|
作者
|
內容
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2003/9/23 上午 10:42:38
|
|
|
我想問題在"唯一"上.
在起初是各個"地方教會"即"個別教會".
但"教會在羅馬",和"教會在耶京"是兩個"教會",還是一個"教會"?
是一個教會的話,"普世教會"是否即是所有"個別教會"的總和?
但不是啊,個別教會只是"普世教會"在"個別地方"的具體臨在.
那究竟是一還是多?
我想西滿兄的理解就是,"普世教會"即是所有"個別教會"的總和,但這個別是指"宗派".但教會在一開始就拒絕這種理解.
每個"個別(地方,不是指宗派)的教會"都是完整的唯一普世教會在那個地方臨現",這是我對教會自身的理解的理解.
不知大家看得懂嗎?又各師兄姊,我的理解是否正確?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/9/23 下午 12:19:18
|
|
|
One thing that should be believed by all Catholics is that the scriptures (and correct understanding of it by the Teaching Magisterium) and Defined Catholic Dogmas are both indispensable parts in the one unique Deposit of Faith.
If they are, then they are "equal" in the sense that they are both revealed TRUTHS, binding on every Catholic.
What's the point to ask if two true propositions are "equal"? Are all true statements "equal"?
In what sense are we asking: the Virgin Birth of Our Lady (from the Bible) "EQUAL" to the Dogma of Assumption of Our Lady, Body and Soul, into Heaven?
Any examples of two "un-equal" truths?
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/23 下午 12:28:29
|
|
|
西滿兄﹐我以往的經驗是﹐Catholic Encyclopedia中不少用詞是教會才會經常用到的﹐其他的並不算太過深奧﹔克服了這些教會常用用詞﹐以後對看教會文件會甚有幫助。你或許可以去看Edward兄數天前提供的“不能錯權”資料﹕羅馬主教的首席權及不能錯權。
基督新教是否由“從宗徒傳下來的”﹖這要看你從什麼角度去看﹕天主教會的角度﹐新教各宗派的角度﹐或所謂客觀的角度。首先﹐我們得定義什麼是“從宗徒傳下來的”。從天主教會的定義來說﹐主教是十二宗徒的承繼者﹐每一個主教的繼承線﹐都可以trace back to宗徒﹔這就是“從宗徒傳下來的”意思。所以﹐天主教會完全承認正教是從宗徒傳下來的。然而新教的宗派呢﹖他們大部份連主教也沒有﹐怎樣trace back to宗徒﹖
其次﹐從新教宗派的角度去看﹐他們大部份並不會有這“繼承線”。他們大部份雖然相信這句"one holy catholic and apostolic church"﹐但他們對之的解釋跟你的並不相同。那他們是否“從宗徒傳下來的”(事實上﹐因為對Nicene Creed的理解有別﹐他們很多根本不會說自己的教會是“從使徒傳下來的”)﹖
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/23 下午 12:42:31
|
|
|
關於“唯一”的問題﹐據我的理解﹐教會很堅持耶穌基督只創立了一個教會(不可能是創立了天主教會､路德會､播道會等多個教會)。治理這唯一的教會的權柄﹐是耶穌在昇天前親自交給了伯多祿以及他的繼承者的。所以﹐教宗是全世界基督徒的領袖﹐不管部份宗派願不願承認也好。
奧兄所說的"Assumption of Virgin Mary"的信條是經教宗定義過為infallible的﹐那就是說天主聖神確保“聖母昇天”這信條是正確無誤的。那自然就不存在“聖母昇天”這dogma跟聖經“誰正確些”的問題(如果你同意Papal Infallibility的話)。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/9/23 下午 08:06:32
|
|
|
西滿兄有言：
天主教教義和聖經的關係，是必須弄清楚的，因為如果天主教的教義不一定「全對」，就需要其他基督教的教義來補足，因而「從宗徒傳下來的教會」，就要包括基督教，而不可單以天主教去代入「從宗徒傳下來的教會」。
天主教教義和聖經的關係，當然須要弄清楚。這裡大可另開新題討論。而我們原來亦曾就這問題展開過討論。請參閱：
聖經和教義的關係
但是，若假設天主教教義「不一定全對」，那麼其它宗派的教義相對於天主教教義而言又有何優勝之處呢？「其他宗派」的定義，若年月的推進，必然包括因其他哲學流派和新宗教思潮而興起的「宗派」，如古時的諾斯底派、摩尼派、甚至依斯蘭教、佛教，和現代的摩門教和新紀元運動。在這樣的推演下，「從宗徒傳下來」這個條件，還有何實質意義呢？你怎樣辨別何者是傳自宗徒的啟示，何者是來自世俗的「人的思想」呢？
更重要的是：這個「問題」和「天主教教義與聖經之間關係」，如何構成因果關係呢？這裡所指的聖經，是「天主教的聖經」、「新教的聖經」、抑或是「西滿兄心目中的聖經」呢？
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/25 上午 01:16:06
|
|
|
這些問題都不簡單。作為天主教徒﹐我們都需要對教會的立場有多些的了解。其實﹐對教會有類似疑問的教友大有人在。在其中的一集“始終係天主”裡(我不記得是哪一集了)﹐就有一位年輕的教友對陳主教說﹕“天主教跟基督教都是有缺陷的﹐我們需要互相補充”。陳主教卻立即更正他說﹕“我們的教會是唯一､至聖､至公､從宗徒傳下來的﹔她是完美的”。可見﹐一般教友對教會的理解﹐與教會本身對之的訓導常常都不相符。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/9/27 下午 10:53:21
|
|
|
又或許可以這個比喻來想想「從宗徒傳下來的教會」：
一個父親，有兩個兒子，父親天天教兩個兒子讀書寫字，又教他們自己家族的歷史，和許多做人的道理。
兒子們一天一天的長大。
一天，兄弟鬧翻了。弟弟離開，他腦中帶著父親的教誨，並以此知識傳給他招收的徒弟。
哥哥在家裡授徒，有一班忠心的門生。
問題來了：
父親究竟把知識傳給了哥哥，還是弟弟，還是兩兄弟？
哥哥的知識，在「每一方面」，必比弟弟強嗎？
家的確本來只有一個，亦是父親的原意，但兩兄弟「合力」把計畫破壞了。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/9/27 下午 11:26:53
|
|
|
西滿兄你的比喻，令我想起了宗徒大事錄中，聖保祿和聖巴爾納伯分道揚鑣的事實。然而，兩位宗徒所傳授的道理是一致的。
在你的比喻中，並沒有說明哥哥和弟弟之間的分歧之處何在。
有些教義上的衝突，是不能說雙方都同時是對的。例如：天主教說聖經有七十三卷，而新教則說只有六十六卷。在這情況下，兩者中只能有其中一者是正確，甚或兩者均錯。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/9/27 下午 11:29:05
|
|
|
大家認為今個主日的福音，和這個問題有沒有關係呢？
那時，若望對耶穌說：「師傅！我們看見一個人以你的名義驅魔，就阻止了他，因為他不是和我們一起的。」耶穌說：「不要阻止他，因為沒有人以我的名義行了奇蹟，會立刻誹謗我。不反對我們的，就是贊同我們。我實在告訴你們：誰若因你們屬於基督，而給你們一杯水解渴，他一定會得到賞報。」（谷九38-43）
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/9/28 下午 12:34:26
|
|
|
弟弟只是和哥哥決裂，但弟弟並沒有和父親交惡，而父親也沒有停止給他的小兒子指引。
我們既然承認基督教的聖洗也是有效，就很難說，聖神只給基督教徒聖洗，但不會給予神學上的引領。
天主教和基督教同樣得到聖神的引領，我無法想像，當兩幫人在神學上有相反意見時，就必然是天主教正確，基督教誤解。
今天的讀經，也有這一段：「誰能察覺自己的一切過錯，求𤔅洗淨我未覺察的缺失，使𤔅的僕人免於自負，不要讓驕傲控制著我。」
人若說：「我教對神的見解，絕對正確！」你聽了，有何感想？
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/28 下午 02:32:10
|
|
|
西滿兄﹐在這個問題上﹐我們不能用“想當然”的角度去看。我們認為﹐根據聖經及聖傳﹐耶穌基督把訓導的權柄交給了伯多祿及他的繼承者﹔但他有沒有將這樣的權柄交給任何一位平信徒､個別的神學家或新教的各宗派﹖我想這個答案是很明顯的。當然﹐你或許會不同意羅馬教會是有這樣的權柄﹔這其實是當年西方教會分裂(宗教改革)的重要原因之一。
你也需要知道新教各宗派對他們本身的看法及定義。他們是否說他們的神學家(他們沒有訓導機構﹔沒有統一的教廷)在發表意見時會得到“聖神”的扶持﹖以我的理解是﹕沒有﹔他們傾向認為他們各派的神學家所發表的言論只是個人或代表某地的一個宗派的意見。其實﹐天主教的神學家也是一樣。但教會訓導機構所發表的訓導卻是完全不一樣的﹐原因各位在此都已提及過了。
最後﹐你必須理解“從宗徒傳下來的”的意思。其實﹐你會說這一句“從宗徒傳下來的”﹐根本就是根據天主教(及正教)對“one holy catholic and apostolic church”的詮釋。“從宗徒傳下來的”的意思其實是說apostolic succession﹐新教大部份的宗派根本否定了教會的必要條件是要“從宗徒傳下來的”(apostolic succession)﹐他們對“apostolic church”一句另有解釋﹐不會說是apostolic succession。所以﹐很遺憾﹐你提出新教的宗派都是“從宗徒傳下來的”的論點﹐無論是根據天主教的立場或是新教大部份宗派的立場﹐都是站不住腳的。
好了﹐以我一個對神學沒有什麼認識的人﹐也談了這“許多”﹐那可能已是在“大放厥詞”了。所以﹐若說得不準確的話﹐還望各位高人指正。
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/28 下午 02:43:45
|
|
|
在checknews基督教版看到這篇陶傑兩年前所寫的文章。嘿﹐不少教友都會跟陶傑的“見解”(雖然他撰寫此文的目的是醉翁之意不在酒)相同麼﹖
-----------------------------------------
陶傑：耶穌被判火刑
俄國最偉大的小說家杜斯妥耶夫斯基在長篇小說《卡拉馬佐夫的兄弟們》，借主角伊凡之口說了一值奇異的故事。
西元1500年，在西班牙的沙維亞鎮的一個下午，鎮上的居民忽然發現，在大街上，出現了一個約三十歲的男人，他面容清瘦，留著鬍子，兩目日有神。街上的行人，一眼就認出了他是誰。
不錯，他竟真的復活了！，而且不知何故，出現在道個城鎮。街人的行人一陣歡呼，跟著他走。耶穌面露微笑，向人群伸手祝福。耶穌觸摸了一個瞎眼的老人，老人馬上看得見了。耶穌來到一座教堂，那裏正為一個早夭的少女舉行葬禮。興奮的人群對死者的母親說：他就是耶穌啊？母親淚流滿面，向耶穌下跪，請他施行神蹟，讓她的女兒復活。
棺材打開著，耶穌說﹕醒來吧。死去的少女睜開眼睛，坐了起來。一切就和新約聖經的記載一樣。
事情驚動了沙維亞大教堂的主教。他下令把耶穌拘捕下獄，罪名是「異端」。
在監獄裏，主教設立了裁判法庭。在審訊中，主教發現眼前這個人，是真正的耶穌。但是，耶穌重新出現了，人們會跟從復活的耶穌，直接聽他講道，不會再上教堂，教會就沒有存在的意義。耶穌說﹕我就是真正的耶穌呀，我就是你的信仰的源頭。主教把耶穌判處火刑。
耶穌覺得很好笑。他沒想到教會竟會視他為敵人。耶穌向主教報以一吻，說：我原諒你。這時，主教忽然感受一股莫名的恐懼，不敢正視耶穌，對耶穌說：你走吧，從此永遠不要再回來。
耶穌走出了監獄，他的身影消失在黑暗的荒野。從此，他果然沒有回來。
耶穌訂十字架後經歷了一千五百年，世上最權威的統治者已經是教皇，上帝和耶穌的話，只有教廷有絕對的解釋權。教廷是上帝的總代理，是世間法律和秩序的仲裁者。就算耶穌真的復活，重回人間，在一千五百年後，耶穌就是異端，他如果膽敢重張旗鼓，在世間行道，他再率領的這一眾教派，就是邪教。
讀過杜斯妥耶夫斯基，就明白為什麼法輪功一定成為「邪教」。即使孫中山今天復活，現身在北京天安門廣場演說，孫中山也會被抓進監獄，被控顛覆罪，雖然在天安門廣場，仍懸掛著孫中山的畫像。
這就是難以救贖的人性。這就是世界。
轉載自《明報》(2001.06.17)
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/9/29 上午 12:56:48
|
|
|
Edward 曾問我，究竟我信甚麼？
我想，可以來個暫時的總結。我用「暫時」一詞，是因為我相信人對神的了解是可以進步的，因此有改變的可能。
我信三位一體的天主。
我信聖洗。
我信死人可以復活。
我信天主教會的神學觀點絕絕大部份 (99.9999% 或更大) 是正確的，但不是百分百正確，尤其是當見解和其他基督教派不一致時，有可能是別教正確而我們搞錯。
人若說：我對神的了解絕對正確。我會認為，是自大的表現。
我相信通過不同基督信仰派別的合一，去蕪存菁，可以更接近真理，又或更了解神，因為不同的派別，合起來才是原來耶穌交給世人的教會。現在我們的天主教會，只是普世教會的一部分，是較好的一部分，但不是全部。
當然，以上只是我的想法，我無意說服你接受，但那可是我最真誠的想法。畢竟，我們不是參加辯論比賽，沒所謂贏輸的。
還有一點，我信天主教會的包容性很強，我這樣的教徒，她也接納了！
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/30 上午 12:52:23
|
|
|
我想神學跟其他的學術一樣都是多元的。西滿兄在目前要堅持你的見解﹐相信沒有人會說這是絕對不可以的。但從一般人所說的理性角度去看﹕論點往往無分高低﹔差別是在於論據是否充足。我們的信仰是根據聖經及聖傳的﹔如果你堅持要有不同的見解﹐只要你能在聖經及聖傳中找到充份的論據﹐去支持你的論點﹐那相信你的論點在神學上是不會站不住腳的。
從同性戀到教會的討論﹐西滿兄可謂是不乏論點了。但在論據方面﹐如果能做得再充足一點﹐那就會令討論更有意思了。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/30 上午 10:53:29
|
|
|
Tao Jit's 'story' of course is commonplace enough. On the contrary, if we argue that whoever performs miracles is the Lord, let ourselves be reminded at the same time that Lucifer is similarly capable in certain respects.
It is SO EASY to repudiate Truth; it is therefore sometimes very difficult to DISCERN what is Truth and what is falsehood.
Simon should always be aware of this.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/10/1 上午 12:23:58
|
|
|
Cecil,
謝提點。
XXXX
去非：
除非你認為聖神沒有帶領基督教派，否則，當他們的神學觀點和我們有分別時，不可能每一次每一項都是基督教錯而我們天主教對。討論至此，我仍看不出一個有力的觀點，可以保證每次都是天主教對而基督教錯。你能提出嗎？
單用聖傳來證明聖傳絕對正確，是站不住腳的。我曾問，聖經哪裡保證教宗有「不錯」的神恩？似乎沒有。
耶穌在世時，門徒也常常誤解祂。耶穌升天後，我們憑甚麼可保證，我們對祂的了解，百分百正確？當了解不是百分百正確時，寫下來的條文，不見得可以忽然變成百分百正確。你介紹的天主教百科全書，頗清晰地指出，天主教會寫的教理，地位和聖經不同。聖經差不多是神執著人的手寫的，所以絕對正確。教理，可不是這樣。
若單用聖傳來證明聖傳正確，好比我寫一部數學真理，頭一條是「一加一等於三」，以後我用這條真理，就可以證明三加三等於九了。
想多問你一句：「如果有一天，證明聖傳中有一小條是錯的，而需要修正，你的信仰，會否因崩潰？」因你的信仰，是建基於聖傳不能錯。
我的信仰，是建基於人對神的了解，可以有誤差。因此，我一方面相信聖傳中絕絕絕大部分正確，另一方面，有些少錯誤，不足為奇，亦不會影響我對神的信賴。
我同意，信仰，非完全理性。但如果信仰不講理性，很容易變成迷信。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/10/1 下午 03:01:25
|
|
|
我們不是說：教會的傳統不能錯。我們的意思是：教會在辨別傳統中何者是「天主的啟示」時不能錯。
舉一個例子說：教會在辨別某某書卷是否屬於正典聖經時，是否有錯誤的可能？何者是聖經的道理，何者是教義？兩者是否沒有共同範圍的可能性？當我說「整部創世紀是天主所默感的啟示著作」，這是否一項教義？
若你說相信聖經無誤的權威，但不相信教會宣報當信教義的無誤權威，在道理上是說不過去的。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/10/1 下午 03:09:26
|
|
|
西滿兄你所說的：
若單用聖傳來證明聖傳正確，好比我寫一部數學真理，頭一條是「一加一等於三」，以後我用這條真理，就可以證明三加三等於九了。
你是先假定了聖傳所教導的，是「一加一等如三」之類的謬理。這個假設在論題中是不相關的。我可不可以說你是「用聖經去證明聖經正確」？因此，你若說教會「用聖傳來證明聖傳正確」只能說是circular reasoning，它的論據不充份。
然而問題的核心是在於：聖傳是否以聖傳去證明自身的真確性？
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/10/1 下午 03:16:26
|
|
|
教會認為自身具備「往訓萬民」的使命，其權威的根源既不是聖經，亦不是聖傳，而是天主子耶穌基督創立教會的歷史事實。
在這角度看來，聖經和聖傳首要是見證著耶穌創立教會的這個歷史事實。歷史事實，本質上是能被客觀地觀察和證明的。
所以第一條問題是：聖經和聖傳所載的有關基督創立教會，是否符合歷史事實及的確曾發生過？第二條問題，才是：聖經和聖傳，是否天主的啟示？
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/10/2 上午 12:03:41
|
|
|
Edward,
或許先集中精神解決下面問題，才再討論其他吧！
除非我們認為聖神沒有帶領基督教派，否則，當他們的神學觀點和我們有分別時，不可能每一次每一項都是基督教錯而我們天主教對。我看不出一個有力的觀點，可以保證每次都是天主教對而基督教錯。你能提出嗎？
Simon
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/10/2 上午 07:17:07
|
|
|
回應西滿兄：
基本上你的提問是回到了我們九月二十日至二十一日之間的討論。
之前我已經說過：其他基督信仰宗派並非沒有聖神帶領，只是它們的神恩不同，不像天主教般，享有訓導的權柄。
歷史的事實告訴你：哪個教會具有悠久的歷史，組織及架構的穩定及持續性，教義的一貫性，和自稱擁有來自主耶穌基督的訓導的權柄。
相信教會具有訓導權柄，這是一個信仰的問題。但當你選擇「信」或「不信」時，請保持基本上的consistency。例如：當你否認教會的訓導權柄時，就應同時解釋為何你相信聖經是七十三卷而不是七十二卷，為何你相信你所手持的聖經就是天主的啟示等。
至於個別的兩教之間相異的教義問題，你則應該另開新題討論，看看誰是誰非，理據何在。這樣，你就可以更清楚地看出，為何天主教得天獨厚，領受著聖神的帶領。
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/10/2 下午 02:35:57
|
|
|
「我曾問，聖經哪裡保證教宗有「不錯」的神恩？似乎沒有。」
Catholic Encyclopedia中很清楚的提出教會以及教宗的不能錯神恩是有聖經上的根據的。西滿兄怎麼會看不到﹖那且容我把相關的部份抄錄下來吧﹕
II. PROOF OF THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY (教會的不能錯權之證明)
PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE (聖經中的證明)
Matthew 28:18-20. In Matthew 28:18-20, we have Christ's solemn commission to the Apostles delivered shortly before His Ascension: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." In Mark 16:15-16, the same commission is given more briefly with the added promise of salvation to believers and the threat of damnation for unbelievers; "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
Now it cannot be denied by anyone who admits that Christ established a visible Church at all, and endowed it with any kind of effective teaching authority, that this commission, with all it implies, was given not only to the Apostles personally for their own lifetime, but to their successors to the end of time, "even to the consummation of the world". And assuming that it was the omniscient Son of God Who spoke these words, with a full and clear realization of the import which, in conjunction with His other promises, they were calculated to convey to the Apostles and to all simple and sincere believers to the end of time, the only reasonable interpretation to put upon them is that they contain the promise of infallible guidance in doctrinal teaching made to the Apostolic College in the first instance and then to the hierarchical college that was to succeed it.
.............(這段的原文太長﹐可再到Catholic Encyclopedia﹕Infallibility觀看全文)
Matthew 16:18. In Matthew 16:18, we have the promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church that is to be built on the rock; and this also, we maintain, implies the assurance of the Church's infallibility in the exercise of her teaching office. Such a promise, of course, must be understood with limitations according to the nature of the matter to which it is applied. As applied to sanctity, for example, which is essentially a personal and individual affair, it does not mean that every member of the Church or of her hierarchy is necessarily a saint, but merely that the Church, as whole, will be conspicuous among other things for the holiness of life of her members. As applied to doctrine, however -- always assuming, as we do, that Christ delivered a body of doctrine the preservation of which in its literal truth was to be one of the chief duties of the Church -- it would be a mockery to contend that such a promise is compatible with the supposition that the Church has possibly erred in perhaps the bulk of her dogmatic definitions, and that throughout the whole of her history she has been threatening men with eternal damnation in Christ's name for refusing to believe doctrines that are probably false and were never taught by Christ Himself. Could this be the case, would it not be clear that the gates of hell can prevail and probably have prevailed most signally against the Church?
John 14-16. In Christ's discourse to the Apostles at the Last Supper several passages occur which clearly imply the promise of infallibility: "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth . . . he shall abide with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:16, 17). "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (ibid. 26). "But when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth (John 16:13). And the same promise is renewed immediately before the Ascension (Acts 1:8). Now what does the promise of this perennial and efficacious presence and assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, mean in connection with doctrinal authority, except that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is made responsible for what the Apostles and their successors may define to be part of Christ's teaching? But insofar as the Holy Ghost is responsible for Church teaching, that teaching is necessarily infallible: what the Spirit of truth guarantees cannot be false.
I Timothy 3:15. In I Timothy 3:15, St. Paul speaks of "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"; and this description would be something worse than mere exaggeration if it had been intended to apply to a fallible Church; it would be a false and misleading description. That St. Paul, however, meant it to be taken for sober and literal truth is abundantly proved by what he insists upon so strongly elsewhere, namely, the strictly Divine authority of the Gospel which he and the other Apostles preached, and which it was the mission of their successors to go on preaching without change or corruption to the end of time. "When you had received of us", he writes to the Thessalonians, "the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed" (I Thessalonians 2:13). The Gospel, he tells the Corinthians, is intended to bring "into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (II Corinthians 10:5). Indeed, so fixed and irreformable is the doctrine that has been taught that the Galatians (1:8) are warned to anathematize any one, even an angel from heaven, who should preach to them a Gospel other than that which St. Paul had preached. Nor was this attitude -- which is intelligible only on the supposition that the Apostolic College was infallible -- peculiar to St. Paul. The other Apostles and apostolic writers were equally strong in anathematizing those who preached another Christianity than that which the Apostles had preached (cf. II Peter 2:1 sqq.; I John 4:1 sqq.; II John 7 sqq.; Jude 4); and St. Paul makes it clear that it was not to any personal or private views of his own that he claimed to make every understanding captive, but to the Gospel which Christ had delivered to the Apostolic body. When his own authority as an Apostle was challenged, his defense was that he had seen the risen Saviour and received his mission directly from Him, and that his Gospel was in complete agreement with that of the other Apostles (see, v.g., Galatians 2:2-9).
Acts 15:28. Finally, the consciousness of corporate infallibility is clearly signified in the expression used by the assembled Apostles in the decree of the Council of Jerusalem: "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you", etc. (Acts 15:28). It is true that the specific points here dealt with are chiefly disciplinary rather than dogmatic, and that no claim to infallibility is made in regard to purely disciplinary questions as such; but behind, and independent of, disciplinary details there was the broad and most important dogmatic question to be decided, whether Christians, according to Christ's teaching, were bound to observe the Old Law in its integrity, as orthodox Jews of the time observed it. This was the main issue at stake, and in deciding it the Apostles claimed to speak in the name and with the authority of the Holy Ghost. Would men who did not believe that Christ's promises assured them of an infallible Divine guidance have presumed to speak in this way? And could they, in so believing, have misunderstood the Master's meaning?
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/10/2 下午 02:49:15
|
|
|
以下是Catholic Encyclopedia所指出﹐教宗享有不能錯權在聖經中的證明﹕
B. The Pope
PROOF OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE
Matthew 16:18. "Thou art Peter (Kepha)", said Christ, "and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). Various attempts have been made by opponents of the papal claims to get rid of the only obvious and natural meaning of these words, according to which Peter is to be the rock-foundation of the Church, and the source of its indefectibility against the gates of hell. It has been suggested, for example, that "this rock" is Christ Himself or that it is Peter's faith (typifying the faith of future believers), not his person and office, on which the Church is to be built. But these and similar interpretations simply destroy the logical coherency of Christ's statement and are excluded by the Greek and Latin texts, in which a kind of play upon the words Petros (Petrus) and petra is clearly intended, and still more forcibly by the original Aramaic which Christ spoke, and in which the same word Kepha must have been used in both clauses. And granting, as the best modern non-Catholic commentators grant, that this text of St. Matthew contains the promise that St. Peter was to be the rock-foundation of the Church, it is impossible to deny that Peter's successors in the primacy are heirs to this promise -- unless, indeed, one is willing to admit the principle, which would be altogether subversive of the hierarchial system, that the authority bestowed by Christ on the Apostles was not intended to be transmitted to their successors, and to abide in the Church permanently. Peter's headship was as much emphasized by Christ Himself, and was as clearly recognized in the infant Church, as was the enduring authority of the episcopal body; and it is a puzzle which the Catholic finds it hard to solve, how those who deny that the supreme authority of Peter's successor is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church can consistently maintain the Divine authority of the episcopate. Now, as we have already seen, doctrinal indefectibility is certainly implied in Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, and cannot be effectively secured without doctrinal infallibility; so that if Christ's promise means anything -- if Peter's successor is in any true sense the foundation and source of the Church's indefectibility -- he must by virtue of this office be also an organ of ecclesiastical infallibility. The metaphor used clearly implies that it was the rock-foundation which was to give stability to the superstructure, not the superstructure to the rock.
Nor can it be said that this argument fails by proving too much -- by proving, that is, that the pope should be impeccable, or at least that he should be a saint, since, if the Church must be holy in order to overcome the gates of hell, the example and inspiration of holiness ought to be given by him who is the visible foundation of the Church's indefectibility. From the very nature of the case a distinction must be made between sanctity or impeccability, and infallible doctrinal authority. Personal sanctity is essentially incommunicable as between men, and cannot affect others except in fallible and indirect ways, as by prayer or example; but doctrinal teaching which is accepted as infallible is capable of securing that certainty and consequent unity of Faith by which, as well as by other bonds, the members of Christ's visible Church were to be "compacted and fitly joined together" (Ephesians 4:16). It is true, of course, that infallible teaching, especially on moral questions, helps to promote sanctity among those who accept, but no one will seriously suggest that, if Christ had made the pope impeccable as well as infallible, He would thereby have provided for the personal sanctity of individual believers any more efficiently than, on Catholic principles, He has actually done.
Luke 22:31-32. Here Christ says to St. Peter and to his successors in the primacy: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." This special prayer of Christ was for Peter alone in his capacity as head of the Church, as is clear from the text and context; and since we cannot doubt the efficacy of Christ's prayer, it followed that to St. Peter and his successors the office was personally committed of authoritatively confirming the brethren -- other bishops, and believers generally -- in the faith; and this implies infallibility.
John 21:15-17. Here we have the record of Christ's thrice-repeated demand for a confession of Peter's love and the thrice-repeated commission to feed the lambs and the sheep:
"When therefore they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep."
Here the complete and supreme pastoral charge of the whole of Christ's flock -- sheep as well as lambs -- is given to St. Peter and his successors, and in this is undoubtedly comprised supreme doctrinal authority. But, as we have already seen, doctrinal authority in tbe Church cannot be really effective in securing the unity of faith intended by Christ, unless in the last resort it is infallible. It is futile to contend, as non Catholics have often done, that this passage is merely a record of Peter's restoration to his personal share in the collective Apostolic authority, which he had forfeited by his triple denial. It is quite probable that the reason why Christ demanded the triple confession of love was as a set-off to the triple denial; but if Christ's words in this and in the other passages quoted mean anything, and if they are to be understood in the same obvious and natural way in which defenders of the Divine authority of the episcopate understand the words elsewhere addressed to the Apostles collectively, there is no denying that the Petrine and papal claims are more clearly supported by the Gospels than are those of a monarchical episcopate. It is equally futile to contend that these promises were made, and this power given, to Peter merely as the representative oE the Apostolic college: in the texts of the Gospel, Peter is individually singled out and addressed with particular emphasis, so that, unless by denying with the rationalist the genuineness of Christ's words, there is no logical escape from the Catholic position. Furthermore, it is clear from such evidence as the Acts of the Apostles supply, that Peter's supremacy was recognized in the infant Church (see PRIMACY) and if this supremacy was intended to be efficacious for the purpose for which it was instituted, it must have included the prerogative of doctrinal infallibility.
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/10/2 下午 03:23:02
|
|
|
「耶穌在世時，門徒也常常誤解祂。耶穌升天後，我們憑甚麼可保證，我們對祂的了解，百分百正確？」
西滿兄提出這疑問已不只一次。那為何這些常誤解祂的宗徒所寫的福音及書信(聖經)﹐我們卻認為是百份百可信﹖
要弄清錯個人是fallible的。當教宗以私人神學家的身份去發表言論的時候﹐他是fallible的。但當教宗不是以任何個人的身份﹐而是以全世界所有基督徒之領袖及普世教會的元首的身份明確的去define一些doctrine的時候(即ex cathedra的狀態)﹐那doctrine中的那項教義或倫理便由聖神確保為infallible的。這些教義或倫理的正確性便跟聖經裡的沒有任何分別。
而當教會的magisterium (teaching authority) 在2000年來也是同一的教導一項教義或倫理的話﹐這項教義或倫理也是infallible的。
證明麼﹖在上面所引的聖經經文便是的證明之一了。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/10/3 下午 08:55:22
|
|
|
Edward,
關於聖經，God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance，所以絕對正確。但那也只限於原著，翻譯時有沒有偏差，難說。
去非，
你提供的資料，很有用，至少我比較明白你為甚麼相信「不錯的神恩」（這是不是正式的譯法？請賜教）。
可是，怎樣解讀那些經文，又是另一個問題。比如基督教徒也常常用「因信稱義」來否定有其他途徑獲享救恩的可能。他們也是有「明確的」依據。但我們天主教徒就認為除了信耶穌外，也不排除有其他方法獲得救恩。
我只想指出，解讀同一段聖經，不同信徒可以有不同程度的理解，當中也會有誤解的時候。
你說：「教宗以私人身份時談及教義，可以有錯；但代整個教會時，就infallable。」請原諒我資質有限，不能想像這個phenomenon。教宗是否有一個類似按鈕的東西，按下就infallable，不按就fallable？
為甚麼他不長按呢？
|
|
