作者：汤汉 Tong, John 年份：1977

引言

翻开香港天主教手册，从教区大事纪一栏中，不难窥探出本港教区的两段发展过程：

　

一、播种时期　(一八四一年至一九五○年)

远自一八四七年，香港教区成立后六年，已有巴黎外方传教会司铎到港。之后有不少男女修会，先后来港参加传福音工作，使传道、教育、医务、福利等工作发展迅速。尤其二次世界大战后不久，随大陆难胞的源源来港，香港教区的男女修会数目及成员亦大幅度增长，这无疑为教区的进一步发展做了一个意想不到的预备。

二、耕耘时期　(一九五一年至今日)

正如一九五一年白英奇主教上任时所说的几句话：「我们今日工作，明日的一切，托付给上主。」此后廿多年，修会的继续增加，及全体天主子民的共同努力，教区信友人数，自三万余增至二十五万，增加了八倍之多，成为全球国籍信友最多的一个教区。教育与社会福利工作方面，亦有相称的进展。一九六九年，徐诚斌主教继白主教出掌教区后，教区遂逐步改由国籍主教及神职主管。

从上述的本港教区发展趋势，我们可以领略到：香港虽是华洋杂处之地，毕竟华人占绝大多数，他们的风俗习惯及思想方式，仍以中国传统文化为主流，因此福音的植根及教会的本地化该成为最受人关注的问题，也是我们现在耕耘期日夕努力所期待的目标。故本文欲从中国人观点探讨基督信仰的授受。

(甲)中国人「接受」基督信仰的各种形态

理查．尼布尔(Richard　Nebuhr　1894-1962)在他所着「基督与文化」一书中，把基督信仰与世界文化相接触的诸形态分成五大类型：即(一)基督反乎文化，(二)基督属乎文化，(三)基督超乎文化，(四)基督与文化相反相成，(五)基督为文化的改造者。他的分析及分类不但相当成功，且从此在宣教学上引起了甚多崭新的讨论。

但我个人以为尼氏的分析法，毕竟还是不够圆满，主要因为他的立论看重「传授福音者」的态度 ，却鲜有顾及「接受福音者」的心理历程。

究竟中国历史文化社会如何接纳基督信仰呢?李嘉嵩在「景风」杂志第四十六期，试就此问题写出颇佳的答案。李君认为历代中国人接受基督信仰的经过可归纳成六大类型：(一)慕义感得型 ，(二)诸教一源、殊途同归型 ，(三)背祖叛宗型，(四)牵亲引戚型，(五)洋货附奖型，(六)祖传秘方型。

(一)所谓「慕义感得」，指不少人慕求德行风范与道理教训，为福音崇高意义所感，终而入教。

(二)所谓「诸教一源、殊途同归」，指部份人的入教，乃基于中国人的大同精神，认为诸教皆以行善为宗旨，必与中国自古流传下来的圣人之道，具有相同源流。

(三)所谓「背祖叛宗」，指某些人决志接受基督信仰前，需要毅然拋弃祖传迷信的遗习。

(四)至于「牵亲引戚」，则是指集体归化。一个有地位者接受福音，其他家族或姻戚成群结队亦前来入教。

(五)至于「洋货附奖」，指很多人信道，一方面可能由于慕义心切;'但另一方面更可能藉此得到物资救助或达到某种企图。

(六)最后的「祖传秘方」，实指一些人视幅音为西方教士传授的秘方，接受过来，代代封密相沿，亏欠传递幅音的托付。

上述李氏指出的六类接受福音心理历程，虽随时代变迁，方式有改换，然其基本心态仍然存在着。比方：五十年代的「洋货附奖J多是外国的救济品，今日的；却多是入学、求职与坟地等。昔日的「牵亲引戚」的范围是一村一族，现在的却可能是一机构或一部门。旧日的「背祖叛宗」要求拋弃祖传迷信的遗习，今日的却要求改变与信仰有抵触的生活陋习。

当然，上述的归纳法只为方便分析，不但不否认各类型的复合型的存在，而且承认复合类型可能多于单纯类型。

姑无论如何 ，我个人以为最值得推崇的心态应当是第一类型，即「慕义感得型」。因为早在四百年前，耶稣会士圣方济各沙勿略东来，先到日本传道；但在观察日本的民族性格后，立即想转到中国传教。考其原因，就是他得知慕义求道之人，尽可由中国求之。

基督宗教在中国的活动，已有千多年历史。其间因传教士的慷慨精神，艰苦经营，为道牺牲，使基督信仰在中国奠基。他们对中国的伟大贡献，比如：介绍新教育科技，改良社会风俗，推行慈善事业等，实非一言片语所能尽述。但基督教在中国亦受到至少五次极大的打击，即南京教难、历狱、庚子义和团的排斥、非基督教同盟的指控、及三自爱国运动的压迫。何故？有人运用了名学者汤恩比(A.Toynbee)的文化放射定律去解释。据汤氏说：「当一移动的文化光，因被它所冲出的一个外国社会体抗拒而反射为多种的光线，－－技术的、宗教的、政治的、学术的等等时，它的技术的光线常较宗教的光线穿越的较快及较深……我们可以说文化的反射的光线的穿越力量通常是与光线的文化价值成反比例的。一个无关紧要的光线 ，受到其所冲出的社会体的阻力，较之一个重要的光线为轻，因为前者不至于威胁到被冲出的社会体的传统生活方式，而引起激烈痛楚的干扰。」(参阅林治平着：「基督教与中国」五四至五五页)也有人认为这些教难该归咎到昔日传教与不平等条约拉上了关系，使基督宗教蒙上殖民主义的污点。但我个人以为上列两种解释，都不能构成主要原因，因为中国民族性格富有包容气质，不但易于宽恕，既往不究，且能把各宗教文化兼收并蓄，冶为一炉。我以为最主要的原因，还是我们传教时忽略深究中国人的宗教心里。正如王治心在「中国基督教史纲」一书所提出，我国古代已有自然崇拜的事实，即原始约三光崇拜，游牧时代的庶物崇拜，进而至于农业社会的山川社稷崇拜，再进而至于封建社会的天祖崇拜。这些与生活有关的多神崇拜宗教现象，从坏的一方面说，是一种程度很低的信仰，不合时宜；但从好的一方面说，却表示中国人承认精神生活的重要。

所以中国人着重内心修养胜于外表眩人的事业。事实，基督信仰自公元六三五年传入中国，至今已历一千三百四十多年仍未广传；而佛教自公元六四年传入中国，约五百五十年后即已完全渗入整个中国文化中。上至艺术诗词，下及生活俚语，无一不染点佛家思想或禅的气味。这是佛教洞察中国人思想看重内修的成功之处，也是我们不得不向佛教学习的地方。

(乙)我们「传授」基督信仰给中国人时应持的态度

谈完「接受者」的心理后，让我们转入「传授者」的态度。

首先，我们耍交待一下什么是「传授基督信仰」?

随着时代日新月异，今日救赎学及教会学的观点有了很大的转变，宣教学的名词及内涵也因而有了重大的变更。兹介绍三个有关名词，以资比较及区别：

(一)「基督教化」(Christianization)------- 指从中古世纪至十六世纪政教合一时期，教会为了光荣天主，以国家为媒介，热衷于拓展基督教国度。这时期的传教就是基督教化，欲把教宗的统治地域扩展到全球各地。这套观念不但产生了历史上着名的十字军东征，也令我们瞭解到，为何昔日葡萄牙及西班牙船只，每次出发把基督之光带给世界前，必先请求教宗的祝幅。

(二)「传教」(Mission)-----指十八及十九世纪政教逐渐分离期间，教会为了拯救人灵，成立了很多宣道组织，去给天下万民施洗，使之获得个人的救赎。这套观念的兴盛，遂使教会内的传教修会如雨后春笋，分布各地。

(三)「传扬福音」(Evangelization)－－－－如梵二大公会议、七四年全球主教会议及七五年教宗保禄「传播福音」文告所示：在「教会外也得救恩」的神学反省下，今日基督徒应该领悟自己的存在，并不只是为了救自己的灵魂，却特别是为了回应天主的呼召，去参与天主之介入人类历史。因此，教会要以仆役身份服务世界，将基督的死而复活作为生活典范及宣道中心，在圣神的引导下，透过基层团体与世界交谈，以入世的生活及出世的精神去启发世界，使之转化。因而这一套新观念也令我们醒觉到尊重本地文化及培植本地教会的重要。本文所提的「传授基督信仰」就是指「传扬福音」这个意思。

究竟我们该持何种态度去传授基督信仰给中国人呢?

去年十一月份的「七十年代」月刊，曾转载了一篇题名为「坦赞铁路」的文章，记述以一个发展中的中国如何援助坦桑尼亚及赞比亚两国建成了一条巨大的铁路。内容包括三要点：(一)坦赞铁路的意义，(二)贷款的条件，(三)充分利用当地人力。关于第一点，文中指出两国因交通阻塞而荒置的大片土地，将因铁路的兴建而得开发，且可促进两国间的贸易增长，更可使世界瞩目，成为一个中国援外的实例。至于第二点，中国缺乏外汇储备，因而改以货物信用代替：中国货物以无息信贷方式授给坦赞两国，通过当地国营贸易机构出售来筹措基金。该笔援助，头十年不需还款，以后才分三十年摊还。论到最后一点，在筑路期间，不但充分利用当地的劳力，而且中国工程人员亦亲自参加体力劳动，待遇一如当地非洲工人，甚至要遵守已故周恩来总理的规定：假如他们死在当地，也不要作特殊要求，把尸体火化，绝不接受任何荣誉。

我以为上面中国援外事例的三要点，可视为时代征兆，给我们传授幅音者提供下列应走的路线：

(一)我们传福音者常应反省工作的意义。应重质超过重量。不看重于问自己还需不需要办更多学校、医院或福利机构，却应探求如何使每一项工作成为典范，启发香港政府及市民自己去负起应尽的社会责任，并赋与这些工作一项崇高的宗教意义。这才是传福音，也是整个教区不可被人替代的任务。

(二)其次，涉及传福音的慷慨精神。是付出，不是交换。我曾在去年五月份的「景风」杂志，读到一篇「普世教会协会第五届大会简报」，内中提到当日会场挂了这样的一幅漫画：两个非洲人的脸孔，下面写看「当第一个外国传教士来这里之前，他们有的是圣经，而我们有的是土地；当外国传教士来了这里后，我们有的是圣经，而他们有的是我们的土地。」以圣经换取土地的殖民主义，已经或者快要成为昨日黄花。但是，利用圣经去获致权势地位或达到个人企图的新殖民主义，也许方兴未艾哩。希望这些人性的弱点，能在基督完全舍己为人的感染下，不断革除。

(三）最后，传福音的目标是建立一个「自治、自养、自传」的本地化教会。一九二O年代非基督教同盟的抨击，令我国教会中醒觉份子为了除去洋教的丑号，努力推动教会本地化运动，提倡「自治、自养、自传」，目的是使基督信仰不单能建立于蕴义无穷的圣经启示之上，而且又能通过本地文化的融会变成圣化中国的力量。可惜，当这个运动因推行的时间太浅而尚未生根植基之时，一九五O年代中共便利用它作为分化的工具，目的却是使中国教会与普世教会分裂，然后再加以控制及有步骤地予以消灭。故此年长一辈的信友听到三自运动时，便马上联想起中共所谓的爱国教会，而忽略了它正确及源远流长的原意。幸好，廿年后的今天，这运动又在世界各地的教会兴起。在与普世教会共融的原则下，它重倡发展本地人力物力的资源，使每个教友在活泼而有深度的信仰推动下，负起参与教会的责任；努力栽培本地神职界，使之有能力担承领导教会之职；更要求各修会打破小圈子，万事以教区发展为首要目标，不但要学习本地语言，也要学习本地文化，并且注意自己的生活方式，与其他人看齐，以免影响传福音的角色及工作的投入。

总 结

总之，传福音者最要注意接受者的心理历程，并当常视自己如同乞丐，何处可以寻得食物(福音)。他最需具有的是内心的谦逊。所以主基督虽贵为天主，仍能屈居马槽及死于十字架。宗徒们及初期教会信徒，虽然在传教上有辉煌成绩，但由于内心的愫养，仍能谦辞己功，把自己比作天主的一块无用器皿，甚至如圣保禄谦逊地说「这不是说，我已经达到目标。」(斐3:12)能够做到这个地步，圣神才会教导我们如何以爱为力量，去成全中华文化的光辉，使香港教会成为本地化的教会，也才合乎主基督所亲自强调的:「我来不是为废除，而是为成全。」 (玛5:17)



附 注

本文之初稿原是座谈会的演讲，曾刊载于今年五月六日的公教报。因成稿时间忽促，内容漏洞殊多。今藉暑期之便，再作修改补充。希有识之士不吝赐教。

作者：罗国辉 年份：1977

引言

创世纪首三章的信仰，即万物之来源，人类的遭遇及命运等问题，经过了时代的演进，信仰生活的反省，在神学发展上，已形成了教义神学的一部份，统称为「创造论」。

然而，此篇短文的目的不在于分析圣经问题与教会训导，只看重于介绍各种不同型态的「创造论」，试图看出它的不同趋势。

依笔者管见，创造论的不向趋势可分为四大类型，即：经院哲学推理型，科学宗教协调型，存在主义感悟型，救恩历史实践型。现在简略地把它们介绍如下：

(甲)经院哲学推理型

１．历史背景

基督信仰早期从中东向西方发展，经历教难而成为公开的信仰后，接触了当日盛行的希腊文化，因而亦吸引了希腊文化的特点，着重理性的推敲。

2．问题探讨

当代「创造论」所探讨的，主要是有关天主的实有，创世的时间及目的，善恶的存在等问题。

3．发展

这些问题的探讨经历了不少时间 ，也引起了种种意见和争论。

当时神学论及世界是由天主造成时 ，指出世界从无中被造成。「无」不是一种生存的材料，也非已经存在材料的变化。故从无中被造成的真正意思，是不经任何东西而来，只凭天主全能的意愿而成就。

至于天主创造世后，并非让它独立存在，却不断支持照顾，故有限的受造物对其造主，应不断地有着存在的从属关系。

天主创世的目的是分施衪的美善；但这个分施并不限制天主的自由，却是祂自由选择的结果。

至于「恶」，无论是物质上，或是伦理上的，都是「缺陷」，就是「善的缺乏」。天主容许物质的恶是为了整个宇宙的完美。至于伦理的恶，则不是天主所积极愿意的，不过，祂容许了，是为了使人具有自由，能够以有限的程度去分享祂的自由和创造的能力。故此，人有选择善或离弃善的自由。(1)

然而，这种哲学推理式的神学探讨，在「世界是否可能没有一个开始」这个问题上，起码就有以下不同的理论了！

第一种是圣文笃与其他神学家的意见 ，认为世界「永远存在」(即没有一个时间上的开始)，这概念本身就有内在矛盾。因为正如上述的「从‘无’中创造」的意义，就是由「非存在」而到「存在」。

第二种是奥力振的意见，奥氏受了拍拉图哲学的影向，竟也说有几个没有时间上开始的世界，不过其中最早的一个是由天主创造的。

第三种却是圣多玛斯与其学派的意见 ，认为世界的「暂存性」既不能从它的本质，也不能以它与天主的关系来证明，因为这与时间及空间无关。他们以为「创造」的概念本身可以没有持续及开端；故此，说天主可以。自由地选择「从永远」创造一个这样的世界，实在是不会有矛盾的。

从上述的种种争论上见到神学问题如何变成理性争论 ;不过，当问题争辩得白热化时，多玛斯却从这种理性神学的争持中醒觉过来，他指出理性无法证明世界是否可能没有时间上的开始，因为世界在时间中开始是信仰的真理，而非理智的真理，而且这项真理也不是理智所能够探获的，而祇能靠天主的启示。可惜当时却没有人以此作为起点来追寻神学的问题。

无疑，这种哲学式的神学为教会的道理奠下了基础，导致梵一大公会议下列的宣布：「谁不相信，世界与在世界的一切，无论精神或物质的一切，是由天主从无中造成；或说天主在意志方面不是自由的，而是被迫去创造，也是被迫去爱慕自己；或否认世界之被造，是为天主的光荣，皆应予以施罚。」(2)不过，这套神学有它的限度，它只给与善用思维者一个信仰的起点而已，故仍需另一套创世论去圆满补充。

(乙)科学宗教协调型

１．历史背景

自从文艺复兴之后，科学发展一日千里，尤其是十九世纪对天文，考古，生物等的研究，为宇宙来源，人类的起始等问题，提供了不同的理论，使依附在信仰上的传统解释受到冲激和挑战；加以共产主义及无神主义者也以这些理论作为攻击信仰的证据，故导致了科学宗教调协型的创造论的诞生。

2．问题探讨

当时，对宇宙的伟大和历史的悠远，有着不同的估计。有说地球已有45亿年历史，而人类的出现也有百万多年了。于是，问题就针对看圣经的纪载及其解释的可靠性。更甚的是「进化论」的出现，它直接动摇了天主创造人类的解释，也涉及了原祖一元或多元，及原罪流传等信仰问题。

3．发展

面对这些问题，首要的要研究圣经上的注释。于是解决的办法就是放宽了圣经字面的解释，例如创世纪第一章的「一天」解成一段时间。继而是申明圣经是一部宗教书籍，而非严格的历史书或是科学书；又信仰的对象并非是圣经的文字，而是其中所包含的真理；也就是说这个有形可见的世界，不是自有的，永远的，而是天主所自由创造的；宇宙的变化，生命的产生，生物的进化，这一切的最后原因，不可能不是天主所创造与牵制的。从此圣经的注释渐渐走上其本身的范围，而不再与科学互较长短了。(3)。

在这种趋势下，科学宗教协调型的创造论仍可分为「消极护教式」的，和「入世积极式」两类。

「消极护教式」的基础，仍是哲学推理，它的方法是以哲学批判的眼光来看科学，如果发现有「护教」作用的理论，则尽量用之来解决教会「创造论」的问题；如果有「相反教理」的话，则尽量以哲学来攻击 ，或以其他的科学理论来质疑 ，找出其漏洞。此举屡见于当时，甚至是廿世纪上半年的书籍和教宗的谈话里。例如：当「宇宙恒定说」和「宇宙膨胀说」被提出后，神学家们便沾沾自喜，常以这两种学说来协调圣经和教会的训导；对于「宇宙恒定说」，他们认为这是天主创造了「原始原子」;而对于「宇宙膨胀说」，他们就以为是天主不断用创造来补充物质的逐渐疏薄。甚至教宗庇护十二世，也在一九五一年在科学院说：「科学真好像一跃回到千百万年之前，能对那个太初的「有光」作印证。那时，一片光海和物质自「无」中一跃而出，同时，化学元素的微粒散而复合，结成千百万的银河系。至今所确定的事实，对造世的时间并未给予绝对证明，一如形上学和启示对造世所能给予的，或启示对造世之有时间性所能证明一样。我们所涉及的有关自然科学的事实，尚待较深的探讨和证实，而建基其上的学说，亦需有新发展和证明，才能供给原属自然科学领域之外的论证。虽然如此，值得注意的是：现代的自然科学家，以为宇宙被创造的观念和他们的科学观念可以完全调合，甚至由于科学研究，他们会自然地被导向创造观念上去。」(4)。

「消极护教式」的科学宗教协调型创造论，当然不能接受「唯物进化论」。因为唯物进化论认为有一个非创造而来的永恒物质，而一切生物，包括植物，动物和人的身体灵魂都是从这个永恒物质，以纯机械方法演化而来的；故此否定了物质是天主在时间中所造化的信念。然而，此类型的创造论，却接受了以有神进化论，就是承认天主是物质和生命的原因；承认生物是按天主的计划从被造的胚种，或从原始的类型发展而来的。不过，有关人的起源，则必须承认有天主的特殊创造，而这特殊创造至少该包括精神的灵魂。(5)

至于人的起源是多元或一元的问题、则仍坚持一元论，因为当时还未能了解原罪流传的信理与多元论如何能够协调。此种论调可见于庇护十二的「人类通谕」中，这可说是「消极护教式」科学宗教协调型造世论的具体表现了。(6)

「积极入世式」的科学宗教协调型的创造论的基础是科学与信仰；它把科学的探讨化成超越经验的信仰。其中最具代表性的人物是德日进神父。他本身是位考古家，一面忠于人类进化的研究，一面也忠于自己的信仰经验。他的内心世界与他的科学研究都构成了他对创造的看法。

他尝试假设一个配合进化宇宙观的创造论；他认为创造不是立刻完成，而是一个逐渐组合的过程。创造是结合；进化是天主不断创造组合这世界的表现，一直要到最终，在基督再临而达成完满。基督是这个过程的基石和中心，是「开始」，也是「终结」。而宇宙的进化本质不外是基督化（CHRISTO-GENESIS），不断的组合演进，直至基督再临时的「最终完满」。因此，这世界为天主绝不是多余的，因为基督参与其中。除了罪恶，我们体验的一切，均有神圣的意义，帮助我们完成宇宙基督化的过程。(7)

痛苦、死亡和罪恶是人类的矛盾。人的知识越高，便越体会到罪恶，没有乐观的前途，又会因此反叛而拒绝前进。但是德氏却强调进化的积极一面，因为基督的复活已经战胜了死亡。藉痛苦失败我们获得进步，最后藉着完全归向上主，进入最美好的境界。(8)

德氏从信仰角度假设了一个最终转捩点，整个进化的过程经逐级的组合而最后被吸引归于上主。宇宙化(COSMOS GENESIS)实在就是基督化(CHRISTO GENESIS)，基督是进化的转捩点及终点。人类参与基督化，直到宇宙达于成熟，届时将是人类脱出时空，跃向另一中心，而进入天人合一的永恒境界，也是基督再临的时分。

由此可见「积极入世式」的科学宗教协调型创造论对信仰满怀希望，对科学探讨充满乐观，它有着科学与宗教情操，发挥创造的期望和了解。

(丙)存在主义感悟型

1．历史背景

在理性与科学发展得灿烂无比时 ，神学也随之着重抽象思维，与人的日常生活脱节。虽然，世界一方面好像是在进步中，充满乐观的景象。然而，经历了两次世界大战，人类所遭受的破坏是如此惨酷，所受的痛苦又是如此的深重，于是人开始怀疑：人是在进步中抑或是在自我毁灭中？因而导致存在主义应运而生存在主义深入人的心灵问题，发出了绝望、有限、自由、抉择等的怒吼，也引起了基督信仰的回应，使神学反省从抽象和协调的趋势回归到人的内心。

2．问题探讨

这些问题的探讨不再是客观的，而是主体的。故此，焦点不再是宇宙存在及人类被造等客观问题，而是宇宙和我的存在有什么意义，神创造世界与我的命运有何关系。可以说是追求信仰内容与个人存在的探讨。

3．发展

存在主义感悟型的神学是建于「我信」的经验，「我信」就是那信仰是我的，是我的经验及行为，即是一种人的存在方式。巴特说：「基督教的信仰是上帝与人交接的恩赐，在这交接中，人可以自由转取上帝在耶稣基督里所说的恩典之道，他们不顾生活上与这道相反的一切，仍然一次即足地排除一切完全信赖祂的应许与指导......基督信仰也是一种决心，在这决心中，人们得到自由在教会式的言语上，处世态度上，尤其重要的是在他们的言行相符上，信赖上帝，及对耶稣的真理，公开认识和负上责任......基督徒的信仰更是理性的启发，在这启发中，人们得自由地生活于主耶稣基督的真理里，同时由此认定自己生存的意义，及其一切遭遇的原因和目的」。(9)

关于创造论中所了解的神，巴特认为；祂是一位存在 ，生活，活动及向我们显示其自已于自动的爱情工作中的上主，而这自动的爱情工作乃在耶稣基督身上得到决定和完成，也是唯一的上主的内容。而那唯一的上主，在本性及在永恒中乃是「父」，祂是「子」的源头，也是和「子」联合一起为「圣灵」的源头。由于祂的本体，那种「父」的性格，祂是全人类的「恩父」，祂在历史，透过祂的儿子及透过圣灵而叫人们为祂的儿女」。(10)这样，基督信仰的创造主是「父」，是生活的「父」，是走向人类的「父」，是今日「我」和「你」生命的「父」。

依据圣经信仰的奥秘，存在主义感悟型的创造论文指出：「在上主成为人身这一点看来，我们清楚知道上主不愿意单独地存在；祂并不嫌恶这个与自己不同，而具有它自己的本体、性格和自由的世界，祂的言语本身就是这创造世界的力量。祂创造、支持及管理世界，把世界视为表现祂的光荣的舞台----而在其中的「人」，就是祂的光荣的见证。」(11)。于是创造者上主是「人生」的经验，这项经验在历史的耶稣身上，也在今日的「我」的身上。这创造是一项恩典，给人自由去抉择，也要求人立即作抉择。

从以上所引述说巴特的论调，存在主义感悟型的创造论可见一斑。此类型的「创造论」的重点是在于人神的关系，是神向人的召请，也是人抉择神的回应；而创造论就是这些关系历程及交往经验的一个「导言」或「引子」。

(丁)救恩历史实践型

１．历史背景

存在主义感悟型的创造论强调了此时此刻的神人关系，而未曾注重信仰历史的一面。但在圣经注释学的发展过程中，经研究所得的资料，发现了启示的历史性的一面。某些神学家如田立克等，更研究「历史」在信仰上的意义，于是发觉整个基督信仰都产生于历史之中，可以说是历史中呈现的救恩；而这历史也就是所谓的「救恩史」了。同时在社会主义的影向下，大战后的第三世界的国家，发奋图强，要摆脱殖民主义的控制，特别是拉丁美洲的经验，更促成有心改革社会及人类生存环境的神学家们的反省，造成了救恩历史实践型的神学。

2．问题探讨

救恩历史实践型的创造论，关心的是如何在历史中践行和表达「救恩」这事实。它在此时此地的具体人民生活里，看到了罪的经验，而询问原罪的信仰基础，再反省「救恩」的意义。它不是回顾过去的救恩，而是着重「今日」和「将来」救恩的实现，也就是问及现今此地的具体命运和其中的信仰。

3．发展

救恩历史实践型的神学对这些问题的探索，仍是方兴未艾。一般来说，对原罪的了解已扩展为社会性及结构上的罪，即指不正义、压迫和剥削等现象。今日的救恩就是把人从这些现象中解放出来，救恩史就是此项解放的过程和基础，藉着此项救恩史的实践，天主的国度必要临现于世。

其中最具代表性的救恩历史实践型的神学家，要算南美洲的赛贡度(J.L.Segundo S.J.)神父。他说在圣经中，罪的观念并非只是个人自由上的具体选择；且也是结构上的，社会性的一项事实演进。(12)。

人类历史就是人类被拯救的具体史实。而拯救就是「解放」，即从罪的权役中－－－不能避免的犯罪中，转变到爱的可能。基督为使人完全解放所作的工程就是「创世」的工程，它要继续「人化」，直至得到「天主子女的完全自由与光荣 。」(罗：8．I9-2I)(13)。

全部宇宙历史就是解放的伟大戏剧，目的是「自由」，而这目的，也只有不惧怕人为的毁灭与挫折，才能获得的。「创世」并非完结；创世的工程要从「创造者」的手移到人的手，这样，「自由」、「创造力」、与「天主子女」的光荣，才能显示出来。(14)于是创造的信念，就是要人加入「解放」的行列里，成为救恩历史实践的一股力量。

可见救恩历史实践型的创造论是对 「创造」的一项动态了解，它从神介入人类历史的交往中，得到实现救恩的力量，而成为此时此地救恩行动的理论基础和实践。

反省及建议

１．反省

上述各类型的创造论，对当代问题提供了解答，也为「主创造宇宙人类」的信仰，开辟了一个新的角度，产生不同的影向。当然，每一类型，都不能是全面的，同时也有它自己的不足；因此，各类型不但不互相排斥，且互相补充，每一类型都为将来的探讨典下一些基础。

「经院哲学推理型的创造论」以人的理性去解释和讨论创造论的问题，澄清了许多观念，也给人理智的基础去接受启示的信仰，在多次大公会议中发挥了相当的作用。它占据了大部份的神学历史，多至十多个世纪。可惜其缺点是流于抽象推理，与生活脱节，所有概念只能留在学者的思想中，成为有识之士的论题，而不是普遍地影向人生，使人人都得到救恩活讯息。更甚的，是此类型的「创造论」与其他救恩的过程孤立起来，使人看不到救恩的连贯与创世的计划，缺乏历史与内心层面的表现。消极护教式的「科学宗教协调型创造论」，在唯物无神论的泛滥中，发挥了卫道的作用，可惜消极护教式的创造论在信仰内容的了解上，并没有多大进展，仍然欠缺创造与救恩的全面反省，而只是把「天主」看成「隙缝中之天主」，用祂来解释任何不明白的事理，把「创造」放于科学无能的慈悲之下，关心理论，而忽异人类的实际命运。

至于积极入世式的 「科学宗教协调型创造论」，打破了以往以理性为主的创造论，更能以信仰的心灵来看人类之肇始和命运，使人了解天主创造天地并非一下子即大功告成，而是与救恩相连地不断进化，要求人不断努力参与，使宇宙达致基督化。可惜，这积极入世观未能充份具体地使科学与宗教两者得到沟通与汇合，使科学的研究和对「无限存在」的崇拜化成一体。

「存在主义感悟型的创造论」突破了满足理性的神学局限，而直指信仰中神的存在性关系，成功地把创造论带入一个主体化的事件，把人生创造与救恩在内心层面连贯起来，使「创造」成为生活的信仰讯息，而不是客观的思想概念。可惜这类型的创造论强调了人神关系的纵面，而未发挥出神人关系的历史性横面，未能具体地探问整个人类的经历。它重视了个人，但忽略了全人类的命运。　

「救恩历史实践型的创世论」，一反以往理论的弊端，而直接的反省信仰生活；它的灵感与基础也非推理，而是从圣经的注释发展而来。同时，它也不再断章取义的孤立了创造的问题，却对人类的处境命运作整体的反省，因而领悟救恩的介入人类历史中。救恩与创造也并非概念 ，而是今日的现实 ，成为一股行动的力量。它关心的不是理论，而是行动，是解决人类恶劣命运的一种实践。但是，这观念可能在发展的过程中，太重着横面历史解放的一面，而忽略神人关系的纵面，欠缺内心修养，易走入暴力革命的危险，是美中不足的地方。不过，救恩历史实践型的创造论是一个还需开拓的神学领域，其动向及贡献是不容忽视的。

从以上的反省中，可以见到人对救恩的了解，是随着人类历史而成长的；事实上，天主圣神是不断的在信者的生活上拓展力量；在不同的时代，产生不同的效果。从基督徒自我保卫式的姿态(反映在第一和第二类型的创造论)发展到对神对世界的开放(反映在第三和第四类型的创造论)，信仰再不是 「我」的保有，而是朝向「信者」与「不信者」一起的「解放」;「创造化成天地万物」的信念要成为事实 ，历史也成为有意义的得救过程。基督的信仰就是人生活和命运的转捩点；而神学之表达信仰也不是空洞的名词，而是生活动力的基础。

既然如此，在回顾今日香港教会的神学现况，笔者愿意用以下本色化创造论的探讨，作为建议另一项问题的开始，并希望藉此引起同道们的共同探索。

2．本色化创造论的探讨之建议

创世纪既是以色列民族信仰经验的产物，而教会在千多年的历史里，也曾不断设法去了解创世纪首三章的意义；但此时此地的人怎样去了解宇宙人生秩序的终向，人类存在的命运，人的有限性及罪的经验，继而建立人神的关系呢？这是本地人信仰所要走的道路。

故此，笔者试用以下列两个问题作为一个探讨：

一、与当地文和的交谈

与本地文化交谈是建立本色化神学的过程，然而中华基督信仰神学学者们专论此题的仍未要于文字，偶然有关此问题的也只有在探索中华人仕对「天」、「神」、「上帝」等观念时略然提及。故现试从数篇中国神学家之作品中，把散布各处有关创造论问题的国人思想，整理一下：

(一)国人基本思想中对「神的问题」，往往信而不问，至于天地之来源问题亦是如此，思想界中关心的是 「人事」而非「鬼神」，所谓「敬鬼神而远之」。而一般通俗百姓也抱着「有事有神，无事无神」的态度，至于从哲理来解释天命人事的，也着意伦理之修养，或与天地化合之内心境界的祥和及仁心而矣。

(二)国人在历史中，在世事变迁里亦尝体味一位掌管了人生命和国家诈运的「上帝」，如商书汤誓「予畏上帝 ，不敢不正」，「维此文正，小心翼翼，昭事上帝，聿怀多福」、「夏王灭德作威，只敷虐于万方百姓……天道福善祸谣，降灾于夏。」又如「商罪贯盈天命诛之。」于是从世事变迁中亦将宇宙人生秩序之终向归之于天。「天生蒸民，有物有则，民之秉彝，好是懿德。」(毛诗大雅)，好像有一位有原则，有意志的「天」。而其中所以个人存在的命运亦是如此，故孟子日:「天将降大任于斯人也，必先苦其心志，劳其筋骨，饿其体肤」。故此在纲常之中，老子有「天网恢恢，疏而不失」，又「天讨有罪」(尚书皋汉篇)解决了人性上罪之问题，以示人要顺天命而生，不违天意。

(三)也有从宇宙的观察，而达至吾心之体认，去了解我们所谓创造论的问题，如老子本义廿章：「有物混成，先天地生，寂兮寥兮，独立而不致，周行不殆，可以为天下用 ，吾不知其名，名之曰‘道’……人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。」而瞭章亦云:「道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物，万物负阴而抱阳，冲气以为和。」其后宋明理学更倡理气之说:「无极而太极，太极动而生阳，动极而静，静而生阴，静极复动.....一动一静，互为其根，分阴分阳…‥干道成男，坤道成女，二气交感化生万物，万物生生而变化无穷」。于是天地人事也如此包括其中，而至张横渠更扩之于人心的体悟 ，人存在的命运 ，西铭曰：「干称父，坤称母，予兹藐焉，乃浑然中处，故天地之塞吾其体，天地之帅吾其性，民吾同胞，物吾与也。」加上易传系辞上第一所说；「天地之大德曰生，圣人之大宝曰位，何以守位，曰仁。」遂以天地宇宙大道之原则放于人事伦理。于是在处理人不仁之问题也就以存天理，去人欲，以达致与天地同德亡，「天人合一」为理想。(14)

上述对创造论的了解，在向国人讲解信仰时是适合的，因为某些观念是可以互为表里的，如「仁」比「爱心」，「生」比「永生」，「人欲」比「罪恶」，「天人合一」比「神人复和」，然而难道这就是我们基督信仰的涵意吗？这关乎中华文化在启示中所扮演的角色。信仰与文化，何者为器？何者为道？如何以本色神学来作「体」和「用」呢？大致而言，国人在探讨人生宇宙终向，人类存在命运，以及罪恶问题中，皆是以人的努力作主的，故以似于位格的「天」，「上帝」，或以像没有意志的「理」去解释神，这些比起基督信仰中的了解相距很远。有云中国文化对上帝了解的终点，恰是圣经讲及上帝的起点，因为基督徒的信仰是神主动的启示，祂进入人类的历史，由创造主而成为救主，中华文化与基督信仰不是冲突，而是融为一整体的，这当然是本色神学的工作。然而上述所谈「创造」的问题，多是取自中国古代哲理的书籍，此等观念和理论，对现代人的影向究竟还有多少，这是个值得探讨的问题。以一套「已往」的哲学理论与观念去解释「现今」生活的信仰，我们相信这不是本色化神学所要追寻的。　　　　　　　

其次，在没有探索本色化创造论之前，也许我们要研究一下对象这问题，中华文化在此时此地到底是指那些中国人的文化？中国大陆？台湾？还是香港的「中华文化」呢？这三个地域表面上的政治体系、经济与社会结构皆不太相同，(当然在同一地域的人的心态、思想及生活都有不同程度的差别。)我们决不能含糊地祇用「中华文化」这个名词去探讨本色化创造论。

如果本色化的过程是要与实际生活作交谈的话，那么，首要的工作是要明瞭现代人所关注的问题。现代人不是要知道宇宙的源始，而是要知道人类往何处去，工作的意义与价值，人类世界发展的目标等，上述所用中国哲理去了解创造论的做法，能否解答现代人的问题，确是一个疑问。再者，神的观念(对神的认识往往跟着社会组织而改变，(在古经中，游牧民族所认识的上主跟立国后都市化所认识的上主便有分别)，古代的中国社会组织结构跟现代大有差异，以往对「天」的认识能否适应现代此时此地的人呢？

二、与实际生活交谈

既然本色化创造论是本地人以信仰的眼光反省自己的生活与历史，现在就试以香港人的概略生活经验去反省创造论的意义。「出谷」，在以色列民族的历史上，在他们的宗教经验上，并且在对创造的了解上，都占着相当重要的地位，因为从那时候开始，他们由不同的小支派，共组成为一个民族，确定了他们在列邦中，在其他民族中的地位和身份。从这事件中，以民体会到天主愿意衪的子民获得自由，冲破奴役制度的枷锁，抗拒压迫的暴行，在天主恩宠的光照下，人民可为自己的命运作出决定和努力，开创一个有希望的未来。

于是，历尽 黑暗到光明，从过去的怀念和懊悔，投向未来的憧憬与希望的经验后，以民在创世纪首三章中，为人生秩序终向，人类存在的命运和罪恶等问题，提供了明确的内容与意义。

但香港人便缺乏如此的「出谷」经验；(也许某些个人或团体会在有限的程度下争取「出谷」的经验。)这个涉及香港何处去这问题。（要独立，还是永远做殖民地，抑是回归台湾或中国大陆政权的怀抱？）因看政治微妙的关系，使到香港人不能确定自身的身份，更谈不到有希望的未来。加上因此而产生的机会主义，钱银至上，今朝有酒今朝醉，少做事，多叹世界的「哲学」，或是「命裹有时终会有，命里无时莫强求」的「宿命论」，创造论决不能在这类经验中建立起来的。

结语

由于万物都渴求看天主子女的自由，故深信来日的创造论仍要承先启后，向着更深的「救思」历程迈进；随时随地为人类所面对的问题作出指引。创造论既是救恩的起点，植根于天主的爱情之中，故希望所有为改造世界及人类命运而献出努力的人，都能接触到创造万物的主宰及其爱情 ，俾创世的目的早日完满实现。

  

(1)胡安德译，柯布登著，多玛斯思想简介。闻道出版社。(I974)I5I一I69页

(2)施安堂译，邓辛疾，萧默治著，天主教会训导文献选集。(I974)742页

(3)王昌祉主篇，现代问题的解答，光启出版社(I964)I82页

(4)晨辉译，马僖，亚力山底合着，科学、哲学与宗教，光启出版社。(I962)71页

(5)王维贤译，奥脱著，天主教信理神学，征祥及光启出版社。(I967)I960一I6I页．

(6)同上I64页

(7)王秀谷等著 ，德日进与人类远景 ，现代学苑月刊社(1969)88页

(8)同上89页

(9)卡尔．巴特著，胡簪云译，教义学纲要，基督教文艺出版社。(1963)10，22，30页

(10)同上40，51页

(11)同上66页

(12)Juan Luis Segundo S.J., EVOLUTION AND GUILT, ORBIS N.Y. 1974, 77页

(13)同上83页

(14)同上140页

(15)罗光：生生之理，神学论集14期。

房志荣：从申命记的写作过程谈到教会的本地化。‘神学论集’21期。

房志荣：儒家思想的天与历经中的上帝之比较。‘神学论集’31期。

中华基督教神学论集，申华基督徒送书会(1974)

周联华著：如此我信，基督教文艺出版社(1972)　

作者：赵正葵 年份：1977

(甲)田氏的生平与思想方法引言



田立克(Paul Tillich)生于一八八六年，德国人，其父是牧师，他在十九世纪自由主义的气氛下受教育。这形成他日后对自然表现出一特殊的喜爱。第一次世界大战期间曾任随军牧师，因此有机会对各种社会问题深入了解。战争结束，他便开始了神学教授的生涯，并且与当时的「宗教社会主义」运动接触，反对希特拉的极权专制，遂不见容于德国纳粹主义下的政权。一九三三年，在尼布尔(Reinhold Niebuhr)的帮助下他逃离德国，到纽约协和神学院(Union Theological Seminary)担任教授。这时他已四十七岁，开始在一个新的国家使用新的语言工作。(注一)

田氏在短短几年后便成为全美最着名的神学家之一 ，事实上，「他是本世纪最杰出的神学家，宗教哲学家，一生中先后获得十五个博士学位，是在学术界极具声誉的思想家。」(注二)一九五五年他退休离开协和神学院，便马上又被哈佛大学请去担任神学教席，且是拥有最高荣誉的University Professor之职。他一生工作不歇，一九六五年去世那年他还在芝加哥大学任教。

田立克被称为「神学家的神学家」不是没有缘由的，他有超凡的见地，作品高深难懂 。对现代人切身的问题，如时间、历史、永恒、焦惧、空虚、勇气、信仰等问题都有详细讨论。多数欧洲的学者认为他是反对巴特和卜仁尔的一位自由主义神学家。有时他也自嘲称自己是「最后一位自由主义者」。但当他到了美国，他却认为是新正宗派的发言人。他常说他是处在自由主义和新正宗派之间。他赞同自由主义者，认为宗教须用理性来加以考验，同意对圣经进行高等批判，并致力研究宗教和文化的关系(注三)。另一方面，他赞成新正宗派的主张，认为一切启示以圣经中所见「耶稣就是基督」的造像为最终准则。到后来，田立克将他自己的学说发展成一独立的神学系统，而不再归入任何一派。

相互关系(CORRELATION)是田立克基本思想的方法。他认为神学家的职责就是把圣经的信息和当代的情况衔接起来。假如人想了解主的启示，就得先有准备。启示也证明人的思想和问题，与宗教信仰的解答之间有一种和谐的相互关系存在。而神学家的责任就是指出这种事物之间的相互关系。这就是说，神学必须使用其所在地的文化语言，即神学本位化(注四)。

如想对这相互关系作深一步了解，便该先研究一下田氏常用的三个名词：神治(Theonomy)，法治 (Heteronomy)、和自治(Autonomy) 。他认为所有的思想活动均不外是上述三个名词之一的表现。法治就是指一个人服从他身外的法律，若宗教以权威来迫他人遵守某种信仰和行为，这宗教就是法治的。在法治的宗教内，领导者自认并强迫他人接受自己就是神的代言人。神是最高的立法者，我们必须服从祂。这种法治思想，田氏认为忽视并破坏了人的创造力，使人没有成长和表现的机会。我们服从神的命令，因为祂的能力超过我们，这个理由并不充份。它导致神与人的割裂；忽略了人是神的肖像，及神在每一个人心内工作，神给每一个人不同的元宝、才干和创造力，要我们去发展。因这自由，人迟早会藉「自治」的名义来背叛法治主义。人不再向外力低头，自己要成为自身的主宰(注五)。

神治主义主张法治与自治并重 ，法治与自治都根源于神治(注六)神与人在事实上有极密切的关联。神是我们内外之主，在外有律法，而我们在自己内在亦能寻到上主的律法。上主所赐的法律原和人自己的本性相协调。所以在法律中，人不会失落自己，更能找到真我。这样服从上主的命令，不是因为上帝的能力超越我们，而是因为上主是一个人与他自己、与别人、和与整个世界的基本关系。

田立克支持自治主义，反抗法治主义。但他同时认为自治无法满足人的深刻需要，自治对人生缺乏深度和连贯性。自治时期导致一片零乱，丧失以世界为整体和作为人生中心的观点。自治不能提供人生一个确实的方向，不能给人安全感，也不能为人生建立根基。

随自治时期的结束，我们面前有两条路可供选择，一是恢复法治主义，许多人为了「逃避自由」，而选择这条路。权威主义的宗教说：假使人愿意放弃自主的自由，他可以获得力量和安全感。另一条就是新的神治主义，人从神找到完整性、意义及人生的深度。在新的神治主义内，上主并不被视为一股来自外界的拯救力量，祂就是自治主义所已经发现的真理及善良背后的深度和根基。(注七)

最后，关于田立克的思想，还有两方面是值得我们注意的，以便对他的作品有明澈的了解。

(一)他的政治思想是遭遇纳粹逼迫的反应，我们随时都能看到他对希特拉式极权政治的反叛，周联华博士曾提到「田教授是德国的古本，他前半生的教授生涯都在德国，……希特拉执政改变了他宁静的教授生活，他逐渐在演说及作品中透露及传播不满纳粹的思想，甚至为学校解聘，不得再在德国境内立足。」(注八)

(二)他对其它宗教的尊重和宽容 ，这一点不是他的「不信」，而是他的神学思想看重「相互关联」，重视现状与文化，注意基督信仰与当地文化的关联。田立克认为基督教并没有比其他宗教高超，基督徒也没有此其他的宗教信徒更公义，可是基督教所见证的基督乃是终极的，故基督教的关怀是终极的关怀。(注九)。

(乙)田氏的历史与天国观

历史的不同层面

田立克在他的神学着作中，非常看重历史的研究与分析，他尝试从历史的角度去探讨天国的问题。他的神学主要是历史神学(Theology of History)(注十)。他深信应以历史问题去接触形上学(Metaphysics)(注十一)。历史是行动(Movement)，藉此可以达到满至的创造时刻(Creative Time)。历史还可以透过自由，而达到意义的实现。

历史可以从几个不同的层面来作讨论 :(一)历史指向，(二)人与历史，(三)历史时刻，(四)历史的含糊。

程。精神指向(Spiritual Dimension)与历史指向两者没有什么大分别，前者看重描述这潜能的实现过程，和人创建的成份。后者却侧重这过程的方针、动向、和人所创造的新事物的呈现(注十二)。

及所报告的事实 (Events Reported)。报告是属于主观见解或主观心性(Subjective Mentality)。透过主观的见解来决定各体事实的意义，和选择所要报告的事实 。这种抉择是人运用自由的表现 ，(Exercise of Freedom)，藉此人创造历史(Spiritual Creativity)。但这自由的运用是以历史意识 (Historical Consciousness)为基础 。历史意识是指对社会的需要和企望的醒觉和认识 。藉着这种认识 ，人能将发生过的事实织构成历史 ，所以人生的经历(Human Happenings)成为历史事件(Historical Events)。主属结构就是指事宜和人对这事实所作的解释。

历史意识使人具备写历史的动机和目标(Purpose)。由于人自由地选择和实践不同的动机，我们便在历史中发现不断有新事物的产生。在自然界里，新事物是藉分裂(Division)、再生(Reproduction)、特别是进化(Evolution)而来。但在人类史的层面上，新事物是特指价值和意义上的新，这与自然界里的新事物有本质上的分别。至于所谓新的意义和价值是指代表一些其他的事物，而同时又超出自身的。总括而言，田立克认为人类历史具有四大不可缺少的特征：一、目标(Purpose)，二、自由(Freedom)三、新(Newness）四、意义(Significance)。


这些具有历史直接肩负者资格的团体不可能是「全人类」。全人类政治上的一致是人类史的目标。既是目标，就不可能存于历史之内，而应在历史的尽头。同时，只有政治上一致的组织(Bearer of History)方可担此重任。所以，在旧约中，天国(Kingdom of God）；是富政治性的。在另一方面，人类藉看动力的自由来创造历史，而这动力的目标就是政治上统一的人类，故此这目标不可能存于动力的自由内。有见及此，田立克主张：人类统一过程中的开始 ，个别小组方是历史的肩负者 ;即使是统一的人类 (United Mankind)，仍要受小组的压力和影响。

切有限体(Finite Being)的特质。历史性时刻是指趋向满全(Fulfillment)的时刻。它应该是向前、创新 、不倒流和独一无二的(Unique），满全是永恒的达致(Future Eternal）(注十四)。有了永恒，时间便终止，满全是有赖自由抉择而获得。有了满全，则自由亦告终结。(注十五)。换言之，历史的目标就是历史的结东。整个历史过程是在设法跳越时刻的含糊不明(Ambiguities of Time)，所以历史应是进步的(Progress），趋向最基要的新(Ultimately New)。田立克主张在进步的过程中有自由的介入(注十六)。因这介入，历史时刻是难以预测地跳跃着(Unpredictable Leaps)，而不是按步就班地进展。

向满全，故此有其暧昧不清的一面。否定来说，历史的进展不是可以预期的(Calculated)。因着自由的介入，历史是跳跃着前进。这意味着下降(Fall)的存在。肯定方面，历史在趋向最终目标的过程中，会实现一连串有限的目标(Limited Aims Actualized)。有时这些有限和过渡性的目标会被误认为最终目标，这就形成了历史含糊不清的一面。

同时，生命的三个程序亦构成历史的含糊：(一)自我成全(Self-integration)会形成权力的增长，这会做成创造力和破坏力相对的增强。(二)自我创造(Self-creativity)亦会导致改革(Revolution)与反改革(Reaction)的对立。(三)自我超越(Self-transcendence)亦即自我提升 (Self-elevating)。对于这样的捉摸不定，我们称之为魔性(Demonic)，因其具有破坏力，可以毁灭建设。

对天国的探索

上文所提出的终极目标、动机和自由……等，迫使我们去探索天国的问题 。事实上 ，一切关于历史的解释都受存在的意义和其捉摸不定的特征所困扰。历史的意义和存在的因由只有亲历其境的人才能体验和领悟，正如河水的急度，唯有处身河中的人才能体会。

的精神创造的动力和指向。历史时刻包括全部生命。给历史意义的答案亦是存在物意义的答案。田立克以基督徒的立伤来给历史解释，这就是基督徒的历史观。

连合一切有限体。总括以上四点，天国应该是无所不在(Immanent)，而同时又超越一切的(Transcendent) 。

历史内的天国

田立克认为救恩史是指救赎的力量藉着一连串的事件，而介入历史的程序中(注十八)。天国是以渐进的方式介入历史。

基督学能给人历史的解释(注十九)。耶稣基督是历史的根源和核心。天国是透过启示而渐渐呈现，启示导引我们去认识基督为历史的核心和根源。

史。这种突破，田氏称之为时机。而时机(Kairos)与时间(Chronos)相对。前者是指启示的时刻，是时间的质。后者是计算的时刻，是时间的量(注廿)。

(三)天国和宣示的教会(The Kingdom and the Manifest　 指整个宇宙。除人之外，还包含所有其他一切事物。随着基督(New Being)的降临，我们进入新天新地的境界。那里没有不洁和魔性。由于只有一个以基督为核心和根源的属灵团体(Spiritual Community)，故此只有一个教会。这教会代表天国，但不就是天国，这是因为教会史中有捉摸不定的现象(Ambiguity)。教会内，人性仍然占非常重要的位置，故此教会有不纯净的成份。

末世论(Eschatology):天国即历史的终结

历史的目标就是天国，神圣的临现 (Spiritual Presence)和永恒的生命。三者相同而重点各异。天国是指历史内和超历史的满全，神圣的临现的重点在历史内(Inner-Historical)，而永恒的生命则注重超历史的满全。

秩序内，即历史的秩序和永恒的秩序。他们不是相同的，但永恒的秩序是藉历史秩序而呈现。永恒的生命有两个特性，即统一性和洁净性(Unification and Purification)(注廿二)。

(二)审判：意即排除否定(Exclusion of the Negative)。在暂时到永恒的转化过程中 ，所有否定和捉摸不定的都会被排除。这就是最后审判(Ultimate Judgment)。这是必须的，因为天国或永恒的生命达到满全时，便不可能再容许否定和捉摸不定的存在。

(三)本质化(Essentialization)；永恒的生命并不只是消极地排除所有缺点，亦包括容纳及肯定一切积极的(Positive)事物。随着基督的降来，一切事物得以重获其本质 ，就是柏拉图(Plato）所谓的本质化。当人回复本原时，历史亦到达终点。虽然如此，历史仍有其永恒的意义，因为在历史的过程中，基督天主子曾以完人的方式呈现，以及透过这种呈现，一切事物得以本质化，而且有更丰富的本质(Enriched Esseence)(注廿三)

(四)不死和复活(Immortality and Resurrection) 这是指个人参与永恒的生命(注廿四)。永恒的生命就是在主内的生命，它不表示没有完结的时间(Endless Time)或来生(Life Here-after）。它有超越暂时性的特质。田立克认为圣经中「肉身的复活」(The Resurrection of the Body)是指整个人参与永恒的生命。复活并不是一件在遥远的将来会发生的事，而是「新实有」(New Being)的一种能力。这能力使祂(New Being)在今时今日从死亡中创造生命。那里有「新实有」，那里有复活 。换言之，复活能存在天下普世之中(注廿五)。

（丙）批判

田立克的历史神学是基于神治主义。在历史的层面，他设法将宗教与文化联合。田氏认为神治主义不是在一个宁静的空间内存在，而要在时空中力争上游。虽然只能达到一段非常片段和捉摸不定的(Fragmentary and Ambiguous)神治时期，但亦能以此去量度历史的节拍。事实上，历史是从神治时期来，而趋向神治时期(注廿六)。历史内的天国就是属于神治主义的部份胜利。至于，神治主义的全部应验则是超越性的，即是脱离暂时性的。所以，神治主义并不是一个纯粹的理想(Utopia)。完满的神治时期应该是普世本质化的(Universal Essentialization)，在永恒的生命内，人全部的创造潜能都获得实现，人和神重新联合一致。

无论为赞成或反对田立克这些神学理论的人，田氏对历史的解释都是一雇极大的刺激。他最基本的贡献是关于时机(Kairos)的概念。这概念是了解田氏思想的关健(注廿七)。基督的降生就是神性和魔性之间存在着最大的冲突；藉此冲突，天主的国克胜了魔鬼(Satan)的国(注廿八)。在田立克的神学理论上，时机和相互关联两个概念有极密切的关系。

积极方面，田立克的历史神学具有非常大的价值。时机的概念、历史的主属结构、历史的直接肩负小组、历史时刻的记号、天国的历史内和超历史特性……等都对当代神学思想路线有极大的贡献。故此，田立克在神学思想上的不完满处，不在他所说了的，而在他所保持缄默的地方。

(一)他的本质化理论是基督学和历史神学的关联。耶稣基督是历史的核心。透过基督，历史的意义或目的(Goal)得以呈现。这历史的目的就是「新实有」，即本质化了的人性。在耶稣基督内，「新实有」呈现在历史内 ，但同时又有超越历史的目标，这目标亦成为历史不断前进的终向。

可是，田立克没有将「新实有」的基督性和末世性连结在一起。换言之，他没有明显地指出我们的复活和基督的复活之间的关联。此外，还有一个待解问题：天主与人怎样因本质化而得重新联合？天主与人怎样透过基督而联合？教会的神性和人性怎样联合？这些问题都是同一问题的不同面 ，有待我们去寻求解答的。

(二）在田立克的末世论，另一个使人惊奇的遗漏就是有关死亡的问题。死亡是表示个人现世生命(Temporal Existence)的完结，属于历史内的时刻；但由于它对「存在」是一个绝然威吓：Absolute Threat of Nonbeing)(注廿九)，故此使田立克很自然地把它撇开，转而去注意「死亡」的超历史意义。

(三)田立克亦没有讨论关于来生(After Life)的问题。这问题涉及灵魂的不死和肉身的复活。他曾讨论有关在永恒内个人的自我意识。可惜，他只提供了两个反面的答案(Negative Statements):一、自我意识(Self-conscious)不能从永生中被排除。二、在永生中的自我意识是与暂世的不同。关于复活过来的肉身(Spiritual Body)，他亦给了两个反面的答案；一、他不是纯精神的，和二、他不是纯物质的。田立克认为以往有关灵魂和肉身的理论陷于二元论的危险(注卅)，但他却没有给与肯定的解答。

从以上的反省，我们注意到田立克对问题的解答往往是象征的，甚至是逆证的。这是很多近代神学家所采取的路线。有些人认为这种答案到头来往往比其他答案更能令人满意。但有些人却对此甚表不满，他们极力追求肯定的答案，他们认为「存在」本身是一个绝大的肯定。

最后，虽然田立克的神学理论不是十全十美(事实上，没有一位神学家的理论是无瑕可击的。)，但无可否认他是近代最著名的神学家之一。在关于历史和天国的问题上，他曾给了一个很中肯的结论。田立克说：「我们不能期望在历史的进程内找到完满的公义与和平，但我们能希望在某一定的时刻公义获得部份的胜利。」(注三十一)

　

  
(一)田立克著，郑华志译，「系统神学第二卷」，东南亚神学院协会，一九七一年六月初版。

(二)田立克著，蔡伸章译，「生之勇气」，东南亚神学院协会，一九七一年十二月初版。

(三)Tillich P., The Interpretation of History, Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y. I936, P.49

(四)如(三)

(五)Tillich P., Systematic Theology, Vol.1. Harper & Row I967 P.83

(六)同上第八五至八六页。

(七)同上第一四七至一五０页。

(八)文星杂志第五十九期。

(九)参阅：田立克著，罗鹤年译，「信仰的能力」，东南亚神学院协会，一九六四 年五月初版。

(十)Tillich P., The Protestant Era, University of Chicago Press 1957 　 Chapter XIII.

(十一 )TillicA P., The Religious Situation, Meridian Books, N.Y., 1956 　PP.81-83.

(十二 )Tillich P., The Interpretation of History, PP.272-273

(十三 )Tillich P., Systematic Theology, Vol.III, Harper & Row 1967 PP.302　 -306.

(十四 )Tillich P., The Shaking of the Foundations, Charles Scribner's Sons 　 1948, 37.

(十五 )Tillich P., The Interpretation of History, PP.278-279

(十六 )同上第二七三页 。

(十七 )Tillich P., Systematic Theology, Vol. III, P.357.

(十八 )同上第三六三页 。

(十九 )Tillich P., The Interpretation of History, PP.242-265

(廿 )Tillich P., The Protestant Era, PP.43 46-47

(廿一 )Tillich P., The Religious Situation, P.35

(廿二 )Tillich P., The Kingdom of God and History, Vol.Ill, George Allen 　 and Uwin 1938, P.113

(廿三 )Tillich P., The Eternal Now, Charles Scribner's Sons 1963, P.76

(廿四 )Tillich P., The New Being, Charles Scribner's Sons 1955，P．24

(廿五)同上第十五页。

(廿六)Tillich P., The Protestant Era, P.47

(廿七)Cf. Paul Tillich in Catholic Thought, Thomas A. O'Meara 0 .P. and 　Celestiin D. Weiser 0 .P. (ed.) Priory Press, Iowa 1964.这是Erich 　Przywara的意见 。

(廿八)同上第二O二至二O四页。

(廿九)Tillich P., The Courage to Be, Yale University Press New Haven 　 I962 PP.42-45

(三十)Tillich P., The Shaking of the Foundations, PP. I37-138, I66-167

(卅一)Tillich P., Pacem in Terris, (address delivered at the Pacem in 　 Terris Convocation Feb.I8 I965 N.Y.C.): Criterion (University of 　 Chicago ) IV No.2 19655 P.18.

作者：杨鸣章 年份：1977

一、前言

年前与杨正义神父参观了一座位于九龙塘的东方教会教堂。教堂虽小，却摆满了圣像（ICON)。在阴暗的光线下，显出一种独特、虔敬而又神秘的气氛；虽然当时未有任何礼仪进行，但这种气氛却实在咄咄逼人，使我感觉到那些古老严肃的圣像，彷佛具有交谈的能力，他们的眼睛能洞察人心，他们的手足能跨越时空，向我招摇。那时，我忽然想起幼时在乡间，每年数度跟随长辈往祭祖祠，看见满屋的木牌，木牌上虽无画像刻划，但由于牌位前点着油灯，线香燃烧时散发袅袅馨烟，在呢喃的祷告声中，深深感受到另一种独特、虔敬而又神秘的气氛。与东方教会教堂内的圣像相比，牌位虽无五官手足刻划以表达神情，究竟有一种聆听与观察的静态动力，气氛不是咄咄逼人，却是一种可靠的亲切感。自那次参观之后，每见东方礼的圣像，便自然联想到那些木牌神位。上学年更因在杨正义神父的指导下，学习东方礼仪，遂有意将对圣像与对神位的敬礼作进一步的探讨，这就是本文的写作起由与动机。

本文首先从中国文化与基督教会文化角度下研究「敬礼」的意义，圣像与神位在礼仪中所担当的角色；其次描述它们的形状，追溯它们的起源，谈论人们对它们的认识；最后寻找出它们的异同，略加反省，俾能在礼仪中知所取舍。

二、祭礼与祭祖

祭礼，在农业社会的中国，开始时的意义，是感恩报德。每年四季，春耕夏耘秋收冬藏，都是天的恩赐，天的恩赐称为至，于是年有四至。春秋繁露的祭义篇说:「奉四时所受于天者，为上祭，尊天赐且尊宗庙也，一年之中天赐四至，至则上之宗庙，所以岁四祭也。」

把新的农产物，献于宗庙，以享先人，以报先人对于自己生养之恩，所以有祭祖。祭祖的意义，在孝经里说「春秋祭祀，以时恩之。」郑注云：「四时变易，物有成熟，将欲食之，先荐先祖，念之若生，不忘亲也。」

祭祖于对先人之灵，献上果食，以追念先人的恩德，常愿报答。祭祖典礼常由嫡子主持，没有儿孙，则立嗣子以奉祭祀。这又表示先人的生命在子孙里继续流传。

中国人的祭祖传统有着一段漫长的历史演变过程，其起源的正确年代没有正史文献可考。有人认为绎史卷五31纪年及博物者言「黄帝崩，其臣左彻取衣冠几杖而庙祀之」的记载，即是祭祖的滥觞。但这类文献只不过是一种传说的追忆，因黄帝轩辕氏可能仅属中国古代民族的一个称号，后人对黄帝的认识不过是根据司马迁那深具神话色彩的「史记」一书而来。但不管怎样，从古到今中国人就已有「灵魂不减」的观念。这一点可说是了解祭祖渊源的重要关键。中国文化自古以来即承认人死而仍存在；人死后称为鬼。鬼为归，因人死时魂归天，魄归地。左传子产说：「人生始化曰魄，既生魄，阳曰魂」。疏：「附形之灵为魄，附气之神为魂」。关尹子：「明魂为神，幽魄为鬼」。可见古人相信人有魂魄，死后为鬼为神。这种现象分明是亡灵崇拜，由此再演为以家族为主的祖先崇拜。魂魄鬼神思想导致中国古代社会人死未葬之先，向着尸体膜拜之礼俗。后来族人祭祖时，令有关系的人穿着死者的衣服象征祖先临在，受族人祭祀，这种仪式叫做「尸」。由这种扮「活祖宗」的立尸仪礼来看，中国人的祭祖传统是很古的。(注三)不过，正式的祭礼，常在庙里举行，只是庶士庶人无庙，则荐之于寝；后来同宗族的人都有祀堂，祭祖大典便在祀堂举行了。

三、礼仪与偶像崇拜之争论

犹太拉比克劳斯纳(Joseph Klausner)曾说：「耶稣的来临危及犹太人的文明」。基督教会与中国文化相遇也危及中国人的「道统」，这是一般知识分子的看法(注四)。教会在利玛窦(Matteo Ricci)时在中国重新开教，当时并不禁止祭祖，至康熙年间才发生重大争执，以致一七○四年，教宗格肋孟十一世颁下禁令，严禁「春秋二季，祭孔子并祭祖先之大礼。凡入教之人，不许作主祭助祭之事；连入教之人，亦不许在此处站立，因为此与异端相同。……凡入教之人，不许入祠堂行一切之礼。……凡入教之人，或在家中或在坟上，或逞吊丧之事，俱不许行礼。……凡入天主教之人，不许依中国规矩，留牌位在家，因有灵位神主等字眼，文指牌位之上有灵魂。要立牌位，只许写亡人名字。再者，牌位作法，若无异端之事，如此留在家中可也。但牌位旁边，应写天主教孝敬父母之道。」(注五)这「礼仪之争」在中国传教史上既困扰了传教士，又激怒了朝廷，且教友们并不愿一体遵行，使康熙朝代生气很旺的传教事业，一蹶不振，日趋衰颓，几至消灭，成了与文化冲突的典型。祭祖礼俗是中国固有的文化传统，教会面对此问题到底应抱何种态度，实在值得商榷。

类似的事件，其实在东方礼的教会也曾发生过，且年代更为久远。公元第八至第九世纪间，教会因圣像而引起大纷争；争持是否可以在私人家庭或教堂内敬礼基督、圣母、诸圣的画像；反对者要求彻底毁灭圣像，禁止敬礼。他们有的根据旧约，认为天主禁止圣像敬礼；有的认为新皈依教会的信众，刚摆脱多神的观念，不宜让他们重陷偶像崇拜的危险；更有的着重于神学理论，基于基督的天主性与人性及祂的救恩等，指出这种敬礼会导致异端谬说的死灰复燃。拥护的一方却坚决要求保持对圣像的敬礼，并基于下述理由，认为这敬礼是合乎信仰且理所当然：

(一)圣像并非偶像，而敬礼所指向的是像中所显示的圣者，不是木石油彩。

(二)圣像是教会的训导，他们以一种特殊的方法，向信众揭示天主的奥秘；因此，若有任何人不能或无暇阅读修习神学，多在圣堂流连，观察圣像，定能补此不足。

(三)圣像非单不是偶像，且除了有助信众于认识教理外，更是悍卫天主降生成人奥迹的一条砥柱；「圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间」，因天主取了我们人的形体，意味着物质被提升至神的境界；救恩不单使人的心灵获救，也使人的物质进入主的光荣。

这场争执一直维持至第七届大公议会结束为止；公元八四三年，教会正式接纳敬礼圣像的合法地位。为了纪念这件大事，希腊教会至今仍每年一度在四旬期首主日举行「正道大庆典」。 (注六)

四、神位在祭祀中的位置

中国的礼仪之争，经三百多年后结束，由教宗庇护第十二世，于一九三九年十二月八日，自传信部颁布法令，收回往日的禁令。传信部法令第四项有云：

「在亡人前，或在亡人像前，或在书写姓名的牌位前，鞠躬或行其他社会敬礼，乃属善举，理应准行。」(注七)

这法令虽颁布得过迟，总算结束了一场几历四世纪，痛心而又可恶的争执，解除了国人对敬祖的许多不必要的束缚。但真正的复苏，还是要等到六年前，台湾的教会藉「春节」举行祭祖大典方有积极性的表现，而这最公开的一次祭祖运动，竟再引起教内外人士激烈的反应；是次祭祖运动中所引起的争论，牌位仍属尖端问题之一。

祖宗牌位亦称神位，因为前人以其为神灵之所依；更有称之为神主，因为是由宗庙立以为神灵所栖之所。周礼春官记载：祭祀则共匣主。主，神所依也。

由祭天时，至因感恩报德而配享祖先，举行祭祖，再而至设立神位，及由对先人遗体致敬而演变至向神主行祭，中间过程变化，虽无明显史实记载，但仍不乏民间资料可查探思索。诗大雅记载：「文王在上，于昭于天……文王涉降，在帝左右」;书盘庚亦有云：「予念我先神后之劳尔先……先后不降与女罪疾」等语；若依明代学者曹学栓解释就是；「古者人君祀天地，必以祖考配享，其有所祷于天者，亦必藉祖宗之灵以为之请。盖天至尊，不敢唐突，而祖宗至亲，殆可以情告也」。(注八)祖宗与儿孙的至亲关系，本来不是必需要以物质的媒介才能显露的，但大概因为人在具体的生活环境中，不会常常意识到这层关系，故需可见的物质标记使之注意；可能因为这理由，遂奠下了神位设立的背景。

神位的前身是灵位，按照辞海注释：「灵位者，为死人所设之位也，以素棱或纸居中直书某某官爵某姓某讳之灵位，大抵设于其人初死之若干日内，以供祭祖，迨神位既成，即不再用」。由这里我们更可以体会到，国人当先祖考等弃养之初，设灵位以祭祀，并供凭吊悼念；待守孝期满，则改灵位为神位，对之如亲临，教导子孙报本思源，不可或忘身之所出处。在以孝为本的氏族社会中，以上的思想，清楚地显示了神位在祭祖中所负有的角色。

五、神位的起源及其式样

关于神主牌位的起源，民间传统提及它的，至少有两种记载。其中一个传说：周朝(公元前三百五十年)晋公子重耳的一名随员介子推，在他主子因仓惶逃亡，频临饿死时，从自己的大腿上割了一大块肉，煮了给重耳吃，而他自己则强忍庸楚继续行程。他后来在一个被人纵火焚烧的树林里活活地遭焚毙，他的主子寻获他的焦体，就在他死时拥抱着的树上割下一段木来，立作牌位，并每日在其前奉香纪念他。另一个传说，出自二十四孝的民间通俗故事：汉时有孝子名丁兰，因幼年丧父母，未得奉养，深以为憾；在思念肋劳之恩时，有一次，刻木如像，事之如生。丁兰之妻颇不以为然，藐而不敬。一日，当丁兰外出时，其妻以针戏指木像牌，竟有血出。丁兰回家时，木像牌的眼又有泪水涌现，兰见而问详情。既知因由，遂休退了妻子。不过，同一的主角，也有另一传说：「兰幼年顽劣，其母苦心孤诣，教之不倦，卒改变了他。一天，丁兰正在田间工作，他母亲为他送来饭菜，岂知在途中被树根绊了一交而死。丁兰哀痛逾里，遂削下了这段树根，造了一个牌像，日夜悼念。

不管神主牌位的源由是晋公子重耳对介子推的悼念或汉丁兰对父母的追思，今日已无法稽查真正的史实；甚至连其形像大小，也因地而异。不过较传统的神主牌位，大约均在九吋至呎许高；五吋至八吋宽；名贵的，有以檀木或上等红栗之木为材；次等的，一般就以普通实木制造。一座正式的神主通常分三部份：一块作底座，约三吋高、四吋厚、八吋宽；一块作背座，约呎许高、六吋宽、三吋厚，顶部及四缘刻上龙、凤、或其他吉祥瑞兽等像，中陷为镶正式牌面之用；一块作牌面，上书这神主所纪念之先人的属称，如高曾祖考妣等，附于官衔谥号之后，如皇清孝廉或诰赠孺人等；旁题立主者的名字，加属第排行；左方刻上生卒年月日；右方刻上葬地方向。(注九)不过也有将生卒年月日时及葬地方向刻于牌后的。这种传统的神主牌位，至今日除了在一些较古老且具规模的祠堂内可发现外，已不多见。尤其在私人家中，所能容放神主的地方不多，更因地方风俗之异而无划一的标准，因此往往显得简陋，甚至只写上先人的属称名号而已。不过，即使这样，对神主的敬礼仍不因而有所怠慢。



上图为一种传统神主牌位的图样。关于神主牌位，尚有几点值得注意之事：

(一)每座牌位只代表一位先人；(二)牌位无男女之分，通常夫妇二人，尤其祖考及祖妣神主大抵相似成对；(三)每位先人只能有一座正式的神主，归长子摘孙所奉敬；若无子孙，则应自旁支过继一子以作承继；(四)已婚女子无义务供奉娘家之神主；(五)每一个神主，通常承受祭祀至四代，由第五代起，移奉于祖祠，按时令忌辰等，举行公祭。

六、圣像在东方教会中的位置

相似中国人，藉着向神主牌奉香、献礼，作为表达对先人的敬恩，并视之如亲享。东方教会在崇敬基督，敬礼诸圣时，也有藉着向圣像行礼，献香烛等行为而表达的。基督圣像享有与圣经同等的尊崇地位；诸圣的圣像显示着圣者独特的圣德容光，正是分享着天主光荣与圣善的先烈，因此值得如同圣髑一样受敬，且往往能藉此等圣像生发奇迹。 东方教会的圣堂内，是放满圣像的地方，不论在墙上，帐幔上，台架上，都有各式各样的圣像，受着信众的尊崇。当一位东方教徒进入圣堂内时，他必然首先去购买蜡烛，走向那些他特别尊敬的圣像前，划十字圣号，鞠躬致敬，亲吻，燃点蜡烛，祈祷，再致敬，然后离去。

有一点值得注意的，就是在东方教会的圣堂内，那些圣像看似随意放置，没有什么秩序；但其实是有极严谨的神学根据作规律的，只要留意细看，便会发现它们的编排正构成一幅完美的天国构图。为此，东方教会的信众，深以这些圣像为天人交谈聚会的场所。信众团体常在圣像的环抱中聚集祈祷，举行礼仪；他们感受到这些圣像后面，不可见的心灵的参与；天堂对他们而言是开放的，且近得即在眼前；尘世的礼仪与天上的礼仪已如水乳交融，再也无分彼此了。(注十)下面的一幅简图，显示出东方教会圣堂内的一道圣像门 (Iconostasis)，位于至圣所的前面，从这里我们可看到圣像的排列系统，及信众祈祷兴举行礼仪时所能获得的喜乐与共融感受的理由。圣像门的作用是十分礼仪化的，它发展了整个东方教会的精神。圣言与圣像共同组成教义的整体，在信众前启示了永恒的救恩、人类的初果、基督降生的奥迹、教会的诞生及主的再度来临，使人意识到身为基督神妙肢体的一员。传统的圣像门分作五行：第一行是圣祖，以亚当为首，共以天主圣三为核心。第二行是先知，面向着降生的圣言；从这两行圣像的组织，使人体会到天主神圣的盟约就是救恩的许诺，一切圣祖的仰望及先知的满全。第三行是教会礼仪年历，救恩的实现标志，显现于新约的庆典中。再下一行是显示教会的完满及末世荣光的圣像，诸圣与众天使齐集审判宝座前，这是整道圣像门的中心，教会的归宿。最底下的是圣门，门上放着基督及天主之母的圣像，圣门的左边及右边各另有一门，称为南门及北门，上面放有该圣堂的主保圣人或其他圣者的圣像。圣像门是圣像崇敬经历了七至八世纪悠长发展的成果，在今日北至俄国，南至北非，东至希腊及土耳其等东方教会内的圣堂中处处可见。除了具有深奥的神学思想外，也实在是一项艺术结晶。(注十一)　

图解：1．圣门：a及a'圣母领报圣像b c d e肆圣史

　　　2．宗徒团

　　　3．教父之支柱

　　　4．基督或该圣堂所猷与者之圣像

　　　5．天主之母的圣像

　　　6．7．北门及南门：

总领天使之圣像或圣执事之圣像 (执事之门)

　　　8．9．其他圣者之圣像

　　　10．光荣之基督坐于审判宝座上之圣像

　　　11．教会庆典各圣像　

　　　12．诸先知之圣像 　

　　　13．诸圣祖之圣像(注十二)。
  



七、圣像的分类及来源

从前面对圣像门的描述中，我们可发现，圣像大致分三大类：(一)降生圣言的画像，基督母亲及诸圣的画像：(二)教会庆典及圣徒生平事件中，一段插曲的描写等画像：(三)教会教义，神学要义的象征性画像(注十三)。每一类的圣像皆非一般艺术性的作品；它们为信众是一项召唤及讯息，是一篇刻画在木、石、布、帐之上的祷文；为此，当绘画圣像时，绘者虽是自由的，却不能任意改编或创新，他首先需要经过长时间的祈祷及反省，然后遵从教会的训导，依照教会内启示的思想发挥，发挥的是艺术家的创作技巧，然而亦只能在规限了的范围中前进而已。绘画的人最基本的条件是一位诚恳正直的基督徒，总以教会的传统精神为生活准则，绘画前必须经过斋戒，告解，妥领圣体方可(注十四)

圣像的滥觞，据说是埃及人的殡葬图像，他们为了要使后人在他们离世后，保持对生前友好的系念，放在生时延聘画师绘下容貌及所有特点，尤其要显示年青力壮，英俊爽朗，双目精明，透视人心，俾在他们逝世后，不致从人们的记忆中瞬息间荡然无存。早期的圣像也追随同样的标准，像中人双目往往炯炯有神，像似洞察人心，有意与向其行礼者沟通某一些讯息。(注十五)

另一个传说，假若可能被接纳的话，最早的圣像是初期宗徒时代的产物；有人认为圣史路加是一位杰出的画匠，绘制了第一幅圣母怀抱孩提基督像。像中圣母以左手搂着耶稣，以右手指着她那「人而天主」的孩子。这幅圣像被称为「永生道路的指示」；经世代相传，今天已被复制成数以千计的同类型圣像，普遍地见于东、西方各教会中。(注十六)

圣像的真正起源，今日已难稽考，且亦不再为人所重视。东方教会所重视的是圣像上超然力量的临在，及天主在其上名实相符的显现。藉着这种临现，恩宠倾流到我们中间，洁净并圣化这为罪恶所沾污的世界。(注十七)

八、临现的问题与神学反省

要详细解释清楚这种临现，是一件十分吃力的工作，正如要解释清楚：天主与人同住─Shekinoh，或「如果你们两三人，因我的名聚在一起，我心与你们同在」是怎样的一回事，同样显得困难。然而这里所说的「同住」、「同在」，丝毫没有错误。这种圣像上的临现，同样也是教会的一项主要训导。基于教会是建立在尘世的天国同样思想，天国的临现因此也一直流传在圣像那里。(注十八)

在以孝为本的中国社会习俗中，也同样认为先人确以某一种精神上的形式临现于其神主牌位上，因此向神主行礼，会在一定的程度下与祖先的神灵相通，论语学而篇有一处说：「生则敬养，死则敬享」，不但强调祖先生时要敬要养，死去之后，仍不可忘记继续供奉；且也间接显示了另一点，即儒家祭典的应用。这一点思想，在礼记祭义篇中，有更清楚的指示：「祭之日，入室，僾然必有见乎其位，周还出户，肃然必有闻其容声，出户而听，忾然必有闻其叹息之声。是故，先王之孝也，色不忘乎目，声不绝乎耳，心志耆欲不忘乎心。致爱则存，致悫则着」。就是说，在祭祀之日，进到安置灵位的庙室中 (或供奉神位的祠堂中)，必如看到亲人的模样；祭祀礼拜过后，转身出门，心里肃然仍存有亲人说话的声音；出门之后，耳祭还喟然听到亲人发出的长叹。有着这种情形，所以先世王者之孝敬其亲，亲人的形像就永不离开他的耳际，亲人的心意和爱好，亦永不离开他的心灵意识。为着爱到极点，所以耳目中能显现亲人的影像……」(注十九)。这种描述，比诸东方教会的基督徒，在敬礼圣像，与及圣像所显示的圣徒时，有名实相符的相通的情形，既无逊色，亦无夸张之处；且绝对不含迷信色彩，可以被教会推许；在基督化的国人家庭中，设置神位，按着早午晚，生辰死忌，春禘秋尝而向先人致敬。

单单这样做也不够。既然我们相信诸圣相通功，那么仅在家室内举行这种儒家传统的祭祖典礼，意义尚未完备，因为这种仪典只有追思，而没有在基督内为亡者祈福。所以若能以基督的踰越祭礼为主，在礼仪中合适之处，加进向先人神主献香，颂祷，则孝思的表现会更深刻。(注二十)

正如在「前言」中清楚提及：本文的写作目的，只为寻找出圣像与神位的异同，略加反省，俾能在礼仪中知所取舍。故此在作出一种导论性的探讨后，让我重述梵二礼仪宪章中的一段话：「只要不涉及信仰及全体公益，连在礼仪内，教会也无意强加严格一致的格式；反之，教会培养发展各民族的精神优长与天赋；在各民族的风俗中，只要不是和迷信错误无法分解者，教会都惠予衡量，并且尽可能保存其完整无损，甚至如果符合真正礼仪精神的条件，教会有时也采纳在礼仪中」(注廿一)　谨以上述的训导，献与在这方面作更深入的研究及更勇毅的实践者作为关怀与支持。



参考书目

1. Casimir Kucharek, The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Alleluia Press Canada 1971

2. John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, Darton Long-man & Todd London 1962

3. Alexander Schmemann The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, Harvill London 1963

4. David & Tamara Talbot-Rice, Icons & Their History, Overlook Press Woodstock 1974

5. Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Peguin 1963

6. Nicolas Zernov Eastern Christendom, G.P. Putham N.Y. 1961

7. New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. VII

8. 王梦鸥注译，礼记今注今译，台商务，民国59年

9. 罗光著，教廷与中国使节史，传记文学社，民国58年

10.见证月刊，五十四期，民国65年

11.神学论集，卅期，辅大神学院，民国65年

  
(一)罗光，祭礼，见证月刊第五四期，民六五年一月，页六。

(二)董芳苑，基督徒的天父与中国人的祖先，神学论集第三十期，民六五年十二月，页四九九。

(三)同前，其四九五。

(四)同前，其四九八。

(五)罗光，教廷与中国使节史，传记文学社，民五十八年一月，页九十三。

(六)Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin 1963 P.38-43

(七)罗光，教廷与中国使节史，见前，页一七二至一七三。

(八) 宋稚青，祭礼，见证月刊第五四期 ，民六五年一月，页十六至十七。

(九) 辞源，吾学录，神主条。商务，一九四七年二月十五版，午部一一五。

(十) Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin 1963 P.26I & 277

(十一) New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. VII, P.326

(十二) 同前P.324

(十三) Nicolas Zernov, Eastern Christendom, G.P. Putham N.Y. 1961 P.277

(十四) Timothy Ware, Ibid, P.214

(十五) Nicolas Zernov, Ibid, P.277

(十六) David E. Tamara Talbot-Rice, Icons & Their History, Over Look Press Woodstock 1974 P.9

(十七) Casimir Kucharek The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, Alleluia Press Canada 197I P.228-229

(十八) Casimir Kucharek, Ibid, P.229

(十九) 王梦鸥注译，礼记今注今译，台商务，民国59年，页六O六

(二十) 罗光，祭礼，见前，页十。

(廿一) 梵二，礼仪宪章，廿七节 。

作者：周景勋 年份：1977

导言

正视入门礼的问题，我们必须先讨论渊源终向:　　　　

天主教  
１）以基督为中心。  
２）天主的启示主动将自己呈显给人类。
３）救恩史基督降生救赎，将人由罪恶中解救出来，转化人类整个历史。
４）基督的死而复活，将人(全人类)提升为天主的子女。
５）基督的降生成人，与人共存；然后死而复活，引领「人」上回向走向天国，以达天人合一。

佛教
１）以释迦牟尼为教主。
２）释迦在菩提树下悟道；现身说法。
３）自我了梧，而了生死，再达到自我超脱的境界。欲自我超脱必须断三根：去贪、眼、痴三惑。
４）个人的超脱以成「佛」。
５）是个人的出世要求，由个人上回向，超脱而成「佛」。


过 程

由于渊源终向有别，因此熏陶的历程也随之而别： 　

天主教
１）慕道期──由传道员去指引和训练。
２）慕道者对基督徒团体的认识。
３）慕道者必须有信德，愿加入教会团体，并须经过一段时期的考验才可洗礼入教。  
４）入门礼只可领受一次，在团体信仰生活中不断革新。

佛教
１）介绍人：没有责任教授经要。
２）没有慕道期；欲入教者可随意参与为大众办的念佛会。
３）只要认识三宝就可归依，归依三宝就是：
１.归依佛：归依佛宝以为师者２.归依法：归依法宝以为尊者３.归依憎：归依僧宝以为友者归依三宝亦称「三归」。
４）可以不断的归依：五戒归依，八戒归依 ………。

入 门 礼 仪 程 序　

天主教  
１）致侯(信仰团体)
２）启示：神的主动：圣经(圣言)
３）诸圣祷文(整个教会的祈祷及支持)
４）祝圣圣水
５）罪的弃绝
６）信仰宣誓
７）藉着圣三领受洗礼
８）坚振：接受圣神的力量
９）圣餐：团体奉献，自我奉献

佛教
１）请师
２）开导
３）请圣
４）忏悔
５）受归
６）发愿
７）劝嘱
８）迥向

结 论

相异点

天主教  
１）启示的宗教──救恩史：以基督降生、死亡、复活为高峰；透过天主的许诺，基督将人类提升至与天主共融合一。
２）藉教会转化世界，使天国临现。
３）注重团体精神。

佛教
１）个人的脱升──自我了悟，自我超脱，及自力的修持。
２）离生死轮回 (六道轮回：天，人，阿修罗，畜生，地狱，成鬼)，成佛，而至西方净土世界(极乐世界)。
３）不太注重团体精神。


相同点

天主教  
１）看重内心的默观，依靠主。
２）抉择：弃绝罪恶魔鬼，信主。
３）忏悔己罪。

佛教
１）内心的修持与归依。
２）抉择：发誓归依三宝。
３）忏悔罪业。

陈淼麟、孙英峰 合译 年份：1977

译者序

当两位兴奋而战栗的男女徐徐迈向教堂的祭坛，去完成其婚姻盟誓时，在这一剎那间，他们的抉择可以说是将自己投向一个未知的将来。然而，我们更相信虽然这是一种孤注一掷的冒险选择，但将来的幸福或痛苦却是由他们二人连同基督所共同携手去创造的，这种创造力是需要每日不断的再次去肯定，去更新，使能日益根深蒂固。

它不是一蹴而成的，首先需要作出一番事前充份的准备：准备相爱，准备自由而毫无保留地将自己完全交付给这唯一的对方，准备接受那将来所共同创造的新生命，准备建立一个和谐而美满的家。这无疑是他们心底所共同希求的憧憬，这憧憬之所以能够实现，一方面是由于新婚夫妇的坚强意志，而另一方面是由于大多数年青人都决心要建立好婚前准备的基础。所以婚前准备在今日毫无疑问是一个非常重要的课题，因为它关乎整个社会的基层组织，甚至可以说它是整个社会命脉之所系。

但我们可以体会得到，有很多实际的婚姻问题，在这对新人紧张地筹备和策划他们的婚礼时，大多数会有所遗漏，而不能同时兼顾的；或者有一些特殊的问题，如教会方面的训导，婚姻礼仪的预习，婚姻意义的解释，甚至如何填妥婚姻表格手续等问题，都需要有人从旁协助，使婚礼能顺利而完满地完成，为他们留下一段温馨的回忆。

由于顾念到年青的一代要决心建立好婚前准备的基础，而这种婚前的准备为一个美满的婚姻及幸福的家庭生活又是如此重要，更由于准备结婚的男女的确需要这方面的协助及引导。所以，教会鼓励神父们尽量与将要结婚的男女于婚前举行一些聚会，这种聚会绝不规限于形式之内，只要能够达到上述的目的，就已完成其任务了。但有时发觉这种资料的来源不很充份，且亦缺乏系统，故从外文书中去寻找。因而发现了这本英国及爱尔兰教律协会(The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and IreIand )出版的婚前准备报告书(Preparing for Marriage…A Report)，其内容中有五份纲要特别是为辅导准备结婚的男女而辑成的，故尝试将其中两份翻译成中文，希望能为各同道找寻出一条门径，或作为参考之用，便能计划出一个最有效的婚前准备方法，藉此而实践主所吩咐的使命，就是爱的使命。

　

第一份纲要

首次聚会

一、导言

建立亲善关系，寻出他们的生活背景、路线及才能等。预定婚期，发表通告，注册等。填好婚前表格(有关许誓等最后问题除外)。

二、叙谈原因　

天主愿意我们都是快乐的，祂也是为了这目的而造了我们。大多数人都能从婚姻中获得幸福。不协调的婚姻却带来怨怼和痛苦，因此务使婚姻成功是很重要的。姻婚不可拆散性之观念要求如何小心面对此问题，这观念也是婚姻遇到困难时之一大助力。由于婚姻是这样重要，所以教会推荐这类婚前准备及讲座。我们将尝试去保证你们的婚姻带给你们无上的欢乐。

三、我们将做些什么?

一，思索：客观深入地视察你的伴侣，详尽地列出他的缺点及长处。反问自己能否与他厮守终身(体会到基本上我们不会有多大的改变)？

二，解答问题：我是否真的爱这人？只有爱才会使你们时常生活在一起，时常喜乐。解释爱的真正含义。寻求对方的快乐，分享和给予。

三，祈祷：每日不断为下列两个目标祈求：

　 １.作出正确决定

　 ２.成为一位好丈夫及好妻子，使爱的能力得以增长。

四、(若是混合婚姻)给予非公教徒一个机会约略地认识何谓公教。应注意:不是为说服对方入教。

五、结束时，有机会去提出任何疑惑、恐惧或难题。

第二次聚会

一、 提醒他们自上次聚会以来所当开始做的事，鼓励他们继续不断地思索，发问，尤其不断祈祷。

二、爱与性及分享与给予：尽量运用日常家居生活之实例，使他们不会以为这是高不可攀的理想。性在爱情生活中的位置。婚姻的契合和忠贞观念，乃基于上述的看法，并由此而得以发展。

三、若想爱情不断成长，是需要付出努力的。再次拿出很多简单而每日常会遇到的例子来加以解释。

四、以圣事原则来瞭解婚姻──

一，是你们与基督之间所订下的契约；祂以这契约来束缚了自己。

二，由于这是一种持续不断的关系，所以婚姻生活中最微小的细节，若为培养婚姻关系而作，能成为你们成圣与获得喜乐的方法。性在婚姻中如何显示出上面所说的真实性。天主在人类生活组织中的完全参与。

第三次聚会

一、重覆上次聚会之引言

二、爱的三种层面：小孩子时，从父母处吸取；青年时，给予及吸取；但现在，是给予的时候了。

三、爱及蕃衍：父母亲的蕃衍特权和养育儿女的责任。子女反映出父母亲的容貌及生活方式。所有对上主和对他人的基本心态，主要是在年幼时从双亲的榜样学习到的。他们对天主赐给他们的子女所做的一切，将会是他们死后受审的最严重课题。切实谈论子女的抚育。如何判断有否给予子女「最好的一份」。基本上他们所需要及切望的是你们自己，而非你们以金钱买来给他们的东西。

四、在每日的祈祷加上这意向：为能成为良好的父母亲。

第四次聚会

一、(若双方皆为公教徒) 先由他们提出问题及疑难等。然后(双方)回答婚前表格的最后问题及作出声明。

二、(若是混合婚姻)

１，简略介绍公教教义。

２，豁免：完成申请手续及对非公教徒解释公教徒一方所允诺的是什么。　

３，处理婚前表格的最后问题及声明。

第五次聚会

婚礼彩排。

　

第二份纲要

首次聚会

甲、基督徒婚姻的意义：

(一)婚姻是一男一女的委付终身于建立一个共同的家庭；在人类的历史中，不论形式如何，家庭是长久存在着的。

(二)基督徒坚信婚姻并非盲目进化所得的结果，而是造物主亲自设计，为能在回归天主的道途上，保存人类的幸福。

(三)基督徒婚姻的生效，正如其他真正的婚姻关系一样，只在于一男一女，在权利与义务互相交付中，自由地允诺去组织一种共通的生活，并包括性爱关系及愿意接受子女的诞生。

(四)一切有效的婚姻，发生在两位基督徒中之时，就是一件圣事；因而关乎永恒的救赎与及教会的全体成员。圣事性的婚姻在经过性的交往后是不可拆散的。

乙、基督徒婚姻承诺的特质：

(一)基督徒婚姻承诺是一位指定的男子与一位指定的女子之坚决确实的互相委身。这种委身应包括接纳一个具有排他性的性关系，且愿意接受衍生儿女的可能性。这种委身是完全及圆满的，致使在决定委身于这独特的对方时，必同时决定发展一个共通的生活方式。

(二)婚姻的承诺是永恒的，要求持续终身，只能因一方的死亡而结束。

(三)婚姻的承诺是具有排他性的，绝对不能将第三者包括其内。这种排他性特别强调在性的关系内，不论这第三者为何人，皆无权分享。

丙、基督徒婚姻的目的:

(一)既然基督徒的婚姻基本上是一件圣事，因此它最终的目的，是使夫妇双方，及使他们为回应主的召唤所服务的一切教内外人仕，均能获致永恒的救恩。

(二)基督徒婚姻也分享了普通婚姻的恩赐，因它都是藉着生养教育儿女，使人类得以衍生及保存。

(三)永恒的救恩及传生与教育子女最能在姻婚的性关系中获得。

丁、基督徒的婚姻要求并培养夫妻爱：

(一)夫妻爱并非单独指夫妇间在婚姻内的性行为，而实在包括了整个的服务及使对方臻于完美的过程。

(二)因此夫妻爱应该是一种毫无保留的交付，以人为开端，并以天主作最后终向，透过使对方达致肉体、道德与心灵上的得益表达出来。

(三)夫妻爱需要以基督作为中介。

第二次聚会

甲、夫妇间最基本的平等：

(一)基督徒婚姻不能因婚姻风俗或社会习惯而受到拆散。基督的教导至今仍在教会内保存，它指出婚姻中双方的平等。因此，夫妻应平等合作，共谋夫妻爱的成长，家庭的组合和圣化，达致永恒的救恩。任何侵犯这基本平等性的社会行为，皆与基督徒婚姻相违背。

(二)夫妇彼此具有同等的责任，培育对方之成长，成为更成熟的基督徒、丈夫、妻子、父亲或母亲。

(三)彼此注意生理及感情上的不同；这些差异绝不应成为夫妻在婚姻中平等地位的绊脚石。

乙、丈夫在夫妻爱方面的成长：

(一)丈夫最少应尽可能了解及负责照应妻子肉体、性欲、理智、精神等方面的需要，亦应接纳她的女性气质，并常予以鼓励。

(二)丈夫应以他的男性气质、他的坚强及他的工作、喜好与节制，取悦妻子，使对方成为一位更成熟的基督徒、母亲和朋友。

(三)关心妻子灵性方面的成长，使她对祈祷及事奉天主的热心的加增，亦属丈夫的责任。

(四)关于家庭的组织，经济的运用，时间的支配，丈夫应期望他妻子负起大部份责任。

丙、妻子在夫妻爱方面的成长：

(一)乙项所提及的一切，均可运用于妻子对丈夫的关系上，亦即运用于妻子服务她的丈夫关系上。

(二)妻子应接纳及鼓励丈夫为负坦家庭的需要所作出的努力，承认他在子女面前的地位及他在男性生理上的不同。

(三)同样，关心丈夫灵性方面的成长，使之祈祷及助长基督徒团体，也属于妻子主要责任范围。

丁、在夫妻爱内，终身成长：

(一)保持双方结合的自然吸引力，使之在婚后也为新的环境提供基础。

(二)新环境产自婚姻允诺中全面的投入。这允诺应永远被视为新关系的开始，而非过程的终点。这关系能够不断成长，并可见于：

1.个人人格的完整及协调。

2.对人生之生老病死抱有一致的看法。

3.因认识及承行天主圣意而得到更大的保障。

第三次聚会：

甲、愿意生儿育女为婚姻之主要条件：

(一)孩子的适当孕育及教导只能来自一个以夫妻性爱为基础的家庭环境。任何其他方法意图获得及维持新生命的诞生与发展皆属不妥。

(二)在婚姻之始，便绝对拒绝生育孩子的可能，将令婚姻无效，因其排斥了造物主缔定婚姻的主要目的。

(三)夫妻爱需要孕育孩子才能达致完满。(除非明显知道只能由其方法去满全对天主之爱)

乙、双亲该对子女负起全面责任：

(一)双亲在他们的不同方式上分授了对子女肉体、精神及心灵照顾的责任。

(二)每一对夫妻在照顾及辅导其子女成长的责任安排上，因情况有所不同。故此应该注意到夫与妻在家庭所坦当的角色的一般性差别。

(三)因此父母双方应齐心合力照顾子女，俾能维系及坚强他们夫妻间的爱情。

丙、有责任感的父母：

(一)双方承行天主的圣意，对蕃殖及抚育新生命要具有意识的判断力。

(二)运用判断力去寻求上主圣意，使双方尽量在肉体、感情及灵性方面，达成婚姻的契合，肩负子女的生育及教养。判断时，应顾及实际生活环境及一般情况。

丁、操守责任的父母应有之态度：

(一)除了女性周期的自然节育法外，任何蓄意的节育决定，皆使夫妻爱陷于危险。

(二)至于在何种生理及情绪的环境下去使用自然节育法，则该在结婚前有所认识。所以通常应向合适的医生请教。

(三)父母的责任感及婚姻中适当的性享受，是天主恩赐的祝福，最能使夫妻爱达致完满的成长。

第四次聚会

甲、基督徒的婚姻是基督化家庭的起点：

(一)在夫妻爱中达致所预期的成长，乃基于成立及维持一个具有安全感的家庭。丈夫与妻子在这方面分担了同样的责任。

(二)基督化家庭是人类社会的自然单位，藉着认识及事奉基督而迈向天主。

(三)基督临在基督化家庭中的标记，是夫妇为发展家庭的基督徒信仰而订立的计划与有意识的行为。

乙、婚姻的圣事恩宠在于彼此以基督为中介

(一)基皆在福音中教导我们：当一男一女决定藉婚姻结合时，这婚姻具有某一种绝对的性质，使其他一切的人际关系皆居于次位。

(二)因此这种婚姻中的互相交付，因符合天主的圣意及设计，在圣父藉着圣子对我们的启示中，接受了它绝对的性质。

(三)因此结婚的双方，就在婚姻境况中，完满了基督的意愿(当然这婚姻是天主为他们而安排的)。当男女彼此相爱，在各种境况中生活出这段婚姻的契合时，就是把基督带给对方，也实现这「完满」的意思。

丙、婚姻的圣事恩宠具有公开性作用

(一)圣保禄在致厄弗所人书第五章中教导我们，夫妇间的婚姻关系可比喻基督与教会的关系。

(二)上述保禄的教导，亦包括婚姻本身彰显出基督与教会结合之意，因此它赋予基督徒婚姻一种先知性的幅度，为个人如此，为社会亦一样。

(三)因此婚姻是「俗世的事件」，也同时是「救赎的奥迹」。

阮应杨执笔　蔡诗亚制表 年份：1977

远溯自一八四二年，即香港天主教会成立之次年，教区于港岛威灵顿街创立首座修院，起名为圣母无原罪修院。一九○○年，教区修院迁往新建成不久之坚道主教座堂隔邻。一九四一年，修院因受大战影响，被迫停办。四年后，大战结束，修院复办于新界西贡，且易名为圣神修院。一九五七年，教区鉴于路途遥远，不易延聘教师，乃迁修院于薄扶林太古楼之新建院舍。一九六四年香港仔华南总修院停办，教廷传信部将该院移交香港教区，教区修院遂由太古楼迁入现址，初步之神哲学课程于此时正式开办，而神哲学新厦亦于三年后落成启用。一九七○年，圣神修院神学部改由香港教区、澳门教区、耶稣会及慈幼会合办，俾能促进彼此之合作，及提供更充宜之师资。至此，学生人数逐年增长，学科亦不断改良。一九七三年，本学部开放予外界人士攻读，一方面使修女及一般信友有机会充实自己的神学知识；另一方面，本院修士方可藉彼此之学术思想交流，开拓一己眼界，并接受各方面之挑战。一九七四年五月，本院神学部更蒙教廷教育部批准，成为罗马宗座传信大学属校，学生于完成指定课程，通过特定考试后，可获颁授该大学之神学士学位。(又本院之哲学部亦于去年十二月同获此一殊荣 。)现谨将本院最近五年来，神学部毕业生芳名表，及考获神学学士衔与晋铎同学之统计表刊出，以资纪念。

五年来神学部毕业生芳名表　

1972至1973 何显超　刘德光
1973至I974 钟志坚　黄克镳　林日新
1974至1975 李 亮　李文烈　黄子源　李伯炜　苏国怡
1975至I976 白敏慈　陈有海　张梓堂　梁上赐　麦锦华 容若愚　简志道  郑泰祺 李益侨　卢匡平　岑大卫
1976至1977 罗慕理　陈兹新　李国仁　苏志超　陈淼麟

五年来神学部毕业及晋铎统计表

年份 毕业人数/比率 神学学士衔人数/比率 晋铎人数/比率

1972至73年度  2/6.9%            1/4.6%
1975至74年度  3/10.3%  2/8.7%   3/13.6%
1974至75年度  5/17.2%  4/17.3%  5/22.7%
1975至76年度  11/38.0% 9/39.1%  8/36.4%
1976至71年度  8/27.6%  8/34.9%  5/22.7%
总计          29/100%  23/100%  22/100%

作者：斐林丰 年份：1977

First, I found it necessary to clarify a few things regarding the meaning of history and historicity.(1)

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines historicity as " historical character, genuiness of alleged events". This definition throws us back on the question: what is genuine history?

Common sense readily distinguishes two meanings of the word "history". History may mean, in the first place, the event or sum of events itself (lived history). Or, secondly, it may mean the narration of the event or sum of events (recounted history).(2) This distinction is plain enough. But as soon as we proceed further we get into trouble. If we ask: "what is the relationship of history in the second sense to history in the first sense?", then the answer is not so easy. It is the problem of the nature of historical knowledge. This problem in modern times has received two widely different solutions.

1. The first solution is that of positivist historiography. This solution reached the apex of popularity and acceptance in the last century, but it is still nowadays very widespread and unconsciously admitted also by many of those who seem to reject it.

According to this view, the historian (that is, the practitioner of history in the second sense) sees history (in the first sense) as an object of investigation and scientific enquiry, which is open to empirical testing and to which the principles and method of the positive empirical sciences should be applied. Historical facts are the object of historical science. These facts must be "observed" and scrutinized carefully so that one may obtain a description of them that is as exact as possible. The best kind of historical science is the one that gives the most exact description of the facts, the one that succeeds in giving, as it were, a photographic-stereophonic literary rendering of the facts as they really happened. In order to achieve this the historian must be totally impartial, must refrain from letting his subjectivity intrude in his examination of the facts, must avoid passing value judgments on the facts. His only job is just like that of the physicist, or the chemist, or the biologist: it is to analyze the facts and describe them as accurately as possible. In this way history can become an exact science, as exact as the natural sciences.

Historicity in this context, then, is the perfect correspondence between the historical event and its historical account. It is a quality of the event insofar as it has happened exactly as described by the historical account, and a quality of the account insofar as it exactly describes the event as it happened.

Now a word or two of criticism. The positivism of this view is evident. Its concern is to assure the reliability of historical science and this is praise-worthy. But its positivist bias makes it do so by assimilating historical science to the natural sciences. However, the belief that this assimilation is possible at all is an illusion. In fact, while the natural sciences have a deterministic object, history has as its object human reality which is, even if limitedly, free. (Of course, we are all well acquainted with what the proponents of 19th century positivism thought about human freedom!). Moreover, while the object of the natural sciences is empirically observable now, the object of history is past human experience: man is still with us, true, but his experience is gone and the only link with it is through human testimony, which, again, involves an element of freedom, of non-determinism.

Not only is history's assimilation to the natural sciences an illusion, but also the belief in the possibility of exact representation of past events. There simply can't be a photo-like or stereo-like reproduction of past reality by means of language. Language is necessarily conceptual and concepts comprehend living experience only imperfectly, because living experience is not made up of abstract essences but of concrete singular details. Even if optimum conditions of evidence and testimony were given, still the literary outcome would be but an approximation to the real thing. Concepts simply cannot grasp the infinite variety of details involved in real life. The human mind is incapable of keeping track of all possible circumstances involved in any one happening.

Finally, the ideal of perfect objectivity is as illusory as the first two points we have already mentioned. The subjectivity of the historian inescapably conditions his historical work and this from two fronts: on the one hand, the object itself of the historian's study is value-charged, insofar as it is a human event: the value is part of the historical fact itself and must be taken into consideration: refusal to consider it is itself already a value judgment; on the other hand, the work itself of the historian is necessarily subjective in the choice of significant material: in fact the historian does not deal with each and all of past events alike, but only with those that he judges significant, but evidently this judgment of significance will be determined by his subjectivity.

The consequences of such a positivist view of history when applied to the NT recounting of the history of Jesus and the early Church were disastrous. According to this view inexactness of detail (there is plenty of it in the NT) amounts to falsification or at least carelessness on the part of the historian with regard to the real facts. Also according to this view, the presence of value judgments in a narrative (again, there is plenty of them in the NT) jeopardizes its objectivity and throws doubt on the historical reliability of the whole narrative.

These conclusions of positivist historiography, however, rather than weaken the historical value of the narratives in question, show how unsound are the premises from which the reconclusions derive. Inexactness of detail and the inevitability of value judgments are hard facts that will always be part and parcel of all historical work by men. Rejection of them would practically mean rejection of all past history. The fact to be realized is that these features of historical work are the consequence of our real humanity and as such they can jeopardize the reliability of historical research only if they are tendentious. As for scientific exactness and absolute objectivity, these are dreams realized only in the minds intoxicated with positivistic scientism.(3)

2. The second solution to the problem of the relationship between history-science and history-reality, is that of existentialist philosophy. It should be noticed that here not only is the solution different, but also the approach to the whole problem is completely different. This is not so strange, since the positivistic approach to history is from the scientific point of view, while existentialism approaches it from the point of view of philosophy.

To come a little closer to our specific topic even while dealing with this general question, I will choose as representative of this second point of view Rudolf Bultmann, who draws his existentialist understanding of history mainly from the philosophy of Heidegger.

Bultmann, like Heidegger, refuses to look at history as if it were an object. On the contrary, he affirms history as a constituent element of the human subject: man is essentially "temporal being", "being-in-history": temporality and history are simply the human reality of not-being-all-at-once-and-once-for-all, the fact that man does not possess his being fully in any particular moment, but in every particular moment has to create it anew by projecting himself into the future by a free decision. History is the reality of man-in-the-making, of man's openness to the future, of man's capacity to escape from being determined by his past, of man not as actual but as possible being, open to a whole variety of possibilities. History therefore is simply man's potentiality for being and not the real cycle of past-present-future, it is existential temporality, not chronological time.

In this perspective, what becomes of historical knowledge, of the study of history? The present we are living it, the future is not-yet, the past then is the proper object of historical knowledge. The existential approach to the past will be that of looking for human events as examples of the actualization of human potentialities, as possibilities of being. Historical events by definition are products of human freedom. History is essentially, the history of human freedom, each event revealing one particular realization of man's potentialities.

It is clear then that if the student of history is to perceive events as possibilities of being, he has to get involved in these events, exposing himself to the challenge emitted by these events. By turning existentially to the past, the historian learns how to create his own future. The understanding of the past is thus inextricably bound up with the understanding of oneself, of one's own potentialities for being, of one's own openness to the future. This understanding of self stimulated by existential confrontation with the past, this is the essence of genuine historical knowledge. The past event itself is past only insofar as it has already happened, but it may be said to be future insofar as its meaning endures and has not exhausted its capacity to challenge human freedom to new realizations of itself.

This kind of existentially interpreted history is the only "proper" historical knowledge. Proper historical knowledge is concerned with the "that" of the past event, not with the "what" of the past event, for if the attention turns to the "what" then the event loses all its challenging dynamism, becomes objectified, it is no longer a human event, but a dead piece of scientific material. To know a past event as objectified is "improper" historical knowledge.(4)

However, Bultmann does not totally exclude from his philosophical construction "improper" historical knowledge, that is, scientific historical knowledge in the sense of the positivists. This improper historical knowledge is concerned with the "what" of events, it analyzes them, it describes them etc. Bultmann sees this objective consideration of the past as an essential, integrating part of total historical knowledge. This objective knowledge, in fact, is the starting point for the attainment of proper subjective existential knowledge. The important thing to notice, however, is that true objectivity resides only in the second kind of knowledge. The first kind claims to be objective, but in reality it is not, because by objectifying the historical event it treats an essentially human event in the same way as it would treat a natural phenomenon, and insofar scientific knowledge of history is unauthentic knowledge. The only knowledge, instead, that does justice to the uniqueness of human historical events is existential knowledge, for it treats the event for what it really is, a manifestation of human existence, an epiphany of freedom, and insofar only existential knowledge is authentic historical knowledge. Man-in-history will fully realize himself only by passing from unauthentic, self-styled "objective", scientific knowledge, to the authentic, really objective even though apparently very subjective, existential knowledge.

Historicity in this context, then, is neither a quality of the event, or a quality of the historical account, but a quality of man himself. Hence for Bultmann it is quite beside the point to ask: Did this really happen? the proper question being: Does this fact help me to authentically create my own existence by challenging me to a free and responsible choice?

How does Bultmann apply this philosophical scheme to the Christian reality (for Bultmann is not an existentialist for the sake of philosophy, but for the sake of theology and the Christian faith)?.

Firstly, the awareness of one's historicity, of one's openness to the future, of one's being-not-yet-fully-realized, but having-to-fully-realize-oneself by free decisions: this awareness is the necessary pre-understanding that makes faith and the response to the divine revelation possible. That is, consciousness of one's historicity is ultimately openness to the revealing God.

Secondly, revelation takes place as an event in history. As such it can be grasped by historical knowledge, both proper and improper. That is to say, revelation presents itself both as a fact verifiable by scientific history (such a fact is the Jesus of history, the fact of the Cross) and as a salvific event (this event is the Christ of faith, the event of the Resurrection). The former aspect is the object of improper, unauthentic, scientific historical knowledge, and has no salvific significance. The latter aspect is grasped only by proper, authentic, existential historical knowledge, and only this has salvific significance: if the response to the challenge perceived is positive, then this proper knowledge becomes faith.

Thirdly, it is the kerygmatic event that makes the passage from the first kind of knowledge to the second possible. In fact the kerygma is just this: the presentation of the Jesus of history, of the Cross, as the Christ of faith, as the Resurrection. That is, the kerygma is the presentation of an objective fact as challenging my freedom, as questioning my existence. The kerygmatic event sets in motion a process by which the man conscious of his historicity is confronted by the Biblical past and by faith recognizes in it the most authentic possibility of human existence. The kerygmatic event is itself a pure gift of God, for there is an unbridgeable gap between the first and the second step, between improper and proper knowledge. The first step is open to natural historical knowledge. The second is not subject to verification by historical science but is perceivable only by faith. In faith the second step (the Christ of faith, the Resurrection) becomes the true significance of the first step (the Jesus of History, the Cross). The two are indissolubly united as the signifying and the signified. But only the first step is an objective historical event. The second is not an historical event: it is the transcendent significance of the historical event denoted by the first step.

Fourthly and lastly, Bultmann sees as a highly regrettable development the early Church's retrogression from the second step into the first step achieved by the "historicization" of the significance of the events of the Jesus of history. What was originally the existentially perceived significance of the event (namely, the Resurrection as the belief in the saving efficacy of the Cross), was objectified into an historical fact (namely, the Resurrection as an objectively verifiable historical fact). Now this is precisely the essence of myth: the translation of the transcendent and the divine into the historical and the human. Hence the necessity of a program of de-mythologization: the re-discovery of the original eschatological transcendent significance that has successively become historicised and so hidden behind the veil of legend (this is not only the case with the Resurrection, but also with the other Gospel legends: the virgin birth, the temptations in the desert, the Transfiguration, the Ascension etc.). In this way the historicizing process of the primitive Church is reversed and modern man can still find meaning and challenge in the de-mythologized Gospel kerygma. The perception of God's challenge, of God's voice calling me today to the full stature of my authentic existence, to hear this voice and to respond to it, this is faith.

And now some comments, first on Bultmann's philosophical understanding of history, then on his theological application of this understanding.

Firstly, Bultmann's dichotomy between objective or chronological history and existential history reduces history-reality to the historicity of man, to man's being-in-time. How legitimate is this radical reduction? This seems to me to be simply the consequence of existentialist anti-essentialism: man's essence is nothing but self-createdness by means of free decisions in atomic moments of time; man creates himself anew in each moment; to exist is to choose one's existence; there is not any continuum of time-space or of consciousness. But then anyone who has not been mystified by existentialism will admit that this continuum, this non-atomism is a primary datum and on it is based the very possibility of the atomic choice acts. History, therefore, is not identifiable with the individual's temporality. On the contrary, the individual's temporality is situated in history which is a kind of supra-individual temporality. History as commonly understood is the platform of man's historicity as existentialism understands it.

Secondly, by labelling ordinary time and history as unauthentic, Bultmann leaves his so-called authentic existential history prey to absolute subjectivism, for in that case true history would be only that which is meaningful for me. However, this attribution of unauthenticity to objective ordinary history (whose subject matter is ordinary, chronological time and the events that take place in it) is also a consequence of another philosophical presupposition, namely, the phenomenological disaffection with every kind of objectification, with every question asking what is it?. Again, this is an unacceptable contradiction of an intellectual tendency natural to man and unauthentic only when it is misdirected (as, for example, in positivist philosophy).

At this point it is worth noticing how Bultmann, while rejecting the positivist view of history as natural science, does not really criticize it or attack it. He rather subsumes it in his system as the dialectical negative overcome by the dialectical positive of existential knowledge. As far as I am aware, he did not challenge the validity of the positivist view of history insofar as scientific, objective, non-existentialist history is concerned. Bultmann's failure to criticise positivist historicism on its own ground may psychologically explain his attitude to objective scientific history: Bultmann is a believer but he is convinced that the historicity of the Gospels cannot be defended since their historical value has been demolished by positivist historical criticism. But what about the Christian faith, then? Bultmann is determined to save faith. He does so by making faith absolutely independent from any historical ground. The unreliability of the latter (Bultmann takes for granted the conclusions of positivist historians!) in this way will be irrelevant to faith. Objectivity is thus not only not required by faith, but is definitively an obstacle on the road to faith. A desperate solution indeed! This despair about historicity of the Gospels shows that insofar as human knowledge is concerned Bultmann is at heart a thoroughgoing positivist. He is an existentialist only insofar as this philosophy enables him to salvage the faith. This latent positivism is also probably at the root of neo-orthodox Bultmann's liberal negation of miracles! Positive science was confident that it had succeeded in explaining away miracles. Bultmann seems to have taken this for granted. Was it this crypto-positivism that led him to draw the distinction between "miracle" (the brute fact, empirically verifiable) and "wonder" (the faith-perceived aspect of human happenings), damning the miracle and saving the wonder?(5)

The second point on which I would like to make some comments is Bultmann's application of his existentialist understanding of history to the Christian reality.

Firstly, the radical separation made between ordinary history and existential history introduces an unbridgeable cleavage between the world divine and the world human, between time and eternity. His intention in introducing this dichotomy is to safeguard the transcendence of the world divine and of faith. But he fails to realize that this excessive concern for transcendence jeopardizes the very reality of the Incarnation, which by definition is the bridging of the gap between God and man, the penetration of eternity in time in the one person of the Son of God Jesus Christ. But this identification of Jesus Christ with God Bultmann will reject as unauthentic mythical objectification and historicization! Anyhow, the fact remains that the onesidedeness of Bultmann's position is too narrow to embrace the comprehensiveness of the following statement of the Christian faith: "Christ, in time, is the Being who transcends time, but who expresses himself really through and by means of time" (Mourouz)(6).

Secondly, Bultmann unjustifiably sees all historical ground as threatening and even destroying the very essence of faith. According to him, if faith is based on scientifically ascertained historical facts, then faith is no longer faith (characterized by absolute certainty), but mere human knowledge (only probable at best). But this opinion of his is due to a misunderstanding of the nature both of historical signs and of faith.

In fact, an historical fact can only be a "sign" of the supernatural. In no way can it amount to a demonstration of the supernatural. A sign is not a proof and one needs faith to understand the significant import of a sign. The first and ultimate sign is the historical Christ himself. Its import (the Christ of faith, the Emmanuel, God-with-us) is appreciated by faith alone. True. Here we can agree with Bultmann. But to say that the historical Christ is "not of interest to the Christian belief in the Resurrection" (these are Bultmann's own words)(7), that is, to say that faith can do without historical signs, this is false. "If Christianity were no more than a philosophy of life, then matters of objective history would not be crucial to it. So long as we knew that someone had lived roughly the sort of life Jesus allegedly lived, we could at least take the 'imitation of Christ' as an ideal for human living . . . But if we want to go beyond that (as Bultmann certainly does) and claim that God was actually imparting himself in a quite distinctive and decisive way in the events of Jesus' life, then it is a matter of immense seriousness to learn what these events were".(8)

Moreover, Bultmann's understanding of faith is also defective in that he exclusively conceives faith as a decision of the will (which, of course, it is), and rejects faith as a kind of knowledge (which it is too, and if Bultmann does not agree with us in this it is because of his philosophical presuppositions).

The influence of Bultmann's system on the problem of the historicity of the Gospels is evident: he introduced a certain light-heartedness in the dismissal of the Gospels as unhistorical. Previous exegetes might have done so with a heavy conscience. Not so Bultmann: faith can, and indeed must, do without historical confirmation. So why so much trouble in trying to substantiate the Gospel's claims to historicity? (Whether they do make such claims we shall see later). That not only Bultmann's disciples but also some Catholic exegetes have been blessed with this light-heartedness will be clear from the survey of opinions that I am going to undertake in a moment. But before proceeding to that I would like to attempt a sketch of a more balanced view of history and historicity, which integrates the best insights of the two preceding positions, while overcoming their serious limitations.

A synthesis: the integral understanding of historiography and historicity. The nature of history in the second sense we distinguished at the beginning of our enquiry (recounted history) necessarily depends on the nature of history in the first sense (lived history). What is then lived history? It is a human reality, it is events significant for man. But every human event necessarily entails a twofold element of subjectivity and objectivity, of personal experience and external observable facts.

It was the illusion of 19th century positivist historiography that history, like natural sciences, was made up only of objectively verifiable phenomena, so that all accounts of past events had to be stripped of all subjective elements, if they wanted to win recognition as reliable history.

It is the danger of today's existentialist historiography to nourish the illusion that it can attain a true understanding of historical events by personal confrontation with their deep significance, dispensing with objectivity altogether.

The integral understanding of history contends that both the objective and the subjective elements are constitutive parts of history, recognizes with existential historiography that the formal constitutive element of history is the event's significance for the men who lived the event and, dependently on them, for all men throughout history, but also stresses that the way to the attainment of the true significance necessarily passes through the signs of objectively investigable data, the validity of the significance depending on the genuinity of these signs.

It is clear then that an invented event has no historical significance at all. An event the basic details of which are accurately (though not necessarily "exactly") related can yield the correct historical significance and be considered truly historical. That is to say, inaccuracy in minor details (like exact date, minor and secondary circumstances etc.) need not jeopardize the historical value of the whole narrative, even though the latter has to be carefully examined and evaluated. Inaccuracy in major details seriously undermines the historical value of the whole event. If it be asked what is the standard for distinguishing major from minor details, I would say that a major detail is the one that carries more of the burden of the significance of the event.

The consequences of this integral understanding of history for historicity are momentous.

Firstly, on the one hand the event's significance and observable data are put in the right place, to the effect that the equation "true history == exact history" is no longer valid. It is realized that the matter at hand being a human event (and a past event at that) the perfect recovery of all details would be impossible, and even if it were possible it would be irrelevant: there is indeed an "empirical residue" in history (to use a phrase of Bernard Lonergan) : the colour of Caesar's socks when passing over the Rubicon river makes no difference to the significance of that event and to its historicity (even if the account said that they were green while instead they were red!).

"It is obvious, therefore, that in the account of a witness, just as in that of a professional historian, not all details have the same weight; they do not stand out with the same degree of affirmation. (History) can be true by accommodating itself to the inexactness of details, if the details in question are not central to the event; absolute exactness, for the rest, surpasses human possibility".(9) When Chesterton remarked that it is enough to hear the report of the same car-accident by two eyewitnesses to start doubting about the whole of history, he was not denying that historical truth is attainable, but rather was saying that the criterion of historical truth set up by his positivist contemporaries was an impossible one!

So the divergences in detail of the evangelists should not be a reason for distrusting their historical truth as long as the crucial details and their meaningful import are not opposed to each other. For example, to take scandal at the divergences of the three Lucan accounts of the conversion of St. Paul is to subscribe to the positivist view of history as true only if exact. Evidently Luke did not share this view: if he had, he would have harmonized the three accounts! But he didn't, even though he had certainly noticed their minor discrepancies. For him the historical truth of the event he was relating lay in the real event of Paul's encounter with Christ on the way to Damascus, which encounter converted him.

Secondly, the fact that the historian was or is deeply interested and involved in the events described is no longer seen as necessarily an obstacle on the way to the attainment of historical truth. On the contrary "evidence is more interesting in the measure that its author was more involved in the events he reports. It is, of course, necessary to be careful to interpert it correctly, by taking into account the witness's point of view, by marking its limitations if necessary, and especially by comparing it with that left by other participants".(10)

Applied to the NT evangelists this point shows that we need not distrust them as historians for being deeply interested in, and totally committed to, those events as believers. It is precisely their faith that makes them penetrate the total significance of the event. This evidently does not dispense us from checking their version of the facts with other available evidence.

Thirdly, the event's significance being the formal element of history, it is clear that historical truth is not the same as scientific truth, and does not have the same kind of objectivity. "It is truth or conformity with being, but the demonstration of which can never be finished (it involves an infinite): it has objectivity, but a peculiar sort of objectivity, in the attainment of which all the thinking subject as an intellectual agent is engaged."(11)

The recognition of the historian's own presuppositions shows that an essential part of the process of reaching historical truth is the critical examination of these same presuppositions. The good historian will try to assess the correctness of his presuppositions and throughout his work he will be aware of them.(12) "Such a position implies no subjectivism. There is truth in history . . . But the truth of history is factual, not rational truth; it can therefore be substantiated only through signs, after the fashion in which any individual and existential datum is checked; and though in many respects it can be known not only in a conjectural manner but with certainty, it is neither knowable by way of demonstration properly speaking, nor communicable in a perfectly cogent manner, because, in the last analysis, the very truth of the historical work involves the whole truth which the historian happens to possess; it presupposes true human wisdom in him; it is 'a dependent variable of the truth of the philosophy which the historian has brought into play'.(13)

With reference to the NT this means that our certainty of the correctness of the evangelists' faith and philosophy becomes certainty of the correctness of their historical accounts insofar as the formal constituent of historical truth is concerned, namely, the event's significance for man. The certainty of faith for believers redounds into certainty of historical truth also with regard to the reliability of the signs that disengage this significance. But while the correctness of the former (significance of event) is finally guaranteed only by faith, the reliability of the latter (empirical phenomena of the event) is open to the investigation and confirmation by the science of history. I said "confirmation"; the non-believer will inevitably also take into the account the possibility of the biblical account being disproved by independent investigation.

　

  

*An extract from the Annual Research Paper "The Historicity of The Infancy Narratives"

(1) These are the main sources from which I have got my information about the problem of historicity: 1. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, The Paternoster Press, 1970, esp. ch.II; Pierre Grelot, The Bible Word of God, Desclee, 1968, esp. pp. 115-124; Idem, "La naissance d'lsaac et celle de Jesus", Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 94, Mai-Juin 1972, pp.462-487, 561-585; Claude Geffre, "Bultmann on Kerygma and History", in Rudolf Bultmann in Catholic Thought, Thomas O'Meara and Donald Weisser eds., Herder and Herder, 1968, pp. 167-195; Jacques Maritain, On the Philosophy of History, Geoffrey Bles, 1959, esp. pp. 5-7, 129-132; W. H. Dray, "Philosophy of History", The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards ed., Vol. 4, Taiwan edition, 1968, pp. 26-30;

Georg G. lggers, "Historicism", in Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Philip Wiener ed. Vol. II, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973;

John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, Darton Longman and Todd, 1975, esp. pp. 126-27.

(2) These two meanings have been distinguished linguistically as "cursus rerum" and "historia" in classical and medieval Latin; as "Geschichte" and "Historic" in modern German; as the "historial" and the "historique" (Jean Guitton) or as "histoire-realite" and "histoire-science" (Blondel) in modern French. In English there is no such linguistic doublet for history, unless one adopts some such neologism as "historiality" and opposes it to "historicity".

(3) It is possible that, for altogether different reasons, these are also dreams still lingering in the minds of most of us who are dedicated to ecclesiastical studies. For, in these studies, we concentrate especially on metaphysical and dogmatic questions and thus learn to get a keen appreciation of the criteria of metaphysical and dogmatic truth. Because of this, however, it is also easy for us to make the mistake of simply transposing the same truth criteria to historical problems. Historical truth is only analogically the same with metaphysical and dogmatic truth. Historical truth has its own criteria which perhaps we are not trained to appreciate to the full. If we identify the historical approach with the metaphysial-dogmatic, then we are committing more or less the same mistake of the positivists who identify it with the scientific approach. For this observation, cf. Pierre Grelot, The Bible etc., p. 123, note 134.

(4) This terminology is Bultmann's own. Elsewhere he uses also the words "Geschichte" and "Historic" to bring out the same distinction. Evidently there is some overlapping here with the distinction made at the beginning of his section. This second distinction seems to be a sub-distinction of the second member of our first distinction, namely: Historic as scientific knowledge (Historic) and Historic as existential knowledge (Geschichte).

(5) In a different way, the same latent positivism is at least negatively present in all those apologists of the historicity of the Gospels of the past and the present who share with the positivists their understanding of history as exact scientific history. Fighting on the very same ground of their opponents, their position has become more and more difficult to defend. But one need not concede to the attackers of the historicity of the Gospel the choice of the ground!

(6) Quoted by Claude Geffre, art.cit., p. 192.

(7) Quoted by Claude Geffre, Ibidem, p. 183.

(8) Ronald W. Haepburn, "Bultmann, Rudolf", The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc. p.425.

(9) Grelot, op.cit., p.118-119

(10) Ibidem, p.117.

(11) Jacques Maritain, op.cit., p.5

(12) That each historian has presuppositions, is generally admitted today. It was the 19th century histiorians that believed in the possibility of absolute objectivity without presuppositions. In this very belief they showed their own positivist presuppositions!

(13) Jacques Maritain, Ibidem, p.6-7. The quotation in the last sentence is from Henri Marrou, De la Connaissance Historique, Paris, Du Seuil, 1954.

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J. Which Bible 年份：1977

SOME HINTS ON CHOOSING AN ENGLISH AND CHINESE BIBLE



  These hints are in two main parts, with a short bibliography at the end.

Part 1: Check-List of Some Current Bible Translations in English & Chinese

No attempt is made here to list all Bibles in English and Chinese, ancient and modem, but only those that are "current", i.e. those available through Hong Kong bookshops. Nor is any attempt made to list the various editions and bindings (complete, partial; hardback, paperback) or dates of new printings of these various Bibles. The date given here is as far as possible the year of first publication. Note that many English-language books are published both in England and in the U.S.A.

Catholic Bibles in English

Kleist-Lilly  J. Kleist & J. Lilly, The New Testament, Bruce, Milwaukee, 1954
Knox R. Knox, The Holy Bible, Burns & Gates, London, 1955
Douay  Rheims-Douay Version of the Bible, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1956 (many earlier editions and some more recent)
Grail Psalms (H. Richards, ed.), The Psalms: A New Translation, Fontana Books, Collins, London, 1963
JB A. Jones, ed., The Jerusalem Bible, Darton, Longman & Todd, London/Doubleday, New York, 1966 (reprinted in Taiwan)
RSV, CE  Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain, ed., The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1966
NAB Catholic Biblical Association of America, The New American Bible, Kenedy, New York, and other U.S. publishers, 1970 (reprinted in Taiwan)
Living Bible  K.N. Taylor, The Way: Catholic Edition (The Living Bible) Our Sunday Visitor, Huntingion, Ind., 1973
Wu Psalms  吴经熊，圣咏译义初稿，商务印书馆，台北，1946
OFM Bible 思高圣经学会，圣经，香港，1968;　十一册，北平／香港，1948-1961
Wu NT 吴经熊，新经全集，商务印书馆，台北，1949
Hsiao NT  萧静山，新经全集，光启出版社，台中，1956
Hsiao NT  光启编译馆，新轻全集新译本，上下册，光启出版社，台中，1969
Other Bibles in English

Chicago Bible  E.J. Goodspeed et al., The Complete Bible: An American Translation, University of Chicago, 1939
RSV  Anon., The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 1957 (including deutero-canonical OT books; reprinted in Taiwan)
Phillips  J.B.Phillip, The New Testament in Modern English, Collins, London,1958
AB W.F. Albright & D. N. Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible, Doubleday, NewYork, 1964 (38 volumes planned, about 20 now published)
OAB, RSV  Anon., The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford University Press,1965
TEV, GNMM Anon., Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament in Today's English Version, American Bible, New York, 1966
NEB  Anon., The New English Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford University Press, London, 1970 (reprinted by Mei Ya Publications, Taipei, 1970)
NASB  Anon., New American Standard Bible, Lockman Foundation,1971
CB, RSV  Anon., Common Bible: The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, An Ecumenical Edition, Collins, London, 1973 (includes deutero-canonical books)
NIV  Anon., New International Version, New Testament, New York Bible Society, New York, 1973
NB Anon., The Good News Bible, American Bible Society, New York, 1976 (without deutero-canonical books)

Other Bibles in Chinese


Union Version 新旧约全书，圣经公会，香港，1919

Lui Chan-chung 吕振中，〔全部圣经〕，1970

Contemporary Good News 当代福音，中文圣经意译本新约全书，香港新力出版社，香港， 1975

TCV  给现代人的福音，香港圣经公会，香港，1976

Lockman NT  新约全书，新译本，申文圣经新译委员会，香港，1976

PartII: Some Comments on the Above Check-List

Catholic Bibles in English

The Kleist-Lilly NT has been called by J.L. McKenzie "the most modern of modern speech versions", and "the best existing translation in English by Cathoics... ; consistently superior to Knox in the Gospels, superior (but less consistently)to Knox in the other books". I am not sure how easily available it is today.

Knox's NT is better than his OT--he was a good Greek scholar. His Pauline epistles have been termed "masterful"."Knox has been more appreciated by literary aesthetes than by... biblical scholars" (says Raymond Brown). He translated from the Latin Vulgate. His is one of the rare one-man translations of the whole Bible (on which he spent 10 years) and the first Catholic challenge to the Douay Bible for centuries. Knox is already somewhat dated, I feel, but still circulates to some extent in Hong Kong, e.g. in a bilingual Chinese (Fr. Hsiao, S.J.) and English translation of the Gospels, Acts and Paul published in 1962-64 by the Hong Kong Catholic Truth Society. Cf. Knox's On Englishing the Bible.

The Douay was a competent translation from the Vulgate made at Rheims and Douay and later revised by Bishop Challoner. It dominated the English-speaking Catholic world for several centuries. It is now rather out-of-date because of its archaic language, poor printing and lack of contact with modern biblical scholarship.

The Grail Psalms, translated directly from the Hebrew by a team of scholars, were intended to be sung to the melodies of Joseph Gelineau. They read well and seem sufficiently accurate--H. H. Rowley, an outstanding Protestant OT scholar, calls them "a very impressive rendering". The Psalms in the new English Breviary, The Liturgy of the Hours, follow the Grail version.

The JB is related to the Bible de Jerusalem which was published by the best French-speaking scholars, first in many separate fascicules, then in a single volume and now (1975) in a thoroughly revised edition. The original French BJ is the outstanding French version with an international reputation. The English JB, though very widely circulated round the world in many editions, is not of the same calibre--a glance at the list of "collaborators" will suggest why. The Scripture text in particular has been severely criticized for many inaccuracies and excessive liberties. However, the introductions and footnotes are of real value and the very readable English style and good printing make it generally popular. The JB text appears in several Mass lectionaries and in parts of the new Breviary, and it is approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury for use in Westminster Abbey.

The RSV appeared in a Catholic edition with minor textual adjustments and some extra notes in 1966. This edition, which has a Foreword by Cardinal Heenan and Imprimatur by the Archbishop of Edinburgh, is available in an inexpensive paperback. Personally I find this the most reliable and generally satisfactory Bible for my work. See further comments on the RSV below.

The NAB is the name ultimately given to the U.S. New Confraternity Bible (the first Confraternity Bible of 1941 was an attempt to modernize the Douay Bible). The NAB was done by the best U.S. Catholic biblical scholars and claims to be the first Catholic translation into English directly from the original languages. It is certainly a competent and reliable translation with useful introductions and notes, and the U.S.-style English does not seem obtrusive. I am not sure how widely it has been accepted inside and outside the Catholic Church in the U.S.A.

The Living Bible: This is not a translation but a paraphrase, and as such it has been severely criticized for distorting the original meaning, cf. Catholic Biblical Quarterly review in vol. 36 (1974), pages 439-440. By 1974 it had sold 16 million copies. This Catholic edition surprisingly carries an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

Catholic Bibles in Chinese

N.B. For writings in Chinese the present writer obviously does not claim any competence but just offers a few opinions for reference.

Dr. John Wu's Psalms and NT have been highly praised as a tour de force for putting the biblical text into elegant literary Chinese. However, many Hong Kong Chinese today have little interest or competence in classical Chinese. Moreover, since John Wu translates from English, the result is not always faithful to the original sense. I have heard that Bishop Francis Hsu asked his friend John Wu to make a special, new colloquial translation of the Scripture readings in the new lectionary for use in the Sunday Mass liturgy in Hong Kong, and that that is the origin of the present Chinese readings.

This NT of Fr. Hsiao, S.J. was the standard Catholic NT until the OFM version appeared. It is based on the Vulgate and is said to read rather well in Chinese, apart from some local dialect expressions. The third printing was done at the Sienhsien Catholic Mission, Hopei Province, in 1933, and the first Taiwan edition was done by Kuangchi Press in Taichung in 1956.

The OFM Bible is at present the standard Catholic Bible approved by the hierarchy and used in the liturgy in Taiwan and, on week-days, in Hong Kong. It will also presumably be used in the new Chinese Breviary. It is the first Chinese Bible translated directly from the original languages and was praised by the famous Dr. Hu Shih, the leader of the Chinese literary renaissance. The full ll-volume edition is a monumental work of over 9,000 pages. I have read the complete NT and parts of the OT and the translation strikes me as very careful but perhaps too literal for bridging the gap between languages so different as, e.g. Hebrew and Chinese. The Chinese text has been sometimes criticized for being rather stiff, "translation Chinese". One the other hand, a Chinese Protestant friend engaged on a new translation of the OT, praised it precisely for its literalness. A great wealth of introductions and notes are provided, especially in the complete edition, well-informed but in general of a somewhat cautious, conservative tendency in exegesis and theology. This translation remains as an imposing contribution and it is unlikely to be superseded by any new Catholic translation, especially of the OT, for at least a generation.

This Kuangchi NT was done by an anonymous team of Jesuits, of whom I think the French Fr. Petit was one. It appeared in an earlier form in Tientsin in 1949. It looks a good piece of work, but I have rarely met anyone who uses it.　

Other Bibles in English

The Chicago Bible has been acclaimed for its NT. R. Brown calls it "in many ways the best complete Bible available" up to the time of writing (1968). I have the impression that it is more a scholarly translation than one for wide, popular use.

The RSV, which is in the tradition of the King James Version (1611),was prepared by outstanding Protestant scholars and is the most faithful translation that I know of the original text and meaning. This faithfulness may sometimes result in a certain stiffness in English style by comparison with other more idiomatic versions. It still uses some "Bible English", e.g."thou" (to God), "behold". J. L. McKenzie says that it "is regarded by many as the best English version". According to C. L. Manschreck, it is "likely to be the most enduring of all translations in the 20th century". The NT of the RSV was revised in 1971, and the permanent review committee has both Catholic and Protestant members from Britain, the U.S. and Canada. In Hong Kong the printed booklets giving the Sunday Mass readings in English use the RSV text.

Phillips is an English vicar with a gift for lively, readable English. His NT has been very popular in England and the U.S. However, he does depart too far from the original at times and frequently lapses into paraphrase. He is working on an OT version.

The AB is a major U.S. translation and commentary series still in progress. The scholars invited to prepare the 38 volumes include prominent Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Raymond Brown's John is possibly the finest contribution to date. The style and approach varies considerably from volume to volume in this series.

Even before the RSV came out in a Catholic edition in London in 1966, the Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha received an Imprimatur from Cardinal Gushing of Boston without any changes in the RSV text (1965).

The TEV of the NT claims to have sold 50,000,000 copies. It aims at people outside the Churches and deliberately uses a simplified vocabulary and style. It seems to be substantially accurate but the simplified English inevitably loses many of the subtleties, e.g. of St. Paul's thought. R. Brown's judgment: "Stylistically it stands somewhere between Phillips and the NEB. Occasionally it is too free in its departures from a literal rendering of the original, but it reads well . . ." Massive world-wide publicity, attractive printing, splendid line-drawings and low cost have resulted in an enormous circulation. There is now a magnificent hardback edition in full colour.

The NEB is not a revision of any earlier version but a fresh translation direct from the original languages. It was done by the best British Protestant scholars led by Professor C. H. Dodd of Oxford and advised by a literary panel. It has been praised for being faithful to the original sense and as incorporat ing "excellent scholarship and vigorous modern British style" (R. Brown). It was sponsored by the main non-Catholic Churches in Britain. I think that the NEB is now used publicly at services, like the King James Version and the RSV, in the Anglican and other Churches.

The NASB is said to be quite popular in the U.S.A. It is of a conservative tendency.

Finally the Common Bible was published in 1973. It again uses the RSV unchanged text with the deutero-canonical books and is the nearest we have yet come to a real common Bible accepted by all the Christian Churches. It has been "approved" (in some sense) by Cardinal Koenig, President of the World Catholic Federation for the Biblical Apostolate, and by Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras II, Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriar chate of Constantinople. It is published in inexpensive paper-back form.

The NIV, like the NASB, was translated by a committee of fifteen conservative scholars from five English-speaking countries. They come from a wide variety of Protestant Churches.

The recently published Good News Bible presumably follows the same principles as the NT. The Catholic scholar Fr. E. H. Maly has reviewed it favourably in The Bible Today for March 1977, pages 1177-1180. Time calls it "homespun" and mentions that it has been criticized by some scholars. It has sold 11/2 million copies in its first three months. It has been suggested to the publishers that they consider publishing an edition containing also the deutero-canonical books of the OT.

Other Bibles in Chinese

The Union Version is probably still the standard Chinese Bible used by most Protestant Churches. It now seems somewhat antiquated in language. I have seen it stated that it was translated from English, not from the original text, but that statement has been challenged. There are two editions, one using神 for God, the other using上帝 .

Lui Chan-chung, a Protestant scholar, recently made a fresh translation of the NT, which has been highly praised to me by a competent critic.

Contemporary Good News, as the subtitle suggests, is more a paraphrase. It is the Chinese equivalent of Taylor's Living Bible (see above). It is well-produced. One edition uses the Mainland characters and carries photographs of Chinese scenes, e.g. the Great Wall, youth, street scenes, and therefore seems intended for circulation there. 神 is used for God. See review in Ching Feng No. 45 (July 1975) 36-39.

The basic text of the TCV was done from English by Moses Hsu, a popular Chinese writer for young people, and then revised against the Greek text by 9 Protestant and 3 Catholic Chinese scholars. It aims at non-Christians between 18 and 25 years of age and therefore employs a simplified vocabulary and quite modem style. It is attractively produced and illustrated and sells at a very economic price. Fr. Mark Fang who worked on the drafts for several years seems rather satisfied with it in general. The Catholic edition of the TCV carries a preface signed by Archbishop Lo Kuang of Taipei and substitutes the Catholic terms for "God", "Holy Spirit" and "Yahweh". It is unfortunate that the two notes on the "Lord's Supper" and "Bread" with their Protestant theology of the Eucharist (not found in the TEV) were allowed to remain unaltered in the "Catholic Edition". The TCV interpretation of Romans 5,1-5 is discussed by Thomas Law and Andrew Tsui of Holy Spirit Seminary and by Major Ng of the Salvation Army in the Kung Kao Po: 14.1.1977. Fr. Marcus Chen, O.F.M. has written a more detailed review of the TCV in Vox Cleri No. 161, December 1976, pages 52-55. Work is now continuing on the OT translation.

The Lockman NT would be rated by Fr. Fang even higher than the TCV', see his review of it in Collectanea Theologica Universitatis Fujen, No. 30 (Winter 1976), pp. 593-7. Work is proceeding on the Lockman OT.

　

Bibliography

1) The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966),vol.2 has a long articIe entitled "BibIe, (Text and Versions)". Within that article two sections deal with modern English versions:

S.J. Hartdegen, "Cathoilc English Versions", PP.465-470;

S. Bullough & L. A. Weigle, "Protestant and Jewish English Versions", pp. 470- 476.

2) C.L. Manschreck, "The BIbIe In English", in: The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (ed. C. M. Laymon), Collins, London, 1971, pp.1237-1242.

3) 思高圣经学会，圣经辞典，香港，1975, 45一48: 中文圣经译本。

4) 贾保罗编，圣经汉译论文集，基督教辅侨出版社，香港，1965

作者：汤汉 Tong, John 年份：1977

PREFACE

Last year, Fr. Mark Fang, professor of Sacred Scripture of Fujen University, Fr. Edward Malone, assistant secretary of the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences and I went to pay a visit to Rev. Peter K.H. Lee at the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, which is situated on the top of a hill in Shatin. Built in the style of a Chinese Buddhist monastery, it had been used as a Buddhist temple. Later it was bought by a Lutheran Community for the purpose of holding dialogue between Christians and Buddhists. Now it has extended its usage and become the Christian Study Centre. The environment was enchanting; to be there was like being in a fairyland. After a little chat Rev. Lee took us to have a look at the environment. Passing through an arch on the slope of a hill we saw a couplet which says:

"Many walk along the wide road where they find no true happiness,

Few enter the narrow gate wherein is found eternal life."

宽路行人多并无真乐，

窄门进者少内有永生。

It is very interesting that this couplet connects together true happiness and eternal life. It struck us most because among us there were Chinese who are deep in the Eastern culture and there was also an American who reflects the western culture. Besides, we were at a place which was once used as a Buddhist temple and now as a Christian Study Centre. It happened also that I was thinking of writing something on joy. So I copied the couplet at once and use it now as an introduction to my essay.

A. THE TWO ESCHATOLOGICAL TRENDS OF TODAY

As there is a close relationship between joy and eternal life, I would like first of all to introduce the two modern eschatological trends before going deeper into the topic "joy".

About a decade ago, two scholars, Howard Clark Kee and Franklin W. Young, in their book A Study on the New Testament, had pointed out that the two trends of Modern Eschatology were already evident in the early church persecution period. According to their point of view the first conflict between the Christians and the Roman Empire started at the time of Nero (54-68 A.D.). In July 64 a great fire broke out in Rome which lasted for six days and the greater part of the city was burnt to ashes. Though it was said that this great fire was caused by the irresponsible act of Nero, it might well have been due to the lack of communication between the Christians and the Romans of those days. So Nero could make use of the anti-Christian feeling of the people and lay the blame on the Christians, thus distracting the public attention. The second conflict took place at the time of Domitian (81-96). Domitian was the first Emperor who proclaimed himself a god, not only within his own capital but also to the boundaries of the Empire. So he looked upon all Christians who would not worship him as god as disloyal to the Empire and condemned them to death.

Kee and Young point out that these two incidents gave rise to two reactions among the early Christians - the pacificatory and the uncompromising attitudes. The former can be presented by the authors of the First Letter of Peter and of the Letter to the Hebrews. By means of these letters they warned their brethren in Christ not to be agitated by the coming of suffering, but that they should be patient in waiting, looking upon suffering as chastisement from God, because Christ himself had also suffered while on earth. They had no intention to rouse the hatred of believers against the Roman Government; on the contrary, they advised them to respect the Emperor and his Government. The uncompromising party was represented by the author of Revelation. He asked believers to stand firm in faith when faced with the threat of persecution, of suffering, of death. Through the description of the struggle between the Child and the Red Dragon he wanted to project the contest between the power of God and the influence of Satan. The result of it was that the Child who represented the resurrected Christ gained control over the Red Dragon which represented the Roman Government. This school prophesied that the relation between the state and the church would one day come to an end and he asked believers to be strong in their faith in resisting the evil power of the time.

Finally Kee and Young also point out how the two different attitudes developed into the two modern eschatological trends of thoughts. The pacificatory party adopted the Greek thought of Plato which, when joined to the historical concept of the Christian religion, formed a pattern. According to this pattern things on earth are the imperfect miniature of the heavenly perfection. Therefore the eschatological hope of believers is not based on the imperfection of the present world compared with the perfection of the world to come, but on the imperfection of the present world with the perfection of the future heaven. The uncompromising party adopted the Jewish apocalyptic literature, using strange phenomena and signs to express faith, and reminding the contemporary church of the belief that the redemption of the Lord will be perfected, moving from the perfection of the earth to the perfection of the world to come. If they wished that the new heaven and the new earth would appear sooner, they had to trust in the promise of the Lord, not dreading suffering but participating in all life's practical activities.

These two schools of eschatological thought, appearing in the early church, not only deeply influenced her life, but also prevails in the theological field of this century and gave rise to a conflict in the Catholic Church in the forties between the eschatologists and the incarnationalists. It also gave rise to the flux of the theology of hope in the Protestant churches in the sixties. Recently, with the motto of "theological indigenization" Christian faith has been sifted of its western accessories, i.e., of the western culture which has been appended to the explanation of faith; and study has been made into the various cultures and traditions and, especially through the eastern religious mysticism, into the innate spirit of Scriptural eschatology.

Last month by chance I picked up the magazine Ching Feng (Chinese edition) vol. 48 and came across two articles about "Joy". "The spirit of Joy in Chinese Philosophy" by John Wu was rich in content and feeling, making for easy reading. The second article is a book review by Liu Po-Chuen on "Moltmann's Joy and Theology". It stirs the reader to raise critical questions about his own actual state of joy and to reconsider it. I personally think that these two articles on "Joy" find expression in the two eschatological trends, the former carves out Joy's inner transcendance and the latter stresses its social liberating action. These strike me and have set me thinking. Now I will try to examine the joy of a Christian from these two angles.

B. THE TWO THEOLOGICAL VIEWPOINTS ON JOY

Searching for happiness is one of the purposes of life. Men of all times and places are keen on working for it and yet they cannot clarify the different strata of the concept of joy. Some look upon material enjoyment as happiness; other relish friendship as happiness. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher rightly classified joy into two types: that of a temporary nature he termed pleasure; that of a permanent nature he termed happiness. But I personally prefer a definition given by a writer who picks out three words and gives them a meaningful significance. They are "pleasure", "happiness", and "joy". The happy feeling which comes from the material and through the five senses is called pleasure; the relish experienced in human relationship is called happiness; and that blessing which comes from God and never changes is called joy. All these come from different strata of joy, closely related yet different. Indeed throughout the Old and the New Testaments joy is particularly connected with Israel or with the whole church. Joy is not the sudden fruit of faith; it is the chief strain running through the whole relation with God. The Encyclopaedia of Scriptural Theology by Alan Richardson minutely points out that joy has its source in the life of God; it is part of the gift from God. It is also the expectation of the final blessedness. Only at the final coming of God will our joy be completed. Therefore in the Old Testament many passages deal with this expectant joy; and with a strong eschatological sense, the Jews look upon joy as inseparable from total salvation (Is. 12:3; 6:10; 65:18-20; Ps. 126). In many of the New Testament parables about the Kingdom of God the concept of joy and the awesome presence of God are linked together (Jn. 3:39; 17:13; Rev. 19:7). All in all, in Scripture joy is always referred to its eschatological reality. This reality, due to the death and resurrection of Christ, has been partially realized in the life of man, and also guaranteed the actualization of the future total redemption.

The joy which the Scripture refers to is not only a passive concept but also an active one: it is a promise and a gift from God, the death and resurrection of Christ being its first fruit. Also it requires the cooperation of man to break all fetters - to free himself and the world in order to receive the salvific joy of God and to bring it to completion. The theology of joy today strives to answer the following question: "How can we live the true spirit of joy in the framework of salvation history?" Theological thought has also been influenced by these two eschatological trends and look at joy from two different strata.

(1)Looking at joy from the Interior Stratum

This system of thought usually begins with the phenomena of life. It seeks first to experience the painful phenomena of birth, old age, sickness and death and then to examine the psychological reaction of people in general when faced with such phenomena of life. Lastly, it searches for the right attitudes of Christian faith when faced with the same phenomena of life.

"Phenomena of life" usually refers to what the existentialists call the pattern of existence and, also as Heidegger says, "Death is the most fundamental pattern of human existence."Because on the day we were born we started proceeding toward death, just like a flower that blooms is going toward its withering. Life and death are so closely connected that they give rise to "anxiety" and "suffering".

How do the people generally react when faced with such phenomena of life? E. Kubler-Ross, after a long period of observation, had written a book. The Last Journey, in which she synthesizes the general psychological reaction into five main streams: 1. denial and refusal; 2. resistance and anger; 3. gambling and bargaining; 4. frustration; 5. involuntary acceptance. Why are such negative psychological reactions experienced? There is no other reason except that man looks upon death as the end or extremity of life, so that he cannot help feeling sad, regretting that he has not yet done his best and it is already time to die.

But facing the same life phenomena, what attitude does Christian faith inspire in us? First of all we should know how Christ faced these life phenomena, and then we see how we Christians should follow his footsteps along the same path. Salvation history tells us that God, because of his love brought forth for mankind. This love is like a calling which requires a life-long response from man. This, in turn, brings about a communication of life. But because man unfortunately committed sin, he lost his way and broke the relation between man and God and between man and man. Therefore Christ lowered himself and became man; and with his own life he reveals to us the way to respond. His life is a total act of obedience to God the Father. He takes the body of a slave, being obedient unto death on the cross, and having emptied himself, he lets the love of the Father fill his whole being. After his Ascension into heaven he continued to act in his believers, so as to have his salvific plan realized. Through the indwelling of the Spirit in man and his inspiration he helps man to be conscious of self and to participate in the act of dying and rising. Therefore Christ and his faithful followers do not look upon death as the end and extremity of life but as a change. Everyday they meet the changes of life with joyful hearts and these changes in life simultaneously bring them a more profound interior joy.

Today the spirit of joy, abundantly hidden in salvation history, has become very bright and clear due to research into Eastern culture and the study of Buddhism. Buddhism also acknowledges that the interior of man has been enslaved by fame and profit. To obtain the joy of liberation he has to practise the art of "breaking through" and "unifying". "Breaking through" means a way of going deeper into life, to break all fetters. "Unifying" is the art of experiencing and recognizing the real "me", rendering the union of the unlimited with the limited. Through the subtle ply of a landscape the Chinese poet, Su Dung Po, was able to give an inkling of the Zen flavour:

The mist of Lu Shan, the tide of Zhe Giang;

Till a man with longing fore his visitation,

Lave a man with void hind his apprehension;

The mist of Lu Shan, the tide of Zhe Giang.

庐山烟雨浙江潮，

未到千般恨不消，

及至到来无一事，

庐山烟雨浙江潮。

Dr.Daisetz Suzuki, the Japanese Zen Master, in his book Zen Buddhism, points out that this is also the view point of the following quotation: "Before a man obtains 'enlightenment',he sees the mountain as mountain and the water as water. When he has learnt the theory of enlightenment through the guidance of a qualified master, he sees the mountain not as a mountain and the water not as water. But when he really arrives at the place of repose, he sees the mountain as mountain again and the water as water again."

Continuing his explanation. Dr. Daisetz Suzuki, "Before achieving enlightenment we see the mountain as mountain. This is because we look at the mountain with the concept of general knowledge and with the analysis of our intellect. The mountain then is lifeless. After achieving enlightenment, we do not look upon the mountain as a natural feature, standing high in front of us, but we transform it into one with all things and the mountain is no longer a mountain. But when we are really enlightened we have already united the mountain to our lives and also our lives into the mountain. Then the mountain becomes a reality, and it has life.

The movement from "seeing the mountain as mountain" to "seeing a mountain not as mountain" is the "breaking through" stage; and the movement from "seeing the mountain not as mountain" to "seeing the mountain as mountain again" is the "unifying" stage. If we connect the stages of breaking and unifying together, and locate it in the faith of Christ, making use of it to transform our lives, by dying to the old self and giving rise to the new self, well, is not this the Paschal Mystery? No wonder, John C. H. Wu in his essay points out that Confucianism leads us to leap over the barrier between self and men; Taoism helps us to leap over the barrier between self and things; Buddhism leads us to leap over the barrier between life and death. Thus our whole life is indeed a journey from the little "me" to the real "me". Arriving there, can we refrain from sighing and saying with St. Paul, "I live, but it is not I that live, but Christ lives in me"? And can we not feel that everyday, every month is but that festive day in creation, in which every minute and every second is filled with excitement and joy?

(2) Looking at Joy from the Social Stratum

After having looked at joy from the interior stratum, now let us turn to look at joy from the social angle. This system of thought usually begins with the social phenomena and leads us to question the purpose and the characteristics of enjoyment provided for ordinary people by politicians, capitalists and cultural leaders. It formulates a critique of the particular theory of amusement. Then it tries to find a way of liberation, with the eye of faith, in order to offer real respect and progress to the nature of men.

The so-called social phenomena are referred to by Moltmann in his book Theology and Joy as the suffering and struggle of life. In the society of today politicians make use sports, competitions, philately and other activities to give the people a moment's relaxation of the spirit. Capitalists give the labourers an occasional holiday of rest; cultural leaders arrange programmes of amusement for the public. Apparently they are very much concerned for the people, but in reality this is only a sort of anaesthesia, hoping that after a moment's disciplined relaxation and repose, they can extend further pressure or squeeze out more work. Well, what is the aim and characteristic of this amusement? Is it for the common people or just for the few on top? Do these enjoyments bring us a greater freedom or a greater bondage?

Of course a Christian cannot stand aside with folded arms and watch all these unjust phenomena! First of all, since he is man, he is automatically a part of the society and has duty to participate and to promote social justice, so as to render perfect the creation of God. Besides, since he is also a Christian, he has the duty to abolish the fetters of social injustice, so as to render the continual influx of the salvific gift which Christ, by dying and rising from the dead, has gained for us. As St. Luke says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke 4:18-19)

How should we participate positively in promoting social justice? Moltmann in his essay also suggests to us the way of breaking through and unifying. In breaking through, he clearly points out that we should root out the concept of utilitarianism and pessimism. So-called utilitarianism takes the achievement of fame and profit as the standard of one's success. Pessimism implies the attitude of not daring to thrust oneself forward, but knowing only to kneel down and beg for pardon, when faced with injustice. Both attitudes of life should be abolished, for if they remain, the just society will never appear, and real and permanent joy is only an utopia. In unifying, it means to affirm the value of everyone's life and work so that he will be respected by others and thus help oneself and others to obtain a complete and thorough human development.

Although Christ spent only three years on earth to spread the good news, before this period he had spent thirty years of hidden life, walking quietly the ordinary path, using his simple life to affirm the value of life, manifesting the greatness of humanity even through lowly work. Therefore after abolishing utilitarianism we ought to establish positively the right concept of value, not taking fame and profit and success as standard but measure it with dedication and intention, so that the life and work of everyone in society will be respected. Besides, despite the fact that what we see in politics, finance and social culture do not correspond to our ideal, we are still full of hope, and through the signs of the times and from Christ who came to serve, we learn to offer our lives, to replace selfishness with love, to promote the progress of the society. Pedro Arrupe Superior General of the Jesuits, in his essay "Men for others", has emphatically expressed this thought and also has realistically suggested to us the following three practical points:

1. Live a simple life — this asks us to resist persistently the tide and fashion of the consumer society, not to follow suit with relatives and friends in buying luxurious goods; but through simple lives we should try to have an excess to be shared among poor and needy brothers.

2. Not to take unjust profit — this implies that we should not care only for the income of our production and neglect the heavy burden laid on the others. Attention should also be paid that although we are in a neither high nor low position in society and apparently we are not oppressing anyone, in reality we are using the neither high nor low means to sustain the oppressing system, or indirectly we are oppressing the victims.

3. Reform the unjust system — this is a further step and it is also the most difficult one. It requires of us to dedicate ourselves to the thorough reform of the unjust system, to arouse the consciousness of the oppressed and to help them in practical ways to fight for the victory of justice.

With confidence, strength and the guarantee given us by the death and resurrection of Christ, we not only see clearly but also can go forward courageously towards the goal we are longing for. Human history will surely break through the present state and arrive at the state of completion. While we are alive, we shall surely have to labour. But this labour will no longer be a bondage or a yoke; it will originate from freedom and be motivated by love. The Lord will wipe away all tears from men's eyes and there will be no more grief or pain (Rev.21: 2-4). We will enjoy the joy of eternal freedom in the city of God, as described by Isaiah, "Arise, Jerusalem, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you … And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising… Then you shall see and be radiant, your heart shall thrill and rejoice… " (Is. 60:1-6)

C. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

The two perspectives introduced above, of course, point to two aspects of the one joy. They are not exclusive but complementary to each other. For if we start from our heart and stop in our heart, although we can become light of spirit, be made happy, yet we shall be led to an individualism lacking in constructive effect to the society. Contrarily, if we start with society and stop with society, although we can give service to the people and the world, we shall surely loose our interiority and become a lost generation.

I personally think that because of the difference of Eastern and Western cultures our ways of searching for joy are also different. Here are two examples to illustrate this point:

Example 1. It is said that when the Buddha Sakyamuni was preaching on a certain hill, he took a flower and showed it to the people quietly, not uttering a word. His disciples looked at one another, not understanding what he meant. Only his eldest disciple Mahakasyapa gave a knowing smile. Then the Buddha said, "I have a wonderful way which is hidden from sight. I will not write it down or preach it abroad; but I hand it on to Mahakasyapa." Why is a smile so important which enabled Mahakasyapa to inherit the honourable office of his master to rule the monastery? Nothing very special! It is because Eastern people, unlike Westerners, who stress differentiation more, take the interior stratum and the social stratum and combine them into one. Therefore Eastern people think that if joy starts from the interior, then with incessant fostering, it will naturally extend outward and come to the social stratum and then to the whole mankind. In like manner, if it starts from the social angle, it will also go from the exterior to the interior, enabling real joy to reach the depth of one's soul.

Example 2. Bertrand Russell said that when he was young, he was always unhappy. Later, he learnt to extend his attention to others, and be a person who always gave, who enlarged his own interests and set his emotions free. Then, and only then, could he taste joy and really become the locus of the feelings and happiness of others. The example of Russell can represent the attitude of the majority of the Westerners in their search for joy. They stress differentiation and try first of all to distinguish clearly the social angle and the interior angle and then begin searching for happiness.

But regardless of the stress of Eastern culture on joining and the Western culture on differentiation, I think that for complete joy, deep commitment is indispensable.

In fact, N. Z. Zia in his book Christianity and Chinese Thought has examined Christian faith and the New Chinese Cultural Movement. He correctly points out that the New Chinese Cultural Movement, in order to oppose the "man-consuming culture" and further, in order to oppose "man-consuming man", has drawn many men into the modern tide of Lenin-Marxism. In order to rebuild the national fortunes and its tradition, we should interchange, criticize and harmonize Eastern and Western cultures. Therefore, what Christian faith can offer to Chinese thought is the taking of its innate mysticism and its social service and combine them together so that everyone can at once be a thoroughly new man in Christ through the grace of salvation, and so make suffering China experience the real taste of joy.

To conclude, it is worthwhile to use another Buddhist story to remind ourselves that we should put unceasing effort into our commitment. Tradition says that Su Dung Po and the monk Fo In were good friends. They lived on opposite banks of the river and they often communicated with each other. One day after his Zen exercise Su Dung Po felt very tranquil and comfortable, so he wrote a poem on the wall:

I bow down my head in concentration.

Though the sun is shining brightly,

But not even the eight winds can move me,

As I sit at the lotus position!

稽首天中天，

毫光照大千,

八风吹不动，

端坐紫金莲。

Not long after, Fo In came to visit Su and read the poem. He took up the brush and wrote by its side, "Foul Air!" and then crossed the river back to his monastery. After his quiet sitting, Su saw the two words and he recognized the handwriting of Fo In. He was enraged! He crossed the river, thinking of getting hold of Fo In in revenge. But when he arrived at the monastery, he found the door closely locked; and on it were written two rows of words:

What the eight winds could not have moved,

Some foul air across the river has pushed!

八风吹不动

一屁打过江

Instantly Su Dung Po realized that he was still far behind in fostering the feat of unifying, for he himself knew only how to rely on words and on superficial feeling. Therefore he dared not knock at the door but quietly took the same boat and returned home.

From this, we can learn that St. Paul's "Rejoice always in the Lord" is indeed profound and practical knowledge!

(Translated by Sister Dorothy Cheng)

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J. 年份：1977

A HONG KONG VIEW

  On the 6th February of this year Radio TV Hong Kong broadcast a programme on Christian Unity. The programme, which was chaired by Fr. Ciaran Kane, S.J., brought together Dr. Paul Clasper, an American Episcopalian, and Fr. Bernard J. Shields, S.J., a Roman Catholic. They discussed the important new ecumenical agreement on "Authority in the Church", published in London and Rome in January. The text was published in the London Catholic weekly The Tablet on 22nd January, and as a pamphlet by the Catholic Truth Society and the SPCK jointly in London.

The following is a transcript of the Hong Kong broadcast. The original spoken style has been slightly tightened up in a few places.

Kane: During the recent Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, an agreed document on Authority in the Church was published by the Anglican-Roman Catholic international commission which has been studying the topic in their search for common ground between the two Communions. With Dr. Paul Clasper, who teaches Theology and World Religions at the Chinese University, and Fr. Joe Shields, who teaches New Testament at the Holy Spirit Seminary Aberdeen, I talked about the significance of the document.

Clasper: Well, I think this is a very significant document in the life and discussion of the Church. It's like the great, big issue that's been lurking behind the scenes for along, long time in ecumenical discussions now comes right into the middle, and there's a chance to face and discuss what many have believed to be one of the thorniest of all problems, but it looks like we have rather amazing consensus, at least ground to begin to discuss on. So I think this is quite a significant document.

Kane: One of the comments on it was that it was perhaps one of the big events of Christian history this century. Do you think that's exaggerated, Joe?

Shields: Well, I wouldn't quite put it that way myself, not immediately anyway, until I see the reaction of the two Churches involved. I would agree with Paul, certainly, that it's significant, very significant and very important, and from a theological point of view I think it's a very fine synthesis of what we hold on both sides as regards this matter of authority in the Church. I think it's very comprehensive too, e.g. those who possess authority, it goes through these, one by one, beginning obviously with Christ who possesses authority in a unique way, as being the Son of God, also the Scriptures, the Word of God, and then the various human what-you-might-call "Depositories" of authority: the faithful, ordained ministers, bishops, patriarches and primates, Councils and the Bishop of Rome.

Kane: Some of the newspapers took it up very much as kind of a Pope for the Anglican Church. Is this a fair comment, Paul?

Clasper: I think maybe for the average reader or the casual person, that doctrinal agreements reached by a theological commission cannot by themselves achieve the goal of unity. In other words, this hasn't settled anything by any means. What it has done is raise the question for discussion. And so the document concludes that "we submit our Statesments to the respective authorities to consider whether or not" we have expressed the common mind "on these central subjects", and whether or not there is some action that is now called for, if we have expressed the kind of consensus of unity. So in many ways this is really a statement to further discussions at a very significant level. So some of those headlines in the paper sound like it's already wrapped up and nothing more to be said or done about it, and I think that would be wrong.

Kane: One of the English comments that I saw was that because the Anglican Church is more democratic and less hierarchically ruled, that the voice of the people, so to speak, will live much more say in whether this in fact is accepted or not.

Clasper: It's hard to know who speaks for Anglicans─maybe it's hard to know who speaks for Roman Catholics these days too ─. But the broad spectrum in the Anglican Communion of course includes some on the one hand who are almost fundamentalist type of Christians, who on the whole have great resistance to matters Roman Catholic and these are a large number of people and very vocal. And the pendulum swings to the other side, to many who are Catholics of a kind who almost "out-Catholic" many of the Roman Catholics, and they of course welcome it with open arms. But in between "in the misty flats the rest of us go to and fro". And it will take a lot of discussion and sifting and shaking down by this broad spectrum of Anglicans, and that's why it's difficult to say what the Anglican reaction is or will be.

Actually the Anglican Communion has been going through lots of stresses and strains these days: ordination of women has been a big question and many other – the new liturgies have all been discussed. So we are a Communion in ferment, and it would be a little hard to predict how we are going to come out on this one.

Kane: You have done a certain amount of research, Joe, on some of the things that have been appearing recently. What kind of reactions have you picked up in newspaper comments and letters?

Shields: Well, a variety really, many of them very positive. I would say the newspapers, the news agency reports and so on are very positive about it, that it is quite a remarkable document. I have seen some of the correspondence that's appeared in the London Times and that has been a bit more negative, I must say. One point in particular I might mention: there have been some letters from the Free Church people in England, say Methodists and so on, and they seem to be a bit worried about it. I suppose it's the sort of permanent dilemma that the Church of England has had, namely which way to go, towards the Roman Catholic position or towards the more Reformed position, and some of these Free Church people feel that this move now certainly is in the direction of Rome, and therefore it's taking the Anglicans away from them, so to speak, and so they are a bit unhappy about it, I can see.

But another thing I'd like to mention is this that I think we wantto see this particular document in context, namely that it is part of a dialogue that has been going on between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church for, I think, eleven years now, dating from the time when Archbishop Ramsay of Canterbury visited the Pope in 1966. And one of the things they agreed to do─it was an extremely cordial, friendly meeting and one of the things they decided to do was to set up an international commission of theologians from the two sides, Anglican and Roman Catholic, and to examine the areas of disunity between the two Churches and see what could be done about them. And they talked about "unity by stages", that bit by bit, step by step, we'd try to come together. And as a result of that there was a meeting held in Malta of a preparatory commission and they mapped out the area, and then in 1971 the first of these three Common Statements appeared, the so-called Windsor Statement on the Eucharist. Two years later in 1973 you had the Canterbury Statement on the Ministry. And now, just about two weeks ago, we have this Venice Statement on Authority. It was completed last Summer, I believe, but it's just now been published. Therefore we have to see this as part of an ongoing dialogue. It's not finished by any means at this point. These three documents in fact will be revised by he commission and they'll be combined into one document and then submitted to the authorities on both sides.

But as Paul has made quite clear, I think, the reaction of the ordinary faithful is extremely important, on both sides again. How are they going to react? Will they find their faith represented in this document? And then also what about the leaders of the Churches, are they going to accept as well. At the moment it's an open question. The document is published for discussion and reactions.

Clasper: When we speak, Joe, of the common people in both Communions discussing, does it seem like the Anglicans have the most to face up to and maybe risk, while the Roman Catholic laypeople don't have quite as much to risk, they've it all going their way? Or how does it look that way?

Shields: It's difficult to answer that really. Again I think the ordinary Catholic faithful will have a lot of different reactions to this, I imagine. It'll depend for one thing on what part of the world they live in. To me this is all a very English-speaking problem. There are, as we all know, the old wounds and the old history of 400 years and I'm afraid a lot of these have sort of got into the common imagination and it's so difficult to dispel them. This is going to be a very slow, tedious problem. You can have agreement among theologians, on an academic level or a theological level, but how much of this really reaches the ordinary people and will be acceptable to them?─I think this is perhaps the key question.

Clasper: I liked the spirit of the document when it said we have tried "to get behind the opposed and entrenched positions of past controversies". One of the tests will be whether we can, as non-Roman Catholics for instance appreciate the ferment and the changes that have come in Roman Catholicism and face the kind of things that you people are saying today, and whether we can face some of the issues that have divided us, at a fresh stage of discussions and not simply polarize on the basis of past polemics.(Music . . .)

Kane: Dr. Paul Clasper with Fr. Joe Shields discussing the Anglican-Roman Catholic Statement on Authority in the Church.

This has been "Sunday"

作者：Martin, Mary Louise 年份：1977

I have been asked to enumerate some trends in catechetics as I see them. I list six trends that I see present in Hong Kong today, indicating the trend catechetics will take in the future.

One trend is the ever-increasing involvement of lay Catholics in the catechetical tasks of the local Church. In almost every parish we find groups of young adult men and women eager to volunteer their time to teach Catholic or non-Christian children, to teach or accompany catechumens, especially those of their own age. They plan, organize, and teach, doing much of the work themselves, consulting a priest or Sister only when their

inexperience or lack of training indicates to them a need for help. They are eager to volunteer their time and energy because they take seriously the Church's teaching that an baptized Christians should take part in the mission of the Church. They feel they have something to share — the Good News of Salvation in Christ— and it is their joyful right and duty to share it. They enter into their volunteer work with zest and creativity, energy and generosity, and a healthy self-confidence. In Hong Kong much catechetical work of the parishes is carried out by young lay people.

Another noticeable trend is the prevalence of team-project. Team members pool ideas and "know-how." Natural leaders emerge. Team members feel they are on a peer level and that each one has something to contribute. A sensitivity to each one's talents and contribution is usually evident. I observed a shy, retiring young woman, a factory worker from a very poor family, conduct a very satisfactory class with a group of factory worker catechumens. The best in her had been drawn out by participation in a team and by the support she found there. In a team the work is more interesting, more easily done. The members feel the support and good-will of others; they are enabled to develop talents previously hidden or unsuspected. The project done by the loner becomes less and less common. Team-work is the order of the day.

The tendency to work in teams is part of a larger trend and quest: the desire to form or be part of a Christian community. Our Catholics often stress the need for the support and companionship of other Christians in order to live a faith-life in our society. When they feel very alone in their struggle as a small minority to preserve high Christian values, to act in accord with Gospel principles, to face indifference, ridicule, even antagonism─they find the greatest help in their faith from other like-minded Christians, with whom they can share their experiences, seek advice, find common solutions. In the catechetical field this trend shows itself in the team-teaching and projects, in efforts to integrate catechumens into the Christian community at an early stage, in attempts to utilize small group discussions, liturgies, prayer days, to give deeper formation to those already Catholic.

An ease and spontaneity in prayer and liturgy, and in sharing faith experiences, is another noticeable trend. Liturgy becomes more and more part of catechetical formation, and rightly so of course. I have witnessed spontaneous prayer among catechumens led by young lay teachers, hymns chosen by catechumens themselves as a real expression of prayer, a readiness to vocalize deep inner sentiments. A facility, a lack of self-consciousness, a willingness to share innermost thoughts, is evident, resulting in quite different expressions of prayer than that present a years ago.

A fifth trend is the desire and effort to combine doctrine with a living faith-life. "We must be witnesses to Christ in daily life," "what we study must be relevant and meaningful for our lives," "we want to have a living faith:" these words we hear constantly. Our Catholics and catechumens are not satisfied with a faith that is only intellectual, with a Gospel study that is academic only. They have a wholesome desire to unify faith and action in their lives. This extends, to an extent at least, to an awareness that their Christian actions must include an attention to society conditions in need of correcting.

The single most influential impetus for catechetical changes that have taken place in recent years in the movement towards indigenization. This is so all-embracing as to be much more than a trend. It is rather a heartfelt plea: "Let us be ourselves." This desire has helped us to appreciate more our own uniqueness and worth. We are less satisfied than formerly to take over wholesale a project, book, programme, from another country. We have been thrown on our own resources, brought to use talents we did not know existed, forced into projects we once thought impossible. The desire to indigenize has focused our attention on areas peculiar to our own situation, as our mixed culture, double language system. It has brought us to question the status quo, for example, the almost exclusive use of Western religion texts. Because of this movement we have begun the search for more suitable content for the non-Christian students of our Catholic schools, discovered that Taiwan translations are not always suitable, and have done more translating and publishing ourselves. We have produced our own materials, even to writing textbooks, a task once thought beyond our capabilities.

Some think our present efforts to stand on our own two feet are superficial. Indigenization has only touched the surface: books, visuals, syllabuses. It has not delved deeply into more essential areas as values, ways of life. I feel this will come .A beginning has been made, a thirst aroused. The trend is irreversible, the thirst unquenchable. No one wants it otherwise.

Some of the trends here listed are universal and will doubtless form part of the discussion material for the 1977 Synod of Bishops, whose theme is Catechetics for youth and children. While a Synod cannot deal with practical problems, it can provide those of us in the field of catechetics throughout the world with an impetus and an exposure to the views of world-wide experts.We look forward to the proceedings and final document from such a world-wide body to stimulate us to greater zest and vision in dealing with the multiple elements of our local catechetical situation.

30th June, 1977

　

* Condensation of an article for World Mission magazine, N.Y. by the same author.

作者：Martin, Mary Louise 年份：1977

A FINAL DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED NEW CANON LAWON MARRIAGE



  Introductory:

Chapter 1: Marriage Preliminaries.

Chapter 2: Concerning Impediments in General.

Chapter 3: Prohibiting Impediments.

Chapter 4: Diriment Impediments.

Chapter 5: Matrimonial Consent.

Chapter 6: The Form For The Celebration Of Marriage

Chapter 7: Celebration of Secret Marriages.

Chapter 8: Time and Place of Celebration.

Chapter 9: Effects of Marriage.

Chapter 10: Conjugal Separation.

Chapter 11: Convalidation of Marriage.



TITULUS VII

ON MARRIAGE

242. i Christ Our Lord has raised the marriage contract between baptized persons to the dignity of a sacrament.
  ii Hence there can not be a valid marriage contract between baptized persons which is not a sacrament.
234 i Marriage, made by mutual consent as described in 295sq., is the intimate sharing of their whole life by a man, and a woman which by its very nature leads them towards the procreation and education of children.
  ii The essential properties of marriage are its unity and indissolubility, which in a Christian marriage have a special strength by reason of the sacrament.
244   Marriage is favoured by the law; hence in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage is to be upheld until the opposite is proved (except in the case of 345).
245 i Any valid marriage is called legitimate.
  ii A valid marriage between baptized persons is called ratified if it has not been completed by consummation; it is called ratified and consummated if the husband and wife have had sexual intercourse by an act suited of itself for procreation, towards which marriage of its nature leads, and by which the two are made one flesh.
  iii If the husband and wife live together after the marriage has been celebrated, consummation is presumed, unless the opposite is proved.
  iv Any invalid marriage is called putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one of the parties, until such time as both are aware of its nullity.
246   Marriage since it is the principle and foundation of human association also concerns civil society. Since however a marriage between baptized persons is one of the sacraments of the New Law, Christ has entrusted to his Church the discipline and care of this sacrament as regards its integrity and holiness. The marriage of baptized persons, even when only one is baptized, is governed not only by divine but also by canon law, leaving however to the civil authorities the competence to deal with the merely civil effects of such a marriage.
247 i A promise to marry, whether unilateral or bilateral, or engagements to marry are governed by local law which will be determined by the Episcopal Conference, after taking into consideration the local customs and civil law, if such exist.
  ii The promise to marry does not give anyone the right to demand the celebration of the marriage; it does however give the right to claim compensation for any loss incurred.
248   Pastors are bound by their office to fulfill their duty of giving catechetical instruction about the sacrament of marriage, in accordance with the norms established by the ecclesiastical authorities.

CHAPTER I MARRIAGE PRELIMINARIES

249 i In accordance with the needs of the time and the place, pastors should use suitable means to ward off all dangers of invalid and unlawful marriages being celebrated. Hence it should be established before a marriage is celebrated that there is no obstacle to a valid and lawful celebration.
  ii When there is danger of death, or an urgent case for the celebration of the marriage, if other proofs can not be had, the statement of the parties concerned, under oath if necessary, that they are baptized and that they are not bound by any impediment, is sufficient unless there are indications to the contrary.
250   Let the Episcopal Conferences determine norms for the prenuptial enquiry, the publication of the banns, and other suitable means of investigation to be made before the marriage takes place; and after these have been carefully observed, the parish priest may proceed to assist at the marriage.
251   Let Catholics who have not received the sacrament of Confirmation be confirmed before their marriage if they can do so without serious inconvenience.
252   All the faithful are obliged to reveal the existence of impediments known to them to the parish priest or the Ordinary before the celebration of the marriage.
253 i One's own Ordinary in his own prudence and for a just and reasonable cause can dispense from the publication of the banns even in another diocese.
  ii If one has several Ordinaries, the dispensation pertains to him in whose diocese the marriage is celebrated; but if the marriage is celebrated outside one's own dioceses, any of the above Ordinaries can dispense.
254   If anyone other than the parish priest who should witness to the marriage has made the pre-nuptial enquiries, he should let this parish priest know the results as soon as possible and by an authentic document.
255   Except in case of necessity, the parish priest should not assist at the marriage of vagrants before bringing the case to the Ordinary of the place, and obtaining his permission.
256(NEW)   Let the parish priest proceed in the same way as in 255 when there is question of a marriage between two persons who during a previous marriage committed adultery between themselves, and contracted a civil marriage.
257 i Let the Parish priest (each the engaged couple according to their different situation about the sanctity of marriage, their mutual obligations to one another and the obligations of parents to their children.
  ii The parish priest should take care to prepare the celebration of the marriage in such a way that its sacramental dignity is brought to light and the parties and others assisting take an active part in the sacred rite.
258   Let the parish priest warn minors not to contract marriage without the knowledge of their parents, or when they are reasonably opposed. If they refuse to accept this this advice, he should not assist at their marriage without prior consultation with the Ordinary of the place.

CHAPTER II IMPEDIMENTS IN GENERAL

259   All can marry who are not prohibited by the law.
260 i A prohibiting impediment means that it is seriously forbidden to contract the marriage, but that if nevertheless it is contracted, the marriage is not thereby rendered invalid.
  ii A diriment impediment both forbids the celebration of the marriage, and also prevents it from being validly contracted.
  iii All impediment even if it binds only one of the parties, makes the marriage illicit or invalid.
261   An impediment is public when it can be proved in the external forum; otherwise it is secret.
262 i It pertains solely lo the supreme authority in the Church to stateauthentically when divine law forbids or nullifies a marriage.
  ii The same supreme authority has the right (privative) to, determine other impediments either prohibiting or diriment for baptized persons, without detriment to iii.
  iii Episcopal Conferences in particular circumstances can set up particular impediments, either prohibiting or diriment, by a decree published in accordance with the law.
263   Only those who were baptized into or received into the (new)Catholic Church and have not formally defected are bound by purely ecclesiastical impediments.
264(new)   Only the supreme authority in the Church can abrogate in whole or in part the impediments of ecclesiastical law, Episcopal Conferences however retaining the right to abrogate impediments set up by themselves.
265 i The Ordinary of the place can forbid persons living in his diocese or even his subjects living outside his territory to get married in a particular case, but only for a time and while a grave reason exists.
  ii Only the supreme authority in the Church can add a nullifying clause to this prohibition.
266 i The local Ordinary can dispense his own subjects wherever they are staying and all those actually living in his territory from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, with the exception of those whose dispensation is reserved to the Holy See.
  ii The impediments from which dispensation is reserved to the Holy See are: ─
1)The impediment of age, as often as the lack of the required age exceeds one year;
2)The impediment arising from sacred orders or from perpetual profession in an institute of consecrated life;

3)The impediment of crime as described in 290;
4)The impediment of consanguinity in the collateral line up to the third degree, with the caution however that a dispensation from consanguinity in the direct line is not given;
5)The impediment arising from affinity in the direct line.

267   A custom introducing a new impediment or contrary toexiling impediments stands condemned.
268   In danger of death, the local Ordinary can for conscience sake and, if necessary to legitimise children, dispense his own subjects wherever they may be and all those actually living in his territory from the canonical form and from all ecclesiastical impediments, public or secret, provided he guards against scandal.
269 i In the same circumstances as in 268 but only for cases where the even the local Ordinary can not be approached, the parish priest, or a sacred minister properly delegated, or a person properly delegated in accordance with 318, iii, either priest or deacon, to assist at the marriage has the same power to dispense. Likewise a confessor if it concerns a secret case, for the internal forum but outside the act of sacramental confessio.
  ii In the case above in i, the local Ordinary is considered not to be available if he can only be reached by telephone or by telegraph.
270 i The local Ordinary under the conditions stated at the end of 268.i can dispense from all the impediments mentioned in 268 whenever an impediment is discovered or brought to the notice of the Ordinary or the parish priest at a time when all the preparations for the marriage have been made and the marriage can not be postponed without probable danger of serious harm while the matter is being referred to the Holy See.
  ii This power can also be used to convalidate a marriage if there is the same danger in delay and there is not time to recur to the Holy See, or to the Ordinary in cases where he can dispense from the impediments.
  iii In the same circumstances, all those mentioned in.269,i have the same powers subject to the same conditions, but only if the case is by its nature or in fact secret and recourse can not be had even to the local Ordinary in accordance with 269 or only with danger of violating the secrete and a confessor must observe what is prescribed in 269.
271   The parish priest or the priest or deacon mentioned in 269 must inform the local Ordinary immediately about the dispensation given for the external forum; and the dispensation must be noted in the marriage register.
272   Unless the reply from the Sacred Pentitentiary says otherwise, a dispensation, given in the internal non-sacramental forum for a secret impediment, should be noted in the book which is to be kept in the secret archive of the Curia (according to CIC 379); and no other dispensation for the external forum is necessary even if the secret impediment later becomes known publicly.
273   The Ordinary who gave testimonial letters or transmitted the requests to the Holy See executes the dispensations from public or known impediments entrusted to the Ordinary of the petitioners, even though the parties have left for another diocese never to return; he should however inform the Ordinary of the Place where they will contract the marriage.