傳教宗方濟各將取消傳統拉丁彌撒

消息來自Life Site：

Vatican rumblings: Pope Francis aiming to end Latin Mass permission

2017年7月26日羅馬訊，梵蒂岡內部傳出消息，教宗方濟各將取消榮休教宗本篤十六世於2007年簽署的自動敕令(motu proprio)《歷任教宗》(Summorum Pontificum)。今年有許多教會團體還在慶祝該自動敕令簽署十周年。歷任教宗允許教區的神父自由舉行1962傳統拉丁彌撒（即所謂「羅馬禮特殊形式」），無需經過教區主教認可。當年本篤十六世簽署這一自動敕令可是令自由派的主教們暴跳如雷，其遜位與此也不無關係。

該消息在本月早些時候由宗座聖安瑟默大學(Pontifical Athenaeum of St Anselmo)的教授Andrea Grillo透露給法國的La Croix。根據Grillo的消息，當梵蒂岡收編SSPX以後，將會把傳統拉丁禮局限於SSPX框架內。不過本篤十六世仍在世的話，方濟各還不會這麼做。

LifeSite的線人說，時任信理部部長的Gerhard Müller樞機於今年5月20日的一封信件中透露了本消息，並且將方濟各和SSPX的談判內容捅了出來，當然我們很早就知道SSPX並不接受相應的條款。儘管Gerhard Müller樞機似乎在表面上說需要SSPX來「help fight modernists in the Church」。

關於Gerhard Müller樞機的立場可參見我較早之前的一篇專欄文章：

不知道為什麼總有人把Cardinal Müller稱作保守派

教宗方濟各對於Gerhard Müller樞機的泄密行為非常惱火，也可能是因此就決定立刻開除這位信理部長。

附：

致主教們的信函

談一九七○年改革前的羅馬禮儀

我親愛的主教弟兄們：

以極大的信任和希望，我將有關應用一九七○年改革前的羅馬禮儀的牧函，以自動詔書方式致送給你們各位牧人。此文件是很多反省、多次咨詢及祈禱的成果。此文件是很多反省、多次諮詢及祈禱的成果。

新聞報導和沒有足夠資訊所做評論，製造了不少混淆。有了非常分歧的反應，有的欣然接受，有的無情反對，面對實際上還不知的內容。有了非常分歧的反應，有的欣然接受，有的無情反對，面對實際上還不知的內容。

此文件面對最直接受到反對的兩種憂慮，我願意在這封信內更密切地談談。

首先，憂慮的是怕此文件降低梵二大公會議的權威，特別是大會主要決議之一——禮儀革新。

這種憂慮是無根據的。首先要說保祿六世所公布的，以及後來若望保祿二世兩次再版的彌撒經書，顯然是，並繼續是感恩禮的正常形式(Forma Ordinaria)。大公會議前的最後羅馬彌撒經書，一九六二年以教宗若望廿三世權威所公布的，並在大公會議時使用的，現在可以作為感恩祭的特別形式(Forma Extraordinaria)予以使用。把羅馬彌撒經書的這兩種版本，說成好像是「兩種禮節」是不當的。更好說是一體兩面，是同一禮節。

對於用一九六二年特別形式舉行彌撒的經本，我願大家注意，事實上這本彌撒經書依法從來沒有取消過，因此原則上說，一直是許可用的。在引進新彌撒經書時，似乎對應用先前的彌撒經書，沒有必要發布特別的規定。可能當時想，會有一些個案，可在地方層級以個案處理。不過後來，很快發現不少的人深愛使用革新前的羅馬禮，那是他們自童年起就熟悉的。這特別在某些國家，當地禮儀運動為很多人提供了顯著的禮儀培育，同時個人對以先前的形式舉行禮儀有深刻的親切感。我們都知道，勒菲佛總主教領導的運動，對於舊有彌撒經書的忠信，成了他們身分的外在標記；由此而產生分裂的理由層次滿深的。很多明明接受梵二大公會議約束力，也忠於教宗及主教們，可是他們也期望恢復他們先前所喜愛的聖禮儀式。特別發生在許多不忠於新彌撒經書的規定舉行彌撒的地方，這樣居然被認為是授權或什至要求創意，結果往往導致禮儀的變形，使人難以忍受。我是根據經驗說的，因為我也曾生活在這個階段，有希望也有混亂。我曾看到禮儀如何被任意歪曲，為深植於教會信仰的人，產生深刻的痛苦。

教宗若望保祿二世感到不得不以「天主的教會」自動詔書（一九八八年七月二日），為使用一九六二年彌撒經書提出指示。不過該文件沒有細節的規定，而是一般性地呼籲主教們慷慨地回應，那些申請使用此羅馬禮的信友的「合理要求」。同時，教宗首要地願意幫助聖碧岳十世社團，恢復與伯鐸繼承人的圓滿合一，並設法治癒所經歷的痛苦傷口。可惜此修和並未達成。不過，有幾個團體感激地使用自動詔書所提供的可能性。另外，這些族群以外的人，為使用一九六二年的彌撒經書還有難處。因為缺乏具體的法定規則，尤其主教們在這種個案上，時常怕大公會議的權威會產生問題。在梵二大公會議後，推定使用一九六二年的彌撒經書的申請，僅限於與之一齊成長的年老的一代，可是這期間，清楚證實年青人也發現這種禮儀形式，有其吸引力並覺得它是與至聖聖體奧跡相遇的方式，特別適合他們。因此對一九八八年自動詔書未曾預料的清楚法則的愈感需要。本文件的規則，也是為幫助主教們不必一直要評估，如何回應這些不同情況。

另外，在討論此期待中的自動詔書所表達的憂慮，即廣泛使用一九六二年彌撒經書，可能在堂區團體內，引起混亂或分歧。這種憂慮也使我感到沒有根據。使用此先前的彌撒經書，必須先有某種程度的禮儀修養，以及拉丁文的一些知識；兩者都不常有。從這些具體的情況看，新的彌撒經書，一定還是羅馬禮的正常形式，不僅因為法定的規則，也是由於信友團體目前的情況。

的確，有一些誇張的說法，同時一些社會觀點與那些喜愛古拉丁禮儀傳統的信友立場過分的連在一起。你們的愛心和牧靈智慧，能成為改善這些事的誘因和指導。因此，這兩種羅馬禮形式的應用，能彼此充實：新的聖人和幾個新的頌謝詞可以也為該加在先前的彌撒經書內天主的教會」委員會，在與從事使用古禮(Usus Antiquior)的幾個單位連絡後，要研究此實際的可能性。依照保祿六世的彌撒經書舉行彌撒，將可以比先前更有力地，顯示吸引許多人使用古禮的那種神聖性。能夠保證保祿六世的彌撒經書，可以聯合堂區團體並為它們所喜愛，在於符合禮儀指示以非常的莊嚴所舉行的彌撒。它可以帶來屬靈的富裕及此彌撒經書的神學深度。

現在我要說出，引發我使一九八八年的自動詔書更合現代需要，決定發表本自動詔書的正面理由。這是為了在教會內，達到內部的修和。回顧過去，在幾個世紀中基督奧體所遭受的幾次分裂，不斷叫人感覺，當分裂在緊要時刻將發生時，教會領導人為了維持或重獲修和，做得不夠。我們感到教會方面的疏忽，加速了這些分裂，也該受責難。對過去的匆匆一瞥，加給我們今日一種義務：就是所有真的期望合一的人，要盡一切努力，維護此合一，或重新達到合一。我想到保祿致格林多人後書，他寫說：「我們的口向你們張開了，我們的心也敞開了。你們在我們心內並不窄狹，而是你們心腸窄狹。… …你們也敞開你們的心罷！」（格後六 11-13 ）。保祿的確是在另一種背景下說這話，可是他的勸言能夠也應該感動我們，尤其是在這一點上。讓我們大方地敞開我們的心，為信仰所允許的任何事讓出地方。

在這兩種版本的彌撒經書之間，並沒有矛盾。在禮儀的歷史中，有成長也有進步，但沒有決裂。過去世代認為神聖的，還維持神聖，為我們也是偉大的，不能忽然完全受到禁止，或什至被視為有害。我們大家理當保存這些在教會信仰和祈禱中所發展的寶藏。不用說，為了經驗圓滿的共融，凡喜愛用先前彌撒經書的團體的司鐸，不可排斥依新的經書舉行彌撒。完全排斥新的禮節，事實上與承認它的價值和神聖性是無法一致的。

最後，親愛的弟兄們，以感謝和信頼，我把這幾頁和自動詔書的一些規則，託付給你們牧人們的心。我們要常記起保祿宗徒給厄弗所長老所說的：「聖神既在羊群中立你們為監督，牧養天主用自己的血所取得的教會，所以你們要對你自己和整個羊群留心」（宗廿 28 ）。

我把這些規則，託付在教會之母瑪利亞有力的轉禱下，我誠摯頒賜宗座降福給你們，親愛的弟兄們，你們教區的堂區主任及所有司鐸，你們的同工以及所有信友。

教宗本篤十六世二○○七年七月七日發自聖伯多祿大殿。

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS

BENEDICT XVI

TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION

OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO DATA"

SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM

ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY

PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter 「Motu Proprio data」 on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were 「two Rites」. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the 「legitimate aspirations」 of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 「Ecclesia Dei」 Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church』s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: 「Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!」 (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church』s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: 「Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum」).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: 「Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son」 (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter』s, 7 July 2007

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

推薦閱讀：