作者：黄婉仪 年份：1981

一 、前言

基督论是当代神学讨论的重心题目，也可以说，是一门仍待开拓发展的神学。以一个神学的门外汉来说，初上基督论这一课程，即使学的只是一些皮毛，说不得沾上什么边际，但已觉得基督论之博大高深，主要因为基督的一生：他的言行，奇迹，苦难，死亡，复活，显现，升天等，在在都是超越时代而又存在于时代中，而且包含的意义又是如许的深远，丰富，骤然间要处理和吸收如此多的资料，真的感到吃力，难以消化。这篇拙作虽然只涉及基督论中的其中一部份，但却因是基督论中最重要的部份 基督信仰的高峰就在祂的复活，一如保禄说的，如果基督没有复活，那连同我们的信仰也是假的。因此，面对一个如此严肃而又是涉及我们信仰核心的题目，总不能马虎应付老编一下。但问题是：可供参考的资料，手头上只有神学论集第36期，基督学文摘，复活这几木书，而其中资料最丰富的，要算基督学文摘和复活，但可惜同是译作之故，看起来就不免吃力了。

但是，无论如何吃力，也得勉为其难，唯有把从书本得来的资料整理一下，铺衍成篇。

二 、什么是复活

过去，对于耶稣的复活，我一直是这样想的：耶稣在苦难死亡之后，肉身复活，而我们也因此而得救恩，我从没有想到要深入的探讨复活的意义，事实上，也不懂得复活还有什么深刻的意义，反正最重要的是：我们得救了。教会把复活节视为一年之中最重要的纪念礼典，作为一个信徒，就是在复活节中有一个很长的假期，也应该收敛心神，不宜再有任何庆祝活动了。我从来了解的复活节就是这样的，而且也是抱着这种心态，一年一年的度过复活节。

然而，通过基督论的研究，教我更深入了悟复活之义，基督信仰最显着的特色，不是建基于教义和道理上，而是建立在这个历史性人物：基督身上。祂不单在历史中生活过，就是至今还生活在信徒中间，而教会也是因祂的复活而对祂产生独特的信仰，通过祂的复活，使我们深刻的体会：天主的确临现在人间，若然基督没有复活的话，那么祂留下给我们的言行教训，是没有多大意义的，也和其他的宗教信仰没有什么分别。我们试看看，在基督初死时，门徒那种沮丧的心情，与及目睹基督复活，在他们面前出现，他们那种兴奋，与及互相走报基督复活讯息那份急不及待的心情，于此可见我们信仰的不是已死的教义和规条，而是活生生的，基督复活的经验，教会就是如此一代一代的，把这深刻而真实的经验宣讲下来。也就是说，我们信仰的核心，必须是那死而复活的生命之主，而且直到今天，祂仍然生活在我们之中，要不然，我们的信仰和宣讲也都是假的。现在就让我们细看复活之意义。

A．比较宗教学上的复活

在人类历史中，当面对宇宙不停的运转，同时又觉察到四季荣枯的变化时，便不免兴起一种复活的观念，此一观念存在于不同的民族文化中。然而这种复活的观念却和宗教上的看法不同，因为前者是对宇宙自然的一种客观而外在的看法，是指大自然那种生生不息的蔓衍之力。而宗教上的复活，指的却是主体人类对神的启示底认识，觉察到人自新之力，源于上主。

B．犹太人复活之观念

a．出谷之后进入福地，以致达味皇朝建立期间：

在犹太人思想中，生命之再生，是在后期才有的观念，例如：

「现在，你们认清，只有我是那一位，除我以外，没有别的神，我使人死，也使人活，我击伤人，也加以治疗，谁也不能由我手中救出。」(申32：39)

「上主使人死，也使人活，使人降入阴府，也将人由阴府提出。」(撒上2：6)

这种观念：深信生命是天主使然，是和比较宗教学的看法不同，且这种看法是发自内心，由于犹太人过去曾有过无数动人的和天主交往的经验，他们深切了解世界是为人生活而创造的，而世界之潜能可否发挥，就全看在人上面了。然而，从出谷经验中，他们觉察到自己的败坏与衰颓，于是整个生命的世界，都沉沦在罪恶之中，世界的潜能不能发挥，疾病与死亡却接踵而来；而他们又视绝望和死亡的境况是一深埋于地下的地方 阴府，人就是通过疾病与罪恶而逐渐进入此深渊之中的。不过，他们又同时意识到，天地间的主宰是万能的，而且祂有着永生之力，他们因而对神有着一份信盼，深信神不曾因他们的不忠与败坏而离弃他们；反之，神必会把生命再赐给他们。

b．犹太人充军时期

在基督降生前二百年，犹太人对复活的看法就更深刻了，那是因为长期受异族统治下而孕育出来的观念，他们深信充满慈爱与权力的神，既然收纳人类为他的子民，那么必然会带给他们无限的希望，甚至使一些出人意表的事发生，让他们进入前所未有的丰盈的未来，例如当时许多犹太人为保卫自己的人民，免陷于敌手而光荣战死，于是犹太人便反省过来，从而深信神绝对不曾薄待这些英雄，剥夺他们参与这圆满未来的机会：

「那时，妳的人民，凡是名录在那书上的，都必得救，许多长眠于尘土中的人，要醒起来，有的要入于永生，有的要永远蒙辱受辱。贤明之士要发光有如穹苍的光辉，那些 引导多人归于正义的人，要永远发光如同星辰。」(达12：13)

「来，我们回到土土那里去，因为他撕碎了我们，也必要治愈，他打伤了我们，也必要包扎，两天后，他必使我们复生，第三天他必使我们兴起，生活在他的慈颜下。」(欧6：13)

在这里明显地见到，犹太人相信凡善渡此生的人，即使死了，这些亡者仍将会和其他的人一起进入预许的圆满未来，甚至肯定人类历史达至终极时，即使死了的人，会重新加入神的子民的大家庭中，复活的观念明显地由集体而走向个人，因此，总结来说，这时犹太人有关复活的观念大致有下列三特点：

1.相当物质化，强调躯体的再生。

2.人再得复活是世界末日时才会发生的事。

3.犹太人认为在世界末日时，所有会复活的人(善人)都一起复活。

尽管上述所说有关犹太人复活的观念，看起来是那样有理由，但和在基督复活以后体验而得的，相比之下，仍不免显得有点模糊不清，因此，在基督要来临的时侯，难怪犹太人把复活看成是他们民族的复兴。

C．基督的复活

如果我们把基督复活这一回事，视为灵魂重回肉身，于是肉身使复活了这样看待，那就末免太肤浅了，因为如果我们把一个死尸的复活，作为我们信仰的核心看待的话，那实在是太过于简单了。现在让我们再看一下，究竟基督的复活，包含了什么更丰盈的意义。

犹太人由过去那种蒙陇不清的复活观念中，进而经历过了基督的复活经验，至此，复活的意义再没有那样昭然若揭和明晰了。他们清楚地意识到及体会到，那预许给人类的救恩，由于基督的死而复活，得以实现了。因为基督的复活，彻底地把人类由罪恶的境况改变过来，祂的复活，带来了人类新的生命，耶稣就是众生的天主，这种观念，和犹太人传统的复活观念有着很大的分歧，总结成几点，就是：

1.复活后的生命，人不再受躯体的限制。

2.复活已在耶稣身上发生，不必等到世界末日，而且复活也在每 一个人心灵内开始。

3.耶稣是复活的初果，也只有藉着祂，人才能复活。

为了更深入地了解复活的讯息，我们不妨从福音与宗徒书信中，看初期教会如何把复活讯息宣讲及保留下来。

不过，在进入分析之前，我们首先要了解新约作品无论在成书年份及写作对像方面，都有着差异，例如保禄宗徒书信，是新约作品最先出现的，而其他福音，有些则迟至六十年后才完成，而这些作品写作的对象也各有不同，有些是为东方人写的，有些则是为西方人，新约作者面对如许复杂的背境，他们不得不按其对象的需要，及各自作者神学的观点而成书，因此，在记载上的差异自所难免，况且严格来说，新约不是历史书，所以也不必纯用历史的角度去看新约，最要紧的是，这些新约的作者，所要告诉我们的复活讯息，是一致的，尽管他们表达的方式不同。

三 、福音及宗徒书信对复活及显现奥迹之阐释

首先我们可以从这些史料中见到，初期教会对复活一事所关注的，并不是耶稣死后复活的过程，而是他们对耶稣复活所经验得的看法，他们深深领略到耶稣就是主，就是默西亚，他们对于复活不再局限于躯体的再生这一事上，而是看到了人类因基督复活而得以实现神为他们所订下的救恩计划一事上。而后来宗徒所要宣讲的，也正就是这一个得以实现的计划。

A．保禄有关复活的证言－－复活宣道

新约中有关复活最古老的记载，一般看来认为是格前15：3－5，而事实上，得前4：14，应较格前为古老，因为：

「我们若是信耶稣死了，也复活了，同样，也必信天主要领那些死于耶稣内的人同他一起来。」(得4：14)

这里的描写相当简单而直接，但看看格前：

「基督照经上记载的，为我们的罪死了，被埋葬了，且照经上记载的，第三天复活了，并且显现给刻法，以后显现给那十二位。」(格前15：3－5)

就知道保禄对复活之宣信加上演绎，扩展了其意义。而这些宣信条文，是初期教会所用以表达对复活的信仰。通常宣信的条文都非常独立，可以任意由上下文中抽出，其出现比新约作品还要早，保禄领受了这些传统而录入他的书信中，我们还可在保禄其他书信中：

罗1：3 斐2：6－11 罗10：9

见到其痕迹。此外在：

迦1：18 2：2 6：8

之中，更清楚说明，保禄如何接受复活的训悔。他在接受这些训悔后，也完全无讹地宣讲出来，他深信耶稣藉祂的复活，完全分享了神对世界的主权，因此基督实在是我们的审判者，上主和救世主。在格后4：5－6，保禄这样写道：

「因为我们不是宣传我们自己，而是宣传耶稣基督为主，我们只是因为基督的缘故，作了你们的奴仆。」

在保禄的信念中，神藉基督进入人类生命中，以致不得不认祂为主，为了祂而甘心作奴隶，但是人却因此而进入前所未有的圆满幅度中；而神的威能，就如黑暗中的皓光，照亮我们的心，保禄在大马士革途中的经验正说明这些。

B．福音中关于复活的记载－－复活故事的传统

在福音中，关于复活的记载，每一部福音都是以复活作收场，然而却没有一部福音把复活事件，写成实在或亲眼目睹的纪录；因此，耶稣复活本身就欠缺目击证人，虽然显现和空坟墓可以作为一种解释，但历来在这方面仍然有着不少的争论。

在讨论这些争端之前，我们不妨先看一下，四部福音的传统类型：

a．加里肋亚传统：

这个传统较早，属于宣道型，有显现的叙述以伯多禄为中心，且基本上指向加里肋亚，相信救恩并不止于犹太人，而是传扬到外邦人的世界。在这个传统中，福音的描述没有过去及将来，永远是现在时刻，故可以超越时代，由于是宣道型，故此具有宣信成份，玛窦福音及玛尔谷福音属于这一类型。

b．耶路撒冷传统：

这传统出现较晚，属于故事型，以叙事体写出，故此较为冗长，有关显现的叙述，更包含了各式各样的人物，且还提及其他传统所未曾提及空坟墓的事，目标是指向耶路撒冷，在描述上且采用过法，现在，将来的方式，这个传统重视礼仪及教义。路加福音及若望福音属于这一类型。

在末作个别福音的分析之先，我们先看看那些四福音共有而值得深入了解认识的问题。

C．复活故事中几黠值得了解的问题：

a．第三日：

在福音中，说耶稣在死后第三日复活，然而在福音的其他章节中，却写成三日后或过了第三天，第三天及三天以后，很明显地有着时间上的差异，但如果我们了解到福音是在作者们经历了「复活」经验后才成书的，因此，福音并不纯是历史的记述，反而是一种在追忆往事时对已发生事件底深刻意义的赋予，于是，第三天这句话便失去了意义，我们也不必视为某一个固定了的日子。相反，从救援的角度来看，我们发觉，第三天是传统上得救，消灾和扭转干坤的大日子，我们不难从古经中找到证据：

「两天后，他必使我们复生，第三天他必使我们兴起。」(欧6：2)

此外，又如亚巴郎准备在第三天奉献独生子时，看来他已放弃任何希望，而实际上却刚好相反，上主使一切成就了。(创22：4)而约瑟则是在第三天才把兄弟放出监狱的(创42：18)诸如此类的假证，在旧约中不知凡几，都在说明上主曾预许不会让以色列子民(义人)受窘超过三天，故第三天也就意味着上主同样地也插手于耶稣的复活事件中。而路加描述厄玛写途上两个失意的门徒，似乎也是把第三天看作上主处罚的期限，只是第三天过了这些要拯救以色列的先知却仍没有什么动静，因此他们才失望地回乡，然而就在这一刻，耶稣的显现，却证明救恩的行动已经开始，因此，第三天可说是救恩史的转捩点。

b．空坟墓：

(1) 四福音作者的记录在本质上的差异：

如前所述，四福音的作者对于复活清晨所发生的事：不单写成既非亲眼目睹，更且在本质上有着相当的差异，现列表如下：

谷 三位妇女 傅抹尸体 上坟后什么也没给人说 一位天使有说话
玛 两位妇女 观看墓地 跑去报告给门徒知道 一位天使有说话
路 三位妇女 傅抹尸体   两位天使有说话
若 一人 妇女重回坟墓   两位天使没有说话

事实上，这种差异只能说明福音的作者，没有意思给复活事件作历史性的报导，相反，他们相当重视如何以自己的神学观点去表达那复活的讯息，因此上述各种不同的描述，只是为把信仰的核心，用适当的言词来表达。

(2) 圣史对空坟墓的看法：

一直以来，人们都以为耶稣复活的证据，是因为发现他的墓穴空了，然而由研究新约的结果，我们得知，新约的作者并末以空的墓穴作为复活的凭证，主要是因为它本身不能证明基督的复活，不过，圣经的确这样提示给我们知道，坟墓是空了。因此，我们要弄清楚，把空坟墓描述出来的目的是什么？从以下的分析我们可以知道，圣史记载的重无，目的在表达：空坟墓是信仰的标记。

1. 谷I6：1－8

这是有关复活的最早记载，玛及路都是据谷而写成的。在这里，也有提及空坟墓的事实，但却未被引用为基督复活的证据，因为如果谷有此企图，必然会技巧地把此一细节描述出来，问题是谷把目睹墓穴空了的事实写在几个妇女身上。要知道，妇女的说话和证言，在当时的社会是不被重视的，但谷却这样把事件交代出来，显见初期教会并没有视空坟为复活的证明。

2. 玛28：13

在玛的记载中，提及犹太人谣言基督的尸体不见了，是因为门徒在夜间偷去的，这里可反证出坟墓是空了的事实，但是，再深一步看，当时不肯接受基督为救主的犹太人，他们心目中的复活，是和基督徒的看法不同的，这些犹太人视复活为肉躯的复生，如今墓穴的确空了，因此他们只得解释基督的尸体被偷走，不然便要承认基督肉躯的复活；犹太人既然对复活持有这样的看法，因此，当时一般基督徒，必然不会以空墓作为证明基督复活的证据，因为新约的内容不是为不信的人提供证据，而是为一切的人宣讲：复活带来充满生命这一喜讯而写的，因此，对空墓穴所能有的结论，就是神力所使然。

c．复活和再生：

基督的复活，指的并非死尸重新变成活人，因此，复活并非单指肉体的复活，虽然福音中的记载，有时相当张调复活后的基督仍带着十字架刑的伤痕，与及他怎样和弟子一起吃喝欢乐，好强调耶稣在复活前后都是同一个人，但这些只是为给外邦人一个较具体的解释而已，事实上，基督复活还有祂更深一层的意义，那就是在复活的基督身上完成了默启期望的末世伟业，因此，复活不是纯粹的历史现象，而是超越了历史，甚至是人类历史经验中所不能触及的境界。

而基督所完成的末世伟业，就在祂身上显示出来，那就是永恒的新生命，这新生命断不可用现世可朽壤的肉躯相比的，圣保禄在格前15：35－38，42：44，50，这几段文字中，有相当精辟的描述，因此我们如要获得这永恒的新生命，必须与基督同死，而且要立时开始。

d．显现

1. 显现的对象

在记述显现时，宣信类型及故事类型的对象也有着明显的差异，宣信条文中特别强调基督显现给伯多禄及十一门徒，故事类型中也强调伯多禄的地位，但却加多了妇女及其他的各式各样的人物，早期教会那样强调伯多禄的地位，主要是因为他是复活的主要证人，日后复活的讯息，也是由伯多禄及其门徒传扬开去的，因此伯多禄成了教会团结的核心，况且耶稣大多数在团体中显现，也反映教会对团体的重要性。

2. 显现的时空

有关耶稣显现的地点，玛窦及玛尔各重点是放在加里肋亚，及圣路加和若望时，则重点指向耶路撒冷，至于时间方面，也有显着的差异，一如前所述，这些并非是复活的主要证据，而是圣史各按其笔法以表达复活讯息，故不拟在此再作细论。

3. 显现本身之意义

对于耶稣的显现，新约的宣信中写成是宗徒们 「看见」了主，而在希腊文中，「看见」有着三种译法：

1.第一被动式：耶稣被看见了，行动的主体是宗徒们。

2.第二被动式：这译法有解释天主的行动的意味，耶稣被显现出来。

3.中间式：耶稣显示了祂自己，行动的主体是耶稣基督自己。

究竟宗徒们看见了复活的主这句话该如何解释？值得采用的是第二和第三种译法。按斐3：12的描写，这显现的启示包含了基督使人隶属于祂自己的意思，因此，使宗徒可以和基督作位格交往，了解复活的意义。而更深入的解释，则可参考迦拉达书第一章：保禄对基督的启示，看成是末世性事件，就是说，天主把末世性的启示，预先呈现给门徒知道，而格后4：16也作类似的描写：「因为那吩咐先从黑暗中照耀的天主，曾经照耀在我们心中，为使我们以那在基督的面貌上，所闪耀的天主的光荣的知识，来光照别人。」因此，末世性的显现，就是钉在十字架上的那一位，从天主的光荣中被看见了 在耶稣基督身上，已显出天主的光荣。

福音的描写则较为平白，门徒在见到复活的基督，由惊疑害怕，进而喜乐过来，最后则是基督光荣显现的时刻，一如玛窦所写的：

「天主地下的一切权柄都交给了我，所以你们要去使万民成为门徒，因父及子及圣神之名给他们授洗，教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切。看，我同你们天父在一起，直到今世的终结。」(玛28：16－20)

在这之后，基督才隐没，隐没在神性的境界中。

D．四福音对复活显现奥迹之表达

a．加里肋亚类型

1. 玛尔谷福音16：1－8；4－20

在这段文字的描写中，出现许多矛盾的地方，例如：

妇女上坟为给尸体敷抹香油，然而这是不可能的，因为三天后才敷抹，违反当地的习俗，也不符合巴勒斯坦炎热的气侯。
妇女在安葬耶稣时，一直留意着放置尸体的地方，断没有理由忽略那块堵塞洞穴的大石，然而她们居然要到路上才发觉。
光暗，动静的对比：　 例如安息日一过(光)，与墓穴的情况(暗)相比。妇女的说话(动)，与妇女被景像惊吓，以致说不出话来(静)相比，尸体不在与复活的耶稣作对比。
天使叫妇女回去报告喜讯，但是妇女却因为太过害怕了，以致什么话也说不出来。
玛尔谷这样的彷佛把复活事件描写起与世界无关，只是令妇女惊骇的一件事吧了，而且又把一切矛盾的，不可发生的事情放在一起，究竟玛尔谷的用意何在呢？

原来，作者这样的描写，是为了引起我们的探究，因为玛尔谷写作的对象是那些已接受了信仰的人，他们已相信基督复活的事实，因此他着重把复活的意义表达出来，他要说明的是复活就是整个信仰的高峰，因为天主的超越性，祂使一切不可成就的，都成就了，妇女之所以失责，就是面对复活这件不可思议和玄妙奥秘的事前，只能自觉自己的渺小。此外复活出诸天使之口，也是要说明，复活这一件高峰事件并非是人力所能知，非得由神启示不可，故此谷没有强调尸体失踪之事实，盖用这种方式证明基督复活，未免流入人理性思维所能达的境界。

2. 玛窦福音28：1－26

玛窦福音具有反犹太人意识，从空坟墓的描述即可得知。玛窦强调耶稣不单是复活了的主，也是新的梅瑟，而这新梅瑟，是天主胜利的表现。玛窦以27：57－66及28：11－20两段作对比。

1. 在27：57－60中

a. 先以好人：富人若瑟及妇女与坏人比拉多、司祭长及法利赛人作对比。

2. 在28：11－20中

b. 士兵因耶稣失踪前来报导，同祭长则教士兵造谣，和天使之出现说出耶稣复活之事实作对比。

c. 士兵的怕得要死和要对墓，与妇女的喜乐作对比。

此外，玛窦更把梅瑟在西乃山上见天主，和耶稣之山中圣训及山中显形相比，点出耶稣就是旧约中梅瑟的复现，而且成功地带领新的以色列子民出谷，得新生命，建立新天新地。

b．耶路撒冷类型

3. 路加福音24：36－53

路加的神学是耶路撒冷神学，他是以耶京作为救恩的中心，因此在福音中，经常提及此处，这是路加对救恩史的看法，而救恩的事实，就是天主爱人的愿望，这一愿望，直至基督死亡复活才达至高峰，也藉着祂，神再赐给世界创造的圆满能力，但仍需人的参与，神的赐与才能成就，故人必须立即行动，承坦传扬福音的使命，而救恩就是由耶京开始，直至天下万邦。

又因路加写作的对象是希腊化了的犹太人，所以刻意描写复活后的基督形体，目的是使信徒相信复活后的基督是真实的人，而非灵魂。至于在厄玛乌路上门徒转变之描写，也是路加所持有的。在这里，路加同时想表达一个信念，那就是：复活后的基督，已被提升至与神分享相同权能的地位，也正由于他，所有的人生命再得丰盈，路加笔下的门徒，在见到耶稣复活升天后，个个都是皆大欢喜的返回耶路撒冷。因此，路加认识到的，复活的主就是生命的。

4. 若望20：1－31

若望有关复活的描写，基本土是在两个层面上发展的：

1. 记载宗徒与复活了的耶稣相遇，这相遇使宗徒由悲戚惶惑变为喜乐及深信不疑，这里要表明的是，宗徒的内心转变，是因为接受基督那伟大而慑人的真理之后，这里，路加和若望，都想指出，基督不仅改变人的外在，同时也是一种深入内心的转变。

2. 描写耶稣和宗徒进食，及被多默触摸的事件来证明当日宗徒所见的是一个真实的人，而显现给多默是若望所独有的描写，这种真实的人的论调是较后期才发展成的，因若及路之写作对象均是已受希腊文化熏陶的人，因此必须有充份的证据，才能使他们信服，不过，若望对于多默的信仰，有更深入的反映，若望认为信仰包括信靠及依赖，因此，每一个人都要超越摸到才信的障碍。

E．格林多教会对复活的误解及保禄的释疑：

所以保禄不怨其烦的说：

1. 物体有不同本质(形体或躯体)，所以有鱼体，兽体等。(格前15：36－41)

2. 本质会改变：成长的植物，即与原来的种子不同。(格前15：37)

此外，保禄更说明：天主在创造人时，赐给人生命，但这生命是短暂的，终要归于尘土，但是神在新的创造之中，通过基督的死亡复活，却要把永生的生命赐给人。(见格前15：42－44)

四 、后语

感谢天主！祂藉耶稣基督的苦难，死亡和复活，再次把祂的恩宠临现人间，又因为初期教会对于复活基督那种深刻的经验，因而躯使宗徒到处宣讲，甚至不惜牺牲性命，把这一个喜讯向全人类报导开来，我们不单认识这个大喜讯，更因着历史的累积及前人经验的分享，我们得以更丰盈地分享这一复活的果实。复活就是人类同基督的爱情，把祂的苦难化为换取永生的力量。同时，复活也是充满希望的，因为人类视死亡为绝望之事时，天主却石破天惊地扭转干坤，把永生的希望再赐予给我们，在面对复活后，享有无比神权威严的基督，我们根本什么也不能做，唯一可以做的，就是俯伏朝拜，而且也一如圣保禄在大马士革的经验以后，努力宣扬福音，因为若 「我不宣扬福音，我就有祸了」。

作者：刘赛眉 年份：1981

沉 默(1)

这部曾经吸引了无数读者的公教小说－－沉默(Silence)，乃由日本名作家远藤周作(Shusaku Endo)所着。沉默已翻译成多种文字，畅销欧、美、亚洲。远比之另一部作品：耶稣的生涯(The Life of Christ)，虽亦甚为动人，却不及沉默一书在神修上之深度。六年前笔者曾细读的中译本。六年后，恰于当今教宗访日本之际，笔者偶而重读沉默的英译本。在一份关怀多难的中国教会的心情下，重读这部小说，引发起一连串崭新的领悟。沉默的故事发生在日本的多难之秋。十七世纪的天主教会往日本遭受到史无前例的厄运。本故事不仅揭示了由西方传入的基督宗教与日本文化的冲突，并启开了人性「强」与「弱」的奥秘，也答覆了一个由圣经中的约伯直至今日科学倡明的社会仍困扰着基督徒良心的问题，就是：为何善人要受苦，为何天主对善人的苦难袖手旁观？

一 、故事的背景：

本故事主要在叙述两位葡籍耶稣会士在日本的秘密传教活动。故事发生在公元十七世纪长崎及其邻近村落。自鸟原叛乱(Shimabara Rebellion 1637－1638)以后，由于日本的统治者怀疑葡萄牙人曾牵涉在此次的叛乱中，故决定封锁一切港口，拒绝与任何国家经商。中国与荷兰虽受到特殊的待遇，但仍免不了严格之搜查。当时，长崎是中、荷、日贸易之主要港口。自从一六三八年，日本下封锁令之后，所有的外籍传教士不得其门而入，他们只能用偷渡的方式，躲在荷兰及中国的商船内混入日本境内从事牧养天主子民的秘密活动。由于日本政府的强烈反对天主教，在十七世纪时，天主教会全然成为 「地下教会」，所有的基督徒皆隐藏自己的身份，不敢公然披露，这就是日本历史上有名的「隐藏的基督徒」(hidden Christians)的时代。沉默的故事就是发生在这些hidden Christians中间。

二、故事简介：

本故事是作者按照一些史实而虚构出来的。但这故事所引发起的问题却是真实的信仰及伦理问题。

本小说由结构观之可分为两部份。第一部份由第一章至第四章，主要在描述两位葡籍耶稣会士潜入日本，展开秘密的传教活动。这两位会士名为塞巴斯汀、罗洛里哥(Sebastian Rodiques) (2) 及佛朗西斯．贾贝(Franciso Garrape) (3)

经历了许多风险，这两位司铎藉着日人吉次郎(Kichijiro) 的引路，得与日本的地下教会接触。他们隐匿于山舍中，暗地里施行圣事及训诲。可惜，这条基督徒的村落不久为日本的统治者所发现，两位司铎被迫离开这村落。第二部份由第五章开始，这一部份完全集中在罗洛里哥(Rodigues) 的遭遇上。罗洛里哥终于被吉次郎所出卖，落在井上的手中。当罗洛里哥落网后，他同时揭开了他的神学老师费雷拉(Ferreira) 的背教之谜。为了这位老师，他曾翻山越岭，远踄重洋来到了日本，想打听出这位老师的下落。当罗洛里哥知道了他心爱的老师不但已背教，而且成为使他背教的线人时，他心里既憎恨又同情。但无论如何，最后他也走上了他老师所走过的道路，遭受若与老师一样的命运。罗洛里哥终于也背数了。

三 、故事的主题：

按照笔者的了解，沉默的故事不断围绕着几个中心的问题在发展。这些问题就是，为何天上对善人的苦难沉默不言？的确，天主的沉默有时是如此之深，祂「置若罔闻」的熊度几乎根本地动摇了人对「天主存在」的基本信仰。到氏天主存在否？若祂存在，祂是否真正地关怀人类的痛苦？一个仁慈良善的天左怎可能让不义和邪恶如此猖獗地摧残善良的百姓？在沉默的小说里，上述的问题重覆地出现。罗洛里哥终于在种种的折磨及痛苦的经验中找到了「天主沉默」的答案。这位「背教的保禄」(日本人给予这位司铎的别号)了解到，欲寻得上述问题的答案不能经由理性的分析，须由一颗在信与爱，在痛苦中净化了的心去领怡。在折磨及痛苦中净化了的罗洛里哥瞭解到天主从未对他缄默。天主常与他同在，然而只有一颗净化了的爱心方能听懂天主这强而有力的言语 沉默。天主的道与人的道不同。天主的通人无法预测，亦梦想不到。天主的沉默是一种强烈的爱情之言，这言语只有那全心全灵爱祂在万有之上的人才能参透其中的奥义。天主不仅居在善人与无辜者之内，而且与他们一同受苦。

爱者永远不会要求所爱者为他移去所有的困难与痛苦，但求所爱者与他在困难与痛苦中同在。如果爱者知道所爱者在困难与痛苦中支持着他，与他共渡难关，痛苦与困难又算得是什么？这位司铎罗洛里哥对天主的爱心已在痛苦中得到净化。只有一颗净化了爱心才能刺透天主沉默的奥秘。纵然受到他愿意为他们舍掉生命的日本人所唾弃，纵然受到天主教会的不谅解与拒绝，这一切为那净化了的心都不重要了，最重要的是他知道天主了解他在踩踏圣像时脚下和内心的疼痛而没有舍弃他。

这位在折磨中净化了的司铎，了解到在世间并没有所谓「强」与「弱」。只要天主在人的软弱内，弱者亦强。强者与弱者同样是「殉道者」，只是天主要求他们自我牺牲的方式不同罢了。「谁能断言弱者不比强者更受苦？」(4) 一颗在苦难中净化了的心更有能力无私地爱：「他(罗洛里哥)现在以另一种与前不同的方式来爱他的天主。一切事情发生到如今都是为使到这司铎达到这样(无我)的爱」(5)。作者远藤周作用了许多 「反讽」(IRONY) 的手法，说出了这端真理：只有一颗完全净化了的爱心才能领悟天主沉默的奥秘。

(1) 天主的道与人的道

当罗洛里哥在葡萄牙的时候，他曾经愿要到日本传教，度一个与日本人一模一样的生活，成为日本人，取一个日本的名字，终老于日本。当故事接近尾声之时，读者可见天主满全了这位传教士的初衷。但天主成全他的心愿的方式是地做梦也不会想到的。事实上，他亦不曾如此去想和去祈求，因为这方式太痛苦了。井上赐给了他一个日本的名字，而且也赐给了他一些他根本不想去要的东西(别人的妻儿)。从此，罗洛里哥的名字逐渐为人所忘记，留下来的只是一个原本不是他的日本名字「冈田三右卫门」，以及一个耻辱的别号「背教的保禄」。他果然隶属于这个国家，永远不能重返自己的国土，日本的土地长埋了他的原名及躯体。他曾渴望成为一位殉道者，一如茂吉(Mokichi)及一藏(Ichizo)。事实上，天主要他接受的殉道方式比茂吉与一藏的方式更困难、更痛楚。他的殉道方式不但没有名誉与光彩，而且所忍受的内心痛苦与折磨比肉躯的殉道更长久、更可怕。他被迫去做一切相反自己意愿的事。有什么比被压迫用言语、用行动、用文字去攻击自己所心爱的事情与朋友更痛苦？罗洛里哥被强迫去相反他愿意效忠的教会，被迫去践踏一张他曾朝夕思慕的面容，被迫用文字去攻击他所深信的天主。倘若设身处地的细想，读者不难体会这种内在痛苦的剧烈。然而，就在这撕裂人心的痛楚中，这位司铎对天主以及对人的爱得到了净化。他现在活着不为什么，甚至不为自己的理想，而是彻底地只为天主而活。因此，「世间并没有强者与弱者，谁敢断言弱者不比强者更受苦？」

正如耶稣基督死于完全被遗弃之中，这位司铎亦死于寂寂无闻中。在人间的历史里，除了留下一个耻辱的背教之名以及一个原来不属于他的日本名字以外，他什么也没有了 没有名誉、没有光彩、为日本人所摈斥(为了这些日本人他曾拋下了家园，受尽了痛苦)，为教会所弃绝(为了效忠这教会他曾冒险来到异域传扬她的福音)。倘若说天主不存在于司铎的心中，岂非他的一生太可悲了吗？因此，这司铎说，「天主并没有沉默，纵然祂沉默，我的生命直到今天也已经为发言了」。

(2) 基督的脸(Christ's Face)

「基督的脸」这个主题贯穿着整部小说。基督的面容在罗洛里哥的心中不断地改变。在他到达日本以前，年青的司铎心中所爱慕的是基督那张既光荣又俊美，充满神采的面容。基督英武有力的面孔曾是罗洛里哥一切力量的泉源。但当他被迫踩踏在基督的脸上的时候，他立刻了解到他自己是何等的软弱与丑陋，他并不比吉次郎好了多少。当司铎举脚践踏在基督的脸上时，他心中那张光荣俊美的脸突然变为凹陷、疲乏不堪的倦容。经众人踩踏之后，基督的脸已变得模糊、疲惫、难看。然而正是这张筋疲力倦、毫无俊美与光华的脸向这司铎启示了人间最美妙的东西 基督无我与可受伤的爱心。这张承受了千千万万次践踏与伤害的脸对这位司铎说：「踏吧！踏吧！我正是为此而存在！」作者用一种反讽的手法暗示出基督美丽的内心更在祂疲惫、凹陷、受伤、和毫无光彩的面容中显示出来。

一如耶稣基督、这位司铎也放弃了他从前那张精力充沛、圣洁、并充满光彩的脸，而接受了自己那张充满软弱、疲乏的「丑」脸。在这位司铎接受了自己软弱丑脸之后，他开始了解到，天主从未曾对他沉默，天主在他内与他一起接纳了他自己这张软弱和没有光华的丑脸。这位接纳了自己软弱的脸的司铎，现在有能力真正地接纳和宽恕那张日本人的丑脸 吉次郎。他曾在航向日本的船上轻视过这张软弱的日本面孔，在他被出卖的那一刻，他也曾憎恨及拒绝过这张日本的面孔。但当罗洛里哥发现他和吉次郎同样软弱的时候，他能够在告解圣事中真正说出了宽赦之言:「不是人能够判断，天主比任何人更瞭解我们的软弱」(6)。教会可以把绝他为真正的天主教司铎，他的同道也可以排除他，但是在十七世纪日本的土地上，他是唯一的司铎，他行了只有司铎才能行的赦罪圣事，他也真正地从内心宽赦了这张日本的丑脸。这也是作者「反讽」的手法之一。

沉默这部小说，自问世以来曾引起广大群众的争论，其争论的焦点，往往不在「天主的沉默」这个问题上，而在罗洛里哥的背教行为上。接照笔者的浅见，世上许多事情从外表行来都是相对的。至于对与不对和是非黑白的伦理判断，有时并非如此清楚。小说中有些关乎信仰与伦理的问题，我们不能只凭「脑袋」去解决、去推埋，而必须用「心」去领悟。就如「禅机」，必须用一颗感应的心去参悟。总而言之，「爱心」本身是最好的「判断」，天主的判断与人的判断往往背道而驰。茹达斯得救与否为我们仍是一个谜，罗洛里哥是否真正地背教?我们的判断也只在表而，因为这位司铎曾说:「我或许是背弃了教会，出卖了弟兄，但我从末出卖过主。」笔者认为全书最精采的一段话是在故事的末尾，现且录下原文(英译本):最后，笔者愿提出井上所提出的问题作为本文的结束。井上对罗洛里哥说基督宗教根本不适合日本的土壤，「你(罗洛里哥)所带来日本的基督教已在日本的文化中变了型，变成了一种怪物」(7)。到底，在本地化的过程中，基督的福音如何才能在一个文化中生根柚基，而又不致于受某文化的堕落因素所歪曲?此外，这小说中所引发的许多信仰与伦理的问题都会使人联想到目前正处于未安定的状态中的中国教会。对于这一点笔者不欲发挥下去，有待读者细读沉默一书后自己去联想，去领悟。



1.Shusaku Endo, Silence, New York, 1969.
2.人名的中译用「沉默」的中译本。远藤周作著、朱佩兰译，沉默，道声出版社，一九七二年第二版。
3.同上
4.见　沉默　英译本　页二八五。
5.见　沉默　英译本　页二八六。
6.见　沉默　英译本　页二八四。
7.同上 页二八二。

作者：麦景鸿 年份：1981

导言

自人类以来，敬天祭神的行为即随之而生，而此等行为，随着人类的文明进步，或历史的演进而产生变化。任何新的事物必有其来源或出处，是故新的事物，以古旧的过去作为基础。

教会礼仪的演进约可分为两大阶段，从初期教会至现在，以脱利腾大公会议为转捩点(注1)。此会议的召开是在一五四五年十二月，目的是为安定当时因改革者提出改革而带来的混乱，会议内容主要探讨的，包括圣经、教义、圣事及教会的传统等等(注2)。

在此会议前，西方教会往不同的地方，礼仪上有不同的仪式，但礼仪的程序和基本结构相同，而自此会议后，西方教会决定以罗马礼仪为主。第二届梵蒂冈大公会议可说是敬会礼仪另一个转捩点，给教会开拓另一新纪元。梵二大公会议为了「日渐加强信友的基督化生活，使可以改变的制度更适应我们现代的需要，促进一切有利于信仰基督人士的合一，巩固一切召叫众人加入教会的途径，因而自信改革发展礼仪，亦为其特殊的任务。」(礼仪宪章1)

「礼仪宪章」颁布于一九六二年十二月四日，内容涉及到各种直接或间接与礼仪生活，产生关系的各种指示。特别对七件圣事作了一连串的改革，在形式、经文及礼节各方面有了不少的变动，目的在使现代人更有效地建设教会与敬礼天主。神圣公议会诸位教长的苦心与期望是否得到实现，我们可从 「礼仪宪章的颁布至现在，因礼仪生活的转变给予其他不同程度的信仰生活所带来的革新，可以约略见到。

概括来说，教会的礼仪，是由简单至复杂，再由复杂至简单。这的确是个重要的变化。或可说，教会是在复古。所谓复古，并不是在礼仪的动作、衣饰、布置或规矩上仿效及抄袭过去，而是在精神生活上，恢复初期教会的精神，直追初期教会怎样经验基督的死亡与复活，怎样生活出教会为一救恩团体，一个充满圣神的团体。

虽然有关初期教会生活的文件不多，特别是礼仪生活方面，本人却愿意尝试探讨一篇约在等三世纪初期的文章 希坡利忒的「宗徒传统」。这篇文章可算是这时期较详尽的记载了有关当时礼仪的进行程序和一般教友生活规程。希望能从中得到一些提示，作为我们现在礼仪与团体生活的警醒。

作者生平及历史背境

希坡利忒生于公元一七O年，出生地点不详，死于公元二三五或二三六年(注3)。他生活二世纪末叶至三世纪初。当时教会的生活状况，一般来说与前两世纪比较起来是大不相同的。那时，教会笼罩在凄风苦雨中，教会仍然受到政府的剧烈磨难，教难持续不断，可说是蒙受了沉重的打击，在这阶段内教会一面向外传教，一面从事组织。第三世纪的教会，不单与当时政府抗衡，同时教会也在惊涛骇浪中坚定地建设起来。

在政治方面，除了当政者对教会攻击及迫害之外，在思想学术方面，有很多不同宗教的上义复兴及诞生。特别是那些宗教哲学潮流，也不断地冲击教会的信仰，当时教会内部，也发生了若干纷扰，包括有当时极负盛名的若干教父。(注4)

希坡利忒可算是被埋在地下很久的人物，在一五五一年(注5)才在他的公墓内，寻获一个他坐着的浑身像，像的座位上刻着他的着作目录。他的作品包括圣经注疏、护教着作、讲道的、辩证的、还有信条、历史、经典及诗歌等作品。

约二一二年时，奥利振到罗马，曾听过他的一次演讲，当时他可说是罗马的一个大名鼎鼎的博学司铎。(注6)

他的经典作品精华就是「宗徒传统」，这卷文献早已闻名，一八九一年被称为埃及教会法律，原文已失去，现时剩下的，只有高德、爱西屋皮亚，和亚利伯这几个近东地区的译文。(注7)它是属于教会初期古老的法律集，批判学者在研究此等文献时，常弄得茫无头绪，因为很多地方因残缺不全，以至不能连接，作清晰的研究。

这部着作很多学者认为它对文学和道学都有关系，除此之外，「宗徒传统」在礼仪方面也给我们揭示了初期教会，在礼仪生活的一些片断。为研究礼仪发展史的学者提供了极珍贵的资料。这文献记述的是罗玛礼仪，它先后叙述祝圣主教、司铎及执事的礼仪。而且还援引了若干冗长的礼仪经文，并论及精修者、寡妇、读圣经者、贞女、助理执事、治病神思、日课的时辰、祈祷、圣洗、大斋、爱餐(agape)、呈献鲜果、复活节大斋，圣体及祈祷的时刻等等。至于该文章的着作时期，学者至今仍未能予以确定，仍须学者们下一番努力。



注１：邹保禄，「教会礼仪简史」，神学论集，27期，I976，页一一一。

注２：New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 14. PP. 271－278

注３：New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 6. PP. 1139－1141

注４：吴应枫译，教父学大纲(卷一)，光启出版社，民国六十四年，页一六五。

注５：New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 6. PP. 1139－1141

注６：吴应枫译，教父学大纲(卷一)，光启出版社，民国六十四年，页二一三。

注７：同上，页二一七。

「宗徒传统」(注8)

大纲

第一章至第十四章：记载有关晋升神职礼仪，教会内各种职务人员被拣选的条件、服务的范围及内容。

第十五章至二十一章：慕道者培育过程，及入教的程序。 以上两段的记述，即由第一至第二十一章，有较为系统的记载，并对各事物有清晰的描述。从第二十二章开始至第四十二章，记述的事物就失去了有次序的分类排列。

主要内容

第22、24、34、39章：执事的职务。 第35、41、42章：私人祈祷的时间及守则。 第37、38章：对圣体，圣血的尊崇。 详细内容的阐述，为避免冗长及因其内容重要性不大而略去部份，包括23至32章及40章。

第一章 宗徒传统

天主由祂上座之处，按照祂的旨意，赐下各种恩宠，为避免信者走入歧路。并能跟随着传统的信仰，按照训导能保持信仰的内容，徒徙使信仰生活避免错误，及避免误解和无知。圣神在教会内指导一切，给予完满的恩宠为使教会的信仰正确无误。

第二章 关于主教

被祝圣的主教，应由整个团体所拣选及作出决定，并为大家所接纳。晋升礼仪必须在全体信众前举行。在主日，所有主教、司铎团及教友聚集。全体静默，在内心祈祷呼求圣神降临，其中一位参与礼仪的主教，被团体要求为被晋升者覆手及祈祷，念以下的经文说：

第三章 晋升主教的祷词

我们主基督的父，富于慈悲的天父，你从不间断地垂顾教会，称通晓一切，预知将来。从亚巴郎开始，称已召选司祭，为使你的圣所不缺乏行祭礼的人，从起初你就愿意藉着那些被你所拣选的人得到光荣。现在请赐下你精神的力量，这是你藉着你的圣子，我们的主基督，给予诸位圣宗徒的。为使他们能在每一地方建立教会，为不停地赞美光荣你的圣名。通晓众人内心的天父，求使你所拣选的仆人，喂养及培育你的羊群，这位堪当在你面前的大司祭，以圣教会名义向你呈上礼品，并日夜不停地执行这职务。并因大司祭的神恩，因你所定的诫命而得到赦罪的权柄，按照你的圣意订立规程。得到你给予众宗徒解放被束缚者的力量，及能以纯洁平安的心向你呈上馨香而能使你慰悦的祭品。藉着你的子耶稣基督，因着祂的光辉与荣耀属于你、及在教会内的圣神，从现在直到永远。亚孟。

第四章　平安礼及祭献

祝圣经文后，新的主教与参礼者行平安礼，随后执事献上礼品，新的主教在礼品上覆手、念一篇经文(感恩经)感谢说：愿主与你们同在。

信众答：也与妳的心灵同在。

主教说：请举心向上。

信众答：我们全心归向上主。

主教说：让我们感谢主。

信众答：这是理所当然的。

主教继续说： 天主，我们感谢你，藉着你的爱子耶稣基督，祂是你按你的旨意在最后时期给予我们的救援与赎罪者。祂是与你同在的圣言，藉着祂你创造了一切，并因祂而得到喜乐，你派遣祂从天上降至贞女的胎中，藉圣神及贞女的胎，得到肉躯降生，宣布祂是你的圣子，为满全你的意愿，带给你神经的子民。当祂受难时仲开双手，使信仰你的人不受痛苦的束缚。

祂被出卖而受痛苦，但祂却摧毁了死亡，解除了魔鬼的锁炼，下降阴府，在光荣中宣示复活，祂拿起面饱向你感谢说：你们拿去吃，这是我的身体，是为你们而分开。同样拿起爵杯说：这是我的血，为你们而倾流。你们这样做，是为纪念我。

纪念祂的死亡与复活，我们向你献上这面饱和爵杯，我们感谢你，因为便你使我们能在你面前举行祭祀。我们也求你派遣圣神临于你圣教会的祭献，藉圣神的丰盈而使参礼者及整个教会合而为一，持守真理的力量。我们赞美及光荣你，藉着你的子耶稣基督，因为祂的光辉及荣誉归于你，及教会内的圣神，直到永远。亚孟。

第五章 关于呈献「油」 (注9)

若信友带着油前来，呈献给主教，则接纳的仪式和接纳饼酒的奉献一样，但不是照样按字说出经文，只是说：天主，请圣化此油，使藉着傅油礼而领受此油的人得到圣化(注10)，同时此油也在君王、司祭及先知的身上。使饮用此油的人得到力量，藉傅油礼领受此油的人得到健康。

第六章 呈献乳酪及橄榄

若信友呈献乳酪及橄榄。主教祈祷说：请圣化这些溶合在一起的奶，使能溶合我们在你的爱内，使这些橄榄不是从你的甘甜中被分离。如在你的生命树里，使仰望你的人也能分受丰盛的甘美。

在每次祝福的祈祷中必须说：光荣归于你天父、及子，及在圣教会内的圣神，从现在直至无远。亚孟。

第七章 关于司铎

晋升司铎的时候，主教必须在晋升者头上覆手，其他神父也同样做。主教祈祷说：天主，父，我们的主耶稣基督的父，请垂顾你这位仆人。求你给予他司铎的神恩，也赐予他司铎的明辨，以一个纯洁的心协助管理你的子民，正如你垂顾选民，授命梅瑟拣选司祭，你使他充满圣神而成为你的仆人一样。现在，至，请把恩纯的圣神充沛我们，使我们堪当以一个忠信及纯朴的心侍奉你。藉着你的子耶稣基督，因着他光辉和权威属于你，及教会内的圣神，直到永远。亚孟。

第八章 关于执事

领受执事圣职的人选，如前面所说的，是被众信友拣选及接纳。在晋升礼仪中，只有主教行覆手礼。因为执事不是晋升为司铎，所以参礼的司铎不用行覆手礼，执事是主教的服务员，应听从主教所指派的工作。因为他没有领受司铎的神恩，为此缘故，只有主教覆手，而在晋铎礼仪中，司铎团也为新司铎覆手，因为新司铎分享同一的神恩。但司铎的职权也是接受而来的，没有授予的能力，为此司铎不能祝圣任何神职，施行授予圣职礼仪。

主教在执事前诵念经文说：天主，万物的创造者，你用圣言安排秩序；我们的主耶稣基督的父，你派遣你的圣子按照你的旨意而服务，并向我们揭示你的意愿。请给予圣神的恩宠，使这被你拣选的仆人能服务你的教会。(注11)，在你的至圣中向你呈上至高的司祭，能光荣你的圣名，使他的服务能不受指责并能晋升更高的品级。藉着你的子耶稣基督我们的主，因着祂的光辉，权威及赞颂归于你，及圣神，从现在直至永远。亚孟。

第九章 关于精修者

一位精修者如他因主的名字，受锁炼之苦，不须在他头上覆手，他所受的苦，已使他享有与司铎相称的荣誉，如他被晋升为主教，则在他头上覆手。

如果一位精修者不是被捉到官员前，不是带上锁炼受惩罚，不是被监禁，不是被指斥受到刑罚，祇是间竭因主之名被嘲笑，或在家庭中受到责罚，如果他能坚持而又晋升他，则按照适合他的神品而给他覆手。

主教将依照以上所说的作感恩的祈祷，不须按字说出。在祈祷中按照他记忆的能力作祈祷，如果任何人有能力作较长的及庄严的祈祷，这是好的。但如果有人作简短的祈祷，不要阻止他。不过，他的祈祷必须是正确的。

第十章 关于寡妇

当一名妇人被称为寡妇，不是被祝圣的，只是向众信友公开让各人知晓。一个妇人的丈夫去世后，不论她的年纪是老或幼，必须让她接受时间的考验。一位妇人成为寡妇，只是让整个团体知道，她便与其他寡妇一样，没有礼仪上的职责，只是属于信友团体，并有恒常祈祷的本份。

第十一章 关于读经职

读经职由主教委任，并授于他一部圣经，不用行覆手礼。

第十二章 关于贞女

因为她自由决定作守贞女，不用行覆手礼。

第十三章 关于助理执事

助理执事(五品) 被指定跟随执事，协助执事工作，不用行覆手礼。

第十四章 关于治病的神恩

若信友自称在启示中领受治病的神恩，不用行覆手礼，让他所做的事实，证明他是否说实话。

第十五章 接受信仰者

若愿意聆听天主的圣言，必须被带至导师前，询问他为什么接受信仰。带领他们来的人，需要给予证明那位欲接受信仰的人是否有资格，所问的问题包括他的整个生活：他是否有妻子？他的主人是否信徒？他的主人是否准许他接受信仰？让他听道后，如他的主人不证明他是一个善良的人，他将被拒绝。如他的主人是外邦人，则教导他尊重主人的意见，避免发生是非。听道者是已婚的男人，或是有丈夫的妇人，则教导他们善渡生活。若男人不是与他的妻子一起生活，他将被教导不要继续这样，要有一位合法的妻子。任何人被认为不洁，或行为与邪魔有染，不准听道，直至他被认为纯洁为止。

第十六章 关于技艺及职业

听道者同时被问及他们的工艺技术及职业的状况，若男人是妓院的守门人，他必须停止该工作，否则被拒绝听道，如果是以造塑像或油漆工作生活的，就指导及提醒他不要造偶像或外邦的神像，或不再做该工作，否则同样被拒绝。当戏剧演员，必须停止该项工作，否则被拒绝听道，如教导儿童的，最好停止，如他没有谋生的技能，则准许继续。

若是在竞技场作赛马车比赛的，或观看该等比赛，则必须停止该活动，否则被拒绝。若是博斗比赛的斗士或是指导他人作此项比赛的，或是受顾于作角力的比赛的，让他停止，否则被拒绝。

任何外教的祭司、看门者、或与偶像有关连的，必须停止其工作，否则被拒绝。兵士虽在权力范围内也不能杀人，若是奉命行事也不要照命令执行。如不愿这样，则被拒绝。谁有带剑的权力，或是城市穿着紫袍的裁判者，必须停止，否则被拒绝。慕道者或信友若想作兵士，必被拒绝，因为他们轻视天主。

妓女、行为放荡者、阉人或作了一些羞耻而不可告人之事者，均被拒绝，因为他们是不洁的。魔术师、行巫术者、星相学家、占卜者、解梦者、江湖行骗者、裁剪衣穗者、或语言的表演者，均被拒绝。

男人的妾侍，如她是这人的奴隶，或已为他生了孩子，而现在仍然忠信于他，则她能接受听道，任何男人必须停止有妾侍，而只能有一位合法的妻子，如他不愿意，则被拒绝。

尚有其他不容许的生活方式或习惯，未能尽录。但天主的圣神在不同的时刻会指导我们，怎样判别一切。

第十七章 查考生活及职业，聆听圣道

聆听圣道者被称为慕道者，一般情形慕道者接受培育三年。但决定他们的改变不是时间上的长短，而是生活行为的表现。

第十八章 慕道者的祈祷

当传授要理的教师授课完毕后，让慕道者自己祈祷，与信友分开，妇女自行在一处地方祈祷，不论是信友或是慕道者，当慕道者祈祷完毕后，不让慕道者向信友互相致侯，因为慕道者还不是神圣的，但信友互相致侯时，男女要分开，而女性要以面巾檬着头。

第十九章 关于慕道者的覆手

在祈祷后，教授要理的教师给慕道者覆手。为他们祈祷后，遣散他们，传道者不论是神职人员或信友，都照此而行。

慕道者因主的名字被拘捕。如因此而受苦甚至被杀，虽然他并未受洗，但他已得罪赦而成义，因为他藉自己的血而受洗。

第二十章 关于预备接受领洗者

被选定接受洗礼者，先让他们的生活接受考验，包括他们慕道期内的道德生活是否有好的表现？有否尊重及照顾寡妇？是否有探望病者或行各种善功？上述一切虽要带领他们前来的人予以证明。若说「是」，才让他们听福音。

自被选定的时期开始，他们生活在一个特别的地方，每天听道后，行覆手礼及驱魔礼，直至洗礼的时间。主教将亲自向他们逐一行驱魔礼，使能更清楚明白他们是否有纯洁向善的意向。如发现他们不符合要求，他们不得接受洗礼。接受洗礼者，需在圣周四沐浴清洁。(在经期中的妇女不得接受洗礼，而会另定日子举行洗礼)。在星期五开始守斋，星期六齐集在一个由主教指定的地方。他们要跪下祈祷，主教在他们头上覆手行驱魔礼，在他们面上吹气，并在他们的前额、耳朵、及鼻上作记号，表示开启他们的五官。

他们整夜祈祷及听取训道。前来接受洗礼的人，除了在感恩祭中用作奉献的物品外，不用带任何物件。

第二十一章 关于圣洗礼仪

在鸡鸣破晓的时间，先在施洗用的水旁祈祷，所用的水必须是流动的，在必要时或危急时可用其他所能找到而能使用的水。受洗者必须完全除掉身上的衣服，洗礼由年幼的开始至年长的，会说话的在先，不会说话的在后，不会说话的由父母或家人代答问话，而男性先受洗，接着是女性受洗，受洗者不带任何物件进入水中。

在施行洗礼的同一时间，主教在祈祷中祝福两种「油」(注12)，一是感恩圣油，一是驱魔用的圣油。两名执事(一名手持驱魔礼用的圣油站在施行洗礼的司铎左边，另一名持着感恩圣油站在右边。当司铎带领每一位接受洗礼者领受洗礼峙，他将嘱咐受洗者大声宣示说：

撒旦，我弃绝你，及你所有的服务和工作。当他们大声逐一宣示弃绝魔鬼的时候，司铎为他傅上驱魔圣油说： 大声宣示让所有不洁之神远远地离开你。

随后受洗者便除去衣服，赤裸裸地走向站在水旁的主教或司铎。执事和他一起进入水中，施洗者覆手说：你信唯一的天主，全能的父吗？(注13)受洗者说：我信。

施洗者把手按在他的头上，把他浸入水中。施洗者再问说：你信耶稣基督，天主圣子，藉着圣神生于童贞女玛利亚，在总督比拉多时受难至死，第三天自死亡中复活，并升天坐在圣父的右边，将会再次来临，审判生者死者吗？受洗者答说：我信。施洗者再次把他浸入水中。施洗者再问说：你相信圣神、圣教会，及肉身的复活吗？受洗者说：我信。受洗者再浸入水中一次。前后受洗者被浸入水中共三次。当受洗者从水中上来，司铎为他傅上感恩圣油说：「我因耶稣基督之名给你傅油。」每一位受洗者擦干身体，穿上衣服后，进入教会的团体聚集之处。

主教在他们头上覆手，祈祷说：主，天主，你使他们能堪当接受了罪过的赦免，使他们能沐浴于更新的圣油中。请你赐下这恩宠，使他们能依照你的意愿，服务你并为光荣圣父，及圣子，藉着在教会内的圣神从现在直到永远。亚孟。

按着主教将感恩圣油倒在手中，并擦在新颁洗者的头上，说：我因全能的天主父，及耶稣基督，并天主圣神给你再傅油。

在前额上作记号，主教向领受圣油者给予致候之吻说：

愿主与你同在。 领受者说： 也与您的心灵同在。

主教向每一位新颁洗者，做同样的仪式，最后他们与全体信众一起祈祷。末领洗者不能与信众一起祈祷，直至他们完成了上述一切礼仪为止。

当他们祈祷时，互相给予平安之吻。奉献礼由执事把礼品呈献给主教，他接纳后，祈祷感恩使面饱成为基督的身体，酒成为基督的血，为信仰他的人而倾流了。(注14)牛奶与蜜糖混合在一起为表示出给我们祖先的诺言得到圆满。一如天主在圣经里曾说过 「一块流奶流蜜的土地」。同样，基督给予祂的身体，藉此使信仰他的人好像婴儿一样得到滋养，使受创伤的心灵藉着圣言尝到甘甜，并使洗涤用的水像征清洗人的内心，而灵魂得到洁净好像身体被洗涤过一样清洁。主教向群众解释所有施行的一切礼仪。

当他擘开面饱，分给每人一小块时，他说：在基督耶稣内天国的面饱。

领受者说：亚孟。

如果没有足够的司铎，执事则拿起圣爵，站在适当的位置。首先拿起水，随后是奶，再后是酒。每位领受者在每一爵杯三次。施行者说：在全能的天主父内

领受者说：亚孟。施行者说：及在主耶稣基督内。

领受者说：亚孟。施行者说：及在圣教会的圣神内。领受者说：亚孟。

此后每一位依此而作。

信友领受圣体圣血后，将踊跃做各种善功，(注15)，慰悦天主，使生活行为合乎规矩，并充满热忱地在教会内学习虔敬的生活。

我们所记载的是简短的描述，关于圣洗及神圣的奉献礼，已完全给教授了关于肉身的复活，及其他所写下的一切，但如有其他必须说的，主教会亲自教导新信友。不信者必不能知道，除非他们先接受洗礼。一如圣若望所说『关于那块白石：一个新的名字已写在其上，除非先接受了它，否则没有人知道。』

第二十二章 关于分送圣体

在星期日，可能范围内，主教应亲自分送圣体给全体信友，或由执事及神父擘饼，当执事送到神父手中，神父分给信友；在其他的日子，领圣体的程序，遵照主教的指示。

第二十三章 逾越节的斋期

在逾越节的奉献礼前两天，任何人若吃了食物，他不算守斋。但孕妇或病者，若不能守两天的严斋，则只守星期六一天，或按照其需要只吃面饱及喝清水。在这期间内，在海上航行中的人，未能计算逾越节在那一天或某些人必须吃些少食物，则他们于五旬节后，补做所欠缺的。(注16)

第二十四章 执事遵从主教

每一位执事及助理执事(五品)必须遵从主教，执事告知主教那里有病者。若主教愿意前来探视病者，病者得到最高牧者的探望，应得到无比的欣慰。

第二十五章 祈祷的时间

信友们在起林后，开始工作之前，必须向主祈祷，然后欣然地开始工作，若有任何机会聆听天主的圣言及训道，必须前往，为使灵魂得到滋养及安慰。让信友热心前往教会聚集的地方，因为教会是圣神的居所。

第二十六章 感恩祭前不吃食物

让信友自动前往领受主的身体，但在此之前不许吃任何食物，若信友能怀着虔敬的心领受，则任何邪魔或致死的势力，不能在他身上有所成就。

第二十七章 圣体必须小心保存

每一位信友应小心保护圣体，不要让外教人、老鼠或其他动物吃掉。也不要让任何圣体的碎屑掉落地上，因主的圣体是给信友们领受的，不应被视为没有价值的东西。

第二十八章 杯爵内所盛载的不能倒掉

因主之名而祝福之圣血，每当你领受时必须小心，不要倾倒任何一小滴。不要因糟蹋或搬视圣血台犯罪。(注17)

第二十九章

执事及神父须在主教所指定的地方每日聚会，执事必须每次出席聚会，除非因病而不能参加，每次集会为学习教会的训导，结束前祈祷，会后各人返回岗位做本份内的工作。

第三十章 祈祷的时间

信友在早上起来，洗脸后向上主祈祷，才开始工作，如在某地方有天主圣道的训言向信友讲述，则各人必须前往，因为祈祷能助人渡过日间所遇到的软弱时刻，如不争取每次听取圣道的机会，藉训言坚强自己，则魔鬼便利用你空间的时间，开始扩展。所以不要使自己在听取训道时迟到。天主圣神藉着训导，进入听者的心中，增强信仰的力量。这训导同时指示你家居的生活。

所以各人应踊跃前往教堂，这被天主圣神滋养的地方，如在平日没有圣道的宣示，各人自己在家中阅读圣书也能得到益处。

如果这时不在家里，而在其他地方，则在心里向主祈祷。因为在这时间，基督被钉在木架上，为这缘故旧约的法律描述用白面饱的奉献，此喻为基督的体血，而被宰杀的羔羊必须是完整无残缺的羔羊，基督是那牧人同时也是那从天下降的面饱。

在第六时辰也要祈祷，当基督被钉在十字架上十天地分开，黑暗笼罩大地，在这时刻做一个有深度的祈祷，默念基督祈祷的声音。为那些不信的犹太人所有万物及整个大地都在昏暗中。

第九时辰做一个长的祈祷及祝福，灵魂怎样被正义所祝福，使能知晓学习义人的祈祷。(注18)

天主没有说谎，祂惦念着祂的穿诸圣并赐下圣言光照他们。在这时基督被刺穿了助旁 ，流出血和水来，照耀那天剩余的时间直至晚上。

在休息前先祈祷，午夜起来先用水洗手，后祈祷，如妻子在一起则一齐祈祷，如她不是信友，你独自到另外一间房内祈祷，再回到房间睡觉，不要在祈祷上懒惰，因为结婚不是污秽的。

谁洗净了，不须再洗涤，因为他们是洁净的。藉着呼吸湿润的空气，而把唾液放在手上使全身成为圣的。祈祷时的信心好像领受洗礼的时候一样，圣神的恩惠而圣洗圣事使信者得到圣化，这样便要在这时刻祈祷。

长辈给我们传授传统。于这时辰所有受造物停下片刻(注19)，赞美天主、星星、树木和水也停止流动片刻，所有总领天使在这时刻与所有义人的灵魂一起赞颂天主。

为此事的见证，主曾说：在午夜有人喊叫说：新郎来了，起来迎接他吧！他说：要小心看守，因为妳不知道在什么时候他来了。

仿效上述的一切，于黎明鸡啼时祈祷。在这时辰，以色列的子孙否认了基督。我们藉信仰知道，在这天我们仰望这从死亡复活的光荣。

当你这样造时，所有信友必须记着这一切，同时互相教导，及鼓励慕道者，你将不受诱惑及灭亡。因为你时常惦念着基督。



  

注８：Geoffey J. Cuming "Hippolytue：A Text for Students "Grove Books Brameote Notts 1976　

内容根据上述译本。

注９：原文也没有说出那些是什么油，不能肯定为橄榄油或那一种油。

注１０：此处译本作「健康」解释，但根据原文，用「圣化」比较合适及建意，而下面所说的「健康」是清晰且可以肯定。

注１１：文章在此处断了没有继续下去，下面的祈祷是从另一译本抽出。

注１２：没有说出是那一种油，研究的学者也不清楚。

注１３：各译本有不同的语句描述圣洗誓词，请参看原文。

注１４：原文为希腊文"antitype"一字，且以下数句较难以中文注释，故祇作意释。

注１５：文章在此断了，没有继续。下句是新的开始。

注１６：跟着那几句话，原文复杂，专注研究的学者也未能确定，故没有译出。

注１７：内容不太清晰，学者们持不同的意见。

注１８：文章在此处没有继续，下句是新的开始。

注１９：这时辰是什么时候，原文没有说明。

结语

这篇文献的内容是记述当时罗马教会的生活规程及教会团体的生活状况，综合它的内容约可分为三部份：

1.教会内各级人员及教友的职务

2.入教的规程及礼仪

3.教友团体及私人生活规程

反省的方向试从这三点开始。

１．由第二至第八章主要记述有关晋升主教、司铎及执事的经文。从经文的内容及附录得知被晋升者、被拣选的条件及礼仪进行的情况。各种不同的品级有各自的职务及工作范围。公元三世纪的教会，进行礼仪的时候与现在比较有很大不同。在当时他们没有各种类的礼仪经书，故此，负责带领祈祷或主持礼仪的主祭，需要有相当的背诵，思考及说话清晰的能力。因为带领者与众信友一起祈祷及单独诵念祷文。首先他的祈祷内容必须合乎教会的信仰及宗徒的传统，不可混杂有其他的异端思想。其次是每字清晰使参礼者完全明白了解祈祷的内容；再者，因为主礼者的祈祷是随口说出来的，没有记录下来，不能把所作的祈祷写下留作另一次聚会时应用。为此就是一些记忆力很强的人，也不能每次完全一样的祈祷，就是内容相近也不能字字一样。

这样的祈祷方法比较活一些，每次的祈祷可说是出自他们的心和口，而不是照书本的经文读出来，按照教会的信仰及传统，作适当自发性的祈祷是值得我们学习的。因为这样的祈祷能帮助我们多反省自身的信仰，与天主、与生活的环境，及与世界的关系。

近代的信友团体和各种的礼仪，都是根据礼仪经书，诵念经文及进行礼节，而这些书本是由教会内有关的机构印制，给予各地的信友应用。故此未必完全乎台每一地区不同的生活情况及团体的祈祷需要。

在基督徒最初三百年历史中，教会拥有帮助基督徒善度基督徒生活的有力社会组织。凡愿作基督徒的，他们爽快地为善度基督徒生活之目的而与其他基督徒团聚，他们参加的团体是小而紧凑的团体，有高度的士气和融洽气氛。结果，早期的基督徒在善度坚强的基督徒生活上，得到很大的帮忙。个人成为这环境(这团体)的一份子，而这环境还较生活于其中的其他环境更为强韧作为他守身为基督徒之有力支持。更由于这些团体的坚强活跃，又吸引了更多人的皈依基督信仰。

尤其像今天我们所处的缺乏共同理想与共同身份的社会中，一个真正的基督徒团体，是能供给基督徒一个善度基督徒生活的环境。活跃的基督徒团体，他们将会以基督徒身份有力量向社会发挥影响力，而不是附和社会，而且，这些基督徒团体愈成长发展，其对社会的影响力便也愈大。

按照自身及团体的生活情况作适当的祈祷，不但能增加对祈祷及礼仪的投入，更能在实际的生活体验中所领受于天主的一切，而在祈祷中予以感谢。使祈祷或礼仪与生活连在一起，兼且也使我们能深入了解我们生活于其中的团体，及周围的环境。「此等礼仪最足以使信友生活表达基督的奥迹和真教会的纯正本质，并昭示他人。」(礼仪宪章2)根据记述也可得知当时坦任神职的条件，第一个重要的条件是为众信友所拣选及接纳。所有晋升神职的礼仪必须在众信友齐集时举行。初期的教会组织不算庞大，况且最初三世纪的教会仍是在被压迫的期间，不像日后得到自由，广传天下，人数剧增的时期。故此，一个小的团体多能彼此认识，兼且在奉行礼仪时，大都能全体共聚一起，在生活力而能互相照顾及彼此探访。

反观现在，遍布世界的教会或教区内的各堂区，由于种种社会及时代进步的改变，使生活的方式及习惯有很大的差别，故此同一堂区内的信友未能有一起聚集的机会，更不能完全认识，很难表达出一个生活于基督的团体。或许我们改变现在的一些划分方法，再从记述的文件中学习初期教会团体生活的精神而用于今朝。「现代的环境，使人类在社会，技术与文化的联系之下，更形接近，因此更加重了教会的这种责任，为使人类在基督内也得到完整的统一。」(教会宪章1)

十一至十四章讲述教会内信友不同的生活方式。宣读员是天主圣言的宣读者，由主教委任，他负责宣读及保存天上的圣言。贞女及寡妇的生活，教会明确订下此等生活的要求，及使各人知晓谁是属于贞女或寡妇的团体。并能照顾她们生活所必需的一切，指示她们时常为教会团体守斋及祈祷。尚有因为教难的缘故而产生一些被迫害，并能坚持信仰的精修者，他们享有与司铎相称的荣誉；此外还有助理执事(五品)等。现代的教会已没有明订此等的生活方式，或某些职务已在某些程度上被改变了。例如当时的贞女团体与现在的修女团体，基本上可说是相同的。

另一点是祈祷经文的结束词也有其特式和意义。就是有关他们的圣神观，每次祈祷的结束词，定必有这一句话 「在圣教会内的圣神」，在此文件其他的章节，每当谈及辨别是非、异端，或需要指导、力量的泉源及抗拒邪魔的力量等等，都谈及圣神恩宠的助力。探究初期教会的圣神观，让溯源至五旬节事件开始(宗：2)因为宗徒大事录成书的时间与这篇文件所记载的时期大约相距一世纪多。故此他们的圣神观应是溯源于初兴的教会，而一贯的传下来。据学者们的研究，宗徒团体在五旬节事件中被赋予了曾应许给他们的「先知之神」。说出神妙语的神恩效能，是先知之神显示的传统方式。圣神一来，就开始宣讲福音，更是表明先知之神的能力。因此，教会首次领受并体验到的圣神就是 「先知之神」，是耶稣生前曾许诺要遣发的圣神，这事件使他们的团体成为充满圣神的基督徒团体，意识到圣神就在他们中间，并意识到圣神临在的教会意义，圣神是天主的神，基督的神，同时也是临在于教会的神。这实际的体验由初兴的教会传承下去，不断设法使自己成为最理想的教会团体，并实现为充满圣神的基督徒团体。(注20)

梵二大公会议再次重申圣神临于教会中，并推动指导一切，梵二大公会议的召开，给教会打开了新的里程，使我们深切体验到天主圣神的临在，祂的风吹遍了基督的教会，发生了积极的作用，深刻的影响。各项的革新都在展开，以适应现代人类的需要。

2．入教的规程及礼仪 十五至二十一章很有次序地记述入教的情形，从儒斯定的着作，可知在第二世纪时，已有在圣洗前听道与祈祷的规定。在第三世纪对准备领洗的人都进行详细的审查，以便了解他们的品行，文件中很清楚的把每一种被认为与基督的教会格格不入，不受欢迎的职业及生活习惯，人教者必须放弃以往的败坏生活，才被接纳入教，否则被拒绝。那时候确定有幼童领洗，因为施洗的次序是由年纪小的开始至年纪大的。

当时，一般公民生活，尤其是在公共秩序方面有着各种的冲击，包括各种外教的神，哲学的思潮，生活的靡烂，奴隶制仍然存在等等。要作完善的基督徒可说难万难。而此等入教程序的积极后果是：圣洗圣事给领洗的成年人，留下一个深刻的印象，他们初次与教会接触便是一种富有意义的准备，在听道的时期中，他们对基督的教会有逐步的认识。被接纳在复活节领洗的人，从被接纳那天开始，他们必须每天聚会听道，接受福音，接受驱魔礼，最重要的是聆听主教讲导。

圣洗礼的施行不是在全体信友前举行，而是在一个特定有活水流动的地方，施洗者和受洗者一起进入水中，受洗者领洗时，赤裸裸地被完全浸入水中，在施洗前及后各有一次意义不同的油礼。施洗后由主教祈祷呼求圣神，领洗者藉着主教的覆手及傅油礼领受圣神。从此一位新的基督徒正式进入教会的团体，才可以向信友互相致候，互以平安之吻祝贺，并参与感恩祭。他们的入教过程很能表达出一位外教者怎样从生活的转变开始，至受洗重生加入得救的团体，成为圣神的居所教会团体的一员。其间挣扎脱离黑暗，奋斗向善的经历，成为他日后信仰生活的支柱及力量。

藉着这个入教过程，我们可反省现在慕道者的入教程序。我们怎样培育慕道者？是否小心及严格的甄选接受侯洗者？信仰的培育是否有偏差？例如，人强于信仰知识的灌输而忽略基督徒伦理生活的指导，我们现在是否有昔日严谨的精神，及积极的态度培育新一代的基督徒。初期的整个入教过程，包括信仰知识的传授、伦理生活的指导、及礼仪的进行，很能表达出从死亡进入生命的精神。我们可将他们用作培育慕道者的方法或守则，改变少许为能适合于今日的教会。应用于慕道者的培育，使从死亡进入生命的精神也出现于我们现在的圣事。

3．教友团体及私人的生活 当时教友生活的情形，确有其独特之处，近代的信仰生活与之比对之下，可说完全不同。某些当时的生活习惯因时代的演进，随之而变换了，甚或消失于无形。

二十七至二十八章关于圣体圣血，其中一点比较特出的是：不要被外教人或小动物吃掉圣体。不被外教者吃到，或许当时可能有外人混入团体中冒领圣礼，故此用以警醒各信友小心。但有关于不被老鼠或小动物吃掉了，那可能在感恩祭后，信友多领一些圣体带回家收藏，用以在其他日子于祈祷后自领，或分派给病者用的，故劝喻信友小心收藏圣体不要让来探访的外教人或家里的小动物吃了圣体。可见他们不是每天都举行感恩祭的。(注21)

守斋的规则与现在的也有不同。他们没有分大斋或小斋。当时的守斋就是完全不能吃东西，任何人在指定的斋期内吃了食物，不当作守斋。守斋的时期和我们现在相似就是在领圣体前，和逾越节前四天守斋，因为当时的教会尚未有四间期的规定，故此没有四旬期开始撒灰礼那一天的斋期。

另外值得我们注意的是当时信友的祈祷时间。可分为早祷，在早上起床后，开始工作之前：及早上九时，午间十二时，下午三时，晚上在睡觉前，及午夜起床祈祷。此一系列的祈祷都以基督苦难日的历程作为中心内容，于不同的时间片断记念基督的苦难。宗徒并劝勉信友不要在祈祷上懒惰，使信仰天主的心因缺乏祈祷而软弱无力，被魔鬼藉着空间的时间而有所活动。

时辰祈祷方面，现代的信友可能因历史的转变而影响或误解，在香港，一般信友甚或部份神职以为诵念日课单是神职人员或修道过奉献生活者的本份。如果我们真的探究有关时辰祈祷的开始及历史发展，便知道时辰祈祷是整个教会的祈祷，是全体信友，教会内每一份子的祈祷，不单是为某些独特的人而设。教会是一个团体，让以祈祷来表现出它团体的特性。所以宗徒大事录中，首次记载教友的事是他们的集体祈祷，「他们和妇女们及耶稣的母亲玛利亚，以及祂的兄弟们，都同心合意地专务祈祷」。(宗一、14)日课礼如同其他的礼仪，不是私人的行动，而是属于教会全体的。它表达教会全体，并影响教会全体。『在教友团体中最重要的是堂区。它犹如教区的细胞，「在某种情形下，代表着分布在全世界的有形教会」。这些团体应尽可能在圣堂内公开举行某些主要时辰的日课礼仪。』(日课礼仪总论21)

在香港，一般基督徒到圣堂都是参与圣事性的礼仪，不知有几多个堂区有团体诵念时辰祈祷的聚会。要知道 「教友聚集在一起，心口合一参与日课礼仪时，就显示出教会在举行基督的奥迹。」(日课礼仪总编22)

正如这篇文件所记述的，于祈祷的时间，若你不是在家里，而是在街上，也要在心中作默祷，记念基督的苦难。

今日的信友也被劝勉多参加聚会，听取圣言的训导，藉此增强信仰的力量并得到家居生活的指导。

今日我们每当到圣堂的时候，大都是参与弥撒，此外并没有什么原因可以使我们再返回圣堂，参加其他的基督徒聚会，更遑论参加听取圣言宣讲及听取训导的聚会。另有一点更不同的是：昔日他们印刷书籍及文字工具的运用非常缺乏，故此对言词传达讯息的感受力比较强，他们偏重于听与讲的训练，由于常听与专心听讲的缘故，妇女及儿童熟谙圣言，有时竟能背诵，他们喜好听诵（而背诵对他们也不是一件苦事(注22)）

这与我们现在的信友，对圣言接受的态度有一段距离，虽然然我们现在极之方便，「圣经」皆能人手一本，但我们对圣言的热爱比他们相去甚远。

在开始之前曾说过研究此文件的希望，是探索公元第二世纪末叶罗马教会团体的生活精神，而着眼于今朝。我们定不可能在生活方式或礼仪行动方面按照以往而行，但我们可从中吸取其精神，特别在今天圣神的恩宠蓬勃的临于教会，我们应敏捷并踊跃的作出回应，使能产生丰盛的果实。「礼仪既能使教内的人，每日建设成以吾主为基础的圣殿，成为在圣礼内的天主的住所，礼仪又能把教会显示给教外的人，好像树立于各国之间的旌旗，将散居的天主儿女，齐集麾下，直到同属一栈一枚。」(礼仪宪章2)


注２０：胡国桢，「坚振是独立圣事的神学意义」神学论集，34期1977、页五五四。

注２１：王维贤译，天主教史，上册，征祥出版社，杏港真理学会，民国五十四年四月初版，页五五。

注２２：同上，页六。

作者：白礼达 Brady, Peter 年份：1981

一九五八年英国哲学家安思彤碧(Elizabeth Anscombe)女士发表了一篇有关现代哲学的论文。文中她比较英国现代哲学家和犹太 基督传统有关对与错的观点。根据犹太 基督传统的说法，某些行为，无论其后果如何，必定是错的。例如：为任何目的而杀害无辜、无论是怎样好的代人受罚，在严重的事件上骗取另一个人的信任然后把地出卖给敌人，崇拜偶像、鸡奸、通奸 、发虚誓等 ，但另一方面，现代英国哲学家却主张，在某种情况之下，以上这一切行为，都可能是对的。因为照他们的说法，凡是能产生良好的效果的行为，就是对的行为。如果说谎所产生的善果能胜过它的恶果，那么，说谎就不算错了。有些哲学家更进一步，不只考虑行为的后果，同时也考虑行为本身的性质和价值。例如他们曾认为以说谎欺骗他人这件事本身确实不如说实话好。我们可以把行为壤的方面和善的方面同时考虑。任何行为，如果它好的方面胜过坏的方面，则这行为就算是对的行为。安思彤碧称这种哲学为效果论。

新的发展

效果论其实不是一种新的理论。它只不过是功利主义的一种形式而已。早在十九世纪，班涵和米尔就已在英国提倡功利主义了。过去一百年来，这套哲学一直被天主教哲学家排斥，但现在，它却在相当大的程度上被德国和美国的天主教神学家接受了。现在，他们这些人是这样讨论伦理问题的：

一、医生是否可以直接杀死一个患不治之症同时正忍受剧烈的痛苦的病人？

二、医生是否可以杀死胎儿以挽救母亲的生命？

三、法官是否可以判一个无辜的人死刑以挽救其他五个无辜的人？

四、如一位已婚的女战犯相信她的家庭需要她的帮助，她是否可以和一个狱警发生性关系以便确保她可得到释放？

对于主张效果论的人来说，这一类问题的答案一定不是直接了当的。照传统的教训，某些行为一定是坏的，它们本身也坏的，所以永远不能实行。效果主义者却不能依靠这条原则。所以，如果他比较倾向保守，他就会说，传统的道德规律是有效的，应该常常遵照。一个遵行这些规律的人通常都能得到较多的善果。但也可能有例外的情形。如果他是在理论和行动上都放弃传统教训的效果主义者，他就会说：直接堕胎、直接杀死一个无辜者以挽救多数无辜者、与他人发生性关系等行为，有时也能产生较大的善，所以在道德上也可算是对的行为。

改变的原因

效果主义者为放弃传统的伦理原则的主张，提出了好些理由。有些人说虽然本质是错的行为，一般来说都是错的，但，这也不能证明这些行为常常都是错的。可能在某些情况，在我们现在不能预见的某种情况之下，这些行为是对的。也有些人认为传统有关直接杀害无辜、说谎、避孕等是错的论辩，不能令人满意。他们说，这些论辩不能证明，杀害一无辜者的生命总是侵犯天主对生命的权利；错误使用一种天生的功能，例如语言，也不一定是错的。还有些人认为，传统的道德规律，其实也是基于效果论的原则，人从经验学会，尊重无辜者的生命能产生最佳的效果。他们声称，其实伦理学者在草拟道德规律时，一向都把效果列为考虑的项目之一。

批评

每当功利主义被提出来峙，它一定会成为众矢之的，所以现代这个形式的功利主义受到严厉的批评，是一点也不奇怪的。效果论的原则可以多种不同的形式表达，例如：好的行为就是那些有一个相称的理由的行为；好的行为是那些从长远来说，能产生较大的善的行为；一项好的行为就是不会造成不必要的伤害的行为。基本上说，效果论的原则要求一个人常常思量他的行为的效果，以分辨他的所作所为是对还是错。在许多批评这个原则的理论中，以下各点是值得注意的：

一、人不可能尽知一项行为的所有效果，因此，不可能实现这套理论的要求，计算一项行为的所有效果。

二、即使我们可能知道一项行为的所有效果，我们也不能计算这些效果。叫一个人计算最大量的善、最小量的恶、最佳的效果等等，这无疑是对人提出毫无意义的要求。这等于叫他把一些没办法计算的东西加起来，把不可比较的东西拿来比较。例如有一个人，他决定学习，他的决定会影响他的知识、友谊、健康和宗教。他可能获得知识，但忽略了朋友、健康和宗教。知识、友谊、健康和宗教都是对人有益的事，但不能互相比较的，因为它们之间没有一共同的标准可供比较。不错，它们每一样都是好的，但不能把它们相加或相减，人不能把一本书的重量、每一页的颜色、书的重要性和里面所包含的各种思想等一一相加。这些都属于不同的范畴。可见最大量的善这个概念是一个幻想。

批评效果论的人也不否认，有时效果的确是可以计算的。一个人如果决定达到某些具体的目的，他是可以预算达到目的最好的方法。医生可以预算不同的药品对病人的健康效果而选择其中最有效的一种。在这个例子上，他有一个标准可供他比较不同药品的效用。但我们没有一个共同的标准，可供判断行为的每一种效果，如何达到最大的善和最好的结果。

三、效果主义者不能帮助人决定如何分配善。我们应该追求最大的善，最佳的效果。那么人是否应该只求生产最大量的善而不计较动用多少人工？如果制造了最大数量的善后，只有少数人可以享用，那制造最大量的善是否应该？是否制造能够平均分配的少量的善更好？还是人应该以帮助最需要帮助的人为目的，而不计较他们这样做的结果是否是最好的？效果主义者根本不能回答这些问题。

四、效果主义者是怎样解决问题的呢？批评家指出，他们是根据当时社会所流行的规范解决问题的。这样他可以说，杀害一人以挽救五个人的生命是错的，因为这样会破坏社会正义的基础。另一方面，他也可以说，直接杀害一个未出生的婴儿以挽救母亲的生命是对的，在这件事上他却不必考虑这样做会破坏社会正义的基础。可见他的理由是很不一致的。

五、效果主义者断言，不是证明，人有义务实行能带来最佳的效果的行为。这么说，似乎在表示，一种不能带来最佳的效果的行为就是不好的行为。如果我相信施舍穷人比不施舍好，那我就必须施舍了。这样说来，即使是把这个原则用在道德上，这样的道德不是太严厉了一点吗？

结论　

天主教的效果主义者在不同的程度上赞同这套理论，有些赞同较严格的效果论，有些却对它的基本原则作相当程度的修正或接纳其他的原则以解决他们的难题。有些却在反对效果论的批评的压力之下，对他们的观点，作某种程度的修正。另一方面，他们对传统观点的批评，刺激了一些伦理神学家和伦理学者，促使他们更深入地检讨传统道德原则所坚持的理由。

作者：骆显慈著 McLoughlin, Michael　林瑞祺译 年份：1981

「普世教会对任何国家来说都不应是属于外国人的。」为此，每个国家都必须建立他们自己的圣统制。」

「那里有本地神职人员，数目充足而又获得适当培育，那里的传教工作就会有美果，而那里的教会亦会得以建立。」(本笃十五世)

天主教传教事业在中国展开之初，圣教会已寻求方法建立完整标准的正常地方教会。在实践方面，从起初开始，教会即不断努力在国籍人士身上培育及推广圣召。但直到本世纪，才有整体及有组织的全国计划。多年以来，宏大的槟榔屿殉道者修院差不多成为远东区的中央修院，在中国某些地区亦有地方上的修院。这一切都好，但仍是十分不足，教会法典规定每个教区必须有一所修院，假如情况不许可，同一区域的主教们，应基于互助精神，同办一所为该区域内各教区服务的修院。

一九二四年第一届中国天主教会议决定了重大行动，在中国宗座代表刚恒毅主教(MSGR. CONSTANTINI) 的引导下，计划建立十四间总修院。至一九三六年，其中十一间已投入服务，分别为：吉林(满洲国)、沙辣(北京)、宣化(河北)、汉口(湖北)、济南府(山东)、大同府(山西)、开封(河南)、成都(四川)、南昌(江西)、宁波(浙江)及香港仔(香港)。至一九四九年，共有十六间总修院，及很多地方上主要的修院。今日，无一能继续正常维持，香港仔总修院是唯一的例外。

华南总修院的由来，是出于宗座驻中国代表及本世纪初华南各教区主教的倡议(注一)。即使所有决定得到通过，即使选定香港仔为院址所在，这仍然有很多实际工作有待进行，因为到此刻为止，仍未有院厦，也未有院址，亦未有修院教职员。

这些难题的末一项最容易解决。爱尔兰籍耶稣会士刚在不久之前到港，而仍未有重大的工作。罗马方面大笔一挥，一切事情立即可以依从教会传统方法进行。香港耶稣会士负担起必须的教职。

大笔一挥能够带出教职员；但却不能开辟一块院址或兴建一座院厦。香港教区恩理觉主教(MSGR.VALTORTA)心目中有好几个考虑的地点。其中他特别钟悦的一处是：港岛西南角半岛上面临渔港的小山岗。宗座代表访港以决定修院院址所在时，首先参观的就是这小山岗。他还未看其他地点，就已经决定，总修院应建在香港仔。

院址决定了，但明显尚有接续而来的几个月谈判及有待接收地权。一九二七年二月二十五日，恩主教引领耶稣会神父参观未来的工作环境。见过院址后；他们应许圣女小德兰(ST.THERESA OF LISIEUX) 如果她能保佑他们在六个月内拥有地权，将在未来的修院内为她的瞻礼举行特别庄重的礼仪纪念。月复一月的过去，毫无动静可见。看来圣女似乎已忽略了期限。但在八月二十四日，差不多是六个月以来最后一日，无声无息地来了个电话，通知恩主教说院址是属于他的了。

设计院厦的人选，落在以善掌中国传统建筑特色而驰名的本笃会会士格宁神父(DOM ADALBERT GRESNIGT O.S.B.) 身上。原本的计划是一个宏大的四合院建筑，有台阶一直下伸向海边。后来决定改变计划，而整个雄伟的结构面向繁忙的大路较优于面对孤清的海水。三十年代经济动荡，使鸿图大计萎缩不少。格宁神父计划中四合院的一边经已完成；但左右两翼，正面的高楼，连同小圣堂本身，都在叹息中告吹了。

虽然，修院未能完全完成，但仍可以见证建筑师的选任，是明智之举。凭着精心细选的颜色及装设，今日的修院仍是庄严和谐而出类拔萃的建筑物。

有了修院的院址及设计，尚须工人、工具、砖石水泥，及一位能督导工作，使格宁神父的计划能获得切实执行的人。宗座外方传教会会士甘柏神父(FR.GRAMPA P.I.M.E.) 接受了这份艰钜的工作。经历了五十年，其中包括大战期间无数炮火的肆虐。格宁神父的心血继续依然维持是别具一格的名胜。

一九三O年十月三日圣女小德前瞻礼，恩主教在非公开的仪式中，为已展开建筑工程的院厦祝圣及奠基。

一九三一年十一月一日诸圣瞻礼，中华之后圣母总修院正式开幕。首批修生在较早之前的十月二十八日抵达，并开始上课。由于最后的工程尚未竣工，开幕并不特别隆重；但十一月一日，仍举行简单仪式，象征修院所服务的各教区，特别是她所在的香港教区，团结一致。

在巍主教(MGR.DESWAZIERE) 及一些华南各教区有关的司铎观礼下，恩主教为同学们主持弥撒，并作首次拉丁文讲道。他的精采讲道在以后二十年内仍继续备受推崇。他指出这是华南传教发展的新象征，他同时道出修院为普世教会彼此相爱的可见标记，是没有国家界限的，修生们在生活中表达出这彼此相爱的意义，如同司铎一般。他们须透过关怀，教导人们彼此相爱；师生间及同学间的彼此相爱及团结，是新修院的明显标记，并且是能造就修院所期望的成果的最坚强保证。

耶稣会士古宁神父(FR.THOMAS COONEY, S. J.)，被选为首任院长。其他教授有简力达神父(G.KENNEDY)，曹魄神父(P.JOY)，范达理神父(D.FINN)，嘉文翰神父(R.GALLAGHER)，白理安神父(REV.H.O'BRIEN)及祁祖尧神父(G.CASEY)。在开始之时，共有七名神学生及十一名哲学生。

香港仔华南总修院的生活与国内其他十三所修院的生活差不多。当然，有些事情是香港仔修院所特有的。在最初的十年，主楼增建了一个厨房，洗衣房及工友宿舍。一座巨型望远镜在一九三六年设置及投入工作。试用时，证明清晰度及放大量均良好。于是一个气象观察站便成立了，并定期摘下记录。不幸在一九四一年战争迫近时，望远镜被迫拆下，而从始再没有被组合过来。

范达理神父(FR. D. FINN, S.J.) 对华南文物考古的兴趣，提供了学生另一种课外活动。除了教授圣经及作为学生的辅导神师外，范神父本身亦是一名受过专业训练的考古学家。居留修院期间，他研究香港仔渔民的风俗及迷信；他的研究结果，连同一批挑选过的神像及符咒，都送往拉脱郎博物馆(LATERAN MUSEUM)。他同时在南丫岛发现很多陶器。很多学生陪同他作实地研究，后来都对了解陶器的原始工艺及出土地，有相当造诣。

这期间最重大的事件是日本侵华战争，弄致中国生灵涂炭。为了减轻抗战的困苦，中国天主教抗战援助协会(CHINESE CATHOLIC WAR RELIEF ORGANIZATION) 于是成立了。这有机会让修生表露出他们的热诚，他们的贡献是很切实有用的。以下是协会司库致修生学长一封函件的部份内容：「在短短的期间内，中国天主教抗战援助协会已三次收到香港仔修院修生的慷慨赠予……你们的来信带来很人的激励，我希望能把它节录在下一期的天主教文摘(CATHOLIC DIGEST)……在你们的道路上，你们承坦了贵国所受痛苦的负袒，你们能作出慷慨的牺牲是值得庆幸的……数百的伤者，数千的难民，都因此而获得照料。」

首两年修院学生人数不多，但一九三三年从福建及广东涌来的修生使人数骤增。一九三七年福建修生被召回福州，到该省新开办的总修院就读。此一步骤是预见到的；很自然地，一组教区拥有数目庞大的圣召，而他们的语言及风俗又很不同于广东人，实有成立真正属于他们的修院的必要。不过，人数并没有因此而减少。广东的小修院，在以往的十年内数目大大增加了，结构也经过重组，此时开始不断增加送赴香港仔申请名额；亦有一些修生来自中国移民的地方 一名来自BANKA，北婆罗洲也有定期的选送修生来。印尼及泰国的教区亦曾要求修院收纳他们的学生，基于需要顾及第一申请优次的同学，他们的要求被拒绝了；同时，此举亦因为有保持全修院修生为中国人的必要。修院学生人数最多的一年是七十五人；而在首十年内获得晋升铎品的总数是四十八人。

修院的一切目标当然是祝圣铎品。为香港仔修院而言，最重要的不是开幕礼而是一九三四年三月三十一日复活节，首批修士领受司铎圣职，香港教区恩理觉主教在总堂主持仪式。宗座中国代表蔡宁总主教(H. E Mgr. Mavio Zanin) 在礼仪举行之际，首次到达本港，刚好赶及在典礼完毕峙，在祭衣房接见新铎。

以下一段文章，节录自一九三四年的「盘石」杂志，作为对首批香港仔修院的新铎及其他后继者的致意。司铎们毕业离开修院后，分别接受到不同的艰巨任命，甚至有英雄式使命，有些曾经被下狱，有些现在依然受监禁，有些远离他们的祖国而到海外服务。对所有的司铎，华南总修院为他们奉上祝福和感谢。

「这事(首批修生晋铎)使我们很有理由雀跃高兴，首先是领受铎品者本人接受到的恩典。为一个男子来说，再没有比接受上主的召叫为教会服务更光荣了。司铎是基督在世的仆人，因着基督的名字为新信友付洗，因着基督的名字他安抚罪人……。在此一切 公教司铎的尊荣可敬处 之上，他因着基督的名字站在祭台之前，作为人与创造主的媒介，一再重行献上加尔瓦略山上基督自为大司祭时所奉上的祭献……。这实在是尊崇可敬的，公教信徒眼中的司铎，是基督地位的代表……他是罪人之仆。他会以奉献生活回报他的子民对他的爱护及感谢。我们为此最庆幸的，是上主召叫了这三名青年为他们的中国及中国人民在崇高的任务上服务。」

时间不知不觉地溜过，直至第十周年来临为止。学生们想为此事庆祝，但战争影响时局，致使无法实行。最后决定由恩理觉主教在修院主持主教大弥撒，并由他主持削发礼及授小品给候选者(共十六人)。

十周年院庆上，六十六名院生分别代表所有广东各教区、江西梧州教区、婆罗乃及沙捞越传教区。有一张纪念咭，印有院生的分布情况。一张总教区的地图上，标明各传教中心的所在，并注明在各处中心服务的已晋铎校友的人数。从修院毕业晋铎的总人数是四十八人；当中有些在其他大修院渡过很多光阴的，有些在香港仔、罗马、福州新总修院及其他地方完成学业的。二十位是在华南总修院完成全部哲学及神学课程，其中一位是已去世的黄成宽神父。

一九四一年十一月一日十周年院庆的欢乐情况已差不多在记忆中消失。当时战火的灾难已逼近眉睫。一九四一年十二月七日一个宁静的主日黄昏，日后成为中国驻梵蒂冈大使的吴经熊先生，来到修院演讲，讲题是他所熟习的「中国传统是基督信仰的天赐准备。」演讲完毕后，他与教授们闲谈，言谈间尚表示他们相信不会有战争。他们一点不知道，在接着约二十四小时内珍珠港会遭受蹂躏。次日早晨接到由市区拨来的一次电话中，告说香港已受到攻击。

政府当局早已通知院长，一旦战争发生，会征用修院作为海军船坞的官员及工人的家眷的避难所，而修生及神父们必须离开修院。这些需求驱使修生作好准备。政府本身不觉有需要提供居处。为了确定每个人在战时有一定的岗位，教授及学生都分别加入各种公众服务。修院已作好充份准备可以容纳政府人员眷属，所有修生都预备好听候出动。实际上到来避难的人数只有五十人而非原来预算的五百人，而亦并非所有修生奉召出动。战事开始的最初几天，一些修生到市区协助安置难民。其他人则指导派发食物给予香港仔渔村的贫民。但日军的迅速进展结束了这一切活动。留在修院的人根据原定计划在饭堂的窗户上堆上沙包。这后来证明是必须而且有效的防御。

十二月二十三至二十五日包围战的最后三天，修院是暴露在最前线。英军的俯瞰据点及火力据点部署在修院附近，这无疑招引推进中的日军的火力。幸好他们使用的炮火口径不大，并未足以轰破修院的坚固外墙。由于所有人都留在堆满沙包的饭堂内，所以人命损伤甚少。一百二十人之中，只有三人受轻伤。不过，上主的宠佑一直临在，院长决定了，从平安夜开始，弥撒会在饭堂中举行。假如平安夜他们留在小圣堂内，会在弥撒后施行降福礼。刚好在应该是降福的时刻，一枚炮弹穿透小圣堂的窗户飞入，轰毁了整个祭台。

这次得逃大难，但炮火依然接二连三射向院厦外墙，修生惊魂未定，连忙向圣母诸宠中保(OUR LADY MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES) 许愿，祈求她护佑众人免受损伤(注二)

圣诞日早上，院长决定带领妇孺离开修院，前往村中的女修院暂避，三份之二修生亦同行，其他的修生自愿留守修院以免有人趁机抢掠。中午时战斗停止，全部人在二十六日上午返回总修院，留守的人都精神饱满，但圣诞日当天院舍已两度受到轰炸。

事不延迟，修院立即作暂时性的修茸及清理，留在院内的妇孺悉数送回市区，一月一日修院再新开始过正常生活。一月七日，停课刚刚满一个月，正常的课程重新展开，但修生很多的时间用在修补院厦的损毁上。

以后的三年半修院维持着平常的生活，当然亦难免遇上沦陷城市的种种困难。日本人从来没法为总修院明确注册，他们不能将它划归入任何一类。它不是学校，不是圣堂，也不是修道院 所以它维持下去，就靠着这种难以注解的特性得以保护。即使有这种从日本人手中所取得的自由，假如没有罗马及爱尔兰来的不定期及难以预期的经济支援，修院是不保证能生存下去。

一九四五年五月，很多现在已遭人遗忘的理由，使人忧心香港会成为毁灭性轰炸的对象，粮食供应短缺，物价高涨，食米每磅售价高达六十五美元。因此，院方决定接受澳门主教H. E. MGR. RAMALHO, BISHOP OF MACAU的邀请，加入他们的修院。各教授及十四名院生起行，获得热烈的欢迎。

一九四五年八月和平重临，修生依然留在澳门，在香港仔只有一位司铎，就是院长马良神父(FR. JOHN O'MEARA, S. J.)。原定不打算在圣诞节之前重开修院，但十一月七日六位修生突然乘扫雷艇回来，三名来自嘉应，三名来自汕头。这立时决定尽快召回所有修生及重开课程。十一月十九日正常授课开始。以后几天修生陆续到达，使总数增加至三十一人。

当时要维持的人数算多，因为生活依然十分困苦。水电供应刚刚重新接驳好，交通仍未有获得正常安排，与香港市区的联络全靠政府或官方货车的不定时来往。食物由政府作定价的配给，当地出产的食物方可略作补充。

更严重的问题是疟疾。沦陷期间定期的预防措施完全松懈，蚊虫多而且狂疟。疟疾在邻近滋长。很多修生罹病，其中两名患了大脑疟疾的重症。但一九四六年一月，院舍及周围场地都喷上杀虫剂、杜绝病患。

以后几年，香港逐步恢复正常，修院亦回复正常的训练课程，当然其中亦不乏一些生活上的趣事。

同时，总修院的团体不断改变，引领修院渡过战火日子的马良神父，将修院的责任移交夏利士神父(FR. R. HARRIS, S. J.)，三年后伦若瑟神父(FR. JOSEPH GARLAND, S. J.) 接替夏利士神父的院长职。而夏神父则受任为耶稣会香港区省会长。数月后，修院始创时所留下最后一位教职员曹神父(FR.JOY) 离港前赴新加坡，一九五七年移交职责与黄永耀神父(FR. JOHN WOOD, S. J.)，黄神父一直任职至一九六四年总修院结束为止。战事结束的一年教职员的变动颇大。

一九四九年中国大陆政权易手。按着数年修院多被封闭，修生被放逐到各处，大部份到了香港。所有进再港仔总修院的申请都获得批准，虽然连渡宿的问题也悬疑未决，饭堂所有用膳时间都要分两批进食。神哲学课程都倍增。伦理神学共有三班而教义神学及哲学都加倍。以下是到港人数及日期。

一九四九年　

二月三日　　一名司铎，二十七名修生从琼县迁来；

二月十七日　四名司铎从琼县迁来；

三月廿八日　三十名修生从琼县迁来；

四月十六日　二十六名修生从汉口迁来；

四月廿八日　十七名修生从上海迁来；

五月二日　　七名修生从抚顺迁来。

来来往往继续下在，日复一日，根本没有人能知道究竟修院共有多少人，可能夏利士院长及莫神父(FR. MARAHAN) 会例外。五月间曾经有一次修院多及一百二十人。

逃难而来的修士，从汉口来的去了澳门，从琼县来的转赴马尼拉。一年之后上海来的修生纷纷返回上海；其余修生都留在香港仔完成学业。以后，更多的逃避修生由不同的小修院涌来，而本港教区的学生亦有加入，使人数一直维持在标准水平之上。一九五六年约和平后十年，总修院庆祝二十五周年院庆，其时共有分属二十一个不同教区及一个修会的五十四名神学生，及分属十个教区一个修会的二十五名哲学生。与中国大陆联络的结束，对修院起了影响。一九六三年修生人数减至分属五个教会的十二名神学生及三个教区一个修会的十五名哲学生。所以不难意料到一九六四年二月十七日星期一，署理院长科利神父(FR. JOHN FOLEY, S. J.) 会接获传信部的枢机主教一封函件，表示圣部 已决定从学年结束时起「不再维持总修院的活动」。一九六四年七月二十一日，有三十三年历史的华南总修院，在科利神父及香港教区大小修院合并后的院长唐多明神父(FR. DOMINIC BAZZO. P. I. M.E.) 共同签署一份文件后，宣告结束。

在总修院的存在期间，有很多不平凡的历史。在这里所提及的只是较重大的事件的一些提纲。其他尚有很多重要事情必须一提的，例如修生在香港仔渔民之间所做的社会工作，为区内儿童办的「街边小学」，宗教广播，每月寄发予曾在修院就读的司铎的通讯「院声」(VOX ALAME MATRIS)，一九五七年新圣堂建成等等。简洁而具体地综合起修院的成就，从一九三一年总修院成立以来，共有二百五十位司铎获得祝圣。除了在中国大陆及人部份留港外，这些司铎的足迹亦遍布海外十六个国家。司铎之中有的现已去世(已知的有十六位以上)；有的放弃铎品；但毕竟绝大部份是积极地为教会的使命服务。总修院的精神成就，透过司铎的宗徒工作，更是无可估量：只可以由上主评断了。

施惠淳著 Shield, Bernard J. 林瑞琪译 年份：1981

今年我们正庆祝一九三一年成立的华南总修院开办五十周年。自一九五六年即任教于修院的骆显慈神父(FR. MICHAEL McLOUGHLIN S. J.)，已于去年在本刊上为修院写了一段小史(注一)

本文现尝试罗列自一九三一年以来所有谈及修院的印刷册，并对这些读物的资料来源加以注释。在有关的已出版的书籍、文章、印刷图片之外，尚有数量相当的未被印行的文件，包括有官方或非官方的要件和书信，未经刊印的图片，种种其他资料等(注二)，以及特别那些可幸地仍与我们在一起的朋友，自一九三一至六四年间与修院有关的一些回忆(注三)。但由于主题所限，本文只谈论已印行的读物而已。

作者执笔为文的原意，可用若望福音第六章第十二节的那句话「把剩余的收集起来，免得糟蹋了。」来解释，亦一如中国成语所说：「饮水思源。」

为求方便起见，本文谨分为书籍及文章两部份：

甲、书籍

介绍修院最详细的单行本要算是「银禧纪盛」(THE SILVER JUBILEE RECORD)。该特刊是一九五七年修院二十五周年院庆时，同时以中英文混合版本发行(注四)。其中辑录了一系列对三十、四十及五十年代初期修院活动有颇详尽描述的文章，并具备所有从修院领受铎品的神职人员的照片，兼附中英文姓名(注五)。这份有纪念价值的专辑只是印行了极少数目，早已绝版，而且事实亦极难以觅得。

赖诒恩神父(FR.THOMAS RYAN S. J.) 的三部有关香港天主教的着作，可以补充很多关于香港仔修院的资料。他所写着名的「百年故事」(STORY OF A HUNDRED YEARS) 差不多等量于截至一九五八年为止的香港教区发展史，叙述了修院的成立情形，同时备有三帧修院的照片(注六)。他的「水深火热中的耶稣会士」(JESUITS UNDER FIRE) (注七)，为一九四一年十二月日本侵略者对修院建筑物戏剧性轰击的目击叙述。赖诒恩神父一九六二年的着作「香港天主教指南」(CATHOLIC GUIDE TO HONGKONG)用了整整三页纸谈论修院，包括一九五七年修院小圣堂开放，及修生的牧民训练等(注八)。

一份由巴黎外方任教会纳匝肋印书馆印制的拉丁文本修院手则，目前仍存放在教区档案处(注九)。

一九五八年梁作禄神父(Fr. A Lazzarotto P. I. M. E.) 为纪念宗座外方传教会往香港传教百周年所编写的「香港天主教」(Catholic Hong Kong)，对修院亦有详尽的描绘。

为纪念耶稣会到达本港及广州传教二十五周年而编写的「爱尔兰耶稣会士在华南」(Irish Jesuits in South China)，用了两页的篇幅介绍了修院，包括了一座巨型的望远镜的图片，这座望远镜是首任修院院长，一位有专业水准的机械师，耶稣会会士古宁神父(FR. THOMAS COONEY S. J.) 协助下所设置的(注十一)。

乙、文章

从一九三一年以来的众多天主教期刊中，我们至少可以找到六种能为我们的主题提供第一手资料的刊物。

战前香港，「盘石」月刊(The Rock) 就是个中的表表者。盘石月刊一九二○年十月由一位教友鲍文中校(LT. COL. FRANCIS J. BOWEN) (注十二) 创立。在他主编下「盘石」月刊维持了差不多五年，直至一九二五年五月才告停刊。一年多之后，恩理觉主教(BISHOP VALTORTA) 邀请爱尔兰籍耶稣会士到港并负责重新发行「盘石」月刊。这份杂志于是在一九二八年一月复刊，并持续至一九四一年十二月，一个香港的灾难性月份为止。复刊后的「盘石」起码有十期曾刊载有关修院首十年生活的文章及图片(注十三)。

特别令人感兴趣的是「盘石」所收录的那些图片，包括建筑中的修院大楼，大楼奠基，以及宫殿式大楼矗立在草木不生的光秃山头之上等。还有一早年修院教职及修生合照的历史性照片。具有多方面精湛学问的范达理神父(FR. DANIEL FINN S. J.) (注十四)，为介绍修院大楼的建筑特色所写的一篇文章亦刊载在内。

日后成为耶稣会华南传教区及爱尔兰省区省会长的潘多默神父(FR. THOMAS BYRNE S. J.) 曾在一九三六年七月号的「盘石」上，发表一篇描述那新置的十三吋口径巨型望远镜及其百年历史的文章。在一九四一年十二月号(刚赶及在日军侵入前出版)之前，仍有其他很多的文章描绘十周年院庆。由于时局不靖，庆祝活动相当低调，但最后院庆气氛却因首次咏唱修院院歌而大为增加。院歌系由中国文学教授黎正甫先生(注十五) 填词，由一位未具名的神学一年级学生谱乐。

更多战前修院生活的资料，相信可在一九二八年创刊的中文天主教期刊(公教报)内找到。战后的修院活动资料可在复刊的公教报或其一九四六年创刊的姊妹报「英文公教报」(SUNDAY EXAMINER) 内寻找。最起码每年的晋铎典礼的照片也得以在那里保留(注十六)。

修院修生曾自力出版一份每月通讯达十二年之久，并寄发住在本港、国内及海外各院友。这份名为「院声」(VOX ALMAE)(注十七) 的刊物，内容包括修院新闻、院友消息，每月退省主题、伦理神学个案、新书评介等。虽然其中的神学比重有限，但仍堪当视为目前「神学年刊」的前身。

与修院有直接关系的刊物并不只「院声」一份。四十年代末期及五十年代一份报导更详尽的刊物曾有一段时期由修院负责编写。这份刊物在一九四八年创刊时称「中国传教事业」(CHINA MISSIONARY)，但随后数年又屡易其名为「中国传教士简报」(CHINA MISSIONARY BULLETIN)及「传教汇报」(MISSION BULLETIN)，而至一九六○年发行期最后一年，再改称为「亚洲」(ASIA)。它的内容主要是动荡的五十年代中国天主教会的重要纪事(在一定程度上亦包罗了基督教会的纪事)，是五十年代一项不可多得并且难以取代的直接资料。作为编辑之一，在修院生活及工作多年的耶稣会会士保拉撒神父(FR. LEO PAUL BOURASSA S. J.)，不时写下修院校园生活琐事，留下了宁静的学府风光的图片(注十八)。

「中国传教事业」的前身「主教会议文摘」(DIGEST OF THE SYNODAL COMMISSION )，似乎并未能为香港仔修 院的过后历史提供一些较重要的资料(注十九)。

但对于矗立在香港仔渔港守望着无数大小渔船的修院大楼，基于其中国式建筑常使人留下深刻印象，所以经常现身于一般普通的报章上。最备受注意的英文报章「南华早报」(SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST)，曾详细地记载修院一九三一年成立的情况，并刊登了大楼壮丽外貌的图片(注二十)。停刊已久的新闻报「香港电讯」(The Hong Kong Telegraph) 在一九三六年修院的巨型望远镜从欧洲运抵时，也作了一次精彩动人的报导(注二十一)。

最后，我们必须一提一份并不多为人所知，但却从一九三一年起即定期刊载香港教区及修院纪事的年刊，这份名为「爱尔兰籍耶稣会士手册」(The Irish Jesuit Directory)目前每年仍在都柏林印行(注二十二)。它可靠地提供了一九三一至六四年间在修院服务的会士名录。举例说，一九三五年号会收集了一束日记，按月记载过去一个学年所发生的事情。一九六四年号之内，收录了一篇作者未署名的文章，详细报导「街边小学」的生活实况，并加上一辑学校照片，这间露天的学校是由修士们为当地渔民子弟开办的。

　　　　　　　　　　　

前文是收集及整存三十年来所有有关香港华南总修院文字记载的初次尝试。无疑必定有挂一漏万之处，笔者衷心欢迎各方面详加指正及补充本文之不足。

香港仔修院在华南天主教发展史上所扮演的角色的总观，仍有得进一步的发掘及记载，同时我们应感谢上主，使修院在其牧民领域内及领域外，都能宣扬基督福音。



  注释及书目

１．骆显慈神父著「华南总修院回忆录」(「神学年刊」第四期一九八０年号) 八十三至九十九页。

２．主要记存于罗马万民福音传播部，香港教区档案处，及香港耶稣会副会省办事处。

３．可喜的自一九三一年起至今约六位院长，目前仍全部和我们一起健在，他们是： Fr. Thomas Cooney, Fr. John O'Meara, Fr. Richand Harris, Fr. Joseph Garland, Fr. John Wood及Fr. John Foley。

４．骆显慈神父(Fr. Michael McLoughlin S. J.) 一九五七年编「香港鸭巴甸华南总修院银禧纪念特刊(一九三一至五六)第一O八页，中英文混合版。

５．有部份修生的名字相信与照片中人不符。

６．赖诒恩神父著「百年故事：一八五八年至一九五八年宗座外方传教会在香港」(The Story of a Hundred Years： The PIME in Hong Kong 1858-1958) (香港真理学会一九五九年出版)，第一九四至一九五页；图片第一九五、一九九、二二七页。

７．赖诒恩神父著「一九四一年香港沦陷时期水深火热中的耶稣会士」(JESUITS UNDER FIRE IN THE SIEGE OF HONG KONG 1941) (LONDON：BURNS OATES AND WASHBOIRNE, 1944)文第一五九至一六０页，图第四，第一O五，第一二０页。

８．赖诒恩神父著「香港天主教指南」(CATHOLIC GUIDE TO HONG KONG) (香港公教真理学会，一九六二年出版) 文第八十三至八十五页，图第八十七页。

９．潘格神父(G. Byrne) 编「香港华南总修院院规」(REGULAE SEMINARII REGIONALIS HONG KONG ENSIS) (香港纳匝肋印书馆，一九三二年) 第十一页。

１０．梁作禄神父编「香港天主教：百年传教活动(Catholic Hong Kong：A Hundred years of Missionary Activity) (香港天主教刊物出版处一九五八年出版。) 书中艾巧智神父作「本地神职界的修院」文第三十页，图三十一至三十二页。

１１．「爱尔兰耶稣会士在华南」：二十五年的回顾(IRISH JESUITS IN SOUTH CHINA： A RECORD OF 25YEARS) (香港版一九五二年) 文第六至七页(附插图)另有图片在第十四、二十四页。

１２．「盘石」第三期(THE ROCK 3)：一九三０年六月)有其照片。在第一九五页。

１３．「盘石」卷三(THE ROCK 3)：一九三O年十一月号 「华南总修院」(The Regional Seminary)第三六七至三六八页，另有两帧插图在第三六五页。卷四：一九三一年十二月号(From a Hong Kong Armchair) 总第三二四至三二五页，四帧插图在三二四及三二六页。卷四：一九三一年十二月号「香港仔没有圣诞」(No Christmas in Aberdeen) 总第三九O至九四页，图片在三九三页。　

卷四：一九三一年十二月号「华南总修院」(REGIONAL SEMINARY) 四０八至四０九页，图见四０九页。　

卷五：一九三二年一月五帧图，见二十四页。　

卷八：一九三五年四月号「访客」(The Visitor)　

「小香港大事件」(Big Things in Little Hong Kong)见一一九至一二二页。　

卷九：一九三六年七月潘力神父(Fr. T. Byrue S. J.) 著「修院天文学」：如何及为什么(ASTRONOMY IN A SEMINARY：HOW AND WHY) 三一五至三一八页。　

卷十：一九三七年五月号「在港晋铎典礼：五位国籍新铎」(Ordinations in Hong Kong：Five New Chinese Priests) 第一五二页。　

卷十二：一九三九年五月号刚恒毅总主教著「传教的艺术：一九四二年梵蒂冈展览会」(Art in the Missions：The Vatican Exhibition of 1942) 页二二五至二二八，修院照片见第二二五、二二八页。

卷十四：一九四一年十二月号「香港华南总修院：创立十周年院庆」(The Regional Seminary Hong Kong：Tenth Anniversary of the Opening) 第四九七页。

香港华仁书院差不多拥有全部「盘石」(The Rock)。

１４．梅雅颂(William Mencham) 所著「建筑学在香港」一文，曾特别介绍范达理神父(Fr. Daniel Finn S. J.) 的建筑学成就，见该书(Hong Kong：Heineman, 1980) 第十一至十六页。

１５．黎正甫先生是一位杰出的学者，曾著有不少中国文学书籍。

１６．公教报办事处存有整套的中文公教报及其姊妹刊物 “Sunday Examiner”。

１７．目前仍未能发现这份通讯的印本。

１８．保力齐(Richard C. Bush Jr.) 在他的「共产中国下的宗教」"Religion in Communist China" Nashville：Abingdon Press, 1970) 首先运用了CMRA这个缩写代替了这份杂志的所有四个名字。　

下述的五期CMBA刊有总修院的资料：　

卷六：一九五四年十月号第七三九页刊有修院及香港仔渔民的图片。　

卷六：一九五四年十一月号「香港仔华南总修院」(Aberdeen Regional Seminary) 第八九三至八九四页。　

卷八：一九五六年一月号伦若瑟神父(Fr. J. Garland S. J.) 着 「香港仔华南总修院一九三O至一九五五」(The Regional Seminary Aberdeen, Hong Kong 1930-1955) 第三十三至三十五页，另附四帧照片在二十九至三十二页。　

卷五：一九五三年二月号「史皮曼枢机主教访港」(Cardinal Spellman visits Hong Kong) 第一八六页。　

卷五：一九五三年九月号「修生晋铎」第七一O至七一一页。

１９．香港大学利玛窦宿舍，差不多完全保存起这份稀有的杂志，包括一九二八至三O年及一九三三至四O年所出版的。

２０．南华日报一九三一年十一月二十四日：「香港仔新标致：规模庞大的总修院建筑完成，全部中国式设计」，香港教区有剪存这篇文章。

２１．一九三六年七月十一日星期六「香港电讯」(The Hong Kong Telegraph) 所有的标题如下： 「香港的巨型望远镜」，具有历史价值的仪器，矗立在港岛上，全中国第三大望远镜， 天文学的冲击，一度是全球最大的。

２２．除了每年的修院教职员名单，该期刊所载与修院有关的文章尚包括：

卷六：一九三三年力理(J. Neary) 「爱尔兰耶稣会士在中国」(The Irish Jesuits in China) 一文，有关修院部份见一五四至一五六页，图片见第一六O页。　

卷七：一九三四年「华南总修院摘要」(Notes on the Regional Seminary) 见第一四０至一四一页。　

卷八：一九三五年「华南总修院：一年插要」(Regional Seminary：Notes of the Year) 页一二二至一二七。插图片见第一七八、一八八页。　

卷九：一九三六年「华南总修院：一年摘要」(Regional Seminary：Notes of the Year) 第一一六至一二二页。　

卷十：一九三七年「华南总修院：一年摘要」(Regional Seminary：Notes of the Year)。　

卷三十一：一九五八年刊载有修院照片在第一一四页。　

卷三十七：一九六四年「香港的修院」(The Seminary, Hong Kong) 见第十一至二十六页，照片第十二、十五、十六、十八、二十三页。

卷三十八：一九六五年「街边小学」的照片见第八十三页。

请注意，差不多上述所有资料的影印本，均可在华南总修院的后继者：香港仔圣神修院的资料室获得。

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J. 年份：1981

THE CONFESSOR AS MEDIATOR BETWEEN MAGISTERIUM AND CONSCIENCE
(A Contemporary Role)
John J. Casey
Theology Annual vol.5 1981 p.159-175

　

**********

Abstract
The author examines the problem, of being a good confessor－a major challenge today. He endeavours to describe the special task of the confessor in modern times and suggests how he can carry it out in practice.

作为一位良好的告解司铎是今日司铎牧职的重大挑战，作者试图指出今日告解司铎的特殊任务，和实际上如何履行此任务。

**********

　

Of all the sacraments in the Church, the most complex in its execution is the Sacrament of Penance. Like any of the other sacraments, of course, it demands an empowered minister and a capable recipient. But whereas the other sacraments demand simply the desire to do what the Church does on the part of the minister and simply the desire to receive the specific sacrament on the part of the recipient, Penance has a number of added conditions that are to be met by both the recipient and the minister before the sacrament in its entirety becomes an accomplished fact. On the part of the recipient, these are summed up under the aspect of conversion of heart whereby in the acts of contrition, confession and promised satisfaction, he clearly indicates to the minister that this is the case. On the part of the minister, all are summed up under the aspect of spiritual judge whereby he must make the decision to pronounce absolution under the power of the keys and must levy a penance that will be salutary for the recipient.

What this means in practice, then, is that the Sacrament of Penance on both the part of the minister and the part of the recipient demands a level of sophistication that none of the other sacraments demands. Historically this demand has meant much for the intellectual training of the diocesan priesthood. Anyone who is at all acquainted with the history of the development of seminaries after the Council of Trent is aware of the fact that the Council's call for the better administration and reception of this sacrament was the single most powerful influence on the development of the seminary theology course that became in time the standard course.(1) But while the minister of the sacrament was trained, the recipient of the sacrament was left at a relatively low level of understanding for some time.

The prevailing mentality in the Church was that a well trained ministry would take care of the needs of both the minister and the recipient of the sacrament. That is, the minister would be well versed in the understanding of both roles and the recipient accepting the minister as an expert, would simply follow his directions in preparing for and carrying out a proper reception of the Sacrament of Penance. For a long time this system was perfectly adequate and still is in some parts of the world today. But during the present century, this system started to break down in many places. The reason was that the ordinary recipient of the sacrament began to be better informed thanks to rapidly advancing Catholic educational opportunities, and under this impetus he began to realize that he was capable of developing his own expertize for his role in the Sacrament of Penance. What was a timid recognition at first, was given a powerful boost by the lengthy controversy in the Church over the use of conjugal love, commonly known as the Birth Control Controversy.(2)

It was Pope Paul VI who officially recognized the personal competence of the recipient of the Sacrament of Penance in this regard while attempting to safeguard the role of the Hierarchical Magisterium. In an allocation to the cardinals of 23rd June, 1964, he said the following:－

The Church recognizes manifold aspects of the problem (Of birth control), that is to say, the manifold areas of competence, among which is certainly preeminent that of the spouses themselves, that of their liberty, of their conscience, of their love, of their duty. But the Church must also affirm hers, that is to say, that of the law of God, which she interprets, teaches, promotes and defends……(3)

Such a statement clearly indicates the competency of the recipient of the Sacrament of Penance in his role and recognizes a potential area of conflict between the magisterium and the individual concience.

The tension between the magisterium and the individual conscience frequently leads to a feeling of inadequacy among confessors in fulfilling their role as judge. Caught between a determined magisterium and an equally determined laity, both of whom have legitimate areas of competence on a moral question, the confessor seems to be left without a personal role in the dispute. On the one hand, the magisterium is reminding him that he is a minister of the Church and that he must follow its teachings; on the other hand his penitents remind him that he must respect their freedom of conscience. What is he to do?

In an attempt to solve this dilemma, confessors sometimes have taken strict sides. But this course of action is hardly a satisfactory one because it tends to alienation. On the one hand when the confessor authoritatively takes the side of the magisterium, he only serves to alienate his penitents from himself and from the Sacrament of Penance. On the other hand when he cavalierly takes the side of a penitent, he only serves to alienate him from the magisterium of the Church and perhaps is even a cause of his loosing all respect for the teaching authority of the Church. Either position is always a disaster.

The obvious answer to this dilemma is to recognize that the confessor of today is called upon to exercise a completely new role in his penitential ministry, namely that of mediator between the magisterium and the individual conscience. In this role, the confessor cannot take sides which would alienate; rather he must seek to heal division by bringing both sides together in an effective penitential situation. Since this is a recent role thrust upon the confessor, unfortunately sacramental theology texts and manuals are usually unacquainted with it. As a result, as yet little printed direction is offered to the confessor. But there are two things that he must have a clear understanding of; first that this is indeed a valid role springing from the nature of the sacrament itself and second that to fulfill this role properly calls for serious intellectual study rather than simply pastoral counseling techniques.

The validity of the new role as springing from the very nature of the Sacrament of Penance itself, unfolds from the history of the sacrament. In the early days of the Church, the sacrament was a rare occasion in the life of a Christian. It was celebrated with great solemnity and severity for serious sinners who by their sin had cut themselves off from the life of the Church. In such a context, the category of serious sins was understandably small－idolatry, murder and adultery being the original triad of mortal sins.(4) Given the social structure of the time in both the larger society as well as the Church community, such sins were never secret. Thus the culprit stood accused in the sight of all and he did his penance in the sight of all.

As the Church's awareness of the richness of the Sacrament of Penance grew, the catalogue of sins to be penanced began to become more complex and with it the role of the penitent. A larger list of sins meant that many faults were no longer public knowledge and to disclose them could well have had harmful effects for the penitent. As a result, the sacrament began to take on a double form; one the public form for public sins and the other the private form for private or secret sins. In the first form, the sinner stood accused by the very public nature of his faults and he approached the tribunal of penance simply as a culprit seeking forgiveness. With secret confession, however, the sinner took on an added role, that of accuser as well as culprit seeking forgiveness. Meantime the role of minister remained the same, that of judge primarily of the salutary penance to be given to rectify or bring back into proper balance the life of the sinner that had been disordered by his fault. With the passage of time, secret confession became the rule and public penance gradually disappeared except in extraordinary cases. At the present time, even in these cases it is hardly an effective measure in the life of the Church.

The development of theology in the middle ages added greater sophistication to the understanding of the dynamics of the Sacrament of Penance. Under theological analysis it came to be understood that Penance consisted of certain material elements and certain formal elements neither of which could be separated from the other if the sacrament was to be integral. The accuser-accused role of the penitent was understood to consist in three concrete acts; contrition, confession and satisfaction. The judgmental role of the confessor then shifted somewhat to be seen as consisting primarily in the decision as to whether or not the penitent fulfilled these acts that were necessary for an integral sacrament to be confected.

From the time of the Council of Trent up to the present, the essential form of the Sacrament of Penance and the essential acts of the penitent and confessor have remained unchanged. But at the same time there has been a great development in the understanding of what the dynamics are whereby one accuses himself of sin. Put simply, it was the task of the moral theologian to clarify classes and types of sins so that the penitent in examining his conscience would know what material he should accuse himself of. If he were not certain, then he would have to make a judgment of conscience but he was also given detailed instruction on how this was to be done. As mentioned above, the system worked well for a number of years－in fact until the advances of technology began to pose new problems for old situations. One of these, of course, was the birth control problem.

What made the kind of a problem that birth control offers such a celebrated one was a certain shift in the way that the Church had been addressing such problems. For a long time in the history of the Church, moral problems were given solutions by theologians. If the solution arrived at was judged by the Church to be an improper one, then that solution would be set aside and corrected by the teaching authority of the Church. Thus in practice the positive magisterium of the Church consisted of theologians whereas the negative magisterium consisted of the hierarchical teaching authority. In serious times and for serious questions, this latter authority acted through a general council.

During the nineteenth century and particularly after the defining of the dogma of papal infallibility, the hierarchical magisterium of the Church came to assume a position of prominence in the solution to moral questions. Thus in response to modern birth control questions, it has not been moral theologians in a slow developmental way but rather papal pronouncements that have constituted the positive teaching authority of the Church. On the one hand this system has benefitted the Church in so far as it has given quick, decisive answers but on the other hand the mode of presentation－parent to child tradition－and the sense of finality of a papal statement the continuing infallibiliy discussion－have made it difficult for an increasingly educated adult laity to adjust. In practice this is experienced particularly in the penitent's role of accuser in confession.

The difficulty that the penitent has in integrating magisterial statements on morality into a proper framework in his role of self-accuser in the Sacrament of Penance, of its very nature calls for a counter response on the part of the confessor. By virtue of his role as judge of the integrity of the acts of the penitent, he is therefore obliged to mediate between the magisterium and the conscience. Perhaps some might say that this is not true mediation because the confessor in the actual context of the Sacrament of Penance is in contact with only one party and therefore the usual give-and-take of the mediating situation is impossible. Thus the role of the confessor in this situation is no more that that of a persuader of the one side that can change (the conscience) to adapt itself to the side that is unchangeable (the magisterium). However, this obviously is not the case.

The confessor in his role of judge in the Sacrament of Penance does not act by virtue of delegated authority; rather he acts by virtue of a power that comes to him directly from Christ through his ordination. Once the Church gives him the care of souls through office or delegated jurisdiction, he exercises a power that is his directly and does not depend for its execution on any other person in the Church. Since the exercise of such a power contains within it all the means necessary to carry it to its fulfillment, the confessor in the opere operanti of the Sacrament of Penance becomes in his role as mediator the authentic interpreter of the teachings of Christ and a fortiori of the magisterial teaching of the Church. He thus plays an active role as the representative of the magisterium with full power to interpret for the magisterium. In fact, when he exercises this role properly it may even be said that he partakes of the infallibility that is implicit in the Church In so far as the penitent need not fear that the interpretation he receives will be detrimental to his salvation. However, it must also be clearly understood that since this charism of the confessor flows from the integrity of particular penitential situations, the interpretations that he makes of the teachings of Christ or the magisterium of the Church are valid only for the individual sacramental situation connected with that interpretation. In short, the confessor in his role as magisterial mediator with the individual conscience does not in any way modify the objective magisterial teachings of the Church.

But as mentioned above, the proper fulfillment of the role of mediator on the part of the confessor demands a deep knowledge of magisterial decrees. In the question of birth control, this would be the encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope Paul VI, HUMANAE VITAE.(5) And just as Pope Paul made use of mature reflection and assiduous prayers in arriving at his conclusion, so the confessor must do the same. He should be able to penetrate behind the words (what is stated) in order to arrive at the heart of the message (what is affirmed). HUMANAE VITAE is not a difficult document but a very clear one. Arguments against it fall into two categories; the first of these is that the teachings put forward in the encyclical are based on an inadequate conception of the natural law and the second is that the teachings do not do justice to the integrity of the human person.(6) It is not the purpose of this paper to criticize these points but suffice it to say that the author sees them as the result of a focus on the words of the encyclical (what is stated) rather than a focus on the real message (what is affirmed). The confessors' primary interest must be on the message.

A careful study of the text of HUMANAE VITATE reveals very clearly that the intent of the encyclical was to safeguard the essential nature of conjugal love. Therefore anything that would violate this essential nature－that is, remove entirely from acts of conjugal love any reference to its life-giving aspect－would be a serious disturbance of a natural order that both revelation and human reason have recognized as a sine qua non of the human condition. In its absolute understanding, it clearly affirms a basic human life-style－the family in its root sense－and it clearly denies the validity of contrary life-styles like homosexual marriage. This absolute under-standing that the confessor takes from the document, becomes the principle from which his mediation between the magisterium and the individual conscience in the Sacrament of Penance will flow.

It is important that the confessor understand the intent of HUMANAE VITAE as a principle and not as a law. Catholic moral theology from the very earliest days of its development has exhibited a marked tendency to reduce Christian conduct to a series of laws which establish a criterion outside of as well as prior to any act the Christian may perform. The law, then, simply provides a blue-print of rectitude of conduct whereby one simply forms his conscience by comparing his conduct to the blueprint. In this examination he ticks off as sin whatever in his conduct does not correspond to the outline in the blueprint. The confessor must understand that the need for his role as mediator became necessary precisely because such a reduction of Christian conduct is largely rejected by recipients of the Sacraments of Penance today and specifically in their role of self-accuser.

A principle, on the other hand, while establishing a criterion outside any act the Christian may perform, does not establish a criterion prior to the act. What this means is the principle is a part of the act itself, enhancing or vitiating the perfection of the act. Principles in regard to human conduct, then, are concerned with virtues rather than laws and it is within this context that the confessor mediates between the magisterium and the individual conscience. In the question of birth control, the mediation will concern the affirmation or denial of basic human dignity in the conduct of ones conjugal life from both the standpoint of the individual and the standpoint of the principle, both of which enter into the one act.

In summation, then, the birth control problem gives a prime example of the role of the confessor as a mediator between the magisterium and the individual conscience. And as more sophisticated moral problems arise which make greater demands on the penitent in his role of self-accuser, the confessor's role will 'obviously also become more demanding. One might well ask, then, if new moral problems will continue to make the roles of the confessor and the recipient of the sacrament increasingly more complicated to the point where Penance will become a meaningful sacrament only for the best educated. It is the opinion of this writer that such will never be the case. New moral problems are not new in the strict sense but rather new variations on a theme. And the history of moral problems has shown that they wax and wane in accord with the times. But that is another study.

　

FOOTNOTES
1)Cf. Louis Vereecke, STORIA DELLA THEOLOGIA MORALE MODEKNA, VOL. II (Roma: Academia Alfonsiana, 1980), pp. 113-122.

2)An excellent survey of this appeared in Franz Bockle 'Bibliographical Survey on the Question of Birth Control' CONCILIUM Vol. 15 No.1 (May, 1965) 53-69. The statement made by the chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Conference at the 1980 Synod of Bishops in Rome showed that the situation outlined in the article had not changed in the last fifteen years.

3)Cf. Paul VI, Allocation to the Cardinals, 23rd June, 1964; ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 56(156(1964) 588-89.

4)Cf. Paul F. Palmer, SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY VOL . II: SACRAMENTS AND FORGIVENESS (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1959), pp. 66-67.

5)Cf. the official English translation of HUMANAE VITAE. EN CYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH (Vaticana: Tipografia Polyglotta, 1968).

6)Cf. Robert H. Springer, 'Notes on Moral Theology' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 30 No. 2 (June, 1969) 249-288.

　

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beekle, Franz. 'Bibliographical Survey on the Question of Birth Control' CONCILIUM Vol. 5 No. 1 (May, 1965) 53-69.

Cardegna, Felix F. 'Contraception the Pill and Responsible Parenthood' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 25 No. 4 (December, 1964) 611-636.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH Vaticana: Typographia Polyglotta, 1968.

Flynn, Fred. 'Humanae Vitae and Natural Law' PRIEST 25(1969) 81-88.

Kelly, Gerald. 'Pope Pius XII and the Principle of Totality' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 16 No. 3 (September, 1955) 373-396.

Mahone, John. 'Understanding the Encyclical' MONTH 226(1968) 233-244.

Palmer, Paul F. SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY VOL. II: SACRAMENTS AND FORGIVENESS London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1959.

Reed, John J. 'National Law, Theology and the Church' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 26 No. 1 (March, 1965) 40-64.

Springer, Robert H. 'Notes on Moral Theology' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 30 No. 2 (June, 1969) 249-288.

Vereecke, Louis. STORIA DELLA THEOLOGIA MORALE MODERNA VOL. II Roma: Accademia Alfonsiana, 1980.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by: Holy Spirit Seminary College

作者：陆鸿基 Luk, Hung Kay, Bernard 年份：1981

AN INQUIRY INTO MEDIEVAL AND REFORMATION THOUGHT


Nineteenth-century liberal historians, whose writings often affected an anti-Medieval bias derived from the political anti-clericalism of their own age, tended to treat the Middle Ages as a dark, uncivilised, illiberal era, intolerant of any deviance from Catholic dogma. For examples they would cite the papal and conciliar condemnation of heretics, the domestic crusades against the Albigensians and other dissidents, and the Spanish and Roman Inquistions of medieval and early modern Europe, To these writers, the revival of Classical learning, the Protestant revolt against the Catholic Church, and the rise of capitalism, signified the dawn of a new and more tolerant age.

Recent historians are likely to dispute these images. Their researches have shown that although the medieval record of religious tolerance was far from brilliant, it was not uniformly unenlightened or irrational. Medieval thought did differentiate between various kinds of dissidence from the magisterium of the Church for different treatments. The infamous wars against the Albigensians, Hussites and other popular heretics are found to have been motivated more by the land greed of the feudal nobility than by the religious dogmatism of churchmen. Furthermore, the height of religious intolerance was reached not during the Middle Ages but in the era of Protestant-Catholic confrontation, in part under the sponsorship of John Calvin. In this view, the Renaissance and Reformation were not so much the beginning of a better age as the period between the waning of medieval civilisation and the coming of modern times.(1)

This article inclines towards the latter view, and will trace the development of attitudes towards heresy in medieval and reformation thought, and the slow emergency of religious toleration. It is important first to clarify certain concepts.

Dissidence and orthodoxy are relative terms that depend for their meaning on each other. To call a body of thought or a type of behaviour orthodox implies the existence of thoughts, words, and deeds that are deviant from it. Thus, as ideas, actions, and people splinter into more and more groups, there would appear tiers of orthodoxies and dissidences. But while the orthodox might have existed in general form before the development of dissidence, the precise formulation and reformulation of orthodoxy might have been precipitated as a defence against the dissidents. Examples of this process abound in the Patristic period of Church history. Thus, not only in logic, but in actual development as well, are orthodoxy and dissidence interdependent.

Heresy is a particular kind of dissidence in the context of a particular kind of orthodoxy.(2) Traditional Christianity presupposes an absolute truth that is knowable by humans and is in fact known to (if not fully understood by) good Christians. This truth is capable of more and more precise formulation, but the outline is believed, to have been established by divine inspiration, and is beyond dispute. Dissidence, therefore, could imply grave error, and is to be avoided. But what constitutes heresy at any one point in history depends on the scope of the formulated dogma, which grew in time. What to do with heretics would in turn depend on the pertinent theories current in the Church and on external circumstances.

From a theological approach, heresy is a problem for the conscience of the Christian as well as for society and the Church; in addition, the hierarchy's policy towards heresy and heretics involves also the theoretical relations between ecclesia and mundus, In the discussions that follow, it is important to bear in mind the tiers of orthodoxies and dissidences as well as the dynamic nature of the meanings of truth and heresy.

HERESY AND THE INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE

Since the proper purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls, the primary theological concern on heresy should be the state of the heretic's conscience; in other words, can a heretic be saved?

Traditional Christian teaching recongised three kinds of consciences :－

1) The conscientia recta et vera (upright andcorrect conscience), which sincerely observes norms that are objectively true.

2) The conscientia exlex (outlaw conscience), which follows its own whims without reference to any objective norm.

3) The conscientia recta sed non vera (upright but incorrect conscience), which adheres to sincerely held objective norms that are without the fulness of truth.(3)

The first one is the good conscience of the true believer; the second is sinful; but it is the third, the erroneous conscience, that presents the main problem in the case of heresy. If it is granted that the heretic is a person of goodwill and sincere in her or his belief of the wrong doctrine, would she or he be expected to follow the orthodox version of the truth and thus go against her or his own dissident conscience? Or should the conscience be obeyed against the dogmatic truth? In which case, if either, would the poor heretic be saved? On the various treatments of this problem were hinged the diverse theories of persecution and tolerance.

The Biblical and Patristic teachings are rather ambivalent. Paul of Tarsus, the first to have touched on the subject explicitly, seems to have been of the opinion that the erroneous conscience is binding on the individual, and should be followed by himself and respected by others.(4) Augustine of Hippo held that a man cannot believe unless he wants to, but also argued that it was legitimate and advantageous to use force to 'help' the erroneous conscience correct its beliefs.(5) In the Middle Ages, there gradually arose two different schools of thought on the subject. On the one side were mostly Franciscans and Augustinians who denied any righteousness on the part of the erroneous conscience, and ruled that the individual would sin whether following it (and thus going against the truth) or disobeying it (and thus willingly doing wrong according to his own light). The only obligation for such a person was to put aside his erroneous conscience in favour of a correct one. This was the position, for example, of Bonaventure. According to such logic, the orthodox members of the Church, charitably mindful of the salvation of their dissident brethren, should do the utmost, including the use of necessary force, to bring the heretics back to the one true fold. Tolerance was out of the question because it was actually to the harm of the lost sheep. The other school of thought was led by Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, who differentiated between involuntary and voluntary ignorance of the truth. They held that the involutary erroneous conscience was guiltless, did not impair salvation, and should be respected; such was the ignorance of the pagan, who could attain salvation by goodwill and good works. Voluntary ignorance, on the other hand, did not excuse any fault; and ignorance of the divine law which everyone was supposed to know in one's own mind was considered one kind of voluntary ignorance. Since the heretic had once known the truth and then fell away, his erroneous conscience was not innocent, his salvation was impaired; intolerance and persecution of him was also justified.(6) Guided by these two schools of thought, which arrived at broadly similar positions by way of different paths, the medieval Church condemned thousands of heretics to the merciless 'secular arm', which usually had its own political or economic motive for bounding the dissidents.

During the Reformation period, the struggle between orthodoxy and heresy became more and more heated. As each major reformer considered his teaching to be true and deviations from it to be false, it is historically more accurate to speak of othodoxies and heresies. Thus, when Martin Luther established his doctrine as an orthodoxy, he adopted a position on heresy remarkably close to that of the Franciscans and Augustinians. Although Luther was at first (while himself a dissident in the Catholic Church) opposed to the use of force on heretics, his final stand was in fact consistent with his basic theological tenet of sola Scriptura. If the Bible is the only truth and the only salvation, an erroneous conscience, one that does not adhere to Biblical truth, has no hope of salvation. Thus he writes: 'A really good conscience desires nothing better than to listen to the teaching of the Scriptures and to examine itself with the help of these Scriptures.' The use of force on the heretic was ultimately to be sanctioned.(7) Perhaps Luther's background as an Augustinian monk also contributed to his position.

Nevertheless, Luther drew a distinction between heresy, which was an act of the erroneous conscience, and blasphemy, which was the sin committed by the outlaw conscience. Calvin made no such distinction. This again was consistent with his theology. Since faith and salvation are predetermined anyway, the traditional distinction between three kinds of consciences is irrelevant. This is not to say, however, that it does not matter what one thinks about God. Since God is high above and one far below, any unworthy expression about God is an affront to God's dignity and honour, and must be vindicated. Heresy is thus the same as blasphemy, and both are lese-majeste; toleration is completely out of the question.(8) The Reformation, by bringing about religious diversity and strife, also therefore witnessed a diminution of what little there was of religious tolerance in medieval thought.

It must not be thought that Calvin was the only one of his time to deny bona fides in the heretic. In the heat of controversy, fine points of doctrinal distinction were only too easily forgotten. After the Munster coup, for instance, Luther's definition of blasphemy broadened considerably to include the rejection of an article in the Apostles' Creed!(9) The Jesuit Peter Canisius also considered heresy as lese-majeste.(10) It is only too tempting for the orthodox to brand the dissidents as evil people.

Heresy and society

The salvation of the individual was of course not the only concern of the orthodox. Since the Church functions in a social context, the welfare of one part of the Church has to be balanced against that of other parts. Thus, heresy troubled the Church not only because of the salvation of individual heretics, but also because other members of the ecclesia and mundus might be affected by the spread of dissident beliefs. To prevent large numbers from following false prophets, the case was often made for weeding out heretics before they could recruit others to their side. Aquinas regarded heresy as a contagious evil; logically, therefore, 'an enlightened charity towards the masses of Christian people demanded energetic measures…… when, because of constant relapses, the culprit gives the simple faithful a dangerous example of inconstancy in matters of faith.'(11) For such a reason was the crusade preached against the Albigensians, who were condemned for both doctrinal and moral deviance.(12)

The view of Thomas was shared by Calvin, who expressed the same point with colourful imagery:－

That humanity, advocated by those who are in favour of a pardon for heretics, is greater cruelty because in order to save the wolves they expose the poor sheep. I ask you, is it reasonable that heretics should be allowed to murder souls and to poison them with their false doctrine, and that we should prevent the sword, contrary to God's command, from touching their bodies, and that the whole Body of Jesus Christ be lacerated that the stench of one rotten member may remain undisturbed?(13)

Calvin himself would go so far as to cooperate with his archenemy the Roman Inquistition to secure the arrest (and subsequent burning at the stake) of the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus.(14)

The adherence of the masses to truth is but another way of saying the unity of the orthodoxy. The unity and universality of Latin Christendom was regarded as a matter of great importance in the Middle Ages, indeed, as the basis of society.(15) Although this ideal lost much of its reality in the Reformation period, the unity of faith in each territory was still generally cherished, and constituted a problem for ecclesiology as well as for political theory. (Infra)

It is evident from the above discussions that orthodox attitudes towards dissidents were often based not so much on considerations for the dissidents themselves as for the rest of society. Thus, distinctions were sometimes made between freedom of private belief and freedom of public worship. The former was a matter for the individual conscience and not to be coerced, while the latter could constitute a public scandal, and should be regulated. Such was Luther's position in 1525, as was Zwingli's strategy in Switzerland in 1529.(16) Distinctions were also made between peaceful heresies and seditious ones. Luther indeed thought at first that the former were necessary for the ultimate triumph of truth!(17) The great exponent of Christian humanism, Erasmus, would tolerate religious heresy but not the anti-authoritarianism of the Anabaptists. Johann Brenz, the reformer of Wurttemberg, stressed the differences between the violent and non-violent elements of the Anabaptist movement, the 'black sheep' and the 'genius', and argued that the whole lot should not be punished categorically for the crime of the former.(18) Indeed, the parellel that was frequently drawn by the orthodox from Aquinas to Canisius between heresy and the counterfeiting of money(19) may as well be turned around to show one possible limit of intolerance－heresy that does not spread or provoke social upheavals, like counterfeit money that does not circulate, is relatively harmless and may be afforded somewhat more tolerance. Such arguments, obviously, would not be applied or accepted by Calvin.(20)

Church, State, and Sect

If a heresy is seditious, it would naturally involve the state, in which case the concern would be political rather than dogmatic. But this was not the only way in which the secular power entered into the story of tolerance and intolerance. While the waning of the Middle Ages was in part the breakdown of the dualism of Church and State, diverse new patterns of Church-State relations evolved during the Reformation period, each supplying a different approach to the problem of dissidence.(21)

The power of the ruler to intervene in religious and ecclesiastical matters had long been a matter of debate in Latin Christendom. Although Eastern caesaropapism was vigourously denied by the medieval Latin Church, the tendency in the late Middles Ages was for the prince to gain political ascendancy gradually over the Church in his territory. The Reformation, course, greatly facilitated this development. In the Middle Ages, the 'secular arm' of the Church was given the nasty tasks which the Church considered outside its scope and below its dignity to perform. Such, for instance, were the massacre of heretical villages, or the burning of dissidents condemned by the Inquistition. But it was for the Church, and the Church alone, to decide what the people should believe and what constituted heresy. Luther, however, pressed by the Catholics from one side and by the Zwinglians and Anabaptists from another, had to turn to the princes for support.(22) He conceded to the princes a three-fold task, viz.:－

1) The prince should as far as possible encourage the preaching of the Gospel.

2) He should prevent the preaching of false and heretical doctrine and at the same time repress whatever should constitute an attack on God's honour.

3) He must see to it that all his subjects come to listen to the word of God.(23)

This being the prince's province, heresy came to be considered a crime against the secular ruler, and loyalty to the ruler would demand at least outward adherence to the state religion. From this doctrine of the cura religionis of the prince grew his power as 'guardian of both tablets of the Ten Commandments' (in the words of Philip Melanchthon, Luther's lieutenant), and as defender of religious unity, in his own territory. This was in effect an extension of the idea of the secular arm, with the State gaining the upper hand over the Church. Any heresy, whether seditious or not, would be a crime against the State. Finally, this doctrine developed into the Augsburg formula of cujus regio, ejus religio－the prince was to enjoy complete freedom of conscience between Catholicism and Lutheranism, but not so his subject, who had to choose between obedience or exile.(24) This political compromise, which was to the disadvantage of both the dissidents and the Church, was accepted by Catholic apologists, contrary to traditional teachings. (25)

It probably made little practical difference to the individual dissident, once persecution started, whether he was bounded by the Churches or by the State, as may be gathered from Roland Bainton's vivid portraits in The Travail of Religious Liberty.(26) This was especially the case for the various Anabaptist sects, which were almost universally reviled. By radically revising many of the basic tenets of medieval Christianity, as well as by refusing to obey civil authorities (no taxes, no military service, etc.), they attracted to themselves the hatred of Europe's increasing number of hardening orthodoxies. At the same time, since most Anabaptist groups had no political ambitions, and were made up of entirely voluntary memberships, they had no territory in which to set themselves up as the orthodox, and no dissident groups to persecute in turn. They thus formed the lowest tier in the pecking order of the orthodox and heretics. Only in a very few places, for example in Poland from around 1550 to 1530, were they free to develop. One of the most famous, ,and for the question of tolerance the most important, of these sects was Socinianism, named after the Italian refugee Faustus Socinus (Sozzini) and his followers at Rakow. Racovian ecclesiology denied the need for any church or the exclusive claim of any church to truth and salvation, and advocated a complete separation of church and state.(27)

Anabaptism was not the only religion that found refuge in Poland. As a matter of fact, all manners of faith were able to take advantage of the peculiar political structure of the monarchical republic. Other countries which legally allowed religious diversity in the sixteenth century were France under the edict of Nantes and Brandenburg during the reign of Johann Sigismund.

Moral religion and doctrinal indifference

The Socinian indifference to doctrinal distinctions was not a unique phenomenon. In fact, it stemmed from a background of the Erasmian irenic tradition of conciliating the divergent factions of the divided Church.(28) The Christian humanist had advocated a non-doctrinal piety that included a Christian life of heartfelt virtues; he believed in leaving theological problems to the speculations of professional theologians. He had followers in all camps of the religious strife of the Reformation era. One of the most famous Catholic irenic writers was Georg Cassander, who attempted to formulate a very few basic articles of faith acceptable to all Christians, and to leave the rest for each Church to decide－a kind of diversity in unity which he hoped would establish permanent peace.(29) Such efforts, however, were largely unsuccessful,(30) although they did leave important traces.

One interesting offshoot of this counciliatory tendency was the growth of English Latitudinar-ianism as a solution of tolerance in a state church. The form taken by the Elizabethan Church had been inspired to a large extent by the secular politics of compromise among several non-Roman positions, and in the late 16th and early 17th century, efforts were made under such men as Richard Hooker to broaden the doctrinal base of the church to make it more than just state established, but national as well.(31) Partly influenced by socinianism,(32) it was under attack from both Catholics and Puritans. From the viewpoint of these repressed elements, this church was not exceedingly liberal (as Catholics familiar with the story of Edmund Campion well know). Yet loosely defined doctrines did tend to reduce the instances of dissidence and conflict during the reign of the Virgin Queen.

Another solution to the problem of tolerance of religious disparity in a state was that attempted by France under the Edict of Nantes. The king belonged to one church, but loyalty to him was considered to be above religious differences. Thus, peace and national interest were invoked for tolerance and accomodation of a dissident group. This solution proposed by the Politiques was also practised in Poland and Brandenburg, and may be considered a secularised version of the medieval concept of the 'greater good'.

More Rigid Definitions of Orthodoxies

But while some nations compromised within themselves the broken ideal of Christian unity, the Churches, in defence against one another, undertook to define their own doctrines in ever more uncompromising terms. 'This stiffening of attitudes all round was the result of the rise of Calvinism (1550-1560). Not only the Catholics, with the Council of Trent, but the Lutherans, too, were provoked by the clear-cut rigidity of Calvinism to formulate their own position and doctrine more clearly.' (33) Such rigidity could only have led to greater exclusiveness and intolerance in thought and word, if not always accompanied by cruelty of action as well.

Summing up

The above survey serves to outline the questions of heresy and tolerance in medieval and reformation thought, and shows how intolerance actually reached a peak suring the Catholic-Protestant confrontation. A few points may be raised here.

Much of the theological controversy during the Reformation period centred around the efficacy of faith versus works for salvation. However, the concern in most churches with the purity of doctrine seems to indicate an anxious though unarticulated place for cognition somewhere between the dichotomy of faith and works. While the devil knows more about God than man does and yet is damned to eternity, how much, and what, must man know in order to be saved? A Christian humanist would have answered not very much. A study of what the orthodox persecutors might have answered may give us fresh insight into the structures of their theologies.

In terms of social history, tolerance and intolerance among the Christian groups should be placed in the context of the discrimination and persecution of Jews, Moors, and witches. Since the High Middle Ages, there had been occasional pogroms, expulsions, and witch trials. The step-by-step break-down of medieval society in the fifteenth century led to mass frenzies over issues where this world and the next one met. The Lutheran revolt in Germany had been proceeded by the expulsion of minorities from Spain, the publication of the Malleus maleficarum by the Dominicans, and the Savonarola uprising in Italy. There were profound social, economic, psychological, no less than sincerely religious causes behind the phenomenon of religious intolerance and persecution. Theoretical issues were probably just the rallying points and rationalisations of the bitter struggles. In the heated atmosphere of the Reformation period, calm resolution of theological disputes was well-nigh impossible. It takes a different mind-set, a more charitable disposition, and today, for religious tolerance and ecumenism to be established and peace to prevail.



  1)See, for instance, Norman Cantor, Medieval history (London, 1969).

2)'Heresy', in Karl Rahner, Ed., Encyclopaedia of theology (London, 1975)

3)Murray, John Courtenay, S.J., The problem of religious freedom (London, 1965), 7-8.

4)Lecler, Joseph, S.J., Toleration and the Reformation, English translation by T.L. Westow (London, 1960), I, 17-18.

5)Ibid., 51-60. Castellio, Sebastien, Concerning heretics, translation and introduction by Roland Bainton (New York, 1935), 21-29.

6)Lecler, op. cit., 94-100.

7)Ibid., 150. Cf. John Dillenberger, ed., Martin Luther－selections from his writings (New York, 1961), 389-390. Lecler, ibid., 156-169.

8)Lecler, 334. Cf. Roland Bainton, Hunted heretics (Boston, 1953), 169-171.

9)Bainton, Roland, The travail of religious liberty (London, 1953), 62. Cf. Lecler, 161.

10)Lecler, 280.

11)Ibid., 88.

12)Cantor, op. cit., 419 et seq.

13)Quoted in Lecler, 88.

14)Bainton, Hunted heretics, ch.8 et seq.

15)Lecler, 70-71.

16)Ibid., 157, 314-315.

17)Ibid., 153.

18)Castellio, op. cit., 41-42, 162.

19)E.g., Aquinas, Canisius, and in the France of Francois I; see Lecler, I, 85, 280; and II, 15, respectively.

20)Castellio, 69-72.

21)Cantor, ch. 20. George Sabine, A history of political theory (New York, 1961), ch. 14, 15.

22)Lecler, I, 80, 145-164.

23)Ibid., 242.

24)Ibid., 242-260.

25)Ibid., 290-293.

26)Bainton, Travail, op. cit.

27)Lecler, 383, et seq. C.f. Stanislas Kot, Socinianism in Poland (Boston, 1957 ).

28)Lecler, 413. Cf. H. John McLachlan, Socinianism in 17th century England (Oxford, 1951), 9.

29)Lecler, 270-276.

30)Ibid., 225-235; 263-264.

31)Klein, Arthur Jay, Intolerance in the reign of Elizabeth (Port Washington, N.Y., 1968), 94-99. Lecler, II, 355, 398 et seq.

32)McLachlan, 54 et seq.

33)Lecler, II, 478.

作者：陆鸿基 Luk, Hung Kay, Bernard 年份：1981

FROM ANCIENT HERESIES TO MEDIEVAL RELIGIONS: A GUIDE TO THE STUDY OF NESTORIANISM
Bernard Hung-bay Luk
Theology Annual vol.5 1981 p.111-120

　

**********

　

INTRODUCTION
Of the many religious movements which grew on the fringes of main-line Christianity in late Antiquity, two were particularly significant in view of their medieval developments, and deserve our special attention as Chinese students of the medieval West. They were Nestorianism and Manichaeism.

Nestorius was a Persian Christian who became bishop of Constantinople, His views about the nature and person of Jesus Christ led to his condemnation as a heretic by the ecumenical council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. His followers moved eastwards across Asia, and in the T'ang dynasty were the first to bring the Christian religion to China. Nestorianism became known in Chinese history as the Ching-chiao (景教), and it survived in China until at least the Yuan period. It forms an important chapter in the chronicles of Christian missions as well as in those of Sino-Western intercourse. The late-Ming Jesuits were able to cite the then-rediscovered Nestorian Steele, a magnificent T'ang monument in both Chinese and Syriac characters, as proof of the antiquity of their faith. Today, the 'shadow of a shade' of the followers of Nestorius can still be found in the mountain regions which form the frontiers between Iran, Turkey, and the USSR, among the Kurds. The Nestorian story links Chinese history closely with the medieval West, and should receive our attention.

Manichaeism, long regarded by the medieval Church as an ancient heresy, was actually a distinct universal religion which emerged at the confluence of Zoroastrainism, Buddhism, and Christianity, and which (like Islam) honoured Jesus as one of its prophets. Its founder Mani (A.D. 216-277) was also a Persian; his teachings, too, were condemned in the land of their origin. This sophisticated, dualistic, gnostic religion was persecuted and found followers in both the West and the East. Augustine of Hippo, the great Christian philosopher, had once been a Manichaean, and wrote some of the most famous refutations of Manichaeism. Po Chu-i (白居易), the T'ang poet, composed verses on Manichaean doctrines after that religon was introduced into the Chinese capital during the An Lu-shan (安禄山) Rebellion. In neither medieval China nor the medieval West, however, did Manichaeism enjoy any position of honour. Its gnosticism was condemned in both cultures as contradictory to orthodox teachings. Manichaeism thus formed an important undercurrent in both China and the West. Such heretical movements as the Bogomils, the Paulicians, and the Albigensians in medieval Europe, and Maitreya Buddhism and the White Lotus Sect (白莲教), in China, bore close resemblances to the religion of Mani, and were probably inspired by his teachings. Hence, the story of Manichaeism would add greatly not only to our appreciation of Sino-Western relations, but would also enable us to see medieval religious history from a more comprehensive perspective.

The following reading guides give first of all general articles for the uninitiated reader, then more specialised and in-depth accounts in books and articles for the more serious student. They are based on what I read in the library of Indiana University, although most of the items are also readily available in one or another of the major collections in Hong Kong. The paucity of Chinese language studies in these two areas has made it necessary to compile the guides with mostly English language works. A few titles in French and German are included for readers proficient in those languages.

NESTORIANISM
General Introduction
A very brief introduction to Nestorianism can be found in the History of the Catholic Church in China, by Joseph Motte, S. J., translated by 候景文 ,S. J., as「中国天主教史」(Kuangchi, Taichung, 1971), but the account is too brief to give anything but a vague impression. Similar is the article on 'Nestorius' in Macropaedia vol. 12 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Rather more detailed, albeit with a definite Catholic bias, are the three articles entitled 'Nestorian Church', 'Nestorianism', and 'Nestorius' in the New Catholic Encyclopaedia, v. 10. A detailed and theologically more technical account can be found under 'Nestorianism' in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, 1915; 4th impression, 1958), v. 9. This lengthy article concentrates on doctrinal aspects and yields very little information on the history of the movement.

Specialist Works
On the Nestorianism which has survived into modern times, an interesting eye-witness report is George Percy Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals (London, 1852; reprinted 1969, by Gregg International). This book is based on the author's expedition to Mesopotamia and Kurdistan in 1824-44, and is in general very sympathetic to the Nestorians. The first of its two volumes reports on the expedition and the recent history of the Nestorians in the region, while volume 2 is a description and discussion of Nestorian faiths and practices.

On the Nestorians in China, there is no shortage of materials, partly because of the very interesting role of the Nestorians in the diplomatic exchanges between the Mongols and the West. Studies of Nestorianism in China centre to a large extent around the Nestorian monument discovered at Sian (西安) in the 1620's. Almost immediately there was an outpour of historical and propagandistic writings by the Jesuit missionaries as well as by Chinese Christians, and the interest has been revived in the present century. Thus, for example, we have冯承钧「景教碑考」(Shanghai, 1931); Y. Saeki, The Nestorian Monument in China (London, 1916; 1928); G. Schlegel, 'Nestorian Monument at Si-ngan-fu', T'oung Pao, v. A8; L. Giles, 'Notes on the Nestorian Monument at Sianfu', ibid., v. 21; and P. Pelliot, 'Une phrase obscure de 1' inscription de Si-ngan-fu', ibid., v. 28. A faithful and beautiful rubbing of the monument is on permanent display in the library of Chung Chi College, C.U.H.K. The monument, however, is not the only evidence of Nestorianism in China; other relics and documents have also been discovered. Articles in the T'oung Pao faithfully record these discoveries. For example, J. Takakusu, 'The name of Messiah found in a Buddhist book－the Nestorian missionary Adam, Presbyter, Papas of China, translating a Buddhist sutra', v. A7; and A.C. Moule, 'The use of the cross among the Nestorians in China', v. 28. A number of Nestorian crosses found in Mongolia are in the collection of the Fung Ping-shan Museum at the University of Hong Kong.

The study of Nestorianism in China is not limited to topical reports of archaeological finds. There are quite a few comprehensive works, for example，罗香林「唐元二代之景教」(Hong Kong, 1966) narrates not only the spread of Nestorianism in China through seven centuries, the persecution it suffered, and its revival, but also its interactions with Taoism, a seldom treated subject. Y. Saeki, cited above, also has a Japanese work on the decline and fall of Nestorianism in China: 佐伯好郎「中国仁于什了景教衰亡之历史」(1955). A. C. Moule, also noted above, did not think very much of Saeki's critcal ability as demonstrated in the Japanese scholar's earlier book. Moule's own work includes a general history, Christians in China before the year 1550 (19307); and a volume containing corrections and additions to that book, entitled Nestorians in China (London, 1940), in which he regrets both his own rash judgments as well as Saeki 's.

On the history of the Nestorians among the Mongols, Pelliot's classic Les mongols et la papaute (taken from the Revue de 1'Orient chretien, 1923, 24, and 31) is useful as a general introduction. J.A. Montgomery's translation from the Syriac original of The History of Maballaha III, Nestorian Patriarch, and of his Vicar, Bar Sauma (Columbia University Press,1927; reprinted by Octagon Books, 1966) is extrememly interesting both for Nestorianism and for contacts between the extremities of medieval Eurasia. This book also contains a brief but very informative introduction.

On Nestorian history in general, W. C. Emhardt and G. M. Lamsa, The Oldest Christian People (New York, 1926), gives an inside view, as Lamsa was a Kurdish Nestorian. A newer book, The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbours－a Study of Western Influence on their Relations, by John Joseph (Princeton, 1961), opens up an interesting field, but unfortunately limits itself to the more recent centuries.

MANICHAEISM
General Introduction
Better served than Nestorianism, Manichaeism is quite well-covered in the general encyclopaedias. The Britannica contains a long and learned article on 'Manichaeism' (Macropaedia v. 11) by H. C. Puech, an acknowledged expert in the field. The article on 'Manichaeism' in the New Catholic Encyclopaedia (v. 9) is even more substantial, and was written by another expert, J. Ries. Other relevant articles in the NCE include the ones on 'Bogomils' and 'Albigenses', which are brief and informative, and as one would expect, somewhat one-sided. The article entitled ‘Manichaeism’ in the Encyclopaedia of Relgiion and Ethics is again lengthy and technical, but in the present case, sadly outdated, since it was written before the Manichaean documents discovered at Turfan (吐鲁蕃) in Sinkiang could have been properly studied. Another general article, on 'Dualism in philosophy and religion', in the Dictionary of the History of Ideas helps us put Manichaeism and the medieval heresies in broader perspective. Also somewhat outdated but broader in scope is F. Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity (Cambrideg, 1915), of which v. 2, ch. 8, gives a detailed description of the doctrines and history of Manichaeism, as well as its intellectual inheritance from, and legacy for, other religions of the early Christian era. In particular, this work traces the development of various forms of Gnosticism, of which Manichaeism was one.

Specialist Works
Similar in scope to Legge, but more up-to-date and of a less introductory nature, is Alexander Bohlig. Mysterion und Wahrheit, gesammelte Beitrage zur spatantiken Religionsgeschichte (Leiden, Brill, 1968). H. C. Puech, Le manicheisme: son fondateur, sa doctrine (1949) is a classic in the field. F. C. Burkitt, The Religion of the Manichees (Cambridge, 1925), and G. Widengren, Maniund der Manichaismus (Stuttgart, 1961) are also useful general works.

The place of Manichaeism in the thought and religion of the West has provoked a good deal of refutations from the Christian point of view. Frederick Palmer, Heretics, Saints, and Martyrs (Harvard, 1925), ch. 7: 'Mani and Dualism', gives not so much a description of Manichaean dualistic doctrine as a logical discussion of dualism from a Christian, monotheistic angle; it is a very stimulating survey. A. A. Moon, The 'de natura boni' of St. Augustine－a Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (Catholic University of America Press,1955), also contains a systematic examination of Manichaean doctrine in addition to Augustine's refutations. Augustine himself may also be read in his Confessions, of course, and in De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus manichaeorum, translated under the title The Catholic and Manichaean Ways of Life, by Gallagher and Gallegher (Catholic University of America Press, 1966). Other works of the Patristic period, such as Alexander of Lycopolis's Contra Manichaei opinione disputatio and St. Archelaus of Carrha's Hegemonius acta Archelai are also refutations of some importance. From the Middle Ages, Bernard Gui, ed., Manuel de 1 'Inquisiteur (Paris, 1926) gives a medieval treatment of the Catharian variety of Manichaeism.

The medieval heresies that resembled Manichaeism of Antiquity and probably descended from it have received considerable attention. A. S. Tuberville. Medieval Heresy and the Inquisition (1920; London, Archon Books, 1964), ch. 2, gives a general narrative which includes the Bogomils, the Paulicians, and the Cathari, emphasising the last one. D. Obolensky, The Bogomils, a study in Balkan neo-Manichaeism (Cambridge,1948) was a seminal work that brought together the study of the medieval history of the two ends of Europe. Another seminal work is S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee－a study of the Christian dualist heresy (Cambridge, 1955), which has stimulated much rethinking on the meaning of heresy in medieval history.

The study of Manichaeism in Asia, and in fact of Manichaeism in general, has benefitted tremendously from the archaeological discoveries at Turfan in Sinkiang. In this connection may be mentioned A. V. W. Jackson, Researches in Manichaeism, with special reference to the Turfan fragments (New York, 1932). Most of the Turfan documents are in the Sogdian language, an eastern branch of Middle Persian spoken by the Samarkand merchants and missionaries who plied the Silk Route. The work of Professor Mary Boyce has been particularly important for elucidating these texts. The T'oung Pao has carried many studies on Manichaeism in Asia, for example, E. Waldschmidt and W. Lentz, 'Die Stellung Jesu in Manichaeismus', V. 25; A. von Le Coq, 'Ein Manichaisch-uigurisches Fragment aus Indiqut-Schahri ', and 'Fragment einer manichaischen Miniatur', both in v. 9; Haneda Toru, 'Fragment de Manicheens en ouigour, trouves a Turfan', v. 28; E. Peterson, 'Le Manicheisme et le culte de Maitreya', v. 28; and P. Pelliot, 'Le traditions manicheens en Foukien', v. 22. Another article of some general interest, which would be hard to obtain in Hong Kong, is in the Asiatische Studien (Bern), entitled 'Manichaeism, Buddhism, and Christianity in Marco Polo's China', by L. Olschki, 1951. On Manichaean influence on the Bon religion of pre-Buddhist Tibet, there is a discussion in Helmut Hoffman, Die Religionen Tibets, Bon und Lamaismus in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Freiburg-Munchen, 1956).

No discussion of Manichaeism in Asia can leave out E. Chavannes, Manicheisme en Chine, which is available in the Chinese translation by 冯承钧 as「摩尼教流行中国考」. On the influence of Manichaeism as a force in Asian history, Denis Sinor, Inner Asia (Bloomington, Indiana, 1969), is a must. Sinor narrates the role of the Sogdians and discusses the conversion of the Uighur ruler Mou-yu as well as the Manichaeism of the Uighur at Turfan. In this connection, other works listed under the Sogdians in Sinor's Introduction a 1 'etude de l 'Eurasie Centrale (Wiesbaden, 1963) would also be useful. In fact, this critical bibliography would be useful for the study of Nestorianism as well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by: Holy Spirit Seminary College

作者：嘉理陵 年份：1981

CHRIST AND HOPE:
ELEMENTS FOR A THEOLOGY OF HOPE FROM THE COMMENTARY OF ORIGEN ON THE GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN
Seán Ó Cearbhalláin
Theology Annual vol.5 1981 p.121-158

　

**********

Abstract
The author examines Origen's Commentary from the point of view of Christian hope.

本文從基督徒希望的角挺去探討奧利振的註釋。

**********

　

I INTRODUCTION
The recovery of hope as a pertinent theological category has provided us with a key to much of theological thought. Concern for the future and the relevance of Christianity for that future demands a reexamination of Christian sources. While Moltmann's presentation of a theology of hope would seem to be somewhat onesided in its insistence on Paul to the virtual exclusion of the rest of the New Testament (1), his insights are valuable in making further use of the themes of hope, promise, future, new, etc., in a re-reading of the Scriptures. The present essay attempts to suggest a little of what some of the themes from Origen might have to offer to a theology of hope. Though occasional reference is made to other works, the essay is centred on the Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.

There are two approaches possible in such an essay. A first approach would be a reading of Origen to see what he says specifically about hope: while this would not, of course, be confined to an examination of whatever Origen might say in relation to the word elpis, still the infrequancy of the word in the Johannine writings would be reflected in Origen. The second approach would be to use the category of hope as a heuristic structure: while this involves the danger of finding in Origen what one wishes to find there, it can have the advantage of using a context different from that of Origen himself, in order to highlight a different aspect of his thought. The result would then be a dialogue between Origen and a theologian attempting to enrich a theology of hope from his thought. It is this latter way which we shall attempt to follow here.

The method might be supported from what Origen himself says concerning the Gospel: there is a distinction between the material of the Gospels and the purpose behind them: since all the New Testament writings are to provoke faith in Christ, they are all in some sense gospels(2)－ pointing out Christ, rather than merely announcing him, as the Old Testament writings did (3). Origen's purpose was presumably to teach, and to teach Christ, who is ultimately the only content of the Gospel (4); and Christ is, among many other attributes, not only the 'expected one' (prosdokomenos), he is also the 'hoped-for one' (elpizomenos)(5), as God is the apelpis-menon skepastes (the help of those who despair)(6).Christ is the way upon which we must walk, a way on which we need neither staff nor sandals.(7) But he is also the truth: he not only leads us to that future which is God the Father, he leads us through the Spirit in (or into) the whole truth: and if the future is not true, there is no hope.

II TRUTH, MYSTERY AND HOPE
To seek for Jesus is to seek for logos, sophia, dikaiosyna, aletheia, dynamis Theou.(8) Yet Jesus, composed though he may be of many theoremata. is one(9), for there is one Logos as there is one truth.(10) The wisdom which does not possess the truth is a false wisdom, abusing the very name of wisdom(11). If, in face of an uncertain and indeterminate future, man would lead his life in wisdom, above all in Christian wisdom it is necessary that he incorporate the truth into his life. The truth is the mystery(12), as Christ is the mystery(13), and the Trinity the fundamental mystery(14). That mystery is given in different degrees to different men, but the difference of degree is not a difference in kind, for the truth and the mystery is the same Christ, who is himself autoaletheia and the prototype of the truth found in rational souls (15): truth is a designation (epinoia) of Jesus(16), and Jesus himself is opposed to 'image' as well as to Satan (17), who pretends to be word and truth.

This wisdom which is Christ is not something esoteric: though Origen does speak of ta krypta etc., these terms accent the secret aspect of the mystery and mean rather something which of its nature is hidden, and not something which is 'reserved', to be given only to initiates(18). Again, Origen speaks of Christians and others who cannot, or do not, come to a full understanding of the mystery: the word of God considered as drink may be water or wine or the blood of Christ(19). Still, the certainty that in thus speaking of mysteries Origen is not speaking of a reserve for initiates, is in itself an element for a theology of hope. For while his whole speculative nature might have led him to seek salvation in a Gnosticism which would be so restricted as to leave most of the world in a darkness of despair, his identification of the mysteries as being those of Christ and of the Christian religion understood in its finest depths(20) means that there is hope for all men who, in face of the world, know that it is Christ himself who is the Good Samaritan who will bind up their wounds and keep them(21).

For John, truth is the sphere of divine(22) and hence too, for Origen, truth is the totality of the significance inherent in plural nouns ta mysteria and ta mystika(23) While it may have a more literal meaning, the opposite of error and falsehood, truth is also opposed to eikon, mimema, typos and skia. It is this latter meaning which is contained in the adjective alethinos in the Gospel of John(24).

For Origen, aletheia is the spiritual reality beyond all sensible appearances and, as such, is to be identified with mysterion (25). This can be seen especially in Origen's conception of the relationship between the two testaments; the mysteries of Naaman and the Jordon(26), of Hosea (27), etc., are to be understood in the light of the New Testament, for it is in the promises of the New Testament that the mysteria of the Old Testament are to be found. Yet the mystery is not completely unfolded or proposed in the New Testament, for even the events of the New Testament [Resurrection(28), Incaration(29), Call and Election(30), Death of Christ(3l), Divinity of Christ(32)] contain the mystery or are themselves contained in some statement of Jesus or reference to him: that is, they have a profound meaning which must be sought beyond the statement of the fact. If we may add to Dodd's categories of analeptic and proleptic signs(33) the third category of metaleptic signs(34), we may say that the events we have listed are metaleptic signs, in that they occur simultaneously with their significands: hence they are autologous, not heterologous, signs. Thus the Incaration is itself its own reality, even if that reality be understood in different degrees by Christians: the deeper understanding of this mystery which may be achieved by some is not an understanding of something different from the reality of the Incarnation itself. The Resurrection, too, is not, strictly speaking, a proof of anything: the mystery of the Resurrection points to itself, for the rising of Christ from the dead is the total and self-sufficient meaning of the Resurrection in that this is the very breaking through of Christ's divinity. The nature of metaleptic and autologous signs is better understood when one considers the Washing of the Feet in Jn 13, which Origen says is scene from the life of Christ designating or pointing to another mystery(35). This 'other' mystery, this total truth behind the event, we may take, with Dodd(36), to be the Incarnation, the parabolic reenactment of Phil 2:6f. However we understand it, the Washing of the Feet is heterologous, it is not a sign in and for itself.

The importance of this in relation to a theology of hope is seen when it aids an understanding of what Origen meant by mysterion and helps to ground a true attitude to the world. For the world is not myth. In Origen's thought, myth is to mystery as human invention (plasma) is to divine truth(37). While the world must ever be more of man's making as man progresses in an understanding of what God has given him both as principle and as task to be performed, that world must never be allowed to degenerate into myth, as if the totality of its meaning were ultimately to be derived from man in an absolute sense, or as if the world were to be an autologous sign. Christian hope must look beyond the tendency to myth and see the divine reality which creates the human liberty to make of the world what man wants and at the same time to act as a guarantee that man's effort will not have been in vain, but will indefectibly contain aletheia. Perhaps it is here that we should think of Origen's play on the word kosmos(38). Christ is a kosmos; the Church is the kosmos (ornament) of the kosmos (cosmos). We are close to the expressions and thought of Teilhard de Chardin: 'Christ……compels recognition as a world', and the concept of the Church as the core, the forward arrow of evolution(39). If for St. John it is the truth which will make us free (Jn 8:32), so too for Origen it is the truth, the mysterion, which sets us free, free from history and historicizing(40).

Since for Origen a spiritual person is only seen or known inasmuch as he allows it(41), there is little danger in knowledge of the world resulting in a myth of man's own creation. This has a twofold importance in a theology of hope. First of all, since there is a certain revelation of God in creation, and a definitive one in the Incarnation, we can be sure that the mystery of God confronting us is a divine receptivity opening out into creation. Secondly, no matter how distant the limits seem to be placed, either to human knowledge, or to human progress and enterprise, or even perhaps to human becoming, we can be sure that there is a divine being who is greater than creation, otherwise a complete understanding of the universe would entail a complete understanding of the mystery of God. Hence it is that, while admitting the validity of a natural knowledge of God, Origen is more concerned with a supernatural understanding of the image of God in man than with a natural one(42), for this acknowledges the transcendency of God.

III INCARNATION AND THE CONTEMPORARY CHRIST
Origen's approach to Jesus is incarnational: he even tells us that he went to the Jordan to find. the Bethany where John was baptizing, following in the footsteps of Christ(43). He can also say that the human nature of Jesus consisted precisely in being capable of death(44). His vision of Jesus, however, is not limited to such aspects of the Incarnation: he is taken up with that concern for the 'contemporary Christ' which David Stanley has shown to be an integral part of the New Testament world view(45). Thus, Christ is not only he who took away the sins of the world, nor he who will take them away, but he who here and now and for ever takes, is taking, them away(46); the healing power of Christ is operative in the present(47); he is continually reducing his enemies to make them a footstool under his feet, for this is a process not accomplished all at once (ouk athroos)(48).

This same incarnational dimension of his thought characterizes Origen's teaching on our knowledge of Christ. In a discussion on arche as the principle of science (mathesis) Origen distinguishes between science relative to the nature of an object and science relative to an object quoad nos. He applies this distinction to the knowledge we have of Christ, and affirms that while the principle of a knowledge of Christ in himself is his divinity, the principle of a knowledge of him in our regard is his humanity(49). The humanity of Jesus is the mirror through which the mystery is seen, and it is this mystery made flesh which John the Baptist gives witness to(50), it is the 'shadow of the Logos', whereas the alethinos Logos is the divinity(51)

Since the Father thinks the Son, the Son knows the Father(52) and derives his very existence from his continual and unceasing contemplation of the depths of God(53). It is this unceasing contemplation which is the source of the Son's glory(54) and which, since it involves a communication of himself by the Father, is the meaning of the Son's 'being taught' by the Father (55).

Though we are assured by Jesus that in seeing him we see the Father (Jn. 14:9), the materiality of the body (our own or that of Christ) is a darkness which stretches between God and us, for we do not now have a direct vision of the realities: we do not yet see them dia eidous(56). We can, it is true, prescind from the body for a short time so that we can contemplate the Logos, but such an abstraction cannot last long(57), for we do not attain the spiritual stripped of the sensible(58). This knowledge will be replaced at the end of time by one more kin to that of the angels, symbolized in the angelic manna(59), even though in the highest contemplation of the mysteries of the Logos we shall never be quite oblivious of his Passion and the other aspects of his earthly life(60)－the basis for a certainty in hope that no beauty which we shall ever create, no thought, no harmony, no unique nuance of human love will ever 'die entirely in their flesh', as Teilhard de Chardin puts it (61).

Christ is thus the key of knowledge(62). If we developed this in line with a theology of image in Origen's thought, we should see that not only does Christ in his image of the Father explain the ultimate reality of the human being who is created in the image of God(63). but since self-knowledge is an appropriation of that imaged, Christ in creatures is the ultimate and only key to the universe(65). Christ is thus also the ultimate ground of hope: even considered as Logos or Wisdom that ground of hope is not impersonal, for the Logos-Son or Wisdom-Son is the incorporeal hypostasis made up, even in his unity, of various theoremata containing the logoi of the universe(66), and is none other than Christ the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth. The seed which is sown is the logos of the mystery which was hidden from previous generations (Eph 3:5) and which is eventually revealed by Jesus in that he is the light which renders the Samaritan fields 'bright' for the harvest (Jn 4:35)(67).

It is precisely as the one who reveals the Father that Christ is the key of knowledge. For Origen, 'revelation' has two meanings: it is either the understanding of what is revealed, or the coming-to-be of what is foretold(68). The revelatory function of Christ as expressed in the events of his life is thus twofold. In the first place, these events reveal the mysterion of the divinity of Christ, and the mysterion is noeton as opposed to aistheton(69): what is to be understood in Christ is the mystery of his divinity. In the second place, these events reveal the future destiny of man. Thus the Resurrection of Christ was revelatory of his divinity. At the same time, in being the fulfilment of the scriptures and hence the coming-to-be of the mysterion of the Old Testament, the Resurrection is also promise of what is in store for man(70): the mystery of the third day(71), which in the Old Testament is the day of consolation.

Further, in the revelation of his own divinity, as Logos-God, Christ is the revealer of the Father (Jn 14:9; 8:9; Mt. 11:27) (72). Again, this very revelation is a revelation of the creature to himself, for it is the Father who is the source of the logoi, which he creates in the eternal act of generating the Son, and who is hence the source of the mystery of the creature(73).

While the mystery is Christ, the fundamental mystery is thus seen to be the Trinity: the Father reveals himself in Christ, who is both the Wisdom and the Logos of God. The Father is also revealed in the unveiling of the mystery of the creature which is part of the revelatory work of Christ. Further, the logikos must, inresponse to the Father his Creator, become pneumatikos, docile to the Spirit, so that his understanding of the mystery may be made perfect, for it is only a renovated conscience, one illuminated by the Wisdom of God, that can discern the will of God in all(74).

Yet the mystery of God is not entirely unfolded, since the journey facing man is into a future, a journey which in Origen's thought even transcends death and continues into the eternity of God－much, we might suggest, as the descent of Christ to the earth was not exhausted in the Incarnation but continues even today in fulfilment of the promise 'I am with you all days…… ' (Mt. 28:20) (75). While some may seek an answer to the riddle of the future, and hence to the quest of human hope, in terms of a quies, Origen would seem to place it in a continued journey, no longer perhaps towards the light but in the light.

The mystery out of which God speaks to us now is a darkness, for darkness is not always an evil thing but may serve as the hiding-place of God(76). It is Jesus, the light of men and the light of the world, who dispels the darkness of God, and yet the Incarnation itself is a form of darkness, being a mystery(77): hence the very light of God can be a darkness for man. But one day the partial will be destroyed and there will be no more ignorance, so that man will have 'angelic' knowledge at the end of time and share in 'angelic' adoration in spirit and truth (Jn. 4:23f), without images or shadows, but through intelligible realities(78).

Yet, since the 'hour is coming and now is' (Jn. 4:23) when that adoration takes place, the mystery of God and his creation is not an entire darkness: for Origen, in opposition to Celsus, believed in the validity of analogy, as well as of synthesis (via affirmationis) and of analysis (via negationis) (79), in coming to a knowledge of God. Analogy is valid because there is a similarity (syggenia) between the visible and the invisible(80). Hence he can affirm the reality of knowledge and of that area which is beyond the comprehension of man. This is expressed in various images, such as the lay-out of the Holy of Holies(81). It is also apparent in the different ways in which Origen explains Jn. 21:25, that the world could not contain all the books that might be written about Christ: only the Father is capable of understanding the totality of Christ(82); or some mysteries are inexpressible in human writing or in human speech(83); or in the imagery of the Treasury of the Temple－Jesus taught there, but only those things whose spiritual grandeur could be contained therein(84). There in their different ways all indicate the paradox of the mystery which is inexpressible and yet is noeton, the proper object of understanding(85).

IV CONFORMITY TO CHRIST
If the Christian is to be the hope of the world, it is only in the measure in which he is to be conformed to Christ: faith in Jesus must be such that it penetrates our very substance and directs our actions. Hence if we really believe that Jesus is justice (dikaiosyne), we shall never do what is unjust; if we believe he is Logos, reason, we shall not give ourselves up to that which is unreasonable (alogos); if we believe he is Wisdom, we shall neither do nor say anything foolish. As a programme for hope in the world this is a succinct expression of Christianity: our belief in Jesus as Patience and Fortitude, Wisdom and Power, leads us away from our sins so that we do not die in them. This belief leads us to survive in strength and to be not incapable of the beautiful (ta kala) or, as Crouzel translates it, 'to believe that the good is possible'(86).

While conformity with Christ may seem to be more a Pauline than a Johannine ideal, Origen's concern with the meaning of light in the life of both Christ and the Christian shows how there is here a fruitful category for a Johannine theology of hope. Origen wonders why John the Baptist was sent precisely in order to witness to Jesus as light, and not as life, nor as Word, nor as arche, nor as the subject of any other attribution (epinoia) (87). The dichotomy between light and the other attributes is not quite as rigid as might appear from the question, for it is precisely as light that Christ is the life of men(88). No one who is dead can follow Jesus(89), and he who remains in the darkness of sin remains in deaths(90): death and sin are the same for man(91), as are life and light, thought these latter at least not unequivocally so(92). The designation of Christ as the light of men does not mean exclusively of men(93): he is also the light of the world, and that is a more intense light than the light of men, either because the world is greater than man or different from man(94). As Christ is designated the light of the world from his operation of illuminating it(95), so too the saint is a son of light because his good works shine before men(96). The world cannot possess the fountain of light within itself, and hence the disciple is the light of the world because he brings the light of Christ to it(97).

Here is the basis for a theology of involvement in the world based on the concept of light: the Christian is a source of hope for the world because, even though it is Christ who is the light of the world, he shares this title with the Apostles and the Christian teachers, those who bring the light to others who cannot receive it directly(98).

The optimism of Origen is thus that of the Gospel of John; even thought the darkness persecutes the light, and may even seem to have triumphed over it in Judas ' exit into the night, it is certain that the light cannot be overcome by the darkness, for in its approach it is the light which is victorious(99). Nor is this victory through coming to be denied by what Origen calls the 'dispensation of the physical coming of Christ into our human life (bios) ', where he understands the approach of Jesus to John the Baptist and his disciples in terms of Is. 53:7 and Jer. 11:19 as necessarily a coming to death(100), for it is precisely the death of Jesus which brings life and hence is the hope of mankind. However, he is not such a misty-eyed optimist as to imagine that simply an exposition of the truth will be enough to bring the world to perfection in appropriation of that hope which is Christ. He recognizes the fact that the revelation of the truth may do more harm than good and hence, following the Apostles, he leaves the truth hidden on occasion－a device followed by Christ in teaching the multitudes in parables and later explaining their full significance to the Apostles(101).

This optimism, expressed also somewhat cautiously in the phrase 'to be not incapable of the beautiful', lies at the heart of his doctrine of apokatastasis (102), which was 'no more than a great hope on his part(103); for Christ must really be all things to all and in all, and that in a manner which far surpasses Paul's becoming all things to all men(104). In the doctrine that risen man shall become like the angels(105) there is the same radical optimism, even if it may seem to be based on a depreciation of the materiality of the human being: for Origen does not teach that men will become angels, but that they will become the equal of angels, hence preserving their own being in a great self-transcendence, where man will obviously be close to a full appropriation of that logikos centre of his being, in conformity with the one Logos of the Father, the source and organizing centre of the logoi of all beings(106).

Again, this same optimism grounds Origen's assertion of the evident, almost perceptible or sensible (aisthetos), Providence of God, denied by the Epicureans, which ought to convince one that there is no end different from the good(107).

Conformity to Christ in the light of Providence will imply that the Christian seek out the will of God(108): that will is involved not only in the sending of Christ, but in the sending of the Spirit as well. The perfect man (teleios), the one who has in himself the necessary formation (deousa proparaskeue) (109) to be capable of receiving the divinity of the glorified son in these end times, is the pneumatikos, the one who has opted for the Spirit(110). He is the opposite of the somatikos, and also of the aisthetos. While he is still logikos because of his rapport with the Logos-Son, he is also pneumatikos because of his rapport with the Spirit. Hence, in the last analysis the mystery, in its relation to man, is grace(111). It is the saint, the one whose conversation or citizenship is in heaven, who understands the works of God; for these are hidden from men and can only be understood by the one who enters the world of invisible realities to contemplate face to face the causes of things(112). This contemplation can, of course, only ultimately be achieved in death, so that is some sense there is a key to the mystery of the world in death. It is in face of death that human hope finds its greatest trial. There are indeed two ways of looking at death(113), derived from the two ways of looking at life. There is a life which is indifferent in itself, and in that sense we say that the 'impious' and the brute animals live; and there is a life which is 'hidden with Christ in God' (Col. 3:3), the meaning of life in Christ's predication of that term of himself (Jn. 11:25). Opposed to the first, death would also be indifferent; but opposed to the second, death is that last enemy which Christ is to overcome (1Cor. 15:26). Christ has in fact overcome the world 'Jn. 16:33) and so it is in dying with Christ that we come through victorious, through the mystery of death in the Kingdom, the world of the mystery, of ultimate reality.

There is a reciprocity of knowledge, for while it is true that it is only a knowledge of the mysteries of God which will reveal his works in the world, there is the study of 'physics'(l14) to act as a propaedeutic to the knowledge of God, and hence in itself a religious form of knowledge, a knowledge which shows the vanity of the sensible and the transitory nature of the terrestrial, and yet which is in fact a search for the plan of God in order to insert oneself into it(115).

The delight of God in his creation is a delight in the logoi of creatures(116), and hence ultimately a delight in his own Son, who as Logos is the receptacle of the logoi of creation. This ratio of creatures is not a static thing, it is a force of development, a divine idea, the will of God incarnate in every being(117). If we may correlate several different statements of Origen (without thereby implying that he himself necessarily saw the connection), we might say that 'physics' is a form of self-know-ledge, a seeking after the will of God which is incarnate in oneself, the understanding of the macrocosm through an assimilating understanding of the micrososm which is one-self, for 'physics' derives its validity from the fact that there is only one Word, through there are many 'incarnations' of the word－among them the human soul, the sensible world, the prophetic word(118).

Knowledge of oneself, which constitutes 'the greatest part of wisdom'(119) is, in Origen, a religious not a philosophical task: it is the attaining of the knowledge that one has been created in the image of God. This knowledge is a principle of a more mysterious knowledge, namely that of God himself(120). Though physics is a valid form of knowledge, nevertheless it is less than Scripture, as the two talents are less than the five(121). Hence it is that for Origen only a spiritual understanding of creation can open up the horizons necessary to transcend creation itself, whether in faith or in hope.

Knowledge as a basis for hope and of a Christian concern for the future must not be divorced from the Christian life in the world: if one does not live morally (kalos), one cannot possess the knowledge of God(l22): one must be of God to know God(l23) and this being 'of God' is filiation(124), for in order to know God as Father one must have the attitude of a son towards him, not that of a slave who only knows him as Master(125).

Thus Origen sees that light which the Gospels speak of as being applicable to both knowledge and morality(126): life and light are interchangeable, and yet the life which is in question here is not the life which is common to all logikoi, rational beings, and to the aloga the irrational. It is rather the perfecting of our logos in participation in the first Logos(127). Hence it is that the power of the Logos, that is to say the intensity of true light, increases in proportion to a holy life(128). Sin is an obstacle to light, and so it is a diminishment of the possibility of becoming a child of God: light itself is not in its perception alone a source of sonship, but only a source of its possibility, for true sonship consists in a full comprehension of the words of God(129).

If, again, adoration in spirit and truth is what creates real sonship(130), and if the hour for such adoration is already present here and now, then the task of undoing the works of the devil cannot be left to the eschatological hour of the final victory but must begin now, so that the Christian in the world may prove that he is not a child of the devil(131).

V THE CHURCH: LIGHT, JOY AND HOPE
The Church, the alethinon kai teleioteron soma of Christ(132), is the source of Christ's activity in the world, rather than the individual Christian as such, for it is Christian baptism, the incorporation into the Church, which gives a grasp of religion (taxis tes theosebeias) in all clarity(133). Hence the heretics cannot know either the goodness or the justice of God(134). in a certain sense we may say that the Church is the object of the promises of God, not simply in its earthly existence but in its perfection in heaven: for since all the parts of the earth have been cursed in Adam, the earthly Judea cannot be the promised land: that can only be the heavenly Jerusalem, which is none other than the Church(135).

The Church is the 'true' Jerusalem, where 'true' is to be understood of 'spiritual truth' in the conformity of the symbol to the mystery expressed(136). Hence it is the true and most perfect Body of Christ, in contrast to his historical body and his eucharistic body, which are in fact only images of the true body(137). Thus the Incarnation, as the Eucharist, is for the sake of the Church, to bring it into being. It is in this sense too that the Church can be seen to be the end and purpose of creation, an end which is ultimately no different from Christ himself (138).

As the Christian becomes the light of the world, so too the Church is the light of the world, the kosmos tou kosmou. The light, which was once given to the Jews has now been given to that race (the Church) which shows forth the fruit of light and gives light to the world(139). All who receive the light interiorize it so that they themselves become light(140). The Church will be seen to be the light of men at the end of the world, but even now her influence secretly extends to all men. As Crouzel points out(141), this is not an answer on the part of Origen to the question of the salvation of non-Christians. He is rather pessimistic and hesitant about this, in contrast to the optimism usually accorded his doctrine of apokatastasis. The principle of the Church's universality is that of Christ, who invisible in his divinity is present to every man and is 'extended' (symparekteinomenos ) to the whole world and to every world (142). It is thus the Church's universal task to unveil to mankind the Christ who stands in the midst of them, a task which first fell to John the Baptist.

The Church is the vehicle of eschatological joy and hence of hope, for though in the world we are set about by (eschatological) suffering (thlipsis), we are bidden to have courage, for Christ has overcome the world (Jn.16:33), and so his joy is in us and our joy is made perfect (Jn.15:11). Though Origen's treatment of the Miracle of Cana has disappeared with the lost Book Nine of the Commentary, there are enough scattered references to it to show its importance and to reveal a little of what it might have supplied for a theology of hope through its treatment of joy. His derivation of the name Cana from Hebrew qnh, to obtain etc.(143), is redolent of the Covenant theology of the seghullah (Ex. 19:5f etc.).

Origen seems to have regarded the first Cana miracle as the arche of the signs performed by Jesus, not only in the temporal sense of beginning but in the sense of principle (144). This is again underscored in the various uses he makes of the two comings of Christ to Cana. The first coming to Cana is symbolic of the Incarnation, the second of the Parousia(145). At his first coming, Jesus takes possession of the world, and at his second coming he establishes his possession of all those who believe in the Father through him(146). The first time, he comes to give wine for joy, the second time, to take away what illness remains and the danger of death (147). In comparison with the Samaritan episode (Jesus stayed only two days there) Cana is seen to be one of the signs which share the mystery of the third day(148).

VI CONCLUSION
The importance of the fact that the first word of Jesus in the Gospel of John is a question (Jn. 1:38) is underscored by Origen when he points out that there are six 'words' or sayings of John the Baptist recorded before Jesus takes up the word with 'What do you want?' (149). The perfection of revelation in Jesus, hinted at in this seventh word of the Gospel, confronts man as a question. When man responds by seeking the place where Jesus dwells (ultimately the bosom of the Father Jn.1:18), revelation becomes an invitation: 'Come and see', and the acceptance of the invitation becomes the tenth hour, the sacred time(150). This invitation to come and be with Jesus opens out into the promise at the end of Matthew's Gospel: 'I am with you all days till the end of the world' (Mt. 28:20). The future, then, is one of accompaniment by Christ and not simply one leading to a union in the parousia: there is a difference between being with and being in (151), a difference which could be exploited to reveal the Christian relevance of man's efforts in the world.

This optimism of the presence of Jesus would seem to be belied when Origen asserts that this world can possess nothing of ta ano, since its very creation is a katabole(152). The disciples of Jesus, however, have been taken out of the world and so do not belong to its condition of katabole: in this there lies a hope for the world, for the disciples are taken from the world inasmuch as they take up their cross and follow Jesus(153) and hence live fully according to the Gospel. By doing so they share in the nature of the Gospel: and the Gospel is aparchai in distinction from the Law, which was protogennemata(154). Hence the harvest is over, and sower and reaper may rejoice together (Jn.4:36).

A Theology of Hope would then include a Theology of Joy. It would also include a Theology of Festivals. Origen is puzzled as to why precisely John should say 'the pasch of the Jews ' (Jn. 11:13), and reasons that eventually what the Jews were celebrating was not the Pascha Domini (155). There is to be continually discovered in the Christian life what it means to say 'Christ our Pasch has been immolated' (1Cor. 5:7), and the relation of what is thus asserted to the future. A Theology of Festivals then takes on a profoundly Eucharistic meaning: for the historika are types of the noeta, as the somatika are of the pneumatika, and hence Christ our Pasch is ultimately what is meant by the Pasch of the Old Testament(156). When this is understood in relation to all that Origen has to say about mystery and its presentation in enigma and shadow, we are close to the sacramental dimension of the Christian life, through which the once and future Christ is here and now.

ABBEREVIATIONS
CJ－Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.

Frag－Fragments from the Catenae on the Gospel of St. John. (in GCS IV;481ff).

GCS－Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Drei Jahrhunderte. Herausgegeben von der Kirchenvater-Coimmission der Konigl. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Leipzig 1903.

OCM－Crouzel, H., S.J.: Origene et La Connaissance Mystique. DDB 1960.

PG－Migne: Patres Graeci

　

NOTES
1)Moltmann, J. Theology of Hope. On the Ground and Implication of a Christian Eschatology. (English Translation) London, SCM Press 1967. Cf. O’Collins, G. 'Hope Seeking Understanding' Theology Digest 16(1968) 155-159.

2)CJ I:3(5) GCS IV:7:7ff PG 14:28-29.

3)CJ I:3(5) GCS IV:7:2ff PG 14:28.

4)CJ I:8(10) GCS IV:13:19f PG 14:37. Therefore Jesus is the gift which he brings: CJ I:9(11) GCS IV:14-15 PG 14:40-41.

5)CJ XIII:27 GCS IV:251:23f PG 14:445.

6)CJ XIII:28 GCS IV:252:17 PG 14:448.

7)CJ I:8(10) GCS IV:145ff PG 14:40; CJ I:27(26) GCS IV:34:9ff PG 14:73; CJ VI:19(11) GCS IV:128:24ff PG 14:233.

8)CJ XXXII:31(19) GCS IV:478:27ff PG 14:825.

9)CJ V:5 GCS IV:102:29ff PG 14:192. Cf.also CJ I:34(39) GCS IV:43:20 PG 14:89; CJ II:18(12) GCS IV:75:19 PG 14:145.

10)CJ II:4(4) GCS IV:58:23ff PG 14:136; CH VI:6(3) GCS IV:114:30 PG 14:212.

11)CJ II:4(4) GCS IV:58:25ff PG 14:212.

12)On the identification of aletheia and mysterion in Origen, cf. OCM 26ff. Cf. CJ XIII:17 GCS IV:241:9 PG 14:424.

13)OCM 72.

14)OCM 80. Cf. In Gen. Hom. IV:6 GCS VI:57:20 PG 12:183.

15)CJ VI:6(3) GCS IV:114:22 PG 14:209.

16)Frag IX GCS IV:491:17f.

17)CJ II:7(4) GCS IV:61:13ff PG 14:120.

18)OCM 39-41, for kryptos ktl. Cf.also OCM 36 on aporrhetos.

19)CJ VI:43(26) GCS IV:152:15ff PG 14:276.

20)Cf. OCM 33, and below Notes 28-32.

21)CJ XX:35(28) GCS IV:374:25ff PG 14:656.

22)Bultmann, R. Article on Aletheia, TWNT 1:254; The Gospel of John: A Commentary (English Translation, Oxford, Blackwell, 1971), 53 note 1, etc. Brown, R.E. The Gospel According to St. John I-XII (London, Chapman, 1966, 1971), Anchor Bible Vol.29, 499.

23)CJ XIII:17 GCS IV:241:9 PG 14:424: aletheia opposed to plasma, mysterion opposed to plasma, mysterion opposed to mythos, cf. OCM 33. CJ II:4(4) GCS IV:58:20ff PG 14:116 for the proof that there is only one truth; CJ VI:6(3) GCS IV:114:20ff PG 14:212 on the truth of Christ (who is autoaletheia) as the source of all truth.

24)Frag VI GCS IV:488:14ff. CJ II:6(4) GCS IV:60:15f PG 14:120.

25)Contra Celsm IV:38 GCS I:310:26 PG 11:1090.

26)The Jordan was a figure of Christ: it was not the prophet but the Jordan which cured Naaman, as it was not the prophet but Christ who could heal with a word, CJ VI:47(28) GCS IV:156:2ff PG 14:281. The Jordan, whose name means descent CJ VI:47(28) GCS IV:156:32 PG 14:281, is a figure, typos, of the word who descended to our level CJ VI:46(28) GCS IV:155:23f PG 14:280.

27)Hosea means 'saved', and the prophet received a mystikos logos CJ II:1 GCS IV:52:19ff PG 14:105.

28)The Resurrection of the Christ who suffered on the Cross contains the mystery of the resurrection of the whole Body of Christ, CJ X:35(20) GCS IV:209:31f PG 14:372.

29)On the sandals of Jesus as symbolic of the Incarnation and the Descent into Sheol, CJ VI:34(18) GCS:143:33ff PG 14:260.

30)The mystery of Call and Election is signified in the food of the great feast, LK 14:1 16f, CJ XIII:34 GCS IV:259:27f PG 14:460.

31)The mystery of Christ's death, Frag XC GCS IV:553:19f.

32)The mystery of the Divinity of Christ, CJ VI:35(18) GCS VI:144:19f PG 14:260.

33)Dodd, C.H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. (Cambridge, University Press, 1953 1970), 370 note 1, 371, 401f.

34)For the word metalepsis, cf 1Tim 4:3.

35)CJ XXXII:2 GCS IV:427:25 PG 14:744 (mysterion). The Footwashing is also a symbolon, CJ XXXII:8(6) GCS IV:438:1 PG 14:761, which is to be explained in reference to Is 52:7 ('How beautiful……are the feet of one who brings good news'), ibid. and CJ XXXII:7(6) GCS IV:436:30ff PG 14:760.

36)Dodd, op.cit, 401.

37)OCM 29. CJ XIII:17 GCS IV:241:9 PG 14:424. Cf. also note 23 above.

38)CJ VI:59(38) GCS IV:167:21ff PG 14:301.

39)Teilhard de Chardin, P. Le Pretre (1918, unpublished); cited in Hymn of the Universe, (Collins, Fontana Books, 1971), 139. Cf. CJ XIX:22(5) GCS IV:324:4f PG 14:568, whether the Firstborn of all creation could be a world (Kosmos). Also, Le Milieu Divin, passim.

40)Origen thus speaks of the spiritual meaning behind apparently insignificant details of geography and history. Cf. below on Cana. Also, OCM 69ff.

41)OCM 112. In Luc. Hom.III GCS IX:19:14ff PG 13:1808.

42)OCM 129.

43)CJ Vl:40(24) GCS IV:149:10ff PG 14:269.

44)CJ X:6(4) GCS IV:176:7 PG 14:316.

45)Stanley, D.M. 'The Quest of the Son of Man', The Way '(1968) 3-17.

46)CJ I:32(37) GCS IV:42:2ff PG 14:88.

47)In Cant. Hem. II:4 GCS VIII:48:15f PG 13:51

48)CJ VI:57(37) GCS IV:166:9ff PG 14:300.

49)CJ I:18(20) GCS IV:22:27ff PG 14:53. Cf. OCN 73.

50)CJ II:37(30) GCS IV:97:2ff PG 14:184.

51)CJ II:6(4) GCS IV:60:19ff PG 14:120.

52)Frag XIII GCS IV:495:24f.

53)CJ II:2 GOS IV:55:7f PG 14:109.

54)CJ XXXII:28(18) GCS IV:473:10ff PG 14:817.

55)CJ II:18(12) GCS IV:75:25f PG 14:145-148.

56)CJ XIII: 53(52) GCS IV:282:llff PG 14:497; dia eidous opposed to ' in a mirror or enigma', CJ X:43(27) GCS IV:222:20ff PG 14:395. Cf. OCM 103, 350.

57)CJ VI:52(33) GCS IV:161:16ff PG 14:292.

58)CJ XIII:40 GCS IV:265:26ff PG 14:469.

59)CJ X:18(13) GCS IV:189:20f PG 14:337.

60)CJ II:8(4) GCS IV:62:24ff PG 14:121-124.

61)Le Milieu Divin, (Collins, Fontana Books 1964 1971), 55.

62)OCM 72.

63)CJ I:17(19) GCS IV:22:19ff PG 14:53, understanding arche as 'principle', not as 'beginning'.

64)Christ, who is in the Saints and is the image through which men are conformed to God, is the creator of truth in us, as he is autoaletheia, CJ VI:6(3) GCS IV:114:20ff, 115:16ff PG 14:209, 212. Cf. also OCM 64f.

65)CJ Vl:34(18) GCS IV:143:34ff PG 14:260.

66)CJ I:34(39) GCS IV:43:20ff PG 14:90; CJ II: 18(12) GCS IV:75:18ff PG 14:145.

67)CJ XIII:46(46) GCS IV:273:lff PG 14:481.

68)CJ VI:5(2) GCS IV:112:3ff PG 14:205-208; the mystery is made manifest in the writings of the prophets and in the coming of Christ CJ XIII: 17 GCS IV: 241: 1ff PG 14:424.

69)OCM 41-43 on nous, noetos.

70)CJ X:35(20) GCS IV:209:32ff PG 14:372: hence Paul's 'we are risen with him' (Rom 6:5) is an arrhabon.

71)Samaria contrasted with Cana: CJ XIII:52(51) GCS IV: 280:31ff PG 14:496. The image of the third day is frequent in Origen, OCM 78.

72)Cf. Frag XCIII GCS IV:556-557 on Jn 12:44, 'Whoever believes in me, believes not in mebut in the one who sent me'. For a discussion of the difference between knowing God and believing in God, CJ XIX:4-6(1) GCS IV: 302ff PG 14:529ff.

73)Cf. about, note 63. Also: the Spirit descends upon the Lord and upon ' the Lord who is in each one', CJ X:28(18) GCS IV:201:18f PG 14:357. Cf. also OCM 80, 109.

74)OCM 80f. Com. In Rom IX:1 PG 14:1207.

75)In Cant. Horn. II:4 GCS VIII:48:17ff PG13: 51. Cf. OCM 190, 465ff.

76)CJ II:28(23) GCS IV:84:27ff PG 14:102-105.

77)Frag XVIII GCS IV:498. Cf. CJ VI:35(18) GCS IV:144:5ff PG 14:257-260, on the image of the sandals of Christ. Compare CJ XIX: 6(1) GCS IV:205:17ff PG 14:536 on Christ as ‘steps’ leading to a knowledge of God, the lowest being his humanity.

78)CJ X:18(13) GCS IV:189:21f PG 14:337.

79)OCM 127.

80)OCM 106. In Lev. Horn. V: l GCS VI: 333:14 (Latin), 25 (Greek, Philoc., 30) PG 12:447.

81)CJ XIX:6(1) GCS IV:305:17ff PG 14:536.

82)Peri Archon 11:6:1 GCS V:140:9 PG 11:210.

83)CJ XIII GCS IV:230:3ff PG 14:405. Cf. CJ XX: 34(27) GCS IV:372:18ff PG 14:652.

84)CJ XIX:10(2) GCS IV:309:24ff PG 14:544.

85)OCM 41-43, 85.

86)OCM 445. CJ XIX:23(6) GCS IV:325:5ff PG 14: 569-572.

87)CJ II:37(30) GCS IV:96:17ff PG 14:181.

88)CJ II:18(12) GCS IV:75:30 PG 14:148.

89)CJ XIX:13(3) GCS IV:313:13 PG 14:549.

90)CJ II:20(14) GCS IV:76:33f PG 14:149.

91)CJ II:20(14) GCS IV:77:19ff PG 14:149. Cf. the translation given in Sources Chretiennes, Vol. 120 (1966, Ed. Cecile Blanc), 299: '……celle de la mort qui est la meme chose queles tenebres des homines'. PG seems to understand the phrase differently: '…..ad hancmortem in tenebris' (loc. cit.).

92)CJ II:23(18) GCS IV:80:24f, 30f PG 14:156.

93)CJ II:22(16) GCS IV:78:16ff PG 14:151.

94)CJ I:26(24) GCS IV:31:29ff PG 14:69.

95)CJ I:37(42) GCS IV:47;15f PG 14:96.

96)CJ II:1 GCS IV:53:2ff PG 14:105.

97)CJ I:25(24) GCS IV:31:13ff PG 14:68.

98)CJ I:25(24) GCS IV:31:8ff PG 14:68. Cf. also CJ I:26(24) GCS IV:32:8ff PG 14:69.

99)CJ II:27(22) GCS IV:84;13ff PG 14:162. Cf. also CJ XIX:10(2) GCS IV:309:29ff PG 14:544 on the necessity of silence (i.e. withdrawal) in the presence of Pilate in order that Jesus might make it possible for his enemies to prevail over him so that he might die for mankind.

100)CJ VI:53(35) GCS IV:161:30ff PG 14:292.

101)CJ XXXII :24(16) GCS IV:468:16ff PG 14:809－a distinction between Moi haplousteroi and hoi bathuteron akouein memathekotes.

102)'To be not incapable of the beautiful': CJ XIX:23(6) GCS IV:325:24f PG 14:572. Apokatastasis: CJ I:16 GCS IV:20:11f PG 14:49, where it is linked with Christ's victory over death, the last enemy (1Cor 15:25f). In CJ X:42(26) GCS IV;219:29 PG 14:389, it is used for the restoration of the Jews after captivity.

103)Crouzel, H. Article: 'Origen and Origenism', NewCathEnc 10:772a.

104)CJ XX:35(28) GCS IV:374:31f PGI4:656.

105)Comm. In Matth. XVII:30 GCS X:671:19 PG 13:1568f

106)Cf. CJ II:18(12) GCS IV:75:19 PG 14:145 on the Logos as systema theorematon.

107)CJ II:3 GCS IV:57:6f PG 14:113. Cf. Sources Chretiennes, Vol. 120, 226 note 1.

108)OCM 51, 54.

109)CJ I:7(9) GCS IV:12:7 PG 14:36.

110)OCM 44.

111)OCM 46.

112)Peri Archon II:11:4 GCS V:187:4 PG 11:243; Ib., II:11:5 GCS V: 188: 1ff PG 11:244f: knowledge of all rationes will be given us on returning to Christ.

113)CJ XX:39(31) GCS IV:380:27ff PG 14:665.

114)Comm. In Cant. Prol. GCS VIII:75:19ff PG 13:73.

115)OCM 51, 54.

116)CJ XIII:42 GCS IV:268:23ff PG 14:473.

117)Peri Archon II:11:4 GCS V: 187:10f PG II:243.

118)Cf. CJ X:24(16) GCS IV:196:20f PG 14:349 on the human soul; CJ II:1 GCS IV: 52:16 PG 14:105, Frag. Matth. 506 GCS XII: 208 PG 13:1705 on the prophetic word.

119)In Ex. Hom. III:2 GCS VI:162:16 PG 12:310.

120)OCM 64. Comm. In Rom. I:16 PG 14:863.

121)Frag. Matth. 506 GCS XII:208 PG 13:1705.

122)CJ XIX:3(1) GCS IV:300:32 PG 14:528.

123)CJ XIX:20 (5) GCS IV:321:18 PG 14:564.

124)CJ XIX:6(1) GCS IV:304:30ff PG 14:536. Cf. CJ 1:16 GCS IV:20:15ff PG 14:49－the blessed are transformed into sons.

125)CJ XIX:5(1) GCS IV:303:23f PG 14:533.

126)Cf. CJ Vl:19(11) GCS IV:128:7ff PG 14:233, where light is linked with he hodos he agathe.

127)CJ II:24(19) GCS IV:81:12ff PG 14:156. Cf. also CJ XX:39(31) GCS IV:380:22ff PG 14:665.

128)OCM 137.

129)CJ XX:33(27) GCS IV:370:16ff PG 14:648.

130)CJ XIII:16 GCS IV:240:23ff PG 14:424.

131)CJ XX:13 GCS IV:342:28ff PG 14:601.

132)CJ X:36(20) GCS IV;210:32 PG 14:373.

133)CJ VI:44(26) GCS IV:153:26 PG 14:277.

134)CJ I:35(40) GCS IV:44:32ff PG 14:92.

135)Contra Celsum VII:29 GCS II:180:4ff PG II:1462f.

136)OCM 34. Cf. CJ VI:42(35) GCS IV:151:24ff PG 14:273, where the City of God is the unspotted Church of God and not the sensible (aisthetos) Jerusalem.

137)The Body of Christ, like the Temple, is a typos of the Church, CJ X:35(20) GCS IV: 209:16ff PG 14:369. The aistheton soma of Christ, nailed to the Cross, is contrasted with the holon soma of Christ, the Church, CJ X:35(20) GCS IV:210:1ff PG 14:373.

138)The Gospel is of Jesus Christ, the head of that Body which is to be saved, namely the Church, CJ I:13(14) GCS IV:18:10ff PG 14:45.

139)Frag XCI GCS IV:554:10ff.

140)Frag XLII GCS IV:517:21.

141)OCM 144.

142)CJ VI:30(15) GCS IV:140:11f PG 14:252.

143)CJ XIII:62(60) GCS IV:294:28f PG 14:517.

144)Origen knew of this distinction and used it, CJ XIII:37 GCS IV:262:35-263:1f PG 14:464. Cf. also his distinction between Christ as Alpha and Omega and as Beginning and End, CJ I:31(34) GCS IV:38:1ff PG 14:80; Jesus is Beginning as Wisdom, but not as Logos, CJ I:31(34) GCS IV:39:21ff PG 14:84.

145)CJ XIII:57(56) GCS IV:287:27ff PG 14:508.

146)CJ XIII:57(56) GCS IV:288:8f PG 14:508.

147)CJ XIII:57(56) GCS IV:288:2ff PG 14:508.

148)CJ XIII:52(51) GCS IV:280:31ff PG 14:496.

149)CJ II:35(29) GCS IV:93:25-95:1 PG 14:177-180.

150)CJ II:36(29) GCS IV:95:9ff PG 14:180.

151)CJ X:10(8) GCS IV:179:28ff PG 14:321.

152)CJ XIX:22(5) GCS IV:324:17ff PG 14:568-569.

153)CJ XIX:22(5) GCS IV:324:23 PG 14:569.

154)CJ I:2(4) GCS IV:8:8ff PG 14:25-28.

155)CJ X:13-14(11) GCS IV:183-185 PG 14:328-332.

156)CJ X:18(13) GCS IV:189:25ff PG 14:337-340.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by: Holy Spirit Seminary College

作者：祈士真 Casey, John J. 年份：1981

THE CONFESSOR AS MEDIATOR BETWEEN MAGISTERIUM AND CONSCIENCE

(A Contemporary Role)



Of all the sacraments in the Church, the most complex in its execution is the Sacrament of Penance. Like any of the other sacraments, of course, it demands an empowered minister and a capable recipient. But whereas the other sacraments demand simply the desire to do what the Church does on the part of the minister and simply the desire to receive the specific sacrament on the part of the recipient, Penance has a number of added conditions that are to be met by both the recipient and the minister before the sacrament in its entirety becomes an accomplished fact. On the part of the recipient, these are summed up under the aspect of conversion of heart whereby in the acts of contrition, confession and promised satisfaction, he clearly indicates to the minister that this is the case. On the part of the minister, all are summed up under the aspect of spiritual judge whereby he must make the decision to pronounce absolution under the power of the keys and must levy a penance that will be salutary for the recipient.

What this means in practice, then, is that the Sacrament of Penance on both the part of the minister and the part of the recipient demands a level of sophistication that none of the other sacraments demands. Historically this demand has meant much for the intellectual training of the diocesan priesthood. Anyone who is at all acquainted with the history of the development of seminaries after the Council of Trent is aware of the fact that the Council's call for the better administration and reception of this sacrament was the single most powerful influence on the development of the seminary theology course that became in time the standard course.(1) But while the minister of the sacrament was trained, the recipient of the sacrament was left at a relatively low level of understanding for some time.

The prevailing mentality in the Church was that a well trained ministry would take care of the needs of both the minister and the recipient of the sacrament. That is, the minister would be well versed in the understanding of both roles and the recipient accepting the minister as an expert, would simply follow his directions in preparing for and carrying out a proper reception of the Sacrament of Penance. For a long time this system was perfectly adequate and still is in some parts of the world today. But during the present century, this system started to break down in many places. The reason was that the ordinary recipient of the sacrament began to be better informed thanks to rapidly advancing Catholic educational opportunities, and under this impetus he began to realize that he was capable of developing his own expertize for his role in the Sacrament of Penance. What was a timid recognition at first, was given a powerful boost by the lengthy controversy in the Church over the use of conjugal love, commonly known as the Birth Control Controversy.(2)

It was Pope Paul VI who officially recognized the personal competence of the recipient of the Sacrament of Penance in this regard while attempting to safeguard the role of the Hierarchical Magisterium. In an allocation to the cardinals of 23rd June, 1964, he said the following:－

The Church recognizes manifold aspects of the problem (Of birth control), that is to say, the manifold areas of competence, among which is certainly preeminent that of the spouses themselves, that of their liberty, of their conscience, of their love, of their duty. But the Church must also affirm hers, that is to say, that of the law of God, which she interprets, teaches, promotes and defends……(3)

Such a statement clearly indicates the competency of the recipient of the Sacrament of Penance in his role and recognizes a potential area of conflict between the magisterium and the individual concience.

The tension between the magisterium and the individual conscience frequently leads to a feeling of inadequacy among confessors in fulfilling their role as judge. Caught between a determined magisterium and an equally determined laity, both of whom have legitimate areas of competence on a moral question, the confessor seems to be left without a personal role in the dispute. On the one hand, the magisterium is reminding him that he is a minister of the Church and that he must follow its teachings; on the other hand his penitents remind him that he must respect their freedom of conscience. What is he to do?

In an attempt to solve this dilemma, confessors sometimes have taken strict sides. But this course of action is hardly a satisfactory one because it tends to alienation. On the one hand when the confessor authoritatively takes the side of the magisterium, he only serves to alienate his penitents from himself and from the Sacrament of Penance. On the other hand when he cavalierly takes the side of a penitent, he only serves to alienate him from the magisterium of the Church and perhaps is even a cause of his loosing all respect for the teaching authority of the Church. Either position is always a disaster.

The obvious answer to this dilemma is to recognize that the confessor of today is called upon to exercise a completely new role in his penitential ministry, namely that of mediator between the magisterium and the individual conscience. In this role, the confessor cannot take sides which would alienate; rather he must seek to heal division by bringing both sides together in an effective penitential situation. Since this is a recent role thrust upon the confessor, unfortunately sacramental theology texts and manuals are usually unacquainted with it. As a result, as yet little printed direction is offered to the confessor. But there are two things that he must have a clear understanding of; first that this is indeed a valid role springing from the nature of the sacrament itself and second that to fulfill this role properly calls for serious intellectual study rather than simply pastoral counseling techniques.

The validity of the new role as springing from the very nature of the Sacrament of Penance itself, unfolds from the history of the sacrament. In the early days of the Church, the sacrament was a rare occasion in the life of a Christian. It was celebrated with great solemnity and severity for serious sinners who by their sin had cut themselves off from the life of the Church. In such a context, the category of serious sins was understandably small－idolatry, murder and adultery being the original triad of mortal sins.(4) Given the social structure of the time in both the larger society as well as the Church community, such sins were never secret. Thus the culprit stood accused in the sight of all and he did his penance in the sight of all.

As the Church's awareness of the richness of the Sacrament of Penance grew, the catalogue of sins to be penanced began to become more complex and with it the role of the penitent. A larger list of sins meant that many faults were no longer public knowledge and to disclose them could well have had harmful effects for the penitent. As a result, the sacrament began to take on a double form; one the public form for public sins and the other the private form for private or secret sins. In the first form, the sinner stood accused by the very public nature of his faults and he approached the tribunal of penance simply as a culprit seeking forgiveness. With secret confession, however, the sinner took on an added role, that of accuser as well as culprit seeking forgiveness. Meantime the role of minister remained the same, that of judge primarily of the salutary penance to be given to rectify or bring back into proper balance the life of the sinner that had been disordered by his fault. With the passage of time, secret confession became the rule and public penance gradually disappeared except in extraordinary cases. At the present time, even in these cases it is hardly an effective measure in the life of the Church.

The development of theology in the middle ages added greater sophistication to the understanding of the dynamics of the Sacrament of Penance. Under theological analysis it came to be understood that Penance consisted of certain material elements and certain formal elements neither of which could be separated from the other if the sacrament was to be integral. The accuser-accused role of the penitent was understood to consist in three concrete acts; contrition, confession and satisfaction. The judgmental role of the confessor then shifted somewhat to be seen as consisting primarily in the decision as to whether or not the penitent fulfilled these acts that were necessary for an integral sacrament to be confected.

From the time of the Council of Trent up to the present, the essential form of the Sacrament of Penance and the essential acts of the penitent and confessor have remained unchanged. But at the same time there has been a great development in the understanding of what the dynamics are whereby one accuses himself of sin. Put simply, it was the task of the moral theologian to clarify classes and types of sins so that the penitent in examining his conscience would know what material he should accuse himself of. If he were not certain, then he would have to make a judgment of conscience but he was also given detailed instruction on how this was to be done. As mentioned above, the system worked well for a number of years－in fact until the advances of technology began to pose new problems for old situations. One of these, of course, was the birth control problem.

What made the kind of a problem that birth control offers such a celebrated one was a certain shift in the way that the Church had been addressing such problems. For a long time in the history of the Church, moral problems were given solutions by theologians. If the solution arrived at was judged by the Church to be an improper one, then that solution would be set aside and corrected by the teaching authority of the Church. Thus in practice the positive magisterium of the Church consisted of theologians whereas the negative magisterium consisted of the hierarchical teaching authority. In serious times and for serious questions, this latter authority acted through a general council.

During the nineteenth century and particularly after the defining of the dogma of papal infallibility, the hierarchical magisterium of the Church came to assume a position of prominence in the solution to moral questions. Thus in response to modern birth control questions, it has not been moral theologians in a slow developmental way but rather papal pronouncements that have constituted the positive teaching authority of the Church. On the one hand this system has benefitted the Church in so far as it has given quick, decisive answers but on the other hand the mode of presentation－parent to child tradition－and the sense of finality of a papal statement the continuing infallibiliy discussion－have made it difficult for an increasingly educated adult laity to adjust. In practice this is experienced particularly in the penitent's role of accuser in confession.

The difficulty that the penitent has in integrating magisterial statements on morality into a proper framework in his role of self-accuser in the Sacrament of Penance, of its very nature calls for a counter response on the part of the confessor. By virtue of his role as judge of the integrity of the acts of the penitent, he is therefore obliged to mediate between the magisterium and the conscience. Perhaps some might say that this is not true mediation because the confessor in the actual context of the Sacrament of Penance is in contact with only one party and therefore the usual give-and-take of the mediating situation is impossible. Thus the role of the confessor in this situation is no more that that of a persuader of the one side that can change (the conscience) to adapt itself to the side that is unchangeable (the magisterium). However, this obviously is not the case.

The confessor in his role of judge in the Sacrament of Penance does not act by virtue of delegated authority; rather he acts by virtue of a power that comes to him directly from Christ through his ordination. Once the Church gives him the care of souls through office or delegated jurisdiction, he exercises a power that is his directly and does not depend for its execution on any other person in the Church. Since the exercise of such a power contains within it all the means necessary to carry it to its fulfillment, the confessor in the opere operanti of the Sacrament of Penance becomes in his role as mediator the authentic interpreter of the teachings of Christ and a fortiori of the magisterial teaching of the Church. He thus plays an active role as the representative of the magisterium with full power to interpret for the magisterium. In fact, when he exercises this role properly it may even be said that he partakes of the infallibility that is implicit in the Church In so far as the penitent need not fear that the interpretation he receives will be detrimental to his salvation. However, it must also be clearly understood that since this charism of the confessor flows from the integrity of particular penitential situations, the interpretations that he makes of the teachings of Christ or the magisterium of the Church are valid only for the individual sacramental situation connected with that interpretation. In short, the confessor in his role as magisterial mediator with the individual conscience does not in any way modify the objective magisterial teachings of the Church.

But as mentioned above, the proper fulfillment of the role of mediator on the part of the confessor demands a deep knowledge of magisterial decrees. In the question of birth control, this would be the encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope Paul VI, HUMANAE VITAE.(5) And just as Pope Paul made use of mature reflection and assiduous prayers in arriving at his conclusion, so the confessor must do the same. He should be able to penetrate behind the words (what is stated) in order to arrive at the heart of the message (what is affirmed). HUMANAE VITAE is not a difficult document but a very clear one. Arguments against it fall into two categories; the first of these is that the teachings put forward in the encyclical are based on an inadequate conception of the natural law and the second is that the teachings do not do justice to the integrity of the human person.(6) It is not the purpose of this paper to criticize these points but suffice it to say that the author sees them as the result of a focus on the words of the encyclical (what is stated) rather than a focus on the real message (what is affirmed). The confessors' primary interest must be on the message.

A careful study of the text of HUMANAE VITATE reveals very clearly that the intent of the encyclical was to safeguard the essential nature of conjugal love. Therefore anything that would violate this essential nature－that is, remove entirely from acts of conjugal love any reference to its life-giving aspect－would be a serious disturbance of a natural order that both revelation and human reason have recognized as a sine qua non of the human condition. In its absolute understanding, it clearly affirms a basic human life-style－the family in its root sense－and it clearly denies the validity of contrary life-styles like homosexual marriage. This absolute under-standing that the confessor takes from the document, becomes the principle from which his mediation between the magisterium and the individual conscience in the Sacrament of Penance will flow.

It is important that the confessor understand the intent of HUMANAE VITAE as a principle and not as a law. Catholic moral theology from the very earliest days of its development has exhibited a marked tendency to reduce Christian conduct to a series of laws which establish a criterion outside of as well as prior to any act the Christian may perform. The law, then, simply provides a blue-print of rectitude of conduct whereby one simply forms his conscience by comparing his conduct to the blueprint. In this examination he ticks off as sin whatever in his conduct does not correspond to the outline in the blueprint. The confessor must understand that the need for his role as mediator became necessary precisely because such a reduction of Christian conduct is largely rejected by recipients of the Sacraments of Penance today and specifically in their role of self-accuser.

A principle, on the other hand, while establishing a criterion outside any act the Christian may perform, does not establish a criterion prior to the act. What this means is the principle is a part of the act itself, enhancing or vitiating the perfection of the act. Principles in regard to human conduct, then, are concerned with virtues rather than laws and it is within this context that the confessor mediates between the magisterium and the individual conscience. In the question of birth control, the mediation will concern the affirmation or denial of basic human dignity in the conduct of ones conjugal life from both the standpoint of the individual and the standpoint of the principle, both of which enter into the one act.

In summation, then, the birth control problem gives a prime example of the role of the confessor as a mediator between the magisterium and the individual conscience. And as more sophisticated moral problems arise which make greater demands on the penitent in his role of self-accuser, the confessor's role will 'obviously also become more demanding. One might well ask, then, if new moral problems will continue to make the roles of the confessor and the recipient of the sacrament increasingly more complicated to the point where Penance will become a meaningful sacrament only for the best educated. It is the opinion of this writer that such will never be the case. New moral problems are not new in the strict sense but rather new variations on a theme. And the history of moral problems has shown that they wax and wane in accord with the times. But that is another study.

　



　

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beekle, Franz. 'Bibliographical Survey on the Question of Birth Control' CONCILIUM Vol. 5 No. 1 (May, 1965) 53-69.

Cardegna, Felix F. 'Contraception the Pill and Responsible Parenthood' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 25 No. 4 (December, 1964) 611-636.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH Vaticana: Typographia Polyglotta, 1968.

Flynn, Fred. 'Humanae Vitae and Natural Law' PRIEST 25(1969) 81-88.

Kelly, Gerald. 'Pope Pius XII and the Principle of Totality' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 16 No. 3 (September, 1955) 373-396.

Mahone, John. 'Understanding the Encyclical' MONTH 226(1968) 233-244.

Palmer, Paul F. SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY VOL. II: SACRAMENTS AND FORGIVENESS London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1959.

Reed, John J. 'National Law, Theology and the Church' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 26 No. 1 (March, 1965) 40-64.

Springer, Robert H. 'Notes on Moral Theology' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 30 No. 2 (June, 1969) 249-288.

Vereecke, Louis. STORIA DELLA THEOLOGIA MORALE MODERNA VOL. II Roma: Accademia Alfonsiana, 1980.

  

1)Cf. Louis Vereecke, STORIA DELLA THEOLOGIA MORALE MODEKNA, VOL. II (Roma: Academia Alfonsiana, 1980), pp. 113-122.

2)An excellent survey of this appeared in Franz Bockle 'Bibliographical Survey on the Question of Birth Control' CONCILIUM Vol. 15 No.1 (May, 1965) 53-69. The statement made by the chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Conference at the 1980 Synod of Bishops in Rome showed that the situation outlined in the article had not changed in the last fifteen years.

3)Cf. Paul VI, Allocation to the Cardinals, 23rd June, 1964; ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 56(156(1964) 588-89.

4)Cf. Paul F. Palmer, SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY VOL . II: SACRAMENTS AND FORGIVENESS (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1959), pp. 66-67.

5)Cf. the official English translation of HUMANAE VITAE. EN CYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH (Vaticana: Tipografia Polyglotta, 1968).

6)Cf. Robert H. Springer, 'Notes on Moral Theology' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 30 No. 2 (June, 1969) 249-288.