📜 Verbum
Scripture and the Fathers, read aloud in the original

← All books · Latin Fathers › Sermons & Letters

Pope Leo the Great

Sermons & Letters 106

Latin original · 12 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss

← ch. 105ch. 107 →
106:1
Pro integritate fidei catholicae Christianissimum principem convenit esse sollicitum, et hoc indefessis precibus divinam misericordiam posco, ut cordi veetro id quod est veritatis inspiret, neque falli vos in aliquo humanarum aemulationum fraude patiatur. A me autem atque ab omnibus catholicis sacerdotibus quae evangelicae atque apostolicae fidei pietas defendatur, satis plene ac lucide litteris meis, quas clementiam vestram jam dudum per famulum vestrum EPIPHANIUM tribunum, qui pro causa missasest, arbitroraccepisse, reseratum est:
It befits a most Christian prince to be solicitous for the integrity of the catholic faith, and this I beg of the divine mercy with unwearied prayers, that it may inspire into your heart that which is of the truth, and may not suffer you to be deceived in anything by the fraud of human rivalries. And by me and by all catholic priests, what piety may defend the evangelical and apostolic faith has been fully and clearly disclosed in my letters, which I judge your clemency to have already received some time ago through your servant Epiphanius the tribune, who was sent for the sake of the cause:
對於大公信仰的完整無損,一位最基督徒的君王理應心懷關切;為此,我以不倦的祈禱懇求神的憐憫,願祂將那屬乎真理之事默感於陛下的心中,並不容陛下在任何事上被人間爭競的詭詐所欺。至於我與眾大公司祭如何護衛福音與使徒的信仰,這在我的書信中已充分而清晰地陳明;我認為陛下的仁慈早前已經透過您的僕人、護民官厄庇法尼烏斯(Epiphanius)收到那些書信,他正是為此事而被差遣的:
106:2
nec ambigi potest, hoc nos purissime credere, hoc constanter asserere, quod etiam venerandi Patres, quondam apud Nicaeam congregati,secundum fidem Symboli credendum et confitendum sacratissima auctoritate sanxerunt. Nos enim, venerabilis imperator, sicut Nestorii dogma perversum merito anathematizavimus; itajuste etiam horum impietatem, qui veritatem carnis nostrae negant a Domino nostro Jeso Christo susceptam esse, damnamus, Gloriosissime. Unde si pietas vestra suggestioni ac supplicationi 957 nostræ dignetur annuere, ut intra Italiam haberi jubeatis episcopale concilium, cito auxiliante Dcopoteruntomniascandala, quæ in perturbationem totius Ecclesiae sunt commota,resecari:
nor can it be doubted that we most purely believe this, and constantly affirm this, which also the venerable Fathers, once gathered at Nicaea, sanctioned by their most sacred authority as to be believed and confessed according to the faith of the Creed. For we, venerable emperor, just as we deservedly anathematized the perverse dogma of Nestorius, so too we justly condemn the impiety of these men who deny that the truth of our flesh was assumed by our Lord Jesus Christ, O most glorious one. Wherefore, if your piety deign to grant our suggestion and supplication, that you order an episcopal council to be held within Italy, quickly, with God's help, will all the scandals which have been stirred up to the disturbance of the whole Church be able to be cut away:
也不容懷疑,我們最純正地相信、並堅定不移地宣認此事——正是那些可敬的教父們,昔日聚集於尼西亞,以其至聖的權柄所裁定、應按信經之信仰而信奉並宣認的。因為,可敬的皇帝啊,我們既理當咒詛聶斯多留(Nestorius)那乖謬的教義,同樣,我們也公義地譴責這些人的不虔——他們否認我們的主耶穌基督取了我們肉體的真實性,至榮耀的陛下。因此,若陛下的虔敬肯俯允我們的建議與懇求,下令在義大利境內召開一次主教會議,那麼,靠著神的幫助,一切為擾亂全教會而挑起的絆腳石,便能迅速地被剷除:
106:3
ut per universum regnum vestrum catholicæ fidei integritate 958 servata, et pacem Christianam manere, et vestram apud Deu m crescere gloriam gaudeamus. Data octavo kalendas Januarias, Asterio et Protegene viris clarissimis consulibus. i. CurepistolaesequenteaLeoninis insertae fuerint, probe notavit Quesnellus in brevi admonitionoeisdem epistolis praemissa his verbis: Ex epistolarum subjectarum serie manifestum esl scriptas cas fuisse consilii et hortatu sancti Leonis totiiuque synodi, ex qua et cujus nomine datæ sunt superiores pontifIcis litter£.Nas igitur pro utrarumque affinitate hoc loco excudendas putavimus.
so that throughout your whole realm, the integrity of the catholic faith being preserved, we may rejoice both that Christian peace abides and that your glory before God increases. Given on the eighth day before the Kalends of January, in the consulship of the most illustrious men Asterius and Protogenes. Note: That the following letters were inserted among Leo's letters, Quesnel rightly noted in the brief admonition prefixed to those same letters in these words: 'From the series of the subjoined letters it is manifest that they were written by the counsel and exhortation of holy Leo and of the whole synod, from which and in whose name the foregoing letters of the pontiff were given. We therefore have thought them to be printed in this place on account of the affinity of both.'
如此,在陛下的整個國度中,大公信仰的完整既得保全,我們便可歡欣,既見基督徒的和平長存,又見陛下在神面前的榮耀日增。發於一月初一前第八日,於至顯赫者亞斯特里烏斯與普羅托格內斯任執政官之時。註:以下諸書信被編入利奧書信集中,凱斯內爾(Quesnel)在冠於同一書信集前的簡短說明中正確地指出,其言曰:「從所附書信的序列可以明顯看出,它們乃是出於聖利奧與整個會議的商議與勸勉而寫成的;上述那位教宗的書信也正是從此會議、並以其名義而發出的。因此,我們認為,鑑於兩者之間的關聯,宜將它們印於此處。」
106:4
Nam et clariorem illius synodi nobis ingerunt notitiam, cujus locum, tempus, materiem aliasque circumstantias aperiunt; et ab ipso Leone dictatæ videntur. De quibus plura in dissertatione 4 de Vita et rebus gestis S. Leonis ad annum 449. Ipsae epiatolæ tres imperiales ad Theodosium, et aliaad Pulcheriam Leonis consilium palam testantur; has vern ab ipso Leone dictatas nihil indicat; quin nonnulla Leoninae scribendi rationi haudquaquam congruunt. Z. Quoad tempus vero, cum omnes tum quæ traditae tum quæ redditae fuerunt Augustorum epistolae, in una Chalcedonensi collectione exhibitæ, chronicanotationecareant, alii aliter opinati sunt.
For they both give us a clearer knowledge of that synod, disclosing its place, time, subject-matter, and other circumstances; and they seem to have been dictated by Leo himself. Concerning these, see more in Dissertation 4, on the Life and Deeds of St. Leo, at the year 449. The three imperial letters themselves to Theodosius, and the others to Pulcheria, openly attest Leo's counsel; but that these were dictated by Leo himself, nothing indicates; indeed several things in no way agree with Leo's manner of writing. Now, as to the time: since all the letters of the Augusti, both those handed over and those returned, exhibited in the single Chalcedonian collection, lack any chronological notation, different men have thought differently.
因為它們既使我們對那次會議有更清晰的認識,揭示其地點、時間、主題及其他情況;又似乎是由利奧本人口授的。關於這些,可在第四篇論文——《論聖利奧的生平與事蹟》,繫於四四九年——中詳加參閱。那三封致狄奧多西的皇帝書信本身,以及其他致普爾克莉婭的書信,公開見證了利奧的謀劃;然而,並無跡象顯示它們是由利奧本人口授的;相反,其中若干處與利奧的寫作方式全然不合。至於時間,既然奧古斯都們的一切書信——無論是遞交的還是回覆的,皆載於同一部迦克墩文集之中——都缺乏任何紀年標記,眾人便各持不同見解。
106:5
De quatuor prioribus epistolis in Orientem missis in primis statuendum est. Totum pendet ex interpretatione illorum verborum Valentiniani epist. 55: Cum advenissem Romam ad Divinitatem placandum, sequenti die a.t basilicamapostoli Petri processi, et illic post venerabilem noctem diei Apostoli, et a Romano episcopo, et ab aliis cum eo ex diversis provinciis congregatis rogatus sum scribere tux mansuetudini. Ex recitatis autem verbis colligitur Valentinianum Romam accessisse pridie ante festivitatem apostoli Petri; die autem sequenti, id est ipso die festo ad basilicam apostoli Petri processisse;
Concerning the four earlier letters sent to the East, it must first of all be established. The whole thing hangs upon the interpretation of those words of Valentinian in Letter 55: 'When I had come to Rome to appease the Divinity, on the following day I went in procession to the basilica of the apostle Peter, and there, after the venerable night of the Apostle's day, I was asked, both by the Roman bishop and by others gathered with him from various provinces, to write to your mildness.' Now from the words recited it is gathered that Valentinian came to Rome the day before the festival of the apostle Peter; and on the following day, that is, on the very feast-day, went in procession to the basilica of the apostle Peter;
至於那四封先前寄往東方的書信,首先必須確定的是:整件事全繫於對瓦倫提尼安(Valentinian)在第五十五封書信中那番話的詮釋:「當我為平息神明而來到羅馬時,次日我列隊前往使徒彼得的大殿,在那裡,於那使徒之日的可敬夜晚之後,我便被那位羅馬主教、以及與他一同從各行省聚集而來的其他人請求,向陛下的溫良致書。」由所引述的話語可推知,瓦倫提尼安是在使徒彼得節慶的前一日抵達羅馬;而次日,即節慶當日,列隊前往使徒彼得的大殿;
106:6
et illic post nocturnum officium a Leone aliisque episcopis qui ad idem festum convenerant, exoratum fuisse ut ad Theodosium scriberet. Idipsum Placidiam at Eudoxiam Augustas rocatas fuisse, ex aliis earumdem epistolis liquet., 3. Cardinalis Baronius ad an. d49, n. 164, arbitratus est has quatuor epistolas eodem anno scriptas fuisse post diem dedicationis basilicae S. Petri, quae celebrari solet dIe decima octava Novembris, et ad eam diem usque retentos fuisse existimat episcopos, qui synodo Romanae superiorihus epistolis 44 et seqq. memoratas interfuerant. Sed praeterquam quod non est verosimile episcopos, qui III kal.
and there, after the night office, he was entreated by Leo and the other bishops who had convened for that same feast, to write to Theodosius. That the Augustae Placidia and Eudoxia were likewise asked to do the very same thing is clear from other letters of theirs. Cardinal Baronius, at the year 449, no. 164, judged that these four letters were written in that same year after the day of the dedication of the basilica of St. Peter, which is usually celebrated on the eighteenth day of November, and he supposes that the bishops who had taken part in the Roman synod mentioned in the foregoing Letters 44 and following were detained up to that day. But besides the fact that it is not likely that the bishops who on the third day before the Kalends
在那裡,於夜禱之後,他便被利奧以及其他為同一節慶而聚集的主教們懇求,向狄奧多西致書。至於奧古斯塔們——普拉琪迪婭(Placidia)與尤朵克西婭(Eudoxia)——同樣被請求做這同一件事,這從她們的其他書信中亦可清楚看出。樞機主教巴洛尼烏斯(Baronius)在四四九年條目第一六四則中,判定這四封書信乃於同年、在聖彼得大殿奉獻日之後所寫;該奉獻日通常於十一月十八日慶祝,他並認為,那些曾參與前述第四十四封及以下諸書信所提及之羅馬會議的主教們,一直被留到那一天。但撇開一事不論——即那些在初一前第三日……不大可能……
106:7
Octobris in Urbe convenerant, per quinquaginta dies Romæ fuisse detentos absoluta jam synodo die 13, aut serius 15 Octobris, ut liquet ex epist. 44 et sequentibus; praeter hoc, inquam, nullum antiqum documentum sup6rest, quo probetur Leone pontifice dedicationem basilicae S. PetrI celebratam fuisse die 18 Novembris. Adde quod Valentinianum an. 40 Romae fuisse nullum aliunde indicium est; nonnulla autem suppetunt documenta quae eum anno 450 ibidem exstitisse probant. 4. Quesnellus diss. d ad an. 430, n. 1, Baronii sententiam impugnans, in aliam apertius erroneam transiit, eontendens has epistolas scriptas fuisse post festum S. Petri die 29 Junii an. 450. Error ex duobus manifeste detegitur.
of October had convened in the City would have been detained at Rome for fifty days, the synod being already completed on the 13th, or later the 15th of October, as is clear from Letter 44 and those following; besides this, I say, no ancient document survives by which it may be proved that in the pontificate of Leo the dedication of the basilica of St. Peter was celebrated on the 18th of November. Add that there is no indication from any other source that Valentinian was at Rome in the year 449; but several documents are at hand which prove that he was present there in the year 450. Quesnel, in Dissertation 14 at the year 449, no. 1, attacking the opinion of Baronius, passed over into another more openly erroneous one, contending that these letters were written after the feast of St. Peter on the 29th of June in the year 450. The error is manifestly detected from two things.
十月……曾在此城聚集,卻會被留在羅馬達五十天之久——會議既已於十月十三日、或稍後十五日結束,正如從第四十四封及以下諸書信中清楚可見;除此之外,我要說,並無任何古代文獻存留,可據以證明在利奧任教宗期間,聖彼得大殿的奉獻曾於十一月十八日慶祝。再者,並無任何其他來源的跡象顯示瓦倫提尼安在四四九年曾在羅馬;然而卻有若干文獻可資佐證,證明他於四五○年確曾在那裡出現。凱斯內爾在四四九年條目的第十四篇論文第一則中,攻擊巴洛尼烏斯的見解,卻轉入了另一種更明顯錯誤的見解,主張這些書信是在四五○年六月二十九日聖彼得節之後所寫。此錯誤可從兩點明顯看出。
106:8
Primum quia hoc anno Valentinianus Romae erat mense Martio, quo legem edidit Novellis inscrtam tit. 7, de Indulgentiis reliquorum, nec non mense Aprili ex tit. 38, de Naviculariis annuis, etc., ex quibus dies festus S. Petri, ante quem ille pridie Romam advenerat, dies29Junii esse non potest. Secundo guia cum Theodosius obierit die 28 Julii anni ejusdem450, si postdicm29 Juniiscriptaeacmissaead eum fuissent epistolae, post ejus mortem Constantinopolim pervenissent, nec potuisset alias, quae exstant, epistolas reddere. Alius igitur dies festus S. Petri cum Tillemontio et Pagio quaprendus est, et anterior quidem die III nonas Martii an.
First, because in this year Valentinian was at Rome in the month of March, in which he issued the law inserted among the Novellae under title 7, 'On the Indulgences of the Remainders,' and also in the month of April from title 38, 'On the Annual Ship-owners,' and so forth; from which the feast-day of St. Peter, the day before which he had arrived at Rome, cannot be the 29th of June. Secondly, because since Theodosius died on the 28th of July of that same year 450, if the letters had been written and sent to him after the 29th of June, they would have reached Constantinople after his death, and he could not have returned the other letters which are extant. Therefore another feast-day of St. Peter, together with Tillemont and Pagi, must be sought, and one indeed earlier than the third day before the Nones of March of the year
其一,因為這一年瓦倫提尼安在三月時人在羅馬,他於該月頒布了一道法律,載於《新律》第七篇「論餘欠之寬免」之中,並且從第三十八篇「論年度船主」等篇看,四月時他亦在羅馬;由此,聖彼得的節慶日——他在其前一日抵達羅馬——便不可能是六月二十九日。其二,因為狄奧多西死於同年、即四五○年七月二十八日,倘若這些書信是在六月二十九日之後才寫就並寄給他的,那麼它們便會在他死後才抵達君士坦丁堡,如此他也就無法回覆那些現存的其他書信了。因此,必須與蒂耶蒙(Tillemont)和帕吉(Pagi)一同去尋找聖彼得的另一個節慶日,而且確實是早於該年三月初七前第三日的一個日子——
106:9
450, quo memorata lex de Indulgentiis reliquorum data fuit. Ex antiquissimo Kalendario Bucheriano, in quo dies festi Romanas Ecclesiae notantur, discimus VIII kal. Martii Romae celebratum fuisse festum hoc titulo ibidem signatum: Natale Petri de Cathedra. Hoc itaque anno Valentinianus cum Augustis Romam pervenit ix kal. Martii; ipso autem festo Leo cum episcopis ab eisdem petiit ut ad Theodosium scriberent. Porro ex Placidiae epist. 58 ad Pulcheriam colligitur eos scripsisse antequam eamdem Pulcheriam bonae causae favere ex ipsius litteris exploratum fieret; alias hujus rei aliqua mentio a Placidia eidem epistolae inserta fuisset.
450, on which the aforementioned law 'On the Indulgences of the Remainders' was given. From the most ancient Bucherian Calendar, in which the feast-days of the Roman Church are noted, we learn that on the eighth day before the Kalends of March a feast was celebrated at Rome, marked there under this title: 'The Nativity of Peter of the Chair.' In this year, therefore, Valentinian arrived at Rome with the Augusti on the ninth day before the Kalends of March; and on the feast-day itself, Leo with the bishops asked them to write to Theodosius. Further, from the Letter 58 of Placidia to Pulcheria it is gathered that they wrote before it was ascertained from Pulcheria's own letters that she herself favored the good cause; otherwise some mention of this matter would have been inserted by Placidia into that same letter.
四五○年,前述那道「論餘欠之寬免」的法律便是在該日頒布的。從最古老的布赫爾曆(Bucherian Calendar)——其中標注了羅馬教會的節慶日——我們得知,在三月初一前第八日,羅馬慶祝了一個節慶,那裡以此名目標注:「彼得設座之誕」(宗座之節)。因此,這一年瓦倫提尼安與奧古斯都們是在三月初一前第九日抵達羅馬的;而在節慶當日,利奧與眾主教便請求他們向狄奧多西致書。再者,從普拉琪迪婭致普爾克莉婭的第五十八封書信可推知,他們寫信之時,尚未從普爾克莉婭自己的書信中確知她本人贊同這正義的事業;否則,普拉琪迪婭便會在那同一封書信中插入對此事的某種提及。
106:10
Id autem Romae innotuitante diem 17 Martii hujus anni 450, quo S. Leo hac de re gratulatus Pulcheriae dedit epistolam 60 Igitur quatuor priores epistolae exaratae fuerunt paulo post diem 22 Februarii, et ante diem 17 Martii anni ejusdem, ac probabilius sub Februarii finem. 5. Cuique epistolae sive a Valentiniano, sive ab Augustis scriptae Quesnellus subjecit epistolam quam Theodosius reddidit. Nos collectionis Chalcedonensis methodum et rationem etiam temporis sequendam putavimus.UtautemidoneumintervalIum tribuatur transmissioni litterarum, Theodosii epistolæ in Aprilem referendae videntur, ac propterea post epistolas 60 et 61 scriptas mense Martio easdem locavimus. 6.
Now this became known at Rome before the 17th day of March of this year 450, on which St. Leo, congratulating Pulcheria on this matter, gave Letter 60. Therefore the four earlier letters were drawn up a little after the 22nd of February, and before the 17th of March of that same year, and more probably toward the end of February. To each letter, whether written by Valentinian or by the Augustae, Quesnel subjoined the letter which Theodosius returned. We have thought that the method and reckoning of time of the Chalcedonian collection should also be followed. But that a suitable interval may be granted for the transmission of the letters, the letters of Theodosius seem to be referred to April, and therefore we have placed them after Letters 60 and 61, written in March.
如今此事在四五○年三月十七日之前已在羅馬為人所知,聖利奧正是在該日為此事向普爾克莉婭致賀,發出第六十封書信。因此,那四封較早的書信乃於二月二十二日稍後、並在同年三月十七日之前寫成,更可能是在二月末。凱斯內爾在每封書信——無論是瓦倫提尼安還是奧古斯塔們所寫——之後,都附上了狄奧多西所回覆的書信。我們認為,也應遵循迦克墩文集的編排方式與時間推算。但為使書信的傳遞獲得適當的間隔時間,狄奧多西的諸書信似乎應繫於四月,因此我們將它們置於三月所寫的第六十與六十一封書信之後。
106:11
Quamvis probabilius existimemus omnes has epistolas scriptas fuisse Latine, uti Latine pariter scribebanturleges, etiamsi in Oriente darentur, interiisse tamen credimus originale Latinum, solamque superesse Graecam versionem, et Latina exempla, quae ad nos transmissa fuerunt, esse antiquam interpretationem ex Graeco, eamque ab homine lucubratam Latini sermonis minus perito, ut constabit ex aliquot locis valde obscuris et pessime redditis, quae Augustorum originali nequaquam congruunt. Hac etiam de causa notatio temporis a Graeco collectore semper omissa, in Latino textu pariter desideratur, quae suppleta fuit, cum Latinae Chalcedonensis collectionis auctor Latina originalia invenit.
Although we think it more probable that all these letters were written in Latin, just as laws were likewise written in Latin, even if they were issued in the East, nevertheless we believe that the original Latin has perished, and that only the Greek version survives, and that the Latin copies which have been transmitted to us are an ancient translation from the Greek, and one labored over by a man less skilled in the Latin tongue, as will be evident from certain passages that are very obscure and very badly rendered, which by no means agree with the original of the Augusti. For this reason also the notation of time, always omitted by the Greek collector, is likewise wanting in the Latin text, which was supplied when the author of the Latin Chalcedonian collection found the Latin originals.
儘管我們認為,這一切書信更可能是以拉丁文寫成的——正如法律同樣以拉丁文寫成,即便是在東方頒布——然而我們相信,拉丁文原本已經佚失,唯有希臘文譯本存留,而傳到我們手中的拉丁文本乃是從希臘文而來的古老翻譯,且出自一位對拉丁語言不甚精通之人的辛勞,這一點將從若干極其晦澀、譯得極差的段落中顯明,那些段落與奧古斯都們的原文全然不合。也正因此,希臘文輯錄者總是省略的時間標記,在拉丁文本中同樣付之闕如,這些標記乃是在拉丁迦克墩文集的作者找到拉丁原本時才得以補全的。
106:12
Confer Praefat. in epistolas num 36. 7. Nunc titulum, qui tribus imperialibus epistolis 55, 56 et 57, in collectione Chalcedonensi praefigitur, exhibemus. In Graeca collectione sic: oi £ l 8e iv. In Latina vero nostri codices ita reddunt: Sacrae litterae tam a domino nostro Valentiniano, quam a divx memorix Placidia, nec non et Eudoxia Augusta ad Theodosium divae memoriæ, ut juberet in partibus Italiae concilium celetrari.
Compare the Preface to the letters, no. 36. Now we set forth the title which is prefixed to the three imperial Letters 55, 56, and 57 in the Chalcedonian collection. In the Greek collection it runs thus: [Greek text]. But in the Latin our codices render it thus: 'The sacred letters, both from our lord Valentinian and from Placidia of divine memory, and also from Eudoxia Augusta, to Theodosius of divine memory, that he should order a council to be celebrated in the regions of Italy.'
可參看《書信序言》第三十六則。現在我們列出在迦克墩文集中冠於三封皇帝書信——第五十五、五十六、五十七封——之前的標題。在希臘文集中如此寫道:〔希臘文〕。但在拉丁文中,我們的抄本如此譯出:「神聖的書信,既出自我們的主上瓦倫提尼安,又出自具神聖紀念的普拉琪迪婭,並出自奧古斯塔尤朵克西婭,致具神聖紀念的狄奧多西,請他下令在義大利地區召開一次會議。」
← ch. 105ch. 107 →
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255