St. Theophylact was Archbishop of Ochrid, from about 1088 until his repose in 1108. As Archbishop of Ochrid, he occupied the position as head of an Autocephalous Church; the Bulgarian Patriarchate had previously been forcibly [and uncanonically] abolished by the Eastern Roman authorities years earlier; however, the Bulgarian Church maintained independence still with its own independent Archbishopric.
Some writers have noted the hostility that Greek speaking civil and clerical authorities had show to the usage of Slavonic, with, possibly, even attempts to suppress Church Slavonic in favour of the Greek language:
""The Greeks [i.e. Eastern Romans] adopted a policy of cultural assimilation in Bulgaria. John of Debar [last Bulgarian Patriarch of the First Bulgarian Empire] died in 1037 and after that the Archbishop of Ohrid was always a Greek. As an agent of the Emperor he had to implement the policy by introducing such changes as the use of Greek in the Bulgarian Church. The Greeks also destroyed Slavonic books, but there is little documentation to show the success of this policy. The survival of a number of Old Church Slavonic manuscripts, allegedly copied in the eleventh century by the Bulgarian and Macedonian scribes, suggests that the Archbishops also condoned the use of such texts. The best evidence that the Primate of Ohrid did not attempt to stifle Slavonic tradition is provided by Theophylact [+1109]. For a Greek who allegedly abhorred living in Bulgaria, it is remarkable that he wrote a biography of St. Clement of Ohride which he based on a Slavonic life of the saint. In it he also praised the work of SS. Cyril and Methodius."
[pages 265, The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 4, C.1024-c.1198, Part 2]
St. Theophylact was not one of these hostile figures; rather, he was an erudite and 'cultured' man of Constantinople, but one who did not seek to do harm to his Bulgarian flock. If only the 18th and 19th century Phanar had learned from him.
However, one issue that was also pressing was the relationship to the Latin West at the time. The Great Schism was in the process of working itself out; yet, this was not a completed event for all. In St. Theophylact's treatise "Regarding the Charges Against the Latins", the Archbishop of Ochrid must sort through what are legitimate grievances against the Post-Schism Latins he and others encounter, objections that can firmly be based upon Western deviations from Dogmatic and Canonical foundations of the Church, as opposed to those objections which have only reference to local customs and usages that do not touch the fundamentals of the Faith as expounded in the Scriptures, Councils, Canons, Fathers [i.e. the ancient and universally agreed tradition].
One can find the only existing English translation of St. Theophylact's treatise published in a recent edition of the Bulgarian Philosophical Journal [translated by Bogomil Sabtchev from Greek]. I highly recommend its reading.
To give a short review, St. Theophylact considers the Filioque [both in terms of the interpolation of the Symbol of Faith and its heretical dogmatic thought] and Papal Supremacy [which he connects with it] to be the only major issues that separate the Latins from the Church at that time. Other questions such as different liturgical usages do not figure fundamentally as an objection [how could they? when they differed for hundreds of years before the Schism?]. The Filioque must be removed from the Symbol of Faith [Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed], with the false Triadology and Pneumatology around it rejected; that alone shows that St. Theophylact would not be welcome in todays modernist-ecumenist circles.
What is true is that St. Theopylact is willing to countenance the argument that many of the Latins had used the 'language' of the double-procession because of the inadequacy of the Latin language to express debates that were originally carried on in Greek discourse. This, however, does not mean he attributes everything to a base logomachy; rather, he understands there is a real dogmatic deviation that is taking over the West, but, at the same time, he realizes that many who are being led down this path are simply being deceived because of a certain poverty of the Latin language [i.e. heretics can use deficiencies in language to advance their agenda, taking advantage of Latin Fathers, etc, and wrenching them out of context; one need only think of the Monophysite and Acacian Schisms in history to see this].
As regards the question of azymes, or unleavened bread, St. Theophylact is rightly critical of it [as anyone should be]; however, he seems to be more lenient on this question [certainly more than I or any other clergy I know would be!], if only it would end the Schism [there is an whole discussion about whether barley is even proper matter for the Eucharist, which took place in Russia in the 17th and early 20th centuries, and even in some circles today; as a rule, the Church teaches that wheat flour is the only valid 'matter']. Though, St. Theophylact brings out how the Church of Sardinia at the time still used leavened bread, and says this should shame the other Western churches who are abandoning the usage of leavened bread.
If we were to classify St. Theophylact's position, it would certainly be erroneous to claim that he is an 'ecumenist' or anything of the such! After all, he rightly identifies the Filiqoue and Papal Supremacy as the key factors in the Schism. However, he would certainly not be a pseudo-extremist in rejecting the entire Orthodox Western liturgical patrimony and heritage, especially if it is conformable to the Councils, Canons, and Fathers. For example, the 1895 Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate [probably the last, if not one of the very last good ones it ever wrote], adopts this position, quoting St. Photius:
"In saying this we do not at all refer to the differences regarding the ritual of the sacred services and the hymns, or the sacred vestments, and the like, which matters, even though they still vary, as they did of old, do not in the least injure the substance and unity of the faith; but we refer to those essential differences which have reference to the divinely transmitted doctrines of the faith, and the divinely instituted canonical constitution of the administration of the Churches. 'In cases where the thing disregarded is not the faith (says also the holy Photius), [5] and is no falling away from any general and catholic decree, different rites and customs being observed among different people, a man who knows how to judge rightly would decide that neither do those who observe them act wrongly, nor do those who have not received them break the law.' [6]"
The quoting of St. Photius is from his Second Epistle to Pope Nicholas written in 861; wherein he tries his best to find some sort of accommodation with Pope Nicholas, before it was necessary to take defense measures to protect his flock from the aggression of Nicholas and his allies.
Yet, St. Theophylact is probably far more lenient on some questions that any Western Orthodox Christians would be today; for example, our Bishops would bring the hammer down very fast upon anyone using unleavened bread, trying to promote clerical celibacy as a requirement for non-monastics to be ordained to major orders, and such. However, to be fair, St. Theophylact is not necessarily agreeing with these latter innovations; he is rather saying that he is willing to tolerate them, though disagreeing with them.
While it may be easy to find some Post-Schism Byzantine writers who took harsher views [I certainly would take a harsher view], St. Theophylact's treatise does illustrate how far backwards many of the most prominent Eastern Orthodox Arch-Hierarchs and authorities were willing to bend just in order to restore some peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment