在许多方面，我都犹豫是否要制作这个影片。 In many ways, I hesitate to make this video.
我之所以犹豫，就像你会犹豫要不要驳斥一个惯 于说谎的人，或者纠正一个疯子的妄想一样。 I hesitate in the same way that you hesitate to contradict the lies of a habitual liar, or to correct the delusions of a madman.
不管你说什么，也不管你拿出多少证据，他们心中总有逃脱的理由。 No matter what you say, no matter how much evidence you bring forward, there is always an escape in their mind.
的确，一个愿意相信或说出荒谬言论的人，很难被任何东西说服。 Truly, someone willing to believe or to speak absurdity is hardly convinced by anything.
让─吕克就是这样一个例子。 One such example is Jean-Luc.
你也许不信，但我其实对让─吕克了解不多。 I don't really know much about Jean-Luc, if you believe it or not.
实际上，我很少看 YouTube 的影片，除非是为了制作影片的需要。 I actually don't watch many YouTube videos unless it is for the purpose of video-making.
但是他提出了一个我听过最荒谬的神学主张之一。 But he came out with one of the most absurd theological claims that I've ever heard.
他的说法是，公教会在梵蒂冈第二届大公会议之前曾教导 ：任何在罗马共融之外的人都无法通过洗礼获得恩典。 This is the claim that the Catholic Church, before Vatican II, taught that baptism did not give grace to anyone outside of the Roman communion.
对吧？ Right?
要知道，梵蒂冈第二届大公会议说，通过洗礼就会产生圣事性的联系 ，所有在洗礼中被称义的人都团结在一起，而且在谈到借着教会团体 的礼仪生活而获得的洗礼称义之后，也举出了洗礼成效的例证。 Remember, Vatican II says, okay, by baptism there's a sacramental bond such that all that have been justified in baptism are united together and it cites evidence of baptism's efficacy after talking about the justification in baptism by the life of worship of ecclesial communities.
对吧？ Right?
有些人甚至没有使徒统绪，或者在罗马看来没有正当的圣 餐祭，但它仍然说，洗礼的恩典在那里是有效运作的。 People who don't even have apostolic succession or, by Rome's lights, don't have a proper Eucharist, and yet it says, yeah, baptismal grace is operative there.
现在，也许会有人像克里斯蒂安・瓦格纳那样说：「哦。 Now, again, you might have someone like Christian Wagner say, "Oh.
让基本上是在指控罗马陷入多纳徒主义吗？」并不是。 Well, Jean's basically accusing Rome of Donatism." No.
当然不是这样。 Of course not.
我同意罗马确实会视那些洗礼为有效。 I agree Rome would've viewed those baptisms as valid.
但这不是争议的焦点。 That's not the issue.
对吧？ Right?
我们知道，有些障碍会阻挡有效洗礼的功效，而成为异端就是其中 之一，根据弗洛伦斯大公会议以及我们所知道的教导都是如此。 We know that impediments can block the efficacy of a valid baptism, and being a heretic was one of them, per Co- Council of Florence, per here as well.
因此，历史上真正适用无可抵抗的无知的情形非常少。 So the cases that invincible ignorance historically applied to were very small.
据我所知，连最极端的菲恩派也不这样教导，这从他们 针对异端和分裂者家中已受洗婴孩的评论就可以看出。 To my knowledge, not even the most extreme Feenites teach this, as is evident from their comments on baptized infants of heretics and schismatics.
他对这种主张的论证与任何在这一议题上写过文章的作者都相违背，而且论证也很糟糕。 His confirmation of this thesis, which is contrary to any author who has written on this topic, is also bad.
他认为，拿胡斯派举例是很好的论据，声称我们绝不会发 动对一个他们的圣事能带来恩典的异端团体的十字军。 He thinks that it is a good argument to point the Hussites, saying that we would never approve of a crusade against a heretical group whose sacraments give grace.
看起来，让─吕克似乎忘记了一个事实：历史上我们也有针对叛教者和异端 的法律，而这些法律也适用于那些从小就受洗成为罗马公教会成员的人。 It seems that Jean-Luc has seemed to forget the fact we historically had anti-apostate and anti-heresy laws as well that were applied against those who were baptized Roman Catholics as children.
我想，也许因为某些原因，这些孩子的圣事并没有产生 果效，因为他们最终因异端或叛教的罪行而受到惩罚。 I guess, for some reason, the sacraments of those children were not fruitful because eventually they were punished for their crimes of heresy or apostasy.
这个结论根本无法成立。 The conclusion simply does not follow.
我本来打算到此为止，但我们也可以从另一个角度看出这种论证是多么薄弱。 I was going to stop there, but we can look at how poor this line of argumentation is from another line of thought.
他承认我们一直认为分裂者的洗礼是有效的，但不是有果效的。 He concedes that we always thought that schismatic baptisms were valid, just not efficacious.
他以胡斯派来论证，基本意思是我们绝不会杀那些因洗礼而与基督有特殊关系的人。 His argument from the Hussites is basically that we would never kill those who have a special relationship to Christ by their baptisms.
这个论证之所以幼稚，是因为他以为只有圣事的恩典才能使人与基督产生特殊关系。 What is so juvenile about this argumentation is that he thinks that it is only sacramental grace that gives someone a special relationship to Christ.
他显露出他甚至根本不知道什么是有效的洗礼。 He has exposed that he does not even know what a valid baptism is in the first place.
一个有效的洗礼会给予受洗者圣事的印记，这是一种永不可磨灭的标记。 A valid baptism gives the sacramental character the indelible mark.
让是否曾经问过自己，这个印记到底是什么？ Has Jean ever asked himself what the character even is?
他是否知道？ Does he even know?
如果他知道，就不会说出如此荒谬的话，把只是有效而不带来与基督独 特关系的洗礼，与能够带来恩典从而具有这种关系的洗礼区分开来。 If he did, he would not say something so outrageous as to distinguish between a merely valid baptism, which does not give a unique relationship to Christ, and one which gives grace and therefore does.
正如亚奎那的圣托马斯教导说：「每一个信徒都被委派来领受或给予他 人与敬拜神有关的事物，而从严格意义上说，这就是圣事印记的目的。 As St. Thomas teaches, quote, "Each of the faithful is deputed to receive or to bestow on others things pertaining to the worship of God, and this, properly speaking, is the purpose of the sacramental character.
如今，整个基督宗教的礼仪都源自基督的祭司职。 Now, the whole rite of the Christian religion is derived from Christ's priesthood.
因此，很明显，这圣事印记特别是基督的印记，信徒因这些圣事的印记而与基督 的祭司职相似，而这些印记无非就是某种源自基督本人的祭司职分之参与。」 Consequently, it is clear that the sacramental character is especially the character of Christ, to whose priesthood the faithful are likened by reason of the sacramental characters, which are nothing else than certain participations of Christ's priesthood, flown from Christ Himself." End quote.
这并不是某种艰深晦涩的知识。 This isn't some sort of esoteric information.
在成人慕道过程中，慕道者在进入教会时通常都会学到这些内容。 Catechumens literally learn this when entering the Church during OCIA.
正如公教教理所说：「借着洗礼归入基督，受洗的人被塑造成与基督相合。 As the CCC says, quote, "Incorporated into Christ by baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ.
洗礼以那永不可磨灭的属灵印记作为记号，证明他属于基督。 Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark, character of his belonging to Christ.
任何罪都无法抹去这个印记，尽管罪会阻挡洗礼带来的救恩果效。 No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.
因为这是一次性的，洗礼不能重复。」 Given once for all, baptism cannot be repeated." End quote.
事实上，在公教教理简编当中也有提到这些内容，这是对公教更基础的入门介绍。 In fact, this is even in the Compendium of the Catechism, which is an even more basic introduction to Catholicism.
其中写道：「这是由洗礼、坚振和圣秩圣事所赐予的属灵印记。 It states, quote, "It is a spiritual seal bestowed by the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders.
这是神保护的应许和保证。 It is a promise and guarantee of divine protection.
凭借这个印记，基督徒被塑造成与基督相合，并以各种方式参与祂 的祭司职，并按照不同的身份和职分在教会中承担自己的角色。 By virtue of this seal, the Christian is configured to Christ, participates in a variety of ways in His priesthood and takes his parts in the Church according to the different states and functions.
因此，他被分别出来，用于对神的礼拜和在教会中的事奉。 He is therefore set apart for divine worship and the service of the Church.
因为这个印记是不可磨灭的，因此那些在灵魂上留下印记的圣事，一生只可领受一次。」 Because this character is an indelible one, the sacraments that impress it on the soul are received only once in life." End quote.
除此之外，洗礼使人归属于教会。 Beside this, baptism makes one a subject of the Church.
从特利腾大公会议对于伊拉斯谟立场的谴责，以及神学家 普遍对教会成员与教会归属者的区分，就能显而易见。 This is clear from the condemnation of Erasmus's position at Trent and the common distinction of theologians between members and subjects of the Church.
因此，他整套论证的前提就是错误的。 Thus, the entire assumption of his line of argumentation is false.
不但一个有效而有果效的洗礼会带来某种与基督的特殊关系，只是有效的洗礼同样也会。 Not only does a fruitful baptism give some sort of special relation to Christ, a merely valid one does as well.
但先说到这里就够了。 Yet enough of that.
我们真正来看看核心问题吧。 Let's actually get to the meat of the question.
首先，将领受圣事区分为四种类型本身并不一定是错的。 First, it is not per se wrong to distinguish between four types of receiving the sacrament.
第一种，是领受了圣事的果效，却没有领受圣事本身…… First, you have the reception of the effect of the sacrament without a reception of the sacrament itself....
亚奎那的圣托马斯称之为「没有领受圣事，却领受了圣事 实质的人」。这指的是领受了血的洗礼或愿望洗礼的人。 which is called by St. Thomas those, quote, "who do not receive the sacrament, but do receive the reality of the sacraments." This would be those who receive the baptism of blood or desire.
第二种，是既领受了圣事的果效，也领受了圣事本身，可称为有果效的领受。 Secondly, you have the reception of both the effects of the sacrament and the sacrament itself, which would be called a fruitful reception of the sacrament.
第三种，是只领受了圣事的印记，却没有领受圣事的恩典，也就是纯粹有效 的圣事。圣托马斯阿奎那称之为「领受了圣事却没有领受圣事实质」的人。 Third, you have the reception of the sacramental character without the reception of the sacramental grace, which is a merely valid sacrament, which St. Thomas calls those, quote, "Who receive the sacraments and not the reality of the sacrament." End quote.
第四种，是那些只进行了一个表面上的圣事，没有实际地有效领受，也没有果效的领受。 Fourth, you have those who merely receive a simulation of the sacrament, neither receiving it validly or fruitfully.
所以，肖恩声称，在梵蒂冈第二届大公会议之前的观点里， 任何在教会之外的洗礼都是一种有效却没有果效的圣事。 So Sean claims that for any baptism outside the church, it is, in pre-Vatican II thought, a sacrament that is valid, but not fruitful.
这就是第三种洗礼的情形。 It is an instance of the third type of baptism.
然而，荒谬之处在于：在大公会议之前，也就是梵蒂冈第二届大公会议之前的神学教科 书中，有整篇整章的论述都在教导，罗马公教会管辖范围之外仍能有圣事恩典的作用。 Now, what is so absurd about this is that theological textbooks in the pre-conciliar era, that is before the era of Vatican II, had entire thesis, entire chapters teaching that there was the working of sacramental grace outside of the juridical bounds of the Roman Catholic Church.
有不少期刊文章和专门的论著都在探讨那些善意的异端和分裂者这个议题。 There were entire journal articles and entire monographs written on the topic of good faith heretics and schismatics.
如果我想引用那些作者的论点，这个影片会长达好几十个小时，因为有大量的作 者在这个问题上都阐述过那些据说是梵蒂冈第二届大公会议新颖之处的观点。 If I wanted to quote those authors, this video would be dozens of hours long because of the truly massive number of authors that teach the supposed novelty of Vatican II on this point.
事实上，肖恩・吕克的说法如此荒唐，让我想不出有哪位作者不支持这个观点。 In fact, the claim of Sean Luke is so absurd that I cannot think of a single author who doesn't teach this point.
如果你想读一位深度参与了梵蒂冈第一届大公会议的作者对这个问题的好整理，可以去看 红衣主教弗兰宗的《论基督的教会：第二十三论》，我接下来会引用其中的一些段落。 If you want to read a good treatment of this question from an author who was very involved in the First Vatican Council, you can read Cardinal Franzön's De Ecclesia Christi, Thesis 23, which I will give a few quotes from below.
不过，我自认还是愿意接受这种挑战。 But I'm one who's up for a challenge.
因为我已经预见到了必然会有人转移话题，这在我指出那些作者在梵蒂 冈第二届大公会议之前数十年乃至数百年，就已经清晰地阐述了所谓的 梵蒂冈第二届大公会议新颖之处时，经常会发生。所以我想主要引用中 世纪的作者和教会权威文献，尤其是我所推崇的亚奎那的圣托马斯。 So since I already hear the inevitable shifting of the goalposts, as frequently happens when I point to authors teaching the supposed novelties of Vatican II, decades or centuries before the council in a clear and manifest way, I wish to mostly restrict myself to medieval authors and magisterial documents, favoring my patron, St. Thomas Aquinas.
首先，根据中世纪作者的一致观点，婴儿在领受洗礼时，同时获得 了洗礼的恩典和印记，因为他们并不存在对洗礼的任何不良意向。 First, according to the medieval authors, without restriction, infants who received baptism received both the grace and character of baptism due to their lack of indisposition to baptism.
因此，他们肯定圣事在教会的实际管辖之外也能带来恩典，这正是肖恩・吕克所否认的。 Therefore, they affirmed that sacraments give grace outside of the physical bounds of the church, which is exactly what Sean Luke denies.
首先，让我们来看这位被称为天使博士的教导。 First, the teaching of the Angelic Doctor.
他首先写道：「婴儿的洗礼恩典只对抗原罪，而 一个孩子并不会比另一个孩子负有更多原罪， In the first place, he writes, quote, "Baptismal grace in infancy is not opposed to anything but original sin, but one child does not have more original sin than another.
所以一个孩子也不会比另一个孩子得到更多的恩典。」 Therefore, neither does one receive greater grace than another." End quote.
亚奎那的圣托马斯所说的「不与任何东西对立」，其实是在对比成人的刻 意抵触。因为婴儿尚未到达理性年龄，他们不可能产生任何反对或抵触。 When St. Thomas is speaking of, quote, "Not opposed to anything," he is contrasting the deliberate opposition of adults with the fact that since they are below the age of reason, infants cannot give any opposition.
相同的推理适用于任何处境下的孩子，不论其父母是否属于异端。 The same reasoning would apply to both heretical and non-heretical children of whatever state.
其次，亚奎那的圣托马斯写道：「我这样回答：在任何不虚假领受的情 形下，洗礼都会普遍涤除那个人身上一切的罪债，如前所述等等。」 In the second place, St. Thomas writes, quote, "I answer that baptism, in anyone who does not receive it insincerely, universally removes any guilt infecting the person that it finds, as has been said, etc." End quote.
现在很明显，婴儿不可能以虚假的态度领受洗礼， 因为他们还没有达到能做道德行为的理性年龄。 Now, it is clear that an infant cannot receive baptism insincerely since they do not perform any moral acts since they are below the age of reason.
所以等等。第三，他写道：「要说的是，就婴儿的洗礼而言，他 们不需要做任何事，只要具备得救的预备，就等同拥有教会的信 心。至于实现救恩方面，则有基督苦难的力量在洗礼中运行。 Therefore, etc. In the third place, he writes, quote, "It should be said that for the baptism of infants, nothing is required on their part, but for a disposition to salvation, they have, as it were, the faith of the church, and for the bringing about of salvation, the power of Christ's passion, which is at work in baptism.
这两方面对婴儿都是相同的，所以他们在领受洗礼 的果效上并无差别，所有人都得到同等的恩典。」 And these two things are equally related to infants, and thus they do not differ in receiving the effect of baptism, but all receive equal grace." End quote.
这已经清楚地阐明了他的论点。 This clearly teaches the thesis.
第四，他甚至给某一小节下的标题是：「关于婴儿和其他没有使用 理性能力者，大家一致同意他们的确领受到圣事和圣事实质。」 In the fourth place, he literally titles a section, quote, "About Infants and Others Lacking the Use of Reason Who Everyone Agrees Do Receive the Sacrament and the Reality of the Sacrament." End quote.
要知道，那些领受了圣事以及圣事实质的人，就是既有效且有果效地领受洗礼的人。 Remember, those who receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament are those who receive both validly and fruitfully.
这是他所说的所有人都认同的观点。 And this is something which he says that everyone agrees upon.
这还能再清楚吗？ How much clearer could we get?
第五，他在评注隆巴德所说「所有在洗礼中被洁净 了原罪的孩子，都领受了圣事和圣事的实质」时， In the fifth place, commenting on the place where Lombard says, quote, "All children who in baptism are cleansed from original sin receive both the sacrament and the reality." End quote.
他写道：「不只是小孩子，有时连成年人也是如此。 He writes, quote, "Not only little ones, but also sometimes adults.
然而，对于婴儿毫无疑问他们确实领受了。 Nevertheless, with infants there is no doubt that they receive it.
至于成人，就有疑问，因为他们可能会因为虚假而阻碍洗礼果效。」 There is, however, with adults, for they can impede it by insincerity." End quote.
第六，他写道：「应该这样说，在洗礼中，受洗者同时 领受两样东西，也就是圣事本身和圣事背后的实质。 In the sixth place, he writes, quote, "It should be said that in baptism, a baptized person receives two things, namely the sacrament and the reality behind the sacrament.
但是，为了领受这两样东西，受洗者不需要有任何主动的作为，只 需要没有阻碍即可，这个阻碍无非就是意志与上述事物相对立。 But to receive these two things, nothing is required on the part of the one receiving baptism that would cause them, but only on the removal of the impediment, which is nothing other than the will contrary to one of the things mentioned.
因此，对于成年人和有思考能力的人而言，他们确实可能实际上或习惯性地拥有相反意志， 所以要领受圣事背后的实质，就需要痛悔或虔敬；要领受圣事本身，也需要意愿或意志。 And thus, among adults and those having use of reason, in whom a contrary will can exist either actually or habitually, baptism requires contrition or devotion to receive the reality behind the sacrament, as well as intention or will to receive the sacrament.
但对于不具备这些能力的孩子，他们就同时领受了圣事与其实质。」 But among children lacking in either one, both the sacrament and the reality are received." End quote.
第七，他说：「在孩子身上，不可能实际上或习惯性地存在相反意志。 In the seventh place, he says, quote, "Among children, there cannot be a contrary will, either actually or habitually.
因此，他们不需要意愿或动机来清除任何阻碍。」 And thus, in them, neither willing nor intention is required for any impediment to be removed." End quote.
第八，他指出：「正如希波的圣奥古斯丁在他的《论仁爱》中说：『没有人 是违背意愿而从水与圣灵而生的，』这并不是指小孩子，而是指成年人。 In the eighth place, he states, quote, "As Augustine says in his book On Charity, 'No man is born of water and the Holy Spirit unwillingly,' which is to be understood not of little children, but of adults.
同样，我们也要理解这话是应用在成年人身上，即若他自己不配合，就不会被 基督称义。再者，如果即将受洗的小孩子尽力反抗，这也不被算作他们的过错 ，因为他们对自己所做的事几乎一无所知，以至于看起来根本不是他们在做。 正如希波的圣奥古斯丁在写给达尔达努斯有关神同在的著作中所说的那样。 In like manner, we are to understand as applying to adults that man without himself is not justified by Christ.""Moreover, if little children who are about to be baptized resist as much as they can, this is not imputed to them since so little do they know what they do, that they seem not to do it at all." As Augustine says in a book on the presence of God addressed to Dardanus.
结束引用。 End quote.
显然，他并不认为在婴儿身上会有任何阻挡信心的障碍。 Clearly, he does not believe that there are impediments that can in any way be placed to the virtue of faith when it comes to infants.
因此，第九，他写道，引用：「那些带孩子去受洗者的属肉意图并不会伤及这些 孩子，正如一个人的罪并不会伤及另一个人，除非另一个人同意。」结束引用。 Thus, in the ninth place, he writes, quote, "The carnal intention of those who take children to be baptized does not hurt the latter, as neither does one sin hurt another unless he consents." End quote.
接着，第十，他写道，引用：「由于所有孩子在洗礼面前的状态都是相 同的，因为他们受洗并非凭借其自身的信心，而是凭借教会的信心，因 此他们在洗礼中得到相同的果效；而那些以自己信心前来领受洗礼的成 人，其预备并不一致，有些更为虔诚，也有些较少。」结束引用。 Further, in the tenth place, he writes, quote, "Since all children are equally disposed to baptism, because they are baptized not in their own faith but in that of the Church, they all receive an equal effect in Baptism; whereas adults who approach Baptism in their own faith are not equally disposed to Baptism, for some approach thereto with greater, some less devotion." End quote.
此外，第十一，圣托马斯甚至否认父母若是不信者，会对洗礼的果效构成阻碍。 Further, in the eleventh place, St. Thomas even denies that it is a hindrance to the effects of Baptism if the parents are unbelievers.
引用：「正如奥古斯丁在写给波尼法爵的信中所说：『在我们救主的教会里，小孩子通过他 人相信，就如同他们也是从他人那里承袭那些在洗礼中得以赦免的罪一样。』即使他们的父 母是不信者，也不妨碍孩子得救，因为奥古斯丁在写给同一个波尼法爵时说：『小孩子被带 来，是为了让他们在灵魂里领受恩典，这主要并不是来自抱他们的那个人之手，而是来自所 有圣徒和信徒的整体。』就算他们的父母在洗礼后试图让他们染上对魔鬼的崇拜，这种不信 也不会伤害到孩子；反而，一个人的信心，确切说是整个教会的信心，通过使教会合而为一 并在各个成员之间分享所拥有恩惠的圣灵之工作，使孩子获益。」结束引用。 Quote, "As Augustine says writing to Boniface, 'In the Church of our Savior, little children believe through others just as they contract from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism.' Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers, because as Augustine says writing to the same Boniface, 'Little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them, as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful.' And the unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism they strive to infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children; but the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Spirit who unites the Church together and communicates the goods of one member to another." End quote.
事实上，在第十二处与此相似的教导中，他说明洗礼赋予 了教会合一的实质，这就是为何它并不违背下述原则。 In fact, in a twelfth place, which says something similar, he teaches that Baptism gives the reality of the unity of the Church, which is why this does not violate the principle that.
引用：「然而应当这样理解，这并非仅指领受圣事本身，而是指圣事背后 的实质，也就是教会的合一。离开它，就没有救恩和生命。」结束引用。 Quote, "This is to be understood however, not as to receiving the sacrament, but as to the reality behind the sacrament, which is the unity of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation nor life." End quote.
这就足以说明圣托马斯的观点了。 Enough for St. Thomas.
还有没有其他教会权威人物认为，无论如何，婴儿借由洗礼都能获得重生呢？ Are there any other doctors who hold that regardless, infants are regenerated by Baptism?
有的，这是中世纪众多神学家普遍的共识。为证实这一观点，我会 提几位著名人物的例子，尽管我本可以再举出数十甚至上百位。 Yes, and it is the universal consensus of the medievals, of which I'll give a few notable names to confirm the thesis, although I could give dozens if not hundreds more.
首先，跟随米德尔顿的理查德的迦尔都西会的真福德尼，对我上述提及的许多文献进行 了大量引用后写道，引用：「在洗礼中，罪与惩罚的恶被除去，并且恩典的善被赐予。 First, Blessed Denis the Carthusian, following Richard of Middleton, after extensively citing many of the texts that I gave above, writes, quote, "In Baptism, the evil of guilt and punishment is removed and the good of grace is conferred.
关于前两点，洗礼在所有孩子身上所产生的效应是相同的，正如 他们所有人原罪同等，也没有谁必须承担比别人更多的惩罚。 Regarding the first two, the effect of Baptism is equal in all children just as original sin is equal in all of them, and no one is bound to greater punishment than another.
此外，根据通行的教会准则，一个人在洗礼中所领 受的恩典，并不会比另一个更多。」结束引用。 Furthermore, according to the common law, one does not receive greater graces than another in Baptism." End quote.
其次，彼得・普瓦西耶在其第五卷第六章中区分了三种情况：其 一是婴儿，他们获得罪过的赦免与恩典的注入，若他们去世便可 进入永生；其二是痛悔的成年人；其三是不痛悔的成年人。 Second, Peter Poissier in book five chapter six distinguishes three groups: infants who receive remission of their sins and the infusion of grace, and if they die, eternal life; contrite adults; and non-contrite adults.
因此，他显然也坚持相同的教义。 Therefore, he clearly holds to the same doctrine.
第三，真福司各脱在其《神学大要》中明确驳斥了有关「在异端 群体中，婴儿的洗礼并无果效」的观点，他写道，引用：「就第 二个主要论点而言，人们说孩子是通过父母的信心与神结合。 Third, Blessed Scotus in his Ordinatio actually explicitly refutes the argument that Baptism is not fruitful for infants among heretics saying, quote, "To the second principal argument, it is said that a child is conjoined to God through the faith of the parents.
与此相反，假设父母是异端。 To the contrary, posit the parents to be heretics.
那么就说他是借着教会的信心与神结合。 It is said that he is conjoined through the faith of the Church.
反过来说，如果在地上奋战的教会当中没有任何信徒 ，但那些抱孩子去受洗的人仍意图做基督所做之事， On the contrary, let it be that in the Church militant there were none faithful, yet that they who offer the child for Baptism would be intending to do what Christ did.
那么这个孩子依然真的领受了洗礼并获得恩典。 The child would still truly be baptized and receive grace.
所以我回应有人主张「实际上没人获得恩典，除非通过某种能使 他首次与神结合的功德原因」时，我就说这功德原因就是基督。 I say therefore to the argument that de facto grace is given to none, save through some meritorious cause which merits his first union with God, that this meritorious cause is Christ.
但这并不需要再额外给予受领者什么内在的原因， 使得他在领受恩典前就与神结合。」结束引用。 But because this one is not necessary to grant another cause intrinsic to the recipient, whereby he may be conjoined to God before he received grace." End quote.
卡耶唐在评论圣托马斯所用「教会的信心」这句话时也给出了类似的回应。 A similar response is given by Cajetan in commenting on St. Thomas's use of, quote, "faith of the Church."
结束引用。 End quote.
这是圣波那文突所教导的内容，他写道，引用：「针对关于信心的反 对意见，说教会的信心就足够了，必须说明的是：信心就像一个普遍 性的推动力，而意愿则是一个将信心应用到各件事上的特殊推动力。 This is also something taught by St. Bonaventure who writes, quote, "To the objection about faith, that the faith of the Church suffices, it must be said that faith is like a universal agent, but intention is a particular agent applying faith to this or that.
因此，信心保存在教会整体当中，但要让教会的信心以特别且 实际的行为运作于圣事施行者身上，就必须要有意愿配合。 Thus, faith is preserved in the generality of the Church, but intention is necessary to couple that act of the faith of the Church as a particular and actual act in the minister.
所以，圣事的效力来自教会的信心，而圣事的具体施行则依赖于施行者的行为。 The power of the sacrament, therefore, comes from the faith of the Church, but its dispensation comes from the minister's action.
并且，由于执行此事工与施行者的意愿相关，信心在这 位施事者身上的要求与意愿并不相同。」结束引用。 And since the ministry pertains to the intention of the one conferring, faith is not required in the dispenser in the same way as intention is." End quote.
事实上，真福司各脱在下一处区分中更进一步肯定，如果身处异端或分裂之中却没 有带着恶意阻碍的人，也能领受洗礼的所有果效。他写道，引用：「这个问题的真 相早已由许多权威作出阐明，不管施事者因为异端、分裂或道德方面的邪恶而不好 ，只要教会的合一仍被保留，并且你打算做教会所做并遵守教会的方式，那么此人 确确实实施行了洗礼，而这样的洗礼在受洗者身上确实产生效果，除非领受者自己 的恶意形成阻碍，因为他是在这样一位施事者处领受洗礼。」结束引用。 In fact, Blessed Scotus goes so far in the next distinction as to affirm that those in heresy or schism can receive all of the effects of Baptism if they do not place the impediment malice, writing, quote, "The truth of the question is plain for many authorities, because by whatever malice a minister is bad, whether of heresy or schism or morals, with the unity of the Church preserved, if you intend to do what the Church does and keep the manner of the Church, he truly confers Baptism, and such Baptism truly has its effect in the baptized notwithstanding the malice of the minister, unless the malice of the receiver stand in the way in this, that he is receiving from such a minister." End quote.
显然，他所说的「果效」并不仅仅指洗礼有效性所必 需的圣事印记之果效，也包括其他恩典的果效…… It is clear that by effect, he does not simply mean the effect of the sacramental character which is necessary for validity, but also the effect of the other graces....
因为，根据他在第四处区分里对带着不良意向领受洗礼 者的教导，他肯定了这些人也会拥有圣事印记的果效。 since, in accordance with his teaching on those who receive in bad faith present in the fourth distinction, he affirms that the effect of the character is present in those who receive in bad faith.
他继续进一步肯定这一点，写道，引用：「要么一个异端者按教会的形式和意愿给 孩子施洗，那么对孩子而言既没有妨碍圣事，也没有妨碍其果效；要么他给一位成 年人施洗，如果此成年人并没有任何恶意动机，比如认同施洗者的异端或打算成为 他的门徒，那么这个施洗者依然把圣事和它的果效授予了受洗者。」结束引用。 He goes on to confirm this further, saying, quote, "Either a heretic baptizes the child in the form and intention of the Church, and in this, nothing is an obstacle to the child, neither as to the sacrament, nor as to the effect, or he baptizes an adult, and still he confers on him the sacrament and its effect if there is not in the adult any evil motion, as his consent to the heresy of the baptizer or intention to become his disciple." End quote.
我们证明了圣托马斯与真福司各脱共同赞同这项教义，这极其重要。因为在佛罗伦萨 时的中世纪神学家当中，圣托马斯与真福司各脱的严谨追随者占了作者的绝大多数。 It is incredibly important that we have shown the consent of St. Thomas and Blessed Scotus to this doctrine, for among the medieval theologians at Florence, the strict disciples of St. Thomas and Blessed Scotus made up the vast majority of authors.
再加上圣波那文突的论述作佐证，这些在佛罗伦萨也受到方济各会的高度重视。 Along with a confirming text by St. Bonaventure, it was held in high regard by the Franciscans at Florence.
此外，我们还引用了迦尔都西会的真福德尼的论述，他被视为所 有中世纪神学家的集大成者，尤其是在佛罗伦萨会议后不久。 Beside this, we have also quoted Blessed Denis of Carthusian, who's regarded as the capstone of all of the medieval theologians, especially immediately following Florence.
现在，我本可以继续举更多例子，但你明白要旨了。 Now, I could keep going on and on and on, but you get the point.
如果你想看任何关于这个问题的中世纪教会作者，去读他们 对《圣经要语汇编》第四卷第四处区分的评注就可以了。 If you want to read any author talking about this point from the medieval church, just read their commentary on distinction four of book four of the Sentences.
在那里内容十分清楚明白。 It is clear and obvious and right there.
由此可见，根据中世纪时期（并在巴洛克和利奥十三时代得到进一步阐明）的神学观点，对 于出生在异端或分裂派别中的婴儿来说，那些异端或分裂者所施行的圣事，仍会赐予恩典。 So it has become clear that infants born within heretical or schismatic sects, according to the mind of the medievals, which is clarified more and more in the Baroque and the Leonine era, the sacraments administered by these heretical or schismatic ministers give grace.
因此，让─吕克所提出的看法立刻就站不住脚了。 Thus, the thesis that is given by Jean-Luc immediately fails.
不过，那么佛罗伦萨大公会议的相关文献又如何解释？其中写道，引用： 「若他们在生命终结前没有加入教会，鉴于教会团体的合一如此重要，只 有那些留在其中的人，教会的圣事才会对其得救有所裨益。」结束引用。 Yet, what about the text given from the Council of Florence, that, quote, "Unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives, that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance, that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation." End quote.
是否意味着佛罗伦萨会议的所有神学家因此否定了他们之前的整个传统？ Did all of the theologians at Florence somehow condemn the entire tradition before them?
他们是否在自己以神学士的身份撰写的要语汇编评注中，等同于谴责了自己？ Did they condemn themselves in the Sentences commentaries that they wrote as bachelors of theology?
他们是否谴责了那些他们毕生都在效忠的伟大师长？ Did they condemn those great masters that they wrote in allegiance to throughout their entire lives?
他们是否也谴责了他们所敬重的其他学派权威人物？ Did they condemn the other doctors of the schools who they were loyal to as well?
显然，这个想法荒谬不堪。 Clearly, this idea is absurd.
那么，这段文献究竟是什么意思呢？ So what does this text mean?
你要记住，分裂本身是一种罪。 Well, what you have to remember is that schism is a type of sin.
分裂应当被谴责，因为它是严重的罪行。 Schism is damnable, because it is a mortal sin.
它被归入了中世纪神学家与教会当局所称的各种使人失去领受圣事果效的障碍之一。 It's classified as one of those indispositions that the medieval theologians and magisterium speak of.
因此，它需要像对待任何严重罪行一样被处理。 Thus, it needs to be treated like any other mortal act that is grave.
我们笼统地说所有分裂者都会下地狱，这在神学术语上是正常的说法。 It is perfectly normal for us to say that all schismatics go to hell without qualification.
为什么会这样呢？ Why is this the case?
原因相当简单。 It is quite simple.
通常，当我们谈到某种罪时，指的是某人自愿做出的、当事人应当承担责任的严重行为。 Ordinarily when we name a sin, we are naming some mortal act on the part of a person that the individual is culpable for.
因此，例如，圣保罗提到各类人，酗酒者、淫乱者 、通奸者、说谎者等等，都无法承受神的国度。 Thus, for example, St. Paul states that those of various different classes, drunkards, fornicators, adulterers, liars, et cetera, will not inherit the kingdom of God.
举个经典的例子，如果有人在无可抵抗的无知之下与一位并非他妻子的女子发生了关系 ，那么更准确地说他不是通奸者，尽管为了说明，我们会称他为「物质性通奸者」。 To use a classic example, if someone happens to commit adultery in a non-culpable way, for example, if he is invincibly ignorant that the woman he is with is not his wife, then the individual is more properly said to be a non-adulterer than an adulterer, although in order to better explain this, we use the language of a material adulterer.
但这些「物质性通奸」的可能情况，会不会妨碍我笼统地说所有通奸者都要下地狱呢？ But would these possible cases of material adultery stop me from saying without qualification that all adulterers go to hell?
当然不会。 Of course not.
因为当我们指明某种严重罪行时，一般是指那个行为是在当事人有过错的情况下实施的。 It is assumed that when we name a certain mortal act, we intend to name that act as culpably exercised.
也就是说，我们是从形式层面来考虑这一行为，而不是仅仅从物质层面。 That is, the act formally considered, not the act materially considered.
这就是我先前与让─吕克讨论时引用圣奥古斯丁对多纳徒派所言的意图：圣奥古斯丁提到 ，那些并不顽固坚守他们异端观念的人，比起说他们是异端，更应称他们为「非异端」。 This was my purpose behind my invocation of St. Augustine's words to the Donatists in an earlier discussion with Jean-Luc, where St. Augustine states that those are not obstinate in their heresy, or rather called non-heretics than heretics.
因此，那些以无可归责方式陷入分裂行为的人，比 起说他们是分裂者，更应被称为「非分裂者」。 Thus, those who commit an act of schism in an inculpable way are rather called non-schismatics than schismatics.
如果仅仅引用文献而没有认真阅读并理解这些作者的整体教导以及他 们在著作中所使用的范畴，那就极其不负责任甚至失去学术诚实。 It is completely irresponsible and intellectually lazy, if not dishonest, to quote texts without having read and understood the teaching of those authors that surround those texts and the categories that they are working with in their own works.
因此，中世纪神学家拥有一整套探讨罪责之通论道德神学的体系，这清 楚表明他们并没有把佛罗伦萨的谴责普遍施加给所有分裂者，而只适用 于那些在行为上应被归责的人，最明显的例子就是罪责最小的婴儿。 Thus, the medievals have an entire system of general moral theology about the culpability surrounding immoral acts that clearly show that they do not universally apply the condemnations of Florence to all those in schism, but only those culpable for their actions, as is most clearly shown in the case of infants who are the least culpable.
我之前提到的红衣主教弗兰兹林对此教导作了相当全面的阐述，虽然如我所说，梵 蒂冈第二届大公会议之前还有数千，甚至更多的其他作者也在重复同样的观点。 The Cardinal Franzlin I mentioned earlier gives a quite good overview of this teaching, although as mentioned, there are thousands, if not more, teachings from other pre-Vatican II authors who say the same exact thing.
他写道，引用：「基于上述原因，教会的圣事，只要是有效 施行的，都会产生所有在领受者身上没有被阻碍的果效。 He says, quote, "For the reason just stated, the sacraments of the Church, wherever they are validly conferred, produce all those effects that an obstacle in the recipient does not impede.
因此，若我们专门谈到异端或分裂者为婴儿施行的洗礼，由于婴儿不可能存在 任何障碍，那么这个洗礼就具有与由教会祭司施行的洗礼相同的本质效能。 Thus, if we speak specifically of baptism conferred by a heretical or schismatic minister upon infants, in whom there can be no obstacle, it has all the same essential effects as if it were conferred by a Catholic minister.
他们不仅被烙上了基督的印记，也因恩典而成为神的儿女，并归并 于神圣母亲教会之中，至少在内在良心层面和神面前依然是其中的 成员，直到他们以自身行为投入分裂或异端，而那就是严重的罪。 Not only are they marked with the character of Christ, but they are also regenerated as children of God through grace and incorporated into the Holy Mother Church, whose members they remain, at least in the internal forum and before God, until they adhere to schism or heresy by their own act, which would be a mortal sin.
这也完全适用于那些所谓的「物质性异端者」或「物质性分裂者」，也就是仅从外 在层面看待他们。正如奥古斯丁在多处提到，母亲教会并不仅通过自己本身，更通 过使女的子宫来生养子女。」结束引用。至于说那些处在异端或分裂中的人之所以 无法藉其圣事获益于永生，是因为他们以不合宜的行为状态阻挡了这些恩典。 This applies fully to those called material heretics or schismatics, that is, in the external forum alone, as St. Augustine teaches in many places about the sacrament by which the Mother Church generates children not only through her own womb, but also through the wombs of handmaids." End quote. The reason that the sacraments of those in heresy or schism do not benefit them to eternal life is because they are ill-disposed to receive such graces by their immoral acts.
如果他们的异端或分裂行为并不带有应归责的成分，那么 他们的不良状态便被移除，再用相同的谴责就显得荒谬。 If they have acts of heresy or schism that they are not culpable for, clearly the reason for the ill disposition is removed, and it would be absurd to give the same condemnation.
既然他们缺失了决定该行为成为罪行的形式要素，那么只 能将他们不确切或在物质层面上称作分裂者或异端者。 And since they are lacking the form of their act that specifies it in being a sin, then they would only improperly or materially be referred to as schismatics or heretics.
正因如此，弗兰兹林指出，圣奥古斯丁有时在谈及分裂者得不到果效时，特 别加上「那些心高气傲且不归向合法母亲的人」这样的限定。结束引用。 This is why, as Franzlon points out, St. Augustine sometimes qualifies his statement about the lacking fruit among schismatics with, quote, "Those who are proud and do not join the lawful mother." End quote.
因此，弗兰兹林继续说道，引用：「所以，那些心高气傲的人，也就是因为任何错误 欲望或者应被归责的疏忽，而不去按照本分追求真理，或在真理充分呈现时拒绝接受 的人，则在形式意义上或同等意义上坚持错误，并背离神及其教会。他们被视为正式 的异端或分裂者，不仅在外在层面，也在神面前以及内在良心层面都被剥离出去。 Thus, Franzlon goes on to say, quote, "Thus, those who are proud, that is, who out of any perverse desires or culpable negligence, do not seek the truth as they ought or refuse to embrace it once sufficiently proposed, formally or equivalently adhere to error, and rebelling against God and His Church, are torn from it as formal heretics or schismatics, not only in the external forum but also before God, and in the internal forum, holy exile.
而相反地，那些只是物质性异端者或物质性分裂者，也就是只是在外在自称如此，而并非 在心灵上带有应归责的执念，就算是成年人，也可被视为拥有善意的意向。」结束引用。 But on the contrary, those who are only materially heretics or schismatics, that is by external profession alone and not by culpable adherence of mind, could be considered even as adults to have that disposition of good faith." End quote.
这种善意的意向，使一个分裂者或异端者只停留在物质层面，正如圣奥古斯丁在某些情 况下所设想的。例如在他前面提到的那封书信中，引用：「即使人们所持的教义是虚假 和谬误的，但如果他们没有顽固坚持，尤其是在他们并非因自以为是的冒进而想出这些 教义，而是从那些受误导并陷入错误的父母那里接受的，并且他们焦急地寻求真理，并 做好在发现真理时顺从修正的准备，那么这样的人就不应被视为异端。」结束引用。 That disposition of good faith, which renders a schismatic or heretic merely material, is assumed by St. Augustine of some, for example, the aforementioned epistle, where he writes, quote, "Though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who have been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics." End quote.
事实上，有趣的是，在旧式的接纳异端者及分裂 者的仪式中，就暗含了「无可归责」这一点。 In fact, interestingly enough, this inculpability for the moral act of schism is actually baked into the old rite of the reception of heretics and schismatics.
正如弗兰兹林所提到，对于七岁到十四岁、已上了理性年龄的孩子，当他 们被接纳进入教会时，只需要做一个信心宣誓，而不需要宣告放弃异端。 For, as Franzlon points out, for those received into the church from ages seven to 14, which were above the age of reason, they were only required to give a profession of faith rather than an abjuration of heresies.
由此可见，人们显然假设他们对各自的错误并没有应受责备的成分。 Thus, they were clearly assumed to not be culpable for their errors.
因此，我想问肖恩・吕克以及其他人：若佛罗伦萨会议的教导是说，任何在教会管辖范 围之外施行的圣事都不能导致得救，只是因为他们不在教会法理之内，而不是因为道德 归责的原因，那么他们为何又相信那些由这些人所施行洗礼的婴儿确实得救了呢？ So the questions I have for Sean Luke and others are: If Florence teaches that no sacraments practiced outside of the church are salvific simply by virtue of not being within the juridical bounds of the church, rather than by reason of moral culpability, why do they believe that infants who are baptized were saved when baptized by these individuals?
这或者是因为他们认为那些婴儿没有可归责之处，或者他们是在否定自己所持的观点。 It can either be because of their lack of culpability or perhaps they're condemning their own views.
后者很荒谬。 The latter is absurd.
那么如果是前者，你就承认了这和分裂行为在道德上的性质有关。 So as to the former, then you admit that it has to do with the moral quality of the act of schism.
如果是这样，为什么这就不适用于那些按照普遍道德 神学的原则并无可被归责之处而陷入分裂的人呢？ If this is the case, then why would it not also apply to anyone else who, in accordance with their own teaching on general moral theology, is not culpable for their schism?
如果不是这样，那么教会为何又对十四岁以下的 年轻人自动假定他们对异端或分裂不负责任呢？ If not, why has the church assumed inculpability for heresy and schism among the young, that is under the age of 14?
如果不是这样，他们在接纳异端者和分裂者时，却不要 求履行这古老且必要的仪式，岂不是极大的过失吗？ Would it not be a great crime for them to not require this ancient and necessary ceremony in the reception of heretics and schismatics?
现在，你们当中很多人认为，区分物质性分裂和形式性分裂是 某种新奇的主张，佛罗伦萨会议的作者们并没有想到这一点。 Now, many of you claim that this distinction between material and formal schism is something novel that the authors at Florence did not have in mind.
但这很荒谬，只不过暴露了你们当中很多人对自己所谈 及的教义并不知情，却又自以为能攻击教会的无知。 But this is absurd and merely exposes the ignorance of many of you who presume to attack the Catholic Church while ignorant of the doctrine you speak of.
佛罗伦萨会议中最伟大的神学家之一是胡安・德・托尔克马达，他是研 究教会学的专家，也是对佛罗伦萨会议教会学产生最大影响的人之一。 One of the greatest theologians of Florence was Juan de Torquemada, who was an expert at ecclesiology and one of the biggest influences on the ecclesiology of Florence.
如果有谁能够真正表达这些文献的核心精神，那就是他。 If anyone is able to express the mind of the documents, it is him.
托尔克马达是佛罗伦萨会议上最活跃的教宗特使与神 学家之一，他曾见过国王，为教宗执行各种事务。 Torquemada was one of the most active legates and theologians at Florence, going before kings to do the bidding of the Pope.
他曾受教宗委任，以神学家的身份参加了会议最早 的一些讨论会，在正式开会前就参与议题的商讨。 He was appointed by the Pope to be present as a theologian at the earliest conferences of the council, where the topics were discussed before the opening sessions.
事实上，在那条广为人知的记载中，红衣主教贝萨里翁提到拉丁方面在会议之初就 驳倒了他们反对「和子同出」说法的全部论点，而当时的发言人就是托尔克马达。 In fact, in the famous quote by Cardinal Bessarion concerning the Latins destroying all their arguments against the Filioque in the beginning of the council, it was Torquemada who was the spokesman.
而且，看起来正是他使贝萨里翁认同了教会关于炼狱的教导。 In fact, it seems like he was the one who convinced Bessarion of the Catholic teaching on purgatory.
在整个会议中的辩论里，他被任命为拉丁方面的六位官方发言人之一。 In the debates that took place throughout the council, he was appointed as one of the six official orators of the Latins.
更具体地说，他在会议上代表了道明会。 Specifically, he represented the Dominican order at the council.
除此之外，他也撰写了关于该会议的权威记述。 Beside this, he wrote definitive chronicles on the council as well.
他最大的贡献在于关于圣事以及罗马教宗角色的辩论。 His biggest contributions came down to debates over the sacraments and the role of the Roman Pontiff.
除与希腊方面的讨论外，他也参与了与科普特派的讨论。 Besides these discussions with the Greeks, he was also involved with the discussions with the Copts.
还好，他写过一本名为《Summa de Eccle sia》的著作，而第四卷通篇都在讨论分裂与异端。 Well, luckily for us, he wrote a work called Summa de Ecclesia, and the entire fourth book is about schism and heresy.
这不是很棒吗？ Isn't that fantastic?
那么，他在这本著作的任何地方提到过物质性分裂或异端吗？ Well, does he mention material schism and heresy anywhere in this work?
确实提到过。 He absolutely does.
在他论及「真正的分裂」需要顽固态度时，这一点就很明显。 This is evident when he discusses the necessity of pertinacity for there to be true schism.
他写道：「并非任何形式的不服从都足以构成分裂 的本质，只有带着某种顽固叛逆的不服从才可以。 He says, quote, "Not just any disobedience suffices to constitute the nature of schism, but only that which is pertinacious with a certain rebellion.
要正确理解，导致分裂的不服从，必须带有某种顽固的成分。 It is rightly understood that the disobedience through which schism is incurred must be taken with a certain pertinacity.
因此，亚历山大・海尔斯说，正确理解的分裂，是 当某人顽固地脱离对教会首长的服从时所产生的。 Hence, Alexander of Hale says that schism, properly understood, occurs when one pertinaciously withdraws from obedience to the head of the church.
而真福托马斯则说，不带着顺服之心却抱持某种叛逆来违背命令，便构成分裂的本质。 And Blessed Thomas says that not obeying precepts with a certain rebellion constitutes the nature of schism.
我所谓的叛逆，就是指人顽固地轻视命令，并且拒绝服从他的裁断。」结束引用。 I say with rebellion when one both pertinaciously despises precepts and refuses to submit to his judgment." End quote.
他在讨论追随对立教宗的问题时就运用了这个概念，并且也将东方的分裂者包括在内…… He applies this question when he considers the question of adhering to an anti-pope, in which he also includes the Eastern schismatics....
他对不同的人群做了与我们今天所作相同的区分，并且在圣托马斯于《神学大全》第一 部分第二部中讨论通论道德神学时也有明确体现，正如我之前对肖恩・吕克所说的。 drawing the same distinction between various different groups that we do to this day, and are clearly reflected in the teaching of St. Thomas when he discusses general moral theology in Prima Secundae, as I already told Sean Luke.
不过，因为他太迷信自己的判断与错误，他并没有听进去。 But as somebody addicted to his own judgment and errors, he didn't listen.
托尔克马达写道：「第一条命题：那些明知对方是正 统的罗马教宗，却故意与之分离的人，就是分裂者。 Torquemada wrote, quote, "First proposition, that those who intentionally separate themselves from him who they know to be the true Roman pontiff are schismatics.
之所以这样说，是因为先前已经声明，那些故意脱 离教会合一或宗座的人，才是货真价实的分裂者。 This proposition is manifest from what was said above, where it was stated that those are truly schismatics who intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the church or from the Apostolic See.
第二条命题：那些因悖逆的无知而追随对立教宗的人，也就是 说主动想保持在真理之外、被罪恶牵制的人，就是分裂者。 Second proposition, those adhering to an antipope out of perverse ignorance, which is when someone directly wishes to remain ignorant of the knowledge of the truth and is drawn back by sin, are schismatics.
这一点很明显，因为这种无知是自愿的，并不能让人免责，反而使这种罪更严重。 This proposition is evident because such ignorance, since it is voluntary, does not excuse but accuses and increases the sin.
第三条命题：那些因为错误、严重或懒惰的无知，而追随篡位者 或对立教宗的人，例如他们不愿下功夫认真查明本该探究的真理 ，包括谁才是真正的教宗，这样的人同样无法推脱分裂的罪责。 Third proposition, those who adhere to an intruder or antipope out of error or gross or supine ignorance, for example, because they do not care to apply diligence but neglect to be informed of the truth, which they are bound to investigate, namely who in truth is the pope, are not excused from the staining guilt of schism.
这一观点也很明显，因为这种对对立教宗的追随源自具有自愿成 分的无知，由于他们自愿拒绝或忽视应当知道的事理。只要有渠 道能够请教学识渊博的人，那么人就不能用无知来为自己开脱。 This proposition is evident because such adherence to an antipope proceeds from ignorance that is in some way voluntary, since they voluntarily condemn or neglect to know what they are bound to know, for no one is excused by ignorance when he has access to the learned.
第四条命题：有些人在非常努力探求谁才是正统教宗的真相后，仍未能完全弄清楚， 并且因为一些貌似合理的理由而追随了对立教宗，但他们心里有个打算，一旦得知哪 位才是真正的教宗，他们就会立刻回归。那么这样的人似乎可免于分裂的罪责。 Fourth proposition, those who after exact diligence to know the truth about who is the true pope could not be fully clarified, and induced by some probable reasons adhere to an antipope, yet with the intention of always adhering to the true pontiff once they could truthfully be informed of this, seem to be excused from the staining guilt of schism.
这么说是因为他们的无知完全是非主观的，因其难以克服，也不 存在意志上的偏差，因此他们后续的行为并没有可归责的过错。 This is proved because their ignorance is entirely involuntary, since it is invincible and without any disorder of will, and consequently, the act that follows is without any fault.
因此，乌尔里希大人在他的《神学总论》里说，引用：「如果某人面对一件可疑之 事，向更有学识的人请教，而又没有明确的权威能判断此事是否正确，只要他在求 教之后尽力形成正直的良心，即使最后事实证明得出相反结论，他也没有犯罪，因 为他已经尽了自己所能，而且神并没有要求人做不可能的事。」结束引用。 Hence, Lord Ulrich in his Summa says, quote, "As someone regarding a doubtful action consults the more learned, having no express authority on whether it is so or not, provided he form a good conscience after consulting the more learned, even if the matter turns out otherwise, he has not sinned, for he did what he could, and God requires nothing impossible for men." End quote.
第五条命题：那些淳朴而不学无术的人，不了解教会法或事实，因为他们跟随并顺从自己长 上所顺从的对象，就似乎可以免于分裂的罪责，因为只要能有充分证据证明是谁具备正统性 ，无论是神的启示、教会的宣示或其它方式，他们都随时敞开心扉去服从。」结束引用。 Fifth proposition, simple people and unlearned who lack knowledge of law or fact seem to be excused from the staining guilt of schism by obeying and adhering to the one whom their prelates obeyed and adhered to, because they have a readiness of mind to obey whosever right might be sufficiently shown, whether by God's revelation, the church's declaration, or any other means." End quote.
因此，他接着提出了以下反驳，这种反驳正是基于肖恩・吕克似乎持有的那个异端定义。 Thus he brings up the following objection that would assume the definition of heresy that Sean Luke seems to have.
这还能再清楚吗？ How much clearer could this get?
如果有一个人本着善意行事，并且随时准备遵从神的命令，他已 尽到本分，只是在无可抵抗的无知之中，那么他就不算分裂者。 If you have someone acting in good faith and always willing to follow the commands of God, carrying out his duty and invincibly in ignorance, he is not a schismatic.
因此，他的洗礼确实使他加入教会，因为正如圣 托马斯所教导，借着洗礼，人便与教会结合。 Thus, his baptism does incorporate him into the church since, as St. Thomas teaches, union to the church is given in baptism.
现在说到异端的问题，他又提出以下反驳，这种反驳是基于肖恩・吕克似乎 所持的异端定义。他写道，引用：「有人经常对此提出异议，说在这里提到 『顽固』等等，首先有人会这样论证，认为这里多加了一个无用的词。 Now, when it comes to heresy, he brings up the following objection that would assume the definition of heresy that Sean Luke seems to have, writing, quote, "It is often argued against that where it says pertinaciously, et cetera, it is argued first as follows, that this particle is superfluously included.
英诺森三世在写给弗卢兹伯爵的信中说，引用：「那些公然与大公信仰 相争、或公开宣称或捍卫某种错误、或已在其上级面前被定罪、或自承 或被法庭判定其异端堕落的人，都应被视为显明的异端。」结束引用。 Innocent III, writing to the Count of Flouz, says, quote, 'Those are to be understood as manifest heretics who publicly dispute against the Catholic faith or profess or defend an error or who have been convicted before their prelates or who have confessed or have been judicially condemned by them for heretical depravity.' End quote.
在这些话里，并没有提到顽固性。 In these words, no mention is made of pertinacity.
因此，任何与大公信仰相抵触的人，即使并不顽固似乎也被视为异端。」结束引用。 Therefore, anyone who errs against the Catholic faith, even if not pertinaciously, seems to be considered a heretic." End quote.
然而，他对此加以驳斥，写道，引用：「对于第八条反对意见，声称顽固是多余的做法这 一点，其实是错误的。有人说圣师父的定义中没有提到顽固性，对此可以作出双重回应。 Yet he refutes this, writing, quote, "To the eighth objection, where it is argued that pertinacity is superfluously included, it is responded that this is false, and when it is argued that in the definitions assigned by the Holy Fathers no mention is made of pertinacity, a twofold response is given.
第一，依照前文亚历山大・海尔斯大师所作的区分，也就是在那 些定义中，『异端』并不是以我们现在所用的最严格意义去界定 ，而是用了一般或比较恰当但又区别于最严格意义的方式。 First, according to the distinction set forward above by Master Alexander of Hales, namely that in those definitions the term heretic is not defined most properly as we are now speaking but either commonly or properly as is distinguished from most properly.
第二，也是更好的回答是，即便前述定义没有明确提到顽固性，但它已被隐含地包括在内 ，因为它关乎异端的本质，正如真福奥古斯丁的权威著述充分表明的那样。」结束引用。 Second, it is responded, and this is better, that although pertinacity is not expressly stated in the aforementioned definitions, it is understood since it pertains to the essence of heresy as was sufficiently shown from the authorities of Blessed Augustine." End quote.
非常清楚的是，中世纪的作者在使用「异端」或「异端思想」这些 词时，并不只是说外表形式的错误或单纯依附某种谬误，而是要求 具备顽固这个特殊的特征，正如他们对分裂所作的讨论一样。 Very clearly, when the medievals were using terms like heretic and heresy, they did not mean the material representation or mere adherence to falsehood but required the special character of pertinacity, as was seen in the case of schism.
最后，在梵蒂冈第二届大公会议之前，教会当局已经多次教导说 ，只要人在受洗时没有加以阻碍，就可以领受洗礼所赐的恩典。 Lastly, the Magisterium has taught this on a number of occasions before Vatican II that someone who does not place an obstacle to the baptismal graces receives these graces.
这也正是梵蒂冈第二届大公会议所教导的内容。 This is exactly the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
首先，英诺森三世肯定了婴儿洗礼中恩典及赦罪的圆满 性，他说，引用：「他们声称给儿童施洗毫无意义。 First, Innocent III affirmed the plenitude of graces and remission is to be found at the baptism of infants, stating, quote, "For they assert that baptism is conferred uselessly on children.
我们说这里需要区分一下，罪有两种：原罪与本罪。 We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold, namely original and actual.
原罪是未经同意就继承来的，而本罪是人自愿犯下的。 Original, which is contracted without consent, and actual, which is committed with consent.
因此，那未经同意就继承的原罪，就能藉着圣事 的力量，在未得其自行同意的情况下被赦免。 Original, therefore, which is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the power of the sacrament.
至于那带着自愿成分的本罪，如果没有当事人的 意愿，则一点也不会得到减免。」结束引用。 But actual, which is contracted with consent, is not mitigated in the slightest without consent." End quote.
第二，面对马丁・路德……教宗良十世将以下观点定为异端： Second, against Martin Luther...Leo the Tenth condemned the following thesis as heretical.
引用：「『新律法』的圣事会把宽恕与恩典授予那些没有设置任何 障碍的人，这个看法其实是异端，但却相当普遍。」结束引用。 Quote, "It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the new law give pardon and grace to those who do not set up an obstacle." End quote.
第三，特利腾大公会议第七期谴责了下述论点，引用：「若有人说『新律法 』的圣事并不包含它们所标示的恩典，或者说它们不会把恩典给予那些没有 设置障碍的人，仿佛它们只是通过信心所接受的恩典或公义的外在标记，以 及用来把信徒与不信的人区分开的某些基督徒标志，那就当受咒诅。 Third, the Council of Trent, session seven, condemned the following theses, saying, quote, "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the new law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer the grace on those who do not place an obstacle in the way, as though they were only outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession by which the faithful among men are distinguished from the unbelievers, let them be anathema.
如果有人说，就神而言，即使人们妥善领受圣事，恩典也并不总是赐 给所有人的，只偶尔赐给某些人，那么他也当受咒诅。」结束引用。 If anyone shall say that grace, as far as concerns God's part, is not given through the sacraments always and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but only sometimes and to some persons, let him be anathema." End quote.
由上面所有教会当局的声明可知，那些不在领受圣事时设置障碍的人都会得到恩 典，这个原则已经在所有中世纪的神学学派中被确立，正如我上述所指出的。 Now, it has been proven from all the magisterial statements above, the principle that those not placing an obstacle to the sacraments receive grace is firmly to be held, which was already taught in all of the medieval schools, as I pointed out above.
现在，很明显，这同样适用于所有在异端或分裂派别中受洗的婴儿。 Now, this clearly applies to all infants baptized in heretical or schismatic sects.
但是，这对成年人也适用吗？ Yet, does this also apply to adults?
很明显，对于那些在分裂上有应受责备之处的成年人， 这个原则也适用，如佛罗伦萨的讨论所指出的那样。 Obviously, it does apply to adults who are culpable for their schism, as pointed out above in the talk from Florence.
但是，一个人的分裂行为有没有可能被视为无可归责？ But can one be rendered inculpable for their action of schism?
答案是可以。 Yes.
在反对杨森派的教导中，教会在普遍道德神学的层面上对此给予了肯定。 The church affirms this in their teaching on general moral theology against Jansenists.
这在亚历山大八世的教导中最为明确，他曾说，引用：「尽管存 在对自然法的无可抵抗的无知，但这在堕落的人性状态下，并不 足以使任何因无知而犯罪的人免责于正式的罪。」结束引用。 This is most clearly seen in the teaching of Alexander VIII, who stated, quote, "Although there is such a thing as invincible ignorance of the law of nature, this, in the state of fallen nature, does not excuse from formal sin anyone acting out of ignorance." End quote.
在梵蒂冈第二届大公会议之前就已经谴责了杨森派的一个主张： 他们普遍声称无可抵抗的无知不足以让人的道德行为免于罪责。 It is a condemned thesis of the Jansenists, long before Vatican II, to assert universally that invincible ignorance cannot render a moral act inculpable.
所以，仅仅因为分裂行为导致人对圣事没有适宜性，就断言该行为不可能免 除正式罪责，也不可能是一个物质性分裂之情形，这种说法是完全错误的。 Thus, it is completely erroneous to assert that simply because an act of schism causes one to be indisposed the sacraments, that such an act cannot be excused from formal sin, and thus not be a cause of indisposition, that is in an act of material schism.
其实大致就是这些。 This is basically all there is to say.
依照教会的教导，声称一个人在教会法理共融之外就 无法获得有果效的洗礼，这种说法完全是荒谬的。 It is completely absurd to state that in principle, someone outside the juridical communion of the church does not receive a fruitful baptism, according to the teaching of the church.
婴儿的情况已很清楚地说明了这点，而当教会对罪 行的归责原则应用于成年人时，这同样显而易见。 This is clearly seen in the case of infants, but it is also seen in adults when one presents the teaching of the church on culpability for sinful acts.
只要了解相关背景尤其是某些作者的著作——他们在佛罗伦萨会议的教会学中 扮演要角，并且参与了文件的起草——那就很容易理解佛罗伦萨会议的解释。 The interpretation of Florence is quite easy when one is aware of the background material, and especially that of the writings of , who played a chief role in the ecclesiology of Florence, including the drafting of documents.
就这样了。 That's all.
如往常一样，愿神赐福。 And as always, God bless.