跟據新一期《Adoremus Bulletin》二月號的報道,有人曾致函聖禮部查詢此事。
網上曾流傳有這樣的一封信函,它的作者為Jeffrey Pinyan,刊於網誌《What Does The Prayer Really Say》。
Greetings, Your Eminence. I have a question in two parts concerning a custom found in various parishes and dioceses of the United States of America: the blessing of non-communicants during the Communion procession. Briefly stated, this custom consists of a non-communicant presenting himself (often with his arms crossed over his chest with his hands on his shoulders) before a minister of Holy Communion and receiving a blessing of some sort, e.g.: “May God bless you” or a gesuture such as the Sign of the Cross on the his forehead.
1. Is this a custom that is within the faculty of a pastor, the local Ordinary, or a Bishops’ Conference to establish? That is, is this custom something that can be regulated without recourse to this Congregation?2. Are there particular guidelines or restrictions, from the Congregation, as to a) which ministers of Holy Communion may give these blessings, and b) what forms these blessings may take?
I remain faithfully your brother in Christ our Lord.
Jeffrey Pinyan
根據這封覆函,聖禮部正就此事進行詳細研究。但當中幾項明示,實在值得我們留意。現引述如下:
1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.
2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; can. 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).
3. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands - which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here - by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.
4. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry.” To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.
5. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).
2 則留言:
有時聖禮部說的是一回事,地方教會有否執行又是另一回事。即使地方教會有指引,個別堂區有否理會又是另一回事。這才是令人擔憂的事。
有時個別的禮儀偏差不令人擔心,令人擔心的是這些偏差背後所代表的ideology,例如「我可以用自己的『常識』、『經驗』去更改禮儀。」、「羅馬禮只適於羅馬」等等。
祝新年進步!
嚴格而言,對於普世教會的禮儀規範,地方主教及地方主教團,確實擁有協調和適應的空間。
教區主教對個別堂區的做法,亦負有監察和督導的責任。
現時的問題,我相信在很大程度上,是源於問題處理程序的不恰當性。當教區方面缺乏清晰的指引,堂區層面衍生的問題,便得「自己搞掂」,以致給人一種「各自為政」和「自把自為」的印象。
試設想一個例子方便討論。
譬如今天我參與彌撒,對某歌詠團的一些安排(如選曲、表達形式等)提出意見。這些意見可以是建議、投訴和嘉許等。歌詠團作為一個堂區的正式團體,會如何處理組外人士(e.g. 我)提出的意見?
而事實上:某堂區某台彌撒的平安禮中,恆常出現一些禮規所未有容許的一些「祝平安歌」。當有教友向歌詠團的指揮提出「這做法是否欠妥」時,得出的答案往往是「我們有人問過神父,他認為沒有問題」。
若此話屬實,則我們只可以說,堂區神父對這問題的理解有誤,甚或對此事宜並不關注。前者屬不稱職(incompetence),後者則屬疏忽(negligence)。
但更嚴重的是,這句說話背後往往隱含一個前題:「神父的決定,是不可能被重新考慮的」。
當然,以你所知Edward的性格,是絕不會就此罷休的。小弟首先會和神父談談,但你都知,往往亦不得要領。在這情況下,我若寫信知會教區禮委,則很可能在本堂區被評論為「不客氣」。
另一情況是:團體或組織的會長們,似乎somehow被賦予了「過濾」任何意見重要性(importance)或相關性(relevance)的職能。但是,從小弟的經驗而言,so far得出的效果,仍是不很滿意。
例如在事實上,在小弟事奉不同類別或層面的「委員會」或「關注小組」的崗位中,是甚少在正式會議中,處理過關於所屬範疇的投訴的。
我相信:這往往是教會內,「大圍」現象的一個縮影。
很多時在教會內,當一些意見被提出後,往往未能獲得恰當的跟進、處理和回覆。因而很多意見,往往不了了之、不知所終。
最弊的是:當問題長期地這樣處理時,其實大家往往只是逃避問題。問題未有被充分解決。大家的處事標準,往往基於「某某組長口講的某某做法」或「問過某某神父,佢話OK」,而不是一些白紙黑字的指示和指引。在這情況下,團體的經驗往往不能有效地傳遞下去至第三代的組員,同時亦缺乏問責精神。禮儀職務所包含的使命和職責,又怎能有所成長呢?
在教友方面,這妨礙了教友的積極參與和投入感。參與團體服務的教友,往往要在服務過程中,學習「揣摩上意」的技巧,以免觸怒某些牧者或掌權者的神經。有知識而敢言的人士,往往遭受懲罰;而無知的氣氛和環境,則被鼓吹。更糟的是,人們往往得出一個印象:「信仰是不理性的」。
從團體角度而言,這削弱了組員的知情權和滅少他們在議事過程中的學習機會,而純粹滿足於「手作」和「因循」的服務模式。
發佈留言