|
作者
|
內容
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/5/7 下午 05:44:00
|
|
|
在信理與神學一欄中，西滿兄提到：有位神父在教友缺席的情況下祝平安，以回應小弟有關人子在審判時對著左邊的山羊群說話時，牠們是否存在的討論。
奧斯定兄則認為：彌撒的核心部分（core portion），是奉獻、祝聖和神父領主。對於這點，靚仔兄則「不以為然」。
不知大家有何意見呢？
據小弟所知，現時的彌撒禮規，要求至少須有一位輔祭對答禮儀的經文。該些彌撒，稱為「Missa sine populo」，但禮節上的用語，則仍是眾數（plural）的。所以，主祭對那一位輔祭仍然說「願主與你們同在」等等。
而當今教宗，亦強烈地鼓勵神父能每天舉行感恩祭，即使該彌撒沒有輔祭，亦許可之。
當神父舉行聖祭時「對著空氣」致候、誦讀聖經、展示聖體、祝平安時，是否沒有意義？或，這些舉動，對比起人子來臨時對著祂左邊的一群「空氣綿（山）羊」宣布永罰的判詞，哪一項較為沒有意義呢？
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/5/7 下午 09:31:39
|
|
|
Should be "空氣山羊" (goat in the air), and not
"空氣綿羊" (sheep in the air)? Ha Ha.
Which one "較為沒有意義呢", are they, after all, both meaningless?
And which are the core portion of the Mass? Besides the Offertory and Consecration? Should it includes communion by the celebrant?
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/5/7 下午 09:47:45
|
|
|
ok ... let me correct it. ok?
在新版羅馬彌撒經書中，「Ordo Missae Sine Populo」的標題，已改為「Ordo Missae, Cuius Unus Tantum Minister Participat」。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/5/7 下午 10:00:49
|
|
|
但從禮儀的角度看，即使在「Missa sine populo」內，神父看來雖是獨個兒說話，但他卻是和天使和諸聖一起舉行聖祭的。
記得在中學時被任命為輔祭時，神父在禮儀中形容祭壇是「天使震慄、諸聖朝拜」（angels tremble and the saints adore）的地方──因為主基督的逾越聖祭是在該處進行。從這觀點下，這樣的彌撒亦未如先前simon所想的沒有意思吧？
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/5/9 下午 12:31:59
|
|
|
By authority of our father St. Thomas:
S.T.Pars Tertia,82, Q.4:
<Whether the priest who consecrates is bound to receive this sacrament?>
Objection 1. It seems that the priest who consecrates is not bound to receive this sacrament. Because, in the other consecrations, he who consecrates the matter does not use it, just as the bishop consecrating the chrism is not anointed therewith. But this sacrament consists in the consecration of the matter. Therefore, the priest performing this sacrament need not use the same, but may lawfully refrain from receiving it.
Objection 2. Further, in the other sacraments the minister does not give the sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize himself, as stated above (66, 5, ad 4). But as Baptism is dispensed in due order, so also is this sacrament. Therefore the priest who consecrates this sacrament ought not to receive it at his own hands.
Objection 3. Further, it sometimes happens that Christ's body appears upon the altar under the guise of flesh, and the blood under the guise of blood; which are unsuited for food and drink: hence, as was said above (75, 5), it is on that account that they are given under another species, lest they beget revulsion in the communicants. Therefore the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive this sacrament.
On the contrary, We read in the acts of the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo (Can. v), and again (De Consecr., dist. 2): "It must be strictly observed that as often as the priest sacrifices the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the altar, he must himself be a partaker of Christ's body and blood."
I answer that, As stated above (79, 5,7), the Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice, because the outward sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers himself to God, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x). Hence by partaking of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise his. In the same way also, by dispensing the sacrifice to the people he shows that he is the dispenser of Divine gifts, of which he ought himself to be the first to partake, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the people. Accordingly we read in the chapter mentioned above (Twelfth Council of Toledo, Can. v): "What kind of sacrifice is that wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share?" But it is by partaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:18): "Are not they that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?" Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as often as he consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity.
Reply to Objection 1. The consecration of chrism or of anything else is not a sacrifice, as the consecration of the Eucharist is: consequently there is no parallel.
Reply to Objection 2. The sacrament of Baptism is accomplished in the use of the matter, and consequently no one can baptize himself, because the same person cannot be active and passive in a sacrament. Hence neither in this sacrament does the priest consecrate himself, but he consecrates the bread and wine, in which consecration the sacrament is completed. But the use thereof follows the sacrament, and therefore there is no parallel.
Reply to Objection 3. If Christ's body appears miraculously upon the altar under the guise of flesh, or the blood under the guise of blood, it is not to be received. For Jerome says upon Leviticus (cf. De Consecr., dist. 2): "It is lawful to eat of this sacrifice which is wonderfully performed in memory of Christ: but it is not lawful for anyone to eat of that one which Christ offered on the altar of the cross." Nor does the priest transgress on that account, because miraculous events are not subject to human laws. Nevertheless the priest would be well advised to consecrate again and receive the Lord's body and blood.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/5/9 下午 02:19:02
|
|
|
奧斯定兄你quote出這一段聖師的文章，是想說明甚麼道理呢？你quote一個hyperlink不就夠了嗎？別人不是更能看得清楚明白嗎？
例如：http://www.newadvent.org/summa/408204.htm
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/5/9 下午 10:53:19
|
|
|
喂喂，Eward，
我可從沒說過一個神父獨自開彌撒沒有意義，你為什麼說：「這樣的彌撒亦未如先前simon所想的沒有意思吧？ 」？
那位神父對我說：「彌撒是向天主的奉獻，一個人也可以照開。」
我認為一個人的彌撒雖然有點淒涼，但也有意義。
Simon
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/5/9 下午 11:50:54
|
|
|
問題是在於該些平安禮是否真的「對著空氣」獨自地自說自話。若真是這樣的話，則沒甚意思了。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/5/10 下午 02:53:58
|
|
|
That whether the celebrant's communion forms an essential part of the Holy Mass, along with the Offertory and the Conescration.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/5/10 下午 08:24:44
|
|
|
那麼我們就要問：彌撒的不可或缺部分作何解？
如果說：彌撒的本質是讓基督在十字架的救贖行為藉餅酒祭獻得以重現，那麼，祝聖餅酒才是彌撒的不可或缺部分。主祭是否領主則不那麼重要了。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/5/11 下午 10:04:40
|
|
|
I mean by "不可或缺" that if a priest consecrates the host at Mass, as the offerer of the sacrifice, he needs to receive the oblation himself, as St.Thomas puts it :"by partaking of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one(sacrifice) is likewise his".
Or is my understanding of the passage from ST OK?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2003/5/12 上午 09:49:19
|
|
|
按從前一些跡近無聊,但卻有參考作用,論述禮規的書說,如一位神父於祝聖聖體後暈倒,未能繼續彌撒,則六品可派送聖體,彌撒繼續.這是否意未著主祭領主不是一個"不可或缺"的部份.當然"正常"情況下,就一切過程都應做足.但不可或缺的部份當然是就非常情況而言了.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2003/5/12 上午 09:54:27
|
|
|
舉行聖祭的神父"有責任"在該台彌撒中領主和該位舉行彌撒的神父領主是否聖祭的必然部份是完全的兩回事.
我想奧兄是有所混淆了.
神父不領主不能也不會使該台彌撒變成無效是我想說的"不可或缺".不知edward兄是否此意?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/5/14 下午 06:09:23
|
|
|
There are many aspects of a 'mass': it is an assembly of God's people; it is the 're-living' of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus; it is 'then' and it is 'now' - i.e. multi-dimensional.
If a priest can say a mass in solo, then its dimensions are probably even more than we can grasp. Any way, it is the 'peak' of our Christian lives, and it is a foreshadowing of Heaven itself, so I guess it probably IS something that we may not be able to fully grasp.
|
