oktober 2010

Synspunkter på moderne bibelstudier

Jeg har begynt (som jeg lovet) å se litt mer på katolske bibelstudier i nyere tid, og jeg har begynt ved å se på to dokumenter. Det ene er et grundig dokument fra den pavelige bibelkommisjonen fra 1994 (som man kan lese bl.a. her), og det andre (hold dere fast) er et foredrag kardinal Ratzinger holdt om bibeltolkning i vår tid, i New York i 1988 – som kan leses i sin helhet her. (Jeg (og denne bloggen) blir av og til anklaget for å være for konservativ, til og med reaksjonær. Ofte kommer slike anklager fordi folk blander sammen mine innlegg her med andre personers kommentarer, mens andre ganger er det også mine egne synspunkter andre finner upassende eller urimelige. Vel, man kan ikke gjøre alle til lags. Men jeg ber i alle fall ikke om unnskyldning for å videreformidle kardinal Ratzingers/ pave Benedikts synspunkter, og gi dem min fulle tilslutning!)

Foredraget jeg nå skal se litt på er: Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The 1988 Erasmus Lecture Every year the Institute on Religion and Public Life, publisher of First Things, sponsors the Erasmus Lecture in New York City. In 1988, that lecture was delivered by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger begynner med å beskrive de nye mulighetene som åpnet seg for en fri bibeltolkning:

Within that newfound freedom of thought into which the Enlightenment had launched headlong, dogma or church doctrine appeared as one of the real impediments to a correct understanding of the Bible itself. But freed from this impertinent presupposition, and equipped with a methodology which promised strict objectivity, it seemed that we were finally going to be able to hear again the clear and unmistakable voice of the original message of Jesus. Indeed, what had been long forgotten was to be brought into the open once more: the polyphony of history could be heard again, rising from behind the monotone of traditional interpretations. As the human element in sacred history became more and more visible, the hand of God, too, seemed larger and closer.

Men ganske snart dukket problemene opp:

Gradually, however, the picture became confused. The various theories increased and multiplied and separated one from the other and became a veritable fence which blocked access to the Bible for all the uninitiated. Those who were initiated were no longer reading the Bible anyway, but were dissecting it into the various parts from which it had to have been composed. The methodology itself seems to require such a radical approach: it cannot stand still when it scents the operation of man in sacred history. It must try to remove all the irrational residue and clarify everything. Faith itself is not a component of this method, nor is God a factor to be dealt with in historical events. But since God and divine action permeate the entire biblical account of history, one is obliged to begin with a complicated anatomy of the scriptural word. On one hand there is the attempt to unravel the various threads (of the narrative) so that in the end one holds in one’s hands what is the “really historical,” which means the purely human element in events. On the other hand, one has to try to show how it happened that the idea of God became interwoven through it all. So it is that another “real” history is to be fashioned in place of the one given. Underneath the existing sources–that is to say, the biblical books themselves–we are supposed to find more original sources, which in turn become the criteria for interpretation. No one should really be surprised that this procedure leads to the sprouting of ever more numerous hypotheses which finally turn into a jungle of contradictions. In the end, one no longer learns what the text says, but what it should have said, and by which component parts this can be traced back through the text. … …

Jeg fortsetter med å se på dette dokumentet om ikke lenge.

Advent i år starter med bønn for det ufødte liv

Ved starten av advent i år – lørdag kveld, 27. november – vil pave Benedikt delta i en utvidet vesper, som inkluderer spesielt bønn for de ufødte. Biskoper verden over inviteres til å gjøre det samme. Slik leser vil hos Catholic News Agency:

To encourage a commitment and witness within the Church to love and life, a prayer initiative to be led by Pope Benedict XVI is being promoted by a pair of cardinals. All bishops of the world are being asked to invite the faithful to pray for the unborn during the prayerful season before Christmas.

On Nov. 27, to mark the start of Advent, Pope Benedict will preside over first vespers in St. Peter’s Basilica as is customary. According to a note from Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, however, this will take place within a broader scope than usual.

Vespers will be included in Sunday’s «vigil for nascent life,» in light of the beginning of Advent and the proximity of the Lord’s Nativity. …

Høytidelig avslutning av andre Vatikankonsil

John W. O’Malley, SJ, avslutter sin bok: What Happened at Vatican II? med følgende begeistrede beskrivelse av konsilets avslutning i 1965:

The next day, December 7, the solemnities moved into high gear at another Public Session, with the pope present in the basilica, filled to overflowing with dignitaries and others who were fortunate enough to get a ticket allowing them entrance. After a few preliminaries and the final voting on the four documents still requiring promulgation, one of the most moving and dramatic moments of the whole council took place. Bishop Willebrands went to the pulpit and read in French the «Joint Declaration’ of Paul VI and Patriarch Athanagoras regretting the excommunications of the Greeks by the Latins and the Latins by the Greeks in 1054, acknowledging the responsibility of both sides for the tragedy, and promising to work toward a full communion between the two churches. This was the fruit of the meeting of the two leaders in the Holy Land two years earlier. At the same time a similar reading took place in the patriarcM basilica in Istanbul. After Willebrands read the text, he exchanged an embrace of peace with Meliton, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Heliopolis, which elicited enthusiastic applause in the basilica.

Mass then began, during which Paul VI gave a long address, officially a «homily,» in elegant and difficult Latin. In it he concentrated on «the religious significance of the council» and what it meant for the church and the world. He emphasized, to a somewhat surprising degree, the aberrations and sinfulness of the times. For this situation the church, remaining true to her «Patrimony of doctrine and precepts, was the remedy. Like the Good Shepherd, he said, the council adopted a loving attitude toward the world. Perhaps most striking in the talk was the unidirectional relationship that the pope depicted between church and world, bypassing the reciprocity that was notable in Gaudium et Spes. …

Beginning at 9 the next morning, December 8, a crowd estimated at 300,000 gathered in St. Peter’s Square and along the via della Conciliazione for the final ceremony, which was also transmitted worldwide on television. Shortly after 10, with all the church bells in the city of Rome ringing, the council fathers began their long procession out of the «bronze doorway» of the papal palace to assume their places in the piazza. Paul VI followed, carried on the sedia gestatoria. Upon arrival at the altar in the square, he immediately began the Mass. After the singing of the gospel of the day, the feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, he delivered a relatively brief homily in Italian, which was mostly a greeting and word of friendship to those present in the square, by now filled to overflowing, to those who followed the ceremonylon radio or television, and finally to all humanity. He said he could address all humanity because for the church 11 no one is a stranger, no one is excluded, no one is distant.» He singled out for special greeting the bishops whose governments would not allow them to come to the council, particularly those held in prison. Toward the end he turned to the topic of Mary, praising her as model and inspiration. …

The entire ceremony closed with Archbishop Felici’S reading of the pope’s Apostolic Letter, In Spiritu Sancto, declaring the council concluded and enjoining that «everything the council decreed be religiously and devoutly observed by all the faithful. » Paul VI then imparted the final blessing and dismissal, «In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, go in peace.» To which the vast crowd responded, «Thanks be to God!» – Deo gratias! and then broke into applause and cheers.

Vatikankonsielts dokument om religionsfriheten


Nå har jeg lest ferdig What Happened at Vatican II? av John W. O’Malley, SJ. (jeg nevnte også ganske grundig hvordan han beskriver behandlinga av liturgidolumentet Sacrosanctum concilium – se her). Beskrivelsen av hvordan behandlinga av dokumentet om religionsfriheten (Dignitatis humanæ – se det på norsk her) er ganske interessant, og jeg tar med noen siteter derfra.

Vi er i konsilets fjerde periode, ganske tidlig, i september, og starten av behandlinga av dette dokumentet har ikke vært lett. I USA er alle biskoper (også de mest konservative) for dokumentet, men spesielt i de tradisjonelle katolske land i Europa møter det stor motstand. (Jeg må personlig si at jeg aldri har forstått at dette dokumentet skulle være problematisk.) Slik kan vi lese hos O’Malley:

By that Friday evening, confidence in the viability of the schema had dangerously ebbed even in the Secretariat. No one seriously doubted that it could carry a majority, probably even a two-thirds majority, but Paul VI surely would not promulgate it unless it carried-the council more strongly. Moreover, the pope did not want to appear before the United Nations with four, five, six, or seven hundred bishops on record as opposed to religious freedom. The debate in St. Peter’s was supposed to conclude on Monday. Should a vote on the schema be risked? The question raged behind the scenes the whole weekend.

Within the Secretariat, Bea remained firm in his belief that, come what may, a vote had to be taken, but others in his entourage vacillated. A weak majority in favor would be the equivalent of the death knell. By Monday the moderators favored postponing the vote by simply sending the schema back to the commission for revision in the light of the interventions and then voting on t e revised text later in the Period. But Monday morning came, and no announcement was made.

The interventions on Monday, September 20, revived the hopes of the defenders of the schema. Cardinal Joseph Lefebvre, archbishop of Bourges (to be distinguished from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre), the first to speak, made a powerful impression by his lucid and systematic analysis of the objections of the opposition. As he said, he wanted to allay the fears of those who felt that they could not in good conscience vote for the schema. He reduced the objections to six points, to each of which he replied in a few words: first, the decree would not foster subjectivism and religious indifference; second, it would not mean that the council abdicated the position that the Catholic Church was the only church of Jesus Christ; third, it would not have a bad effect because of the dissemination of error; fourth, it would not diminish missionary spirit; fifth, it does not exalt human beings at God’s expense; and sixth, it does not contradict the tradition of the church.

According to reports, Lefebvre calmed the minds of some of the wavering, and the next speaker, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyiiski, archbishop of Warsaw and primate of Poland, did the same, more from the authority he had as the Catholic champion against-,the Communist regime than from his eloquence. The fourth speaker that morning, Cardinal Josef Beran, archbishop of Prague, speaking to the council for the first time since his recent release from Communist prison and house arrest, carried even more weight as he put aside abstract reasoning and spoke «from experience.» …

The intervention of Cardinal Agnelo Rossi of Sao Paolo, who offered suggestions for improvement but spoke in favor of the schema in the name of eighty-two Brazilian bishops, also very much helped the cause.21 Here was another vote of confidence and from the country with the largest Catholic population in the world. The differences among the council fathers on this issue could not, therefore, be simply divided between those coming from Catholic countries and the rest.

The pendulum had swung strongly in the direction of the schema. Bea urged the moderators to reconsider, and to that effect he also wrote to the pope. Paul responded by informing Felici that he wanted consideration of Beas request. On that same Monday evening Felici hastily assembled the Council of Presidents, the moderators, and the Coordinating Commission to consider the pope’s communication. The result, after what seems to have been a confused discussion, was negative – that is, not to put the schema to a vote. Bea, it seems, again intervened with Paul VI that evening to order a vote, and for sure Ruffini intervened with him for just the opposite. The situation had reached an impasse, and the next day, no matter what, the council had to move on to discussion of the schema On the Church in the Modern World.

The next day the late arrival in the basilica of Agagianian, Tisserant, and Felici, after Mass, did not go unnoticed. At that point, however, no one knew for sure that they were coming from the papal apartments. Business proceeded as usual, with a few remaining speeches on the schema before the council moved on to its next business. At 10: Agagianian, the moderator for the day, reminded the fathers that they had already heard sixtytwo speeches on the schema. Did they want to terminate discussion? Yes, they did, by a large majority.

With that, De Smedt wound up the proceedings as best he could. Applause. Then Felici, in the name of the moderators, made an electrifying announcement: the fathers were now to vote on the schema. Did it please them to accept this schema as the basis for a definitive version to be presented later? Yes, indeed, it did. The decision to take a vote had been made that morning during a crucial meeting in the papal-apartments.

The fathers completed their ballots, and the speeches began on the next schema. Shortly before the session ended, Felici announced the results of the vote: 1,997 in favor, 224 opposed – a majority of almost 90 percent. The schema had not only survived; it had survived splendidly, revealing that the opponents were a much, much smaller number than the interventions in St. Peter’s suggested.

Erkebiskop Nichols snakker om pavens besøk i England

«Det var en sterk opplevelse å være i fullstending stillhet i Hyde park foran alterets hellige sakrament, sammen med over 80 000 mennesker.» Dette og mer til sier erkebiskop Nichols i en video, der han minnes det som skjedde da pave Benedikt nylig besøkte Skottland og England – fra the Papal Visit:

In a special video reflection, the Archbishop of Westminster spoke enthusiastically about the four days of «joy and happiness» and highlighted some of the Holy Father’s key messages:

«He said to us: ‘Be witnesses to the beauty of holiness, the splendour of the truth and the joy and freedom born of a relationship with Christ’. That’s the sentence I suggest we ponder as a great gift from the Holy Father – the beauty of Holiness – that’s the holiness of God that can be born in us when we’re open to the mystery of God.»

Archbishop Nichols goes on to discuss the Hyde Park evening Vigil as a profound, grace-filled occasion:

«I can never forget that sense of 80-90,000 people in total silence in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament in Hyde Park. It was something beyond words – the fruit of a lot of prayer and a moment of profound grace. It shows the beauty of holiness.» …

Ratzingers brev om den gamle messen fra 1998

Rorate cæli leste jeg i går om en brevveksling mellom Fr. Matias Auge, CMF, en veteral blant liturgieskpertene i Roma, og kardinal Ratzinger i 1998. Fr. Auge skriver kritisk om et foredrag Ratzinger nylig hadde hatt:

I cannot understand how the principles of the Second Vatican Council concerning the reform of the Mass, presented in Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 47-58 (thus not only in nos. 34-36 as cited by Your Eminence), may be in harmony with the re-instatement of the so-called Tridentine Mass.

… The second objection was that the return to the old liturgy is likely to break the unity of the Church. …

Raztinger svarer slik (klart og nokså kontant, som han ofte gjør i akademiske debatter):

the Pope John Paul II, with the indult of 1984, under certain conditions, granted the use of the liturgy preceding the Pauline reform; thereafter the same Pope in 1988 published the motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, manifesting his wish to please the faithful who are attached to certain forms of the earlier Latin liturgy; and furthermore he asks the bishops ”by a wide and generous application” to allow the use of the liturgical books of 1962.

The second one is that a considerable number of the Catholic faithful, especially those of French, English, and German nationality and language remain strongly attached to the old liturgy, and the Pope does not intend to repeat what happened in 1970 when the new liturgy was imposed in an extremely abrupt way, with a transition time of only six months, whereas the prestigious Liturgical Institute in Trier had rightly proposed a transition time of ten years (if I am not mistaken) for such an undertaking, one that touches in a vital way the heart of the Faith.

Thus, these two points, namely the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and his pastoral and respectful concern for the traditionalist faithful, that must be taken into consideration. I, therefore, take the liberty to add some answers to your criticism of my speech.

1. … When I said that even the faithful who use the indult of 1984 must follow the decrees of the Council, I wanted to show that the fundamental decisions of Vatican II are the meeting point of all liturgical trends and are therefore also the bridge for reconciliation in the area of liturgy. The audience present actually understood my words as an invitation to an opening to the Council, to the liturgical reform. I believe that those who defend the necessity and the value of the reform should be completely in agreement with this way of bringing Traditionalists closer to the Council.

2. The citation from Cardinal Newman means that the authority of the Church has never in its history abolished with a legal mandate an orthodox liturgy. However, it is true that a liturgy that vanishes belongs to historical times, not the present.

3. I do not wish to enter into all the details of your letter, even if I would have no difficulties meeting your various criticisms against my arguments. However, I wish to comment on that what concerns the unity of the Roman rite. This unity is not threatened by small communities using the indult, who are often treated as lepers, as people doing something indecent, even immoral. No, the unity of the Roman rite is threatened by the wild creativity, often encouraged by liturgists (in Germany, for instance, there is propaganda for the project Missale 2000, which presumes that the Missal of Paul VI has already been superseded). I repeat that which was said in my speech: the difference between the Missal of 1962 and the Mass faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI is much smaller than the difference between the various, so-called ”creative” applications of the Missal of Paul VI. In this situation, the presence of the earlier Missal may become a bulwark against the numerous alterations of the liturgy and thus act as a support of the authentic reform. To oppose the Indult of 1984 (1988) in the name of the unity of the Roman rite, is – in my experience – an attitude far removed from reality. Besides, I am sorry that you did not perceive in my speech the invitation to the ”traditionalists” to be open to the Council and to reconcile themselves to it in the hope of overcoming one day the split between the two Missals. …

Jeriko: Har det noen gang skjedd?

Jean Fouquet (Tours, ca. 1420 – 1481)
Erobringen av Jeriko, ca. 1455
Pergamentmaleri – Musée Condé, Chantilly

Vi har hatt en debatt her om bibelstudier, om hva katolske forskere kan tillate seg, om den historisk kristiske metoden – en debatt som kanskje kan fortsette senere, så langt har den ikke blitt så fruktbar, og jeg trenger å finne ut mer om hva som har skjedd på dette feltet de siste 20-25 år. I alle tilfeller tenkte jeg på denne debatten da jeg så bilder over på document.no i dag. Israelittenes erobring av Jeriko har nemlig vært omstridt i svær lang tid, neon vil si at den aldri har skjedd. Document.no tar også med seg følgende bibelsitat under bildet:

Jeriko var lukket og låst for israelittene. Ingen kom ut, og ingen gikk inn. Da sa Herren til Josva: «Se, jeg gir Jeriko med kongen og hans tapre krigere i din hånd. Nå skal alle stridsmennene gå rundt byen én gang hver dag, og det skal dere gjøre i seks dager. Sju prester skal gå foran paktkisten, hver med et bukkehorn. Den sjuende dagen skal dere gå sju ganger rundt byen, og prestene skal blåse i hornene. Så skal de blåse en lang tone, og så snart dere hører denne lyden av hornene, skal hele folket sette i et kraftig krigsrop. Da skal bymuren styrte sammen, så folket kan gå rett inn i byen.» (Josva 6, 1-5)

I Morgenbladet: Et vrengebilde av mine meninger

Ola Tjørhom skrev et leserinnlegg i Morgenbladet i dag, der jeg og min blogg, Vårt Land og i alle fall tre navngitte katolikker fikk kraftig kritikk. Jeg skrev et nokså irritert innlegg først, og har så langt fått 8 kommentarer til innlegget, men jeg velger nå å slette det meste av det jeg skrev, og alle kommentarene – og rett og slett å stoppe diskusjonen om dette nå.

Når paven inviterer til enhet, mener han: «Kom til oss!»

Slik skriver Fr. Longenecker i et innlegg på sin blogg nylig. Han refererer mest til anglikanernes holdninger (siden han selv tidligere var anglikansk prest og kjenner dette kirkesamfunnet godt), men det han skriver gjelder egentlig flere. For anglikanerne er nå det spesielle at de kan få med seg en del av sin egen tradisjon inn i Den katolske Kirke, men for mange (konservative) anglikanere (de liberale ønsker jo ikke å bli katolikker) blir det likevel for vanskelig å ta imot pave Benedikts invitasjon til enhet. Her er starten på hans innlegg:

Our local vicar in the combox says, «When Pope Benedict talks to Anglicans about church unity what he really means is ‘Come and join us.'»

Of course this is true in a sense, but when he says «Come and join us.» Benedict is not expecting total conformity and uniformity in all things. That’s what the Ordinariate is all about. What he has in mind is a growing family of different small groups like Anglicans and the Eastern churches, coming into full communion while retaining their own patrimony of liturgy and customs and also being granted a measure of autonomy both materially and in matters of governance.

I hear Anglicans whine about this expectation that unity means coming into full communion with the See of Rome, but what on earth else could it possibly mean? They whine about this expectation we have, but they have never come up with any other model for unity, and re-buff any attempts Catholics make to call for unity.

What other model would there be? Shall we have a World Council of Churches? That’s a flop and was never more than a talking shop for liberal Protestant theologians. Shall we simply have intercommunion with all Christians? … …

Skroll til toppen