作者：黄克镳

导言

去年神学年刊中笔者曾介绍当代神学家卡．拉内(KARL RAHNER) 神父论基督之死的「圣事标记因」(SACRAMENTAL－SYMBOLIC CAUSALITY)；1 当时已计划于本期年刊中继续介绍拉内有关基督意识的独到见解。刚巧今年辅大神学论集五十四、五十五两期中，张春申神父先后发表两篇大作，详细讨论有关耶稣的知识及意识的问题；张神父从圣经、传承以及现代神学各方面讨论这问题。2 笔者愿意继续这一探讨，专门介绍拉内对这问题的精辟见解；张神父在论耶稣的意识一文中也曾撮要地介绍拉内的思想，3 但因该文是全面性的探讨，无意详细研究拉内的思想，本文可作为这方面的补充资料。

在天主教神学范围内，有关基督的意识和知识的探讨，在梵二前的一段时间，曾一度成为基督学的热门问题；4 梵二以后，基督学的争论点渐渐转移到基督的身份上。5但基督的意识及知识问题，与祂身份的问题是无法分开的，对于降生奥迹及基督身份的了解，自然也影响到有关祂的心理与认知的看法；反过来说也是真的。所以有关基督的意识与知识的问题，虽然现在已不是明显的热门问题，但一直是隐伏在对基督身份的探讨后面的重要问题。

在拉内的基督学中，这问题也占很重要的位置；拉内的基督学主要是一种超历史的先稔的基督学(TRANSCENDENTAL CHRISTOLOGY)，他不以基督的生平事迹为起点，却从人的普遍状况与特性出发，研究基督的奥迹。6 拉内对基督的意识与知识的探讨，可以说是连贯这种先稔基督学与历史角度的后稔基督学(HISTORICAL－CATEGORICAL CHRISTOLOGY) 的桥梁，7 俾能继续发挥一种以基督生平事迹为基础的基督学。

拉内对于基督意识及知识的见解，被不少学者视为有关这深奥问题的突破；8 当然不能算是这问题的完满答案，但至少是一个令人满意的解释。既然拉内的理论贡献重大，在他自己的基督学中又占重要位置，所以很值得我们较详细地加以研究。由于篇幅关系，本文只讨论拉内有关基督意识的见解，希望有关基督知识的问题也会因此更为清楚。9 本文第一部份首先介绍拉内有关的思想，然后在第二部份指出其特殊贡献。

(甲) 卡．拉内关于基督意识的见解

「荣福直观」(Beatific Vision) 与「直接神视」(Immediate Vision)

传统神学二向以荣福直观解释基督意识与知识的问题，称基督在世时已经如天上神圣一般享有直观天主的特恩。10 原因在于基督是圣言降生成人，要把救恩带拾人类，因此祂本人在世时便应该享有这完满救恩，即面对面享见天主的荣福直观；同时，因着这荣福直观，基督又能在天主内谛观一切，清楚地认识自己的特殊身份与使命，以及世界上的一切事物，

拉内首先对「荣福」一词发出异议，认为与天主亲近并不一定带来荣福；11若说耶稣在世时常享受天上的荣福，那么在山园祈祷时及垂死的痛苦中，难道祂也享有这荣福吗？传统神学提出的解决办法，或是把基督的意识划分为两个互不干犯的区域，或是说在受难时荣福直观的神恩暂时中断；这两种解释都不能令人满意。况且耶稣在世时真正是一位旅居尘世的路人(VIATOR)，祂必须接受各种痛苦与考验，才能作我们的楷模。为了这些缘故，拉内建议把「荣福直观」一词改为「直接神视」(IMMEDIATE VISTON)。12

外在理论(extrinsicist theory)

除了建议把荣福直观改称直接神视外，拉内又分析对这种直观或神视的两种不同解释：即外在理论(EXTRINSICIST THEORY) 与内在理论(INTRINSICIST THEORY)。13 外在解释把基督的直观视作一种额外的恩典，因着基督的特殊身份而赏赐给祂的。这理论是以所谓「完美原则」(PRINCIPLE OF PERFECTION) 为依据，祂的人性既然与圣言结合，故应享有一切完美及特殊恩宠，其中最重要的便是在世时不断享见天主的直观神恩。这种视直观为额外恩典的看法，也影响了对直观性质的了解，把它看作一种主体与客体间的认识，认为藉着直观，基督清晰地看见天主，就如一本书或一面镜子一般，同时又在天主内洞悉一切世间的事物。14

拉内认为这种对直观的外在解释不无困难，首先这与圣经的记载不甚配合，福音上介绍的基督是一位懂得发问、疑惑、学习、惊讶、深受感动……曾遭受到被天主遗弃的垂死痛苦的基督。15 再者，假如耶稣在直观中对自己的身份、使命及在祂身上将要发生的一切，完全瞭如指掌的话，那么，祂对于天主的信赖与委顺将是轻而易举；祂的自由抉择也大受限制。16

内在理论(intrinsicist theory)

因此，拉内给直接神视提供一种较内在的解释，把这神视看作降生奥迹的必然因素；同时认为这不是一种客体般的认识，却是主体的自我意识。首先，拉内反对把直接神视看作一种额外、附加的恩典，他强调直接神视与降生奥迹根本无法分割，两者是同一事实的两个不同幅度，圣言与人性的结合(HYPOSTATIC UNION) 是降生奥迹的存有幅度(ONTOLOGIGAL DIMENSION)，直接神视便是这奥迹的认知幅度(EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIMENSION)。17

拉内的见解基于他的一个重要哲学理论，即任何事物的存有与认知的一致性。18他发挥圣多玛斯的意见，主张一切事物都朝着意识境界前进，趋向于「自反」(REDITIO IN SE) 的能力。19事物必须通过认识及爱才能返回自己、临在于自己(SELF－PRESENCE)，这种自反或临于自己的能力正是事物存有的程度的指标。20 初看起来，拉内的理论好像犯了「泛意识论」的错误，以为一切事物都是有意识的，或是以为但凡没有意识的事物，便缺乏真正的存有。为了解答这疑难，应注意拉内对世界的看法，他认为在整个受造界，物质与精神之间，有一种基本上的连贯性与一致性。物质具有潜力，不断趋向精神，有形的世界不断趋于内在化(INTERIORIZATION)，无灵之物以达于意识为鹄的。21 拉内这种见解，不难获得进化学说的支持，由于造物主赋与的潜能，物质与精神之间并无不能跨越的鸿沟。

当然拉内也看到物质与精神之间的基本区别，物质没有认知的能力，它只能被认识而不能有所认识；物质固然朝着意识界前进，但它本身的意识只是尚在发展中的潜能，因此物质的存有程度是很贫乏微弱的。22 随着人的出现，物质的世界首次返回自己，进入自我意识，所以人是有形世界的颠峰，他的存有高于一切物质界之上。由此看来，拉内所持存有与认知一致性的理论，具体上指一切具精神的主体都能基本上意识到自己的身份与实况；更具体地说，天使与人都能各自认识自己的身份与特性。其实这哲学原则与心理学理论也相符，正常的人都能基本上了解自己的身份，精神分裂的一种表现便是对自己身份的误解与错乱。

认知与存有不但一致，而且自我意识的程度与存有的程度是成正比的；一个存在个体越成全，其自我意识也越深，如此天神的意识胜于人的意识，因为前者是直觉的，无需透过物质的中介。现在让我们返回基督意识的论题，拉内认为不但物质界不停地朝着精神迈进，就是人本身也在不断进展中，人的本性不是一成不变的，却在不断成长与实现中。人之所以为精神体，因为他对神具有无止境的开放(POTENTIA OBOEDIENTIALIS)，拉内认为这是给人最好的定义。23 既然人最基本的特性是对于神的开放，那么神的临在与占有，并不减弱人的价值，反而把人提升到更完满的境界。从这角度看来，圣言降生的奥迹无异是把人提升到最高的境界，因为圣言的临在与结合满全了人对神无止境的开放。24 依照上述存有与认知成正比的原则，降生奥迹既然是人的最高境界，这事实该是基督的人性所意识到的，而且这意识的深度远胜于一般人的自我意识。25 拉内称基督完全被圣言占有的意识为直接神视，它不是额外附加的恩典；却是降生的奥迹的内在因素，这不外是把圣言与人性的结合由存有的层面引申到认知的层面。

「基本状况」(basic condition)

拉内除了以直接神视为降生奥迹的内在因素外，他的理论还有一个很大的特点。这神视不是主体与客体间清晰的认识，而是同于主体的意识。26 他又把意识区别为两个不同的层面或型态，即未经反省、含蓄、非概念的意识型态，以及经反省的、明显的、以概念表达的意识型态。他认为基督的直接神视属前一种意识型态。27 这种未经反省的意识也可以称为主体的「基本状况」(GRUNDBEFINDLICHKEIT)，这是每个人都具有的，是他一切精神行动的先决条件。28 人在认识任何事物时，便同时意识到自我及这个我与所认识的对象有所分别；除了这自我意识外，他还含隐地意识到一个更大的视野(HORIZON) 或可知的领域，他意会到这视野或领域比他所注意到的任何对象更广大，拉内指这视野或领域相当于一切可知事物的总和(TOTALITY OF ALL KNOWABLE OBJECTS) ；这种超越个别对象，趋向更大视野的动力拉内称为"VORGRIFF" (PRE－APPREHENSION)。29 就如人在观看一件事物时。他同时意识到围绕着这事物的背景；假如他蓄意观看这更广阔的背景时，他还是意会到一个更大的空间。他知道山外还有山，海洋尽处仍是浩瀚无涯的海洋，甚至整个大地也只不过是一颗微粒，被无边际的太空包围着。

这更大的视野或领域不但出现于认知的行动中，在作出任何选择时，人也意会到除了眼前选择的对象外，还有其他无数可以选择的对象。总之，人感到自己常被更大的真善美包围着，在我们认识的事物之外还有更大的真理，在选择的对象以外还有更大的美善。这更大的视野或领域，这无止境的真善美，是我们认识或选择个别对象时不可或缺的条件。假如没有这视野，我们根本无法形成抽象的概念或把个别事物列于存有的范畴。30 拉内认为这不断伸展的视野，这无尽的真善美，到最后该是天主自己。拉内称之为「无名的奥秘」(NAMELESS MYSTERY)，31 这奥秘充塞天地，环抱万象，包围众人，这奥秘同时是光明与晦暗，正如在太阳的光辉下我们看见一切，但太阳本身却光耀夺目，不可正视；这奥秘沉默无言，却不断邀请人朝着更大的真善美提升，催促人超脱万物，超越自我，迈向无限的真善美。32 不同的宗教以不同的名称称这无名的奥秘；无信仰的人否认这奥秘的存在，却无法对这无止境的更大视野给予一个满意的解释。

拉内称这种被奥秘包围的意识为人的「基本状况」，这是一种含蓄、未经反省、非意念的意识，但却深深植基于人心，成为他一切精神行动的基础。拉内视基督的基本状况与一般人的相似，同是一种被天主包围的感觉；但因祂的人性与圣言结合，被圣言完全占有，所以在祂心灵的深处意识到与天主的绝对及唯一无二的亲近(RADICAL AND UNIQUE CLOSENESS TO GOD )，一种跟天主极密切的关系，这是一般人意识不到的。33 这便是基督灵魂的基本状况，拉内把这基本状况看作基督所享有的直接神视，定是一种主体的、未经反省的意识，并非一种客体般的认识。

基本意识渐趋明朗化

按拉内的意见，未经反省、非意念的意识形态具有一种内在的动力，渐趋明朗化及以概念表达出来；34因此基督的直接神视或基本状况也渐由含蓄、直觉的层面发展到反省及表达的层面。这是真正的意识形态的发展，这发展需要一段时间；同时，耶稣也须藉着外在的环境，通过与别人的来往接触，透过四周发生的事情，以及在圣经的指引下反省学习，以便更了解及更清楚表达自己的身份与使命。35 基督很早便发现自己与天主独特的关系最适宜以父子的关系来诠解及表达，所以在福音中耶稣的言行间流露出很深的子的意识，一种由父而来，及不断回归天父的心态。拉内解说基督这种子的意识正是祂作子事实的认知层面。耶稣又认定天国的图象最能解释祂受于天主的特殊使命，所以福音中天国成了基督宣讲的主要对象，祂甚至把自己本身比作天国的来临。36 称基督这种探索、诠解的过程为意识形态的发展，并不是说祂由一无所知的境界渐渐进入意识及认知的境界，而是说由一种含隐未能解说的基本意识渐渐进入一种明显，以概念表达的意识。37 拉内的见解一面维护基督在基本上常具有天主子的意识，一面又强调祂有真正的心理意识的发展，使祂的生平历史更有真实感。



1.「救恩的「圣事标记」 卡．拉内论基督之死」，神学年刊6 (1982) 11-20

2.「耶稣的知识与意识(上)」，神学论集54 (1982) 537-552；「耶稣的知识与意识(下)」，神学论集55 (1983) 79-93.

3.art. cit., 神学论集55 (1983) 86-89.

4.参阅W. Pannenberg, Jesus－God and Man (London, SCM, 1976) pp. 328-334; 有关书目参阅K. Rahner, "Dogmatic Reflections on the Knowledge and Self-Consciousness of Christ", TI vol. 5, pp. 193f., note 2. 以下简称"Knowledge and Self-Consciousness" .

5.有关近日基督学新趋势，参阅H. Miessen (陈宽薇译)，「基督论的新趋势」，神学论集47 (1981) 55-62; F. S. Fiorenza, 「梵二以后的基督论」，神学论集51 (1982) 49-69.也参阅A. Dulles, "Contemporary Approaches to Christology: Analysis and Reflections", Living Light 13 (1976) 119-144; G. O' Collins, What are they saying about Jesus? (New York, Paulist, 1977); B. Cooke, "Horizons on Christology in the Seventies", Horizons 6 (1979) 193-217; B. O. McDermott, "Roman Catholic Christology : The Recurring Themes", Theological Studies 41 (1980) 339 -367; A. Schilson－W. Kasper, Christologie im Prasens. Kritische Sichtung neuer Entwurfe (Freiburg, Herder, 1977); L. Renwart, “Un signe en butte a la contradiction (Lc. 2,34). La Christologie dans quelques ouvrages recents", Nouvelle Revue Theologique a. 112, t. 102 (1980) 716 -754.

6.K. Rahner, FCF, pp. 206 - 208; 参阅H. Miessen, art. cit., 神学论集47 (1981) 56; F. S. Fiorenza, art. cit., 神学论集51 (1982) 51; O. H. Hentz, "Anticipating Jesus Christ : An Account of Our Hope", in L.J. O' Donovan (ed.), A World of Grace. An Introduction to the Themes and Foundations of Karl Rahner ' s Theology ( New York, Seabury, 1980) p. 110.

7.K. Rahner, “Jesus Christ, IV”, SM vol. 3, p.200.

8.参阅A. Grillmeier, “The Figure of Christ in Catholic Theology Today”, in J. Feiner et al. (eds.), Theology Today, vol. 1 (Milwaukee, Bruce, 1965) pp. 99-105; J.－J. Latour, “Imago Dei Invisibillis”, in idem et H. Bouesse (eds.), Problemes actuels de Christologies (Paris, Desclee, 1965) pp. 246-249; E. Gutwenger, “The Problem of Christ’s Knowledge”, Concilium 2(1966) 48-55, R. E. Brown, "How much Did Jesus Know－A Survey of the Biblical Evidence", Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29 (1967) 343f.

9.拉内对于基督知识的见解参阅 “Knowledge and Self-Consciousness”, TI vol. 5, pp.200-202.

10.奥脱，天主教信理神学上册(台中，光启1967) pp. 271-275; 奥脱称这为神学上确定意见。

11."Knowledge and Self-Consciousness", TI vol. 5, p. 203.

12.ibid.

13.ibid. pp. 204f.

14.ibid. p. 207.

15.ibid.

16.ibid. p. 202.

17.ibid. pp.206-208 这里拉内没有用 “ontological” 与 “epistemological” 两字，却用了"ontic" 与 "on-logical". 当拉内把这两词对立时，其意义与习用上 "ontological" 与"epistemological" 的对立相同。

18.ibid., p. 205; 拉内在他的哲学著作曾详细讨论这基本原则，参阅 SW. pp. 67 - 77; HW, pp. 37-44.

19.参阅多玛斯Summa Contra Gentiles IV, 11.

20.HW, pp. 45-52; 拉内称存有属类比性质，存有的程度与意识或自反的能力成正比。

21."Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World", TI vol. 5, pp. 161-168.

22.HW, pp. 49f.

23.HW, pp.66f.; "On the Theology of the Incarnation", TI vol. 4, P. 109.

24."On the Theology of the Incarnation", TI vol. 4, p. 110; "Current Problems In Christology". TI vol. 1, pp. 170f., and note 3.

25."Knowledge and Self-Consciousness", TI vol. 5, p. 206.

26.ibid., p. 208.

27.ibid., p. 199, 208f.

28.ibid., p. 200.

29.ibid., p. 201: HW, pp. 58 - 60.

30.“Vorgriff” 是拉内思想主要观念之一，在SW中有很详细讨论 ，他证明人觉察到更大视野或领域的超越能力("Vorgriff”) 是形成抽象概念及认识实有的先决条件。参阅SW, pp. 117-236.

31."The Concept of Mystery in Catholic Theology", TI vol. 4, pp. 51f.; 拉内也称这奥秘为「神圣的奥秘」(Holy Mystery) (Ibid., pp. 53f.) 「奥秘」一词对拉内神学极重要，除上述文章外，请参阅FCF, Ch. II : “Man in The Presence of Absolute Mystery" (pp. 44-89).

32.超脱的理由不在于这世界不好，拉内强调天主临在于世界上的一切事物，但因祂是万物的范围与基础 (horizin and ground)，祂超越万物之上 。因此拉内认为一方面必须在万物中找寻天主，同时又应该不断超越万物，参阅 "The Ignatian Mysticism of Joy in the World". TI vol. 3, pp. 277-293; “Being Open to God as ever Greater”, TI vol. 7, pp. 25-46.

33.FCF, p. 249: 拉内也称这种独特的关系为 "direct presence to God", 参阅"Knowledge and Self-Consciousness", TI vol. 5, p. 209.

34.“Knowledge and Self-Consciousness”, TI vol. 5, p.211.

35.ibid., p. 212; FCF, p. 249.

36.FCF, pp. 251-254.

37.“Knowledge and Self-Consciousnesss”, TI Vol. 5, p.212.

(乙) 卡．拉内的特殊贡献

一、更符合空虚自己的降生神学

拉内关于基督的意识问题提供直接神视的解释，的确把这个讨论向前推进了一大步；不少神学家，不论是天主教或基督教的，都一致认为这是拉内的特殊贡献。38这见解的优点格外在于它的内在性质，认为直接神视不是附加的恩典，却是降生奥迹必然的因素。这种解释可以克胜传统神学有关基督的荣福直观所遇到的困难。首先新约没有提及基督生前时常享有面见天主的特恩；39 反而告诉我们，祂空虚自己，取了奴仆的形体，与人无异(斐二，七)；又说祂在各方面与我们相似，是我们真正的长兄(希二，十七)。传统上以为这荣福直观的意见来自圣奥斯定，但事官上也并不那样确定；40至于教会训导也没有明文指出基督享有这特恩；教宗比护十二在「奥体」通谕中也只不过按照神学传统提及基督的荣福直视，无意对这传统作出权威性的声明。41这种特恩基于受希腊思想影响的完美原则，这原则跟基督空虚自己，与常人无异的降生神学不符，后者成了今日基督学的普遍趋势。42 因此拉内所提出直接神视的解释在今天的神学上更受接纳。

二、兼顾基督的基本意识与心理发展

拉内强调人的意识应分为不同的层面或形态；把这理论应用于基督的意识可以解决一个双重的困难。一方面保存了正统神学所持意见，说基督常具有天主子的意识；另一方面又能顾及基督精神生活发展的真实性。首先，神学上往往争论耶稣何时才知道自己为天主子的身份及作默西亚的使命，有些人说耶稣在孩童时代便清楚知道，有些说在领洗时才得到特殊的启示，更极端的说要到复活后基督才明白了解自己的身份与使命。43拉内的解释可以符合正统神学的意见，他承认耶稣自孩童时代，开始有自我意识时，便基本上意识到自己的特殊身份，即意识到与天主的唯一无二的密切关系。

另一方面来说，拉内关于基督心灵基本状况的解释，又说出了基督心理发展的事实。祂也和常人一般，在身体与智慧上逐渐成长，也得从四周的一切学习与反省，以便解释祂与天主那种独特的关系。在古经的光照下，这种独特关系的意识逐渐明朗化，成为子及默西亚的意识。即使在公开传教的生活中，耶稣仍在探索这默西亚使命将如何具体地完成。这种对自己身份、使命及命运不完全清楚，以及探索的需要，使耶稣不断向天父开放，信赖及交付。其实，对自己的未来感到有些含糊不清，并不是一种欠缺，反而更符合人的真实处境，而且是全心仰赖天主及真正运用自由的先决条件。基督在探索中所表现的信赖与服从，正是我们基督徒的最好楷模，就如希伯来书劝勉信友们应「常以双目注视信德的始创者和完成者耶稣」(希十二，二)。

三、视降生奥迹为历史过程

接受基督心理发展的事实也会影响对基督生平的看法；否定了这心理发展，基督的生平便谈不上是真正的历史。祂所作的一切只是为了作给我们看，好叫我们效法而已。这无异说基督的一生在白冷降生时已全部完成，日后并没有真正演变的过程；这种看法与今日动态，历史角度的基督学观点不同。44拉内把降生的奥迹视作一个延续至基督圣死复活的奥迹。45因着圣言降生，基督成了天主子，但这天主子的身份不是机械式的一下便完成；还须在基督的一生中渐渐实现。降生的奥迹固然给了这作子的生活一个形上的基础，但子的身份还要透过基督向天父不断的交付，以存在的方式渐渐完成。46所以垃内强调，福音上所载耶稣对天父的朝拜、感恩、祈求、信赖与服从等行动都是构成祂作子身份的要素。47 正如每个人都在不断成为他自己，耶稣也一生不断实现自己，直至死在十字架上，祂才满全了子的身份及默西亚的使命。

这种对基督生平的认真态度是由于相信祂有真正的心理意识的发展；根据这种看法，基督的生平是一个真正的历史过程。虽然拉内的基督学主要是先稔的、超历史的基督学，他自己没有充份发挥一种以基督生平事迹为基础的基督学，48但他对于基督意识的见解，给了这种历史角度的基督学一个有力的支持。拉内又多次强调，「意识基督学」(CONSCIOUSNESS CHRISTOLOGY) 或「存在基督学」(EXISTENTIAL CHRISTOLOGY) 应与「形上基督学」(METAPHYSICAL CHRISTOLOGY) 殊途同归；49假如我们认真地以基督对天父独特关系的意识为出发点，探究祂一生所表现的那种自己完全来自天父及不断回归天父的心态，我们不难到达传统上以圣言降生为出发点的形上基督学。其实这种殊途同归的现象，正表明拉内所坚持的存有与认知一致性的原理。存在的基督学以福音中耶稣的生平为起点，是一种从下而上的基督学，是今日较普遍采用的基督学方法。50

四、提供基督徒的意识模型

拉内将基督的直接神视看作祂心灵的基本状况，且与一般人的基本状况在结构上相似，是一种向着无限奥秘的无止境开放，这奥秘本来是沉默及无名的，人被它包围着却不知怎样称呼它，即使给了它一个名称还是感到词不达意。待基督来了，祂给我们启示了这奥秘的名称，原来这沉默的奥秘便是天父。祂在默默中化育万有、亭毒众生。在基督的光照下，人才知道自己向着无限与永恒不断超越的那股无名动力，正是一种归根返源，回归天父的趋向。原来每个人都是按照基督昨子的肖像受造，带着子的形象，51要和基督一起，在圣神的启发下不断呼喊：「阿爸、父啊！」作基督徒的真正意义便是便自己灵性的基本状况渐渐明朗化及基督化，参与基督作子的意识，感到自己是由父而来，并要以绝对的信赖及完全的交付，不断回归父家。

再者，基督徒既分享基督作子的意识，也该加深彼此间是兄弟姊妹的意识，要像基督一般向别人开放，为别人而生存。这种向天父及弟兄的开放便是件基督徒的核心要素。由此可见，拉内对于基督意识的反省，不但对基督学有重大贡献，而且对基督徒的灵修生活也有重要的启发。

结论

上文简要地介绍了拉内有关基督意识的见解与特殊贡献。读者也许注意到，拉内对这问题的解释，除了基督学外，也涉及不少拉内思想的其他要点，诸如存有与认知的一致性，人的不同意识型态，以及人向着奥秘无限开放的基本状况……等。因此，拉内对于基督意识的理论可说是他思想的纲要，明白了他对这问题的解释，自然会对他的思想体系有一概括认识。

要讨论人的心理及意识问题，本来已是极奥妙复杂的；现在要探讨人而天主的基督的意识，更无异企图进入奥秘中的奥秘。拉内当然无意对这问题作出解答，只是设法给予一个探讨性的解释；欲知这解释是否正确可靠，最好还是看看定是否与新约资料配合。拉内不是圣经学者，但也熟读圣经，对新约介绍的基督有很深的体会。他对于基督意识问题的反省，虽然哲理成份很重，但基本上还是受着新约资料的指引。

拉内所介绍的基督与福音中的基督相同，是一位懂得发问、疑惑、学习、惊讶、深深感动、曾受到被天父遗弃的垂死痛苦的基督。(注五十二)诚如希伯来书所说，是「一位在各方面与我们相似，受过试探的，只是没有罪过。」(希四，十五)另一方面，这位基督也能向门徒们说：「谁看见了我，就是看见了父」(若十四，九)。53 祂深深意识到自己与父之间有着一种唯一无二的密切关系，一种无法描述的子的意识；这种意识由祂一生向天父的绝对开放，无条件的信赖与交付中表露出来，使祂在各种试探中常保持忠贞不二，成为「信德的始创者和完成者」。

若干有权威的圣经学者，以圣经批判的方法对有关基督意识的问题加以研究后，他们乐于承认，拉内以信理神学家的身份对这问题所持意见，与他们研究的结果基本上相同。54 由此可见，拉内的理论解释，不但带来这问题的突破，而且与新约资料配合，是可靠的理论。

　

缩写：

FCF－Foundations of Christian Faith ( New York, Seabury, 1978 )

HW－Hearers of the Word (London, Sheed and Ward, 1969)

SM－Sacramentum Mundi : Vols. 1-6

SW－Spirit in the World (London, Sheed and Ward, 1968)

TI－Theological Investigations : Vols. 1-20

　



38.见上注八。

39.参阅J. Galot, Who is Christ? A Theology of the Incarnation. (Rome, Gregorian University Press, 1980) pp. 354f.

40.ibid., p.355, and notes 29, 30; 参阅张春申「耶稣的知识及意识(下)」，神学论集55 (1983) 84f.

41.ibid., p.358, note33.

42.参阅 ibid., pp. 356f.: “Other historical epochs and other mentalities may well have delighted in the contemplation of Jesus” most sublime perfections. In our own day, we tend to be more interested in what the incarnate Son of God has in common with our human way of life." (p. 357).

43.参阅R. E. Brown, “ ‘Who Do Man Say That I Am’: Modern Scholarship on Gospel Christology”, Catholic Mind 73 (1975) 21-33.

44.参阅H. Miessen, art. cit., 神学论集47 (1981) 56; W. Kasper, Jesus The Christ (New York, Paulist, 1976) pp.20, 37f.; B. Welte, Jesus Chritstus und die Theologie", in J. Sauer (ed), Wer ist Jesus Christus? (Freiburg, Herder, 1977) pp. 155f.

45."Salvation", SM vol. 5, p. 428.

46.K. Rahner, The Trinity (London, Burn & Oates, 1970) pp.62f.

47.ibid.

48.虽然拉内本人没有充份发挥一种以基督生平事迹为基础的基督学，但他深信这种基督学方法的重要性；参阅 "Remarks on the Importance of Jesus for Catholic Dogmatics," TI vol. 13, pp. 201-202; “The Two Basic Types of Christology”, ibid., pp. 213-223.

49参阅 "Current Problems in Christology", TI vol. 1, pp. 168-174; FCF, pp. 302-304. 这里拉内也称他视作相对的两种基督学为：“Ontological Christology” 及 "Ontic Christology”; 见上注十七，薛理辟 (E. Schillebeeckx ) 也强调耶稣对天父的深切意识 (Abba－experience) 是了解基督身份的秘诀；参阅E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus－An Experiment in Christology (London, Collins, 1979) pp. 256-269.

50.参阅G. O' Collins, op. cit., p. 13.

51.参阅E. Mersch 所发挥 “Filii in Filio” 的思想：Theology of the Mystical Body (St. Louis, B. Herder, 1951 ) pp. 325-373.

52.见上注十五

53.拉内多次引用这句经文，甚至说基督学不外是对这节经文的诠释；参阅 “The Theology of the Symbol” TI vol. 4, p. 237.

54.参阅A. Vogtle, “Exegetische Erwagungen uber das Wissen and Selbstbewusstsein Jesu", in J.B. Metz et al. (eds.), Gott in Welt, II (Freiburg, Herder, 1964) pp. 608-667; 也参阅以上引用R. E. Brown 的两篇文章 (注八及注四十三)。

作者：吴智勋

(一) 自然律伦理面对的困难

如众所知，天主教历来都主张自然律伦理，认为天主在人性中铭刻了一个道德秩序，人顺之为善，逆之为恶。教会训导当局常以自然律去驳斥异端，或据自然律去指导天主子民过伦理生活。教宗依诺森十一世便曾斥责放纵主义者(LAXIST) 误用自然律去支持他们的手淫行为(1)。教宗保禄六世在「人类生命」通谕中强调，婚姻伦理教义的原则「是建立在自然律上，并受到天主启示的光照和充实」(2)。他要求夫妇尊重婚姻行为的本性和目的，因为按自然律，「任何婚姻行为本身该是传授人的生命的」(3)。教宗若望保禄二世在「家庭团体」通谕一再声明，他支持教会传统的训导，特别是保禄六世「人类生命」的训导(4)。

天主教主张自然律伦理自是不成问题，但教外的思想界却毁多誉少。功利主义者不以抽象的人性作为道德价值的标准，而从实际的效果去估价，他们有的以个人的幸福为标准，有的以大众或社会的福利为准则。进化主义者抱着物竞天择的原则，认为人与其他动物一样进化而来，进化的过程并未停止，人如何能有固定的人性？为了求生存，人往往不择手段，毫无理性可言；不是他愿意如此，而是他别无选择。弗洛依德(SIGMUND FREUD) 一派的学者则认为人是受潜意识的动力所左右，尤其是受超我所控制；倘若以为人能自由地按其理智去做决定，那便是不符事实的幻想。存在主义者沙特更不遗余力的攻击自然律伦理。他认为人若有了固定的人性，有了不变的自然律，便没有自由了，他不能够去创造自己。他主张在人身上，存在是先于本质，人自由的去划定自己应走的道路，同时为他的自由决定负责；这样，他才算是个真人。

不但在教外自然律伦理有四面楚歌的感觉，连在基督宗教内，它也受到不断的考验；福来奢(JOSEPH FLETCHER) 的场合伦理(5)便揉合了存在主义的自由，功利主义的实用，加上基督徒的爱德而成功的新伦理学说。场合伦理否认客观不变的伦理秩序的存在。人的场合常是具体的、独特的、不会重复的，所以根本不可能有一些客观不变的道德规律，适用于所有独特的环境。一般道德规律只能够是相对的，充其量只有照明作用。福氏攻击天主教的自然律伦理为法律主义(6)，把规律绝对化，不管什么问题，人都能从书本上找到预定的答案，完全忽视了每人独特的场合。福氏提出一自由的、主观的、自主的伦理态度；客观不变的伦理规律既然不存在，每人只能在他的环境中，以诚实的态度，本着爱心去作道德决定。

在天主教中，亦有人开始对自然律伦理发生疑问。古伦 (CHARLES E. CURRAN) 曾多次撰文批评自然律伦理(7)。他指出自然律一名很含糊，在思想史上并非一完整的哲学系统，它能有不同的解释。「人类生命」通谕所讲的自然律，是带有浓厚的物理主义色彩，即把行为的物理性与道德性混为一谈。利用物理性的不育期去节育是道德的，但其他人工的节育方法，都相反天主的计划，皆不道德；换句话说，道德或不道德是取决于物理性的生殖周期。古伦认为这种主张源于二三世纪一位罗马律师乌平恩(ULPIAN)。乌氏分辨出自然律(IUS NATURAIE) 和人律(IUS GENTIUM)，自然律是人和其他动物共同的地方，而人律则只属于有理性的人。这种主张很容易把物理性的生理过程看成是自然律的要求，如在人的性行为中，精子是准备与卵子结合，以期达到生育的目的，所有有意阻止精子卵子结合的行为，便是违反自然律。乌平恩所懂的自然律容易做成一种双层人类学，人的基层是动物性，上层是理性，危机是伦理问题往往取决于基层的自然动物性。从前的人有一个原始信念：要幸福快乐，必须要倾自然；自然的能力太大，人们感到无力抗拒，后来再进一步把顺乎物理自然看成是道德的行为。但这种原始信念早已成为过去，今日的文明要求改造自然以求迎合人类。自然有地心吸力使我们不能飞，但人能制造东西相反此自然秩序。顺乎自然是否能作为今日的口号，更能否决定行为的道德性？从这种自然律出来的世界观是静止的、永恒的，因为本质不会变；同样，自然律伦理是保守的、普遍的、不变的，因人的本性总是一样。

在神学上，古伦认为自然律伦理难以配合基督信仰的整体观。自然律若是独立于启示之外，很容易产生对立的现象：即自然与超自然的对立，创造与救赎的对立。人的本性能不受超性所影响，一般人按自然律去生活，但基督徒却在自然律之上加上福音律，形成基督徒的伦理比其他人的伦理优越的感觉。此外，自然律伦理太乐亲，过于信任理智，忽略罪恶的力量。人应该认真考虑罪恶的存在，和它破坏性的后果，不要沉醉于自然律浪漫的乌托邦。

1：DS2149.

2：「人类生命」通谕，No. 4.

3：同上，No. 11.

4：「家庭团体」通谕，No. 29－32.

5：JOSEPH FLETCHER, "SITUATION ETHICS", SCM, LONDON, 1966.

6：同上，PP. 18－22.

7：CHARLES E. CURRAN, “NATURAL LAW AND CONTEMPORARY MORAL THEOLOGY” IN “CONTRACEPTION”, EDITED BY C. E. CURRAN,　HERDER AND HERDER, N.Y. 1969, PP. 151－175.　

CHARLES E. CURRAN, “NATURAL LAW” IN “THEMES IN FUNDAMENTAL MORAL THEOLOGY”, NOTRE DAME, LONDON, 1977, PP. 27－80.

(二) 自然律的意义

面对多方面的责难，很多学者对自然律重新加以反省。有些为自然律伦理找出路，有些则对人类行为的普遍性发生兴趣，特别是心理学、人类学和语言学这几方面为然。因此，过去廿年对自然律的研究突然蓬勃起来，但这里只侧重自然道德律的探究。

「自然」与「律」是两个不同的概念。自然(NATURE) 一词，能指大自然，亦能指与生俱来之本性。在物为物性，在人则为人性。西方讲自然主要源于亚里士多德。他认为有机体皆有它特殊的本性，怎么样的种子必按其本性长出怎么样的果实来。有机体的本性是动态的，因它有内在的倾向去不断成长，由潜能发展为现实。这种发展并非任意的、漫无目的的，而是朝着特定的目标走，即事物整体的完美。至于人的本性，亚氏一方面看出人在生理成长上和其他动物一样，朝着特定的目标发展；另一方面，人是理性的、道德的存有。理性活动的最高目标是对天主的默观(CONTEMPLATION OF GOD)，而道德活动的目的是一德行的生活。原则上，人理应朝此两目标走以求达到幸福，但事实上，人并无必然的内在倾向去达成它们，反而误认其他次等价值为他的真正幸福。亚氏始终没有发展一套自然律的理论，不过他对自然的主张，却有很大的启发性。

正式提出自然律的，应是斯多噶派的哲人。他们一方面认为人有顺乎自然的内在倾向，另一方面，自然也客观地要求人合乎本性所赋予的事实；因此，顺乎本性或自然就是善，反之为恶。

圣多玛斯是最有系统的研究自然律的一位。他从永久律开始讲，永久律是「天主智慧的模式，用以指导一切东西的行动和行为」(8)。基督徒相信创造万物的天主，从永远就预定万物的终向，祂创造它们各有其特殊的本性，好使它们能实现自己的终向，亦即符合天主永远的计划。可见天主的永久律是一切法律，包括自然律的泉源，故圣多玛斯认为自然律反映天主的永久律。天主在人身上预定了一道德秩序，人自然地倾向它。圣多玛斯发觉道德责任基于人的存有(BEING)，人有自然倾向认为自己应按理智行事(9)。他着重理智的地位：「人性中各种倾向，如能受理智管辖，皆能隶属于自然律之中，故自然律的规律虽多，其实根源只有一个」(10)，这就是人的理智。人有很多自然倾向，但理智能分辨那些有善的目标。理智认出最基本的自然倾向是：「人应行善避恶」。这是第一条自然道德律。圣多玛斯推而广之，再提出三种自然倾向：(1)自保的倾向 相应此倾向的自然道德律就是：人有保存及护卫人类生命的道德责任。(2)传种的倾向 人有道德义务去傅生及教育人类。(3)理性与道德进展的倾向 这是人所独有的，人有责任破除无知，追求真理，与人和平相处(11)。

从人性中的自然倾向推出自然道德律不光是圣多玛斯的做法，连有经验主义者之称的哈特教授(PROFESSOR H. L. A. HART) 也曾用此法。他认为求生存(SURVIVAL) 是自然律的缩影，也是最基本的自然倾向。从这个倾向，他结论出几个自然的伦理责任：(1)限制使用暴力去杀害或伤害身体。(2)彼此忍耐和妥协。(3)提倡兼爱。(4)制定法律以尊重财物。(5)制定法律以保障守法者不为不守者而牺牲(注12)。

不少人用不同的方法把本性和道德连起来(注13)。圣多玛斯从人性自然倾向中寻找自然道德律只是其中一种，但也有人提出异议。休谟(DAVID HUME) 指出：从事实的描述跳到伦理责任(FROM "IS" TO "OUGHT") 是不合逻辑的(14)。摩尔(G. E. MOORE) 更据此而发挥他的「自然主义的谬误」(NATURALISTIC FALLACY) (15)，指出用非道德性词语去描述道德名词的意义是包含了逻辑的谬误，例如称善是快乐。用到自然律上时，人怎能从一个非道德性的事实(如自保或求生存的自然倾向)，结论出一些道德的规律(例如应保护人类生命，限制使用暴力等道德规律)？

这是一个争论已久的问题，这里不打算详细讨论。我只指出持异议的都把道德领域和其他领域截然分开，认定二者不能共存，不容许非道德事实里能包含道德价值。他们定下的楚河汉界，自然不准别人跨越，但他们怎能肯定他们最基本的信念是对的呢？我们说过：天主创造人的时候，就赋予了人一个道德秩序。人并没有从人性的事实里创造一些规范性的道德规律来，道德的必然性早已包含在人性里，人的理智只是发现它而已。蓝西(IAN RAMSEY) 说得好：「如果求生存是所谓新自然律最基本的东西，那么求生存必定有一道德的必然性」(16)。

把人性中的物理事实绝对化了，自然有物理主义的弊病，但倘若以为它与道德全无关系，把它从自然律中完全除去，一如有些神学家的提议(17)，亦缺乏全面性。没有物理构造的人不是真人，人的物理结构各有其自然目的，人以其自主的理智，全面的了解整个人，然后才能决定道德规律。赫宁(BERNARD HARING) 特别强调要对人作整体了解，他不轻率的从人物理的设定跳到道德规律，也不忽略人物理性的重要(18)。我认为人性其实是一个抽象名词，代表人的整体，包括他的物理性、自然倾向、自律性、他和别人的关系、和世界的关系、和天主的关系。在这众多关系中，天主赋予人一个道德秩序，人可用理智去发现此天赋的责任；如人有社会性，人要互相帮助才能发展社会，故阻碍人类发展的自我主义行为，理智会判断为不合人性的行为。天主创造万物，虽为人享用，但理智告诉我们，万物不止为现在的人而存在，也为干千万万后世人而存在，故此破坏资源，暴殄天物，理智会判定为不合人性的行为。孔子「钓而不纲，弋不射宿」(论语述而)，及曾子「伐一木，被一兽，不以其时，非孝也」(大戴礼记大孝)，都显示出人与万物间的关系是有道德秩序的。人除了这种横面的关系外，还有踪面与天主的关系。人如果承认自己是有限物，不能自有，须有一无限的造物主所创造，则人对此造物主实有恭敬爱慕的责任。

自然律中的「自然」讨论过后，让我们看看自然律中的「律」有什么意思。「律」能有多种不同的意思，卢布斯基(JERZY WROBLEWSKI) 归纳为五个(19)：(1)指规律(NORM)，用以表达「应该」。(2)指社会事实(SOCIAL FACT)，如社会秩序或社会制度，现时社会上各式各样的法律指此。(3)指精神事实(PSYCHICAL FACT)，是一种禁令式的情褚。我认为史提芬逊(C. STEVENSON) 的情绪主义属这一类。「律」是对某种行为的情绪表达，我表示了我的态度。我若说堕胎是不道德的，我是对堕胎的行为表达了我的情绪。(4)指价值或价值的实现，卢氏认为自然律的律属这类。(5)指复合现象，即可能包括上述一种以上的意义。「律」的意义能够不止此五种，自然律的「律」，很容易和「律」的其他意义混淆。圣多玛斯也难免有此倾向。他对「律」的解释是：「律是由团体负责人，为谋求公共福利所颁布合乎理智的措施」(20)。跟着他谈到永久律，自然律和人律，把三者通称「律」。其实，他所界定"的「律」的意义，用在人律身上是最贴切不过，把自然律称为「律」，只能有类比的意思，即天主(团体负责人)为了人的好处(公共福利)，赋予(颁布)人一个道德秩序(合乎理智的措施)。有人为了迸免混淆，改用「自然权利」(NATURAL RTGHT) 而不用自然律；但也有人认为自然权利只是自然律的一部分，不足以代表自然律本身，仍主张沿用自然律之名，不过要注意它类比的意思就是了。

让我们在这里把自然律的定义做一个小结：自然律是人性里面的一个天赋道德秩序，人能在启示外，甩理智辨认出来。倘若要把这个道德秩序引申，我们可以用莫顿(LOUIS MONDEN) 的定义：「自然律是一个动态的存在事实，是人透过他实际生活环境，他对主对人的位际交谈，达到他自我完满及自我实现的秩序」(21)。

  

8：SUMMA THEOLOGIAE I. II. 93. 1.

9：同上，I. II. 94. 2.

10：同上，I. II. 94. 2.

11：同上。

12：H. L. A. HART, “THE CONCEPT OF LAW”, OXFORD, CLARENDON, 1961, PP. 190－193.

13：H. P. OWEN, "NATURE AND MORALITY" IN "DUTY AND DISCERNMENT" EDITED BY G. R. DUNSTAN, SCM PRESS, 1975, PP. 23－29，作者列出十种把本性和道德连在一起的方法。

14：DAVID HUME, "A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE", BK III, PART I, SECTION I.

15：GEORGE E. MOORE, “PRINCIPIA ETHICA”, CAMBRIDGE 1959 (REPRINTED), CHAPTER I, SECTIONS 10－14, PP. 9－21.

16：IAN RAMSEY, "TOWARDS A REHABILITATION OF NATURAL LAW" IN "CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY", EDITED BY IAN RAMSEY, SCM PRESS, 1966. P. 388.

17：LOUIS MONDEN, "SIN, LIBERTY AND LAW", SHEED AND WARD, 1965, P.88.

18：BERNARD HARING, "FREE AND FATTHFUL IN CHRIST", ST.PAUL PUBLICATION, 1978, VOL. I, P. 317.

19：JERZY WROBLEWSKI, "ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEUOLOGY OF LAW" IN "RIVISTA INTERNAZIONALE DI FILOSOFIA DEL DIRITTO" , 50 (1975). No. 4, P.838.

20：SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, I. II, 90.4.

21：LOUIS MONDEN, OP. CIT., P. 89.

(三) 自然律的认识

上面屡次提及理智能认出天赋的道德秩序，现在的问题是：理智如何辨认出来？这牵涉自然律的认识论。传统士林哲学根据圣多玛斯把自然律分为三级：第一级是一些普遍的大原则，如「人应行善避恶」、「人应爱他的邻人」、「己所不欲，勿施于人」等。人只要反省一下，都会同意这类自明的规律。用今日的术语来说，这类规律是超验的(TRANSCENDENTAL)，它们指出一种伦理态度。可是另一方面，这类规律是抽象空洞的，缺乏实际的内容，它们并没有实在的告诉我们什么是善，什么是恶，怎样做才是爱人。光有这种规律，并没有对我们的伦理生活，伦理判断有太大的帮助。

第二级的自然律比第一级的较为实际，有些人认为是从第一级演释出来的。十诫中大部份都局这一类，如「应孝敬父母」、「不要杀人」、「不要奸淫」、「不要偷盗」、「不要说谎」等。士林哲学家认为这一类自然律亦是普遍的，人虽然做不到，亦会承认这是应守的。有些伦理学家也不太满意这一类规律，认为它们只强调某一类行为是好的或是壤的，但却没有告诉我们怎样做才算是被嘉许的好行为，域被禁止的坏行为，即怎样的杀人行为才被禁止？教会不是也容许自卫杀人，执行死刑或在正义战争中杀人吗？怎样的性行为才算是奸淫？怎样拿走别人的东西才算是偷盗？怎样的不讲真话才算是说谎？可见这类规律实际也帮不了我们甚么。有些伦理学家索性称它们为重复语(TAUTOLOGY) 而已(22)，有强调性作用而无指导或决定的作用。它们只告诉我们坏行为是坏的，好行为是好的。

第三级的自然律是指那些经过一番推理而来的实际规律，它们用具体语言指出某特殊行为是对或错，例如：婚外的性行为是不道德的，以捐助者的精液进行人工受精的行为是不道德的。在推理的过程中，良心能够是错误的；因此，第三类自然律并非普遍地被认知。我们必须承认，要写定这类实际规律是困难的，并且有错误的危险，我们常有改善的可能。事实上，不少实际规律是经过长时期的试验才发展出来，例如：对囚犯施行酷刑拷问是不道德的，这是基于人性尊严。人性尊严作为人性中的道德秩序早就存在，但根据理智对它所作的解释则是动态的。历史每时期对它的了解能是片面的，因而写定的成式(FORMUIATION)，也能不同。自然律本身作为一个人性的道德秩序是普遍的、不变的，但根据理智的了解而写定的实在规律，能不断受到批判而改善。正如自然物理律常存于宇宙秩序中，但要等待有智慧的科学家才发现它，而写定的自然物理律仍能不所得到改进。

为什么理智对自然律的认识如此不完善？有什么方法帮助理智了解自然律呢？人所处的环境非常复杂，未受过推理训练的理智实在不容易把握在具体场合中的实在规律。以下是一些实际方法帮助理智从第一、第二类自然律到达第三类自然律。

(甲) 认识基本价值 (Basic Values)

上面提及有人把自然律看成是价值或价值的实现。虽然自然律要比价值丰富，但亦无可否认与价值有关。价值是对人而说的内在美善。所谓基本价值，是指那些人人都追求的内在美善。有些价值是那么基本，人不能不为了它本身而追求它，例如：生命、真理等。菲尼斯(JOHN FINNIS) 列出七种基本价值(23)：(1)生命：人有自保的倾向，人对生命的追求是无可疑问的。(2)知识：人渴求真相，人对知识有无限的渴求。你不能对他说：「够了，不要再追求了」。他仍能再问下去：「为什么不？」人总觉得获得知识是件好事，无知总是缺憾。(3)娱乐(PLAY)：菲尼斯叫人不要看轻此，这是人类文化不能缺少的因素。我承认悠闲、娱乐的重要性，不过在价值等级上，难与其他的基本价值比较就是了。(4)美感经验：我们常把真善美连起来说。人追求美的感受，不为什么，就是美本身有价值。(5)友谊：与人和平相处以至结为生死交都属这类。真正领悟友谊价值的人，能处处为朋友着想，不会把友谊看成达到某些目的的工具。(6)实际的明智(PRACTICAL REASONABLENESS)：人要求理智地选择自己的行为，造就自己的性格。人希望自己的行为、习惯、态度都能纳入一明智的秩序。内在地说，人有内在的自由，不受麻醉品影响或某思想所洗脑，使自己的情绪、性情产生一种内在的和谐；外在地说，人能真正地实现自己的理想、选择和决定。总之，此价值非常复杂，但能构成一个整体，而菲尼斯则称之为实际的明智。(7)宗教：这里是指广义的宗教。人可能没有任何现成的宗教信仰，但他能不断追求宇宙秩序的根源。连无神论者沙特也承认自己有道德责任。人为什么会有这种责任？人不是在默认超越他之外有一种秩序吗？人不断在追问这个秩序的根源，他和这秩序的关系。菲尼斯称这种价值为宗教。他认为自己只能反省出这七个基本价值，但并不否定别人能添上别的。可是不论加上什么，都能和其他七种拉上关系。

这些基本价值和我们讨论的自然律有很大的关系，每种基本价值都是人所追求的，愿意实现的。对每一基本价值的尊重，就是自然律基本的要求。虽然教会传统特重生命、真理和宗教三个基本价值，很多实际规律都是基于尊重此三者，但其他基本价值亦应受到尊重，这同样是自然律的要求。

(乙) 价值的衡量

倘若在某一环境中，只有一种价值牵涉在内，人不难发觉在那情况中应跟随的实在规律，如「偷窃是不应该的」，或「救人的性命是应该的」。但假使在同一环境中，有两种价值发生冲突，人就不容易找出该遵守的实在规律，如偷窃去救人性命是否应该？则不能立刻从书本上取得答案，因为这里牵涉价值的衡量。

这些衡量价值的说法，受到不少教内伦理学家所非议。菲尼斯把它看成是功利主义(UTILITARIANISM) 或效果主义 (CONSEQUENTIALISM)。认定这些都是反理性的(24)，即暗示自然律伦理不应用上它。癸保禄(PAUL QUAY) 则批评很多天主教伦理学家，用价值的衡量把传统绝对的自然道德律相对化了(25)，例如：传统绝对禁止奸淫、堕胎，但现在有些伦理学家把这些相对化了，他们为了别的价值而容许这些恶产生，美其名是为了较大的善。

天主教的伦理学家，大部份都主张自然律伦理，但因为了解不同而产生不同的应用。自然律应用时需要理智，理智衡量行为是否符合人性秩序，是否有相称的理由。在衡量之前，行为只能是事实的描述；衡量之后，才能作价值的描述。例如：「性行为」是一个事实的描述，虽有它的价值，却没有所谓德不德；但「婚外的性行为」则成为「奸淫」了。奸淫是一个价值的描述，即已下了一个道德判断，婚外性行为是违反了互相尊重、敬爱、忠信的价值，故奸淫是没有相称理由的不道德行为，是绝对禁止的。同样，没有意向的杀人行为是中性行为，如在车祸中杀人，杀人只能是非道德恶(NON－MORALEVIL)，但「谋杀」却是个价值的描述，说明没有相称理由而取去无辜者生命的价值。没有相称理由而去干犯一个基本价值是不道德的，即传统所谓内在恶或道德恶，内在恶或道德恶是绝对禁止的。

在衡量价值时，理智主要不是作量的计算。我不同意菲尼斯把所有基本价值看成同等，不分轻重先后。倘若价值冲突不能避免，而我又有责任去行动，则我会牺牲一个较低的价值去保存一个较高的价值，如牺牲自己的舒适娱乐价值去保存较高、较急切的生命价值，但同时没有否定在普遍情形下娱乐的价值。传统的双果原则就是采取价值的衡量，最少双果原则的第四个条件就是要求善果超过恶果。假使生命价值的牺牲不能避免，理智衡量价值后，会告诉我们应去抢救那可挽救的生命，如放弃胎儿以挽救母亲，免得两个都死去。促成这非道德恶的产生，能够是物理地直接，但伦理地却是间接，即用理智去分辨传统直接间接的问题，而不作机械式的划分。

(丙) 圣经与教会训导对理智的帮助

虽然我们说过，理智能在启示之外，认出人性的道德秩序，这只说明了自然律伦理是普遍的，并非基督徒的专利，但并没有否定启示对理智的光照作用。梵二沿用梵一的意思，认为「关于那些原本为人类的理智，所能通达的天主事理，而在人类现实的状况下，能够容易地、确切地和无讹地被一切人所识，仍当归功于天主的启示」(26)。人的理智并非不能错，要看清楚刻在人性里的道德秩序并非易事。人的私欲能蒙蔽理智，使良心模糊不清；人罪恶的境况，更阻碍人对自然道德律的认识。圣经是人的伦理的一面镜子，因为只有启示能给人的生命一个整体、完满的意义；人的伦理中有很多不明显的成份，要等待启示才使它的意义完全显露，爱仇就是其中一个例子。爱仇的思想是存在于人性道德秩序里。论语宪问记载：「或曰：『以德报怨，何如？』子曰：『何以报德？以直报怨，以德报德』」。这里不想评论孔子不赞成的理由，我只想指出，既然有人能提出以德报怨，显示出爱仇的理想，是理智能够认知的，启示则帮助人清楚了解爱仇的基础和整体意义，更给予人爱仇的动机和执行的力量。

作为天主教徒，我们相信教会训导处能给予教友伦理生活上的指导。着名伦理神学家福斯(JOSEPH FUCHS) 更认定天主圣言和教会训导是认识自然道德律最有效的帮助(27)。教会训导处因有圣神的助佑及累积的经验，对福音和基督之律有较深切的了解，故对自然律的认识比一般教友优胜，较难发生错误。一般的教会训导虽然没有给予教友一个绝对可靠的帮助去寻求自然道德律，但却能给予一个最可靠的帮助。梵二亦呼吁教友以教会的训导去培养良心：「教友为造就自己的良心，该谨慎注意教会的神圣而确实的道理。由于基督的旨意，教会是真理的导师，她的职责是宣扬并权威地教授即是基督本身的真理，同时，以自己的权威昭示和确证由人性本身流溢的伦理秩序的原则」(28)。

22：TIMOTHY E. O’CONNELL, "THE SEARCH FOR CHRISTIAN MORAL NORMS", IN CHICAGO STUDIES, 1972, No. 1. PP. 90－91.

23：JOHN FINNIS. "NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL RIGHTS". CLARENDON PRESS. OXFORD, 1980. PP.86－90.

24：同上，P. 112.

25：PAUL M. QUAY, "MORALITY BY CALCULATION OF VALUES" IN "READING IN MORAL THEOLOGY, No.1. MORAL NORMS AND CATHOLIC TRADITION". EDITED BY CHARLES E. CURRAN AND RICHARD A. McCORMICK, PAULIST PRESS, 1979, PP. 267－293.

26：梵二「天主启示的教义宪章」，No. 6.

27：J. FUCHS, "NATURAL LAW", GILL AND SON, DUBLIN, 1965, PP.155－162.

28：梵二「信仰自由宣言」，No. 6.

(四) 自然与超自然的难题

主张自然律伦理不一定产生自然与超自然的对立。首先，自然与超自然或本性与超性，在神学上当然是有分别的。这种神学上的分别，不应结论出两者是截然独立的东西。人的本性一开始就受超性所融和，人常被领导朝着一超性的终向走。天主愿意把自己通传给人，祂特别创造了人性，使人能接受这个通传，向天主开放。拉内(KARL RAHNER)称人为灵(SPIRIT)，人一面生活，一面不停的向绝对者伸展，同天主开放(29)。拉内发现在每一个认知和自由的行为里，人都是向绝对者开放。这种现象显示出，天主赋予人性一种「超性的存在物」(SUPERNATURAL EXISTENTIAL)，使人朝着超性的终向走。福斯也有相似的主张，认为人受造后就向着超性目标走，超性因此非加在人性上一些外在的东西，它是属于人的定义本身(30)。可见不少神学家不同意自然与超自然的对立，两者常应放在一起，自然缺乏了超自然便不自然了。

从圣经的角度来看，圣保禄早说过天主已将自己显示给人，人能从祂所造的万物，辨认洞察出来。天主的恩宠，在人性中产生作用，不管那人是谁：「几时，没有法律的外邦人，顺着本性去行法律上的事，他们虽然没有法律，但自己对自己就是法律。如此证明了法律的精华已刻在他们的心上」(罗二：14－15)。天主的恩宠，透过基督，超越了时间与空间，即古往今来的人，都受到基督恩宠的施惠。圣保禄指出基督之前的犹太人也蒙受基督的恩宠：「我们的祖先……都吃过同样的神粮，都饮过同样的神饮；原来他们所饮的，是来自伴随他们的神盘石：那盘石就是基督」(格前十：1－4)。我们可以说，基督的救恩影响所有时代的人，认识祂的，或不认识祂的。人性早已受超性所弥漫，早已有超性的因素。古伦认为自然律伦理会做成自然与超自然的对立，是他对自然律有误解而已。

(五) 结语

天主赋予人性一个道德秩序，使人能按此而归向祂。人若要成为真人，就必须依此秩序而生活。个人行为的对或错，道德或不道德，并非依靠主观的判断，而是看是否符合人性的道德秩序。因此，自然律伦理必然的反对主观主义的伦理。可是要用理智认出实际自然道德规律并不容易，我们的认识能够是不完满，自然律的成式常能再改善，人性丰富的意义能在历史中不断被发现，使不完满的道德规律更趋完善。在认识自然道德律的过程中，人要把握到人性中的基本价值；做道德抉择时，则衡量各种有关的价值，它们的价值等级、急缓、需要等倩形，同时亦把整个人的终向，事情整体的结果放在眼前，最后用理智去选择推广善而减低恶的行为。

圣多玛斯在讨论基督徒的智德(PRUDENCE) 时曾大胆的说：爱并非基督徒主要的德行。他的意思是说：爱给予所有德行一种动力，能贯彻所有德行；但如果人连普通常识也没有，爱是很难作指导性的道德判断的。因此，他主张人要有智德，并把智德列在四枢德之首。基督徒用自己的理智，在启示的光照下，衡量相称的理由，最后并选择一个最能符合人性的行为，并加以执行，这便是自然律伦理的中心思想了。

  

29："A RAHNER READER", EDITED BY GERALD A. McCOOL, DARTON, LONGMAN AND TODD, 1975, P. 20.

30：J. FUCHS, OP. CIT., P. 45.

Roger Aubert著 汤汉译

(一) 早年生活

狄斯力．马尔斯(DESIRE MERCIER) 于一八五一年十一月廿一日，诞生于比利时BRABANT省法语区BRAIHEL ALLEUD镇一个美好的中等家庭内。在他的叔伯中，曾有一位当过LEOPOLD一世皇朝的财政大臣。可是，当他刚刚七岁的时候，他父亲的猝然逝世使他的母亲和七个小孩处于困难的境况。后来，马尔斯公开说：「我一直以来的愿望和最深抱负，就是鼓励那些我所能够影响的人。这种提高别人精神的倾向，我肯定是我母亲灌输在我身上的。从她的表率中，我由不自觉到自觉地明白，爱是在于忘我、把自己奉献给别人。这就是从母亲的内心和平稳的意志力中，我所学习到的生命的伟大课程：人是虚无，成功与挫折无关痛痒，只有天主才最重要。为了自己而去碌碌追求某些事物，是一件很愚昧的行为；智慧的本质是单纯倚靠天主。照我追亿所及，这就是我所吸收的第一条指导原则。」

在一位杰出的老师PIERAERT神父的指导下，马尔斯开始发挥他的智慧和才华，并且在完成学业后决定当一名神父。从一八六八年至一八七三年，他按照比利时习俗，在马林(MALINES) 教区的修院就读哲学和神学，之后，转往鲁汶大学深造神学。一八八七年七月，取得相等于今日博士学位程度的硕士文凭，随即受委为马林教区修院的哲学教授。当时正值教宗良十三世于一八七九年颁布「永恒之父」(AETERNI PATRIS) 通谕，提倡以返归圣多玛斯着作为哲学研究之方向。对于遵循教宗这项指示，马尔斯神父早已训练有素，因为他的一位鲁汶教授CANON DUPONT 曾悉心指导过他，使他对多玛斯学说(1)的综合方法早已发生兴趣；他只需在这个方向上继续努力，并且追随新崛起而又最开明的德籍耶稣会士KIBUTGEN的路线即可。原来，当日有两条返归多玛斯学说的路线：一条主要在意大利盛行，它着重拘泥字面地返归圣多玛斯的教导及十六、十七世纪有关圣多玛斯的重要注释，完全不理会从笛卡儿到康德及黑格尔这批新哲学家所介绍的新思想，也不尝试把新的科学方法及其精神揉合到哲学思想中；另一条路线就是马尔斯所定的路线，他深知忠于圣多玛斯的文字屡屡会不知不觉地妥成不忠于圣多玛斯的思想的方式，故此他喜欢忆述LACORDAIRE的格言：「圣多玛斯为我们不应该是一条界限的标志，却应当是一股导引的亮光。」马尔斯从开始便致力将多玛斯学说配合入当代知识实况中，特别由于他的一位弟弟研读医学，故此，马尔斯完全瞭解到：物理学及自然科学在十九世纪的知识领域所占的重要地位，要解决哲学的重大问题时，必须借重科学及其仔细观察与分析方法的成就。

良十三世恐防通谕会如同罗马所颁发的很多文件一样，很快便失去原先的影响力，故此他找寻方法，务使多玛斯学说的复兴得以在世界各地扩展。教宗立即想到鲁汶大学，因为它是当日全球唯一全面性的天主教大学，而且教宗曾当过教廷驻比利时大使，对这所大学十分熟悉。因此，教宗要求比利时主教们成立一个新的职位，专责教授多玛斯派哲学。由于经济及其他理由，主教们开始时很犹疑，直至教宗再三坚持，他们才着手进行。他们首先物色到一位出色和有才干的思想家VAN VEDDTNGEN蒙席，可是他推辞了。后来TOURNAI教区主教因为曾任过马林教区修院院长，很赏识马尔斯的才华，遂推荐了这位年刚三十岁又寂寂无名的神父给主教们。

马尔斯不单是一位杰出的哲学家，正如他形容自己是一位「热衷于学习和瞭解」的人，能分辨当日热门问题的反应，对一切人文价值采取乐观开放态度，而且实践严格的神修生活，他也是一位有魄力的人物，认真工作，不理任何阻碍，务求成功。当然，离开他所致力的修士培育工作，是一件很可惜的事，但他立即明白到置于他身上的新任务的重要，并且立刻着手开辟那展在他前面的新途径。正如他日后所说，从读书时期开始，他已学会了如何把「服从、工作、决心和胆量」集于一身。

译者按：本文译自CARDINAL MERCIER：A CHURCH MAN AHEAD OF HIS TIME 小册子，除作者名外，没有注明出版地点及日期。

1：「多玛斯学说」乃圣多玛斯．阿圭拉(一二二六至一二七四年)的神哲学，它虽然主张人的理性有能力认识天主，但它把自然与超性、理性与启示、受造与天主分别。在十九世纪下半叶，产生了一种返回多玛斯学说的进步学派，不但反对当日激进的哲学家，也反对前数世纪的退化士林哲学。

(二) 大学教授

「多玛斯高级哲学」课程于一八八二年十月开始，马尔斯为了取得教授这个课程的委任并为了接触过去数十年来推动多玛斯学说复兴的领导人物，匆匆去了罗玛一趟，同教宗呈递他根据VAN WEDDINGEN的意见所拟定的课程大纲。由于他深信在当日科学实证的世界中，哲学思维要以观察事实作为自己的起点，也应把科学各部门所启示的事实加以系统化解释，故此他决定重返鲁汶大学，事师当日在自然科学界有领导地位的教授，包括比利时现代动物学先锋之一的解剖学家VAN BENEDE、生物学家JEAN－BAPTISTE CARNOY、化学家HENRY、及神经病学家VAN GEHUGHTEN。不久之后，他还去到巴黎，在著名的心理学家GHARCOT的诊所学习了几个月；由于柏林是当日欧洲科学研究的主要中心之一，他也在那里逗留了一个月。

他于一八八二年在鲁汶所开设的课程是一项选修课程，故此其成功全凭教授个人的影响力。从一开始，他便吸引了他的听众；他的课程本来主要为神学生而设，但不久之后，普通学生比神学生还多来听他的课，因为马尔斯揉合了自己稳固的信仰、广阔的知识、对时事问题的敏觉、以及十分个人的看法；他对于瞭解年青人特别有天赋，主动去跟他们交谈，这是当日大学教授所罕有的行动。

取得良十三世的同意后，马尔斯便运用心理学去开始自己的课程，因为他认为心理学是接触可观察的事物的第一步，不但哲学家要根据这些事物加以反省，而且当日很受重视的心理实验也能提供新的知识。

以后数年，从一八八三至一八八六年，他教过所有哲学科目，诸如逻辑学、伦理学、宇宙学、形而上学。他虽按照圣多玛斯的教导，但在某些重要的问题上却能使多玛斯的思想追上时代，同时他亦开始在杂志上着述，俾能接触更多群众。

他很快就培养出一批出色的学生，使他们每人都能在最重要的科目上担纲，随即，他便想到扩展原有计划。一八八七年，他向良十三世建议成立一间哲学研究所，与大学的哲学及文史系保持一种没有束缚性的连系。他的目的是便这间研究所不但成为一间高级教学中心，学生可以在其内接受个别指导做研究，而且亦成为一间研究中心，重新去反省一些问题和多玛斯派的答案，使研究出来的具体资料可以促进哲学思想及实验科学的进步。在当日实证主义的气氛下，马尔斯也许把哲学提升到太高的位置，但是在那个基督宗教哲学正受到轻视的时代里，他的努力使他在很多方面被认为是一位有价值的交谈者。他多次甘冒罗玛方面警告之险，仍坚持哲学应独立于信仰和神学，结果，他获致很大的成功。

他于一八九二年出版了「心理学」，一八九四年出版了「逻辑学」及「形而上学」，最后一八九九年又出版了「批判学」。这些哲学着作都为他在国外嬴得令誉。同时一八九四年问世的「新士林哲学」期刊，成了鲁汶大学表达「开放性的多玛斯学说」的固定喉舌，不但备受赞赏，而且也为该大学赚得世界性的声誉。

可是，正当成功看似在握之际，整个事业却因为同时在比利时相罗马兴起的强烈反对，而几乎弄至让步而了结。原来，罗马教育部新部长MAZZEIIA枢机主教控告他过度强调学术研究自由，危害系统神学的训导，与罗马新多玛斯学说研究所采取的路向背道而驰。经过一段时期，当这位枢机主教差不多可以劝服良十三世接受他的忧虑时，幸好教育部长及时改由SATOLLI 枢机主教担任，而SATOLLI 枢机主教曾阅读过马尔斯的着作，对他十分欣赏。

更壤的情况倒是马尔斯要同时面对鲁汶的重大困难。这些困难不但是在金钱方面，要维持广大计划的开支，而且也是在教义的取向上，因为不少曾在罗玛受训练的同事控告他背离传统的多玛斯主义。最大的痛苦莫过于与大学校长ABBEIOOS蒙席发生冲突。冲突的开始是在两人强烈性格的对抗及观点的相异上。在论到天主教徒应如何集中精力去面对当代不信的现象时，马尔斯认为哲学应着重时代的争论，而ABBELOOS却如同鲁汶大学的其他教授一样认为，应该运用宗教历史、圣经诠释和教义历史去对抗科学理性主义对基督信仰的批评。但是，他们两人在思想上的相异，因着行政上的冲突更形复杂。马尔斯要使自己的研究所在大学中成为独立机构，有自己的财政和教职员，而且这间「高级哲学研究所」的主席(这衔头在一八八九年正式加在马尔斯身上)可以越过大学校长而直接与主教们及梵蒂冈接触；而校长却不能同意这些做法。有一段时期，比利时主教们倾向于同意校长的反对，因为从行政效率的角度看，校长的反对确实颇有道理，而马尔斯亦正如一切有广大计划的人士一样，不容易与之相处合作；特别是他任职的最初几年内。幸好，就在一八九八年，罗玛对他的态度突然好转。罗妈的支持使马尔斯站稳，而ABBELOOS的地位很快便无法保持，不久即自行辞职。

放在科学倡明及困难特多的十九世纪末叶期间，马尔斯从事另一项十分有趣的新工作。为了使哲学研究所有规律性地收录学生，而不是只有某些不读神学的学生或只选修一两科的学生听课，也为了使比利时神职界的精英接受到比较一般教区修院更好的哲学训练，马尔斯获得教宗的准许在鲁汶开办了一所大学修院，命名「良十三世修院」，俾一些修生在去教区修院攻读神学前能在此深造两三年哲学。马尔斯因为关心未来神父的培育问题，创设了这种当时十分新颖的制度，而这种制度建基于纪律方面的信任和个人神修的更深指导上。由于「良十三世修院」有很多外国学生就读，故此它的影响超越比利时边界，唤起世界各地的神职界精英去注意一些问题，即三、四十年后称为教区神职人员的神修问题。

在大学所度过的廿五载时光，肯定带给马尔斯教授永恒的声誉。从一九○六年起，以后的二十年内，他却要在一个完全不同的领域中去扮演一个领袖角色。

(三) 马林教区总主教

GOOSSENS枢机主教逝世后，马尔斯继任为全比利时最重要的马林总主教区的首长，他的徽号是「耶稣基督的宗徒」。他深信司铎的圣德是每一位神父传教工作的基本因素，所以从开始他便注意神职人员的神修训练。他向修生及神父的训话，不少已经出版并翻译成多国文字，特别对于拉文民族国家内的教区神职人员的神修更新，带来很大贡献。这种关注使他末年创办了「耶稣之友司铎团」，藉此把自己教区内追求更成全生活的神父团结一起。

此外，马尔斯亦对早期的礼仪运动很有兴趣，(2)刚刚在马林教区上任，他便决心提高主教座堂的礼仪的尊贵地位。在一九○九年马林天主教大会上，他出人意料地邀请了本笃会士LAMBERT BEAUDUIN 出席发表一篇有关「教会的真祈祷」的报告。这种真祈祷其实就是源自MONT－CESAB地方所推行的一种牧民礼仪运动。马尔斯枢机主教直至晚年还是多次大力支持这位本笃会士及其同工的努力，他甚至不理医生的劝谕，仍然亲身出席参与那些为神职界及教友而安排的礼仪更新大会或研讨周。

马尔斯昔日在鲁汶从事哲学研究的特色就是，藉着与现代进步科学的接触，使教会传统的思想追上时代；现在，在现代主义的危机时代里，他又要再次表达这份关心。(3)的确，在瞭解了BLONDEL LABERTHONNIERE及TYRRELL 等思想家的学说后，他一方面保护多玛斯主义传统，免受士林哲学敌人的攻击，但另一方面，在当日教会兴起的一股反现代主义的气氛下，马尔斯却设法使教会当局和那批提倡现代主义的公教学者合作，增进交谈，以免彼此不信任的情况会导至有关双方受到损害。同时，为了使天主教研究机构获得足够的资源去面对科学进步的要求，他于一九○七年向教宗庇护十世建议成立国际天主教学者协会，可是经过数月的讨论，终因反现代主义者的操纵而遭受挫折。对于那篇在一九○七年为反对现代主义而颁发的「应牧放主羊」通谕，马尔斯曾在一封很长的牧函中突出了它的积极面，但他亦与教宗一起反对那些丝毫不能接受神学进步的保守人士。他一方面代表鲁汶大学部份教授保护一些进步人士，另一方面他亦同时鼓励耶路撒冷圣经学院的创始者LAGRANGE神父站稳脚步，不要向损毁他的名誉的人让步。的确，马尔斯在保护信仰上超不让步，但他却清楚地把教会的信仰与思想狭窄的神学家似是而非的立场区分。马尔斯要坚持的一点就是，要在教会内维持学术思想上的自由。

但这位伟大的学者也关心当日比利时劳苦大众的不幸处境，以及他们所面对的问题。当日有一斑活跃的教会人士，他们想在马林组织一个天主教大会，规模像似五十多年前所举行过的；马尔斯一当了总主教，便鼓励和支持他们。这是一项很敏感的行动，因为那些推动人士是一班基督徒民主政制的支持者，而且很多害怕下台而有保守倾向的天主教政客多年反对这类大会。虽然有人反对，但马尔斯仍然支持社会进步。早年在鲁汶教授伦理哲学时，他已认为：只要采取适当步骤，能够避免社会主义的错误，我们不必否定国家有权干预生产方法和公共财富的分配。他还说，国家的责任既是监管社会福利，便应该采取有效措施，防范过度个人主义的危机。由于这种态度，他赞成鲁汶大学创办社会研究学会。他屡屡以主教身份申斥社会党的阶级斗争观念，因为他认为这种理论相反基督信仰精神；但他主要申斥的却是社会党的反神职主义，尤其是社会党对天主教教育的敌视态度。我们在他的战前作品中，的确找到一些过份简化的反社会主义论调，但我们可别忘记，他在一九○九年的牧函中写道：「社会主义在使公共财富更平均分配上是正确的。」在任主教职之初；他支持了比利时基督贸易联盟的组织者多明我会士RUTTED，虽然受到天主教各方面的严厉批评，并没有退缩。战后，马尔斯亦大力支持了公教工青运动的创办人CARDIJN神父，虽然这个运动亦受到布鲁塞尔城一些天主教保守人士的猛烈攻击，但他的支持并未消减。

  

2：「礼仪运动」的目的，是为了恢复和推动教友去明白、积极及深入参与教会的公开崇拜，尤其是弥撒圣祭。

3：「现代主义」发生在十九与廿世纪时期。有些天主教思想家，在历史批判的原则和新哲学观点的双重影响下，设法把传统立场适应到宗教知识的深度演进中。今日，他们中一部份人可称为「激进派」，因为他们质问圣经文字的超性幅度和基督宗教的起源，而且认为天主教信条只有象征价值。


(四) 第一次世界大战 (一九一四至一九一八年)

第一次世界大战是马尔斯生命的分水岭。在国王、政府及军队撤退往法国之后，他成了留在比利时的唯一权威，常不顾虑他自己个人的安全，采取任何他认为适当的步骤。

一九一四年冬季开始时，他看到人民越来越灰心沮丧，有被德国宣传征服的危险，遂觉得需要发出「爱国与耐力」牧函去警醒群众。这封牧函散发各地，流通于外国比本国还多，变成了对占领比利时的德国的一项公开挑战。

德国总督的最初反应，就是把马尔斯软禁在他的主教府内，设法使他收回牧函。但枢机主教决意拒绝，连教廷大使出面劝解亦归无效，使人认为他已超越自己的主教本份，去参与政治行动，有违圣座中立的立场。

马尔斯与德国占领比利时的政府之间的争斗展开后，马尔斯由始至终不甘示弱，有时毫不留情；在一位教会人物身上出现这种态度，在今天很易被视为过火。他展开两条阵线的争斗：一方面，虽然当时比利时是中立国，但因遭受德国占领而卷入战争，工人们亦因而被迫参与强制劳动，马尔斯遂藉着不断与德国总主教的通信，竭力为这些工人争取利益；另一方面，他运用牧函及其他公开行动，不断赞誉在逆境中的勇敢及民族自尊心，视之为基督徒的可佩德行。马尔斯的颂扬爱国，在今天的情况中也许有点过度，但我们应把它置于当日的环境中去衡量，他的做法正是要追求一件今天我们要醒觉的事情，就是：为了正义，每一个基督徒有责任去干预这个世界的事件，绝不能在他的弟兄们受苦时，逃避到不卷入事件的默观中。所以在理论家开始讲及政治神学之前半个世纪，马尔斯早已直觉地感受到，也勇敢地实践了。

最后，比利时的占领政府终于尊重枢机主教的坚稳不屈态度，而市政主任BARON VON DER LANCKEN 于一九一八年十月十七日写信给他说：「你是一位受尊敬的比利时牧者，被占领的比利时的化身。」数月后，大战停止，他会见国王ALBERT 及胜利军队，接受所有协约国的赞美，最后还赴美国作为期两月的凯旋探访。本来，枢机主教对于这次越洋旅程颇为犹疑(当日尚没有越过大西洋的飞机)，但是外交部长PAUL HYMANS却坚持他前往，目的是要利用他的超卓声望，请富有的美国帮助比利时经济复原。

由于勇敢地抗拒了侵略者，马尔斯在协约国中取得超卓的声誉。在凡尔赛条约谈判期间，他设法运用这种声望去争取天主教的利益，可惜徒劳无功。他曾主动接触CLEMENCEAU，欲使比利时天主教国家可以取得巴勒斯坦的委任统治权，以免圣地落入基督新教的英国及犹太复国主义者手中。他特别在得到圣座的同意前，已设法引起「和平会议」的兴趣，去解决那悬而未决的罗马问题。(4)为此，即使梵蒂冈缄默不言，他仍然乐意藉着群众示威去推动世界舆论，因为自从当了主教后，他便开始日渐深信，大众传播在今日世界里扮演着一个领导角色。

  

4：所谓「罗马问题」，就是从一八六O年至一八七O年，意大利国家逐步并吞一切从中古世纪以来属于宗座的领土。教宗庇护九世、良十三世、庇护十世及本笃十五世自动把自己当作囚犯，关在梵蒂冈十分细小的领土内。至一九二九年，庇护十一世才藉拉脱朗条约与墨索里尼解决这个事件。

(五) 第一次世界大战后

战争的结束及议会制度的恢复，使马尔斯枢机主教面临新的问题，其中之一就是保持国家统一的问题，因为推行普选更难产生一个有足够支持力的政府。为了避免当日处于困境中的工人阶级的不满，也为了避免受到俄国革命事件的影响，马尔斯希望联军继续留驻比利时一段时期，而且战时政府也继续掌权，以保障国家的稳定，同时，天主教徒亦支持给工人建造房屋和禁止嗜酒的法律，因为这也是社会主义者所坚持的。他恐怕工人阶级因为受贫困刺激，不能心平气和地参加普选。所以，当比利时ALBERT王立即展开普选，及为此而指责他时，他十分不高兴。

普选的结果，卒使天主教在上下两议院失去大多数议席。当然，我们不能认为马尔斯是为了有利天主教党而采取爱国立场，但明显地他希望天主教也能日后在政冶方面得益。由于天主教党失去了自一八八四年以来从未间断的大多数议席，所以必需成立一个联合政府。马尔斯一方面很谨慎地维持天主教的党派的团结，使政府尽可能有大多数的代表性，但另一方面却又支持国家联盟。他不曾在函牧中呼吁信众支持；他尽力除去障碍，甚至为了争取自由党派FREEMASONS 的合作而要求禁制一份反马松党的杂志(BULLETIN ANTIMA CONNIQUE) 出版。(5)当某些激进份子建议把耶稣圣心像加入国旗以示感恩时，一向热心恭敬耶稣圣心的马尔斯对他们说：「国旗属于所有比利时人；除了为表示所有比利时人热爱祖国外，任何人都不能因其他理由去使用它。」

他在战时与左派政要的接触，对二十年代早期的政治情况产生颇大影响。两党(即天主教党及自由党)或三党(即天主教党、自由党及社会党)联盟的组成，使一向左右比利时政坛的教会派别的棘手问题获得和平解决。但马尔斯枢机主教仍不断敦促国王关注，务使战后的三党联盟政府不受社会党太大的影响。虽然他知道，也防范社会主义者反对神职界的态度，但当情况需要时，他却表现出自己的现实态度，不理主教团其他成员的默不作声，赞成基督民主党人士和社会党人士在一九二五年组成联合政府。这点在今日看来相当正常，但发生在半个世纪前便相当新颖，亦需要很大的勇气和锐觉。

另一方面，比利时国家主义的狭窄观念，使马尔斯枢机主教无法明白佛兰芒人问题(FLEMISH QUESTION) 的产生，以及很多佛兰芒极端份子所提出的要求的合法性。(6)他在这方面的消极态度，成了他任职主教期间最受争论的事项之一，也引起佛兰芒圈子(包括天主教徒在内)很大的反感。

马枢机主教的公开活动，无可否认予人一种错觉，以为他是一位政冶主教，很少关注教会事情，更少照顾自己教区的状况。其实，正如上述，他曾经鼓励过早期的礼仪运动，也很注意提高自己的神父的神修质素，因此，他多次亲自指导神职人员进行为期数过的避静。他个人的通信相当清楚显示出他关心自己的教区，鞠躬尽瘁，至死方休。大战前，他亦表示很有兴趣成立公教青年俱乐部及组织公教青年活动。战争结束后，他不但为神职界及教友制订了教会守规，而且也立定了一些原则，使教会在现代世界，尤其是在女子教育及社会工作上，推展宗徒行动。

枢机主教的个人宗教生活十分虔诚，尤其是因为遭受战争之苦而加深他自己对圣母的敬礼。因此，他发动大规模的运动，以争取罗玛承认圣母中介地位的道理和立定圣母诸宠中保的瞻礼。他亦支持赎主会士的积极行动，设立特别恭敬耶稣圣心的弥撒，但是，他却阻止他们复古，走回古老的礼仪传统去。

的确，马尔斯枢机主教所作的无数旅行、所接待的大量访客、以及从世界各地所收到的无数来信，使他十分繁忙，无足够时间照顾自己广大教区的日常事务。他的性格趋向大胆创新，只有把日常事务托给可信任的助手料理。他绝对深信，主教既作为宗徒的继承者，便不应该单单注意自己的教区，也要关注整个教会所面对的一切问题。这点精神屡屡使他接受一些令人惊讶的任务。所以，在逝世前不久，他支持了比利时传教士雷鸣远神父，向罗玛争取祝圣中国本地主教。也在大战刚结束后，从事与教会内分离弟兄的接触，成了他日益加强的一种工作。

  

5；比利时「自由党」在马尔斯时期，采取反对教会及甚至无神的立场。社会党亦有相同的态度。

6:「佛兰芒问题」就是指比利时佛兰芒语团体与法语团体之间的对抗。其中的理由是因为比利时人起来反抗荷兰人所控制的政府的压迫，于一八三O年成立一个新的独立国家，以致佛兰芒语的权利处于困境。从此，佛兰芒方面的领导阶层设法使佛兰芒语成为比利时的国家语言。

(六) 教会合一

他在一九一四年前已关注俄国东正教，因为他对法国耶稣会士MICHEL D'HERBIGNY所介绍俄国神哲学家SOLOVIEV (7)的书发生兴趣，而且D' HERBIGNY是ENGHIEN地方的神学院教授，有机会与他多次接触。大战后，D'HERBIGNY 对合一问题很有兴趣，因为俄国人流徙到西欧各国，正为罗玛天主教开启了合一的展望。在这位耶稣会士的推动下，枢机主教也是教宗本笃十四世在一九二一年八月为俄国饥民所发出的呼吁信的幕后人之一。以后数月，他设法代表莫斯科大主教干预一位受布尔什维克迫害的牺牲者，也多次帮忙俄国在西方的圣统代表，尤其是帮助沙皇前任驻巴黎大使的兄弟IZVOLSKY，因为该位巴黎大使曾任比利时普鲁塞尔俄国教会的主任神父。除了干预教会事情外，马尔斯还关心到在比利时和法国日益增多的难民，由于他的保护和经济支援，加上两位来自NAMUR地方的神父的帮忙，《比利时援助俄国人》基金会得以在鲁汶成立。而这两位神父之中的一位，特别负责协助俄国青年在比利时就读大学。枢机主教对自己这种工作的爱心和瞭解，可以在他一九二二年五月廿七日致在巴黎的俄国国家委员会的信看出来：「的确，教会之间的复合是天主子民（包括你们和我们）所渴求的。但是，除非绝对尊重别人的良心，我们不会推行。你们中有二十位青年，住在学生宿舍几达一载，在鲁汶天主教大学很用功念书；你们不妨问问他们：是否他们的宗教自由受到某方面的侵犯？」两年后，枢机主教向罗玛大力支持本笃会士LAMBERT BEAUDUIN 院长的工作计划，要以隐修院方式推进东西教会之间的修好。在得到庇护十一世的覆信和准许本笃会从事这种工作后，LAMBERT 院长亦倚靠马尔斯枢机主教的权威，于一九二五年在AMAY地方建立了隐修院；这地方今天变成了CHEVETOGNE 隐修院，是天主教合一运动的中心之一。

正当他十分关心罗玛与东正教之间的修好之际（这点特别从他在布鲁塞尔于一九二五年九月廿五日教会合一祈祷周所发表的着名演讲可以证明），他对合一的关注又扩展到基督教的另一方面。他本来对基督教的世界有相富强的偏见，但一九一九年夏天美国之游为他却是一项启示：在天主教护教书籍那带有恭维的描写背后，他发现了基督教的本来面目。当他被邀向主教派教会的大会发表演说时，他说：「我问候你们，犹如问候那些为共同理想而服务的兄弟、在自由的爱中的兄弟、尤其是在基督信仰中的兄弟一样。……这种兄弟之情的产生，就是因为我们有同一个天父。」一位天主教枢机主教在向基督教大会致词时称他们为「基督信仰的兄弟」，确是宗教改革以来史无前例的，而且使到一些天主教的保守派人士产生反感，向圣部控诉他。一九二○年四月，马尔斯接到一封本笃十五世写给他的信，认为他同意会见「主教派的假主教」是一件「遗憾」的事，(8)以及在那种情况下运用「基督信仰中的兄弟」为称呼也是「不能容许的」。在受到这种警告后，胆小的主教必会因此小心地避开这个危险范围，但这却不是马尔斯的做法。当他在十二月会见教宗时，他不但把这件事解释清楚，而且也呈上一个颇大胆的建议。他使教宗注意到，采取被动的态度去对待大战结束以来渐渐形成的合一会谈的尝试，是危险的，在美国尤然；但他同意梵蒂冈的看法，现在尚不是罗马教会参与其他宗派会议的时候。事实，对于一九一八年春天路德会NATHAN SODERBIOM 所发出的这类邀请，他的回答相当冷漠。按照他的意见，还需在比较不公开的层面多作尝试。在教宗的要求下，他用以下字句总结出自己的计划：「在恳请大家为圣座的秘密意向祈祷后，我设法逐步邀请每个重要基督教派、圣公会、尤其是东正教内一位至两位神学家到马林教区来。我要招呼他们数日，接触一位懂得正确教义和怀有爱心的天主教神学家。在这种亲切关系中，藉着天主恩宠，他们彼此间的瞭解必会大大加深。」对于这封一九二○年呈给教宗的信，枢机主教从未收到回覆，但是到了翌年，环境终于许可他实现自己的部份计划，且取得意想不到的成果。

  

7: SOLOVIEV (一八九三 一九００年)是一位出名的俄国神哲学家，他在生命晚年变得十分亲近天主教。

8: 我们应该注意一下一九○九至一九二○年时代的天主教看法，估计它至今有何改变。

(七) 「马林会谈」：宗教改革后各教派的第一次交谈

一位法国遣使会士FERNAND PORTAL，因为曾接触过圣公会其中一位显赫的人物HALIFAX 勋爵，故此从一八九○年便开始对圣公会与天主教的修好发生兴趣。他认为新的可能性在大战后又重新展开，遂向马尔斯枢机主教建议，要举办一个由数位天主教及圣公会神学家组成的会议，作为建立接触的方法。他为什么要向马尔斯建议？主要是因为枢机主教有双重的声望，既是鲁汶多玛斯哲学高级研究所的创办人，也是德国占领期间比利时人反抗的精神领袖；从探访美国所受到的凯旋欢迎，可见他在英格撒逊圈子内有很大声望。当然，PORTAI 亦从报章上读过马尔斯向主教派教会大会所发表过的演说。似乎这是上天的安排，马尔斯在向教宗本笃十五世呈上建议后数日便接到这份邀请，但他以很含蓄的方式回应了这个请求，因为他不愿被人控诉到罗玛后不久，果然和圣座冲突起来，被人拿作把柄。但是，那年秋天，PORTAL及HALIFAX又重新请求。PORTAL 习惯提起，他和他的老友自二九一四年后未曾见过面，突然在同一日彼此通信，亦同样建议先去凭吊战场，然后往距前线不远的马林地方去。马尔斯枢机主教十分热情接待他们。富HALIFAX 勋爵问他是否同意组织圣公会及天主教代表会议时，马尔斯开始问他为什么不向英国天主教当局请求。回答是：「因为他们的思想很敌视这种做法。」HALIFAX 用事实及个人经验佐证自己的说话。枢机主教承认他说得有理，原则上赞成。数年后他记述他当日的回答如下：「我绝不能让我们的分离弟兄中的一个会这样说，他诚意敲一位天主教主教的门，而那位天主教主教却拒绝给他开门。」

结果，于一九二一年十二月六日，马尔斯、他的副主教VAN ROEY 蒙席及PORTAL 神父代表天主教，而HALIFAX、未来TRURO 的主教FRERE 牧师及威尔斯主任ROBINSOS，他们六位参加者一起在马林总主教府的大会客室会面。

交谈在极度友善气氛下延续了三日；如套用会议记录的说话，它是「在一种很深的宗教热情下」结束。当威尔斯主任很热诚地称这是「我生命中最深刻的经验之一」时，一向与圣公会圈子的交情十分肤浅的马尔斯枢机主教，现在深为他的英国客人的热诚所感动。他从开始便与FORTAI 神父很合得来。这是不出奇的，因为熟识他俩的GRATIEUX 神父指出：「在某方面可把枢机主教和PORTAL 神父比较。他们同样欲把天主教思想革新，追上现代世界；他们有同样开放诚实的心，同样热爱年青人，也同样有吸引群众的能力。」由于交谈属于十分私人性质，马尔斯认为无须先征得罗玛方面的准许才欢迎HALIFAX勋爵及他的朋友。但他却认为，即使无须征得许可便可行动，最好仍旧知会圣座。无疑，他等待适合机会去知会圣座。一九二二年一月二十二日，即与圣公会人士聚会后六周，本笃十五世在得病得仅数日便猝然逝世，马尔斯立即启程赴罗马参加选举教宗的秘密会议。二月六日，RATTI 枢机主教当选，取名庇护十一世。就在选出那天，当新教宗接见他时，马尔斯告知他有关去年十二月的交谈，在提及他以前和本笃十五世关于这件事的接触时，他问教宗反不反对他继续这类「私人性质的会议」。教宗记起他与圣公会学者及俄国东正教人士的会议，遂答覆说，自己深信他们绝对怀有善意，他的态度也是十分积极的：「对于这些会议，我只能看到它们的好处。」

第二次会议在HALIFAX 勋爵请求下于一九二三年四月十三至十五日举行。虽然彼此间有那么多信仰道理相同，但勋爵对罗玛的中央集权、礼仪中能否使用英语、任命主教的方式、坎特培里大主教的特殊地位等教律问题，感到障碍重重。但后来他认为研究天主教对教宗地位的观点更为重要，故此这便成了一九二三年十一月七至八日第三次会议的主题，这次多了四位参加者：一位比较注重罗马的圣公会主教CHARLES GORE 和三位历史家(即圣公会的B. KIDD 和M. HEMMER，以及天主教的BATIFFOL 蒙席)。在深入讨论后，找出几个集中点，大家同意需要更深入研究教宗首席权的道理。

枢机主教是一位哲学家，而不是神学家。他的历史知识有限，有时追不上讨论的内容，但他由始至终都十分留心，富溢同情心。

坎特培里大主教在一九二三年给圣公会主教们的圣诞文告，以及马尔斯枢机主教在一九二四年元旦日的牧函，两者首次提及这些会议。由于首次公开引起的反对，下一次会议只能拖延到十八个月后才举行。在互相通信后，梵蒂冈不理英国天主教圈子的不满，确定交谈可以继续。马尔斯本想为自己一月的牧函取得罗玛方面的明显批准，以表示圣座方面已迈进新的一步，但教宗不愿太多卷入这件事，结果婉拒了。不过，教宗起码没有采取任何退缩步骤，反而多次显示圣座目前积极愿意继续推进与圣公会的接触。所以国务卿GASPARRI 枢机主教毫不犹疑地告知比利时驻梵蒂冈大使，圣座鼓助「马尔斯枢机主教曾经参与并将继续下去」的交谈。稍后，教宗亲自在枢机主教会议上说：「所有在上主恩宠推动下关心分离弟兄的天主教徒，都令我十分欣悦。他们努力除去成见，清理信仰的障碍，把整个公教道理表达出来，尤其是用生活的榜样把基督门徒的特点、爱显露出来。」国务卿告知马尔斯，教宗说这些话时，已注意到马林会谈。

所以在天主教方面，一切官方的障碍已除去，但在英国方面，坎特培里大主教却要面对圣公会大多数人士相当强烈的反对，因为HALIFAX 勋爵所代表和支持与罗马修好的人士尚是少数派。最后，在马林与坎特培里的多次通信后，十位参加交谈者终于能在一九二五年五月十九及廿日再聚会。当VAN ROEY 蒙席发表一篇文章，论及天主教对主教职与圣座的关系的看法时，GORE 与BATIFFOL 对教宗在早期教会的角色发生了一场新的争辩，马尔斯随即宣读了一篇由LAMBERT 院长所草就的相当动人的报告。在这篇报告里，这位有魄力的本笃会士把自己的历史知识和先知性想像结合一起，勾划出坎特培里大主教与罗玛联合时所可能享有的独立自主范围。

我们不清楚罗马对第四次会谈有何反应，因为马尔斯在会议后便立即再去罗玛，所以整件事情由口述交代。但庇护十一世显然从此时起，开始受到英国天主教圣统方面日渐增多的敌对反应的影响，特别注意到交谈展开后，个人归化的数目从此下降。要瞭解庇护十一世态度的转变，必须考虑到马林会谈之外的其他问题。原来，自一九二五年起，教宗的整个合一政策改变了。与俄国东正教修好的希望曾令人鼓舞一时，如今却觉得比他登极之初更有问题，此外他又忧虑到教义方面的自由主义，特别因为一九二五年八月举行的斯德哥尔摩会议使合一运动形成，而圣公会亦正式参加。与此同时，要商谈解决罗玛问题的话，便需对圣部一部份不妥协份子让步，因为以MERRY DEL VAL 枢机主教为首的人士从开始便声明坚决反对马林会谈。一九二八年一月教宗颁发的「MORTALIUM ANIMOS」通谕，对非天主教徒关于合一所尽之努力采取了不变通和不理解的态度，就因为受了上述情况的影响。

马尔斯自始至终都保持信心，他写给HALIFAX 的一封信表达自己如何在晚年面对两教合一的问题：「我们不该把敌对的教条摆出来，却应顾全我们的主观心理。事实从圣奥斯定至十六世纪，英国教会与罗马教会同属一个身体。即使今天，难道它不是含蓄地与罗玛联合一起吗？如果有障隔的双方都能深入自我反省，他们不难藉圣神的帮助发现到，保持分裂是一种错误的想法。历史的影响、误解、不合理的恐惧都可以造成表面上的分歧，不知不觉地遮盖我们所相信的真理。我深信情况确是如此。」

这些文字写于一九二五年，不但使罗马，而且使各地很多神学家的眼界大开。另一方面，这些说话似乎与梵蒂冈第二届大公会议的各项肯定相吻合，除了显出他的伟大爱心和热情外，也表达了他的深度智慧和信念。这样，他成了天主教合一运动的真正前驱之一，而这个衔头也是他所拥有的众多崇高衔头之一。

  

9:不是并吞，而是与圣公会合一》。

(八) 结语

马尔斯枢机被癌症侵袭，手术的尝试没有成功，结果于一九二六年一月廿三日逝世。死前一日，HALIFAX 勋爵虽已超过八十岁，仍然在仲冬从英国赶到，在枢机主教的小房子参与弥撒。在领圣体后，枢机主教伸开双手，两位老友拥抱良久。他们不能一起在同一圣祭中领圣体，但是他们的心灵已经排除障碍。深深结合为一。为了表示这种超越宗派界限的团结，枢机主教把自己的戒指除下，送给HALIFAX。

马尔斯的殡礼在备受尊崇的气氛下举行。教友景仰他为一位伟大的基督徒及主教；知识界视他为一位开明的思想家；而政界人士及非信友则承认他是一位伟大的爱国者。由于社会主义者E. VANDERVELDE 的推动，政府给他国葬，ALBERT 国王及其他政要也来参加葬礼。

无论在哲学或具体行动方面，马尔斯一生都走在时代前面；他是一位实行家，从不因危险而畏缩。正如所有伟大的实行家一样，他对自己的权威有很强烈的意识，有时因个人的感情和兴趣，他超越了自己权力范围去对待他的神父们。虽然他是这样的一位行动家及哲学家，但他更是一位祈祷者及准确的领导人，他的威严留给接触过他的人一份深刻的印象。他比一般人度一个更简朴严肃的生活，知道如何对一般群众表达自己纯厚温暖的情怀；但他有时也因此过份信任别人。这实是每一个热爱别人的人所付出的代价。马尔斯是一位伟人，全球知名，是欧美无数学府及学会的会员。法国部长LEON BERARD 在拜访了这位老枢机主教后，出来对人说：「我今天真正体会到『威望』这两个字的意义。」但是，马尔斯亦同时是一个简朴的人，他在自己的主教府生活得比很多隐修士和工人阶级还简朴。他接待部长及主教们，也以同样态度欢迎任何前来求他的平民。正如所有普通人，他有自己的缺点，但由于把自己一年比一年更献给上主；他放射出圣神的光辉和福音的精神。一位马林教区的老妇论及他说：「即使在冬天或下雨的日子里，在他经过后，他遗留下一些光辉。」

作者：刘家驹



(一) 前言

利玛窦与雷鸣远两位神父在很多方面是不能比较的。他们生活于不同的时代，属于不同的修会和国籍，要面对不同的问题等等。然而，我想试图从他们两位有关的资料中，提出两点来比较一下，或许可供我们深入了解这两位传教士。

(二) 热爱中国

利玛窦在去世前一年，写信给在澳门的耶稣会副会长，谈到在中国的传教事业，列出了可以继续；的七个理由。但从这七个理由的叙述中，不啻是充分地表达了他对中国人与中国文化的尊敬与热爱。他说：

「第一个理由是：传教事业的发祥，实属神奇，一如天主的一切事业，时常有着种种的困难，至今不绝；然而我们的声价，却日渐提高，教友的数目和品质，也有增无已。」

「第二；因为在这里，文章和学问很被看重，说话有理，人们绝不轻视。而且在中国可称为贵族的，只有文人和学者。因此似乎容易使中国士大夫相信我们的信仰，因为我们 的信仰，理由充足，士大夫既相信我们，其余的人更容易劝化了。」

「第三，由以上一条我们看出：易于宣传福音的方法，就是用书籍宣传圣教，书籍可以在中国各处畅行无阻。」

「第四，中国人的天资聪敏。书籍、言语和服装以及朝廷的组织，东方人无不景仰。因此，若是我们能给他们教授科学，他们不单可以变成学者，而且因着科学他们也容易进 入我们的圣教。他们后来也不会忘记受教的大恩。如今我们已经顺利地开始了。」

「第五，中国人也是倾向修身事天的。(有的人以为中国人不是这样，但是我在这里，每天观察，中国人确是如此。)有史以来，中国人就遵守人性的天理，较我们西方人更 完善。在一干五百年前，中国人并不甚敬鬼，就是那些敬鬼的人，也不像古经罗马人和希腊人那样的淫逸无耻。他们是愿意修德的人，行为也很好。而且中国古人的经书，是中国最古最有权威的书。书中只讲敬天和敬天地之主。我们只要细读这些书，里面很少找到相反人性天理的事，反而有许多事合乎天理，比任何讲本性学问的哲学家也不稍逊。我们希望中国古来的许多圣贤因着遵守天理，再加上天主仁慈所赐的恩惠，也可以得救灵魂。……」

「第六，在中国教友保守信德，更较方便，因为中国很太平，有时一百多年也没有变乱。」

「第七，我们至今，谨小慎微，和中国士大夫往来，他们都称我们为学者为圣人。我希望我们至终常能保全这种声誉。如今在我们的会士中，既有好几位品行端方，神学优秀 的人，而且没有一人不勉力学习较高的中文程度。因为仅知道我们的学术，不通晓他们的学术，毫无用处。」(见罗光着利玛窦传，页二○七 八)

一五八○年，利玛窦晋铎后，又到卧亚修院攻读神学两年。当时很不满意传教区修院，拒绝收纳印度修生，只让他们速成或补习班式，教育印人，使他们晋铎后，学识不足，而只能成为欧洲传教士之助手，他曾就这事向其总会报告(见利玛窦传，三三页)。但在中国传教时，诚如上述的「七个理由」中所述，不仅敬重中国人，同时地敬重中国文化。

于斌枢机曾在两个演讲的场合，推崇利玛窦为文化传教的楷模：一是在一九六○年，称「天主教与中国文化相互之影响，……远的不谈，明末清初像利玛窦到了中国，研究线装书九年才开始传教讲道，但天主教对中国文化仍极重视，例如天主教在大陆所办的其中三大学把中国文化列为重要课程来研究，因此引起了很大的注意」(于斌：天主教的影响，见于斌总主教言论集，自由太平洋文化事业公司，民国五十三年，页三三一)。另一次是在一九六三年，称：「意大利教士利玛窦，他念了整整九年的中国书，才去讲道，所以才开启了传教的新机运，为后世树立了文化传教的楷模。……第二次中外文化的综合是开始于明末清初，因为利玛窦、徐光启把我们中国的文化和西欧文化交流，使中西携手相互了解，彼此学习，我们今天所说的新文化运动，实在开始已将四百年，在徐光启、李之藻、杨廷筠的时候已经开始了，不但开始而且已有很好的成就。」(见于斌总主教言论集，页三八三)

一九七二年，罗光总主教在「利玛窦传」再版序中说，「利玛窦是一位先知，预先知道中国传教的途径，也预先知道中国复兴的步骤。他所预先知道中国传教的途径，在于文化工作；所预先知道中国复兴的步骤是科学和伦理。他便在这个路途上，按着步骤去开路，提倡科学，宣讲基督福音和儒家传统的融洽。」(见该书页三)

从以上的资料中，可以证明利玛窦热爱中国文化与中国人。特别把中国文化的优点与不同，介绍到西方。同时，也愿把西方的科学与思想，介绍给中国人。

＊＊＊＊＊＊

事实上，整个的雷鸣远传中，都表露出他如何热爱中国人、中国文化以及中国的一切。这里，我想从他的传记中，抄录出一些片断。

「我那时候爱中国的心情，如同今天无别，也没有再加添。……感谢天主，中国民族真是一个体面的民族，真是一个优秀的民族，全球的任何百姓也不能比他。实在令人起敬 起爱，我看见渔夫们洗网工作，家庭中相亲相爱之情，真是文明的表现。」(见赵雅博，雷鸣远神父传，越南自由太平洋协会，一九六三，页五九)

「雷神父一到北堂，立刻就将自己的房间，安排成中国样式，找来一些线装书，一些字画、瓷器与其他代表中国文化的东西，充实自己的卧室，衣着方面改用中国服装，用饭 时，则使用竹筷而不肯使用刀叉。」(同上，页六八)

「一条发辫的事情虽然小，但是其中国化的意义，则是很大的。……他要事事中国化，处处表现爱中国，只要是中国的东西，便是好的，尽管是随俗卑风，只要不是罪恶，他 便认为可以实行。」(同上，页九五)

赵雅博神父曾分析雷鸣远神父这一爱中国的心态说：「人们这样的喜欢他，当然有他的缘故，这个缘故不用说是由于他爱中国人，真的爱中国人。有人说雷神父是瞎了眼睛，不看中国人的短处，而一味盲目的爱。不是的，他对中国人的短处并不是不知道，但是他的使命是救中国人。对要救的人的缺点，一方面是改正它，另方面是要原谅它。人非圣贤，孰能无过，即便是圣贤，也何尝不是过恶万千。他人的缺点过失并不值得我们太过重视，并且雷神父对中国人的爱，并不是自然的爱，而是超自然的爱，透过天主而爱世人，爱的是他的灵魂无价，爱的是他整个的人乃是耶稣救赎的对象，为了救他而爱他，并不需要因他的缺点而不爱他啊！」(同上，页二○四)

(三) 高尚品德

雷震远神父在序「雷鸣远神父传」里说：「雷鸣远神父不愧为现代宗徒，人见人敬，人见人爱。其品德可直追圣方济沙勿略及利玛窦二位传教先锋」(雷鸣远傅，页一，越南自由太平洋协会，一九六三)

这是把雷鸣远与利玛买来做比较的，重点是放在「品德」上。

辅仁大学校长罗光总主教，一九五九年序其所着「利玛窦传」时说：「利玛窦的伟大，不在于灌输西学，不在于精通中文，乃在于他能克己，能勇进，能识时，另外是在于他爱主心切，不求荣己，只求荣主。」(利玛窦传，页七，辅仁大学出版社，一九八二)这段形容，重点也是放置在「品德」上。

事实上，无论利玛宾与雷鸣远传记的作者，前者是从资料，后者是从资料与亲泽，所感受到的最大的触角，是品德，由此品德才能发挥出其他的工作。

徐光启在跋「二十五言」中，对利玛窦有以下的形容，可见利玛窦的「学」与「德」的关系：

盖其学无所不窥，而其大者，以归诚真宰，干干昭事为宗。朝夕瞬息，亡一念不在此。诸凡情感诱慕，即无论不涉其躬，不挂其口，亦绝不萌诸其心。务期扫除净洁，以求所 谓体受归全者。间尝反覆送难，以至杂语燕谭，百千万言中，求一语不合忠孝大旨，求一语无益于人心世道者，竟不可得。(利玛窦传，页一四九)

李之藻在序「畸人十篇」里说：

西泰子浮搓九万里而来，所历沉沙狂飓，与夫啖人略入之国，不知几许，而不菑不害，孜孜求友，酬应颇繁，一介不取，又不致乏绝，殆不肖以为异人也。观其不婚不宦，寡 言饬行，日惟是潜心修德，以昭事乎上主，以为是独行人也。复徐叩之，其持议崇正辟邪，居恒不释卷，经目能逆顺诵。精及性命，博及象纬舆地，旁及句股算术。有中国先儒累世发明未晰者，而悉倒囊究数一二，则以为博闻有道术之人。迄今近十年，而所习之益深，所称忘行忘念之戒，消融都净；而所修和天和人和己之德，纯粹益精。意期善世，而行施畛畦，语无排击，不知者莫测其倪，而知者相悦以解。闲商以事，往往如其言则当，不如其言则悔，而后识其至人也。(利玛窦传，页一五一 二)

陈垣在「从教外典籍见明末清初之天主教」一文中的「教士之品学」，引用几段资料，其中有李月华所说的「玛窦紫髯碧眼，面色如桃花，见人膜拜如礼，人亦爱之，信其为善人也。……玛窦年已五十余，如二三十岁人，盖远夷之得道者。」又引用明史意大里传称「其国人东来者，大都聪明特达之士，意专行教，不求禄利，其所着书，多华人所未道，故一时好异者咸尚之，……公卿以下重其人，咸与晋接。」(见陈垣学术论文集(第一集)页二一二 二一三。)

从这些资料中，可以了解利玛窦之品德。

关于雷鸣远神父的品德，这是目前很多人所公认的，可以从两方面去说。一是在雷鸣远传中，所记录到他的谦逊与服从，使他成功了。一是接触他的人的亲身体验。我们不妨读一下他于一九二三年见传信部长王老松枢机的经过情形：

你是雷神父，啊，我多么高兴见到您，请坐在我前面哪，……我从我心的深处感谢您所作所为的一切，感谢你所遭受的痛苦，感谢你完善的圣愿服从，是它拯救了一切！请你 注意倾听：在一个这样重大的命题(本地主教)，如果保卫这一命题的司铎，他的行为不是绝对的无瑕可指，我们绝对不会支持他！我不能充分向你说明，我们多么感谢你是一位完善的会士。我没有办法表示我多么感谢你对服从的德行有这样大的信德，使您毫不迟疑的绝对服从！就人事说，你的服从彷佛破坏了一切。不，天主所祝福的正是这一点，你看依恃天主的上智是没有错误的。」(雷鸣远传，页三六六 七)

曹立珊神父所写的「春风十年」中「圣若翰的基本精神」大家在讨论圣若翰修会主保的座谈会上，称：

雷神父劈头便问大家：「圣若翰的基本精神是什么？」，沉默了几秒钟，有一位修士发言了：「圣若翰的基本精神是苦修：他不饮酒，时常守斋，住在荒野，吃煌虫野蜜，穿骆驼毛衣……」……可是，雷神父：出人意外的摇摇头，表示不同意。接着另一位修士提出新的见解，他说：我想若翰的基本精神是「勇敢」。请看，他谏诤国王黑落德，公然斥责国王强占自己的弟妇，对骄傲的法利塞，放浪的军人，贪污的税吏，也敢直斥他们的不道德行为：耶稣也说若翰不是随风摇动的「芦苇」，而是一位「守正不阿」的强人。雷神父听了，微笑着把手二摇说：「也不是」。第三个修士很明智而谨慎的提出第三个意见：我猜看，是不是爱火？圣若翰充满厄利亚的精神，彷佛一团火，他声嘶力竭的到处喊说：「侮改罢，天国近了」。雷神父告诉他，还没有猜对。……忽然有一位青年修士说：我想圣约翰的基本精神是「谦逊」。他曾说：「基督应发达，我该退消」。又说，「我不是基督，我只是旷野的呼声。」这声音只传扬基督，传报后自身即消失。雷神父听了把大姆指一伸说：好，说对了。因为克苦、勇敢、爱火及其他的德行，都植基在「谦逊」上面。……有了谦逊，才不顾自己，只为天主，面对真理才显得坚强。……(雷鸣远传页八六 七)

于斌枢机在雷鸣远神父逝世六周年时讲了「雷鸣远神父的三不朽」，其中特别提到了雷鸣远的「全真常」 全牺牲，真爱人，常喜乐，(曹立珊神父去年出版了「雷鸣远神父的神修纲领」一书就是讨论这个的。)说：

「全牺牲，真爱人，常喜乐，……牺牲不难，难在一个全字；爱人也不难，难在一个真字，喜乐也容易，但常喜乐就不太简单。牺牲为爱人之表现，爱人为喜乐之基础，助人为快乐之本。这是有连带性的一套修养方法。」(于斌总主教言论集，页三○七)

于枢机在「人生之谜」中，又说：

从前雷鸣远神父提出一句口号为：「打倒我。」为什么要谈革命，先要打倒自己呢？打倒自己并非「自杀」之谓，因为「自私」原是人类的天性，如果不先铲除此一自私的劣根性，革命的前途势必障碍重重。(同上，页一三五)

(四) 小结

如果让我在利玛窦与雷鸣远两位之中，说出最不相同的作为与性格的话，我觉得利码窦所愿着重的阶层是「士大夫」，由此而通过文化的传播来影响中国；雷鸣远却是以「普通人」为对象，也可以说是社会性特重，想以此而掀起种种的改革。因此，利玛窦把着书立说做成第一位；而雷鸣远则会办普及性大的益世报，和发起不少的群众运动为最重要。

作者：凌蕙彤 Ling, Esther

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE IN THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING (1)



I. Introduction

Love is the key element in Christian mysticism. In The Cloud of Unknowing, besides being the key element, love is also the basic and unifying theme underlying the whole teaching on mysticism, from the very initial stage of God's call and man's response to the ultimate intense moments of mystical union. The word love itself, which recurs in and threads through every page of the book, is the most important word in the author's vocabulary. Indeed, the prayer of the mystic is viewed as an act of love.

The Cloud of Unknowing is an anonymous work. As the information concerning its author's background is lacking in detail, critical studies have not been successful in discovering the real identity of the author. However, there is enough evidence for scholars to conclude that it is a work of an English mystic written in the 14th century, in the first full flowering epoch of English mysticism properly so called, when other mystics in England such as Richard Rolle, Walter Hilton, and Julian of Norwich were writing their enduring classics of Christian mystical experience. If this dating is correct, our author must have been a contemporary also of great mystics in continental Europe including Meister Eckhart, John Tauler, Henry Suso, Jan van Ruysbroeck, Catherine of Siena, and Thomas a Kempis. It has been further proved, on linguistic grounds, that the book was written in a central district of the North-East English Midlands.(2)

It seems likely that this 14th century author was a priest, for he gives his blessings at the end of the book in chapter 75. He was certainly a theologian with a wide knowledge of patristic writings and other later works which lie behind his own book. Dionysius' influence is explictly acknowledged: "Anyone who reads Denis' book will find confirmed there all that I have been trying to teach in this book from start to finish" (chapter 70). The influence of Augustine and Aquinas is obvious; for instance, the idea of "naked intent" expounded in chapter 24 reflects the Augustinian and Thomistic concept of "chaste love". Similarly, much of Augustine's teaching has been integrated into the exegesis of Mary and Martha (chapters 16-23), and the title "The Cloud of Unknowing" itself, as Dr. Hodgson has rightly pointed out, is an imagery in Benjamin Major of Richard of St. Victor.(3) The author claims that the specific purpose for which he was writing was to give guidance to a young disciple of twenty-four who was seriously considering committing himself to a life of contemplation. But as one reads the book, one feels that in actual fact it could very well have been written for all those who aspired to contemplative prayer in general. Indeed, it has been acknowledged as "the most excellent work on contemplative prayer ever written in the English Language".(4)



  
1.In this paper the text we use is the edition by Johnston: JOHNSTON, W., ed., The Cloud of Unknowing and The Book of Privy Counselling, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1973, 195p.

2.See P. Hodgson, ed., The Cloud of Unknowing and The Book of Privy Counselling, London, Oxford University Press, 1944, pp. xxvii-1, especially pp. xlix and l.

3.Ibid., p. 1xii.

4.D. Knowles, "The Excellence of the Cloud", The Downside Review, LII (New Series Vol. XXXIII), 1934, p. 92.

II. Knowledge of God through love

If love is the essence of the mysticism of The Cloud of Unknowing, and if contemplation is an act of love in the view of our author, what precisely does this mean? And what exactly is our author's teaching on love? The purpose of our present paper is to look into this teaching , which is not easy to analyse despite the book's simple style.

We shall start with the noetic dimension or aspect of love. While being thoroughly influenced by the Dionysian tradition of the so-called negative theology, our author is by no means simply following the currents of tradition, but distinguishes himself from the main stream of "via negative" by his characteristic consistent emphasis on the primacy of love in his whole approach to mystical knowledge. As a matter of fact, while insisting on following Dionysius' doctrine that "The most divine knowledge of God is that which is known by not knowing" (chapter 70), he takes great pains from the very outset to make it clear that love is the essence of any contemplative activities, for it is "by love that he (God) may be touched and embraced, never by thought" (chapter 6). A contemplative should make continuous efforts to lift his heart up to God with "a gentle stirring of love" (chapter 6), abandoning all discursive thought, putting aside even the most pious images, covering them over with a "cloud of forgetting" (chapter 9). At the height of his effort, when the contemplative is face to face with a "cloud of unknowing', it is again love that is called upon to make a break-through: "Yes, beat upon that thick cloud of unknowing with the dart of your loving desire and do not cease come what may" (chapter 6)

In the above paragraph we have quoted a few phrases of key importance: "gentle stirring of love", "cloud of forgetting", and "cloud of unknowing ". These are recurrent imageries in which the author's concept of love is subtly embodied, and hence it seems in order to allow ourselves to indulge in some exegesis of these phrases with a view to bringing out their significance in full force.

The idea of "gentle stirring of love" is repeated many times throughout the pages in various forms. It is referred to as "blind stirring of love", as "secret little love", as "naked intent of the will", as "blind outstretching", as "loving blind desire", and as "dart of loving desire''. It is re-echoed by Saint John of the Cross in The Living Flame of Love when he writes: "Oh, lamps of fire, in whose splendours the deep caverns of sense… were dark and blind".(5) According to our author, this "stirring" is founded on faith: "I prefer to abandon all I can know, choosing rather to love him whom I cannot know" (chapter 6), and this love is reflected symbolically in Mary who sits at the feet of Our Lord, all rapt in contemplation. This "stirring" is not something that can be acquired simply by means of human effort within the heart, rather, it is a response to God's call which is a divine gratuitous intervention. It is with this in mind that our author writes:

And so with great longing for him enter into this cloud. Or rather, I should say, let God awaken your longing and draw you to himself in this cloud while you strive with the help of his grace to forget everything else" (chapter 9).

Here, both passivity and activity are involved; passivity in terms of divine grace, and activity in terms of human will. On the human side, therefore, any "stirring of love" has to depend not only on the heart but also on the will. Finally, this "stirring" is "blind", because its origin is in darkness and its movement unconscious. But despite being "blind", it moves with love and is far superior to discursive reasoning, because the former goes directly to the essence and being of God while the latter cannot know God as He is in Himself. Hence our author insists:

Rational creatures such as men and angels possess two principal faculties, a knowing power and a loving power. No one can fully comprehend the uncreated God with his knowledge, but each one, in a different way, can grasp him fully through love" (chapter 4).

The "blind stirring of love", therefore, marks the beginning of an emerging enlightenment.

When the "blind stirring of love" has begun working, leading to a knowledge which is known by love, the contemplative has to be careful not to smother this love with conceptual thinking and meditation. Instead, he must enter into a "cloud of forgetting" which, according to our author, is the abandonment of all images and concepts so as to allow the soul to love mystically. In other words, while admitting that meditations on the Passion of Christ, on Our Lady, and on the saints are good in themselves and are excellent for beginners, the author insists on the necessity of relinquishing them lest they would be an obstacle to the work of supra-conceptual love, or would constitute a barrier between the soul and God. This is not so much rejection of reasoning, memories and the material world as detachment from all these. Images and symbols in religious traditions are not to be rejected in themselves, but the contemplative wishing to reach God as He is must overcome any attachment to all such symbols. This is a process of liberation in which man is liberated from the sensible and conceptual to find access to the realm of union of love.(6) It is in this sense we are to understand our author when he says "fashion a cloud of forgetting beneath you, between you and every created thing" (chapter 5).

The third imagery is "cloud of unknowing". Our author teaches that mystical knowledge is obscure, knowing that He is without knowing what He is. In other words, contemplation can only be in the "cloud of unknowing".

For in the beginning it is usual to feel nothing but a kind of darkness about your mind, or as it were, a cloud of unknowing. You will seem to know nothing and to feel nothing except a naked intent towards God in the depths of your being. Try as you might, this darkness and this cloud will remain between you and your God. You will feel frustrated, for your mind will be unable to grasp him and your heart will not relish the delight of his love. But learn to be at home in this darkness"(chapter 3).

Here our author is obviously speaking about a psychological condition in which the human mind is dark from a lack of knowledge. On the one hand all memories of creatures have been abandoned, and on the other hand no distinct knowledge of God has been possible. However, the "cloud of unknowing" is only "between" man and God, and is penetrable by constant "stirring of love''. If it is a matter of "between", man is both separated from and at the same time connected with God. The separation in question is not a physical one, but is man's awareness of his own finite existence－an awareness that constitutes a separation. To overcome this awareness, man must allow himself to enter into a state of total unconsciousness, a condition of unknowing, whereby the medium 'leading to a deep experience of God who is beyond ordinary human knowledge is provided. So, in effect, the obscurity or darkness is not hopelessness. It is a condition from which enlightenment may in due course emerge. The process, however, entails the will beating upon the dark "cloud of unknowing" with a "dart of longing desire" (chapter 6). And when the soul ceases from any effort to comprehend the incomprehensible, he is capable of raising himself up to the Being of God Himself, and becomes "oned" with Him in an inexpressible fashion. The union, therefore, is essentially an act of love and of will. This idea of a combination of love and will, as Dom Justin McCann has pointed out, is a major modification of our English author on Dionysian teaching.(7) Dionysius maintains that love is the essential element leading to the union, but he does not go on to give any explanation about this union; our author, however, insists that the union of love is an exercise of the will.

Sufficient has been said about the noetic aspect of love as taught in The Cloud of Unknowing; just another quote to round off this section:

…he may touch you with a ray of his divine light which will pierce the cloud of unknowing between you and him. He will let you glimpse something of the ineffable secrets of his divine wisdom and your affection will seem on fire with his love (chapter 26).

  
  

5.E. Allison Peers, ed., The Complate Works of Saint John of the Cross, Wheathampstead, England, A. Clarke, 1974, Vol. III p. 16.

6.Cf. N. O' Donoghue, "'This Noble Noughting and This High Alling': Self-Relinquishment in the Cloud of Unknowing and the Epistle of Privy Counsel", Journal of Studies in Mysticism, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1979, pp. 1-4.

7.J. McCann, ed., The Cloud of Unknowing and Other Treatsies, Westminster, Maryland, The Newman Press, 1952 (6th and revised edition), pp. xii and xiv.


III. Love is incarnational and Christo-centric

Love means union with God; but it also means union within oneself and union with one's fellow-men. Our author is quite explicit about this. He points out that man's "oneness" within himself has been destroyed by sin, he must either in this life or in purgatory undergo purification if this original "oneness" is to be recovered. In contemplation, the "stirring of love" burns out the very roots of sin, removes concupiscience as does the fire of purgatory. Thus man recovers his "oneness" within himself.

Parallel to this process of self-unitive purification is the process of communion. Plunged in the "cloud of unknowing" and stripped of all discursive thoughts, the contemplative Is by no means alone or isolated. On the contrary, he is in communion with the entire church, both the living and the dead. He is able to come to a closer and more real union with his fellow-men by means of the "stirring of love".

For when you fix your love on him, forgetting all else, the saints and angels rejoice and hasten to assist you in every way…Your fellow-men are marvellously enriched by this work of yours, even if you may not fully understand how; the souls in purgatory are touched, for their suffering is eased by the effects of this work…(chapter 3).

Moreover, this communion of love, as our author insists, is also true at a practical and incarnational level. Thus he writes:

…through contemplation he is so growing in practical goodness and love that, when he speaks or prays with his fellow Christians at other times, the warmth of his love reaches out to them all, friend, enemy, stranger, and kin alike (chapter 25 ).

In other words, the community is enriched by the act of love of contemplation in day-to-day life. This, however, is a mutual two-day road, for contemplative prayer has to depend on the prayer of the community and on the sacraments of the church for its spiritual food, without which it would certainly be stifled (chapter 28 and 35 ).

Our author's doctrine of love may be described as incarnational in another sense. It is interesting to note how he takes great pains to lay emphasis on the harmony between body and soul in man in paragraphs like the following:

God forbid that I should separate body and spirit when God has made them a unity. Indeed, we owe God the homage of our whole person, body and spirit together. And fittingly enough he will glorify our whole person, body and spirit, in eternity, (chapter 48)

It is in this light that chapter 16-23 concerning the symbolical story of Mary Magdalene should be interpreted, and the same concept of unity must be applied to our author's understanding of the whole person of Christ. While it is perfectly true that the exegesis of the gospel passages involves much more reading into the text than modern biblical cricism permits, yet it would be unfair to accuse our author of teaching a religion of pure spirit, rejecting all sensible feelings and imageries. On the very contrary, feelings do seem to play a part in Mary Madalene, the symbol of the ideal contemplative. She is described as weeping at the empty tomb on Easter morning, and her feelings and devotion to Christ are succinctly summed up: "Sweet was the love between Mary and Jesus. How she loved! How much more he loved her!" (chapter 22) Thus if our author, following the scholastic tradition, teaches that to love conceptually in meditation on the Passion of Christ precedes loving supra-conceptually in contemplation which is much higher, he is in fact saying that it is through the humanity of Christ that one finds access to his divinity, getting in touch with his Godhead. He also gives a clear theological basis to what he teaches about abandoning conceptualized images of Christ. The humanity of Christ is a creature, and true love does not stop at the human nature of Christ but rather terminates at the whole person of Christ which is God Himself. Therefore what concerns the contemplative is not a question of forgetting temporarily the humanity of Christ, as Mary does, rapt in contemplation at the feet of Jesus. At the height of mystical love the humanity of Christ may indeed be present as it is present to Mary Magdalene, but the fascination of the divine is so predominant that it may entail a temporary forgetting of the human. Thus viewed, mystical love in The Cloud of Unknowing is not only incarnational but also Christocentric.

IV. Love is Christian living intensified

One final observation. If our interpretation in the preceding pages is correct, it seems clear that the doctrine of love of our author is much more that a doctrine; it is a life of mystical love which is described as an intensification of ordinary Christian living. Contemplative prayer is nothing else but the fulfilment of evangelical charity in its most perfect form. In other words, the perfect following of Christ manifests itself in mystical love. Hence this love is not really distinct from the charity taught in the New Testament which calls all Christians to perfection: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48). It is the charity that includes all the virtues. And it is clear that our author does admit this when he writes:

…as the Ark contained all the jewels and treasures of the temple, so this little love intent upon God in the cloud of unknowing contains all the virtues of a man's spirit, which, as we know, is the temple of God.(chapter 71)

If it is identical with Gospel charity, and if it is an intensification of ordinary Christian living, then all baptized Christians are obviously called to the work of this "little love", to contemplative, and to become a mystic. Our author, however, insists over and over again that contemplation is not for everyone but for those have a special call from God. Moreover, by distinguishing the special vocation to perfection from the universal call to salvation, our author is saying implicitly that there is a hierarchy of Christian living with the mystics above the common daughters and sons of Mother Church. How can this conflict be reconciled? William Johnston, while disagreeing with the author that "the only way to perfection is by entering the sheepfold of contemplative prayer", sympathetically remarks that "the English author is a man of his age"－an age in which there was no other recognized path to perfection except that of contemplation. It was in fact very much later that a less monastic spirituality arose, raising the question of the possibility of other paths to Christian perfection.(8) We agree with Johnston. Furthermore, considering The Cloud of Unknowing as a whole, we feel that if the author were our contemporary today, his sound theology would certainly be potential enough to stretch further and deeper to arrive at some insight into the unity of contemplation and activity. If in the 14th century he could identify mystical love with an intensification of ordinary Christian living, as he really did, today in the 20th century he probably would have no problem in broadening his concept of mysticism to include other expressions of mystical love manifested outside contemplation in the strictest sense of the word.

V. Epilogue

St. John in the Fourth Gospel speaks about perfect love in terms of "indwelling", and St. Paul in his Epistles speaks in terms of "in Christ'. Our author, in effect, is speaking about the same in terms of "blind stirring". Just as both "indwelling" and "in Christ" are not merely symbolic language of mystical talk, but a call to a life of the Spirit, so the "blind stirring" is a reminder of this call. It is a reminder of a call that should be addressed to all Christians, for none may be excluded from this life under God's grace.

　

  
8.W. Johnston, The Mysticism of the Cloud Unknowing : a modern interpretation, New York, Desclee, 1967, pp. 262f.

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J.

SHIUHING 1583: MATTEO RICCI 'S ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

Matteo Ricci (利玛窦) arrived in Macao on the 7th August, 1582. He crossed into China and on 10th September, 1583 reached the city of Shiuhing in Guangdong Province, there founding the first Catholic mission in China in modern times. The fourth centenary of that momentous event is now being celebrated in several countries and in a variety of ways.

The present article attempts to offer a modest tribute to this great religious and cultural bridge-builder who has been hailed as "one of the most remarkable and brilliant men in history"(1) and whose influence continues down to today, sometimes in unlikely places.

Ricci's own writings are not easily available, at least in English. His monumental work on the entry of Christianity into China(2) was completed shortly before his death in Peking in 1610. However, his own Italian text was not published but instead was translated into Latin by a Belgian confrere called Nicolas Trigault. Trigault's Latin version appeared in many printings and translations in various parts of Europe in the early 17th century.(3) As a translation, however, it is seriously defective, taking great liberties with Ricci's text and making substantial additions and subtractions without alerting the reader.(4)

Unfortunately when it was decided in the 1950 's to make a belated English version of Ricci's work(5), this was done from Trigault's Latin rather than from Ricci's own Italian text, even though Ricci's original had by then been finally published.(6)

If there is any truth in Buffon's much-quoted maxim that "Style is the man"(7), then to sample some of Ricci's distinctive style of writing directly from his own words should throw some light on the character and motivation of the man. It is with this hope that the following translation is offered, based directly on D’ Elia's edition and giving Ricci's first-hand account of how he and his confreres tried to communicate the Christian message to the Chinese people. Following D'Elia I have inserted the Chinese characters where relevant and also added some numbered notes to supply necessary information or clarification at certain points of the text.(8)

＊＊＊＊＊

On the Entry into China of the Society of Jesus and of the Christian Religion

Book II, Chapter 4: "The Fathers Gradually Begin to Speak with the Chinese about the Holy Christian Religion"(9)

245

At this early stage, so as not to make people suspicious of something so new as this, the Fathers were not keen on preaching very clearly about our holy law but in the time remaining to them after receiving visitors they empoyed themselves instead in learning well their spoken and written language and polite customs, in winning over the goodwill of the Chinese and in influencing them with the example of a good life towards what they could not do by language nor time permit.One thing with which all the Chinese showed themselves very pleased was the fact that the Fathers together with all the members of their household dressed like the more respected people of this country, their dress being modest and long, with long sleeves also, not very different from our own.(10) The house had two rooms on either side with a sort of living-room in the middle. This the Fathers arranged as a chapel with an altar in the centre where they placed the picture of Our Lady with the Child in her arms.

246

Since there is no name in the Chinese language which corresponds to the name "God" nor can even "Dio" be properly pronounced in Chinese, there not being the letter "D",(11) they began to call God T' ien Chu (天主), which means "The Lord of Heaven", as He is called up to now throughout China as well as in The Teaching of the Christian Religion (天主紧要) (12) and the other books which they wrote .(13)And this fits in very well with our purpose, since the Chinese adore Heaven as the supreme deity (which some people think of as the material heaven), using the same name as we have given to God, and so it is stated clearly how much greater is our God than what they take to be the supreme deity, since God is the Lord of Heaven. For this reason they call Our Lady by another name which means Lady Holy Mother of God (天主圣母娘娘).(14)

247

This picture of Our Lady and her Son which we placed on the altar all the mandarins and other literati, the ordinary people and likewise their pagan priests,(15) who came to visit the Fathers, all adored, bowing and touching the forehead to the floor with much respect, and they were in admiration of the artistic qualities of our painting.It is true that shortly afterwards they put in place of Our Lady another painting of the Saviour, since the Fathers said that we must adore only one God, and when the Chinese saw the picture of Our Lady on the altar, it not being possible so soon to explain the mystery of the Incarnation, they became a little confused and- many of them spread the report elsewhere that the God whom we adored was a woman.

248

And since many people also came to ask questions about the doctrine from the Fathers, having doubts (and with good reason) about their own religion, the Fathers put the Ten Commandments of the Decalogue (祖传天主十诫) into Chinese characters and had them printed. They then distributed them to many people who asked for them and who said that they wanted to practise them because they saw that they were in such conformity with reason and the natural law.

249

Many people also began to make presents of incense to incense the altar and to give alms to the Fathers for their sustenance and for oil for the lamp which was kept buring before the altar. And it would have been easy to obtain from the mandarins some income from the land around their temples; but it seemed to the Fathers that it would be better not to accept this income so as not to become dependent on the mandarins, as the pagan priests are. In this way also they acquired the reputation of not furthering their own interests. And so all the mandarins wanted to make contacts with them, being sure that they had nothing to ask from them, unlike all those who deal with them and are constantly making demands on them.

250

With this way of communicating, more by actions than by words, the good fragrance of our law came to be spread through all of China. And even though many came only out of curiosity to see something new, still they always brought away something to help towards their conversion at home, or something which they heard the Fathers say, either through an interpreter(16) or by means of what they were learning of the Chinese language, about the good customs found in the Christian kingdoms, the falseness of idol-worshipping, the conformity of the law of God with the light of natural reason and what their first sages taught in their books.

251

The first person to become a Christian in China was a poor man with an incurable disease, given up by the doctors and who was therefore thrown out of his house by his relatives into a field because they could not support him. And when the Fathers learnt of this, they asked him if he wanted to be a Christian and so save his soul, seeing that he could not save his body. And when he saw that none of his own people took care of him any more and that some among the foreigners visited him, it seemed to him that this assistance had come from heaven and he replied that he would accept our law very willingly indeed, since he considered that if it taught people to do such works of charity, it could not but be true. So they got the servants of the house to make a small hut for him in a clean place and they sent him every day from our house everything he needed, and at the same time they instructed him in our Holy Faith, until he seemed to be sufficiently instructed, when they gave him holy baptism, and he died some days later. Since God willed that this great work should begin from the smallest beginnings possible and in order that this work should be more meritorious, God permitted that it should be badly interpreted by the Chinese. They could not convince themselves that anyone in the world could succeed in doing such a difficult work as this without any self-interest and spread the report throughout the city that the Fathers knew that that man had a precious stone inside his head and that they wanted to take care of him so as to extract the stone from his head after his death.

252

The Fathers－and consequently the Christian religion－always acquired no little reputation in China because of the many books about our sciences and the laws of our kingdoms. Some of these volumes were large, such as the canonical texts, and others were worked in gold and very well bound. Although they could not read nor understand what they contained, still from the external magnificence and the fineness of the printing they convinced themselves that those books must deal with important things, seeing that such account was made of them in our kingdom; and that in the matter of books our country was ahead, not only of all the other nations known to China, but even of China itself which they thought up to then was superior in letters to all the kingdoms of the world. In addition they saw that the Fathers always had some good scholar of Chinese literature in the house and that they studied with great diligence by day and night, studying the written language, and for this purpose had bought many of their books and also filled the whole study-room with them. And so they came to understand both that letters and the sciences are highly esteemed in our country and also that in their own country the Fathers were scholars also in their sciences, which is the only thing in which nobility consists in China, as we have explained. Hence, on comparing our priests with those of their religion, in whom ignorance reigns, they easily thought how much better based on reason is the law which Ours profess than what was taught by their pagan priests.

253

And since the literati wished to know something more than was said about our law in the printed Commandments, with the help of a scholar who was in the house(17) the Fathers arranged a Catechism (天主实录) in this script, in which were refuted some points from the religions of China and the main heads of the Holy Faith were explained, especially those which could be more easily understood with the light of natural reason. All the more important citizens were very happy and satisfied with this, and especially the Governor, Wang P' an (王泮).

Ours gave away many hundreds and thousands of copies of this, so that the name of the Christian law, never heard of or known to the Chinese, was spread more rapidly and to more distant places. This was because the books reached places where the Fathers could not and our message is rather better explained in this kingdom by the written than by the spoken word, because of the great power which their characters possess.

254

There is a custom that the important magistrates, when they wish to pay some great honour to someone, send to him with great solemnity and celebrations a wooden tablet in a frame on which they write and engrave two or three rather large and meaningful characters in praise of that person. And to one side is written the title and name of the magistrate and to the other side the year in which it was made, which in this country is usually the year of enthronement of the king(18) then reigning. And wishing to pay this compliment to the Fathers because of the good opinion he had of htem sna so that the people would have more respect for them, the Governor of the city and protector of the Fathers sent two of these tablets to them. One was to be placed over the door of the house, which was also the door of the chapel, and it said, translated into our language: "The Chapel of the Flower of the Saints" (僊花寺); the other was to be placed in the hall and said: "Those who have come from the Holy Land of the West" (西来净土).(19) When these tablets were set up in their places, it gave great credit to the Fathers in the eyes of all sorts of people who passed through that street and who entered the house and saw how much they were esteemed by that mandarin, who not only had a great reputation in this province because of his position and learning, but also because of his virtue and reputation for good government.(20)

　

  
1)Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China, Cambridge, vol. 1, 2nd edition, 1961, p. 148; quoted by F.A. Rouleau, S.J., "Ricci, Matteo", New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, 1967, vol. 12, p. 471.

2)Della Entrata della Compagnia di Giesu e Christianita nella Cina. After a comprehensive account of China and the Chinese, the work describes the step by step progress of Ricci and his companions from Macao to Peking. P.M. D' Elia (see Note 6, below) examines the historical value of this work, in Fonti Ricciane, I, pp. c1xxxvi－c1xxxvii.

3)Nicolas Trigault, S. J., De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu ex P. Matthaei Ricci ejusdem Societatis Commentariis Libri V, auctore P. Nicolao Trigautio, Belga, Augsburg, 1615, with four subsequent Latin editions in 1616, 1617, 1623 and 1648. It appeared in French (1616), in German (1617), in Spanish (1621) and even in Italian (1621), but in English only in excerpts until 1953.

4)See, e.g. the comments of George Dunne, S. J., quoting D. Bartoli and D' Elia, in Generation of Giants: The Story of the Jesuits in China in the Last Decades of the Ming Dynasty, Notre Dame/London, 1962, pp. 175-176.

5)Louis J. Gallagher, S. J., China in the Sixteenth Century: The Journals of Matthew Ricci: 1583-1610. New York, 1953.

6)Matteo Ricci, S. J., Fonti Ricciane: Storia dell'Introduzione del Cristianesimo in Cina. ed. Pasquale M. D' Elia, S. J., 3 vols., Rome, 1942-1949. There is now a French translation: G. Bessiere, Histoire de l' expedition chretienne au royaume de la China 1582-1610, Paris, 1978. I have heard that an English translation was made in the U.S.A. in the 1950's but never published. It is greatly to be hoped that the present centenary celebrations will provide the stimulus for both an English and a Chinese translation of D' Elia's text.

7)"Le style est l' homme meme", Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707-1788), Discours sur le style.

8)The translator acknowledges his indebtedness to Father Sergio Ticozzi, PIME, for his assistance in interpreting more than a few places in Ricci's Italian text.

9)D' Elia dates the events of this chapter to the period between October 1583 and November 1584 when Ricci had established himself at Shiuhing (肇庆; sometimes written "Chao Ch 'ing" or “Zhaoqing”). This city on the West River is about fifty miles west of the Province capital Canton (Guangzhou).

10)At this early stage Ricci wore the robe of a Buddhist bonze(和尚).

11)“Dio” is the name for God in Italian. Ricci presumably means that the sound “D”, rather than the letter "D", does not exist in Chinese. In fact there is a "D" sound in both Mandarin and Cantonese, but the quality differs from the Italian "D" as found in the word "Dio''.

12)D' Elia, Fonti Ricciane, I, p. 193, points out that in this work, written for Chinese Catholics, Ricci uses exclusively the term天主.

13)In his important apologetic work T' ien Chu Shih I(天主实义) Ricci uses four different terms for God: 天主，上帝，天主上帝，天上帝，cf. D' Eiia, ibid. An English translation of this book is expected later this year.

14)D' Elia says that this Chinese title for Our Lady－or at least the Niang Niang part of it－was borrowed from the pagans. It was used briefly by the Catholics at Shiuhing before being abandoned.

15)"their pagan priests": Ricci's expression is: "i ministri de' loro idoli''.

16)Ricci's Chinese interpreter in Shiuhing appears to have been a young Chinese known by the name Filippo Mendes.

17)A native of Fukien Province, this man was married and had gained the degree of bachelor (秀才) in the imperial examinations. He asked to be instructed in the Catholic faith in 1584 and was baptized by Father Cabral on the 21st November of that year, taking the name of Paul. He later helped to convert the members of his family and some of his fellow mandarins in Peking.

18)"king": Ricci strangely uses here the term "re" rather than the word for "emperor".

19)Both of these expressions have a Taoist and Buddhist flavour about them. The term Ricci interprets as "Saints" probably refers to the Taoist "Immortals", while the word here translated as "chapel" is the ordinary term, even today, for a Buddhist monastery. "The Holy Land" is more literally "the Pure Land", which is also the name of one of the main Chinese Buddhist sects. Clearly Governor Wang thought of Ricci and his companions as some type of Buddhists or Taoists, and therefore chose expressions that he considered would appeal to them.

20)Finally, for further reading about Ricci, George Dunne gives a useful bibliography, Generation of Giants, pp. 371-379. Vincent Cronin is preparing a new edition of his very readable biography: The Wise Man from the West, London, 1955. A splendid Chinese translation has been made of this: 思果译，「西泰子来华记」，香港，公教真理学会，一九六四年。

作者：祈士真 Casey, John J.

LUTHER AND CATHOLIC CHURCH ORDER

INTRODUCTION

The year 1983 marks the five-hundreth anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther the Augustinian priest who became an outstanding religious figure in that sixteenth-century movement known as the Protestant Reformation. So great was Luther's influence that his thought remains very much a living part of our world today. Sizeable numbers of Christians who call themselves Evangelicals trace their inspiration back to this heritage.

Traditionally Catholics have considered the basic point of departure in Luther's teaching to be his doctrine of justification and faith. This is not surprising since Cardinal Cajetan who was sent by Pope Leo X to meet Luther at Augsburg, made note of the fact that he thought this doctrine as it stood would indeed institute a new church. It would, he thought, take a lot of discussion to round it out into Catholic teaching. But Rome had a prior concern and it was this concern that Cajetan was to present to Luther first, namely the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Luther refused to consider this first and some historians say the reason was Luther's suspicion that he was being used as a pawn in papal politics. Whatever the reason, from that point on efforts at reconciliation between Catholic and reform positions met with little success.

At the present time a vastly changed world has replaced that of the sixteenth century and Catholic-Lutheran ecumenical dialogue may be looked upon as the contemporary Cajetan-Luther discussions. Without going into detail, it is interesting to note that in the dialogue on doctrine great strides have been made in resolving the differences that exist between the two traditions. Perhaps this is not surprising because from the very start Lutherans thought their doctrine was indeed the traditional Catholic faith. They saw what they were doing as simply pruning away nonessentials that had become attached to essential Catholic doctrine. Present-day dialogue usually begins from this position and seeks to clarify the basic common faith that stands beneath any particular theological expression of that faith. At the same time, the dialogue takes a second look at some of the so-called nonessentials of the sixteenth century to see whether these may have been misunderstandings rather than points of actual contention. Results of these common doctrinal dialogues have been published both in Europe and in the United States.

Although dialogue on Church authority remains a difficult ecumenical issue, it provides an interesting perspective for Catholic theologians to reflect upon the tradition of authority as it developed in the Catholic Church. It is well to note at the beginning that we are talking about here is not ministry but rather Church order. The discussion on ministry in the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue basically has been part of the doctrinal reflection. Within that context it concerns certain Christians rightly carrying out the various function that exist within the Christian community on behalf of the whole community and its individual members. Church order, on the other hand, concerns the place or position that members of the Christian community have within that community and whereby they are related to and distinguished from one another. It was on the question of Church order that Luther's thought offered a different perspective that has had its effect on more recent Catholic thinking. What this paper will do in broad outline, then, is place the thinking of Luther on Church order within the context of the development of Catholic thought.

THE CATHOLIC TRADITION OF CHURCH ORDER

Within each Catholic community of the baptized, in actual practice distinctions among members rest in the position each has in relation to the sacraments. This springs from the principle that the basic community activities are the sacraments and of all the requirements involved in the valid celebration of a sacrament, the primary one is that of requisite power on the part of the person actually celebrating that sacrament. All other requirements involved in the celebration of a sacrament are predicated on the existence of a minister who has the requisite power to celebrate that sacrament. Should an empowered minister be lacking, a sacrament cannot be celebrated.

For the majority of the sacraments, the minister receives his power through the reception of one of the sacraments themselves, namely Holy Orders. This celebration has been recognized throughout the history of the Church without serious dissent as a function belonging to the office of bishop which in turn is transmitted through the reception of this sacrament. In the Catholic tradition this is the principle behind the belief in the apostolicity of the Church whereby each bishop can trace his line of ordination back to the apostles themselves who were directly empowered by Christ. Thus it is commonly held that once the chain of sacramental contact back to the apostles is broken, requisite power for the majority of the sacraments ceases to exist.

Among all the sacraments celebrated for the Catholic community of the baptized, the greatest is the Eucharist and the community member having power over the Eucharist is the priest. But priesthood is common to both bishop and presbyter so that both by ordination have equal authority over the Eucharist. But a potentially confusing situation in Church order is saved by the fact that only the bishop has authority over the sacrament of Holy Orders and in principle it is by this authority that Eucharistic ministers are provided. Thus although the presbyter has equal control over the greatest of the sacraments, nevertheless it is only through the bishop alone that the Church continues the Eucharist from generation to generation. Thus the bishop is easily distinguished as superior to the presbyter since the presbyterate depends upon the episcopate for its continuance. In turn both of these are easily distinguished as superior to the ordinary members of the Catholic community since they must depend upon the bishop and the presbyter for the Eucharist without which they would not be spiritually alive.

The primacy of control over the sacraments in Catholic Church order can be seen in a negative way in the order of deacon. Although the order of deacon was one of the three original offices in the Catholic tradition, it virtually disappeared for centuries. And the disappearance began once it was clearly decided by the Church that the deacon had no share in the priestly office. The Second Vatican Council has resurrected this office but it still remains virtually indistinguishable from lay ministry, the post-Vatican II replacement for minor orders.

Within the universal Catholic community of the baptized in contradistinction to each local community, Church order recognizes the highest position of all as the office of pope or Supreme Pontiff. Although it is the highest office in the Church it has always been the least secure. A primary reason is that the office of pope is not marked by any special sacramental control peculiar to itself. Thus the pope being essentially a bishop, enjoys no special advantage over any other bishop in the sacramental line that would clearly mark him as superior. For this reason at various times throughout the history of the Church his superiority has been questioned on these very grounds. Now when Saint Jerome asked the question "What can a bishop do that a presbyter cannot do," he answered it in the very next words of his question "except ordain?" This was sufficient in time to position a clearly established difference between presbyter and bishop. But when the same question was asked about the relationship between pope and bishop, the answer came to rest upon a power of jurisdiction.

The problem of jurisdiction has existed in the Church from its earliest days. The principle behind it was that Church order in practice existed within the call to service of a local Church or, as it was called in the very early days, a parish. In time each local parish had its bishop, its presbyters and its deacons and difficulty arose when a bishop or a presbyter attempted to administer a sacrament outside his own Church－that is within the parish of another bishop without that bishop's permission. Particularly distressing was the dispensation of the sacrament of Holy Orders outside one's jurisdiction.

Such jurisdictional questions which are so frequently mentioned in early councils came to be thematized under the categories of validity and lawfulness, categories borrowed from the Roman legal system. It could not be denied that bishops had the requisite power to ordain for that would be to destroy the intrinsic power of the very office of bishop itself. But should he ordain outside his own Church, he would be doing so unlawfully or illicity and the one ordained could be denied the lawful and licit practice of his office. Likewise it could not be denied that the presbyter had the requisite power to confect the Eucharist; but should he do so outside his own jurisdiction he could be doing it unlawfully.

But the sacramental system was not the only focus of jurisdiction. A second and very important focus concerned the question of who would preside among bishops in a given area. The bishops of apostolic or apostle-founded Churches were recognized as holding first rank and among these none shared the same prestige as the bishop of the Church at Rome with its two apostles Peter and Paul. But such prestige alone did not sustain the weight of a growing papal claim to the highest hierarchical position in the Church.

The medieval Church wedded jurisdiction and sacrament together as two sides of the same coin. While on the one hand power over the sacraments within the Catholic community of the baptized came from Holy Orders, this was not necessarily a complete power that allowed indiscriminate confecting of the sacraments. What was also necessary was a legitimate call to office in the CURA ANIMARUM. This distinction although in the same vein as the earlier one of lawfulness and liceity, was more sophisticated because in some cases it concerned validity. It did not, however, lessen sacramental power already traditionally attached to the offices of bishop and presbyter; rather it centered around powers attached to authority in the Church, namely the power of the keys. Thus the verticle line of authorization under the power of the keys started with the pope who in turn initially authorized bishops who in turn authorized presbyters.(1)

However the power of the keys still did not give the papacy a firm base in relation to other bishops largely because in Scripture the power of the keys was presented to all of the apostles as well as to Peter. Thus to position bishops in a vertical hierarchical scheme under the pope was never really established until the First Vatican Council in 1870. And that was a development well after the Reformation.

Church order as it has been described thus far has been within the Catholic community of the already baptized. But the basis of Church order rests upon the sacrament of Baptism; or to be more precise. Baptism is the sacramental base on which the whole structure of Church order rests. Now while one might get the impression from what has been expounded up to the present that Church order in the Catholic tradition is the result of ordinary sociological laws at work in an organization heavily influenced by Roman social structures in the first instance, medieval feudalism in the second and renaissance divine right of kings in the third, these laws alone could not account for the peculiarly Christian position concerning the minister of Baptism.

There is no written indication at all that there was any explicit consciousness in the early days of the Church of an unrestricted empowerment for the administration of the sacrament of Baptism. In the early Churches or parishes, Baptism was a community celebration administered by the bishop together with his presbyters and deacons and for that matter the whole community. Questions as to whether Baptism by others than community ministers would be valid first arose in the case of Baptism by heretics. What the early Church meant by heretics were basically Churches or parishes that were fully established with bishop, presbyters and deacons but because of a doctrinal or disciplinary dispute, were Churches in competition with those which held the Catholic faith and practice. The question arose that when someone from an heretical Church entered a Catholic Church, would he have to be rebaptized? After a certain amount of dispute, the Catholic Church decided that given the proper administration of the sacrament－that is, with the trinitarian formula during the washing－heretics were indeed baptized and only the anointing (the sacrament of Confirmation) was necessary for such people entering a local church. At the same time the validity of orders of such heretical churches was usually not accepted, so implicitly it had to be held that people outside the traditional ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon could indeed baptize.

It is not surprising that as a corollary of this question concerning the validity of Baptism celebrated by heretics, the added question should eventually arise as to the validity of Baptism celebrated by non-Christians. The answer to this question was side-stepped by Augustine in his work CONTRA EPISTOLAM PAKMENIANI, Book II. Said Augustine: "This is indeed another question, whether Baptism can be given even by those who were never Christians. Nor should anything be rashly asserted on this question without the authority of a sacred council equal to such an important question."(2) By Augustine's time, then, it was not a settled question and even he did not presume to give an answer on his own authority.

After the patristic period, as we enter the period of the middle ages, the problem seemed to reach the stage where it demanded an answer. When that answer came it was a clear one from a letter of Pope Nicholas I in November of the year 866. In the letter he told a group of bishops that all else being proper, whether the person baptizing is Jew, Christian or pagan, those receiving such baptism are indeed baptized.(3) So from the period of Augustine's quoted work (398) to Pope Nicholas' reply in 866, the question had been clearly resolved. The teaching of the Church was that indeed anyone was empowered to confer the sacrament of Baptism.

Saint Thomas Aquinas writing in the thirteenth century and probably around the year 1270, stated in the third part of the SUMMA THEOLOGIAE that just as any water at all is sufficient from the point of view of the matter of the sacrament of Baptism, so any man－even a non-believer or non-baptized person－is competent and can baptize in case of necessity. He goes on to say that the one who baptizes ministers only outwardly whereas it is Christ who baptizes inwardly and he can use any man in whatever way he wishes. The unbaptized person even though he does not belong to the Church in reality or in sacrament can belong to the Church in intention and likeness of action in so far as he intends to do what the Church does and he observes the form of the Church in baptizing. In this way he works as a minister of Christ. The reason for this, of course, is the necessity of Baptism, a necessity which Aquinas though the other sacraments do not have.(4)

The clearest statement that the teaching authority of the Church itself has made, was given at the Council of Florence which met from 1438 to 1445. This was a reunion council and in it an instruction to the Armenians was formulated which contained the following teaching on Baptism. "The minister of this sacrament is the priest, whose office it is to baptize (ex officio). But in case of necessity, not only a priest or deacon but a lay man or woman, in fact even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he observes the Church's form and intends to do what the Church does."(5) With this statement the Catholic tradition of the minister of the sacrament of Baptism reached its present maturity.

It is interesting to note that in Catholic thinking just as being in traditional metaphysics is considered the perfection of perfections because it is the ground that makes all other perfections possible, so Baptism is truely the sacrament of sacraments because without it no other sacrament is possible. In fact the Catholic community of the baptized which is the locus of all the other sacraments exists only by virtue of Baptism. Thus in a Church order that is based on authority over the sacraments, the empowered minister of Baptism poses a peculiar problem because everyone is equally empowered in Baptism within the Church community. Such a situation without an adequate theology behind it could easily cause the whole Church order structure to collapse in upon itself. In a limited sense this is what happened in the reformation thought of Luther.

  
  

1)The Council of Florence gave the clearest exposition of this vertical hierarchical line.

2)Cf. Sancti Aurelii Augustini, OPERA OMNIA Vol. IX (Parisiis: Apud Gaume Fratres, Bibiopulas, 1837), p. 107.

3)Cf. ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM, No. 335.

4)Cf. Q. 67 Art. 5 in Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, Vol.57 (New York: McGraw Hill, 1975), pp. 66-69.

5)Cf. Paul F. Palmer (ed.), SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY VOL I: SACRAMENTS AND WORSHIP (Westminster, The Newman Press, 1963), p. 99.


LUTHER'S POSITION

Up through the time of Martin Luther, the basic theology behind Church order as it had developed in the West depended upon a theological work believed to have been written by Dionysius the Areopagite in the first century of the Christian era. Since the author in the work claimed he was baptized by Saint Paul, this writing roughly held the same position in medieval theological thinking that the early second century letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch hold today in Vatican II thinking on Church order. The work consisted of four treatises, the second of which concerned the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In this treatise a mystical explanation was given to Church order in the verticle line. In effect it tended to soften the power-over-the-sacraments base while establishing a divine order in symbolism that was spiritually fruitful. Even though it is now known that this writing is a fifth-century forgery, nevertheless at that time it presented an adequate theological base for Church order.

During the humanistic revival of the fifteenth century with its emphasis on language study which included taking a fresh look at Scripture through the medium of the original languages in which the books of the Bible were written, the neoplatonic and non-scriptural character of the pseudo-Dionysian writings began to pale. Fresh insights into any theological question were now coming from the Scriptures themselves and it was into this scene that Martin Luther came.

Luther looked on existing Church order as kind of a tyranny contrary to the freedom of the Christian which he found so often expressed in the Epistles of Saint Paul. As he saw it, this tyrannical Church order consisted of two kinds of baptized members, the ordained baptized and the simply baptized. The former group although the smaller exercised enormous control over the latter which was the much larger group. Their control of Church order created a class society within the Church that might be graphically expressed as ORDAINED-baptized and baptized whereas according to Scripture Christians are BAPTIZED with some being BAPTIZED-ordained. Thus it was Baptism that gave every Christian his unique identity and status; any addendum was simply a community function extending from one's Baptism.

As for priesthood, it is through Baptism that the Christian enters this exalted state. Should one ask how those specifically called priests in the Church differ from those called lay people, Luther's answer was that the name "priest" was unjustly transferred from the many to a few thus causing an improper distinction among Christians that Scripture itself does not make. Those who have appropriated the name ''priest" to themselves are actually called "minister," "servants" and "stewards" in Scripture. Thus there is no vertical hierarchical arrangement of divine origin in the Christian community; rather there is, a horizontal added condition of service some members of the community have. Luther explained it thus: "Although we are all equally priests, we cannot all publically minister and teach. We ought not to do so even if we could."(6)

The evil of the old hierarchical Church order which saw some in the community usurping the rights of all, could be seen in several practices the most blatant of which were the denial of the cup to the laity and the imposing of obligations on the laity without their consent. In the denial of the cup to the laity, priests are claiming a dictatorship for themselves which they do not have. Since by the teaching of Scripture they are actually servants, it should be their duty to administer the body and blood of Christ under both species to those who desire it and whenever they desire it. As to the imposing of obligations on Christians, once again this is an aberration of the hierarchical class system. Luther believed that no one－pope, bishop or anyone else－had the right to impose any special obligation on a Christian without that Christian's consent. In short, within the community of the baptised, no relationship exists among Christians where one has authority over another.(7)

Luther and his followers were accused of attempting to get rid of the existing Church order by abolishing bishops. And indeed from what has been said above such a move would easily attain its desired goal. But in the Augsburg Confession, Philip Melanchthon claims that Lutherans did not wish to abolish the traditional office of bishop which had existed for so many centuries in the Church but rather wished to abolish what we might term prelates. Bishop is a ministry term which appears many times in Scripture whereas a term like prelate which is commonly used in the Catholic Church as a substitute for bishop, is a description of rank not taken from Scripture but rather from secular practice whereby someone is designated as superior to others. In actual practice this would mean the abolition of the relationship within the Church community based on control over the sacraments. The first casualty among the sacraments within such a change was Holy Orders. This could no longer be a sacrament because if it remained so, then by divine institution it would continue to produce a special group within the Christian community of the baptised, independent of community control. Such a group of its very nature would preside in the Christian community. The alternative was the Christian community as a whole having control over the sacraments by being the instrument through which one was rightly called to sacramental ministry.

  
  

6)Cf. Luther's "The Freedom of a Christian" in John Dillenberger, MARTIN LUTHER: SELECTIONS FROM HIS WRITINGS (New York: Snchor Books, 1961).

7)Cf. Luther's "The Pagan Servitude of the Church", ibid.


THE CATHOLIC ADJUSTMENT

The position of Martin Luther and his followers produced a positive and a negative effect on the Council of Trent's deliberations on Church order. In the positive vein, the Council firmly upheld a Church order which was grounded in control over the sacraments within the Catholic community of the baptized where the most important sacrament celebrated was the Eucharist and the key to the Eucharist was the sacrament of Holy Orders. In the negative vein the Council stepped away from the issue of the relationship between pope and bishops－the power of the keys－and left that controversial issue raised by the reformers hanging. For three hundred years this issue matured in the context of European political and social change until it was finally settled at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At this Council it became Catholic doctrine that the pope is the infallible head of the Church and his primacy is that of universal episcopal jurisdiction. The principle invoked was that these perogatives of the papacy are implicitly contained in the very concept of primacy in the Church. Once this was settled, the basic questions raised by Martin Luther concerning Church order could be addressed.

The most important question was the universal priesthood of all the baptized and how this coincided with the special hierarchical priesthood. A second question following from this was the very nature of sacramental control within the Church－what its role and function was and how it differentiated Christians within the Catholic community of the baptized. And finally, given the fact that anyone can have control over the sacrament of Baptism the very base on which the whole structure of Church order stands, what would be an adequate theology for ensuring that the whole structure would be less vulnerable to internal collapse.

The Second Vatican Council took up the problem of the universal priesthood of the baptized and its relationship to the hierarchical priesthood within the Church. In speaking of these two priesthoods, LUMEN GENTIUM, the Council's dogmatic constitution on the Church, states the following:

"Although they differ essentially and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial hierarchical priesthood are none the less ordained one to another; each in its own way shares in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest by the sacred power that he has, forms and rules the priestly people; in the person of Christ he effects the Eucharistic sacrifice and offers it to God in the name of all the people. The faithful, indeed, by virtue of their royal priesthood, participate in the offering of the Eucharist. They exercise the priesthood too by the reception of the sacraments, prayer and thanksgiving, the witness of a holy life, abnegation and active charity." (No. 10)

What this statement of the Second Vatical Council has done is to make it proper now to speak of priesthood in the Church in two ways, the priesthood of the baptized and the priesthood of the ordained. These priesthoods are essentially different but complementary. The essential difference in a general way is seen in the exercise of these two priesthoods. One－the ordained priesthood－is an active priesthood which can effect and offer the Eucharistic sacrifice whereas the other－the priesthood of all the baptized－is more of a passive priesthood whereby one is disposed to receive the effects of the active priesthood and all that this signifies., The principle of the relationship between the two is still one of control over the sacraments, principally the Eucharist, but the control is mutual because basically one priesthood cannot do without the other. The ordained priest, since he offers in the name of the baptized priests, is dependent upon their existence and the baptized priests are dependent in turn upon the leadership of ordained priests for the exercise of their particular priestly charism. Thus there is an essential not just an accidental relationship of one to the other.

The Council also expressed the Scriptural basis of both priesthoods. The priesthood of the baptized is explicitly mentioned in Scripture while the ordained priesthood is not. However for the baptized priesthood no special role is mentioned in Apoc. 1:6 and no clear role in 1 Pet. 2:9-10. Nevertheless the right to the title is there. Whence comes the right for bishops and presbyters to call themselves priests over and above their baptized priesthood? The Council indicates that they have the right to the title because they act in the person of Christ in their Eucharistic ministry. And since Christ is THE PRIEST in Scripture－particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews－the ministers who act in His name have the right to the title "priests" in a special way even though Scripture does not specifically call them such.

As for the very nature of sacramental control within the Church and how it differentiates, the Council enunciated a very clear and precise principle in its decree on the liturgy. The liturgy which is primarily the celebration of the sacraments and in particular the Eucharist, is seen as the action of Christ the priest and of His body which is the Church. Thus the liturgy is the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ in which full public worship is performed by the mystical body of Jesus Christ－that is, by the head and His members. The ordained priest, then, has power over the sacraments only as a vicar, a stand-in as it were for Jesus Himself. Thus sacramental control differentiates members in the Church primarily by designating those who represent Christ at the most solemn functions that He has given His Church to perform.

As for Baptism, nowhere is the primary action of Christ more clearly seen and the secondary role of His ministers more clearly indicated than in this Sacrament. "By His power He is present in the sacraments so that when anyone baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes." The Church, then, is one body and whenever it acts it always acts together with its head. But in the world of external signs when the head has need anyone can stand in for Christ because in the reality of the sacrament itself it is Christ who acts. Men then are primarily His ministers, His servants, His stewards, as He sanctifies the priestly people.

It is interesting to note that the Church has accepted Luther's concerns as valid starting points but from these starting points has reached rather different conclusions. The baptized are indeed priests but priesthood in the Church is not to be understood through the priesthood of the faithful but rather all priesthood in the Church is to be understood through the priesthood of Christ. Power over the sacraments does indeed differentiate the members of the Christian community of the baptized and is grounded in the Scriptural concept of minister, servant and steward but this ministry, service and stewardship is given to Christ as He sanctifies the members of the Christian community. Finally, human control over the sacraments while necessary is most graphically illustrated by Baptism as simply a secondary role. Since Christ Himself plays the primary role, one need not fear that Church order based on control over the sacraments is in any danger of collapsing in upon itself.

There are those who say that everything contained in the theology of Vatican II concerning Church order had been part of the theological patrimony of the Church well before Martin Luther came on the scene. That may well be true but in no sense does this detract from the role of Luther in helping to shape current Catholic thought. The philosopher Plato discovered several centuries before Christ that when one is dealing with general ideas, dialogue helps them to become clear and precise. In Church order it is largely through wrestling with Luther's ideas that Catholic thinking has reached its present stage.