|
作者
|
內容
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2004/4/26 上午 09:39:21
|
|
|
於是,為了我們堂區的牧民需要,禮規不用理會'.
此話出於某前牧民會長,'教訓'鄙人提出彌撒經書總論的觀點.按照其說法,如果'她'認為是牧民需要,可以用讀經台來教人填表格,絕對可以領完聖體即作十段八段她以為'必要'作的堂區報告(但英文彌撒信友則不用報知),然後才唸領聖體後經,更可以在大半堂信友已經領完了聖體才'開始'唱第一首'領主詠' - 全是'牧民需要'.
看來如果她太太閣下歡喜,也可以在讀經台進行議會大選程序,因為這'必然'是牧民需要來的了!
'梵諦岡是梵諦岡,這裡是....' - 她也真夠沙膽也矣 -
"必須絕對禁止的是把彌撒禮儀作為試驗和個人任意行事的場所；就因為如此，訓令才強調舉行彌撒聖祭時，必須使用新鮮的無酵餅和純葡萄釀制、不參雜其他物質的酒，其他任何食品和飲料都不能成為舉行彌撒聖祭的有效材料；此外，也必須避免某種大公合一性質的做法，那些做法即使懷著善意，卻相反舉行彌撒聖祭的規則；不能在非基督信仰的宗教神聖場所舉行彌撒聖祭，也不能把其他宗教的元素引入彌撒聖祭中；必須尊重司祭與在俗教友的區別，避免把在俗教友神職化；女兒童或婦女可以輔祭；尊重羅馬禮節的習慣，應在領聖體之前行互祝平安禮；領聖體時的姿態或跪下或站立，必須在司祭面前立刻咽食聖體，也容許同一天二次領聖體。誰丟棄聖體，或帶走聖體，或為了褻瀆而保存聖體，即刻受自科絕罰的處分。
最後，訓令鼓勵教友朝拜聖體，但是在沒有妥當看守的情況下，聖體不能片刻明供。任何天主教徒發現任何妄用禮儀的情況時，必須通知教會當局。 "
堂區可以不理以上的訓令,如果會長認為不合她認為的牧民需要.
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2004/4/26 上午 10:25:06
|
|
|
I told you long time ago - they have their own culture, and are terribly conceited and resistant to those not speaking their own language.
Their liturgy - well, I heard say, one provincial superior complained to the parish on the rude treatment during the Holy Week. I encountered such rude treatment during the Easter Vigil back in 2001 at the Chapel, and fully agree with the view of the provincial.
If you really don't like the place, you have no choice but to quit!
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2004/4/26 下午 03:01:43
|
|
|
我只回應一句：在小堂犯不著啋你！
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2004/4/26 下午 04:14:40
|
|
|
These chaps have forgotten one fundamental thing - if you WANT respect, pay respect to others first.
Their haughty attitude in handling many issues, especially during liturgy, have reflected their mind-set. I trying to achieve their target in 'occupying various posts', they forgot what in fact is charity. Their love of picking faults on others eventually earned for themselves many faults in their own liturgical rundown.
I remember this most clearly one Good Friday afternoon when the pastor himself slashed out mercilessly on those faithful who would love to have Holy Communion on that day.
I remember how swiftly reports were being made on minor points in liturgical services that to her own subjective standard is 'imperfect' and how she slashed out during meetings.
I remember how those commissioned to work for this parish council gang loudly and rudely 'ordered' faithful stepping up to receive Holy Communion to step back in favour of the catechumens during Easter Vigil as if they have committed a grave sin.
Mostly, I remember how amidst many many stupid liturgical errors they have 'taken over' the altar without even letting the non-pastor celebrant know what's going on during the liturgy ...
ALL these took place in the Chapel.
Of all the things they have done, the many 'services' they rendered, they have no respect for God nor respect for men.
What kind of formation is this, pray?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/4/26 下午 07:09:47
|
|
|
Dear Amici:
RS [184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.
[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as
possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2004/4/27 上午 11:26:10
|
|
|
The background of this rude and outrageously unpious outburst has to be explained a bit: it isn unfortunate the painful event, at least to myself.
This remark was meant to 'teach me a lesson' for pointing out her noticed errors in liturgy. It was an echo of what our Pastor noted in the December Liturgy Meeting. What she didn't know was that in December 2003, the Diocese has NOT yet promulgated the new GIRM; the Redemptoris Sacramentum has NOT been published pursuant to the earlier encylical letter of the last Holy Thursday.
However, being an ardent follower of the Pope's writings, I HAVE HAD knowledge of these almost as soon as they came out.
This is painful because it reveals fully the autocratic and absolutist mind-set of her leadership style. If one could find time to learn foreign languages, and am so keen in doing Church work, why not spend the time learning liturgy? Bible? Theology? Why should one always pry on Church 'power'? If one could just acquire ONE tiny jot of humility, one would at once see that there are out there many things to know, many ways to offer, many people ready to help.
Yea, we have no choice but to voice out now.
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2004/4/28 下午 04:39:53
|
|
|
I note in a previous thread, Edward posted the following - 希望教會的成員能守好規矩。
現時的彌撒經書，其實也已提供了很多適應的options和alternatives。只是當有人舉行禮儀超越這些權限的時候，就出現違規的問題。作為有理性的人，你可以為任何自己的舉動提出自己的「理由」和「需要」去justify自己，但你得遵守教會的秩序。
近年教會的禮儀越來越沒了秩序，不少神職人員自把自為，把教會的規矩視同無物，容易令教友們覺得禮儀袛是人的行為，更難覺得天主是參與在其中。在小事上不忠信的人，在大事上也很難對他有甚麼要求。對教會來說，這不是一個健康的現象，對教友們來說亦是一種不公義。
違規本身，也有它的「標記意義」。我不會說大逆不道者舉行的彌撒就是無效，袛是說，「較難」和「需要更大的信德」才能在當中有所得益而矣。溫保祿神父說得好：基督聖事的保證，在我們團體這班無知、軟弱的罪人當中，依然保持其效力。但真要求主增加我的信德了。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2004/4/28 下午 04:45:03
|
|
|
"在小事上不忠信的人，在大事上也很難對他有甚麼要求。對教會來說，這不是一個健康的現象，對教友們來說亦是一種不公義。"
真一語中的。
|
|
CECIL
|
Posted -
2004/4/29 下午 03:26:39
|
|
|
...But if at the close of nominations, no sufficient number of candidates surface .....
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2004/5/3 上午 10:17:22
|
|
|
Every Parish has its traditions. This parish is a complex and complicated parish. It contains many religious orders, with their own chapels (mass centres).
It is quite futile to 'streamline' all the differences by setting up lay Parish Councillors to 'override' the different religious orders.
I have saw this going on for some years over there, and the result is - sheer disaster.
Rev. XXX knew this only too well during his days there. Successful ministry over there begins with "Respect".
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2004/5/5 下午 04:48:49
|
|
|
理性討論吧 - 說到何為連聖禮也可以隨便更改的"牧民理由",請細看以下一段貼文關於禮儀上的適應的節錄部分:
" Such adaptations must be based on serious reasons, for example, the specific culture and viewpoint of a people, contrary and unchangeable usages, the practical impossibility of adapting some new rite that is foreign to the genius of a people, and so on. 3. Apart from the envisioned exemptions from rubrics and differing translations of texts (see Consilium, Instr. 25 Jan. 1969), the Order of Mass is presented as a single unit whose general structure and individual components must be exactly respected. Arbitrary selectiveness on the part of an individual or a community would soon result in the ruin of a patiently and thoughtfully constructed work: Not 6 (1970) 38-39, no. 27."
|
