Forfatternavn:Oddvar

P. Louis Bouyers skrev en bok Liturgy and Architecture i 1968, som jeg så langt ikke har fått tak i. I en omtale av denne boka (og Ratzingers bruk av den) forklares det hvorfor den liturgiske bevegelse etter hvert ønsket å «snu alteret»:

Drawing on his own experience, Bouyer relates that the pioneers of the Liturgical Movement in the twentieth century had two chief motives for promoting the celebration of Mass versus populum. First, they wanted the Word of God to be proclaimed towards the people. According to the rubrics for Low Mass, the priest had to read the Epistle and the Gospel from the book resting on the altar. Thus the only option was to celebrate the whole Mass “facing the people,” as was provided for by the Missal of St Pius V21 to cover the particular arrangement of the major Roman basilicas. The instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites Inter Oecumenici of September 26, 1964 allowed the reading of the Epistle and Gospel from a pulpit or ambo, so that the first incentive for Mass facing the people was met. There was, however, another reason motivating many exponents of the Liturgical Movement to press for this change, namely, the intention to reclaim the perception of the Holy Eucharist as a sacred banquet, which was deemed to be eclipsed by the strong emphasis on its sacrificial character. The celebration of Mass facing the people was seen as an adequate way of recovering this loss.

Videre skriver U. M. Lang i denne artikkelen om forholdet mellom messen som en offerhandling og et hellig måltid:

Bouyer notes in retrospect a tendency to conceive of the Eucharist as a meal in contrast to a sacrifice, which he calls a fabricated dualism that has no warrant in the liturgical tradition. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood,”, and these two aspects cannot be isolated from each other. According to Bouyer, our situation today is very different from that of the first half of the twentieth century, since the meal aspect of the Eucharist has become common property, and it is its sacrificial character that needs to be recovered.

Pastoral experience confirms this analysis, because the understanding of the Mass as both the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Church has diminished considerably, if not faded away among the faithful. Therefore it is a legitimate question to ask whether the stress on the meal aspect of the Eucharist that complemented the celebrant priest’s turning towards the people has been overdone and has failed to proclaim the Eucharist as “a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands).” The sacrificial character of the Eucharist must find an adequate expression in the actual rite. Since the third century, the Eucharist has been named “prosphora,” “anaphora,” and “oblation,” terms that articulate the idea of “bringing to,” “presenting,” and thus of a movement towards God.

Jeg nevnte noen ganger i august 2011 – HER, HER og HER et foredrag av professor Manfred Hauke (som jeg fant på NLM-bloggen). I foredraget var det første og fremst noen tanker av Romano Guardini (som var så viktig for Ratzinger) som kan forklare hvordan vi er kommet dit vi er i dag; at messen knapt forstås som et offer båret fram for Gud mer. Slik leser vi:

The discussion of our topic, in its stricter sense, begins in 1939 with some meditations of Romano Guardini, … The core of the discussion revolves around the idea that, according to Guardini, the “structure” (or “form, figure, shape”, in German Gestalt) and its “content” (Gehalt) are entirely different things: the Holy Mass, in its “structure”, is a meal, but its “content” is a sacrifice. This divergence between liturgical structure and dogmatic content, according to Ratzinger, “must be regarded as the central problem of the liturgical reform. Failure to deal with it has resulted in a great many of the individual problems which have since preoccupied us.” …

… Guardini refers especially to the Last Supper, and then continues: “The supporting structure of the Mass is the meal. The sacrifice does not emerge as structure, but remains behind the whole. In this way, it is not pushed back. Already in the history of religion, every cultic meal, or even ultimately every meal, depends on it. … The animal that should serve for food must be immolated, properly speaking, before the altar, because blood and life belong to God … From the altar, from the hands of the Lord, man then receives the immolated victim and uses it as nourishment.” Applied to the Mass, this means: “Its structure is the meal; behind it – not as structure, but as reality, as fountain, as condition – is the sacrifice.”

Guardini forstod selv ganske snart at hans tanker ble misforstått av mange – jeg må innrømme at jeg ikke selv forstår hva han mener, enten tenker han for avansert, eller rett og slett feil – og han gjorde forandringer i senere utgaver av skriftet:

In the fourth edition of 1947, Guardini omits his expositions on the “structure” of the Holy Mass. He explains this omission in his preface, writing: “the chapter ‘The Form of Commemoration, the Meal’ … had to be omitted because it gave rise to certain misunderstandings. … The reflections of the chapter dealt with … a pure problem of form [Formproblem]. They were not, however, understood in this way, but they were implicated in the old controversy in which the Catholic doctrine says that the Mass is ‘a true and proper sacrifice’ … The reflections of the mentioned chapter did not concern, not even in a minimal way, this controversy. …

På tross av dette inneholdt senere utgaver likevel det Guardini selv hadde tatt bort.

Før jeg begynte å studere messens utvikling (dvs før 2007, flere år etter min ordinasjon) hadde jeg bare hørt at man etter konsilet tok bort mange, lange og helt unødvendige deler av messen i den omfattende liturgireformen etter konsilet. Den påstanden er selvsagt helt feil, for den katolske messen hadde aldri vært særlig lang eller komplisert.
Etter mitt syn nå i dag hadde det vært passende om ca 1/3 av forandringene i messen etter konsilet hadde kommet, som en forholdsvis omfattende revisjon av messen man hadde – og ikke som en Novus ordo, en helt ny messe – for det var vel en revisjon, og ikke noe mer, biskopene hadde i tankene da de vedtok Sacrosanctum concilium.

Den nye messen fra 1969 gjorde altså dramatiske forandringer på messen man hadde kjent i rundt 1500 år, og oftest nevnes Josef A. Jungmann, SJ, som den forskeren som aller mest ledet Kirken i en slik radikal retning. Jeg har satt meg fore å se om dette er korrekt, og når jeg nå har lest gjennom over halvparten av Jungmanns The Mass of the Roman Rite – Its Origins and Development, har jeg lagt merke til tre ting:

1
Jungmann snakker hele tiden om messen som en offerhandling, et offer som bæres fram for Gud, og at dette er det viktigste som skjer i messen – og dette er aldri noe han kritiserer. Når flere av liturgi-reformatorene etter konsilet ønsket å dempe eller nesten helt da bort offeraspektet i messen, bygget de altså ikke på Jungmann. (Men hvem bygget de da på?)

2
Når Jungmann snakker om de troendes aktive deltakelse i messen, nevner han aldri praktiske/ ytre aktiviteter – men at de troende skal kunne følge med i det som skjer i messens gang. Han liker ikke utenpåklistrede fortolkninger av messen eller en allegorisk forståelse av den, eller at folk skal gjøre helt andre ting (som å be rosenkransen) under messen. Når man en del steder (ikke så mye i Norge) legger veldig stor vekt på at menigheten må aktiviseres med mange praktiske oppgaver under messen, bygger man altså heller ikke på Jungmann – han ville at de troende skulle kunne vie seg til de hellige handlinger som utspilte seg i messen.

3
Jungmann snakker riktignok (men er noe usikker på om det var slik andre steder) om at i de eldste kirkene i Roma var alteret vendt mot menigheten (fordi apsis lå mot vest, og man alltid skulle be mot øst) – samtidig som han er helt klar på at man tidlig (nesten alle steder) både i øst og i vest hadde alteret vendt mot apsis i kirken, som også var orientert mot øst.

Personlig syns jeg at de to største problemene med den nye messen (som det også er mye godt å si om) er at 1) den ofte ikke lenger oppfattes (av prester eller lekfolk) som en tydelig offer- og tilbedelseshandling (men det mye mer sekundære fellesskapsaspektet får nesten all vekt), og 2) at man ved å snu alteret (sik at presten ser folk i ansiktet når han ber til Gud) har forsterket dette mellommenneskelige aspektet, og ytterligere tonet ned at i messen rettes offeret, tilbedelsen og bønnen til Gud.

Her er litt mer av det Bouyer skriver om arbeidet med revideringen av messeliturgien rett etter konsilet – jeg har selv uthevet enkelte ord.

But what can I say, at a time when the talk was of simplifying the liturgy and of bringing it back to primitive models, about this actus poenitentialis inspired by Father Jungmann … The worst of it was an impossible offertory, in a Catholic Action, sentimental «workerist» style, the handiwork of Father Cellier, who with tailor-made arguments manipulated the despicable Bugnini in such a way that his production went through despite nearly unanimous opposition.

You’ll have some idea of the deplorable conditions in which this hasty reform was expedited when I recount how the second Eucharistic prayer was cobbled together. Between the indiscriminately archeologizing fanatics who wanted to banish the Sanctus and the intercessions from the Eucharistic prayer by taking Hippolytus’s Eucharist as is, and those others who couldn’t have cared less about his alleged Apostolic Tradition and wanted a slapdash Mass, Dom Botte and I were commissioned to patch up its text with a view to inserting these elements, which are certainly quite ancient—by the next morning! …

I prefer to say nothing, or little, about the new calendar, the handiwork of a trio of maniacs who suppressed, with no good reason, Septuagesima and the Octave of Pentecost and who scattered three quarters of the Saints higgledy-piggledy, all based on notions of their own devising! Because these three hotheads obstinately refused to change anything in their work and because the pope wanted to finish up quickly to avoid letting the chaos get out of hand, their project, however insane, was accepted!

… After all of this, it’s not much surprise if, because of its unbelievable weaknesses, the pathetic creature we produced was to provoke laughter or indignation—so much so that it makes one forget any number of excellent elements it nevertheless contains, and that it would be a shame not to salvage as so many scattered pearls in the revision that will inevitably be called for.

To finish with this sad tale, I shall point out what subterfuge Bugnini used to obtain what was closest to his heart, or, I should say, what the men who have to be called his handlers managed to pass through him.

On several occasions, whether the scuttling of the liturgy of the dead or even that incredible enterprise to expurgate the Psalms for use in the Divine Office, Bugnini ran into an opposition that was not only massive but also, one might say, close to unanimous. In such cases, he didn’t hesitate to say: «But the Pope wills it!» After that, of course, there was no question of discussing the matter any further.

… I would be given the answer, though weeks later, by Paul VI himself. As he was discussing our famous work with me, work which he had finally ratified without being much more satisfied with it than I was, he said to me: «Now why did you do [x] in the reform?» At this point, I must confess that I no longer recall specifically which of the details I have already mentioned was bothering him. Naturally, I answered: «Why, simply because Bugnini had assured us that you absolutely wished it.» His reaction was instantaneous: «Can this be? He told me himself that you were unanimous on this!» …

Boyer skriver dernest en hel del om sin deltagelse i kommisjonen som skulle revidere den katolske messen. Om dette skriver han slik:

What shall I say, after this, of my collaboration in the Consilium for the reform of liturgical books from which, after the publication of my Eucharistie and the call from Paul VI, I could not demur?

I should not like to be too harsh on this commission’s labors. It numbered a certain number of genuine scholars and more than one experienced and judicious pastor. Under different circumstances, they might have accomplished excellent work. Unfortunately, on the one hand, a deadly error in judgment placed the official leadership of this committee in the hands of a man who, though generous and brave, was not very knowledgeable: Cardinal Lercaro. He was utterly incapable of resisting the maneuvers of the mealy-mouthed scoundrel that the Neapolitan Vincentian, Bugnini, a man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty, soon revealed himself to be.

Even besides this, there was no hope of producing anything of greater value than what would actually come out of it, what with this claim of recasting from top to bottom and in a few months an entire liturgy it had taken twenty centuries to develop.

Having been expressly called to the sub-commission in charge of the Missal, I was petrified to discover a preparatory sub-commission’s projects when I arrived. It was inspired principally by Dom Cipriano Vagaggin from the Bruges Abbey and by the excellent Msgr. Wagner, from Trier. The idea was to obviate the Holland-born fashion of Eucharists being improvised in complete ignorance of the liturgical tradition going back to Christian origins. I still cannot understand by what aberration these excellent people, who were rather good historians and generally reasonable intellects, could suggest that the Roman Canon should be so disconcertingly carved up and put together again, as well as other projects claiming to be «inspired» by Hippolytus of Rome, but which were no less harebrained. …

For my part I was ready to resign on the spot and go home. But Dom Botte convinced me to stay on, if only to obtain some lesser evil.

At the end of the day, the Roman Canon was more or less respected and we managed to produce three Eucharistic Prayers which, despite rather wordy intercessions, reclaimed pieces of great antiquity and unequalled theological and euchological richness, long since out of use since the disappearance of the ancient Gallican rites. I have in mind the anamnesis of the third Eucharistic prayer, and also what we were able to salvage of a rather successful attempt to adapt a series of formulas from the ancient so-called «Saint James’s» prayer to the Roman scheme, thanks to Father Gelineau’s work, who was not always so well advised. …

Bouyer er som vi leser her lite imponert over kommisjonens leder, Annibale Bugnini – jeg har tidligere lest hans egen framstilling av reformarbeidet «The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-75». Og som Bouyer skriver er det utrolig at man i løpet av noen få måneder ønsket (og også gjennomførte!) en radikal reform av hele messeliturgien, en liturgi som hadde vokst fram i løpet av 2000 år – og konsilets biskoper ønsket jo bare en forsiktig reform av de meste nødvendige ting.