Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Réné-Francois Guettée - The Papacy - part eleven
This session terminated in anathemas against
Photius and his partisans. In the following session, every paper which could implicate those of this
council who had taken
the part of Photius against
Ignatius was burned before the whole council.
Finally the council ended with some canons and a profession of faith. The acts were signed
by one hundred and two bishops. This was but few when we reflect that the Patriarchate of Constantinople alone numbered at that time more than six hundred,
and that the Emperor
Basil had used all
his influence to collect
a numerous council. An immense majority of the
bishops took no part in what
took place at Constantinople . Some zealous
friends of Photius were the only ones
who would make up their minds to appear before the assembly, and protest
against that which was done
there, and put the Emperor in the wrong by asking him to guarantee
to them full liberty for
their defence.
A fact worthy of remark, and of
the greatest significance, is that Ignatius,
who presided side by side
with the legates
of Rome , kept the most profound silence during the whole council.
A great number of
questions were discussed before him, upon which he alone could give positive information--such as
that of his resignation and the attendant
circumstances, the conduct of Photius toward him, and many others. Ignatius
allowed them
to be discussed
pro and contra, without saying
one word to throw light upon the debates.
Must it not be inferred from such
silence that he did not know
what side to take in view of
the facts
as he knew they had happened, and of
the plausible reasons under which the Roman
legates and certain intriguers covered
their, lying recitals?
Whatever we may choose to infer from this silence,
we think that it can only be
construed in favour of Photius, and of
his version of all that had occurred.* We naturally ask why Ignatius did not deny that he had abdicated or assert that it had been extorted
from him by violence, since this was the gist of the whole question.
We may therefore conclude that
he really resigned
his see, freely and conscientiously; but that Nicholas being
unwilling, as he himself said, to accept that resignation, some ambitious men, personal
enemies of Photius,
prevailed upon Ignatius to reconsider his determination,
suggesting to him as
a legitimate
motive the protest of the Patriarch of Rome against it.
But while he followed the impulsion
of Rome in what concerned his reinstalment in
his see, Ignatius did not allow himself disposed
to submit to all its requirements, as in the
matter of signing the Roman formula, and in the conference, which took place after the council, concerning the Church of
Bulgaria .
Several members
of the council, from hatred to Photius rather
than from conviction, had already signed the formula which enslaved
the whole Church
to the Roman see. They
had submitted to this demand in order that the council,
from which, they expected
results
satisfactory to their own secret desires, should not remain an impossibility. After
it was over, they sent complaints to the Emperor and to Ignatius regarding
their signatures, and asked that they should not be sent to Rome . They protested, moreover, against
the qualified form in
which the legates had signed,
reserving the approbation of the
Pope, for thereby the Bishop
of Rome reserved the right to approve or to cancel, at his will, what had been done.
It was too late to remedy this; but the Emperor, to ease his mind in regard to the
formula, caused
all the signatures that could be found in
the house of the legates to be taken
* It must
be observed that
the
Acts of this council of Constantinople, considered by Rome œcumenical,
are only known to Anastasius
the
Librarian. The
authentic
acts were taken from the legates by
the Sclavonians, who robbed them on their return
from Constantinople . Anastasius pretended that
he had an exact copy of the acts,
which he translated into Latin at Rome . It is
therefore to the
evidence of
this man that we have to
refer for all that relates to this council. If the
acts, such as he has
given them,
are so favourable to Photius,
is it not reasonable
to think that they would be more so if they were
trustworthy?
away during their absence. The legates protested; but in vain. Ignatius did not censure
this act of the Emperor, and proved, in the conference about Bulgaria , that he was not
a partisan of the doctrine
of the formula.
The Bulgarians learning that a council was sitting at Constantinople, sent deputies
there to know whether their church
should depend from Rome or
Constantinople.*
The Emperor convoked
the regales of Rome and the East to answer
this question in presence of
Ignatius, "As we have
newly received the grace of baptism, we fear lest we
make a mistake; we
therefore ask you, who represent the Patriarchs, to what church
we should be subject."
Pope Nicholas had replied to the question, but his decision was only
regarded as that of a single
Patriarch. The legates of
Rome maintained that his decision
was supreme, and must
not be departed from. The Eastern legates
were not of this opinion.
The Romans protested that they had received no power
to examine the question
raised by the Bulgarians.
In spite of this special
pleading, the Eastern legates
judged it proper
to be decided. "From
whom have you conquered the provinces where you dwell ?" they asked of
the Bulgarians; “and what church was established there then ?"
"We wrested them from the Greeks," they replied; “and the Greek clergy were
established there."
"In that case," said the legates,
"your church depends from the Greeks
; that is, from
the Patriarchate of Constantinople.”
"But,
for the last three years," said the papal legates,
“Rome has sent
Latin priests there."
This prescription of
three years did not suffice,
in the eyes of the other
legates, to prevail over the ancient
possession and they declared that the Bulgarian church should be under
the jurisdiction of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. Ignatius was of the same
opinion; but the Roman legates said that the holy see of Rome had not chosen
them for judges. "He, only," they added, "has the right to judge the whole Church. He despises your
opinion
as readily as you give it lightly." As long
as the condemnation of
Photius was the
question, that opinion had been of far
greater value in their eyes. They annulled the judgment that
had been rendered, and begged Ignatius
not to despise the rights
of the holy see, which
had restored him to his. The Emperor was angry
at the pretensions of the legates.
They soon left, and were robbed
on the way by the Sclavonians, who took from them the authentic acts of the council.
In consequence of the decision
of the Eastern legates,
the Bulgarians dismissed the bishop and priests who had
been sent by
Rome to them, and received
a Greek bishop and
priests. Adrian learning
this, wrote to the Emperor of the
East, threatening Ignatius
and the bishops he had sent to Bulgaria with excommunication.
There is extant only a fragment of
a letter from Adrian II. to
Ignatius. He speaks to him as a superior to an inferior;
accuses him of
violating the canons as they obtained at Rome ;
and tells him, in threatening language, that a similar course had occasioned the fall of Photius.
Such letters make it very evident that Rome had pursued
the reinstalment of' Ignatius, not for the sake of
justice, but to find occasion to do
an act of sovereignty in the East. A careful reading of these documents leaves no
doubt in this respect. Ignatius, in the eyes of
the Pope, was as guilty as Photius, the moment he refused to submit to this sovereignty.
Adrian II. died in the month of
November, 872, and was succeeded by John VIII. This Pope took greatly to heart this affair of Bulgaria . He wrote twice
to Ignatius to demand
that he should renounce all jurisdiction over that church.
The Emperor Basil (878) having
* See Vit. Pap.
Hadr. et Epist. Hadr.
in Labbe’s Collection, vol. viii.
asked
him for legates to labour for the
pacification of the
religious troubles which had been rife in the East since the reëstablisbment of Ignatius, the Pope availed
himself of this occasion to write to that Patriarch a third letter,
in which he thus expressed himself :* "We give you this
third canonical monition
(he should have said anti-canonical) by our legates and letters; thereby
we command you to
send without delay
to Bulgaria active men, who
shall go through the whole country, and take away all those whom they may there find who
have been ordained by you or by
those of your dependence, so that in one month there shall
remain neither
bishops nor clergy of your ordination ; for
we cannot consent that they should infect with their errour
this new church which we have formed.
If you do not withdraw
them within the time mentioned, and if you do not renounce all jurisdiction over Bulgaria , you are hereby deprived of the communion of the
body and blood of the
Lord until you obey. A delay
of two months from the reception of this letter
is granted to you. If you remain
obstinate in your
violation of discipline and your usurpation, you are hereby, by the
judgment of Almighty God,
and by the authority of the blessed
Apostle Princes, and by
the sentence of Our Mediocrity, deprived of and deposed from the dignity
of the Patriarchate which you
have received through our favour."
Thus, to usurp jurisdiction over the Church of Bulgaria , the Pope does not hesitate
to strike, ipso facto, a Patriarch with excommunication and deposition, if he does not
obey his orders! Have we observed any similar conduct on the
part of the Popes of the first eight centuries?
But the bishops
of the East were neither disposed to recognize the Papal
authority nor to obey his anti-canonical orders. Those who supported Ignatius
were as much opposed to
this as the partisans
of Photius.
John VIII. wrote to the Greek bishops and clergy in Bulgaria a letter still more severe
than that addressed to the Patriarch
Ignatius. It began thus: "To all the bishops and other Greek clergy, invaders of the
diocese of Bulgaria , and excommunicate by these presents
He
gave
them thirty days to
obey his orders, and promised the bishops
to give them other sees on
condition of leaving those they then occupied.
This was certainly acting, as absolute sovereign. John wrote to the Bulgarian King and
to Count Peter, who had been envoy to Rome in the time of Pope Nicholas. The substance of these letters is, that nothing
should be received
save from the Roman Church,
inasmuch as she is the source of all true doctrine. All these missives were sent by the
legates Paul and Eugene. When these
envoys reached Constantinople , Ignatius
was dead, and Ignatius was again Patriarch, (878.)*
After some difficulties, the legates recognized Photius as Patriarch, and even said that
Pope John had sent them to Constantinople to anathematize Ignatius and reinstate Photius. Photius and the Emperor Basil sent letters and ambassadors to the Pope.‡ John was apprised of this, and seemed disposed to pacify the Church of Constantinople and to receive
favourably the letters and envoys;§ which
he really did, and sent them back with letters for
the Emperor and Photius. These letters of John VIII. contain the most distinct answer to all
* Joann. Pap. VIII. Ep., Labbe’s
Collection, vol. ix.
† It is not our business
to relate the doings of Photius during his exile. We therefore
only refer to his
letter those who wish for cumulative
proof of the gentleness,
charity, and ability whereby
he
regained the good graces of
the Emperor Basil.
These documents more than sufficiently
answer the hateful statements of his enemies, in
which absurdity
vies
with atrocity, and which, to every impartial man, only
prove the blind hatred
of
those who composed them.
‡ Among
these letters there was one
in which
Ignatius, near unto death,
begged the Pope to
recognize Photius as lawful Patriarch.
Naturally enough, the
enemies of Photius maintain that this
letter is a forgery, but without
proof.
§ Letters of Pope
John VIII. in Labbe’s
Collection.
the calumnies of the enemies of Photius. " In consideration,"
he said to the Emperor, " of the unanimity with which all the Patriarchs, even those who had
been ordained by Ignatius, had acquiesced in the election of Photius, He consented to recognize him as
Patriarch."
But as Photius had not waited
for the recognition of Rome to reäscend his episcopal
chair, and regarded as null the council assembled against
him, the Pope enlarged extensively upon this consideration: that necessity frequently exempts from the observance of rules. He
therefore passes over these formal difficulties the more readily
as the legates of his
predecessor had signed the acts of the council
conditionally and saving
the approbation of the Pope; he gives in detail the conditions upon which he recognizes Photius;
he must assemble a council and ask
pardon for having reäscended his seat without
a sentence of absolution ; he must renounce
all jurisdiction over Bulgaria, and must receive into his communion all the bishops
ordained by Ignatius. As to those of the
latter who should refuse to enter in
communion with Photius,
he threatens them with excommunication.
These latter bishops were very few in number. The Pope wrote to the principal ones, Metrophanes, Stylienus, and John,
threatening them with excommunication
; and he charged the legates,
whom he intrusted with his letters, to excommunicate all those who
should refuse to recognize
Photius as legitimate Patriarch, forbidding all, whoever
they might be, to give credit to the calumnies circulated against this Patriarch.
It is, doubtless, out of respect for these commands of the
Pope, that the Romish writers have vied repeating
these calumnies of such as Metrophanes, Stylienus, Nicetas, and other inveterate enemies of Photius, and have refused
to see any thing save knavery and hypocrisy in the familiar correspondence of this
great man. They have left no means untried to disguise the importance of these
letters of John VIII. Cardinal Baronius, in his Annals, goes so far as to maintain
that the feminine weakness displayed by John in this matter,
gave rise to the fable of a female pope Joan.
Every one knows
that John VIII., far from being
weak in character, was
energetic even to roughness; but Romish writers stick
at nothing when they wish to rid themselves
of facts, or even of Popes whose acts do not
neatly fit into their systematic histories.
The legates
with the Pope's letters having reached
Constantinople, a council
was called and attended
by three hundred and eighty-three bishops, with Elias, who
represented the Patriarch of Jerusalem.*
John's letters are full of the
new teachings of the Papacy. He claims that he has, by divine right, the care of
all the churches, and occupies
the place of St.
Peter, to whom Christ
said, "Feed my sheep." He
pretends that he has been entreated to admit Photius to the dignity of the Patriarchate, and even to ecclesiastical orders; he now
admits him, although
he has usurped the episcopate without
the consent of the
holy see, but on
condition that he shall ask pardon in full council;
he gives him absolution by virtue
of the power he has received from Jesus Christ through
St. Peter, to bind and loose all things without
exception. He commands Photius to resign all jurisdiction
over Bulgaria , and forbids him to ordain any there. In all
his letters he gives commands and claims to exercise an absolute sovereignty of divine origin.
Such
pretensions were not recognized in the East, which held to the doctrines of the first eight centuries on the subject of the
Papacy. It was clear that if such letters as these were read in the council, all hope of peace
was at an end. Hence only the substance of these letters was retained; every expression that could wound, or give reason to believe
that the Pope wished to be Sovereign of the
Church, was weeded out. Expressions
of encomium in
use in
the East were added. These letters, as Fleury
tells us, were thus modified, “apparently in concert with the legates, who heard
them read without
complaint." The first of these
* Collection of Councils
by Father Hardouin,
vol. vi.
legates, Cardinal Peter, having
asked, "Do you receive the Pope's
letter?" the council replied, "We receive all that relates
to the union with Photius and the interests of the
Church, but not what
concerns the Emperor and his provinces." By this, the Council rejected
the pretensions of the Pope to
Bulgaria . From such
a unanimous disposition of nearly four
hundred Eastern bishops, we may judge what protests the Pope's letters would have excited if the legates
had not had the prudence to modify them in concert
with Photius.* The East had always preserved this maxim, followed
by all the œcumenical councils, that ecclesiastical divisions must follow those of the
empire. Bulgaria , having
been anciently a Greek province,
depended from the Greek Patriarch
and not the Latin.
Cardinal Peter having
asked that the adversaries of Photius who had been excluded might be recalled, Photius
replied, " The Emperor has only
exiled two of them, and that for
causes not ecclesiastical;
we pray him to recall them."
“How did the Patriarch Photius reäscend his throne ?" asked Peter.
The council replied,
“By the consent of the three
Patriarchs, at the request
of the Emperor ; or
rather yielding to the violence
done to him, and to the prayers of the
whole Church of
Constantinople."
“What!" asked Peter, "has there been no violence on
the part of Photius? Has he not acted
tyrannically?"
“On the contrary," replied
the council, "all took place with gentleness and tranquillity."
“Thank God!" exclaimed the Cardinal.
Thus, nearly four hundred bishops, in presence of the Pope's
envoys, and in public, confound the rare calumniators of Photius, and yet these calumniators
are accepted in the
West as writers worthy of faith, even while their histories
give numberless proofs of a hatred akin to madness
and absurdity!
When Cardinal Peter had finished
his questions, Photius spoke as follows: “I tell you, before God, that I never desired
this see; the majority
of those here present know this well. The first time I
took it against my will, shedding many tears,
after resisting it for
a long time, and
in consequence of the
insurmountable violence
of the emperor who then
reigned, but
with the consent of the
bishops and clergy, who had
given their signatures without my knowledge. They gave me guards"…
He was interrupted by the exclamations of the council,
“We know it all, either
of our own knowledge or by
the evidence of others who have told us."
“God permitted me to be driven away,"
continued Photius. “I did not seek to return. I never excited
seditions. I remained at rest, thanking God, and
bending before his judgments, without importuning the Emperor,
without hope or desire to be reïnstated. God,
who works miracles, has touched the Emperor's heart,† not for
my
sake but for the
sake of his people: he has
recalled me from my exile. But, so
long as Ignatius of blessed memory lived,
I could
not bring myself to resume my place, in spite of the
exhortations and entreaties that were made by
many
upon this subject.”
The council said, "It
is the truth."
* The Abbé Jager, in his indigestible
pamphlet against Photisus, claims that the Pope's
letters were altered by Photius alone. Would not
the legates
have protested
against that fraud, since they
heard them read in
the council in their
modified shape? Instead of complaining of these
letters, they publicly
sought to ascertain that
every one was satisfied with them.
Moreover,
they carried
them back to Rome with the
acts of the council. The
Pope did
not protest, and it
is in Rome ltself that they were afterward found.
† His enemies have said that he resorted to
magic to dispose Basil in
his
favour and some serious historians have
accepted this ridiculous accusation.
“I meant," continued Photius, “to make my peace with Ignatius
firm in every way. We saw
each other in the palace; we fell
at each others feet, and mutually
forgave each other. When he fell ill he sent for
me;
I visited him several times, and gave him every consolation
in my power. He recommended to me those
who were most dear to him, and I
have taken care of them. After
his death the Emperor entreated me publicly
and privately; he came himself to see me, to urge me to yield to the wishes of the bishops and clergy. I have
yielded to so miraculous
a change that I might not resist
God”
The council
said, "It is thus.”
Are not such words worth more, pronounced publicly
as they were, and their truth attested by four hundred bishops, than all the diatribes of passionate enemies ?
In the following sessions, the legates of the Patriarchal sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem gave unquestionable proofs that their Patriarchs had always been in
communion with Photius;
that the pretended legates who were present
at the council of 869,
under Adrian, and who had concurred in the condemnation of
Photius, were only envoys of the Saracens, as Photius himself had written in his protest
against that assembly.
In
consequence, that council
was anathematized by
the legates of Rome, by those
of the other Patriarchal sees of the East, and by
all the bishops present.*
The acts of
the council of 879 are as full of dignity and as
high-toned as those of the council of 869 were passionate and unworthy
of true bishops. Adrian's legates were more like men possessed than like judges, if we
may judge
from the acts preserved by Anastasius the Librarian, while the legates of John, on the contrary, displayed in all things as
much
wisdom as moderation.† During their sojourn at Constantinople they repeatedly saw
Metrophanes, one of the
worst enemies of Photius, and one of
the Writers who serve
as guides to the Romish writers
in their accounts. They requested him to furnish proofs against Photius, but could draw from him nothing but idle words.
They summoned him to the
council, but he refused to appear, under
the false pretext
of illness. " He is not so
ill," said
the legates, " that be cannot talk a great
deal, and yet say very
little." Upon his refusal
to
appear he was anathematized.
*Nevertheless, the Romanists call that
council of 869 the eighth œcumenical.
† The acts
of
the council
of 879 have been found
In the original at Rome
itself with all the authentic
signatures,
Including those of the legates
of Rome; and yet the ecclesiastical historians of the West
insinuate that they may have
been altered.
On the other hand, the acts of the council
of 869 were lost by the Roman legates, and are
only known
through Anastastus the Librarian, who pretended to have
a copy; and the Western
historians will not allow
of a doubt as to their genuineness. Is
this impartial? If the acts
of the council of 879 had come
from the East to the West, there might be some
grounds for contesting their genuineness; but they were found at
Rome,
and were taken from the archives of
Rome to give them to the public.
VII
THE PAPACY WHICH
CAUSED THE DIVISION HAS PERPETUATED AND
STRENGTHENED IT BY INNOVATIONS, AND MADE IT A SCHISM.
FROM the facts
which we have just discussed, it appears that the Papacy
in the ninth century sought dominion over the Church, and the position
of a sovereign pontificate, the centre of unity and the guardian
of orthodoxy. Its defenders are very far from contesting this; but they claim that these pretensions were not new, and
to prove this they appeal to the
dogmatic testimony of the
Fathers, to the facts of ecclesiastical history of
the first centuries
of the Church,
and even to the word of God.
We announced it as
our special purpose to show their assertions to be false in regard to
the first eight centuries of the Church,
and this we have
done.
We grant that after the ninth century the Popes assumed to exercise the sovereign pontificate. We have pointed
out the first occasions on which
Rome came before
the Eastern Church with her new
pretensions, and we have
ascertained that the Oriental
Church refused
to recognize them.
It is thus beyond all doubt that it was the
Papacy which provoked
the division, by seeking to impose a sovereignty upon the
whole Church which had been unknown during the first eight centuries of the Church.
Union being reestablished, at least in appearance, between
the Papacy and Photius, the Eastern Church was none the less
separated from Rome; for there
was now a radical divergency between them. Peace would not
have existed even outwardly between them if the letters of Pope John had been read to the last council
as they were written.
In the assembly of
869 the partisans of Ignatius and Ignatius
himself declared against the Papal sovereignty almost as energetically as Photius and his friends. On her
side, Rome no
longer did any thing without asserting her pretended sovereignty, and without setting
herself up as the necessary centre of unity.
The controversies between the Papacy
and Photius, like their reconciliation, would have remained as
unimportant as a thousand others
of the same kind in the history
of the Church, if a radical division
had not been worked out from that time in consequence of the institution of
the Papacy. In following out these relations of the East with Rome, we
shall meet with many attempts to reconcile the two churches at different periods.
But Rome insisting upon
a recognition of her sovereignty as
a condition precedent, and the Eastern Church always appealing to the doctrine
of the first eight centuries, unity
could never be reestablished. It would now only be possible on condition that the Papacy
should abandon its unlawful pretensions,
or the Eastern Church the primitive doctrine. Now,
the Eastern Church well knows that the renunciation of that
doctrine would not
only be criminal in itself, but would result in subjection to an autocracy
condemned by the Gospel and by Catholic
doctrine; hence she cannot yield without incurring guilt and without committing suicide.
And the Papacy,
on its side, knows that it annihilates itself by returning to the Catholic
unity with the simple character of the ancient Roman episcopate. It will
not, therefore, yield any of
the prerogatives which it has grown to consider as emanating
from a divine source. For this cause it not only provoked the division in the Church,
but has perpetuated and strengthened it by the
pertinacity with which it has maintained what was
the
direct cause of it.
To this first cause we must
add the successive changes which it has
introduced in orthodox doctrine
and the œcumenical rules of discipline. The history of its
innovations would be long. From the institution of the
autocracy to the new
dogma of the Immaculate
Conception, how many changes! how many important modifications! We may write
this sad history in a special
work. At this time it will suffice to consider the most serious innovation which it has permitted itself, namely, the addition which it has made to the Creed ; for
that addition, together with the Papal
autocracy, was the direct cause
of the division which still exists between the Eastern
and Western churches.
It has been
sought to trace the discussion respecting the procession of the
Holy Spirit to remote antiquity. We will not follow
the learned upon
this ground, but will simply show
that it was in the eighth century
that it first assumed any importance.*
Two Spanish Bishops, Felix d’Urgel and Elipand
of Toledo, taught that Christ was the
adopted Son of God, and not his Word, coëssential with the Father. Their errour called
forth unanimous complaints in the West, particularly in France, whose kings then possessed the northern
part of Spain. The defenders of orthodoxy thought they had found an
excellent weapon against adoptivism when they decided that the Son is
so thoroughly one in substance
with the Father, that the Holy
Spirit proceeds from him as
well as from the Father.
This formula was
looked upon as the bulwark of orthodoxy, and was introduced into the
Creed, to which was
added, in consequence, the word Filioque (and from the Son) after
the words proceeding from the Father.
That addition,
made by a local church
which had no pretensions to infallibility, was for this very cause irregular. It was
further wrong in giving a conception of the Trinity
contrary to the teaching of
the Scriptures, according
to which there is in God
but one principal, which is the Father,
from which proceed, from all eternity,
the Word by generation, and the Spirit
by procession. As the quality
of a principle forms the distinctive
character of the Father's personality, it evidently cannot
be attributed to the Word without
ascribing to Him that which is the distinctive attribute of another
Divine Person.
Thus the French and Spanish
bishops, wishing to defend in the Trinity the unity of essence or of
substance, attacked the personal distinction and confounded the attributes which are the very
basis of that distinction.
Another serious errour on their part was in
giving a decision
without first ascertaining that the words which
they employed were authorized by
Catholic tradition. Outside of the perpetual and established doctrine, no bishop
can teach any thing without danger
of falling into the most serious
errours.
The dogmatic truths
of Christianity relating to the very essence of God--that is, of the Infinite--are necessarily mysterious; hence no one should
presume to teach them of
his
own authority. Even the Church
herself only preserves them as she has received them.
Revelation is a deposit
confided by God to His Church, and not a philosophical synthesis which may be modified. Without doubt
these Spanish and French bishops had no other end in view but in the clearest manner to expound the dogma of
the Trinity; but their exposition, not having the traditional character, was an errour.
The design of
this work does not permit us to discuss
thoroughly the question
of the procession of the Holy Spirit.† We must limit ourselves to the history
of this Roman addition.
* It seems certain that
the
addition to
the Creed was made by
a council of Toledo in 683, and was confirmed by
another held in the same city in 653. N. Alexander,
Hist. Eccl. Dissert. xxvii. In Sæcul.
iv. maintains
that it was admitted in the
Council of Toledo In 589, but
it has been proved that the
acts of the council were altered in this
particular.
† We recommend
to those who
need to be enlightened upon
this important question the
treatise
published by
Monseigneur Macarius, Archbishop of
Krakow, In his Théologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe. This learned
theologian has discussed
the question, and summed up the labours of several
theologians of
the Eastern Church
upon the subject, in such a manner us
to
leave no doubt.
The
treatise of Monseigneur Macarius
is one of the
That addition was
first adopted in Spain, in the seventh century, in a committee at Toledo, and was adopted by several Western churches.
In 767, Constantine Copronymus
having sent some ambassadors to Pepin, King of
the Franks, this prince
received them in an
assembly known as the Council of Gentilly. As the Greeks were accused
of errour respecting the worship of images, so the
ambassadors accused the Franks
of errour concerning the Trinity, and in having
added the word Filioque to the creed.
The details of the
discussion upon this subject
are not extant,
but it is certain that the addition was very
little spread
through
France before the close of the
eighth century,
when Elipand and Felix
d'Urgel taught their errour. The Council
of Frioul, in 791, saw
fit to oppose them by
approving the doctrine of the procession from the Father and the Son,
but without admitting the addition of the Filioque, because the Fathers
who composed the creed
were right in using only the
evangelical expression, proceeding from the Father.*
Felix of d’Urgel, after having been condemned in several councils, was banished to Lyons, by Charlemagne, in 799. He doubtless
propagated his errours in that city, and the
question of the procession of the Holy Ghost was
discussed there. The learned Alcuin
wrote to the brethren
at Lyons, urging them both to avoid the errours of
the Spanish Bishop and also any
interpolation of the creed.
"Beloved brethren," he says,
“look well to the sects
of the Spanish errour; follow in the faith the steps of the holy Fathers, and remain attached to the
holy Church Universal in a most holy unity. It has been
written, ‘Do not overstep the limits laid down by the Fathers; insert nothing new in the creed of the Catholic
faith, and in religious functions be not pleased with traditions unknown to ancient times.’”†
This letter
was written in 804.
It thus appears
that at the beginning of the
ninth century the addition
was already condemned in France
by the most learned
and pious men.
Alcuin also censured, as we see,
the usage that was
beginning to prevail of chaunting the creed in the service
instead of reciting it.
The interpolation in the creed
had, nevertheless, some advocates, who, five
years later, proposed, in a council at Aix-la-Chapelle, to solemnly authorize the Filioque. They
met with opposition, and it was
decided to refer the question to Rome. Leo III. was then Pope. He compromised the matter.
Without positively rejecting the doctrine of the procession from the Father
and from the Son, he censured
the addition made to the creed.‡ He even
saw fit to transmit to posterity
his protest against
any innovation,
by having the creed engraved upon two tablets of silver that were hung
in St. Peter's Church,
and under which
was written the following inscription: "
I, Leo, have put up these tablets
for the love and preservation of the orthodox
faith.” The deputies from the Council
of Aix-la-Chapelle had needed all the resources of their
logic and erudition to persuade Leo III.
that this doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost might be Catholic. Their erudition was inaccurate, and consequently the opinions they rested upon it were not true. They confounded in God the substance with the proper
character of the divine
personality, the essential procession of the Spirit with His mission in the world.§ Leo III.,
although he gave a hearing
to their arguments,
most learned theological works that we have read. [Théologie Dogmatique
Orthodoxe, French edition, vol.
1. Paris: Cherbuliez, 10 Rue de la
Monnale.]
* Father
Labbe,
Collection of Councils, vol. vii.
† Alcuin Epist. 69.
‡ Sirmond’s Concil.
Angiq. Gall., vol. ii.
§ This confusion is at the bottom of all
the arguments of the Western theologians to this day. In support of
their errour, they rely
upon certain texts in which the Fathers speak only of
the divine substance common to
the three
persons, and make
no mention of the essential
character of the personality in each
of them. This
character In
the Father is that
of being
the
sole principle of the
Son by generation, and of the
Spirit by procession. Such
is the doctrine of the Church, including the
Roman Church
herself. Such admits that
the Father is the sole principle in the Trinity, and
that such is the character
of His personality, without perceiving
that she contradicts
did not show
himself any more favourable to the addition, nor even to the chaunting of the creed in the services
of the Church.
Nevertheless, the Creed continued to be chaunted with the addition
in Spain and in all the
countries subject to Charlemagne. Rome only adopted
that practice at the
commencement of the
eleventh century, (about
1015,) at the request
of the Emperor Henry,
but she seemed to agree with the other Western churches as to the substance of the doctrine. It was thus
that Photius could justly reproach the Roman Church
as well as other Western
churches with admitting an innovation in the faith. After having
been deposed by
Nicholas, and after himself condemning that Pope, he sent to the Eastern Patriarchs a circular letter,
in which he thus expresses
himself upon the question of the Filioque:
"Besides the gross
errours we have mentioned, they have striven,
by false interpretations and words which they have added,
to do violence to the holy and sacred
Creed, which has been confirmed by all
the œcumenical
councils, and possesses irresistible force. O
diabolical inventions! Using new language, they affirm that the Holy
Spirit does not proceed from the Father only, but from the Son also! Who ever heard such
language, even from the mouth of
the
impious of past ages! Where is the Christian who could admit two causes in the Trinity, that is to say, the Father--cause of the
Son and Holy Spirit; and the Son--cause of the same Spirit?
“This is to divide the first principle into a double
divinity--it is to lower Christian theology to the level
of Grecian mythology,
and to wrong the Trinity incomprehensible and one in principle, (iperoúsion Ke monarhitís Triados) But how should the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son? If
the procession He holds
from the Father is perfect, (and it is thus, since He is
very God of very God,) what is this procession from the Son, and what is its object?
Certainly it is a vain and futile
thing. Moreover, if the Spirit proceed from the Son
as well as the Father, why is not the Son begotten by the Spirit as
well as by the Father? Let them say
this in order that there be no piety
mixed with their impiety, that their opinions may agree
with their language, and they may shrink from no undertaking. Let us
consider further,
that if the property
of the Holy Spirit be known
in that He proceeds from the Father,
the property of the Son
likewise consists in His
being begotten by the Father. But as
they in their madness assert, the Spirit
proceeds also from the Son; hence the Spirit is distinguished from the Father by more numerous properties than the Son,
since the Spirit proceeding from both, is something common to the Father
and to the Son. The procession of the
Spirit from the Father
and the Son is
the property of the
Spirit. If the Spirit is further
removed from the Father than the Son, the
Son must be nearer to the substance of the Father than the Spirit.
Such was the origin of the
audacious blasphemy pronounced against the Holy Spirit by
Macedonius, who followed without knowing it the system and errour of
those who teach it in
these days.
“Moreover, if all be common between the Father and the Son, assuredly that which concerns the Holy
Spirit is common also, namely, that He
must
be God, King, Creator, Almighty, Simple, without exterior
form, Incorporeal, Invisible, and absolute All. Now
if the procession of the
Spirit be common to the Father and to the Son,
then the Spirit must also
proceed from Himself, He is His
own principle--at one and the same time cause and effect.
Even the Greeks have not gone to such length in their fables.
"One more reflection: if it were the property
of the Spirit alone to have relation to different principles, He would
be the only one to have a plural principle
and not a single one.
herself in making
of
the Son another principle in the Trinity by her
addition of Filioque, since
she
makes the personal
action of the Son the same
as that of the Father in the procession of the
Holy
Ghost.
"Let me add that if, in the things
where there is community between
the Father and Son, the Spirit
must be excluded, and if the Father be one with the Son in
substance only and not
in properties, then necessarily the Holy Spirit can have nothing
in common except what
concerns the substance.
“You see how little the advocates of this
errour are entitled to the name of Christians,
and that they only take it to deceive others. The Spirit
proceeding from the Son!
Where hast thou learned
this fact that thou assertest? In what Gospel hast thou found
this word? To
what council
belongs such blasphemy?"
Photius appeals to Scripture and Catholic
tradition against the Western system. He adds that the consequence of this
system is that there are in God four persons or hypostases; for the Spirit
having a double
principle, is a Being double
as to personality. He further
unfolds; many considerations which prove in him a profoundly philosophical mind, and to which
the Western theologians have answered nothing
to the purpose.* All the arguments in
favour of pure Catholic tradition, prove conclusively that particular churches
never, even with the best intentions, can meddle with impunity with the sacred
deposit of Revelation.†
Photius brought several
more accusations against the Roman Church.
He knew perfectly that each particular church was
entitled to its own regulations, and he had laid down
this soundest of principles in opposition to Nicholas himself, who sought to impose the
discipline of the Western Church upon the
Eastern. But in discipline we should distinguish
between Apostolic rules, which have a character of universality, and private regulations.
Now, he
claimed that the Roman Church
violated Apostolic rules of discipline upon three principal points. First,
in imposing the fast and abstinence of Saturday. Secondly,
in making ecclesiastical
celibacy a general
law. Thirdly, in regarding as void confirmation given by priests after baptism. The Roman Bishop
who had been sent to the Bulgarians had transgressed the principles of orthodoxy so far as to repeat the sacrament of confirmation to
those who had received it from Greek priests.
This was such a flagrant
violation that even
the Romanists do
not defend it.
Photius, in his encyclical letter,
appeals to all the Apostolic sees of the East against
the innovations of the
Italians. He concludes by entreating them to adhere publicly
to the second Nicene
Council, to proclaim
it the seventh œcumenical, and to declare against
the innovations of the barbarous nations
of the West who
undertake to adulterate the true doctrine.
Photius had some reason
to consider the Western people as
little civilized. Since the invasion by the tribes which had transformed the West, the ecclesiastical schools and libraries had been destroyed, and the clergy
were profoundly ignorant.
* The reader will soon be of
our opinion
if he will read without prejudice and with an unbiased mind the treatise of Monseigneur Macarius, which
we have already mentioned, and
the learned work of Zœrnicave, who devoted almost his entire life to the study of the
question before us in all
the
records of tradition. The works of such
as Perrone and
Jager, not to mention the rest, are very meagre as
compared
with those we speak of.
This
last- named author claims
to rest his arguments
upon ontological considerations to prove
that
the Father is the sole principle in the
Trinity, although the Son is
so also with him. A very
original idea indeed to
resort to the
science of the human
being
in order to explain the Infinite Being!
And besides, the
reflections of the Abbé Jager, and those authors upon whom he relies, have this
slight
defect,
that
they are unintelligible not only to the
reader, but most
probably
to the writers. Ambiguous phrases never make a good
argument for an innovation.
† Among
the letters of Photius (Lib.
II. ep. 24) there Is one to the metropolitan of Aquilela. He replies to the
texts of the Latins by
saying that if ten or twenty can be found
in favour of the innovation, there can be found
six hundred against
it; whence it follows that
tradition will always remain clear on
this point. He
also works out the same arguments as in his encyclical letter.
Charlemagne had given a strong
impulse to letters; but in spite of his
efforts and those of the distinguished men who aided him, the ecclesiastical sciences
were in their infancy, and a
certain pedantry too often took their place. Now,
the character of a pedant is to be quite certain about every thing.
The innovators therefore thought
they had done a work of high religious philosophy in adding to the Creed those words
of which Photius complained.
They thought they had defined the nature of the
Trinity better than the Nicene
Council, in attributing to the Son the personal
quality of the Father
in order to prove that he had the same substance.
They defended this doctrine by some misinterpreted texts from the Fathers, of whom
they possessed very few works,
and thus they set up a false opinion
as a dogma, without regard
to the testimony of
the Apostolic churches of the East. They consulted the Popes; but the Popes, who were themselves very ignorant, swayed on the one hand by the
reasoning of men whom they thought
learned, and, on
the other hand, desiring to avail themselves of this
opportunity to do an act of sovereign authority, yielded
and sanctioned the innovation, even while they resisted its introduction into the Creed.
Thus was Rome influenced by errour in the interest
of her assumed sovereignty. And hence
Nicholas felt that the Papacy itself
was attacked by the encyclical letter
of Photius. At a loss how to reply, he applied
to those scholars
who, in the Church
of France, were the avowed champions of the innovation. Photius had taken
no notice of the Latin
innovations
so long as they
remained in the West, and perhaps only knew
of them vaguely. But when
the Roman priests spread them through Bulgaria, in defiant
opposition to the doctrine of the
Eastern Church, and among a people
brought into the faith by
the Church of Constantinople, he could be silent no longer, and he drew up against the Roman Church
such a bill of attainder
as shall endure for ever as
a protest against the abuses
and errours of which she has been guilty.
Nicholas so far humbled himself that he applied
to Hinemar, a famous Archbishop of Rheims, who had
resisted his autocratic pretensions. He felt he had need of
this great theologian of
the West to resist
Photius. He had received the accusations of that
Patriarch through the Prince
of Bulgaria. " In reading that paper," he says,* “we have concluded that the writers dipped
their pen in the lake of
blasphemy, and that instead
of ink they used the
mire of errour. They condemn not only our
Church, but the whole Latin Church, because
we fast on Saturday and teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Father
and the Son; for
they maintain that He
proceeds from the Father only." Nicholas sums up
some
further complaints of the
Greeks. Some of them are not to be found
in the circular of Photius to the
Easterns. "What is still more senseless," he adds, “before receiving our
legates, they would oblige them to make a profession
of faith, in which these articles
and those who have maintained them are anathematized,
and to present canonical letters
to him whom they call their œcumenical Patriarch." We perceive
by this that the Easterns, in order to preserve the ancient faith and discipline against Roman innovations, resorted to all the means in their
power.
It is impossible to share the opinion of Nicholas, who chose to regard as
foolish measures of caution both perfectly legitimate and canonical, which were only wrong
inasmuch as they were an obstacle to his ambitious projects.
Having exhibited his grievances against
the Easterns, Nicholas
commanded all the Metropolitans to assemble Provincial Councils,
reply to the accusations of Photius, and send the result of their deliberations to Hincmar of
Rheims, who would transmit them to him. The
Bishops of France assembled. Several
of them entered the lists against
the Easterns, particularly Æneas of Paris. Ratramn, a monk of Corbey, composed the most learned work.
* Nichol. Epist.
in Labbe’s Collection, vol.
viii.
No one could
have done better
in the defence of a bad cause.
At a time when
the records of tradition were very rare in the West, it was difficult to compile from the many complete instruction. The Frankic divines therefore
quoted in their favour only, a few
texts, of which many were from apocryphal works.
Photius seems to allude to these labours when he
says in his letter to the Metropolitan of Aquileia, that if one could
quote ten or twenty Fathers
in favour of the opinions
of the Latins, one might quote six hundred
in support of the belief
of the Church. The historical facts
adduced by Ratramn in proof
of the Roman primacy are completely distorted for want of proper information; and, besides, in defending that primacy, he
had no intention whatever
to maintain a sovereignty of divine right. His reasoning and his quotations, like those of Æneas,
respecting the celibacy of the
priesthood, did not reach that question; for the Easterns did not disapprove of celibacy
in itself considered, but only as a general law imposed upon
the clergy. In this light celibacy
certainly changed the general
discipline of the primitive Church,
and the Easterns were right in attacking it on
this ground.
Under John VIII. the question
of the Procession
of the Holy Ghost changed its
character at Rome like that of the
elevation of Photius to the Patriarchal chair. The addition of the Filioque made to the Nicene
Creed in the West was
solemnly condemned in the sixth session of the council
of 879. The legates
of the Pope, those of the Eastern
Patriarchal sees, and all the bishops concurred in that condemnation.
The Pope; upon receiving the transactions, wrote to Photius.*
“We know the
unfavourable accounts that you
have heard concerning us and our Church; I therefore wish to explain myself
to you even before
you write to me on
the subject. You are not ignorant that your
envoy, in discussing the Creed with us, found that we preserved it as we originally received it, without adding to or taking
anything from it; for
we know what severe punishment he would
deserve who should dare to tamper with it. To set you at
ease, therefore, upon this subject, which has been
a cause of scandal to the Church,
we again declare to you
that not only do we thus recite it, but even condemn those who,
in their folly, have had the audacity to act otherwise from the beginning, as violators of the
divine word, and falsifiers of the doctrine of Christ, of the Apostles, and of
the Fathers, who have transmitted the Creed to us
through the councils; we declare that their portion is that of Judas, because they have acted like him, since,
if it be not the body of Christ itself which they put to
death, it is, at all events, the faithful of God
who are his members, whom they tear by
schism, giving them up, as well as themselves, to eternal death, as also
did that base Apostle.
Nevertheless, I think that your
Holiness, so full of wisdom, is aware of
the difficulty of making our
bishops share this opinion,
and of changing at once so
important a practice which has taken root for so many years.
We therefore believe
it is best not to force any one to abandon that addition to the Creed,
but we must act with moderation
and prudence, little
by little, exhorting them to renounce
that blasphemy. Thus, then, those who accuse us of
sharing this opinion do not
speak the truth.
But those who say
that there are persons left among us who dare to recite the Creed in this manner,
are not very far from the truth.
Your Holiness should not be too much scandalized on our account, nor withdraw from the healthy part of the body of our
Church, but zealously contribute by your
gentleness and prudence to the conversion of such as have departed from the truth,
so that with us, you may deserve
the promised reward.
Hail in the Lord, worthily
venerated and catholic
brother!"
John VIII. spoke particularly of the
addition; but the expressions he used prove that he condemned the doctrine, as well, which that addition represented. The word would have been no blasphemy if it had expressed a truth. The Papacy was changeful, then, as to the
* Joann. viii. epist.
doctrine; it hesitated under
Leo III.; it approved the new
dogma under Nicholas I.; it rejected
it as blasphemous under
John VIII.*
After having
ascertained this principal Roman innovation, let us now continue our account of the Roman enterprises
against the East.
John VIII. being dead, Marin† was elected Bishop of Rome. He
had been one of the legates of Nicholas in Bulgaria and at the council
of 869. It could not, therefore, be hoped that he would
follow the course of his immediate predecessor. It is thought
that it was he who carried to Constantinople the letters of John
approving the council of 879,
except in those things wherein
the legates had exceeded
their powers. This exception was
a mere formality; for he had received
the acts; knew perfectly
what had happened; very modestly
urged Photius not to take it amiss, that he had demanded a submission from him; and knew
the Patriarch had not been willing to make one, for
this reason, that only the guilty should
beg pardon.‡ Marin could not concur with the council of 879, without condemning that of
869, of
which he had been one of
the presidents. He, therefore, refused,
when he was at Constantinople, to condemn himself by condemning that council, and the Emperor Basil detained him a prisoner
one month for this cause.
Raised to the Roman episcopate, (882,) Marin had a grudge
to satisfy. He hastened to condemn Photius.
But his pontificate was short, and in 884
he was succeedecl by Adrian
III., who also condemned the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Emperor
Basil wrote very
energetic letters to this Pope, but they only arrived at Rome after his death, and were
delivered to his successor, Stephen V., (885,) who had
been the intimate friend and confidant of Marin, against
whom the Emperor's letters were particularly directed. Stephen
undertook his defence. We will quote some passages of his letter, which are well worthy
of notice.§
“As God has given you the sovereignty of temporal things, in like manner we have
received from him, through
St. Peter, Prince of
the Apostles, the sovereignty of spiritual things. To us
is committed the care of the flock; this care is as
much more excellent as the heavens are
above
the earth. Hear what the Lord said to Peter, Thou art Peter, etc. I therefore entreat
your Piety to honour the name and dignity of the
Prince of the Apostles by conforming to his decrees; for the episcopate in all the churches on earth owes its origin to St. Peter, by whom we instruct all the faithful, teaching them wholesome and incorruptible doctrine."
Here is a clear enunciation of Papal sovereignty and Papal infallibility of divine right. Stephen pretends
that the legates
of Pope Sylvester, at the first Council
of Nicea, established this principle, " That the first bishop could
not be judged by any one.,
Such an assertion was worthy of the erudition of that age. As
a consequence of his doctrine of the
episcopal character, Stephen claims that Photius
never was any thing
but a layman, since he did not
derive his episcopate from Rome.
"Did not the Roman Church," he adds, "write to you
to hold a council at Constantinople? I ask you, to whom
could it write? To Photius,
a layman? If you had
a Patriarch, our Church would often visit him by letters. But, alas! the glorious city of
Constantinople is without a pastor, and if the affection that we
bear toward you did not lead
us to bear patiently the insult to our
Church, we should be obliged
to pronounce against
the
* Several Western writers have endeavoured
to disprove the authenticity
of this
letter of John VIII. Their arguments cannot
counterbalance this fact,
that this letter was published from Western manuscripts. Had the Easterns invented it, as the
Romanists maintain without
any proof, It would have come
from the East to the
West, while it really went from the West to the East. This certain fact
speaks louder
than all their dissertations,
and answers every objection.
† Known also as Martin II.
‡ Joann. viii. Epist.
§ Steph. V. Epist. Labbe’s Collection, vol. ix.
prevaricator, Photius,
who has so basely spoken against
us, more severe
penalties than our predecessors. We do not
presume, in thus speaking, to fail in the respect due to you; we
speak in our own defence and that of
Pope Marin, who held the same sentiments as
Pope Nicholas."
Thus Nicholas had bequeathed to Marin the sentiments which the latter had bequeathed to Stephen. As for the acts of John VIII.,
they were completely ignored.
Photius did not change
as easily as the Popes, and he followed the rules of ancient law with moderation and intelligence.
It appears from the letter
of Stephen V. that the Papacy was no longer so very defiant toward the emperors of the
East. The Roman empire of the
West had crumbled with Charlemagne. From its fragments had sprung a
thousand little independent states,
for ever quarreling among themselves. The feudal system
was organizing: The Papacy
no longer saw a powerful
prince at hand to protect
it. Rome itself was a
prey to the quarrels of several hostile parties. Meanwhile the Mussulmans continued their conquests. Checked in the East by the Emperor Basil, they were pouring
in upon the West, and Rome itself
was threatened. John VIII. knew
that Rome could obtain better
aid from the Emperor of the
East than from the divided princes of the West. His successors, with less cleverness,
implored the same
assistance without sacrificing any of
their contemptible personal
grudges. It was only
fair that they should not succeed.
Had the Papacy been happily inspired, it might have availed itself
of its influence in the
West to arouse the Princes
against the Mussulmans, and unite
them with the Emperor of the
East in that great struggle. But Rome preferred to indulge
her antipathies against
a Church which set up
the doctrine and laws of
the primitive Church in opposition to her usurpations. She aroused the West as
much against the Eastern Christians as against the Mussulmans, and thus introduced a radical fault in those great movements of nations known as the Crusades.
The conception of these expeditions was grand, and for the West it led to some useful results.
We do not deny it; but historical impartiality demands that it should be confessed, at the same time, that the Papacy,
which set these
expeditions on foot, failed
to give them the character of grandeur they would have
had, if instead of circumscribing
them to the West it had united
in a fraternal embrace the Eastern
Christians with the Crusaders.
Rome
sacrificed all to her hatred of the Eastern
Church.
The Emperor Basil died shortly
after receiving the letter
of Pope Stephen
V. Leo, the Philosopher, son
of Basil, succeeded him upon
the throne of the East. He drove
Photius from the see of
Constantinople, to Put there his own
brother Stephen. As a pretext
for this usurpation, he sent two
of his officers to the Church
of Saint Sophia,
who ascended the pulpit and publicly read off the
crimes which it pleased
the Emperor to impute to Photius; and the Patriarch was next accused of having
been concerned in a plot, the object
of which was to place one of his relatives on the
throne. Not a single proof of this charge could be adduced.
Then Leo had Bishop Stylien
brought to court, who was a
personal enemy of
Photius, and the two composed an infamous
letter for the Pope (A.D.
886) in which they collected all the
accusations of the enemies of
Photius--accusations which had been declared to be calumnies by John VIII., and by a council of four hundred bishops. This letter of Stylien is one of the Principal documents of which
the Western writers have made use
in their accounts of what they call the schism
of the East.*
Its value may be estimated at a glance. Stylien’s letter only arrived
at Rome after
Stephen’s death, (891.)
Formosus, his successor,
replied that Photius had never been any
* The Abbé Jager innocently
says, “The letter of Stylien is a historic monument upon
which we have frequently
drawn.” Hist. of Phot.
book
ix. p. 387, edit. 1854.
thing
more than a layman; that the bishops whom he had ordained were likewise nothing
but laymen; that he was therefore condemned without need of any
trial; that the bishops,
his adherents, should be treated with mercy but only as
laymen.† The Pope
who wrote this answer was exhumed by
Pope Stephen VI. His putrescent corpse was cited, judged,
and condemned. John IX. reversed this judgment of
Stephen VI. These facts and the atrocious immoralities of the
Popes of that period are covered by Romanists with a veil of
complaisance. They have anathemas only for
a great Patriarch who, by
his virtues and ecclesiastical learning, deserves to rank with the most illustrious
bishops of the Church. There is no doubt that Photius
died the same year that Formosus wrote
his famous letter
to Stylien against him, that is, in 891.
‡
The Eastern
Church holds Ignatius
and Photius in equal veneration. She has declared anathemas against
all that has been
written against either
of them. She is
perfectly wise in
this decision. It was her
will that these two
Patriarchs should be judged
by themselves and
by their own writings, without reference to other writings dictated by
passion. Now, Ignatius wrote nothing against
Photius; and the latter, in his numerous writings, never attacked Ignatius. After the restoration of Ignatius, and the reconciliation of Photius with the Emperor Basil, they saw each other, forgave each other, and it may be said that Ignatius died in the arms of Photius according to what this latter Patriarch
declared before four hundred bishops
in the council
of 879.
It is therefore dishonest to appeal to the testimony of a few
enemies of Photius who were Greeks, on
the ground that they belonged to the Eastern
Church. That Church
has disowned them, and has
had the wisdom to warn her faithful that calumnies inspired by
blind hatred, whether they come from Greeks
or Latins, are alike
to, be condemned.§
Stylien, Bishop of
Neo-Cæsarea, and an enemy to Photius,
remained in correspondence with the Popes after the death of that
Patriarch. John IX. wrote to him in the
year 900,** to this effect,
"it is our will that the decrees of our predecessors (concerning the Patriarchs of
Constantinople) should remain inviolate;” but this Pope did
not attempt to reconcile those of John VIII. with those of Nicholas, both of whom were equally his
predecessors;. Five years after, the court of Rome
had some relations with the East,
to sanction an act of
injustice. The Emperor
Leo VI. having married for the
fourth time, had
thereby violated the discipline of
the Eastern Church, sanctioned even by civil laws.
The Patriarch Nicholas
besought him to have the case examined by the
five Patriarchal churches.
Leo feigned to consent, and wrote to Sergius III., Pope of Rome, to Michael,
Pope of Alexandria,* to Simeon, Patriarch of Antioch, and Elias, Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Patriarchs sent legates. The Emperor bribed them. The faithful
bishops were exiled. Nicholas was deposed, and Euthymius put in his place; and, finally, a dispensation was
† See Labbe’s Collection
of
Councils, vols. viii.
and ix.
‡ M. Jager,
who
thinks himself a
historian of some weight, says that Photius died In 891, adding that
this was
several years after the
letter of Formosus. That letter, however,
as well as the pontificate of Formosus only dates from the year 891, Stephen
V., his predecessor, having
died only the same year.
§ The Abbé Jager sees
an astonishing contradiction in the conduct of the Greek Church. (Hist. of Phot. book ix, p.
392). This is
the fault
of his eyes, which by the effect of a singular
mirage
have made him see things quite
different from what
they
are in reality. A historian who "starts
with the principle
of only listening to the
enemies of the person
whose history he is about to
write, must necessarily find contradictions
in those who
have followed an
opposite course. The question
is,
whether in
judging a man it
is expedient to refer exclusively to
his enemies.
There is in
the work of the Abbé Jager
a contradiction much
more
astonishing than that which
he imputes to the Greek Church.
It is the Satanic character he ascribes to Photius, side by side with that which
shows forth from the letters
he has quoted of this great
man. Mr. Jager did not perceive
that Photius, by his
letters, belies
all these infamous accusations that
he renewed against him.
** See Collection of Councils,
by Father Labbe, vol. ix.
* The Patriarch
of Alexandria took the title of
Pope
as well as the Bishop of
Rome,
and still preserves it.
granted
to the Emperor for his
fourth marriage. Thus did Rome sustain
the unjust deposition of a Patriarch who was guilty of nothing more than of maintaining the rules of church discipline. For in all things she
acted less in accordance with justice than with her own
interest. If she had taken the part of
Ignatius, it was because
she feared the opposition of Photius to her sovereignty. If she so readily sacrificed
Nicholas, it was in
order to do an act of authority in the East.
Power was her sole object.
Pope Sergius could not indeed
be fastidious upon the subject
of the illicit marriage of
Leo, for he was himself the lover of the infamous Marozia,
and had by this
adulterous connection a son,
who was a Pope like himself.† Such a Pope could not understand the delicacy of conscience of the Patriarch
Nicholas. After the death of the
Emperor Leo, Euthymius was driven away and Nicholas reinstated. This Patriarch was even
placed at the head of
the
regency during the minority
of the young Emperor
Constantine, surnamed Porphyrogenitus.
Reinstalled in his see, he wrote
(A.D. 912) to Pope Anastasius III., the successor of Sergius, to complain of the
conduct of
his legates at Constantinople. “They seem,”‡ he wrote, “to have come from Rome for no other
purpose than to declare
war against us, but since
they claimed the primacy in the Church, they ought carefully to have ascertained the whole affair, and written a report of it, instead of consenting to the condemnation of those
who had incurred the displeasure of the
Prince only for their detestation of incontinency. It is not, indeed, to be wondered at that two or three men should
be taken by surprise; but who could have supposed
that Western bishops would
confirm that unjust sentence by their
votes without knowledge of the cause?
I learn that the pretext
of dispensation is brought forward, as if by a dispensation debauchery could be
authorized and the canons violated. Dispensation, if I
am not mistaken,
is intended to imitate the mercy of
God; it extends its hand to the sinner
and lifts him up,
but it does not permit him to remain in the sin into which he has
fallen."
This perfectly
just doctrine was not
that of Rome. At one
time, under pretence of observing the canons, she would throw an entire kingdom into confusion, as under
Nicholas
I., in
relation to the marriage of Hloter; then again she could give dispensation without
difficulty in equally important cases. This was
because her study was always to establish the principle of her absolute power over laws as well as men. Her
will was her law, and the interest of her sovereignty her only rule.
The Patriarch Nicholas
felt the consequences of the palace intrigues; he was banished and again
reinstated. Peace was finally reestablished in 920, by an imperial decree which again recognized the discipline for which Nicholas
had suffered persecution. This Patriarch wrote to Pope
John X. to renew friendly
relations between
the churches of Rome and
Constantinople. But John X. was more engrossed by his
adulterous amours with Theodora, Marozia's sister, than by the affairs of the Church.
For a century there
was scarcely any intercourse between
the churches of Rome and
Constantinople; which did not tend to reunite
them in matters of doctrine.§ In 1024 the Patriarch Eustathius attempted
to have himself recognized at Rome as
the ecclesiastical chief
of the East, in the same way as the Pope was chief of the West. His envoys were on the point of succeeding--thanks to their money, of which
the court of Rome was very
greedy; but the
intrigue transpired, and caused some agitation, principally in Italy.
The court of Rome did
not dare to go
further. This fact proves,
at least, that the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople were not at strife.
Those of Rome were mostly unworthy
of their place; their political business and the struggles which prevailed in most of the
Western churches were as
† Rome
was then governed
by three prostitutes,
Theodora and
her
two
daughters Marozia
and Theodora, who
disposed of the Popedom in favour of their lovers and adulterine children.
‡ Nicol.
Epist. in the Collection of
the Councils,
vol. ix. Appendix.
§ Nat. Alex.
in Hist. Eccl. Dissert. IV. Sæcul.
ix. et. x.
much as they
could attend to, and they did not trouble themselves with the Eastern
churches, where their sovereignty was always opposed. But the contest
recommenced in 1053,
when Leo IX. was Bishop of Rome.
Having received
letters of communion from Peter, the new
Patriarch of Antioch, Leo affected, in his answer, to tell him that he held the third
rank in the Patriarchate, thus ignoring
the Patriarch of Constantinople, notwithstanding the decrees
of the œcumenical councils,
which had given him the second rank,
the third to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the fourth to the Patriarch of Antioch. At that time Michael Cerularius was Patriarch of
Constantinople; he had written
a letter to John,
Bishop of Trani, against
several disciplinary or liturgical practices of the
Latin Church.* Cardinal Humbert having read this letter
at the Bishop's
house, translated it into Latin and sent it to Pope Leo
IX. The Pope wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople in unmeasured terms. The Patriarch then wrote a second letter
against the Latins, completing his accusations. The most serious one was that of adding the Filioque to the Creed. Leo IX.
should have calmly answered these accusations; proved
that many of them were unfounded; and excused several
Latin usages upon the principle that discipline may vary in different countries, provided the regulations of the Apostles and of the
œcumenical councils
are kept inviolate; confessed, in fine, that many of
the accusations made
by the Patriarch were just, and undertaken the reform of the
Western Church. But Leo IX.
only cared for the injury that he thought
was done to his pretensions as
sovereign head of the Church, and he wrote to Michael
Cerularius under the influence of that
thought.†
After a long exordium
upon the unity of the
Church, he claims that unity to be in the
Roman Church, which has received that high prerogative from God through St. Peter. That Church having received as its
foundation Jesus Christ through
St. Peter, is the unshaken rock against which the gates
of hell shall never
prevail. There can, therefore, be no errour in the
Roman Church, and it is only through pride
that the Eastern
Church makes those accusations. He attacks that Church on account of the heresies that have sprung
up in her bosom; but he
does not observe that no church
can be made responsible for heresies she has condemned;
whilst the Roman Church
was herself accused of having taught errour in lieu of sound doctrine. He ventures to recall
the opposition of the ancient
Bishops of Rome to the title of
œcumenical, but does not remark that the Popes
had usurped the thing
as well as the title, although not officially introduced in all their acts; he falsely maintains that the first Council of Nicea declared that no one could judge
the Bishop of Rome,
and that he was the
chief of all the churches. He cites an apocryphal grant of Constantine to prove the sovereign power of the Pope in a temporal as
well as a spiritual point of
view. He thinks also that he has
subdued the impudent vanity of
those who contested the rights of the
Papacy. He resorts to those texts
of Scripture which at all times have constituted the meagre arsenal of the Papacy.
He maintains that Constantinople owes
to the Holy See the second
rank that she occupies
among the Patriarchal Churches. As for the Roman Church, she has an exceptional rank, and to
attack her rights
is to attack the Church Universal, of which she is the divine centre.
Pride and jealousy alone could suggest
such sacrilegious intentions.
Such is the substance of the
first letter of Leo IX. to the Patriarch Michael Cerularius.
Politics envenomed these
first discussions.
The Normans were attacking the empire.
The Emperor Constantine Monomachus, too weak to resist
all his enemies, resolved
to ask the aid of
the Germans and Italians, and to this end applied
to the Pope, who had great influence over those people.
In order to conciliate the Pope
he wrote to him that he ardently desired to reestablish friendly
relations, so long interrupted, between the churches
of Rome
* This
letter may be found in the Annals of
Baronius. See Letters of Leo IX. in the Collection of
Cuoncils.
Nat.
Alesand. Hist. Eccl.
Synop. Sæcul. xi. c. iv.
† Leo IX. Ep. in Labbe’s Collection of
Councils,
vol. ix.
and Constantinople. He persuaded the Patriarch Michael to write in the same strain
to Leo IX., who at once sent three legates to Constantinople with a letter for
the Emperor and another for the
Patriarch, (1054.)
He begins by felicitating the Emperor upon
the pious desire he had communicated to him, but very soon comes down
to the rights of the Roman see. “The Catholic
Church,” he says, “mother and immaculate virgin, although
destined to fill the whole world
with her members, has nevertheless but one head,
which must be venerated by all.
Whoever dishonours that head claims in vain to be one of her
members."
That head of the
Church is Rome, whose power
the great Constantine recognized by his
grant. Now, as Bishop of Rome, he is the Vicar of God charged with the care of
all the churches. He
therefore wishes
to restore
its splendour to the Roman Episcopate, which for a long time has
been governed by mercenaries, he says,
rather than pastors. The Emperor
of Constantinople can aid him in this
work, by restoring the estates
which the Roman Church
possessed in the East, and by
checking the enterprises of
the Patriarch Michael, whom he accuses
of ambitious projects
against the churches of Alexandria and Antioch.
In his letter to Michael Cerularius, Leo IX. first acknowledges the receipt
of the letters written to him by that
Patriarch in favour
of a pacification. "We shall
have peace," he tells
him, “if you will, in future, abstain from overstepping
the boundaries set up by the Fathers." This is just what the Eastern Church
said to the Papacy. Leo then finds fault with Michael for his ambition, his luxury,
and his wealth. Did such
blame fall with a good
grace from the mouth of
a Pope? He adds, "What a detestable, lamentable, sacrilegious usurpation is yours,
when in speech and in writing
you call yourself universal
Patriarch Then he mentions the opposition of St.
Gregory to this title; and this brings
him to the pretended rights of the Church
of Rome. "The
Roman Church," he says,
"is not, as you allege, a local church; is she
not the head and mother? How could she be
this if she had
neither members
nor children? We proclaim
this openly because we believe it firmly; the Roman Church
is so little a local church, that in all the world, no
nation which presumes to disagree with her can any
longer be regarded
as belonging to the Church. It is thenceforth only a conventicle of heretics--a synagogue of Satan!
Therefore let him who
would glory in the name of a
Christian cease to curse and attack the Roman Church; for it
is vain in him to pretend to honour the Father of the
family if he dishonours
his spouse! "
Is it surprising that the Eastern
Church energetically protected against this sacrilegious doctrine ?
Cardinal Humbert was
chief of the legates of Leo IX.,
who were bearers of these letters. The Emperor received them with distinction, and Humbert opened
the discussion at once,
entering upon the defence
of the Latin Church, making sundry accusations against the Greek Church,
and showing that the Greek Church had her own peculiar discipline and her
own peculiar abuses as well, as the
Latin Church. His
writings were translated into Greek by
the Emperor's order.
The Patriarch Michael
refused to communicate with the legates.
Without doubt he knew that it was
a foregone conclusion with the, Emperor to sacrifice the Greek Church to the
Papacy in order to obtain some aid for his throne.
The letter he had received
from the Pope had enlightened him sufficiently as to what Rome meant by union.
The legates proceeded to the Church
of Saint Sophia at the hour
when the clergy were preparing
for the mass. They loudly complained of the
obstinacy of the
Patriarch, and placed
upon the altar a sentence of excommunication against him. They went out of the
church, shaking the dust
from their feet and pronouncing anathemas against all those who should not communicate with the Latins. All this was
done with the Emperor's consent;
which explains why the Patriarch would have no
intercourse with the legates. The people, convinced of the
Emperor's connivance, revolted. In the moment of
danger Constantine made some
concessions. The legates
protested that their sentence
of excommunication had not been read as it was written; that the Patriarch
had the most cruel
and perfidious designs against them. However that may be, and had Michael even been guilty of such wicked
designs, this manner
of acting was none the more dignified or canonical. Michael
has been further accused
of making groundless complaints against the Latin Church. Several
of these were, in fact,
exaggerated; but it has
not been sufficiently observed
that the Patriarch, in his letter,
only echoed the sentiments of all the Eastern churches. Ever since the Papacy had attempted to impose its autocracy upon them, there
had been a strong
reaction in all these churches. On
the spur of this sentiment every
thing had been sought out that could be laid at the door
of the Roman Church, which by
her bishops held herself out as
the infallible guardian of sound
doctrine. Michael Cerularius was only the interpreter of these complaints; he would never
have had enough influence to impose his grievances, true or
pretended, upon the whole Christian East; so that those who
call him the consummator of the schism commenced under Photius, have but superficially understood the facts. What made the strength
of Photius against the Papacy was,
that all the churches of the East were with him, in spite of
political intrigues, imperial influence, Papal violence, and the spite
of relentless enemies. Therein lay the
strength of Michael Cerularius also. This Patriarch
possessed neither the learning, the genius, nor the virtues of Photius; but he spoke in the name of the
East, and the East
recognized its own sense in his protests against the innovations of Rome. The Emperor, jealous of the influence he had acquired, banished him, and was endeavouring to have him deposed by a council, when he
heard of his death,
(1058.)
After the death
of the Patriarch Michael
intercourse between Rome and Constantinople became even less frequent than before.
We hear of one legate
sent in 1071, by Pope
Alexander II., but rather
for a political object than from motives of
religion. He thought that the Eastern
Emperors might be of great
help in the Crusades.
Gregory VII,
who soon after ascended the Papal chair, (in 1073,)
raised the Papacy to its greatest
height, by skilfully taking advantage of
the divisions caused by the feudal
system, to extend the influence of the Church, which he summed up
in the Bishop of Rome. But he did
not use his influence to reconcile the West with the East; and besides the antagonism was too
great between the two churches, to allow the diplomatic negotiations of the Popes with
the Emperors
of the East to have any useful result.
The Papacy had spread throughout the West the idea that the Greeks were schismatics and dangerous enemies to the Church,
while the Easterns regarded
the people of the West in the light of barbarians who were Christians
only in name and had tampered
with the faith and the holiest institutions of the
Church. Hence the distrust of the
Crusaders on the part of
the Greeks, and the violence of the Crusaders against them. We are not concerned with those
expeditions in this work.
We will only notice this acknowledged fact, that the Crusades
only strengthened the antipathy which had long existed between
East and West, and that if any attempt
were made to reconcile them,
it was ever the emperors, acting from motives of
policy and interest, that took the lead.
These emperors never
ceased to think of
their Western possessions. They watched
the contests between several
of the Popes and the emperors of the
West. These contests, as animated as they
were protected, were caused
by the Papacy, which, in virtue of
its spiritual sovereignty, pretended to overrule
the temporal powers. Alexis Comnenus endeavoured to turn them to
account. He sent (A.D.. 1112) an embassy to Rome announcing that he was inclined to proceed thither to receive the imperial crown
from the hands of the Pope. This step did not
lead to any thing more but it proves
that the emperors of
that period had a decided
tendency to conciliate Rome from motives of
mere policy.
Manuel Comnenus;
(A.D. 1155) sought the alliance of the Pope and
of Frederic, Emperor
of the West, against the
Normans, who had
wrested Sicily from the empire of Constantinople. Upon that occasion
Pope Adrian IV. sent legates
to Manuel, with a letter for
Basil, Archbishop of Thessalonica,
in which he exhorted that bishop to procure, the reunion of the
churches.* Basil answered that there
was no division between the Greeks
and Latins, since they held the same faith and offered the same sacrifice. "As for the causes of' scandal, weak in themselves, that have
separated us from each other," he adds, "your Holiness can cause
them to cease, by
your own extended authority and the help of
the Emperor of the West.”
This reply was
as skilful as it was wise. The Papacy had innovated; it enjoyed
a very widespread authority in the West. What was
there to prevent its use
of that authority to reject
its own innovations or those
it had tolerated? It was
in the power of the
Church of Rome to
bring about a perfect union between
the two churches. But the Papacy
had no such idea of union;
no union could exist
in its view except upon the
submission of the Eastern
Church to its authority. But the Eastern Church, while
maintaining the ancient
doctrine, was in an
attitude of continual protest
against this usurped
authority, and was not
disposed to submit to
this unlawful yoke.
The emperors continued their political intrigues while the Church was
in this situation. They kept on
good terms with the Emperor
of the West so long
as he was friendly with the Papacy; but as
soon as new struggles arose, they profited by them
to renew their applications to the Popes
respecting the imperial crown.
Alexander III. being
at war with Frederic, Manuel
Comnenus sent him (A.D.
1166) an embassy, to make known to
the Pope his good intentions of reuniting the Greek and Latin churches, so that
Latins and Greeks should thenceforth make but one people
under one chief.
He asked, therefore, the crown
of the whole Roman empire, promising Italy and other material advantages to the Roman
Church. The Pope sent legates to Constantinople.
Two years later (A.D. 1169) Manuel sent a new embassy to Alexander, offering
to reunite the Greek and Latin
churches, if he would
grant him the crown he solicited. The Pope refused,
under pretext of the troubles
that would
follow
that grant. Notwithstanding this refusal the most friendly relations existed between
the Pope and
Manuel, at whose request a Cardinal sub-deacon, named John, went to Constantinople to work for the union of the churches. But Manuel’s tendencies were not approved of by the Greeks, who detested the Latins, not only for religious reasons, but also
from resentment for the violence
they had suffered
from the Crusaders. And accordingly, after Manuel's death, the Latins
were massacred without mercy at Constantinople, (A.D.
1182.) Cardinal John
was one of the victims. Andronicus, who had instigated the massacre,
was elected Emperor. He died shortly
after, and was succeeded by Isaac Angelus, who was dethroned by his
brother, Alexis Angelus.
Innocent III. was Bishop of Rome, (A.D. 1198.) Since Gregory VII. no other Pope
had had so much influence in the West. Alexis Angelus
hastened to follow the policy of the Comneni: he sent ambassadors, with a letter
to the Pope from him, and another
from the Patriarch John Camaterus,
in order to prove to him that they
desired to procure a union between the churches. Innocent dispatched legates
to Constantinople, bearing letters
in which he exalted the Roman Church beyond
all measure. The Patriarch
gave the legates
his answer, which began thus:
“To Innocent, very holy Roman Pope, and
our beloved brother in the Lord Christ,
John, by the Divine Mercy,
Archbishop of Constantinople, Patriarch of New Rome, love and
peace from our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Here is the substance of his letter:
"In reading the letter you have sent to our Humility, we have
approved of the
zeal of your Holiness for our
mutual union in the faith. But I will
not conceal from you
what has greatly embarrassed me in your
letter. It amazes me, in fact, that you
call the Church of
* Adrian iv. Ep. 7.
Rome one and universal, since it is well established that the Church is divided into particular
churches, governed by pastors, under one sole, supreme pastor,
Jesus Christ. And what I do not
further understand is, that you call
the Church of Rome the mother
of the other churches. The mother of
the churches is that of Jerusalem, which surpasses them all in antiquity
and dignity. I cannot, therefore, plead guilty to the accusation, which your Holiness makes against me, that I
divide the single and seamless coat of
Christ. When, on one side, we
behold our own Church carefully preserving the ancient
doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and, on the
other, your Church fallen
into errour on this
point, we may well ask you which of them has rent the coat of
Christ?
"I am not the less
disposed, for all that, to second the kind intentions of the Emperor for good."
The Emperor also answered
the Pope, who
replied in two
letters from which we
will give some extracts. He
writes to the Patriarch: " The primacy of the
Roman see has been
established, not by man, but by
God, or rather, by the
Man-God; this can be proved by numberless evangelic
and apostolic evidences, confirmed by
canonical constitutions which attest that the most holy Roman Church
was consecrated in Saint Peter, the prince of the Apostles, to be the mistress
and mother of all the others." Innocent cites many texts
from Scripture, interpreting them in his own
way.* He wonders that the Patriarch
is ignorant of these
interpretations then he undertakes
to answer the two questions which he had put to him: “You ask me," he says,
"how the Roman Church is one and universal.
The universal
Church is that which is composed of all the churches, according to the force
of the Greek word Catholic. In this sense, the Roman Church
is not universal, it is only a part of
the Universal Church; but the first and the principal
part, like the head in a body.
The Roman Church is such
because the fulness of power resides in her, and that only a part of
that fulness
overflows to the others. That one Church
is therefore universal in this sense, that all the
others are under it. According
to the true sense of the word, the Roman Church
only is
universal, because it is the only one that has been raised
above the others. . . . . .
“You ask me how the Roman Church
is the mother of the
churches? She is so not according to time but according to dignity. The Church of Jerusalem may be regarded as the mother of the faith, because
that faith came first from her bosom; the Church of Rome is the
mother of the faithful, because she has been placed over them all by
the privilege of her dignity." Innocent then congratulates the Patriarch upon
his desire for unity, and adds that he owes respect and obedience to the Roman Church
and to its bishop as to his chief;
that he
will receive him upon
condition that he shall be subject
as a member should be to the head, but that if he refuse respect
and obedience,
he will proceed against
him and the Greek Church.
Innocent III. liked to talk like a master. He
expresses himself in the same manner in his
reply to the Emperor.
He declares his willingness to call a council, although
the constitution of the Church is not synodal; that he will invite the Patriarch
to it; that if he will there submit to the Roman Church, and render it the obedience which he owes to it, peace shall
be made with him. He
begs the Emperor to see that the Patriarch appears
at the council thus disposed; and concludes this letter also with threats.
He did not carry
them into execution, however; for he
knew that to secure the success of the Crusade which was then
organizing, he must keep on good terms with the Greek
Emperor. He therefore wrote to the Crusaders who had just left Venice, and were on their way to Constantinople, "Let none among you flatter himself that he may be permitted to invade or pillage the land of
the Greeks, under pretext that it is not sufficiently submissive
to
* We have
already determined their
true
sense in the
first chapter of this work.
the Holy See, or that
the Emperor is an usurper,
having wrested the empire from his brother.
What crimes he or his subjects may have committed, it
is not for you to judge; and you
have not taken the Cross
to avenge that injury."
The Crusaders knew perfectly well that their success
would insure their absolution. They had made a treaty at Venice, with the young
Alexis, son of Isaac and nephew of the Emperor. This prince promised, that if the Crusaders should give him back the throne
his uncle had usurped, be would subject the Greek Church to the Papal sovereignty, and join the Crusaders against the Mussulmans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
Traditional Catholic Prayers: The Mark, the Name, the Number of the beast and the Tower of Babel = Ecumenism: Parousia of Jesus Christ Our ...
-
I ARISE TODAY IN A HYMN OF PRAISE TO THE LORD OF CREATION IN ALL HOLY Blessing and brightness, Wisdom, thanksgiving, Great power and might T...
-
Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel + In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Most glorious Prince ...
-
Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on us. Father all powerful, Have mercy on us. Jesus,...
-
Terse Open our hearts, O Lord and enlighten us by the grace of the Holy Spirit that we may seek what is pleasing to your will and so order ...
-
Timeline of the Schism that wasn't and the beginning of the Cardinalate that had never been. The Modern Papacy - an invention. In the...
-
It was the ancient Gnostic heretics which were the chief coming of Antichrist fakirs that the Early Church Fathers warned against and fore...
-
Traditional Catholic Prayers: Traditional Catholic Prayers: The Litany of the Saints Traditional Catholic Prayers: The Litany of the Sa...
Christ will return, first: the Coming of Antichrist
The Parousia of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - The Nuzul i Isa (descent from heaven) of 'Isa al-Maseeh and Qiyamah, judgment of all men, at the Resurrection.
The Antichrist comes first. We are to have nothing to do with that, even at the cost of our lives.
МАРК, ИМЯ, НОМЕР ЗВЕРЯ И БАШНЯ BABEL = ECUMENISM
The Antichrist comes first. We are to have nothing to do with that, even at the cost of our lives.
МАРК, ИМЯ, НОМЕР ЗВЕРЯ И БАШНЯ BABEL = ECUMENISM
No comments:
Post a Comment