駁「吳主光的錯誤」一文

 

「他[吳主光]在一篇題目為《中國傳統佛教和基督教的比較》的書裡面,故意曲解佛教教義,又有計劃地把正信佛教與民間信仰混為一談,硬把敬拜關公、黃大仙等列入為佛教當中。」

 

回應:

有誰不知現在的佛教摻雜著許多民間的傳說在當中!你想現在的佛教還是釋迦牟尼開創的時候一樣?你找一本釋迦牟尼的著作有提及「觀音」給我看看。但現在佛教徒有沒有拜觀音?佛教沒有摻雜民間的傳說?

 

「吳主光在他最近一篇文章說,天主教(他口中的異端)形成的其中一個過程,就是「主後330年,開始劃十字」。吳主光把「劃十字」手勢視為「異端」,他自己知道不知道他是在干犯基督的記號(十字架)和記號所代表的三位一體真神?知道不知道他這是褻瀆的行為? 」

 

回應:

吳主光何時說過「劃十字」就是異端?他說天主教這個異端在「主後330年,開始劃十字」。「劃十字」全無聖經根據,天主教真愛將無聖經根據變成迷信的教條!

 

「而且,他連年代也弄錯了,早在一世紀前,特土良Tertullian就記載了,writing in 211 AD (almost a century earlier!): "We furrow our foreheads with the sign [of the cross]." (De Corona 3,2) 」

 

回應:

中文理解力實在太差,吳主光說天主教「主後330年,開始劃十字」,不是說之前沒有人「劃十字」。特土良是天主教的嗎?看看教會歷史吧,不要繼續無知了。

 

「吳主光指,天主教於主後998年設立齋戒,復活節前的四旨齋,降臨節和星期五齋戒禮儀,是不合聖經。看聖經,保羅、耶穌也有禁食,而且,在教會早期文獻,約主後120年的《十二使徒遺訓》(Didache),也記載了齋戒的傳統,而不是主後998年才有的。法利賽人每週禁食的傳統,為部分教會接納,只是由週一及週四,改為週三及週五,好與耶穌受難日配合,此做法還記錄在《十二使徒遺訓》(約成於主後100年)。 」

 

回應:

有誰不知道998年前就有禁食這回事?舊約時代已經有禁食啦,駛你教?吳主光是說天主教將禁食變成一種賺取功德的教條。本來禁食禱告是一件美事,是人自發性的表現,用禁食的方式來專心禱告,但天主教竟然將禁食變成規條,目的是用來賺功德,這就是異端的所為。

 

「吳主光又指,天主教會在主後600年用拉丁文來崇拜也是一條罪。羅馬人普遍的母語,就是 Latin,用他們的母語崇拜是錯的嗎?如果按吳主光的邏輯,香港好多教會,無論講廣東話、潮語、國語、英語的崇拜,是否不合乎聖經?耶柔米 (St. Jerome)在主後383年把聖經編輯、翻譯為拉丁文的“武加大版本(Vulgate),Vulgate的字根vulgata 的意思正是是"Popular"(普及),耶柔米是用當時羅馬帝國普及的語文(拉丁文)。天主教整個世界,並沒有硬性用拉丁文崇拜。 」

 

回應:

用母語崇拜不是錯,硬性規定用自己的母語,卻禁止其他人用他們的母語來崇拜,甚至要將這些人處死,這就是罪大惡極。我們看教會歷史,天主教在宗教黑暗時期的確不准其他國家用自己的母語翻譯聖經,若不聽從者就是處死。英國的丁道爾,將拉丁文聖經翻譯成英文,讓自己國人可以明白聖經,竟然遭到天主教追殺,最後終於被捉及處死。請問這是不是異端的行為?

 

「吳主光指天主教在1546年把次經(deutuerocanonical books / apocrypha)再加入聖經。其實,反天主教派言論部份的謬誤,因由在於反天主教者他們的歷史。反天主教者主要來自北美洲的小群教會基督教徒。當年宗教改革時代,歐洲局勢惡劣,逃避宗教戰爭壓迫的人到了北美洲建立他們的小群教會。他們手上只得有限數目的書籍、經卷、文獻,完全沒有歐洲大陸保存的早期教會歷史文獻、大公會議、原文聖經,所以他們對歐洲教會,特別天主教的歷史是很片面,甚至一片空白的。好多人,好像很多初信的都以為,聖經(今日舊約39卷、新約27卷)是初期教會已經有的,更加斷言,天主教會是在十六世紀的脫利騰大公會議(Council of Trent)才把「次經」(deutuerocanonical books / apocrypha)加入。他們也斷言,初期教會的舊約和我們今日的舊約是一樣的。無論如何,反天主教者這條「把次經加入聖經」的罪名,在歷史事實上的立足點非常薄弱。 」

 

回應:

奇怪,天主教竟然會承認「把次經加入聖經」是罪!誰將這個罪名按給天主教?是你們自己自作主張將次經加入正典,你們是罪魁禍首。難道你們不承認?吳主光只是將天主教正式將次經入聖經的日子指明出來吧了。至於次經是否真的是神的默示,真正有神生命的都知道,次經的內容是有極大的錯謬及與正典有矛盾的,所以基督徒絕不會接受次經,只有天主教會接受,因為次經中有煉獄的道理。

 

「吳主光曲解天主教關於聖餐的教導。首先,他在他的文章說引用BALTIMORE 的第三次大公會議所修訂 的第二號要理問答(ROMAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM NO.2 以下簡稱RCC )﹕

  關於「彌撒」  RCC

問:甚麼是彌撒?    

答:彌撒是將基督的身體和血獻為無血祭。    

問:彌撒所獻的祭,是否與基督在十字架上所獻的祭相同?    

答:彌撒所獻的祭,與基督在十字架上所獻的祭相同。

 

然後他就大造文章話天主教彌撒如何不對。其實,RCC的原文答問,不止以上兩條對答,吳主光擺明欺人地不會去真的找原文看。

全文如下﹕

262.

Q. When and where are the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ?

A. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the Consecration in the Mass. 263.

Q. What is the Mass?

A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. 264.

Q. What is a sacrifice?

A. A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.

265.

Q. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?

A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.

266.

Q. How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?

A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same-Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.

(吳主光只引用到這裡)

但是以下卻是天主教重要的觀點﹕

267.

Q. What were the ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered?

A. The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were: To honor and glorify God; To thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world; To satisfy God's justice for the sins of men; To obtain all graces and blessings.

268.

Q. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass? (問﹕在十字架上的犧牲和在彌撒裡面的祭有分別嗎?)

A. Yes; the manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the Cross Christ really shed His blood and was really slain; in the Mass there is no real shedding of blood nor real death, because Christ can die no more; but the sacrifice of the Mass, through the separate consecration of the bread and the wine, represents His death on the Cross. (答﹕有。形式上不同。在十字架上耶穌基督確實流血、確實被殺、死了。在彌撒裡面,基督是沒有流血、也沒有被殺、祂也沒有再死,因為基督已經不會再死了(Christ can die no more)。彌撒的祭,在祝福把餅和酒分別為聖後,就代表了基督在十字架上面的死。 )

269.

Q. How should we assist at Mass?

A. We should assist at Mass with great interior recollection and piety and with every outward mark of respect and devotion.

270.

Q. Which is the best manner of hearing Mass?

A. The best manner of hearing Mass is to offer it to God with the priest for the same purpose for which it is said, to meditate on Christ's sufferings and death, and to go to Holy Communion. 」

 

回應:
請看看以下天主教官方的資料:
“In an unbloody representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross and in application of its saving power, in the Sacrifice of the Mass the Lord is IMMOLATED when, through the words of consecration, He begins to be present in a sacramental form under the appearances of bread and wine to become the spiritual food of the faithful.” (Mysterium Fidei on the Holy Eucharist by Pope Paul VI)

 

“The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an unbloody IMMOLATION offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross.” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, no. 79)

 

請問immolated, immolation何解?讓我們一同查考字典:
Main Entry: im•mo•late
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat•ed; -lat•ing
1 : to offer in sacrifice; especially : to kill as a sacrificial victim
2 : to kill or destroy often by fire
im•mo•late [qmm ljyt ] (past im•mo•lat•ed, past participle im•mo•lat•ed, present participle im•mo•lat•ing, 3rd person present singular im•mo•lates) transitive verb
kill as a sacrifice: to kill a person or an animal, for example, as a ritual sacrifice, or to commit suicide as a protest, especially by burning (formal)
請問kill是否被殺的意思?

 

「因為在彌撒獻祭中,我們的主也被殺了。只不過『他為信徒的需要而以一種屬靈糧食的形式存在於餅和酒中。』」(梵二 “Sacred Liturgy,” “Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery,” no. 36;qouting Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei.)


「這樣,獻在祭壇上那個叫人感到可畏的犧牲祭,並不是空泛地記念耶穌基督的死和愛,而是一個真實而合適的犧牲行動。因此,我們的大祭司藉著這樣『不流血被殺』將自己獻與父神,成為最蒙神悅納的『犧牲者』,正如他在十字架上犧牲一樣。」(Mediator Dei)


「在彌撒當中,吾主耶穌自為司祭,將祂的聖身寶血,隱藏在餅酒形內,當作祭品,獻與天主聖父,這樣重行了十字架上的獻祭。」天主教會理問答


“The Mass is the Great Sacrifice, because in the Mass our Lord Jesus Christ Himself as Priest offers to God the Father in sacrifice His Sacred Body and Precious Blood, hidden under the appearances of bread and wine, and thus CONTINUES the Sacrifice of the Cross.” Catechism of Catholic Doctrine.

 

以上天主教的文獻足以證明天主教的彌撒是何等錯謬的道理。每次彌撒主要「被殺」「被獻祭」「犧牲」,寫得清清楚楚。閣下卻要死撐。最可笑閣下連簡單的中文文法都不顧,竟然說「重行」是「紀念」的意思。誰知看看英文版本,「重行」的英文是continues,即是繼續。若你又想狡辯說continues有紀念的意思。

 

「因為在彌撒當中,吾主耶穌自為司祭,將祂的聖身寶血,隱藏在餅酒形內,當作祭品,獻與天主聖父,這樣『重行』了十字架上的獻祭。」


我已經在前文中指出按正常的理解就是「重覆行一次」,並見議閣下應該改掉「重行」一字,但你竟然執迷不悟,硬說重行是紀念的意思。重行與紀念的意思相差何止十萬八千里,你現在想欺騙細路?將紀念譯成重行,這是甚麼中文文法?若我是中文老師我一定給不合格!另外,原來天主教教理不能以字面去解釋。那你不如一次過話俾我及各位讀者聽,那些教理是要用「另類」解釋法去解,因為原來「重行」可以是「紀念」的意思!實在太奇妙了!閣下對天主教教理的理解顯然與天主教官方的解釋不同。再看看以下資料:TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1). 你則說在彌撒中主不是真正的犧牲,是紀念而已。TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS接著又說: "If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3). 你則說彌撒只是紀念主釘十字架,並沒有代贖的功用。究竟我信你,還是信天主教官方的文件?到底我們要否需要受咒詛?

 

[回到目錄]