Logo
登入
<<<

名稱: 密碼:

加入 | FAQ | 聯絡我們
全部區域 > 神學 > 禮儀與聖事 > The "heresy" of "rubricism"(?)

頁:  1 回 應
作者 內容

Augustine


Posted -
2004/8/18 上午 11:15:33

The Eucharist belongs to the entire church, universal as well as local. The dynamics of its structure are deeply rooted in the theology of God’s grace and in the reality of human religious experience. The Eucharist, rooted in Scripture and Jewish prayer, has been shaped by centuries of tradition, and then reshaped as it was handed over from one culture to another.

As if to signal that its elements were not subject to the whim of individual congregations or presiders, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated changes could only be made by those authorized to do so (§ 22). Thus, the liturgy, belonging to the whole church, should not be arbitrarily changed. Preserving its integrity is the duty of the individual presider.

At the same time, the Council decreed the guiding goal of full, conscious and active participation for all the baptized faithful (§14), each in his/her respective role. That means every effort should be made to tailor the celebration to the mentality, culture and needs of any given community. One sign of that obligation is the explicit exhortation regularly found in the rituals themselves that presiders say something “in these or similar words.” Thus, in another sense, the church’s liturgy belongs in a unique manner to the local gathering of faithful and must be adapted accordingly. This is also the duty of the individual presider.

Historically the official missals and rituals of the church have been published with directions on how the sacraments should be celebrated in small red print, called “rubrics” (from the Latin word, ruber meaning “red”), and the actual words to be said by presider or congregation printed in larger black type. Thus, the word “rubrics” has come to signal attentiveness to the directions in fine print which should be followed in any sacramental celebration.

Rubrics, as I indicated above, are important because they give direction, structure and purpose to the flow of the liturgical celebration. They help prevent serious lapses or deficiencies in the sacramental sign itself. The rubrics can protect the sanctity of the ritual. They serve to keep the individual celebration of each parish’s liturgy in communion with the larger church, diocesan and universal.

When I use the word “rubricism,” however, I mean such an obsessive and driven preoccupation with the directives in red print as to risk losing sight of the Eucharist’s main purpose. The primary goal of sacraments, especially the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the church’s life (§ 10), is sharing in the death and resurrection of the Lord and in Christ’s praise of the Father which accomplished the new creation of God’s people by divine grace and mercy.

While rubrics are important, they can also become obstacles to God’s grace if taken out of context or given exclusive attention. For that reason the Council also included a solemn warning: “Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, more is required than the mere observance of the laws governing valid and licit celebration. It is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part knowingly, actively and fruitfully” (§ 11).

Now to the other part of my title for this column. Heresy is the deliberate and knowing denial of a divinely revealed truth. Like serious sin, formal heresy required full knowledge and a deliberate act of the human will.

There is also the type of heresy called “material,” namely a de facto denial of God’s truth which is not fully understood nor freely made. Such an act can be a denial of God’s truth without the individual realizing it. Good and holy people can have seriously erroneous (namely, heretical) opinions. This latter sense is the notion I’m addressing, and that’s the reason for the title’s use of the word in quotation marks.

There are two reasons for suggesting that total and narrowly exclusive preoccupation with the rubrics of the Eucharist might be heretical, that is, embodying a serious denial of a fundamental truth of our Catholic faith.

First of all, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the directives governing the human actions of our Eucharistic worship could be heretical because it suggests that our salvation depends upon our own actions alone, not God’s grace and mercy. The error of acting as if we can achieve our own salvation by our works, howsoever holy and attentive, is a serious one, called “Pelagianism” after its fourth century proponent.

Secondly, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the rubrics might be heretical because it totters on the brink of indulging in magic. Whenever anyone thinks the blind recitation of certain words or the performance of physical actions themselves causes the effect, that is magic … hardly consistent with our faith or with our Christian recognition of God’s sovereign power.

In Catholic tradition there is an historical recognition that an action can have its own immediate effect … ex opere operato … but that is by the promise of God, not the action of any human being as such.

These are things I as a bishop worry about, given today’s increasing focus on correct rubrics as if they were the means to salvation, rather than an occasion for God’s loving mercy. Keep an eye on the mystery, not merely the pathway to it.

Bishop Richard J. Sklba, Milwaukee

Augustine


Posted -
2004/8/18 上午 11:50:54

Q.1 "First of all, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the directives governing the human actions of our Eucharistic worship could be heretical because it suggests that our salvation depends upon our own actions alone, not God’s grace and mercy."

I will answer that:
(i) Divine Law has given the Church the authority to establish Laws governing public worship of the universal Church. Whosoever delibrately ignores them renders contempt to
God and His Order implicitly and is liable to heresy:

TRENT Sessio VII On Sacraments CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; A.S.

(ii) In response to the accusation of "that our salvation depends upon our own actions alone", it is manifest catholic doctrine that Justification requires God's Grace and/or Mercy vs Pelagianism, however:

ibid. CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; A.S.

Although the salvific grace of the Redemption is obtained by and applied to the Church every time the Holy Sacrifice is offered, the Holy Eucharist may not be confused with Justification, viz. "our salvation" as the author suggests, which depends upon the cooperation of the Free Will with God's Grace.

Wherefore, strict adherence to prescribed rubrics in the solemn administration of the sacraments are not to be confused with the means by which one is justified ("saved"); rather it is a consequence of the infused virtues following one's justification that one ought to render respect to Church Laws.

Reductio ad absurdam: "First of all, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the Ten Commandments/Precepts of the Church/Divine Order... could be heretical because it suggests that our salvation depends upon our own actions alone, not God’s grace and mercy."

Augustine


Posted -
2004/8/18 下午 01:09:12

Q 2
"Secondly, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the rubrics might be heretical because it totters on the brink of indulging in magic. Whenever anyone thinks the blind recitation of certain words or the performance of physical actions themselves causes the effect, that is magic … hardly consistent with our faith or with our Christian recognition of God’s sovereign power.

I will answer that.
(i) In the article, there is an alleged non-existent confrontation between the efficacies of
(a)the rite of Consecration itself, or
(b)that of sacraments as instruments conferring Grace "ex opere operato",

and the sovereign power of God behind all.

(a) In the case of the Consecration in Mass, God wills that the Body and Blood His beloved Son be present sacramentally under the eucharistic species so that He may be offered in an unbloody manner to God the Father:

S. XIII Cap.4 "And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation."

Thus a Consecration performed in correct external rites and internal disposition of the minister suffices to make real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ.

It is by virtue of act of the Consecration, which contains external signs, that transubstantiation is effected. And this is merely a manifestation of, and never against, God's Sovereign power. The offering priest by no means claim the exclusive power to make present the Blessed Sacrament, rather he is acting in the person of Christ, i.e., by the institution of God Himself, from whom every priest receive the said power at his ordination.

(b) As regards the sacraments as instruments of grace, let no one confuse the doctrine of sacramental efficacy "ex opere operato" with the alleged usurpation of power of the Almighty to supply grace according to His Will.

(Doctrine of "ex opere operato") S.VII CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; A.S.

(ii) The phrase "blind recitation of certain words" is ficitious. As a matter of fact, by:

S. VII CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; A.S.

Therefore the external act of Consecration could not be described as "blind recitation of certain words" since the corrcet intention of the ordained minister constitutes a part of the (valid) consecration.

Wherefore, the accusation contesting the efficacy of the Holy Mass ex opere operato as regards transubstantiation or the operating of grace is liable to heresy. (Which would be known as "Sklbaism")

edward


Posted -
2004/8/18 下午 06:33:34

該位主教似乎是製造一個稻草人來,予以攻擊。

小弟以為當下教會所面對的問題,不是禮規主義,而是大家對禮規的無知和漠視。

Cecil


Posted -
2004/8/19 上午 10:42:34

小妹在上一期"公教報"的讀者心聲,請各位指教:-

"前一期「公教報」(八月一日)的社論所指的教廷文件,相信是Redemptionis Sacramentum訓令那份了吧? 對於這份文件和梵二的禮儀精神互相的「磨擦」,鄙人不是禮儀專家,所以無從置評,但從一個普通關心聖禮儀的平信徒角度,鄙人倒有興趣借貴欄分享一二。
這份訓令文件是因應教宗去年聖周四發表的通諭Eucharistia de Ecclesia的公開要求而由教廷聖禮部制訂和發出的,當中必然考慮到兩個既矛盾但又必需兼容的問題 – 聖禮儀在信仰角度上的普遍(普世)性,和容許禮儀的「本地化」以達福傳的實際需要。
要知道為何要頒布這訓令,似乎有必要先看看通諭的內容,否則只見訓令的規條,卻看不見其精神(神學依據),這會是十分之嚴重的以偏蓋全,使宗座的苦心付諸東流。何解?所有禮儀規格都不是虛禮而是按照梵二「禮儀憲章」所載的,使信眾「主動地、積極地參與其中」,再不也是看著(望)而已的途徑。既然要求信眾主動參與,信眾對禮儀其實就再不可以不求甚解,而是必須明白每個禮儀行動的背後意義,方能主動地、積極地參與其中。
亦正因為有了梵二禮儀憲章這關於參與性的大前提,宗座特意在他的銀禧年發表了這通諭,提醒普世教會明白聖禮儀是公教寶藏這重要事實,和好些對聖禮儀應持的信仰態度。
本港教區的信友對禮儀興趣也一點不少,這從禮委每次舉辦課程和講座的出席人數可見一班。對社論所提到的「禮儀之爭」,其實泰半來自各方的(一)溝通問題;(二)人事問題;(三)心態問題;(四)信仰程度問題。
相信這一大堆的所謂問題,源頭不在教廷聖禮部,不在訓令、通諭.這兩份文件,而是在於個別鬧別扭的人士或團體而已!他們的問題,是要由信仰培育入手的。"

edward


Posted -
2004/8/19 下午 06:12:42

小弟也拜讀過妳的心聲,亦甚為同意妳的見解。

不過,教宗的那篇通諭,應是Ecclesia de Eucharistia。

edward


Posted -
2004/8/19 下午 07:06:16

做這篇社論的仁兄,不知有沒有看過《禮儀憲章》的呢?

梵二明明的說個別司鐸無權擅自增刪禮儀,聖教法典亦說明要按照禮規去舉行禮儀。禮書上亦指明了哪些地方可以或不可以作出個別適應。

該篇社論是否要為司鐸的背叛建立起理論基礎--服從指引就是倒退、反對指引就是符合「梵二精神」;並要教友團體們各自建立起山頭來,反對聖座的明確指引呢?

我真不明白「梵二精神」為何可以被人曲解至此。

*****************************************************

公教報3154期社論.〈禮儀生活大倒退〉

梵二最珍貴之處,就是將生命力注入教會,使教會再次生機勃勃。教會不再將焦點放在應該要怎樣做,而是如何去做;讓信徒們在教會內彼此共融,獲得滋養。

公議會的神長們更打破了一貫由上而下的權威傳統,重整優次,將重點放在人與人之間和諧的橫面關係上,互相合作,彼此協調,而不再只是放在管理監控的層面。教會更明白在基督內大家都是兄弟姊妹,並將這概念展延至教會外的世界。

最近教廷聖禮部發出新的禮儀指引,強調了禮儀一統化,若有越雷池半步,便會立刻被批判為偏離禮儀正道,這種態度與梵二的彼此合作、團體共融的精神背道而馳。

某位神學家在愛爾蘭一份司鐸刊物文章中指出,在禮儀生活和牧民理念兩者的張力中,可以擦出新生命的火花。但他慨嘆,這由上而下的禮儀指引,抑壓了這生命的火花,難於實踐分享天主的創造工程。

另一位司鐸形容自己是一個頗為傳統的堂區牧者,他努力忠於梵二精神,並表示在這世代做堂區牧養工作,過程艱巨;儘管如此,他也盡力在堂區內營造祈禱的氛圍,然而,最近教廷的新禮儀指引卻使這種積極的情況失去神采,令人感到不安;若然依照最近的禮儀指引去做,正面的效果不顯著。

這指引最令人失望的是在信友間造成了一種不信任的氣氛,一撮盲從附和的狂熱分子,更承擔了監察堂區禮儀生活和打小報告的任務,不少地方的司鐸被指未有完全依照新的禮規,偏離禮儀,備受責難,團體因而產生敵視與分割,堂區的禮儀生活被窒息,神父亦感到無所適從。結局是一種新興的不信任和導向死亡的文化壓制了原本充滿活潑有生氣的梵二精神。

edward


Posted -
2004/8/19 下午 07:22:01

節錄《禮儀憲章》

11.可是,為獲得圓滿的實效,信友必須以純正的心靈準備,去接近禮儀,又要心口如一,並與上天恩寵合作,以免白受天主的恩寵(二八)。所以,牧靈者應該注意,使在禮儀行為中,不僅為有效及合法舉行遵守法律,而且要使信友有意識地、主動地、實惠地參與禮儀。

22
§1.管理聖教禮儀,只屬於教會權力之下:就是屬於宗座,及依法律規定,屬於主教權下。
§2.根據法律所賦予的權力,在規定的範圈內。管理禮儀事項,也屬於合法組成的各種地區性的主教團權下。
§3.因此,任何其他人士,即便是司鐸,決不得擅自增、減,或改變禮儀的任何部分。

23. (...) 還要盡可能避免在臨界地區之間,形成禮節的顯然差別。

28. 在舉行禮儀時,無論是司祭或信友,每人按照事體的性質和禮規,盡自己的任務,只作自己的一份,且要作得齊全

29. 連輔祭員、宣讀員、解釋員,以及屬於歌詠團的團員,都是在履行真正的禮儀職務。因此,他們應該面對如此偉大職務,及天主子民對他們的合法要求,以相稱的虔誠與秩序,去執行自己的任務(...)。

36.
§1. 在拉丁禮儀內,除非有特殊法律規定,應保存使用拉丁語。
§2. 可是在彌撒內或在行聖事時,或在禮儀的其他部分,使用本地語言,多次為民眾很有益處,可准予廣泛的使用,尤其在宣讀及勸勉時、在某些祈禱文及歌唱中為然,有關此事的規則,由下列各章分別記載。

54.
在民眾參與的彌撒內,可准予相當部分的本地語言,尤其在讀經及信友禱詞部分,以及按照地方情形,根據本憲章第三十六節的規定,屬於民眾的部分。
但要設法,使信友們也能用拉丁文共同誦念成歌唱,彌撒常用經文中屬於他們的部分
如有某些地區,認為適宜更廣泛的在彌撒中使用本地語言,應遵照本憲章第四十節的規定辦理。

100.
牧靈人員應設法使主要的課典經文,尤其是晚禱經,在主日及隆重慶節,在聖堂內共同舉行。懇勸在俗信友,或是與司鐸一起,或是他們彼此集合在一起,甚或每人單獨的,也誦念日課。

101.
§1. 按照拉丁禮多世紀的傳統,為聖職人員仍應保存拉丁文日課,但為那些不能用拉丁文妥善履行日課的聖職人員,當權人可以在個別情形下,准予使用按第三十六節的規定,所作的本地語言的譯文。(...)

116. 教會以額俄略曲為羅馬禮儀的本有歌曲,所以在禮儀行為中,如果其他歌曲條件相等,則額俄略曲佔優先。(...)

edward


Posted -
2004/8/20 上午 07:46:06

Share with you an article

Liturgical Reform, the Terms of the Debate

Cecil


Posted -
2004/8/20 上午 10:15:13

Edward's posting is a long one. Having goen through just the first 5 pages, may I drop in a fine lines on a few points mentioned in it -
(1) "As a cultural pattern, CONSUMERISM certainly had a serious debilitating effect on the Litrugy...involves an excessive desige to possess and acculmulate. Similarly, indivdualsim invovles an excessive desire for self-reliance. Do the consumer mentality and American individualsim affect the popular attitude toward the Mass?" -
To this first point mentioned in the article, I have this obsevation (From MY parish over the last few years) - 信眾的心態是求取方便.為了可以方便各人駕車到非常擁擠的堂區,議會於是和(當年的)牧職團訂好了改動裡儀的一些重要地方 - 如在領聖體後不待領後經頌讀便宣佈長篇大論的堂區報告.此其一.應納入CONSUMERISM一項.其二,歌詠團因為不想受限制於領主人數而要臨場改動領主詠的唱出和自己團員領聖體的機會,於是決定要"所有"團員領畢聖體之後才開始唱'領主詠'.這做法不跟RUBRICS不只,更加使領主的氣氛失去,甚麼'同心合意一同歡欣領主',變為每次都是團員飛步爭先領聖體,而在大禮儀中,團員過四五十人亦如此,結果是聖堂內沒音樂,沒領主詠(亦不改為宣讀),超過五六分鍾之久.

Cecil


Posted -
2004/8/20 上午 10:25:10

在去年堂區禮儀組改革了以上兩項之後,給不少'死硬'的consumers及indivdualists大肆攻擊,而鄙人亦給人四出揶揄,但這並不重要.重要的,是提出這樣的事情求改善,是基於(1)客觀的教會訓導而非我個人意願;(2)對於自己的信仰生活,應否持死硬的封閉態度,以至在客觀事實上明明大錯的事上也完全不肯聽一聽其他的聲音?
我所以說,禮儀之爭,純是人的結果;是封閉的思維加上CONSUMERISM及INDIVIDUALISM所演變出來的神枯表徵.
(待續)

Cecil


Posted -
2004/8/20 上午 10:46:01

(2) "The atomization of the Liturgy in many respects indicates that the Liturgy is no longer seen as a gift to be received from the Church, but as A KIND OF SOCIAL ACTIVITY to be MANIPULATED by xcliques of liturgical elites. Hence the proliferation of litrugcail options is seen as a means to satsify divergent demands." -
此乃事實上存在的情況.
個別神職人員對此的態度可以很不同,就如公教報社論中所提到的那些/那位,明顯不同意禮儀應大公化,而是愛遷就個別團體的個別需要.
但當這些個別團體給CONSUMERISM 以及 INDIVIDUALISM大量入侵了時,咱們的禮儀又將會走向何方? 和稀泥般的表面和諧,沒有聖神的駒動,是否真的共融?
我倒真的希望能得一個答案.

CECIL


Posted -
2004/8/20 上午 11:26:45

(3)文內很重要的一點 - "The proliferation of the liturgical options also cultivates the attitude that the sacrd Liturgy is something to be created, not received. ...reveals an attitude of possession rather than reception, --- of devising ratherthan actively entering into....It mirrors a consumerist and individualisitic Western culture."
文章所提的一個例子,是在禮儀中由衷發出的一些愛德行動,很多時並非正式的合規格,但若受聖神的駒動,就不能以禮規來硬性規範其為"不宜";但同一行為,如破格將之規範化,機械式地在日後禮儀內重施故技,則會非常不合宜了.而這些行動如果是純世俗化的由衷表達,由於接近肉欲,則亦不合宜.

"In the name of relevance and pastoral necessity, priests and liturgisits become the masters of the Liturgy. ..."
This is something dangerous, and easily could happen anywhere.

"...we often hear certain individuals and liturgical groups impugning the alleged restrictive evils of 'rubricism'> But rubrics and traditional liturgical legislation ought NOT be considered "constraints to freedom". Rather, rubrics oguht to be considered the GIFTS that they are."
I have heard one pastor criticising rubrics categorically during a liturgy committee meeting.
To what extent he has misguided himself is something lay faithfuls should also be aware of.

edward


Posted -
2004/8/21 上午 12:03:35

讓我們重溫一下神父接受鐸職時,所須作的誓言。

Episcopus: Vultis munus sacertotii in gradu presbyterorum ut probi Episcoporum Ordinis cooperatores, in pascendo grege dominico, duce Spiritu Sancto, indesinenter explere?

Electi: Volo.

Episcopus: Vultis ministerium verbi, in praedicatione Evangelii et expositione fidei catholicae, digne et sapienter explere?

Electi: Volo.

Episcopus: Vultis mysteria Christi ad laudem Dei et sanctificationem populi christiani, secundum Ecclesiae traditionem, praesertim in Eucharistiae sacrificio et sacramento reconciliationis, pie et fideliter celebrare?

Electi: Volo.

Episcopus: Vultis nobiscum misericordiam divinam pro populo vobis commisso implorare orandi mandato indesinenter instantes?

Electi: Volo.

Episcopus: Vultis Christo summo Sacerdoti, qui seipsum pro nobis hostiam puram obtulit Patri, arctius in dies coniungi et cum eo vos ipsos, pro salute hominum, Deo consecrare?

Electi: Volo, Deo auxiliante.

Episcopus: Promittis mihi et successoribus meis reverentiam et oboedientiam?

Electus: Promitto.

Episcopus: Qui coepit in te opus bonum, Deus, ipse perficiat.

以下是接受主教職的誓言。

Episcopus ordinans principalis: (...) Vis corpus Christi, Ecclesiam eius, aedificare et in eius unitate cum Ordine Episcoporum, sub auctoritate succesoris beati Petri Apostoli, permananere?

Electus: Volo.

EOP: Vis beati Petri Apostoli successori oboedientiam fideliter exhibere?

Electus: Volo.

edward


Posted -
2004/8/21 上午 12:41:00

Share with you another article:

After the Council: Living Vatican II

Cecil


Posted -
2004/8/21 上午 10:25:16

The latter part of the Article on laity is especially helpful.
So there is a "Crisis Executive Board". I think we do need it in our Diocese to oversee crises in faith as evidenced in different parishes and organisations.

edward


Posted -
2004/8/21 下午 02:30:15

The "Crisis" in Crisis Executive Board is the name of the magazine.

頁:  1 回 應