NLM-bloggen nevnte for noen dager siden at den femte Fota internasjonale liturgiske konferansen arrangeres i Cork City, Irland fra 7. til 9. juli 2012. Lesere av denne bloggen vil vite at jeg ser på spørsmålet om messen som et offer er et av de viktigste liturgiske spørsmålene i vår tid; både messen og prestenes identitet avhenger av en riktig forståelse av dette. Om konferansens tema sies det bl.a.:

The theme of Fota V is “Celebrating the Eucharist: Sacrifice and Communion.” The subject continues liturgical and theological reflection on the Eucharist in the wake of the 50th. International Eucharist Congress held in Dublin under the title The Eucharist: Communion with Christ and with one another. The importance of that reflection for ecclesial renewal was strongly emphasized by Pope Benedict XVI in his message to the Dublin Congress. …

The basis for this year’s reflection is a paper entitled The ‘Basic Structure’ (Grundgestalt) of the Eucharistic Celebration According to Joseph Ratzinger, delivered at last year’s Conference by Professor Dr. Manfred Hauke of Lugano who drew attention to the debate between Franz Seraph Renz (1884–1916) and his student Franz Sales Wieland (1877–1957) of Augsburg who insisted that the Eucharist was essentially and meal, and the counter challenge of the Innsbruck dogmatic theologian, Emil Dorsch SJ (1867–1934), who asserted the essentially sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. This debate forms the theological background to the discussion, in its stricter sense, on the topic of the Eucharist as sacrifice or meal, which began in 1939 with some reflections by Romano Guardini, and culminated in the 1980s with the contributions of Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper.

The most important contribution of Joseph Ratzinger to this debate is an article, published in 1977, in the German edition of the journal Communio . This article, supplemented by two addenda, was subsequently published in his book The Feast of faith (1981), and now appears as part of the collected works of Joseph Ratzinger (in German), in volume eleven dedicated to the theology of the liturgy (2008). The importance of this contribution is evident in the remark of Ratzinger that: “[with] the concept of form or structure [Gestalt], a hitherto unknown category entered the theological dialogue, clearly recognizable as a power for reform. Indeed, it can be said that it was this category that gave birth to liturgical scholarship in the modern sense.”

Professor Hauke points out that the core of the discussion revolves around Guardini’s idea that ‘structure’ (or ‘form/figure/shape’, in German Gestalt) and ‘content’ (Gehalt) are entirely different things: thus the Holy Mass in its ‘structure’ is a meal, but its ‘content’ is a sacrifice. This divergence between liturgical structure and dogmatic content, according to Ratzinger: “must be regarded as the central problem of the liturgical reform. Failure to deal with it has resulted in a great many of the individual problems that have since preoccupied us.”

Professor Dr. Hauke vil også i år holde et foredran om «the question of the systematical discussion on the “essence” of Eucharistic Sacrifice».

I dagens (tradisjonelle) tidebønner leser vi slik i matutins 4., 5. og 6. lesning:

Reading 4
From the Sermons of St Augustin, Bishop of Hippo. 20th on the Saints.
Outside the most holy Birthday of the Lord, we find celebrated in the Gospel the birth of only one other, namely, that of the blessed Baptist, John. As regardeth all others among God’s holy and chosen ones we know that that day is observed whereon, with their work finished, and the world conquered and finally trampled down, they were born from this into a better life, even one of everlasting blessedness. In others is honoured the crowning of the struggle on their last day of dying life, but in John is honoured the first day; in him the very beginning is found hallowed. And the reason of this is, without doubt, because he was sent from God to bear witness to the coming of the Light, lest when It came It might take the darkness by surprise, and the darkness might not comprehend It. Now, John was a figure of the Old Testament, and showed in his own person a typical embodiment of the Law; and therefore John heralded beforehand the coming of the Saviour, even as the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to the grace of Christ. (Gal. iii. 24.)

Reading 5
But as touching this, that he prophesied while yet in the hidden depths of his mother’s womb, and while himself lightless bore testimony to the truth, we are to understand it as a figure how that while himself wrapped round with the veil and carnal ordinances of the letter, he by the spirit preached unto the world a Redeemer, and testified that Jesus is our Lord even while for himself, working under the law, the birth of the new dispensation was still in the womb of the future, and not come to day. The Jews were estranged from the womb, that is from the Law, that womb heavy with the Christ That was to be; they went astray from the belly, speaking lies, (Ps. lvii. 4) and therefore John came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. (John i. 7)

Reading 6
But as for this, that when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples Matth. xi. 2 this is the Law sending to the Gospel. For John here was a figure of the Law, imprisoned in ignorance, lying in the dark, and in a hidden place, and he was fettered through Jewish misunderstanding within the bonds of the letter. But of him was it said, as is written in the Blessed Evangelist He was a burning and a shining light that is to say, that, when the whole world was wrapt in the night of ignorance, this Saint was kindled by the fire of the Holy Ghost, to show before men the light of salvation, and at the hour of the thickest darkness of sin, appeared like a bright morning star to herald the rising of that Sun so right gloriously radiant, the Son of righteousness, Christ our Lord. And this is why John said of himself: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord. (John i. 15)

En prest skriver om hvor nyttig og viktig kommunionsbenken/ alterringen kan være (tips fra Father Z.):

«295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed, and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices. It should suitably be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation». – General Instruction of the Roman Missal

Here the Church requires that the sanctuary be marked off, calling for, yes, even now, a particular structure; in other words, an altar rail. The altar rail serves beautiful symbolic and considerately practical purposes within the Mass. Further, it makes basic psychological sense as well. Let me explain.

Firstly, we call it an altar rail; the name has reference to the altar. This rail can be seen as an extension of the altar. Christ becomes present on the altar and invites us to be fed at His altar via the rail. Very often the appearance of the rail matches the appearance or imitates the appearance of the altar. In churches where there is no rail, this symbolism is very diminished or completely destroyed. There is a beautiful parallel in the series of events that lead to the distribution of Holy Communion. Just as the priest goes to the altar, offers the sacrifice, and brings that Sacrament to the altar rail for the faithful, so every Christian is called to Sunday Mass, called to the altar, and, nourished by that Sacrament, is sent out to bring Christ and His gospel to the world through daily life.

Practically, the rail is a help to people, both physically and spiritually. The use of rail and the way Holy Communion is distributed with it sets a solemn pace for the reception of Holy Communion. On the part of the priest, more of his time is spent actually distributing the Blessed Sacrament and less time waiting. On the part of the person receiving, the hurried tone is removed; there is a great opportunity for quiet and prayer both a few moments before and after receiving our Lord. The rail also is a help to people in kneeling and standing back up. ….

Vatikankonsilet sa ingen ting om kommunionsbenken (eller er det lov å kalle den alterringen også på norsk, selv om dette høres luthersk ut?), og det gjorde heller ikke liturgirevisjonen i 1969, men likevel forsvant disse fra alle katolske kirker på slutten av 60-tallet. Nå er det heldigvis (håper jeg) blitt tillatt å snakke om dette igjen; vil det ikke være fint å knele (igjen) når man skal motta kommunion?

Jeg legger ut denne videoen uten kommentarer i første omgang, siden jeg fortsatt er på ferie.

Shawn Tribe på NLM-bloggen skriver om bildet over:

It is always encouraging (never mind interesting) to hear of newly ordained diocesan priests who very quickly demonstrate their interest in the liturgical patrimony of the Church by means of the use of the more ancient liturgical books. These phenomena, if that is the right word for it, seems to rather quickly becoming more and more of a routine occurrence. For any of those who are either interested in the propagation of that patrimony, whether through the usus antiquior or through the reform of the reform, this can only be good news.

Two such examples came to my attention in the past day alone, one of which I will share with you today. In this instance, I refer you to Father Pablo Santa Maria, who was ordained to the priesthood for the Archdiocese of Vancouver on May 26th and who celebrated his first Mass according to the usus antiquior one week later.

I noen kommentarer til dette kan vi også lese:

With a many or most current seminarians reportedly enthusiastic about the EF, I suspect it won’t be too long before a first solemn high Mass is not an unusual phenomenon. But, even as a TLM devotee, I wonder whether the greater significance of this is not for the EF but for more proper and traditional celebration of the OF. …

… I agree. Up here in the greater NYCity area the OF masses at a number of churches I’ve visited are significantly more dignified, with a decidedly traditional ceremonial, Mass ad orientem, sung English or Latin Propers, instead of hymns, but with a partially sung canon becoming more widespread. … Pope Benedict and the archbishops of New York have had a profound influence in ways and in places which would have seemed unimaginable when the pope was elected in 2006.

På NLM-bloggen beskrives en ny bok fra Det anglikanske ordinariatet ganske greit og presist, slik:

… the Ordinariate will retain the usage of «traditional language» — meaning, sacral or hieratic English — in its liturgical books (or at least in this particular liturgical book, though let us hope for more of the same as things develop with the Ordinariate’s other liturgical books) and that this has been «a deliberate decision by the Holy See.»

Perhaps this exercise might eventually see others seeing the benefit of its expansion beyond the confines of the Ordinariate and into English language renderings of the texts of the Roman Missal as well (the benefits of which I have argued before, both in 2007 and 2009.)

As was already noted in March 2012, the liturgical calendar of the Ordinariate will retain the «Sundays after Trinity» and also includes Septuagesimatide, Ember Days and the ancient octave of Pentecost.

Certainly all of these elements raise again the prospect that, not only is the Ordinariate offering something of value to former Anglicans, it is also a player in the broader new liturgical movement and reform of the reform. …