神學年刊 第十五期 一九九四年 81-99頁
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
何梅珍研讀杜氏的神學工藝：由象徵到系統，她特別欣賞杜氏把握到神學的現代感，並在神學方法上強調對談和合一的精神，遵重文化的多元性。神學家在教會內為聖言的服務，不能離開聖經、聖傳和教會訓導的指示，同時該以愛德與平和的態度與人交談，努力加深做學問的功夫，發展不同專科，但要避免分化，卻要使神學成為一個共同的事業。
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
今天的社會，受多元文化的沖擊影響，面對知識領域的擴闊，神學亦不能脫離此動盪的浪潮。誠如作者杜勒斯(A. Dulles)言：
梵二後的教會的確開放了，能接納頗多神學意見，為神學營造了一種新氣候，使神學的發展更絢燦。但一些前進的神學家，卻在已制定的正統信理上作爭論，造成現今天主教神學情況之混亂。1
他坦誠地評論現在羅馬天主教之神學情況 ── 是神學家缺乏一種共同言語、共同目標及共同準則；再加欠缺文明的作風，爭論與不信任情況隨之出現。2 正在神學領域探索的我，必須要弄清神學家們的思維路向，才可以發展個人的神學路向。
在探索杜勒斯的神學方法，吾人採用了他的最新著作《神學的工藝：由象徵到系統》(The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System 1992)。本文的探索方法是：先由書本的內容闡釋他認為現在如何做神學方法，然後加以評論。透過此種闡釋方法，希望藉杜勒斯神父之照明，有助我要走的神學路向。
為方便了解此書，我先閱覽一些書評，3再細讀書中的整體內容，4發覺每一章書都有極大的貢獻。我最欣賞是在第一章，他提醒當代做神學的人，不可以忽視二十世紀九十年代的社會，是一個日新月異的新時代，這個社會的新氣候，有特別名詞稱呼之，如後現代(Postmodern)、後自由(Postliberal)及後批判(Postcritical)。他勸人要以一種後批判的精神去做神學。在第十二章，他以首尾呼應的手法，強調後批判要有合一精神，在宗教上交談、對話，才可以使教會更新，在合一運動基礎上互相交換意見，更能刺激人在神學上作反省，把神學以更豐盛的姿態展示人前，使人人可以接受天主的救恩，皈依祂。
為此神學方法的主旨內容不可脫離聖經、聖傳及教會訓導等信仰要素，教會就是此信仰要素的保存者與傳遞者，作者認為做神學要清楚認識教會特質，為教會服務，神學才能健康地發展。他努力尋找與重建一個更廣闊的講道團體，最後認為神學方法可建基在合一神學(Ecumenical Theology)上。他引用教宗若望保祿二世的通諭《救主使命》(Redemptoris Missio)，要信徒重視交談的重要性。
後批判神學鼓勵神學家必須在教會信仰團體內做神學，因為教會是神學事業(theological enterprise)的泉源。
杜勒斯在第一章先介紹早期的前批判神學(Precritical Theology)，是以權威的口吻講出此是天主的聖言，使人不敢質疑神學上的疑問，為此它有其超越地位，不可被質疑與挑戰。到中古時代，人開始對此種神學有所懷疑，另一種新神學 ── 批判神學(Critical Theology)出現，它成為中古世紀的神學寵兒，但太注重以批判的角度作研究，使神學窒息，令大多數的神學家拒抗防範。
到十八世紀副批判神學(Paracritical Theology)出現，主張神學與科學的討論要分開。到二十世紀初期，反批判神學(Countercritical Theology)堅持以強而有力的或以奇蹟作為證據，利用此種方法作護教之用，基督教與天主教雙方都各自努力，把此種神學方法推至極點。5出現反批判神學皆因受第一次世界大戰之影響。
杜勒斯接著在第一至四章講述當代做神學的方法。他在第一章介紹現今社會是要走向後批判神學(Postcritical Theology)的領域去，皆因以往的方法過份集中在思想批判的範疇。第二章他著重象徵性通傳(Symbolic Communication)，第三章利用模式做神學，第四章指出現代的基本神學與動態的皈依(Fundamental Theology and Dynamics of Conversion)。
杜氏在第一章中，開宗明義的說明他個人的信仰是鍾情於後批判神學，以此方法做神學，不要以猜疑態度去挑戰神學，其基本態度是要信賴詮釋學(Hermenentics)，目的為建設神學，豐富神學的內涵，不是去毀滅神學。6後批判神學給古典神學一種新生命力 ── 堅定信仰的意識(the sense of the faithful)，7為此它要注意其有的緘默幅度，避免作理性主義的批判與有護教色彩的反批判，不會在一些不可爭辯的證據(indisputable evidence)上作信仰的爭辯，它鼓勵信友以其認知力(cognition)去尋找信仰，不可盲目或感情化地信賴。作者認為後批判神學家指導信徒要「自我開放」，坦誠的對天主作出個人的皈依，這樣才可以堅定信仰，自願向天主委身，奉行祂的旨意。8
作者認為後批判神學的優點是在當代神學的不穩定情況中找出一動態的平衡(dynamic equilibrium)，為神學的延續與改革的情況找一新路向。9他更指出後批判神學不可以脫離教會，因為教會為基督的奧體(LG7)，是信仰最早的目擊者與傳信者(LG19)；為此，後批判神學必須要有教會特質，才可以使神學健康地發展。10
作者評論以往的神學方法只集中在思想批判範疇，的確使神學窒息不前，欠缺活潑動力的皈依。後批判神學要重建一個更廣闊的講道團體，刺激神學家的反省，重視交談對話，但切記要做神學必須為教會服務，神學才能發展得更健康、更豐盛，我個人非常欣賞作者以上的評論。但我認為後批判神學所面對的環境更複雜、涉獵的知識範圍更廣闊，教會與神學家之間要互相尊重，才可以真正的把天國的喜訊透過今天的時空領域，展示人前，使人能按清晰良心的指引行事。
天主「自我通傳」(self-communication)給人類，藉耶穌基督親臨人間，彰顯祂的奧秘，故啟示被視作為神聖的教條。信徒要真正明白天主的啟示，須參與教會生活，以禮儀崇拜表達出對天主的敬畏，因為禮儀是紀念、是祈禱，是信徒以生活表達出基督奧蹟臨現人間，是真正教會的純正本質。(SC2)11
禮儀行動充滿了象徵性通傳，使人藉此與天主聖三的契合，明白天主啟示的奧秘。新約聖經以不同圖像來描述耶穌基督 ── 如善牧、新郎、葡萄樹、光明、判官等。這等象徵性通傳(Symbolic Communication)，是做神學的方法，教會為表達出耶穌基督真實臨在教會內，會透過教條宣言(doctrinal statements)、禮儀(liturgy)及文化語言(cultural-linguistic) 的表達，闡釋天主的啟示，清晰指出天主藉聖子降臨人間，把天主聖三自我通傳給世人。
在象徵性通傳的過程中，利用模式的表達，能幫助信徒更明白神學真理。因為隨著經院神學的沒落，神學家出現門戶派系的成見，神學之間交談困難，作者利用模式方法論(models' methodology)，為方便進行真正的交談、對話。
他提出模式在神學上的用處，方便神學家把領悟到的天主的超驗奧秘，以「模式」向天主子民講解傳授，藉著對信仰的見證，神學家們可以進行交談。例如在他的著作《教會的模式》(Models of the Church)中以不同的隱喻(different metaphors)來稱呼教會，其目的為方便交談與和好；在他另一著作《啟示的模式》(Models of the Revelation)中，也以不同模式的表達來談論啟示。
在後批判神學時代，模式是有局限的，而其在當代神學領域使用裡也有些不合時宜，12但作者深信模式與系統神學(Systematic Theology)的實踐頗有相關。13
作者評論在後批判的轉變中(postcritical turn)，教條語言、禮儀及文化語言等要配合現時代社會的需要，才能有效地把天主自我通傳的奧秘彰顯人前。作者認為在後批判神學領域裡，信徒要明白象徵對啟示和教義的關係，14 才可以做好神學。他認為佐治•林白(George Lindbeck)之三類神學方式，15 其中第三類「文化語言神學」(cultural-linguistic theology)，作者稱之為「教會轉化性的」(ecclesial-transformative)，16 正是說明教會在這個新時代中，要闡釋天主自我通傳的奧秘，必須適合當代社會的需要。現代做神學的方法不可以只套用中古時代的經院主義(Scholastism)，而利用「模式」的確存有困難，因為神學再不能只滿足在自身描述或現象論(phenomenology)上的研究，必須嚴謹地抓緊問題的恒久一致性與真實性才是。17
以上三種神學方法 ── 即前期所注重的批判思想所扮演的角色(the role of critical thinking)，其後著重象徵性通傳及利用模式，是深受經院神學的把持，不適合現時代的需要，當前的路向是要走向後批判神學。
既然模式就是象徵，取自人性經驗的理解，故在今天的社會中，經驗神學(Empirical Theology)的確使人在宗教上有深徹的反省，基本神學(Fundamental Theology)需要人充滿動力的皈依，信仰作為徹底的皈依，除了問我們如何走向天主外，信友也要清楚知道天主如何走近我們，為此基本神學必須放在人學的焦點上(anthropological focus)。
在第四章，他講論現今的天主教神學家，其中一些：他們的言論已被肯定接納，如卡•拉內神父(K. Rahner)及伯爾納•朗列根神父(B. Lonergan)的先驗方法(transcendental method)，都是建立在神學的人學上(theological anthropology)，由人內在經驗，辯證神的存在。18
作者評論先驗方法確能助人經驗到神的存在，使人充滿動力的皈依，它要信徒摒棄信仰上一些不合理性的跳躍。透過聖經的啟示，它有照明、轉化的力量，使信徒明白天主給人白白的恩賜，是藉耶穌基督一次而永久的賞賜給全人類，使人人可分沾天主的救恩。
但切記：此方法雖然由人性經驗出發，若只著重用心辨明神的存在，漠視聖經事實資料，則流於空洞，欠實證的功夫；為此，跟隨者必要重視聖經，特別在詮釋學上研究。
在第五、六、七章中，作者強調神學方法的重要元素是利用聖經、重視聖傳及教會訓導。此三章集中說明《啟示憲章》(Dei Verbum)之第二章 ── 論天主啟示的傳授，其中第十號「聖經、聖傳和教會訓導權是組成天主聖言的同一寶庫，並給教會訓導，全體聖民依附著它。」要求信徒明白此三種存在教會內資源是當今做神學的依據。
杜勒斯認為利用聖經做神學有十項探討(ten approaches)，此等方法在當代神學顯明是常用的，即(一)利用聖經作教條陳述的「古典教條探討」(The classical doctrinal approach)。(二)聖經神學(Biblical theology)。(三)視聖經為屬靈的釋經(spiritual exegesis)。(四)聖言神學(Word theology)，透過聖經，與主相遇。(五)視聖經為存在詮釋學(existential hermeneutics)，是向人宣告的神學(theology of proclamation)。(六)由聖經使人走向經驗表白(experiential - expressive approach)。(七)由聖經文字意義(literal meaning)尋找原作者的意向(authorial intention)。(八)歷史重整(historical reconstruction)的聖經歷史批判研究。(九)敘述神學(narrative theology)，利用文化語言的探討(the cultural - linguistic approach)。(十)利用聖經作解放神學(liberation theology)之研究。19
作者評論，以聖經作主題去研究神學，是一種好方法，因為「聖經是天主的話，受聖神的默感而寫成。」(DV10)，它是神聖的啟示媒介。作者重視聖經為做神學的元素，此信仰寶庫是信友生活的聖言之依恃，是天主透過不同時空向人類宣講的語言。作者更強調聖經神學(biblical theology)的重要性，因為它可照明敘述神學(narrative theology)及文化語言神學(cultural-linguistic theology)。
但我們要小心，不可曲解聖經含義，或只在字面上意義兜轉，要信賴詮釋學的研究，用綜合性探討(comprehensive approach)，匯合科學與屬靈的釋經，更要接受天主教傳統指引與梵二的指導，為系統神學的需要，使神學發展更有體系。
在第六章論及聖傳作為神學的泉源。在特倫多大公會議中討論到聖經與聖傳時，認為兩者都來自天主，有其神聖的權威，同樣受到相等的尊重。20梵二後，更指出聖傳有其非常重要地位，在《啟示憲章》第二章中，更把聖傳向天主子民清楚的闡明，21 使神學家在神學工作方面跟隨教會傳統的教導。
作者評論，天主子民既相信「由宗徒傳下來的教會」，那麼便要深深承認聖傳的效力，因為它是把主基督及聖神託付給宗徒的天主聖言，以特殊方式表達於宗徒宣講的默感書上，以連續不斷的繼承而保存下來。教會重視聖傳，因為它可以補足聖經上象徵性意義，聖經藉聖傳的傳授，使人更徹底領悟天主的啟示奧秘。梵二後，天主教神學家大多接受與尊重聖傳，22因為聖傳與聖經都是由天主神泉流出。(DV9)
在第七章論及教會訓導與神學的異議(theological dissent)問題。既然聖經與聖傳是組成天主聖言的信仰寶庫，托給教會去好好保存，教會訓導的責任除了是古遠信仰(ancient faith)的保護守衛者外，還要準確地向信徒闡釋信仰的內容。23但梵二後，教會的聖經權力與神學家之間產生張力，為此作者認為教會訓導當局與神學家們要以坦誠的繼續交談為重，他推崇1990年5月14日教廷信理部頒佈的訓示《神學家在教會中的召叫》(Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian)對教會訓導有極重要影響。24神學家要理性地接納教會的訓導，而訓導當局也要尊重神學家的專業性，諮詢他們的意見。
教會的訓導當局是藉耶穌基督名義而行使權威，它的職權是解釋和傳授天主聖言，為天主聖言服務。我極之欣賞作者所說的：「那些代表普世教會說話者，一定要對世界之不同狀況，不同文化有一種敏悅感。」25這樣才能負起為教會保管與解釋天主聖言的使命。
神學與學術文化是不能分割，因神學除了有信仰的幅度外，也有學術文化的幅度；這樣，信徒才能真正明白「神人關係」之奧秘。作者在第八、九、十及十一等章中，就討論到哲學、自然科學等可以促使神學更豐盛地發展。在今天知識領域不斷擴張的環境下，互相交談，尊重學術自由的發展，在神學領域內也是不可缺少的元素。
梵二後的二十多年，天主教神學之能復甦，皆因能開放自己，與現代哲學接觸，26 為促使神學家不僅以信仰角度去尋找真理根源外，亦要重視理性的批判；神學之能健康發展，也需要一穩定的哲學傳統。雖然不同的哲學系統依靠不同的隱喻根源，但若能擴闊交談，使信徒在信德的光照下，以清晰的思維去研究救贖奧蹟，哲學是有助神學的發展的。
既然信仰在於尋求真理，作者認為在自然科學(physical science)的指引下，能提高人類求真的態度，因為研究科學要以絕對忠實態度去對待研究的結果，神學也是以求真的態度去探討信仰，為此兩者是可以共存的。在今天的社會，真的科學是要證明真的信仰，互相交談，對話是必要的。
在《天主教教育宣言》(GE10)，論及天主教大學要設立神學院，使平信徒也有機會攻讀神學課程。的確，教會是生活在世界旅途中，因知識層面的擴闊，大學中的神學也是一門「人文學科」，神學普及化，使更多人以信仰、以學術研究去探討天主啟示的奧秘，對人類是何等的重要啊！但作者提醒我們，大學中的神學是為教會服務，目的使神學邁向一更完滿的境界，使人可明白「神人關係」的親密性。
為此他認為當代神學要讓學術自由的發展，才可以使神學成為充滿生命力去探討神的奧秘。神學家可享有學術自由去發表他們的神學研究，但他們要尊重訓導當局的傳信權與傳遞權，因為她是信仰團體的根基。為使信仰與理性協調，開放坦誠的交談是神學家之間與教會之間必要的元素。
作者評論，神學方法要配合一個社會的環境與文化的需要方可，否則便流於玄虛的境域中，使人摸不著頭腦。故今天做神學，必須與其他學科 ── 如哲學、史學、數學、自然科學及藝術同時邁進，因這樣才可以提高人類對真、善、美的理解力，明白天主啟示的奧秘(GS57)。在哲學層面，多瑪斯為天主教神學留下一個根基，我們要承認古代哲學對神學的重要性。27而信仰與科學的交談對話使兩者更互利互惠，28作者引用若望保祿二世在1988年6月1日的訓言：宗教與科學並沒存有衝突，兩者的互相補足，可加強後批判神學的透視力。我認為杜勒斯的理論頗中肯。
在二十世紀的末葉，學術自由與尊重是很重要的，透過神學家與其他學者的交談，其實更有助神學活潑的發展。教會既為服務人類(GS3)，那麼就應該把基督福音與人類文化有所聯繫(GS58)及調和不同文化(GS59)，讓人可以自由探索真理、自由研究與自由宣傳己見。但神學家與信徒也要對教導當局有高度的尊重才是。
作者在最後一章論及當代做神學，是要邁向合一神學(Ecumenical Theology)。合一神學要求天主子民在「信、望、愛」中團結，其實此三超德也在教會以外的人們身上看見，29教會以外的人類也可以分沾天主救恩計劃，因為耶穌基督交出自己的性命，是為大眾作贖價(谷10:45)。
合一神學的基礎，是要宗教交談，這樣才可以令教會更新(UR6,9)。教會之外實存有救恩，與不同宗教交談，更豐富神學，刺激教會內信徒的反省，使他們更明白天主的超驗奧秘。
作者所贊同的合一神學，是梵二所認可的交談方法，牧者與信徒要一致的，按天主的旨意行基督化生活(UR5)。大公主義的精神要基督徒聯合祈禱，為教會合一作證(UR8)。在交談中，天主教神學家要遵循教會的訓示，與分離的弟兄們探討天主的奧秘(UR11)，在愛德內，摒棄敵對成見(UR18)，使所有追隨基督的信徒，能融入基督的教會內(UR24)。
作者評論，宗教交談與互相尊重在後批判神學是極之重要，因為這樣才能刺激神學的反省。作者極力的推崇合一神學的方法，是先由追隨基督的信友做起，在愛德的共融下，把耶穌基督的福音展示在人類世界內，使人人有機會認識天國的喜訊，皈依天主。然後再與其他宗教交談，因為他深信天主救恩普及全人類。為此他對甘衛(W. Cantwell Smith)的世界神學(World Theology)雖表示同意，認為信仰可以在非基督徒身上存在，但對世界神學的看法卻有所保留。30他也欣賞漢斯龔(H. Küng)的宗教交談(inter-religious dialogue)，但卻不擁護他的中性神學(Neutral Theology)。
現今神學有其合一性時刻 ── 就是透過交談、對話，雖然其中有困難、有彰礙，但作者深信真誠的內心皈依(UR7)、聯合祈禱(UR8)、彼此認識(UR23)，合一神學定可以在後批判神學大放異彩，邁向圓滿的境界。
在後批判領域中，多元文化影響著神學的發展，為此作者強調要重建一個更廣闊的講道團體，故此，公開討論是重要的，因為透過交談，幫助信徒去判斷、去偵察，探求真理。教會既然為基督的身體，做神學的人，其首先責任要為教會服務，教會所保存的三種信仰寶庫 ── 聖經、聖傳和教會訓導，是神學方法的重要元素，是神學家必須尊重的。神學家可以以不同方式去研究其神學工作的專長，訂立不同的神學假設，但必須為教會服務，建立神學成為一共同事業。
我欣賞杜勒斯那種堅持神學要反省，以生活作見證的方法態度，他認為交談對話是有效的通傳媒介，因為它使信徒更易投入信仰的見證內。他以平和態度提供後批判神學的方向，除注意交談對話外，一定要尊重教會所保存的傳統，以古證今，才可以迎接未來。信友在愛德共融下，以聖經、聖傳及教會訓導作神學方法的元素，更配合開放坦誠的交談，邁向教會的合一，神學才可有健康的發展。
縮略語
LG = Lumen Gentium 《教會憲章》
DV = Dei Verbum 《天主啟示教義憲章》
GS = Gaudium et Spes 《論教會在現代世界牧職憲章》
UR = Unitatis Redintegrato 《大公主義法令》
GE = Gravissimum Educationis 《天主教教育宣言》
註釋
1. DULLESs
Avery, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (New York:
Crossroad 1992) vii: At Vatican II (1962-65) a certain number of
theological opinions that had previously been suspect seemed
to win official endorsement. This shift contributed to a new theological climate
in which novelty was not only tolerated but glorified. Many took it for granted
that the heterodoxy of today would become the orthodoxy of tomorrow. To be a
leader, then, was to venture onto new and dangerous territory, and to say what
no Catholic theologian had yet dared to say. Abetted by journalists craving for
headlines and publishers eager to market their latest wares, certain
"progressive" theologians have been outdoing one another in
originality . Practically every doctrine that had been constitutive of Catholic
orthodoxy has been contested by some prominent author. Papal infallibility, the
Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, the virginal conception
of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity
itself were either denied or radically reinterpreted to mean what they had never
before been thought to mean.
2. 參閱同上 viii: Today, however, we are faced by the opposite problem. The different theological schools have drifted so far apart that what seems false and dangerous to one school seems almost self-evident to another. Theologians lack a common language, common goals, and common norms. Civil argument has ceased to function, and in its absence opposing parties seek to discredit one another by impugning the motives or competence of their adversaries.
3. 參閱O'DONOVAN L. J., Book Review of The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System in Theologlcal Studies, Vol.54, No.4 (Dec. 1993) 759-761 . WOOD S., Book Review of The Craft of Theologly From Symbol to System in Review of Religions, Vol.52, No.4 (July-August 1993) 629-630.
4.
DULLES: (l) Toward a Postcritical
Theology
(2)
Theology and Symbolic Communication
(3) The
Problem of Method: From Scholasticism to Models
(4)
Fundamental Theology and the Dynamics of Conversion
(5) The
Uses of Scripture in Theology
(6)
Tradition as a Theological Source
(7) The
Magisterium and Theological Dissent
(8)
Theology and Philosophy
(9)
Theology and the Physical Sciences
(10)
University Theology in Service to the Church
(11)
The Teaching Mission other Church and Academic Freedom
(l2)
Method in Ecumenical Theology
5. 參閱同上4-5: Paracritical theology claims, "Theology dictates of religious feelings. The dichotomy between scientific and religious discourse, having received its philosophical charter from Immanuel Kant" " Countercritical theology insisted strongly on miracles as evidential signs, reached its culmination in early twentieth-century apologetics, both Protestant and Catholic"
6. 參閱同上7: Postcritical theology, as I use the term, begins with a presupposition of prejudice in favor of faith. Its fundamental attitude is a hermeneutics of trust, not of suspicion. Its purpose is constructive, not destructive. This is not to deny that people are entitled to doubt what they have reason to regard as false or unfounded. The doubter can be a serious thinker, candidly examining the claims made for religion. But theology, as commonly understood, is the kind of inquiry that takes place from with a religious commitment. drawing on the convictions instilled by faith, the theologian uses them as resources for the proper task to theology, which is the understanding of faith.
7. 參閱同上9: Postcritical theology gives new vitality to classical thological loci such as the "sense of the faithful". Johann Adam Mohler maintained that the Holy Spirit had imprinted on the Church "a peculiarly Christian tact, a deep sure-guiding feeling" that leads it into all truth.
8. 參閱同上14: Not least among the merits of postritical theology, in my view, is its ability to maintain a dynamic equilibrium between continuity and innovation.
10. 參閱同上viii: For the better health of theology I believe that its ecclesial character needs to more clearly recognized. Theology must serve the Church and be accountable to it.
11. 參閱同上8-9: Liturgy has regularly been recognized as a prime theological source and it is securely established in this role by postcritical theology. The rule of prayer, as the axiom has it, establishes the rule of belief. The liturgy and the sense of the faithful are particular forms of tradition, which is likewise reckoned among the sources of theology.
12.
參閱同上50-52:
(l) Some contend that concept of models, taken from the physical and
behavioral sciences, is inappropriate for theology.
(2) the method involves an unfair pigeon-holing of theologians.
(3) by paying respect to a plurality of mutually incompatible models one falls
into relativism and agnosticism.
(4) method of models is booklish and increative.
(5) the method is impugned on the ground that it stops short of being truly
systematic .
13.
參閱同上
8: Theology is the methodical effort to articulate the truth implied in
Christian faith, the faith of the Church... the method depends on a kind of
connoisseurship derived from personal appropriation of the living faith of the
Church. The meaning of the Christian Symbols is learned as an an acquired
through familiarity in the community...
52: the method of models is helpful not only for mediating between different theological systems but for analyzing the inner tensions within a single approach through models and the practice of systematic theology.
14.
參閱同上21:
symbol in relation to revelation and doctrine have considerable
importance for one's understanding of the relationship between communications
and theology.
15. 參閱同上17-21: George Lindbeck discusses three styles of theology: the propositionaliste-cognitive' the experiential-expressive, the cultural-1inguistic.
16. 參閱同上 18: instead of cultural-linguistics I shall call it ecclesial-transformative.
17. 參閱同上vii-ix: While theology needs to have a measure of autonomv in order to perform its distinctive service, it loses its identity if it ceases to be a reflection on the faith of the Church.
18. 參閱 MUELLER, J. J. What are they saying about Theology Method? (Ramsey: Paulist 1984)
19. 參閱 DULLES, O. C. 71-85.
20. 參閱同上 89: Trent held that the authority of tradition was not less than that of Scripture. Both, coming from God, had divine authority Asserting that Scripture and tradition are to be received with equal reverence (DS l 501), the council took over an expression of Basil the Great.
21.
參閱同上 94-98:
(1) Tradition and traditions
(2) The means of transmission
(3) Development
(4) The relation between Scripture and tradition
(5) The problem of distorting tradition
(6) Tradition and magisterium
22. 參閱同上 103-104: Toward a Catholic Consensus:
1. Tradition aroused and continuously sustained in the Church by the Holy Spirit.
2. Tradition is grasped through familiarity or participation as a result of dwelling within the Church
3 . Monuments of tradition serve to sharpen the community's sense of the faith.
4.
Tradition, as a sense of the faith, provides an element of continuity in
the
development of Christian doctrine.
5. Tradition is 'divine', aroused and sustained by God; it is 'apostolic', it is living, it remains contemporary with every generation.
6. Tradition is of equal dignity with Scripture.
7.
The Church drew on tradition as a resource for recognizing the canonical
Scriptures...
8. Divine tradition gives rise to a variety of human traditions that mediate it to particular groups at particular times and places.
9. Human traditions needed to make divine tradition concrete and tangible...
10. The ecclesiastical magisterium, making use of Scripture and tradition.
23. 參閱同上 91: The Jesuits of the Roman school, who were close collaborators with the Holy See, emphasized the role of the magisterium not only in safeguarding the ancient faith against corruptions but in developing the explicit content of faith. They promoted the definition of the Immaculate Conception (l854) and the ogmas of Vatican I concerning papal primacy and infallibility (1870) These theologians (notably J. B. Franzelin and L. Billot) distinguished between "active tradition" and "passive tradition". For them, the role of the magisterium, as the bearer of "active tradition", was not simply to authenticate what was believed by the faithful as a body, but to clarify and explicate the contents of faith. The "passive tradition" borne by the faithful as a body was simply a reflection of what had been taught by the magisterium.
24.
參閱同上 106-107: These various
statements agree in recognizing the relative
autonomy of the hierarchical magisterium and the theologians in the performance
of their specific tasks. The official teachers and the theologians use different
metnods and have different goals. The magisterium, which is charged with
authoritatively formulating and safeguarding the faith of the Church, does not
have to establish its positions by strict theological reasoning. Theologians,
whose essential task is to understand and explain, cannot be content to appeal to
the authority of popes and bishops.
25.
參閱同上 107-108: Those who speak on behalf of
the universal Church must be
sensitive to the variety of situations and cultures in
different parts of the world. At times statements are read in a context other
than that
of the authors and are taken as referring to problems that were not envisaged.
Sometimes, also, concise and objective doctrinal statements, especially as excerpted
by the news media, give an impression of abruptness and pastoral insensitivity.
Advance consultation with episcopal conferences can be, and has often proved to
be, of assistance in finding palatable formulations or permitting the
preparation of
timely explanations.
26. 參閱同上 127: The intent of Pope John XXIII and of the fathers at Vatican II that Catholic theology should be revitalized by contact with new and more modern philosophical sources has been successfully achieved in the past twenty-five years.
27. 參閱同上 127: The directives of Vatican II quoted above seem to make it clear that the council was recommending that theology be based on the perennially valid philosophical heritage that comes down through Thomas Aquinas.
28. 參閱同上 146: The dialogue between faith and science can produce palpable benefits to both.
29. 參閱同上 179: As late as a few decades ago, Catholics frequently spoke as though faith did not exist beyond the confines of their own Church, but today they generally recognize that divine and salvific faith exists among members of other Christian communities, among adherents of non-Christian religions, and even among people who are not formally religious. The Second Vatican Council, in several important texts, encouraged this new tendency. In its Decree on Ecumenism it stated that faith, hopes and charity "can exist out-side the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church."1 In its Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity it declared that "God, in ways known to himself, can lead people who through no fault of their own are ignorant of the gospels to that faith without which it is impossible to please him."2 Since the council, Catholics such as Raimundo Panikkar have argued that faith is a "constitutive dimension of man,"3 while Protestants such as Wilfred Cantwell Smith contend that faith is "generically human" and "constitutive of man as human"4
30.
參閱同上 181-182: In recent years
Wilfred Cantwell Smith, a scholar with
exceptional competence in Islam and other living faiths, has set forth a very
ambitious proposal for what he calls a "world theology" Such a
theology, he
maintains, "will not displace but subsume its
erst-wllile sectional parts", that is, the particular theologies of the distinct
religions.8 In
this new theology, as he envisages it, there should no longer be any talk of
"we" and "they"; no barrier should stand between insiders and
outsiders. Adherents of different
religions will strive to speak about their own faith only in ways that members
of other religious communities "can rationally approve of (or, at the very least,
rationally understand)".9
I can agree with Smith up to a point. With him I would hold that faith can exist among people who are not Christian, and indeed among those who have never had historical contact with biblical religions. The Christian theologian should listen empathetically to what such people say about their own religious life, and seek to discern how their statements are rooted in their own experience and history. Conversely, Christians should strive to set forth their own faith in such a way that well-disposed members of other communities might be able to make sense of it. But I would express reservations about the claims of any common "world theology" to subsume or supersede the specific content of each particular religions. Christians, since they believe in the three-personed God and in Jesus Christ as the incarnation of the second divine person, will not be content to do theology as thoug the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were not true. I see no reason for forbidding Christians to mention aspects of their own faith that cannot be "rationally approved" apart from Christian revelation. Based on God's special revelation in Christ, Christian theology continues to differ from that of all other religions. No one could admit the truth of the Trinity or the Incarnation (with the meaning these doctrines have for Christian) without being convened to Christianity.
My difference with Smith is rooted in his concept of faith. For Christians of the classical tradition, faith and belief are correlatives, if not synonyms. To have faith is always to believe something as well as someone. Responding to Smith's interpretation of Thomas Aquinas, Frederick Crosson shows that for the Angelic Doctor faith necessarily involved a content, a material object which was communicables at least in some measure, by teaching or doctrine.12 For Catholics (ands I would think, for most Protestants) faith continues to have a definite content. In the Christian act of faith Jesus Christ plays an indispensable role. Jesus, moreover, is believed and confessed to be the Son of God, the risen Savior, according to the Scriptures and the creeds. This doctrinal content, inseparable from Christian faith, cannot be subsumed or left behind in some new "world theology".
網頁製作：聖神修院神哲學院