权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Aquinas and Eastern Orthodoxy

阿奎那与东正教

基本信息

批准号：
AH/H005684/1
负责人：
Andrew Louth
金额：
$ 4.5万
依托单位：
Durham University
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2009
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2009 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FH005684%2F1
关键词：
Aquinas Eastern Orthodoxy

项目摘要

The present understanding of the relationship between Eastern Orthodox theology and the West is based on the experience of the émigrés from Russia, expelled by Lenin in 1922, who encountered welcoming Western (mostly Catholic) theologians, mainly in Paris, in the 1920s and 1930s and sought to engage with their unfamiliar, and in many ways alien, theology. Out of this grew a sense that, while the Filioque and papal claims were still important, the real difference between East and West was found in styles of theology: the West more rationalistic, the East more intuitive and mystical. This perception came to inform the Orthodox rediscovery of the theology of Gregory Palamas, the defender of the monks' claim to the validity of their mystical experience in the hesychast controversy of the 14th century, with the result that that controversy came to be seen as emblematic of the divide between East and West, the respective champions being Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas. This understanding of the hesychast controversy has informed virtually all subsequent research into the hesychast controversy. So, for historical reasons, the hesychast controversy has been understood in terms of categories derived, not from the controversy itself, but from a much later encounter between East and West.For a properly scholarly understanding of the hesychast controversy, there is needed a deconstruction of the categories that have been hitherto applied, which might lead to a more genuine understanding of that controversy. This has consequences beyond the simply scholarly, as the perception of an opposition between a scholastic West and a mystical East is very widespread and rarely questioned. The immediate purpose of the present project is to look at the history of the engagement between Aquinas and Eastern Orthodoxy. I have already made a start of this in a chapter commissioned for the Cambridge Companion to the Summa Theologiae on 'Orthodoxy and the Summa Theologiae'. It is clear that Aquinas had no direct role in the hesychast controversy, as he was not known to the Byzantines until a Greek translation of the Summa contra Gentiles was published in 1354, later than the synods (1341-1351) that decided in favour of Palamas. It is also clear from my initial research, that Aquinas was invoked on both sides of the continuing controversy, not just by the opponents of Palamas.In the proposed project, I intend first, to survey what engagement there has been between Aquinas and the Eastern Orthodox tradition, which falls into four sections: a. Aquinas' own debt to Eastern traditions (especially Dionysios the Areopagite and John Damascene); b. his role in the Byzantine hesychast controversy; c. the place of Aquinas in the theology of the Ottoman period (both in Greece and Russia), during which period Orthodox theology was articulated in Latin categories (a period generally disowned by modern Orthodox theologians, perhaps too readily); d. the engagement with Aquinas in the twentieth century. A sketch of this, which needs much more thorough research, is found in the article for the Cambridge Companion. Secondly, the project will explore the changing interpretation of Aquinas in the latter part of the twentieth century, which has produced a picture of Aquinas in many ways more congenial to the Eastern Christian tradition. Thirdly, I shall explore ways of developing more fruitful engagement between Aquinas and the Eastern tradition.The results of this project, principally made available in a monograph, will further the increasingly friendly relationships that exist between the Western and Eastern Churches, and provide a theological basis for a deeper rapprochement. The importance of this for promoting mutual understanding in an increasingly global world in which, in particular, Europe is now beginning to embrace countries that belong to the Byzantine tradition as well as those that formed part of Latin Christendom, could well be very great indeed.

目前对东正教神学和西方神学之间关系的理解是基于1922年被列宁驱逐的俄罗斯流亡者的经历，他们在20世纪20年代和30年代遇到了欢迎西方（主要是天主教）神学家，主要是在巴黎，并试图与他们不熟悉的，在许多方面陌生的神学接触。由此产生了一种感觉，即虽然Filioque和教皇的主张仍然很重要，但东西方之间真实的区别在于神学的风格：西方更理性，东方更直观和神秘。这一观点为东正教重新发现格雷戈里·帕拉马斯的神学提供了信息。在世纪的hesychast争论中，格雷戈里·帕拉马斯为僧侣们声称自己的神秘体验是有效的辩护，结果这场争论被视为东西方分歧的象征，格雷戈里·帕拉马斯和托马斯·阿奎那分别是这两个人的冠军。这种对hesychast争议的理解实际上为后来所有关于hesychast争议的研究提供了信息。因此，由于历史的原因，人们对hesychast争论的理解是根据一些范畴来进行的，这些范畴不是来自争论本身，而是来自很久以后东西方之间的相遇。为了对hesychast争论进行正确的学术理解，需要对迄今为止一直使用的范畴进行解构，这可能会导致对那场争论的更真实的理解。这不仅产生了学术上的影响，因为学术上的西方和神秘的东方之间的对立是非常普遍的，很少受到质疑。本项目的直接目的是要看看阿奎那和东正教之间的接触的历史。我已经在为《剑桥神学大全指南》撰写的关于“正统与神学大全”的一章中开始了这方面的论述。很明显，阿奎那在hesychast争议中没有直接的作用，因为他不知道拜占庭人，直到希腊翻译的《反对外邦人的大全》于1354年出版，晚于主教会议（1341年至1351年）决定赞成Palamas。从我最初的研究中也可以清楚地看出，阿奎那不仅被帕拉马斯的反对者们所引用，而且被持续争论的双方所引用。在这个拟议的项目中，我打算首先调查阿奎那和东正教传统之间的接触，福尔斯四个部分：a.阿奎那'自己的债务，以东方传统（特别是狄俄尼索斯的Areopagite和约翰大马士革）; B.他在拜占庭hesychast争议中的作用; C。阿奎那在奥斯曼帝国时期的神学（无论是在希腊和俄罗斯），在此期间东正教神学是在拉丁美洲的类别（一个时期一般否认现代东正教神学家，也许太容易）阐明的地方; d.与阿奎那在世纪的约定。在为《剑桥指南》（Cambridge Companion）撰写的文章中，可以找到一个关于这一点的草图，但需要更深入的研究。其次，该项目将探讨在二十世纪后半叶对阿奎那不断变化的解释，这种解释产生了一幅阿奎那在许多方面更适合东方基督教传统的画面。第三，我将探讨如何在阿奎那和东方传统之间发展更富有成效的接触。这个项目的成果，主要是在一本专著中提供，将进一步加强西方和东方教会之间日益友好的关系，并为更深的和睦提供神学基础。在一个日益全球化的世界中，特别是欧洲现在开始接纳属于拜占庭传统的国家以及那些构成拉丁基督教世界一部分的国家，这对促进相互理解的重要性确实非常重要。