Jeg begynner nå å lese p Louis Louis Bouyers bok EUCHARIST, der han i løpet av nesten 500 sider går gjennom utviklingen og forståelsen av messen. Bouyers stil er veldig annerledes enn Jungmanns, som var svært saklig og lite kritisk kommenterende til andre forskeres bidrag. Bouyer har en ganske annen kontroversiell og aktuell stil. Slik begynner han f.eks. forordet, som han skrev i juni 1966 og januar 1968 (2. utgave):

This book is the result of more than twenty years of research. It is appearing at a moment when the understanding of the traditional Eucharistic prayer, and especially the canon of the Roman mass, is more timely than ever. On one hand it has been a very long time since we have seen such lively and widespread desire in the Catholic Church to rediscover a “eucharist” that is fully living and real. Yet, unfortunately, there has also never been a time when we have been so confidently presented with such fantastic theories that, once put into practice, would make us lose practically everything of authentic tradition that we have still preserved. May this volume contribute its part towards promoting this renewal and discouraging an ignorant and pretentious anarchy that could mean its downfall. …

I 1968 har messen og holdningene til den allerede forandret seg en del, og på s 10 skriver Bouyer ganske skarpt om resultatet av enkelte forandringer:

… we may congratulate ourselves on our discovery of the collective sense of the eucharistic celebration through a return to notions of the eucharistic sacrifice that imply our own participation. But it is already a very bad sign that the values of adoration and contemplation, which yesterday focused on a eucharistic devotion that was in fact foreign to the eucharist, seem hardly to have come back to our celebration of it, but have rather simply vanished into thin air …

Han referer her til at eukaristisk tilbedelse (utenom messen) ikke er en særlig sentral praksis, i forhold til selve messefeiringen, selve frembæringen av messens offer. Men når man motarbeider gamle, fromme tradisjoner, uten å erstatte dem med noe nytt, blir jo resultatet ganske katastrofalt.

Vårt Land bruker dette bildet til å illustrere ulike former for gudstjenesteliv i Den norske kirke, og det er fra Uranienborg kirke i Oslo – artikkelen ble publisert i fjor, men de lenker til den i dag. For en katolikk er det underlig – og spesielt for meg, som akkurat nå leser om den katolske messeliturgien gjennom tidene – å kunne observere at det nesten alle steder i verden (og absolutt alle steder i Norge) ville være uaktuelt å bruke en kirke som ser så høytidelig ut. For: korpartiet er trukket et ganske langt stykke bort fra folket, det er en skjerm som deler av koret, man har et alter som er vendt bort fra folket, man har en alterring der folk kneler når de mottar nattverd/ kommunion – og til og med en nokså høy prekestol. I Norge ble kirker som så slik ut modernisert på 70-tallet, og nye kirker ble bygget med et frittstående bordalter, og uten kommunionsbenk og prekestol. Det er egentlig ganske sjokkerende at katolikkene oppførte seg så misforstått moderne.

Jeg liker riktignok heller ikke selv alle gamle kirkerom, og avstanden mellom folket og presten/ alteret opplever jeg som ganske viktig. I en full kirke er en forholdsvis stor avstand naturlig, i en messe med bare noen få til stede er stor avstand ganske ubehagelig – syns jeg. Eamon Duffy skiver om katolsk kirkeliv i England rundt 1500, at i søndagens høymesse ble høyalteret – som var trukket en godt stykke tilbake inn i et kor delt av med en skjerm – alltid brukt, men også her var det ganske mye kontakt mellom den store folkemengden i kirkerommet og presten; ved prosesjonen gjennom kirkerommet og stenkingen med vievann i starten av messen, ved preken, forbønner, kunngjøringer, der presten stod godt synlig for menigheten (og snakket engelsk), da alle kom fram og kysset «pax-bredet» (som fredshilsen), når folk (av og til) mottok kommunion, og ved utdelingen av velsignet brød etter messen (den tradisjonen hadde holdt seg). Ved ukedagsmessene var situasjonen en helt annen, skriver Duffy, da brukte man sidealterne (og messene ble gjerne feiret for en avdød, eller for en av de mange foreningene som fantes i menigheten) og folk stod helt inntil presten mens han feiret messen.

I England var også skjermene foran koret svært viktige i nesten alle kirker. De kalles rood screen, der rood betyr krusifiks, som stod på toppen av skjermen (se bildet under). Ved reformasjonen ble krusifiksene revet ned, men skjermene ble ofte stående (om de ikke hadde for mange helgenbilder). Les om rood screens på Wikipedia her.

Jungman skriver (på s 223 av bind to av messens historie) at det er i den første bønnen etter konsekrasjonen at messens offerhandling uttrykkes aller tydeligst. Det er i bønnen som kalles Unde et memores, og som på norsk lyder slik:

Vi minnes nå, Herre, vi dine tjenere og hele ditt hellige folk, den samme Kristi, din Sønns, vår Herres, salige lidelse. men også hans oppstandelse fra de døde og hans herlige himmelferd, og bærer fram for din opphøyede majestet av dine goder og gaver et + rent offer, et + hellig offer, et + lytefritt offer, det evige livs hellige + brød og den, evige + frelses kalk.

Om denne bønnen skriver Jungmann (jeg har selv uthevet deler av teksten):

The second point that is expressed in the Unde et memores and then taken up and developed in the following prayers, is the oblation or offering. Here we have the central sacrificial prayer of the entire Mass, the foremost liturgical expression of the fact that the Mass is actually a sacrifice. In this connection it is to be noted that there is reference here exclusively to a sacrifice offered up by the Church. Christ, the high-priest, remains wholly in the background. It is only in the ceremonies of the consecration, when the priest all at once starts to present our Lord’s actions step by step, acting as Christ’s mouthpiece in reciting the words of transubstantiation—only here is the veil momentarily withdrawn from the profound depths of this mystery. But now it is once more the Church, the attendant congregation, that speaks and acts. And it is the Church in concreto, manifest plainly in its membership; it is the congregation composed of the “servants” of God and the “holy people,” which has already appeared as the subject of the remembrance in the anamnesis. To show how aware the Church is of what she is, we must point to the significant words here used, plebs sancta, words which bring to the fore the sacerdotal dignity of the people of God in the sense implied by 1 Peter 2:5, 9.

Canon fortsetter med to bønnen til som også tydelig snakker om offeret; om hvordan Gud bes om å ta imot vårt offer som han mottok Abels, Abrahams og Melkisedeks, og (i siste bønn) om at han vil la sin engel bærer offeret fram for seg i himmelen:

Verdiges med nådig og mildt åsyn å se ned på dette offer og motta det, likesom du med velvilje tok mot din rettferdige tjener Abels offer og vår patriark `Abrahams offer og det hellige og lytefri offer som din øversteprest Melkisedek bar fram for deg.

Allmektige Gud, vi ber deg ydmykt, la dette offer ved din hellige engels hender bæres fram til ditt opphøyede alter for din guddommelige majestets åsyn, så alle vi som med del i dette alter tar imot din Sønns høyhellige + legeme og + blod, må bli fylt med + all himmelsk velsignelse og nåde. Ved ham, Kristus, vår Herre. Amen.

Vi kan lese mer om Josef Jungmanns synspunkter i en annen artikkel om alterets plassering, av U. M. Lang, bl.a.:

The reform of the Roman Rite of Mass that was carried out after the Second Vatican Council has significantly altered the shape of Catholic worship. One of the most evident changes was the construction of freestanding altars. The versus populum celebration was adopted throughout the Latin Church, and, with few exceptions, it has become the prevailing practice during Mass for the celebrant to stand behind the altar facing the congregation. This uniformity has led to the widespread misunderstanding that the priest’s «turning his back on the people» is characteristic of the rite of Mass according to the Missal of Pope Saint Pius V whereas the priest’s «turning towards the people» belongs to the Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI. It is also widely assumed by the general public that the celebration of Mass «facing the people» is required, indeed even imposed, by the liturgical reform that was inaugurated by Vatican II.

However, the relevant conciliar and post-conciliar documents present quite a different picture. The Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, speaks neither of a celebration versus populum nor of the setting up of new altars. In view of this fact it is all the more astonishing how rapidly «versus populum altars» appeared in Catholic churches all over the world. …

(In a document from the Vatican) it is said to be desirable to set up the main altar separate from the back wall, so that the priest can walk around it easily and a celebration facing the people is possible. Josef Andreas Jungmann asks us to consider this: «It is only the possibility that is emphasized. And this [separation of the altar from the wall] is not even prescribed, but is only recommended, as one will see if one looks at the Latin text of the directive…. In the new instruction the general permission of such an altar layout is stressed only with regard to possible obstacles or local restrictions.»

In a letter addressed to the heads of bishops’ conferences, dated January 25, 1966, Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, the president of the Consilium, states that regarding the renewal of altars «prudence must be our guide». He goes on to explain: «Above all because for a living and participated liturgy, it is not indispensable that the altar should be versus populum: in the Mass, the entire liturgy of the word is celebrated at the chair, ambo or lectern, and, therefore, facing the assembly; as to the eucharistic liturgy, loudspeaker systems make participation feasible enough. Secondly, hard thought should be given to the artistic and architectural question, this element in many places being protected by rigorous civil laws.»

With reference to Cardinal Lercaro’s exhortation to prudence, Jungmann warns us not to make the option granted by the instruction into «an absolute demand, and eventually a fashion, to which one succumbs without thinking». Inter Oecumenici permits the Mass facing the people, but it does not prescribe it. As Louis Bouyer emphasized in 1967, that document does not at all suggest that Mass facing the people is always the preferable form of Eucharistic celebration.

I kommisjonen Consilium, som snekret sammen den nye messeliturgien i årene før 1969, hadde altså både lederen, kardinal Lercaro, og to sentrale medlemmer, Jungmann og Bouyer (jeg leser bøker av begge disse to akkurat nå) sterke reservasjoner mot å snu alterne. I artikkelen til Lang kan vi også lese under overskrifta Early Critics of «facing the people»:

Already in the sixties, theologians of international renown criticized the sweeping triumph of the celebration versus populum. In addition to Jungmann and Bouyer, Joseph Ratzinger, then professor of theology at Tübingen and peritus at the Council, delivered a lecture at the Katholikentag of 1966 in Bamberg that was received with much attention. His observations have lost nothing of their relevance: «We can no longer deny that exaggerations and aberrations have crept in which are both annoying and unbecoming. Must every Mass, for instance, be celebrated facing the people? Is it so absolutely important to be able to look the priest in the face, or might it not be often very salutary to reflect that he also is a Christian and that he has every reason to turn to God with all his fellow-Christians of the congregation and to say together with them ‘Our Father’?»

Jeg spurte for et par dager siden om Josef Jungmanns (jeg leser nå hans 1000 sider om messeliturgiens utvikling) synspunkter på at katolske altere ble «snudd» nesten over hele verden fra og med midten av 60-tallet. Svaret på spørsmålet er tydeligvis at han på 50- og tidlig 60-tall hadde arbeidet for en slik utvikling, men snudde mot slutten av 60-tallet og mente at en slik «snuing» var misforstått og uheldig. Slik åpner en artikkel som drøfter dette spørsmålet: «The claim that the altar of the early Church was always designed to celebrate facing the people, a claim made often and repeatedly, turns out to be nothing but a fairy tale.» —Josef Jungmann, S.J.

I samme artikkel kan vi lese videre:

Jungmann … had originally pressed hard for the implementation of the versus populum arrangement in the modern world. Shortly after the reforms began, he would come to question his presuppositions, and in time, admit their essential fantasy.

Jungmann’s pre-Conciliar support gave the practice a scholarly veneer. His historical works nonetheless do not treat the subject with great confidence: in his magisterial work The Mass of the Roman Rite, he touches on the issue of its historicity as a foregone conclusion, but fails to back his contentions with much in the way of solid documentation. In other works, he suggested that the proper rationale for present-day versus populum was principally pastoral rather than archaeological. Indeed, he even suggested the Early Christians were sloppy or even ambivalent to the whole issue of direction, apparently ignoring the vast corpus of early Christian hymnody, art and liturgy now known to be focused on Christ-as-rising sun and the East. …

… The long history of ad orientem liturgy is a matter of archaeological record. That being said, the question this paper answers might be said to be a moot point, if Pius XII’s advice in Mediator Dei is to be heeded. The worship of the primitive Christians is not the be-all and the end-all of liturgy:

Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form …

The prevailing versus populum view of the liturgists of the 1960s was backed up by the latest in archaeological discoveries. This has in turn been disproved by even newer discoveries and scholarship which support the living tradition of ad orientem worship. Perhaps we would have done well to not be so skeptical in the first place of the customs that have been handed onto us. It is in this light that the deep wisdom of Pius XII’s words becomes apparent. The wisdom of what was once a continuous, living tradition, written off in the name of what was then the cutting-edge of a scientific approach to liturgy, has been found to be more trustworthy than we supposed, after all.

So what is the next step in our pilgrimage to the East? This question of orientation, underscoring the presence of the Living God in our sanctuaries, is one close to Benedict’s heart. Yet, having lived through the great trauma of the rapid and perhaps imprudent changes of the late sixties, he understands the dangers of radical, unexplained change. Ratzinger wrote in The Spirit of the Liturgy that it would be a mistake to “reject all the reforms of our century wholesale,” but that the face-to-face dialogue of the Liturgy of the Word must also be distinguished from the “common turning to the East during the Eucharistic prayer,” which remains “essential,” as“[l]ooking at the priest has no importance. […] It is not a question of dialogue but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. Ratzinger suggests the solution in places “when a direct common turning towards the East is not possible,” to create an “interior ‘east’ of faith,” in the form of a large standing crucifix on the center of the altar table-top for both priest and people to face, and to in part conceal the priest’s identity so that we might recall that he is not acting for his own sake at the altar. This, along with catechesis and education, will pave the way slowly towards a gradual re-orientation of the liturgy, and will prepare us in time to once again turn both physically and spiritually back to the East. Once we realize that we are meant to gaze upon the same Christ rather than on the talking head of the priest, the ancient custom of the eastward position will not seem so outré and alien. …