|
作者
|
內容
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2001/5/4 下午 05:08:43
|
|
|
在禮儀改革的初期，有不少人指出改革前的彌撒禮儀中，神父們「背」向教友舉行彌撒是「錯」的，應該面向教友才能突顯彌撒作為「宴」的意義。
拉辛格樞機在他的新書《The Spirit of the Liturgy》指出：全體信眾一起朝著東方舉行彌撒聖祭，原是東西方教會一貫以來的傳統。司鐸面向著教友們舉行彌撒，原來才是新近的事。
在先前有關聖週五送聖體的討論中，靚仔指出：「這措施不過有數十年『歷史』，更不是所有禮儀教會都實施，更何妨沒有任何特別的『禮儀上』的意義……就因這是禮規上所寫？」
梵二後所建立的這個禮儀「傳統」，是否屬於上述靚仔所言的「措施」？
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/5/4 下午 05:22:07
|
|
|
拉部長的書還未看, 不知他引自何典指共同朝向一個方向舉祭有更古的傳統.
最先一定是圍座吃飯, 我想是不會有人異議的.
而按聖地的一些聖堂遺址, 主祭的座位是在牆邊, 而祭台則在中間, 類似我們現時聖本篤堂的方式.
而究竟面向同一方向幾時開始,待我找找資料再覆.
我去過幾次聖路加主教座堂參加神聖事奉(聖祭),次次聶主教都是面向我們的, 又何來東西方一貫傳統?難道君士旦丁堡宗主教都接受了梵二禮儀改革?
我都話我至驚的就是拉大哥鍾意樣樣都"指手劃腳"
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2001/5/4 下午 05:54:12
|
|
|
我自己在三年前試過參加聶主教講解、另一位神父主祭的聖誕神聖禮儀。該位神父卻似乎是「背」著我們舉行彌撒的。
有興趣的話，大家也可以看看這個拜占庭禮的網頁。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2001/5/4 下午 06:21:01
|
|
|
耶穌時代的猶太文化以及希臘文化的餐桌，到底是怎樣的呢？
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/5/4 下午 11:47:32
|
|
|
According to Prof. Edward Foley, associate professor of Liturgy and music at Catholic Theologial Union, in his book "From Age to Age", published by Liturgy Training Publications, 1991. Ch.4 FRANKISH DOMINATION:750-1073, P.70, "the altar was a movable wooden table, often placed in the body of the church so that the community could gather at least around three sides of it. The Presider stood on whichever side of the altar allowed him to face east, ... if the apse pointed toward the east, then the presider stood on the same side of the atlar as the community and faced the same direction that they did. If the entrance to the basilica pointed toward east, then the presider faced the community across the altar.The second arrangement was more common in the West after the time of Constantine until the period of Frankish domination.
猶太人的飯桌是馬蹄鐵形的.即U形, 而他們是俟著身子進餐的.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2001/5/5 上午 08:39:10
|
|
|
所以，按照教會的傳統，司鐸舉行彌撒的方向，並不是以「群眾」作為參考點，而是以「東方」作為參考點的。當主祭是「向著」群眾舉行聖祭禮儀，而群眾又是朝著東方時，群眾其實是「背」對著主祭呢！
Adoremus刊載了拉大哥的有關文章，另一篇有關的文章則在這裡。有興趣的兄弟姊妹可以看一看。
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/5/5 上午 09:25:12
|
|
|
該項"傳統"應不會早於五世紀. 因四世紀前的聖祭禮應仍是很簡樸的圍繞祭台舉行.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2001/5/5 上午 11:05:45
|
|
|
有何根據顯示第五世紀前普世教會的習慣是「圍繞祭台」而非「朝向東方」舉行聖祭禮儀呢？有甚麼能夠顯示前者比後者更加「簡樸」呢？
拉辛格引述Bouyer：
「Never and nowhere before (that is, before the sixteenth century) is there any indication of the slightest importance being attached, or even attention given, to the question of whether the priest should celebrate with the people behind him or in front of him. Professor Cyril Vogel has proved that, “if anything was stressed, it was that the priest should recite the Eucharistic Prayer, like all other prayers, turned towards the East Even when the orientation of the church allowed the priest to pray facing the people, we must not forget that it was not just the priest who turned to the East, but the whole congregation with him”」
而Bouyer所述的卻不是沒有根據的，按Kocik：
Why the insistence on an Eastward-facing position for both priest and congregation? From early on, Christians adopted the Jewish practice of praying toward Eden, in the East (Gen. 2:8), the direction from which Ezekiel saw come "the glory of the God of Israel" (Ezek 43:2,4), the direction in which Jesus ascended from the Mount of Olives and wherefrom He will return (Acts 1:11), and the direction whence the Angel of the Lord will come in the end time (Rev. 7:2). Tertullian informs us that Christian churches are "always" oriented "toward the light".
Origen asserts that the direction of the rising sun obviously indicates that we ought to pray inclining in that direction, an act which symbolizes the soul looking toward the rising of the true light, the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.
St. John Damascene says that, while waiting the coming of the Lord, "we adore Him facing East", for that is the tradition passed down to us from the Apostles. Other Church Fathers who confirm this usage are Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil and St. Augustine.
To this day, the ancient Coptic Rite of Egypt retains in its eucharistic liturgy (just before the Sursum corda) the age-old exhortation of the deacon: "Look towards the East!"
In The "Reform of the Roman Rite" (San Juan Capistrano, Calif.: Una Voce Press; Harrison, N.Y.: Roman Catholic Books, 1993, chaps. XII-XV), the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, director of the Regensburg Liturgical Institute, demonstrates convincingly that the precedents for freestanding altars with Mass "facing the people" have been highly exaggerated. In agreement with such eminent (and unquestionably orthodox) liturgists as Father Josef A. Jungmann and Father Louis Bouyer, Gamber shows that the practice of celebrating the Eucharist versus populum flourished only in the city of Rome and in parts of North Africa, where the pagan custom of having the façade (rather than the apse) of a temple facing East was continued; but even then, the historical evidence shows that, while the celebrant did in fact face the people, they did not face him, but turned their backs on him during the prayers so that they, too, could face East.
這不是很清楚了嗎？
Catholic Encyclopedia也有一項關於「Orientation of Churches」，有興趣的兄弟姊妹也可以看看。
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/5/7 下午 09:48:47
|
|
|
我想拉大哥所引的Fr. Louis Bouyer, 應是 "Liturgy and Architecture,"piblished by Univ of Notre Dame Press, 1967. 我手頭上的版本是55-56頁, 字眼和網上的有少許分別, 但這書沒說是否翻譯的, 而Fr. Louis一定不是寫德文的, 所以應是兩重翻譯後的原故(英/法->德->英).
此文和edward另外的一文都指"面對群眾"是誤導的, 因為就是主祭面向群眾時, 群眾是背對主祭的. 對此我甚有保留.
在此問題上, 我不見得禮儀學者間是有共識的.
在簡樸的問題上, 我不見到有甚麼禮儀學者異議, 四世紀前, 禁教未止, 也未有甚麼宮廷的儀式或用品加插入禮儀中,簡樸是理所當然的.
當時的餐桌是sigma形,即C形或馬鍗形,即U形,而人們是俟在convex那邊的.後來的祭台是長方形的, 也有文件記載不應將祭台貼牆, 好使三面站人.
其實, 我自己對向邊面無太大興趣, 但如說要向東方, 但向一個假東方, 或因東方向門口,祭台坐西, 所以教友應背向祭台,面向門口舉行聖祭這麼"攪野", 我也不見得是Fr. BOUYER該書的本意.(待續)
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2001/5/7 下午 10:21:48
|
|
|
多謝靚仔兄的提點。該段「出街」的版本與網上的版本似乎又真的不同。據小弟家中拉辛格《The Spirit of the Liturgy》英文版第78頁中的那一段：
「This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate. Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject: “The idea that a celebration facing the people must have been the primitive one, and that especially of the last supper, has no other foundation than a mistaken view of what a meal could be in antiquity, Christian or not. In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table, or of a table having having approximately the shape of a horse shoe. The other side is always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to ‘face the people’ to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasized just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table” (pp. 53-54)」
在書後所引的英文版書目中，正正就是靚仔兄所提及的那個版本。未知是否正確呢？
靚仔兄所引的「Frankish Domination」是否八世紀至十一世紀的（750-1073）？
Tertullian等早期教父都是四世紀前的。可否說，在教會的禮儀「宮廷化」之前，早期的教會禮儀，人們就已是向著東方進行呢？
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/5/8 上午 01:01:06
|
|
|
Frankish domination是那個chapther的名稱. "The second arrangement was more common in the West after the time of Constantine until the period of Frankish domination."
那是說四世紀直到七世紀.
我沒買拉樞機那本書,只是讀了你hyperlink的那段文章,而那文章又無書目, 但據記憶,想應是那本書, 再查證一下吧了.
我們只有零碎的資料,知道有向東方祈禱的做法, 但聖餐時是否有這做法便沒有甚麼資料. 反而入門禮儀時, 棄絕罪惡時"轉向"就好像有些記錄.
四世紀前的資料其實是少之又少.
如果你讀過拉大哥所quoted的那本書,你就知道雖然fr. louis不同意面對群眾是一項古老傳統, 但他是沒有反對此做法的, 他只是質疑此做法有無達到原先的效果--加強信友的參與.
在他的書中更從沒提到要再次指向東方, 反而是給予意見怎樣使面向群眾的禮儀更能促進教友的參與.
介紹你看多本書, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 by the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, Secretary, Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy,1964-69, then Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, 1969-75.
該書像一本禮儀改革的日記, 從當事者的第一手資料中(他是禮儀改革的實際執行人), 你會發覺禮儀改革是充滿無奈的妥協的.
你從前提到的奉獻前的洗手仍留下就已是一例.
同edward討論其實很有意思, 很可惜好像只有我們兩人有興趣, 少了其他人的分享交流.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/5/8 上午 09:54:50
|
|
|
很有趣的是, Edward所引的兩篇文章中,提及的兩位禮儀學者, 雖然不讚同面向群眾是教會的古老傳統, 但他們都沒有反對面向群眾的做法.
試引Fr. Jungmann的話. "If today the altar versus populum is frequently chosen, this is the result of the other considerations that come into play -- considerations which are rated as of paramount importance particularly as a reaction to earlier conditions. It serves to narrow down the distance between priest and congregation and to highlight the instructive items contained in the prayer and the rite. In certain circumstances-like the services for young people-these reasons appear to be well-found."
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/5/8 上午 10:23:13
|
|
|
問題其實主要圍繞聚餐--和祭獻間的張力. 如果此祭獻的中心是祭台, 所有的人都面向祭台上的雖一祭品, 主耶穌基督的肉身和寶血, 問題在於那裡?
當然, 如果可以像Fr. Bouyer所說, 所有人都可以圍繞祭台舉行聖祭, 那將是更好.
ecclesia 教會是assembly of the people of God天主子民的團聚, 應有溫馨的家的感覺, 而不應再是排排坐, 向前望的了.
Edward提到多次不明白甚麼是神職主義, 但這幾日重溫禮儀歷史的書, 大部份都有提到"clericalism", edward可以看看這方面的書吧.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/5/8 上午 10:39:56
|
|
|
Just to break the serious discussion between ed and handsome : no matter where the congregation faces, it wont stop mobile phones ringing.....alas
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/5/8 下午 02:18:37
|
|
|
是的, 這情況可能比討論向何方祈禱重要. 你在馬會幾時見到電話響, 是否要教會也以開除會籍來要脅才成. 唉!
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/5/8 下午 02:44:57
|
|
|
定一項新的罰絕 - "搔擾教友敬拜祈禱"、"電波干擾主的波段"或"試圖以幅射傷害教友健康"等等。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2001/5/9 下午 09:49:15
|
|
|
其實我並沒有反對「面向教友舉行獻祭」這個做法，只是嘗試指出：朝著東方獻祭的做法，在早期教會是較為普遍的做法而已。在東方教會，這種傳統似乎是固定的，而羅馬教會在第八世紀後，亦多追隨了東方教會的做法。
有趣的是：拉大哥又引述耶路撒冷聖濟利祿指出，教會作為被召集的天主子民「synagoge-ekklesia」，在聖經第一次出現的時候，仍是以「崇拜」作為其存在的意義和目的。
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/5/10 上午 09:41:42
|
|
|
這不足為奇, 要理問答第一條就已指出, 人為什麼生在世上?為恭敬天主,救自己的靈魂.
恭敬天主就是崇拜嘛.
這當然是最傳統的闡釋, 也最對拉部長的口胃.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/4/24 上午 11:17:03
|
|
|
Does the Anglican mass has the same 'facing east' position for the priest in certain sessions?
|
|
秀永明子
|
Posted -
2006/5/28 下午 09:35:14
|
|
|
“Turning towards the Lord”
by Malcolm Ranjith 聖禮部秘書長介紹此書 Uwe Michael Lang, “Turning towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer,” Foreword by Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2004, pp. 158.
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=60561&eng=y
網頁中間
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2006/5/29 上午 08:19:40
|
|
|
該書小弟約於一年前讀過了，都幾有意思。大家亦不妨一讀。
|
|
FANNY
|
Posted -
2006/6/17 上午 09:54:59
|
|
|
I've been reading about the liturgucal conference in Rome regarding the discussion about the orientation of the priest during Mass. While I also prefer the priest to face the other way, I believe there are better arguments than the ones currently given. Here's just one:
In the Old Testament God tells Moses to follow Him, and in fact when God meets with Moses on Mount Sinai, Moses is not allowed to see God face to face. Jewish tradition continues to maintain that Moses saw God's back, not His face.
Again, in the New Testament Jesus again and again tells His disciples to follow Him, and it is this aspect of following that is most important. A person cannot follow another if they are in front of them, nor can they get very far on a journey if they are facing one another. It also does not make any sense to follow someone from the side, for again you may miss the way.
It is important to note that God is leading us on a pilgrimage through our lives so that we can get to heaven. Following necessarily implies being behind someone else. Ducks do this well when we see the baby ducks following docilely behing their >mother. Why? We don't know how to get to heaven by our own lights, we must follow another who knows how to get there. The only one who knows how to get there is Jesus.
So, moving over to the liturgy, we can see that the position of the priest is important in this regard, especially in his role as in persona Christi.
The priest himself does not know how to get to heaven, but in taking the place of Jesus at the Mass we can more effectively be in the position of following Jesus on our path to heaven. Thus, our emphasis on the fact that we are a pilgrim people actually gains greater force if the priest were to face the other way and we followed - not following the priest, but the One he represents - Jesus.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2006/6/17 上午 10:22:02
|
|
|
始終,這個論題的核心是感恩禮的兩個主要"圖像"或"理念"的問題.感恩禮同時是一個"宴席",也同時是一個"祭獻".禮儀標記就遊走在這兩者之間.
我很難想像一起"面壁"的宴席,這較似一群監犯在進餐多一些.
再者,就算是"in persona Christi", 你可以想像基督在最後晚餐時是背對著宗徒舉行的嗎?又宗徒大事錄記載的"團聚擘餅"會要求主禮者背對會眾嗎?
禮儀標記乘載著一些神學理念,而取捨中有時就反映出當時的神學取向或側重點.
|
|
