後續討論

在 The New Liturgical Movement 的討論中，小弟亦回覆了一些提問。

Gregor弟兄指出：聖禮部的釋疑文件，只對該題本身有效，而不可將當中所援引的原則視為通例。

但若該份原則被另一文件所徵引，又如何呢？

此外，亦有一位神父 Peter Stravinskas 指出：我們應避免將主耶穌在最後晚餐中的一些行為，作為「彌撒當中應如何如何做」的理據。此論點誠然值得注意，但我認為關鍵是在於正確闡釋「教會如何在其傳統的實踐中，實現救主的命令和意願。

現將拙文的骨幹張貼如下－－

Dear Gregor,

[...] For me, it seems the issue involves how should we interpret the "institution narrative" in accordance with the liturgical tradition of the Church.

As far as the liturgical text and [rubrics] are concerned, it appears as follows -

[89. In formulis quae sequuntur, verba Domini proferantur distincte et aperte, prouti natura eorundem verborum requirit.]

Qui prídie quam paterétur,
[accipit panem, eumque parum elevatum super altare tenens, prosequitur:]
accépit panem in sanctas ac venerábiles manus suas,
[elevat oculos,]
et elevátis óculis in caelumad te Deum Patrem suum omnipoténtem,
tibi grátias agens benedíxit, fregit, dedítque discípulis suis, dicens:
[parum se inclinat] ...

From these prescriptions, it is clear that the first few lines of the institution narrative and rubrics in the Roman Canon are meant to "re-produce" what our Lord did in relation to the Eucharistic Bread within the context of "benedixit dicens" (gave thanks ... saying).

From the context of the liturgy, the Eucharistic Prayer corresponds to the benedixit of what our Lord commands the Church to do. It is interesting to note that historically, what the Lord "broke" was already the "bread that had been blessed" or "eucharistic bread" (i.e. the Body of Christ). And what he gave to the disciples was his own "broken" Body. So as St. Thomas Aquinas sings "se dat suis manibus" in Pange Lingua.

As we can see thus -

QUOD BENEDIXIT - bread - host, at the Eucharistic Prayer

QUOD FREGIT - eucharistic bread - consecrated host, to be broken at Agnus Dei

QUOD DEDIT - broken eucharistic bread - consecrated host, meant to be shared and consummated by the faithful in Holy Communion

Therefore, I think that the current English (and Chinese also) translation rendering the narrative "... he broke the bread ..." to be rather misleading.

Breaking the Host at consecration betrays a rather superficial understanding of this text, as well as a profound misunderstanding regarding the actio within the framework of the Eucharist.

Concerning the (to me, rather unfortunate) CDW ruling of "... Ubi rubricae Missalis Pauli VI nihil dicunt aut parum dicunt singillatim in nonnullis locis, non ideo inferendum est quod oporteat servare ritum antiquum ..." as published in Notitiae 14 [1978] 301-302, I wish to draw to your attention that it was also reiterated in another ruling regarding the triple striking of breast at the Agnus Dei in Novus Ordo - "... Uti dictum est in responsione n.2 Commentariorum 'Notitiae' [1978], p. 301: ubi rubricae Missalis Pauli VI nihil dicunt, non ideo inferendum est quod servare oporteat antiquas rubricas. Missale instauratum antiquum non supplet, sed substituit ..." (cf. Notitiae 14 [1978] 534-535). These seem to me to be beyond reasonable doubt that the competent authority in liturgical discipline was quoting it as a general rule in interpreting ritual prescriptions in the Reformed Liturgy.

No matter how "unfortunate" or even "wrong" the decision(s) may seem to me, I regard myself as owing complete fidelity and submission to these (seemingly unreasonable) norms until the same authority declares otherwise (for example, the issue of "self-intinction" in Hong Kong). Certainly we may ask God in our daily prayers that our pastors may be "enlightened" in this aspect. But meanwhile, the hermeneutic of continuity has to be sustained with a morale of faithful obedience to the legitimate authorities of our beloved pastors. In discerning disciplinary measures, it is THEY who are guided by the Holy Spirit and not US.

Thanks for reading my long message.

Edward