character as early as the time of the first Christian emperors. By them
this prelate was constituted a sort of secretary of state for Christian
affairs, and was employed as a central authority for communicating with
the bishops in the provinces; so that after a while he acted as minister
of religion and public instruction. As the civil and military power of
the Western Empire declined, the extent of this authority increased; and
by the time when Italy was annexed to the Empire of the East, in the
reign of Justinian, the popes had become the political chiefs of Roman
society. Nominally, indeed, they were subject to the exarch of Ravenna,
as vicegerent of the Emperor at Constantinople, but in reality the
inhabitants of Western Europe were more disposed to look to the
spiritual potentate in the Imperial city as representing the traditions
of ancient Rome.
The political rivalry that was thus engendered was sharpened by the
traditional jealousy of Rome and Constantinople, which had existed ever
since the new capital had been erected on the shores of the Bosporus.
Then followed struggles for administrative superiority between the popes
and the exarchs, culminating in the shameful maltreatment and banishment
of Martin I by the emperor Constans--an event which the See of Rome
could never forget.
The attempt to enforce iconoclasm in Central Italy was influential in
causing the loss of that province to the Empire; and even after the
Byzantine rule had ceased there, the controversy about images tended to
keep alive the antagonism, because, although that question was once and
again settled in favor of the maintenance of images, yet many of the
emperors, in whose persons the power of the East was embodied, were
foremost in advocating their destruction. Indeed, from first to last,
owing to the close connection of church and state in the Byzantine
empire, the unpopularity of the latter in Western Europe was shared by
the former. To this must be added the contempt for one another's
character which had arisen among the adherents of the two churches, for
the Easterns had learned to regard the people of the West as ignorant
and barbarous, and were esteemed by them in turn as mendacious and
unmanly.
In ecclesiastical matters also the differences were of long standing.
These related to questions of jurisdiction between the two
patriarchates. Up to the eighth century, the patriarchate of the West
included a number of provinces on the eastern side of the
Adriatic--Illyricum, Dacia, Macedonia, and Greece. But Leo the Isaurian,
who probably foresaw that Italy would ere long cease to form part of his
dominions, and was unwilling that these important territories should own
spiritual allegiance to one who was not his subject, altered this
arrangement, and transferred the jurisdiction over them to the Patriarch
of Constantinople. Against this measure the bishops of Rome did not fail
to protest, and demands for their restoration were made up to the time
of the final schism. A further ecclesiastical question, which in part
depended on this, was that of the Church of the Bulgarians. The prince
Bogoris had swayed to and fro in his inclinations between the two
churches, and had ultimately given his allegiance to that of the East;
but the controversy did not end there. According to the ancient
territorial arrangement the Danubian provinces were made subject to the
archbishopric of Thessalonica, and that city was included within the
Western patriarchate; and on this ground Bulgaria was claimed by the
Roman see as falling within that area. The matter was several times
pressed on the attention of the Greek Church, especially on the occasion
of the council held at Constantinople in 879, but in vain. The Eastern
prelates replied evasively, saying that to determine the boundaries of
dioceses was a matter which belonged to the sovereign. The Emperor, for
his part, had good reason for not yielding, for by so doing he would not
only have admitted into a neighboring country an agency which would soon
have been employed for political purposes to his disadvantage, but would
have justified the assumption on which the demand rested, viz., that the
pope had a right to claim the provinces which his predecessors had lost.
Thus this point of difference also remained open, as a source of
irritation between the two churches.
But behind these questions another of far greater magnitude was coming
into view, that of the papal supremacy. From being in the first instance
the head of the Christian church in the old Imperial city, and afterward
Patriarch of the West, and _primus inter pares_ in relation to the other
spiritual heads of Christendom, the bishop of Rome had gradually
claimed, on the strength of his occupying the _cathedra Petri_, a
position which approximated more and more to that of supremacy over the
whole Church. This claim had never been admitted in the East, but the
appeals which were made from Constantinople to his judgment and
authority, both at the time of the iconoclastic controversy and
subsequently, lent some countenance to its validity.
But the great advance was made in the pontificate of Nicholas I
(858-867), who promulgated, or at least recognized, the _False
Decretals_. This famous compilation, which is now universally
acknowledged to be spurious, and can be shown to be the work of that
period, contains, among other documents, letters and decrees of the
early bishops of Rome, in which the organization and discipline of the
Church from the earliest time are set forth, and the whole system is
shown to have depended on the supremacy of the popes. The newly
discovered collection was recognized as genuine by Nicholas, and was
accepted by the Western Church. The effect of this was at once to
formulate all the claims which had before been vaguely asserted, and to
give them the authority of unbroken tradition. The result to Christendom
at large was in the highest degree momentous. It was impossible for
future popes to recede from them, and equally impossible for other
churches which valued their independence to acknowledge them. The last
attempt on the part of the Eastern Church to arrange a compromise in
this matter was made by the emperor Basil II, a potentate who both by
his conquests and the vigor of his administration might rightly claim to
negotiate with others on equal terms. By him it was proposed (A.D. 1024)
that the Eastern Church should recognize the honorary primacy of the
Western patriarch, and that he in turn should acknowledge the internal
independence of the Eastern Church. These terms were rejected, and from
that moment it was clear that the separation of the two branches of
Christendom was only a question of time.
Already in the papacy of Nicholas I a rupture had occurred in connection
with the dispute between the rival patriarchs of Constantinople,
Ignatius and Photius. The former of these prelates, who was son of the
emperor Michael I, and a man of high character and a devout opponent of
iconoclasm, was appointed, through the influence of Theodora, the
restorer of images, in the reign of her son, Michael the Drunkard. But
the uncle of the Emperor, the Caesar Bardas, who was a man of flagrantly
immoral life, had divorced his own wife, and was living publicly with
his son's widow. For this incestuous connection Ignatius repelled him
from the communion. Fired with indignation at this insult, the Caesar
determined to ruin both the Patriarch and his patroness, the
Empress-mother, and with this view persuaded the Emperor to free himself
from the trammels of his mother's influence by forcing her to take
monastic vows. To this step Ignatius would not consent, because it was
forbidden by the laws of the Church that any should enter on the
monastic life except of their own free will. In consequence of his
resistance a charge of treasonable correspondence was invented against
him, and when he refused to resign his office he was deposed (857).
Photius, who was chosen to succeed him, was the most learned man of his
age, and like his rival, unblemished in character and a supporter of
images, but boundless in ambition. He was a layman at the time of his
appointment, but in six days he passed through the inferior orders which
led up to the patriarchate. Still, the party that remained faithful to
Ignatius numbered many adherents, and therefore Photius thought it well
to enlist the support of the Bishop of Rome on his side. An embassy was
therefore sent to inform Pope Nicholas that the late Patriarch had
voluntarily retired, and that Photius had been lawfully chosen, and had
undertaken the office with great reluctance. In answer to this appeal
the Pope despatched two legates to Constantinople, and Ignatius was
summoned to appear before a council at which they were present. He was
condemned, but appealed to the Pope in person.
On the return of the legates to Rome it was discovered that they had
received bribes, and thereupon Nicholas, whose judgment, however
imperious, was ever on the side of the oppressed, called together a
synod of the Roman Church, and refused his consent to the deposition of
Ignatius. To this effect he wrote to the authorities of the Eastern
Church, calling upon them at the same time to concur in the decrees of
the apostolic see; but subsequently, having obtained full information as
to the harsh treatment to which the deposed Patriarch had been
subjected, he excommunicated Photius, and commanded the restoration of
Ignatius "by the power committed to him by Christ through St. Peter."
These denunciations produced no effect on the Emperor and the new
Patriarch, and a correspondence between Michael and Nicholas, couched in
violent language, continued at intervals for several years. At last, in
consequence of a renewed demand on the part of the Pope that Ignatius
and Photius should be sent to Rome for judgment, the latter prelate,
whose ability and eloquence had obtained great influence for him,
summoned a council at Constantinople in the year 867, to decree the
counter-excommunication of the Western Patriarch. Of the eight articles
which were drawn up on this occasion for the incrimination of the Church
of Rome, all but two relate to trivial matters, such as the observance
of Saturday as a fast, and the shaving of their beards by the clergy.
The two important ones deal with the doctrine of the Procession of the
Holy Spirit, and the enforced celibacy of the clergy.
The condemnation of the Western Church on these grounds was voted, and a
messenger was despatched to bear the defiance to Rome; but ere he
reached his destination he was recalled, in consequence of a revolution
in the palace at Constantinople. The author of this, Basil the
Macedonian, the founder of the most important dynasty that ever occupied
the throne of the Eastern Empire, had for some time been associated in
the government with the emperor Michael; but at length, being fearful
for his own safety, he resolved to put his colleague out of the way, and
assassinated him during one of his fits of drunkenness.
It is said that in consequence of this crime Photius refused to admit
him to the communion; anyhow, one of the first acts of Basil was to
depose Photius. A council, hostile to him, was now assembled, and was
attended by the legates of the new pope, Hadrian II (869). By this
Ignatius was restored to his former dignity, while Photius was degraded
and his ordinations were declared void. So violent was the animosity
displayed against him that he was dragged before the assembly by the
Emperor's guard, and his condemnation was written in the sacramental
wine. During the ten years which elapsed between his restoration and his
death Ignatius continued to enjoy his high position in peace, but for
Photius other vicissitudes were in store.
On the removal of his rival, so strangely did opinion sway to and fro at
this time in the empire, the current of feeling set strongly in favor of
the learned exile. He was recalled, and his reinstatement was ratified
by a council (879). But with the death of Basil the Macedonian (886), he
again fell from power, for the successor of that Emperor, Leo the
Philosopher, ignominiously removed him, in order to confer the dignity
on his brother Stephen. He passed the remainder of his life in honorable
retirement, and by his death the chief obstacle in the way of
reconcilement with the Roman Church was removed. It is consoling to
learn, when reading of the unhappy rivalry of the two men so superior to
the ordinary run of Byzantine prelates, that they never shared the
passions of their respective partisans, but retained a mutual regard for
one another.
We have now to consider the doctrinal questions which were in dispute
between the two churches. Far the most important of these was that
relating to the addition of the _Filioque_ clause to the Nicene Creed.
In the first draft of the Creed, as promulgated by the council of
Nicaea, the article relating to the Holy Spirit ran simply thus: "I
believe in the Holy Ghost." But in the Second General Council, that of
Constantinople, which condemned the heresy of Macedonius, it was thought
advisable to state more explicitly the doctrine of the Church on this
subject, and among other affirmations the clause was added, "who
proceedeth from the Father." Again, at the next general council, at
Ephesus, it was ordered that it should not be lawful to make any
addition to the Creed, as ratified by the Council of Constantinople. The
followers of the Western Church, however, generally taught that the
Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, while those of
the East preferred to use the expression, "the Spirit of Christ,
proceeding from the Father, and receiving of the Son," or, "proceeding
from the Father through the Son." It was in the churches of Spain and
France that the _Filioque_ clause was first introduced into the Creed
and thus recited in the services, but the addition was not at once
approved at Rome. Pope Leo III, early in the ninth century, not only
expressed his disapproval of this departure from the original form, but,
in order to show his sense of the importance of adhering to the
traditional practice, caused the Creed of Constantinople to be engraved
on silver plates, both in Greek and Latin, and thus to be publicly set
forth in the Church. The first pontiff who authorized the addition was
Nicholas I, and against this Photius protested, both during the lifetime
of that Pope and also in the time of John VIII, when it was condemned by
the council held at Constantinople in 879, which is called by the Greeks
the Eighth General Council. It is clear from what we have already seen
that Photius was prepared to seize on _any_ point of disagreement in
order to throw it in the teeth of his opponents, but in this matter the
Eastern Church had a real grievance to complain of. The Nicene Creed was
to them what it was not to the Western Church, their only creed, and the
authority of the councils, by which its form and wording were
determined, stood far higher in their estimation. To add to the one and
to disregard the other were, at least in their judgment, the violation
of a sacred compact.
The other question, which, if not actually one of doctrine, had come to
be regarded as such, was that of the _azyma_, that is, the use of
unfermented bread in the celebration of the eucharist. As far as one can
judge from the doubtful evidence on the subject, it seems probable that
ordinary, that is, leavened bread, was generally used in the church for
this purpose until the seventh or eighth century, when unleavened bread
began to be employed in the West, on the ground that it was used in the
original institution of the sacrament, which took place during the Feast
of the Passover. In the Eastern Church this change was never admitted.
It seems strange that so insignificant a matter of observance should
have been erected into a question of the first importance between the
two communions, but the reason of this is not far to seek. The fact is
that, whereas the weighty matters of dispute--the doctrine of the
Procession of the Holy Spirit, and the papal claims to supremacy--
required some knowledge and reflection in order rightly to understand
their bearings, the use of leavened or unleavened bread was a matter
within the range of all, and those who were on the lookout for a ground
of antagonism found it here ready to hand.
In the story of the conversion of the Russian Vladimir we are told that
the Greek missionary who expounded to him the religious views of the
Eastern Church, when combating the claims of the emissaries of the Roman
communion, remarked: "They celebrate the mass with unleavened bread;
therefore they have not the true religion." Still, even Photius, when
raking together the most minute points of difference between him and his
adversaries, did not introduce this one. It was reserved for a
hot-headed partisan at a later period to bring forward as a subject of
public discussion.
This was Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, with whose
name the Great Schism will forever be associated.
The circumstances which led up to that event are as follows: For a
century and a half from the death of Photius the controversy slumbered,
though no advance was made toward an understanding with respect to the
points at issue. In Italy, and even at Rome, churches and monasteries
were tolerated in which the Greek rite was maintained, and similar
freedom was allowed to the Latins resident in the Greek empire. But this
tacit compact was broken in 1053 by the patriarch Michael, who, in his
passionate antagonism to everything Western, gave orders that all the
churches in Constantinople in which worship was celebrated according to
the Roman rite should be closed. At the same time--aroused, perhaps, in
some measure by the progress of the Normans in conquering Apulia, which
tended to interfere with the jurisdiction still exercised by the Eastern
Church in that province--he joined with Leo, the archbishop of Achrida
and metropolitan of Bulgaria, in addressing a letter to the Bishop of
Trani in Southern Italy, containing a violent attack on the Latin
Church, in which the question of the azyma was put prominently forward.
Directions were further given for circulating this missive among the
Western clergy. It happened that at the time when the letter arrived at
Trani, Cardinal Humbert, a vigorous champion of ecclesiastical rights,
was residing in that city, and he translated it into Latin and
communicated it to Pope Leo IX. In answer, the Pope addressed a
remonstrance to the Patriarch, in which, without entering into the
specific charges that he had brought forward, he contrasted the security
of the Roman See in matters of doctrine, arising from the guidance which
was guaranteed to it through St. Peter, with the liability of the
Eastern Church to fall into error, and pointedly referred to the more
Christian spirit manifested by his own communion in tolerating those
from whose opinions they differed. Afterward, at the commencement of
1054, in compliance with a request from the emperor Constantine
Monomachus, who was anxious on political grounds to avoid a rupture, he
sent three legates to Constantinople to arrange the terms of an
agreement. These were Frederick of Lorraine, Chancellor of the Roman
Church; Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi, and Cardinal Humbert.
The legates were welcomed by the Emperor, but they unwisely adopted a
lofty tone toward the haughty Patriarch, who thenceforward avoided all
communication with them, declaring that on a matter which so seriously
affected the whole Eastern Church he could take no steps without
consulting the other patriarchs. Humbert now published an argumentative
reply to Michael's letter to the Pope, in the form of a dialogue between
two members of the Greek and Latin churches, in which the charges
brought against his own communion were discussed _seriatim_, and
especially those relating to fasting on Saturday and the use of
unleavened bread in the eucharist. A rejoinder to this appeared from the
pen of a monk of the monastery of Studium, Nicetas Pectoratus, in which
the enforced celibacy of the Western clergy, on which Photius had before
animadverted, was severely criticised. The Cardinal retorted in
intemperate language, and so entirely had the legates secured the
support of Constantine that Nicetas' work was committed to the flames,
and he was forced to recant what he had said against the Roman Church.
But the Patriarch was immovable, and for the moment he occupied a
stronger position than the Emperor, who desired to conciliate him. At
last the patience of the legates was exhausted, and on July 16, 1054,
they proceeded to the Church of St. Sophia, and deposited on the altar,
which was prepared for the celebration of the eucharist, a document
containing a fierce anathema, by which Michael Cerularius and his
adherents were condemned. After their departure they were for a moment
recalled, because the Patriarch expressed a desire to confer with them;
but this Constantine would not permit, fearing some act of violence on
the part of the people. They then finally left Constantinople, and from
that time to the present all communion has been broken off between the
two great branches of Christendom.
The breach thus made was greatly widened at the period of the crusades.
However serious may have been the alienation between the East and West
at the time of their separation, it is clear that the Greeks were not
regarded by the Latins as a mere heretical sect, for one of the primary
objects with which the First Crusade was undertaken was the deliverance
of the Eastern Empire from the attacks of the Mahometans. But the
familiarity which arose from the presence of the crusaders on Greek soil
ripened the seeds of mutual dislike and distrust. As long as
negotiations between the two parties took place at a distance, the
differences, however irreconcilable they might be in principle, did not
necessarily bring them into open antagonism, whereas their more intimate
acquaintance with one another produced personal and national ill-will.
The people of the West now appeared more than ever barbarous and
overbearing, and the Court of Constantinople more than ever senile and
designing. The crafty policy of Alexius Comnenus in transferring his
allies with all speed into Asia, and declining to take the lead in the
expedition, was almost justified by the necessity of delivering his
subjects from these unwelcome visitors and avoiding further
embarrassments. But the iniquitous Fourth Crusade (1204) produced an
ineradicable feeling of animosity in the minds of the Byzantine people.
The memory of the barbarities of that time, when many Greeks died as
martyrs at the stake for their religious convictions, survives at the
present day in various places bordering on the Aegean, in legends which
relate that they were formerly destroyed by the Pope of Rome.
Still, the anxiety of the Eastern emperors to maintain their position by
means of political support from Western Europe brought it to pass that
proposals for reunion were made on several occasions. The final attempt
at reconciliation was made when the Greek empire was reduced to the
direst straits, and its rulers were prepared to purchase the aid of
Western Europe against the Ottomans by almost any sacrifice.
Accordingly, application was made to Pope Eugenius IV, and by him the
representatives of the Eastern Church were invited to attend the council
which was summoned to meet at Ferrara in 1438. The Emperor, John
Palaeologus and the Greek patriarch Joseph proceeded thither.
The Emperor, however, on his return home, soon discovered that his
pilgrimage to the West had been lost labor. Pope Eugenius, indeed,
provided him with two galleys and a guard of three hundred men, equipped
at his own expense, but the hoped-for succors from Western Europe did
not arrive. His own subjects were completely alienated by the betrayal
of their cherished faith; the clergy who favored the union were regarded
as traitors. John Palaeologus himself did not survive to see the final
catastrophe; but Constantinople was captured by the Turks, and the
Empire of the East ceased to exist.
JOSEPH DEHARBE