|
作者
|
內容
|
|
Leo
|
Posted -
2006/5/20 上午 06:12:35
|
|
|
To: 愛德華
謝謝您的恢複，我看已經差不多了，沒有必要再討論下去。我堅持“中世紀教宗的所謂诏書和梵二大公會議的訓導，如果觀點上有沖突，後者更有權威”，理由太明顯，就不必說了。
還有，我在 2006-05-15 回應 KP 時已經說過， “即使教區神父自由選舉出來的主教，也應該有教宗的認同和接納，不然就“名不正言不順”。教宗的接納其實是一個‘外在的’記號，顯示了這位主教與普世教會‘內在的’共融，並且形成以教宗爲首的普世主教團，參與牧養普世教會的天主子民，做普世教會的牧人”。[見 香港教區欄目： 《關於內地這件自選自聖事件》]
根據梵二的教會憲章，世界各國的主教們也有對普世教會的「最高的」（supreme）、「普遍的」（universal）的權力。但是前提是必須以羅馬主教爲頭，與羅馬主教緊密結合。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2006/5/20 下午 10:44:42
|
|
|
里奧兄：
單就觀點而言，並沒有所謂「衝不衝突」或「何者更有權威」的問題。（試問：「觀點」有何「權威」可言？）你是否指兩者命題所指涉或肯定的內容呢？
在梵二的兩份教義憲章的正文後，均附貼著以下告示：
"Ratione habita moris conciliaris ac praesentis Concilii finis pastoralis, haec S. Synodus ea tantum de rebus fidei vel morum ab Ecclesia tenenda definit, quae ut talia aperte ipsa declaraverit.
"Cetera autem, quae S. Synodus proponit, utpote Supremi Ecclesiae Magisterii doctrinam, omnes ac singuli christifideles excipere et amplecti debent iuxta ipsius S. Synodi mentem, quae sive ex subiecta materia sive ex dicendi ratione innotescit, secundum normas theologicae interpretationis".
教宗若望保祿二世，論及對《教會憲章》的理解時，亦謂：
... The work you have undertaken in these days has shown how present and effective the Council's teaching is in the life of the Church. Certainly, it requires ever deeper understanding. However, within this dynamic the genuine intention of the Council Fathers must not be lost: indeed, it must be recovered by overcoming biased and partial interpretations which have prevented the newness of the Council's Magisterium from being expressed as well as possible.
The Church has always known the rules for a correct hermeneutic of the contents of dogma. These rules are set within the fabric of faith and not outside it. To interpret the Council on the supposition that it marks a break with the past, when in reality it stands in continuity with the faith of all times, is a definite mistake. What has been believed by "everyone, always and everywhere" is the authentic newness that enables every era to perceive the light that comes from the word of God's Revelation in Jesus Christ... (27 Feb 2000)
若從「衝突」的假設和立場去理解梵二前（包括中世紀的）和梵二後的教會訓導，則可謂從一開始起步就走錯了。有甚麼好值得堅持的呢？
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2006/5/20 下午 11:21:14
|
|
|
教宗與普世主教團管轄權的不同，是在於：前者對普世教會的管轄權是直接的。
原則而言，教宗行使其管轄權，並不先「需要」地方主教的首肯或認同。相反，一個地區的主教團對其管轄範圍內的教務，則必須在羅馬教宗的同意下，才可進行。若他不同意，則連整個地區主教團的決定亦不得成立。
|
|
life
|
Posted -
2006/5/21 上午 12:39:45
|
|
|
edward兄所说有理,真理与真理绝对不会互相排斥.梵二并不否定梵二以前的教会信理.否则的话也谈不上教会合一.因为正是以前的相同的基础才导致合一的基础.
|
|
leo
|
Posted -
2006/5/24 下午 01:17:23
|
|
|
To: 愛德華
呵呵， 我並沒有“假設衝突”，實際上沖突確實存在，只是有的人不願承認罷了。 我認爲出現這種沖突也並不奇怪，中世紀的歐洲人知識面很局限，就好像古代的中國人以爲自己的地盤是國中之國，其他都是蠻夷一樣，即使我們今天的有些自認爲正確的觀點恐怕再過幾百年也會被後人看作是幼稚或自大，人類是向前發展的，人來對真理的認識（包括宗教真理）也會越來越少錯謬。 你所引用的教宗鮑尼法斯八世的詔書中 「隸屬於羅馬教宗，爲得救是必需的。」明顯是自以爲是的錯誤表述。如果連這個錯誤都不承認，我就無話可說了。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2006/5/24 下午 03:30:08
|
|
|
"......人類是向前發展的，人來對真理的認識（包括宗教真理）也會越來越少錯謬......"
Leo, do you agree with any of the following propositions?
1. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.
2. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
3. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.
YES OR NO, to each of the above propositions.
你不會無話可說吧?
|
