欢迎大家收看「理性与神学节目」。 Welcome to the Reason and Theology Show, everyone.
我是主持人迈克尔·洛夫廷，今天周二晚上，我们邀请到了嘉宾里弗·兰。 I'm your host Michael Loftin on a Tuesday evening, joined here by guest River Run.
我马上就请他上线。 I'm going to bring him on here in just a second.
但你们有些人已经认识他了。 But some of y'all know him already.
事实上，他为我们录制了一些有声书，去看看有 声书播放列表，你就能找到一些非常棒的内容。 He's, in fact, done some audiobooks for us, so just go check out the audiobook playlist and you'll get some really, really good stuff.
今天我们要讨论训导权中的现代主义。 What we're going to be doing today is discussing Modernism in the Magisterium.
里弗在这个领域做了大量阅读，所以他要和我们谈谈现代主义： 它到底是什么，特别是因为这个词经常被随意和笼统地使用。 Reverend has done a lot of reading in this area, so he's going to talk to us about Modernism: What is it, especially because this is a term that's thrown out all the time and it's used just so loosely and broadly.
所以我觉得我们能有一期节目深入探讨这个话题很好。 So I think it's good that we have a show where we can dig deep on this.
对于那些不了解他的人来说，他是一位皈依公教的信徒， 一位教理教师，而且就像我说的，是个有声书录制者。 Now, for those of you also not familiar with him, he's a convert to Catholicism, a catechist, and like I said, an audiobook recorder.
让我现在把他请进来。 Let me go ahead and bring him in here.
里弗·兰，你好吗？ River Run, how are you?
很好，迈克尔。 Pretty good, Michael.
我很好。 I'm pretty good.
是啊，你知道吗？ Yeah, and you know what?
很高兴见到你，因为我以前只听过你的声音，现在终于能把声音和面孔对上了。 It's nice to see you because I've only heard the voice, so it's nice to put a face with the voice.
这是你预期的样子吗？ Is this what you expected or no?
不，完全不是。 No, not at all.
没什么不好，但说实话，当我听到这个声音时，我想象的是一个穿燕尾服的人。 Nothing wrong, but honestly, I kind of pictured somebody in a tuxedo when I heard the voice.
这并不是坏事，因为我很喜欢你的有声书。 And that's not a bad thing because I love your audiobooks.
事实上，我那时正在旅行——我记不清是什么了，我想是去新奥尔良的旅 行——当时我没有什么可听的，而你恰好发布了朗读金博士论文的视频。 In fact, I was doing a trip—I forget what it was, I think it was a New Orleans trip—and I had nothing to listen to when you were just dropping the videos where you were reading Dr. King's dissertation.
我一直在听这些内容。 I listened to those the whole time.
非常精彩。 It was excellent.
我们还得把那个完成。 We've still got to finish that one.
确实如此。 That's true.
但你已经做了好几个视频了。 But you did several videos on it.
对我来说非常有帮助，所以大家也去看看吧。 It was extremely helpful for me, so y'all go and check that out again.
这些视频都在网上。 They're also here online.
我会放上链接。 I'll put a link to them.
让我们开始吧。 But let's dive in.
跟我们谈谈训导权中的现代主义。 Talk to us about Modernism in the Magisterium.
首先，也许给我们定义一下什么是现代主义，因为就像我说的，你知道，这 个词经常被人随意使用，人们用这个词的时候好像都知道它是什么意思。 First of all, maybe define for us what exactly is Modernism, because like I said, you know, this is a term that's thrown out all the time, and people use the term as if they know what it means.
但实际上，很多时候很明显他们并不真正知道它的含义。 And in fact, a lot of times it's clear they don't actually know what it means.
所以给我们下个定义吧。 So define it for us.
好的，定义事物有很多方式。 Okay, so there's a lot of ways to define things.
你可以通过举例来定义——你可以说这个人是现代主 义者，那个人是现代主义者，他也是现代主义者。 So you can define things by example—you could say this guy's a Modernist, this guy's a Modernist, this guy's a Modernist.
你可以通过某些特征性的行为来定义——比如说这个人 否认启示是客观的，或者那个人说了什么，诸如此类。 You can define things by sort of characteristic acts—so this guy says that you know, denies that revelation is objective, or this guy says this, and that's sort of like this.
或者你可以给出训导权试图给出的定义，这更接近本质定义。 Or you can give what the Magisterium attempts to give, which is closer to an essential definition.
严格来说，训导权对现代主义的本质定义是一种不可知论，特别是在神学方 面，由此产生了所谓的生命内在主义和激进的进化论，尤其是在教义方面。 Strictly speaking, what the Magisterium essentially defines Modernism as is a kind of agnosticism, particularly with respect to theology, from which results what it calls a vital immanentism and a radical evolutionism, especially with respect to doctrine.
我们可以讨论这是什么意思，但这是核心内容。 So we could talk about what that means, but that's the core thing.
嗯哼。 Mm-hmm.
有三份训导文件论述了这个问题。 And there's three Magisterial documents that go over this.
让我想想，是什么来着？ Let's see, what is it?
我不想说错。 I don't want to get them wrong.
首先是《哀伤之声》——这是一系列教义谴责，对各种命题的谴责，特别是阿尔弗雷 德·卢瓦西的观点，主要是源自卢瓦西的内容，但也包括其他一些被谴责的命题。 So Lamentabili Sane is the first one—that's a set of doctrinal condemnation, propositional condemnations of various things that especially Alfred—I don't want to get my French is very bad—Loisy, especially things derived from Loisy, but a few others propositions that were condemned.
还有《牧放主的羊群》，庇护十世教宗试图阐明这些被谴责命题背后的本质。 But also Pascendi Dominici Gregis, which Pope Pius X attempts to give an essential articulation of what's going on behind those condemned propositions.
然后是著名的《反现代主义宣誓》以及围绕这个宣誓的法律机制。 And then the famous Oath Against Modernism as well as the legal apparatus around the oath.
但那部分没有被翻译，而且据我所知，除了宣誓本身没有提供更多内容。 But that's not translated, and as far as I can tell, doesn't give us much more than the oath.
这些都是庇护十世废除的，对吧？ And all that was dropped by Pius X, right?
据我所知，这些都是庇护十世废除的。 All that's dropped by Pius X, as far as I can tell.
这些都仍然有效。 All of it is still in force.
这个——好吧，宣誓是被替换了，对吧？ It's been—well, the oath was replaced, well, right?
对。 Right.
你不需要再宣读那个誓词了。 You don't have to recite the oath anymore.
但就训导权而言，据我所知，这些内容都没有被权威性地修改过。 But magisterially, none of this has been, to my knowledge, authoritatively revised.
所以我们不用说「哦，这是——」这些内容仍然存在。 So we don't have to go, 'Oh, this is—' it's still stuff.
但原因是，你知道，这些内容实际上已经被后来的训导权完善了。 But the reason it's, you know, it's actually been refined by subsequent Magisterium.
但是我们，你知道，当我们需要研究它时，我们需要知道它是 什么，这样我们就能既不会过分超越它，也不会被它误导。 But we, you know, when we need to look at it, we need to know what it is so that we can, you know, not go too far beyond it but also not get deceived by it as well.
现在，如果我说错了请纠正我，因为这是我读过《哀伤之声》、《牧放主的羊群》、 《反现代主义宣誓》，并研究过卢瓦西等现代主义者后的印象：当你真正试图理解它 到底是什么时，似乎他们所做的就是采用正统的术语，但用非正统的定义来替换。 Now, correct me if I'm wrong, because here's my impression when I've read Lamentabili, Pascendi, the Oath Against Modernism, and looked into the Modernists like Loisy and others: When you really try to get at what exactly it is, it seems like what they are doing is they are taking orthodox terms and they're replacing them with unorthodox definitions.
所以一个现代主义者可能会说「我承认基督的复活」，但他们 所说的基督复活与耶稣身体的复活毫无关系——完全没有。 So a Modernist could say, 'I affirm the Resurrection of Christ,' but what they mean by the Resurrection of Christ has nothing to do with a bodily resurrection of Jesus—nothing.
它可能指的是粉色小精灵骑着独角兽在太空中飞翔。 It could be pink Smurfs flying on unicorns in outer space.
这可能就是他们所说的复活的含义。 That could be what they mean by the Resurrection.
这样理解准确吗，还是我理解错了？ Is that accurate, or am I misunderstanding?
所以，好吧，现在的情况是，我认为很多人最终 可能会这样做，但这确实是现代主义者的特征。 So, okay, so now the thing is, I think a lot of people can end up doing that, but Modernists do characteristically do that.
我可以解释一下。 And I can explain.
让我们从现代主义的根源开始：那就是不可知论。 So let's start with the root of Modernism: it's agnosticism.
那么，什么是不可知论？ Now, what's agnosticism?
现在，这背后的背景——要详细说明需要很长时间——但这背景肯定是19世纪 和20世纪早期的思想，特别是在认识论方面，这就是教宗所说的现象主义。 Now, a background to this—it would take a long time to go into it—but the background on this is certainly 19th and early 20th-century thought, especially in epistemology, and the idea is what the Pope calls phenomenalism.
后来的教宗们都这么称呼它——若望保禄二世也这么称呼它——现象主义的理 念有各种形式——成为现象主义者有很多不同的方式——就是说知识，科学本 质上处理的是现象，也就是说，仅仅是事物表现出来的样子，仅此而已。 Subsequent Popes call it this—John Paul II calls it this—and the idea of phenomenalism in its various forms—there's a lot of different ways to be a phenomenalist—is that what knowledge, what science is essentially dealing with are phenomena, that is to say, stuff as it appears and nothing else.
就是说，事物以什么样的方式呈现就是什么样。 So as it appears in the manner that it appears.
因此这可以有很多不同的版本。 And so you can have a lot of different versions of this.
你可以有，嗯，我们可以有一种经验主义的科学版本，在这种 版本中，我们处理的是用概率理论相关联的直接感知现象。 You can have, well, we can have a kind of empiricistic scientific version of this where, well, what we're dealing with is immediate sense phenomena related in terms of a probabilistic theory.
我们可以有一种实证主义，也就是说，你处理的是由科学理论解释的现象。 We can have a kind of positivism which is, well, what you're dealing with is phenomena as interpreted by scientific theories.
你可以有一种康德主义，在那里事物是通过概念图式形成的，然后就是它们呈现的方式。 You can have a kind of Kantianism where you're going to have sort of things worked up through conceptual schemata, and then that's how they appear.
但无论你想怎么做，核心理念是：看，我们只有事物呈现的方式，仅此而 已，我们无法超越它们去推断——通常你要说的是超验背景，或者康德所 说的物自体，或者我们在古典神学传统中所说的客观理解的事物原因。 But however you want to do it, the idea is: Look, we've got things the way they show up, and that's all we have, and we can't go beyond them to infer—usually what you're going to say is a transcendent background or what Kant calls things themselves, or what we in the classical theological tradition would call the cause of things understood objectively.
如果你记得梵蒂冈第一届大公会议的第一部分——那个有趣的部分，那个 没人记得也没人读的教义部分——它教义性地定义了人可以通过理性认识 到诸如神存在或启示是可信的等事情。这需要一种能够超越现象的推理， 能够推断出诸如创造的基础或超验存在，第一推动者之类的事物。 And if you recall in the first part of Vatican I—the fun part, the doctrinal part that nobody remembers and nobody reads—it's dogmatically defined that a person can know by reason things like God exists or that revelation is credible, etc. And that requires a kind of reasoning that can step beyond phenomena and can infer to things like the ground of creation or the transcendental being, the prime mover.
这些推理在19世纪和20世纪早期的思想中被否定了。 These are moves denied by 19th and early 20th-century thought.
这种否定就是教宗所说的现象主义，从否定的角度他称之为不可知论。 And this denial is what the Pope's calling phenomenalism, and negatively he calls it agnosticism.
为什么是不可知论？ And why agnosticism?
因为它是一种无知，是对超越现象的事物缺乏认知。 Because it's an agnosis, a lack of knowledge with respect to things beyond the phenomena.
这就是不可知论。 That's what agnosticism is.
那这会导致什么？ So what's that do?
嗯，这在神学方面会产生很多影响。 Well, that can do a lot of things with respect to theology.
我认为很多人都是严格意义上的不可知论者——就像理性主义者也 是不可知论者，他们认为我们无法了解那些事物，或者我们对那些 一无所知，或者那些都是一堆废话，这就是理性主义的想法。 And I would argue that a lot of people are agnostics in the strict sense—in the sense that like rationalists are also agnostics in the sense that we can't know anything about that, or we don't know anything about that, or it's all a bunch of crap, is the rationalist thought.
但现代主义者的特点是相信——这源于19世纪的浪漫主义倾向——他们的特点是相 信宗教是值得尊重的、必要的，是人类生活永恒的一面，因此必须同情地理解它。 But Modernists are characterized by believing—and this comes out of a Romantic tendency in the 19th century—they're characterized by believing that religion is respectable and necessary and a perennial facet of human life, and that because of this, it has to be understood sympathetically.
但由于他们接受现象主义，接受不可知论，这种理解就不可能是「好 的，我们知道神对我们说话并向我们启示了这些事情」这样的理解。 But since they accept phenomenalism, since they accept agnosticism, this understanding can't be an understanding wherein we go, 'Okay, we know that God talked to us and revealed these things to us.'
为什么？ Why?
因为我们无法知道那些事情。 Because we can't know anything about that.
我们无法接触到那种现象。 We can't have access to that kind of phenomena.
我们无法接触到神启示的可信迹象。 We can't have access to credible signs of God's revelation.
既然我们不能有这些，那么启示就不可能建立在这些基础上。 And since we can't have that, then revelation can't possibly be based on that.
它一定是别的什么东西。 It's got to be something else.
那是什么呢？ And what's that?
嗯，教宗说——这是很可信的——他们认为宗教是植根于灵魂中 对神的需要，用现代的说法就是一种心理需求，并得到表达。 Well, the Pope says—and this is quite credible—says that they think that religion is a need for God founded in the soul, a psychological need we might say in modern parlance, and given expression.
这就回到了你关于术语的问题。 And so this gets back to your question about terms.
当他们研究公教教义时，如果他们是公教现代主义者，他们会说：「好吧，看，我们想出了 这种生活方式，我们使用所有这些术语，但这种生活方式不可能建立在任何超验的东西上。 What they do when they survey Catholic doctrine, if they're Catholic Modernists, is they go, 'Well, look, we've come up with this way of living and we use all these terms, but this way of living can't be based on anything transcendent.
它必须建立在某种内在的东西上——也就是说，某种心理上的东西。 It has to be based on something immanent—that is to say, something psychological.
所以这些术语的真正含义是X、Y和Z。当我使用这些术语时，我 指的是X、Y和Z，任何认为它们有其他含义的人都是困惑的。」 And so the real meaning of these terms are X, Y, and Z. And when I use these terms, I mean X, Y, and Z, and anybody else who thinks they mean anything else are confused.'
然后还有一整套理论——我们可以讨论这个理论——但对于现 代主义者来说，有一个关于宗教教义是什么的潜在心理理论。 And then there's a whole theory—and we can talk about the theory—but there's an underlying psychological theory about what religious dogma are for a Modernist.
我很好奇，因为你在谈论现象学，是从那种角度来看的。 I'm curious there because you were talking about phenomenology and it from that kind of perspective.
如果你真的只能知道现象本身，你怎么能真正知道历史上的事情呢？ If you really don't know things beyond just the phenomenon, how can you really know things that are historical?
首先，这是现象主义。 First of all, it's phenomenalism.
现象学是一个独立的哲学术语。 Phenomenology is a separate philosophical term.
我受过现象学训练。 I was trained in phenomenology.
若望保禄二世受过现象学训练。 John Paul II was trained in phenomenology.
现象学和现象主义是不同的东西，尽管可以有现象主义的现象学。 Phenomenology and phenomenalism are different things, although there can be a phenomenalist phenomenology.
两者都有。 It's both.
那么请为我们区分这两个术语。 So distinguish the two terms for us.
现象学想要从一个很广泛的意义上来处理事物呈现的方式。 So phenomenology wants to treat things as they appear in a very broad sense.
所以一个现象学家——胡塞尔通常被认为是这个学派的创 始人，或者布伦塔诺和胡塞尔，你想怎么看待这个问题？ So a phenomenologist—Husserl is usually credited as the founder of this school, or Brentano and Husserl, how do you want to think about it?
但广义来说，现象学只关注事物呈现的方式，而且一般 来说，它对我们能知道现象的什么持不置可否的态度。 But phenomenology, broadly speaking, is just concerned with things as they appear and then, generally speaking, it'll be noncommittal about what we can know about phenomena.
它只是在研究事物的表象。 It's just examining the appearance of things.
它对于我们能否推断神的存在持中立态度。 It's indifferent as to whether or not, okay, can we infer God's existence?
我们能否知道启示的可信性？ Can we know about the credibility of revelation?
这不是现象学家关心的。 That's not what a phenomenologist cares about.
另一方面，现象主义者以这样或那样的方式坚持 认为我们所拥有的只是以某种方式呈现的现象。 A phenomenalist, on the other hand, is committed to the thesis in some way or another that all we have are phenomena characterized in a certain way.
埃德·费泽有时把这种立场称为「仅此而已主义」：我们只 有这些，它们就是这样呈现的，这就是你所能做的全部。 Ed Fazer sometimes calls this commitment 'nothing but-ism': all we got is this, and they appear this way, and that's all you can do.
而现象学家并不是说我们所拥有的仅仅是现象，对吧？ Whereas the phenomenologist is not saying all we have is just phenomena, correct?
不，完全不一定。 No, not necessarily at all.
事实上，他可能会坚持说现象会引导你到达某些结论。 In fact, he might be committed to saying that the phenomena lead you to such and such.
我想他会经常这样认同。 I think he would sign pretty regularly.
如果她不这样相信，她的主张就不会连贯。 Her proposition wouldn't be coherent if she didn't believe so.
但无论如何，我们说到哪里了？ But in any case, where were we?
嗯，我是说，我很好奇他们如何知道历史上的事情。 Well, I mean, I was curious about how would they know things that are historical.
我猜是因为我们不能直接经历那些事情，就像我们不能直接经历神作为原因一样，对吧？ I guess because we can't really experience those things directly in the same way that we can't experience directly the God as cause, right?
我的意思是，我们可以经历一些结果，但不能经历他作为原因。 I mean, we can experience some effects, but not Him as cause.
我们必须理性地从结果追溯到原因。 We would have to rationally go from the effect back to the cause.
既然他们对那个持怀疑态度，为什么他们不对历史持怀疑态度呢？ In the same way that they would be skeptical about that, why wouldn't they be skeptical about history?
所以历史真的很奇怪，《牧放主的羊群》谈到了 这一点，大公会议前的神学也谈到了这一点。 So history is really weird, and Pascendi talks about this and pre-conciliar theology talks about this.
它说，如果我没记错的话，是庇护——如果我说错了，请纠正我——但它要 么在庇护的著作中，要么在《神学家苏格拉底》中，或者其他什么地方。 And it says that, I think if I recall, it's Pius—if I'm wrong, somebody correct me—but it's either in Pius or it's in Socrates Theologius or whichever.
但他们讨论历史现代主义者，因为现代主义者只是那些模 糊地持有这些立场的人，然后他们可以出现在任何领域。 But they discuss historical Modernists, because Modernists are just people who have vaguely these commitments, and then they can show up in any field.
在历史方面，它说，嗯，他们很焦虑。 And in history, it says, well, they're anxious.
历史现代主义者很焦虑，生怕他们看起来是在坚持一个哲学纲领而不是历史客观性。 The historical Modernists are anxious lest they appear committed to a philosophical program and not to historical objectivity.
但你得到的结果是一样的。 But you get the same result.
为什么？ Why?
嗯，因为他们以一种非常特殊的方式处理历史事实。 Well, because they work up the facts of history in a very particular way.
那是怎么样的呢？ And how is that?
嗯，他们想要限制——如果你读过历史，世俗历史的话你就会看到这点 ——他们想要把历史中可能发生的事情限制在一个很窄的现象范围内。 Well, they're going to want to limit—and you've seen this if you've ever read history, secular history—they're going to want to limit what can happen in history to a very limited range of phenomena.
我们如何知道这些现象？ How do we know these phenomena?
嗯，我们观察日常生活，或者我们知道物理学是如何运作的，你知道，但没有任何奇迹。 Well, we observe day-to-day living, or we know how physics works, or you know, but nothing miraculous.
为什么历史上不可能发生奇迹事件？ Why can't miraculous events have occurred in history?
嗯，因为你不可能有那种现象。 Well, because you can't have that phenomena.
我说，为什么不能？ Why not, I say?
就是这个原因。 That's why.
但你知道，凯撒渡河之类的事情，这并不难相信。 But you know, Caesar crossing like a river or something, that's not hard to believe.
这是可能的，因为我们总是看到人们在渡河，对吧？ It happens because we have people crossing rivers all the time, right?
这就是他们的论点吗？ Is that kind of the argument?
是的，是的，就是这样。 Yeah, yeah, that's going to be so.
你要限制，而且你要用上整套世俗历史的工具。 You're going to limit and you're going to have the whole apparatus of secular history.
所以你要有那些规则，用来判断什么是合法的，什么不是，什么是伪造和后来的修改， 什么不是。他们会运用整套批判工具，而且他们会在他们认为的现象限制范围内运用这 整套批判工具，这取决于你的学派，会是某种自然主义限制的版本——随你怎么想。 So you're going to have, well, the rules by which we determine what's legitimate and what isn't, what's a fraud and a later emendation and what isn't. They'll deploy the entire critical apparatus and they'll deploy the entire critical apparatus within the realm of what they consider to be the limitations of phenomena, which depending on your school, it's going to be some version of a kind of naturalistic constraint—however you want to.
有大约五到十种不同的方式来处理这个问题，这就是他们之间争论的内容。 There's about five, ten different ways to work that out, and that's what they dispute about amongst themselves.
但最终结果都是一样的，也就是说，耶稣不可能分饼和鱼。 But at the end of the day, the result's going to be the same, namely, Jesus can't possibly have divided the loaves and the fishes.
我记得有一次读泰勒尔的著作，一个现代主义者的观点，他的态度是「你怎么能想象？ I think I was reading Tyrell one time, a Modernist on this, and it's sort of like, 'How can you even imagine?
关于耶稣和鱼的事，我们应该怎么想象呢？ What are we supposed to imagine with Jesus and the fish?
他拿着它们然后拉伸，然后它们就变成了鱼？」 He took them and stretched them, and then they popped into fish?'
这是不可想象的，因此它就没有发生过，这就是你会得到的那种推理。 And that's inconceivable, and therefore it didn't happen is the kind of reasoning that you'll get.
所以他们说：「嗯，这甚至不是现象范围内可以 想象的现象，因此必须用不同的方式来理解。」 So they go, 'Well, that's not even a conceivable phenomena within the range of phenomena, and therefore it has to be read in a different way.'
这是怎么回事？ How's that?
这就涉及到内在主义了，我们可以谈谈这个。 And then that's in terms of immanentism, and we can talk about that.
是的，跟我们谈谈那个内在主义和生命内在性，我相信这是庇护十世教宗所说的。 Yeah, talk to us about that immanentism and vital immanency, I believe is what Pope Pius X called it.
所以我想谈谈这个，我想用——你可以用《牧放主的羊群》——但我想用，这是什么？ So I want to talk about this, and I wanted to use—you can use Pascendi—but I wanted to use, what is this?
《神学总论》，因为我想展示这是人们在大公会议之前如何理解这个教导的。 The Sacrae Theologiae Summa, because I wanted to show that this is how people read this teaching before the Council.
让我们看看，他们说这是在讨论关于启示的错误观念。 So let's see, we got so they say this is talking about false notions of revelation.
这是第一卷的第94页。 This is on page 94 of the first volume.
它说：「自由新教徒和现代主义者把启示理解为宗教经验，这种经验基于我们 借以理解神的特殊感觉，」特别是当这种经验更加生动，似乎是被动的时候。 It says, 'Liberal Protestants and Modernists understand by revelation religious experience which underlies the special feeling whereby we apprehend God,' especially if this experience is more vivid and as if it were passive.
这是在说什么？ So what's that saying?
这是在说，嗯，在历史上，特别是圣人们，特别是神恩人士，他 们有这些强烈的感觉和异象，这些似乎是从外部临到他们的。 That's saying, well, you have in history, in particular saints, in particular charismatics, they have these big feelings and these big visions, and they come on to them as if from outside.
这就是宗教经验的真实本质。 And that's what religious experience really is.
这不是对超验之神的经验。 It's not an experience of the transcendent God.
这只是一种感觉。 It's just this feeling.
然后它说，我们在说什么？ And then it says, what are we saying?
我们在说现代主义主要是对启示概念的攻击。 We're saying that Modernism is primarily an attack on the notion of revelation.
接着说现代主义表示一种19世纪末20世纪初的现代倾向，即从内在主 观主义和相对主义的角度来解释和诠释宗教中的许多事物，同时以激进的 进化论和不可知论的主观主义为其基础——这就是我们刚才谈到的。 And it goes on to say Modernism signifies a modern tendency that is at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century of explaining and interpreting many things in religion from an immanent subjectivism and from relativism, while presupposing it as its foundation a radical evolutionism and agnostic subjectivism—which is what we talked about.
不可知论的主观主义就是我们无法超越这些表象，至于进化论我们稍后再谈。 Agnostic subjectivism is what we can't get beyond these appearances, and evolutionism we'll talk about in a minute.
现代主义有几种形式，无论是关于宗教本身及其本质和概念，还是关于圣经的默示 及其诠释，或是关于宗教历史和教义的演变，或是关于信仰和启示及其护教学。 There are several forms of Modernism, whether regarding religion itself and its essence and notion, or regarding the inspiration of the sacred books and their interpretation, or regarding religious history and the evolution of dogma, or regarding faith and revelation and their defense and apologetics.
因此，现代主义可以是哲学的、释经的、教义的，等等等等。 Hence, Modernism can be philosophical, exegetical, dogmatic, blah blah blah.
然后它说，因此，按照现代主义者的说法，宗教必须不是从对神的理性概念 来解释，而是作为人生命中经历的生命现象来解释——这就是我们所说的。 And then it says, having so, it is religion according to the Modernist must be explained not from an intellectual concept of God but as a vital phenomena experienced in the life of man—which is what we said.
但每种生命现象的最初动力必须在某种需要或某种被称为感觉的心灵活动中寻找。 But the first motion of every vital phenomena must be sought in some kind of need or in a certain movement of the heart which is called feeling.
因此，信仰，作为任何宗教的开始和基础，必须存 在于某种由对神性的需要而产生的内在感觉中。 Therefore, faith, which is the beginning and the foundation of any religion, must be located in a certain intimate feeling which arises from a need for the divine.
但这种需要是建立在潜意识中，并从那里迸发出来。 But this need is founded in the subconscious and it bursts forth from there.
假定了这些关于宗教和信仰的观念，现代主义者就很容易歪曲启示的概念。 Having supposed these ideas of religion and faith, the Modernists easily pervert the notion of revelation.
按照现代主义者的说法，启示不是从外部而来的某种真理 的理性显现，而是从人的宗教情感内部产生的某种东西。 Revelation according to the Modernists is not an intellectual manifestation of some truth coming from the outside, but it is something that comes from within the man from his religious sentiment.
启示——或至少是启示的开始——是出现在人意识中的 宗教情感或宗教经验，借此神在人里面被感受和显现。 Revelation—or at least the beginning of revelation—is the religious sentiment appearing in one's consciousness or religious experience whereby God has felt and manifest himself in a man.
因此，那些有这种宗教情感、有更发达和更生动的宗教经验的人被说成是有启示的。 Thus, men who have such religious sentiments are more developed and more lively religious experience are said to have revelations.
因此，他们说启示不可能是别的，只能是人对他的启示所获得的意识。 Therefore, they say revelation can be nothing else than the consciousness acquired by a man of his revelation.
那这是在说什么？ So what's this saying?
所以它在说，好吧，我们对真理和超验真理一无所知。 So what it was saying is, okay, we don't know anything about the truth and the transcendent truth.
我们知道现象的事情，但那不是大写的真理。我们不知 道——我们不知道事物的终极原因，这就是要说的。 We know things about phenomena, but that's not the truth capital T. We don't know things about—we don't know the ultimate causes of things is what this is going to be.
但作为现代主义者，我们坚持认为宗教有某种完整性，对人类有某种价值。 But as a Modernist, we're committed to religion having some integrity, some value for mankind.
事实上，在19世纪末20世纪初，这种立场认为宗教是人类的最高发展，是最高的道德。 Usually, in fact, at the end of the 19th century, at the beginning of the 20th century, the commitment is that religion is a supreme development of mankind and supremely moral.
我们还在继续吗？ Are we still working?
听起来有点空白。 It sounds a little blank.
是的，好的。 Yeah, okay.
好的，就是说它是最高的道德。 Okay, that it's supremely moral.
但这种生活的完整性必须用其他原理来解释，因为总的来说我们无法知道事物的超验原因。 But the integrity of this life has to be explained by some other principle, since in general we can't know the transcendent causes of things.
因此，它必须用我们确实知道的东西来解释。 Therefore, it has to be explained by something we do know.
我们知道什么？ What do we know?
我们知道我们自己的心理。 We know our own psychology.
那么什么解释了宗教生活？ So what explains the religious life?
嗯，我们自己的心理。 Well, our own psychology.
在我们经历的一般现象中，什么最明显地对应于宗教生活？ What corresponds to religious life most obviously in the general phenomena we experience?
嗯，这些强烈的感觉。 Well, these big feelings.
这些强烈的——你去教会，你参加礼仪，你参加 基督圣体游行，这些强烈的感觉在你内心涌现。 These big—you go to church, you go to the liturgy, you go to a Corpus Christi procession, and these big feelings well up inside of you.
这就是宗教。 And that's what religion is.
这就是宗教。 That's what religion is.
这直接可以追溯到施莱尔马赫——这是浪漫主义的宗教观，但被内在化了。 And this straight that goes all the way back to Schleiermacher—that's the Romantic conception of religion but immanentized.
施莱尔马赫很奇特。 Schleiermacher's weird.
施莱尔马赫是一个奇特的康德主义者，他认为，嗯，有这样一个经验 领域，就是宗教经验，你可以通过这些崇高的超验感觉来理解它。 Schleiermacher's a weird Kantian who thinks that, well, there's this realm of experience, it's the religious experience, and you can understand it through these sublime transcendent feelings.
但它似乎在外面，像是第三方的东西，不完全是你本身。 But it's kind of out there, it's kind of third-party, it's kind of not you per se.
19世纪的心理学转变继续说：「不，就是你。 The psychological transformation of the 19th century go ahead and say, 'No, it's you.
从某种意义上说，这是你的心理。 It's your psychology in some sense.
它是心智的一部分，可以用某种方式理解为头脑中发生的具体机制。」 It's part of the mind and understood in a kind of, you know, nuts and bolts stuff going on in the head in some way.'
然后我们继续说：「好吧，那宗教到底是什么？ And then we go ahead and say, 'Okay, well, what's religion really?
是你的感觉。 It's your feelings.
是你的强烈感觉。」 It's your big feelings.'
那么，宗教教义是什么？ And then, so what is religious dogma?
嗯，宗教教义是这些感觉在群体中的命题表达。 Well, religious dogma is the expression in proposition of these feelings in a group.
所以我们都聚在一个有权威的大群体中，以这种方式共同生活，称之为教会 ，我们都同意如何表达我们共同拥有的这些感觉，并称这些为教义和信条。 So we all get together in a big group with authority to hold this way of living together, call it the Church, and we all have agreements about how we're going to say these feelings that we have together and call these doctrines and dogmas.
这些规范了我们如何相互谈论我们的感觉。 And these regulate how we talk to one another about our feelings.
这些还有什么其他内容吗？ And what other content do these have?
什么都没有。 Nothing.
就是这样。 That's it.
这就是他们所做的全部，再没有别的了。 That's all they do, and there's nothing more to it.
你可以看到，一旦你做出这个跨越，那么几乎所有被谴责和哀叹的事情立即就说得通了。 And you can see once you've made that leap, then almost all of the things condemned and lamented immediately make sense.
所以，当然，基督并没有真正地，你知道，本身行神迹或本身定义任何教义，因为我 们无法知道——我们无法知道事物的原因，我们无法从任何发生的事情推断到神。 So, of course, Christ didn't really, you know, per se do the miracles or didn't really per se define any dogma, because we can't know—we can't know the causes of things, we can't infer from anything that happens to God.
所以实际发生的是，我们把在基督同在时产生的感觉的符 号投射到基督的非凡品格中，这带来了新的生活方式。 So what's going on is that we've projected into the extraordinary character of Christ symbols of the feelings that come up with us in the presence of Christ that bring about a new way of living.
我们用这些符号来规范我们的感觉，用来培养我 们的感觉，用来把我们的感觉传递给新一代。 And these symbols we use to regulate our feelings, we use to cultivate our feelings, we use to pass on our feelings to a new generation.
但它们与实际发生的事情没有任何对应关系。 But they don't have any correspondence to what actually went on.
对现代主义者来说重要的是，这并不重要，因为我们所做的只是要回到那些感觉。 And importantly for the Modernists, that doesn't matter because all we're trying to do is get back to those feelings.
迭戈在这里问，只是为了澄清：「所以他们基本上是在把一切都心理学化吗？」 Diego is asking here, just for clarification: 'So are they basically psychologizing everything?'
是的，确实如此。 Yeah, actually.
事实上，这整个——很有趣——这整个哲学思维时期的特征就是心理学化运动。 In fact, this whole—it's funny—this whole period in philosophical thinking is characterized by a psychologizing movement.
甚至在一个重大辩论中，一个平行的例子：当时在德 国的一个重大辩论就是关于心理主义和逻辑的辩论。 Even in one of the big debates, a parallel illustration: one of the big debates in Germany at this time is a debate over psychologism and logic.
这个争议实际上是关于逻辑是否是心智的心理习 惯的属性，还是心智发现的一种超验结构集。 And this dispute is literally a dispute over whether or not logic is a property of psychological habits of the mind or whether or not logic is a sort of a transcendental set of structures that are discovered by the mind.
你在1874年到1915年、1925年这段时期到处都能看到这种情况。你看到这 是欧陆思想中的一个核心主题，在某种程度上在英国也是如此，尽管英国总是很特别。 You see that all over in this period from about 1874 to about 1915, 1925. You see that as a core theme in all of Continental thinking, and to a certain extent in England, although England's always weird.
在这里看到它也不足为奇。 And it's not surprising to see it here as well.
是的，绝对如此。 Yeah, absolutely.
这绝对是神学中的心理学化倾向，因为他们认为除了心理之外你不可能有其他东西。 It's absolutely a psychologizing tendency in theology because they don't think that you can have anything other than your psychology.
现在，有一件事我很好奇，根据这些信息和定义，每当我们听到 人们说「这个人是现代主义者，他是现代主义者，等等等等，这 个神职人员是现代主义者」——他们使用这个术语真的准确吗？ Now, one thing that I'm curious about, given this information and these definitions, whenever we hear people say, 'This guy's a Modernist, he's a Modernist, blah blah blah, this clergyman's a Modernist'—are they really accurate in the way they're using the term?
或者说他们是新现代主义者会更好吗？ Or would it be better to say maybe they're a Neo-Modernist?
你对这个问题有什么看法？ What's your opinion here?
所以，我不——在某个层面上，再说一次，我在 开始时说过，你可以用不同的方式定义事物。 So, I don't—so on one level, again, I said at the beginning, you can define things various ways.
如果他们是——里珀格对此很谨慎，他通常是通过类比来定义——所以是的，他们 是现代主义者，是指他们像现代主义者，他们相信现代主义者相信的一些东西。 And if they're being—and Ripperger is careful about this, and he's usually defining by analogy—so it's, yeah, they're a Modernist in the sense that they're like Modernists, that they believe some of the things Modernists do.
但严格来说这不是同一回事。 But it's not strictly speaking the same thing.
我甚至不太清楚，迈克尔，你可能比我更了解…… It's not even clear to me, and Michael, you might know better than me...
现代主义本身是被定义为一个异端，还是仅仅是一组异端的反映被归在一个标签下，但无论 如何，不管它是一个异端还是一组异端的组合，你不能指控一个人犯下他没有犯的异端。 If Modernism per se is defined as a heresy or if it's simply a reflection of a set of heresies combined under a label, but in any case, whether it's a heresy or whether it's a set of heresies combined under a label, you can't charge a man with heresies he doesn't commit.
所以如果一个人没有犯那些错误，你永远不应该说他在异端的意义上是现代主义者。 So you should never say that a man is a Modernist in the heretical sense if he doesn't commit those errors.
就我所知，就拿一个普通的自由主义者来说。 As far as I can tell, just take a generic liberal.
一个普通的自由主义者认为教会要么维护当代自由主义关于权利的准则，要么就是错的。 A generic liberal thinks that the Church upholds the canons of contemporary liberal thought about rights, or it's wrong.
这就是他们的立场。 That's what they hold.
而教会不可能错，因为它是教会。 And the Church can't be wrong because it's the Church.
所以我们在性问题上，在任何你想要的问题上都持平等主义。 So we hold egalitarianism about sexual matters, about whatever you want.
这些人——我从未遇到过一个在严格意义上的现代主义者。 These people—I've never encountered one that's per se a Modernist in this strict sense.
通常，他们是道德放纵主义者，或者他们非常教条地坚持当代信念。 Usually, they are moral laxists, or they're committed to contemporary beliefs very dogmatically.
而且由于他们的承诺或道德放纵，他们认为基督真的教导了这些事情。 And because of their commitment or because of their moral laxism, they think that Christ really taught these things.
我是说，你会经常听到这样的话：「哦，基督并没 有真的说那个，」或者「圣经并没有真的说那个。 I mean, you'll get that all the time: 'Oh, Christ didn't really say that,' or 'The Bible didn't really say that.
它真正说的是这个。」 It really said this.'
这就是他们一直相信的。 And this is always what they believe.
但如果这是你的理论，那根本就不是现代主义。 But if that's your theory, then that's not Modernism at all.
这实际上就是正统所说的，只不过你用自己的信仰体系取而代之。 That's actually just what the orthodox say, except you've replaced your own belief system.
所以这只是另一种异端，只是一种错误的教导。 So it's just another kind of heresy, just a false teaching.
你需要知道为什么这很重要？ And you need to be aware why is it important?
因为如果你遇到一个人说：「哦不，圣经关于性只是这样说的，」那么 ，对他恰当的纠正是：「不，不是这样的。这里就是它没有那样说。 Because if you've got a guy that says, 'Oh no, the Bible just says this about, you know, sexuality,' well, the appropriate correction to him is, 'No, it doesn't. And here's where it doesn't say that.
这才是它实际说的。」 Here's what it actually says.'
但如果你告诉他：「不，你是现代主义者，」然后他去读《牧 放主的羊群》或去查这个，他会说：「我根本不相信这些。」 But if you tell him, 'No, you're a Modernist,' and then he goes and reads Pascendi or he goes and looks that up, he's going to say, 'I don't believe any of this.'
所以你这样做不健康。 So you're not healthy.
你这样做不健康。 You're not healthy.
你完全纠正不了我。 You'll correct me at all.
对于一些神职人员，我是说，他们会到处乱用这个词。 And with some clergymen, I mean, they'll just apply it all over.
有时候它的意思是：「我不喜欢这个人的语气。 Sometimes it means, 'I don't like how this guy's tone.
我不喜欢——我不喜欢他对梵二会议的认可。我不喜欢教义的发展。」 I don't like—I don't like his endorsement of Vatican II. I don't like development of doctrine.'
就像巴伦主教——巴伦主教说了一些东西，有时我不知道我是否会朝那个方向 走，或者我不知道我是否会那样想，或者我不知道那是否是训导权的发展。 Like Bishop Barron—Bishop Barron says some stuff, and sometimes I don't know if I would go in that direction or I don't know if I would think like that or I don't know if that's the development in the Magisterium.
但我从不认为——很明显他相信你可以认识超验的原因。 But I never think that—it's obvious he believes that you can know about transcendent causes.
很明显他相信宗教不仅仅是一种感觉，虽然他使用——所以巴伦唯一 接近现代主义的地方是他使用了在前一个时代被称为卓越法的方法。 It's obvious that he believes that religion is more than a feeling, although he uses—so the only thing that's proximate to Modernism and Barron is he uses what would have been called in the previous era the method of eminence.
这是一种护教方法，但他使用它的方式是大公会议前的神学会认为可以接 受的，也就是说，你从人们的思维方式开始，向他们展示他们想要什么。 Which is an apologetic method, but he uses it in the form that the pre-conciliar theology would have said is acceptable, namely, well, you start from how people think and you show them what they want.
然后一旦你展示了他们想要什么，你就说：「那么，你猜怎么着？ And then once you show what they want, you go, 'Well, guess what?
教会满足你想要的。」 The Church satisfies what you want.'
然后你继续进行经典护教学，谈论神迹和复活。 And then you go ahead and do the classical apologetics where you talk about the miracles and the Resurrection.
这没有什么错。 And there's nothing wrong with that.
这只是试图吸引人们从他们所处的位置开始。 It's just an attempt to appeal to people as it were where they're at.
但这不是现代主义。 But that's not Modernist.
这只是接近现代主义者会做的一些事情。 It's just proximate to some things Modernists would do.
所以巴伦的任何错误要么是一个具体的异端，要么是一个具体的 ，你知道，较不可能的观点，或者任何你想给他的世纪的观点。 So anything that's wrong in Barron is either a specific heresy or a specific, you know, less probable opinion or whatever century you want to give him.
但就我所知，这不是现代主义。 But it isn't Modernism, as far as I can tell.
或者甚至詹姆斯·马丁——就我所知——似乎在性问题上是一个道德放纵主义者。 Or even James Martin—as far as I can tell—seems to be a moral laxist with respect to sexual matters.
我对他最宽容的解读是：「嗯，是的，那是错的，但我们不——我们 不专注于那个，我们要专注于陪伴这些人，为他们尽最大努力。」 The most charitable reading I give to him is, 'Well, yeah, that is wrong, but we don't—we focus on that, and we're going to focus instead on accompanying these people and doing our best for them.'
这是我给他最宽容的解读。 And that's the most charitable reading I give him.
但这不是现代主义。 But that's not Modernism.
这可能是错的，可能不是你应该做的事，可能对灵魂有危险，但这不是现代主义。 It might be wrong, it might not be something you should do, it might be dangerous for souls, but it's not Modernism.
在当今的公教学术讨论中，我所知道的唯一一个我会说 「那个人是公教现代主义者」的人是约翰·卡普托。 The only guy I know in present times living Catholic academic discourse that I go, 'That guy's a Catholic Modernist' is John Caputo.
如果你读过约翰·卡普托的作品，他做了一堆后现代 公教的东西，是的，这就是直截了当的现代主义。 If you've ever read John Caputo, he does a bunch of postmodern Catholic stuff, and yeah, it's just straightforward Modernism.
但这并不常见。 But it's not very common.
而我认为唯一的现代主义大众人物是乔丹·彼得森。 And the only popular figure I would say that's a Modernist is Jordan Peterson.
是的，之前在聊天中有人问到他，问道：「你在这里 谈论的现代主义和乔丹·彼得森之间有联系吗？」 Yeah, somebody was asking about him earlier in the chat and was asking, 'Is there a connection between what you're talking about here, Modernism and Jordan Peterson?'
是的，乔丹·彼得森——如果他是公教徒，如果他没有改变他的信仰， 如果他处在一个，我不知道，也许是因为他差点死了或其他什么原因。 Yeah, Jordan Peterson—if he was a Catholic and if he didn't change his beliefs and if he's in a, I don't know, maybe because he almost died or whatever.
所以我不想说这就是他现在的立场。 So I don't want to say that's where he is now.
但他到目前为止说的东西都是现代主义的东西。 But the things he said up till now are Modernist things.
他解读圣经的方式是现代主义的解读方式。 His reading of Scripture is a Modernist way of reading Scripture.
也就是说，这是一种心理学化的解读圣经的方式，这并不是说——就像我的一个朋友说的 ——这些心理学化的东西不在圣经中，而是说这不是圣经的含义，不是圣经的最终含义。 That is to say, it's a psychologizing way of reading Scripture, which is not to say—as one of my friends says—it's to say those psychologizing things aren't in Scripture, but that's not the meaning, that's not the final meaning of Scripture.
如果他说这就是全部，这些深刻的感觉和圣经传统是对它们的很好的表达，那么 最多你只能说他是一个保守的现代主义者，因为他倾向于说保守和正统的东西。 And if he says that's all there is, these profound feelings and the scriptural tradition is a good articulation of them, then at best you'd call him a conservative Modernist in as far as he tends towards conservative and orthodox things to say.
但这根本不是正统的，你知道。 But that's not orthodox at all, you know.
既然我们在谈论他，我当然希望他能皈依公教。 And since we were talking about him, I sure hope he does turn to Catholicism.
我听说有传言他要么走向公教，要么走向东正教，这两者之一。 I've heard rumors that he's either going that way or Eastern Orthodoxy, one of the two.
嗯，每个人都希望如此，但你知道，我们拭目以待。 Well, everybody wants it, but you know, we'll see.
为此祈祷吧。 Pray for it.
是的，我当然还没有看到任何确切的证据。 Yeah, I haven't seen anything concrete yet for sure.
现在跟我们多讲讲你在研究现代主义时学到的一些东西。 Now talk to us a little bit more about some of the things that you have learned in your research about Modernism.
你还想讲到哪些其他的东西？ What are some of the other things that you wanted to get to?
好的，就定义而言我们唯一没有涉及的是——我们 讲了不可知论，就是你无法超越超验原因的现象。 Well, so the only thing we didn't cover in terms of the definition is—so we covered agnosticism, which is sort of you can't get beyond the phenomena of transcendent causes.
我们讲了内在主义，就是认为宗教的一切都将从感觉中涌现，从心理中涌现的想法。 We covered immanentism, which is the idea that well, anything that religion is is going to upwell from the feelings, is going to upwell from psychology.
我们没有讲到激进进化论。 We didn't cover radical evolutionism.
现在有一个桥接概念——我试图表达它，就是认为 教义或教会教导或基督教正统只是感觉的表达。 Now there's a bridging concept which is—and I tried to express it, which is the idea that doctrine or church teachings or Christian orthodoxy is just an expression of the feelings.
你需要进一步充实这一点，当你实际阅读现代主 义者的著作时，这占据了他们很大篇幅的文本。 You'd have to flesh that out some more, and that takes up when you actually read the Modernists, that takes up a lot of their text.
但第三个概念是进化论。 But the third concept is evolutionism.
这个想法是——如果他们是改革者，这就是他们用来给教会施压的——这个想法就是， 好的，对，我们有这些宗教感觉，我们提出调节性的命题，这些东西帮助我们保持这些 感觉并传递给其他人，也许还要规范我们允许你从你的感觉中说什么，不允许说什么。 This idea is that—and this is what they use to pressure the Church if they're reformers—this idea is going to be that, okay, so right, we have these religious feelings and we come up with regulatory propositions, things that help us to hold these feelings in place and to transmit them to other people and maybe to regulate what we're going to allow you to say from your feelings and what we're not going to allow you to say.
但随着时间推移，由于人的本性，这些命题就不能很好地发挥作用了。 But over time, because of how human beings are, these propositions don't function as well.
它们不能唤起相同的感觉。 They don't bring up the same feelings.
它们根本不能唤起任何感觉。 They don't bring up feelings at all.
它们只是在一种理性计算系统中相互讨论，与宗教经验毫无关系。 They just get discussed amongst themselves in a kind of ratio-calculative system, and they don't have anything to do with religious experience.
所以如果你是一个改革者，你最终会说：「那么，你猜怎么着？ And so if you're a reformer, you end up saying, 'Well, guess what?
这些教义会进化。」 These doctrines evolve.'
为什么？ Why?
因为宗教只是经验，而经验随时间改变，因此这些陈述也随时间改变。 Because religion is just experience, and experience changes over time, and therefore these statements change over time.
而任何与那个主要现象——也就是这些涌现的感觉—— 没有关联的陈述，都需要被抛弃并被新的陈述取代。 And any of these statements which don't have any reference to that primary phenomena—which is these upwelling of feelings—that just needs to be jettisoned and replaced by new statements.
如果你持这种观点，一般来说，你会对训导权持这样的看法：训 导权没有真正的权威，除非它能很好地表达当时的宗教感觉。 And if you hold that view, generally speaking, you're going to hold a view about the Magisterium where the Magisterium doesn't have real authority except in as far as it articulates well the religious feelings of the time.
这就是真正的现代主义和大多数人认为的现代主义之间的桥梁，因为即使在现在，当他们看 到一个改革者时，他们通常看到的是一个说「啊，这看起来不对，所以应该改变」的人。 Now that's the bridge between actual Modernism and what most people think Modernism is, because when they see a reformer even now, they usually see a person who says, 'Ah, that doesn't seem right and therefore it should change.'
现代主义者做出这种推论。 Modernists make that inference.
但你可以从很多不同的方向做出这种推论。 But you can make that inference from a lot of different directions.
但这就是从训导的教导到人们一般所说的现代主义的桥接概念，这是一个完全不同的话题。 But that's the bridge concept that gets you from the Magisterial teaching to what people call Modernism in general, which is a whole other topic.
你可以做一整期节目来讲它是如何成为一个论战用语的。 You could do a whole show on how it became a polemical term.
但这是第三点。 But that's the third.
我不知道是否有人想谈论或询问这个，但如果有人说什么的话我们可以讨论。 I didn't know if anybody wanted to talk about that or ask about that, but we could if anybody said anything.
是的，我目前没看到任何问题。 Yeah, I'm not seeing any questions offhand.
但我现在开始征集问题，所以你们都可以发送聊天问题。 But I am calling for them now, so y'all go ahead and send some chat questions that way.
我们可以很快开始回答问题。 We can get them going here in just a little bit.
确保把问题发给@ReasonInTheology，这样我就能找到。 Make sure to put it to @ReasonInTheology so I can pick it out.
但不——不，请继续。 But no—no, go ahead, continue.
让我想想。 So let me think.
所以从这个问题中产生了一些有趣的事情，其中之一是——通常——再说一次，这是 关于现代主义论战的另一个节目——现代主义通常被视为一种地下运动或阴谋运动。 So some interesting things that fell out of this question, and one of the things—so usually—and again, it's a whole other show on the polemic about Modernism—usually Modernism is treated as a kind of underground movement or a kind of conspiratorial movement.
在某种意义上确实有这种情况，就像一旦教会察觉到这个运动并说「 嘿，这是不行的」，如果你持有一些奇怪的立场，而你在教会等级制 度中有一个好职位，你就不会贸然说「我希望这些是奇怪的立场。」 And there was some of that in the sense that like, once the Church got wind of this movement and said, 'Hey, this is not okay,' if you had a weird position and you were somewhere in the hierarchy and you had a nice job, you didn't go ahead and say, 'I hope these are weird positions.'
但在大多数情况下，现代主义者并没有躲藏。 But for the most part, like the Modernists weren't hiding.
我是说，这些都是出版了大量书籍的学者，他们表达得很明确。 I mean, these were academics who published tons of books, and they were very explicit.
在这些文件发布后，他们中的许多人否认教宗做得好。 A lot of them, after these documents came out, denied that the Pope did a good job.
特别是泰勒尔否认。 Tyrell especially denied.
他说：「不，我不是那个意思。 He says, 'No, I don't mean that.
我的意思是别的东西。」 I mean something else.'
当然，他的意思仍然是不可接受的。 Of course, what he means is still not acceptable.
但他说：「我不是那个意思。 But he said, 'I don't mean that.
我是说，你知道，怎么可能是别的呢？」 I mean, you know, how could it be otherwise?'
基本上，他说：「好吧，我只是在说经院哲学很愚蠢。」 Basically, he says, 'Well, all I'm saying is that Scholasticism is dumb.'
这就是他最后说的。 That's what he ends up saying.
「你怎么可能接受那些？ 'And how could you have any of that?
而我们真的有一些我认为更好的东西。」 And we really have something else I think that's better.'
这很有趣——这是一本读起来很有趣的书。 And it's funny—it's a funny book to read.
但卢瓦西对此更加微妙。 But Loisy is a little more subtle about it.
但我认为他们中的大多数最终都否认那个，哦，但他们没有与教会和解。 But I think most of them end up denying that, oh, but they don't reconcile themselves with the Church.
但重要的一点是他们并没有隐藏这个。 But the big important point is that they're not hiding this.
这不是什么秘密。 This is not some secret.
这不是什么地下运动。 This is not some underground movement.
而且除此之外——你知道，我们最好去问米纳德博士因为他的法语阅读比我好— —但我没有看到任何真正的迹象表明新神学直接立即借鉴了现代主义者的思想。 And on top of that—and we, you know, it would be we'd talk to Dr. Minard better because his reading in the French is better than mine—but I don't see any real indication that you've got a direct and immediate borrowing from the Modernists into the Nouvelle Théologie.
事实上，我认为——即使你想说到，哦，我想不起来了——那个人是谁？ In fact, what I think—even if you want to go to, oh, I'm drawing a blank—what's the guy?
他写了所有那些诗，他有那种奇怪的宇宙进化论观点——德贾尔丹？ He wrote all those poems, he's got that weird cosmic evolutionist view—Desjardins?
是的，即使德贾尔丹似乎也不持有这些观点。 Yeah, even Desjardins doesn't seem to hold these views.
他只是真的喜欢进化论的观点，所以他在这点上与他有共同之处。 He just really loves the evolutionary view, and so he's got that in common with him.
但这不是同一回事。 But that's not the same thing.
而且很多人接受现代圣经学术的部分内容，这些内容会有类似的观点。 And a lot of the guys accept parts of modern biblical scholarship, which is going to have views that are similar.
但这不是——你可以接受现代圣经学术的某些部分而 不成为现代主义者，也不用承诺现代主义的东西。 But that's not the—you could accept some parts of modern biblical scholarship without being a Modernist and without being committed to Modernist things.
你可以只是说，嗯，历史理论比我们通常认为的要复杂。 You could just say that, well, the historical theory is more complicated than what we usually thought it was.
你不必持有这种奇怪的观点，认为奇迹不可能发生，而且你知道 ，圣经只是一份被早期基督徒团体的心理经验装饰的世俗文件。 You don't have to hold this weird view that, well, miracles can't possibly happen and, you know, the Scripture is a mundane document embellished by the psychological experiences of the early Christian community.
现在，有些人——除了希勒贝克斯。 Now, some—except for Schillebeeckx.
希勒贝克斯有时确实说这样的奇怪话，这我不否认。 Schillebeeckx sometimes says weird stuff like that, and I don't deny that.
有些人确实这样。 Some people do.
当你看到人们谈论早期团体的宗教经验时，这至少 是一个小的遗留，但似乎不是每个人都这样做。 And when you see people talk about religious experience in the early community, that's at least a small holdover, but not everybody seems to have done that.
你觉得亚历山大的这个问题怎么样？ What do you think about this one from Alexander?
他问：「所以现在的公教教育只是缺乏纪律和道德松弛，但不是现代主义吗？」 He asks, 'So is Catholic education now just lacking in discipline and moral relaxation, but it's not Modernist?'
现在的公教教育包含很多方面。 Catholic education right now is a lot of things.
从训导权自大公会议以来教导你要注意人们如何感 受和接受事物这一点来看，它看起来像现代主义。 So it looks like Modernism in the sense that the Magisterium taught you since the Council to pay attention to how people feel and receive things.
所以，就像现代主义者一样，你会关注心理学，但动机完全不同。 And so, just like Modernists, you're going to be paying attention to psychology, but the motives are totally different.
大公会议期间和之后的动机似乎是：「看，我们与文化的发展脱节了。 The motive during the Council and after the Council appears to be, 'Look, we got isolated from how culture is going.
他们听不到我们。 They don't hear us.
他们看不到我们，我们需要与他们建立某种联系。」 They don't see us, and we need to make some kind of connection with them.'
现代主义者认为心理学就是生活就是宗教，因此宗教应该按照心理学来定制。 The Modernists think that psychology is life is religion, and therefore religion should be handmade to psychology.
这些是非常不同的动机。 Those are very different motivations.
所以我们实际上的动机就是他们所说的——这是一种对话的动机。 So the motivation we actually have is literally what they say—it's a dialogic motivation.
这会导致困难吗？ And does this result in difficulties?
是的，当然会导致困难，因为每次你试图接触某人并试图 吸引他们时，总会有一种诱惑要你在所有信仰上妥协。 Yeah, of course it results in difficulties, because every time you attempt to reach out to somebody and you attempt to appeal to them, there's always going to be a temptation to compromise everything you believe.
当然，我们必须不断地提供然后接受，你知道，然后收回然后修改。 And of course, we have to constantly offer and then take, you know, and then take back and then revise.
这是一个持续的问题。 And it is a constant problem.
但这不是现代主义的问题。 But it's not the Modernist problem.
这是一个不同的问题。 It's a different problem.
这是一个非常不同的问题。 It's a very different problem.
这是一个修辞的问题。 It's a rhetorical problem.
这是一个个人的问题。 It's a personal problem.
这是一个疏离的问题。 It's an alienation problem.
但这本身并不是现代主义的问题。 But it's not the Modernist problem per se.
事实上，现代主义问题已经在《信仰与理性》中得到处理， 若望保禄二世在其中处理了严格意义上的现代主义问题。 In fact, the Modernist problem has been Fides et Ratio, where John Paul II deals with the strict Modernist problems.
在我看来他做得更好，因为——《信仰与理性》还有一整集的内容——他列出了大约10到 20个不同的领域，这些领域中人们会说信仰是不合理的，他试图一个一个地处理它们。 And he does a better job, in my opinion, because—there's a whole other show in Fides et Ratio—he lays out however many 10, 20 different areas where you can say that the faith is not reasonable, and he tries to take them each one at a time.
这才是处理这些事情的恰当方式，而不是用现代主义这个笼统 的标签，这个标签可能适用也可能不适用于许多不同的人。 And that's the appropriate way to take these things, not just under one blanket label Modernism that may or may not apply to many different people.
威尔·马丁在这里问了另一个问题：「有哪些反对现 代主义的纪律措施仍然存在于法规中但没有被遵循？ Will Martin asks another one here: 'What are some disciplinary measures against Modernism that are still on the books but not followed?
教会不遵循它们的事实是否使它们实际上不具约束力，而不是法律上不具约束力？」 Does the fact that the Church does not follow them make them de facto non-binding, not de jure non-binding?'
但我不知道它们是否不具约束力。 But I don't know that they aren't binding.
所以那些纪律性的措施——那些仍然有效的——你不再需要宣读反现代主义誓言了，而且 在某种程度上，教会等级制度不再像以前那样被期望去寻找这些人并将他们清除出去。 So the disciplinary ones—the ones that are still in force—so you don't have to say the Oath Against Modernism anymore, and to the extent it ever was a thing, the hierarchy is not expected to look for these people and root them out to the extent that they ever did.
但我的意思是，在《可叹》中被谴责的事情仍然是被谴责的。 But I mean, the things condemned in Lamentabili are still condemned.
只是你不会真的看到——比如说，让我看看，随便选一个。 It's just that you don't really see—like, I mean, let me look at it, just pick one.
是什么？ What is it?
第七条：「在规定错误时，教会不能要求信徒对她发 布的判断给予任何内在的认同」——这是被谴责的。 Seven: 'In prescribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issued are to be embraced'—that's condemned.
嗯，这仍然是被谴责的。 Well, it's still condemned.
「那些相信神真的是圣经作者的人显示出过分的简单或无知」——这仍然是被谴责的。 'They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of Sacred Scriptures'—that's still condemned.
这些东西大多数仍然是被谴责的。 Most of these things are still condemned.
我们会严厉对待你吗？ Would we go hard on you?
我的意思是，我不确定我们在20世纪上半叶是 否严厉对待你，但我们现在会严厉对待你吗？ I mean, it's not clear to me we went hard on you in the first half of the 20th century, but would we go hard on you now?
不，可能不会——除非你把它搞得很大，除非你是汉斯·昆 ，想要成为真正的当代、正统、自由、良好的公教的代表。 No, probably not—not unless you made a big deal about it, not unless you're Hans Küng and you wanted to be the representative of real contemporary, authentic, liberal, good Catholicism.
但在大多数情况下，不，我们不会严厉对待你。 But for the most part, no, we don't go hard on you.
但这有很多原因，不是现代主义本身。 But there's a lot of reasons for that, not Modernism per se.
现代主义与黑格尔主义有关系吗？ Does Modernism relate to Hegelianism?
如果有，是怎样的关系？ If so, how?
是的，这是黑格尔主义的一个可悲的、退化的版本。 Yeah, it's a sad, degenerate version of Hegelianism.
所以黑格尔主义是一个不成功的宏大理论。 So Hegelianism is a grand theory that doesn't work out.
现代主义是一个同样不成功的可怜理论。 Modernism is a pitiful theory that also doesn't work out.
黑格尔主义的观点是所有现实都基于——所有现实本质上都是一 个观念，最终这个观念空间就是神在时间的圆满中成为的现实。 Hegelianism is going to be the idea that all of reality works on the basis of—all of reality is fundamentally an idea, and ultimately this idea space is the reality of God becoming in the fullness of time.
这种成为在意识中表现出来，但在现实中也表现为观念的冲突和融合，这要从广义上理解。 And this becoming has the appearance in consciousness but also in reality of the conflict and coming together of ideas, understood in a broad way.
你可以从这里产生一个广泛的历史理论，这是一个出色而迷人的想法，但行不通。 And you can produce a wide historical theory from this, and this is a brilliant and captivating idea that doesn't work out.
但那是关于客观事物的。 But that's about objective things.
黑格尔很奇怪。 Hegel is weird.
黑格尔在另一面工作。 Hegel works on the other side.
他变得如此康德化，以至于你重新得到物自体。 He gets so Kantian that you get the thing in itself back.
你重新得到现实。 You get reality back.
你重新得到神。 You get God back.
一切都回来了。 Everything comes back.
这就是很奇怪。 It's just weird.
这只是一种通过超验经验、在其中和在其外的奇怪的观念发展。 It's just a weird development of ideas through and in and outside of transcendental experience.
在现代主义者那里，真的就只是，好吧，你有这些感觉，这就是我们所看到的全部。 In the Modernist, it's really just, well, you have these feelings and that's all we see.
所以如果宗教是任何东西的话，它就是那些感觉，然后我们用词语来捕捉它们。 And so if religion is anything, it's those feelings, and then we use words to capture them.
这真的非常无聊和可悲，这是一个真正令人泄气的理论。 And it's really, really boring and sad, and it's a really deflationary theory.
我不知道为什么有人会觉得它引人入胜，更不用说能够改革教会了。 And I don't know why anybody found it captivating, let alone capable of reforming the Church.
这就像现代主义在神学上基本等同于这样的政治理念： 「嘿，如果我们都对彼此友好，我们就真的能革命。 It's like when Modernism is basically the equivalent in theology of the political idea that, 'Hey, if we're just all nice to each other, we'll really revolutionize.
如果我们只关注我们的感觉，我们就真的能革新神学。」 If we just attend to our feelings, we'll really revolutionize theology.'
不，你不能。这很无聊、愚蠢和平庸。 No, you won't. It's boring and dumb and banal.
这里有一个来自Fundamentum Veritatis 的有趣问题：「最近『那是现代主义』这个梗是从哪里来的，当 人们曲解现代主义时，最有效的改变他们想法的方式是什么？」 Here's a fun one from Fundamentum Veritatis: 'Where does the meme of that's Modernist come from as of late, and what is the most effective way to change minds when people misrepresent Modernism?'
它直接来自勒菲弗尔。 It comes from Lefebvre, straight.
我毫不怀疑——就是勒菲弗尔。 Just I don't have any problem—it's Lefebvre.
所以是勒菲弗尔总主教和他的论战。 So Archbishop Lefebvre, and his polemic.
我认为他使用它时是出于善意，但我不认为这是对他当时对手的好批评。 I think he acted in good faith in using it, but I don't think it was a good criticism of his opponents at the time.
这种说法一直持续着，特别是通过迈克尔·戴维斯。 And it's been sustained, especially by Michael Davies.
它特别在传统主义圈子和一些保守派圈子中持续存在。 It's been sustained especially in Traditionalist circles and in some Conservative circles.
这就是它的来源和持续的原因。 That's where it comes from and what sustains it.
他问题的最后一部分是什么？ What was the last part of his question?
哦，当人们曲解现代主义时，有什么最有效的改变想法的方式？ Oh, and what are some most effective ways to change minds when people misrepresent Modernism?
我的意思是，对我来说最有效的方法是，好吧，看看这些文件，它们说了什么？ I mean, I would say that for me the most effective thing was, well, look at the documents and what do they say?
而它们并没有那么说。 And they don't say that.
它们说的是别的东西。 They say something else.
我的意思是，你可以拉伸和扭曲地看它们，然后 说：「哦，旧异端的综合」，这确实在里面。 I mean, you can stretch and twist and look at them and you can go, 'Oh, synthesis of old heresies,' that's in there.
但他是什么意思？ But what does he mean?
他的意思是当庇护十世说这是旧异端的综合时，他指的是当你是一个现代主义者并回 顾所有历史时，每个异端宣言基本上看起来都像——对现代主义者来说什么是异端？ He means that when Pius X says it's the synthesis of old heresies, he means that when you're a Modernist and you review all of history, every heretical declaration looks like a basically—what's a heretic for a Modernist?
就是一个有着与其他人不同的宗教经验的人。 It's a guy with a religious experience that was different than everybody else.
所以你总是可以问：「好吧，我们现在有那些感觉吗？ And so you can always ask, 'Well, do we have those feelings now?
如果我们有，好吧，它们可以适用。 If we do, well, they can apply.
我们可以为他的论点辩护。」 We can defend his theses.'
这就是它的全部意思，因为所有宗教感觉都是等同 的，因为它们都可以被表达、拥有并用命题捕捉。 That's all it means, because all religious feelings are equivalent in the sense that it could all be expressed and had and captured in propositions.
如果亚略有一个与我们现在有的同时代的宗教经验，而现 在他的命题是有效的，它们用词语保持着我们的经验。 And if Arius had a religious experience contemporaneous with what we're having, and now his propositions are valid, they hold our experience in words.
从这个意义上说，这是所有异端的综合。 And in that sense, it's the synthesis of all heresies.
但所有异端的综合并不意味着每个异端者或说接近异端的话的人都是现代主义者。 But the synthesis of all heresies does not mean everybody who's a heretic or says things proximate to heresy is a Modernist.
否则，亚略就是现代主义者了。 Otherwise, Arius would have been a Modernist.
否则，所有新教徒都是现代主义者。 Otherwise, all the Protestants are Modernists.
否则，一些东正教徒也是现代主义者。 Otherwise, some of the Orthodox are Modernists.
这毫无道理。 That doesn't make any sense.
这很荒谬。 It's silly.
我是说，看看就知道了。 I mean, just look at it.
为什么他们不会？ Why won't they?
因为我们在大公会议之后有非常好的文件。 Because we have perfectly good documents after the Council.
我们有《信仰与理性》。 We have Fides et Ratio.
我们有非常好的人。 We have perfectly good guys.
我们有新托马斯主义者。 We have Neo-Thomists.
我们有不相信新托马斯主义的复兴托马斯主义者，他们都在做这种批评。 We have Recoverment Thomists who don't believe in Neo-Thomism who all do this critique.
你可以做得很好，你不需要再继续抨击现代主义了。 And you can do it just fine, and you don't need to keep hammering on Modernism anymore.
现在已经不是1976年了。 It's not 1976 anymore.
你知道，我不再被大公会议所困扰了。 You know, I'm not traumatized by the Council anymore.
我们可以谈论人们实际在说什么。 We can talk about what actually people are saying.
你必须阅读他们说的话，你必须与之交流。 And you have to read what they say and you have to engage with it.
你必须说「那是错的。 You have to go, 'That's wrong.
这是对的。 That's right.
这就是为什么它是错的。 This is why it's wrong.
这就是为什么它是对的。」 This is why it's right.'
而不是仅仅用一个侮辱性的词来称呼人。 Not just have a slur word that you call people.
这从一开始就不是批评。 That's just not criticism in the first place.
说得好。 Well said.
这是来自雅各布的问题：「那么公教徒可以持有任何形式的 进化论吗，还是只能接受智力进化而不是达尔文进化论？」 This one is from Jakob: 'So can a Catholic hold to any sort of evolution, or is it only an intellectual evolution and not Darwinian evolution?'
好的，所以达尔文进化论——这很复杂。 Okay, so Darwinian evolution—this is complicated.
激进进化论和达尔文主义唯一的共同点就是这个术语。 The only thing in common with radical evolutionism and Darwinism is the term.
现在，显然，如果你想看看19世纪末和20世纪初是如何形成的， 达尔文是这种想法的灵感来源，就是我们必须看看一切事物的进化。 Now, obviously, if you want to look at how the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century shaped up, Darwin is the inspiration for the idea that, well, we've got to look at the evolution of everything.
但我的意思是，这是有先例的——黑格尔已经播下了这种思想的种子。 But I mean, but that's preceded—Hegel already seeded that thought.
黑格尔和黑格尔学派——你在施特劳斯那里就已经可以看到了。 Hegel and the Hegelian school—you can see it in Strauss already.
你甚至可以在教会接受的《教义发展论》这个温和得多的版本中看到它。 You can see it even in the Church received a much less difficult version in Development of Doctrine.
但我的意思是，纽曼的存在以及他在研究教义发展这个事 实表明他是他那个时代的人，即使他的结论是正统的。 But I mean, the fact that Newman exists and that he's working on Development of Doctrine shows that he's a man of his time, even if it comes out orthodox.
这个想法是我们需要审视历史。 The idea is that we need to look at history.
我们需要观察事物在历史中如何进步和改变，以便了解它们是什么。 We need to look at how things progressed and changed in history in order to know what they are.
这是核心思想。 That's the core idea.
然后你可以用不同的方式来处理这个。 And then there's different ways you can go with that.
达尔文认为这是生命的基础。 Darwin thinks that's fundamental to life.
如果你持有这种生命进化论观点，如果你持有这种生命内在论观点 ，你就会与达尔文一致，你会说：「当然，生命力在我们的宗教经 验中涌现，所以我们在深层意义上，在重要意义上在进化。」 If you hold this vital evolutionist view, if you hold this vital immanence view, you're going to align with Darwin and you're going to go, 'Well, of course, the life forces are upwelling in us in our religious experience, and so we're evolving in a deep sense, in an important sense.'
这会影响我们如何思考宗教。 And that's going to go into how we think about religion.
但这与你是否可以认为达尔文进化论是一个好的解释无关。 But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you can think, for instance, that Darwinian evolution is a good explanation.
我的意思是，严格来说，现代当代的遗传进化综合理 论是对我们肉体起源或其他事物的一个很好的解释。 I mean, strictly speaking, the modern contemporary genetic evolutionary synthesis is a good explanation of the origin of our physical bodies or anything else.
这是一个完全不同的问题。 That's a totally different matter.
「进化」这个词并没有被谴责。 The word 'evolution' is not condemned.
在「进化」这个词下发生的事情，在「进化」这个词下产生的思想都没有被谴责。 Things that occur under the word 'evolution,' thoughts that occur under the word 'evolution' are not condemned.
仅仅是教条不表达客观真理且不能被教会的训导权一劳永逸 地权威性地明确陈述的这个想法——这就是被谴责的全部。 Merely the idea that dogmas don't express objective truths and can't be authoritatively stated in a definitive way once and for all by the Magisterium of the Church—that's all that's condemned.
具体被谴责的是这样的想法：因为这些事物进化 了，因为经验进化了，所以这不可能是这样的。 And what specifically is condemned is the idea that this can't be so because these things evolved, because experience evolved.
这就是在「进化论」这个标题下被谴责的全部内容。 That's all that's condemned under the title 'Evolutionism.'
没有其他的了。 Nothing else.
不是达尔文进化论，甚至不是黑格尔主义，后者是在其他方面被谴责的。 Not Darwinian evolution, not even Hegelianism, which is condemned under other things.
只有那个想法。 Only that idea.
然后最后一个问题，因为时间快到了，我们还有另一个节目要接着做。 Then one last one, because we're coming up on the hour and we've got another show back-to-back.
这个是来自威廉的问题：「现代主义与后现代主义有什么关系？ This one is from William: 'How does Modernism relate to Post-modernism?
一个似乎有一个总体轨迹，而另一个拒绝这样的东西。 One seems to have an overarching trajectory and the other rejects such a thing.
但今天很难分清谁是谁。 But today it's hard to tell who is who.
我很笨，所以请说得简单些。」 I'm dumb, so go easy.'
好的，这只是一个词的联系。 Okay, so this is just a word connection.
所以公教会中的「现代主义」这个词与欧洲思想史中的「现代主义」这个词是不同的。 So the term 'Modernism' in the Catholic Church is different from the term 'Modernism' in the history of European thought.
所以他们更多地想到的是表现在建筑中、表现在艺术中、表现在写作中的现代主义。 So they have more in mind Modernism as expressed in architecture, as expressed in art, as expressed in writing.
你会看到哪些？ Which are you going to see?
在诗歌中，你会在庞德的作品中看到这个。 In poetry, you're going to see this in Pound.
你会在，哦天啊，谁写的《诗章》？ You're going to see this in, oh goodness, who wrote the Cantos?
我突然忘记了。 I've lost all of a sudden.
不，那是庞德。 No, that's Pound.
《普鲁弗洛克》——谁写的？ Prufrock—who wrote that?
我不知道。 I don't know.
著名的英国诗人。 Famous British poet.
待会儿我会想起来的。 It'll come to me later.
但无论如何，现代主义者倾向于认为这有点复杂，我们必须看到，他们倾向于认为理性已 经结晶成这些各种结构，我们需要用这些结构来组织我们的思想，组织我们的生活，组织 我们的艺术等等。这样做有后果也有好处，我们会有丑陋的建筑和方块之类的东西。 But in any case, the Modernists tend to think that it's a little complicated, and we have to look at, but they tend to think that reason has crystallized into these various structures by which we need to organize our thought, by which we need to organize our life, by which we need to organize our art, etc. And there's consequences to this and there's benefits to this, and we're going to have ugly architecture and squares and stuff.
后现代主义——从知识层面来说，后现代主义通常会拒绝这个 时期，认为这个时期的陈述只是叙事，是众多可能叙事中的一 种，我们能做的就是探索不同的叙事，并在前进中创造它们。 Postmodernism—and postmodernism intellectually is typically going to be a rejection of this period and the idea that the statements of this period are narratives, that they're one among many possible narratives, and that what we can do is explore different narratives and make them up as we go.
没有规则约束我们。 There's no rules constraining us.
现在，前面意义上的现代主义与公教现代主义有关联，是的，我的意思 是，公教现代主义者倾向于有一些类似于广义现代主义的思想倾向。 Now, Modernism in the prior sense is related to Catholic Modernism in the sense that, yeah, I mean, Catholic Modernists tended to have some strains of thought that were like Modernism in the broad sense.
但后现代主义完全不是对现代主义的反应。 But postmodernism is not a reaction to Modernism at all.
事实上，就像我说的，自认为是后现代主义学派的约翰·卡普 托，明显持有一些会被归类为现代主义而受到谴责的观点。 In fact, as I said, John Caputo, who identifies himself with the postmodernist school, clearly holds things that would be condemned under the label Modernism.
他明确认为启示是某种经验的涌现，以各种图像和词语表达出来。 He clearly believes that revelation is some kind of upwelling of experience expressed variously in images and words.
我想他现在已经退休了，如果他还没有去世的话。 And I think he's retired now if he's not died.
如果他已经去世，我为他的灵魂安息祈祷。 I pray for the repose of his soul if he's died.
但我想不出其他还在世的公教现代主义者，因为他们都倾向于离开教会。 But I can think of very few other living Catholic Modernists because they all tended to leave the Church.
因为到了60年代中期，发生了什么？ Because by the middle of the 60s, what happened?
在世纪初，宗教被认为是一个极其道德的、重要的、人类发展的现象。 At the beginning of the century, religion was thought of as an extremely moral and important and human development phenomena.
而到了世纪中期，腐败的宗教、令人麻木的宗教、对性 不利的宗教、对经验不利的宗教这样的叙事开始形成。 And by the middle of the century, the narrative of corrupt religion, stultifying religion, religion bad for your sexuality, bad for experience set in.
所以在知识分子圈子里持有真正现代主义观点的人都倾向于离开。 So anybody in the intellectual circles that held actual Modernism tend to leave.
你必须真的很特别才能继续做一个公教徒，继续做一个学者， 继续做一个知识分子，同时还相信现代主义者所相信的一切。 And you've got to be really weird to stay a Catholic and to stay an academic and to stay an intellectual and still believe all the things that Modernists believed.
因为你不会认为教会是被改革了的。 Because you're not going to hold that the Church is reformed.
你会认为教会是腐败的或邪恶的。 You're going to hold that the Church is corrupt or evil.
那么你为什么还要继续做一个公教徒呢？ So why would you stay a Catholic?
即使是孔汉思——即使是孔汉思，尽管他有其他所有问题，据我所知他也不是现代主义者。 Even Küng—even Küng, for all his other problems, is not a Modernist as far as I could tell.
是的。 Yeah.
我可能持有一些异端的主张，但这并不一定使他成为现代主义者。 I might hold to some heretical propositions, but it doesn't necessarily make him a Modernist.
听着，我很感谢你来参加节目，河流。 Look, I appreciate you coming on, River Run.
这真的很有趣。 This was really fun.
我想再次邀请你来。 I want to have you on again.
我想我们本来是要请你来谈论什么来着——希勒贝克斯，我想是吧？ I think we were supposed to have you on to talk about what was it—Schillebeeckx, I believe?
哦，对，对。 Oh, yeah, yeah.
我们翻译了——我们会…… We translated the—we will...
是什么来着？ what was it?
我们现在暗地里谈论它，但以后我们会明确地说出来。 We talk about it silently now, but later we'll say it explicitly.
而且结果并不是勒菲弗尔说的那样，对吧？ And it didn't turn out to be what Lefebvre said it was, right?
对，对。 Right, right.
他在谈论《教会宪章》的地方。 Where he was talking about Lumen Gentium.
我实际上早些时候在读一篇博士论文时偶然读到了关 于《教会宪章》的那部分，他们提到了这个问题。 I was actually reading Lumen Gentium about that incidentally earlier in a doctoral thesis that I was reading, and they brought that issue up.
所以，是的，如果你想再来讨论这个，我想会很有趣。 So, yeah, I think that'll be fun if you want to come on again and do that.
我会告诉你的。 I'll let you know.
好的，各位，我感谢你们也对河流在这里进行评论和提问。 Well, everybody, I appreciate y'all also commenting and asking questions to River Run here.
再次，再一次，河流，感谢你来参加节目。 And again, once again, River Run, thank you for coming on.
随时欢迎你来。 You're welcome on anytime.
没问题。 No problem.
谢谢你，迈克尔。 Thank you, Michael.
各位，别忘了在这个节目发布到脸书和油管时发表评论。 And everybody, don't forget to comment whenever this posts on Facebook and YouTube.
点赞，订阅，也请去Patreon.com Like, subscribe, and also go to Patreon.com
斜杠ReasonAndTheology，如果你想支持我们，成为赞助人。 forward slash ReasonAndTheology and become a patron if you would like to support us.
或者去ReasonAndTheology.com， Or ReasonAndTheology.com,
点击圣马克西姆忏悔者研究所，获取大量免费讲座。 click on the St. Maximus the Confessor Institute and get a whole bunch of free lectures.
我想就这样吧。 And I think that'll do it.
下次再见，愿神保佑。 Until next time, God bless.
愿神保佑。 God bless.
谢谢。 Thank you.