St.Pius X頒布《應牧放主羊》驳斥時代主義在哲學原則...
Pope St Pius X Pascendi Domini gregis, 8 September, 1907On Modernism時代主義在哲學原則上的錯誤 教宗庇護十世頒布《應牧放主羊》”Pascendi”通諭一九Ｏ七年九月八日按：通諭所列舉的時代主義——摩登主義——的條文，並沒有指明任何時代主義的作者姓名。誰也不能確定：那些神學家，也許曾是本通諭的起草人﹔但十之八九，起草者：一是耶穌會士比奧樞機 (Ludovicus Billot )，二是若翰，勒彌 (Jo. B. Lemius,OMI)。Ed:Ass 40(1907)596ss Pii X Acta 4,50ss-時代主義者在哲學基礎上的錯誤3475時代主義者，把宗教哲學的基礎，放在那常人所稱為“不可知論”的道理上。藉此，人的理智，完全被包括在現象(Phenomenae)之中。換言之：人的理智，總不外乎是一些顯現的事物，以及事物賴以顯現的外表現象：所以它(人之理智)既沒有權利，也沒有可能出乎事物以及事物現象的范圍。因此，它(人之理智)不能自舉，歸向天主，也不能藉那可見的事物，來承認天主的存在。從此所得的結論是：“天主”絕不可能直接成為知識(科學)的對象，而就歷史而論，“天主”也不該被認為是歷史性的主格(subjectum)——既然如此，則無論誰都能明知：什麼是“本性神學”，什麼是“可信的動機”(Motivum credibilitatis)，什麼叫做“外在的啟示”(Externa Revelatio)。這就是說：時代主義者要把這一切徹底從中除去，而把它們流徙到“認識主義” (intellectualismus) 的領域裡去……3476(從不可知論中演繹出來的)：科學該是無神的﹔同樣，歷史也是無神的。在它們的范圍內，無非是現象而已﹔至於天主，以及任何有關天主的事理，都該徹底予以拔除才是。3477 可是，這個不可知論 (Agnosticimus)，在現代主義者的生活(紀律)中，無非是一個消極部份：因為他們所說的積極部份，是被建立在生命的內含性上 (Immanentia Vitalis)。那就是：生命現象，此起彼落，不斷地前進而已。宗教——不拘是自然的宗教或是超自然的宗教——即任何事跡，都該讓人加以某種解釋。但這解釋，要摒棄本性神學，並要斷絕那因放棄可信真理而進入啟示的途徑，而且，連那任何外在的啟示，都要徹底予以清除，即在人以外，要尋求解釋，那是徒勞無功的。為此，該在人本身內，尋求解釋。而且，宗教既然是一種生活方式，自應完全在人生中，找出解釋來。從此可以肯定宗教內含性的原則 (Immanentiae Religionsae Pricipium)。可是，這任何內含性的現象，已可說是任何種類的宗教了。這就是說：首先好像(對宗教的)一種動機，該是出於某種需要或沖動。但這種起初的情緒，若對人生嚴格地說，該是出於所謂情感 (sensus)的，心靈的一種動機 (motus)。職是之故，天主既是宗教對象，那完全應該予以結論的是：那個為任何宗教的肇始，也是基礎的信仰，該是出於內心需求神的一種情緒。而這種需求神的情緒，既然無非由於某種適應環境的感覺，故其本身，不能屬於「良心的領域」(conscientiae ambitum)﹔但這種情緒，是潛伏在良心之下，換一句話說，這就是近代哲學上所說的「潛意識」(subconscientia)... 3478原來，在這種意義下，時代主義者，不僅找到信仰，而且，按他們所了解的，他們肯定帶著信仰，且在信仰本身內，才有“啟示”的余地。…… [五九九]。 既然，天主是信仰的對象，同樣也是信仰的原因，那麼，這個啟示，一方面是論及天主，而在另一方面也同樣是出自天主。這就是說：天主是啟示者，又是受啟示者。從此可見，可敬弟兄們，那個時代主義者的肯定，是矛盾的，因為任何宗教，在不同的觀點下應該說是本性的，又是超性的。從此，良心與啟示的意義，混淆不清。從此，法律，既然宗教的——虔誠的良心，藉以被傳授為普遍的准則，那該與“啟示”完全相等﹔而眾人都該服從這種“啟示”﹔即教會中的最高權力，不拘是在訓導上，或是對聖“事”或是對生活紀律有所規定時，也都該以此“啟示”為原則。3479他們所說的“不可認識的(事理)”，其本身好象不是那麼直接或特別地與信仰有關，恰恰相反，這在某種現象之下緊緊聯系在一起﹔誠然這是屬於科學或歷史的范圍，但因某種理由，超出它們的范圍之外，那麼，那由不可知事所引起的“信仰”，因與現象聯系的緣故，便包括整個現象的本身，而在自己的生活中，漸漸表達出來了。從此，便發生兩件事：第一，藉著現象的擴展，便發生對現象的變形(phaenomenti transfiguratio)——即越出了它的真實情況，因此，便成為那引起信仰，引起屬神方面的更適合的內容。 ——這就是說：信仰的發生，是由於現象的變形變質所致——譯者注。第二，從此產生某種所謂“對現象的演變”(phaenomenti defiguratio)——撇開了這種時間、地點的演變，便發生了那事實上並不存在的信仰。主要的“信仰”來自習慣﹔幾時人家談論往昔的現象，那麼，時代越古老，那討論現象的范圍，也越是廣泛。從這論調離，又將產生了“摩登主義”（即時代主義）者的兩個規則(canones)﹔ 這兩個連同其他主張，以及不可知的主義，奠定了歷史評價的基礎。3480 這將以實例証明﹔而且，即從基督身上，可獲得証明。他們說：在基督身上，除了人以外，在科學與歷史上，並無抵觸之處。為此，根據不可知主義所演繹出來的第一原則，凡涉及“神”的一切，都該予以摒棄。但根據那另一個原則，基督的人格(Persona)，因信仰而受到變形(transfigurata)：因此，任何使基督人格超越歷史情況的一切，都該從這種信仰，演繹而來的。最后，根據那第三的原則，基督的同一人格，亦因信仰而受到演變。(defigurata)為此，(基督的)一切言行，都該從基督的人格上除去﹔一言以蔽之曰：基督的才能、處境、教育、一切的一切，和祂生活的時、地、完全不相符合。3481所以，宗教情緒，即藉生命的內含性而由潛意識所產生的宗教情緒，是整個宗教的萌芽，也同樣是宗教中有關過去或有關將來的一切的理由……[六○一] 他們說：在這我們屢次所稱的(宗教)情緒內，既然這是情緒，而不是認識(cognitio)，所以，“天主”因為人而“存在”(為人所理會)，但是糢糊不清，且也如此混淆不明，竟致與信仰者的主格(subjecto credente)，幾乎或完全沒有分別。因此，在這同一宗教情緒內，必須放入另一種光明，好使“天主”完全從這情緒中分辨出來，解說出來。換言之：這是屬於思想以及設法分析的理解領域。人便通過這種理解，在自己內，產生出一種生命的現象﹔初在特殊的印象中，然后便在言語中表達出來。因此，摩登主義者的流行口號是：“宗教的人，應該思考(想像)自己的信仰”……3482但在這一種事上，理智發揮雙重作用：第一，理智採取自然自發的行為，而以某種簡朴通俗的意見，解釋事物。第二，理智要鞭辟入裡，深深反省——或如他們所說的：要竭力(制造)——產生思想，而以后者的意見，來表達出他所思想的事物﹔固然這后來的意見，來自那起初的簡朴意見，可是后者較諸前者更為老練，也更為清析。而且，那后來的意見(主張)[六○二]，終由教會最高訓導權所制定，便成為教會的教義——信理。(dogma)3483這樣，現代主義的“道理”，便進而論及首要部份，那就是：信理的起源，以及信理的性質。他們主張：信理起源於那些先天的簡單方式 (in primigeniis illis formulis...) 而這種方式，在某種觀點之下，就是信仰的必然方式。因此，“啟示”就是需要人在良心裡顯示出人對天主的“知識”(dei notitiam)。可是，他們似乎肯定：這信理本身，原是蘊藏在后天的方式裡(secundaris formulis 或譯：次要的，后來才形成的方式)……【這一種方式的目的，無非是為供給信仰者】一種所以信仰的理由。為此緣故，這是介乎信仰者，與其信仰中間的橋梁：但那有關信仰方面的，而和信仰的對象，並不相符的一切，就是世俗所叫囂的“信條”(symbola)。這對信仰者而言，純是“工具”(instrumenta) 而已。但宗教感的對象 (Objectum sensus religiosi)，既是絕對潛伏(於人心內)，自有它無數的觀點﹔這可能顯示在這人身上是這樣的方式，而在另一人身上，具有另一種方式。同樣的，那信的人，也可能各有各的不同情況。為此，即使那我們所稱為信理的方式，也該隨著時、地、人而不同，因此，信理該是變化無常的。這樣，便易於登上它密切進化的路程。時代主義，是對於信仰觀念的錯誤。時代主義者在信仰概念上的錯誤3484信仰時代主義的人，確切認為：屬神的真實性，實實在在，就在它本身上存在，也並不完全屬於信仰的人。如果你要詢問：這信仰的人所肯定的事理，究竟依據什麼呢?那麼，他(時代主義者)回答說：這是依據每一個人的經驗……人心在宗教的感覺上，具有某種直覺感﹔人即藉此直覺感，沒有媒介，直接感觸到天主的真實性，而吸取對天主存在，對天主在人的內外行動的偉大信仰，但這種“信仰”雖然從科學(知識)得來，卻遠超乎科學之上。所以，這種信仰是真的經驗，是比任何理性經驗更高貴的經驗……3485按時代主義者的主張，建立信仰與科學的界線。信仰隻是有關那科學認為無法認識的(事理)。因此……科學既講(事物的)現象，自然沒有信仰的余地。相反地，信仰既講屬神的事，自與科學完全無關。從此，便造成信仰與科學之間，永不發生沖突的可能性……對此，或許有人責難，他們就否認一些事，例如有關基督生平的事﹔這些事雖是有關信仰對象，也是屬於有象可見的范圍。因為，這些事雖然超出現象之外，但因這與信仰生活有關，而且一如上述，這是從信仰轉變，蛻變而成，所以這已脫離了可感可覺的世界而成為屬神的內容。為此緣故，如果有人要問：[六○七]基督是否真的顯過靈跡，是否真的復活、升天，那麼，不可知論的科學，予以否認，而信仰將予以肯定。但從這裡，二者之間，並沒有沖突。因為科學之所以否認這事，是因為它是“哲士”，是按哲士的身份講話，換言之，它隻就歷史的真實性去看基督﹔而“信仰”之所以肯定這些事，是因為它以信仰者的身份，和信者們講話﹔這就是說，“信仰”看基督，——如同基督，藉著信仰，在信仰中重新生活一樣。3486可是，誰若認為，信仰與科學，完全沒有隸屬的理由，那就犯了嚴重錯誤。因為這樣的人，對科學的想法，固然正確無誤，但對信仰而言，並不如此。蓋信仰不僅在一點上，而在三點上，該隸屬於科學。因為： (1) 時代主義者認為，人該知道：任何宗教行為，除了人由經驗得知的“屬神現實外，其他一切，尤其在宗教的規程方面，絕不得超越現象的范圍﹔因而便隸屬於科學。(2)雖然，有人說：天主隻是信仰的對象，這對“屬神的現實”而言，是對的，但對天主的觀念而言，並不如此。換言之，這是隸屬於科學，而如人們所說的，當人按邏輯談論哲理時，即使是絕對的，理想的一切事理，他也會談及到。為此緣故，論及認識天主觀念的哲理或科學，在本身的發展方面，具有管制的權利﹔而且，若它發現有什麼越規之處，它就有予以改正的權利。因此，時代主義者的格言，是這樣的：宗教的進展，該與倫理和理性的進展相配合。這就如俗語所說的：“拜誰做導師，他就隸屬於誰的門下”。(3)再者，人在本身內，不容被分裂為二，因此，信仰者為內心的需要所迫，不得不使信仰與科學妥協，好使科學對於萬物所示的觀念，不致與一般的概念，發生矛盾。因此結論是：科學完全不隸屬於信仰﹔相反的，信仰既與科學不合，那就要隸屬於科學了。時代主義者在信理神學上的錯誤3487……時代主義的神學，按我們所見的哲士慣例，運用他們自己的原則，並把它運用到信仰者的身上﹔那麼，這些原則，我們可稱之為內含性的原則以及象征性的原則(principia imm anentiae et symbolismi)。如此，極輕易地便成為這樣的結論：為哲士所傳授的原則，對於信仰而言，是內含性的原則(Principium Immanens)﹔為信仰者所添加的這個原則，便是天主。於是時代主義者自己結論說：所以，天主是在人內蘊含著。因此，這是內含神學的原則。(Immanentia Theologlca)，再者：哲學所確知的，隻是那些信仰對象的象征性的標記本身而已。同樣，信仰者所確知的，是信仰的對象——是在於自己內的天主﹔因此，神學士便結論說：屬神現實的標記是象征性的，從此，(現代主義者)便成為象征主義的神學士(Symbolismus Theologicus)……3488但信仰雖有許多根苗，而其主要的是教會、信理、聖物、宗教熱誠，還有我們所稱的聖書(聖經)﹔對於這些聖經，我們也該追究：時代主義者說什麼。——而且，對於信理——教義的來源與性質，我們已在上文提示過了。[ +3482]。換言之，教義——信理，起源於某種沖動或出於某種需要﹔信仰的人，便因著這種需要，動了腦筋，力圖自己的良心以及他人的良心，獲得更大的光照。這種努力，經過磨煉，奮勉而形成心靈的最初信念(Primigenia Mentis Formula)﹔這在本身方面，固不按那合乎邏輯的解釋，但按各方環境的需要﹔換句話，按他們所說的，即不易了解的說法：這是起源於生命活力(vitaliter)的——從此，如我們所提示過的，便逐漸產生一種次要信念 后來公眾的訓導機構(教會)，便把這些信念，加以擴展合成一個系統，即因此而構成一個道理的體系，以適應一般信友的良心﹔這就是所謂的信理。這完全不該讓神學家加以正直的注釋……3489至於聖事禮儀方面，除了“聖事”外，沒有什麼該談的了。時代主義者，在這方面所犯的錯誤，是極嚴重的。他們認為：敬禮也就是指聖事是出自雙重的沖動或出於兩種需要：一是為了使宗教成為一種有象可覺的事物﹔二是為了表現出宗教來。因為宗教(虔誠)，若無某種有象可覺的形式與某種祝聖的行為，絕不能表達出來﹔事實上，這些行為，就是我們所說的“聖事”(Sacramenta)。但“聖事”為現代主義者看來，雖具有效力，也不過是象征或標記而已。這裡他們所說的效力，意指他們所慣說的“榜樣”，也就是普通人所說的“運氣”——因為“聖事”蘊含著一種宣傳標志力量，尤其是具有一種興奮人心的功能。正如“言為心聲”，同樣，聖事是為代表宗教熱情。所謂“聖事”，不過爾爾。更清楚地說，他們肯定：聖事隻是為了滋養信德而被建立的。可是，這種主張，曾為脫利騰大公會議所責斥： “誰若說：這(七件)聖事，隻是為了滋養信德而被建定的，他該受到詛咒——(絕罰)”。[+1605]3490聖書(聖經)按現代主義者所下的定義，是經驗的總匯(Syllogen)。這不是任何人所能獲得的經驗，而是非常杰出的，出於一種宗教虔誠的經驗……雖然，經驗是對現在的事而言，但對過去的事，同樣對於將來的事，也能具有“經驗”的內容，因為[六一三]誰有信仰，誰就可藉著記憶，使過去的事，像現在的事一樣，活現起來，或藉預感的情緒，使將來的事，好像活現在眼前一樣。他們認為這樣就可解釋，為什麼聖經中有史書，也有默示錄的理由……因此，天主固在這些聖經內，藉著信仰的人說話，但是按現代主義者的神學，天主隻是藉著人內含常存的生命(現象)而說話。3491如果我們要問：什麼叫做靈感(Inspiratio)？他們就這樣答道：靈感也許在程度上，超過一般的沖動(Impulsio)但總脫不了“沖動”的范圍。有信仰的人，便藉著這種“沖動”情緒，或以言語，或以筆墨(書寫方式)，表達自己的信仰，這種情形，與詩人的靈感相似，因此，有人這樣說：“當我們因天主的行動而感覺熾熱時，天主就在我們內”(cf. Ovidius Naso,Fastorum 16. VI． vs．5)3492他們假想:教會起源於兩種需要﹔其中之一，是出於任何一個信仰的人，尤其是出於那些具有原始特殊的經驗，認為自己的信仰不與他人相通的人。其次，迨多人共同信仰之后，教會為了維護增進，發展公益起見，便構成一個社團而成為“教會”。那麼，教會是什麼？教會是集體良心的產物﹔即由於每個人，藉著活生生的感應，便隸屬於第一個信者——為公教教友，這第一個信者便是基督——然后由於每個信友的良心，便合成一個教會。3493時代主義解釋信仰的普遍原則：在鮮活的宗教裡，沒有不可變的東西，因此，在宗教裡，一切都該變。這幾乎是時代主義的主要主張，也就是他們邁向進化論的步驟。因此，信理(Dogma) 、教會(Ecclesia)、聖事的禮儀(Sacrorum cultus)，以及我們尊之為聖書的聖經，連那信仰本身(Fides ipsa)，要不是中途夭折，都該受到“進化規律”的控制。時代主義者在歷史和批判原則上的錯誤3494有些時代主義者，專門編寫歷史﹔他們似乎非常操心，連哲學家們，也不予置信。……即任何人的意見，都不去聽從。因為，一如他們所說的，他們不受哲學的成見影響，完全成為客觀的人。可是，他們的歷史，或是他們的批判，隻限於哲學方面。他們所主張的，是出於他們的哲學原則，是所謂“正義推理”的結論。……這樣，他們起初的三條歷史或批判方面的准則(Canoes)，就是我們上面所說的，從(他們)哲學所得的三個原則，那就是：(1)不可知論(Agnosticismus)，(2)事物藉信仰而發生超越性的理論，(3)以及事物變化的理論[六二二]。茲把每一原則所發生的后果，陳述如下：3495-3497(1)從“不可知論”看來，歷史隻是論及現象的科學。所以，天主以及任何屬神的引人信仰的干預，既隻屬於信仰的事，自當予以擯棄。為此，諸如：基督、教會、聖事等以及其他許多類似的事理，如果含有屬神與屬人兩種資料的事情，那麼，我們應該加以分析判定：那屬於人的應歸於歷史范圍，那屬於神的，應歸於信仰范圍。是以庸俗的時代主義，分基督為歷史上的基督與信仰上的基督(Christus Historicus et Fidei)，分教會為歷史的教會與信仰上的教會，分聖事為歷史的聖事與信仰上的聖事……然后連這屬人的內容，即我們所見的，那歸於歷史范圍的內容，一如古代石碑所遺留下來的資料，便由信仰，透過超越的性質，也該說是越出了歷史范圍。為此，這為信仰所加上的一切，應予以鑒別，而列入信仰的歷史范圍。這樣，論及基督時，凡基督在心理方面所表現的，不管祂在何處，或在那一年歲所發生的，隻要是超越人的性能，或超越自然界的一切行為，都該被列入信仰的歷史范圍。此外，由於第三條的哲學原則，就是那些不該超越歷史領域的事情，例如盲者獲明等事件，都該予以刪除而被列於信仰領域。這按他們的主張，一如他們所說的，是隻在於事實的邏輯(Logica)方面，而在實際方面，沒有發生過的事或是說：這是對人們不適直於發生的事。這樣，他們主張基督並沒有說過那常人不能了解的事理。3498但是為了使歷史與哲學分開起見，批判者便從歷史方面，作出自己的結論，這就是說：批判者採取兩方面的手法：凡合乎上述三個條件者，即歸之於現實歷史的范圍！其余的事，即歸之於內在的——信仰的歷史范圍。他們嚴格地鑒別這兩種歷史﹔而我們願意要仔細予以注意的是：他們視為信仰與真實的歷史事實，正是相反。因此，一如我們所說過的，基督是雙重的：一個是真實的，一個是從來沒有存在過的，但屬於信仰的領域……一如我們上面所說的，我們除了採用兩方面的手法之外，他們再使哲學士與他們自己的內含性的“信條”(Dogma vitalis immanentiae)聯合在一起﹔他們宣稱：凡教會歷史上的一切事實，都應該用“內含的流露”(Per vitalem emanationem)去予以解釋。時代主義者在護教方法上的錯誤3499現代主義認為：護教者本身，也要在兩方面隸屬於哲學士：即一方面，並不直接取材於哲士所吩咐寫成的歷史，一如我們上文所見的﹔而后在另一方面，搖身一變，便直接從哲士那裡，採取信條與斷語。因此[六二七]現代主義的流行學府裡的訓令是：要用歷史與心理學上的研究，來消滅那對宗教辯護的新爭論……3500現代主義所尋求的目的是：要引領那還有信仰的信仰者，獲得自己對於公教會的宗教經驗﹔你們要知道：這個經驗，按現代主義的人看來，就是“信仰”的唯一基礎。……為此，那現存的公教會，一定需要顯示出：這完全是那基督所創立的宗教﹔換言之，公教會要顯示：除了對她自己的出處(起源)，作進步的解釋之外，她本身無非是基督所建的宗教。 因此，首先該予以確定的是：這個(起源)(萌芽)(Germen)是怎樣的。對於這個起源，他們主張應用這樣的過程：即那業已來臨的基督，曾報告那在不久以后，將要建立的天主之國，而祂將是這王國的默西亞(Messia)——即天主所賜予的創造者，掌管者。祂在証明了祂是這樣的起源之后，便潛存在公教會內，而且漸漸地永存著，並按照歷史的演進，發展自己，而與歷代的環境配合﹔於是祂就活生生地從各種環境裡，汲取那有利於自己的一切，形成道理、敬禮、教會的方式。但在這段時期內，若遇什麼阻力，祂就予以克服，而以任何方式的戰斗、駁斥，來粉碎那反對祂的敵人。但在這一切之后，即在克服一切阻力，一切仇敵，一切派別，紛爭之后，就出現了這種教會的生命，教會的成果，於是，進化的律例，雖然在同一教會的歷史上，表示安全無恙，但這同一歷史，已不足予以應有的解釋﹔於是不了解的事理，便將出現了，而祂也就甘心自我奉獻了。——這便是現代主義的主張。但他們在整個推理過程中，並沒有注意到：他們所確定的這個“起源”——完全是根據他們哲士的，不可知論的成見，進化論的成見。而他們對這“起源”所下的定義，完全沒有符合他們所舉原因的理由。[+2102 –2109從略]。[+2110 –2112:Resp．Commiss ．Bibl;29,Mall 1907 (Ergl．Jo．) vd．+3398ss]。PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907 Errors of the modernist on principles of philosophy DsZ 3475: (6) Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognizing His existence, even by means of visible things. From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject. Given these premises, everyone will at once perceive what becomes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revelation. The modernists simply sweep them entirely aside; they include them in Intellectualism, which they denounce as a system which is ridiculous and long since defunct.DsZ 3476: (6) It may be asked, in what way do the Modernists contrive to make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial; and consequently, by what legitimate process of reasoning, they proceed from the fact of ignorance as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not, to explain this history, leaving God out altogether, as if He really had not intervened. Let him answer who can. Yet it is a fixed and established principle among them that both science and history must be atheistic: and within their boundaries there is room for nothing but phenomena; God and all that is divine are utterly excluded.
DsZ 3477: (7.) However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernists: the positive part consists in what they call vital immanence. Thus they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when natural theology has been destroyed, and the road to revelation closed by the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside of man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. In this way is formulated the principle of religious immanence. Moreover, the first actuation, so to speak, of every vital phenomenon -- and religion, as noted above, belongs to this category -- is due to a certain need or impulsion; but speaking more particularly of life, it has its origin in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sense. Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances. cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is first latent beneath consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its root lies hidden and undetected.
DsZ 3478: (8) Modernists find in this sense not only faith, but in and with faith, as they understand it, they affirm that there is also to be found revelation......Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God, that is to say, God is both the Revealer and the Revealed.
From this, Venerable Brethren, springs that most absurd tenet of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. It is thus that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. From this they derive the law laid down as the universal standard, according to which religious consciousness is to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and that to it all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in the capacity of teacher, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.
DsZ 3479: (9) The unknowable they speak of does not present itself to faith as something solitary and isolated; hut on the contrary in close conjunction with some phenomenon, which, though it belongs to the realms of science or history, yet to some extent exceeds their limits......Then faith, attracted by the unknowable which is united with the phenomenon, seizes upon the whole phenomenon, and, as it were, permeates it with its own life. From this two things follow. The first is a sort of transfiguration of the phenomenon, by its elevation above its own true conditions, an elevation by which it becomes more adapted to clothe itself with the form of the divine character which faith will bestow upon it. The second consequence is a certain disfiguration -- so it may be called -- of the same phenomenon, arising from the fact that faith attributes to it, when stripped of the circumstances of place and time, characteristics which it does not really possess; and this takes place especially in the case of the phenomena of the past, and the more fully in the measure of their antiquity. From these two principles the Modernists deduce two laws, which, when united with a third which they have already derived from agnosticism, constitute the foundation of historic criticism. An example may be sought in the Person of Christ.
DsZ 3480: (9) In the Person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine must be rejected. Then, according to the second canon, the historical Person of Christ was transfigured by faith; therefore everything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. Lastly, the third canon, which lays down that the Person of Christ has been disfigured by faith, requires that everything should be excluded, deeds and words and all else, that is not in strict keeping with His character, condition, and education, and with the place and time in which He lived.
DsZ 3481: (10.) It is thus that the religious sense, which through the agency of vital immanence emerges from the lurking-places of the subconsciousness, is the germ of all religion, and the explanation of everything that has been or ever will be in any religion......(11) In that sense of which We have frequently spoken, since sense is not knowledge, they say God, indeed, presents Himself to man, but in a manner so confused and indistinct that He can hardly be perceived by the believer. It is therefore necessary that a certain light should be cast upon this sense so that God may clearly stand out in relief and be set apart from it. This is the task of the intellect, whose office it is to reflect and to analyze; and by means of it, man first transforms into mental pictures the vital phenomena which arise within him, and then expresses them in words. Hence the common saying of Modernists: that the religious man must think his faith......
DsZ 3482: (11) The operation of the mind in this work is a double one: first, by a natural and spontaneous act it expresses its concept in a simple, popular statement; then, on reflection and deeper consideration, or, as they say, by elaborating its thought, it expresses the idea in secondary propositions, which are derived from the first, but are more precise and distinct. These secondary propositions, if they finally receive the approval of the supreme magisterium of the Church, constitute dogma.
DsZ 3483: (12) We have thus reached one of the principal points in the Modernist's system, namely, the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulas, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear knowledge of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself, they apparently hold, strictly consists in the secondary formulas......(12) To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sense. This will be readily perceived by anyone who holds that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving to himself an account of his faith. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their relation to the faith they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer they are mere instruments.
Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense.....
But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma.
Errors of the modernist on concept of Faith DsZ 3484: (14) For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual......In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience.
DsZ 3485: (16) For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be for it unknowable. Hence......science is entirely concerned with phenomena, into which faith does not at all enter; faith, on the contrary, concerns itself with the divine, which is entirely unknown to science. Thus it is contended that there can never be any dissension between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore never can be in contradiction.
DsZ 3486: (16) And if it be objected that in the visible world there are some things which appertain to faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this. For though such things come within the category of phenomena, still in as far as they are lived by faith and in the way already described have been by faith transfigured and disfigured, they have been removed from the world of sense and transferred into material for the divine. Hence should it be further asked whether Christ has wrought real miracles, and made real prophecies, whether He rose truly from the dead and ascended into Heaven, the answer of agnostic science will be in the negative and the answer of faith in the affirmative yet there will not be, on that account, any conflict between them. For it will be denied by the philosopher as a philosopher speaking to philosophers and considering Christ only in historical reality; and it will be affirmed by the believer as a believer speaking to believers and considering the life of Christ as lived again by the faith and in the faith.
Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science.
Errors of the modernist on dogmatic theology DsZ 3487 (19) In this matter the Modernist theologian takes exactly the same principles which we have seen employed by the Modernist philosopher -- the principles of immanence and symbolism -- and applies them to the believer. The process is an extremely simple one. The philosopher has declared: The principle of faith is immanent; the believer has added: This principle is God; and the theologian draws the conclusion: God is immanent in man. Thus we have theological immanence. So, too, the philosopher regards it as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical; the believer has likewise affirmed that the object of faith is God in himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are symbolical. And thus we have theological symbolism......
DsZ 3488 (21) But as faith has many branches, and chief among them the Church, dogma, worship, devotions, the Books which we call "sacred," it concerns us to know what the Modernists teach concerning them. To begin with dogma, We have already indicated its origin and nature. Dogma is born of a sort of impulse or necessity by virtue of which the believer elaborates his thought so as to render it clearer to his own conscience and that of others. This elaboration consists entirely in the process of investigating and refining the primitive mental formula, not indeed in itself and according to any logical explanation, but according to circumstances, or vitally as the Modernists somewhat less intelligibly describe it. Hence it happens that around this primitive formula secondary formulas, as We have already indicated, gradually continue to be formed, and these subsequently grouped into one body, or one doctrinal construction and further sanctioned by the public magisterium as responding to the common consciousness, are called dogma. Dogma is to be carefully distinguished from the speculations of theologians which, although not alive with the life of dogma, are not without their utility as serving both to harmonize religion with science and to remove opposition between them, and to illumine and defend religion from without, and it may be even to prepare the matter for future dogma.
DsZ 3489 (21) Concerning worship there would not be much to be said, were it not that under this head are comprised the sacraments, concerning which the Modernist errors are of the most serious character. For them the sacraments are the resultant of a double impulse or need -- for, as we have seen, everything in their system is explained by inner impulses or necessities. The first need is that of giving some sensible manifestation to religion; the second is that of expressing it, which could not be done without some sensible form and consecrating acts, and these are called sacraments. But for the Modernists, sacraments are bare symbols or signs, though not devoid of a certain efficacy -- an efficacy, they tell us, like that of certain phrases vulgarly described as having caught the popular ear, inasmuch as they have the power of putting certain leading ideas into circulation, and of making a marked impression upon the mind. What the phrases are to the ideas, that the sacraments are to the religious sense, that and nothing more. The Modernists would express their mind more clearly were they to affirm that the sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith but this is condemned by the Council of Trent: If anyone says that these sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith, let him be anathema.
DsZ 3490 (22.) We have already touched upon the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the Modernists they may be rightly described as a summary of experiences, not indeed of the kind that may now and again come to anybody, but those extraordinary and striking experiences which are the possession of every religion. And this is precisely what they teach about our books of the Old and New Testament. But to suit their own theories they note with remarkable ingenuity that, although experience is something belonging to the present, still it may draw its material in like manner from the past and the future inasmuch as the believer by memory lives the past over again after the manner of the present, and lives the future already by anticipation. This explains how it is that the historical and apocalyptic books are included among the Sacred Writings. God does indeed speak in these books through the medium of the believer, but according to Modernist theology, only by immanence and vital permanence.
DsZ 3491 (22) We may ask, what then becomes of inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is in nowise distinguished from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words of writing, except perhaps by its vehemence. It is something like that which happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: There is a God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire. It is in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books.
DsZ 3492 (23) They begin with the supposition that the Church has its birth in a double need; first, the need of the individual believer to communicate his faith to others, especially if he has had some original and special experience, and secondly, when the faith has become common to many, the need of the collectivity to form itself into a society and to guard, promote, and propagate the common good. What, then, is the Church? It is the product of the collective conscience, that is to say, of the association of individual consciences which, by virtue of the principle of vital permanence, depend all on one first believer, who for Catholics is Christ.
DsZ 3493 (26) they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death -- dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself.
On the Errors of the modernist on principles of history and the critical disciplinesDsZ 3494 (30) Some Modernists, devoted to historical studies, seem to be deeply anxious not to be taken for philosophers. About philosophy they profess to know nothing whatever, and in this they display remarkable astuteness, for they are particularly desirous not to be suspected of any prepossession in favor of philosophical theories which would lay them open to the charge of not being, as they call it, objective. And yet the truth is that their history and their criticism are saturated with their philosophy, and that their historico-critical conclusions are the natural outcome of their philosophical principles......Their three first laws are contained in those three principles of their philosophy already dealt with: the principle of agnosticism, the theorem of the transfiguration of things by faith, and that other which may be called the principle of disfiguration. Let us see what consequences flow from each of these.
DsZ 3495 (30) Agnosticism tells us that history, like science, deals entirely with phenomena, and the consequence is that God, and every intervention of God in human affairs, is to be relegated to the domain of faith as belonging to it alone. Wherefore in things where there is combined a double element, the divine and the human, as, for example, in Christ, or the Church, or the sacraments, or the many other objects of the same kind, a division and separation must be made and the human element must he left to history while the divine will he assigned to faith.
DsZ 3496 (30) Hence we have that distinction, so current among the Modernists, between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith; the Church of history and the Church of faith; the sacraments of history and the sacraments of faith, and so in similar matters. Next we find that the human element itself, which the historian has to work on, as it appears in the documents, is to be considered as having been transfigured by faith, that is to say, raised above its historical conditions. It becomes necessary, therefore, to eliminate also the accretions which faith has added, to relegate them to faith itself and to the history of faith. Thus, when treating of Christ, the historian must set aside all that surpasses man in his natural condition, according to what psychology tells us of him, or according to what we gather from the place and period of his existence.
DsZ 3497 (30) Finally, they require, by virtue of the third principle, that even those things which are not outside the sphere of history should pass through the sieve, excluding all and relegating to faith everything which, in their judgment, is not in harmony with what they call the logic of facts or not in character with the persons of whom they are predicated. Thus, they will not allow that Christ ever uttered those things which do not seem to be within the capacity of the multitudes that listened to Him.
DsZ 3498 (31) As history takes its conclusions from philosophy, so too criticism takes its conclusions from history. The critic on the data furnished him by the historian, makes two parts of all his documents. Those that remain after the triple elimination above described go to form the real history; the rest is attributed to the history of the faith or, as it is styled, to internal history. For the Modernists distinguish very carefully between these two kinds of history, and it is to be noted that they oppose the history of the faith to real history precisely as real. Thus, as we have already said, we have a twofold Christ: a real Christ, and a Christ, the one of faith, who never really existed; a Christ who has lived at a given time and in a given place, and a Christ who never lived outside the pious meditations of the believer -- the Christ, for instance, whom we find in the Gospel of St. John, which, according to them, is mere meditation from beginning to end.
Errors of the modernist in methods of apologeticsDsZ 3499 (35.) The Modernist apologist depends in two ways on the philosopher. First, indirectly, inasmuch as his subject-matter is history -- history dictated, as we have seen, by the philosopher; and, secondly, directly, inasmuch as he takes both his doctrines and his conclusions from the philosopher. Hence that common axiom of the Modernist school that in the new apologetics controversies in religion must be determined by psychological and historical research.
DsZ 3500 (36) The aim he sets before himself is to make one who is still without faith attain that experience of the Catholic religion which, according to the system, is the sole basis of faith. .......To this end it is necessary to prove that the Catholic religion, as it exists today, is that which was founded by Jesus Christ; that is to say, that it is nothing else than the progressive development of the germ which He brought into the world. Hence it is imperative first of all to establish what this germ was, and this the Modernist claims to he able to do by the following formula: Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God, which was to be realized within a brief lapse of time and of which He was to become the Messias, the divinely-given founder and ruler. Then it must be shown how this germ, always immanent and permanent in the Catholic religion, has gone on slowly developing in the course of history, adapting itself successively to the different circumstances through which it has passed, borrowing from them by vital assimilation all the doctrinal, cultural, ecclesiastical forms that served its purpose; whilst, on the other hand, it surmounted all obstacles, vanquished all enemies, and survived all assaults and all combats. Anyone who well and duly considers this mass of obstacles, adversaries, attacks, combats, and the vitality and fecundity which the Church has shown throughout them all, must admit that if the laws of evolution are visible in her life they fail to explain the whole of her history -- the unknown rises forth from it and presents itself before Us. Thus do they argue, not perceiving that their determination of the primitive germ is only an a priori assumption of agnostic and evolutionist philosophy, and that the germ itself has been gratuitously defined so that it may fit in with their contention.
本帖最后由 arahatta 于 2013-5-12 21:51 编辑
本人的目的是向中国天主教教徒灌輸真正的,纯正的,神圣羅馬大公教会教義 在严格的神学意义下，「现代主义」modernism这名词是指十九世纪末、二十世纪初，对教会的教义和纪律提出多方面质疑的思想潮流。但十六世纪时，此词是指重视现代超过古代的一种趋势；十九世纪时用以指现代世界和自由主义神学那种极端反真正基督宗教的趋势。十九世纪末在天主教会内兴起一种运动，鼓吹教会本身和教义上的改革，以迎合现代的需要。此词立即被义大利反对教会者采用。而在1907年碧岳十世(Pius X, 1903-1914)颁发《牧养》(Pascendi)通谕中(DS3475-3500)，更明确表示，「现代主义」是异端的复合体，是在有问题的运动中所形成的非正统的逻辑结论。 「现代主义」起初是以运动的姿态出现，目的在协助人忠于教会或回到教会怀抱；且在结构和思想上仍可赶上时代，并革除显然不合时宜的因素。然而他们却未注意到，这么作可能忘记现代世界对基督徒精神的需求也须导入正途。事实上，此运动在历史发展中所呈现的是不同的基本态度与形态，且是自动蔚成的运动。当时传统的基本神学最为脆弱；最易遭受现代历史和哲学批判的攻击。而法国和义大利的新多玛斯学派却致力于卫护传统神学的结构，以保持现状为职志，日后遂被称为「完整主义」(integralism)。又因完整主义者认为，若触及新士林学派(参 609)哲学结构的任何部分，便将危及整个结构，因而展开了反现代主义的运动。
上述危机的首要中心在法国。布隆德(M. Blondel,1861-1949)开创了现代主义的新纪元，他反对士林学派基本神学的外在论(extrinsicism)；在1893年倡导「内在性方法」(the method of immanence)，宣称尊重人类主观性的自主而引领准信徒进入启示之门。此说在法国与罗马遭受新多玛斯学派强烈的反对，然布隆德本人却未曾受到正式的谴责。此后，释经学家罗依西的思想对盛行的新士林学派的正统说带来莫大的威胁。1902年他宣称科学的历史调查法将是判断基督宗教起源与特性的主要工具；「耶稣宣扬天国，而来临的是教会」就是他的名句，因他认为宗徒之后，教会是传福音必要的活中介。
不久，英国成了此运动的另一中心。梯瑞尔(G. Tyrrell, 1861-1907)致力于将启示的概念从当代士林学派神学中分离出来；他认为启示属于经验界，将启示以象征性言词表达出来就成了信理。勒若易(E. Le Roy, 1870-1954)认为信理的主要目的不在于照亮精神(思辨知识)，而在于指导宗教的活动；在纯实用观点下，他将启示的道德层次摆在理智之上。此外，值得一提的是徐革尔(F. von Huegel, 1852-1925)，他在诸学者间(也许不知彼此的著作)是个非官方的协调者。他所扮演的角色指出一件事实：即现代主义从未如罗马的反对者所说的，是合成或汇聚成的一派。
由于徐革尔的影响，此运动很快便传到了义大利。由于姆利(R. Murri,1870-1944)的作品之影响，在义大利北部兴起了所谓的社会现代主义(social modernism)；波奈乌提(E. Buonaiuti, 1881-1946)在期刊Il Rinnovamento上，和梯瑞尔的作品，一同介绍给义大利读者和梵蒂冈。而在德国，天主教学者分享了罗依西、梯瑞尔、勒若易的思想，但未曾正视教会和信仰基本结构的「现代化」。 教会的谴责：现代主义在1907年被碧岳十世的《牧养》通谕和教义部所发表的《可悲》(Lamentabili)诏书(DS 3401-3466)所谴责。《牧养》通谕把现代主义看成一种汇聚在一起且有组织的运动，企图由内部推翻天主教的正统；并指其为「所有异端的汇聚处」。
通谕中将现代主义归纳出两大哲学上的错误：即不可知论(agnosticism) (参 53)和内在论(immanentism) (参 72)；
此外，通谕也拒绝现代主义圣经批判(参 573)的观念。1910年教宗颁发自动诏书(Sacrorum antistitum)，更要求所有圣职人员都发「反现代主义的誓词」
玩书本子整外国话，你干脆给我个痛快完了，抓着脖子来慢刀子，太痛苦了 真是你 发表于 2013-5-1 03:57 http://bbs.chinacath.org/static/image/common/back.gif
玩书本子整外国话，你干脆给我个痛快完了，抓着脖子来慢刀子，太痛苦了
俺也不懂洋文,神职们大都喜爱洋文,就算俺奉献给神职们做研究用吧 谢谢。收藏了。你在哪儿整的？ 本帖最后由 arahatta 于 2013-6-25 19:02 编辑
迷糊 发表于 2013-5-2 20:56 http://bbs.chinacath.org/static/image/common/back.gif
谢谢。收藏了。你在哪儿整的？
不客气 arahatta 发表于 2013-5-2 19:29 static/image/common/back.gif
俺也不懂洋文,神职们大都喜爱洋文,就算俺奉献给神职们做研究用吧
有喜欢你这种口味的，留给他们学府派的吧，额只是一个草民，吃不了重口味，我也就吃点青草足以了 本帖最后由 arahatta 于 2013-5-27 09:09 编辑
十九世纪末年二十世纪初，天主教内部产生一种所谓的"现代主义"（MODERNISMO）异端思潮。这种思想运动的确实内容是什麽，全看使用"现代主义"这个名词的人心中作何解释和有什麽目的。一般而论，现代主义的目的在调和教会的信仰教义和现代的思想。这种思想运动使用的主要方法便是对圣经的文字内容进行语文批判分析（l'ANALISI CRETICO-FILOLOGICA DELLA BIBBIA），并用唯心论（IDEALISMO）、非理性主义（IRRAZIONALISMO）、新康德主义（NEOKANTISMO）这些现代哲学思想，以及莫里斯．布隆代尔（MAURICE BLONDEL）所倡导的内在论哲学思考方法来研读神学。
一位名叫普拉（POULAT）的历史学家用两句话形容现代主义说：所有正面与反面的努力，企图使新近获得的知识与信仰的始终要求彼此协调起来。
新的知识与旧的信仰竟然需要协调，可见其中必有蹊跷。原来，在现代科学发达後，天主教内便发生对立的两派，保守的一派坚持拒绝采用任何现代科学的立场与主张来表达教会的信仰，而进步派人士则企图使用现代科学知识来为天主教传统的信仰教义服务，在不危害信仰一贯所要求的原则之下，来解释教义。这些进步派的人士便是现代主义者（MODERNISTA）。
然而，现代主义者的心态并不完全在为教会服务，并不以信仰为他们研究工作的主要中心和目标，他们心中想的是现代科学要迫使教会修改它过去所接受的理念；在他们心中科学占第一位，而基督信仰教义必须适应科学的需要和要求。这些现代主义者认为他们所提出来的看法是教会能够继续生存下去的唯一机会，教会如果想存在下去，非得从内在根本改变不可。否则，面对科学，天主教的信仰是无法活下去的。这些现代主义者已变成十足的理性主义者。这些理性主义者认为科学至上，他们希望用科学来 解释宗教，来解决宗教问题。然而，事实上并不如他们想像的那样。於是现代主义者便陷入危机。
其实，真正陷入这种危机的人并不多，主要的多是一些关心理智问题的神父和部分在俗教友。事情之所以有点甚嚣尘上，理由在於主张现代主义的是教会内部的人士，这自然会产生不小震撼。
话说回来，现代主义的范围并不只限於如何用科学和现代哲学思想来解释和解决教会传统的教义这些企图而已，它也包括一些政治和社会性的活动，比如法国天主教政界人士马克．桑尼耶（MARC SANGHIER,1873-1950）在一八九四年创立的，具有民主意识的社会政治运动组织"西永"（SILLON），以及意大利罗莫洛．穆里（ROMOLO MURI, 1870-1944）神父的醉心於社会政治运动，他甚至不惜与教会当局决裂，投身政治。还有法国的遣使会会士费尔南．波塔尔（FERNAND PORTAL）神父在十九、二十世纪之交所推动的基督信徒大公合一运动，希望天主教徒与英国圣公会教徒有朝一日彼此合一的努力，也属於现代主义的一种表现方式。
不过，现代主义最大的危机仍在於圣经的研究和教义的解释这两方面：
关於圣经的研究，现代主义鼻祖、法国圣经学家阿尔弗雷德．卢瓦西（ALFRED LOISY, 1857-1940）和德国的圣经注解专家们一致采用历史批判的方式在巴黎天主教大学教授圣经课程，并撰写"圣经的训导"（L'EINSEGNEMENT BIBLIQUE）这本书。他也认为旧约圣经的"梅瑟五书"并不出於梅瑟的手笔，而且"创世纪"前十一章并不属於历史类型。因着这种主张，阿尔弗雷德．卢瓦西教授於 一八九叁年被要求放弃他在巴黎天主教大学的教职。
卢瓦西的教职虽然被迫停止，但是他的思想很快便超越圣经的范围，而进入宗教和当代人的观念的关系领域。他在一九Ｏ二年出版了一本名叫"福音和教会"（L' EVANGELIE ET EGLISE）的小书，书中指出：「耶稣的福音所包含的一切都进入了基督信仰的传统中。但是今天基督信仰教义中所蕴含的真正属於福音精神的那一部分，并非历来一成不变的，因为从某种意义来说，一切都改变了。然而，尽管外在的事物不断在改变，那些因基督所赋予的推动力而进行的一切，仍然以基督的精神为本，有同样的理想，同样的希望」。
卢瓦西这本"福音与教会"的书一时引起很大的喧哗，当时巴黎总主教里夏尔（RICHARD）枢机下令禁止阅读这本书。卢瓦西不甘愿，又写了另一本回辩。
卢瓦西在他的着作中设法把自己的宗教思想作个初步的综合。与他同时代的一位德国历史学家阿道夫．冯．哈纳克（ADOLF VON HARNACK, 1851-1930）曾把基督信仰缩减为一个天主圣父和普世博爱的宗教而已，对这种见解卢瓦西用他所写的"福音与教会"这本书来回答，他以为「耶稣是来宣讲他的天国的，於是产生了教会」。卢瓦西强调天国本应该立刻实现的，教会便是天国的继承者，可是教会却把天国的内涵改变了，为使天国的实现过程延续很多世纪。卢瓦西因此解释教会的历史演变，以及教会的信理教义是如何地逐渐形成。他相信天主教是由福音和基督而来的，但他的论点使人觉得他把历史中的基督和信仰中的基督分为两件事来谈，也把教会的信理教义的演变当作纯为应付人类知识的要求而发生的。
阿尔弗雷德．卢瓦西的见解和教会传统的信仰是有一段距离的，他有五本书在一九Ｏ叁年十二月被列入禁书。他最後还是接受了教会的立场，只不过表示他的研究工作成果不能因此被完全抹杀。
以上是现代主义在圣经研究上所遇到的危机，现在我们再来谈一下现代主义在解释教义这方面的危机。
十九、二十世纪之交在法国"基督哲学历史"杂志（LES ANNALES DE PHILOSOPHIE CHRETIENNE）上发表文章的神学家们，对那个时代使用的言语特别关心，因为当时表达思想的用语已经不再是十叁世纪圣多玛斯所使用的言语。当时有一位数学家爱德华．勒鲁瓦（EDOUARD LE ROY）在一九Ｏ五年写了一篇"教义是什麽？"（QU' EST CE QU' UN DOGME？）的文章登在这份杂志上，结果引起很大的共鸣。勒鲁瓦说：传统解说教义的方式对习惯於当代科学与哲学思维的人已不再发生作用。因此，必须区分教义表达的方式和时代的实际状况，因为时代的处境先於教义表达的方式而存在，在理智形成教义表达的方式或格式之前，教义早已先行存在，而且已经具有精神道德和实际生活的意义。
除了法国爱德华．勒鲁瓦这位数学家之外，在英国也有一位着名的现代主义者，名叫乔治．蒂勒尔（GEIRGE TYRREKK, 1861-1909）。他原是加尔文教派信徒，後来改信英国圣公会，一八七九年又归依罗马天主教，并加入耶稣会，晋升了神父。蒂勒尔神父很受青年学生的欢迎，他想效法当时极负盛名的英国纽曼枢机主教，於是努力设法编撰使教会超性的信仰道理与当代哲学思想并行不悖的教义。他相信教会必定要以新的格式来表达教义，因为天主是借着启示使人和他发生一种神秘的接触，但在启示发生之初天主并没有用任何具体的格式把真理通传给人。然而，天主和人的这种接触必须表达出来才行。如何表达呢？就是用当代文化使用的名词来描述这种先知性的对天主的认识。这样的描述必须由神学根据每个时代的文化来加以解释说明。因此，所谓的信理教义乃是宗教经验所创造出来的结果，这样的结果具有伦理道德价值，对人类的进步有益。神学可以过时，可以是死亡的，但必须从神学中分辨出活的信仰，好使天主教会的信仰继续演进下去。
乔治．蒂勒尔神父的思想使他在一九Ｏ七年被逐出耶稣会，并被停止他的神职。
以上所谈的现代主义在圣经研究和教义解释这两方面所造成的危机，曾在欧洲神学界和哲学界引起了广泛的思想文字论战。有些走现代主义路线的神父、修会会士和教友最後还是放弃了自己原来的主张，但另有一些坚持自己的看法，於是都主动或被动地脱离神职或修会。
在这时期，有很多人也出面维护教会的真理，凡是有现代主义嫌疑者，他们都予以揭发，并加以谴责。
还有法国的遣使会会士费尔南．波塔尔（FERNAND PORTAL）神父在十九、二十世纪之交所推动的基督信徒大公合一运动，希望天主教徒与英国圣公会教徒有朝一日彼此合一的努力，也属於现代主义的一种表现方式。
大公合一运动，希望天主教徒与英国圣公会教徒有朝一日彼此合一的努力，也属於现代主义的一种表现方式。
大公合一运动，现代主义的一种表现方式。
迷糊 发表于 2013-5-2 20:56
谢谢。收藏了。你在哪儿整的？
法国的遣使会会士费尔南．波塔尔（FERNAND PORTAL）神父在十九、二十世纪之交所推动的基督信徒大公合一运动，希望天主教徒与英国圣公会教徒有朝一日彼此合一的努力，也属於现代主义的一种表现方式。
大公合一运动，希望天主教徒与英国圣公会教徒有朝一日彼此合一的努力，也属於现代主义的一种表现方式。
大公合一运动，现代主义的一种表现方式。
迷糊 发表于 2013-5-2 20:56
谢谢。收藏了。你在哪儿整的？
St Pius X Anti-modernist Oath, 1 September, 1910反對時代主義的誓詞教宗庇護十世公元一九一Ｏ年九月一日 3537我(某)堅決擁護並接受那為不(能)錯誤的教會的訓導權所斷定、所肯定、所宣布的一切道理，和每一端道理，尤其是那些直接反對現時代錯誤的各端道理，我更予以擁護。 3538第一，我藉天主所造的萬物(參閱：羅：1,20)，用我本性的理智之光，相信天主，萬有的原始與終結。這就是說：正如從效果，一定推知原因，同樣，藉那受造的有形之物，我承認：我一定能認識天主，並能証明祂的存在。 3:1 你应知道：在末日，困难的时期必要来临，
3:2 因为那时人只爱自己、爱钱、矜夸、骄傲、谩骂、不孝顺父母、妄恩、负义、不虔敬、
3:3 无慈爱、难和解、善诽谤、无节制、无仁心、不乐善、
3:4 背信、鲁莽、自大、爱快乐胜过爱天主；
3:5 他们虽有虔敬的外貌，却背弃了虔敬的实质；这等人，你务要躲避。
3:6 因为他们中，有的潜入人家中，猎取那些满身罪恶，及被各种邪欲吸引的妇女；
3:7 这些妇女虽时常学习，但总达不到明白真理的地步。
3:8 就如从前雅乃斯和杨布勒反抗梅瑟，照样这等人也反抗了真理。他们的心术败坏了，在信德上是不可靠的。 东方那女婴 发表于 2015-3-12 11:42
自由 发表于 2015-3-12 07:35
刘牧师倒确确实实光屁股啊，呵呵。
——————————————————— ...
http://bbs.chinacath.com/data/attachment/forum/201502/04/123527gz45ffd4q434u0vi.jpghttp://www.chinacath.com/uc_server/data/avatar/000/08/59/45_avatar_big.jpg
页:
[1]