During all the centuries in which these Emperors were trying to bring the Church under the same subjection as the State their most steadfast opponents were the Popes of Old Rome, their most servile agents the Patriarchs of New Rome. The story, then, of the rise of the See of Constantinople is not a creditable one. It has no splendid traditions from the earliest age; it had none of the lustre of Apostolic origin; its dignity could not be compared with that of the old Patriarchates, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch; it had nothing of the sacred associations of Jerusalem. A new see, in itself of no importance, its claims were pushed solely because of a coincidence that had nothing to do with the Church. It was only because of the presence of the Emperor and through his tyrannical policy that the Church of his city managed to usurp the first place among the Eastern Churches, and at last to lead them all in a campaign against the See of Peter.

At last John IV, the Faster, of Constantinople, thought he could assume the title “Oecumenical Patriarch.” It is well known how St. Gregory the Great sternly forbade him to use this name, which is not even used by the Pope. “Who doubts,” he says, “that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See? Indeed the most pious Lord Emperor and our brother the bishop of that city both eagerly acknowledge this.” Again: “I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See.” It is also known how in opposition to this pompous title he assumed for himself with proud humility the title borne ever since by his successors, “Servant of the Servants of God.” Althought the Patriarchs of Constantinople went on using their title till it became, as it still is, their official style, it is noticeable that even Photius never dared call himself Ecumenical Patriarch when writing to the Pope.

The legates then at last prepare a bull of excommunication. They are still on quite good terms with the Emperor, and they are very careful to say nothing against the Byzantine Church. “As far as the pillars of the Empire are concerned, and its wise and honoured citizens, the city is most Christian and Orthodox.” “But we,” they go on, “not bearing the unheard-of offense and injury done to the holy Apostolic and first See, wishing to defend in every way the Catholic faith, by the authority of the holy and undivided Trinity and of the Apostolic See, whose Legates we are…declare this: That Michael, patriarch by abuse, neophyte, who only took a monk’s habit by fear and is now infamous because of many very bad crimes, and with him Leo, called Bishop of Achrida, and the Sacellarius of the said Michael, who with profane feet trampled on the sacrifice of the Latins and all their followers in the aforesaid errors and presumptions shall be Anathema Maranatha…with all heretics, and with the devil and his angels, unless they repent. Amen.”

It was Saturday, July 16, 1054, at the third hour. The Hagia Sophia was full of people, the priests and deacons are vested, the Prothesis of the holy Liturgy has begun. Then the three Latin legates walk up the great church through the people, go in through the Royal Door of the Ikonostasis and lay their bull of excommunication on the altar. As they turn back they say: Videat Deus et iudicet. The schism was complete.

It is always rather dangerous to claim that misfortunes are a judgement of God, and indeed no one could have thought of satisfaction at the most awful calamity that ever happened to Christian Europe. At the same time one realizes how, from the day the Legates turned back from the altar on which they had laid their bull, the Byzantine Church has been cut off from all intercourse with the rest of Christendom, how her enemies gathered round this city nearer and nearer each century, till at last they took it, how they overturned the Latin altars, took away the great church as he had taken away ours, and how since that the successors of the man who would not bow to the Roman Pontiff have had to bow to, have had to receive their vestiture from, the unbaptized tyrant who sits on the throne of Constantine; one realizes this and sees that the words of the Legates were heard and that God has seen and judged.

And we need too, the righter balance that would be restored by reunion with the Orthodox. In spite of our loyalty to our own rite, and in spite of our natural pride in being not only Catholics but Latins and members of the greatest Patriarchate, we have to realize that the Latin Church is not, has never been, the whole Body of Christ…And we need their ideas, their traditions and spirit in the church as well as our own. Their conservatism now means only fossilization; joined to our life it would be sane and useful balance. Their love of liturgy and dislike of innovations has something to teach our people. If we refret the too sudden way in which new devotions spread amongst us, the gradual divorce of people from the real rites of the Church, the slight regard paid to her seasons, the exaggeration of pious fancies above the old and essential things, the abuses in such matters as indulgences, privileges, and special favours against which the Council of Trent already spoke, we should find the remedy of all these things in the solid piety and the unchanging loyalty towards the customs of their fathers among Eastern Christians.

From Adrian Fortescue’s The Orthodox Eastern Church.

go to main page