Jeg konkluderer min grundige presentasjon av dr. Haukes foredrag ved the Fota Liturgical Conference – som jeg aller først skrev om her – med hva han sier spesifikt om noe kardinal Ratzinger har skrevet om messens hovedstruktur:

In a short article of 1971, cited by Ratzinger, Jungmann also shows “that, linguistically speaking, Luther’s use of the word ‘Supper’ [Abendmahl] was a complete innovation. After 1 Corinthians 11:20 the designation of Eucharist as ‘meal’ does not occur again until the sixteenth century, apart from direct quotations of 1 Corinthians 11:20 and references to the satisfaction of hunger (in deliberate contrast to the Eucharist).”

The meaning of “Eucharist” also fits with the meaning of rational verbal sacrifice (oblatio rationabilis), which spiritualizes the category of sacrifice and is well suited “to interpret what is special in Jesus’ sacrifice. For what we have here is death transformed into a word of acceptance and self-surrender.” Ratzinger concludes: “This much should be clear at this stage: if the basic structure of the Mass is not the ‘meal’ but eucharistia, there remains a necessary and fruitful difference between the liturgical (structural) and the dogmatic level; but they are not estranged: each seeks and determines the other. … But the meal symbolism is subordinated to a larger whole and integrated into it.”

Fra Dr. Haukes foredrag om messens hovedstruktur (som jeg har nevnt flere ganger, bl.a. her – hele foredraget kan leses her) tar jeg også med noe av det han siterer fra den kjente liturgen Josef Andreas Jungmann. Jungmann er veldig klar på at måltidet aldri var messens hovedpoeng, men heller takksigelsen, eukaristien, frembæringen av offer til Gud:

In 1949 Jungmann published an article dedicated entirely to the “basic structure (Grundgestalt) of the Eucharist. Other writings on this theme followed, especially in 1967, 1970 and 1971. Already in a contribution of 1943 he had shown that in the ancient Jewish banquet, on the occasion of the great feasts, a gesture of offering could be found when the father of the family elevated the chalice. The liturgy of Saint Basil, in the institution narrative, ascribes this gesture to the Last Supper itself, a reference which “very probably” corresponds to the historical reality. “The Lord takes the bread in his holy hands and holds it, showing it as he offers it towards the heavenly Father.” The sacrificial symbolism manifests itself therefore not only in the separation of the holy species, but also in the elevation of the gifts which can be observed already in the offertorium: there the offered gifts “receive that movement towards God … which is ultimately due to the transubstantiated gifts, the body and blood of the Lord.”

The “thanksgiving” is at the same time an “offering-up” which shows itself in the early Middle Ages in the elevation of the chalice before the consecration. Since the 12th century, the elevation is first of all an invitation to adore and to salute the Lord, but it must be taken into account that it originally contained a sacrificial symbolism. “It is also not enough to say that the sacrifice becomes present under the structure of the meal; for even in this case, the Mass would not be the visible sacrifice of which the Council of Trent … and the whole Tradition speaks.”

In his article on the “basic structure of the Mass,” Jungmann stresses “that in all liturgies, without exception, the basic structure of the celebration is formed as a thanksgiving to God, and indeed as a thanksgiving from which the offering springs: we give thanks to you and so we offer to you.” “Everything that expresses the giving, the movement of the gifts towards God” belongs to the exterior gestures which manifest this idea. … In this sense, the whole rite between the Liturgy of the Word and the Communion is clearly referred, also as structure (Gestalt), not merely to the togetherness of a common table, but to the movement towards God which begins in the preparatory part of the Mass and comes to rest in the Communion rite.” This “ritual expression is not the fruit of a late and secondary development, but was impressed already in the primitive Church in the institution of Jesus.”

The great historical study of Jungmann on the Roman Mass, Missarum solemnia, is also important for our topic. Here he presents the earliest names of the Holy Mass. “On the basis of the liturgical texts themselves, Jungmann shows that, even in the most ancient forms, the eucharistia – the prayer of anamnesis in the shape of a thanksgiving – is more prominent than the meal aspect. According to Jungmann, the basic structure, at least from the end of the first century, is not the meal but the eucharistia; even in Ignatius of Antioch this is the term given to the whole action.”

… After the reference to the biblical concepts of “breaking bread” and the “Lord’s banquet,” Jungmann mentions first of all the importance of the title “Eucharist” already in the early post-biblical sources. Immediately after it, however, he reports a whole series of concepts that revolve around the notion of “sacrifice.” We should also mention here the early testimonies of the Didache and of the First Letter of Clement (even if Jungmann himself does not report these sources in his overview). The Didache, a writing from ancient Syria, indicates the Eucharist as “sacrifice” (‘tusia’) and sees in it the fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi about the pure offering which must be practiced at any place and at any time (Mal 1:11). Also extremely important is the reference of the First Letter of Clement, in which Pope Clement I in the year 96 addresses the Corinthians. He is dealing with the reinstitution of the presbyters-bishops who had been driven away from their ministry without any valid motive. Their ministry has an apostolic origin. The central task of the presbyters-bishops is the “offering of the gifts” (prosenegkóntas tà dôra).89 After the concept of sacrifice, Jungmann mentions still other names of the Mass, such as “the Holy,” “service (liturgy),” “assembly,” and “Mass.”

Shawn Tribe presiserer stadig hva han mente med innlegget (som jeg nevnte her) om messen som offer. Han skriver i en kommentar til sitt eget innlegg:

Just to keep things in focus, as I’ve noted above, being «Mass-centered» is not really the issue I’ve tried to speak to, but rather how the Mass is being understood. One could give primary focus to the Mass and still fall into the issue I am presenting.
…

Han skriver også noe som jeg har tenkt mange ganger, og gjerne selv kunne ha formulert akkurat som han selv gjør det:

I’ve known people who speak so (use the term «Sacrifice of the Mass») but yet still have a view of the Mass which still sees it as -essentially- about encountering Christ in the Blessed Sacrament through adoration at the moment of consecration and receipt of Holy Communion. I think in those instances it is a case of traditional language having been adopted, but without necessarily a full comprehension of the theological underpinnings and meaning of those terms.

This is why I say that I believe the Trinitarian dimension needs to be expounded upon, as does a
typological consideration between the Old and New Testament. These will help to give those theological underpinnings and help us to understand the Mass in the light of the big picture of salvation history and the heavenly liturgy.

Shawn Tribe skrev på NLM-bloggen i går et interessant innlegg om messen – se her. Der tar han opp viktige poenger fra starten av den liturgiske bevegelsen, som tradisjonalister gjerne glemmer. De arbeidet for at betydningen av det hellige messeofferet skulle gjøres så tydelig som mulig, og at andre fromhetsøvelser ikke skulle få stå i veien for Kirkens viktigste liturgi på noen måte.

På den tid (1920-30) hadde man ikke begynt å tenke (feilaktig) på messen som først og fremst et måltidsfellesskap, men også gode ting som eukaristisk tilbedelse og privatandakter kunne komme i veien for messeofferet. I vår tid og i vårt land er selve konsekrasjonen vektlagt ganske mye, og det er ikke noe galt i det, men mange ser ut til å legge liten vekt på at Kristus så i messen bærer seg selv frem som et lyteløst offer for Faderen. Slik skriver Shawn Tribe:

… today, those of us who are working toward some sort of genuine revival and restoration of the liturgical life in the Latin rite are accustomed to think critically of the liturgical over-emphases of the progressivist school of liturgical thought – the over-emphasis of the meal aspect over the sacrificial, the horizontal over the vertical and so on – but many may not be as conscious as they should be of the presence other over-emphases, seemingly «traditional», coming from what we might call the more pietistic and devotionalist mindset; over-emphases which are indeed still manifest today and which, in their own way, also come at the expense of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass.

So of what do I speak? One has only to look at some of the journals and books of the earlier 20th century Liturgical Movement to see this particular over-emphasis described in the context of their own time:

«The Mass came to be less and less appreciated as the sacrifice of Christ. Instead, the adoration of the Eucharist was greatly developed, and thereby the spiritual energies of the faithful were in the course of centuries turned away from the sacrifice itself.

We must try to keep in mind that, during the Mass and in particular at the consecration, the primary and essential thing is the offering of the sacrifice; the adoration of the Species is entirely secondary. We should strive to impress ourselves and those committed to our care with a deep understanding and appreciation of the sacrificial action. The Mass is not a “devotion,” it is not the adoration of the Eucharist: it is the sacrifice offered by Christ, and in this offering we are actually participating since it is also our sacrifice. We come to Mass, not so much to adore Christ in His divinity as to offer the body and blood of the divine Lamb to our heavenly Father.»

This quotation is from Fr. Pius Parsch (as quoted in the July 1938 issue of Orate Fratres), who admittedly was not without his own excesses, but he is certainly on point here both in his identification of a problem and in his understanding of the sacred liturgy. …

Debatten etter dette innlegget dreier seg etter min mening litt for mye om eukartistisk tilbedelse; den er vel ikke i særlig grad problemet, selv om det er sant at den aldri må komme i veien for messens hellige sonings- og tilbedelsesoffer. Innleggets forfatter skriver derfor også i en kommentar:

The primary point of focus however is simply this: if one’s view of the Mass is such that it is understood as purely or even primarily an act of Eucharistic adoration of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, then this is a very incomplete understanding of and approach to the Mass which needs to be addressed. It is a reductionism. Not the only one of course, but it is one and various problems spring from it. We should take recognize it and seek to foster a fuller understanding of the full nature of the Mass.

Dr. Hauke nevner at kardinal Ratzinger uttaler seg (i boka «Feast of Faith», s 35-36) om forsøket på å skille mellom messens ytre og indre, i måltidsstrukturen og offerinnholdet. han har ingen tro på et slikt skille:

As Ratzinger observes: The explication according to which the structure of meal and the content of sacrifice were juxtaposed “could not provide a satisfactory answer in the long term. Particularly if the structure is not merely a ceremonial form, but at its core an indispensable manifestation of its essential content, it makes no sense absolutely to separate the one from the other. The lack of clarity which has prevailed in this area, even during the Council, regarding the relation between the dogmatic and liturgical levels, 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 which have since preoccupied us.”