Logo
登入
<<<

名稱: 密碼:

加入 | FAQ | 聯絡我們
全部區域 > 神學 > 信理與神學 > 「聖傳」和「傳統」 --- 靈薄獄的存在?

頁:  1 | 2 回 應
作者 內容

SK2


Posted -
2006/10/7 上午 12:42:03

Casting out "limbo" from Church Teaching ????

Quoted from BBC.

The Pope may be about to abolish the notion of limbo, the halfway house between heaven and hell, inhabited by unbaptised infants. Is it really that simple?

Pope Benedict XVI's anticipated pronouncement on limbo will have been informed by the International Theological Commission - a group of leading Roman Catholic theologians who have been meeting to consider the issue.

The Pope, himself, has been quoted in the past as saying that he would let the idea of limbo "drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis".

He was quoted as saying that limbo has never been a "definitive truth of the faith".

So what is limbo?

Vatican to review limbo

The church held that before the 13th Century, all unbaptised people, including new born babies who died, would go to hell. This was because original sin - the punishment that God inflicted on humanity because of Adam and Eve's disobedience - had not been cleansed by baptism.

This idea however was criticised by Peter Abelard, a French scholastic philosophiser, who said that babies who had no personal sin didn't even deserve punishment.

It was Abelard who introduced the idea of limbo. The word comes from the Latin "limbus", meaning the edge. This would be a state of existence where unbaptised babies, and those unfortunate enough to have been born before Jesus, would not experience pain but neither would they experience the Beatific Vision of God.

But limbo has long been a problem for the Church. Unease has remained over reconciling a Loving God with one who sent babies to limbo and the Church has faced much criticism.

The current review of limbo began in 2004, when Pope John Paul II asked the commission to come up with "a more coherent and enlightened way" of describing the fate of such innocent babes.

This review is part of a wider re-examination of the notion of salvation that has been taking place within the Church.

Many Catholics would see the abandonment of limbo as a good thing - there is little doubt that some interpretations of the teaching may have caused untold misery to the millions of parents whose children have died without being baptised.

But there are those who argue that it is not simply a "hypothesis" that can just be swept aside; that the notion that unbaptised children do not go to heaven has been a fundamental part of CHURCH TEACHING for hundreds of years.

Then, of course, there is the argument that if this can be abolished, what else is disposable?

Not popular

According to church historian Michael Walsh limbo is so unpopular it has all but dropped out of Catholic consciousness.

It has not really been standard teaching for decades and it has not been part of official teaching since the early 1990s, when it was omitted from the catechism - the Church's summary of religious doctrine.

A papal decree reversing the firm Catholic belief of two millennia that infants dying unbaptised to not go to heaven would be like an earthquake in the structure of Catholic theology and belief

Father Brian Harrison
"Most priests don't talk about the notion of limbo anymore. There is a understanding that it just simply doesn't wash with people," says Mr Walsh.

But, there are a number of conservative and traditionally minded Catholics who say they are shocked by the notion of getting rid of limbo.

Father Brian Harrison, a theologian, told the BBC News website that while limbo may have been a "hypothesis", he argues that the clear "doctrine of the Catholic Church for two millennia has been that wherever the souls of such infants do go, they definitely don't go to heaven".

He argues that this is borne out in the various funeral rites for unbaptised children practised by the Church.

"A papal decree reversing the firm Catholic belief of two millennia that infants dying unbaptised do not go to heaven would be like an earthquake in the structure of Catholic theology and belief," he said.

Some argue that the question of limbo has taken on fresh urgency because it could be hindering the Church's conversion of Africa and Asia, where infant mortality rates are high.

An article in the UK's Times newspaper this week suggested that the "Pope - an acknowledged authority on all things Islamic - is only too aware that Muslims believe the souls of stillborn babies go straight to heaven".

The theological commission ends its deliberations on Friday. Most commentators believe the Pope will not make any decision immediately. Until he does, the fate of limbo is in - well, limbo.

SK2


Posted -
2006/10/7 上午 01:08:23

把煉獄由神聖傳統中剔除?

靚仔


Posted -
2006/10/7 上午 10:29:53

SK2兄:

limbo不是煉獄,是靈博獄.

OB1


Posted -
2006/10/7 下午 01:19:09

Limbo是否屬於聖傳呢?

SK2


Posted -
2006/10/7 下午 01:24:32

對不起,攪錯了。謝謝靚仔改正。

OB1兄,Limbo尚有發展的空間,所以只是「傳統」,而不是「聖傳」。

edward


Posted -
2006/10/7 下午 03:09:14

哈哈!是「靈薄」而不是「靈博」......

Ignatius


Posted -
2006/10/7 下午 03:09:56

不存在收納未受洗而死亡嬰兒靈魂的靈薄獄

國際神學委員會指出,靈薄獄的說法“可以廢棄了”。二十年前,當時的拉青格樞機(即教宗本篤十六世)就已經闡明了類似觀點

梵蒂岡(亞洲新聞)—按照傳統說法,靈薄獄是收納未受洗而死亡嬰兒靈魂的地方。十月二日至今天六日在羅馬舉行的國際神學委員會作出結論,關於靈薄獄的說法,“可以放棄了”。

今天上午,教宗本篤十六世在會議閉幕式後接見了出席會議的全體代表。與會者一致表示,放棄靈薄獄的說法,無意“打破這一歷史悠久的傳統”,而只是“消除未能充分體現耶穌基督帶給我們的希望福音的形象和比喻”。諮詢性機構國際神學委員會,將發表一份檔。義大利神學家,教宗本篤十六世任命的義大利基埃蒂-瓦斯特教區主教布魯諾•福爾特蒙席,向媒體作出了介紹。這位神學家指出,這一決定並沒有改變教會關於原罪的教義。“原罪是真正體現人類脆弱的真實標誌”;聖洗是剷除原罪所必須的。至於未受洗、也沒有任何罪過的死亡嬰兒,“應體現出基督救贖的力量戰勝了罪惡的力量”。

此外,教會從未對靈薄獄的概念作出定義。從某種意義來講,這是一種神學的“發明創造”。早在一九八四年,當時的拉青格樞機(即教宗本篤十六世)就已經闡明了類似觀點。《天主教要理》中,也沒有為此類“地點”作出定義,而是將未受洗死亡嬰兒的靈魂託付給了天主的仁慈。

最後,福爾特主教強調,國際神學委員會並沒有改變公教教義,令那些擔心會出現教義“中斷”現象的人們放心。事實上,國際神學委員會將在未來發表的檔中極其明確地闡述過去曾經促使神學家們去假設靈薄獄存在的教義問題;闡述“在絲毫不會威脅到教會信仰的情況,擱置起某些表達方式”的理由。

靚仔


Posted -
2006/10/7 下午 10:14:39

Edward

那是譯音,還是譯意?或是兩者俱備?
我其實不知是博還是薄的,但平常討論,大都是讀"博",很少聽到人說"薄",所以有此手文之誤吧.

OB1


Posted -
2006/10/7 下午 10:46:01

SK2說:「Limbo尚有發展的空間,所以只是「傳統」,而不是「聖傳」。」兩者的分別是否就是這樣?

edward


Posted -
2006/10/7 下午 11:04:26

哈哈!但譯音亦有其一定的標準。我對靈薄獄的印象,源於奧脫的《天主教信理神學》中譯版。該書的中文名詞,對小弟而言,是「標準」的。

當然,台灣那邊出了《哲學辭典》和《神學辭典》各一本。相信可成為最新的「標準」了。

話時話,在此傳媒「斷章取義」被視為「平常」的時代裡,國際神學委員會的提案,很容易被理解為:

「靈薄獄被一筆勾銷」=「未受洗而去世的兒童必定上天堂」

小弟曾於別處提過:在殯葬禮儀中,教會對己領洗及未領洗的去世兒童,在立場上有著很明顯的分別。不過,近年教區禮委的「傑作」,是否分映著大家把意念模糊化的傾向?

誰不願所有人,包括兒童,個個上天堂?
但我們基督徒能依仗李天命式的「神秘樂觀」嗎?

simon


Posted -
2006/10/12 下午 04:06:35

未領洗的嬰兒,死去能否上天國,我認為是可以的,這並不是過份樂觀。

嬰兒不能自決,雖有原罪,但如果天主因嬰兒沒有領洗就把他打進地獄,這是相當殘忍的。

天主在創世前,已知嬰兒甲一出世就死並且不會領洗,但天主還是讓嬰兒甲出世。如果天主造嬰兒甲出來,目的是讓他在沒有自決能力的情況下進入永恆的地獄,這不是心理變態還是甚麼?

simon


Posted -
2006/10/12 下午 04:23:53

OB1,

你若不怕頭暈,可看這個討論:
http://www.theology.org.hk/forum/detail.asp?region_no=2&area_no=1&topic_no=180

(Edward 曾教我怎樣做hyperlink,但我年老記性差,忘記了。 Edward能再教我一次嗎?)

edward


Posted -
2006/10/12 下午 04:23:57

我所說的「過份樂觀」,是指認為他們「一定」上天堂。

我不否認他們「有可能」上天堂,但該個「可能」,就現階段教會對啟示內容的理解而言,不能說是基於天主的啟示。因此它並無任何確實性可言。

某某人是否「可以」上天堂,不是你和我所可以話事的。

simon


Posted -
2006/10/12 下午 04:31:12

edward,

以你的定義,我是屬於「過份」樂觀,因為我的確認為未領洗的嬰兒死後「一定」能上天國,可能會經過一段煉獄期也說不定,但一定能上天國。

誰人能上天國,當然不是你和我去決定。但這個情況,有如「一加一等於二」,數學法則不是我訂立,但我知道「一加一等於二」。

simon


Posted -
2006/10/12 下午 10:06:40

Edward,

未領洗是嬰兒死後是否一定可上天國?可以用另一個方向去思考(靚仔教的多向思維)。

你試想想,有沒有一些情況下,未領洗的嬰兒死後必下地獄?如果有,那就可以支持「不是所有未領洗的嬰兒死後都能上天國」這個說法。

edward


Posted -
2006/10/12 下午 11:42:18

西滿兄:

聖奧斯定就曾認為未領洗的嬰兒,都要接受地獄的懲罰。這不是因為天主「冷血」或「心理變態」,而是因為「亞當之罪」--因他所犯的罪,為自己及其後裔,失落了超性恩寵。

但就連聖奧斯定,亦對此一結論感到不安。

若按傳統的理解,對著面臨永罰的人,天主並沒有嚴格的「義務」去救他們。永罰是犯罪的自然後果,但救援則純粹是天主白白施予的恩典。

問題是在於:未領洗而身染原罪汚點的孩子們,應承受亞當之罪的哪些後果?

教會承受主基督的訓誨,盡量給嬰兒付洗,是因為她確實不能肯定,未領洗而去世嬰兒的命運。

simon


Posted -
2006/10/13 上午 11:13:16

聖奧斯定的神學見解,也不一定每一項都正確。他不過是一個人,他沒有「不能錯的神」吧。

聖奧斯定的神學觀,值得參考研究,但我不會因為某東西是他說的就認定必是正確。這叫critical appraisal。

若依聖奧斯定的說法,是否會出現以下情況:

一個嬰兒在出世的第一分鐘就死了,神父根本來不及施洗,這個嬰孩就直下地獄受永罰。

慈愛常在的神,會這樣做嗎?

edward


Posted -
2006/10/13 上午 11:42:04

教會固然並未有將奧氏的觀點照單全收,不然我們的《天主教教理》就不會是如此寫了。

小弟之前已解釋過,任何人在地獄受永罰,只是天主彰顯其公義。

嚴格而言,我們不可說天主有任何「必要」或「責任」去救任何人,否則祂的救恩就不是白白賜予的了。

若你欠我五萬元,我一定要你還--則這是公義。
若你欠我五萬元,而我不要你還--則這是仁慈。

我雖對很多其他人「仁慈」,但卻不一定要「對你」仁慈啊!

simon


Posted -
2006/10/13 上午 11:57:36

我欠你五萬,你要我還,叫公義。

我十世前的祖先欠你五萬,你要我還,但我才出世只有一分鐘,根本沒有時間或機會去償還就死了,你說因為我的祖先欠債而我又不還錢,於是判我下地獄受永恆痛苦。這不叫公義,而是叫心理變態。

更變態的是,我的出生和死亡時間,是你創世時安排好的!

最離奇的是,欠債的祖先可能上了天國,但我只有一分鐘生命的嬰孩卻下地獄。



公義和慈愛的神,不會是這樣行事。我好有信心。

edward


Posted -
2006/10/13 下午 12:02:00

所以,傳統神學於是就有關於靈薄獄的講法。

身染原罪的嬰兒既然去世,按公義尺度的「理」而言,「應」受失苦(即不得享見天主的面容),但因他們從來沒有犯任何本罪,所以「未必」受任何覺苦(地獄的「火」刑)。(聖奧斯定則認為:他們所受的覺苦,非常輕微)

後世的神學家,認為這個「應受失苦」的本質,是一種「超性恩寵的缺乏」,即「未能達致超性的幸福」。按理而言,它不排除純粹「天然」或「本性」幸福的可能性。

當然,天主會否在這「天然幸福」的基礎上,行多一步,則我們只可以「臆測」或「盼望」,但不得而「知」了。

simon


Posted -
2006/10/13 下午 12:02:39

edward


Posted -
2006/10/13 下午 12:11:33

欠債還錢,是一個類比的說法,說明仁慈與公義之間本質上的分別。

但人生的各種缺憾,和對天主的虧欠,則遠非單單金融意義上的「債」一字所能盡錄。

是否要天主給每人「IQ」全部等於「100」,又或人人都要有聖母那般的恩寵,才算是公平?

「一失足成千古恨」這句話所指涉的,不是神話,而是活生生的歷史事實,和人類行為的自然後果。

天主基於祂的仁慈,扭轉某些自然後果,但卻不一定要扭轉全部後果。不然,世間就沒有「自然」或「本性」可言了。

simon


Posted -
2006/10/13 下午 12:14:12

靈薄獄在現代神學是很含糊的概念。

現代神學認為,所謂地獄,不是真的有一團火去燒你,而是「沒有神的地方」。

那麼靈薄獄又是甚麼呢,又是「沒有神的地方」嗎?如果是,它和地獄有甚麼分別?

edward


Posted -
2006/10/13 下午 12:40:58

也許可以如此說:地獄的意義,不止在於「沒有天主」(失苦),而亦在於「只有自己」(覺苦)。

若要用任何形容詞去述說「靈薄獄」的意義,則只可以說它的內容是「含糊」(ambiguous)和「晦暗」(obscure)的,因為它是從「存有」的否定面去看現實世界。

我個人來說,則傾向於認同另一個表述模式。

詳情請參閱Fr. William G Most所著的《Novum tentamen ad solutionem de Gratia et Praedestinatione》啦!

現時你若有空的話,也許可先參閱我們先前的某次討論呢。

也許在小弟考試過後,可以更詳細地談一談。

此外,SK2君會否介意把題首的「煉獄」改為「靈薄獄」?因長遠而言,它有可能給別人造成混淆。

simon


Posted -
2006/10/13 下午 01:44:41

Edward,

祝考試及格,勁過更佳!

頁:  1 | 2 回 應