Jοhn Ν. Karmiris - The Schism of the Roman Church

Jοhn Ν. Karmiris
Professor in the University of Athens

The Schism of the Roman Church
Translated by Z. Xintaras

Theologia review, Athens 1950, 400-587 pp

Chapter IV

So much for the beginning and the completion of the schism of the Roman Church which was the cause of many evils in Christianity. Judging it now in general from the Standpoint of its two phases, we think that no doubt can remain in the mind of the inquirer who searches for and judges the historical facts objectively and without bias that the true and real cause of the division of the Church was the anti-canonical evolution of the papacy with its absolute primacy, its accompanying heterodox
teachings and its ecclesiastico-political pursuits. For this reason, historical responsibility for the schism lies with it first and fore most (1).

The Orthodox Patriarchs Ρhotius and Cerularius, having found themselves fatally before the violent stream of the Papacy, which was threatening to carry along with it the doctrinal and administrative system of the ancient Church and to derange the canonical bases of ecclesiastical life, had the sacred duty to block its path toward the Eastern Church and Empire and to turn it back to the West. In this way they were insuring the ecclesiastical and political liberty and independence of the Greek Orthodox world. We think that all that concerns this ecclesiastical schism ought to be examined and judged from this viewpoint. For behind the ecclesiastical events which took place during the ninth and eleventh century, stood the egotism, and desire for power and ecclesiastico-political imperialism and totalitarianism of papal Rome. Driven by these same motives, she likewise stood behind the so-called Crusades and the Crusaders, who 150 years later overthrew the Byzantine empire and subjugated the Orthodox East ecclesiastically and politically, causing countless, inexpressible suffering (2) and making the chasm
between the Orthodox East and the papal West deeper, wider and more permanent (3). No doubt then can remain that not only religious but also political reasons played an important part in the opening and in the perpetuation of the schism, especially the effort of the Popes from the time of Nicholas Ι to Humbert II and his successors to subject southern Italy, Bulgaria and more generally the Ilyricum, as well as the whole of the Orthodox Christian world (4) Because, unfortunately, the Papacy had already begun to succumb to the greatest temptation, that of worldly power. In the Church of the Papacy «the conceit of worldly power had begun to slip in under the pretence of a divine service»; this power the 3rd Oecumenical Synod had criticized (5). Hence the Papacy, having tried unsuccessfully until the end of the eleventh century to subjugate the Orthodox East ecclesiastically and politically in a peaceful way, by word and persuasion and ecclesiastical synods, subsequently attempted to succeed by force,
i, e, by the wars of the Crusades (6),and lastly, from the conquest of Constantinople it has sought. the same aim through the deceit of Uniatism and various other deceptive means of propaganda which are used for the proselytism of Orthodox people.

We accept, certainly, that in the unfolding of the events of the schism and in the handling of the problems that arose, it was natural for certain mistakes to be made on the part of the patriarchs Photius and Cerularius and generally by the defending; Orthodox Greeks. However, we can only confirm that the Latins gave the cause of the schism generally, on the one
hand in the ninth century by Pope Nicholas Ι, and on the other in the eleventh century by Pope Leo IΧ and his representative Humbert, both applying the well known policy of absolute papal primacy (7). Consequently, the chief responsibility for the ecclesiastical schism undoubtedly lies with these two Popes and their successors (8), amongst whom not one Ρope was fοund truly a peacemaker and capable of acting in the: spirit of Christian love and within the framework of the canonical tradition of the Church in a way able either to avert her division or even after the outbreak of division to unite immediately the divided parts. This, in addition to other reasons, must be attributed to the condition of the Papacy during that period, which after Nicholas Ι and until Gregory VII (1073), namely for about 200 years, went through its «saeculum obscurum», as ecclesiastical historians from Baronius onward characterized it indeed with the darkest colours (9). It is self-evident that the decline of the Papacy during that period ought to be recognized as one of the not too insignificant reasons for the realization and the perpetuation of the schism.

But beyond this, impartiality compels us to confirm that the Orthodox Greeks, of that time were distinguished for the strength, depth, purity and stability of their faith, though they extended it to different ecclesiastical ceremonies and customs, expanding it more than was necessary. For this reason, to the real differences between the two Churches they also added liturgical ones. As such these did not have a dogmatic character, but they helped widen and enlarge the ecclesiastical chasm. The Latins, on the other hand, were distinguished for their tendency to innovate in faith and worship and especially, in the form of church government. They were marked out, as well, by the so-called «Latin high brow», haughtiness, arrogance, love for primacy, greediness, obstinate animosity and enmity against the Greeks, especially as shown by the Popes of Rome against the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Thus, supported also by mutual ignorance and differences about language, ecclesiastical customs and ecclesiastical life in general (10), as well as by racial and political antithesis and enmity, Christian love, which was indispensable to the reconciliation and bridging of the chasm, was frozen. That love, which according to the Apostle Paul,
«suffereth long, is kind, envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave unseemly, seeketh not her οwn, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth»(11), had disappeared from both sides, especially on the part of the Latins. There was, therefore, no necessary balance between faith and love which would have been able to prevent the final tearing asunder of the seamless garment of our Lord. Brotherly hate and religious and racial fanaticism replaced the love between Christian brothers. One of the two champions of Orthodoxy, Mark of Ephesus, Evgenicus, made the most upright confirmation when he said before the Synod at Florence «that the Roman Church had overlooked love, and peace was thus dissolved» between the Churches (12).

Noteworthy is the fact that while the Orthodox were attributing to the Latins true and serious dogmatic and other innovations, criticizing them for heresy and schism, they in return had nothing true and well-founded to attribute to them, but only
argued about primacy and precedence or about the simple patriarchal title «οecumenical». They were further plotting for the ecclesiastical and political subjugation of southern Italy, Bulgaria, eastern Illyricum and finally of the entire Orthodox East,
without being able to bring forth against the Orthodox accusations of a dogmatic character, entailing a charge for heresy. This truth is witnessed by the fact that only in the year 1098 did the Latin Synod, which convened at Bari under the Pope Urban II; venture to criticize the Orthodox as heretics with the ridiculous, as we have seen, criticism that they refused to accept the Latin heterodox teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit «and from the Son» and its unlawful addition to the sacred Creed (13).

Undoubtedly, the Patriarchs Photius and Cerularius (14) were roused up principally against the Papacy -its monarchy and impetuous and tyrannical despotism- having sought to restrain and check it in its irresistible course and tendency to overthrow the ancient democratic ecclesiastical form of government and to change it and the dogmatic teaching of the Church (15). If they had succeeded, surely the Patriarchate of Rome would have remained in communion with the other four ancient historical Patriarchates of the East and the enactment of all those new Latin dogmas and institutions, which were introduced into the Roman Church from the ninth century until the Vatican Synod of 1870, would have been prevented (16). Those Orthodox Patriarchs did exactly what all the great reformers of the Western Church did later who, imitating in one way or another their example, fought the new teachings and abuses of the Papacy and struggled together with the people of the West against the worldly power and tyranny of the Popes; as for example, the conveners of the reforming Latin Synods of Piza, Constance and Basel, the so-called precursors of the religious Reformation, the reformers of the 16th century who were about Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, the French theologians of the 17th century with the German bishops of the 18th century and the Old Catholics of the 19th century, to omit the rest (17).

This is the most important reason for which Photius and Cerutarius became the target of the violent attacks on the part of Popes, Latin Synods, theologian, and papal legates, attacks, which were made by means of depositions, excommunications, anathemas, insults and slander. Unfortunately these are continued until today by Roman Catholic writers who unjustly criticize them as the only ones responsible for the schism and improperly censure them (18). However, the pure historical truth is that those ever-memorable Greek Patriarchs had been repeatedly provoked by the Latins and were thus driven to a just and lawful defence by Popes who created quarrels and strife and even schisms for the sake of primacies, leadership, and ecclesiastico-political sovereignty. Being conscious οf their sacred duty to safeguard the Orthodox Faith and Tradition, which were in danger of being falsified, and to defend the endangered independence and freedom of the ancient Eastern Churches, they were forced to answer to the provocations of Rome in mutual agreement with the other Orthodox Patriarchs and the whole Eastern Church and to retaliate in equal measure, condemning the Latin heterodox teachings and innovations, according to the spirit and example of the ancient Church. For this reason, the whole Orthodox Catholic Church sanctioned their action and position against the totalitarian and sovereign claims and innovations of Rome. In their protests and accusations and anathematisation against the Ρapacy, the Orthodox Catholic Church heard and discerned her own voice and recognised them as champions of Orthodoxy (19).

The fact that the laity of the Orthodox Greek nation sensed and intimated in time the double danger from the Papacy against its ecclesiastical and national independence and autonomy is indeed worth special praise. He who investigates the position of the Orthodox Greek people against the Ρapacy's aim at subjugating them confirms with astonishment that together with the leaders of their Church they always discerned earlier and more clearly and fully than their political and intellectual leaders the great ecclesiastical and national danger from Rome. They perceived that the subjugation of the Eastern Church to Rome, under the form of the imposition of the papal sovereign primacy over her, would have resulted inevitably in the latinizatiοn (20) and assimilation of the Orthodox Greeks and, consequently, in the loss of both their orthodoxy and nationality (21). This explains why the Orthodox Greek people took the lead in the opposition of the Orthodox Catholic Church against papal expansion and totalitarianism during the opening of the schism in the ninth and eleventh century, during the time of the Crusades and the domination of the Franks in the Orthodox East, and after this in the initiative which was undertaken purely for political reasons by the last dynasty of Palaeologus towards «union» with Rome. As characteristic examples we limit ourselves to mentioning the popular uprising against the unionist Synods of Lyons in 1274 (22) and Florence in 1439 (23) and against the Byzantine emperors Michael VIII and John VII Palaeologus who had participated in them personally or through their representatives and finally the popular uprising in Constantinople against the «union»(24) with Rome during the eve of the Turkish capture of Constantinople. Even during the duration of the Turkish occupation and after it the distrust and opposition of the Greek people continued against every unionist action or, more accurately speaking, proselytising attempt of Rome and encroachment in the Greek East. Unfortunately, she sought this and continues to this day even in the centre of Athens by different lawful and unlawful means, by fraudulent intrigues and religio-political intermeddling and pursuits in the midst of Orthodox people, by her Jesuit and other monastic orders and agents, by her ecclesiastical, monastic, educational, philanthropic and other institutions and above all by the treacherous proselytising method of «Unia», by which the so-called «Uniate» clergymen travel «land and sea to make one proselyte»(25) orthodox, exercising in hardly Christian fashion the anti-evangelical proselytism of Orthodox Christians, instead of going out to teach «the nations»(26).

Βut unfortunately, even today the Church of Rome, inspired by the idea of her oecumenicity and the absolute papal primacy, has marked out and fanatically seeks to realize the well-known foreign policy of the Vatican, which consists in the subjugation and subordination of all the Christian Churches, and by preference that of the Orthodox, under the power and «absurd authority of the Pope»(27) Hence, in the Greek State itself, in which only about thirty thousand Rοman Catholics (28) live, she strives to apply her politics, mentioned above, respecting neither the official Orthodox Church to which almost the whole of the Greek people belongs, nor the sovereign rights and laws of the State. In this manner; she furnishes not a few difficulties to the official ecclesiastical and state authorities and scandals to the pious Orthodox Greek people, as it happened lately for example, by the naming of Roman Catholic bishops to Latin bishoprics in Greece, which are unrecognised by law and consequently nonexistent, by the arbitrary maintenance in Athens of her unrecognised three archbishops: the Catholic, Uniate and Armenian, as well as by the maintenance of her charge d'affaires, also unrecognised, and by the preservation of various propagandist institutions, schools hostels, monasteries etc., which have a disproportionately large number of personnel with foreign citizenship and students and inmates who are mostly Orthodox etc (29). We deem it superfluous to add that prompt arrangement is necessary by mutual understanding and comprehension of this condition, which the Vatican has arbitrarily created for us a condition unacceptable from an ecclesiastical and state point of view.

NOTES

1. - Α. Pichler (Roman Catholic) conclucles: «Wir glauben gezeigt zu haben, dass diese Frage über den Ursprung und die Fortdauer der Trennung nur aus der Geschichte des Papstthums. der Εntwickelung der Rechte desselben, vor Allem der theologischen Doctrinen hierüber und aus manchen anderen mitwirkenden Factoren richtig beanwortet werden könne, und dass jedenfalls auch, der abedländischen Kirche ein Theil der Schuld an dem Ursprung und der Fortdauer der Spaltung und damit ein Theil der Pflicht an deren Beilegung zu arbeiten, zugewiesen werden müsse» (op. cit. p. 544). And elsewhere: «Hätte die Griechische Kirche auch keinen Cärularius gehabt, die durch ihn geschehene Erweiterung der Kluft wäre nicht unterblieben» (ibid. p. 257). Pope Gregory ΧΙ, writing to John Cantacouzenus, negatively accepted the papal primacy and its non-acceptance by the Greeks as the cause of the genesis and the perpetuation of the schism: «Hujusmodi primates negatio οlim praesumpta per Graecos dissidii Latinorum et ipsorum Graecorum fuit causativa et conservativa shismatis subsecuti» (ibid. p. 380) Similarly, the Catholicos of the Αrmenian Church, rejecting on February 23, 1869 the invitation of Pope Pius ΙX to the Vatican Council, wrote to the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople that «Rome aurait d'abord du reconnaître qu'elle est la cause du schisme par ses efforts pour asseoir sa domination sur tous les autres sièges orientaux». (Cecconi, Histoire du Concile du Vatican, d'après les documents originaux. Paris 1887, t.ΙΙΙ σ. 47 seq. Document 94. «Irénikon» 6 (1929) 513/4). Lastly in the «Reply of a certain Orthodox to a brother Orthodox about the dynasty of the Catholics, about who made the schism, who were the schismatic and about Uniatism», Halle 1775, it is correctly observed, that «neither Photius nor Mark (Eugenicus) was the cause of the schism, nor were they the makers of it. But, the causes of the schism were the addition to the sacred symbol (Filioque) as well as the unacceptable sinless ness, monarchy and worship of the Pope and all the illegal novelties and innovations of the Roman Church...The cause of the schism is the addition to the Creed; they who broke away and cut themselves off, that is they who made the schism, being the dividers of the union, were the ones who initiated the addition; schismatic are the ones who accepted the addition and by it separated themselves, from the Catholic Church of Christ and established their own party, i. e the (Roman) Catholic. So that, both the ones who made the schism, i.e. the schismatic, and the ones who separated from the whole Church are the same. They then slander the Orthodox treacherously and unjustly and unreasonably when they call them schismatic» p.p.65, 78).

2. - Some of these are described in A. Demetrakopoulos, History of the schism. p. 44 seq., and Pope Innocent III indirectly admits a few, Ν. Kephalas, op. cit. II, 97 seq.

3. - See Ν. Ζernov, The Church of the Eastern Christians, London 1946, p. II seq. F. Mercenier is right in saying that until the Crusades «le schisme est encore le fait des hautes autorités ecclésiastiques et la masse du peuple chrétien commence a peine a en prendre conscience» (op, cit. p. 88).

4. - The Dominican Humbert considered the quarrel for the occupation of the Greek: empire as the highest and chiefest cause of the schism: «Maxima est dissensio de imperio, quod Ecclesia (Romana) vult haberi et teneri a Latinis, ipsi vero a suis» (Mansi, Concil, 24,126). Κ. Paparregopoulos exaggeratedly thinks that «the division of the Churches did not result from dogmatic differences, but because of political interests» (op. cit. volt. IV p. 349), a one-sided and baseless opinion.

5. - Canon 8, in Rhalles and Potles, op, cit. vol. IV p. 203.

6. -. The Rοman Catholic F. Mercenier acknowledges that «en Occident, peu a peu, s'introduisait la pensée de s'emparer de Constantinople pour châtier l' empire de ce qu' οn appelait sa trahison et rétablir de force l' unité que l' on avait cesse de croire réalisable par la persuasions (ibid. p. 89). Continuing he confirms that the occupation of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade by the Latins «fut marquée par des faits d' une sauvagerie inouïe qui firent plus pour populariser la séparation que des montagnes de libelles et accumulèrent dans le monde grec une haine presque inextinguible contre les Latins~ (ibid). Αnd the Pope Innocent ΙΙΙ hastened to recognise «Je fait accompli se flattant d'y trouver la voie de l'union toujours désirée et recherchée» (ibid.).

7. - See also Chrys. Papadopoulos, op, cit. p. 207 seq. : «These events testify that the contention of those who consider Photius and Cerularius responsible for the schism is absurd...The primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as it was shaped particularly from the time of Nicholas Ι and Leo IΧ, was the chief cause of the schism of the Roman Church ; unfortunately, the primacy was destined also to become the chief obstacle for the union of the Churches… The Latin Church prepared the schism, from which alone its causes came. Ρhotius the Great and the other defenders of Orthodoxy did not seek: to impose anything new on the Latin Church, but resisted that which was new and alien to the teaching and tradition of the whole Church... From the time that the bishop of Rome, forsaking his honorary position, sought to govern the whole Church and to enforce new teachings upon her without due discussion, he was necessarily destined sooner or later to carry along with him to schism the Western Church, over which he had already imposed himself, and to cut her off from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Because, the latter adhered to those thing, which were delivered by- our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles and which were formulated and decreed by the Fathers in Synods. But now certain new things alien to her were being asked by Rome to be introduced, and they who rejected them were being condemned as heretics» (ibid. pp. 207, 208, 213, 214).

8. - It must be noted here that the Jansenists also in their second great provincial Synod at Utrecht in 1763 proclaimed: a) «the Popes alone are responsible for the opening and the continuation of the schism of the two Churches. b) The Greek Church is not responsible as regards both these. c) No Synod in which the Greeks did not participate is able to be considered as œcumenical etc. etc». (Acta et decreta synodi cleri romano-catholici prοvinciae Ultrajectensis, mense Septembri 1763, p. 65/6). See also Meletius, Metropolitan of Athens, Church History, Vienna 1783-1795, v, 179/80, in Greek.

9. - See F. Heiler, οp. cit, p. 250 seq. Α. D. Kyriakos. Church History, vol. ΙI p. 26. A. Demetrakopoulos, οp. cit. p: 17 seq. Nektarius Kephalas, οp. cit. ΙΙ,9. seq. Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit. p. 182. Α. Pichler (Rοmαn Catholic) confirms, «dass Rom in dieser Periode (between Ρhοtius and Cerularius) 46 Päpste hatte, Constantinopel nur 16 Patriarchen, dass unter den ersteren die allermeisten nichtswürdig, unter den letzteren, mit Αusnahme des einzigen Theophylact, sämmtliche durch Tugend und Character ausgezeichnete Männer waren, dass von Rοm fast auf jede Anfrage von Seite der Griechen nur eine gehässige oder unbillige Entscheidung erfolgte» (op. cit. 204). Recently another Roman Catholic theologian, F. Mercenier; wrote:«Entre la seconde déposition de Photius et le patriarcat de Cérulaire (886-1043) Cοnstantinople vit seize Patriarches dont plusieurs vraiment remarquables et Rome quarante-quatre Papes et antipapes, dont vingt-deux régnèrent moins d'un an, dοnt huit périrent de mort violente, dont six furent déposés, et dοnt plusieurs étonnèrent par leurs scandales un monde pourtant habitue a toutes les violences et a toutes les immoralités. Dans ces conditions, rien d' étonnant que l'Orient, οù la civilisation était d'un raffinement exquis, n'ait eu que mépris pour ces pontifes qui avaient si peu de respect de leur caractère et pour une ville qui donnait de tels spectacles» (οp. cit: p.75).

10. - Μ. Jugie confirms that «chacune d'elles (the Rοman and Byzantine Churches) avait sa vie autonome et l'on n'entrait en relations qu'en de rares circonstances» (op. cit, p. 141).

11. - I Cor. 13, 4-6.

12. - Silvester Syropoulos, Memoirs of the Synod in Florence, ed. Creyghtοn, Chagae 1660, p. 167. Nicetas Stethatus also wrote to the intolerant Cardinal Humbert and the Latins in Constantinople: «Neighbourly love is good, oh Romans, the wisest and noblest of all nations. Because, by loving your neighbour, humility also superabounds in the persοn whο has that love.Super abounding love makes her sharer sustain everything, endure everything, as the Apostle says, and not be puffed up against his neighbour, nor boast against him, nor seek only after his own, nor envy after him or show jealousy; all these things drive love and humility away; and make man walk not according to God, but according to the desire of pleasing men». (See A. Demetrakopoulos, Ecclesiastiki Bibliothiki, vol. Ι, p.18). This was written by the Greeks, while the haughty and reviling Ηumbert was insulting them in Constantinople as heretics, because they had not accepted the Filioque, the use of unleavened bread, the fast of Saturday and the celibacy of the clergy!, he even characterized the Orthodox East as the country of all heresy, and called Stethatus. an arch-heretic, most wretched, an adventurer, ignorant, «Saravaite», «more stupid than an ass», adding : «you are not a presbyter but one who is accursed and has aged in evils, a child of a hundred years, one who is more fittingly called an Epicurean than a monk. Nor does it appear that you are living in the monastery of Studion, but in an amphitheatre and a place of ill repute; you are rightly called Stethatus (Pectoratus), because with the ancient serpent you are dragged on the breast» (Migne Ρ. L. 143, 983. C. Will. op. cit. p. 136 seq.). The simple comparison of Stethatus and Humbert's words reveals, the spirit which animated the persons who represented the two Churches during those times and therefore the degree of their guilt in the ecclesiastical schism.

13. - Mansi, Concil. 20, 947. In the same spirit did Petrus Damiani (+ 1072) write prior to the Synod of Bari: «Contra Graecorum errorem de processione Spiritus Sancti» (Migne Ρ. L, 145, 63; seq.) and later Anselm of Canterbury (+ 1109): «De processione Spiritus Sancti, Contra Graecos» (Migne Ρ. L. 158, 285 seq.).

14. - Even the Patriarch «Ignatius was as fierce a defender of his Church's rights as Photius. We must not forget that the Council of 869-870, called the eighth œcumenical; was in many ways a failure for the Papacy...Ignatius had the same ideas about Bulgaria as Photius» (F. Dvornik, The Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Patron of Reunion?, op. cit. p. 30/1).

15. - According to Α. Demetrakopoulos, «the monarchy of the bishops of Rome was chiefly the initial cause of the separation of the Latin Church from the Orthodox East»; it began to appear «from the third and fourth century and became more audacious during the ninth century» (History of the schism, p. 1). Lastly p. 173, he concludes: «The cause then of the schism of the two Churches was the addition to the sacred Creed made by the Latins, the desire for power, and the infallibility, monarchy and worship of the Pope and the lawless novelties and innovations of the Latin Church....» .

16. - Not only the infallibility, observes Α. Pichler. but «auch die beiden anderen den Umfang der Papstgewalt betreffenden Theorien, die Zutheilung beider Schwester und aller Jurisdictionsgewalt nach göttlichem Rechte, währen ohne diese Kirchentrennung wohl nie entstanden und haben sich erst nach derselben ausgebildet, als die Gränzen der allgemeinen Kirche mit dem römischen Patriarchat zusammenfielen. Diejenigen Theologen, welche diese Theorien noch immer aufrecht erhalten und ihnen sogar dogmatischen Charakter vindiciren, mögen wohl zusehen, ob sie nicht hiemit der (Roman) Kirche den Vorwurf zuziehen, sie sei von ihrer Tradition abgefallen» (οp. cit. p. 547).

17. - They sharply discerned and averted from their Church the papal tendency towards ecclesiastical sovereignty and absolutism, which was difficult to discern during the time of Photius and Cerularius. This tendency had to be developed in the work of the Vatican Synod one whole millennium later for the Old Catholics to be awakened and, imitating Photius, to revolt against the papal claims and proclaim through their declarations of Utrecht in 1889: «We reject the papal decisions (dating) from the 18th of July 1870 about the infallibility and the universal episcopacy or the ecclesiastical absolutism of the Popes of Rome as contradictory to the faith of the ancient Church...We reject likewise the declaration of Pius IΧ in 1854 concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary as being unsupported by Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the first centuries etc.» («Ecclesiastiki Aletheia» 16 (1896/97)274). In a similar way did many of the greater Roman Catholic scholars and theologians express themselves. We cite, for example, the Cardinal Nicholas Cuzanus who shortly before the Synod of Ferrara-Florence wrote the following very rightly, which Photius and every Orthodox theologian would be able to countersign: «Romanus pontifex est membrum Ecclesiae, et infallibilitas non cuilibet membro, sed toti Ecclesiae promissa est... Est caput dignitativum et honorificatum, quamvis non directivum vel potestativum jurisdictionaliter» (A. Pichler, op. cit p. 250).

18. - «Catholics are used to regard Photius as the first great schismatic, the Father of Schism between East and West, the inventor of a heresy concerning the Filioque, an usurper of the patriarchal See, a man full of vanity and deceit, the falsifier of papal letters and the acts of a Council, excommunicated by the Western and Eastern Church, a man whose memory is rightly detested by all Christendom etc.». (Ρ. Dvornik, op. cit. p, 20). They have written more and worse things henceforth from the time of Cardinal Humbert against Michael Cerularius. See fοr example the two anοnymοus propagandist pamphlets frοm the papal agents in Constantinople (in Greek and French): Le pere du schisme grec οn vie de Photius, Constantinople 1848, and Le consommateur du schisme grec οu vie de Michel Ceculaire, Constantinople 1849.

19. - In relation to this, the four orthodox Patriarchs of the East in their well-known encyclical in answer to Pope Pius ΙX wrote in 1848: «Our predecessors and fathers of blessed memory in common pain and decision, having seen the traditional teachings of the Gospel forged and the divinely-woven garment of our Saviour torn in two by wicked hands, wept for the loss of so many Christians for whom Christ died, being moved by fatherly and brotherly love. They showed much earnestness and honour privately and in Synods in order to be able to sew together the divided parts, saving the Orthodox teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. As acknowledged doctors they deliberated for the salvation of the suffering part having endured much affliction, contumely and persecution only that the body of Christ be not dismembered, only that the horos of the divine and venerable Synods be not violated. Truthful History has handed down to us the relentlessness of western persistence in error. These ever-memorable men experienced in deed, in this case also, the truth of the words of our- Father- Saint Basil the «οuranophantοr», who even in his time spoke from experience about the bishops of the West and particularly about the Ρope: «they know neither the truth nor tolerate learning, quarrelling with those who proclaim the truth to them and verifying the heresy by themselves» (to Eusebius Samos.). Thus, after the first and second brotherly admonition, having known their impenitence, «having shaken them off» and «given up, they gave them over to a reprobate mind»: («because war is better than peace which separates from God», as our Father Saint Gregory said about the Arians). Since then, there has been no spiritual communion between us and them; because, with their own hands they had opened the deep chasm between themselves and Orthodoxy», (Encyclical letter of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the Orthodox everywhere, edit. 2, Constantinople 1863, p. 11-12). Similarly, F. Dvornik specially observes about Photius that «for the Orthodox, Photius is one of the greatest Eastern Fathers, the last great doctor of the Greek Church, a saint officially canonized by all Eastern Churches, the valiant defender of the freedom and autonomy of his Church against all encroachment from the Papacy, a great teacher, and a great Prince of the Church» (op. cit. p. 19).

20. -. F. Mercenier acknowledges that the papal West «arrivait à ne concevoir d' autre voie à la cessation du schisme que la latinisation plus οu moins complète» (οp. cit, p. 92). Fοr example, Bessarion advised the tutor of Τhοmas Palaeologus' children that he will make them live entirely in a Frankish way, namely, to follow the Church in all things as Latins and not otherwise, to dress in a Latin way, learn to kneel before their superiors the Pope and Cardinals, etc. (A. Demetrakopoulos, Orthodox Greece, p. IΧ).

21. - See A. Demetrakopoulos, ibid. p. VIΙΙ seq., and History of the Schism, p, 28. A. Κyriakοs, Studies, p. 92-93.

22. - See J. Karmiris, The Latin Confession of Faith of 1274, ascribed to Michael VIII Palaeologus, Athens 1947, p. 21 seq. (in Greek). Ν. Kephalas, op. cit. ΙΙ, 118 seq. Α. Demetrakopoulos, History of the Schism, p. 58 seq.

23. - J. Karmiris. The Symbolical texts of the Orthodox Catholic Church, p, 25 seq. Α. Demetrakopoulos, οp. cit. p. 105-173. Ν. Kephalas, οp. cit II,208 seq.

24. - See Κ. Paparregopoulos, οp. cit. vοl. V p. 392 seq.

25. - Mt. 23,15.

26. - Mt. 28,19. To achieve the end sought, the following were founded; the «Congregatio de rebus Graecorum» by the Pope Gregory ΧΙlΙ (1579-1585), the «Congregatio de propaganda fide pro negotiis ritus orientalis» by the Pope Pius IΧ in 1862 and the «Congregatio pro Ecclesia orientali» by the Pope Benedict XV in 1917, which functions to this day. Besides, as an organ suitable fοr the same purpose Pope Gregory XV in 1622 founded the «Congregatio de propaganda fide», successfully operating since then. He arranged that its work be the spreading of the Christian faith also in the Orthodox Christian East, as-in «Ecclesiam in partibus infidelium»! So that, that Pope and the Jesuits did not hesitate to number the heretical and schismatical Greeks in the Turkish State among the unfaithful who, as it is recorded in the official document for its founding, «remain now in a condition of stupidity, have undertaken almost the nature of wild animals and are maintained only to serve for the populatiοn of the inhabitants of Hades for the sake of the devil and his angels». In Α. D. Kyriakos. op. cit. vol. ΙΙΙ p. 113/4: «Si enim mentis nonstrae aciem convertimus ad innumerabilem populorum multitudinem jam tot saeculis Agarenorum impurissima damentia captam insanique errοri. ac mendacii tenebris οbcοecatam, miseratione commoverunt viscera nostra, cernentes tam multis et variis coelestibus donis οlim celebres nationes per ignorantiam et pestilentis persuasionis stuporem humanitatem in bestiarum naturam fere mutasse atque ad aeterno incendia diabolo et angelis suis parata ali ac propagari». We repeat with Κ. Algermissen that under the Congregatio de prοpaganda fide «untersteht das «Päpstliche Werk der Glaubensverbreitung» und das «Werk des heiligen Petrus» fur Ηerandildung eines einheimischen Klerus in den Missiοnsländern (op. cit. p, 137), and working side by side in this same direction is the .Congregatio pro Ecclesia Orientnli», which «leitet die wichtigen Arbeiten an der Union des Ostens» (ibid), is understood not in the true meaning of the word «uniοn», but in the papal understanding of «subjection, of the Orthodox East. As known, just as in modern times, so in the former did the papal missionaries, who were sent by the «Congregatio de propaganda fide» to the Turkish held East and who continued with fanaticism the work of the Crusades and the dominion of the Franks, commit those and similar sufferings at the expense of the Orthodox. See Ρh. Vafeides. Church History, vol. III p. 53 seq. thus, the Patriarch of Alexandria Gerasimus described as follows the sufferings of the Orthodox at the hands of the Latins: «all know the murders, the confiscations, the Latin persecutions and the forcible signatures, out of which came the misfortunes of our Race; cities have vanished, districts were altogether destroyed, we were made desolate of all goods; after the Israelites we starve labouring with clay and brick. This is the condition of our Church, which sees clearly the utmost danger; and if God does not come to aid more quickly, it is impossible otherwise to be maintained. Because, we see this war as the most destructive of all events yet». («Ecclesiastiki Aletheia», 29 1909) 396). This war» of the Papacy forced the autocephalous Orthodox Churches to take a position «of precaution and defence» (see: «On the relationship of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches and on other general ecclesiastical problems, the Patriarchal and Synodical Encyclical of 1902, the responses to it of the holy autocephalous Churches and the reply of the Oecumenical Patriarchate», Constantinople 1904. «Acts of the preliminary committee of the Holy Orthodox Churches which met at Mt. Athos. June 8 -21, 1930», Constantinople 1930 (both in Greek). These were written against the Roman Church which did not understand that she enlarged still more and distended the chasm which separates the two Churches and that she increased the abhorrence and anti-papal disposition of the Orthodox peoples against her, particularly, that of the Greeks who defend their own orthodoxy and nationality.

27. - Gerasimus,-Patriarch of Αlexandria; op. cit. p, 396. .

28. - According to the registration of the population of Greece in the year 1928. in a total of 6,204,684, 5.961.529 registered as Orthodox Christians; 35,182 as Roman Catholics; 9,003 as Protestants in general; 126,017 as Mohammedans; 72,791 as Israelites; 45 of other confessions, and 117 belonging to none. According to the census of 1940 in a total of 7,344,860 registered, the Orthodox Christians numbered 7,090,192; Roman Catholics 29,139; protestants 6,335; Μonοphysite Armenians 16,350; other Christian groups 504; Μοhammedans 134,722; Israelites 67,591 (diminished to about 10,000 as a result of the Nazi cruelty); other confessions 2, and belonging to none 25. According to this census, while in 1928 heterodox represented only 7.51 to a thousand of the total Greek population, in 1940 their number was reduced, and today as a result of the second World War there will have been an even greater decrease especially of the Israelites, of the Monophysites and particularly of the Armenians, of the Roman Catholics etc. Ι,. Ravasz writes in «World Christian Handbook», ed. Grubb, London 1949, p. 51: «The Church of the Kingdom of Greece, which is for practical purposes the most important of the Greek Orthodox Churches... is the Church of almost all the people living in the Greek peninsula. To be Greek is almost synonymουs with being Orthodox or Christian».

29. - See A. Alivisatos, State and Vatican, article in «Tribune» (Greek) Ι/2.7. 1947. G. Konidaris, Concordata and Ρapal State from a Greek national and Orthodox Catholic point of view, in «Church Ρharοs» 47 (1948) 50 seq. 97 seq., and Greece, Ρapal State and Cοncοrdata, in «Ecclesia» 24 (1947) 276 seq. Methodius, Metropolitan of Cercyra, Encyclical in protest against the pursuits and interventions οf the Roman Ρapacy in Cercyra and in Greece generally, Cercyra 1948.-Μemοrandum to the venerable Holy Synod and to all the respectable Hierarchs οf the Church of Greece against the interventions of the Roman Papacy, Cercyra 1948. Chrysostom, Metropolitan of Zacynthos, Τhe Symplegades, article in «Ecclesia» 24 (1947) 227 seq. Τh. Speranza, the indispensable presupposition of agreement with the Vatican, article in «Ethnos» 25.6.1947 (all in Greek).