Liturgi

Jeg mottok en kommentar til bloggen fra Sigurd Hareide, som er så interessant at jeg trykker den her i sin helhet:

Ang. spørsmålet om bønneretningen i eukaristien i oldkirken, bygger jeg på Ratzinger som bl.a. bygger på Bouyer og Peterson. Ratzinger vektlegger i tråd med dem (særlig Bouyer) kirkebyggets sammenheng med synagogen: “Man ser ikke lenger i retning Jerusalem … Man ser nå mot øst, mot den oppgående sol … Kristus … historiens sanne lys.” “Bønn rettet mot Østen er i den tidlige Kirke blitt betraktet som en apostolisk tradisjon … dette har alltid vært betraktet som et vesentlig kjennetegn for den kristne liturgi.” (Ratzinger: Liturgiens ånd, St. Olav Forlag 2001, s. 48-49).

For en grundigere gjennomgang av bønneretningen i kristen gudstjeneste, bl.a. hvordan overgangen fra bordefellesskapet til større gudstjenester med alter kan ha skjedd, viser jeg til Langs bok: Turning Towards the Lord. Orientation in Liturgical Prayer – Her er innledningskapitlet hans.

Aller sist fra kardinal Ratzingers foredrag i Fontgombault tar jeg med det han sier helt mot slutten, om messen hellige offer, der de troende forener seg med Kristus i hans offer, og altså bærer seg selv og alt sitt fram for Herren, og slik vokser i tro og fellesskap.

This true sacrifice, which transforms us all into sacrifice, that is to say unites us to God, makes of us beings conformed to God, is indeed fixed and founded on an historical event, but is not situated as a thing in the past behind us, on the contrary, it becomes contemporary and accessible to us in the community of the believing and praying Church, in its sacrament: that is what is meant by the «sacrifice of the Mass.”

Trent did not make a mistake, it leant for support on the solid foundation of the Tradition of the Church. It remains a trustworthy standard. But we can and should understand it in a more profound way in drawing from the riches of biblical witness and from the faith of the Church of all the ages. There are true signs of hope that this renewed and deepened understanding of Trent can, in particular through the intermediary of the Eastern Churches, be made accessible to protestant Christians. …

Forsonig, soning for synd, er blitt fremmed for det moderne menensket, vi kan ikke se at vår synd virkelig sårer Gud, sier Ratzinger videre i sitt foredrag i Fontgombault. Og banaliseringen av liturgien kommer fra denne banaliseringen av vårt syn på Gud. Les selv:

All this has become very foreign to contemporary thought. Reparation («expiation») can perhaps mean something within the limits of human conflicts and the settling of guilt which holds sway among human beings, but its transposition to the relationship between God and man can not work. This, surely, is largely the result of the fact that our image of God has grown dim, has come close to deism. One can no longer imagine that human offences can wound God, and even less that they could necessitate an expiation such as that which constitutes the Cross of Christ. The same applies to vicarious substitution: we can hardly still imagine anything in that category – our image of man has become too individualistic for that.

With this key from the New Testament, Augustine interprets the Old Testament sacrifices as symbols pointing to this sacrifice properly so called, and that is why, he says, worship had to be transformed, the symbol had to disappear in favour of the reality. «All the divine prescriptions of Scripture which concern the sacrifices of the tabernacle or of the temple, are figures which refer to the love of God and neighbour» (City of God X, 5). But Augustine also knows that love only becomes true when it leads a man to God, and thus directs him to his true end; it alone can likewise bring about unity of men among themselves. Therefore the concept of sacrifice refers to community, and the first definition which Augustine attempted, is broadened by the following statement: «The whole redeemed human community, that is to say the assembly and the community of the saints, is offered to God in sacrifice by the High Priest Who offered Himself» (Ibid X,6). And even more simply: «This sacrifice is ourselves,» or again: «Such is the Christian sacrifice: the multitude – a single body in Christ» (Ibid X, 6).Sacrifice consists then, we shall say it once more, in a process of transformation, in the conformity of man to God, in His theiosis, as the Fathers would say. It consists, to express it in modern phraseology, in the abolition of difference – in the union between God and man, between God and creation: «God all in all» (1 Cor. 15; 28).

Les mer her (avsnitt 4 i foredraget).

I sitt foredrag i Fontgombault i 2001 tar kardinal Ratzinger opp sammen med diskusjonen om messen som et offer, også opp begrepet «påskemysteriet«, som er blitt mye brukt siden 2. Vatikankonsil – og, ifølge Ratzinger, ofte misforstått. Først skriver han om forståelsen av hva et offer er:

What emerges from it is that, in its course through the history of religions and biblical history, the idea of sacrifice has connotations which go well beyond the area of discussion which we habitually associate with the idea of sacrifice. In fact, it opens the doorway to a global understanding of worship and of the liturgy: these are the great perspectives which I would like to try to point out here. …

Så skriver han om forholdet mellom påske og offeret, der noen (helt feilaktig) ser en motsetning mellom påskemysteriet og offeret, mens Ratzinger mener det er en dyp sammenheng mellom disse to begrepene:
In the bibliographic review mentioned, Stefan Orth says that the fact of having avoided after Vatican II, the idea of sacrifice, has «led people to think of divine worship in terms of the feast of the Passover related in the accounts of the Last Supper.» At first sight this wording appears ambiguous: is one to think of divine worship in terms of the Last Supper narratives, or in terms of the Passover, to which those narratives refer in giving a chronological framework, but which they do not otherwise describe. It would be right to say that the Jewish Passover, the institution of which is related in Exodus 12, acquires a new meaning in the New Testament. It is there that is manifested a great historical movement which goes from the beginnings right up to the Last Supper, the Cross and the Resurrection of Jesus. But what is astonishing above all in Orth’s presentation is the opposition posited between the idea of sacrifice and the Passover.

The Jewish Old Testament deprives Orth’s thesis of meaning, because from the law of Deuteronomy on, the slaughtering of lambs is linked to the temple; and even in the earliest period, when the Passover was still a family feast, the slaughtering of lambs already had a sacrificial character. Thus, precisely through the tradition of the Passover, the idea of sacrifice is carried right up to the words and gestures of the Last Supper, where it is present also on the basis of a second Old Testament passage, Exodus 24, which relates the conclusion of the Covenant at Sinai. There, it is related that the people were sprinkled with the blood of the victims previously brought, and that Moses said on this occasion: «This is the blood of the Covenant which Yahweh makes with you in accordance with all these provisions.» (Ex. 24:8) The new Christian Passover is thus expressly interpreted in the accounts of the Last Supper as a sacrificial event, and on the basis of the words of the Last Supper, the nascent Church knew that the Cross was a sacrifice, because the Last Supper would be an empty gesture without the reality of the Cross and of the Resurrection, which is anticipated in it and made accessible for all time in its interior content.

Ratzinger går så videre og bemerker at også SSPX opplever at det er en motsetning mellom begrepene påskemysteriet og (messnes) offer, noe han mener er misforstått: (På samme måte som vi ser at SSPX (og noen andre tradisjonalister) ser på Vatikankonsilet som et brudd med Kirkens tradisjon, mens Ratzinger alltid presiserer at konsilet må forstås som en fortsettelsen av Tradisjonen.)
I mention this strange opposition between the Passover and sacrifice, because it represents the architectonic principle of a book recently published by the Society of St. Pius X, claiming that a dogmatic rupture exists between the new liturgy of Paul VI and the preceding catholic liturgical tradition. This rupture is seen precisely in the fact that everything is interpreted henceforth on the basis of the «paschal mystery,» instead of the redeeming sacrifice of expiation of Christ; the category of the paschal mystery is said to be the heart of the liturgical reform, and it is precisely that which appears to be the proof of the rupture with the classical doctrine of the Church. It is clear that there are authors who lay themselves open to such a misunderstanding; but that it is a misunderstanding is completely evident for those who look more closely. … … The paschal theology of the New Testament, upon which we have cast a quick glance, gives us to understand precisely this: the seemingly profane episode of the Crucifixion of Christ is a sacrifice of expiation, a saving act of the reconciling love of God made man. The theology of the Passover is a theology of the redemption, a liturgy of expiatory sacrifice. The Shepherd has become a Lamb.

I sitt foredrag i Fontgombault er Kardinal Ratzinger ganske skarp mot det man må kunne kalle liberal teologi; som ikke studerer Skriften og Tradisjonen med troens øye, men som føler seg fri til å finne på stadig nye ting. Han skriver: Not only is the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium downgraded in the eyes of many, but Scripture too; in its place are put changing pseudo-historical hypotheses, which are immediately replaced by any arbitrary idea, and place the liturgy at the mercy of fashion. Where, on the basis of such ideas, the liturgy is manipulated ever more freely, the faithful feel that, in reality, nothing is celebrated, and it is understandable that they desert the liturgy, and with it the Church.

Deretter sier han mer om tre kriterier som gjelder for teologien: 1) at vi har tillit til Skriften, 2) at Skriften leses ut fra Kirkens forståelse og 3) at vår forforståelse av sentrale begreper (her: offer) får stor betydning for vår konklusjon:

Let us return to the fundamental question: is it correct to describe the liturgy as a divine sacrifice, or is it a damnable impiety? In this discussion, one must first of all establish the principle presuppositions which, in any event, determine the reading of Scripture, and thus the conclusions which one draws from it. For the catholic Christian, two lines of essential hermeneutic orientation assert themselves here.

For the believing theologian, it is clear that it is Scripture itself which must teach him the essential definition of sacrifice, and that will come from a «canonical» reading of the Bible, in which the Scripture is read in its unity and its dynamic movement, the different stages of which receive their final meaning from Christ, to Whom this whole movement leads. By this same standard the hermeneutic here presupposed is a hermeneutic of faith, founded on faith’s internal logic. Ought not the fact to be obvious? Without faith, Scripture itself is not Scripture, but rather an ill-assorted ensemble of bits of literature which cannot claim any normative significance today.