Aquinas and Eastern Orthodoxy

目前对东正教和西方之间关系的理解是基于1922年被列宁驱逐的俄罗斯移民S的经历，他在20世纪20年代和30年代遇到了受欢迎的西方神学家(主要是天主教)，并试图接触他们不熟悉的、在许多方面是陌生的神学。由此产生了一种感觉，尽管丝状和教皇的主张仍然很重要，但东西方之间的真正区别是在神学的风格上：西方更理性，东方更直观和神秘。这种认识使东正教重新发现了格雷戈里·帕拉马斯的神学，他是僧侣们声称他们的神秘经验在14世纪的神秘主义争议中的有效性的捍卫者，结果是这场争议被视为东西方之间分歧的象征，各自的捍卫者是格雷戈里·帕拉马斯和托马斯·阿奎那。这种对赫希查斯特争议的理解几乎影响了随后对赫希查斯特争议的所有研究。因此，由于历史的原因，人们一直从范畴的角度来理解这场争论，而不是从争论本身，而是从很久以后东西方之间的一次相遇中。为了正确地从学术上理解这场争论，需要对迄今应用的范畴进行解构，这可能会导致对这场争论的更真实的理解。这不仅仅是学院派的，因为学院派的西方和神秘的东方之间的对立是非常普遍的，很少有人质疑。本项目的直接目的是研究阿奎那和东正教之间接触的历史。我已经在为剑桥总和神学之友委托的一章中开始了这一章，内容是‘正统和总和神学’。很明显，阿奎那没有直接的作用在他的争议，因为他不为拜占庭人所知，直到1354年发表了希腊翻译的Summa Contra外邦人，晚于会议(1341-1351)，决定赞成Palamas。我的初步研究也清楚地表明，阿奎那在持续的争议双方都被援引，而不仅仅是帕拉马的反对者。在拟议的项目中，我打算首先调查阿奎那与东正教传统之间的接触，这分为四个部分：a.阿奎那自己对东方传统的亏欠(特别是狄奥尼修斯和约翰·大马士革)；b.他在拜占庭东正教争议中的角色；C.阿奎那在奥斯曼帝国时期(希腊和俄罗斯)的神学地位，在此期间东正教神学是在拉丁类别中阐明的(这一时期通常被现代东正教神学家否认，也许太容易了)；d.在20世纪与阿奎那的接触。在为《剑桥伙伴》撰写的文章中，我们可以找到一个需要更深入研究的关于这一点的概要。其次，该项目将探索二十世纪后半叶对阿奎那的变化解释，这产生了一幅在许多方面更符合东方基督教传统的阿奎那的图景。第三，我将探索如何在阿奎那和东方传统之间发展更有成效的接触。这个项目的结果，主要是在专著中提供的，将促进西方和东方教会之间存在的日益友好的关系，并为更深层次的和解提供神学基础。在一个日益全球化的世界里，尤其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，这对于促进相互理解的重要性可能确实非常大。

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.