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.
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－－
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。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.
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－－
... 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?
沒有留言:
發佈留言