有鉴于某位自称是东正教的不知名人士，因为对于‘和子（filiouque）’议题，以及东
正教和天主教双方对于此议题对话结果的无知，大模大样的在这里用自己不知道的东西摆
出一副‘正统’的架势，并指责天主教方面的错误。再加上某位持自由主义神学的新教分
子的鼓动。真的让人觉得无语+无奈。
刚好看见网络有一份名为《‘和子’：一个分裂教会的议题？》文章，论到东正教和天主
教的整个对话的报告，特别转贴过来，以正视听。
双方神学家在本文中做出的四个肯定是大家应当注意的。
1-财 both traditions clearly affirm that the Holy Spirit is a distinct
hypostasis or person within the divine Mystery, equal in status to the Father
and the Son, and is not simply a creature or a way of talking about God’s
action in creatures;
两个传统明确的肯定圣灵在神圣的奥秘中是一个独立的hypostasis或位格，其地位与父和
子相同，不是一个被造之外，或一种论及神创造万物之行动的方式。
2-财 although the Creed of 381 does not state it explicitly, both
traditions confess the Holy Spirit to be God, of the same divine substance
(homoousios) as Father and Son;
虽然381年的信经没有刻意描述圣灵，两个传统都承认圣灵是神，与父和子有同样神圣的
素质（同质）；
3-财 both traditions also clearly affirm that the Father is the primordial
source (arch‘) and ultimate cause (aitia) of the divine being, and thus of
all God’s operations: the “spring” from which both Son and Spirit flow,
the “root” of their being and fruitfulness, the “sun” from which their
existence and their activity radiates;
两个传统都明确的认定父是神圣存有的原始源头（arch）并最终起因（aitia），因此神
所有的运行：子和圣灵流出的‘泉’，他们存有和结果子的‘根’，祂们的存有和活动从
祂散发而出；
4-财 both traditions affirm that the three hypostases or persons in God
are constituted in their hypostatic existence and distinguished from one
another solely by their relation- ships of origin, and not by any other
characteristics or activities;
两个传统都肯定身里面的三个hypostases或位格；
特别是双方的结论：
在未来，因这几十年来彼此的认识已经达到某个程度，东正教和天主教都克制不再把对方
关于圣灵发生的传统打上异端的标签；
基本上就已经为这个题目做出了最后的判定。
所以，在下希望东正教和天主教在‘和子（Filiouque）’的题目上达成的共识和良好的
关系，不会因为下面某些‘极端分子’，或不相干的‘无聊分子’破坏。
毕竟耶稣的教导是：
Mat 5:9使人和睦的人有福了，因为他们必称为 神的儿子。
而不是制造纷争。
以下是全文。
================================================
The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?
‘和子’：一个分裂教会的议题？
An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological
Consultation
北美东正教—天主教神学会议共同宣言
Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
October 25, 2003
From 1999 until 2003, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consul- tation has
focused its discussions on an issue that has been identified, for more than
twelve centuries, as one of the root causes of division between our Churches:
our divergent ways of conceiving and speaking about the origin of the Holy
Spirit within the inner life of the triune God. Although both of our
traditions profess “the faith of Nicaea” as the normative expression of our
understanding of God and God’s involvement in his creation, and take as the
classical statement of that faith the revised version of the Nicene creed
associated with the First Council of Constantinople of 381, most Catholics
and other Western Christians have used, since at least the late sixth
century, a Latin version of that Creed, which adds to its confession that the
Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” the word Filioque: “and from the Son
”. For most Western Christians, this term continues to be a part of the
central formulation of their faith, a formulation proclaimed in the liturgy
and used as the basis of catechesis and theological reflection. It is, for
Catholics and most Protestants, simply a part of the ordinary teaching of the
Church, and as such, integral to their understanding of the dogma of the Holy
Trinity. Yet since at least the late eighth century, the presence of this
term in the Western version of the Creed has been a source of scandal for
Eastern Christians, both because of the Trinitarian theology it expresses,
and because it had been adopted by a growing number of Churches in the West
into the canonical formulation of a received ecumenical council without corres
- ponding ecumenical agreement. As the medieval rift between Eastern and
Western Christians grew more serious, the theology associated with the term
Filioque, and the issues of Church structure and authority raised by its
adoption, grew into a symbol of difference, a classic token of what each side
of divided Christendom has found lacking or distorted in the other.
从1999到2003，北美东正教—天主教会议着重于一个被超过十二个世纪以来认为是分裂我
们两个教会的根本议题：对于圣灵在三一神内在生命中的起源不同的思考和论述方式。虽
然我们双方的传统都承认‘尼西亚信仰’作为我们对于神和神介入祂的创作的理解标准的
表达方式，并认为经典的信仰宣告就是381年第一次康士坦丁堡会议所修订的尼西亚信经
版本，绝大多数的天主教和西方基督教在第六世纪之后就使用了一个拉丁文，在‘从父而
出（proceeds from the Father）’这段话上加上了‘和子’的段落：‘并从子（and
from the Son）。’对于大部分的西方教会而言，这个词一直是他们核心信仰公式的一部
分，这个公式在教会礼仪上被宣告并成为其教理并神学的基础。对于天主教和大部分的抗
议宗，它仅仅是教会正常教导的一部分，也融入了他们对于神圣三一教理的理解中。然而
从第八世纪开始，西方信经版本出现的这个词对于西方基督教而言则成为一种丑闻的根源
，乃是因为它对于三位一体神学的表述方式，并因为它已经被大量的西方教会纳入正式的
大公教会会议的信仰公式，而与大公教会的约定不同。东方和西方基督徒在中世纪的裂痕
更为严重，与Filioque相关的神学并教会架构及全部的问题藉著这个词而被提出，逐渐扩
大成为双方分歧的标志，成为分裂的基督教各方认为对方所缺少或扭曲的经典标志。
Our common study of this question has involved our Consultation in much
shared research, prayerful reflection and intense discussion. It is our hope
that many of the papers produced by our members during this process will be
published together, as the scholarly context for our common statement. A
subject as complicated as this, from both the historical and the theological
point of view, calls for detailed explanation if the real issues are to be
clearly seen. Our discussions and our common statement will not, by
themselves, put an end to centuries of disagree- ment among our Churches. We
do hope, however, that they will contri- bute to the growth of mutual
understanding and respect, and that in God’s time our Churches will no
longer find a cause for separation in the way we think and speak about the
origin of that Spirit, whose fruit is love and peace (see Gal 5.22).
我们对于这个问题的共同研究包括了这个会议共同的研究，基于祷告的回应并密集的讨论
。我们希望在这个过程中由我们的成员所撰写的许多宝贵能够一同发表，作为我们共同宣
言的神学背景。从历史和神学角度都是如此复杂的题目，如果要清楚的看见问题的真正本
质，需要详细的解释。我们的讨论和共同宣言本身不能结束这个在我们教会中延续许多世
纪的分歧。然而，我们确实希望，它们能够为促进双方彼此的理解和尊重，教我们的教会
在神的时间中，我们思考并论述圣灵的起源不再是分裂的原因，祂的果子乃是爱与和平。
（加拉太5：22）
I. The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures/圣经中的圣灵
In the Old Testament “the spirit of God” or “the spirit of the Lord” is
presented less as a divine person than as a manifes- tation of God’s
creative power – God’s “breath” (ruach YHWH) - forming the world as an
ordered and habitable place for his people, and raising up individuals to
lead his people in the way of holiness. In the opening verses of Genesis, the
spirit of God “moves over the face of the waters” to bring order out of
chaos (Gen 1.2). In the historical narratives of Israel, it is the same
spirit that “stirs” in the leaders of the people (Jud 13.25: Samson), makes
kings and military chieftains into prophets (I Sam 10.9-12; 19.18-24: Saul
and David), and enables prophets to “bring good news to the afflicted” (Is
61.1; cf. 42.1; II Kg 2.9). The Lord tells Moses he has “filled” Bezalel
the craftsman “with the spirit of God,” to enable him to fashion all the
furnishings of the tabernacle according to God’s design (Ex 31.3). In some
passages, the “holy spirit” (Ps 51.13) or “good spirit” (Ps 143.10) of
the Lord seems to signify his guiding presence within individuals and the
whole nation, cleansing their own spirits (Ps. 51.12-14) and helping them to
keep his commandments, but “grieved” by their sin (Is 63.10). In the
prophet Ezekiel’s mighty vision of the restoration of Israel from the death
of defeat and exile, the “breath” return- ing to the people’s desiccated
corpses becomes an image of the action of God’s own breath creat- ing the
nation anew: “I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live...” (Ezek
37.14).
在旧约中，‘神的灵’或‘主（耶和华）的灵’被描绘为低于一个神圣的位格，而是神创
造能力的长相——神的‘气息’(ruach YHWH) —— 塑造世界，使得世界成为一个有次序
并祂的百姓的居住场所，并兴起个人用圣洁的方式来带领祂的百姓。在创世纪的开篇，神
的灵‘在水面运行’把混乱带回到次序中（创世纪1：2）。在以色列人的历史叙述中，同
一位灵也‘激动’百姓的领袖（士师记13：25：三孙），让国王和军事领袖成为限制（撒
母耳上 10：9-12；19：18-24：扫罗和大卫），并让先知‘将好消息带给忧伤的人“（以
赛亚61：1；参考42；1；列王记下2：9）。主告诉摩西祂已经用‘神的灵’充满工头比撒
列，让他能够根据神的设计制造帐幕所有的器具（出埃及31：3）。在有些段落中，主的
‘圣灵’（诗篇51：13）或‘良善的灵’（诗篇143：10）看起来意表祂对于个人或整个
民族的引导，洁净他们的灵（诗篇51：12-14）并帮助他们遵守祂的诫命，并为他们的罪
哀伤（以赛亚63：10）。在先知以西结的属性中，关于将以色列向哦那个战败和放逐的死
亡中恢复的伟大异象，‘气’回到百姓干枯的尸体，成为神自己气息重新创造一个民族的
图画。‘我将会把我的灵放在你们里面，你们当活过来。。。’（以西结37：14）
In the New Testament writings, the Holy Spirit of God (pneuma Theou) is
usually spoken of in a more personal way, and is inextricably connected with
the person and mission of Jesus. Matthew and Luke make it clear that Mary
conceives Jesus in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, who “overshadows
” her (Mt 1.18, 20; Lk 1.35). All four Gospels testify that John the Baptist
– who himself was “filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb”
(Lk 1.15) – witnessed the descent of the same Spirit on Jesus, in a visible
manifestation of God’s power and election, when Jesus was baptized (Mt 3.16;
Mk 1.10; Lk 3.22; Jn 1.33). The Holy Spirit leads Jesus into the desert to
struggle with the devil (Mt 4.1; Lk 4.1), fills him with prophetic power at
the start of his mission (Lk 4.18-21), and manifests himself in Jesus’
exorcisms (Mt 12.28, 32). John the Baptist identified the mission of Jesus as
“baptizing” his disciples “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Mt 3.11;
Lk 3.16; cf. Jn 1.33), a prophecy fulfilled in the great events of Pentecost
(Acts 1.5), when the disciples were “clothed with power from on high” (Lk
24.49; Acts 1.8). In the narrative of Acts, it is the Holy Spirit who
continues to unify the community (4.31-32), who enables Stephen to bear
witness to Jesus with his life (8.55), and whose charismatic presence among
believing pagans makes it clear that they, too, are called to baptism in
Christ (10.47).
在新约的著作中，神的圣灵（pneuma Theou）往往以一种更具有位元元格特性的方式被描
绘，并密切的与耶稣的位格和人物相连。马太和路加清楚的表明，玛利亚乃是藉著圣灵的
能力怀上耶稣，圣灵‘覆蓋’她（马太1：18，20；路加1：35）。四福音见证施洗约翰—
—他自己‘从母腹就被神论充满’（路加1：15）——见证同一位灵以一种显明神的能力
和拣选的方式，降在耶稣身上，当耶稣被浸的时候（马太3：16；马可1：10；路加3：22
；约翰1：33）。圣灵引导耶稣进入沙漠与魔鬼征战（马太4：1；路加4：1），在耶稣任
务一开始的时候就用先知的能力充满祂（路加4:18-21），并显明在耶稣赶鬼的行动中（
马蹄啊12：28，32）。施洗约翰指出耶稣的任务是为祂的门徒们‘用圣灵和火施浸’（马
太3：11‘路加3：16；参考约翰1：33），一位在伟大的五旬节实践中应验的限制（行传1
：5），当门徒‘披上从高处而来的能力’的时候（路加24：49；行传1：8）。在行传的
技术中，圣灵继续联合基督徒团体（4：31-32），祂让斯提反能够用自己的生命为耶稣见
证（8：55），祂以恩赐的方式在相信的异教徒中显现，清楚的证明他们也在基督里被呼
召而受尽（10：47）。
In his farewell discourse in the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks of the Holy
Spirit as one who will continue his own work in the world, after he has
returned to the Father. He is “the Spirit of truth,” who will act as “
another advocate (parakletos)” to teach and guide his disciples (14.16-17),
reminding them of all Jesus himself has taught (14.26). In this section of
the Gospel, Jesus gives us a clearer sense of the relationship between this “
advocate,” himself, and his Father. Jesus promises to send him “from the
Father,” as “the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father” (15.26);
and the truth that he teaches will be the truth Jesus has revealed in his own
person (see 1,14; 14.6): “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine
and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that
he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (16.14-15)
在约翰福音结尾的结束讲道，耶稣论到圣灵是那位将会在祂回到父那边去后，在世界中接
续祂工作的。他是‘真理的灵’，将会成为‘另一位保慧师（parakleto）’教导并引导
祂的门徒（14：16-17），提醒他们耶稣自己所有的教训。（14：26）在这段福音书的记
载中，耶稣给我们一个关于这位‘保慧师’和祂自己，并祂的父之间的关系。耶稣应许‘
从父’差遣祂，就像‘真理的灵从父而来’（15：26）；并且，祂教导的真理将会是耶稣
在祂自己的位格中所启示的真理（参考1：14；14：6）：‘祂将会荣耀我，因为祂将会把
我所有的一切宣告给你们听。父所有的一切都是我的；因此，我说，祂将会把我所有的一
切宣告给你们听。’（16：14-15）
The Epistle to the Hebrews represents the Spirit simply as speaking in the
Scrip- tures, with his own voice (Heb 3.7; 9.8). In Paul’s letters, the Holy
Spirit of God is iden- tified as the one who has finally “defined” Jesus as
“Son of God in power” by acting as the agent of his resurrection (Rom 1.4;
8.11). It is this same Spirit, communicated now to us, who conforms us to the
risen Lord, giving us hope for resurrection and life (Rom 8.11), making us
also children and heirs of God (Rom 8.14-17), and forming our words and even
our inarticulate groaning into a prayer that expresses hope (Rom 8.23-27). “
And hope does not disappoint us because God’s love has been poured into our
hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.” (Rom 5.5)
希伯来书简单的根据圣经展示圣灵，就是用祂自己的话（希伯来3：7；9：8）。在保罗的
书信中，神的圣灵就是那位最终藉著作为基督复活的仲介而‘证明’耶稣‘在能力中是神
的儿子’的那位。（罗马1：4；8：11）也是同一位圣灵，如今在我们里面与我们交通，
祂向我们肯定那位复活的主，赐给我们复活和生命的盼望（罗马8：11），并让我们成为
神的儿女和后嗣（罗马8：14-17），并把我们的话，甚至我们的本口拙舌化为带着盼望的
祷告（罗马8：23-17）.‘我们并不会失望，因为神的爱已经藉著赐给我们的圣灵倾倒在
我们心中。’（罗马5：5）
II. Historical Considerations
历史中的关注点
Throughout the early centuries of the Church, the Latin and Greek traditions
witnessed to the same apostolic faith, but differed in their ways of
describing the relationship among the persons of the Trinity. The difference
generally reflected the various pastoral challenges facing the Church in the
West and in the East. The Nicene Creed (325) bore witness to the faith of the
Church as it was articulated in the face of the Arian heresy, which denied
the full divinity of Christ. In the years following the Council of Nicaea,
the Church continued to be challenged by views questioning both the full
divinity and the full humanity of Christ, as well as the divinity of the Holy
Spirit. Against these challenges, the fathers at the Council of
Constantinople (381) affirmed the faith of Nicaea, and produced an expanded
Creed, based on the Nicene but also adding significantly to it.
在整个早期教会的头几个世纪中，拉丁和希腊传统见证了同一个使徒的信仰，但是它们用
不同的方式描述三位元元元一体位格间的关系。这个分别一般而言反映了东西方教会所面
对的教牧方面的挑战。尼西亚信经（325）在面对亚流异端的时候，见证了教会的信仰，
他们否定基督完整的神学。在尼西亚大会接下来的时期中，教会继续面对关于基督完整神
学和完整人性的不同观点，并圣灵的神格。为了对抗那些调整，出席康士坦丁堡大会（
381）的教父们肯定了尼西亚的信仰，并根据尼西亚信经进行具有意义的扩充。
Of particular note was this Creed’s more extensive affirmation regarding the
Holy Spirit, a passage clearly influenced by Basil of Caesaraea’s classic
treatise On the Holy Spirit, which had probably been finished some six years
earlier. The Creed of Constantinople affirmed the faith of the Church in the
divinity of the Spirit by saying: “and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the
Giver of life, who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father, who with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the
prophets.” Although the text avoided directly calling the Spirit “God,” or
affirming (as Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus had done) that the Spirit
is “of the same substance” as the Father and the Son – statements that
doubtless would have sounded extreme to some theologically cautious
contemporaries - the Council clearly intended, by this text, to make a
statement of the Church’s faith in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit,
especially in opposition to those who viewed the Spirit as a creature. At the
same time, it was not a concern of the Council to specify the manner of the
Spirit’s origin, or to elaborate on the Spirit’s particular relationships
to the Father and the Son.
一个特别当注意的地方是，信经更为肯定圣灵，一段明显的受到该撒利亚的巴西流所持的
，《论圣灵（On the Holy Spirit）》的传统观点所应许，这本书可能完成于六年前。康
士坦丁堡信经肯定了教会关于圣灵神格的信仰，说到：‘主，赐生命者，在从父而出（
ekporeuetai）的圣灵中，藉著先知们说话。’虽然本文避免直接称圣灵为‘神’，或肯
定（就像亚他那修和拿先斯的贵格利所作的）圣灵是与父和子‘同质’——对于当代神学
上更为谨慎的人士而言，这样的说法无疑是非常极端的——大会明确的想要藉著这段本文
肯定教会对于圣灵完整神格的信仰，特别是为了反对那些认为圣灵是一个被造之物的人士
。在同时，大会并不关心如何明确圣灵产生的方式，或详细解释圣灵与父和子间的特殊关
系。
The acts of the Council of Constantinople were lost, but the text of its
Creed was quoted and formally acknowledged as binding, along with the Creed
of Nicaea, in the dogmatic statement of the Council of Chalcedon (451).
Within less than a century, this Creed of 381 had come to play a normative
role in the definition of faith, and by the early sixth century was even
proclaimed in the Eucharist in Antioch, Constantinople, and other regions in
the East. In regions of the Western churches, the Creed was also introduced
into the Eucharist, perhaps beginning with the third Council of Toledo in
589. It was not formally introduced into the Eucharistic liturgy at Rome,
however, until the eleventh century – a point of some importance for the
process of official Western acceptance of the Filioque.
康士坦丁堡大会的记录已经遗失，但是在迦克顿大会（425）上，它的信经的本文被引用
并被认定与尼西亚大会同等。在一个世纪内，这个381年的信经就在定义信仰的过程中具
有突出的角色，在第六世纪前半叶，甚至在安替阿，康士坦丁堡并其他东部的地区中的圣
餐礼仪中被宣读。在西方教会的地区中，信经也被视为罗马圣餐礼仪的一部分，然而，直
到十一世纪——西方才正式的在某个重要的时间点接受Filioque。
No clear record exists of the process by which the word Filioque was inserted
into the Creed of 381 in the Christian West before the sixth century. The
idea that the Spirit came forth “from the Father through the Son” is
asserted by a number of earlier Latin theologians, as part of their
insistence on the ordered unity of all three persons within the single divine
Mystery (e.g., Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 4 and 5). Tertullian, writing at
the beginning of the third century, emphasizes that Father, Son and Holy
Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power (ibid. 2),
which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted
by the Son to the Spirit (ibid. 8). Hilary of Poitiers, in the mid-fourth
century, in the same work speaks of the Spirit as ‘coming forth from the
Father’ and being ‘sent by the Son’ (De Trinitate 12.55); as being ‘from
the Father through the Son’ (ibid. 12.56); and as ‘having the Father and
the Son as his source’ (ibid. 2.29); in another passage, Hilary points to
John 16.15 (where Jesus says: “All things that the Father has are mine;
therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from what is mine and declare
it to you”), and wonders aloud whether “to receive from the Son is the same
thing as to proceed from the Father” (ibid. 8.20). Ambrose of Milan, writing
in the 380s, openly asserts that the Spirit “proceeds from (procedit a) the
Father and the Son,” without ever being separated from either (On the Holy
Spirit 1.11.20). None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit’s mode of
origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to
emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all
acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being.
[Note: This paragraph includes a stylistic revision in the reference to
Hilary of Poitiers that the Consultation agreed to at its October 2004
meeting.]
没有更明确的记录记载Filioque在六世纪前的西方基督教中如何被插入381年的信经中。
圣灵‘从父藉著子（from the Father through the Son）’而来的观念被许多早期的拉
丁神学家们所肯定，作为他们用来在一个独一神圣的神格中保持三个位格有次序的联合（
例如：特土良的Adversus Praxean 4和5）。特土良在三世纪初开始写作，强调父、子和
圣灵都共有一个独一的神圣素质、质量和能力，（同书2）他认为这些都是从父而出，并
藉著子传输给圣灵。（同书8）四世纪中的Poitiers的希拉蕊在同样的作品中论到圣灵乃
是‘从父而来’并‘藉著子被差遣“（De Trinitate 12：55）；并‘藉著子从父而来’
（同书12：5）；并‘父和子是祂的源头’（同书2：29）；希拉蕊在另一段话中指向约翰
16：15（当耶稣说：‘父所有的一切都是我的；因此，我说[圣灵]当把我所有的一切宣告
给你们听。’），并非常怀疑‘从圣灵领受是不是与由父而出是同一件事’（同书8：20
）。米兰的安波罗修，在380年左右的作品公开建成圣灵‘从父和子出（procedit a）’
，他们彼此根本不是分开的（论圣灵 1.11.20）。然而，这些作者都未曾让圣灵产生的方
程为某种特殊说法的题目；反而，他们都强调三个神圣位格的等同性就是神，并都承认只
有父是神永恒存有的源头。[注：这段话包括了一段大会在2004年10月会议上所共同承认
的Poitiers的希拉蕊的一段话，并加以改写。]
The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the
profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local
Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did
not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as
well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King
Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part
of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its
purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the
Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during
the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of
the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.
在信经本文中第一次使用Filioque的语言是歌德国外Reccared在789年的Toledo地区大会
的信仰宣告。这个地区会议定罪了那些不接受头四个大公教会会议的教条的人（11条），
并那些不承认圣灵是从父和子而来的人（3条）。西班牙的主教们和Reccared国王似乎相
信在当时有一个与Filioque相同的希腊字构成了原始康士坦丁堡信经的一部分，并看起来
认为那个字的意思是为了借由肯定父与子间亲密的关系而反对亚流主义。根据Reccared的
命令，圣餐礼开始复述那个信经，模仿东方的做法。从西班牙开始，具有Filioque的信经
开始在高卢流传。
Nearly a century later, a council of English bishops was held at Hatfield in
680 under the presidency of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury, a Byzantine
asked to serve in England by Pope Vitalian. According to the Venerable Bede
(Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl. 4.15 [17]), this Council explicitly affirmed its
faith as conforming to the five Ecumenical Councils, and also declared that
the Holy Spirit proceeds “in an ineffable way (inenarrabiliter)” from the
Father and the Son.
大约一个世纪后，一个英国主教们召开的大会于680召开于Hatfield，Canterbury的
Theodore宗主教监督了整个会议，他是一位教皇Vitalian设立在英国服务的拜占庭人。根
据Vanerable Bede (Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl. 4.15 [17])的记载，这个会议特别肯定了
它的信仰与头五个大公会议一致，并宣称圣灵‘以一种无法描述的方式（
inenarrabiliter）的方式’从父和子而出。
By the seventh century, three related factors may have contributed to a
growing tendency to include the Filioque in the Creed of 381 in the West, and
to the belief of some Westerners that it was, in fact, part of the original
creed. First, a strong current in the patristic tradition of the West, summed
up in the works of Augustine (354-430), spoke of the Spirit’s proceeding
from the Father and the Son. (e.g., On the Trinity 4.29; 15.10, 12, 29, 37;
the significance of this tradition and its terminology will be discussed
below.) Second, throughout the fourth and fifth centuries a number of credal
statements circulated in the Churches, often associated with baptism and
catechesis. The formula of 381 was not considered the only binding expression
of apostolic faith. Within the West, the most widespread of these was the
Apostles’ Creed, an early baptismal creed, which contained a simple
affirmation of belief in the Holy Spirit without elaboration. Third, however,
and of particular significance for later Western theology, was the so-called
Athanasian Creed (Quicunque). Thought by Westerners to be composed by
Athanasius of Alexandria, this Creed probably originated in Gaul about 500,
and is cited by Caesarius of Arles (+542). This text was unknown in the East,
but had great influence in the West until modern times. Relying heavily on
Augustine’s treatment of the Trinity, it clearly affirmed that the Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son. A central emphasis of this Creed was
its strong anti-Arian Christology: speaking of the Spirit as proceeding from
the Father and the Son implied that the Son was not inferior to the Father in
substance, as the Arians held. The influence of this Creed undoubtedly
supported the use of the Filioque in the Latin version of the Creed of
Constantinople in Western Europe, at least from the sixth century onwards.
到了第七世纪，三个彼此相关的原因造成了西方把Filiouque包括在381年信经的张力，据
信某些西方人士事实上相信这个字是原始信经的一部分。首先，一种强烈的西方教父的传
统，总结于奥古斯丁的作品中（354-430），说到圣灵从父和子而出（例如：论三位一体
4.29；15.10，12，29，37；这个传统的意义并它的词汇将会在接下来的段落中高卢。）
第二，在整个第四和第五世纪，在教会中流传许多信经，往往将浸礼和教理结合。381年
的公式不被视为使徒信仰的唯一表述。在西方，最为流行的是使徒信经，一个早期的受浸
信经，包括了一种简要的，并不详细的，对于圣灵的信仰的肯定。然而，第三，对于后期
的西方神学具有特殊意义的张力，就是所谓的亚他那修信经（Quicunque）。虽然它被西
方人文是亚历山大的亚他那修所撰写，这个信经可能在500年左右写于高卢，并被
Caesarius of Arles（+542）所引用。东方不知道这个信经的存在，但是直到今天对于西
方仍有非常大的影响力。这个信经非常依赖奥古斯丁在三位一体中的论点，明确的肯定圣
灵从父和子而出。这个信经的中心重点是它非常强烈的反亚流派基督论：论到圣灵从父和
子而出含示子的素质不会低于父，这是亚流派的说法。这个信经的影响毫无疑问的支撑了
在西欧所使用的拉丁版的康士坦丁堡信经，最起码从第六世纪开始。
The use of the Creed of 381 with the addition of the Filioque became a matter
of controversy towards the end of the eighth century, both in discussions
between the Frankish theologians and the see of Rome and in the growing
rivalry between the Carolingian and Byzantine courts, which both now claimed
to be the legitimate successors of the Roman Empire. In the wake of the
iconoclastic struggle in Byzantium, the Carolingians took this opportunity to
challenge the Orthodoxy of Constantinople, and put particular emphasis upon
the significance of the term Filioque, which they now began to identify as a
touchstone of right Trinitarian faith. An intense political and cultural
rivalry between the Franks and the Byzantines provided the background for the
Filioque debates throughout the eighth and ninth centuries.
这个带着Filioque的381年版信经成为八世纪末教义争议的内容，在法兰克神学家和罗马
教皇并与卡罗琳和如今被宣称是罗马帝国合法继承人的拜占庭皇室间的冲突中都被讨论。
在拜占庭方面的图像争议中，卡罗琳方面藉著这个机会挑战康士坦丁堡的正统性，而特别
强调Filioque的意义，他们开始将其视为正确的三一信仰的基石。在整个第八和第九世纪
中，法兰克人和拜占庭人间政治和文化上的巨大差异为Filioque的争论提供了背景
Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of
Nicaea (787). The Council had given definitive approval to the ancient
practice of venerating icons. The translation proved to be defective. On the
basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Pope
Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. Among the points of objection,
Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at
his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession
from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected
Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on
this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810).
Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called
Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of
the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the
veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians
misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text,
the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that
the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed
the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and
rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father
through the Son.
查理曼大帝受到了一份第二次尼西亚大会的决议（787）。大会坚决的支持古代尊崇图像
的做法。那个翻译证明是决定性的。在这个有误的翻译的基础上，查理曼达到派遣了一个
代表团去找教皇Hadrian I(772-795)，表达他的关切。在他反对的重点中，查理曼的代表
宣称康士坦丁堡宗主教Tarasius就职的时候，并没有根据尼西亚的信仰宣告圣灵从父和子
而出，而是承认圣灵从父藉著子而出（Mansi 13.760）教皇强烈的拒绝了查理曼的抗议，
表明最起码Tarasius和大会在这点并其他的点上，都维持了教父们的信仰（同书759-810
）。查理曼在交换许多信件后，拟定了一份称作Libri Carolini (791-794)的文件，调整
754年的图像派大会和787年的尼西亚大会关于尊崇图像的决议。再次，因为糟糕的反应，
卡罗琳方面误解了后一个大会的决议。在这份档中，卡罗琳方面对于Filioque的观点也再
次被强调。辩称Filioque这个词乃是381年信经的一部分，Libri Carolini再次确认中圣
灵从父和子而出的拉丁翻译，并拒绝圣灵从父藉著子而出的不完全的教导。
While the acts of the local synod of Frankfurt in 794 are not extant, other
records indicate that it was called mainly to counter a form of the heresy of
“Adoptionism” then thought to be on the rise in Spain. The emphasis of a
number of Spanish theologians on the integral humanity of Christ seemed, to
the court theologian Alcuin and others, to imply that the man Jesus was “
adopted” by the Father at his baptism. In the presence of Charlemagne, this
council – which Charlemagne seems to have promoted as “ecumenical” (see
Mansi 13.899-906) - approved the Libri Carolini, affirming, in the context of
maintaining the full divinity of the person of Christ, that the Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son. As in the late sixth century, the Latin
formulation of the Creed, stating that the Spirit proceeds from the Father
and the Son, was enlisted to combat a perceived Christological heresy.
在同时，现已遗失的794年在法兰克福举办的地方会议的决议，和其他的记录表明，这都
主义是为了反对某种随后被认为源自于西班牙的‘嗣子论（Adoptionism）’异端。某些
西班牙的神学家强调基督人性的完整性，以至于神学家Alcuin和其他的人士认为耶稣这个
人乃是在祂受浸的时候被父认养。查理曼出席了这个大会——查理曼看起来想要把这大会
提升为‘大公教会性’的（cankMansi 13.899-906）——通过了Libri Carolini，肯定了
关于基督位格完整神性的本文，而圣灵从父与子而出。就如同六世纪末的拉丁信经公式，
强调圣灵从父和子而出，乃是为了与前述的基督论异端争战。
Within a few years, another local council, also directed against “Spanish
Adoptionism,” was held in Fréjus (Friuli) (796 or 797). At this meeting,
Paulinus of Aquileia (+802), an associate of Alcuin in Charlemagne’s court,
defended the use of the Creed with the Filioque as a way of opposing
Adoptionism. Paulinus, in fact, recognized that the Filioque was an addition
to the Creed of 381 but defended the interpolation, claiming that it
contradicted neither the meaning of the creed nor the intention of the
Fathers. The authority in the West of the Council of Fréjus, together with
that of Frankfurt, ensured that the Creed of 381 with the Filioque would be
used in teaching and in the celebration of the Eucharist in churches
throughout much of Europe.
几年之内，另一个地方性会有，也是反对‘西班牙的嗣子论’，在Frejus（Fruili,
796huo797）举行。在这个会议中，Aquileis的Paulinus（+802），一位查理曼朝廷的成
员，用反对嗣子论作为为信经中的Filioque辩护的基础。事实上，Paulinus知道Filioque
是381年信经多出来的部分，但是仍然为这种篡改辩护，宣称它既不违反信经的意义，也
不会违反教父们的看法。西方Frejus大会的权威在加上法兰克福大会的权威，确定了带有
Filioque的381年信经当在大部分欧洲的教会教导教义并教会中的圣餐礼仪中使用。
The different liturgical traditions with regard to the Creed came into
contact with each other in early-ninth-century Jerusalem. Western monks,
using the Latin Creed with the added Filioque, were denounced by their
Eastern brethren. Writing to Pope Leo III for guidance, in 808, the Western
monks referred to the practice in Charlemagne’s chapel in Aachen as their
model. Pope Leo responded with a letter to “all the churches of the East”
in which he declared his personal belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds
eternally from the Father and the Son. In that response, the Pope did not
distinguish between his personal understanding and the issue of the
legitimacy of the addition to the Creed, although he would later resist the
addition in liturgies celebrated at Rome.
关于信经，基于不同传统的礼仪方式在九世纪初的耶路撒冷相遇。西方的教士使用加上
Filioque的信经，被东方的兄弟们聚集。教皇Leo III在808年写下了指导，西方的教士把
在查理曼在Aachen礼拜堂使用的做法当作他们的范本。教会Leo写了一封‘至所有东方教
会’的信作为回应，在该信中，他宣称他个人相信圣灵永远从父和子而出。在那封回信中
，教皇并没有在他的个人理解和增改信经的问题作出区分，虽然他后来坚持在罗马使用的
礼仪使用增改的版本。
Taking up the issue of the Jerusalem controversy, Charlemagne asked Theodulf
of Orleans, the principal author of the Libri Carolini, to write a defense of
the use of the word Filioque. Appearing in 809, De Spiritu Sancto of Theodulf
was essentially a compilation of patristic citations supporting the theology
of the Filioque. With this text in hand, Charlemagne convened a council in
Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the
Father and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following
this council, Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed
with the Filioque (Mansi 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a
delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo
III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in
catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its
inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council
- who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops
who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo
stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was
permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing
scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including
it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the
Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s,
containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin.
Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians
continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their
own dioceses.
在回到耶路撒冷争议上，查理曼请奥尔良的Theodulf，Libri Carolini的主要作者，写一
封使用Filioque这个词的辩护信。似乎在808，Theodulf的De Spiritu Sancto基本上就是
引用教父语录来支持Filioque神学的汇编。手上握著这个作品，查理曼在809-810年间召
开了Aachen大会，肯定了圣灵从父和子而出的教育，这个教义被希腊的神学家们责难。在
这个会议后，查理曼要求教皇Leo同样使用带有Filioque的信经（Mansi 14.23-76）。教
皇和查理曼特使团的会议于810年在罗马召开。同时，Leo III肯定了Filioque这个字的正
统性，并批准在教理和个人的信仰认信中使用这个词，他明确无误的否定381年信经包括
这个词，因为大会的教父们——他观察到，他们跟聚集在Aachen的主教们一样，都有圣灵
的启迪——都选择包括这个词。教皇Leo规定可以在圣餐礼中使用信经，但是不是必须的
，并督促为了避免丑闻，卡罗琳的内阁最后不要在礼仪中使用它。大约在此时，根据
Liber Pontificalis，教皇在圣彼得大教堂中有两块非常重的银盾，上面同时用拉丁文和
希腊文刻有381年信经的原始版本。然而，基本他有这种间接的，并且具有代表性的行动
，卡罗琳仍然在他们自己教区中的圣餐礼中使用带有Filioque信经。
The Byzantines had little appreciation of the various developments regarding
the Filioque in the West between the sixth and ninth centuries. Communication
grew steadily worse, and their own struggles with monothelitism, iconoclasm,
and the rise of Islam left little time to follow closely theological
developments in the West. However, their interest in the Filioque became more
pronounced in the middle of the 9th century, when it came to be combined with
jurisdictional disputes between Rome and Constantinople, as well as with the
activities of Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria. When Byzantine missionaries
were expelled from Bulgaria by King Boris, under Western influence, they
returned to Constantinople and reported on Western practices, including the
use of the Creed with the Filioque. Patriarch Photios of Constantinople, in
867, addressed a strongly worded encyclical to the other Eastern patriarchs,
commenting on the political and ecclesiastical crisis in Bulgaria as well as
on the tensions between Constantinople and Rome. In this letter, Photios
denounced the Western missionaries in Bulgaria and criticized Western
liturgical practices.
拜占庭方面根本不珍惜在第六和第九世纪间，西方关于Filioque的各种发展。交流变得越
来越少，他们自己与（monothelitism）和图像主义（iconoclasm）的争斗，以及伊斯兰
教的兴起，让他们没有时间注意西方神学的发展。然而，他们自己对于Filioque的兴趣在
第九世纪中变得越来越明显，伴随着罗马和康士坦丁堡的合法性的争议，以及法兰克派遣
到保加利亚的宣教士。拜占庭的宣教士在西方的影响下，同时被Boris王从保加利亚驱逐
，他们回到康士坦丁堡，报告了西方的作为，包括使用带有Filioque的行径。康士坦丁堡
宗主教Photios在867，发表了措辞强硬的教喻给其他东方的宗主教，论到在保加利亚发生
的政治和教会危机，以及在康士坦丁堡和罗马间的紧张情势。Photos在这封信中指责在保
加利亚的西方宣教士并批判西方的圣餐礼。
Most significantly, Patriarch Photios called the addition of the Filioque in
the West a blasphemy, and presented a substantial theological argument
against the view of the Trinity which he believed it depicted. Photios’s
opposition to the Filioque was based upon his view that it signifies two
causes in the Trinity, and diminishes the mon- archy of the Father. Thus, the
Filioque seemed to him to detract from the distinc- tive character of each
person of the Trinity, and to confuse their relationships, paradoxically
bearing in itself the seeds of both pagan polytheism and Sabellian modalism
(Mystagogy 9, 11). In his letter of 867, Photios does not, however,
demonstrate any knowledge of the Latin patristic tradition behind the use of
the Filioque in the West. His opposition to the Filioque would subsequently
receive further elaboration in his Letter to the Patriarch of Aquileia in 883
or 884, as well as in his famous Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, written about
886.
更为重要的是，Photios宗主教称西方插入Filioque是亵渎神的行为，并代表一种反对祂
所相信的三位一体观点的神学争论。Photios反对Filioque乃是根据他认为的，它意表在
三位一体中有两个起因，摧毁了父的独一性。因此，Filioque对他而言减损了三位一体中
每一个位格间的分别，并混乱了祂们间的关系，同时具有异教多神论和撒伯流主义的形态
论的种子（Mystagogy 9, 11）。然而，Photios在他867年的信中并没有表现出他了解西
方在使用Filioque这个词背后的拉丁教父传统。他反对Filioque可能是进一步因着其后的
，他在883或884写给Aquileia大主教的信，并他著名的，886年关于圣灵的Mystagogy所激
化。
In concluding his letter of 867, Photios called for an ecumenical council
that would resolve the issue of the interpolation of the Filioque, as well as
illuminating its theological foundation. A local council was held in
Constantinople in 867, which deposed Pope Nicholas I - an action which
increased tensions between the two sees. In 863, Nicholas himself had refused
to recognize Photios as Patriarch because of his allegedly uncanonical
appointment. With changes in the imperial government, Photios was forced to
resign in 867, and was replaced by Patriarch Ignatius, whom he himself had
replaced in 858. A new council was convened in Constantinople later in 869.
With papal representatives present and with imperial support, this Council
excommunicated Photios, and was subsequently recognized in the Medieval West,
for reasons unrelated to the Filioque or Photios, as the Eighth Ecumenical
Council, although it was never recognized as such in the East.
Photios在他867年的信件的结论中呼吁召开一个大公会议来解决插入Filioque的问题，并
找出它的神学基础。867年康士坦丁堡举办了一个地区会议，开革了教会Nicholas I——
一个加深两个宗主教间冲突的行动。Nicholas在863年亲自拒绝认可Photios的宗主教职位
，因为他据说是非法被设立的。因着帝国政权的更替，Photios在867年被迫离职，宗主教
Ignatius接替他的位置，他自己在858年的时候被更换。869年在康士坦丁堡召开了一个新
的会议。大会因有教皇的代表出席，并帝国的支持，开革了Photios，接下来承认了中世
纪的西方，不是因为与Filioque或Photios相关的原因，就好像第八次大公会议从未被东
方承认一样。
The relationship between Rome and Constantinople changed when Photios again
became patriarch in 877, following the death of Ignatius. In Rome, Pope
Nicholas had died in 867, and was succeeded by Pope Hadrian II (867-872), who
himself anathematized Photios in 869. His successor, Pope John VIII
(872-882), was willing to recognize Photios as the legitimate Patriarch in
Constantinople under certain conditions, thus clearing the way for a
restoration of better relations. A Council was held in Constan- tinople in
879-880, in the presence of representatives from Rome and the other Eastern
Patriarchates. This Council, considered by some modern Orthodox theologians
to be ecumenical, suppressed the decisions of the earlier Council of 869-870,
and recognized the status of Photios as patriarch. It affirmed the ecumenical
character of the Council of 787 and its decisions against iconoclasm. There
was no extensive discussion of the Filioque, which was not yet a part of the
Creed professed in Rome itself, and no statement was made by the Council
about its theological justification; yet this Council formally reaffirmed the
original text of the Creed of 381, without the Filioque, and anathematized
anyone who would compose another confession of faith. The Council also spoke
of the Roman see in terms of great respect, and allowed the Papal legates the
traditional prerogatives of presidency, recognizing their right to begin and
to close discussions and to sign documents first. Nevertheless, the documents
give no indication that the bishops present formally recognized any priority
of jurisdiction for the see of Rome, outside of the framework of the
Patristic understanding of the communion of Churches and the sixth-century
canonical theory of the Pentarchy. The difficult question of the competing
claims of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople to jurisdiction in
Bulgaria was left to be decided by the Emperor. After the Council, the
Filioque continued to be used in the Creed in parts of Western Europe,
despite the intentions of Pope John VIII, who, like his predecessors,
maintained the text sanctioned by the Council of 381.
当Photios于877年，在Ignatius死后，再次成为宗主教的时候，罗马和康士坦丁间的关系
又改变了。罗马教皇Nicholas死于867年，教皇Hardian II（867-872）接任，他自己在
869年开革了Photios。他的继任者教会John VIII（872-882）愿意在某种条件下承认
Photios是康士坦丁堡合法的宗主教，因此为重新建立更好的关系铺路。879-880在康士坦
丁堡召开了一个大会，罗马和其他东方宗主教区都有代表参加。这个会议被某些近代的东
正教神学家认为具有大公性，推翻了869-870会议的决议，承认Photios宗主教的地位。它
也肯定了787年会议的大公性，并其针对图像主义的决议。该会议并没有进一步讨论
Filioque的问题，因为它尚未成为罗马本身所承认的信经的一部分，而大会也没有针对它
做出任何神学方面的裁定；然而，这个会议重新肯定了381年信经的原始版本，没有
Filioque，并咒诅任何拟定另一个信仰宣言的做法。大会也用非常尊敬的语言论及罗马主
教，并让教皇合法化其传统已经赋予的优先地位，承认他们开启并结束讨论，和带头签署
文件的权利。尽管如此，除了在教父们所理解的教会间的交通的架构喜爱，并第六世纪所
指定的五个宗主教区（Pentarchy）的理论外，文献并没有任何暗示与会的主教们正式认
可罗马主教在裁定方面有任何优先的权利。观教皇和康士坦丁堡宗主教区相互宣称拥有的
保加利亚的裁定权则留给皇帝去决定。在会议后，Filioque继续在西欧的某些地区的信经
中使用，无视于教皇John VIII希望他的继承者能够维持381年大会所指定的本文。
A new stage in the history of the controversy was reached in the early
eleventh century. During the synod following the coronation of King Henry II
as Holy Roman Emperor at Rome in 1014, the Creed, including the Filioque, was
sung for the first time at a papal Mass. Because of this action, the
liturgical use of the Creed, with the Filioque, now was generally assumed in
the Latin Church to have the sanction of the papacy. Its inclusion in the
Eucharist, after two centuries of papal resistance of the practice, reflected
a new dominance of the German Emperors over the papacy, as well as the papacy
’s growing sense of its own authority, under imperial protection, within the
entire Church, both western and eastern.
争议的历史在第八世纪早期进入一个新的阶段。在1014年亨利八世的加冕礼并神圣罗马皇
帝在罗马的加冕礼后的大会，包括Filioque的信经首次在教皇的弥撒中被吟唱。因为这个
动作，使用带有Filioque信经的礼仪如今被拉丁教会广泛采用，得到教皇的批准。这包括
生产礼，教皇在两个世纪的抗拒使用这个做法后，反映了德国皇帝对于教皇职位的管辖权
，就如同教皇在帝国保护下逐渐增强的，对自身施行于东西方整个教会权力的认可。
The Filioque figured prominently in the tumultuous events of 1054, when
excommunications were exchanged by representatives of the Eastern and Western
Churches meeting in Constantinople. Within the context of his anathemas
against Patriarch Michael I Cerularios of Constantinople and certain of his
advisors, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, the legate of Pope Leo IX,
accused the Byzantines of improperly deleting the Filioque from the Creed,
and criticized other Eastern liturgical practices. In responding to these
accusations, Patriarch Michael recognized that the anathemas of Humbert did
not originate with Leo IX, and cast his own anathemas simply upon the papal
delegation. Leo, in fact, was already dead and his successor had not been
elected. At the same time, Michael condemned the Western use of the Filioque
in the Creed, as well as other Western liturgical practices. This exchange of
limited excommunications did not lead, by itself, to a formal schism between
Rome and Constan- tinople, despite the views of later historians; it did,
however, deepen the growing estrangement between Constantinople and Rome.
当东方和西方教会的代表在康士坦丁堡会面中彼此开革对方的时候，Filioque描绘了1054
年令人印象深刻的混乱事件。在开个康士坦丁堡主教Michael I Cerualrios和他的智囊的
时候，Silva Candida的Humbert主教，教会Leo IX的代表，抨击拜占庭方面非法的从信经
中删除了Filioque，并批判其他东方的礼仪。Michael宗主教在回应这些抨击的时候，承
认Humber的开革并不是源自于Leo IX，仅仅是针对教会的特使团。事实上，Leo在那个时
候已经死了，其继任者尚未选出。Michael在同时定罪西方在信经中使用Filioque的做法
，加上西方其他礼仪上的做法。这种有限度开革的相互交火本身并没有如同后世的历史学
家所认为的，造成罗马和康士坦丁堡正式的决裂；然而，它确实加深了康士坦丁堡和罗马
间的不和。
The relationship between the Church of Rome and the Churches of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were seriously damaged
during the period of the crusades, and especially in the wake of the infamous
Fourth Crusade. In 1204, Western Crusaders sacked the city of Constantinople,
long the commercial and political rival of Venice, and Western politicians
and clergy dominated the life of the city until it was reclaimed by Emperor
Michael VIII Palaiologos in 1261. The installation of Western bishops in the
territories of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, who were loyal to Rome
and to the political powers of Western Europe, became a tragically visible
new expression of schism. Even after 1261, Rome supported Latin patriarchs in
these three ancient Eastern sees. For most Eastern Christians, this was a
clear sign that the papacy and its political supporters had little regard for
the legitimacy of their ancient churches.
罗马教会和康士坦丁堡、亚历山大、安替阿和耶路撒冷教会间的关系在十字军时期受到了
严重的伤害，特别是在臭名昭彰的第四次十字军时期。在1204年，西方的十字架劫掠了长
久以来是威尼斯在商业和政治上的对手，康士坦丁堡城，西方的政治家和神职人员掌控了
城市，直到城市在1261年被皇帝Michael VIII Palaiologos重新接管为止。在康士坦丁堡
、安替阿和耶路撒冷的领地中设立效忠罗马和西欧政治势力的西方主教，成为一个悲剧性
的，加深双方分裂的可见现象。基本在1261后，罗马仍然支持在这三个古代西方宗主教区
内的拉丁主教。对于大部分的东方基督徒而言，这明显的代表教皇和他的政治支持者根本
无视于他们古老的教会。
Despite this growing estrangement, a number of notable attempts were made to
address the issue of the Filioque between the early twelfth and
mid-thirteenth century. The German Emperor Lothair III sent bishop Anselm of
Havelberg to Constantinople in 1136, to negotiate a military alliance with
Emperor John II Comnenos. While he was there, Anselm and Metropolitan Nicetas
of Nicomedia held a series of public discussions about subjects dividing the
Churches, including the Filioque, and concluded that the differences between
the two traditions were not as great as they had thought (PL 188.1206B –
1210 B). A letter from Orthodox Patriarch Germanos II (1222-1240) to Pope
Gregory IX (1227-1241) led to further discussions between Eastern and Western
theologians on the Filioque at Nicaea in 1234. Subsequent discussions were
held in 1253-54, at the initiative of Emperor John III Vatatzes (1222-1254)
and Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254). In spite of these efforts, the continuing
effects of the Fourth Crusade and the threat of the Turks, along with the
jurisdictional claims of the papacy in the East, meant that these
well-intentioned efforts came to no conclusion.
在这个逐渐增加的不和中，在十二世纪早期到十三世纪中期仍然有许多值得注意的，尝试
解决Filioque的尝试。德国皇帝Lothair III于1136年差遣Haelberg主教Anselm去康士坦
丁堡，交涉一个与皇帝John II Commenos的军事联盟事宜。当他在那里的时候，Anselm和
尼哥米迪亚的逐渐Nicetas举行了一系列关于分裂教会题目的公开讨论，包括Filioque，
并结论到，两个传统间的差异并没有他们想像的那么严重（PL 188.1206B – 1210 B）。
一封东正教宗主教Germanos II（1222-1240）写给教皇Gergory IX（1227-1241）的信中
进一步讨论了在1234年Nicaea会议中论到的Filioque的神学问题。接下来在1253-54举行
了一系列的讨论，都是基于皇帝John III Vatatzes（1222-1254）和教皇Innocent IV（
1243-1354）的主动要求。即便有这些努力，第四次十字军造成的结果和土耳其人的威胁
，加上教皇在东方宣称的法律裁定权，意味着那些善意的努力并没有产生结果。
Against this background, a Western council was held in Lyons in 1274 (Lyons
II), after the restoration of Constantinople to Eastern imperial control.
Despite the consequences of the crusades, many Byzantines sought to heal the
wounds of division and looked to the West for support against the growing
advances of the Turks, and Pope Gregory X (1271-1276) enthusiastically hoped
for reunion. Among the topics agreed upon for discussion at the council was
the Filioque. Yet the two Byzantine bishops who were sent as delegates had no
real opportunity to present the Eastern perspective at the Council. The
Filioque was formally approved by the delegates in the final session on
July17, in a brief constitution which also explicitly con- demned those
holding other views on the origin of the Holy Spirit. Already on July 6, in
accord with an agreement previously reached between papal delegates and the
Emperor in Constantinople, the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches
was proclaimed, but it was never received by the Eastern clergy and faithful,
or vigorously promoted by the Popes in the West. In this context it should be
noted that in his letter commemorating the 700th anniversary of this council
(1974), Pope Paul VI recognised this and added that “the Latins chose texts
and formulae expressing an ecclesiology which had been conceived and
developed in the West. It is understandable […] that a unity achieved in
this way could not be accepted completely by the Eastern Christian mind.” A
little further on, the Pope, speaking of the future Catholic-Orthodox
dialogue, observed: “…it will take up again other controverted points which
Gregory X and the Fathers of Lyons thought were resolved.”
与这个背景相对，在把康士坦丁堡归还给西方皇帝后，西方在1274年于里昂举行了一个会
议（里昂二次会议）。虽然十字军造成了伤害，许多拜占庭人仍然寻求弥合分裂的伤口，
并希望西方支持他们对抗土耳其人的进犯，教皇Gregory X（1271-1276）热情的希望教会
联合。在会议上达成的许多题目包括Filioque。然而两位作为特使团成员的拜占庭主教在
会议中根本没有机会解释东方的观点。在简要的咨询后，Filioque在7月17日的最后一个
会期中被特使团正式通过，并特别定罪其他关于圣灵的起源的观点。在7月6日，根据教皇
特使团和皇帝在康士坦丁堡已经达成的协议，东方和西方教会的联合被证实宣告，但是却
从未被东方的教职人员所认可，在西方也没有被教皇忠实的，并积极的推动。在这个背景
下，当注意在他庆祝这个会议（1974）的700周年的信件中，教会Paul VI承认这件事，并
加上，‘拉丁方面选择了在西方被认可并发展的教会论的本文和公式。这是可以理解的[
…]以这种方式达成的联合在东方基督教的思想中完全是不能被接受的。’此外，教皇论
点未来的天主教—东正教对话的时候，说：‘。。。将会让Gregory X和里昂教父们认为
已经解决的问题再次浮上台面。’
At the Eastern Council of Blachernae (Constantinople) in 1285, in fact, the
decisions of the Council of Lyons and the pro-Latin theology of former
Patriarch John XI Bekkos (1275-1282) were soundly rejected, under the
leadership of Patriarch Gregory II, also known as Gregory of Cyprus
(1282-1289). At the same time, this council produced a significant statement
addressing the theological issue of the Filioque. While firmly rejecting the
“double procession” of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, the
statement spoke of an “eternal manifestation” of the Spirit through the
Son. Patriarch Gregory’s language opened the way, at least, towards a
deeper, more complex understanding of the relationship between Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit in both the East and the West. (see below) This approach was
developed further by Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), in the context of his
distinction between the essence and the energies of the divine persons.
Unfortunately, these openings had little effect on later medieval discussions
of the origin of the Spirit, in either the Eastern or the Western Church.
Despite the concern shown by Byzantine theologians, fro