|
作者
|
內容
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/23 下午 12:20:20
|
|
|
據 MD 提供的資料，彌撒必須用「either Gregorian Chant, or must be similar to Gregorian Chant」。
但這是否合理或正確，人人有不同想法吧，最後答案只有天主知道。
非洲人民、以色列人民、中國人民或日本人民，參加彌撒向天主感恩，為甚麼一定要用古老羅馬式的音樂呢？為甚麼不可以是天主的特選民族猶太人音樂或其他音樂呢？
天主在甚麼時候表示過，羅馬音樂比別的音樂高尚？
|
|
M.D
|
Posted -
2008/5/25 上午 03:15:55
|
|
|
Simon
What you said above is however not my interest, rather wht i did is that why u still have something to say.As you said,' if the pope said, it is prohibited to use the intruments above, which is inspired by the holy spirit...then i have nothing to say'.The very fact above seems to prove furtile, but atleast u know the church that is really inspired by the God and even can REPRESENT God's will.
That's why i am interested in!If you really think that the church represents the God, and this is an ORDER, why still are you arguing and even NOT ACCEPT?
' Popes are european and therefore, their judgement and interest are affected.'
Indeed,one's interest is to a certain extent under the great influence of his culture. However, the granting the order and the judgements,epescially these all representing God,is conceivably not only due to the so-called 'cultural influence'.The real motivation behind the same practice,made by so many popes in so many ages who are inspired by the Holy Spirit, is obvious that they think the music quoted above are the MOST APPROPRIATE to use in the MASS, for 'being conductive to prayer and liturgical participation', and 'primarily evoking God's majesty and to honor it'For this kind of music, as it claimed' sacred music', not only is a music it should be, that is having music notes, wonderful rhythm, making one enjoy it melody etc., but emphasize the fruits of itslef that isto elevate people to God and strengthen their' faith' and 'devotion'(fides cognita est, et nota devotio).And only the church has to the right to amend and recognise.
So, can one use the song of a popular singer, maybe from 顏福偉, and changes the lyrics to some words adoring God in the mass and call it'sacred muisc' as it could still bring people to sing and adore God in that way?The answer is manifestly negative.
The active participation here is not meaning either to make people only take a greater proportional part in the liturgy, or to actively insert the others things into the liturgy, but is to make the faithful actively participate in the God's salvation plan, obtaining the greatest grace through remitting our sins, surrendering ourself, and glorifying the Lord via the offering of the unbloody manner of the perfect high priest(the Christ) of himself, that 's the Mass.So, not only is missa a memorial meal, but far more than that, it is a HOLY SACRAFICE of Jesus Christ in an unbloody manner.In this sacrafice, what music should do or ASSIST that is not only to make one to enjoy the melody, or to superficially take part in liturgy, but to PRAY as to elevate ourself to God(actual participation).
What kind of music could do this, leading us to pray? Certainly clear is that not the one distracting the listener, not the one to be theatrical, but generally the one to be grand and solemnic taht makes us to praise and think of the glory of the Lord; and also to be soft to make us meditate the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Calvary as to obtain the fruits of the mass.That's why organ and Gregorian chant is the most approriate music suggested by the God's bride, our mother Roman catholic church.
' The effect of one's music is subjective'.
Indeed, it is subjective to every single person. Therefore, there should be an objective standard to unify itself, for the aim of not to fitting the taste of the faithful, but to elevate the faithful to God as not the music brings the faithiful to God, but is the faith and devtion of the faithful, with God's grace and a proper assist, to be closer with God and such standard and the right goes to the authority, that 's the church, but not any person, let alone a layman.
Also, the effect and influence doing on an individual is of course subjective, but still, take the Gregorian chantfor example, such chant is greatly promoted since the Greogry the great in the six centuries set up the schola cantorum(school of Greogrian chant),and after 15 centuries,during these ages, experimented by many musical experts, liturgist and saints, this chant, the treausure of the church, is highly recommended and seen as the chief music in our church. So, is that so subjective that not many catholics, including the illiterate one, can 'feel' the heart of this church 's treasure?
To a large extent, the time reflects the truth.
Even in an age, which promotes a modern mind and put great emphasis on the cultural intercession, adopting many new things that never emergered in the past, that is the Vatican 2 council, however never thought that it is not fair or strange to just use the 'old' church music in the liturgy, or thinks that the other music must be inserted as they would have the same function as the traditional music in the church, rather in its Sacrosanctum Concilium and from the instruction of the Congregation of Rites the MUSICAM SACRAM, it further reinforces the use of the Gregorian chant. So, is the music 's effect made is that subjective to an individual?
主觀感覺與客觀客體相合that is veritas(真理).
Let me remind you my friend, the above statements that's the judgements and orders from the church is a COMMAND, but not a REQUEST. When Moses was commanded to give the ten commandments to the people, he did not say a word in front of God, saying whether he accept that or think that there was not encough for commandments in such a small number(10 only) to rule the whole humanity till the world end, other what he did was obeying to God's command.The same here as the case above, what church do is COMMANDING us, but not requesting us to do something, and we should OBEY it but not to ACCEPT, not to show how wise we are with our limited sight, showing off our so-called' critical thinking' to the church which is represented God. Whenever you want to seek the God's will, asks for and listens to the magisterium of the church , as it is the representative and the only-bride of God.
If one don't know the church commandments, critizing the church's treasure as not more than the ' traditional and old stuff' but to himself not understanding and even being ignorant about the catechism or history of the church; refusing to accept and obey the church ,who is under the leading of Holy Spirit, and still yelling to ' have some changes in the Vatican Council in the future', '這種比什麼都強烈的強烈排他性', 我看你也不會接受.
I guess, just only guessing, but not intended to offend any one here, even God shows himself and driects the order by himself that the organ should be the first prority and should be the main use in the mass, for this kind of person, the first reponse from him/her is not
' yes, i do', but rather
'why can't the others do so?'
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/25 下午 10:09:26
|
|
|
MD,
謝謝你的詳盡回覆。我為人比較簡單，也相信言之成理的東西通常不複雜。一針即可見血。
直問你一個簡單問題：
「彌撒必須用either Gregorian Chant, or must be similar to Gregorian Chant」是否永恆不變的當信道理？
如果不是，那就是有可能改變的東西，一如當年規定用拉丁文開彌撒，後來也改變了。
|
|
Giovanni_marie
|
Posted -
2008/5/27 下午 11:01:04
|
|
|
每個時代都應該有當時的律法，儘管時代會變，律法亦可能會變，但都有既定程序，而不是隨心所欲地去加上自己的意見，就算是多麼正確的意見，不然，教會就會四分五裂(可惜歷史就是這樣)。
當有紛亂時，請緊記：我信唯一、至聖、至公，從宗徒傳下來的教會。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/28 下午 12:39:29
|
|
|
Giovanni_marie,
謝謝留言。我們應該遵守正確的法律。
你有沒有想過，教會四分五裂，部份原因可能正是教會要求人們守一些不必要的規條，因而令部份人士反感並離開教會。例子：「不許夫婦使用避孕套來避孕」一條，令多少信基督的人離開或不加入天主教會？
關於在彌撒中使用結他，我的態度是：
第一，我不大會彈結他，所以我個人不會在彌撒中用結他彈奏；
第二，我認為用結他沒有丁點問題，所以當我看見有人在彌撒中用結他，我不會反感，也不會向上頭舉報，因為結他和風琴一樣，都可把我帶進祈禱和歌頌上主的狀態。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/28 下午 12:45:57
|
|
|
可以再打一個比喻：
如果香港有一條法律說「女人上街不可穿短袖上衣」，我不是女人，所以我不會犯這條法律。
但我認為這條法律是無理，所以當我看見有女人穿短袖衣上街，我不會反感，也不會向上頭舉報，也不會寫一萬字的文章向世人說明穿長袖衣的重要性和穿短袖衣的低劣性。
|
|
Giovanni_marie
|
Posted -
2008/5/28 下午 07:32:09
|
|
|
simon,
避孕套一例，令我有點兒吃驚！
我不懂教會律法，但我對此絕對接受，性行為若是出於愛，而愛是會帶來生命，這正是我們的信仰，光只沉醉於片刻的歡愉而忽視應有的責任，我認為是不對的。
大概我們的傳媒(包括正委！)經常批評社會，確實容易令人覺得我們的社會(教會)真的太差了。
|
|
M.D
|
Posted -
2008/5/29 上午 03:22:23
|
|
|
Simon
I suppose u hv read CAREFULLY the post i written above. If u dun hv, it will be vain to talk with u here and i hope that u can read that again. If u did, there should not be any further question unless you are a COMPLICATED person which is not as SIMPLE as u claim. Some statements u written here were so complex that beyond an individual's logical deduction.
First, wht is a '當信道理'? Obviously, it means' the thing we should believe' or' it is reasonable for us to believe that','理所當然要信的道理'. Therefore, without any added 時間屬性, the dogma above should be upheld, and for that, conclude in one word, you should do wht u typed from ur hand as it is a '當信' 道理.
Second, what is a'永恆不變的道理’？If so, then i would like to ask what is a '可以改變的道理’?Manifestly,these words are a logical fallacy.If it stands, i will send a letter to Holy see for yelling a revise on the category of the catechism. They should be seperated into 2 parts, one is 永恆不變的教義’and the other one is'可以改變的教義'.
Think twice please.
Third, if u chase for a '永恆不變的道理’, and you won't believe that unless the dogma is unchangeable', clearly no any inclusion of so-called''可以改變的道理’, then i would like to ask 'are using the guitar a '永恆不變的當信道理'?
If not, there should have changes as the language used in mass changed after Vatican 2.' Here again another fallacy that I don't think you will accept it because at last it doesnt change or prove anything.
Fourth, when we come to talk about the dogma, that should be the TRUTH which should not be changed corresponding to the time changing. For that, if you believe '永恆不變的當信道理' and chase for it, you should listen to the truth defender and respresentative of the truth itself the God, that is the church. However, what u said here i don't see any point is AT THE SAME SIDE of the church's command but be AT ODDS WITH IT.Again,we can conclude in one word, 'contradiction'.
Fifth, if the dogma here is a '可能改變的道理', that means it also could be a '可能不變的道理’.If it would be unchanged, it is meaningless for you to violating the law, even which could commit sins.
Sixth, 時代會改變，但時代改變並不是一樣東西改變的原因．
Indeed, time flies and the liturgy will change, as happened in the past,but only occur when it is based on the betterment of it. The liturgical changes take time, but the time changing(時代改變)should not be the reason for any changes.We can not say we won't use the Gregorian chant because time will fly; We abandon all the treasures we have and insert some new things that even are contradictory to the church core dogma, for the reason of 時代改變.
Besides, as i mentioned above, the use of the sacred music here has maintained for many ages, say the Grgorian chant, has been used for over 15 centuries,and till now, the church still reaffirm the using of it, but not omitting. So can you think of the reason why the church so insists on it? The church can't be kidding, or making some unserious decision, as it represents the God's will.Can you think of the reason seriously rather than holding your views seriously?
When we come to the question of ' why we should use pipe organ?', why cant we think first of' why should we use the other intruments'? For them , of course, they are the same as an intrument. However, would they use in the same manner for they are the same thing as being an intrument? Can they use in the same way under different circumstances? Obviously, NO is the only way to go. There are a great difference between the style of them, the manner they are used, and more inportantly where, under which circumstances should they be used PROPERLY. Then which is the most appropriate intruments and the most proper music used in the mass? Obvoiusly, it is the jurisdiction of the church, not ours, and we have no right to change it as it is the treasure of the church. What we have to do is FOLLOW THE CLEAR INSTRUCTION.
Therefore, the intruments used here, i mean in the mass, should be a kind of sacred music, not any other kind of music.If you still insist the view that it is reasonable to use the guitar or other intruments which are banned by the church, I don't think you should come here expressing your view and have any further discussion , but rather to learn what is a MASS( MISSA), what a mass should it be.
|
|
M.D
|
Posted -
2008/5/29 上午 04:10:29
|
|
|
By the way, the sentence you quoted here is not a catechism, but a command from the Holy See. Will you follow the command from our father , who directs the church, led by the Holy Spirit, representing the God's will.
What you do is no more than a SIMPLE thing---OBEY the church.I don't see how complicated this word means.What God want from you is OBEY his will but not ACCEPT that first or not, no matter how correct YOU THINK YOU ARE( 你認為).
If everything should be critically analysed by your so call critical mind, and you will only accept the things you think that are correct and REASONABLE, then why do you believe the Holy Trinity God? I don't think there will be an other thing more cryptical than this and I think you won't ACCEPT that because it cant be understood by an individual's 'critical mind'. But why you still believe it? Who told you that there is a God with 3 mystical persons? Obviously the church do.
If anyone holds their belief and only follow theri view and will, like the example you given here Simon, the people refusing to go to the church because of their refusing attitude towards the church policy on the matter of contraception.
In fact, they leave not because of the so-called' unreasonable policy' do the church stand, but of their own personal 'critical thinking'.Besides,規條 will be upheld if there is a great neccessity, if it is不必要的,規條就不必要制定. So there will not be a '不必要的規條' which especially inply for the church , who represents God, and is the most peacefulwhose aim is the most pure and simple of all societies in the world, as the church aims at saving people soul from eternal fire.
Therefore, when the church makes a decision, it considers not how many people will accept that but rather if this judgement is really helpful in elevating people to God and saves their soul.So that 's why our church is a HOLY church apart from leading of the God.
So, if people refuse to accept the church's orders, claiming that it is unreasonable at least for them after their short sighted analysis, for this kind of person, they think church is church, and God is God, there won't be any relation between them. They still call themselve' Catholic' as they think they listen to the God.
However, is that the truth?
Refusing to accept God's will, which is represented by the church , who is under the leading of God, it means they refuse to accept the truth, the church, and God. So, are they really Catholic? Are they believing that there is TRUTH in this world? Of course they do, as all things wont be accepted unless via their deduction. For them, 他們就是真理.
When they ask a question, yelling to get an answer, in fact they are not demanding real answer, but rather demand the affirmation of their view and so-called 'answer' in mind.
Please my friend, take a look at this. Read the passage carefully, and not jsut reading, but digest it. Don't reply that soon, as it consumes time to understand.
God Blessed
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/29 下午 12:18:01
|
|
|
MD，
謝謝你的回覆。我只能說，我已很努力看，但不能完全明白你想說甚麼。既然不能完全明白，我就不敢說我不同意你的想法。
如果有網友能完全明白 MD 的留言，請告訴我，好讓我知道是自己的理解力出了問題。
留言若能用單一語文，是最好的，方便讀者理解。中英混合，恕我直言，是次一等的表達方式。
中英混合，再加錯誤文法，對讀者更是困難。
最困難當然是內容不清，例如：
for that, conclude in one word, you should do wht u typed from ur hand as it is a '當信' 道理.
請問：你說的conclude in one word，那one word 是甚麼word？
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/29 下午 12:28:04
|
|
|
我常常說，我欣賞和羨慕那些事事服從的人，可惜我不是這樣的一個人。我只能服從那些我能明白的規條，我無法真心服從一些我不同意的規條；或許這是我的「缺憾」吧。
即使是這樣，我也成了天主教徒，並在堂區的善會中服務。這是天主教會的包容，我很感激。
我真心認為，行為上服從但內心不服從，是虛偽的信仰。我不想做虛偽的人。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/29 下午 12:52:03
|
|
|
Giovanni_marie,
關於我對「夫婦可否使用避孕套」的看法，如你有興趣，可看《家庭倫理》中的〈人工避孕〉一題。
http://www.theology.org.hk/forum/detail.asp?region_no=3&area_no=2&topic_no=22
我的電腦知識很差，不懂建立「連結」。見諒。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/29 下午 05:20:18
|
|
|
MD,
再一次讀你的留言，有部份是看得懂。
你說天主教會在過去超過十五個世紀都是用「Gregorian Chant」。那麼我就這樣理解：一世紀至五世紀，教會在感恩祭中並不是用Gregorian Chant。
問題來了：
從聖經或宗徒的行為和說話中，我們完全看不到彌撒要用Gregorian Chant。難道聖神忽然在六世紀感召當時的教宗：「從今天起，你們要用 Gregorian Chant 開彌撒啊！」
你當然有權這樣相信。我是無法這樣相信。
聖神為甚麼不在一世紀就作這種感召？
用Gregorian Chant，是人的決定還是神的決定？
|
|
M.D
|
Posted -
2008/5/30 上午 02:00:41
|
|
|
Simon
I am sorry that my language is not good to express myself as i type it at the night. But still i dun see any flaw in my comment and i will type it in chinese later.
For your quesiton, a simple answer can be given that you should read the history first, like why the chant is called' Gregorian chant', and is it really origined at six century or just took a final form at that time. Study first and reply later.
However, I dun think it will help you much as you will only ACCEPT the things you UNDERSTAND.Here I want to ask you to take a pause before replying as to think thoroughly the other's comments. There won't be any room for improving yourself if you still 為駁而駁(as i seen). It is not a proper attitude for a mature man doing so.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/30 下午 04:05:21
|
|
|
Dear MD,
I do appreciate your effort very much. You are serious about your religious belief, and you are respectable.
I don't think I argue for the sake of argument. I have been trying to write messages that are reasonable. If you notice a sentence written by me being unreasonable, please point it out. I will review that carefully.
Different people have different definitions of religion. To me, religion is how I face the universe in the most honest way. That is the reason why I said I don't want to act in one way while thinking in another.
By the way, MD, don't stay with the computer too long every day. Have sufficient sleep, which is good for your health. God asks us to take good care of ourselves. (Does the Church's law mention this? If it does, I will definitely follow.)
Peace.
Simon
|
|
M.C
|
Posted -
2008/5/31 上午 10:59:14
|
|
|
The Novus Ordo Missae considering the new elements susceptible of widely differing evaluations,which appear to be implied or in detail, a striking departure form the Catholic theology of Mass which was formulated by Session XXII of the Council of the Trent , which by fixing definitively the "canons" of the rite , erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the intergrity of the Mystery.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2008/5/31 上午 11:25:42
|
|
|
Dear M.C.,
Please note the following words from the Council of Trent itself -
Praeterea declarat, hanc potestatem perpetuo in Ecclesia fuisse, ut in sacramentorum dispensatione, salva illorum substantia, ea statueret vel mutaret, quae suscipientium utilitati seu ipsorum sacramentorum venerationi, pro rerum, temporum et locorum veritate, magis expedire judicaret.
|
|
hkgck
|
Posted -
2008/6/17 下午 06:50:46
|
|
|
e家d人好可愛架！
唔識唱「頌恩」入面既歌，咪叫人一齊唔好唱囉，咁咪無咁樣衰囉！
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/6/18 上午 12:11:38
|
|
|
hkgck，
為甚麼要用「咪無咁樣衰」來形容你的弟兄姊妹呢？他們都是基督徒。
慎言，慎言。
|
|
