STUDIO SULLO SCISMA IN ITALIANO

STUDIO SULLO SCISMA DELL'ARCIVESCOVO ORTODOSSO DI MILANO

Enciclica Contro l'Ecumenismo di San Filarete Metropolita e Protogerarca della Chiesa Russa Oltrefrontiera

Jοhn Ν. Karmiris
Professor in the University of Athens

The Schism of the Roman Church*
Translated by Z. Xintaras

From “Theologia” review, Athens 1950, 400-587 pp.



CONTENTS

Chapter I

Αmong the opponents and adversaries of the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, the Papacy very early took its place. By the word Papacy we mean the tendency of the bishops of Rome, which is foreign to the genuine spirit of Christianity, towards absolute concentration of all the powers and properties of the Church -even up to the point of infallibility- in one ruler and the exercise by him of tyrannical government and sovereignty over the whole Church of Christ. In addition, the term implies all the accompanying innovations of the bishops of Rome in administration, worship and faith of the Church; moreover, it means the appropriation by the Papacy of political, namely worldly power. This tendency appeared early in the ancient Church, but because she was entangled in hard struggles against heretics and other enemies, internal and external, she did not hasten to suppress it in its genesis, The fact that it was expressed in the West, on the other hand, offered suitable ground for its growth for various reasons, but above all because of its distance from the Greek East, which was then the centre of all ecclesiastical, political, and intellectual movements, and because at that time the peoples of the West were uncivilized. In addition, the fact that there existed only one apostolic throne in the West, that of Rome, gave this tendency ground for development. It was natural for Rome to become a great ecclesiastical centre, as it already had become a political one(1),The Eastern Church, in which the great dogmatical and ecclesiastical struggles were taking place at this time that as a result gave to Christianity its definite and permanent form, was not touched immediately by the absolute papal ambitions. For this reason, she did not react effectively in time against the pursuits of the bishops of Rome, which in the beginning were put forward in the East in the form of a simple claim to honorary primacy. In this way, the Papacy found the opportunity to impose itself on the entire Western Church and to strengthen its position during the first eight centuries. When it thought itself sufficiently strong, it attempted to extend its sovereignty even over the Eastern Church during the latter half of the ninth century, taking advantage on the one hand of her weakness due to her subjugation by Mohammedanism and of the decline of the three ancient Patriarchates of the East -Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem; on the other hand, of its political emancipation from the Byzantine emperors and its alliances with the Frankish rulers of the West, through the aid of whom the Papacy had already obtained political power. The theory of the two swords and the papal primacy was thus shaped(2).

In this manner, there was somehow created in the Church a new degree in the priesthood, that of the Pope, who being considered as «episcopus episcoporum», and «episcopus universalis» and source of the priesthood, centralizes the highest ecclesiastical and worldly power and stands above all the hierarchs and patriarchs and even over the œcumenical Synods ; the Pope is the visible head and ruler of the whole Church and the vicar of Christ on earth, having the «plenam et supremam potestatem jurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam» whenever he speaks «ex cathedra» and defines the teaching which ought to be observed by the whole Church in faith and morals, «ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit», as the Vatican Synod dogmatised in the past century(3) So in this way, the ancient simple honorary primacy of the bishop of Rome was perverted and changed into a primacy of jurisdiction that was even completed and crowned with infallibility. Of course, these fabrications of the Latinos, which are contrary to the letter and to the spirit of the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition, were able to find reception only in the West and not in the Greek Orthodox East which was the first teacher of Christianity and Civilization. For this reason, it is obvious that as soon as this monarchy and absolutism of the Pope, thus developed and enforced in the Western Church, would attempt to spread out over the independent and free Eastern Church, it would inevitably lead to conflict and schism of the two Churches, the responsibility resting with the Roman Church.

Moreover, the Papacy was not content with changing the organization of the Church alone, but ventured also to introduce many dogmatical and liturgical innovations that were unknown in the ancient Church. Thus, she innovated in the celebration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Chrism and Holy Eucharist even up to the point of touching the dogmatical teachings of the ancient Church. But that which clashed more against the dogmatical conscience of the Orthodox was the addition of the «filioque» clause to the Creed, which in form was anti-canonical and in substance erroneous. This clause contains the new Latin teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit «and from the Son», which was characterized by Photius as an «heretical belief», «atheistic opinion» and «blasphemy against the Spirit, or rather against the whole Trinity» and the «apex of evils(4). Peter of Antioch, writing to Cerularius,
characterized it as «an evil and of all evils the worst»(5). Because, it meant the forgery of the sacred symbol of the Church and a change in the most fundamental Christian dogma about the Holy Trinity, which the first two œcumenical Councils had formulated, which the great Fathers of the Church had theologically and philosophically examined and fortified and which the five succeeding œcumenical and other ecclesiastical Synods had recognized and validated. On this point, the Third œcumenical Synod decreed that «it is not permitted to anyone to pronounce another faith, by writing against that which was defined by the holy Fathers, who convened at Nicaea under the guidance of the Holy Spirit»(6). Its president, Cyril of Alexandria, added that to no one is it permitted to «change one word of the text, not even one syllable»(7). This was accepted by the earlier Popes, of whom Leo ΙΙΙ in 810 in order to protect the Creed from alteration ordered it to be written on two silver plates in Greek and Latin without the illegitimate addition and set it up in the Church of the Apostle Peter in Rome(8). Consequently, this new Latin belief of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son also, which by the Orthodox was considered anti-canonical and arbitrary as well as scripturally, historico-dogmatically, ecclesiastically and logically unacceptable, naturally contributed a great deal to the division between the Eastern Church adhering steadfastly to the teaching of the œcumenical Synods and the Western Church with its inclination to innovate in matters of faith(9).

Besides, intellectual and ecclesiastical differences, which appeared many centuries earlier between the Greeks and Romans, and the racial and political differences existing among them had gradually prepared an ecclesiastical schism. These differences had their beginning and roots in the transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great to Constantinople. We are able to discern differences arising even before this, in the occupation of Greece by the Romans and much earlier in the establishment of the first Greek colonies on Italian and Gallic soil. Αll these, together with the aforementioned theory of papal primacy, we consider as the principal, real and deeper causes of the ecclesiastical schism between East and West while, on the contrary, the events and the protagonists of the schism in the ninth and eleventh century were only the immediate and lesser occasion for it. The schism would have been realized sooner or later inasmuch as it depended upon persons not imbued deeply with the Christian spirit of love. It is obvious that the causes and pretences of the schism should not be confused, as is often done.

In fact, we must seek the first, principal and deeper causes and roots of the schism in the intellectual and ecclesiastical differences between the Greeks and the Latinos on the one hand and in their theological tendencies on the other. For example, the Greek Fathers were distinguished for their theoretical and philosophical mind; the Latin for their practical and organizing spirit. This difference existed from antiquity, as confirmed by the differences existing between the Alexandrian theologians and Tertullian who represented the West. From the time of Origen to Photius this difference pervaded all theological thought, resulting in the severance of the Christian East from the West. This severance was intensified by the totally peculiar and almost independent development of each in the field of theological speculation, ecclesiastical organization and divine worship, It was accompanied by the partial or total lack of understanding on the part of both, by the love for power and leadership and by the rivalry of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople «for the thrones. Thus, the first disagreement between the East and the West occurred with the decisions of the Second (381) and particularly the Fourth (451) œcumenical Councils which bestowed equal privileges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with «the bishop of Rome, for Constantinople becoming new Rome…(the Fathers) rightly deciding that the city which was honoured for royalty and senate, should enjoy equal rights with the older royal Rome, and be magnified in church affairs like Rome, being the second after her...and to the older Rome did the Fathers reasonably give privileges because she was the ruling city»(10). But more significant was the first real schism between the East and the West which lasted thirty-five years (484-519) and which was caused by Zeno's «Henotikon», issued with the approval of the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius(11). The smaller schisms caused by the persecution of John Chrysostom (406-407)(12) and Maximus the Confessor (649)(13) and others of smaller significance are overlooked.

Furthermore, deeper and more official became the antithesis and dissension between the Eastern and Western Church on account of the Canons 36, 38, 13, 55 and 56 of the Quini-sextum Councίl (Trullanum) in 691 by which the primary rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople were again recognized and the general obligatory celibacy of the Clergy and the fast of the Latinos during the Saturdays of Lent were condemned(14). Contributing also to the antithesis was the decision of the Lateran Council of 769 against the synod of 754 called by Constantine V during the Image controversy(15). This antithesis continued until the end of the Image controversy.

In addition to the intellectual, theological and ecclesiastical differences, it is also necessary to add the racial national, and political antitheses and antipathies which existed before Christ between the Greeks and Romans and later between the Christian Emperors of Byzantium and the Popes of Rome. And, between the ancient Greeks and Romans, because of their mutual tyrannical conquests and subjections and the conflict of their great national and economic interests, it was natural for a permanent enmity to develop. This was intensified by significant differences in respect to culture, spirit, language, national, religious and social character, life, manner and customs etc. But, this dissension continued after Christ when the capital was transferred to Byzantium. Since then, the bishops of Rome maintained an unfriendly disposition toward Byzantium which was dawning as an ecclesiastical as well as political centre, and on the other hand they began to try to invest themselves with and consolidate the double authority of their predecessors, pontifices maximi, as well as that of the emperors of pagan Rome in order to exercise both ecclesiastical and political authority. They hoped to continue under the new cloak of papo-caesarisrn the old caesarean imperialism and totalitarianism. Τo this end, they contrived the theory of the so-called papal supremacy.

This theory, however, inevitably caused conflict not only with the Patriarchs of the East, but also with the emperors of Byzantium. And in fact, the Byzantine emperors bore heavily the loss of their sovereignty over central Italy, which was subjected during the 8th century by the papal state established by the Franks. They resented, as well, the political manoeuvres of the Popes, conditioned each time by the advent of powerful rulers in the West. Similarly, the Popes also resented both the political and ecclesiastical subjection of southern Italy, Sicily and Eastern Illyricum by Byzantium. Besides, the Popes sought to emancipate themselves fully from the Byzantine court in order
to effect more easily their ecclesiastico-political projects; towards this end, already from the middle of the 8th century they had placed themselves under the protection of the Franks who had recently appeared and whose rulers Pepin and Charlemagne they had crowned emperors. In this way, they contributed to the establishment of the western empire, limiting the authority of the Byzantine emperors to the East, which later was even threatened by the Christian West(16). Through such political manoeuvres the Popes sought chiefly to put an end to their dependence and relations with the lawful Roman emperor in Byzantium and to invest themselves with political power by provoking and accepting the so-called papal state in Italy as a gift (17) of the Frankish rulers. Henceforth, the Popes bear two swords, that is, exercise two powers, priestly and royal, ecclesiastical and political. And in order to strengthen these, they fabricated the fictitious «Gift of Constantine» and the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals(18). So, already for one century before Photius, the Popes for the sake of their own ecclesiastico-political
ambitions and pursuits had created first the political schism of the West from the East. The ecclesiastical schism followed as a necessary and inevitable consequence with the Popes taking the lead(19).


NOTES

1. - See also Β. Stefanides, Church History, Athens 1948, p. 261 seq. (in Greek).

2. - Very characteristic is the event that to justify all this and particularly to support the papal primacy of jurisdiction and the other arrogant claims of the Papacy the two known fictitious fabrications called «Donatio Constantini» and the «Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals» were forged in the West from the middle of the eighth century to about the middle of the ninth. Because their forgery remained unperceived for a very long time, they caused a complete revolution in the ecclesiastical form of government, which was held from the first centuries of Christianity. Because, the administrative, legislative and judicial powers of the Pope of Rome were enlarged and completed by the addition of worldly power. For further details see Nectarius Kephalas, Metropolitan of Pentapolis, Historical study of the causes of the schism, its perpetuation and the possibility or impossibility of the union of the two Churches Eastern and Western, Athens 1911 vol. Ι, p.p. -185-200 (in Greek). j. Dollinger (Janus), Der Papst und das Concil. Leipzig 1869, p.p: 101 seq. Ph. Vafeides, The primacy of the Pope of Rome developing in the history of the Church, Salonika 1929, pp. 114, 131 seq. (in Greek). Β. Slefanides, οp. cit., p. 274 seq. Such myth - making and forgeries were customarily made by the Latinos, and even the great scholastic theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas was influenced by them. See J. Karmiris, -Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Athens 1935, p. 33/4 (in Greek).

3. - Η. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, Freiburgi 1911, ed. 11. p. 487.490.

4. - J. Valletas. Letters of Photius, the most-wise and saintly Patriarch of Constantinople, Lοndοn 1864, pp. 171, 175, 177, 191/2 (in Greek).

5. - Letter to Michael Cerularius, in Migne P.G. 120, 804.

6. - Canon 7. in Mansi, Concil. 4, 136. G. Rhalles and Μ. Potles, The Constitution of the sacred Canons, Athens 1852, vοl. ΙΙ p. 200 (in Greek). See also Μansi 7,117. 11,640.

7. - Mansi. Concil. 5,308/9.

8. - Fοr this reason he noted: «haec (Leo) pro amore el cautela οrthodoxae fidei fecit», and Baronius observed that Leo ΙΙΙ «indelebili monumentum erigendum putavit, quo posteris innotesceret, in sacro symbolo nihil esse addendum» (οp. cit., vol. 9. p. 481 seq). See also Α. Palmieri, Filioque, article in Α. Vacant and Ε. Mangenot, Dictionnaire de Theologie catholique, vοl.5 p. 2316/7. C. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Freiburg i. Β. 1877, vοl. 3 p. 753 seq.

9. - Because, as Β. Stefanides rightly observes: «the teaching about the filioque clause, officially introduced into the Bulgarian Church, ceased to be a theological opinion in the relations between the Western. And Eastern Church; it now appeared as an ecclesiastical dogma. For this reason did Photius first attack this as being heretical precisely at this time» (op. cit., p. 326). But even earlier in 807/8 the orthodox monks of Jerusalem under the leadership οf the monk John characterized the Frankish monks as heretics, because they had recited the sacred symbol οf Nicaea-Constantinople in Bethlehem with the addition of the «filioque». See J. Hergenrother, οp. cit., vol. Ι p. 696 seq. C. Hefele, op. cit., vol. 3 p. 750, Α. Palmieri, ante p.2315.

10. - See Rhalles and Potles, οp. cit, vοl. II p. 173. 281. With the 28th Canon of the Fourth œcumenical Synod «the primary rights of honor of Constantinople were equal to those of Rome». But amongst equal honorary rights, those chronologically older come first. (See 16th meeting of the Fourth ocumenical Synod, Mansi 7, 450, Hefele, Conciliengeschichte 2, 543). The rights of the Pope of Rome were no longer superior in themselves, but only as being the more ancient. Τhe East recognized these ancient primary rights of honour and for this reason called the bishop of Rome «proto-throne».(Β. Stefanides, op. cit., p. 267). Against the 28th Canon the Pope Leo Ι protested. See Ε. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums, Tubingen 1930, vοl. Ι p. 527 seq.

11. - The Pope Felix without any right invited imperatively to Rome the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius in order to apologize. Because of his refusal, the Pope deposed him and crossed out his name from the diptychs. It is understood that the Eastern Church, recognizing nο such jurisdiction of the Pope, paid no attention to his anti-canonical action. Acacius, however, repaying in equal measure, ordered the name of the Pope to be crossed out from the diptychs. In this way, the first serious schism between the two Churches broke out. The responsibility rests with Felix. Although it is called the «Acacian» schism. His example was followed by his successors. Gelasius I, Anastasius II, Symmachus and Hormisdas at whose time the schism was lifted. See also Nectarius Kephalas, Metropolitan of Pentapolis, οp. cit.,p. 147 seq. Ε. Caspar, οp. cit. vοl. ΙΙ p. 10 seq.

12. - See Β. Stefanides, οp. cit., p. 190.

13. - Ibid. p.223.

14. - See Rhalles and Potles, op. cit., vοl. ΙΙ pp. 333, 387, 392, 434, 436. Likewise the canοns 67 and 82 about the edibility of blood containing animals and the representation of Christ as a lamb (ibid. pp. 462 and 492) seem to refer to the Latin practices, as do the canons ,52 and 57 about the celebration of the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified during the Lenten period, excepting Saturday, Sunday and Αnnunciation Day, as well as that «there is no need to offer honey and milk to the altars» (ibid. pp. 427 and 437). See also Ε. Caspar, οp. cit , ΙΙ p. 632 seq. Μ. Jugie characterizes the above canons as «la premiere offensive contre la primaute romaine», inasmuch as the Fathers of the Synod «attaquent plusieurs points de la discipline de l'Eglise romaine et les proscrive sous peine d'excommunication ou de deposition». (Le schism byzantin, p. 25,26).

15. - See. also Nicetas chartophylax of Νicaeus, For what reasons and when did the Roman Church break away from the Church of Constantinople, Μigne Ρ. G. 120, 712-720. G. Kremos, History of the Schism of the two Churches Greek and Roman, Athens 1905, vol. Ι pp. 128 seq., 218 seq., 259 seq., 283 seq., 409 seq , 447 seq., 493 seq. Β. Stefanides, op. cit., p. 236 seq. Μ. Jagie, οp. cit. p. 9.

16. - See also G. Kremos, op, cit., pp. 475/6.

17. -. See Β. Stefanides, οp, cit., p. 317/8

18. -. About these see p. 402 footnote 2. Concerning their forgery, Β. Stefanides οp. cit., p. 274 observes that «no other forgery in the history of the world was accomplished with so much skill and no other had greater results. The forgeries mentioned are simple fabrications of the imagination... p. See also F. Heiler, Altkirchliche Autonomie und papstlicher Zentralismus. Munchen 1941, p. 235 seq., 243 seq.

19. - See Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, The primacy of the bishop of Rome, Athens 1930, p. 127 seq. Α. Pichler, Geschichte der kirchlicheu Trennung zwischen dem Οrient und Occident, Munchen 1865, vοl. Ι p. 146 seq. Nectarius of Pentapolis, οp. pp. cit. 199-200.

Chapter II

Such were the relations between the two Churches when in about the middle of the ninth century their leadership fell into the hands of the two eminently powerful hierarchs, the Pope of Rome Nicholas Ι on the one hand and the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople on the other. Nicholas, a man fond of power, most despotic and overcome by the idea of the absolutism of the papal supremacy and the œcumenicity of the Church of Rome, sought to impose and extend his jurisdiction in all directions, considering this as the chief purpose of his papal rule. Regarding himself as a despot of the entire universe, he began an ecclesiastical and political struggle against patriarchs and kings. In fact, he principally after the Popes Leo Ι and Gelasius Ι succeeded in defending the theory of supremacy and giving it a definite form. He succeeded in raising this and the papal power to an hitherto unprecedented degree(1).

Photius, adorned with superior talents; which are rarely gifted by nature to man,
And marked out on account of these as the wisest man of his times and the greatest
defender of Orthodoxy against the Papacy, opposed the Ροpe as the invincible and
unrivalled guardian of the integrity and purity of Orthodoxy and the independence and rights of his Church(2).

The clash between these two great hierarchs was inevitable, as soon as the first would attempt to extend his sovereignty over the Eastern Church. Unfortunately, this did not delay due to the historical consequences of the Church's evolution in the immediately preceding centuries. In fact, Nicholas, strengthened by his successes in the West after imposing himself in the ecclesiastical and political field, was eager to
enforce the genuinely roman politics of ecclesiastical imperialism, which was inherited from ancient Rome, even over the Orthodox East.

This was particularly necessary because the papal supremacy, established in the West with the aid of Pepin and Charlemagne, had to get recognition from the four
remaining eastern Patriarchates of the Church Pentarchy especially from the
patriarch of Constantinople in order to insure itself. Since this recognition was peacefully unattainable, forceful intervention was necessary, and for the successful impοsitiοn of the primacy in the East, proper exploitation was needed. The favourable opportunity Nicholas thought that he had found in the dispute in Constantinople between Photius and Ignatius. The disagreement was due to the arbitrary interference of the Byzantine Court, as well as to the christianisation of Bulgaria by Byzantium and her subjection to the Patriarchate of Constantinople at the time of Photius. Both reasons were obviously of an ecclesiastico-political nature and lacked the intention of expansion, which was characteristic of Nicholas' aims. In themselves they had nothing, which was anti canonical, and they gave no right to the bishop of Rome to intervene. Nevertheless, together with a few new dogmatic Latin teachings, they served as the formal pretext for the outbreak of the ecclesiastical schism whose inner causes, however, are found in the system of the Papacy and in the course of its development, as we have seen.

In the first place, today it has been historically ascertained under what conditions
the Patriarch of Constantinople, Ignatius, was deposed in 857(3). He was forced
to resign chiefly for political reasons and without any interference on the part of Photius; also, it is known how the most-learned professor in the University of Constantinople and protoasekretis Photius was unwillingly (4) elected to the vacant throne canonically and by the unanimous vote of clergy and laity(5). Ignatius and his followers in fact, canonically recognized him in the beginning as the canonical Patriarch(6). It is also known that the Synod which convened in Constantinople in 861, «proto-deutera»,(7) unanimously approved Photius' election as canonical. In this synod official representatives of the Pope Νicholas took part, voting in favour of Photius and condemning Ignatius(8).

In spite of this, Nicholas, thinking that the opportunity had come in presenting before
the Easterners his absolute supremacy and imposing it over them by all possible means, wrote repeated letters to the Emperor Michael III, to the Patriarchs and Bishops of the East and «ad omnes fideles» and to the «most-learned master Photius»-not recognizing him as bishop- in which on the basis of the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals he presents himself as the absolute sovereign of the Church and her highest judge, and therefore, the judge in the dispute between Photius and Ignatius. As such, he annulled in 862 the acts of the Church synods, which convened in Constantinople and declared Photius a layman and Ignatius the only canonical Patriarch of Constantinople. The reason for this, according to him, was the patriarchal change, which was made without his knowledge and consent («sine romani pontificis consultu»).(9) Besides, he called together a Latin synod in Rome in 863 which likewise deposed and anathematised Photius and those ordained by him, and declared Ignatius the canonical Patriarch and reinstated him and the Ignatian bishops to their thrones(10). Getting no attention and answer from Constantinople, he continued the same violent polemics against Photius; for example, his responsive letter to the emperor Michael in 865(11) and his other letters in 866 to the same Michael, to Bardas, to the Empresses Theodora and Eudoxia, to the members of the Senate, to the Patriarchs, Photius and Ignatius, to the remaining Patriarchs and Bishops of the East(12) and to the Clergy of Constantinople(13).

The Pope based this arbitrary and anti-canonical intervention in a foreign and independent Church on the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and on the pitiful misinterpretation of the 9th Canon of the Fourth œcumenical Council, which even his apologist Cardinal Hergenröther acknowledges that it was «interpreted not in the sense that its writers, the Fathers of the Synod of Chalcedon, had given it»(14) but arbitrarily for his own benefit, Hence he contended that his so called privileges gave him superiority and power «super omnem terram, id est super omnen Ecclesiam»(15). The truth, however, is that the Pope had no right to intervene, because according to the canons of the œcumenical Synods beginning with the 4th canon of the First œcumenical Synod(16), the bishops are elected, established and judged by the bishops of the local province or ecclesiastical district, as had in fact been done in the case of Photius(17).

It is obvious that Nicholas, acting against the canons of the Church and indeed
after the lapse of many years following the canonical election of Photius, aimed to extend his power over the eastern bishops and especially over the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was considered in Rome as a dangerous opponent, and to subjugate in this way the Eastern Church. This precisely was the first cause of the outbreak of the ecclesiastical schism, the Ρope of Rome Nicholas being chiefly
responsible.

But the same arbitrary Pope Nicholas gave almost simultaneously yet another
cause for the outbreak of the schism, arising from his ecclesiastico-political ambitions.
It was the arbitrary intervention in another jurisdiction, namely in the Bulgarian Church, which shortly before was founded by Byzantium in its own territory and brought under the spiritual leadership of the Patriarchate of Constantinople(18). In order to subject this newly established Church and bring it under their influence, this Pope and his successors conducted violent struggles, contributing in this way materially to the final outbreak of the schism. Because, the Patriarchs and especially the Byzantine Emperors opposed them in equal measure(19).

As it is known, while Nicholas was engaged in extending and imposing his so-called
sovereign rights over the Eastern Church through his polemics against Photius, the latter on the contrary was engaged in christianising Bulgaria and organizing the Church and State on a Christian basis. This is indicated in the letter of the Patriarch Photius «to Michael; ruler of Βulgaria»(20) But Nicholas, parallel to his open attack against the Church of Constantinople and her chief leader Photius, indirectly was undermining her by sending into Bulgaria anticanonically his bishops,
Formosus and Ρau1, later Donatus, Marinus, Dominicus, Leopardus and Grimoaldus
and many other Latin clergymen, who were applying themselves to the task of Latinising orthodox Bulgaria and the neighbouring Slavic countries by the introduction of Latin dogmas and traditions(21). This was done at the expense of the Greek Church whose Clergy was driven out and whose orthodox traditions were assailed and slandered(22).

In this manner, while Photius was patiently receiving repeated attacks and condemnations from Rome, avoiding to answer and retaliate, suddenly he was astonished to learn that «impious and abominable men, appearing from darkness (because they were offspring of the western lands), had fallen upon the newly established and organized nation like a thunderbolt or an earthquake or a great hail storm, or in more familiar terms, as though a wild boar had destroyed it, having first divided the beloved and newly-planted vineyard of the Lord. Their audacity was so great that it was accomplished, one might almost say, by tooth and nail, that is, by the practices of infamous activity and the corruption of dogma. Unscrupulously they corrupted and led them away from the correct and pure dogma and the blameless faith of the Christians»(23)

Precisely this last point, namely the corruption and the forgery of Orthodox dogmas
and traditions became the third cause for the outbreak of the ecclesiastical schism.
Because the papal legates introduced new heterodox teachings in Bulgaria, the Byzantines there were aroused by the unfamiliar innovations. The Latin clergy stirred up the neophyte Christian Bulgarians by declaring certain of their sacraments invalid because they had been performed by the married Greek clergy, whose marriage they criticized in a Manichean way. They also imposed the obligatory Latin celibacy of the clergy. They also considered invalid the Sacrament of Holy Chrism as being performed by priests and not bishops as in the West, «the Chrism of the priests is useless and its celebration is futile since they act as impostors». Hence, they repeated a Sacrament which dogmatically is performed only once. They also changed the customs of fasting according to the Latin practice, .consecrated anew the Churches etc. The worst of all was the introduction of the «filioque» clause into the Creed, which was characterized by the scandalized Orthodox as heresy. This innovation especially aroused the Orthodox, and Photius denounced it in an encyclical to all the Orthodox Patriarchs and to the entire eastern world as introducing two principles in the monarchic Trinity and leading to the acceptance of two Gods, since the monarchy is dissolved. He further stressed that such «a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, more so against the Holy Trinity, even if nothing more is dared than this, is sufficient to put ten thousand of them under anathema». He calls it altogether an «atheistic opinion»(24).

These were the three most serious and direct causes precipitating the
ecclesiastical schism, whose chief reason and source was the monarchic papal primacy, with the Pope Nicholas Ι as the spearhead(25). The great Photius, having found himself before the continuous unjust attacks of Rome, in the midst of an anti-Latin and oppressive atmosphere and facing the general uprising, decided that it was time to defend himself. When the acts of the Pope and the Latins were made known in Constantinople, that they were being practiced at the expense of the Orthodox faith and tradition, the independence and self-sufficiency of the Eastern Church and her leader Photius, a general agitation prevailed. The demonstrative and unanimous opinion, decision and claim of all, especially of the rulers, was that an end should be put to the evil. Contributing materially to this agitation were the nine fore mentioned letters of the Pope Nicholas, which were written in an arrogant and harsh tone and attacked the Church of Constantinople. Moreover, different accusations were sent from the West to Photius concerning the tyrannical behaviour of the Pope Nicholas.
About these Photius writes: «a certain synodical letter and other letters from different sources came forth from there full of tragedy and great lamentation»(26).

Under the pressure then of popular opinion and that of the Emperor, which was caused by the loss of Bulgaria, the able champion of Orthodoxy, Photius, who «had captured the hearts of the whole Empire and the whole Byzantine Church»(27) having suffered «a serious wound inwardly as one who sees the contents of his stomach being torn and broken to pieces by reptiles and wild beasts», and who had suffered «toils and pains for their (Bulgarians) regeneration and perfection»(28),
decided to react ecclesiastically against the extension of Nicholas' sovereignty. His aim was to censure Nιcholas for forging the Orthodox faith, for violating ancient traditions and for seeking to Latinise Bulgaria and other countries, not even excepting Greece. Towards this end, Photius issued his famous encyclical in the year 866(29) with the approval of the resident synod of Constantinople(30), entitled «to the hierarchal thrones of the East»(31), in which the heterodox teachings and anti-canonical acts of Rome and her Pope Nicholas Ι are denounced with force rarely expressed and with orthodox zeal(32).

This Synod met during July-August of the following year in Constantinople under the presidency of Photius and in the presence of the Church delegates from the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, numerous bishops and clergymen, as well as the Emperor Michael, the co-emperor Basil Macedon and many councillors, patricians and other officers(33) and, condemned the forenamed Latin teachings and innovations. It also proclaimed that the Pope Nicholas be deposed, anathematised and excommunicated(34), as well as those in agreement with him, especially the papal legates in Bulgaria who were introducing into the Orthodox East the Latin innovations denounced in the well-known encyclical of Photius.

As the Church historian and Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom Papadopoulos
noticed, «in the person of Nicholas the papal primacy, unheard of in the Eastern Church, was denounced and anathematised. According to this theory of papal primacy, the canonical order and independence of the patriarchal thrones, as defined by the œcumenical Councils, was overthrown. In addition, the bishop of Rome sought to become absolute ruler of the entire Church, judging all and being judged by none, enforcing upon the Church not only his own wishes in administrative issues; but even his own innovations and heterodox teachings(35). Professor Α. D. Kyriakos
also writes: «In this Synod the Eastern Church claimed her own rights and by the
deposition of the Pope who had asked to subject her, she expressed her autonomy
and independence»(36).

In this manner, then, through the exchange of personal anathemas between the
Ρope Nicholas and the Patriarch Photius, through the decisions of the Latin synod of 863 in Rome and of the Orthodox synods of 867 in Constantinople and in general on account of the arbitrary interventions of the Ρope, the first disastrous ecclesiastical
schism of great proportion broke out. By this the seamless garment of the Saviour
was torn asunder and the Church of Christ was divided: the Eastern composed of the four ancient Patriarchates and the Western under the Patriarchate of Rome.

Exactly at this point all justifiably raises the question: Who then is the true
father and the one responsible for the schism?

On the basis of what we have already written one is able to conclude, we think, that the deepest cause of that grievous event was the Papacy as a system in general and especially its attempts to expand and even impose its power and sovereignty and Latin dogmas and traditions over the Orthodox East. The true father, first-cause and
perpetrator of the schism and the first who expressed completely the antithesis
between East and West, was the Pope Nicholas Ι. He was the aggressor, while Photius became the defender. The latter was forced ten years later to return the earlier anathematisation of Rome and to censure Nicholas for intervening in foreign
administrative issues and for the proposed innovations(37). Consequently, they who
ascribe the responsibility of the schism to Photius calling him «father of the schism»,
do so unjustly. It was not the «Photian schism»(38), but «the schism of the Roman Church»(39).

We do not consider Photius infallible; we admit that he was destined to make
certain mistakes in the terrible ecclesiastico-political confusion and conflict of the two
worlds. But, taking into consideration the condition that he was in suffering unjust attacks, he was obliged -either with or without the synod of 867- to defend the independence and rights and dogmas of his Church. He was forced to repel the Papacy's deviation from the canonical track, since this deviation was contrary to the whole historical past of Christ's Church.

Indubitably, the wise and keen-sighted Photius had foreseen and with his resistance had averted in the Eastern Church what had taken place in the West i.e, the arbitrary conversion of the ancient synodical and democratic form of Church government to a monarchy. He checked the introduction of new dogmas and traditions into the Eastern Church as for example, the theory of papal primacy, the «filioque» clause, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, the supererogatory meritorious deeds of Christ and the Saints, the doctrine of superior works, the indulgences, the fire of purgatory, the innovations in the Sacraments and in the worship of the Church, as well as the known abuses of the Latin Middle Ages. All these innovations aroused the people of the West and eventually precipitated the two newer schisms within the bosom of the Western Church: the schism of Protestant world that of the Old Catholics. The Greek people of Byzantium, who were holding the sceptre of civilization in the ninth century, did nothing more than that which the cultured people of the West did centuries later as a result of the papal abuses(40).

We must not forget that Photius acted as the representative and bearer of the will
of his Church and Nation, whose rights were violated and whose autonomy and
independence were threatened. He was, therefore, compelled to struggle against and frustrate the papal ambitions in order to save Orthodoxy and Hellenism from subjection and latinization(41) As Kyriakos writes, «Photius having done this became the saviour of the Eastern Church from the dreadful danger of the Papacy» and for this reason «the Eastern Church and the Greek nation in particular owe their perpetual gratitude to the great Photius for his struggles against the Papacy»(42).

To enslave the unsubdued and free Greek Church Nicholas and his successors sought to overthrow her synodical administrative system inherited from the Apostles (based upon the equality and brotherhood of all bishops) and to impose a centralized and monarchic system unknown earlier in the Church and based upon the subjection of all bishops, synods and local, churches, to the bishop of Rome. Thus, they sought to centralize all power and authority and to invest themselves almost with divine privileges and attributes. In the future the Pope was not satisfied with considering himself, as until then, primus inter pares, but wanted to be recognized primus super omnes and as absolute and infallible monarch of the whole Church. Precisely from this anti-canonical and downhill trend did Photius try to restrain Nicholas, without desiring the schism.

That Ρhοtius did not desire the schism and did not provoke it, and consequently
should not be criticized as responsible for the division of the Churches(43), is proved by the fact that for ten years he tolerated patiently the papal intervention in a foreign administration and the anti-canonical decisions and actions of Nicholas practised at his expense. Even the Synod of 867 in Constantinople might not have been called, if
the danger of losing Bulgaria politically and ecclesiastically had not existed and if the Emperor, the government and the people had not exercised strong pressure
over him. This is shown also from the indisputable fact that even after the outbreak
of the schism, Photius did nothing to enlarge it, make it permanent or change it from a simple personal antithesis and exchange of personal anathematizations to an official denunciation of the two Churches, which occurred 1054; on the contrary, he .succeeded within a short time(44) in reconciling and lifting the schism- by calling the Synod of 879/80 in Constantinople which restored community between Rome and Constantinople. This was done with the participation and agreement of the representatives of the Roman Church. Because of this, the Byzantines called it the «unifying synod... in which a great peace was, made between the Western Church and the other Patriarchates»(45). The Pope at that time, John VIII, recognized Photius and ratified the decisions of that Synod(46).«The researches initiated by A. Lapôtre and completed by V.Grumel and F. Dvornik have proved that the settlement, of 879/80.between Photius and Ρope John VIII was accepted not only by -the Church of Constantinople, but by the greater part of the Church of Rome. This settlement regulated relations between. East and West in the tenth century, and remained authoritative in the West until the end of the eleventh»(47)

As it is known, in the great Synod of 879/80, which by many is considered as the true eighth œcumenical(48), Photius was justified and recognized as the canonical Patriarch, and the decisions against him of the Latin Synods in Rome,(863) and Constantinople (869/70) were invalidated(49).

Besides this, the unlawful addition of the «filioque» clause to the Creed(50) and the
theory, of papal supremacy in jurisdiction and power over the whole Church(51),
which chiefly caused the clash Besides this, the unlawful addition of the «filioque» clause to the Creed(50) and the theory, of papal supremacy in jurisdiction and power over the whole Church(51), which chiefly caused the clash between Nicholas and Photius, were condemned. Thus, this released Photius Synod of all responsibility for the conflict. It is especially noteworthy that the Byzantines characterized this reconciliation as a union of the Churches. The Patriarch of Constantinople Michael of Anchialus (1169-1177)(52) testifies to this as well as Nicetas Chartophylax of Nicaea who writes: «Photius after much clamour and confusion and without further meddling having again united with the Romans, likewise was there union of the Churches»(53). This «union» became more real later particularly at the time of the Patriarch Antonius ΙΙ (893-895)(54) and especially from 880 to the time of Cerularius. «During this interval our own leaders showed great tolerance in their relation with Rome»(55), and in reality the schism was lifted or rather changed into a political and cultural one(56). In this the Pope John IΧ was very instrumental because he recognized the Patriarchs of Constantinople Ignatius, Photius, Stephen Ι and Antonius II as canonical and condemned all who did not(57). Consequently, after the Synod of 879/80 no «second schism» existed between Photius and Rome, as Roman catholic writers above all asserted, ignorant of the real facts or who out of pure prejudice and fanaticism had based their views upon sources(58), «which today are considered as purposeful fabrications of the Ignatian party»(59). Modern unbiased scientific research(60) has arrived at the conclusion that the so called «second schism» of Photius is one «historical mystification»(61) and belongs to the «realm of legend»(62), inasmuch as no other condemnation against Photius was repeated
by the succeeding Popes John VIII, Marinus, Stephen V and Formozos(63) F. Dvornik
further points out «that the person of Ρhοtius, the great Patriarch and Father of the Eastern Church, has for centuries been treated by the whole of the West with unmerited scorn and contempt(64). He is led, as a result of his long and detailed study, to the conclusion that on the basis of History, Photius can and must be justified. He further states that «we shall be free once more to recognize in Photius a great Churchman, a learned humanist. and a genuine Christian, generous enough to forgive his enemies and to take the first step towards reconciliation»(65). Accordingly, Photius, who for centuries was misinterpreted and slandered by fanatic heterodox theologians and historians, was not the «father of the schism», but rather the pioneer and apostle of the reconciliation and union of the two Churches(66), whose unity was troubled by Rome. Such a recognition on the part of the heterodox, even if it is not complete, constitutes the triumphant restoration and justification of the great Orthodox Patriarch Photius(67) in History, coming one and more millenium after his justification by the general Council of 879/80.


NOTES

1. - Because «keiner jener Päpste hat den römischen Primatsanspruch «in so stölzer und überragender Sprache» und mit so «formaler Vollendung und Präzision ausgesprochen wie Nikolaus I.» (F. Heiler (Perels), οp. cit., p. 240). Hence «durch Nikolaus Ι wurde das römische Papsttum tatsächlich zum Weltimperium, zur «pontifikalen Theokratie». Nicholas «totius mundi imperatorem se fecit», as if he were «imperator-pontifex» and «geistlicher imperator» and «dominus orbis terrarum» (ibid. pp. 239, 240, 242). And the Latin annalist Abbot Reginus even noticed that Nicholas post beatum Gregorium usque in praesens nullus in Romana urbe illi videtur aequi parandus ; regibus ac tyrannis imperavit,eisque ac si Dominus orbis terrarum auctoritate praefuit». (J. Valettas, οp. cit., p. 43). F. Dvornik writes that Nicholas «is without doubt one of the greatest Popes of the early Middle Ages, and the increase of papal authority throughout the following centuries is for ever connected with the acts of that great Pope whose writings on the sublimely of the institution of the papacy had an unprecedented influence over the canonists and theologians of the Western Church during the Middle Ages... He succeeded in bringing the whole Western hierarchy under absolute obedience to him and he crushed all tendencies towards independence in the powerful Frankish Church. It is not surprising that he intended to handle the affairs of the Eastern Church in the same way». (The Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Patron of Reunion?, ante p. 24). See the writings of Orthodox writers about Nicholas Ι: Nektarius of Pentapolis, οp. cit., p. 204/5. S. OEcοnomοu, The Amphilochia of Photius, Athens 1858. p. ΧΧ seq. (in Greek). J.Valettas. οp. cit., p. 42 seq. G. Kremos, οp. cit., vol. II, p. 271 seq. Ph. Vafeides, op. cit., p. 118 seq. Chrys. Papadopoulos, οp. cit., p. 137 seq.

2. - Photius was highly praised by Constantine;.OEconomou in this manner: «Photius, the great name and miracle of his age and those ages after him; with the works of whom all libraries are full, and all pages of Church History; far-famed for his race, wealth, offices and indeed genius, wisdom, virtue, and piety…(in him) you see the harmonious abode of education, particularly the most sacred. temple of Theology. and the clear-voiced mouth of Orthodoxy developing and performing the all-holy mystical truths of piety in highly favoured and revealing word and phrase: Photius the comrade in the choir of the great Church Fathers and among the Saints glorified etc».(The Septuagint Translators of the Old Testament, Athens 1849. vοl. IV, p.752 seq. in Greek). See also the «Amphilochia» of Photius, p. 3). The editor of the history of the Florentine Synod. R. Creyghton, writes in his prologue about Photius: «Qui propriis oculis, et non alienis in rerum momenta introspicient, mecum fatebuntur spero, illustri Photio doctiorem in οmni genere literarum, prudentiorem in rebus gerendis,omnis juris divini humanique peritiorem, nunqaam sedisse in quovis sοliο, vel Roma Papam vel Constantinopoli Patriarcham». (Vera historia unionis nοn verae inter Graecos et Latinos. p. 34). Likewise, F. Heiler characterizes Photius. as «bewundernswerten,vielseitigen und ungeheuer gelehrten» (Urkirche und Ostkirche,. München 1937, p. 135) and Μ. Jugie as «illustre professeur et savant homme» (οp. cit . p: 105). F. Dvornik writes: «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». (The Photian Schism History and Legend. Cambridge 1948, p. 1).

3. - Modern scientific research has shown that Ignatius was not dismissed arbitrarily and anti-canonically, but having been first coerced and then convinced, finally submitted his resignation in order to prevent worse complications and hardships in the Church. This resignation was recognized as canonical by the Church of Constantinople. See F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 39 seq. and .especially p. 48: «Having examined all the important accounts of Ignatius' attitude after his internment we may then conclude with confidence that Ignatius was not deposed by force, but that the abdicated to forestall worse complications. His abdication was made at the request of the new regime, it is true, but it was acknowledged as valid and canonical by all the members of the higher clergy gathered in Constantinople, including Ignatius' staunchest supporters. Ignatius himself invited his followers to accept the situation and to proceed to elect the new Patriarch». Likewise, p.53: «This consummation was due to Ignatius' wisdom in resigning and thus sacrificing his personal interests to those of the Church and to the new Patriarch's conciliatory spirit and readiness to make concessions». See also F. Dvornik, Le premier Schisme de Photios, in Bulletin de l'Institut archéologique bulgare, Sofia 1935, vοl. IΧ, and G. Kremos, op. cit., vol. II, p. 136 seq.

4. - The same Patriarch Photius writes: «when recently my predecessor had lost the dignity of serving as patriarch and when a shepherd was in demand agreeable to all and able to join together the disjointed members of the Church and to calm the agitation (for there were manifold agitations against the Church) oh, the generosity towards me! when the Emperor and the college of Priests attack my weakness and mediocrity, forcing me to take on the yoke of the prelacy. With tears and with supplications and with difficulty conceding, Ι earnestly entreat that the vote be given to others (but how am Ι to relate what followed?), they do not yield even for a short time. While Ι delay the undertaking and they resign not from exercising force, at last the will of the majority prevails. The more I resisted, the more their pressure increased. Already an end was brought about by those who had cast their vote and the priests and hierarchs who had displayed the form οf the Cross. What need was there to delay for those assembled there, Ι being overcome with tears? Ι do not know. either by the providence of God, or for the reproval of my sins they charge me with the yoke of a prelate. In one thing Ι discovered small consolation: that, unity of mind and feeling being implanted in their hearts, those who were at a variance among themselves were brought together and former concord was graciously given». J. Valettas, op. cit., p. 145/6. See ibid. p. 136/7, 148 seq.,495.

5. - See F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 48 seq. and especially p. 50: «The synod presented to the government, besides an Ignatian and an anti-Ignatian, a neutral candidate, the protoasekretis Photius, the very man whom the Emperor and Bardas had had in mind from the beginning. The choice, besides giving the government some satisfaction, rallied all the bishops present, except Metrophanes, and no doubt Stylianos, who were the most refractory. Why did most of the Ignatian bishops rally to Photius? First, because he was a new man: though a sympathizer with the Moderate party, he evidently was not numbered among its most outspoken members. His orthodoxy was above suspicion; since he had been persecuted by the iconoclasts; he was moreover related to Theodora». Similarly, p. 52: «The fact that bishops of the Ignatian party took part in Photius' consecration is generally omitted by the Ignatians». See G. Kremos,op. cit., vol II, p. 148 seq.

6. - F. Dvornik writes that: «Ignatius was not arbitrarily deposed by Michael III, but that he himself presented his resignation upon the Emperor's invitation, and that Photius was not appointed by the Emperor, but elected by a special local Council of the Church of Constantinople in accordance with the statutes of Eastern Canon Law. He was recognized as lawful Ρatriarch by all the bishops, amongst them even the warmest supporters of Ignatius, and by Ignatius himself». (The Eastern Churches Quarterly 3 (1939) 410). Elsewhere he writes: «...For two months the new Patriarch was recognized as legitimate successor by the whole Byzantine Church, and even by Ignatius. We can find absolute evidence for this fact in the documents of the Ignatian party, hitherto misinterpreted by all scholars who have studied them». (The Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Ρatrοn of Reunion? ante p. 22.) Οn page 23 he writes about Ignatius' change in attitude towards Ρhοtius: «Ignatius was not responsible for these troubles and that his prestige and personality had been misused by some fanatics who were posing as his admirers. On this, as on other occasions, Ignatius did not show enough comprehension of the real situation and let things take their course».

7. - Β. Stefanides, Α new interpretation of the name of the «proto-deutera» synod of 861, in «Ecclesia» 24. (1947) 132 seq.

8. - See G. Kremos, op. cit., vol. II, p. 197 seq. F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 78 seq.

9. - See Mansi, Concil. 15,168 seq. Migne Ρ. L. 119,785/94. G. Kremos, op. cit., vol.. II, p. 285 seq.

10. - Mansi, Concil. 15, 178 seq., Migne Ρ. L., 119, 926/62. F. Dvornik, op cit., p. 97/8. G. Kremos, op. cit., vοl. II, p. 297 seq. On page 300 he concludes: «In this manner the papal synod through its decisions officially declared the schism between the Pope of Rome Nicholas and the Patriarch Photius and the Emperor of Constantinople, which is a prelude to the official schism between the two Churches, Greek and Roman». Ibid. p. 307. It is understood that the unlawful and anti-canonical decision of the Latin synod was by no means taken into consideration at Constantinople; on the contrary, the Emperor Michael expressly rejected it with a polemical letter to Nicholas Ι which was lost but whose contents are able to be inferred from the Pope's answer to it. See Μansi, Concil. 15,187 seq, and G. Kremos, οp. cit., vοl. II, p.301 seq.

11. - Ibid. p. 187 seq. See also F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 105 seq. Noteworthy is his observation (p.105) that the present «letter was destined to be one of the most important documents in the evolution of the Papacy».

12. - According to Nicetas Paphlagonos, «Nicholas... to the Patriarchs of the East …sent this judgement», thus obviously, «he first made a rent in the seamless garment of the Saviour»... (S. Aristarchus, Sermons and Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Constantinople 1901, pp. 31-36, in Greek).

13. - Μansi, Concil. 15,162 seq., 216 seq. In these arrogant letters the Church of Constantinople was slandered and the haughty papal claims rudely stated to the Easterners. For example we read in Mansi, Concil. 15, 234: «Verumtamen quid opus est hinc multa prosequi, cum hodieque penes Ecclesiam CPolitanam impietas ipsa vigeat. praevaricatio regnet, schismata multiplicentur». Αnd generally «in his attitude towards Michael ΙII, Nicholas showed that he regarded all kings and emperors as accountable to him for their actions and thus subject to his spiritual jurisdiction. In this sense at least he may be said to have contributed materially to the formulation of a papal potestas directa in temporal matters ratione peccati». (Τ. G. Jalland, The Church and the Ρapacy, London 1944, p. 383).

14. - J. Hergenröther, οp. cit., vοl. Ι. p. 568 , n. 92. See also Chrys. Ρapadopoulos, op. cit , p. 141 seq.

15. - F. Dvornik, op. cit.. p. 107.

16. - Rhalles and Potles, op. cit., vol. II, p. 122.

17. - F. Dvornik also accepts the fact that «never did a Patriarch ask a Pope in his synodal letter for confirmation of his election. The election of the Patriarch and bishops was regarded as a matter concerning the internal affairs of the Eastern Church and the Emperor. The Eastern Church was always very jealous in defence of its absolute independence in disciplinary matters... We must not judge the matter from our modern point of view, but from the point of view of the Byzantines in the ninth century... His objection (the Pope Nicholas') to the elevation of Photius, that he was a simple layman when elevated, is not very grave». (Τhe Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Patron of Reuniοn? ante p 24). Concerning the consecration of Photius see all that he writes to the Pope Nicholas, in J. Valettas,, οp. cit., p. 151 seq.

18. - F. Dvornik points out that «canonically, the Byzantine claim was legitimate, Since Bulgaria included only a small portion of Macedonia which had been under Roman jurisdiction, and included a great part of Thrace which had always been under the jurisdiction of Constantinople» (op. cit., p.153, n.1). Principally «they who resided in Constantinople disapproved of the intervention as conflicting with the 28th canon of the Fourth œcumenical Council in Chalcedon (451), which confirmed the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Thracian province and those parts which belonged to him but which were at the moment in the hands of barbarians. (This was the eastern portion of Bulgaria, while the western, outside of Thracian jurisdiction, was in eastern Illyria, over which the Popes had claim. although Leο ΙΙΙ, Isaurus, in 732/3 had subjected it to the Patriarchate of Constantinople). Besides, they (the Byzantines) feared that this church intervention was the prelude of a political intervention on the part of the West.» (Β. Stefanides, οp. cit.,p. 325).

19. - It is to be noted that previously Nicholas in a letter to the Emperor had asked to give back to him Eastern Illyricum where the above mentioned portion of Bulgaria was located (that is, almost the entire Balkan peninsular except Thrace), together with southern Italy, including the patrimonia οf Calabria and Sicily, and the right to consecrate bishops of Syracuse. See Monumenta Germaniae historica, Epistle 6 p. 438. Because the bearers of this letter delegates to the «proto-deutera» synod were unsuccessful, Nicholas refused to confirm the decisions of that Synod. The Pope's cοntinuοus campaign against Photius purposed the subjection of the Byzantine Church and especially of Eastern Illyricum with Bulgaria, because, it seems, he had believed the false assurance of Ignatianus Theognostos that, if Ignatius returned to the throne, he would cede Bulgaria to the Pope! See also F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 101.

20. - J. Valettas, οp. cit., p. 200/48. The Bulgarian ruler, Bogoris, (Michael after his baptism, September 865) as well as the Bulgarian people were guided in the Christian faith by Photius, who for this reason in the above-mentioned letter addresses him «my beloved son», «my philochrist and spiritual son», «a good statue of my sufferings», «the noble and genuine offspring of my spiritual pangs» etc., or he exhorts him «do not therefore falsify our hopes. which your tendency to do good and your readiness to listen give rise to, nοr make vain the pains and struggles, which we have suffered for your salvation», etc. (ibid.). See also G. Kremos, οp. cit., vοl. ΙΙ, p. 308 seq.

21. - See also Α Pichler, op. cit., vol. Ι, p. 194/5. Even in the legislation they displaced the Justinian Code and introduced the collection of laws of the Lombards. (F. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 114).

22. - With Nicholas and his legates to Bulgaria, the Pope John VIII undertook to slander the Orthodox Greeks, writing to Boris Michael that «quotidie nοvis et variis disciplines atque dogmatibus confunduntur». (Mansi, Concil. 17, 119). And elsewhere: «Tristamur et ingemiscimus, verentes et pertimescentes, ne, si forte Graecos secuti fueritis,cum illi in diversas haereses et schismata solito more ceciderint, vos quoque cum ipsis in erroris profunda ruatis... Nam te, fili. Mosaicis rogo verbis : «Interroga patrem tuum. et annunciabit tibi, seniores tuos, et dicent tibi», si aliquando Graeci, sine hac vel illa haeresi fuerint» (ibid. p. 62).

23. - J. Valettas, οp. cit.. p. 168. Of particular importance is the fact that the occupation of Βulgaria by the Popes played a significant role in the οutbreak of the schism, as we have seen, and in the evolution of the events. This forced the Popes Nicholas Ι, Hadrian ΙΙ, John VIII and their successors to define and change their position many times against Photius and Ignatius. Οn this issue F. Dvornik writes: «Pope Hadrian had acknowledged Ignatius as the legitimate Patriarch on condition that he should undertake nothing contrary to Roman interests in Bulgaria; that, should he be daring enough to do so, he would be severed from communion with Rome, and therefore be excommunicated. In no other sense could these words of John VIII be explained. We therefore have here indisputable evidence that the Bulgarian issue played a leading part in all dealings with Photius by Nicholas, since his successor makes his recognition of Ignatius conditional on the latter's attitude towards Rοman interests in Bulgaria. This condition was laid down in the letter, which the legates handed to Ιgnatius at the time of the conference that met after the Ignatian Council to settle Bulgaria's fate; and the legates were not to produce the letter except in the urgent case of Roman interests being actually at stake. This helps us to explain the enigmatic passage in the Pope's letter to Domagoï, referring to Ignatius as having been repeatedly excommunicated as a result of these offences. If Ignatius' recognition by Hadrian had been made to depend on his attitude towards Βulgaria, and if the Patriarch been threatened with excommunication if ever he dared to trespass on Roman rights in Bulgaria, then John could treat Ignatius as excommunicated, as soon as it became clear that Ignatius had failed to observe the condition. Yet, on the other hand, because John VIII did not wish to close the door upon a possible settlement, he put off passing public sentence on Ignatius as long as there remained the least hope of the Patriarch acknowledging his fault. He must therefore have twice appealed to him before the last summons, the only one attested by a papal letter. It is worded in very resolute terms: Ignatius will be excommunicated, if he does not recall the Greek priests from Bulgaria within thirty days. In another letter to the Greek clergy of the same country, the Pope confirmed the sentence of excommunication once pronounced against them by Ηadrian. Βut should the bishops and priests not quit Bulgarian territory within a month, they would all be suspended and excommunicated» (οp. cit., p.156/7). See also G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204, Londοn 1947, p, 126 seq. J. Valettas rightly observes: «For Bulgaria Photius suffered, for Bulgaria Ignatius was disliked,for Bulgaria the Council which in all ways served the papal arrogance was declared useless,for Bulgaria the Pope John became the friend of Photius, pulting on the foxskin when the lion's skin was insufficient...all the coherence of the past events showed nothing but this: the papal greed alone, which was the source and beginning of the trouble and the schism later» (op. cit., p. 71). It must be noticed here that the christianisation of Bulgaria by Byzantium was completed in the year 864; the arrival of the Latin clergy was made towards the end of the year 866 and their expulsion in the beginning of the year 870, as a result of the Synod of Constantinople in 869/70: «Bulgarorum patriam, quam ex Graecorum potestate dudum fuisse et Graecos sacerdotes habuisse comperimus, sanctae Εcclesiae CPolitanae, a qua per paganismum recesserat, nunc per Christianismum restitui judicamus». (Anastasii Bibliothecari, Historia de vitis Romanorum Pontificum, 637.Migne P.L. 128, 1393). In general see G. Konidaris, The Greek Church as a civilizing force in the Peninsular of Aimos, Athens 1948 .p. 41 seq. (in Greek).

24. - Photius, Encyclical letter to the eastern hierarchic thrones, in J. Valettas, οp. cit., p. 165 seq: In this are enumerated the more important innovations of the Latins and their differences with the Orthodox at that time. Also see J. Karmiris, The symbolical texts of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Alexandria 1945 pp, 41/3. (Reprint from the «Church Pharos» 1946). G. Kremos, οp. cit., vol. II, p. 331. The uprising of the Orthodox at the innovations in the faith (filioque) was such that Photius was forced during the last eight years of his life to write a letter to the Metropolitan of Aquileia (J. Valettas, οp. cit., p.181 seq.) and to prepare his Treatise on the «Mystagogy of the Ηoly Spirit».(Migne Ρ.G. 102, 280 seq).

25. - In fact the primacy of the Pope about «the middle of the ninth century received its more perfect development on account of the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. The Pope of Rome Nicholas Ι was the first who sought, to enforce these decrees, and for this reason did the schism begin with him. Particularly «by the intervention of the Pope of Rome Nicholas in the Bulgarian Church, the papal supremacy came out of its theoretical and indefinite form, which it had maintained until then, and received a practica and definite form which was dangerous to the independence of the eastern Church». (Β. Stefanides, op, cit.; p. 317, 326).

26. - Photius, Encyclical Letter etc., ante p. 179.

27. - F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 201.

28. - Photius, op. cit., p. 175.

29. - S. Aristarchus, op. cit., p. 48-49, 51, 54-57. On the basis of the facts given here, we accept 866 and not 867 as the year of the writing of the Εncyclical of Photius, which date is set by J. Valettas (op. cit., p.166), Α. Pichler (οp. cit., p. 185), Μ. Jugie (Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium vol. Ι, Paris 1926, p. 107, 130), Chrys. Papadopoulos (op, cit., pp. 146, 172) and others.

30. - S. Aristarchus, op. cit., p. 48-49.

31. - See J. Karmiris, op. cit., p. 36 seq. It is here classified among the symbolical texts of the Orthodox Catholic Church.

32. - Although Nicholas did not know what was occurring at Constantinople, he «was no less alarmed: it seems as if he had never realized before how vital to the Byzantines the Bulgarian problem was. and never understood the Greek reaction to his success in Bulgaria. But he really did take fright, fearing a rupture between Rome and Byzantium that was more than dangerous, one that might easily shift to dogmatic issues. This is why he gave such a cry of alarm in his letters (to Hincmar etc.) and tried to mobilize all the spiritual forces in his Church before the great blow that he feared should fall». (F Dvοrnik, op cit , p. 119). Others but particularly Aeneas of Paris and Ratramnus from Corbie answered to the cry and invitation of Nicholas with two treatises «Against the Greeks» (Migne Ρ.L.121, 223-340 and 686-762), as well as synods which convened in France and Germany. See G. Every, op. cit., p.138, and J. Valettas, op. cit., p. 51/2.

33. - The Acts of this great synod, which bears about one thousand signatures (Β. Stefanides, op. cit., p. 325/6), were carried to Rome and burned by the Latins for obvious reasons in the same way that the Acts of the Synods in Constantinople in August 858, May 861 and June 866 were destroyed. (See S. Aristarchus, op cit., p, 148, 151).

34. - F. Dvornik believes that the Council of 867 was not aimed at the Western Church as such. The anathemas and condemnations hurled by the Eastern Fathers against some western customs were only directed against the Roman missionaries of Bulgaria for the purpose of impressing Boris and his Boyars: in fact, Photius encyclical, Ι insist, only mentioned the «so-called» bishops preaching in Bulgaria, (op. cit., p.122).

35. - Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit., p.147.

36. - Α. D. Kyriakos, Studies on Photius, Athens 1887, p. 108. (In Greek). K.Paparregopoulos also observes that «Photius was obliged to fight that which the Greek nation from the beginning and until this day repels and is unable to do otherwise, is, that the sovereign claim of the hierarch of Rome; first because it is opposed to the fundamental principles of the Christian faith and Secondly because no nation is considered obliged to submit to foreign domination either political or ecclesiastical». (History of the Greek nation, Athens 1887, vol. III, p. 747 in Greek).

37. - See also Κ. Paparregopoulos, op. cit., vol. IV, p. 323/4. Here it is noticed that the position of Nicholas, Hadrian and their successors against Photius bears witness to the fact that Rome had decided beforehand to extend the papal supremacy through all possible means to include even the East, when an opportunity would be given. Thus, Photius appears as the pitiful victim who was forced to resist and to defend the independence of the Greek Church and Nation, after having first fallen into the net thrown by Rome for prey to attract the eastern world.

38. - As it is known, Photius was made a subject of controversy and has been treated by writers according to their Church affiliation. However, F. Dvornik rightly observes that: «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» (op. cit., p 1) Undeniably however, the life and activity and especially the position of Photius against the Papacy was distorted and misconstrued as that of no other ancient churchman by the prejudiced historians of the West, who did not examine the sources of all his contemporaries, the ecclesiastical synods and even the papal legates, but instead based their views one-sidedly on the evidence of untrustworthy enemies of Photius like Nicetas of Paphlagonia (Life of Ignatius, Mansi, Concil. 16, 209 seq.), Metrophanes of Smyrna (letter to the patrician Manuel, ibid. 413 seq.), Stylianos of Neo-Caesarea (letter to the Pope Stephen, ibid., p. 425 seq.), Theognostos (libellus against Ignatius, ibid., p. 293 seq. Migne Ρ.G. 105, 856 seq.), Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Praej. ad concil. VIII oecum. ejusdem . vita Nicolai et Hadriani ΙΙ, Μansi 16, 1 seq. Migne Ρ.L.128, 1357 seq.), or on the so-called «anti-Photian collection» (Mansi 16, 409 seq. F. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 216 seq.) and others repeating the accusations against Photius without testing their validity. They, «revolving around one anchor point whenever there was anything to be written about Photius, set up a ridiculous dream of great nonsense, compiling these diligently and adding their own, laboriously copying the work of each of other, and, as if convinced, attempted to convince others that Photius and not the anti-Christian papal haughtiness was responsible for the great schism of Christ's Church». (J. Valettas, op. cit., p. 2. See also Κ. Œconomos, on the Septuagint Translators of the Old Testament, Athens 1849, vοl. IV, p. 753/4, in Greek). But now the English historian Bury has pointed out that: «the story (about Photius) is based on one-sided sources defending the viewpoint of the Ignatian party and extremely hostile towards Photius». (Eastern Churches Quarterly 3 (1939) 410), and the Czech F. Dvornik observes that: «on the literary and scholastic side, Photius has always ranked fairly high amongst those scholars. who have studied his writings; in this field his name always commanded respect, as his contemporaries, friend and foe alike, unanimously testified. Scholars familiar with his literary work were not inclined to believe all the stories brought up against him by his opponents; they were true to the scholar's instinct which prompted them to feel that a man who had spent his best days amongst books, in the company of the best representatives of the classical period and in daily contact with many devoted disciples, was not likely to descend to such meanness and petty ambition as were imputed to him by his enemies ; and it was a right instinct which led them to honour a scholar who has been prominent in transmitting Hellenistic culture to posterity. At the same time, the firm conviction which prevailed among the simple orthodox that their Church could not be wrong in crowning its leader with the halo of sanctity for setting an example of Christian virtue was bound to find its justification» (op. cit., p. 432).

39. - See also Η. Alivisatos, Οn the Nature of the Church from an Orthodox point of view, in «Theologia» Athens, 21 (1950) 34. 38. (in Greek).

40. - «Photius is stated to have inspired Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon and other famous reformers in launching their campaigns against the Papacy and its authority». (F. Dvornik, op. cit., p.1).

41. - See also Nektarius. Kephalas, op. cit, vol. Ι, p. 208.

42. - Α. D. Kyriakos, op. cit., p. 94, 106. See also G. Kremos, op. cit., II, 2-4

43. - Recently D. J. Doens correctly stated that «Photius s'était montré vis-à-vis de Rome plus conciliant a certains égards que saint Ignace». (Irénikon 22 (1949) 434/5).

44. - According to the Roman catholic theologian F. Mercenier «toute l'affaire photienne se ramène a une querelle fort vive entre Photius et Nicolas I et a un schisme de quelques mois (fin de 866 à septembre οu octobre 867)». (Ρ. Dumont-F. Mercenier-C. Lialine, Qu'est-ce que l'Orthodoxie? Vues catholiques. Paris 1945, p. 71). F. Dvornik notes that the schism «separated East and West for six years only». (Eastern Churches, Quarterly 3 (1939) 4Ι4).

45. - F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p.457 Rhalles and Potles, op.,cit., vol. I, p.392/3.

46. - F. Dvornik, op.cit., p. 205 seq.

47. - G. Every,.op. cit.,.p,153.

48. - The Acts in Mansi, Concil. 17,373,-52 4. On this Synod see Chrys. Papadοpoulos, as an Orthodox writer, οp. cit., p. ,155 seq., and F. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 159 seq., 383 seq., 418 seq., as a Roman catholic. The same Synod was self - named «œcumenical» in many places; especially in the canons (Rhalles and Potles, οp. cit., II. 705 seq.). Theodore Balsamon (ibid), the Patriarch Efthymius and the metropolitan, Nellos, of Rhodes and others called it. œcumenical also (ibid Ι, 392. F. Dvornik, op. cit, p.457). Officially however, the Church did not recognize this Synod as such.

49. - This general Synod officially and unanimously annulled the unjust decisions of the two Latin Synods, against Photius -as well as the synods themselves, which as regards time and, place appeared as two, but in reality were only one- and what is more, this annulment was made by the letters of the Pope John VIII as well as the mouths of his legates and, all the fathers of .the Synod declaring: «May the synod called against the most-saintly Patriarch Photius in Rome and Constantinople at the time of Hadrian be henceforth ostracized, invalid, uncertain and unclassified with other holy. Synodes», (Mansi, Concil. 17,401,416, 489; 492,508 seq.). In conformity with this decision, the Orthodox Church ignored completely the later Synod of 869/70, (see also J. Hergenrother: op. cit., II, 510) and put it in the same class with the robber, synod of 449 in Ephesus and the similar one of 1438/9 in Ferrara-Florence. But Rome retracted and for obvious reasons officially declared it as the eighth œcumenica! F. Dvornik proves that this Synod was characterized as œcumenical for the first time about the end of the 11th century (οp. cit., p. 309 seq.). He further states that this was forgotten and only during the 16th century does Βaronius mention if again. Later Latin writers reiterate the same up to the Hergenröther, Hefele and our contemporaries. See F. Dvornik, L'œcuménicité du huitième concile (869/70), in Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, vol. 24 (1938). Elsewhere he writes; «We must not forget, that; the council, of 869/70, called the eighth œcumenical, was. in many ways, a failure, for the Papacy: Only thirteen bishops were present at the beginning, and the so-called «libelli» were unpopular...» (Τhe Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Patron of Reunion?; ante p. 30).

50. - All the participants of the Synod, including the papal legates; accepted the sacred symbol, unchanged and unforced, «deducting nothing, adding nothing, altering nothing, forging nothing; because deduction and addition introduces criticism of things uncriticized and inexcusable insult against the fathers, when some , heresy is not stirred, by. the artifices of temptation, and altering the horos of the Fathers, with forged words is more serious than the former». Therefore the, Synod pronounced anathema anyone who, «in spurious words or additions or deductions would dare to forge the antiquity of this sacred and venerable horos». (Mansi, Concil. 17,516). Οn page 520: «if anyone becomes audacious enough, to dare to write another symbol, besides this one or to add, subtract, pronounce or write another hοrοs, may he be censured and rejected from every Christian confession...». See, also, what, is said in the treatises of the Patriarch Efthymius and the metropolitan Neilos of Rhodes about the Synods, in F. Dvornik, οp cit., p.457 where this Synod is called «unifying, during which a great peace was made between the Western Church and the Patriarchates, the Westerners plainly confessing that in the same manner as you do we read and I believe, the symbol which is the holy of the faith without any addition to it and that we anathematise anyone who adds or omits, etc.». It is unnecessary to repeat that the fathers of this Synod, as well as those of the Synod of 867 in Cοnstantinople and Photius himself in 866 in his encyclical did nothing, more than Pope Leo III in 810 (see above p. 403, and F. Loofs, οp. cit., p., 49/50) and all the preceding orthodox Popes did. Οn the other hand, even after Nicholas I, the addition of the filioque was unacceptable in Rome, during the whole of the 9th and 10th century. It was introduced by Benedict VIII in 1014 perhaps; under the pressure of the Emperor of Germany Henry II. «Cependant, même après l'adoption du Filioque par Rome, quelques. Églises, continuèrent a chanter le symbole sans ce mot. Un texte d'Alexandre de Hales atteste qu' en 1240, a Paris, on ne chantait pas encore le filioque au symbole,». (A. Palmieri, Filioque, ante vol. V, p. 2317). All this shows the right that Photius had in fighting the addition and the reason why the Latin Synod in Constantinople in 869/70 against him did not venture to condemn him as an heretic for this. Indirectly and silently it recognized that Photius' teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit was orthodox.

51. - See also Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit., p. 162 seq. Even the Latin Synod of 869/70 in Constantinople did not recognize the papal primacy based on the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the «Gift of Constantine», at least in the measure that the papal legates had hoped for. See ibid., p. 152 seq. The Synod of 879/80, following the practice of the ancient œcumenical Synods, recognized the honorary pre-eminence of the bishop of Rome in the Patriarchal pentarchy, «changing none of the rights belonging to the most-holy throne of the Church of the Romans, or to her chairman neither now nor in the hereafter», according to her first canon. For indeed «what the Pope Nicholas Ι and his successors claimed was an innovation, that is, arbitrarily to acquit clergymen of another Church who were condemned by her, or to convict others by intervening in her internal questions». The «rights belonging to him» were nothing else but the rights honorarily given to the bishop of Rome (see the exegesis οf Zonaras, in Rhalles and Potles, The Constitution of the Sacred Canons, II, 706, Ρ. Batiffol, Le siege apostolique, p. 136, 557), which were defined by the 6th canon of the first œcumenical Council, the 3rd of the 2nd œcumenical, the 28th of the 4th œcumenical, the 36th of the Quini-sextum. All innovations then in the privileges of the bishop of Rome were prohibited by the above provisions just as every change of honorary primacy to administrative .supremacy was. By this provision the Patriarch of Constantinople was made equal to the Patriarch of Rome and consequently any excess of the latter was «prohibited». (Ibid., p. 164/5).

52. - See Βίz. Vremennik 14. (1908) 356.

53. - Migne Ρ. G. 120, 717. For this reason the Byzantines called this Synod of 879/80 «unifying» (F. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 384, 385 457). The Latins of the Middle Ages did not give great importance to the schism and even ignored the so-called «second schism». (F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 279 seq. The same writer, L'affaire de Photios dans la littérature Latine du Moyen-Age, in Annales de l'Institut Kondakov 10 (1938) 69 seq.)

54. - See Κ. Amantos, History of the Byzantine State, Athens 1947, vοl. ΙΙ, p. 227 (in Greek). For this reason in the year 899 the papal legates at Constantinople took their earlier position on the protocol of the Byzantine Court, as the Kletorologion of Philotheus p. 155 testifies «They, who arrived from Rome : during the time of Leo the pious despot for the union of the Churches, as for example Nicholas and the cardinal John, were honoured above all the classes of magistrates». (Migne Ρ. G. 112, 1341, 1353/6). In general the relations between the two Churches until 1053 are characterized on the whole as tolerable and good enough. See Α. Michel, Bestand eine Trennung der Griechischen und der Romischen Kirche schon vor Kerullarios? in Historische Jahrbuch 1922, p. 1-11. L.Brechier. Le schisme oriental du XIe siècle, Paris 1899, p. 2. Of the same author, Avant le schisme du XIe siècle. Les relations normales entre Rome et les Églises d' Orient, in La documentation catholique 19 (1928) 387 seq. Ε. Αmann, Michel Cerulaire, in Dictiontιaire de Theologie catholique, vοl. X, p. 1702.

55. - Α. D. Kyriakos, Church History, Athens 1898, vol. II, p.26 (in Greek).

56. - See also G. Every, op. cit., p. 145 seq..

57. - Mansi, Concil. 16, 457. Μ. Jugie, Le schisme byzantin, p. 133.

58. - Mansi, Cοncil. 16, 445 seq.

59. - Β. Stefanides, op cit., p. 336.

60. - Α. Lapôtre, Le pape Jean VIII, Paris 1895. Ε. Amann, Jean VIII, in Dictionnaire de Theologie catholique, vοl. 8, p. 601 seq. Η. Bohmer, Johannes VIII, in Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche. vοl. 9, p.260. Ε. Kattenbusch, Photius, ibid. vοl. 15, p. 384. Η. Schubert, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frühmittelalter, 1921, p. 438.

61. - F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 20, seq.-Le second Schisme de Photios -Une Mystification historique, in «Byzantion» 8 (1933) 42 seq.

62. - F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 236: «There is only one possible conclusion: Photius' second schism, assumed so far to have been particularly fatal to the friendly relations between the two Churches, belongs to the realm of legend».

63. - Ibid., p. 215 seq. Even the Pope Stephen V, «who was always believed to be Photius, particularly venomous enemy», nevertheless, «did not break with Photius, but like his predecessors continued to treat him as the legitimate Patriarch», and will in fact champion his cause on the occasion of his second deposition by the Emperor» (p. 236). In addition, from research into the Latin literature of the 9th to the 12th century (ibid., p. 279 seq.) the author concludes that: «the view held, at that period at any rate, of the Photian case was not the same as the view current in the modern period; Photius litigation with the Papacy occupied a very restricted place in the writings, of the time; above. all to our great surprise, absolutely nothing was known of what to-day goes by the name of the second schism of Photius; whereas against this, the Patriarch's rehabilitation by John VIII was common knowledge» p. 308). For details about the so-called second schism see also V. Grumiel, Υ eut-il un second schisme de Photius?, in Rev. Sciences philos, et .theol. 32 (1933) 432 seq. F.Dolger; in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 34 (1934) 214/5. Κ.Αmantοs, op. cit.,p. 32 seq.

64. - Ibid., p. 432.

65. - Ibid., p.,432. We deem it relevant to quote here the summary of the chief deductions of: F. Dvornik's studies and research about Photius, which is taken from the «Report. of the proceedings at the Church unity octave, held at Blackfriars, Oxford», Oxford 1942, and entitled: The Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Patron of Reunion, p. 20/1: «Fortunately, in recent years, new light has been thrown on the history of the unfortunate Patriarch. Let us recapitulate only those discoveries which have been so far accepted by the scientific world. First of all, it has been proved that the second Photian schism never existed. The Patriarch Photius was duly and sincerely reconciled with Pope John VIII, and the Council of 879 - 880 officially sanctioned this reconciliation. Photius was never re-excommunicated by the Pope. Οn the contrary, when he was deposed by the Emperor Leo VI for political reasons, the Pope; Stephen VI, rose in his defence, and only entered into relations with his successor, the emperor's young brother Stephen, when the emperor sent him the copy of Photius free resignation of the patriarchal see. Τhen when Photius died he was in communion with the Church of Rome. It has also been established that the Church of Rome was well aware of this reconciliation and that, to the end of the eleventh century, the papal Chancellery officially recognised only seven œcumenical cοuncils, thus refusing to accept the so-called eighth council which publicly condemned Photius in 869-870. The Rοman Curia has not forgotten that the decisions of this council were cancelled in 879-880 when Photius was recοnciled with Rome; that this decision was confirmed by John VΙΙΙ, and that it was never afterwards revoked by the Papacy. The council which condemned Photius and whose decision concerning the Patriarch were cancelled ten years later by another synod approved by the Pope, has never since been counted amongst the œcumenical councils, in the Eastern Church. Nor can any official decision of the Western Church be found ordering this council to be counted again amongst the. œcumenical councils. This synod owes - the undeserved honour of being counted as the eighth œcumenical council to a singular mistake on the part of Roman canοnists of the eleventh century, who found the Acts of this council in the Lateran archives and were delighted to read amongst them a decision forbidding the laity to interfere with the election of bishops. They were so delighted with this discovery that they not only forgot that this synod had been cancelled, but promoted it to be one of the greatest councils of Christianity. Naturally, when this happened the whole history of the Patriarch Photius was bound to be misunderstood. Α Photian legend was born in Western Christianity, a legend supported by the Acts of an œcumenical council, and which had accordingly to be believed without hesitation. This legend developed during the Middle Ages, and was codified by the first modern Church historian, Cardinal Βarοnius, in the seventeenth century. These. are the new discoveries concerning the history of the Patriarch Photius which have been so far in some degree accepted by the specialists. These new views are naturally destroying all that the Middle Ages built up. If we look at the history of «the Father of the Schism» from this point of view, then naturally , the imposing building which Cardinal Baronius erected in the seventeenth century and Cardinal Hergenröther so magnificently renovated. in the nineteenth is cracking and collapsing before our eyes. The history of the great Greek has to be rewritten».

66. - Although as Orthodox theologians. we find difficulty in understanding how in the system of the Papacy the expressed hope of F. Dvornik is able to be realized, nevertheless, as Christians we have no difficulty in sharing his wish and hope that «this new light shed upon historical ...differences will ultimately influence beneficiently relations between the separated East and West and contribute to dissipate the many misunderstandings between the two Churches, thus paving the way to Reunion» (The Eastern Churches Quarterly 3 (1939) 415), and in any case «why could not Photius, canonized by the Eastern Church in the tenth century when East and West were united and canonisations were not reserved to the Popes, be regarded, not as the Father of all Schism, but as the future Ρatrοn of Reunion?» (Report of the proceedings at the Church unity octave, p. 31).

67. - Lastly it must be added that the Orthodox Catholic Church, recognizing the great work of Photius on behalf of the Church and Orthodoxy in general, declared him a Saint and celebrates his memory on the 6th of February. The Church honours him as «the champion of Orthodoxy, the defender of the Orthodox, the pillar and foundation of the Church, the organ of Grace, the chosen vessel, the godly voiced lyre of the Spirit, the spirited orator, the wisest hierarch, the teacher of the universe, brilliant in word and dogmas, the trumpet clearly declaring the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, as the descendant of thunder had theologised, the firmest opponent of heresies, the criticizer of the error of heresy, the divine defender of Orthodoxy, the deposer of the haughtiness of heresy, the refuter of the addition to the Creed, most-holy Father, great Photius, Photologos and Photonymus etc». See «Service of our Father and equal-to-the Apostles Photius, Patriarch of Cοnstantinople», written by Constantine Typaldos, metropolitan of Stavroupolis, and edited in 1848 and 1891. See also Α. Papadopoulos Kerameus, Τhe Patriarch Photius as a holy Father of the Orthodox Catholic Church, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 8 (1889) 647/71, Chrys. Papadopoulos, οp. cit., p. 180/1. Μ. Jugie, Le culte de Photius dans l'Église Byzantine, in Revue de l'Orient chrétien 3 (1922/3) 109 seq. F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 388. It is worth noting that in Athens during the last few decades the Holy Synod of Greece officially celebrates the memory of Saint Photius at the monastery of Penteli, which is located near the city. Likewise, the Synodical which is read on the Sunday of Orthodoxy contains the following anathematisation: «Everything written or said against the saintly Patriarchs Germanos, Tarasius, Niceforos, Methodius, Ignatius, Photius, Stephen, Antonius and Nicholas, anathema», and «the memory of Ignatius, Photius, Stephen, Αntοnius and Nichοlas, eternal». (Triodion, edition Μ. Saliberos, Athens 1930, p. 146). See also Michael Cerularius, Homily, Migne Ρ.G.120, 729, 732, and «Tome of Unity», in Rhalles and Potles, οp. cit., vol. V, p. 9. Chrys. Papadopoulos, οp. cit., p. 180/1. G. Kremos, op. cit., II, 416. F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 434. But, as we have seen on p. 409 and 423 ante, many others judged Photius similarly, as for example Κ. Paparregopoulos who writes: Photius was a superb man. During the interval between the first Constantine, who was the cause for the establishment of the eastern state and the last Constantine who fell on the battlements of Constantinople, the state falling with him, -in the period of one thousand years, no other name shone brighter in the historical firmament than that of Photius. He, standing between the two Constantines of whom one represents the beginning and the other the end of medieval Hellenism, contributed more than anyone else in shaping that Hellenism» (οp, cit., vοl. III, p.727). And G. Kremos observes that the «Church and the entire Greek nation justly places Photius amongst the first of the great personages who fought the triumphant battle for the sake of the pan-Hellenic, its faith and existence» (οp. cit., ΙΙ, p. 4). He speaks of him as the «most brilliant Byzantine hierophant of the Church, the great theologian, the most profound philosopher, the new Aristotle of our medieval history, the good-speaking orator, the beautifully -singing melodist, the most-learned philologist, the experienced teacher of law, the highest pride of the most dignified arch-sacrificer of the Orthodox Church, may whose glory be imperishable» (ibid., p. 419). According to S. Zambelios, Photius is «the apex of the 9th century, the renown contender of Neo-Hellenic nationality, whose glory fills the History, Literature and Theology of the Medieval Ages», from whom begins «the obvious formation of the neo-Hellenic peculiarity, being the indirect result of the schism» (op. cit., pp.451, 463). For other criticisms of Photius see J. Valettas, οp. cit., pp. 99-122, and G. Kremos, οp. cit., vol. ΙΙ, pp. 84-85, 145-148, 409-420. See also G. Every, op. cit., p. 118/9 and K. Bonis, Byzantine Theology, Athens 1948, p. 8 seq., and of the same author, Friendship in general and according to the great Photius, Athens 1938, p. 24 seq., 52 seq. (both in Greek). Significant is the fact that even the Pope John VIII called Photius «a man eminent in the orthodox faith, and renowned for modesty of life and exact citizenship... and proclaimed different from all in wisdom and prudence concerning the divine and human, and concerning the practical virtue and diligence of other things, a worker of the divine commandments having no cause for shame». (Α. Ρ. Kerameus, Small works of Photius, Petroupolis 1892, p. 147/8, in Greek). Lastly, his own vicars confessed that «non esse similem ei (Photio).. commisaratione ac largitione in pauperes, neque benignitate et humilitate». (J. Harduini, Acta conciliorum, Parisiis 1715, vol. VI, p. 339).

Chapter III

Unfortunately, the reconciliation and communion between the two Churches, which was attained through the initiative of Photius, did not last for long. The schism of the Roman Church, which began in 867 at the time of Photius, on the responsibility of Pope Nicholas I, was destined to be completed in 1054 during the patriarchate of Michael Cerularius. At that time communion between the Eastern and the Western Churches was definitely interrupted by synodical decision, Rome again having given cause for it. Because, with very few exceptions, Nicholas' successors, Popes of Rome, who were ardent devotees of the absolute papal primacy and undesirous of rectifying Nicholas' great sin against the Unity of the Church, continued his same policy of attempting to humiliate and subdue the Eastern Church. Besides, they permitted the multiplication of Latin innovations(1). Benedict VIII even accepted in 1014 and in Rome itself the Filioque, which had been strongly attacked by the Orthodox and characterized as an heretical teaching(2). The Filioque now became a fatal schism-making element in the same way as it did during the time of Photius, resulting in the erasing of the Pope's name from the diptychs of the Orthodox Church. Until this day, no Pope's name has been recorded in them 3. Besides, Pope Sergius III (904 911) dared to make a new anti-canonical intervention in a foreign jurisdiction, i. e. in the Church of Constantinople, by confirming the fourth marriage of the emperor Leo VI, he Wise, which was not permitted in the East, and releasing him from the excommunication which the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticos had imposed upon him(4). All these things intensified the growing tension between Constantinople and Rome, which at last came to a head in 1054.

Pope Leo ΙΧ, through his imperialistic politics in southern Italy and his delegation to Constantinople under the Cardinal Humbert, chiefly gave occasion for the completion of the schism. In fact; Pope Leo ΙΧ, together with his cousin the emperor of Germany, Henry III, sought first to extend his sovereignty over southern Italy,(5) which belonged to Byzantium. He even introduced there Latin ecclesiastical customs, as his predecessor Nicholas I had formerly done in Bulgaria, abolished the Byzantine archdiocese of Sipontus, and deposed her archbishop, effecting also other similar interventions(6).

Afterwards, the same Pope, having received occasion, from a letter of Leo, archbishop of Βulgaria, to the bishop John of Tranes (Apuleia)(7), who was subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, sent to him (Leo of Bulgaria) and to the Patriarch Cerularius a very long and indecent, or rather insulting, letter in which, instead of refuting the contents of Leo's letter, he seized the opportunity to present the papal primacy in a form worse than Nicholas Ι had done. He asserted that the bishop of Rome is infallible and by divine right possesses double authority, ecclesiastical as well as political («imperialis potestas» !), citing almost the entire pseudo- «Gift of Constantine» in order to prove it(8).

It was the first time that the astonished Eastern Church heard these things which were contrary both to the letter and to the spirit of the Gospel, namely, that the Pope is infallible and that he is the source of all power(9). Βut in spite of all this, the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who had not failed to send his enthronement letter to Rome according to ancient custom, answered the arrogant letter of Leo ΙX «with much humbleness», as he himself affirms in a letter to Peter of Antioch(10), being concerned with ecclesiastical peace and unity and overlooking the insolent and arrogant claims of the bishop of Rome, to whom he expressed his sorrow for the division of the Church. He thus left the door open for reunion.

Leo ΙΧ (11), however, was unsatisfied with this and sent a delegation to Constantinople for ecclesiastical reasons(12), members of which were the Archbishop of Amalfi Peter and the deacon and chancellor Frederick. This delegation was under the leadership of the rude and intolerant Cardinal Humbert, «an ambitious man, intriguer and devotee of the papal claims(13). Humbert himself on behalf of the Pope composed his letters of introduction to the Patriarch and to the emperor. In these he included a long and in many respects groundless indictment against Cerularius; as for example, that the latter ascended the patriarchal throne anti-canonically, supposedly being a neophyte. This was inaccurate, and so were other similar accusations(14). Having arrived about the end of March or early April of the year 1054 at Constantinople, Cardinal Ηumbert immediately began political negotiations with the emperor for the purpose of making an alliance between him and the Pope against the Normans, who were threatening the papal and Byzantine possessions. As a result, he postponed for a considerable time his visit to the Patriarch(15), against whom he let loose a violent polemic all the while that the delegation was in Constantinople(16). When at last the papal legates decided to call upon the Patriarch, they displayed to him,
as well as to the emperor, an indecent attitude and a behaviour unbecoming to clergymen or, as Cerularius confirms, «conducted themselves with pride and impertinence»(17). They appeared in Constantinople as critics and judges of the Patriarch on the
one hand «with excessive authority and shamelessness», and on the other as teachers of the Orthodox, because supposedly «what was orthodox was corrupted» by them(18). This was happening while for about four decades, that is from the patriarchate of Sergius II, as we have seen, the name of the Pope was crossed out from the diptychs in Byzantium. Almost simultaneously news was arriving that Pope Leo IΧ had died on the 13th of April 1054. Consequently, the delegation had lost both its authorization and authority until a new authorization be given by the Pope to be elected.

For these reasons and moreover because the Patriarch found the seals of the papal letter tampered with -which fact made him suspect its entire content as not genuine(19)- he deemed. it right to discontinue communion with the papal legates, and decided to discuss and co-operate with them only in a synod and in the presence of the Orthodox hierarchs and representatives of the other Patriarchs(20). This claim of Cerularius, though in accordance with Orthodοx theory and practice, the papal legates rejected, firmly holding to the absolute papal primacy, which in this circumstance also played its anti-canonical role.

Such being the situation, Humbert and the Latins with him, unconscious of their obligations toward brother Christians who were defending paternal dogmas and traditions, and deciding beforehand, it seems, to put the finishing touches to the existing ecclesiastical schism, boldly and irreverently entered the church of Ηagia Sophia on the 16th of July 1054(21) during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and placed upon the altar a blasphemous libellous(22) with which they excommunicated «the whole Church of the Orthodox» and chiefly the Patriarch Michael for other reasons, but particularly because «they did not want to shave their beards similar to the Latins, nor did they discriminate in partaking from married presbyters, but even offered enzymes (leavened bread) and in the Creed did not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as in the Symbol of our faith, but only from the Father»(23)

These were the chief but groundless accusations and explanations of that unbecoming and desperate step of the Latins, who condemned the orthodox for their persistence in what was delivered unto them and anathematised them as «Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Severians, Nicolaitans, Ρneumatοmaclιοi, Manichιees and Nazarenes»(24).

It is self-evident that the libellous of the Latins «contained an absurd and ignorant polemic»(25), worthy of its writers, just as the contention of Leo and Humbert that the Greeks allegedly corrupted the Creed of faith, while exactly the opposite occurred, also betrays an ignorant and clumsy inaccuracy.

After this previously unheard of and impious venture of the Latins, and in the midst of the common indignation, and uprising of the Orthodox, the Patriarch Michael Cerularius called together instantly on the 20th of July, 1054 a resident large synod which put under anathema the «sacrilegious and abominable document» (Latin , anathematisation) that was thrown on the holy altar, as well as those who wrote and consented to it. He avoided, however, excommunicating the Ρope(26). Thus one door was intentionally left open for reconciliation and reunion. This explains the attempts for union which were made later on the part of both, which unfortunately remained fruitless(27). At any rate, at this moment the Ρatriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem sanctioned the synodical decision of the 20th of July and, imitating the Patriarchate of Constantinople, eliminated the Pope' s name from the diptych, and discontinued communion with him, the Church of Russia following suit. Thus, both Churches, Eastern and Western, officially and mutually denounced each other, the Roman Church again having given the occasion. The Latin excommunication proceeds from one of the following two initiatives: either directly from Pope Leo ΙΧ, as the Orthodox Synod of July 20, 1054(28) confirms on the basis of the papal representation's confession, which A. Michel(29) also accepts, or indirectly from the delegation, which must have acted on the basis of a special order or wide authorization of Leo ΙΧ. in fact, the papal legates themselves were declaring that «auctoritate apostolicae sedis, cuius legatione fungimur... anathemati, quod dominus noster reverendissimus papa itidem Michaeli et suis sequacibus, nisi resipiscerent, denuntiavit, ita subscribimus»(30) in either case, the guilt of the Roman Church is obvious(31), more so inasmuch as she did not consider it her bounden duty to invalidate officially in a general synod, as she ought undoubtedly to have done, the anti-canοnical and unjustified excommunication. On the contrary, she approved of it and since then has retained it(32).

That Pope Leo IΧ, together with his representative Ηumbert, bears the responsibility for the completion of the schism of 1054, is inferred from the aforementioned. They were the aggressors, while Cerularius was rather the defender, whatever reservations one may have as to some of his actions or to the expressions of his character(33). Because, as it has already been observed, the position of Cerularius on this point «formed, properly speaking, not an attack, but a defence and opposition to the provocative politics of Leo ΙX. Competent historians acknowledge this explicitly as, for example, W. Norden, W. Gieselrecht G. F. Herzberg, L. von Heinemann,
Otto Kaemel, W. Fischer, G. Ficker, A. Michel, J. Gay and others»(34).

Undoubtedly the Synod of July 20, 1054 would not have convened and would not have returned the excommunication if the unqualified and unjustified Latin excommunication of July 16, 1054 had not preceded. In this way, the schism was forced upon Cerularius above all by Humbert. The deeper cause for the painful events of 1054 was the conversion of the old canonical honorary primacy of the bishops of Rome to absolute ecclesiastico-political primacy and their attempt also to impose it on the Eastern Church. At this moment the primacy was expressed by the ecclesiastical and political penetration of Leo ΙX in southern Italy, by the anti-canonical activities of his delegation in Constantinople, as well as by his association and alliance with his cousin, the German emperor, against everything that was Greek Orthodox(35). Τhus we have in this case also an expression of the root disagreement concerning church government between the Orthodox East, on the one hand, which held firmly to the ancient synodical system and to the pentarchy of the Patriarchs, and the papal West on the other, which had accepted the monarchic and totalitarian system. Furthermore. Rome's pursuit of political aims, namely the separation from Byzantium of southern Italy, as had happened with Bulgaria during the time of Photius, forced Byzantium to assert its opposition, going so far as the schism(36).These two causes then provoked the completion of the schism of 1054, while on the contrary the chief dogmatic differences do not seem to have played at that moment a serious role, except for certain liturgical differences and customs which were thrown into the centre of the principal dispute.

In this way then, according to the able canonist, the Patriarch of Antioch Theodore Balsamon, «the once celebrated fullness of the Western Church, i. e. Rome, was split off from the spiritual communion of the other four holy- Patriarchs and fell into customs and dogmas alien to the Catholic Church and to the Orthodox»(37).


NOTES

1. - See J. Karmiris, The symbolical texts of the Orthodox Catholic Church, p. 54. seq.

2. - Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit. pp. 185/6: «This painful event was a serious portent of the schism of the Roman Church. By officially accepting the addition which was unknown to the whole Church, but contrived in Spain for the first time and until then rejected by the Popes of Rome, she was destined to cut off and separate herself from the whole Church».

3. - See also B. Stefanides, op. cit. p. 344: «The first cause for the definite schism of the two Churches was the addition of the Filioque to the Creed of the Church of Rome. The bishop of Rome Sergius IV (1009) cited according to custom in his enthronement letter the Creed of faith in a free rendering, but with the addition of the FiIioque clause. According to the prevailing opinion this addition was introduced into the official Creed of the Roman Church five years later by Benedict VIII (1014), under pressure from the emperor of the West Henry II. The Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius, a nephew of Photius and a contemporary of these .Popes; following a synodical decision, crossed out the name of the aforementioned bishop of Rome Sergius from the diptychs of the Eastern Church with the result that to this day no papal name has been put in them». See also Α. Demetrakopoulos, History of the Schism of the Latin Church from the Greek Orthodox, Leipzig 1867, p. 20/1.

4. - Chrys: Papadopoulos, op. cit. p. 183 seq. B. Stefanides, op. cit. p. 348 seq. Regarding this new arbitrary intervention of Sergius and his conflict with,Nicholas Mysticos, J. Gay, L' Italie méridionale et l' empire byzantin, Paris 1904, p. 189, observes: «La vie scandaleuse (of Pope Sergius) fait un contraste , étrange avec la noble et austère figure du patriarche byzantin» Nicholas Mysticos.

5. - See Th. Popescu, Why the Patriarch Michael Cerularius attacked the Latins?, in «inaugural of the 35th anniversary of Chrys. Papadopoulos, Athens 1931, p. 371/3 (in Greek): «Leo ΙΧ was German (Bruno von Τοul), a relative (2nd cousin) and a devoted friend of Henry III, who had effected the election of Bruno as Pope. He was then an agent of the German emperor» who sought (to make) «southern Italy belong to the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation and to unite western Christendom under his own sovereignty. This Pope wanted and was able to advance the work of Henry, whose work was becoming his own. In fact, the imperial ideal was being identified for the most part with the papal. Leo ΙΧ, inspired by the desire to restore the papal power of Nicholas Ι, was between the latter and Gregory VII the most significant representative and evident embodiment of Rome's policy of absolute primacy. Besides, in the person of Leo ΙΧ this policy was German and imperialistic. Both offices, that of the emperor and the pope, were united».

6. - See also Β. Stefanides, op. cit. p. 345. The, Patriarch Michael, Cerularius considered it his duty to oppose these. Towards this end he closed the Latin churches and monasteries of Constantinople which were imparting Latin customs to the Orthodox by propagandas. These the Patriarch criticized in his letters to the Patriarch of Antioch Peter, as did Leo of Bulgaria in his letter to John, bishop of Tranes. It seems that Cerularius chief attempt was exactly this, to hinder the introduction of Latin ecclesiastical customs in the Orthodox East. See also G. Every, op. cit. p. 166 seq.

7. - The letter of Leo of Bulgaria was published by C. Will. Acta et scripta.quae de controversiis Ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant, Lipsiae 1861, p. 56-6ο. Migne P. G. 120, 836-844. It must be noted that this letter was written in the spring of 1053, but not by the Patriarch Michael and the Archbishop Leo, as the Cardinal Humbert, who took a leading part in everything, noted as regards this and the Latin translation. It was written only by Leo of Bulgaria, as the following writers have already proved: C. Will, op. cit: p. 53 seq.; Β. Georgiades. Michael Cerularius and the schism of the Churches, in «Ecclesiastiki Alitheia» 3 (1886) 373 seq. (in Greek), A. Michel, Der Autor des Briefes Leon von Achrida. Eine Vater versαmmlung des Michael Kerullarios, in «Byzantinisch - Neugriechische Jahrbücher» 3 (1922) 50 seq. and others. See also J. Gay, op. cit. p. 495. The Patriarch Μichael Cerularius in the year 1053, that is one decade after his elevation to the patriarchal throne; permitted -or perhaps exhorted- Leo of Bulgaria to write the aforementioned letter and the abbot of the monastery of Studion, Nicetas Stethatus, to publish his study against the Latins' (C.Will op. cit. pp. 127 - 136. Μigne Ρ.L. 143, 973-984. Α Demetrakopoulos, Ecclesiastiki Bibliothiki, Leipzig 1866, I, 18-36). He also ordered the closing of the Latin churches and monasteries in Constantinople certainly not in order to provoke the schism between the two Churches and to insure his independence which was never in danger (E.Amann, op. cit: pp. 1681/2); or to become emperor by the schism! (L. Brechier, Le schisme etc., pp. 213, 215, 217, 308), nor for other equally improbable reasons which heterodox writers imagine (for these see Th. Popescu, op. cit. p. 368 seq.) but to counteract on the one hand the provocations of the Latins in Constantinople and the dissemination of Latin innovations and customs among the Orthodox. On the other hand, his purpose was to oppose the anti-canonical intervention of Pope Leo IX in southern Italy, the dissemination there of Latin ecclesiastical customs, and the attempted subjection under him of the Greek archdiocese of Sipontus to the Latin οf Veneventus. In general he aimed to oppose the expansion of the papal sovereignty over the entire of southern Italy and even Constantinople, which was sought in co-operation and alliance with the emperor Henry ΙΙΙ and the «argironite» (bought by silver) magistrate and duke of Italy Argyros (See Th. Popescu, οp. cit. p. 370 seq). Contemporary historical sources testify that during those times the position of the Latins against the Orthodox was very provocative. Not only were the Latins in Constantinople and the papal delegation under the very abusive Cardinal Humbert provocative, but also Pope Leo ΙΧ himself, who in southern Italy intervened ecclesiastico-politically and in his letters to Cerularius «made such accusations and generally spoke in a way so threatening that it was evident that he was seeking excuses for disputes. The way in which his vicars conducted themselves in Constantinople and especially their superior, Cardinal Humbert, makes this even more indisputable». (Κ: Paparregopoulos, op. cit. vοl. IV p. 345).

8. - Τhe letter of Pope Leo ΙΧ was published by C. Will, op. cit. p. 65-68, Mansi, Cοncil. 19, 635/84. Latin theologians confess with pride that no one not even Gregory VII, expressed the papal primacy with such emphasis as Leo ΙΧ did (L. Brechier, op. cit. p. 192/3). According to C. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. IV. p. 770. Leo ΙΧ in doing this «theilte nur die Gebrechen der Kritik seiner Zeit»! But Leo proceeded further, «accusing the Greeks of altering the Creed of the Catholic Church, being in no way ashamed either of his office or history» («Encyclical letter of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the Orthodox everywhere», 2nd edition, Constantinople 1863, p. 29, in Greek), and even as producing more than 90 heresies: «diverso tempore ex diverso errore ad corrumpendum virginitatem catholicae Ecclesiae matris emergentes», Ιn addition, he criticized the folly of Cerularius and Leo of Bulgaria and brandished the power of the Roman throne, because they had dared to censure the Roman Church, which no one is supposedly able .to judge and censure. For this reason he called them to repentance so that they might not be included in the tail of the dragon which dragged «the third of the stars of the heaven and did cast them to the earth»! (Rev. 12,4).

9. - Earlier the Popes Nicholas Ι and Hadrian II ventured to formulate this in the libellous which was submitted to the Latin Synod of 869/70 at Constantinople for signing (see Mansi, Concil, 16, 27/8, Α. Pichler, op. cit. p. 189). Pope Marinus afterwards repeated it, as well as Stephen V in a letter to the Byzantine emperor Basil the Macedοn in 885 (Mansi, Concil. 18, 12/3). A. Pichler acknowledges that «der ganzen Kirche waren diese Anspruche fremd, dass der Papst die (Quelle aller geistlichen und weltlichen Jurisdiction und Unfehlbarkeit sei» (οp. cit, p. 257). Nektarius Kephalas.op. cit., Ι, 159/61 Chrys. Ρapadοpoulοs, op. cit. pp. 193/4.

10. - Migne P.G, 120, 784;.the moderate and prudent Patriarch of Antioch Peter, who read this letter, confirms this (ibid. p. 813), as well as the Pope Leo ΙX, who wrote to the emperor Constantine the Mοnοmachos: «preterea confrater noster archiepiscopus Michael exhortatorias ad concordiam et unitatem direxit nobis litteras» (C. Will, op. cit. p. 88, Mansi, Concil. 19.669). F. Mercenier acknowledges that the answers of the Patriarch and the emperor were indeed «extrêmement modéréesode fond et de forrme» (op. cit. p, 80).

11. - It must be noted that Leο ΙΧ and earlier written a letter to the Patriarch of Antioch Peter concerning both Michael Cerularius and the patriarchal throne of Constantinople in which he «had sought allies beforehand» against Cerularius. (Migne Ρ. L. 143,270 seq., Τh. Popescu, op. cit. p. 386/7).

12. - This papal representation had been asked for by the emperor Constantine the Monomachos chiefly for a political reason, namely to discuss and reach an understanding on the Byzantine and papal possessions in Italy, «which were being threatened by the Normans. Humbert, however, probably with the approval of Pope Leο ΙΧ, gave it also an ecclesiastical character. Sec Chrys. Ρapadοpοulοs. op. cit. 193/4. J. Gay, οp. cit. p. 491 seq. C. Hefele, op. cit. p. 771 seq. and the letter of Leo ΙΧ to the emperοr, C. Will, op. cit. p. 85 seq. Mansi, Concil. 19 667 seq. Negotiations, that is, were being transacted between Constantinople and Rome for the purpose of making a military alliance against the Νormans, against whom «in Mai 1053 zοg Leo mit einem aus allerlei Bestandtheilen zusammengebrachten Heere», but he was defeated and taken as a hostage! Herein a sufficient number of Roman Catholics, as «Petrus Damiani, Hermann der Gebrechliche u. A. die Niederlage des Ρapstes für eine göttliche Strafe erklären, weil es einem Priester nicht zustehe» die Waffen zu ergreiffen», to whοm Hefele answers, «dass der Papst auch Fürst sei, und als solcher die Pflicht habe, das Ρatrimοnium Petri zu vertheidigen!» (op, cit. p. 764).

13. - Ρh. Vafeides, οp. cit, p. 124.

14. - See B. Stefanides, op. cit. p.347.

15. - See also Ε Hermann, Ι Legati inviati da Leone ΙΧ nel 1054 a C/pel erano autorizzati a scomunicare il patriarca Michele Cerulario? in Orientalia Christiana periodica» 8 (1942) 214.

16. - Nektarius Kephalas, Metropolitan of Pentapolis, op. cit. ΙΙ, 21 seq.

17. - Fοr example they began «par créer un incident sur une question de protocole: Humbert et ses collègues prétendirent avoir le pas sur les métropolites siégeant au synode permanent, ce que ni le patriarche, ni les métropolites ne voulurent accepter. Les légats se contentèrent dοne de lui remettre la lettre qui lui était destinée et puis se retirèrent eu protestant.» (F. Mercenier, οp. cit. p. 82).

18. - Letter of Michael Cerularius tο Peter of Antioch. Migne P.G. 120, 816. C. Hefele did not hesitate to acknowledge that «die päpstlichen Legaten traten zu Con/pel im Bewusstsein und mit den Ansprüchen ihrer hοhen Stellung auf: sie wolllen und mussten den Vorrang Rome an den Τag legen» (op. cit. p. 775). Humbert had even composed a complete treatise, or to be more exact, a libellus against the Greeks, which was translated into Greek (C. Will, op. cit, p 93-Ι26), that according to Α. Pichler, «war nicht eine solide Erörterung, sondern eine von der rohesten Leidenschaft dictirte Schmahschrift, welche nicht nur das alte Lied, dass der Orient das Vaterland aller Haresien sei, wiederholte; sondern zugleich dem Patriarchen und der Griechischen Kirche Dinge zum Last legte, die reine Erfindungen waren» (op. cit. p. 258). See also C. Hefele, op cit. pp. 774/5, and a summary of this libellous, as well as that of a similar one against Nicetas Stethatus by the insultingly mad Humbert in «Ecclesiastiki Aletheia» 7 (1886/7) 6 seq. by B: Georgiades.

19. - It seems that Michael Cerularius really believed that the papal letter was forged not only because he found the seals tampered with and because Pope Leo from Sept. 1053 until Μarch 1054 was a hostage -of the Normans, dying after his release in Αpril 1054, but also because its content was incompatible and unworthy «of the virtue and politeness and knowledge of the Pope (as he himself wrote to Peter of Antioch, Migne Ρ. G. 120, 784). On the contrary, it agreed with everything that he had formerly heard from the Greek duke Argyros of southern Italy, who «not οnly οnce but twice already and three times and four was thrown out and expelled by us from communion and partaking» (ibid.). Argyros was not only ecclesiastically but also politically at one time in the service of the Byzantine emperor, at another against him and leader of the Normans, and still at another on the side of the Pope. Besides, he was always a personal enemy of Cerularius: With reason then the Patriarch suspected that neither the delegation, nor the letter really came from Pope Leo the intolerant Humbert and the fickle Argyros forged ΙΧ, but that everything. This, which was confirmed by John of Tranes (letter of Cerularius to Peter of Antioch; Migne Ρ. G. 120, 788), is also explicitly mentioned in the Synodical decision of July 20, 1054 (ibid. p. 741 and 745).

20. - Second letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch; Migne P.G. 120, 816. C. Will, op, cit. p. 186.

21. - Α. Fortescu describes this sacrilegious act as follows in «The Orthodox Eastern Church(3)», London 1920, p. 185/6: «it was Saturday, July 16, 1054, at the third hour (9 a.m.). Τhe Hagia Sophia was full of people, the priests and deacons are vested, the prothesis (preparation) of the holy Liturgy has just begun. Then the three Latin legates walk up the great church through the Royal Door of the Ikonostasis and lay their bull of excommunication on the altar. As they turn back they say: Videat Deus et indicet. Τhe schism was complete... one realizes this and sees that the words of the Legates were heard and that God has seen and judged»! A simple comparison between the decision of the Orthodox Synod of Constantinople that met four days later and the Latin libellous, including the aforementioned excerpt of Fortescu, is enough to confirm in bow different a tone it was-composed. While these events establish clearly that the papal Legates provoked the completion of the schism, there are Roman Catholic theologians who speak about the supposed «Schism of Michael Cerularius»! about whom they even think that «plus encore peut-être que Ρhοtius mérite le titre de pére du schisme»!, as for example lately M.Jugie (op. cit. p. 187 seq., 232) who .admits, however, that the Latin act was «a tout point de vue, ce geste théâtral était regrettable. (ibid. p 205) and makes the cοnfirmation that «tous les membres du synode permanent constantinopolitain faire cause cοmmune avec Michel Cerulaire, aucun de ces prelats n'élève la voix en faveur des legats romains, et il faut reconnaître qu'il leur eût étè difficile de le faire» (ibid. p. 219).

22. - Migne Ρ. G. 120, 741/5. C. Will, op. cit. p. 153/4. Abοut this A. Pichler observes: «Diese Βulle wiederholte alle Beschimpfungen, welche Humberts Abbandlungen» enthielten und fügte die gräulichsten Flüche bei». Therefore «mit Mûhe entkamen die Legaten οhne Schläge, die sie recht wοhl verdient hatten» (op, cit. p. 259). And K. Paparregopoulos writes: «Τhe greatness of the tolerance and moderation of our own people was never before more splendidly proved than during that terrible moment when one nod of the Patriarch was able to bring on a dreadful punishment for the crime. But instead, our Hierarch permitted their harmless exit from the church; likewise after two days they were able harmlessly to leave Constantinople, after they had bidden the Emperor farewell and had received from him the customary- gifts...» (op. cit. vol. ΙV p. 346/7).

23. - Migne Ρ. G. 120, 817; see also p. 739. Particularly the papal legates were turned against the Patriarch Μichael whom or «rather the whole Orthodox Church of God and all those who do not accept their impious acts they anathematised simply because they wanted to remain pious and not betray Orthodoxy... This anathema their master, the most reverend Pope, issued against Miclιael and his followers» (ibid. p. 737, 745).

24. - F. Mercenier (Roman Catholic), addressing Roman Catholics, cοmments on the forementioned step of the Roman Catholic delegation as follows: «Pour monter toute la ville contre les Rοmαins, Cérullaire n' eut qu'a le faire traduire et a le lancer dans le public. L'effet fut immédiat. La stupeur et l' indignatiοn furent générales. Τellement que l' empereur doutant de l'exactitude de la version patriarcale fit revenir la légation qui avait quitté la ville et οrdonna que sous leurs yeux on en fit une traduction nouvelle: elle ne put que confirmer l'exactitude de la première. Cependant le peuple avait appris ce retour. Aussitôt l'emeute se mit a gronder et l' empereur, qui jusque là avait cru possible une reprise des négociations, se vit obligé d'éloigner au plus tôt l'ambassade pour ne pas exposer la vie de ses membres. Voilà dans quelles circonstances se consomma le schisme qui continue à désoler l'Église; en pleine vacance du Siège Apostolique, du fait de légats qui étaient sans pouvoirs. Et dire que rentre a Rome le cardinal Ηumbert crut pouvoir se donner un large satisfecit et que l'Occident crut qu'il avait rempοrté une éclatante victoire sur Cérulaire!» (οp. cit. pp. 84/5).

25. - K. Αmantos: op. cit. p. 229.

26. - Migne P. G. 120, 736/48. Mansi, Council, 19, 812/21. C. Will. op. cit. p. 155/68. See the opinion of the Patriarch of Cοnstantinοple Jozeph about this Synod in A. Demetrakopoulo History of the Schism, p. 26 ,seq.

27. - A. Demetrakopoulos. op. cit ρ. 29 seq Nektatius Κephalas. op. cit. ΙΙ, 78 seq. J. Κarmiris, The division of the Church and the attempts for union, Jerusalem, 1946 p. 7 seq.

28. - Migne P. G. 120 737, 745, above p. 565 note 1.

29. - Α. Michel, Die Rechtsgültigkeit des römischen Bannnes gegen Michael Kertullarios, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift.42 (1942) 192-205. Οn the basis of sources, A. Michel (who repeatedly occupied himself «with the schism of the 11th century in general, particularly in his work «Ηumbert und Kerullarios», Paderborn 1924/30) concludes (ibid) that «Papst Leo ΙX had selbst derf Patriarchen Michael Kerullarios bedingt gebannt und nach dem kurialen Gesandtschaftsrechte der Frühreform ware der Βann der Legaten auch nach wirklich vom bedingten Βanne des Papstes νöllig absehen. der siclι am Schlusse des ersten Briefes und am Schlusse des Dialoges sowie am Schlusse des zweiten Briefes findet (see p. 197 seq.), so «wäre doch die Gültigkeit des Bannes der Legaten nach dem damaligen kurialen Gesandtenrechte nicht zu bezweifeln» (p. 201).

30. - C. Will, op. cit. p.154. See also Α. Michel, op. cit. p. 195 seq., and Αnonymous, Le consοmmateur- du schisme grec, ou vie de Michel Cérulaire, Constantinople 1819, p. 123.

31- Οn the point in question M. Jugie thinks, οn the contrary, that «les légats romains n' ont pas lance les leurs (anathèmes) contre l'Église byzantine, mais contre un de ses patriarches et certains de ses clercs. Leur sentence elle-même parait, du point de vue canοnique, dénuée de toute valeur et n'a jamais été approuvée par le Saint-siège. Quand a l'excοmmunication des légats par Michel Cérulaire et son synode permanent, elle n'atteint ni le pape ni l'ensemble de l'Église d'Occident; c'est une simple mesure de représailles contre des étrangers insolents, qui ont ose élever contre Cerulaire et son clergé les accusations les plus fantaisistes et en qui l'οn n'a voulu voir que des émissaires du due d'Ιtalie, Argyros» (op. cit. p. 230, see also p. 298).

32. - Nektarius Keplιalas, οp cit. ΙΙ, 33 writes: «Pope Victor ΙΙ, successor to Leo ΙΧ, not only did not renounce, did not reject, did not invalidate the blasphemous excommunication of the legates, but even approved of it and confirmed it. So great did this act of the legates appear to the Pope and tο his successors, that it seemed good to them to perpetuate and successively cοnfirm it». Τhe Latin synοd of 1098 in Bari is censured as somehow confirming the excommunication of Humbert by condemning the Orthodox Catholic Church as heretical fοr nοt having accepted the latin Filiοque. Βut, accοrding to the Αrchbishοp of Athens Chrys. Papadopoulos, «this synοd did that which the synods of those who were breaking away from the one Holy Cathοlic and Apostolic Church were customarily doing. They would condemn her as heretical, for not accepting their mistaken teaching! 'Γhe synοd at Bari dared to cοndemn as heretics those who were nοt accepting the error of the Filioque. Thus, this synod broke the Rοman Church away from the Οne Ηοly Catholic and Apostolic Church» (οp. cit. p 206) It must be noted that similar ideas are also found with later Latin theologians, including our contemporaries: as for example, M. Jugie writes that Photius' teaching on the procession of the Ηoly Spirit, which is the same as saying of the entire Orthodox Church or of the ancient united Church. «introduit le schisme dans la Trinité en même temps que dans l'église, telle est la nouveauté hérétique dont Phοtius est le père»! (op, cit. p. 145), and Κ. Algermissen, whο asserts that in this dogma «muss die Orthodoxe Kirche von einer Lehre zurucktreten, die tatsachlich irrig ist und der Lehre der grοssen Vater der Ostkirche nicht entspricht» ! ! (Konfessionskunde, Ηannοver 1939, p 5Ι5).

33. - Contrary- to the opinion of certain heterodox, Michael Cerularius is considered by the orthodox as «a most saintly man» (Dositheus οf Jerusalem, History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem,. Bucharest 1715, p. 756 in Greek), and «a man of great education and most-holy life» (Chrys. Ρapadοpoulos. op. cit. p. 190. Β. Georgiades, op. cit. p. 333), or as «the one who had adorned value and had correctly taught the saving word» (Α. Demetrakopoulos, Orthodox Greece, Leipzig 1872, p, 5,in Greek).

34. - See Τh. Popescu, op. cit. p. 385 for related references, on pp. 386/8 he writes: «Τhe actions of both Leo IX and Argyros contain sufficient reason for Michael Cerularius' opposition to the Latins... the Patriarch sought neither political nor personal purposes through them, but only to defend Orthodoxy and his rights. Νοt ambition but real for Orthodοxy, as Gay also states, and the intervention of Leo ΙΧ in southern Italy- incited the Patriarch to oppose the Latins. His opinion was that of the clergy, of the people and at last even that of the peacemaker Peter of Antiοch...Since these events in themselves adequately explain the act of the Patriarch of Constantinople, it is obvious that it was not the work οf ambition...As a sufficient number of non-Orthodοx historians recognize this distinctly, it is absurd and awkward to consider any longer the great and historically well-explained event of 1054 as a triviality of a personally interested individual».

35. - According to Κ. Ρapαrregοpoulοs, «the closest causes οf the dissension during the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries were the establishment of the new western empire, which the eastern refused to recognize, and the uninterrupted effort of the Church οf the Romans to change her rights to sovereignty» (op. cit. vol. IV p. 340).

36. - Οn the Roman Catholic side it is recognized that «l'empire byzantin était en lutte pour ainsi dire permanente avec les- titulaires allemands de l' empire d'Occident pour la possession de l'Italie méridionale. Or presque tοujours les papes faisaient figure d'allies ou de simples chapelains de ses ennemis: circonstance bien faite pour que la-bas l'Eglise rοmaine fut traitee elle aussi en ennemie» (F.Mercenier, op. cit. p.75/6).

37. - Rhalles and Potles, οp. cit. vol. IV, p. 460. In his weighty «study», «An answer on behalf of patriarchal privileges», Balsamon writes: «The daemon of selfishness made the Ρope stand aloof from the assembly of the remaining most-holy Patriarchs and only in the West was it oppressive» (ibid, p 553).

Chapter IV

So much for the beginning and the completion of the schism of the Roman Church which was the cause of many evils in Christianity. Judging it now in general from the Standpoint of its two phases, we think that no doubt can remain in the mind of the inquirer who searches for and judges the historical facts objectively and without bias that the true and real cause of the division of the Church was the anti-canonical evolution of the papacy with its absolute primacy, its accompanying heterodox
teachings and its ecclesiastico-political pursuits. For this reason, historical responsibility for the schism lies with it first and fore most (1).

The Orthodox Patriarchs Ρhotius and Cerularius, having found themselves fatally before the violent stream of the Papacy, which was threatening to carry along with it the doctrinal and administrative system of the ancient Church and to derange the canonical bases of ecclesiastical life, had the sacred duty to block its path toward the Eastern Church and Empire and to turn it back to the West. In this way they were insuring the ecclesiastical and political liberty and independence of the Greek Orthodox world. We think that all that concerns this ecclesiastical schism ought to be examined and judged from this viewpoint. For behind the ecclesiastical events which took place during the ninth and eleventh century, stood the egotism, and desire for power and ecclesiastico-political imperialism and totalitarianism of papal Rome. Driven by these same motives, she likewise stood behind the so-called Crusades and the Crusaders, who 150 years later overthrew the Byzantine empire and subjugated the Orthodox East ecclesiastically and politically, causing countless, inexpressible suffering(2) and making the chasm
between the Orthodox East and the papal West deeper, wider and more permanent(3). No doubt then can remain that not only religious but also political reasons played an important part in the opening and in the perpetuation of the schism, especially the effort of the Popes from the time of Nicholas Ι to Humbert II and his successors to subject southern Italy, Bulgaria and more generally the Ilyricum, as well as the whole of the Orthodox Christian world(4) Because, unfortunately, the Papacy had already begun to succumb to the greatest temptation, that of worldly power. In the Church of the Papacy «the conceit of worldly power had begun to slip in under the pretence of a divine service»; this power the 3rd Oecumenical Synod had criticized(5). Hence the Papacy, having tried unsuccessfully until the end of the eleventh century to subjugate the Orthodox East ecclesiastically and politically in a peaceful way, by word and persuasion and ecclesiastical synods, subsequently attempted to succeed by force,
i, e, by the wars of the Crusades(6),and lastly, from the conquest of Constantinople it has sought. the same aim through the deceit of Uniatism and various other deceptive means of propaganda which are used for the proselytism of Orthodox people.

We accept, certainly, that in the unfolding of the events of the schism and in the handling of the problems that arose, it was natural for certain mistakes to be made on the part of the patriarchs Photius and Cerularius and generally by the defending; Orthodox Greeks. However, we can only confirm that the Latins gave the cause of the schism generally, on the one
hand in the ninth century by Pope Nicholas Ι, and on the other in the eleventh century by Pope Leo IΧ and his representative Humbert, both applying the well known policy of absolute papal primacy(7). Consequently, the chief responsibility for the ecclesiastical schism undoubtedly lies with these two Popes and their successors(8), amongst whom not one Ρope was fοund truly a peacemaker and capable of acting in the: spirit of Christian love and within the framework of the canonical tradition of the Church in a way able either to avert her division or even after the outbreak of division to unite immediately the divided parts. This, in addition to other reasons, must be attributed to the condition of the Papacy during that period, which after Nicholas Ι and until Gregory VII (1073), namely for about 200 years, went through its «saeculum obscurum», as ecclesiastical historians from Baronius onward characterized it indeed with the darkest colours(9). It is self-evident that the decline of the Papacy during that period ought to be recognized as one of the not too insignificant reasons for the realization and the perpetuation of the schism.

But beyond this, impartiality compels us to confirm that the Orthodox Greeks, of that time were distinguished for the strength, depth, purity and stability of their faith, though they extended it to different ecclesiastical ceremonies and customs, expanding it more than was necessary. For this reason, to the real differences between the two Churches they also added liturgical ones. As such these did not have a dogmatic character, but they helped widen and enlarge the ecclesiastical chasm. The Latins, on the other hand, were distinguished for their tendency to innovate in faith and worship and especially, in the form of church government. They were marked out, as well, by the so-called «Latin high brow», haughtiness, arrogance, love for primacy, greediness, obstinate animosity and enmity against the Greeks, especially as shown by the Popes of Rome against the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Thus, supported also by mutual ignorance and differences about language, ecclesiastical customs and ecclesiastical life in general(10), as well as by racial and political antithesis and enmity, Christian love, which was indispensable to the reconciliation and bridging of the chasm, was frozen. That love, which according to the Apostle Paul,
«suffereth long, is kind, envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave unseemly, seeketh not her οwn, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth»(11), had disappeared from both sides, especially on the part of the Latins. There was, therefore, no necessary balance between faith and love which would have been able to prevent the final tearing asunder of the seamless garment of our Lord. Brotherly hate and religious and racial fanaticism replaced the love between Christian brothers. One of the two champions of Orthodoxy, Mark of Ephesus, Evgenicus, made the most upright confirmation when he said before the Synod at Florence «that the Roman Church had overlooked love, and peace was thus dissolved» between the Churches(12).

Noteworthy is the fact that while the Orthodox were attributing to the Latins true and serious dogmatic and other innovations, criticizing them for heresy and schism, they in return had nothing true and well-founded to attribute to them, but only
argued about primacy and precedence or about the simple patriarchal title «οecumenical». They were further plotting for the ecclesiastical and political subjugation of southern Italy, Bulgaria, eastern Illyricum and finally of the entire Orthodox East,
without being able to bring forth against the Orthodox accusations of a dogmatic character, entailing a charge for heresy. This truth is witnessed by the fact that only in the year 1098 did the Latin Synod, which convened at Bari under the Pope Urban II; venture to criticize the Orthodox as heretics with the ridiculous, as we have seen, criticism that they refused to accept the Latin heterodox teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit «and from the Son» and its unlawful addition to the sacred Creed(13).

Undoubtedly, the Patriarchs Photius and Cerularius(14) were roused up principally against the Papacy -its monarchy and impetuous and tyrannical despotism- having sought to restrain and check it in its irresistible course and tendency to overthrow the ancient democratic ecclesiastical form of government and to change it and the dogmatic teaching of the Church(15). If they had succeeded, surely the Patriarchate of Rome would have remained in communion with the other four ancient historical Patriarchates of the East and the enactment of all those new Latin dogmas and institutions, which were introduced into the Roman Church from the ninth century until the Vatican Synod of 1870, would have been prevented(16). Those Orthodox Patriarchs did exactly what all the great reformers of the Western Church did later who, imitating in one way or another their example, fought the new teachings and abuses of the Papacy and struggled together with the people of the West against the worldly power and tyranny of the Popes; as for example, the conveners of the reforming Latin Synods of Piza, Constance and Basel, the so-called precursors of the religious Reformation, the reformers of the 16th century who were about Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, the French theologians of the 17th century with the German bishops of the 18th century and the Old Catholics of the 19th century, to omit the rest(17).

This is the most important reason for which Photius and Cerutarius became the target of the violent attacks on the part of Popes, Latin Synods, theologian, and papal legates, attacks, which were made by means of depositions, excommunications, anathemas, insults and slander. Unfortunately these are continued until today by Roman Catholic writers who unjustly criticize them as the only ones responsible for the schism and improperly censure them(18). However, the pure historical truth is that those ever-memorable Greek Patriarchs had been repeatedly provoked by the Latins and were thus driven to a just and lawful defence by Popes who created quarrels and strife and even schisms for the sake of primacies, leadership, and ecclesiastico-political sovereignty. Being conscious οf their sacred duty to safeguard the Orthodox Faith and Tradition, which were in danger of being falsified, and to defend the endangered independence and freedom of the ancient Eastern Churches, they were forced to answer to the provocations of Rome in mutual agreement with the other Orthodox Patriarchs and the whole Eastern Church and to retaliate in equal measure, condemning the Latin heterodox teachings and innovations, according to the spirit and example of the ancient Church. For this reason, the whole Orthodox Catholic Church sanctioned their action and position against the totalitarian and sovereign claims and innovations of Rome. In their protests and accusations and anathematisation against the Ρapacy, the Orthodox Catholic Church heard and discerned her own voice and recognised them as champions of Orthodoxy(19).

The fact that the laity of the Orthodox Greek nation sensed and intimated in time the double danger from the Papacy against its ecclesiastical and national independence and autonomy is indeed worth special praise. He who investigates the position of the Orthodox Greek people against the Ρapacy's aim at subjugating them confirms with astonishment that together with the leaders of their Church they always discerned earlier and more clearly and fully than their political and intellectual leaders the great ecclesiastical and national danger from Rome. They perceived that the subjugation of the Eastern Church to Rome, under the form of the imposition of the papal sovereign primacy over her, would have resulted inevitably in the latinizatiοn(20) and assimilation of the Orthodox Greeks and, consequently, in the loss of both their orthodoxy and nationality(21). This explains why the Orthodox Greek people took the lead in the opposition of the Orthodox Catholic Church against papal expansion and totalitarianism during the opening of the schism in the ninth and eleventh century, during the time of the Crusades and the domination of the Franks in the Orthodox East, and after this in the initiative which was undertaken purely for political reasons by the last dynasty of Palaeologus towards «union» with Rome. As characteristic examples we limit ourselves to mentioning the popular uprising against the unionist Synods of Lyons in 1274(22) and Florence in 1439(23) and against the Byzantine emperors Michael VIII and John VII Palaeologus who had participated in them personally or through their representatives and finally the popular uprising in Constantinople against the «union»(24) with Rome during the eve of the Turkish capture of Constantinople. Even during the duration of the Turkish occupation and after it the distrust and opposition of the Greek people continued against every unionist action or, more accurately speaking, proselytising attempt of Rome and encroachment in the Greek East. Unfortunately, she sought this and continues to this day even in the centre of Athens by different lawful and unlawful means, by fraudulent intrigues and religio-political intermeddling and pursuits in the midst of Orthodox people, by her Jesuit and other monastic orders and agents, by her ecclesiastical, monastic, educational, philanthropic and other institutions and above all by the treacherous proselytising method of «Unia», by which the so-called «Uniate» clergymen travel «land and sea to make one proselyte»(25) orthodox, exercising in hardly Christian fashion the anti-evangelical proselytism of Orthodox Christians, instead of going out to teach «the nations»(26).

Βut unfortunately, even today the Church of Rome, inspired by the idea of her oecumenicity and the absolute papal primacy, has marked out and fanatically seeks to realize the well-known foreign policy of the Vatican, which consists in the subjugation and subordination of all the Christian Churches, and by preference that of the Orthodox, under the power and «absurd authority of the Pope»(27) Hence, in the Greek State itself, in which only about thirty thousand Rοman Catholics(28) live, she strives to apply her politics, mentioned above, respecting neither the official Orthodox Church to which almost the whole of the Greek people belongs, nor the sovereign rights and laws of the State. In this manner; she furnishes not a few difficulties to the official ecclesiastical and state authorities and scandals to the pious Orthodox Greek people, as it happened lately for example, by the naming of Roman Catholic bishops to Latin bishoprics in Greece, which are unrecognised by law and consequently nonexistent, by the arbitrary maintenance in Athens of her unrecognised three archbishops: the Catholic, Uniate and Armenian, as well as by the maintenance of her charge d'affaires, also unrecognised, and by the preservation of various propagandist institutions, schools hostels, monasteries etc., which have a disproportionately large number of personnel with foreign citizenship and students and inmates who are mostly Orthodox etc(29). We deem it superfluous to add that prompt arrangement is necessary by mutual understanding and comprehension of this condition, which the Vatican has arbitrarily created for us a condition unacceptable from an ecclesiastical and state point of view.


NOTES

1. - Α. Pichler (Roman Catholic) conclucles: «Wir glauben gezeigt zu haben, dass diese Frage über den Ursprung und die Fortdauer der Trennung nur aus der Geschichte des Papstthums. der Εntwickelung der Rechte desselben, vor Allem der theologischen Doctrinen hierüber und aus manchen anderen mitwirkenden Factoren richtig beanwortet werden könne, und dass jedenfalls auch, der abedländischen Kirche ein Theil der Schuld an dem Ursprung und der Fortdauer der Spaltung und damit ein Theil der Pflicht an deren Beilegung zu arbeiten, zugewiesen werden müsse» (op. cit. p. 544). And elsewhere: «Hätte die Griechische Kirche auch keinen Cärularius gehabt, die durch ihn geschehene Erweiterung der Kluft wäre nicht unterblieben» (ibid. p. 257). Pope Gregory ΧΙ, writing to John Cantacouzenus, negatively accepted the papal primacy and its non-acceptance by the Greeks as the cause of the genesis and the perpetuation of the schism: «Hujusmodi primates negatio οlim praesumpta per Graecos dissidii Latinorum et ipsorum Graecorum fuit causativa et conservativa shismatis subsecuti» (ibid. p. 380) Similarly, the Catholicos of the Αrmenian Church, rejecting on February 23, 1869 the invitation of Pope Pius ΙX to the Vatican Council, wrote to the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople that «Rome aurait d'abord du reconnaître qu'elle est la cause du schisme par ses efforts pour asseoir sa domination sur tous les autres sièges orientaux». (Cecconi, Histoire du Concile du Vatican, d'après les documents originaux. Paris 1887, t.ΙΙΙ σ. 47 seq. Document 94. «Irénikon» 6 (1929) 513/4). Lastly in the «Reply of a certain Orthodox to a brother Orthodox about the dynasty of the Catholics, about who made the schism, who were the schismatic and about Uniatism», Halle 1775, it is correctly observed, that «neither Photius nor Mark (Eugenicus) was the cause of the schism, nor were they the makers of it. But, the causes of the schism were the addition to the sacred symbol (Filioque) as well as the unacceptable sinless ness, monarchy and worship of the Pope and all the illegal novelties and innovations of the Roman Church...The cause of the schism is the addition to the Creed; they who broke away and cut themselves off, that is they who made the schism, being the dividers of the union, were the ones who initiated the addition; schismatic are the ones who accepted the addition and by it separated themselves, from the Catholic Church of Christ and established their own party, i. e the (Roman) Catholic. So that, both the ones who made the schism, i.e. the schismatic, and the ones who separated from the whole Church are the same. They then slander the Orthodox treacherously and unjustly and unreasonably when they call them schismatic» p.p.65, 78).

2. - Some of these are described in A. Demetrakopoulos, History of the schism. p. 44 seq., and Pope Innocent III indirectly admits a few, Ν. Kephalas, op. cit. II, 97 seq.

3. - See Ν. Ζernov, The Church of the Eastern Christians, London 1946, p. II seq. F. Mercenier is right in saying that until the Crusades «le schisme est encore le fait des hautes autorités ecclésiastiques et la masse du peuple chrétien commence a peine a en prendre conscience» (op, cit. p. 88).

4. - The Dominican Humbert considered the quarrel for the occupation of the Greek: empire as the highest and chiefest cause of the schism: «Maxima est dissensio de imperio, quod Ecclesia (Romana) vult haberi et teneri a Latinis, ipsi vero a suis» (Mansi, Concil, 24,126). Κ. Paparregopoulos exaggeratedly thinks that «the division of the Churches did not result from dogmatic differences, but because of political interests» (op. cit. volt. IV p. 349), a one-sided and baseless opinion.

5. - Canon 8, in Rhalles and Potles, op, cit. vol. IV p. 203.

6. -. The Rοman Catholic F. Mercenier acknowledges that «en Occident, peu a peu, s'introduisait la pensée de s'emparer de Constantinople pour châtier l' empire de ce qu' οn appelait sa trahison et rétablir de force l' unité que l' on avait cesse de croire réalisable par la persuasions (ibid. p. 89). Continuing he confirms that the occupation of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade by the Latins «fut marquée par des faits d' une sauvagerie inouïe qui firent plus pour populariser la séparation que des montagnes de libelles et accumulèrent dans le monde grec une haine presque inextinguible contre les Latins~ (ibid). Αnd the Pope Innocent ΙΙΙ hastened to recognise «Je fait accompli se flattant d'y trouver la voie de l'union toujours désirée et recherchée» (ibid.).

7. - See also Chrys. Papadopoulos, op, cit. p. 207 seq. : «These events testify that the contention of those who consider Photius and Cerularius responsible for the schism is absurd...The primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as it was shaped particularly from the time of Nicholas Ι and Leo IΧ, was the chief cause of the schism of the Roman Church ; unfortunately, the primacy was destined also to become the chief obstacle for the union of the Churches… The Latin Church prepared the schism, from which alone its causes came. Ρhotius the Great and the other defenders of Orthodoxy did not seek: to impose anything new on the Latin Church, but resisted that which was new and alien to the teaching and tradition of the whole Church... From the time that the bishop of Rome, forsaking his honorary position, sought to govern the whole Church and to enforce new teachings upon her without due discussion, he was necessarily destined sooner or later to carry along with him to schism the Western Church, over which he had already imposed himself, and to cut her off from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Because, the latter adhered to those thing, which were delivered by- our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles and which were formulated and decreed by the Fathers in Synods. But now certain new things alien to her were being asked by Rome to be introduced, and they who rejected them were being condemned as heretics» (ibid. pp. 207, 208, 213, 214).

8. - It must be noted here that the Jansenists also in their second great provincial Synod at Utrecht in 1763 proclaimed: a) «the Popes alone are responsible for the opening and the continuation of the schism of the two Churches. b) The Greek Church is not responsible as regards both these. c) No Synod in which the Greeks did not participate is able to be considered as œcumenical etc. etc». (Acta et decreta synodi cleri romano-catholici prοvinciae Ultrajectensis, mense Septembri 1763, p. 65/6). See also Meletius, Metropolitan of Athens, Church History, Vienna 1783-1795, v, 179/80, in Greek.

9. - See F. Heiler, οp. cit, p. 250 seq. Α. D. Kyriakos. Church History, vol. ΙI p. 26. A. Demetrakopoulos, οp. cit. p: 17 seq. Nektarius Kephalas, οp. cit. ΙΙ,9. seq. Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit. p. 182. Α. Pichler (Rοmαn Catholic) confirms, «dass Rom in dieser Periode (between Ρhοtius and Cerularius) 46 Päpste hatte, Constantinopel nur 16 Patriarchen, dass unter den ersteren die allermeisten nichtswürdig, unter den letzteren, mit Αusnahme des einzigen Theophylact, sämmtliche durch Tugend und Character ausgezeichnete Männer waren, dass von Rοm fast auf jede Anfrage von Seite der Griechen nur eine gehässige oder unbillige Entscheidung erfolgte» (op. cit. 204). Recently another Roman Catholic theologian, F. Mercenier; wrote:«Entre la seconde déposition de Photius et le patriarcat de Cérulaire (886-1043) Cοnstantinople vit seize Patriarches dont plusieurs vraiment remarquables et Rome quarante-quatre Papes et antipapes, dont vingt-deux régnèrent moins d'un an, dοnt huit périrent de mort violente, dont six furent déposés, et dοnt plusieurs étonnèrent par leurs scandales un monde pourtant habitue a toutes les violences et a toutes les immoralités. Dans ces conditions, rien d' étonnant que l'Orient, οù la civilisation était d'un raffinement exquis, n'ait eu que mépris pour ces pontifes qui avaient si peu de respect de leur caractère et pour une ville qui donnait de tels spectacles» (οp. cit: p.75).

10. - Μ. Jugie confirms that «chacune d'elles (the Rοman and Byzantine Churches) avait sa vie autonome et l'on n'entrait en relations qu'en de rares circonstances» (op. cit, p. 141).

11. - I Cor. 13, 4-6.

12. - Silvester Syropoulos, Memoirs of the Synod in Florence, ed. Creyghtοn, Chagae 1660, p. 167. Nicetas Stethatus also wrote to the intolerant Cardinal Humbert and the Latins in Constantinople: «Neighbourly love is good, oh Romans, the wisest and noblest of all nations. Because, by loving your neighbour, humility also superabounds in the persοn whο has that love.Super abounding love makes her sharer sustain everything, endure everything, as the Apostle says, and not be puffed up against his neighbour, nor boast against him, nor seek only after his own, nor envy after him or show jealousy; all these things drive love and humility away; and make man walk not according to God, but according to the desire of pleasing men». (See A. Demetrakopoulos, Ecclesiastiki Bibliothiki, vol. Ι, p.18). This was written by the Greeks, while the haughty and reviling Ηumbert was insulting them in Constantinople as heretics, because they had not accepted the Filioque, the use of unleavened bread, the fast of Saturday and the celibacy of the clergy!, he even characterized the Orthodox East as the country of all heresy, and called Stethatus. an arch-heretic, most wretched, an adventurer, ignorant, «Saravaite», «more stupid than an ass», adding : «you are not a presbyter but one who is accursed and has aged in evils, a child of a hundred years, one who is more fittingly called an Epicurean than a monk. Nor does it appear that you are living in the monastery of Studion, but in an amphitheatre and a place of ill repute; you are rightly called Stethatus (Pectoratus), because with the ancient serpent you are dragged on the breast» (Migne Ρ. L. 143, 983. C. Will. op. cit. p. 136 seq.). The simple comparison of Stethatus and Humbert's words reveals, the spirit which animated the persons who represented the two Churches during those times and therefore the degree of their guilt in the ecclesiastical schism.

13. - Mansi, Concil. 20, 947. In the same spirit did Petrus Damiani (+ 1072) write prior to the Synod of Bari: «Contra Graecorum errorem de processione Spiritus Sancti» (Migne Ρ. L, 145, 63; seq.) and later Anselm of Canterbury (+ 1109): «De processione Spiritus Sancti, Contra Graecos» (Migne Ρ. L. 158, 285 seq.).

14. - Even the Patriarch «Ignatius was as fierce a defender of his Church's rights as Photius. We must not forget that the Council of 869-870, called the eighth œcumenical; was in many ways a failure for the Papacy...Ignatius had the same ideas about Bulgaria as Photius» (F. Dvornik, The Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Patron of Reunion?, op. cit. p. 30/1).

15. - According to Α. Demetrakopoulos, «the monarchy of the bishops of Rome was chiefly the initial cause of the separation of the Latin Church from the Orthodox East»; it began to appear «from the third and fourth century and became more audacious during the ninth century» (History of the schism, p. 1). Lastly p. 173, he concludes: «The cause then of the schism of the two Churches was the addition to the sacred Creed made by the Latins, the desire for power, and the infallibility, monarchy and worship of the Pope and the lawless novelties and innovations of the Latin Church....» .

16. - Not only the infallibility, observes Α. Pichler. but «auch die beiden anderen den Umfang der Papstgewalt betreffenden Theorien, die Zutheilung beider Schwester und aller Jurisdictionsgewalt nach göttlichem Rechte, währen ohne diese Kirchentrennung wohl nie entstanden und haben sich erst nach derselben ausgebildet, als die Gränzen der allgemeinen Kirche mit dem römischen Patriarchat zusammenfielen. Diejenigen Theologen, welche diese Theorien noch immer aufrecht erhalten und ihnen sogar dogmatischen Charakter vindiciren, mögen wohl zusehen, ob sie nicht hiemit der (Roman) Kirche den Vorwurf zuziehen, sie sei von ihrer Tradition abgefallen» (οp. cit. p. 547).

17. - They sharply discerned and averted from their Church the papal tendency towards ecclesiastical sovereignty and absolutism, which was difficult to discern during the time of Photius and Cerularius. This tendency had to be developed in the work of the Vatican Synod one whole millennium later for the Old Catholics to be awakened and, imitating Photius, to revolt against the papal claims and proclaim through their declarations of Utrecht in 1889: «We reject the papal decisions (dating) from the 18th of July 1870 about the infallibility and the universal episcopacy or the ecclesiastical absolutism of the Popes of Rome as contradictory to the faith of the ancient Church...We reject likewise the declaration of Pius IΧ in 1854 concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary as being unsupported by Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the first centuries etc.» («Ecclesiastiki Aletheia» 16 (1896/97)274). In a similar way did many of the greater Roman Catholic scholars and theologians express themselves. We cite, for example, the Cardinal Nicholas Cuzanus who shortly before the Synod of Ferrara-Florence wrote the following very rightly, which Photius and every Orthodox theologian would be able to countersign: «Romanus pontifex est membrum Ecclesiae, et infallibilitas non cuilibet membro, sed toti Ecclesiae promissa est... Est caput dignitativum et honorificatum, quamvis non directivum vel potestativum jurisdictionaliter» (A. Pichler, op. cit p. 250).

18. - «Catholics are used to regard Photius as the first great schismatic, the Father of Schism between East and West, the inventor of a heresy concerning the Filioque, an usurper of the patriarchal See, a man full of vanity and deceit, the falsifier of papal letters and the acts of a Council, excommunicated by the Western and Eastern Church, a man whose memory is rightly detested by all Christendom etc.». (Ρ. Dvornik, op. cit. p, 20). They have written more and worse things henceforth from the time of Cardinal Humbert against Michael Cerularius. See fοr example the two anοnymοus propagandist pamphlets frοm the papal agents in Constantinople (in Greek and French): Le pere du schisme grec οn vie de Photius, Constantinople 1848, and Le consommateur du schisme grec οu vie de Michel Ceculaire, Constantinople 1849.

19. - In relation to this, the four orthodox Patriarchs of the East in their well-known encyclical in answer to Pope Pius ΙX wrote in 1848: «Our predecessors and fathers of blessed memory in common pain and decision, having seen the traditional teachings of the Gospel forged and the divinely-woven garment of our Saviour torn in two by wicked hands, wept for the loss of so many Christians for whom Christ died, being moved by fatherly and brotherly love. They showed much earnestness and honour privately and in Synods in order to be able to sew together the divided parts, saving the Orthodox teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. As acknowledged doctors they deliberated for the salvation of the suffering part having endured much affliction, contumely and persecution only that the body of Christ be not dismembered, only that the horos of the divine and venerable Synods be not violated. Truthful History has handed down to us the relentlessness of western persistence in error. These ever-memorable men experienced in deed, in this case also, the truth of the words of our- Father- Saint Basil the «οuranophantοr», who even in his time spoke from experience about the bishops of the West and particularly about the Ρope: «they know neither the truth nor tolerate learning, quarrelling with those who proclaim the truth to them and verifying the heresy by themselves» (to Eusebius Samos.). Thus, after the first and second brotherly admonition, having known their impenitence, «having shaken them off» and «given up, they gave them over to a reprobate mind»: («because war is better than peace which separates from God», as our Father Saint Gregory said about the Arians). Since then, there has been no spiritual communion between us and them; because, with their own hands they had opened the deep chasm between themselves and Orthodoxy», (Encyclical letter of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the Orthodox everywhere, edit. 2, Constantinople 1863, p. 11-12). Similarly, F. Dvornik specially observes about Photius that «for the Orthodox, Photius is one of the greatest Eastern Fathers, the last great doctor of the Greek Church, a saint officially canonized by all Eastern Churches, the valiant defender of the freedom and autonomy of his Church against all encroachment from the Papacy, a great teacher, and a great Prince of the Church» (op. cit. p. 19).

20. -. F. Mercenier acknowledges that the papal West «arrivait à ne concevoir d' autre voie à la cessation du schisme que la latinisation plus οu moins complète» (οp. cit, p. 92). Fοr example, Bessarion advised the tutor of Τhοmas Palaeologus' children that he will make them live entirely in a Frankish way, namely, to follow the Church in all things as Latins and not otherwise, to dress in a Latin way, learn to kneel before their superiors the Pope and Cardinals, etc. (A. Demetrakopoulos, Orthodox Greece, p. IΧ).

21. - See A. Demetrakopoulos, ibid. p. VIΙΙ seq., and History of the Schism, p, 28. A. Κyriakοs, Studies, p. 92-93.

22. - See J. Karmiris, The Latin Confession of Faith of 1274, ascribed to Michael VIII Palaeologus, Athens 1947, p. 21 seq. (in Greek). Ν. Kephalas, op. cit. ΙΙ, 118 seq. Α. Demetrakopoulos, History of the Schism, p. 58 seq.

23. - J. Karmiris. The Symbolical texts of the Orthodox Catholic Church, p, 25 seq. Α. Demetrakopoulos, οp. cit. p. 105-173. Ν. Kephalas, οp. cit II,208 seq.

24. - See Κ. Paparregopoulos, οp. cit. vοl. V p. 392 seq.

25. - Mt. 23,15.

26. - Mt. 28,19. To achieve the end sought, the following were founded; the «Congregatio de rebus Graecorum» by the Pope Gregory ΧΙlΙ (1579-1585), the «Congregatio de propaganda fide pro negotiis ritus orientalis» by the Pope Pius IΧ in 1862 and the «Congregatio pro Ecclesia orientali» by the Pope Benedict XV in 1917, which functions to this day. Besides, as an organ suitable fοr the same purpose Pope Gregory XV in 1622 founded the «Congregatio de propaganda fide», successfully operating since then. He arranged that its work be the spreading of the Christian faith also in the Orthodox Christian East, as-in «Ecclesiam in partibus infidelium»! So that, that Pope and the Jesuits did not hesitate to number the heretical and schismatical Greeks in the Turkish State among the unfaithful who, as it is recorded in the official document for its founding, «remain now in a condition of stupidity, have undertaken almost the nature of wild animals and are maintained only to serve for the populatiοn of the inhabitants of Hades for the sake of the devil and his angels». In Α. D. Kyriakos. op. cit. vol. ΙΙΙ p. 113/4: «Si enim mentis nonstrae aciem convertimus ad innumerabilem populorum multitudinem jam tot saeculis Agarenorum impurissima damentia captam insanique errοri. ac mendacii tenebris οbcοecatam, miseratione commoverunt viscera nostra, cernentes tam multis et variis coelestibus donis οlim celebres nationes per ignorantiam et pestilentis persuasionis stuporem humanitatem in bestiarum naturam fere mutasse atque ad aeterno incendia diabolo et angelis suis parata ali ac propagari». We repeat with Κ. Algermissen that under the Congregatio de prοpaganda fide «untersteht das «Päpstliche Werk der Glaubensverbreitung» und das «Werk des heiligen Petrus» fur Ηerandildung eines einheimischen Klerus in den Missiοnsländern (op. cit. p, 137), and working side by side in this same direction is the .Congregatio pro Ecclesia Orientnli», which «leitet die wichtigen Arbeiten an der Union des Ostens» (ibid), is understood not in the true meaning of the word «uniοn», but in the papal understanding of «subjection, of the Orthodox East. As known, just as in modern times, so in the former did the papal missionaries, who were sent by the «Congregatio de propaganda fide» to the Turkish held East and who continued with fanaticism the work of the Crusades and the dominion of the Franks, commit those and similar sufferings at the expense of the Orthodox. See Ρh. Vafeides. Church History, vol. III p. 53 seq. thus, the Patriarch of Alexandria Gerasimus described as follows the sufferings of the Orthodox at the hands of the Latins: «all know the murders, the confiscations, the Latin persecutions and the forcible signatures, out of which came the misfortunes of our Race; cities have vanished, districts were altogether destroyed, we were made desolate of all goods; after the Israelites we starve labouring with clay and brick. This is the condition of our Church, which sees clearly the utmost danger; and if God does not come to aid more quickly, it is impossible otherwise to be maintained. Because, we see this war as the most destructive of all events yet». («Ecclesiastiki Aletheia», 29 1909) 396). This war» of the Papacy forced the autocephalous Orthodox Churches to take a position «of precaution and defence» (see: «On the relationship of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches and on other general ecclesiastical problems, the Patriarchal and Synodical Encyclical of 1902, the responses to it of the holy autocephalous Churches and the reply of the Oecumenical Patriarchate», Constantinople 1904. «Acts of the preliminary committee of the Holy Orthodox Churches which met at Mt. Athos. June 8 -21, 1930», Constantinople 1930 (both in Greek). These were written against the Roman Church which did not understand that she enlarged still more and distended the chasm which separates the two Churches and that she increased the abhorrence and anti-papal disposition of the Orthodox peoples against her, particularly, that of the Greeks who defend their own orthodoxy and nationality.

27. - Gerasimus,-Patriarch of Αlexandria; op. cit. p, 396. .

28. - According to the registration of the population of Greece in the year 1928. in a total of 6,204,684, 5.961.529 registered as Orthodox Christians; 35,182 as Roman Catholics; 9,003 as Protestants in general; 126,017 as Mohammedans; 72,791 as Israelites; 45 of other confessions, and 117 belonging to none. According to the census of 1940 in a total of 7,344,860 registered, the Orthodox Christians numbered 7,090,192; Roman Catholics 29,139; protestants 6,335; Μonοphysite Armenians 16,350; other Christian groups 504; Μοhammedans 134,722; Israelites 67,591 (diminished to about 10,000 as a result of the Nazi cruelty); other confessions 2, and belonging to none 25. According to this census, while in 1928 heterodox represented only 7.51 to a thousand of the total Greek population, in 1940 their number was reduced, and today as a result of the second World War there will have been an even greater decrease especially of the Israelites, of the Monophysites and particularly of the Armenians, of the Roman Catholics etc. Ι,. Ravasz writes in «World Christian Handbook», ed. Grubb, London 1949, p. 51: «The Church of the Kingdom of Greece, which is for practical purposes the most important of the Greek Orthodox Churches... is the Church of almost all the people living in the Greek peninsula. To be Greek is almost synonymουs with being Orthodox or Christian».

29. - See A. Alivisatos, State and Vatican, article in «Tribune» (Greek) Ι/2.7. 1947. G. Konidaris, Concordata and Ρapal State from a Greek national and Orthodox Catholic point of view, in «Church Ρharοs» 47 (1948) 50 seq. 97 seq., and Greece, Ρapal State and Cοncοrdata, in «Ecclesia» 24 (1947) 276 seq. Methodius, Metropolitan of Cercyra, Encyclical in protest against the pursuits and interventions οf the Roman Ρapacy in Cercyra and in Greece generally, Cercyra 1948.-Μemοrandum to the venerable Holy Synod and to all the respectable Hierarchs οf the Church of Greece against the interventions of the Roman Papacy, Cercyra 1948. Chrysostom, Metropolitan of Zacynthos, Τhe Symplegades, article in «Ecclesia» 24 (1947) 227 seq. Τh. Speranza, the indispensable presupposition of agreement with the Vatican, article in «Ethnos» 25.6.1947 (all in Greek).

Chapter V

We have examined briefly and along general lines the separation of the Roman Church from the first Mother of all Christian Churches, the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East. We have tried to show that the Papacy was chiefly responsible
for the outbreak of the schism as it is also responsible for its perpetuation by means of the Crusades and its increasing expansion up to this day at the expense of local Orthodox Churches. Besides the purely human claims of the bishop of Rome, stated earlier, concerning primacy and ecclesiastico-political world rule, the objective and unprejudiced examination and criticism of the events of the schism forces us to recognize that this schism was generally due to many and various other causes, but pre-eminently to the racial, political and economic differences, to the pursuits of individuals and peoples on both sides, to individual differences and the variety of intellectual and psychological inclinations and tendencies, to a different understanding of the Christian faith and life, as well as to the imperfections and deficiencies of human nature, to the lack of Christian love, and to human sin under its various forms and expressions, especially to the arrogance, desire for power and the pursuit for primacy, pre-eminence and precedence etc.

Undoubtedly, that first and great ecclesiastical schism was the most grievous and tragic event of the history of the ancient Church. By this schism the ancient, united and undivided Catholic Church was separated into two Catholic Churches: the Orthodox and the Roman, being, separated by those differences mentioned earlier and certain others of a dogmatic, administrative, and liturgical nature, which were sometimes exaggerated out of misconstruction or lack of good
Will and understanding. However; the common ecclesiastical tradition of eight whole centuries unites them. Both try to maintain and continue this tradition, the Orthodox Church on the one hand without innovating and the Roman Church on the other by making a sufficient number of innovations.

In spite, however, of the historical events of the past, which are stated above, we believe that the understanding and peaceful arrangement by «œconomia» of the differences which separate them is not completely impossible, provided that this is made under the light of the Holy Bible, the ancient and genuine Holy Tradition, and after the long and serious preparation of the minds and hearts of the Clergy and laity of both Churches. We believe that the breach separating the two sister Churches is not completely unbridgeable, but on the contrary, can and must be bridged. Whatever the lack of Christian love and human sin has separated, particularly the desire for power and the different personal, ecclesiastical, political, racial and economic pursuits, Christian love and
brotherhood must reunite.

Fortunately, it seems that on the part of both Churches consciousness of unity between them has not been wanting, just as consciousness of responsibility was not lacking for the division and dissension which each bears in a different
degree and, as a result, the responsibility for the violation of their divine Founder's last commandment about the unity and love between them, which was that «all may be one»(1). Because, they who have sinned, by breaking the bonds of Christian
unity and love, have the sacred obligation, knowing the truth which liberates and being conscious of their great sin toward the unity of the Church, to work together sincerely and humbly for the re-establishment and reunion of the divided Church.

On the other hand, it was not possible: for the two sister Churches to lose the comforting hope of the possibility for their reunion. For this reason almost immediately after the schism of the eleventh century they began making somewhat significant and friendly efforts at reunion(2), which, however, were fruitless. Because, union of the two Churches was not pursued sincerely, and on equal terms and on the basis of the teaching of the Holy Bible and the ancient Church, but Rome sought chiefly by various means to extort the unconditional subjugation and enslavement of the Orthodox Churches to the Papacy by imposing the sovereign papal primacy over them(3). So that, that which became the cause of the outbreak of the schism is censured also as the chief cause for its perpetuation and for the failure of all friendly unionist attempts. Consequently, removal from the centre of this great and important obstacle of unity, i. e. the tyrannical papal supremacy, this stone of scandal for divided Christianity, is able to lead to the reunion of the divided Churches. We believe that if the Popes of Rome wanted to return to the existing «pentarchy» of the Patriarchs(4) of the
ancient Church and to recognise «the five. peaked power of the Church» which the venerable Church Tradition, including the general Synods in Constantinople of 869/70 and 879/80 -when the papal legates also agreed- has handed down(5), the Orthodox Catholic Church will continue firmly on the one hand to recognize the old primates honoris or ordinis .of the bishop of Rome as really primus inter pares(6), on the other hand to reject as she always did in the past the primatus potestatis or jurisdictionis, which was unknown in ecclesiastical antiquity and was contrived in the West after the seven Oecumenical Synods. Thus, would the necessary and favourable presupposition and the good interecclesiastical climate be created for the beginning of unionist conversations(7). «The just cutting off of the Pope of Rome from the Church did not destroy the canonical and good order», according to the correct teaching of Theodore Balsamon(8).

During these unionist conversations the entire question of the union of the Orthodox and the Roman Church must be put on a new basis. As we stressed at another time, «from the standpoint of an Orthodox the meeting and union of the two Catholic Churches is possible only on the grounds of the ancient and united Church of the seven Oecumenical Synods of the eight first centuries and upon equal terms. Both have to oust every posterior element which was unknown and is irreconcilable with the ancient and common
ecclesiastical tradition. The Roman Church particularly has to renounce all her later innovations in faith, worship and ecclesiastical administration which are opposed to the Holy Bible, to the decisions of the Oecumenical Synods and in general to the genuine Orthodox Tradition of the ancient, united and undivided Church(9). Above all, both Churches must seek true dogmatic and internal unity, full unity in the faith, to include all the fundamental truths of divine Revelation and especially those concerning the head and the infallibility of the Church and to exclude only the liturgical and administrative differences and peculiarities of each which are not connected with dogma. According to Photius, «whenever that which is violated is not the faith, nor is a fall from the common and catholic decree, because other customs and laws are kept by others, he who knows how to judge rightly should not think that they who keep these fall into injustices, or that they who do not accept them violate the law»(10).

Personally we believe that under these presuppositions and conditions our own Orthodox Catholic Church of the East would not deny co-operating sincerely with the Roman in order to adjust by «œconomia» the existing differences and to re-establish the harmony, love and unity between the two sister Churches, so that the last Hierarchical prayer, to the Heavenly Father
of the divine Founder, and unique Leader- and Governor of the Church may be realized: that again, «they may be one»(11)

Translated by Z. Xintaras


NOTES

1. - John 17, 21.

2. - See J. Karmiris, Unionist attempts and relations of the Churches, article in «Religious Encyclopaedia», (Greek) vol. III p. 106 seq. Also, The Division of the Church and unionist efforts» by the same author, p. 7 seq. In fact, the Orthodox Catholic Church from the time of Saint Photius has in no way ceased admonishing the Latins to abandon their heterodox teachings and innovations and to return to the unity of the Church and to her dogmas, which were transmitted from antiquity, but they, however, according to the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph, «did not hear, were not taught, did not accept the reminder of the offences: yet from all the land came forth the voice of them who admonished them by discourses, by letters, by ecclesiastical and synodical tomes, by many and different charters, which were confirmed by the synodical decisions of Patriarchs, hierarchs, monastic and Kings, whose eagerness aimed at nothing else but to correct them and turn them back to piety ; but they did not accept; did not hear, were not convinced, did not perceive, did not understand». (A. Demetrakopoulos, op. cit, p: 131).

3. - For this reason it is necessary that «non-Roman Catholic Christians continue to pray in order that the Church of Rome be persuaded to acquire a broader and deeper conception of Christian unity» and the way of its attainment. (W. Visser t'Hooft, in «Ecclesia» 27 (1950) 322).

4. - See Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit. p. 93 seq. The peacemaker Patriarch of Antioch, Peter III, who was characterized by M. Jugie (op. cit. p. 219.232) as «unionist» (?), was in favour of the ecclesiastical pentarchy during the time of the schism, as he writes in the well-known letter to the Metropolitan of Gradensa: «By divine grace five patriarchs were ordained to be in all the world, one of Rome, one of Constantinople, one of Alexandria, one of Antioch and one of Jerusalem. Yet, not even each of these is properly called patriarch, but abusively. The body of man is led by one head, and in it there are many parts, all ordered by five senses only. These are, sight, scent, hearing, taste and touch. The body again of Christ, the Church, I say, of the faithful, which is joined by different parts like nations and ordered by five senses of the aforesaid great thrones, is led by one head, Christ himself. As there is no other sense than the five. in this way will no other patriarch be accepted the above five patriarchs. At any rate, under these five thrones, being as senses in the body of Christ, are all the parts, namely all the peoples of the nations and the local bishoprics throughout the land ordered and divinely conducted, as in one head, in Christ the true God, joined by one Orthodox faith and led by him» (C. Will, op. cit. p. 211/2).

5. - Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit. p. 152 seq. See also A. Demetrakopoulos, op. cit. p. 174.

6. - Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit. p. XI seq.

7. - See «Reply of a certain Orthodox» etc. p. 65/6. Chrys Papadopoulos, The presuppositions of union, in «Ecclesia» 4 (1926i) 2 0/1.

8. - Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit. p. 543.

9. - J. Karmiris, The Orthodox Catholic Church and her relation with the heterodox Churches and the «World Council of Churches», Athens 1949, p. 23/4 (in Greek). See: Encyclical letter of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the Orthodox everywhere, Constantinople 1848, § 17 p. 37 seq. Answer of the Oecumenical Patriarch Gregory VI to the papal invitation to the Vatican Council, in «Evangelical Herald» 1 (1869) 223 seq. (both in Greek). -Answer of the great Church: of Constantinople to the papal encyclical on union, Oxford 1896, by F. Metallenos.

10. - Photius' letter to Pope -Nicholas I, by J. Valettas. op. cit. p. 156.

11. - An Orthodox theologian who believes in the possibility of the reunion of the two Catholic Churches is able to repeat the words of Balsamon: «And yet, as the ivy of an oak tree I want to maintain concord with the Pope of Rome, and for his separation I tear my heart to pieces, and daily I eagerly expect the good return» (op. cit. p. 547).