Ratzingers foredrag i Fontgombault i 2001 – del 3

I sitt foredrag i Fontgombault i 2001 tar kardinal Ratzinger opp sammen med diskusjonen om messen som et offer, også opp begrepet «påskemysteriet«, som er blitt mye brukt siden 2. Vatikankonsil – og, ifølge Ratzinger, ofte misforstått. Først skriver han om forståelsen av hva et offer er:

What emerges from it is that, in its course through the history of religions and biblical history, the idea of sacrifice has connotations which go well beyond the area of discussion which we habitually associate with the idea of sacrifice. In fact, it opens the doorway to a global understanding of worship and of the liturgy: these are the great perspectives which I would like to try to point out here. …

Så skriver han om forholdet mellom påske og offeret, der noen (helt feilaktig) ser en motsetning mellom påskemysteriet og offeret, mens Ratzinger mener det er en dyp sammenheng mellom disse to begrepene:
In the bibliographic review mentioned, Stefan Orth says that the fact of having avoided after Vatican II, the idea of sacrifice, has «led people to think of divine worship in terms of the feast of the Passover related in the accounts of the Last Supper.» At first sight this wording appears ambiguous: is one to think of divine worship in terms of the Last Supper narratives, or in terms of the Passover, to which those narratives refer in giving a chronological framework, but which they do not otherwise describe. It would be right to say that the Jewish Passover, the institution of which is related in Exodus 12, acquires a new meaning in the New Testament. It is there that is manifested a great historical movement which goes from the beginnings right up to the Last Supper, the Cross and the Resurrection of Jesus. But what is astonishing above all in Orth’s presentation is the opposition posited between the idea of sacrifice and the Passover.

The Jewish Old Testament deprives Orth’s thesis of meaning, because from the law of Deuteronomy on, the slaughtering of lambs is linked to the temple; and even in the earliest period, when the Passover was still a family feast, the slaughtering of lambs already had a sacrificial character. Thus, precisely through the tradition of the Passover, the idea of sacrifice is carried right up to the words and gestures of the Last Supper, where it is present also on the basis of a second Old Testament passage, Exodus 24, which relates the conclusion of the Covenant at Sinai. There, it is related that the people were sprinkled with the blood of the victims previously brought, and that Moses said on this occasion: «This is the blood of the Covenant which Yahweh makes with you in accordance with all these provisions.» (Ex. 24:8) The new Christian Passover is thus expressly interpreted in the accounts of the Last Supper as a sacrificial event, and on the basis of the words of the Last Supper, the nascent Church knew that the Cross was a sacrifice, because the Last Supper would be an empty gesture without the reality of the Cross and of the Resurrection, which is anticipated in it and made accessible for all time in its interior content.

Ratzinger går så videre og bemerker at også SSPX opplever at det er en motsetning mellom begrepene påskemysteriet og (messnes) offer, noe han mener er misforstått: (På samme måte som vi ser at SSPX (og noen andre tradisjonalister) ser på Vatikankonsilet som et brudd med Kirkens tradisjon, mens Ratzinger alltid presiserer at konsilet må forstås som en fortsettelsen av Tradisjonen.)
I mention this strange opposition between the Passover and sacrifice, because it represents the architectonic principle of a book recently published by the Society of St. Pius X, claiming that a dogmatic rupture exists between the new liturgy of Paul VI and the preceding catholic liturgical tradition. This rupture is seen precisely in the fact that everything is interpreted henceforth on the basis of the «paschal mystery,» instead of the redeeming sacrifice of expiation of Christ; the category of the paschal mystery is said to be the heart of the liturgical reform, and it is precisely that which appears to be the proof of the rupture with the classical doctrine of the Church. It is clear that there are authors who lay themselves open to such a misunderstanding; but that it is a misunderstanding is completely evident for those who look more closely. … … The paschal theology of the New Testament, upon which we have cast a quick glance, gives us to understand precisely this: the seemingly profane episode of the Crucifixion of Christ is a sacrifice of expiation, a saving act of the reconciling love of God made man. The theology of the Passover is a theology of the redemption, a liturgy of expiatory sacrifice. The Shepherd has become a Lamb.

Legg igjen en kommentar

Din e-postadresse vil ikke bli publisert. Obligatoriske felt er merket med *

Skroll til toppen