Se video av Peters grav
Rome Reports har laget denne videoen. «Se Peters grav uten å måtte reise til Roma», sier de.
OG HER KAN MAN SE HELE PROGRAMMET OM PETERS GRAV.
Rome Reports har laget denne videoen. «Se Peters grav uten å måtte reise til Roma», sier de.
OG HER KAN MAN SE HELE PROGRAMMET OM PETERS GRAV.
«Det var en sterk opplevelse å være i fullstending stillhet i Hyde park foran alterets hellige sakrament, sammen med over 80 000 mennesker.» Dette og mer til sier erkebiskop Nichols i en video, der han minnes det som skjedde da pave Benedikt nylig besøkte Skottland og England – fra the Papal Visit:
In a special video reflection, the Archbishop of Westminster spoke enthusiastically about the four days of «joy and happiness» and highlighted some of the Holy Father’s key messages:
«He said to us: ‘Be witnesses to the beauty of holiness, the splendour of the truth and the joy and freedom born of a relationship with Christ’. That’s the sentence I suggest we ponder as a great gift from the Holy Father – the beauty of Holiness – that’s the holiness of God that can be born in us when we’re open to the mystery of God.»
Archbishop Nichols goes on to discuss the Hyde Park evening Vigil as a profound, grace-filled occasion:
«I can never forget that sense of 80-90,000 people in total silence in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament in Hyde Park. It was something beyond words – the fruit of a lot of prayer and a moment of profound grace. It shows the beauty of holiness.» …
På Rorate cæli leste jeg i går om en brevveksling mellom Fr. Matias Auge, CMF, en veteral blant liturgieskpertene i Roma, og kardinal Ratzinger i 1998. Fr. Auge skriver kritisk om et foredrag Ratzinger nylig hadde hatt:
I cannot understand how the principles of the Second Vatican Council concerning the reform of the Mass, presented in Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 47-58 (thus not only in nos. 34-36 as cited by Your Eminence), may be in harmony with the re-instatement of the so-called Tridentine Mass.
… The second objection was that the return to the old liturgy is likely to break the unity of the Church. …
Raztinger svarer slik (klart og nokså kontant, som han ofte gjør i akademiske debatter):
the Pope John Paul II, with the indult of 1984, under certain conditions, granted the use of the liturgy preceding the Pauline reform; thereafter the same Pope in 1988 published the motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, manifesting his wish to please the faithful who are attached to certain forms of the earlier Latin liturgy; and furthermore he asks the bishops ”by a wide and generous application” to allow the use of the liturgical books of 1962.
The second one is that a considerable number of the Catholic faithful, especially those of French, English, and German nationality and language remain strongly attached to the old liturgy, and the Pope does not intend to repeat what happened in 1970 when the new liturgy was imposed in an extremely abrupt way, with a transition time of only six months, whereas the prestigious Liturgical Institute in Trier had rightly proposed a transition time of ten years (if I am not mistaken) for such an undertaking, one that touches in a vital way the heart of the Faith.
Thus, these two points, namely the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and his pastoral and respectful concern for the traditionalist faithful, that must be taken into consideration. I, therefore, take the liberty to add some answers to your criticism of my speech.
1. … When I said that even the faithful who use the indult of 1984 must follow the decrees of the Council, I wanted to show that the fundamental decisions of Vatican II are the meeting point of all liturgical trends and are therefore also the bridge for reconciliation in the area of liturgy. The audience present actually understood my words as an invitation to an opening to the Council, to the liturgical reform. I believe that those who defend the necessity and the value of the reform should be completely in agreement with this way of bringing Traditionalists closer to the Council.
2. The citation from Cardinal Newman means that the authority of the Church has never in its history abolished with a legal mandate an orthodox liturgy. However, it is true that a liturgy that vanishes belongs to historical times, not the present.
3. I do not wish to enter into all the details of your letter, even if I would have no difficulties meeting your various criticisms against my arguments. However, I wish to comment on that what concerns the unity of the Roman rite. This unity is not threatened by small communities using the indult, who are often treated as lepers, as people doing something indecent, even immoral. No, the unity of the Roman rite is threatened by the wild creativity, often encouraged by liturgists (in Germany, for instance, there is propaganda for the project Missale 2000, which presumes that the Missal of Paul VI has already been superseded). I repeat that which was said in my speech: the difference between the Missal of 1962 and the Mass faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI is much smaller than the difference between the various, so-called ”creative” applications of the Missal of Paul VI. In this situation, the presence of the earlier Missal may become a bulwark against the numerous alterations of the liturgy and thus act as a support of the authentic reform. To oppose the Indult of 1984 (1988) in the name of the unity of the Roman rite, is – in my experience – an attitude far removed from reality. Besides, I am sorry that you did not perceive in my speech the invitation to the ”traditionalists” to be open to the Council and to reconcile themselves to it in the hope of overcoming one day the split between the two Missals. …
Jean Fouquet (Tours, ca. 1420 – 1481)
Erobringen av Jeriko, ca. 1455
Pergamentmaleri – Musée Condé, Chantilly
Vi har hatt en debatt her om bibelstudier, om hva katolske forskere kan tillate seg, om den historisk kristiske metoden – en debatt som kanskje kan fortsette senere, så langt har den ikke blitt så fruktbar, og jeg trenger å finne ut mer om hva som har skjedd på dette feltet de siste 20-25 år. I alle tilfeller tenkte jeg på denne debatten da jeg så bilder over på document.no i dag. Israelittenes erobring av Jeriko har nemlig vært omstridt i svær lang tid, neon vil si at den aldri har skjedd. Document.no tar også med seg følgende bibelsitat under bildet:
Jeriko var lukket og låst for israelittene. Ingen kom ut, og ingen gikk inn. Da sa Herren til Josva: «Se, jeg gir Jeriko med kongen og hans tapre krigere i din hånd. Nå skal alle stridsmennene gå rundt byen én gang hver dag, og det skal dere gjøre i seks dager. Sju prester skal gå foran paktkisten, hver med et bukkehorn. Den sjuende dagen skal dere gå sju ganger rundt byen, og prestene skal blåse i hornene. Så skal de blåse en lang tone, og så snart dere hører denne lyden av hornene, skal hele folket sette i et kraftig krigsrop. Da skal bymuren styrte sammen, så folket kan gå rett inn i byen.» (Josva 6, 1-5)
Ola Tjørhom skrev et leserinnlegg i Morgenbladet i dag, der jeg og min blogg, Vårt Land og i alle fall tre navngitte katolikker fikk kraftig kritikk. Jeg skrev et nokså irritert innlegg først, og har så langt fått 8 kommentarer til innlegget, men jeg velger nå å slette det meste av det jeg skrev, og alle kommentarene – og rett og slett å stoppe diskusjonen om dette nå.
Slik skriver Fr. Longenecker i et innlegg på sin blogg nylig. Han refererer mest til anglikanernes holdninger (siden han selv tidligere var anglikansk prest og kjenner dette kirkesamfunnet godt), men det han skriver gjelder egentlig flere. For anglikanerne er nå det spesielle at de kan få med seg en del av sin egen tradisjon inn i Den katolske Kirke, men for mange (konservative) anglikanere (de liberale ønsker jo ikke å bli katolikker) blir det likevel for vanskelig å ta imot pave Benedikts invitasjon til enhet. Her er starten på hans innlegg:
Our local vicar in the combox says, «When Pope Benedict talks to Anglicans about church unity what he really means is ‘Come and join us.'»
Of course this is true in a sense, but when he says «Come and join us.» Benedict is not expecting total conformity and uniformity in all things. That’s what the Ordinariate is all about. What he has in mind is a growing family of different small groups like Anglicans and the Eastern churches, coming into full communion while retaining their own patrimony of liturgy and customs and also being granted a measure of autonomy both materially and in matters of governance.
I hear Anglicans whine about this expectation that unity means coming into full communion with the See of Rome, but what on earth else could it possibly mean? They whine about this expectation we have, but they have never come up with any other model for unity, and re-buff any attempts Catholics make to call for unity.
What other model would there be? Shall we have a World Council of Churches? That’s a flop and was never more than a talking shop for liberal Protestant theologians. Shall we simply have intercommunion with all Christians? … …
«Før vi feirer den hellige messe; før vi hører Guds ord og før vi bærer frem Kristi fullkomne offer til soning for alle våre synder, la oss forberede oss ved å bekjenne våre synder.» …
Slik pleier jeg å innlede feiringen av messen – og jeg skal bli enda tydeligere på dette fra nå av – for jeg vender stadig tilbake til behovet for å gjøre det abslutt klart at messen er et offer. Og jeg blir litt oppgitt når folk jeg regnet med visste bedre, ikke ser ut til å ha dette klart for seg. Det er viktig å fokusere på konsekrasjonen, på Kristi tilstedeværelse, på det hellige i handlingen, på kommunionen etc., men at det her bæres frem et offer (Kristi offer) for våre synder må alltid være med – i en katolsk forståelse av messen.
Slik skriver f.eks. messeboken fra 1961 dette i sin innledning:
Den kristne tro hviler på Jesu Kristi soningsoffer på Golgata. Det er dette offer som gjentas på ublodig måte i messeofferet. I brødets og vinens skikkelse løfter Guds Sønn seg ved prestens opp til Guds trone, og ved Kristus og med Kristus priser vi Gud og takker ham for hans miskunn mot oss, bærer fram våre bønner for ham og gir ham den eneste gyldige soning for våre synder. Intet er mer skikket til å skape Kristi offersinn i oss enn det å ta del i hans offerdød. Derfor krever Kirken av oss at vi skal overvære messeofferet hver søndag og alle foreskrevne helligdager. Kirken går ut fra den grunnsetning at vi er gjenløst ved Kristi offerdød, og at ingen kan bli frelst uten å ta del i denne soning. Gis det da noen fullkomnere måte å ta del i Jesu offerdød på enn å være med i messeofferet med det rette sinnelag? Det er dette Kirkens messebok skal hjelpe oss til. Når vi med den i hånden er med i den hellige messe, lever oss inn i dens herlige liturgi, ber og ofrer med vår Herre Jesus Kristus og hans Kirke, og i den hellige kommunion føres inn i samfunnet med ham, da vil vi vokse i kjærligheten til hans Kirke, som er hans mystiske legeme, til dens bud og til dens nådemidler. ….
I en debatt om anti-modernist-eden på denne bloggen (der det er kommet mange kommentarer), og det virker som om Kirken bare har to alternativer når det gjelder å kontrollere hva som læres i katolske kirker og læresteder: enten å gjeninnføre den gamle eden, eller å slippe alt fritt.
I debatten under forrige innlegg ble det i dag hevdet: «I dag nyter katolske forskere den samme frihet som alle andre forskere i demokratiske samfunn.» Til dette svarte jeg: «Dette er ikke korrekt. Hvis en prest, professor på et katolsk lærested e.l. går for utenfor Kirkens lære, vil han bli irettesatt, event. fratatt retten til å kalle seg katolsk teolog. Nylig meldte jeg jo om at dette hadde skjedd i USA:» http://aomoi.net/blogg/2010/09/den-amerikanske-bispekonferansen-fordommer-bok/
Men det er jo samtidig noen som mener at Kirken bør være strengere enn den er i dag, og det er vel det debatten i praksis handler om; hvor streng skal Kirken være når det gjelder å holde læren ren, og hvilke medtore skal den bruke.
Det blir også hevdet i samme debatt at katolske eksegeter kan si absolutt hva de ønsker om Bibelen, og at det ikke fins noen konservative katolske bibeltolkere. Det mener jeg heller ikke er korrekt (selv om jeg er enig i at det er for få som hevder konservative standpunkter) og jeg skrev bl.a. om et dette her: http://aomoi.net/blogg/2010/09/hvordan-kan-bibelen-studeres-historisk-kritisk/
Erkebiskop Jesus Dosado kritiserer liturgiske eksperter ganske kraftig (se her) og han har også følgende beskrivelse av pave Benedikts synspunkter på liturgien:
Benedict’s broad liturgical approach can be described in terms of “continuity,” i.e. recovering elements of the liturgical tradition which he believes were too hastily set aside or downplayed in the immediate period after the Second Vatican Council.
The idea of a new liturgical movement came with strength from his book, Spirit of the Liturgy. A relevant section: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy … in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not he speaks to us and hears us. … Such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council.” …
To his priests in the Diocese of Rome he said, “In the Eucharist we do not invent something, but we enter into a reality that precedes us, more than that, which embraces heaven and earth and, hence, also the past, the future and the present. … Hence, the liturgical prescriptions dictated by the Church are not external things, but express concretely the reality of the revelation of the body and blood of Christ and thus the prayer reveals the faith according to the ancient principle ‘lex orandi – lex credendi.’” … …
For the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, (now Pope Benedict XVI) the liturgy is of its nature an inheritance, a space we inhabit as others have inhabited it before us. It is never an instrument we design or manipulate. Self-made liturgy is a contradiction in terms, and he distrusts liturgies that emphasize spontaneity, self-expression and extreme forms of local inculturation.
In his own book, Spirit of the Liturgy, Cardinal Ratzinger scathingly compared such liturgies to the worship of the Golden Calf, “a feast that the community gives itself, a festival of self-affirmation. Instead of being worship of God, it becomes a circle closed in on itself: eating, drinking and making merry … It is a kind of banal self-gratification … no longer concerned with God but with giving oneself a nice little alternative world, manufactured from one’s own resources.”
In his view, the liturgy is meant to still and calm human activity, to allow God to be God, to quiet our chatter in favor of attention to the Word of God and in adoration and communion with the self-gift of the Word incarnate.
The call for active participation seems to Benedict XVI to have “dumbed” down the mystery we celebrate, and left us with a banal inadequate language (and music) of prayer. The “active participation” in the liturgy for which Vatican II called, he argues, emphatically, does not mean participation in many acts. Rather, it means a deeper entry by everyone present into the one great action of the liturgy, its only real action, which is Christ’s self-giving on the Cross. We can best enter into the action of the Mass by a recollected silence, and by traditional gestures of self-offering and adoration – the Sign of the Cross, folded hands, reverent kneeling.
For the Pope, therefore, liturgical practice since the Council has taken a wrong turn, aesthetically impoverished, creating a rupture in the continuity of Catholic worship, and reflecting and even fostering a defective understanding of the Divine and our relationship to it.
His decision to permit the free celebration of the Tridentine liturgy was intended both to repair that rupture and to issue a call to the recovery of the theological, spiritual and cultural values that he sees as underlying the old Mass.
In his letter to the bishops of July 2007, he expressed the hope that the two forms of the one Roman liturgy might cross-fertilize each other, the old Missal being enriched by the use of the many beautiful collects and prefaces of Paul VI’s reformed Missal, and the celebration of the Novus Ordo recovering by example some of the “sacrality” that characterized the older form.
En samtale her på bloggen om modernisme (se her) har utviklet seg til en samtale om bibelstudier/-kritikk i forholdvis stor grad. Bispesynoden i Roma høsten 2008 hadde Bibelen som sitt hovedtema, og jeg ser nå at jeg skrev følgende i et innlegg da:
«Denne overskrifta bringer mine tanke tilbake til mine studieår på MF på 70-tallet; jeg kjempa da mye med spørsmål om Bibelens sannhetsgehalt og om hvordan man best skulle tolke den, hvilke metoder som var fruktbare. Jeg var lite fornøyd med svara jeg fikk på MF; man la seg litt for flatt i forhold til de teologiske trender, og etter mitt syn klarte man i liten grad å vise hvorfor Bibelen grunnleggende sett er troverdig – slik at troen ble hengene mye i lufta (fideisme).
Nå ser det ut til at bispesynoden i Roma har tatt opp de samme problemstillingene – mer radikalt og grunnleggende. John Allen skriver om hvordan disse to spørsmåla er blitt diskutert på en ganske grunnleggende måte, og at biskopene ikke ser ut til å nøye seg med enkle eller “moderne” svar. Slik spissformulerer han det:»
The historical-critical method is valuable, but it’s not enough. It has to be integrated into the broader theological reflection of the church, which implies that theologians and exegetes need to work and play well together.
How much of the Bible is “inspired” and free from error? Is it just what one might call the Bible’s “theological” content, meaning what it teaches about salvation? Or is the whole Bible inerrant, and therefore “true,” even if that doesn’t necessarily mean literally, factually true?
Les også gjerne hele hans vurdering av denne tematikken:
The Historical-Critical Method
If all that mattered on this point were generalizations, there would be no problem. Some formula like the following would command almost overwhelming assent: The historical-critical method is valuable, but it’s not enough. It has to be integrated into the broader theological reflection of the church, which implies that theologians and exegetes need to work and play well together.
The devil, however, is in the details. Some in the synod clearly strike a more positive tone with regard to academic study of the Bible, using the essentially secular tools of historical research and literary criticism, than others. Levada characterized the contrast: “Some have criticized the historical-critical method, on the grounds that it’s difficult to overcome the philosophical suppositions which formed its basis for many of the method’s original followers,” he said. “Others see it as a useful tool for coming to a better understanding of the literal and historical sense of scripture.”
In his lone talk to the synod so far, Pope Benedict XVI touched on precisely this point, essentially arguing that scholars using the historical-critical method need to take the faith of the church as their point of departure.
On this point, two challenges present themselves.
First, the proper balanced has to be struck in the synod’s concluding documents. If there’s too much criticism of exegetes and the historical-critical method, Catholic Biblical scholars may feel under attack, or that the clock is being rolled back on tools they now take for granted. If the language is too soft, however, then the clear desire for a more “theological” reading of scripture could get lost in the mush.
Second, there’s the practical question of how, exactly, to put theologians and exegetes into deeper conversation, especially given the hyper-compartmentalized nature of academic life these days. This may well be the point upon which much drama turns—will the synod restrict itself to a fervorino about the relationship between exegesis and theology, simply echoing the basic points made by Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday, or will it actually offer concrete suggestions for fostering closer links among Biblical specialists, theologians, and pastors?
Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica, a Canadian who’s handling press briefings for the synod in English, and who is also a biblical scholar himself, offered a memorable metaphor for what’s at stake.
“Most of us were trained as surgeons,” he said on Thursday, by which he meant that exegetes learn to make very precise cuts on the Biblical text—determining what the exact meaning of a given verb form is, for example, or detailing the social contexts of the Johannine and Lucan communities.
“What we sometimes forgot is that we’re operating on a living body, not a corpse,” Rosica said. “We’re supposed to be heart surgeons, not coroners. Success is defined by whether the body survives the surgery.”
Inerrancy of the Bible
Some bishops, such as Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, have floated the idea that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith produce a document on the inerrancy of the Bible, in order to resolve what has been an open question since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and its document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum.
This point gets technical in a hurry, but in essence, here’s what’s at stake: How much of the Bible is “inspired” and free from error? Is it just what one might call the Bible’s “theological” content, meaning what it teaches about salvation? Or is the whole Bible inerrant, and therefore “true,” even if that doesn’t necessarily mean literally, factually true?
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, widely seen as one of the leading thinkers at the senior levels of the church, said in an interview this week that the second option better represents “where we’re at today,” but acknowledged that the issue hasn’t been resolved.
There’s something of a Scylla and Charybdis dynamic inherent to this debate. Veer too far towards saying that only the theological parts of the Bible are inspired, and it can seem like the church is flirting with skepticism; go too far toward saying inerrancy applies to every jot and tittle, and it can end in a kind of Catholic fundamentalism.
Whatever view one takes, there’s also the practical question of whether now is the right time for the Vatican to say something. Though this is admittedly a fairly cynical view of things, it’s often the case that people clamor for a Vatican statement when they think they’ll get the answer they want; otherwise, they tend to suggest that it’s not yet “opportune” to put out a document.
Exactly how the synod phrases its recommendation on this point—should it choose to make one at all—will therefore be fascinating to watch.
Den filippinske erkebiskopen Jesus Dosado har et annet syn på liturgien enn uttalelsen liturgiske eksperter på Filippinene nylig kom med (se her) – han ser faktisk på disse liturgiske ekspertene som hovedproblemet i liturgien, slik skrev han nylig:
Looking back, some of the culprits for me for the gradual loss of the true reform of the liturgy were the so-called “liturgists” who were more like technicians and choreographers rather than pure students of liturgy.
They had a peculiar affinity for refined liturgical celebrations coupled with disdain for the old rites and devotions. Unfortunately, some bishops, not pure students of liturgy either, gave in to their terrorist proclivities.
A search for creativity and community were dominant projects in “reform-minded” Catholic circles in the 1960s and beyond. In itself, this might not have been bad. But the philosophy that the community was god, and that “God” was not fully “God” without the community was the source of ideas that have done most damage to the Church.
This secular notion of community made its way into the liturgy to gradually supplant the inherited Christian tradition. These self-appointed arbiters of the reform were, and I hate to say this, liturgical hijackers who deprived ordinary parishioners – and bewildered pastors – of their right to the normative worship of their own Church. Hence, there was the need for a reform of the reform. …
De liturgiske ansvarlige fra alle/mange bispedømmer på Filippinene var nylig samlet i Manilla for å markere 25-årsjubileeet for sin organisasjon – National Meeting of Diocesan Directors of Liturgy (NMDDL). Der vedtok de også en uttalelse som av mange er blitt tolket som et angrep på pave Benedikts liturgiske idealer, og hans motu proprio om den tradisjonelle messen. Slik uttaler de seg:
As we look back with gratitude at what NMDDL has accomplished, we look forward to what remains to be done so that the liturgy will become more vibrantly the source and summit of the Church’s life in the Philippines. Hence, we recommend attention in the future meetings to topics like the following:
1. The Use of the Vernacular. While we respect the option to use Latin and celebrate the Tridentine liturgy, we uphold the use of the vernacular in our parishes and communities and recommend translations that faithfully reflect both the spiritual doctrine of the texts and the linguistic patterns of our vernacular languages.
2. Spirituality of Liturgy. Active participation is one of the many blessings Vatican II has bestowed on our parishes and communities. We wish to remind ourselves, however, that active participation should lead to deeper spiritual encounter with Christ and the Church. Hence our liturgical celebrations should foster the necessary environment of prayer and awe in the presence of the divine mysteries, excluding those expressions that trivialize the sacred celebration.
3. Liturgical Inculturation. The interest in recent times to revive the Tridentine Liturgy should not draw the attention, especially of the Church leaders, from the unfinished agenda of liturgical inculturation. We are of the persuasion that liturgical renewal, as envisioned by the Constitution on Liturgy of Vatican II, entails liturgical inculturation and that our rich cultural heritage has much to offer to make the Roman liturgy truly Filipino. … …
5. Lay Ministers. Our parishes and communities are blessed with numerous and worthy lay liturgical ministers. However, some dioceses in the Philippines still reserve to male persons ministries like serving at the altar and leading Sunday celebrations in the absence of a priest. We believe that we should encourage the ministry of women where it is allowed by universal law. ….
For et par uker siden ble det kunngjort at den amerikanske bispekonferansens dogmatiske utvalg hadde fordømt (dette sterke ordet passer her) en bok om katolsk seksualetikk. De skriver:
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Doctrine has issued a statement in response to a request from the former and current archbishops of Omaha to review the content of a book by Creighton University professors Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler, The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology. In the statement, «Inadequacies in the Theological Methodology and Conclusions of The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology,» the Committee asserts that the authors of The Sexual Person «base their arguments on a methodology that marks a radical departure from the Catholic theological tradition» and «reach a whole range of conclusions that are contrary to Catholic teaching.»
The Committee concluded that «neither the methodology of The Sexual Person nor the conclusions that depart from authoritative Church teaching constitute authentic expressions of Catholic theology. Moreover, such conclusions, clearly in contradiction to the authentic teaching of the Church, cannot provide a true norm for moral action and in fact are harmful to one’s moral and spiritual life.» ….
På NLM-bloggen leste jeg i dag om en tradisjonell latinsk høymesse ved et presteseminar i New Orleans den 14. september. Det var den tredje gamle messen siden 2007, og den første høymessen (med prest, diakon og subdiakon) på 45 år.
Mer ang. eder, løfter, trosbekjennelser (for det er ikke bare anti-modernist-eden som Kirken har brukt/ bruker); når en sogneprest innsettes i et nytt embede, avlegger han følgende løfter. Jeg hørte dem senest avlagt i juni i år, og selv om jeg ikke har den norske teksten her (kanskje noen kan skaffe den?), så regner jeg med at innholdet er det samme som her på engelsk:
I, N., in assuming the office of __________, promise that in my words and in my actions I shall always preserve communion with the Catholic Church.
With great care and fidelity I shall carry out the duties incumbent on me toward the Church, both universal and particular, in which, according to the provisions of the law, I have been called to exercise my service.
In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it.
I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.
With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish.
I shall also faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.
So help me God, and God’s Holy Gospels on which I place my hand.
I 1996 signerte jeg en troskapsed/ trosbekjennelse, som så ble sendt til Troskongregasjon, sammen med mange andre papirer, som kongregasjonen hadde bedt om i forbindelse med biskop Schwenzers søknad om det kunne dispenseres fra sølibatskravet for meg – etter de reglene som gjelder for tidligere protestantiske pastorer. Jeg underskrev dokumentet på latin og norsk, men inntil jeg finner originalen, viser jeg til den samme trosbekjennelsen på engelsk:
I, N., with firm faith believe and profess everything that is contained in the Symbol of Faith: namely:
I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
Det kom i dag et forslag til denne bloggen om at (anti)modernist-eden (innført i 1910, og så vidt jeg forstår brukt av alle katolske prester i ca 50 år) bør gjeninnføres, for å få bukt med all modernisme, relativisme, liberalisme etc. i Kirken – og jeg fikk også dette forslaget fra noen andre katolikker for en ukes tid siden.
Eden kan leses under i engelsk utgave (fins den på norsk?), men personlig mener jeg at det er (i alle fall) to grunner til at den ikke kan innføres igjen. For det første avspeiler den den teologiske og filosofiske debatten og utfordringene for akkurat 100 år siden. Hvis den skulle brukes i vår tid, måtte den i alle fall oppdateres ganske dramatisk – selv om enkelte elementer selvsagt vil være de samme. For det andre ligger det i vår tid ikke til rette for at prester kan avkreves å underskrive en slik ed; jeg tror rett og slett ikke paven vil kunne klare å få alle prester til å underskrive den. Det må en svært lang og grundig forberedelse til, før man eventuelt kan gjeninnføre en ed av denne typen – om man ønsker det.
Jeg har heller ikke hørt noen antydning om at pave Benedikt tenker å gjøre noe slikt. Men les gjerne eden selv, og se og skriv hva dere syns:
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
Oppslagene også i Norge om et planlagt kirkse-moske samarbeid ser ut til å ha som kilde en artikkel i Svenska Dagbladet, og det er den lutherske biskopen Bengt Wadensjö som legger fram disse store visjonene. (Så lamgt vet jeg fortsatt ikke i hvor stor grad Den katolske kirke i Tockholm deler disse visjonene.) Etter min mening er tankene helt uralistiske som politikk, og viser også at en uklar teologi ligger under (selv om man jo ikke plankegger et felles gudshus). Slik uttaler den lutherske biskopen seg:
I Nacka har en modell tagits fram där vi bygger en kyrka och en moské som grannar under samma tak. Det är ett unikt projekt som växer fram i känslan av gemensam hemhörighet i Guds hus och tillit mellan dem som möts där, skriver biskop Bengt Wadensjö.
När rädslan för det okända i form av islam nu ger Sverige en profil i nyhetsflödet genom att SD tar plats i riksdagen vill jag lyfta fram en helt annan bild av Sverige. Jimmie Åkesson skrev i Aftonbladet den 20 oktober 2009 att ”Muslimerna är vårt största utländska hot”. I Nacka tror vi inte att invandrare eller muslimer skulle vara ett hot. De är en tillgång. Med kommunalrådet Erik Langby och kyrkoherde Carl Dahlbäck i spetsen har vi sedan flera år arbetat på integration och samlevnad som goda grannar. Resultatet är överraskande.
Sedan ett par år diskuteras nu om Nacka församling i Svenska kyrkan, S:t Konrads katolska församling i Nacka samt Muslimernas förening i Fisksätra gemensamt ska bygga ett Guds hus. Folket i Nacka håller på att få en kyrka och en moské som goda grannar under samma tak. Mer än så: en församling i Svenska kyrkan samsas med en romersk-katolsk församling och bygger ett gemensamt kyrkorum. …
Her snakker man altså om at de kan bli tatt opp i Kirken etter bestemmelsene i pave Benedikts dokument «Anglicanorum Cætibus», der de kan tas opp sammen i grupper (prest og menighet) og får beholde noe av sin egen liturgiske tradisjon. (Dvs. sine flotte liturgier, og også (får vi håpe) sine flotte kirker og altere – se bildet over.) Slik kan vi lese i Catholic Herald:
Britain could have an Ordinariate by the end of the year, it emerged today. … Sources say that the Rt Rev Keith Newton, the flying bishop of Richborough and the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, the flying Bishop of Ebbsfleet will take up the special canonical structure, which allows groups of Anglicans to come into full Communion with Rome without losing their Anglican identity, before the end of the calendar year.
Groups of Anglicans are already forming across the country in preparation for joining an ordinariate …
… Anglicanorum coetibus offered “Anglo-Catholics the way to full communion with the Catholic Church for which they worked and prayed for at least a century and it is a way in which they will be ‘united and not absorbed’.”
He said that discussions were under way about how the “vision of the Apostolic Constitution” could be implemented” and said the first people to take up the initiative would require vision and courage.
He quoted Pope Benedict’s speech to the bishops of England, Wales and Scotland, saying the Holy Father set his offer to Anglicans “firmly within the developing ecumenical dialogue” and said it was an “an exciting initiative for those for whom the vision of Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) of corporate union has shaped their thinking over recent years”.
The issue, he said, was “the ministry of the Pope himself, as the successor of St Peter. Anglicans who accept that ministry as it is presently exercised will want to respond warmly to the Apostolic Constitution”. He said: “Those who do not accept the ministry of the Pope or would want to see that ministry in different ways will not feel able to accept Anglicanorum Coetibus.” …
Her er de siste spørsmålene fra Katekismens Kompendium som vi gikk gjennom i vår menighets troskurs sist mandag:
18. Hvorfor lærer Den hellige skrift sannheten?
Fordi Gud selv er dens opphav: Den hellige skrift blir derfor betegnet som inspirert, og lærer uten feiltagelse de sannheter som er nødvendige for vår frelse. Den Hellige Ånd inspirerte nemlig de menneskelige forfattere, som så skrev det Han ønsket å lære oss. Den kristne tro er imidlertid ikke en «bokens religion», men en Guds ords religion: «ikke et skrevet og taust ord, men det inkarnerte og levende Ord» (St. Bernhard av Clairvaux).19. Hvordan skal en lese Den hellige skrift?
Den hellige skrift må ved hjelp av den Hellige Ånd og under læreembetets ledelse bli lest og fortolket ifølge disse tre kriterier: 1) den må leses med oppmerksomhet på «hele Skriftens innhold og enhet»; 2) den må leses «i pakt med hele Kirkens levende tradisjon» 3) den må leses med oppmerksomhet på «troens analogi», det vil si den innbyrdes sammenheng som eksisterer mellom trossannhetene.20. Hva er Skriftens «canon»?
Skriftens «canon» er en fullstendig liste over hellige skrifter som Kirken har anerkjent gjennom Apostolisk Tradisjon. Denne listen omfatter 46 skrifter i Det gamle testamente og 27 skrifter i Det nye.21. Hvilken betydning har Det gamle testamente for kristne?
Kristne holder Det gamle testamente i ære som Guds sanne Ord. Alle dets skrifter er inspirert av Gud og beholder en varig verdi. De bærer vitne om Guds frelsende kjærlighets guddommelige pedagogikk. De ble fremfor alt skrevet for å forberede Kristi, den universelle forløsers, komme.22. Hvilken betydning har Det nye testamente for kristne?
Det nye testamente, hvis sentrale tema er Jesus Kristus, gir oss den guddommelige Åpenbarings endelige sannhet. Innenfor det nye testamente er de fire Evangelier ifølge Matteus, Markus, Lukas og Johannes det viktigste vitnesbyrd om Jesu liv og lære. Av denne grunn danner de selve hjertet i Skriften og inntar en enestående stilling i Kirken.23. Hvilken enhet består mellom Det gamle og Det nye testamente?
Skriften er en enhet, for den gir bare ett Guds ord, bare én Guds frelsesplan og bare én guddommelig inspirasjon i begge testamenter. Det gamle testamente forbereder det nye, og det nye oppfyller det gamle: De to kaster lys over hverandre.24. Hvilken rolle spiller Den hellige skrift i Kirkens liv?
Den hellige skrift gir Kirkens liv støtte og kraft. For Kirkens barn er den bekreftende for troen, føde for sjelen og en kilde til åndelig liv. Salmedikteren sier: «Ditt ord er en lykt for min fot og et lys på min sti» (Sal 119, 105). Derfor oppfordrer Kirken alle til å lese av Den hellige skrift ofte. «For uvitenhet om Skriftene er uvitenhet om Kristus» (St. Hieronymus).