IQFREE: Hilarion Alfeyev, v ponekud starsim clanku
The patristic heritage and modernity napr. pise:
Rarely did the East wonder about the reasons for the emergence of certain practices, or the development of certain dogmatic teachings, in the West. Rarely did anyone endeavour to look at the Latin tradition through the eyes of the Latins themselves. One of the exceptions was St Maximus the Confessor, who tried to discern the teaching about the filioque from as it were - the Western context.[20] In his Letter to Marinus, St. Maximus likens the Western teaching on the procession of the Spirit “from the Father and the Son” to the Eastern teaching on the procession “from the Father through the Son”; he does not apply the Byzantine criterion to the Western teaching but merely compares both traditions and looks for similarities between them. Although St Maximus gives a far from exhaustive answer to this matter, which is treated with far more detail in the works of later Byzantine authors, the very fact of a Byzantine saint attempting to view Latin teaching through Latin eyes remains remarkable.
(...)
Meyendorff raises a question of key significance here. To me, the reply seems quite obvious: holy Tradition is not equivalent with Byzantinism since, besides the Byzantine tradition, it includes Latin, Russian and many other traditions as well. Were indeed Byzantine criteria to be applied to Russian theology, one might conclude that before the 17th century nothing significant existed in our country since we did not “reach up” to the Byzantine and our entire literature was to a greater or lesser degree, imitative, and that after the 17th century our “Western captivity” began. When we apply Byzantine criteria to the Syriac tradition we will find numerous “deviations” as well. As for seeing the Latin tradition through the eyes of Byzantinism (and the Byzantine tradition through Latinism), here we have a vast experience of polemics, focusing on the same questions for over a thousand years, from the days of Patriarch Photius to our times, and reaching an ultimate dead end in the early 20th century, for talking in circles never reaches a goal. Only the shifts in positions among Eastern and Western theologians in the course of the twentieth century allow us to hope that a way out of this dead end may be found. I believe that such a way out may be sought precisely in the consistent use of the principle of the contextual reading of sources, which presumes the capacity of theologians to relativize their own context (though by no means breaking with it) and to examine another tradition from within with the desire to understand rather than to denounce or humiliate it.
Kdo si precte cely clanek, tak je patrne ze Alfeyev sice zapadni spiritualitu neobdivuje (
I am by no means an “Eastern admirer of Western spirituality” and have no personal sympathy whatsoever for Catholic mysticism, since I have been raised on totally different examples: the writings of the Fathers of the Eastern church, in particular Greek and Syriac.), ale alespon se ji snazi pochopit. To me prijde nosne na obou stranach.
Nekdy mam sice potiz s tim kdyz se nekdy rozdily zlehcuji (obcas jsem mel takovy pocit z nekterych vyjadreni Spidlikovych, ale tam bych to prisoudil spise jeho povestnemu smyslu pro humor; viz napr. kdyz nekde popisuje jak se s D. Staniloaem, ci jak se to sklonuje, vlastne "shodli" nad dogmatem o papezske neomylnosti), ale za jejich prilisnym zduraznovanim bych hledal spis beznou lidskou snahu prosadit sebe sama. Filioque me pak prijde jako zvelicovana zasterka pro bolestnou skutecnost, ze se cirkev rozdelila, a ze tech duvodu je vic.