image with the sign of Myriobiblos

Main Page | Library | Homage | Seminars | Book Reviews





Internet Dept.



Previous Page
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 II

Such were the relations between the two Churches when in about the middle of the ninth century their leadership fell into the hands of the two eminently powerful hierarchs, the Pope of Rome Nicholas Ι on the one hand and the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople on the other. Nicholas, a man fond of power, most despotic and overcome by the idea of the absolutism of the papal supremacy and the œcumenicity of the Church of Rome, sought to impose and extend his jurisdiction in all directions, considering this as the chief purpose of his papal rule. Regarding himself as a despot of the entire universe, he began an ecclesiastical and political struggle against patriarchs and kings. In fact, he principally after the Popes Leo Ι and Gelasius Ι succeeded in defending the theory of supremacy and giving it a definite form. He succeeded in raising this and the papal power to an hitherto unprecedented degree(1).

Photius, adorned with superior talents; which are rarely gifted by nature to man,
And marked out on account of these as the wisest man of his times and the greatest
defender of Orthodoxy against the Papacy, opposed the Ροpe as the invincible and
unrivalled guardian of the integrity and purity of Orthodoxy and the independence and rights of his Church(2).

The clash between these two great hierarchs was inevitable, as soon as the first would attempt to extend his sovereignty over the Eastern Church. Unfortunately, this did not delay due to the historical consequences of the Church's evolution in the immediately preceding centuries. In fact, Nicholas, strengthened by his successes in the West after imposing himself in the ecclesiastical and political field, was eager to
enforce the genuinely roman politics of ecclesiastical imperialism, which was inherited from ancient Rome, even over the Orthodox East.

This was particularly necessary because the papal supremacy, established in the West with the aid of Pepin and Charlemagne, had to get recognition from the four
remaining eastern Patriarchates of the Church Pentarchy especially from the
patriarch of Constantinople in order to insure itself. Since this recognition was peacefully unattainable, forceful intervention was necessary, and for the successful impοsitiοn of the primacy in the East, proper exploitation was needed. The favourable opportunity Nicholas thought that he had found in the dispute in Constantinople between Photius and Ignatius. The disagreement was due to the arbitrary interference of the Byzantine Court, as well as to the christianisation of Bulgaria by Byzantium and her subjection to the Patriarchate of Constantinople at the time of Photius. Both reasons were obviously of an ecclesiastico-political nature and lacked the intention of expansion, which was characteristic of Nicholas' aims. In themselves they had nothing, which was anti canonical, and they gave no right to the bishop of Rome to intervene. Nevertheless, together with a few new dogmatic Latin teachings, they served as the formal pretext for the outbreak of the ecclesiastical schism whose inner causes, however, are found in the system of the Papacy and in the course of its development, as we have seen.

In the first place, today it has been historically ascertained under what conditions
the Patriarch of Constantinople, Ignatius, was deposed in 857(3). He was forced
to resign chiefly for political reasons and without any interference on the part of Photius; also, it is known how the most-learned professor in the University of Constantinople and protoasekretis Photius was unwillingly (4) elected to the vacant throne canonically and by the unanimous vote of clergy and laity(5). Ignatius and his followers in fact, canonically recognized him in the beginning as the canonical Patriarch(6). It is also known that the Synod which convened in Constantinople in 861, «proto-deutera»,(7) unanimously approved Photius' election as canonical. In this synod official representatives of the Pope Νicholas took part, voting in favour of Photius and condemning Ignatius(8).

In spite of this, Nicholas, thinking that the opportunity had come in presenting before
the Easterners his absolute supremacy and imposing it over them by all possible means, wrote repeated letters to the Emperor Michael III, to the Patriarchs and Bishops of the East and «ad omnes fideles» and to the «most-learned master Photius»-not recognizing him as bishop- in which on the basis of the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals he presents himself as the absolute sovereign of the Church and her highest judge, and therefore, the judge in the dispute between Photius and Ignatius. As such, he annulled in 862 the acts of the Church synods, which convened in Constantinople and declared Photius a layman and Ignatius the only canonical Patriarch of Constantinople. The reason for this, according to him, was the patriarchal change, which was made without his knowledge and consent («sine romani pontificis consultu»).(9) Besides, he called together a Latin synod in Rome in 863 which likewise deposed and anathematised Photius and those ordained by him, and declared Ignatius the canonical Patriarch and reinstated him and the Ignatian bishops to their thrones(10). Getting no attention and answer from Constantinople, he continued the same violent polemics against Photius; for example, his responsive letter to the emperor Michael in 865(11) and his other letters in 866 to the same Michael, to Bardas, to the Empresses Theodora and Eudoxia, to the members of the Senate, to the Patriarchs, Photius and Ignatius, to the remaining Patriarchs and Bishops of the East(12) and to the Clergy of Constantinople(13).

The Pope based this arbitrary and anti-canonical intervention in a foreign and independent Church on the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and on the pitiful misinterpretation of the 9th Canon of the Fourth œcumenical Council, which even his apologist Cardinal Hergenröther acknowledges that it was «interpreted not in the sense that its writers, the Fathers of the Synod of Chalcedon, had given it»(14) but arbitrarily for his own benefit, Hence he contended that his so called privileges gave him superiority and power «super omnem terram, id est super omnen Ecclesiam»(15). The truth, however, is that the Pope had no right to intervene, because according to the canons of the œcumenical Synods beginning with the 4th canon of the First œcumenical Synod(16), the bishops are elected, established and judged by the bishops of the local province or ecclesiastical district, as had in fact been done in the case of Photius(17).

It is obvious that Nicholas, acting against the canons of the Church and indeed
after the lapse of many years following the canonical election of Photius, aimed to extend his power over the eastern bishops and especially over the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was considered in Rome as a dangerous opponent, and to subjugate in this way the Eastern Church. This precisely was the first cause of the outbreak of the ecclesiastical schism, the Ρope of Rome Nicholas being chiefly

But the same arbitrary Pope Nicholas gave almost simultaneously yet another
cause for the outbreak of the schism, arising from his ecclesiastico-political ambitions.
It was the arbitrary intervention in another jurisdiction, namely in the Bulgarian Church, which shortly before was founded by Byzantium in its own territory and brought under the spiritual leadership of the Patriarchate of Constantinople(18). In order to subject this newly established Church and bring it under their influence, this Pope and his successors conducted violent struggles, contributing in this way materially to the final outbreak of the schism. Because, the Patriarchs and especially the Byzantine Emperors opposed them in equal measure(19).

As it is known, while Nicholas was engaged in extending and imposing his so-called
sovereign rights over the Eastern Church through his polemics against Photius, the latter on the contrary was engaged in christianising Bulgaria and organizing the Church and State on a Christian basis. This is indicated in the letter of the Patriarch Photius «to Michael; ruler of Βulgaria»(20) But Nicholas, parallel to his open attack against the Church of Constantinople and her chief leader Photius, indirectly was undermining her by sending into Bulgaria anticanonically his bishops,
Formosus and Ρau1, later Donatus, Marinus, Dominicus, Leopardus and Grimoaldus
and many other Latin clergymen, who were applying themselves to the task of Latinising orthodox Bulgaria and the neighbouring Slavic countries by the introduction of Latin dogmas and traditions(21). This was done at the expense of the Greek Church whose Clergy was driven out and whose orthodox traditions were assailed and slandered(22).

In this manner, while Photius was patiently receiving repeated attacks and condemnations from Rome, avoiding to answer and retaliate, suddenly he was astonished to learn that «impious and abominable men, appearing from darkness (because they were offspring of the western lands), had fallen upon the newly established and organized nation like a thunderbolt or an earthquake or a great hail storm, or in more familiar terms, as though a wild boar had destroyed it, having first divided the beloved and newly-planted vineyard of the Lord. Their audacity was so great that it was accomplished, one might almost say, by tooth and nail, that is, by the practices of infamous activity and the corruption of dogma. Unscrupulously they corrupted and led them away from the correct and pure dogma and the blameless faith of the Christians»(23)

Precisely this last point, namely the corruption and the forgery of Orthodox dogmas
and traditions became the third cause for the outbreak of the ecclesiastical schism.
Because the papal legates introduced new heterodox teachings in Bulgaria, the Byzantines there were aroused by the unfamiliar innovations. The Latin clergy stirred up the neophyte Christian Bulgarians by declaring certain of their sacraments invalid because they had been performed by the married Greek clergy, whose marriage they criticized in a Manichean way. They also imposed the obligatory Latin celibacy of the clergy. They also considered invalid the Sacrament of Holy Chrism as being performed by priests and not bishops as in the West, «the Chrism of the priests is useless and its celebration is futile since they act as impostors». Hence, they repeated a Sacrament which dogmatically is performed only once. They also changed the customs of fasting according to the Latin practice, .consecrated anew the Churches etc. The worst of all was the introduction of the «filioque» clause into the Creed, which was characterized by the scandalized Orthodox as heresy. This innovation especially aroused the Orthodox, and Photius denounced it in an encyclical to all the Orthodox Patriarchs and to the entire eastern world as introducing two principles in the monarchic Trinity and leading to the acceptance of two Gods, since the monarchy is dissolved. He further stressed that such «a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, more so against the Holy Trinity, even if nothing more is dared than this, is sufficient to put ten thousand of them under anathema». He calls it altogether an «atheistic opinion»(24).

These were the three most serious and direct causes precipitating the
ecclesiastical schism, whose chief reason and source was the monarchic papal primacy, with the Pope Nicholas Ι as the spearhead(25). The great Photius, having found himself before the continuous unjust attacks of Rome, in the midst of an anti-Latin and oppressive atmosphere and facing the general uprising, decided that it was time to defend himself. When the acts of the Pope and the Latins were made known in Constantinople, that they were being practiced at the expense of the Orthodox faith and tradition, the independence and self-sufficiency of the Eastern Church and her leader Photius, a general agitation prevailed. The demonstrative and unanimous opinion, decision and claim of all, especially of the rulers, was that an end should be put to the evil. Contributing materially to this agitation were the nine fore mentioned letters of the Pope Nicholas, which were written in an arrogant and harsh tone and attacked the Church of Constantinople. Moreover, different accusations were sent from the West to Photius concerning the tyrannical behaviour of the Pope Nicholas.
About these Photius writes: «a certain synodical letter and other letters from different sources came forth from there full of tragedy and great lamentation»(26).

Under the pressure then of popular opinion and that of the Emperor, which was caused by the loss of Bulgaria, the able champion of Orthodoxy, Photius, who «had captured the hearts of the whole Empire and the whole Byzantine Church»(27) having suffered «a serious wound inwardly as one who sees the contents of his stomach being torn and broken to pieces by reptiles and wild beasts», and who had suffered «toils and pains for their (Bulgarians) regeneration and perfection»(28),
decided to react ecclesiastically against the extension of Nicholas' sovereignty. His aim was to censure Nιcholas for forging the Orthodox faith, for violating ancient traditions and for seeking to Latinise Bulgaria and other countries, not even excepting Greece. Towards this end, Photius issued his famous encyclical in the year 866(29) with the approval of the resident synod of Constantinople(30), entitled «to the hierarchal thrones of the East»(31), in which the heterodox teachings and anti-canonical acts of Rome and her Pope Nicholas Ι are denounced with force rarely expressed and with orthodox zeal(32).

This Synod met during July-August of the following year in Constantinople under the presidency of Photius and in the presence of the Church delegates from the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, numerous bishops and clergymen, as well as the Emperor Michael, the co-emperor Basil Macedon and many councillors, patricians and other officers(33) and, condemned the forenamed Latin teachings and innovations. It also proclaimed that the Pope Nicholas be deposed, anathematised and excommunicated(34), as well as those in agreement with him, especially the papal legates in Bulgaria who were introducing into the Orthodox East the Latin innovations denounced in the well-known encyclical of Photius.

As the Church historian and Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom Papadopoulos
noticed, «in the person of Nicholas the papal primacy, unheard of in the Eastern Church, was denounced and anathematised. According to this theory of papal primacy, the canonical order and independence of the patriarchal thrones, as defined by the œcumenical Councils, was overthrown. In addition, the bishop of Rome sought to become absolute ruler of the entire Church, judging all and being judged by none, enforcing upon the Church not only his own wishes in administrative issues; but even his own innovations and heterodox teachings(35). Professor Α. D. Kyriakos
also writes: «In this Synod the Eastern Church claimed her own rights and by the
deposition of the Pope who had asked to subject her, she expressed her autonomy
and independence»(36).

In this manner, then, through the exchange of personal anathemas between the
Ρope Nicholas and the Patriarch Photius, through the decisions of the Latin synod of 863 in Rome and of the Orthodox synods of 867 in Constantinople and in general on account of the arbitrary interventions of the Ρope, the first disastrous ecclesiastical
schism of great proportion broke out. By this the seamless garment of the Saviour
was torn asunder and the Church of Christ was divided: the Eastern composed of the four ancient Patriarchates and the Western under the Patriarchate of Rome.

Exactly at this point all justifiably raises the question: Who then is the true
father and the one responsible for the schism?

On the basis of what we have already written one is able to conclude, we think, that the deepest cause of that grievous event was the Papacy as a system in general and especially its attempts to expand and even impose its power and sovereignty and Latin dogmas and traditions over the Orthodox East. The true father, first-cause and
perpetrator of the schism and the first who expressed completely the antithesis
between East and West, was the Pope Nicholas Ι. He was the aggressor, while Photius became the defender. The latter was forced ten years later to return the earlier anathematisation of Rome and to censure Nicholas for intervening in foreign
administrative issues and for the proposed innovations(37). Consequently, they who
ascribe the responsibility of the schism to Photius calling him «father of the schism»,
do so unjustly. It was not the «Photian schism»(38), but «the schism of the Roman Church»(39).

We do not consider Photius infallible; we admit that he was destined to make
certain mistakes in the terrible ecclesiastico-political confusion and conflict of the two
worlds. But, taking into consideration the condition that he was in suffering unjust attacks, he was obliged -either with or without the synod of 867- to defend the independence and rights and dogmas of his Church. He was forced to repel the Papacy's deviation from the canonical track, since this deviation was contrary to the whole historical past of Christ's Church.

Indubitably, the wise and keen-sighted Photius had foreseen and with his resistance had averted in the Eastern Church what had taken place in the West i.e, the arbitrary conversion of the ancient synodical and democratic form of Church government to a monarchy. He checked the introduction of new dogmas and traditions into the Eastern Church as for example, the theory of papal primacy, the «filioque» clause, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, the supererogatory meritorious deeds of Christ and the Saints, the doctrine of superior works, the indulgences, the fire of purgatory, the innovations in the Sacraments and in the worship of the Church, as well as the known abuses of the Latin Middle Ages. All these innovations aroused the people of the West and eventually precipitated the two newer schisms within the bosom of the Western Church: the schism of Protestant world that of the Old Catholics. The Greek people of Byzantium, who were holding the sceptre of civilization in the ninth century, did nothing more than that which the cultured people of the West did centuries later as a result of the papal abuses(40).

We must not forget that Photius acted as the representative and bearer of the will
of his Church and Nation, whose rights were violated and whose autonomy and
independence were threatened. He was, therefore, compelled to struggle against and frustrate the papal ambitions in order to save Orthodoxy and Hellenism from subjection and latinization(41) As Kyriakos writes, «Photius having done this became the saviour of the Eastern Church from the dreadful danger of the Papacy» and for this reason «the Eastern Church and the Greek nation in particular owe their perpetual gratitude to the great Photius for his struggles against the Papacy»(42).

To enslave the unsubdued and free Greek Church Nicholas and his successors sought to overthrow her synodical administrative system inherited from the Apostles (based upon the equality and brotherhood of all bishops) and to impose a centralized and monarchic system unknown earlier in the Church and based upon the subjection of all bishops, synods and local, churches, to the bishop of Rome. Thus, they sought to centralize all power and authority and to invest themselves almost with divine privileges and attributes. In the future the Pope was not satisfied with considering himself, as until then, primus inter pares, but wanted to be recognized primus super omnes and as absolute and infallible monarch of the whole Church. Precisely from this anti-canonical and downhill trend did Photius try to restrain Nicholas, without desiring the schism.

That Ρhοtius did not desire the schism and did not provoke it, and consequently
should not be criticized as responsible for the division of the Churches(43), is proved by the fact that for ten years he tolerated patiently the papal intervention in a foreign administration and the anti-canonical decisions and actions of Nicholas practised at his expense. Even the Synod of 867 in Constantinople might not have been called, if
the danger of losing Bulgaria politically and ecclesiastically had not existed and if the Emperor, the government and the people had not exercised strong pressure
over him. This is shown also from the indisputable fact that even after the outbreak
of the schism, Photius did nothing to enlarge it, make it permanent or change it from a simple personal antithesis and exchange of personal anathematizations to an official denunciation of the two Churches, which occurred 1054; on the contrary, he .succeeded within a short time(44) in reconciling and lifting the schism- by calling the Synod of 879/80 in Constantinople which restored community between Rome and Constantinople. This was done with the participation and agreement of the representatives of the Roman Church. Because of this, the Byzantines called it the «unifying synod... in which a great peace was, made between the Western Church and the other Patriarchates»(45). The Pope at that time, John VIII, recognized Photius and ratified the decisions of that Synod(46).«The researches initiated by A. Lapôtre and completed by V.Grumel and F. Dvornik have proved that the settlement, of 879/80.between Photius and Ρope John VIII was accepted not only by -the Church of Constantinople, but by the greater part of the Church of Rome. This settlement regulated relations between. East and West in the tenth century, and remained authoritative in the West until the end of the eleventh»(47)

As it is known, in the great Synod of 879/80, which by many is considered as the true eighth œcumenical(48), Photius was justified and recognized as the canonical Patriarch, and the decisions against him of the Latin Synods in Rome,(863) and Constantinople (869/70) were invalidated(49).

Besides this, the unlawful addition of the «filioque» clause to the Creed(50) and the
theory, of papal supremacy in jurisdiction and power over the whole Church(51),
which chiefly caused the clash Besides this, the unlawful addition of the «filioque» clause to the Creed(50) and the theory, of papal supremacy in jurisdiction and power over the whole Church(51), which chiefly caused the clash between Nicholas and Photius, were condemned. Thus, this released Photius Synod of all responsibility for the conflict. It is especially noteworthy that the Byzantines characterized this reconciliation as a union of the Churches. The Patriarch of Constantinople Michael of Anchialus (1169-1177)(52) testifies to this as well as Nicetas Chartophylax of Nicaea who writes: «Photius after much clamour and confusion and without further meddling having again united with the Romans, likewise was there union of the Churches»(53). This «union» became more real later particularly at the time of the Patriarch Antonius ΙΙ (893-895)(54) and especially from 880 to the time of Cerularius. «During this interval our own leaders showed great tolerance in their relation with Rome»(55), and in reality the schism was lifted or rather changed into a political and cultural one(56). In this the Pope John IΧ was very instrumental because he recognized the Patriarchs of Constantinople Ignatius, Photius, Stephen Ι and Antonius II as canonical and condemned all who did not(57). Consequently, after the Synod of 879/80 no «second schism» existed between Photius and Rome, as Roman catholic writers above all asserted, ignorant of the real facts or who out of pure prejudice and fanaticism had based their views upon sources(58), «which today are considered as purposeful fabrications of the Ignatian party»(59). Modern unbiased scientific research(60) has arrived at the conclusion that the so called «second schism» of Photius is one «historical mystification»(61) and belongs to the «realm of legend»(62), inasmuch as no other condemnation against Photius was repeated
by the succeeding Popes John VIII, Marinus, Stephen V and Formozos(63) F. Dvornik
further points out «that the person of Ρhοtius, the great Patriarch and Father of the Eastern Church, has for centuries been treated by the whole of the West with unmerited scorn and contempt(64). He is led, as a result of his long and detailed study, to the conclusion that on the basis of History, Photius can and must be justified. He further states that «we shall be free once more to recognize in Photius a great Churchman, a learned humanist. and a genuine Christian, generous enough to forgive his enemies and to take the first step towards reconciliation»(65). Accordingly, Photius, who for centuries was misinterpreted and slandered by fanatic heterodox theologians and historians, was not the «father of the schism», but rather the pioneer and apostle of the reconciliation and union of the two Churches(66), whose unity was troubled by Rome. Such a recognition on the part of the heterodox, even if it is not complete, constitutes the triumphant restoration and justification of the great Orthodox Patriarch Photius(67) in History, coming one and more millenium after his justification by the general Council of 879/80.


1. - Because «keiner jener Päpste hat den römischen Primatsanspruch «in so stölzer und überragender Sprache» und mit so «formaler Vollendung und Präzision ausgesprochen wie Nikolaus I.» (F. Heiler (Perels), οp. cit., p. 240). Hence «durch Nikolaus Ι wurde das römische Papsttum tatsächlich zum Weltimperium, zur «pontifikalen Theokratie». Nicholas «totius mundi imperatorem se fecit», as if he were «imperator-pontifex» and «geistlicher imperator» and «dominus orbis terrarum» (ibid. pp. 239, 240, 242). And the Latin annalist Abbot Reginus even noticed that Nicholas post beatum Gregorium usque in praesens nullus in Romana urbe illi videtur aequi parandus ; regibus ac tyrannis imperavit,eisque ac si Dominus orbis terrarum auctoritate praefuit». (J. Valettas, οp. cit., p. 43). F. Dvornik writes that Nicholas «is without doubt one of the greatest Popes of the early Middle Ages, and the increase of papal authority throughout the following centuries is for ever connected with the acts of that great Pope whose writings on the sublimely of the institution of the papacy had an unprecedented influence over the canonists and theologians of the Western Church during the Middle Ages... He succeeded in bringing the whole Western hierarchy under absolute obedience to him and he crushed all tendencies towards independence in the powerful Frankish Church. It is not surprising that he intended to handle the affairs of the Eastern Church in the same way». (The Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Patron of Reunion?, ante p. 24). See the writings of Orthodox writers about Nicholas Ι: Nektarius of Pentapolis, οp. cit., p. 204/5. S. OEcοnomοu, The Amphilochia of Photius, Athens 1858. p. ΧΧ seq. (in Greek). J.Valettas. οp. cit., p. 42 seq. G. Kremos, οp. cit., vol. II, p. 271 seq. Ph. Vafeides, op. cit., p. 118 seq. Chrys. Papadopoulos, οp. cit., p. 137 seq.

2. - Photius was highly praised by Constantine;.OEconomou in this manner: «Photius, the great name and miracle of his age and those ages after him; with the works of whom all libraries are full, and all pages of Church History; far-famed for his race, wealth, offices and indeed genius, wisdom, virtue, and piety…(in him) you see the harmonious abode of education, particularly the most sacred. temple of Theology. and the clear-voiced mouth of Orthodoxy developing and performing the all-holy mystical truths of piety in highly favoured and revealing word and phrase: Photius the comrade in the choir of the great Church Fathers and among the Saints glorified etc».(The Septuagint Translators of the Old Testament, Athens 1849. vοl. IV, p.752 seq. in Greek). See also the «Amphilochia» of Photius, p. 3). The editor of the history of the Florentine Synod. R. Creyghton, writes in his prologue about Photius: «Qui propriis oculis, et non alienis in rerum momenta introspicient, mecum fatebuntur spero, illustri Photio doctiorem in οmni genere literarum, prudentiorem in rebus gerendis,omnis juris divini humanique peritiorem, nunqaam sedisse in quovis sοliο, vel Roma Papam vel Constantinopoli Patriarcham». (Vera historia unionis nοn verae inter Graecos et Latinos. p. 34). Likewise, F. Heiler characterizes Photius. as «bewundernswerten,vielseitigen und ungeheuer gelehrten» (Urkirche und Ostkirche,. München 1937, p. 135) and Μ. Jugie as «illustre professeur et savant homme» (οp. cit . p: 105). F. Dvornik writes: «Since the Renaissance philosophers and philologists have venerated him as the genius who among others was instrumental in transmitting to later generations through the Byzantine period classical Greek and Hellenistic culture». (The Photian Schism History and Legend. Cambridge 1948, p. 1).

3. - Modern scientific research has shown that Ignatius was not dismissed arbitrarily and anti-canonically, but having been first coerced and then convinced, finally submitted his resignation in order to prevent worse complications and hardships in the Church. This resignation was recognized as canonical by the Church of Constantinople. See F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 39 seq. and .especially p. 48: «Having examined all the important accounts of Ignatius' attitude after his internment we may then conclude with confidence that Ignatius was not deposed by force, but that the abdicated to forestall worse complications. His abdication was made at the request of the new regime, it is true, but it was acknowledged as valid and canonical by all the members of the higher clergy gathered in Constantinople, including Ignatius' staunchest supporters. Ignatius himself invited his followers to accept the situation and to proceed to elect the new Patriarch». Likewise, p.53: «This consummation was due to Ignatius' wisdom in resigning and thus sacrificing his personal interests to those of the Church and to the new Patriarch's conciliatory spirit and readiness to make concessions». See also F. Dvornik, Le premier Schisme de Photios, in Bulletin de l'Institut archéologique bulgare, Sofia 1935, vοl. IΧ, and G. Kremos, op. cit., vol. II, p. 136 seq.

4. - The same Patriarch Photius writes: «when recently my predecessor had lost the dignity of serving as patriarch and when a shepherd was in demand agreeable to all and able to join together the disjointed members of the Church and to calm the agitation (for there were manifold agitations against the Church) oh, the generosity towards me! when the Emperor and the college of Priests attack my weakness and mediocrity, forcing me to take on the yoke of the prelacy. With tears and with supplications and with difficulty conceding, Ι earnestly entreat that the vote be given to others (but how am Ι to relate what followed?), they do not yield even for a short time. While Ι delay the undertaking and they resign not from exercising force, at last the will of the majority prevails. The more I resisted, the more their pressure increased. Already an end was brought about by those who had cast their vote and the priests and hierarchs who had displayed the form οf the Cross. What need was there to delay for those assembled there, Ι being overcome with tears? Ι do not know. either by the providence of God, or for the reproval of my sins they charge me with the yoke of a prelate. In one thing Ι discovered small consolation: that, unity of mind and feeling being implanted in their hearts, those who were at a variance among themselves were brought together and former concord was graciously given». J. Valettas, op. cit., p. 145/6. See ibid. p. 136/7, 148 seq.,495.

5. - See F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 48 seq. and especially p. 50: «The synod presented to the government, besides an Ignatian and an anti-Ignatian, a neutral candidate, the protoasekretis Photius, the very man whom the Emperor and Bardas had had in mind from the beginning. The choice, besides giving the government some satisfaction, rallied all the bishops present, except Metrophanes, and no doubt Stylianos, who were the most refractory. Why did most of the Ignatian bishops rally to Photius? First, because he was a new man: though a sympathizer with the Moderate party, he evidently was not numbered among its most outspoken members. His orthodoxy was above suspicion; since he had been persecuted by the iconoclasts; he was moreover related to Theodora». Similarly, p. 52: «The fact that bishops of the Ignatian party took part in Photius' consecration is generally omitted by the Ignatians». See G. Kremos,op. cit., vol II, p. 148 seq.

6. - F. Dvornik writes that: «Ignatius was not arbitrarily deposed by Michael III, but that he himself presented his resignation upon the Emperor's invitation, and that Photius was not appointed by the Emperor, but elected by a special local Council of the Church of Constantinople in accordance with the statutes of Eastern Canon Law. He was recognized as lawful Ρatriarch by all the bishops, amongst them even the warmest supporters of Ignatius, and by Ignatius himself». (The Eastern Churches Quarterly 3 (1939) 410). Elsewhere he writes: «...For two months the new Patriarch was recognized as legitimate successor by the whole Byzantine Church, and even by Ignatius. We can find absolute evidence for this fact in the documents of the Ignatian party, hitherto misinterpreted by all scholars who have studied them». (The Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Ρatrοn of Reunion? ante p. 22.) Οn page 23 he writes about Ignatius' change in attitude towards Ρhοtius: «Ignatius was not responsible for these troubles and that his prestige and personality had been misused by some fanatics who were posing as his admirers. On this, as on other occasions, Ignatius did not show enough comprehension of the real situation and let things take their course».

7. - Β. Stefanides, Α new interpretation of the name of the «proto-deutera» synod of 861, in «Ecclesia» 24. (1947) 132 seq.

8. - See G. Kremos, op. cit., vol. II, p. 197 seq. F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 78 seq.

9. - See Mansi, Concil. 15,168 seq. Migne Ρ. L. 119,785/94. G. Kremos, op. cit., vol.. II, p. 285 seq.

10. - Mansi, Concil. 15, 178 seq., Migne Ρ. L., 119, 926/62. F. Dvornik, op cit., p. 97/8. G. Kremos, op. cit., vοl. II, p. 297 seq. On page 300 he concludes: «In this manner the papal synod through its decisions officially declared the schism between the Pope of Rome Nicholas and the Patriarch Photius and the Emperor of Constantinople, which is a prelude to the official schism between the two Churches, Greek and Roman». Ibid. p. 307. It is understood that the unlawful and anti-canonical decision of the Latin synod was by no means taken into consideration at Constantinople; on the contrary, the Emperor Michael expressly rejected it with a polemical letter to Nicholas Ι which was lost but whose contents are able to be inferred from the Pope's answer to it. See Μansi, Concil. 15,187 seq, and G. Kremos, οp. cit., vοl. II, p.301 seq.

11. - Ibid. p. 187 seq. See also F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 105 seq. Noteworthy is his observation (p.105) that the present «letter was destined to be one of the most important documents in the evolution of the Papacy».

12. - According to Nicetas Paphlagonos, «Nicholas... to the Patriarchs of the East …sent this judgement», thus obviously, «he first made a rent in the seamless garment of the Saviour»... (S. Aristarchus, Sermons and Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Constantinople 1901, pp. 31-36, in Greek).

13. - Μansi, Concil. 15,162 seq., 216 seq. In these arrogant letters the Church of Constantinople was slandered and the haughty papal claims rudely stated to the Easterners. For example we read in Mansi, Concil. 15, 234: «Verumtamen quid opus est hinc multa prosequi, cum hodieque penes Ecclesiam CPolitanam impietas ipsa vigeat. praevaricatio regnet, schismata multiplicentur». Αnd generally «in his attitude towards Michael ΙII, Nicholas showed that he regarded all kings and emperors as accountable to him for their actions and thus subject to his spiritual jurisdiction. In this sense at least he may be said to have contributed materially to the formulation of a papal potestas directa in temporal matters ratione peccati». (Τ. G. Jalland, The Church and the Ρapacy, London 1944, p. 383).

14. - J. Hergenröther, οp. cit., vοl. Ι. p. 568 , n. 92. See also Chrys. Ρapadopoulos, op. cit , p. 141 seq.

15. - F. Dvornik, op. cit.. p. 107.

16. - Rhalles and Potles, op. cit., vol. II, p. 122.

17. - F. Dvornik also accepts the fact that «never did a Patriarch ask a Pope in his synodal letter for confirmation of his election. The election of the Patriarch and bishops was regarded as a matter concerning the internal affairs of the Eastern Church and the Emperor. The Eastern Church was always very jealous in defence of its absolute independence in disciplinary matters... We must not judge the matter from our modern point of view, but from the point of view of the Byzantines in the ninth century... His objection (the Pope Nicholas') to the elevation of Photius, that he was a simple layman when elevated, is not very grave». (Τhe Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Patron of Reuniοn? ante p 24). Concerning the consecration of Photius see all that he writes to the Pope Nicholas, in J. Valettas,, οp. cit., p. 151 seq.

18. - F. Dvornik points out that «canonically, the Byzantine claim was legitimate, Since Bulgaria included only a small portion of Macedonia which had been under Roman jurisdiction, and included a great part of Thrace which had always been under the jurisdiction of Constantinople» (op. cit., p.153, n.1). Principally «they who resided in Constantinople disapproved of the intervention as conflicting with the 28th canon of the Fourth œcumenical Council in Chalcedon (451), which confirmed the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Thracian province and those parts which belonged to him but which were at the moment in the hands of barbarians. (This was the eastern portion of Bulgaria, while the western, outside of Thracian jurisdiction, was in eastern Illyria, over which the Popes had claim. although Leο ΙΙΙ, Isaurus, in 732/3 had subjected it to the Patriarchate of Constantinople). Besides, they (the Byzantines) feared that this church intervention was the prelude of a political intervention on the part of the West.» (Β. Stefanides, οp. cit.,p. 325).

19. - It is to be noted that previously Nicholas in a letter to the Emperor had asked to give back to him Eastern Illyricum where the above mentioned portion of Bulgaria was located (that is, almost the entire Balkan peninsular except Thrace), together with southern Italy, including the patrimonia οf Calabria and Sicily, and the right to consecrate bishops of Syracuse. See Monumenta Germaniae historica, Epistle 6 p. 438. Because the bearers of this letter delegates to the «proto-deutera» synod were unsuccessful, Nicholas refused to confirm the decisions of that Synod. The Pope's cοntinuοus campaign against Photius purposed the subjection of the Byzantine Church and especially of Eastern Illyricum with Bulgaria, because, it seems, he had believed the false assurance of Ignatianus Theognostos that, if Ignatius returned to the throne, he would cede Bulgaria to the Pope! See also F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 101.

20. - J. Valettas, οp. cit., p. 200/48. The Bulgarian ruler, Bogoris, (Michael after his baptism, September 865) as well as the Bulgarian people were guided in the Christian faith by Photius, who for this reason in the above-mentioned letter addresses him «my beloved son», «my philochrist and spiritual son», «a good statue of my sufferings», «the noble and genuine offspring of my spiritual pangs» etc., or he exhorts him «do not therefore falsify our hopes. which your tendency to do good and your readiness to listen give rise to, nοr make vain the pains and struggles, which we have suffered for your salvation», etc. (ibid.). See also G. Kremos, οp. cit., vοl. ΙΙ, p. 308 seq.

21. - See also Α Pichler, op. cit., vol. Ι, p. 194/5. Even in the legislation they displaced the Justinian Code and introduced the collection of laws of the Lombards. (F. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 114).

22. - With Nicholas and his legates to Bulgaria, the Pope John VIII undertook to slander the Orthodox Greeks, writing to Boris Michael that «quotidie nοvis et variis disciplines atque dogmatibus confunduntur». (Mansi, Concil. 17, 119). And elsewhere: «Tristamur et ingemiscimus, verentes et pertimescentes, ne, si forte Graecos secuti fueritis,cum illi in diversas haereses et schismata solito more ceciderint, vos quoque cum ipsis in erroris profunda ruatis... Nam te, fili. Mosaicis rogo verbis : «Interroga patrem tuum. et annunciabit tibi, seniores tuos, et dicent tibi», si aliquando Graeci, sine hac vel illa haeresi fuerint» (ibid. p. 62).

23. - J. Valettas, οp. cit.. p. 168. Of particular importance is the fact that the occupation of Βulgaria by the Popes played a significant role in the οutbreak of the schism, as we have seen, and in the evolution of the events. This forced the Popes Nicholas Ι, Hadrian ΙΙ, John VIII and their successors to define and change their position many times against Photius and Ignatius. Οn this issue F. Dvornik writes: «Pope Hadrian had acknowledged Ignatius as the legitimate Patriarch on condition that he should undertake nothing contrary to Roman interests in Bulgaria; that, should he be daring enough to do so, he would be severed from communion with Rome, and therefore be excommunicated. In no other sense could these words of John VIII be explained. We therefore have here indisputable evidence that the Bulgarian issue played a leading part in all dealings with Photius by Nicholas, since his successor makes his recognition of Ignatius conditional on the latter's attitude towards Rοman interests in Bulgaria. This condition was laid down in the letter, which the legates handed to Ιgnatius at the time of the conference that met after the Ignatian Council to settle Bulgaria's fate; and the legates were not to produce the letter except in the urgent case of Roman interests being actually at stake. This helps us to explain the enigmatic passage in the Pope's letter to Domagoï, referring to Ignatius as having been repeatedly excommunicated as a result of these offences. If Ignatius' recognition by Hadrian had been made to depend on his attitude towards Βulgaria, and if the Patriarch been threatened with excommunication if ever he dared to trespass on Roman rights in Bulgaria, then John could treat Ignatius as excommunicated, as soon as it became clear that Ignatius had failed to observe the condition. Yet, on the other hand, because John VIII did not wish to close the door upon a possible settlement, he put off passing public sentence on Ignatius as long as there remained the least hope of the Patriarch acknowledging his fault. He must therefore have twice appealed to him before the last summons, the only one attested by a papal letter. It is worded in very resolute terms: Ignatius will be excommunicated, if he does not recall the Greek priests from Bulgaria within thirty days. In another letter to the Greek clergy of the same country, the Pope confirmed the sentence of excommunication once pronounced against them by Ηadrian. Βut should the bishops and priests not quit Bulgarian territory within a month, they would all be suspended and excommunicated» (οp. cit., p.156/7). See also G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204, Londοn 1947, p, 126 seq. J. Valettas rightly observes: «For Bulgaria Photius suffered, for Bulgaria Ignatius was disliked,for Bulgaria the Council which in all ways served the papal arrogance was declared useless,for Bulgaria the Pope John became the friend of Photius, pulting on the foxskin when the lion's skin was insufficient...all the coherence of the past events showed nothing but this: the papal greed alone, which was the source and beginning of the trouble and the schism later» (op. cit., p. 71). It must be noticed here that the christianisation of Bulgaria by Byzantium was completed in the year 864; the arrival of the Latin clergy was made towards the end of the year 866 and their expulsion in the beginning of the year 870, as a result of the Synod of Constantinople in 869/70: «Bulgarorum patriam, quam ex Graecorum potestate dudum fuisse et Graecos sacerdotes habuisse comperimus, sanctae Εcclesiae CPolitanae, a qua per paganismum recesserat, nunc per Christianismum restitui judicamus». (Anastasii Bibliothecari, Historia de vitis Romanorum Pontificum, 637.Migne P.L. 128, 1393). In general see G. Konidaris, The Greek Church as a civilizing force in the Peninsular of Aimos, Athens 1948 .p. 41 seq. (in Greek).

24. - Photius, Encyclical letter to the eastern hierarchic thrones, in J. Valettas, οp. cit., p. 165 seq: In this are enumerated the more important innovations of the Latins and their differences with the Orthodox at that time. Also see J. Karmiris, The symbolical texts of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Alexandria 1945 pp, 41/3. (Reprint from the «Church Pharos» 1946). G. Kremos, οp. cit., vol. II, p. 331. The uprising of the Orthodox at the innovations in the faith (filioque) was such that Photius was forced during the last eight years of his life to write a letter to the Metropolitan of Aquileia (J. Valettas, οp. cit., p.181 seq.) and to prepare his Treatise on the «Mystagogy of the Ηoly Spirit».(Migne Ρ.G. 102, 280 seq).

25. - In fact the primacy of the Pope about «the middle of the ninth century received its more perfect development on account of the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. The Pope of Rome Nicholas Ι was the first who sought, to enforce these decrees, and for this reason did the schism begin with him. Particularly «by the intervention of the Pope of Rome Nicholas in the Bulgarian Church, the papal supremacy came out of its theoretical and indefinite form, which it had maintained until then, and received a practica and definite form which was dangerous to the independence of the eastern Church». (Β. Stefanides, op, cit.; p. 317, 326).

26. - Photius, Encyclical Letter etc., ante p. 179.

27. - F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 201.

28. - Photius, op. cit., p. 175.

29. - S. Aristarchus, op. cit., p. 48-49, 51, 54-57. On the basis of the facts given here, we accept 866 and not 867 as the year of the writing of the Εncyclical of Photius, which date is set by J. Valettas (op. cit., p.166), Α. Pichler (οp. cit., p. 185), Μ. Jugie (Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium vol. Ι, Paris 1926, p. 107, 130), Chrys. Papadopoulos (op, cit., pp. 146, 172) and others.

30. - S. Aristarchus, op. cit., p. 48-49.

31. - See J. Karmiris, op. cit., p. 36 seq. It is here classified among the symbolical texts of the Orthodox Catholic Church.

32. - Although Nicholas did not know what was occurring at Constantinople, he «was no less alarmed: it seems as if he had never realized before how vital to the Byzantines the Bulgarian problem was. and never understood the Greek reaction to his success in Bulgaria. But he really did take fright, fearing a rupture between Rome and Byzantium that was more than dangerous, one that might easily shift to dogmatic issues. This is why he gave such a cry of alarm in his letters (to Hincmar etc.) and tried to mobilize all the spiritual forces in his Church before the great blow that he feared should fall». (F Dvοrnik, op cit , p. 119). Others but particularly Aeneas of Paris and Ratramnus from Corbie answered to the cry and invitation of Nicholas with two treatises «Against the Greeks» (Migne Ρ.L.121, 223-340 and 686-762), as well as synods which convened in France and Germany. See G. Every, op. cit., p.138, and J. Valettas, op. cit., p. 51/2.

33. - The Acts of this great synod, which bears about one thousand signatures (Β. Stefanides, op. cit., p. 325/6), were carried to Rome and burned by the Latins for obvious reasons in the same way that the Acts of the Synods in Constantinople in August 858, May 861 and June 866 were destroyed. (See S. Aristarchus, op cit., p, 148, 151).

34. - F. Dvornik believes that the Council of 867 was not aimed at the Western Church as such. The anathemas and condemnations hurled by the Eastern Fathers against some western customs were only directed against the Roman missionaries of Bulgaria for the purpose of impressing Boris and his Boyars: in fact, Photius encyclical, Ι insist, only mentioned the «so-called» bishops preaching in Bulgaria, (op. cit., p.122).

35. - Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit., p.147.

36. - Α. D. Kyriakos, Studies on Photius, Athens 1887, p. 108. (In Greek). K.Paparregopoulos also observes that «Photius was obliged to fight that which the Greek nation from the beginning and until this day repels and is unable to do otherwise, is, that the sovereign claim of the hierarch of Rome; first because it is opposed to the fundamental principles of the Christian faith and Secondly because no nation is considered obliged to submit to foreign domination either political or ecclesiastical». (History of the Greek nation, Athens 1887, vol. III, p. 747 in Greek).

37. - See also Κ. Paparregopoulos, op. cit., vol. IV, p. 323/4. Here it is noticed that the position of Nicholas, Hadrian and their successors against Photius bears witness to the fact that Rome had decided beforehand to extend the papal supremacy through all possible means to include even the East, when an opportunity would be given. Thus, Photius appears as the pitiful victim who was forced to resist and to defend the independence of the Greek Church and Nation, after having first fallen into the net thrown by Rome for prey to attract the eastern world.

38. - As it is known, Photius was made a subject of controversy and has been treated by writers according to their Church affiliation. However, F. Dvornik rightly observes that: «few names in the history of Christianity have inspired feelings so conflicting as that of the Greek Patriarch Photius. Saint and hero in the eyes of the Christian East, he is branded by the Christian West as the man who unbolted the safeguards of unity and let loose the disruptive forces of dissent and schism. Whilst the East invokes his name as one that carries weight with God, the West still quotes it as the symbol of pride and lust for ecclesiastical domination; hailed by all who ever claimed a larger share for nationalism in the life of the Church and a closer association between man and God, it is reprobated by others as the badge of disruption and an element destructive of Christian universality» (op. cit., p 1) Undeniably however, the life and activity and especially the position of Photius against the Papacy was distorted and misconstrued as that of no other ancient churchman by the prejudiced historians of the West, who did not examine the sources of all his contemporaries, the ecclesiastical synods and even the papal legates, but instead based their views one-sidedly on the evidence of untrustworthy enemies of Photius like Nicetas of Paphlagonia (Life of Ignatius, Mansi, Concil. 16, 209 seq.), Metrophanes of Smyrna (letter to the patrician Manuel, ibid. 413 seq.), Stylianos of Neo-Caesarea (letter to the Pope Stephen, ibid., p. 425 seq.), Theognostos (libellus against Ignatius, ibid., p. 293 seq. Migne Ρ.G. 105, 856 seq.), Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Praej. ad concil. VIII oecum. ejusdem . vita Nicolai et Hadriani ΙΙ, Μansi 16, 1 seq. Migne Ρ.L.128, 1357 seq.), or on the so-called «anti-Photian collection» (Mansi 16, 409 seq. F. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 216 seq.) and others repeating the accusations against Photius without testing their validity. They, «revolving around one anchor point whenever there was anything to be written about Photius, set up a ridiculous dream of great nonsense, compiling these diligently and adding their own, laboriously copying the work of each of other, and, as if convinced, attempted to convince others that Photius and not the anti-Christian papal haughtiness was responsible for the great schism of Christ's Church». (J. Valettas, op. cit., p. 2. See also Κ. Œconomos, on the Septuagint Translators of the Old Testament, Athens 1849, vοl. IV, p. 753/4, in Greek). But now the English historian Bury has pointed out that: «the story (about Photius) is based on one-sided sources defending the viewpoint of the Ignatian party and extremely hostile towards Photius». (Eastern Churches Quarterly 3 (1939) 410), and the Czech F. Dvornik observes that: «on the literary and scholastic side, Photius has always ranked fairly high amongst those scholars. who have studied his writings; in this field his name always commanded respect, as his contemporaries, friend and foe alike, unanimously testified. Scholars familiar with his literary work were not inclined to believe all the stories brought up against him by his opponents; they were true to the scholar's instinct which prompted them to feel that a man who had spent his best days amongst books, in the company of the best representatives of the classical period and in daily contact with many devoted disciples, was not likely to descend to such meanness and petty ambition as were imputed to him by his enemies ; and it was a right instinct which led them to honour a scholar who has been prominent in transmitting Hellenistic culture to posterity. At the same time, the firm conviction which prevailed among the simple orthodox that their Church could not be wrong in crowning its leader with the halo of sanctity for setting an example of Christian virtue was bound to find its justification» (op. cit., p. 432).

39. - See also Η. Alivisatos, Οn the Nature of the Church from an Orthodox point of view, in «Theologia» Athens, 21 (1950) 34. 38. (in Greek).

40. - «Photius is stated to have inspired Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon and other famous reformers in launching their campaigns against the Papacy and its authority». (F. Dvornik, op. cit., p.1).

41. - See also Nektarius. Kephalas, op. cit, vol. Ι, p. 208.

42. - Α. D. Kyriakos, op. cit., p. 94, 106. See also G. Kremos, op. cit., II, 2-4

43. - Recently D. J. Doens correctly stated that «Photius s'était montré vis-à-vis de Rome plus conciliant a certains égards que saint Ignace». (Irénikon 22 (1949) 434/5).

44. - According to the Roman catholic theologian F. Mercenier «toute l'affaire photienne se ramène a une querelle fort vive entre Photius et Nicolas I et a un schisme de quelques mois (fin de 866 à septembre οu octobre 867)». (Ρ. Dumont-F. Mercenier-C. Lialine, Qu'est-ce que l'Orthodoxie? Vues catholiques. Paris 1945, p. 71). F. Dvornik notes that the schism «separated East and West for six years only». (Eastern Churches, Quarterly 3 (1939) 4Ι4).

45. - F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p.457 Rhalles and Potles, op.,cit., vol. I, p.392/3.

46. - F. Dvornik, op.cit., p. 205 seq.

47. - G. Every,.op. cit.,.p,153.

48. - The Acts in Mansi, Concil. 17,373,-52 4. On this Synod see Chrys. Papadοpoulos, as an Orthodox writer, οp. cit., p. ,155 seq., and F. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 159 seq., 383 seq., 418 seq., as a Roman catholic. The same Synod was self - named «œcumenical» in many places; especially in the canons (Rhalles and Potles, οp. cit., II. 705 seq.). Theodore Balsamon (ibid), the Patriarch Efthymius and the metropolitan, Nellos, of Rhodes and others called it. œcumenical also (ibid Ι, 392. F. Dvornik, op. cit, p.457). Officially however, the Church did not recognize this Synod as such.

49. - This general Synod officially and unanimously annulled the unjust decisions of the two Latin Synods, against Photius -as well as the synods themselves, which as regards time and, place appeared as two, but in reality were only one- and what is more, this annulment was made by the letters of the Pope John VIII as well as the mouths of his legates and, all the fathers of .the Synod declaring: «May the synod called against the most-saintly Patriarch Photius in Rome and Constantinople at the time of Hadrian be henceforth ostracized, invalid, uncertain and unclassified with other holy. Synodes», (Mansi, Concil. 17,401,416, 489; 492,508 seq.). In conformity with this decision, the Orthodox Church ignored completely the later Synod of 869/70, (see also J. Hergenrother: op. cit., II, 510) and put it in the same class with the robber, synod of 449 in Ephesus and the similar one of 1438/9 in Ferrara-Florence. But Rome retracted and for obvious reasons officially declared it as the eighth œcumenica! F. Dvornik proves that this Synod was characterized as œcumenical for the first time about the end of the 11th century (οp. cit., p. 309 seq.). He further states that this was forgotten and only during the 16th century does Βaronius mention if again. Later Latin writers reiterate the same up to the Hergenröther, Hefele and our contemporaries. See F. Dvornik, L'œcuménicité du huitième concile (869/70), in Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, vol. 24 (1938). Elsewhere he writes; «We must not forget, that; the council, of 869/70, called the eighth œcumenical, was. in many ways, a failure, for the Papacy: Only thirteen bishops were present at the beginning, and the so-called «libelli» were unpopular...» (Τhe Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Patron of Reunion?; ante p. 30).

50. - All the participants of the Synod, including the papal legates; accepted the sacred symbol, unchanged and unforced, «deducting nothing, adding nothing, altering nothing, forging nothing; because deduction and addition introduces criticism of things uncriticized and inexcusable insult against the fathers, when some , heresy is not stirred, by. the artifices of temptation, and altering the horos of the Fathers, with forged words is more serious than the former». Therefore the, Synod pronounced anathema anyone who, «in spurious words or additions or deductions would dare to forge the antiquity of this sacred and venerable horos». (Mansi, Concil. 17,516). Οn page 520: «if anyone becomes audacious enough, to dare to write another symbol, besides this one or to add, subtract, pronounce or write another hοrοs, may he be censured and rejected from every Christian confession...». See, also, what, is said in the treatises of the Patriarch Efthymius and the metropolitan Neilos of Rhodes about the Synods, in F. Dvornik, οp cit., p.457 where this Synod is called «unifying, during which a great peace was made between the Western Church and the Patriarchates, the Westerners plainly confessing that in the same manner as you do we read and I believe, the symbol which is the holy of the faith without any addition to it and that we anathematise anyone who adds or omits, etc.». It is unnecessary to repeat that the fathers of this Synod, as well as those of the Synod of 867 in Cοnstantinople and Photius himself in 866 in his encyclical did nothing, more than Pope Leo III in 810 (see above p. 403, and F. Loofs, οp. cit., p., 49/50) and all the preceding orthodox Popes did. Οn the other hand, even after Nicholas I, the addition of the filioque was unacceptable in Rome, during the whole of the 9th and 10th century. It was introduced by Benedict VIII in 1014 perhaps; under the pressure of the Emperor of Germany Henry II. «Cependant, même après l'adoption du Filioque par Rome, quelques. Églises, continuèrent a chanter le symbole sans ce mot. Un texte d'Alexandre de Hales atteste qu' en 1240, a Paris, on ne chantait pas encore le filioque au symbole,». (A. Palmieri, Filioque, ante vol. V, p. 2317). All this shows the right that Photius had in fighting the addition and the reason why the Latin Synod in Constantinople in 869/70 against him did not venture to condemn him as an heretic for this. Indirectly and silently it recognized that Photius' teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit was orthodox.

51. - See also Chrys. Papadopoulos, op. cit., p. 162 seq. Even the Latin Synod of 869/70 in Constantinople did not recognize the papal primacy based on the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the «Gift of Constantine», at least in the measure that the papal legates had hoped for. See ibid., p. 152 seq. The Synod of 879/80, following the practice of the ancient œcumenical Synods, recognized the honorary pre-eminence of the bishop of Rome in the Patriarchal pentarchy, «changing none of the rights belonging to the most-holy throne of the Church of the Romans, or to her chairman neither now nor in the hereafter», according to her first canon. For indeed «what the Pope Nicholas Ι and his successors claimed was an innovation, that is, arbitrarily to acquit clergymen of another Church who were condemned by her, or to convict others by intervening in her internal questions». The «rights belonging to him» were nothing else but the rights honorarily given to the bishop of Rome (see the exegesis οf Zonaras, in Rhalles and Potles, The Constitution of the Sacred Canons, II, 706, Ρ. Batiffol, Le siege apostolique, p. 136, 557), which were defined by the 6th canon of the first œcumenical Council, the 3rd of the 2nd œcumenical, the 28th of the 4th œcumenical, the 36th of the Quini-sextum. All innovations then in the privileges of the bishop of Rome were prohibited by the above provisions just as every change of honorary primacy to administrative .supremacy was. By this provision the Patriarch of Constantinople was made equal to the Patriarch of Rome and consequently any excess of the latter was «prohibited». (Ibid., p. 164/5).

52. - See Βίz. Vremennik 14. (1908) 356.

53. - Migne Ρ. G. 120, 717. For this reason the Byzantines called this Synod of 879/80 «unifying» (F. Dvornik, op. cit., pp. 384, 385 457). The Latins of the Middle Ages did not give great importance to the schism and even ignored the so-called «second schism». (F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 279 seq. The same writer, L'affaire de Photios dans la littérature Latine du Moyen-Age, in Annales de l'Institut Kondakov 10 (1938) 69 seq.)

54. - See Κ. Amantos, History of the Byzantine State, Athens 1947, vοl. ΙΙ, p. 227 (in Greek). For this reason in the year 899 the papal legates at Constantinople took their earlier position on the protocol of the Byzantine Court, as the Kletorologion of Philotheus p. 155 testifies «They, who arrived from Rome : during the time of Leo the pious despot for the union of the Churches, as for example Nicholas and the cardinal John, were honoured above all the classes of magistrates». (Migne Ρ. G. 112, 1341, 1353/6). In general the relations between the two Churches until 1053 are characterized on the whole as tolerable and good enough. See Α. Michel, Bestand eine Trennung der Griechischen und der Romischen Kirche schon vor Kerullarios? in Historische Jahrbuch 1922, p. 1-11. L.Brechier. Le schisme oriental du XIe siècle, Paris 1899, p. 2. Of the same author, Avant le schisme du XIe siècle. Les relations normales entre Rome et les Églises d' Orient, in La documentation catholique 19 (1928) 387 seq. Ε. Αmann, Michel Cerulaire, in Dictiontιaire de Theologie catholique, vοl. X, p. 1702.

55. - Α. D. Kyriakos, Church History, Athens 1898, vol. II, p.26 (in Greek).

56. - See also G. Every, op. cit., p. 145 seq..

57. - Mansi, Concil. 16, 457. Μ. Jugie, Le schisme byzantin, p. 133.

58. - Mansi, Cοncil. 16, 445 seq.

59. - Β. Stefanides, op cit., p. 336.

60. - Α. Lapôtre, Le pape Jean VIII, Paris 1895. Ε. Amann, Jean VIII, in Dictionnaire de Theologie catholique, vοl. 8, p. 601 seq. Η. Bohmer, Johannes VIII, in Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche. vοl. 9, p.260. Ε. Kattenbusch, Photius, ibid. vοl. 15, p. 384. Η. Schubert, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frühmittelalter, 1921, p. 438.

61. - F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 20, seq.-Le second Schisme de Photios -Une Mystification historique, in «Byzantion» 8 (1933) 42 seq.

62. - F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 236: «There is only one possible conclusion: Photius' second schism, assumed so far to have been particularly fatal to the friendly relations between the two Churches, belongs to the realm of legend».

63. - Ibid., p. 215 seq. Even the Pope Stephen V, «who was always believed to be Photius, particularly venomous enemy», nevertheless, «did not break with Photius, but like his predecessors continued to treat him as the legitimate Patriarch», and will in fact champion his cause on the occasion of his second deposition by the Emperor» (p. 236). In addition, from research into the Latin literature of the 9th to the 12th century (ibid., p. 279 seq.) the author concludes that: «the view held, at that period at any rate, of the Photian case was not the same as the view current in the modern period; Photius litigation with the Papacy occupied a very restricted place in the writings, of the time; above. all to our great surprise, absolutely nothing was known of what to-day goes by the name of the second schism of Photius; whereas against this, the Patriarch's rehabilitation by John VIII was common knowledge» p. 308). For details about the so-called second schism see also V. Grumiel, Υ eut-il un second schisme de Photius?, in Rev. Sciences philos, et .theol. 32 (1933) 432 seq. F.Dolger; in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 34 (1934) 214/5. Κ.Αmantοs, op. cit.,p. 32 seq.

64. - Ibid., p. 432.

65. - Ibid., p.,432. We deem it relevant to quote here the summary of the chief deductions of: F. Dvornik's studies and research about Photius, which is taken from the «Report. of the proceedings at the Church unity octave, held at Blackfriars, Oxford», Oxford 1942, and entitled: The Patriarch Photius, Father of Schism or Patron of Reunion, p. 20/1: «Fortunately, in recent years, new light has been thrown on the history of the unfortunate Patriarch. Let us recapitulate only those discoveries which have been so far accepted by the scientific world. First of all, it has been proved that the second Photian schism never existed. The Patriarch Photius was duly and sincerely reconciled with Pope John VIII, and the Council of 879 - 880 officially sanctioned this reconciliation. Photius was never re-excommunicated by the Pope. Οn the contrary, when he was deposed by the Emperor Leo VI for political reasons, the Pope; Stephen VI, rose in his defence, and only entered into relations with his successor, the emperor's young brother Stephen, when the emperor sent him the copy of Photius free resignation of the patriarchal see. Τhen when Photius died he was in communion with the Church of Rome. It has also been established that the Church of Rome was well aware of this reconciliation and that, to the end of the eleventh century, the papal Chancellery officially recognised only seven œcumenical cοuncils, thus refusing to accept the so-called eighth council which publicly condemned Photius in 869-870. The Rοman Curia has not forgotten that the decisions of this council were cancelled in 879-880 when Photius was recοnciled with Rome; that this decision was confirmed by John VΙΙΙ, and that it was never afterwards revoked by the Papacy. The council which condemned Photius and whose decision concerning the Patriarch were cancelled ten years later by another synod approved by the Pope, has never since been counted amongst the œcumenical councils, in the Eastern Church. Nor can any official decision of the Western Church be found ordering this council to be counted again amongst the. œcumenical councils. This synod owes - the undeserved honour of being counted as the eighth œcumenical council to a singular mistake on the part of Roman canοnists of the eleventh century, who found the Acts of this council in the Lateran archives and were delighted to read amongst them a decision forbidding the laity to interfere with the election of bishops. They were so delighted with this discovery that they not only forgot that this synod had been cancelled, but promoted it to be one of the greatest councils of Christianity. Naturally, when this happened the whole history of the Patriarch Photius was bound to be misunderstood. Α Photian legend was born in Western Christianity, a legend supported by the Acts of an œcumenical council, and which had accordingly to be believed without hesitation. This legend developed during the Middle Ages, and was codified by the first modern Church historian, Cardinal Βarοnius, in the seventeenth century. These. are the new discoveries concerning the history of the Patriarch Photius which have been so far in some degree accepted by the specialists. These new views are naturally destroying all that the Middle Ages built up. If we look at the history of «the Father of the Schism» from this point of view, then naturally , the imposing building which Cardinal Baronius erected in the seventeenth century and Cardinal Hergenröther so magnificently renovated. in the nineteenth is cracking and collapsing before our eyes. The history of the great Greek has to be rewritten».

66. - Although as Orthodox theologians. we find difficulty in understanding how in the system of the Papacy the expressed hope of F. Dvornik is able to be realized, nevertheless, as Christians we have no difficulty in sharing his wish and hope that «this new light shed upon historical ...differences will ultimately influence beneficiently relations between the separated East and West and contribute to dissipate the many misunderstandings between the two Churches, thus paving the way to Reunion» (The Eastern Churches Quarterly 3 (1939) 415), and in any case «why could not Photius, canonized by the Eastern Church in the tenth century when East and West were united and canonisations were not reserved to the Popes, be regarded, not as the Father of all Schism, but as the future Ρatrοn of Reunion?» (Report of the proceedings at the Church unity octave, p. 31).

67. - Lastly it must be added that the Orthodox Catholic Church, recognizing the great work of Photius on behalf of the Church and Orthodoxy in general, declared him a Saint and celebrates his memory on the 6th of February. The Church honours him as «the champion of Orthodoxy, the defender of the Orthodox, the pillar and foundation of the Church, the organ of Grace, the chosen vessel, the godly voiced lyre of the Spirit, the spirited orator, the wisest hierarch, the teacher of the universe, brilliant in word and dogmas, the trumpet clearly declaring the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, as the descendant of thunder had theologised, the firmest opponent of heresies, the criticizer of the error of heresy, the divine defender of Orthodoxy, the deposer of the haughtiness of heresy, the refuter of the addition to the Creed, most-holy Father, great Photius, Photologos and Photonymus etc». See «Service of our Father and equal-to-the Apostles Photius, Patriarch of Cοnstantinople», written by Constantine Typaldos, metropolitan of Stavroupolis, and edited in 1848 and 1891. See also Α. Papadopoulos Kerameus, Τhe Patriarch Photius as a holy Father of the Orthodox Catholic Church, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 8 (1889) 647/71, Chrys. Papadopoulos, οp. cit., p. 180/1. Μ. Jugie, Le culte de Photius dans l'Église Byzantine, in Revue de l'Orient chrétien 3 (1922/3) 109 seq. F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 388. It is worth noting that in Athens during the last few decades the Holy Synod of Greece officially celebrates the memory of Saint Photius at the monastery of Penteli, which is located near the city. Likewise, the Synodical which is read on the Sunday of Orthodoxy contains the following anathematisation: «Everything written or said against the saintly Patriarchs Germanos, Tarasius, Niceforos, Methodius, Ignatius, Photius, Stephen, Antonius and Nicholas, anathema», and «the memory of Ignatius, Photius, Stephen, Αntοnius and Nichοlas, eternal». (Triodion, edition Μ. Saliberos, Athens 1930, p. 146). See also Michael Cerularius, Homily, Migne Ρ.G.120, 729, 732, and «Tome of Unity», in Rhalles and Potles, οp. cit., vol. V, p. 9. Chrys. Papadopoulos, οp. cit., p. 180/1. G. Kremos, op. cit., II, 416. F. Dvornik, οp. cit., p. 434. But, as we have seen on p. 409 and 423 ante, many others judged Photius similarly, as for example Κ. Paparregopoulos who writes: Photius was a superb man. During the interval between the first Constantine, who was the cause for the establishment of the eastern state and the last Constantine who fell on the battlements of Constantinople, the state falling with him, -in the period of one thousand years, no other name shone brighter in the historical firmament than that of Photius. He, standing between the two Constantines of whom one represents the beginning and the other the end of medieval Hellenism, contributed more than anyone else in shaping that Hellenism» (οp, cit., vοl. III, p.727). And G. Kremos observes that the «Church and the entire Greek nation justly places Photius amongst the first of the great personages who fought the triumphant battle for the sake of the pan-Hellenic, its faith and existence» (οp. cit., ΙΙ, p. 4). He speaks of him as the «most brilliant Byzantine hierophant of the Church, the great theologian, the most profound philosopher, the new Aristotle of our medieval history, the good-speaking orator, the beautifully -singing melodist, the most-learned philologist, the experienced teacher of law, the highest pride of the most dignified arch-sacrificer of the Orthodox Church, may whose glory be imperishable» (ibid., p. 419). According to S. Zambelios, Photius is «the apex of the 9th century, the renown contender of Neo-Hellenic nationality, whose glory fills the History, Literature and Theology of the Medieval Ages», from whom begins «the obvious formation of the neo-Hellenic peculiarity, being the indirect result of the schism» (op. cit., pp.451, 463). For other criticisms of Photius see J. Valettas, οp. cit., pp. 99-122, and G. Kremos, οp. cit., vol. ΙΙ, pp. 84-85, 145-148, 409-420. See also G. Every, op. cit., p. 118/9 and K. Bonis, Byzantine Theology, Athens 1948, p. 8 seq., and of the same author, Friendship in general and according to the great Photius, Athens 1938, p. 24 seq., 52 seq. (both in Greek). Significant is the fact that even the Pope John VIII called Photius «a man eminent in the orthodox faith, and renowned for modesty of life and exact citizenship... and proclaimed different from all in wisdom and prudence concerning the divine and human, and concerning the practical virtue and diligence of other things, a worker of the divine commandments having no cause for shame». (Α. Ρ. Kerameus, Small works of Photius, Petroupolis 1892, p. 147/8, in Greek). Lastly, his own vicars confessed that «non esse similem ei (Photio).. commisaratione ac largitione in pauperes, neque benignitate et humilitate». (J. Harduini, Acta conciliorum, Parisiis 1715, vol. VI, p. 339).

Previous Page