※ [本文转录自 Christianity 看板 #1Ov8lsxF ] 作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~) 看板: Christianity 标题: [讨论] Siecienski的和子论史一书的书评 时间: Wed Apr 5 14:17:22 2017 A. Edward Siecienski（简称AES）2010的着作： The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. https://goo.gl/gX44Kd 除了作者访谈这篇很值得参考外， amazon上面就有一篇清楚介绍本书论点的书评，摘录如下： https://goo.gl/OzzQ53 By Jacobon June 23, 2011 ..... Siecienski's method is to read the fathers' and theologians' arguments per the internal relationships of the Trinity and avoid any type of simple reduction into a "pro-Western" or "pro-Eastern" model, except where the case is obvious like in Photios, Aquinas, and Anselm. This is an important move. When Western fathers like Hilary and Ambrose say that the Spirit proceeds et filii or even Filioque, Siecienski denies they are saying what later Filioquist polemics say they are saying. What Siecienski implies but does not say is important: these fathers do not teach the development of the filioque , and if they do not teach the development of the filioque, they are actually witnesses to the normativity of the Eastern model. The hero of this story is St Maximus the Confessor. He demonstrates a way to interpret Western fathers who spoke in language similar to the filioque as a way of expressing the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit--which he thinks is what the Filioque was trying to do. The text under consideration is his Letter to Marinus, and the reception of that text at varying points in European history says a lot about the presuppositions of either side. The Latins originally championed the text and saw Maximus as a good Roman Catholic. Did not Maximus say the Filioque was orthodox and did he not appeal to the Pope? The Orthodox then responded that Maximus specifically denied causality to the Son. Whatever else Maximus may have meant by Filioque--and it's not clear he understood precisely what Filioque would later mean--he is not using the term in the sense it would later be used. The Latins realized this and at other points in history they denied the authenticity of Marinus. Maximus is reading the Filioque to say (if not accurately) that the Spirit proceeds through the Son from the Father alone. For him this is the superior understanding for it maintains both an eternal relationship between Spirit and Son yet maintains the causality of the Father alone. He says while the Spirit does not derive from the Son, his procession from the Father always presupposes the Son (Siecienski, 77). What this eternal relationship entails exactly is not clear, and it would be the work of Gregory II of Cyprus and St. Gregory Palamas to expand upon it. As is the case with many polemical controversies, after a while there is not anything new being said. One notices a common theme, a charge and a counter, running behind the numerous florigela and Scripture references. The East charges the West with introducing two causes into the Godhead, the Father and the Son. Since the time of St Gregory of Nazianzus all admitted the monarchia of the Father. The Father is the principle of unity as he causes the other two persons of the Trinity. When the West began positing the Son as part of that cause, which they had to do if they were to uphold filioquist logic, the East responded that the West is introducing two causes in the Godhead. The West responded that it was positing the two persons as one cause of unity. To the East, that was a distinction without a difference. ..... 1. 老鱼读书的方式有问题，不是新闻XD 2. 其实作者在访谈中有说他有故意或尽量中立谈、让原始资料呈现自身； 让大家猜不出他是正教信徒，他还有点小得意:p 3. 按这篇书评，许多教父表面上谈「和子说」（老鱼的误读大概是在这边）， 但并不是後世理解或东正教拒绝的和子说版本。 关键在於圣灵是「父子二来源说」，还是「出於天父的单一来源」。 故应该是老鱼讲的反过来的意思，教父、甚至西方教父，有些即便用「和子说」词汇， 但在存有学上可能还是东方的「出於天父的单一来源」XD Maximus的"the Spirit proceeds through the Son from the Father alone" 就是代表。（其他见上文标色处） 不过更完整的讲法应该是东西方讲的东西可以互相补充 （如前分析--#1OuePz1T推文处，西方是经世三一论的角度）， 但存有学或内在三一论上应坚守东方的立场。 -- 你们中间有人对他们说：「平平安安地去吧！愿你们穿得暖，吃得饱」， 却不给他们身体所需用的，这有甚麽益处呢？（雅2：16） --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 220.130.205.94 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Christianity/M.1491373046.A.ECF.html [无关的推文删除] ※ 转录者: theologe (220.130.205.94), 10/25/2017 20:07:28 ※ 编辑: theologe (220.130.205.94), 10/25/2017 20:08:22 ※ 编辑: theologe (220.130.205.94), 10/25/2017 20:20:14