Page:Uniate Eastern Churches.pdf/219

Rh a Church springing up suddenly at some definite moment by the conversion of a large number of people. The situation is more complicated, so that it needs attention. To begin with, the matter of the schism of the East is not so simple as many people think. Indeed, it is very difficult to say exactly when the Orthodox, outside Constantinople, became schismatics.

It will be remembered that both the quarrels with the Holy See, that of Photius in the ninth and of Cerularius in the eleventh century, were, in themselves, purely local quarrels of Patriarchs of Constantinople. Nor has the Holy See ever excommunicated the Eastern or "Orthodox" Church as such. It is only because, eventually, the other Eastern Patriarchs and bishops took the side of Constantinople, remained in communion with the Œcumenical Patriarch, that they, too, share his state of schism. But when did they do so? In the first schism, of Photius, apparently they never did. I doubt very much if we can speak of a general schism of the East, or of an "Orthodox" Church, meaning a separate religious body, at that time at all. At the eighth General Council (Constantinople iv, 869), when Photius was tried and condemned, the Imperial Commissioner asked the Legates of the other Eastern Patriarchs why they had not condemned him long ago. They answered that the right of Ignatius was so evident that it did not need their support, and that, in any case, the Pope had done all that was wanted. From this it appears that they had never intended to share Photius's schism. It would seem, then, that the other Eastern Patriarchs had remained in communion with the Holy See throughout that quarrel. So I do not think we can speak of a general schism in the East, at least till the time of Cerularius.

Nor did such a state of things occur at once under Cerularius. His quarrel, too, was a purely local one at Constantinople, perhaps even more so than that of Photius. In one case, especially, we know that one of his brother Patriarchs protested vehemently against his course, and declared that he would not break communion with the Pope. This Patriarch, Peter III of Antioch, was certainly not a schismatic. Nor can we say exactly when his successors fell into schism. The final test would be when they removed the name of the Pope from their diptychs. But we do not know when this happened. Probably for a long time none of them realized that a permanent state of schism between East and West had broken out. Hitherto they had been in