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

← All books · Latin Fathers › Sermons & Letters

Pope Leo the Great

Sermons & Letters 205

Latin original · 13 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss

← ch. 204ch. 206 →
205:1
Post Magni Leonis obitunt Manichæi iterum Urbem inhabitant. Gelasii papæ studium in iis detegendis. Guillelmi Cavei circa communionem sub utraque specie erroneum judicium Idem S. Gelasius tandem nefurios hos homines ex Urbe eliminat, et eorum codices disperidit, anathematis addita sententia. 1.Quæ Manichaica alia audacior et callidior hæresis, aut quæ ea confidentior ? Nam cum tantopere religione esset sacrilega, nefandis corrupta moribus, et ritibus profana, saltem ea loca inhabitare sibi præcavere debuissel, in quibus potissimum civiles et ecclesiasticæ leges contra eam conclamabant, et utriusque fori judices ad eam coercendam, eliminandam penitusque abolendam strenne se armaverant.
After the death of Leo the Great, the Manichaeans again inhabit the City. The zeal of Pope Gelasius in detecting them. The erroneous judgment of William Cave concerning communion under both species. The same St. Gelasius at last eliminates these wicked men from the City, disperses their books, and adds the sentence of anathema. 1. What other heresy is bolder and craftier than the Manichaean, or what more confident than it? For, since it was so sacrilegious in religion, so corrupted in abominable morals, and so profane in its rites, it ought at least to have taken care not to dwell in those places where above all the civil and ecclesiastical laws cried out against it, and where the judges of both forums had strenuously armed themselves to coerce it, to eliminate it, and to abolish it utterly.
大良逝世之後,摩尼教徒再度居於羅馬城。教宗傑拉修(Gelasius)在揭發他們一事上的熱忱。威廉·卡夫(William Cave)關於兼領兩形聖體之領聖體的謬誤判斷。同一位聖傑拉修終於將這些邪惡之人逐出羅馬城,銷毀其書籍,並加以絕罰的裁決。一、還有哪一異端比摩尼教更大膽、更狡詐,或比它更肆無忌憚?因為它在宗教上如此褻瀆神聖,在可憎的道德上如此腐敗,在其禮儀上如此褻瀆,它至少本應謹慎不去居住那些地方——那裡尤其有民法與教會法對它高聲聲討,兩種法庭的審判者都竭力武裝起來,要制裁它、剷除它、並將它徹底廢絕。
205:2
Ad quam quidem audacium conspiciendam longius ab ipsa urbe Roma abscedere opus non erit. In qua etsi multis variisque modis exagitati, et satis pœnarum, Magno Leone auctore, Manichæi exhausti fuissent, et longe ab omnibus 1 aliæ oris in exsdium amandati; adhuc tamen non diu post tam magni pontificis obitum, eos iterum Romam inhabitasse repertum est. Quod sane cum ipse mecum reputassem, in eam vehementem lapsus sum suspicionem, Mani- chæos Romæ existentes, Leonina jam generali in seipsos inquisitione perterritos, omnem nequissimæ simulationis artem ad delitescendum adhibuisse;
To behold this audacity, there will be no need to depart far from the city of Rome itself. For although in it the Manichaeans had been harassed in many and various ways, and, by the agency of Leo the Great, had been sufficiently exhausted by penalties and banished into exile far from all the other shores; nevertheless not long after the death of so great a pontiff, it was found that they again inhabited Rome. Now when I had turned this over with myself, I fell into this vehement suspicion: that the Manichaeans existing at Rome, now terrified by Leo's general inquisition against them, had employed every art of most wicked dissimulation in order to lie hidden;
要親睹這種膽大妄為,無需遠離羅馬城本身。因為儘管在城中摩尼教徒曾以種種方式受到侵擾,且經大良之手被刑罰折磨殆盡、並被放逐流亡至遠離一切他方海岸之處;然而在如此偉大的教宗逝世後不久,卻發現他們又居於羅馬。當我獨自反覆思量此事時,我陷入了這強烈的猜疑:即那些存於羅馬的摩尼教徒,如今因良對他們的普遍偵訊而心生恐懼,遂施展一切最邪惡偽裝之術以求潛匿;
205:3
et propterea, ne eorum turpitudines proderentur, cum catholicis viris sacris conventibus et divinis mysteriis sacrilege semper interfuisse, ut idem S. Leo, hoc gravissimum exsecrans facinusn, fuerat conquestus. Quod si ejusmodi nostra suspicio a doctis non probetur viris, dubio procal alterum eos affirmare oportebit, Manichæros videlicet, Leonen agente, extra Italiæ oras jam amandatos, audita postmodum S. pontificis morte, gradus Romam versus vertisse, antiquas latebras sibi quæsituros. Alterutram vero hanc rem cum sine teste fide digno definire haud liceat, quemadmodum Manichæi post S. Leonis obitum Urbem iterum incoluerint dumtaxat describere properamus. 2. Extremam itaque diem S.
and therefore, lest their abominations should be disclosed, they had always sacrilegiously taken part with catholic men in the sacred assemblies and the divine mysteries—as the same St. Leo, execrating this most grievous crime, had complained. But if such a suspicion of ours be not approved by learned men, then without doubt it will behoove them to affirm the other alternative: namely, that the Manichaeans, banished beyond the shores of Italy while Leo was acting, having afterwards heard of the holy pontiff's death, had turned their steps toward Rome, to seek out for themselves their old hiding places. But since neither of these two things can be defined without a witness worthy of credit, we hasten merely to describe how the Manichaeans, after the death of St. Leo, again inhabited the City. 2. St.
因此,為免其醜行被揭露,他們一向褻瀆地與天主教徒一同參與神聖集會與神聖奧蹟——正如同一位聖良詛咒這最嚴重的罪行時所抱怨的。但倘若我們這一猜疑未獲博學之士認可,那麼無疑他們就當肯定另一種可能:即摩尼教徒在良行事之時被逐出義大利海岸之外,其後聽聞聖教宗逝世,便轉向羅馬邁步,為自己尋回舊日的藏匿之所。然而,由於這兩件事若無足以取信的見證者皆不能斷定,我們僅急於描述:摩尼教徒在聖良逝世後如何再度居於羅馬城。二、聖
205:4
Leo Magnus clausersat anno 461, cui Hilarus suffectus est, qui, sexto sui pontificatus anno e vivis sublatus. Simplicium habuit successorem. An vero sub hisce duobus pontificibus Manichaica secta Urbem inhabitaret, ex nullo sacro, aut profane testimonio innotescit. Quare ne incnertis monumentis et rebus adhæreamus, ad Gelasit papæ pontificatum hujusque gesta statim provocabimus. Ex libro itaque Pontificali, et ex Anastasio, in Romanorum pontificum Vitis, hæc occurunt legenda: Gelasii temporibus inventi sunt Manichæi in Urbe, quos in exsilium deportati præcepit, quorum quoque codices ante fores basilicæ Sanctæ Mariæ incendio concremavit.
Leo the Great had closed his last day in the year 461, and Hilary was appointed in his place, who, taken from the living in the sixth year of his pontificate, had Simplicius as his successor. But whether under these two pontiffs the Manichaean sect inhabited the City is made known by no sacred or profane testimony. Wherefore, lest we cling to uncertain monuments and matters, we shall at once appeal to the pontificate of Pope Gelasius and his deeds. From the Pontifical Book, therefore, and from Anastasius, in the Lives of the Roman Pontiffs, these things occur to be read: 'In the times of Gelasius, Manichaeans were found in the City, whom he ordered to be deported into exile, whose books also he burned to ashes in a fire before the doors of the basilica of Holy Mary.'
大良於461年闔上了他生命最後的一天,希拉略(Hilary)繼任其位,他在任教宗第六年被自生者中取去,繼任者為辛普利修(Simplicius)。然而,在這兩位教宗治下摩尼教派是否居於羅馬城,無論神聖抑或世俗的見證皆無從得知。因此,為免我們執著於不確鑿的文獻與事項,我們立即訴諸教宗傑拉修的任期及其事蹟。故從《教宗名錄》以及亞納斯大削(Anastasius)的《羅馬諸教宗傳》中,可讀到以下記載:「在傑拉修的時代,摩尼教徒在城中被查獲,他命將他們流放至充軍之地,並將他們的書籍在聖瑪利亞大殿門前付之一炬、化為灰燼。」
205:5
Ad hos autem detegendos homines, non aliam œconomiæ rationem idem Gelasius adhibuit, præter eam quæ magni pontificis Leonis decreto in Romana Ecclesia obtinuerat. Etenim præcepit ut quotquot ad sacram synaxim accederent utriusque speciei mysteria participarent, ut nimirum Manichæi qui pimia superstitione omnino a vino abhorrebant, calicis communionem sumere detrectantes, facilius a 173 veris dignoscerentur fudelibus. Adhocce ergo Gelastanum decretum Guillelmus Cave animadvertens, S. pontificis agendi laudat rationem, qua videlicet nefariis Manichæis catholicorum larvam, sub qua delitescere nitebantur, abstulit.
Now for detecting these men, the same Gelasius employed no other method of arrangement besides that which, by the decree of the great pontiff Leo, had prevailed in the Roman Church. For he ordered that as many as approached the sacred synaxis should partake of the mysteries of both species, so that, namely, the Manichaeans—who out of excessive superstition altogether abhorred wine, declining to take the communion of the chalice—might more easily be distinguished from the true faithful. William Cave, giving heed to this decree of Gelasius, praises the holy pontiff's manner of acting, by which, namely, he stripped from the wicked Manichaeans the mask of catholics under which they strove to lie hidden.
如今,為揭發這些人,同一位傑拉修所採用的安排方法,無非是那藉偉大教宗良之敕令而在羅馬教會通行的方法。因為他命令:凡走近聖餐(synaxis)者,皆須領受兩形之奧蹟,好使那些因過度迷信而全然厭惡酒、拒領聖爵之領聖體的摩尼教徒,得以較易與真信眾相區別。威廉·卡夫留意到傑拉修這道敕令,稱讚這位聖教宗的行事方式,即:他藉此剝去了邪惡摩尼教徒藉以圖謀潛匿的天主教徒面具。
205:6
Sensim deinde Romanæ Ecclesiæ ritum de communione sub unica tantum specie, tamquam novitatem redolentem impetere quærit; addens praterea vestustum morem in Ecclesia ab ipsis primordiis receptum, ne quis in collectis sacris nisi sub utraque specie communicaret, Gelasium suo decreto confirmasse. Sed Reformatæ sectæ hominem, qui suis partibus indulgebat. Græcisque morem gerere cupiens, hæc effari oportebat. Dicat tamen, amabo, Caveus quandonam Romana Ecclesia hunc morem prosecuta sit ? Proterat monumenta ex quibus bauriatur laicos eucharistiam non conficientes, quando in Ecclesiæ primor- diis collectæ habebantur, sub utraque specie communicare debuisse.
Then gradually he seeks to attack the rite of the Roman Church concerning communion under only one species, as smacking of novelty; adding besides that Gelasius by his decree confirmed an ancient custom received in the Church from its very beginnings, that no one in the sacred collects (gatherings) should communicate except under both species. But it behooved a man of the Reformed sect, who was indulgent to his own party and desirous of accommodating the Greeks, to utter such things. Yet let Cave, I pray, tell us: when did the Roman Church follow this custom? Let him bring forward the monuments from which it may be drawn that laymen, not consecrating the eucharist, when in the beginnings of the Church the collects were held, ought to have communicated under both species.
隨後,他漸漸企圖攻擊羅馬教會關於僅兼領一形之領聖體的禮儀,說它帶有革新的意味;此外又補充說:傑拉修藉其敕令確認了教會自其肇始便承受的一項古老慣例,即在神聖聚會中無人得領聖體,除非兼領兩形。然而,唯有一位縱容己黨、又渴望迎合希臘人的改革派(新教)之人,才會說出這樣的話。但我懇請卡夫告訴我們:羅馬教會何時遵行過這一慣例?讓他拿出文獻,從中可推出:在教會肇始舉行聚會之時,不祝聖聖體的俗人本應兼領兩形。
205:7
Profecto si Leo Magnus, si Gelasius Romani pontifices decretis suis hunc morem confirmassent, jam ante eorum ævum nemini catholocorum licitum fuisset a calicis usu se abstinere. Et propterea sacerdotes eucharistiam conficientes tantam in eorum collectis vini copiam consecrare debuissent quanta sibi et populo qui sacris mysteriis intererat sufticere potuisset. Sed hoc dato usu, jam soli Manichæji a calicis communnione anbsenti fuissent. Quid ergo necessum erat fideles ad utriusque speciei communionen cogere ? Quid confirmare decreto quod jam apud omnes laicos cactholicos obtinebat ?
Assuredly, if Leo the Great and Gelasius, the Roman pontiffs, had confirmed this custom by their decrees, then already before their age it would not have been permitted to any of the catholics to abstain from the use of the chalice. And therefore the priests who consecrated the eucharist would have had to consecrate in their gatherings as great a quantity of wine as could have sufficed for themselves and for the people who took part in the sacred mysteries. But given this usage, then only the Manichaeans would have been absent from the communion of the chalice. What need, then, was there to compel the faithful to the communion of both species? What need to confirm by decree that which already prevailed among all catholic laymen?
誠然,倘若羅馬教宗大良與傑拉修曾以其敕令確認這一慣例,那麼早在他們之世以前,任何天主教徒便已不得戒領聖爵。因此,祝聖聖體的司祭本應在其聚會中祝聖足夠的酒量——足以供自身及參與神聖奧蹟的百姓之用。然而,若這慣例成立,那麼便唯有摩尼教徒會缺席於聖爵的領受。那麼,又何須強制信眾兼領兩形?何須以敕令去確認一件已在全體天主教俗人中通行之事?
205:8
Si Romana Ecclesia enim, quæ doctrinæ ab apostolis acceptæ semper inniti voluit, hunc morem a suis primordiis necessario ex divina institutione prosequendum intellexisset, numquam laicos eucharistiam non conficientes usu ca icis fraudasset, numquam hunc ritum untermisisset. Sed ritum illum porrigendi laicis calicem Leonis ævo non fuisse in usu, probat ejusdem S. pontificis decretum. Qui ideireo œconomiæ causa catholicos ad calicis usam astrinxit, ut Manichæos detegeret. Sed Manichæis ex Urbe expulsis, hunc morem vel æconomiam statim fuisse intermissam quid dubitandum ?
For if the Roman Church—which always wished to rest upon the doctrine received from the apostles—had understood that this custom was necessarily to be pursued from its very beginnings by divine institution, it would never have defrauded laymen not consecrating the eucharist of the use of the chalice, it would never have omitted this rite. But that the rite of offering the chalice to laymen was not in use in Leo's age is proved by the decree of the same holy pontiff, who therefore, for reasons of arrangement, bound catholics to the use of the chalice in order that he might detect the Manichaeans. But when the Manichaeans had been expelled from the City, why should it be doubted that this custom or arrangement was at once discontinued?
因為倘若羅馬教會——它一向願意立足於從眾宗徒領受的教義——曾理解這一慣例是出於神聖制定、必須自其肇始便遵行的,那它斷不會使不祝聖聖體的俗人被剝奪聖爵的領受,也斷不會省略這一禮儀。然而,向俗人奉遞聖爵的禮儀在良之世並不通行,此點由這位聖教宗自己的敕令所證明;他正是出於安排的緣故,把天主教徒約束於聖爵的領受,好揭發摩尼教徒。而當摩尼教徒被逐出羅馬城之後,這慣例或安排隨即中止,這又有何可疑?
205:9
Annon, Caveo auctore, Gelasins papa, qui unum supra triginta annos post Leonis Magni obitum pontifex fuit renontiatus, cum Manichæos reperiisset, ut catholicorum larvam ipsis auferret, suo decreto catholicos ipsos ut in atraque specie communicarent coegit ? Non coegisset profeecto si mos ille vel ritus saltem post Leonis mortem non fuisset intermissus. 3.Diutius tamen in his nugis immorari supervacaneum arbitror. Etenim Gelasium Leonis œconomiam secutum esse, non tantum prodit decretum illud de quo bactenus egimus, sed studium ab eo adhibitum ut Munichæ in urbe Roma adinventi, judiciaria potestate compulsi, atque comprehensi in exsilium deportarentur.
Is it not the case that, on Cave's own authority, Pope Gelasius—who was appointed pontiff one year over thirty after the death of Leo the Great—when he had found Manichaeans, in order to strip from them the mask of catholics, by his decree compelled the catholics themselves to communicate under both species? He assuredly would not have compelled them, if that custom or rite had not, at least after Leo's death, been discontinued. 3. Yet I judge it superfluous to linger longer in these trifles. For that Gelasius followed Leo's arrangement is revealed not only by that decree of which we have thus far treated, but also by the zeal employed by him, that the Manichaeans discovered in the city of Rome, compelled by judicial power and apprehended, should be deported into exile.
豈非如此嗎——依卡夫自己所引的權威——教宗傑拉修(他在大良逝世三十又一年後被立為教宗),當他查獲摩尼教徒時,為剝去他們天主教徒的面具,藉其敕令強制天主教徒本身兼領兩形?倘若那慣例或禮儀至少在良逝世後未曾中斷,他斷不會如此強制。三、然而我判斷,在這些瑣事上再逗留下去實屬多餘。因為傑拉修遵循了良的安排,此點不僅由我們迄今所論的那道敕令所顯示,亦由他所施展的熱忱所顯示:即被查獲於羅馬城中的摩尼教徒,藉司法權力受逼並被逮捕,須被流放至充軍之地。
205:10
Verum Gelasius ipse non satis catholicæ fidei incolumitati se prospexisse arbitrabatur, si jam longe ab Urbe iis nefariis hominibus amandatis, adhuc eorum sacrilegæ doctrinæ libri vel codices superstites fuissent. Quare et in hac re S. pontificem Leonem imitari cupiens, eorum volumina, quæ moltorum manibus terebantur, quæque huc illucque ad multos decipiendos circumferebantur, penitus perdere et abolere tentavit. Qua de causa collectis omnibus Manicha orum libris, quos invenire poterat, iisdemique sedulo lustratis, ne cuiquam in posterum offendiculum præberent, ante fores basilicæ S. Mariæ incendio concremari jussit.
But Gelasius himself judged that he had not sufficiently provided for the safety of the catholic faith, if, when those wicked men had already been banished far from the City, the books or codices of their sacrilegious doctrine had still survived. Wherefore, desiring in this matter too to imitate the holy pontiff Leo, he attempted utterly to destroy and abolish their volumes, which were being thumbed by the hands of many, and which were being carried about hither and thither to deceive many. For which cause, all the books of the Manichaeans that he was able to find having been collected, and the same carefully examined, lest they should furnish a stumbling-block to anyone thereafter, he ordered them to be burned to ashes in a fire before the doors of the basilica of St. Mary.
然而,傑拉修本人判斷:倘若當那些邪惡之人已被逐出羅馬城遠方之時,他們褻瀆教義的書籍或抄本仍存留下來,那他便未曾充分顧全天主教信德的安全。因此,他渴望在此事上也效法聖教宗良,遂試圖將他們的卷冊徹底摧毀廢絕——這些卷冊正被許多人翻閱把玩,並被四處攜帶以誆騙眾人。為此緣故,他把所能尋獲的一切摩尼教徒書籍收集起來,又仔細審查,以免它們此後成為任何人的絆腳石,遂命令將它們在聖瑪利亞大殿門前付之一炬、化為灰燼。
205:11
Qua occasione valde probabile est Gelasium tum celebre illud septuagunta episcoporum concilium habere voluisse, in quo, revocatis primum ad memoriam suorum prædecessorum statutis, divinorum utriusque Testamenti librorum catalogum conconnavit, et horum scriptoribus designatis, authenticas Seripturas ab apocryphis discrevit. In posteriorem vero hunc ordinem eos codices potissumum rejecit quibus hæretici 174 utebantur, quosque falso sub apostolorum nommibus in orbem Manichæi, Montanistæ, Marcionitæ, et alii inducere aussi fuerant.
On which occasion it is highly probable that Gelasius wished then to hold that celebrated council of seventy bishops, in which—the decrees of his predecessors having first been recalled to memory—he drew up a catalogue of the divine books of both Testaments, and, the writers of these having been designated, distinguished the authentic Scriptures from the apocryphal. Into this latter order he chiefly rejected those codices which the heretics used, and which the Manichaeans, Montanists, Marcionites, and others had dared to introduce into the world falsely under the names of the apostles.
在此機緣下,極有可能傑拉修當時欲舉行那場著名的七十位主教的會議;在該會議中——先將其前任者的法令重新喚回記憶之後——他擬定了新舊兩約神聖書卷的目錄,並在指明這些書卷的作者之後,將真確的《聖經》與偽經(apocrypha)加以區分。而在偽經這一類中,他尤其斥退了那些異端者所使用的抄本,以及摩尼教徒、孟他努派(Montanistae)、馬吉安派(Marcionitae)及其他人妄敢假託眾宗徒之名引入世間的抄本。
205:12
Illos ergo libros cum cæteris voluminibus quæ multi hæreticorum vel ad perdendam aut ad catholicam religionem labefactandam conscripsersant, non solum papa Gelasius repudiavit, verum etiam ab omni Romana catholica et apostolica Ecclesia eliminavit, atque cum suis auctoribus auctorumque sequacubus, sub anathematis indissolubiti vinculo in æternum damnata esse cum toto illo concilio definivit. Quinam autem qualesque fuerint Manichæorum libri quos papa Gelasius tanquam falsos et supposititios suo decreto proscripsit, in præsens haud opus esse arbitror referre. Nam imprimis ille apicryphorum librorum catalogus pluries clarissimorum virorum studio illustrates in lucem prodiit:
Those books, therefore, together with the other volumes which many of the heretics had composed either to destroy or to undermine the Catholic religion, Pope Gelasius not only repudiated, but also cast out from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, and, together with the whole council, he decreed that they, along with their authors and the followers of those authors, were condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema. But which and of what sort were the books of the Manichaeans that Pope Gelasius proscribed by his decree as false and spurious, I think it is not necessary to report at present. For, first of all, that catalogue of apocryphal books, illustrated many times over by the labour of most distinguished men, has come to light:
因此,那些書籍連同其他許多異端者為毀滅或動搖大公信仰而撰寫的卷冊,教宗傑拉修(Gelasius)不僅加以拒斥,更將它們從整個羅馬大公及使徒教會中驅逐出去;他偕同整個大公會議裁定:這些書籍連同其作者以及作者的追隨者,永遠受不可解除的絕罰之束縛而被定罪。至於教宗傑拉修以其法令判為虛假偽託的摩尼教書籍究竟是哪些、屬於何種,我認為目前無需一一列舉。因為首先,那部僞經目錄已多次經眾多傑出學者之努力加以闡明並公諸於世:
205:13
et ipsi deinde præcedentibus capp. de ejusmodi libris jam verba fecimus.
and in the preceding chapters we ourselves have already spoken of books of this kind.
而在前面各章中,我們自己也已經談論過此類書籍。
← ch. 204ch. 206 →
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255