|
作者
|
內容
|
|
Mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2003/7/3 下午 09:16:44
|
|
|
重貼一下就好了﹐那我就將那個不能讀得舊貼刪掉了。只是這樣就留下一個空格﹐不知道這樣的空格怎麼才能刪掉呢﹖
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/7/3 下午 10:39:51
|
|
|
那麼，Mitrophanes兄你會怎樣解釋以下的經文呢？
「你們該效法我，如同我效法了基督一樣。我稱讚你們在一切事上記念我，並照我所傳授給你們的，持守那些傳授。」
「但我願意你們知道：男人的頭是基督，而女人的頭是男人，基督的頭卻是天主。凡男人祈禱或說先知話，若蒙著頭，就是羞辱自己的頭；但凡女人祈禱或說先知話，若不蒙頭，就是羞辱自己的頭，因為她跟那剃了頭髮的完全一樣。」
「女人若不蒙頭，就讓她剪髮罷! 但若剪髮或剃頭為女人算是恥辱，她就該蒙頭！男人當然不該蒙頭，因為他是天主的肖像和光榮， 而女人卻是男人的光榮：原來不是男人出於女人，而是女人出於男人；而且男人不是為女人造的，女人乃是為男人造的。」
「為此，女人為了天使的緣故，在頭上應該有屬於權下的表記，然而在主內，女不可無男，男也不可無女，因為就如女人是出於男人，同樣男人也是藉女人而生；但一切都出於天主。你們自己評斷罷！女人不蒙頭向天主祈禱相宜嗎？不是本性也教訓你們：男人若蓄髮，為他就是羞辱，但是女人若蓄髮，為她倒是光榮嗎？因為頭髮是給她當作首帕的。」
「若有人想強辯，那麼他該知道：我們沒有這樣的風俗，天主的各教會也沒有。」（格前十一，1-16）
從以上的聖經經文，可否推論出若女人在祈禱時不蒙頭，就是蔑視了聖經呢？
|
|
Mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2003/7/3 下午 11:29:57
|
|
|
難得EDWARD兄摘引這些經文出來。女子在個人祈禱時候不用蒙頭(因為保祿也教導我們要‘無間息地祈禱’但是‘無間隙地蒙頭’實際上是不可能的)。但是在聖堂以及公眾祈禱中﹐女子真真確確是應該蒙頭才符合經訓的呀。
在今日﹐傳統正教國家﹐大多數女教友進堂是蒙頭的。當然﹐我知道在西歐﹐美國﹐希臘的很多城市堂區﹐蒙頭的傳統並不常常被遵守。那我們也只好說這是“正法衰微”的景象之一﹐總不見得明明是錯的做法﹐僅僅因為犯錯的人多了﹐就法不責眾﹐甚至錯也變成了對﹖就好像周三周五的嚴齋是從宗徒時代就有的傳承﹐我也知道如今即使在正教傳統的國家也有相當的人口不守齋﹐但是總不該說﹐因為多人不守齋﹐干脆把齋廢了﹐大家都不守好了(這就是天主教歷史上將齋戒的教規一再修訂的原因)。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/7/4 下午 04:04:05
|
|
|
mitrophanes弟兄的貼文的確很值得天主教徒參考.
我不明白的,是為何結了婚的男士可以晉鐸,晉了鐸卻不能結婚.
但關於獨身信徒的'召喚'的部份,我倒十分膺服正教的看法 - 今日天主教聖召奇決,對好些單身信徒誤信自己有'獨身'的'在俗'召叫,不無關係: 在discernment的途中,出了'錯認'的亂子之謂也.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/7/4 下午 07:17:37
|
|
|
那麼，正教的司祭們往往留鬍鬚，這又是否「聖傳」的一部分呢？
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/4 下午 09:39:59
|
|
|
丙﹕在受神職前決定不結婚的人﹐按照正教會的規矩﹐必須成為修士......Where in Scriptures obliged this?.....(受更衣剪發﹐發三願)然後視實際情況決定是否給他授神品(加採東公會議和另外幾次地方公會議均規定﹐不可在無實際事奉需要的情況下按立神職)。
在這個情況下﹐他不能結婚是自然的了﹐請問那個教會的傳承是允許修道士結婚的呢﹖...Indeed
也就是說﹐正教會不允許一個既不想結婚也不想修道的人成為神職人員。.....But where in Scriptures obliged this? 因為(How?)神職人員是羊群的牧者﹐是大眾的表率﹐一個不僧不俗的人究竟士什麼意義上的“好表樣”呢﹖Why can't "一個不僧不俗的人" be a saint? How about St. Paul?
我看不出在聖經和聖傳中有教導人度一種既不修行又不結婚的“逍遙”生活的。...But does this imply non-monastic celibacy is condemned by the Scriptures?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/4 下午 09:52:17
|
|
|
Bro. Cecil:
Sorry, I don't get the meaning:"好些單身信徒誤信自己有'獨身'的'在俗'召叫"...What is this 在俗召叫?? Priestly vocation without vows or just vocation of a single person, like that of a single doctor or engineer?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/7/7 下午 06:06:14
|
|
|
bro. augustine - 大概是'獨身傳教'的lay ministry.
我覺得正教不主張不僧不俗的'逍遙自在'生活是可以理解的,這是lack of commitment的一種,'吊兒郎當'之謂.
當然,不是所有獨身者都吊兒郎當 - 但認真審視自己的calling似乎合戶信仰 - 婚配聖事或修道的聖事(如晉鐸,發願),卻沒有'獨身'的聖事.
st. paul是鰥夫來的?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/15 下午 02:48:01
|
|
|
正教不主張不僧不俗的'逍遙自在'生活是可以理解的.
Indeed, but let me show you the Roman Catholic version of the same opinion:
"13. Those therefore, who do not marry because of exaggerated self-interest, or because, as St.Augustine says, (S.Aug., De Sancta Virginitate, c.22 P.L. XL,407) they shun the burdens of marriage or because like Pharisees they proudly flaunt their physical integrity, an attitude which has been condemned by the Council of Gangra lest men and women renounce marriage as though it were something despicable instead of because virginity is something beautiful and holy, - none of these can claim for themselves the honor of Christian virginity."
POPE PIUS XII De Virginitas 1954
"天主教亦是不主張不僧不俗的'逍遙自在'生活的"
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/7/15 下午 03:59:41
|
|
|
Indeed, the discussion here is getting more and more meaningful and interesting.
All brothers and sisters are cordially invited to the gala performance by the winners of the inter-school competition this Saturday - 7:30 pm. at the Community Hall, Caritas. Free seating, and no tickets are required now.
歡迎各位出席本周六的校際比賽得獎者表演及頒獎晚會.明愛禮堂(5/F),七時三十分開始.不設畫位,無需門卷.
|
|
Mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2003/7/17 下午 09:40:56
|
|
|
我剛剛結束兩星期的閉關﹐看見這裡的幾項提問﹐現逐一答復于下﹕
|
|
Mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2003/7/17 下午 09:59:34
|
|
|
答edward﹕
神職人員和男性修道人士蓄鬚無疑是聖傳的一部分﹐男性蓄鬚是所有閃族宗教的共同傳統﹐因為鬍鬚是上主賜予男性的天然裝飾和最明顯的性別特徵(至少在面部)。剃鬍鬚是對性別特徵的破壞﹐是明顯的異教風尚﹐有其不同的來源(比如某些密傳宗教中對於‘青春之神’及其‘不老之能力’的崇拜﹔古希臘羅馬的孌童文化等等)。在主前的時代﹐剃鬚和遮蓋割損痕跡(相當于今日的包皮修復手術)﹐吃豬肉等等一樣﹐是猶太人‘希臘化’的外在標誌﹐有時候是可以被看作等同于背教的。在新約時代﹐根據聖傳﹐主和諸宗徒都是蓄鬚的。直到七世紀﹐蓄鬚是東西方神職人員的共同傳統。而此後西方的神職人員開始剃鬚先是是受到北方蠻族的影響(一如充滿異教風尚的查理曼禮書對於羅馬禮儀的影響)﹐晚近則更鞏固于新異教主義。
在二次大戰之後﹐不少地區的正教神職人員也開始了部份甚至全部的剃鬚﹐這是不符合正統的﹐他們應當記得君士坦定堡宗主教大聖福爵對於神職人員剃鬚的嚴正譴責﹐並因舉目仰望主和諸聖蓄有威嚴鬍鬚的聖像而感到羞愧。
|
|
Ignatius
|
Posted -
2003/7/19 下午 11:32:06
|
|
|
正教會的神職人員及修道人士留鬚，原來是有這個原因的。這令我想起，古代中國人都不會把鬚剃掉，除非是閹人。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/20 下午 06:21:14
|
|
|
"中國閹人"? Is it 太監? These Chinese "閹人" seems to be different from those mentioned by Christ.
You see, celibate clergy and monks are in a sense "enunches for the sake of Kingdon of God", but they are still physically integral as males.
This makes me recall Origen, the Greek Christian Philosopher. There may be some reasons the CHurch's not recognizing him as a Father of the Church, besides his deviations in theological thoughts.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/7/22 下午 03:21:53
|
|
|
BAck to Serra Club's Winners' gala performance. I am very impressed by the winner Marymount Secondary school's performance - For the Greater Glory of God: the Jesuits.
The two poems were excellently written, and beautifully recited by 4th formers. Should we get those printed in the Sunday Examiner?
Let me think.
|
|
Mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2003/7/22 下午 09:16:26
|
|
|
答﹕Cecil
我不明白的,是為何結了婚的男士可以晉鐸,晉了鐸卻不能結婚.
關於此問題我已經在前文分三項說明了﹐今再次摘出﹕
甲﹕已經結婚的教友﹐受神品之後不可以結婚﹐不然就是犯了重婚罪。
乙﹕已經結婚的教友﹐受神品之後被妻子拋棄﹐又或者喪偶﹐不可再娶﹐否則摘神權。這是因為聖經上明文規定﹕“執事只可作過一個人的丈夫”執事是最低一級的大品﹐既然執事也只可以作過一人的丈夫﹐司祭當然也就不再話下。(那有不做過執事直接作司祭的呢﹖)當然﹐正教會恆常尊重人的自由﹐如果一個神職人員喪偶或離異後﹐自覺不能夠守獨身﹐那麼教會遵照保祿宗徒的教誨“與其欲火焚身﹐不如有嫁有娶”不會強行禁止他結婚的﹐只是此後此人便永久喪失了神職(即使再次因為離異或者喪偶爾恢復到獨身狀態﹐神職也是不能恢復的﹐因為要點不在于“獨身”而在于“只作過一人的丈夫”)。
丙﹕在受神職前決定不結婚的人﹐按照正教會的規矩﹐必須成為修士(受更衣剪發﹐發三願)然後視實際情況決定是否給他授神品(加採東公會議和另外幾次地方公會議均規定﹐不可在無實際事奉需要的情況下按立神職)。在這個情況下﹐他不能結婚是自然的了.
當然,不是所有獨身者都吊兒郎當 - 但認真審視自己的calling似乎合戶信仰 - 婚配聖事或修道的聖事(如晉鐸,發願),卻沒有'獨身'的聖事.
再次強調一下我的觀點(個人相信這也應該是西方教會的傳統觀點)﹕神品是一件聖事﹐其核心是聖神透過主教的覆手而傳達于受職者的“白白施予的恩寵”因此神職在本質上和生活方式無關。(當然﹐神職人員及其候選人應當有正當的生活方式﹐相稱的內修祈禱實踐﹐各方面的好表樣﹐但這些都不是“換取”神品的條件。神品是聖神無條件施予的聖事性恩寵。)
修道生活不聯繫與某件聖事﹐而是人自由地跟從主的福音勸諭﹐出離紅塵﹐放下一切所有﹐以“三絕大願”為生活的准繩﹐度一個克修默觀的生活﹐以“天使的方式”見證那將來“無飲食嫁娶的國度”。
因此您在此處所言的“修道的聖事”實不存在的。(當然﹐如果您意指的是‘MYSTERIUM/SACRAMENTUM’的廣義用法﹐那麼說修道生活是一種‘奧秘’也未為不可。但就狹意而言﹐修道者發願不是“聖事”而您說的“晉鐸”也不是“修道的聖事”
st. paul是鰥夫來的?
至少根據正教會的聖傳﹐有此一說。但是並沒有明顯的聖經根據。
|
|
Mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2003/7/22 下午 09:30:39
|
|
|
答奧思定兄﹕
丙﹕在受神職前決定不結婚的人﹐按照正教會的規矩﹐必須成為修士......Where in Scriptures obliged this?.....
也就是說﹐正教會不允許一個既不想結婚也不想修道的人成為神職人員。.....But where in Scriptures obliged this?
我看不出在聖經和聖傳中有教導人度一種既不修行又不結婚的“逍遙”生活的。...But does this imply non-monastic celibacy is condemned by the Scriptures?
如果您一定要在聖經上找根據的話﹐可能會發現主後二三百年方纔出現的“修道生活”也沒有很直接的聖經依據。固然聖經有關於守貞﹐拋棄家庭產業事主的教導﹐但是是否在東西方的修道傳統中﹐每一實踐﹐每一會規都是逐字逐句地來自聖經呢﹖
我覺得正教的這一傳承是符合聖經的教導的。因為婚姻是主的命令﹐是主建立的聖事。婚姻的地位是如此崇高和神聖﹐(理論上來講)除非為了一個至少同樣是崇高神聖的目標(修道)﹐才有理由加以放棄。當然﹐在實際生活中﹐總是有自願不自願的“曠男怨女”。對此教會應該加以同情﹐沒有理由去大加斥責﹐但是我實在看不出不修道的獨身在普遍意義上游什麼“聖善”或者“價值”可言。
因為神職人員是羊群的牧者﹐是大眾的表率﹐一個不僧不俗的人究竟士什麼意義上的“好表樣”呢﹖Why can't "一個不僧不俗的人" be a saint? How about St. Paul?
關於此問題我已經回答過了﹐今再次摘錄如次﹕
當然﹐正教會也從來沒有否認過“個人化”的神恩。因為聖神如風﹐隨其聖意而吹拂。在正教的歷史上﹐的確有“在俗的獨身人士”而成為聖人的﹐比如彼得堡的聖克謝尼亞﹐莫斯科的聖瑪特羅娜。但是﹐正因為這樣的神恩的“個人性”才使得其同時具有“不可效顰”的特徵。正教會只是鼓勵教友傚法此類聖人愛主和克修的精神﹐卻不鼓勵傚法他們的具體行動。因為此類行動來自聖神“隨意”的恩賜﹐是“可遇不可求”的。就好像當年聖公斯當定大帝見十字架顯現﹐聖號四週環繞著EN TOUTO NIKA(以此制勝)的字樣。諸位當然不會以為事後聖公斯當定就劃一個十字便得勝了﹐照樣是免不了“血流漂杵”的惡戰。按照世俗的邏輯﹐恐怕無法理解主為何以聖跡鼓勵戰爭﹐甚至殺人的行為也可以導致成聖(同樣的例子有名的還有大殉道者聖迪彌特裡的弟子聖奈斯多爾)。我對此只可說是聖神的“自由恩賜”導致有些人可以由“出乎常理”的方式被聖化。但是如今如果布殊說﹐他也是在傚法聖人﹐以戰爭來“聖化”自己﹐教會和民眾會認同嗎﹖又或者﹐某神父在讚嘆古代修道聖人的芳表之後﹐是否應該對堂區的教友說﹕快爬上一顆柱頭去﹐坐在上面不要下來﹐你就可做聖人了﹖﹖﹖
因此﹐我對這一問的回答是﹕不修道的獨身不是聖召﹐只是一種教會尚不禁止的生活方式(實際上無從禁止﹐因為有很多無奈的原因﹕比如殘疾﹐疾病﹐醜陋﹐貧窮。。。造成獨身)。但是某些人可能領受了特殊的恩寵﹐因而此等人可以被認為有一種“獨身聖召”惟此種聖召事實上是特殊的“修道聖召”或者說是“沒有三願和修道院的修道生活”。教會承認此類聖化的可能性﹐加以褒揚但不加以推廣(個人性神恩是沒有法子“推廣”
|
|
Mitrophanes
|
Posted -
2003/7/22 下午 09:35:45
|
|
|
答奧思定兄二﹕
正教不主張不僧不俗的'逍遙自在'生活是可以理解的.
Indeed, but let me show you the Roman Catholic version of the same opinion:
"13. Those therefore, who do not marry because of exaggerated self-interest, or because, as St.Augustine says, (S.Aug., De Sancta Virginitate, c.22 P.L. XL,407) they shun the burdens of marriage or because like Pharisees they proudly flaunt their physical integrity, an attitude which has been condemned by the Council of Gangra lest men and women renounce marriage as though it were something despicable instead of because virginity is something beautiful and holy, - none of these can claim for themselves the honor of Christian virginity."
POPE PIUS XII De Virginitas 1954
"天主教亦是不主張不僧不俗的'逍遙自在'生活的"
我讚同庇護十二在“論童貞”中的上述觀點。但是在這裡所譴責的是一些錯誤的“守貞觀”。而今此討論的主題和中心在於“是否非修道的神職人員也必須守獨身”或者“將司鐸候選人限制于獨身者中間是否合理﹐有什麼聖經和聖傳的依據”。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/23 下午 04:30:55
|
|
|
Thank you Mitrophanes for your clarifications.
"不修道的獨身在普遍意義上游什麼“聖善”或者“價值”可言" Is it not that celibate priests could devote himself more completely to the work of God as St Paul has exhorted? If we read the Sacra virginitas of Pius XII, this practical value of celibacy is also mentioned as a reason this Roman discipline.
I couldn't repeat all arguments by Pope Pius XII here but I would like to quote:
"(15). This then is the primary purpose, this the central idea of Christian virginity: to aim only at the divine, to turn thereto the whole mind and soul; to want to please God in everything, to think of Him continually, to consecrate body and soul completely to Him."
Should not priests, as pastors, consecrate, body and soul, to God, before he is to save souls?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/23 下午 04:42:15
|
|
|
Sacra virginitas link:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_25031954_sacra-virginitas_en.html
About the several advantages of celibacy for pastors and active religious orders:
paragraphs 20-24
Now if we discuss:"將司鐸候選人限制于獨身者中間是否合理?" At least we can say: it does make sense. But whether this sense is sensible enough for all to bind? I can't say so.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/23 下午 04:58:46
|
|
|
If a Father of the Church addresses these (to all men): "You follow the Lamb because the body of the Lamb is indeed virginal. . . Rightly do you follow Him in virginity of heart and body wherever He goes. For what does following mean but imitation? Christ has suffered for us, leaving us an example, as the Apostle Peter says 'that we should follow in his footsteps" (Augustine of Hippo). Does this constitute a 聖傳的依據?
cf. Sacra virginitas, 19, [32]
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/7/23 下午 05:37:00
|
|
|
Indeed, I think Bro. Augustine has a good argument here. If we concentrate on the Apostles, indeed, there were married men among them. But as for Christ Himself, He is celibate.
I often drew a parallel comparison in Confusicanism, as something against the feudalistic corruptions of Confusicianism - that marriage could indeed be polygamous (for men at least) under Confusicanism. Where is the example of Confuscius himself, who during his whole life married but one woman, and lived separate from her most of his life?
|
|
truthfollower
|
Posted -
2003/8/1 上午 05:38:09
|
|
|
No one would deny that after the Pentecost the apostles were able to understand the essence of the Lord's teaching better than anyone else (except Mary of course). If most of the apostles--by their examples-- did not regard celibacy as essential to follow Jesus, how could any of their successors claim that celibacy is a better way to follow the Lord? St Paul recommended celibacy because the Christians were in a hostile world and also he thought the second coming would be soon.
My questions are: who can prove that having sex with one's wife or husband--which is the highest form of body/soul union between two persons-- would deter a person from doing justice or charitable work? Who has the right to demand other people not to get married just because they want to commit themselves to a (holy) profession?
Is it true that some people still believe in a dualistic philosophy that sees sex as dirty and evil?
I like this discussion. :)
|
|
truthfollower
|
Posted -
2003/8/1 上午 05:58:49
|
|
|
⺼彆植岈珨跺詢奾腔岈珛憩猁黃旯ㄛ饒藺酕橾呇腔猁峈�侕曲繂硎僄葋迮耀畋広ノザ銘プ次繹檔簂堧諜褕劔饒擰�瓷�冼糾佌滼𤂅﹠棍硎僄葋苺畋広ノザ銘ブ細次繹檔瞨� 酕軞苀腔茼蜆珨陑峈弊模紱櫛ㄛ岆祥岆珩茼蜆黃旯ˋ
睿奾黃旯岆峈賭壺伎郗婌゜党傖淏彆ㄛ侗鍎黃旯岆峈阰腔疑揭儸ˋ岆峈賸侗鍎赻撩腔疑揭ˋ遜岆峈賸換畦腦秞腔疑揭ˋ⺼彆岆峈賸換腦秞ㄛ峈朼藺價飭諒珩換腔竭疑ˋ⺼彆岆峈賸諒衭腔疑揭ㄛ饒毞翋諒腔諒衭珩怮赻佌賸勘ˋ 艘懂黃旯硐夔岆峈賸侗鍎赻撩腔疑揭罹ㄐ
|
|
truthfollower
|
Posted -
2003/8/1 上午 06:00:27
|
|
|
|
