| In theology he remains faithful to the positions and problematics of the early councils and Fathers. His love for ancient philosophy does not lead him to any tolerance toward a man like Origen, whose condemnation by the Fifth Council he accepts without reservation, 71 or like Clement of Alexandria, in whose main writing, the Hypotyposeis, Photius found the «impious myths» of Platonism . 72 His extensive erudition often provides us with detailed critical analysis of, and exact quotations from, authors about whom, without his notes, we should know nothing. The Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries in particular attracted Photius» attention. Despite his predilection for Antiochian exegesis and for theologians of the Antiochian school, 73 he remains rigorously faithful to the Cyrillian exegesis of the Council of Chalcedon, which prevailed in Byzantium under Justinian, and devotes long and, for us, precious attention to some of its important spokesmen. 74 On other theological issues, Photius remains in very formal agreement with traditional patristic and conciliar positions. But he does not seem to have accepted fully or to have understood the implications of the absolute apophaticism of a Gregory of Nyssa, and his doctrine of God in relation to creation seems to approach the Latin Scholastic concept of the actus purus. 75 But careful analysis of Photius» thought would be required to assert his exact position on this point. In any case, his authority was invoked by the Byzantine anti-Palamites of the fourteenth century against the real distinction between essence and «energy» in God maintained by Palamas and endorsed by the councils of the period. 76 In addition, his devotion to secular learning and his liberal use of oikonomia made him, during his lifetime and after, rather unpopular in monastic circles. In one aspect, Photius obviously dominated his contemporaries and the Middle Ages as a whole: his sense of history, of historical development, and of tradition. This sense is apparent in every codex (chapter) of the Library. Thus, in analyzing the book of a priest Theodore, who defended the authenticity of the Dionysian writings, Photius carefully lists the arguments against authenticity and concludes with the simple statement that the author «tries to refute these objections and affirms that in his opinion the book of the great Dionysius is genuine.» 77 Even if, on other occasions, Photius takes Dionysian authenticity for granted, the passage just cited clearly shows Photius» intellectual honesty in acknowledging the impossibility of explaining the way in which Dionysius can foretell «traditions which grew old only gradually in the Church and took a long time to develop.» 78 |
| Four years later, in 867, Photius finally responded by calling a major council of five hundred bishops meeting in Constantinople. This council condemned Pope Nicholas and declared him to be deposed for interfering in the internal affairs of the Church of Constantinople – and also for interfering in the affairs of the new Bulgarian Church. This council also made the first official condemnation by the Eastern Church of the addition of the filioque to the Nicene Creed. Later in 867, Basil I the Macedonian (r. 867–886) usurped the throne from Emperor Michael III, who was assassinated. In order to win the support of Rome for this usurpation, Basil reinstated Ignatius as patriarch, which did indeed heal the breach between Rome and Constantinople that had existed since 863. And in 869–870 a council was held in Constantinople, known as the Ignatian Council, which affirmed Ignatius as patriarch and condemned Photius, who was sent into exile. However, Pope Hadrian (r. 867–872) was not entirely pleased with this council, because it refused to give the Bulgarian Church over to the authority of Rome. By 873, Emperor Basil no longer felt such a need for the approval of Rome, and his favor was turning to the moderates in Constantinople. So Photius was brought out of exile, and was made the tutor for the emperor’s two sons. Photius and Ignatius became reconciled, to such an extent that before Ignatius died in 877, he stipulated that he wanted Photius to succeed him as patriarch. So in that year Photius returned to the patriarchal throne, and soon led the effort by which Patriarch Ignatius was glorified as a saint. In 879 a huge council, known as the Photian Council, took place in Constantinople. Once again papal legates were in attendance, and again they agreed with the council’s decisions. The council affirmed Photius as the legitimate patriarch, nullifying the decisions of the previous councils of 863in Rome and 869–870 in Constantinople. It also reaffirmed Rome’s position as the first among equals among the great patriarchates, but without having jurisdictional authority over the East. The Nicene Creed without the filioque was affirmed, and the Council of Nicea of 787 was officially recognized as the Seventh Ecumenical Council. |
| By contrast, Photius criticises the Carolingians for contentiously opposing patristic excerpts against »the teaching of the Church». Photius can accept that error (even «godless error»: dyssebêma) can be found from time to time in the teaching of those who »were admirable by reason of many other qualities which manifest virtue and piety» and he is prepared to acknowledge that they are Fathers despite the error. This is a disarming claim, particularly since Photius was vehemently opposed to the filioque. 340 Photius believes that historical development gives us the benefit of hindsight, but also that we are obliged to be charitable. Photius accepts that a venerable father is not ipso facto inerrant, that a saint can be in error and that holiness is distinguishable from accuracy even amongst the Greek Fathers (which nearly offsets his tendentious claims about the superiority of the Greek language). 341 He also accepts that, in matters of doctrine, standards of precision increase over time. So he can accept that, in the course of history, changing circumstances may invalidate earlier views, without therefore rejecting those who held to the invalidated views. In this way, Photius " s polemic against the filioque outlines a critical approach to the reception of earlier theology that accepts the importance of historical development. PETER OF DAMASCUS (c. 1027–1107): ON THE CONSOLIDATION OF TEACHINGS As we have already seen through discussing some early monastic theologians, not all Orthodox teachings concern trinitarian or christological doctrines. Indeed, many theologians understand those doctrines as the summit of teaching that reaches down to practical and ethical instruction. An excellent example is preserved in Peter Damascene " s Treasury of Divine Knowledge, a work infrequently studied but deeply important. 342 The Treasury reveals clearly that doctrine is not simply a set of interconnected propositions about God; it also includes practical guidance for daily life, so that one " s entire life becomes a theological enterprise. |
| 2013 ( Reuss J. Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche/Texte und Untersuchungen 130. Berlin, 1966. S. 359–412.) 2015 ( Staab K. Paulus-kommentareausdergriechischen Kirche/Neutestamentliche Abchandlungen 15. Münster i. W., 1933 (1984). S. 470–652.) 2016 ( Hergenröter J. Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, sein Leben, seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma. V. 3. Regensburg, 1869. S. 78 etc.) 2018 ( «Οκον κα τς τν γκρτων διδασκλων φωνς τς δμοας παραδοχς ξισωμεν» (Photius Lexicogr. Amphiloch. 149,7).) 2019 ( «Πηγ γρ πρχει ψυχωφελν κα σωτηραν ναμτων τ ερ μν λγια» (Photius Lexicogr. Amphiloch. 42, 8).) 2022 ( «Μηδν ξωθεν τς δεσποτικς ντολς μτε ννοοντας, μτε λγοντες, μτε πρττοντας» (Ibid. 43, 12).) 2024 ( «Ο δε γρ οδλως, οδ φ ν γρμματι παραχαρττειν τς λξεις τς ερς» (Ibid. 133, 2).) 2026 ( «ν μα να μεταποιηθ, πειλε θες, κα ο λκληρον δογμτων κρβειαν διαστρφων, νομζεις διαφυγεν τς το θεο χερας;» (Ibid. 164, 6; cp. также 149, 7).) 2029 ( Photius Lexicogr. Commentarii in Matthaeum (in catenis)//Ed. J. Reuss, Matthäus Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche/Texte und Untersuchungen 61. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1957.) 2043 ( «Χρησμος γρ το παναγου Πνεματος τ μτερα περιεχμενα» (Photius Lexicogr. Amphiloch. 185,4).) 2066 ( «Πολλ τν πορημτων προκατασκευς δεται, κα τν λσιν ποφεγει, χωρς πιοσαν προκαταστσεως» (Photius Lexicogr. Amphiloch. 1,1; cp.: 1, 37).) 2070 ( «Κα γρ κατ τς φωνς δικριτος γυγκατθεσις κα κατ τν πχησιν τν ρημτων παραδοχ, λλα τε πολλ τν τπων ν πολλος πολλκις πτεκε» (Ibid. 43, 4).) 2073 ( « κριβς συνεξτασις ξ ατν διασκεδζει τν πιθολοσαν γνοιαν τ καθαρτητι το νοματος» (Ibid. 1, 11).) 2074 ( «Τ πρχειρον τς ρμηνεας ν μ προσλβη τν φιλολογοσαν βσανον κα μελτην τς σαφεας κα τν κατ τν πληψιν στσεως οκ θλει παλττεσθαι» (Ibid. 43,4).) 2101 ( « τονυν τ τν λγων θει κα τ καννι τν δινοιαν εθυνμενος δλον, ς οδνα θρυβον, οδ ταραχν, οδ πριαν τιν, τος λογισμος συνχουσαν, ποστσεται. λλ τ λγ περιελν το σχματος τν πνοιαν καθαρς τ κβησμενον ψεται. ο περ κα ες δλωσιν σχηματισμς παρελαμβνετο» (Ibid. 56, 4).) |
| This acknowledgment of the development of tradition and also of a possible and legitimate variety in ecclesiastical practices and rules plays a significant role in Photius» attitude toward Pope Nicholas I and toward the Church of Rome. Accused by the pope of having been elevated from the lay state to the patriarchate in six days, a practice forbidden in Western tradition but never formally opposed in the East, Photius writes: «Everyone must preserve what is defined by common ecumenical decisions, but a particular opinion of a Church Father or a definition issued by a local council can be followed by some and ignored by others. . . .» He then refers to such issues as shaving, fasting on Saturdays, and a celibate priesthood, and continues: «When faith remains inviolate, the common and catholic decisions are also safe; a sensible man respects the practices and laws of others; he considers that it is neither wrong to observe them nor illegal to violate them.» 79 Photius» concern for the «common faith» and «ecumenical decisions» is illustrated in the Filioque issue. Since modern historical research has clearly shown that he was not systematically anti-Latin, his position in the dispute can be explained only by the fact that he took the theological issue itself seriously. Not only did he place the main emphasis on the Filioque in his encyclical of 866, but even after ecclesiastical peace had been restored with Pope John VIII in 879–880, and after his retirement from the patriarchate, Photius still devoted many of his last days to writing the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, the first detailed Greek refutation of the Latin interpolation of Filioque into the Creed. As the Mystagogy clearly shows, Photius was equally concerned with this unilateral interpolation into a text which had won universal approval, and with the content of the interpolation itself. He made no distinction between the canonical and theological aspects of the issue and referred to the popes, especially to Leo III and to John VIII , who had opposed the interpolation, as opponents of the doctrine of the «double procession.» The weakness of Photius» treatment of the issue lies in the fact that he had no access to the sources of Latin theology. He knew, however, that the Latin Fathers favored the Filioque, and refers specifically to Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome (although the first and the last can hardly be regarded as proponents of the Filioque); but he obviously had not read their writings. His refutation of the Latin position is therefore based on oral information alone. |
| Nilus Doxapatres. Notitia patriarchatuum//Des Nilos Doxopatres Τξις τν πατριαρχικν θρνων (armenisch und griechisch)/hrsg. F. N. Finck. Marburg: N. G. Elwerfs Verlag, 1902. S. 1–33. Photius. ρωτματα Δκα σν σαις τας ποκρσεσι//PG. 104. Col. 1220–1232. Photius. Adversus primatum Romae [Dub.]//Photius et primatus romanus. Num Photius habendus sit auctor opusculi Πρς τος λγοντας ς μη θρνος πρτος?/ed. M. Gordillo (Orientalia Christiana Periodica. T. 6. 1940. P. 11–17). Photius. Commentarii In Matthaeum (In Catenis)//Matthäus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche/hrsg. von J. Reuss (Texte und Untersuchungen. Bd. 61. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1957) S. 270–337. Photius. Epistulae et Amphilochia//Photii patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia/ed. B. Laourdas and L. G. Westerink. Vols. 1–6.2 [Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (BT). Leipzig: Teubner, 1:1983; 2:1984; 3:1985; 4:1986; 5:1986; 6.1:1987; 6.2:1988]. Vol.1. P. 2–197; Vol. 2. P. 1–253; Vol. 3. P. 4–166; Vol. 4. P. 1–190; Vol. 5. P. 1–263; Vol. 6.1. P. 1–138. Sοcrates Scholasticus. Historia ecclesiastica//Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire ecclésiastique (Livres I–VII)/ed. P. Maraval and P. Périchon. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2004–2007. (SC. Vol. 477. P. 44–262; Vol. 493. P. 18–258; Vol. 505 P. 22–354; Vol. 506. P. 20–158). Theodoretus. Historia ecclesiastica//Theodoret. Kirchengeschichte/hrsg. von L. Parmentier and F. Scheidweiler (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller. Bd. 44). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1 1911. (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2 1954). S. 1–349. Βασιλεου Αρχιεπισκπου Αγχιλου Πραγματεα περ του κρους της χειροτονας των κληρικν υπ επισκπου καθηρημνου και σχισματικο χειροτονηθντων, – συνταχθεσα υπ Βασιλεου Αρχιεπισκπου Αγχιλου, νυν δε Σμρνης. Εν Σµρνη, 1887. Δοσιθου, πατριρχου εροσολμω Τμος χαρς. Θεσσαλονκη: Εκδσεις Βασ. Ρηγοπολου, 1985. πιστολ νατολου πισκπου Κωνσταντινουπλεως πρς Λοντα ρχιεπσκοπον μης//Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum/ed. E. Schwartz. Tome 2. Vol. 1. Part 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1933 ( r 1962). P. 52–55. |
| Maced. 12. 252). The idea of the double procession (more on its specifity later) of the Holy Spirit took, thus, precedence in the early Eastern patristic tradition. Photius’ main problem with the ‘ex Patre filioque’ (procession from the Father and the Son) was that it confused the essential particularities with hypostatic ones. Photius’ opponents invoked one of Basil the Great’s ideas—everything that belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son. They used this in order to justify the entitlement of the Son, too, to partake in the procession of the Holy Spirit into divine existence (John Bekkos, De unione ecclesiarum, 52) . The hypostatic particularities of γεννησα/non-generation, γννησις/generation and κπρευσις/procession were for the Patriarch Photius special features of the divine hypostases that preserved their distinctiveness. Ownership of the essential/substantial particularities of the godhead–eternity, divine power and energy, in other words everything belonging to each of the divine Persons – was ascribed to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by reason of the homousion. Confusion occurred, according to Photius, when the dialectic between the principle of source/cause on the one side and the principle of caused on the other was delineated hierarchically, i.e. the Father causes the Son and the latter causes the Holy Spirit, instead of according to the principle of monarchy. For Photius this deviation from the monarchy (the solely cause) meant both the relegation of the Holy Spirit to the lowest rank and the introduction of two principles as the source in the Trinity. Consequently, to the Son were ascribed two properties: (1) Only-generation, and (2) causal agent of the procession of the Holy Spirit. This meant introducing a misbalance between the divine hypostases, because an unequal distribution of properties between divine hypostases resulted: two to the Father (non-generation, generation of the Son), two to the Son (Only-generation, cause for the procession of the Spirit) and to the Holy Spirit only one (procession), excluding for the latter the possibility to be a cause of something else within the divine essence ( Myst. 8) . According to Photius, this misbalance destroyed the equality and the unity of the three divine Persons ( Myst. 7; 31) . Yet, the filioque caused more serious backlash to the basic principles of Trinitarian doctrine developed by the Capadocians: the principle of incommutability ( μετπτωτον), non association ( κοιννητον) and incompatibility ( σμβατον) of the hypostatic properties, because these alone preserved the distinction between the three divine hypostases (Alexopoulos 138-139). |
| 324 A concise summary and evaluation of the evidence about the Messalians may be found in Plested, The Macarian Legacy, pp. 17–29. 327 Thus, e.g., A. Louth, Maximus the Confessor (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 25–6. 332 See P. T. R. Gray, « " The select Fathers»’, Studia Patristica 23 (1989), 21–36; R. Lim, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), Ch. 5. 336 For further discussion, see M. Fortounatto and M. B. Cunningham, " Theology of the icon», above. 338 See F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), pp. 91–131; R. Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Co., 1975); H. Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 77–192. 339 Photius, Mystagogy 66. In fairness, it should be noted that the Carolingians also appealed to Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers amongst others; see e.g. Theodulf of Orleans " s On the Holy Spirit. 340 See, e.g., Photius, Letter 13.33: «But also that blasphemy about the Spirit (or rather the Holy Trinity as a whole), which none surpasses, would suffice by itself – even if there were none of the aforementioned effronteries – to earn them a thousand anathemas.» 341 On Greek Fathers in error, see Photius, Mystagogy 75 and Letter 24.21; on the relative poverty of Latin, see Mystagogy 55 and Letter 24.5. 342 See G. Peters, «Peter of Damascus and early Christian spiritual theology», Patristica et medievalia 26 (2005), 89–109; Peters, »Recovering a lost spiritual theologian: Peter of Damascus and the Philokalia», SVTQ 49 (2005), 437–59. 345 See further P. Géhin, «Le Filocalie che hanno preceduto la «Filocalia»», in A. Rigo (ed.), Nicodemo l’Aghiorita e la Filokalia (Magnano: Qiqajon, 2001), pp. 83–102. 347 On Fr Cleopa, see N. Stebbing, Bearers of the Spirit: Spiritual Fatherhood in Romanian Orthodoxy (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2003), pp. 45–86. |
| Photius offered the first open Greek refutation in 866, when he saw in the interpolated creed not only an alteration by some Frankish «barbarians» in the distant West, but also a weapon of anti-Byzantine propaganda among the nearby Bulgarians, who had recently been converted to Christianity by the Greeks and for whom the Byzantine patriarch considered himself directly responsible. In his encyclical to the Eastern patriarchs (866), Photius considers the Filioque as the «crown of evils» introduced by the Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria. 131 We have already seen that his major theological objection to the interpolation was that it presupposed a confusion of the hypostatic characters of the Persons of the Trinity and was, therefore, a new form of modalism, or «semi-Sabellianism.» After the Council of 879–880, which solemnly confirmed the original text of the creed and formally anathematized anyone who would either «compose another confession of faith» or corrupt the creed with «illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions,» 132 Photius considered himself fully satisfied. To celebrate what he considered a final victory of Orthodoxy, he composed a detailed refutation of the doctrine of the «double procession " " his famous Mystagogyin which he also praised Pope John VIII for having made the triumph possible. 133 After the final adoption of the Filioque in Rome and throughout the West, the issue was bound to be raised at every encounter, polemical or friendly, between Greeks and Latins. Byzantine literature on the subject is extremely voluminous and has been reviewed in reference works by Martin Jugie, Hans-Georg Beck, and others. The arguments raised by Photius " the Filioque is an illegitimate interpolation,» «it destroys the monarchy of the Father» and «relativizes the reality of personal, or hypostatic existence, in the Trinity " remained at the center of the discussion. But often, the controversy was reduced to an interminable enumeration by both sides of patristic texts collected in favor of the respective positions of the Greeks and of the Latins. |
| The apostolic claim of Rome, but also the no less real, but much less effective, claims of the other Eastern patriarchs, provided him with arguments in his fight against the Byzantine state and Church hierarchies. Still, there is no reason to doubt that his view of the unity of the Church, which he never systematically developed, was not radically different from that of his contemporaries, including Patriarch Photius, who, as we shall see, was always ready to acknowledge the prominent position of Peter among the apostles, but also considered that the authority of Peter " " s Roman successors was dependent upon, not the foundation of, their orthodoxy. In Rome, Theodore the Studite saw that foremost support of the true faith, and expressed his vision and his hope in the best tradition of the Byzantine superlative style. The ancient monastic opposition to secular philosophy does not appear in Theodoré " s writings. Theodore himself seemed even to have liked exercises in dialectics, as his early correspondence with John the Grammarian, a humanist and later an iconoclastic patriarch, seems to show. But the anti-humanist tendency would clearly appear among his immediate disciples, the anti-Photians of the ninth century. Photius (ca. 820-ca. 891) The dominant figure in Byzantine religious, social, and political life in the ninth century, Photius is also the father of what is generally called Byzantine «humanism.» In his famous Library, an original and tremendously important compilation of literary criticism, he covers Christian writers of the early centuries, as well as a number of secular authors; similarly, in his Responses to Amphilochius, a collection of theological and philosophical essays, he displays a wide secular knowledge and an extensive training in patristic theology. In all his writings Photius remains essentially a university professor. In philosophy his main interest is logic and dialectics; hence, his very clear predisposition to Aristotle, rather than to Plato. |
|
|
