Katolsk

George Weigel om rapporten om seksuelle overgrep i USA

Generelt, Katolsk /

George Weigel skrev ganske nylig en artikkel i The National Review, som han kaller: «Priests, Abuse, and the Meltdown of a Culture – The lessons of an important new study.» Her nevner han først flere grunner til at Den katolske Kirke i stor grad ble kritisert for feil ting i media:

One: Most clerical abusers were not pedophiles, that is, men with a chronic and strong sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Most of those abused (51 percent) were aged eleven to fourteen and 27 percent of victims were fifteen to seventeen; 16 percent were eight to ten and 6 percent were younger than seven. …

Two: The “crisis” of clerical sexual abuse in the United States was time-specific. The incidence of abuse spiked in the late 1960s and began to recede dramatically in the mid-1980s. In 2010, seven credible cases of abuse were reported in a church that numbers over 65 million adherents.

Three: Abusers were a tiny minority of Catholic priests. Some 4 percent of Catholic priests in active ministry in the United States were accused of abuse between the 1950s and 2002. There is not a shred of evidence indicating that priests abuse young people at rates higher than do people in the rest of society. On the contrary: Most sexual abuse takes place within families. The John Jay study concludes that, in 2001, whereas five young people in 100,000 may have been abused by a priest, the average rate of abuse throughout the United States was 134 for every 100,000 young people. The sexual abuse of the young is a widespread and horrific societal problem; it is by no means uniquely, or principally, a Catholic problem, or a specifically priestly problem.

Four: The bishops’ response to the burgeoning abuse crisis between the late 1960s and the early 1980s was not singularly woodenheaded or callous. In fact, according to the John Jay study, the bishops were as clueless as the rest of society about the magnitude of the abuse problem …

Five: As for today, the John Jay study affirms that the Catholic Church may well be the safest environment for young people in American society. It is certainly a safer environment than the public schools. …

So: If the standard media analytic tropes on clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in the United States have been proven false by a vigorous empirical study conducted by a neutral research institute, what, in fact, did happen? …

Til dette spørsmålet svarer han først at det er korrekt at spørsmålet hadde problemer i samfunnet generelt:

But if the Times, the Globe, and others who have been chewing this story like an old bone for almost a decade are genuinely interested in helping prevent the crime and horror of the sexual abuse of the young, a good, long, hard look will be taken at the sexual libertinism that has been the default cultural position on the American left for two generations. Catholic “progressives” who continue to insist that the disciplinary and doctrinal meltdown of the post–Vatican II years had nothing to do with the abuse crisis might also rethink their default understanding of that period. The ecclesiastical chaos of that decade and a half was certainly a factor in the abuse crisis, although that meltdown is not a one-size-fits-all explanation for the crisis and the way it was handled.

Men han har likevel en alvorlig kritikk av «John Jay rapporten», hvorfor i all verden mener de at dette ikke hadde noe med homofili å gjøre?

The John Jay study is less than illuminating on one point, and that is the relationship of all this to homosexuality. The report frankly states that “the majority of victims (81 percent) were male, in contrast to the distribution by victim gender in the United States [where] national incidence studies have consistently shown that in general girls are three times more likely to be abused than boys.” But then the report states that “the clinical data do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity or those who committed same-sex sexual behavior with adults are significantly more likely to sexually abuse children than those with a heterosexual orientation or behavior.”

The disconnect, to the lay mind, seems obvious: Eighty-one percent of the victims of sexual abuse by priests are adolescent males, and yet this has nothing to do with homosexuality? …

«Min bror Dom Filip»

Generelt, Katolsk /

Jeg har de siste par dagene lest boka «Kalt til stillhet. Min bror Dom Filip». Svært interessant; om de to brødrenes, Jac og Hans Fredrik Dahls, oppvekst, om hvordan storebror i unge år blir interessert i Den katolske Kirke og konverterer i 1955, om foreldrenes reaksjon når han nærmest flykter inn i verdens strengeste ordenssamfunn, men hvordan de likevel holder nær kontakt hele livet gjennom. Og jeg lærte også en hel del om karteuserordenen fra boka.

Slik er den Norske Bokdatabasens omtale av boka (tatt herfra):

I denne boken forteller forfatteren Hans Fredrik Dahl om sin bror Jacob Dahl, som i 1955 konverterte til katolisismen. To år senere søkte han seg til karteusernes orden, en av verdens strengeste klosterordener. Siden har han i alle år levd i klostere i Frankrike og USA, og fulgt sin ordens bud om livslang, selvpålagt taushet. Hans Fredrik Dahl har bevart et nært forhold til sin bror i cellen, og i denne boken står de for første gang sammen. Fortellingen er om en manns oppbrudd fra en trygg, borgerlig tilværelse på Oslos vestkant, til et liv i ensomhet under klosternavnet Dom Filip. Den viser også hvordan to brødre forstår og finner hverandre, til tross for fundamentale skiller i levemåte og orientering. Boka er utgitt til Dom Filips 70-års dag 4. september 2005.

Janne Haaland Matlary har også skrevet en anmeldelse av boka I Fedrelandsvennen, der hun bl.a. skriver:

Hans-Fredrik Dahl har skrevet en interessant og gripende bok om sin bror, som også fulgte denne veien, men som viste seg å ha et så spesielt kall at ingen i omgivelsene kunne – eller kan – begripe det. I kirken finnes det en stor mengde ordener, … … Men karteuserne, med navnet etter klosteret La Grande Chartreuse i Frankrike, hvor ordenen oppsto på 1100-tallet, er meget spesielle, også i ordensfloraen. De fleste av oss kjenner vel bare den utsøkte likøren fra klosteret som bærer navnet «chartreuse». …

…Lillebroren Hans-Fredrik Dahl forteller på levende, morsomt og inntagende vis om oppveksten og ungdommen i en familie fra Bestum, solid borgerlighet; akademisk og veletablert. Søskenbarnet Francis Sejersted er med, så er også navn på norske akademikere og politikere vi alle kjenner: Torhild Skard, Dag Halvorsen, den katolske familien Børresen med sine fem frimodige barn, hvor Jac Dahl likte seg spesielt godt. Samt «the usual suspects» blant dominikanerne på Majorstuen: p. Raulin, også kalt «Faderrullan», p. Rieber-Mohn og p. Finn Thorn. …

Rapport om seksuelt misbruk i Kirken i USA

Generelt, Katolsk /

Det er nå blitt lagt fram en svært omfattende rapport i USA om seksuelt misbruk av mindreårige innenfor Den katolske Kirke. Rapporten sier bl.a. at årsaken til denne bølgen av misbruk fra ca 1965-85 kan finnes i samfunnet som helhet i samme periode: «Social factors influenced the increase of abuse incidents during the 1960s and 1970s, the report said. It found this increase consistent with «the rise of other types of ‘deviant’ behavior, such as drug use and crime,» and changes in social behavior such as the «increase in premarital sexual behavior and divorce.» Det leser jeg her. I samme oppsummering står det også:

… Priestly celibacy does not explain this problem. «Constant in the Catholic Church since the 11th century,» celibacy cannot «account for the rise and subsequent decline in abuse cases from the 1960s through the 1980s.»

Despite «widespread speculation,» priests with a homosexual identity «were not significantly more likely to abuse minors» than heterosexual priests. Sexual «identity» should be differentiated from «behavior.» A possible reason so many male minors were abused is that priests had greater access to them.

Less than 5 percent of priests with abuse allegations exhibited behavior consistent with pedophilia. Few victims were prepubescent children.

Seventy percent of priests referred for abusing a minor «had also had sexual behavior with adults,» the study found. The majority of priest-abusers did not «specialize» in abusing «particular types of victims.»

Rapporten er utarbeidet av John Jay College of Criminal Justice i New York, og de skriver om rapporten her. Hele rapporten på 152 sider kan leses her.

Den katolske Kirke i Danmark skriver også om dette, og har som overskrift: «Homoseksualitet og cølibat er ikke skyld i overgreb». Les hva de skriver her.

Hvilken kjent person skal denne statuen forestille?

Katolsk /


Klikk her for å finne svaret på spørsmålet.

Statuen står foran Termini i Roma, og romerne uttaler seg (i Il sondaggio) om hva de syns om stauen.

På spørsmålet om de liker statuen svarer de fleste: «No, fa veramente schifo – Nei, den er skikkelig stygg» eller «Bruttina, se si può togliere è meglio – Frykelig, best å få den bort«. Noe mer positive sier: «Carina, ma avrei preferito una statua classica – Søt, men jeg ville ha foretrukket en klassisk statue.»

Enda litt mer om fredagsbot

Katolsk /

Det har vært en overraskende stor debatt her på bloggen etter at jeg meldte om nyheten fra England; at obligatorisk abstinens fra kjøtt hver fredag hele året gjeninnføres for alle katolikker i England i september i år. (Se biskopenes vedtak her.)

Først skriver biskopene hva Kirkens universelle lov sier – etter at pave Paul VI i februar 1966 opphevet det tidligere forbudet mot å spise kjøtt alle fredager hele året – inkl. bispekonferansenes mulighet til å lage egne regler:

Every Friday is set aside by the Church as a special day of penance, for it is the day of the death of our Lord. The law of the Church requires Catholics to abstain from meat on Fridays, or some other form of food, or to observe some other form of penance laid down by the Bishops’ Conference.

I tillegg til å gjøre fredagsboten tydeligere, og lettere å gjennomføre for alle, vil også felles abstinens fra kjøtt hjelpe til med å bygge opp en felles katolsk identitet:

The Bishops wish to re-establish the practice of Friday penance in the lives of the faithful as a clear and distinctive mark of their own Catholic identity. They recognise that the best habits are those which are acquired as part of a common resolve and common witness. It is important that all the faithful be united in a common celebration of Friday penance.

Så kommer selve vedtaket:

Respectful of this, and in accordance with the mind of the whole Church, the Bishops’ Conference wishes to remind all Catholics in England and Wales of the obligation of Friday Penance. The Bishops have decided to re-establish the practice that this should be fulfilled by abstaining from meat. …

Biskopene fortsetter med å si at de troende gjerne må gjøre mer enn dette, og da kan de selvsagt selv velge måten de vil gjøre det på. (Så langt jeg kjenner til, vedtok de amerikanske biskopene allerede i 1966 at det skulle være obligatorisk abstinens fra kjøtt hver fredag i fastetiden i USA, og den regelen har de håndhevet ganske strengt i alle år siden. England og Wales har tidligere ikke hatt slike regler – jeg husker selv hvor sjokkert jeg ble da jeg ble servert kjøtt flere fredager i fastetiden på presteseminaret i London. Jeg kjenenr ikke til egne regler for andre land på dette området.)

Til slutt om reglene for Norden; som selvsagt følger de universelle reglene, men som også overrasker når de definerer abstinens så åpent som de gjør: «Abstinens betyr som oftest å avstå fra kjøtt, men Den nordiske bispekonferansen er litt vagere i sine regler: Det å faste betyr en merkbar reduksjon av det man spiser til daglig. Abstinens vil si at vi gir avkall på en spesiell form for mat, drikke eller fornøyelse.» (Et stykke nede på denne siden.) Denne setningen må bety at man også askeonsdag og langfredag kan spise kjøtt, og heller avstå fra noe annet.

Slik er dette spesifisert for Oslo Katolske Bispedømme for fasten 2011: «… Jeg gjør også oppmerksom på at askeonsdag og langfredag er faste- og abstinensdager. Som de nordiske biskopene har forklart, betyr faste på disse dagene «en merkbar reduksjon av det man spiser til daglig», mens abstinens disse dagene innebærer at vi «gir avkall på en spesiell form for mat, drikke eller fornøyelse». …»

Å avstå fra kjøtt på fredager har mest med identitet og lydighet å gjøre

Katolsk /

William Oddie skriver om den engelske bispekonferansens vedtak om å innføre obligatorisk abstinens fra kjøtt hver fredag på en litt annen måte enn flere av oss sannsynligvis hadde tenkt. Han oppsummerer et stykke i the Catholic Herald slik: «In the end, it’s obedience, not personal choice, that holds us together as a people.» Og han skriver bl.a.:

I do not often find myself moved by actual enthusiasm for official utterances emerging from meetings of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales. Now I do. A statement they issued on Saturday is not only wonderfully brief (around 400 words), it is written in a powerfully devotional style. …

… The point, of course, is not simply that we abstain from meat on Friday (if we do) as a personal devotion: it is that we once did it, and soon will once more, out of obedience to the authority of the Church: it was once, and, deo gratias, will be again, a constant reminder that once we have taken the initial choice of committing ourselves to being Catholics in the first place, we are under obedience; and that it is that obedience that holds us together as a people.

The Church used to make this clear beyond peradventure: a convert was said to “submit” to the authority of the Holy See. This usage was thought, in the heyday of the “Spirit of Vatican II”, unduly forbidding and was quietly dropped in favour of the less daunting usage to “come into full communion” with the Holy See. But downplaying the idea of obedience has had damaging effects on the collective mind of the faithful. …

… nothing stops us from abstaining from meat on a Friday as things stand now. In our household we do already: but the point is that we do it as a private rule of life rather than as an expression of the fact that we are part of the daily life of the Church. We used to do it, in fact, even when we were Catholic-minded Anglicans: that, too, was just a personal devotion. As such, it was a kind of nostalgic tribute to an order within the Church which seemed to have passed away for ever. As I wrote last year, “It would be wonderful if our bishops now actually said, in terms, that the old tradition is now restored by their authority, and formally pronounced that we ought not to eat meat on a Friday without good reason”. Now they have …

Kjøttfrie fredager gjeninnføres i England

Katolsk /

Jeg må innrømme at jeg ble overrasket, gledelig overrasket, i går da jeg leste at de katolske biskopene i England og Wales har bestemt seg for å gjeninnføre (fra 16/9 i år) den eldgamle tradisjonen med at katolikker ikke skal spise kjøtt på fredager – som en botshandling på Jesu døsdag. På 60-tallet (1966?) ble det bestemt at katolikker kunne gjøre på bot om fredagen på andre måter, som de selv kunne velge, men i praksis førte dette nok dessverre til at mange katolikker ikke gjør noen botshandling om fredagene, og heller ikke vet at de bør/skal gjøre det. Slik skriver zenit.org om nyheten fra England:

English Bishops Bring Back Meatless Fridays
Note That Penance Identifies Catholics With Christ on Cross

The bishops of England and Wales are re-establishing the practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays as a penance to identify with Christ on the cross.

In the resolutions published from their spring plenary assembly, which concluded Thursday, the bishops announced the re-establishment of the practice, to go into effect Sept. 16.

«Every Friday is set aside by the Church as a special day of penance, for it is the day of the death of our Lord,» a statement of resolutions from the assembly reminded. «The law of the Church requires Catholics to abstain from meat on Fridays, or some other form of food, or to observe some other form of penance laid down by the Bishops’ Conference.»

«The Bishops wish to re-establish the practice of Friday penance in the lives of the faithful as a clear and distinctive mark of their own Catholic identity,» the statement announced.

The prelates added that it is «important that all the faithful be united in a common celebration of Friday penance.»

«Respectful of this, and in accordance with the mind of the whole Church, the Bishops’ Conference wishes to remind all Catholics in England and Wales of the obligation of Friday Penance. The Bishops have decided to re-establish the practice that this should be fulfilled by abstaining from meat,» the resolution stated.

The prelates said those who do not eat meat normally should abstain from some other food on Fridays.

The date for the re-establishment of meatless Fridays, Sept. 16, marks the anniversary of Benedict XVI’s visit to the United Kingdom last year.

«Many may wish to go beyond this simple act of common witness and mark each Friday with a time of prayer and further self-sacrifice,» the bishops’ statement concluded. «In all these ways we unite our sacrifices to the sacrifice of Christ, who gave up his very life for our salvation.»

Universæ Ecclesiæ – noen smakebiter

Katolsk /

Noen smakebiter fra dagens nye dokument fra Vatikanet – om hvordan pave Bendikts regler (fra 2007) for bruken av den tradisjonelle messen, skal forstås. (Her er dokumentet i pdf-fprmat.)

En gruppe (hvordan en slik gruppe skal defineres har vært svært grundig diskutert) som ber om den tradisjonelle messen defineres svært åpent – det er i realiteten enhver gruppe av troende:

«15. A coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”) can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel; such a coetus (“group”) can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.»

Hvis en prest sammen med noen troende ønsker å feire den tradisjonelle messen (utenfor prestens egen by og kirke, må man regne med), skal ha be å få låne en passende katolske kirke – og det skal skje uten problemer:

«16. In the case of a priest who presents himself occasionally in a parish church or an oratory with some faithful, and wishes to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria, as foreseen by articles 2 and 4 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the pastor or rector of the church, or the priest responsible, is to permit such a celebration, while respecting the schedule of liturgical celebrations in that same church.»

Hva slags krav stilles til (opplæring kreves av) en prest som skal feire den tradisjonelle messen? Det samme som for å feire den nye messen, egentlig:

«20. With respect to the question of the necessary requirements for a priest to be held idoneus (“qualified”) to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria, the following is hereby stated:
a. Every Catholic priest who is not impeded by Canon Law is to be considered idoneus (“qualified”) for the celebration of the Holy Mass in the forma extraordinaria.
b. Regarding the use of the Latin language, a basic knowledge is necessary, allowing the priest to pronounce the words correctly and understand their meaning.
c. Regarding knowledge of the execution of the Rite, priests are presumed to be qualified who present themselves spontaneously to celebrate the forma extraordinaria, and have celebrated it previously.»

Hvor mye skal man lære av latin og den tradisjonelle messen på presteseminarer? Her hadde noe ønsket at det skulle være skrevet enda tydeligere:

«21. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.»

Pkt 28 er litt vanskelig å forstå, kanskje, men jeg forstår at det sier at liturgiske regler som er blitt forandret etter 1962 – som tillatelsen til å motta kommunion i hånden, og til å bruke kvinnelige ministranter – ikke skal gjelde når man feirer den tradisjonelle messen:

«28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.»

Det blir sikkert mye interessant diskusjon rundt dette dokumentet de neste ukene – følg med.

Pave Benedikt i Aquileia

Katolsk, Paven /

Det er noen dager siden nå, men pave Benedikt startet sitt besøk i Nord-Italia sist uke i den gamle storbyen Aquileia – som det nå dessverre er veldig lite igjen av, heller ikke mange ruiner. Paven snakket begeistret om vår kristne tro, både fra tidligere tider da Aquileia var så viktig for Kirkens misjonsvirksomhet, og i vår tid (fra Vatikanradioens nettsider):

… Pope Benedict wasted no time in establishing the themes and the tone of the visit, right from the get-go. In Aquileia, the Holy Father’s first public remarks were at the Piazza del Capitolo outside the Basilica of Aquileia. Often these greetings are really just an exchange of official pleasantries, but this time, Pope Benedict praised the Church of Aquileia in a prose that waxed rhapsodic.

He recalled the ancient roots of the Church, the Aquileian Church’s pivotal role in the evangelization of central Europe and also – this is poignant – in the defence of the true faith against the Arian heresy – a false teaching in the early centuries of the Church, which denied the full divinity of Christ. In this connection, Pope Benedict mentioned the great bishop Cromatius of Aquileia, by name. He was, said Pope Benedict, diligent and attentive as St Augustine of Hippo or St Ambrose of Milan – and St Jerome, a figure not known to praise often or lightly, called him “Holy and learned among the bishops.” So, Pope Benedict celebrated the way in which he worked to serve the Church: a perfect synthesis of learning and loving care for his flock.

But the Holy Father didn’t stop with the praise of Aquileia’s past glories: he also encouraged the faithful of Aquileia and all her daughter Churches in equally thrilling language:

“Dear brothers and sisters,” he said, children and heirs of the glorious Church of Aquileia, I am now among you to admire this rich and ancient tradition, but above all, I am here to confirm you in the deep faith of your fathers: in this hour of history,” he said, “rediscover, defend, and professes with warmth of spirit this fundamental truth.”


Dette bildet (over) tok jeg selv i domkirken i Aquileia i mars 2010, da vi var der. I denne kirken opplevde jeg dessverre også en av mine verste messer noen sinne.

Hva har Den katolske Kirke gitt verden?

Apologetikk, Katolsk /

En ateist i USA, Robert Wilson, ga $22.5 millioner til katolske skoler i New York, fordi: “without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no western civilisation.» Samtidig opplevde man nylig på et debattprogram på BBC World at over 87 % «of the audience rejected the notion that the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world».

En artikkel i the Catholic Herald ser på hva Kirken har betydd for verden. De nevner følgende punkter:

1. Light and the cosmos

The Opus Maius (1267) of the Franciscan Roger Bacon (d 1292), written at the request of Pope Clement IV, largely initiated the tradition of optics in the Latin world. The first spectacles were invented in Italy around 1300, an application of lenses that developed later into telescopes and microscopes.

While many people think of Galileo (d 1642) being persecuted, they tend to forget the peculiar circumstances of these events, or the fact that he died in his bed and his daughter became a nun. The Gregorian Calendar (1582), now used worldwide, is a fruit of work by Catholic astronomers, as is the development of astrophysics by the spectroscopy of Fr Angelo Secchi (d 1878). Most remarkably, the most important theory of modern cosmology, the Big Bang, was invented by a Catholic priest, Fr Georges Lemaître (d 1966), a historical fact that is almost never mentioned by the BBC or in popular science books.

2. Earth and nature

Catholic civilisation has made a remarkable contribution to the scientific investigation and mapping of the earth, producing great explorers such as Marco Polo (d 1324), ….

3. Philosophy and theology

Catholicism regards philosophy as intrinsically good and was largely responsible for founding theology, the application of reason to what has been revealed supernaturally. Great Catholic philosophers include St Augustine (d 430), St Thomas Aquinas (d 1274), St Anselm (d 1109), Blessed Duns Scotus (d 1308), Suárez (d 1617) and Blaise Pascal (d 1662). Recent figures include St Edith Stein (d 1942, pictured), Elizabeth Anscombe (d 2001) and Alasdair MacIntyre. ….

4. Education and the university system

Perhaps the greatest single contribution to education to emerge from Catholic civilisation was the development of the university system. Early Catholic universities include Bologna (1088); Paris (c 1150); Oxford (1167, pictured); Salerno (1173); Vicenza (1204); Cambridge (1209); Salamanca (1218-1219); Padua (1222); Naples (1224) and Vercelli (1228). By the middle of the 15th-century (more than 70 years before the Reformation), there were over 50 universities in Europe. …

5. Art and architecture

Faith in the Incarnation, the Word made Flesh and the Sacrifice of the Mass have been the founding principles of extraordinary Catholic contributions to art and architecture. ….

6. Law and jurisprudence …

7. Language …

8. Music …

9. The status of women …

Myter om Vatikankonsilet

Katolsk, Liturgi /

Jeg tok på meg for et par år siden å være ansvarlig for de katolske sidene på nettutgaven av Store Norske Leksikon. Jeg har tvilt en del ganger på om jeg burde ha tatt det på meg, og en hel del uro om leksikonets framtid har også gjort at jeg til tider har lagt ned veldig lite arbeid her. Nå har jeg begynt å gjøre litt mer; i første omgang å legge til en hel del lenker til katolsk.no – det passer også godt nå, siden katolsk.no er blitt oppdatert nylig, med bl.a. nye adresser til alle sidene.

Jeg så i dag på hva snl.no skrev om 2. Vatikankoonsil, og la inn lenker til alle konsilets dokumenter. Jeg oppdaget til min forskrekkelse at det om Sacrosanctum concilium hadde stått: «konstitusjon om liturgien (som fremmer legfolkets aktive deltagelse i gudstjenesten og går inn for å erstatte latin med folkespråk)«. Vi kan ikke ha feilaktige opplysninger i et leksikon (konsilet ville jo beholde latinen: SC 36. § 1. «Bruken av det latinske språk bibeholdes i den latinske ritus«) så nå er dette forandret – men jeg har ikke gjort mange andre forandringer.

(Jeg minner gjerne igjen om at det var jeg som i 1998 skannet inn alle dokumentene fra konsilet, slik at de kunne bli lagt ut på nettet her.)

Noen tradisjonalister ønsker ikke å tolke Vatikankonsilet sammen med resten av Kirkens tradisjon

Katolsk, Teologi /

Jeg leste lørdag formiddag både artikkelen av prof. Mattei (som jeg skrev om her) og en artikkel der dominikaneren P. Giovanni Cavalcoli svarer på en kristisk artikkel fra David Werling i The Remnant. Enkelte tradisjonalister har en tendens (mer enn en tendens) til å tolke Vatikankonsilet i verst mulig lys, for så å forkaste det. De ser ikke ut til å ville lytte til bl.a. pave Benedikt, som vil tolke konsilet i lys av Kirkens tradisjon. (Igjen vil jeg anbefale nettstedet www.chiesa, der kan man lære mye.)

Etter en diskusjon om analog tenkning, og Aristoteles og Descartes, skriver P. Cavalcoli:

Analogical thought makes it possible to understand how a concept, while still remaining identical to itself, can however at the same time develop, progress, explicate and clarify itself. … Thus the doctrines of Vatican II must not be viewed as a disowning or rupture with the previous magisterium, but as a confirmation and explication of them. In other words, with Vatican II we know better those same truths of faith that we knew before.

Without a doubt, this thesis must be demonstrated, because in effect it is not always so evident. But as Catholics, supposing that matters of faith are at issue, we can suppose a priori that the Council cannot teach us something that is false or contrary to what the Church taught before, because this would suppose that Christ deceived us when he promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church to the fullness of truth, and said moreover: «Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.»

As for the practical-pastoral dispositions, however, we should not be surprised if, with the Council, the Church offers us a direction that contrasts with the directives of the precouncil. Here, at times, change is not only possible, it is necessary. What would we say if the Church, as happened in the Middle Ages, ordered us to confess only to the priest of our own parish? Here we do not face the problem: what magisterium to obey, the medieval one or that of today. It is clear that we must obey that of today.

Moreover, in this field the Church can even err: it can abandon attitudes that should be kept, or introduce laws that the test of experience shows to be harmful. In this case, efforts must be made either to restore what has been abandoned, or to correct mistaken decisions.

But in the field of dogma, where notions are immutable, all of that means nothing. The only progress that can and must be made does not lie in replacing concepts, but in deepening them, … And with that, I begin my response to the second point. I read further in «The Remnant»:

«Arzillo completely misses the point of the traditionalist argument. Traditionalists aren’t being disobedient to the Church’s Magisterium, especially when it comes to the issues of ecumenism and religious freedom. Traditionalists are simply pointing out the fact that the Church’s Magisterium has contradicted itself. …

What nonetheless seems to me should be taken into serious consideration in what «The Remnant» writes is effectively the fact that the language of the Council is not always clear, lending itself to contrary interpretations, even of a modernistic kind, which the modernists are now exploiting as if the Council agreed with them, while it is they who are falsifying the doctrines of the Council to their advantage.

On the other hand, it is important to follow the interpretations of the Council made by the subsequent magisterium, considering also the doctrinal condemnations issued by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, condemnations that are generally aimed against false interpretations of the Council.

Moreover, a good guide for understanding the real meaning of the conciliar doctrines in continuity with the previous ones is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And it is also very useful to follow the discourses of the pope, in which the tendency to present the Council in continuity with Tradition is evident. …

Finally, for a model of theology that demonstrates the possibility of continuity between Vatican II and the previous magisterium, allow me to direct you to the Czech Dominican priest, the servant of God Tomas Tyn (1950-1990), of whose cause of beatification I am the vice postulator. Fr. Tomas Tyn was proud of his traditionalism, but he lived it in full communion with the Church of the postcouncil. ….

Jeg har tatt med ca 1/4 av artikkelen her – les gjerne hele artikkelen.

En historisk forståelse av Vatikankonsilet og andre konsiler

Katolsk, Teologi /

Professor Roberto de Mattei (som jeg nevnte her) likte ikke kritikken han fikk for sin bok om Vatikankonsilet – «Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta» – og har svart ganske grundig på kritikken her. (Nettstedet www.chiesa har ofte svært interessante artikler.)

Han begynner med å skrive at han ville ha foretrukket å bli vurdert av fagteologer eller -historikere, men det har han ikke blitt i denne omgang – dessuten er han blitt kritisert ut fra et ideologisk ståsted og ikke et faglig. Overskrifta på hans innlegger er at «konsilene kan også ta feil», og han bruker så en del tid på å vurdere hvordan Vatikankonsilet og andre konsiler kan og bør vurderes historisk. Her er et utdrag av hans artikkel:

The criticism of Marchetto and Introvigne seems to have a single purpose: to close off preemptively that debate which Benedict XVI has opened with an invitation to develop it. […]

I believe, on the contrary, that Vatican Council II can be discussed on the historical level in a way no different from how Church historians have always done.

Addressing them in 1889, Leo XIII wrote that «those who study it must never lose sight of the fact that it contains an ensemble of dogmatic elements that are imposed upon faith, and that no one can call into question […]. …

… The Church is indefectible, and yet, in its human part, it can commit errors and these errors, these sufferings, can be provoked, Leo XIII says, by its children and even by its ministers. But this takes nothing away from the greatness and indefectibilty of the Church. The Church, Leo XIII said, opening the Vatican archives to scholars, is not afraid of the truth. …

… My book is born from a profound love of the Church, of its magisterium and of its institutions, «in primis» of the papacy. And my love for the papacy wants to be so great as not to stop with the current pope, Benedict XVI, to whom I feel deeply bound, but seeks behind the man the institution that he represents. It is a love that wants to embrace with this pope all of the popes in their historical and intellectual continuity, because for a Catholic the pope is not a man, he is a bimillennial institution; it is not that individual pope, but it is the papacy, it is the uninterrupted series of the vicars of Christ, from Saint Peter to the reigning pontiff.

So then, there is no better way to express one’s attachment to the pope and to the Church than to serve, in all areas, the truth, because there does not exist any truth, historical, scientific, political, philosophical, that could ever be wielded against the Church.

And so we must not be afraid to tell the truth about Vatican Council II, the twenty-first in the history of the Church. I emphasize this word, twenty-first. Vatican Council II was neither the first nor the last Council of the Church’s history: it was a point, it was a moment of the history of the Church.

In the history of the Church, there have been twenty-one Councils that are held as ecumenical today. Some of these are unforgettable: the first, the Council of Nicaea, which defined our «Credo,» then the Council of Trent, Vatican Council I. Other Councils are forgotten today, which does not mean that they were not authentic Councils, supreme expressions of the Church’s magisterium.

But a Council enters into history through the documents that it has produced. In the XVI century there were two Councils: Lateran Council V (1512-1517) and the Council of Trent. The only dogmatic definition of the fifth Lateran Council was that according to which the individual human soul is immortal; the Lateran was under certain aspects a failed Council: …

… No Council, not even Trent or Vatican I, and much less Vatican II, is above Tradition. Benedict XVI affirms that the documents of Vatican Council II must be interpreted in their continuity with the Tradition of the Church. Tradition is not an event, it is not a part, it is the whole. Tradition is like Sacred Scripture: a source of Revelation, with the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit. …

… I have been criticized for overlooking the documents of the Council or for interpreting them in a vein of discontinuity with the Tradition of the Church. Neither the first nor the second statement is true. The interpretation of the documents of the Council is not up to me, nor to any aspiring interpreter of the Council, but it is up to the magisterium of the Church, and to the magisterium I adhere. What I present are the facts, what I reconstruct is the historical context in which those documents came to light. …

… Vatican Council II, let’s not forget, was not a dogmatic Council, but pastoral, which does not mean that it was devoid of magisterium, but its magisterium can be considered definitive and infallible only when it proposes again and explicates, as it often does, truths already defined by the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium of the Church.

The problem that interests me, however, is not the discussion of the texts of the Council; I leave this exegesis to the theologians, and first of all to the pope. The problem that interests me, as a member of the Church, is to understand the historical roots of the crisis that we are going through. Remote roots, because the crisis we are going through is plurisecular, but also close, because the current crisis goes back, even before 1968, to the time of Vatican Council II, which is not necessarily the 16 documents that concluded it, but the words, the actions, the omissions during and after the Council of the conciliar fathers, and, on the other side, the parallel magisterium, above all that of the media, which flanked the authentic magisterium of the pope and the bishops. …

… There is no tempest, however well-publicized or ferocious, that may frighten us, because the Church is always standing through the storms: heresies, scandals, revolutions have not shaken it or halted its march through history.

Katolsk biskop i Australia må gå av

Katolsk, Teologi /

Det har vært en hel del uro rundt en katolsk biskop som er bedt av Vatikanet/ pave Bendikt om å gå av 67 år gammel – han har selv sagt at han er blitt bedt om å slutte. Noen liker ikke dette, men Christopher Pearson i avisa The Australian forstår det ganske godt (pga det biskopen har gjort og fordi prosessen har tatt minst fem år), og skriver:

… The bishop in question was the outgoing Bishop of Toowoomba, William Morris. He is one of three men who have been relieved of their dioceses by the Vatican in the past few months.

The others were the bishops of Pointe-Noire in Congo-Brazzaville and Orvieto-Todi in Italy. But while they were removed for financial mismanagement in one case and misbehaviour in the other, Morris’s ouster was on doctrinal grounds.

Bishops are in some respects akin to sovereigns in their dioceses and, while it has the authority to remove them, the Holy See is usually very slow to do so, preferring discreet solutions such as early retirement.

The three forced departures in seven months have no precedent in recent years and suggest an increasing preparedness to intervene on the part of the Pope and his new prefect for the Congregation of Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet. The previous prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, was an uber-liberal.

The Catholic archbishop of Brisbane, John Bathersby, who will be retiring in 11 weeks, professed himself at a loss to understand the decision. He told the ABC: » I just wish it hadn’t happened and I don’t know why it happened and I would very much like to know.»

Perhaps I can enlighten him: Morris issued an Advent pastoral letter in 2006 that canvassed various options to make up for the lack of priestly vocations in his diocese.

Some were uncontroversial. Others, including the ordination of married or single women and recognising the validity of Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting Church clergy, were heretical.

He has since then maintained what he likes to call a dialogue on these non-options. …

Father Z. skriver også (naturlig nok) om dette.

Hva sier bind to av «Jesus fra Nasaret» om jødemisjon?

Katolsk, Paven /

Ingen kan bli frelst uten gjennom jesus Kristus, lærer Den katolske Kirke, men den er nokså mht å forklare hvordan de som ikke har hørt om Jesus skal oppnå denne frelsen – og om hvordan jødene skal bli omvendt til ham. Dette siste ble diskutert en del for et par måneder siden, da pave benedikts andre bind om evangeliene «Jesus fra Nasaret» kom ut. John Allen skrev slik om dette da:

… another point with important (from the book has) implications for Christian/Jewish relations — in effect, that Christianity “must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews.” The comment comes in Benedict XVI’s book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, the full text of which was released today.

While the pope does not affirm a theory propounded by some theologians holding that the Jews will be saved independently of Christ, experts say, he does clearly suggest the church should not be targeting Jews for conversion efforts.

“Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is full,” the pope writes. The historical duration of this “proper time,” Benedict says, cannot be calculated. …

Allen viser videre i denne artikkelen til at dette spørsmålet er ganske komplisert:

… Almost ten years ago, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles was critical of a joint statement from the National Council of Synagogues and the Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference to the effect that “targeting Jews for conversion to Christianity” is “no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

Dulles replied that the church cannot curtail the scope of the gospel without betraying itself: “Once we grant that there are some persons for whom it is not important to acknowledge Christ, to be baptized and to receive the sacraments, we raise questions about our own religious life,” he wrote.

Subsequently, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine issued a clarification in 2009 that most experts regarded as largely upholding the position taken by Dulles. Its conclusion was, “The fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God’s promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ.”

Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Doctrine, cautioned that Benedict XVI’s lines on Judaism in the new book do not endorse a “two-covenant” theology, meaning that Christianity and Judaism represent two parallel paths to salvation, so that Jews are saved without any reference to Christ.

At the same time, Weinandy said, the pope’s words do clearly indicate that “there’s no specific program that the Catholic church has to convert Jews, which is in God’s time.”

Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a Jewish scholar whose Biblical writings have been praised by Benedict XVI, said the pope’s conciliatory statements about Judaism in Jesus of Nazareth are all the more powerful because they’re grounded in scholarship rather than mere inter-faith diplomacy. “He’s talking about truth, not about convenience,” Neusner said.

Pave Benedikt om misjon blant jøder

Katolsk, Paven, Teologi /

Vårt Land har i dag også et interessant oppslag om pave Benedikts syn på jødene og deres omvendelse. Overskrifta (se over) er nokså ubalansert, men så begynner selve artikkelen slik: «Pave Benedikt sier at Israel er i Guds hender. «Kirken må ikke bekymre seg for omvendelse av jødene, men vente på tiden som er fastsatt av Gud.» Denne formuleringen av Benedikt XVI i andre bind av boken Jesus fra Nasaret vekker internasjonal oppsikt. Jeg tror utsagnet må forstås i lys av kirkens forhold til jøder ned gjennom historien, sier Rolf G. Heitinann, generalsekretær i Den Norske Israelsmisjon.»

Rolf Gunnar Heitmann (min venn fra tidlig 80-tall) sier flere fornuftige ting om dette:

Heitmann leder selv en organisasjon som har som mål å få jøder til å tro at Jesus var Messias. Han tolker pavens siste uttalelser om kristen misjon blant jøder som en bekreftelse på det Den katolske kirke vedtok under 2. Vatikankonsil på 60-tallet, nemlig at jødene ikke kan lastes kollektivt for prosessen mot Jesus.

Vi må også huske på at israelsmisjon er noe annet i dag enn tidligere. Å komme til tro på Kristus er ikke det samme som å gi slipp på sin jødiske identitet. Tvert imot: Den kristne tro er jødisk, framholder Heitmann. ….

… Heitmann tror ikke paven nå forfekter det syn at det jødiske folk blir frelst «uavhengig av evangeliet». En slik utvikling vil være svært overraskende, sier Heitmann. Han merker seg at paven understreker Israels spesielle plass i frelseshistorien.

Hvordan tror du pavens uttalelser vil bli oppfattet?

Jeg tror de kan slå begge veier. Noen vil ta det til inntekt for sitt negative syn på israelsniLisjon, men det kan også åpne for en konstruktiv debatt om kirkens jødiske røtter og hva det vil si å være jøde og kristen i dag. En slik debatt hilser jeg mer enn velkommen.

Vårt Lands artikkel viser også til en artikkel av John Allen i Natinal catholic Reporter – en artikkel jeg ser mer på her.

«Helgener drar oppmerksomhet fra Jesus»

Katolsk, Økumenikk /

Vårt Land har i dag flere artikler om den katolske kirke, bl.a. et stort oppslag om saligkåringa av pave Johannes Paulus, der luthersk biskop Ole Christian Kvarme, og hans domprost Olav Dag Hauge, ikke hadde noen problemer med det som skjedde sist søndag. De var også til stede i messen i Trefoldighetskirken her i Oslo (som markerte dette), og gledet seg stort over å være med.

Men Vårt Land intervjuer også dr. theol. Arne Helge Teigen, fra Fjellhaug skoler, og under overskrifta «Drar oppmerksomhet fra Jesus» siterer de ham bl.a. slik:

Selv er jeg lutheraner, og mener at helgener får en posisjon som drar oppmerksomheten bort fra Jesus Kristus, som ifølge Bibelen er den eneste mellommann mellom Gud og mennesker, sier han.

Teigen ser ikke noe bibelsk grunnlag hverken for at noen skal kåres til helgen, eller at noe menneske kan oppnå den fullkommenhet som helgenkåringen forutsetter. Han avviser også den katolske læren om helgenes rolle som hjelpere og forbedere for de døde, som ifølge katolsk tro renses i skjærsilden.

Er helgenpraksisen i Den katolske kirke et økumenisk binder?

Ja, det tror jeg. Grunnen er at den kommer i konflikt med den evangeliske lære om at Jesus Kristi frelsesverk er nok til å frelse et menneske. Den bygger jo på en lære om at menneskers fortjenester er avgjørende for frelsen, sier Teigen.

Jeg må si det er skuffende at en dr. theol. i år 2011 skal misforstå det katolske synet på helgener så grundig. For: 1) Helgener drar ikke oppmerksomheten bort fra Jesus, tvert imot viser de hvordan vi andre menensker kan leve mest mulig nær ham. 2) Helgener har ikke vært fullkomne, men Kirken kan med sikkerhet fastslå at disse har kommet gjennom skjærsilden og står foran Guds trone – der de også kan be for oss. 3) Helgener hjelper ikke bare de døde, de kan gå i forbønn for både levnede og døde – og som forbedere er de ikke vesnesforskjellige fra mennesker vi omgås, og som også ber for oss.

Og 4) helgener har absolutt ingen ting å gjøre med disse to tingene som Teigen får seg til å si – jeg forstår ikke hvordan en teolog kan si noe så feilaktig – » .. konflikt med den evangeliske lære om at Jesus Kristi frelsesverk er nok til å frelse et menneske» og «.. bygger jo på en lære om at menneskers fortjenester er avgjørende for frelsen». La meg gjenta: Disse to siste sitatene har fullstendig misforstått det katolske synet på helgener.

Hva skjedde med messen i 1969?

Katolsk, Liturgi /

Vatkankonsilets liturgidokument, Sacrosanctum concilium, ble vedtatt 4. desember 1963, og der står det i artikkel 23: «Et omhyggelig studium – teologisk, historisk og pastoralt – må alltid gå forut for enhver revisjon av liturgiens enkelte deler; slik at den sunne tradisjon blir respektert, samtidig som veien står åpen for et legitimt fremskritt. Videre skal de generelle lover for liturgiens struktur og indre mening tas i betraktning, samtidig som man baserer seg på de erfaringer som er vunnet ved den seneste tids liturgiske reformer og ved de spesielle tillatelser som er blitt gitt her og der. Endelig skal nye ting bare innføres i den monn det er sikkert at Kirkens sanne beste krever det; og man må være fullt viss på at de nye former betyr en på sett og vis organisk utvikling av dem som allerede eksisterer.» (Les større utdrag av teksten her.)

Når jeg så de siste årene gradvis har lært å kjenne Kirkens tradisjon fra før 1969 (tidligere hadde jeg bare hørt den avfeiet med krasse betegnelser), har jeg innsett at mye av det som ble gjort i kampens hete (1964-70) ikke på noen måte kan sies å være absolutt påkrevd (se over) og heller ikke kunne vise til noen organisk utvikling (se igjen over). – Noen ganger trodde man riktignok at man hadde funnet en oldkirkelig praksis, som man nå ville gjenopplive, men dette viste seg ofte å være misforståelser.

Fr. Hunwicke, i artikkelserien som jeg nå studerer, peker ganske tydelig på hva som skjedde i 1969 (i motsetning til hva som som skjedde under revisjonen etter Tridentinerkonsilet):

It was not, like the Missal of Paul VI, a rite marked on every single page with revolutionary innovations. Nobody denies that the ‘Tridentine’ Missal differs very little from earlier editions. Nobody claims that alterations were made in the Canon which had no basis in its textual history; that a dozen or so alternative ‘Eucharistic Prayers’ were added; or that the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels of every single Sunday were changed. Nobody can deny that all this is true of the Pauline Missal. (Well, I suppose that in the Pauline Missal two or three Sundays after Epiphany somehow managed to keep their collects. And Palm Sunday.)

…. the Pauline missal was not just one more light, slight, evolutionary revision of the Pian Missal. Those who most strongly argue that the Pian events and the Pauline events were parallel and congruous can hardly avoid the conclusion that Paul did not desire … any more than Pius intended … to consign the traditional forms of the Roman Rite to the rubbish dump.

I offer these thoughts as my meditation upon the words I quoted in my last post from Cardinal Ratzinger: that it is contrary to the Spirit of the Church to abolish the rites which have served the piety and lives of generations of Christians.

Fr. Hunwickes artikkelserie om messens liturgi kan leses i sin helhet her: del 1 – del 2 – del 3 – del 4 – del 5.

Hadde pave Benedikt lov til å tillate bruk av den tradisjonelle latinske messen?

Katolsk, Liturgi /

Fr. Hunwicke har på sin blogg en artikkelserie om liturgien, som tar utgangspunkt i en artikkel i januar 2011 nummeret av «Worship», skrevet av en amerikansk kirkerettsekspert, Chad Glendinning. Hovedpunktet i artikkelen ser ut til å være at pave Bendikt tar feil når han sier at den tradisjonelle latinske messen aldri var blitt fobudt, og at paven derfor også tar feil når han i dokumentet Summorum Pontificum i 2007 tillater en friere bruk av den tradisjonelle messen. Fr. Hunwicke angriper dette argumentet først og fremst ved å hevde at vi her ikke i særlig grad snakker om kirkerett, men heller om liturgiske lover. Her er et utdrag av det han skriver om dette:

My intention is to examine the earlier teaching of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on the post-Conciliar events and to suggest that his judgement as Pope upon the non-abrogation of the Old Missal is a theological statement as important as, and indeed very closely related to, his teaching in his justly celebrated Address to the Roman Curia about a Hermeneutic of Continuity. Unlike Glendinning and the canonists he quotes, I see Papa Ratzinger’s pronouncement in this matter as another sign of his very considerable greatness. And as an ecumenical step of very profound significance. …

«The liturgy cannot be compared to a piece of technical equipment, something manufactured, but to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development». Notice that he uses the term ‘laws’ in a way which has nothing whatsoever to do with enacted legislation. He is discerning principles of ecclesial life which go deeper than Canon Law. …. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the consciousness of the West. …. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not ‘manufactured’ by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.» …. It seems to me that Cardinal Ratzinger’s concerns are less with Canon Law than with an unwritten law inscribed in the very nature of the Church (the embodiment of authentic tradition), which trumps the law embodied in transient canonical codes and enactments. …

(Fr. Hunwickes artikkelserie kan leses her: del 1 – del 2 – del 3 – del 4– del 5.)

Pius V og Missale Romanum

Katolsk /

Fr. Hunwicke skrev for en ukes tid siden flere artikler om liturgisk utvikling, og tar bl.a. opp hva pave Pius V gjorde etter konsilet i Trent, da han standardiserte den katolske messen. Siden vi i dag minnes denne hellige paven, kan det passe å se på hva han virkelig gjorde med messen etter konsilet i Trent. Kort sagt: Han førte videre 98% av det som hadde blitt brukt i messen tidligere, han godtok alle riter som var mer enn 200 år gamle (og der han var sikker på deres katolisitet, de områder som han nylagede messer (og det hadde vært en del liturgisk esperimentering også på den tid) skulle gå over til å bruke den romerske ritus – for å sikre at alt var fullt ut katolsk.

Fr. Hunwickes artikkelserie kan leses her: del 1 – del 2 – del 3 – del 4– del 5. Og om Pius Vs forandringer i messen (som jeg personlig aldri kaller tridentisk, men heller tradisjonell) skriver Fr. Hunwicke

«Pius V … decided to introduce the Missale Romanum, the Mass book of the Church of the City of Rome, as indubitably Catholic, in all places where it could not be demonstrated that the liturgy was of at least 200 years’a antiquity. In other cases the liturgy in use could be retained, since its Catholic character could be considered certain. There was therefore no question of forbidding the use of a traditional Missal which had been juridically valid until that time … »

…. Sometimes a parallel is suggested between S Pius V, revising the Roman Rite after and by mandate of the Council of Trent, and Paul VI, revising it after and by mandate of Vatican II. This is, I believe, a gross misunderstanding (i) of what S Pius was about, as he describes his own actions in Quo primum; and (ii) of the considerable differences between those two events.

…. In the later sixteenth century, there was a fair amount of liturgical experimentation – and S Pius intends to suppress such innovations in the Eucharist (just as he suppressed Quignonez’ ‘novum Breviarium’). He does not intend to suppress established rites with a couple of centuries’ history. … What we have here is not a policy of universal standardisation by an autocrat, but the mandated preservation of the old and sanctified dialects of the Roman Rite combined with a firm suppression of recent faddery.

…. Nobody denies that the ‘Tridentine’ Missal differs very little from earlier editions. Nobody claims that alterations were made in the Canon which had no basis in its textual history; that a dozen or so alternative ‘Eucharistic Prayers’ were added; or that the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels of every single Sunday were changed. Nobody can deny that all this is true of the Pauline Missal*. One pope publishes a very light standardisation with a 98% unchanged text; another pope publishes a vastly different rite. …

… I do not like some propaganda of the SSPX which appears to suggest that Quo primum made the Pian edition immutable. Certainly no future Pontiff deemed it immutable; they presided over its organic evolution. …

… I offer these thoughts as my meditation upon the words I quoted in my last post from Cardinal Ratzinger: that it is contrary to the Spirit of the Church to abolish the rites which have served the piety and lives of generations of Christians.

Skroll til toppen