Liturgi

Shawn Tribe presiserer stadig hva han mente med innlegget (som jeg nevnte her) om messen som offer. Han skriver i en kommentar til sitt eget innlegg:

Just to keep things in focus, as I’ve noted above, being «Mass-centered» is not really the issue I’ve tried to speak to, but rather how the Mass is being understood. One could give primary focus to the Mass and still fall into the issue I am presenting.
…

Han skriver også noe som jeg har tenkt mange ganger, og gjerne selv kunne ha formulert akkurat som han selv gjør det:

I’ve known people who speak so (use the term «Sacrifice of the Mass») but yet still have a view of the Mass which still sees it as -essentially- about encountering Christ in the Blessed Sacrament through adoration at the moment of consecration and receipt of Holy Communion. I think in those instances it is a case of traditional language having been adopted, but without necessarily a full comprehension of the theological underpinnings and meaning of those terms.

This is why I say that I believe the Trinitarian dimension needs to be expounded upon, as does a
typological consideration between the Old and New Testament. These will help to give those theological underpinnings and help us to understand the Mass in the light of the big picture of salvation history and the heavenly liturgy.

Shawn Tribe skrev på NLM-bloggen i går et interessant innlegg om messen – se her. Der tar han opp viktige poenger fra starten av den liturgiske bevegelsen, som tradisjonalister gjerne glemmer. De arbeidet for at betydningen av det hellige messeofferet skulle gjøres så tydelig som mulig, og at andre fromhetsøvelser ikke skulle få stå i veien for Kirkens viktigste liturgi på noen måte.

På den tid (1920-30) hadde man ikke begynt å tenke (feilaktig) på messen som først og fremst et måltidsfellesskap, men også gode ting som eukaristisk tilbedelse og privatandakter kunne komme i veien for messeofferet. I vår tid og i vårt land er selve konsekrasjonen vektlagt ganske mye, og det er ikke noe galt i det, men mange ser ut til å legge liten vekt på at Kristus så i messen bærer seg selv frem som et lyteløst offer for Faderen. Slik skriver Shawn Tribe:

… today, those of us who are working toward some sort of genuine revival and restoration of the liturgical life in the Latin rite are accustomed to think critically of the liturgical over-emphases of the progressivist school of liturgical thought – the over-emphasis of the meal aspect over the sacrificial, the horizontal over the vertical and so on – but many may not be as conscious as they should be of the presence other over-emphases, seemingly «traditional», coming from what we might call the more pietistic and devotionalist mindset; over-emphases which are indeed still manifest today and which, in their own way, also come at the expense of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass.

So of what do I speak? One has only to look at some of the journals and books of the earlier 20th century Liturgical Movement to see this particular over-emphasis described in the context of their own time:

«The Mass came to be less and less appreciated as the sacrifice of Christ. Instead, the adoration of the Eucharist was greatly developed, and thereby the spiritual energies of the faithful were in the course of centuries turned away from the sacrifice itself.

We must try to keep in mind that, during the Mass and in particular at the consecration, the primary and essential thing is the offering of the sacrifice; the adoration of the Species is entirely secondary. We should strive to impress ourselves and those committed to our care with a deep understanding and appreciation of the sacrificial action. The Mass is not a “devotion,” it is not the adoration of the Eucharist: it is the sacrifice offered by Christ, and in this offering we are actually participating since it is also our sacrifice. We come to Mass, not so much to adore Christ in His divinity as to offer the body and blood of the divine Lamb to our heavenly Father.»

This quotation is from Fr. Pius Parsch (as quoted in the July 1938 issue of Orate Fratres), who admittedly was not without his own excesses, but he is certainly on point here both in his identification of a problem and in his understanding of the sacred liturgy. …

Debatten etter dette innlegget dreier seg etter min mening litt for mye om eukartistisk tilbedelse; den er vel ikke i særlig grad problemet, selv om det er sant at den aldri må komme i veien for messens hellige sonings- og tilbedelsesoffer. Innleggets forfatter skriver derfor også i en kommentar:

The primary point of focus however is simply this: if one’s view of the Mass is such that it is understood as purely or even primarily an act of Eucharistic adoration of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, then this is a very incomplete understanding of and approach to the Mass which needs to be addressed. It is a reductionism. Not the only one of course, but it is one and various problems spring from it. We should take recognize it and seek to foster a fuller understanding of the full nature of the Mass.

Dr. Hauke nevner at kardinal Ratzinger uttaler seg (i boka «Feast of Faith», s 35-36) om forsøket på å skille mellom messens ytre og indre, i måltidsstrukturen og offerinnholdet. han har ingen tro på et slikt skille:

As Ratzinger observes: The explication according to which the structure of meal and the content of sacrifice were juxtaposed “could not provide a satisfactory answer in the long term. Particularly if the structure is not merely a ceremonial form, but at its core an indispensable manifestation of its essential content, it makes no sense absolutely to separate the one from the other. The lack of clarity which has prevailed in this area, even during the Council, regarding the relation between the dogmatic and liturgical levels, 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.”

Dr. Hauke skriver videre (i et foredrag som jeg bl.a. nevnte her) at Guardini møtte motstand ang. sitt syn på ‘måltidet’ som messens struktur, bl.a. fra Jungmann. Guardi modererte seg så litt, men ikke mye – og den siste setningen i sitatet under overrasker meg; at Guardini var en av dem som aller mest arbeidet for at messen skulle feires «versus populum».

… at a 1943 symposium at Vienna, he was confronted with the view of Jungmann that the Mass in the primitive Church contains “not only the essence, but also already the expressive shape [Gestaltausdruck] of the sacrifice,” Guardini stressed the hypothetical character of his own exposition and remarked: “it cannot by any means be a question of us changing anything on our own initiative. I proposed only to consider whether it is not correct and possible to make more prominent, besides the aspect of sacrifice, also the other aspects present in the entirety of the Holy Mass, such as the meal and the commemoration, so as to gain a more balanced picture.” Already in 1942 Guardini had published a letter in which he conceded “that it is probably not possible to accept only one form [Gestalt] and that, at certain points, the form of the sacrifice enters into the form of the meal.” “In this way, Guardini admitted that the essence of the Eucharist as acrifice finds expression also in its exterior structure.”

Guardini’s concern to accentuate the “meal” as “structure” or “basic form” of the Holy Mass was influenced by the liturgical movement at the beginning of the 20th century. At the end of the 19th century, the faithful had received Holy Communion only a few times a year. Pope Pius X, however, encouraged the faithful to communicate more frequently, inviting even children. In order to emphasize the active participation (participatio actuosa) of the faithful in the liturgy, the common communion became the focus of attention.

Guardini’s proposal went further, however, inasmuch as it described the Eucharistic banquet, Holy Communion, as the basic structure of the entire Eucharistic mystery. This approach would also influence Church architecture: the sacred space was structured in a way to accentuate the aspect of the meal, especially by facing the celebration toward the people. Guardini was one of the first and most influential supporters of the Mass celebrated “versus populum”. …

I foredraget til Prof. Manfred Hauke: “The “Basic Structure“ (Grundgestalt) of the Eucharistic Celebration According to Joseph Ratzinger” – som kan leses her – var det først og fremst noen tanker av Romano Guardini som for meg forklarer hvordan vi er kommet dit vi er i dag; at messen knapt forstås som et offer båret fram for Gud mer. Legg merke til hvordan kadinal Ratzinger vurderer dette spørsmålet (uthevet av meg).

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.” …

… The starting point of our discussion is the appearance of a devotional book by Guardini in 1939, entitled Meditations before Mass (Besinnung vor der Feier der heiligen Messe). This work goes back to a series of short meditations held by Guardini for young people from 1930 to 1932 at Castle Rothenfels in Bavaria. According to Guardini, every “authentic liturgical action … contains a basic structure [Grundgestalt] which supports it and which gives to it its specific life.” The sacraments, especially, “are no mere apportionments of divine gifts, but life events, constructed according to the essence of man, whose soul expresses itself in the body, and whose body is formed by the soul. ‘Form’ [‘Gestalt’] is the manner in which the human essence is alive. … Therefore one of the most important tasks of liturgical education is to reveal as clearly and as vigorously as possible the interior structure of the divine events. So what is the basic structure of the Mass? It is that of the meal.”

In support of this thesis, 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, og 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.

Jeg nevnte for et par dager siden et foredrag fra fjerde Fota Liturgical Conference; Prof. Manfred Hauke holdt foredraget “The “Basic Structure“ (Grundgestalt) of the Eucharistic Celebration According to Joseph Ratzinger”. Foredraget kan i sin helhet leses her.

Jeg siterer litt fra starten av foredraget, der dr. Hauke presenterer ganske tydelig hovedspørsmålet han vil ta opp; er messen et offer eller et måltid, og hvordan er det eventuelt begge deler:

The discussion concerning the “basic structure” of the Holy Mass has been concentrated up to now primarily in the German-speaking countries. We find a certain foreshadowing of the debate already in a controversy in the years before the First World War: Franz Seraph Renz (1884-1916), in a substantial monograph on the history of the Eucharistic sacrifice, proposed the thesis that the Eucharistic sacrifice, in its essence, is a meal (1902). As Ratzinger does not refer to the controversy that sprang from this suggestion (especially in the years 1906-1910) or to its connection with a certain condemned proposition in the decree of Pope Pius X, “Lamentabili”, against Modernism (1907), we mention it here only briefly.

The “tendency towards an increasing importance of the meal aspect of the Holy Mass” begins with the Augsburg theologian Franz Seraph Renz. Renz “confused the nature of the sacrificial act with the purpose of union with God” and states that: “the Eucharistic worship is essentially a meal with a sacrificial character”. The ideas here described would be reelaborated by a student of Renz, Franz Sales Wieland (1877-1957), according to whom before Irenaeus the Eucharistic celebration was understood as a meal. Only after Irenaeus did the thankgiving sacrifice [Danksagungsopfer] become a presentation/offering sacrifice [Darbringungsopfer]. Wieland was challenged by the Innsbruck dogmatic and fudamental theologian Emil Dorsch SJ (1867-1934). The relevant works of Wieland were put on the Index because they were seen to be connected to proposition 49 of the anti-Modernist decree of Pius X, “Lamentabili” (1907): “When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character”.