Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/850

 GREEK

764

GREEK

about for another issue. He took, one by one, the many causes for separation that had been in the air for centuries and united them into a body of doctrine ; then, confident in his learning and prestige, he decided to give battle. The insertion of the "Filioque" clause in the Creed, the procession of the Holy Ghost ah ulroque, etc., were so many reasons which were bound to have their effect upon the leading minds when the question of the separation came up. Then again the popes' acknowledgment of the Frankish kings as Emperors of the West was bound to carry weight in Byzantine political circles. Moreover, it was evident by this time that between the Latin and Greek worlds there existed a chasm which must grow broader with the years. However, the Photius affair was arranged. Ignatius forgave his rival and, it ap- pears, on his death-bed designated him as his succes- sor. Pope John VIII sanctioned this choice, and if subsequent popes excommunicated Photius it was for special reasons not yet sufficiently known.

In 886, Photius was deposed by the Emperor Leo VI, who disliked him, and, between 89.3 and 901, a rec- onciliation of the two Churches was effected by Pope John IX and the Patriarch Antonius Cauleas. Dur- ing the entire tenth century, and the first part of the eleventh, relations between the Roman and the Greek Churches were excellent. There were, no doubt, occa- sional difficulties, always unavoidable in societies dif- ferent in customs, speech, and civilization, but we may almost go so far as to say that the union between the Churches was as deep and sincere as it was during the first three centuries of Christianity. Michael Ca^rula- rius, however, desired a schism for no other rea.son, apparently, than to satisfy his pride, and in 1054 he succeeded in making one at the very time when every- thing seemed to promise a lasting peace. For this purpose he brought forward, besides the theological reasons stated by Photius, many others that Photius had neglected or merely hinted at, and which were judged particularly fitted to catch the popular fancy. The use of azymes, or unleavened bread, in the liturgy, the celibacy inipo.sed on all priests in the West, the warlike manners of Western bishops and priests, the shaven face and the tonsure, the Saturday fast, and other such divergencies of practice were used to dis- credit the Latin Church. Thoughtful men may not have been misled by these specious arguments, but the mass of the people and the monks were certainly influenced, and at Constantinople it was they who made up public opinion. For this very reason the policy of Michael Coerularius, petty and superficial as it was, was better fitted than that of Photius to bring about permanent results. Indeed, so thoroughly did it cut off the Greek peoples from Rome that since then she has never won them back.

Unfortunately, this movement of separation under Photius and Michael Cffirularius was on foot at the very time when the Slavs were being converted to Chris- tianity, a fact in the history of the evangelization of the nations second only in importance to the conver- sion of the Germanic races. The Servians and Croa- tians, settled by the Emperor Heraclius (610-41) on the lands they still inhabit, had adopted the Christian teaching of Roman priests and bishops. But the progress of the new religion was so slow that a second conversion wns dfciucd necessary. It took place under the Einpemr lia.sil the Macedonian (867-86) ; as it was entrusted to Byzantine missionaries the fireek Rite of ConsliiDliuojilr was aduptcd. This had no small weight in dciacliiiig from Kcmie whole provinces that were formerly s\il),jcct to it, and when these numerous Servian ChunJics broke away from Byzan- tium, it was to organize autonomous ecclesiastical bodies independent of IjoIIi U<ime and Constantinople. In this way a whole region was lost to Catholicism. The Bulgarians, who had crossed the l)anul)e about the same time as the Servians, formed a more or less

homogeneous nation with the Slavs and became a warrior people that more than once struck terror into the heart of the Byzantine Basileus. Towards the end of 864, or in the opening months of 865, their king, Boris, w-as baptized by a Greek bishop and took the name of Michael after his godfather, the Emperor of Byzantium. Photius, who was patriarch at the time, did not see his way to granting all the demands of King Boris, so, like a cunning politician, the latter turned to Rome and succeeded in obtaining successively several missionaries to organize the new-born Church within his territory. His ne.xt step was to send away all the German and Byzantine missionaries whom he found there. His real ambition was to have a patriarch of his own who would anoint him emperor just as the Greek patriarch anointed the Basileus at Constanti- nojile, ami as the pope anointed the Germanic emperor of the West. Whether he got his patriarch from Rome or from Constantinople mattered little; the main thing was to have one at any cost. Rome did not fall in with his plan, and Boris turned again to Constantinople, thereby initiating a serious misunder- standing between Rome and C!onstantinople which considerably added to the strain occasioned by the affairs of Ignatius and Photius. Rome claimed the Bulgarians as inhabitants of ancient lUyricum (her former ecclesiastical territory) and as having been baptized by her missionaries ; Constantinople claimed that its priests had converted the Bulgarians, that the land was once imperial territory, and that the Council of Chalcedon had given Constantinople the right to consecrate bishops for all barbarian countries. Be- tween the two churches the Bulgarians did not know which way to turn. They retained the Byzantine Rite, which, with its elaborate ceremonial, made a deep impression upon their child-like imaginations, and, formally, they submitted to Greek bishops, until they should have bishops and a patriarch of their own. When, in 886, the disciples of Sts. Cyril and Metho- dius, expelled from Moravia by King Swiatopluk, took refuge in Bulgaria, they were received with open arms. The newcomers introduced into Bulgaria the Byzan- tine Liturgy, but in the Slavonic tongue, whereas hitherto the Bulgarian priests had used the Greek language. From Bulgaria this Byzantino-Slavonic Liturgy spread among the Servians, the Russians, and all the Slav peoples.

The first Bulgarian patriarchate was originally established at Pereiaslaf, then was transferred to vari- ous centres in Western Bulgaria, finally to Ochrida (see Achrida). In 1019 it was suppressed, when the town of Ochrida fell into the hands of the Byzantines, or rather it was converted into an independent arch- bishopric. As such it lasted until 1767, when it was definitively suppressed. However, independent patri- archate or autonomous archdiocese, the Bulgarian Church was from its foundation powerfully influenced by Constantinople; the long series of its Greek or Hellenistic archbishops shared at all times the anti- Roman feelings of that city. The Russian Church is also a spiritual daughter of Constantinople (see Rus- sia). We need not relate here the conversion of that nation ; it probably took place about 85.3, perhaps a little earlier, and both Latins and Greeks probably participated in it. Progress was very slow, however, and when the Czarina Dlga wished to become a Chris- tian she had to go to Constantinople for instruction and baptism, on which occasion she took the name of Helena (c. 956 or 957). Olga's conversion had no great influence; the czar, Sviatoslav (964-972), re- fused to yield to her wishes that he should also be a Christian. It was not till 989 that Prince Vladimir allowed himself to be baptized, and ordered that his siibjects should over afterwards receive baptism.

The Kiissiiku ( 'IuutIi was probably organized at this time, and a Greek metropolitan sent by the Byzantine patriarch was installed at Kiev, the Russian capital.