar criticism in chapter 5 when we analyzed the contribution of Lauren Pristas. It is certainly the case that the framers of the new rite intended to soften the harshness of some of the prayers of the older Missal. Harrison puts it this way: “Instead of these timeless and essential aspects of catholic doctrine and spirituality~ we have been given a liturgy that to an alarudng extent reflects the naive and transient optimism of the 1960’s: conseiousness of sin, guilt, enemles, and judgment had to yield to that «insight» of popular modem psychology that reassures us all: “I’m OK, you’re OK.»”
Now, this is good rhetoric but a very poor reading of the current Sacramentary~ which (whatever its faults) does not represent a theology that stems from pop psychology. …
5. Harrison also criticizes the «constant patter of words» in the new liturgy. This is the reason he gives for proposing the quiet recitation of the prayers of the offertory and the Roman Canon. While it would be a good thing if more assemblies paid attention to the recommendation for a greater use of silence as the GIRM recommends (§45), reciting the eucharistic prayer silently or in a low voice contradicts the whole ethos of the reform. It could only make sense if one accepted the rationale for retaining only the Roman Canon and for the priest adopting the eastward position.
6. The recent CDWDS instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (§§88-96) has addressed the question of the reception of holy communion at great length. It manifests a dear concern on the part of the Vatican and others that appropriate reverence is not always shown in receiving the sacrament.~ But it also makes clear that there are legitimate options that may be adopted. One can agree wholeheartedly with Harrison and other «reformers of the reform without insisting that communion be received on the tongue and in the kneeling posture. At the same time, I will acknowledge the need to find a better approach than the assembly line we currently employ in most Catholic churches.
7. Critics of the reform like to point to the use of extraordinary ministers of communion as an example of the «clericalization» of the laity. We see here once again a good amount of disagreement about the appropriate role of the ordained minister. For some, it makes a great deal of sense for priests and/or deacons who have not participated in a particular Eucharist to be called in at communion time in order to distribute holy communion. Extraordinary «ministers are in the strictest sense of the word «extraordinary» On the other hand, others (I would include myself) understand that the integrity of a particular worshiping assembly makes it inappropriate to «import» ordained ministers into a service in which they have not participated. There is no question that the reformed Roman Catholic liturgy has represented a welcoming of lay ministers in the celebration of the Eucharist. Needless to say, all are not ministers in the same way – there are appropriate and differentiated roles – but all are truly celebrants of the liturgy.
8. We have considered the question of the eastward position in the last chapter. There I suggested that the CDWDS recommendation in its 1999 letter is the most apt response to those who are dissatisfied with versus populum celebration: That the focus of celebration should be the Lord who gathers us together.
Kommentar til: «2. Retention of only the Roman Canon-somewhat adjusted to include an epiclesis .» Dette er overflødig. Den romerske kanon innholder alt en fullgyldig epiklesis, nemlig «jube hæc perférri per manus sancti Ángeli tui in sublíme altáre tuum, in conspéctu divínæ majestátis tuæ:» Dette er en bøn om at offergaverne må forvandles til Kristi legeme og blod som i alt væsentligt svarer til epikleserne hos Basilios den Store og Johannes Chrysostomos, selvom ordlyden er anderledes.