圣餐神学必读:《奥斯堡信条辩护论》第十章中译本

各位弟兄姐妹平安。学习路德宗的圣餐神学,《奥斯堡信条辩护论》第十章是“必修课”。由于众所周知的原因,网络上相关的中文资源很少;而已有的译本,我个人有诸多不满意之处。“孤不度德量力,欲信大义于天下”,试译如下,仅供不寐之夜读者参考。文中有歧义之处,我将德文原文列出来,并将常见的英译一并列出, 以便查考。同时建议大家重读F. Pieper在Christian Dogmatics第三册中关于圣餐的相关论述(p.290-393-)。在这篇译文之后,有两篇附录。第一篇简要介绍与路德圣餐神学并行、并影响中国教会的四种主要思潮;第二篇简要介绍路德教会圣餐常用的赞美诗。另外,我们的圣餐神学系列课程第一课讲章将于10月份第二周正式刊发于不寐之夜,因为从下周一直到十月第一周,我基本上要在美国和加拿大之间往返,其中有一次到神学院,参加“圣餐神学”的“集训课程”;另外一次到弗罗里达参加路德教区的牧者年会,届时进一步讨论开设CSMP项目的可能性。不过这三周时间不会耽搁主日证道;若有可能,期间也会编发一次“问答与回应”。请大家为我的身体和侍奉祷告,主必同在。阿门。(任不寐,2014年9月10日)

The Defense of the Augsburg Confession  奥斯堡信条辩护论

Article X: Of the Holy Supper 第十章、论圣餐

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered(distributed; exibere, offered), with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.

第十章已然得到证明,在其中我们宣认,我们相信在圣餐中,基督的身体和血真正而实质地临在,并且真的与可见的饼和酒一同赐予了领此圣礼之人。

This belief we constantly defend , as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body (a sharing in the body of Christ), etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ.

经过周緻检讨和考量,我们恒切为此信条辩护。因为保罗在哥林多前书10:16说到,这饼与基督的身体同被领受(译注:哥林多前书10:16我们所祝福的杯,岂不是同领基督的血吗?我们所掰开的饼,岂不是同领基督的身体吗),等等。由此可见,如果主的身体没有真实临在,这饼就不是与基督的身体同被领受,而是仅仅和基督的灵同被领受。

And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but  is truly changed into flesh.

而且我们已经确证,不仅罗马教会承认基督身体临在,而且希腊教会从古迄今一直这样认信。因为他们使用的弥撒程序证明了这一点,其中神甫如此清楚地祷告,饼被改变并且成为基督身体。而且Vulgarius——在我们看来他并非是一位愚昧的作者——清楚地宣称:饼绝非仅仅是一个喻像,而是真的变成了肉身。

And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, but also by natural participation……

赛里尔(译注:Cyril of Alexandria,Κύριλλος Ἀλεξανδρείας,c. 376 – 444)注释约翰福音15章时教导说,在圣餐中,基督以肉身赐给我们。因为他这样说:“尽管如此,我们并不否认,靠着真正的信心和无伪的爱心,我们在灵性上与基督联合。但是,我们的确完全否认,我们没有以任何方式在身体上与祂连接。而且,我们认为,这一派观点完全悖离圣经。因为是谁已经同样质疑:基督是葡萄树而我们是枝子,叫我们从祂那里得生命呢?请听保罗在哥林多前书10:17、罗马书12:1和加拉太书3:28中怎样说:‘我们在基督里是一个身体;我们虽多,但是我们这许多人在基督里成为一身,因为我们都是分受这一个饼’。难道保罗以为我们对这一奥秘福祉的价值是无知的吗?既然这在我们里面,那么不也说明:藉着同领基督的身体,叫基督身体住在我们里面吗?”稍后他写道,“因此我们必须认为,基督住在我们里面不仅仅是根据我们说的爱的能力,而且是借着身体共享……”

We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine.

我们如此引证,并非要在这里旧话重提再启争端——因为神的至尊权能不会否认这一信条——而是为了所有读到这些文字的人能更为清楚地看见,我们所辩护的教义为普世教会所接收;在圣餐中,基督的身体和血真正而实质地临在,并且真的与可见的饼和酒一同赐下。
And we speak of the presence of the living Christ; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom(6:9).

而且我们传扬永生基督的临在,因为我们知道死也不再作他的主了(罗马书6:9)。

附录一、圣餐神学仍在巴比伦

从路德《教会被掳于巴比伦》和Martin Chemnizt的De coena Domini,到协同书,都谈到了路德教会所反对的各种极端和异端的圣餐神学。但这些经典著述主要争论的对象是罗马天主教;然而持续搅扰主的餐桌的,一直后继有人,而且从近代到当代,污泥浊水开始东西合流。

路德在《教会被掳于巴比伦》一文中,在清理罗马天主教圣礼神学的过程中,对圣餐礼投入了最多的精力和情绪。首先,路德否认约翰福音第6章是论述圣餐礼的。然后指出福音书的相关经文和哥林多前书11章才是圣餐的圣经根据。接下来路德重点辩论的议题是“杯的普遍性”(圣餐的第一种奴役)、“化质说”(圣餐的第二种奴役)、“善工论”(圣餐的第三种奴役)——他的重要领受是:“这圣礼是爱的泉源”。F. Pieper所面对的形势就复杂得多;不过他在继续批判天主教圣餐神学的同时,将加尔文主义视为主要论敌。

不过到了我们这个世代,我们所面对的局势更为复杂,不仅天主教和改革宗更加机变百出,而且世俗化运动和“东方主义”全面入侵教会。大体上说,今天圣餐神学主要面临四种人本主义神学。

1、加尔文与理性主义

与一知半解的中国“神甫”们的流言相反,加尔文本人在Inst, IV17:20以及Consensus Tigurinus中对路德教会圣餐神学都充满了露骨的毁谤。在《基督教要义》第四卷17章20节,加尔文首先毫不绅士地攻击“那些承认圣餐中的饼仍然是饼,可是坚持它是与基督的真身体并存的人”;这个“愚笨顽固的人在字义上激烈的争辩”之后加尔文代表上帝宣告审判:“那么主张一种脆弱必朽的东西不是表象,而是基督,乃是犯了不可容忍的亵渎罪”。最后加尔文宣布:“倘若他们拒绝这一点,他们不是同我争执,乃是同上帝的灵争执”。中国教会对加尔文的Consennus Tigurinus(1549)仍然缺乏了解。这是加尔文主导之下,与瑞士教会领袖Henry Bullinger达成的共识,这份共识影响了很多非传统教会的圣餐礼仪。这是一份邪恶的文件,不仅仅是理性主义神学的范本,而且更是理性主义缺陷的范本。加尔文及其信徒们的“理性自负”中,总是暴露出这种致命的逻辑残缺:人不借着圣餐也可以领受救恩和圣灵;正如十字架上的强盗不藉着洗礼也可以得救。加尔文没有说错,但却错了。这种神学逻辑类似这种悲剧:摘除一个肾也不影响一个人的正常生活;但是,上帝造人的时候,造了两个肾。“卖肾神学”可以深刻地揭示改革宗神学的全部缺陷。正是从这里出发,圣道和圣礼不断“也可以偏废”,而升天的基督离教会越来越远。

2、灵恩派与敬虔主义

我们不需要花费太多时间讨论敬虔主义和灵恩运动。不过值得强调的是,他们代表人本主义神学情感的一面,与改革宗代表人本主义神学理性的一面正好对观。二者之间的不共戴天乃是因为身在庐山;实际上,双方的逻辑方向都与启示真理针锋相对。不仅如此,灵恩运动更生动地否定了圣餐礼以及圣礼乃是Divine  Service,即上帝服侍我们;更无知无畏地活跃在这种教会生活中:我们崇拜上帝;圣礼是从我面向上帝的情感表达。毫无疑问,大多数灵恩教会的平信徒,根本没有这种认知能力和问题意识。他们从未从Divine  Service的角度,即神本主义的角度思考过问题。敬虔主义在教会崇拜中极力追求“我经历神”,实际上是经历了自己。我同意有路德神学家将之定义为巴力主义(Baalism,我想象我在崇拜上帝并经历祂)和新巴力主义(失望阶段:从圣礼中我什么也没有得到)。信仰对他们来说只是feeling,而Divine Service变成了worship experience.这些弱智之徒总是以“我是否很感动”来论断一场主日崇拜和圣餐礼仪,不惜攻击LSB有法利赛的嫌疑。实际上他们完全不明白,圣礼与你是否感动没有关系,正如吃饭,乃是生存必须。上帝喂养你,不需要考虑你“吃”得是否热泪盈眶,汗流浃背;而是出于神的大爱,神知道只有这样按部就班的喂养你,你才能长大成人。巴力主义类似萨满教,相当一部分中国基督徒,特别是自以为属灵者,尤其其中属灵吃人者,都是邪教徒。手舞足蹈着的人,在中国教会,黑人教会和韩国教会以及福音大会上都琳琅满目。

3、天主教与行为主义

今天的天主教与路德时代的天主教已经发生了很多变化,尽管教皇仍在。认识当代天主教的弥撒神学,需要知道当代天主教的圣礼运动(The Liturgical Movement)。这场圣礼运动有两个重要文献。第一、梵蒂冈第二次大公会议礼仪宪章(Sacrosanctum Concilium)——天主教教会领袖们以2,147票对4票的绝对优势通过了这份文件,教宗Paul VI 于1963年1月4日正式发布。这份文件重塑了天主教的圣礼仪式和圣餐神学,并对主要新教教派都产生了相当的影响。这份文件的主要问题不仅仅是过于职业化,继续让神职人员独断弥撒的权力;更重要的是,这是对人本主义崇拜神学的总结。主日聚会和圣礼,不是上帝的行动,而是人的行动,教会行动,是人崇拜上帝: the work of the Church,  the ritual action of the people—Liturgy as a human service  offered to God by his people that they might receive from him what they desire and need that he should give. 进一步的变化与一位圣公会的主教有关。Gregory Dix OSB (4 October 1901 – 12 May 1952)辛苦考查圣经和传统,于1954年发表了他的名著 The Shape of the Liturg。Dix强调教会在圣餐礼上忽视了一个重要问题,就是耶稣的7个或4个主要行动:Offertory, Consecration, Fraction, Communion。从他开始,包括天主教在内,肢体语言进一步取代施恩之具,成为圣礼的注意重心。

4、后现代与东方主义

现代社会对教会来说,代表性的事件就是普世宣教运动。普世宣教运动有两个致命的缺陷,就是圣坛边缘化,圣职平民化。可想而知,这两方面的问题必然导致圣餐的衰败和废弃。实际上,教会增长与袪圣礼化在很多教会中是同义语。不仅如此,当福音进入东方和非洲,又随着全球化的进程,东方的“心学”和非洲的“体育”,逐渐以后现代的名义,与其他人本主义神学苟合行淫。这场属灵的淫乱进一步败坏了主的餐桌。东方哲学普遍一致的思想是“自由心证”、“我心即佛”。而Zen Buddhism集为大成,实为国学精髓。这些思想首先造就一批妖人(中印)或鬼子(日韩)——希腊神学中神是更邪恶的人;东方宗教中,人是四不像的假神。其次,假神的目标是脱离形式的桎梏;或者靠不拘一格,庄周梦蝶,神灵附体而自我确证。experiencing God within you,那么,圣礼只是“世间法”,“高人”应该谈笑间圣餐灰飞烟灭。更进一步说,假神必须在圣礼之外经历绝对的自由,或者宣称自己因此比你们基督徒,比你们恪守圣餐礼仪的基督徒,更加拥有绝对的自由和真正的属灵。最后,这不是一位假神,而是人人可以为神——诸神(polytheism)让公共崇拜变得毫无可能,更让一个身体、一个饼、同饮一杯的圣餐变得毫无意义。同时,心灵之神和多元神灵,这些东方假神全部与赦罪无关,只关切利害、能力、特权(我和神灵的特别关系)、以及个体“臭美”(审美);东方实用主义态度进一步否决了圣餐中的赦罪和救恩的超验真理。

路德的一个基本思想是:真正的教会成长和福音兴旺只是在圣道和圣礼或施恩之具之上才是可能的。”Renewal happens when pastors, teachers,  musicians, Parish workers,  indeed, the whole people of God stay focused on the basics of the faith: the preaching of the cross set within the rhythm of the year of grace; the weekly hearing of Law and gospel;  and the celebration of the Holy Supper.  God has used these means of grace to sustain the church throughout the ages, regardless of complication or circumstance. We do well to remain devoted to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42. Whenever and wherever Christians are committed to doing that, God grants growth in grace and in numbers as well”. 教会圣餐的衰败首先是对圣经启示的“人论”的颠覆:人与动物的区别在于,动物不需要崇拜礼仪,但人需要崇拜上帝,并在神所赐予的圣礼中崇拜——方舟出来,是挪亚建坛崇拜,但狼和狐狸“自由心证”。其次,这场衰败根源于对圣经启示的神论的颠覆——上帝借着自己设立的圣道和圣礼真实临在。因此我们可以这样说,不要圣礼的“现代人”,从根本上说,不再是“人”;若非妖鬼,即为畜狗。但这不是结局,救主已经降生在畜类的食槽,并开始医病赶鬼。我们由此得救,因此奉召。

附录二、路德教会圣餐礼常用圣诗

617 O Lord, we praise Thee, bless Thee, and adore Thee

618 I come, O Savior, to Thy table

619 Thy body, giv’n for me, O Savior

620 Jesus comes today with healing

621 Let all mortal flesh keep silence

622 Lord Jesus Christ, You have prepared

623 Lord Jesus Christ, we humbly pray

624 The infant Priest was holy born

625 Lord Jesus Christ, life-giving bread

626 Come, let us eat, for now the feast is spread

627 Jesus Christ, our blessed Savior

628 Your table I approach

629 What is this bread

630 Now, my tongue, the myst’ry telling

631 Here, O my Lord, I see Thee face to face

632 O Jesus, blessed Lord, to Thee

633 At the Lamb’s high feast we sing

634 The death of Jesus Christ, our Lord

635 O gracious Lord, I firmly am believing

636 Soul, adorn yourself with gladness

637 Draw near and take the body of the Lord

638 This is His body given for you

639 Wide open stand the gates adorned with pearl

6+0 Thee we adore, O hidden Savior

641 As when the shepherd calls his sheep

642 O living Bread from heaven

我们今天特别推荐的是我们教会已经熟悉的Let all mortal flesh keep silence。中译:“凡有血气皆当静默”。这是“维基”对这首圣诗的简单介绍,供大家参考:Let all mortal flesh keep silence (Greek: Σιγησάτω πᾶσα σάρξ βροτεία) is an ancient chant of Eucharistic devotion based on words from Habakkuk 2:20, “Let all the earth keep silence before him”. (Hebrew: הַ֥ס מִפָּנָ֖יו כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ‎ has mippanaw kol ha-erets) The original was composed in Greek as a Cherubic Hymn for the Offertory of the Divine Liturgy of St James; it probably antedates the rest of the liturgy and goes back at least to 275 AD, with local churches adopting arrangements in Syriac. In modern times, the Ralph Vaughan Williams arrangement of a translation from the Greek by Gerard Moultrie to the tune of “Picardy”, a French medieval folk melody, popularized the hymn among other Christian congregations. The Moultrie translation is written in 87.87 Trochaic meter. Therefore, winged in the first line of the fourth stanza ought to be read or sung as a single syllable. However, the two-syllable variant wingèd has become commonly accepted, especially outside of the United Kingdom。遗憾的是,我没有在中文视频网站找到这首歌,所以只能推荐Youtube上的作品。祝大家翻墙顺利。

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcXl6OtXfTg

发表评论

您的电子邮箱地址不会被公开。