|
作者
|
內容
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/13 下午 11:25:34
|
|
|
Some of the reasons why Roman Church used unleaven bread is:
the Gospels clearly stated Christ used unleaven bread: (Mt. 26:17, Mk 14:12, Lk 22:7)
"and the day of the unleavened bread came".
In the Christian West unleaven bread has been in use throughout history, so there is the testimony of Church tradition.
In no way the following logic holds:
(1) Validity does not require use of unleaven bread,
(2) The Latin Church insists on unleaven bread for licitness;
(3) "Therefore", the Latin Church insists on something which is not an absolutely a requirement for validity.
(4) "Therefore", something the Latin Church taught could be "redundant" - that is not pertaining to the Catholic Faith Morals.
(5) "Therefore", we should hold something higher than what the Church taught as the rule of thumb, we call it the "essential or minimal message of Christianity"
(6) Cafeteria Catholicism is OK as long as what is picked and chosen is "compatible" or "I think is compatible" with this so-called "essential minimal Christianity"
Which step went wrong and why?
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/14 上午 01:07:26
|
|
|
算我英文差，我看不明白第五和第六點的意思。每個英文字我都懂，但就是不明白你想表達甚麼。
還是直接回答老問題吧：
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。
Edward,
你在看這段留言嗎？你的見解有時我不同意，但你寫的文字，我通常能看懂。
懇請你回答我的提問，因為我很想知道答案。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/14 上午 11:23:53
|
|
|
試想想這段說話：
某權威說：「你必須使用『無酵』餅舉行聖體聖事，因為只有用『無酵』餅才是合法的。但其實如果用『有酵』餅舉行聖體聖事，也是有效的，而且『無酵』也不是真的比『有酵』好。但總之一句講完，你必須用無酵餅啦！」
誰會真心服從這種權威？？
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/14 上午 11:31:09
|
|
|
Augustine,
你曾說：「Without the proper matter (the bread) no valid consecration can be effected. That would not be a Mass at all. I would consider this fortunate lest the real Blessed Sacrament be desecrated in such a profanity. Perhaps Father used the invalid matter deliberately to avoid a desecration?」
你還未告訴大家，你憑甚麼認為那個餅是invalid？
你的指控（說神父用invalid matter開彌撒），是一個很嚴重的指控。
若把一個「真實的聖體」說成「假聖體」，也是一種desecration。小心。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/14 下午 12:37:51
|
|
|
Simon,
I thought you said you read and know every word in my previous post.
"the Gospels clearly stated Christ used unleaven bread: (Mt. 26:17, Mk 14:12, Lk 22:7)
"and the day of the unleavened bread came"."
This is a reason why it is commendable to use unleaven bread instead of leaven.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/14 下午 12:59:24
|
|
|
Point (5) and (6) means:
According to a certain thinking:
Since the Roman Catholic Church taught that unleaven bread alone be used at mass, but it is also accepted that leaven bread would not cause a mass to be invalid, "therefore" the Latin Church requires something "redundant".
Although Christ himself in the Gospels used unleaven bread, to me it is still "redundant" since the mass is still valid.
Now,
If the Church requires something alleged "redundant", something else required by the Church "could" "also" be "redundant".
So I can pick and choose which of are "redundant" and not to accpet them as I wish. That is, I pick and choose "whatever I think" is not an application of "Love God and Love neighbor" "principle" - a principle I picked.
So for example, the Church Magisterium's instructions on the necessity of oral confession to a priest, or prohibition of contraception, women priests, married clergy or homosexualty..... is "redundant" because in my mind they are not applications of "Love God and Love Men". So I have the "right" not the accept them.
Also, those not yet defined articles of Faith such as the necessity to make a good confession at least once a year, the existence of Guardian Angels, Our Lady's role as Mother of the Church, the necessity of prayer to salvation, that Christ was unmarried throughout his earthly life, all these commonly taught Catholic Faith...... so long they are not defined, if I "think" they are not direct consequence of "Love God and Love Men" principle, then
I am "free" to not accept them as part of my Catholic Faith.
------------
The dispute on "Unleaven or Leaven or not" is only a small tip of the iceberg.
All those attacks (or "discussion" as they call it) on key disciplines and teachings by the Church are just manifestations of the "pick and choose" cafeteria-catholic type of mentality.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2008/5/14 下午 01:20:01
|
|
|
There are reasons why the unleaven bread is recommendable. But it is NOT because of these reasons that catholics use unleaven bread. Catholics are obliged to use unleavened bread even if there is no special reasons "why" it is "better". All it takes is a little bit humility and obedience.
Why catholics go to mass on Sundays? It was not defined. Can anyone give me a "good" "reason" why Sundays is better than Tuesday?
Why catholics don't eat meat on Good Fridays? It was not defined. Can anyone give me a "good" "reason" why not eating meat is "better" than eating meat then?
Why catholics confess orally to a priest of his sins? It was not defined. Can anyone give me a "good" reason why I shouldn't confess directly to God?
As long as I do not give a "good" "enough" "reason" why these are "better". Don't tell me the Church taught it, it is not "good" "enough" for me. I would not follow them. As long as I am ("I think I am") still fulfilling "love God and love men".
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/14 下午 04:43:25
|
|
|
Augustine,
I hope you would answer the question below. When you have done that, I will respond to what you have just said. Thanks.
你還未告訴大家，你憑甚麼認為那個餅是invalid？
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/16 下午 10:55:03
|
|
|
Augustine,
如果你沒有實質證據或理由去支持你的說法（指那個餅是invalid），那就請你收回你的說話。
宜慎言。共勉之。
|
|
morrie
|
Posted -
2008/5/17 上午 03:24:19
|
|
|
「在舉行感恩祭時，司鐸無論在何處獻祭，應按拉丁教會古老的傳統，使用無酵餅。」（天主教法典926條）
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2008/5/18 下午 12:04:53
|
|
|
西滿兄：
小弟在五月十一日留言的意思，不是很清楚了嗎？
請問你還有何問題？
觀乎此題由一月討論至今，小弟理解奧兄的擔憂。當一台彌撒的舉行，與人們慣常經歷的表達方式是那麼截然不同時，對於那台彌撒的有效性產生疑問甚至困惑，是不難理解的。
小弟本人可以證實，該台Koinonia彌撒所使用的麵餅，的確是由無酵的麥餅烘成的。基於重要理由，當中詳情在此不再細述了。
合法而虔敬地舉行聖祭，為教友們靈性的平安是何等重要。當神職人員在舉行禮儀時漠視教會的紀律，只是將信眾的祈禱之所轉變為「戰場」而矣。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/18 下午 11:18:08
|
|
|
Edward,
如果Augustine只是表示「擔憂」或「困惑」，那還可以理解。
但Augustine是說：「Without the proper matter (the bread) no valid consecration can be effected. That would not be a Mass at all. I would consider this fortunate lest the real Blessed Sacrament be desecrated in such a profanity. Perhaps Father used the invalid matter deliberately to avoid a desecration?」
這段說話，似乎不單是擔憂或困惑，而是相當肯定神父是用了不及格的餅，以致聖體是無效的。Augustine還要加一句：「或許神父是故意用不及格的物質，以避免褻瀆天主。」
我認為那是對一台有效彌撒（包括耶穌的聖體）嚴重失實的指控。作為一個天主教徒，那是很不該的。
現在你明白我為甚麼要追問Augustine嗎？
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
Augustine,
如果你沒有實質證據或理由去支持你的說法（指那個餅是invalid），那就請你收回你的說話。
人人都有說錯話的時候，我也常常會說錯話。自知錯了，就應改正。
共勉之。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/18 下午 11:39:46
|
|
|
Edward,
你的留言寫得很清楚。我能看懂。
但我還是要追問：
既然有酵或無酵餅都可以構成有效的聖體聖事，為甚麼羅馬天主教會要鄭重地說必須用無酵餅呢？
「必須」一詞，排他性很強。
若說：「我們必須用無酵餅來舉行聖體聖事，但別人（東正教會）用有酵餅來做，其實同樣有效，是真實的聖體。」
我作為一個思想正常的人，就看不懂當中的邏輯了。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2008/5/19 上午 08:28:58
|
|
|
Dear Simon,
Every assertive sentence has its own universe of discourse.
Firstly, it has been a common teaching among theologians as well as an established doctrine that the valid matter for consecrating the Eucharist is wheat bread alone, whether leavened or unleavened. We must understand the ruling of the Church in this light.
It is clear from the context of the legislation that the necessary condition of using of unleavened bread for the licit celebration of the Eucharist pertains to matter of discipline within the Latin Rite.
Therefore if the Church says "Unleavened bread must be used for celebrating the Eucharist". These words are addressed to the Latin Rite Catholics. It is not even binding for Catholics of the Eastern rite.
A similar analogy is the requirement of celibacy for candidates of Priesthood within the Latin Rite.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/19 下午 01:32:40
|
|
|
Edward,
客觀地看有酵和無酵餅，我們可否這樣說：
羅馬天主教會規定必需用無酵餅作聖體聖事，是因為那是拉丁禮的傳統。但無酵餅是否比有酵餅有額外好處，我們（包括教宗）其實不清楚。
|
|
Pooh-Pooh
|
Posted -
2008/5/19 下午 01:55:58
|
|
|
拉丁禮傳統用無酵，所謂"額外好處"，是否從物質本身的物理／化學狀態來考慮；如更容易保存等？
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/19 下午 05:26:35
|
|
|
似乎不是吧。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/5/22 下午 11:12:04
|
|
|
當人人都守著同一條規則，但全世界都沒有人說得清守著這條規則的優點，很有喜劇感。
再問一次：以拉丁禮進行彌撒，為甚麼一定要用無酵餅？
|
|
hkgck
|
Posted -
2008/6/17 下午 06:57:00
|
|
|
某權威的一個意見，跟另一個權威的意見互相矛盾，什至自相矛盾的事實，早於教父時代出現！
但已被聖多瑪斯解釋這個情況出現的原因，及最終結果！
看來Simon還是須要回家看看《神學大全》，再研究《士林哲學》後，再回來「討論」吧！
P.S. Simon這個權威原來也經常自常矛盾！說謊、作故仔還真要很強大的記性呀！
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2008/6/17 下午 10:33:01
|
|
|
hkgck,
若說我有自相矛盾的言論，那不奇怪，因為人就是有說錯話的時候，我是人，教宗也是人。
若說我說謊，我也不會否認。因為在日常生活中，人就是有說謊的習慣（口不對心的言詞），我是人，教宗也是人。
但在這個網站，關於神學的言論，我不自覺故意說謊。麻煩你告訴我在哪一個留言我說了謊，好讓我反省一下。
至於你稱我為「權威」，我不敢當。我只是一個喜歡反省信仰和提問的人。我連《神學大全》都未見過，怎可能是權威？你知道有《神學大全》這部書，顯然你比我高明百倍。
|
