http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
포시우스(Photius) 事件의 再考察 : 드보르닉(Fr.Dvornik) 硏究를 中心으로
신기배 가톨릭대학교 신학대학 대학원 1996 국내석사
Few names in the history of Christianity have inspired feelings so conflicting as that of the Greek Patriarch Photius. Saint and hero in the eyes of the Christian East, he is branded by the Christian West as the man who unbolted the safeguards of unity and let loose the disruptive forces of dissent and schism. Whilst the East invokes his name as one that carries weight with God, the West still quotes it as the symbol of pride and lust for ecclesiastical domination; hailed by all who ever claimed a larger share for nationalism in the life of the Church and a closer association between man and God, it is reprobated by others as the badge of disruption and an element destructive of Christian universality. Photius' name stands at the very center of the history of the ninth century, one of the most brilliant periods in Byzantine records. And Photius's patriarchal activities met with strong opposition and his enemies had the advantage of painting him in such malevolent colours that they left him with a name blackened for centuries. In the picture painted by his enemies, he was unscrupulous and so covetous of patriarchal honours that he conspired with the government of Michael Ⅲ and Bardas to overthrow Theodora; he offered himself as a tool for the riddance of the Patriarch Ignatius, whose sole fault had been to castigate Bardas for immoral conduct. When ignatius refused to abdicate, Photius seized his throne and let loose upon the unfortunate Ignatius and his followers a merciless persecution. Blinded by pride and lust for power, Photius tried to obtain recognition from Nicholas I by misrepresenting the circumstances of his installation in Constantinople, but the Pope, duly informed by Ignatius' envoys of the true state of things, refused to recognize a Patriarch who had raised himself to the dignity in total disregard of canonical precedent. Photius, without taking any notice of the sentence, summoned a synod of the Eastern Church, deposed the Pope and created the 'first great Schism'. Not until the pious Emperor Basil I had murdered the iniquitous Emperor Michael Ⅲ, whose reign was execrated by the whole of Byzantium, did Photius receive his punishment; then he was dethroned and solemnly condemned by the Eighth Oecumenical Council, that is the fourth Constantinople Council(869-70); that favourite source in the medieval canonical legislation of the West. But Photius insinuated himself once more into the Emperor's favour and, after Ignatius' death, reoccupied the patriarchal throne; to make sure this time of papal approval, he deceived the Pope, who was willing on certain conditions to show leniency, by falsifying his letters and also those sent by the Pope to the Emperor and the Fathers of a Council summoned to examine his case. He bribed the legates sent by the Pope and tampered with the Acts of the Council. When John Ⅷ learned that he had been hoodwinked by the astute Greek, he forthwith excommunicated him. Hence arose the second schism, which was to last till the end of the ninth century and to cast its shadow over the tenth; finally there carne the great rupture of 1054 between East and West, the rift that has withstood all attempts at healing and has been such a disaster to Christendom. This was the kind of picture which many of the contemporary sources drew of Photius' ecclesiastical career and it is the picture that has generally been accepted as authentic in the West. For centuries he has stood as a sign of contradiction, a symbol of disunion, a challenge that still keeps apart the Western and Eastern fragments of Christendom. But his influence and personality are not confined to the religious field, for since the Renaissance philosophers and philologists have venerated him as the genius who among others was instrumental in transmitting to later generations through the Byzantine period classical Greek and Hellenistic culture. A man of his stature deserves a study and the significance of his memory to the living minds of East and West makes such a study all the more timely and urgent. The very discordance of the contradictory estimates of the character and activities of this enigmatic Greek would call for a revision of the judgement of history for, despite centuries of tradition, championship and abuse, both views cannot be right, however sincere they claim to be. It is then the historian's duty to reopen the case, reduce the jarring verdicts to their just proportions, confront the witnesses, and if there has been miscarriage of justice, to rehabilitate the defendant in the eyes of posterity. What we should pay attention is the fact that the Photian case is not merely a matter of byzantine intrest. It concerns the history of Christianity and of the world, as the appraisement of Photius and his work lies at the core of the controversies that separate the Eastern and the Western Churches. According to the consideration in the main discourse, Photius at least was not the man, who his chief opponents, especially of the abbot Theognostos, the archbishops Stylianos and Metrophanes, and the remarks of the anonymous author of the anti-Photian Collection described with the virluence of their tone. He was not the man who was unscrupulous and so covetous of patriarchal honours that he conspired with the government of Michael Ⅲ and Bardas to overthrow Theodora, who offered himself as a tool for the riddance of the Patriarch Ignatius, who let loose upon the unfortunate Ignatius and his followers a merciless persecution. There was no other choice except Photius' election as Patriarch under the Byznatine situation, which was in the struggle between the partisans of 'oeconomea', the liberal policy of compromise in matters not concerning the fundamentals of the faith, and the intransigent ultra-conservatives, who held that Church prescriptions should be carried out in all circumstances and with the utmost rigour. His election was achieved with consensus of two parties mentioned above. Therefore the blame, that Photius seized Ignatius' throne, is not able to be justified. And also the argument that Photius, blinded by pride and lust for power, tried to obtain recognition from Nicholas I by misrepresenting the circumstances of his installaion in Constaninople, is doubtful. But It seems that Photius was no way conscious of the development of the doctrine on the papal supremacy in the West, when we examine the course of excommunication of Nicholas I by Photius. Moreover he overestimated his prestige in Constantinople. Pope Nicolaus I was also responsible for the schism between the Byzantine and the West . First of all he was lack of the understanding on the historical development of the Byzantine Empire. Compared to the West, the Eastern Church had a lot of high-educated men as laymen, and made positive activities within the communities. It goes without saying that we should always strive to dialogue with no prejudice, keeping these views, especially in the case of the first affair of the Schism, although the historical supposition itself is meaningless. We can find the basis of this opinion in the Vnitatis Redintegraio, the document of the Second Vatican Council, "Therefore this sacred Synod urges all, but especially those who plan to devote themselves to the work of restoring the full communion that is desired between the Eastern Churches and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to these special aspects of the origin and growth of the Churches of the East, and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before the separation, and to form for themselves a correct evaluation of these facts. If these recommendations are carefully carried out, they will make a very great contribution to any proposed dialogues" (Decree on Ecumenism 14).