Victor R. Claveau, MJ
“If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If anyone walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ]. (The Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Philadelphians, III).
Orthodoxy normally signifies true and correct doctrine. But its historical usage in connection with the Greek dissidents goes back to the Council of Chalcedon when all the Christians, both Greek and Roman, who opposed the Monophysites and the Nestorians were described as Orthodox. Prior to the ninth century, when Photius became Patriarch of Constantinople, the primacy of the Pope or the universal jurisdiction or Rome was never recognized. The First Council of Constantinople in 381 was attended only by Eastern bishops, yet a demand was made that the bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome and before the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, which was also attended by Eastern bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous statement, “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo” (The then reigning pontiff), after it had heard the Pope’s decision. In the fifth century, Pope Damasus called the oriental bishops, not his brethren, but “his most faithful sons,” and Innocent warned them that all disputes even in the most distant parts of the Church and especially in matters of faith, must be referred to the Pope, Pope Gregory I, writing in the sixth century, remarked, “No one calls into question the fact that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See.” Despite the political rivalries between Constantinople and Rome, the continual interference of the civil authorities and many other forms of political chicanery that filled the whole atmosphere of the ninth and eleventh centuries, it was Photius’ and Cerularius’ repudiation of the Pope’s right to exercise jurisdiction over the universal Church, including the Patriarchate of Constantinople, that was ultimately responsible for the schism which has led to the sixteen presently extant autocephalous Orthodox Churches.
Generally speaking, the schismatic Greeks hold that the only infallible authority in the Church is that of a General or Ecumenical Council of all the bishops of the world. They hold that there were only seven of these Councils held in the ancient Church and that, since the division of East and West, the instrument of infallibility is non-existent. The deny the primacy of Peter, the primacy and infallibility of his successors, the Popes, and hence, the existence of any visible head or authoritative source of union or infallibility. They disagree with the Catholic Church on such important matters as the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son; the right of the Church to baptize by pouring water instead of by complete immersion, and to give Holy Communion under one species; the doctrine of Purgatory; the Particular Judgment; the Immaculate Conception; the words of Consecration at the Mass, and clerical celibacy.
Before relating the history of this great schism, it may be well to note briefly the chief causes and events which gradually sundered, and at last completely separated the Greek Church, and, with it the greater part of the Eastern nations, from the Western or Latin ‘Church, with which they had been in full communion for the first eight centuries.
(1.) A constant source of dissension between the East and the West was, besides the difference of rite, discipline, and language, the antagonism’ which existed between Rome and Constantinople, and the national aversion which the Greeks always entertained, toward the Latins. Proud of their pretended superiority in profane and religious sciences, the Greeks looked upon the Latins as barbarians, who, in their opinion, were incapable of understanding and arguing on the mysteries of religion. The Latins, in their turn, rightly regarded the restless and subtle Orientals as the authors of every heresy that threatened the doctrine and disturbed the peace of the Church. Out. of the fifty-eight bishops who held the see of Constantinople, from Metrophanes, A. D. 315, to Ignatius, no less than twenty-one were heretics, or suspected of heresy.
(2.) The iconoclastic controversy, and especially the establishment of the temporal power of the Popes, contributed much to irritate and increase the animosity of the Greeks toward the Romans, and towards the Holy See in particular.
(3.) The cause of the greatest offence to the Greeks and the Byzantine emperors. was the preference which the Romans had given to the alliance of the Franks, and the re-establishment of the Western Empire by the Popes.
(4.) But the real and immediate cause of the schism is to be traced to the ambition of the patriarchs of Constantinople. The splendor of the imperial capital led them to desire a style and title suitable, as they thought, to the dignity of the bishop of New Rome. They aspired to a power, as far as possible, equal to that of the Bishop of ancient Rome, from whose authority they strove to withdraw themselves.
(5.) The Second General Council of Constantinople, and the Fourth of Chalcedon, unfortunately seconded and supported the ambitious wishes of the Byzantine patriarchs by enacting canons which decreed that the bishops of Constantinople, which they called New Rome, should be second in rank, and enjoy equal privileges in ecclesiastical matters, with the bishops of ancient Rome. But these canons, containing the germ of schism, were promptly annulled by the Popes, who always opposed the ambitious pretensions of the prelates of Constantinople, and jealously guarded against encroachments which they saw were only the forerunners of greater and more fatal usurpations.
(6.) To these causes we must add the despotic interference of the Byzantine emperors in purely religious matters, and the state of servitude to which they had reduced the clergy, both by honors and riches, and by menaces and persecutions.
The prime author of the Greek schism was Photius, an intruder in the patriarchal See of Constantinople. On the death of the sainted Methodius, in 846, Ignatius, son of Emperor Michael I. (predecessor of Leo the Armenian), was elected patriarch of Constantinople. The then reigning emperor was Michael III., a licentious and intemperate prince, who spent his time in sumptuous feasts, degrading shows and mock exhibitions of the Christian worship. He was wholly under the influence of his uncle Bardas, brother of the Empress Theodora, a man of great ability, but depraved morals. On account of his scandalous conduct, and incestuous relations with his own daughter-in-law, Bardas was publicly denied Holy Communion by Ignatius. For this repulse, Bardas vowed vengeance, and formed the determination to ruin the patriarch in the eyes of the emperor. In order to secure the full exercise of authority, he persuaded the young emperor not only to remove his mother and his sisters from court, but to force them also to take the veil. Ignatius steadily resisted – the imperial commands to dedicate the unwilling votaries to a religious life. For this refusal, he was arraigned for high treason and imprisoned in a monastery on the island of Terebinthus; in his stead, the emperor, disregarding the canons of the Church, appointed the crafty Photius patriarch, A. D. 857.
Photius was of illustrious birth, possessed es accomplishments of mind and body, and was esteemed the most learned of his age’, but his unbounded ambition and hypocrisy tarnished the luster of these qualities. He was then only a layman; but he contrived in six successive days to pass through the inferior orders up to the patriarchate; he was ordained, and consecrated bishop by Gregory Asbestas, the deposed bishop of Syracuse, and the bitter opponent of Ignatius. The greater number of the bishops, either through fear or favor, basely consented to the change, whilst the people remained faithful to their legitimate patriarch.
To secure himself in the see which he had usurped, Photius resorted to fraud and violence. Every means was employed to force from Ignatius a resignation of his see. But as no power or persuasion could induce Ignatius.to resign his patriarchal dignity, he was declared to be deposed, and, after suffering much cruel treatment, banished to the island of Terebinthus. The bishops of his party likewise were deposed and exiled, and all who remained firm to Ignatius were subjected to cruel persecution. In the meantime, Photius sought by deception to obtain from Pope Nicholas I. an approval of his intrusion.’ He sent legates to Rome who were charged to inform the Pope that Ignatius had voluntarily renounced the episcopal dignity and retired toa monastery, and that Photius had been canonically elected and forced to accept the dignity. The emperor, too, sent his representative, with a letter requesting the Pope to restore discipline, and root out the heresy of Iconoclasm.
Pope Nicholas I., too clear-sighted to be imposed upon, indeed sent legates—the bishops Rodoald and Zachary—to Constantinople, with letters to the emperor and Photius, and with strict orders only to examine into the case of Ignatius, and then report thereon to the Holy See. The legates, however, proved unfaithful to their high trust. Influenced, partly by threats, partly by gifts, they favored the cause of the intruder. At a Synod of 318 bishops, meeting at Constantinople, in 861, at which, for appearance’s sake, they were permitted to preside, the legates confirmed the deposition of Ignatius, notwithstanding his appeal to the Pope, and decreed Photius to be the rightful patriarch.
The sentence of Ignatius’ deposition by the Synod of Constantinople had been communicated to the Pope, with letters from Photius and the emperor. But Nicholas was not to be deceived. Finding that his legates had violated his instructions, he disclaimed their acts wand declared them excommunicated. In the meantime, Abbot Theognostus, the messenger of Ignatius, arrived in Rome with a full account of all that had passed at Constantinople. Nicholas summoned a council, in which he solemnly annulled the deposal of Ignatius and the elevation of Photius, whom he condemned as a usurper. All the acts of Photius were declared null and void; persons ordained by him were suspended, and the ill-treated Ignatius was commanded to be restored to his see. These decrees the Pope communicated to the emperor and the Christian world.
Photius, now throwing off his mask, proceeded to a formal schism. In 867, he called a synod, at which he assumed to formally excommunicate the Pope. Twenty-one obsequious bishops signed the daring act. The wicked endeavors of the intruder were considerably aided by the controversy which. was then going on regarding the question of jurisdiction over Bulgaria. The Bulgarians had been converted by the Greeks; but their king Bogoris asked Pope Nicholas for Latin missionaries, and also, that his kingdom be united — with the Roman, instead of the Byzantine, patriarchate. Nicholas granted the request and published his celebrated “Responsa” for the instruction of the Bulgarian neophytes.
Confident of the sympathy of the Eastern prelates on the Bulgarian question, Photius took occasion of this fact to support him in his usurpation of the See of Constantinople. He published a circular to the patriarchs and bishops of the East, in which he openly accuses the See of Rome and the Latin Church of heresy, and of departing from ancient and canonical discipline. The chief accusations against the Latins were:
(1.) That they observed- Saturday as a fast;
(2.) That they shortened Lent by one week, and permitted the use of milk and cheese (Lacticinia) on fast-days;
(3.) That they enjoined celibacy and despised priests living in the married state;
(4) That they reserved the right of conferring the sacrament of confirmation to bishops; and
(5.) That they changed the Symbol of the creed by the addition of the Filioque, teaching the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well as from the Father. These were but pretexts for division, the real cause being the total denial of the Papal supremacy by the Greeks.
[1] Adapted from: Birkhæuser, J. A., Rev. History of the Church from the First Establishment to our Own Times,Thirteenth Edition, New York: Frederick Pustet & Co., 1988. Pp. 318-326.