|
|
|
THE GREAT SCHISM OF 1054
Last week’s
talk finished with a brief mention of the Ignatian – Photian and Papal
dispute in the second half of the Ninth Century. The dispute was over who
was the official Patriarch of Constantinople. Today we will look at the
Great Schism between the East and west, which this dispute played a major
factor because we see that the Pope at that time, Nicholas I, tried to
apply the papal claims for authority over all the Church and sanctioned
the use of the Filioque in Bulgaria. The Papal claims for authority and
the Filioque are the two main issues that brought about the Schism, but
there were other issues that contributed to the estrangement of East and
West. The Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic,
political, and geographic lines, but this was not something that happened
overnight. The official date of the Schism is 1054 but in reality it was
not an event that we can put a precise date on. The Great Schism came
about gradually and started well before the Eleventh Century and became
decisive in 1204 with the sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade.
After this we can say that the Christian East and Christian West were
truly divided into two, even though there were later attempts to reconcile
the two Churches at a Council held at Lyons in 1274 and again at the
council of Florence held in 1438-1439.
So what were
the factors that caused the final Schism of the Church?
The Papal claims reach back as far as the Second Ecumenical Council 381.
Up to that time the church recognized the unique positions of three
bishops, who were known as Patriarchs: the Bishop of Rome, the Bishop of
Alexandria, and the Bishop of Antioch. The third canon of this council
recognized the bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem also as Patriarchs,
and because Constantinople was the new capital of the empire, it gave it
equal ranking with Rome which until then had the primacy of honour. The
decision was reaffirmed at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451. The
Patriarch of Rome strongly disputed that point, arguing that the reason
for Rome’s Primacy had always been that it was the position of the
Successor of St. Peter, the first-ranking among the Apostles.
Another factor
was the political disunion of the Roman Empire. The last Emperor to rule
over a united Roman Empire was Theodosius the Great who died in 395. After
his death, his territory was divided into western and eastern halves, each
under its own Emperor. By the end of the 5th century, the Western Roman
Empire had been overrun by the Germanic tribes, while the Eastern Roman
Empire, that is the Byzantine Empire, continued to thrive.
Another factor
that caused the East and West to drift further apart was Language. The
dominant language of the West was Latin, whilst that of the East was
Greek. Soon after the fall of the Western Empire, the number of
individuals who spoke both Latin and Greek began to dwindle, and
communication between East and West grew much more difficult. With
linguistic unity gone, cultural unity began to crumble as well. As a
result each side developed different liturgical rites and had different
approaches to religious doctrines.
We saw when we
covered the first six Ecumenical Councils that the Pope did not accept the
canons of the Quinisect Council because it ruled against the Church of
Rome which practiced celibacy among the clergy and even if someone was
married, if he wished to enter holy orders then he had to promise that he
would not enter into intercourse with his wife after ordination. The
Quinisect Council disagreed with this practice and stated that marriage
ties should continue and remain solid and inseverable. Other canons also
were contrary to established practices in the West and the Roman See did
not wish to change on directives from the Quinisext Council.
Still other factors that contributed to the estrangement of East and West
were the disputes between the Western or Eastern Churches over who had the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Balkans, Southern Italy, and Sicily.
The Western
Church’s use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist was also seen by the
Eastern Church as an innovation and a breaking away from the Apostolic
traditions. The Church had always used leavened bread in the Eucharist and
it had nothing to do with whether or not Christ used leaven or unleavened
bread at the Mystical supper. The Jewish Passover is not in any sense a
feast or celebration, but rather a remembrance of that night the Lord
passed over and smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt. The
“Passover” meal was the lamb which had to be eaten on that night with
unleavened bread and bitter herbs. There was no time to wait for the dough
to rise, they had to eat it quickly and be dressed and ready to go.
Unleavened bread is referred to as the ‘bread of affliction’, recalling
the affliction they suffered in the land of the Egyptians and the haste in
which Israel fled Egypt.
Unleavened
bread is connected with mourning and fasting, something totally
inappropriate in connection with the Lord’s Day. The Eucharist is about
the Resurrection as much as the Crucifixion, which is why fasting is
forbidden on Sundays and liturgies are festive. Unleavened bread is a
fast. Leavened bread is a feast. The Church has always considered Sunday
to be a feast day, not a fast day. On this account the Church used
leavened bread in the Eucharist.
We saw last
week the Seventh Ecumenical Council which dealt with the Iconoclast
Controversy and which was rejected by Charlemagne and his court.
Charlemagne is also responsible for introducing the Filioque in the
Frankish kingdom and his first objection to the acts of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council was that it did not read the Creed with the Filioque
and also denounced the Greeks for not using it in the Creed. For many
years, there were bad feelings between the Franks and the Greeks and when
Charlemagne was crowned as Emperor of the Roman Empire in the West,
Constantinople justifiably refused to recognize Charlemagne’s crowning and
denounced it. His crowning as Emperor was seen by the East as an act of
treason by Pope Leo III. Who was Charlemagne? He was the king of the Franks
who had become the dominant group of the Germanic tribes that had overrun
the Roman Empire in the West from the 5th century. By the 8th Century the
Franks reached their peak of power under Charlemagne. When the Pope
crowned Charlemagne as emperor of the Roman Empire he completely ignored
that the Roman Empire already had a ruler in the city of New Rome
(Constantinople). Constantinople regarded Charlemagne as an intruder and
the Papal coronation as an act of schism within the Empire. The creation
of a Holy Roman Empire in the West, instead of drawing Europe closer
together, only served to alienate East and West more than before.
We can see
then that the problems between East and West began long before the Great
Schism of 1054. Of the many problems that existed many existed without
actually being reasons for a schism. The liturgical differences for
example were not doctrinal reasons, and existed side by side without them
interfering in the unity of the Church. The question of the Filioque on
the other hand was something else; it came into conflict with the Church’s
doctrine on the Holy Trinity. The Papal claims were also a serious matter
and no bishop in the East was going to accept being subordinate to a Pope
who put himself above all the others as some kind of Monarchy or World
Bishop. The Filioque therefore, and the Papal claims for universal
authority are considered as the two main reasons for causing the Great
Schism of 1054. Let take a look at these two factors which caused the
division of the Church into the Churches we now know as the Orthodox
Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
The “Filioque”
is an addition to the Nicene - Constantinopolitan Creed [Statement of
Faith] made by the Roman Catholic Church. In its original form, preserved
by the Orthodox Church, the Creed states: “And in the Holy Spirit, the
Lord and Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the
Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.” The Roman
Catholic Church added the words: “And from the Son” so that it now reads:
“Who proceedeth from the Father and from the Son” “ex Patre Filioque
procedens”. The Filioque was the primordial cause, the only dogmatic
cause, of the breach between East and West. Other dogmatic issues have
certainly arisen since the separation, but the Filioque was the only
dogmatic difference at the time of the schism.
To
understand the dispute over the Filioque we must first understand how the
Fathers of the first two Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea – Constantinople
formulated the Creed. The first Ecumenical Council was faced with the
Arian heresy so they had to find terminology that would safeguard the
Orthodox beliefs. The creed couldn’t be too long, so each word had to be
carefully selected. It was preferably to use terminology already available
in Holy Scripture, and only use other words when Scripture was not
adequate or strong enough to explain the Trinitarian and Christological
Dogmas. Thus we see for the first time the word homoousios is adapted by
the Council to show that Jesus Christ the Son of God is of the same
essence as the Father. They rejected an alternative word with only an iota
of difference: homoiousios meaning similar essence, because the Arians
could interpret it as meaning Christ was similar to the Father in essence
but not the same. The Fathers would not compromise to any word that was
not consistent with the true teaching of the Church.
The
Second Ecumenical Council had the Macedonion heresy to deal with which
taught that the Holy Spirit was not a person ("hypostasis"), of the Holy
Trinity but simply a power or energy of God. Faced with this new heresy,
the Council used the Scriptural description of the Holy Ghost as found in
the Gospel of St. John: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from
the Father.” (John 15:26) Thus they added to the Nicene Creed the teaching
of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit with the following words: “And (I
believe) in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceedeth
from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped
and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets.” The Creed - Symbol of Faith of
the Second Ecumenical Synod was consistently endorsed by subsequent
Ecumenical Synods who specifically forbade any changes to be introduced
into the Creed and even issued anathemas against any who would alter the
Symbol of the Second Ecumenical Synod. The Creed was and is the common
possession of the whole Church, and no one in the Church had a right to
tamper with it. The Orthodox Church has maintained the Creed without
change for over seventeen centuries, but the Roman Catholic Church did
tamper with the Creed against the directives of the Ecumenical Councils
and without consulting the East and added the words “ and from the Son. By
doing so they are guilty of sinning against the unity of the Church.
Now to many
this addition might seem trivial, but in Trinitarian theology it has
enormous consequences. This is not going to be easy to explain, but I will
try and keep it as simple as possible and if anyone doesn’t understand we
can look at it again at the end of the talk. In the passage we already
quoted from St. John’s Gospel, it uses two words to describe the action of
the Holy Spirit – Proceeds and send: “when the Comforter is come, whom I
will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which
proceedeth from the Father”. The two words are referring to two different
actions. The word Proceeds is in reference to the eternal procession of
the Holy Spirit from the Father and the word send refers to the sending of
the Holy Spirit in time by the Son. In a similar manner when talking of
Jesus Christ we say he was begotten of the Father before all eternity, but
was born in time as a human being. Thus when explaining about the Trinity
we must distinguish in our minds two things: first that God is not a
created being, he exists from all eternity before all creation. This of
course is something we will never fully understand because we do not
belong to that eternity: it is beyond the experience of us mere mortals.
The second thing to remember is how God has revealed himself to us after
creation. Thus the Fathers distinguished between the eternal existence of
the Holy Trinity outside of creation and time and the economy of the Holy
Trinity, in other words, the work of the Holy Trinity in time for the
salvation of mankind.
The Holy
Trinity is one in essence but three in persons. To distinguish one person
from another, the Fathers identified characteristics unique to each of the
Divine Persons. The Father is neither begotten nor proceeds, but he begets
and gives procession. He is the source or cause of the Godhead. The Son
neither proceeds nor gives procession; He does not beget, but is eternally
begotten. In the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4), the Son became perfect
Man whilst remaining perfect God. The Holy Spirit neither begets nor is
begotten; He does not give procession, but eternally proceeds from the
Father and was sent in the fullness of time (Pentecost) to the Church.
If this is
confusing then let’s use an analogy to illustrate the difference between
the sending of the Holy Spirit in time from the eternal origin of the Holy
Spirit. Let’s say I gave my son a Rolex watch; he then tells others that
he received the watch from me, which would be true, but I didn’t make the
watch, it originally came from the Rolex company. Similarly, we can say we
receive the Holy Spirit from the Son (because the Son sent the Holy Spirit
at Pentecost), but the Holy Spirit's ultimate origin is the Father.
Now
with the addition of the Filioque the relationship between the three
Persons of the Holy Trinity become confused and clearly subordinates the
Holy Spirit making him less that the other two persons. As already
mentioned, the Father is unbegotten, He is the source and cause of the
Godhead, the Son is Begotten of the father and the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father. If now the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son then
that makes the Son also the source and cause. The Father and the Son would
have the same characteristics and the Holy Spirit is left out there on his
own depending on his procession on both of them making Him less than the
others. Let’s see this from another angle. If by teaching that the Father
is the Cause of Himself because He is unbegotten and the Cause of the Son
because He is begotten of the Father and the Cause of the Holy Spirit
because he proceeds from the Father, then say that the Son is also the
Cause of the Holy Spirit because he proceeds from the Son then this
clearly is saying that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the other two
because it makes him the only Divine Person who is not a Cause of another
Divine Person. I think we need our analogy to help us understand what this
means. Previously we saw that the Rolex watch that I gave my son
originally came from the Rolex Company, but now I have become the maker of
the watch so that makes me the Rolex company. Now that would be something,
but of course that is absurd in the same way the Filioque is absurd in its
indirect suggestion that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit. What we
have said so far is only part of the confusion to the Persons of the Holy
Trinity caused by the Filioque. There are other objections which have to
do with the essence of the Divinity, but I think this is more than enough
to digest for now. St, Gregory the Theologian once said: “You ask what is
the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the
un begottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the
physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit,
and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the
mystery of God. (Oration 32:8)
Before leaving
the meaning of the Filioque it should be said that some modern
translations of the Bible into English, approved by the Vatican, have
replaced the word “proceeds” with “comes” from the Father and “issuses”
from the Father and even in the footnotes mention that they refer to the
sending of the Spirit into the world rather than the "eternal" proceeding
from the Father. They clearly and deliberately distort the original Greek
text and would have the readers believe that Holy Scripture says nothing
about the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit.
We see then
that the addition of the Filioque into the Creed is not something minor or
trivial: it has many repercussions. But where did it originally come from?
The history of
the Filioque can be traced back to St. Augustine of Hippo who died in 430
AD. Before converting to Christianity Augustine had worked as a
Neoplatonist philosopher which influenced his writings on the Holy
Trinity. Augustine’s knowledge of Greek was very limited so he couldn’t
study the Greek Fathers whose theology was adapted on the Cappadocian
school of thought. He suspected that the Greek texts contained the correct
understanding of the Holy Trinity, but lacking translations and unfamiliar
with their teaching, he did what he knew best using the Greek philosophers
to explain Christian teachings. He believed Neoplatonism and Christianity
were compatible and not knowing how to theologise in the manner of the
Apostles, he theologised in the manner of Aristotle and Plotinus. His
writings put forth the teaching of the double procession of the Holy
Spirit and regardless of the fact that others before him may have invented
the double procession, it is his influence that made known the Filioque in
the west. In fact Augustine is regarded as the father of western theology
and it is said that every new crisis or new way of thinking in the West
can be traced back to Augustine.
The
insertion of the Filioque into the creed seems to have happen as early as
400 at a council of Toledo in Spain. By the Third Council of Toledo in 589
it became the accepted form for Spain and they even believed that this was
the original form of the Creed. The Council went as far as to anathematize
those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
and the Son. Again ironically, they also anathematized all those who did
not accept the decrees of the first Four Ecumenical Councils. Without
being aware they were anathematizing themselves. From Spain the
introduction of the Filioque spread fairly rapidly through the West and
before long it was received practically everywhere, except at Rome, who
still recited the Creed in its original form until the start of the 11th
Century. The Filioque first became an issue of controversy by Charlemagne
and the Council of Frankfurt in 794. They accused the Greeks of heresy
because they reciting the Creed without the Filioque. We saw last week
that when the Pope received the Caroline Books and the acts of the
Frankfurt Synod, he rejected the condemnation of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council. He correctly believed that it was a mistake to tamper with the
wording of the Creed and deliberately had the Creed, without the Filioque,
inscribed in Greek and Latin on two silver plaques and set them up in
Saint Peter’s at Rome.
The Greeks didn’t pay too much attention to the Filioque until the time of
the Patriarch Photius. A quarrel arose between the Patriarch and Pope
Nicholas I which is known in the West as the Photian schism although the
East prefers to call it the schism of Nicholas
We mentioned
the conflict at the end of our talk last week, but today we will take a
closer look because it involved not only the Filioque, but also the first
official Papal claims for universal authority.
In 857,
fourteen years after the Triumph of Orthodoxy over the Iconoclasts, the
Patriarch Ignatius was exiled by the Emperor and while in exile had
resigned under pressure. In his place was enthroned the New Patriarch of
Constantinople Photius. Supporters of Ignatius declined to accept this
resignation as valid and when Photius sent a letter to the Pope announcing
his accession, Nicholas decided not to recognize Photius until he examined
the dispute between the two Patriarchs. He sent legates to Constantinople
who were invited at a Council to examine the issue. He also instructed his
delegates to support Photius only if Illyricon and southern Italy were
returned to his control. The legates and the Council all agreed that
Photius was the legitimate Patriarch. Whether the question of Illyricon
and southern Italy was mentioned is not clear as the records of the Synod
were destroyed, but they remained in the jurisdiction of New Rome. The
Pope was not happy with the results and excommunicated his delegates upon
their return. He then proceeded to retry the case himself at Rome: and
recognized Ignatius as Patriarch, and proclaimed Photius to be deposed.
Nicholas was overstepping his authority. Under canon law bishops under
condemnation were allowed to appeal to Rome and Rome had the authority to
order a retrial if there was enough cause, but this retrial was not to be
conducted by the Pope himself, but by the bishops of the provinces
adjacent to that of the condemned bishop. His retrial of the Photian –
Ignatian dispute was clearly an attempt by the Pope to impose his absolute
power and authority in the East as he had already done in the West. This
is also seen in a letter he wrote in 865 where he states the Pope is
endowed with authority over all the earth, that is, over every Church. The
Byzantines were not prepared to grant him such authority and regarded his
behaviour as an uncanonical interference in the affairs of another
Patriarchate.
Relations with
Nicholas became even more estranged when missionaries became involved with
the baptism of the Slavs. Two missionaries were at work at the same time,
one from the Greeks and the other from the West by Germans. A clash
between the two arose over the Filioque, which the Germans used in
Bulgaria. At Rome itself the Filioque was still not in use, but Nicholas
gave full support to the Germans when they insisted upon its insertion in
Bulgaria. Photius was concerned by the German influence in the Balkans, on
the very borders of the Byzantine Empire and even more concerned by the
question of the Filioque. In 867 he wrote an a letter to the other
Patriarchs of the East, denouncing the Filioque. In it he accused the Pope
of inserting the Filioque into the Symbol of Faith; of improperly
interfering in the Church of Bulgaria and attempting to dominate churches
outside his jurisdiction; of endorsing an improper repetition of the
sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation) on the pretext that Chrismation
done by married priests from New Rome was invalid and of improperly
interfering in disputes outside his jurisdiction. He then summoned a
council at Constantinople which was attended by about 1000 representatives
from throughout the East, including the Patriarchates of New Rome
(Constantinople), Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Pope Nicholas
refused to participate, thinking himself above any council. The synod
condemned various Latin practises, condemned the Filioque, and
excommunicated Pope Nicholas from the Church, terming him a heretic who
ravages the vineyard of the Lord. Nicholas died before learning of his
excommunication and was replaced by Hadrian II, but not before writing to
various Franks asking them to defend the Filioque.
There was now
an open schism between Constantinople and Rome, but it was short-lived
because in the same year Photius was deposed from the Patriarchate by the
Emperor and communion with Rome was restored with Ignatius once more as
Patriarch. Two years after, in 869 another Council was held at
Constantinople, known as the Anti-Photian Council, which condemned and
anathematized Photius. This Council was for a time considered by the West
to be the Eighth of the Ecumenical Synods. The Council also requested the
Emperor to resolve the status of the Bulgarian Church, and not
surprisingly he decided that it should be assigned to the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. The German missionaries were expelled from Bulgaria and
with them the Filioque. Ignatius and Photius in the meantime were
reconciled to one another, and when Ignatius died in 877, Photius once
more succeeded him as Patriarch. In 879, another council was held in
Constantinople which withdrew the anathema of the previous Council against
Photius. This was officially accepted and recognized by Rome without
protest and communion between Constantinople and the Papacy remained
unbroken.
The problem
with the Filioque again came to the forefront when in 1014 it was
sanctioned by the Pope to be used during the coronation of Emperor Henry
II at Rome. At this time we also see the two silver plaques inscribed with
the original Creed disappearing from St. Peter’s. Five years earlier in
1009, the newly-elected Pope Sergius IV sent a letter to Constantinople
which may have contained the Filioque. If this is true then it would
account for the Pope’s name being dropped from the Constantinopolitan
Diptychs. The Diptychs are lists, kept by Patriarchs, containing the names
of other Patriarchs living or departed whom he recognizes as Orthodox.
These lists of names are commemorated during the office of Oblation which
is the preparation service before the Liturgy. The Diptychs are therefore
a visible sign of the unity of the Church, and to deliberately omit
someone’s name from them is considered as breaking off communion with him.
Of course Diptychs were often incomplete and the omission of the Pope’s
name could have been an oversight, but after 1009 the Pope’s name did not
appear again in the Diptychs of Constantinople.
As the
Eleventh Century progressed, Rome gained a position of power in the West
such as it had never before achieved: the Western Church became
centralized to a degree unknown anywhere in the four Patriarchates of the
East. Pope Leo IX revived the papal claims to universal jurisdiction,
which Nicholas had made before in the ninth century. The Byzantines had no
problem with the Pope claiming absolute power in the West, but they were
not prepared to let him interfere with the Church in the East. The Pope,
however, believed he had the power to be a kind of Monarch over the entire
world with Rome as the centre of the Christian kingdom. This was
uncanonical and the Pope was now disregarding the Seven Ecumenical
Councils and placing himself above their authority. The Eastern Churches
had always assigned to the Pope a primacy of honour, but not the universal
supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Church had always been founded
on the collegial system where all bishops sat as equals and where a
primacy of honour was given, it did not mean that that Bishop was above
the others.
Things became
worse with the military aggression of the Normans in Byzantine Italy. The
Normans began imposing Latin customs on the Greeks of Byzantine Italy,
including the use of unleavened bread—with papal approval.
The Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in return demanded
that the Latin churches at Constantinople should adopt Greek practices,
and in 1052, when they refused, he closed them. Among the practices to
which Michael and his supporters particularly objected was the Latin use
of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. A letter was sent to bishops in the
West attacking the Judaistic practices of the West. The Pope in response
ordered a reply to each charge and also a defence of the papal supremacy.
In 1053 Michael tries to patch up the differences with the Pope and writes
to him offering to restore him name to the Diptychs. Its probable that he
was convinced to cool the situation by the Emperor who was on good terms
with the Pope. In response to this offer, and to settle the disputed
questions of Greek and Latin usages, Leo in 1054 sent three legates to
Constantinople, the chief of them being Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida.
They arrived in Constantinople in April 1054 and when they called on the
Patriarch they rudely thrust a letter to him from the Pope. Their attitude
was not received favourably by the Patriarch who in return did not give
them the welcome they would have liked. They stormed out without giving
the usual salutations. The letter although signed by Leo had in fact been
drafted by Humbert and was far from friendly. On receiving the letter the
Patriarch noticed that the seals had already been tampered with. The
Patriarch determined that the legates were worse than mere barbarous
Westerners, they were liars and crooks. He refused to recognise their
authority or, practically, their existence.
Pope Leo died
on April 19, 1054, and legally the legates' authority should also have
ceased, but they did not seem to notice. Humbert and his companions
remained in Constantinople waiting for a reply from the Patriarch, but the
Patriarch refused to address the issue at hand. Eventually Humbert lost
patience, and without papal authority decided to carry out an action that
has become to be known ever since as the Great Schism. On the 16th July
the papal legates entered the Church of Hagia Sophia and, while the clergy
were preparing for the service at the third hour of the day on Saturday,
they laid a Bull of excommunication on the main altar in full view of the
clergy and people present. Going out thence, Humbert shook off the dust
from his feet as a testimony against them, according to the words of the
Gospel (Mathew 10: 14), exclaiming: "Let God see and judge." A deacon ran
out after him in great distress and begged him to take back the Bull.
Humbert refused; and it was dropped in the street.
The Bull of
excommunication did not directly excommunicate everyone, but only the
Patriarch and his followers. In it was written the following: “As for the
pillars of the Empire and the honourable, wise citizens, Constantinople is
most Christian and Orthodox. But as for Michael, who is unlawfully called
patriarch, and the champions of his stupidity, innumerable weeds of
heresies are scattered in it... Let them be anathema, let them be anathema
maranatha (I Corinthians 16:22). Amen.” In the document Humbert also
accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed something which
is now common knowledge that the Eastern Church did not delete anything;
it was the Western Church that added this word to the original Nicene
Creed. The legates left for Rome two days later, leaving behind a city
near riots. On returning to Rome Humbert presented the whole incident as a
great victory for the See of Rome, but back at Constantinople the
Patriarch retaliated with a synod which anathematized Humbert and the
other two legates. They did not anathematize the Roman Church, but from
that time the Pope ceased to be commemorated in all the Eastern Churches
during the Divine Liturgy. Thus the Great Schism had begun, but it was not
until many years after that it became final. Relations between East and
West continued and the majority of ordinary Christians remained unaware of
the Schism.
The
Schism between East and West became final with the Fourth Crusade in 1204.
It brought about so much hatred and bitterness that even today the monks
of Athos distrust the Christian West. It is a story of disgrace which
should bring tears to those hearing how Christian brothers killed and
raped fellow Christian brothers and then looted everything they could lay
their hands on. The Fourth Crusade was between 1198-1204, but we’ll pick
up the story towards the end. They were originally bound for Egypt, but
were persuaded by Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus, the deposed Emperor of
Byzantium, to turn aside to Constantinople in order to restore him and his
father to the throne. The crusaders succeeded in restoring Isaac, to his
Empire, but the reward which they required was extravagant, and Isaac’s
efforts to comply with the stipulations provoked such resentment, that he
was deposed by his subjects, and put to death, together with his son.
The
Crusaders in the meantime owed a great deal to the Venetians. An agreement
had been made for the Venetians to supply the food and transport to carry
the so-called Christian army to Egypt. The service did not come cheap and
the crusaders fell heavy into dept. They knew that Constantinople, the
richest city of all Europe, was a richer prize than all the Holy Land and
that it could be taken more easily. On the night of 12th to 13th April
they entered Constantinople and sacked and pillaged the Great City. Nobody
controlled the troops. Thousands of defenceless civilians were killed.
Women, even nuns, were raped by the crusading army and churches,
monasteries and convents were looted. The very altars of churches were
smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by warriors who had
sworn to fight in service of the Christian faith. Even the magnificent
Santa Sophia was ransacked by the crusaders. Works of tremendous value
were destroyed merely for their material value. Many of its priceless
treasures were carried off to Europe. But the greatest prize of all were
the relics, bones, heads and arms of saints, the crown of thorns, St.
Thomas’ finger, and the Shroud. The knights showed no respect for anything
sacred; Communion cups and sacred vessels were used as drinking cups in
drunken revels. Prostitutes danced on the altar. Icons, even portraits of
Christ were used as gaming tables. This systematic sacrilege is what
shocked the Greeks more than anything else. How could men who had
specially dedicated themselves to God’s service and bearing the Cross on
their armour, treat the things of God in such a way? Tuesday the 13th of
April was indeed a black day for the Christian world and even to this day
the Greeks superstitiously regard Tuesday the 13th as unlucky in the same
way the West regards Friday the 13th as unlucky.
The pillaging
went on for three days and they are three days that Eastern Christendom
has never forgotten. After 1204 the Greeks could no longer consider the
Latins as their Christian brothers. Their actions were unholy in all
respects and even the Saracens who were Muslim were more merciful that the
crusader Knights. Christians in the West still do not realize how deep is
the disgust and how lasting the horror with which Orthodox regard actions
such as the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders. After 1204 there can
be no doubt that Christian East and Christian West were divided into two.
Eight hundred
years after the Fourth Crusade, Pope John Paul II twice expressed sorrow
for the events of the Fourth Crusade. In 2001, he wrote to Blessed
Christodoulos, Archbishop of Athens, who was buried today, saying, “It is
tragic that the assailants, who set out to secure free access for
Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their brothers in the faith.
The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep
regret.” In 2004, while Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople, was
visiting the Vatican, John Paul II asked, “How can we not share, at a
distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust.” This has been regarded
as an apology to the Greek Orthodox Church for the terrible slaughter
perpetrated by the warriors of the Fourth Crusade.
In April 2004,
in a speech on the 800th anniversary of the city’s capture, the Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew I formally accepted the apology. During a Liturgy
attended by Roman Catholic Archbishop Philippe Barbarin of Lyon, France,
he said: “The spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred,” “We
receive with gratitude and respect your cordial gesture for the tragic
events of the Fourth Crusade. It is a fact that a crime was committed here
in the city 800 years ago.” Bartholomew said his acceptance came in the
spirit of Pascha. “The spirit of reconciliation of the Resurrection...
incites us toward reconciliation of our churches.”
|
|
|
