februar 2011

Michael Davies innrømmer (på s 91 i sin bok Pope Paul’s New Mass) at hans selv fullt ut var med på liturgiforandringene i starten:

… I recollect, to my shame, travelling to another parish for Mass on these early Sundays because in my retrograde parish there was no vernacular, no offertory procession, and no Mass facing the people. My parish priest had failed to «keep up with the times» and, I felt, keeping up with the times was a top priority. There is nothing surprising about my attitude. My only source of information was the Catholic press and the Catholic press was united in extolling the merits of the innovations. …

Men så oppdagen han og mange andre at fruktene av den nye liturgien ikke var så positive som det ble påstått (s 92):

… Opposition to the reforms began to arise when it became obvious that the pastoral benefits which had been confidently prophesied, did not materialize. The police did not need to be called to Catholic churches each Sunday to hold back the hordes of lapsed Catholics whose faith had been rekindled at the prospect of saying the Confiteor in English. The initial interest, which anything new is bound to evoke, soon began to wear off. English in the liturgy became a matter of routine and the liturgy began to appear banal. it eventually became clear to me that the changes had been detrimental.

One day at school I asked my eleven-year-old pupils to write an essay on the changes in the Mass, without indicating my own preference in any way. Almost all preferred the Latin Mass-and gave sound reasons for their preference. I then joined the Latin Mass Society. …

Han fortsetter så med å si at det først og fremst var estetiske grunner til at mange ikke likte det nye (s 92-93):

… I am sure that like most of those joining at the time this was for aesthetic reasons. The innovations were affecting the ethos of our Mass. We did not see them as undermining Catholic Eucharistic teaching.

Then, suspect translations began to appear. This inuneditely added a doctrinal dimension to the reform. The direction in which those who had taken control of the implementation of the reform wished the liturgy to move was made clear. There was to be a playing down of all those aspects of the Mass which were unacceptable to Protestants. Prayers referring to the Real Presence or sacrifice would be considerably toned down-this was made particularly clear with the publication of the ICEL translation of the Canon in 1967. …

Det siste her et punkt der jeg ikke kan følge Davies’ argumenter særlig langt. For ingen protestanter (det er anglikanere og lutheranere man i praksis tenker på) verker innførte nytt og moderne språk i sine gudstjenester eller rev ned de gamle alterne og prekestolene på den tid. De (anglikanerne mest) har tvert i mot holdt fast på sine gamle høyaltere og sitt høytidelige engelsk fram til vår tid.

Det er korrekt at protestanter ikke likte at vi katolikker regner messen som et offer av, men likevel ser jeg på den katolske liturgiske revolusjonen rundt 1970 som et resultat av vår egen liturgiske bevegelse fra 30-40-50-tallet. Forandringene løp løpsk uten tvil, og hvorfor det ble slik, vet jeg ikke – protestantiske kirkes liturgi løp på ingen måte løpsk disse åra.

De som har vært til messe på norsk i dag, husker sikkert (kanskje?) dagens kollektbønn:
Herre, våk over din familie med faderlig kjærlighet. Ta den i ditt vern, for den setter sin lit til din nåde alene. Ved vår Herre …

Den latinske originalen ser slik ut:
Familiam tuam, quæsumus, Domine, continua pietate custodi, ut, quæ in sola spe gratiæ cælestis innititur, tua semper protectione muniatur. Per Dominum nostrum …

Når vi ser på en ord-for-ord engelsk oversettelse, ser vi at den norske oversettelsen har fått med det mest, men tatt seg noen friheter (‘håp om himmelsk nåde’ mangler bl.a.):
Guard your family, we beseech you, O Lord, with continual mercy, so that that (family) which is propping itself up upon the sole hope of heavenly grace may always be defended by your protection. Through our Lord …

Den nye engelske oversettelsen (gjeldende fra 27/1-11) er mer presis enn den norske:
Keep your family safe, O Lord, with unfailing care, that, relying solely on the hope of heavenly grace, they may be defended always by your protection. Through our Lord …

Mens den gamle engelsk oversettelse (som snart skal bort, i St Hallvard menighet bestilte vi det nye engelske missalet for noen få dager siden):
Father, watch over your family and keep us safe in your care, for all our hope is in you. Through our Lord …

Father Z analyserer denne bønna ganske grundig.

Samtidig leser vi i the Catholic Herald at noen prester ikke vil gi opp kampen for å bevare den gamle (og dårlige – fra 1970) engelske oversettelsen. Nesten 10 % av prestene i Irland har gått til motangrep mot det nye:

A group representing more than 400 of Ireland’s 4,500 priests has made an urgent plea to the country’s bishops to postpone the introduction of the new English translation of the Missal for at least another five years.

The call from the Association of Catholic Priests came as the National Centre for Liturgy in Maynooth launched a new publication aimed at explaining and preparing priests and lay people for the changes in the Missal. The new texts will be introduced on November 27, the first Sunday of Advent and the start of the liturgical year.

At a news conference in Dublin, representatives from the priests’ group said the proposed literal translations from Latin had produced texts that were “archaic, elitist and obscure and not in keeping with the natural rhythm, cadence and syntax of the English language”.

The association also criticised the new translation for “exclusivist, sexist language”. …

Michael Davies’ bok om Pope Paul’s New Mass er på ca 675 sider (med fotnoter etc) og inneholder så mye informasjon at jeg bare kan nevne en lite brøkdel på bloggen min. På side 90 og 91 siterer han et innlegg i den tids The Tablet (som visst var mer konservativ da) fra mars 1966. Innlegget viser hvordan legfolket ble påvirket til å si at de liker det nye og ikke det gamle, men at det ikke uten videre er riktig oppfattet. Jeg var 10 år i mars 1960 (og heller ikke katolikk), men kanskje noen som levde på den tid kan informere oss unge om hvordan de selv opplevde denne liturgiovergangen?

The shallowness of the propaganda intended to induce the Catholic people to accept or at least not to resist change was obvious to the discerning layman from the very beginning. Writing in The Tablet in March 1966, Christopher Sykes, the biographer of Evelyn Waugh, observed:

«The average Catholic layman is most aware of the Aggiornamento movement in the Church by the experience of going to church and attending Mass in the new liturgy. We love it; we are deeply grateful for it; we have never had it so good; so we are repeatedly told. Those who don’t like it are a small unintelligent minority who would cling to anything, good or bad, just because it happened to be old. We are repeatedly told this too. We are also told by many of our clergy that we were most dissatisfied with the Mass as it was; that when attending it we paid no heed to its significance but, on the contrary, regardcd it as the priest’s business and nothing to do with us laymen, to whom it was merely a meaningless gabble in a language we particularly disliked. We were all very happy, so we are told, to have done with the old Mass.

The propaganda in favor of the new rite, which I have not caricatured above, strikes me as being particularly weak in respect of the alleged general dislike of Catholics for the former rite. It is weak as a propaganda Point, because the same clergy told us for years, certatinly since I can remember first hearing a sermon or a religious instruction, that the Mass bound us into a fellowship because (doctrine apart) love of the Mass was an emotion which we shared … (The vernacular) would weaken that majestic unity of the Church reflected in its ceremony. We were told that such a custom would offend far more people than it would please, and do far more harm than good. When the same people turn round and congratulate us on having got rid of the bad old liturgy, and promise us more vernacular and less and less of the Mass as we were said to love it, what are we to believe? Were they consciously talking nonsense all those years or are they really sincere in their criticisms (which sometimes amount to denigrations) today? Either way, the clergy who indulge in this propaganda are weakening their authority in the minds of people who can remember.»

Jeg leser, som jeg har nevnt tidligere, Michael Davies’ bok «Pope Paul’s New Mass», og på s 80 i boka siterer Davies den kjente sosiologen (jeg har lest om ham mange ganger hos Fr. Richard Neuhaus og i First Things), som uttaler seg om forandringene i den katolske messen som soiolog og lutheraner.

(Her må man være klar over at det er forandringene i radikal form han snakker om, slik det ble over alt i USA og mange andre lnad; latin helt borte, det gamle alteret borte, presten står ved et lite bord vendt mot menigheten, prekestol og statuer forsvunnet, musikken fullstendig modernisert etc.) Peter Berger er svært streng i sin vurdering av effekten av disse forandringene:

In May 1978, Peter A. Berger, a Lutheran professor of sociology, commented on the changes within the Catholic Church since Vatican II from the dispassionate standpoint of a professional sociologist:

«Thus there were extraordinary changes imposed on the Catholic community in areas where the authorities could have moved much more circumspectly. The liturgical revolution – no other term will do – is the most important case in point, touching millions of Catholics at the very core of their religious life. Let me only mention the sudden abolition and indeed prohibition of the Latin Mass, the transposition of the officiating priest from the front to the back of the altar (the first change symbolically diminished the universality of the Mass, the second, its transcendent reference) and the massive assault on a wide variety of forms of popular piety.»

Professor Berger insists that these changes were a mistake from the sociological point of view:

«If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible, had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.»

Den ankom i dag, i to flotte bind: Breviarium Romanum. Og i morgen har jeg tenkt å begynne å lese tidebønnene på gamlemåten – som pave Benedikt har gitt alle prester lov til om de ønsker det. Mye ligner på de nye tidebønnene, men det blir sikkert mange ting å lære.

Les om den nye utgaven av de gamle tidebønnene.

Erkebiskop Thomas E. Gullickson er pavens nuntius på Antillene skrev i juli 2009 om hvordan han hadde begynt å feire messen ad orientem i sit eget kapell:

I am finally coming to grips with the invitation from people I respect, first and foremost from the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict XVI, to look again at certain aspects of the last forty years of liturgical reform and specifically for me as a priest and bishop to look at the question of the best stance for the priest when praying the Eucharistic Prayer at Mass. …

I really am convinced that praying the Eucharistic Prayer ad Orientem makes more sense and is therefore better. I will celebrate that way in my chapel. In other chapels and churches, when I am invited, I will celebrate as is the custom there. Remember, the Holy Father has decided to teach by example in this case. …

Sist søndag holdt samme erkebiskop en preken der han bl.a. undret seg over at pave Benedikts ønsker om liturgien ikke altid blir fulgt opp:

… Why, even three years after the issuance of Summorum Pontificum (just to name one example), are well-meaning lay folk still treated with such great disdain … When the Holy Father speaks of his will to see these two forms of the Roman Rite (ordinary and extraordinary) enrich each other, when he and others express eagerness for a recovery of the sense of the sacred in our churches and in how we worship, I am convinced that he has indicated the true nature of the rupture which has indeed occurred and needs to be mended or healed. You would think that those in communion with the Pope would seek to understand him and embrace his point of view. …

Tips fra The New Liturgical Movement.