Liturgi

Liturgikonferansen i Fontgombault i 2001

Liturgi /

«Kristus, ikke menigheten, er liturgiens subjekt«, var temaet for en viktig liturgikonferanse i Benediktinerklosteret Notre Dame, i Fontgombault i Frankrike. Det har vært arrangert flere liturgikonferanser der, men konferansen fra 2001 er spesielt kjent, fordi daværende kardinal Ratzinger deltok, og holdt et viktig foredrag om «Liturgiens teologi». (Jeg hadde nok så vidt hørt om denne konferansen før, men må nok jobbe syetmatisk i nokså lang tid framover for å få en noenlunde solid oversikt over hva som har skjedd luturgisk de siste 50 til 150 år.) På denne siden kan bl.a. lese følgende om konferansen (som jeg snart kommer tilbake til):

The congress proved important for the way in which the chief guest speaker, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dealt in passing with the question of the so-called «reform of the reform». …

Oddly, neither the International Federation of Una Voce not the German organization Pro Missa Tridentina were invited to send a delegate. However, one of the guest speakers, was Professor Robert Spaemann, a former President of Pro Missa Tridentina and another, was Professor Roberto de Mattei from Italy, a member of Una Voce.

The purpose of the conference was to promote, in the words of one participant, «a sort of ecumenism within the Church»: to bring together Catholics from different liturgical orientations to discuss basic questions about the liturgy.

Despite much off-stage, and extravagant, controversy among people who were not represented at the congress about its purpose, the conference was never intended to be an exclusively ‘traditionalist’ affair. Nor was the meeting about how to effect a so-called «Reform of the Reform» or about how to manoeuvre communities which use the classical liturgy into changes to the traditional books and the manner of using them. Rather, the conference was about the liturgy in general and the problems confronting it today: «an attempt», as our observer put it, «to return to the good beginnings of the [pre-conciliar] liturgical movement».

Jeg legger merke til at man ønsker å gripe tilbake til det positive i den litugiske bevegelsen fra første halvdel av 1900-tallet, at man ikke har hatt som prioritett å løfte fram den tradisjonelle latinske messen, men heller (ser det ut til) ønsker å arbeide for en reform av liturgureformen.

“The Oxford Declaration on Liturgy”

Liturgi /

Fra min bunke med liturgibøker ser jeg nå på «BEYOND THE PROSAIC – Renewing the Liturgical movement». Boka er redigert av Stratford Caldecott, og gjenspeiler det som skjedde på konferansen ‘Beyond the Prosaic i Oxford i 1996. På denne konferansen ble denne interessante uttalesen om liturgien vedtatt, og jeg gjengir den i sin helhet (med egne uthevelser):

Issued by the Liturgy Forum of the Centre for Faith & Culture at Westminster College, Oxford, at the conlusion of the 1996 Conference of the Centre, ‘ Beyond the Prosaic’.

1. Reflecting on the history of liturgical renewal and reform since the Second Vatican Council, the Liturgy Forum agreed that there have been many positive results. Among these might be mentioned the introduction of the vernacular, the opening up of the treasury of the Sacred Scriptures, increased participation in the liturgy and the enrichment of the process of Christian initiation. However, the Forum concluded that the preconciliar liturgical movement as well as the manifest intentions of Sacrosanctum Concilium have in large part been frustrated by powerful contrary forces, which could be described as bureaucratic, philistine and secularist.

2. The effect has been to deprive the Catholic people of much of their liturgical heritage. Certainly, many ancient traditions of sacred music, art and architecture have been all but destroyed. Sacrosanctum Concilium gave pride of place to Gregorian chant [Section 116], yet in many places this «sung theology» of the Roman liturgy has disappeared without trace. Our liturgical heritage is not a superficial embellishment of worship but should properly be regarded as intrinsic to it, as it is also to the process of transmitting the Catholic faith in education and evangelization. Liturgy cannot be separated from culture; it is the living font of a Christian civilization and hence has profound ecumenical significance.

3. The impoverishment of our liturgy after the Council is a fact not yet sufficiently admitted or understood, to which the necessary response must be a revival of the liturgical movement and the initiation of a new cycle of reflection and reform. …

“The Oxford Declaration on Liturgy”Les mer »

Gårsdagens Angelus: Kristus, den nye Adam, er ydmyk og lydig – et eksempel for oss

Katolsk, Liturgi /

Før gårsdagens Angelus-bønn på Petersplassen tok pave Benedikt naturlig nok utgangspunkt i fastetida generelt og i teksten om Jesu faste og fristelse i ørkenen spesielt. Og han sa bl.a.:
It is evident that there is an insistence on the fact that the temptations were no accident but the consequence of Jesus’ choice to carry out the mission entrusted to him by the Father, to embrace completely his reality as beloved Son, who hands himself over entirely to the Father. Christ came into the world to free us from sin and the dangerous fascination of planning our lives without God. He did it not with high-sounding proclamations, but by personally struggling against the Tempter, right to the cross. This is an example for all: The world improves beginning with ourselves, changing what is not right in our lives with the grace of God.

Of the three temptations that Satan proposes to Jesus, the first has to do with hunger, that is, material need .. (the next one) is the deception of power, and Jesus unmasks this temptation and rejects it … Power is not to be worshiped but God alone, truth and love.

Finally, the Tempter proposes that Jesus perform a spectacular miracle … We must never try an experiment in which God is supposed to respond and show himself to be God: we must believe in him! We must not make God “material” for our “experiment”! Referring again to sacred Scripture, Jesus opposes to human criterion the only authentic criterion: obedience, conformity with God’s will, which is the foundation of our being. This too is a basic teaching for us: If we carry the Word of God in our heart and in our mind, if it enters into our lives, if we have confidence in God, we can reject any sort of deception of the Tempter.

Moreover, from the whole story there clearly emerges the image of Christ as the new Adam, Son of God, humble and obedient to the Father, unlike Adam and Eve, who in the Garden of Eden gave in to the seductions of the spirit of evil to become immortal without God.

Les alt pave Benedikt sa her.

Første søndag i faste – “Menneskets vedvarende fristelse er å søke etter roten til det onde utenfor seg selv”

Liturgi /


Jeg gjengir her disposisjonen til (de tre) prekenene jeg holdt i dag:

Vi tar utgangspunkt i evangeliet i dagens messe – om Jesu egen faste i ørkenen, og hvordan denne fasten har gitt oss vår egen fasteforberedelse før påsken. Jeg vil også påpeke at prefasjonen i messen poengterer enkelte viktige aspekter av fasten, nå den sier:
– Ved sin førti dagers faste vigslet han denne botens tid,
– og ved å motstå djevelens angrep lærte han oss å beseire det onde i våre hjerter,
– så vi med renset sinn kan feire påskemysteriet
– og engang nå frem til den evige påske.

I messens bønner og kommunionsvers kan man også se at kanskje det mest sentrale temaet er; at mennesket ikke lever av brød alene, men av hvert ord som går ut av Guds munn.

Jeg vil også ta med noeen få elementer (nokså fritt gjengitt) fra pave Benedikts brev til alle katolikker før årets faste. Han knytter sine fastetanker til Den hellige Paulus’ ord: «Guds rettferdighet har blitt åpenbart gjennom troen på Jesus Kristus» (jf. Rom 3, 21-22). Og paven tar også opp følgende ord fra Jesus, fra datidens strid om hva som er rent og urent: «Ikke noe av det som kommer inn i mennesket utenfra, kan gjøre det urent. Nei, det er det som går ut fra mennesket, som gjør mennesket urent. […] For innenfra, fra menneskehjertet, kommer de onde tankene» (Mark 7, 14-15, 20-21).

Her kan vi ane i fariseernes reaksjon en vedvarende fristelse for mennesket: å søke etter roten til det onde utenfor seg selv. Det er helt tydelig at mange moderne ideologier har dette som sin forutsetning: Ettersom urett kommer «utenfra», er det tilstrekkelig for å virkeliggjøre rettferdighet, at en forandrer ytre omstendigheter som står i veien for den. En slik tankegang, advarer Jesus, er naiv og kortsiktig. …

Første søndag i faste – “Menneskets vedvarende fristelse er å søke etter roten til det onde utenfor seg selv”Les mer »

I liturgien trenger vi ‘både og’

Liturgi, TLM /

Jeg syns at det er litt trist at her på bloggen (og også mange andre steder) blir debatten nokså polarisert, både når vi diskuterer liturgi og flere andre emner. Men det blir ofte mer fruktbare samtaler når man forstår hverandre bedre. Jeg har også blitt spurt av noen som misliker bloggen min, hva jeg egentlig ønsker med den. Det er det ikke så lett å svare på fullt ut, men når det gjelder Kirkens liturgi ønsker jeg først og fremst at den kan feires best mulig, og jeg tror at vi oppnår det best ved å berikes av elementer fra både den gamle og den nye messen.

I min lange liste med liturgibøker har jeg nå begynt på Laurence Paul Hemmnings «Worship as a revelation». Boka er ganske filosofisk og teoretisk, og jeg har ikke kommet så veldig langt i den, men mot slutten skriver Hemming noe (og siterer kardinal Ratzinger) som kan hjelpe oss til å legge vekt på både det gamle og det nye, når vi kontinuerlig skal arbeide med liturgien:

I have already remarked on Benedict XVI’s characterization of the need for a ‘hermeneutic of continuityin interpreting the postconciliar period of the Church’s life. He has extended this interpretative key to the liturgy itself, by saying that ‘the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities’, adding in a note: ‘I am referring here to the need for a hermeneutic of continuity also with regard to the correct interpretation of the liturgical development which followed the Second Vatican Council. … …

In 1996, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger gave a protracted interview to the German journalist Peter Seewald about the state and present situation of the Church. He spoke once again of his disappointment with liturgical developments in the postconciliar period, speaking of how the liturgy has been ‘flattened’ and evacuated of mystery. Seewald put the following question: ‘wouldn’t it be conceivable to reactivate the old rite in order to work against this levelling and demystification?’ The future pope’s response is a clear indication that there are no short-cuts, no easy solutions to the present situation with respect to the sacred liturgy. Ratzinger replied:

That alone would not be a solution. I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It is impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent. Can it be trusted anymore about anything else? Won’t it proscribe again tomorrow what it prescribes today?

But a simple return to the old way would not, as I have said, be a solution. Our culture has changed so radically in the last thirty years that a liturgy celebrated exclusively in Latin would bring with it an experience of foreignness that many could not cope with. What we need is a new liturgical education, especially of priests. It must once again become clear that liturgical scholarship doesn’t exist in order to produce constantly new models, though that may be all right for the car manufacturing industry. It exists in order to introduce us into feast and celebration, to make man capable of the mystery. Here we ought to learn not just from the Eastern Church but from all the religions of the world, which all know that liturgy is something other than the invention of texts and rites, that it lives precisely from what is beyond manipulation. Young people have a very strong sense of this. Centres in which the liturgy is celebrated reverently and nobly without nonsense attract, even if one doesn’t understand every word. We need such centres to set an example. Unfortunately, in Germany tolerance for bizarre tinkering is almost unlimited, whereas tolerance for the old liturgy is practically nonexistent. We are surely on the wrong path in that regard.

Alvorlige tekster i søndagens messe

Liturgi /

Vi hører svært utfordrende tekster i denne søndagens messe – og vi prøver selvsagt å først la disse tekstene brukes på oss selv, før vi appliserer dem på andre. Dette rådet gjelder både prester og lekfolk, presten bommer f.eks. alltid hvis han snakker strengt til andre, og ikke samtidig til seg selv. Første lesning er fra Jeremia 17, 5-8

«Så sier Herren: Forbannet være den mann som setter sin lit til mennesker, som støtter seg til svake skapninger og vender seg bort fra Herren. Han er som en busk i ødemarken; han får ikke se at lykken kommer, men holder til i tørreste ørken, på saltholdig jord, der ingen bor. Velsignet være den mann som stoler på Herren og setter sin lit til ham. Han er lik et tre som er plantet ved vann og strekker røttene mot bekken. Det frykter ikke når heten kommer, men står der med løvet grønt. Det sturer ikke i tørketider og holder ikke opp med å bære frukt.»

Så fortsetter vi å høre fra den kjente Salme 1:
Omkved: Salig den mann som setter sin lit til Herren.

Salig den som ikke følger de ugudeliges råd og ikke vandrer syndens vei, som ikke sitter i spotteres lag,
men har sin lyst i Herrens lov og grunner på den dag og natt.

Han er lik et tre plantet nær rinnende bekker, som gir sin frukt i rette tid og ikke står med vissent løv.
Alt hva han gjør, det får han lykke til.

Men slik går det ikke dem som er uten Gud. De er lik agner som spredes for vinden.
For Herren kjenner veien der de rettferdige vandrer.
Men veien som de ugudelige velger, fører til undergang.

Evangeliet er saligprisningene fra Lukas 6:
«Salige er dere fattige, for Guds rike hører dere til. Salige er dere som nå sulter, for dere skal få spise dere mette. Salige er dere som nå gråter, for dere skal få le. Salige er dere når menneskene hater dere, når de bannlyser dere og spotter dere, når de skyr dere som frafalne for Menneskesønnens skyld. Gled dere da og dans av fryd, for en stor lønn venter dere i himmelen. For det samme gjorde deres forfedre med profetene. Men ve dere rike! for dere har alt fått deres trøst. Ve dere som nå er mette, for dere skal komme til å sulte. Ve dere som nå ler, for dere skal komme til å sørge og gråte. Ve dere når alle taler vel om dere, for det samme gjorde deres forfedre med de falske profeter.»

Les alle søndagens tekster og bønner her.

Erkebiskop i Australia kritiserer den gamle oversettelsen av messen til engelsk

Liturgi /

Jeg leser HER at erkebiskop Coleridge i Australia er glad for at den nye engelske oversettelsen av messen snart kan tas i bruk (trolig i 2011), og at han også kritiserer ganske grundig hvordan den nye messen har fungert siden 1970. Hans uttalelser viser vel igjen at stemninga holder på å snu; at stadig flere kirkeledere nå kritiserer hvordan liturgiforandringene de siste 40 år har fungert. Her er et lite utdrag av hans synspunkter:

The newly translated Roman Missal to be issued in Australian parishes in 2011 will help address the serious theological problems of the 1973 missal currently in use, said one of Australia’s most senior liturgists.

In the process, it will more faithfully implement the liturgical vision of the Second Vatican Council and also fulfill the reforms of the much-maligned 1570 Council of Trent, Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Canberra-Goulburn told approximately 200 liturgists gathered in Perth in early February.

While Archbishop Coleridge acknowledged that the missal used since 1973 has made gains in accessibility, participation, Scripture, adaptation and inculturation, he said it also has “serious problems theologically” and “consistently bleaches out metaphor, which does scant justice to the highly metaphoric discourse” of Scripture and early Christian writers. This is the result of a misunderstanding of Vatican II’s reforms, he said. …

… the liturgy has largely lost the sense of the liturgy as primarily Christ’s action, as something received “not just what we do; a mystery into which we are drawn.” “We can’t just tamper with it,” he said. “Celebrants sometimes act as if it’s their own personal property to do with what they like. You can’t.”

An overly cerebral approach to liturgy, loss of ritual, oversimplification of rites, loss of a sense of silence, beauty and an unwitting clericalism have all led to the Mass lacking its full potential to catechize the faithful and renew the church, he said.

Mer om hvordan liturgiforandringene ble gjennomført på 60-tallet

Katolsk, Liturgi /

Kenneth Whitehead skriver i sin bok «Mass Misunderstandings» videre om hvodan liturgiforandringene ble gjennomført – mest av liturgieksperter, som stort sett fikk sine forslag akseptert av biskoper og Vatikanet. Dette skjedde etter at Vatikankonsilet hadde vedtatt et balansert og forsiktig dokument om liturgien (se her), som også erkebiskop Marcel Lefebvre stemte for. Her er et sitat fa s 102-104 i Whiteheads bok (før han går over til å se på en del enkeltsaker; bl.a. om at liturgiekspertene vant fram med sitt syn om at man skulle stå når man mottar kommunion, men ikke med sitt ønske om at folk ikke skulle knele i kirkene i det hele tatt, og at knelebenkene burde tas bort):

…. … there is probably no single or easy answer to the overall question of why the things that went wrong did go wrong. We have already adverted to some of these reasons: an imperfect understanding of the Council’s intentions; the abrupt and seemingly unplanned way that so many things were changed, often in no particular order and without many explanations being provided; and the fact that most priests did not really understand what was happening and why. There was also a fairly general failure on the part of Church authorities to understand that any change, even a needed and legitimate change, in people’s deep-seated habits of prayer and worship, was bound to have consequences. These consequences should have been anticipated and taken into account. Nor was it just a matter of not disturbing people’s habits: constant changes too easily do accustom us to regard the Mass and the sacraments as malleable things, as things that we can devise and control, rather than things coming to us by the will of Christ in the Church.

To all these reasons there must be added yet another one, namely. the undue influence of modem «liturgists,» that is, liturgical experts too often intent upon their own in-group ideas rather than upon the needs and sensibilities of the faithful. Reliance on «experts» and «professionals,» rather than upon reason and common sense, has in many ways been the bane of the post-conciliar period generally.

Then, of course, there was the too frequent and marked impatience and sometimes even the arrogance of some of those in authority, relying uncritically upon their experts, and prone to dig in their heels when faced with perceived resistance to, or criticism of, many of the changes that were being made.

And yet again, in a much more general sense, it should also have been more clearly recognized by Church authority that concepts such as «noble simplicity» and «full, conscious, and active participation» in liturgical celebrations, although consciously and honestly launched by the Council itself, were almost inevitably going to be interpreted in different ways by different people. For some, «noble simplicity» can apparently mean denuding churches of statues and stations of the cross, or dismantling decorative altar rails or screens …

Mer om hvordan liturgiforandringene ble gjennomført på 60-talletLes mer »

Hva tenkte konsilbiskopene om Sacrosanctum Concilium?

Katolsk, Liturgi /

Kenneth Whitehead skriver om utgangspunktet for liturgiforandringene i sin bok «Mass Misunderstanding», eller gjør han egentlig det? Det virker på meg som han sier at liturgiforandringene hadde nokså lite med konsilet å gjøre; at man i Sacrosanctum Concilium (som ble vedtatt i 1963 med 2147 mot 4 stemmer) åpnet for en viss bruk av folkspråket, og kom med noen få andre generelle (og nokså forsiktige) punkter om hvordan liturgien skulle revideres. Slik skriver Whitehead:
As Cardinal Ratzinger, again, recorded in his book of memoirs entitled Milestones that has been quoted previously:

«The reform of the liturgy in the spirit of the liturgical movement was not a priority for the majority of the Fathers, and for many not even a consideration. Thus, for example, in his outline of themes after the beginning of the Council, Cardinal Montini – who as Paul VI would be the real pope of the Council – said quite clearly that he did not see the reform of the liturgy as a substantial task in the Council. The liturgy and its reform had, since the end of World War 1, become a pressing question only in France and Germany, and indeed above all from the perspective of the purest possible restoration of the ancient Roman liturgy, to which belonged the active involvement of the people in the liturgical event. These two countries, which at that time enjoyed theological leadership in the Church (and we must of course add Belgium and the Netherlands), had during the preparation phase succeeded in putting through a schema on the sacred liturgy, which quite naturally found its place in the general theme of the Church, The fact that this text became the first subject for the Council’s discussions really had nothing to do with the majority of the Fathers having an intense interest in the liturgical question. Quite simply, no great disagreements were expected in this area, and the undertaking was viewed as a kind of practical exercise to learn and test the method of conciliar work …»

If this is at all an accurate account of how the Vatican II liturgical reforms actually got started and carried forward – and there certainly cannot be any doubt that the young Father Joseph Ratzinger was there! – then the subsequent history of these liturgical reforms, along with the Mass misunderstandings that have stemmed from them and have persisted since, have to be considered all the more amazing. Surely it is necessary to go back to the Council itself in order to acquire even a glimmer of understanding of what really happened, and why it happened, and what the consequences of it are for us today.

I samme kapittel skriver Whitehead mer om hva som skjedde med liturgien – og hvorfor: …

Hva tenkte konsilbiskopene om Sacrosanctum Concilium?Les mer »

Hva med tradisjonalistene?

Katolsk, Liturgi /

Jeg leser nå som nevnt boka: Kenneth Whitehead: Mass Misunderstandings. Han er positiv til det konsilet prøvde å gjøre med liturgien, men negativ til en hel del av det som skjedde i praksis. Jeg kommer nok tilbake til boka flere ganger, og tar opp ting som jeg leser der.

I et kapittel han kaller: Hva med tradisjonalistene?, tar han opp de tradisjonalistene (i motsetning til de ‘konservative’, som vi har diskutert litt tidligere) som nok ikke har brutt med Kirkens autoritet, som SSPX, men som likevel er svært negative til det konsilet prøvde å gjøre, og ofte til det Kirken/paven gjør i dag. Her er et (litt usammenhengende, kanskje) utdrag:

… … Since it is far from clear whether the pope’s new approach will succeed in reconciling many of those who have gone so far as to reject the authority of the Council and the Church, it may be that the greatest effect of Summorum Pontiflicum will in the end turn out to be the effect it has on those tradition-minded Catholics who have stayed with the Church all along, but who also have been deeply dissatisfied with the way some things have gone in the Church since the Council, particularly with regard to the sacred liturgy.

The actual numbers of Catholics in this latter category are neither precisely known nor are these numbers apparently easy to come by; but it is surely not an insignificant fact that so many serious and even fervent practicing Catholics (whatever their total number) have evidently been dissatisfied with and sometimes even alienated from the Church in various ways as a result of the Vatican-II enactments. One thinks for example of some of the stable orders of monks and nuns, consecrated religious, that have continued to remain attached to the old liturgy, a liturgy ….

Similarly, some of the most committed of Catholic activists in various good causes such as the pro-life movement often turn out to be devotees of the «old Mass.» …

Hva med tradisjonalistene?Les mer »

Hvordan bør ‘ordets del’ av messen foregå?

Liturgi /

Det er interessant (syns jeg, og svært forbløffende hvis man tenker bare noen få år tilbake) at en av pavens rådgivere, P. Mauro Gagliardi, i det som på engelsk kalles «the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff», ser både på den nye og den gamle messen når han i en artikkel hos Zenit.org skal gi råd om hvordan ordets del av messen skal foregå. Han har ikke plass, skriver han, til å se på den gamle messens høytidelige form (litt dumt syns jeg, fordi her står subdiakon og diakon ikke ved alteret når de synger tekstene), men han skriver slik om den gamle messens enkleste form:

In the “Low Mass” (a simple celebration for daily use) of the extraordinary form, the priest reads all the readings, that is, the Epistle, the Gradual and the Gospel. In general, he does this while assuming the same position that he does when he will later offer the holy sacrifice. Using a misleading but common expression, we might say that the priest proclaims the Liturgy of the Word “with his back to the people.” The language of the proclamation is the same as the whole rite, that is, Latin, or sometimes the vernacular, as section 6 of the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” recalls.

After the Epistle is read there follows the Gradual, which receives its name from the steps (in Latin “gradus”) that the deacon ascends to read the Gospel from the ambo in a solemn Mass. After the Gradual, the Alleluia is read with its verse. … …

Om messens nye form skriver han bl.a. dette:
The Liturgy of the Word in the Missal of Paul VI kept different elements of the Missal Pius V, even if others have been suppressed and some added. The language of the proclamation has not been changed since Latin has remained the proper language of the Roman liturgy even in the post-conciliar reform, the reason for which the new lectionaries (now printed in books separate from the Missal) were published in Latin in 1969 and 1981.

On the other hand, the “editio typica” has been translated into the various national languages and these translations are what are generally used. …

A first difference between the two forms of the Roman Rite we see in the fact that, even in the daily Mass, celebrated in a non-solemn form, the possibility of other readers proclaiming the biblical passages — except for the Gospel — is foreseen, even if it remains possible for the priest to read all the texts of the Liturgy of the Word. …

Mot slutten skriver han: …

Hvordan bør ‘ordets del’ av messen foregå?Les mer »

Liturgisk pluralisme i Kirken

Liturgi /

Etter å ha lest ei bok om katolsk liturgi som var 6-7 år gammel (Thomas Kosic: The Reform of the Reform), har jeg nå begynt på ei bok som kom ut i fjor (Kenneth Whitehead: Mass Misunderstandings) – og det har skjedd mye på få år, spesielt etter pave Benedikts motu proprio Summorum pontificum, der paven bl.a. krever (og siteres slik av Whitehead) at de som nå vil bruke den tradisjonelle messen også må godkjenne den nye messen. Altså ønsker paven ikke å gå tilbake til den gamle tradisjonen og utelukke den nye, men heller å la de tradisjonene leve side om side. Slik skriver Whitehead (og jeg syns det er ganske interessant):

… the pope seems to have quite genuinely aimed to foster what he considers to be legitimate liturgical pluralism in the Church, a position that he has long advocated. For example, in his Ratzinger Report, written more than twenty years earlier, the by-then cardinal-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that:

«Prior to Trent a multiplicity of rites and liturgies had been allowed within the Church. The Fathers of Trent took the liturgy of the city of Rome and prescribed it for the whole Church; they only retained those Western liturgies which had existed for more than two hundred years. This is what happened, for instance, with the Ambrosian rite of the Diocese of Milan. If it would foster devotion in many believers and encourage respect for the piety of particular Catholic groups, I would personally support a return to the ancient situation, i.e., to a certain liturgical pluralism. Provided, of course, that the legitimate character of the reformed rites was emphatically affirmed, and that there was a clear delineation of the extent and nature of such an exception permitting the celebration of the preconciliar liturgy.»

This is exactly what Pope Benedict XVI effected more than twenty years later with his motu proprio. He has been nothing if not consistent in all of this. … …

“United in Communion, but not Absorbed”

Liturgi, Økumenikk /

Biskop Elliott i Melbourne, Australia, som jeg skrev om i går (se her), hadde da visse innvendinger mot den tradisjonelle latinske messen, men har nå begynt å feire den selv. En av grunnene til hans forandring er at artikkelen jeg da siterte, var skrevet for 6-8 år siden, og nå etter pave Benedikts Summorum Pontificum er situasjonen blitt ganske ny. Dessuten var Elliot i mot en viss type TLM, der presten og ministrantene holdt på med noe for selv oppe ved alteret, mens folket gjorde andre ting – sang salmer vanligvis. Messen han her feiret (les mer om den her) er jo ikke slik; det var en messe der celebrantene, alle hans assistenter, og folkt feiret det hellige messeofferet sammen.

Dette bildet er litt over to år gammelt, og biskop Elliott blir nevnt nå fordi har har blitt utpekt blant de australske, katolske biskopene til å ta imot anglikanerne som nå skal opptas i Kirken – bl.a. fordi Elliott selv vokste opp i Den anglikanske kirke, som prestesønn til og med. Om oppgaven han nå har fått sier han selv:

… the members of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference appointed me their Delegate for the Australian project of establishing “a Personal Ordinariate for Anglicans who wish to enter full communion with the Catholic Church”, to use the words of Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus.

Before I explain what this involves, I should introduce myself. I was born into Anglicanism, in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. My father, Rev. Leslie Llewelyn Elliott, was for some time President of the Australian Church Union. While studying theology at Oxford, in St Stephen’s House, I followed my conscience and was reconciled to “Rome” in 1968. … …

Am I grateful for my Anglican heritage? Yes, I am. Where did I first learn the Catholic Faith? At home, in the vicarage.

Therefore I rejoiced when news of the Ordinariate came from Rome. I have been hoping for something like this for years, having addressed Forward in Faith Australia on the “Roman option” in 2006. As that talk indicates, I never imagined such a generous provision would be made in response to traditional Anglican appeals to Rome.

But what does Pope Benedict’s welcome and offer involve? You have to be clear about this before saying “yes”, “no”, even “maybe”.

The Pastor of the nations is reaching out to give you a special place within the Catholic Church. United in communion, but not absorbed – that sums up the unique and privileged status former Anglicans will enjoy in their Ordinariates. …

Les videre her.

Monsignor Peter J. Elliott skriver om “reform av liturgireformen”

Liturgi /

Helt til slutt i Thomas Kociks bok «The Reform of the Reform?» (som jeg har skrevet om flere ganger før: HER, HER, HER, HER og HER), står det en artikkel av msgr. Peter J. Elliott (biskop i Melbourne fra 2007, les om ham HER) – som jeg kjenner godt fra boka: Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite (Ignatius Press, 1995), som jeg kjøpte og leste grundig for ti år siden. Det er ei bok som grundig går gjennom bestemmelser om hvordan messen skal feires etter Novus ordo.

Elliot er i utgangspunktet ikke i det hele tatt enig med tradisjonalistene i deres syn på den gamle og den nye messen. Han skriver f.eks. at det var godt at man kom bort fra den stille messens (som dominerte i søndagsmesser og svært mange steder) tablå-aktige messefeiring (der prest og ministranter stod nokså fjernt og feiret messen). Likevel er han kritisk til måten den nye messen ofte feires på; på upresise rubrikker, på friheter mange prester tar seg osv. Her er altså en ekte representant for «reform av reformen»-liturgene, og her er et lite utdrag fra hans kapittel:

Some have criticized the transition as exchanging the role of a eucharistic celebrant for that of a eucharistic preacher, hence a move toward a Protestant style of worship. Certainly, in not a few churches we now find a rather didactic or homiletic style of celebrating Mass, so that the altar becomes a pulpit. But it would be more accurate to perceive the influence of mass media communication in the transition. A speaker on television seeks to create an impression of intimacy and dialogue. Again, decades of expanding television create a historical context that is an important factor to bear in mind.
… …

It is obvious that the role of the people changed from silent participation to active involvement, although this had been pioneered well before the Council in the Latin dialogue Mass. The opening out of the ceremonial action as it affected the laity was more evident in the emerging lay ministries … …

I do not criticize this steady transition from the liturgical tableau of Low Mass to the open action of the Missa normativa. …

Monsignor Peter J. Elliott skriver om “reform av liturgireformen”Les mer »

Reform av reformen – del 3: Aidan Nichols vurdering av reformbevegelsen

Liturgi /

Fr. Aidan Nichols skriver også et kapittel i Thomas Kociks boks «The Reform of the Reorm». Han diskuterer om katolikker flest virkelig liker den nye liturgien bedre enn den gamle. Sannsynligvis ikke, konkluderer han (men her kan man ikke være sikker), og så fortsetter han (på en avansert og elegant måte, så man må konsentrere seg litt når man leser):

Even were it the case, however, that the Church public is by and large adequately satisfied with the form of worship customarily offered to them in the modern Poman rite, it is still possible to assert that they should not be. The Church is not a business, whose management can rest content if its customers express consumer satisfaction. To «feel comfortable with a worship situation» is an infallible sign that we have missed the real meaning of the liturgy in its sacrality, its difference, its supernatural power. If we are to use commercial analogies here, then we must say of the Church that she is in the business of making people realize they have needs they have barely dreamed of. Because we are made in the image of God, made to tend to our divine archetype when he appears to us in the suffering and glorified God-man Jesus Christ, we have a need precisely not to be confirmed in our ordinary everyday personas by the easy uplift of a worship that consists in quickly appropriated words and sounds. By an apparent paradox, we need the liturgy not to be intrusively relevant to the secular roles that the society of a fallen world constructs for us. We need the liturgy to estrange us from our ordinary workaday selves by enabling us to find a new identity in those voices that speak there of adoration, purification, and the endless transcendence of the peace beyond all understanding of the City of God.

These are the most important tasks that the historic liturgies of Christendom have performed, and from them flow their power to affect us at the deepest level of our being—to bring us not only consolation in the face of unnegotiable evils but also courage to change the world. The power of the Mass to unsettle us and to give us a vocation that takes us beyond our secular identity and the duties we share with others as fellow citizens derives from the identity of the Mass, at its heart, with the Sacrifice of Calvary, considered as the saving revelation of the Holy Trinity, with whom we commune in eucharistic reception, thus anticipating our share in that suffering turned to everlasting joy which is, please God, our destiny in heaven. At every Mass we are to see the Crucified in his glory; and when we communicate, we are to receive him in his own person as he gives us by anticipation a share in the life of blessed sacrifice that is the Holy Trinity, and which will be ours in fullness-if only we cooperate with it-at the end of time.

It follows that three doctrines of the Church about the Holy Eucharist constitute a series of indispensable litmus tests for the right functioning of the liturgical organism that is the Church. …

Reform av reformen – del 3: Aidan Nichols vurdering av reformbevegelsenLes mer »

Reform av reformen – del 2: Forslag til hvordan liturgien kan reformeres

Liturgi /

Fr. Harrison skriver – etter at han går gjennom hva Vatikankonsilet skrev om liturgien (som jeg nevnte her) – så hvordan han syns den nye reformerte, nye liturgien bør være:

1 Latin has not been abandoned and is retained for almost the entire Ordinary of the Mass.

2 Only the Roman Canon (the first Eucharistic Prayer) is used. Vatican II never even hinted at the composition of new Eucharistic Prayers, not even as options. Even if the newly composed ones were in themselves of equal quality with the old-which is questionable, especially with no. 2, which now seems to be the most frequently used-they represent in effect the creation of a new rite, not the revision of the old. Gamber insists that to change anything so central as the 1500 year-old Canon-the very heart of the Roman rite and the fundamental defining point of its very identity in comparison with other rites-«is synonymous with the destruction of the rite in its entirety». And the Council certainly never dreamed of any such abolition of the old rite in order to replace it with a newly invented one.

3 In our alternate revision, none of those existing Offertory prayers has been removed that clearly expressed the sacrificial character of the Mass. …

Reform av reformen – del 2: Forslag til hvordan liturgien kan reformeresLes mer »

Reform av reformen – del 1: Hva sa egentlig Vaticanum II om liturgien?

Liturgi /

I Thomas Kociks bok «The Reform of the Reform» (som jeg har nevnt tidligere) er det også essay av andre forfattere, bl.a. Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., som skriver om » The Postconciliar Eucharistic Liturgy: Planning ‘a Reform of the Reform'». Essayet bygger visst på et foredrag fra 1994, og ser ut til å være grunnlaget for ‘reform av reformen’-bevegelsen – selv om Kosics for er fra 2003.

Harrison ser ikke at den gamle liturgien kan være brukbar for framtida, selv om han selv har feira den nokså regelmessig i flere år; han har tanker om at framtidas liturgi må være en slags mellomting mellom ny og gammel form. Men før han foreslår hvordan liturgien kan reformeres, setter han søkelyset på hva Vatikankonsilets dokument Sacrosanctum Concilium virkelig sa (for han mener at den nye liturgien ikke er hva konsilet ønsket), og sier:

Let us now review briefly the fundamental principles laid down by Vatican II. Above all, it will be necessary to keep in the forefront of our minds as an overall guiding principle the conciliar Constitution’s words in article 7:

The liturgy, then, is rightly seen as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ…. From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the Priest and of his Body, which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others.

That is, the liturgy is first and foremost the action of our Lord himself, not simply our action and our invention. It is a sacred mystery that we receive and enter into, rather than something we create for ourselves. It could even be said that neglect of this great truth is the basic source of all the postconciliar liturgical confusion, in which the human continuity and its activity and «creativity» have come to predominate over the divine presence and the divine activity.

In keeping with this overall guiding principle, Sacrosanctum Concilium lays down several «general norms» » that are to be observed in all liturgical revision, including the following, which has unfortunately been very much neglected: …

Reform av reformen – del 1: Hva sa egentlig Vaticanum II om liturgien?Les mer »

Eksempel på hvordan liturgiske forandringer ble gjennomført på 70-tallet

Liturgi /

Jeg nevnte Father Stravinskas’ artikkel om den nye engelske oversettelsen av messen nylig. I denne artikkelen skriver han også noe interessant (og sjokkerende) om hvordan messeforandringene ble innført i USA på 70-tallet. Bl.a. måtte alle prestene tre påfølgende søndager i 1977 forklare menigheten hvorfor håndkommunion teologisk sett var å foretrekke – og prester som vegret seg mot å forklare dette (som de selv var dypt uenig i), ble visst truet med å bli suspendert. Slik skriver han (og bakgrunnen er at den nye engelske oversettelsen av messen også bør forberedes i menighetene):

Father Ryan writes that “before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program…” The author makes such efforts sound almost sinister, but in my book he is simply describing the process of catechesis. I hope that this process will be better handled than the “carefully orchestrated education program” that followed the postconciliar liturgical changes. In 1977 priests throughout the country were required to preach for three consecutive weekends, not simply on the issue of Communion-in-the-hand, but on why it should be done. Many priests who balked at the historically inaccurate catechetical materials were harassed by liturgical directors and even threatened by bishops with suspension. It seems that many of those who pushed for the reforms are waking up to find their program repudiated and have now become conservatives, opposed to change.

Her er hele artikkelen.

En svært interessant artikkel om den nye engelske oversettelsen av messen

Liturgi /

I USA og delvis i England har (utrolig nok noen prester) sammen med lokfolk tatt initiativet til å prøve å forpurre den nye oversettelsen av messen til Engelsk. Jeg sysn det er utrolig, siden den nye og mer nøyaktige oversettelsen av messen er utført etter direktiv fra Vatikanet opg er nå blitt gogkjent av alle engelskspråklige bispekonferanser i hele verden. Nylig har Father Peter Stravinskas skrevet et interessant stykke i Jesuittenes tidsskrift «America» der omtaler dette, og også på en interessant måte kaster lys over hvordan den første oversettelsen, tidlig på 70-tallet, ble (så dårlig) som den ble. Han skriver bl.a.:

I was a freshman in high school when the “vernacularization” of the liturgy began and a junior in college seminary when the process reached its climax. Having majored in classical languages, I naturally was quite interested in the process and flattered when I was invited by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) to participate in the translation effort. Frankly, I was also surprised that someone of my thin experience had been asked to take part in a project that would influence the spiritual lives of millions of Catholics for decades to come.

When I first reviewed the translation guidelines sent by ICEL, I was disappointed. Ideology, it seemed, had taken precedence over accuracy. Anima was not to be rendered as “soul,” I was informed, because doing so would set up an unnecessary dichotomy between body and soul. No feminine pronouns were to be used for the church, and common words were favored over precise theological or liturgical vocabulary. The goal was to capture the general meaning of the text, rather than a faithful rendering of a rich and historically layered Latin prose. I tried to work within these parameters, but I found it difficult to do and still remain true to the original text. My translations were evidently unsatisfactory because, upon submitting them, I was politely but firmly uninvited from serving on the commission.

When the English Missale Romanum appeared in 1970, it was clear we had been handed a paraphrase instead of a translation. As a young priest required to use these texts, I quickly determined that something needed to be done to return to the people of God what Father Ryan dubs “their baptismal birthright” – that is, an English liturgy that seeks to convey all the depth, truth and beauty of the original Latin. By 1992, I had assembled a team of scholars who produced an alternative translation of the Ordinary of the Mass and presented that effort to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy in Washington, D.C., and the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. Hostility was the response from Washington – copies of our draft were gathered and destroyed at the bishops’ meeting – while Rome expressed a guarded interest in our project.

Ultimately, the Holy See came to the realization that many of the vernacular translations of the liturgy were problematic. (English was not the only example, just one of the more egregious.) In 2001 the Congregation for Divine Worship promulgated Liturgiam Authenticam setting forth a coherent philosophy of translation. The document called for revised translations in keeping with these norms and the establishment of an oversight committee, Vox Clara, to ensure the fidelity of future translations. … …

Les hele artikkelen her.

‘70-tallstrend’ inntar Den norske kirke – de går motsatt vei i forhold til katolikker og ortodokse

Liturgi /

Vårt Land fortsetter sin artikkelrekke om liturgien – fra sist uke, der de skrev om katolikkenes ryddesjau. Nå vurderer man Den norske kirkes planer om liturgiforandringer, og Ole martin Stamnestrø (jeg har skrevet om ham og hans oppgave bl.a.a HER, HER og HER).

«Stående mottakelse av nattverden. Brød istedenfor oblater. Alterbord plassert midt i rommet. Selv står presten vendt mot folket. Oldkirken som det store idealet. Større valgmuligheter for menighet og prest i avviklingen av det som er selve hjertet i kirkens liv: gudstjenestefeiringen.

Dette er noen av de viktigste endringene som er foreslått i forbindelse med den nært forestående gudstjenestereformen i Den norske kirke. De minner mye om det Den anglikanske kirke gjorde i sine reformer i 1980 og 2000, og ikke minst hva Den romersk katolske kirke gjorde for ganske nøyaktig 40 år siden. sier en av Norges fremste liturgieksperter, Ole Martin Stamnestrø.

Men det har skjedd mye innen den liturgiske forskningen siden den gang, påpeker Stamnestrø, som har doktorgrad i liturgikk fra Universitetet i Oxford og i dag studerer ved St. Eystein katolske presteseminar. … …

Det viser seg at det som var populært på 70-tallet, og gjerne var begrunnet ut ifra en oldkirkelig praksis, ikke var så entydig som man den gang trodde, påpeker Ole Martin Stamnestrø.

Det er mye godt med «tilbake til oldkirken»-bevegelsen. Men i en katolsk og ortodoks liturgisk tradisjon blir det problematisk hvis det fører til at vi slår en strek over den praksisen som har utviklet seg siden. Vi regner jo med at Den Hellige Ånd har ledet oss i århundrene mellom også, sier Stamnestrø.»

(Stamnestrø sier så videre at Den norske kirke selvsagt gjøre som de vil med sin liturgi, ut fra sine egne teologiske forutsetninger. Deretter avsluttes Vårt Lands artikkel slik:

«Den katolske kirke er «verdenskirken», og liturgien er noe som kommer til oss «ovenfra». Da er lokal tilpasning og valgfrihet mer problematisk enn hvis man har en protestantisk kirkeforståelse, hvor liturgien kommer «nedenfra».

– Var det protestantisk tankegods som slo inn med 2. Vatikankonsil?

Det ble jo ikke begrunnet med at det var protestantisk men at det var oldkirkelig. Ratzinger har gitt uttrykk for at det avslører en mer protestantisk kirkeforståelse enn man til da hadde vært vant til. Samtidig har det også innen den katolske kirke vært åpent for variasjon, for tanken om liturgiens objektivitet forutsetter ikke en uniformitet. Men jo nærmere man kommer sentrum i liturgien, nattverden, desto viktigere blir det objektive aspektet. For a sette det helt på spissen: At man kan ha en valgfri form på inngangssalmen er en ting, men valgfrie innstiftelsesord er noe ganske annet.»

Skroll til toppen