作者：若干作者
作者：吴智勋
前言
读哲学的人，往往提到方法论的问题。他们都知道笛卡儿的理性主义是用了演绎法，即从一些先天的、与生俱来的、清晰明判的概念，演绎出其他原则来。经验主义的休谟用的却是归纳法，即从一些后天的经验与事实，归纳出一些规律来。至于康德，他的先验法则来个哥白尼式的革命，知识不是主体的认识与客观事物的符合，而是事物与主体的先验形式符合。总之，他们所用不同的方法，就产生了不同的结论。
神学方面言方法论是这十多年内的事，这并不是说，十多年之前，神学并无方法论。研究神学不能没有一套方法论的，只不过神学家并无刻意的把所用的方法拿出来讨论吧了。这十几年来，神学方法论大行其道。罗烈根(Bernard Lonergan)「神学的方法」一书(注一)，更挑起人对神学方法论的兴趣。穆勒(J. J. Mueller) 便归纳出四种不同的神学方法(注二)。至于伦理神学方面，谈方法论也大不乏人，如毕兰菲(David W. Blanchfield) 便大谈着名伦理学家麦哥铭(Richard A. McComick) 的方法论(注三)；古伦(Charles E. Curran) 的「伦理神学」一书，第二部份全是方法论问题(注四)，他自已也评论过赫宁(Bernard Haring)所用的方法(注五)。这些谈论神学方法论的着作，往往是从不同的角度去讲，笼统的称为方法论，容易使人迷惘。我尝试把各神学家所言的方法论，分四类去讨论：(1) 从出发点看方法论；(2)从伦理知识来源看方法论；(3) 从伦理模式看方法论；(4) 从伦理重心看方法论。
(1) 从出发点看方法论
方法是一种工具，帮助我们做反省，下结论。方法的出发点不相同时，亦做成重点或甚至结果有异。以下是取几位神学家做例子：
（一）罗烈根的先验方法论(Transcendental Method) 是以人类悟性结构做出发点。他发现人的认知有一基本模式，即意识有四个不同的层次(注六)：经验、理解、理性、负责。每个神学家做神学反省时，都应遵守这些先验规则，即留心所有相关的经验和资料，提出充足的、可能的解释，判断那一个是最合理的答案，并对自己的决定负责。这些意识层次应用到神学上，分为两组神学、八个应用特质(functional specialties)。第一组是中介神学(Mediating theology)，即神学是传达一个讯息：第二组是介定神学(Mediated theology)，神学本身成为被传的东西。
在中介神学中，其应用特质如下：
(1) 研究(Research)：研究有关资料，特别要注意其他学科所提供的事实。
(2) 解释(Interpretation)：理解消化所搜集的资料，例如：心理学、社会学、人类学对罪恶感的解释，能帮助我们对良心的了解。
(3) 历史(History)：这是对神学作纵的研究，如研究某伦理问题的历史发展。
(4) 辩证(Dialectic)：这是为解决资料解释的冲突，设法在合一的精神下，调和各种意见，提出一综合的主张。这是一种皈依(Conversion)，皈依提出新的视野，新的抉择。这能够是理智的皈依，把顽固的、导致错误的概念，予以彻底澄清。例如：有些教徒充满爱心去生活，却深信谁实行人工节育我必定下地狱，实在需要理智的皈依。皈依能够是道德的皈依，即认识到真正的价值，自由的去选择善，例如：有人奉公守法，不敢走私漏税，只是因为怕被查出要受处分而已，还未认识守法的价值，他需要道德的皈依。罗氏也提出宗教的皈依，此指天主的爱充满人的心，而人无保留的、无条件的驯服。这是天主的恩宠，人能与此恩宠合作，使皈依在生活上产生作用。
在介定神学中，亦有四种特质，不过方向刚好与中介神学的相反：
(5) 基础(Foundations)：基础是皈依的客观化，也是个自由决定。人经验到天主的恩宠，客观地表达出来。
(6) 教义(Doctrines)：教义表示事实和价值的判断，这能够是信理上的，也能够是伦理上的判定。教义是教会所判定，是基督徒信仰的肯定和鉴定。
(7) 系统(Systematics)：系统企固排除教义里不清楚、不稳定的成份，以便教义间有一内在统一性。各神学部门间亦应有一致性，如伦理神学对罪的解释，不应和圣经神学或信理神学的解释冲突，否则无法成为系统。
(8) 传达(Communications)：神学家必须把他们的讯息，用最适当的方法表达出来，否则神学会对我们所处的现实世原漠不相千。神学本位化或本地化就是这方面的尝试。
上面四个层次，两组神学，八种特质，可表解如下：
意识结构 中介神学 介定神学
负责 (4) 辩证 (5) 基础
判断 (3) 历史 (6) 教义
理解 (2) 解释 (7) 系统
经验 (1) 研究 (8) 传达
罗烈根的方法，其实是一般神学家应用着的，因为做神学工夫不能不牵涉悟性，只不过罗氏把我们的意识客观化，使我们更能了解自己，把握自己。倘若神学是信仰追求理解的话，则非要留心我们的认知不可。因此，悟性的结构就是神学的出发点。
（二）经验方法论(Empirical Method) 是以经验做出发点。经验方法并非经验主义，它是具有一个信仰幅度。天主是从人的经验与人接触，人经捡到自己是个奥秘，经验到天主的召叫，而自己必须作回应。救恩不再是个理智上的概念，而是活生生的经验。基督徒的伦理就是一个经验到自己在基督内被天主召叫的人的伦理。每位基督徒都在理智上知道基督降生救赎我们，以自己苦难圣死涤除我们的罪恶，并以复活恢复我们的生命，但经验方法论者更重基督的死亡和复活「如何」影响我们的生活；基督本人是我们伦理生活的泉源和模范，祂给予我们行动的力量，使我们生活中有基督徒的意向和信念，以祂作为我们伦理判断的标准。总之，人在生活中经验到基督爱的召叫，而以具体的行动回应天主这份恩宠。神学必须能反映这个事实。光是经验是不够的，神学应助人了解经验的意义，例如：人人都能在生命某阶段经验到痛苦，这并不是神学；但如果我们能以信仰的眼光，带出痛苦积极的意义，那才是神学。
有些神学家就特别从人的痛苦经验中做神学反省，例如解放神学家苏炳诺(J. Sobrino)就从人的痛苦做出发点。他并非从个人的痛苦着眼，而是侧重社会内人民普遍的痛苦。他经验到南美国家痛苦的原因，在于贫富悬殊，人民受政冶压迫，经济受人操纵，跨国组织控制了别国的命脉并干扰别人的内政。这种社会现象及文化背景迫使他喊出一个圣经的口号：「解放」。基督所宣讲的福音，必须助人解除不公义的束缚及制度。在他的神学里，他担任了先知的角色，谴责不公义的现象，指导人与贫苦受压迫的人认同。
人的经验是包罗万有的，因此经验方法论能概括很多基本上不相同的方法论。解放神学家是从社会上人普遍的痛苦经验开始，是个从下而上的神学方法。但有些神学家却从个人的宗教经验着眼．天主在人存在的环境中与他相遇，天主主动的接触人，人如何从伦理生活回应祂，服从祂。这个方法主要不是我做什么，而是天主要我做什么，对天主的启示，天主的召唤完全信服。总之，注意力是放在天主身上，是个从上而下的神学方法。
注一：Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972.
注二：J. J. Mueller, What are they saying about theological method?, Paulist Press, 1984.
注三：David W. Blanchfield, "Methodology and McCormick" in The American Ecclesiastical Review, 168(1974), pp. 372-389.
注四：Charles E. Curran, Moral Theology－A Continuing Journey, Notre Dame,1982.
(2) 从伦理知识来源看方法论
梵二肯定圣经是「神学的灵魂」(启示24)，要求伦理神学「应受圣经更多的滋养」(司铎16)，圣经顺理成章的成为伦理知识的来源。哲学伦理可以不牵涉启示，但伦理神学不要启示就不能称为神学了。圣经是伦理知识的来源，神学家是绝无异议的，产生争论的却是：圣经是伦理知识唯一的来源抑或是伦理知识的来源之一？
有些基督教的神学家倾向认为圣经是唯一的来源(注七)，对人的理智抱怀疑的态度。天主教的传统却认为圣经是伦理知识来源之一，因而产生不同的方法论。我们认为人的理智同样是伦理知识的来源，它并没有完全为罪所败坏，还能够分辨天主的计划，这就是自然律伦理的基础。从罗烈根认知的模式，更肯定了人的理智往伦理知识上的必然性。启示能光照理智，使它更充实，更完整，有更阔的视野，但启示不能取代了理智。天主教传统赞成良心是判断是非善恶的标准，而良心就是「正直的理智」。没有理智，人就没有善善恶恶的能力，缺乏了伦理的基础，也没有伦理责任可言；没有理智，人也没有推理、判断的能力。这是我们同意启示与理智并重的原因。
基于对理智的重视，我们只重各学科的成果。梵二清楚指出：「攻读哲学、史学、数学、自然科学及艺术，颇有助于提高人类对真、善、美的理解力，对于普遍价值的判断力」(世界牧职57)。此外，我们亦看重非基督宗教的伦理智慧，承认它与我们有共通之处。在高唱神学本位化的今天，我们更不能忽视中国传统的伦理思想。圣经新旧约也曾向当时其他民族的伦理借镜，如圣保禄便借用了斯多葛派及其他希腊的伦理思想。中国先贤的伦理，定有很多与基督徒伦理融汇贯通，相辅相承的地方。虽然有些基督教兄弟，对中国传统伦理颇有微言，甚至斥为「没有规范和动力的道德」(注八)，但大致上基督徒对中国圣贤的伦理总是怀着敬意的。张春申神父进一步认为天主启示孔子超自然的得救之道，由他去传播整个民族；孔子不光是古代一位圣人，他实在是中国天主教的「梅瑟」。张神父结论说：「在福音传入之前，中国人必须接受孔子传播的启示真理始能得救」 (注九)。这是一个很大胆的结论。站在一个中国基督徒的立场，我承认孔子的确受了天主的启示，但找吏认为孔子并非唯一受到启示的，启示亦不仅限于儒家，他们在福音未传到中国社会前起一定的作用。因此，在研究伦理学时，我们不光是引用一些中国圣贤的伦理，以便解释清楚基督徒的伦理，更重要的是能看出先贤的伦理在中国人的救恩史上面，曾占过一席重要地位。福音是中国传统伦理的继续和圆满。
伦理知识的另一个来源就是教会团体。教会的训导处有圣神的助佑和累积的经验，对伦理的指导有莫大的价值。虽然训导(Magisterium) 一词，在中古时曾一度分为牧者的训导(Magisterium cathedrae pastoralis) 和导师的训导(Magisterium cathedrae magistralis) (注十)，但从梵一到梵二，训导一词，完全是指牧者(即教宗及主教) 的训导。这里仍沿用这个意思，以免混淆，但没有否定神学家有训导的价值。
梵一以前，牧者的训导似乎没有特别影响伦理神学的方法。但从良十三开始，刻意要增强教会牧民的原动力，不断发出通谕。在位期间(1878－1903)，曾写了五十多篇通谕。伦理神学受其影响，慢慢从通谕训导里提取其内容。他的「玄妙莫测」(Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae,1880) 谈论婚姻及家庭生活，他的「新事」(Rerum Novarum,1891) 开社会正义问题的先河。前者影响着教会对婚姻的训导，例如庇护十一的「圣洁婚姻」(Casti Connubii, 1930)，梵二的「论教会往现代世界牧职宪章」，(Gaudium et Spes,1965) 中第二部份第一章「维护婚姻与家庭尊严」，与及富有争论性的保禄六世的「人类生命」(Humanae Vitae,1681)，都是进一步的发挥「玄妙莫测」。「新事」通论的影响更大，甚至被认为是伦理神学中论社会正义的基础，奠定了教会在正义问题上要走的路线。教宗庇护十一的「四十年」(Quadragesimo Anno,1931)，若望二十三的「慈母与导师」(Mater et Magistra, 1961)，保禄六世的「民族发展」(Populorum Progressio,1967)「八十周年」(Octogesima Aveniens,1971) 和当今教宗若望保禄二世的「论人的工作」(Laborem Exercens,1981)，都是在「新事」基础上论社会问题的。
1918年颁布了新的圣教法典，更使整个教会朝向罗马。圣教法典及教宗通谕已走进神学的结构里，伦理神学几乎成为教会训导处的神学。每一个伦理问题，神学家都要看看圣教法典怎样说，教宗的意见怎么样。教会训导处的权力到了庇护十二「人类」通谕(Humani Generis,1950)达于极点。教宗引用福音的说话「谁听从你们，就是听从我」(路十：16) (注十一)，要求神学家服从，并认为「这个神圣训导层，在信仰与伦理道德的事上，为任何神学家，都该是真理最近的，也是普遍的标准，因为主基督，曾把整个信仰的宝库 即圣经与属神的传统道理 都委托这个训导层，去看管，保卫，并予以诠解」 (注十二)。
现代的神学家多不满意他们的神学，只为教会训导处服务，神学沦为训导处意见的注脚。这种发展，是本末倒置，把对天主圣言权威性的解释(quo) 放在天主圣言(quod) 之上。神学与训导处都只应为天主圣言服务，quod应在quo之上(注十三)。
这里不打算讨论教会训导处与神学家的关系。我只想指出训导处的训导本身就是神学，谁能反对梵二的文献或像「慈母与导师」，「人类生命」等通谕本身就是神学，为伦理神学带来可观的资料呢？研究伦理神学实在不能忽略教会训导处，这可能是我们独特的方法论。
注五：Charles E. Curran, Critical Concerns in Moral Theology, NotreDame,1984, pp.3-41.
注六：Bernard Lonergan, op. cit. p. 9.
注七：参拙著「圣经与伦理神学的关系」，神学年刊(8)，1984，19-20页。
注八：章力生：「人文主义批判」、宣道书局，1968年，卷上，第贰篇，第三章，86－106页。
注九：张春申：「孔子、启示、中国历史与基督」、神学论集(7)，1971，37－38页。
注十：参Yves Congar, "A Semantic History of the Term 'Magisterium"' in Readings in Moral Theology, No. 3, The Magisterium and Morality, edited by Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick, Paulist, 1982, pp. 303.
注十一：参DS 3885.
注十二：参DS 3884.
注十三：Yves Congar, "A Brief History of the Forms of the Magisterium and Its Relations with Scholars", in Readings in Moral Theology, No.3, op. cit., pp.326.
(3) 从伦理模式看方法论
人生活不能没有伦理规律，伦理规律帮助我们评定行为的对错。伦理规律的基础在那里呢？伦理学家颇不一致，因为每人所用的模式不一样，故此产生不同的结论。伦理神学有时所谓不同的方法，原来是指伦理规律所本相异的模式。模式所用的名字颇不一致，有时使人产生混乱的感觉。
主要的模式之一是功利主义(utilitarianism)。此模式的目的是为最大多数的人带来最大的利益，并以此作为行为的选择。与此相近的是效果论(Consequentialism)，主张行为的对错，要视乎能否产生良好的后果。天主教伦理学家多喜用目的论(Teleology) 的名称。目的论认为衡量行为时，必须考虑所有可能的结果或目的；我们面对的善和价值都是有限的，因此不能先天地选定某种善或价值，而要把它们拿出来衡量，看看那个价值更高更迫切，从而选定它。以上三种论调意义接近，有些神学家干脆看成是同义词(注十四)。不少天主教伦理神学家把伦理规律所本的模式分为两大类，即目的论和义务论 (注十五)。
义务论(Deontology) 承认很多行为的道德性是由目的或效果去断定，但有些行为不管环境、目的、效果如何，总是不道德的。例如：说谎、自杀、绝育等，因为这些行为违反人性中的道德秩序，即违反了自然律。哲学家康德在伦理学上是个义务论者。传统天主教伦理神学多赞成此说，这派神学家甚至从圣多玛斯「神学纲要」取得支持：说话的自然意向是表达人的真正思想和感情，说谎是相反了说话的本质，亦因而相反人性，故不应为了避免某些恶而说谎(注十六)。今天，天主教伦理神学家中仍有些坚持此说的，如格林西(Germain Grisez)，康纳利(John R. Connery) 等。他们批评当今教会内的伦理神学家离弃传统训导，美其名为修正主义或中庸之道，投靠教会从前反对的功利主义或效果论 (注十七)。
至于中庸的伦理神学家却认为他们所用的模式，是传统效果论和义务论外的第三种，不应把这模式和效果论混为一谈。至于这第三种模式，至今还没有统一的称呼。古伦(Charles E. Curran) 称为综合目的论(Mixed teleology)或综合效果论(Mixed consequentialism) 以别于严格目的论(strict teleology) 或严格效果论(strict consequentialism) (注十八)。麦哥铭(Richard A. McCormick) 称为温和目的论(moderate teleology) 而称其他两类为绝对效果论(absolute consequentialism) 和绝对义务论(Absolute deontology) (注十九)。场合伦理学家福来奢(Joseph Fletcher) 是属于绝对效果论，即行为的对错，取决于它带来的效果；格林西属绝对义务论，认定有些行为，无论带来什么效果，总是不道德的，不应该做的。温和目的论者不同意绝对效果论，因为道德责任能来自效果以外的因素；他们也不赞成绝对义务论把善(good) 与公正(right) 分离，后者认定公正就是公正，不需要以善的效果作基础。温和目的论者认为衡量行为正误要用均衡理由(Proportionate reason or commensurate reason)，因此，不光是行为的效果，连达致这行为结果的方法亦在考虑之列。
我虽主张中庸的温和目的论，但本文不打算详述为什么那个伦理模式比较合理。我只想指出伦理学家自称用了不同的方法，有时是指上列不一样的模式。
注十四：Charles E. Curran, "Utilitarianism and Contemporary Moral Theology: Situating the Debate" in Readings in Moral Theology, No. 1, Moral Norms and Catholic Tradition, edited by Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick, Paulist, 1979, pp. 341-342.
注十五：Franz Bockle, Fundamental Moral Theology, Gill and Macmillan, 1980, pp. 235-247.
注十六：Summa Theologiae II -II. 110. 3-4.
注十七：Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. I. Christian Moral Principles, Franciscan Herald Press, 1983, Ch. 6.
John R. Connery, "Morality of Consequences: A Critical Appraisal", Theological Studies, 34(1973), pp. 394-414.
注十八：Charles E. Curran, "Utilitarianism and Contemporary Moral Theology", op. cit. p. 352.
(4) 从伦理重心看方法论
人的伦理通常可分两大部份：内在的道德主体和外在的道德世界。很多基本伦理神学书都这样划分(注二十)。在过去，伦理神学特别重视道德行为，常常讨论什么行为是对，什么行为是错；什么可以做，什么不可以做。这做成法律的意味很重，用的是以个案为中心的决疑方法论(Casuistic methodology)。从前伦理神学家所写的书，不少都是良心个案(casus conscientiae) (注廿一)，以帮助司铎听告解或解决牧民问题。这个方法论在梵二后受到很多伦理神学家的攻击，认为有法律主义的倾向，容易误导人以为满全法律条文是伦理生活最重要的事，或把注意力放在行为上面，把行为的规律绝对化。我们不能说这个方法论不能用，梵二后的今天，仍有伦理学家写良心个案问题 (注廿二)。
今日的伦理神学家倾向于把重心放在道德主体上面。行为的对错(rightness or wrongness of behaviour) 固然重要，但个人的善恶(personal good or evil) 更重要。我们关心的首先应是个人的善恶，其次才是行为的对错。要知道做了一个客观上是对的行为，不一定就使人成为善人；同样，做了一个客观上是错的行为，不一定就使人成为恶人。基督徒伦理基本上是一个使命，而非一条法律。因此，伦理神学应回到道德主体，他如何回应福音的召叫？如何选择他的回应？拒绝召叫(罪恶) 和回应召叫(德行、礼仪、祈祷等) 为主体有什么意义？总之，焦点集中在主体身上，他与天主的关系，与自己的关系，与别人的关系，与世界的关系。每种关系都是道德主体在生活中对天主召叫的回应。梵二的指示似乎证实这个方法论是适合现代基督徒的：「应特别注意的是改进伦理神学，其科学的体系应受圣经更多的滋养，说明教友在基督内使命的崇高，以及他们在爱德内为世界的生命多结美果的责任」(司铎16)。伦理神学主要不是说明个别的伦理行为，而是使基督徒了解自己的召叫，在基督内做一个更相似基督的人，满全基督之律，为天主、为别人，为世界、也为自己带来爱德的果实。
结语
伦理神学的方法论是一个复杂的问题，本文自然无法概括方法论的每一方面。从上述所讨论的方法论中，我们似可综合一个今日伦理神学应有的方法论。罗烈根的先验方法，是每个作思考反省的神学家都免不了的。每人都要搜集资料，消化资料，调和冲突，看看能否有突破，好能奠定基础，判定价值，成立系统，然后用适当媒介表达。这个方法自然不会和经验方法论有任何冲突，因为反省经验，亦要遵守这些先验规则，或更好说，先验方法必然的包括经验成份。在研究过程中，我们虽强调理性的能力，但同时肯定圣经启示、教会训导，先圣贤伦智慧累积的功用。因此，伦理神学不但是理性的，还要是受启示光照的，教会性的，合一性的，与人文伦理相辅相承的。在反省伦理规律时，伦理神学应坚决反对绝对效果论，因这模式纯粹以效果决定行为的对错，认为没有甚么规律是绝对的，一切相对着实用效果，漠视有些行为不论带来什么公益都不应该做这事实。另一方面，绝对义务论过份以责任，以法律为重，太重公正，甚至连善也要牺牲掉，有「人为安息日」的倾向。伦理神学似应走一条中庸温和目的论的路线，善与公正同样重要，使用均衡理由时，不但看行为的后果，也考虑行为本身和达成结果的方法。最后，伦理神学应把道德主体的善恶放在行为正误之上，主体对外的各种关系，他对天主召叫的回应，他的祈祷、圣事、礼仪生活，应比决疑的个案为重。我不敢说这是个完美的伦理神学方法，最低限度这符合梵二的精神。
注二十：如Timothy E. O’Connell, Principles for a Catholic Morality, Seabury Press, 1978.其书主要讲道德个体(Moral person)和道德世界(Moral world)。
注廿一：较著名的拉丁文著作有A. Lehmkuhl, E. Genicot-I. Salsmans, P. Palazzini-A. de Jorio等的「良心个案」。英文的有Joseph F. Wagner, The Casuist, 4 vols; Canon E. J. Mahony, “Questions and Answer”, 2 vols.
注廿二：铎声多年来断断续续的载了述之八十多号「良心问题」。
作者：杨玉莲
一、前言
在最近的十年里，神学的探讨上出现了一些新思想：耶稣是一位说故事者、圣经中的旅程故事等。这些新观念为神学上、圣经上和神修上的研究都带来新的探讨角度，使信友更能深入了解耶稣的宣讲及圣经故事的目的。
写这文章．目的是希望透过旅程故事的了解，使信友察觉到耶稣是在向他说故事，从而明白自己的回应应该是一个朝向天父的信仰旅程。在面对困难时，懂得接受挑战，勇敢面对，更重要的是懂得偕同主耶稣基督一起去走毕这信仰旅程，到达目的地。
由于「旅程」、「故事」是比较新的说法，所以在本文章的开始，本人是采用了John Navone的思想去介绍「故事」、「圣经中的故事」及「圣经中的旅程故事」，其后则以撒玛黎雅妇人的故事来加以阐释，作出一些综合及反省。希望这一切能为读者带来贡献。
二、简介「故事叙述」(STORY-TELLING)
(以下的资料主要是来自Tellers of the Word一书，Theses for the theology of story)
首先，让我们知道一个事实：人类是其故事的主人翁，是其主体，因为人是一种懂得说故事及造故事的动物。从生活经验中，我们知道人是喜欢说故事：小孩子喜欢在睡前要求听故事。渔夫喜欢说其打鱼所经历的故事；游客喜欢把其所闻说给别人听；长辈往往喜欢回忆及说其年青时的英勇故事；甚至现时我们所看的电视节目中，大部份都是剧集正在告诉观众不同类型的故事。由此，我们可知道人的确在不断说故事，听故事。
其次，故事是由说故事的人所创造出来的。那么，说故事就像工艺一样，需要雕琢修饰一翻，好能藉着技巧、手法把说故事者的目的及故事的意义表达得淋漓尽至。由于说故事者在说时也是在说其自己的经验、信念及价值观，所以听众往往被他领到做决定的层面上，也即是所谓回应的时候。简单来说，讲故事是讲者及听者一起共同创作的。如果在听故事的小孩不愿意相信你所说的，你根本不能说出甚么「白雪公主」或「狼来了」的故事，故事就说不成了。
然而，所有人类的故事都在提出问题或尝试解答有关人的最基本问题：就是生命及死亡。神于是被牵涉入每一个人类的生命故事之中，遂展开了故事的神学(Theology of story)。
神学再不是「神圣物件的科学」(Science of things divine) (注一)，而是神学家对于人对耶稣的故事的适当回应的不断反省。既然「神学」一字(theol ogos) 是神的话，那么重点该在于祂说话本身的行为，所以，要探讨的是「祂」怎样透过说话在现时向我们揭露自己及祂的救恩。此外，故事的特质是在使讲者和听者建立关系，所以众故事之背后故事是爱的故事。因此，故事的神学是有关人和那会讲话说故事的神的神学问题，并尝试带人进入天主的爱，爱的故事之中，使人的故事得以完满。
三、耶稣一生所说的故事
正如上述所说，所有人类的故事都是有关神的故事，所以我们可以说天主是透过人的故事被显示出来。但天主被人所认识的故事就是天主圣言 圣子耶稣基督。
耶稣是一位讲故事者。他一生的故事就是与人分享其做天父儿女的责任，及联结所有受造物归于圣父。在三十三年的生活中，耶稣不断以爱去显示给世人「爱」的真正意义及天主的真象，而藉着圣神，罪人得以皈依，成为忠实的基督徒。其实，去讲「喜讯」故事的及聆听的都是由于天主的恩宠 圣神，祂在两者身上奇妙地工作。
他对门徒施教时，时常喜用比喻。目的是藉一些人们能够容易明白及能触摸到的事情去了解更深的奥理真道。不过，有一个更大的比喻我们必须知道：耶稣自己是天主的比喻(注二)。耶稣所宣讲的是天主的国，要了解这个奥秘就是必需从讲者身上去了解，那即是说，是要求听者的投入，默观耶稣，进入他内才能了解明白而作出适当回应，而这个认识及皈依的深度是向无穷尽开放的(open-ended)，是视乎听者对讲者所说的真理认识有多少，以及对讲者本身的了解和默观有多深。
由此引伸，我们得知故事有一个非常重要的因素：听者的反应及回应是在乎讲者是否说得娓娓动听，具吸引力，但最重要的不是其所说的内容，而是他自己的作证，用身教来感动人去参与这个故事，一同创作。因此，不同的说法、不同的语调和不同的表达，都同样会有不同的反应。但我们无可否认，耶稣是一位最完美的讲故事者，他在吸引整个人类听他所讲的故事，归向他。
每次听完他所讲的故事之后，听众往往是充满惊奇的喜乐，这就是天主恩宠的奇妙特质。在每一个故事里，团结的天主圣三是故事的开始、中途及终向。因为正是祂在向我们说故事，邀请我们去寻求那无尽的爱，洞悉祂伟大奇妙的奥秘，同时也是在分享祂的美善。
注一：这句 “science of things divine”是引用John Navone: Tellers of the Word一书中，在导言里他所采用过的，pg. XV.
注二：「耶稣是天主的比喻」是出自Interpretation: "Jesus as the Parable of God in the Gospel of Mark" by John R. Donahue, October 1978.
四、圣经的旅程故事
我们会说圣经是一部天主启示的书，是有关祂怎样从太初就爱了人，拯救全人类的喜讯。若从另一角度来说，它是一部有关天主及神所拣选的人的「旅程故事」。亚巴郎、梅瑟、耶稣、伯多禄和保禄等都有他们自己的旅程去回应那为了人民的神圣召叫。透过他们的故事和他们与天主之间的关系，我们更加能够了解和认识天主。总括来说，圣经的故事是便人从不同的方向，怀着期望去认识爱慕天主，而且还藉着一连串的旅程故事展露出天主是谁以及我们是谁(Who God is and who we are)。
现在让我们看看一些旅程故事。相信大家都知道支配着整个旧约故事是「出谷」的故事，而支配着新约的便是基督的故事。新约是用新的旅程故事，有关新梅瑟、新「出谷」及新以色列的故事来把旧约从新阐释。耶稣是在太初已存在的圣言，他是被圣父所派遣到人间并从人间返回天父去。他是从加里肋亚到耶路撒冷开始他的旅程，而这个旅程其后是由他的门徒承接起来，从耶路撒冷延展至世界的地极。除此之外，在他所讲的比喻中，有许多还是旅程故事，如浪子的故事等。
以下是圣经旅程故事的一些特点：
(一) 每一个旅程故事都包含着三个内在主观性的因素：超验之神(transcendent spirit)、自我超越的领袖(self-transcending leader) 及自我超越的团体(self-transcending community)。
在旅途上，天主的神在默感、带领及赐予力量。旅途的过程是在经验那超验之神的权能、光照及许诺，而对这经验作出的回应。故此，旅程包含着开放的回应和服从那神在自己生活中的呼召。祂是超验的正因为祂所默感、带领和赐予力量的人都能藉着祂、因着祂而变为超越性。
从自我超越的领袖身上，我们可以察看到超验之神的效果。透过那些个别被召的人，超验之神向整个团体显露自己，并转化它成为一个在信、望、爱中不断自我超越的共融团体，因为超验之神在领袖身上所作的是为他人、向团体开放的。
自我超越的团体是由超验之神透过自我超越的领袖所带领着的。因此，去行走旅程是超越之神结合整个团体，使它迈向救恩之门。
耶稣的生命是在天主的神临于玛利亚而开始的。他的使命也是由天主的神降临于他的受洗时而开始的。更因祂的降临，教会之所以诞生，同普世万民，为复活的基督作证。从这里，以上的三个因素的互相关系，相信已经很清楚及具体的表达出来了。
(二) 每一个旅程的开始是由困难、问题或危机所引发的。
面对这般的情况，人会挣扎、寻求解决，期望「出谷」。于是圣经的旅程故事的出发点是在于人被召去解决困难，提出问题及寻求回答。但解决方法及答案的质是由他自己所负责的，因为这是受他的回应所决定的。
(三) 旅程的动力是由信、望、爱所支撑的。
团体对其首领充满信心，正如基督的团体因信主基督而结成一体。信德能使团体在行走旅程时所遇到的混乱和逆境中挣扎，充满力量，努力不懈的走毕旅程。
到达福地的希望是整个出发的推动力。我们离开出发是怀着希望到达目的地。行动是希望有好的改变，所以希望是自我超越的参与着善。
爱，是一个回应及责任。出于爱，人被召叫开始其旅程故事；由于爱，人才能有其「出谷」事件。每个旅程故事是爱使人有更丰盛的存在。爱克服一切，使人不断的自我超越，而超越就是回应那召唤我们离开自己的真理力量。
耶稣是充满着上主之神；他把自己的生命献给世人，遂成为我们的道路、真理及生命。他是人存在的开始及终向(Alpha and Omega)。因为他，在他内，天主被人认识和经验为 爱，所以人愿意及不断的向着天主开放和追求祂那超越的爱。
(四) 圣经的旅程故事常含有家、无家及回家的特质。
梅瑟的出谷纪是从一个不是真正自己的家园开始出发，经过四十年的流浪才到达天主所预许的福地。但后来的充军使以色列饱尝家园毁灭，无家之苦。最后，他们终于被释放回家，遂构成一个新的「出谷」旅程。
新约时代把家及回家的意义扩大延伸。家是指我们的源头，生命的开始。耶稣从圣父来到世间又从世间回到祂(注三) 生命之源那里去。同时，在另一方面，看见耶稣也即是看见天父，他在祂内，合二为一。故此，耶稣在这世间上时常在家里(源头)。此外，他又说过谁听从及遵守他的话，他就是他的母亲、兄弟和姊妹。家，遂在那些存留在他的话里的人中间。
回家是聆听及遵守圣言的动力，也是认识和见到天父的动力。既然回家是回归天父的动力，那就要以心神和真理，以及信任的爱去回归。在回去时，我们不是单独的，我们是有指标的道路的(若14：3ff)。回家是对真理回应的动力：「谁爱我，乃遵守我的话，我父也必爱他，我们要到他那里去，并要在他那里作我们的住所。」(若14：23)。家是圣父的居所。祂住在那些寻求真理、爱真理及忠实地生活的人的心里。这就是天国的临在，平安就是在家的经验，是彼此的认识及互相的接纳。
(五) 自制、克己和弃绝在旅程当中是需要的。
旅程是意味着一个分离，离开自己而面向新的我，新的方向和新的事物。所以，克己能帮助我们从那些防碍我们走向更美善的生活困难中挣扎和克服，使我们能解放于自由中。
(六) 迷失路途
犯罪是迷失了路，道路(Hebrew：hata)，四处流浪(Hebrew：avon)，而悔改是回归(Hebrew：shuv)。这指出：在旅途中寻找道路是会遭遇到许多困难，但我们千万不可没有目的地流浪。在出发时，我们已将目标放准，努力迈向目的地，故此面对着日常生活的挑战时，勇气及辨明是极需要的。
(七) 记起路途在圣经旅程故事中是十分重要的。在旅程中的团体是会回忆起天主在过往为他们所作的奇异工作，于是旅程是在参与天主在将来所作的奇妙工作。
回亿创造将来，只有那些忆及许诺的才会察觉它将来的实现。他们之所以有将来是因为他们了解在过往从中的真正意义。
(八) 旅程带给人无限的成长。
为了成长，人是愿意冒险、甚至受苦。旅程故事已假定成熟的主要条件是成长的能力(capacity for growth)。这成长是一个方向的移动，为个人及社会的发展无限制的开放。
(九) 最后，不屈不挠的精神是每一个旅程故事的基本必须条件，因为世上是充满了邪恶的势力。
在旅途中，我们虽然会跌倒，受到迫害，遭受痛苦等，但只要我们屡败屡战，怀着坚定不移的信心，我们终会到达目的地。
经过以上的介绍，对于旅程故事的认识已略知一二。综合来说，旅程故事包含着内在及外在的旅程。外在的是透过时间和空间移动，而内在的是在存在的奥秘中移动。再者，外在的是一个计划，是内在旅程精神的比喻；而内在的则是其意义，在伴着外在旅程。在此，就以若望福音来作一个例。若望福音告诉基督往圣父去的旅程故事。在加里肋亚和撒玛黎雅的众旅程当中，耶稣所宣讲天主的圣言是记录在「征兆之书」内(Book of Signs)。这「征兆之书」其实就是回归天父的旅程，包含着耶稣的一生，经过死亡及复活而成为光荣复活的基督。这些可见的旅程是基督朝向天父内在活动的「征兆」，也是基督徒宗教经验的质，也即是说：每位基督徒该有回归天父的旅程的宗教经验。
注三：这思想主要出自若16：28。
五、「撒玛黎雅妇人」的旅程故事分析
为了更深入了解圣经的旅程故事，以及与我们自己的关系，现引用若望福音第四章「撒玛黎雅妇人」的故事来加以阐释。在介绍时，故事是当作一个话剧来处理，分为两场。
(甲) 与上下文之关系
第二章至第四章是一个周循 由加纳至加纳。首先，耶稣是从加纳开始到耶路撒冷、撒玛黎雅、而返回加纳(加里肋亚)。这是一个贯通「世上王国」的回归旅程。既然是一个旅程，耶稣是必须经过撒玛黎雅，因为加纳至加纳是一个传教的旅程。
(乙) 戏剧的目的
总括来说，其目的是寻找那些迷失的。这一幕是要指出耶稣的寻找和那妇人信仰的成长。
(丙) 背景
耶稣和一个孤独者。耶稣坐在雅各伯泉旁，邻近息哈尔；那是大约中午(第六时辰)。当时他很疲倦，口渴，是处于需求的状态中，但他仍然对四周寻找的可能性留意。他是以人的知识及敏锐与那妇人交往。在另一方面，不可忽略的，是那妇人处于她的孤独之中。
(丁) 戏剧与架构
整个故事是一出两幕剧，而这处所谈及的只是第一幕。这幕也可分为两场。以下是它的编排及介绍(注四)：
第一幕：耶稣与妇人的对话
第一场：活水(4：6－15)
对话一(4：7－10)
耶稣：请给我点水喝
(耶稣是突破了当时的社会习俗，与一位撒玛黎雅妇人谈话。)
妇人：你既是个犹太人，怎么向我一个撒玛黎雅妇人要水喝呢？
(妇人拒绝了耶稣)
耶稣：若是你知道天主的恩赐，并知……
(耶稣是提出两个挑战；就是(1) 认识是谁在与她说话和(2) 向他请求活水。)
对话二(4：11－15)
妇人：先生，你连汲水器也没有，而井又深，你从那里得那活水呢？
(妇人误解「水」是指普通物质的水)
耶稣：凡喝这水的，还要再渴；但谁若喝了我赐与他的……将在他内成为涌到永生的水泉。
(耶稣在加以澄清)
妇人：先生，请给我这水罢！……
((2) 她终于请求水)
第二场：向天父的真朝拜(4：16－26)
对话一(4：16－18)
耶稣：去，叫你的丈夫来，再回这里来。
(耶稣采取主动，显示他认识她的生活。这是一个转捩点。)
妇人：我没有丈夫。
(她在拒绝面对现实)
耶稣：你说：我没有丈夫，正对；因为你曾有过五个丈夫，而你现在所有的，也不是你的丈夫……
(耶稣在列出她的行为)
对话二(4：19－21)
妇人：先生，我看你是个先知。我们的祖先一向在这座山上朝拜天主……)
(她在逃避耶稣，遂转个话题)
耶稣：女人，你相信我罢！到了时候……
(耶稣解释朝拜天父是由真理之神所推动)
妇人：我知道默西亚要来……
((1) 认出耶稣就是默西亚)
经过了简明的介绍，现在就以「旅程」的角度来分析一下：
让我们先谈耶稣的旅程。这幕是耶稣的旅程被中断的一幕。
由于人性的软弱疲倦(注五)，他朝圣的旅程正面对着会变为普通旅程，甚至沦为漫无目的的徘徊，他几乎失落了自己。其实，旅程的目的就是这个打扰，透过我们神修生活中的中断，圣神活跃地工作。
至于那妇人，她的旅程本来就是一个普通「出外」的惯常事件，但这外在，物理(physical)的旅程却成为一个内在精神的旅程。她所取得的再不是物质的水而是活水。还有一点，她的旅程不是止于井旁，反而由惯常的「出外」变为一佰回归的旅程 传教的旅程(4：39－42)。
然而，成长是这位妇人的内在旅程。仔细研读，我们可以察觉她对耶稣态度的转变。首先，她在弃绝耶稣，「你是个犹太人」；后来态度软化下来称他为「先生」；跟着以宗教的幅度来形容耶稣为「一位先知」；到最后更能以真正基督徒的认识称耶稣为「默西亚」。从中，我们可以看出她的跳跃，信仰的成长就是她内在旅程的后果。
此外，危机是旅程的决定点。「危机」，从希腊文中(Krisis) 是解作一个判决，所以它是决定的一刻，也即是真理的一刻。危机是一个转捩点，可决定旅程变为「朝圣的」或是「徘徊的」。在这故事中，耶稣成为那妇人生活的危机。耶稣遭受她的弃绝，但他并没有接受，反而他以光进入她内，给她挑战。这个挑战遂变为决定接受光或拒绝光的时刻。终于，她接受挑战，还作了一个决定性的改变，使漫无目的的旅程变为朝向天父的旅程。
注四：参考资料是采用Raymond Brown, the Anchor Bible "The Gospel According to John" pg 177ff.
注五：耶稣的疲倦除了是指身体上之外，也是指出一个征兆：就是他苦难的旅程。井旁的故事说出耶稣是怎样带领人归向天父，而他苦难的故事也正是具体表明透过他的救赎，整个人类才能回归父那里去。
六、从「撒玛黎雅妇人」故事来看旅程故事的一些特点
在朝圣的旅程中，耶稣被去汲水的撒玛黎雅妇人所打扰，而开始了那妇人的旅程故事。首先，耶稣是主动的开始她的旅程(v.7)。他邀请的目的是向她挑战，使她寻求认识「天主是谁」及「我是谁」(v.10)。在邀请时，耶稣是与她一起，陪伴着她，并为她澄清、指引和开道(v.13)。由于耶稣诚意的邀请，那妇人终于接受了，并主动的开始她内在的旅程(v.15)。诚然，她的旅程是由于耶稣在给她挑战，使她产生问题、危机；再加上她自己向真理的开放之下而开始的(v.19)。行走时，耶稣更以信、望、爱来坚强她，使她明白耶稣自己本身就是信、望、爱的泉源(注六) (v.21)。另一方面，在旅途中，她是从无家(v.22)而变为有家可归的人(v.23)，就是以心神，以真理朝拜天父。这就是整个旅程的高峰。最后，她是充满着无比的喜乐(v.28)去开始其传教的旅程(v.29)。
七、综合及反省
从经验中，我们知道在听故事时，我们不单祇在听故事的内容，其实也是在认识和默观说这故事的那位。人在说话时，除了在传通讯息之外，也是整个自己，包括思想，心底的意念都融会在言词里，所以说故事者也是在说出他自己是谁，把自己表达出来，让人了解他的信念、生活、价值观等。同样，天主的圣言 耶稣基督在向每一个人讲故事，叙述天主的国、天主的伟大及对人类的慈爱。要了解这一切，就必须从圣言身上去了解，进入他内，才能明白天主的真理奥秘。
讲故事时所采用的方法技巧也会为听者带来不同的反应和回应。如果我们朗诵一首情诗，用了粗野冷酷的声音和语调来诵读，必定会使听者不堪入耳，惹起不满，鼓躁起来。但假如诵读的那位溶汇了诗中的感情，把自己化成主角向自己的爱人细诉，效果就会更加理想，使听者深深感受到诗中所流露出的爱意。耶稣也是一样，他用爱来向我们倾诉，以比喻的方式来向我们展示天国的奥秘，更以挑战来邀请我们向他回应，开始我们朝向天父的旅程。
旅程可以是一个普通的旅行，一个徘徊、或一个漫无目的的流浪，或是一个以天父为目标的朝圣。在出发时，可能是没有目标或是目标不清淅，但一个普通平凡的出外也可被耶稣转化为一个朝圣的旅程，尤如「撒玛黎雅妇人」的故事一样，所以耶稣是时刻在邀请我们加入回归天乡的旅程。
旅程故事是藉着问题的刺激，生活的质疑使人认识自我，反省自己的经验，察觉自己的改变及天涯的跳跃。这就是成长。这成长就是向那超验之神无限的开放，投奔祂。故此，旅程故事是在说出人的进化 朝向基督的进化，以及他的「成人」(Becoming)。
在朝圣的过程中，耶稣一直在陪伴我们每一个人，所以我们并不会弧单。在另一方面，人将在悔改、宽恕、好客及共融的气氛中成长，肖似基督。最后，耶稣更以喜乐平安倾注入我们心中，而主所赐的平安使我们深深的与他契合起来。喜乐的泉源是来自与天主的相知相契，并与祂为友。天主还使我们充满圣神的喜乐向着天下万民传扬祂爱的音讯，为祂作证。
当耶稣，我们的师傅在向我们讲故事时，我们该注意四点：
(1) 留心细听(Be attentive)
听故事是要用心去听才会把内容留意，了解讲者的背景和目的，以及他的心意、希望。不然，我们便会白白溜走他的讯息，错失良机，放过与天主相知相契的机会，正如耶稣说过：有耳的，听罢。
(2) 聪明敏悟(Be intelligent)
用心听，目的是去悟其道理，这样才不曾「听而不闻」。但能否听得懂讲者的道理，背后的训示和邀请，这是极需要我们聪敏及才智去理解的。
(3) 适当的理解(Be reasonable)
除了明白整个讯息之外，还要知道讯息的背后内容和征兆，所以我们需要运用理智去反省以往的经验，从而面对此理解而作出判断，决定接受邀请和挑战与否。
(4) 负责任(Be responsible)
决定方向是对讯息的回应，更是对讲者的个人深入的回应。只有这段的回应才是一位负责任的听者，才不往讲者的一番心事。
以上四点是每位听者都该经验的步骤，也是开始其旅程之路的必经步骤，希望每位听者 被邀请者都能经过净化，在主的光照下，勇敢的接受挑战，朝向天父，与祂紧密的契合起来，在圣神内呼祂为「阿爸！父啊！」
注六：这句子于出于The Way "Faith and Hope and Love" by Joseph P. Whelan, October 1968.
九、书目
(1)John Navone, Tellers of the Word, Le Jacq Publishing Inc., New York, 1981.
(2)John Navone, The Jesus Story: Our Life as Story in Christ, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 1979.
(3)Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (Anchor Bible), Doubleday, New York, 1966.
(4)神学论集，第五十一期，「路加福音中『旅程叙述』的一个意义 训练门徒(上）」，高慧琳译，一九八二年春。
作者：罗国辉
当别人知道我是攻读「教会礼仪」的时候，往往都给我一个莫名其妙的反应，不单是教外人士，甚至连教友对「礼仪」两字也是知其所以而不知其所以然，故此，实在有为「教会礼仪」澄清一些观念的需要。
其实，今日天主教常说的「礼仪」乃是中译希腊文Leitourgia之教会术语；而Leitourgia这「词语」之所以成为基督徒术语，也是经过一段历史的过程。
字源
首先Leitourgia在古希腊时代的古典用法是指「公务」或「为大众(社会) 的服务」，这「公务」是一份光荣，以表达个人或某一家族对大众及国家的爱戴，但是到了希腊时代晚期(公元前三世纪后)，这词语渐渐离开原来的意义，而用于某人或某一家族(社会阶层)自愿或强迫性地为某种利益而必需承担的「职责」，或借用来统称任何「服务」和「事奉」，包括纯个人性的职务，故而失去了「公共」服务的意义。这词语接着也应用于当时的宗教(特别是神秘宗教上)，作为人对神祇必需的「事奉」和「礼拜」(与一般自然宗教礼拜神明的意义相同，也和一般所谓「人」对「神」的事奉和责任同义。)，而这些「事奉」和「礼拜」往往是由某些受托的人物按着一定的仪式所举行，它所着重的是「一套必须的拜神仪式」，而失去了Leitourgia原本的「公务」或「社会服务」的内容。(1)
旧约七十贤士本
在圣经旧约被翻译为希腊七十贤士本(2) 期间，Leitourgia就被用了一百七十次之多，且刻意地被用于有关「肋未」和「司祭」在帐棚、会幕或圣殿里向雅威的「礼拜」(如：出：廿八－卅九；户四：八；编下卅一：2；则四十一－四十六；特别是：户十八：20－24；编下卅一：2；则四十四：15－16)而群众的服务和向雅威的礼拜则以另一词语Latreuein或Douleuein来翻译(如：出一：14；六：6)。这种分别显示当时译者刻意表达他们心目中的Leitourgia就是「上主所设立(来自法律者上)，并由特选的人物 肋未和司祭所做的仪式；换句话说、即是「一套官方及专职化的礼拜」。(3)
新约
Leitourgia一词及其演变在新约当中，共用了十五次，其中作一般「服务」，或「事奉」的意思有：罗十三：6；十五：27；斐二：25－30；格后九：12；希一：7－14；用作旧约「司祭敬神」的有：路一：23；希八：2－6；希九：21；希十：11；(在希伯来书的用法是类比性的)，用作属神(精神) 敬礼的有：罗十五：16；斐二：17；而唯一似乎用作狭意地指基督徒和相聚敬礼的有：宗十三：2(然而释经学家对这章节的解释各有不同，但一般的意见是如在希伯来书一样，是以旧约的敬礼的词语作类比，突出基督徒敬礼的真实性、独特性、超越性，而非旧约七十贤本里的用意。) (4)
早期教会内的应用
在教会的最初两个世纪，Leitourgia也多次用在希腊文教会文件中，如用作旧约司祭敬礼的有：初世纪的格来孟前书(5) 卅二、2；四十、2；用作爱德行动的有：第二世纪荷马牧人传(6) 比喻五、3、8；用作「事奉」天主的有：格来孟前书卅四、5，牧人传(7) 比喻七、6，比喻九、27、3；用作团体中每人的职责者有：格来孟前书四十一、1；渐渐也引申到执事、长老(司铎) 和监督(主教) 职务上，类比旧约的司祭，如初世纪的十二宗徒训诲录十五：1，格来孟前书四十四、2－6，三至四世纪欧瑟比教会史(8) 三、13、34；甚至施洗，举行晚课为称为Leitourgia，而Ancira(314) 和安提约基亚(341) 的主教会议他用之统称基督徒的庆典；早自第四世纪Serapion礼文(9) (十一、3) 已称感恩祭为Leitourgia。于是后来东方教会则保留这词语，专用于称呼感恩圣祭为神圣的Leitourgia。比如金口圣若望感恩经(10)则常将此词句用作「神圣的事奉」解。
拉丁译文
圣经拉丁通行本(11)，将Leitourgia这词语的内容译为Ministerium (臣仆、司祭) ，Officium (职任) ，Munus (职守本份)，Caerimonia (礼节)，Opus (工作、工程)，Servitus (服役事奉)，Cultus (崇拜、风俗)，Devotio (虔诚、奉献)，Sacramentum (密事、入伍)，Mysterium (神秘、密事、奥理)等等。
写于5－6世纪的圣本笃会规(12) 则称每日的「时辰礼赞」为Opus Dei (天主的工程)，如十九章、四十三章、四十九章等。
约六至七世纪的罗马礼书Sacramentarium Veronense(13) 的93号祷文则称「感恩祭」为Mysteria，并解释为「实现(履行) (上主) 救赎我们的工程」。
至于一般论及「教会礼仪」的作品，自古时到十二世纪(即圣经的狭意观念形成前)，常用Sacramentum (密事) 和Mysterium (密事、奥迹)；从第七世纪到十七世纪，则常用Officium (职任)，这词也常见于一九一七年的圣教法典(如2256、1)：自十七世纪后，则常用Caerimonia (礼节)；十六世纪到廿世纪，则常用Ritus (规矩、敬礼)；在经院学派则常用Cultus (崇拜)，而Cultus正式使用于教会文件是在一百六八年「日课经」的颁布(Bulla Quod Ad Nos)
Leitourgia的译音拉丁文Liturgies仅在十六世纪使用于受东方教会影响，的论感恩祭经文和其仪式的着作，如G. Cassander, Liturgia de Ritu et Ordine Dominicae Caenae, Quam Celebration Graeci Liturgiam, Latini Missam appelarunt 1558.
直到十八世纪之后，拉丁文Liturgia则需被用作统称一般教会「庆典」(礼仪)。然而Liturgia正式用于教会文件中是一九七四年的Auctorem Fidei，遂渐渐战为常用之教会术语，好像梵二会议的礼仪宪章也就是「Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia」(14)。
中文意译
中文「礼仪」一词作为教会术语，解作「教会庆典(敬礼)」，首先见于一六七O年，利类思译「弥撒经典」当中，用来意译Feria IV Cinerum (灰之星期三) 为「圣灰礼仪」。从此则常用于中国天主教会的作品，梵二文件Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia则译为「礼仪宪章」了。
以上是Leitourgia (中文意译为「礼仪」) 一词的字源和在教会文字、资料及文件上的应用历史；然而这名词本来的意义和后来借用的意义和译文，又是否能够表达现在教会所了解及愿意表达的内容呢？
所以，实在有必要将梵二大公会议「礼仪宪章」所了解的「礼仪」作简要之说明。
(1)Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. G. Kittel), vol. IV, Eerdmans, Michigan, 1985, pp. 215-219.
(2)The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (with an English Translation by L.L. Brenton) London, 1974.
(3)Concordance to the Septuagint, vol. II , (ed. 'E. Hatch, H.A. Redpath), Akademische Druck-u. Verlagasanatalt, Graz-Austria, 1954, pp. 872-873.
G. Kittel, op. cit., vol. IV, pp. 219-222.
(4)A Concordance to the Greek Testament, (ed. W.A. Moulton, A.S. Geden) Clark, Edinburgh, 1970, pp. 597.
The Analytical Greek Lexicon, Bagster, London, 1967, pp. 250; G. Kittel, op. cit., vol. IV, pp. 222-239.
A.G. Martimort, The Church at Prayer, New York, 1968, pp. 1-8.
L. Eisenhofer, J. Lechner, The Liturgy of the Roman Rite, New York, 1961, pp. 1-7:
S. Marsili, "Liturgia" Anamnesis I, Casale, 1979 pp. 33-45; Catholic Encyclopaedia, New York, 1967, s.v. "Liturgy" Dizionario Teologicio Interdisciplinare, (ed. L. Pacornio), Casale, 1977, s.v. "Liturgia".
(5)中译本见吕穆迪译，宗徒时代的教父，香港，1957，19－76页。
(6)中译本见吕穆迪译，宗徒时代的教父，326－440页(即何而马神牧启示录)。
(7)中译本见吕穆迪译，宗徒时代的教父，1－18页。
(8)英译本见(Tran. A.G. Williamson) Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1983.
(9)英译本见L. Deiss, Spring Time of The Liturgy, Minnesota, 1979, pp. 183-208.
(10)原文见A. Hanggi, I Pahl, Prex Eucharistica, Fribourg,1968. pp.224-225. 中译见罗国辉译，东方教会金口若望的感恩礼典，神学年刊(3)，1979，香港，53-81页。
(11)泛指圣热罗尼莫(347－419) 的拉丁通行本，见圣经辞典 (思高圣经学会编著)，香港，1975, 908号；此处用修订版Biblia Sacra, Vulgatae editionis, Sixi V Pont. M. Issu Recognita et Clementis VII Auctoritate Edita, Roma, 1822.
(12)Regula Monasteriorum, (ed. L. C. Mohiberg) Benedictus, Vibolone, 1981.
(13)Sacramentarium Veronense, (ed. L. C. Moniberg) Roma, 1978.
(14)见注四。
梵二礼仪宪章
梵二大公会议「礼仪宪章」开宗明义就在第二节，引用降临后第九主日(Sacramentum Veronense，93号，即今日常年期第二主日) 献礼经所说的，「礼仪」就是上主在我们身上「实行救赎的工程」。然后更进一步的在第一章五至八节里详细说明天主的「救世工程」完成于耶稣基督的降生成人、死而复活的逾越奥迹里；而教会 基督的奥体，就是救赎工程在时空里的延续和实现；故此教会以不同的方式，特别在福音的宣讲和施行圣事当中，继续实现这救恩史。事实上，在「礼仪」当中，基督实在临在于圣言的宣讲，圣事的施行，(特别是圣体奥迹)，圣职的服务及奉主之名彼此相聚的天主子民中间；同时，教会也通过基督向圣父献上心神和真理的崇拜。故此「礼仪」基本上就是基督执行祂的司祭职务。
换言之，「礼仪」的本质，就包括了(一) 基督临在他的子民 教会当中，藉着有效的标记施行祂「救世的工程」；(二) 同时也是整个基督的奥体(教会)，元首和肢体，一心一德向天父的公共敬礼。由这两个基本的要素就构成基督信仰中的所谓「礼仪」，即七件圣事、日课(圣经颂赞和代祷) 和准圣事。
「礼仪」一词的商榷
从以上梵二对「教会礼仪」的了解，我们可以试固分析教会历代所用有关「Leitourgia」的词语之长处和短处。
那些「官式礼拜」、「公仆职任」Ministerium, Officium, Servitus等字眼，虽然可以表达「礼仪」是教会对上主的「公共事奉」，也是对教会团体的「服务」，但是其重点只集中在「司祭、公仆职务」身上，而忽视了信众在礼仪中的主动地位和参与，(无怪乎历史中有神父「开」或「做」弥撒，教友「望」或「听」弥撒的讲话方式。事实上，「礼仪」的基本要素之一是整个基督奥体、元首与肢体的共同行动(礼宪、14)。同时，「礼仪」也不仅有人的层面，亦有神的层面，即是天主藉着基督，以有效的标记，亲临和介入祂子民中间，施行救恩。故此，「官式礼拜」、「公仆职位」等字眼有把礼仪变成纯粹一套官式特定礼规之危险。(1947年的「天人中保」(15) 通谕的25节已经拒绝了这种「礼规主义」的错选。)那些「崇拜」、「礼拜」、「礼节」、「敬礼」的字眼，Cultus, Caerimonia, Devotio, Ritus，也相当有限，它们或许可以表达「礼仪」是教会在基督内向圣父的有形崇拜，但总是有太表面化和形式化之嫌，且忽略了「教会礼仪」并非只是人为的崇拜，而同时也是上主藉着有效标记介入和主动的「救世工程」，故此「崇拜」、「礼节」、「敬礼」、「礼拜」等字眼，也有把「教会礼仪」变成纯粹人为感性宗教仪式的危险。(事实上，1947年的「天人中保」通谕第25节也拒绝这「仪式主义」的错选」)。若称以「奥迹」或「圣事」、「密事」，Sacamentum, Mysterium，好处是包含了「教会礼仪」是上主藉着有形标记亲临在祂子民当中彼此交往的意义；但可惜是比较深奥，不经过解释，恐怕一般人很难明白。
而另外一个比较好的名词，即本笃会规里所用的Opus dei (天主的工程)；这名词一方面可正面的把「教会礼仪」是「上主藉标记亲临祂的子民中间、施行「救世」工程的意义表达出来，也同时要求人的回应和参与；事实上六至七世纪的罗马礼书(Sacramentarium Veronense)93号也解释「教会的礼仪」实为(上主) 履行(实现) 拯救我们的工程」。
现在也让我们看看中文所用「礼仪」两字，是否也有不足之处。
「礼」字在说文解字中解作「履」也，足之所依；所弓事神致福也，从示从丰，丰者，行礼之器；礼有五经，莫重于祭。辞海(1980年版)「礼」则解作敬神、敬礼、仪式和规范之意。而「仪」字生说文解字中是：度也、法制也、善也、宜也；辞海则解作礼节、仪式、向往、和宜。
故此，在一般人的了解中「礼仪」就是敬神致福的仪式(16)，或「敬礼」，「礼的交往」，「彬彬有礼」的做法，「礼教」，定国安邦之策；但若用之于教会，又是否能够使人明白是上主藉着有效标记，在教会里与祂子民的互相交往，即神的介入和工作，教会对上主的赞颂和回应呢？又或恐怕一般人只能偏狭的了解为人为对神的「敬礼」，或信仰之「礼法」而矣。
当然我们承认每一个词语都是有限的，比如原文Leitourgia一词也是同样不能完全表达所谓「教会礼仪」的内容；况且每个词语在应用的过程中，也藉着解释而引入新的内容，特别是教会的术语；然而，如果能够找出或创作一个内容恰当，而不会招致误会的词语，就最好不过了，这实在是需要各位教内兄弟姊妹共同寻找的。
其中一个可能的建议是以「圣礼」来代替「礼仪」一词。因为根据说文解字解释，「圣」者「通」也；按照辞海(1980) 则解作无所不通，在宗教上指属于教主的。故「圣礼」可解说来自教主，通圣之礼。此词的好处是一方面可表达出「来自上主亲临」的一面，同时保留了「礼」、标记、仪式的一面，即「敬礼」、「礼拜」、教会回应上主的意义。可惜的是「圣礼」一词已被一些基督教人士用于指天主教所谓「圣事」(圣洗、圣餐) 之意(17)，故可能有天主教和基督教不同的用法和内容，容易引起混乱之嫌。
结语
从以上对「教会礼仪」一词的分析来看，我们可以见到所谓「教会礼仪」的基本要素是「上主的救世工程」和「教会的回应」，(即基督论及教会论)，也同时可见中文「礼仪」一词约有限。如果我们单从「礼仪」字面的看法，去追逐于一些礼节式的新鲜感，而美其名以为是本地化，那就实在是一个误会了；因为事实上，要建立本地化的「教会礼仪」，首先是要本地的基督徒 元首和肢体，开放于上主圣言，而生活于「祂的救世工程」中，并且以心神和真理来崇拜和回应，然后从他们对「上主救世工程」的回应和经验中，以诚于中、形于外的言(文字语言的交往)和行(生活、及藉标记的交往)，来表达救恩在教会和社会中的实现(18)。
谨以降临后第九主日(今之常年期第二主日) 的献礼经作为彼此之共勉和代祷：「恳祈天主，使我等以敬心时习于圣事，凡以此祭，即行救赎我之工，为尔子基利斯督，亚孟。(一六七零年弥撒经典。)
(15)英译本可见The Liturgy (Papal Teachings), (ed. Benedictine monks of Solesmes), Boston, 1962, pp. 313-407，特别是pp. 325.
(16)正中形音义综合大典，台湾，197 197，查「礼」，「仪」，辞渊，商务，1931，查「礼」。
(17)见辞海 (1982)；宗教词典 (何继愈主论)，上海，1981，查「圣事」。
(18)庞秉辉同学，在「礼仪导论」习作中的反省，实在藉得我们借镜，现撮录以飨读者：
「……另一方面，在思索神学、教会本地化时，使我看到更多的问题，有待我们探讨，提出意见及解决。首先，我们中国人对宗教的信仰态度并不如西方人士的以「知」明「信」，而却愿以「行」体「信」。(基督教与中国思想，谢扶雅著，60页) 是故，对文字上的定义，我们并不如西方的严谨及有系统的分析，因为我们知道并体验到许多事理，尤其在宗教信仰上是不能尽以文字或言语来完全表达：「言不尽，意无穷」。而应要用中国的传统、文化，代以「行」动来体现出这「信」仰。这方面的发展应是我们教会本地化，也是「圣礼」本地化要做的事。」
Dizionario Teologico, (ed. H. Fries) Brescia, 1967, s.v. “Liturgia”.
Nuovo Dizionario Di Liturgia, (ed. D. Sartore D. & M. Triacca) Roma, s.v. “Liturgy”.
New Dictionary of the Liturgy, (ed. G. Podhradsky), London, 1967, s.v. “Liturgy”.
作者：凌蕙彤 Ling, Esther
Though contemporary New Testament scholarship has not been successful in achieving a consensus of opinion on the history of tradition behind the three passion predictions in the synoptic gospels (Mk 8:31; Mk 9:31; Mk 10:32-34; Mt 16:21-23; Mt 17:22-23; Mt 20:17-19; Lk 9:21-22; Lk 9:43-45; Lk 18:31-34), it is generally agreed among scholars that the presence of these predictions in all the three gospels is due to Mark, and that the predictions in their present context in the gospel of Mark are of special significance in Mark's theology of the cross. The purpose of this paper is a two-fold attempt: namely, to study the historicity of the predictions in the gospel of Mark and to elucidate the theological significance of these three predictions.
I
At the outset let us ask a preliminary question: how similar and how different are the three predictions? A synoptic comparison will reveal the following common features (see Appendix):
1.Jesus is accorded the title "Son of Man";
2.Jesus will be killed and will rise after three days;
3.Jesus "must suffer" (8:31) or "will be delivered" (9:31; 10:33); and
4.The Jewish authorities are the culprits responsible for the suffering and death of Jesus (except in 9:31 where the word "men" is used ambiguously).
The only marked difference that stands out is that the third prediction (10:31-34) is much longer, including details that are lacking in the other two accounts. What do these common features and minor differences reflect? Can they throw some light on the basic problem as to what extent the predictions are from the tradition of Jesus himself, from the tradition of the early church, and from the redactional pen of the evangelist?
Rudolf Bultmann, in The History of the Synoptic Tradition, maintains that the predictions are three versions of a single statement which, in their present context, are intended by the evangelist as a literary introduction to the passion narrative of Jesus. He argues that triple repetitions are common in the New Testament: for instance, Jesus is three times tempted (Mt 4:1-11; Lk 4:1-13). Jesus prays three times in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mk 14:32-38 and parallels), and Peter denies Jesus three times (Mk 14:66-67 and parallels). Indeed, to this list of three-fold repetitions we can add many other Old Testament and New Testament triplets, such as Samuel's three calls in his sleep (I Sam 3:3-9), and Paul's thrice-narrated conversion in the Acts of the Apostles (Act 8:1-22; 22:4-16; 26:9-18). It does seem that "three" is a number that has special significance in biblical writings. But Bultmann develops his theory more sceptically elsewhere, in The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, where he argues that the passion predictions are simply some post-resurrection formulations, some "vaticinia ex eventu" or prophecies after the event. and that we cannot know how Jesus understood his destiny and his death.(2) How far is Bultmann's view tenable?
To enable us to answer this question, a critical discussion of the whole section of Mk 8:27-10:52 seems necessary. We will begin at the level of structure analysis, and then proceed to examine the key words in the three predictions.
Structurally, this section falls neatly into three divisions all of which follow the same pattern:
1.Each division begins with some precise geographical references, i.e. "the villages of Caesarea Philippi" (8:27), "went on from there and passed through Galilee" (9:30). and "And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan" (10:1)
2.Each division contains a prediction (8:31; 9:31; 10:33f) which is introduced within a consistent contextual pattern in which the announcement of passion is followed by a subsequent misunderstanding on the part of the disciples, and a teaching on discipleship by Jesus.
The first announcement occasions Peter's rebuke which is followed by Jesus' teaching: "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (8:34f). The second announcement has an explicit reference to the disciples' inability to understand, which is further illustrated by their discussion on greatness. At this point Jesus begins teaching again: "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all" (9:35). After the third announcement, misunderstanding emerges in the form of the request of James and John. Here Jesus' teaching culminates in the example of the Son of Man who "also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).(3)
If the above analysis is correct, two structural characteristics which stand out distinctly are noteworthy: the consistency of pattern. and the consistency of progressive arrangement of material. These two characteristics obviously reflect a strong element of redactional work on the part of the evangelist, who has carefully reconstructed the way 'to Jerusalem, the destination of the suffering and death of the Son of Man. This, however, still can neither prove nor disprove Bultmann's thesis. In other words, we cannot deduce from this indication of redactional activity on the part of the evangelist any conclusion as regarding the origin of the predictions themselves. All we can say is that they are there in their present context for a special theological purpose of the evangelist.
Turning to the level of linguistic analysis of the key phrases and words, we will begin by singling out the significant word dei in 8:31. Contemporary research has rediscovered that this word as used here can only be fully understood in connection with the fulfillment of scripture, for it underlines God's divine providence in the Christ event (4). It is related to scripture as a whole, not to some particular text such as Psalm 118:22, Or the Servant Songs of Isaiah, or Daniel 7, as commentators in the past have generally suggested. Its real background is that of apocalypticism, and it is used in Mk 8:31 in a sense proper to apocalyptic literature, as indicating that certain future events are decreed by the wilt of God. Thus the whole clause hoti dei ton huion tou anthropou polla pathein is of crucial importance. In this light we can appreciate better that to persuade Jesus to shun these sufferings is to tempt Jesus to disobey the will of the Father, as Satan has done in the three temptations. This explains the real meaning of the words of Jesus when he says: "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men" (Mk 8: 33). This reference to the divine plan of God's salvation which is ultimately realized in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is a common feature of early Christian tradition. Hence the use of the expression dei in Mk 8:31 gives us good reason to believe that the first passion prediction may be traced backward to pre-Markan tradition.
Another key expression is meta treis hemeras which occurs in all three Markan predictions. G. Straecker, in his study on this section of Mark (5), points out that the preposition meta in this expression is surprising and striking because-it clearly contradicts Mk 14:58 and Mk 15:29, which state that the resurrection would be dia trion hemeron and en trisin hemerais respectively, both of which can be translated as "within three days". He further draws our attention to the fact that in both the Matthean and the Lukan versions of the passion predictions this is rendered as te trite hemera or te hemera te trite ("on the third day"), which is a formula possibly assimilated to the presentation of the passion narrative and influenced by the earliest kerygmatic formula such as that in 1 Cor 15:4. This analysis gives us good reason to conclude with Straecker that the expression as it stands in the present context probably cannot be attributed to Mark's redaction, but to the tradition of Christ's passion, and therefore is also pre-Markan.
The verb apokteinein in Mk 8:31 is equally significant. This verb is used in early traditional formulae to refer to the Jew's responsibility for the death of Jesus; and an obvious example of this use is in 1 Thes 2:15. In the gospel of Mark, the evangelist does not always use apokteinein when referring to the death of Jesus. In the passion narrative, for example, he uses stauroun (Mk15:13ff; 1,6:16). If our observation here is correct, the presence of apokteinein in this logion also encourages the view that Mk8:31 may have a pre-Markan origin.
If the first prediction may be traced back to a pre-Markan origin, what about the second and the third predictions? Earlier on, in both our synoptic comparison and structural analysis, we have demonstrated that all the predictions are structurally as well as contextually quite similar, except the third which includes more details. We have also pointed out that the contextual pattern betrays obvious traces of the evangelist's redactional activity. At this point, having established the pre-Markan origin of the first prediction. we are able to discern with a little more clarity what that redactional activity may probably have involved. It seems likely that the second and third predictions in their present context are repetitions of the original logion in Mk 8: 31. They are repeated progressively by the evangelist for theological or apologetical motivations. The minor differences may perhaps be explained as due to influences by the general passion narrative tradition of Jesus.
This leads us to a further question. If Mk 8:31 is pre-Markan, does it belong to the tradition of the earthly Jesus? Or can we agree with Bultmann that the predictions are prophecies ex eventu, and that Jesus did not anticipate his death? W. Kasper makes an allowance for a distinction between the content of the predictions and their formulation, maintaining that even if they were formulated by the early church, they are not inevitably nothing more than statements placed retrospectively on the lips of Jesus. The content could well have been from the earthly Jesus.(7) Hans Kung, on the other hand, argues that Jesus did anticipate his death and did expect his execution. He maintains that Jesus would not have been so naive as not to have had any presentiment of what finally happened to him. He argues that, while a christological interest must be allowed for anywhere in the gospels, historical scepticism must not be allowed to become uncritical. He admits that the predictions in Jewish apocalyptic style
are vaticinia ex eventu,......a literary genre which occurs frequently in the Old Testament and in ancient literature generally. These announcements are aids to proclamation, to the kerygma, and therefore are not prophecies or predictions in the strict sense. They are "kerygmatic formulas" which enable Jesus' way of the cross to be seen as the fulfilment of God's plan of salvation and not the consequence of blind fate.
But, he underlines carefully, this does not imply that Jesus never knew he might lose his life, and therefore could have never shared his anticipation with his disciples. (8)
Hans Kung's view seems covincing. Along his line of argument, we may indeed add a further question. If the predictions are post-Easter interpretations of Jesus' death and resurrection without a historical core, we may ask why they do not reflect the explicit soteriological interest of the early Church that Christ died for our sin and that He died by crucifixion. This centrally important soteriological element is always present in all the most primitive and earliest Christotogical proclamations such as that recorded in 1 Cor 15:3-4. Why in none of the three predictions is it stated that "the Son of Man must suffer and be killed for us and for our sin and then rise again"? The third prediction, while giving us an outline of the actual course of the passion, does not indicate the element of the killing by crucifixion. This surely is too important an element to omit. Indeed. C.H. Turner aptly remarks that if the predictions had been put onto the lips of Jesus by the early Church ex eventu, we should have inevitably found the word "crucify". (9)
By way of concluding this section, we may point out that there are good reasons for us to believe that the origin of the logion in question might very well be Jesus himself. In any case, the evidence in favour of this view is much more convincing than any scepticism against it.
1.R.K. Bultmann. The History of the Synoptic Tradition, (Translated by John Marsh), Oxford, Blackwell. 1963.
2.R.K. Bultmann. "The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus", The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ. edited by C.E. Braaten and R.A. Harrisville, New York, Abingdon. 1964. p.23
3.This analysis depends heavily on N. Perrin and H.E. Todt. N. Perrin, "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark" Union Seminary Quarterly Review 23, 1967-68, p.363; H.E. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Translated by D. M. Barton), London, S.C.M. Press, 1965, pp.145-149.
4.W.J. Bennett. Jr., "The Son of Man Must...", Novum Testamentum 17, 1975. p. 128.
5.G. Straecker, "The Passion and Resurrection Predictions in Mark's Gospel", Interpretation 22, 1968, p.429.
6.Ibid., pp.434-435.
7.W. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, London, Burns and Oates, 1976, pp. 114-115, p. 120.
8.H. Kling, On Being a Christian (Translated by E. Quinn), Garden City. New York, Doubleday. 1976, pp.320f.
9.C.H. Turner. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London, S.P.C.K. 1931. p.40.
II
Having dealt with the historicity of the texts, let us turn to the side of theology. The key to an understanding of the theological significance of the predictions is perhaps found in the so-called messianic secret and in the Markan use of the Christological title "Son of Man" in the context of the whole section in which the predictions occur.
Wrede, the first exponent of the messianic secret,(10) finds the clue to the puzzle of Jesus' habitual enjoining silence upon all around him and his secrecy in Mk 9:9, which reads: "he charged them to tell no one what they had seen until the Son of Man should have risen from the dead". According to Wrede, this was invented by Mark to explain why Jesus was not seen in his glory until after the Resurrection. This was by no means accidental: Jesus had recommended secrecy because he did not want to reveal his real Messianic identity while he was still alive. Mark designed this explanation and inserted it into the tradition handed down to him. Evidently Wrede is working on a presupposition that no one had ever thought of Jesus as Messiah before the Resurrection and that Jesus himself had never claimed to be the Messiah. But was it really so? Was there ever a Jesus tradition free from Messianic elements? Probably not, for certainly the Jewish Christian community right from the very beginning saw their master as Messiah.
The clue to the messianic secret lies in the Passion, not in the Resurrection. The function of the messianic secret certainly was not that entertained by Wrede, for Mark did not impose a theory on the tradition he had taken over; rather he was concerned to emphasize its true nature of proclaiming Jesus in the light of the Resurrection. Mk 9:9 embodies the evangelist's own theological insight and reflection that a genuine understanding of the true nature of Jesus was impossible until after the Resurrection. Hence misunderstanding was not only unavoidable but even necessary. Mark realized that the true Christ was the suffering Son of Man, and this conviction obviously has controlled his treatment and organization of the gospel material. Evidence of this is in the section we have just analysed (Mk 8:27-10:52). Here the evangelist dramatically describes the disciples' failure to understand Jesus' true messiahship. The replies of Jesus are not only to reassure the disciples that he went to his execution knowingly and willingly, but also to point out that an understanding of his messiahship had to depend on the Passion. It is here too that the evangelist develops his christology and his soteriology of the Son of Man. "The Son of man must suffer many things" (Mk 8:31), but the Son of Man will come "in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mk 8:38). And the Son of Man came "To give his life as a ransom for many" (Mk 10:45). Each of the passion predictions must be viewed in the light of these Markan presentations of the Son of Man; and in these Markan presentations, as Norman Perrin puts it, "we have moved from earthly authority through the necessity of suffering to apocalyptic authority. We have moved also from the necessity for the passion to the soteriological significance of the cross"(11) The passion predictions, therefore, have a definite and central theological function to perform within the Markan framework of proclaiming a suffering Messiah, a genuine understanding of whose true nature was impossible until after the Resurrection.
10.W. Wrede, The Messianic Secret (Translated by F.C.G. Greig), Cambridge and London, James Clarke, 1971.
11.N. Perrin, "The Creative Use...", p.364.
III
By way of recapitulating, the following points may be significant:
1.Mainly on linguistic grounds, evidence speaks for a pre-Markan origin of the first prediction in Mk 8:31.
2.Though it has not been possible to trace the historical substratum underlying the prediction logia. it seems certain thay have a historical core. In fact, it can be demonstrated convincingly that Mk 8:31 may very well have its origin from the earthly Jesus.
3.On structural and theological grounds it seems likely that the first prediction in Mk 8:31 is repeated three times by the evangelist in the present context immediately before Christ's entry into Jerusalem. The repetitions are for theological and apologeticat purposes.
4.The chief concern of Mark is the passion and suffering of the Messiah, for without the cross, neither Jesus' works nor his words can be genuinely and properly understood. Indeed, the exousia of the Messiah is to be proclaimed from the cross: "Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mk 15:39). Thus the gospel of Mark is christological. and its theology is a theology of the cross, a true understanding of which includes an understanding of the cross embraced in Christian discipleship. The passion predictions are part of this theology as well as the key to this theology. Therefore it is not surprising that each prediction of passion, as discussed earlier, is followed by a unit of Jesus' teaching on discipleship (Mk 8:34ff; 9:35ff; 10:38ff). To be a disciple means readiness to take up the cross, readiness to be servant of all and smallest of all. and readiness to sacrifice oneself.
Finally, we conclude our study by proclaiming with Mark: "Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (Mk 8:35).
APPENDIX: A SYNOPTIC COMPARISON OF THE PASSION PREDICTIONS
Mk. 8:31
And he began to teach them
That the Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes,
and be killed,
and after three days rise again.
Mk. 9:31
for he was teaching his disciples saying to them,
The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men,
and they will kill him, and when he is killed,
after three days he will rise.
Mk. 10:32-34
And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid.
And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying,
"Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem;
and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and scourge him,
and kill him.
and after three days he will rise.
Bibliography
ANDERSON, H.. The Gospel of Mark (New Century Bible). 1976, xviii 366p.
BENNETT. W.J. Jr., "The Son of Man Must...", Novum Testamentum 17,1975, 113-129.
BULTMANN, R.K., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Translated by John Marsh). Oxford. Blackwell, 1963, vii 456p.
BULTMANN, R.K., "The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus". The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, edited by C. E. Braaten and R.A. Harrisville, New York. Abingdon, 1964, 247.
KASPER. W., Jesus the Christ (Translated by V, Green), London, Burns and Oates. 1976, 289p.
KUNG, H., On Being a Christian (Translated by E. Quinn). Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1976, 720p.
NINEHAM, D. E.. The Gospel of St. Mark, Middlesex, Penguin Books, 1965, 477p.
PERRIN, N., "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark", Union Seminary Quarterly Review 23, 1967-68. 357-365.
STRAECKER, G., "The Passion and Resurrection Predictions in Mark's Gospel". Interpretation 22, 1968. 421-442.
TODT, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Translated by D. M. Barton), London, S.C.M. Press, 1965, 366p.
TURNER. C.H., The Gospel According to St. Mark, London, S.P.C.K., 1931.84p.
WERDE, W., The Messianic Secret (Translated by F.C.G. Greig), Cambridge and London, James Clarke, 1971, xxi 292p.
作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio
ON THE JOHANNINE CHRIST IN THE TRIAL－
A THEOLOGICAL ESSAY ON JN 18:28－19:16C
PART ONE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Theological Inquiry and Hermeneutics
"Are you the King of the Jews?" (Jn 18:33). This is a decisive question Pilate posed to Jesus. By this question, John allows his readers to begin an inquiry about the identity of Jesus (1) . Every question arises from a state of mind with which the questioner directs his investigation. The question of Pilate is not only used by John as a means to furnish some historical information about Jesus, but is intended to be a perennial question of John's readers to Jesus as well.
To the question(s) of Pilate, the Johnannine Christ (2) does not only give an answer but corrects also his way of questioning and requires the questioner(s) to "see" with the eyes of faith. This is exactly what Jesus did in the Trial and John just repeats it in his own way. From the first question of Pilate (18:33) to the seventh: "Where are you from? " (19:9), John has skillfully shown that Jesus managed to shift Pilate's earth-bound mental state to a superior level. Pilate is no longer interested in his Galilean origin, for at that moment he perceives Christ to be something more that a human mortal. His augmented "fear" (19:8) and "solicitude" to release Jesus (19:12) confirm this. The Trial projects a series of solemn and progressive proclamations of Jesus' identity and at the same time is blended with a crescendo of urgency for decision (belief or disbelief). In an ironic yet theologically correct (3) way, he is called "the King of the Jews" (18:39; 19:3), "the Man" (19:5) and "God's Son" (19:7). In the same way John wants to lead his readers into this christological horizon (4) where they will have to face Christ face to face. In fact, a careful reader may realize that as those actors involved in the drama of Jesus' life have to come to a decision (belief or disbelief) in his signs and words, so the reader himself should do the same. This is the very intention stated at the end of the Fourth Gospel (20:30-31), where John addresses his readers (5).
Today when we read this paragraph again, we want to grasp John's theological message so as to enter into the christological horizon he intended to bring forth. Our inquiry will be: Who is this Christ who manifests himself in the Johannine description of the Trial? This is a theological inquiry based on the conviction that Christ still speaks to us through John's Gospel. Thus our essay is mainly a theological one, though it only helps to "see" an answer without pretending to be exhaustive.
At this point, hermeneutics must be called into play. It is a complicated issue that lends itself to endless discussion, for it is concerned with theology, philosophy, history, linguistics, sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and so on. The text (of the Trial) projects a meaning of its own, but at the same time. is open to an infinity of interpretations beyond the intention of the author (6).
However, from the theological point of view. hermeneutics can be considered a service of the word and of the confession of faith. It attempts to bring out the transcendence of the word. which is simply the transcendence of speaking human subjects in relation to their conditionings (7) . Any transcendence presupposes a "breach" and a "leap" over which faith must be involved as pre-comprehension. Thus it should be worked out within the living reality of the Church, which is the recipient of the Divine revelation ("Ecclesia discens") prior to all differentiation of the offices in the hierarchy. Her primary activity preserves with fidelity and docility the revelation which has been given to her in "words and signs'' (8) and still resounds in the present day (9) . For this the Holy Spirit endows different charisms on the Church, and, in particular, on the Apostles and their successors, that in "receiving" and "handing-down" the Divine Truth they may never fall into the wrong path. The interpretation of a scriptural text should help to map out a route that makes possible a common journey for those who want to encounter God (10).
Of course the entire process of the transmission of the Deposit of Faith should not be limited to the moments of infallible canonization of Holy Scripture or proclamation of dogmas; it is, above all, to be "lived" in the worship (11) in which God's glory will dwell upon men. "Homo vivens Gloria Dei". As a matter of fact, every Good Friday when we listen to the "Passio" according to John. we sense that Christ still speaks of himself to men (especially in the Liturgy) through John's writing.
The "Trial" itself was already a route theologically mapped out by John that led his contemporary to Christ. However, the mapping may be blurred by the long distance of time and cultural differences. The "letter" may no longer be a sufficient guide to the "spirit" (12). Through a hermeneutic process, we thus wish to recover its "sufficiency" so that the "Trial" may appear again as an ever renewed route to the threshold of the Mystery for the modem men.
Our working area is the text itself. We do not employ an exegetical process like Text Criticism, Literary Criticism, Form Criticism, Redaction Criticism (13) and. so on. All these stages of work are presupposed. By adopting a philologico-semantical analysis, I try to furnish a "hermeneutical space"－a field of possibilities for play in which any man may immerse himself both receptively and actively as a creative perceiver of meanings; for "play" is a mode of receptive-active encountering realities from which meanings of life can be derived (14). Such a hermeneutical space results from an existential interaction between the text to be interpreted and the interpreter who has the conviction that the more he reads the text, the more it becomes telling. The repeated readings should go hand in hand with the analysis of verbs, vocabulary, syntagmas, syntax, textual and contextual structures and so on. Any intelligent reading may lend itself to an interpretation but here it is the philologicosemantical analysis, without excluding other methods and approaches, that throws light upon our readings.
Futhermore, the outcome of a hermeneutic space is based on the mutual relationship between the "event" and "writing". By event here we mean the historical Trial itself. The writing, refers not only to a simple production of text. but above all to that special text so designed (and so inspired) as to provoke faith within the readers (15) . The Trial happened in the past but has a permanent force appealing to men of different times and places. The writing is to save it from forgetfulness, and hermeneutics is to keep it perpetually "alive" to those who seek to step over the threshold of the Mystery.
2. The Johannine Theology of History
A careful reader of the Trial will notice that John continously mixed the present tense with the past. He adopts the inceptive use to give a striking effect of continuation－something is happening. John is not only reporting the past in a lively way by using the historical present, but also on the theological level, he is showing us the presence of the Mystery that appeals, here and not. to his readers. In order to understand John's subtlety, it is expedient to dwell at some length on his theology of history.
The conclusion of John's Gospel (20:30-31) reveals two major interests, namely, the Revelation through the events of Christ, and their salvific implications for men who are appealed to make a decision of faith either in the acceptance or refusal of his Revelation.
Now Jesus did many other signs (semeia) in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. and that believing you may have life in his name" (20:30-31).
For John the "semeia" are the events of Christ themselves, the sight of signs should lead people to believe in him (cf 1:51; 2:11, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 30; 7:31; 9:16. 23 and so on) and his revelation. Now this dominant theme determines also John's conception of time.
The coming of Christ is the irruption of the eternal into the temporal sphere.
"The Word became (aorist) flesh and dwelt (aorist) among us" (1:14).
"For the judgment, j came (aorist) into this world" (9:39).
The use of the aorist indicates subtly the inception of the state in a global sensed that the dwelling and coming of God took place at a certain point of time in the past and has thus inaugurated the New Era of God's Presence in human history. The idea of the irruption of the eternal into the temporal leads us to a conception reminiscent of the kairos of the vision of Paul. All the events take place in the stream of single moments (chronos) one after another. With the coming of Christ, there has come true the fullness of the chronos (Gal 4;4). In the unrolling of the plan of God (oikonomia), there has arrived the climax－the Christ-event in relation to which every event is to be defined as "before" or "after".
"Formerly you were without Christ, strangers to the covenants of the promise" (Eph 2:12).
Now he (Christ) has reconciled you in his body of flesh" (Col 1.22) (17).
However John has skillfully focalized this idea of kairos into the hora of Christ (18).
"Truly, truly I say to you the hour (hora) is coming and now is (nun estin)" (Jn 5:25).
The hour is the full accomplishment and unfolding of the Divine Plan, that is, the glorification: Cross and Resurrection-the returning to the Father and the sending of the Holy Spirit. The accent of the time, therefore, is on the present nun estin. The past and future with reference to chronos are brought together in the "hour" of Christ and they become a unity in the believers (20:31: pisteuontes). The future will bring nothing decisively new. for the eschatological accomplishment no longer takes place in the future at the end of time but right now in the Christ event.
The eschatological hour further supercedes the dichotomy between the past and future insofar as it appeals to man, here and now, who has to decide to accept or to refuse Christ's revelation. That is why Jesus came for judgment (5:22: krisis and 9:39 krima) upon the world - a division between the believers and unbelievers. Thus life and death, light and darkness appear together. The hour is the moment of judgment pregnant with salvation and decisiveness in the present. The hour is no longer a time between times, but is the definite consummation in which one has no need to wait for any end of the historical yet to come. For it is now all consummated (19:30: tetelestai). For the first time. the traditional dualism of the aeons (the present historical time and the future accomplishment at the end of time) derived from the Jewish apocalyptic is now eliminated. The coming of the logos subsumes the entire human "procursus" in the historical time. Instead there is another dualism, expressed by Hellenistic categories, between light and darkness, truth and falsity, believers and world, that which is above and that which is below (19).
In short, the Johannine theology of history is based on the presence of the eternal Word in the temporal world. This presence constitutes the Christ event, the Final Establishment, the Last Word of God towards mankind. Thus the Christ event becomes a contemporizing of eschaton. Salvation history subsumes human history and transforms it into a new creation. Whatever takes place in the world is to be judged with reference to the krisis in Christ.
Thereby the historicity of man comes to expression, namely, that man through faith in Christ moves from decision to decision. In the very decision of faith, man takes his Christie shape or becomes unbeliever. It results in the tension between the light and darkness and constitutes the real drama of eschatological existence－already and not yet－in human history:
"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (...)
but to all who received him, who believe in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:5,12).
However the force that overcomes this tension is Agap6. the Father loves the world by giving the Son (cf 3:16), and the Son loves the disciples with the love which the Father exhibits towards Him (cf 13:1; 15:9) in order that they may love one another (cf 13:34) and that the world may believe that is was the Father's love (cf 17:21; 14:31) for which the Son comes to the world. The love of God. consists not in loving him but in being loved by him, and whosoever is loved by God also loves others (cf 1 Jn 4:7-21). Hence loving others becomes the acceptance of God's love and, at the same time, the unifying force of the light that dissipates the darkness (20).
Granted that John has a theological conception of history which is foreign to empiricopositivistic historiography, it does not follow that the hisotricity of the trial is totally at stake. Some authors, like P. Winter, hold that "from John 18:29 onwards the Fourth Gospel contains nothing of any value for the assessment of historical facts''(21). The statement is wildly sweeping and ungrounded. "While there is evidence of some degree of elaboration by the author, the most probable conclusion is that in substance it represents an independent strain of tradition, which must have been formed in a period much nearer the events than the period when the Fourth Gospel was written, and in some respects seems to be better informed than the tradition behind the synoptics, whose confused accounts it clarifies" (22).
Hence it can be said that there are two perspectives in John's account of the Trial. One is historical: another we could call eschatological. Though they are of two different domains they are both nevertheless real.
2.1. The Historical Perspective of the Trial
By the standard of modem historical certainty, Jesus' Trial and Death on the Cross can be regarded as an assured "nuclear fact". However the history of Jesus that led him to the crucifixion was, above all. a theological one. To qualify it as "theological" is not to slight the authenticity of the fact; on the contrary it furnishes a point of contact between the empirical world (of facts) and the Mystery (of faith). With all this blending of fact and faith, John's account of the Trial is still the most consistent and intelligible that we have ever possessed. Only John makes it clear why Jesus was brought to Pilate. He was accused as an evildoer (cf 18:30) and should be condemned to death. Then he was considered, or at least, insinuated as testes (cf 18:40). This is a term that can refer to a simple robber, a rebel, or even more probably to a Zealot who makes armed conflict against the Roman rule (23).It is nor a simple political offence but a serious rebellion against the Pax Romana (24) which is rooted in a political religion, namely, Caesar is the god and thus requires everyone to offer due obedience to him. The Romans could not bear such a rebellion, or better the Kingship of Jesus, which would endanger the authority of their political god (25). Although John makes it clear from the mouth of Pilate that Jesus was not guilty of this charge (3 times: 18:38; 19:4, 6). he was still condemned on this charge (cf 19:15-16, 20-22).
The portrait of Pilate yielding to the subtle interplay of political forces carries a certain conviction, as John intends to show, that Jesus was reckoned with transgressors of the Jewish Law and was condemned as a blasphemer:
"We have a law and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (19:7; cf Lev 24:16) (26).
This is also in common with the tradition of the Synoptics.
Furthermore John's chronology, where the judicial process takes place on the 14th of Nissan, is more credible than that of the Synoptics, where it takes place on the feast of Passover (27). Though it is difficult to separate the historical kernel in a modern sense from the account of a theological history, yet it would also be too hasty to draw the conclusion that John has tried, at any cost, to jam all the facts into a theological frame in such a way that no trace may be founded in history. If modern historiography is foreign to John's intention, then we have no reason to search for it. For the truth narrated by John is not deprived of historicity, but is chiefly concerned with the interiorization of faith, openness to transcendence and a spiritual journey towards the self-unfolding Mystery.
2.2 The Eschatological Perspective of the Trial
In the fourth Gospel, it is the "Glory" of the Son that determines the content of the Trial. The whole NT unanimously agrees that the Resurrection was the climax of the Glory of the Son, for it was the mighty act of God par excellence. For John however, this "Glory" had already been visible during the ministry (28). The Glory is the irruption of the eternal into the temporal, and thus the anticipation of the Eschaton. What was supposed to happen at the end of time has now happened to Jesus, who is to unroll the salvific plan of God－the Final Establishment. It all starts with incarnation:
"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
full of grace (charis = hesed)
and of truth (aletheia =' emet)
we have beheld his glory (doxa = kabod), glory as of the Only Son from the Father" (1:14).
The Glory of the Son is. thus. the Word (logos) spelt out by God to all men that His Mercy (hesed) and Fidelity ('emet) have now come true. That is why. for John, in the great "hour"－in which the Trial took place－Jesus is not only a simple man who by the envy of the Jews was accused as evildoer, rebel and blasphemer, but the One who has to come to exercise the eschatological function (29). In spite of the ironic setting, Jesus in the Trial is presented solemnly as the King, the Final Revealer, the Universal Judge, the Eternal Light, the Incarnate Truth, the Visible Glory, the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (......) and brings forth salvation for those who believe in him.
3. The Development of the Narratives of the Paschal Event
In John, historical instances are always gilded with theology so much so that Death and Resurrection－two historical instances－form one single Paschal event. In fact in different stages of preaching, the NT writers became more and more aware of this fact. Three stages can be distinguished here.
First, in the early preaching of the Apostles, especially that of St. Paul, we may notice that the Cross and Resurrection had created in the early witnesses two distinct experiences. At first, they were totally disheartened by the scandal of Jesus' Cross, but then were over whelmed with joy at the encounter with the Risen Lord. It is the apparition experience that makes the first witnesses recognize the identity of Jesus as the Son of God sent forth by the Father, born of woman (...) (cf Gal 4:4f), who. being found in human form, humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on the Cross: therefore God has highly exalted him (cf Phil 2:8-9). These two contrasting movements, katabasis (descending ) and anabasis (ascending), though they are of the same pre-existent Son of God, are in some way due to the two sharply contrasted experiences of the early witnesses.
In the second stage of the preaching, there emerges also the life-story of Jesus and, at the end of it, the appearance narratives. This does not mean that the preaching Church had now invented new material; rather, always remaining faithful to the earlier traditions, it adopted a new form of preaching for some particular reason. In these narratives. Jesus was presented, right at the announcemnet of Messiah's birth, as the One from above, the Son of the highest; but then there followed the movement of kenosis until the point of death on the Cross. However, it will be an empty Cross－a Cross that projects a light to the Resurrection by the confession of faith of a pagan centurion. This link between the Cross and Resurrection was further explained in the post-resurrection appearances by Christ himself. Hence at this stage, the Cross and Resurrection have been further unified as one single event.
In the third stage, John makes it even clearer that the Glorification takes place right away in the Exaltation of the Son of Man. The use of the verb hypsoo shows exactly the exaltation of the Glory and of the Cross. For John the katabasis movement takes place at the moment of Incarnation, and during the life-time of Jesus the anabasis movement goes upwards until the exaltation on the Cross. Note that in this upward movement, there is a crescendo of the revelation of the incarnate logos and a crescendo of disbelief that lifted him up on the Cross. What is on man's side the katabasis and humiliation, is the anabasis and glorification on God's side. John has marvellously unified these two contrasting movements at the moment of the "hour" where one can hardly disjoin the Cross from the Resurrection. They are of one single paschal Mystery.
Schematically, we can present the development this way:
"While the basic story remains fhe same. it (the Fourth Gospel) has been beautifully rewritten to present the Crucified Jesus as the consummate revelation of God's love (cf 13:1; 12:13; 19:30), lifted up from the earth in a final victory over evil (3:13-14; 8:28; 12:32), drawing all men to himself (12:20-12; 19:25-27) so that they may gaze upon the pierced one (19:37). It is here that God's work (ergon) is brought to fulfillment (see the use of telos and related verbs in 4:34; 12:1; 17:4; 19:29-30)"(30).
The trial for John was not only an important stage historically precedent to the Crucifixion of Christ, but should also highlight theologically the consummate revelation of God's love that invites man to a personal appropriation.
"In the New Testament it is above all St. John who emphasizes this aspect: truth is not simply the revelation which Christ brought by manifesting himself; under the action of the Spirit human beings must also appropriate this truth for themselves. In the Johannine writings 'to do the truth' (poiein ten aletheian) (Jn 3:21; 1Jn 1:6) means precisely to make the truth of Jesus one's own, so as thereby to reach the light" (31).
If John's word speaks about God and invites his readers to a confession of faith, then it is of interest here to elucidate the theological message contained in the trial of Christ described by John.
(1) John is used here as a name for the author(s) of the fourth Gospel, for whose identity, see G. Segalla, Giovanni = Nuovissima versione della bibbia (Roma 1978) 110-117. Biblical quotations are taken from RSV.
(2) By "Johannine Christ" I mean that it is Christ who speaks of himself through John.
(3) See G.W. Macrae, Theology and Irony in the Fourth Gospel, in R.J. Clifford-G.W. Macrae (eds), The Word in the World: Essays in honour of Frederick L. Moriatry (Cambridge 1973) 89-92."
(4) A horizon is a maximum field of vision from a determinate standpoint. Our standpoint is not only the systematical quest, "Who is Christ for me?", but involves an interior personal appropriation. For truth is not simply the revelation which Christ brought by manifesting himself; under the action of the Spirit man must appropriate this truth for himself. For John, "to do the truth" (Jn 3:21; 1Jn 1:6) means precisely to make the truth of Jesus one's own, so as thereby to reach the light. See I. de La Potterie, History and Truth, in R. Latourelle - G. O'Collins, Problems and Perspectives of Fundamental Theology (New York 1982) 87-104. See also G. O'Collins, Interpreting Jesus = Introducing Catholic Theology 2 London 1983) 1-34.
(5) See E. Liebert, "That you may believe": The Fourth Gospel and Structural Development Theory, in Biblical Theology Bulletin 14 (1984) 67-71 ; and E. Cothenet, I I Ouarto Vangelo, in A. George and P. Grelot (eds), Introduzione al NT vol. 4. La Tradizione Giovannea (Roma 1978) 147-158.
(6) See H.G. Gadamer, Wahreit und Methode (Tubingen 1965); and J. B. Thompson, Critical Hermeneutics. A study in the thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jurgen Habermas (Cambridge 1981).
(7) See R . Manle, Hermeneutics and Scripture, in R. Latourelle - G.O'Collins (eds), op. cit., 69-86.
(8) See Dei Verbum 2: "Haec revelationis oeconomia fit gestis verbisque intrinsece inter se connexis (...)".
(9) See Gaudium et Spes 21.
(10) See R. Manle, op. cit., 85
(11) The Proclamation of the Word in the Worship of the Church has been very much stressed ever since Vat. II. See, for example, Ordo Lectionum Missae, editio typica altera (Vatican 1981) n.3: "De verbi Dei Liturgica Significatione (...) Sic in Liturgia Ecclesia fideliter sequitur modum legendi et interpretandi Scripturas sacras, quo ipse Christus, qui ab 'hodie’ eventus sui, ad Scripturas omnes perscrutandas adhortatur, usus est (cf Lk 4:16-21; 24:25-53; 44-49)"; see also J. P. Schanz, Introduction to the Sacraments (New York 1 983) ch. 4, The Sacraments as Proclamation, 60-97.
(12) See Rm 2:29; 7:6; 2Cor 3:6; and R.Manle, op. cit., 70-71.
(13) See H. Zimmermann, Metodologia del NT. Esposizione del metodo storicocritico (Torino 1971); B. Maggioni, Esegesi, in AA. VV., Dizionario Teologico Interdisciplinare II (Torino 1971) 101-110.
(14) The interpreter tries to interiorize a text so as to arrive at what is behind the text: external realities or events. Thus he enters into a relationship of presence with them. This presenciality is the basis of true knowledge. The most perfect mode of knowledge is not that carried out uncommittedly, objectivizingly, in accordance with the mental schema of "subject-object", but that gained by means of encounter structured around the "appeal-response" schema. An interpretation is likened to working in the field of an. It is an aesthetic experience. Concerning this sort of experience, see an interesting article of A.L. Quintas, Art and Culture, in International Philosophical Quarterly 24 (1984) 373-381.
(15) See, R. Manle, op. cit., 69-70; for the philologico-semantical method, see R. Farina, Methodologia (Roma 1978) 78-84.
(16) See M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Rome 1953) #253.
(17) See X.Leon-Dufour, Time, in Idem (ed), Dictionary of Biblical Tehology (London 1982) 604.
(18) For a good synthesis of the notion of h6ra in John, see R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (New York 1966 1970) Appendix I: 11 , hora .517-518.
(19) See E. Dinkler, Earliest Christianity, in R.C. Dentan (ed), The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East (London 1967), History according to John, 202-205.
(20) See ibid.
(21) P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus = Studia Judaica 1 (Berlin 1961) 89.
(22) C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1965) 120.
(23) See K.H. Rengstorf, Lestes, in TDNT vol IV, 258, where he observes that in Josephus the term is constantly used for the Zealots. "
(24) See J. Moltmann, The Crucified God (London 1 974) 1 1 2-1 59: The Historical Trial of Jesus; here 136-239.
(25) See ibid.
(26) See D. W. Wead, We have a Law (Jn 19:7), in Novum Testamentum 11 (1969) 185-189.
(27) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., 861.
(28) See ibid., Appendix I:4, doxa, 503-504.
(29) John has used the Messianic title "the Son of Man" to present Jesus as that mysterious figure in Dan 7:13-14 who has this eschatological mission to being forth the great accomplishment; for this reason he is given dominion, glory and kingdom. See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (Rome 1978); J.F. 0' Grady, The Human Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, in Biblical Theology Bulletin 14 (1984) 63-66.
(30) F. J . Moloney. John 20: A Journey completed, in The Australasian Catholic Record 59 (1982) 417.
(31) I. de La Potterie, op. cit., 102.
PART TWO: ANALYSIS
4. Literary Analysis of the Text
With these preliminary considerations in mind, we set our theological inquiry in motion by first reading the text in an analytical way. We have three things to do. We first try to understand the division of the Gospel which furnishes the context of the text. In its turn, the context determines and enlarges the significances of the text. Secondly, we tackle the text itself and thirdly its structure in order to draw out the theological themes.
4.1 The Context
The collocation of the text tells us right away that the passage concerned is at the heart of the Book of Glory. It has three divisions: The Last Supper (chs 13-17): The Passion Narrative (chs 18-19): The Risen Jesus (20:1-19). The Passion narrative also has three divisions: The Arrest and Interrogation of Jesus (18: 1-27): His Ecounter with Pilate and the Jews (18:28-19:16c); The Crucifixion and Burial of Jesus (l9:16d-42) (32)The dramatic presentation of the trial which occupies the central place of the division is to be read in the context of the entire Gospel. And there are four important references to be borne in mind.
4.1.1 The Prologue
Schematically, I would like to present a sort of progressive parallelism between the prologue and the Trial regarding the identity of Christ. We can notice the difference between the believing readers of John who know well the Prologue and the actors involved in the drama of Jesus' Trial who heard the solemn proclamation of Christ without believing it.
PROLOGUE TRIAL
1:1 The Word was with God 18:36 My Kingdom is not of this World
1:10 He was in the World 18:37 For this I was born
1:10 The World knew him not 18:40 Not this man but Barabas
1:14 We have beheld his glory 19:5 Here is the Man
1:14 glory as the only Son from the Father 19:7 He has made himself the Son of God
1:18 It is God the Only Son, who is in the Bosom of the Father 19:14 Here is your King (then the crucifixion took place－return to the Father).
While in the Prologue there is a crescendo of revelation on God's side, there is another parallel crescendo of proclamation and disbelief in the Trial on the World's side. This is one of John's techniques to contrast two movements so as to urge his readers to get rid of a world-bound mentality and give room to faith.
4.1.2 The Book of Signs
After the Prologue, the story of the Gospel opens. There appear the witnessing statement of John the Baptist: "Behold, the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of/the world" (1:29): "And I have seen and have borne witness that W\s is the Son of God" (1 :34). We then find a series of confessions of faith:
1:38 Rabbi (= Teacher)
1:41 Messiah (=Christ)
1:45 We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets spoke, Jesus of Nazareth
1:46 Rabbi You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!
All these confessions of faith are in the current categories of Jewish expectation. They are not denied by Jesus, but something more is indicated. The disciples are promised the sight (33)of the "greater things" (1:50-51) which will be realized in the passion when the Son of Man is lifted up and glorified (34). The promise is to be slowly realized as the Gospel unfolds. It will be worked out gradually during the whole of the public life of Jesus (cf chs 2-12), where the "signs" are to be seen. For John, seeing means a believing experience (35).
The Trial presents exactly tthese "greater things" to be seen
19:5 Behold, the Man
19:14 Behold, your King
The verb horao is always the same as that of 1:29: Behold the Lamb of God. and that of 1:51: You shall see greater things. All the earlier confessions are insufficient and to be integrated by the "sight" of the Man humiliated yet the King glorified.
4.1.3 The Last Supper
The narrative, here. seems to be addressed to a restricted audience of believers. It describes the climax of Jesus' life and of his "hour". John is keen on theologizing the time and circumstances. It was before the feast of Passover and the next day the slaughter of the paschal lambs took place, exactly the day of the Crucifixion. During the Supper, there occurred the Foot-washing. When Judas went out, "it was night" (13:30)-a phrase laden with theological, as well as chronological, signifcances (36). This time detail insinuates the prevailing darkness of the World. When Jesus was brought to the Roman Praetorium, it was "at dawn" (18:28)－the Light comes to dissipate the darkness. When he was proclaimed, "Here is your King", it was noon on the day of preparation for the Passover(19:14)－the Light was in full splendour and the Lamb was to be slaughtered.
Furthermore the farewell speech highlights the Trial scene:
14:3 to prepare a place for the disciples
16:28 the Son, thus, will return to the Father
17:4 Jesus glorifies his Father by fulfilling the Mission
17.5 The Father glorifies the Son by authenticating his Mission and by receiving him into his pre-existent Glory.
The Son's Mission, the Father's Authentication and the Return to prepare a place are all now focalized in the Trial-the death sentence of man's judgment and yet at the same time God's judgment taking place in man's, for whoever sees and believes the exalted (crucified) One may have eternal life.
4.1.4 The Resurrection
The identity of Jesus as Son, as Man and as King is further made clear in the appearance narratives (cf Jn 20). If Jesus is God's Son (19:7), then he is a Son dedicated to enlarging God's family. In returning to his Father and his God, he elevated his followers as his brothers, having the same Father and the same God. The relationships between Jesus and his followers are increasingly put into evidence:
13:16 The disciples are likened to servants in the Foot-washing
15:14 They are called friends for whom Jesus would lay down his own life
20:17 Now in returning to the Father, he elevates them as brothers.
As the Son imparts to his disciples the Holy Spirit, he gives them also the Mission that his Father has given to him－the forgiveness of sins which is the condition of entering the Kingdom of God. John identifies the Christ in the Trial with the Risen One. Thus, it is the 'glory" of the Risen Christ that tints the Trial setting.
4.2 The Text
The text is taken from Eberhard Nestles's Novum Testamentum Graece, 21st edition (37).As for the textual criticism, I principally adopt B.M .Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London 1975). Some remarks in the philological notes will also be taken from J. Mateos－J. Barreto. II Vangelo di Giovanni. Analisi Linguistica e commento esegetico (Assisi 1982).
4.3 The Structure
The criterion for dividing the passage, according to most biblical scholars, depends on the personages in the scenes, places and the verbs (38)
The continual use of verbs of motion agousin, eiselthen, exelthen…divides the drama into seven scenes:
1: The JEWS demand
Jesus' DEATH (18:28-32) 7: The JEWS obtain
Jesus' DEATH (19:12-16b)
Actors: Jesus, Pilate and the JEWS
Place: Outside the Praetorium
LIGHT:
at day break (28b) LIGHT:
the sixth hour
(= noon) (14b)
LAMB:
the Passover (28d) LAMB:
the day of the
slaughter (14a)
DELIVERED (paradidomi)
by the JEWS to Pilate (30c) DELIVERED (paradidomi)
by Pilate to the
JEW(16d)
(KING):
Jesus is accused as an
evildoer (30c) KING:
"Here is your KING"
(14d)
JUDGMENT:
Pilate refuses to
judge while the JEWS
had no power to
judge (31) (JUDGMENT):
Pilate made Jesus
sit down on the
Tribunal (13c): the
rest became the
judged
(CRUCIFIXION):
The JEWS demand
Jesus' death (31)
and Jesus knows
about His death
(32) CRUCIFIXION:
that He should be
crucified (16b)
2: Pilate questions
Jesus about KINGSHIP (18:30-18b)
6: Pilate questions
Jesus about AUTHORITY (19:9-11)
Actors: Jesus and Pilate
Place: Inside the Praetorium
KING-question:
"KING OF THE
JEWS?" (33c)
Jesus corrects
Pilate by turning
his political
investigation
into a religious
quest KING-question:
"Where are you from?"
(9b)
It is a religious
inquiry; Jesus'
silence leaves Pilate
to decide
AUTHORITY:
Pilate's boast of his
authority (16)
KINGSHIP:
"not of this
WORLD" (36b)
"You say that I
am a KING" (37d) "FROM ABOVE" (11c)
"You have no authority
against me" (11b)
TRUTH:
Jesus' witness to
the TRUTH (37g); he
who is of the
TRUTH hears His
voice (37h);
"What is TRUTH?"
(38b)
3: Jesus is innocent.
Barabbas but not the
KING OF THE JEWS
(18:38c-40) 5: Jesus is innocent.
"Behold, the MAN"
"Crucify Him!"
(19:4-8)
Actors: Jesus Pilate and the JEWS
Place: Outside the Praetorium
INNOCENCE:
I find no crime in
HIM (38d) INNOCENCE:
No crime in HIM
(4b, 6e)
KINGSHIP:
Choice between
Barabbas and KINGSHIP:
Wearing the crown
of thorns and the
purple robe, Jesus
was presented,
"the KING OF THE JEWS"(39b)
"Here is the MAN"
(4d)
REFUSAL:
The Jews reject
Jesus for they
prefer Barabbas,
a robber (40)
REFUSAL:
"Crucify Him.
Crucify Him"
They reject Jesus
as the "SON OF GOD"
(6b. 7d) Pilate's uneasiness is
here implied
Pilate's fear is here
more explicit (8)
4: Jesus is scourged, crowned,
clothed and mocked as KING
of the JEWS (19:1-3)
Actors: Jesus and the soldiers
Place : Inside the Praetorium
The scene is a subtle piece of
irony that describes that
－Jesus is the real KING, but
not of this WORLD
－the crowning and clothing of
Jesus fit into the solemn
proclamation
"no crime in HIM" (19:4.6)
"Here is the MAN" (19:5)
"Here is Your KING" (19:14)
As we may notice, this is only a proposed structure presenting a chiastic-circular movement.
"There is a very careful balancing in setting, content, and even in length (1=7; 2+3=5+6). The only episode in which Pilate does not figure prominently is 4, the middle episode. Obviously the hand of a meticulous planner has been at work here"(40).
In these 7 scenes, there \re many possible themes such as Light, Lamb, Delivered, Judgment Kingship, Truth, Revelation, Belief and Disbelief, Above and Below, Authority, the Man, God's Son, Crucifixion, and the like. In order not to lose sight of our original inquiry, the Identity of Christ in the Trial, we try to organize these themes on Christ into four headings:
(1) Christ, the Revealer
who came to the WORLD from ABOVE, as the LIGHT in the DARKNESS, as the LAMB of God who takes away our sins and as GOD'S SON who REVEALS to us the TRUTH.
(2) Christ, the King Glorified
who CAME to restore the Eschatological KINGDOM which takes place in the event of the CRUCIFIXION, where the SON OF MAN is LIFTED UP. He is the Eschatological Protagonist (cf Dan 7:13-14)to whom is given the POWER, the KINGDOM and the GLORY in order to regin universally. His GLORY takes place in the CRUCIFIXION, which is the great ACCOMPLISHMENT of the Salvific Plan of God for it is a Glorious RETURNING to the Father.
(3) Christ, the Judge
who for the JUDGMENT came to the WORLD (9:39). His JUDGMENT is not to condemn but to justify those who BELIEVE. Though submitted to the LAW, he does not JUDGE according to the LAW but according to GRACE and LOVE.
(4) Christ, who comes to provoke FAITH
and invites' us to adhere to the TRUTH to which he TESTIFIES through signs and words. He helps those who fall short of FAITH, but before HIM one must inescapably make a DECISION OF FAITH (41)
Now a sort of schematical synopsis, we try to see how these four themes are interwoven together around the Figure of Christ.
We shall divide the text of Jn 18:28-19:16 according to the following headings:
1. the Jewish authorities ask Pilate to condemn Jesus.
2. Pilate questions Jesus about Kingship (cont.)
3. Pilate seeks to release Jesus; the Jews prefer Barabbas.
4. (Intermediary) The Roman soldiers scourge and mock Jesus.
5. Pilate presents Jesus to his people; the Jews shout for crucifixion.
6. Pilate talks with Jesus about power.
7. Pilate yields to the Jewish demand for Jesus' crucifixion
1. The Jewish authorities ask Pilate to condemn Jesus. 18:28-32
REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH
Towards Pretorium: the LIGHT shines
in the darkness(1:5; 13:30).
Ready to eat the Paschal LAMB (1:29).
See also.19:14
Jesus is DELIVERED by Judas, now by th JEWS.
The JEWS intend the DEATH of Jesus (11:50):
The TRIAL begins, JESUS is to be judged: accused by the JEWS.
Jesus as Evil-doer.
Pilate refuses to judge and the JEWS cannot jude (for Jesus is real JUDGE)
Jesus is REFUSED by the JEWS-the World
Pilate wants to be NEUTRAL.
2. Pilate questions Jesus about Kingship (cont.). 18:3738b
REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH
The FULFILMENT of Jesus' WORD (3:14, 8:28; 12:32s): the CROSS - the climax of REVELATION.
The question betrays Pilate's interest still in earthy matters. Apparently Jesus did not say Yes or No, but affirmed that His coming into the World is to reveal the TRUTH, because He is come from above (3:13; 8:23); He knows the father (8:26); He is the
a glorious death to save the whole Nation.
Jesus does not deny His KINGSHIP, but links it to His witness to the TRUTH.
Pilate returns to His own question.
Without giving a diresct reply, Jesus presents Himself as the withness to the TRUTH so that Pilate should decide for or against the TRUTH. Jesus' judgment consists in the decision for or against His witness
Pilate still fell short of FAITH.
Jesus helps him by showing that His being in the World is to prvoke FAITH, so that he who believeds in Him may have eternal life (3:16).
3.Pilate seeks to release Jesus; the JEWS perfer barabbas (18:38c-40)
REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH
TRUTH (14:6); His DEATH wil be its supreme testimnoy (8:28)
The JEWS symbolize the World to which the TRUTH is revealed but which does not accept it.
The listening to Hsis voice (10:3) has an OT background fo the KINGSHIP (Ez 34)
With this question Pilate tries to avoid the decision.
Pilate wants to remain indifferent.
REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH
19
Pilate proclaims Jesus' INNOCENCE (19:4.6).
Pilate foretells an innocent death, though not consciously.
Offically Jesus is no lnger on TRAIL, for he is innocent.
The title KING is admitted by the Romans (19:3). Jesus as the KING of the JEWS. The KING becomes the JUDGE insofar as the JEWS(= World) have to decide between Jesus and Barabbas.
Pilate tries to avoid the decision between the World (=the JEWS) and the TRUTH (=Jesus).
Ironiaclly, failing to give Jesus justice Pilate is forced to make a travety of justice.
Pilate cannot remain netural bt follows the World.
REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH
The scourging recalls the fulfilment of the suffering SEVANT (Is 50:6). The mockery and scourging are telling evidence of Jesus' willingness to drink the chaltce of the Father. (18:11)
The JUDGE suffers injustice.
The scourging seems to be a benevolent plan for Jesus' release but reveals Pilate's attitude of trying to save the TRUTH while complying with the World.
Ironically, through the gestures of the mockers, the TRUTH of Jesus' KINGSHIP is revealed.
The son GLORIFIES the Father by fulfilling His Will (17:4) The Crown of throns and the purple cloak prepare the solemn judging scene in (19:12-16a).
5. Pilate Presents Jesus to his people; the Jews about for the crucifixion. (19:4-8)
The unconscious proclamation of Jesus' KINGSHIP is a sign that the Gentiles will Unti-
One can recognize Jesus' PASSION as GLORY as far as one confesses the KINGSHIP of the
The scene shows the irony of confessing the TRUTH of faith without believing in it.
REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH
mately confess Jesus as the KING. RISEN CHRIST. For John it is the RESURRECTION that determines the content of the PASSION (17:1-5).
The KING is revealed as the MESSIAH, for "MAN" here is another Messianic title, as that of the SON of MAN in whom the LOVE of GOD is the be man-
The second declaration of Jesus' INNOCENCE
The Same is repeated in 18:38; 19:6.
The title MAN could be eschatological for one who has also a judging role (LXX zech 6:12f).
Ironcially, when Pilate refused a political.
At the begining of the minstry in 1:35-51 titkes were given to Jesus as the FAITH of the disciples grew; (these include SON of GOD, SON of MAN, KING of ISRAEL). Now, at the end of His life, in a cressendo of disbelief, Jesus is mockingly or incredulously called the KING OF THE
6. Pilate talks with Jesus about power. 19:9-11
REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH
ifested. So the long waited Messianic KING comes to ironic FULFILMENT.
Jesus as the SON of GOD, though refused by the greatest REVELATION (1:18; 3:16).
Pilate comes to a real TRUTH-searching question.
The SON of MAN is glorified when He is exalted(= crucified) because while re-turing to the Father, His pre-existent glory Him to the Father (3:13; 8:28; 12:23; 8:28; 12:23, 32, 34).
From the question "what did you do?" (18:35e) to the question
charge, the JEW fell back on the religious charge, which Pilate finally accepted under political presure.
By refusing Jesus as the SON of GOD, the JEWS judge themsleves.
After hearing the religious charge, Pilate interrogates Jesus again.
JEWS, the MAN, and the SON of GOD.
Pilate's fear is also due to his religious instinct.
By this question Pilate perhaps still tries to find a legal loophole
REVELATION GLORIFICATIO JUDGMENT FAITH
The Silence recalls, in FULFILMENT, the Suffering Servant Is 53:7.
"Where are you from? "(9b), i.e., a from politcal investigation to that of "FROM ABOVE".
The momentary silence shows that Pilate is on TRIAL and he has to decide.
To save Jesus (see LK 23:6,where he asked if Jesus came from Galilea so as to send Him to Herod). But here it lends itself also to a theological inquiry whether Jesus cmes FROM ABOVE.
It is a religious wonder caused by fear (19:8).
7. Pilate yields to the Jewish demand for Jesus' crucifixion. 19:12-16ab
REVELATION GLORIFICATIO JUDGMENT FAITH
Jesus reveals the AUTHORITY FROM ABOVE, because He comes FROM ABOVE (1:14,17; 3:13)
Jesus speaks with AUTHOIRTY.
Jesus glorifies His father by complying with His will FROM ABOVE.(17:4).
A JUDGMENT is given on those who refuse Christ radically (12:31). The fear causes Pilate to bluster about his earthly authority.
Jesus corrects him.
Pilate, charged with misusing his God-given power, tries to release Jesus.
REVELATION GLORIFICATIO JUDGMENT FAITH
It is the day for the slaughter f the LAMB. the HOUR for the LIGHT to shine in full: Here is your KING.
The CRUCIFIXION is the EXALTATION, for the son fulfils the Father's Will and Father receives the Son into GLORY.
Jesus is now DELIVERED by Pilate.
The text lends itself to a JUDGMENT-scene where Jesus acts as JUDGE (sitting on the Tribunal) and the rest are the Judged.
This Prompts the JEWS to renew their political blackmail.
Pilate finally is submitted to the WORLD (=JEWS), for he perfers his power to the TRUTH.
The JEWS pushing esus to death, are forced toabandon their Yahweh-KING (againstIs 26:13)
(32) For the general structure, see R. E. Brown, op. cit.
(33) See ibid., Appendix I:3, see, 501-503.
(34) See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, 2341 .
(35) See not 33.
(36) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., 579.
(37) The print-out of the schematical synopsis in this article is taken from A. Marshall. The RSV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (London 1979).
(38) See, for example, I. de La Potterie, De narratione passionis et mortis Christi (Io 18-19) = Dispense per il corso del Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Roma I sem. ann. 1978-79) 81-87: Structura. It is slightly different from that of R.E. Brown, op. cit., which seems to have a better division as far as the personages are concerned.
(39) This structure is taken from R. E. Brown, op. cit., 859, but here integrated with some more details. For further discussion, see A. Janssens de Varebeks, La structure des scenes du rbcit de la passion en Jn 18-19, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 38 (1962) 506-509; A. Dauer, Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh 18:1-1972) 101-102.
(40) R.E. Brown. op. cit., 858.
(41) The words in capital letters are important and must be read read in the light of the whole Gospel by resorting to a concordance.
PART THREE: SYNTHESIS
5. Christus, Rex Glorificatus Glorificansque
So far we have only presented the crude materials, still in some way dispersed. Now we shall try to synthesize all these elements in the key of "Glory" as an attempt to demonstrate a Johannine answer to our leading question: who is this "glorious" Christ condemned to be crucified in the Trial(42)?
If Pilate's question; "Are you the King of the Jews?" (18:33), is John's attempt to see the "Glory" of Christ in his Kingship, then we can pose at least three questions:
(1)What sort of Kingship did the Johannine Christ proclaim?
(2)How did he come to be proclaimed as King by others?
(3) What is the function of his Kingship?
The first two questions will be tackled in 5.1 Christus, Rex Glorificatus, and the third one in 5.2 Christus, Rex Glorlficans.
5.1 Christus, Rex Glorificatus
In the second episode (18:33-38b), there appears a very interesting dialogue between Jesus and Pilate. Laden with theological significance, it furnishes a very dense discourse about the Kingdom of Jesus.
5.1.1 The Kingship of the Johannine Christ
The question of Pilate (18:33) reveals, first of all, his political interest because he only wants to see if Jesus is an evildoer or, worse still, one of the Zealots jeopardising the Pax Romana. Jesus will not categorically refuse to be known as a King but he wants to avoid misunderstanding. As a matter of fact he corrects Pilate's questioning which is still earthbound(43). Although Pilate evades it, Jesus has already John's readers in an attitude of Faith to listen to his speech(44).
Jesus' answer is phrased in a solemn and poetic diction. In the five lines of v.38, the absolute statement of the first line "My Kingdom is not of the World" is rephrased and repeated in the last line, while the intermediary lines 2-4 offer an explanation(45). Now let us concentrate on some keywords.
5.1.1.1 My Kingdom and the Kingdom of God
Jesus speaks of "My Kingdom" here, whereas in the preceding case he speaks of "the Kingdom of God" (cf 3:3,5). Such a change is not insignificant. In the "hour" it is revealed that what belongs to God the Father belongs also to Jesus and vice versa (cf 17:10: all mine are thine, and thine are mine and I am glorified in them). This is the Glory that the Kingdom is given to him. This reminds us of the Son of Man described in Dan 7: 13-14 -an ancient mysterious figure,
5.1.1.2 Not of this World but from Above
During his ministry, Jesus has already made it clear about his origin:
You are from below, I am from above:
You are of this World, I am not of this World" (8:23)
Note that the parallel contrast between " You" and " I " , "of the World" and "Not of the World". "From Above" and "From Below" is very telling.
The "World" in John has several meanings, and it may mean two or three things at one time. It may refer to the world as created by God (1:10; 17:5, 24). It indicates the sinful situation (1:29; 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) from which men are to be liberated by the incarnated logos. Hence the World becomes also the object of love and Salvation for which the Son was given by the Father (3:16). The World, however, is sometimes identified with those (unbelievers) who have turned against Jesus, whose coming has become a Judgment for them (9:39; 12:31). Finally Jesus conquers the World in his "hour" (16:33). The working out of this Victory over the World must be continued after Jesus' departure. For this, he sends his followers into the World (17:18), and their faith in him, expressed by Agape, is to overcome the World (1 Jn 5:34f). Their aim is to make the World believe in Jesus and come to know that his mission is from, the Father (17:3, 21, 23)(46). In fact, this is the Kingdom that Jesus wants to establish. It is in the World, like his disciples, but not of the World (17:11; 18:36), and, as a pilgrim, the Kingdom has to pass from this World to another(47).
5.1.1.3 Truth and Judgment
On one hand, Jesus has calmed down Pilate by showing that his Kingship will not endanger the Pax Romana, yet on the other he challenges Pilate to recognize the Truth. In 18:37 Jesus without denying his Kingship further clarifies that his birth into the World is to Testify the "Adyent" of the Truth -- the incarnated logos (cf 14:6) -- into the World. Thus the signs and words in his ministry constitute a testimony to the Truth and his testimony has a judgment function (cf 9:39). His judgment consists not in condemning the World but in man's decision "for" or "against" him. John has skillfully demonstrated this by using the genitive after the verb akouein in 18:37, which refers to a listening with understanding and acceptance(48). Everyone who belongs to the Truth, listens to Jesus. This recalls the theme of the Shepherd in 10:3ff, which has its background in the OT portrait of the King-Shepherd (cf Ez 34) (49). Thus those who belong to the Truth are the Sheep given to Jesus by the Father. But now, does Pilate want to belong to the Truth? This is the challenge Jesus made to him. At this moment Pilate knows, at least, one truth, that Jesus is not guilty of anything (18: 38) and that the Trial ought to cease. However, to this True King-Judge, Pilate does not want to submit himself. He retorts, "What is Truth?" (18:38). On a theological level, Jesus' silence to the question suggests that it is Pilate who is under trial and has to answer. For he is indecisive and wants to comply, in some way, with the Jews, so he resorts to the annual amnesty -- either Barabbas or the King of the Jews (18:39) -- as an evasion from the Truth. At this moment the Judgment extends also to the Jews, while they have to pass a judgment on the incarnated Truth by preferring Barabbas to the True King.
The Kingship of Jesus, thus, is related to his Mission of revealing the Truth, is such a way that men may come into his Sheepfold (the Kingdom of Truth) by listening to (believing in) his voice. The refusal or acceptance becomes the discriminating factor (Krisis, krima) of the citizenship of the Kingdom.
5.1.2 The Way of Proclaiming the Kinaship
We now come to the second question: How is Jesus proclaimed King? The setting of the drama is marvellous and perhaps much Telling than the dialogue itself (18:33-38b).
5.1.2.1 The Lamb and the Light
The verb ago recalls the Fourth Song of the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 53:7 (the same verb in LXX ago as in 18:28):
"Like the lamb that is led (echthe) to the slaughter"(50)
Throughout the "hour" of Christ, John continues to supply details to describe the great fulfillment (telos) of the Divine project. For instance, the present continous tense agousin in 18:28 is not only a historical present but a theological present as well.
It was early (en de proi). In Jn 13:30 after Judas had received the morsel and gone out, John points out that it was night (en de nux) With Jesus' permission to Judas (13:27) and the solemn entrance of Satan into the drama (13:27), the "hour" of darkness has come. However, it is Christ who Takes the initiative to go through the darkness.
" I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness" (12:46)
The night does not last long and soon will have its dawn: the outbreak of the Resurrection light(51) which comes true in the risen Christ who now is about to be crucified and glorified as the King. John is not concerned chiefly with chronology, but rather with the theological present: now it is at dawn. The King to be glorified is the true light that dissipates the darkness. The Light shines stronger and stronger until about the sixth hour (19:14)(52). It is, therefore, the noon of the Preparation Day of the Passover (19:14) when the Light is to shine in splendour and the slaughter of lambs is to take place in the temple. The crowd is in full excitement shouting and pressing Pilate hard, "Away with hiM (...) Crucify him" (19:15). Pilate hopelessly gives in. The Glorified King, thus, becomes the Light to dissipate the darkness, the Lamb to take away the sins of the World (12:46; 1:29).
5.1.2.2 The Rejection of the Jews
It is surely not difficult to notice that there is a crescendo of rejection on the part of the Jews. At first, they accuse Jesus of doing evii and demand his death. After the interrogation, Pilate makes a series of proclamations of truth (18:38, 39) but without taking sides. He thought he could have escaped the decision by way of the annual amnesty. It is of no avai1. The Jews reject their King bluntly by opting for Barabbas. Pilate is still indecisive and resorts to the absurd scourging (19:1-3). After Jesus had been scourged, crowned with thorns, dressed in purple, mocked as King, he was brought out again. "Behold, the Man" proclaimed Pilate - a pitiful scene appealing for mercy. It is of no avai1. The Jews reply violently, "Crucify him" (19:6). Pilate still insists that Jesus is innocent (cf I9:4,6). Finally the Jews reveal the ultimate reason of their rejection: he made himself the Son of God (cf 19:7).
As a matter of fact, the Jews would have no problem to have Jesus as their King, so much so that they did try once to force him to be King (cf 6:15: after the multiplication of bread), but only in the way they want Jesus to be - an earthly King. Jesus withdrew himself and refused such a Kingship, because his Kingship is not of this World. This is precisely what the Jews cannot tolerate- that Jesus be the Son of God.
Unfortunately this rejection increasingly widens. In reply to Pilate's solemn proclamation, " Here is Your King" (19 : 14), they shout again. "Crucify him " (19:15). The rejection becomes irremediable to the extent that they even reject their own Yahweh-King (cf Is 26: 13), "We have no King but Caesar" (19: 15). They have calumniated Jesus as blasphemer by becoming blasphemers themselves. Pilate hands over Jesus to the Jews (19:16). Now the Glorified King is to be "Lifted up".
5.1.2.3 The Rejection and Judgment
One may ask what the Jews' rejection has to do with Jesus' glorified Kingship. First of all we have to understand the technical use of the term "the Jews" in the Fourth Gospel. Sometimes it has a simple reference to the Jewish people, and so covers Jesus' enemies and his followers and even himself. Yet John creates a son of "theological anti-semitism" to describe those enemies of Truth, as persons devoid of spiritual insight and as spawn of the devil(53).John is not really anti-semitic, but is condemning the rejection of Jesus and those who desire to kill Jesus. The rejection represents subtly the Judgment of the World upon Jesus and that of Jesus upon the World at the same time. The two judgments are entirely different. Let us quickly go through the sense of Judgment in John. Jesus' claim to judge no one (8:15) is true for it is not the aim of his coming (3:17). However the role of Judge is entrusted to him (5:22, 27) in the sense that his judgment results from his presence, before which men have to decide (9:39). He in fact does not come to condemn (judge) the world (12:47), but he who refuses his revelation has already undergone the Judgment (3:24).
Throughout the Trial, Jesus is carefully described as the real Judge in an ironical form of being judged. In 18:31 Pilate told the Jews to judge Jesus but they said they could not do so according to the law. Pilate had found Jesus innocent (3 times: 18:38: 19:4, 6), and had consequently no right to judge Jesus on legal grounds. There is another telling detail in 19:13, ekathisen epi bematos, by which John leaves his readers to intuit that it is Jesus who sits upon the Tribunal and exercises, consequently, his supreme role of Judgments(54), at the moment when the Jews press hard to do away with Jesus. Not only him but also his Father (19: 15)! Pilate, failing to take up a position for the Truth, turns out to be the instrument of the World.
Once again we see here that the judgment of Jesus goes hand in hand with his revelation. The consequence of Jesus' revelation is the Judgment which no one can escape, not even the powerful Roman Prefect (19: 10). At the moment when the Jews think that they are passing judgment on Jesus, the Glorified King becomes the Universal Judges(55).
5.2 Christus, Rex Glorificans
We now comle to the third question : What is the function of Jesus' Kingship? For brevity's sake, let us resort to the messianic titles which appear in the Trial. As we know, these titles in John do not only indicate the person of Jesus but, above all, point out the specific aspects of his mission, and hence also the function of Christ(56). In our text, we find principally three titles: the King of the Jews, the Man and the Son of God.
5.2.1 The King of the Jews
Throughout the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is proclaimed King not a few times. First in the confession of Nathanael: the King of the Israel (1:49). John is careful to make the distinction between the "Jews" and "Israel". The latter is a favourable term describing the real succession to the OT heritage. This confession has laid the ground for the perception that Christ is the Messianic King pre-announced in the OT. However this confession is not sufficient, so Jesus turns Nathanael's attention towards the "greater things" about the Son the Man (1:50-51).
After the multiplication of bread the people want to take Jesus by force and make him King, but Jesus "stole away" (6:15). In this episode, Jesus was' being hailed as the Second Moses, the Prophet who would come to give the manna which would usher in the endtime(57). Yet it is clear that Jesus is not prepared to accept this identification, so he withdrew himself to the hills(58).
At the time of his solemn entry into Jerusalem, he is greeted as the Kina of Israel. John quotes Ps 117:26 (LXX) but elegantly adds this title:
Psl 17:26: Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord(59)
Jn 12:13: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.
This time Jesus does not flee from their acclamations, as he did in 6:15 but enters on an ass. Now he faces acclamations, but sets about correcting them in the light of the text from Zech 9:9: the humility of the King. The "hour" has come for Jesus to affirm his Kingly role (12:23). He will determine the nature of his Kingship, it will not be in the way expected by the crowds and by his disciples (12:16). The Kingship of Jesus is tor worked out through his elevation and glorification upon the cross (12:16); now he is going to face this moment(60).
Then finally in the passion account, Jesus is presented as the King of the Jews (18:33, 39; 19:3: the King of the Jews; 19:14, 15; your King; 19 : 19, 21; the notice on the cross). The change from "King of Israel" to "King of the Jews" is by no means casual, though they both denote the same King of the same people. “Israel” is a favourable term, whereas "Jews” is not. The Jews have brought Jesus before Pilate as an evildoer; Pilate, instead, presents him as the King of the Jews (18:33, 39) and they opt for Barabbas. Then in the scourging, Jesus was crowned with thorns, dressed in purple, mocked as the King of the Jews and struck with hands (19:1-3). The scene (and the use of of rapismata) recalls the third song of the Servant of Yahweh in LXX Is 50:6:
" I gave my back to the smiters, then my cheek to the slaps (rapismata)" (61)
The mockers speak the truth though unbeknown to themselves. The same thing happens to Pilate when he proclaims the title (19:14, 15). It is interesting to note that the Jews do not want to accept this title(19:19-21), but Pilate forces them to confront it. Let us not forget the setting: the Light, the slaughter of lambs, the seating during the Trial and so on.
In John's mind, Jesus is identified with the King of those who act against him and his Father. Such Kingship was inconceivable in the current messianic hope and it was extremely difficult to express this mystery in terms of the Hellenistic categories available to John. However, John narrates the fact by supplying many details (sometimes not very explicit) that continuously point to the kingly function of Jesus: He is the obedient Servant of Yahweh who carries out his will through suffering. Precisely the greatest suffering is to be the King of those who reject, who kill and who even betray his own beloved Father. The narrative is full of contrast, and human logic is of no avail here, for at this moment it is the Mystery of Love that prevails. It is the "hour" to win over the World and the way of doing it is Agape, for which the Father gives up his Son (3:16) and the Son lays down his Life to impart the forgiveness of sins and to bring about the conversion of the World.
5.2.2 Behold, the Man (19:5)
The term itself has no special significance. It may have the same meaning as 18:29: "what charge do you bring against this man? " However the context in which the term is used makes a great difference
In John, the Trial is a vehicle that "develops the motif of Jesus' Kingship. Acknowledged by Pilate as the King of the Jews", though not in a political sense (18:39), Jesus is refused by the Jews as they opt for Barabbas (1 8:40). Then Jesus undergoes the ironic investiture and coronation, where he is hailed the King of the Jews by the Roman Soldiers (19:1-3). Now he is brought out "royally bedecked and empurpled, to be presented to his people for acclamation. In John's eyes Israel's long wait for its messianic King thus comes to ironic fulfilment. (...) (However) we may wonder whether the evangelist's creative sense has not been controlled by some details that he found in his tradition. If he were inventing with complete freedom, this would have been the perfect moment to have had Pilate say, 'Behold the King!' (as in 19:14). Instead we find the enigmatic (proclamation) 'Behold the Man!' (19:5)"(62).
The term "Man" in such a solemn context must have had a particular significance. As a matter of fact, the acclamation creates in the Jews a violet reaction: "Crucify him, crucify him!" (19:6). We can duduce that this acclamation is a title of honour which the Jews could never tolerate.
Not a few scholars think that the use of ho anthropos is a reference to the Son of Man(63). The Hebrew ben 'adam or the Armaic barnasha behind the Greek term could have two meanings, as many other semitic expressions, namely, "Man" or the "Son of Man"(64).The argument does not appear very convincing, but if we turn to the use of the term "Son of Man" in the rest of the Gospel, some striking similarities appear between them . We may notice that the last appearance of the term "the Son of Man" is in 13:31, when the hour of darkness (13:30) has arrived. In 13:31, Jesus says "NOW is the Son of Man glorified (aor.)". The word " NOW" is related to the "hour" which 'was not yet at hand' (2:,4; 4:6; 8:20) but NOW has arrived (12:23; 13:1). The aorist passive of "glorified" indicates an inception of state, namely, the glorification of Christ has been set in motion. Again John has no interest in the chronology of time, namely, the exact moment in which the glorification takes place, whether it be the Last Supper, the sixth hour on the cross, or the Resurrection. For him, there is only one theological present in the paschal Mystery.
However John is not discarding history. He makes it clear that the glorification does have its historical ground, namely, the cross; and in 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34 the Son of Man is said to be lifted up. This obviously refers to the event of the Cross: the word "crucify" appears only in the passion account and for the first time in 19:6 after the solemn proclamation of " Behold the Man!" (19:5). There is a parallel between "the Son of Man" and "the Man", "lifted up" and "crucified". This parallel is by no means casual. Before the "hour", namely, in the Book of Signs (chs 2-1 2), Jesus was foretelling the event of the Cross in terms of elevation and the Son of Man the ancient figure in Dan 7:13-14, who is supposed to be the eschatological protagonist that rings forth the accomplishment of the Kingdom of God. As a matter of fact the promise of the "greater things to be seen" is made by Jesus in reference to the son of Man (1:50-51). However in the passion account, John speaks of crucifixion - a term that gives a sense of historical happening. John, thus, did not do away with history for the sake of theology, though it is theology that determines the significance of history. In fact, right in the prologue, John has already prepared his readers for a theological understanding of the narrative of Jesus' life. In this way, the significance of "the Man" in 19:5 is to be linked with the use of "the Son of Man" in the rest of the Gospel, or, at least, it is implicitly a messianic title that indicates something about Jesus' Kingship. One of the reasons why Pilate does not proclaim straight away the Son of Man may arise from John's respect for the title which was traditionally reserved for Jesus to speak about himself (65).
If "the Man " (19:5) is a messianic title and is used after the scourging scene (19:1-3) where Jesus was mockingly crowned and dressed as a King, then we have at once an evident title about the function of Jesus' Kingship. The Messiah-King is the long-waited celestial being (cf Dan 7:12-14) who is to come for the establishment of the Kingdom. His establishment consists in being lifted up so as to be seen and to be of God' Love to men. His kingly glorification, though taking on the form of scandalous humiliation, has reached its high point insofar as God's Love is fully manifested in his humanity and thus men’s salvation is safeguarded. Now the King is not only glorified but is also glorifying insofar as he is to win over the sinful world with Divine Love (16:33).
5.2.3 God’s Son (19:7)
In 19:6 the Jews refuse Pilate's acclamation, "Behold the Man" by shouting "Crucify him". Pilate reacts at once and for the third time he says. "I find no crime in him". Then in 19:7 the Jews reveal their ultimate reason why Jesus should die, because he has made himself God's Son.
One may notice that the expression "God's Son" is without the article. This usually means one of two things, either one wants to refer to something indefinite, or one wants to call attention (66) to something. The absence of the article in this case is surely meant to draw attention and to give reinforcement to the title. There are three reasons for saying this:
First, in all three synoptic accounts of the Trial before the Sanhedrin , the accused blasphemy is always expressed with the article :
Mk 14:61: ho huios tou eulogetou
Mt 26:63: ho huios tou Theou
Lk 22:67: ho huios tou Theou
Instead John's expression has no article and it must have some particular significance.
Secondly, in John's eyes, the Jews would not have condemned Jesus to death if he had only claimed to be one of the sons of God in a general sense, namely one of the pious Jews loved by God. Definitely not. The Jews refuse categorically that Jesus is God and that he belongs to the sphere of Divinity as described in the prologue.
Thirdly, the anarthrous title has at once its effect on the powerful Roman Prefect; when Pilate hears these words, he becomes more afraid (19:8); he enters the praetorium again and says to Jesus, "Where are you from?" (19:9). Pilate must have known that Jesus is from Nazareth. He is asking of Jesus' Divine Origin.
As a matter of fact, the uses of "the Son", "the Son of God" or "God's Son" have a lot of similarities. They certainly constitute the most outstanding characteristic of the Fourth Gospel (67). If we go quickly through the use of these terms, we find that these sayings nearly express a direct relationship between God and Jesus. Note that John does not intend to talk speculatively about this relationship in terms of the Divine Nature as such, for John has never doubted the Origin and Nature of Jesus (1:1-18); rather he now wants to point to something beyond, namely, the heavenly Father who is unceasingly at work in the human existence of the incarnated logos.
Again John is subtle in expressing this. Pilate in this augmented fear before the silent Jesus (19:8-9), begins to bluster about his authority. Jesus, then, corrects him, "you would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above" (19:10-11). Here we should understand the statement in the light of 10:17-18 where Jesus says, "I lay down my life that I may take again (...) I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father". The power "from above" thus designates clearly a Divine initiative on the handing-over of the Son to the hands of the Roman Prefect. In fact it is by the Father's will that the Son has come into the World (6:38). The raison d'etre of the Son's earthly existence depends entirely on the Father'sWi11 (5:30).
"The Father stands behind the whole of the work and revelatory function of Jesus (12:29); 14:1 9-11) and as such, faith and attachment to Jesus mean 'belonging' to the Father (14:21, 23; 16:28-27). As in the Son of God sayings, we are told that Jesus went out from the Father who sent him and that he returns to the Father (13:1; 14:12, 28; 16:10, 27, 28; 17:11, 13; 20:17) leading the faithful to the place which he has prepared for them (14:2-3; 17:24). (...)
It can be seen that the soterioloaical function which flows from the unique union between the Father and the Son is continued a n d developed" (68).
In this sense, he who delivered Jesus to Pilate has the greater sin (19:11 ) for he who refuses Jesus as God's Son, refuses, also the Father This is exactly what the Jews were doing (19:7, 15).
The title "God's Son" indicates an eternal union between Jesus and the Father, not attained in time, nor ceasing with this life or with the history of the World. This union is made known, above all, propter nostram salutem. John has early scored an excellent insight about this salvific union in his beautiful prologue, 1:1:
"In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was turned in loving union towards God.
What God was, the Word was" (69).
Now this "movement of the loving union towards God has involved also the entire humanity. Men are to be brought to the Father and, hence, to be glorified in the union between the Father and the Son. Let us borrow the words of C.H. Dodd to express the same idea:
“The human career of Jesus is, as it were, a projection of this eternal relation (which is the divine agape) upon the field of time. It is such, not as a mere reflection, or representation, of the reality, but in the sense that the love which the Father bore the Son ‘before the foundation of the world' and which he perpetually returns, is actively at work in the whole historical life of Jesus. That life displays the unity of Father and Son, in ways which may be described as 'knowledge' or 'indwelling', but are such, not in the sense of withdrawn contemplation like that recommended by 'Hellenistic mysticism', but in the sense that the love of God in Christ creates and conditions an active ministry (...) which is an aggressive conflict with the powers hostile to life, and ends in a victory of life over death through death. The love of God, thus released in history, brings men into the same unity of which the relation of Father and Son is the eternal archetype" (70).
In conclusion, in this chapter we have seen the Kingship of the Rex Glorificatus and in what way he is King. We, then, further demonstrated that his Kingship has a salvation. He thus is the Rex Glorificans, namely, his Glory started a New Glorification of all men.
(42) See J. Kurichianil, The Glory and the Cross. Jesus' Passion and Death in the Gospel of St. John. in Indian Theological Studies 20 (1 983) 5-15.
(43) Note that the accused asks the Roman Prefect questions (18:34) as if he were the "judge". In a subtle way John shows that it is Pilate who is on trial. See R. E. Brown, op. cit., 868.
(44) Jesus always helps people to integrate their real search for Truth and provokes 'faith when one falls short of it (cf Jn 2:23ff; 3:2ff; 4:43-48).
(45) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., 868.
(46) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., Appendix I: 7, world, 508-509.
(47) See St. Augustine, Tractus CXV in Joannis Evangelium : “Nunc autem regnum meum non est hinc', hic est enim regnum eiusque in finem saeculi, habens inter se commixta zizania usque ad messem; messis enim finis est saeculi (...) quod utique non fieret, si regnum eius non esset hic, sed tamen non est hinc; quia peregrinatur in undo : regno suo quippe dicit, 'De mundo non estis, sed ego vos elegi de mundo' (Jn 15:19)". The quotation is taken from PL 35:1939.
(48) See M. Zerwick, op. cit., 869.
(49) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., 854.
(50) A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart 1935).
(51) It is not by chance that in the postresurrection appearance John uses the same word early (proi) in 20:1 when Mary Magdalene came to the tomb.
(52) Instead of "about the third hour" an obvious attempt to harmonize the chronology with that of Mk 15:25. However it seems that John is more interested in the theological setting than in the chronological. See B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London 1 975) 252-254.
(53) See R. E. Brown, op. cit., LXX- LXXIII; J. E. Leibig, John and in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 20 (1 983) 209-234.
(54) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., 880; I. De La Potterie, Jesus, Roi et Juge d’apres Jn 19:13: ekathisen epi bematos, in Biblica 41 (1960) 217-247. The Greek verb kathizein is sometimes transitive (cause. someone to sit down) and sometimes intransitive. There are not a few difficulties if we try to interpret it a in transitive sense. First of all we would expect it to be followed by a pronomial object if it meant "sat him down". De La Potterie in his article cited above 223-225, counters this objection by insisting that the noun "Jesus" which comes between two verbs "brought out" and "sat down" is the object of both. The second difficulty is that the intransitive use of kathizein with "judge's bench, tribunal" is well attested. For instance, the same expression that appears in John (aorist active of kathizein with epi bematos) is used in Josephus' description of Pilate where it clearly means that Pilate sat down on the Tribunal, see Brown, 880. After all, the real difficulty lies in the historical context: it would be difficult to perceive how the Roman Prefect could put a prisoner on the Judge's bench. However, de La Potterie also gives a very eloquent argument for the transitive use of the verb starting with John's theology: the real judge is Christ. There is also some ancient support for this, e.g., in the Gospel of Peter 7, and in Justin's Apology I, XXXV, 6, where the Jews (not Pilate)sat Jesus upon a judgment seat and mocked him. De La Potterie suggests that the anarthrous use of bema is not the judgment bench but another seat on the magistrate's platform and it was not necessary for the Roman Prefect to sit on the Judge's bench. He further argues that the preposition eis always has the sense of motion in John. Therefore eis is congruent with the transitive use of kathizein . Hence the whole phrase ekathisen epi bematos "eis" topon legomenon runs perfectly coherently with the transitive use of the verb.
(55) See. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1953) 211; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John. A Commentary (Oxford 1971 ) 350.
(56) See G. Segalla, op. cit., 85-93; Of course, in the Trial, proclamations like “the King”, "God's Son", "the Man" are used to mock Jesus and to show the disbelief of the actors there, but on a deeper level these linguistic expressions reveal the common conviction of John's readers that faith is the only possibility for the correct perception of Jesus; see H. E. Lona, Glaube und Sprache des Glaubens im Johannesevangelium, in Biblische Zeitschrift 28 (1984) 168-184.
(57) See II Baruch 29:8; Mekilta on Exodus 16:25i Eccles. R. I, 9.
(58) See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man 108.
(59) For the Greek text, cf A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta.
(60) See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, 172.
(61) A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta.
(62) In this paragraph, words in quotation marks are from R. E. Brown, op. cit. 890. (Scriptural references adjusted).
(63) See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, 202.
(64) See ibid, 205.
(65) The Son of Man sayings appear about 86 times in the NT. Only a few of them are not used by Jesus himself: once in Acts 7: 5e (Stephen's death acclamation); once in Heb 2:6 which quotes Ps 8:5 (LXX); twice in Rev 14:14; 1:13 derived from Dan 7:14; once in Jn 12:34 where people repeated the words of Jesus. See J. D'Arc, Morden Concordance to the New Testament, ed. revis. tr. by M. Oanon (London 1976).
(66) See M. Zerwick, op. cit., #179.
(67) See R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according St. John, vol 2 (N.Y., Seabury, 1980), in which there is a very good Excursus. "The Son" as Jesus' self-designation in the Gospel of John; see also vol 3 on Jn 18:28-19:16.
(68) F. J. Moloney. The Johannine Son of God, in Salesianum 38 (1976) 71-86, here 85.
(69) Idem. The Word became Flesh = Theology Today Series 14 (Dublin 1979) 40.
(70) C. H. Dodd. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1953) 262.
PART FOUR: CONCLUSION
6. Evaluation of the Method
We have begun with a theological inquiry about the identity of Christ in the Trial believing that some answers can be found from the Johannine text (as inspired) by creating a hermeneutic space through philologicosemantical analysis. Our focal area is the "text" itself which is blended with history and theology. If the text were devoid of history, then John 's theology would become pure imagination. However if the (written) history were a simple record of an ensemble of happenings one after another, then some important meaning might escape our notice. Frequently the chronological report is misleading, which is why John has placed his priority on theology without, however, discarding history.
Now in the historical paschal event, it is God who gives the meaning which transcends human conditionings. John perceives this and tries to convey it to his readers. However John's perception of the event is not closed in itself (or in a text) but has a permanent appealing force to all men of different times and places, insofar as behind these written words it is God who speaks personally. On a theological level, we may present it in the following scheme:
God speaks God speaks God speaks
in in in
Paschal
Johannine Today's
Event
Church Church
In each stage God demands of us a faithful listening when he speaks to the contemporaries of Jesus, to the Johannine community and now to the Church. The aim of this essay is precisely to create a hermeneutic space in which the appealing force of the Johannine text may become more "alive" to contemporary readers . Thus our hermeneutic process is not only possible (and in some way necessary) but at the same time perfectible.
Bearing this in mind, I would like to pass two remarks on the limit of our work. First, I have used principally the philologicosemantical method which does not contemplate the sociocultural background of John's Sitz im Leben with all its implications. This is to be integrated by other exegetical methods. Secondly, it is not enough to create a hermeneutic space for its own sake, but a hermeneutic space is needed that points to new possibilities of theological actualization in the modern world. In other words, John has in his own way expressed the Truth of Christus, Rex Glorificatus Glorificansque, and in what way can the same Truth be expressed now? How should the God-man story, once beautifully narrated by John, be re-told toddy? This leaves another step to be completed.
7. Towards The Glory of Man
The underlying motive to quest for Christ's identity is existential: "To me" does it make sense at all? In the hermeneutic space, therefore, I venture to posit some personal reflections which could serve as a route to enter the field of theological actualization.
We have seen how John narrated the Glory of Christ in the absurd humiliation. Two questions may arise:
First, why should Christ be glorified when he has never ceased to be the glorious Son of God?
Second, why should he be glorified in humiliation and not otherwise?
To the first, John did not give an answer in terms of cause and effect, but he did perceive a purpose in Christ'ss glorification (71). Incarnated Logos has never lost his filial union with the Father, He is still God, though at the same time a true man. The glorification is certainly not for his Divine nature but for the human. Furthermore God does not only glorify Jesus of Nazareth (18:5, 7 during the arrest in the garden) but also though him the glory will be spread out to those who believe in him.
"The Glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one" (The priestly prayer in the Last Supper, 17:22).
Irenaeus picks up the same idea when he writes:
"Gloria enim hominis Deus; operationis vero Dei et omnis sapientiae eius et virtutis receptaculum homo" (Adversus Haereses, III, 20, 2-3)."
(God is man's glory, but it is man who receives the effect of God's activity, who is the recipient of all God 's wisdom and power).
If God and all his work are the outpouring our life will receive a new transcendent meaning from which emerge many dimensions that transform our life in the pattern of the Lord's Passover:
Trinitarian Dimension:
We are to be received into the unity of the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit.
Christological Dimension:
To do this we need to make a decision of faith to be with Christ, in Christ, for Christ and towards Christ.
Ecclesial Dimension:
Those who believe in Christ will also enter his Sheepfold and form an agapeistic community which continues Christ's Victory over the World where hate, despair, all forms of slavery and suffering are still reigning.
Sacramental Dimension:
As Christ made visible God in him, so the Church has to make visible Christ in her, by becoming the sign and instrument of his salvation which is channelled to men through the chosen signs that the Church inherited from the ministry of Christ for purification strength, nutrition, service, solidarity, partnership and, above all, Love.
Now let us come to tackle the second question behind which there is revealed also the Sitz im Leben of the Johannine community which was under a heavy persecution. John was well aware of the puzzle of the community: how to reconcile the daily sufferings with the salvation) already brought forth by Christ. He encouraged them by presenting the glorification of Christ in relation to the suffering of the Servant. While the synoptic passion accounts unanimously used the verb "suffer" (pascho) to describe Christ Jesus, the Son of Man, in John's Gospel this verb does not appear at all. The Johannine Son of Man has never considered the Cross as suffering but as glory and salvation There is no agony scene in the garden. During the arrest, the soldiers fell to the ground when Jesus stood forward and said, "I am he (Jesus of Nazareth)!" (18:5, 6, 8): The Johannine Christ has lived "royally" this moment of what we would call humiliation.
During his life-time, Jesus gradually cut his figure as the obedient Son-servant of God who revealed the Love of the Father to men. Finally there remained the cross as the ultimate testing ground for what he had preached: Greater love has no man than that a man lay down his life for his friend (15:13). This is the vocation and mission of the Son The Cross thus is the culminating point of Jesus' vocation as the glorified Son of God. In him there is the meeting point between God's giving and man's receiving. In this climax, what was from the human side humiliation and death, was from God's side glory and resurrection. Hence the glorification of the Son did not do away with the fact of suffering, which is an inevitable consequence of sin that man has to bear. However Christ did not only come to bear it together with man as sheer condemnation, but also transformed it into something salvific.
"So you have sorrow now, but I wilL see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you (...) and that your joy may be full" (16:22, 25).
Such a beautiful theme of Glory founded in persecution and suffering fits not only into the Johannine community but also into today's World. The refrain of John, "Where there is love, there is God; where There is the cross, there is glory" still strikes a hopeful tone in the modern world, in the pilgrim Church, in the feeble hearts of those Christians who are still searching for the sense of the Cross. Perhaps suffering today still represents the scandal of the Cross, and thus, constitutes the enigma of our Christian life. The tension between the light and darkness still exists but is to be overcome by love and faith in Christ, the King. Only then, the Glory of man will come true, perhaps not in the way we could expect it but surely with unsurpassed stupendousness, because it is God who is at work for our Glory.
HOMO VIVENS GLORIA DEI!
(71) M_Pamment. The meaning of "doxa" in the Fourth Gospel, in Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1983) 12-16. The word doxa in the Fourth Gospel (after 1:14 and 2:11) has associations not of power but of selfless generosity and love.
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A0910E1_1.htm
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A0910E2.htm
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A0910E3.htm
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A0910E4.htm作者：斐林丰Fedrigotti, Lanfranco M.
A THEORY OF CHRISTIAN AND BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS
Introduction
What is hermeneutics all about? The term "hermeneutics" has a history. It derives from a Greek word which means "interpretation". Traditionally, it has been used to designate the study of the rules regulating an adequate interpretation of Literary texts. In ecclesial circles it denoted and still denotes "the science of the methods of exegesis"(1). While the ecclesial use of this term goes back only to the 17th century, the reality for which it stands goes as far back as the very beginning of the Church. The Church, from her very birth, has been a great interpreter.
In the contemporary era, however, this term has been more and more often used by philosophers with a much larger connotation. In philosophical circles, it is now currently used to mean" a general understanding of reality obtained from a specific perspective"(2). To speak of hermeneutics today means to speak of a vision of the world conscious of its particular stand-point. So there is talk of marxist hermeneutics, psychoanalytic hermeneutics. existential hermeneutics, etc.
Given such a development in the use of the term "hermeneutics" and in the reality meant by it. it seems no longer possible at present to treat hermeneutics simply as a set of rules for good interpretation. Even Biblical hermeneutics is called today to become a "philosophy of interpretation" and a "theology of interpretation". The importance and the urgency of answering this call is clear on at least three counts: a) the uniqueness of the Word that is to be interpreted: Word of God as well as word of man; b) the universality of this unique Word, which is addressed to all people, in all places and for all times: c) the pluralism of attitudes which shape the person as an interlocutor of this unique Word. Today this pluralism is not only a matter of different social and intellectual backgrounds. Today it is a racial and cultural pluralism which runs much deeper than the discrepancies between systems of thought within any given culture. As the pluralism runs deeper, so must we also look for a deeper and wider basis of consent, or at least of dialogue.
What I shall try to do in this paper is certainly a far from adequate attempt to meet this need. In practice, I shall proceed from the newer and larger sense of hermeneutics to the older and narrower sense. That is, I shall go from hermeneutics as philosophy to hermeneutics as the science of basic principles of exegesis.
For all its inadequacy, this paper intends to be a tribute of gratitude to the participants in the seminar on "Christological Texts in the New Testament: Scripture and Tradition", held at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome in the spring of 1983, under the guidance of Prof. Ignace de La Potterie, S.J. Most of the ideas expressed here are the fruit of the lively mutual "contamination" that took place during that seminar (3).
Sacra Scripura
aliquomodo
cum legenitbus crescit.
(Smaragde)
Somehow
Sacred Scripture
grows together with those who read it.
PART I: Hermeneutics as Mediation between Being and Person
1.1. An unusual encounter on the cross-roads of thoughts
The outline of hermeneutical theory that I arn going to present owes much to the hermeneutical reflection that is going on in contemporary philosophical circles. I am thinking in particular of the German philosopher H. G. Gadamer (4), the French P. Ricoeur (5), and especially the Italian L. Pareyson (6). At the same time, this theory situates itself in the stream of interpretative insights that has kept flowing throughout the exegetical tradition of the Christian church.
There is at least one thing in common between these two areas of hermeneutical reflection, namely the sense of mystery, whether in the form of the mystery of God and man or in the form of the ineffability of being, the transcendence of truth etc. Of great significance for me also is the fact that this sense of mystery is equally characteristic of much Oriental thought. This unusual encounter on the cross-roads of human thought can be seen as a sign that this hermeneutical theory is rooted in a sound common-sense philosophy, that "philosophia perennis", which is the basis of dialogue between persons, peoples and cultures.
On the other hand, I am well aware that modem people have deep-rooted misgivings about any talk of mystery and transcendence. It is a fact that contemporary philosophical and theological endeavours have been radically influenced by the "masters of suspicion"(7): Nietzsche has taught us to beware in thought and language of ideological bias; Marx of social alienation; Freud of unconscious sublimation. They have made us aware of the presence of hidden forces which tear apart the conceived thought and the expressed word from crude, unexpressed reality. This suspicion, of course, has even more far-reaching derivations. It is the daughter of Kant's "Copemican revolution" and farther back of Descartes' methodical doubt. Since then. it has gone beyond being merely simply a question of method and has made itself into a philosophy destructive of all absolute certainties.
Characteristic of thinkers like Gadamer, Ricoeur and Pareyson. instead, is the attempt to cope with this suspicion in a positive and constructive way. It is not surprising, therefore, if the coping with the suspicion surpasses the boundaries of a pragmatic science, devoted to the exposition of the meaning of a text, and becomes a philosophy in its own right.
1.2.What kind of history?
The starting point of this philosophy is an awareness which is shared by most contemporary thinkers and which can welt provide a fruitful basis for dialogue. I mean the awareness of the historical conditioning and of the radical finiteness of man. which is often also called the historical consciousness of modern man. Man is rightly seen as being constitutively signed by his being-in-history. Man is essentially a historical being (8).
Most thinkers would probably agree with these general statements. As soon as we try to qualify them. however, there takes place a dramatic parting of the ways. There are in fact two opposite ways of understanding history at this basic stage. Do we understand history as closed on itself, whether at the level of the individual or at the universal level of mankind? Or do we opt for an open view of history, as including a transcendent dimension both at the individual and at the universal level?
Since we are in the hermeneutical field, we can express this option thus: do we opt for a closed or for an open relationship of history and truth? An open relationship of history and truth entails the presupposition that history is the manifestation of a mystery greater than its controllable events; that history, at the level both of the single event and of the totality of the events, has the symbolic function of pointing to a reality deeper and greater than itself. On the opposite side, a closed relationship of history and truth entails the presupposition that history is reducible to itself: that it does not have the symbolic function of expressing a reality beyond itself, that it has no relationship to any mystery whatsoever other than the unpredictability of its own unfolding. It is clear, then, that this openness or closedness is in relationship to a mystery, the mystery of existence itself, of being itself. It consists in the acceptance or in the denial of this mystery. Now, the hermeneutical philosophy I am following, together with thirty centuries of Judaeo-Christian tradition, has opted for openness to mystery. But in doing so, it has had the merit of demonstrating the inevitability of opting for one or the other of the two alternatives, so that the denial of transcendence is shown to be no less an option that the acceptance of it. It is evident, therefore, that I have been speaking purposely of "options". This does not mean that the acceptance or denial of mystery or transcendence excludes any rational ground. Rather it means that the rational ground alone is insufficient to induce assent, without an element of openness, of dedication, ultimately, of faith.
We have left behind us very quickly the common ground on which we had started off, that is, the experience of man's historical nature. However, before doing so. we have somewhat enlarged the area of this common ground, by pointing out the necessary presence of some basic presuppositions in any kind of philosophical endeavour. "Precomprehension" is a term that expresses well the nature of these presuppositions, insofar as they are more akin to vision and intuition than to reasoning and deduction. The positive precomprehension of accepting mystery is actually based on the intuition of our historical being as finite and of Being itself as infinite. The affirmation or the denial of this intuition constitutes the parting of the ways.
1.3. Truth as the self-revelation of Being to the person
We have seen that it is precisely through the experience of our historical finiteness that we have an inkling of the infinite mystery. The person-in-history comes into touch with Being as such through the multiplicity of beings and, first of all, through the experience of one's own existence. This fact is rich with consequences for our hermeneutical theory.
On the one hand, truth is precisely this relationship holding between Being and the person. Without Being or without person there is no truth. On the other hand, the comprehension of Being as such is mediated by the multiplicity of beings, so the only adequate way of knowing the truth will be a hermeneuticat one. It is interpretation that makes possible the encounter of Being and person, and therefore the attainment of truth. Hermeneutics does so by explicitating the witness given by the multiplicity of beings to the presence of Being as such. When this explicitation attains its goal, then we have truth. Truth is the self-revelation of Being to the human person, who is capable of perceiving it thanks to its interpretative dynamism (9).
This dynamism unfolds between the two poles of finiteness and infinity, making the person-in-history the "organon" of the self-revelation of Being in truth. In this dynamism we may distinguish two aspects: the "original" aspect (originality), and the "originary" aspect (fidelity). The "original" aspect of interpretation is that quality of comprehension which is peculiar to each person in its individuality, marked by both space and time. The "originary" aspect, instead, is that quality of comprehension which is common to all successful interpretations, which attain to a grasp of transhistorical truth. These two aspects, though distinguishable, are not separable. Actually, the second is possible only through the first. But the second has the nature of a goal, while the first has only the nature of an instrument, valid only inasmuch as it helps to attain the goal. Authentic interpretation will, therefore, steer clear both of a narcissistic ideal of originality for its own sake and of an impossible effort of being absolutely impersonal (10).
Interpretation, thus understood, overcomes the opposition between naive realism and gnoseological scepticism. In interpretation the person is not merely a subject, but an interlocutor, and being and truth are not merely on object, but a source of meaning. Interpretation is aware that truth is not reducible to its formulations. Rather it is incarnated in them. that is, both present in and beyond them. Interpretation sees itself as the never definitively attained possession of an infinite, before which it feels both the exigency of faithfulness and gift of personal freedom. It believes neither in the absolute ineffability of the infinite nor in the total enunciation of truth. For it, neither depth without evidence, nor evidence without depth are worthy of the per-son-in-history. Instead, it knows that truth is attainable without being exhaustible. It brings human speech and thought from being merely expressive of contingency to being revelational of transcendence. And in doing so, it experiences the fundamental congeniality that links truth and the person-in-history. Truth is penetrated by means of sympathy, it is discovered by means of capturing its wave-length. Through this exercise in congeniality, the person-in-history finds itself drawn both beyond itself and deeper into itself (11).
1.4. the hermeneutical rehabilitation of time
I intend now to underline two or three aspects which have only been hinted at in the previous paragraph. It will have been noticed how history has been valued as a mediator of the self-revelation of Being in truth. History and finiteness are not seen as negative characteristics of human existence, but on the contrary as that which makes possible a dialogue with the infinity and the transcendence of truth, a dialogue which, taking place in history, is related to the past as well as to the future. The person-in-history is both given and becoming, both "object and project"(12). This is true of the individual and of mankind. In this perspective, time assumes an irreplaceable hermeneutical function. Its openness to the past and to the future provides an openness to the inexhaustibility of truth. The multiplicity of interpretations is not only produced but also tested by time. In fact, how does one distinguish between adequate and inadequate interpretations? An essential role is played in this distinction by the flow of time. The Italian poet A. Manzoni, on hearing the news of the death of Napoleon, asked himself :
Fu vera gloria?
Ai posteri l' ardua sentenza (13)
To see whether an interpretative line ends up in a cul-de-sac or not, it must be followed up to its end. But this often takes time. Consequently, temporal distance is no longer seen as an insurmountable obstacle to the attainment of truth but as an indispendable help in seeing clearly the difference between true and false interpretations of existence. On the other hand, is it necessary to point out that we are falling into the excess of historicism, if we simply consider time as the mother of truth? But if time is not the mother of truth, it is certainly "the midwife of truth"(14). If it is not the source of truth, it is certainty "the well of truth"(15). Time does not beget truth, but it assists at its birth in us. The hermeneutical interlocutor may be distant, opaque and dark, but the stream of history is a catalyst that makes it transparent and luminous. No wonder, then, that the "history of the impact" of a text (16) is an essential part of the enquiry into its meaning.
1.5. The hermeneutical rehabilitation of precomprehension
At the basis of every interpretative enterprise there is a set of presuppositions. We have seen already the most basic of them, the option for an open or a closed view of history and existence. Our past experience, both as individuals and as humankind, provides us with a whole net of such presuppositions. The belief that one could radically do away with them by means of scientific objectivity is one of the most preposterous illusions recorded in the history of thought. There is hermeneutical significance in this inevitability of some kind of pre-comprehension. This inevitability is in reality a s'9" of our finiteness and being-in-history. In order to jump out of all pre-comprehension one would have to jump out of history, which is absurd.
This is not to say, however, that all presuppositions are valid. Rather, they provide a perspective, which both makes possible, and is modified by, the self-revelation of Being in truth. This self- revelation. which is an ongoing process, will show which of the pre-suppositions cannot stand when confronted with truth. Sterile suspicion on the whole of knowledge is thus replaced by fertile "interrogation"(17) in dialogue with the totality of being which gradually (and inexhaustibly) reveals itself. Hermeneutics consists in this ongoing dialectic between one's total understanding and new particular instances of understanding, in such a way that the whole illumines the part and the part may modify the whole. This basic acceptance of pre-comprehension, together with the readiness continuously to readjust it in the light of new truth disclosures, has been called the "herrmeneutical circle"(18).
1.6. The hermeneutical rehabilitation of personal involvement
In the light of the discovery of the positivity of basic pre-comprehension, personal involvement also begins to be seen as having a positive significance for an adequate hermeneutics. Not without reason, personal encounter is often used as a valid model of the hermeneutical encounter. As a matter of fact. what is at stake in both is the genuinity of self-revelation and of perception of meaning. It may be useful, therefore, to dwell for a moment on the dynamism of personal encounter. A genuine personal encounter grows more and more intense thanks to a dialectic or ""oscillation" between involvement and detachment, familiarity and extraneousness, comprehension and non-comprehension. As D. Bonhoeffer's well-known saying goes: "Community is a danger for you, unless you know how to remain alone. And solitude is a danger for you, unless you are involved in a community"(19).
In the same way. interpretation demands both involvement and detachment. We are people of the 20th century, so there is perhaps no need to stress the aspect of detachment: the success of the scientific endeavour in all areas of life is sufficient evidence of its fruitfulness. What needs to be stressed, instead, is the interpretative value of personal involvement, which has been for too long degraded to the level of irrelevance, if not downright negativity, with regard to comprehension and knowledge. The consequences are also there for all to see.
In our context, detachment would mean my critical awareness of my presuppositions as well as of the historical conditioning of human comprehension. Involvement, on the other hand, would consist in valuing my own personal experience of life and history. This value is based on the radical "affinity" of all historical experience, which makes it possible for my personal experience to enlighten other historical experiences. This mutual interaction of present and past historical experiences is called by Gadamer "the fusion of the horizons", namely, of the present and past horizons. By fusion I think he means not identification, but an encounter which is marked both by distance and proximity: the distance of being a past experience, retraceable only by means of witnesses of various kinds, and the proximity of being just another historical experience, perfectly congenial to the person-in-history (20). The perception of this congeniality demands that the interpreter do not abstract from his being-in-history. On the contrary, the more genuinely involved he is in his own historical experiences, the more capable will he be to perceive the message that comes to him from other such experiences. In passing, let it be noted that the capacity for this "fusion of horizons" is the sign of an integrated personality, if we agree that the ingredients of such a personality are "a realistic contact with the present, a reverential continuity with the past, and a courageous responsibility for the future"(21).
1.7. Truth, neither ineffable nor reducible, but inexhaustible
Our starting point has been the experience of our historical and finite existence. Now it is time to sound a warning against a twofold danger that lurks just around the corner of our rehabilitation of time, pre-comprehension and personal involvement. In the first place there is the danger of resolving in a unilateral and extreme way the tension that exists between the finite and the infinite, between hermeneutics and ontology, between language and rationality, between person-in-history and truth. This unilateral and extreme solution is that of limiting the manifestation of truth, being and the infinite by identifying it "sic et simpliciter" with the experience of this manifestation in the language and interpretative activity of the person-in-history.
Against this aberration it must be stressed that the person-in-history receives the manifestation of the infinite precisely as such, that is, as infinite, as endlessly greater than itself. Therefore, the language which bears witness to this manifestation contains it more in the form of a seed than in that of a full explicitation.
The other danger lurking behind our hermeneutical endeavour is the claim that truth is absolutely ineffable. This second aspect of the danger can be traced back to two opposite and extreme positions with regard to the understanding of the Being-as-such which we have been talking about.
One is the position of those who conceive Being as such not as positive existence, but as nothingness. A little thought will show that this amounts to the same thing as the absolutization of finiteness.
The other extreme is the position of those who identify "tout court" Being-as-such with the Infinite Personal God. No wonder that these people are overwhelmed with such a sense of divine mystery as to opt for absolute ineffability.
By now it must be clear that we do not subscribe to the first extreme. An explanation may be in order as to why we do not subscribe to the second, either. In order to pass from Being-as-such to the Infinite Personal Being, we think that the whole enquiry of an adequate natural theology should be included in our hermeneutics. No direct identification of Being as such with Absolute Being is possible. Sound rational evidence must be provided for the fact that Being-as-such finds its ultimate explanation only in the existence of the Infinite Personal Absolute Being who is God. We make our own, therefore, the end term of such an adequate natural theology. This end term is God. who is both knowable and irreducible, immanent and transcendent, meaningful and mysterious.
To summarize and conclude, our hermeneutics does not subscribe. to any absolutization of finiteness. On the other hand, it does not subscribe to any mysticism of the ineffable, either. It holds, in fact, that in human language and rationality there takes place a true manifestation of Being in truth. The only concept of truth that does justice to this situation is that proposed by L. Pareyson. namely, the concept of inexhaustibility. Truth is present in its concrete historical formulations, but at the same time it is also beyond them. The person-in-history is more situated inside the truth than set up in front of it. The potentially infinite number of concrete formulations of truth must confront one another in an incessant dialogue which will allow the person-in-history to have a better comprehension of inexhaustible truth. Once more. the indispensable function of time and of personal dedication to the investigation of truth is vindicated. No one individual. no one historical period, can claim to have exhausted the exploration of truth, or rather to have opened itself totally to the manifestation of truth. Each individual and each period, instead, is called to make his original contribution to this opening up of truth (22). As Pope John Paul II said in his peace message for the year 1985: "Man's journey through history is like a pilgrimage of discovery".
NOTE: The more general philosophical terms I shall be using, (such as being, existence, reality, history, person, time, truth, mystery, finite, infinite, unity, multiplicity, etc.), will be used with the connotation that is current in the "common sense philosophy" or "perennial philosophy" that I speak of in this article. The "common sense philosophy" connotation of these terms is close to, though not identical with, the connotation of the implicitly metaphysical terms of the language of the man-in-the-street. So, for example, like the man-in-the-street, I consider the terms "being", "reality". "existence" as synonymous. I am well aware, of course, that this is not the case in some types of contemporary philosophy.
Unless otherwise stated, references by author's name are to the works listed in the bibliography.
1. F. L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone (eds). The Oxford Dictonary of the Christian Church. 1974, 1985, 2nd edition revised, P.641, "Hermeneutics".
2. Mondin, p. 13. Unless otherwise stated, the translations from other languages into English are mine.
3. The other members of the seminar were: Nicola Di Tolve, Marco Frisina, Joseph Sama, Giuseppe Sciorio, Fabrizio Tosolini. Pierantonio Tremolada. Michael Waldstein. I would like to thank also Rev. Fr. Theobald Diederich O.F.M., of the Studium Biblicum, Hong Kong, for reading my paper and giving some valuable comments.
4. By putting these three thinkers together. I do not mean that they form a school. On the contrary, they reveal widely divergent sensitivities. It is precisely this fact, however, that renders all the more significant their convergence on some basic hermeneutical insights. Some of these insights can be traced back to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. I have become acquainted with the philosophy of Gadamer thanks to the presentation made of it by Prof. l. de La Potterie. I would recommend reading Gadamer's Le probleme de ja conscience historique, (cf. Bibliography, no. 8).
5. I have become acquainted with Ricoeur especially through the presentation of his insights in the work of C. Helou, a book worth reading.
6. Introduced to him by Prof. l de La Potterie. I recommend reading at least part of his Verita e interpretazione, pp. 53-90, and the presentation of his hermeneuticat thought in Modica, esp. pp. 87-159.
7. The expression must be Ricoeur's Cf. Helou. p. 12. Ricoeur has probably derived it from Nietzsche's expressions "Kunst des Misstrauens" and "Schule des Verdachtes": cf Pareyson, p.116, and the note on pp. 247-248.
8. Cf. Gadamer, II problema, pp.27-28.
9. Cf. Modica. pp. 90-91.
10. For the distinction original-originary, cf. Modica, pp.91-93. But there is a tension in Pareyson's thought between seeing originality as instrument (pp.98-101) and as effect (p.93). For the expression "organon of self-revelation", cf. p.95. For the last sentence of the paragraph, cf. p.103.
11. This paragraph is a digest of Pareysonian expressions: Modica, subject-object, cf. p. 104; irreducibility to formulations, cf. p. 105; never definitively attained possession of an infinite, cf. p. 106; faithfulness and freedom, cf. p.117; expressive and revelational, cf. pp. 129-136.
12. Cf. Gadamer, II problema, p.54.
13. Ode 5 Maggio: "Was it true glory? Let posterity pass this arduous judgement".
14. "Veritas filia temporis" (Truth is a daughter of time) is an adage of Aulus Gellius in his Notitiae Atticae, quoted by de La Potterie in class (henceforth cited as de La Potterie, Course). "Time is not the mother, but the midwife of truth" is a saying of John Milton, quoted by Pareyson. p.85. The reference is given on p.224 as Milton, The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce. Complete Works, Vol. II. p.225, Yale 1959.
15. The expression is Gadamer's. quoted by de La Potterie, Course.
16. My translation of Gadamer's "Wirkungsgeschichte".
17. Gadamer, II problema, pp.90-91. He calls the "discovery" of pre-comprehension "revolutionary", ibid., p.81.
18. Gadamer, ibid., pp.78-79.
19. I have been unable to find the exact reference.
20. Cf. Gadamer, II problema, p.78 for the concept of affinity. "Fusion of horizons" quoted in de La Potterie. La nozione, p.111.
21. D. Maruca, Caring Relationships and a Pastoral Spirituality, Some Aids, Rome 1983, ad usum privatum. Cf. Gadamer. II problema, p.28.
22. The danger of an "absolutization of finiteness", paradoxically combined with a "mysticism of the ineffable" seems to have been incurred by Heidegger. Cf. Gadamer, II problema, pp.27. 87. Together with the distinctions between original and originary, between expressive and revelational, this seems to be the third distinctive contribution made by Pareyson. For this concept of inexhaustibility, cf. Modica, pp. 119-126; inside the truth, rather than in front of it, cf. p. 105: dialogue between interpretations, cf. pp. 153-156.
PART II: Christ-Truth as Foundation of Christian Hermeneutics
2.1. Christ-Truth as ultimate hermeneutical ground
Here, I think, is the point of insertion of Christian hermeneutics with its unique and incredible claim (precomprehension?) that inexhaustible truth has taken body and speech in the person-event of Jesus of Nazareth. Does this claim nullify all that has been said up to now? The answer is no. In fact, while on the one hand Christian faith claims that inexhaustible truth has been posited once and for all in the person-event of Jesus Christ, on the other hand it predicates of this person-event the same inexhaustibility that we have predicated of truth itself. Hence there follows that the significance of this person-event cannot be fully exhausted by anyone in history. Jesus of Nazareth, because of his unique sharing in the mystery of God, remains for ever beyond the total reach of any method and of any human formulation.
If all this is true. then the person-event of Jesus Christ assumes an incomparable hermeneutical significance and so does his Spirit-filled social body, the Church, which is being constructed along the banks of the river of history. The unheard of claim to supreme hermeneutical significance has been made by Jesus himself: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt. 11:27b). "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). His Church has seen him from the very beginning in this function: "I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth; and he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne....... And they sang a new song, saying. 'Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals..." (Rev 5:6-7, 9a). His is the Spirit that is leading mankind into the fullness of truth...(cf. John 16:13a).
In these words lies a challenge of unfathomable daring to the hermeneutical intentions of man, at the same time fulfilling them and calling upon them to go beyond themselves. This is the challenge that offers an unhoped for total rehabilitation of history by making it the receptacle of the uncircumscribable mystery of God. No wonder, therefore, if in the Church which is the historical effect of- the person-event of Jesus Christ, we find a concrete realization of the hermeneutical theory sketched out above.
2.2. The hermeneutical significance of tradition as inclusive of Scripture.
The Church sees her arche in the person-event of Jesus Christ. This is an arche which enshrines a mystery of inexhaustible depth. In this mystery she is vitally involved. She is in it. she is not merely faced by it. Sacred Scripture is the expression of her self-consciousness of her own vital union with the very mystery of God thanks to the mediation of Jesus Christ.
Materia sacrae scripturae totus Christus est.
caput et membra (Glossa ordinaria) (23).
Not unnaturally, then, does she see her living tradition not as an unbridgeable abyss between her and her arche, but on the contrary as the terrain which stretches between the present and her arche, and which makes possible her access to it. On this terrain. Scripture is simply the portion of ground closest to the arche. Scripture is part and parcel of the life of the Church. In it she recognizes "bone of her bones and flesh of her flesh".
Arca testamenti ecclesia vocatur,
in qua duorum testamentorum virtus
digito Dei scripta est (Alcuin) (24).
She approaches her arche with a basic precomprehension (faith) which is the fruit of personal contact with the arche both exteriorly through the normal human communication and interiorly through the communication of the Spirit. For the first witnesses, the normal human communication meant direct contact with the person-event of Christ. For us believers of the present, this communication implies the mediation of all believers that have preceded us. This mediation (especially that of Scripture and Tradition) in a sense is certainly a barrier between us and the originary person-event of Jesus Christ. It demands in fact a not too simple effort of semantic transference (25). Nobody, moreover, denies the necessity erf being critically aware that the testimony of Scripture is charged with the temporality and personality of the inspired authors, and that tradition is also a chain of transmission almost imponderably charged with the heritage of the different ages of history. At the same time, however, the Church is not blind to the fact that this supposed barrier has a high hermeneutical value: in the case of Scripture because of the total personal involvement of the witnesses: in the case of tradition, because of the temporal distance which acts as a filter of the soundness of every new attempt at comprehension. As for the interior communication of the Spirit, this is of even greater hermeneutical significance. Only the Spirit can bear witness to the transcendent quality of the person-event of Jesus Christ. Now, this Spirit is not something detached from the Church. It is, instead, the very life and soul of the Church.
The Church's approach to her arche is based, therefore, on a twofold witness, interior and exterior. The Church's self-awareness of this reality has produced the two twin doctrines of inspiration and canonicity of her scriptures. The first embodies the Spirit's witness to the transcendent character of the person-event of Jesus Christ; the second, the testimony of the eyewitnesses of this person-event to its historical character. A consideration of these two doctrines will highlight the hermeneutical value of this twofold witness.
2.3. The hermeneutical significance of the inspiration of Scripture
Firstly, this doctrine ensures the symbolic value of the scriptural text. It testifies to the fact that a divine mystery is expressed by the human word. Without inspiration, there would be no direct link between the person-event of Jesus Christ, which is the originary “locus” of God’s revelation, and its presentation in the text.
The doctrine of inspiration sets up this link in two stages: in the first place, it asserts the genuinity of the relationship holding between the source of revelation and the expression of this revelation in the scriptures. We are here at the stage of the production of the sacred text, say. the gospels. This text does not come from the source of revelation itself. Jesus is reported to have written not on parchment but only on the sand......The contact of the authors of the gospels with the source was itself mediated-by vision, by hearing, by understanding, in a word, by a linguistic event. Thanks to this mediation and that of the Spirit, the eyewitness receives the manifestation of the truth present in Jesus Christ. He interiorises this reception and eventually bears witness to it in word and writing. We have then a new linguistic event, already at a remove from the source of revelation. It is only the continued presence of the Spirit which establishes the continuity between the revelation and the witness borne to it.
The second stage in the hermeneutical assistance of the Spirit comes when a reader or listener enters into contact with the source of revelation (the person-event of Jesus Christ) through the mediation of the inspired text. We are at the level not of the production, but of the use of the text. We have seen that the text itself is a linguistic event already at a remove from the source of revelation. The encounter with the text, as a consequence, is situated at two removes from that same source. Hence the need of the Spirit's presence in the community presenting the text and in the individual receiving it; it is only this presence which again guarantees the continuity between the integral meaning intended by the author and its perception by the listener or reader of today. This continuity consists in the authentic symbolic value of the text, which in human words expresses a reality that is both human and divine. It is true that every human word is already symbolic of a deeper reality. But in the case of Scripture the symbolic function to which the text is summoned transcends the capacity of the human word, which therefore needs the assistance of the testimony of the Spirit.
This assistance is the ground of the Church's capacity to draw the full spiritual sense from the letter of the scriptures. Just as, on the level of history, temporality ensures the link between the present horizon and the horizon of the arche, so, on the level of transcendence, the activity of the Spirit is indispensable for establishing that affinity which is the condition sine qua non for the possibility of interpretation.
Secondly, and consequently upon this first point, the doctrine of inspiration shows how the reference to the transcendent mystery inherent in the text is beyond the reach of pure method. Method must be enlivened from within by faith, a living experience which is vitally transmitted by the historical community of the Church. The "sensus fidei" is crucial.
Thirdly, inspiration anchors the whole of Scripture to a unique source, the Spirit, present in the multiplicity of the human authors. This is the basic justification for seeing Scripture as a unified whole, whose centre is Jesus Christ. The "analogia fidei" is therefore a valid interpretative instrument.
Fourthly and lastly, this doctrine brings to perfection the view of history and truth as related in openness, that is, as allowing for the transcendence of truth over history. A closed view is incapable of doing justice to the peculiar kind of witness that the biblical text purports to be.
2.4. The hermeneutical significance of the canonicity of Scripture
In the current of historical witnesses to the self-revelation of transcendent truth in the person-event of Jesus Christ, there is a privileged sector: the apostolic witness. It is privileged because it is the witness of those who have been in direct personal contact with the person-event of Jesus Christ. The self-revelation of God resides precisely in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth in the integrity of his reality and development. This man. in this time and in this place, is the decisive revelation of the mystery of God and man. That is why the church is conscious that about him the essential could be said and has been said only by those who "from the beginning were the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2b). If the historical reality of Jesus Christ is the true sign of the transcendent mystery hidden in him, then those who have been historically sharers of his experience are the primary witnesses to the significance of this sign. The New Testament is nothing but the concretization in literary form of this witness. From- then on, it is no longer possible to add any essential feature to the face of truth. Instead, there is handed on to all successive generations the task of penetrating, deepening, interiorizing the inexhaustible richness contained in the apostolic witness to Jesus-Truth. Still, the "sensus auctoris" is' normative.
This, then, is the crucial significance of canonicity for hermeneutics. Canonicity traces once for all the boundaries within which it will be fruitful to dig our wells in search of the living water of truth. Jesus Christ is a revelational person-event which exhausts all human attempts at comprehension. This person-event exhausts also all possibility of manifesting the truth.
Christus totam novitatem attulit
semetipsum afferens (Irenaeus) (26).
These canonical boundaries have been drawn by the living experience of the Church, which, as the Spirit-filled social body of Christ, is connaturally capable of recognizing the essential features of the physiognomy of her head. This living experience has run through the centuries in the "conscience collective de l'Eglise" (Blondel) (27), and it has become concretely recognizable in the declarations of the Councils and of the Magisterium. Interestingly enough, the spokesmen of this collective conscience of the Church are linked by uninterrupted succession through the gift of the Spirit with the first eyewitnesses. Is not all this a sign that history is taken terribly seriously?
Yes, canonicity stands as a bulwark for the historical character of this revelational person-event as well as for its uniqueness.
2.5. Some practical conclusions
From what has been said up to now, some practical guidelines emerge, which illumine our interpretative activity.
Firstly, while there is continuity between the interpretation of the sacred texts and the interpretation of other texts, still Sacred Scripture relates to the faithful interpreter in a specific manner. It is the same continuity-discontinuity that holds between the personal mystery of everyman and the mystery of the man-God Jesus Christ.
Secondly, the interpreter of the word of God is not an outsider with respect to the sacred text. The text is part of his life, and so he approaches the text with a vital concern. To express this fact in as sharp a way as possible, we could say: the interpreter knows that if the text lives or dies, he is going to live or die with it. Interpretation is a question of life or death for the meaning of one's existence.
Thirdly, the faithful interpreter's concept of truth goes a little farther than the classical concept of truth as conformity of intellect and reality. The classical concept seems to make personal freedom and experience external accessories of truth. It easily leads those who react to it negatively into relativism, and those who react to it positively into dogmatism or tolerance (28). The Christian interpreter shares the personalistic concept of truth as the self-revelation of reality to the human person through the hermeneutical mediation of the intellect, a self-revelation which appeals for recognition but is ready to put up with a refusal. In this way every linguistic event is seen as including an intention of self-communication. Relativism, dogmatism, and tolerance are thus replaced by dialogue and mission, respecting, but also challenging, the free response of the person-in-history. Witness is an essential consequence of this concept of truth (29).
Fourthly, the language used by the Christian interpreter results from a triangular reference to the language of Scripture, the language of the believing community, and the language of the contemporary historical reality (30). Only in this way will it be possible to achieve an adequate explicitation of the truth.
Fifthly, in correspondence with the second paragraph, it may be said that not only is the text part of the interpreter's life, but the interpreter's life is part of the text. The life of the faithful community provides somes kind of contemporaneity with the events and the per-sons presented by the text. This experience has been beautifully expressed by St. Leo the Great:
Omnia igitur quae Dei Filius ad reconciliationern mundi et fecit et docuit,
non in historia tantum praeteritorum novimus.
sed etiam in praesentium operum virtute sentimus (31).
The hermeneutical rejevance of such an experience is evident.
Sixthly and lastly, since the Spirit is given to all and the apostolic witness is offered to all, the work of interpretion of the word of God is everybody's job. The boundaries of the field to be tilled have been canonically drawn, the energy and the tight for the work are assured by the Spirit, the cultivation of the field of truth is the exclusive privilege of no one. It follows that the reflection on the biblical word in an academic institution is only secondarily different from this same reflection in a seminary room or a family Bible group or a Sunday sermon or a novel or a play. Primarily, all these forms of reflection are one. The primacy of this unity calls for a great openness on the part of all towards all. The word of truth lives and develops in every faithful heart and mind. Again I borrow the words of a Father of the church. St. Augustine:(...)
omnibus sanctis,
propter vitae illius secretissimae quietissimum sinum,
super pectus Christi Joannes evangelista discubuit.
(...) nec ille (...) de fonte dominici pectoris solus bibit:
sed ipse Dominus ipsum evangelium.
pro sua cuiusque capacitate omnibus suis bibendum,
toto terrarum orbe diffudit (32).
Christ-Truth is recognized all the less inadequately the more extensive is the openness to the contribution of others who live or who have lived this experience: the saint and the scholar, the poet and the peasant, the historian and the theologian, the black and the white, the ancient and the modern…
But now it is time to take a closer look at Christ-Truth
23. Quoted by de La Potterie, Course. "The subject-matter of Sacred Scripture is the whole Christ, head and members". One fruit of the Seminar was also the awareness of the hermeneutical suggestiveness of the concept of arche. In this concept is also included the whole of the OT revelation. Hence, when I speak of Christ-Truth, I mean to include also the OT Scriptures.
24. PL 100, 1152B. "The Church is called the ark of the covenant, because, in her. the power of Old and the New Covenants has been inscribed by the finger of God".
25. Barr, pp.3-4.
26. Quoted by de la Potterie. Course. "With Christ's coming, the totality of new reality has come".
27. This phrase expresses well Blondel's description of tradition, in Blondel, pp.213-216. Another fine phrase is: "une experience toujours en acte". p.204.
28. Cf. Modica. p.24. Tolerance is only a modified form of dogmatism. It is in fact based on the view that truth is totally contained in its formulations. Hence, there is no point, on the one hand, in proposing one's formulation to anyone who has a different formulation, and. on the other hand, in lending an ear to anyone holding a different view.
29. Interpretation and witness are the two essential features of revelational thought, cf. Modica, pp. 157-159.
30. cf. Helou, p.223.
31. Sermo 12 de Passione, 3, 6-7 : PL 54, 356. "It is not only the history of past events that acquaints us with all that the Son of God did and taught for the reconciliation of the world. Of all this we also have a personal experience throught the power of the (sacramental) acts present in our own life".
32. Tractatus in loannern, 124. 7. CorpChr. SeLat, Vol 36, 687. "John the Evangelist rested his head on the heart of Christ on behalf of all the saints, as a symbolic anticipation of that most quiet haven in which that most secret life is lived. John was not the only one to drink from this source, which is the Lord's heart. In fact. The Lord himself has spread the Gospel itself throughout the world so that all his own could drink of it, each according to his capacity".
PART III: The Structure of Christ-Truth and the Structure of Hermeneutics
3.1. The fourfold structure of Christ-Truth
The uniqueness of Jesus Christ lies in his being both God and man: uniqueness, therefore, which is a totality. In the superemely unified person of Jesus Christ lies the totality of being as in its centre. That is why his person-event is of ultimate hermeneutical significance. This coincidence of uniqueness and totality in a historically finite, concrete subject is the essence of the mystery of Christ. The scandal is perhaps only slightly alleviated by considering that the sense of mystery is also at the heart of all the "human sciences" insofar as they aim at comprehending the irreducible unique concrete existence, and not only the general and the abstract (33).
As we have seen already, in John's gospel Jesus presents himself as the truth, that is, as the absolute revelation of God to man and of man to man in the light of God. This is the same as claiming that his person and his event are the ultimate ground of meaning. I think I am justified, therefore, in analysing the structure of hermeneutics in terms of the structure of Christ-Truth.
In this part I am following very closely the insights of 1. de La Potterie (34). The person-event of Christ-Truth reveals a fourfold structure, in which the coordinates of God and man, of time and eternity meet.
a. Christ-Truth is historical: he is a true member of our history. (Cf. 1 John 4:2-3).
b. Christ-Truth is transcendent: in him is hidden and revealed the mystery of God. (Cf. John 1:18: 20:31).
c. Christ-Truth is personal: the "locus" of his actualization is primarily the human person. (Cf. John 17:26).
d. Christ-Truth is eschatological: his total significance is realized only at the end of history. (Cf. John 16:13)
Through this fourfold structure Christ-Truth fulfills and redeems all the human searches for meaning, liberating the truth that is in them. and denouncing the falsity that all too often is mixed with the best intuitions. This is a big statement and so I would like to specify it a little, first with reference to the Western tradition of thought and then. tentatively, with reference also to oriental tradition as represented especially by Chinese philosophers.
a. Christ-Truth as historical fulfills and redeems historicism: Christ is a fully historical person-event, truly immersed in the flow of human history. but not reducible to history.
b. Christ-Truth as transcendent fulfills and redeems Platonism: Christ is a transcendent mystery which relativizes history, and yet he is rooted in history and does not escape from history, but on the contrary assumes history into his own mystery.
c. Christ-Truth as personal fulfills and redeems existentiatistic personalism: the revelation given by Jesus realizes itself in a supreme way in the self-transcending human person, and yet it is greater than all human persons in their individuality as well as in their totality.
d. Christ-Truth as eschatological fulfills and redeems Hegelianism: Jesus Christ as Truth shall be totally fulfilled only at the end of history when God wilt be "all in all", "everything to every one" (cf. 1 Cor 15:28b). However, this "delay" is not due to any inadequacy on his part but is due to God's will of making us all sharers in his fullness.
Applying this specification to the oriental context. I would attempt this confrontation between Christ-Truth and Oriental thought:
a. Christ-Truth as historical redeems and fulfills the positivistic Confucianism of Hsun Tzu and many modern Chinese thinkers.b. Christ-Truth as transcendent fulfills and redeems Hinduism. Buddhism, Taoism. with their acute sense of the contingency of material and historical reality.c. Christ-Truth as personal redeems and fulfills the great traditions of Confucianism. Moism. Neo-Confucianism, with their stress of personal cultivation.
d. Christ-Truth as eschatological fulfills and redeems the dynamic idealism of Wang Yang Ming and the "Da Tong" ideal that has inspired so many modern Chinese revolutionaries.
Partially, and sometimes distortedly, this fourfold structure of Jesus-Truth can be seen reflected in the multiplicity of human attempts at grasping the totality of meaning. Now I would like to show that this fourfold structure has always been present to Christian consciousness from its birth to this day.
St. Paul was perhaps the first to give it expression, even though in a figurative and implicit way. in Eph 3:18, staling that the mystery of Christ has the dimensions of (historical) breadth, (eschatological) length, (transcendent) height, and (personal) depth.
Patristic tradition wavers between a threefold and a fourfold structure of meaning. But the former is mainly due to the fact that the discussion often turned upon the meaning of the text of Scripture, and not on meaning as such. Thus Origen gives a threefold structure (35)Augustine a fourfold (36), but not in the sense intended here. However, when the eye is raised from the text and set on the person-event to which the text testifies, the fourfold structure appears neatly.
In libris autem omnibus sanctis intueri oportet
quae ibi aeterna intimentur,
quae facta narrentur,
quae futura praenuntientur,
quae agenda praecipiantur vel admoneantur (37).
Mediaeval hermeneutics systematized the suggestions of the Fathers, demonstrating that the fourfold structure presented here underlies their twofold, threefold, or even fourfold presentations (38). The result was the famous quatrain:
Littera gesta docet,
Quid credas allegoria,
Moralis quid agas.
Quo tendas anagogia (39).
Once obtained, such a neat systematization incurred the danger of being applied not only to the person-event of Jesus-Truth to which Scripture testifies, but also to the text itself, and to every single text, at that. This, of course, may be seen as an abuse of the fourfold structure, but only insofar as the structure is forced upon a single sentence, without reference to the whole biblical context. So, for example, however charming, it is excessive to see in the word "Jerusalem" the presence of the fourfold structure in each and all of its occurrences (Jerusalem as "urbs historica. Corpus Christi, anima christiana, urbs coelestis"). However, it may well be that, throughout the Bible, Jerusalem appears in one or the other of these meanings.
The mediaeval systematization has been always influential, overtly or silently, in all hermeneuticat probings. Even today, it is probably more alive than may at first sight appear. As Urs von Balthasar has pointed out:
The four senses of Scripture have been secretly brought back to life by the more recent Protestant theology: the ‘literal sense’ is that which results from historico-critical enquiries; the 'spiritual sense' shows up in the kerygmatic meaning; the 'tropological (or moral) sense' corresponds to the existential meaning; the 'anagogical sense' re-lives in the eschatotogical meaning (40).
After all, what is Christian hermeneutics if not simply a function of that "staying in the truth" (cf. John 8:44) which is the Christian life? And what is faith if not a) memory of the historical person-event of Jesus Christ and b) openness to the transcendent mystery revealed in it? What is hope if not the expectation of the eschatological fulfilment? What is charity if not the existential assimilation to, and personal identification with. the person-event of Christ-Truth?
Have we fallen into pan-hermeneuticism? No. As human life has an essentially hermeneutical character, so we have done nothing but underline the essentially hermeneutical character of Christian life. And just as Christian life is under the sign of the cross, so Christian hermeneutics is under the sign of the cross. As Schlier in his commentary on Ephesians has pointed out, breadth, length, height and depth are the dimensions of the cross. In Christian hermeneutics we see transpiring the age-old crucifixion of orthodox faithfulness to the word of God, this titanic effort of the reconciliation of opposites, of the "comprehension" of all dimensions of truth. Needless to say, this effort does not imply violating the principle of non-contradiction. Opposites are not contradictories, and the Holy Spirit is the first great respecter of the principle of non-contradiction (pace all dialectical metaphysicians and theologians).
3.2. The basic duality underlying the fourfold structure of Jesus Truth
The four dimensions of truth can be grouped in two different ways, each of which is of crucial hermeneutical significance:
a) St. Thomas Aquinas classifies "historia" or "gesta" as literal sense, and the other three dimensions (allegoria, moralis, anagogia) as spiritual sense (41). The hermeneutical significance of this grouping (which is widespread also in patristic tradition) is that the binomial symbol-reality is the substratum of the fourfold structure. History is the visible sign of the invisible reality of the other three dimensions (transcendence, personality and eschatology). These three latter dimensions are rooted in history and cannot be uprooted from it without being pulverized, that is. without destroying their reference to Christ-Truth. The historical reality of the person-event of Jesus-Truth cannot be dispensed With. Christian hermeneutics, therefore, welcomes any light that can be thrown on the historical character of the person and the event of Jesus Christ. Hence it values highly the contribution of the historico-critical method. And it uses this method with the pre-comprehension that it is important, and that it is possible, to ground convincingly the historicity of the revelation of Christ-Truth.
On the other hand. the Christian interpreter is aware that what can be obtained with the historico-critical method is only half of the picture. And it would be to mortify the inner dynamism of even this half, not to let it develop into its other dimensions.
b) There is a second way of grouping the four dimensions of Christ-Truth: historical character and transcendence are attritutes of Christ-Truth in himself, while personal interiority and eschatotogical fulfilment are attributes of Christ-Truth-for-us-and-in-us:
The hermeneutical significance of this second grouping is even more far-reaching than the first. In it we come close to realizing what hermeneutics essentially is. In fact, we have the encounter of two persons: the person-event of Jesus Christ becomes hermeneutically relevant (and therefore Truth) when it meets another person-event, when it meets us. Truth is the revelation of a person to another person.
For Jesus-Truth this means that his person-event has no other raison d'etre than his relationship to us. Christ-Truth is a reality totally oriented to the other, a reality graciously but wholly determined by the search for the encounter with the other. Jesus Christ is what he is, not because he needs us, but because we need him. That is what we mean, I think, when we say that Christ is the revealer and the redeemer.
For us, this means that the person-event of Jesus Christ in his historical and transcendent reality is a constitutive element of our own meaning as' human persons. Human fulfilment is grounded in the relationship of the human person with the person of Jesus Christ. On this vantage point, one thinks of the many persons who have no controllable relationship to Christ. It is immediately apparent that this relationship goes well beyond the boundaries of empirical controllable facts.
Let us return to the hermeneutical significance of this underlying duality in itself: it is the duality of personal encounter. Why, then. should it grow into a fourfold structure? Because, of these two persons who meet, the first is both transcending history and rooted in history (in the image of man), while the second is both a person in the making and is gifted with personal inferiority and depth (in the image of God). In other words, we could say that the duality becomes fourfold because vertically, it involves both a human-divine reality (being the encounter of God and man), and horizontally, a process from beginning to end (being an encounter that takes place in history).
Moreover, the two persons involved in the encounter are looked upon in this duality from the point of view of their hermeneutical significance, and therefore differently, since Christ and we have a different hermeneutical import. In the dimensions of history and transcendence. the person-event of Jesus Christ is seen its uniqueness as human symbol of the mystery of God. In the dimensions of personaljty and eschatology. instead, man is seen in his universal nature as man-in-history, and therefore man-in-the-making, fulfilled only at the end; as well as in his universal nature as self-transcending person in the mystery of his interior depths. Speaking more simply, it can be said that Jesus Christ is seen in his unique role as authoritative giver of meaning, while we are seen in our general capacity of receivers of meaning.
We have tried to characterize this basic duality, with the danger of losing sight of the fact that the duality itself is actually situated in the perfectly unified person of Jesus-Truth. The perfect unity in plurality of the two or four dimensions must be emphasized. This, in fact, is the "unicum Christianum". the peculiarly Christian feature of it all. In the "totum corpus, caput et membra" (the whole body. head and members) unity reigns. Thanks to his historical character, Jesus is God made in the image of man; thanks to his self transcending dynamism, man is made in the image of God. In Christ-Truth. God and man are reconciled in one.
That is why I would refrain from describing the basic duality of the hermeneutical encounter in terms of subject and object (42), the object being the person-event of Jesus-Truth encountered by me, the subject. This seems to me a most inadequate expression of what actually happens in the hermeneutical face-to-face. This is always a meeting of two persons, even if before our eyes there is only a piece of paper with a few signs in ink. This piece of paper is truly an object, but an object which points beyond itself to a subject, to a person. As an object, the paper or the book (even the book of Scripture) has only :a mediating function. The end term of the encounter is the person-event revealed by the meaning of the text.
In an unfathomable way this founding encounter has happened between the "subject" of man and the "subject" of God in the incarnation of the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. Ultimately, the incarnation with its duality in perfect unity is the true ground of every hermeneutical encounter. This is what I have been trying to express throughout by using the perhaps awkward expression Christ-Truth or Jesus-Truth. Jesus Christ, the "verbum abbreviatum" is the first and last theological and hermeneutical model for the interpretation of Scripture (43). In the last analysis, he is the model of all interpretation as such.
3.3. The threefold structure of biblical hermeneutics
If Christ-Truth has four or, more fundamentally, two dimensions does it mean that also the structure of hermeneutics is twofold or fourfold? No. The structure of hermeneutics is threefold. In fact, the I encounter between the two persons of which we have been speaking, does not take place without a "tertium quid", without an intermediary. The encounter itself is of an interpretative nature just because it is a mediated encounter. In general, this function of mediation is performed by language, understood in the sense usual today of anything that allows a communication to take place (words, gestures, symbols, events, etc.). In our case this mediator is the language event of the biblical text. The text mediates the encounter between Jesus Christ and us. It is important to realize that the text is a mediator and only a mediator. Its function is essentially that of bearing witness. It "presents" the revelational event and the person of the revealer. It does so in at least two different ways: a) by making the revelational person-event present to ever new audiences in new spatial and temporal situations; b) by allowing for the ever renewed discovery of the deep sense of the revelational person-event (44).
Hence the tripartite structure of hermeneutics
Person A Language/Text Person B
In this formulation the different function of the two subjects or persons involved in the encounter mediated by the text is not sufficiently highlighted. This difference is, instead, apparent in many of the formulations that I have found in discussions about hermeneutical problems. I shall list them here, without altering their own specific perspective.
Luther (45)
Res Verba Sensus
Heidegger (46)
The Unexpressed The Expressed The Comprehended
Gadamer (47)
Ontology Aesthetics Historicality
Cazelles (48)
Word Scripture Spirit
Lapointe (49)
Revelation Inspiration Canonicity
Grech (50)
Constitutive Revelation Sacred Scripture Interpretative Revelation
Already in the New Testament we can find, in germ, as it were, the awareness of this tripartite structure of interpretation. The prologue of Luke is a good example, or the first conclusion of John's gospel. A sketch will make this clear.
Luke 1:1-4
The things which have been accomplished among us
Write an orderly account (based on) the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word That you may kn the truth
John 20:30-31
Jesus did many signs in the presence of the disciples
These are written in this book That you may believe
My own formulation of the hermeneutical structure of the sciptures would be as follows:
SUBJECT A
LANGUAGE/TEXT SUBJECT B
Person-event of Jesus-Truth
Apostolic memory and interpretation of Jesus-Truth Personal and ecclesial realization of Jesus-Truth
It remains clear that both Subject A and Subject B subtend the same complexity we have examined in dealing with the fourfold structure of truth. That is: Subject A retains its composite structure of historicity and transcendence. Subject B that of inferiority and temporality. A consequence of this is that the text must function in all these four directions, if it is to undergo an integral hermeneutical treatment. Concretely, it means that the exegete, who does not want to be hermeneutically irrelevant, will bring to bear upon the text all these four hermeneutical instruments: the historico-critical investigation (historical dimension), theological reflection (transcendent dimension), personal faith experience (personal dimension), confrontation with Church tradition and world development (temporal-eschatological dimension).
Under the name historico-critical investigation I intend to include also all other possible methods of explicitating the "bodiliness" of the text in all its superficial and deeper levels. The more the concrete reality of the text is understood, the more it can fulfill its symbolic function of pointing to the other dimensions. If it can be discussed whether the exegete's first concern should be with this first dimension, I think that on the other hand it is essential that the exegete be concerned also with the other three dimensions, because only thus will he open up the text to them. It must never be forgotten that the text we are dealing with is the word of God. Without a certain amount of theological reflection, the meaning of the text will be lost by at least half. Without a certain reference to personal and communal experience, no help will be offered for the interiorization of the word. And without acquaintance with the development of the historical appropriation of the Word, it will be impossible to do justice to its eschatological dimension. And by eschaton I mean the fulfilment of God's project for man, a fulfilment which is gradually being brought about by the commitment of every man and woman in response to God's offer in truth and love: the interiorization and consummation of the mystery of Christ in the personal and communal history of man.
3.4. The mediator is not a dead but a living word
It may be useful now to consider for a moment this question: what kind of word or text is this which claims to be able to mediate between Christ-Truth and us? The answer to this question will enable us to summarise much that has been said up to here.
Is this word-text a fossil of what the person-event of Jesus-Truth was? Or is it more like a living organism, alone capable of bearing witness to a truth that is at the same time life? The answer is clear aid fundamental: the apparently dead letter of Sacred Scripture reaches us carried by the living stream of tradition, which is constituted by the Spirit-filled perennial life of the Church, social and mystical body of Christ-Truth. The context in which this text reaches me is not the dead context of a dusty library, but the very human and very much alive ecclesiat faith experience of Jesus Christ as truth and as life.
Now, this context corresponds perfectly to the very nature of the text, which claims to be both a report and a witness. As a report it claims to be able to ground the historical solidity of facts and words. As a witness, it claims to be able to ground the perception of the mystery of which these historical facts and words are signs.
Only now perhaps does the hermeneutical value of tradition become unmistakably evident as well as the soundness of the hermeneutical reflections outlined in this paper. Tradition makes the difference between a living and a dead word (51).
By going through the history of exegesis of any Biblical text, it would be possible to provide a kind of experimental confirmation of the essential hermeneutical function of tradition, conceived as the Spirit-inspired progressive explicitation of the word on the way to the eschatological fulfilment.
Tradition guided by the Spirit is the bridge that allows the text to speak to us as a living witness. This bridge is not made of stones nor of books, but of the faith experience of people like you and me, of people like our fathers and our mothers, who before you and before me have comprehended the person-event of Jesus-Truth and have borne witness to him.
The text of Scripture, therefore, can claim to be able to mediate the encounter between us and Jesus-Truth, not because it is a text, but because it is a text produced and interpreted by a living witness. More important than the fact that it is written, is the fact that it bears witness. This witness is still alive today. And from the very beginning this witness has been borne often even unto death.
We ourselves, called to be witnesses, how do we fulfill our responsibility toward future generations?
34. Cf. especially his Course and class notes. La nozione biblica di verita, etc.
35. Cf. Bibliography, no.1.
36. Cf. Bibliography, no. 2. Augustine is property dealing here with the problem of the Christian reading of the OT.
37. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram Libri Duodecim, (ed. J. Zycha, CSEL, Pragae Vindobonae Lipsiae, 1894. "In all the sacred books, we must be able to perceive intimations of eternity, narrations of (historical) events, predictions of the future, precepts or admonitions for (personal) behaviour".
38. Cf. Bibliography, no. 3.
39. It is cited three times by Nicholas de Lyra in his Prologus to the Glossa Ordinaria (PL 113. 25-68). Henri de Lubac, in his Exegese Medievale (Paris) 1, p.23, affirms its real author to have been a certain Augustine de Dacie in his Rotulus pugillus, written around the year 1260. "The letter teaches what has happened, allegory what you must believe, morality what you ought to do, anagogy where you must arrive".
40. H. Urs von Balthasar. Con occhi semplici. Verso una nuova coscienza cristiana (Brescia 1970), p.19. De La Potterie quotes it, correcting the Italian translation in his article "Esegesi storico-critica e interpretazione cristiana: 'L'esegesi cattolica oggi'". Parola e Spirito (Studi in onore de S. Cipriani, ed. C.C. Marcheselli, Brescia 1982).
41. Cf. Bibliography, no. 3. The basic distinction literal-spiritual or, equivalently, historical-mystical, runs through the whole of Patristic exegesis. See. for example, the phrase that Augustine tirelessly repeats in his Tractatus in loannem: "Factum audivimus, mysterium requiramus": "We have heard the fact, let us probe into the mystery". Cf. also Greogory the Great and his Moralia in job, e.g. 35, 15-41 (PL 76. 779).
42. Cf. Pareyson's same concern, but applied to truth in general, in Modica, pp. 101-105.
43. Cf. de La Potterie. La nozione, p. 106.
44. Cf. de La Potterie, ibid., p.96, and Gadamer, II problema, p.49.
45. Weimar ed., Dr Martin Luthers Werke, (Tischreden, Vol. 1-6. 1912-1921) V. 26 (September 1540). Quoted by de La Potterie, Course.
46. Cf. Gazelles, pp.24. 27-28.
47. Cf. Gadamer, Truth and Method, First Part, Sections I and II; Second Part. Section II.
48. This is the very title of his book (cf. Bibliography, no. 7).
49. Cf. Lapointe, pp.57-71. 147-150.
50. Cf. P. Grech. Corso di Ermeneutica: Ispirazione ed Ermeneutica. Spring term. Academic Year 1982-83, at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, (class notes).
51. See Appendix for a sketch of the hermeneutical theory here propounded.
APPENDIX
Sketch of the hermeneutical theory outlined in this paper.
Man = Man-in-history
\ /
History open to the Transcendent
\ /
The Transcendent reveals itself to Person in history = Truth
\ /
As a process in time
\ /
Through a dialectic between whole and part
\ /
Challenging personal freedom
\ /
With inexhaustible richness
\ /
/ \
JESUS CHRIST = THE TRANSCENDENT IN HISTORY
\ /
The fruit of the Paschal Event : The mystical body of Christ
\ /
The Holy Spirit as its soul
\ /
The apostolic witnesses as its foundations
\ /
The scriptures in tradition
/ \
Jesus Christ
Rdeemer
Revealer
Man-in-history
Redeemed
Faith-ful
\ /
Hermeneutical encounter = Mediated personal encounter
\ /
Hermeneutical encounter = Mediated personal encounter
/ \
“Christus totus caput et mwmbra”
/ \
Historical-Transcendent Personal-Eschatological
\ /
CHRIST-TRUTH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1)ORIGENE. Traite des Principes, Neuvieme traite (IV. 1-3):
Que les Ecritures sont divines; comment il faut lire et compredre les Ecritures. Tome III (Livres III-IV) SC 268, introduction, texte critique de la Philocalie et de la version de Rufin. traduction par H. Crouzel et M. Simonetti. Paris 1980.
(2)AUGUSTINUS. De Utilitate Credendi ad Honoratum liber unus, 3. PL 42. 68-72; Historia, Aetiologia, Analogia, Allegoria.
(3)THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, Pars I, Quaest. 1, Art. 10. Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici Opera Omnia IV, iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita Romae 1889.
(4)MAURICE BLONDEL, Histoire et Dogme: Les Lacunes Philosophiques de l'exegese moderne, in Les Premier ecrites de Maurice Blondel, Paris 1956.
(5)J. BARR, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford 1961.
(6)R. LAPOINTE. Les trois dimensions de l'hermeneutique, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 8, Paris 1967.
(7)H. GAZELLES. Ecriture, Parole et Esprit ou trois aspects de l'hermeneutique biblique. Paris 1971.
(8)H.G. GADAMER. II problema della coscienza storica, (trad. it. Di Giangaetano Bartolomei, introduzione di V. Verra) Napoli 1974 (2).
-Truth and Method, (translated by William Glen-Doepel from 1965 (2) Wahrheit und Methode), London 1975.
-Philosophical Hermeneutics, (translated and edited by David E. Linge) Berkeley 1976.
(9)C.M. MARTINI e L. PACOMIO, I Libri di Dio, Introduzione generale alla Sacra Scrittura, Torino 1975.
(10)I. de LA POTTERIE, La nozione biblica e cristiana di verita e la sua inportanza per l'interpretazione della S. Scrittura, Ad usum Privatum auditorum tantum, Roma 1977-78.
(11)C. HELOU, Symbole et langage dans les Merits johanniques. Lumiere-Tenebres, Paris 1980.
(12)G. MODICA, Per una ontologia della liberia, Saggio sulla prospettiva filosofica di Luigi Pareyson, Roma 1980.
(13)L. PAREYSON, Verita e interpretazione, Milano 1982 (2).
(14)G. B. CAIRD. The Language and Imagery of the Bible, London 1980.
(15)P. TOINET, Pour une theologie de l'Exegese, (Preface par ie P. Ignace de La Potterie S.J.). Paris 1983.
(16)P. RICOUER, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, Fort Worth 1976.
-Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Essays on Language, Action and interpretation (edited, translated and introduced by John B. Thompson), Cambridge 1981.
(17)B. MONDIN, L'ermeneutica metafisica di S. Tommaso nel Commento alle Sentenze, Caltanisetta 1977.
作者：张春申
梵二大公会议闭幕二十年之后，去年一九八五年召开了世界主教特别会议，共同评估二十年来大公会议善加采用后所有的成就，以及误解和滥用后所有的偏差。特别会议的「结束报告」中，根据共融观念来看教会的性质和结构；本文也自同一观点，讨论至公教会中的罗马教宗的职务，同时也藉梵二大公会议的教会宪章的第三章，澄清中国天主教内的一些思想。
全文分三部份：(一) 至公教会的共融；(二) 圣统性的共融；(三) 金鲁贤教授对教会的共融之解释。
(一) 至公教会(天主的教会、基督的教会) 的共融
1. 共融的基本意义
共融(Communion) 按照字义，该是共同结合。教会称为共融，最为基本的意义，一方面是天主圣父藉着耶稣基督在圣神内的自我通传；另一方面是天主子民藉着信仰与洗礼开始，接受天主的通传；于是天主圣三和天主子民共同结合－－共融，即是教会。
天主圣父藉着耶稣基督往圣神内自我通传的一切，由于事实上是针对天主子民，因此具体而论包括好几个层面上的内容；有为了天主子民生命层面的天主自己生命的分享；有为了天主子民构成礼仪团体层面的基督建立的圣事；有为了天主子民团体之间的关系，以及团体对外关系两个层面的来自耶稣基督的福音要求、永生真理、教会不同职务与神恩等等。以上的一切内容都是天主通传于天主子民的。总而言之，可以称为构成教会的要素。籍着教会的要素，天主和祂的子民共同结合－－共融；这是共融的基本意义。
2. 地方教会的共融
自基本意义相当容易地演译出天主子民团体中的个人之间的共融。教友藉着信仰与领洗，每人都与天主共同结合，根据自己的身份接受天主通传的教会要素，于是彼此之间共同结合在来自天主通传的教会要素上；因此可说教友之间的共融是建立在基本意义上的共融。
但更加应当注意自基本意义之共融，讨论到地方教会的共融。关于地方教会本文不拟多加说明；为了具体的需要，我们简单地只采取一个意义。地方教会是已经深入社会生活的，而与当地文化相当和谐的，享有相当稳固基础的，而且能在当地承行教会使命的教友团体。因此，不同的社会、文化中，存有不同的地方教会。早在圣经中已经有了不同地方教会的名称－－耶路撒冷教会、得撤洛尼人的教会等等。如同天主子民中个人之间共同结合于天主通传的教会要素上，而彼此构成共融，不同地方教会更有理由承认彼此是一个共融的教会。
原来每个地方教会必然属于不同的文化，深入固定的社会，不过构成它称为教会的该是上面所说的教会要素。因此，我们可以说一个教会(天主的教会、基督的教会)，许多地方教会。说一个教会因为教会要素是共同的，正如保禄所说：「只有一个身体和一个圣神，正如你们蒙召，同有一个希望一样。只有一个主，一个信德，一个洗礼，只有一个天主和众人之父。」(弗四：4－6)，地方教会不是「一个教会」的部份，而是「一个教会」所有的要素通传在固定的社会与文化中的天主子民团体。地方教会是「一个教会」的降生与代表；另一方面，仍旧可以说许多个地方教会，那是自不同的社会文化中的天主子民而言。保禄向罗马教会问安说：「基督的众教会问候你们。」(罗十六：16)。
这样看来，所有地方教会既然拥有同样的教会要素，彼此结合在教会要素上－－共融。由于拥有的是共同的教会要素，所以一起共称为「教会」，一个天主的教会(宗二十：28)、基督的教会(罗十六：16)，一个至公的教会。
3. 地方教会与至公教会的共融
教会在二、三世纪时，已经逐渐提出至公教会的名称，所有信仰基督的地方教会构成一个至公教会。其实在新约时代教会早已含有至公的意识。即使起初只有一个耶路撒冷地方教会，可是在它的意识中自认是天主的教会，它将由耶路撒冷走向全犹大和撤玛黎雅。为此，实质上地方教会与至公教会两个概念是同时孕育的，即使名称与两者之间关系的发现是后起的。至公教会存在于每个地方教会中，每个地方教会代表至公教会，它不是至公教会的部份。至公教会原则上要扩展到普世，是普及各地的教会。为此，虽然至公教会具体地是存在于每个地方教会中，但是，概念上它并不与地方性牵连，而更是标榜所有教会团体的共同性及教会的共同要素。
如果不同地方教会之间彼此构成一个共融，那么所有地方教会与至公教会、普及各地的教会之间的关系更是显而易见之事了；所有地方教会的共融便是至公教会。事实上，教会学一般而论更是注意所有地方教会构成的一个共融：至公教会
4. 共融、对立、分裂
共融－－共同结合，基本上指的是天主圣三之自我通传与其子民，共同结合的教会。根据这个基本意义，引申出不同地方教会之间构成共融；以及所有地方教会是一个共融－－共同结合于教会要素上，成为一个至公教会。
共融概念中含有自由意愿，因此与之相连的是对立，甚至分裂。本文不拟自基本意义上讨论教会作为天主救恩计划中之共融，以及对立与分裂。简单而论，对立是会发生的，因为教会自天主子民而言是有罪的教会。分裂是绝对不曾发生的，因为耶稣基督许下：天天与祂的教会和在，直到今世的终结(玛二八：20)。
这里特别要讨论的是不同地方教会之间的共融、对立与分裂；以及地方教会与至公教会之间的共融、对立与分裂。
首先，地方教会是实现在不同社会、文化区域的教友团体。如果它深入固定社会与当地文化和谐；如果它承行教会使命于特殊民族中，那么它的礼仪生活不能不与当地文化的象征融合；它传播的福音真理和实践的福音要求不能不在自己的社会文化背景中注解出来。因此，地方教会不能不显出簇新的面貌，会引起其它地方教会的惊讶，甚至对立。在教会历史中这类的事并不稀少，比如公元四二九年君士坦丁堡宗主教奈思多略讲的圣母道理，便受到亚历山大里亚宗主教济利禄强烈反应。古代教会历史中两个地方教会由于道理上的不合而导致共融破裂的也是常有的事，比如厄弗所大公会议之后，有一段时间，亚历山大里亚地方教会与安提约基地方教会便是处在分裂情况之中。
不同地方教会之间的共融，产生真正的对立与分裂，根源上该是双方关于共同接受的教会要素上有了歧见。奈思多略与济利禄，以及两个地方教会的对立，都是由于对基督的信仰上发生冲突。共融是结合于教会要素，对立与分裂来自双方互指对于教会要素的不忠与破坏。
不同地方教会之间的共融产生对立与分裂，今日已不多见。由于教会在历史中的演变，现代更受人注意的是地方教会与至公教会的共融、对立，甚至分裂问题。简单地说，罗马教宗的职务经过将近二千年的发展，愈来愈对教会共同要素肩负起保障、实践和推广的工作；也可以说至公教会作为普及各地的共融而论，受到相当严密的注意。在此情形下任何地方教会往自己固定的社会与文他领域中，如果推动较新的教友生活，难免不受到负责大公教会共融的职务所注意，因而对立的产生是不难了解的了。
至此，我们自然会问，如果今日不同地方教会之间的共融产生对立，甚至分裂的威胁；如果至公教会与地方教会的共融产生对立，甚至分裂的威胁，将怎样处理？是否天主圣三通传于子民教会要素中，基本上含有解决的方法？
(二) 圣统性的共融
教会共融怎样保障？对立与分裂怎样解决？这里只自梵二大公会议教会宪章第三章，抽出一些资料，原则性地作答。
1. 宗徒团与主教团(19－22)
「耶稣把这些宗徒们组成一个团体，就是一个固定的集合体的形式，从他们中拣选了伯多禄作为这个团体的首领。耶稣先把他们派往以色列的子孙，以后派往世界各国，要他们分享自己的权能，去接受所有的民族为弟子，去圣化、治理这些民族，这样去传布教会，在主的领导下为教会的职员及牧人，万世万代，以至世界终穷。」
「由于主的规定，圣伯多禄及其他宗徒们组成一个宗徒团，基于同等理由，继承伯多禄的罗马教宗和继承宗徒们的主教们，彼此也联结在一起。……一个人接受了主教圣事的祝圣，保持着与主教团的首领及其他团员的圣统共融，就是主教团的一份子了。」
2. 主教团的权力(22)
「主教团在训导与牧权上继承着宗徒团，而且就是宗徒团的延续，只要与其首领罗马教宗在一起，而总不与此首领分离，则对整体教会也是一个享有最高全权的主体，虽然这种权力，没有罗马教宗的同意，不能使用。」(22)
另外一个享有最高全权的主体是罗马教宗。他以基督代表及整体教会牧人的职务名义，对教会有完全的、最高的、普遍的权柄，时时都可以自由使用。神学家对两个最高全权的主体，有着极丰富的研讨。
本文采用的神学意见是教宗作为教会首牧的职务，是教宗作为主教团首领实施主教团的最高全权的另外一种方式。换句话说，主教团是这样一个教会最高全权团体，它可由教宗一人以主教团首领身份独自执行全权，也可由首领教宗与成员共同执行全权。教会全权主体只有一个，它是主教团。
3. 圣统性的共融
教会宪章视主教团是一个共融、一个首领与其他团员的圣统性共融。其融是共同结合，我们已经论及教会?天主圣三之通传与天主子民之接受的共同结合。不同地方教会之间构成的共融－－共同接受教会因素。地方教会与至公教会的共融－－地方教会与普及各地的教会具有共同的教会要素。究竟梵二大公会议所说的「圣统性共融」是什么？与上述的各层共融有什么关系？
(1) 圣统性的共融是什么？
圣统性的共融是教会中的主教团、继承宗徒团的主教团。称它为共融，因为团中的每位主教共同结合。由什么来共同结合？那是对整个教会的最高全权。所有在主教团中的成员共同结合于最高全权上，所以称为共融。不过这个共融是圣统性的，因为成员之中有首领－－罗马主教，没有他的同意主教团不只任何成员个人，即使成员团体，也不能使用共同享有的最高全权。
(2) 圣统性的共融与上述的各层共融有什么关系？
1. 自天主圣三与其子民共同结合的基本共融而论，主教团－－圣统性的共融，是耶稣基督，为了维护天主子民团体之间的关系，以及团体对外的关系，而通傅的教会职务。它是基督通传的教会要素之一。消极而论，教会中任何个人或者团体，否定这个因素则是异端人，如果脱离这个职务则是裂教人。
为此，任何教会团体或者地方教会，脱离这个教会职务，那么它失落了教会要素之一，便无法再是完整的、圆满的教会团体了。
2. 积极方面，圣统性的共同成员象征着唯一与至公教会的共融，按照西彼廉(Cyprianus 200-258)，「主教在整个教友团体中，教友团体就在主教身上」。意谓地方教会的信仰与行动在主教身上出现。那么我们可以看到在主教团中代表所有地方教会的主教，以及他们的首领罗马教宗共同结合，这个共融不是象征唯一与至公教会的共融吗？
梵二大公会议也有这样的思想：「主教团的统一件，也表现在每位主教与个别的教会，以及整个教会的彼此关系上。罗马教宗继承伯多禄，对主教们和信友群众是一个永久性的，可见的统一中心和基础。每位主教则是其个别教会的有形的统一中心和基础；这些个别教会都是整个教会的缩型，唯一的大公教会就在他们中间，由它们集合而成。因此，每一位主教代表他自己的教会，全体主教在和平、相爱及统一的联系下与教宗一起代表整个教会。」(23)
3. 圣统性的共融既然代表整个教会，实在也代表了所有地方教会之间的共融。
4. 不同地方教会之间构成的共融怎样可以保障？根据上面的思想，它由地方主教在和平、相爱及统一的联系下保障。这里已经不是任何目标的和平、相爱及统一的联系；而是共同和平地接受教会要素；根据共同的教会要素相爱与统一地联系。当然共融之保障不只由代表地方教会的主教得到，可能也由地方教会的天主子民，在教会要素中：如感恩祭、祈祷中，和平、相爱及统一地联系而得到。
不过，如果不同地方教会之间的共融产生了对立，甚至分裂的威胁，又将怎样？这里我们不指实际的解决之道。至少在理论上，由于真正的对立与分裂应当关于教会要素，那么理应由圣统性共融的首领来调停与解释，甚至指出真正的教会要素而来定断是非。另一方面，两个地方教会之间的对立或分裂的威胁，若由双方根据教会的要素来解决也无不可，似乎实际更好。
5. 至于地方教会与至公教会之间的共融，该由「全体主教在和平、相爱及统一的联系下与教宗一起代表整个教会」来加保障。但是，一旦某个地方教会与大公教会之间发生对立与分裂的威胁时，共融又将怎样保障？真正对立与分裂威胁，在本文的背景中应当关于教会要素。地方教会的教会要素是具体地实现在固定的社会生活，当地的文化背景，以及承行教会使命之中；往往显出特殊面貌。原则上在至公教会中，地方教会各显特殊面貌，更加显出多采多姿、光辉耀目。但是历史上却因此产生过对立，甚至分裂的危机。究竟怎样保障共融呢？根据梵二大公会议之教导，原则上该由圣统性共融之首领 罗马教宗来解决。究竟他应当有什么态度？需要怎样的步骤？都非本文所能触及的。甚至在历史上可能发生过地方教会的生活被人错懂、误解，因而导致极为痛心的后果。但这一切仅能要求至公教会的首领谨慎从事，避免旧辙重蹈，而不是否定来自基督的教会职务。
而且地方教会与至公教会之间的对立与分裂的威胁，不只牵涉大公教会的首领，而且也与其他地方教会有关。实际而论，其他地方教会的主教理当根据教会要素，审量与解释对立的来源，甚至判断分裂之威胁的真相。但是，他们不是圣统性共融的首领，因此必须与首领联系。他们尽可表达意见，教宗也应聆听；但是决不可与首领背道而驰，甚至有些言论及行动助长当事的地方教会加深对立，坚持其立场。
末了，根据梵二大公会议的精神，我们可以说共融(对立、分裂) 牵涉不同层次；的确不同地方教会之间、地方教会与至公教会之间的结合，基本上是属于信仰与爱的层次。有关方面在信仰与爱中接受来自天主圣三的教会要素。不过属于信仰与爱层次上的彼此关系，在教会中并非不能以法律层次的话来表达。因此，今天教会中对于共融的保障与对立和分裂的消除，除了信仰和爱的精神之外，也应用法律的方式。当然法律尚应建立在信仰和爱之上。其实教会有法律层次，自新约时代早已如此，今日整个教会如此，连地方教会也是如此。
金鲁贤教授对教会的共融思想
上海畲山修院院长金鲁贤教授在几个机会中，对于教会的共融发表了一页的谈话。本文便根据今年四月十八日他在西德圣奥古斯丁(Saint Augustine) 的一篇英译的讲辞。讲辞内容很丰富，与我们内容有关的是第二部份－－整体教会与地方教会。但第二部份中讨论本地化的篇幅占得较长。金教授自称不是神学家，又非历史家；但是由于他在中国教会中的影响很大，所以我们特地把他有关这问题的思想，提出来交谈一下。
1. 地方教会与普世(整体)教会
金教授对于地方教会指出好些对象，但是演讲中讨论的地方教会与本文是相同的。他认为普世教会是一抽象概念，实际上并不存在，只是存在于地方教会中；因此，不如称为整体教会。整体教会完全地存在于地方教会中，因此每个地方教会是完整的教会。我认为金教授的困扰在中文翻译中，尤易感到。「普世」与「地方」自然引人把地方教会当作普世教会的一部份。但由于在神学上不是如此了解，因此他说普世教会是一个抽象概念，本身并不存在，而是存在于地方教会中。为了避免普世教会与地方教会之关系说解，他认为不要用普世教会，而用整体教会，每个地方教会都是完整的教会。
其实西文普世{Universal) 与至公(Catholic) 具有关系。而至公的意义在第二世纪用为教会的性质以来，意义上也有发展。最初便是「全」教会与个别的、地方的教会互相区别；为此更是属于经验性的用字。第三世纪以来，「至公」已经用来针对异端派、分裂派，视他们不属「至公」教会，「全」(普及各地) 教会，至于「至公」已经含有正统的意义。奥斯定曾经综述「至公」的意义，它包含「全」、「正统」和普及世界(包含万民) 三点。而最后一点今日更受注意，它已经含有神学解释；意即基督教会的性质，不只是在固定地区中，但又超越固定地区，要求普及世界。至公教会与地方教会互相有区别，但不冲突；它存在于地方教会中，但是按照教会的要素却又普及他处，而且原则上是为普及世界，包含万民的。至公教会直接指示的是大公性，与「地方」区别，但它存在于每个地方教会中，表示地方教会即使具体落实于固定社会与文化中，它也不能不又是至公的，因为教会要素并不由于落实于地区而失掉大公性的。这是教会的奥迹，定是地方的，又是大公的。地方教会必须本地化，但是如果本地化而失落了至公性，那不是基督的教会，「地方」与「至公」之间产生张力，但是并不分开，这也是教会本地化所不能不注意到的。本文基于这个缘故，一方面如同金教授不用中译的「普世」；另一方面与金教授不同，本文中无意用「整体」来代替，「至公教会」是现成的名词，即使是地方教会也不失为「至公」，虽然我也知道这个名词在大公主义中的困扰。
不过，金教授所说的整体、完整的教会在地方教会中，是千真万确的，梵二大公会议文献中也如此说过。
2. 教会奥迹之一?整体教会在地方教会中
金教授引用了梵三大公会议教会宪章第一章的话，指出教会是一件「圣事」，就是说教会是与天主亲密结合，以及全人类彼此团结的记号与工具。既然是一件「圣事」，在外在的形态后面含有奥迹?天主的奥迹性活动。金教授在演讲的第二部份提出二项奥迹性行动；其一便是整体教会在地方教会中。
对于这个奥迹金教授并没有解释，只是引用了圣多玛斯的「熙雍！请赞扬！」圣体颂中的三节：
10. 我们遵从祂的命令，
祝圣酒饼，
作为赎罪的牺牲。
19. 不可怀疑，应当牢记
祭品虽然可以剖分，
每分都是耶稣全身。
20. 饼形酒形随意分，
分的只是饼酒外形，
基督圣体毫无增损。
根据引用的三节诗文，金教授意谓如同整个耶稣基督临在于随意分的饼形、酒形内，完整的教会往每个地方教会中。每个地方教会是完整的教会，丝毫不缺少什么；同时，所有地方教会形成一个完整的教会，这是教会奥迹之一。
圣体圣事与教会具有非常密切的关系。饼形与酒形「每分都是耶稣圣身」；各地的教会都是整体教会。一般性的比较，确是相似，但是鉴于基督的教会的实际状况，不能不对于这种比较提出一些讨论。
前文中曾解释过「一个教会、许多地方教会」。一个教会由于共同的教会要素；许多地方教会由于不同的教会与文化区域的天主子民。地方教会是整体教会，由于分享共同的教会因素。构成教会的因素具有好几层面，虽然应该合为整体，实际而论，由于种种缘故，不同的教会团体或者在不同地方的教会，能够接受整体，也能够排除部份。可见教会要素是能够分割的。失掉整体要素的教会团体或地方教会，便无法称为整体的或完整的教会。它与其他地方教会以及至公教会的共融也将是不完整的了。
自圣体圣事而论，凡是祝圣过的饼形、酒形，成为整个耶稣基督，祂是不能分割的。而饼形、酒形更无自由意愿而言。自教会而论，教会要素能被分割，而教会团体的天主子民具有自由意愿。梵二大公会议有关整体的教会因素；与它存在于哪个教会团体内；以及有关不完整的教会团体…等等，都讨论过，值得加以参考。(参阅教会宪章8, 14, 15)。
当然，金教授在相比中的积极因素仍是非常有用，而且富有神学意义。
3. 教会奥迹之二－－整体教会与地方教会的关系
金教授对此奥迹亦引证了圣三庆节的颂谢词：「神圣的主，全能的父，永远的天主；你和你的独生子及圣神只是一个天主，一个主：不是单独一位，而是三位一体。我们因着你的启示，坚信确认你的光荣，和你圣子的光荣，与圣神的光荣，毫无差别或分异。因此在承认真实永恒的天主时，我们颂扬三位分明、性体唯一、尊严均等。」
根据圣三庆节颂谢词，金教授在教会学上类比性地引申到整体教会与地方教会彼此之间的差别、一体与平等上。地上的教会反映出天上圣三奥迹。
金教授以三位一体的信理来处理整体教会与地方教会之间的一体与平等，使人想起公元一三五七年，希腊的亚达纳削(Grec Athanase) 和教宗代表伯铎多玛(Pierre Thomas) 之间的辩论。教宗代表说：教会只有一个首领，十二宗徒难道是十二个头吗？而亚达纳削首先认为宗徒享有相同的全德，不分高低，亦不分为十二个首领。他们是一个首领，如同天主圣三是一个天主，不是三个天主。结果亚达纳削给予罗马教宗的是荣审性的首席。至于教会的首领是由继承十二宗徒的主教分享的，如同一个天主性体包含父、子、神三位。
应用圣三模型解释教会似乎是相当的传统，不过金教授处理的是整体教会与地方教会的差别、平等与一体。
的确，如同「奥迹之一」中已见到的，地方教会是完整的教会，在教会要素上并不缺少什么，谁也不能否认这方面的一体与平等。不过金教授似乎并未彻底研讨与应用圣三模型。颂谢辞中一方面肯定性体唯一；另一方面坚信三位分明。金教授只取用了性体唯一，为了维护教会之间的平等与一体。但是圣三学中的父、子、圣神三位分明，他并不考虑用在教会学上面。
我们分二个步骤来继续金教授的圣三模型教会学。上面同意：自教会要素而论，整体教会、地方教会、各个地方教会是平等与一体的，因为共同地信仰与接受了来自耶稣基督通传给教会的一切要素。现在我们要继续先从地方教会来分析一些事情，然后讨论至公教会。
一个地方教会接受了教会因素，自它的每位天主子民而论，大家是平等与一体的。因为他们具有共同分享天主的生命，相信一切基督传授的真理，接受祂所启示的教会不同职务。梵二教会宪章指出基本平等的根源是分享耶稣司祭、先知、君王的地位。但是，基本平等并不否定差别。建基于教会不同职务上的差别。在地方教会中，按照我们教会中悠久的传统，有主教、司铎、执事的不同职务。这些教会职务根源上是来自耶稣基督，由地方教会中不同的信者来担任。于是我们可以说地方教会中的天主子民，按教会要素有基本的平等与一体；不过，按职务是有差别的－－此一差别是属于教会要素，所有信者都应该相信与接受的。可是，即使在一个地方教会中我们可以按圣三模型(性体唯一、位格分明)，来谈教会要素之平等，教会职务之差别。主教、司铎、执事，被任命在的方教会中服务，领导地方教会。
自整体教会与地方教会之间的关系，与及不同地方教会之间的关系来讨论，一体与平等是在共同分享的教会要素上；差别是在于教会职务方面。每位主教代表自己的地方教会与罗马主教构成一个圣统性的共融?主教团；主教团以罗马主教为首领，作为教会的最高全权的主体。这是梵二大公会议根据圣经与传统所肯定的教导。由此可发挥出代表地方教会的主教之职务，以及主教与罗马教宗之关系。(参阅：圣统性的共融)
总之，教会要素共同为一，教会职务差别为多。如果我们认真应用圣三模型解释问题，似乎不可忽略一面，而只重另一面。
因此，我们对于金教授演讲的第一部份中的一句话，相当担心。他说每个地方教会应当自己有能力来决定自己的前途(Fate)。所谓前途，如果只是属于一些直接或间接与教会要素没有重大关系的事，那么所谓「独立、自办」，也是理所当然的事。如果牵涉到教会要素的事，那么根据基督教会的职务，不但主教团的首领罗马教宗不能不关怀、指导，甚至干涉；连所有的主教，作为世界主教团的成员也不能毫不关心。
以上所写的都是梵二大公会议的教会论资料，博学如金教授者，既然在演讲中表示基本上接受梵蒂冈第一届和第二届大公会议，而且又在实施梵二大公会议，那么他大概不难同意本文所发挥的他所没有讲出来的思想。
4. 地方教会的本地化(Inculturation)
金教授演讲的第二部份，对于教会本地化说了不少。我们自己过去十多年来也在致力神学、灵修本地化的工作，所以非常了解他的关怀、但是在这问题上尚觉得他忽略了一种自然产生的张力，那便是「地方」与「至公」之间的张力。本地化是深入社会与当地文化和谐，一方面是福音熏陶社会与文化；另一方面是社会与文化为福音所吸收；因此，一方面显扬出本地的特色；另一方面共融于大公教会内，为了保持这两面，本地化应该尊重大公教会而感到「约束」；不过至公教会亦应尽量了解一个文化而自我「节制」。金教授说得对：「地方教会之间的关系是共融、互爱、尊重、援助；但非生硬之干预。无一地方教会压迫其他地方教会的。」但是这也得补充：地方教会具有至公的性质，必须谨慎保护教会的共同要素。对于至公教会的关怀、指导、干涉，也会根据教会中应有的次序而平安地聆听与接受。这是教会奥迹中「地方」与「至公」的张力。总之，在梵二大公会议的光照下，金教授的演讲在神学方面尚可继续更加完整地发挥下去，一个不完整的教会学为中国教会，尤其为现代中国教会，并不有益。
张春申
一九八六年七月三日
辅大神学院
作者：吴智勋
(一) 前言
从梵一到现在，教宗不能错的训导常是一个热门和具争论性的题目。在教会是一个严谨组织的模式底下，除了教外人士反对外，教会中人提出异议的算是极少，但梵二把整个形势改变了。梵二虽然重新肯定梵一的决定，但教会的模式趋于多元化，思想开放了，交谈扩大了视野，教宗不能错的训导一再受到挑战。挑战可能是件好事，教内人士能藉此认清楚不能错训导的主体、对象、范围、条件等等，不致流于不必要的误解，以为教宗所讲的每一句话都不能错。交谈也带来了好结果，例如天主教与路德宗就教会训导权力与不能错问题发表了联合声明1，最少彼此能平心静气聆听和设法了解对方的立场。
教内的挑战主要来自神学家，远在一九七○年，汉斯．龚(Hans Kung) 投下第一枚炸弹，出版了他极富争论性的着作「不能错误？一个探讨」。经过多年的辩论，龚氏终在一九八○年受到教廷当局停职的处分。但事情并没有因此停止，教宗在伦理上的训导，不断受神学家的非议，古伦(Charles E. Curran) 就是其中显着的一位。他在堕胎、人工节育、绝育、离婚及其他性问题上所提出的异议，先受到教廷信理部严重警告，要他撤回自己的主张。几百位神学家曾联名请教廷收回成命，不可扼杀梵二以来自由交谈讨论的风气。但一九八六年七月廿五日，信理部赖辛嘉枢机(Cardinal Ratzinger) 终于去信给古伦，通知他停职的处分，亦不接受他的折衷办法2。总之，在伦理范围内，越来越多神学家赞成对教宗训导提出公开异议的合法性。本文试对宗教不能错的训导作一分析，教友对教宗训导的态度，以及提出公开异议的标准。
(二) 训导的意义
有人指出，教宗的训导不能看作他个人的意见。他的讲道辞、通谕，往往是由别人撰定，而他同意就是了；「人类生命」通谕就是一个最明显的例子。故此教宗的训导实际上就是教会当局的训导，是教宗以教会牧者的身份，代表教会向其子民所作的训言。训导(Magisterium) 一词，其拉丁字源来自Magister，即导师，含有权威的意思。到了中古时，训导渐渐分为两类，圣多玛斯便有牧者的训遵(magisterium cathedrae pastoralis) 及导师(神学家) 的训导(magisterium cathedrae magistralis) 之分3。但到了今天，magisterium已演变为牧者的训导(包括教宗及主教)。我们当然不能否认神学家也有训导的权威，不过，当magisterium一词应用时，应该是指主教牧者的训导，而非神学家的训导。我不赞成麦贵(Daniel C. Maguire) 的提议，把magisterium(单数) 转为magisteria(众数)。他认为「不但要注意教宗及主教的训导，而亦要注意有同样权威性(equally authentic)的教友和神学家的训导」4。我承认交谈的重要，但把牧者的训导和神学家及教友的意见混淆起来，实在没有好处。因为从梵一到梵二，magisterium一概指教宗及与他共融主教的训导。
训导通常分为普通训导(ordinary magisterium) 和特殊训导(extraordinary magisterium) (又称庄严训导solemn magisterium) 两种。这种方法，贡格(Yves Congar) 认为祇始于十九世纪中叶5。普通训导是指教宗在一般通谕、文告、演辞中的教训或主教在他牧函或地方主教团的教训。特殊的训导是指教宗以其「宗座权威」(ex cathedra) 或大公会议为普世教会明确定断当守的信条。梵二虽然属于特殊的事件，但会议神长并没有运用其权威明确颁布新的当信信条，神学家认为其训导仍属普通训导。
1：Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue, "Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church" Common Statement. Cf. Theological Studies, March, 1979, pp.113-166.
2：该信原文载于L' Osservatore Romano, 25 August 1986 p. 3。亦参The Tablet, 23 August 1986, pp. 890-891古伦曾提议不再教性伦理作为折衷办法，但不为赖辛嘉枢机所接纳。
3：参Yves Congar, "A Semantic History of the Term 'Magisterium'" in "Readings in Moral Theology, No.3: The Magisterium and Morality", 1982, edited by Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick, p.303.
4：Daniel C. Maguire, "Morality and Magisterium", in "Readings in Moral Theology, No.3",op. cit., p.6l.
5：Yves Congar, "La Foi et la Theologie", Tournai, 1962, 158. Pius IX's Tuas libenter in 1863.
(三) 不能错训导的主体
怎样的训导才算是不能错的训导呢？梵二引梵一的话说：「几时主教团的首领，罗马教宗，以全体基督信徒的最高牧人与导师的身份，在信仰上坚定其弟兄们，以决断的行动，宣布有关信仰与道德的教理，他便以自己职位的名义，享有这种不能错误的特恩」6。梵一把不能错的特恩拘限于教宗身上，梵二却将之扩大，伸展到与教宗共融的主教。如果主教「彼此之间并与伯多禄的继承人保持着共融的联系，正式地教导信仰及道德的问题，而共同认定某一项论断为绝对应持之理，便是不能错误地宣告基督的道理」(教会25)。可见不能错训导的主体是教宗或与他共融的主教团。
由上面的文献可看到，不能错的训导是带有很多限制性的条件的。梵一神长们投票前，贾沙主教(Bishop Vincent Gasser) 已清楚指出：绝对不能错只属于天主，教宗的不能错是有限制及有条件的。他必须要以普世教会导师及最高判官的身份，以宗座权威发言；不能错训导的「对象」，必须是信理和伦理的道理；不能错训导的「行为」是指教宗定断那些信友必须相信或必须摈弃的道理7。
梵一的条文骤眼看来，是很易令人误解的。最引人争论的是：「罗马教宗的这种定断，是由于他自己，而不是由于教会的同意，故它(这种定断) 是没有更改的可能性」8。这好像是说教宗有特别的权力，独立于教会之外．教宗变成在教会之上，而非在教会之内，是教会的一份子。翻查梵一的历史，便会知道「不是由于教会的同意」一句，是梵一神长最后关头才加上去的9，理由可能是针对法国神职班条文(Gallican articles) 的思想而发的。一六八二年，法国神职会议奉法王命令发表了四项条文，限制教宗的权力。其中第四项说：「在信德的问题上，主要部份也是属于罗马教宗，而且那有关全教会以及每一教会的法令，是属于教会的权限，但他的判断，若不加以教会的同意，则不是不可能予以调整」10。一六九○年，教宗亚历山大八世「在众多中」典章(Const. Inter multiplices) 谴责这四项条文11，后来法王收回成命。梵一神长的附加语应在这个背景下去理解。贾沙主教一再强调，教宗的不能错误性不能与教会分离，他是以伯多禄的继承者，教会领导人的身份发言，他是代表着整个教会的。圣神来到伯多禄的继承人身上，并非要他们发表新道理，「而是为叫他们，在他的助佑下，把那藉宗徒所传授下来的启示 即：信德的寄托，圣洁地予以看管，且忠实地予以陈述」12。
另一个具争论性的问题，就是教宗的定断，「是没有更改的可能性」。这是不是说，定断的条文没有重新表达或解释的可能？我认为这是个误解。信条的写定，一定是受历史条件所限制。教廷信理部「教会的奥秘」(mysterium ecclesiae 1973) 宣言把这个情形讲得很清楚：(一)信仰条文的意义是要依赖在一特定时空的语言表达能力，(二)有时信仰真理最初表达得不完整，后来人类知识扩阔了，以致真理的表达也更完善，(三)信理条文的颁布往往是要解决一些问题或纠正一些错误，故解释条文时必须考虑这个背景，(四)条文所用特定时代的概念是能变化的，因此条文也难免受其影响13。故此，只要忠于信条原来的意思，为适应时代，新的表达方式是可能的。例如：梵二虽然重覆梵一所定断的不能错的训导，但表达上就较完善了。首先，「教宗发表论断时，并不是以私人的名义，而是以整个教会的最高导师的名义」(教会25)，即教宗不能错的特恩是和整个天主子民的信仰连在一起的；不但如此，他更和所有主教连在一起。在讲教宗不能错特恩时，梵二清楚在「罗马教宗」上，冠以「主教团的首领」(教会25)。既然教宗不能错的特恩是与主教团及全体天主子民连结在一起，难怪梵二说：「几时主教团与伯多禄的继承人共同执行这种最高训导职权……。教会就绝对不曾不同意上述那些(信条的) 定断」(教会25)。
6：梵二「教会宪章」No.25，梵一「永远司牧」(Pastor Aeternus), DZ 3074。
7：Mansi 52, 1214.
8：DZ 3074，梵二「教会宪章」No.25也有相同的话：「因此，他(教宗) 的定断，本身就理当称为不可修改的，而并非因教会的同意(才有此权力)。
9：参Cuthbert Butler, "The Vatican Council", Vol. II Longman, 1930, Ch.22, "The Deputation De Fide and the Infallibility Decree", p. 133.
10：DZ 2284.
11：DZ 2281-2285.
12：DZ 3070.
(四) 不能错训导的对象
表面看来，不能错训导的对象或范围很简单，就是信理和伦理，光是教会宪章廿五节已多次说明此。可是，远在梵一时，贾沙主教已分别出不能错训导两个不同的对象，而传统称为第一对象和第二对象。第一对象是指启示的真理，第二对象是指那些虽非启示真理，但我们需要它去保卫和解释天主做示的真理14。梵二把这个意思表达出来：「这项不能错的特恩，是救主愿意祂的教会往断定信仰及道德的问题时所享有的，其不能错误的范围和天主启示的宝库范围相等，这一宝库必须谨慎地保存。忠实地讲解」(教会25)。这里所谓「天主启示的宝库」是指第一对象，而「谨慎地保存，忠实地讲解」这个宝库，就是第二对象了。
这两个对象实际上包括些什么东西呢？训导第一对象有时称「信德的寄托」 (depositum fidei) 或「启示的宝库」(depositum revelationis) 15。这是天主为了我们的得救所启示我们的，它包括了圣经和圣传，「圣传及圣经组成一个天主圣言的宝库」(启示10)。在基督救赎的工程中，有些启示的奥秘，是经过教会长期的信仰反省才意识到的。这些真理，虽无明显地在圣经中找到，我们相信确是来自天主的启示，与天主的救赎工程连在一起的。近世纪以来三个信理条文属这一类，即一八五四年圣母始胎无玷，一八七○年教宗不能错误与一九五○年圣母蒙召升天。
不能错训导的第二对象是颇具争论性的，不少神学家认为不能错训导应只限于「启示的宝库」，换句话说，只有那些形式地启示的真理，才能称不能错的训导。但是教会法定的解释似乎不是这样，「教会的奥秘」宣言清楚解释梵二的意思说：「教会不能错的训导不但只涉及信德的寄托，还更推及其他事情，缺乏它们的话，信德的寄托便不能正确地保存和解释了」16。至于这个第二对象的确实范围就没有一致的意见了，最少连梵二也没有加以界定。苏利文(Francis A. Sullivan) 提出几个传统认为属于这个范围的例子：(1)教会对相反启示真理的主张所提出的谴责。(2)由启示真理必然地推论出来的主张。(3)信理的事实。教会有时要决定一些信理的事实，例如：教会要决定历史上某一教会会议是否属大公会议，会议的大公性是对信条的制定是有影响的，教会这种决定应属不能错训导的范围。(4)庄严的圣人列品，一般认为教宗决定某人列入圣品是不能错的17。
看过上面对不能错训导的分析、范围与例子外，我们不禁要问：教会一再强调不能错的对象是信理和伦理，为什么讨论的多拘限于信理方面？究竟在伦理范围内，有没有不能错的训导？倘若有的话，例子是甚么？倘若无的话，是否可向教宗的伦理训导提出公开的异议？提出公开的异议，究竟有什么标准？这是我们要讨论的问题。
14：Mansi 52, 1226-7。亦参Joseph A. Komonchak, "Humanae Vitae and Its Reception", Theological Studies, June 1978, pp. 243-244.
15：梵一称depositum fidei(DZ3070)，梵二称depositum Revelationis，教会25。中文译法不一样，有时易生混淆。
16："Mysterium ecclesiae", Op. cit., p. 432.
(五) 不能错伦理训导的可能性
一般伦理神学家认为在伦理范围内，不能错的训导是可能的。传统伦理神学认为自然道德律的根源是天主，是天主永久律的反映。因此，爱人如己、行善避恶的原则，人的尊严、生命价值、宗教自由的肯定，如果不算是启示的、不能错训导的第一对象，最少算是不能错训导的第二对象。但问题仍未解决；自然道德律有不同的层次，抽象而普遍的伦理原则，其不能错性大致不成问题；但实际的伦理规律能否有不能错的训导呢？有些神学家认为是能够的，福特(John Ford) 和格林西(Germain Grisez) 属于这一类。
福、格二人在「人类生命」通谕十周年时写了一篇文章，认定「人类生命」的伦理教训，是属于不能错的训导18。他们承认「人类生命」通谕是属于普通训导，但却是不能错的普通训导。他们分析教会宪章25节所列出不能错误的条件：「如果他们(主教们) 彼此之间并与伯多禄的继承人保持着共融的联系，正式地教导信仰及道德的问题，而共同认定某一项论断为绝对应持之理，便是不能错误地宣告基督的道理」。二人认为「人类生命」的伦理训导，完全符合上述的条件。首先，从历史的角度去看，在一九六二年之前，不断有教宗及主教提出人工避孕是严重的罪行，如热罗尼莫、奥斯定，连东方教父伊比法尼斯(Epiphanius)、金口若望，也如此主张。这些人中有些是大神学家，是教父，甚至是教会公认的圣人。近代的教宗如庇护九世、良十三世、庇护十世、十一世、十二世、若望廿三世和保禄六世都如此主张．当时的主教他一致支持他们。可见这个训导有普遍性，是教宗和主教们「共同认定」的。这个主张已在不同的时代、不同的环境、经过不同的挑战，而教宗主教们仍一致如此坚持的。在梵二以前，没有教宗、主教或神学家提出异议。圣教法典从十三世纪到一九一七年的都有明文禁止使用人工避孕。教宗或主教提出这主张时，往往认为有启示做根据的；创38：9－10敖难泄精的罪，就常被引用。奥斯定如此，直至庇护十一世「圣洁婚姻」(Casti Connubii) 也如此19。另一段常用的圣经是罗1：26－27，天主不喜男女逆性之用。福、格二人认为虽然引用这两段圣经是否恰当是有争论，但过去引用的人，都相信人工节育的训导是有启示的权威的，故这个训导可定断为「绝对应持之理」(tanquam definitive tenenda)。两人的结论是：禁止人工节育是一个不能错的普通训导，教宗主教们并非发表个人的意见，他们「接受」这项训导向信友陈述而已。这项训导是确定的，不光是一个理想的建议，而是每一个信徒必须遵守的责任。人工节育的行为本身是个严重的罪，并无其他意见的可能性，盖然主义不能应用，教会不能改变这个答案，因为这是真的。天主的教会不可能错了那么多个世纪，不可能以基督的名义，用一个错误的训导，使那么多教友陷于罪恶。
这里稍为提一下汉斯．龚也有相类似的论调20，只不过有完全不同的结论而已。龚氏承认教宗从未以宗座权威定断人工避孕的不道德，但既然梵二之前的教宗及主教已一致谴责人工节育，并认定其为罪恶；因此，人工节育的不道德已经成为教会不能错的普通训导了，难怪保禄六世要随从宗座委员会少数派人的主张，在「人类生命」通谕中继续谴责人工节育。龚氏因此作出如下的推论：「人类生命」通谕是教会训导处不能错误的训导；「人类生命的训导已为绝大多数天主子民所摈弃，这个训导明显地是错误的；所以，说教会训导处有不能错误性，这个训导本身是错误的。」
现代绝大多数的伦理神学家都同意「人类生命」不算是不能错的普通训导，我认为这个意见是对的。在伦理范围内，特别是有关实际的伦理规律，一般的伦理判断只有明智的伦理确定性，即没有错误的恐惧，这亦即传统所谓根据确定良心去行事。明智的伦理确定性并非绝对的，它不能绝对地排除错误的可能，这与不能错误性不一样。教会传统对人工避孕的训导是属于这一类。教会在不同的时代对这个问题下了一个判断，认定那是为该特定时空最好的定断，并如此教导天主子民。只要有伦理的确定性，教会训导处便可坦然无畏地去教导，并要求其子民遵守。教宗或主教们从没有把人工节育的不道德当作不能错误的信条去训导，既然未公开作决定性的定断，是不能称为不能错的训导的。新圣教法典七四九条、第三项就声明此：「任何教义，除非是明显地如此决定的，不得视为以不能错特恩所决定者」。这里所谓「明显地如此决定」，是指第一项中教宗以全体信徒最高牧人和导师的身份，用职权以决定的行动宣布有关当信从的信仰或伦理教义，及第二项中主教们在大公会议聚会，以信仰和伦理的导师和法官的身份，为普世教会决定地宣告当信的信仰和伦理的教义时，或世界各地与教宗有共融的主教，与教宗一致确切教导信仰及伦理时。若非明显地如此决定，不能算作不能错的训导。
这里一再提及「决定地」、「确切地」，其实与梵二所谓「绝对应持之理」，在原文皆一样，即tanquam definitive tenenda。这是不能错训导一个重要的条件。怎样才算是「决定地」、「确切地」呢？拉内神父(Karl Rahner) 在注释梵二教会宪章25节时讲得很好21。他分别出在不能错的训导中，有些是一如天主启示般去「相信」(credenda)，这是指启示的教义(即上面所谓第一对象)；有些却是「绝对应持之理」，「应持」(tenenda)是对着那些非严格地启示的真理(即第二对象)。若要使非严格地启示的真理成为不能错，则必须是definitive，意指有绝对严谨和不能修改的同意(absolutely strict and irreformable assent)。「人类生命」的训导似乎还未符合这个条件。
至于不遵守这训导便是罪行又如何解释呢？如果我们接纳「人类生命」有明智的伦理确定性，教宗是可以如此教导和要求信友服从的。训导本身包含对基督真理有较优胜的洞悉力，所以在正常情况下，教宗的训导有约束信友的能力，因为他的训导能帮助信友找到真理。假如教友明知教宗的训导比自己所懂的优胜仍不愿跟随他，反而跟随自己不确定的怀疑良心去行事，那是有罪的。正如圣保禄提到不洁食物的事：「谁若怀着疑心吃了，便被判有罪，因为这不是出于信心做的，凡不出于信心做的，就有罪」(罗14：23)。另一方面，如果信友并非出自顽固或骄傲，在人工节育问题上肯定自己确实的获得真理，那他在这个问题上不再需要教导。教宗的训导必定有一目的，就是帮助信友获得真理。因此，若信友对获得真理已有了确定性，他就无可选择地跟随自己确定的良心。这不再是个罪行，即使那是与教宗的训导不相符。圣多玛斯就支持这个做法，他认为：「教会权威若对真相不清楚，而提出相反人确定良心的要求，则人宁可接受绝罚，也不应违背自己的良心」22
由上面所说的，几时教宗的训导牵涉严重的伦理责任，并明言如不遵守便是罪行，不能据此下结论那个训导必定是不能错的，即绝对明确，要求信友有不能修改的同意。若有此结论，教宗的普通训导，便会变成几乎不可能；因为他若谴责某类行为是罪行，则要准备那是不可能错的，并要求教友不能修改地同意。过去教会谴责很多行为，甚至在举行弥撒圣祭时，也有很多规则条文约束着神父，否则是犯重罪，但无人会结论出那些约束性的条文都是不能错的。
如何回答天主怎能容许教会在人工节育的问题上错了那么多世纪？天主圣神去了那里？多少公教夫妇因为这个训导饱受痛苦的经验，被视为大罪人，不容许领圣事？假使教会改变这个训导，如何对得住这些人？首先，我们怎么知道「人类生命」的训导一定是错误的？大部份的主教及神学家都不认为这是错误的训导。当时教会的反应主要分三类：一类是清楚接受，一类是调和通论的训导，一类则表示不确定的立场23。像汉斯．龚认定「人类生命」是错误的训导，则是少之又少。一般认为「人类生命」是一谨慎的牧民劝谕，它是向现代色情和泛性主义提出有声的抗议，它是此时此地教会最妥当的推荐；这并非信条，故此它的责任有暂时的性质，它有被修改的可能性。它能够是不完整的训导，但不完整的训导和错误的训导有很大的分别。即使教宗训导在这问题上出了错，这也不是出奇的事。基督并无答应教会在所有生活问题上都不犯过错，保证教会绝对正确的指导信友的良心，或跟随教宗训导的教友不会有上述的痛苦经验。成熟的信徒应知道教宗的训导并无给予他们一个绝对可靠的帮助，但能给予一个最可靠的帮助。如果我们确实知道教宗的训导是错误的话，我们必须跟随自己确定的良心。我们只对真理负责任，教宗训导只在传达真理时才对我们有约束力。
我们试将伦理范围内教宗训导的不能错性做一个小结。虽然教宗从未以「宗座权威」，明确地颁布一些不能错的伦理特殊训导，或决定地宣布某些伦理普通训导为不能修改的信条，这并不表示我们没有不能错的伦理规律。普通的自然道德律如爱人如己，人的尊严、生命价值的肯定，唯我主义、享乐主义的否定，皆不待教宗庄严地宣判，我们也知道是不能错误的伦理训导，因为只要拿它们和福音精神比试一下便可看到是调和或不调和。但一旦落实到实际伦理规律上，要绝对肯定不能错便极端困难了，最少教宗从未如此做过。若把禁止一些具体行为如谋杀、奸淫、剥削等的规律视为不能错的例子，是没有多大意义的。这些行为既已判定为不道德的，自然绝对不应做。判定不道德行为为不道德，这类规律只是重覆语而已，对问题的解决没有什么帮助。
18：John Ford and Germain Grisez, "Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium", Theological Studies, June, 1978, pp. 258-312. Grisez最近又写了一篇文章，再一次肯定他的立场。参"Infallibity and Contraception : A Reply to Garth Hallett", Theological Studies, March 1986, pp. 134-145.
19：庇护十一世一九三O年「圣洁婚姻」通谕No. 56：「圣经说，天主深深痛恨这可憎的孽行，且有时以死刑惩处之。就如圣奥斯定说的：『倘有避孕情事，连同合法妻子举行的性行为，亦是违法的丑行。犹达之子敖难曾因此而为天主所格杀』」。
20：Hans Kung, "Infallible? An Inquiry", Doubleday, N. Y. 1971.
21：Karl Rahner's commentary on art. 25 of Lumen Gentium, in "Commentary on the Documents of Vat. II", edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, Vol. I . Herder and Herder, 1967, pp. 210-211.
22IV Sent., dist. 38, art. 4.
23：Joseph A. Komomchak, "Humanae Vitae and Its Reception", op. cit., p.249.
(六) 对非不能错的教宗训导提出公开异议的可能性和标准
既然教宗的伦理普通训导并非不能错，教友可否随从自己的良心对教宗的训导提出异议？这是否不服从的表示？一般的意见是：信友不应顽固地固步自封，而应向训导权威开放，承认教宗是个胜任的导师；故教友一方面「应由自己的判断来引导，并该享有自由」(信仰11)，另一方面亦要小心，「不少人似乎倾向于自由，拒绝服从，而藐视合理的顺命」(信仰8)。如果教友清楚认定教宗的训导错误，他不但可以不同意，而且有责任不同意，否则是虚伪；人不能服从错误的训导，不管训导者是谁。至于应否「公开的」表示异议就有分歧的意见了。其实公开异议并非保守或先进的问题。先进的固然常对性问题的训导提出异议，但不少保守的何尝没有对社会问题的训导提出异议，说训导过于左倾？有些认为不应该对教宗的训导提出公开的异议，教友应对教宗的训导保持敬意，不同意时应保持缄默，不应公开的反对教宗，减低信友对教宗的信任。但这个态度，用于自己也不敢肯定的情况下是正确的。倘若自己在这方面也是个权威，认定教宗有错误而不加以修正，又怎能说对教宗怀有敬意？让他留在错误中是对他更大的不敬。向教宗的训导提出异议的确可能使教宗在信友前的可信性减弱，但让错误继续存留，将来会更打击他的声望，更难使教友信任他，而且更使教会蒙受其害，错误能越早修正是越好。很多神学家不愿公开提出异议就是避免立恶表，以免领导别人公开不服从教宗。但古伦认为：「如果神学家不公开提出异议，有时也在立恶表」24。他的意思大概是说：立恶表是以表样领人入歧途。如果神学家见人追随错误的训导而仍保持缄默，他的缄默使更多人入歧途，故事实上是在立恶表。因此，有人认为神学家不但有权而且更有责任对错误的训导提出公开的异议，保持缄默是对教会的不忠。
神学家在这问题上意见分歧，往往因为取自教会不同的模式。强调圣统制牧者教导而信友受教的模式，自是不赞成信友向教宗训导提出公开的异议；强调仆人教会要不断聆听学习的，则倾向于容许信友向训导处提异议。好使教会不断反省、学习、改良。我认为对教宗训导提出公开异议是可能的，不过公开异议应有标准：
(1) 提出公开异议的人：我们已承认教会训导处对真理的把握比我们优胜，因此我们接受他的教导，以便获得真理。提出公开异议者必须是个肯定自己已获得真理的人，即在某伦理问题上他已认识清楚，是个胜任的权威。这样，他才有资格向训导处提出公开的异议。对于那些一知半解的，未下过努力研究功夫的，道听涂说而认同某一适合自己个性的意见的，不适宜亦不应该跟风的提出公开的异议。我认为所谓胜任的权威，不应只拘限于神职人员，任何信友只要他在该问题上下过功夫，有确定的信念，都能够是胜任的权威。可见异议并非神职人员的专利。
(2) 公开异议者的态度：异议者必须承认训导处有特别教导天主子民的权力，故须对训导处保持敬意，并非哗众取宠，以公开异议而引人注目，提高自己成自己作品的身价，增加自己受欢迎的程度。每个异议者都该对天主、对教会、对自己诚实负责，认定提出异议是有建设性，是为了教会的好处，使真理受显扬，使错误受纠正。他应诚实的研究训导的意见，对训导开放，听取过专家的意见，并求天主启迪自己，然后才作决定。即使要提出异议，亦应知道自己的主张同样并非不能错，有心理准备如有新的资料出现，使训导的理由变得更强更合理时，则放弃或改变自己的意见，承认自己的错误，不会顽固地坚持到底。提出异议时，应采取交谈的方式，而非采取谴责的方式，更不应抱一敌对 态度，甚至利用舆论界使自己变成理直气壮的英雄．是个为真理牺牲的殉道者，使训导处成为人所共憎的压迫者。异议者应深信训导处同样痛苦地追寻真理，为真理服务。
异议者应准备，为了保持另一更高价值，他愿意暂时接受一折衷办法，而非毫不妥协地坚持一个能错的主张。启示提供我们一个很好的例子：宗徒大事录记载，使徒在耶路撒冷开会议，保禄和巴尔纳伯反对犹太基督徒加于外邦基督徒身上的种种规矩。伯多禄同意不应「在门徒的颈项上，放上连我们的祖先和我们自己都不能负荷的轭」 (宗15：10)，雅各伯也同意外邦基督徒应有他们的自由：「不要再加给外邦归依天主的人烦难」(宗15：19)。会议结束却要求外邦基督徒「戒食祭邪神之物、血和窒死之物，并戒避奸淫」(宗15：29)，即仍然要他们遵守一些肋未纪所载的「圣洁的法律」。为什么保禄、巴尔纳伯不力争到底，使真理受显扬？因为他们发现有维护另一价值的需要，故同意折衷办法。为了保持共融(κοινωνια)，维持犹太、外邦人两团体之间的和平与团结合一，他们同意这个在具体历史环境中的实际规律，以确保超验的爱的规律 (αγαπη)。爱与自由有冲突时，自由有时要暂时让步，耐心等候适当的时机。异议者应有这种心态。
(3) 公开异议的对象：如果神学家是向同僚神学家发言，他可以对其伦理问题，发表不同训导主张的意见，作为学术交流，自由探讨，希望从交谈中使真理越辩越明。倘若是在神学院中，对象是神学生，他必须先把教会法定的训导忠实地阐述出来，然后加上自己不同的意见，作为另一个可行的办法。不过法定的训导与个人的意见应清楚分辨出来，不可混淆，以免误导神学生。假如是在圣堂讲道台上，对象是一般信友，在这种场合提出公开异议是不明智的。这不像在研讨会和课室中，参与者与异议者能交谈、澄清、反覆辩论。在圣堂中，一般信友只是聆听接受，无法立刻澄清问题，因此能产生很多误解，能减低信友对训导者的敬意与信任，能误导教友以为教会已改变立场。在讲道台上，讲道者是代表着教会发言，同信友说话。那时他有不同的身份，等于一国的大使公开发言时，他是国家的代言人，他所讲的一切，不应该再是个人的意见，而是国家法定的主张；只有在不同的场合中，一国的大使才可讲自己的意见。异议者应明智地分辨他发言的场合是什么，对象是谁。
24：古伦一九八三年八月十日的公开信，见Kevin Kelly, "Obedience and dissent : 1, The Learning Church", in The Tablet, 14 June 1986, p.620.
(七) 结语
我们对教宗不能错的训导，必须有一正确的了解。神化教宗的训导，把它放在天主圣言之上是一个错误；另一方面，对他有偏见，轻视他的训导，认定那是落伍守旧的思想，则是对教宗的不敬；两个极端都要避免。信友必须承认教宗的训导与一般神学家的训导不一样，认定他得到圣神的帮助去领导教会，他对福音及基督之律有较深刻的了解，有自己的权威，故决断比一般教友优胜；有错误的话只属例外，故信友常应以敬重的心情去赞同他。他的不能错的训导，有一定的对象、范围与条件。不能错的训导是表示某一信条发展到终点，已经无可修改了，教宗只是把整个教会的信仰做了一个明确的定断，颁布为信条，教友应犹如启示般去相信或认定是绝对应持之理，异议是不应该的。但在教会历史中，教宗仍未明确定断过某一实际伦理规律为不能错的训导。至于非不能错的训导，是指仍在发展途中的主张。既非不能错，即有被修正的可能，异议不但是可能的，而且能够是应该的。因为对过去教宗训导的批判，我们才有梵二的「信仰自由宣言」、「大公主义法令」等训导。有异议，教会才能自我反省，才能成长。不过．异议必须是负责的、诚实的、有建设性的、明智的、来自确定良心的；异议者应怀着敬重教宗与爱护教会的心情，有准备接受教会的判决，作为此时此地较妥当的一个解决办法。这种为真理服务的异议是健康的。最后，我以一个教会古老的原则作结：「在必要的事上，要合一；在怀疑的事上，要有自由；在一切事上，要有爱德」。
作者：黄怀秋
圣经中的伯多禄共有三个名字，他原名「西满」(Sm'on = Simon)，耶稣给他改名叫「刻法」(Kpy')，意即「伯多禄」(Πετροζ)。到了今天，伯多禄已经成为一个很普通的男子名；我们在这里所说的，却是历史中的第一位伯多禄。
关于西满改名伯多禄的事，四福音都有记述；在这些记述中，我们大抵可以分别出两至三个传统。玛四：18；谷三：16；路六：14的记载都很简单，这个传统大致上把改名的事追索到耶稣召选伯多禄的脉胳范围中。另外，若一：42也保留了一段类似的传统，背景也是召选门徒；不过，这里却提供了一些独特的资料：西满的全名是「若望的儿子西满」，耶稣给他取名「刻法」，圣史跟着提供了一点字源的线索，他解释这个阿拉美(Aramaic)字的意思，并说：「意即『伯多禄』」，换言之，在希腊文，「伯多禄」一字就是亚拉美语「刻法」一字的意译(不是音译)?它翻译了在另一个语言系统上与它意义相同的字。
若一：42的传统可说界于谷三：16(和平行文) 和玛十六：18之间；一方面，它和谷三：16一样，把改名之事安放在召选门徒的背景中，另方面，它也和玛十六：18相若，从字源上解释了「刻法」和「伯多禄」两个字的关系，而它所加给的资料亦与玛十六：17不谋而合(1)。不过玛十六：18更进一步，解释了耶稣改名的深意，并显露刻法／伯多禄的双关含义。原来不管在亚拉美语还是在希腊文，刻法／伯多禄都不是一个人的名字(propel name)，而是一个普通名词(common name)：石，大石，盘石(2)，这样，它就和「西满」这个名字不同，后者在新约时代，是一个相当通行的人名；可是，在耶稣给西满改名的年代，却没有人会叫作「石」！因此，它本来只能算是一个「诨名」，一个绰号，像「豹子头」之于林冲，「智多星」之于吴用一样，它们只是描写一些属于林冲、属于吴用的特质。
玛十六：18清楚显示了西满改名伯多禄的真正意思。因为刻法／伯多禄一字有双关含意－－这个人名本来是一个普通名词，因此，当玛十六：18的耶稣对西满这样说：「你是Πετροζ(伯多禄盘石)，在这Πετροζ(盘石)上，我要建立我的教会」的时候，「盘石」这个字就一语双关地拍这个叫做盘石的人认同为教会的基石。原来名字，在古人心目中，不单是一个称号，它还代表那个人，他们甚至相信名字拥有一种神秘的力量，因此掌握到一个人(或神) 的名字，就能对他产生一种神秘的驱策力，而更改名字，在犹太传统中更不陌生(如创十七：5－15；三十二：28)，它不单代表名称的转变，还象征一种和生命有关的转捩。改名的人承担了一个许诺(阿巴郎改名为阿巴辣罕，就是要成为万民之父)；当然，有许诺，就有责任(所以天主要和阿巴辣罕订立盟约)，限制他和自己的关系。现在西满更名为「石」，他为背负了一个许诺、一个责任；而更有甚者，这一许诺和责任，都暗藏在「石」这个名号之中。
由此可见，正因为「刻法／伯多禄」不是一个人名，而是个普通名词，这件改名事迹才更具深意。小明可以改名做小行，或者丽霞改唤爱娟，这在他的生命中，即使有很大的意义，可是在这个新名字土，我们到底看不出他改变了的生命特质。可是当一个叫做西满的人改唤作盘石的时候，事情就不可同日而语了。他的新名字不单是一个称号，它还指出这个人生命的实质意义、他的身份、他的任务、甚至他的存在。它代表一项功能，西满从此不单被「唤」作盘石，他还「是」盘石，要「作」盘石，「成为」盘石，因为在这伯多禄盘石之上，教会就要建立起来。
可是，对于玛十六17－20这一节福音，自古以来产生了无数的疑团，它只出现在玛窦福音而被其他三部福音所略去，就更令人怀疑它的真实性(3)。尤其在教派的纷争上，罗马天主教以此作为她得享「正统」的圣经根据，认为伯多禄的权力已经递交到他的继承人身上；基督教的兄弟们则力排此说，甚至否定教会是建基在伯多禄之上。大约三十年前，奥斯卡．库尔曼(Oscar cullmann) 这位基督教圣经大师，在他的力作彼得：门徒、宗徒、致命者中为这个持续了几个世纪的争论作了一个总结(4)。他采用历史的科学方法，尽量排拒教派利益的诱惑，希望以客观的态度对待圣经。他的结论肯定了伯多禄在早期教会中的首席地位；却对宗教承嗣权的问题甚表怀疑。天主教方面的回应可以奥图．卡革(Otto Karrer) 的伯多禄和教会为代表(5)。二位大师的争论已成历史；教会仍然继续她的步伐。本文也不是要重复他们的理论，只是想在这个问题上提供一点个人的、简陋的看法。
库尔曼不单接受这节福音来自历史中的耶稣的说法(6) (它不是玛窦为着因应教会的需要而创作的)，还接纳传统的「公教」解释：教会是建立在伯多禄这个历史人物之上，而不是建基在他明认耶稣的信德上(7)，甚或在耶稣自己身上(8)。虽然保禄在格前三：11明明地称耶稣为「根基」，而且是唯一的根基，因为除祂以外，任何人不能再奠立其他的根基，但是，把格前的思想读到这段福音中只是忘记了伯多禄这个字一语双关的结果，这样，我们就无法理解伯多禄的更改名字与耶稣建立教会这个脉胳范围的关系。怎样解释耶稣先对西满说：「你是Πετροζ」，再说：「在这Πετροζ上」的关系呢？除了将此Πετροζ看成彼Πετροζ外，我们别无他法。
至论耶稣建立教会的时候，这里用的是将来式：「在这盘石上，我『将会建立』(oikodomeso) 我的教会。」换言之，教会要待将来才正式建立起来。虽然耶稣在世之时已经聚合了基督徒团体，可是这个未成形的团体只是预显地生活出那将要成立的教会的特质，后者要在基督死后才正式地建立起来。因而这个将来也不是末日式的终极性的将来。根据库尔曼的意见，教会与末日的天国相异而相连，她存在于这个世代中，虽然她正从这个世代的末梢向着永恒翘首张望，并一步步地走向她未来的完成。因此未来的教会只是预显末日天国的光荣，正如聚合在耶稣身旁的天国团体也只是预尝来日教会的芬芳。这样，库尔曼似乎把天国的实现分别出三个相连续的阶段：历史中的耶稣、耶稣死后到末日再来、末日的永恒天国。这三个阶段并没有整整齐齐地割裂开来，相反，在任何一个阶段中，我们都可以找到其他两个阶段的因子；因此，我们可以从耶稣身上看到完满，在教会之中预期天国的来临。不过，严格来说，教会位于这个连续整体的中间阶段，这个阶段可能为时甚短。事实上，根据种种迹象，我们可以肯定耶稣讯息中浓厚的末日意味，他宣讲马上就要来临的天国。因而从他死后到他再来的这一段时候，只是天国的预备期，是中间的夹缝时代，而这也是玛十六：17所说的建立教会的时候。耶稣的末日意识，似乎排除了伯多禄职位世世相传这个观念的可能性。
再回头看玛十六：18的话！当耶稣对伯多禄说：「你是盘石，在这盘石上，我要建立我的教会」，他所指的，要在上面建立教会的基石，就是怕多禄这个历史人物。他是对伯多禄，这位历史中的第一位教会元首说：「我要立你为将要成立的教会的基石。」可是，他亦很可能只是想及伯多禄而已，把历代的列位教宗都读到伯多禄身上，以致当耶稣对伯多禄说这句话的时候，也是对他们说了，这种看法，可能只是后世的理解，而不是圣经原文的意思。这点，笔者以为，我们可以同意库尔曼的见解。事实上，现今这种层次分明、壁垒森严的圣统制，极有可能并不出现在耶稣的视野之内，尤其当我们从末日临近的角度去理解耶稣讯息的话。
关键性的问题似乎是：耶稣立伯多禄为教会盘石，假如他没有万世承嗣的观念，这件事到底有甚么意思？
其实，「我将会建立我的教会」这句话是中性的，即是说，它虽然没有明显地设想，但也没有显然排除教会日后的生命，因为这不是它注意的目标。事实上，教会存在时间的短长问题，不在耶稣这句话的视野之内。他说的只是建立、是奠基。这里用的是建筑的形象(9)，就像建筑楼宇之初要奠下基石一样，耶稣也在教会正式成立之前亲自奠基。奠基只此一次，因此，笔者以为，我们可以同意库尔曼所说的，这不是一个不断重复的行动，而是「只此一次」(once and for all) 的事实。不过，我们更要强调的是：不单奠基只此一次，基石也只有这么一块，它不曾「移位」，不能「易手」，上面的楼宇站立一天，它在下面也得站立一天，但若在上面的站立千年万年，它也只得舍命陪君子了。这就是我们与库尔曼不同的地方(10)。是的，日后楼宇可以增建，可以改建，但是基石早就奠下的了，而这就有万世的价值，纵使耶稣在说这句话的时候的确没有想到万世，就像一个奠基者也可能没有想过楼宇日后的命运一样。英文的once-for-all，在中文上几乎不可 翻译，不错，那是once，是独一，但也是for all－for ever，是永久、是永远、是决定性地不能变更的事件。
所以教会的基石只有一个，我们不能再有另外的基石，当耶稣立伯多禄为教会基石的时候，他就承担了永为教会基石的任务，不因时间的短长而有所改变，也不因职位的更递而有所变动。教会存在二十年、二百年、或二千年，这个基石都是一样，这是在她建立之初就早已奠定的。即使在宗徒大事录所显示的早期教会图像，也不能改变这点。事实上，我们对早期教会所知甚少，即使伯多禄的确曾经「失势」(这是个十分不当的形容词)，于是耶路撒冷教会之长的职位落到主的兄弟雅各伯的手里(宗十二：17)，而他自己则在承让出治理之责之后，四出传扬主的讯息，与保禄分庭抗礼，分掌「犹太人」及「外邦人」宗徒之职(迦二：7)，并听命于耶路撒冷教会的命令，甚至害怕「由雅各伯那里来」的人(迦二：12)，他身为教会基石的身份仍然不会变，也不能变，因为基石与日后的变动总不可同日而语，它们出现在两个不同的层面上。这是我们与库尔曼意见分歧的地方(11)。教会由始至终的伯多禄只有一个，即使雅各怕在执掌耶路撒冷教会之后，他也不会成为伯多禄，他还是雅各伯。因为我们的伯多禄只有一个，他就是历史中的伯多禄。
后记
自从十九世纪严肃的释经学开始萌芽发展以来，许多我们从前认为理所当然的意念和对圣经的诠释方法都受到了质疑，我们的信仰和传统一次又一次地经受了很大的震撼和挑战；不过，在痛定之余，也让我们回头细察和重新审视我们的信仰特质。百炼才出精钢，基督教会的信仰本质也必须在淘尽了各种沙石杂质的干扰之后，才清楚地呈现出来。
对伯多禄的疑难也是一样。无论从那方面看，我们都该感谢库尔曼的挑战，他的论点是任何一个严肃的神学生都不能忽视的。不过，为我们更重要的，却是怎样在接下这道战书之后，以认真的态度，不苟地反省我们的传统信仰。本文只是作者拋砖引玉式的一次尝试吧了！
(1)玛十六：17称西满为「约纳的儿子西满」(Simon Barjona)，这个名字可能就是若一：42「若望的儿子西满」(Simon the Son of John) 的亚拉美语读法。
(2)人名是不能译意的，只能音译。「伯多禄」却译意而不译音，这一点正显示出，它本来不是个通行的人名。另外，Kephas一字的串法，除了尾音S是希腊文的附加之外，它还包含一个限定词a，因此它的意思是the rock，而不是a rock。在古老的基督徒传统中，Πετροζ一字也常带有冠词σ；这个最早期的「基督」一词也常带有冠词一样。最突出的例子是谷八：29：「σπετροζ对他说：你是σχριστοζ」。以上参阅M. Miguens, Church Ministries in New Testament Times, Arlington, Christian Culture Press, 1974, 87页及196页，注152，153。
(3)着名的经学家中，反对这段篇章的真实性的，举其大者而言之，包括H. J. Holtzmann, J. Weiss, M. Dibelius, A Harnack, R. Bultmann, W. G. Kummel等人。攻击者的另一主要论据是「教会」一字的出现，这个字，在四福音中，除玛十六：18外，共在玛十八：17中用过。但A. Schweitzer, J. Jeremias, A. Oepke等则坚持这段篇章的真实性。后者主要是根据这篇记述中浓厚的闪族语言特色：如「约纳的儿子」(参阅注(1)，以「血和肉」代表人，众数的「天」字(ouranoi) 等等。Jeremias甚至发现这段篇章有类似耶稣平素话语中的闪族韵味(比对玛十一：7－9，25－30)：三?三的结构：包括三节，每节三行。
(4)O. Cullmann, Peter : Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (由F. V. Filson自德文原着Petrus译成)，London, SCM Press, 1953, 1962(2).
(5)O. Karrer, Peter and the Church. An Examination of Cullmann's Thesis, (Quaestiones Disputatae, 8), New York, Herder and Herder, 1963.
(6)不过，库尔曼却以为这段福音本来出自另一脉胳范围(最后晚餐)，经玛窦安排整理之后加插在这里。
(7)这是一些早期教父的看法，如盎博罗削、金口若望、希拉里、教宗良一世等。
(8)宗教改革时代，玛丁路德等人多随此说。据Strack-Billerbeck的注解，耶稣没有对伯多禄说：「你是盘石」，只是说:「我对你说，是的，对你，伯多禄。在这盘石上……」。
(9)建筑的形象弥漫全段经文，除了十六：18明明说「建立」教会之外，下一句所用的字眼，如「门」、「钥匙」等等明显地都曾受到建筑形象的启发。
(10)根据库尔曼的理论，由于耶稣立伯多禄的时候，没有万世承嗣的思想，因此，伯多禄教会盘石的地位，不但是可以变动的，而且事实上，他也只在最早的一段日子里位居教会元首，到了后来，他的地位已经慢慢被雅各伯所取代了。至少在宗徒会议的时侯，宗徒权力的转移已经完成，因此，迦拉达书所说的教会柱石，以雅各伯为首，跟着是刻法和若望(二9)，这样的排列次序绝不偶然，它反映了当时教会的实况。
(11)参阅注(10)。
作者：苏国怡 Socol, Carlo
THE ROMAN PRIMACY IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES OF THE CHURCH
In the 1970s a theological forum on 'post-ecumenical Christianity' identified the Vatican I definition of papal primacy and infallibility－and more precisely the former as foundation for the latter's claim-as the single greatest difficulty on the path to ecumenical agreement between the Christian churches (1). A decade later, the same question has become a burning issue in this part of the world, as scriptural, theological and historical arguments are being drawn out of the closet in an attempt to legitimatize a situation brought about largely by ideological pressure, political dictates, misunderstandings, lack of communication as well as objective difficulties, a situation that might become a de facto separation.(2)
From a historical point of view, the question concerning papal primacy is more complicated than often portrayed by both its supporters and detractors. People discussing this issue naturally enough attempt to go back to the early life of the church in order to support their views with both biblical and extra-biblical proofs. And since the rapid emergence of the Roman see as a centre of both leadership and juridical authority is such a striking feature of the life of the Western church from the middle of the 4th century onwards that there is no denying it. recourse is made to the first three centuries(3).
However, evidence for this period is scanty, discontinuous and often uncertain. It is a period no one should venture into lightheartedly. Lack of cross evidence practically deprives the historian of his most reliable working tool. That, coupled with the complexity of the issue and the confessional and theological bias that threatens objectivity, explains the variety of opinions one comes across on this and other early church questions. Evaluation of evidence is often at the mercy of each scholar.
The account which Catholic church historians give of the problem of Roman primacy, though differing in the manner of presentation as well as in the evaluation given to single events or documents, is fairly univocal. It is relatively easy to give a presentation of the Catholic position, while a dialectic approach would make the issue considerably more complex. Catholic substantial uniformity is not surprising and cannot certainly be dismissed as the consequence of apologetic preoccupations inhibiting Catholic scholars from exploring divergent hypotheses with sufficient freedom of mind. It must also be accounted for by the objective value of the testimony the past has left us as well as by a substantially correct approach to the sources (4).
Given all these difficulties, it would seem to me that the best way to go about trying to throw light on the issue is to consider all available evidence, both direct and supplementary, against the background of our general knowledge of this period, allowing the conclusions to emerge spontaneously－as far as possible－from the global experience of the church within the great becoming of history. In fact, it is not enough to limit oneself to the analysis of each piece of evidence, conclusions from which are often, well, inconclusive. Nor does it do to try to isolate certain issues deemed to be crucial and discuss them. not for this particular period in the life of the church at least (5).
Not much can be said in a short article. Available evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical, strictly related to the case is anything but abundant. Space and an 'objective' stand demand that even here the subject be dealt with in a sketchy and detached manner, and facts be allowed to speak for themselves as much as possible. They are given in a chronological order (6).
Evidence
AD 49－The oldest piece of evidence of concerning a Christian presence in Rome dates back to the reign of Claudius (41-54), who "drove from Rome the Jewish agitators stirred up by Chrestos" (SUET., Vita Claud., 25, 5). Christianity was, hence, probably introduced to the capital by a group of unknown Judaean Christians, a thing that does not clash with the tradition, related for the first time by Irenaeus, attributing the evangelization and 'founding' of the churching in Rome to the apostles Peter and Paul. The notion of 'founding' goes beyond that of a mere 'introducing'.
AD 57－Romans. By that year Rome's Christian community must have been a thriving one if it prompted Paul to address a letter to it and to express the desire to work there (Rm1 :15).
AD 54-57－The earliest New Testament witness concerning Simon-Peter are the important references contained in Galatians and 1 Corinthians: Peter as first witness to the resurrection of Christ; Peter as Paul's source of tradition about Jesus; Peter as leader in Jerusalem at the time of Paul's visits there; Peter's role in the apostolate to the circumcised (cf. Gal 1:18; 2:7-9, 11, 14: 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5) (7).
AD 64－Mark. 1 Peter. In the earliest of the four gospels consigned to writing, i.e. Mark's, Simon-Peter features prominently. In it we find the basic outline of the gospel portrait of Peter with which we are familiar. The following are the highlights: the call of the fisherman; the appointment of the Twelve, the first of whom is Simon, "whom He surnamed Peter"; Peter's confession and subsequent rebuke by Jesus; Peter's witnessing of the transfiguration along with James and John; his denial of Jesus; Peter specially sorted out as destinee of the angel's post-resurrectional message relayed by the women who had come to the empty tomb (cf. Mk 1:16-18; 1 :29-31, 35-38; 3:14-16; 5:37; 8:27-33; 9:2-13; 10:28-30; 11:12-14, 20-22; 13: 3ff; 14: 27-42. 54. 66-72: 16:7) (8).
In 1 Peter the author addresses himself to the presbyters of the communities of Asia Minor as a 'fellow-presbyter', obviously out of modesty, for he had earlier identified himself as endowed with an apostolic office (5:1-4) (9).
By this time Peter and Paul had reached Rome. Paul arrived there in chains in the Spring of 61 and suffered martyrdom under Nero in 67. When Peter got there is not known. One can only make suppositions. Yet the tradition of Peter's stay in the capital and his martyrdom there in 64 or 67 is too strong to be questioned.
This Roman tradition, never challenged in antiquity, rests on the testimony of three sources, chronologically close to each other that when taken together acquire such a weight as practically to amount to historical certainty: (1) Clement's letter to the Corinthians. AD 96, which relates events occurring in the recent past, especially the death of Peter and Paul "through jealousy and envy", and which possibly alludes to Nero's persecution. (2) The essential nucleus of this testimony is confirmed some 15-20 years later by the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church of Rome. (3) The Ascensio Isaiae (4,2), re-elaborated in a Christian sense ca. AD 100 and whose testimony about Peter's stay in Rome and his martyrdom there has been recently revalued, prophetically announces the death of one of the Twelve at the hands of Belial, murderer of his mother (Nero). This statement is further clarified by a fragment from the Apocalypse of Peter (early 2nd century): "Go Peter...to the city of fornication and drink the chalice I foretold"(10).
No evidence brought against the Roman tradition even closely approaches the amount and sheer weight of evidence in favour of it. The excavations under the altar of Peter's Confession in the Vatican have brought up a wealth of new circumstantial evidence as to the location of Peter's tomb. The force of these proofs, however, is dimipuished by uncertainties and above all by an annoying flaw: the bones have not been found in the tomb, but by the side of the 'trophy of Gaius', not sufficiently protected (11).
AD 70-80－Matthew, Luke, Acts. Three episodes stand out in Greek-Matthew's account of the apostle Peter, though they not the only ones: Jesus saves Peter as he sinks while walking on the water; Peter's confession and Jesus' promise to him (the text cited by the Catholic Church as scriptural basis for the authority of the papacy); Jesus, Peter, and the temple tax (Mt 14: 28-31; 16:16b-19: 17:24-27) (12).
In Luke we find the following stories: the call of Simon and the miraculous catch of fish; Jesus' prayer for Simon's faith not fo fail, to enable him to stengthen his brethren; the appearance of the risen Lord to Simon (Lk 5:1-11; 22:31-32; 24:34). On the whole Luke presents a very favourable portrait of Peter to his gentile audience. He is the last of the Twelve to be mentioned by name in Lk, and the first of the Twelve to be mentioned by name in Acts. This is probably no accident. For Lk the Twelve are the bridge between the historical Jesus and the church, and Simon-Peter plays that role par excellence (13).
In the first half of Acts it is Peter who dominates. His prominence stems from being first in the post-resurrectional list of the Eleven, from the significant role he played in the election of Matthias, and again as preacher in the Jerusalem church, as miracle worker, as object of miraculous divine care. etc.(14) Acts also describes Peter's part in the conversion of gentiles, his relation to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem authorities, his moving on "to another place" (Acts 12:17), his mediating role at the 'council' of Jerusalem, after which he disappears from the scene of Acts and we find him soon afterwords in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14).
AD 80－2 Peter. This letter, sometimes set in the 2nd century and hence considered as the last NT writing, presents Peter as the guardian of orthodox faith. His authority is called upon to correct doctrinal and moral confusion spread by false teachings since he has the authority to interpret the words of Scripture (15).
AD 96－Clement's 1 Cor.－The letter of Clement, bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians supplies impressive evidence. It was written just before the close of the apostolic era. Such was its standing in the early church, that for some time it was included in the canon of inspired writings. As late as the second half of the 2nd century it was regularly read at Corinthian liturgical gatherings This document testifies to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul under Nero with a high degree of probability. Yet its importance is due to the fact that it bears witness to the first documented intervention of the Roman church in the life of a sister church. Clement indeed wrote in the name of his community－he himself remains a background figure, as monarchical episcopate had not emerged at this early stage-to seek to re-establish peace in Corinth by means of admonition and counsel. It is not known whether Rome's intervention, which had been delayed by raging persecution, was spontaneous or had been called for. One thing is certain, though, and this is Rome's consciousness of her authority and consequent responsibility. The claims contained in the letter exceed the limits of brotherly solidarity. Its tone is authoritative, at times almost threatening, and seems to expect obedience. Corinth heeded Clement's advice. No one in antiquity ever had anything to say about Rome's action. For Pierre Batiffol. Clement's intervention represents "the epiphany of the Roman primacy" (16).
AD 100 ca.－The Gospel of John contains ten references to Simon-Peter, of which the most relevant ones are: Jesus meets Simon and tells him he will be called Cephas: Peter confesses Jesus as the Holy One of God; Peter at the empty tomb: Jesus specifically entrusts his flock to Peter (cf. Jn 1:40-42; 6:67-69; 20:2-10: 21:1-23) (17).
AD 110 ca.－Ignatius' letter to the Romans has already been mentioned. It conveys the esteem of non-Roman Christians for Rome. The bishop of Antioch wrote seven letters to as many churches, yet on comparison Romans stands out as unique: its enthusiastic introduction, resounding with honorific and fulsomely respectful epithets, bears witness to a real pre-eminence of Rome. which inspired a singular veneration throughout the ancient world. In an obvious allusion to Clement's letter, Ignatius states that the Roman congregation acts as teacher. He gives it the title 'president of love'. Accordingly he offers no advice, as he did to the other churches, but rather entrusts the communities of Syria soon to be deprived of their leaders the Rome's charity. Commenting on this letter, the Anglican scholar S.H. Scott wrote of a primacy pertaining to the church of Rome by virtue of Peter's primacy. Indeed, the letter does contain some of the elements of papal theory developed later, such as the importance of the capital, the presence of Peter and Paul. Rome's leadership in faith and love, but as it does not specifically refer to the bishop of Rome, one cannot speak of a personal primacy yet (18).
AD 140 ca.－Hermas, the author of the mystical treatise known as The Shepherd, describes Clement, bishop of Rome, as having been entrusted with the care of churches abroad (Vision 2, ch. 4).
AD 180 ca.－Irenaeus' Contra Haereses is the most famous testimony on the subject. To prove the Gnostic heretics wrong, the author outlines what he deems to be an incontrovertible and universally accepted 'rule of faith': tradition founded on the apostles and guaranteed by succession. In this respect Rome stands out as having been founded by Peter and Paul, and because he considers communion with this one community as the most reliable proof that a church is within the tradition approved by the apostles. Irenaeus provides a list of Peter's successors, the first to do so. He then concludes with an often quoted sentence: "With this church, on account of its more powerful principality alt other churches in every place must agree (Lat. 'convenire') since in it the Christians of all places have preserved the apostolic tradition" (Adv. Haer.. III, 3, 1-2).
For Louis Duchesne, one cannot find a dearer statement of (1) the doctrinal unity of the universal church, of (2) the sovereign and unique importance of the Roman church as witness, custodian and organ of apostolic tradition, and of (3) her superior preeminence among all the Christian communities. There may well be other important churches, but as far as sheer 'power' is concerned, Rome stands above them all (19).
AD 190 ca.－The controversy over the Easter date. By the end of the 2nd century various aspects of church life were becoming better and better organized: the monarchical organization had practically been established, hence news about Rome's bishops becomes more and more detailed. A canon of the scriptures was being drawn up, the first symbols or creeds were formulated (20), along with the first elaboration of liturgical traditions (21). In all this Rome was playing a relevant role. Naturally each community had traditions of its own. Yet this whole complex movement towards commonly accepted points of reference shows that nearing AD 200 Rome－whatever the exact explanation of this phenomenon may be－enjoyed a pre-eminent authority.
Extraordinary as it may be, one particular episode, that of the controversy over the Easter date, imposes itself on our attention, for it highlights Rome's role in the church's search for greater unity in a matter purely religious. Easter was celebrated on different dates in the East and in the West. In the year 154, bishop Polycarp of Smyrna had travelled all the way to see his Roman counterpart, Anicetus, to try to reach an agreement, but failed to do so. The lack of clarity over the issue was opening the gates to abuse and schism. This probably explains why, at a certain moment, having received a letter from Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, explaining the Eastern customs, bishop Victor of Rome (189-199) decided, to intervene in the question with exceptional severity, i.e. threatening the Eastern churches with excommunication: no one, not even Irenaeus, who played a mediating role. and who had nothing good to say about the excesses of Victor's intransigent centralism, ever thought of challenging Rome's right to impose a disciplinary norm under threat of excommunication (22).
AD 200 ca.－Bishop Zephyrinus of Rome (199-217) condemns Montanism. The Roman presbyter Gaius boasts of the 'trophies', i.e. the funeral monuments, of Peter and Paul in Rome. Abercius, bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia, who had visited Rome under Marcus Aurelius (161-180), dictates a famous epitaph that bears witness to a growing awareness of the universal brotherhood being created by the church, something he had been able to experience in his travels. It also praises the majesty of the Roman church, queen of the Christian world (23).
AD 210-220 (after 213)－Hippolytus rebukes bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus (217-222) for having failed to intervene－as duty demanded－to stop the Patripassian heresy. Also Tertullian complains against a bishop (Callistus, or Agrippinus of Carthage?) whom he sarcastically calls 'supreme pontiff and 'bishop of bishops', for the authority he had claimed on the basis of Mt 16:18 was exaggerated, since the gift signified therein was intended for Peter alone (De Pudicitia, 21). Obviously, in the wake of increasing unrest and division, a search was on for irrefutable proofs of episcopal power. Tertullian's assertions are significant in that they point to a Petrine interpretation of episcopal authority－either in Carthage or in Rome－one generation before Cyprian (24).
AD 230 ca.－Origen tries to defend himself against accusations brought against him in Alexandria by writing to bishop Fabian of Rome (236-250). Origen's condemnation by an Alexandrian synod had been confirmed by a Roman synod called by bishop Pontian (230-235) (25).
AD 256－Bishop Stephen of Rome makes what appears to be the clearest claim so far to primacy by a Roman bishop. We have access to his fact through the reaction of those who opposed it, i.e. Cyprian of Carthage and Firmilian of Caesarea, at the peak of the controversy over baptism by dissidents. Stephen criticised the African bishop for reconferring such baptisms, a criticism which did not go down well. Out of some real as well as personal motivations, in the name of the rights of bishops, whom be claimed were responsible to God alone, Cyprian rejected the "tyranny" imposed by Stephen and contended with the right of his "brother" on the Roman see to make himself bishop of bishops. On other occasions, however, Cyprian recognized the right of the bishops of Rome to be informed about important matters, such as the election of bishops. For him Rome was indeed "Peter's chair", "the principal church", "the point of origin of sacerdotal [= episcopal] unity"(26). In his famous De Unitate Catholicae Ecclesiae, in a double, authentic (!), recension, he views Peter as the origin and foundation of unity. Yet his chief concern was the oneness of the local community within itself, not that of the universal church. In fact he held the opinion that all bishops had received a power equal to that of Peter. No distinction as yet had been drawn between power of orders and power of jurisdiction. Consistently with his unconquerable episcopalism, Cyprian refused to budge (27). His, at times inconsistent, theology shows all the characteristic tension between a marked sense of solidarity among all bishops and the unique position of the bishop of Rome. The African martyr holds on and bears witness to both traditions, yet he fails to harmonize them.
AD 260-262－The two Dionysiuses' affair is a fact which closely resembles in its dynamics Clement's intervention in the Corinthian affair. Dionysius the Great, bishop of Alexandria, had to deal with a group of Sabellians. dissidents who denied any real distinction between the Persons of the Trinity. The bishop himself, however, had gone too far in his attempt to explain the distinction: he had made the son less than, subordinate to. the Father (incidentally, the same error Arius was to spread in Alexandria in the following century). For this reason charges were brought against him in Rome, prompting pope Dionysius (260-268) to convene a synod and correct both the bishop and the whole catechetical school of Alexandria with its proud Origenist tradition, in what is the most important ante－Nicene document on the Trinity. The episode on the one side highlights Rome's continuous commitment to orthodoxy since the times of bishops Victor, Zephyrinus and Callistus, on the other it is evidence of Rome's magisterial authority, exercised by its bishop in a sovereign manner. The doctrine being judged and censored was held by one of the most notable and venerated bishops of antiquity. In the face of Rome's sentence the foremost episcopal see in the East and the personal prestige of its bishop seemed to count for nothing. No one even thought of appealing (28).
AD 272－Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, had been deposed and replaced by a local synod on account of his adoptionist heresy. However, he had chosen to stick to his post and refused to hand over the church buildings to his successor. Pagan emperor Aurelian, who was then passing through the town and had been called in to help solve the question concerning the right of property, sentenced that the true bishop and legitimate occupier of the episcopal house should be he whom Felix (269-274), bishop of Rome. and the bishops of Italy recognized (29).
(1)H. KUNG, Editorial, in Concilium 4/7 (April 1971), p.7. The issue is entirely dedicated to 'The Petrine ministry in the Church'.
(2)「中國天主教」創刊號(一九八０年十一月十日，北京) 二十至二十二頁。湯漢「教宗首席權與主教團的關係?中國天主教質詢的一個神學問題」，鼎刊，1981年5月，14－18頁。梁作祿，「文革後的中國天主教」，香港1982，80頁。
(3)There is a historical as well as a sentimental reason for this: the church of the first three centuries was supposedly purer, more evangelical, more charismatic, less papal, less institutionalized, less compromised with the world as compared with the 'Constantinian church', which was hopelessly caught up in a process of integration with a society that considered itself Christian, on which she patterned her typically Roman organization and legal structure, eventually emerging as state religion. Few historians nowadays would uncritically accept such a sharp distinction between a pre-Constantinian and a Constantinian church in this sense.
(4)As we come nearer to our times, one easily comes across views that diverge in a more substantial way. Readers might be familiar, for instance, with Charles Davis' A Question of Conscience (New York. 1967), or Hans Kung's The Church (Westminster. 1967). The two differ between themselves, the first being a systematic rebuttal of each piece of evidence in favour of primacy at the height of a personal crisis of faith; the second re-reads history in the light of certain ecclesiological presuppositions. Neither authors are trained historians. Different still are the views expressed by James F. McCue (Roman Primacy in the First Three Centuries, in Concilium 4/7 [April 1971] pp. 37-44). In what appears like an 'ecumenical effort', the author does not seem to endeavour to support evidence traditionally considered invaluable for the Catholic viewpoint on primacy and prefers to rest to whole issue on the nature of the Church's development.
No account is here given of the now subsided Catholic-Protestant controversy of early 20th century. Among the manuals/articles available at local libraries the following have been selected : K.BAUS, From the Apostolic Community to Constantine ( = Handbook of Church History 1.ed. H. Jedin and J. Dolan), New York 1965, pp. 151-2, 355-360; G. LEBRETON-G. ZILLER, La Chiesa primitiva (= 'Fliche & Martin' 1), Torino(3) 1958, pp. 281ff., 484ff., 491ff ; Id., Dalla fine del II secolo alla pace costantinana (313), (= 'Fliche & Martin' 2), Torino(2) 1977, pp. 595-598 (because it is a more recent edition, the Italian translation is preferred); K. BIHLMEYER-H. TUCHLE, Church History, I , Christian antiquity, Westminster 1958, pp. 112-117, 311-322; L. HERTLING, Geschichteder katholischen Kirche, Berlin(4) 1967, Chinese Ed., 1967, pp. 45-52; J. LORTZ, Geschichte der Kirche in ideeges-chichtlicher Betrachtung, 2 Bande, Munster(21) 1962, Ital. Ed.(3) 1976, pp. 90-93, 148ff., 181f.; A. FRANZEN, Kleine Kirchengeschichte, Freiburg I. Br. 1976, Engl. Ed., pp. 100ff.; M. SCHMAUS, Pope. C. Historical Development, in Scaramentum Mundi 5, pp. 42-50; G. SCHWAIGER, Pope. II. History of the Popes, ibid., pp. 50ff.; W. ULLMANN, Papacy. 1. Early period, in New. Cath. Encyc. 10, pp. 951-954; B. STUDER, Papato, in Dizionario patristico e di antichita cristiane, dir. A. Di Berardino, II, Casale Monferrato 1983, coll. 2638ff.; G. VODOPIVEC, Papato, in Dizionario Storico Religioso, dir. P. Chiocchetta, Roma 1966, pp. 712. Also WL. D'ORMESSON, The papacy, ( = Faith and Fact 80), London 1959 ; H. CHADWICK, The Early Church ( = The Pelican History of the Church 1) New York 1967. Most sources cencerning the papacy in the early period may be conveniently found in H. DENZINGER-A. SCHONMETZER, Enchiridion fontium historiae ecclesiasticae antiquae, Barcelona(9), 1965.
(5)H. Kung's exposition of the issue is vitiated, in my opinion, by this type of approach, typical of the systematic theologian. Cf. KUNG, Church, 456ff.
(6)Dates for biblical events, which are to be taken with some degree of aproximation, follow the chronological table provided in the Supplements Section of the Jerusa1em Bible. Biblical evidence is here treated as historical evidence.
(7)R. E. BROWN. Peter in the New Testament, New York 1973, pp. 23ff.
(8)Ibid., pp. 57ff.
(9)Ibid., pp. 149ff.
(10)BAUS. From the Apostolic Community, pp. 112-115.
(11)Ibid., pp. 115-118; M. GUARDUCCI. Le reliquie di Pietro sotto la confessione della basilica vaticana, Roma 1966.
(12)BROWN, Peter, pp. 75ff.
(13)Ibid., pp. 109ff.
(14)Ibid., 39ff.
(15)Ibid., 154ff.
(16)P. BATIFFOL. Le catholicisme des origines a Saint Leon－I. L' Eglise naissante et le catholicisme. Paris(9) 1927, p. 146.
(17)BROWN, Peter, pp. 129ff.
(18)FLICHE & MARTIN I, p. 416.
(19)Quoted in D' ORMESSON, Papacy, p.146.
(20)The four gospels and the thirteen Pauline letters had come to be accepted AD 130 ca. and were placed on the same footing as the Old Testament between 170 and 220. Peculiar to the Western church was the Apostolic Creed.
(21)Cf. JUSTIN, Apology, I. 61-67 (written ca 150-155): HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME, The Apostolic Tradition, (ca. 215).
(22)FLICHE & MARTIN II. pp. 575ff.
(23)The meaning of the symbolic language employed by Abercius, which had given rise to many discussions in the past. no longer seems debatable. Ibid., I. pp. 488.
(24)McCUE. Primacy, p. 41; FLICHE & MARTIN II. p. 579.
(25)Ibid., p. 383.
(26)Eg. 55,14; De Unit., 4.
(27)Only a fresh persecution avoided an open split between the bishops of Carthage and Rome. The conflict was composed under pope Sixtus, "the good and pacific pontiff", who had succeeded Stephen in 257. Cf. FLICHE & MARTIN II. p. 312; J. QUASTEN, Patrology, II. Westminster 1964, pp. 375-378.
(28)FLICHE & MARTIN II, pp. 378ff.
(29)Ibid., p. 379.
Conclusion
The last decades of the 3rd century were peaceful and largely uneventful. The church enjoyed the peace granted by Galerian's edict of tolerance (AD 260). Diocletian was reorganizing the empire but was soon to launch the fiercest persecution, which was eventually followed by a general peace in 313. From AD 67 thirty-one bishops had sat on the see of Peter, some of them outstanding, others less, some well known, others almost unknown. During the intervening 280 years the church had expanded to include over 1.000 communities, unevenly spread throughout the empire and beyond its borders to the East. What originally was just a message had grown into a movement that had won freedom and imperial recognition, and soon was to turn into Rome's single most powerful moral driving force. The church had withstood challenges from without and conquered serious crises from within. Local communities had organized evangelization and catechesis, charity and liturgy: baptismal rites, some outline for eucharistic prayers, which were largely spontaneous: the first elements of a liturgical year were taking shape. Ties and communications with other churches had been set up. There was a canon of inspired scriptures, some symbols of faith and a primitive theology. By the end of the 2nd century Christians were able to look around and really feet their religion was a universal one.
The process had been a gradual one. The progress had not been even. The churches had not had a chance yet to come together and give themselves some form of unitary organization. This was to be done by the great councils of the 4th and 5th century, notably Nicaea (325). Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451). The one symbol of unity and its driving force at this time was Rome. The vitality of other churches had spilled over the surrounding areas: Antioch for Syria, Carthage for N. Africa, Alexandria for Egypt. Rome stood out among them. The most prominent among the apostles, Simon-Peter, had worked and died there. Between the years 80-100 the NT communities had recognized in him the rock on which Christ was building his church, the leader to whom he had given specific authority to bind and loose, the shepherd to whom his flock had been entrusted. Him He had strengthened, so that he might in turn stengthen his brethren, and, in time, give his life for them, in a mission that the church was to carry out to the ends of time (Mt 28:18). If this appears like a grand role, perhaps we may remember that it was the later NT writings that began to cast Peter in an idealized role (30).
Before claiming any authority, the bishops of Rome had picked up the heritage and had gone about expanding it, well aware, from as early as the end of the 1 st century, that they were acting with an authority that had come from Christ through the apostles. At least twelve out of thirty-one bishops of Rome gave up their lives or were exiled in the course of their mission. They stood for and promoted unity and communion within the church, defended orthodoxy at home and abroad, intervened in the life of other communities, correcting, encouraging, or excommunicating, if necessary. In AD 180 Irenaeus clearly saw the bishops of Rome as 'successors' of Peter, and sort of crystalized his view in a 'rule of faith' he put forward as a point of reference for orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, they exercised a power which in some respects was what later came to be called primatial and juridical. The word of Christ to Peter was unfolding its prophetical role and was gradually being realized in an incarnated church, herself growing, expanding and getting organized (31).
This is what the documents point to. Yet the picture needs some pinpointing. Was there or was there not a Roman primacy in the first three centuries? As stated once and again, the question concerning the primacy of the bishop of Rome is a complicated one. Any answer to such a question is not possible without differentiating exactly between his position as bishop, as patriarch and as successor of Peter. To separate primacy from patriarchate is not easy, particularly in this period when no agreement on supra-diocesan organization had been mooted as yet. Nor does it do to attempt to apply categories known to have existed at a later stage, such as referring juridical notions to a church on which the concept of law had not yet impressed its mark. In this period she rather represented herself thorough categories such as 'communio', 'pax', 'agape', of which Rome was said to be the president, a type of inter-church relationship that naturally did not exclude juridical or disciplinary elements (32). Yet to attempt to reduce such concepts to juridical categories would mean failure to capture the sense of early Christian life.
Having said this. one may assert, on the basis of historical evidence, that the bishops of Rome did exercise an authority that was truly primatial, at least in the broader sense of the word. i.e. an extra-diocesan intervention that surpassed the powers later attributed to metropolitans and patriarchs. Such was the case at least in the actions of Clement, Victor, Stephen and Dionysius. While Clement's 1 Corinthians does contain a primitive theology of episcopal succession, there seems to be no manifest evidence that his action was actually 'informed' by a clear Petrine consciousness. However this somehow fits with the dynamics of a gradually developing living reality. In the cases of Victor, Stephen and Dionysius. however, the claim to authority is such that one can think of no ground to justify their papal stand-point other than that of primacy. To all effects, these interventions were 'papal'. While in the first half of the second century we have evidence of a Petrine interpretation of episcopal power, and pope Stephen possibly appealed to it in his controversy with the African bishops, the 'Petrine text' of Mt 16:18 began to become important as providing a theological and scriptural foundation to a consciousness that had grown and kept growing, only in the middle of the 4th century (33). Hence, when the council of Sardica in 343 established the appellate jurisdiction of the Roman see, and when pope Damasus (366-384) began to refer to Rome as the 'apostolic see', or when pope Leo I openly claimed to speak for Peter, no real novelties were being introduced. It was rather a matter of defining the issue in more explicit, juridical terms, fully in keeping with other parallel developments in the life of the church. The ecumenical council of Chalcedon (451) received Leo's intervention (the famed Tome to Flavian) as a true Petrine utterance: "Peter has spoken through Leo!"
(30)BROWN, Peter, pp. 55. 127.
(31)LORTZ. It. Ed.. 1. p.91.
(32)海脫令，51-52頁(HERTLING, Chinese Ed.).
(33)CHADWICK, Early Church, pp. 237-238.
(34)SCHMAUS, Pope, p.44.
(35)海脫令，49-50頁(HERTLING, Chinese Ed.).
(36)V.SOLOVIEV, La Russie et L' Eglise universelle, Paris 1889, quoted from the It. Ed., pp. 44-45, in VODOPIVEC, Papato, pp. 712-713.
(37)LORTZ, It. Ed., I, p.92.
苏国怡著；李子忠译
在七十年代，一个有关「合一运动后的基督教义」(post-ecumenical Christianity) 的神学论坛，视梵一的「宗座首席权」和「不能作错」的信条－－尤其声言前者为后者的根据的看法－－为基督徒合一的唯一最大障碍(1)。十年后，同样的问题，在我们这儿，又再炽热起来。由于意识型态，政冶动向、误会、缺乏沟通，和一些客观困难的缘故，在我们这儿产生了很困扼的形势。这形势亦很可能演变为真正的分裂。目前有些人企图找出圣经、神学和历史的论据，务使这儿的情况合理化(2)。
从历史角度看，宗座首席权的问题本身，往往较这信念的支持者或反对者所意想的更为复杂。讨论这问题的人，惯常追溯到教会初期，以便利用圣经内外的证据，支持自己的观点。自从公元四世纪后期，罗马宗座即迅速脱颖而出，一跃而成西方教会中领导和法权的中心，这是无可否认的事。因此，大家便不约而同的往最初三个世纪中探索(3)。
然而，这时期的例证稀而又少，更是间断和不明确，我们万不能轻率从事。历史家也鉴于佐证缺乏，而束手无策。冉加上问题的复杂，和一些左右客观性的教派及神学偏差，于是产生了许多对这问题、和对其他教会初期的问题的不同意见。这皆因学者们往往随意衡量所得的资料所致。
一般公教历史家论述罗马宗座首席权时，虽然各有不同的表达方式，衡量个别事件和文献时也略有回异，但基本士都很一致。故此，讲论公教立伤，并非难事；但若要兼顾正反双方的立场，事情就复杂得多了。公教学者的基本一致，是意料中事；但这并非他们的护教心理作祟，致使无法自由探讨其他异己的假想。这一致性，实因历代留给我们的证供大致上足够客观，而且对文献持有正确的态度之故(4)。
由于种种困难，阐明这问题的最好方法，似乎就是在大家熟悉的时代背景中，检讨一切有关事例，无论直接者或补充者。同时要让结论，由教会在历史演变的全面经验中，尽量自发而出。事实上，只管分析每项例证是不够的，因为这样得来的结论，往往并非肯定的定论。更不应该把认为困难的问题，个别抽出来讨论，尤其在教会历史中的这段时期(5)。
在这短文中不能详铺直叙什么。圣经内外的有关例证，并不太多；但基于篇幅和「客观」立场的需要．在此只能略作讨论，留待事例本身作自我表白。这些事例将按年代先后编排(6)。
事例
公元四九年－－基督宗教在罗马出现的最早例证，要推溯到喀劳狄(Claudius四一至五四年) 执政时期；他「从罗马驱逐了因Chrestus煽动而骚乱的犹太人」(苏厄托尼，《喀劳狄传》，廿五，5)。因此，基督信仰大概由一群犹太裔的基督徒传入首都。这并不抵触依肋纳(Irenaeus) 所载，有关伯多禄和保禄二位宗徒在罗马传扬福音和「建立」教会之传统。「建立」的含义远超过「传入」。
公元五七年－－《罗马人书》。此时，罗马的基督徒团体必定很蓬勃，促使保禄致书他们，并表示愿意到他们中间工作(《罗》一：15)。
公元五四至五七年－－《迦拉达书》和《格林多前书》是新约中最早记载有关西满伯多禄的重要文献：伯多禄身为基督复活的第一个见证人；伯多禄是保禄有关耶稣传统的来源；保禄造访耶路撒冷时，伯多禄是那儿的领导人；伯多禄担任受割损者的宗徒职(参看《迦》一：18；2：7－9，11，14；《格前》一：12；三：22；九：5；十五：5) (7)。
公元六四年－－《玛尔谷福音》，《伯多禄前书》。在四部福音中最先成书的《玛尔谷福音》里，伯多禄的地位很显着。由这福音中，我们得悉伯多禄的基本形像。以下是其显着者：渔夫被召；耶稣选定十二人，以西满为首，并给他起名叫「伯多禄」；伯多禄承认基督，但随即被基督斥责；伯多禄与雅各伯和若望一起见证耶稣显容；伯多禄否认耶稣；天使命那些到空墓的妇女，把复活后的信息转告伯多禄(参看《谷》一：l6－18；一：29－31，35－38；三：14－16；五：37；八：27－33；九：2－13；十：28－30；十一：12－14，20－22；十三：3等；十四：27－42，54，66－72；十六：7) (8)。
《伯多禄前书》的作者，对小亚细亚众教会的长老，自称是一位「同为长老者」。明显的，这只是客套话，因为作者在较早前，曾指出自己负有宗徒职(五：1－4) (9)。
此时，伯多禄和保禄已来到罗马。保禄于六一年春，带着枷锁到来，并于六七年在尼禄(Nero五四至六八年) 执政时殉教。我们不知道伯多禄何时到达，只能作估计。不过，有关伯多禄在首都居留，和在六四至六七年间殉教的传统，却是毫无疑问的。这罗马传统，在古代一直没有被置疑。它是根据三个年代相约的文献；它们一起产生的见证力，构成了史实的确切性。它们就是：(1)《克肋孟致格林多人书》，写于公元九六年，讲论一些近期发生的事，其中也提及伯多禄和保禄的死，是「而由于妒恨和嫉妒」，这可能暗示尼禄皇的教权。(2) 十五至二十年后，《安提约的依纳爵致罗马人书》又再肯定了这证言。(3) 约在公元一００年经教友窜改过的《依撒意亚升天录》(四：2)，也为伯多禄在罗马居留和在那儿殉教一事作证。这例证近日再获人重视。书中预言十二人之一，将死于拭母者贝里雅耳(Belial：暗指尼禄皇) 之手。这句话可由《伯多禄默示录》(第二世纪初) 残卷中得到阐释：「伯多禄，你要到…那淫乱的城中，饮我预告的爵杯。」(10)。
没有任何相反这罗马传统的例证，可稍微在数量和分量上，与那些有利这传统的例证相比。在梵蒂岗伯多禄大殿正祭台下的发掘，给我们提哄了许多有关伯多禄坟墓所在地的旁证。可惜这些证据的力量，由于未能肯定而大大削弱了，尤其一项令人烦恼的缺陷：骨骸并不在墓中，而放置在「佳尤纪念碑」旁，未受到适当的保护(11)。
公元七O至八０年－－《玛窦福音》，《路加福音》和《宗徒大事录》。希腊文的《玛窦福音》有关伯多禄的记载中，有三段特别的事迹：耶稣救起在海上步行而下沉的伯多禄；伯多禄承认耶稣，和耶稣给他的许诺(这段经文是罗马天主教援引，作为宗座权力由来的圣经基础)；耶稣，伯多禄和殿税(《玛》十四：28－31；十六：16b－19；十七：24－27) (12)。
在《路加福音》中，有以下的记述：西满被召和奇妙的渔获；耶稣为西满的信德祈祷，使他不致失足，并能坚固弟兄们；复活的主显现给西满(《路》五：1－11；廿二：31－32：廿四，34)。大致上，路加向他的外邦听众，介绍了一个伯多禄的好形像。在福音中，伯多禄在十二人中排名最末，但在《宗徒大事录》中，却排名第一。这并非偶然之事，路加以十二宗徒为历史中的耶稣与教会间的桥梁，而西满伯多禄单越地担任了这角色(13)。
在《宗徒大事录》的前部，伯多禄独占鳌头。他是复活后十一宗徒名录中的首位，主持玛弟亚的选拔，在耶路撒冷教会中宣讲，行奇迹，更是天主奇妙照顾的对象等(14)。《宗徒大事录》也描述伯多禄归化外那人的角色，他与耶路撒冷教会和该教会的领导人的关系，他继续「往别的地方去」(《宗》十二：17)，他在耶路撒冷会议中的调解角色；此后，他便从《宗徒大事录》里消失，不久后，我们又在安提约找到他(《迦》二：11－14)。
公元八０年－－《伯多禄后书》。这封信有时被列为第二世纪时，新约的最后作品。信中，伯多禄被视作正统信仰的维护者。既机他有权解泽圣经，所以人们请求他，以权威纠正一些假教师所引致的信理和伦理混淆情况(15)。
公元九六年－－《克肋孟致格林多人前书》。罗马主教克肋孟给格林多城信友的信，留给了我们印象深刻的例证。这封信写于宗徒时代的末期，在初期教会中很有地位，竟一时被列入圣经正典书目中。直至第二世纪末叶，它常在格林多教会礼仪中被宣读。这文献极可靠地证实伯多禄和保禄在尼禄皇时殉教。但最要紧的，它是罗马教会干预其他教会生活的最早记录。克肋孟以团体的名义写这封信，他自己只是一个幕后人物，因为这时候，还没有君主政制的主教职(monarchical episcopate)。克肋孟企图以劝导和建议，恢复格林多教会的安宁。罗马的干预由于教难当前，未能及时；我们也无从知道，这干预是罗马自动自发的，还是应当地教会要求而作的。所能肯定者，就是罗马对自己权力和必然责任的自觉性。信中的要求也超越了友爱团结的限度：权威性的语气，间中也带着威吓，企望对方的服从。格林多教会果然就范，听从了克肋孟的忠告。昔日根本无人过问罗马的行动。克肋孟的干预，对Pierre Batiffol而言，简直就是「罗马首席权的出现」(16)。
约公元一００年－－《若望福音》载有十段西满伯多禄的事例，其中最特别者计有：耶稣遇到西满，并告诉他应称为「刻法」；伯多禄承认耶稣是天主的圣者；伯多禄到空墓去；耶稣刻意把羊群委托给伯多禄(参看《若》一：40－42；六：67－69；廿：2－10；廿一：1－23) (17)。
约公元一一０年－－上面提及的《依纳爵致罗马书》，表达了罗马以外的信友对罗马教会的敬重。这位安提约的主教，曾分别写了七封信给不同的教会，但给罗马教会的信却很独特：那由衷的导言，充满敬意和尊重的称号，实为罗马真具卓越地位的明证，令昔日各地都表出独有的敬意。依纳爵清楚地暗示克肋孟的信，他指出罗马教会是以导师身份行事。他称之为「爱德的首长」。顺理成章的，他并未好像对其他教会一样，给它忠告。反之，他把快将失去牧者的叙利亚教会，委托罗马教会善心照顾。圣公会学者S. H. Scott评论这封信时，指出罗马的首席地位，是来自伯多禄之首席权。的确，这封信含有日后宗座理论的要素，诸如首都的重要性，伯多禄和保禄的临在，罗马在信德和爱德上的领导地位等。但是，由于信中从不明文指出罗马的主教，因此，还未能称之为人本的首席权(18)。
约公元一四０年－－赫尔曼是一篇称为《牧者的神秘论》之作者。他形容罗马主教克肋孟受委托照顾海外的教会(神视二，第四章)。
约公元一八０年－－依肋纳的《反异端论》是这问题最着名的例证。作者为证实玄识派(Gnostic) 异端者的错误，就列出了他认为无可争论和全体接受的「信仰规范」：即建基于宗徒和有承续保证的传统。在这方面，罗马教会既是由伯多禄和保禄所建立，因而超群出众。他更认为，一个教会若能与罗马共融，就是它符合宗徒传统的最稳妥的证据。依肋纳是第一个列出伯多禄继位者的人。他继用一句常被援引的话作结束说：「由于这教会莫大的卓越性，一切教会都要与它相符(拉丁：Convenire)，因为在它内，各地的基督徒才能保存着宗徒的传统」(《反异端论》三：3，1－2)。
对Louis Duchesne来说，除这话外，没有其他断语能更清楚说出：(1)普世教会的信理一致，(2)罗马教会在宗徒传统的见证、护卫和组织上，有着无与伦比的重要性，(3)它在所有基督徒团体中的特殊卓越性。事实上，还有一些相当重要的教会，但至论「权威」，罗马教会却凌驾他们之上(19)。
约公元一九O年－－复活节日期的争论。第二世纪末，教会生活在各方面都有好转，组织也较完善：教会的君主政制而稳立，有关罗马历任主教的记录也较详尽。圣经的正典书目已被数列，首篇信经也被拟出(20)，同时，礼仪传统也初步被仔细制定(21)。在这一切事上，罗马教会都担当着重要的角色。每个教会团体本来都有各自的传统，但在这个复杂交错的变异中，大家都向着同一据点认同。这表示，接近公元二００年时－－无论这现象有何解释－－罗马教会已享有卓越的权威。
争论复活节日期的这项事例，事非寻常，值得我们加以注意，因为这事例显明了罗马在教会寻求纯宗教性问题的统一上，所担任的角色。庆祝复活节的日期，在东方和西方，各有不同。公元一五四年，斯米纳主教保理加布(Polycarp) 长途跋涉，会见罗马主教亚尼策(Anicetus)，希望在有关问题上达成协议，可惜却失败了。由于这问题不明朗，造成了当时一些自作妄为和裂教的现象。这正好说明，为何罗马主教维克多(Victor) 一八九至一九九年) 在接到厄弗所主教鲍理克(Polycrates) 解释东方习尚的信时，竟然决心极严厉地干预这问题，甚至不惜以革除教藉来恫吓东方教会；虽然这样做似乎过份，但竟无人过问，甚至双方的调解者依肋纳，对维克多的过份中央独裁也不敢置评，也从不质问罗马以革除教藉的威吓，来施行纪律规则的权力(22)。
约公元二００年－－罗马主教翟斐林(Zephyrinus一九九至二一七年) 谴责蒙丹主义(Montanism)。罗马司译佳尤(Gaius) 因罗马拥有伯多禄和保禄的墓牌而自毫。夫黎基雅省耶辣颇里主教阿帕尔削(Abercius) 在奥勒里(Marcus Aurelius一六七至一八０年) 执政时曾到访罗马，他着名的墓碑上，刻上了他四处游历的体验，显示出当时教会所抑起的普世同道感，愈来愈明确。碑文也歌颂基督徒天下的皇后－－罗马教会的威望(23)。
公元二一O至二二O年(二一三年后)－－依玻理(Hippolytus) 责备翟斐林和贾理笃(Callistus二一七至二二二年) 两位罗马主教，没有善尽职守，抑止「圣父受难说」(Patripassianism) 的异端。戴尔都良(Tertullian) 抱怨一位主教(贾理笃Callistiis，或迦太基的阿格宾Agrippinus？)，并以讥讽的口吻称他为「最高司牧」(supreme pontiff和「众主教之主教」(bishop of bishops)，原因是这位主教曾引用《玛》十六：18自称拥有伯多禄所触有的权力，戴尔都良认为这位主教实属过份了(《论谦逊》廿一)。当纷乱和分裂四起之际，主教们自然都设法找寻有利自己权力的有力证据。戴尔都长的见解是很重要的，因为它指出了主教的权力－－不论在迦太基或罗马－－都是来自伯多禄者；值得惊奇的，这见就竟在西彼廉(Cyprian) 前一代已出现了(24)。
约公元二三０年－－奥力振(Origen) 为洗脱亚历山大里教会向他的控诉，曾致函罗马主教法比盎(Fabian二三六至二五０年)。但亚历山大里会议判他的罪，已在较早前由罗马主教彭谦(Pontian二三０至二三五年) 在罗马召开的会议所批认了(25)。
公元二五六年－－罗马主教斯德望(Stephen) 作了有史以来，有关罗马主教首席权最清楚的声明，我们能从他的反对者的反应中，领会到这事。迦太基的西彼廉(Cyprian) 和凯撒勒雅的费弥里(Firmilian)，在有关异议者洗礼的问题上，与斯德望激烈争论。斯德望批评西彼廉重施洗礼，但这批评未被乐意接受。西彼廉由于一些真实的个人理由，恃着自己认为只须向天主负责的主教权力，极力反对斯德望的「专横暴虐」，抗拒这位罗马宗座「兄弟」，立自己为求主教之主教的权利。然而，在其他情形下，西彼廉却承认罗马主教有权过问一总重要事宜，例如选立主教等。他认为罗马确是「伯多禄的圣座」，「最重要的教会」，「司牧职(= 主教职) 合一的根源」(26)。在他曾两度亲自修订的着名的《论公教会的合一》中，他视伯多禄为合一的根源和基础。然而，他最关心的只是地方教会自身的合一，而非普世教会的合一。事实上，他主张所有主教都领有与伯多禄同等的权力。此时尚未区别清楚神职权(power of Orders) 和司法权(power of Jurisdiction)。西彼廉固执于自己不妥协的主教主义，拒绝让步(27)。他不一贯的神学理论，正好代表那种特色的拉据现象，一方面是众主教团结的强烈意识，另一方面却是罗马主教独特的地位。这位非洲的殉道者，为这两个传统坚持到底，作出见证，但终未能协调二者。
公元二六０至二六二年－－两位狄尼修的事件很类似从前克肋孟全力干预格林多者一样。亚历山大里主教伙尼修(Dionysius the Great)，针对一群否认圣三位格有区别的萨培里派(Sabellians) 时，过份侧重圣三的区别，以至把圣子贬抑或屈居在圣父之下(巧合地，亚略Arius在下世纪中，也在亚历山大里散播同样的错谬)。因此，有人在罗马控告他，迫使教宗狄尼修(Dionysius二六０至二六八年) 召开会议，矫正这位主教和亚历山大里学派，虽然他们曾自炫拥有奥力振的传统，这传统在尼西会议前，可算是有关圣三道理的最重要文件。这事件上，一方面显明了罗马主教，继维克多、翟斐林和贾理笃后，在维持正统道理上，不断作的努力，另一方面也证实了罗马主教，以至尊身份所实施的讼裁权力。这次受裁判和审核的道理，竟是来自一位古代极知名和德高望重的主教：面对罗马颁布的判决，连这东方最重要的主教辖区和其主教的声誉，都被视作无物，而且竟无人企图上诉(28)。
公元二七二年－－安提约主教萨摩沙塔的保禄(Paul of Samosata)，由于他的「承继说」(adoptionism) 异端，因而被一个地方会议所罢免和取替。但地决心把持职位，拒绝向继位者交出座堂。教外的罗马总皇奥来里恩(Aurelian) 正途经该处，人们邀请他调解有关地产的问题，他便裁定，真正的主教和座堂的拥有人，应是罗马主教费力斯(Felix二六九至二七四年) 和意大利众主教所承认者(29)。
结论
第三世纪最后几十年中，都是平静和少事故的。伽勒利(Galerian) 颁布了宽容基督徒的诏书(公元二六O年)，使教会安享太平。但当戴克利先(Diocletian) 重整帝国时，又迅速展开了最严重的教难，直到公元三一三年才重获太平。由公元六七年起，相继三十一个主教曾登上了伯多禄的圣座，其中有显赫者，也有平庸者，有着名者，也有寂寂无名者。在这其间的二百八十年中，圣教会扩展至千多个教会团体，零散地分布整个帝国和东边版图外。它初时只是一项信息，渐演变为一股动力，继而获得自由和帝国的承认，不久更成了罗马唯一最有力的伦理动力。教会一面抵御外来的挑战，一面跨越了严重的内部危机。地方团体组织了自己的传福音和教理教导，慈善事业和礼仪活动等：圣洗仪式，基本上自发性的感恩祭纲要；礼仪年历的雏型也渐形成。与其他教会的联系和通讯也已建立。此外，还有圣经书目，一些信辞和初步神学理论。第二世纪末叶，基督徒环顾四周，已能体会到他们宗教的普世性了。
这过程是逐渐的，进展程度也不一。各教会还未有机会在一起共同磋商，为自己定立一些统一的组织形式。这梦想只能在第四、五世纪的公会议中实现，特别是尼西(三二五年)，君士坦丁堡(三八一年) 和加彩东(四五一年) 等公会议。当前的合一标记和动力都集中在罗马。各教会的活力已扩散到周围地区；如安提约在叙利亚，迦太基在北非，亚历山大里在埃及等。但罗马却始终凌驾它们之上。这皆因宗徒之长西满伯多禄曾在那儿工作和逝世之故。公元八０至一００年间的一总新约教会，都不约而同承认伯多禄就是基督用以进行建设他教会的盘石，是曾领受特权去束缚和解放的领袖，和受委托看管羊群的牧者。基督曾坚强他，使他届时也能坚强自己的弟兄，并在实践教会直至世末的使命时(《玛》廿八：18)，为兄弟们牺牲了自己的性命。这任务确是艰巨，也许我们应记得，在新约最后期的的作品中，伯多禄才被置于一个理想化的角色中。(30)
罗马历任主教在宣称任何权力前，早已继承了这遗产，且不断发挥它；从第一世纪末，他们已清楚意识到，自己是本着渊源基督和承自宗徒而来的权力去行事。三十一位罗马主教中，至少有十二位在任内舍生殉道或被流放。他们支持并促进了教会内的合一和共融，维护了圣座内外的正统道理，专注其他教会的生活，纠正、鼓励、并在必要时也不惜革除它们的教藉。公元一八０年，依肋纳清楚看出，罗马主教是伯多禄的「继位人」，并将这看法归纳在他作为正统道理指南的「信德的规范」中。其实，罗马主教所施行的权力，即日后所谓的首席权(primatial power) 和司法权(Juridical power)。基督给伯多禄说的话，业已展开它的先知作用，并且逐渐在一个具体的教会中实现出来，这教会不断成长、扩展和组织起来(31)。
这些都是上述事例所供述的，但这描述还须作更进一步的指明。在最初三世纪中，罗马首席地位究竟存在与否？我们先要重申，这有关罗马主教首席权的问题是很复杂的。为能答覆这问题，必须准确分辨罗马首收的主教身份，宗主教(patriarch) 身份和伯多禄继位者身份。区别首席权和宗主教权，并非易事，尤其这段时期中，在超越教区性(supra-diocesan) 的组织上，尚未开始找寻一致的措施。其次，我们也不可应用后期的类别于这时期的教会上，例如提及教会的法权观念等，因为法律的观念尚未影响教会。这时的罗马教会，多以「共融」(communio)，「平安」(pax)，「爱德」(agape) 来代表自己；它被视为这方面的首长，即一种与众教会间的关系，而其中也不免有法权和纪律的成份(32)。但若设法把这一总的观念，都规限于法权的类别上，便与初期教会的生活大相径庭。
弄清这点后，我们可根据历史的例证，断定罗马主教确实施行了一种真正的首席权，至少是广义上的首席权，即一种跨越教区的干预，和超过后期属于省区主教(metropolitan)和宗主教(patriarch) 的权力。克肋孟、维克多、斯德望和狄尼修所施行的正是这权力。克肋孟在《致格林多前书》中，确有一套主教承传(episcopal succession) 的初步神学理论。但我们还不能明确证实，他的措施是出于一个清楚的伯多禄意识(petrine consciousness)，但这更符合一个生活事实逐步发展的情形。然而，在维克多、斯德望和狄尼修的例子中，他们如此坚持自己的权力，除非这是基于他们固有的首席权，根本就无法解释这些教宗的立场。他们所占的干预，在各方面都显出是「教宗性」(papal) 的。虽然，第二世纪上半叶中，我们已发现了主教权力建基伯多禄的说法，而且斯德望教宗与非洲主教争论时，可能也运用了这个观念；不过，以《玛》十六：18的「伯多禄经句」(Petrine text) 作为神学和圣经基础的重要性，要待四世纪中叶，才会陆续浮现出来(33)。为此，当三四三年萨尔狄会议定立了向罗马圣座的上诉权时，或当教宗达马苏(Damasus三六六－三八四年) 指罗马为「宗座」(apostolic see) 时，又或当教宗良一世(Leo I) 自认以伯多禄名义讲话时，他们其实并没有作了什么新奇的事。事实上，这只是用更明确的法律词汇，说明了同样的事实，这正与教会历史上其他类似事件的发展相仿。如彩东大公会议(四五一年) 接纳了教宗良一世说的话(着名的《致福拉维恩书》)，把它看作伯多禄所说的一样：「伯多禄藉良的口发了言！」。
若要再说明最初三世纪「伯多禄宗座职」(petrine office) 的性质，我们大可以说，这职务并非经常执行，只在受请求或在环境许可时才执行的；这是一种对基督徒合一责任，深切意识的表现；是一个可感受到而非明文说明的权力。在这第一阶段和以后多个世纪中，这权力多以仲裁的形式出现。公元一０００年后，教宗们才渐多自发性的决断(34)。这并非如一些人所认为的荣誉上的首席权，在最初几世纪中，根本无人提及荣誉、称号和程序。这类东西都是拜占庭(byzantine) 时代才出现的。这权力也不是来自个人威望，一如济利禄(Cyril)，奥斯定(Augustine) 或盎博罗削(Ambrose) 者。在这初世纪中，罗马主教的职能，虽然没有后期附加的君主式的排场和行政责任，但却不失为真正的教宗。更好说，那时教宗的职能－－即身为盘石和天国钥匙的持有者－－较现在更为明显。再者，现今的教宗们根本很少会想到，革除某地域或某主教的教藉的(35)。
后语
这篇有关教会最初三世纪之罗马首席权的文章，决不能当作这类问题最完尽的讨论，但我们却根据了历史例证。这文章未必能说服所有人，因为就连历史事实本身－－真可惜！－－也可被人加以解释的。我们本可以侧重某些细节，或注释某些事例；在一定范围内，这样做固属无可避免，但在这类问题上，似乎更适宜的，是如同俄国神哲学和合一运动家梭罗维也夫(Vladimir Soloviev) 敏锐地指出的，应忽视那些「非法会议和政务官员的话」，而去倾听「那些伟大教父们的话，如依纳爵、依肋纳、狄尼修、亚大纳削等…」，即那些曾与初期教会生活息息相关，并且「曾为临现于继位者的伯多禄宗徒作过见证的人」(36)。至于罗马宗座，应与地方教会有何种形式的关系，则见人见智。或许也有人想讨论，伯多禄宗座职的演变是否常常作得合宜(例如：初期以拉丁文ministerium解释希腊文diakonia一字，但后期竟改称officium；又如后期出现的vicariatum或principatus之观念等) (37)；或许也有人希望罗马的中央集权(centralism) 能减少，而加强与众主教的联系(collegiality)。但无论怎样，我们竟然想像一个名符其实的公教会，而没有了为全体信徒利益服务的伯多禄职－－为教会合一、安定和爱德的维系。
附注
(1)H. KUNG, Editorial, in Concilium 4/7 (April1971) P. 7. 这一期是完全讨论「在教会中的伯多禄职」。
(2)《中国天主教》，创刊号〔一九八０年十一月十日北京〕二０至二二页。汤汉，「教宗首席权与主教团的关系－－中国天主教质询的一个神学问题」，《鼎》，三〔一九八一年〕十四至十八页。梁作禄，《文革后的中国天主教》，香港，一九八二年，八十页。
(3)这情形有一个历史和感情上的理由：照推测，最初三世纪的教会，应是更纯真，更富福音精神，更具神恩，较少宗教性，较少和俗世妥协；然而，「君士坦丁时代的教会」却无可救药地，被牵涉和一个自鸣基督化的社会作整合的过程。它仿效这社会的罗马式组织和法律架构，最后竟成了罗马的国教。以上这种对君士坦丁时代前后教会，黑白分明的看法，今天已很少被历史家们，不分皂白的接纳了。
(4)愈接近我们的时代，愈容易遇到在极基本的事上分歧的看法。举例说，读者或许认识Charles Davis A Question of Conscience(NewYork,1967)，或者Hans Kung的The Church (Westminster,1967)。这两者各有分别，前者当时正经历一种个人信仰危机，他按步就班地反驳一切有利首席权的例证；后者在某种教会论的先念下，重读历史。两者都绝非训练有数的历史家。James F. McCue (Roman Primacy in the First Three Ceuturies, in Concilium 4/7 [April 1971] pp.37-44) 有另一个看法，他似乎怀有「合一运动的热衷」，故不设法支持天主教传统上认为对首席权极有价值的例证，却宁可把问题放在教会发展的特性上。
我们并不打算在此介绍二十世纪初期，和如今已平息的天主教和基督教之间的争论。在本地图书馆能找到的书籍／文章如下：K. BAUS, From the Apostolic Community to Constartine ( = Handbook of Church History I, ed. H. Jedin and J. Dolan), New York 1965, pp.l51-2, 355-360; G.LEBRETON-G. ZEILLER, La Chiesa primitiva ( = 'Fliche & Martin' 1) Torino(3) 1958, pp.281ff., 484ff., 491ff.; ID., Dalla fine del II secolo alla pace costantiniana (313), ( = 'Fliche & Martin' 2), Torino(2) 1977, pp. 595-598(意大利译本是根据最新版，故更为方便)；K. BIHLMEYER-H. TUCHLE, Church History, I, Christian antiguity, Westminster 1958, pp. 112-117, 311-322; L.HERTLING, Geschichte der Katholischen Kirche, Berlin(4) 1967, 中文译本(1967)，四五至五二页；J. LORTZ, Geschichte der Kirche in ideegeschichtlicher Betrachtung, 2 Bande, Munster(21) 1962, Ital-Ed.(3) 1976, pp-90-93, 148ff., 181f.; A.FRANZEN, Kleine Kirchen-Geschichte, Freiburg 1. Br. 1976, Engl. Ed., pp.l00ff.; M.SCHMAUS, Pope. C. Historical Development, in Sacramentum Mundi 5, pp. 42-50; G.SCHWAIGER, Pope. II. History of the Popes, Ibid., pp.50ff.; W.ULLMANN, Papacy. 1. Early Period, in New. Cath. Encyc 10, pp.951-954; B.STUDER, Papato, in Dizionario patristico e di antichita cristiane, dir. A. Di Berardino, II, Casale Monferrato 1983, coll. 2638ff.; G.VODOPIVEC, Papato, in Dizionario Storico Religioso, dir. P. Chiocchetta, Roma 1966, pp.712. 尚有WL. D'ORMESSON, The Papacy, (= Faith and Fact 80), London 1959; H.CHADWICK, The Early Church, ( = The Pelican History of the Church, 1) New York 1967.大部份有关早期教宗的文献，可参阅H.DENZINGER-A. SCHONMETZER, Enchiridion symbolorum, Barcelona(34), 1967; C. KIRCH, Enchiridion fontium historiae ecclesiasticae antiquae, Barcelona(9), 1965.
(5)按本人看法，H. Kung对这问题的阐释，被他那套系统神学家固有的态度削弱了。参看KUNG, Church, 456ff.
(6)本文中圣经事迹的日期，是根据Jerusalem Bible附录中的年表，是相约性的。圣经中的例证，在此当作历史例证辨。
(7)R. E. BROWN, ETC., (ed.), Peter in the New Testament, New York 1973, pp. 23ff.
(8)同上，pp. 57ff.
(9)同上，pp. 149ff.
(10)BAUS, From the apostolic community, pp. 112-115.
(11)同上，pp. 115-118; M.GUARDUCCI, Le reliquie di Pietro sotto la confessione della basilica vaticana, Roma 1966.
(12)BROWN, Peter, pp. 75ff.
(13)同上，pp. 109ff.
(14)同上，39ff.
(15)同上，154ff.
(16)P. BATIFFOL, Le catholicisme des origines a Saint Leon-I. L'Eglise naissante et le catholicisme, Paris 1927, p. 146.
(17)BROWN, Peter, pp. l29ff.
(18)FLICHE & MARTIN I. p. 416.
(19)在D'ORMESSON, Papacy, p.146中被引述。
(20)四福音和十三封保禄书信，约在公元一三０年被大家所接受，又在一七０年与二二０年间，被置于旧约同等的地位。而宗徒信辞却只是西方教会所持有。
(21)参看JUSTIN, Apology, I, 61-671 (约写于一五０至一五五年)；HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME, The Apostolic Tradition, (约二一五年)。
(22)FLICHE & MARTIN II, pp. 575ff.
(23)阿伯尔削运用的象征性语言，在过去曾抑起了许多讨论，如今已无人再争论了。同上，I, p. 488.
(24)MCCUE, Primary, p.41; FLICHE & MARTIN II, p. 579.
(25)同上，p383.
(26)Ep. 55, 14; De Unit., 4.
(27)新起的教难幸而避免了迦太基众主教和罗马的公开决裂。这次纠纷在教宗西斯笃(Sixtus)任内形式，他在二五七年继斯德望为教宗，被誉为一位「善良和爱好和平的教宗」。参看 'FLICHE & MARTIN' II, p. 312; J. QUASTEN, Patrology, II, Westminster 1964, pp. 378ff.
(28)FLICHE & MARTIN II, pp. 378ff.
(29)同上，p. 379.
(30)BROWN, Peter, pp. 55, 127.
(31)LORTZ, It. Ed., I, p.91.
(32)海脱令，五一至五二页(中文版)。
(33)CHADWICK, Early Church, pp. 237-238.
(34)SCHMAUS, Pope, p.44.
(35)海脱令，四九至五十页(中文版)。
(36)V. SOLOVIEV, La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, Paris 1889, 本文中引述自It. Ed., pp.44-45, in VODOPIVEC, Papato, pp. 712-713.
(37)LORTZ, It. Ed., I. p. 92.
本网站无商业目的，若我们上传的资料侵犯了您的利益请联系我们，我们会在24小时内撤下。
版权所无，欢迎转载。