|
作者
|
內容
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/8/31 下午 02:57:10
|
|
|
Professio fidei是連埋Ad tuendam fidem一齊出的,所以其實我是說同一份解釋.
|
|
mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2005/8/31 下午 04:21:31
|
|
|
//在古代社會, 一個有土地的猶太人自殺, 除非這人突然發傻, 否則最合理的解釋是他悔罪自殺. 故此, 猶達斯既然有死時悔罪(傳統的教理稱之為血洗)的可能, 你又如何能証明他必定至死不悔呢?//
悔罪自殺=血洗？？？？
！！！！！！！！！！！
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2005/8/31 下午 04:42:04
|
|
|
米兄:
我可以幾肯定傳統的血洗不是指這位兄弟所說的情況,所以你不用太震驚.
血洗應是指雖未領洗,卻為主殉道的情況,對嗎?
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2005/8/31 下午 09:04:47
|
|
|
To mitrophanes 及 靚仔,
天主教教理1258條: 教會歷來確信那些為了信仰而致命的人，雖然沒有接受水洗，而是透過他們為基督而死、並與基督同死，而受洗的。這是血洗，如同願洗一樣，雖然沒有聖事形式，卻結出聖洗的果實。
- 我不是同意自殺的行為,(正如我不同意殺人的行為, 但歷史中的教會的確曾有為了信仰而殺人的行為) 但是如果這死亡是為了信仰而做出, 他的確有獲得血洗的可能, 如本人有什麼理解錯誤的地方, 請指正.
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2005/8/31 下午 09:49:15
|
|
|
To Edward,
再看埋宗一20, 原來「應驗經上的話」甚至不是指猶達斯的死亡, 而只是『願他的居所變成荒土，沒有人在那裏居住』及『讓人取去他的職位』。除非你認為路加的思想是錯的,否則在若望福音十七12中, 耶穌口所說的「應驗經上的話的喪亡」 , 亦只是『願他的居所變成荒土，沒有人在那裏居住』及『讓人取去他的職位』而已。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/8/31 下午 10:22:28
|
|
|
曉拔兄：
聖伯多祿宗徒，乃是引述聖詠109篇。請記得當中亦有如下字句：
「使他受審時，被判為罪犯；
使他的辯護，仍構成罪案。」
若猶達斯的所作所為，應驗了這篇聖詠的話，那麼主耶穌所述的「喪亡之子」，可謂新約應驗舊約了。
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2005/8/31 下午 10:27:52
|
|
|
To Edward,
這樣, 為什麼聖伯多祿宗徒不說
「使他受審時，被判為罪犯；
使他的辯護，仍構成罪案。」
是「應驗經上的話」呢?
「應驗經上的話」,是否要整篇聖詠109一字不漏實現才叫「應驗」呢?
另外, 聖詠109篇還有以下的經文, 你是否認為天主都會一一「應驗」在猶達斯身上呢?
１３願他的後裔全被斬盡滅絕，他們的姓名被塗抹於後代。
１４願上主記念他父親的罪愆，總不要赦免他母親的過犯；
１５叫那些罪永留在上主前，從地上除去他們的記念。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2005/8/31 下午 11:00:11
|
|
|
如果有人說：「猶達斯很大可能已下了地獄，基於聖經中怎樣怎樣說.....」這是可接受的。
如果有人說：「我百分百肯定猶達斯已下了地獄，因為聖經中怎樣怎樣說」那是相當魯妄的。
我們常常強調，了解聖經，不單是字面，還有其背後意思。
魯妄的人啊！你以為你已完全掌握所有關於猶達斯的資料嗎？如果沒有，怎可以那麼百分百肯定他已下地獄？？耶穌在聖經中，曾親口說右盜會上天國，但沒有親口說過猶達斯必下地獄。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/9/1 下午 10:43:29
|
|
|
西滿兄：
這不是魯妄與否的問題。關鍵是在於：我們能否從聖經中獲得確定的道理。
一個月前，小弟認為「猶達斯受永罰」是比較可靠的意見。經過這幾天的搜尋，令我對此一道理十分肯定。
小弟的理解是有多位教父及聖師的道理作為根據的。請參閱以下的引述。
曉拔兄：
若根據教父的理解，若十七12所述的預言，至少是指詠109:7-8的經文，應驗在猶達斯身上。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/9/1 下午 10:53:40
|
|
|
POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT
On the Passion (Sermon LIV)
III. Judas’ infamy has never been exceeded.
And hence, Judas, thou art proved more criminal and unhappier than all; for when repentance should have called thee back to the LORD, despair dragged thee to the halter. Thou shouldest have awaited the completion of thy crime, and have put off thy ghastly death by hanging, until Christ’s Blood was shed for all sinners. And among the many miracles and gifts of the LORD’S which might have aroused thy conscience, those holy mysteries, at least, might have rescued thee from thy headlong fall, which at the Paschal supper thou hadst received, being even then detected in thy treachery by the sign of Divine knowledge. Why dost thou distrust the goodness of Him, Who did not repel thee from the communion of His body and blood, Who did not deny thee the kiss of peace when thou camest with crowds and a band of armed men to seize Him. But O man that nothing could convert, O “spirit going and not returning,” thou didst follow thy heart’s rage, and, the devil standing at thy right hand, didst turn the wickedness, which thou hadst prepared against the life of all the saints, to thine own destruction, so that, because thy crime had exceeded all measure of punishment, thy wickedness might make thee thine own judge, thy punishment allow thee to be thine own hangman.
Sermon LXII
IV. Why Judas could not obtain forgiveness through Christ.
To this forgiveness the traitor Judas could not attain: for he, the son of perdition, at whose right the devil stood, gave himself up to despair before Christ accomplished the mystery of universal redemption. For in that the LORD died for sinners, perchance even he might have found salvation if he had not hastened to hang himself. But that evil heart, which was now given up to thievish frauds, and now busied with treacherous designs, had never entertained aught of the proofs of the Saviour’s mercy. Those wicked ears had heard the LORD’S words, when He said, “I came not to call the righteous but sinners,” and “The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost,” but they conveyed not to his understanding the clemency of Christ, which not only healed bodily infirmities, but also cured the wounds of sick souls, saying to the paralytic man, “Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee;” saying also to the adulteress that was brought to Him, “neither will I condemn thee; go and sin no more,” to show in all His works that He had come as the Saviour, not the Judge of the world. But the wicked traitor refused to understand this, and took measures against himself, not in the self-condemnation of repentance, but in the madness of perdition, and thus he who had sold the Author of life to His murderers, even in dying increased the amount of sin which condemned him.
ST. AUGUSTINE
Selected Sermons on New Testament (Sermon VI)
Hast thou not heard or read in the Psalm [109], in which the damnable end of the traitor Judas is foretold, how the prophecy spake of him, “Let his prayer be turned into sin? If then thou risest up, and prayest for evil on thine enemies, thy “prayer will be turned into sin.”
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
Homilies on the Epistles (Homily XXXII)
At any rate, many have displayed gifts, and yet on becoming vicious have been punished: as those who “prophesied in His name, and cast out many demons, and wrought many mighty works;” as Judas the traitor.
Homilies on the Gospel of John (Homily XLVII)
Hearing therefore these things, learn we always to be sober and to watch. For if when he who was reckoned among that holy band, who had enjoyed so great a gift, who had wrought miracles, (for he too was with the others who were sent to raise the dead and to heal lepers,) if when he was seized by the dreadful disease of covetousness, and betrayed his Master, neither the favors, nor the gifts, nor the being with Christ, nor the attendance on Him, nor the washing the feet, nor the sharing His table, nor the bearing the bag, availed him, if these things rather served to help on his punishment, let us also fear lest we ever through covetousness imitate Judas.
Homilies on the Gospel of John (Homily LXXXIII)
See the forbearance of the Evangelist, how he doth not insult over the traitor, but relates what took place, only desiring to prove one thing, that the whole took place with His own consent. … after having shown to them all things which should have been sufficient to repulse them, when they persevered in their wickedness, and had no excuse.
Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew (Homily LXXXV)
Hear, ye covetous, consider what befell him; how he at the same time lost the money, and committed the sin, and destroyed his own soul. Such is the tyranny of covetousness. He enjoyed not the money, neither the present life, nor that to come, but lost all at once, and having got a bad character even with those very men, so hanged himself.
Homilies on Timothy (Homily II)
He wrought through Judas and those other that “prophesied,” to whom He will say, “I never knew you; depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity”
Homilies on Timothy (Homily VI)
Paul was an earthen vessel, and became a golden one. Judas was a golden vessel, and became an earthen one.
JOHN CASSIAN
Conferences, with Abbot Joseph, Chapter 25
Finally, when the Lord would for their speedy fall turn away His merciful countenance from the people, whom He had chosen out of all nations, the giver of the law interposes on their behalf and cries out: “I beseech Thee, O Lord, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold; and now if Thou forgivest their sin, forgive it; but if not, blot me out of Thy book which Thou hast written. To whom the Lord answered: If any man hath sinned before Me, I will blot him out of My book.” David also, when complaining in prophetic spirit of Judas and the Lord’s persecutors, says: “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living;” and because they did not deserve to come to saving penitence because of the guilt of their great sin, he subjoins: “And let them not be written among the righteous.” Finally in the case of Judas himself the meaning of the prophetic curse was clearly fulfilled, for when his deadly sin was completed, he killed himself by hanging, that he might not after his name was blotted out be converted and repent and deserve to be once more written among the righteous in heaven.
Conference with Abbot Piamun, Chapter 16
the chaff which is destined for eternal fire is quite sure to be mingled with the choicest of the wheat. Finally if we bear in mind that Satan was chosen among the angels, and Judas among the apostles, and Nicholas the author of a detestable heresy among the deacons, it will be no wonder that the basest of men are found among the ranks of the saints.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
De veritate (vol. 1, q. 6, art. 2).
"Now, in the case of Judas, the abuse of grace was the reason for his reprobation, since he was made reprobate because he died without grace"
ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA
Dialogue With The Lord
“This is that sin which is never forgiven, now or ever: the refusal, the scorning, of my mercy. For this offends me more than all the other sins they have committed. So the despair of Judas displeased me more and was a greater insult to my Son than his betrayal had been. Therefore, such as these are reproved for this false judgment of considering their sin to be greater than my mercy, and for this they are punished with the demons and tortured eternally with them”
ST. THOMAS MORE
The Sadness of Christ
“The place of Scripture which predicts that Judas would perish is in Psalm 109, where the psalmist prophesies in the form of a prayer: 'May his days be few, and may another take over his ministry. …
… the fact that this prophetic utterance applies to Judas was suggested by Christ [Jn. 17:12], was made clear by Judas's suicide, was afterwards made quite explicit by Peter [Acts 1:20], and was fulfilled by all the apostles when Mathias was chosen by lot to take his place [Acts 1:26] and thus another took over his ministry.... He [Christ] has spoken: "Father, I have guarded those whom you gave to me, and none of them has perished except the son of perdition." I think it worthwhile to consider here for a moment how strongly Christ foretold in these words the contrast between the end of Judas and the end of the rest, the ruination of the traitor Judas and the success of the others. For He asserts each future outcome with such certainty that He announces them not as future happenings but as events that have already definitely taken place....
“Infallibly certain about the fate of the traitor, Christ expresses his future ruin with such certainty that He asserts it as if it had already come to pass.”
ST. TERESA OF AVILA
Autobiography, Chapter 25
This seems to me to be in principle the temptation of Judas, only that Satan did not dare to tempt me so openly. But he might have led me by little and little, as he led Judas, to the same pit of destruction.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2005/9/1 下午 11:09:00
|
|
|
edward,
你要肯定，我是不能阻止的。
很多人認同一件事情，不表示這一定對。
猶達斯是否在地獄，我將來應該有機會知道的。與其估計（甚至表示肯定）耶穌會怎樣判，不如觀察耶穌怎樣判。
我的世界和你的世界很不同，你有很多「絕對肯定」，我有很多「頗大機會」、「較小機會」、「不知道」。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/9/1 下午 11:56:32
|
|
|
西滿兄：
大小機會和不知道的事物，每人都有很多。問題是在於：面對不同的事物和關係，有著不同程度的肯定和機會。
小弟在聖經一欄所問的各種問題，其實不就是對很多東西未能肯定的表現嗎？
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2005/9/2 下午 02:42:54
|
|
|
To Edward:
猶達斯的確是犯了出賣耶穌的罪行, 但三次否認耶穌的伯多祿也成為教會的磐石, 為何你能肯定一次出賣耶穌的猶達斯會至死不悔而永不超生呢?
你所列出的「特選」經文的確說得沒有錯, 猶達斯曾做出出賣耶穌的可耻行為, 他又的確曾被魔鬼誘惑而倒下. 不過, 我想請問你及網上的各位: 「試問你們在一生中有沒有因金錢而出賣過耶穌? 試問你們在一生中又有沒有被魔鬼誘惑而倒下過?」如果各位是「有」的話, 你是否肯定自己必下地獄呢? 當然, 如果你堅信自己是「沒有」的話, 那麼你的確是有資格繼續肯定猶達斯必下地獄.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/9/2 下午 10:18:46
|
|
|
曉拔兄：
若閣下有細心閱讀大聖良教宗的講道詞，或聖金口若望的闡述，則應該明白，猶達斯下地獄的主要原由並非單單因為他出賣主耶穌，而更是因為他至死不悔，並拒絕接受天主的憐憫。
在天主面前，沒有不可能被赦免的罪。但若人至死拒絕聖神的啟迪，則如主耶穌所說般：在今生及來生都不得被赦免。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2005/9/2 下午 10:59:17
|
|
|
edward，
你說猶達斯至死不悔，我倒要問你：「你如何得知，猶達斯在斷氣前的零點零零一秒，沒有悔改呢？」
對不能肯定的事物表示肯定，不是信德，是魯妄加迷信。小心。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/9/2 下午 11:55:06
|
|
|
西滿兄：
隨閣下怎麼說吧。
我們並非是「因為」知道猶達斯至死不悔而知道他最終下地獄，而是因為主耶穌首先肯定了猶達斯最終受永罰的結果，我們才「肯定」他最終沒有悔改。
聖良教宗、聖金口若望主教、聖多瑪斯、聖女大德蘭和聖加大利納，全部都被列為教會的「聖師」。我真誠地希望您只是說小弟，而是說他們的見解「魯妄加迷信」。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2005/9/3 上午 01:17:33
|
|
|
「對不能肯定的事物表示肯定，不是信德，是魯妄加迷信。小心。」
以上是一句 general advice，適用於任何人。
或許我悟性不高，我看不出耶穌曾清楚地說過，猶達斯已進了地獄。
你的思考模式和我很不同：
你先以前輩的言論，去「證明」耶穌判了猶達斯下地獄。
然後，你說猶達斯下地獄的原因，是因為「死不悔改」。
何以得知他死不悔改？因為「耶穌判了猶達斯下地獄」！
前輩的言論，真能「證明」耶穌的判決嗎？
我保持一個很大的問號。
正因為這個問號，我不會「肯定」一些我其實不肯定的事物。如果我那麼做，是魯妄加迷信的表現。
「對不能肯定的事物表示肯定，不是信德，是魯妄加迷信。小心。」
以上是一句 general advice，適用於任何人。包括我。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2005/9/3 上午 01:21:54
|
|
|
edward，
你知道我一向說話大膽。
想問一問你：「你認為極出色的人，有沒有魯妄或迷信的時候？有沒有犯錯的時候？」
我不會把極出色的人，當神一樣看待，以為他們從不犯錯。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/9/3 上午 08:28:04
|
|
|
西滿兄：
也許我們可以重溫一下先前有關「聖亡死亡」一事的討論。
小弟對「肯定」的定義是：理智在排除合理懷疑後對某命題真確性的認同。
教會內有很多教義或道理，是不能單憑聖經的字面意義所「整合」出來的。教義的發展，本質上需要有「聖傳」的支持。
為何我們能對「聖母始胎無玷」和「聖母蒙召升天」這些道理，予以「信德的肯定」去認同？原因就是：我們的理智，能肯定地判斷出聖經以外、教會傳統之內「屬於天主啟示」和「闡釋天主啟示」的部分。
聖奧斯定「肯定」聖母沒有原罪，同時亦「肯定」猶達斯最終受永罰。這些「肯定」的原因，不是在於他們對個別人士行為的觀察、個別主觀判斷甚至揣測，而是基於他們相信該些事物屬於傳下來的啟示內容。
基於這份對傳統的尊重，當聖奧斯定以其理智分析，表示「眾人都沾染原罪而需要基督的救贖」時，他亦很著意地將聖母的事例排除於「討論」之外。該項要點，最後在中世紀發展成「聖母始胎無玷」的「啟示教義」來，且被我們這輩教友「以信德肯定」。
同樣，教父們相信猶達斯受永罰，並非在於他們認為「出賣教主」、「上吊自殺」和「死得恐佈」就表示該些罪行或災禍肯定「某人下地獄」的事實。他們認為猶達斯受永罰，是基於救主在福音中曾確實如此肯定。
若將他們該種肯定稱為「迷信及沒有信德」（不「聖」）和「魯妄」（不堪為「師」），是對聖師們的侮辱。
誠然，教父們不是「神」，亦非不能錯的導師。但他們大部分甚至眾口同聲所認同為「事實」的事物，是值得認真對待的。
西滿兄曾聲稱，您的信仰基礎在於「原文不會有錯的聖經」之上。我倒很有興趣知道：
（一）西滿兄有否研讀過聖經的原文；
（二）為何閣下會達致「原文聖經不會有錯」的「肯定」；
（三）為何您沒有「合理地懷疑」聖經「共具七十三卷」的道理？
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2005/9/3 上午 10:21:10
|
|
|
To Edward,
如果你相信「大聖良教宗的講道詞，或聖金口若望的闡述」, 每一句說話都是「永遠正確的真理」, 那麼, 我都不會反對你肯定猶達斯是至死不悔, 不過我希望你不會只認為有利自己立場的「大聖良教宗或聖金口若望的「特選」經文」就「值得認真對待的」, 而不利自己立場的就「不值得認真對待的」啦!
另外, 張春申神父似乎並不認同你所說『聖奧斯定「肯定」聖母沒有原罪』，張神父認為聖奧斯定沒有「肯定」聖母沒有原罪，而只是「肯定」聖母沒有本罪.
見link
|
|
hubert
|
Posted -
2005/9/3 上午 11:12:39
|
|
|
To Edward,
另外, 我覺得你的思考倒有點一廂情願...
首先:
(1) 你說：『「肯定」的定義是：理智在排除合理懷疑後對某命題真確性的認同。』
(2) 你又說：『我們的理智，能肯定地判斷出聖經以外、教會傳統之內「屬於天主啟示」和「闡釋天主啟示」的部分。』
- 如果你的(2)是基於你的(1)前設, 你的(2)一定是正確. 正如如果:
(1) 我說：『「肯定」的定義是：主觀感性在排除合理懷疑後對某命題真確性的認同。』
(2) 我的也確可以說：『我們的主觀感性，能肯定地判斷出聖經以外、教會傳統之內「屬於天主啟示」和「闡釋天主啟示」的部分。』
另外,
(1) 你說：『「肯定」的定義是：理智在排除合理懷疑後對某命題真確性的認同。』
(2) 你又說：『我們能對「聖母始胎無玷」和「聖母蒙召升天」這些道理，予以「信德的肯定」去認同。』
- 按你的定義,「信德的肯定」應該是「信德的理智在排除合理懷疑後對某命題真確性的認同。」你是如何介定什麼是「有信德的理智」 和 「沒有信德的理智」呢? 「有信德的理智」是否已經預設了「聖母始胎無玷」和「聖母蒙召升天」這些道理予以認同呢?
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/9/3 下午 01:41:58
|
|
|
曉拔兄：
一
根據閣下之引文，張春申神父未有提出「聖奧斯定不肯定」的理據。
聖奧斯定《De natura et gratia》：
Excepta itaque sancta virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus,cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quaestionem - unde enim scimus quid ei plus gratiae collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum, quae concipere ac parere meruit, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum?」(De natura et gratia, 36)
「unde enim scimus quid ei plus gratiae collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum」（我們得知她〔瑪利亞〕被賦予多於足夠之恩寵，以徹底征服罪之任何部分）
根據何種理解，這「omni ex parte peccatum」不包括原罪？
二
小弟不是只嘗找出「有利自己」的論據出來。而是真的找不到、找了幾晚也找不到……
閣下若有來自教父的論據，表明猶達斯不在地獄，則歡迎提供。在下洗耳恭聽！
三
關於聖母死亡的一欄討論中，本人業已指出，在「信德的肯定」裡，排除合理懷疑的充分條件，就是在於「教會的定斷」。
按照定義，信德不可能不是一項「理智」行為。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2005/9/3 下午 10:53:25
|
|
|
有待edward解釋的矛盾：
edward說：「小弟對『肯定』的定義是：理智在排除合理懷疑後對某命題真確性的認同。」
法庭判一項刑事罪，也是用「排除合理懷疑」作標準。事實告訴我們，久不久就會有冤獄的出現。顯然，人所「肯定」的東西，也可以有錯。再次證明，有人的地方，就會有錯。
edward說：「教父們相信猶達斯受永罰......他們認為猶達斯受永罰，是基於救主在福音中曾確實如此肯定。」
為甚麼教宗若祿保祿二世那麼「沒用」？教父肯定的事物，edward肯定的事，教宗若望保祿二世卻不能肯定。而simon又和教宗若望保祿二世同樣「沒用」，同樣不能肯定這麼簡單的道理。
edward說：「誠然，教父們不是『神』，亦非不能錯的導師。但他們大部分甚至眾口同聲所認同為『事實』的事物，是值得認真對待的。」
我沒有說「不值得認真對待」，我只是說：很多有見識的人，說相同的話，並不代表這話一定正確。古代教會中人，也有很多有見識之士，認為地球不是繞著太陽走。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2005/9/3 下午 11:08:32
|
|
|
edward問我：
（一）西滿兄有否研讀過聖經的原文；
（二）為何閣下會達致「原文聖經不會有錯」的「肯定」；
（三）為何您沒有「合理地懷疑」聖經「共具七十三卷」的道理？
（一）明知答案，還走去問人，意義不大。
我連英文也搞不好，怎可能讀聖經原文？
（二）聖經是在神的默感下寫成，我只可憑此相信原文不錯。聖經的翻譯，也是在神的默感下完成嗎？
（三）聖經應該有多少卷，我未有時間認真研究。我連四分一部聖經也未讀完。我的志願是死前讀完一次聖經。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/9/4 下午 02:52:09
|
|
|
西滿兄：
一
所以human certainty和certainty of faith之間的確有分別。
二
每個人的信仰歷程中，可能都會有些「困難」之處。正如在您和Balthasar的信仰生活中，「地獄」是一難題；我亦認識一位朋友，直到現在仍無法接受「為何我們可以殺害動物來取食」；真福德蘭修女內心的一種莫名的「孤寂」等。己故教宗的師長、Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange在評述聖多瑪斯有關「聖母始胎無玷」神學的思想發展時，稱這為神學家靈修生活的「三部曲」
第一階段：他樂於接受從教會傳統所繼承得來的事物。
第二階段：人生閱歷漸深，開始領略到「傳統」中的一些真正困難之處，因而對傳統的某些表述，採取較為「保留」的態度。
第三階段：神學思想更進一步，困難得以克服或昇華，返回傳統。
若以已故教宗的個人思想而言，也許他是比較同情Von Balthasar的看法（即：「地獄可能無人」），可見於他在1999年7月28日的教理演說。若您有留意到他所說的：
… Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it …
以上是他的口述版本。但在真正出街的「正式版本」（Insegnamenti）時，則為：
… Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of which human beings are effectively involved in it …
很明顯地，這反映了他經過深思熟慮後所作出的改變。教宗保祿二世，在該議題上，明顯放棄了他個人的喜好，而願意認同教會所肯定的事物。
相似的過程，亦反映於〈基督的靈魂〉（Anima Christi）一曲的作者、真福教宗若望廿二世身上。
三
「教會古時很多有識之士，認為地球不是繞著太陽走」
據您所言，教會古時有哪些教父，是如此聲稱，或眾口同聲地如此聲稱？
聖經中的「天文學」和「末世論」是其實是兩個不同的問題。
科學命題，有進一步向更新發現（或觀察結果）開放的可能。但我們需要理解的是：聖經中論及「地心」（geocentric）的言論，是否屬於一項科學命題（scientific statement）。
「九月四日下午天陰，沒有太陽。」
就日常表述而言，這句話是真確的。但若以本體論理解，則為錯誤了。
「你今天吃了飯沒有？」
若我今天吃米粉而非吃飯，我仍可答「有，吃了」而不構成撒謊。
是否有任何「新發現」，可令「猶達斯下地獄」此一命題的語意，實質地改變？又或：可令此句說話被證明為並非事實？
四
是甚麼促使您相信聖經原文是在神默感下寫成的？
|
|
|
