Liturgi

I sitt foredrag «The Possibility of Reconciling the Liturgical Calendars of the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form» sier Fr. Angelo Van der Putten, FSSP, mer om selve kalenderproblematikken mot slutten. Han er svært så kritisk mot noe av det som skjedde rundt 1970 (muligens for skarp i formen?). Det er blant annet at man tok bort septuagesima-ukene (før-fasten) og pinseoktaven – og ga mange av de mest kjente helgenene nye datoer – som regnes som det mest dramatiske og unødendige.

… Louis Bouyer, an expert liturgist and a member of the concilium, had this stinging criticism to make of the new calendar: “I prefer to say nothing, or so 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-fourths of the Saints „higgledy-piggledy‟, all based on a notion of their own devising. Because these three hotheads obstinately refused to change anything of 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.”

Perhaps this quote from F. Gerald Calvet, O.S.B., the abbot of the Monastery of St. Madeleine, in Le Barroux, France, will help show the importance of this organic growth necessary for true reform: “Since the Council, we have witnessed a break in tradition. Instead of a homogeneous and harmonious development of the rites, as was always the case until then, a «manufactured‟ liturgy has been established.” “Liturgy is, by its very nature, transcendent. The stability of the rites must reflect the immutable celestial liturgy, and should detach man from a ceaselessly changing universe, in order to associate him with the canticle of the angels: the liturgy ought to be a native land for the faithful.”

These learned men see that not only have the “reforms” which we see around us, particularly in the liturgy, not been what Vatican II desired nor seemingly have they been beneficial to the piety of the faithful or the good of the Church at large. I think it indisputable that Pope Benedict XVI desires a reform of the “reform”. How this will involve the new calendar is difficult to say. The history, tradition, and natural harmony of the one year cycle is clearly evident from the innumerable authors who have written on it: from the time of the Fathers up to the great liturgists of the twentieth century who preceded, by a brief space of time, Vatican Council II. There is a monumental amount of material showing the principle lex orandi, lex credendi. Perhaps it seems to some that with the new translation of the Roman Missal, coming out in Advent of the year 2011, that the time is opportune to make an amalgamation or harmony between the two calendars. It is this author’s thought that this would perhaps not be the wisest or most prudent action at this time. We must apply the principles of sound liturgy, which is the organic growth and piety of the people, both of which would be offended by this endeavor. It is clearly necessary to study this question with greater research and understanding of the necessary organic development of the liturgy. The fear is that if any changes are made the same complaint made about the previous “reformers” will be rightly made about us as well. …

Hele foredraget kan leses her (pdf-fil).

I Tulsa, Oklahoma, der biskop Elliot holdt det foredraget jeg referer en del til, ble det også holdt et foredrag av en prest fra FSSP, Father Angelo Van der Putten. Tittelen på hans foredrag var «The Possibility of Reconciling the Liturgical Calendars of the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form». I starten av foredraget snakker han riktignok mest om forandringene i selve messeliturgien:

… No one is able to deny that there are two different usages. One may no longer hold that the Ancient Use is no longer relevant or has any part to play in the Church‟s liturgy. With the advent of the Novus Ordo Missae in the fall of 1969 the Church saw not only a change in its liturgy, but its calendar and many of its devotions. The Ancient Use, or as it’s called today, the Extraordinary Form, saw a complete demise throughout the Catholic world except in a small congregation founded in 1970 by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre called the Society of St. Pius X, which had houses throughout the world in various places and which adhered strictly to the 1962 liturgical books and calendar. The use of the old rite and calendar was practically forbidden to all after 1969. The only Indult was given by Pope Paul VI to England, humorously called the Agatha Christi Indult. This was given due to a request by Cardinal Heenan who stated that it would seem odd to English Catholics to forbid use of such a Rite shortly after having canonized the English Martyrs who gave their very lives for this very Rite. This Indult was very limited and even in England only the Brompton Oratory applied it faithfully over the years. Little more was heard of the Extraordinary Form until 1984 when Pope John Paul II issued Quattor Abhinc Annos, which with the bishops permission and a special, particular, written indult a particular priest in particular circumstances would be allowed to offer the Extraordinary Form.

Then, in 1988, due to Monsignor Lefebvre consecrating four bishops in order to carry on his work of preserving the Extra-ordinary Form, Pope John Paul II wrote a letter excommunicating him but at the same time allowing a greater freedom to the Extraordinary Form. This letter is called Ecclessia Dei Adflicta. Both of these letters of Pope John Paul II had very little practical effect in freeing the Extraordinary Form from its place on the shelf of, though beautiful and ancient, a no longer useful liturgy of the Catholic Church.

All of this dramatically changed in 2007 when Pope Benedict XVI issued a motu proprio called Summorum Pontificum. The Extraordinary Form is now clearly endorsed by the reigning pontiff and has been given an authority direct to himself.

This reinstating of the Extraordinary Form has given rise to great interest throughout the Catholic world. And it is clear that it is not only a passing nostalgia. Not only does this interest seem profound and committed, but it pertains to the use of the liturgy and calendar as lived in the Catholic Church in the Western, or Latin, Rite since the time of Pope Gregory the Great in the 7th Century (540-609). Clearly, then, this is of profound significance. There are now in the Latin Rite Church «two‟ Rites and «two‟ Calendars, with the majority of believers benefiting from the New Rite and Calendar and a minority benefiting from the Old Rite and Calendar.

It is clearly the mind of the present Holy Father that more and more the Old Rite is to be more readily, wholly and positively available. This brings with it the very practical question of the use of the two different Calendars and feasts of the Saints and the Liturgical Cycle. …

Hele foredraget kan leses her (pdf-fil).

Msgr. Nicola Bux er rådgiver for paven i liturgiske spørsmål, og har nylig uttalt seg om pave Benedikts uttrykk «reform av liturgireformen» – hvordan går det med den? Les mer av intervjuet på Rorate Cæli (der man også tar opp hvordan reaksjonene til denne reformen er blant biskoper og prester rundt om i verden):

With this expression, which Ratzinger used when he still was the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he meant that the reform that took place after the Council had to be resumed, and in some ways corrected there where, always using his words, the restoration of the painting had been too much, that is, by trying to clean, it had taken the risk of removing too many layers of color.

He started this restoration through his own style. The Pope celebrates the liturgy in a subdued, not loud, way. He also wants the prayers, songs, and anything else not to be in exhibitionist tones. And two special actions in his liturgies that are obvious should be noticed: he places the Cross between himself and the assembly, indicating that the liturgical rite is addressed … to Christ; and kneeling in the reception of Communion, indicating that this is not a supper, in the worldly sense of the word, but a communion with the body of Jesus Christ, that is worshiped first, in the words of St. Augustine, and only then eaten. …

I dag feires Perpetua og Felicitas i den nye kalenderen, mens Thomas Aquinas feires når man følger den gamle kalenderen. På katolsk.no kan man lese om disse to kvinnelige martyrene, og om hvorfor deres dato ble flyttet: «Festen for disse martyrene ble snart svært berømt i hele den kristne verden, og ble nevnt i de eldste romerske og syriske kalendere og i den hellige Hieronymus’ martyrologium. Deres fest ble holdt den 7. mars i mange århundrer, men ble en tid flyttet til 6. mars for å gi plass til festen for den hellige Thomas Aquinas. Men i 1970 ble den flyttet tilbake til sin gamle dag, 7. mars.»

Om flyttingen av Thomas Aquinas skriver katolsk.no: «Thomas Aquinas’ minnedag var tidligere 7. mars, men i kalenderreformen i 1970 ble den ukarakteristisk nok flyttet bort fra dødsdagen til den 28. januar, translasjonsdagen i 1368. De nye kalendermakerne gjorde dette på grunn av ønsket om å unngå store fester i fastetiden. Hans navn står i Martyrologium Romanum.»

Bildene under tok jeg selv i Kartago sommeren 2008 – de viser minnesmerket som fortsatt står over Perpetua og Felicitas.

Som en fortsettelse på forrige innlegg, er det på sin plass å påpeke at det er 11- til 1200 år siden kanonbønnen begynte å bli sagt stille av presten. Slik beskriver Michael Davies utviklinga:

… For a long time the Canon was said aloud, probably to a recitative, but simpler, tone like the Preface. Recitation in a low voice appears towards the middle of the eighth century, and in the ninth century with Ordo Romanus the silent recitation became obligatory. In the east the practice was adopted much earlier. Everywhere the tendency was to surround the Canon with respect and a sense of mystery and to reserve it to the celebrant alone.

Father Fortescue believes that a practical reason accounts for the adoption of the silent Canon: «The Sanctus sung by the choir took some time; meanwhile the celebrant went on with the prayer, which in that case had to be said silently. So it became a custom, a tradition, and later mystic reasons were found for it.»

What is certain is that the transition must have taken place under the guidance , of the Holy Ghost and the reason is not hard to find-there could be no more appropriate manifestation both of the nature of the Canon and the awesome powers of the sacrificing priest. This is made clear in the quotation from Father Jungmann which began this chapter. Similar sentiments expressed by other Catholic authors are not hard to find-and the Catholic who would have questioned them before Vatican II would have been rare indeed. …

Jeg har ingen egen erfaring å bygge på, men jeg har vanskelig for å tro at lekfolket skulle ha noen problemer med at denne (mest høytidelige) delen av messen ble sagt stille – de som husker tilbake så langt, må gjerne informere meg/oss. Jeg ser det heller slik at dette hører sammen med at presten skulle vende seg mot folket, også i de delene av messen der han tydelig ber til Gud. Det gir jo ingen mening at man kaster ut det gamle alteret, setter inn et nytt bordalter, presten står nå vendt mot folket, men snakker fortsatt med hviskende stemme; da må han jo snakke slik at folk kan høre ham!

Tidligere fokuserte man på at presten ba bønnene, og spesielt den eukaristike bønn, til Gud, og da var det naturlig at han også vendte seg til Gud (det var også helt narurlig i min lutherske oppvekst). Men når fokus blir flyttet fra bønn til Gud – ja, et offer båret fram for Gud – til et nattverdsmåltid, da følger både retning og stemmebruk med på kjøpet. (Jeg må innrømme at jeg finner det litt forstyrrende, spesielt i små kapeller, å stå rett foran mennesker – og knapt kunne unngå å se på dem, et krusifiks foran meg hjelper bare delvis – når jeg ber til Gud.)

Michael Davies skriver også ting i dette kapittelet, som jeg ikke kan være enig i. Han skriver (og det gjør han gjennom hele boka) at katolikkene forandret dette (kanon med lav eller kraftig stemme) for å tekkes protestantene. Der tror jeg han tar feil; dette var ikke den viktigste begrunnelsen. Det var heller det man noen ganger kaller arkeologisme; at man vil gå tilbake til noe eldre, som man regner som bedre (selv om man også misforstod mye av dette på 60-tallet). Man tenkte at katolikker de første 600-800 år feiret messen først og fremst som et nattverdmåltid (med fokus på måltid), før middelalderen kom og ødela.

Den liturgiske bevegelsen (som begynte godt, men etter hvert løp løpsk) ønsket å forandre dagens liturgi slik at den stemte bedre med den tradisjonelle. Av to grunner ble de liturgiske forandringene mislykket: 1) de misforstod Kirkens gamle praksis og 2) de tok ikke hensyn til at Kirken, ledet av Den hellige Ånd, utviklet en tjenlig og god liturgi – som nok trengte justering, men som det var helt feil å kaste vrak på.

Jeg leser fortsatt i Michael Davies’ bok «Pope Paul’s New Mass» – har passert side 400, og det er fortsatt over 200 sider igjen. Nylig leste jeg om «Den hellige stillheten», som er hans betegnelse på en stille kanonbønnen, som rådet i Kirken ca 1200 år. Han sier bl.a. at to av de viktigste lederne av den liturgiske bevegelsen – Dom Pius Parsch og P. Joseph A. Jungmann – sterkt støttet denne tradisjonen.

«Let us observe the solemn silence of the Canon. This complete silence is the most effective expression of the adoration and reverence due to God Who comes to us in the Mystery of the Mass. The ordained priest of God, like Moses, will enter alone the clouds that cover the mountain of God, while we continue in those sentiments of thanksgiving and reverence that we have learned from the angels. The strains of their chants will re-echo in our thoughts during the breathless silence of the Canon, until with overflowing hearts we join once more in the final, assenting Amen.» (Dom Pius Parsch)

«The priest enters the sanctuary of the canon alone. Up till now the people have thronged about him, their songs at times accompanying him in the fore-Mass. But the songs have become less frequent, and after the steep ascent of the Great Prayer they have come to an end in the triple Sanctus. A sacred stillness reigns; since is a worthy preparation for God’s approach. Like the High Priest of the Old Testament, who once a year was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies with the blood of a sacrificial animal (Hebr. 9.7), the priest now separates from the people and makes his way before the all holy God in order to offer up the sacrifice to Him.» [P. Joseph A. Jungmann)

Her legger Michael Davies til:

The fact that a sacred stillness no longer reigns during the numerous Eucharistic Prayers of the New Mass indicates, …, that the reform we have is not simply contrary to what the Fathers of Vatican II desired, but represents a turning of the back upon the liturgical movement of which Father Jungmann was one of the most outstanding figures.

«Hvordan gå i messen uten å miste sin tro?» er tittelen på ei bok som nylig ble utgitt på italiensk (les om den her):

A weakening of faith in God, a rise in selfishness and a drop in the number of people going to Mass can be traced to liturgical abuse or Masses that are not reverent, two Vatican cardinals and a consultant have said.

US Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Vatican’s supreme court, said: “If we err by thinking we are the centre of the liturgy, the Mass will lead to a loss of faith.”

Cardinal Burke and Spanish Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, spoke yesterday at a book launch in Rome.

The book, published only in Italian, was written by Fr Nicola Bux, who serves as a consultant to the congregations for the doctrine of the faith and for saints’ causes and to the office in charge of papal liturgies.

The English translation of Fr Bux’s book title would be, How to Go to Mass and Not Lose Your Faith. …

Når jeg nå skal skrive litt om Robert Hovdas bok «Strong, Loving and Wise» (som jeg leste i går), må jeg faktisk henvise mest til tre innlegg på denne bloggen for en uke siden, der jeg skrev mer om Hovdas teoretiske begrunnelse for sitt nye syn på liturgien. Det er innleggene – Messens «president som skuespiller» – Presten må engasjere menigheten – Prestens ansiktsuttrykk og blikk.

For Hovda og hans likesinnede er det et avgjørende poeng at presten i messen ikke lenger en en prest bærer fram messens hellige offer, men en person som presiderer over nattverdmåltidet og -fellesskapet.

I forordet til boka – skrevet Godfrey Diekmann O.S.B. – går det tydelig fram at den gamle måten å feire messen på ikke møter noen form for respekt:

Etter dette skarpe forordet er Robert Hovdas egen tekst ganske mild; faktisk er det ganske vagt og noe uklart hva han i praksis mener, selv om dette er en praktisk håndbok om hvordan man skal «presidere» over messen – man skal være sterk, kjærlig og vis i sin utstråling under hele messen. Det er mest en holdning, en stemning, han vil ha fram i messefeiringen. Det er et sterkt fokus på menigheten og personenes indivuelle behov. Det legges stor vekt på en liturgikomité av lekfolk (og helst også presten) som skal gjøre hver messe meningsfull. Å bare lese messen etter boka gir visst ingen mening. Her er et lite utdrag av hva Hovda selv skriver:

(En del sider av boka kan leses her.)