作者theologe (表達你我的信仰~)
看板Christianity
標題[討論] Siecienski的和子論史一書的書評
時間Wed Apr 5 14:17:22 2017
A. Edward Siecienski(簡稱AES)2010的著作:
The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy.
https://goo.gl/gX44Kd
除了作者訪談這篇很值得參考外,
amazon上面就有一篇清楚介紹本書論點的書評,摘錄如下:
https://goo.gl/OzzQ53
By Jacobon June 23, 2011
.....
Siecienski's method is to read the fathers' and theologians' arguments per
the internal relationships of the Trinity and
avoid any type of simple
reduction into a "pro-Western" or "pro-Eastern" model, except where the case
is obvious like in Photios, Aquinas, and Anselm. This is an important move.
When Western fathers like Hilary and Ambrose say that the Spirit proceeds et
filii or even Filioque,
Siecienski denies they are saying what later
Filioquist polemics say they are saying. What Siecienski implies but does not
say is important: these fathers do not teach the development of the filioque
, and if they do not teach the development of the filioque, they are actually
witnesses to the normativity of the Eastern model.
The hero of this story is St Maximus the Confessor. He demonstrates a way to
interpret Western fathers who spoke in language similar to the filioque as a
way of expressing the eternal relationship between the Son and the
Spirit--which he thinks is what the Filioque was trying to do. The text under
consideration is his Letter to Marinus, and the reception of that text at
varying points in European history says a lot about the presuppositions of
either side. The Latins originally championed the text and saw Maximus as a
good Roman Catholic. Did not Maximus say the Filioque was orthodox and did he
not appeal to the Pope?
The Orthodox then responded that Maximus specifically
denied causality to the Son. Whatever else Maximus may have meant by
Filioque--and it's not clear he understood precisely what Filioque would
later mean--
he is not using the term in the sense it would later be used. The
Latins realized this and at other points in history they denied the
authenticity of Marinus.
Maximus is reading the Filioque to say (if not accurately) that
the Spirit
proceeds through the Son from the Father alone. For him this is the superior
understanding for
it maintains both an eternal relationship between Spirit
and Son yet maintains the causality of the Father alone. He says while the
Spirit does not derive from the Son, his procession from the Father always
presupposes the Son (Siecienski, 77). What this eternal relationship entails
exactly is not clear, and it would be the work of Gregory II of Cyprus and
St. Gregory Palamas to expand upon it.
As is the case with many polemical controversies, after a while there is not
anything new being said. One notices a common theme, a charge and a counter,
running behind the numerous florigela and Scripture references. The East
charges the West with introducing
two causes into the Godhead, the Father and
the Son. Since the time of St Gregory of Nazianzus all admitted the monarchia
of the Father. The Father is the principle of unity as he causes the other
two persons of the Trinity. When the West began positing the Son as part of
that cause, which they had to do if they were to uphold filioquist logic, the
East responded that the West is introducing two causes in the Godhead. The
West responded that it was positing the two persons as one cause of unity. To
the East, that was a distinction without a difference.
.....
1.
老魚讀書的方式有問題,不是新聞XD
2.
其實作者在訪談中有說他有故意或盡量中立談、讓原始資料呈現自身;
讓大家猜不出他是正教信徒,他還有點小得意:p
3.
按這篇書評,許多教父表面上談「和子說」(老魚的誤讀大概是在這邊),
但並不是後世理解或東正教拒絕的和子說版本。
關鍵在於聖靈是「父子二來源說」,還是「出於天父的單一來源」。
故應該是老魚講的反過來的意思,教父、甚至西方教父,有些即便用「和子說」詞彙,
但在存有學上可能還是東方的「出於天父的單一來源」XD
Maximus的"the Spirit proceeds
through the Son from the Father alone"
就是代表。(其他見上文標色處)
不過更完整的講法應該是東西方講的東西可以互相補充
(如前分析--
#1OuePz1T推文處,西方是經世三一論的角度),
但存有學或內在三一論上應堅守東方的立場。
--
你們中間有人對他們說:「平平安安地去吧!願你們穿得暖,吃得飽」,
卻不給他們身體所需用的,這有甚麼益處呢?(雅2:16)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 220.130.205.94
※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Christianity/M.1491373046.A.ECF.html
1F:推 jacklin2002: 唉,先想盡辦法把人家弄進水桶,然後再開嘲諷,譏笑 04/05 21:04
2F:→ jacklin2002: 別人的讀書方法有問題,幾天沒來,你的一千零一招還 04/05 21:04
3F:→ jacklin2002: 是沒變。 04/05 21:05
4F:→ jacklin2002: 有種你就取消檢舉,跟老魚來場光明正大的辯論,盡搞 04/05 21:06
5F:→ jacklin2002: 些奧步沒意義。 04/05 21:07
6F:→ theologe: 老魚要發言,還不簡單嗎?一堆人都可以借他當分身阿XD 04/05 21:07
7F:→ jacklin2002: 又在釣魚囉?PTT站規禁止一號多用好嗎? 04/05 21:08
8F:→ theologe: 我這篇他若要回應,他也可以在天主教板回應阿。 04/05 21:10
9F:推 evilcherry: 其實只要他不打算來一言堂根本不會違反板規。 04/05 21:10
10F:→ evilcherry: 好辯卻硬要規定人家怎樣辯,怪誰? 04/05 21:11
11F:→ jacklin2002: 你文章寫在這,他回在天主教板誰看啊?像我就沒去那 04/05 21:11
12F:→ jacklin2002: 裡,寫在那裡誰看得到啊? 04/05 21:11
13F:→ theologe: 之前pin也可以把老魚的私信貼上來,前例太多了。 04/05 21:12
14F:→ theologe: 但老實說,我不期待他的發言水準XD 和子論是每個基督徒 04/05 21:14
15F:→ theologe: 都應該有一定瞭解的議題吧,怎麼只期待老魚上來秀他的下 04/05 21:15
16F:→ theologe: 限呢?XD 這也太可悲了吧。 04/05 21:16
17F:推 jacklin2002: 隨便 你繼續開嘲諷吧 你開心就好 04/05 21:21
18F:→ jacklin2002: 反正人家都在水桶裡了 打不會還手 罵不會還口 爽 04/05 21:22
19F:→ theologe: 唉 你眼裡看不到議題的討論,只看到你自己心裡的陰影XD 04/05 21:29
20F:→ theologe: 老魚之前的言論都躺在板上,無論他要不要發言,該做的糾 04/05 21:30
21F:→ theologe: 正都是必要的。我只是盡公共討論的義務而已。 04/05 21:31
22F:→ theologe: 和子論可不是我跟老魚間的私人問題阿XD 04/05 21:31
23F:推 jacklin2002: 譏笑別人不會讀書,你的公共討論義務真偉大( ̄︶ ̄)b 04/05 21:32
24F:→ theologe: 講出事實,有何不對嗎?XD 你去找找網路上的資料,有哪 04/05 21:34
25F:→ theologe: 個說Siecienski這本書是把東正教給KO掉的XD 04/05 21:35
26F:→ theologe: 老魚散佈不實的言論,糾正之是人人有責的XD 04/05 21:36
27F:→ jacklin2002: 所以我剛剛就說過 反正人家現在不能回嘴 你爽就好 04/05 21:37
28F:→ theologe: 所以我剛剛就說,和子論是我跟老魚間的私人問題嗎?XD 04/05 21:41
29F:推 bettis: 奇怪了,違規結果不是違規的人的錯?顆顆 04/05 21:49
30F:→ pinjose: 以信用來說,老魚一向忠實原意 04/05 22:19
31F:→ theologe: 怎麼有點爆笑的fu~ XD 04/05 22:19
32F:→ pinjose: 至於某君話的信用... 04/05 22:20
33F:→ pinjose: 看老魚文章就是可以放心看,他不會立場變來變去 04/05 22:21
34F:→ pinjose: 是就是,不是就不是,這基本的 04/05 22:21
35F:推 amosvalen: 教義都是討論好幾代的~~等PTT300周年~~再來評論雙方的 04/05 22:32
36F:→ amosvalen: 功過還不算太遲~~ 04/05 22:33
37F:→ sCHb68: 某君連千年的教義都不放在眼裡了,還PTT300周年? 04/05 23:11
38F:推 bettis: 原來千年的教義都絕對是對的,那地球是平的,太陽繞地球 04/05 23:22
39F:→ bettis: 轉(筆記) 04/05 23:22
除了叫陣外,有沒有人可以幫老魚的論點找到支持阿?XD
1.Siecienski這本書把正教會對和子論的批判給徹底KO掉=
解決了這個衝突、徹底證明了和子論的可靠性。
2.本書作者是一個忠心護教並對東正教一戰大有戰功的天主教徒
要是這本書真的有這麼勁爆的結論,
那網路上找不到一篇摘要此「戰果」的書評嗎?XD
※ 編輯: theologe (220.130.205.94), 04/06/2017 00:05:25
40F:→ pinjose: 先學會誠實呈現別人原話吧 04/06 06:59
41F:→ pinjose: 只會搞這種扭曲別人話的小動作,一點都沒長進 04/06 07:00
42F:→ theologe: 沒錯阿,請去照做吧XD 希望看到你的長進 加油XD 04/06 07:39
43F:→ speed2: 幼稚 04/06 22:06
44F:→ Kangin75: 不要用theologe這種帳號 04/07 16:52
※ theologe:轉錄至看板 Catholic 10/25 20:07