Presten jeg nylig siterte, som hadde feiret messen vendt mot Gud, skriver om du uilike rekasjoner på det han gjorde – egne reaksjoner, og rekasjoner fra menigheten:
Hans egne reaksjoner – presten ber sammen med menigheten til Gud:
I, however, wish I had not said Mass facing away from the congregation, and not because of the anger directed at me. I am a Catholic priest. I am used to people being angry with me. I wish I had not said Mass in what I believe to be the posture assumed by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, because it was one of the most beautiful experiences of my priestly life. You cannot imagine what it was like to say words like “we” and “our Father” and “us” while standing at the head of a congregation that was turned together in a physical expression of unity. No matter how one might argue to the contrary, it is impossible to say “we” while looking at 500 people and not be speaking to them.
The Mass is a prayer addressed to the Father, and despite our best intentions, we clergy address it to the congregation at whom we are looking. You cannot help it. The human face is a powerful thing. Last Saturday night I realized for the first time that I was part of a family of faith directed toward the same heavenly Father. I felt as if I was part of a church at prayer. It was not my job. It was my church. I never realized how very lonely it is to say Mass facing the people. I am up there looking at you. I am not part of you. For 13 or 14 minutes. You weren’t looking at me. We were looking at God. …
Menighetens reaksjoner – noen positive og noen negative:
After Mass, comments were varied. Some people loved it, most didn’t like it, some were infuriated. In particular I got angry fingers in the face, from someone who said that “the Pope had sent a letter to all priests telling them that they had to face the people.” How do you prove something that never happened? Rome has never said anything about having to face the people during Mass. One must do so only six times. It is one of the great mysteries of our times why, overnight, most of the altars in Catholic Churches were turned around.
Presten skriver også litt om hva tradisjoner har vært på dette området – ad orientem har vært det opprinnelige:
… According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the custom of facing away from the people originated among the Frankish clergy in around 700 or 800 AD. I would like to know why they write this.
For two reasons, I doubt that the Mass was ever said completely facing the congregation. Facing east, which usually means facing away from the people is the usual posture in liturgical prayer of the Byzantine, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian traditions. It is still the custom in most of the Eastern rites, at least during the Eucharistic prayer. They have done this from time immemorial and still do. They wouldn’t have changed it just to accommodate the Frankish barbarians of the west, 700 years after Christ. This custom of congregation and clergy facing the same direction in prayer was universal until about 1967. The first Christians were Jews for a century after Pentecost, at least according to sociologist Rodney Stark. Facing a sacred direction and not a congregation was normal in the synagogue services from which the Mass developed. Orthodox Jews still face east, or more precisely toward Jerusalem, away from the congregation for much of the service. It is a natural gesture. …
Det må da være en rikdom at en kan feire messe på ulike måter. Det er med på å berike det liturgiske liv.
En av de store mysterier var hvordan altrene kunne bli snudd «over natten» innen Den romersk katolske Kirke, som presten her er inne på, og som Pastor Moi referer til. Vi taler her om hvordan «utviklingen» gikk sin egen gang, som en suggererende selvforsterkende kraft – for ingen sa jo noe fra autoritativt hold; «Stopp en halv, hva er det egentlig vi driver med»?!
Denne prosessen, som var uten særlig kontroll – eller hadde noen rettlinjet sanksjonslinjer fra øverste hold, viste at Moderkirken nu var på ville veier. Og på tross av massive protester, man «bare gjorde det», nærmest for modernitetens skyld; Forandring var bra for forandringens skyld, man skulle ”åpne” seg, vise frem en liberal fasade, hvor Kirken skulle være inkluderende for andre trossamfunn. Og klisjeene var der; «Nu kan vi alle dele måltid sammen med Kristus i fellesskap” etc. 68-revoltens politiske retorikk, og 68-revoltens religiøse retorikk, de gikk hånd i hånd for den nihilistiske revolusjon. Normer, autoriteter, disiplin og hierarki – alt dette skulle elimineres som «reaksjonært og anakronistisk”. Kirken skulle ikke være ”tilbakeskuende og middelaldersk i sitt lukkede system” , men ”progressiv og fremtidsrettet” for den nye ”opplyste” (oppløste) tid…
Tor
Veldig interessant
Men jeg forstår ikke presten helt. Han sier at han hadde ønsket at han ikke hadde feiret messen vendt bort fra menigheten(…) nettopp fordi «det var den vakreste opplevelsen i hans liv»?