|
作者
|
內容
|
|
靜子
|
Posted -
2003/10/23 上午 12:37:21
|
|
|
各位好﹕
小女子第一次開板發問。看到樓下各位開板討論的問題又非常的深奧而且深入﹐想想我的問題...也實在太明顯地顯露我對自己的信仰認識的膚淺了。只不過﹐ 不開個新板來問﹐ 又不知道可以把問題放在哪裡問﹗﹗﹗
我的問題是﹕請問那塊 [頭巾] 是什麼﹖
我記得唸中學時﹐我的某一兩個同學在進入學校內教堂時 ﹐會把一塊白色的頭巾 (嗯﹐ 我暫時稱它為頭巾﹐因為我不知道它根本叫什麼﹐中英文名字都不知道﹐真有點... -_____-|||) 帶在頭上。 以後﹐步出了學校﹐ 我就沒再看到有年輕人帶那種頭巾了。後來﹐我現在去的白人教堂時﹐ 常常會看到一兩個比我年長兩備的人﹐她們會帶黑色的頭巾。當然﹐ 現在很多人都已經不帶﹐雖然我知道在公教社還有我這裡的一些Catholic Supplies Shops還有可以買得到。請問那塊頭巾的真實名字是什麼﹖ (中英文please...^^|||) 它帶在頭上到底有什麼意義﹖ 為什麼分黑白色呢﹖
感謝各位﹗﹗﹗ [叩首一鞠躬﹐閃到一邊去 =P]
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/10/23 下午 01:29:16
|
|
|
那會否是梵二前通行的女性頭紗﹖
|
|
靜子
|
Posted -
2003/10/24 上午 01:30:40
|
|
|
去非 (兄弟/姊妹)﹕
啊。。大概是吧﹐我根本不知道那塊頭巾/頭紗是什麼出現﹐也不知道它的意義在哪﹗為什麼當今的人都不帶了呢﹖既然不帶﹐ 為什麼公教社和其他Catholic Supply shops都還在賣呢﹖
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/10/24 下午 04:13:19
|
|
|
好像是聖保祿說的(格前),女人在聖堂內要把頭蓋上,所以女性很多時披這頭紗(新娘的頭紗其實也是來自同一傳統).
潮流變了,不等於傳統變,所以有人披也有人不披,只不過如此而已.
|
|
靜子
|
Posted -
2003/10/24 下午 11:42:07
|
|
|
Cecil姊﹕
原來如此﹐可是為什麼又要分黑色和白色的頭紗呢﹖
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/10/27 上午 11:39:15
|
|
|
Black veils are for married women; white veils are for virgin maidens.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/10/30 下午 09:57:49
|
|
|
如果聖保祿真的在聖經中說了女性入教堂要帶頭巾，現在的人不帶，算不算違反天主的旨意？
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/10/31 上午 12:33:39
|
|
|
不知Simon兄是否知道聖保錄宗徒為何說女士應當蒙頭﹖你如果只看格前11:2-16並take it at face value﹐那並不容易能明白那段經文的真正含意。
男士代表基督之光﹔女士代表男士之光。女士蒙頭﹐就是表示掩蓋男士以及自己(女士)之光﹐服從天主的真理(蒙頭有subjection之意)。以我駑鈍之資去理解這段經文背後之意思﹐如果我們不在思言行為上真正的蒙頭﹐那是進不了天國的﹔不在思言行為上真正的蒙頭﹐其本身就代表了不服從天主的旨意。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/10/31 上午 09:48:28
|
|
|
是的,不在思言行為上服從真理,任性而為,不是基督徒的態度.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/11/1 下午 10:02:24
|
|
|
去非：
謝謝你的分享。
我想問：
如果我是活在當時的女性，能否用你的話回答聖保祿呢？也就是說，蒙頭只是象徵，我在思言行為上蒙頭，服從天主的旨意便足夠，不必真的去蒙頭。
如果蒙頭是聖保祿給我們的「傳授」，為甚麼現代教會沒有嚴格執行？是否顯示「宗徒的傳授」是可改變，不是永恆的。
simon
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/11/3 上午 09:22:38
|
|
|
Simon may wish to refer to the Acts of the Apostles concerning Paul's attitude towards circumcision, and his treatment of Timothy.
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/11/5 下午 09:20:36
|
|
|
在以前﹐“男子不能蒙頭而女子要蒙頭”這規舉也不是完全一成不變的。例如﹐中國以前的習俗是男子必須要戴帽子﹔教宗便曾作出過寬免﹐即在中國做彌撒時允許戴帽。以我看來﹐教會一直以來都沒有表面化的去解釋那段經文﹐否則便不能在十六世紀時對中國作出相關的寬免。這是可改變的規矩(以前由教會法所規定)﹔這有點像教區神父守獨身的規矩﹐也是可以改變﹔現在是有結了婚的神父的﹐例如在美國就有。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/11/5 下午 10:02:47
|
|
|
去非：
你是說美國有「結了婚」的神父，還是「結過婚」的神父？
Simon
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/11/5 下午 11:03:22
|
|
|
Simon, you might want to take a look at the following excerpt from an article at Catholic.net:
Father James Parker of Charleston, S.C., was a married Protestant minister who was allowed to become a married Catholic priest after his conversion. He told us a few years ago, “People who think celibacy is difficult and should not be a requirement for priests don’t understand the sacrament of marriage or the nature of the priesthood.”
Another married priest, Father Richard Bradford of Brighton, Mass., told the Register, “My wife, Judie, defends celibacy because she sees firsthand the responsibilities I have to my Church.”
Married Melkite priest Father Miguel Grave de Peralta told the Register that “those favoring a married Catholic clergy assume marriage doesn’t have stress and tensions. I see a lot of parallels between the married life and the celibate life. The intensity of devotion required for both is tremendous.”
His wife, Ana, told us, “Very few people understand or know how big a sacrifice it is for the priest and his family. It’s an offering the wife makes, often placing herself in second, or even third place. The pastoral obligations must always come first.”
From Catholic.net: Celibacy Will Save the Priesthood
|
|
Mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2003/11/6 上午 01:14:17
|
|
|
這個蒙頭的問題﹐還有吃動物的血和不放血之肉類的問題﹐是明顯的宗徒傳承。明文記載于新約。是沒有理由不加以遵守的。
傳統天主教地區直到二十世紀初期還保持着女子在公共祈禱(特別是聖堂內)蒙頭的習慣。因此在這個問題上正教沒有對天主教作過任何評論。
但是關於天主教“允許”教徒吃血和未放盡血之肉類一案。記得大聖福爵曾經明確加以譴責的。
個人認為﹐女子進堂不蒙頭至少是可憎的行為。
而在“明知”和“故意”的情況下吃血和未放血的肉類﹐其罪等同于周三周五吃非齋食。若不經告解﹐並作補贖﹐不可以領聖體血。
|
|
JM
|
Posted -
2003/11/6 上午 01:40:33
|
|
|
Greetings from Boston.
Thought the above news/article about married priests in USA may deserve a little clarification -- that it is NOT a general option for Roman Catholic clergy of the Latin Rite. I did a quick web search at EWTN and find http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MARPRIE.htm I am sure we can find the actual document from the Pope if we search deeper.
Celibacy is waived as a favor to those married clergy converting from Episcopal/Anglican denomination. As recent as Sept 4, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, reaffirms celibacy in response to Milwaukee petition. See http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-176.htm
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/11/6 上午 10:00:20
|
|
|
Seems we would need a new topic: Celibacy A Must for our Clergy?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2003/11/6 上午 10:40:03
|
|
|
Cecillia, "A must"?
You know that we have married priests, so how can we say "a must", if it is not a meaningless statement, it is a always false one.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/11/6 下午 03:53:56
|
|
|
Phenomenally it is false; practically it isn't, since for the major group of our clergy,those who entered into priesthood as single would never stay as a clergy if they get married.
The 'false' statement would at best be an exception and not the rule, I would say.
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2003/11/6 下午 04:04:29
|
|
|
Having read what brother Mitrophanes posted up earlier on here, I am quite convinced that our priests should not be restricted to celibate ones.
I find it particularly convincing that married men should also be able to have a vocation to priesthood, as much as single ones.
I personally think that one major reason why the number of religious vocations dropped so drastically is because of this restraint - young men are much more reluctant to take the vow of chastity than they used to before.
Honestly, I believe genuinely that even those who have took the vow are now regreting that they did it then.
It becomes a much sounder decision if the guy is grown up, mature, probably even married once (but widowed or annulled), and have came to know life better than young kids inside seminaries.
|
