-
2. The Aftermath of Vatican I
- Cornell University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
C H A P T E R 2 The Aftermath of Vatican I This chapter will consider the main points of the arguments contained in the official Greek Orthodox encyclical letter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued in 1895, as well as those of selected Greek Orthodox theologians from the same period. I will present the arguments invoked by Archimandrite Grigorius Zigavinos (1835–1910), who was professor at the Theological School of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the island Halki ; John Mesoloras (1851–1942) and Anastasios Kiriakos (1843–1923), who were both professors at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Athens; and Spiridon Papageorgiou (1850–1918), a theologian from the Greek island of Corfu, against the main points of the Roman Catholic teaching on papal primacy described in the previous chapter. The views of the twentieth-century Greek Orthodox theologian John Karmiris (1904–1992), professor of Dogmatics and Christian Ethics at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Athens, follows the same argumentation as the encyclical letter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and Zigavinos, Mesoloras, and Kiriakos, are also presented. As we shall see, however, these arguments were later criticized by another group of Greek Orthodox theologians, represented primarily by John Zizioulas, and some Russian Orthodox theologians such as Afanassieff, Schmemann, and Meyendorff . I will show how the first group—those of the nineteenth century and Karmiris—present an incoherent and inauthentic critique of papal primacy, whereas the second group—Zizioulas and others—identify the weaknesses in their arguments, with Zizioulas in particular articulating an increasingly coherent and authentic understanding of the issue of primacy in the Church, not simply in terms of honor but also of real power. 42 PRIMACY IN THE CHURCH FROM VATICAN I TO VATICAN II The Invitation to Vatican I and the Reason for the Issuance of the Patriarchal Letter of 1895 By way of preamble, it is worth recalling that Pope Pius IX in 1868 issued a letter inviting all the Orthodox bishops to Vatican I, an invitation that was declined. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory VI, told the papal delegation that delivered the letter that he already knew its contents and that it contained principles that were against the Gospel, the ecumenical councils, and the Fathers of the Church, which he could not, of course, accept. For Patriarch Gregory VI, attendance of the Orthodox bishops at the council would mean a renewal of old theological disputes that would accentuate disagreement and reopen old wounds; he saw no common ground for any synodal discussion or agreement. The only basis for reunion would be the return of the Roman Catholic Church to the doctrine and norm existing before the schism, giving up all that was added after that.1 For Patriarch Gregory VI, the main sources of disagreement between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics were the Roman Catholic claims that in the Church of Christ there is a ruler and head other than the Lord, that one of the patriarchs is infallible and superior over the ecumenical councils, that the apostles were not equal, and that the prerogatives of the patriarchs and popes are not jure humano but jure divino.2 The papal delegation replied categorically that Rome had no intention of changing its principles and that all these matters had been examined at the Council of Florence, which united the two Churches. The patriarch then contested the validity of that council, stating that unity was not in fact achieved there.3 Further, the Patriarch expressed his disagreement with the way in which Pius IX had convoked the council, without asking the patriarchs and synods for their agreement: “If his Holiness the Pope of Rome had respect for apostolic equality and brotherhood, it was fitting that, as an equal among the equals in point of dignity, but being first by canonical right and rank of his See, he should have directed a separate letter to each of the Patriarchs and Synods of the East, and not in encyclical and dictatorial form to impose it as lord and master of them all, but as a brother to brethren equal in honour and degree, to ask them how, where, and in what conditions, they would agree to the assembling of a Holy Council.”4 The other Patriarchates followed the example of Constantinople and none attended the council.5 Almost three decades later, for Patriarch Anthimus and the synod assembled around him, the main reason for issuing the patriarchal letter of 1895 was to show their strongly negative...