Teologi

Intervju med Fast Grunn – om økumeniske spørsmål

Generelt, Teologi, Økumenikk /

Jeg ble for noen uker siden intervjuet av tidsskriftet Fast Grunn, som ville utgi et nummer om kirkelig splittelse. Her er intervjuet etter at det ble skrevet ut og korrigert litt av meg selv:

Kirken har en lang historie med splittelser bak seg. Noen av disse splittelsene er leget, mens andre vedvarer. Ulike retninger ser svært ulikt på hverandre. Fast Grunn snakket med representanter fra to av de eldste kirkene – Den romersk-katolske kirke og Den ortodokse kirke.

Oddvar Moi, prest i Den romersk-katolske kirke

Hvordan forholder den romersk-katolske kirke seg til de mange splittelsene vi ser i kristenheten? Hva er deres selvforståelse i dette bildet?

Vi katolikker regner kirken som udelt fram til skismaet i 1054 og ser på de ortodokse som like gamle og tradisjonelle. Det vi mener er det mest avgjørende punktet overfor de ortodokse handler om anerkjennelsen av pavens overordnede posisjon.

Når det gjelder reformasjonen i vest, er vi mer kritiske. I et dokument fra Vatikanet i 2000, Dominus Jesus, ble det blant annet slått fast at vi vi stiller krav til at en kirke har et utbygd episkopat for å kunne anerkjennes som fullt ut en kirke. De som ikke har et ordentlig bispeembete – med den apostoliske suksesjon – kan vi ikke kalle kirke, men heller kirkelignende trossamfunn. Vi anerkjenner i denne sammenheng den ortodokse ordinasjonen.

Hva er deres lære/oppfatning av spørsmålet om hvorvidt medlemmer av andre kristne kirkesamfunn kan oppnå evig salighet dersom de står utenfor den romersk-katolske kirke?

Her er dåpen aller viktigst. Men når katolikker er på sitt strengeste, vil vi si at en person som er fullt overbevist om at den katolske kirke er den sanne kirke, og likevel lar være å bli medlem, vil han ha et problem med sin frelsessak. Men i tilfeller hvor for eksempel en protestant ikke er overbevist om dette, men er døpt og tror på Gud, ja, da tror vi at han blir frelst.

Et annet spørsmål er de som ikke har hørt? Har de fått noen mulighet? Vi tror at slike personer vil på en eller annen måte få en mulighet til å komme inn i fellesskap med Jesus. Og i den sammenheng vil jeg understreke at det nevnte dokumentet, Dominus Jesus, tydelig fastslår at det er kun gjennom Jesus frelsen er mulig.

Hvordan forholder katolikker seg til henholdsvis orientalske (koptere, assyriske etc.), ortodokse og protestantiske kristne? Hvem står dere nærmest og hvem står dere lengst fra? Hvilke lærepunkter anses som viktigst og mest presserende å løse for å kunne komme nærmere hverandre?

I mange områder av Midtøsten og Etiopia finner vi gamle, orientalske kirker som står i fellesskap med paven og Den romersk-katolske kirke. I liturgien følger noen av disse mer eller mindre latinsk ritus (liturgi), mens de fleste følger ortodoks ritus av ulik art. Vi godtar også at de følger ortodoks dåpspraksis i stedet for latinsk, og gir konfirmasjon og kommunion sammen med barnedåpen. Disse kirkene har stor frihet og selvstyre, men felles for dem alle er at de er godkjent av paven og anerkjenner hans spesielle posisjon.

Når det gjelder de ortodokse ellers, er det punktet med pavens ledelse som vi ønsker at de skal endre.

De protestantiske kristne utgjør et større problem. Og dette er, som nevnt, særlig knyttet til kirkesyn og embetssyn. For oss er den apostoliske suksesjon veldig viktig. Det handler om overgivelse av myndighet og det handler om at det er knyttet ulik myndighet og ulike oppgaver til embetene i hierarkiet. Ingen kan ordinere uten en biskop, og vi kan ikke feire nattverd uten en prest.

Det økumeniske arbeidet viser også en viss differensiering. Man tok først, i 1963 et møte med de ortodokse, der fordømmelsene ble trukket tilbake. Deretter fulgte anglikanerne og siden lutheranerne, hvor særlig felleserklæringen om rettferdiggjørelsen var viktig. Siden har vi også ført samtaler med andre protestanter. Da mormonerne henvendte seg, ble det bl.a. erklært at deres dåp ikke er gyldig. Dette skyldes mest at de ikke har dåp i Faderens, Sønnens og Den hellige ånds navn.

Hvordan vil du fra et katolsk perspektiv vurdere uenigheten i Den norske kirke om homofil vigsel? Hvordan ville en slik diskusjon sett ut blant katolikker? Ville det ført til brudd/ splittelse/ ekskommunikasjon, eller har dere en struktur/organisering som gjør det mulig å leve med store spenninger?

En viktig forskjell er at verken prester eller lekfolk ville hatt noe med debatten å gjøre. Det foregår på helt andre nivåer, blant biskopene.

I selve homofilisaken vil vi også argumentere annerledes og legge naturretten til grunn i større grad. For at et ekteskap skal kunne inngås etter katolsk syn, må ekteparet si seg villige (og ha mulighet) til å motta barn.

Et annet eksempel kan være vielse av gjengifte. Ingen katolsk prest vil på eget initiativ vie en fraskilt, ganske enkelt fordi ekteskapet da vil være ugyldig. Gjengifte er kun lov dersom det første ekteskapet erklæres ugyldig. Det er en ganske lang prosess, via en kirkelig domstol (tribunal) at dette kan skje. Så det å presse gjennom forandring ved hjelp av ulydighet er mye mindre attraktivt.

I Den romersk-katolske kirke finnes det noen svært radikale grupper som kan gjøre ting som er langt over grensen for hva som er akseptabelt. Reaksjonen mot slike er i ytterste konsekvens ekskommunisering – at de stenges ute fra Kirkens kommunion.

Intervju med pave (emeritus) Benedikt

Paven, Teologi /

Det har nylig blitt offentliggjort et intervju med pave (emeritus) Benedikt XVI, som tar opp temaer som «mercy and our need for forgiveness, salvation through the cross, the necessity of baptism, and the importance of sharing in Christ’s redeeming love.» Intervjuet ble gjort i oktober i fjor, før en konferanse om rettferdiggjørelse og tro i Roma (i Jesuittenes kirke Il Jesu) – der teksten ble lest opp av erkebiskop Georg Gänswein.

Forandringer i synet på rettferdiggjørelse blir tatt opp tidlig i intervjuet, er der leser vi bl.a.:

For the man of today, compared to those of the time of Luther and to those holding the classical perspective of the Christian faith, things are in a certain sense inverted, or rather, is no longer man who believes he needs justification before God, but rather he is of the opinion that God is obliged to justify himself because of all the horrible things in the world and in the face of the misery of being human, all of which ultimately depend on Him. In this regard, I find it significant that a Catholic theologian may profess even in a direct and formal this inverted position: that Christ did not suffer for the sins of men, but rather, as it were, had «canceled the guilt of God.» Even if most Christians today would not share such a drastic reversal of our faith, we could say that all of this reveals an underlying trend of our times. When Johann Baptist Metz argues that theology today must be “sensitive to theodicy”, this highlights the same problem in a positive way. Even rescinding from such a radical contestation of the Church’s vision of the relationship between God and man, the man of today has in a very general way the sense that God cannot let most of humanity be damned. In this sense, the concern for the personal salvation of souls typical of past times has for the most part disappeared. …

Også vanskelige spørsmål om frelse og misjon tas opp i intervjuet:

… There is no doubt that on this point we are faced with a profound evolution of dogma. While the fathers and theologians of the Middle Ages could still be of the opinion that, essentially, the whole human race had become Catholic and that paganism existed now only on the margins, the discovery of the New World at the beginning of the modern era radically changed perspectives. In the second half of the last century it has been fully affirmed the understanding that God cannot let go to perdition all the unbaptized and that even a purely natural happiness for them does not represent a real answer to the question of human existence. If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost – and this explains their missionary commitment – in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council that conviction was finally abandoned.

From this came a deep double crisis. On the one hand this seems to remove any motivation for a future missionary commitment. Why should one try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it? But also for Christians an issue emerged: the obligatory nature of the faith and its way of life began to seem uncertain and problematic. If there are those who can save themselves in other ways, it is not clear, in the final analysis, why the Christian himself is bound by the requirements of the Christian faith and its morals. If faith and salvation are no longer interdependent, faith itself becomes unmotivated.

Sannhetens medarbeidere

Paven, Teologi /

Coat_of_arms_Ratzinger_l En presteblogger i England, Fr Ray Blake, har skrevet et interessant innlegg om pave Benedikt og hans vektlegging på sannheten. Han skriver bl.a.:

… … Truth was front and centre of the Benedictine pontificate, and along with it a certain intellectual precision and a desire to define precisely what we mean and what the Church believes. This type of precision was always at the heart of Ratzinger’s ministry, it was there in his time of Prefect of the CDF. I think a great turning point occurred with his commissioning of Cardinal Schönborn to produce the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I remember speaking to a seminarian who said, «Until the Catechism was published in 1994 we were told any old rubbish was Catholic teaching, then we were able to check for ourselves. It was amazing the effect a copy of it in a seminary class room on even the most way out lecturer». Therefore 1994 became a significant turning point, when ‘the faith’ was placed in the hands of ordinary Catholics, rather than something which was claimed by ‘specialists’. Another great turning point was Dominus Jesus in 2000 which brought precision to our christology and ecclesiology.

Benedict’s pontificate was a search for truth that animated countless Catholics, I suspect this was one of the reasons for the rise in numerous Catholic citizen journalists and the flourishing of the Catholic blogosphere. More importantly I believe that it gave rise to a culture for transparency, openness and accountability in the Church. Benedict made it possible for us to ask the simple question, «Is this true?» and to expect an answer, He gave us a point of reference to understand that there were not many truths but one Truth and that this Truth is the Incarnate Word, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ himself an objective and real presence that should be at the heart of the Church. For Benedict a denial of Truth was a denial of Christ himself, an obfuscation of it an obfuscation of Christ, a lack of clarity about it, a lack of clarity about Christ.

Truth for Benedict was the disinfecting sun-light, it was the answer to corruption and self-seeking within the Church, as much as it was to false teaching or to obfuscation or a lack of transparency or on a more mundane level bishops covering up child abuse, financial corruption or lobby groups, gay or otherwise, or plain heresy.

The search for Truth seems to have stimulated vocations to the priesthood, it certainly gave an impetus to Catholic intellectual life and the desire of Catholic intellectuals to teach and give ordinary Catholics an intellectual underpinning to their faith. … …

Nyttig og oppdatert bok om messens utvikling

Liturgi, Teologi, Økumenikk /

spinks_eucharist Do this in Remembrance of Me: The Eucharist from the Early Church to the Present Day av Bryan D. Spinks er den siste oversiktsboka over messens utvikling jeg har med meg, og jeg har lest den ferdig i dag. (De siste bøkene jeg har med meg på dette studieoppholdet handler mer om liturgisk utvikling de siste 100 år – og jeg kommer tilbake til dem.)

Jeg må si at jeg likte Spinks bok svært godt; den viser et helt oppdatert (den er fra 2013) bilde av liturgihistorien, og er skrevet på en saklig og ryddig måte. (Bl.a. slår den klart fast at den såkalte Apostoliske Tradisjon (Hippolytus) ikke kan brukes til å beskrive den liturgiske tradisjonen i Roma.) Den beskriver mange liturgiske tradisjoner (den egyptiske og den etiopiske kjente jeg f.eks. lite til fra før) og ser også på reformasjonens forandringer (her er jeg riktignok mye mer interessert i den lutherske enn den reformerte eller radikale reformasjonens liturgi). De mange fotnotene og den fyldige bibliografien gir også mye viktig informasjon.

Amazon skriver om boka:

Bryan Spinks’s book is an outstanding new manual on the historical development of the Eucharist. It is excellent not only because it connects liturgical texts and rituals with Eucharistic theologies, but also because of its wide range, varying from the New Testament data to current practice in East and West; from the early Anaphoras to present-day Dutch Table Prayers and internet liturgies; and from the ancient Ethio-Eritrean tradition to contemporaneous Pentecostalism. Bryan Spinks displays great scholarship, investigating the primary sources in many regions, languages, and eras. This will be a ‘classic’, a standard work on Eucharistic liturgies and theologies for many years to come.

Nest siste bok om messens utvikling og teologi

Liturgi, Teologi /

gihr_eucharist Den nest siste store oversiktboka over messens liturgi jeg har sett på er The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Liturgically, Dogmatically and Ascetically Explained av Fr Nicholas Gihr. Den ble utgitt i 1902, men er ny utgitt i nylig, min utgave (fotostatkopi) er fra 2013.

En anmeldelse av denne bok hos Amazon er svært positiv:

The book explains ever aspect of the Mass in minute detail. It covers topics from the virtue of religion and the meaning and efficacy of sacrifice to the two kinds of merit in the Mass, intrinsic and extrinsic–intrinsic being infinite and dependent on Christ, extrinsic being finite and dependent on man–to the use and meaning of light at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the liturgical act of the fraction of the host and the mingling of the consecrated elements. It explains in detail every prayer and gesture of the of the ancient rite of Mass!

Dessverre fant jeg ikke selv boka særlig nyttig; jeg fant ikke noen virkelig drøfting av temaet (hva betyr det at messen er et offer?) i den, mer en oppregning av (litt slagordpregede) meninger. Det er nok også et problem at boka er over 100 år gammel.

Jeg har vært opptatt av hva det betyr at messen er et offer i flere år, og har forsøkt å finne bøker som tar opptemaet – men etter flere forsøk har jeg funnet lite nyttig. Unntaket er Sacrifice and Community: Jewish Offering and Christian Eucharist, skrevet av professor Matthew Levering og utgitt i 2005. Denne boka leste jeg i desember i fjor og skrev om HER, HER og HER.

En del av liturgireformen etter konsilet bygger på feil premisser

Katolsk, Liturgi, Teologi /

Med denne overskrifta sikter jeg spesielt til messens (Novus Ordo) andre eukaristiske bønn, den skulle visstnok bygge på en romersk eukaristisk bønn fra 200-tallet, funnet i skriftet Den apostoliske tradisjon, og være skrevet av en prest som heter Hippolytus. Men de siste 15-20 år har man forstått at dette faktisk ikke er tilfelle. Den kjente liturgen/ teologen John F. Baldovin, S.J. (som ikke er spesielt konservativ) skrev i 2003 om dette i tidsskriftet Theological Studies, Nr. 64 – og jeg leste artikkelen i går. Fr Baldovin skriver bl.a.:

When I was a student, the commonly accepted opinion on the Apostolic Tradition ran something like this: Here we have a church order that gives us data on important ecclesiastical practices from the early-third century. The writer was a presbyter/theologian, named Hippolytus, who opposed Bishop Callistus of Rome over the latter’s laxity in readmitting sinners to church fellowship. He thus became a schismatic anti-pope, but was reconciled before his death as a martyr. A conservative, he advocated ancient usages of the Church. A crusty old parish priest unwilling to abide by his bishop’s liturgical innovations, he set down in a single document these rather antiquarian rules for liturgy and church conduct.

Nothing about this synthesis is correct. The title of the document in question is not the Apostolic Tradition. It cannot be attributed to Hippolytus, an author whose corpus of biblical commentaries and anti-heretical treatises is somewhat well known. As a matter of fact it is even doubtful whether the corpus of that writer can actually be attributed to a single writer. Finally, the document does not give us certain information about the liturgical practice of the early-third-century Roman Church.

Why then is it important to revisit the document? The importance of the so-called Apostolic Tradition consists mainly in its use by modern students in constructing the early history of the liturgy, and its use as the foundation of contemporary liturgical practice. Three examples will suffice: (1) The Second Eucharistic Prayer of the post-Vatican II Roman Rite (not to mention similar prayers used by a number of Anglican and Protestant churches) finds its inspiration in the anaphora given in chapter four of the Apostolic Tradition. (2) The ordination prayers of the Roman Rite have been influenced by the document. And (3), as a colleague once put it, the Roman Catholic adult catechumenate would never have taken its present shape without the framework provided by Hippolytus.

How, then, did we arrive at this false synthesis known as the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome and what can we say today about the putative author and provenance of the document? …

Dette er en lærd artikkel på 23 sider, med svært mange fotnoter, så jeg må hoppe over det meste og bare ta med meg Fr Baldovins avslutning:

(1) The first conclusion is obvious, namely that, in its present state, the document commonly but probably mistakenly referred to as the Apostolic Tradition does not represent the state of affairs in the Church at Rome in the early-third century. While Rome cannot be completely ruled out as one of the places that the document originated, it seems far more likely that it was “born” in the East, perhaps even Alexandria …

(2) One can speak only cautiously of authorship of a document that consists of church regulations. It is a piece of “living literature.” At the most, one can say that there are some phrases that point to the compilers’ familiarity with the work attributed to the Hippolytus of the Contra Noetum and that some elements in the document have a second-century origin.

(3) The current state of research favors a picture of church order and ministerial structure in transition, if not necessarily at Rome, then perhaps in various churches of the third century.

(4) There is a very real possibility that the Apostolic Tradition describes liturgies that never existed. A fortiori, great caution must be employed in appealing to this document to justify contemporary rites. …

(5) Many doubts have been expressed here, and many questions left open. Even if the liturgies described in the so-called Apostolic Tradition never existed in practice, they have had a major impact on the subsequent history of liturgical practice especially and perhaps even ironically in the West. The document addressed in this study has shaped the contemporary liturgies of initiation, ordination, and Eucharist. Of this there can be no doubt at all.

Les hele artikkelen her.

Jeg leste også en artikkel Paul F. Bradshaw skriver om samme emne: Liturgy in the Absence of Hippolytus

Western Church in the Middle Ages – ganske interessant bok

Katolsk, Teologi /

thomson_western_church_l Western Church in the Middle Ages, skrevet John A. F. Thomson, var en ganske interessant bok, som tar for seg Kirkens historie i litt over 1000 år (fra 450 til 1515) – selv om den omtalt en hel del ting som jeg visste fra før. Slik skriver Amazon om boka:

From its origins in the ancient world as a rival to traditional paganism, Christianity has become one of the great world religions. How the Church took over spiritual control of Western Europe to become the foundation of medieval life, setting the moral agenda of society and dominating its intellectual world, is the guiding enquiry at the heart of this book.

Covering the period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Reformation, the account is structured in three chronological blocks, starting with the gradual development of unity within the Western Church up to the 11th century, followed by the period of centralization between the 11th and 13th centuries, and concluding with the break-up of this centralization in the later Middle Ages.

Organizational developments and changes in spirituality and doctrine are examined, and the history of the papacy is situated in the wider context of both ecclesiastical and lay society. Intellectual developments and the rise of heresy, at both elite and popular levels, are the focus of an exploration of the mental world of medieval Christendom.

Corpus Mysticum – en bok jeg ikke leste

Katolsk, Teologi /

lubac_corpus_mysticum_l Kardinal Henri Lubac, SJ, utga denne boka (på fransk) i 1944, men så vidt jeg forstår kom det ikke noen engelsk oversettelse før i 2011. Amazon skriver om boka:

One of the major figures of 20th century Catholic theology, Henri Cardinal de Lubac SJ was particularly renowned for his attention to the doctrine of the Church and its life within the contemporary world. In this book, de Lubac opens an initial exploration of the Church as made by the Eucharist and gives new expression to that mystery in which the Church is believed to consist. …. With the publication of this English translation of «Corpus Mysticum», this important text of contemporary Catholic ecclesiology and sacramental theology is made available to the Anglophone world and joins the substantial range of de Lubac’s works now accessible to scholars.

Lubac var på 50-tallet regnet som en svært radikal teolog, og Vatikanet ga ham faktisk undervisningsforbud og forhåndssensurerte alle hans bøker i nesten 10 år – men i 1958 var det slutt på hans problemer, og pave Johannes XXIII og Paul VI hadde stor tillit til ham. Innholdet i denne boka ser ut til å være en av de mest sentrale av Lubacs «oppdagelser». (Slik skriver Wikipedia)

Although the precise nature of his contribution during the council is difficult to determine, his writings were certainly an influence on the conciliar and post-conciliar periods, particularly in the area of Ecclesiology where one of his concerns was to understand the Church as the community of the whole people of God rather than just the clergy.

Muligens er dette grunnen til at jeg egentlig ikke klarte å lese denne boka, men bare skummet gjennom den; at Kirken er alle de troende og ikke bare presteskapet, er for opplagt for meg til å klare å lese 300 sider for å få det bevist.

Til sist om Lubac; han er en av de mange teologene som før konsilet ble regnet som radikal, men som etter konsilet mer og mer plasserte seg på den konservative fløyen. Wikipedia skriver også dette om ham:

In the years after Vatican II, de Lubac came to be known as a ‘conservative theologian’, his views completely in line with the magisterium—in contrast to his progressive reputation in the first part of his life. Contributing to this reputation, in 1972 de Lubac, alongside Joseph Ratzinger who later became Pope Benedict XVI, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann, founded the journal Communio—a journal which acquired a reputation as offering a more conservative theology than Concilium.

En ny forståelse av Kristi offer og messens offer

Katolsk, Liturgi, Teologi /

daily_sacrifice Jeg har nå lest ferdig ei bok jeg må innrømme at jeg ikke likte noe særlig. Det er Sacrifice Unveiled, The True Meaning of Christian Sarifice, skrevet av Robert Daly, SJ. Boka ble utgitt i 2009 men forfatteren har visst arbeidet med offer-temaet siden 60-tallet, og visst oppdaget mye nytt via fenomenoligiske og mimetiske teorier, og en grunnleggende forståelse av at offeret (og eukaristien) er Trinitarisk (hva nå det skal bety). I praksis fører det til at det er lite igjen av katolske forståelse av Kristi offer, og av eukaristien.

Daly har også skrevet en kortere framstilling av det boka handler om, og derfra siterer jeg:

… Traditional Western atonement theory — at least in its extreme, but all-too common forms — ultimately reduces to something like the following caricature: (1) God’s honor is damaged by sin; (2) God demanded a bloody victim to pay for this sin; (3) God is assuaged by the victim; (4) the death of Jesus the victim functioned as a payoff that purchased salvation for us.

Such a theory is literally monstrous in some of its implications. For when it is absolutized or pushed to its “theo-logical” conclusions and made to replace the Incarnation as central Christian doctrine, it tends to veil from human view (from Protestants as well as from Catholics) the merciful and loving God of biblical revelation. Despite my books and articles on the subject, I had for many years no satisfactory answer to this problem.

That changed when, serendipitously forced to edit Ed Kilmartin’s last book, I discovered the trinitarian understanding of sacrifice to which I now turn. Authentic Christian, that is, Trinitarian Understanding of Sacrifice Constantly fine-tuning my own understanding of it, … First of all, Christian sacrifice is not some object that we manipulate; it is not primarily a ceremony or ritual; nor is it something that we “do” or “give up.” For it is, first and foremost, something deeply personal: a mutually self-giving event that takes place between persons. Actually it is the most profoundly personal and interpersonal act of which a human being is capable or in which a human being can participate.

It begins in a kind of first “moment,” not with us but with the self-offering of God the Father in the gift-sending of the Son. Christian sacrifice continues its “process of becoming” in a second “moment,” in the self-offering “response” of the Son, in his humanity and in the power of the Holy Spirit, to the Father and for us. Christian sacrifice continues its coming-to-be, and only then does it begin to become Christian sacrifice in our lives when we, in human actions that are empowered by the same Spirit that was in Jesus, begin to enter into that perfect, en-spirited, mutually self-giving, mutually self-communicating personal relationship that is the life of the Blessed Trinity. …..

Mer om det katolsk-jødiske samtaledokumentet

Katolsk, Teologi /

Vatikanradioens svenske kontor har en grei oppsummering av dokumentet «THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE» (Rom 11:29), som nylig ble utgitt i Vatikanet, og som jeg skrev om her i går. De skriver bl.a.:

15des_katjodisk_samtale

… Dokumentet med titeln «Guds gåvor och kallelser är oåterkallelig», markerar 50-årsdagen av det Andra Vatikankonciliets banbrytande deklaration Nostra Aetate «. Det presenterades vid en presskonferens i Vatikanen av kardinal Kurt Koch och Norbert Hofmann från den judisk-katolska kommissionen, tillsammans med två judiska företrädare …

Dokumentet tar vid där Nostra Aetate slutade, ett halvt sekel senare och gräver djupare in i de taggiga teologiska frågorna som står i centrum för den judisk-katolska dialogen. Det publicerades på engelska, men finns på flera andra språk. Dokumentet som är indelad i sju avsnitt, och börjar med en kort genomgång av de förändrade relationerna mellan katoliker och judar, från att ha varit fiender och främlingar till att vara vänner och bröder» – som påven Franciskus nyligen uttryckte det.

Det upprepar det faktum att kyrkans dialog med judendomen inte kan betraktas i samma ljus som den interreligiösa relationen med andra religioner, och att kristendomen inte kan inte förstås på rätt sätt utanför den judiska kultur i vilken Jesus, hans familj och hans första lärjungar levde.

Dokumentet beskrivs som en studie, snarare än officiell kyrkolära, voch texten har utarbetats mödosamt under flera år med bidrag från både judiska kollegor och Troskongregationen i Vatikanen. I grunden är ligger de olika sätt på vilket judar och kristna förstår det uppenbarade Guds Ord – genom Torahns texter för de första och genom Kristi person för de andra.

Medan kristna har tidigare sett att Kristi liv i det Nya Testamentet är ett substitut eller ersätter det Gamla Testamentets berättelser om Guds utvalda folk, bekräftar detta dokument att Guds ursprungliga förbund med det judiska folket, aldrig kan återkallas. Detta leder till de svåraste frågorna för katoliker om hur judarna kan frälsas om de inte tror på Kristus som Messias och Guds Son. Detta dokument gör inte anspråk på att ha några definitiva svar, men det uppmanar troende att fortsätta att undersöka vad man kallar detta «outgrundliga gudomliga mysterium». …

Leserinnlegg: Vårt Land skriver feil om jøder og Jesus Kristus

Katolsk, Teologi /

Jeg leste et innlegg i Vårt land i går, lørdag 12/12, og skrev i dag følgende leserinnlegg til avisa, som jeg håper å få inn:

Vårt Land skriver feil om jøder og Jesus Kristus

Det pavelige råd for fremme av kristen enhet utga 10/12 et dokument for å markere 50-årsjubileet for Vatikankonsilets erklæring Nostra aetate, om Kirkens forhold til ikke-kristne religioner. Årets dokument handler bare om forholdet til jødene, og der sier man tydelig at det egentlig blir feil å kalle jødedom en annen religion, siden den kristne tro jo utgår fra denne. Man tar også tydelig avstand fra tanken om at Guds pakt med jødene skulle være tilbakelagt eller forkastet.Dette er vel ikke så veldig nytt, men dokumentet går også litt lenger enn mange kristne vil gjøre, ved å si at katolikker ikke bør drive institusjonelt misjonsarbeid blant jøder.

Dokumentet har blitt omtalt i mange aviser og tidsskrifter rundt om i verden, mer eller mindre presist, men én svært grov feil har jeg vel bare sett i VL , som faktisk to ganger skriver: «Jøder trenger ikke tro på Jesus for å bli frelst.» og «(det) slås fast at jøder kan bli frelst uavhengig av Jesus.»

Hvis dette hadde vært sant, hadde det selv sagt vært både overraskende og svært alvorlig, men dokumentet sier faktisk flere ganger det motsatte. Dokumentets 5. avsnitt kalles Det universelle i frelsen i Jesus Kristus og Guds fortsatte pakt med Israel, og der skriver man helt først, i art. 35: «Teorien om at det kan være to forskjellige veier til frelse, en jødisk vei uten Kristus og vei gjennom Kristus, som kristne tror er Jesus fra Nasaret, ville faktisk true grunnlaget for hele den kristne tro. Å bekjenne den universelle og derfor også eksklusive formidlingen av frelsen gjennom Jesus Kristus tilhører kjernen i kristen tro. Det samme gjør bekjennelsen av den ene Gud, Israels Gud, som gjennom sin åpenbaring i Jesus Kristus har blitt fullt ut åpenbart som Gud for alle folkeslag.»

Man ser så på det noe problematiske spørsmålet om hvordan man kan holde sammen sannheten at Jesus er hele verdens frelser med den andre sannheten, at Guds pakt med Israel ikke er opphevet, og man skriver i art. 37:. «Det er Kirkens tro at Kristus er frelser for alle. Det kan ikke være to måter å oppnå frelse, for Kristus er jødenes og hedningene forløser. Her møter vi et mysterium i Guds verk, som ikke egentlig er kristnes misjonærinnsats for å omvende jøder, men heller en forventning om at Herren vil sørge for at alle bli forent, når alle folk vil påkalle Gud med én stemme og tjene ham skulder ved skulder.»

Spørsmålet om hvordan jødene skal bli frelst, og hvordan de skal ledes til Jesus Kristus, er altså noe komplisert, men Den katolske Kirke gjentar også i dette dokumentet at Jesus er den eneste veien til frelse.

Oddvar Moi
katolsk prest, Oslo

Eukaristiens offerhandling hjelper oss til å ofre oss selv

Katolsk, Liturgi, Teologi /

Lvering_Sacrifice_Community Jeg har lest ferdig Matthew Leverings bok Sacrifice and Community, som han avslutter på denne måten (inkludert et sentralt og interessant sitat fra pave Benedikt):

… As Dostoevsky writes, «And so, man must unceasingly feel suffering [because of man’s sin], which is compensated for by the heavenly joy of fulfilling the law, that is, by sacrifice.»

In exploring Eucharistic theology in this book, I have argued that such radical communion is attained most fully on earth in the Eucharist, which as our sacrificial sharing in Christ’s sacrifice provides a foretaste of the radical communion that is heaven. In the sacrifice-sacrament of the Eucharist, we learn charity by offering with Christ his own saving sacrifice. The sacrament of the Eucharist is a “school” of charity; it builds the Church by enabling us to enact Christ’s sacrifice with him. In the liturgy of the Eucharist, we learn “Jesus Christ and him sacrificed” and thereby we “put on the whole armor of God”. …

… All aspects – theological and liturgical – of the Eucharist should therefore express our Eucharistic sharing in Christ’s cruciform Godwardness, which deifies us. Joseph Ratzinger has described the opposite situation, in which the liturgy of the Eucharist, not understood “ecstatically” as a sacrifice, finds its ground in itself rather than in God:

“The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is locked into itself. The common turning toward the East was not a «celebration toward the wall»; it did not mean that the priest «had his back to the people»: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together «toward the Lord». As one of the fathers of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, J. A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession toward the Lord. They did not close themselves into a circle, they did not gaze at one another, but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us.”

I would add that this “procession toward the Lord” advances only insofar as it is cruciform, that is to say insofar as the communion of the pilgrim People of God arises in and through Christ’s saving sacrifice and our Eucharistic (sacrificial) participation in it. …

Eukaristien og Kristi soningsoffer

Katolsk, Liturgi, Teologi /

Levering_Sacrifice_Community_l Jeg har akkurat lest ferdig kapittel 2 i Matthew Leverings bok Sacrifice and Community (som jeg skrev om her), et kapittel han kaller The Eucharist and Expiatory Sacrifice. Her sier han først at reformert jødedom og noen moderne kristne teologer egentlig ikke ønsker å snakke om soning for synd i det hele tatt. Levering, derimot, siterer Aquinas og Paulus svært grundig og viser at og hvordan menneskenes synder måtte sones for Gud, og hvordan Kristi offer på korset gjorde akkurat dette. Deretter knytter han dette sonofferet til eukaristien, og viser hvordan dette offeret gjentas i messens hellige offer «not as a distinct oblation, but a commemoration of that sacrifice which Chist offered». Og så avslutter han kapittelet slik:

… avoiding an idealist account of the Eucharist does require recognizing as the fulfillment of the «practice of Israel,» the expiatory character of Christ’s sacrifice within the created order constituted by relationships of justice. The Eucharist as a sacramental-sacrificial participation in Christ’s expiatory sacrifice, configures and nourishes Christ’s mystical body … (p 94)

Sakramental realisme eller idealisme?

Katolsk, Liturgi, Teologi /

Jeg har, som jeg skrev i går, begynt å lese Matthew Leverings bok Sacrifice and Community: Jewish Offering and Christian Eucharist. Her skriver Levering om sakramental/eukaristisk realisme eller idealisme, og starter med å undersøke hvordan Det nye testamente og den første kristne liturgien bygger på jødenes forståelse og tempeltjeneste. Det er tydelig at levering selv har mer tro på en liturgisk realisme heller enn en idealisme; slik omtaler og siterer han den jødiske teologen Wyschogrod, som skrev slik på 90-tallet:

For Wyschogrod, to conceive of a communion with God outside such sacrifice is to fall into rationalism. He writes: “Above all, sacrifice is not an idea, but an act. Prayer and repentance are ideas. They are contemplative actions, of the heart rather than the body. For this reason, rationalists of all times have been delighted by the termination of the sacrifices. For them, the “service of the heart” is self-evidently more appropriate for communication between man and their rational God than the bloodbaths of a Temple-slaughterhouse.”

It follows that the communion, from our side, is only real if sacrificial. Sacrificial worship affirms that communal sacrifice is the only posture in which we can, as creatures, truly enter into communion with God. Wyschogrod states: “Enlightened religion recoils with horror from the thought of sacrifice, preferring a spotless house of worship filled with organ music and exquisitely polite behavior. …”

Non-sacrificial communion involves neither the human being’s true (completely dependent) self, nor God’s presence transforming and embracing the full human being.

Sacrifice and Community: Jewish Offering and Christian Eucharist

Katolsk, Liturgi, Teologi /

Lvering_Sacrifice_Community
Jeg begynner nå å lese boka Sacrifice and Community: Jewish Offering and Christian Eucharist, skrevet av professor Matthew Levering og utgitt i 2005. Starten på bok virker lovende; Levering viser når og hvordan også katolske teologer (Luther hadde allerede gjort det) begynte å hevde at eukaristien hadde lite med offer å gjøre. (Det er ett av temaene jeg gjerne vil finne mer ut om disse studiemånedene.) På amazon.co.uk omtales boka bl.a. slik:

This book explores the character of the Eucharist as communion in and through sacrifice. Drawing on Jewish reflection upon the Aqedah (the near–sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham in Genesis), as well as on other critical analyses of sacrifice in Scripture, the book shows that communion is not possible without the reconciliation attained by sacrificial self–giving love. Following the insights of St Thomas Aquinas, the author argues that all aspects of Eucharistic theology, including metaphysical doctrines such as transubstantiation, depend upon recognizing that communion cannot be separated from its sacrificial context.

The book will stimulate discussion because of its controversial critique of the dominant paradigm for Eucharistic theology, its reclamation of St Thomas Aquinas s theology of the Eucharist, and its response to Pope John Paul II s Ecclesia de Eucharistia. …

Jon D. Levenson points out that Israel, marked by desire to be in communion with the all-holy God, recognizes that such communion is possible only, after sin, through sacrificial offering.

Hvorfor fikk vi de nye eukaristiske bønnene?

Katolsk, Liturgi, Teologi /

Jeg leste i dag tidlig en artikkel skrevet av P. Cassian Folsom, O.S.B., som tar opp dette temaet. Der skriver forfatteren bl.a.:

… For some 1600 years previously, the Roman rite knew only one Eucharistic Prayer: the Roman canon.

In the average parish today, Eucharistic Prayer II is the one most frequently used, even on Sunday. Eucharistic Prayer III is also used quite often, especially on Sundays and feast days. The fourth Eucharistic prayer is hardly ever used; in part because it is long, in part because in some places in the U.S. it has been unofficially banned because of its frequent use of the word «man». The first Eucharistic Prayer, the Roman canon, which had been used exclusively in the Roman rite for well over a millennium and a half, nowadays is used almost never. As an Italian liturgical scholar puts it: «its use today is so minimal as to be statistically irrelevant».

This is a radical change in the Roman liturgy. Why aren’t more people aware of the enormity of this change? Perhaps since the canon used to be said silently, its contents and merits were known to priests, to be sure, but not to most of the laity. Hence when the Eucharistic Prayer began to be said aloud in the vernacular, with four to choose from — and the Roman canon chosen rarely, if ever — the average layman did not realize that 1600 years of tradition had suddenly vanished like a lost civilization, leaving few traces behind, and those of interest only to archaeologists and tourists.

What happened? Why did it happen? How should we respond to the new situation? These questions are the subject matter of this essay.

Til spørsmålet om hvorfor dette skjedde, skriver han bl.a.:

1. Advances in liturgical studies

The first reason is quite straightforward. Decades of scholarly research in the area of the anaphora, both eastern and western, had resulted in a considerable corpus of primary texts and a corresponding body of secondary literature. …

2. Dissatisfaction with the Roman Canon and architectural functionalism

A second reason for the change from one Eucharistic Prayer to many was dissatisfaction, on the part of some liturgical scholars, with the Roman canon. I would like to argue that there is a connection between this dissatisfaction and 20th-century architectural functionalism.

The man who best illustrates this theory is Cipriano Vagaggini. In Vagaggini’s book on the Roman canon, prepared for Study Group 10 of the Consilium (the group responsible for implementing the Council’s reform), the basic argument in favor of change is that the Roman canon is marred by serious defects of structure and theology. Vagaggini summarizes his argument in these words: «The defects are undeniable and of no small importance. The present Roman canon sins in a number of ways against those requirements of good liturgical composition and sound liturgical sense that were emphasized by the Second Vatican Council.»

The structural defects show themselves in the disorderliness of the Canon, according to Vagaggini. It gives the impression of an agglomeration of features with no apparent unity, there is a lack of logical connection of ideas, and the various prayers of intercession are arranged in an unsatisfactory way. …

Not only is the Roman Canon marred by structural defects, according to Vagaggini, but there are a number of theological defects as well. The most grievous of these theological problems is the number and disorder of epicletic-type prayers in the canon and the lack of a theology of the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.

Liturgical historian Josef Jungmann counters this critique of Vagaggini’s by pointing out that Vagaggini is a systematic theologian who wanted to impose a certain preconceived theological structure on the Eucharistic Prayer. Since Vagaggini had a particularly keen interest in the pneumatological dimension of the liturgy, his new Eucharistic Prayers (III and IV) give a decided emphasis to the Holy Spirit.

Jungmann refers to Vagaggini’s famous book, Il senso teologico della liturgia to reinforce his argument. What we have here, says Jungmann, is the personal theology of the author, not the universal theology of the Church. …

Verken Jungmann eller Bouyer (jeg har nettopp lest dem begge) er enige i at det er noen strukturelle eller innholdsmessige problemer med første eukaristiske bønn – tvert imot, Bouyer har ikke annet enn godt å si om den. Og P. Folsom er nok en forsiktig mann, for det eneste han foreslår at man skal gjøre med denne situasjonen, er som prester å bruke første eukaristiske bønn oftere.

P. Louis Bouyer – En stor teolog

Katolsk, Liturgi, Teologi /

Jeg leste i dag ferdig Boyers bok EUCHARIST, der han tydelig skriver hvordan eukaristien best bør forstås; som en ihukommelse og takksigelse for Mirabilia Dei, Guds store frelseshandlinger. Det blir feil (skriver han) å fokusere på takken for den hellige kommunion (den kommer mer som et resultat av vår takksigelse for Guds store gjerninger og Kristi tilstedeværelse) og heller ikke på fellesskapsmåltidet (som også er et resultat av det samme). Helt på slutten av boka skriver han mye godt om den (nye, han skrev boka i 1968) tredje eukaristiske bønn (som er bygget på den galliske/spanske tradisjonen, men den andre eukaristiske bønn har han lite godt å si om; den er bygget på Hippolyts bønn, som (sier han) helt sikkert ikke har noe med den gamle romerske liturgien å gjøre. Forhåpentligvis vil jeg kunne klare å samle meg til å skrive litt mer om denne boka.

bouyer_hd

Jeg leste også i dag et intervju med Dr. Keith Lemna: Rev. Louis Bouyer: A Theological Giant – Dr. Lemna har studert Boyers bøker svært grundig, og i intervjuet sier han bl.a.:

Who was Fr. Louis Bouyer?

Dr. Lemna: Louis Bouyer was a priest of the Oratory, a convert to Catholicism from Lutheranism, which he had served as a minister, an eminent liturgiologist and historian of spirituality, an influential scholar of Newman (whose studies of Newman helped to pave the way for Newman’s eventual beatification), and, perhaps most importantly of all, one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the twentieth century.

What were some of Fr. Bouyer’s significant contributions in the realm of Catholic theology?

Dr. Lemna: Fr. Bouyer is known most of all as a scholar of liturgy and spirituality, and it is in these areas that his work has exercised its most overt impact on the course of Catholic theology as a whole. In the area of liturgy, Bouyer, himself drawing on the work of Dom Odo Casel, is the figure who is most responsible for the emphasis that has been placed in recent decades on the theme of the «Paschal Mystery» as central for understanding the mystery of the faith, and he, as much or more than anyone, oriented sacramental theologians to a focus on the liturgical event as the basis for theological reflection on the nature and meaning of the sacraments.

What were some of his key works?

Dr. Lemna: … Similarly important is his book on the Eucharist, Eucharistie, one of three seminal studies of Christian liturgy done in the twentieth century (along with Josef A. Jungmann’s The Mass of the Roman Rite, and Dom Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy). In this book, Bouyer explores the theology and historical development of the Church’s Eucharistic prayer. He argues for the importance of developing a theology of the Eucharist based on attention to the act of the liturgy, rather than a theology about the Eucharist that takes its starting point in abstract metaphysical concepts that are then applied to the reality of the Eucharist. He shows the roots of the Christian Eucharist in Jewish Temple and synagogue practices, going beyond Casel’s thesis that the Church had borrowed its liturgical forms from the Greco-Roman mystery cults.

What influence did his work have on the Second Vatican Council?

Dr. Lemna: It is difficult to assess the precise influence that Bouyer’s work had on the council. By the time that the council had convened, many of Bouyer’s ideas had become common currency among some of the theologians who were present at the council, even if they were not influenced by Bouyer. Bouyer was a theological expert relied upon by the Church in the period surrounding the council, and he was greatly trusted by Paul VI, who appointed him to the first International Theological Commission after the council and who had wanted to name him a cardinal. Bouyer refused the offer, arguing that it would cause too much trouble for the Holy See. He had been engaged in fierce polemics with the later generation of liturgists in France, and his reputation had suffered as a result. …

What are some aspects of Fr. Bouyer’s work that are deserving of more study and consideration?

Dr. Lemna: … I think that the biggest obstacle to furthering his thought is that Bouyer wrote in a very polemical style at times, in a way that was off-putting to both «traditionalist» and «progressivist» camps in theology. But the old battles that fueled those polemics are largely a thing of the past by now, and most of the participants in those battles are dead. Bouyer could be equally sharp toward neo-Thomists, Rahnerians, and toward theologians influenced to a great extent by liberal Protestantism. …. Despite his penchant for polemics, his overall vision of the unity of Catholic doctrine, of the connection between theology and Christian life, and his unrivalled sense of the central importance of sacred liturgy for theology and for the existence of the Church stands out over and beyond all of the heated disputes. Cardinal Lustiger had said that Bouyer was perceived as «untimely» and «unwelcome» to the «very generations» to whom he was «providentially sent.» But perhaps in our time we can begin to see more clearly precisely how lucid and comprehensive—and, one might even say, «forward-looking»—was Bouyer’s vision of Catholic theology. …

Jungmann forsvarer offertoriet i den tradisjonelle messen

Katolsk, Liturgi, Teologi /

Jeg leser nå gjennom Josef Jungmanns beskrivelser av absolutt alle deler av (den tradisjonelle, siden han skriver i 1949) messen, og da jeg for noen dager siden leste gjennom hans grundige beskrivelse av offertoriet (som ble så voldsomt kritisert på 60-tallet og helt forandret i 1969), ble jeg noe overrasket over hans konklusjon – siden Jungmann regnes for å være den største autoriteten som ledet til de store forandringene i messen etter konsilet. For han konkluderer slik i kapittelet om offertoriet (s 100, i bind 2 av The Mass of the Roman Rite):

… If the first prayer includes a phrase, hanc immaculatam hostiam, in reference to the bread, this may have been intended by the medieval composer for the holy Eucharist. But objectively we can refer the phrase just as well to the simple earthly bread, and with the same right that we apply the words of the canon, sanctam sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam to the sacrifice of Melchisedech. Something like this holds true also for the words calix salutaris in the formula for the chalice. Even on this threshold of the sacrifice our chalice is at least as holy and wholesome as the thanksgiving cup of the singer in Psalm 115, from whom the words are borrowed. Of course it is self-evident that when we say these prayers the higher destiny of our gifts is always kept in view.

Seen thus as a complete unit, we have no reason to deplore the development of the liturgical structure as we have it in the offertory, not at least if we are ready to acknowledge in the Mass not only an activity on God’s part, but also an act of a human being who is called by God and who hastens with his earthly gifts to meet his Creator.

Dette var og er bønner presten stort sett sier stille, derfor skal jeg vise hvordan dette er blitt forandret fra den tradisjonelle messen til den nye messen. Jeg skriver på norsk det presten sier på latin – norsk og latinsk tekst for hele messen fins her.

Under offertoriet sa presten da han presenterte brødet:

Ta imot, hellige Fader, allmektige evige Gud, dette uplettede offer, som jeg, din uverdige tjener, bærer fram til deg, min levende og sanne Gud, for mine utallige synder, feil, forsømmelser, og også for alle som er til stede her, men også for alle troende kristne, levende og døde, så dette offer for meg og for dem må bli til frelse og evig liv. Amen.

Dette er nå blitt erstattet av (en jødisk bønn, som ikke er blitt brukt i katolsk liturgi tidligere):

Velsignet er du, Herre, all skapnings Gud. Av din rikdom har vi mottatt det brød som vi bærer frem for deg, en frukt av jorden og av menneskers arbeid, som for oss blir livets brød. (Alle svarer: Velsignet være Gud i evighet.)

Videre sa presten da han presenterte kalken:

Vi bærer fram for deg, Herre, frelsens kalk, idet vi påkaller din nåde, så den med vellukt må stige opp for din guddommelige majestets åsyn til frelse for oss og hele verden. Amen.

Dette er nå blitt erstattet av:

Velsignet er du, Herre, all skapnings Gud. Av din rikdom har vi mottatt den vin som vi bærer frem for deg, en frukt av vintreet og av menneskers arbeid, som for oss blir frelsens kalk. (Alle svarer: Velsignet være Gud i evighet.)

Presten sier så videre to bønner (den første er beholdt i dag i forkortet form, den andre er helt borte):

I ydmykhets ånd og med botefullt sinn ber vi deg: ta imot oss, Herre, og la dette offer i dag fullbyrdes slik for ditt åsyn at det tekkes deg, Herre og Gud.
Kom Helliggjører, allmektige evige Gud, og velsign + dette offer som er gjort rede for ditt hellige navn.

Som siste bønn før «Orate fratres» sa så presten en bønn som også er blitt helt borte:

Ta mot dette offer, hellige Treenighet, det vi bærer fram for deg til minne om Vår Herres Jesu Kristi lidelse, oppstandelse og himmelferd, og til ære for den salige Maria, alltid jomfru, den hellige Johannes døperen og de hellige apostler Peter og Paulus og til ære for disse og for alle helgener, så det må bli til heder for dem, men til frelse for oss, og at de, som vi feirer minnet om på jorden, må verdiges å be for oss i himmelen. Ved ham, Kristus, vår Herre. Amen

Pave Frans forvirrer de troende om felleskommunion

Katolsk, Paven, Teologi /

15nov_pope_lutheran
Pave Frans var i Romas lutherske kirke søndag kveld, og fikk da et spørsmål fra en luthersk kvinne som lurte på om hun kunne motta katolsk kommunion/ nattverd når hun gikk i kirken sammen med sin katolske mann. Paven svarte ganske langt og nokså uklart, men så ut til å antyde at hun her måtte følge sin egen samvittighet. Men han la også til:

The Pope added: “I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more.”

Jeg har lest om dette her – Catholic Herald og Father Z skriver også om det.

Louis Bouyer om alteret

Katolsk, Liturgi, Teologi /

P. Louis Bouyers skrev en bok Liturgy and Architecture i 1968, som jeg så langt ikke har fått tak i. I en omtale av denne boka (og Ratzingers bruk av den) forklares det hvorfor den liturgiske bevegelse etter hvert ønsket å «snu alteret»:

Drawing on his own experience, Bouyer relates that the pioneers of the Liturgical Movement in the twentieth century had two chief motives for promoting the celebration of Mass versus populum. First, they wanted the Word of God to be proclaimed towards the people. According to the rubrics for Low Mass, the priest had to read the Epistle and the Gospel from the book resting on the altar. Thus the only option was to celebrate the whole Mass “facing the people,” as was provided for by the Missal of St Pius V21 to cover the particular arrangement of the major Roman basilicas. The instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites Inter Oecumenici of September 26, 1964 allowed the reading of the Epistle and Gospel from a pulpit or ambo, so that the first incentive for Mass facing the people was met. There was, however, another reason motivating many exponents of the Liturgical Movement to press for this change, namely, the intention to reclaim the perception of the Holy Eucharist as a sacred banquet, which was deemed to be eclipsed by the strong emphasis on its sacrificial character. The celebration of Mass facing the people was seen as an adequate way of recovering this loss.

Videre skriver U. M. Lang i denne artikkelen om forholdet mellom messen som en offerhandling og et hellig måltid:

Bouyer notes in retrospect a tendency to conceive of the Eucharist as a meal in contrast to a sacrifice, which he calls a fabricated dualism that has no warrant in the liturgical tradition. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood,”, and these two aspects cannot be isolated from each other. According to Bouyer, our situation today is very different from that of the first half of the twentieth century, since the meal aspect of the Eucharist has become common property, and it is its sacrificial character that needs to be recovered.

Pastoral experience confirms this analysis, because the understanding of the Mass as both the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Church has diminished considerably, if not faded away among the faithful. Therefore it is a legitimate question to ask whether the stress on the meal aspect of the Eucharist that complemented the celebrant priest’s turning towards the people has been overdone and has failed to proclaim the Eucharist as “a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands).” The sacrificial character of the Eucharist must find an adequate expression in the actual rite. Since the third century, the Eucharist has been named “prosphora,” “anaphora,” and “oblation,” terms that articulate the idea of “bringing to,” “presenting,” and thus of a movement towards God.

Skroll til toppen