[討論] Siecienski的和子論史一書的書評

看板Christianity作者theologe (表達你我的信仰~)時間8年前 (2017/04/05 14:17)推噓7(7推 0噓 37→)

留言44則, 9人參與討論串1/3 (看更多)

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://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Christianity/M.1491373046.A.ECF.html

推

jacklin2002

04/05 21:04, , 1^F

04/05 21:04, 1^F

→

jacklin2002

04/05 21:04, , 2^F

04/05 21:04, 2^F

→

jacklin2002

04/05 21:05, , 3^F

04/05 21:05, 3^F