有鑑於某位自稱是東正教的不知名人士，因為對於『和子（filiouque）』議題，以及東 正教和天主教雙方對於此議題對話結果的無知，大模大樣的在這裡用自己不知道的東西擺 出一副『正統』的架勢，並指責天主教方面的錯誤。再加上某位持自由主義神學的新教分 子的鼓動。真的讓人覺得無語+無奈。 剛好看見網絡有一份名為《『和子』：一個分裂教會的議題？》文章，論到東正教和天主 教的整個對話的報告，特別轉貼過來，以正視聽。 雙方神學家在本文中做出的四個肯定是大家應當注意的。 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; 兩個傳統明確的肯定聖靈在神聖的奧秘中是一個獨立的hypostasis或位格，其地位與父和 子相同，不是一個被造之外，或一種論及神創造萬物之行動的方式。 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; 雖然381年的信經沒有刻意描述聖靈，兩個傳統都承認聖靈是神，與父和子有同樣神聖的 素質（同質）； 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; 兩個傳統都明確的認定父是神聖存有的原始源頭（arch）並最終起因（aitia），因此神 所有的運行：子和聖靈流出的『泉』，他們存有和結果子的『根』，祂們的存有和活動從 祂散發而出； 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; 兩個傳統都肯定身裡面的三個hypostases或位格； 特別是雙方的結論： 在未來，因這幾十年來彼此的認識已經達到某個程度，東正教和天主教都克制不再把對方 關於聖靈發生的傳統打上異端的標籤； 基本上就已經為這個題目做出了最後的判定。 所以，在下希望東正教和天主教在『和子（Filiouque）』的題目上達成的共識和良好的 關係，不會因為下面某些『極端分子』，或不相干的『無聊分子』破壞。 畢竟耶穌的教導是： Mat 5:9使人和睦的人有福了，因為他們必稱為 神的兒子。 而不是製造紛爭。 以下是全文。 ================================================ The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? 『和子』：一個分裂教會的議題？ An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation 北美東正教—天主教神學會議共同宣言 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. 從1999到2003，北美東正教—天主教會議著重於一個被超過十二個世紀以來認為是分裂我 們兩個教會的根本議題：對於聖靈在三一神內在生命中的起源不同的思考和論述方式。雖 然我們雙方的傳統都承認『尼西亞信仰』作為我們對於神和神介入祂的創作的理解標準的 表達方式，並認為經典的信仰宣告就是381年第一次康士坦丁堡會議所修訂的尼西亞信經 版本，絕大多數的天主教和西方基督教在第六世紀之後就使用了一個拉丁文，在『從父而 出（proceeds from the Father）』這段話上加上了『和子』的段落：『並從子（and from the Son）。』對於大部分的西方教會而言，這個詞一直是他們核心信仰公式的一部 分，這個公式在教會禮儀上被宣告並成為其教理並神學的基礎。對於天主教和大部分的抗 議宗，它僅僅是教會正常教導的一部分，也融入了他們對於神聖三一教理的理解中。然而 從第八世紀開始，西方信經版本出現的這個詞對於西方基督教而言則成為一種醜聞的根源 ，乃是因為它對於三位一體神學的表述方式，並因為它已經被大量的西方教會納入正式的 大公教會會議的信仰公式，而與大公教會的約定不同。東方和西方基督徒在中世紀的裂痕 更為嚴重，與Filioque相關的神學並教會架構及全部的問題藉著這個詞而被提出，逐漸擴 大成為雙方分歧的標誌，成為分裂的基督教各方認為對方所缺少或扭曲的經典標誌。 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). 我們對於這個問題的共同研究包括了這個會議共同的研究，基於禱告的回應並密集的討論 。我們希望在這個過程中由我們的成員所撰寫的許多寶貴能夠一同發表，作為我們共同宣 言的神學背景。從歷史和神學角度都是如此複雜的題目，如果要清楚的看見問題的真正本 質，需要詳細的解釋。我們的討論和共同宣言本身不能結束這個在我們教會中延續許多世 紀的分歧。然而，我們確實希望，它們能夠為促進雙方彼此的理解和尊重，教我們的教會 在神的時間中，我們思考並論述聖靈的起源不再是分裂的原因，祂的果子乃是愛與和平。 （加拉太5：22） I. The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures/聖經中的聖靈 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). 在舊約中，『神的靈』或『主（耶和華）的靈』被描繪為低於一個神聖的位格，而是神創 造能力的長相——神的『氣息』(ruach YHWH) —— 塑造世界，使得世界成為一個有次序 並祂的百姓的居住場所，並興起個人用聖潔的方式來帶領祂的百姓。在創世紀的開篇，神 的靈『在水面運行』把混亂帶回到次序中（創世紀1：2）。在以色列人的歷史敘述中，同 一位靈也『激動』百姓的領袖（士師記13：25：三孫），讓國王和軍事領袖成為限制（撒 母耳上 10：9-12；19：18-24：掃羅和大衛），並讓先知『將好消息帶給憂傷的人“（以 賽亞61：1；參考42；1；列王記下2：9）。主告訴摩西祂已經用『神的靈』充滿工頭比撒 列，讓他能夠根據神的設計製造帳幕所有的器具（出埃及31：3）。在有些段落中，主的 『聖靈』（詩篇51：13）或『良善的靈』（詩篇143：10）看起來意表祂對於個人或整個 民族的引導，潔淨他們的靈（詩篇51：12-14）並幫助他們遵守祂的誡命，並為他們的罪 哀傷（以賽亞63：10）。在先知以西結的屬性中，關於將以色列向哦那個戰敗和放逐的死 亡中恢復的偉大異象，『氣』回到百姓乾枯的屍體，成為神自己氣息重新創造一個民族的 圖畫。『我將會把我的靈放在你們裡面，你們當活過來。。。』（以西結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). 在新約的著作中，神的聖靈（pneuma Theou）往往以一種更具有位元元格特性的方式被描 繪，並密切的與耶穌的位格和人物相連。馬太和路加清楚的表明，瑪利亞乃是藉著聖靈的 能力懷上耶穌，聖靈『覆蓋』她（馬太1：18，20；路加1：35）。四福音見證施洗約翰— —他自己『從母腹就被神論充滿』（路加1：15）——見證同一位靈以一種顯明神的能力 和揀選的方式，降在耶穌身上，當耶穌被浸的時候（馬太3：16；馬可1：10；路加3：22 ；約翰1：33）。聖靈引導耶穌進入沙漠與魔鬼征戰（馬太4：1；路加4：1），在耶穌任 務一開始的時候就用先知的能力充滿祂（路加4:18-21），並顯明在耶穌趕鬼的行動中（ 馬蹄啊12：28，32）。施洗約翰指出耶穌的任務是為祂的門徒們『用聖靈和火施浸』（馬 太3：11‘路加3：16；參考約翰1：33），一位在偉大的五旬節實踐中應驗的限制（行傳1 ：5），當門徒『披上從高處而來的能力』的時候（路加24：49；行傳1：8）。在行傳的 技術中，聖靈繼續聯合基督徒團體（4：31-32），祂讓斯提反能夠用自己的生命為耶穌見 證（8：55），祂以恩賜的方式在相信的異教徒中顯現，清楚的證明他們也在基督裡被呼 召而受盡（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) 在約翰福音結尾的結束講道，耶穌論到聖靈是那位將會在祂回到父那邊去後，在世界中接 續祂工作的。他是『真理的靈』，將會成為『另一位保慧師（parakleto）』教導並引導 祂的門徒（14：16-17），提醒他們耶穌自己所有的教訓。（14：26）在這段福音書的記 載中，耶穌給我們一個關於這位『保慧師』和祂自己，並祂的父之間的關係。耶穌應許『 從父』差遣祂，就像『真理的靈從父而來』（15：26）；並且，祂教導的真理將會是耶穌 在祂自己的位格中所啟示的真理（參考1：14；14：6）：『祂將會榮耀我，因為祂將會把 我所有的一切宣告給你們聽。父所有的一切都是我的；因此，我說，祂將會把我所有的一 切宣告給你們聽。』（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) 希伯來書簡單的根據聖經展示聖靈，就是用祂自己的話（希伯來3：7；9：8）。在保羅的 書信中，神的聖靈就是那位最終藉著作為基督復活的仲介而『證明』耶穌『在能力中是神 的兒子』的那位。（羅馬1：4；8：11）也是同一位聖靈，如今在我們裡面與我們交通， 祂向我們肯定那位復活的主，賜給我們復活和生命的盼望（羅馬8：11），並讓我們成為 神的兒女和後嗣（羅馬8：14-17），並把我們的話，甚至我們的本口拙舌化為帶著盼望的 禱告（羅馬8：23-17）.『我們並不會失望，因為神的愛已經藉著賜給我們的聖靈傾倒在 我們心中。』（羅馬5：5） II. Historical Considerations 歷史中的關注點 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. 在整個早期教會的頭幾個世紀中，拉丁和希臘傳統見證了同一個使徒的信仰，但是它們用 不同的方式描述三位元元元一體位格間的關係。這個分別一般而言反映了東西方教會所面 對的教牧方面的挑戰。尼西亞信經（325）在面對亞流異端的時候，見證了教會的信仰， 他們否定基督完整的神學。在尼西亞大會接下來的時期中，教會繼續面對關於基督完整神 學和完整人性的不同觀點，並聖靈的神格。為了對抗那些調整，出席康士坦丁堡大會（ 381）的教父們肯定了尼西亞的信仰，並根據尼西亞信經進行具有意義的擴充。 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. 一個特別當注意的地方是，信經更為肯定聖靈，一段明顯的受到該撒利亞的巴西流所持的 ，《論聖靈（On the Holy Spirit）》的傳統觀點所應許，這本書可能完成於六年前。康 士坦丁堡信經肯定了教會關於聖靈神格的信仰，說到：『主，賜生命者，在從父而出（ ekporeuetai）的聖靈中，藉著先知們說話。』雖然本文避免直接稱聖靈為『神』，或肯 定（就像亞他那修和拿先斯的貴格利所作的）聖靈是與父和子『同質』——對於當代神學 上更為謹慎的人士而言，這樣的說法無疑是非常極端的——大會明確的想要藉著這段本文 肯定教會對於聖靈完整神格的信仰，特別是為了反對那些認為聖靈是一個被造之物的人士 。在同時，大會並不關心如何明確聖靈產生的方式，或詳細解釋聖靈與父和子間的特殊關 係。 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. 康士坦丁堡大會的記錄已經遺失，但是在迦克頓大會（425）上，它的信經的本文被引用 並被認定與尼西亞大會同等。在一個世紀內，這個381年的信經就在定義信仰的過程中具 有突出的角色，在第六世紀前半葉，甚至在安替阿，康士坦丁堡並其他東部的地區中的聖 餐禮儀中被宣讀。在西方教會的地區中，信經也被視為羅馬聖餐禮儀的一部分，然而，直 到十一世紀——西方才正式的在某個重要的時間點接受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.] 沒有更明確的記錄記載Filioque在六世紀前的西方基督教中如何被插入381年的信經中。 聖靈『從父藉著子（from the Father through the Son）』而來的觀念被許多早期的拉 丁神學家們所肯定，作為他們用來在一個獨一神聖的神格中保持三個位格有次序的聯合（ 例如：特土良的Adversus Praxean 4和5）。特土良在三世紀初開始寫作，強調父、子和 聖靈都共有一個獨一的神聖素質、質量和能力，（同書2）他認為這些都是從父而出，並 藉著子傳輸給聖靈。（同書8）四世紀中的Poitiers的希拉蕊在同樣的作品中論到聖靈乃 是『從父而來』並『藉著子被差遣“（De Trinitate 12：55）；並『藉著子從父而來』 （同書12：5）；並『父和子是祂的源頭』（同書2：29）；希拉蕊在另一段話中指向約翰 16：15（當耶穌說：『父所有的一切都是我的；因此，我說[聖靈]當把我所有的一切宣告 給你們聽。』），並非常懷疑『從聖靈領受是不是與由父而出是同一件事』（同書8：20 ）。米蘭的安波羅修，在380年左右的作品公開建成聖靈『從父和子出（procedit a）』 ，他們彼此根本不是分開的（論聖靈 1.11.20）。然而，這些作者都未曾讓聖靈產生的方 程為某種特殊說法的題目；反而，他們都強調三個神聖位格的等同性就是神，並都承認只 有父是神永恆存有的源頭。[注：這段話包括了一段大會在2004年10月會議上所共同承認 的Poitiers的希拉蕊的一段話，並加以改寫。] 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. 在信經本文中第一次使用Filioque的語言是歌德國外Reccared在789年的Toledo地區大會 的信仰宣告。這個地區會議定罪了那些不接受頭四個大公教會會議的教條的人（11條）， 並那些不承認聖靈是從父和子而來的人（3條）。西班牙的主教們和Reccared國王似乎相 信在當時有一個與Filioque相同的希臘字構成了原始康士坦丁堡信經的一部分，並看起來 認為那個字的意思是為了藉由肯定父與子間親密的關係而反對亞流主義。根據Reccared的 命令，聖餐禮開始複述那個信經，模仿東方的做法。從西班牙開始，具有Filioque的信經 開始在高盧流傳。 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. 大約一個世紀後，一個英國主教們召開的大會於680召開於Hatfield，Canterbury的 Theodore宗主教監督了整個會議，他是一位教皇Vitalian設立在英國服務的拜占庭人。根 據Vanerable Bede (Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl. 4.15 [17])的記載，這個會議特別肯定了 它的信仰與頭五個大公會議一致，並宣稱聖靈『以一種無法描述的方式（ inenarrabiliter）的方式』從父和子而出。 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. 到了第七世紀，三個彼此相關的原因造成了西方把Filiouque包括在381年信經的張力，據 信某些西方人士事實上相信這個字是原始信經的一部分。首先，一種強烈的西方教父的傳 統，總結於奧古斯丁的作品中（354-430），說到聖靈從父和子而出（例如：論三位一體 4.29；15.10，12，29，37；這個傳統的意義並它的詞彙將會在接下來的段落中高盧。） 第二，在整個第四和第五世紀，在教會中流傳許多信經，往往將浸禮和教理結合。381年 的公式不被視為使徒信仰的唯一表述。在西方，最為流行的是使徒信經，一個早期的受浸 信經，包括了一種簡要的，並不詳細的，對於聖靈的信仰的肯定。然而，第三，對於後期 的西方神學具有特殊意義的張力，就是所謂的亞他那修信經（Quicunque）。雖然它被西 方人文是亞歷山大的亞他那修所撰寫，這個信經可能在500年左右寫於高盧，並被 Caesarius of Arles（+542）所引用。東方不知道這個信經的存在，但是直到今天對於西 方仍有非常大的影響力。這個信經非常依賴奧古斯丁在三位一體中的論點，明確的肯定聖 靈從父和子而出。這個信經的中心重點是它非常強烈的反亞流派基督論：論到聖靈從父和 子而出含示子的素質不會低於父，這是亞流派的說法。這個信經的影響毫無疑問的支撐了 在西歐所使用的拉丁版的康士坦丁堡信經，最起碼從第六世紀開始。 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. 這個帶著Filioque的381年版信經成為八世紀末教義爭議的內容，在法蘭克神學家和羅馬 教皇並與卡羅琳和如今被宣稱是羅馬帝國合法繼承人的拜占庭皇室間的衝突中都被討論。 在拜占庭方面的圖像爭議中，卡羅琳方面藉著這個機會挑戰康士坦丁堡的正統性，而特別 強調Filioque的意義，他們開始將其視為正確的三一信仰的基石。在整個第八和第九世紀 中，法蘭克人和拜占庭人間政治和文化上的巨大差異為Filioque的爭論提供了背景 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亞大會的決議（787）。大會堅決的支持古代尊崇圖像 的做法。那個翻譯證明是決定性的。在這個有誤的翻譯的基礎上，查理曼達到派遣了一個 代表團去找教皇Hadrian I(772-795)，表達他的關切。在他反對的重點中，查理曼的代表 宣稱康士坦丁堡宗主教Tarasius就職的時候，並沒有根據尼西亞的信仰宣告聖靈從父和子 而出，而是承認聖靈從父藉著子而出（Mansi 13.760）教皇強烈的拒絕了查理曼的抗議， 表明最起碼Tarasius和大會在這點並其他的點上，都維持了教父們的信仰（同書759-810 ）。查理曼在交換許多信件後，擬定了一份稱作Libri Carolini (791-794)的文件，調整 754年的圖像派大會和787年的尼西亞大會關於尊崇圖像的決議。再次，因為糟糕的反應， 卡羅琳方面誤解了後一個大會的決議。在這份檔中，卡羅琳方面對於Filioque的觀點也再 次被強調。辯稱Filioque這個詞乃是381年信經的一部分，Libri Carolini再次確認中聖 靈從父和子而出的拉丁翻譯，並拒絕聖靈從父藉著子而出的不完全的教導。 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. 在同時，現已遺失的794年在法蘭克福舉辦的地方會議的決議，和其他的記錄表明，這都 主義是為了反對某種隨後被認為源自於西班牙的『嗣子論（Adoptionism）』異端。某些 西班牙的神學家強調基督人性的完整性，以至於神學家Alcuin和其他的人士認為耶穌這個 人乃是在祂受浸的時候被父認養。查理曼出席了這個大會——查理曼看起來想要把這大會 提升為『大公教會性』的（cankMansi 13.899-906）——通過了Libri Carolini，肯定了 關於基督位格完整神性的本文，而聖靈從父與子而出。就如同六世紀末的拉丁信經公式， 強調聖靈從父和子而出，乃是為了與前述的基督論異端爭戰。 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. 幾年之內，另一個地方性會有，也是反對『西班牙的嗣子論』，在Frejus（Fruili, 796huo797）舉行。在這個會議中，Aquileis的Paulinus（+802），一位查理曼朝廷的成 員，用反對嗣子論作為為信經中的Filioque辯護的基礎。事實上，Paulinus知道Filioque 是381年信經多出來的部分，但是仍然為這種篡改辯護，宣稱它既不違反信經的意義，也 不會違反教父們的看法。西方Frejus大會的權威在加上法蘭克福大會的權威，確定了帶有 Filioque的381年信經當在大部分歐洲的教會教導教義並教會中的聖餐禮儀中使用。 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. 關於信經，基於不同傳統的禮儀方式在九世紀初的耶路撒冷相遇。西方的教士使用加上 Filioque的信經，被東方的兄弟們聚集。教皇Leo III在808年寫下了指導，西方的教士把 在查理曼在Aachen禮拜堂使用的做法當作他們的範本。教會Leo寫了一封『至所有東方教 會』的信作為回應，在該信中，他宣稱他個人相信聖靈永遠從父和子而出。在那封回信中 ，教皇並沒有在他的個人理解和增改信經的問題作出區分，雖然他後來堅持在羅馬使用的 禮儀使用增改的版本。 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. 在回到耶路撒冷爭議上，查理曼請奧爾良的Theodulf，Libri Carolini的主要作者，寫一 封使用Filioque這個詞的辯護信。似乎在808，Theodulf的De Spiritu Sancto基本上就是 引用教父語錄來支持Filioque神學的彙編。手上握著這個作品，查理曼在809-810年間召 開了Aachen大會，肯定了聖靈從父和子而出的教育，這個教義被希臘的神學家們責難。在 這個會議後，查理曼要求教皇Leo同樣使用帶有Filioque的信經（Mansi 14.23-76）。教 皇和查理曼特使團的會議於810年在羅馬召開。同時，Leo III肯定了Filioque這個字的正 統性，並批准在教理和個人的信仰認信中使用這個詞，他明確無誤的否定381年信經包括 這個詞，因為大會的教父們——他觀察到，他們跟聚集在Aachen的主教們一樣，都有聖靈 的啟迪——都選擇包括這個詞。教皇Leo規定可以在聖餐禮中使用信經，但是不是必須的 ，並督促為了避免醜聞，卡羅琳的內閣最後不要在禮儀中使用它。大約在此時，根據 Liber Pontificalis，教皇在聖彼得大教堂中有兩塊非常重的銀盾，上面同時用拉丁文和 希臘文刻有381年信經的原始版本。然而，基本他有這種間接的，並且具有代表性的行動 ，卡羅琳仍然在他們自己教區中的聖餐禮中使用帶有Filioque信經。 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紀間，西方關於Filioque的各種發展。交流變得越 來越少，他們自己與（monothelitism）和圖像主義（iconoclasm）的爭鬥，以及伊斯蘭 教的興起，讓他們沒有時間注意西方神學的發展。然而，他們自己對於Filioque的興趣在 第九世紀中變得越來越明顯，伴隨著羅馬和康士坦丁堡的合法性的爭議，以及法蘭克派遣 到保加利亞的宣教士。拜占庭的宣教士在西方的影響下，同時被Boris王從保加利亞驅逐 ，他們回到康士坦丁堡，報告了西方的作為，包括使用帶有Filioque的行徑。康士坦丁堡 宗主教Photios在867，發表了措辭強硬的教喻給其他東方的宗主教，論到在保加利亞發生 的政治和教會危機，以及在康士坦丁堡和羅馬間的緊張情勢。Photos在這封信中指責在保 加利亞的西方宣教士並批判西方的聖餐禮。 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. 更為重要的是，Photios宗主教稱西方插入Filioque是褻瀆神的行為，並代表一種反對祂 所相信的三位一體觀點的神學爭論。Photios反對Filioque乃是根據他認為的，它意表在 三位一體中有兩個起因，摧毀了父的獨一性。因此，Filioque對他而言減損了三位一體中 每一個位格間的分別，並混亂了祂們間的關係，同時具有異教多神論和撒伯流主義的形態 論的種子（Mystagogy 9, 11）。然而，Photios在他867年的信中並沒有表現出他瞭解西 方在使用Filioque這個詞背後的拉丁教父傳統。他反對Filioque可能是進一步因著其後的 ，他在883或884寫給Aquileia大主教的信，並他著名的，886年關於聖靈的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年的信件的結論中呼籲召開一個大公會議來解決插入Filioque的問題，並 找出它的神學基礎。867年康士坦丁堡舉辦了一個地區會議，開革了教會Nicholas I—— 一個加深兩個宗主教間衝突的行動。Nicholas在863年親自拒絕認可Photios的宗主教職位 ，因為他據說是非法被設立的。因著帝國政權的更替，Photios在867年被迫離職，宗主教 Ignatius接替他的位置，他自己在858年的時候被更換。869年在康士坦丁堡召開了一個新 的會議。大會因有教皇的代表出席，並帝國的支持，開革了Photios，接下來承認了中世 紀的西方，不是因為與Filioque或Photios相關的原因，就好像第八次大公會議從未被東 方承認一樣。 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. 當Photios於877年，在Ignatius死後，再次成為宗主教的時候，羅馬和康士坦丁間的關係 又改變了。羅馬教皇Nicholas死於867年，教皇Hardian II（867-872）接任，他自己在 869年開革了Photios。他的繼任者教會John VIII（872-882）願意在某種條件下承認 Photios是康士坦丁堡合法的宗主教，因此為重新建立更好的關係鋪路。879-880在康士坦 丁堡召開了一個大會，羅馬和其他東方宗主教區都有代表參加。這個會議被某些近代的東 正教神學家認為具有大公性，推翻了869-870會議的決議，承認Photios宗主教的地位。它 也肯定了787年會議的大公性，並其針對圖像主義的決議。該會議並沒有進一步討論 Filioque的問題，因為它尚未成為羅馬本身所承認的信經的一部分，而大會也沒有針對它 做出任何神學方面的裁定；然而，這個會議重新肯定了381年信經的原始版本，沒有 Filioque，並咒詛任何擬定另一個信仰宣言的做法。大會也用非常尊敬的語言論及羅馬主 教，並讓教皇合法化其傳統已經賦予的優先地位，承認他們開啟並結束討論，和帶頭簽署 文件的權利。儘管如此，除了在教父們所理解的教會間的交通的架構喜愛，並第六世紀所 指定的五個宗主教區（Pentarchy）的理論外，文獻並沒有任何暗示與會的主教們正式認 可羅馬主教在裁定方面有任何優先的權利。觀教皇和康士坦丁堡宗主教區相互宣稱擁有的 保加利亞的裁定權則留給皇帝去決定。在會議後，Filioque繼續在西歐的某些地區的信經 中使用，無視於教皇John VIII希望他的繼承者能夠維持381年大會所指定的本文。 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. 爭議的歷史在第八世紀早期進入一個新的階段。在1014年亨利八世的加冕禮並神聖羅馬皇 帝在羅馬的加冕禮後的大會，包括Filioque的信經首次在教皇的彌撒中被吟唱。因為這個 動作，使用帶有Filioque信經的禮儀如今被拉丁教會廣泛採用，得到教皇的批准。這包括 生產禮，教皇在兩個世紀的抗拒使用這個做法後，反映了德國皇帝對於教皇職位的管轄權 ，就如同教皇在帝國保護下逐漸增強的，對自身施行於東西方整個教會權力的認可。 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. 當東方和西方教會的代表在康士坦丁堡會面中彼此開革對方的時候，Filioque描繪了1054 年令人印象深刻的混亂事件。在開個康士坦丁堡主教Michael I Cerualrios和他的智囊的 時候，Silva Candida的Humbert主教，教會Leo IX的代表，抨擊拜占庭方面非法的從信經 中刪除了Filioque，並批判其他東方的禮儀。Michael宗主教在回應這些抨擊的時候，承 認Humber的開革並不是源自於Leo IX，僅僅是針對教會的特使團。事實上，Leo在那個時 候已經死了，其繼任者尚未選出。Michael在同時定罪西方在信經中使用Filioque的做法 ，加上西方其他禮儀上的做法。這種有限度開革的相互交火本身並沒有如同後世的歷史學 家所認為的，造成羅馬和康士坦丁堡正式的決裂；然而，它確實加深了康士坦丁堡和羅馬 間的不和。 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. 羅馬教會和康士坦丁堡、亞歷山大、安替阿和耶路撒冷教會間的關係在十字軍時期受到了 嚴重的傷害，特別是在臭名昭彰的第四次十字軍時期。在1204年，西方的十字架劫掠了長 久以來是威尼斯在商業和政治上的對手，康士坦丁堡城，西方的政治家和神職人員掌控了 城市，直到城市在1261年被皇帝Michael VIII Palaiologos重新接管為止。在康士坦丁堡 、安替阿和耶路撒冷的領地中設立效忠羅馬和西歐政治勢力的西方主教，成為一個悲劇性 的，加深雙方分裂的可見現象。基本在1261後，羅馬仍然支持在這三個古代西方宗主教區 內的拉丁主教。對於大部分的東方基督徒而言，這明顯的代表教皇和他的政治支持者根本 無視於他們古老的教會。 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. 在這個逐漸增加的不和中，在十二世紀早期到十三世紀中期仍然有許多值得注意的，嘗試 解決Filioque的嘗試。德國皇帝Lothair III於1136年差遣Haelberg主教Anselm去康士坦 丁堡，交涉一個與皇帝John II Commenos的軍事聯盟事宜。當他在那裡的時候，Anselm和 尼哥米迪亞的逐漸Nicetas舉行了一系列關於分裂教會題目的公開討論，包括Filioque， 並結論到，兩個傳統間的差異並沒有他們想像的那麼嚴重（PL 188.1206B – 1210 B）。 一封東正教宗主教Germanos II（1222-1240）寫給教皇Gergory IX（1227-1241）的信中 進一步討論了在1234年Nicaea會議中論到的Filioque的神學問題。接下來在1253-54舉行 了一系列的討論，都是基於皇帝John III Vatatzes（1222-1254）和教皇Innocent IV（ 1243-1354）的主動要求。即便有這些努力，第四次十字軍造成的結果和土耳其人的威脅 ，加上教皇在東方宣稱的法律裁定權，意味著那些善意的努力並沒有產生結果。 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.” 與這個背景相對，在把康士坦丁堡歸還給西方皇帝後，西方在1274年於里昂舉行了一個會 議（里昂二次會議）。雖然十字軍造成了傷害，許多拜占庭人仍然尋求彌合分裂的傷口， 並希望西方支持他們對抗土耳其人的進犯，教皇Gregory X（1271-1276）熱情的希望教會 聯合。在會議上達成的許多題目包括Filioque。然而兩位作為特使團成員的拜占庭主教在 會議中根本沒有機會解釋東方的觀點。在簡要的諮詢後，Filioque在7月17日的最後一個 會期中被特使團正式通過，並特別定罪其他關於聖靈的起源的觀點。在7月6日，根據教皇 特使團和皇帝在康士坦丁堡已經達成的協議，東方和西方教會的聯合被證實宣告，但是卻 從未被東方的教職人員所認可，在西方也沒有被教皇忠實的，並積極的推動。在這個背景 下，當注意在他慶祝這個會議（1974）的700週年的信件中，教會Paul VI承認這件事，並 加上，『拉丁方面選擇了在西方被認可並發展的教會論的本文和公式。這是可以理解的[ …]以這種方式達成的聯合在東方基督教的思想中完全是不能被接受的。』此外，教皇論 點未來的天主教—東正教對話的時候，說：『。。。將會讓Gregory X和里昂教父們認為 已經解決的問題再次浮上檯面。』 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. 事實上，在1285年的東方Blachernae（康士坦丁堡）會議中，在宗主教Gregory II——或 Gregory of Cyprus（1282-1289）——的領導下，里昂大會的決議和支持拉丁神學的錢宗 主教John XI Bekkos（1275-1782）被堅決的拒絕。在同時，這個會議真的Filioque的神 學爭論發表了一個重要的聲明。該聲明堅決的拒絕聖靈從父和子的『雙重發出（double procession）』。該聲明論到一種聖靈藉著子的『永遠的彰顯』。最起碼，宗主教 Gregory的語言為一種對於父、子和聖靈在東方並西方中（參考後面），更為深刻並複雜 的理解，開創了一種方法。Gregory of Palamas（1296-1359）在他關於分別神聖位格的 素質和能力中，進一步發展了這個進路。 不幸的是，這種進步對話後來中世紀討論聖靈 的起源並無效果，不論是在東方，還是在西方的教會。雖然從Photios時代開始，西方神 學家表現出的焦慮，反對Filioque的觀念並將其加入拉丁的信經中，但是在東正教的 Synodikon（教喻合集）中，一個包括了在整個十四世紀東正教會議關於教義的決議合集 中所收錄的六十條咒詛問中，並沒有任何關於Filioque的記錄。 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，還有一次在大公教會的層面處理這個問題的嘗試。Ferrara-Florence（1438-1445 ）會議再次聚集了羅馬教皇和康士坦丁堡、亞歷山大、安替阿和耶路撒冷各教會的代表， 來廣泛的討論各種爭議，包括教皇的權威和Filioque。這個會議舉行的時候，拜占庭帝國 正遭受俄圖曼人嚴重的威脅，許多希臘世界的人認為西方的軍事援助是康士坦丁堡唯一的 希望。在雙方的專家密集的討論後，往往著重於詮釋教父的本文，1439年7月6日宣佈了教 會的合一。大會的合一教喻，Laetentur caeli，認可了西方對於聖靈用戶的從父和子而 出的觀點是正確的。Filioque在此被視為某些早期教父所認為的，聖靈『藉著子』存在或 發出具有同樣的意義。大會也認可論到教皇『對全世界享有特殊地位』，並作為『全教會 的頭並整個基督教世界的父和導師』的本文。雖然東正教也參與這些討論，Florence的決 議——就像Lyons II的聯合決議一樣——從未被全體主教或在東方的信徒接納，並在1484 於康士坦丁堡被否決。 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，抗議宗在西方破碎的宗教改革，並接下來拉丁在前拜占庭世界的 宣教活動建立了東方教會和和羅馬的交通，導致更深的裂痕，伴著雙方彼此往來的辯論性 書信。在超過500年的時間中，天主教和東正教雙方有好幾次可以嚴肅討論Filioque，以 及相关的羅馬主教的優先性並教義的權威的機會。東正教和羅馬天主教主義正式進入一個 彼此斷絕的狀態，雙方都發展出一種自己才是唯一教會並真正代表使徒信仰的意識。例如 ，這都在1848年1月6日Pius IX發出的教會通喻In Suprema Petri Sede，和1894年6月20 日Leo XIII發出的教會通喻Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae中被提及，1848年東正教 宗主教發出的教會通喻，和康士坦丁堡宗主教1985年的教會通喻等等，每一個通喻都對教 皇的優先權做出了回應。東正教和老大公教會（Old Catholics）加上安立甘會對於 Filioque的討論在1874-75年間在德國舉行，在接下來的一個世紀中還偶爾再繼續，但是 整體而言，在強硬彼此對立的東方和西方觀點的傳統前，很少有實質性的進展。 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). 天主教會和東張教會間關係的新階段正是開始於梵蒂岡第二次大會（1962-1965）和泛東 正教會議（Pan-Orthodox Conference， 1961-1968），這兩個會議重新進行了接觸並對 話。從那個時候開始，許多構成雙方教會分裂的神學議題和歷史事件開始獲得新的注意。 在這個背景下，我們北美的東正教—天主教會議於1965年被建立，東正教和天主教的國際 神學對話委員會在1979年被建立。雖然從許多不同教會聚集的神學家委員會得到世界基督 教協進會（WCC）的Faith and Order Commision的支持，深入的在1978到1979年間研究了 Filioque，並發出了《Klingenthal Memorandum》（1979）作為結論，直到我們自己的研 究前，雙方的教會的代表沒有針對這個題目進行新的聯合討論。聯合國際委員會的第一個 宣言（1982），標題是『教會的奧秘及在三位一體的奧秘之光中的聖餐（The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Trinity ）』簡要的提及Filioque的問題，在其上下文中詳細的討論了神聖三一位格間的關係。宣 言說到：『我們並不希望解決東方和西方間對於子和聖靈間關係的難題，我們能夠一起說 的是，這位聖靈從父這個三位一體唯一的源頭而出（約翰15：26），成我我們兒子名分的 靈（羅馬8：15），因為祂本是子的靈（加拉太4：6），被交通給我們，特別是在聖餐中 ，祂在時間和永恆中安息在這位子裡面。（約翰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. 過去幾十年中有幾個事件指出羅馬方面更為願意承認原始康士坦丁堡信經的規範性。當 Dimitrios I宗主教在1987年12月7日訪問羅馬的時候，並在此在1995年6月宗主教 Bartholomew I訪問羅馬的時候，兩位宗主教都參與了教皇John Paul II在聖彼得大教堂 舉行的聖餐禮。在兩個場合中，教皇和宗主教用希臘文宣讀了信經（例如，缺少 Filiouque）。John Paul II和羅馬尼亞宗主教Teoctist於2002年10月13日在羅馬由教皇 舉行的彌撒中，也用羅馬尼亞文宣讀了信經。Dominus Iesus這份文獻：論耶穌基督和教 會普世性質獨一性和救贖性，由Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith在2000年 8月6日發布，使用381年的信經本文作為關於教會核心教訓的神學討論的開頭，也沒有使 用Filiouque。對於如此使用信經並沒有進一步的詮釋，那些發展表明天主教方面察覺了 原始信經的希臘本文的獨一特性，是聯合東方和西方基督教信仰最為純正的公式。 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和大公教會宗主教Bartholomew I在羅馬的會面後，梵蒂岡發布了一 份《關於聖靈的產生的希臘和拉丁傳統（The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit）》的文件(September 13, 1995)。這份文獻主要 想要為我們教會間對於這個爭議的對話提出新的貢獻。在研究後，文獻說：『天主教會認 可第二次大公會議用希臘文於381年在康士坦丁堡宣告的信仰標誌中，論到教會和所有基 督徒共同信仰表述的會議性、大公性、獨一性並無可取代的價值。任何基於特殊利於傳統 對於信仰的獨特宣告不能與這個被不分離的教會所教導並承認的信仰表述衝突。』雖然天 主教會明顯的不認為Filioque與381年的信經衝突，這個於1995年梵蒂岡發布的宣言的這 段話的意義不能被減低。它乃是回應我們從1999年開始進行的Filioque的重要文件，我們 希望這份宣言能夠幫助我們已經經歷的，在我們兩個基督徒群體間的討論往一個正面的方 向發展。 III. Theological Reflections 神學思考 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. 在所有在神的奧秘中關於聖靈的起源並父、子和聖靈彼此間的關係的討論中，心思當首先 培養的是敬虔的謙虛。關於神聖的奧秘本身，我們所能描繪的非常少，我們的猜測總要冒 著某種不清晰和不肯定的風險。就像偽丟尼修提醒我們的，『沒有任何的聯合或三一或數 字或一或毫無結果（No unity or trinity or number or oneness or fruitfulness）， 或任何其他被造之物或能夠被被造之物所理解的事物能表達神的奧秘，超越萬有的神格的 奧秘超於一切都心思和理性，它乃是以一種超素質的方式超越萬有。』（On the Divine Names 13.3）我們作為基督徒，承認我們的神是絕對並不可分割的一位，是父和子和聖靈 ——三個從未能被與其他位格混合或被消減成為其他位格的『位格』，每一個位格都是完 整並真正的神，在它們與其他位格的關係中是獨一並在和諧中是完整的——這是我們從神 在人類歷史中的自我啟示所學習到的認知的簡要概述，這個其實在我們在聖靈的能力中能 夠承認耶穌是父永遠的道和子的時候，達到它的高峰。我們基督教描述神的語言當然必須 總是被聖經並教會的教義傳統所規範，它們用一種規範的方式來詮釋聖經的內容。然而， 在使用某些特殊的聖經詞彙和經文來描繪神內在事呢幹嘛的時候，總是有一些困難的釋經 難題，就是要知道某處經文僅僅指的是神在救贖歷史的『經綸』中的行動，抑或是指向神 在自身中絕對的存有。這個分裂我們兩個教會的Filioque的問題可能就不會那麼尖銳，如 果雙方在許多世紀以來，能夠更為主要我們對於神的知識的界限。 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，討論這個難解的題目往往被辯論中的扭曲所限制，各方用誇張的方式諷刺對方的意 圖。例如，相信東正教主流神學認為聖靈在神永遠的存有中發出，完全不受子與父的關係 的影響，或認為聖靈在歷史中被差派的時候不『屬於』子，都是錯誤的。同樣的，認為拉 丁主流神學在傳統上從一種更為抽象、對於神聖素質非聖經的思路展開它的三一論，或肯 定聖靈起源自兩個位格的存有，或賦予聖靈一種次於子的角色，不論是在神的奧秘的範圍 中，或在神在歷史中救贖的行動裡面，也是錯誤的。 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: 我們根據我們的研究相信，東方和西方的神學傳統在根本上是相同的哦，因為教父時代在 關於神聖三一的一些基本認定上，就具有Filioque的爭議。 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; 兩個傳統明確的肯定聖靈在神聖的奧秘中是一個獨立的hypostasis或位格，其地位與父和 子相同，不是一個被造之外，或一種論及神創造萬物之行動的方式。 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; 雖然381年的信經沒有刻意描述聖靈，兩個傳統都承認聖靈是神，與父和子有同樣神聖的 素質（同質）； 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; 兩個傳統都明確的認定父是神聖存有的原始源頭（arch）並最終起因（aitia），因此神 所有的運行：子和聖靈流出的『泉』，他們存有和結果子的『根』，祂們的存有和活動從 祂散發而出； 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; 兩個傳統都肯定身裡面的三個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. 有鑑於此，兩個傳統都肯定神所有的活動——神呼召那些被造的實體進入它們的存在、塑 造那個實體，因為神良善的旨意乃是要建立以人類被造物為中心的一個聯合的並有次序的 宇宙，人類乃是照著神的形像被造——這個形像是父、子和聖靈共同的工作，雖然祂們每 一位在那些運行中都具有不同的角色，這個運行乃是根據祂們每一位間的關係所決定的。 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，東方和西方反應神的奧秘的傳統都具有明確已經發展完成的分類和觀念，彼此 間是非常不同的。那些不同不能僅僅的靠解釋就可以解決，或使用簡單的論述讓它們看起 來是等同的。我們可以將雙方的差異總結為： 1) Terminology——名詞 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的爭議首先是一個名詞的爭議。就如同許多近代作者已經指出的，我們兩個團體 間的歧見部分似乎是根植於細微但又具有重大意義的，在用來描述聖靈的神聖起源的關鍵 詞彙間的不同。381年原始的本文在論到聖靈的時候，用約翰15：26來描述祂的特徵，就 是『從父而出（ekporeuetai）』：可能受到了神學家貴格利（Gregory the Theologian, OR 31.8）的影響，大會選擇受約翰語言的約束，僅對福音書的本文做出微 小的修正（把to pneuma…ho para tou Patros ekporeuetai to改成：to pneuma to hagion… to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon）為的是強調聖靈從父自己永遠位格的角色 『中發出』，而這個角色就是聖靈神聖存有的源頭，因此，最後說到某種的『從祂而出的 運動（ek）』。Ekporeuesthai（發出）這個字潛在的含義和與它相關的名詞， ekporeusis，看起來都具有從某種起源點內部發出的『向外的通路（pasaage outwards） 』的意義。因為在加帕多家教父的年代，最起碼在希臘神學中，總是限制不把這個詞用在 聖靈從父而出上面，也不把它視為那兩個位格間的關係的技術用語。相反地，其他的希臘 名詞，就像proienai，『從。。。而出』，往往被東方教父們用來描述聖靈從父和復活的 主，在歷史中救贖的『任務』。 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以及與其相關的名稱processio，僅僅具有『向前的運動（ movement forwards）』的意義，缺少了運動的起點的含義；因此，它被用來翻譯一些其 他的希臘文神學術語，包括proienai並特別別阿奎那（Thomas Aquinas）當做用來代表『 某種起源』（神學總綱 I,q.36, a.2）的一般性名稱，包括——在一種三一神的背景中— —子的出生和聖靈為了執行其任務被吹出。這就造成，聖靈在永遠的父中超越萬有的起源 並其從父和的主的『發出』在拉丁文中都特別被用『procedere』來表達，在同時，希臘 神學方面一般使用兩個不同的詞。雖然希臘和拉丁傳統在了解子永恆的起源上有不同的理 解，希臘教會都與把Filioque插入381年信經的拉丁文翻譯最原始的顧慮乃是因為——認 信者馬克西姆（Maximus the Confessor）的解釋（Letter to Marinus: PG 91.133-136 ）——雙方都誤解了希臘和拉丁使用『發出（procession）』這個字的意義。 2) The Substantive Issues/實質性的問題 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. 很明顯的，在東方和西方教會爭辯Filioque的歷史中，有兩個造成雙方分裂的主要議題： a) Theological:/神學方面： 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). 根據教父對於『神學』這個詞的理解，它是三一身的反射，在這個神學議題背後的爭議乃 是，作為一個hypostasis或神聖的『位格』，子是否當被認為在聖靈從父的起源中具有任 何的角色，而父是神聖奧秘的唯一並致終的源頭。如同我們已經看見的，希臘傳統一般而 言根據約翰15：26和381年信經中的公式來建成我們對於聖靈位格所有的人是就是祂『從 父而來』，與子從父的『出生』不同，但又是平行的。（例如：大馬色的約翰，ON the Orthodox Faith 1.8）然而，這個傳統也承認聖靈在世界的『任務』也需要子的參與，子 在受浸的時候將聖靈領受到祂的人性中，在復活日的傍晚將聖靈吹入十二使徒裡面，並差 遣能力的靈進入世界，藉著使徒們在五旬節的傳講。在另一方面，因為特土良傾向於強調 因為教會稱呼三一神位格的次序往往將聖靈放在子之後，祂被認為是『藉著』子並『從父 而來』。奧古斯丁在他自己的好幾段話中堅稱聖靈『從父而來』，因為作為神，聖靈並不 會比子低（De Fide et Symbolo 9.19；Enchiridion 9.3），在其他的段落中發展了他對 於聖靈也從子『發出』的經典觀點，因為祂在神聖歷史的進程中，當然是聖靈並父和子的 『恩典』（例如：論三位一體4.20.29；Tractate on Gospel of John 99.6-7），恩典乃 是在他們自己外在愛的交換中開始的（論三位一體15.17.29）。在奧古斯丁的觀點中，這 個子對於聖靈發生的參與不能被理解為與父作為子和聖靈獨一並終極的源頭的角色相對， 而是父在產生子的時候所賜予的：『反而，聖靈乃是從父自己而來的，祂也是從子而來的 ，就如同祂從父而來的一樣。』（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. 早期拉丁和希臘傳統在這個點上的分歧明顯的是因為對於拉丁文procedere和希臘文 ekporeuesthai不同的理解：就好像我們已經解釋的，聖靈『從。。。而出』在拉丁文中 被認為具有一種更為普遍的意義，而不是希臘文中所暗示的最終起源的意義。然而，聖靈 的從子『發出』在拉丁神學中被認為是某種與祂從父『發出』不同的關係，即便是當—— 如同安瑟倫和阿奎那所解釋的——父和子對聖靈的關係往往別描述為構成一種聖靈源頭的 『單一的原理（single principle』：基本在一同吹聖靈的時候，根據稍後的拉丁神學家 們，父仍然具有優先的地位，賜給子所以祂所需要的一切，並讓祂將要做的一切成為可能 。 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). 希臘神學家們也總是一直在掙扎著尋找子在時間中差遣出聖靈並且在聖靈的永恆存有與活 動中佔有某種中介地位的表達方式。例如：尼撒的貴格利解釋說，我們只能藉著『相信以 我是起因，另一位是從起因來的；並且在從起因來的那位中我們仍然能夠發現另外不同的 一位：一位是直接從第一位來的，另一位是藉著那位直接從第一位來的而有的，』而分辨 在神的奧秘中的不同位格。子在聖靈起源中所具有的『中保（msiteia）』的特徵，同時 保留了祂自己作為子的角色，也讓聖靈具有一種與父的，『基於性質的關係（natural relationship）』。（To Ablabius: GNO III/1, 56.3-10）在十三世紀，Blachernae大 會（1285）在康士坦丁堡宗主教Gregory II的領導下，對於教父論及聖靈『透過（ through）』子的本文採取了進一步的，與東正教傳統一致的解釋。大會提出了自己的 Tomos，雖然基督教的信仰必須保持聖靈僅僅從父領受其存有和位格身份的教義，父則是 神聖存有（divine Being）的唯一起因，祂『透過子在永恆中發出亮光並被羨慕，就如同 光藉著太陽的光線的中介，照出來並被顯明一樣。』（A. Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium [St. Vladimir’s, 1996] 219翻譯。）在接下來的世紀中，Gregory Palamas 在他的許多作品中提出了一個對於這個關係的類似解釋；例如，他在他的1351年認信（ Confession）中，堅稱聖靈『有父為其基礎，源頭和起因，』但是『安息於子中』並『透 過子被差遣——就是，被彰顯』。（ibid. 194）關於神聖能量的超越性，罪人並未使用 實質或位格的存有這樣的名詞，但說到『聖靈從父透過子將自己傾倒出來，如果你願意， 可以這樣說，從中傾倒在所有配得過的事物之上，』這個交通可以在更為廣泛的程度上被 稱作『發出』（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. 希臘和拉丁的神學傳統明顯的仍然各自保留了某些關於聖靈作為不同位格的永遠起源的根 本張力。在中世紀，安瑟倫和阿奎那的影響的結果造成西方神學幾乎全面性的認為每個神 聖位格的身份當被定義為它和另外兩個位格的『相對關係（relations of opposition） 』——換句話說，它彼此定義了起源的關係——並結論到，聖靈不能在位格上被從子分割 出來，如果聖靈僅僅是從父『發出』。在拉丁方面的理解中，processio乃是『起源』的 普遍用語，追根究底，我們也能說子因著從父被生出，也是『從父發出』。根據約翰15： 26和381年新建語言的東方神學，繼續將『發出』（ekporeusis）的語言理解為，代表一 種在聖靈和父之間獨一無二，特殊的，並與眾不同的起因關係，這個關係一般而言限制了 子在神聖創造和救贖的行動裡面，子『顯明』或『差遣聖靈去執行任務』的角色。那些在 兩個神學傳統背後的分別雖然是微妙的，但是卻是根本性的，讓雙方在神學上彼此難以和 解。 b) Ecclesiological:/教會論 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. 從八世紀開始，另一個不斷浮在檯面上的，關於Filioque的議題是教會在教牧和教導上的 權柄的問題——更準確的說，是關於羅馬主教解決教義爭議的最終權威，僅僅是他的職位 的緣故。自以弗所大會（431）後，東方和西方教會的教育傳統不斷重複肯定『尼西亞信 仰』才是詮釋基督教福音最終的整體形式。東正教傳統認為由那些被使徒教會認定為『大 公』的會議制定的信經和教規才是表達信仰的標準格式。天主教的傳統也接受大公會議的 共識作為教義的標準反駁，並認為七次大公會議具有獨一無二的重要性，當被天主教和東 正教視為大公性的會議。然而，天主教認為羅馬主教在信仰和教會合一的服侍的事物上， 在全世界的教會中具有首席的地位，天主教傳統接受教皇人的大公會議被教會接受，並定 義什麼與『尼西亞信仰』與使徒傳統衝突或符合『尼西亞信仰』與使徒傳統的權威的事物 。當東正教神學熱瓦努教皇在十一世紀最終認定在拉丁文版的信經使用Filioque的權威是 一種竄奪了大公性會議的教義權威的同時，天主教神學則視其為一種為宣告並澄清教會信 仰，而合法的使用其首席權威的做法。根據我們共同的研究所不斷表明的，這正是在權力 和控制的問題成為雙方教會所顧慮的問題，而進一步促使Filioque發展成為一個核心顧慮 的時候：構成了雙方改善關係，或提供了一個不醫治分裂的理由。 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. 就像前述關於聖靈起源這個神學問題的討論，這個理解教會的架構和施行權威的歧見明顯 的是非常嚴重的：毫無疑問的，教皇的優先權並延伸出來的其他問題仍然是在所有神學並 施行問題後面的根本原因，並進行分裂我們的團體。在我們教會間對於Filioque的討論中 ，我們發現把這兩個問題分開處理，將承認在神裡面的位格間的關係的奧秘必須用另一種 ，不一定合乎西方教會所承認的，與381年信經本文間具有差異的尼西亞信仰的方式來處 理，是非常有幫助的。 3) Continuing our Reflections/延續我們的思路 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. 人們往往指出聖靈的神學是一塊尚未開發的基督教神學領域。於聖靈的起源這個題目看起 來確實是如此。雖然從查理曼時代開始，就已經有許多關於反對Filioque神學並提供理由 的著作面試，大部分著作的本質都是辯論性的，想要將雙方那種不可妥協的立場合理化。 直到近代，幾乎沒有人嘗試尋找表達並解釋聖經和早期基督教對於聖靈的位格和工作之理 解的新方法，這種新方法可以用新的模式建構討論，並讓所有的教會對於兩個傳統中重疊 的根本議題達到共識。近期，有許多來自不同教會的神學家，帶著真正大公的精神，嘗試 在我們所呈現的使徒信仰中進行新的發展，這種努力可能最終被大公教會基督徒接受。 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. 因著了解這個題目的調整，我們的委員會支持那種共同的神學組織。我們希望能根據聖經 並整個基督教神學的傳統，產生對於聖靈神學真正有意義的進展，我們對於任何符合那個 傳統，並能夠幫助我們的教會來發掘共同信仰的深度，且幫助我們更為尊重我們各自的先 祖的智慧而產生的新共識並觀念性的架構，採取開放的態度。我們也督促我們雙方的教會 要繼續維持他們的努力——不論是一同或是各自——就是關於教會的教育和牧養的實行的 架構中所具有的優先地位和主教會議（synodality）的神學，肯定在教義和實行的方面仍 然有繼續發展的空間，這都與聖靈在群體的工作有密切的聯繫，仍然是非常需要的的。拿 先斯的貴格利在他論及聖靈神性的第五篇神學論文中提醒我們，教會之所以緩慢的發現聖 靈真正的地位和身份僅僅是『神學的次序（taxis tēs theologias）』的一部分，藉著 這個神學，『光逐漸向我們打開』使我們了解神救贖的奧秘。（Or. 31.27）只有當我們 願意『聽從聖靈對教會所說的話』（Rev 3.22）的時候，我們才能對使徒所傳揚的好信息 （福音）忠信，在同時，能夠更認識那個信仰，這就是神學的責任。 III. Recommendations/建議 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: 我們非常清楚Filioque的神學問題，並在信經中的使用方式，不僅僅是一個在天主教和東 正教群體間的問題。許多抗議宗教育，也從中世紀的西方繼承了神學，認為那個詞代表一 種東正教基督徒對信仰宣告不可分割的一部分。雖然，這些教會與與東正教的對話已經開 始觸及這個問題，任何進一步解決東方和西方在關於聖靈起源的分歧的方案，需要所有那 些承認381年信經作為信仰準則的教會共同參與。因著了解這個限制，我們的委員會向我 們各自教會的成員和主教們提供了一下的神學並可操作的建議： 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; 我們的教會願意根據聖經並我們雙方教會豐富的神學傳統，投身於一種新的並熱切的，關 於聖靈的起源並位格的對話，在我們信仰的核心中尋找有建設性的表達方式來表達這個難 題； 财 that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God; 所有參與對話的各方都表達，願意承認我們能力是有限度，不能做出任何關於神內在生命 的，具有決定性的方案； 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; 在未來，因這幾十年來彼此的認識已經達到某個程度，東正教和天主教都克制不再把對方 關於聖靈發生的傳統打上異端的標籤； 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; 東正教和天主教的神學家們更清楚的區分聖靈神格和位格的身份，但仍然需要更為全面和 終極的大公性解決方案； 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; 那些參與這個題目對話的人士都盡可能的把聖靈起源的神學議題從教會中關於優先性並教 義的權威區分開來，我們甚至都很嚴肅的一同研究這兩個問題； 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. 教會間的神學對話也為後續我們雙方教會，在哪七個被普遍認定為大公會議之後舉辦的會 議提出謹慎的考量。 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. 天主教會因為381年信經正式並不可推翻之教義價值的結果，僅僅使用原始希臘文的本文 作為教理和禮儀使用的本文的翻譯 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. 天主教會跟隨逐漸增加的神學共識，特別是教皇Paul VI的宣言，宣告里昂第二次大會（ the Second Council of Lyons, 1274）對於那些『否定聖靈永遠從父和子而出』的人的 咒詛不在適用。 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. 我們對各自的教會提出那些建議，並相信，根據我們自己密集的研究和討論，我們的傳統 中不同理解聖靈發出的方式不再分離我們。我們相信，反而，我們承認古代康士坦丁信經 必須藉著我們共同的實行和我們彼此認識的新努力，成為在一個信仰中更為彼此認同的合 一體，所有的神學不過就是為了澄清並加深彼此的認識。雖然我們表示神所啟示的，關於 祂自己存有之真理的方式總是因著人類理解能力並語言的限制而成為有限的，我們相信， 乃是耶穌吹入祂的教會中那位『真理的聖靈』，仍然與我們同在，『引導我們進入所有的 真理中』（John 16:13）。我們禱告我們各自教會對於這位聖靈的理解不在成為我們之間 的攔阻，或在基督裡聯合的困難，而讓祂引導我們進入的那一個真理能夠真正的成為『和 平的連鎖』（Eph 4.3），為了我們，也是為了所有的基督徒。 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 49.219.26.118 ※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Catholic/M.1509720305.A.743.html ※ df31:轉錄至看板 Christianity 11/03 22:45