[Script Info]
Title: Merged Subtitles
ScriptType: v4.00+
WrapStyle: 0
ScaledBorderAndShadow: yes
Collisions: Normal
PlayResX: 384
PlayResY: 288

[V4+ Styles]
Format: Name, Fontname, Fontsize, PrimaryColour, SecondaryColour, OutlineColour, BackColour, Bold, Italic, Underline, StrikeOut, ScaleX, ScaleY, Spacing, Angle, BorderStyle, Outline, Shadow, Alignment, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Encoding
Style: Default, Sarasa UI SC, 14, &H00FFFFFF, &H000000FF, &H00000000, &H80000000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 100, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 10, 10, 10, 1

[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:20.58,0:00:26.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}让我们请求圣母代祷，帮助我们更深入地领会圣餐的奥秘。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let us ask Our Lady's intercession to help penetrate more deeply into the mystery of the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:26.76,0:00:29.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}万福马利亚，你充满恩典，主与你同在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:29.70,0:00:34.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你在妇女中受赞美，你的胎儿耶稣同样受赞美。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:34.30,0:00:39.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣母马利亚，神之母，现在和我们临终时为我们罪人祈祷。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:39.50,0:00:40.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}阿们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Amen.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:40.46,0:00:58.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在第五集里，我们将探讨一个对我和观众来说可能较不熟悉的主题，那就是十一\N世纪关于真实临在的贝伦加里争议，同时我们还会看看九世纪一个更为晦涩的争议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in this fifth episode, we're going to examine something less familiar probably to my, to an- to the viewers, and that is the Berengarian controversy, um, over the real presence in the 11th century, and we'll also look at an even more obscure controversy in the ninth century.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:58.72,0:01:08.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们现在正在转向真实临在，来探讨临在的奥秘，但同时也继续我们的历史考察。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what we're doing here is we're transitioning, um, to the real presence, to look at the, the mystery of presence, but at the same time, we're continuing our historical survey.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:08.62,0:01:31.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}上一集我们研究了教父时期，现在我们要看下一个时期，也就是九世纪到十一或十二世\N纪这段时间，在这期间，真实临在自诺斯底主义者以来，首次真正成为争议的焦点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in the last episode, we looked at the fathers of the church, and now we're going to look at the next period, the, um, the time, um, from the 9th to the 11th or 12th centuries, um, in, in which time the real presence became for the first time really, um, since the Gnostics, um, an object of controversy.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:31.68,0:01:42.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教父时期充满了各种争议，比如关于三位一体、道成肉身\N、原罪、伯拉纠主义、恩典的必要性以及偶像的使用。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the Patristic Period was full of all kinds of controversies, as we know, over the Trinity, over the Incarnation, original sin, Pelagianism, the necessity of grace, use of images.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:42.50,0:01:50.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在最初关于幻影说的争议之后，圣餐并不是一个主要的争议主题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the Eucharist was not a key subject of controversy after the- the initial, um, kind of controversy over Docetism.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:50.32,0:02:02.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但圣餐争议开始于九世纪的一个短暂时期，随后在十一\N世纪变得更加激烈，正如我们将在本次讲述中看到的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it became a subject of controversy, um, beginning brief- in a brief episode in the ninth century and then much more strongly in the 11th century, as we'll see in this talk.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:02.24,0:02:18.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}十一世纪的这场争议非常有成果，正如我们将看到的，它\N促使教会必须回应贝伦加里，澄清对这一奥秘的理解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this controversy, um, in the 11th century was fruitful as we'll see also, leading the church to have to, um, in order to- to respond to Berengarius, to clarify her understanding of the mystery.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:18.36,0:02:25.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么我们先从九世纪一个非常晦涩的争议开始。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So let's start with a very obscure, um, dispute in the 9th century.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:25.86,0:02:32.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}九世纪是加洛林文艺复兴的短暂时期，大约发生在查理曼大帝之后。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The 9th century was that brief Carolingian renaissance, about the- after the time of, um, Charlemagne.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:32.44,0:02:57.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}欧洲在这段时间内有一段短暂的文化稳定期，这时出现了我们第一批关\N于圣餐的论述，作者是圣帕斯卡修斯·罗伯图斯，虽然不太为人所知，\N但他因在833年写下关于主的身体和血的伟大论述而值得被认识。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There was a certain, um, cultural stability in Europe for a very brief period, and in this time, um, we have our first Eucharistic treaties written by, um, Saint Paschasius Robertus, not a household name, but, um, he's worthy of being known for the great, um, treaties on the Eucharist in that, um, year 833 on the body and blood of the Lord.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:57.28,0:03:20.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有趣的是，他的一个学生，同一修道院的另一位修士拉特拉姆努斯，\N对他的观点提出异议，写了一部同名著作反驳圣帕斯卡修斯的论述。\N拉特拉姆努斯提出了两个问题，有助于我们澄清真实临在的奥秘。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And interestingly, one of his students, another monk in the same abbey named Ratramnus, um, took issue, disagreed with his master and wrote a work with the same title rebutting, um Saint Paschasius' treatise, and Ratramnus posed two questions which will help our- um, help us to clarify the mystery of the real presence.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:20.38,0:03:50.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他提出的第一个问题是：「圣餐是象征基督的身体，还是基督的真实身体？」第二个问\N题是：「圣餐中是否包含那位由马利亚所生、受难、死亡、埋葬、复活、升天并坐在父\N神右边的同一具身体？」圣帕斯卡修斯坚决肯定后者，但拉特拉姆努斯对此持异议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the first question he asked was, "Does the Eucharist contain the body of Christ in figure or in truth?" And then the second question, "Does the Eucharist contain the very same body which was born of Mary, suffered, died, was buried, which rose again, ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father?" And he- he poses that question, Saint Paschasius very strongly affirmed that, but Ratramnus, um, was disputing it.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:50.88,0:03:52.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么我们先来看第一个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Uh, so let's look at the first question.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:52.78,0:04:09.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「圣餐是象征基督的身体，还是基督的真实身体？」这其实是一个典型\N的错误提问方式，因为它把问题设定成非此即彼，是象征还是实质？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}"Does the Eucharist contain the body of Christ in figure or in truth?" Right, this is a classic example of a bad way of posing a question, because the question is posed as an either/or, right, in figure or in truth?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:09.48,0:04:14.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而答案，正如公教神学中常见的，是两者兼有。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the- the answer is, as so often the case in Catholic theology, is both/and.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:14.76,0:04:21.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督确实以象征的形式临在，这就是通过面包和酒的外观表现出来的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right, Christ is present in figure, and that is through the appearances of the bread and wine, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:21.06,0:04:24.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些外观是圣事的标记。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The appearances are sacramental signs.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:24.10,0:04:29.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在这些圣事标记之下，基督的身体是真实临在的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But under those sacramental signs, Christ's body is present in truth.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:29.36,0:04:30.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:30.90,0:04:53.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}拉特拉姆努斯认为他的师父圣帕斯卡修斯只肯定了真实临在，却没有肯定象征，\N因此他主张基督仅以象征临在，而非真实临在，他没有考虑到两者兼有的可能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Ratramnus thought that his master Saint Paschasius was only affirming the truth, um, and not affirming the, um, the sign, and so he, um, held that Christ is present only in sign and not in truth, and what he didn't consider was the both/and.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:53.14,0:04:57.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以正确的答案是肯定的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the right answer is yes.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:57.36,0:05:06.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}面包和酒的标记依然存在，但在祝圣之后，基督的身体真实地临在于其中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The signs of bread and wine continue, but under them, after the consecration, Christ is present in the truth of his body.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:06.68,0:05:07.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:07.14,0:05:09.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一种怎样的身体临在？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What kind of bodily presence is this?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:09.46,0:05:18.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是那位由马利亚所生、受难、死亡、埋葬、复活、升天并坐在父神右边的同一具身体吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Is it the very same body born of Mary, suffered, died, and was buried, rose again, ascended into heaven, and now sits at the right hand of the- of the Father?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:18.34,0:05:24.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}拉特拉姆努斯回答不是，因为他只把它看作象征。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, Ratramnus answered no because he saw it just as a figure, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:24.14,0:05:32.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果只是象征，只是面包和酒作为基督身体和血的标记，显然就不是同一具身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If it's just a figure, if it's just bread and wine pointing as a sign of Christ's body and blood, clearly it's not the same body.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:32.16,0:05:44.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但圣帕斯卡修斯正确地肯定，那确实是同一具由\N马利亚所生、受难、死亡、埋葬并复活的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But Saint Paschasius, um, rightly affirmed it is the very same body, born of Mary, suffered, died, was buried, and rose.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:44.48,0:05:50.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但此后，这个对立观点仍未解决。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But after this, so this contrary was left open.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:50.24,0:05:58.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}由于黑暗时代的缘故，这个问题没有被教宗或主教权威所定论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It wasn't determined by, um, um, papal or met- um, episcopal authority because of the Dark Ages, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:58.60,0:06:01.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那个……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The, um, the-...
Dialogue: 0,0:06:01.57,0:06:08.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}查理曼时代的和平瓦解了，国家陷入了混乱。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the peace of the time of Charlemagne disintegrated and, um, and the, the country was simply left.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:08.73,0:06:47.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}两百年后，十一世纪中叶的神学家兼哲学家贝伦加里重新提出了拉特拉姆\N努斯的论点，认为圣餐只是基督身体和血的标记或象征，因此不是那具由\N马利亚所生、钉十字架、复活并升天的同一身体，而仅仅是一个象征。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, um, came back two centuries later, um, through Berengarius, um, who was a theologian, um, and philosopher of the 11th century, mid-11th century, and he, um, came upon Retramnus' treaties, um, and basically revived Retramnus' um, position, that the Eucharist is just a sign or figure of Christ's body and blood, and therefore, is not the same body, born of Mary, um, nailed to the cross, risen, and ascended into heaven, but a mere sign.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:47.87,0:06:55.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他持此观点的原因是……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the reason he held this was, um, he was, um...
Dialogue: 0,0:06:55.37,0:07:03.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是亚里士多德哲学被重新发现的时期，尤其是他的逻辑著作《范畴篇》。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this is a time of the- the beginning of the discovery of Aristotle, and of his- above all, his logical works, The Categories of Aristotle...
Dialogue: 0,0:07:03.93,0:07:27.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}亚里士多德的《范畴篇》讲述了存在的不同方式，即实体和属性。贝伦加里认\N为，基督、面包和酒不可能在保持原有属性或外观的同时，变成另一种实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Uh, sorry, um, Aristotle's Categories speak of the different modes of being, substance and accidents, and, um, Berengarius thought that it would simply be impossible for Christ, for the, um, the bread and the wine to, um, become another substance while keeping the accidents or appearances of the previous one.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:27.89,0:07:32.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此他认为这是矛盾且不可能的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, and so he thought that was, um, contradictory and impossible.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:32.55,0:07:45.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}同样，他认为基督不可能既在天上独一无二地临在\N，又同时在世界各地无数祭坛上的圣餐中临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And likewise, he thought it would be impossible for Christ to be one, present in heaven, and also, um, on many altars in numerous hosts throughout the world.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.17,0:07:53.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他认为实体改变而属性不变是矛盾的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, and he thought it would be, yeah, contradictory for the accents to remain while the substance was changed.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:53.33,0:08:04.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他认为基督以某种方式灵性临在，他的追随者中对此有两种看法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, it's, h- he held that Christ was present in some way, spiritually present, and there were two opinions among his followers.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:04.77,0:08:08.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有些人认为，基督仅仅作为一个象征临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Some held, all right, he's present simply as a sign.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:08.43,0:08:15.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一些人则认为基督以某种更神秘的方式临在于面包和酒中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Others held that he's present in some more mysterious way, um, in the bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:15.55,0:08:28.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有趣的是，贝伦加里的这两种教义理解在四个世纪后的宗教改革时期再次出现。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, and, um, interestingly, these two understandings of the Doctrine of Berengarius would resurface four centuries later at the time of the Reformation.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.01,0:08:59.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}宗教改革中更激进的一派，由茨温利倡导，后来由加尔文延续，主张圣餐只是\N象征，基督实际在天上；而路德则认为基督真实临在于面包和酒中，但他们都\N否认面包和酒实质转变为基督的身体和血，贝伦加里也明确否认这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, the more radical, um, part of the Reformation championed by Zwingli, and continued by Calvin, held, um, really a f- e- simply a figure of Christ physically present in heaven, whereas Luther, um, held that Christ was really present in the bread and the wine, um, but all of them denied a conversion of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, and likewise, Berengarius clearly denied that.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:59.99,0:09:10.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这引发了巨大的争议，贝伦加里被迫撤回他的立场并向教会宣誓。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right, so this caused a huge controversy, and Berengarius was forced to retract his position and take an oath to them.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:10.03,0:09:18.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他最初被要求宣誓，但那次宣誓并未完全表达教会的信仰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And there was an initial oath that was required of him, which was imperfectly, um, imperfectly expressed the Church's faith.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:18.33,0:09:19.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我稍后会再谈到这点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'll come back to it in a few minutes.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:19.97,0:09:26.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}后来在他临终前，他被要求作出更完善的表述。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then a more perfect formulation, um, that he was required to- to make it, uh, towards the end of his life.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:26.51,0:09:30.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我现在就给大家读这段重要的文本。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I'm just gonna read that to you, the great text.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:30.55,0:10:01.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他被要求宣称：「我，贝伦加里，内心相信并口中承认，借着圣祷的奥秘\N和我们救主的话语，摆在祭坛上的面包和酒实质上转变为我们主耶稣基督\N真实、正当且活生生的身体和血。」这里的关键词是“实质上转变”。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, he was required to say this, "I, Berengarius, in my heart believe and with my lips confess that through the mystery of the sacred prayer, and the words of our Redeemer, the bread and the wine that are placed on the altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and living flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord." So the key words there are substantially changed.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:01.41,0:10:36.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}接着他说：「祝圣之后，这是真正的基督身体，由童贞女所生，为拯救世人而献上，\N被钉在十字架上，现坐在父神右边；这也是真正的基督之血，从他肋旁流出，不仅凭\N借圣事的标记和能力，更是在其本质和实质的真实中。」这就是他的宣誓内容。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Then he continues, "And that after the consecration, it is the true body of Christ that was born of the Virgin, and that offered for the salvation of the world, was suspended on the cross, and that sits at the right hand of the Father, and the true blood of Christ, which was poured out from his side, not only through the sign and power of the sacrament, but in its proper nature and in the truth of its substance." In fact, that was the oath.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:36.03,0:10:40.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这段宣誓由教宗圣格雷戈里七世起草。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This was composed by Pope, um, Gregory the s- Saint Gregory VII.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:40.33,0:11:01.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是公教神学的一个里程碑，因为这是首次由权威机构明确声明面包\N和酒实质转变为基督的身体和血，以及基督以其本性的真实临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it's a milestone in Catholic theology because it's the first magisterial statement, um, speaking of a substantial conversion of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, and the substantial presence of Christ in, um, present in the truth of his nature.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:01.07,0:11:02.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也就是他的人的本性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That is, human nature.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:02.31,0:11:41.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此它肯定了两百年前拉特拉姆努斯提出的问题：「这是不是同一具由\N马利亚所生的身体？」这个定义明确回答：「是的，这是真正的基督身\N体，由童贞女所生，被钉十字架，坐在父神右边，流出血液于他死时。\N」正如我所说，这场争议极大地促进了圣餐神学和经院神学的发展。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so it affirmed what was, um, um, what Retramnus had asked two centuries earlier, "Is it the same body born of Mary?" And th- this definition clearly says, "Yes, it is the true body of Christ, born of the Virgin, um, nailed to the cross, sits at the right hand of the Father, and the blood that was poured out from his side, um, at his death." Now, this controversy ended up being extremely fruitful, as I mentioned, for the development of Scholastic theology on the Eucharist, and Scholastic theology in general.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:41.09,0:11:57.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}贝伦加里的继承者们持有理性主义观点和贫乏的哲学思想，公教神学家们并非简单\N地反驳他们，而是……公教神学家可能会有一种诱惑，说「你们用了太多哲学」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The heirs of Berengarius, which came from a- a Rationalist perspective and a poor philosophy, were met, um, not by simply re- So, there could have been a temptation for Catholic theologians to be saying, "You're using too much philosophy.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:57.25,0:12:05.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们不能只是简单地相信这个奥秘，仅此而已。十一和十二世纪的伟大神学家们并非如此。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We just simply have to believe in the mystery, period." And that's not what the- the great theologians of the 11th and 12th century did.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:05.25,0:12:08.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}相反，他们认为要反驳……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Rather, they thought to counter, um......
Dialogue: 0,0:12:08.82,0:12:16.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}理性主义的结论，就必须更好地运用理性，而不是拒绝理性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}rationalist conclusions, um, we need to make a better use of reason not, um, not reject reason.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:16.64,0:12:22.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此我们看到几位神学家回应了贝伦加里的观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, um, and so we find several theologians, um, responding to Berengarius.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:22.46,0:12:24.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些神学家都不太为人所知。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, none of these are well known.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:24.24,0:12:28.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在深入研究之前，我也从未听说过他们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, I had never heard of them either, before studying this more closely.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:28.22,0:12:36.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不过我会提到他们，因为他们对教会的圣餐神学贡献很大。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, but I'm going to name them just simply because they contributed greatly to the church's, um, theology of the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:36.54,0:12:40.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}坎特伯雷的兰弗朗克，生活在十一世纪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, Lanfranc of Canterbury, um, lived in the 11th century.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:40.68,0:12:49.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}阿韦尔萨的格里德蒙德，同样于十一世纪末去世，列日的阿尔杰则活跃到十二世纪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Griedmund of Aversa, likewise, died about the end of the 11th century, and Alger of Liege, who lived on into the 12th century.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:49.100,0:13:07.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们都写过关于圣餐的论述，以反驳贝伦加里，且都为一\N个世纪后十三世纪圣托马斯·阿奎那的神学奠定了基础。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All of them wrote a treatise on the Eucharist to, um, counter, um, Berengarius, and, um, all of them contributed to what would culminate in the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, a century later, in the 13th century.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:07.92,0:13:15.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们应当感谢他们为后来的发展铺路，尽管他们鲜为人知，名字也未被记住。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right, so we owe them a debt of gratitude for having prepared the way, even though they are obscure and their names are not remembered.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:15.48,0:13:16.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们理应被铭记。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They should be.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:16.66,0:13:23.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们提出了六个关键点来反驳贝伦加里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And they bring out six key points in countering, um, Berengarius.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:23.32,0:13:37.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第一个就是我们在贝伦加里必须宣誓的定义中看到的：\N面包实质转变为基督的身体，酒实质转变为基督的血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the first of them is what we saw in the definition that, um, Berengarius had to swear, and that is the substantial conversion of bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:37.98,0:14:04.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}格里德蒙德写道：「确实，相信祭坛上的面包和酒实质转变为主的\N身体和血，而非像贝伦加里妄言的那样，只是主身体和血的象征和\N影子，或基督隐藏在其中。」这正是后来茨温利和路德的观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Griedmund writes this, quote, "For indeed, the belief that the bread and the wine of the altar are substantially changed into the body and blood of the Lord, not as Berengarius says, deliriously, that they're only figures and shadows of the body and blood of the Lord, or that Christ is hidden or concealed within them." That would be the first, would be the view later of Zwingli and the second of Luther.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:04.12,0:14:21.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「这已被普世教会的共识所确认。」他认为实质转变就是普\N世教会的信仰，也就是我们今天所说的普通普世教导权。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}"Has been confirmed by the consent of the universal church." So he says the, the substantial conversion is simply the faith of the universal church, what we would today call the ordinary universal magisterium, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:14:21.26,0:14:41.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}尽管这教义仅在他那个时代由格雷戈里七世在贝伦加里必须宣誓的誓言中明确\N提出，但它实际上在公教会中由许多主教、教父著作和中世纪时期广泛传授。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So even though it had only been, um, taught in his own day in that oath, um, by, by Gregory VII, in the oath that Berengarius had to, to profess, um, nevertheless it was taught throughout the, the Catholic Church by, um, so many bishops in the writings of the Fathers and, um, and medieval period.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:41.86,0:14:46.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}列日的阿尔杰也有类似的论述。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alger of Liege, um, writes similarly.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:46.92,0:15:11.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他说：「以一种全新且前所未闻的方式，面包的实质被转变为基督身体的实质，除\N了外观之外不再是面包，而基督的身体完全不变。」这句话虽简短，却内容丰富。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Quote, "In an entirely new and unheard of way, the substance of bread is so changed into the substance of the body of Christ as to cease to be bread, except in appearance, while the body of Christ remains entirely unchanged." Right, so this is very, it's a brief sentence, but very dense.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:11.14,0:15:14.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}首先，这是全新的，前所未闻的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's, first of all, it's something new and unheard of.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:14.48,0:15:15.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这完全是独特的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is totally novel.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:15.98,0:15:21.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}弥撒中发生的事情是独一无二的，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What happens in, in the mass is unique, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:21.02,0:15:26.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是奥秘，因为我们在自然界中找不到实质转变的例子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's, it's mysterious because we don't find transubstantiation in nature, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:26.22,0:15:28.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这确实是新奇且前所未闻的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's something new and unheard of, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:28.86,0:15:34.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这在吗哪中有所预表，吗哪的意思是「这是什么？」对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It was prefigured by the manna, which had the meaning, "What's that?" Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:34.10,0:15:44.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}面包和酒转变为基督身体和血的过程是奥秘，因为这种变化只在这里发生。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this conversion of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood is mysterious because it's, it's a kind of change that happens only here.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:44.56,0:15:46.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我稍后会再谈到这个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, I'll come back to that in a minute.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:46.50,0:16:02.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这导致面包的实质变成基督身体的实质，这意味着它\N不再是面包，除了外观之外，但基督本身没有改变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it results in the substance of the bread being changed into the substance of the body of Christ, which means that it ceases to be bread, except in appearance, but Christ is unchanged by it.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:02.40,0:16:05.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这正是贝伦加里所担心的，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that was one of the things that Berengarius was concerned about, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:16:05.14,0:16:11.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他认为如果肯定真实临在，那我们岂不是在咀嚼基督的身体，他会……我不知道，嗯……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He, he thought if you affirm the real presence, then we would be chewing up Christ's body and he would be, I don't know, um...
Dialogue: 0,0:16:11.72,0:16:18.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他还认为真实临在意味着某种对基督的食人式接受。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, in, in, he thought that the real presence implied a kind of cannibalistic reception of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:18.40,0:16:26.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这些神学家强调，阿尔杰特别指出基督在这个过程中保持不变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so that's why, um, these theologians, Alger emphasizes that Christ remains unchanged in the process.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:26.76,0:16:28.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:16:28.14,0:16:33.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他所描述的正是我们所说的实质转变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what he's describing there is exactly what we mean by the word transubstantiation.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:33.78,0:16:34.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当时他还没有使用这个词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He didn't yet use that word.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:34.90,0:16:37.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这个词是在几十年后首次被使用。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It came to be used for the first time a few decades later.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:37.100,0:16:40.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他的概念完全符合实质转变的含义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But he's got exactly the, the notion.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:40.50,0:16:41.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:16:41.70,0:16:50.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实质转变并不改变基督本人，而是面包和酒被转变成他的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Transubstantiation makes no change in Christ, but it is the bread and the wine that are changed into him, into his body and blood.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:50.46,0:16:59.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第二点，为了解释这一点，必须区分实体和属性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right, second point that they bring out, in order to explain this, you have to distinguish substance and accidents.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:59.100,0:17:01.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:01.24,0:17:03.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里做一个简短的哲学回顾。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so here, a brief philosophical review.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:03.100,0:17:07.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实体回答的是「这是什么？」的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, substance answers the question, what is it?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:07.100,0:17:08.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:08.74,0:17:11.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是面包，还是基督的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Bread, or body of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:11.10,0:17:14.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}属性回答的是「它是怎样的？」的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Accidents answers the question, how is it?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:14.100,0:17:17.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们如何感知它？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, how is, how do we perceive it?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:17.100,0:17:18.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:18.92,0:17:31.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}比如大和白，这些都是属性的不同类别，我们也可以简单地把它们理解为事物的外观。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that would be, you know, big and white, and, and those would be the different categories of accident, and we could s- simply explain it m- more simply as the appearances of the thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:31.80,0:17:32.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:32.38,0:17:34.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实体是一回事，外观是另一回事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Substance is one thing, appearances are another.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:34.96,0:17:36.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们回答不同的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They answer different questions.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:36.64,0:17:38.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实体回答「这是什么？」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Substance answers the question, what is it?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:38.86,0:17:42.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}外观回答「它是怎样的？」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the appearances answer the question, how is it?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:42.38,0:17:43.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以什么方式存在？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In what way is it?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:43.50,0:17:48.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们的感官感知属性或外观。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Our senses grasp the accidents or appearances.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:48.50,0:17:51.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而我们的理智把握实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's our intellect that grasps substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:51.90,0:17:57.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}属性通常是可变的，而实体则更为持久。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And accidents are generally changeable, whereas substance, um, is more permanent.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:57.68,0:17:59.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:59.08,0:18:31.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们一生只有一个实体，但外观会大幅变化，从胚胎到婴儿，再到成人等\N等。实质转变或圣餐转化中，面包的实体变成基督身体的实体，酒的实体\N变成基督血的实体，而面包和酒的属性或外观却奇迹般地保持不变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, um, we're one substance throughout our life, but our appearances change greatly from being an embryo, to being a baby, to being, um, a grownup, et cetera.So what's happening here in transubstantiation or in the Eucharistic conversion is that the substance of the bread is being made into the substance of Christ's body, the substance of wine into the substance of Christ's blood, while the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine miraculously stay unchanged.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:31.90,0:18:32.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:18:32.46,0:18:35.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这正是贝伦加里否认可能发生的事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's what Berengarius denied could happen.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:35.76,0:18:42.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这些神学家都说：「好吧，这在自然界中不可能发生，但神凭着全能可以使之发生。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But these theologians all say, "All right, it can't naturally happen, but God can make it happen for his omnipotent.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:42.64,0:18:57.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他能使一物变成另一物，同时保持第一物的外观。」\N我们稍后会谈到他这样做的原因，这个理由很明显。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He can make one thing become another thing while making the appearances of the first thing to remain." And we'll talk in a few minutes about why, the reason why he does this is obvious.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:57.90,0:19:12.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他保留面包和酒的外观，使我们能以适合人的方式接受他，在\N面包和酒的外观下领受属灵的滋养，而非肉体的身体和血液。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He keeps the appearances of the bread and wine so that we can receive him in a way fitting for human beings, to receive spiritual nourishment under the appearances of bread and wine, rather than flesh and blood.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:12.04,0:19:18.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以每场弥撒中都发生着双重奇迹。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so there's a double miracle taking place in every mass.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:18.64,0:19:20.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:20.36,0:19:28.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就是一种实体变成另一种实体，但第一种实体的外观仍然保留。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that is one substance becomes another substance, and yet the appearances of the first substance remains suspended.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:28.94,0:19:37.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神维持这些外观的存在，使我们能以适合人性的方式在这些外观下接受他。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God sustains them in being so that we can receive him, um, under those appearances in a way fitting for human nature.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:37.12,0:19:38.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:38.30,0:19:42.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第三点，正如我之前提到的，这是完全独特的，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Third point, this is totally unique, as I mentioned before, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:19:42.74,0:19:48.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这在自然界中不会发生，所以我们无法观察到「啊，原来是这样」的现象，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This does not happen in nature, and so we can't observe, "Ah, it's like that." Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:19:48.46,0:19:49.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是我们一直希望的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which we always would like.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:49.94,0:19:52.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体也有类似的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Similar problem for the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:52.28,0:19:59.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们通过比较我们经历或知道的其他变化类型来检视这个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So let's just examine this by comparing it to the other kinds of change that we experience or know about.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:59.98,0:20:08.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们最明显经历的变化是属性变化，比如孩子成长，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the most, the most obvious kind of change that we experience is accidental change, and that's, for example, the child that grows up, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:20:08.14,0:20:14.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}外观改变了，但它是什么——一个人类，一个人——保持不变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the appearance changes, but the what it is, a human being, a human person, remains the same.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:14.22,0:20:20.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实质变化是指一种实体变成另一种实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Substantial change happens when one substance becomes another substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:20.64,0:20:30.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}例如木头在火中变成灰烬，或受孕时卵子和精子结合成为一个新的主体，一个新人类。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}An example of that would be wood in a fire becoming ash, or conception, the egg and the sperm becoming a new subject, a new person and a human being.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:30.10,0:20:33.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第三种变化是创造。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A third kind of change is creation.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:33.58,0:20:38.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是真正的变化，而是独特的事情，是从无到有。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not really change, it's something unique, but it's from nothing into something.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:38.18,0:20:42.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实质转变不同于这三种变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Uh, transubstantiation is different from all three of those.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:42.86,0:20:51.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它是第四种变化，是面包和酒转变成一个已存在的主体——基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's, so it's a fourth kind of change, and it's the conversion of bread and wine into a preexisting subject, Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:51.92,0:20:57.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是实质变化，但不同于普通的实质变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's, it's a substantial change, but it's different than ordinary substantial changes.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:57.16,0:21:12.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里，两件事物变成了一个已存在的主体——基督，他本\N身不受此影响；其次，前者面包和酒的属性仍然保留。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here, two things are becoming something that already existed, Christ, who isn't changed by this, and secondly, the accidents of the former, the bread and the wine, remain.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:12.40,0:21:17.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是一种新的变化类型。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, and so it's, it's a new kind of change.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:17.38,0:21:30.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这符合基督设立圣餐的目的，使自己在面包和酒\N的外衣下临在，好让我们领受他进入我们自己。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It makes sense for the purpose for which Christ instituted it, to make himself present under the veil of bread and wine so that we can receive him into our- ourselves.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:30.62,0:21:34.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第四点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Fourth point.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:34.24,0:21:39.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在实质转变中，基督保持完整无缺。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In transubstantiation, Christ remains whole and entire.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:39.34,0:21:40.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:21:40.44,0:21:52.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这点非常重要，用来回应贝伦加里对过度现实主义的担忧\N，就像迦百农的门徒听了生命粮的教导后感到困惑一样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is very important to affirm against the fears that Berengarius had of an exaggerated realism, like the disciples at Capernaum who were scandalized at the Bread of Life Discourse, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:21:52.12,0:21:59.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们感到困惑，因为他们以为基督说要吃他的肉，是指一块一块地吃。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They were scandalized because they thought that Christ in saying we had to eat his, his flesh, they were thinking chunk by chunk.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:59.86,0:22:06.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，他们认为这样会改变基督的身体，因此感到困惑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, um, changing Christ in the process, um, and, and were scandalized by it.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:06.94,0:22:10.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些神学家解释说，事实并非如此。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so these theologians explained that that's not what happens.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:10.44,0:22:17.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督确实被领受，但他是完整无缺地被领受，而非被切割成部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And yes, Christ is received, but he's received whole and entire, not cut up in parts.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:17.82,0:22:21.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此基督在圣餐中有一种特殊的临在方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so Christ has a mode of presence in the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:21.60,0:22:32.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这完全独特，因为他在面包和酒的每一部分外观下完整临在，我们领受圣餐并不会改变他。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, that's totally unique, because he's present whole and entire under each part of the appearances of bread and wine, and our consuming the host doesn't change him.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:32.70,0:22:38.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}相反，我们因领受而改变，更加被转化为他。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Rather, we are changed by it, by being, um, converted more into him.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:38.80,0:22:51.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们的神学家格里夫特曼回应贝伦加里说：「我们可以说，\N他在圣餐的一小部分中与在整个圣餐中同样临在。」对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so Grieftman, one of our theologians, responding to Berengarius says, quote, "We're able to say that he is as much in one little portion of the host as he is in the whole host." Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:22:51.74,0:22:54.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这点我们从领受圣餐中也都知道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it, and we all know this also from receiving the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:54.48,0:22:59.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论我们领受的是大圣餐、小圣餐还是圣餐的一部分，都没有区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It doesn't matter whether we receive a big host or a tiny host or a fraction of a host.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:59.76,0:23:02.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}每个人领受的都是同一位基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Everyone receives the same Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:02.24,0:23:05.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这同样在吗哪中有所预表或预示。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, prefigured or foreshadowed by the manner.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:05.34,0:23:06.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论你收集多少，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Didn't matter how much you gathered.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:06.80,0:23:14.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们都领受同一位基督，因为他在每一部分中都是完整无缺的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We all receive the same Christ, and that's because he's whole and entire under every part.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:14.30,0:23:26.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}格里夫特曼继续说：「同样地，如果圣餐看似被牙齿或\N其他方式掰断，我们仍然理解它是完整的。」对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And Grieftman continues, "In like manner, if the host seems to be broken by the teeth or in some other way, we understand it to be unbroken." Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:26.34,0:23:27.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督是完整无缺的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Christ is unbroken.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:27.42,0:23:35.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣餐，即面包和酒的外观可能被掰断，但基督在其下仍在每一部分完整无缺地临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The, the host, the appearances of bread and wine are broken, but Christ who is under it remains whole and entire under every part.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:35.34,0:23:36.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:36.62,0:23:41.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们从礼仪经验中知道这一点，也从教会的持续传统中得知。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we know that from our liturgical experience, and again, the constant tradition of the church.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:41.86,0:23:46.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第五点，共伴性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Fifth point, concomitance.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:46.02,0:23:49.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一个专业术语，意思是自然伴随。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's a fancy word that means natural accompaniment.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:49.16,0:23:56.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是基督在圣餐中保持完整不变的结果。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is the consequence of the fact that Christ remains whole and unchanged in the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:56.18,0:24:07.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，他不因实质转变而改变或受影响，他以今日的状态临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, because of that, he's not changed or affected by the, um, transubstantiation, um, and he's made present as he is today.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:07.90,0:24:15.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他今日的状态是指他的身体、血、灵魂和神性在复活时重新结合……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And as he is today means with his body, blood, soul, and divinity rejoined at his resurrection....
Dialogue: 0,0:24:15.06,0:24:15.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}right?
Dialogue: 0,0:24:15.26,0:24:21.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以基督在复活节那天，他的血——原本与身体分离——重新与身体结合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Christ, on Easter Sunday, his blood, eh-eh, ah, which would have been separated from his body, was rejoined to it.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:21.46,0:24:37.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他的灵魂也重新结合，神性从未离开，所以当我们使他的一部分临在，比如说「这是我\N的身体」这句话使他的身体临在时，他的其余部分也随之临在，因为他已不可分割。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}His soul rejoined to both, and the divinity never left, um, so when we make one part of him present, let's say, the words "This is my body," making his body present, well, the rest of him comes along because he can no longer be separated.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:37.28,0:24:49.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他完整无缺地临在，这意味着在面包的外观下，我们领\N受他的身体，同时也间接领受他的血、灵魂和神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's present whole and entire, and that means that under these species of, of bread, we've got his body, but also, indirectly, his blood, his soul, and his divinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:49.00,0:24:58.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}同样，在酒的外观下，我们直接领受他的血，但也\N间接领受他的身体、灵魂和神性，这就是共伴性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And likewise, under this species of wine, we have his blood directly, but indirectly by concomitants, his body, his soul and his divinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:58.64,0:25:08.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在这两种外观下临在，是为了圣事性地显现他那血与身体分离的献祭。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, he's made present under two species to make sacramentally present his bloody sacrifice, consisting in the separation of his blood from his body.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:08.92,0:25:20.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但无论是在面包的外观下，还是在酒的外观下，我们都领受完整的基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But nevertheless, um, under the, um, species of bread, we have the whole of him, and likewise, under this species of wine, we have the whole Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:20.84,0:25:28.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不过，圣餐必须始终用这两种圣餐形式来庆祝，以显现他的献祭。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, but nevertheless, it has to be sub, celebrated always with both species to make present his sacrifice.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:28.46,0:25:35.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，最后一点，圣餐有三个层面。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, final point, um, there are three levels in the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:35.12,0:25:36.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我是什么意思呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right, what do I mean by that?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:36.04,0:25:48.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣餐最明显的方面是感官所见的，就是面包和酒，以及祝圣时对面包和酒所说的话语。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, in the ob, most obvious aspect of Eucharist is what is seen by the senses, and that is the bread and wine and the words that are said over the bread and wine in the consecration.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:48.26,0:25:51.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是我们所说的圣事标记。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that, we call the sacramental sign, all right?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:51.48,0:25:52.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是所见之物。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, that's what is seen.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:52.82,0:25:57.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后还有一个最终的效果，那就是我们所领受的恩典。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then there's an, an ultimate effect and that is the grace that we receive.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:57.80,0:26:01.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}贝伦加里对这两点都没有异议，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Berengarius didn't have any problem with either of those two, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:26:01.08,0:26:04.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他承认圣事标记和所领受的恩典。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He acknowledged the sacramental sign and the grace received.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:04.18,0:26:09.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他否认的是介于两者之间的东西，也就是真实临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What he denied was something intermediate in the middle between them, the real presence.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:09.66,0:26:25.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们说，圣餐有三个层面：圣事标记，他的身体和血的真实存在\N，这是真实临在，同时也是他在圣餐中赐予我们神生命恩典的标记。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we want to say that in the Eucharist, there are three levels as it were, the sacramental sign, the reality of his body and blood, which is a sign of the grace of divine life that he gives us in holy communion.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:25.70,0:26:34.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以圣餐比初看起来要复杂得多。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we can see that the Eucharist is more complex, um, than, um, might be thought at first sight.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:34.30,0:26:46.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，不只是圣事标记和它所代表的恩典，而是在两者\N之间，有他的真实临在的奥秘，这既是真实存在，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, in other words, not simply sacramental sign and the grace that it represents, but in between the two, the mystery of his real presence, which is both a reality, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:26:46.10,0:26:56.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有什么比基督的身体和血更真实，但它同时也是他通过圣餐传递给我们的恩典的标记。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's a, nothing more real than Christ's body and blood, but it's at the same time the sign of the grace that he's communicating to us through holy communion.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:56.02,0:27:01.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，这是一个应用的标记，传达他对我们这些领受者的意义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, an application sign that communicates what he is to us who receive him.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:01.48,0:27:18.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此十二世纪的神学家们承担起思考这三个层面的任务，并认识到这同样适用于其他圣事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, the theologians of the 12th century were given the task of thinking about these three levels, um, and, um, recognizing that this has an application also to other sacraments.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:18.32,0:27:23.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，整个圣事体系都可以通过这三个层面来最好地理解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, the whole sacramental system can be best understood with these three levels.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:23.94,0:27:31.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我来说明一下：圣事标记，在圣餐中就是面包、酒和祝圣的话语。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let me give it, um, the sacramental sign, which in the case of the Eucharist is the bread and the wine and the words.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:31.02,0:27:44.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}隐藏的实在，是恩典的标记，也就是基督的身体和血\N，最后是恩典和慈爱，圣化灵魂并建立教会的合一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The hidden reality, which is a sign of grace, and that is the body and blood, and then finally, the grace and charity, which, um, sanctifies the soul and builds up the unity of the church.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:44.92,0:27:50.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对此有一个专业术语，通常用拉丁语表达，抱歉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And there's a, a technical language for this, um, usually said in Latin, sorry about that.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:50.16,0:27:59.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我简单提一下，圣事标记常被称为sacram\Nentum tantum，意为仅仅是标记。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But I'll just mention them, um, the sense, sacramental sign is often called the sacramentum tantum, which means simply the sign alone.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:59.28,0:28:12.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}身体和血被称为res et sacramentum，即实在与\N圣事标记，而恩典被称为res tantum，仅指恩典的实在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The, um, body and blood is referred to as res et sacramentum, reality and sacramental sign, and then the grace is called the res tantum, the reality of grace alone.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:12.52,0:28:15.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这同样适用于其他圣事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this applies also to other sacraments.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:15.56,0:28:36.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}比如洗礼，有圣事标记，就是倒水和洗礼公式的话语，然后有恩典的效\N果，即最终的效果，圣化恩典，使人成为神的儿女并获得罪的赦免。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, for example, in baptism, there's the sacramental sign, right, the, the, um, pouring of the water with the words of the baptismal formula, and then there's, um, the effect of grace, that's the ultimate effect, um, sanctifying grace, being made a son of or daughter of God and the forgiveness of, of sins.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:36.36,0:28:45.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但两者之间还有一个持久的标记，也是灵魂上的实在，那就是圣事印记。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But in between the two, there's a durable sign that's also a reality on the soul, and that is sacramental character, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:28:45.28,0:28:49.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}坚振圣事和圣秩圣事中也同样如此。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's also true in confirmation and in, um, holy orders.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:49.74,0:29:03.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们看到，不仅是圣餐，其他圣事也以不同方式具有这\N三个层面，且能被最好地理解，因此它们是复杂的实在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, we can see that, um, not just the Eucharist but, um, the other sacraments of what, as well in different ways have these three levels and can be best understood, um, and so they're complex realities.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:03.44,0:29:17.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们在约翰福音6章51节看到这一点的暗示，耶稣说：「我\N所赐的饼就是我的肉，为世人生命所赐。」这里我们有……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, we see a, a hint of this in John 6:51, where Jesus says, "The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." And there, we've got...
Dialogue: 0,0:29:17.00,0:29:19.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}面包是圣事标记。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the bread, that's the sacramental sign.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:19.44,0:29:27.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「世人的生命」是恩典的最终效果，中间的实在是我的肉，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The, the life of the world would be the ultimate effect of grace, and then the intermediate reality is my flesh, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:29:27.94,0:29:30.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这三者都存在，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All three are present, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:29:30.46,0:29:51.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣餐中，只要面包和酒的外观未被破坏，圣事标记就存在，基督的身体和血仍在其下\N，他完整的个人实在也存在，只要外观和圣事标记未被破坏，它就传递神的生命。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Eucharist, um, the sacramental sign remains as long as the, the appearance of bread and wine are not corrupted and Christ's flesh and blood remain under them and his whole personal reality, again, as long as the appearances, the sacramental sign is not corrupted and it communicates divine life.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:51.38,0:29:58.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们也能在祝福祷文中看到这三个层面。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we can see these three levels also in the formula for benediction.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:58.70,0:30:49.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「神啊，您在这奇妙的圣事中留下了您受难的纪念」，这是标记；「求您使我\N们敬畏您身体和血的奥秘」，这是中间层面，真实临在；「使我们常在自己里\N面经历您救赎的果效，恩典的效果。」这场争议最终对教会的神学生活非常有\N益，促成了我们下一集要探讨的托马斯·阿奎那神学，也推动了圣餐敬礼的兴\N盛，尤其促成了十三世纪圣体节的设立，托马斯·阿奎那为此写了礼仪文。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, "O God, who in this wonderful sacrament have left us a memorial of your passion," that, that's the sign, "grant us, we pray, so to revere the sacred mysteries of your body and blood," that's the intermediate level, the real presence, "that we may always experience in ourselves the fruits of your redemption, the effect of grace." And so, this controversy ended up being very fruitful for the life of the church in terms of theology, leading to, um, what we'll examine in the next episode, the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and then in terms of, um, Eucharistic devotion, leading to a proliferation of, um, of Eucharistic celebrations, and in particular, leading to the institution of the Feast of Corpus Christi in the 13th century for which Thomas Aquinas wrote the Liturgical Office.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:49.98,0:30:50.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:30:50.62,0:31:02.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有趣的是，神如何允许恶事发生，在此例中是异端\N，为了更大的善——对圣餐的敬虔和更深的领悟。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, it's interesting how God makes, brings out, he permits evil, in this case heresy, for the sake of a greater good, um, devotion to the Eucharist and a greater penetration.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:02.00,0:31:14.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们先讲到这里，下一集将探讨托马斯·阿奎那的神学，他使这套神学更加完善。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we'll leave it there and in the next episode, we'll take up the theology of Thomas Aquinas, which brings this, um, theology to, um, greater perfection.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:14.00,0:31:20.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们感谢你赐予这奥秘，借着基督，借着父、子、圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We give you thanks for this mystery through Christ our Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:20.82,0:31:21.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}阿们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Amen.