Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/851

 GREEK

765

GREEK

Unfortunately, we have no " Notitia Episcopatuum ' ' of tlie Byzantine Church contemporary with this event. The "Notitia" of 980 naturally makes no reference to Kiev, and the next "Notitia" extant goes from 1081 to Ills only; in that year the metropolitan See of Kiev appears as number 60; similarly, in the "Notitia" of Manuel Coranenus which appeared about 1170. In this document Kiev appears as presiding over eleven suffragan sees, and this is the earliest information we have concerning the hierarchy of the Russian Church. The head of this Church had a rather inferior place in the Byzantine hierarchy, but exercised the preroga- tives of an exarch (q. v.) and, once installed, adminis- tered freely his ecclesiastical province. He consecrated its bishops, crowned its czars, and he usually resided at Kiev. Generally, a Greek was chosen for the office, so that the medieval Russian Church was but an extension of the Byzantine Church, sharing the liturgy, the dogmatic teaching, and the ecclesiastical antip- athies of the latter.

Vasilier. Byzantium and the Arabs (Russian, St. Petersburg, 1900-02); Popnv. The Emperor Leo VI. the Wise, and His Gov- ernment from the Ecclesiastico-historical Point of View (Russian, Moscow. 1S92): R,\MBAUD; U empire ffrec au X' sircle. Con- starilin Porphyrogcnlte (Paris, 1870); Leonhardt, Kaiser Nice- phnrus II, Phocas, und die Hamdaniden, 960 bis om (Halle, 1.SS7); ScHLUMBERGER. A'iccp^ore PAoca-5 (Paris, 1890); Idem, L' Epopee byzantine aux X' el XI' siccles (Paris, 1896-1905); Maedler, Theodora, Michael Stratiotikos, Isaac Comnenos (Plauen, 1894); Hergenrotheb, Pholius (Ratisbon, 1S69); Jager, Histoire de Photivs (Louvain, 1845); Lapotre, U Eu- rope et Ir Sainf-Siioe (t I't'poque Carolingien (Paris, 1895), I, 30- ITO; Li hi II > . ^'' / "/ the Separation of the Churches in the Ninth-KI' 'I ' (Russian, Moscow, 1900); Pichler,

Geschirh'' ' ■ '( Trennung zwischen den Orient nnd

Orcifleiil ^^l■l!. I, l>'.il-65); Allatius, De ecctesia: occiden- lalix iih/i,,' nr,,',il'dis perpetud consensione (Cologne, 1694); .\i.TiMi K\ 1 [t-t^iulonym of Le Qvien), Panoplia contra schisma <ir'rri,r:nn i I'mis, 1718); L.\EMMER, Papst Nicolaus I und die bf/c'iji/. Shiat.^kirche seiner Zeit (Berlin, 18.57); Mai.mbourg, Histoire du schisme des Grecs (Vatts, 1677); Demetracopoulos, History of the Separation of the Latin Church and the Greek Ortho- dox Church (Greek, Leipzig, 1887); Vlastos, Historical Essay on the Schism of the Western Church from the Orthodox East (Greek, Athens, 1896); Will, Acta et scripta quw de controversiii ecclesice grwcm et latinm scsculo XI composita extant (Leipzig, 1861); SouvoRov, Carrularius, the Byzantine Pope (Russian, Moscow, 1902); Beeuler, Le schisme oriental du XI' siecte (Paris, 1899).

(4) Efforts towards Reunion; The Crusades {Eleventh to Fifteenth Century). — In spite of the emperor and the Court, who favoured an understanding with Rome and the West, Michael Carrularius proclaimed his schism in 1054. He was followed by most of the clergy, also by the monks and the Greek people. Peter, the Patri- arch of Antioch, held aloof from this violent measure, but died soon afterwards, and his successor went over to Cserularius. The Patriarch of Alexandria, usually resident at Constantinople, sided with the bishop of the capital; the Greek Archbishop of Oclu-ida was de- voted to Cserularius and was one of the first to stir up the question of the azymes as a grievance against Rome. Lastly, the head of the Russian Church was only a metropolitan dependent on the Byzantine Church. Therefore, with the exception of the insig- nificant Patriarch of Jerusalem, who at first tried to agree with both parties, all the Greek Churches had taken sides against Catholicism about the end of the eleventh century. In the years that elapsed from the death of Photius (891) to the fall of Constantinople (1453) the anti-Roman doctrine of the Greek Church took definite shape. Photius was the first who at^ tempted to co-ordinate all possible rea.sons of com- plaint against the Latins. He enumerated seven chief grievances: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the insertion of the "Filioque" clause in the Creed, the primacy of the pope, the reconfirmation of those confirmed by Greek priests, the Saturday fast, the use of milk foods during the first week of Lent, the obligation of celibacy on the priests. The last three do not in any way affect dogma, and as much might be said of the second. The reconfirmation of those already confirmed seems to

have been a false accusation, unless some Latin mis- sionaries sinned through excess of zeal. The primacy of the pope had always been recognized by the patri- archs of the East, and by Photius himself, as long as the pope was willing to condescend to their wishes. The first letter of Photius to Pope Nicholas I does not differ from those of his predecessors, save for its more submissive tone and more humble diction. Appeals to the pope from the East between the second and ninth centuries are very numerous. And as for the Greek theory of the procession of the Holy Ghost, it was no new thing in the ninth century; St. John Dam- ascene and St. ilaximus of Chrysopolis had favoured this doctrine long before Photius and were never ac- cused of heresy. It would, therefore, have been easy to find a common ground or compromise that would have harmonized the teaching of both schools. Pass- ing from Photius to Michael Carrularius, we find only one new complaint directed against the Latins, and that liturgical: the use of unleavened bread (see Azymes). On this point the dispute was impossible of settlement, since each Church had been using its own particular kind of breatl from time immemorial. Fresh differences in the meantime arose: the placing (about the thirteenth century) of the Epiclesis before the Consecration; Purgatory, which the Greeks would not admit, although they prayed for the dead and mortified themselves in their behalf; the full glorifica- tion of the just prior to the general judgment; the general judgment itself, which they rejected, as did also some Latin medieval theologians; the giving of communion to the laity under one species; baptism by infusion. To all these differences were to be added in the nineteenth century the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and that of Papal Infallibility. Merely for the sake of recording them, we may mention litur- gical differences, as the manner of fasting in Lent, the adoption of a new calendar, the manner of making the sign of the cross — causes of offence which the Greek clergy took pleasure in keeping alive, and which made a deep impression on a people devoted to trifles and, generally, very ignorant.

Papal Efforts at Reunion. — The breach declared in 1054 has never been repaired. Yet this has not been the fault of the popes. As early as 1072 we find Alex- ander II eager for reunion. This attempt failed be- cause of the unflinching opposition of the philosopher Michael Psellos, the Patriarch Xiphilinos, and their fa- nat ical friends. Thencef ort h unt il the f all of Constanti- nople (1453) the popes multiplied letters, embassies, and paternal advice to win back the erring Greeks to the fold of orthodoxy, and to keep them there on their return. All in vain. The two reconciliations ef- fected by the Councils of Lyons (1274) and of Florence (1439) were solely due to the efforts of the popes and the Byzantine emperors. At Lyons Michael VIII, Pateologus, a clever politician, proclaimed himself and his people Catholics in order to save his crown and to stay the formidable armament of Charles of Anjou. At Florence John VII, Palaeologus, came to beg men and arms from Europe to save his capital from the threatening Turks. It would be difficult for an im- partial historian to affirm the sincerity of their de- sire for religious union. One thing is certain, their clergj' followed them with the greatest reluctance, and at Lyons the Greek clergy kept aloof from any union with Rome, and would not listen to it at any price. Michael Palaeologus was hardly dead (1282) when his son Andronicus undid all that he had accomplished, and even denied religious burial to his father; more- over, the Catholic patriarch, John Veccos, was de- posed together with all his friends.

John VII, PaUrologus, who had agreed to the union at Florence, either could not, or did not dare, proclaim it in his capital. He feared either the anathemas or the intrigues of men like Mark of Ephesus, or George Scholarios. His brother, Constantine Dragases, the