有监於某位自称是东正教的不知名人士，因为对於『和子（filiouque）』议题，以及东 正教和天主教双方对於此议题对话结果的无知，大模大样的在这里用自己不知道的东西摆 出一副『正统』的架势，并指责天主教方面的错误。再加上某位持自由主义神学的新教分 子的鼓动。真的让人觉得无语+无奈。 刚好看见网络有一份名为《『和子』：一个分裂教会的议题？》文章，论到东正教和天主 教的整个对话的报告，特别转贴过来，以正视听。 双方神学家在本文中做出的四个肯定是大家应当注意的。 1-财 both traditions clearly affirm that the Holy Spirit is a distinct hypostasis or person within the divine Mystery, equal in status to the Father and the Son, and is not simply a creature or a way of talking about God’s action in creatures; 两个传统明确的肯定圣灵在神圣的奥秘中是一个独立的hypostasis或位格，其地位与父和 子相同，不是一个被造之外，或一种论及神创造万物之行动的方式。 2-财 although the Creed of 381 does not state it explicitly, both traditions confess the Holy Spirit to be God, of the same divine substance (homoousios) as Father and Son; 虽然381年的信经没有刻意描述圣灵，两个传统都承认圣灵是神，与父和子有同样神圣的 素质（同质）； 3-财 both traditions also clearly affirm that the Father is the primordial source (arch‘) and ultimate cause (aitia) of the divine being, and thus of all God’s operations: the “spring” from which both Son and Spirit flow, the “root” of their being and fruitfulness, the “sun” from which their existence and their activity radiates; 两个传统都明确的认定父是神圣存有的原始源头（arch）并最终起因（aitia），因此神 所有的运行：子和圣灵流出的『泉』，他们存有和结果子的『根』，祂们的存有和活动从 祂散发而出； 4-财 both traditions affirm that the three hypostases or persons in God are constituted in their hypostatic existence and distinguished from one another solely by their relation- ships of origin, and not by any other characteristics or activities; 两个传统都肯定身里面的三个hypostases或位格； 特别是双方的结论： 在未来，因这几十年来彼此的认识已经达到某个程度，东正教和天主教都克制不再把对方 关於圣灵发生的传统打上异端的标签； 基本上就已经为这个题目做出了最後的判定。 所以，在下希望东正教和天主教在『和子（Filiouque）』的题目上达成的共识和良好的 关系，不会因为下面某些『极端分子』，或不相干的『无聊分子』破坏。 毕竟耶稣的教导是： Mat 5:9使人和睦的人有福了，因为他们必称为 神的儿子。 而不是制造纷争。 以下是全文。 ================================================ The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? 『和子』：一个分裂教会的议题？ An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation 北美东正教—天主教神学会议共同宣言 Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC October 25, 2003 From 1999 until 2003, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consul- tation has focused its discussions on an issue that has been identified, for more than twelve centuries, as one of the root causes of division between our Churches: our divergent ways of conceiving and speaking about the origin of the Holy Spirit within the inner life of the triune God. Although both of our traditions profess “the faith of Nicaea” as the normative expression of our understanding of God and God’s involvement in his creation, and take as the classical statement of that faith the revised version of the Nicene creed associated with the First Council of Constantinople of 381, most Catholics and other Western Christians have used, since at least the late sixth century, a Latin version of that Creed, which adds to its confession that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” the word Filioque: “and from the Son ”. For most Western Christians, this term continues to be a part of the central formulation of their faith, a formulation proclaimed in the liturgy and used as the basis of catechesis and theological reflection. It is, for Catholics and most Protestants, simply a part of the ordinary teaching of the Church, and as such, integral to their understanding of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Yet since at least the late eighth century, the presence of this term in the Western version of the Creed has been a source of scandal for Eastern Christians, both because of the Trinitarian theology it expresses, and because it had been adopted by a growing number of Churches in the West into the canonical formulation of a received ecumenical council without corres - ponding ecumenical agreement. As the medieval rift between Eastern and Western Christians grew more serious, the theology associated with the term Filioque, and the issues of Church structure and authority raised by its adoption, grew into a symbol of difference, a classic token of what each side of divided Christendom has found lacking or distorted in the other. 从1999到2003，北美东正教—天主教会议着重於一个被超过十二个世纪以来认为是分裂我 们两个教会的根本议题：对於圣灵在三一神内在生命中的起源不同的思考和论述方式。虽 然我们双方的传统都承认『尼西亚信仰』作为我们对於神和神介入祂的创作的理解标准的 表达方式，并认为经典的信仰宣告就是381年第一次康士坦丁堡会议所修订的尼西亚信经 版本，绝大多数的天主教和西方基督教在第六世纪之後就使用了一个拉丁文，在『从父而 出（proceeds from the Father）』这段话上加上了『和子』的段落：『并从子（and from the Son）。』对於大部分的西方教会而言，这个词一直是他们核心信仰公式的一部 分，这个公式在教会礼仪上被宣告并成为其教理并神学的基础。对於天主教和大部分的抗 议宗，它仅仅是教会正常教导的一部分，也融入了他们对於神圣三一教理的理解中。然而 从第八世纪开始，西方信经版本出现的这个词对於西方基督教而言则成为一种丑闻的根源 ，乃是因为它对於三位一体神学的表述方式，并因为它已经被大量的西方教会纳入正式的 大公教会会议的信仰公式，而与大公教会的约定不同。东方和西方基督徒在中世纪的裂痕 更为严重，与Filioque相关的神学并教会架构及全部的问题藉着这个词而被提出，逐渐扩 大成为双方分歧的标志，成为分裂的基督教各方认为对方所缺少或扭曲的经典标志。 Our common study of this question has involved our Consultation in much shared research, prayerful reflection and intense discussion. It is our hope that many of the papers produced by our members during this process will be published together, as the scholarly context for our common statement. A subject as complicated as this, from both the historical and the theological point of view, calls for detailed explanation if the real issues are to be clearly seen. Our discussions and our common statement will not, by themselves, put an end to centuries of disagree- ment among our Churches. We do hope, however, that they will contri- bute to the growth of mutual understanding and respect, and that in God’s time our Churches will no longer find a cause for separation in the way we think and speak about the origin of that Spirit, whose fruit is love and peace (see Gal 5.22). 我们对於这个问题的共同研究包括了这个会议共同的研究，基於祷告的回应并密集的讨论 。我们希望在这个过程中由我们的成员所撰写的许多宝贵能够一同发表，作为我们共同宣 言的神学背景。从历史和神学角度都是如此复杂的题目，如果要清楚的看见问题的真正本 质，需要详细的解释。我们的讨论和共同宣言本身不能结束这个在我们教会中延续许多世 纪的分歧。然而，我们确实希望，它们能够为促进双方彼此的理解和尊重，教我们的教会 在神的时间中，我们思考并论述圣灵的起源不再是分裂的原因，祂的果子乃是爱与和平。 （加拉太5：22） I. The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures/圣经中的圣灵 In the Old Testament “the spirit of God” or “the spirit of the Lord” is presented less as a divine person than as a manifes- tation of God’s creative power – God’s “breath” (ruach YHWH) - forming the world as an ordered and habitable place for his people, and raising up individuals to lead his people in the way of holiness. In the opening verses of Genesis, the spirit of God “moves over the face of the waters” to bring order out of chaos (Gen 1.2). In the historical narratives of Israel, it is the same spirit that “stirs” in the leaders of the people (Jud 13.25: Samson), makes kings and military chieftains into prophets (I Sam 10.9-12; 19.18-24: Saul and David), and enables prophets to “bring good news to the afflicted” (Is 61.1; cf. 42.1; II Kg 2.9). The Lord tells Moses he has “filled” Bezalel the craftsman “with the spirit of God,” to enable him to fashion all the furnishings of the tabernacle according to God’s design (Ex 31.3). In some passages, the “holy spirit” (Ps 51.13) or “good spirit” (Ps 143.10) of the Lord seems to signify his guiding presence within individuals and the whole nation, cleansing their own spirits (Ps. 51.12-14) and helping them to keep his commandments, but “grieved” by their sin (Is 63.10). In the prophet Ezekiel’s mighty vision of the restoration of Israel from the death of defeat and exile, the “breath” return- ing to the people’s desiccated corpses becomes an image of the action of God’s own breath creat- ing the nation anew: “I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live...” (Ezek 37.14). 在旧约中，『神的灵』或『主（耶和华）的灵』被描绘为低於一个神圣的位格，而是神创 造能力的长相——神的『气息』(ruach YHWH) —— 塑造世界，使得世界成为一个有次序 并祂的百姓的居住场所，并兴起个人用圣洁的方式来带领祂的百姓。在创世纪的开篇，神 的灵『在水面运行』把混乱带回到次序中（创世纪1：2）。在以色列人的历史叙述中，同 一位灵也『激动』百姓的领袖（士师记13：25：三孙），让国王和军事领袖成为限制（撒 母耳上 10：9-12；19：18-24：扫罗和大卫），并让先知『将好消息带给忧伤的人“（以 赛亚61：1；参考42；1；列王记下2：9）。主告诉摩西祂已经用『神的灵』充满工头比撒 列，让他能够根据神的设计制造帐幕所有的器具（出埃及31：3）。在有些段落中，主的 『圣灵』（诗篇51：13）或『良善的灵』（诗篇143：10）看起来意表祂对於个人或整个 民族的引导，洁净他们的灵（诗篇51：12-14）并帮助他们遵守祂的诫命，并为他们的罪 哀伤（以赛亚63：10）。在先知以西结的属性中，关於将以色列向哦那个战败和放逐的死 亡中恢复的伟大异象，『气』回到百姓乾枯的屍体，成为神自己气息重新创造一个民族的 图画。『我将会把我的灵放在你们里面，你们当活过来。。。』（以西结37：14） In the New Testament writings, the Holy Spirit of God (pneuma Theou) is usually spoken of in a more personal way, and is inextricably connected with the person and mission of Jesus. Matthew and Luke make it clear that Mary conceives Jesus in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, who “overshadows ” her (Mt 1.18, 20; Lk 1.35). All four Gospels testify that John the Baptist – who himself was “filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb” (Lk 1.15) – witnessed the descent of the same Spirit on Jesus, in a visible manifestation of God’s power and election, when Jesus was baptized (Mt 3.16; Mk 1.10; Lk 3.22; Jn 1.33). The Holy Spirit leads Jesus into the desert to struggle with the devil (Mt 4.1; Lk 4.1), fills him with prophetic power at the start of his mission (Lk 4.18-21), and manifests himself in Jesus’ exorcisms (Mt 12.28, 32). John the Baptist identified the mission of Jesus as “baptizing” his disciples “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Mt 3.11; Lk 3.16; cf. Jn 1.33), a prophecy fulfilled in the great events of Pentecost (Acts 1.5), when the disciples were “clothed with power from on high” (Lk 24.49; Acts 1.8). In the narrative of Acts, it is the Holy Spirit who continues to unify the community (4.31-32), who enables Stephen to bear witness to Jesus with his life (8.55), and whose charismatic presence among believing pagans makes it clear that they, too, are called to baptism in Christ (10.47). 在新约的着作中，神的圣灵（pneuma Theou）往往以一种更具有位元元格特性的方式被描 绘，并密切的与耶稣的位格和人物相连。马太和路加清楚的表明，玛利亚乃是藉着圣灵的 能力怀上耶稣，圣灵『覆盖』她（马太1：18，20；路加1：35）。四福音见证施洗约翰— —他自己『从母腹就被神论充满』（路加1：15）——见证同一位灵以一种显明神的能力 和拣选的方式，降在耶稣身上，当耶稣被浸的时候（马太3：16；马可1：10；路加3：22 ；约翰1：33）。圣灵引导耶稣进入沙漠与魔鬼征战（马太4：1；路加4：1），在耶稣任 务一开始的时候就用先知的能力充满祂（路加4:18-21），并显明在耶稣赶鬼的行动中（ 马蹄啊12：28，32）。施洗约翰指出耶稣的任务是为祂的门徒们『用圣灵和火施浸』（马 太3：11‘路加3：16；参考约翰1：33），一位在伟大的五旬节实践中应验的限制（行传1 ：5），当门徒『披上从高处而来的能力』的时候（路加24：49；行传1：8）。在行传的 技术中，圣灵继续联合基督徒团体（4：31-32），祂让斯提反能够用自己的生命为耶稣见 证（8：55），祂以恩赐的方式在相信的异教徒中显现，清楚的证明他们也在基督里被呼 召而受尽（10：47）。 In his farewell discourse in the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as one who will continue his own work in the world, after he has returned to the Father. He is “the Spirit of truth,” who will act as “ another advocate (parakletos)” to teach and guide his disciples (14.16-17), reminding them of all Jesus himself has taught (14.26). In this section of the Gospel, Jesus gives us a clearer sense of the relationship between this “ advocate,” himself, and his Father. Jesus promises to send him “from the Father,” as “the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father” (15.26); and the truth that he teaches will be the truth Jesus has revealed in his own person (see 1,14; 14.6): “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (16.14-15) 在约翰福音结尾的结束讲道，耶稣论到圣灵是那位将会在祂回到父那边去後，在世界中接 续祂工作的。他是『真理的灵』，将会成为『另一位保慧师（parakleto）』教导并引导 祂的门徒（14：16-17），提醒他们耶稣自己所有的教训。（14：26）在这段福音书的记 载中，耶稣给我们一个关於这位『保慧师』和祂自己，并祂的父之间的关系。耶稣应许『 从父』差遣祂，就像『真理的灵从父而来』（15：26）；并且，祂教导的真理将会是耶稣 在祂自己的位格中所启示的真理（参考1：14；14：6）：『祂将会荣耀我，因为祂将会把 我所有的一切宣告给你们听。父所有的一切都是我的；因此，我说，祂将会把我所有的一 切宣告给你们听。』（16：14-15） The Epistle to the Hebrews represents the Spirit simply as speaking in the Scrip- tures, with his own voice (Heb 3.7; 9.8). In Paul’s letters, the Holy Spirit of God is iden- tified as the one who has finally “defined” Jesus as “Son of God in power” by acting as the agent of his resurrection (Rom 1.4; 8.11). It is this same Spirit, communicated now to us, who conforms us to the risen Lord, giving us hope for resurrection and life (Rom 8.11), making us also children and heirs of God (Rom 8.14-17), and forming our words and even our inarticulate groaning into a prayer that expresses hope (Rom 8.23-27). “ And hope does not disappoint us because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.” (Rom 5.5) 希伯来书简单的根据圣经展示圣灵，就是用祂自己的话（希伯来3：7；9：8）。在保罗的 书信中，神的圣灵就是那位最终藉着作为基督复活的仲介而『证明』耶稣『在能力中是神 的儿子』的那位。（罗马1：4；8：11）也是同一位圣灵，如今在我们里面与我们交通， 祂向我们肯定那位复活的主，赐给我们复活和生命的盼望（罗马8：11），并让我们成为 神的儿女和後嗣（罗马8：14-17），并把我们的话，甚至我们的本口拙舌化为带着盼望的 祷告（罗马8：23-17）.『我们并不会失望，因为神的爱已经藉着赐给我们的圣灵倾倒在 我们心中。』（罗马5：5） II. Historical Considerations 历史中的关注点 Throughout the early centuries of the Church, the Latin and Greek traditions witnessed to the same apostolic faith, but differed in their ways of describing the relationship among the persons of the Trinity. The difference generally reflected the various pastoral challenges facing the Church in the West and in the East. The Nicene Creed (325) bore witness to the faith of the Church as it was articulated in the face of the Arian heresy, which denied the full divinity of Christ. In the years following the Council of Nicaea, the Church continued to be challenged by views questioning both the full divinity and the full humanity of Christ, as well as the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Against these challenges, the fathers at the Council of Constantinople (381) affirmed the faith of Nicaea, and produced an expanded Creed, based on the Nicene but also adding significantly to it. 在整个早期教会的头几个世纪中，拉丁和希腊传统见证了同一个使徒的信仰，但是它们用 不同的方式描述三位元元元一体位格间的关系。这个分别一般而言反映了东西方教会所面 对的教牧方面的挑战。尼西亚信经（325）在面对亚流异端的时候，见证了教会的信仰， 他们否定基督完整的神学。在尼西亚大会接下来的时期中，教会继续面对关於基督完整神 学和完整人性的不同观点，并圣灵的神格。为了对抗那些调整，出席康士坦丁堡大会（ 381）的教父们肯定了尼西亚的信仰，并根据尼西亚信经进行具有意义的扩充。 Of particular note was this Creed’s more extensive affirmation regarding the Holy Spirit, a passage clearly influenced by Basil of Caesaraea’s classic treatise On the Holy Spirit, which had probably been finished some six years earlier. The Creed of Constantinople affirmed the faith of the Church in the divinity of the Spirit by saying: “and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.” Although the text avoided directly calling the Spirit “God,” or affirming (as Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus had done) that the Spirit is “of the same substance” as the Father and the Son – statements that doubtless would have sounded extreme to some theologically cautious contemporaries - the Council clearly intended, by this text, to make a statement of the Church’s faith in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, especially in opposition to those who viewed the Spirit as a creature. At the same time, it was not a concern of the Council to specify the manner of the Spirit’s origin, or to elaborate on the Spirit’s particular relationships to the Father and the Son. 一个特别当注意的地方是，信经更为肯定圣灵，一段明显的受到该撒利亚的巴西流所持的 ，《论圣灵（On the Holy Spirit）》的传统观点所应许，这本书可能完成於六年前。康 士坦丁堡信经肯定了教会关於圣灵神格的信仰，说到：『主，赐生命者，在从父而出（ ekporeuetai）的圣灵中，藉着先知们说话。』虽然本文避免直接称圣灵为『神』，或肯 定（就像亚他那修和拿先斯的贵格利所作的）圣灵是与父和子『同质』——对於当代神学 上更为谨慎的人士而言，这样的说法无疑是非常极端的——大会明确的想要藉着这段本文 肯定教会对於圣灵完整神格的信仰，特别是为了反对那些认为圣灵是一个被造之物的人士 。在同时，大会并不关心如何明确圣灵产生的方式，或详细解释圣灵与父和子间的特殊关 系。 The acts of the Council of Constantinople were lost, but the text of its Creed was quoted and formally acknowledged as binding, along with the Creed of Nicaea, in the dogmatic statement of the Council of Chalcedon (451). Within less than a century, this Creed of 381 had come to play a normative role in the definition of faith, and by the early sixth century was even proclaimed in the Eucharist in Antioch, Constantinople, and other regions in the East. In regions of the Western churches, the Creed was also introduced into the Eucharist, perhaps beginning with the third Council of Toledo in 589. It was not formally introduced into the Eucharistic liturgy at Rome, however, until the eleventh century – a point of some importance for the process of official Western acceptance of the Filioque. 康士坦丁堡大会的记录已经遗失，但是在迦克顿大会（425）上，它的信经的本文被引用 并被认定与尼西亚大会同等。在一个世纪内，这个381年的信经就在定义信仰的过程中具 有突出的角色，在第六世纪前半叶，甚至在安替阿，康士坦丁堡并其他东部的地区中的圣 餐礼仪中被宣读。在西方教会的地区中，信经也被视为罗马圣餐礼仪的一部分，然而，直 到十一世纪——西方才正式的在某个重要的时间点接受Filioque。 No clear record exists of the process by which the word Filioque was inserted into the Creed of 381 in the Christian West before the sixth century. The idea that the Spirit came forth “from the Father through the Son” is asserted by a number of earlier Latin theologians, as part of their insistence on the ordered unity of all three persons within the single divine Mystery (e.g., Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 4 and 5). Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century, emphasizes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power (ibid. 2), which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by the Son to the Spirit (ibid. 8). Hilary of Poitiers, in the mid-fourth century, in the same work speaks of the Spirit as ‘coming forth from the Father’ and being ‘sent by the Son’ (De Trinitate 12.55); as being ‘from the Father through the Son’ (ibid. 12.56); and as ‘having the Father and the Son as his source’ (ibid. 2.29); in another passage, Hilary points to John 16.15 (where Jesus says: “All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from what is mine and declare it to you”), and wonders aloud whether “to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father” (ibid. 8.20). Ambrose of Milan, writing in the 380s, openly asserts that the Spirit “proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son,” without ever being separated from either (On the Holy Spirit 1.11.20). None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being. [Note: This paragraph includes a stylistic revision in the reference to Hilary of Poitiers that the Consultation agreed to at its October 2004 meeting.] 没有更明确的记录记载Filioque在六世纪前的西方基督教中如何被插入381年的信经中。 圣灵『从父藉着子（from the Father through the Son）』而来的观念被许多早期的拉 丁神学家们所肯定，作为他们用来在一个独一神圣的神格中保持三个位格有次序的联合（ 例如：特土良的Adversus Praxean 4和5）。特土良在三世纪初开始写作，强调父、子和 圣灵都共有一个独一的神圣素质、质量和能力，（同书2）他认为这些都是从父而出，并 藉着子传输给圣灵。（同书8）四世纪中的Poitiers的希拉蕊在同样的作品中论到圣灵乃 是『从父而来』并『藉着子被差遣“（De Trinitate 12：55）；并『藉着子从父而来』 （同书12：5）；并『父和子是祂的源头』（同书2：29）；希拉蕊在另一段话中指向约翰 16：15（当耶稣说：『父所有的一切都是我的；因此，我说[圣灵]当把我所有的一切宣告 给你们听。』），并非常怀疑『从圣灵领受是不是与由父而出是同一件事』（同书8：20 ）。米兰的安波罗修，在380年左右的作品公开建成圣灵『从父和子出（procedit a）』 ，他们彼此根本不是分开的（论圣灵 1.11.20）。然而，这些作者都未曾让圣灵产生的方 程为某种特殊说法的题目；反而，他们都强调三个神圣位格的等同性就是神，并都承认只 有父是神永恒存有的源头。[注：这段话包括了一段大会在2004年10月会议上所共同承认 的Poitiers的希拉蕊的一段话，并加以改写。] The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul. 在信经本文中第一次使用Filioque的语言是歌德国外Reccared在789年的Toledo地区大会 的信仰宣告。这个地区会议定罪了那些不接受头四个大公教会会议的教条的人（11条）， 并那些不承认圣灵是从父和子而来的人（3条）。西班牙的主教们和Reccared国王似乎相 信在当时有一个与Filioque相同的希腊字构成了原始康士坦丁堡信经的一部分，并看起来 认为那个字的意思是为了藉由肯定父与子间亲密的关系而反对亚流主义。根据Reccared的 命令，圣餐礼开始复述那个信经，模仿东方的做法。从西班牙开始，具有Filioque的信经 开始在高卢流传。 Nearly a century later, a council of English bishops was held at Hatfield in 680 under the presidency of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury, a Byzantine asked to serve in England by Pope Vitalian. According to the Venerable Bede (Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl. 4.15 [17]), this Council explicitly affirmed its faith as conforming to the five Ecumenical Councils, and also declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds “in an ineffable way (inenarrabiliter)” from the Father and the Son. 大约一个世纪後，一个英国主教们召开的大会於680召开於Hatfield，Canterbury的 Theodore宗主教监督了整个会议，他是一位教皇Vitalian设立在英国服务的拜占庭人。根 据Vanerable Bede (Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl. 4.15 [17])的记载，这个会议特别肯定了 它的信仰与头五个大公会议一致，并宣称圣灵『以一种无法描述的方式（ inenarrabiliter）的方式』从父和子而出。 By the seventh century, three related factors may have contributed to a growing tendency to include the Filioque in the Creed of 381 in the West, and to the belief of some Westerners that it was, in fact, part of the original creed. First, a strong current in the patristic tradition of the West, summed up in the works of Augustine (354-430), spoke of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father and the Son. (e.g., On the Trinity 4.29; 15.10, 12, 29, 37; the significance of this tradition and its terminology will be discussed below.) Second, throughout the fourth and fifth centuries a number of credal statements circulated in the Churches, often associated with baptism and catechesis. The formula of 381 was not considered the only binding expression of apostolic faith. Within the West, the most widespread of these was the Apostles’ Creed, an early baptismal creed, which contained a simple affirmation of belief in the Holy Spirit without elaboration. Third, however, and of particular significance for later Western theology, was the so-called Athanasian Creed (Quicunque). Thought by Westerners to be composed by Athanasius of Alexandria, this Creed probably originated in Gaul about 500, and is cited by Caesarius of Arles (+542). This text was unknown in the East, but had great influence in the West until modern times. Relying heavily on Augustine’s treatment of the Trinity, it clearly affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. A central emphasis of this Creed was its strong anti-Arian Christology: speaking of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son implied that the Son was not inferior to the Father in substance, as the Arians held. The influence of this Creed undoubtedly supported the use of the Filioque in the Latin version of the Creed of Constantinople in Western Europe, at least from the sixth century onwards. 到了第七世纪，三个彼此相关的原因造成了西方把Filiouque包括在381年信经的张力，据 信某些西方人士事实上相信这个字是原始信经的一部分。首先，一种强烈的西方教父的传 统，总结於奥古斯丁的作品中（354-430），说到圣灵从父和子而出（例如：论三位一体 4.29；15.10，12，29，37；这个传统的意义并它的词汇将会在接下来的段落中高卢。） 第二，在整个第四和第五世纪，在教会中流传许多信经，往往将浸礼和教理结合。381年 的公式不被视为使徒信仰的唯一表述。在西方，最为流行的是使徒信经，一个早期的受浸 信经，包括了一种简要的，并不详细的，对於圣灵的信仰的肯定。然而，第三，对於後期 的西方神学具有特殊意义的张力，就是所谓的亚他那修信经（Quicunque）。虽然它被西 方人文是亚历山大的亚他那修所撰写，这个信经可能在500年左右写於高卢，并被 Caesarius of Arles（+542）所引用。东方不知道这个信经的存在，但是直到今天对於西 方仍有非常大的影响力。这个信经非常依赖奥古斯丁在三位一体中的论点，明确的肯定圣 灵从父和子而出。这个信经的中心重点是它非常强烈的反亚流派基督论：论到圣灵从父和 子而出含示子的素质不会低於父，这是亚流派的说法。这个信经的影响毫无疑问的支撑了 在西欧所使用的拉丁版的康士坦丁堡信经，最起码从第六世纪开始。 The use of the Creed of 381 with the addition of the Filioque became a matter of controversy towards the end of the eighth century, both in discussions between the Frankish theologians and the see of Rome and in the growing rivalry between the Carolingian and Byzantine courts, which both now claimed to be the legitimate successors of the Roman Empire. In the wake of the iconoclastic struggle in Byzantium, the Carolingians took this opportunity to challenge the Orthodoxy of Constantinople, and put particular emphasis upon the significance of the term Filioque, which they now began to identify as a touchstone of right Trinitarian faith. An intense political and cultural rivalry between the Franks and the Byzantines provided the background for the Filioque debates throughout the eighth and ninth centuries. 这个带着Filioque的381年版信经成为八世纪末教义争议的内容，在法兰克神学家和罗马 教皇并与卡罗琳和如今被宣称是罗马帝国合法继承人的拜占庭皇室间的冲突中都被讨论。 在拜占庭方面的图像争议中，卡罗琳方面藉着这个机会挑战康士坦丁堡的正统性，而特别 强调Filioque的意义，他们开始将其视为正确的三一信仰的基石。在整个第八和第九世纪 中，法兰克人和拜占庭人间政治和文化上的巨大差异为Filioque的争论提供了背景 Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. The translation proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. 查理曼大帝受到了一份第二次尼西亚大会的决议（787）。大会坚决的支持古代尊崇图像 的做法。那个翻译证明是决定性的。在这个有误的翻译的基础上，查理曼达到派遣了一个 代表团去找教皇Hadrian I(772-795)，表达他的关切。在他反对的重点中，查理曼的代表 宣称康士坦丁堡宗主教Tarasius就职的时候，并没有根据尼西亚的信仰宣告圣灵从父和子 而出，而是承认圣灵从父藉着子而出（Mansi 13.760）教皇强烈的拒绝了查理曼的抗议， 表明最起码Tarasius和大会在这点并其他的点上，都维持了教父们的信仰（同书759-810 ）。查理曼在交换许多信件後，拟定了一份称作Libri Carolini (791-794)的文件，调整 754年的图像派大会和787年的尼西亚大会关於尊崇图像的决议。再次，因为糟糕的反应， 卡罗琳方面误解了後一个大会的决议。在这份档中，卡罗琳方面对於Filioque的观点也再 次被强调。辩称Filioque这个词乃是381年信经的一部分，Libri Carolini再次确认中圣 灵从父和子而出的拉丁翻译，并拒绝圣灵从父藉着子而出的不完全的教导。 While the acts of the local synod of Frankfurt in 794 are not extant, other records indicate that it was called mainly to counter a form of the heresy of “Adoptionism” then thought to be on the rise in Spain. The emphasis of a number of Spanish theologians on the integral humanity of Christ seemed, to the court theologian Alcuin and others, to imply that the man Jesus was “ adopted” by the Father at his baptism. In the presence of Charlemagne, this council – which Charlemagne seems to have promoted as “ecumenical” (see Mansi 13.899-906) - approved the Libri Carolini, affirming, in the context of maintaining the full divinity of the person of Christ, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. As in the late sixth century, the Latin formulation of the Creed, stating that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, was enlisted to combat a perceived Christological heresy. 在同时，现已遗失的794年在法兰克福举办的地方会议的决议，和其他的记录表明，这都 主义是为了反对某种随後被认为源自於西班牙的『嗣子论（Adoptionism）』异端。某些 西班牙的神学家强调基督人性的完整性，以至於神学家Alcuin和其他的人士认为耶稣这个 人乃是在祂受浸的时候被父认养。查理曼出席了这个大会——查理曼看起来想要把这大会 提升为『大公教会性』的（cankMansi 13.899-906）——通过了Libri Carolini，肯定了 关於基督位格完整神性的本文，而圣灵从父与子而出。就如同六世纪末的拉丁信经公式， 强调圣灵从父和子而出，乃是为了与前述的基督论异端争战。 Within a few years, another local council, also directed against “Spanish Adoptionism,” was held in Fréjus (Friuli) (796 or 797). At this meeting, Paulinus of Aquileia (+802), an associate of Alcuin in Charlemagne’s court, defended the use of the Creed with the Filioque as a way of opposing Adoptionism. Paulinus, in fact, recognized that the Filioque was an addition to the Creed of 381 but defended the interpolation, claiming that it contradicted neither the meaning of the creed nor the intention of the Fathers. The authority in the West of the Council of Fréjus, together with that of Frankfurt, ensured that the Creed of 381 with the Filioque would be used in teaching and in the celebration of the Eucharist in churches throughout much of Europe. 几年之内，另一个地方性会有，也是反对『西班牙的嗣子论』，在Frejus（Fruili, 796huo797）举行。在这个会议中，Aquileis的Paulinus（+802），一位查理曼朝廷的成 员，用反对嗣子论作为为信经中的Filioque辩护的基础。事实上，Paulinus知道Filioque 是381年信经多出来的部分，但是仍然为这种篡改辩护，宣称它既不违反信经的意义，也 不会违反教父们的看法。西方Frejus大会的权威在加上法兰克福大会的权威，确定了带有 Filioque的381年信经当在大部分欧洲的教会教导教义并教会中的圣餐礼仪中使用。 The different liturgical traditions with regard to the Creed came into contact with each other in early-ninth-century Jerusalem. Western monks, using the Latin Creed with the added Filioque, were denounced by their Eastern brethren. Writing to Pope Leo III for guidance, in 808, the Western monks referred to the practice in Charlemagne’s chapel in Aachen as their model. Pope Leo responded with a letter to “all the churches of the East” in which he declared his personal belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. In that response, the Pope did not distinguish between his personal understanding and the issue of the legitimacy of the addition to the Creed, although he would later resist the addition in liturgies celebrated at Rome. 关於信经，基於不同传统的礼仪方式在九世纪初的耶路撒冷相遇。西方的教士使用加上 Filioque的信经，被东方的兄弟们聚集。教皇Leo III在808年写下了指导，西方的教士把 在查理曼在Aachen礼拜堂使用的做法当作他们的范本。教会Leo写了一封『至所有东方教 会』的信作为回应，在该信中，他宣称他个人相信圣灵永远从父和子而出。在那封回信中 ，教皇并没有在他的个人理解和增改信经的问题作出区分，虽然他後来坚持在罗马使用的 礼仪使用增改的版本。 Taking up the issue of the Jerusalem controversy, Charlemagne asked Theodulf of Orleans, the principal author of the Libri Carolini, to write a defense of the use of the word Filioque. Appearing in 809, De Spiritu Sancto of Theodulf was essentially a compilation of patristic citations supporting the theology of the Filioque. With this text in hand, Charlemagne convened a council in Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following this council, Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the Filioque (Mansi 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses. 在回到耶路撒冷争议上，查理曼请奥尔良的Theodulf，Libri Carolini的主要作者，写一 封使用Filioque这个词的辩护信。似乎在808，Theodulf的De Spiritu Sancto基本上就是 引用教父语录来支持Filioque神学的汇编。手上握着这个作品，查理曼在809-810年间召 开了Aachen大会，肯定了圣灵从父和子而出的教育，这个教义被希腊的神学家们责难。在 这个会议後，查理曼要求教皇Leo同样使用带有Filioque的信经（Mansi 14.23-76）。教 皇和查理曼特使团的会议於810年在罗马召开。同时，Leo III肯定了Filioque这个字的正 统性，并批准在教理和个人的信仰认信中使用这个词，他明确无误的否定381年信经包括 这个词，因为大会的教父们——他观察到，他们跟聚集在Aachen的主教们一样，都有圣灵 的启迪——都选择包括这个词。教皇Leo规定可以在圣餐礼中使用信经，但是不是必须的 ，并督促为了避免丑闻，卡罗琳的内阁最後不要在礼仪中使用它。大约在此时，根据 Liber Pontificalis，教皇在圣彼得大教堂中有两块非常重的银盾，上面同时用拉丁文和 希腊文刻有381年信经的原始版本。然而，基本他有这种间接的，并且具有代表性的行动 ，卡罗琳仍然在他们自己教区中的圣餐礼中使用带有Filioque信经。 The Byzantines had little appreciation of the various developments regarding the Filioque in the West between the sixth and ninth centuries. Communication grew steadily worse, and their own struggles with monothelitism, iconoclasm, and the rise of Islam left little time to follow closely theological developments in the West. However, their interest in the Filioque became more pronounced in the middle of the 9th century, when it came to be combined with jurisdictional disputes between Rome and Constantinople, as well as with the activities of Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria. When Byzantine missionaries were expelled from Bulgaria by King Boris, under Western influence, they returned to Constantinople and reported on Western practices, including the use of the Creed with the Filioque. Patriarch Photios of Constantinople, in 867, addressed a strongly worded encyclical to the other Eastern patriarchs, commenting on the political and ecclesiastical crisis in Bulgaria as well as on the tensions between Constantinople and Rome. In this letter, Photios denounced the Western missionaries in Bulgaria and criticized Western liturgical practices. 拜占庭方面根本不珍惜在第六和第九世纪间，西方关於Filioque的各种发展。交流变得越 来越少，他们自己与（monothelitism）和图像主义（iconoclasm）的争斗，以及伊斯兰 教的兴起，让他们没有时间注意西方神学的发展。然而，他们自己对於Filioque的兴趣在 第九世纪中变得越来越明显，伴随着罗马和康士坦丁堡的合法性的争议，以及法兰克派遣 到保加利亚的宣教士。拜占庭的宣教士在西方的影响下，同时被Boris王从保加利亚驱逐 ，他们回到康士坦丁堡，报告了西方的作为，包括使用带有Filioque的行径。康士坦丁堡 宗主教Photios在867，发表了措辞强硬的教喻给其他东方的宗主教，论到在保加利亚发生 的政治和教会危机，以及在康士坦丁堡和罗马间的紧张情势。Photos在这封信中指责在保 加利亚的西方宣教士并批判西方的圣餐礼。 Most significantly, Patriarch Photios called the addition of the Filioque in the West a blasphemy, and presented a substantial theological argument against the view of the Trinity which he believed it depicted. Photios’s opposition to the Filioque was based upon his view that it signifies two causes in the Trinity, and diminishes the mon- archy of the Father. Thus, the Filioque seemed to him to detract from the distinc- tive character of each person of the Trinity, and to confuse their relationships, paradoxically bearing in itself the seeds of both pagan polytheism and Sabellian modalism (Mystagogy 9, 11). In his letter of 867, Photios does not, however, demonstrate any knowledge of the Latin patristic tradition behind the use of the Filioque in the West. His opposition to the Filioque would subsequently receive further elaboration in his Letter to the Patriarch of Aquileia in 883 or 884, as well as in his famous Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, written about 886. 更为重要的是，Photios宗主教称西方插入Filioque是亵渎神的行为，并代表一种反对祂 所相信的三位一体观点的神学争论。Photios反对Filioque乃是根据他认为的，它意表在 三位一体中有两个起因，摧毁了父的独一性。因此，Filioque对他而言减损了三位一体中 每一个位格间的分别，并混乱了祂们间的关系，同时具有异教多神论和撒伯流主义的形态 论的种子（Mystagogy 9, 11）。然而，Photios在他867年的信中并没有表现出他了解西 方在使用Filioque这个词背後的拉丁教父传统。他反对Filioque可能是进一步因着其後的 ，他在883或884写给Aquileia大主教的信，并他着名的，886年关於圣灵的Mystagogy所激 化。 In concluding his letter of 867, Photios called for an ecumenical council that would resolve the issue of the interpolation of the Filioque, as well as illuminating its theological foundation. A local council was held in Constantinople in 867, which deposed Pope Nicholas I - an action which increased tensions between the two sees. In 863, Nicholas himself had refused to recognize Photios as Patriarch because of his allegedly uncanonical appointment. With changes in the imperial government, Photios was forced to resign in 867, and was replaced by Patriarch Ignatius, whom he himself had replaced in 858. A new council was convened in Constantinople later in 869. With papal representatives present and with imperial support, this Council excommunicated Photios, and was subsequently recognized in the Medieval West, for reasons unrelated to the Filioque or Photios, as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, although it was never recognized as such in the East. Photios在他867年的信件的结论中呼吁召开一个大公会议来解决插入Filioque的问题，并 找出它的神学基础。867年康士坦丁堡举办了一个地区会议，开革了教会Nicholas I—— 一个加深两个宗主教间冲突的行动。Nicholas在863年亲自拒绝认可Photios的宗主教职位 ，因为他据说是非法被设立的。因着帝国政权的更替，Photios在867年被迫离职，宗主教 Ignatius接替他的位置，他自己在858年的时候被更换。869年在康士坦丁堡召开了一个新 的会议。大会因有教皇的代表出席，并帝国的支持，开革了Photios，接下来承认了中世 纪的西方，不是因为与Filioque或Photios相关的原因，就好像第八次大公会议从未被东 方承认一样。 The relationship between Rome and Constantinople changed when Photios again became patriarch in 877, following the death of Ignatius. In Rome, Pope Nicholas had died in 867, and was succeeded by Pope Hadrian II (867-872), who himself anathematized Photios in 869. His successor, Pope John VIII (872-882), was willing to recognize Photios as the legitimate Patriarch in Constantinople under certain conditions, thus clearing the way for a restoration of better relations. A Council was held in Constan- tinople in 879-880, in the presence of representatives from Rome and the other Eastern Patriarchates. This Council, considered by some modern Orthodox theologians to be ecumenical, suppressed the decisions of the earlier Council of 869-870, and recognized the status of Photios as patriarch. It affirmed the ecumenical character of the Council of 787 and its decisions against iconoclasm. There was no extensive discussion of the Filioque, which was not yet a part of the Creed professed in Rome itself, and no statement was made by the Council about its theological justification; yet this Council formally reaffirmed the original text of the Creed of 381, without the Filioque, and anathematized anyone who would compose another confession of faith. The Council also spoke of the Roman see in terms of great respect, and allowed the Papal legates the traditional prerogatives of presidency, recognizing their right to begin and to close discussions and to sign documents first. Nevertheless, the documents give no indication that the bishops present formally recognized any priority of jurisdiction for the see of Rome, outside of the framework of the Patristic understanding of the communion of Churches and the sixth-century canonical theory of the Pentarchy. The difficult question of the competing claims of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople to jurisdiction in Bulgaria was left to be decided by the Emperor. After the Council, the Filioque continued to be used in the Creed in parts of Western Europe, despite the intentions of Pope John VIII, who, like his predecessors, maintained the text sanctioned by the Council of 381. 当Photios於877年，在Ignatius死後，再次成为宗主教的时候，罗马和康士坦丁间的关系 又改变了。罗马教皇Nicholas死於867年，教皇Hardian II（867-872）接任，他自己在 869年开革了Photios。他的继任者教会John VIII（872-882）愿意在某种条件下承认 Photios是康士坦丁堡合法的宗主教，因此为重新建立更好的关系铺路。879-880在康士坦 丁堡召开了一个大会，罗马和其他东方宗主教区都有代表参加。这个会议被某些近代的东 正教神学家认为具有大公性，推翻了869-870会议的决议，承认Photios宗主教的地位。它 也肯定了787年会议的大公性，并其针对图像主义的决议。该会议并没有进一步讨论 Filioque的问题，因为它尚未成为罗马本身所承认的信经的一部分，而大会也没有针对它 做出任何神学方面的裁定；然而，这个会议重新肯定了381年信经的原始版本，没有 Filioque，并咒诅任何拟定另一个信仰宣言的做法。大会也用非常尊敬的语言论及罗马主 教，并让教皇合法化其传统已经赋予的优先地位，承认他们开启并结束讨论，和带头签署 文件的权利。尽管如此，除了在教父们所理解的教会间的交通的架构喜爱，并第六世纪所 指定的五个宗主教区（Pentarchy）的理论外，文献并没有任何暗示与会的主教们正式认 可罗马主教在裁定方面有任何优先的权利。观教皇和康士坦丁堡宗主教区相互宣称拥有的 保加利亚的裁定权则留给皇帝去决定。在会议後，Filioque继续在西欧的某些地区的信经 中使用，无视於教皇John VIII希望他的继承者能够维持381年大会所指定的本文。 A new stage in the history of the controversy was reached in the early eleventh century. During the synod following the coronation of King Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor at Rome in 1014, the Creed, including the Filioque, was sung for the first time at a papal Mass. Because of this action, the liturgical use of the Creed, with the Filioque, now was generally assumed in the Latin Church to have the sanction of the papacy. Its inclusion in the Eucharist, after two centuries of papal resistance of the practice, reflected a new dominance of the German Emperors over the papacy, as well as the papacy ’s growing sense of its own authority, under imperial protection, within the entire Church, both western and eastern. 争议的历史在第八世纪早期进入一个新的阶段。在1014年亨利八世的加冕礼并神圣罗马皇 帝在罗马的加冕礼後的大会，包括Filioque的信经首次在教皇的弥撒中被吟唱。因为这个 动作，使用带有Filioque信经的礼仪如今被拉丁教会广泛采用，得到教皇的批准。这包括 生产礼，教皇在两个世纪的抗拒使用这个做法後，反映了德国皇帝对於教皇职位的管辖权 ，就如同教皇在帝国保护下逐渐增强的，对自身施行於东西方整个教会权力的认可。 The Filioque figured prominently in the tumultuous events of 1054, when excommunications were exchanged by representatives of the Eastern and Western Churches meeting in Constantinople. Within the context of his anathemas against Patriarch Michael I Cerularios of Constantinople and certain of his advisors, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, the legate of Pope Leo IX, accused the Byzantines of improperly deleting the Filioque from the Creed, and criticized other Eastern liturgical practices. In responding to these accusations, Patriarch Michael recognized that the anathemas of Humbert did not originate with Leo IX, and cast his own anathemas simply upon the papal delegation. Leo, in fact, was already dead and his successor had not been elected. At the same time, Michael condemned the Western use of the Filioque in the Creed, as well as other Western liturgical practices. This exchange of limited excommunications did not lead, by itself, to a formal schism between Rome and Constan- tinople, despite the views of later historians; it did, however, deepen the growing estrangement between Constantinople and Rome. 当东方和西方教会的代表在康士坦丁堡会面中彼此开革对方的时候，Filioque描绘了1054 年令人印象深刻的混乱事件。在开个康士坦丁堡主教Michael I Cerualrios和他的智囊的 时候，Silva Candida的Humbert主教，教会Leo IX的代表，抨击拜占庭方面非法的从信经 中删除了Filioque，并批判其他东方的礼仪。Michael宗主教在回应这些抨击的时候，承 认Humber的开革并不是源自於Leo IX，仅仅是针对教会的特使团。事实上，Leo在那个时 候已经死了，其继任者尚未选出。Michael在同时定罪西方在信经中使用Filioque的做法 ，加上西方其他礼仪上的做法。这种有限度开革的相互交火本身并没有如同後世的历史学 家所认为的，造成罗马和康士坦丁堡正式的决裂；然而，它确实加深了康士坦丁堡和罗马 间的不和。 The relationship between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were seriously damaged during the period of the crusades, and especially in the wake of the infamous Fourth Crusade. In 1204, Western Crusaders sacked the city of Constantinople, long the commercial and political rival of Venice, and Western politicians and clergy dominated the life of the city until it was reclaimed by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos in 1261. The installation of Western bishops in the territories of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, who were loyal to Rome and to the political powers of Western Europe, became a tragically visible new expression of schism. Even after 1261, Rome supported Latin patriarchs in these three ancient Eastern sees. For most Eastern Christians, this was a clear sign that the papacy and its political supporters had little regard for the legitimacy of their ancient churches. 罗马教会和康士坦丁堡、亚历山大、安替阿和耶路撒冷教会间的关系在十字军时期受到了 严重的伤害，特别是在臭名昭彰的第四次十字军时期。在1204年，西方的十字架劫掠了长 久以来是威尼斯在商业和政治上的对手，康士坦丁堡城，西方的政治家和神职人员掌控了 城市，直到城市在1261年被皇帝Michael VIII Palaiologos重新接管为止。在康士坦丁堡 、安替阿和耶路撒冷的领地中设立效忠罗马和西欧政治势力的西方主教，成为一个悲剧性 的，加深双方分裂的可见现象。基本在1261後，罗马仍然支持在这三个古代西方宗主教区 内的拉丁主教。对於大部分的东方基督徒而言，这明显的代表教皇和他的政治支持者根本 无视於他们古老的教会。 Despite this growing estrangement, a number of notable attempts were made to address the issue of the Filioque between the early twelfth and mid-thirteenth century. The German Emperor Lothair III sent bishop Anselm of Havelberg to Constantinople in 1136, to negotiate a military alliance with Emperor John II Comnenos. While he was there, Anselm and Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicomedia held a series of public discussions about subjects dividing the Churches, including the Filioque, and concluded that the differences between the two traditions were not as great as they had thought (PL 188.1206B – 1210 B). A letter from Orthodox Patriarch Germanos II (1222-1240) to Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) led to further discussions between Eastern and Western theologians on the Filioque at Nicaea in 1234. Subsequent discussions were held in 1253-54, at the initiative of Emperor John III Vatatzes (1222-1254) and Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254). In spite of these efforts, the continuing effects of the Fourth Crusade and the threat of the Turks, along with the jurisdictional claims of the papacy in the East, meant that these well-intentioned efforts came to no conclusion. 在这个逐渐增加的不和中，在十二世纪早期到十三世纪中期仍然有许多值得注意的，尝试 解决Filioque的尝试。德国皇帝Lothair III於1136年差遣Haelberg主教Anselm去康士坦 丁堡，交涉一个与皇帝John II Commenos的军事联盟事宜。当他在那里的时候，Anselm和 尼哥米迪亚的逐渐Nicetas举行了一系列关於分裂教会题目的公开讨论，包括Filioque， 并结论到，两个传统间的差异并没有他们想像的那麽严重（PL 188.1206B – 1210 B）。 一封东正教宗主教Germanos II（1222-1240）写给教皇Gergory IX（1227-1241）的信中 进一步讨论了在1234年Nicaea会议中论到的Filioque的神学问题。接下来在1253-54举行 了一系列的讨论，都是基於皇帝John III Vatatzes（1222-1254）和教皇Innocent IV（ 1243-1354）的主动要求。即便有这些努力，第四次十字军造成的结果和土耳其人的威胁 ，加上教皇在东方宣称的法律裁定权，意味着那些善意的努力并没有产生结果。 Against this background, a Western council was held in Lyons in 1274 (Lyons II), after the restoration of Constantinople to Eastern imperial control. Despite the consequences of the crusades, many Byzantines sought to heal the wounds of division and looked to the West for support against the growing advances of the Turks, and Pope Gregory X (1271-1276) enthusiastically hoped for reunion. Among the topics agreed upon for discussion at the council was the Filioque. Yet the two Byzantine bishops who were sent as delegates had no real opportunity to present the Eastern perspective at the Council. The Filioque was formally approved by the delegates in the final session on July17, in a brief constitution which also explicitly con- demned those holding other views on the origin of the Holy Spirit. Already on July 6, in accord with an agreement previously reached between papal delegates and the Emperor in Constantinople, the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches was proclaimed, but it was never received by the Eastern clergy and faithful, or vigorously promoted by the Popes in the West. In this context it should be noted that in his letter commemorating the 700th anniversary of this council (1974), Pope Paul VI recognised this and added that “the Latins chose texts and formulae expressing an ecclesiology which had been conceived and developed in the West. It is understandable […] that a unity achieved in this way could not be accepted completely by the Eastern Christian mind.” A little further on, the Pope, speaking of the future Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, observed: “…it will take up again other controverted points which Gregory X and the Fathers of Lyons thought were resolved.” 与这个背景相对，在把康士坦丁堡归还给西方皇帝後，西方在1274年於里昂举行了一个会 议（里昂二次会议）。虽然十字军造成了伤害，许多拜占庭人仍然寻求弥合分裂的伤口， 并希望西方支持他们对抗土耳其人的进犯，教皇Gregory X（1271-1276）热情的希望教会 联合。在会议上达成的许多题目包括Filioque。然而两位作为特使团成员的拜占庭主教在 会议中根本没有机会解释东方的观点。在简要的谘询後，Filioque在7月17日的最後一个 会期中被特使团正式通过，并特别定罪其他关於圣灵的起源的观点。在7月6日，根据教皇 特使团和皇帝在康士坦丁堡已经达成的协议，东方和西方教会的联合被证实宣告，但是却 从未被东方的教职人员所认可，在西方也没有被教皇忠实的，并积极的推动。在这个背景 下，当注意在他庆祝这个会议（1974）的700周年的信件中，教会Paul VI承认这件事，并 加上，『拉丁方面选择了在西方被认可并发展的教会论的本文和公式。这是可以理解的[ …]以这种方式达成的联合在东方基督教的思想中完全是不能被接受的。』此外，教皇论 点未来的天主教—东正教对话的时候，说：『。。。将会让Gregory X和里昂教父们认为 已经解决的问题再次浮上台面。』 At the Eastern Council of Blachernae (Constantinople) in 1285, in fact, the decisions of the Council of Lyons and the pro-Latin theology of former Patriarch John XI Bekkos (1275-1282) were soundly rejected, under the leadership of Patriarch Gregory II, also known as Gregory of Cyprus (1282-1289). At the same time, this council produced a significant statement addressing the theological issue of the Filioque. While firmly rejecting the “double procession” of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, the statement spoke of an “eternal manifestation” of the Spirit through the Son. Patriarch Gregory’s language opened the way, at least, towards a deeper, more complex understanding of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in both the East and the West. (see below) This approach was developed further by Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), in the context of his distinction between the essence and the energies of the divine persons. Unfortunately, these openings had little effect on later medieval discussions of the origin of the Spirit, in either the Eastern or the Western Church. Despite the concern shown by Byzantine theologians, from the time of Photios, to oppose both the idea of the Filioque and its addition to the Latin creed, there is no reference to it in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, a collection containing more than sixty anathemas representing the doctrinal decisions of Eastern councils through the fourteenth century. 事实上，在1285年的东方Blachernae（康士坦丁堡）会议中，在宗主教Gregory II——或 Gregory of Cyprus（1282-1289）——的领导下，里昂大会的决议和支持拉丁神学的钱宗 主教John XI Bekkos（1275-1782）被坚决的拒绝。在同时，这个会议真的Filioque的神 学争论发表了一个重要的声明。该声明坚决的拒绝圣灵从父和子的『双重发出（double procession）』。该声明论到一种圣灵藉着子的『永远的彰显』。最起码，宗主教 Gregory的语言为一种对於父、子和圣灵在东方并西方中（参考後面），更为深刻并复杂 的理解，开创了一种方法。Gregory of Palamas（1296-1359）在他关於分别神圣位格的 素质和能力中，进一步发展了这个进路。 不幸的是，这种进步对话後来中世纪讨论圣灵 的起源并无效果，不论是在东方，还是在西方的教会。虽然从Photios时代开始，西方神 学家表现出的焦虑，反对Filioque的观念并将其加入拉丁的信经中，但是在东正教的 Synodikon（教喻合集）中，一个包括了在整个十四世纪东正教会议关於教义的决议合集 中所收录的六十条咒诅问中，并没有任何关於Filioque的记录。 One more attempt was made, however, to deal with the subject authoritatively on an ecumenical scale. The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445) again brought together representatives from the Church of Rome and the Churches of Constantinople, Alexan- dria, Antioch and Jerusalem, to discuss a wide range of controversial issues, including papal authority and the Filioque. This Council took place at a time when the Byzantine Empire was gravely threatened by the Ottomans, and when many in the Greek world regarded military aid from the West as Constantinople’s only hope. Following extensive discussions by experts from both sides, often centered on the interpretation of patristic texts, the union of the Churches was declared on July 6, 1439. The Council’s decree of reunion, Laetentur caeli, recognized the legitimacy of the Western view of the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from a single principle and in a single spiration. The Filioque was presented here as having the same meaning as the position of some early Eastern Fathers that the Spirit exists or proceeds “through the Son.” The Council also approved a text which spoke of the Pope as having “primacy over the whole world,” as “head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christians.” Despite Orthodox participation in these discussions, the decisions of Florence – like the union decree of Lyons II - were never received by a representative body of bishops or faithful in the East, and were formally rejected in Constantinople in 1484. 然而，还有一次在大公教会的层面处理这个问题的尝试。Ferrara-Florence（1438-1445 ）会议再次聚集了罗马教皇和康士坦丁堡、亚历山大、安替阿和耶路撒冷各教会的代表， 来广泛的讨论各种争议，包括教皇的权威和Filioque。这个会议举行的时候，拜占庭帝国 正遭受俄图曼人严重的威胁，许多希腊世界的人认为西方的军事援助是康士坦丁堡唯一的 希望。在双方的专家密集的讨论後，往往着重於诠释教父的本文，1439年7月6日宣布了教 会的合一。大会的合一教喻，Laetentur caeli，认可了西方对於圣灵用户的从父和子而 出的观点是正确的。Filioque在此被视为某些早期教父所认为的，圣灵『藉着子』存在或 发出具有同样的意义。大会也认可论到教皇『对全世界享有特殊地位』，并作为『全教会 的头并整个基督教世界的父和导师』的本文。虽然东正教也参与这些讨论，Florence的决 议——就像Lyons II的联合决议一样——从未被全体主教或在东方的信徒接纳，并在1484 於康士坦丁堡被否决。 The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the fracturing effect of the Protestant Reformation in the West, as well as subsequent Latin missions in the former Byzantine world and the establishment of Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, led to a deepening of the schism, accompanied by much polemical literature on each side. For more than five hundred years, few opportunities were offered to the Catholic and Orthodox sides for serious discussion of the Filioque, and of the related issue of the primacy and teaching authority of the bishop of Rome. Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism entered into a period of formal isolation from each other, in which each developed a sense of being the only ecclesiastical body authentically representing the apostolic faith. For example, this is expressed in Pius IX’ s encyclical In Suprema Petri Sede of January 6, 1848, and in Leo XIII’s encyclical Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae of June 20, 1894, as well as the encyclical of the Orthodox Patriarchs in 1848 and the encyclical of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 1895, each reacting to the prior papal documents. Ecumenical discussions of the Filioque between the Orthodox Churches and representatives of the Old Catholics and Anglicans were held in Germany in 1874-75, and were occasionally revived during the century that followed, but in general little substantial progress was made in moving beyond the hardened opposition of traditional Eastern and Western views. 1453年秋於康士坦丁堡，抗议宗在西方破碎的宗教改革，并接下来拉丁在前拜占庭世界的 宣教活动建立了东方教会和和罗马的交通，导致更深的裂痕，伴着双方彼此往来的辩论性 书信。在超过500年的时间中，天主教和东正教双方有好几次可以严肃讨论Filioque，以 及相关的罗马主教的优先性并教义的权威的机会。东正教和罗马天主教主义正式进入一个 彼此断绝的状态，双方都发展出一种自己才是唯一教会并真正代表使徒信仰的意识。例如 ，这都在1848年1月6日Pius IX发出的教会通喻In Suprema Petri Sede，和1894年6月20 日Leo XIII发出的教会通喻Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae中被提及，1848年东正教 宗主教发出的教会通喻，和康士坦丁堡宗主教1985年的教会通喻等等，每一个通喻都对教 皇的优先权做出了回应。东正教和老大公教会（Old Catholics）加上安立甘会对於 Filioque的讨论在1874-75年间在德国举行，在接下来的一个世纪中还偶尔再继续，但是 整体而言，在强硬彼此对立的东方和西方观点的传统前，很少有实质性的进展。 A new phase in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church began formally with the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the Pan-Orthodox Conferences (1961-1968), which renewed contacts and dialogue. From that time, a number of theological issues and historical events contributing to the schism between the churches have begun to receive new attention. In this context, our own North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation was established in 1965, and the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was established in 1979. Although a committee of theologians from many different Churches, sponsored by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, studied the Filioque question in depth in 1978 and 1979, and concluded by issuing the “Klingenthal Memorandum” (1979), no thorough new joint discussion of the issue has been undertaken by representatives of our two Churches until our own study. The first statement of the Joint International Commission (1982), entitled “The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Trinity,” does briefly address the issue of the Filioque, within the context of an extensive discussion of the relationship of the persons of the Holy Trinity. The Statement says: “Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn. 15:26) as the sole source of the Trinity, and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom. 8:15) since he is already the Spirit of the Son (Gal.4:6), is communicated to us, particularly in the Eucharist, by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and eternity (Jn. 1:32). ” (No. 6). 天主教会和东张教会间关系的新阶段正是开始於梵蒂冈第二次大会（1962-1965）和泛东 正教会议（Pan-Orthodox Conference， 1961-1968），这两个会议重新进行了接触并对 话。从那个时候开始，许多构成双方教会分裂的神学议题和历史事件开始获得新的注意。 在这个背景下，我们北美的东正教—天主教会议於1965年被建立，东正教和天主教的国际 神学对话委员会在1979年被建立。虽然从许多不同教会聚集的神学家委员会得到世界基督 教协进会（WCC）的Faith and Order Commision的支持，深入的在1978到1979年间研究了 Filioque，并发出了《Klingenthal Memorandum》（1979）作为结论，直到我们自己的研 究前，双方的教会的代表没有针对这个题目进行新的联合讨论。联合国际委员会的第一个 宣言（1982），标题是『教会的奥秘及在三位一体的奥秘之光中的圣餐（The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Trinity ）』简要的提及Filioque的问题，在其上下文中详细的讨论了神圣三一位格间的关系。宣 言说到：『我们并不希望解决东方和西方间对於子和圣灵间关系的难题，我们能够一起说 的是，这位圣灵从父这个三位一体唯一的源头而出（约翰15：26），成我我们儿子名分的 灵（罗马8：15），因为祂本是子的灵（加拉太4：6），被交通给我们，特别是在圣餐中 ，祂在时间和永恒中安息在这位子里面。（约翰1：32）。』（No. 6） Several other events in recent decades point to a greater willingness on the part of Rome to recognize the normative character of the original creed of Constantinople. When Patriarch Dimitrios I visited Rome on December 7, 1987, and again during the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew I to Rome in June 1995, both patriarchs attended a Eucharist celebrated by Pope John Paul II in St. Peter’s Basilica. On both occasions the Pope and Patriarch proclaimed the Creed in Greek (i.e., without the Filioque). Pope John Paul II and Romanian Patriarch Teoctist did the same in Romanian at a papal Mass in Rome on October 13, 2002. The document Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on August 6, 2000, begins its theological considerations on the Church’s central teaching with the text of the creed of 381, again without the addition of the Filioque. While no interpretation of these uses of the Creed was offered, these developments suggest a new awareness on the Catholic side of the unique character of the original Greek text of the Creed as the most authentic formulation of the faith that unifies Eastern and Western Christianity. 过去几十年中有几个事件指出罗马方面更为愿意承认原始康士坦丁堡信经的规范性。当 Dimitrios I宗主教在1987年12月7日访问罗马的时候，并在此在1995年6月宗主教 Bartholomew I访问罗马的时候，两位宗主教都参与了教皇John Paul II在圣彼得大教堂 举行的圣餐礼。在两个场合中，教皇和宗主教用希腊文宣读了信经（例如，缺少 Filiouque）。John Paul II和罗马尼亚宗主教Teoctist於2002年10月13日在罗马由教皇 举行的弥撒中，也用罗马尼亚文宣读了信经。Dominus Iesus这份文献：论耶稣基督和教 会普世性质独一性和救赎性，由Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith在2000年 8月6日发布，使用381年的信经本文作为关於教会核心教训的神学讨论的开头，也没有使 用Filiouque。对於如此使用信经并没有进一步的诠释，那些发展表明天主教方面察觉了 原始信经的希腊本文的独一特性，是联合东方和西方基督教信仰最为纯正的公式。 Not long after the meeting in Rome between Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the Vatican published the document “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit” (September 13, 1995). This text was intended to be a new contribution to the dialogue between our churches on this controversial issue. Among the many observations it makes, the text says: “The Catholic Church acknow- ledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as the expression of one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No confession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.” Although the Catholic Church obviously does not consider the Filioque to be a contradiction of the creed of 381, the significance of this passage in the 1995 Vatican statement should not be minimized. It is in response to this important document that our own study of the Filioque began in 1999, and we hope that this present state- ment will serve to carry further the positive discussions between our communions that we have experienced ourselves. 在教皇John Paul II和大公教会宗主教Bartholomew I在罗马的会面後，梵蒂冈发布了一 份《关於圣灵的产生的希腊和拉丁传统（The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit）》的文件(September 13, 1995)。这份文献主要 想要为我们教会间对於这个争议的对话提出新的贡献。在研究後，文献说：『天主教会认 可第二次大公会议用希腊文於381年在康士坦丁堡宣告的信仰标志中，论到教会和所有基 督徒共同信仰表述的会议性、大公性、独一性并无可取代的价值。任何基於特殊利於传统 对於信仰的独特宣告不能与这个被不分离的教会所教导并承认的信仰表述冲突。』虽然天 主教会明显的不认为Filioque与381年的信经冲突，这个於1995年梵蒂冈发布的宣言的这 段话的意义不能被减低。它乃是回应我们从1999年开始进行的Filioque的重要文件，我们 希望这份宣言能够帮助我们已经经历的，在我们两个基督徒群体间的讨论往一个正面的方 向发展。 III. Theological Reflections 神学思考 In all discussions about the origin of the Holy Spirit within the Mystery of God, and about the relationships of Father, Son and Holy Spirit with each other, the first habit of mind to be cultivated is doubtless a reverent modesty. Concerning the divine Mystery itself, we can say very little, and our speculations always risk claim- ing a degree of clarity and certainty that is more than their due. As Pseudo-Dionysius reminds us, “No unity or trinity or number or oneness or fruitfulness, or any other thing that either is a creature or can be known to any creature, is able to express the Mystery, beyond all mind and reason, of that transcendent Godhead which in a super-essential way surpasses all things” (On the Divine Names 13.3). That we do, as Christians, profess our God, who is radically and indivisibly one, to be the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit – three “persons” who can never be confused with or reduced to one another, and who are all fully and literally God, singly and in the harmonious whole of their relationships with each other - is simply a summation of what we have learned from God’s self-revelation in human history, a revelation that has reached its climax in our being able, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to confess Jesus as the Eternal Father’s Word and Son. Surely our Christian language about God must always be regulated by the Holy Scriptures, and by the dogmatic tradition of the Church, which interprets the content of Scripture in a nor- ma- tive way. Yet there always remains the difficult herme- neutical problem of applying particular Scriptural terms and texts to the inner life of God, and of knowing when a pas- sage refers simply to God’s action within the “economy ” of saving history, or when it should be understood as referring absolutely to God’s being in itself. The division between our Churches on the Filioque question would probably be less acute if both sides, through the centuries, had remained more conscious of the limitations of our knowledge of God. 在所有在神的奥秘中关於圣灵的起源并父、子和圣灵彼此间的关系的讨论中，心思当首先 培养的是敬虔的谦虚。关於神圣的奥秘本身，我们所能描绘的非常少，我们的猜测总要冒 着某种不清晰和不肯定的风险。就像伪丢尼修提醒我们的，『没有任何的联合或三一或数 字或一或毫无结果（No unity or trinity or number or oneness or fruitfulness）， 或任何其他被造之物或能够被被造之物所理解的事物能表达神的奥秘，超越万有的神格的 奥秘超於一切都心思和理性，它乃是以一种超素质的方式超越万有。』（On the Divine Names 13.3）我们作为基督徒，承认我们的神是绝对并不可分割的一位，是父和子和圣灵 ——三个从未能被与其他位格混合或被消减成为其他位格的『位格』，每一个位格都是完 整并真正的神，在它们与其他位格的关系中是独一并在和谐中是完整的——这是我们从神 在人类历史中的自我启示所学习到的认知的简要概述，这个其实在我们在圣灵的能力中能 够承认耶稣是父永远的道和子的时候，达到它的高峰。我们基督教描述神的语言当然必须 总是被圣经并教会的教义传统所规范，它们用一种规范的方式来诠释圣经的内容。然而， 在使用某些特殊的圣经词汇和经文来描绘神内在事呢干嘛的时候，总是有一些困难的释经 难题，就是要知道某处经文仅仅指的是神在救赎历史的『经纶』中的行动，抑或是指向神 在自身中绝对的存有。这个分裂我们两个教会的Filioque的问题可能就不会那麽尖锐，如 果双方在许多世纪以来，能够更为主要我们对於神的知识的界限。 Secondly, discussion of this difficult subject has often been hampered by pole - mical distortions, in which each side has caricatured the position of the other for the purposes of argument. It is not true, for instance, that mainstream Orthodox theology conceives of the procession of the Spirit, within God’s eternal being, as simply unaffected by the relationship of the Son to the Father, or thinks of the Spirit as not “belonging” properly to the Son when the Spirit is sent forth in history. It is also not true that mainstream Latin theology has traditionally begun its Trinitarian reflections from an abstract, unscriptural consideration of the divine substance, or affirms two causes of the Spirit’s hypostatic existence, or means to assign the Holy Spirit a role subordinate to the Son, either within the Mystery of God or in God’s saving action in history. 其次，讨论这个难解的题目往往被辩论中的扭曲所限制，各方用夸张的方式讽刺对方的意 图。例如，相信东正教主流神学认为圣灵在神永远的存有中发出，完全不受子与父的关系 的影响，或认为圣灵在历史中被差派的时候不『属於』子，都是错误的。同样的，认为拉 丁主流神学在传统上从一种更为抽象、对於神圣素质非圣经的思路展开它的三一论，或肯 定圣灵起源自两个位格的存有，或赋予圣灵一种次於子的角色，不论是在神的奥秘的范围 中，或在神在历史中救赎的行动里面，也是错误的。 We are convinced from our own study that the Eastern and Western theological traditions have been in substantial agreement, since the patristic period, on a number of fundamental affirmations about the Holy Trinity that bear on the Filioque debate: 我们根据我们的研究相信，东方和西方的神学传统在根本上是相同的哦，因为教父时代在 关於神圣三一的一些基本认定上，就具有Filioque的争议。 财 both traditions clearly affirm that the Holy Spirit is a distinct hypostasis or person within the divine Mystery, equal in status to the Father and the Son, and is not simply a creature or a way of talking about God’s action in creatures; 两个传统明确的肯定圣灵在神圣的奥秘中是一个独立的hypostasis或位格，其地位与父和 子相同，不是一个被造之外，或一种论及神创造万物之行动的方式。 财 although the Creed of 381 does not state it explicitly, both traditions confess the Holy Spirit to be God, of the same divine substance (homoousios) as Father and Son; 虽然381年的信经没有刻意描述圣灵，两个传统都承认圣灵是神，与父和子有同样神圣的 素质（同质）； 财 both traditions also clearly affirm that the Father is the primordial source (arch‘) and ultimate cause (aitia) of the divine being, and thus of all God’s operations: the “spring” from which both Son and Spirit flow, the “root” of their being and fruitfulness, the “sun” from which their existence and their activity radiates; 两个传统都明确的认定父是神圣存有的原始源头（arch）并最终起因（aitia），因此神 所有的运行：子和圣灵流出的『泉』，他们存有和结果子的『根』，祂们的存有和活动从 祂散发而出； 财 both traditions affirm that the three hypostases or persons in God are constituted in their hypostatic existence and distinguished from one another solely by their relation- ships of origin, and not by any other characteristics or activities; 两个传统都肯定身里面的三个hypostases或位格； accordingly, both traditions affirm that all the operations of God - the activities by which God summons created reality into being, and forms that reality, for its well-being, into a unified and ordered cosmos centered on the human creature, who is made in God’s image – are the common work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, even though each of them plays a distinctive role within those operations that is determined by their relationships to one another. 有监於此，两个传统都肯定神所有的活动——神呼召那些被造的实体进入它们的存在、塑 造那个实体，因为神良善的旨意乃是要建立以人类被造物为中心的一个联合的并有次序的 宇宙，人类乃是照着神的形像被造——这个形像是父、子和圣灵共同的工作，虽然祂们每 一位在那些运行中都具有不同的角色，这个运行乃是根据祂们每一位间的关系所决定的。 Nevertheless, the Eastern and Western traditions of reflection on the Mystery of God have clearly developed categories and conceptions that differ in substantial ways from one another. These differences cannot simply be explained away, or be made to seem equivalent by facile argument. We might summarize our differences as follows: 即便如此，东方和西方反应神的奥秘的传统都具有明确已经发展完成的分类和观念，彼此 间是非常不同的。那些不同不能仅仅的靠解释就可以解决，或使用简单的论述让它们看起 来是等同的。我们可以将双方的差异总结为： 1) Terminology——名词 The Filioque controversy is first of all a controversy over words. As a number of recent authors have pointed out, part of the theological disagreement between our communions seems to be rooted in subtle but significant differences in the way key terms have been used to refer to the Spirit’s divine origin. The original text of the Creed of 381, in speaking of the Holy Spirit, characterizes him in terms of John 15.26, as the one “ who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father”: probably influenced by the usage of Gregory the Theologian (Or. 31.8), the Council chose to restrict itself to the Johannine language, slightly altering the Gospel text (changing to pneuma…ho para tou Patros ekporeuetai to: to pneuma to hagion… to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon) in order to empha- size that the “coming forth” of the Spirit begins “within” the Father’s own eternal hypo- static role as source of the divine Being, and so is best spoken of as a kind of “movement out of (ek)” him. The underlying connotation of ekporeuesthai (“proceed,” “issue forth”) and its related noun, ekporeusis (“procession”), seems to have been that of a “passage outwards” from within some point of origin. Since the time of the Cappadocian Fathers, at least, Greek theology almost always restricts the theological use of this term to the coming-forth of the Spirit from the Father, giving it the status of a technical term for the relationship of those two divine persons. In contrast, other Greek words, such as proienai, “go forward,” are frequently used by the Eastern Fathers to refer to the Spirit’s saving “mis- sion” in history from the Father and the risen Lord. Filioque的争议首先是一个名词的争议。就如同许多近代作者已经指出的，我们两个团体 间的歧见部分似乎是根植於细微但又具有重大意义的，在用来描述圣灵的神圣起源的关键 词汇间的不同。381年原始的本文在论到圣灵的时候，用约翰15：26来描述祂的特徵，就 是『从父而出（ekporeuetai）』：可能受到了神学家贵格利（Gregory the Theologian, OR 31.8）的影响，大会选择受约翰语言的约束，仅对福音书的本文做出微 小的修正（把to pneuma…ho para tou Patros ekporeuetai to改成：to pneuma to hagion… to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon）为的是强调圣灵从父自己永远位格的角色 『中发出』，而这个角色就是圣灵神圣存有的源头，因此，最後说到某种的『从祂而出的 运动（ek）』。Ekporeuesthai（发出）这个字潜在的含义和与它相关的名词， ekporeusis，看起来都具有从某种起源点内部发出的『向外的通路（pasaage outwards） 』的意义。因为在加帕多家教父的年代，最起码在希腊神学中，总是限制不把这个词用在 圣灵从父而出上面，也不把它视为那两个位格间的关系的技术用语。相反地，其他的希腊 名词，就像proienai，『从。。。而出』，往往被东方教父们用来描述圣灵从父和复活的 主，在历史中救赎的『任务』。 The Latin word procedere, on the other hand, with its related noun processio, suggests simply “movement forwards,” without the added implication of the starting-point of that movement; thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms, including proienai, and is explicitly taken by Thomas Aquinas to be a general term denoting “origin of any kind” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 36, a.2), including – in a Trinitarian context - the Son’s generation as well as the breathing-forth of the Spirit and his mission in time. As a result, both the primordial origin of the Spirit in the eternal Father and his “coming forth” from the risen Lord tend to be designated, in Latin, by the same word, procedere, while Greek theology normally uses two dif - - fer- ent terms. Although the difference between the Greek and the Latin tradi- tions of under- standing the eternal origin of the Spirit is more than simply a verbal one, much of the ori- gi- nal concern in the Greek Church over the insertion of the word Filioque into the Latin trans- lation of the Creed of 381 may well have been due – as Maximus the Confessor explained (Letter to Marinus: PG 91.133-136) - to a misunder- standing on both sides of the different ranges of meaning implied in the Greek and Latin terms for “ procession”. 在另一方面，拉丁字procedere以及与其相关的名称processio，仅仅具有『向前的运动（ movement forwards）』的意义，缺少了运动的起点的含义；因此，它被用来翻译一些其 他的希腊文神学术语，包括proienai并特别别阿奎那（Thomas Aquinas）当做用来代表『 某种起源』（神学总纲 I,q.36, a.2）的一般性名称，包括——在一种三一神的背景中— —子的出生和圣灵为了执行其任务被吹出。这就造成，圣灵在永远的父中超越万有的起源 并其从父和的主的『发出』在拉丁文中都特别被用『procedere』来表达，在同时，希腊 神学方面一般使用两个不同的词。虽然希腊和拉丁传统在了解子永恒的起源上有不同的理 解，希腊教会都与把Filioque插入381年信经的拉丁文翻译最原始的顾虑乃是因为——认 信者马克西姆（Maximus the Confessor）的解释（Letter to Marinus: PG 91.133-136 ）——双方都误解了希腊和拉丁使用『发出（procession）』这个字的意义。 2) The Substantive Issues/实质性的问题 Clearly two main issues separate the Eastern and Western Churches in their history of debating the Filioque: one theological, in the strict sense, and one ecclesiological. 很明显的，在东方和西方教会争辩Filioque的历史中，有两个造成双方分裂的主要议题： a) Theological:/神学方面： If “theology” is understood in its Patristic sense, as reflection on God as Trinity, the theological issue behind this dispute is whether the Son is to be thought of as playing any role in the origin of the Spirit, as a hypostasis or divine “person,” from the Father, who is the sole ultimate source of the divine Mystery. The Greek tradition, as we have seen, has generally relied on John 15.26 and the formulation of the Creed of 381 to assert that all we know of the Spirit’s hypostatic origin is that he “pro- ceeds from the Father,” in a way distinct from, but parallel to, the Son’s “generation” from the Father (e.g., John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith 1.8). However, this same tradition acknowledges that the “mission” of the Spirit in the world also involves the Son, who receives the Spirit into his own humanity at his baptism, breathes the Spirit forth onto the Twelve on the evening of the resurrection, and sends the Spirit in power into the world, through the charismatic preaching of the Apostles, at Pentecost. On the other hand, the Latin tradition since Tertullian has tended to assume that since the order in which the Church normally names the persons in the Trinity places the Spirit after the Son, he is to be thought of as coming forth “from ” the Father “through” the Son. Augustine, who in several passages himself insists that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” because as God he is not inferior to the Son (De Fide et Symbolo 9.19; Enchiridion 9.3), develops, in other texts, his classic understanding that the Spirit also “ proceeds” from the Son because he is, in the course of sacred history, the Spirit and the “gift” of both Father and Son (e.g., On the Trinity 4.20.29; Tractate on Gospel of John 99.6-7), the gift that begins in their own eternal exchange of love (On the Trinity 15.17.29). In Augustine’s view, this involve - ment of the Son in the Spirit’s procession is not understood to contradict the Father’s role as the single ultimate source of both Son and Spirit, but is itself given by the Father in generating the Son: “the Holy Spirit, in turn, has this from the Father himself, that he should also proceed from the Son, just as he proceeds from the Father” (Tractate on Gospel of John 99.8). 根据教父对於『神学』这个词的理解，它是三一身的反射，在这个神学议题背後的争议乃 是，作为一个hypostasis或神圣的『位格』，子是否当被认为在圣灵从父的起源中具有任 何的角色，而父是神圣奥秘的唯一并致终的源头。如同我们已经看见的，希腊传统一般而 言根据约翰15：26和381年信经中的公式来建成我们对於圣灵位格所有的人是就是祂『从 父而来』，与子从父的『出生』不同，但又是平行的。（例如：大马色的约翰，ON the Orthodox Faith 1.8）然而，这个传统也承认圣灵在世界的『任务』也需要子的参与，子 在受浸的时候将圣灵领受到祂的人性中，在复活日的傍晚将圣灵吹入十二使徒里面，并差 遣能力的灵进入世界，藉着使徒们在五旬节的传讲。在另一方面，因为特土良倾向於强调 因为教会称呼三一神位格的次序往往将圣灵放在子之後，祂被认为是『藉着』子并『从父 而来』。奥古斯丁在他自己的好几段话中坚称圣灵『从父而来』，因为作为神，圣灵并不 会比子低（De Fide et Symbolo 9.19；Enchiridion 9.3），在其他的段落中发展了他对 於圣灵也从子『发出』的经典观点，因为祂在神圣历史的进程中，当然是圣灵并父和子的 『恩典』（例如：论三位一体4.20.29；Tractate on Gospel of John 99.6-7），恩典乃 是在他们自己外在爱的交换中开始的（论三位一体15.17.29）。在奥古斯丁的观点中，这 个子对於圣灵发生的参与不能被理解为与父作为子和圣灵独一并终极的源头的角色相对， 而是父在产生子的时候所赐予的：『反而，圣灵乃是从父自己而来的，祂也是从子而来的 ，就如同祂从父而来的一样。』（Tractate on Gospel of John 99.8） Much of the difference between the early Latin and Greek traditions on this point is clearly due to the subtle difference of the Latin procedere from the Greek ekporeuesthai: as we have observed, the Spirit’s “coming forth” is designated in a more general sense by the Latin term, without the connotation of ultimate origin hinted at by the Greek. The Spirit’s “procession” from the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his “procession” from the Father, even when – as in the explanations of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas – the relationship of Father and Son to the Holy Spirit is spoken of as constituting “a single principle” of the Spirit’s origin: even in breathing forth the Spirit together, according to these later Latin theologians, the Father retains priority, giving the Son all that he has and making possible all that he does. 早期拉丁和希腊传统在这个点上的分歧明显的是因为对於拉丁文procedere和希腊文 ekporeuesthai不同的理解：就好像我们已经解释的，圣灵『从。。。而出』在拉丁文中 被认为具有一种更为普遍的意义，而不是希腊文中所暗示的最终起源的意义。然而，圣灵 的从子『发出』在拉丁神学中被认为是某种与祂从父『发出』不同的关系，即便是当—— 如同安瑟伦和阿奎那所解释的——父和子对圣灵的关系往往别描述为构成一种圣灵源头的 『单一的原理（single principle』：基本在一同吹圣灵的时候，根据稍後的拉丁神学家 们，父仍然具有优先的地位，赐给子所以祂所需要的一切，并让祂将要做的一切成为可能 。 Greek theologians, too, have often struggled to find ways of expressing a sense that the Son, who sends forth the Spirit in time, also plays a mediating role of some kind in the Spirit’s eternal being and activity. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, explains that we can only distinguish the hypostases within the Mystery of God by “believing that one is the cause, the other is from the cause; and in that which is from the cause, we recognize yet another distinction: one is immediately from the first one, the other is through him who is immediately from the first one.” It is characteristic of the “mediation” (mesiteia) of the Son in the origin of the Spirit, he adds, that it both pre- serves his own unique role as Son and allows the Spirit to have a “natural relationship” to the Father. (To Ablabius: GNO III/1, 56.3-10) In the thirteenth century, the Council of Blachernae (1285), under the leadership of Constantinopolitan Patriarch Gregory II, took further steps to interpret Patristic texts that speak of the Spirit’s being “through” the Son in a sense con- sis- tent with the Orthodox tradition. The Council proposed in its Tomos that although Chris- tian faith must maintain that the Holy Spirit receives his existence and hypostatic identity solely from the Father, who is the single cause of the divine Being, he “shines from and is manifested eternally through the Son, in the way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays.” (trans. A. Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium [St. Vladimir ’s, 1996] 219) In the following century, Gregory Palamas proposed a similar interpretation of this relationship in a number of his works; in his Confession of 1351, for instance, he asserts that the Holy Spirit “has the Father as foundation, source, and cause,” but “reposes in the Son” and “ is sent – that is, manifested – through the Son.” (ibid. 194) In terms of the transcendent divine energy, although not in terms of substance or hypostatic being, “the Spirit pours itself out from the Father through the Son, and, if you like, from the Son over all those worthy of it,” a communication which may even be broadly called “procession” (ekporeusis) (Apodeictic Treatise 1: trans. J. Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas [St. Vladimir’s, 1974] 231-232). 希腊神学家们也总是一直在挣扎着寻找子在时间中差遣出圣灵并且在圣灵的永恒存有与活 动中占有某种中介地位的表达方式。例如：尼撒的贵格利解释说，我们只能藉着『相信以 我是起因，另一位是从起因来的；并且在从起因来的那位中我们仍然能够发现另外不同的 一位：一位是直接从第一位来的，另一位是藉着那位直接从第一位来的而有的，』而分辨 在神的奥秘中的不同位格。子在圣灵起源中所具有的『中保（msiteia）』的特徵，同时 保留了祂自己作为子的角色，也让圣灵具有一种与父的，『基於性质的关系（natural relationship）』。（To Ablabius: GNO III/1, 56.3-10）在十三世纪，Blachernae大 会（1285）在康士坦丁堡宗主教Gregory II的领导下，对於教父论及圣灵『透过（ through）』子的本文采取了进一步的，与东正教传统一致的解释。大会提出了自己的 Tomos，虽然基督教的信仰必须保持圣灵仅仅从父领受其存有和位格身份的教义，父则是 神圣存有（divine Being）的唯一起因，祂『透过子在永恒中发出亮光并被羡慕，就如同 光藉着太阳的光线的中介，照出来并被显明一样。』（A. Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium [St. Vladimir’s, 1996] 219翻译。）在接下来的世纪中，Gregory Palamas 在他的许多作品中提出了一个对於这个关系的类似解释；例如，他在他的1351年认信（ Confession）中，坚称圣灵『有父为其基础，源头和起因，』但是『安息於子中』并『透 过子被差遣——就是，被彰显』。（ibid. 194）关於神圣能量的超越性，罪人并未使用 实质或位格的存有这样的名词，但说到『圣灵从父透过子将自己倾倒出来，如果你愿意， 可以这样说，从中倾倒在所有配得过的事物之上，』这个交通可以在更为广泛的程度上被 称作『发出』（ekporeusis）（Apodeictic Treatise 1: trans. J. Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas [St. Vladimir’s, 1974] 231-232）。 The Greek and Latin theological traditions clearly remain in some tension with each other on the fundamental issue of the Spirit’s eternal origin as a distinct divine person. By the Middle Ages, as a result of the influence of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, Western theology almost universally conceives of the identity of each divine person as defined by its “relations of opposition ” – in other words, its mutually defining relations of origin - to the other two, and concludes that the Holy Spirit would not be hypostatically distinguishable from the Son if the Spirit “proceeded” from the Father alone. In the Latin understanding of processio as a general term for “origin, ” after all, it can also be said that the Son “proceeds from the Father” by being generated from him. Eastern theology, drawing on the language of John 15.26 and the Creed of 381, continues to understand the language of “ procession” (ekporeusis) as denoting a unique, exclusive, and distinctive causal relationship between the Spirit and the Father, and generally confines the Son’s role to the “manifestation” and “mission” of the Spirit in the divine activities of creation and redemption. These differences, though subtle, are substantial, and the very weight of theological tradition behind both of them makes them all the more difficult to reconcile theologically with each other. 希腊和拉丁的神学传统明显的仍然各自保留了某些关於圣灵作为不同位格的永远起源的根 本张力。在中世纪，安瑟伦和阿奎那的影响的结果造成西方神学几乎全面性的认为每个神 圣位格的身份当被定义为它和另外两个位格的『相对关系（relations of opposition） 』——换句话说，它彼此定义了起源的关系——并结论到，圣灵不能在位格上被从子分割 出来，如果圣灵仅仅是从父『发出』。在拉丁方面的理解中，processio乃是『起源』的 普遍用语，追根究底，我们也能说子因着从父被生出，也是『从父发出』。根据约翰15： 26和381年新建语言的东方神学，继续将『发出』（ekporeusis）的语言理解为，代表一 种在圣灵和父之间独一无二，特殊的，并与众不同的起因关系，这个关系一般而言限制了 子在神圣创造和救赎的行动里面，子『显明』或『差遣圣灵去执行任务』的角色。那些在 两个神学传统背後的分别虽然是微妙的，但是却是根本性的，让双方在神学上彼此难以和 解。 b) Ecclesiological:/教会论 The other issue continually present since the late eighth century in the debate over the Filioque is that of pastoral and teaching authority in the Church – more precisely, the issue of the authority of the bishop of Rome to resolve dogmatic questions in a final way, simply in virtue of his office. Since the Council of Ephesus (431), the dogmatic tradition of both Eastern and Western Churches has repeatedly affirmed that the final norm of orthodoxy in interpreting the Christian Gospel must be “the faith of Nicaea.” The Orthodox tradition sees the normative expression of that faith to be the Creeds and canons formulated by those Councils that are received by the Apostolic Churches as “ecumenical”: as expressing the continuing and universal Apostolic faith. The Catholic tradition also accepts conciliar formulations as dogmatically normative, and attributes a unique importance to the seven Councils that are accepted as ecumenical by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. However, in recognizing the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome in matters of faith and of the service of unity, the Catholic tradition accepts the authority of the Pope to confirm the process of conciliar reception, and to define what does and does not conflict with the “ faith of Nicaea” and the Apostolic tradition. So while Orthodox theology has regarded the ultimate approval by the Popes, in the eleventh century, of the use of Filioque in the Latin Creed as a usurpation of the dogmatic authority proper to ecumenical Councils alone, Catholic theology has seen it as a legitimate exercise of his primatial authority to proclaim and clarify the Church’s faith. As our own common study has repeatedly shown, it is precisely at times in which issues of power and control have been of concern to our Churches that the question of the Filioque has emerged as a central concern: held out as a condition for improving relations, or given as a reason for allowing disunity to continue unhealed. 从八世纪开始，另一个不断浮在台面上的，关於Filioque的议题是教会在教牧和教导上的 权柄的问题——更准确的说，是关於罗马主教解决教义争议的最终权威，仅仅是他的职位 的缘故。自以弗所大会（431）後，东方和西方教会的教育传统不断重复肯定『尼西亚信 仰』才是诠释基督教福音最终的整体形式。东正教传统认为由那些被使徒教会认定为『大 公』的会议制定的信经和教规才是表达信仰的标准格式。天主教的传统也接受大公会议的 共识作为教义的标准反驳，并认为七次大公会议具有独一无二的重要性，当被天主教和东 正教视为大公性的会议。然而，天主教认为罗马主教在信仰和教会合一的服侍的事物上， 在全世界的教会中具有首席的地位，天主教传统接受教皇人的大公会议被教会接受，并定 义什麽与『尼西亚信仰』与使徒传统冲突或符合『尼西亚信仰』与使徒传统的权威的事物 。当东正教神学热瓦努教皇在十一世纪最终认定在拉丁文版的信经使用Filioque的权威是 一种窜夺了大公性会议的教义权威的同时，天主教神学则视其为一种为宣告并澄清教会信 仰，而合法的使用其首席权威的做法。根据我们共同的研究所不断表明的，这正是在权力 和控制的问题成为双方教会所顾虑的问题，而进一步促使Filioque发展成为一个核心顾虑 的时候：构成了双方改善关系，或提供了一个不医治分裂的理由。 As in the theological question of the origin of the Holy Spirit discussed above, this divergence of understanding of the structure and exercise of authority in the Church is clearly a very serious one: undoubtedly Papal primacy, with all its implications, remains the root issue behind all the questions of theology and practice that continue to divide our communions. In the continuing discussion of the Filioque between our Churches, however, we have found it helpful to keep these two issues methodologically separate from one another, and to recognize that the mystery of the relationships among the persons in God must be approached in a different way from the issue of whether or not it is proper for the Western Churches to profess the faith of Nicaea in terms that diverge from the original text of the Creed of 381. 就像前述关於圣灵起源这个神学问题的讨论，这个理解教会的架构和施行权威的歧见明显 的是非常严重的：毫无疑问的，教皇的优先权并延伸出来的其他问题仍然是在所有神学并 施行问题後面的根本原因，并进行分裂我们的团体。在我们教会间对於Filioque的讨论中 ，我们发现把这两个问题分开处理，将承认在神里面的位格间的关系的奥秘必须用另一种 ，不一定合乎西方教会所承认的，与381年信经本文间具有差异的尼西亚信仰的方式来处 理，是非常有帮助的。 3) Continuing our Reflections/延续我们的思路 It has often been remarked that the theology of the Holy Spirit is an underdeveloped region of Christian theological reflection. This seems to hold true even of the issue of the origin of the Holy Spirit. Although a great deal has been written about the reasons for and against the theology of the Filioque since the Carolingian era, most of it has been polemical in nature, aimed at justifying positions assumed by both sides to be non-negotiable. Little effort has been made, until modern times, to look for new ways of expressing and explaining the Biblical and early Christian understanding of the person and work of the Holy Spirit, which might serve to frame the discussion in a new way and move all the Churches towards a consensus on essential matters that would be in continuity with both traditions. Recently, a number of theologians, from a variety of Churches, have suggested that the time may now be at hand to return to this question together, in a genuinely ecumenical spirit, and to seek for new developments in our articulation of the Apostolic faith that may ultimately win ecumenical Christian reception. 人们往往指出圣灵的神学是一块尚未开发的基督教神学领域。於圣灵的起源这个题目看起 来确实是如此。虽然从查理曼时代开始，就已经有许多关於反对Filioque神学并提供理由 的着作面试，大部分着作的本质都是辩论性的，想要将双方那种不可妥协的立场合理化。 直到近代，几乎没有人尝试寻找表达并解释圣经和早期基督教对於圣灵的位格和工作之理 解的新方法，这种新方法可以用新的模式建构讨论，并让所有的教会对於两个传统中重叠 的根本议题达到共识。近期，有许多来自不同教会的神学家，带着真正大公的精神，尝试 在我们所呈现的使徒信仰中进行新的发展，这种努力可能最终被大公教会基督徒接受。 Recognizing its challenges, our Consultation supports such a common theological enterprise. It is our hope that a serious process of reflection on the theology of the Holy Spirit, based on the Scriptures and on the whole tradition of Christian theology, and conducted with an openness to new formulations and conceptual structures consonant with that tradition, might help our Churches to discover new depths of common faith and to grow in respect for the wisdom of our respective forbears. We urge, too, that both our Churches persist in their efforts to reflect – together and separately – on the theology of primacy and synodality within the Church’s structures of teaching and pastoral practice, recognizing that here also a continuing openness to doctrinal and practical development, intimately linked to the Spirit’s work in the community, remains crucially necessary. Gregory Nazianzen reminds us, in his Fifth Theological Oration on the divinity of the Holy Spirit, that the Church’s slow discovery of the Spirit’s true status and identity is simply part of the “order of theology (taxis tēs theologias),” by which “lights break upon us gradually” in our understanding of the saving Mystery of God. (Or. 31.27) Only if we “listen to what the Spirit is saying to the Churches” (Rev 3.22), will we be able to remain faithful to the Good News preached by the Apostles, while growing in the understanding of that faith, which is theology’s task. 因着了解这个题目的调整，我们的委员会支持那种共同的神学组织。我们希望能根据圣经 并整个基督教神学的传统，产生对於圣灵神学真正有意义的进展，我们对於任何符合那个 传统，并能够帮助我们的教会来发掘共同信仰的深度，且帮助我们更为尊重我们各自的先 祖的智慧而产生的新共识并观念性的架构，采取开放的态度。我们也督促我们双方的教会 要继续维持他们的努力——不论是一同或是各自——就是关於教会的教育和牧养的实行的 架构中所具有的优先地位和主教会议（synodality）的神学，肯定在教义和实行的方面仍 然有继续发展的空间，这都与圣灵在群体的工作有密切的联系，仍然是非常需要的的。拿 先斯的贵格利在他论及圣灵神性的第五篇神学论文中提醒我们，教会之所以缓慢的发现圣 灵真正的地位和身份仅仅是『神学的次序（taxis tēs theologias）』的一部分，藉着 这个神学，『光逐渐向我们打开』使我们了解神救赎的奥秘。（Or. 31.27）只有当我们 愿意『听从圣灵对教会所说的话』（Rev 3.22）的时候，我们才能对使徒所传扬的好信息 （福音）忠信，在同时，能够更认识那个信仰，这就是神学的责任。 III. Recommendations/建议 We are aware that the problem of the theology of the Filioque, and its use in the Creed, is not simply an issue between the Catholic and Orthodox communions. Many Protestant Churches, too, drawing on the theological legacy of the Medieval West, consider the term to represent an integral part of the orthodox Christian confession. Although dialogue among a number of these Churches and the Orthodox communion has already touched on the issue, any future resolution of the disagreement between East and West on the origin of the Spirit must involve all those communities that profess the Creed of 381 as a standard of faith. Aware of its limitations, our Consultation nonetheless makes the following theological and practical recommendations to the members and the bishops of our own Churches: 我们非常清楚Filioque的神学问题，并在信经中的使用方式，不仅仅是一个在天主教和东 正教群体间的问题。许多抗议宗教育，也从中世纪的西方继承了神学，认为那个词代表一 种东正教基督徒对信仰宣告不可分割的一部分。虽然，这些教会与与东正教的对话已经开 始触及这个问题，任何进一步解决东方和西方在关於圣灵起源的分歧的方案，需要所有那 些承认381年信经作为信仰准则的教会共同参与。因着了解这个限制，我们的委员会向我 们各自教会的成员和主教们提供了一下的神学并可操作的建议： 财 that our Churches commit themselves to a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit, drawing on the Holy Scriptures and on the full riches of the theological traditions of both our Churches, and to looking for constructive ways of expressing what is central to our faith on this difficult issue; 我们的教会愿意根据圣经并我们双方教会丰富的神学传统，投身於一种新的并热切的，关 於圣灵的起源并位格的对话，在我们信仰的核心中寻找有建设性的表达方式来表达这个难 题； 财 that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God; 所有参与对话的各方都表达，愿意承认我们能力是有限度，不能做出任何关於神内在生命 的，具有决定性的方案； 财 that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit; 在未来，因这几十年来彼此的认识已经达到某个程度，东正教和天主教都克制不再把对方 关於圣灵发生的传统打上异端的标签； 财 that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution; 东正教和天主教的神学家们更清楚的区分圣灵神格和位格的身份，但仍然需要更为全面和 终极的大公性解决方案； 财 that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together; 那些参与这个题目对话的人士都尽可能的把圣灵起源的神学议题从教会中关於优先性并教 义的权威区分开来，我们甚至都很严肃的一同研究这两个问题； 财 that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical. 教会间的神学对话也为後续我们双方教会，在哪七个被普遍认定为大公会议之後举办的会 议提出谨慎的考量。 财 that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use. 天主教会因为381年信经正式并不可推翻之教义价值的结果，仅仅使用原始希腊文的本文 作为教理和礼仪使用的本文的翻译 财 that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable. 天主教会跟随逐渐增加的神学共识，特别是教皇Paul VI的宣言，宣告里昂第二次大会（ the Second Council of Lyons, 1274）对於那些『否定圣灵永远从父和子而出』的人的 咒诅不在适用。 We offer these recommendations to our Churches in the conviction, based on our own intense study and discussion, that our traditions’ different ways of understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit need no longer divide us. We believe, rather, that our profession of the ancient Creed of Constantinople must be allowed to become, by our uniform practice and our new attempts at mutual understanding, the basis for a more conscious unity in the one faith that all theology simply seeks to clarify and to deepen. Although our expression of the truth God reveals about his own Being must always remain limited by the boundaries of human understanding and human words, we believe that it is the very “Spirit of truth,” whom Jesus breathes upon his Church, who remains with us still, to “guide us into all truth” (John 16.13). We pray that our Churches’ understanding of this Spirit may no longer be a scandal to us, or an obstacle to unity in Christ, but that the one truth towards which he guides us may truly be “a bond of peace” (Eph 4.3), for us and for all Christians. 我们对各自的教会提出那些建议，并相信，根据我们自己密集的研究和讨论，我们的传统 中不同理解圣灵发出的方式不再分离我们。我们相信，反而，我们承认古代康士坦丁信经 必须藉着我们共同的实行和我们彼此认识的新努力，成为在一个信仰中更为彼此认同的合 一体，所有的神学不过就是为了澄清并加深彼此的认识。虽然我们表示神所启示的，关於 祂自己存有之真理的方式总是因着人类理解能力并语言的限制而成为有限的，我们相信， 乃是耶稣吹入祂的教会中那位『真理的圣灵』，仍然与我们同在，『引导我们进入所有的 真理中』（John 16:13）。我们祷告我们各自教会对於这位圣灵的理解不在成为我们之间 的拦阻，或在基督里联合的困难，而让祂引导我们进入的那一个真理能够真正的成为『和 平的连锁』（Eph 4.3），为了我们，也是为了所有的基督徒。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 49.219.26.118 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Catholic/M.1509720305.A.743.html ※ df31:转录至看板 Christianity 11/03 22:45