續論：雙手？單手？

看網上New Liturgical Movement 和 What Does The Prayer Really Say 的討論，問題的焦點，似由「主祭在誦念成聖體聖血經文時，拿起祭品時應該單手抑或雙手？」的問題，演變成討論「梵二前與梵二後」禮儀之間互相闡釋的可行性。

事緣如昨天所提及的 Fr. Edward McNamara 在 Zenit 網站的禮儀專欄中，談及解決上述第一條問題的方法時，提到：現時禮書似乎未有明確規定。然而愛德華神父亦發現到，梵二禮儀改革前的彌撒經書，對此則有明文規定「應用雙手」。

但若按此一進路，則要解決另一問題。禮儀改革前的羅馬彌撒經書（現稱為「特殊羅馬禮」）禮規，可否應用於禮儀改革後的彌撒禮（現稱為「慣常羅馬禮」）中、尤其是後者在禮節的描述上「未有提及」或「少許提及」的方面？

按照1978年聖禮部的覆文，則答案是否定的。「新禮彌撒並不由舊禮彌撒的禮規所補足，新禮是完全地取代舊禮。因此，新禮彌撒禮規所沒有述及、或少許述及的方面，不可視為須由舊禮禮規進一步說明」。

原文－－

Ubi rubricae Missalis Pauli VI nihil dicunt aut parum dicunt singillatim in nonnullis locis, non ideo inferendum est quod oporteat servare ritum antiquum.

[Notitiae 14 (1978) 301-302]

英譯如下－－

When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed.

然而，愛德華神父在解答問題時則這樣說：

If we were to limit ourselves to a minimalist interpretation of the rubrics, we would have to say that there is no strict legal requirement to hold the host in both hands.

However, the liturgical norms of the ordinary rite, even though they no longer describe each gesture in detail, tend to presume continuity in long-standing practice. Thus there is every reason to assume that when saying simply that the priest “takes the bread,” the legislator presumes that he will do so with both hands as is obligatory in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite.

他似乎是說：即使常規禮儀的規範不再將每一禮節作詳細闡述，它們仍傾向於假定長久做法當中的延續性。

一些支持特殊羅馬禮的教友，從此一解釋中，看到禮儀學家在闡釋梵二前後禮儀之間的關係中，似乎出現了一些變化。即：「舊」禮似乎不再那麼被抗拒了。一個「轉捩點」似乎是出現了......

當然，這只是一位學者在學術方法上的取向而已。然而，這是否就反映著一種「潮流」的轉變呢？大家仍需拭目以待。

不過言歸正轉。小弟找了些與「祝聖聖體手勢」問題有關的資料，寫了些東西給他們。當中正文如下－－

1. In my humble opinion, it is a matter of "common sense" of decency and reverence to hold an important object with both hands (if both are feasible). In the sense that it is offensive to hold the Book of Gospel, candelabra, etc., single-handedly during the Procession, holding the Host and the Chalice in this manner should be regarded as anomaly.

2. In Hong Kong (don't know if it occurs in other places as well?), it appears that some priests feel quite free to occupy both of their hands with the missalettes and thus impeded from reciting the prayers "with hands extended". On some occasions, a priest may hold the microphone by the left hand, and hold the Host by the right hand!

3. As Pedro d'Aquino mentioned, the Canon Romanus does narrate about our Lord taking the bread with both hands. Besides, I could also locate two other places which seem to allude to the priest's being supposed to hold the Host / Chalice by both hands:

- a) according to nos. 141-142 of IGMR, at the Offertory, the priest is instructed to hold the paten with bread and the chalice with wine "with both hands" (ambabus manibus ... tenet). It could be argued a fortiori that this should also be the manner at the consecration.

- b) according to Caeremoniale Episcoporum (Novus Ordo), we read in no. 106 under the category "DE MODO TENENDI MANUS" - "... Ad consecrationem, dum Episcopus tenet manibus hostiam vel calicem et profert verba consecrationis, concelebrantes verba Domini proferunt et manum dexteram, si opportunum videtur, ad panem et ad calicem extendunt..." We know that "manibus" means both hands are used.

4. Personally, I am inclined to adhere to the CDW's ruling given its official character as an authentic interpretation of liturigcal norms. But I would at the same time remain open to possible future clarification(s) from the Holy See regarding whether and how is this rule "remaining in force".