Genesis events celebrated in the Liturgy

最近因著網上的討論，因此從羅馬彌撒經書的祈禱經文中，摘取一些與創世紀有關的經文，作參考之用。似乎應有進一步發展的空間。

看著看著，發現原來天主教的婚姻神學，亦與創世紀有著莫大關係。

Abel

T 570pe / M1251pe
dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae

O1018so
et pari benedictione, sicut munera Abel, sanctifica, ut, quod singuli


Abraham

M1251pe
et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit

T587or
Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahae eiusque semini contulisti,

P622or
operaris, praesta, ut in Abrahae filios et in Israeliticam

P634bn
et origo virtutum; Deus, qui Abrahae filios per Mare Rubrum

S1626so
et eiusdem benedictionis, quam Abrahae et eius semini promisisti,


Adam

P617pr
Qui pro nobis aeterno Patri Adae debitum solvit, et veteris
tradidisti! O certe necessarium Adae peccatum, quod Christi morte

S1850ai / D3094ai
Iesum adducet cum eo. Et sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in


First Parents

T601hy
orbis immolatus vicerit. De parentis protoplasti fraude factor


Melchisedech

T570pe / M1251pe
tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium,

Y2968ai
in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Deus qui ad


Ordo celebrandi matrimonium

Deus, qui potestate virtutis tuae de nihilo cuncta fecisti,
qui dispositis universitatis exordiis
et homine ad imaginem tuam facto,
inseparabile viro mulieris adiutorium condidisti,
ut iam non duo essent, sed una caro,
docens quod unum placuisset institui
numquam licere disiungi;

Deus, qui tam excellenti mysterio
coniugalem copulam consecrasti,
ut Christi et Ecclesiae sacramentum
praesignares in foedere nuptiarum;

Deus, per quem mulier iungitur viro,
et societas, principaliter ordinata,
ea benedictione donatur,
quae sola nec per originalis peccati poenam
nec per diluvii est ablata sententiam.

Respice propitius super hos famulos tuos,
qui, maritali iuncti consortio,
tua se expetunt benedictione muniri:
emitte super eos Spiritus Sancti gratiam,
ut, caritate tua in cordibus eorum diffusa,
in coniugali foedere fideles permaneant.

Sit in famula tua N. gratia dilectionis et pacis,
imitatrixque sanctarum remaneat feminarum,
quarum in Scripturis laudes praedicantur ...

主教與堅振聖事

閱覽教區禮委羅國輝神父的網誌，當中九月廿二日紀錄了關於香港教區，在訂定教區性的牧民指引過程中，檢討和評估了現時各堂區裡，堅振聖事的做法和處理。

下午3:00-4:00pm與「教區牧民指引」籌備小組會議，討論有關主日學學員領堅振的建議。每年主日學學員，自幼已經受洗，現在領受堅振聖事，以完成入門過程者，約有1000人左右。

方案（一）在五旬節，於主教座堂，由主教主持。

利：藉主教主持，可表達與宗徒傳下來的教會，緊密連繫；有教區感，且可省去堂區各自籌備。

弊：1000人領聖事，1000代父母，主教座堂再容不下家長、親友、主日學的同學，失去堂區團體的具體參與。

方案（二）在五旬節，由主教授權主任司鐸，以主教祝聖的油，在堂區，為主日學學員施行堅振聖事。

利：與堂區大家庭有密切關係，且可成為堂區慶祝五旬節的高峰。

弊：欠與主教、教區的體驗，但可利用參與教區慶典，來補充教區體驗，並在主教牧民訪問堂區（主保瞻禮），與主教交談見面。甚至，主教可送十字架（紀念品），給領堅振者，如給新教友。在主保瞻禮舉行堅振，是歷史問題，因為當時，只由主教主持堅振，既然主教來參加主保瞻禮，那麼就邀請他一併施行堅振聖事。但是，這樣「堅振聖事」就與入門聖事脫勾，而變得意義模糊，同時，也把「主保瞻禮」變得意義模糊。故此，現在把堅振聖事，放回入門聖事的過程，首選是在舉行入門聖事的時刻，一併舉行，例如，復活節守夜慶典，以及五旬節（傳統上，如果有人不便於復活節守夜時受洗，便以五旬節，作為施洗的補充日子）。在香港，復活節守夜時，已有許多成人領受入門聖事，有時，真不方便，同時為主日學學員施行堅振。故此，退而求其次，五旬節也是最佳的選擇。當然，要用灑聖水禮，來強調堅振是入門聖事的過程，並以領聖體，為入門過程的完成和高峰。這樣，主保瞻禮就可以還它本來面目。

經過討論，大家都傾向方案（二），在香港比較適合。我要把方案（二）寫成條文，在月底諮議會，由主教決定。

記得自己當年領堅振的時候，是1990年在海星堂，由已故的鄧以明總主教手中領受的。當天他所講述的「聖母蒙召升天」道理，至今仍記憶猶新。

作為一位教友，我覺得在現時自己堂區的日常生活中，總像欠缺了一份主教的「臨在」。當然，在理性和抽象層面，我的腦告訴我：堂區司鐸是在主教「授權」下、「代表」主教管理和牧養各堂區的教友；本堂神父講的道理，基本上和主教本人講的一樣；本堂神父施行的聖事（包括主教賦予faculty使本堂神父有能力舉行的堅振聖事），與主教自己做是沒有分別的。

平常醫院工作中，有所謂「Grand-round」（俗稱「大巡房」）。典型模式是：顧問醫生在高級醫生和駐院醫生陪同下，巡察病房內的每一位病人。若套用在教會生活中，則有點似「Stational Mass」和「Pastoral visitation」。

小弟所身處的堂區，在新堂建成前，主教幾乎從來未有出現過。按記憶所及，新堂建成後，由主教主持堂區性的禮儀，好像陳樞機一次、湯主教一次。當然，我們常收到的一個理由，就是「主教好忙」。

我傾向於認為，值得保留主教在堂區中（為小童及孩童時已領洗、及後初領過聖體的友）施行堅振聖事的傳統。理由如下：

1. 按照拉丁教會的傳統，主教是堅振聖事的通常施行者；
2. 主教隆重地舉行彌撒禮儀，對堂區教友而言，具有深刻的標記和教育意義；
3. 主教可充分利用這些禮儀的牧靈和福傳幅度，為堂區甚至整個教區的教友，作教理講授、釋奧，並針對一些與信仰和倫理相關的社會議題和問題，發表作為牧者的意見、甚至訓導；
4. 當這些行動被公教媒體恰堂地報導、且言論被轉載時，可增強堂區之間的向心力和凝聚力，促進教區內的團結；
5. 主教主持堂區的彌撒，不一定需要在主保瞻禮的背景下進行。尤其在履行「指導」和「督責」的任務方面，主教其實可以考慮更頗密地、「有預告地」在各堂區「平常」主日的禮儀中出現。

想到這裡，我記起了Victor Hugo名著《Les Misérables》中，講及一位「好好主教」Msgr. Bienvenu的一齣片段：

... He crossed the mountain on a mule, met no one, and arrived safe and sound among his "good friends" the shepherds. He remained there a fortnight, preaching, administering the holy rites, teaching and exhorting. When he was about to leave, he resolved to chant a Te Deum with pontifical ceremonies. He talked with the curé about it. But what could be done? There was no episcopal furniture. They could only place at his disposal a paltry village sacristy with a few old robes of worn-out damask, trimmed with imitation-galloon. "No matter," said the bishop. "Monsieur le curé, at the sermon announce our Te Deum. That will take care of itself." ...

Father Uwe Michael Lang on Latin in the Liturgy

The following link is the English translation of an article by Fr. Uwe Michael Lang on Latin in the Liturgy, appearing in L'Osservatore Romano. I think it serves as an excellent reference for those who concern about the issue of liturgical translation and inculturation.

Latin - Tie of Unity Between Peoples And Cultures

常年期第廿六主日：彌撒福音問題

從論盡神學討論區得知，昨天主日彌撒的福音經文〈二子的比喻〉（瑪21: 28-32），新舊版之間有所分別。

按照現時新訂《主日感恩祭》小冊子所載的版本－－

「你們以為怎樣？從前有一個人，有兩個兒子。他對第一個兒子說：孩子！你今天到葡萄園去工作吧！這兒子答應說：主，我去。但他卻沒有去。父親又對第二個說了同樣的話，第二個卻回答說：我不願意。但後來悔悟過來，而又去了。

「兩個兒子中，那一個履行了父親的意願？」

他們說：「後一個。」

即與先前的版本有所不同。按照舊版的《主日感恩祭》和《福音書》的次序則恰好相反：頭一個兒子先說不去葡萄園、但後來則知錯而而去了；而後一兒子則先說「去」但後來沒有去。「聽眾」（司祭長和民間的長老）的回應，則是「首位」兒子履行了父親的意願。

這一問題，頗掀起我的興趣。

查考家中所收藏的聖經版本，則發現〈二子的比喻〉原來可以有三種版本：

• 而現時思高聖經譯本（包括新舊約合訂本和譯釋版系列），則與新版主日感恩祭相符。
• 「新」（Nova Vulgata）和「舊」（Clementina Vulgata）拉丁通行本，與舊版《主日感恩祭》的版本相符。而其他英語譯本（如Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Douay-Rheims, New International Version）亦是這樣。
• 一本「學術」拉丁通行本，則指出有一種版本，當中兒子回應的次序，與上述拉丁通行本一樣，但聽眾的回應，則是「後者」（novissimus），即「司祭長和民間的長老」們，認為那口口聲聲說跟從、但後來沒了件事的兒子，是履行了父親的旨意！

瀏覽了互聯網，發覺有一本稱為《New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis》（Adelbert Denaux, Joël Delobel著）的書，當中提及「二子比喻」的校勘問題。

原來瑪竇福音中的〈二子比喻〉，在對觀福音中乃屬獨有。但至今留傳世間的希臘文版本則有三種。現將該些版本的分別，中譯及表列如下：

節數	第一式	第二式	第三式
29	他回答說：主，我去。但他卻沒有去。	他回答說：我不願意。但後來悔悟過來，就去了。	他回答說：我不願意。但後來悔悟過來，就去了。
30	他對第二個也說了同樣的話，第二個卻答應說：我不願意。但後來悔悟過來，而又去了。	他來給第二個說了同樣的話，第二個卻答應說：主，我去。他卻沒有去。	他來給第二個說了同樣的話，第二個答應說：主，我去。但卻沒有去。
31a	二人中那一個履行了父親的意願？」他們說：「後一個。」	二人中那一個履行了父親的意願？」他們說：前一個。	這兩個中那一個履行了父親的意願？」他們說：後一個。

按照上述圖表，則現時（新版、試用本《主日感恩祭》）彌撒經書所採用的，乃是第一式的版本。

思高聖經譯釋版給予以下解釋：

......就校勘學來說，是這一種經文較為確切；但就上下文的意義來說，我們所選取的經文［按：即第一式］更為適合，因為有上下文為依據，故此比較容易解釋。現有拉丁通行本的經文，如註中之譯文［按：即第二式］ ......

但在禮儀而言，我們應選取哪一版本？

根據教廷聖禮部的指引《Liturgiam authenticam》：

37. If the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is composed exhibits readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text, it should be borne in mind that the Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of reference as regards the delineation of the canonical text.[32] Thus, in the translation of the deuterocanonical books and wherever else there may exist varying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed. If a previously prepared translation reflects a choice that departs from that which is found in the Nova Vulgata Editio as regards the underlying textual tradition, the order of verses, or similar factors, the discrepancy needs to be remedied in the preparation of any Lectionary so that conformity with the Latin liturgical text may be maintained. In preparing new translations, it would be helpful, though not obligatory, that the numbering of the verses also follow that of the same text as closely as possible.

38. It is often permissible that a variant reading of a verse be used, on the basis of critical editions and upon the recommendation of experts. However, this is not permissible in the case of a liturgical text where such a choice would affect those elements of the passage that are pertinent to its liturgical context, or whenever the principles found elsewhere in this Instruction would otherwise be neglected. For passages where a critical consensus is lacking, particular attention should be given to the choices reflected in the approved Latin text.[33]

39. The delineation of the biblical pericopai is to conform entirely to the Ordo lectionum Missae or to the other approved and confirmed liturgical texts, as the case may be.

[32] Cf. Council of Trent, Session IV, 8 April 1546, De libris sacris et de traditionibus recipiendis, and De vulgata editione Bibliorum et de modo interpretandi s. Scripturarum : Denz.–Schönm., nn. 1501-1508 ; Pope John Paul II, Apost. Const. Scripturarum thesaurus, 25 April 1979: AAS 71 (1979) 558-559.

[33] Cf. Pope Paul VI, Address to the Cardinals and Prelates of the Roman Curia, 23 December 1966, n. 11: AAS 59 (1967) 53-54; cf. Address to the Cardinals and Prelates of the Roman Curia, 22 December 1977: AAS 70 (1978) 43; cf. Pope John Paul II, Apost. Const. Scripturarum thesaurus, 25 April 1979: AAS 71 (1979) 558; Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum, editio typica altera 1986, Praefatio ad Lectorem.

若按照上述原則，那麼我們是否應跟從《新拉丁通行本》所列出（即回復舊版《主日感恩祭》）的版本？

Father Smolarski on Self-Intinction

今天在堂區圖書館借了一本叫《How Not to Say Mass》的書仔。作者Fr. Dennis C. Smolarski, S.J.對舉行彌撒禮儀，提出了頗為深刻的見解。

當中關於送聖體方式的部份，引起了我的注意。

Do not change the rite of ministering Communion to make it more efficient and less personal.

In some places in the late 1970s, seemingly in the interests of efficiency, "self-intinction" had been practiced for Communion under both kinds and occasionally this practice continues. No major liturgical writer has ever suggested that intinction is a good way to minister Communion under both kinds - drinking from the chalice is always to be preferred (cf. U.S. Norms #42). One form of "self-intinction" forces all communicants to take a host themselves and then to dip it in the chalice. Such a practice does not give people the option of drinking from the chalice or even of receiving Communion on the tongue, and we must respect that piety even if we disagree with it. In addition, such a practice eliminates the necessity of having a minister in the action of receiving Communion, therefore depersonalizing it as well as turning an action which for centuries has been seen as "humbly receiving God's gifts" into "taking what is rightfully mine."

Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J., an expert on liturgies of the Eastern Chrisitian Churches, writes:

But from the sources we have studied at least one thing is clear: the Eucharist, ideally at least, is not something one takes. It is a gift received, a meal shared. And since sacraments by their very nature are supposed to symbolize what they mean, then self-service, cafeteria-style communion rites just will not do. (24)

This same reorientation of symbol takes place anytime the Sacred Elements are passed through the congregation, as occasionally happens in some small group liturgies. Such a practice is also explicitly prohibited in the 2002 GIRM (#160).

The late Father Robert Hovda wrote:

The personal sharing and transaction between minister and communicant is part of the symbolic action. That is why it is such a loss when that personal dimension is eliminated by the use of a mode of sharing which does not involve a minister of the plate and a minister of the cup. One sees this not infrequently: plates simply passed through a group, or cups simply placed on the altar to be found by communicants. The loss is not a minor one. It is a loss of personal eye contact, personal word, personal gesture, personal touch. (25)

If the group is small enough, it may be very meaningful, once in a while, for the presiding priest to minister the consecrated Bread to all present first and then to minister the Precious Blood. But to pass the elements in a larger group, forcing everyone in a non-homogeneous group to "take" rather than "receive," in the minds of most liturgical authors, results in a poorer liturgical experience.

(24) Taft, "Receiving Communion - A Forgotten Symbol?" p. 418.

(25) Hovda, in Kay, It is Your Own Mystery, pp. 31-32.

聖經問題：編年紀

在一個網上論壇中，一位弟兄問到聖經〈編年紀〉對比其他史書，分歧甚多。問題關乎聖經的「無誤性」（inerrancy）。

瀏覽一下，原來網上亦有不少資料。看來應可以做點功課，給予一些回應。

例如：

Inerrancy

Alleged Anachronisms

Alleged Discrepancies and Errors

常年期第廿五主日

集禱經：

Deus, qui sacrae legis omnia constituta
in tua et proximi dilectione posuisti,
da nobis, ut, tua praecepta servantes,
ad vitam mereamur pervenire perpetuam.

中譯試用本：

天主，你訓示我們：
愛你在萬有之上，及愛人如己，
就是一切誡命的總綱；
求你幫助我們遵守你的誡命，以獲享永生。

個人觀察原文的字面意義：

天主，
你既將神聖法律的所有制度
建立在對你和對近人的愛內－－
求你賜我們遵從你的規誡，
好能堪當獲享永恆的生命。

默想：

守法律和守規矩，乃在於認同造物主為各受造物所訂立的物性和限制，和立法者所制定的客觀秩序。

本主日的福音有言：我們整天受苦受熱。受苦，往往是因為未能看清楚規矩背後的秩序和價值；受熱，則往往是因為對天主和對近人的愛仍然有所不足。結果是白白地受苦受熱了。

若能看清楚謹守規矩和戒律的本質，乃是在意志和行動上，具體地、確切地活出對天主和對近人的愛，則我們離天主的國（永恆的生命）不遠了。

每當彌撒中，神父在將領聖體時，都會唸一篇禱文，其中兩句：求你使我恆心遵守你的規誡，永不與你分離（et fac me tuis semper inhaerere mandatis, et a te numquam separari permittas）。其斯之謂與？

Catena Aurea

今天堂區聖言宣讀組開會。

因要負責協助會議中的聖經分享，所以在網上瀏覽了一些釋經的資訊。其中留意到一個名叫Catechetics Online的網站。顧名思義，當然是「教道理」的網站了。

這個網站收藏了聖多瑪斯‧亞奎那所編的教父福音釋義集，名為《Catena Aurea》。數年前，網上只有聖瑪寶福音的部分，但現在，則英文和拉丁文都有。（不過拉丁版本在另一網站）

教父闡釋聖經，往往不拘泥於字面意義。（這不是說他們「不重視」字面意義－－literal sense）他們亦積極地以信仰的眼光，發掘聖經所蘊含的深層意義（精神意義，即：allegorical, moral, anagogical senses）。這就有如《天主教教理》第115-119條所引述的中世紀詩句：

Lettera gesta docet,
quid credas allegoria,
moralis quid agas,
quo tendas anagogia.

Per seipsum intingere：「自蘸法」兼形共融的禮儀問題－－續論〈我們的彌撒失去了甚麼？〉

陳神父在他的文章中亦如此說：

......蘸聖血是香港教友發展出來特有的方式。首先，我無意評定這方式有神學上或禮儀上的錯誤，也不反對繼續使用......

由此可見，他對現時教區內「自蘸法」領受聖體聖血的方式，是抱中立態度的。

按小弟的經驗，自蘸法的採用開始於九十年代中期。那時，我在重建當中的柴灣海星堂擔任輔祭會的幹事，並有份參與禮儀委員會的會議。其時，彌撒中多數是「單」領聖體，兼領聖體聖血多發生在大節日如聖週、聖誕和主保瞻禮，以及偶爾在一些較小型的團體內，由神父浸蘸、教友口領的方式進行。

隨著新聖堂的落成，那時的堂區教友開始接受禮儀上的一些轉變。那時開始流傳一種說法，問道：「由神父放聖體入教友的口中，會否不乾淨？」在教區禮儀委員會的倡導，以及本堂神父的鼓勵下，堂區的教友們開始被教育，接受「自行浸蘸」的方式。

那時小弟就讀中六，家中收藏了好幾本禮儀書藉，對這種由美國傳來領聖體聖血方法亦略知一二。兼且從教會公訂的禮書中，完全看不到此種做法的描述，因此，我對這種做法一直存有保留。我曾向本堂神父表達過反對意見，但未有獲得採納。

堂區在新聖堂建成後，一直採用自蘸法。這種做法亦在教區禮委的推動下，被全港各堂區所普遍採用。

---

在此期間，教廷聖禮部曾發表過一篇覆文：

Notitiae 34 [1998] 5-6

RESPONSA AD DUBIA PROPOSITA

Ad quaestiones Congregationi de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum positas hic proponuntur praesertim ea quae in variis documentis circa rem ipsam inveniuntur.

Qu. 2: Utrum Sacra Communio sub utraque specie per intinctionem distribui possit in manibus fidelium?
Resp.: Negative.

De modo sanctam Communionem ministrandi agitur Instructio Memoriale Domini, die 29 maii 1969, a Sacra Congregatione pro Cultu Divino edita. Instructio haec completur, in re pastorali, Epistula qua conceditur Conferentiis Episcopalibus indultum distribuendi fidelibus sacram Communionem in manu, cum omnes conditiones requisitae habeantur. Hanc Epistulam S. Congregatio pro Cultu Divino sua cuiusque lingua exaratam Indultum petentibus misit. Publici tamen iuris lingua gallica facta est (cf. Notitiae 5 [1969] 351-353), statuens, quoad ad dubium propositum: si Communio Sanguinis Christi fit per intinctionem, panis eucharisticus nequit poni in manibus fidelium: "Dans le cas de la Communion sous les deux espèces distribuée par intinction, il n'est jamais permis de déposer dans la main du fidèle l'hostie trempée dans le Sang du Seigneur". Ad hanc rem etiam pertinent ea quae scripta sunt sunt in Institutione Generali Misssalis Romani circa Ritum Communionis sub utraque specie per intinctionem, ubi implicite modus distribuendi super linguam indicatur: "Singuli communicandi accedunt, debitam reverentiam faciunt et stant coram sacerdote tenentes patinam sub ore. Sacerdos partem hostiae in calicem intingit et eam ostendendo dicit: Corpus et Sanguis Christi; communicandus autem respondet: Amen, et a sacerdote Sacramentum recipit, ac postea recedit" (n. 246b). Ex contextu normarum evidenter apparet ne Sacra Communio per intinctionem in manibus fidelium distribuatur.

---

直至2004年，3月25日，教廷聖禮部頒佈《救贖聖事訓令》，當中第104條指出：「不許領聖事者自行以聖體蘸聖血，亦不可用手領取蘸了聖血的聖體。」－－

... Ne permittatur communicando per seipsum hostiam in calicem intingere nec hostiam intinctam manu accipere ...

---

2004年9月20日，香港教區主教公署發布了一項指引〈有關教會場所衛生、聖祭及其他聖事的守則〉，當中指出：

2.7 領聖體方式

教友領聖體，一如以往，可採用舌領或手領方式，亦可選擇單領聖體或兼領聖體聖血。

2.7.1 單領聖體

a. 傳統方式：教友雙手合十，接近送聖體者，舌領聖體。

b. 手領方式：教友雙手適度地伸展，手掌平伸、向上，左掌在右掌之上；送聖體者說：「基督聖體」，並把聖體放在教友掌中；教友答「阿孟」，隨即靠一邊，恭領聖體，然後才返回座位。

2.7.2 兼領聖體聖血

應採用容量適中的聖爵，並盛載適量的聖血。司鐸、執事或送聖體員一對一對地一持聖體盒，一持聖爵。

方式（一）
教友到持聖體盒者前，按照以上2.7.1b.的方式領受聖體，隨即到持聖爵者前，把聖體蘸一點聖血，持聖爵者同時說：「基督聖血」，教友答「阿孟」，並隨即領受已蘸聖血的聖體，然後才返回座位。

方式（二）

註：堂區主任司鐸可斟酌實際情況 （例如，在堂區團體中某些成年人或兒童有所不便的情況下），採用以下方式，以確保「安全」。

教友到持聖爵者前。後者從持聖體盒者取聖體，並蘸聖血，然後持著蘸了聖血的聖體向教友說：「基督聖體聖血」。教友答「阿孟」，然後以舌頭領受。

2.7.3

無論採用何種方式，都必須避免以手指觸及聖血，或讓聖體碎屑掉下，或讓聖血滴在地上。堂區主任司鐸應不時提醒送聖體員及教友，有關單領聖體或兼領聖體聖血的正確方式和虔敬態度，並應矯正任何偏差。

按照這份文件，教區指出：「以上守則，乃因應本港的習俗、生態和氣候而釐定」。

---

三條問題：

一、以「自蘸法」兼形共融，在《救贖聖事》訓令的指引下，是否一項合法的禮儀舉措？

二、從禮儀角度而言，我們該如何評斷這種兼形共融的形式？

三、「自蘸法」與傳統的「口領兼形共融」，兩者相比，何者較優？

Syllabus of Errors －－續論：〈我們的彌撒失去了甚麼？〉

此外，陳神父在他的文章中提到：

......香港一般堂區禮儀出現妄用（abuse）的例子暫時未見，但禮儀的進行該是精益求精的，僅僅滿全禮規的要求並不足夠，還該在禮規的容許範圍內，以心思和虔敬精神，靈活地表達出禮儀的美和深義，才算堪當「行禮」。

　　香港的禮儀，大致上中規中矩，筆者不敢評說有了甚麼差錯……

小弟認同陳神父所述的原則，但以他的視線及視力範圍內「大致上中規中矩」的香港禮儀，「暫時未見」的「妄用例子」方面，似乎卻有進一步增補的可能。

誠然，一種禮儀中的行為屬於「妄用」（abuse）與「可否精益求精」（room for further refinements）之間的分別，需要進一步探討。但大家也許可以「懷緬」一下，過往參與的堂區禮儀（主日彌撒、個別團體彌撒），有沒有類似經歷，然後與括號顯示的〈羅馬彌撒經書總論〉（IGMR）及《救贖聖事訓令》（RS）的條目，作出比較。──

• 彌撒「致候禮」中，主禮除了以禮書指定的方式向教友致候外，亦用上世俗的致候方式（如：「早晨、午安、晚安」、「聖誕／中秋／新年快樂」等），並促使信眾們作同等回應。致候後，主禮介紹本日彌撒的「極簡短的詞句」（brevissimis verbis），儼然成了一篇「極簡短的講道」［IGMR 50, 124］。

• 進堂的奉香，不知為何緣故，改為在光榮頌時進行。［IGMR 49, 123］

• 主禮在禮儀經文中，述及天主聖三的名字、以及主耶穌的聖名時，未有點頭鞠躬（inclinatio capitis）［IGMR 275a］。

• 以非聖經的歌曲，取代聖道禮儀中的答唱詠的部分甚至全部內容。［RS 62］

• 福音前歡呼中，要宣讀福音的聖職人員到達讀經台時，參禮群眾仍「若無其事」，未有轉身朝向讀經台。［IGMR 133］

• 宣讀福音的聖職人員致候時，未有合上雙手。［IGMR 134］

• 宣讀福音前的奉香，在致候前進行。［IGMR 134］

• 將聖道禮儀及聖祭禮儀，分在不同地點舉行。［RS 60］

• 在非苦難敘述的福音宣讀中，讓平信徒讀經員以「角色扮演」或「廣播劇」的方式宣讀。［IGMR 109, RS 63］

• 在某些「特別場合」，讓平信徒在神父或執事本應「講道」的時刻，登上讀經台「證道」。［IGMR 66, 309；RS 64-66, 74）］

• 在主日及節日的彌撒，因各種「理由」（例如「時間」關係），非法地省略「信經」。［IGMR 67-68］

• 主禮以私自創作的「信德宣誓」，取代禮書所指定的信經。［RS 69］

• 信經中，唸到「祂因聖神由童貞瑪利亞取得肉驅，而成為人」一句時，未有按禮規的要求「深鞠躬」或「跪下」。［IGMR 137］

• 預備禮品時，主禮司鐸「貪快」，同時舉起聖盤和聖爵，且私自混合「呈奉祭餅」及「呈奉祭酒」的經文。［IGMR 141-143］

• 預備祭酒時，省略「注水禮」［IGMR 142；RS 50］

• 預備禮品中，省略「洗手」。［IGMR 76, 145］

• 聖祭禮儀進行時，讓非輔禮人員在聖所（presbyterium）內參禮，甚至有如共祭神父。［Notitiae 17 (1981) 61］

• 在感恩經中，除「聖聖聖」、「祝聖後的歡呼詞」及「亞孟」外，容許個別教友誦念當中的經文。［RS 52, 54］

• 主祭在祝聖經文中，誦念「感謝了、分開」時，擘開麵餅。［RS 55］

• 很多教友從來不清楚在參與感恩祭時，應在甚麼時刻下跪。「羊群效應」、「個人虔敬」、「禮多人不怪」的心態，多於「主動參與」及「團體意識」。［Notitiae 14 (1978) 300-301］

• 詠唱天主經時，採用「手牽手」形式、或類同主祭的「伸開雙手」（所謂「orans」）形式。［Notitiae 11, (1975) 226；Caeremoniale Episcoporum, no. 104］

• 平安禮中，採用彌撒常用經文以外的其他歌曲（如《頌恩》第377首）。［IGMR 24, 154；RS 31, 72］

• 在分送共融聖事的過程中，未有使用「聖體盤」（patina）以承載「可能」從聖體盒或聖爵所掉下或滴下的聖體聖血。［IGMR 118；RS 93］

• 領主時，有教友張開口、伸出舌頭希望「口領聖體」，卻遭送聖體員質問：「你不懂得怎樣領聖體嗎？」或：「你係唔係教友？」［RS 92］

• 送聖體後，主祭未有如禮規指示「隨即」返回祭台清理祭器，反而繼續留在聖所前，並透過各種明示或暗示，「邀請」尚未初領聖體的人士，接收他的「個別祝福」，甚至以一首聖歌（如《頌恩》第357首）來將此環節隆重化，使之成為「重複或無用的增添」（quae temporum decursu duplicata fuerunt vel minus utiliter addita），並使教友理應感謝聖體的時刻，集體分心。［IGMR 88, 163-164；RS 24, 31；Sacrosanctum Concilium, 50］

陳滿鴻：我們的彌撒失去了甚麼？

今期公教報，刊登了陳滿鴻神父的一篇文章〈我們的彌撒失去了甚麼？〉（上）。

當中的內容，述及現時香港教區禮儀的一些有待改善之處。陳神父在這篇「上集」的文章，列舉了四方面：

（一）飲聖血
（二）外文
（三）感恩經第一式
（四）職務

內容可謂精闢，實在值得一讀。當中若干觀點和意見，亦應進一步被廣泛地、深入地探討。

神父在其文章中強調，「蘸聖血是香港教友發展出來特有的方式。首先，我無意評定這方式有神學上或禮儀上的錯誤，也不反對繼續使用，只希望願意按禮規飲聖血的教友，能有選擇的機會。」

他又指出：「真正可商榷的地方是主禮者領聖血的方式。按禮規，主禮是先領聖體，然後領聖血。雖然禮規沒有說明主禮者必須使用『飲』的方式，但我想像不出以獨立的一個行動領聖血，除了『飲』之外，還可以有甚麼其他的可能。似乎編寫禮規的人造夢也料想不到主禮者會蘸聖血！」

其實，如果我們對《羅馬彌撒經書總論》的內容予以考察，則不難發現，當中彌撒主祭的領聖血方式，乃是假定為「從杯中飲」。例如以下條文（強調的部分，以紅色表達）：

De Missa cum populo

158. Postea, [sacerdos] stans ad altare conversus, sacerdos secreto dicit: Corpus Christi custódiat me in vitam ætérnam, et reverenter sumit Corpus Christi. Deinde accipit calicem, secreto dicens: Sanguis Christi custódiat me in vitam ætérnam, et reverenter sumit Sanguinem Christi.

De Missa concelebrata

245. Sanguis Domini sumi potest vel ex ipso calice directe bibendo, vel per intinctionem, vel cum calamo, vel cum cochleari.

246. Si Communio fit bibendo directe ex calice, unus ex his modis potest adhiberi:

a) Celebrans principalis, stans in medio altaris, accipit calicem et secreto dicit: Sanguis Christi custódiat me in vitam ætérnam, et paulum Sanguinis sumit et calicem diacono vel concelebranti tradit. Communionem fidelibus deinde distribuit (cf. nn. 160-162).

Concelebrantes unus post alium, vel bini si duo calices adhibentur, ad altare accedunt, genuflectunt, Sanguinem sumunt, labrum calicis abstergunt et ad suam sedem redeunt.

b) Celebrans principalis Sanguinem Domini sumit de more stans in medio altaris.

Concelebrantes vero Sanguinem Domini sumere possunt locis suis manendo et ex calice, ipsis a diacono vel ab uno concelebrante oblato, bibendo; aut etiam tradendo sibi deinceps calicem. Calix semper abstergitur vel ab eo qui bibit vel ab illo qui calicem præsentat. Singuli, cum communicaverint, ad suam sedem redeunt.

247. Diaconus totum Christi Sanguinem qui remansit ad altare reverenter sumit, adiuvantibus, si casus fert, aliquibus concelebrantibus, dein calicem ad abacum transfert, ibique ipse vel acolythus rite institutus more solito eum purificat, abstergit et componit (cf. n. 183).

248. Communio concelebrantium ita etiam potest ordinari, ut singuli ad altare Corpori et, statim postea, Sanguini Domini communicent.

Hoc in casu, celebrans principalis sub utraque specie Communionem more solito sumit (cf. n. 158), servato tamen ritu pro Communione calicis singulis in casibus electo, quem ceteri concelebrantes sequantur.

Communione autem celebrantis principalis peracta, calix ad latus altaris super aliud corporale deponitur. Concelebrantes unus post alium ad medium altaris accedunt, genuflectunt et Corpori Domini communicant; transeunt deinde ad latus altaris, et Sanguinem Domini sumunt, iuxta ritum pro Communione calicis electum, ut supra dictum est.

Eodem modo ac supra fiunt et Communio diaconi et purificatio calicis.

249. Si Communio concelebrantium fit per intinctionem, celebrans principalis more solito Corpus et Sanguinem Domini sumit, attendens tamen ut in calice satis Sanguinis remaneat ad Communionem concelebrantium.

Diaconus deinde, vel unus e concelebrantibus, calicem aut in medio altaris, aut ad latus eius super aliud corporale, una cum patena continente particulas hostiæ, opportune disponit.

Concelebrantes, unus post alium, ad altare accedunt, genuflectunt, particulam accipiunt, eam partim in calicem intingunt et, purificatorium ori submittentes, intinctam particulam sumunt, ac deinde ad loca sua recedunt ut initio Missæ.

Per intinctionem Communionem accipit etiam diaconus, qui Amen respondet concelebranti sibi dicenti: Corpus et Sanguis Christi. Diaconus autem ad altare totum Sanguinem qui remansit sumit, adiuvantibus, si casus fert, aliquibus concelebrantibus, calicem ad abacum transfert, ibique ipse vel acolythus rite institutus more solito eum purificat, abstergit et componit.

此外，又有沒有其他額外的資料，來證實此一「假定」？

我們可以參考教廷信理部頒布的一份「釋疑覆文」，當中提及地方教會當局，可否對一些具有「酗酒傾向」或「因疾病緣故」而不便從杯中領受聖血的主祭神父，准予「蘸領」（per intinctionem）一小部分聖血。信理部的答覆為：可以。有趣的是：「釋法」當局乃信理部而非聖禮部－－可能這個主禮「飲杯」的問題，不單關乎純粹禮儀問題，「聖體神學」亦牽涉在內。謹將原文節錄如下－－

RESPONSA AD PROPOSITA DUBIA

[...]

D. 1) Utrum sacerdoti, qui ratione alcoholismi vel alius infirmitatis secundum iudicium proprii medici non postest sumere ne illam quidem minimam quantitatem vini consecrati quae in Missa adhiberi solet, suggerendum sit ut communicetur "per intinctionem" in Missa concelebrata.

R. Affirmative.

D. 2) Utrum Ordinarius loci permittere queat sacerdoti, qui in eadem versatur condicione, ut etiam solus celebret Missam sese communicans "per intinctionem", dummodo fidelis, qui Missae assistat, consummet quod de vino consecrato remansit.

R. Affirmative.

[...]

AAS 74 (1982), 1298-1299.

換言之，在彌撒中主祭神父須從杯中飲聖血，乃是一條通例。「例外」只適用於個別嚴重情況，且須先得主教批准。

記得之前亦曾就著此一問題，寫過一封信給神父。現在將它的內容與大家分享－－

The Manner of Consummation of Sacrifice by Celebrant

10 October 2006

... Further study on the rubrics of the Mass reveals another interesting topic, which is about the manner of consummation of the Sacrifice of the Mass - by the celebrant's "drinking from the chalice".

Several years ago, I heard a similar remark from a Jesuit priest. At that time, my original parish started using the "self-intinction" method for regularly administering Communion under both kinds. "Naive" then as I was, we dismissed his notion for "hygienic" reason.

However, a closer look into the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani and a deeper reflection of the issue prompted me to agree with the priest's understanding:

1. It is mandatory for the celebrating priest (or the principal celebrant in case of concelebration) to first consummate the sacrifice by partaking both the Body and Blood of the Lord before distributing Communion to the faithful. This principle was implied in IGMR and explicitly restated by Redemptionis Sacramentum. (cf. nos. 97-98)

2. However, the rubrics did not provide the option for the priest (or principal celebrant) to communicate by intinction. If the rule of IGMR and rubrics are to be followed, the Body and the Blood are to be partaken "one by one" - these actions are to be carried out with the accompanying gestures and prayers as stipulated in the Missal.

3. Even in the case of concelebration where the concelebrant(s) is/are to communicate under both kinds by intinction, the principal celebrant still needs to communicate according to the preceding norms (i.e. "more solito").

4. Now, there is a beautiful and meaningful sign involved during "drinking" - a pouring out (effusio) which connotes both the "shedding" of Blood on Calvary as well as the "pouring out" of Precious blood from the chalice. It is manifested in the institution narrative:

... HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI
NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI
QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR
IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM ...

Sanguis ... effundetur - On Calvary the blood of the Lord was shed as a summa of the world's sin and God's supreme forgiveness. What people do there was essentially sacrilege. But in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, this shedding is the summa of the Church's supreme worship which is essentially formed and accomplished during the consecration and consummated during the Communion. The former (consecration) is the mystical immolation from the aspect of "origin" while the latter (consummation) concerns the application from the aspect of "pouring out of gift".

4. An analogy is evident when we compare the difference between enactment of the convenant (ratum) and its fulfillment (consummatum) in the nuptial mystery. In Latin, eucharistic coetus and conjugal coitus are basically the same word.

5. At the Mass the priest "anticipates" yet actually "celebrates" the heavenly banquet. After the Agnus Dei he announces it is the Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9). The Lord told his disciples during the Passover Meal: "But I say to you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father" (Mt 26:29). Now in the person of the priest, Christ drinks it new with us in the Father's kingdom. Heaven is brought down to earth in the liturgy!

6. Any hygienic consideration must be countered by the inspired statement that the Priest, when he acts in persona Christi - "His mouth is sweetness itself; he is all delight." (Cant. 5:16). After all considerations, the cup which we bless - isn't it in communion with the Blood of Christ? (1 Cor 10:16)

Should we recover the full meanings of this liturgical sign?

Father Basil Cole on Limbo

An interesting article about the theory of limbo.

Fr. Basil Cole, O.P.
On Limbo: Is Limbo ready to be abolished? Limbo revisited
Nova et Vetera, English Edition,Vol. 6, No. 2 (2008): 403-418

Other related articles -

Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.: Could Limbo be abolished?

International Theological Commission
The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized

保祿六世的智慧

今天下班後，回家睡了一覺。

傍晚醒來後，繼續研讀昨晚的「聖經問題」。

去了Roman Theological Forum，當中一篇文章述及教宗保祿六世本人，有關聖經方面的訓導，資料可謂十分豐富。

不過其中有一段亦提及：

... A particularly rich source of such teaching is to be found in the Pope's Wednesday audience allocutions, which he personally researched and wrote every Tuesday morning. We are indebted to a personal recollection of Cardinal Edouard Gagnon for revealing evidence as to how seriously the Pope took these discourses as occasions for teaching: in an interview given to the review 30 Giorni, His Eminence has recalled an audience with Paul VI in which the Pontiff confessed to him that some advisers tried to dissuade him from spending too much time or energy on these allocutions, on the grounds that the pilgrims assisting at the audience paid scant attention to them. But the Pope, recalls Cardinal Gagnon, told him: "I always reply to the effect that while that may be correct - for people often do not appreciate hearing the truth - it is nonetheless necessary to keep affirming it. When the need for truth is reawakened among the People of God, they will have to know where to look for it and how to find it." ...

有一點感觸。

保祿六世在任期間，教會在生活上的各方面，均面臨著很大衝擊。

少年時代，曾聽慈幼會的斐林豐神父細述，在梵二會議期間，各種新穎理論眾說紛紜，在一般教友心中，有時甚至可以去到莫衷一是的地步。他每週定必留意教宗的訓言和逢周三發表的教理演說，以求在各種懷疑及不安之中，保持正確的方向。當時的我，對教會所面臨的各種困難，也可說是略知一二吧？對他的經歷，我亦深有同感－－

If you walk with Rome, you'll never walk astray

Instrumentum Laboris: Points of Doubt

本年的世界主教會議，將於十月舉行。主題將圍繞天主聖言與教友生活之間的關係。

小弟於數月前曾瀏覽該次會議的預備文件（Instrumentum Laboris），察見當中英文版有這麼一句：

... with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture, inerrancy applies only to "that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (DV 11) ...

再對照拉丁原文：

... quamvis omnes Sacrae Scripturae partes divinitus inspiratae sint, tamen eius inerrantia pertinet tantummodo ad «veritatem, quam Deus nostrae salutis causa Litteris Sacris consignari voluit» (DV 11) ...

一種「曖昧」的感覺頓時擁上心頭。原因有二。

首先，英文版本聲稱：「關於聖經當中很多被默感的部分，『無誤』只適用於『天主為救恩緣故而置於聖經內的真理』（啟示教義憲章，第11項）」。若單看其文義，則給人一種印象－－

一、聖經當中有「很多」被默感的部份。（但天主教教義則主張：「全部」聖經均為天主所默感的）

二、聖經的無誤性，只涉及「與救恩有關」的真理。（但傳統教義則主張：聖經固然是「為了我們得救的緣故」而被天主默感所寫成－－在聖經內人性作者所肯定及主張的，均與天主自己所肯定及主張的沒有分別－－因此其無誤性涉及整部聖經）

第二，則是英文與拉丁文之間居然可以在意義上有著這麼大的出入－－兼且是與教義攸關的。

若分析拉丁文的意義，則為：「儘管聖經的所有部分均為神聖默感，然而其無誤性只涉及『天主所願意透過聖經文字、為我們救恩緣故所記述的真理』（啟示教義憲章，第11項）」。當中「儘管......然而......」兩個連接詞，與大公會議條文所要表達的意思，似乎有著很大出入。

Cum ergo omne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat assertum a Spiritu Sancto, inde Scripturae libri veritatem, quam Deus nostrae salutis causa Litteris Sacris consignari voluit, firmiter, fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt (21). Itaque "omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, ad erudiendum in iustitia: ut perfectus sit homo Dei, ad omne opus bonum instructus" (2 Tim 3,16-17, gr.).(Dei Verbum, No. 11)

(21) Cf. S. AUGUSTINUS, De Gen. ad litt., 2, 9, 20: PL 34, 270-271; CSEL 28, 1, 46-47 et Epist. 82, 3: PL 33, 277; CSEL 34, 2, 354.- S. THOMAS, De Ver., q. 12, a. 2, C.-CONC. TRID., Decr. De canonicis Scripturis: DENZ. 783 (1501) - LEO XIII, Litt. Encycl. Providentissimus Deus: EB 121, 124, 126-127.- PIUS XII, Litt. Encycl. Divino afflante: EB 539.

香港公教真理學會近年所出版的幾本述及聖經的書藉，亦顯示這種「有限無誤」的傾向。它們多數是譯自英文著作。最近期的例子則包括譯自凱‧梅迪（Kay Murdy）所著的《聖經通識》（What Every Catholic Needs to Know About the Bible）：

......基要主義著堅持這一點，因為聖經是天主默感的，是無誤的，確實地沒有東西是不真實的，而且絕對沒有任何錯誤。對他們而言，這不但關乎經文上信仰的事上，甚至關乎經文中涉及歷史和科學上的問題。《天主的啟示教義憲章》就聖經的解釋作出重要的聲明：

聖經是天主為我們的得救，而堅定地、忠實地、無錯誤地、教訓我們的真理（《啟示憲章》，11）

　　我們必須強調「為我們的得救」這句話。對天主教而言，唯有當聖經教導我們天主的真理和天主為我們生命的計劃時，才可以說聖經是無誤的和有實際價值的......」

（第34-35頁，香港公教真理學會，2007年）

按照這種思維，則堅持整部聖經無誤的天主教徒，通通都要被標籤成「基要派」（Fundamentalists）了？

今天有點時間，在網上瀏覽了一些資料。

原來在此世上，似乎仍然有人會留意並關注這個重要課題的－－

Synod Working Document Revives Biblical Inerrancy Controversy

Vatican Working Document For Synod Undermines Inerrancy Of Sacred Scripture

The "Salvific" Clause of Dei Verbum, No. 11

Biblical Inerrancy

Is The Bible True Or Not? A Response To The Bishops Of The United Kingdom

Bishop William Lori On Christian Anthropology of Marital Embrace

The Catholic Culture website uploaded an excellent article by Bishop W. Lori which explains the deep rationale behind three papal documents concerning conjugal love by Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI respectively -

At The Heart Of It All: An Anthropological Vision Of Gaudium et Spes, Humanae Vitae and Deus Caritas Est

U.S. bishops contra Catholic pro-abortion politicians

從其他網友的網誌中，得悉美國教會，最近就著一些天主教政客論及墮胎問題的言論，陸續發表聲明，以澄清教義問題。相信很值得一讀。

看來香港方面都應該有所準備了。

Bishops Respond To Senator Biden’s Statements Regarding Church Teaching On Abortion

• 「人的生命始於成孕一刻－－這不是天主教教義的問題，而是生物學的定理」

Bishop Slattery Issues Response to Pelosi, Biden Abortion Remarks

• 在這篇文章中，Bp Slattery提到公教徒在維護生命尊嚴事項上的堅持，乃基於自然律，而不是將基督徒的信仰，強加於非基督徒身上。

Don't Blame The Bishops - Catholic means pro-life

• 天主教徒的身份本身，要求在若干事項及問題上，持守教會自古所既有而應恆守的立場。

Fr. Zuhlsdorf on blessing children at Communion

An interesting topic from Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's WDTPRS blog (What Does The Prayer Really Say)

記得以前亦曾在網上討論過相似問題。

關於在彌撒進行中、神父在送聖體後祝福兒童（及慕道者），則記起從前在堂區禮儀小組反映過的一些意見：

該行為可描述為：
（一）主祭送畢聖體聖血，領經員邀請小朋友及慕道者上前接受神父的祝福；
（二）主祭將雙掌放在上述人士頭上片刻
（三）然後下一位上前接受祝福，直至所有上述人士均已接受祝福。

這種行為的緣起，很大程度上是善意的。我們堂區團體，也許希望能在信眾領受共融聖事的時候，亦不忘對因各項緣故，而未能領受聖體聖血的朋友，表達一點關懷。然而，本人卻對這種表達方式表示保留。原因如下－－

（一）《羅馬彌撒經書》所展列的舉行禮儀方式，並未有包括此項行為。若在缺乏宗座或教區主教的特准或合法授權下，故意地在禮儀中加插該些行為，屬於「擅自增加、刪減或改變」禮儀的任何部份，受到教律的禁止。

（二）羅馬禮儀對「人」的各項祝福，均附有特定經文，以表達教會的祝福內容及意向。單單將手放在人們頭上而不誦念任何經文，其意義並不明顯，本身亦不符合梵二禮儀的精神，甚至可能導致迷信。

（三）在感恩祭中，領受共融聖事的隊伍（Communion procession），在禮儀中具有一定意義――他們透過聖洗聖事加入教會，並妥善地預備自己，以響應主祭的召請：「蒙召參與羔羊宴席的人，是有福的」，領受共融聖事，預嚐天國的盛宴。若在共融聖事的隊伍後，加上「不能領受共融聖事者」的隊伍，則勢將減弱上述標記所蘊含的豐富意義，甚至令教友對聖體聖事本身的獨特性產生混淆。

（四）此類行為，助長人們在領主禮中，「人人都應有些東西拿走」（Everybody should get something）的「人有我有」心態，而這心態是不恰當的。

（五）除「兒童」及「慕道者」外，世間仍有很多已領洗的基督徒，及未領洗教外朋友，是未能恰當地在天主教會的彌撒中領聖體的。此類做法，會否令他們感到被進一步邊緣化（marginalized）？

（六）非常務送聖體員的設立，正是為了避免彌撒禮儀的時間，被過份延長。但吊詭的是：在送聖體後增加此類祝福，是更不必要地延長舉行禮儀的時間。

（七）此類祝福行為與禮成式的祝福，構成重複。

畢竟，禮儀是教友生活的「高峰」而非「全部」。也許我們堂區的團體，應考慮透過禮儀以外的方式，更有效地表達我們對未能領受共融的近人、弟兄和朋友的關懷。

（全文可詳閱此連結）

People Now Kneel to Receive Communion on the Tongue at Papal, Public Masses

九月份的Adoremus Bulletin刊登了一篇談及跪領聖體的文章。

Msgr. Athanasius Schneider所著的《Dominus Est: Riflessioni di un Vescovo dell'Asia Centrale sulla sacra Comunione》，亦受到廣泛注意。

不知到現時香港教區內，在哪些地方可以「口領」聖體？

教宗新通諭快將發表？

瀏覽亞馬遜網上書店，發現Ignatius Press預告，將於本月出版教宗論及社會事務的新通諭「Caritas in veritate」（現姑且拙譯為《在真理內持守愛德》）的英文版。

有興趣的朋友，可以去睇睇。

Medically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration

最近幾天，研讀一些關於醫療倫理的書藉和文獻。

瀏覽網上的資料，發現相當程度上，對於「人工喂飼」的問題，教會內仍有十分熱烈的討論。

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop William Lori

Human Dignity and the End of Life
Caring for patients in a persistent vegetative state

Cardinal Walter Kasper on Brother Roger

The article is taken from the English page of Sandro Magister's Chiesa. I find Cardinal Kasper's description on Brother Roger's communion with the Catholic Church especially interesting.

Was the Founder of Taizé Protestant, or Catholic? A Cardinal Solves the Riddle

信理部對Fr. Tomislav Vlasic的處分

默主哥耶（Medjugorje）所屬的「Mostar-Duvno」教區主教Msgr. Ratko Peric，日前公佈了一項教廷信理部，對一位曾為「神視者」（visionaries）作培育的前「神師」Tomislav Vlasic抗命事件的處理。

The Canonical status of Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, OFM

... The Decree of the Congregation mentions that Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, a cleric of the Franciscan Minor Order - the founder of the association 'Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji - po Mariji k Isusu' and who is involved in the "phenomenon Medjugorje" - has been reported to the Congregation "for the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspected mysticism, disobedience towards legitimately issued orders and charges contra sextum" ...

洗者若翰曾說：「斧子已放在樹根上了，凡不結好果子的樹，必被砍倒，投入火中。」（瑪2:10）

從種種跡象看來，教會乃是開始預備信眾們的心靈，且將要對默主哥耶現象，採取決斷行動了。

Details of ad limina visit by Mgr. Ratko Peric, Bishop of Mostar, to see Pope Benedict XVI in February 2006

Fr. Tomislav Vlašić “within the context of the Medjugorje phenomenon”

Vatican Will Reject Medjugorje, Says Bishop (Catholic Herald Online)

教宗論痛苦的意義

從Catholic Culture的網頁中，讀到教宗本篤十六世在八月六日的一次「Q&A session」，論及已故教宗若望保祿二世，在他後期職務所經歷的病患和痛苦，對基督徒的啟發。

曾聽人說，基督在十字架上受苦的最後幾個小時，為世人所賺得的救贖恩寵乃最為豐富。說起來容易，但實踐起來就......

We can talk the talk,
but can we walk the walk?

Fr Willi Fusaro: Holy Father, I am Fr Willi Fusaro, I am 42 years old and I have been ill since the year of my priestly ordination. I was ordained in June 1991; then in September of the same year I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. I am a parish cooperator at Corpus Domini Parish, Bolzano. I was deeply impressed by John Paul II, especially in the last part of his Pontificate, when he bore his human weakness with courage and humility before the whole world.

Given your closeness to your beloved Predecessor and on the basis of your personal experience, what can you say to me and to all of us to truly help elderly or sick priests to live their priesthood well and fruitfully in the presbyterate and in the Christian community? Thank you!

Pope Benedict XVI: Thank you, Reverend Father. I would say that, for me, both parts of the Pontificate of Pope John Paul II's Pontificate were equally important. In the first part in which we saw him as a giant of faith: with incredible courage, extraordinary force, a true joy of faith and great lucidity, he took the Gospel message to the ends of the earth.

He spoke to everyone, he explored new paths with the Movements, interreligious dialogue, ecumenical meetings, deepening the manner in which we listen to the divine Word, with everything . . . with his love for the Sacred Liturgy. He truly brought down — we can say — not the walls of Jericho but the walls between two worlds with the power of his own faith. His testimony lives on, unforgettable, and continues to be a light for this millennium.

However, I must say that because of the humble testimony of his "passion", to my mind these last years of his Pontificate were no less important; just as he carried the Lord's Cross before us and put into practice the words of the Lord: "Follow me, carry the Cross with me and walk in my footsteps!".

With such humility, such patience with which he accepted what was practically the destruction of his body and the growing inability to speak, he who had been a master of words thus showed us visibly — it seems to me — the profound truth that the Lord redeemed us with his Cross, with the Passion, as an extreme act of his love. He showed us that suffering is not only a "no", something negative, the lack of something, but a positive reality. He showed us that suffering accepted for love of Christ, for love of God and of others is a redeeming force, a force of love and no less powerful than the great deeds he accomplished in the first part of his Pontificate.

He taught us a new love for those who suffer and made us understand the meaning of "in the Cross and through the Cross we are saved".

We also have these two aspects in the life of the Lord. In the first part he teaches the joy of the Kingdom of God, brings his gifts to men and then, in the second part, he is immersed in the Passion until his last cry from the Cross. In this very way he taught us who God is, that God is love and that, in identifying with our suffering as human beings, he takes us in his arms and immerses us in his love and this love alone bathes us in redemption, purification and rebirth.

Therefore, I think that we all — and increasingly so in a world that thrives on activism, on youth, on being young, strong and beautiful, on succeeding in doing great things — must learn the truth of love which becomes a "passion" and thereby redeems man and unites him with God who is love.

So I would like to thank all who accept suffering, who suffer with the Lord, and to encourage all of us to have an open heart for the suffering and for the elderly; to understand that their "passion" is itself a source of renewal for humanity, creating love in us and uniting us to the Lord. Yet, in the end, it is always difficult to suffer. I remember Cardinal Mayer's sister. She was seriously ill and when she became impatient he said to her: "You see, now you are with the Lord". And she answered him: "It is easy for you to say so because you are healthy, but I am suffering my 'passion'. It is true, in a true "passion" it becomes ever more difficult to be truly united with the Lord and to maintain this disposition of union with the suffering Lord.

Let us therefore pray for all who are suffering and do our utmost to help them, to show our gratitude for their suffering and be present to them as much as we can, to the very end. This is a fundamental message of Christianity that stems from the theology of the Cross: the fact that suffering and passion are present in Christ's love is the challenge for us to unite ourselves with his Passion.

We must love those who suffer not only with words but with all our actions and our commitment. I think that only in this way are we truly Christian. I wrote in my Encyclical Spe Salvi that the ability to accept suffering and those who suffer is the measure of the humanity one possesses. When this ability is lacking, man is reduced and redefined. Therefore, let us pray the Lord to help us in our suffering and lead us to be close to all those who suffering in this world.