|
''Filioque'' (, literally "and the Son") is a Latin term included in some later forms of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, not appearing in the original version. It has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity. The Latin term ''Filioque'' is translated into English as the clause ''and the Son'' in that creed: : :who proceeds from the Father . : Whether that term, ''Filioque'', is included, and how it is translated and understood, can have important implications for how one understands the central Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity. For some, the term implies a serious underestimation of the Father's role in the Trinity; for others, denial of what it expresses implies a serious underestimation of the role of the Son in the Trinity. Over time, the term became a symbol of conflict between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, although there have been attempts at resolving the conflict. Among the early attempts at harmonization are the works of Maximus the Confessor, who notably was sainted independently by both Eastern and Western churches. The ''Filioque'' is included in the form of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed used in most Western Christian churches, first appearing in the 6th century. It was accepted by the popes only in 1014, and is rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches. It was not in the Greek text of this Creed, attributed to the Second Ecumenical Council, which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father", without additions of any kind, such as "and the Son" or "alone"; The Latin text now in use in the Western Church speaks of the Holy Spirit as proceeding "from the Father ''and the Son''". Differences over this doctrine and the question of papal primacy have been and remain primary causes of schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Western churches. The term has been an ongoing source of conflict between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, contributing, in part, to the East–West Schism of 1054 and proving to be an obstacle to attempts to reunify the two sides.〔Wetterau, Bruce. World history. New York: Henry Holt and company. 1994.〕 ==Controversy== The controversy referring to the term ''Filioque'' involves three separate disagreements: *about the orthodoxy of the doctrine to which the term refers *about the legitimacy of inserting the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed *about the authority of the pope to define the orthodoxy of the doctrine or to insert the term into that creed Although the disagreement about the doctrine preceded the disagreement about the insertion into the creed, the two disagreements became linked to the third when the pope approved insertion of the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the 11th century. Siecienski writes that "()ltimately what was at stake was not only God's trinitarian nature, but also the nature of the Church, its teaching authority and the distribution of power among its leaders." Hubert Cunliffe-Jones identifies two opposing Eastern Orthodox opinions about the ''Filioque'': a "liberal" view and a "rigorist" view. The "liberal" view sees the controversy as being largely a matter of mutual miscommunication and misunderstanding. In this view, both East and West are at fault for failing to allow for a "plurality of theologies". Each side went astray in considering their theological framework as the only one that was doctrinally valid and applicable. Thus, neither side would accept that the dispute was not so much about conflicting dogmas as it was about different ' or theological perspectives. While all Christians must be in agreement on questions of dogma, there is room for diversity in theological approaches. However, this "liberal" view is vehemently opposed by those Eastern Orthodox whom Cunliffe-Jones identifies as holding a "rigorist" view. According to standard Eastern Orthodox position, as pronounced by Photius, Mark of Ephesus and modern Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky, the Filioque question hinges on fundamental issues of dogma and cannot be dismissed as simply one of different ''theologoumena''. Many in the "rigorist" camp consider the ''Filioque'' to have resulted in the role of the Holy Spirit being underestimated by the Western Church and thus leading to serious doctrinal error. In a similar vein, Siecienski comments that, although it was common in the twentieth century to view the ''Filioque'' as just another weapon in the power struggle between Rome and Constantinople and although this was occasionally the case, for many involved in the dispute the theological issues outweighed by far the ecclesiological concerns. According to Siecienski, the deeper question was perhaps whether Eastern and Western Christianity had wound up developing "differing and ultimately incompatible teachings about the nature of God." Moreover, Siecienski asserts that the question of whether the teachings of East and West were truly incompatible became almost secondary to the fact that, starting around the eighth or ninth century, Christians on both sides of the dispute began to believe that the differences ''were'' irreconcilable. From the view of the West, the Eastern rejection of the ''Filioque'' denied the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and was thus a form of crypto-Arianism. In the East, the interpolation of the ''Filioque'' seemed to many to be an indication that the West was teaching a "substantially different faith". Siecienski asserts that, as much as power and authority were central issues in the debate, the strength of emotion rising even to the level of hatred can be ascribed to a belief that the other side had "destroyed the purity of the faith and refused to accept the clear teachings of the fathers on the Spirit's procession." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Filioque」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|