SEPARATION OF THE ROMAN AND GREEK CHURCHES
OUTLINE: I.--Relation of the Greek and Roman Churches before
325. II.--Effect of the Arian Controversy on the situation.
III.--The history of image worship. IV.--Character and results
of the Iconoclastic Controversy. V.--Final separation.
VI.--Resemblances and differences between the two churches
VII.--Sources.
Rome conquered Greece by military force (146 B.C.); meanwhile Greece
made a more thorough conquest of Rome by ideas. While there were many
significant differences in language, customs, education, and
institutions, yet religiously they were united in a twofold way: (1) by
a common paganism, and (2) by Christianity. The East was philosophical,
contemplating, metaphysical, and keen in discrimination; the West was
practical, legal, and aggressively conservative. This difference in
temperament was destined to have marked historical results.[265:1] While
the West produced the mediæval Church, the East remained comparatively
stationary. When the seat of Roman empire was removed from the Eternal
City to Constantinople in 330, it appeared as if the eastern world had
again become triumphant.
A divergence between the churches of the East and the churches of the
West, can be detected in the Christian philosophy and Christian theology
from the beginning. The differences became more pronounced as the years
passed by. The Arian Controversy (see Ch. IX.) produced the first crisis
in the breach between Roman and Greek Christianity. The victory won by
the West over the East was only temporary, however, because in the end
the powerful state was arrayed on the side of the Eastern Church. The
adoption of the "filioque" clause to the Nicene Creed by the Western
Church, gave mortal offence to the Greeks. The doctrine of purgatory was
another irreconcilable difference. Theoretically the Church was still
united: (1) in the Emperor who ruled both wings of the old Empire; (2)
in the Pope who pretended to rule over the East and the West; and (3) in
the fundamental Christian principles. While there were still many
resemblances, the differences were also becoming well marked in Church
polity and organisation, in dogma, in rites and ceremonies, in
monasticism, and in missionary activity.
Among the matters in dispute was the growing differentiation of opinion
on the question of the marriage of the clergy. The Roman Church was much
more strict in the enforcement of celibacy. The two churches refused to
agree on the same universal councils, and, of course, as a result,
accepted an unequal number of canons as valid. Neither could they agree
on the proper day for celebrating Easter. There were also many minor
differences in reference to such trivial things as the tonsure, the
beard, priestly garments, and Lent. Another stumbling-block was set up
when the dispute arose over the sacramental bread in the eucharist. In
the ninth century the Western Church departed from the earlier practice
of using fermented bread and insisted on the unleavened bread as in the
Jewish passover.
The second crisis in the separation arose in connection with the
Iconoclastic dispute. In the ancient religions, image worship appeared,
but usually in the second stage of development. Max Müller contends that
in India "the worship of idols is a secondary formation, a later
degradation of the more primitive worship." The ancient Persians had no
images.[267:1] The same was true of the ancient Greeks.[267:2] The
earliest statue in Rome, that of Diana, was between 577 and 534
B.C.[267:3] The old Germans had neither temples nor images of their
invisible gods.[267:4] Among the Jews, too, reference to images seemed
to point to a later period of their history.[267:5] From the time of the
Maccabees, however, a strong antipathy to images of all kinds
developed.[267:6] Hence Origen asserted of the Jews that "there was no
maker of images among their citizens; neither painter, nor sculptor was
in their state."[267:7] The Jewish Christians, therefore, were imbued
with a strong dislike to all images. Many heathen converts, likewise,
fully appreciating the great difference between the Gospel and the
idolatrous religion which they had forsaken, had the same feeling.
Consequently, it may be said that the early Christians universally
condemned all heathen image worship and all customs connected with it.
The adoration of the reigning Emperors was especially denounced.[268:1]
Christians were at first too poor and obscure to adorn their meeting
places with art. In fact, the pagans accused them of having "no altars,
no temples, no known images."
There is evidence, however, that the use of images by the Christians
began comparatively early and that it was more marked in the art-loving
East than in the West. Irenæus (2d cent.) says that a secret sect, the
Gnostics, "possess images, some of them painted, and others formed of
different kinds of material. . . . They crown their images and set them
up along with the images of the philosophers."[268:2] But these Gnostics
were heretics. Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235) had images of several
characters of Scripture including Jesus, in his _Lararium_. But he was a
pagan. The catacombs of the second, third, and fourth centuries are
covered with paintings of sacred emblems, such as the lamb, olive
branch, Christ carrying the cross, anchor, ship, fish, sower, cross,
Christ with the lost sheep on his shoulder, bottle of wine, and other
representations.[268:3] These emblems were used in the first instance in
private houses. The first undisputed proof of the use of art in public
worship among the orthodox is found in a decree of the Synod of Elvira,
Spain, in 306, that "pictures ought not to be placed on a church lest
that which is worshipped and adored be painted on walls."[268:4]
Tertullian (b. 150) says that the communion cup usually bore a
representation of the Good Shepherd.[269:1] He likewise says that the
formation of the cross with the hand was very common. "At every journey
and movement, at every coming in and going out, at the putting on of our
clothes and our shoes, at baths, at meals, at lighting of candles, at
going to bed, at sitting down, whatever occupation employs us, we mark
our forehead with the sign."[269:2] Clement of Alexandria early in the
third century mentions the dove, fish, ship, lyre and anchor as suitable
emblems for Christian signet rings.[269:3] Constantine had the cross set
up beside his own statue, in 312, after the defeat of Maxentius.[269:4]
He also had a costly cross in his palace[269:5] and had the emblem
engraved on the arms of his soldiers.[269:6] Before the middle of the
fourth century, Bible manuscripts were beautifully illuminated and
illustrated. This evidence shows that the use of images in worship began
in the second century and increased with the growth of the Church until
by the fourth century it was a marked institution in Christendom. There
were three distinct phases of its development: (1) the use of the cross;
(2) the employment of emblems and symbols; (3) the appearance of
portraiture and pictorial images.
The growth of image worship from the fourth to the eighth centuries was
due to certain explainable causes. The victory of Christianity under
Constantine brought a wholesale conversion of pagans to the new faith,
wealth, power, and extraordinary activity in building churches. What was
more natural than that the architectural and artistic ideas of the day
should be employed in beautifying them? The Christian Emperor himself
set the example of using sacred pictures by embellishing his new capital
with religious representations, such as Daniel in the Lion's Den and
Christ as the Good Shepherd. Constantine's successors in showering their
favours upon the Christians, cultivated this practice. It must be
remembered, too, that Christianity had become more material and worldly
than it was in the Apostolic Age. The conversion of the masses to
Christianity was merely nominal and external. What was more natural than
that they should bring with them their pagan ideas and love for show and
ostentation, and that they should clamour for a material representation
of their new faith?
Following popular opinion and obeying private demands, the clergy
themselves became champions of the use of images. In the West, Pope
Gregory the Great gave his official sanction to the institution. Along
with the use of images grew up, out of the spiritual worship of saints
and martyrs, the worship of their relics and their images, and
pilgrimages to the scenes of their labours. The ignorance and
superstition of the period supplied an excellent atmosphere for this
marvellous evolution. It appears, then, that the Christian Church,
planted in the home of paganism, supported largely by converts from
paganism, in a barbarous, credulous age such as that, naturally
developed and abused the use of art in worship.
Poetry, music, painting, sculpture, and architecture all are
unquestionably legitimate handmaids of religion and may be made most
serviceable. But the use of images for ornament, instruction, and
enjoyment is one thing; the worship of images is quite another thing.
In the Middle Ages only a few lofty souls here and there took the true
view. Pictures were put into churches not as objects of art, but as aids
and objects of worship. The pictures were reverently kissed, bows and
prostrations were made before them, candles and lamps were used to
illuminate them, and incense was burned to honour them.
During this period, we have a number of excellent illustrations of image
worship. Constantine used art to beautify his new capital in the East,
and particularly to adorn his palace. Constantia, his sister, asked
Eusebius for an image of Jesus.[271:1] The veneration of the cross
became especially pronounced after its adoption by Constantine, and it
was used in all religious ceremonies as an emblem of the victory of
Jesus over sin and the devil. According to Jerome the sign of the cross
was made, as it is to-day, in witness to written documents.[271:2]
Emperor Julian (361) taunted the Christians thus: "Ye worship the wood
of the cross, making shadowy figures of it on the forehead, and painting
it at the entrance to your houses." St. Chrysostom (b. 347) wrote:
The sign of universal execration, the sign of extremest
punishment, has now become the object of universal longing and
love. We see it everywhere triumphant. We find it in the
houses, on the roofs and the walls; in cities and villages; on
the markets, the great roads and in the deserts; on mountains
and in valleys; on the sea, on ships; on books and on weapons;
on wearing apparel; in the marriage chamber; at banquets; on
vessels of gold and silver; in pearls; in pictures on the
walls and on beds; on the bodies of brute animals that are
diseased; on the bodies of those pestered by evil spirits; in
the dances of those going to pleasure; in the associations of
those that mortify their bodies.[272:1]
Nilus, a disciple of Chrysostom, permitted the use of the cross and
pictoral Bible stories in the churches, but opposed images of Jesus and
the martyrs.
Churches began to be decorated in the fourth century, and in the fifth
paintings and mosaics were introduced. Constantine had "symbols of the
Good Shepherd" placed in the forums of Constantinople.[272:2] The Holy
Ghost was commonly represented as a dove over the altar or the
font.[272:3] The Nestorian Controversy and the Eutychian discussion
helped to introduce pictures of the blessed Virgin and the Holy Child,
Jesus. St. Cyril advocated the use of images in the fifth century so
clearly that he has been called the "Father of image worship." By the
fifth century, churches[272:4] and Church books, palaces and huts, and
cemeteries were covered with images of Christ and the saints painted by
the monks, while representations of the martyrs, monks, and bishops were
found everywhere. Even pictures of the Trinity were in common use. In
the East, women decorated their dresses with personal images and
pictures, such as the marriage feast of Cana, the sick man who walked,
the blind man who saw, Magdalene at the feet of Jesus, and the
resurrection of Lazarus. Portraits of Peter and Paul covered the walls
at Rome. Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Epiphanius, Gregory the Great, and
many others of the Fathers, testified to the widespread employment of
images both for public and for private worship. The ceremony of kissing
the image, of burning incense to it, of bowing before it, and of praying
to it, was gradually developed and became very marked in the sixth
century. The climax, however, was reached in the eighth century when the
paint was literally scraped off the images and put into wine to make it
holier, and when the consecrated bread was laid upon the image for a
special blessing.[273:1]
When the portrait phase of image worship developed, pictures of
miraculous origin were produced and superstitious practices began to
abound. Not a few pictures of sacred characters were attributed to Luke.
Others were described as "the God-made images, which the hand of man
wrought not." It was but a short step to attribute miracles and cures to
these images of divine origin.[273:2] To the wonder-working pictures was
ascribed motion, speech, and action. Out of such conditions direct
idolatry could easily develop.
The theory of the educated concerning images differed very much from
that of the ignorant. The images were worshipped by the masses because
it was believed that such worship drew down the saint into the image, an
idea which came from the pagan belief concerning the statues of Jupiter
and Mercury. Leontius, Bishop of Neapolis, near the end of the sixth
century, said: "The images are not our gods; but they are the
representations of Christ and his saints, which exist and are venerated
in remembrance and in honour of these, and not as ornaments of the
church."[273:3] To a hermit who asked for some pious symbols, Pope
Gregory the Great sent a picture of Jesus and images of the Virgin Mary,
St. Peter, and St. Paul, with this admonition:
I am well aware that thou desirest not the image of our
Saviour that thou mayest worship it as God, but to enkindle in
thee the love of Him whose image thou wouldst see. Neither do
we prostrate ourselves before an image as before a deity, but
we adore Him whom the image represents to our memory as born
or seated on the throne; and according to the representation,
the correspondent feelings of joyful elevation, or of painful
sympathy, are excited in our breasts.[274:1]
Images were put into churches "only to instruct the minds of the
ignorant." Again, he explained the use of images thus: "It is one thing
to worship a picture and another to learn from the language of a picture
what that is which ought to be worshipped. What those who read learn by
means of writing, that do the uneducated learn by looking at a
picture."[274:2]
The most eloquent of all the apologists of images, John of Damascus,
gave this explanation:
I am too poor to buy books and I have no leisure for reading.
I enter the church choked with the cares of the world. The
glowing colours attract my attention and delight my eyes like
a flowering meadow; and the glory of God steals imperceptibly
into my soul. I gaze on the fortitude of the martyr and the
crown with which he is rewarded, and the holy fire of
emulation kindles within me and I receive salvation.[274:3]
It must be remembered that, however clearly the teachers of the Church
might see the difference between the right use of images to instruct the
unlettered and to excite a spiritual feeling, on the one hand, and a
superstitious worship of images, on the other, the ignorant masses did
not make the distinction in either thought or practice, and therein lay
the great abuse.
From the death of Gregory the Great in 604 until the outbreak of the
Iconoclastic Controversy in 716, twenty-five Popes ruled in Rome. With
several exceptions they were ecclesiastics of no historical importance.
To say that they lost nothing of the ground gained by Gregory the Great
is to say much for them. But in addition they made some progress in the
evolution of the mediæval Church. On this question of the use of images
in worship they uniformly continued the policy of Gregory the Great.
Opposition began as early as the use of images. Irenæus in the second
century (167) denounced the practice.[275:1] Tertullian (192), quoting
the second of the Ten Commandments, severely denounced all use of images
as sinful.[275:2] Clement of Alexandria (192) took the same view.[275:3]
Origen also based his opposition to the practice upon the Jewish
interpretation.[275:4] Minucius Felix (220) argued that man was the
image of God, hence there was no need of any artificial
representations.[275:5] Lactantius (303) held that since the spirit of
God could be seen everywhere, His image "must always be
superfluous."[275:6] Arnobius (303) took the same view.[275:7]
Christians were told to carry God and His Son in their hearts and not
to attempt to procure their images. The Spanish Synod of Elvira (306)
excluded images from the churches.[276:1] The early Fathers, taken
altogether, looked with but little favour upon the misuse of images in
worship. Eusebius, in replying to the request from Constantia for an
image of Christ, wrote a famous letter in opposition to the practice
which virtually became the platform of the Iconoclastic party.[276:2]
St. Augustine (393) declared that "It is unlawful to set up such an
image to God in a Christian temple."[276:3] Epiphanius (d. 402) with his
own hands tore down a curtain which had an image on it in a little
village church in Palestine. This seems to be the first act of
Iconoclasm.[276:4] Asterius (d. 410), Bishop in Pontus, opposed wearing
Bible pictures on clothing and told his people to wear the image of
Christ in their hearts.[276:5] Xenius (end of sixth century), the
Monophistic Bishop of Hierapolis, destroyed the images of the angels in
his church and hid those of Jesus.[276:6] In 518, the clergy of Antioch
complained to the Patriarch of Constantinople that their Patriarch had
melted down the images of gold and silver hung over the font and the
altar.[276:7] Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, early in the seventh
century, threw the images out of his churches. Pope Gregory the Great
praised him for his zeal, but still justified the use of images.[276:8]
The Jews and the Mohammedans in the seventh century fiercely assailed
the Christian veneration of images as idolatry. This crystallised the
Iconoclastic elements of opposition into a party. Finally, in the eighth
century, the secular head, Leo III., the Isaurian (716-741), championed
the Iconoclastic cause. His son, Constantine V. (741-775), carried it
forward. The Synod of Constantinople in 754 officially condemned the use
of images,[277:1] and this marks the climax of the movement.
It was not long now before there appeared in Christendom two distinct
parties: (1) The Iconolatræ, or image worshippers, who were composed of
the leading churchmen like Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and
John of Damascus in the East; the monks, the common clergy, and the
masses of the common people in the East, and Pope Gregory II. and the
powerful Church of the West. (2) The Iconoclasti, or image breakers, who
included the Emperor and his civil officers; his army, made up mostly of
barbarians and Asiatic heretics[277:2]; a few churchmen like Anastasius,
who succeeded the deposed Germanus, actuated by political motives; and
the Carolingian rulers in the West.
The conflict was begun by Leo III., the Isaurian, a soldier of fortune,
who through ability as a warrior had won the imperial crown,--a powerful
ruler in falling Greece,--active, sincere, illiterate, honest, despotic,
and unwise. Ambition to convert the Jews, Mohammedans, and Montanists
made him feel keenly the sting of their sarcastic attacks on
images.[277:3] One of his advisers, Beser, was a converted Mohammedan,
who had held numerous interviews with Islam leaders. As a zealous
supporter of the Catholic Church, Leo no doubt sincerely desired to
restore the primitive simplicity of Christian worship. As monarch and
priest, he believed himself called upon by God to root out idolatry. He
was undoubtedly a noble puritan in his purposes and motives and called
himself a second Josiah.
In 726, he issued the first edict against images, authorising their
destruction[278:1] and the next year the exarch promulgated it in
Ravenna and the West. This was opposed by the patriarch, Germanus, and
most of the clergy; hence, it was enforced only in a few places where
the bishops supported the Emperor. The following incident will
illustrate the popular indignation. Imperial officers were sent to
destroy a fine image of Jesus above the bronze gate of Constantinople,
which the people regarded with unusual reverence. A ladder was put up
and a soldier mounted it to take the figure down. A crowd of women
watching the act begged that the image might be given to them. Instead,
the soldier struck the figure in the face with a hatchet. The women were
enraged, pulled down the ladder, and killed the soldier. The Emperor
sent troops to quell the tumult and to carry off the image, and in its
place he had a cross set up with these words on it: "The Emperor could
not suffer a dumb and lifeless figure of earthly materials, smeared over
with paint, to stand as a representative of Christ. He has, therefore,
erected here the sign of the cross."[278:2]
Pope Gregory II., upon receipt of the edict, called a synod at Rome to
consider it (726). The synod condemned the Iconoclastic heresy and
confirmed the use of images.[279:1] In 727, the Pope wrote his first
letter to the Emperor.[279:2] It was arrogant and dogmatic, without tact
or persuasiveness. It was full of the most ludicrous historical
blunders, and gave some fantastic interpretations of the Bible. In it,
the Pope justified the use of images, threatened the Emperor with the
power of the West, and told him that his portrait, once honoured
throughout Italy, had been destroyed everywhere. In the second letter,
the Pope plainly told the Emperor: "Doctrines are not the business of
the Emperor, but of the bishops." He declared furthermore that the whole
world was cursing the Emperor. "The very children mock thee! Go into a
school and say 'I am an enemy of images'; the scholars will hurl their
tablets at your head."[279:3] John of Damascus aimed two brilliant and
powerful orations at the Emperor in which is found perhaps the best
defence of image worship. He declared that the pictures were the "books
of the unlearned."[279:4] The professors of the University at
Constantinople declared their opposition to the edict.[279:5] The
inhabitants of Greece used the edict as an occasion for rebellion to
secure fiscal and administrative reforms, and even went so far as to
proclaim a rival Emperor.
Leo met all this opposition firmly. The Patriarch Germanus was deposed
(730) while Anastasius was put in his place, and the various outbreaks
were at once subdued with a strong hand. An effort was made to either
capture or kill the Pope. The University of Constantinople was closed
and the professors arrested; the Greek rebels were defeated and their
leaders beheaded; and an effort was made to stop the popular John of
Damascus. Leo then promulgated his second edict in 730 for the complete
abolition of image worship. Anastasius, the puppet patriarch, at once
countersigned the edict, and thus gave it ecclesiastical sanction. In
the East it was generally enforced. All images were removed from the
churches and burned; the painted walls were whitewashed over; only the
cross and the crucifix were left; but still the Iconolatræ were far from
being subdued. Meanwhile opposition in the West grew stronger. Gregory
III., the last Pontiff to be confirmed in his election by the Eastern
Emperor, called a council and excommunicated all Iconoclasts.[280:1] In
revenge, Leo sent a fleet against the Pope, which was wrecked, and also
extended the rule of the Patriarch of Constantinople over papal
territory in Greece and southern Italy. This action led the Pope to
begin negotiations with Charles Martel,[280:2] and that opened a new
chapter in the rise of the mediæval Church and in the world's history.
In 741, Leo was succeeded by his son, Constantine V., only twenty-two
years of age, a ruler and general of ability, but of low tastes and vile
habits. He became a zealous persecutor of image worship, an idol of the
Iconoclasts, and won the victory for their party. His policy was to
continue his father's work. Consequently in 754, he called a universal
council in Constantinople. Although it was the largest assembly ever
held up to that time, 338 bishops being present, yet neither the Pope,
nor the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem sent
representatives. Hence, it was not recognised as œcumenical. The use
of images and pictures was condemned as idolatry, and even the crucifix
was put under the ban. "The godless art of painting" was proscribed, and
the leaders of the image worshippers, Germanus, John of Damascus, and
George of Cyprus, were anathematised.[281:1] Backed up by these
measures, the Emperor resolved to root out the evil for ever. All images
were ordered destroyed; all pictures were taken out of the Church books;
all paintings on the church walls were removed; churches were decorated
with trees, fruits, and the chase; transgressors were cruelly punished;
and the citizens of Constantinople had to take an oath never again to
worship an image.[281:2]
The contest was renewed under Empress Irene (780-802), a young,
beautiful, ambitious, wicked Grecian, who favoured image worship. First,
she proclaimed toleration to both parties; then denied it to the
Iconoclasts. The highest civil dignities were given to the clergy and
monks; and the Patriarch of Constantinople became her prime minister. At
their suggestion, no doubt, she called the Council of Nicæa in 787 to
undo the work of the Council of Constantinople (754). There were present
375 bishops, and Pope Hadrian sent two representatives, but the three
eastern patriarchs were unable to send proxies, so two eastern monks
were appointed to sit and vote for all the patriarchs.[282:1] The
decrees of the Council of Constantinople were nullified because
heretical, and the Iconoclasts anathematised. Then image worship was
defined and authorised.[282:2] Many Iconoclastic bishops were induced to
renounce their heresy, and were freed from the ban. Finally, an image
was brought into the council and fervently and reverently kissed by all
present, after which the council adjourned.
Leo the Armenian, who seized the throne in 813, was unfriendly to
images. He called a synod of Constantinople in 815 in which the acts of
the second Council of Nicæa (787) were nullified. He forbade the
lighting of lamps and burning of incense before the images and had them
elevated in the churches out of the reach of the people in order to
prevent their worship. But Leo's widow, Theodora, restored the usages.
Thus, after a long, bitter struggle, images were finally restored in the
churches with great pomp and ceremony in 842. The "Festival of
Orthodoxy" is still celebrated on February 19th in the Greek Church.
After the great victory had been won for images, both the Latin and the
Greek Churches continued their use. The puritanical Iconoclastic
Controversy was in a certain sense the forerunner of the ruthless
destruction of paintings and statues in England, Holland, and Germany
during the Reformation. The Council of Trent passed finally on the
doctrine and use of images in the Catholic Church.[282:3]
As a result of this controversy, the Eastern Church was greatly weakened
through dissensions, checked in the growth of its organisation, robbed
of its independence, made a mere tool of the state, reformed and
purified even though image worship finally prevailed because it was
better understood, and compelled to recognise the power of the Pope.
The Western Church, on the other hand, was forced to define the right
and wrong use of images and was weakened somewhat by a schism like that
in the Eastern Church, because the Frankish Church opposed the worship
of images East and West. Pepin had the subject discussed in a synod near
Paris (767), in which sat legates from Rome and Constantinople. It was
decided that "images of saints made up or painted for the ornament and
beauty of churches might be endured, so long as they were not worshipped
in an idolatrous manner." Charles the Great, aided by Alcuin, published
the Caroline books denouncing all abuses in the worship of images,
though tolerating them for ornamentation and devotion.[283:1] The cross
and relics, however, were commended (790).[283:2] The synod of
Frankfort, held in 794, rejected the recommendations of the seventh
œcumenical Council of Nicæa and condemned image worship.[283:3] A
synod of Paris in 827 renewed the action of 794.[283:4] These doctrines
were continued by Agobard of Lyons, Claudius, Bishop of Turin, the
Waldenses in Piedmont, and the Lollards in England.[283:5]
Furthermore, the controversy enabled the Pope of Rome to declare his
universal supremacy in more sweeping terms than ever and to make it
good in the West. The rise of the Papacy, as the dominating force in the
Church of the West, made the rupture inevitable and permanent. The
series of protests in the East against the assumptions of the See of
Rome prevented any complete and absolute recognition of the supremacy of
the chair of St. Peter. As the years passed, the Eastern Church saw that
independence could be secured against the sweeping imperial claims of
Rome only by a declaration of total separation. The relations between
the East and West were likewise affected in another sense, because they
were separated politically when Charles the Great became Emperor of the
West (800), and were separated religiously when the allegiance of the
Pope was transferred from the eastern authority to the newly created
western Emperor.
The growing estrangement between the Greek and Roman Churches, which had
its origin in a fundamental difference in character, temperament, and
ideas, became conspicuous in the fourth century, reached an incurable
stage in the ninth century, and culminated in the eleventh century. Pope
Nicholas I. in 863 deposed Photius from the office of Patriarch of
Constantinople. Photius, in the counter synod held in 867, returned the
compliment by deposing the Pope for heresy and schism.[284:1]
The gulf between the East and West became practically irreparable when
Nicholas I., standing firmly on the Petrine theory and backed up by the
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, wrote to Emperor Michael:
You affirm that you and your predecessors have been accustomed
to command us and ours; we utterly deny it. . . . The Roman
Church encompasses and comprehends within herself, she being
in herself the universal church, the mirror and model of that
which she embraces within her bosom. Moreover, this vessel was
shown to Peter alone, and he alone was commanded to kill and
eat; as in like manner, after the resurrection, he alone of
all the apostles received the divine command to draw to the
shore the net full of fishes. And if unto us he committed that
identical commission--which is verily and indeed so
committed--to embrace in our paternal arms the whole flock of
Christ, is it to be believed that we surrender to you any one
of those sheep whom he hath given into our keeping?[285:1]
In 1054, the Pope excommunicated the patriarch and his whole Church for
censuring the faith of Rome. The courtesy was solemnly returned by
Constantinople against the Roman Church. Other eastern patriarchs
adhered to the See of Constantinople and the rupture was complete. The
sack of Constantinople by Latin Christians in the fourth crusade
(thirteenth century) widened the breach. At the Council of Lyons, 1274,
delegates of the Eastern Empire abjured the schism, by receiving the
Nicene Creed with "filioque" in it and by swearing to conform to the
Roman faith and to accept the supremacy of the Pope, but the eastern
patriarchs refused to do so. When, in 1439 at the Council of Florence,
the Eastern Emperor and churchmen signed a compact of reunion, they were
induced to acknowledge the Pope as the "successor of Peter the chief of
the apostles, and the vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, and
father and teacher of all Christians, to whom plenary power was given
by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, rule, and govern the universal
Church." Other differences were patched up. The Pope, for his part,
agreed to induce the rulers of the West to go to the defence of the East
against the Turks, but failed to make his promise good. The people of
the East were sorely disappointed and forced the repudiation of the
agreement. In 1453, however, Constantinople fell a prey to the
Mohammedan Turks, and the strength of the Eastern Church was broken. In
modern times, papal absolutism and eastern stagnation have prevented the
reunion.[286:1]
In conclusion, the differences and resemblances between the Greek and
Roman Churches to-day might be stated. The Greek Church rejects the
filioque in the Latin creed; repudiates the immaculate conception of the
Virgin Mary (1854), and denies the infallibility of the Roman Pope
(1870). All the clergy are "popes" in the Greek Church and the lower
clergy are permitted to marry. The Greek Church gives and the Roman
Church withholds the communion wine from the laity. The Greek Church
uses leavened, and the Roman Church unleavened bread in the Eucharist.
The Greek Church holds to the trine immersion in baptism, repetition of
Holy Unction in illness, and infant communion. There is a difference in
rites of worship, in language, in art, in architecture, and in the
vestments employed. But both hold the fundamentals in the Nicene Creed;
both accept all the doctrinal decrees of the seven œcumenical
councils from 325 to 787; both practise image worship[286:2]; both
accept the mediæval doctrine against which the Reformation protested;
both believe in tradition and the Bible; both believe in the seven
sacraments; both teach transubstantiation; both offer masses for the
dead and the living; both sanction priestly absolution; both have three
orders of ministry; both are episcopally organised on a hierarchical
basis; both have rites and ceremonies that are identical, or at least
similar. All things considered, therefore, it seems that the
resemblances are far more striking than the differences.
From now on, interest in Church history centres in the Roman Church of
western Europe. The undignified quarrel over images gave the Pope an
occasion to declare his absolute independence of eastern imperial rule.
That fact gave a new bent to the Roman Church, forced upon it a more
genuine unity, compelled it to devote all its energies to the great
problems in the West, and enabled it to attain its acme under Innocent
III. in the thirteenth century. Had the unsatisfactory relationship with
the Eastern Church not been severed the history of the mediæval Church
in western Europe would have been very different. The separation must be
regarded, therefore, as a factor of no small moment in that process.
While the effective missionary efforts, having their source and purpose
in Rome, were winning all western Europe to a recognition of the Pope's
sovereignty, it was very essential that he should completely accomplish
his independence of Constantinople so that he would have a free hand to
work out the problems of the Western Church.
SOURCES
A.--PRIMARY:
1.--See Chapter IX.
2.--John of Damascus, _On Holy Images_, Transl. by M. H. Allies.
Lond., 1898. See _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, ix., ch.
11-16.
3.--Thatcher and McNeal, _A Source Book for Mediæval History_. N.
Y., 1905.
B.--SECONDARY:
I.--SPECIAL:
1.--Bury, I. B., _A History of the Later Rom. Emp._ Lond.,
1889. 2 vols.
2.--Finlay, G., _History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires
from 716 to 1453_. Lond., 1854.
3.--Hefele, C. J., _History of the Councils_, v., 260. Edinb.,
1871-96.
4.--Howard, G. B., _The Schism between the Oriental and
Western Churches_. Lond., 1892.
5.--Neal, J. M., _History of the Holy Eastern Church_. Lond.,
1850-73.
6.--Oman, C. W. C., _Story of the Byzantine Empire_. N. Y.,
1892.
7.--Stanley, A. P., _Lectures on the History of the Eastern
Church_. Lond., 1883.
8.--Tozer, H. F., _The Church and the Eastern Empire_. N. Y.,
1888.
9.--Wells, C. L., _The Age of Charlemagne_. N. Y., 1898.
II.--GENERAL:
Adeney, ch. 9. Alzog, ii., ch. 5, p. 138 _f._, 322 _f._ Blunt,
i., ch. 9. Bouzique, i., ch. 2. Brock, ch. 12-23. Butler, ch.
36, 51, 52, 53. Coxe, Lect. 4, sec. 5. Darras, ii., 310, 324,
464. Döllinger, iii., ch. 2, sec. 2, 3, 8, 9. Fisher, 63, 117,
158. Foulkes, 264 _f._ Gibbon, ch. 49, 60. Gieseler, ii., 172,
199-208. Gilmartin, i., ch. 33. Guericke § 37, 73. Hardwick,
ch. 7. Hase, sec. 140. Hore, ch. 7, 10, 11. Hurst, i.,
510-525. Jennings, i., ch. 8. Kurtz, i., 403-412. Milman, ii.,
ch. 7-9. Milner, i., 445-446. Moeller, ii., 13-17, 127, 222.
Mosheim, bk. 3, cent. 8, pt. 2, ch. 3. Neander, ii., 283-296;
iii., 198. Newman, i., 386, 423. Robertson, bk. 3, ch. 4, 7.
Schaff, sec. 100-106.
FOOTNOTES:
[265:1] Tozer, _The Ch. and the East. Emp._, 172.
[267:1] Herodotus, bk. 1, 132; Strabo, 732.
[267:2] Schoemann, _Griech. Alterthümer_, ii., 197; see Alex., _Strom._,
i., ch. 5, § 28; ch. ii., § 77.
[267:3] Preller, _Roman Mythology_, i.; Plutarch, _Numa_, c. 8; Aug.,
_City of God_, iv., ch. 31.
[267:4] Grimm, _Teutonic Myth._, i., 104.
[267:5] Ex. 20:4, 5; 25:18-20; 26:1; 32:4; 36:35; Deut. 4:15-18; 5:8, 9;
32:17; Gen. 31:19; Judg., 17:5; 18:30; Hos. 3:4; Zach. 10:2; 2 Kings
13:24; 1 Sam. 19:13, 16; Lev. 17:7; Ps. 106:37; 1 Kings 6:23, 32, 35;
Isa. 40:44; 30:22; Joseph., _Antiq._ xv., 8, 12; xviii., 3, 1.
[267:6] Joseph., _Antiq._, xv., ch. 8, § 1-2; _Jewish Wars_, i., ch. 33,
§ 2-3.
[267:7] _Against Celsus_, iv., 31.
[268:1] Rev. 15:2.
[268:2] _Her._ i., ch. 25, 6; Aug., _Her._ ch. 7.
[268:3] Northcote and Brownlow, _Roma Sotteranæ_; Northcote, _Epitaphs
of the Catacombs_.
[268:4] Hefele, i., 151.
[269:1] _De Pud._, 7, 10.
[269:2] _De Cor. Mil._, c. iii.; _Ad. Uxor._, ii., 5.
[269:3] _Paed._, iii., 11, § 59.
[269:4] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, ix., 9.
[269:5] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., 49.
[269:6] Sozomen, _Eccl. Hist._, i., 8.
[271:1] See Book iv., Letter 30.
[271:2] _Comm. on Ezek._, ix., 4.
[272:1] _Contra Judae. et Gentil._, § 9; see Neander, ii., 286.
[272:2] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., 49.
[272:3] Kugler, _Handbook of Painting_.
[272:4] Smith and Cheetham, art. on "Images," p. 816 _ff._
[273:1] _Imper. Decr. de Cultu Imag._, 618, ed., Goldast, Frankf., 1608.
[273:2] Greg. of Tours, _Mirac._, i., 22, 23; _Apol._ in Act 4, _Conc.
Nic._, ii.; Labb. vii., 240.
[273:3] _Apol._ in _Act 4_, _Conc. Nic._, ii.; Labb., vii., 237.
[274:1] Book ix., Letter 52.
[274:2] _Epist. ad eund._, ix., 9. See _Ep._, vii., 111.
[274:3] _On Holy Images_, ii., 747.
[275:1] _Adv. Her._, i., c. 25, § 6.
[275:2] _De Spect._, c. 23; _Adv. Herm._, c. 1; _De Idolatr._, c. 4.
[275:3] _Pratrept._, c. 4, § 62; _Strom._, vii., c. 5, § 28.
[275:4] _Adv. Celsus_, iv., § 31; viii., § 17.
[275:5] _Octav._, c. 9.
[275:6] _Instit._, ii., c. 2; _Epit._, c. 25.
[275:7] _Adv. Gent._, iii.
[276:1] Can. 36; Mansi, ii., 264. See Hefele, i., 151.
[276:2] _Dict. of Christian Biog._, 198; Mansi, xiii., 313.
[276:3] _De Fide et Symbolo_, c. 7.
[276:4] Migne, ii., 517-527.
[276:5] Kurtz, i., 364.
[276:6] Fleury, l., xxx., 18.
[276:7] _Ib._, l., xxx., 39. See Smith and Cheetham, art "Images."
[276:8] Bk. xi., Ep. 13. Read Neander, iii., 199 ff.
[277:1] These images were mosaics, frescoes, and movable flat icons like
those found in the East to-day. It is very unlikely that statues were
used in this early period.
[277:2] Finlay, i., 387; ii., 27-29.
[277:3] In 722 he ordered the Jews and Montanists to be baptised by
force.
[278:1] Hefele, iii., 376.
[278:2] Neander, iii., 213.
[279:1] Mansi, xii., 267.
[279:2] Thatcher and McNeal, _A Source Book for Mediæval History_, No.
41; _Dict. of Christ. Biog._, art. on Leo III.; Mansi, xii., 960.
[279:3] Mansi, xii., 959; Hefele, iii., 389-404. Milman quotes this
letter as the first, ii., bk. 4, ch. 7.
[279:4] _Orat._, ii., § 10.
[279:5] Finlay, ii., 36.
[280:1] Thatcher and McNeal, No. 42.
[280:2] _Ibid._, No. 43.
[281:1] The Greek Church regards this as the seventh œcumenical
council. Finlay, ii., 57.
[281:2] Hefele, iii., 421.
[282:1] Neander, iii., 228; Hefele, iii., 460, 549; Schlosser, 279.
[282:2] Mansi, xiii., 378; Hefele, iii., 486.
[282:3] Session xxv., Dec., 1563; Schaff, _Creeds_, ii. See _Cath.
Encyc._
[283:1] See Smith and Cheetham, art. on "Images," for brief extracts in
English; Mombert, ch. 12.
[283:2] Schaff, iv., § 104; Neander, iii., 233; Gieseler, ii., 66;
Hefele, iii., 694.
[283:3] Gieseler, ii., 67; Hardwick, 78.
[283:4] Mansi, xiv., 415; Hefele, iv., 41.
[283:5] Schaff, iv., § 105.
[284:1] See Greenwood, _Cathedra Petri_, iii., 348-423; Milman, bk. v.,
ch. 4; Neander, iii., 553-586; Gieseler, ii., 216. The Sources are given
in Mansi, xvi., and Hardouin, v.-vi.
[285:1] This remarkable letter is given in full in Baronius, ed. by
Pagi, ann. 867, note to § 4. Parts are translated in Greenwood,
_Cathedra Petri_, iii., 364-371.
[286:1] Howard, _Schism between the Orthodox and West. Churches_, Lond.,
1802.
[286:2] The Eastern Church uses only the "icon," a flat representation.