|
作者
|
內容
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/4/23 下午 03:53:06
|
|
|
是Sit venia verbo,還是Sit venia verno?
我是說在有些地方手領可以已成習俗,不是說手領在任何地方已成習俗,你要隨意理解我的話我也沒有辦法.
|
|
ERNST
|
Posted -
2007/4/23 下午 04:26:30
|
|
|
根本""任何""地方都唔係習俗!!!
1969年保祿六世既"MEMORIALE DOMINI"巳經係一項法令,用Acta Apostolica Sedis出既!!! ""手領""一直係宗座既""特恩!!!
MEMORIALE DOMINI寫到""好明""...""全部地方""既主教團都要先作秘密投標,取得三分二贊成先可以所教廷申請Indult.
即法典第454條2項
Episcopis auxiliaribus ceterisque Episcopis titularibus qui ad Episcoporum conferentiam pertinent, suffragium competit deliberativum aut consultivum, iuxta statutorum conferentiae praescripta; firmum tamen sit eis solis, de quibus in 1, competere suffragium deliberativum, cum agitur de statutis conficiendis aut immutandis.
聖禮部接到"個別主教團"申請後再"獨立"發出IndultS...內容大概如下:
Upon the request of the Most Eminent Antonio Cardinal Quarracino, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, President of the Argentinean Episcopal Conference, in a letter dated April 29; in the use of the faculties attributed to this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, ratifies and confirms the decision of the Plenary Assembly of the Argentinean Episcopal Conference in which the practice is introduced of also distributing Holy Communion in the hand to the faithful, according to the norm of the instruction MEMORIALE DOMINI and the norm of canon 455, '2 of the Code of Canon Law.
Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
In the palace of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, May 9, 1996.
Antonio M. Card. Javierre, Prefect
又有""邊到""係習俗呢?? 既然你話有,請提出論據支持.
主佑
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/4/23 下午 05:00:29
|
|
|
當期時不是習俗,但經過超過三十年的一直使用後,就已變成習俗了,上世紀七十年代給予的"准許"到現在,大都超過三十年了,所以在那些地區已是"俗成",再不算是"特准"了.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/4/23 下午 05:21:30
|
|
|
西賽羅的名句中的"愚人"不知同不同瑪竇福音中說的"傻子"呢?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/4/23 下午 05:27:03
|
|
|
從1970年至1977年間批准手領的英語地區有:
South Africa, Canada, Zimbabwe, Zambia, New Zealand, Australia, England & Wales, Papua and New Guinea,
Ireland, Pakistan, USA, Scotland, and Malaysia & Singapore.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2007/4/23 下午 05:44:19
|
|
|
ernst、靚仔：
是特准又好，是習慣有好，現實是手領聖體在多國廣泛長時間使用了，甚至教區的禮儀書也教人如何正確地手領聖體，我第一次領聖體也是手領的。
那就說明了一事：手領聖體不再是一種會被譴責的行為。有人說這是進步，有人說這是退步；各有各的觀點，君子和而不同就是了。
|
|
ernst
|
Posted -
2007/4/24 上午 12:26:31
|
|
|
手領...首先於荷蘭""非法地""引進...後來於法國,德國及比利時一少部份地方也有私下引進手領...
但一開始於Memoriale Domini之前, 教宗保祿六世巳""嚴厲""下令終止...因為手領嚴重地違反教會一貫傳統分發聖體的做法...並要求立即恢復"口領"!!!
而到保祿六世Memoriale Domini既Indult, 亦明文規定於以下情況之下才可獲得手領此特恩,
(1) The indult could only be requested if Communion in the hand was an already established custom in the country, and
(2) If by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority the episcopal conference petitions Rome,
(3) Then Rome would grant the necessary permission,
(4) Once the permission was granted, several conditions had to exist simultaneously, or Communion in the hand was not permitted, even with the indult.
Memoriale Domini寫明手領就有礙信德之嫌...極為危險!!!....
根本手領就係有異於教律...早於大約380年的Council of Saragossa (Concilia Caesaraugustana)已明文規定禁絕手領...更唔冼再提天特Trent啦...
就係手領本身為有違教律...不可能以習慣成法...所以先至有保祿六世既宗座特恩...去使特許手領
法典24.2條亦有講明....
Can. 24.2
A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.
就算因為超過三十年, 你話手領巳經由"特許"變成"習俗"...但係根本""宗座既特許""就巳經係""凌駕""於習俗之上...
"手領"係以""宗座特恩""型式取得其與教會法相反既合法地位.....又同習慣不成文法有何關係??? 法典24條2項已講明啦!!! 有得宗座特恩...就巳經表明手領係有違教會法...重何能以不成文既習慣去成法呀!!!
既然教廷三十多年前已經用"明文"去規範手領...重點可以用juxta legem去取代前者-保祿六世的Indult
頒予各主教團的Decree都例明"Anything to the contrary notwithstanding"這字眼...即此特恩給予領受者/法團可以違反教律的手領方式分發聖體...那麼手領以Decree方式去予受此特恩地既地方手領合法化...又點可以算為習慣...法典第23條開宗明義例明...
Can. 23
Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.
"按照以下列明之規定,惟信徒團體引進的習慣,經立法者批准,始有法律效力" (法典第23條)
唯"手領"為宗座特許...以法令decree型式向個別主教團獨立頒發...又如何可以用custom大大隻字去取代呀!!!
唔係中文彌撒經書總論2003年修訂版重洗乜用""獲准的地區""這字眼呀!!!
撒經書總論2003年
161. 若只以餅形分送共融的聖事時...或在獲准的地區，選擇以手領受...
主佑
|
|
ernst
|
Posted -
2007/4/24 上午 12:42:42
|
|
|
教區的禮儀書也教人如何正確地手領聖體....係因為呢個係宗座特許既其中一樣附帶""條件""
Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1969年(pp. 546-547)
第二項
The rite of communion in the hand must be introduced tactfully...since human attitudes are in question...linked with the sensibility...receiving communion. It should therefore be introduced gradually...necessary that an adequate catechesis prepares the way so that the faithful will understand the significance of the action and will perform it with the respect due to the sacrament...
如果連做樣去教都唔教...就巳經構成""妄用""...特恩亦可予以終止...
Can. 84
One who abuses the power given by a privilege deserves to be deprived of that privilege.
Therefore, when the holder of a privilege has been warned in vain, an ordinary is to deprive the one who gravely abuses it of a privilege which he himself has granted. If the privilege was granted by the Apostolic See, however, an ordinary is bound to notify the Apostolic See.
|
|
ernst
|
Posted -
2007/4/24 上午 12:59:37
|
|
|
你又唔認同我...我又唔認同你...簡直就係雞同鴨講
不如去信問下香港教律權威教區秘書長李亮神父呀...再唔係..可以寫信去問教廷呀
主佑
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/4/24 上午 09:28:34
|
|
|
沒問題,等我有時間時去問問李神父,謝神父或劉神父.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/4/24 上午 10:02:20
|
|
|
我想你又攪錯了,
>唯"手領"為宗座特許...以法令decree型式向個別主教團獨立頒發...又如何可以用custom大大隻字去取代呀!!!
准許"手領"的decree法令是由主教團的名義發出,而非宗座,教廷只確認該法令.(參HCW,21)就如所有禮書的本地語翻譯,都是由該地的主教團頒布法令,使其生效,而不是由教廷直接頒布法令的.其主體和客體是有很大的分別的.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/4/24 上午 10:08:21
|
|
|
雖然我並不完全認同另一欄中奧斯定兄的推論,但如按ERNST兄的看法,奧兄的論點一定站不住腳,因為那些他指出的"習俗",全部都是"明文頒令"實行的成文法.
Ernst兄,我不是要你認同我,但這些對"習俗"的解釋,是我從兩個不同地點,不同國籍的教會法教授那裡學的.雖然當然有可能是我理解錯誤或記錯,但我深信我是沒懂錯的.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/4/24 上午 10:21:40
|
|
|
simon,在教會歷史中,被譴責的行為其後被准許的多的是,也不用太著意,那是有特定的時空處境,需要和目的的.就像修和聖事,教會曾經有多個世紀的時間譴責一個人一生中可以領受多於一次修和聖事.但現在的法規卻規定,如犯有大罪,一年中最少要辦一次修和聖事.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2007/4/24 上午 11:28:57
|
|
|
靚仔：
原來修和聖事有這樣的歷史。
那麼，如果我誓當古老保守派，就可以在一生人只辦一次告解，然後譴責那些一年辦幾次告解的人，更可說他們「退步」了。
x x x
我還是相信，教會是在進步，不是退步。
|
|
FANNY
|
Posted -
2007/4/24 下午 07:50:08
|
|
|
手領聖體由始至終都是一個“特准”而已，從來都不是一個普世性的做法，比如：准許某地以手領聖體，但假若日後當地主教們改變主意，是隨時可取消的。
或者，我們用另一種說法，手領聖體因為只是一個“特准”，所以，隨時可被取消。但是口領聖體，則永遠不能取消，即使大部分主教不喜歡，因為它不是一種“特准”。
當一種原本是“特許”的方式，若三十年或以上就可自動成為“習慣”，因而不能被取消嗎？而因此有了法律地位嗎？
同樣，有關禮儀舞，兒童彌撒等等…..也會因這種特許，經歷數十年後變為“習慣”而不能取消嗎？
|
|
ernst
|
Posted -
2007/4/24 下午 11:47:20
|
|
|
Fanny,
請問你係英國邊道呢?
我住過Ely,Cambs同London
主佑
|
|
FANNY
|
Posted -
2007/4/25 上午 12:17:08
|
|
|
Ernst:
我同屋企人係住在利物浦，去聖伯多祿聖保祿堂，以前曾與家人去主教座堂參與彌撒，因為頂唔順，所以轉去現時的堂區，不過，我不時也會來香港探親。
主佑！
|
|
Mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2007/4/25 上午 12:19:20
|
|
|
我想，关于修和圣事一端，靓兄的表述可能有所不确，而西满的理解似乎则更加是谬以千里了。
依照在下对律学（Nomocanon)的一些粗浅理解，事情可能是这样的：
一，教会从未定断：在世之人，有不可得赦之罪，或某些罪，只能被赦免一次，而不能得到再次的赦免。
二，在圣教初期，对根本戒有根本犯者（尤其是如背教，杀人，奸淫等被称为“致死之罪”“不易赦之罪”的大罪），当在主教甚至连同会众前发露忏悔，然后完成了相当时期的净罪神业后，才能在主教前获得赦免（此公开而隆重的赦罪仪轨常行于圣周内）。
三，若在接受了这样的赦免之后，其人再次或再三陷于同样的大罪，则其补赎期可能被延长至终身（终身学悔者），期间只可在前殿参与礼仪，且不能领至圣奥秘。但是，依照圣教一贯的传统，从来没有宣布，这等人没有获得赦免的希望。相反，依照如大圣瓦西里等教父的训导，当死亡临近时候，应该为这些人诵念赦罪祝文，并允许他们领受天路糇粮。
四，在相当时期内（乃至今日），对支分戒（非根本戒）的违犯；或者对根本戒的支分犯，并不认为有严分领受上述的赦罪礼。
五，在相当时期内（乃至今日），今日形式的私下告罪并领受灵修指导的行为，并不被认为必须与赦罪奥秘（忏悔圣事）相联系。这是两个彼此相关，却非全然“相同”的行为。
|
|
ernst
|
Posted -
2007/4/25 上午 12:52:39
|
|
|
Fanny
哈...yes ....Liverpool ... RC cathedral起到成隻UFO...同為戰後出品既聖公會座堂相比...簡直係美女與野獸...我去到都項唔順...
但係近月上網先知原本個Design係好靚...成座伯多祿大殿個樣....依個地下室crypt都係跟個舊design起...到二戰後先比人改左....
你有無去過London Oratory望彌撒呀???
佢地用英文唱...加少少拉丁/希臘文...kyrie...agnus Dei...真係好好....真正徹底既梵正...sigh
主佑
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/4/25 上午 11:24:08
|
|
|
米兄,我們當然是在討論犯了"大罪"所需接受的修和聖事而言.就古時而言,即當時的所謂公開補贖.
以下是一些教父及早期教會作者的言論:
"And therefore I say to you, if any one has sinned . . he has opportunity to repent once" Hermas the Shepherd
"For God being very merciful has vouchsafed in the case of those who, though in faith, have fallen into transgression, a second repentance, so that should anyone be tempted after his calling, he may still receive a penance not to be repented of" Clement of Alexandria
"For the graver crimes, there is only one opportunity of penance" Origen
"As there is one baptism so there is one penance, which, however, is performed publicly" St. Ambrose
"Although, by a wise and salutary provision, opportunity for performing that humblest kind of penance is granted but once in the Church" St. Augustine
|
|
FANNY
|
Posted -
2007/4/25 下午 01:52:18
|
|
|
Ernst:
RC Cathedral除左外形核突外，內裡仲驚嚇呀，認真九唔搭八。London Oratory…去過一次，因為路程都幾遠，所以不能時常到該處。
其實SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS都勸喻新興建的教堂，聖體櫃要放在聖堂的中間，不知甚麼原因，新興建的教堂的聖體櫃永遠都係放側邊，只放張圓檯在中間，中間的Crucifix更是不倫不類。真係好鬼肉酸呀！
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2007/4/25 下午 02:45:39
|
|
|
似乎fanny的說法有點斷章取義,原文是這樣的:
Therefore, the place where the eucharistic species are reserved, marked by a sanctuary lamp, should be readily visible to everyone entering the church. It is therefore necessary to take into account the building's architecture: in churches which do not have a Blessed Sacrament chapel, and where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist, taking care not to place the celebrant's chair in front of it. In new churches, it is good to position the Blessed Sacrament chapel close to the sanctuary; where this is not possible, it is preferable to locate the tabernacle in the sanctuary, in a sufficiently elevated place, at the centre of the apse area, or in another place where it will be equally conspicuous. Attention to these considerations will lend dignity to the tabernacle, which must always be cared for, also from an artistic standpoint. Obviously it is necessary to follow the provisions of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in this regard. (197) In any event, final judgment on these matters belongs to the Diocesan Bishop.
|
|
FANNY
|
Posted -
2007/4/25 下午 05:17:15
|
|
|
靚仔哥哥,
我想問下你對Tabernacle同祭台分開的看法，現時大部分的祭台都沒設有Tabernacle，取而代之只放一張檯，又是那一派的神學思想呢？天主教？？還是加爾文呀？？
|
|
ernst
|
Posted -
2007/4/25 下午 06:56:22
|
|
|
哈...Fanny...問得好
London的確好鬼遠....你住Liverpool...不如去下Little Oratory呀...係Birmingham...近好多
你有無MSN???
|
|
FANNY
|
Posted -
2007/4/25 下午 09:43:48
|
|
|
Ernst,
原來你也曾經到過RC Cathedral，聖公會的Cathedral外觀同佢真係簡直無得比，唔識既好容易當左Anglican Cathedral係RC Cathedral架！
真係唔好意思！我從來唔玩ICQ同埋MSN架！只是偶然到討論區留言。你有無上過其他Catholic Forum呀？
另外，有很多堂區將苦像(Crucifix)拆下，改為復活耶穌像，又唔知係乜野解究呢？英國都有不少這樣的情況，香港就更加唔駛講啦。又唔知咁樣算唔算係一種進步呢？
|
