|
|
Published by
Myriobiblos.gr
A Lesson from the Byzantine
Missionaries
The Heritage of Patriarch Photius
By Emilianos Timiadis*
One of the pioneers in adapting the gospel to the
culture, language and particularities of a given
indigenous nation or society was Photius,
Patriarch of Constantinople (810-895). He was a
great scholar, philosopher and missionary.
Visualizing the conversion of populations, he
inspired and prepared competent preachers and
evangelists to send to the Balkan countries. It
was during his time that Cyril and Methodius, both
born in Thessalonica, were sent to central and
eastern Europe to convert the Slavs, Czechs,
Moravians and Poles, whom they taught in the
vernacular. There is historical evidence that the
first voice of the gospel was heard in these
regions from these two brothers. Photius defended
pluralism and liberty in a time of a monolithic
latinization. Theological symposia are held in
many Orthodox countries in order to show the
relevance and the timely message of Photius for an
inculturization effort and for the contextual
proclamation of faith.
Photius enumerated and strongly recommended as a
very legitimate practice the use of different
spoken languages and cultures in different
churches of his time with all their different
dialects, expressions and idioms.
The impact of historical upheavals, social
changes, political reformations and migration of
rural populations was above all a summons to
Photius that the church, in proclaiming the gospel
to young nations, should address itself to the
totality of the life of people. He realized that
Orthodoxy could no longer afford to maintain a
passive, defensive attitude nor could it be
absorbed only by doctrinal debates with heretics.
He refused a self-defensive attitude of all that
patristic heritage bestowed on the Byzantine
world. The church could no longer protect its
identity by isolation; east and central European
societies in the ninth and tenth centuries were
constantly accelerating their pace toward rapid
change and modernization. Slowly this outstanding
ecclesiastical leader was beginning to see the
need to venture out of the enclaves. He dared to
announce to the Balkan world that what is relevant
to Byzantine society is equally useful to them.
There is danger in riches. The manna in the
wilderness could not be stored, not even from day
to day (Ex. 15,14, 35; Deut. 29:5-6). Israel had
to trust that the gift would be renewed as needed,
and those who worked to keep this lavish gift,
preserving it for future use, found that it
spoiled overnight. That was a warning for
Byzantium, which was hesitant towards expansion of
the faith. To be guardian of the faith (phylax
pisteos) was not enough. They sought a bold
recapturing of the fearless risky creativity of
their great fathers. Such thoughts stimulated
Photius’ plans to make Orthodoxy known in the
context of the realities.
The missionary projects of Photius were due also
to his far-reaching vision of the geographical
place of the Byzantine world, which included
territories that had formerly belonged to the
partes Occidentis of the Roman Empire. O
special importance were neighboring Bulgar and
Slav territories, which were profoundly imbued
with Byzantine influence. During the ninth and
early tenth centuries it lost the major part of
Macedonia, of Thrace, of Thesaly, of Epirus, and
of Dalmatia, which were ruled by the Slavonic
tribes. Prince Boris, who had himself been
baptized and was resolved to promote the
conversion of his people to Christianity, sent for
Byzantine missionaries in 869. The Slavonic
liturgical language and the so-called “Glagolitic”
alphabet, on the basis of the Greek, were adopted
in Bulgaria. The success of Orthodox penetration
is attributed to its process of fusion with the
culture and local traditions, resulting in an
original civilization development, profoundly
marked by Byzantine influences. The art of the
“Macedonian Renaissance,” like that of the sixth
century, made its influence felt afar; Armenia,
Russia, and even Italy were indebted to it and the
writings of Michael Psellos show with what
intensity the philosophy of Plato and the
classical authors were being studied to serve
theology and humanistic education.
Photius’ vision to proclaim the gospel to far
distant countries emanates from a human compassion
and principle that spiritual treasures must be
shared and not be kept exclusive to a few. This is
reflected in his efforts to civilize the
barbarians of the north. He was the first to reach
the Scandinavian Pus, through them also the
Russians of Kiev. His far- sighted views inspired
him to establish a school of Slavonic studies at
Constantinople –a seminary for providing priests
to the Slavs. A fervent worker and universal
champion for the promotion of culture as a
Christian humanist, he was educator of all peoples
within and outside Byzantium. Thus, he became
friendly with Muslims, and it is well known that
he held close bonds with the Islamic Emir of
Crete, even though differences in religion often
were a barrier.
The two letters addressed by Nicolas I Mysticus
(912-925), patriarch and successor to Photius,
deserve some notice for the light they throw on
the broad ideas of respect of Islamic values, and
on the determination to cultivate friendship with
people of non-Christian ideologies and faiths. As
we know, Nicolas had been the pupil of Photius,
and he reproduces the ideas of his spiritual
father on the relations between Orthodox
Christians and the Muslim world. These letters are
addressed to the Emir of Crete:
“Two sovereignties –that of the Saracens and that
of the Romans, that is the East Roman Empire-
surpass all sovereignty on earth, like the two
great lights in the firmament. For this one
reason, if for no other, they ought to be partners
and brethren. We ought not, because we are
separated in our ways of life, our customs, and
our worship, to be altogether divided; nor ought
we to deprive ourselves of communication with one
another by correspondence, in default of personal
intercourse. This is the way we ought to think and
act, even if no other necessity of our affairs
compelled us to it….
Your wisdom cannot have failed to notice that the
greatest among the high priests o God, the famous
Photius, my father in the Holy Spirit, was united
to the father of your Highness by bonds of
friendship; so much so that no other man of his
faith and country was so friendly to yours. For
being a man of God and great in the knowledge of
divine and human things, he knew that even if the
dividing wall of worship stood between us,
nevertheless the gifts of practical wisdom,
sagacity, stability of behavior, knowledge, and
all the other gifts that adorn and exalt human
nature by their presence, kindle in those who love
what is good for a friendship for those who
possess the qualities they love.(1)
From these reflections we gather to what extent
Photius was able to recognize the positive values
in Islam. His broadmindedness and high esteem for
non-Christians made him believe that an eventual
dialogue could bridge many prejudices between two
monotheistic religions.
Photius was also occupied by renewal. It was his
earnest desire to consolidate an authentic
spirituality by training men and women of God,
under the guidance of hermits and contemplatives.
A number of novitiate candidates came from
Slavonic areas to settle in the community of the
presbyter ascetic Arsenius in
Constantinople. Photius, writing to Arsenius,
gives instructions that all these be trained to a
godly monastic ethos, so that upon their return
they will be able to promote askesis wider
in the society. It seems that Arsenius succeeded
in training many, and this explains the sainthood
bestowed upon him by the Bulgarians. Photius
wanted to cover all the needs of a newly born
Christian nation, thus attaching great importance
to monasticism which always renders inestimable
services for renewal, mission, national unity and
to many intellectuals.(2)
By temperament Photius was not content that only a
few parts of the earth were converted to Christ.
His higher visions made him passionately anxious
to introduce Christianity to more distant nations
and, if possible, the whole inhabited world.
Historians give witness to his numerous contacts
and his sending of missionaries to Armenia, to the
Black Sea regions. But Europe was for him a
priority concern. He visualized the extension of
the universal church to all corners of the earth,
but these corners do not have a static terminal.
They are the continually renewed beginning of an
infinitive way of proclaiming God’s love to the
nearest human being. Here lies the inner mystery
of the ecclesia, a mystery that is
accomplished with the newly converted nations.
So, in defending such broad principles, Photius in
the local council of 879-880, established the
principle of pluralism. As a result of this, each
local church, being autocephalous (self-governing
vis-ΰ-vis Roman centralism) enjoyed independence
in formulating and arranging its own traditions
and customs without outside interference or
urging. Since then, we have a solution to the
thorny issue of harmonizing unity and diversity
(the one and the many). Even prior to Photius,
Athanasius of Alexandria had stated that “the
Logos of God has decorated the order of all
things, by putting aside the contrary with the
contrary, and from all these constructing one
harmony.”(3)
Cyril of Jerusalem left us an excellent simile
with the operation of the Spirit of God which
offers us water for eternal life (John 4:14). By
penetrating into the plants and trees, water gives
us the whiteness of the lilies, the redness of the
rose, the purple of the violets and hyacinths,
other colors to dates and the vine leaves. The
Holy Spirit, although being One and undivided,
distributes grace to each, thus creating a variety
of characters and personal or ethnic conditions.(4)
The importance in the mission to the Slavs
The importance of language can be explained in the
context of the persisting policy in the west,
where strongholds of “Triglosites,” supported from
Rome, were refusing the use of any other language
in worship except those three written by Pontius
Pilatus on the cross: namely, namely, Hebrew,
Greek and Latin. The introduction therefore, by
the brothers Cyril and Methodius, was seen as a
scandal, a dangerous innovation, desecrating the
sacredness of liturgical language. This integrist
movement hindered for many centuries any attempt
to simplify the archaic Latin language, or to
accept all those new languages spoken in so many
converted new lands. Certainly, such a persistent
view made the mass in Latin incomprehensible –
people standing but unable to participate in the
very mystery, this provoking indignation, which
was slowly preparing for the Reformation. Thus,
the rapid success of this movement is explained,
because congregations could easily follow prayers,
the liturgical language, the Bible and all
instructions.
Christianization of Moravia coincides with the
defeat of the Avars by Charlemagne in 796. It is
difficult to give the exact date since historical
evidence is fragmentary. The best known report
concerns the consecration of a church in Nitra by
the Archbishop Adalram (circa 828), during the
reign of Pribina.(5)
It seems that sporadic missionary efforts by
Germans appeared already in Pannonia and Moravia.
Some of these missionaries declared in a letter to
Rome that terra Sclavorum qui Moravi discuntur
was once subject to Bavarian rulers and that
through them the Moravians e paganis christiani
sunct facti. Seemingly dissatisfied, the
indigenous people, through their ruler Ratislav,
sent an embassy to Constantinople asking for
missionaries who could better understand the
aspirations, the temperament and the whole
culture, so that a religion deeply rooted in the
local population could be proclaimed, with
knowledge of the Slavonic language: “Many
Christian teachers came to us from Italy, Greece
and Germany, each teaching in their own manner…
Since our people have turned from paganism and
hold the Christian practice and law, but we do not
have such a teacher as would explain the true
Christian faith to us in our own language.”(7)Michael
III, emperor of Byzantium, following thiw request,
designated Cyril or Constantine and Methodius for
this historical mission.(8)
Upon their arrival, a rapid growth of Christian
expansion took place, and the number of priests
increased so that they were sent to all the towns;
the pagans began to believe in the true God and
“turned away from their errors,” as is recorded in
a valuable historical document.(9)
In order to meet the various religious and
liturgical needs of the priests and of the
laypeople, a translation of more and more
devotional and liturgical books from the original
Greek started. Thus, “Cyril soon translated the
entire church order and taught to the disciples
Matins, the Canonical Little Hours, Vespers,
Compline and the Eucharist. So, the ears of the
deaf were opened, as the prophet says, to hear the
words of Scripture and the tongue of the stuttered
was loosened.”
The historical period of the eighth to ninth
century is characterized by confusion as to what
limit is imposed by tradition and what new
historical conditions were demanding a change.
Many were identifying faithfulness and tradition
with immobility. Nothing ought to change. Whoever
dared to introduce a simple modification was
thought to betray the religion, disrespecting the
order and the directives of the church. It is in
this context that one should see the difficulty of
accepting new languages in worship and in
expressing doctrinal view. The conservatism of the
Trilingues became intolerable, especially
in the west, relying on a misinterpreted comment
of St. Jerome (342-420),(10)
who in reality was saying that “readers of the
Bible should respect greatly the three respective
languages,” himself being a specialized biblical
scholar. The opponents were referring to certain
vague expressions of Isidore, Archbishop of
Sevilla (560-636), who also highly respected the
three ancient languages.(11)
Triglosites were well aware of all interdictions
against their views. Their error was officially
condemned by a council convoked by Charlemagne in
Frankfurt in 794, which openly declared that God
can be adored and worshiped in all existing
languages throughout the world. It was evident
that Cyril and Methodius, fully aware of the
fanatical opposition, were fighting for liberties
in language and worship in proclaiming the gospel
to all nations, plunged in those days in
deplorable ignorance and full paganism in many
parts of Europe. More and more felt that if the
church of Christ wanted to accomplish its mission
of making known the redemptive message of our
Savior, new methods and living native languages
should be used in order to reach them. Christ’s
teaching must become understandable, intelligible
and accessible, since he himself came down from
heaven in order to be close to the human
condition, human being amongst human beings, weak
amongst the weak. Thus, they started to translate
liturgical texts and catechetical instructions in
the new Slavonic with Cyrillic letters.(12)
Unfortunately, their magnificent initiative,
serving not exclusively one particular church,
namely the Byzantine, but the whole universal
Christendom, was viewed as unorthodox by the Latin
“Philatians”. They started through political
agents to accuse these brothers that they suffer
“from arrogant pride, because they dared to do
what nobody before them did; neither the apostles,
nor a venerable pope of Rome, a Gregory, a Jerome,
an Augustine”!
The linguistic problem became controversial not so
much on the grounds of language as a verbal
instrument, but behind it was hidden another wider
factor influencing the relationship between
Constantinople and Rome. We know the basic thought
dominating the Hellenistic period: that the
emperor, as head of the state, is responsible for
the spread of proper worship. The principle must
be understood that the supreme ruler of the nation
had to care for the needs of citizens involving a
wide range of welfare including religion, since
religion plays such an important role in shaping
the whole life. Consequently, a much wider
responsibility was inherited from Constantine the
Great, the first Christian king, and later became
a permanent feature of leadership in all countries
converted to Christianity.(13)
Another principle, which proved to be very
helpful, was that ecclesiastical organization
should follow the pattern of the political
division of the empire, thus contributing to the
solid foundations of the structure of early
Christian communities.
These two factors greatly increased the process of
Christianization of groups living within the
boundaries of a given kingdom. The newly emerging
nations benefited from it, not only from the point
of view of their acceptance of the gospel but also
with regard to national unity, coherence and
stabilizing their socio-political entity as well.
Due to his mutual pragmatic sense toward the
cultural, social and ethnic expediency,
evangelism, instead of having been a marginal
issue, peripheral element and stumbling block, was
gradually accepted as an asset.
All the available historical sources agree that
the teaching of the two brothers had a tremendous
social impact upon the Slavs and the Slovaks. The
cultural, as well as the intellectual, social,
artistic and spiritual, standard of whole nations
converted was considerably improved by the zeal
and genius of these apostles and their associates.
Behind the renewal of the evangelized peoples
found in all aspects of life, one has to find the
new faith proclaimed by them. In this light we
have to see their achievement: the genial
invention of the Slavonic Bible, as well as the
admirable Slavonic translation of liturgical
books. Although there were many adversaries
disapproving these unusual new translations, we
must admit the exception of Pope John VIII, who,
in various letters, sent out support and even
recommended their use.(14)
John praises the Slavonic script and approves the
new liturgical texts translated by Cyril and
Methodius, aiming to offset the so-called “Three
Language School” or “Trilinguists”, which openly
opposed the use of any Slavonic language during
the worship. John reminds his opponents that God
had also created a fourth language, namely the
Slavonic, for his honor and glory. He had even
created the Greek, the Latin and the Hebrew.
Disregarding the bitter opposition of the Bavarian
episcopacy, he blesses the whole endeavors of the
Byzantine evangelist:
We highly appreciate the Slavonic writing,
discovered by a certain philosopher Constantine,
with which they may praise God. We order,
therefore, that in the same language be proclaimed
the praises and the wonders of Jesus the Lord. In
fact, we are advised by divine authority (Ps. 116;
Acts 2:11; Phil. 2:11; 1 Cor. 14:5) that not only
by three languages but by all existing we worship
the Lord. Undoubtedly, there is no obstacle to the
faith and the doctrine if we sing the Eucharistic
Mass in the same Slavonic language, or if we read
the holy gospel or the divine lectures of the New
and the Old Testament provided they be well
translated and interpreted. Or even if we
celebrate all the other services of the canonical
hours.
Certainly, who has made these three principal
languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, has created
too all the others for his glory and blessing.
Consequently, we ordain that in all the churches
of the region, for the attribution of a much
higher honor, the gospel be read at first in
Latin, followed by reading in Slavonic, as is the
practice established already in certain churches.
By using the Slavonic version, we facilitate those
people who do not understand the Latin. But there
are certain people who enjoy mass sung in Latin
more than in any other language, then we ordain
that holy masses be celebrated exclusively in
Latin.(15)
Responsibility of the church to the local
culture.
There is no place in the church of God for
liturgical uniformity , cultural domination,
colonialism, brutal conformism or a uniformity,
forcibly imposing worship and theological
expressions upon others. We may envisage this
harmonization of different colors as a mosaic.
Equally, it would be absurd to condemn other
Christians who prefer this or that liturgical
expression, this form of language, this kind of
liturgical singing and music. This is not
Orthodoxy. Spirituality can be expressed in
different ways and must not be taken to mean a
stereotyped form of piety, otherwise the human
element is overstated as a compared with the
divine at the expense of unity and the spreading
of the gospel. By overstressing marginal secondary
elements, we promote them to absolutes and
essentials while in reality there exists a
dialectic synthesis and harmony.
It was precisely this ignoring of cultural
aspirations and the pluralism in humanity that
manifested itself in the monolithic attitude of
the Latin church when it adamantly insisted on
Latin remaining to compulsory language in the
worship of newly-converted nations, such as
Bulgaria and elsewhere, creating the consequent
split. Photius protested in an encyclical in 867
and denounced the anachronistic steps of Rome. The
conflict was seemingly over evangelistic
methodology and deontology, but behind it was the
Roman claim to primacy of universal jurisdiction.
It accentuated the conflict between the Roman
claim to be the center of unity for Christendom
and the Eastern Orthodoxy conception of the five
patriarchates of almost equal status.
There is a deeper and more objective approach to
theology and culture as a way of life that owes
its origin to the early fathers of the east. Such
a work is both indigenous and fruitful. Our faith
and worship has to be expressed and reinterpreted
through the language and the gestures, the customs
of contemporary peoples scattered throughout the
world. This was the extraordinary achievement of
Patriarch Photius, seeking to integrate various
Slavonic customs in religion and in liturgical
life. Such an approach to inculturation remains a
continuous responsibility. The church of today,
especially that in diaspora and overseas, is
urgently seeking a diachronic and
synchronic liturgy, preaching theology and
spirituality that will embody the best traditions
of local culture.
These two brothers, left to our age, called
technological, electronic, nuclear, spatial,
revolutionary, an everlasting model of how
preaching and evangelism should be in every
historical period of change. While the central
message will remain untouched and unchangeable,
its language, form, semantic expression and
terminology should always be reviewed, adapted to
new emerging needs. Human beings, while remaining
the same throughout history, from other aspects
–cultural and intellectual- undergo considerable
change, inviting appointed pastors to give more
attention than they usually do to the methods
used, to the language employed and to how they
ought to speak in order to awaken apathy and
sleepy consciences. Without absolutizing methods
and informatique, from this new science,
nevertheless, we are not at all excused, if we
rely exclusively on old outdated patterns of our
fathers, irrelevant today. Certainly they were
valid in their time, but not for today. We need to
become flexible, contemporary. We must, as an
imperative challenge, stand with one leg in the
past, in history, but we have to put the other leg
into the present, with all that that implies and
demands, for a proper articulation of our faith to
the people. Only then will the proclamation of our
faith become effective and credible.
NOTES
* Emilianos Timiadis is Metropolitan of Sylivria,
Ecumenical Patriarchate and former representative
to the World Council of Churches.
1. P.G.,III 28 and 36-37.
2. Epistolae 95, pp. 102, 904-5. (For more
information on this subject see Constantine
Tsirpanlis, “St Photius as Missionary and True
Ecumenical Father,” The Patristic and Byzantine
Review, No 3, 1983, New York.)
3. Contra Graec, 42.
4. Catechesis 16,pp. 33, 932-33
5. M. Kos, conversio Bagoariorum, p.136
6. Gustavus Friedrich, Codex diplomaticus et
epistolaris Regni Bohemiae, I, No. 30
7. Vita Methodia, cap.4.
8. Nestor, Chronicle.
9. The Life of St Methodius X.
10. Epistola ad Heliodorum.
11.
Originum libri XX.
12.
Historia slavorum Constantin.
13.
F.Dvornik, De auctoritate civili in conciliis
ścumenicis, Acta VI Congressus Velehrandensis,
Olomouc 1933.
14.
Letter in 879 Epistl. VII, No 200 ; Bull
:Industriae tuae, » in 880 Epistl. VII, No 25.
15.
Letter to Bishop Anno in 873, A.D., pp. 126,850.
|
