|
作者
|
內容
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/9 下午 06:08:22
|
|
|
Pooh-pooh,
你說：「我完全信服於教會對聖事的規定。」
我絕對尊重你這樣說。能這樣說和做的人，是簡單而快樂的。
可是，我不是這樣的人。我經常會問：為甚麼？
好奇地問一問你：
你既然說「我完全信服於教會對聖事的規定」，那麼你會否說「我完全信服於教會的所有規定」呢？
|
|
Jedi
|
Posted -
2008/5/9 下午 10:35:06
|
|
|
好似無乜立場，但我又倆方都同意。
同意Augustine，因為如果不堅持，我們的教會(天主教)就會走樣。天主教之所以是天主教，其中一個重要原因就是因為她堅持傳承。那是她的優點，也是她的缺點。
也同意Simon，天主和人之間的關係、人對神的敬意，神對人的悅納，不可能因為穀物或其制法而有所改變。唱拉丁文天主開心D？廣東話天主聽唔明？人對神的敬意，不可能因為語言的不同而有所改變吧。
好似無乜立場，但其實要取得平衡。
只為形式物料的堅持而堅持，把天主和人之間的關係物質化。為了守法律而堅持，忽畧了法律本身正是為人的信仰服務，而不可能是絕對的。試想：如小麥因某原因而不再在地球上種植，我們是否就永遠沒有聖體？
當然，open mind不等於我們要為改變而改變，沒有重大的原因和困難，為何不堅守法律和傳承？但刻意去遷就人而改變法律和傳承，為迎合年青人而辧另類彌撒又是否必要？試想：信仰本身就是叫人皈依，要求人改變，而不是改變信仰而迎合人。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/10 上午 12:23:47
|
|
|
Jedi,
在這個網站，我的角色通常是被人罵的，難得有一次會有人說同意我的觀點，雖然這個人又同時同意另一方的觀點！
你的假設有趣而一針見血，很好。如果小麥在地球上消失，我們是否就不能再舉行聖體聖事？
忽發奇想：如果耶穌不是以色列人，當年隨手拿起藍罐牛油曲奇作聖體聖事，我們現今的天主教會就會用曲奇餅作聖體，然後爭論牛油成份是多少才可作聖體，又白紙黑字寫明如果牛油少到不再被認為是牛油曲奇時，就不能作聖體聖事..........
耶穌真的只能將無酵餅轉化成聖體嗎？若耶穌當時只有米餅，就造不成聖體？
有誰可以肯定，耶穌當年的原意不能是：只要神父拿起任何材料造的餅，都可以舉行聖體聖事呢？
|
|
jedi
|
Posted -
2008/5/10 下午 06:54:14
|
|
|
Simon,如果你的意思是：信仰不應被法律條文僵化，我是原則上同意的。
但如果人人任意為之，我是100%反對。假設在非常時期不一定要用麥餅，但這不等於可以隨意用叉燒雞脾代替、也不表示小朋友喜歡米奇老鼠，神父就要裝扮成米奇老鼠般去開彌撤。我們應盡力去做法律和傳统的要求，並對此尊重而不是任意為之。
耶穌用無酵餅可能不是他的原意，只是情況使然。如果餐枱上有叉燒包，衪也有可能拿起來祝聖。當然，什麽都可能，但並不表示我們可以任意為之。
耶穌餐枱上可能有很多其他食物和飲品，既然他拿起了餅和酒，不知是他順手，還是他特意挑選，我們尊重他選的，又有何不可呢？為何要刻意用叉燒包雞脾作聖體？
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/10 下午 11:30:12
|
|
|
"無酵餅是他的原意??"
Whether Christ really intends or requires the use of wheat bread is totally irrelevant. Christ entrusted that decision to the Church. Christ may have used wheat bread due to circumstances in the 1st century. That does not imply: since Christ did not specifically require wheat, then the matter is open to everyone: why? since it is the Church, not you and me, to decide it.
The Church has NO RESPONSIBILITY before anyone anywhere on Earth to explain, or to convince, or to persuade him/her to accept why unleaven wheat is the only matter proper.
Why? Because that authority is delegated to the Church by Christ Himself.
If the Church promulgates rice, or cookie or whatever, instead of wheat, to be the matter (in response to a hypothetical shortage of wheat on the Earth), then the whole Church must follow that instruction. Of course, the Church must be faithful to her Tradition, a part of her identity.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/10 下午 11:41:47
|
|
|
A common misunderstanding is: since the Church does not "fully" explain/convince/persuade me why Palestinian-styled-unleaven-Middle Eastern-wheat bread is designated to be the proper matter, I "therefore" "have" the "freedom" to choose the matter according to circumstances.
The Church is accountable to God alone, not to men. The Church in her wisdom, under the continuity of Tradition, kept the discipline of using unleaven bread for Mass. She does not need to convince anyone so that they may accept it. It is purely the proper governing power of the Church.
Holy Mother Church never was, and is not a "democratic" parliment convincing everyone before she made a decision. She relies on the guidance of the Holy Ghost, not the rhetoric of politicians!
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/11 上午 12:12:14
|
|
|
Jedi,
別擔心。我不是認為聖體聖事應該用曲奇餅。
我只是想說明一件事。我們現在用無酵麥餅，主要（甚至可能唯一）原因是當年耶穌用了無酵麥餅，而耶穌叫我們「要這樣做來紀念他」。
我們「觀察」到耶穌的行為，然後我們「模仿」他。
但到底「無酵麥餅」是否一個必需條件，耶穌沒有說清楚，我們也無法肯定答案。因為必需條件可能只是一個餅，而當時那個餅剛巧是無酵麥造成而已。相似的例子我已說過，耶穌雖用以色列葡萄酒，但「必需條件」是葡萄酒，而不是以色列葡萄酒。
當然，以某人的思考模式，我們只要照跟教宗的說話就保證安全了，因為教宗有聖神帶領，而提問的Simon通常沒有聖神帶領。所以當教宗和Simon意見不一致時，百分百肯定是Simon搞錯！
若說「教宗（或教會當權者）只需要向天主負責，而不需要向人負責，She does not need to convince anyone so that they may accept it.」，我不敢苟同。
Simon思想走歪了，教宗怎可能沒有責任把Simon帶回正軌呢？教宗是牧羊人，他不會放棄任何一隻走失的羊。自知信德不強，但關於這點，我對教宗挺有信心的。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/11 上午 12:35:52
|
|
|
說了上面一大堆，我得清楚說明一點：
我既不能排除「無酵麥」是必需條件，但我同時也不能肯定「無酵麥」是必需條件。
不能肯定的，我就會說不能肯定。我對信仰很認真，我不能假裝相信一些我不肯定的東西。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2008/5/11 下午 04:15:14
|
|
|
Dear brethren,
Long time no see. I think several points have to be clarified.
It should be noted that according to the binding, definitive and irreformable Catholic doctrine taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church, the valid matter for Eucharistic consecration is wheat bread alone, leavened or unleavened. The use of an invalid matter (e.g. non-wheat bread such as rice-bread) results in invalid celebration. Canonically speaking, the crime is called "simulation" of sacrament and it is punishable by law and reserved to the Holy See. The Church declares invalid (and sacrilegious, if willfully done) any celebration of Eucharist using invalid matters because in these celebrations no Real Presence of Christ has been resulted, and the faithful have been induced to worship a thing that is other than God.
It should also be noted that the use of unleavened bread is a sacred tradition of the Latin Rite. It is a condition for licit (lawful) celebration rather than "valid" celebration. The Eastern Churches use leavened bread for consecrating the Eucharist.
The hypothetical condition of wheat extinction simply doesn't hold. If Christ sollemnly promised that he would always be with the Church before the His glorious coming, then the Seven Sacraments will remain with us, since these are the constitutive elements of the Church. For similar reason, we must reject the hypothetical possibility of "extinction" of apostolic succession of the Petrine office as completely contrary to the Catholic Faith. If what our Faith holds are to be true, then their contrary must be false.
We must further observe that in the economy of salvation the Son of God did make use of certain matters (and even specific human beings) for the benefits and service of (other) human beings. Christianity is fundamentally different from Gnosticism. We acknowledge the materiality of human beings, and understand matter in a sacramental way. The choice of water, oil, wheat, human words and human body for administration of sacraments and conferring graces, and hence making our salvation in some sense "dependent" on these contingent matters and events, does pertains to the wise, inscrutable, mysterious and most holy Will of God, and we owe Him our humble, complete and unconditional obedience in faith if we are to follow the way of His Son.
|
|
morrie
|
Posted -
2008/5/11 下午 07:43:57
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSbiL3XduvY
願上主永受讚美！
|
|
Jedi
|
Posted -
2008/5/11 下午 11:07:58
|
|
|
其實，像Augustine兄所說，基督已經把權柄授予教會，教會所訂立的是final，end of story。
又如Edward兄所說，法律是如是說，end of story。
我100%擁護法典和傳統，我們盡力維護並執行乃份內之事，沒理由明明有麥餅而不用，又或穿奇裝異服祭衣去吸引人。但雖然如此，法律還是為人的神益，法律是為信仰服務，所以保持open-mind是好的。
把法律看成絕對，相信耶穌第一個會反對。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2008/5/11 下午 11:48:08
|
|
|
Dear Jedi,
Nowadays people tend to think of "law" as certain extrinsic realities that put limitations and boundaries upon man's freedom. This is but a partial view.
However, the norms of faith do correspond to the ultimate realities of the revealed mysteries. Therefore they are absolute and unchangeable. For a religion that has Divine Revelation for its basis, God's word (as defined "transmitted either by scripture or tradition and proposed by either ordinary/universal or sollemn magisterium of the Church) are definitive and final. For a Catholic, he can open himself to a fuller understanding of these truths, but not to doubt them or to relativize what are to be held as absolute.
Jesus Himself said, "Iota unum aut unus apex non praeteribit a lege" (Mt 5:18-19). Even a stroke or a dot shall not be taken away from the law, so that every thing is fulfilled. We are also admonished by the Redeemer to advise our brothers to observe the laws with great faithfulness.
The laws regarding the conditions for validity and liceity of Sacraments have the truths of Catholic doctrine in view. From the Church's understanding and execution of Christ's words, we have been informed of the necessary condition to fulfill Christ's command to "Do this in memory of Me".
If the norms of validity are violated, no sacrament has occurred and the faithful would be objectively deprived of the expected sacramental grace from that so-called celebration. If the norms of liceity are violated, the sacrament would then be celebrated in an improper and irreverant manner which would ill-dispose the faithful for an adequate and worthy reception of the grace deriving from the sacraments.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/11 下午 11:51:57
|
|
|
Edward,
關於有酵無酵，我想弄清楚一點。
你的意思是否說：一個羅馬天主教神父用「有酵麥餅」作聖體，是「有效」但「不合法」？
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/11 下午 11:56:51
|
|
|
「無酵麥餅」是否一個必需條件，耶穌沒有說清楚，我們也無法肯定答案.....Of course it is absolutely true.
But the problem is, it is so true that... it is irrelevant.
Why? although Christ did not orally or have written down the explicit mandate of using wheat as the matter, he DID orally and clearly stated:" Thou art Peter, and upon thou I shalt build my Church." That is, he entrusted the power to the Petrine Succession to govern the Catholic Church.
Note that this does not mean the mandate to use wheat bread, or is any other Ecclesiastical positive Law is "only" "human instituted" or "legalistic". Whereas the laws said explicitly in the Bible is not "only" "human instituted" or is "not legalistic".
It is equally "non-legalistic" to require that we not kill as to require wheat be used for mass.
It is dishonest to trying to build up the alleged rivalry or confrontation between: "essential" "central" "Christ directly said so" styled mandates (such as not to kill, lie or covert) between "legalistic", "Vatican directed" or "Pope said so" styled mandates (such as not to eat meat on Good Friday, not using contraceptives, go to confession at least once a year, or yes, using wheat for mass). The implication is, you got to judge what is "essential" or what is "non-legalistic" or what is "convincible" before you accept it.
We have a name for this faith-style: the cafeteria styled "catholicism".
The fact is, who hears the Church's magisterium, hears Christ Himself.
Christ said we could not kill - It is not legalistic
The Church magisterium said we use wheat for mass, equally not legalistic. AND there should never be a difference in degree of acceptance of the two, by Catholics.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/12 上午 12:01:04
|
|
|
Jedi,
我支持你的想法，很多法律都不是絕對的。
不可殺人是絕對嗎？非也。戰場上可殺人，自衛可殺人。
不可說謊是絕對嗎？非也。為了救人性命，我們可以對壞人說謊。
安息日是絕對嗎？非也。耶穌和edward都會在安息日治病。
有沒有法律是絕對？
有。例如這一條：愛人愛神。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/12 上午 12:17:45
|
|
|
Augustine,
耶穌把權力交給伯多祿管理和發展教會。伯多祿和之後的教宗有沒有在宗教範疇上出過大錯呢？如果沒有，為甚麼現今的基督信仰教會分裂了？
教宗有聖神帶領，正如你和我都有聖神帶領。你和我會在神學問題上犯錯，教宗就一定不錯？
你或許會說：教宗有「不能錯的神恩」，所以他以「不能錯的神恩」說話時就不會錯。
好了，我想請問你：
教宗宣布必須用無酵麥餅作聖體時，他是否公開地說他是以「不能錯的神恩」來宣布？
又問：如果羅馬天主教教宗認為必須用「無酵麥餅」，他怎樣理解東正教用「有酵麥餅」其實也一樣有效？
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/12 上午 12:26:16
|
|
|
Just as "it is permissible to kill for self-defense" cannot render the mandate "thou shalt not kill" relative, or "non-essential to a Christian".
For example, while someone using cookies for mass could claim he "loves God and loves neighbors", but if he is aware of Christ's own biblical mandate to obey the Church, which is a part of Catholic virtue, a supernatural virtue, hence is an act of Charity towards Christ, which is fulfilling the command of "love God and (hence) love neighbor".
How does one "love neighbor" by obeying the Church? He does so by giving a good example and edifies others by not being a stumbling rock.
Christ says: "he who lovest me followst my words, he who doth not, lovest me not". Christ never said: My words equal - "love God and love men, that's it".
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/12 上午 12:31:12
|
|
|
Simon, do you believe Christ is an unmarried male during his earthly life? The Popes have not defined it under Infallibility.
Do you think it is necessary to go to confession (if under state of sin) before receiving communion in mass? But the popes have not infallibly defined it.....
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/12 上午 01:54:09
|
|
|
Augustine,
你問：「Do you believe Christ is （was） an unmarried male during his earthly life? The Popes have not defined it under Infallibility.」
我如實作答：
我沒有特別理由或證據去認為耶穌曾結婚，但如果（只是如果）耶穌真的曾結婚，那並不影響我對神和對人的愛，也不影響我相信耶穌是天主。
至於修和聖事和聖體聖事的關係，暫且不答，因為那和我們討論中的問題關連不大，以免愈說愈遠。
ooooooooooooooooooo
你還沒有回答，羅馬天主教教宗宣布聖體必須用無酵麥餅時，有沒有用「不能錯的神恩」？如果沒有用「不能錯的神恩」，那個宣布就是一個有可能改變的指引。
教宗（和你）是怎樣理解東正教用「有酵餅」的聖體聖事？教宗（和你）會說東正教的聖體聖事是無效嗎？
如果東正教的聖體聖事是有效，那就說明「無酵」不是「必需條件」，最多只是「較好條件」罷了。
這個分析若不合理，請指正。
|
|
Jedi
|
Posted -
2008/5/12 下午 09:26:07
|
|
|
又的確講得少少離題。
我的看法是，信徒應給予對法律和聖傳最大的支持。我不明白相片中的司祭為何要穿奇裝異服？也不明白為何不用法律規訂的無酵餅？
但與此同時，也應保持open-mind，耶穌的臨在不可能totally dependant 於物料之上。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/13 上午 11:20:22
|
|
|
我無意挑戰律法和權威，也不是想為難Augustine、Edward等網友。我是真心想知道以下問題的答案：
羅馬天主教會認為「必須」用「無酵麥餅」，但同時認為東正教會用「有酵麥餅」的聖禮聖事是有效。
我們應怎樣理解這個矛盾？
|
|
Pooh-Pooh
|
Posted -
2008/5/13 上午 11:52:11
|
|
|
Simon 一問：
你既然說「我完全信服於教會對聖事的規定」，那麼你會否說「我完全信服於教會的所有規定」呢？
不理解的，我會尋求原因；不同意的，我會發表意見！
但在執行時，在普世教會團結共融的大前提下，我會完全服從教會的決定及規定！
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/13 下午 10:55:59
|
|
|
Simon,
as Edward clearly pointed out: Wheat bread, leaven or not, is valid matter for the consecration.
In the East it is proper to their discipline, it is valid and licit.
In the West it is improper for the Latin Church Tradition and discipline to use leaven bread, however it does not prevent the mass from being valid.
The mass would be valid but illicit (unlawful), examples of such valid illicit masses would be such as:
Masses celebrated by an apostate priest, or a married clergy, or the (God forbids!) Black mass, which is valid but grave sacrilege.
「無酵」不是「必需條件」for validity, yes; for licitness, no: 最多只是「較好條件」罷了: there is no applicability of superiority or inferiority: even Roman Catholic Eastern Rite (under the governance of Rome) uses the leaven bread, although they are Roman Catholics. It is just they belong to different Rites.
However, the use of pure, unmixed with addictives wheat bread is a condition for validity under both Latin and Eastern Rites. I.E., cakes, cookies, hamburgers, rice, roast pork buns....out of bound.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/13 下午 11:09:21
|
|
|
Augustine,
既然有酵或無酵餅都可以構成有效的聖體聖事，而如你所說，無酵不是比有酵好，那麼，羅馬天主教會為甚麼要鄭重地說「must use unleaven bread」?鄭重地叫人跟從一條守則，總有一個理由吧。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/13 下午 11:17:47
|
|
|
The point is even if a dogma not yet defined solemnly with the seal of Infallibility, it is still a dogma that pertains to the Catholic Faith.
The use of wheat bread (unleaven in the Latin Church), although itself clarified under the form of a disciplinary pronouncement, in the Code of Canon Law and elsewhere, carries the dogmatic valor of one that pertains to the Catholic Faith and Morals, this valor supplied by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church.
THe "Decretum pro Armenis (1439)" taught: "cujus materia est panis triticeus" - only wheaten bread.
There, the Pope did not solemnly defined in the particular manner specifically (required by the 1st Vatican Council) as regards Papal Infallibility, but it is still binding on the faithful = as part of Catholic Faith since it is a teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and on top of that, it has a magisterial document mandating it.
Not all Catholic Faith are solemnly defined, exmaples are numerous, that Christ is unmarried all his life, that Christ did not have brothers and sisters, the existence of Guardian Angels, Our Lady as the most elevated created beings...etc.
|
|
