[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: 0,0:00:20.86,0:00:28.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，在这第六集中，我们将根据圣托马斯·阿奎那的神学观点，探讨变质说与真实临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in this sixth episode, we'll look at transubstantiation and the real presence according to the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:28.20,0:00:40.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这将延续第五集的内容，因为托马斯·阿奎那在前人基础上进行了综合阐述。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This will be a continuation of what we looked at in the fifth episode, um, because Thomas Aquinas builds on his predecessors and brings it to a, um, synthesis.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:40.02,0:00:50.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们必须始终牢记，中世纪经院神学家并非试图证明真实临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we always have to remember that, um, the medieval scholastic theologians aren't trying to prove the real presence.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:50.12,0:00:53.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们是将此作为信仰教义的前提，对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, they're presupposing it as a doctrine of faith, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:00:53.92,0:00:55.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是教会的信仰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's the faith of the Church.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:55.40,0:00:56.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而他们...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And what they're...
Dialogue: 0,0:00:56.58,0:01:04.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们运用哲学并非为了论证奥秘，而是为了让我们能够合理...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're making use of philosophy not to demonstrate the, uh, the mystery, but so that we can speak reasonable...
Dialogue: 0,0:01:04.82,0:01:05.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}哦，我本不该这么说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Oh, I shouldn't even have said it.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:05.90,0:01:18.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为使我们能谈论它，表明其不存在矛盾，从而正确论述，并通过类比揭示奥秘的某些方面。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that we can speak about it, um, and show it not to be contradictory, um, so that we can speak rightly about it, um, and to shed some light on the mystery by way of analogy.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:18.82,0:01:27.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我们的出发点始终是启示真理——即耶稣在最后晚餐上的话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But again, we're always taking our point of departure from the revealed truth, and that revealed truth is from the words of Jesus at the Last Supper.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:27.86,0:01:28.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}明白吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:28.60,0:01:29.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「你们拿着吃\N{\an2\fs10\i1}"Take, eat.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:29.44,0:01:31.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是我的身体\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is my body.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:31.38,0:01:36.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是我立约的血」对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is the blood of the covenant." Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:36.32,0:01:40.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此出发点就是基督的这句话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the point of departure is simply the words of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:40.24,0:01:59.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}接着是教会的信仰——我们曾看到教宗额我略七世为反对贝伦加尔制定\N的认信公式，四个半世纪后又被特利腾大会议以不可错误的方式教导。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then, the faith of the Church, which we saw was defined against Berengarius in the, uh, formula that he had to, um, to recite, composed by Pope Gregory VII, and then, uh, four and a half centuries later, um, infallibly taught by the Council of Trent.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:59.22,0:01:59.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}让我们具体来看。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, let's look at that.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:59.84,0:02:18.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}特利腾大会议教导：在至圣圣餐中，面饼与酒祝圣后，我们的主耶稣基督—\N—真实的神和真实的人——真实地、真正地、实体地临在于这些外形之下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Council of Trent, um, teaches that in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist after the consecration of the bread and the wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under this species.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:18.80,0:02:22.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即那些可感知之物的外观。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That means appearances of those sensible things.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:22.40,0:02:33.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}公教神学中使用的「外形」一词，直接取自拉丁文species，意为表象。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, uh, side, the word species, when we use it in Catholic theology, is simply, um, m- taking, um, the Latin word species, which means appearances.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:33.38,0:02:39.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}特利腾大会议以否定句式宣称：\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in negative form, the, um, Council of Trent says this.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:39.02,0:02:59.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「若有人否认我主耶稣基督的体血连同其灵魂与神性——即整\N个基督——真实、真正、实体地临在于至圣圣餐中，而声称基\N督在此圣事中仅以记号、象征或能力方式临在，当受咒诅。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}"If anyone denies that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is present in this sacrament only as in a sign, or figure, or by His power, let him be anathema." All right.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:59.26,0:03:01.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可见这是不可错误的教导，对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we can see that's an infallible teaching, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:01.72,0:03:06.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是不可更改且需要我们坚定相信的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That can't be changed and requires our, um, firm belief.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:06.70,0:03:10.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督是真实、真正且实体地临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:10.98,0:03:17.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}注意，「实体地」并非简单重复——因为基督...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And notice, it's not, um, it's not simply repetition to add substantially, because there can...
Dialogue: 0,0:03:17.86,0:03:21.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在世界上以不同方式临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Christ is present in different ways in the world.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:21.14,0:03:29.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督此刻临在于这个房间，因为有两三个人奉他的名聚集。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, Christ is present, um, in this room, because two or three are present here, um, in His name.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:29.16,0:03:37.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督临在于宣讲的神的话语中，也以多种方式临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, Christ is present in the Word of God proclaimed, Christ is present, um, in, um, in many different ways, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:37.06,0:03:37.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在圣像中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In icons.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:37.90,0:03:41.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但唯有在圣餐中，祂是实体地临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But He's present substantially only in the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:41.48,0:03:52.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这意味着在天堂之外，唯有圣餐中完整临在着祂位\N格的全部现实——包括身体、血、灵魂及神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That means only in the Eucharist is He present, outside of Heaven, that is, in the fullness of His personal reality, including His body, His blood, His soul, as well as His divinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:52.70,0:03:53.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.20,0:03:59.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所谓「实体地临在」，即祂人性与神性整个实体都在其中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, substantially contained, meaning in the whole substance of His humanity and divinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:59.10,0:04:06.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这也在《公教会教理》1374条中申明。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's, um, also proclaimed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1374.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:06.16,0:04:07.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:07.92,0:04:10.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}完全重述了特利腾的定义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Simply repeats the definition of Trent.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:10.62,0:04:23.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}《要理》1374条进一步解释：「这种临在被称为真\N实的，但并非要排除其他也可能是真实的临在方式。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it goes on, in 1374, the Catechism, to say, to explain a little further, "This presence is called real, by which is not intended to exclude other kinds of presence, as if they could not be real too." Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:23.50,0:04:28.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}比如祂临在于神的话语中，或临在于我们聚会之处。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As He's present, say, in the Word of God, or He's present, um, where we are gathered together.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:28.70,0:04:41.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「而是因为这是最完满的临在——即实体性的临在，基督作为神人完整无缺地临现于此。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, "but because it's present in the fullest sense, that is a substantial presence, by which Christ, God and man, makes Himself wholly and entirely present." All right?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:41.88,0:04:43.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是教会的信仰——\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's the faith of the Church-
Dialogue: 0,0:04:43.62,0:04:43.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Mm-hmm.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:43.74,0:04:43.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}...
Dialogue: 0,0:04:43.74,0:04:44.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}关于真实临在的信仰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in the real presence.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:44.70,0:04:48.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神学家不是论证这点，而是以此为出发点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And theologians don't demonstrate that, but start from that.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:48.72,0:04:49.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}明白吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:49.24,0:04:51.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是圣托马斯的出发点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, that's St. Thomas' starting point.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:51.78,0:05:03.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在解释变质说时运用的另一个概念，就是我们上回谈到的偶性与实体的区分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, um, another thing that he uses in his explanation of transubstantiation is what we covered in the last talk, the distinction of accidents and substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:03.64,0:05:04.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:04.14,0:05:16.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}偶性指可变的属性与外观，虽不直接属于事物本质，但能说明事物「如何存在」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, again, the accidents are the changeable conditions and appearances which don't directly belong to the essence of a thing, but, um, answer the question how something is.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:16.18,0:05:24.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们首先通过偶性认知事物，进而推断其实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we know something, first, precisely by its accidents, um, and from them, we infer the substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:24.16,0:05:25.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:25.14,0:05:31.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而实体是恒存的主体，回答「是什么」的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whereas the substance is the abiding subject, um, that answers the question, what is it?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:31.20,0:05:40.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣托马斯这一区分虽可溯至亚里士多德，但更源于常识哲学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}St. Thomas takes that, um, distinction from the, we could say, from Aristotle, but more importantly, from the philosophy of common sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:40.82,0:05:41.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不限于亚里士多德。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not just Aristotle.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:41.96,0:05:47.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们都体验过事物本质与表象的差异。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All of us experience this distinction between what something is and how it appears.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:47.74,0:05:48.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:48.78,0:05:52.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可谓常识哲学的遗产。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we could call it the patrimony of the philosophy of common sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:52.72,0:05:59.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这在耶稣最后晚餐的话中可见：\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then, we s- see that in Jesus' words at the Last Supper.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:59.10,0:05:59.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:59.84,0:06:08.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣托马斯指出，耶稣设立圣餐时的表述本身...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, St. Thomas explains that the very language of Jesus' words at the Last Supper, the institution narrative......
Dialogue: 0,0:06:08.66,0:06:17.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要求我们相信一个实体转化为另一个实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}requires us to, um, to believe that one substance is con- converted into another.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:17.06,0:06:18.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:06:18.08,0:06:24.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为耶稣说「这...」——祝圣前指面饼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because Jesus said, "This..." Which before the consecration, be- at the beginning of the sentence, the this was bread.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:24.44,0:06:32.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他说「这是我的身体」——此时「这」已非面饼，而是他的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But he says, "This is my body." And thus, at the end of the sentence, it's no longer bread, but his body.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:32.38,0:06:37.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因耶稣的话是全能的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's because Jesus' words are omnipotent words, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:06:37.00,0:06:38.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}言出必成。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which do what they say.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:38.30,0:06:43.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}故一个「这」转化为另一个「这」，一个实体转化为另一个实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, one this into another this, one substance into another substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:43.92,0:06:45.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:06:45.38,0:06:48.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但前者的外观仍存留。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the appearances of the first one remain.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:48.04,0:06:49.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:49.34,0:06:51.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}还有其他可能性吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Are there any other options?
Dialogue: 0,0:06:51.74,0:07:02.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣托马斯论述真实临在时，先问「基督是否真实临\N在？」他根据基督的权威与教会信仰回答「是」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Saint Thomas, in treating the real presence, he starts with the question, "Is Christ really present?" And he answers, "Yes," based on the authority of Christ and the faith of the church.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.36,0:07:07.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在关于真实临在的第二篇中，他探讨转化问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But then in his second article on the real presence, he addresses the conversion.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:07.30,0:07:38.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他提出：「基督真实临在能否通过变质说以外的方式实现？」即基督是否可通过进入面\N饼而非将面饼转化为祂来临在——这后来成为马丁·路德及路德宗「同质说」的立场。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he poses the question, um, "Could Christ's real presence come about in any other way than through transubstantiation?" That is, could Christ become present, um, by moving into the host, um, and this was the, um, later would become the position of Martin Luther and, um, the Luther- our Lutheran brothers and sisters, often called consubstantiation.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:38.36,0:07:39.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:07:39.00,0:07:49.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么基督是否可通过进入面饼与酒，而非将面饼与酒转化为祂来临在？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, um, could Christ become present by moving into the bread and wine instead of through the conversion of the bread and wine into him?
Dialogue: 0,0:07:49.54,0:07:50.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:07:50.22,0:07:52.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是他提出的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, that's the question he poses.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:52.10,0:08:06.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他回答：同质说——即基督进入面饼与酒——与教会信仰相悖，原因有二。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he answers that consubstantiation, um, Christ coming into the bread and wine is incompatible with the faith of the church for two reasons.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:06.60,0:08:11.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}首先他认为这与基督的原话矛盾。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}First, he thinks it's incompatible with the very words used by Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:11.62,0:08:12.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:08:12.78,0:08:20.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「这是我的身体。」若面饼实体仍在而基督只是进\N入其中，祂本应说「这里有我的身体」之类的话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}"This is my body." If the substance of bread remains and Christ simply comes into them, he should have said something different.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:20.72,0:08:27.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}祂本该说「这里有我的身体」「我的身体在面饼中」等。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He should have said, "Here is my body." Or, "Here is also my body." Or, "My body is in the bread." Or something like that.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:27.84,0:08:28.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但祂没这么说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But he doesn't say that.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.92,0:08:38.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}祂说「这是我的身体」——意味着曾是面饼的这个实体，现在成了祂的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He says, "This is my body." And so the meaning has to be, this substance, which was bread, is now my body.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:38.12,0:08:46.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换言之，基督的话暗示实体从「这个」转化为「那个」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, Christ's words imply a conversion of substance from one this into another this.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:46.22,0:08:48.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是圣托马斯的第一论据。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Uh, that's Saint Thomas' first argument.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:48.84,0:08:55.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这在他之前的神学家——如上集提到的——已有论述。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it had been- been made before his time by other theologians that we mentioned in the previous episode.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:55.04,0:09:10.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣托马斯补充第二论据：某物开始存在于新地点，根本只有两种方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But Saint Thomas adds another argument then, and he explains, um, when we think about it, something can begin to be present in a new place in- in fundamentally two ways, and only two ways.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:10.96,0:09:13.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以火为例。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, let's take the example of a fire.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:13.92,0:09:17.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}火开始在此处出现...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A fire can be- begin to be present here, maybe ...
Dialogue: 0,0:09:17.60,0:09:21.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但愿不会——是因某物转化为火。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God forbid, um, because something here is transformed into fire.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:21.70,0:09:28.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}比如火花使讲台木材燃烧，转化为火与灰烬。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let's say we get a spark and the wood of my podium becomes, um, on fire, and so the wood would be transformed into fire and ash.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:28.96,0:09:35.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或火从别处被移至此。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or it could come to be here by being brought here from another place.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:35.56,0:09:35.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:09:35.76,0:09:37.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就这两种可能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Those are our two options.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:37.20,0:09:42.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}局部移动或一物转化为另一物。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Local movement or one thing converting into another.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:42.08,0:09:44.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再举一例。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let's take another example.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:44.96,0:09:59.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}婴儿通常通过受精时卵子与精子转化为新人类而存在于母腹。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The ordinary way in which a baby begins to be present in a mother's womb is by conversion of, um, in this case, the egg and the sperm, into, um, a new human being at the moment of conception.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:59.16,0:10:03.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是转化——配子成为新人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, that would be conversion, egg and sperm into new human being.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:03.32,0:10:20.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一种违背公教伦理的方式是试管受精——配子在试管结合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, um, another possibility, um, contrary to, um, Catholic moral theology would be in vitro fertilization, in which, um, the union is taking place in a test tube.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:20.80,0:10:27.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再通过移动植入子宫。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is then brought into the mother's womb, um, by local movement.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:27.50,0:10:27.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:10:27.82,0:10:35.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}总之两种方式：空间移动或实体转化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, those are our two ways, local movement from one place into another, or conversion of one thing into another thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:35.52,0:10:37.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:37.40,0:10:41.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣餐中是哪一种？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which one is the case in- in the Eucharist?
Dialogue: 0,0:10:41.08,0:10:41.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:10:41.54,0:10:57.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是在天堂的基督——两千年前升天，以身体常态（各部分占据空间）临在于天堂...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Is it that Christ, um, who is in heaven, right, descended into heaven 2,000 years ago, he remains there in his, um, in his normal mode of bodily presence, parts outside of other parts taking up space in heaven.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:57.14,0:11:01.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}...通过移动降临祭坛？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, is it that he comes down onto the altar by local movement?
Dialogue: 0,0:11:01.30,0:11:14.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}还是祭坛上的面饼与酒转化为祂，使祂临在于神迹保存的外形之下？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or is it that something here on the altar, the bread and the wine, are converted into him, making him present under their appearances which God miraculously upholds?
Dialogue: 0,0:11:14.58,0:11:16.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:16.32,0:11:21.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教会信仰是第二种而非第一种。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The faith of- faith of the church is the second and not the first.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:21.04,0:11:21.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:11:21.88,0:11:24.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们可能想象第一种方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We may imagine it in the first way, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:11:24.20,0:11:27.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有时会说「基督降临祭坛」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We sometimes use that language of Christ coming down onto the altar.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:27.96,0:11:31.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我也这样说，但要明白这是比喻。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I speak that way too, but we have to understand that that's a metaphor.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:31.72,0:11:34.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实际发生的情形某种程度上正相反。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What's really happening is in some way the opposite.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:34.20,0:11:52.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是祭坛上的面饼与酒转化为基督的体血，而其偶性（外形）留\N存，耶稣以整个身体、血、灵魂及神性临在于这些外形之下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's the bread and the wine on the altar that are converted into Christ's body and blood while the accidents or- or appearance of the bread and wine remain here, and Jesus becomes now present under those appearances with the whole of his body and blood, soul and divinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:52.60,0:11:57.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换言之，非空间移动，而是转化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, not local movement, but conversion.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:57.14,0:11:57.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:11:57.58,0:11:59.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们已看到...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we saw that was defined...
Dialogue: 0,0:11:59.26,0:12:07.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}贝伦加尔被迫宣誓承认：基督通过面饼与酒实体性地转化为祂而临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Berengaris had to swear that, that Christ became present by substantial conversion of the bread and the wine into him.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:07.50,0:12:12.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他曾否认这点，认为面饼与酒本质未变...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he had denied that, thinking that the bread and the wine simply remain unchanged....
Dialogue: 0,0:12:12.87,0:12:13.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}...祝圣后仍存留。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}after the consecration, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:13.87,0:12:15.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是异端观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Then that's heretical.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:15.27,0:12:15.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:15.79,0:12:25.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们不能认为祝圣后面饼与酒仍存留，因耶稣是通过它们转化为祂而临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We can't hold that the bread and the wine remain after the consecration because that's how Jesus becomes present, the bread and the wine becoming him.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:25.47,0:12:26.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:26.71,0:12:28.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但为何不能是空间移动？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Why couldn't it be local movement though?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:28.97,0:12:32.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}很简单。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it's very simple, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:32.49,0:12:40.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若耶稣通过移动临在于圣餐，会导致种种不可能或荒谬之事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If Jesus became present in the Eucharist through local movement, various impossible things or absurd things would have to occur.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:40.51,0:12:43.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}祂需从天庭出发。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He would have to travel from where he is in heaven.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:43.29,0:12:47.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}空间移动需经过所有中间地点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, local movement involves going through all the intermediate places.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:47.29,0:12:58.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们虽不知天堂确切位置，但显然非人间可达。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, those intermediate places, uh, we don't know exactly where heaven is, um, but nevertheless, it's a place clearly not accessible to us in this, in our-
Dialogue: 0,0:12:58.23,0:12:58.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:58.63,0:12:58.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}...
Dialogue: 0,0:12:58.91,0:12:59.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在地球上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}place on Earth.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:59.59,0:13:05.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}祂需穿越中间空间来到我们斯图本维尔的祭坛。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, and he would have to travel through the intermediate places to get to our altar here in Steubenville.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:05.97,0:13:24.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一问题是：圣餐中祂同时临在于无数祭坛——而身体\N通过移动需离开原处到达新处，无法同时处于多地。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Another problem is, he's through transubstan- through, in, in the Eucharist, he becomes present on many altars simultaneously, and a body, through local movement, um, has to leave the place where it is, end up in a new place, and he can't end up in multiple places.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:24.29,0:13:29.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此存在诸多...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, so there are various, um...
Dialogue: 0,0:13:29.27,0:13:31.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}还需时间等因素。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and it would take time as well, et cetera.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:31.01,0:13:36.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些显然不符合我们对圣餐的信仰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, and none of this clearly is, um, what we believe about the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:36.67,0:13:51.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实际发生的是相反过程：全球各处祭坛上的面饼与\N酒，都转化为同一位早已存在、仍在天堂的基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, and what's happening is rather the reverse, the bread and the wine that's on many altars in many parts of the world, all of that is converted into the same one preexisting Christ who remains in heaven.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:51.85,0:13:55.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣餐中基督并未离开天堂。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Christ doesn't leave heaven in, in the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:55.45,0:14:08.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是面饼与酒转化为祂，其外形留存，基督以圣事性奥秘临在于此外形之下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's that the bread and the wine are converted into him, but the appearances of the bread and wine remain here, and Christ now becomes mysteriously, sacramentally present under them.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:08.31,0:14:29.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若视这些外形为圣事面纱，遮掩祂真实临在——当我们将面\N饼与酒的外形摄入体内时，实将基督整个位格纳入己身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Under them if we consider them as sacramental veils that veil his real presence here where those accidents of the bread and the wine remain, and in our very bodies, when we take those appearances of bread and wine into ourselves, we take Christ's whole person into ourselves.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:29.21,0:14:35.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}故非通过移动，而是面饼与酒转化为祂。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So not by local movement, but rather by conversion of bread and wine into him.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:35.65,0:14:50.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}托马斯解释：祂现在的临在方式，类似于变质前面饼与酒的临在方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He now becomes present, see, Thomas explains, in a way analogous to how the bread and the wine were present, um, before the transubstantiation.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:50.27,0:15:01.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}变质前，面饼与酒的实体完整临在于其外形的每一部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Before the transubstantiation, um, the substance of bread and wine was present whole and entire under every part of the appearances of the bread and wine, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:01.07,0:15:13.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}变质后，基督以类似方式完整临在于每一部分——取代了面饼与酒的实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}After the transubstantiation, instead of the bread and the wine being present as substances, Christ is now present in, in an analogous way, whole and entire under every part.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:13.25,0:15:14.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}稍后再谈这点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We'll come back to that in a minute.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:14.97,0:15:32.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一奇特之处在于：不同于木材成灰或配子成胎等转化会创造新事物...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, another very odd thing about this is it's different from other conversions we've said because in other conversions, let's say the wood into ash or the egg and the sperm into the, the new human being, um, a new thing is created.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:32.53,0:15:41.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}变质说中，基督是预先存在的位格被呈现。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But in the case of transubstantiation, Christ, um, is made present, and he existed before.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:41.89,0:15:43.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换言之...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, he's not...
Dialogue: 0,0:15:43.27,0:15:47.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有新事物被创造，祂本身也未改变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}nothing new is brought into existence, and he's unchanged by it.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:47.99,0:15:58.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，这使祂能通过此地现存的面饼与酒外形临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But of course, it enables him to become present now here through the appearances of bread and wine which are here.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:58.09,0:16:10.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正是面饼与酒转化为基督（而非空间移动），使祂能同时临在于无数祭坛与圣体龛中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The conversion of the bread and the wine into Christ rather than the local movement is what enables Christ to be present on many, many altars all at the same time, and many tabernacles, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:16:10.01,0:16:13.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}每个圣体龛中的都是同一位基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because in each tabernacle, it's not a different Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:13.19,0:16:21.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是同一位基督临在于本地现存的面饼与酒外形之下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's the same Christ who's present under the appearances of bread and wine which are locally here.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:21.41,0:16:33.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即面饼与酒的体积占据圣体龛空间，使基督完整临\N在于其下——各地都是同一位基督，因所有...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, um, with their quantity taking up space in the tabernacle, making Christ present, whole and entire under them, and the same Christ in every place, because all of those...
Dialogue: 0,0:16:33.57,0:16:38.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}...变质说将所有面饼转化为同一位基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}transubstantiation converted all of those hosts into the one Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:38.85,0:16:44.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是教会对「变质说」的理解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, and so this is what the church understands by the term transubstantiation.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:44.41,0:17:06.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}特利腾大会议定义：「面饼的整个实体转化为基督身体的实体，酒的\N整个实体转化为祂血的实体——公教会恰当地称此变化为变质说。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I'm gonna go back again to the Council of Trent, which defines it as, "A change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ and a change of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his blood." This change, the Holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly named transubstantiation.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:06.11,0:17:19.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣托马斯指出：这种转变非受造者所能，唯无限者可为。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Saint Thomas, in speaking about this, says that such a change cannot be made by a finite agent, but only by an infinite agent.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:19.07,0:17:21.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即神的全能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That is, by God's own omnipotence.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:21.53,0:17:25.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这对神不难，对受造物却不可能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's not hard for God, but it's impossible for a creature.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:25.97,0:17:30.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}受造物只能引发表面变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A creature can bring about change by causing accidental change.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:30.95,0:17:40.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如火烧木导致偶性变化，直至木材无法保持原状而化为灰烬。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, fire brings about, works on wood by causing accidental changes until the wood can no longer remain wood and becomes another thing, ash.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:40.77,0:17:48.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我们无法瞬间将一实体变为另一实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, but what we can't do is simply instantaneously take one substance and make it into another substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:48.75,0:17:59.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神的全能却可——因祂一言即有万物。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the divine omnipotence can do this, and that's obvious because the divine omnipotence simply has to say the word and something comes to be.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:59.87,0:18:13.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣托马斯解释：「无限者掌控万有，因存在本质相通，故能实现此转变。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Saint Thomas explains, "Such a change can be made by the power of an infinite agent which has control over all being because the nature of being is common to both." Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:18:13.03,0:18:15.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督身体中的酒...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The wine in Christ's body...
Dialogue: 0,0:18:15.09,0:18:20.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}抱歉——面饼成为基督身体，酒成为祂的血...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm sorry, the, the bread in Christ's body, the wine in Christ's blood....
Dialogue: 0,0:18:20.68,0:18:32.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}...存在之源能将一物之存在完全转化为另一存在，消除所有差异。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and whatever there is of being in the one, the author of being can change into whatever, ever there is of being in the author, withdrawing all that whereby one was distinguished from the other.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:32.66,0:18:47.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即神通过基督的神性——以祂的人言为工具——将面饼实体转化为祂身体的实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, God simply makes in Christ, right, in his divinity, which is working through his human words as instruments, simply takes the reality of the bread and, and makes it into the reality of his body.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:47.60,0:18:54.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}酒亦如此转化为祂血的实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And likewise with the wine, making it into the reality of his blood.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:54.22,0:18:59.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这对神并非难事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For God, this is not a difficulty, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:18:59.08,0:19:01.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}轻而易举。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's rather a piece of cake.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:01.04,0:19:08.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}真正困难的是此转变所呈现的——祂的牺牲。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Um, what's difficult though is precisely, um, what this makes present, his sacrifice, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:19:08.10,0:19:11.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即祂倾尽鲜血的牺牲。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, his sacrifice which cost him all of his blood.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:11.60,0:19:16.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但真实临在对神而言不难实现。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The real presence though is not difficult for God to bring about, understand.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:16.92,0:19:23.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么神为何保留面饼与酒的外形？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, why does God retain the appearances of the bread and the wine?
Dialogue: 0,0:19:23.60,0:19:34.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想已回答过——为使我们能以日常饮食的外形合宜地领受祂。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, and I think we've already answered this, um, so that we can receive him in a fitting way under the appearance of what we normally eat and drink.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:34.10,0:19:42.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其次为赐我们信心之功——相信未见之事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then secondly, to give us the merit of faith, believing what we don't see, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:19:42.42,0:19:51.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}道成肉身中，我们未见祂的神性；圣餐中，我们人性与神性俱未见。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What we doubly don't see in, um, in the incarnation, Christ, right, was seen in his humanity but not in his divinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:51.36,0:19:55.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}却因此获得双倍信心之功。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the Eucharist, he's seen in neither, and we have the merit of both.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:55.44,0:20:05.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第三，面饼与酒的外形...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And third, the bread and the wine remain the appear...
Dialogue: 0,0:20:05.08,0:20:06.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}抱歉——不是面饼与酒本身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Sorry, not the bread and the wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:06.34,0:20:14.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}祝圣后面饼与酒的外形留存，为呈现其下的基督体血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The appearances of the bread and wine remain after the consecration, um, to make present Christ's body and blood under them, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:20:14.66,0:20:23.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只要面饼与酒的偶性存留，基督整个位格就临在于其下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As long as the appearances or accidents of the bread and wine remain, Christ's whole personal presence is under them, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:20:23.90,0:20:37.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}领圣餐约十分钟后，消化作用破坏这些外形——外形消失时，基督的真实临在也随之终止。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When we receive communion, after about 10 minutes, our digestive powers break down those appearances, and it's at moment, um, when the appearances cease, um, Christ's real presence likewise ceases.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:37.24,0:20:46.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此领圣餐后约十分钟内，我们每人都是承载基督体血、灵魂与神性的活圣体龛。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so for about 10 minutes after receiving communion, each one of us is a tabernacle containing Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:46.12,0:20:54.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}十分钟后，神性仍滋养我们，但人性不再临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}After the 10 minutes, that sureness of divinity continues to nourish us, but his humanity is no longer present.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:54.04,0:21:00.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此面饼与酒的外形至关重要...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the appearance of the bread and wine are very, are crucial to the...
Dialogue: 0,0:21:00.20,0:21:07.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}...是基督临在于我们时空中的媒介。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that means by which Christ becomes present here in our space and time, um, wherever we happen to be.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:07.58,0:21:11.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:21:11.06,0:21:22.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}面饼与酒的偶性留存而其实体转化为基督，这并不矛盾。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it's not contradictory that the appearances, the accidents of bread and wine remain, even though the substance of bread and wine has been, uh, converted into Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:22.02,0:21:24.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这仍是神的大能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's, again, simply the divine omnipotence.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:24.36,0:21:34.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神的全能既能转变实体，也能维持无实体的偶性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This, the divine omnipotence, just as it can make one substance into another substance, so it can sustain the accidents without a proper substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:34.30,0:21:39.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}变质前...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, before transubstantiation, when I, when the...
Dialogue: 0,0:21:39.28,0:21:44.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}...祭司祝圣前，祭坛上只是面饼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}before the priest does the consecration, there are simply pieces of bread on the altar, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:21:44.86,0:21:56.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}面饼实体承载其偶性（外形）。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And under those pieces of bread, um, there was the substance, and the appearances or accidents of the bread adhered, had their being in the substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:56.14,0:21:57.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}酒亦如此。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the same for the wine, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:21:57.64,0:21:59.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}万物皆然。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As in every other thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:59.32,0:22:10.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实体转化后，神维系偶性——取代原先面饼的功能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And when that substance is, is converted, God sustains the accidents doing what previously the bread did.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:10.22,0:22:13.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即偶性原先依存于面饼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, um, they had their being in the bread previously.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:13.70,0:22:19.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如今神直接维持其存在，无需面饼支撑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, God simply upholds them in being without them enduring in the bread.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:19.92,0:22:21.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们仍是偶性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It, they're still accidents.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:21.74,0:22:36.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即仍具依存于面饼实体的本性，但神无需面饼与酒即能维持其存在——因祂是神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, they still have the nature such that they would inhere in the substance of bread, but God is holding them in being without the aid of the bread and the wine, um, and he's powerful to do that because he's God.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:36.44,0:22:42.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神维系这些外形，正是为使我们能在其下领受基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he sustains them precisely so that we can receive Christ under them.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:42.80,0:22:51.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如前所述，基督整个实体「在」外形之下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As we said, the whole substance of Christ is present "under" us, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:22:51.66,0:22:52.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}用引号表示。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}These quotes, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:22:52.82,0:22:58.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们类比性地用于面饼与酒外形的任何部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we're using it analogously under any part of the appearance of bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:58.70,0:23:03.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若掰开两半，基督完整临在于每一半。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And if we break it in half, Christ remains whole and entire in each half, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:03.14,0:23:16.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如前解释：圣餐中基督的临在方式，类比于祝圣前面饼与酒实体的临在方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As we explained, Christ, um, in the Eucharist is present in the same manner analogously as the substance of the bread and wine was present, um, prior to the consecration.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:16.44,0:23:19.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即在每一部分下完整临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that is whole and entire under every part.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:19.50,0:23:32.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}故基督临在于圣餐，非以可测量的空间分布方式，而是完整临在于每一部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so he's, Christ becomes present in the Eucharist, not in the mode of quantity with parts outside of other parts, measured that we could take a ruler to, but he's present whole and entire under every part.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:32.82,0:23:36.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此假设身高六尺的基督...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's why Christ who's, let's assume six feet tall, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:36.94,0:23:43.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}...在天堂却能临在于任何尺寸的圣餐中——因祂完整临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In heaven, um, fits under any size Eucharist because he's present whole and entire.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:43.98,0:23:54.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}祂非以可测量的空间方式，而以实体方式临在——即在每一部分下完整临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's not present in the mode of quantity that we could measure with a ruler, but he's present in the mode of substance, and that means whole and entire under every part.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:54.00,0:23:57.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最接近的类比是灵魂——虽不完美。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The best analogy, it falls short, is our soul, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:57.20,0:24:00.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因我们灵魂完整地激活全身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because we're whole and entire in our animating our whole body.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:00.90,0:24:02.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但切勿混淆。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But let's not be confused here.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:02.96,0:24:07.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣餐中临在的不只是耶稣的灵魂，而是祂的整个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not just Jesus' soul that's present in the Eucharist, it's the whole of him, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:24:07.08,0:24:10.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即身体、血、灵魂与神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We say body, blood, soul, and divinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:10.26,0:24:17.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}祂完整临在于面饼与酒体积的每一部分下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's wholly present under every part of the quantity of the bread and the wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:17.38,0:24:21.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣托马斯论及...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, this is not i- in, in speaking about......
Dialogue: 0,0:24:21.51,0:24:25.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}...实体与量时，并非试图论证什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}substance and quantity, Saint Thomas, he isn't trying to, again, demonstrate anything.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:25.81,0:24:37.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只是根据耶稣的话与教会普世礼仪实践及信仰，我们应如何理解基督的临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's just simply how should we think about Christ's presence on the basis of Jesus' words and the church's universal liturgical, um, practice and faith.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:37.69,0:24:44.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此基督以实体方式而非空间方式临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, Christ is present in the mode of substance, not in the mode of quantity.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:44.61,0:24:57.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不过是正确表述我们领圣餐时的共识：无论面饼大小，我们领受的都是完整的耶稣基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's simply explaining, or maybe not explaining, it's speaking rightly about what we all know when receiving the Eucharist, that it doesn't matter what size host we receive, we receive the whole Jesus Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:57.23,0:25:03.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论领一种或两种外形，领受的都是完整的耶稣基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it doesn't matter if we receive under both species or just one, we receive the whole Jesus Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:03.71,0:25:06.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:06.19,0:25:12.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是所谓的「连带性」——祂的整个位格随之临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's what we call concomitance, that the whole of him, um, comes along, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:12.05,0:25:17.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣托马斯指出：「设立圣餐的话直接产生一个效果——\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Even though, so Saint Thomas says, "The words of institution directly have one effect, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:17.49,0:25:27.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}『这是我的身体』使祂身体临在。」但一物临在时，与之真实结合的一切也随之临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}'This is my body,' makes his body present." But when one thing becomes present, everything else that's really joined to it also becomes present, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:27.83,0:25:34.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此基督整个位格通过连带性临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, the whole of Christ becomes present, um, through concomitance.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:34.35,0:25:38.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣托马斯在此做了个思想实验：\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And here, Saint Thomas does a thought experiment, which is interesting.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:38.03,0:25:44.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}假设圣彼得在圣周六举行弥撒——\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let's imagine for a second that Holy Mass had been celebrated by, let's say, Saint Peter on Holy Saturday.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:44.93,0:25:45.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然实际上没有——\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:45.27,0:25:59.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若当时举行弥撒，『这是我的身体』这句话会使祂当时状态的身体临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, nobody celebrated Mass on Holy Saturday, but let's just suppose that Mass had, had been celebrated then, um, the words of, of institution, of the institution narrative, "This is my body," would've made his body present as it then was.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:59.01,0:26:01.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那时祂的身体在坟墓中已无生命。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And at that moment, it was dead in the tomb.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:01.99,0:26:10.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}仍与神性结合，但血已与身体分离。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He was still united to his divinity, um, but his blood was not united to his body, but was separated from it.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:10.11,0:26:20.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此圣爵祝圣会使祂的血临在——与神性结合，却与身体和灵魂分离。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, the words over the chalice would've made his blood present, his blood present, um, united to his divinity, but not united either to his body or to his soul.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:20.99,0:26:23.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但复活节主日，耶稣从死里复活。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But on Easter Sunday, Jesus rose from the dead.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:23.75,0:26:32.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从此以后，要使祂身体临在，血、灵魂与神性必随之临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, from that point on, it's impossible to make his body present without his blood, his soul, and his divinity coming along for the ride, as it were.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:32.85,0:26:39.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要使祂血临在，身体、灵魂与神性亦必随之临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And likewise, impossible to make his blood present without his body, soul, and divinity coming present likewise.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:39.75,0:26:47.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我们仍需同时领受两种外形，以呈现祂的牺牲。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But still, we need to celebrate Eucharist under both species always to make his sacrifice present.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:47.19,0:27:04.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}特利腾大会议定义：「若有人否认在可敬的圣餐中，整个\N基督临在于每种外形及每一分开的部分中，当受咒诅。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, this too was defined in the Council of Trent, "If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species and under each and every portion of either species when divided up, let him be anathema." Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:27:04.17,0:27:21.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}总之，基督以这种独特方式临在——面饼与酒的\N实体转化为祂，只要外形存留，祂就持续临在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Christ, in summary, Christ, um, becomes present in this unique way, the conversion of substance of bread and wine into him, and he remains present under those appearances as long as they retain their own being.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:21.45,0:27:31.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即直到我们消化外形为止——祂以实体方式临在，完整存在于每一部分下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That is, until we digest them, um, and he remains present in the mode of substance, that is, whole and entire under every part.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:31.77,0:27:38.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}意味着我们领圣餐时领受了完整的祂，毫无遗漏。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that means that the whole of him is received by us in holy communion and nothing is left out.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:38.23,0:27:51.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这一切并非论证，而是表述我们对圣餐奥秘的信仰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in all of this, we haven't demonstrated anything, but we're simply, um, seeking to, uh, express what it is that we believe in the mystery of the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:51.47,0:28:02.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们相信是因基督的话——我们知道祂有能力使这些话成真。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the reason we believe it is because of Christ's words, right, which say this, and we know he has the power to make those words true.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:02.75,0:28:04.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「这是我的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}"This is my body.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:04.07,0:28:19.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是我的血。」圣托马斯在《虔诚朝拜》圣诗中写道：视觉、触觉、味觉\N都会受骗，唯独听觉不会——因我们听见基督亲口说『这是我的身体』。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is my blood." Saint Thomas has a marvelous hymn, um, Adoro Te Devote, in which, um, he speaks about how our senses are deceived, our senses of seeing, touching, and tasting, but hearing is not deceived, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:28:19.85,0:28:30.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}下集我们将探讨弥撒祭献。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because we hear Christ's own word, "This is my body." I will leave it there, and in the next episode, we'll take up, um, the sacrifice of the Mass.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:30.93,0:28:42.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}全能的神，我们感谢祢赐下圣餐，使主耶稣基督真实临在于世间每个圣体龛中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We give you thanks, almighty God, for the gift of the Eucharist and the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, um, in the Eucharist in every tabernacle of the world.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:42.77,0:28:44.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}阿们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Amen.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:44.35,0:28:46.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因父、及子、及圣灵之名。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.