Asa H. Craig, (Asa Hollister), 1847-1934
The origin of this Church, where established, and its manner of worship, is not generally understood. Originally it was a part of the Catholic Church, and, in fact, the most earnest in the advancement of science and learning, and in the spread of Christianity, but in the early days of its existence it became estranged because of its inability to force a recognition of certain forms of faith which were opposed by the Church of Rome. Being at the time the most influential, and, in fact, the most powerful branch of Christianity, the Church dignitaries believed they had the right to dictate what should and what should not be the proper form of worship. These disputed forms of worship or veneration, related more particularly to the use of images, pictures and relics representing Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. This branch of the Catholic Church had conceived the idea that the use of these representatives of divine personality was of an idolatrous nature, a return to pagan principles, and must be suppressed. They had become imbued with the thought that images were Pagan idols; that. they represented Pagan idolatry, instead of a veneration for the author of Divine light and intelligence. They demanded of the Church of Rome the abolition of all their church emblems, of faith and of worship. They also demanded that Constantinople, now the head of the empire, should also be the head of the Church. The East had been the great source of light in the advancement of the cause of Christianity and by right of this God-given advantage it should also be the head of all religious inspiration.
To explain the condition of the empire, we must go back to the days of Constantine the Great, who, in the year 306, became the sole ruler of the Roman world. After Constantine became converted to Christianity, his most important act was to remove the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium, which, in later years, was called Constantinople, in honor of his name, Constantine. The objects of removal were twofold: Constantine was ungratefully received and treated by the people of Rome, because of his conversion to Christianity. They were loud in their disapproval of his abandonment of the worship of their old and established mythical deities. They declared his religion the outcome of heresy, a declaration of dishonor, and an impious desecration of their gods. So loud were their complaints that Constantine decided to move his throne to Byzantium, and thus punish the Romans for their intolerance. Another reason was one of general commercial interest. Through the Eastern conquests the most valuable portions of the Roman Empire lay more to the East than to the West. It became the center of population, wealth, brilliancy, and power. Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor had been the source of ancient civilization from which Rome was proud to trace her origin. West of Rome were the rude and barbarous provinces of Gaul, Britain, and Spain. It is, therefore, not strange that Constantine should seek to place the capital of his empire nearer the center of population, wealth, and culture.
And again, it is not strange that the Eastern emperors should seek to draw the center of Christianity towards themselves with the idea that, thus separated, a coldness would arise between the real Church and the ambition of the Eastern division. Having, in a measure, alienated themselves from Rome they, in after years, and centuries, became emboldened by the advancement of the philosophy of the reformers and demanded changes in their forms of worship.
The Greek emperors were proud and ambitious. They ignored the authority of the Pope, and to more firmly place their power upon the Church, they, would assemble bishops to decide doctrinal matters, and whoever should differ from them in opinion would be banished from the empire, accused of infidelity, held up in disgrace, and, if defiant in regard to sustaining the true faith, would be tortured, or put to death. The whole Eastern division of Christianity now became a source of persecution to the Roman Church.
About 730 there arose a new emperor — Leo, the Isaurian — who placed himself at the head of a new heresy of his own invention, and sought to force the Church, her bishops, and the Pope to recognize his new lines of worship. He accused the Church with unfaithfulness to God and to Christ. He denounced the bishops and Pope with the practice of idolatrous worship, because they honored the images of Christ and the Saints. Gregory III solemnly denied that the Church had ever practiced, or sanctioned idolatry, and explained that the reverence paid their images was not bestowed upon those inanimate forms, but to the Saintly Beings which they represented. Gregory also explained that all pictures, images, relics, and crosses were but symbols of veneration, and not of worship, and as the eyes of Catholics rested upon them, their thoughts and their souls went out to commune with Christ and his divine inspirations. Unlike the worship of the ignorant pagan these images of reverence only served to cause us to think, to speak and to worship the true and living God. As the picture, or emblem of Christ sought to impress the mind with holy wisdom, so, too, did the cross seek to lead the way to faith and immortality.
And yet this earnest protestation of Gregory only served to enrage the emperor Leo, and in revenge for his audacity in questioning his self-appointed power, he issued an edict declaring that all pictures of saints, images of Christ, statues and crucifixes should be tom from Churches and private houses and destroyed. In obedience to this command, this unholy order, churches were desecrated and all the emblems of faith were publicly burned. Even the valuable libraries of the Church were destroyed and the great crucifix erected to commemorate a brilliant victory, was hewn to pieces and cast into the fire. Walls that were decorated with the paintings of historic figures were ruthlessly demolished, and even the teachers of science were called upon to denounce this Christian worship, or become the victims of rage and persecution.
From 741 to 775 this reign of cruelty was increased a thousandfold. The new emperor, son of Leo, continued to persecute the faithful Christians who held to the veneration of these emblems of Christ and his worship. In their martyrdom they suffered the terrible pain of having their eyes put out, their faces disfigured, their bodies mutilated, and their flesh scourged with the most fiendish and atrocious cruelties. Thousands were cast into prison, where, in want and pitiful neglect, they died victims to the baseness of tyrannical power. But these persecutions did not appease bis wrath. With the full force of a most damnable vengeance, he smote the monks as being the boldest defenders of them all. No insult, no torture that could be invented was spared in this hellish work. In his mad rage he commanded that they be burned, as Nero burned the Christians at Rome. Their beards were filled with pitch and set om fire, their clothes were saturated with oil, their naked bodies were rolled in the glowing embers of a prepared fire, the flesh was seared with red-hot irons, and in wanton abandon, bent upon destruction, he burned convents, tore down churches, destroyed holy vessels, broke the wooden figures and crosses over the heads of his victims, and in the heat of his unanswerable butchery he dug up the bodies of the Saints and burned them with fire.
That this monstrous desecration of human rights, and the blasphemous insults to Christ and to the Church might have the seal of authority stamped upon it, he called a council, composed of three hundred and thirty-eight Eastern bishops, who, in their servile, fawning, cringing obedience, sanctioned his villainy, and in confirmation of the law against image veneration, declared: ‘‘That as God had formally sent His apostles to annihilate idolatry, He had now raised up the Greek emperors and filled them with His; wisdom, that by their means we might be instructed, and die devil’s invention (the honoring of images) rooted out.”
Reader, can you believe that such an awful, blasphemous, and unholy condition could have existed in the confines of Christendom? Does it seem possible that in the cruelty of ambition, or despotism, or under the cover of religious zeal, that such intoleration could have become the authorized law of an empire? And is it any wonder that, with this most inhuman persecution, there must come a time when true Christians would no longer stand the oppression, and in defense of their very existence, throw these murderers and defamers beyond the realm of the Roman Church? But with humble charity and forgiveness, let us try to remember that these monstrous emperors were not Christians, but heretics, sent by the devil to create dissensions, foment quarrels, and to divide the Kingdom of Christ. Let us try to believe that this coming disunion, instigated by the Church of the East, hastened its coming decay and its confiscation of territory by the onward march of the hordes of Mahometan followers; that it lost its wonderful wisdom, its wealth, its society, and its grandeur of power, by this infidelity to the cause of Christ, and its persecution of the Church of Rome.
If there was ever a judgment sent by God to avenge his people, this judgment was sent to strike the greatness of this Eastern empire. From these persecutions began the dry rot of dissolution. The Church of Rome sought to re-establish the past union, to hold out the olive-branch of peace and charity, and to check the downward tendency of a degenerate worship. But it was of no avail. The Greek emperors were proud, haughty, and fiercely opposed to the authority of the Pope of Rome.
After the death of Leo and his son, Leo IV, a better feeling prevailed, persecution having been abolished by the Empress Irene. In 787 Pope Adrian I called a council at Nicea, to determine the will of the Church in the honoring of images in the house of God. In this council three hundred and seventy-seven bishops were present, and after a due consideration of the teachings of Holy Scripture, those assembled fathers declared as follows:
“That, -besides representations of the Holy Cross, holy images are fitly to be placed in churches, on sacred vessels, on vestments, walls, and tablets, in houses and by the wayside — such images, to wit, as those of our Lord, of the Immaculate Mother of God. of the holy Angels, and of the saints. The more men contemplate such images, the more will they be put in mind of the originals, and stirred up to imitate their examples, and to offer them their salutations and homage, though not that worship, properly so called, which belongs to God alone. It is lawful that images as well as the Holy Cross, the book of the Gospels, and other holy things, should be honored with incense and lights, according to the ancient pious usage; for honor paid to an image passes on to its original, and whoso venerates the image venerates him whom it represents.”
The Catholics were overjoyed at this restoration of peace. Soon, however, they were filled with consternation at a new outbreak of persecution.
In 814 Leo, the Armenian, was loud in his denunciation, and heaped the most disgraceful indignities upon Catholic subjects that could be devised. Coming from the ranks of the soldier, this emperor was rough and almost uncivilized, despotic in the exercise of power and full of the feelings of authority and the enforcement of laws of fanatic inspiration.
Following this Armenian emperor, came Michael Palaeologus, and his son, Theophilus, who were both brutal and inhuman.
It was not until 842 that toleration was again declared, when the Empress Theodora was placed in control of the government. A synod was called in Constantinople in commemoration of the restoration of the images, a special feast was instituted, and great joy again prevailed; and yet, notwithstanding the persecution of one part of the empire by the other, there had been no general breach between the Eastern and Western Churches, but this almost unbearable condition could not exist much longer, as the Church of Rome had gone beyond the extreme limit of toleration. To break with the Eastern Church was a great cross, and the Pope hesitated long before executing the decree that would excommunicate this rich and powerful division of the Catholic Church. But still the storm of conflict rolled louder and louder, with no promises of a better and more perfect understanding.
In 857, Barolas, uncle of the emperor, and who wielded almost absolute power, caused to be banished from his see the aged and rightful patriarch of Constantinople, Ignatius, and in his place substituted the learned, but wicked Photius. This new authority commanded the bishops to conform to his decree, and those failing to comply were deposed, imprisoned, or exiled. Photius tried by every means possible to force Ignatius to abdicate. He was ill-treated, persecuted, and cast into
prison. When, however, the great Pope Nicholas I learned the true facts concerning his imprisonment, and the efforts made to have him deposed, he summoned, at Rome, in 864, a synod for the discussion of and action upon these conditions. This council deposed Photius and all the bishops he had consecrated. This usurper immediately threw off his garb of concealment, and in summoning the bishops of his own party, declared the Roman Church was advocating heresy, and in his inconsiderate rage proclaimed the Holy Father anathematized. Thus, matters went on until the year 869, when the Eighth (Ecumenical Council met at Constantinople and excommunicated Photius and re-established Ignatius.
A new feature of dissension soon originated over the province of Bulgaria and threatened a new conflict. Ignatius had declared the Bulgarian Church under his dominion, while the emperor of Constantinople demanded that he should resign his pretensions. Pope John VIII sought to induce Ignatius to resign his jurisdiction and prevent the coming conflict. Before any definite action had been taken Ignatius died, but in the meantime the hypocritical Photius had sought by all means possible to gain the favor of the court and the clergy. He obtained control of authority, called a new synod, and, by a misrepresentation, succeeded in instituting changes in the religion, and condemnation of the Eighth (Ecumenical Council. Pope John VIII, having ascertained these high-handed falsifications and condemnations, immediately excommunicated Photius, and all the legates were banished to a monastery.
No great dissensions hereafter occurred between the Apostolic See and the Greek Church until 1043, when the Greek Church, under the haughty and ignorant Michael Cerularius, reproached the Western division of the Church for the crime of using unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper. He also reproached the Latins for fasting on Saturdays, for the drinking of blood, and the eating of things strangled, and the omission of the Alleluia (Praise ye Jehovah) during the Lenten feast. Efforts were made to prevent an open rupture, but Cerularius positively refused to receive the legates sent by the Pope, and broke off all communication with them. He even forbade them to say Mass.
“On the l0th of July, 1054, the legates appeared at the Church of St. Sophia, at the beginning of divine service, and declared solemnly that all their endeavors to re-establish peace and union had been defeated by Cerularius. They then laid the bull of excommunication on the high altar and left the church, shaking, as they did so, the dust from off their feet, and exclaiming in the deepest grief, ‘God sees it; He will judge. Thus was the unhappy schism between the East and West accomplished.”
“In following the history of the schismatic Greek Church up to the present time, it must be admitted in its praise that the Mahometan powers have never succeeded in accomplishing its complete destruction. Numbers of its members have withstood the temptation of avoiding great hardships by embracing Islamism and have remained true to the Christian faith. But like a branch torn from its parent stem, it is void of life-giving sap, and incapable of bearing further fruit. In it we cannot see even a trace of that ardent zeal for the spread of God’s kingdom, of that ever-fresh faith and life of willing devotion, which in the Roman Catholic Church is ever giving proof of the abiding operation of the Holy Ghost. Where, in the Eastern Church, do we find those zealous missioners, those men mighty in word and deed, of whom so many have arisen in the West, such, for instance, as St. Bernard, St. Dominic, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius Loyola, and St. Francis Xavier? Where are her legions of martyrs? Where do we find in her a Thomas Aquinas, a Charles Barromeo, a Vincent de Paul? Theologians, sainted bishops, and heroes of charity such as these the schismatic Church has none to show. A cold, death-like stupor everywhere prevails in her. Since her divorce from Rome, the despotic will of the Byzantine emperors has paralyzed her energies, and from a free spouse of Christ, she has become the handmaiden, or rather the helpless
slave of the state. Her servitude beneath the Turkish rule is yet more degrading. The condition of the patriarchate of Constantinople has been rightly described as the lowest and most miserable to which an old and honored see could have fallen. And far from possessing within itself any renovating power, it has but extended its own corruption to the whole hierarchy. Simony and bribery prevail everywhere to a dreadful degree, both among the higher and lower clergy, together with all manner of practices for extorting gifts and imposts. The man who can pay most for the office is chosen by the Sultan to be patriarch, and arbitrarily deposed by him should another come forward with a higher offer. A patriarch, therefore, seldom dies in the enjoyment of his dignities. Having bought them with hard-won money, he proceeds to reimburse himself by the sale of bishoprics and archbishoprics, and the purchasers of these retaliate in their own extortions on the lower clergy and the people. The ignorance of the priests is in general such that the greater number cannot write, and some cannot even read, and with such marks the climax of degradation. The supreme decision in ecclesiastical questions very often emanates from the Turkish Government, as was expressly certified by the patriarch Anthimos to the Holy Father, Pius IX. In this question there arose a dispute regarding the admixture of water with the sacramental wine, and the matter was laid before the Turkish Reis-effendi, who pronounced that ‘wine was an unclean drink, and condemned by the Koran, and therefore pure water should be used.”
No better is the condition of the schismatic Greek Church of Russia. It had been founded before the schism of Cerularius, and was included in the separation from Rome by reason of its dependence on the patriarchate of Constantinople. A decree in the year 1551 shows into what a state of decay it had then fallen. A council was held at Moscow by Macarius, an excellent patriarch, for the re-establishment of Church discipline, which had fallen into lamentable confusion; and at this council it was unanimously decreed that “of all heresies condemned by the Church, none is so culpable as that of shaving the beard, so much so, that martyrdom itself would not be sufficient to cleanse from such a crime,” and that “whosoever shaves his beard from human respect is a transgressor of the law and an enemy of God, who created us after His image and likeness.”
Sufficient has been said to show the degeneracy of the Eastern Church since it broke its faith with Rome. On the one side we see the triumph of Christianity and the advancement of civilization in all its surroundings, while on the other side we see decay, a lost magnificence, a corrupt administration of church offices, and an intolerance borne of ignorance and superstition. From these evidences of poverty and prosperity, who can say that the great and powerful Greek Church of centuries ago, has not merited a just punishment in its overbearing persecutions of the Church of Rome? Some of us may not believe in the Divine punishment of rebellion, but if not, then we must admit that in the persecution of right, the reaction of wrong hurls itself against its own bosom, stifles the principle of justice, and in the overthrow of honesty it goes down in degradation and ruin.
It matters not whether we believe in a direct punishment by God, or whether, through the destiny of his law, these objects are attained. It becomes a fixed attribute of nature that he who sins must suffer the penalty of disobedience. God, in His infinite wisdom, made man to follow the pathway of truth, righteousness, and discipline. If from the proudness of spirit, he selects his own path, and denies the elements necessary for his own elevation, he brings upon himself his own punishment and his own defeat. As this is true of man, state, or nation, so is it true of the Church of Christ. Disobey the laws of God, and.it sinks into disunion, corruption, and ignorance, but to obey Divine authority is to follow the elements of love and of truth, to build upon the true foundation of happiness, and to seek the immortality of eternal life. There can be but one true path to the object sought. If we follow the will-o’-the– wisp of our imaginations we shall soon flounder in the mad chase of an unholy phantom.
So was it with the Eastern emperors of the Roman empire. They saw their strength in the success which attended their conflicts of conquest, in the expansion of wealth, in the brilliancy of society, and above all, in the wonderful advancement of Christianity. The Church of the East became proud, haughty, and arrogant. It sought to dictate, to demand, and to persecute. It established its own worship and its own principles of faith. Of its own volition, it severed its relations with the Church of Rome; and this disobedience, we see, marked the gradual downfall of the Eastern Church, and the cause of Christianity. And so it will remain until it is awakened from its sleep of ignorance and has purged itself of its vices and its follies; then will it again rise in the splendor of its past, spreading the luster of true repentance, true Christianity, and true immortality.
The Church of Russia dates from 992, when Prince Vladimir and his people accepted Christianity. In form it is largely Catholic. It retained many of the Catholic forms of worship, but rejected the Pope. Its government is by patriarchs, which are subdivided into divisions similar to the subdivisions of the Apostolic See of Rome. It has no exact form of worship, but differs according to the Liturgy where used. The first Article of Faith reads as follows:
Christianity is a Divine revelation communicated to mankind through Christ. Its saving truths are to be learned from the Bible and tradition, the former having been written, and the latter maintained uncorrupted through the influence of the Holy Spirit. The interpretation of the Bible belongs to the Church, which is taught by the Holy Spirit, but every believer may read the Scriptures.
The last Article reads:
The Church of Christ is the fellowship of all those who accept and profess all the Articles of Faith transmitted by the Apostles and approved by the General Synod. Without this visible Church there is no salvation. It is under the abiding influence of the Holy Ghost and therefore cannot err in matters of faith. Specially appointed persons are necessary in the service of the Church, and they form a threefold order, distinct jure divino from other Christians, of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The four Patriarchs of equal dignity, have the highest ranks among the Bishops, and the Bishops, united in a General Council, represent the Church and infallibly decide, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, all matters of faith and ecclesiastical life. All ministers of Christ must be called and appointed to their office and are consecrated by the Sacrament of Orders. Bishops must be unmarried, and priests and deacons must not contract a second marriage. To all priests in common belongs, besides the preaching of the Word, the administration of the six sacraments— Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Eucharist, Matrimony, Unction of the sick. The Bishops, alone, can issue the Sacrament of Orders.
Ecclesiastical ceremonies are part of the divine service; most of them have apostolic origin; and those connected with the sacrament must not be omitted by the priests under pain of mortal sin.