|
作者
|
內容
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/3 下午 08:39:48
|
|
|
歸一,
現在回應你個別的問題:
(1) 「按照我的理解，聖傳是指整個教會在啟示光照下的生活。」
- 你的理解和教會所理解的不同，教會所教的「聖傳」是「啟示的傳遞」，這份傳遞一定有一「傳」和「授」的過程，不單有生活就可行。
(2) 你引用的教理，也沒有指向聖傳是教會訓導。
- 當然，聖傳不等同於教會訓導，正如聖傳不等同於啟示。不知你為何有這樣的想法...
(3) 教會的訓導，啟示在基督身上已經圓滿，你所指的教會以前以後以外都有，是指什麼呢？
- 請看天主教教理54-64及67條。
(4) 聖傳並不是由教會保存，我們一般會用「信德的寶庫」來指向這個由教會保存的真理，這其實意指圓滿的啟示。
- 啟示憲章10節毫不含糊地指出，「信德的寶庫」是由聖傳和聖經組成，並由宗徒委託給教會保管。
(5) 如果按照你的說法，學校生活等於啟示，換轉過來，意指你的信仰生活就是啟示，我實在掌握不到是什麼意思。
- 我們所信的是一個天啟的宗教，信仰生活當然是基於啟示,因此信仰生活可說是天主啟示的活出。我把學校生活等於啟示, 而把學校校規等於聖傳,除了因為這比喻切合兩者的定義之外,更因為我所理解的校規只是一校之規,故此教會既肯定其他宗教也有聖善的元素,而天主既然是一切聖善之源,我相信其他宗教也能接收到某程度的天主啟示,在一校之規外仍能在其他地方感受到學校生活。
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/3 下午 11:25:12
|
|
|
Ｔｏ Ｓｉｍｏｎ
「沒有投胎輪迴是真理」，是誰教你的? 按我的記憶,教宗好像沒有以不能錯的神恩去說「沒有投胎輪迴是真理」.究竟你是基於什麼認為「沒有投胎輪迴是真理」呢？盼指教.
(順帶一提:沒有信仰的路人甲說：「天主教徒認為沒有輪迴是正確，佛教徒認為有輪迴是正確。」這個說法是合邏輯的,只有當路人甲說：「我認為沒有輪迴是正確，我同時認為有輪迴是正確。」才是不合邏輯。)
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/3 下午 11:56:30
|
|
|
Ｔｏ Ｓｉｍｏｎ
另外你所舉的《Simon教理》例子,我並不見得有什麼矛盾的地方, 正如你所說，《Simon教理》既然是Simon所寫，Simon喜歡寫什麼也可以。正如在這討論區中，寫出2+2=6的人何其多，而這些人何嘗不自以為自己所寫的必定正確的。上了這討論區一段日子，體會到面對這些言論，能寫的盡力寫，其餘的唯有交給天主。
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2006/8/4 上午 05:05:48
|
|
|
Simon：我常常覺得是方法論的問題，引致你有這樣的疑問。既然特殊訓導一定要守，普通訓導是否可守可不守呢？這是從法律的角度來看訓導，而不是從信仰的角度來看訓導了。舉例來說，中國傳統強調仁義禮智是人最重要的價值，沒有就不是人了。我們不會去問，呢四樣唔做唔得，其他道德是否可以不守呢？教會訓導是整個教會對於信仰的認知和肯定，而不應是官方對民間的限制的看法。
hubert：我想是我表達能力有問題，同時理解能力也有問題，所以我們的討論就此打住了。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/4 下午 01:34:28
|
|
|
歸一：
謝謝你的參與。
我要說的也差不多說完了。感覺上，hubert還是沒有完全掌握我的疑慮在哪裡。也許這就是人的局限，我的表達能力也有限。
至於天主教會有沒有否定投胎輪迴，原來讀過基本神學的人也不知道，我感到奇怪。hubert，我建議你嘗試找找這方面的資料。
就當我是「死心不息」吧。
hubert，
再換一個方法問你：「你如何分辨，『每一項教會訓導都一定不錯』這個想法，是教會掌權人和信眾的『自以為是』，還是客觀事實？」
也許我的「功能」，不是給大家答案，而是留下問題讓大家細想。拜拜。
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/5 下午 06:59:34
|
|
|
Ｔｏ Ｓｉｍｏｎ
在我未回答你的問題前,請先答我先前問你的問題,我是非常想知道你的答案…
「沒有投胎輪迴是真理」，是誰教你的? 按我的記憶,教宗好像沒有以不能錯的神恩去說「沒有投胎輪迴是真理」.究竟你是基於什麼認為「沒有投胎輪迴是真理」呢？盼指教.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/6 上午 01:20:00
|
|
|
hubert,
上慕道班時，神父曾很清楚地說，沒有投胎輪迴。人死了，是下地獄，或去煉獄，又或上天國。
我高興你會問：「教宗好像沒有以不能錯的神恩去說『沒有投胎輪迴是真理』.究竟你是基於什麼認為『沒有投胎輪迴是真理』呢？」
我正是問同一類問題：「教宗好像沒有以不能錯的神恩去說『教會訓導必定全部正確』.究竟你是基於什麼認為『教會訓導必定全部正確』呢？」
我也問：「教宗好像沒有以不能錯的神恩去說『聖體必須用麥餅』.究竟你是基於什麼認為『聖體必須用麥餅』呢？」
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/6 上午 01:32:15
|
|
|
Hubert,
The following is from the 'Catholic Encyclopedia-Wikipedia'. It may be useful to you.
Christianity
Further information: Bible and reincarnation
Almost all present official Christian denominations reject reincarnation: exceptions include the Liberal Catholic Church and the Rosicrucian Fellowship. Doctrines of reincarnation were known to the early Church (before the 6th century A.D.), and believers in reincarnation claim that these doctrines were embraced or at least tolerated within the Church at that time. Two Church Fathers, Origen and Clement of Alexandria are frequently cited as supporting this. However, this cannot be confirmed from the existent writings of Origen. He was cognizant of the concept of reincarnation (metensomatosis "re-embodiment" in his words) from Greek philosophy, but he repeatedly states that this concept is no part of the Christian teaching or scripture. He writes in his Comment on the Gospel of Matthew: "In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures" (ibid., 13:1:46–53).
Some reincarnation followers state that Origen's writings have only come down to us heavily edited 'to conform to Church doctrine', and some Origen's writings were later declared heretical by the Church (though Origen himself was not). However, Gregory of Nyssa cites Origen: By some inclination toward evil, certain souls ... come into bodies, first of men; then through their association with the irrational passions, after the allotted span of human life, they are changed into beasts, from which they sink to the level of plants. From this condition they rise again through the same stages and are restored to their heavenly place. (B.W. Butterworth, On First Principles, Book I, Chapter VIII (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 73).
They also state that before the Church expurged what it considered his heretical ideas from editions of his works, other quotes of Origen were also recorded by early Church fathers that make it clear that he did indeed teach reincarnation. A discussion of Origen's relationship to reincarnation, including many more quotes, can be found at Kevin Williams' Near Death Experiences website.
Kurt Eggenstein claims that "Jerome wrote in a letter to Demetrius that among the early Christians, the doctrine of reincarnation had been passed on to the elect, as an occult tradition." He also gives a quote from Gregory of Nyssa, saying "It is a necessity of nature that the soul becomes purified in repeated lives", though the source and the translation are uncited. His book claims many more Christian authorities supported a belief in reincarnation.
In the New Testament, there are several passages that some people use to demonstrate that a belief in reincarnation was prevalent amongst those of Jesus' inner circle. He is asked if he is Elias, for example, in John 1:21; in Matthew 16:13-14 Jesus asks his disciples, ‘Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?’ And they said, ‘Some say that you are John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the other prophets.’ According to those people, such statements are only comprehensible if Jesus' disciples believed in reincarnation - although one can argue that this merely confirms that they knew this kind of belief, or that, even if the disciples held such beliefs at that moment, that does not confirm that Christ himself endossed it. Finally, in Matthew 11:13-14, Jesus says: For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. This can be understood in the light of the traditional Jewish prophecy that Elijah (Elias) would return one day, bringing on the Messianic age. John however denied that he was literally Elias John 1:21. And further, Elijah was transfigured and taken up into heaven (2Kings 2:11). Since he did not die, he would have no need of reincarnation to return again as prophesied by Malachi. However, the whole descriptive image of the transfiguration does not state that Elijah did not die, just that "went up by a whirlwind into heaven", and what this process of ascending to heaven implies to the physical body is not known in the mainstream theological study. On the other hand, the orthodox interpretation of Elijah's entering heaven in the physical body would contradict, among other passages, the New Testament's statement that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1Corinthians 15:50); unless "heaven" is considered not to be a part of the "kingdom of God" and that concept would contradict, among other passages, the preaching of John the Baptist "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 3:1-2) and the statement of Christ: "In my Father's house are many mansions" (John 14:2-3).
Matthew 19:28 states: "Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration (Greek -- pale-genesia literally, rebirth) when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." A more well-known passage from John 3:3 reads, "...Except a man be born again (Greek -- ano-then), he cannot see the Kingdom of God." The quote from John is sometimes translated as "born from above", and is the inspiration for the modern evangelical movement. Some readers interpret these passages to indicate reincarnation; however, Christian churches read them to refer to baptism or conversion, in a manner similar to what we know today as Born-again Christian.
In John 9:1, the discples put the question to Jesus, regarding a man who was blind from birth, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" The disciples appear to be citing two of the most plausible theories of the time: reincarnation, and sins of the parents (or, effects of parenting). This suggests that reincarnation was known to the disciples. Jesus's answer, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him" is open to interpretation, but it is apparent that he did not rebuke the disciples for suggesting the idea of reincarnation itself. In fact, one could interpret that he tacitly affirmed both hypotheses, while pointing to a third explanation in this particular case.
The Gnostic gospels include clear references to reincarnation, and it is clear that this early Christian (heretical) sect believed in this (see above). In the Gospel of Thomas, Nag Hammadi documents, passage #109 (Thomas O. Lambdin translation), we read: "The kingdom is like a man who had a hidden treasure in his field without knowing it. And after he died, he left it to his son. The son did not know (about the treasure). He inherited the field and sold it. And the one who bought it went plowing and found the treasure. He began to lend money at interest to whomever he wished." The "field" can be interpreted as our phenomenal world of sense experience; the "treasure" the essential Self; "inheriting" as reincarnating; and "plowing" as spiritual search and spiritual discipline.
A number of Evangelical and (in the USA) Fundamentalist Christian groups denounce any belief in reincarnation as heretical, and explain any phenomena suggestive of it as deceptions of the devil, using the Bible as source for such claims. In fact, although the Bible never mentions the word reincarnation, there are several passages through New Testament that Orthodox Christians interpret as openly rejecting reincarnation or the possibility of any return or contact with this world for the souls in Heaven or Hell (see Hb 9:21 and Luke 16:20-31)
There are various contemporary attempts to reconcile Christianity and reincarnation. See:
Geddes Macgregor, Reincarnation in Christianity : A New Vision of Rebirth in Christian Thought
Rudolf Steiner, Christianity and Mystical Fact.
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/6 下午 09:39:45
|
|
|
Simon：
上慕道班時，神父曾很清楚地說，沒有投胎輪迴，那麼他只是教你「沒有投胎輪迴」，但你既然自稱不是一個「單純」的人，教宗又應該沒有以不能錯的神恩去說你慕道班的神父是不能錯，你如何會認為他所教「沒有投胎輪迴」是真理呢?
對不起，或許是我太蠢，我覺得你似乎仍未回答我的問題, 你是基於什麼認為「沒有投胎輪迴是真理」? 網上的'Catholic Encyclopedia-Wikipedia'我也懂得找，你是否意味就算教宗沒有以不能錯的神恩去說「沒有投胎輪迴」是真理，只要'Catholic Encyclopedia-Wikipedia'有,這就是真理呢?
還有，我似乎在整個討論中也沒有認為『聖體必須用麥餅』，不過,我都明白的，你由此至終也沒有認真對待過我的回應，所以你才會把我沒說的話加於我的口中。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/6 下午 09:56:11
|
|
|
hubert,
專注問題所在，比開叉筆有建設性。
「投胎轉世」並不是我此刻要深究的問題。那個例子旨在說明，世上有所謂客觀的真理，只能有或沒有「投胎轉世」這件事，不能說：「甲認為有，乙認為沒有，兩者都是對。」
至於聖體必須用麥餅，我「以為」已是教會的「正確指引」，原來你和我一樣，抱懷疑態度嗎？恕我誤會你了，見諒。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/6 下午 10:06:46
|
|
|
總的來說，如果我沒有錯誤理解hubert的想法（以至整個教會的官方立場），hubert的理念如下：
一、普通教會訓導因出自聖傳，所以即使教宗沒有用「不能錯的神因宣布」，也必定正確。
二、甚麼是聖傳？教會訓導當局不需「教宗不能錯的神恩」，也可以辨別出來。簡單來說，教會訓導局說這是聖傳，這就必是聖傳。
三、為甚麼要相信教會訓導局有這個能力？因為教會訓導局寫了一部書，叫《天主教教理》，當中有一條說教會訓導局有這個能力。
我多麼希望我是錯誤理解了hubert的思維。
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/6 下午 11:35:52
|
|
|
看來:
Simon寫「投胎轉世不是真理」是客觀的真理，「投胎轉世不是真理」就是客觀的真理。
Simon寫「教會訓導當局不能分辨聖傳」是客觀的真理, 「教會訓導當局不能分辨聖傳」就是客觀的真理。
我明白了,原來「客觀的真理」是在Simon的手中，不能錯的神恩是也在Simon的手中，不過，既然是這樣，Simon又何須問人「如何分辨聖傳?」難道Simon是透過發問去表現Simon的不能錯性？
怪只怪自己一開始就犯了錯，單純地回答了Simon的問題。
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/6 下午 11:39:49
|
|
|
Simon,
你由此至終都沒有認真看過我的回應, 你又如何知道hubert的理念呢? 算數吧!
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/7 上午 12:14:49
|
|
|
其實我都不知道為何一個那麼簡單的問題可以討論一個月這麼久．．．
問題: 誰能分辨聖傳?
答案:
聖傳是耶穌基督對門徒所教並再由門徒傳給其繼承人的道理。故此，誰能分辨這些道理？最完美的分辨者當然是耶穌基督，可惜祂已經升了天。其次是門徒，可惜他們已經不在世。最後只能找仍在世的門徒繼承人，即是我們的教宗及主教們。
應該是很簡單的回答，這答案也沒有涉及什麼「不能錯」的問題，但最終換來這麼多的枝節討論，真是意料不及。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/7 下午 11:02:55
|
|
|
hubert,
對我來說，這是一個奇特的經驗。我那麼認真地和你討論，到最後，你的結論竟是：「Simon由此（始）至終都沒有認真看過hubert的回應。」
如果你說我悟性低、頑固、蠢、說話詞不達意、沒有信德等等，我都可以接受。但你說我沒有認真看你的回應，這個罪名我可擔當不起。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/7 下午 11:15:08
|
|
|
hubert，
我希望你能現實地看看問題：
你說：「誰能分辨這些道理？.....最後只能找仍在世的門徒繼承人，即是我們的教宗及主教們。」
當某一條教會訓導未被公布時，你真的認為世上每一位主教都同意該條文嗎？
如果有幾個主教不同意，而教宗又不以「不能錯的神恩」定斷，很可能是以少數服從多數的方法確立。你認為真理的定斷，是應該用少數服從多數的方法嗎？
你提到門徒的繼承人，如果主教是門徒的繼承人，堂區神父為何不算門徒的繼承人？你和我又為甚麼不是門徒的繼承人？聖經不是清楚地說過，我們都是基督的繼承人嗎？為甚麼我不能直接參予分辨聖傳但主教可以（當然你又會說因為天主教教理是那樣寫的。）
再打譬喻：一小撮人寫了一部書，書中說這一小撮人最偉大，於是這一小撮人便真的可以變成最偉大。這是正確的思考邏輯嗎？
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/7 下午 11:29:23
|
|
|
hubert，
當你說：「誰能分辨這些道理？『最完美』的分辨者當然是耶穌基督，『可惜』祂已經升了天。『其次』是門徒，『可惜』他們已經不在世。最後『只能』找仍在世的門徒繼承人，即是我們的教宗及主教們。」
完美就是完美，沒有「更完美」和「最完美」。以往我已說過，有圖形比圓形更圓嗎？
你先問：「誰能分辨這些道理？」然後用上「完美」、「其次」、「可惜」、「只能」這些詞語，正好顯示出，分辨能力有高有低，否刞這四個詞語是多餘的。能力較「其次」的人，在不使用「不能錯的神恩」下，會否錯誤分辨？這正是我的疑慮。
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/8 下午 10:42:09
|
|
|
Simon,
請你認真看我的回應,我說：「聖傳」是「耶穌基督對門徒所教並再由門徒傳給其繼承人的道理」。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/9 下午 04:48:17
|
|
|
hubert,
不用擔心，你的留言，我每次都是認真看的。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/10 下午 01:31:57
|
|
|
hubert：
你說：「耶穌基督對門徒所教並再由門徒傳給其繼承人的道理。」
我問：「一般教友和堂區神父，算不算門徒的繼承人？」
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/10 下午 10:48:54
|
|
|
To Simon,
「一般教友和堂區神父，算不算門徒的繼承人？」
不算。天主教會只承認教宗和與他共融的主教們才是宗徒的繼承人。見梵二教會憲章20節，「神聖大會確認主教們由於天主的安排，繼承了宗徒們的職位。」
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/10 下午 10:55:15
|
|
|
hubert,
「梵二教會憲章20節」是否用了「教宗不能錯的神恩」頒布？
若不，你又如何肯定「梵二教會憲章20節」是正確無誤的條文？
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2006/8/12 下午 09:04:59
|
|
|
To Simon,
問題不是我能否肯定，而是你能否接納。你既然在沒有「教宗不能錯的神恩」頒布的前題下，接納「天主的存在」和「沒有投胎輪迴」是真理，又說真理不會因我們的想法而改變，為何你又會認為「梵二教會憲章20節」的內容不是一項真理呢？
「解鈴還需繫鈴人」，我要向你說的已經一早向你說過，在此不再作出重覆了。願主能助你解開你的心結。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/12 下午 11:51:45
|
|
|
hubert,
天主的存在，並不是因為天主教當權者說了，我就去相信。那是我親身經驗到天主，所以相信。
我不想把精力浪費在輪迴上，那個例子只是為了說明，世上有客觀的真理，只可以是「有輪迴」或「沒有輪迴」，不能同時是兩者。
我尊重每個人信主的方式。我屬於「每事問」，你說梵二的條文一定正確，我就會問你基於甚麼相信梵二的條文一定正確。這是很理性的求知態度。你若不願深究，我不勉強你。
把問題埋藏，並不等於問題不存在。主佑。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2006/8/13 上午 12:04:08
|
|
|
hubert，
你提到：「問題不是我能否肯定，而是你能否接納。」
在我眼中，這是迴避問題。
問題並不是「接納與否」。梵二的條文如果是真理，無論我Simon接納不接納，梵二的條文都是真理。
當有人說，梵二的條文是真理時，我就會問他基於甚麼認為那是真理。如果他說得清清楚楚又合情合理，我就會接受；如果含含糊糊，我不會結論為「不是真理」，而會看成「不能定性的東西」。
請注意，我從來沒有否定「梵二條文百分百正確」，我只是沒有能力去肯定這個說法。
|
