|
作者
|
內容
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2006/9/16 上午 09:59:15
|
|
|
另一個禮儀學者的意見:
ROME, MAY 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
Q: I recently attended Mass at an out-of-town Catholic conference, in a convention center, where there was a large crowd on hand. Soon after Communion began, the concelebrating priests realized that even after dividing the small Hosts they were going to be more than 100 short. One priest, seeing that the hosts were almost finished, said, "I'll go make some more." Shortly afterward I observed him at a side table saying the prayers of consecration over a "new batch" of hosts and chalice of wine. He later explained to the congregation that it was all right to do just the consecration since we didn't end the Mass. Is it invalid and illicit what this priest did? Did the faithful that received the "second batch" receive Christ? -- N.B., Bethesda, Maryland
A: The priest was certainly in error although he may have done this in good faith, believing that he was acting justly.
The fact that he consecrated both bread and wine at least indicates that he was aware of canon law's prohibition of ever consecrating the species separately.
As Canon 927 states: "It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration."
He apparently believed that by consecrating more bread and wine within the context of the Mass he did not fall within the strictures of this prohibition.
However, what he did was, in effect, to celebrate another Mass within Mass, as the consecration of new species implies a new sacrifice. He therefore contravened the second aspect of the canon by consecrating both species outside the Eucharistic celebration even though he was still celebrating another Mass.
This case is different from that foreseen in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 324, in which for some reason the wine was not properly consecrated:
"If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again."
The same principle would be applied if, as has happened, a parishioner informs a priest after Mass that he forgot to consecrate the wine. This process is necessary in order for the sacrifice, and hence the Mass, to be complete.
With respect to the validity of the "second batch" of hosts, I would say that they were valid for Communion, and did contain the Lord's real presence.
What should a priest do in similar cases of emergency when hosts are lacking?
I think the best solution is to simply apologize for what happened. Sometimes we priests have recourse to extravagant "solutions" when all that is needed is to recognize our fallibility and liability to make mistakes.
This is especially so in situations, such as that described, when the consequences of not being able to receive Communion in this circumstance does not imply a major spiritual damage to the faithful and where an alternative solution may be found at some other moment of the day.
In some cases, such as mission territories when Mass and Communion are rare treasures, a priest caught in this predicament would be justified in offering to celebrate another Mass right after the first one, lest anybody be deprived of Communion for a long time.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2006/9/16 下午 03:50:02
|
|
|
Opinion from a Canonist:
This procedure (GIRM #286) in no way suggests an exception to the principle formulated in the canon. Above all, there was no intention to consecrate one species without the other, only if by mistake, wine was not put in, but water or another liquid.For that reason, it is corrected by consecrating only the wine, since the bread had been previously consecrated; and in any case, the same Eucharistic celebration is always made.
This exception would not be applicable in the event that the priest notices that he does not have enough species to give communion; in that case, he cannot consecrate new species because the sacrifice has already been accomplished.
Enrique de Leon, Commentary on Canon 927, in "Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. III/I, 2004.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2006/9/16 下午 07:30:23
|
|
|
多謝靚仔兄。
小弟亦有留意到該份文件。
它在互聯網，廣泛地被引用。
吁！小弟的心常想：若我們的教區少些這類禮儀上的流弊，我就可以更專心地溫書了。
人，有時總有些東西，是放不下的。
我希望可首先「快快趣趣」地完成那份「讀者心聲」，就算是履行了作為平信徒、在此事宜上的一點點義務吧？
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2006/9/16 下午 07:59:20
|
|
|
靚仔兄：
既然大家對「魔術禮儀神學」這詞，有著這麼大的感觸。不如大家談談：究竟有哪些特質，構成「魔術」般的「禮儀」或「禮儀神學」？
它是否包括：將聖事所蘊含的內涵，縮減到「為有效舉行所必需」的層面和幅度，且只重視聖事所謂「ex opere operato」的「事效性」。它忽略在「完整」和「恰當」地舉行聖事禮儀時，領受聖事者在心態和屬靈準備方面所能得到的裨益？
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2006/9/16 下午 11:49:49
|
|
|
事有緩急先後,這禮儀問題也不是甚麼急切的問題,兄就先溫書吧.
今天在找教會法的資料時,看到一篇很好的文章.是一位禮儀教會法或是教會禮儀法學者寫的(是他自己這樣形容自己),是他在主教禮典英文版頒布時的一個工作坊的講稿.他用了一部名著的名稱去談禮儀--The Church at Prayer"(祈禱中的教會),很有意思.
"正確地"去舉行禮儀固然重要,但不要忘記禮儀的重心仍是整個教會一起地祈禱,以讚美和感恩去回應上主對我們的愛.這比做錯一個姿勢,或一些無心之失重要得多.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2006/9/17 上午 07:48:47
|
|
|
靚仔兄：
這個小弟明白。
畢竟，平信徒的主要使命和任務，都是在聖堂之「外」。若能有點時間貢獻給聖堂，為我來說，其實算是奢侈了。
依撒意亞先知有言曰－－
為了熙雍，我決不緘默不語；
為了耶路撒冷，我絕不休息。
為了耶路撒冷的「糧草」，我們努力地在出面幹活；為著「至聖所」的尊榮，我們熱烈討論甚至爭論，「...直至她的正義顯現，有如光明」（依六二1）。
有謂「人生識字憂患始」，教會何嘗不是這樣？
真能搞到人「身心俱疲」。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/9/17 下午 10:03:19
|
|
|
「為了耶路撒冷，我絕不休息。」
這是不明智的。
為了耶路撒冷，我一定會休息；休息可增強健康，有更大力量去為耶路撒冷做事。
請大家別過勞，保重身體。
|
|
Ignatius
|
Posted -
2006/10/28 上午 11:20:57
|
|
|
澄清有關不夠聖體時之處理「方式三」
謹此補充本人於九月十七日在本欄文章中的「方式三」內容。
一、《天主教法典》（1983）927 條清楚說明：「即使在極急迫的情況下，仍不可單獨祝聖聖體或聖血，或在彌撒以外，祝聖聖體和聖血。」
這是教會保障祝聖聖體和聖血，是完整地按照主耶穌建立的、在舉行彌撒聖祭時的一項神聖行動。在神學上也包括「吃」和「喝」所祝聖的聖體聖血（至少是舉行彌撒的主祭）。亦即絕不可使「祝聖聖體聖血」的行動，離開主耶穌所建立的原意。
二、文中「方式三」，含義是在當時所舉行的彌撒中公開舉行，而非在彌撒之外；所謂誦念「感恩經」的核心部份，意指獻祭者履行獻祭行動的必要部份，猶如共祭者所必念部份，即兩次伏求聖神（epiclesis）之間，且包括「建立聖事敘述」的整個部份。（這「方式三」是按一九七九年教會准許的個案而考慮。這個案因涉及當時的政治形勢，不便公開。請諒！）
三、「方式三」在本港彌撒繁多的情況下，根本用不上，故此「在一般情況下，最穩妥做法，是舉行另一台彌撒，或邀請信友參加另一台彌撒。」
四、歡迎有興趣禮儀神學和牧靈的朋友，致電 2522-7577，與我們約晤交流。
羅國輝神父
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2006/10/28 上午 11:24:45
|
|
|
那不是公開的文件嗎?
我想羅神父是指這特恩:
Facultates et privilegia sacerdotibus fidelibusque in territorio Sinarum degentibus concessa his perdurantibus circumstantis (Prot. N. 3242/78)
III b)Sacerdotes possunt, urgente necessitate, uti tantum prece eucharistica secunda et etiam formula consecrationis solum.
|
|
Ignatius
|
Posted -
2006/11/2 下午 01:29:22
|
|
|
聖事部
在幾種情形中，更容易領聖體
1973年1月29日
第四、教友以手領聖體時應有的熱心及恭敬
自三年前「主的遺跡」訓令後，幾個主教團請求聖座准許將聖體放在領者的手上。前項訓令今已提及：「教會的命令及教父的文件，都證明對聖體當有極大的恭敬與明智」(註11)，所以這種領聖體的方式應注意數事，經驗也勸我們守。
聖體放在領者手中時，該注意細小碎片不由神父或教友手中掉下。
為准教友以手領聖體，先當教訓他們基督實在麵餅及酒中，及對聖體當恭敬。(註12)
該教訓信友，耶穌基督為天主及救世主，他在聖體中，亦應享受恭敬及朝拜天主的敬禮。並當勸告信友，領聖體後，該依各人的能力、地位及工作，感謝聖體(註13)。
為使領聖體適當及得益起見，應告訴他們個人及社會能得的益處；習慣領聖體，亦宜有極大的恭敬，並感謝天主給我們日用糧(註14)，他們既領了基督的體血，亦應與基督結合而生活。(註15)
教宗保祿六世以自己的權力批准本訓令，並命令公佈，且規定自刊出日立即生效。
1973年1月29日頒於羅馬聖事聖部
部長 沙慕雷
秘書 賈沙利
註11.禮儀聖部，「主的紀念」訓令，1969年5月29日，宗座公報，61卷，542頁。
註12.參閱梵二大會，禮儀憲章，「聖神的公會議」7條，宗座公報，56卷，1964年，100，101頁；聖禮部，「聖體奧蹟」訓令，1967年5月25日，9條，宗座公報59卷，1967年，547頁。
註13.保祿六世向國際聖體大會會員演講詞，宗座公報64卷，1972年，287頁。
註14.參閱路11:3。
註15.參閱希2:14。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2006/11/5 上午 07:36:44
|
|
|
感謝依納爵兄的引文。它是一九七三年《Immensae caritatis》訓令，但中譯的版本則有點「水皮」。
例如：
「聖體放在領者手中時，該注意細小碎片不由神父或教友手中掉下。」
原文－－
Assidua diligentia ac studium habeantur, speciatim quoad fragmenta quae forsitan ex hostiis deciderint, quod attinet sive ad ministrum sive ad fidelem quoties sacra Species in manu communicantis ponitur.
「為准教友以手領聖體，先當教訓他們基督實在麵餅及酒中，及對聖體當恭敬。」
原文－－
Ad usum s. Communionis in manu fidelium accedat necesse est opportuna institutio seu catechesis de doctrina catholica, quae respicit tum realem ac permanentem Christi praesentiam sub Speciebus eucharisticis tum debitam reverentiam erga hoc Sacramentum.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2006/11/5 上午 07:49:49
|
|
|
「Assidua diligentia ac studium habeatur」：至少包含了「專注的研究和跟進」；而重點則甚至不是首先指「切勿使碎屑由神父或教友手中掉下」，而是「有可能從聖體中掉落的碎屑」－－可以是在地上，亦可以在領聖事者的手上。
「realem ac permanentem Christi praesentiam sub Speciebus eucharisticis」：直譯是「在被祝謝後的〔餅酒〕形下，基督真實而恆久的臨在」。若說餅酒「中」的臨在而不說餅酒「形下」的臨在，則在教義上有欠嚴謹而陷於同質說（Consubstantialism）的危險了。這些年來，基於此一訓令的譯文，教友們被「教訓」了甚麼教義呢？是「doctrina catholica」抑或是馬丁路得的「聖體神學」？
在禮儀革新的過程中，有多少「教義」和「態度」是被判斷為「虛文」，而遭到地方執行者的「妥協」甚至「犧牲」的？
|
