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, fro