Rome and Constantinople in Confrontation: the Quarrel Over the Validity of Photius’S Ordination

Chapter 1 Rome and Constantinople in Confrontation: the Quarrel over the Validity of Photius’s Ordination

Evangelos Chrysos

Οἰκονομία μίμησις τῆς θείας φιλανθρωπίας nicholas mystikos ∵

In a recent paper on patriarchs and popes who, in apparent violation of the Canon Law, were elected while being minors, I had the opportunity to study how ecclesiastical and political authorities in East and West dealt with the es- tablished legal prescriptions by either exploiting them as convenient tools of support of their aims or ignoring them.1 The principle applied in these cases of compromising with the rules is the so-called “κατ΄ οἰκονομίαν” (in Latin dis- pensatio) as opposite to “ἀκρίβεια” (in Latin accuratio).2 This contribution is devoted to another case of application of the Canon Law in East and West, namely in an area where, due to local conditions, the two Churches had devel- oped varying perceptions and priorities for the implementation of the origi- nally common regulations. We shall examine the decision of Pope Nicholas i (858–67) to deny recognition of Patriarch Photius’s ordination to the patriar- chal throne because he had received the episcopal grade ἀθρόον [Latin subito], i.e. directly from the status of a layman by obtaining the other grades within one week. The controversial discussion about the application of the canonical

1 Evangelos Chryos, “Minors as patriarchs and popes,” in Prosopon Rhomaikon: Ergänzende Studien zur Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, Alexander Beihammer et al., eds., Millenium Studies (Frankfurt, 2017), pp. 221–39. 2 Amilkas S. Alibizatos, Die Oikonomia (Frankfurt am Main, 1998). Francis Thomson, “Econo- my: An examination of the various theories of Economy held within the Orthodox Church, with special reference to the Economical Recognition of the validity of non-Orthodox sac- raments,” Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965), 368–420. Spyros Troianos, “Akribeia und Oikonomia in den heiligen Kanones,” in Historia et Ius, Francis Thomson, ed.,vol. 2, (Athens, 2004), pp. 783–99. Gregorios Papathomas, “Ecclesial Oikonomia. Terminological Elucidations and Hermeneutic Retrospections within the multiple ways of Economy,” Kanon 24 (2016), 126–45.

Rome and Constantinople in Confrontation 25 prescriptions helps us to explain the long way the two parts of the still united Church had gone in drifting apart from one another and how this alienation, when the occasion emerged, paved the way to schisms of duration. Beyond this question lies however one further question, namely whether this case should be explained as a genuine reaction of pious and law-abiding clergymen who wanted to protect the canonical tradition from unduly deviations, or whether it was part of an effort to serve other aims and ends. This controversy between East and West, Rome and New Rome, widely known in scholarship as “the Photian Schism”,3 included several serious issues, as the competition of the two thrones over the jurisdiction over the mission in Bulgaria and also the beginnings of the theological confrontation about the Filioque. However, it started with a dispute on something seemingly less im- portant: the pope’s refusal of accepting as canonical the election of Patriarch Photius. The new patriarch’s consecration was a hurried affair indeed. In only one week’s time (20th to 25th of December 858) he received successive ordi- nations from the status of a layman through the ecclesiastical grades of (a) monk’s tonsure, (b) lector, (c) subdeacon, (d) deacon and (e) presbyter before he was (f) ordained and installed as bishop of Constantinople.4

3 This is the title of the seminal monograph of Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948, repr. 1970). French edition as Le Schisme de Photius: histoire et légende, Unam sanctam 19 (Paris, 1950). Dvornik’s research was revolutionary in method and intention and surprised the peers with its results as compared to a long tradition of Roman Catholic historiography. Cornerstone of this tradition is the emblematic three vol- umes monograph of Joseph Hergenröther, the renowned scholar on the conservative side at the First Vatican Council: Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel sein Leben, seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma, (Regensburg, 1867, repr. Darmstadt, 1966). Despite his critical stance towards Photius, Hergenröther deserves the hailing evaluation of Walter Brandmüller: “Es ist schwer zu sagen, was an seinem Schaffen mehr beeindruckt: die stupende Kenntnis von Quellen und Literatur, der methodische Scharfsinn, die eindringende Quellenkritik oder seine luzide sprachlich schöne Darstellungsweise”: “Purpura Barbarica,” in Bayerische Römer- römische Bayern, R. Becker and D.J. Weiß, eds. (St Ottilien, 2016), pp. 353–71. D. Stiernon, Konstantinopel iv (Mainz, 1975 [French edition: Constantinople iv, Paris, 1967]) pp. 349–56, offers a short bibliographie commentée on the scholarly discussion before and after Dvornik’s several contributions on Photius. Well-balanced is the narration of the controversy in Hen- ry Chadwick’s book East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence, by Henry Chadwick (Oxford, 2003). See further Klaus Herbers, “Papst Nikolaus i. und Patriarch Photios. Das Bild des byzantinischen Gegners in lateinischen Quellen,” in Die Begegnung des Westens mit dem Osten. Kongreßakten des 4. Symposiums des Mediävistenverbandes in Köln 1991 aus Anlaß des 1000. Todesjahres der Kaiserin Theophanu, Odilo Engels and Peter Schreiner, eds. (Sigmaringen, 1993), pp. 51–74. 4 Reference to the tonsure is made only in the Vita Ignatii, a biased text against Photius com- posed by Nicetas David the Paphlagonian of the monastic party: Andrew Smithies, ed. (with notes by John Duffy), Nicetas the Paphlagonian, The Life of Patriarch Ignatius, cfhb 51,