作者：刘赛眉 年份：1979

引言：

卡尔．巴特(一八八六年至一九六八年)被认为是继路德及加尔文之后，改革宗教会所产生最伟大的神学家之一。巴特的着作甚为丰富，其中以「教会教义学」(Church Dogmatics ) 一书最具代表性，此书共五卷，阐释信仰之主要内涵。正如一般神学家们对巴特的认识，巴特的整套神学乃以基督为中心。这位出生于瑞士，却受教育于德国的神学家，年青时曾受十九世纪所流行之自由主义所影响，尤其崇拜哈纳克(Harnack) 与鹤曼(Hermann) 两位自由主义者。巴特早年曾与卜仁尔(E.Brunner ) 和步特曼(R.Bultmann) 携手创立一学派，此学派被称为「辩证神学」(Dialectical Theology )或「危机神学」(Crisis Theology)。稍晚，巴特脱离二人而自成一神学体系。综观巴特的整个思想背景，除了在神学上曾受到自由主义之影响外，在哲学方面则受到祁克果之存在主义、托斯也夫斯基、康德，以及黑格尔等人的哲学所感染，而中古世纪的神学家安瑟莫(Anselm ) 和近代的石莱马赫要算是影响他的神学思想定型的最得力者。一方面，巴特虽然受到当代不同思潮的刺激和影响，但另一方面，他的整套神学仍不失去以圣经为基础的特色。自从巴特公开扬弃自由主义，后来又与步特曼和鹤曼二人分手之后，他的神学特点更为彰显。这位会被视为「新正统主义者」的基督神学家，其后期的神学发展，特别注重神学的「客观性」与「历史性」。在巴特的神学思想中，值得注意的是其立论似乎与正统神学站在同一立埸，而事实上他另有解释，此亦为他获得「新正统主义者」雅号之原因。

巴特对「启示」以及「罪和救思」皆有独特之见解。他的启示论与救恩论未必人人能接受，但无论如何，巴特的神学常常具有其「创造性」。他在教授神学时，经常鼓励学子们独立思考，开发个人的思想领域。此外，他的神学又非常因时制宜，切合现 况，他教导弟子们在研究神学时，必须一手拿着圣经，另一手拿着报纸，把神学拍合于目前的时代。由于巴特神学的复杂与丰硕，任何人欲把他的思想摘要介绍，都是一件不容易的事。本文只集中于探讨他庞硕思想中的一点，就是他的「成义论」(On Justification)。一直以来，「成义」的道理曾被视为「基督教」与「天主教」 分裂的核心教义之一，但经过龚．汉斯(Hans Kung) 神父对巴特成义论的分析与介绍之后，发现巴特的成义神学与天主教的教义并非全无可接触之处。当然，巴特并不足以代表整个基督教对成义的看法，但总算是有交谈的可能。龚．汉斯神父最近虽曾因某些着作含有「可疑」 的思想而受到训导权方面的注意，但当他介绍巴特的成义论并与天主教的成义道理比较时，卡．拉纳(Karl Rahner ) 神父曾说：龚神父所论述的诚为天主教的正统教义。再者，在龚神父介绍了巴特的成义论之后，巴特本人亦曾表示龚神父对他的思想了解颇正确。本文乃以龚神父所着：「成义－－巴特的教义与一位天主教徒的反省」(1) 一书为出发点，并辅以其他参考资料(2)，汇通之后，发表而成。本文且分下列数点讨论：

一、巴特成义神学的中心思想

二、龚．汉斯对巴特成义论的反省

三、卡．拉纳对龚汉斯的反应

四、一点反省

　

一、巴特成义神学的中心思想

路德曾认为「成义」(Justification) 是整个基督教最基本和最核心的教义，这端教义有决定基督教之盛衰的能力。路德论到成义的问题时，主要是面对着中世纪的经院神学，更由于路德对罪的深刻体会，以及对人性彻底败坏的肯定，致令到他强调罪人的成义乃「外在的称义」。巴特在论述罪人成义的问题时，与路德的观点稍有分歧。一方面，巴特亦认为人性已因罪而完全败坏，罪人之所以能够成义完全是靠耶稣基督，所以他的成义论是以基督为中心的。另一方面，巴特并不把成义的道理视为基督教的核心教义和焦点。他认为成义的道理非常重要，亦很困难，但它只是基督救恩讯息中很特殊的一面，因为，不论从福音或从教会的历史上去看，成义都不是一个中心问题，只是到了十六世纪宗教改革时，它才呈现为极主要的问题，事实上，加尔文亦没有把成义视为基督教的中心课题。

为巴特而言，一切教义的中心应当是「天主而人的耶稣基督」，而教义神学亦该是以基督为中心的神学。若要瞭解巴特的成义论，则必须同时明白他的「选」的神学。在「选」(Election) 的神学上，他发展了他的「预定论」(Predestination )。天主在耶稣基督内选人的行为，永远是一白白的恩赐，而罪人成义的基础就在这「选」的恩惠上。「选的神学」最能表现出巴特神学的辩证性。在耶稣基督身上，天主选的行为具有消极和积极两面。消极方面，天主选的行动中包含了「拒绝」(Rejection)，不是拒绝罪人，而是天主首先拒绝了自己的儿子，为使一切人在子身上成为父所选的。因为，在人类中，耶稣是首先被「选」而同时又被「拒绝」的一位，在这位同时被选而又被拒绝的耶稣基督身上，罪人才有成义的可能。积极方面，天主「选」的行动在耶稣复活及升天的事件完全实现出来了，天主为自己选了「死亡」与「地狱」，故此祂能够为人类选择「光荣」、「幸福」、与「永远的生命」。

根据巴特的思想，可见天主在耶稣基督身上有「双重意愿」，就是在祂的子身上天主同时说出了「是」与「否」( “Yes” and “No”)。这「选」 和「拒绝」的双重意愿，都包含在一个行动之内。简言之，「拒绝」永远是附属在「选」内，这就是巴特的「十字架辩证神学」。这位「受拒绝的被选者耶稣基督」是罪人成义的永恒基础，因着祂，一切被拒绝的罪人都被选为天主子民。亦由于巴特把「成义」与「救赎」相混淆，故有人称巴特的「预定论」为「普世得救论」(Apokatastasis) (3)。既然巴特把「成义」的思想与「选」的概念相连，则其后果必然是「成义」与「盟约」不可分，因为「选」的概念基本上与「盟约」相关。最后，巴特的成义论就在「盟约」的思想范畴中来发展。在耶稣基督身上，天主与人的关系原是「盟约的关系」，所谓罪人成义，就是重新恢复这已毁的盟誓，并使之达到圆满。

巴特曾经尖锐地批判天主教特利腾大公会议的「成义法令」(4)，他认为天主教的成义神学并未严肃正视天主的恩宠行为乃白白之恩赐。在巴特的成义论中，他极关心天主的光荣(Solo Deo Gloria) 。在成义的过程中，人的地位虽非不重要，但天主的公义与慈爱理应首先受到光荣和赞美。巴特认为天主教对于罪人成义的训导使天主的「尊严」和「绝对的统治」受到威胁，换言之，非受造恩宠(Uncreated Grace)的一面被削弱了。

龚．汉斯神父认为巴特对天主教成义神学的批判并不公允，而且很片面。事实上，特利腾大公会议的「成义法令」乃为针对当时的原始基督教派而颁发，尤其是针对路德的思想。路德既认为人性已因罪而彻底败坏，人无能为善，故此人的一切行为皆为罪，纵使人有信仰，亦无能参与在成义的事功内。一切人的成义都是藉着耶稣基督的缘故而「外在地称义」，而非「内在地成义」。为答覆路德、加尔文、以及当时的宗教改革者(Reformers)，特利腾大公会议十分强调成义工程中人的自由参与的一面，也肯定人的一切善行皆有其「功绩性」(Merit)。大公会议认为，罪的确削弱了并损伤了人性，但人性并未曾到完全彻底败坏的地步，人仍有自由行善的可能。然而，由于大公会议的成义法令全力面对路德等人，故实有矫枉过正的可能，轻忽了强调「信仰」的重要性，而这「因信成义」的思想正是基督教所极为重视的一点。

巴特的成义论亦很强调「因信成义」，但是，巴特的「成义只靠信仰」 (Sola Fides)与路德的观点不同。巴特似乎并不排斥「善工」(Good Work)。他亦深知宗教改革者在解释保禄宗徒的「因信成义」这句话时的弱点，圣保禄实没有排拒人的善工。巴特认为善工应置于「信仰」和「爱德」的关系中来解释。按照(迦．5：6) 说：那信德是以爱德行事的信德。换言之，信德应表现在行为上。巴特以为保禄的「因信成谢 不仅不排除善行，反而说出了人必须自由行善，当保禄说这句话时，主要是在 「成义不靠法律」的背景和上下文中说出来的。倘若善工是爱德的行为，而爱德又必须出自信德，如此，巴特最后仍能在不排拒善工的情况下说：「成义只靠信仰」。龚神父认为，值得注意的一点是：巴特从不把信仰本身视为善工，为他而言，信仰乃一恩赐。毕竟，巴特的成义论其重点仍置于天主的能力与慈爱上，这也就是他摈斥特利腾大公会议的「成义法令」的理由了。

巴特与路德很不相同的一点是他清楚地论到了罪人的「内在成义」。巴特并没有否定原始基督教所说的「宣布成义」，但他却修正了它的意义。巴特认为，罪人成义并非是一空洞的、外在的事。他认为我们的成义的确有一如在法庭上宣布人为义人的成份，但这「宣布」是真实和有效的。由于这是天主的宣布，故此它不仅创造了罪人成义的事实，而且还启示了它。职是之故，巴特的 「宣布成义」可以毫无保留地称为「内在成义」。他也曾举例说：基督徒不能相信一句(或一部份) 没有效果的信仰陈词，就如我们都接受那句宣布「耶稣已由死者中复活」的句子，因为它不是空洞的，而是绝对有效的宣布，巴特由此结论：罪人不只是外在地称义，而是真实地在天主面前成义。

在巴特的思想中，「成义」与「圣化」原是一体两面的事，均为天主在耶稣基督内与世界「和好」的行动，但这行动包含了两面。从天主方面来看，这「和好」的行动就是天主在耶稣基督内的「下降」与「提升」人类，从人方面来看，这就是「成义」和「圣化」。既然两者同属一行动，故一者完成则另一者亦同时完成。论到「和好」与「成义」之间的关系，巴特以为「成义」只是「和好」中颇重要的一面，而非等于「和好」。

二、龚．汉斯对巴特成义论的反省

龚神父认为巴特无意与天主教争论，但由于巴特对天主教的「圣经与传承」、「首席权」、「圣母学」……等等的了解，而导致他对天主教的「成义论」有误解。龚神父不完全接纳巴特对特利腾大公会议的批判，但无论如何，巴特的看法，的确代表了某些基督教神学家的意见，而最有意义的是某些在基督教神学界领先的学者都放弃了纯粹外在称义的理论。

事实上，路德的「外在成义论」之所以能够在当时有如此大的影响力乃基于三个理由：第一 、他的神学相反当时的形式主义，要求宗教有强烈的精神生活，第二、恢复天主在成义工程上的「领先」地位，反对人以行善自夸，第三、路德的成义论产生于教会正处于极度黑暗的时期，当时许多信徒皆视罗马教廷为恶的根源，而路德的成义论多少亦针对那由于生活放肆而不相称于继承伯多禄首席地位的基督代表所造成的恶劣境况。

教会的生活原来就与神学休戚相关，龚神父曾认为，神学乃生命之学，生命就是神学反省的素材，若神学与生活脱节，它使很容易流于僵冷而成为一套抽象的概念。教会的生活可以使神学的反省更为丰硕，但另一方面它亦可能是抑制神学正常发展的原因之一，在路德的时代便产生了这样的情形。龚神父批判巴特过于重视「十字架的辩证神学」。此外，巴特与特利腾大公会议是站在两个不同的立场土来看成义的问题，巴特以为「成义」首先是：天主在耶稣基督的死亡与复活中对人(救恩性) 的判断，而特利腾大公会议则重视「成义」在人身上的过程。龚神父认为这两个立场不仅不彼此冲突，而且相辅相成，互为补充。巴特所注重的是「客体的成义」，即天主在十字架上所完成的救援工程，而特利腾大公会议所谈到的大部份是「主体的成义」，即是注重人的努力合作。正如特利腾大公会议并无意排除成义中「信仰」的一面，同样，龚神父以为巴特亦并未否定「主体成义」的一面，这一无可由巴特主张「内在成义」一事上见到。然而，由于巴特在批判特利腾大公会议的「成义法令」时，极力把持自己的立场，以自己所瞭解的成义概念来抨击特利腾大公会议的法令，致使他不能估计到主体与客体成义原是一体两面的事。巴特所指的「成义」其实正是天主教所谓的「救赎」(Redemption)，而这救赎特别是指耶稣基督在十字架上死亡复活的客观事实，与人类接纳此救赎工程的主观事实稍有分别，而后者便是天主教所说的「成义」了。龚神父以为，巴特所说成义的三个因素，特利腾大公会议从未曾忽略，这三个因素就是 (1)罪赦；(2)赐予天主子女的权利；(3)赋予永生(5)。唯一的问题是巴特过份强调成义的「末世性」，视成义为一许诺。

另一个在「成义神学」土争论的课题，就是路德所说的那句名言：「同时是罪人和义人」(Simul Justus et Peccator)。在人的经验中，这句话本来是不必争论的，这是每个人都可以经验得到的事实。可是，由于路德对这句话另有解释，放在神学上曾一度引起两教的激烈争辩。龚神父认为，倘若能够正确地解释这句话，天主教是不难接受其为真理的。首先，他指出在罗马天主教的礼仪经文中的确肯定了这个事实，特别是在弥撒中。倘若「同时是罪人和义人」这句话只是要描写出义人身上也有罪这件事，神学上是不必争论的。但现在问题的症结却在于：如何可能一个既然已真实地成义的人又同时真实地是罪人？整个是义人而同时又整个是罪人？对于这个问题，必须谨慎回答，否则便会产生两种可能，或者说人是真实的成义，整个是义人，而罪人则是不真实的，又或者说，人是真实的罪人，整个是罪人，而成义只是外在的。路德正是后者的代表，强调人彻头彻尾为罪人，故成义只是外在的。

现且先看特利腾大公会议的训示：(一)成义的人，一方面仍有犯罪的能力，另一方面又不断在追求成全。(二)成全是一由上赐下的恩惠，非源于人自身，人必须在基督内不断地去接纳此恩典。

至于巴特，他是以罗马人书第七章为基础。他以为，不论人怎样诠释这一章圣经，总不能否定在人身上有两种势力彼此冲突的事实，而圣保禄在这段圣经中描绘这事实为「有罪的旧人」与「成义的新人」之间的争斗。

龚．汉斯的解释一方面假定了特利腾大公会议的思想，另一方面则在神学上从「时间」、「贪欲」 和 「罪」等观念去反省「同时是罪人和义人」这句话的意义。首先，龚神父解释，在人身上，时间并非完全是独立约三段，即，过去、现在、与未来。相反，在人的生命过程中，时间是一不止息的「流」，这「流」包含了三个时刻，而这三个时刻结合为一整体，都属于我，是我的「流」，是我的过去 ：我的现在与未来。「过去」虽成为过去，但仍包含在我的「现在」内，同样，对于「未来」亦然。换言之，目前的「义人」和过去的「罪人」都在我的「流」之内同时奔湍，直到天主一次而永久地把「我的流」转化为永恒的「现在」。

其次，龚神父引用拉纳神父的思想来阐述「败坏」的观念。路德所谓的「败坏」乃指人彻头彻尾为罪人，根本没有善可言，因此否定人身上的 「善工」的价值，以为善工只是一「标记」。但为特利腾大公会议而言，这「败坏」只相当于「贪欲」，犯罪后的人性，并非彻底败坏，只是受伤，在他身上有「贪欲」存在，这「贪欲」被喻为「引火木柴」，极易导人于罪。在义人身上仍有这罪的趋向，但贪欲非罪，只有当人同意贪欲而付诸行动时方为「罪」。罪从来不只是个人的事，它常是违反基督及其肢体的行动。在教会身上，「同时是罪人和义人」亦是一事实。教会是至圣的，但同时是罪人的团体，至圣性和有罪性之所以能够并存于教会内，乃由于教会的「圣」并非完全来自其成员的圣德 (虽然也重要)，而是源自耶稣基督。她的圣非由她本身的言语和行动所赋予，而是产生于基督的训诲与圣事，教会的「至圣性」之不可毁灭乃是由于基督救恩不可毁灭之故；另一方面，这至圣的教会却由有罪的肢体所组成，为此，「有罪」和「至圣」这两股激流在教会的生命中同时并进而产生了一种张力(Tension)，牵引着她走尽旅途的历程。)

最后，巴特的成义论是奠基在「光荣只归于天主」(Sole Deo Gloria ) 以及「因信成义」(Sola Fides) 上。龚神父以为若正确解释这两句话，这两句话不会与特利腾大公会议的成义法令有大冲突。论到成义只靠信仰时，巴特把信仰从两面来分析，一方面它是天主的恩赐，这恩赐使到一「新的存在」(或「新人」) 诞生；另一方面，信仰亦是人的行为。至于特利腾大公会议对信仰的看法则是：信仰既是行为又是灌注的德性(In-fused Virtue)，后者是言明信仰乃一由上赐下的恩典，前者则指出，在人身上，信德为一行为。若按照巴特封信仰的分析，「因信成义」的话并非完全不能接纳。

至于「光荣只归于天主」(Solo Deo Gloria)，龚神父以为，巴特是误解了特利腾大公会议所说的「合作」。巴特既认为成义只是父在子内所完成的工程，故此很难容纳「人的合作」这个思想。事实上，巴特的困难第一是来自「词汇」的运用；其次是来自他对「合作」的误解。巴特所说的「成义」其实就相当于特利腾大公会议所指的「救赎」，特利腾也没有说救赎工程(指耶稣在十字架上的工程) 是需要人合作才完成的，而不是基督所独力完成的事件；至于特利腾大公会议所说的「成义」，则指人的主观得救过程。在人接纳救赎这件事上，则需要人的合作，而这「合作」是「参与」(Involvement) 之意，而非指 「同工」(Collaboration)。同时，在「盟约」的概念下，天主亦要求一位主动合作、积极参与的「盟侣」，故此祂仍愿意保存人回应的自由及选择的能力。

特利腾大公会议所指的「成义」，非指一半来自天主，另一半来自人。它亦强调如无天主的恩宠，人一无所能，天主是独力工作，而人的参与则是「被动」中的「主动」，天主在成义一事上是完全「领先」的，为此，人的合作毫无减损「天主的光荣」。

对于「成义」和「圣化」的关系，龚神父以为二者乃一体两面的事。如果成义被了解为「罪之赦免」，「圣化」则为「成全」(包括圣洁、与天主的友谊等)。在救恩的秩序上，「成义」先于「圣化」，后者是基督徒在其生命中发展他在成义中所领受了的圣洁及仁义之恩典。

论到「功绩」问题，龚神父以为，原始基督教所反对的是法利塞式的功绩：人凭善工而自夸，不再全心信赖天主。其实，对于这一点，天主教明显的也不会赞同，然而若把「功绩」看成是天主的「酬报」实无不可。虽然人的行为常不相称于天主的酬报，但总不能把此事一笔勾销。

三 、拉纳神父对龚 、汉斯的反应

拉纳神父指出，龚神父所介绍的天主教成义道理无疑是正统的教义，但是，他所提出来的大部份是天主教教义中可与巴特神学相合的一面。虽然，龚神父的道理与教会的正统训导并无冲突之处，但这并非说，他的思想及解释已足够清楚，毫无引起人误解的成份在内。单就成义与圣化的关系而言，拉纳便认为有再详细探讨和解释的需要，而拉纳神父亦曾写一文，对「成义与圣化」以及「信与爱」之间的关系大抒己见(6)。

对于「同时是罪人和义人」的问题，拉纳神父认为它在过去虽曾成为两教在神学上的争辩点，但为今日的信徒来说，这个问题不应再是造成两教分裂的问题之一，而应当成为两教都共同面对而反省的「神修」问题。除非大家都反省到自己在天主前是怎样的一个存在，否则，只在理论上争辩是徒费精力。在天主前人永久是罪人，但另一方面亦很深地体会到天主恩宠的临在使他成义，这是任何信徒都有的基本经验。事实上，路德所主张的人性已彻底败坏的思想，已逐渐随着社会思想型态的变迁而削弱，今日在人文主义思潮的影响下，甚至信徒，对于人性尊严和自由负责的肯定，人已感到自己是理所当然的活在天主的慈爱之中，罪人的意识已逐渐转弱。

此外，拉纳神父认为，过去天主教拒绝「同时是罪人和义人」这句话是因为它未曾清楚地表达出天主的恩宠和能力真实地和彻底地改变人。在耶稣基督的死亡里，人已越过了死亡的边界，由天主的行动切实地在人身上产生效果一点来看，人在天主前能够真正是「义人」，而非「外在地成义」。另一方面，天主教能够同意这句话的，是它可以表达出人不能完全确定自己的得救的思想。人既不能确定自己的得救，故需要时常寄望于天主。一方面他虽然是义人，但另一方面他身上仍然有罪，至少是小罪。拉纳神父指出，自从奥古斯丁以来，教会使强调人常为罪人，而这样的思想从未由特利腾大公会议所撤除。小罪使人不断地回归天主，乞求宽恕。并且，人尚在旅途中，他的「信」和「爱」亦是在过程中，人必须不断地自由去选择天主，而选择天主的这个人又是来自亚当和厄娃的后裔，为此，人常悬于两极之中：一端是起点(或出发点)，在这一点上正说明他是来自沦落的境况，而目前他不断地离开这个起点，朝向终点，另一端就是这终点和目标，这目标他现在已在信和望中拥有，但仍未完全获得，如此，旅途中的人常是在两极的张力中前进，在此意义下，我们可以说人「同时是罪人和义人」了。

四 、一点反省

正如拉纳神父曾说，龚神父是一位相当敢于冒险的神学家。龚神父面对巴特的成义论，在天主教的立场上以冒险的精神探讨了教会的训导与巴特神学的异同。虽然，有时候他的确越过了教会训导的领域而推出了一些不是每人都同意的论断，但无论如何，他在成义论上的探讨，在神学界里获得了一个惊奇的后果：就是一位伟大的基督教神学家竟同意他所介绍的成义论。虽然他的成义论尚有不少可商榷之处，但我们却不必因为基督教神学家对他的成义论的接纳和同意而认为他的神学思想是「非天主教」的。另一方面，既然巴特的成义论不足以代表一切基督教神学家的思想，故此我们亦不能就此下结论说，天主教与基督教已在「成义」的教义上「合一」了。若如此，结论未免下得过早或太草率，而且龚神父的成义神学也不一定可以代表所有神学家(天主教) 的意见。无论如何，在巴特与龚汉斯的交谈中，显示出「成义」的问题并未走进死巷。巴特的思想相当复杂，有时侯亦甚为隐晦艰涩，如果真正要了解他的成义神学，恐怕非要进入他整个神学思想的脉胳中不可。除了「成义」的问题之外，巴特对天主教的「首席权」、「圣母学」…… 等问题都另有见解，值得斟酌。

在神学上，两教对「光荣只归于神」、「恩宠唯一」、「信仰唯一」，以及「圣经唯一」等基督教原则曾奋战多年，如今在巴特的成义神学里，这些原则同样出现。其实，所谓「善工」、「功绩」，以及「合作」等问题的争辩还不是基于上述的原则！正如一位神学教授(卫格神父) 在介绍保罗．田力克的思想时说，基督教的原则基本上是一 「先知的原则」，反对一切「偶像」，甚至是圣经的文字本身。一切只归于神。

至于「同时是罪人和义人」的问题，虽然在实际经验上是不必争论的事实。但过去在神学上的争辩亦并非全为无谓的角逐，因为这个问题触及其他的信道以及基督徒的「人学」问题。

另一位神学家Henri Bouillard也同样介绍及评论过巴特的成义论，但他对巴特的看法与龚汉斯所介绍约有些不同。在后者的介绍中，认为巴特并未排斥善工，而且亦主张成义只靠信仰。可是H.Bouillard却说，以信仰为人的行为而言，巴特主张成义不靠信仰，也不靠善工，而只靠耶稣基督，因为整个人类已经在耶稣基督之内成义了。对于善工的问题，两人的介绍与评论亦不同，在H.Bouillard的介绍中，善工为巴特几乎只是一「标记」，而龚神父则以为巴特没有否定善工的价值。到底他们两人谁更瞭解巴特的思想？这一点恐怕只有巴特自己本人才能决定。然而，他们二人都同样认为巴特是误解了特利腾大公会议「成义法令」中「合作」的思想。

在此，我们并无意去解决成义神学上许多神学家都解决不了的问题，这亦不在我们的能力范围之内。直到今日，成义论仍被视为一「争辩的神学」。笔者不敢自诩已抓住上述几位欧洲神学家的思想精髓，特别是巴特的神学，既然着名的神学家对巴特的思想尚且感到了解不易，我们更不敢说已正确地把握了他的神学思想。只是，既然在神学的历史上，这个问题曾引起激烈辩论，笔者只是努力尝试把几个有关成义的重要课题及其争论内容介绍出来，让读者一窥端倪。许多问题，我相信日后仍会不断地交谈下去，也需要继续的交流，以求进一步的瞭解。今日在神学的探讨上，神学家们都颇有开放的态度，两教的神学比前具有更深的接触，在彼此冲激、互相启发之下，也许对某些真理会更清楚、更能够得其要领！

　

  

1.Hans Kung, “Justification－－The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection”, N.Y. 1964.

2.Karl Rahner, “Justified and Sinner at the same time” in "Theological Investigation”, vol.6 p.p.218-230.

Karl Rahner, “Barth"s agreement with the Catholic doctrine of Justification”, in “Theological Investigation”, vol.4, p.p.189-198.

苏恩佩著，基督教神学思想简介，校园团契出版。

司徒焯正著，近代神学大路线，证道出版社。

3.普世得救论：巴特并没有明言「普世得救」的理论，但由他「选」的思想上看必会导致这样的后果。参阅苏恩佩着：「基督教神学思想简介」第一四二至一四三页。

4.特利腾大公会议的成义法令可参阅Karl Rahner 所编的 “The teaching of the Catholic Church” 中论「恩宠」的那部份。p.p. 382-397。此法令一共有十五章。

5.见「成义法令」( D.792-796 )。

6.见Karl Rahner, “Barth’s agreement with the Catholic Doctrine of Justification” in "Theological Investigation" , vol.4 , p.199

作者：汤汉 Tong, John 年份：1979

(甲) 奥古斯丁的简略生平

奥古斯丁(A.AUGUSTIN) 在公元三五四年，生于北非达迦斯特城(TAGASTE)。父亲是商人，性情凶暴；母亲乃虔诚基督徒，性格温良。因此，奥氏兼具纵欲及虔诚的倾向。青年时，奥氏不但天赋甚高，通习拉丁文学、希腊文学及修辞学；而且血气极盛，生活放荡不羁。曾信奉摩尼教，主张宇宙善恶二元论；三十岁后，开始在意大利接触基督宗教，同时亦研读柏拉图著作；不久皈依基督宗教，且成为神父，位至主教。死于公元四三○年，罗马帝国崩溃之前夕，享寿七十有六。他写下了自己的墓志铭：「什么使得基督徒的心沉重？因为他是朝圣的香客，渴望着自己的国度」。(注一)

(乙) 著作「论神之城」的动机

奥氏毕生著作甚丰，多至二百三十二部，包括自传、哲学、神学、释经、伦理等广泛问题。他的文笔优美，充满崇高的理想和意境；立论精深，足以发人深省。而 「论神之城」(THE CITY OF GOD) 一书更是奥氏最伟大的杰作，可以称为欧洲第一部历史神哲学。

奥氏动笔写 「论神之城」时，是在哥德人摧毁罗马城(四一○年)后三年，即四一三年，一直到十三年后，即四二六年，才告完竣。在这段罗马帝国垂危的日子里，北欧中欧的蛮族正组成联合阵线，由各方向帝国攻击，不但使罗马军队四方受敌，并且使帝国到处遭焚掠。吊念古代的人，乃痛惜这个文物兴盛的大帝国的崩溃，嫁祸于初兴的基督教会，说他们崇拜基督，背弃罗马古代所敬神灵，致招神灵震怒，降罚帝国。

奥氏处此多难之秋，目睹世局的混乱，人心惶徨；耳闻对基督教会的嫁祸言论，日益倡盛，遂写了这本「论神之城」。(注二)

该书共二十二卷，分为前后两编。前编由第一卷到第十卷，是奥氏的初步回答，指出罗马的遭受惩罚并不是因为基督宗教，而是因为古代罗马宗教的粗鄙及纵欲；更指出入侵的蛮族赦免了基督教堂以及躲到教堂的人，但是对于残留的异教殿宇则毫不怜惜。后编由第十一卷到第二十二卷，是奥氏的第二步回答，也是他对历史解释的所在，试图根据柏拉图的存在于 「天上某处」的理想国之观念，圣保禄的生与死信徒组成的一个社会观念，以及道纳杜斯教派(DONATISM) 之神与魔鬼两个社会之理想，给与世界历史一个普遍性的演变原则。奥氏在这后编中，指出世界由两个象征性城市组成：善城与恶城；神在善城，魔鬼在恶城。人类历史就是这两股力量作殊死战的记录；双方互有胜负，但神将在争斗中获胜，对忠心信仰祂的人给予报偿。(注三)

无疑，这样一本说明人类历史来龙去脉的书，不但给与当时处于黑暗迷惘的人仕一份鼓舞和信心；而且也带给后代的思想一股深远的启发和照明。

(丙)「论神之城」的笔调

奥氏天生极富情感，常有爱与被爱的冲动。他虽然承认亚里士多德(ARISTOTLE) 的论证，以为人可以藉理智追求到最终原因；但是，因为他自身的生活体验，却更喜欢运用情意去追求美善。有了三十三年在功名利禄中打滚的经验后，他最后说出：「我们的心得不到你(神)，便摇摇不安。」的一句祷词。这种情意浓于理智的趋向，早已在他早年的名著「忏悔录」(CONFESSIONS) 中表露无遗。(注四)

原来，约在公元四年，奥氏写了那本十万字的「忏悔录」。它是一本自传式的书，是直接写给神的。在该书的字里行间，他赤裸裸地表露自己皈依神以前的生平事迹，用亲身的经历去证实并宣扬神在罪人身上的奇妙恩典。

由于奥氏一生深受灵肉争战的困扰，故此他在「忏悔录」中记述了很多个人面对善恶抉择的奋斗史。十三年后，当蛮族起来蹂躝美丽和伟大的罗马城时，奥氏遂运用写作「忏悔录」的同样架构，回答整个世界问题，指出这也是魔道与神道之争，而神道终必获胜。所以「论神之城」一书的基本笔调，早已孕育在「忏悔录」内。两者的范围虽不同，但要表达的核心问题却始终一贯。

(丁)「论神之城」对历史的解释

一如旧约创世纪记述神在六日内造成宇宙万物，第七日安息；同样地，奥氏在「论神之城」一书里，把人类历史分成七个阶段。

第一阶段是人类的婴孩时期，从亚当到诺厄。在这阶段内，神道由亚伯尔代表，魔道由加音代表，互相对峙。这时期的人类看重物质生活，精神生活尚在襁褓中，故此有亚当的背命受罚。

第二阶段是人类的童年时期，自诺厄到亚巴郎。在这阶段内，人类的理智渐开，能分别善恶，然而理性及意志尚未能制服力量强大的欲情，故有洪水灭世及巴泊尔塔事件导致的语言分歧。

第三阶段是人类的少年时期，从亚巴郎到大卫。这时期的特征是被神简选的亚巴郎子孙；他们渐渐长成为一个民族，代表神道的发展。

第四阶段是人类的成年期，从大卫到充军巴比伦。在这时期，人类在使用理智的路上，已达到成熟阶段。大卫以后的国势盛极而衰，终至充军巴比伦；这象征魔道的兴盛。

第五阶段是人类的壮年期，从充军巴比伦到基督降生。在犹太民族的衰落中，另有一部份人的精神生活振作起来，一心仰望救主的来临，而救主基督亦果真降临；这象征神道的复兴。

第六阶段是人类的老年期，从基督降生到世界末日。在这一时期，从外面看，人的物质文明继续发展；然而从内部看，人的精神文明进入了老年的衰败期，需要神不断的扶持，以获更新。

第七阶段是人类的完成期，从世界末日到基督第二次再临。这时，魔道将被消灭；基督审判人世的一切善恶；结果恶人受永罚，善人享永福。(注五)

这样，奥氏说明了历史的延续性及统一性。并且在历史嬗变和进步中，他发现一种内在的进化倾向；这种倾向为奥氏是超越和神迹活动的天命。如把这观点与近代哲学家黑格尔(G.W.F.HEGEL)「正、反、合」的辩证史观相比，便有了根本的差异，因为黑氏强调人理性(绝对理念) 的自由，创造历史；而奥氏却强调神的能力，宰制历史。但两者均具有浓厚的历史意识。

奥氏的「论神之城」，不但是欧洲的第一部历史神哲学，而且也为现代西方解释学的发展，奠下了颇有份量的根基。兹介绍如下：

(戊) 对「圣经解释学」(BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS) 的贡献

首先，从「论神之城」的内容，我们可以发觉，奥氏的世界观是十分古老的，他仍然保持圣经时代的那种超自然主义的三层结构的观念，即：神及天使住在地球之上的空间，人类住在地球上，而魔鬼则住在地球以下。可是在奥氏的古老世界观背后，奥氏已开始「非神话化」(DEMYTHOLOGIZATION) 的解释工作，即：寻求神话里面所蕴含的信仰讯息(KERYGMA)，使圣经的信息不至被古老的世界观淹没。比如：在第十一卷第八章，论及如何瞭解神在六日工作后休息，奥氏说：「不当如儿童一般，以为天主在第七日休息，且祝圣了它，是天主太疲倦了。祂曾用永远可懂的话，而非空言，一开口，一切便造成了。

天主的安息，是说在天主内休息的人，如说蓬壁生辉，就是说宅中的人正在欢天喜地，因受了光荣；虽然不是房屋自身，而是使人幸福的原因。

我们亦说：房屋壮丽，使居家者乐也融融；这时我们说：『 乐也融融』，是以外包，指点内涵，如同我们说，全戏台都在拍手，原野欢腾，虽然在戏台上是人在拍手，在田野中是草木欣欣向荣；亦以原因指点成效，如说一封喜信，使大家喜悦。」(注六)

又比方：在第十二卷第二十七章，论及人类的同源和女人的产生，奥氏说：「没有比天主只造了一个原祖，由他而传生人类，更好的证据，为劝人避免尚未发生的纠纷；若已发生，为平息它，以保存和睦。

天主由男人的肋骨中，造了女人，是用此事教训我们，丈夫与妻子当如何和睦。」(注七)

从上述的说话里，我们可以领悟：对于奥氏，「神话」有原始人幻想的成份，但并非无意义；相反地，很值得我们用严肃、认真的态度去接受它们，因为它们蕴含宇宙、人生那些最终的真理。

所以把圣经的超自然部份视为「神话」，而要把它们「非神话化」的计划，并非由布勒特曼(BULTMANN) 或现代神学家开始(注八)，早在公元四世纪的奥古斯丁已从事这项工作。

(己)对「人文解释学」(HUMANISTIC HRMENEUTICS) 的贡献

其次，德国哲学家狄尔德(W.DILTHEY, 1833-1911) 曾以人生为全部哲学的研究对象。他所说的人生哲学，实指从人生各方面的经验着手，集合知、情、意的具体和变动的事实，以求得人生的意义。他的着手方法，是把自然科学与人文科学分开。自然科学的研究对象为自然界，按照一成不变的自然律法去研究，以求得外在的认识。人文科学的研究对象是人的活动；人的活动常是变更和内在的，故要求研究者移情同感，以直接及内在的经验去体贴他的人经验。(注九) 而奥氏在 「论神之城」一书中，亦涉及这类 「人文解释学」。

在第十八卷第三十九章，论及对圣经的瞭解方法时，奥氏认为神藉语言进入人类的生命中，激动人心的不断接纳和回应。他说：「在颁布诫命之前，梅瑟已指定了教导圣经的人；圣经称他们为引领人，即将圣经引至弟子心中，或更好说引弟子至圣经中。

所以任何民族不可自夸在学识方面，比我们的圣祖及先知更早，因为他们有天主的智慧；连埃及虽亦以文化古老自夸，但在智慧方面，亦不比我们的古圣祖更早。因为没有人敢说埃及人在知道文字之前，即伊西斯教他们前，就精通文字学了。

他们的学识，被称为智慧，是天文及类似的智慧，只能训练头脑，而不能教人真的智慧。」(注十)

在第二十卷第十九章，论及讲解圣经的秘诀时，奥氏提出了「以心换心」的位际性解释。他说：「到以精神意义，去懂犹太人以物质意义所懂的律法时，将『使父亲的心归向自己的儿子』；七十贤士以单数代替多数子女们，即犹太人懂律法，如同他们的祖先一样，连先知梅瑟亦在他们中生活过。

这样，父亲的解说，成为儿子的解说时，父亲的心就要归向儿子；儿子如父亲感觉时，儿子亦要归向他们的父亲。七十贤士本则说：『人的心归向他的近人』。谁比父子更为亲近呢！」(注十一)

因此，奥氏的解释法要求解释者，重新设身处地去体会说话者的思路和意境，使说话永恒存在的一面继续被体验出来，以应验我国旧祠所谓「将你心，换我心，方知相忆深」之意。

无疑，「论神之城」一书的史实包括了犹太、希腊和罗马的历史，但着墨不多，也欠缺纯粹的考据和仔细分析。可是在另一方面，奥氏却有深度的洞察力，突破史实的范畴，赋予历史一个全面性的综合，推动历史迈向同一个目标。

总之，「论神之城」不但是「载道」的文学，告示我们历史的意义；也是「言志」的文学，引用了很多诗、词、赋、小说、散文和戏剧，去表达自己最真挚和高尚的情意，以感染读者的共鸣。奥氏要透过这本集合知、情、意的史篇，导引我们在瞭解人类历史时，要用整个生命「跃入」(LEAPIN) 字里行间，用知、情、意去体会片断文字背后的万千气象，谛听静止音符里面的伟大乐章，重建历史的整体，赋与历史真正的生命。

今天，很多人提到近代英国的历史哲学家柯灵乌(R.G.COLLINGWOOD)，称赞他的人文主义的历史观及解释法，说他所受的影响来自狄尔德(注十二)。但我们又岂可忘却奥氏在「论神之城」一书中早已为他们奠下的根基？

(庚)对「存在解释学」(ONTOLOGICAL HERMENEUTICS) 的贡献

此外，「时间」、「存有」、「焦虑」、「死亡」等字眼或内容，亦常出现在「论神之城」一书中，它们也说明了奥氏对解释学的另一面贡献，要在主客分割前，探索和解释人性的根本。

在第二十一卷第十四章，论及人间现世的罚时，奥氏回忆少年求学，常受老师鞭打；直至老年时，对昔日受教育的经过，仍然耿耿于怀，竟情愿死，不愿重度这种生活。于是奥氏写出了自己「被拋掷的存在」及「焦虑」，说「愚鲁无知，也是一种痛苦，当加以避免，所以往往用刑罚强逼儿童去求学，仍然是痛苦的事 ，有时他们情愿受罚而不求学。

若能任意选择，或者死亡，或者回至孩童年龄，谁不择选死亡？人生不以笑，而以哭开始，无意之中，是预示将来的痛苦。」(注十三)

在第十三卷第十一章，论及人能否同时生死时，奥氏就透过了修辞学的一套说法，表达人生如不经过和把握死亡，就无法回归「存有」。他说：「人在死亡中，没有比死亡更恶的，除非是不能死去的死亡。」(注十四)

上述奥氏的说话，与现代哲学家海德格(M.HEIDEGGER, 1889-1976) 在他的代表作 「存有与时间」(BEING & TIME) 所描述的「此有」(DASEIN) 之自我发现、自我展露及自我说明，是互相辉映的。因为海德格说明了「人生」最基本的性相是瞭解；而人在瞭解自己的存有时，首先发现的是自己被拋掷在世界中；这个「在」是人内在于自己，而世界却展露在他之前，世界同时也包围着他；因此，「此有」展露其自身是一个正在追求目的之存有，同时也展露世界上的一切与官现此目的之关系。对于海氏说，死亡的真正意义，在于展露人生的有限性，因而督促如此人生在有限的存有时间中，去追求人生的满全。(注十五) 事实，海氏不单在「存有与时间」一书说过：「死亡是人存在最基本的方式。」(注十六) 而且在一九六四年的一次演讲里亦说过：「一个死亡前死亡过的人，在死亡时将不会死亡。」(注十七) 可见奥海二氏的说话十分相近。

虽然，奥氏与海氏的存在解释学均是层层向内的抽丝剥茧；毕竟海氏只完成了人的存有的思索，尚未能确切告诉我们什么是存有；而奥氏在千多年前已经在这存在解释学的骨架内，注入了鲜血和生命，即 「神」本身。这就奥氏伟大过人之处。

(辛)结语

总括说来，「论神之城」一书的思想深度及文体光华，确已攀上了中古世纪神学、哲学及文学的最高境界；这是毋庸置疑的。但对于这本书在解释学方面的伟大贡献，至今尚未被人多加注意和深入探讨。故希望本文能收「拋砖引玉」之效。

  

(注一) PAPINI著，光启社译，圣奥斯定傅，上海土山湾印书馆发行，一九三六年，页一至二五。

汤清著，奥古斯丁的生平著述及影响，见于：奥古斯丁选集，香港基督教辅侨出版社，一九六一年，页九至五九。

威尔社兰(W.DURANT) 著，幼狮翻译中心译，拜占庭伊斯兰及犹太文明，幼狮文化事业公司出版，一九七四年，页九九至一一四。

(注二) 圣奥斯定著，吴宗文译，天主之城上册，台港商务印书馆，民国六十年，页一：译者序；作者序：本书的目标及内容；圣奥斯定对天主之城，在校对时的话。

(注三) 威尔杜兰著，拜占庭伊斯兰及犹太文明，页一一○至一一二。

(注四)圣奥斯定著，应枫译，忏悔录，台注光启出版社，一九六三年再版，页一。

(注五)圣奥斯定著，天主之城，下册，特别是页五四七至五五○，页五八三，页六二四，页九六七至九六人。

罗光著，历史哲学，台湾商务印书馆，民国六十二年，页一一○至一一一。

(注六)圣奥斯定著，天主之城 ，上册，页三七五。

(注七) 同上，上册，页四四O。

(注八)R.PALMER, HERMENEUTICS, N0RTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY PRESS, EVANSTON, 1969, p.p. 34-38, 48-54.

苏恩佩著，基督教神学思想简介，校园团契出版社，一九七一年五月二版，页二一至二七。

(注九)R.PALMER, Op, Cit., p.p. 98-123

罗光著，历史哲学，其一三七至一四一。

(注十)圣奥斯定著，天主之城，下册，页七二五。

(注十一) 同上，页八五二。

(注十二) 余英时著，历史与思想，联经出版事业公司，民国六十六年七月第三次印行，页二二三至二四六，页二五○。

华许(W.H.WALSH)著，阎子桂译，历史哲学，幼狮出版，民国六十五年，页四一至六六。

(注十三)圣奥斯定著，天主之城，下册，页八八二。

(注十四) 同上，下册，页四五二。

(注十五)R.PALMER, Op. Cit., PP.I24-139. M.HEIDEGGER, BEING AND TIME, HARPER & ROW, N.Y., 1962.

郑圣冲编著，存在的奥秘，台湾商务印书馆，民国六十一年，页八七至一一四 。

邬昆如及黎建球著，中西两百位哲学家，台湾东大图书公司印行，一九七八年，页七四五至七五O。

(注十六)M.HEIDEGGER, BEING & TIME, pp.279-311.

(注十七)M.HEIDEGGER, UBER ABRAHAM A SANTA CLARA, in ： THE EASTERN BUDDHIST, NEW SERIES, VOL.1, NO.2 SEPTEMBER, 1966.

作者：劳伯埙 年份：1979

(甲)导言

过去十五年间，随着医药的进步，物质生活的改善，以及对主对人的基本态度的转变，度婚姻生活的教友，常遇到不少问题，诸如：人工节育、避孕丸、坠胎、离婚、再婚等；因而神学家对婚姻的探讨，亦多是环绕着这些迫切的牧民问题，以致疏忽了对婚姻是一件圣事的研究。

其实，教会一向都承认婚姻是一件圣事，但碍于过去的圣事神学，太注重圣事的工具性及事效性，故无法产生一套既积极又为现代人所能了解及接受的婚姻圣事神学。教友知道婚姻是一件圣事，但不清楚或没有想过这与他们的生活有什么关系。

本文的目的，并不是提供一套完整而有系统的婚姻神学。事实有不少神学家，已在这方面努力过。另一方面，影响家庭生活的内在和外在因素不少，且因时间、地域的不同，各因素的影响都不会一样。神学家必须常留意这些改变，否则他们的婚姻神学便会沦于空泛。所以本文只是指出迈向婚姻圣事神学(不是婚姻神学) 可走的方向。因此这篇文章分为两大部份。第一部份指出在梵二以前，不能产生一套合理的婚姻圣事神学的原因，说明过去神学没有解答的地方。第二部份则指出今日神学的趋势，注重如何弥补过去的不足，以及怎样使婚姻生活成为教友成圣的途径。

(乙) 梵蒂冈第二届大公会议前的婚姻圣事神学

(一)梵二前教会的训导

庇护十一世「圣洁婚姻」通谕

梵二前，教宗庇护十一世的通谕，可说是教会对婚姻最详细及最完整的训导。它根据圣奥古斯丁所讲有关婚姻三项好处，论及婚姻的本质和法律，并反对当日人们对婚姻的谬论。最后教宗提出各项可以补救时弊及圣化家庭的办法，指出婚姻是基督所建立的「新约」圣事，故此是一个特殊的圣宠标记与泉源，不单赋予恩宠，还赐予其它恩惠，使夫妇们能善度婚姻生活。通谕虽未明文指出，却透过内容暗中肯定，婚姻圣事的施行人是夫妇二人，而不是司铎。(注一)

通谕根据当时的思潮，将生育与教养子女作为婚姻的首要目的，虽然如此，夫妇的爱「可以正确地称为婚姻的首要原因及理由。」(注二) 这使日后神学家对婚姻的讨论，逐步超越了法律及条文的范畴。

特伦多大公会议(COUNCIL OF TRENT)

对宗教改革者所提出的问题，特伦多大公会议所作出的回答及训遵，直至二十世纪中叶，仍深切地影响教会的神学研究。改革者相信人是堕落的，因此否认婚姻是一件圣事；而达尔文 (CALVIN) 更认为婚姻与耕种或修补房屋一样，只是一项俗务而已；故此，如果因通奸或其它重大理由，离婚是允许的。特伦多大公会议的文献论及婚配圣事的部份不多，只强调婚姻是永久不可拆散的结合，所赐予的恩宠是基督在十字架上所挣来的，为圣化夫妇二人，坚定他们的结合，使他们问的爱情臻于完满。

由于特伦多大公会议所着重的，是成义的问题，故讨论也多与圣洗、坚振及圣礼三件圣事有关。对七件圣事的总论很简短，只列出了十三条典章(CANONS)，以针对改革者的错误。(注三) 不过当时教会内的圣事神学，与十五世纪翡冷翠大公会议为亚美尼人合一所颁发的诏书所论及七件圣事的内容完全相同。

翡冷拉大公会议(COUNCIL OF FLORENCE)

这诏书的圣事神学，主要是来自多玛斯的着作：「论信理与圣事」。诏书指出圣事是由三要素组成，「即(一) 圣事的事物(仪式) 作为圣事的质料(MATERIA)，(二) 施行圣事用的经文，作为圣事的形式(FORMA)，(三) 施行圣事的人，必需具有遵行教会所指定的意向；以上三个要素之中，若缺去一项，就不成圣事了。」(注四) 在讨论前六件圣事时，诏书都是根据这三个要素而清楚列明每件圣事的质料、形式及施行人。(注五) 但论及婚配圣事时，则离了这「形」、「质」及施行人的大纲；只是指出这件圣事「是基督与教会结合的标记…‥婚配圣事的成因(CAUSE EFFICIENS) 通常是由于(男女) 彼此言明自己对婚姻的同意。」(注六) 接着，就重覆教父所提有关婚姻约三个好处。只有一煞是肯定的，就是男女二人的同意，形成有效的婚姻。但这圣事的「形」和「质」是什么呢？施行人又是谁呢？诏书未有交代。

虽然这诏书不是一份「不能错误的信理文件」(注七)，但可以反映出，教会直至十六世纪为止，对于婚姻圣事，仍没有一个清晰的认识，或一个有系统的神学。即使在一九三○年，庇护十一世的通谕也只是强调婚姻圣事赋于恩宠，圣化夫妇们。但这圣事与基督徒的生活，有什么关系？在婚姻中，夫妇二人怎样参与基督的救赎及创造？这些近二、三十年来信友所关心的问题，在梵二前，教会并没有清楚回答。神学家的讨论亦多沦为伦理的规条，不但并没有建立一套真的婚姻圣事神学，反而变成建立一个完整的婚姻圣事神学的阻碍。

(二)建立一个完整的婚姻圣事神学的阻碍

从十二世纪始，教会才肯定七件圣事；但可惜，圣事神学一直建基于「形」、「质」 的士林哲学，及注重圣事的事效性上；故应用于婚姻圣事，便显得不适当了。除了这原因外，还有下列因素，使神学家迟迟找不到一套完整的神学。

教会历史中对性的观念

在婚姻中，男女二人能合法地(或为社会所容许下) 运用他们与生俱来的生殖及性的机能。故对「性」的态度，自然会影晌响社会与教会对婚姻的看法。

在早期的教会，一方面禁止信友放纵情欲、通奸和一夫多妻制；另一方面，也反对一切宣扬身体是败坏或邪恶的异端，如诺斯论(GNOSTICISM) 和摩尼教 (MANICHAEISM)。这两种异端认为在生育中，灵魂陷入邪恶的躯体内，所以应摒除婚姻，而寻求精神上的超脱。在历史中教会不断谴责这些异端，因此维护了婚姻生活的尊严，视「性行为」在婚姻生活中是正常的。可惜，不少神学家却受到这些异端的影响。最显注的例子，就是奥古斯丁。奥古斯丁认为，性有如动物的行为，不受人的理智所管制，而且所产生的官能满足非常强烈。这一切都要归咎于原罪，因为它创伤了人的本性，使人有了欲情。他认为原罪就是欲情，所以在没有原罪之前，婚姻及生殖子女是一件好事；可惜在原罪后，每一个孩子都可以说是由父母的罪恶中所诞生。但由于人类的繁衍是天主的意愿，故人仍可以结婚；不过每一次房事，就算是以生育子女为目的，都是犯小罪。因此他提出了婚姻约三项「好处」：生育子女、忠诚及圣事。父母应教养子女，使他们敬畏天主，而圣事性使婚姻不可拆散。这样，婚姻成了一种临时的措施，是对人的软弱及欲情的让步。

虽然奥古斯丁对性的观念不会被我们接受，但他始终没有提议要取消婚姻。他所提约三项「好处」，到今天仍被一部份的神学家接受。他们认为当人结婚时，就投身于一个建基于夫妻的爱的团体内，而这团体的存在是为了生育子女 ，接受「新的受造物」(后格．5：17)。至于夫妇行房事被认为是小罪，到了中世纪后，已不被人接受；而且神学家已慢慢领悟到情欲本身并不是罪恶，遂将奥古斯丁对性的偏差观念改正过来。

另一个阻止教会对性有一个正确中肯的观念的因素，与献身于天主而守贞的问题有关。由于基督本是天主，却空虚了自己，取了人性(斐．2：5-7)，生于童贞玛利亚。所以保禄宗徒推荐童贞的生活，使人能不断地专心事主(前格．7：35)，正如基督为爱我们而舍掉自己的生命一样。为了使人能领悟到童贞的生活，视为一个完全的奉献，宗徒作出了一个比较：「没有妻子的：所挂虑是主的事；娶了妻子的，所挂虑是世俗的事。」(前格．7：34) 他并没有贬低婚姻生活的地位(参看弗．5：32)，只是想指出他的意见(前格．7：25)，认为童贞生活是与主结合的方式之一，使人能将救恩带给整个教会团体。

但自第二世纪开始，贬低肉身及反对婚姻的论说，开始流传。解释童贞生活的意义时，常离开了基督降生救赎这个根基，忘记了基督的话：「有些阉人，却是为了天国而自阉的。」(玛．19：3-12) 而结果将婚姻生活的价值降低。所以在中世纪时，有些神学家认为，婚姻比较修道生活，是次一等的基督徒生活。时至今日，仍有教友保持这种见解哩！

在本文的下一部份，我们见到这思想是何等荒谬！正如保禄宗徒所说，每人都有自己得自天主的恩宠(前格．7：7-11)，故此不能将二者比较，况且基督本身已肯定了贞洁和婚姻两种生活的价值(玛．19：3-12)。

教会婚姻观的沿变

教会对婚姻的观念，可从结婚的礼仪中反映出来。初期的教会和今天不同，对婚礼并没有任何规定。在基督升天后三、四十年间，不管他们是已婚或未婚的信友，都体验到他们已参与基督所带给自己的新生命；而这生命超越世上的一切事务，加以他们一心热切期待救主的再临，所以他们并没有对婚姻和婚礼有什么特别的规定或探讨。保禄宗徒除了在厄弗所人书将基督对教会的爱比喻为夫妻之爱外，并没有清楚地论及婚姻生活的实质及礼仪。他对婚姻生活的教训，无非是为了提醒信友，领洗后应该度一个新的生活。

另一个更重要的原因，就是犹太人本身已有固定的婚礼习俗，婚姻是一夫一妻制，而且更享有为大家所接纳的教义及社会地位。非犹太的基督徒的婚礼也有传统固定的风俗。故此，只要他们接受基督的教训，肯定婚姻的不可拆散及一夫一妻制，和婚礼中没有异教的崇拜或成份，则教会就不再需要作出任何规定。它所关心的，是信友们的生活 「在基督内」。

在最初几个世纪里，教会仍采取同一态度，承认教友们依当地的风俗或法律所行的婚姻为合法的。当时罗马人有关婚礼的风俗及法律( 除了下述的例外情况外) 都没有与信仰产生冲突。在罗马建国时，婚礼是一个宗教礼仪，出嫁的女子离开她家族的神，转而隶属于丈夫家族的神，婚礼就是这个入门典礼。但到了基督的时代，罗马人的宗教已衰落及俗化，婚礼才变成普通的风俗习惯，虚有其表。

但罗马人的法律规定，奴隶的婚姻只属同居，而不是婚姻。这是明显地相反教会的立场，因为在领洗后，每一人都是天主的子女，再没有自由人和奴隶之分别了(前格．12：13)。奴隶因此不能被夺去一个合法婚姻的地位。在这情形下，主教可准许他们结婚，而不理睬法律的规定。从这时起，教会使开始立例管理婚姻；若有需要，还将政府的法律搁置在一边。

以后的历史演变，不能在此一一详述。不过由四世纪开始，西方的教会已开始由主教在婚礼中为新人祝福。在此之前，这常是父亲所做的。在东方，司祭也取代女子的父亲，将男女的手放在一起。慢慢教会作出更多的规定，这全是社会环境所导致的。

在罗马帝国衰落时，因野蛮人的入侵，使社会制度受到破坏。各民族在治理其疆域时，常依赖教会已存有的有效行政制度和法律。教会因而需要负起立法的责任，尤其是定出有效婚姻的标准，以防止皇族和地主间的各种婚姻所产生的继承权流弊。在第九世纪，教宗尼各老一世根据罗马的法律，决定男女双方的同意，而不是行房，就构成了有效的婚姻。(注八) 在十二世纪，有人根据日耳曼法律，认为行房后，婚姻才是有效的。所以教宗亚历山大三世，重覆教会的训导，指出男女双方的同意，就构成有效的婚姻。在行房后，成为「已遂的婚姻」(CONSUMMATED MARRIAGE ) 而不可拆散。但「未遂的婚姻」可因其中一人进入隐修院而解除。(注九)

为了证明双方的同意是自愿的，同时也为了查明双方都没有婚姻阻挡，十三世纪的拉脱朗第四届大公会议便明文禁止秘密婚姻。(注十) 到了十六世纪，特伦多大公会议对婚礼作出最明确的指示，婚礼必须由本堂神父(或认可的司铎) 及在两位证人前举行，否则婚姻是无效的。(注十一)

从以上所见，教会对婚姻的规定主要是环境所使然。但对婚姻生活及婚配圣事的意义，没有多大的反省，这点在上文已说过，这是因为圣事神学注重「形」、「质」及功效性，而对属于整个人生活的婚配圣事，便一无效用。但直到十八世纪，整个社会对婚姻的观念，也使神学家对这些问题不关心。在十九世纪前，社会各阶层人士都认为，婚姻为大多数人是理所当然、不用质疑的事。婚姻生活使夫妻二人得到感情和生理上的满足；生儿育女、延宗接代，更是天经地义之事。但自文艺复兴后，西方的思潮便一直受一种以实用及自我为中心的哲学所影响，人的行为的出发点是一个属于现世实用的自我利益。到了十九世纪开始，便有人提出自由恋爱、同居的思想，反对婚姻。

由于整个西方文化，都弥漫着这种以个人利益为中心的思想，神学家虽然不接受，但也难免受到影响。基督徒生活在世上，就是为救自己的灵魂，神学的写作就注重甚么是大罪、小罪，劝人守诫命，避开罪恶，以便升天堂。因此，基督徒在追求自我的得救时，再见不到活在怜人中的基督 (玛．22：34-40 ；前格．13：1-13)。在这情况下，对婚姻的研究，也就停留在法律的层面上。若已婚的教友避免奸淫、人工避孕、离婚……，便会溜入天堂。再加上神学家很少会有婚姻生活经验，而已婚的教友却不提他们所遇到的困难和体验，教会便难以产生一套为人所接受的婚姻圣事神学。

不过，在这种环境下，却产生婚姻的首要及次要目的，在这里，我们只能将问题简略介绍一下。婚姻的首要目的。就是生育教养子女。家庭是社会及文化中最基本的单位，故对子女的培育，自然会影响社会、国家、教会的廷续及将来；所以从社会的观点看，家庭的「功能」(FUNCTION)，就是生育教养子女，以便延宗接代。

在这种思想中，夫妻二人互相爱护及伴侣关系，便成为次要目的。其实，为夫妻来说，这未必一定是他们结合的次要宗旨，尤其是为那些儿女已长大的父母或为没有生育的夫妇而言。不过，从社会的活动及生存来说，这便成了次要的。由于法律主要是以社会的需要而制定，所以圣教法典一○一三条便将生育和教养子女，订定为婚姻的首要目的。

(三)小结

上述是讨论梵二前的婚姻圣事神学，和影响这些神学的因素，指出由于太强调法律的关系，所以神学家只注重婚姻契约及首要目的，夫妇反而成了次要目的；加以机械式的恩宠论，神学家更疏忽研究，夫妇如何在婚姻生活中参与这件圣事。

我们花这样多篇幅，来讨论很多属于历史的问题。表面看来是与本文的主旨－－找寻一个适合现代人心态的婚姻圣事神学无关。不过，不可忘记，我们所处的社会却是与昨天的社会，一脉相承的，忘记了历史，便不能了解现在。我们要重新开始，但却不能将过去一笔勾销。



  (注一)韩山城译，近代宗教文猷论婚姻与家庭，台北，一九六四年，页七十九至八十 。

(注二) 同上，页七十四。

(注三) 施安堂译，天主教会训导文宪选集，台北，一九七五年，页五○八至五一二。

(注四) 同上，页三九三 。

(注五)同上，页三九四至三九八 。

(注六)同上，页三九八 。

(注七)Neuner, J. & Dupuis, J. ed .,The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, Bangalore : Theological Publications in India, 1973, p.349.

(注八)施安堂译，天主教会训导文宪选集，页二五○ 。

(注九)同上，页二八至二八一 。

(注十) 同上，页三一三 。

(注十一)同上 ，页五一一至五一二。

作者：罗国辉 年份：1979

(甲) 前言

礼仪乃教会生活行动的顶峰，同时也是教会一切力量的来源(注一)。由于不同的礼仪正表达了教会往不同时代和地域对上主呼召的不断回应，故此在历史上形成了多种礼仪传统(注二)。在芸芸礼仪传统中，可分成两大类别：即西方礼仪和东方礼仪。

译者受洗于罗马礼的传统中，受西方教会崇拜生活的熏陶，但在探讨教会礼仪宝库时，不期然对东方的礼仪传统发生兴趣；况且梵二大公会议也曾说明，东方教会的制度、礼仪传统与教友坐活纪律，均流露着从教父而来的宗徒传统，这正是天主启示的构成部份，同时也是整个教会所共有的财富(注三)。故此对于他们丰富的礼仪和灵修传承，实在需要加以了解、尊重、保存和发挥(注四)。

目前使用金口圣若望(St. John Chrysostom) 的感恩祭礼典的天主教徒和东正教徒，共约二十九百万人(注五)。故此它是东方礼中最多被人使用的礼典。本文特别选译这礼典，一则作为个人对教会礼仪生活探究之增益，二则希望以此作为中国教会本色化礼仪的参考资料。

(乙)东方教会拜占庭礼及金口圣若望礼典简介

拜占庭礼仪本来是拜占庭(君士坦丁堡) 地方基督徒崇拜和施行圣事的方式；因为拜占庭乃当时(公元四世纪) 东罗马帝国的首都，故此在政冶和文化的影响下，这礼仪传统传播得非常广泛，远远超过其他东方礼仪，以至有人以为拜占庭礼即等于东方礼。使用这礼仪的地方，除了整个拜占庭王国外，也包括斯拉夫民族的其他地方，还有耶路撒冷、安提约基、亚历山大等地的宗主教区，同时也有希腊、埃及、俄国及匈牙利等地方的教会。而这礼仪的主要应用语文有希腊文、俄文和保加利亚文等。(由于俄国教会的传播，今日也有许多地方应用本地语文来举行拜占庭的礼仪，比方芬兰语、德语、英语；昔日在中国内地，也曾使用过中文！) (注六)

拜占庭礼仪中，共有三种礼典：就是(一) 最常用的金口圣若望礼典，(二) 是一年只用十次左右的大圣巴西略礼典，和(三) 只在四旬期内某些日子，偶然使用的大额我略礼典。这些礼典很早便在教会中存在和使用；完整地把这三个礼典都记载下来的，是远自公元八世纪的Codex Barberini 抄本，这抄本现正珍藏在梵蒂岗图书馆内。

译者选译的，就是拜占庭礼仪中，最常用的金口圣若望礼典中的感恩祭。译文主要译自Joseph Raya and Jose De Vinck Edited, Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Alleluia Press, 1970.

其他参考译本有：

一、Basil Shereghy Edited, The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, The Liturgical Press,St. John's Abbey Collegeville, Minn., 1961.

二、Casimir Kucharek Edited, The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Alleluia Press, 1971.

三、P. Kuvochinsky Translated, The Divine Liturgy of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Graeco-Russian Church, London Cope and Fenwick,1909.

金口圣若望典礼是否真的出自该圣人手笔呢？为回答这个问题，首先要知道，礼仪是由祷文、圣诗及礼节等组合而成，且圣餐礼自最后晚餐至今，即有不断重覆庆祝和演变；初时，经文礼节并没有固定形式，因时、地、人而各异，经过多个世纪，才构成不同的式样，而每个式样都在不断的使用中有所增减或改变，故此，任何礼典传统都不能绝对地归于某人的手笔，而应该是属于教会，归在某地方教会的传统之内。因此，金口圣若望礼典，应是属于或出自该圣人的地方教会，且为其所属的传统所常用。

关于金口圣若望礼典的来源，有说是源自四世纪末期君士坦丁堡所举行的大圣巴西略礼典，(而这礼典也似乎是改自叙利亚礼的)，后来在五世纪初期由金口圣若望缩短改篇，而成为今日所谓的金口圣若望礼典(注七)。但是经再三研究，按文学传统来说，溯源自圣人的，可能只有「为慕道者的祷文」、「献礼经」和遣散礼中「司铎在经台前诵」；至于感恩经，则非常接近约六世纪时代的叙利亚十二使徒感恩经，故此，这两个感恩经可能有看同一的古老来源，且极可能是早于金口圣若望时代的。(我们可以肯定，在圣巴西略和金口圣若望之前，早已有某种式样的礼仪传统存在了。) 故此，我们没有充份证据说金口圣若望曾改编了这礼典的感恩经，也不能证明他把这感恩经从叙利亚介绍到君士坦丁堡来使用。然而，这礼典以金口圣若望来命名，却是因为他在奉行这礼典的传统中，是个备受敬爱的教父和英雄吧！(注八)

总括来说，这礼典积聚东方教会的历代礼仪宝库，有溯源公元四至六世纪的主要经文，和其后的智慧成果，实堪称为东方礼仪传统的重要典籍。

(丙) 金口圣若望感恩祭礼典的结构

(主礼者穿着祭衣和预备饼酒礼)

平安启应文、(三篇圣咏对经及祷文)、小进堂礼：进堂咏及三圣颂 (主礼者就位)

圣道礼
圣言宣读：(旧约)、新约、亚肋路亚及福音、(讲道)
恳切启应文
为慕道者祈祷及遣散慕道者
信友祷文


圣体礼
大进堂礼：献礼启应文及圣洁生活启应文
平安礼及信经
感恩经
为团结祷文及天主经
举扬圣体及分开饼形
领主体血
感谢及遣散礼：祷文及祝福
(分发余下的祭饼)


注：括号内的礼典译文将从略。


(注一)梵二大公会议礼仪宪章第10号

(注二)礼仪一览表

东方礼

亚历山大  
依索匹亚礼(Ethiopian)
高普特礼(Coptic)

安底约基亚东部
玛拉巴礼(Malabar)
加堤礼(Chaldean)　　
内思多略礼(Nestorian)
阿美尼亚礼(Armenian)
拜占庭礼(Byzantine)

安底约基亚西部
玛罗礼(Maronite )
叙利亚礼(Syrian)

挪 威
尼达罗斯礼(Nidaros)

西班牙
莫撒拉伯礼(Mozorabic)
班哥礼(Bangor)
海佛特礼(Hereford)

英 　国
约克礼(约克郡)(York)
撒伦礼(撒斯堡Salisbury)
        
西方礼

法国南部  
塞尔特礼(Celt)
高卢礼(Gallican)
比尼云多(南部)(Beneventan)

义 大 利  
阿规雷雅礼(北部)(Aquileian)
盎博罗削礼(Ambrosian)
罗马礼(Roman)
      
修会礼
方济会堂 (Franciscan)
道明会礼 (Dominican)
本笃会礼 (Benedictine)

(注三) 梵二大公会议东方教会法令第一号。

(注四)梵二大公会议大公主义法令第十五号。

(注五) Basil Sherehihy Edited, The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, The Liturgical Press, St. John’s Abbey Minn., 1961, p.5.

(注六)Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, London Catholic Truth Society, 1911, p.p. 396-397

(注七) Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, London Catholic Truth Society,1911, p.118

(注八)Basil Shereghy Edited, T he Divine Liturgy of St. John's Chrysostom, TheLiturgical Press, St, John's Abbey Minn., 1961 p.p.6-7.

作者：嘉理陵 年份：1979

The Gospel, whether received as kerygma or as didache, is of its nature the demand for a response. While that response will be yes or no for the one who, because of his situation within the present order of creation, finds himself the recipient of the Gospel as kerygma, for those of us who have already said yes, and for whom the Gospel is thus to be received as didache, the response is somewhat different from the clear dichotomy of yes and no: it is, rather, a further decision to confirm our yes, and by implication deepen it; or the further decision to deny it, and hence to contradict the tenor of our existence. For the response demanded cannot be merely notional, since creation is act, and the creative word of God must achieve its purpose. If we believe, it is not merely to admit that we have heard "the message of the truth and the good news of our salvation" (Eph 1:13, cf Col 1:5), for salvation is existential and the news of it must be realized in a new creation, a creation of which Christ is the first-born (Col 1:15). In entering the truth we enter the realm of divine reality. For if Christ is our life (Col 3:4, cf Phil 1:21), it is so that as he lives in the presence of the Father in love, the communication of that love to us will enable us to live in the presence of the same Father, who has chosen us in Christ before the world began, to be holy and spotless (Eph 1:4, Col 1:22).

This counterpoint of faith and love has always been a central theme of Christian thought. It has, however, been left to recent times to recover that other dimension of New Testament and early Christian thought, the dimension of hope. In a world in which the present seems ever more illusive and the past seems irrevocably past, the future crowds in upon us at an ever increasing pace. If man is still to be master of creation in compliance with the divine command (Gen 1:28-29), that future must not be allowed to assume the form of an idol commanding man's submission. Nor may the Christian simply reject the future in a mistaken loyalty to the past and the present. In the face of the dilemma there is only the answer of Christ and the relationship which, through him, we have with the Father and the Spirit. While all schemes are only partial elucidations of the truth, there is a certain relationship between faith and the past, love and the present, hope and the future. In a theological climate now marked by the emergence of a greater awareness of the value of hope in our Christian lives, it is necessary that we return to the Scriptures in order to recover from them the certainty that Christ is our hope.

The basis for a Christian's hope in God is fundamentally his being a member of the "holy and faithful brothers in Christ" (Col 1:2) for this holiness is that which in the Old Testament was given to Israel - the privilege of being chosen by God to be his own special possession (seghullah : Ex 19:5f etc). Christians are God's new miqra, qodes (Ex 12:16 etc; Col 3:12), his children as he is their Father (Col 1:2). In his Letter to the Colossians, Paul's usual religious greeting links together the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love (Col 1:4; of also 1Cor 13:13; 1Thes 1:3; 5:8 for the triad). The fact that they are so fervently lived out in Colossae is the reason for Paul's constant prayer for the community and his thanksgiving to God. While it is, of course, certain that Paul is not schematizing these three virtues in this passage, there is still a certain relationship set up between faith and the past, love and the present, hope and the future. For the faith of Christians looks to all that has happened the man Jesus, who is now Christ - and more, is now Lord, Kyrios (Col 1:3). The consequence of that faith is the abiding concern with the contemporary Christ - the Christ who not only has ascended to the right hand of the Father as Kyrios but who lives here and now in the brothers who form the Christian Community. Hence it is that faith overflows into the present as communitarian and ecclesial love. Nor does this love in the present exhaust the totality of the Christian commitment, for there is the time of the Church, stretching between the ascension of Christ and his parousia, to be lived out; and since there is still a future dimension to the resurrection, faith must transcend the present and take in the full sweep of human history. Hence there is a hope, for faith projected into the future is hope. Yet the hope that Paul speaks of here is not simply the attitude or virtue of hope (spes sperans) but is an actual gift which will be presented to the Christian (spes sperata) in heaven (Col 1:4). That hope is a motive for our love in the present - not simply in the sense that we love our brothers in order to attain a reward in heaven: the interrelation between love and hope goes much deeper here - the reality and the certainty of that hope which is laid up for us becomes a ground and basis of love in the present, just as faith in the past of Jesus is also its ground. Faith, hope and love are the essential content of the "message of the truth" (Col 1:5, cf. 1:21), and the firmness of faith maintaining us in hope is what lies at the basis of the holy and unspotted nature given us in the reconciliation Jesus won for us in his mortal body on the Cross (Cor 1:21-23). This new election, the objective correlative of the eschatological nature of the Community, is further emphasized in the use of the word kleros (Col 1:12), especially in its relationship to phos. For the kleros of the Old Testament was the land of Israel, but now the heritage or inheritance has passed to the Christians, the new company of the Saints - and it is specified in terms of revelation (phos ), the revelation which was incarnated in Christ, the light of the world (Jn 1:4:9; 8:12; 12:46 etc). This light and its bestowal on the new people of God by the Father are a further basis for a Christian hope, since it dispels that darkness which threatens man, more menacingly from an unknown future than from a conquered past.

While a biblical theology of hope would be more than an examination of words, one must centre it on the text of Scripture. Much light would be derived from that cluster of words which occur at the end of Paul's greeting and prayer for the Colossians: dynamis, kratos, doxa, hypomone, makrothymia and chara (1:11-12) - each of these terms is important in any theology of hope. While much might be said about each one, it will have to suffice here to recall the whole tension of chara-lype which characterizes the Gospel, especially and expressly so in the Farewell Discourse of the Gospel of John. The theme of joy which runs through Luke's Gospel gathers to a climax in the last verse, with the disciples in the Temple eulogountes ton Theon. Apart from the relationship of eulogeo and eucharisteo (the latter occurs in the present context Col 1:12), there is the Temple theme, that centre of the presence of God and the focus of Old Testament hope. The finding of Jesus in the Temple is accompanied by Mary's "odynomenoi ezetoumen se" (Lk 2:48), and we find that in general in the New Testament odynaomai is an eschatological word: it occurs in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, Lk 16:24f ; it is probably also eschatological in Acts 20:38, where the Community's sorrow at leaving Paul is related to the certainty of his coming death; cf. also odune in Rom 9:2, and possibly also in 1Tim 6:10. There is also the concept of Christ's life as a journey to Jerusalem where the Temple was, a concept which is formative in Luke's Gospel: Jerusalem and its Temple, and the suffering it meant for Christ as well as the redemption it meant for us - these are to be related to the temple-body of Jesus in Jn 2:13-25, and the church-body of Christ in Paul, Col 1:24.

This leads naturally to a consideration of hope and suffering: Paul's doctrine of the relationship of his own (and hence of every Christian's) suffering to the sufferings of Christ is an import- and element in a theology of hope, for it is in the face of suffering and death that hope finds its severest test : we think of the poignancy of the elpizomen of the disciples on the way to Emmaus, Lk 24:21. It would seem to be important in considering Col 1:24 that we pay attention to the fact that the sufferings of Paul are pathemata while those of Christ which are to be filled out are thlipsis. This latter word is, in general, eschatological in the New Testament (it is not used for the Passion of Christ in the Gospels). Even though the sufferings of the Christian may be denominated pathemata just as Christ's are (Col 1:24; 2Cor 1:7; 1Thes 2:14 in comparison with 2Cor l:5f, where thlibometha also occurs for Christian suffering), it would seem to be clear that there is no question of their supplying any lack in the pathemata of the Passion of Christ but are taken up into that eschatological suffering which is the continuation of Christ's Passion and which is in fact one of the clear promises that Jesus makes to his disciples when he is about to leave them (Jn 16:33). This is further em- phasized when we contrast Col 1:22 with 1:24. For while Christ's sufferings were en to somati tes sarkos autou, Paul's sufferings are en te sarki mou and are hyper tou somatos autou, which is the Church. While it is certain that Christ's sufferings were utterly human in that they touched his being (soma) through his humanity (sarx) and while it is equally certain that the omission of soma in reference to Paul's sufferings is not meant to indicate that they touched Paul's inner self to a lesser degree, it does seem that there is a certain intentionality in the different phrases, an intentionality which reveals the depth and the true nature of the relationship of Christian suffering to the Passion of Christ. Hence our certainty of victory, linked to that victory of Christ which is proclaimed en parrhesia (Col 2:15). Though the word is adverbial here and means little more, apparently, than "in public", the word itself, denoting as it sometimes does courage or bravery or boldness (1Jn 2:28 etc), is redolent of eschatological victory.

Though many themes might still be uncovered and indicated even briefly, we must finish with a consideration of the phrase which, along with 1:24, might be said to be the most important of the themes in Colossians related to a theology of hope: "Christ within (among?) you, your hope of glory" (1:27). Glory is the object of hope and, in a certain sense, is that hope itself (tes doxes as epexegetical gen.). For inasmuch as hope is a theological attitude relating us to God, its object is being-with-God in perfect fulness, that intimacy which only comes with the resurrection and is our glory. But inasmuch as hope is spes sperata, it is identified with glory, for that is what is laid up for us in heaven. Yet that gift is not simply future: here and now Christ, who in his own body is our salvation and hence our glory, is alive in us, whether in the individual Christian in a divine indwelling or in the Community as such. So Christ is our hope (1Tim 1:1): when Paul tells us that, in relation to the hope placed in annual festivals, New Moons and Sabbaths, Christ is the soma, the reality, (Col 2:16), he can only mean that Christ, both in his person and in his ecclesial body, has become our hope. If we appropriate that hope, if we are truly risen with him, then we are oriented towards the future, towards the ta ano (3:1) which will be given us fully when, at the appearance of Christ in glory, we too shall be revealed in the fulness of that same glory. (Col 3:4).

作者：Dagdag, Teresa 年份：1979

(Righteousness in the Psalms)



I. INTRODUCTION

The 60s and 70s have been a period of great reawakening to the immensity of the problems of injustice that we face today. As technology develops, industry flourishes, and man's perception becomes sharper, man realizes the significance of his participation in creating and tran-forming the world. Not only do we read about the many positive aspects of human growth and scientific advancement; we also become aware of the groaning of man: torture, violations of man's right to a decent wage and livelihood, to the free expression of thought and ideas, violation of respect for human life - in short, the curtailing of human rights and of human growth, of LIFE.

Christianity as a whole has had to meet the demands of our relationship to this modern world of intricate structures. Sin has become better understood in its social context and its social implications have been found to be staggering. Many economic, social, and political structures have come to be considered sinful.

Christians, as a consequence of their reflection on sinful structures in the national and international spheres, have discovered their role, not only in preaching liberation from personal sins of selfishness, pride, and falsehood, but also and more extensively, in helping man to realize the effects of this personal sin in the multitude of networks which can prevent them from becoming fully human. The Christian community continues to seek and search for fresh in-sights and new interpretations of salvation which God could be revealing to us as a response to the human predicament.

The Synod of Bishops produced "Justice in the World" in 1971. In it, the Bishops urged "action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world" (1) and considered it as a "constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel... of the Church's mission for the redemption of the human race and its liberation from every oppressive situation." The Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace was set up, committing itself to the struggle for the promotion and defense of human rights.

The Asian Scene

In Asia, particularly in the Third World nations (and most of Asia is "Third World"), conditions have not measured up to the standard set by the United Nations' "Declaration on Human rights", Vatican 's "Gaudium et Spes", and John XXIII 's "Pacern in Terris". The Asian Bishops singled out injustice as the basic social problem in Asia in 1971. (2) Since this conclusion was reached, a series of reflections on the part of the Asian Bishops has been an on-going phenomenon. The BISA or Bishops' Institute for Social Action articulated the following in their 1974 meeting in Novaliches :

...our people are poor in this sense: the overwhelming majority of them are deprived of the access to the material goods they need for a truly human life, and even of access to the resources they need to produce these goods for themselves.

Our people are deprived of the goods and opportunities to which they have a right because they are oppressed. They live under economic, social, and political structures which have injustice built into them.

Biblical Sources:

It is in the light of the present overwhelming unjust conditions in the world today on the one hand, and of the on-going reflection of the Church on these innumerable situations of injustice on the other, that going back to the Biblical sources becomes imperative for us Christians. The Church as a whole, different Bishops' Conferences in Latin America (Medellin 1968) and in Asia (Manila 1970 and Taipei 1974), and the preparatory materials for the Puebla Conference, have expressed concern for the poverty and oppression of the majority of the people in these continents. The contemporary situation of injustice urges us to understand more deeply the historical and traditional sources of our Christian faith. This process will help us greatly to discover the meaning of justice and to interpret the locus of God's righteousness today. The result of this study and reflection will help us strengthen our motivation and constancy in the cause of justice.

The interplay between God and man and between man and man is very vividly expressed in terms of righteousness or un-righteousness in the OT. An interesting observation regarding man is that whatever he expresses as part of his suffering also becomes the articulation of his aspirations and hopes. It is in looking at what causes man pain and hurt that we can discover what can constitute his joys. It is in examining what makes man less human and dehumanized that we find out what will help man become fully human. It is in experiencing and reflecting on what is un-righteous that man becomes aware of, and able to sort out and determine, what is righteous. To examine the biblical sources on righteousness enables us to make comparisons with contemporary situations of injustice and discover what God may be saying to us today.

The Psalms :

Although the theme of righteousness is centrally significant in the whole OT, this study will attempt to focus only on the Psalms as a contribution to an understanding of righteousness in the OT in general.

Man's hopes and aspirations are usually embodied in his prayers, because in them he makes possible an intimate communication of his inner conflicts and ideals with His Creator and Saviour. The Psalms are a case in point. Though there are various kinds of Psalms, the lamentation, whether individual or communitarian is the most common form. The Psalmists either appeal to God's righteousness or praise it. (3) The Psalms were generally composed between 1000 - 200 B.C., and hence they articulate a rather significant part of Israelitic history. The historical setting may vary, but it is evident that the theme of righteousness is centrally significant as a concept in the OT, and therefore pervades the whole Psalter.

The Psalms express the deep relationship between man and God. Man, in the person of the psalmist, uses various forms of worship to communicate with his Creator and Saviour. The Psalmist rejoices in Ps. 33 because God "loves righteousness and justice" (v.5), and trusts that Yahweh will lead him in the "paths of righteousness for his name's sake" (23: 3). He knows that Yahweh is "my rock and there is no un-righteousness in him" (92: 16). The Psalmist believes that "righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne" (89: 15). In the royal psalms, he proclaims that "Your divine throne endures forever and ever, your royal sceptre is a sceptre of equity, you love righteousness and hate wickedness" (45: 7-8) and asks Yahweh to "give the king your justice, O God and your righteousness to the royal son" (72: 1).

In the Psalms of lament the psalmist suffers and feels afflicted because justice and right- eousness are lacking. The presence of the "un-righteous" in his life urges him to appeal to Yahweh for deliverance (71: 2), for his stead- fast love (44: 27), and his righteousness (36: 6). These are the cries of the afflicted awaiting Yahweh to rescue and help them (120: 2). They trust Yahweh because they know that he favours the poor, the needy, and the godly, the little ones and the righteous (140: 13). God himself is judge (50: 6), but a judge who saves and delivers his people from oppression (81: 7).

Ps. 12 gives us an example of lamentation. The lament is usually expressed in the following structure although not necessarily in the same order:

The Lord is asked to intervene :

"Help, Lord; for there is no longer any that is godly; for the faithful have vanished from among the sons of men. Everyone utters lies to his neighbor; With flattering lips and a double heart they speak."

The psalmist wishes :

"May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that makes great boasts, those who say, "with our tongue we will prevail, our lips are our own; who is our master?"

The divine oracle:

"Because the poor are despoiled, because the needy groan, I will now arise," says the Lord; I will place him in the safety for which he longs."

The confident response from the community:

"The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

The community is confident that the prayer is heard :

"Do thou, 0 Lord, protect us, guard us ever from this generation. On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the sons of men."

The psalmist lists the evildoers as the source of his afflictions. He believes in the fighteous (7: 10) and in the righteous God (9: 9). The wicked are boastful and may not stand before Yahweh's eyes (5: 6). The fool in the Psalm does not fear Yahweh; he says instead, "there is no God" (14: 1).

For the psalmist, the difference between the evildoers and the righteous is that the latter has fear of God and fidelity to the covenant relationship, whereas the former does not have either or disregards them. This fidelity is expressed through the observance of the Law. Those who came to worship were asked at the gates to declare their loyalty to Yahweh's will for justice. A selection of Yahweh's commandments were put to those who entered the gate. Von Rad states that every proclamation of the commandments - not just that in the ceremonial of the liturgy of the gate - was always at the same time a question about Israel's righteousness, her "tsedaqah", her readiness to say "yes" to the relationship of community offered to her by Yahweh. (4)

Only the righteous were acceptable to Yahweh and this was expressed through a ceremony which took place at the entry of the pre-exilic Temple. Pss. 15 and 24 are liturgy psalms pronounced on the occasion of 'pilgrims' entering the Temple. The people seeking admission start by asking:

"Who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill?" (15: 1). (5) The answer to this question was the entrance Torah given by the cultic officials:

"The man who walks blamelessly and does what is right (tsedeq) and speaks truth from his heart" (v.2).

The gates of justice, (6) the gates of the Temple, are also mentioned in Ps. 118, to express what is expected of anyone who is to enter through them. The tent is a holy place where many may meet God, and the gate leads to it:

"Open to me the gates of righteousness (tsedeq) that I may enter through them and give thanks to the Lord. This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous (tsaddiqim) shall enter through it" (118: 19-20).

In the new Testament, the gate is the door through which we shall be saved. Jesus says; "I am the door, if any one enters by me, he will be saved" (John 10: 9)

  

(1) "Justice in the World", Synod of Bishops, (St. Paul Publications, Pasay City, Philip- pines), Introduction.

(2) "Four Faces of Asia", a summary report on the Asian Bishops Meeting, Manila, 1971, by Vitaliano Gorospe, SJ ed. (Ateneo de Manila U Press), p. l

(3)Quoted in Leopold Sabourin, The Psalms : Their Origin and Meaning, (New York : Alba House, 1970), p. 88.

All references to OT in this paper follow the MT, as in New American Bible.

(4) Gerhard von Rad, The OT Theology, Vol I, (New York : Harper & Row, 1962), p. 378.

(5) "Tent" is a term for the Temple ; Cf. Roland E. Murphy, Psalms, in R.E. Brown, et al. edd., The Jerome Biblical Commentary (JBC), 35 : 32Tcf. also 35 : 134.

(6)A similar role was played by the gates of the city : The city-gate had a similar function : cf. Gn. 23 : 10 ; Dt 21 : 19 ; Ps. 69 : 13 ; Amos 5 : 10, etc.

作者：Goodstadt, Leo F. 年份：1979

Since 1976, China's citizens have enjoyed far greater personal freedom than at any time since 1966. The amount of open debate about political ideals and the quality of life has grown steadily. The volume of information about the nation and its problems has expanded sharply. The authorities have proclaimed their respect for individual civil liberties very extensively. In this more liberal atmosphere, the fate of religious belief and liberty of worship is an important topic. A crucial test of personal freedom in any society is the degree to which the citizen is allowed to follow without penalty his own conscience even when his beliefs do not reflect the ruling ideology.

For the Chinese Communist Party, the question of belief ought to cause no great problems. Chairman Mao Zedong laid down very clear principles on toleration for religious opinions. He stated: "We cannot abolish religion by administrative order or force people not to believe in it." He described "patriotic people in religious circles" in these terms: "They are theists and we are atheists. We cannot force them to accept the Marxist world out- look." (Selected Works, vol. V, pp. 389, 424.) The Chinese Constitution of 1978 guarantees under article 46 freedom of religious belief to reflect the continued adherence of Peking to Mao's doctrine on the matter.

Difficulties arise over the way in which private religious belief is to be expressed in practice. The amount of freedom of public prayer, worship and religious instruction which Peking feels it can permit is very limited. This restriction is clear even in statements which pro- mise a new deal to Christian citizens. For example, Xiao Xienfa, Director of the Bureau of Religious Affairs of the State Council, explained in June this year: "Freedom of religious belief is a longterm and fundamental policy of the Communist Party and the state." He admitted that this policy "was seriously sabotaged" in the past. After 1976, he continued, "we have done some work to implement the freedom of religious belief". Xiao is reported officially as showing how religious toleration had improved by quoting "the opening and renovation of some temples and the rehabilitation of religious believers who were victims of framed up cases fabricated by Lin Biao and the gang of four". (Xinhua News Agency 29 June 1979.)

Frank admission that, in the decade after 1966, religious liberty was drastically curtailed is a hopeful sign. But the evidence Xiao Xienfa brought forward to prove circumstances had improved is depressing. Temples are reopened as part of the general campaign to restore cultural relics, preserve scenic spots and encourage tourism. Official accounts of the restoration of famous shrines refer to small numbers of mainly old pilgrims. The reports suggest very strongly that the religious aspect of ancient temples has become a very minor consideration. (Xinhua News Agency on Mount Omei is a good instance. 4 November 1978.) The great exception is Tibet where Buddhism remains a powerful force. The Chinese authorities in 1979 have sought to win the support of the Tibetan population and thus granted concessions to its religious practices. In part, this freedom has reflected the general policy of winning over to Peking all groups attacked by the extremists after 1966 in the Cultural Revolution. But another factor is the diplomatic importance of Tibet. The region is of great concern to India and the Soviet Union with both of whom China has border disputes. Tibet's Dalai Lama has visited the Mongolian Republic in 1979 to Peking's dismay and after a long campaign to persuade him to avoid the Soviet Union's Mongolian satellite and to make even a short trip to China. (Xinhua New Agency 8 & 27 December 1978, 21 February 1979.)

International problems have been the main pressure on Peking when it comes to religious affairs. An obvious example is the reopening of a handful of places of Christian worship. Without such facilities some distinguished personalities would have found a journey to China politically embarrassing. Spain's King Juan Carlos might have offended a majority of his fellow-countrymen if China had no High Mass for him to attend. (Xinhua News Agency 18 June 1978.)

But the close connection between religion and foreign affairs in Peking's eyes is brought out most strongly in its comments on the Papacy in the last two years. Peking reported factually the deaths of the last two Pontiffs and the elections of their successors. Pope John Paul II inevitably inspired Peking's official news media to extensive commentary through his June trip to Poland. The official Chinese account was relatively objective. The power of religion in Poland was noted. "A rapturous welcome from his Polish followers" was stressed. The contrast between Catholic and Communist Party views on life was recorded. The opposition of Pope John Paul II to "Soviet control over Poland" was illustrated. Peking and the Vatican are on the same side when it comes to Eastern Europe. Both view Moscow's presence beyond its national frontiers as serious oppression of the peoples of Eastern Europe. (Xinhua News Agency 12 June 1979.)

Diplomatic considerations affect internal policy with equal force when hostility towards the Soviet Union arises. Peking shows special tolerance of religious practices in areas where there is a danger of Soviet subversion. Such regions lie along the Sino-Soviet frontier and are inhabited often by ethnic minorities who cling to religious traditions. In the case of the Moslems, toleration is relatively extensive, notably in Ninghsia Hui Autonomous Region. The explanation is partly that this toleration seems to imply no more than respect for the social customs and dietary practices of a national minority. (Xinhua News Agency 16 & 19 October 1978.) A second factor is almost certainly Sino-Soviet rivalry for influence among the Moslem nations of Asia and the Middle East.

Other minority nationalities are not treated quite so generously, even in Tibet. The general impression made by reports of local offical attitudes to religion is that overt religious practices in the form of worship are regarded with great suspicion. Thus, stress has been laid on the need to prevent "counter-revolutionary activities under the cloak of religion" even when calling for respect for religious beliefs. (Tibet Radio Service 4 December 1977; Hebei Radio Service 5 December 1977; Qinghai Radio Service 28 November 1977.)

In daily life in China, the Government's concern has switched from the religious convict-ions of the individual to open practices of a religious nature. During 1978, attention was fo- cussed on religion and death. For unexplained reasons, even senior Communist Party officials find it difficult to refrain from honouring the dead with traditional rituals, including the participation of Taoist clergy. A number of places published accounts of scandalously elaborate and pious funerals for parents and spouses. (Hunan Daily 12 April 1978; Hebei Radio Service 20 April 1978; Shandong Radio Service 23 April & 16 September 1978.) Some elements of popular religion also crept back into marriages but less widely. (Xinhua News Agency 29 December 1978.) One province has lamented this year that nursery staff and parents keep alive traditional beliefs among children, which shows the importance of oral tradition in a peasant society. (Anhui Radio Service 10 May 1979.)

In 1979, a concerted drive has been made to eradicate traces of popular religion. The main targets have been superstitions, particularly those connected with fortune telling. Reading palms and faces and use of the I-ching have been bitterly attacked. (Hunan Daily 22 March 1979; Qinghai Radio Service II April 1979.) In one province, the current campaign has been justified in the following language: "Feudal superstition is a rather stubborn, evil and backward practice. An arduous and important task on the ideological front is to destroy feudal superstition." (Xinhua Daily 23 March 1979.) To some extent the 1979 anti-superstition drive was inspired by a tragedy in September 1978. Allegedly, two women undertook to cast out demons. In so doing, two children were first beaten and then burned to death. (Jiangsu Radio Service 23 March 1979.)

An additional significance of the anti-superstition drive is the distinction which the Government drew between religion and superstition. Peking resisted the temptation to denounce all forms of religious belief as equally evil. Feudal superstition was defined as "all intrinsically absurd and preposterous beliefs in which nobody with the slightest cultural and scientific knowledge would believe." Religions are "superstitions" Peking explained, but "religions refer mainly to such world religions as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism". (People's Daily 15 March 1979.) Once more, awareness of the links between religion and the outside world has persuaded Peking to adjust its attitude to religion.

Foreign relations are not the whole of the story, nevertheless. In this context, it is interesting how much space was given at the 1978 Atheism Symposium of the World Religions Research Institute to Chinese philosophy. (Guangming Daily 6 January 1979.) Religion and theology have a direct relevance today to the development of Chinese Communist Party ideology.

For the Chinese Government, the legacy of Mao Zedong has become a major crisis. Some elements in the leadership wish to treat Mao Zedong Thought like Divine Scripture. Orthodox Communist Party members condemn this view. The Maoist extremists have been condemned because "they used borrowed religious rites to force people to treat their leaders the way religious believers adore god." (Guangming Daily II March 1979.) Worse still, "they tried to monopolise Mao Zedong Thought like mediaeval popes monopolised the Bible, doing their utmost to establish the absolute authority of Mao Zedong Thought." (People's Daily 26 December 1978.) The Maoist extremists perpetuated a Chinese tradition: "Political power in China was often given a theological connotation." (Red Flag 3/1979, Guo Luoji.)

The irony of the situation is that references to Catholic history in the current Chinese political debate ensure a new status and importance for Catholic doctrines. The Catholic Church is not just a relic of the past or an object of purely cultural interest. The Church has a direct relevance, in the opinion of the Communist Party theoreticians, to a full understanding of the way in which Marxism was perverted after 1966 in Peking. The role given to the Catholic Church by the Communist Party is not an honourable one. But at least the Church is not being ignored. It is still one of the forces which the Communist Party believes must be overcome to establish the Marxist Utopia. Unhappily, the Catholic Church remains the symbol of the persecution of Galileo and of the excesses of the Inquisition, which are frequently recalled by the official press. For the present, intellectual awareness of the Catholic Church by the Communist Party is kept at this unfavourable level. Perhaps there is some room for hope that the situation may improve since most of the Communist Party objections to the Church appear to have been overcome. The Party now claims to "have cut off the churches' ties with imperialism, carried out democratic reforms of religious procedures and abolished feudal privileges." (Xinhua News Agency 18 February 1979.)

A possible sign of an easier regime for Catholics could be the rehabilitation of leaders of the National Church and their appointment to public offices. Large numbers of the members of this pitiable body fell victim to ideological extremists in the Cultural Revolution. The false charges against them have been dropped, and they have been restored to their former positions, treatment enjoyed by large numbers of those purged in the Cultural Revolution. (Xinhua News Agency 5 June 1979; Shanghai Radio Service 11 January 1979.) But these rehabilitations have been caused by factors other than respect for freedom of religion. The first is the desire to discredit totally the Maoist extremists and the opponents of Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping. (Shanghai Radio Service 21 March 1979.) The second factor is the desire to restore the reputation of the Communist Party officials responsible for propaganda and united front activities including work among religious circles. (Xinhua News Agency 18 March 1979.) The post-Mao era is not filled with reverence for religion.

The prospects for the freedom of religious believers in contemporary China seem clear enough. The public practice of religion will be tolerated under very restricted circumstances. Popular religious activities are particularly suspect. Private beliefs are tolerated as a matter of law and practice, more 80 than for many years. However, there are no signs that overt expressions of such beliefs are any more acceptable than in the past. What public worship is permitted can be explained very largely in terms of concern to influence opinion overseas or to compete with the Soviet Union. The status of the Catholic Church has been enhanced by the election of a Polish Pontiff who has made a very successful foray back to his motherland. As long as Peking maintains its concern to contain the Soviet Union's thrust beyond its own frontiers, China and the Vatican have certain shared diplomatic interests. The Catholic Church also benefits from the revival of academic interest in its history because of its relevance to political heresy in China. For the rest, the Catholic Church and its Chinese members are to the Government no more than pawns in the overall calculations by the Communist Party of national interests.

作者：Dumas, Aline 年份：1979

Man needs others to become himself, and God is present in man's making of man. (1)This essay is a result of many years of reflection on the experience of presence, both in friendship and in community life. The key question it seeks to answer is: How can presence, in the interpersonal relationship, lead to a fuller, richer life and thus be an effective sign of the love of God? (2) For it appears that as growth occurs through a satisfying relationship between two persons, there is more in this interaction than just the presence of these two human beings: there is a force which draws them, from within and from beyond, to a richer, fuller life, which transcends the limitations of these two persons. (3) What is this dynamic force? It is believed, by men of faith, to be a God of love.

＊Extract from a research paper presented by the author to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of the University of Ottawa in 1974.

Presence and Growth

In this paper, we will use the word presence in both the material and personalistic sense, as: being with someone or something; being open to, and sharing one's being, with others. When we speak of growth, we will refer to constructive personality change, that is, a change in one's habitual way of perceiving the world, in a direction which leads to a fuller awareness of reality, and also a change in behaviour, in a direction which leads to greater integration and more effective living.

Starting with the hypothesis that we need the presence of others in order to grow, we will see in brief what some contemporary psychologists and humanists have to say on the subject. Then, we will look at some theological aspects of presence, keeping in mind that this does not exclude the psychological aspects but rather incorporates them, adding a new dimension, that of faith.

Man Needs Others in Order to Grow

Contemporary psychology has been saying in every way that man needs others to become himself. Child psychologists have told the world again and again that a child needs to be loved by his parents before he can begin to give love. (4)

Freud stressed the fact that the first five years were the most important in the life of a person, and that the development and dissolution of the Oedipus Complex at this stage would largely condition a person's social relationships through-out his life, especially his attitude toward people in authority and toward the opposite sex. (5)

Erikson, in his theory on the eight stages of growth, claimed that if a child did not receive sufficient love and care at each stage, or if he was not guided in the right way, his growth would be arrested, and this would affect each subsequent step of his development. For example, if a child has not learned basic trust during the first year of his life, he will see the world as more hostile than benign for the rest of his life. (6)

In Carl Rogers' famous client-centered therapy, the focus is on the individual, not only as he is now, but as he can become. Rogers says that presence will be life-giving if the therapist is congruent, that is, truly aware of what he is experiencing, and if he communicates unconditional acceptance and empathy to his client. What will happen in such a therapeutic relationship? The person will get in touch with what is best within him, and he will move on in a good direction. He will become more fully himself, more congruent and "self-actualizing", as Has low puts it. (7)

Sidney Jourard feels that in order for growth to take place, both parties must be open to each other. This openness comes about through disclosure, yet this disclosure has to be mutual, not one-sided. It is the therapist who should initiate the process of disclosure since he is supposed to be more congruent than the client in the relationship. If presence is genuine and personal, if there is care and concern for the other person, then presence will become an invitation-to-live. Furthermore, this invitation may be extended not only by therapists, but by anyone who is concerned about another person, whether it be a parent, friend, spouse or teacher. Jourard states: "Any teacher who liberates, expands, activates a person's consciousness creates a condition for a richer life of longer duration." (8) This will happen when the person who is concerned about another communicates his concern, and when the other, in turn, accepts the invitation.

Man Needs Others to Become Himself

Gregory Baum supports the hypothesis that "man is in need of others to become himself. (9) He claims that it is through dialogue that man comes to be what he is. This is easy to see in the possession of language, which is given to us by our family and our community. It is through language, that is, non-verbal as well as verbal language, that we are summoned to consciousness. Unless there is a mother, actual or surrogate, a baby could never develop a conscious life. Consciousness comes about through dialogue, being spoken to and responding. Man learns from others, not only on the level of information, but also on the deeper levels of self-knowledge and of values. It is by listening to what others have to say, both by their words and by their attitudes, that we can learn about the world and about ourselves. (10)

Dialogue suggests more than merely hearing what is conveyed by word or attitude, it implies an answer, a personal answer which one learns to make freely, and which renders him responsible for himself. Yet this dialogue is not an easy process; man's freedom enables him to resist the word that is addressed to him. One reason why man resists is that he may feel challenged by the word which is spoken to him, challenged to change and grow, to let go of his self-image and enter into the world of another. Dialogue, in this sense, may lead to a conversion. This process of conversion is repeated over and over again in a person's life. For example, a child, at first, looks to his mother simply for security and love, but gradually he comes to recognize her as another person with her own wants and needs; one who is able to resist his self-centered demands. At that moment, his little world is shattered and he becomes more open to reality. This openness, this new perception, means personality growth. (11)

But what is involved in this experience of becoming more fully human? What really causes further growth in a person? Many humanists and psychologists explain that it is genuine presence in an interaction that can effect this kind of change in perception and in behaviour. Now we will let a few theologians speak on presence in interpersonal relationships as a life-giving sign of the love of God.

God Within the Life of Man

Current trends in the New Theology indicate less concern with the God 'out here', perhaps because too much stress was placed on transcendence in the past. Now, more interest is being shown in finding God within the world and within the life of man. This does not mean that the Transcendent God is dead, but that the immanent God is closer to the ideals and the needs of modern man, whose life is influenced by existential philosophy and Humanistic psychology. Humanists today see man as becoming, as a process, as "a being whose being is always in question". (12) Contemporary theologians have often been accused of being humanists, and some of them see this not as an accusation but as a fact. If being a humanist means having a man-centered understanding of religion, not only do they agree with this view, but they find ground for it in the fact of the Incarnation. According to Gregory Baum:

The divine incarnation in Jesus Christ reveals to us that God's encounter with men always humanizes them and that God's grace comes to men not only in moments of piety but more especially in their relationship to the community, the Church. It is revealed to us in Jesus that the human is the locus of the divine. God's self-revelation effects the growth and reconciliation of man. (13)

In order to understand this growth-promoting presence of God in community, it may be useful to consider the effects on human beings of personal presence.

Human Presence

Piet Schoonenberg insists very strongly on the distinction between physical presence and personal presence: "The word presence means for us the relationship of something or someone to something or someone else." (14) This kind of presence is characterized not only by a 'being with' which could refer simply to physical presence, but also by influence, help, and finally an enrichment of the one in whose presence one is. Presence, therefore, is something active. 'Communication' refers to a mutual give-and-take. One party may be active and the other passive, but ultimately there is an action and a reaction taking place by the simple fact of the mutual presence of two human beings who are aware of each other in some way. Communication implies not only a giving of something, but the self-communication of the person himself, that is, "of those living insights which have formed his inviolable spirit, and especially of those attitudes to life whereby he has built up his deepest being." (15) Communication here means not simply giving information about these insights and attitudes, but sharing these in a way which leads to an inner intuition in the understanding, followed by a connection in the will. Schoonenberg believes that intuition is the summit of our capacity for knowledge, and that the deepest working of our will consists, not in changing things outside ourselves, but in determining our own attitude toward reality: God, the world and ourselves. If someone can communicate with another in these deepest activities, he will truly be present to the other, and will live on in his heart and mind. Needless to say, this quality of human presence is not easy to attain, and is also limited by the reality of human beings' limitations. Furthermore, even when two persons have experienced deep communication, much depends on both parties' capacity to remain true to each other and on their willingness to grow in this relationship. There is even a further risk involved: that the two parties may grow away from each other as they reveal their changing perceptions.

Freedom and openness are important elements of a successful interpersonal relationship. People are free to open themselves up to one another, to disclose, or not to disclose, what is deepest within them. They are also free to receive, or not to receive, the other's self-revelation in faith. Even when two persons are together, one, or both, can still refuse to be personally present. But when the choice to be open is made by the two parties both to accept and to integrate the giving and receiving of mutual self-disclosure, the actions of the two persons become symbols of their growing relationship in which neither has to give up his own personality, but in which, instead, if the communication is genuine, both will become themselves.

In our society today, when interpersonal relationships are becoming more impersonal, people tend to draw together in crowds to overcome their feeling of loneliness. Mere physical presence cannot overcome separation, it must be penetrated with personal presence or with one of its symbols. For example, an embrace or a kiss is a sign of love. It promotes union only inasmuch as it expresses the real affection which exists between two people; otherwise it may leave them as lonely as ever. On the other hand, a letter can be a symbol of presence in absence, since it makes the other person, the beloved or friend, live on in one's memory, and speaks of the hope of a reunion. Absence can actually purify love of its alloys by erasing from memory various negative aspects. Remembrance can also deepen presence in such a way that a departed one seems closer than before. (16)

Divine Presence

For theologians -- as well as for all those who have faith -- all that we have said concerning the characteristics of human presence can point to the presence of God in the world and in our lives. Schoonenberg says that God's presence is all-pervasive, but when we speak about Him, we cannot speak of spatial presence in the same sense as when we speak of material bodies. Though He fills all space, it is not in a spatial way. He is present by giving Himself freely and willingly. "He is in human beings in order to make them live, in order to fulfill them, in order to give them to each other, in order to lead them finally to God." (17)

Man is free to accept or to refuse God's love. The only way he can limit God's presence in his life is by refusing to open up to Him. But the strange paradox this entails is that man cannot control the results of this refusal. According to the Christian point of view, if we refuse to open up to God, we refuse life, so that man, in order to be saved, must accept salvation from an Other, and since salvation comes through other human beings, vivified by the presence of Christ, man cannot cut himself off from others. (18)



  (1)Cf. Gregory Baum, Man Becoming: God in Secular Experience, New York, Herder and Herder, 1970, p. 55-59.

(2)Cf. J. Ratzinger, Foi Chretienne Hier et Au-jourd ' hui, Paris, Mame, 1969, p. 57.

(3)Cf. Baum, Man Becoming, p. 55-59.

(4)Cf. Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving, New York, Harper & Row, p. 38-41.

(5)Cf. Hall & Lindzey, Theories of Personality, New York, Wiley, 1957, p. 51-55.

(6)Cf. Erik Erikson, Childhood and Society, New York, Norton, 1963, p. 82-86.

(7)Cf. Frank Goble, The Third Force, New York, Pocket Books, 1973, p. 23-36.

(8)Sidney Jourard, The Transparent Self, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971, p. 97.

(9)Cf. Baum, Man Becoming, p. 55-59.

(10)Baum, Ibid., p. 44.

(11)Ibid., p. 43.

(12)Sidney Jourard, Disclosing Man to Himself, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1968, p. 153.

(13)Baum, Man Becoming, p. 137.

(14)Piet Schoonenberg, "Presence and the Eucharistic Presence," in Cross Currents, Winter 1967, p. 41.

(15)Ibid., p. 46.

(16)Cf. Ibid., p. 49-50.

(17)Ibid., p. 51.

(18)Cf. J. Ratzinger, Foi Chretienne Hier et Au-jourd ' hui, Paris, Mame, 1969, p. 185.

作者：祈士真 Casey, John J. 年份：1979

THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE MAJOR SEMINARY



  Year after year in seminaries -- particularly around the time of ordination to priesthood and first assignments -- a question arises which can be a bit irksome to seminary staff since they are the ones who hear it most often. Usually in Hong Kong it runs something like this: "We know that the new priests have received a fine education in philosophy and theology, but will they be able to understand the problems of people at the grass-roots level in the resite areas and the housing estates and will they be able to help these people solve their problems?" More simply, what we are being asked is: "Does the seminary program blend properly the practical -- that is, the spiritual and the pastoral -- with the theoretical in preparing men for the priestly ministry?" And it is a bit irksome because it can only be answered by a hypothetical statement which in turn must be verified by experience which again in turn must wait the passage of time to see how the 'new' priest works out.

Be that as it may, however, the query is a perennially valid one because it is the root question of the successful seminary program. Indeed it was the attempt to arrive at a solution to this question at a certain time and in a certain place that gave rise to the institution that we are so familiar with today, the major seminary; the institution which the Second Vatican Council canonized as "necessary for priestly training." (1) And in canonizing this institution, the Vatican Council made it quite clear that one of its major tasks will always continue to be the struggle to blend properly at each time and in each place the practical needs of the ministry with the theoretical needs of the churchman. How these values originally established the major seminary is the subject of this paper.

The time was the first half of the seventeenth century; the Council of Trent had been over for fifty years and more. As was the political custom of the time. Catholic kings and princes had been expected to ratify the Council decrees in their territories, thus making them part of the law of the land. In the newly Protestant kingdoms and states in the North of Europe, of course, this would not be the case but in Southern and Western Europe which remained within the Catholic fold, rulers were expected to do so. Only then could the reforms of the Council of Trent receive the sanction of law whereby church-men slow to act could be forced to comply.

Among the decrees of the Council was the famous one on seminaries which made it incumbent upon diocesan bishops to establish special colleges wherein poor boys of about the age of twelve would be received and carefully nurtured and prepared to become eventually priests of their respective dioceses. The decree said much about the support of such a school but precious little about what it should be like. Nevertheless, shortly after Trent, many bishops were struggling to establish colleges of this kind led by Charles Borromeo of Milan, and the models used were the famous Jesuitrun institutions in Rome, the Roman College -- now the Gregorian University -- and the German College. The Roman College offered an excellent example of what a small studium generale or mini-university specializing it literary studies -- secondary school today -- philosophy and theology should be, and the German College an excellent example of what a well-run hostel for students for the priesthood should be. Put them both together and you had a good model of a hostel or college for clerical students with its own academic program stretching from the literary studies which a student started at about the age of twelve right up to ordination, everything the decree of Trent seemed to call for. Such endeavors were going on somewhat successfully everywhere in the Catholic world, it seemed, except France.

France was a Catholic kingdom, to be sure, but the government was very reluctant to make any changes, particularly those dictated by Rome. As a result, fifty years after the Council of Trent, the French government still had not ratified the Council so that the Church struggling to move with Trent was trapped in a pre-Tridentine mold. Yet it was this situation that made France highly suitable as an experimental proving ground for testing the practicality of the decrees of Trent. In other words, there was no force of law making anyone conform so that changes that did come about were the results of individual churchmen who saw the needs of the time and were able to translate them into programs which the people of France, clergy and laity alike, would freely deem beneficial to themselves and therefore be induced to follow. From just such an interaction, the major seminary as we know it today -- that composite of practical and theoretical preparation for the priesthood which admits only those students who have already finished their ordinary schooling or its equivalent -- was born.

The French Church of the early seventeenth century was divided into innumerable endowed benefices which provided the members of the clergy with their livelihood. So much was regulated by law which could be taken to the civil courts, that French bishops had little control over the selection of candidates for the priesthood. To be ordained, one merely presented himself to his bishop bringing documents testifying that he had a valid reason for seeking ordination and that he met the canonical requirements for the same. Preparation for ordination was left up to the candidate himself. Once a man was beneficed and ordained, he was something like a tenured public official who could only be removed from his position after a complicated legal procedure which would have to prove that the services inherent in the benefice were not being performed. And he was not obliged himself to perform these services but simply to see that they were performed through others whom he might hire to do these tasks.

Although preparation was left up to the individual himself, it was not taken lightly. There was a quality preparation for the priesthood that could be received at the University of Paris or if this was not feasible at one of the provincial universities. This consisted of the study of humane letters, philosophy and theology, and was the same as the quality education in France for any one of the three basic professions of the time with law or medicine at the top replacing theology for those wishing to pursue such careers. The humane letters course could be taken at any one of a number of colleges in France, the most famous of which were establishments of the University of Paris or the Society of Jesus. Following upon this, the student studied philosophy and theology, sometimes receiving a degree in both but in any case emerging with a degree in theology. Basically the course was supposed to train one to be a theological scholar and as far as any practical, pastoral application was concerned, this was not the task of the university. But, then, this quality training was reserved for the upper classes and for the bright who had special ecclesiastical ambitions which would hardly include the ordinary work in a parish.

The candidate for the priesthood who was of simple family background and of average intelligence learned how to do the job of a priest through what was basically an apprenticeship system. This was the almost universal pattern for priests in the country areas of France although it was common enough for parish priests in the city of Paris itself. A young lad who was destined to be a priest would be taken in by his local pastor and while working around the church, would be taught the rudiments of the ministry of a parish priest along with what knowledge of the faith the parish priest himself had. This was a time-honored way of preparing for the priesthood and those who underwent it received a certain practical pastoral knowledge which their university educated confreres did not. On the other hand, their theoretical knowledge was severely limited and depending on the priest under whom they did their apprentice-ship, could be practically non-existent. Also, apprenticeship did not necessarily take place before ordination and this caused more than the ordinary numbers of problems. Sometimes a man was ordained first and what training he received was on the job training. Needless to say, such priests were destined to fill the lesser benefices and in some cases no benefice at all but simply to be the employees of parish priests, what we might more aptly describe today as Sunday help-out.

  

1 OPTATAM TOTIUS, III,

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J.年份：1979



JESUIT PAINTER AT THE COURT OF PEKING



  Court painter and architect in the imperial capital for over half of the 18th century, confidant of three of the greatest Ch'ing dynasty Emperors, protector of the Chinese Church in times of persecution, pioneer in introducing Western techniques of painting and architecture to the Middle Kingdom, greatest of the missionary artists of his time with a secure place in Chinese art history -- and yet a simple, self-effacing religious man who never neglected his missionary vocation to bring Christ to others: such was Brother Joseph, whose life and work deserve to be better known to students of Chinese Church history and of Chinese art.

It all began with a letter sent from Peking to Rome more than 250 years ago asking for a painter. The international team of Jesuits, whose predecessors led by Matteo Ricci (利玛窦) had first been permitted to live in the imperial capital almost a century previously, now felt that they needed a talented Western-trained artist to help them in their work at the court of K'ang-hsi. A young Milan-born Jesuit-in-training then barely twenty years old, Giuseppe Castiglione, was selected for this very unusual assignment at the other end of the known world. Before being attracted to join the Society of Jesus in Genoa he had studied art under a famous artist of the day and shown not a little promise. But quite consciously putting all that behind him, he asked to enter the religious life, not with a view to becoming a priest but in the humble grade of a coadjutor brother.

Setting out for Lisbon, then the usual port of departure for the East, he found himself directed, once in Portugal, to travel to the university city of Coimbra, where he was detained for several whole years decorating the house chapel of the local Jesuits, painting portraits of the Portuguese royal children, and the like. It took an express order from the Father General of the Jesuits in Rome, Michele Tamburini, to whom he had written on 22nd February 1714, to obtain his release, enabling him, now at last a fully-fledged Jesuit, to set sail on 11th April of that year. In the company of Brother Costa he boarded the vessel "Our Lady of Hope" bound for Goa and points East. Meanwhile his confreres in Peking were impatiently awaiting the arrival of their new painter. Sailing into the harbour of Macao, for centuries the base for most missionary work in East Asia, on 10th July 1715, he eventually reached Peking just before Christmas, now in his twenty-seventh year.

From that time until the day of his death just over half a century later--17th July 1766-- he lived and worked uninterruptedly at the Court as painter and subsequently also as architect to three of the most enlightened Emperors of the Ch'ing dynasty: K'ang-hsi (康熙, died 1722), his son Yung-cheng (雍正, died 1735) and his nephew the long-lived Ch'ien-lung (乾隆, died 1795).

Taking the Chinese name Lang Shih-ning (郎世宁) he set to work with a will to master the secrets of Chinese brush-work and to learn to paint with oils on glass and mirrors, and in water-colours on silk. The rules of his art as he had learned them ten and more years before in Italy he had regretfully to set aside, having to adopt instead many new artistic values and techniques.

Accustomed to handle historical and religious subjects and to paint portraits, from now on he was called upon to paint subjects such as trees, flowers, fish, eagles and, above all, horses, dogs and everything connected with the battle and the hunt to which his Manchu patrons were so addicted. He did in fact paint some historical scenes, such as the vast panoramas depicting the military conquests of Emperor Ch'ien-lung, but had time for few pictures with religious themes. (1) Arnold Silcock in his discriminating work on Chinese art speaks of the opposition that Castiglione met with at first when he used "high lights and cast shadows, mathematical perspective and conventional well-filled background". (2)

His paintings of horses are justly famous. No less a person than Emperor Ch'ien-lung, himself a skilled painter, composed the following tribute to him in poetic form which was calligraphed on one of his paintings in 1743: "The Emperor asked Lang Shih-ning to paint for him this dragon-like horse. Henceforth it can no longer be said that no one can equal Ts'ao and Han (two painters famous for their paintings of horses)". (3) In another painting, an enormous panoramic scroll measuring 7.76 meters in length and now, like most of his surviving works, in the National Palace Museum in Taipei, he succeeded in painting a round hundred horses -- the celebrated "One Hundred Steeds" (百骏图) -- each in a different position or movement. (4) Aready as early as 1728, then, he had solved the technical problems of depicting a horse at full gallop, i.e. sixty-six years before the first European artists began to attempt it in the West.

**********

Castiglione's relations with his three imperial patrons are of interest and of some importance in the history both of Chinese art and of the Catholic Church in China, for the dedicated artist, toiling away year after year in his studio at the Court, never forgot that he was a missionary of Christ with a religious mission to perform, a religious message to communicate. Ch'ien-lung, although a savage persecutor of the Chinese Catholics and of many of those who cared for them, enjoyed lavishing the marks of his esteem and benevolence on his Jesuit friend, giving him gifts, sending him food from his table, even, to the astonishment of his courtiers, going to visit him almost every day and conversing familiarly with him. He sat to his foreign friend for more than a dozen portraits. Finally overcoming the modesty of the humble Brother who had so frequently declined such an honour, the Emperor insisted in 1750 on making him a mandarin of the third rank, fortunately a purely honorific title without any obligation of functioning as an official.

During the periodic outbursts of religious persecution, decreed or tolerated by the Emperor, Brother Joseph did not hesitate to intercede with his imperial visitor for his brethren and correligionists scattered throughout the imperial realm. From the year 1583 to 1616 Fr. Semedo counted no less than fifty-four different persecutions of the Catholics, most of them of local character. From then until the death of Brother Castiglione in 1766, there were almost as many more, five of them general persecutions. (5)

When Ch'ien-lung ascended the Dragon Throne in 1735 at the age of twenty-four, the missionaries were hopeful that he would be more tolerant towards Christianity than his father, but when he renewed the prohibitions, Castiglione was charged with presenting a petition to the Emperor in person, Now forty-seven, he had acquired great experience of Court affairs. A contemporary relates how on 3rd May 1736,

the Emperor came as usual to sit by him and watch him paint. The Brother laid down his brush and, suddenly assuming a sad expression, fell to his knees and after uttering a few words Sacred Law drew from his breast our Memorial wrapped in yellow silk. The eunuchs of the presence trembled at this Brother's sudacity, for he had concealed his purpose from them. However, the Emperor listened to him calmly and said to him in a kindly way: "I have not condemned your religion; I have simply forbidden the people of the Banners to embrace it". At the same time he signed to the eunuchs to receive the Memorial and turning to Castiglione he added: "I shall read it, do not worry, and go on painting". (6)

The persecution which had lasted two months abated, but every morning Castiglione was searched as he entered the palace to make sure he did not carry any similar documents. We know of at least two other occasions, in 1737 and in 1746, when he approached the Emperor for a similar purpose.

**********

We possess very few writings from the hand of Castiglione that would throw light on his inner thoughts during these long years. (7) However, Jean-Denis Attiret, a French Brother artist and junior contemporary of his in Peking, on occasion gives vent, with not a little "Gallic fire", to some of the frustrations which they faced together:

To be attached to a chain from day to day, to have time to say one's prayers scarcely even on Sundays and feast days, to paint almost nothing according to one's own taste or aptitudes, to meet a thousand other difficulties which it would take too long to explain -- all this would make me want to return to Europe if I did not believe that my brush were useful for the good of religion, to make the Emperor more favourable to the missionaries who preach it, and if I did not see paradise at the end of my trials and labour. That is the only thing that keeps me here, and the same is true for the other Europeans who are in the Emperor's service. (8)

Still, there were times when it was possible to introduce the subject of religion more directly or even when the Emperor himself raised such questions:

The Emperor, according to his habit, was one day in the studio of Brother Castiglione, who was working with several Chinese and Tartar painters. "Do Christians fear death?", asked the Emperor. The Brother replied: "Those who have lived a good life do not fear it. Those who lived an evil life fear it greatly." "But", said the Emperor, "how is one to know if one has lived a good or an evil life?" "One knows", said the Brother, "by the evidence of one's conscience."

The Emperor then addressed a Chinese painter. "Tell me the truth. I have seen you for a long time with the Europeans: have you embraced their religion?" The Chinese said that he was not a Christian; what had always stopped him was the incarnation of a god. Castiglione then intervened to give some explanations. "But this mystery", he added, "is developed at length in our religious books." Then the Emperor declared to the Chinese painter: "It is because you can- not read the European books that you have not become a Christian". Castiglione protested that such books existed in Chinese characters. Whereupon the Emperor concluded drily with two words addressed to Castiglione: Hua-pa -- Get on with your painting". (9)

**********

Brother Joseph was shortly to be called to face a still more demanding artistic challenge. In 1747 Ch'ien-lung decided to construct at his Summer Palace six miles north-west of Peking a whole complex of buildings in the European -- or at least Chinese-European -- style, a veritable Peking Versailles fit to rival Louis XIV 's Chinese dream of a "Trianon de porcelaine". So Castiglione, now aged 59, was summoned by imperial command to lay down his paintbrush and become "architect-in-ordinary" for this grandiose new venture at Yuan-ming-yuan (圆明园). Together with a French hydraulic engineer, Pere Michel Benoist, who was to install the very elaborate system of fountains, he set about drawing up the detailed plans required and supervised the actual building operations.

The resulting set of palaces, as described by a modern sinologist, would not have been unworthy of the "Sun King" himself:

It was a complex of pavilions, gardens, gates, canals, fountains, lakes, waterfalls, flower-beds, labyrinths, etc., bearing the name Hsi-yang-lou. Much use was made of marble and faience of different colours, yellow, green, bright and dark blue. The brilliantly-coloured roofs shimmered in the sunlight. The boundary wall did not lack even the fine red of Pompeii. The fronts of the buildings had columns, pilasters, balustrades, life-sized lions on Western pedistals and other architectural features in marble or a stone similar to Florentine "serena".

Contrary to the Chinese style, the buildings had several storeys. The columns and pilasters were decorated with Ionic and Corinthian capitals. The staircases and terraces were at times like those at the Farnese palace at Caprarola; at other times the steps and the gates were of bronze. For the windows first-quality glass from Venice or from France was used lavishly. Baroque art and that of the Italian Renaissance appeared in certain architectural forms. There were even pavilions destined for concerts of different types of music, Chinese, Tartar, Tibetan or Mongolian. (10)

What a pity that this splendid example of Italian architecture in China, unique of its type, was completely lost in the burning and destruction of the ancient Summer Palace, for which the Anglo-French troops led by Lord Elgin and General Cousin-Montauban were responsible in 1860.

**********

After the completion of this architectural wonder of truly royal dimensions in 1759, Bro-ther Joseph returned quietly to his studio and worked on at his paintings for 7 years more. But in 1766, when he had reached the venerable age of seventy-eight years, the time came for him to lay down his Chinese brush for the last time, to take leave of Ch'ien-lung and of his other Chinese and foreign friends and to join his Jesuit brethren of former days in the Chala cemetery. There he still rests, a mile or so from Peking. To the posthumous honours heaped on his tomb by a grateful Emperor (11) was added that of being included -- the sole Western painter to be given this supreme artistic accolade -- in the classic seventy-two chapter work, A History of Painting (历代画史汇传), composed by P'eng Jun-ts'an (彭蕴璨) in about 1800, although not printed until fifty years later. (12)

However, Brother Joseph's own greatest satisfaction at the close of his long life must surely have been to have helped to introduce to the "Middle Kingdom" not just a new Western artistic "dimension" but a new religious "perspective" destined to unite and even transcend East and West in the long centuries to come.

**********



  Bibliography

Cecile and Michel Beurdeley, Giuseppe Castiglione; A Jesuit Painter at the Court of the Chinese Emperors, London, 1972

P. Bornet, Notes sur l'evangelisation du Tcheli et de la Tartarie aux xvii et xviii siecles ..., Peking, 1937, pp. 14, 107,154

F. Bortone, I Gesuiti alla corte di Pechino 1601-1813, Rome, 1969, pp. 188, 206, 208

P. D'Elia, "Castiglione, Giuseppe", Enciclopedia Cattolica, Rome, vol. 3 (1949),columns 1038-1040

J.F. Kearney, "Brother Castiglione, Artist to Emperors", in: The Four Horsemen Ride Again, Shanghai, 1940, pp. 33-58

J. Krahl. China Missions in Crisis: Bishop Laimbeckhoven and His Times, 1738-1787, Rome, 1964, pp. 11-13, 81-89, 114-116, 199-202

L. Le Boisselier, "Decouverte d'unc Stele en l'honneur du Frere Castiglione", Relation de la Chine (Paris), October 1916

G.R. Loehr, Giuseppe Castiglione, 1688-1766, pittore di corte di Ch'ien-lung, Imperatore della Cina, Rome, 1940

G.R. Loehr, "Missionary Artists at the Manchu Court", Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society (London), vol. 34,1962-63

Archbishop Stanislaus LoKuang, Lecture on G. Castiglione on occasion of exhibition of Castiglione's paintings in Taipei, Central Daily News (Taipei), 16th May, 1969

J.G. Mahler, "Lang Shih-ning" in: B.S. Myers ed., Encyclopedia of Painting, New York, 1955, p. 110

Mikinosuke Ishida, "A Biographical Study of Giuseppe Castiglione", The Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko, No. 19, 1960

P. Pelliot, Les influences europeenes sur 1 'art chinois, a speech at the Musee Guimet in 1927, Paris, 1928

L. Pfister, Notices biographiques et bibliographiques sur les jesuites de l'ancienne mission de Chine 1552-1773, vol. 2,18th century, Shanghai, 1934, pp. 635-639

J. Joshua, "Chinese Art The Month 167 and a Jesuit Artist" (1936) pp. 324-333

A. H. Rowbotham, Missionary and Mandarin: The Jesuits at the Court of China. Berkeley, 1942 .

S. Schuler, "Bruder Giuseppe Castiglione, der bedeutendste Jesuitenmaler am kaiserlichen Hofe in China", Katholische Missionen 44 (1936) pp. 301-308

R. J. Verostko, "Gastiglione, Giuseppe", New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, vol. 3 (1967) p. 192

「郎世宁画集」，北京，1931。

刘乃义著，「郎世宁修士年谱」，天津，1944。

施惠淳著，刘赛眉译，「名画十骏犬的作者郎世宁」， 神学论集13 (1972)，页473-478。

  

In the detailed Catalogue of Castiglione's paintings drawn up by Cecile and Michel Beurdeley, pp. 163-191 of their sumptuous volume, only about a dozen of the 163 extant paintings deal with religious subjects. During a period of house-arrest under Yung-Cheng, Castiglione was able to decorate the new Church of St. Joseph, the Tung T'ang. Said to have been the finest in Peking, it was seriously damaged by fire in 1811 and later demolished, cf. Beurdeley, p. 33. Castiglione also did two large paintings for the Nan T'ang, "Constantine on the Point of Victory" and "The Triumph of Constantine" which have likewise perished, cf. Beurdeley, p. 93.
An Introduction to Chinese Art and History, London, 1947, p. 209.
Beurdeley, p. 165. On a portrait of himself as a young man Ch'ien-lung wrote the lines: "Shih-ning has no rival in the art of portraiture... He painted me in my young years. When I enter this room today with my white hair, I no longer know who this person is." Beurdeley, pp. 97-98.
In 1970 the Chinese postal authorities, to commemorate the International Symposium on ancient Chinese painters held in Taipei, issued a splendid set of Castiglione's horses, including his "Hundred Steeds" on a continuous series of five stamps, surely destined to become a collector's item. In 1972 some of his attractive dogs were similarly honoured. In 1978 a leading Hong Kong bank celebrated the Year of the Horse with a fine calendar of one of his three paintings of "Eight Horses".
Kearney, p. 50
Dominique Parrenin, in: Lettres edifiantes et curieuses ecrites des missions etrangeres. Memoires de la Chine, Toulouse, 1810, vol. 20, pp. 287 ff., quoted in Beurdeley, p. 39.
The Jesuit archives in Rome possess seven letters written by Castiglione between 1714 and 1733, usually to the Father General of the time. Beurdeley gives some extracts from these, pp. 154-155. He collaborated with Nien Hsi-yao a high Court official, on an adaptation into Chinese of Andrea Pozzo's Perspectiva Pictorum et Architectorum in 1729, cf. Beurdeley, p. 136.
Kearney, p. 45.
Jean-Gaspard Chanseaume, in a letter of 1746, in: Lettres edifiantes, vol. 23, p.88, quoted in Beurdeley, p. 44.
D'Elia, columns 1039-40.
His tombstone was found in the plain of Peking by a missionary, Father Ducarme, at the beginning of this century: "The inscription is flanked by two dragons. At the top are engraved the two characters which indicate that the stele was erected by order of the Emperor. The inscription recalls that the Emperor Ch'ien-lung, wishing to reward the services of the European Lang Shih-ning, erected this stone in his memory and gave him all the surrounding land." Cf. P. Ducarme , Bulletin catholique de Pekin, March 1915, quoted in Beurdeley, p. 60.
Many of Castiglione's paintings figure in the official catalogues of the paintings in the Imperial Palaces, the Shih-ch'u pao-chi (石渠宝笈), cf. Beurdeley, p. 161. The most recent edition, in 1979, of the standard Chinese encyclopedic dictionary, the Tz'u Hai, has the following expanded entry under "Lang Shih-ning": ... he arrived in China to do missionary work and was subsequently appointed Court painter to the Ch'ing Court. He took part in the architectural work of renovating and enlarging the Summer Palace (Yuan-ming-yuan). He excels in portraiture, flowers, birds, animals in movement and especially in painting horses. He combines harmoniously the Chinese and Western techniques of painting, paying attention to perspective and light and shade; however in his artistic work he mostly emphasizes the smal details and stops at the external form.