|
作者
|
內容
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 上午 07:40:47
|
|
|
覆靚仔兄：
小弟以為，輔祭在禮儀中需要禮儀服飾，是基於他們擔任的，是祭台服務的職務。不論他們是提爐、持蠟燭或經書等，按他們職務的需要，均時常與聖職人員（主教、司鐸、執事）一起。因此他們穿著該些服飾，不僅是由於他們的功能，亦是由於教友們注目聖所的視覺需要。
送聖體員，按其職務而言，屬特派及非常的職務，其基本活動範圍，應是在監獄、醫院及教友家中，而不是在聖堂。因此我會prefer他們穿著合適的「制服」（適合外出活動，而讓人了解有公務在身）而非「禮服」。這些ministri extraordinarii應否「走近祭台」，在禮儀上絕對是一個可以辯論的問題。兄可參閱新總論第162條。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 上午 07:49:50
|
|
|
禮儀的職務，按照《總論》可大致分為：
一、聖職人員的職務
二、全體天主子民的職務
三、某些特殊（peculiar, not extraordinary）職務
而該些「特殊職務」，其實很大程度上是由平信徒所分擔。當中包括：受任命的輔祭員和讀經員、祭台服務員、聖詠員、歌詠團、領唱員、祭衣室管理員、領經員、收集捐獻者、招待員和司禮等。
是否所有這些服務人員都需要「禮服」？
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 上午 07:56:45
|
|
|
這亦可能反省香港社會更深入的問題：禮儀變得casual。
現時我們平信徒參與主日的彌撒，是似「赴宴」抑或「去大家樂麥當勞」，大家心裡有數。
但長遠來說，小弟認為是應該矯正大家參與禮儀的態度，而不是將平時聖堂的「一官半職」都予以神職化。「在俗」是平信徒的特點，此一項亦應能在禮儀的制服中，表現出來。
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 上午 09:59:38
|
|
|
在香港,我們除了將任執事或司鐸之人仕外,我們是沒有"真正的"輔祭員"及"讀經員"的.
其他所有的禮儀職務人員,除聖職人員外,皆是非常務的.
總論明言,所有在彌撒中有職務者,其基本服飾為"長白衣".所以兄所指的禮儀人員皆穿長白衣是正確,合理與合法的做法,只是沒有人做吧了.
弟以為兄所分別輔祭為祭台服務,其他皆否,是殊不合理的,亦貶低了其他職務的尊嚴.
另外,禮儀服務的制服就是"禮儀服飾",兄也同意他們的職務是在進行"公務",穿著合適的禮儀服飾並無不妥.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 上午 10:14:34
|
|
|
我想問題的核心是有很多人的心態是,穿上禮儀服飾就代表"神職化",正如edward兄所說:"而不是將平時聖堂的「一官半職」都予以神職化".
但這是很"攪笑"的觀點,手持焟燭的十歲小童,穿上禮儀服飾就沒有"神職化"的問題,成人在聖所的讀經台上,－－理應是所有人的焦點，因他代表基督在宣講－－讀經，卻不應穿禮儀服飾，因為會"神職化".
但edward兄,我們的教會卻是從很早的時期就將你所謂的「一官半職」神職化,因為小品的第一品就是"司閽".雖然因為時代變遷及禮儀改革,我們已廢除小品,但請注意這些原來都是教會中重要的職務,而不是"芝麻綠豆"的小事.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 上午 10:18:38
|
|
|
我同意"在俗"是平信徒的特點,但我要指出的就是一些人思維上的不連貫性.因為梵二指明"輔祭員"也是平信徒職務,他們也是在俗的,為何他們不用如edward兄所說,在其服飾中"表現"出來?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 上午 10:49:06
|
|
|
waikit38兄弟：
領帶的來源眾說紛紜，但可以肯定的是,它不是來自宗徒時代．而且本來不是羅馬傳統．在早期古老教堂的壁畫中，我們看不到領帶的蹤影．有的只是教宗或主教帶的pallium(即繡有五個十字架,在前看是Y型的那條,現時只是正權總主教及教宗的服飾).
源自猶太人的說法已被大部份禮儀學者摒棄.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 上午 11:48:28
|
|
|
靚仔兄：
請注意總論第98及第100條所述的:「Acolythus instituitur ad servitium altaris et in adiutorium sacerdotis et diaconi.」、「Deficiente acolytho instituto, ad servitium altaris et in adiutorium sacerdotalis et diaconi deputari possunt ministri laici qui crucem, cereos, thuribulum, panem, vinum,aquam deferunt, vel etiam ad sacram Communionem distribuendam deputantur ut ministri extraordinarii」
除此之外，有何其他的平信徒職務被稱為「祭台服務」呢？
神恩各有不同。小弟看不出為何不稱其他的職務為「祭台服務」，會有損任何人的尊嚴。就算是基督徒的司祭職，不也有普遍和公務之分嗎？
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 上午 11:58:05
|
|
|
另外請靚仔兄注意：總論所明言的，是平信徒職務「可」穿長白衣，而不是「規定」要穿長白衣。具體情況按個別地方主教團規定。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 下午 12:30:26
|
|
|
小弟對禮儀服飾的理解，與靚仔兄可能有所否同。
我認為主要在聖所範圍內活動的輔禮人員所穿的禮儀服飾，是「禮袍」；而活動範圍主要在聖所範圍外的，則是「制服」。我這個區分，是純粹出於視覺上的考慮。
穿著制服的人，可以給人認出是在進行「公益」的活動；而禮袍，則在這層意義上，加上「與祭祀活動真接有關」的意義。
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 下午 02:33:48
|
|
|
339.輔祭員（acolythus）、讀經員（lector）和其他平信徒輔禮人員（minister laicus），可穿長白衣，或依各地區主教團的規定，穿合法准用的其他禮服。
336.各項聖秩及正式任命的職務，其共同禮服是長白衣（alba）...
愛德華兄:
這個句子,按我的理解應是,這禮儀法規准予穿著這特別衣飾(長白衣),或者在主教團有其他合法的規定下,可穿主教團指定的其他禮服.尤應注意,這裡是指其他"禮服"(vestment),仍是應該和普通服飾有別的.
336已指出長白衣"不是"聖職人員的服飾,而是有正式職務人員的服飾.而正式任命的平信徒職務有二,輔祭員及讀經員.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 下午 02:41:13
|
|
|
愛德華兄:
按1969年版的GIRM,#68:
As for other ministers, some perform different functions inside the sanctuary, other outside.
The first kind include those deputed as special ministers of communion and those who...
特派送聖體員是被視為在"聖所內執行職務的".
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/14 下午 02:50:46
|
|
|
我不同意愛德華兄的看法的原因是,我不認同這是教會的傳統,而且這看法人為地割裂了聖道禮儀和聖祭禮儀之間的作為感恩祭禮的一體性.再者,我們的禮儀不是單一只有彌撒,如按愛德華兄的說法,在非教堂的範圍,或/及並不是舉行彌撒時,我們的輔禮人員又為何要穿"禮袍"?
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/1/25 上午 07:32:52
|
|
|
從拉丁文的字義看來，vestis一詞，純純解作裝束和服飾。小弟看不出它有任何「不普通」之處。
靚仔兄所提的一九六九年總論第六八條，其實並沒有「qui ad sacram Communionem ... necnon」一語。這個片語是在一九七三年《Immensae caritatis》公布後，加在往後的彌撒經書總論之中。但在最新版的彌撒經書，該句已被取消了。
誠然，沒有人會懷疑或反對，讀經台亦是聖所的一部分。而在本港教區現時的情況，送聖體員和讀經員，都是在禮儀的一些時刻「出動」和在聖所的範圍內出現。因此（至少在小弟的主觀意願裡）不存在著將聖道和聖祭禮分割的情況。
可能在回答這一問題之前，首先應解決另一問題：到底在彌撒進行時，除了司祭、執事和輔祭外，究竟應否為讀經員和送聖體員在聖所內設有座位？
另一從視覺效果因素考慮的例子：按照現時一般教友的心態，人們可以容許很多很多（數目上more than necessary的）輔祭在同一台彌撒中「登台」出現，卻未必接受得到同等數目的送聖體員和讀經員，在聖所或遊行時出現。長期在聖所範圍內出現而又被一般堂區教友們「容忍」的平信徒，相信非輔祭莫屬。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/1/25 上午 07:45:18
|
|
|
輔祭在輔彌撒是否屬於「神職化」，在教會禮書的一些描述中，可見一些端倪。
例如在主教禮書中，描述主教遊行的隊伍。
根據《Caeremoniale Episcoporum》第一二八條：
Dum peragitur cantus ad introitum, fit processio a secretario ad presbyterium hoc modo ordinata:
- turiferarius cum turibulo fumiganti;
- alius acolythus crucem deferens, cum imagine crucifixi in anteriore parte posita, medius inter septem, vel saltem duos, acolythos deferentes candelabra cum candelis accensis;
- clerici bini et bini;
- diaconus deferens librum Evangeliorum;
- alii diaconi, si adsint, bini et bini;
- presbyteri concelebrantes, bini et bini;
- Episcopus incedens solus, gerens mitram, et baculum pastoralem in manu sinistra portans, manu dextera vero benedicens;
- paulisper retro Episcopum, duo diaconi ei assistentes;
- denique ministrantes ad librum, mitram et baculum ...
這裡的「clerici bini et bini」，到底是指哪些人呢？
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/25 上午 10:30:14
|
|
|
多謝愛德華兄的指正,該句(#68)是按75年的修訂版譯出,而非69年.新的版本已修改了該句,已沒有將職務人員分成在聖所內和聖所外服務,因為這樣的刻意劃分沒有實際需要.
弟列出舊的第68條的用意是想指出,按教會的理解,送聖體員是在聖所內執行職務的人員,而非一些人(或大部份人)的想法,他們是聖所外的人.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/25 上午 10:32:17
|
|
|
唉,弟的拉丁真是一舊雲啦,所以又攪錯啦,
edward哥說得對vestis好像只是衣服的意思.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/25 上午 10:41:12
|
|
|
到達祭台前，讀經員與他人一起向祭台行深鞠躬禮；若他恭捧《福音書》，則直接走上祭台，把《福音書》放於祭台上。然後與其他輔禮人員一起，在聖所內就位。(GIRM#195)
愛德華兄,只是我們沒按禮規安排坐位吧了.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/25 上午 10:57:04
|
|
|
為不懂拉丁的朋友,愛德華兄所引的文句大致上是:
For the Stational Mass (according to CB 128) the order of procession is:(此句不是edward兄所引的文本中的)
thurifier
acolyte carrying cross, between seven acolytes (or at least two) with candlesticks with lighted candles
clergy, two by two
deacon, carrying the Book of the Gospels
deacons, two by two
concelebrants, two by two
the bishop, walking alone
two deacons assisting the bishop
the ministers who assist with the book, the miter, and the pastoral staff.
我也不知此處說的clerici 是甚麼人,是其他輔祭?授命的讀經員?
因為如不包括讀經員,那他們在行列何處?莫非不在行列中?不會吧.平常彌撒他們都在行列中,沒理由主教彌撒就不在.
是指不共祭的神職嗎?可以是,但又不似.
等我有空去研究一下,暫時我傾向估計是以未禮儀改革前的用法,是指受了剪髮禮的小品,其實即是修生們.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/25 上午 11:15:53
|
|
|
視覺效果雖然也是禮儀考慮因素之一,但我們不應只因為視覺效果來判辨禮儀安排的背後原因.
習非成是才是我們的問題所在.
愛德華兄,不要談我們教友的"容忍度",我們教友太有容忍度了,他們差不多可以容忍大部份違規情況,所以沒理由不容忍"按規"的安排.
另外.數目不是問題所在,職務才是.我一向反對安排"無所事事"的祭台服務員"輔彌撒",最少也找點事給他們做,提燈又好,提碟又好,總要有點事做,他們不是"人肉布景板",用來加添禮儀的所謂"莊嚴性".
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/25 下午 12:54:21
|
|
|
這篇講述在禮儀中各禮儀人員位置的文章值得我們思考.
ROME, MAY 4, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
Q: At our Church, there are so many people on the altar for Sunday Mass, that it is very distracting. There are two readers, one for each of the readings; there is the deacon who assists the priest and reads the Gospel; there is the priest who celebrates Mass and another priest who delivers the homily, as well as two acolytes. Is it correct to have so many people on the altar? -- J.D., Syracuse, New York
A: I think that a distinction has to be made. On the one hand it is good that your parish has a body of people willing to offer themselves at the service of the liturgy. On the other, there is the question of the best possible distribution of the various ministers.
Although the answer to this question largely depends on the structure and size of the presbytery, the disposition must be carried out according to certain principles.
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) No. 294 indicates some of these principles: "The priest celebrant, the deacon, and the other ministers have places in the sanctuary. Seats for concelebrants should also be prepared there. If, however, their number is great, seats should be arranged in another part of the church, but near the altar."
No. 310 of the GIRM also deals with this subject: "The chair of the priest celebrant must signify his office of presiding over the gathering and of directing the prayer. ... Likewise, seats should be arranged in the sanctuary for concelebrating priests as well as for priests who are present for the celebration in choir dress but who are not concelebrating.
"The seat for the deacon should be placed near that of the celebrant. Seats for the other ministers are to be arranged so that they are clearly distinguishable from those for the clergy and so that the ministers are easily able to fulfill the function entrusted to them."
From this it is clear that, if possible, the seats of the various ministers should be within the sanctuary according to a certain hierarchy.
The chair of the priest and the deacon should always be in the sanctuary.
If there are few concelebrants they should also have seats in the sanctuary as well as priests who are present in choir dress without concelebrating.
However, if for a good reason, such as the number of concelebrants or the structure of the sanctuary, it is not feasible to fit everybody within the sanctuary with decorum, then they may occupy the pews closest to the altar.
In this case it is best that concelebrating priests should enter the sanctuary after the prayer over the gifts so as not to impede the faithful's seeing the sacred action taking place upon the altar.
Acolytes should sit within the sanctuary but in a place that differs from the clergy. It is preferable, however, that they should not occupy seats needed by concelebrating priests in the sanctuary and should be provided with places near the sanctuary from which they may conveniently carry out their ministry.
Even in this latter case there may be exceptions as some sanctuaries, such as those which retain the altar rail, may be difficult to enter. Here the dignified service of the liturgy might require that the acolytes remain within the sanctuary even though there are concelebrants occupying the first pews.
Readers follow similar criteria to acolytes although since their ministry is briefer they may enter the sanctuary only to exercise it and leave afterward, especially during concelebrations and in sanctuaries with limited space.
In conclusion, although the general principle is that those who fulfill a ministry during the celebration should ideally occupy a place within the precincts of the sanctuary, this general norm is not absolute. It is subject to the limitations imposed by concrete circumstances of place and the specific celebration.
It is certainly understandable that an overly cluttered sanctuary could constitute a source of distraction to the faithful, especially during the Eucharistic Prayer, and it is probably best to avoid the situation if possible.
At the same time, we must remember that the presence of a full complement of ministers enhances rather than detracts from the overall dignity of the celebration. It also allows for the performance of special rites such as the procession with the Book of the Gospels and the incensing of the Blessed Sacrament during the consecration.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/25 下午 02:43:37
|
|
|
Father Edward McNamara對其中一名讀者的答覆：
One reader suggested that everybody who carries out a liturgical function should wear an alb. Liturgical law certainly allows for this possibility (see the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 339). For those functions that require only a brief entrance into the sanctuary the most common custom is that the minister wear lay clothing; a pastor, however, may opt for having some or all ministers wear an alb if it enhances the dignity of the celebration. It certainly eliminates most problems of formality and modesty.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/1/25 下午 09:05:13
|
|
|
在禮儀改革的過程中，其實有很多地方的描述，都很耐人尋味，且顯示受到時空的局限。
例如，在舊版的羅馬彌撒經書總論中，似乎認為讀經台「可以」不是聖所的一部分。試看第七十條：
70. Omnia ministeria infra ea quae propria sunt diaconi a viris laicis etsi institutionem non receperunt, exerceri possunt. Ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur etiam mulieribus committi possunt, iuxta prudens iudicium rectoris ecclesiae.
Conferentia tamen Episcopalis permittere potest ut mulier idonea lectiones quae praecedunt Evangelium et intentiones orationis universalis proferat et pressius determinare locum congruum, e quo verbum Dei in coetu liturgico annuntiet.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2005/1/26 上午 09:40:14
|
|
|
有一個說法,不知兩位高人的看法如何:
讀經員的職務雖然是MINISTERIAL,但因為不是PRESIDENTIAL,所以不用坐在聖所(SANCTUARY)至內.
其實,ACOLYTES輔祭職務又何嘗presidential?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/1/26 上午 09:53:31
|
|
|
這裡的原意好像是想表達,女性不宜進入聖所的"習慣".
我不記得有條文禁止讀經堂設在聖所之外.雖然有條文提及在聖所內宣讀聖言.其實傳統上我們很多讀經台都在聖所外,(見四,五世紀的聖堂)因為當時沒有擴音器,而聖所又通常在教堂後部,要全堂聽到很多時讀經台都在較前位置.
就算禮儀改革後,我們仍有新教堂的讀經堂在聖所之外,見聖歐爾發堂及上智之座小堂.
|
|
