 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
This subject will be treated under the following heads:
I. Explanation of Terms;
II. The Greek Orthodox Church and Its Divisions;
III. Greek Uniat Churches;
IV. Greek-Church History, subdivided into:
(1) The First Five Centuries;
(2) Decay of the Greek Churches of the East and Rise of the Byzantine Hegemony (451-847);
(a) Internal Organization of the Byzantine Churches;
(b) The Emperor; Relations between East and West; Liturgy.
(3) The Greek Schism; Conversion of the Slavs (ninth to eleventh century);
(4) Efforts towards Reunion; the Crusades (eleventh to fifteenth century);
(a) Internal Organization;
(b) Hesychasm.
(5) From 1453 to the Present Time — Relations with the Catholic Church, the Protestants, etc.
In the East, when aChurch is spoken of, four things must be kept distinct: the race to which the adherents of theChurch belong; the speech used in their everyday life, and in their publicdevotions; theecclesiasticalrite used in theirliturgy, and their actualbelief,Catholic or non-Catholic. It is because these distinctions have not been, and are not, even now, always observed that a great confusion has arisen in the terminology of those who write or speak of theEastern (Oriental) Churches and of the Greek Church. As a matter of fact, the usual signification attached to the wordsEastern Churches extends to all those Churches with aliturgical rite differing from theLatin Rite. Let them reject the authority of thepope or accept it, they are none the lessEastern Churches. Thus the Russian Church, separated fromRome, is anEastern Church; in the same way the GreekCatholics who live inItaly, and are known asItalo-Greeks, make up anEastern Church also. The expressionEastern Churches is therefore the most comprehensive in use; it includes all believers who follow any of the six Eastern rites now in use: the Byzantine,Armenian,Syrian,Chaldean,Maronite, and Coptic.
What, then, do we mean when we speak of the Greek Church? — Ordinarily we take it to mean all those Churches that use the Byzantine Rite, whether they are separated fromRome or in communion with thepope, whether they are by race and speech Greek orSlavs, Rumanians, Georgians, etc. The termGreek Church is, therefore, peculiarly inappropriate, though most commonly employed. For instance, if we mean to designate the rite, the term Greek Church is inaccurate, since there is really noGreek Rite properly so called, but only the Byzantine Rite. If, on the other hand, we wish to designate the nationality of the believers in the Churches following the Byzantine Rite, we find that out of fifteen or twenty Churches which use that rite, only three have any claim to be known asThe Greek Church, viz., theChurch of the Hellenic Kingdom, theChurch of Constantinople, theChurch ofCyprus. Again, it must be borne in mind that in theChurch of Constantinople there are included a number ofSlavs, Rumanians, andAlbanians who rightly refuse to be known as Greeks.
The termOrthodox Greek Church, or even simply theOrthodox Church, designates, without distinction of speech, or race, or nationality, all the existing Churches of the Byzantine Rite, separated fromRome. They claim to be a unit and to have the same body ofdoctrine, which they say was that of the primitive Church. As a matter of fact, theorthodoxy of these Churches is what we callheterodoxy, since it rejects thePapal Infallibility, and the Papal Supremacy, thedogma of theImmaculate Conception, that ofPurgatory, etc. However, by a polite fiction,educatedCatholics give them the name ofOrthodox which they have usurped. The termSchismatic Greek Church is synonymous with the above; nearly everybody uses it, but it is at times inexpedient to do so, if one would avoid wounding the feelings of those whoseconversion is aimed at.
The termUnited Greek Church is generally used to designate all the Churches of the Byzantine Rite in communion with theSee of Rome. Thus theRuthenian Church of Galicia, the Rumanian Church ofAustria-Hungary, theBulgarian Church ofTurkishBulgaria, theMelchite Church ofSyria, the Georgian Church, the Italo-Greek Church, and theChurch of the Greeks in Turkey or in the Hellenic Kingdom — all of themCatholic — are often called the United Greek Churches. Again, the term is inappropriate, and belongs of right only to the last two Churches. As a matter of fact theRuthenians andBulgarians areSlavs who follow the Byzantine Rite, but use a Slavonic translation; whereas the Rumanians are Latins who follow the Byzantine Rite, but in aRumanian translation, etc.
Instead ofUnited Greek Church, the termUniat (orUniate)Church is often used; and in like manner the wordUniats is used instead ofUnited Greeks. These words are by no means synonymous.Uniat Church, orUniats, has a much wider signification thanUnited Greek Church orUnited Greeks, and embraces all theEastern Churches in communion withRome, but following another than the Latin rite, whether it be Byzantine,Armenian,Syrian, Chaldean,Maronite, or Coptic. TheUniat Church is therefore really synonymous withEastern Churches united toRome, andUniats is synonymous withEastern Christians united withRome.
The Greek Orthodox Churches are Churches separated fromRome and following the Byzantine Rite, i.e. the rite developed at Constantinople between the fourth and tenth centuries. In the beginning, the only language of this rite was Greek. Later, however (the exactdate is uncertain), it was introduced among the Georgians, or Iberians, of the Caucasus and was translated into the Georgian vernacular of the country. In the ninth century, through the efforts of Sts. Cyril and Methodius and their disciples, the Moravians and theBulgarians wereconverted toChristianity, and as the missionaries wereByzantines they introduced their own rite, but translated the Liturgy intoSlav, the mother tongue of those nations. FromBulgaria this Byzantine-Slav Rite spread among theServians and the Russians. In recent times the Byzantine Rite has been translated intoRumanian for use by the faithful of that nationality. Lastly, the Orthodox Syrians ofSyria, Palestine, andEgypt have adopted a hybrid Byzantine Rite in which, according to the whim of the celebrant, either Greek or Arabic is used. Hence we have five divisions of the Byzantine Rite, and consequently five divisions ofOrthodox Greek Churches: —
This Church is governed by a patriarch, a Holy Synod consisting of twelvemetropolitans, and a mixed council of fourmetropolitans and eightlaymen. It numbers in all 101dioceses, of which 86 havemetropolitan rank, and 15 are suffragansees. Such were the official figures and were accurate until the month of October, 1908. As we write, however, this is no longer so. Since the proclamation ofBulgarian independence the five Greekmetropolitans in their country have been suppressed by theBulgarians. Bosnia-Herzegovina had fourmetropolitans depending more or less on Constantinople, but sinceAustria-Hungary has annexed that country they will no longer be dependent. Lastly, the Island of Crete is now almost independent ofTurkey, and in consequence itsmetropolitan and his seven suffraganbishops have gone over to the Holy Synod ofAthens. From the 101dioceses, therefore, we may deduct 17, viz., 10metropolitan sees and 7 suffragansees, which leaves a total of 84dioceses, 76 beingmetropolitan and 8 suffragan. Of these 84dioceses, not including Constantinople, 22 are inAsia Minor, 12 in the Archipelago, and 50 onEuropean soil. For want of reliable statistics, it is difficult to form an estimate of their population. The Greeks in theOttoman Empire claim to number 6,000,000, but this figure is exaggerated. We shall be nearer thetruth in computing 1,000,000 Greeks inAsia Minor, 400,000 in the Archipelago, 1,500,000 in Turkey inEurope, including the Albanians andBulgarians. There are, moreover, 600,000Slavs, eitherBulgarians orServians, who belong to the œcumenicalpatriarchate. All this gives a grand total of 3,500,000souls. In consequence of the independence ofBulgaria, of the annexation ofBosnia byAustria-Hungary, and the secession of Crete toGreece, the œcumenicalpatriarchate has recently lost nearly a million subjects — namely, 700,000 in Bosnia, 200,000 in Crete, and from 70,000 to 80,000 inBulgaria.
This Church dates back to 1833, when 36bishops proclaimed their independence of Constantinople and established a Holy Synod; its authority was not recognized until 11 July, 1850, by the œcumenical patriarch. At the present time this Church is controlled by a Holy Synod of five members: theMetropolitan ofAthens as president and fourbishops chosen in regular succession. The Hellenic Kingdom contains 32dioceses, of which one — that ofAthens — is ametropolitansee; it is not, however, rare to find one-third of the sees vacant foreconomic reasons. TheChurch of Greece numbers 2,500,000 members inGreece and many thousands of believers in other countries, especially in theUnited States. By an arrangement arrived at between Athens and Constantinople in 1908, all the Greek Churches of the dispersion, save that ofVenice, must, look to Athens as their head.
Ever since the Council of Ephesus, in 431, recognized its autonomy, which was confirmed in 488 by the Emperor Zeno, theChurch ofCyprus has remained independent. Thehierarchy consists of theArchbishop ofConstantia and his three suffragans, the Bishops ofPaphos, Cytion, and Cyrenia. Nearly ten years ago thearchbishop died, and so far his successor has not been agreed on. TheChurch has about 200,000 adherents.
The Orthodox population of thispatriarchate is hardly Greek any longer. They are aSyrian race whose speech is Arabic, and as a rule theliturgical offices are celebrated in Arabic. Since 1899 the Greek element, which had up to then monopolized the superiorclerical positions, has been definitively driven out ofSyria. The patriarch lives atDamascus and governs with the aid of a Holy Synod and a mixed council. At the present time this Church has 13dioceses, all ofmetropolitan rank, and numbers 250,000souls.
Thispatriarchate was cut off from that of Antioch in 451. If it were not for the sanctuaries of the Holy Places, which draw so manypilgrims and such considerablealms, its importance would be nil. All the superiorclergy are Greek, and, in accordance with a rule made in the early part of the eighteenth century, theclergy of Syrian birth and Arabic speech are eligible for the lowerclerical positions only, although the whole membership of this Church is Syrian. There has been a revolt recently against this slavery, and it is not unlikely that before long the Greeks will be expelled fromJerusalem as they have been already driven from Antioch. The only extantdioceses areJerusalem,Nazareth, and St. Jean d'Acre, but a number of titularmetropolitans andarchbishops aid the patriarch in the administration of his Church. Theliturgical languages in use are Greek and Arabic; the number of subjects of thispatriarchate cannot exceed 50,000souls.
Thispatriarchate is made up of only one diocese under the personal care of the patriarch. According to decisions arrived at in 1867 he ought to be assisted by a Holy Synod composed of four members who were to be honorary Metropolitans ofPelusium, theThebaid, Pentapolis, and Lybia. This synod is being formed. Church-membership numbers about 80,000persons, made up mostly of strangers fromSyria and Greece, among whom far from harmonious relations prevail. The liturgy is celebrated in either Greek or Arabic, but for the most part in Greek.
The titular of this see hasjurisdiction over theconvent of St. Catherine and about fifty Bedouins. Its autonomy was proclaimed in 1575 and confirmed in 1782. At the present time the tendency is to consider it rather as adiocese in the Patriarchate ofJerusalem.
The various national Churches of Iberia, Mingrelia, and Imerethia no longer exist sinceRussia has extended her dominion over the Caucasus provinces. In the Liturgy the Georgian tongue has been replaced by the Slavonic. The number ofdioceses was formerly twenty, but is now only four, all in the hands of the Russians. It has ametropolitan, with the title of Exarch of Georgia and three suffraganbishops. The number of the Orthodox inGeorgia, including the Russian colonists, is reckoned at about 1,600,000.
This is but a continuation since 1721 of the Patriarchate ofMoscow, which had been established in 1589 by the GreekPatriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias II, who up to that time had ruled the RussianOrthodox Church. The Holy Synod instituted by Peter the Great and composed of seven members, is the head of this Church. The Russian Church counts 63dioceses, ruled by 3metropolitans, 13archbishops, and 47bishops. In many of thedioceses, where the distances are enormous, it is customary for thebishop to take one or moreauxiliary bishops, known as episcopal vicars, for the governing of parts of thediocese. At the present time there are 44 of these episcopal vicars. The number of members of this Church must be about 70,000,000, or half the population of the Empire. There are at least 25,000,000 more believers who separated from the official church in the seventeenth century and make up the great Raskolsect (seeRUSSIA). The remainder of the population ofRussia is made up of about 12,000,000Catholics together withProtestants,Armenians,Jews,Mussulmans,Buddhists, and evenpagans.
It was not till November, 1879, that this Church secured its independence of the Œcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Since then it has been governed by a Holy Synod comprising theMetropolitan ofBelgrade and the four suffragan Bishops of Nich, Uchitzé, Timok and Chabatz. Its members number about 2,500,000souls, and itsliturgical language is the Slavonic. — The Servian Church of Montenegro. — It is ruled by theMetropolitan of Cettinjé, who goes toRussia forconsecration. Until 1852 thebishop, orVladika, was temporal as well as spiritual head of the principality. Since then the authority has been divided. The membership is about 250,000. — The Servian Patriarchate of Carlovitz inHungary. — This Church was founded in 1691 by Servian emigrants fromTurkey. It became apatriarchate in 1848. Besides the patriarchal diocese, there are six others: Bracs, Buda, Carlstadt, Pakray, Temescaz, and Versecz. Its membership numbers about 1,080,000souls. It is governed by a Holy Synod and a national Parliament, or Assembly, of which one-third of the members areclerics and the remainderlaymen. It meets every three years. — The Servian Church of Bosnia-Herzegovina. — Theoretically this Church still belongs to the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople, but since the annexation of these provinces byAustria-Hungary (6 October, 1908) it may be looked on as autonomous. It has fourmetropolitan sees. Seraiero, Mostar, Doinja-Touzla, and Banialouka, and numbers 700,000souls. — Two other Servian groups have not yet acquired autonomy. That inDalmatia belongs to the RumanianMetropolitan of Tchernovitz; it has twodioceses,Zara and Cattaro, and numbers 110,000souls. The other group, in Turkey, in the vilayet of Uskub, acknowledges the GreekPatriarch of Constantinople. It has twodioceses, Prizrend and Uskub, and numbers 250,000souls.
After having concurrently twopatriarchates, one at Tirnovo, suppressed in 1393, and another at Ochrida, suppressed in 1767, theBulgarians have organized an independent Church, recognized by the Sublime Porte, 11 March, 1870. Theexarch, head of allBulgarians in Turkey andBulgaria who may be disposed to admit his authority, resides in Constantinople. He has subject to him in Turkey 21dioceses, of which about two-thirds are still waiting for thenomination of theirbishops, and inBulgaria 11metropolitandioceses. The faithful of the exarchate number about 4,000,000, of whom 2,900,000 are in the Kingdom ofBulgaria, and 1,000,000 in Turkey inEurope. The proclamation ofBulgaria as an independent kingdom will bring about modifications in theecclesiastical domain, for it is hardly likely thatTurkey will accept an outsider as spiritual head of its Ottoman subjects.
This church has existed since 1864, though it was not recognized by the Phanar as independent until 13 May, 1885. It obeys a Holy Synod composed of twometropolitans and sixbishops — its whole episcopate. Its membership numbers 4,800,000souls.
This Church, formerly under the Servian Patriarchate of Carlovitz, secured its independence in 1864. It is governed by a national Assembly composed of 90 members (30ecclesiastics and 60laymen) who meet every three years. TheMetropolitan of Sibiu has two suffragans, the Bishops ofArad and of Karambes. Its computed membership is 1,750,000. (c) Servo-Rumanian Church of Tchernovitz. — This Church secured independence in 1873. It comprises threedioceses; Tchernovitz, themetropolitansee, situated in Bukovina,Zara and Cattaro inDalmatia (its two suffragansees). The population of this Church, which in Bukovina is mainly Servo-Rumanian and inDalmatia Servian, is about 520,000souls.
To sum up, there are seventeen Orthodox Churches of various tongues and nationalities, knit together more or less by a common Byzantine Rite and a vague basis ofdoctrine that becomes more and more imbued withProtestantideas. Their total membership does not exceed 100,000,000souls; the exact figure is 94,050,000, of whom about three quarters (70,000,000) are in the Russian dominions.
Nearly every one of the Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine Rite has a corresponding GreekCatholicChurch in communion withRome. As we saw in the majority of the Orthodox Churches, so in the case of theUniat Churches, they are Greek only in name. Altogether eight divisions are recognized:
The total membership of these various Churches does not exceed 6,000,000souls; the exact figure is computed at 5,564,809, of whom 4,097,073 belong to theRuthenians andServians, 8488 to theBulgarians, 1,271,333 to the Rumanians, 138,735 to theMelchites, and 49,180 to the Italo-Greeks and Pure Greeks. The number ofCatholic Georgians is unknown, but it is small. These are the figures furnished by the 1907 edition of "Missiones Catholicæ", published atRome (p. 743).
Their Church has not yet been organized, it is under theApostolic Delegate at Constantinople. Parishes and missions exist at Constantinople, Cadi-Keui, Peramos,Gallipoli, Malgara and Cæsarea in Cappadocia. The faithful number about 1000, under the care of a dozenpriests, of whom seven areAssumptionists. There are alsoCatholics of this rite inGreece. They are subject to the Delegation atAthens.
TheseCatholics are of Greek or Albanian origin, and use the Byzantine Rite. They live mainly inSicily and Calabria, and have some fixed colonies inMalta, atAlgiers,Marseilles, and Carghese inCorsica. Their number is not more than 50,000. Ecclesiastics in Calabria andSicily areordained by two Italo-Greekbishops. Theirliturgical language is Greek, but for the most part the vernacular of the faithful is Italian.
Russia, unwilling to tolerate within her dominions an Orthodox Georgian Church distinct from the Russian, is all the more opposed to the creation of aCatholic Georgian Church. Out of from 30,000 to 35,000 GeorgianCatholics, about 8000 follow theArmenian Rite, the remainder having adopted theLatin Rite. The onlyCatholic Georgian organization in existence is at Constantinople.
All these are under a patriarch who bears the titles of Antioch, Alexandria andJerusalem, and who, moreover, hasjurisdiction over all the faithful of his rite in theOttoman Empire. Their number amounts to about 140,000 and they are subject to twelvebishops ormetropolitans. Theliturgical language is either Arabic or Greek.
The Uniat Church ofRussia has disappeared. Its last twobishoprics, those ofMinsk andChelm, were suppressed in 1869 and in 1875 respectively. Since the disorders of 1905 many have availed themselves of the liberty of returning to theCatholicChurch, but as a precautionary measure they have adopted theLatin Rite.
InAustria-Hungary the ancientRuthenian Church has survived with a little more than 4,000,000 members. It has sixdioceses, of which three are in Galicia (the Archbishopric ofLemberg, and theBishoprics of Przemysl and ofStanislawow) and three inHungary (theBishoprics ofMunkács and ofEperies under the LatinArchbishop of Grau, and the Bishopric ofCrisium, or Kreutz, in thearchiepiscopal province ofAgram, and of which theCatholic population is mainly Servian).
The movement for union withRome, very strong in 1860, was, owing to political reasons, not a success. Today there are hardly 10,000Catholics between the two Apostolic vicariates of Thrace andMacedonia. Theseminary of Thrace is under the care of theAssumptionists, that ofMacedonia under theLazarists.
The RumanianCatholicChurch uses the Byzantine Rite, but theliturgical language is Rumanian. It is established only inHungary and counts fourdioceses, viz., theArchdiocese of Fogaras with the suffragan Dioceses of Armenopolis, Gross-Wardein, and Lugos, having in all 1,300,000 members.
The Uniat-Rumanians of the Kingdom of Rumania have noecclesiastical organization. In this summary I have omitted the otherOriental Churches in communion withRome, e.g. theArmenian, the Coptic, theAbyssinian, the Syriac, theMaronite, the Chaldean and Malabrian Churches, because they do not use the Byzantine rite, and have no claim to be considered as Greek Churches, even in the wider meaning of the word.
The Gospel, preached by theApostles and by their disciples, who were converts fromJudaism, spread first of all among the Jewish communities of the Roman Empire. These Jewish settlements were mainly in the towns, and as a rule spoke the Greek tongue; and thus it came to pass that the earliestChristian communities were in the towns and used the Greek tongue in theirliturgical services. Gradually, however,Christian converts from among theGentiles began to increase and, as the author of the so-calledSecond Epistle of Clement says, "The children of the barrenwoman outnumbered those of the fruitful one". The original differences between the Judæo-Christian and Helleno-Christian communities quickly disappeared, and soon there existed onlyChristians, with a certain number ofhereticalsects which either held aloof of their own accord or were constrained to do so. At the end of the fourth century, at least in the East, nearly all the cities wereChristian, but the villages and country places, as in the West, offered a more stubborn resistance to the new religion. The government of theChurch was monarchical; as a rule every city had itsbishop, and thepriests were his assistants; thedeacons and lowerministers attended to the ceremonial and to charitable works. Even before theCouncil of Nicæa (325) ecclesiastical provinces had begun to appear, each having ametropolitan and several suffraganbishops. The size of these provinces generally corresponded to the extent of the civil provinces.
The fourth canon of Nicæa expressly refers to such provinces. But were there also Churches whose highjurisdiction was recognized by a number of ecclesiastical provinces, and did they correspond with the futurepatriarchates and exarchates? We must reach the third century before we find conclusiveproof of this. At that time theBishop of Alexandria was looked up to as the Primate orPatriarch of allEgypt. In a somewhat similar way, though in a lesser degree, theBishop ofAntioch had authority in the provinces ofSyria andAsia Minor. For instance, at the end of the second century Serapion of Antioch exercised his authority at Rhossos, a town of Cilicia, and this same Serapion appears to haveordained Palout, the thirdBishop ofEdessa. During the latter half of the third century we see assembled at Antioch thebishops of allSyria and easternAsia Minor, soon to become the civil diocese ofPontus. As early as 251. we know of a synod that was to be held at Antioch because Fabius, thebishop of that town, seemed to be leaning towardsNovatianism. The promoters of this meeting were the Bishops ofTarsus, Cæsarea in Palestine, and Cæsarea in Cappadocia. A few years later, in 256,Dionysius of Alexandria, treating of theEastern Churches that had been disturbed by this quarrel, mentions Antioch, Cæsarea in Palestine, Ælia (Jerusalem),Tyre, Laodicea inSyria,Tarsus and Cæsarea in Cappadocia. Somewhat later, again, from 264 to 268, the affair ofPaul of Samosata was the occasion of many meetings ofbishops atAntioch, and in the interests of that Church. They always came from the same provinces, viz., those extending from PolemoniacPontus (Neo-cæsarea) and Lycaonia (Iconium) to Arabia (Bostra) and Palestine (Cæsarea and Ælia). "Immediately after thepersecution of Galerius andMaximianus a celebrated council was held atAncyra, presided over by theBishop ofAntioch, at which some fifteenbishops from the same countries, were again present; this time, however, the Provinces of Galatia, Bithynia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia are represented, butAsia, properly so called, still remained outside the group" (Duchesne, "Christian Worship", London, 1904, p. 20). On the other hand, in ProconsularAsia no Church had yet succeeded in asserting authority over the others; Ephesus, the most famous of them, had merely a primacy ofhonour over its rivals in influence and wealth,Smyrna,Pergamus, Sardis, and others.
To sum up, then, during the opening years of the fourth century we find three principalecclesiastical groups in the Eastern Empire:
The Councils of Nicæa (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) legalized the existing state of things, created new Churches and established theecclesiastical hierarchy as it has remained ever since. But in order to understand the situation properly, we must first briefly review the civil organization of the Roman Empire, which had such an influence over early Church organization.
FromDiocletian to the accession ofTheodosius the Great (379) the Empire of the East included the civildioceses ofEgypt (after its separation from Antioch),Asia,Pontus, and the two Mysias, or Thrace. The remainingdioceses formed part of the Empire of the West. On 19 January, 379, Gratian, Emperor of the West, ceded to his colleague,Theodosius I, the Prefecture of Eastern Illyricum, which included thedioceses of Dacia andMacedonia. Soon afterwards, between 424 and 487, Western Illyricum, or thediocese of Pannonia, became part of the Empire of the East.
Among the canons of Nicæa (325) that do not specifically deal with the ordinary ecclesiastical provinces, canons 6 and 7 confirm therights accorded by immemorial custom to certain great Churches, such as Alexandria,Antioch,Jerusalem, and the other eparchies. It is not easy at first sight to determine whatrights the council referred to. Nevertheless it is a general opinion that the sixth canon aimed at securing to theBishop of Alexandria an exceptional rank, and at endowing him with powers over themetropolitans andbishops of the four civil provinces ofEgypt,Thebaid, Libya, and Pentapolis, as ample as those exercised by theBishop of Rome over the various provinces of the Patriarchate of the West. Thus theBishop of Alexandria had theright toconsecrate all themetropolitans andbishops ofEgypt, and from this some historians and canonists would have us conclude that he was, as a matter of fact, the onlymetropolitan inEgypt, and that his entirepatriarchate was a single diocese. This is an evident exaggeration. At theCouncil of Nicæa there were fourEgyptianmetropolitans, one for each of the civil and ecclesiastical provinces; later their number rose to nine, or even ten, according as the emperors increased the number of civil provinces. The number of suffraganbishops rose at one time to a hundred. The organization of theEgyptian Church really followed the same lines as the others. But the Patriarch, or Bishop, of Alexandria had the right of consecrating all hisbishops, once their election had been confirmed by themetropolitan, whereas in the other greater Churches themetropolitan himself discharged this function.
Although the sixth canon, in as far as it refers toAntioch, is far from clear, it would seem that the Nicene Council recognized and granted to theBishop ofAntioch the samejurisdiction over the provinces of the civil diocese of the East (Diœcesis Orientis) that it had recognized and granted to the Bishops ofRome and of Alexandria over the Provinces of the West and ofEgypt respectively. Therefore it attributes to Antioch a supremacy over many provinces, each having its ownmetropolitan, in such a way as to constitute them into apatriarchate. It is thought that thejurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch was coextensive with the aforesaid civil diocese of the East, but it may very likely have extended also over certain provinces inPontus andAsia Minor.
The same canon requires that therights of the other eparchies be maintained. The meaning of the word eparchies is not clear and has been variously interpreted. According to some, it refers to ordinary ecclesiastical provinces, but this is hardly probable, seeing that the council had already dealt with them in its fourth canon. Others are of opinion that the council intended to grant the Bishops ofHeraclea, Ephesus, and Cæsarea the same privileges andrights over the provinces of the civildioceses of Thrace,Asia, andPontus that the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch enjoyed over the provinces of the civildioceses ofEgypt and the East. The second canon of the Council of Constantinople (381) seems to support this interpretation, where it says: "The Bishops of the Diocese ofAsia must watch over the concerns ofAsia only; those ofPontus, over what concernsPontus, and those of Thrace over what concerns Thrace." Perhaps the council simply meant to enfranchise the provinces of these three civildioceses from thejurisdiction of Antioch, Alexandria, or any other Church, without, however, raising any particular see — Ephesus for instance, or Cæsarea — to a particular rank like that of Antioch or Alexandria.
As forJerusalem, or Ælia, according to the seventh canon, it remained a simplebishopric under thejurisdiction of Cæsarea Maritima, itsmetropolitansee, but enjoyed theright to certain honours on the occasion of œcumenical councils, when itsbishops sat next to those of the greater Churches of the empire.
The Council of Constantinople (381) confirmed and defined, in its second canon, what theCouncil of Nicæa had attempted to outline. It was understood that theBishop of Alexandria should be the head of theChurch ofEgypt, and theBishop ofAntioch head of theChurch of the East. As for the remaining twoAsiaticdioceses, those ofPontus and ofAsia, the ambiguous phrases of the second canon, and the interpretation thereof given by the historianSocrates (Church History V.8), do not permit us to infer the supremacy of any one Church over all the other Churches of a civil diocese. That Ephesus inAsia and Cæsarea inPontus held privileged positions iscertain, but that either Ephesus orPontus was at the head of the episcopate ofAsia or ofPontus, as Antioch was at the head of the Eastern episcopate, is a position which we have no documentary evidence to support. The third canon of this council of Constantinople brings another Church on the scene, that of the imperial capital itself, to which Nicæa had made no reference. The silence of the First Œcumenical Council is easily understood when we remember that in 325 Byzantium, or Constantinople, was still an undistinguishedbishopric, with Heraclea, in Thrace, as itsmetropolitan, and that its firstbishop, St. Metrophanes, had died as recently as 314. In consequence of the transfer of the seat of imperial government to Byzantium, the city increased in importance, even from anecclesiastical point of view; in 339 and 360 we find twoArianbishops, Eusebius and Eudoxius, leaving theirmetropolitan Sees ofNicomedia and Antioch to occupy thisbishopric, which they had already begun to consider the firstepiscopal see of the Empire. The Council of 381 encouraged this attitude, and its third canon asserts that "theBishop of Constantinople ought to have a pre-eminence ofhonour next to theBishop of Rome, for that city is the newRome".
It would be hard to protest too strongly against the spirit of this canon, which attempts to measure theecclesiastical dignity of a see by the civil importance of the city. But although thepopes refused to recognize it, all thebishops of the East accepted it, and Constantinople considered itself henceforward as the premier see of the Empire of the East.
Novella cxxxi of Justinian approved this decision of the council: "Ita sancimus . . . . veteris Romæ papam primum esse omnium sacerdotum . . . . archiepiscopum Constantinopolis, novæ Romæ, post sanctissimam apostolicam sedem veteris Romæ secundum locum habere." Did this honorary pre-eminence carry with it a widerjurisdiction? and can theBishop of Constantinople be henceforward looked on as a patriarch? We have no juridical text in support of such a thing, butSocrates (Church History V.8) assures us that Constantinople did exercise authority over Thrace, while Theodoret ofCyrrhus (Church History V.28) attributes toSt. John Chrysostom (398-404) a superior's authority over twenty-eight provinces. Now the"Notitia dignitatum", a documentdating from about 410, reckons six provinces in Thrace, eleven in thediocese ofAsia, and eleven in that ofPontus. Constantinople was actually at the head of these threedioceses, whose twenty-eight provinces officially made up itspatriarchate in 451. In any case, if a superiorjurisdiction over these twenty-eight provinces did not belongde jure to the Bishops of Constantinople from 381 to 457, it is quite certain thatde facto they exercised suchjurisdiction. (For a number of instances inproof of this see the article "Constantinople" in Vacant and Mangenot, "Dictionnaire de théologie catholique", II, 1323-25.) Furthermore, their aim at this time was to have only oneEastern Church, only onepatriarchate, of which they should be the chiefs, and this was to be brought about by the annexation of the provinces of Illyricum, subject to thepope, and the suppression of therights enjoyed by thepatriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. Thus, on 14 July, 421, the Emperor Theodosius II issued a law whereby Illyricum was brought under thejurisdiction of theBishop of Byzantium (Cod. Just., I, ii, vi; Cod. Theod., XVI, ii, xlvi), but in consequence of the protests ofPope Boniface I and of Honorius, Emperor of the West, thislaw never was enforced.
Again, according toSocrates (Church History VII.28), Bishop Atticus of Constantinople obtained from Theodosius II adecree forbidding theconsecration of a singlebishop in the East without the consent of theBishop of Constantinople, but, owing to the opposition it encountered, thisdecree was hardly ever observed, except in the civildioceses of Thrace,Asia, andPontus. The struggle undertaken against theSee of Alexandria brought nothing but disaster for Constantinople. In less than fifty years three of itsbishops,St. John Chrysostom in 403, Nestorius in 431,St. Flavian in 449, were deposed by theprimates ofEgypt, Theophilus, St. Cyril, andDioscurus. On the other band, in the Patriarchate of Antioch the Byzantine interference became more and more successful, as wasproved in the case of Ibas, in the partition of Phœnicia, and at the time of theconsecration of the Patriarch Maximus. In 431, at the Council of Ephesus, a fourth Greek Church, that ofCyprus, took its place side by side with Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Its subjection to Antioch never having been clearly defined, it had profited by theArian disputes and the famousschism of Antioch (330-415) to proclaim its own autonomy. Once theschism ended, the Patriarchs of Antioch tried to reassert their authority;Cyprus resisted and even took advantage of the absence of the Syrian patriarch to have its independence recognized by the œcumenical council. Later, this independence was reaffirmed by the Emperor Zeno and by a council held at Constantinople in 488. The head of theCypriot Church has never had the title patriarch, but only that ofArchbishop. The acknowledgment of an independentCypriot Church was a serious loss for the Patriarchate of Antioch; following on this blow came two others in quick succession, the one beyond the frontiers of the Roman Empire, the other within those boundaries, which greatly diminished the influence of Antioch and the extent of itsjurisdiction. Beyond the frontier, in the Persian kingdom of the Sassanides, were manyChristians of Syrian speech, governed by a number ofbishops. The Gospel had come to them from many points, principally fromEdessa and other Churches subject to Antioch. There was, therefore, a certain bond of affection and gratitude between these Syrian Churches of the Persian Empire and those of the Roman Empire. In order to impose his authority on all thebishops ofPersia, Papa bar Aggaï,Bishop ofSeleucia Ctesiphon, the capital of the kingdom, had recourse to the Syrianbishops of the Roman Empire during the early years of the fourth century. They hastened to aid him, and by methods whose nature is unknown to us succeeded in placing theBishop ofSeleucia Ctesiphon at the head of the Persian Church, and in bringing that Church under thejurisdiction of Antioch. Thebishops of the other important sees inPersia accepted very unwillingly the primacy of theBishop ofSeleucia, and there were continuous revolts against it. TheBishop ofSeleucia always fell back on the support of the western Syrianbishops subject toAntioch, especially in 410, when Marutas of Maiphergat in this way overcame all opposition. The Bishops ofSeleucia had had recourse to Antioch only as an expedient for imposing their supremacy upon their Persian brethren; that end once attained, they, in their turn, shook off the tutelage of Antioch. The Council ofSeleucia, held in 424 laid down that thebishops ofPersia "could bring no complaint against their patriarch before the patriarch of the Westerns (Antioch), and that every cause which could not be settled by their own patriarch was to be reserved for the tribunal of Christ". That ended the matter. By this council theChurch ofPersia cut itself off definitively from the Greek Churches. The pity is that a few years later, by adoptingNestorianism as its nationaldoctrine, it also cut itself off from theCatholic world.
In 451, at theCouncil of Chalcedon, another Church was set up to the detriment of Antiochene prestige, viz., that ofJerusalem. Thebishop of the Holy City had obtained from theCouncil of Nicæa (325) the purely honoraryrights which his successors had endeavoured to turn into tangible realities.St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and especially Juvenal, tried to shake off the yoke of Cæsarea Maritima, the religious capital of Palestine, and, after Cæsarea, the yoke of Antioch, the patriarchal see of the East. Juvenal, elected in 424, acted, indeed, as if he were already independent. Afterwards he sought officialapprobation for the usurpations he had been guilty of. He applied first to the Council of Ephesus (431) and put forward forged documents, whichSt. Cyril of Alexandria refused to admit. Next he turned to the "Robber Council" of Ephesus (449), and his demands were conceded. At the same time he extorted adecree from Theodosius II granting hisChurchjurisdiction over the three provinces of Palestine, also over Arabia, and a part of Phœnicia. Two years later, atChalcedon, through fear of losing more, Maximus,Patriarch ofAntioch, came to an understanding with Juvenal whereby theChurch ofJerusalem was to remain in possession of the three provinces of Palestine. In consequence of this agreement, which was ratified by the council, Juvenal became patriarch ofJerusalem.
The sameCouncil of Chalcedon, by its twenty-eighth Canon, drawn up in the absence of thepapal legates, regularized the situation at Constantinople; itpromulgated anew the third canon of the Second Œcumenical Council, which had made Byzantium the first see of the East and the second of theChristian world, giving it effectivejurisdiction over the twenty-eight provinces of the threedioceses of Thrace,Asia, andPontus, whosemetropolitans it was to have the right of consecrating, and further authorizing it to ordainbishops for barbarian lands, which was the germ of its subsequent policy towards theSlav nations. Moreover, the council reserved to thebishop of the capital theright to decide on all appeals brought to his tribunal by theclergy of the three Easternpatriarchates and of the Archdiocese ofCyprus.
Beginning from the year 451, then, we find four Greekpatriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria,Antioch,Jerusalem) and one autocephalous Church (Cyprus) under the rule of anarchbishop. Beyond and within the limits of the Roman Empire two other Churches had secured autonomy and broken with the Greek Churches; these were the Persian and theArmenian Churches, offshoots from theChurch of Antioch. Lastly, inEurope the majority of the Greek-speaking Churches looked to thepope as their patriarch.
The definition offaith of theCouncil of Chalcedon (451) had curiously agitated theByzantine Empire. The condemnation ofEutyches,Dioscurus, and their adherents amounted in the eyes of many to a condemnation ofSt. Cyril of Alexandria and of the Council of Ephesus, if not to a victory for Nestorius. It happened that these religious disturbances reached their climax in the remotest provinces of the empire, in those which, while willingly or unwillingly subject to theByzantines, had still retained a lively memory of their former national independence and glory, together with their own language, liturgy, art and literature.Egypt,Syria,Armenia became for the most partMonophysite; Palestine also. Even the episcopate ofAsia Minor, with theMetropolitan of Ephesus, who resumed, about 474, the title of Patriarch, was bitterly opposed to the new definition; in the end, however, order andorthodoxy prevailed inAsia Minor. Until the reign of Justinian (527-65) thedoctrine for or against the two natures in Christ was officially triumphant according as the emperor happened to beMonophysite or Dyophysite, and lent to the accepteddoctrine the support of his sword. Justinian, the ByzantineLouis XIV, finally caused Dyophysitism to triumph, but theviolence he had to use lost him the support of all the Eastern and African portions of the empire. TheChurch of Alexandria and that of Antioch nominatedMonophysitepatriarchs, and thus began the Coptic and Jacobite Churches which exist even yet. InEgypt nine out of every ten of the faithful declared against thefaith of the imperial Court; inSyria the proportion was not so great. It may be said that about one-half of the subjects of Justinian accepted thefaith of Chalcedon. Efforts to impose a heterodox patriarch on Palestine were in vain; except in the region of Garza, themonks were powerful enough to successfully resist theMonophysites. To sum up, then, we find that, as early as the sixth century, of the Greekpatriarchates in the East, one (Alexandria) had lost nearly all its subjects, another (Antioch) retained but one-half, while the third (Jerusalem) was too inconsiderable ever to dispute the primacy with Constantinople. The latter thus became the only real Greekpatriarchate, to which the other three, surnamedMelchites (Imperialists), looked for favours and protection againstMonophysite competition and later against the threatening domination of theArabs.
This leads us to a consideration of the second cause that completely ruined the hopes of the three Greek Churches of Alexandria,Antioch, andJerusalem, namely,Islam. It came from Arabia and spread like an oil-stain over Palestine,Syria, Mesopotamia,Persia, and finallyEgypt. It even made great efforts to cross the Taurus range and enter the Greek world, but in this was everywhere defeated. For the moment its conquests were limited to provinces where the country folk had remained for the most part aloof from Hellenic speech and civilization. Thus the SyrianJacobites gladly welcomed theArab conquerors as their brethren in race and in speech, and, it would seem, often aided them in their conquests. Their complaisance towards the new régime brought them many favours not shown to theMelchites, who, because of their origin, or at least because of their relations with foreign Byzantium, were everywhere watched, hunted down, and proscribed. Without the help of Constantinople andRome, from whom they begged help and assistance, it is very probable that theseMelchite Churches would have disappeared. At the very time when the greatArab invasion and the spread ofIslam was taking place, Byzantium was emerging from a disastrouswar withPersia which had almost brought about the ruin of theChristian power, and its emperor was occupied in rallying the variousMonophysite Churches to the official Church by means of thead captandum formula of one will and one energy in Christ. The attempt failed owing to the splendid resistance set afoot by St. Sophronius ofJerusalem andSt. Maximus of Constantinople; its net result was a fresh loss for theMelchite Patriarchate of Antioch, from which themonks of theconvent of St. Maro on the Orontes seceded, to found, with the aid of the villagers ofSyria and the Lebanon, theMaronite Church,Monothelite indoctrine, but which at a later date acceptedCatholicism.
The growing weakness of the three easternpatriarchates and of the Archbishopric ofCyprus, whose titular had for a while to take refuge inCyzicus, soon forced them to seek the moral and material support of Constantinople. It was eagerly granted, and Constantinople, thus freed from a rival in the East, turned its attention towardsRome in the West. As we have seen, the civil diocese of Thrace was the only one inEurope subject to thePatriarch of Constantinople; the provinces ofAchaia,Macedonia, Thessalia, Epirus (old and new), which formed the civildioceses ofMacedonia, Dacia, and Pannonia, were included in the Patriarchate ofRome. Over these remote provinces thepope exercised his spiritual supremacy through theBishop ofThessalonica, appointedvicar Apostolic about 380, and theBishop of Justiniana Prima (Uskub), appointed in 535. Until the eighth century this arrangement worked without much opposition on the part of Constantinople, and the ecclesiastical provinces of Illyricum were considered as forming part of the Roman Patriarchate. The Emperor Leo III, the Isaurian, seems to have been the first to interfere with the custom, when, in 733, after hisexcommunication by thepope, he increased the tribute from Calabria andSicily, confiscated the patrimony of theRoman Church in those regions, and aimed a blow at the authority of thepope by depriving him of the obedience of Illyricum and SouthernItaly, which were thenceforth attached to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Such, at least, is the usual interpretation of an obscure text in the Chronicle ofTheophanes (Hubert in "Revue Historique" (1899), I, 21-22); it is confirmed by an observation of theArmenian ecclesiastic Basil, who, in the ninth century, speaking of themetropolitan cities of Illyricum andItaly, asserts that they had been made subject to the authority of Constantinople "because thepope of ancientRome had fallen into the hands of the Barbarians" (Georgii Cyprii Descriptio Orbis Romani, ed. Gelzer, p. 27). Thepopes protested against this high-handedrobbery, but no attention was paid to their protests, and since about 733 Illyricum has been attached to the Byzantine Patriarchate. In this way it gained about one hundredbishoprics, nor was this all: starting with the principle that nobishopric in theByzantine Empire could be in any way dependent on an outside patriarch, theIconoclast emperors took away from thePatriarch ofAntioch, on the plea that he was a subject of theArab caliphs, the twenty-fourepiscopal sees of Byzantine Isauria, and from thepope of Rome the fifteen Greekbishoprics in SouthernItaly. Consequently, thejurisdiction of thePatriarch of Constantinople became co-extensive with the limits of theByzantine Empire.
Besides this increase ofjurisdiction, the establishment of a permanent synod (synodos endemousa) and the addition to his title of the adjectiveŒcumenical rapidly placed thePatriarch of Byzantium in the front rank. The permanent synod dates most probably from thepatriarchate of Nestorius (381-97). It was a sort ofecclesiastical tribunal permanently in session at Constantinople, made up, as a rule, of manybishops whom business orambition had called to the capital; the patriarch himself presided over the tribunal. It attended to the solution of allecclesiastical affairs submitted to the judgment of the emperor, so that thePatriarch of Constantinople, as its president, becameex officio arbiter between the Court and thebishops of the empire; it was a privileged position due to the very force of circumstances, and in the last resort it subjected all the greatmetropolitans, and even thepatriarchs, of the East, to the judicial authority of the Byzantine Bishop. The ninth and seventeenth canons of Chalcedon confirmed and consolidated this state of things, and the insertion of those canons in the Civil Code gave them thenceforward equal authority with any other imperial decrees. The titleŒcumenical was granted for the first time at theRobber Council of Ephesus (449) to the PatriarchDioscurus of Alexandria, and at the time it looked like a dangerous innovation, and was repudiated at theCouncil of Chalcedon. Soon afterwards we find it applied to PopesSt. Leo I, Hormisdas, and Agapitus, and to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, John II (518-520), Epiphanius (520-535), Anthimus (536), Menas (536-552). It was in 588, on the occasion of a council, that the PatriarchJohn IV, surnamed the Faster, seems to have restricted the use of the honorary title to his own see. This gave rise to a fresh quarrel withRome, which saw therein a new evidence ofambition.Pope Pelagius II annulled the acts of this council and his successor,St. Gregory the Great (590-604), began a lengthy correspondence on the matter with the Byzantine PatriarchsJohn IV and Cyriacus, but nothing ever came of it. Thepopes went on protesting, but the Byzantinepatriarchs, supported by the Court, thebishops, and theclergy, also by the other Greekpatriarchs, refused to forego the title, which they have borne ever since, and which has given them a colour of honorary supremacy over all the Churches of the East.
The superiorhierarchy of a Greek Church at the period we are treating of, viz., from the fourth to the tenth century, was composed of a patriarch, acatholicos, the greatermetropolitans, the autocephalousmetropolitans, thearchbishops and thebishops. The patriarch is at this period the highestprelate, at the head of a whole Church, and, as we have seen, there were only four such: Constantinople, Alexandria,Antioch, andJerusalem. Thecatholicos exercisedjurisdiction over a portion of theChurch on an equality with the patriarch, save for the fact that he must originally have beenconsecrated by the patriarch. Such, we are told, was the position of theCatholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and of theCatholicos ofArmenia, with reference to the See of Antioch, and towards the same see, but at a later period, of the Catholicoi of Romagyris, of Irenoupolis, and ofGeorgia. The otherpatriarchates, except perhaps Alexandria, never had such an ecclesiastical dignitary.
The greatermetropolitans ruled each anecclesiastical province and had under their authority a certain number of suffraganbishops. Their position was similar to that of the Latinarchbishops. The number of thesemetropolitans varied in the variouspatriarchates according to the actual number of ecclesiastical provinces. For a long periodJerusalem had three, in the sixth century Antioch had twelve, in the fifth century Alexandria had ten, in that same century Constantinople had twenty-eight, which rose to thirty-two about 650, and to forty-nine about the beginning of the tenth century. The "autocephalous"metropolitans had no suffraganbishops, and depended directly on the patriarch. Latin canon law knows no such dignitary. Theseprelates had each his own diocese; they were notmetropolitansin partibus infidelium. The number of theseprelates, small at first, increased in the East to such a degree that at the present time one rarely meets with any of another rank. In the sixth century there was only one, that of Chalcedon, in the Patriarchate of Constantinople; in the tenth century only two, those of Chalcedon andCatania. We have no documentary evidence as to how things stood in this respect in the Patriarchates of Alexandria and ofJerusalem. Thearchbishops do not differ from autocephalousmetropolitans, except as being inferior to them in thehierarchy. They depend directly on the patriarch, and have the real government of a diocese. This title, which corresponds to the exempt archbishoprics, was formerly very common in theEastern Church. About 650 theChurch of Constantinople reckoned thirty-fourarchdioceses of this sort; in the tenth century, weknow, on the evidence of three documents, it had fifty-one; at the end of the eleventh century the number stood at thirty-nine, and since then it has gone on decreasing in the East, so that at present the Greek Patriarchate ofJerusalem alone possesses this institution.
The position of suffraganbishops is too well known to require any explanation. In the sixth century there were fifty-six of them in the three provinces of the Patriarchate ofJerusalem, one hundred and twenty-five in the twelve provinces of Antioch. About 650 there were three hundred and fifty-two in the thirty-two provinces of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and in the early part of the tenth century, when the number of its provinces rose to forty-nine, Constantinople had five hundred and twenty-two suffragansees. As in the West, the number of suffragansees in a province was not always the same in the samepatriarchate. Thus, in 650 the provinces ofAsia and of Lycia had each thirty-six such sees, but the province ofEurope, or Rhodope, had only two. In the sixth century, again, in the Patriarchate of Antioch, theMetropolitan of Dara had three suffragans, while theMetropolitan ofSeleucia in Isauria had twenty-four. To gain a collectiveidea of thishierarchy it should be remembered that in 650 the Patriarchate of Constantinople counted thirty-two metropoles, or capitals of ecclesiastical provinces, one autocephalousmetropolis, thirty-four autocephalous archbishoprics, and three hundred and fifty-twobishoprics — a grand total of four hundred and nineteendioceses. A century earlier the Patriarchate of Antioch could boast of twelvemetropolitans, five autocephalousmetropolitans, two exemptbishoprics (a peculiar institution of this Church), and one hundred and twenty-fivebishoprics — a grand total of one hundred and forty-fourdioceses. For want of accurate information it is impossible to give similar details for the Patriarchates ofJerusalem and Alexandria.
Below thebishops came the other ecclesiastical dignitaries —priests,deacons,deaconesses,subdeacons,lectors, cantors, and others. Ecclesiastical functionaries were very numerous. After the patriarch in the capital, and in theirdioceses after themetropolitans andbishops, the chief dignitary was thearchdeacon, a sort ofvicar-general having direct control over theclergy, if not over the faithful of thediocese. The title soon disappeared and was replaced by that of protosyncellus, which has remained to our own times. There were, moreover, referendaries who carried important messages and looked after the business of thediocese in thebishop's name;apocrisiarii (in theLatin Churchresponsales, i.e.nuncios), or representatives of thepatriarchs at the emperor's Court, of themetropolitans to their patriarch, and of thebishops to theirmetropolitans;œconomoi, or bursars, who looked afterchurch property and who entrusted the administration of suchproperty in outlying districts to delegates of various names and titles: akimeliarchos, in charge of the church treasury and also known as the skeuophylax; achartophylax or archivist; a chancellor, or master of ceremonies, etc.
During this period the Greek episcopate was, as a general rule, recruited by election. The notables united with theclergy drew up a list of three candidates which they submitted to the choice of the patriarch, themetropolitan, or thebishops, according as thesee to be filled was ametropolitansee or a simplebishopric. In practice, the patriarch and, most of all, the emperor interfered in these elections. Thenomination of a patriarch belonged in the first instance to theclergy of Constantinople, then to a committee ofmetropolitans andbishops; in reality the choice was always settled by the emperor. From the list of three candidates presented by thebishops he selected one as patriarch, and if none of the names presented was agreeable to him he put a new name before the electoral college, which thebishops could only confirm.
The status of the lowerclergy was much the same as now. In the cities and populous centres there were many learned and often exemplarypriests, who, for the most part, had been through themonasticschools; but in the rural districts they were generallyignorant and ofevil repute. Because of their exemptions and their civil privileges, theclergy were numerous. Churches andchapels abounded everywhere, especially in the cities; everyBasileus (emperor), even the least religious-minded, was lavish with money for their construction. Anidea of the personnel employed at this time in serving a church may be gathered from two churches in Constantinople. A law of Justinian (535) fixed the number ofclerics at St. Sophia and its three adjacent churches at 425 — viz., 60priests, 100deacons, 40deaconesses, 90subdeacons, 110 Lecters, 25 cantors, to which we must add 100 doorkeepers. From Justinian's reign to that of Heraclius this number increased, and in 627 the latter emperor wasobliged to put a limit to the number ofclerics serving this church. Unless subsequent endowments authorized otherwise, the regular number was to be 525, viz., 80priests, 150deacons, 40deaconesses, 70subdeacons, 160lectors, 25 cantors, besides 75 doorkeepers, 2 syncelli, 12 chancellors, and 40 notaries. The little church of Blachernæ had a personnel at this period of 75 members, viz., 12priests, 18deacons, 6deaconesses, 8subdeacons, 20lectors, 4 cantors, and 7 doorkeepers. From these two examples we may infer what the other smaller or larger churches must have required.
Benevolent institutions claimed a proportionate number of functionaries and titles; inChristian antiquity few social bodies were as much concerned with the diminution of social ills as was that of Constantinople. There were specialcharitable institutions to succour every form of physical and moral suffering; from the emperor to the humblest citizen all were interested in their maintenance. Hospices and shelters were found everywhere; there were alsoxenodochia, or hostelries for strangers;gerontocomia, or homes for the aged;ptochotrophia, or asylums for the poor;nosocomia, orhospitals for the sick;orphanotrophia, orfoundling hospitals;brephotrophia, or crêches; and evenlobotrophia, or homes forlepers. These institutions were mostly conducted bymonks, which fact brings us to a consideration of the monastic system.
If we consider their rules, themonks may be divided into two classes: solitaries and cenobites. The solitaries had various names, according to their habitations or the exercises which they practised. They were known ashermits orrecluses if they provided their own necessities of life or accepted them from strangers;stylites ordendrites, if they chose a pillar or a tree as the scene of theirmortifications;lauriotes orkelliotes, if they lived together in alaura. These last belong rather to the Eastern world properly so called (Egypt, Palestine,Syria, Mesopotamia) than to the Greek, or Byzantine, world. On the other hand, the Greek Christian world was famous for its cenobites, who always and everywhere followed a community life. Solitary and cenobite had each a special dress, the names and uses of which are well known. Thelaurœ, andconvents, had each its own superior, sometimes calledarchimandrite, and sometimes hegumenos, terms synonymous in the beginning, but soon differentiated. Graduallyarchimandrite came to mean the head of all themonasteries of a city or of a diocese. Below him came thedeutereuon or prior, at least until the sixth century; after that the place was taken by theœconomos, or bursar. In the ninth century everydiocese (presumably the cenobites of everydiocese) or district formed a sort of federation under the presidency of a hegumenos known as theexarch orarchimandrite. In the Archdiocese ofJerusalem this presidency over thelaurites andhermits devolved on the Hegumenos of St. Sabas, and that of the cenobites on the Hegumenos of St. Theodosius. In the archdiocese of Constantinople the superior of theconvent, ormonastery, ofDalmatia exercised this function. As soon as peace was definitively granted to theChurch, and especially after the reign ofTheodosius I (378-95), thereligious life had its period of greatest splendour. Emperors, empresses, consuls, patricians, senators,patriarchs,bishops, privateindividuals vied in building conventual homes for "those who had put on the robe of theangels" and who had become "citizens ofheaven". As early as 518, we find a petition to Pope Hormisdas signed by fifty-four superiors ofmonastic houses for men in Constantinople; in 536 no fewer than sixty-eight superiors ofmonasteries from the same city assisted at the council which deposed the patriarch Anthimos, while the neighbouring Diocese of Chalcedon alone sent forty more. In Palestine the Archdiocese ofJerusalem had at least 100monasteries. And it must not be imagined that the number of their inmates was small. The laura of St. Sabas had 150 inmates; theconvent of St. Theodosius, 400; the New Laura more than 600. It istrue that all of themonasteries were not so populous, but if we place the average number ofmonks for eachmonastery at 50 we shall not, be far from thetruth. Let it not be forgotten that 10,000monks of Palestine assembled atJerusalem in 516 to demand that theCouncil of Chalcedon be observed. It is worth noting that there never existed a religious congregation, properly speaking, in the Greek world; this Western form of monasticism was unknown to the East. There everyconvent was independent of its neighbour, and where manyconvents had the same founder their union rarely lasted beyond his lifetime. Again, in spite of a still prevalent Westernbelief, the Greekmonks never had a religious rule, in the canonical sense of the word. Even the Rules ofSt. Basil, St. Anthony, andSt. Pachomius were not canonical rules. Themonks obeyed a whole series ofprecepts, or monastic regulations, either written or, more often, preserved by oral tradition, which were the same everywhere. But if they had no rule properly so called, they had aninfinity oftypica or regulations. In theliturgical offices the customs of St. Sabas atJerusalem, i.e. the Palestine customs, were combined with those of theStudium at Constantinople or some othermonastery, and thus all desired variations were obtained. For the monastic life itself the "Typica", i.e. original charters or constitutions of themonastery, were the guide. The most ancient of these "Typica" known to us is that of St. Athanasius the Athonite (or ofMount Athos), which dates from 969. In matters ofjurisdiction all Greekmonasteries were subject to thebishop or to the patriarch; the latter known asstauropegiac, because the patriarch asserted hisrights over themonastery by placing a wooden cross (stauros) behind the altar. It was in thecloister almost exclusively that the more eminentecclesiastics of all ranks were trained, and to it dethroned emperors and disgraced courtiers fled for refuge. Themonks were the historians, thetheologians, the poets of that time; the leaders of allheresies and their opponents weremonks; councils were convened or prevented as themonks thought good. They assisted thebishops by their learning and disturbed the empire by their quarrels. In short, they held the whole foreground of theecclesiastical stage, and absorbed all theintellectual andreligious life of the Greek Church. And while their extensive possessions, exempt from taxes, drained the finances of the empire, the thousands upon thousands of young men who flocked to theirmonasteries robbed the land of its agricultural class and the army of its recruits. As it existed in the Greek world, the monastic life caused perhaps moreevil than good, and it is undoubtedly to it we owe that narrow pietism, that formalism and ritualism in devotion, consisting altogether in the externals of religion, which is even now so characteristic of the East.
In the foregoing sketch of theecclesiastical body the Byzantine emperor has not appeared. Yet no one has a greater right to a place in that body: Heir of the Roman emperors, the Basileus had inherited also the office ofpontifex maximus, and, though after the fifth century that title no longer appears on public documents, yet every Greek looked up to the Basileus as the head of the national religion. Moreover, the emperor was the chosen ofGod, Who had raised him above humanity in order to draw him nearer to Himself. AsEusebius of Cæsarea tells us, "His intelligence is a reflexion of the Divine intelligence, he is a partaker of the power of the Almighty." In his "Instruction" to the "most divine" Justinian, thedeacon Agapetus reproduces under another form theseideas so prevalent at Byzantium: "It was a sign fromGod that pointed out the Basileus for the empire; he was predestined in the designs ofGod to rule the world, even as the eye is set within the head to control the body.God has need of no one; the emperor needs onlyGod. Between the Deity and the emperor there is no intermediary" (P.G., LXXXVI, 1177). The Divine call to the empire gave the emperor a sacred character, and the anointing, the sign ofpriesthood, became his by Divine right. To take the life of the Basileus or attack his authority was to resist the will ofheaven and to commit asacrilege, unless the one who did so happened to be, likeDavid of old, also the chosen one and the anointed of the Lord. This anointing and thepriesthood which it conferred gave the emperor a high place among theministers of the altar. He became theIsapostolos, the equal of the Apostles, or even the thirteenth Apostle. Hence he held a special position between laysociety and theecclesiastical body. He dominated, and belonged to both, uniting in himself both elements of the social order, the civil and theecclesiastical. Moreover, this specialsacerdotium reserved for the emperor secured him specialrights and powers. "I also am a bishop", said Constantine to theprelates of his day. "You are thebishops assigned to look after the domestic affairs of theChurch; I am appointed byGod to oversee all that lies outside." And Leo III, the Isaurian, wrote toGregory II: "Do you notknow that I am bothpriest and king?" — Priest,bishop,Isapostolos, Apostle himself, the Basileus was placed there to guard the purity ofdogma; he gave legal sanction to the decisions of councils and inserted their canons in the public code. He convenedgeneral councils, was present at their sessions, or sent his representative to them; he controlled their discussions, and only permitted thebishops to leave when they had defined and legislated according to the Faith and the canons, or even according to his own wishes. If he frequently chosepatriarchs andbishops, he was not remiss in deposing them as soon as they stood in his way. Orthodox and virtuouspatriarchs were the victims of wicked emperors, while immoral orheretical ones were cast out byorthodox emperors. But it was always a matter of politics, and theChurch was merely a pawn in the despotic hands of the State. This condition has been happily described by an expressive barbarism as the rule of Cæsaropapism.
The relations that grew up betweenRome and the Greek Churches during the long period from the death ofConstantine the Great to the end of theIconoclast persecutions (337-843) were far from cordial. In principle East and West were united; in fact they were separated during most of that time. During those 506 years the Greek Church was in openschism withRome during seven periods aggregating at least 248 years. The sum total is reckoned thus:
This gives a total of 248 years ofschism andheresy out of a period of 506 years, i.e. nearly one-half the time. Again, it must not be forgotten that divisions vexed certain individual Churches — e.g., the Schism of Antioch (330-415), which had its effect not only on the Churches of the East but also on those of the West. It must also be confessed that when circumstances demanded strength of will and determination the Greekbishops were very often culpable. Of all theseheresies andschisms they might at least have lessened the duration and importance, if not altogether avoided them, had they better understood and realized theirduty. In the patriarchalSee of Constantinople, the premier see of the Greek Empire, we find nineteenhereticalpatriarchs, whom the first seven Œcumenical Councils, all held in the East, condemned by name, or who vehemently opposed the decisions of such councils. These nineteen were:Eusebius of Nicomedia, Macedonius, Eudoxius, Demophilos, all fourArians; Nestorius, Acacius, Timotheus, Anthimus, of whom the last three wereMonophysites; Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, John VI, allMonothelites; Anastasius, Constantine II, Nicetas, Theodotus Cassiteras, Anthony, John VII Lecanomantos, allIconoclasts. And this list might be increased, if we were to include thepatriarchs who, though not formallyheretics, would not condemn theirheretical predecessors, and because of this weakness were unable to obtain communion with theHoly See. If in the twopatriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch the number ofexcommunicatedpatriarchs is less, it is because there an almost immediate rupture took place between theCatholics and theMonophysites orMonothelites. Hence we meet fewerheretics in these patriarchal sees for the very good reason that in these places theheretics quickly set up their own separate churches, whereas in Byzantium, the seat of the central power, bothCatholics andheretics either could not or did not dare set upecclesiastical bodies distinct from the State Church, but were constrained to acceptorthodox or heterodox teaching according to the bias of the emperors. Often were the Greekbishops constrained to stifle the voice ofconscience. Probably no Church can furnish so many examples of the kind. In 449 more than two hundredbishops at theRobber Synod of Ephesus definedMonophysitism as adogma, while two years later, at theCouncil of Chalcedon, six hundred and thirtybishops approved thedogma of the two natures. In 476 the Basileus made five hundredbishops sign a retractation of the teaching of theCouncil of Chalcedon, while in 458 Emperor Leo I obtained an equal number of signatures in favour of that same council. The samebishops said Yea and Nay within a few years of each other with a facility that, to say the least, is disconcerting. In 681 at the Sixth Œcumenical Council the whole Greek episcopate pronounced itself in favour of the two wills inJesus Christ, yet, in 712, the same episcopate, with the exception of a fewbishops, solemnly approved the condemnation of the former council pronounced by the Emperor Philippicus, and retracted its disapproval one year afterwards. In 753, at the conciliabulum of Hiéria, nearChalcedon, 388 Greekbishops applauded theIconoclast edicts of Constantine Copronymus, and in 787, at theSeventh General Council, they condemned his memory and restored the cultus of images.
Degradation of will, and slavery of the whole episcopate to the whims of the emperors — such are the main causes of these wretched tergiversations. Nodoubt there were some noble, though rare, exceptions among thebishops and among themonks. Be it understood, theirknowledge is not in question. On this scorebishops andmonks, as a rule, were ahead of their brethren in the West. This is one of the things that startle the student of theecclesiastical literature of the two Churches during this same period. In the East there is no such suspension of literary activity as weknow to have lasted in the West from the period of the Germanic invasions to the magnificent efflorescence of theMiddle Ages. But theLatin Church had one incontestable superiority over its rival: it had one centre of gravity,Rome, and always recognized thepapacy as the visible head of theChurch. The ecclesiologicaldoctrine of theEastern Church, on the contrary, is very rudimentary; they do not appeal toRome, and recognize its imprescriptiblerights only very rarely and in extreme cases. With the exception ofSt. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Theodore the Studite, and a few other rare examples, thebishops andtheologians of the Greek Church never touch on the primacy ofRome, except when they are imploring thepope's help to bring a dangerous adversary to reason. The danger past — the shock avoided — they have forgotten everything.
The primitive Church, Græco-Syriac in speech, as we have said, adopted the liturgy of thesynagogue, which consisted of readings from theBible,hymns,homilies on some subject furnished by the reading, andprayers. To this was added the sacred banquet of the Supper instituted by Christ, withprayers and ritual forms borrowed for the most part from thesynoptic Gospels and fromSt. Paul. We first find somewhat precise indications of this liturgy in the "Teaching of the Apostles", the Epistle of Pope St. Clement, and the First Apology of St. Justin. "From these", says Duchesne (Origines du culte chrétien, p. 53), "we must descend at once to the fourth century. It is about this period that we come upon documents, of a kind that may be made use of, bearing upon theliturgical usages which were afterwards completed and diversified until they became what we see them." This same author adds that from that period it is possible to classify all knownliturgies under "four principal types: the Syriac, the Alexandrian, the Roman, and the Gallican. . . . The Syriac had already given way to many sub-types, each having its distinct characteristics." We shall here deal only with the Syriac and Alexandrian types, the only ones used in the East.
The Syriac type, properly so-called, followed in the Patriarchates of Antioch andJerusalem, as well as in theChurch ofCyprus, is mainly represented by the Greek or Syriac Liturgy of St. James and other analogousliturgies. Up to the Arabic invasion Mass was said in Greek, except in the country churches, where Syriac was used. This latter speech was adopted by theJacobites as theirliturgical language when they separated from the official Church. In our day theseheretics and theUniat Syrians are the only ones who retain the Syriac rite, with some modifications especially noteworthy in theMaronite Church.
A sub-type of the Syriac rite is represented by theliturgies used in the Syriac Churches of Mesopotamia andPersia; the liturgy of Sts. Addeus and Maris, still in use among theNestorians and theUniat Chaldeans, is another example. Another sub-type is represented by theArmenian Liturgy, also derived from that of Antioch, but modified since 491, when theArmenians separated from the Greek Churches and marked the separation by adding to the divergencies of their rites. Lastly, a third sub-type is represented by the Cappadoco-Byzantine liturgy which is in the main a copy of the Syriac. It was bybishops who were natives ofSyria or Cappadocia —Eusebius, Eudoxius,Gregory Nazianzen, Nectarius,John Chrysostom, and Nestorius — that theChurch of Constantinople was governed at the time of its foundation and definite organization, and it is this Byzantine liturgy that has survived in all Greek Churches, whether Orthodox orUniat, in the Patriarchates of Alexandria andJerusalem, in the Churches ofCyprus,Servia,Greece,Bulgaria,Russia,Rumania, and others, just as the Roman Liturgy has predominated in all the Latin Churches. It should be noted, however, that in the majority of these Churches Greek is not theliturgical language, but Arabic, or Slavonic, or Rumanian, into which the text of the Greek Liturgy has been literally translated. For the Byzantine liturgy there exist, besides the Mass of the Presanctified, known to have existed since the year 615, two completeliturgies: that of St. Basil, in almost universal use in the East about the year 520 (P.L., LXV, 449), and that ofSt. John Chrysostom, which is the one mainly followed at present.
Of the Alexandrian Liturgy, omitting certain later ordoubtful copies, we have three complete texts: the Greek Liturgy of St. Mark, which seems to have been drawn up by St. Cyril; the Coptic Liturgy, said to be bySt. Cyril of Alexandria, and theAbyssinian Liturgy of theTwelve Apostles. Each of these represents a different group of the same rite, and all are fundamentally alike.
The Greek Schism, about which space permits us to say very little (see PHOTIUS; MICHAEL CALUBARIUS), was caused by something that must have seemed trivial at Constantinople. On 23 November, 858, the Patriarch Ignatius was deposed, and on 25 December in the same year Photius succeeded him. Ignatius was deposed because he had refused Communion to the Emperor Bardas, who was living openly insin with his daughter-in-law. It was not the first time at Byzantium that for more or less lawful actions anorthodox patriarch had been deposed and another appointed in his place. Thus, among other examples, Macedonius II had succeeded Euphemius in 496; John III had succeededEutychius in 565; Cyrus had succeeded Callinicus in 706, and John VI had replaced Cyrus in 712, without causing any great commotion. Ignatius might then have let things take their course and waited in his retreat till fortune turned his way once more. This he did not do, and, if he was somewhat lacking in suppleness, his right was incontestable. Once he had refused to consent to his deposition,Pope Nicholas I was bound to uphold him and to condemn Photius, who was an outright usurper. Photius was clever enough to see that a rupture withRome on this point would not satisfy even the Greeks, so he cast about for another issue. He took, one by one, the many causes for separation that had been in the air for centuries and united them into a body ofdoctrine; then, confident in his learning and prestige, he decided to give battle. The insertion of the "Filioque" clause in the Creed, the procession of the Holy Ghostab utroque, etc., were so many reasons which were bound to have their effect upon the leading minds when the question of the separation came up. Then again thepopes' acknowledgment of theFrankish kings as Emperors of the West was bound to carry weight in Byzantine political circles. Moreover, it was evident by this time that between the Latin and Greek worlds there existed a chasm which must grow broader with the years. However, the Photius affair was arranged. Ignatius forgave his rival and, it appears, on his death-bed designated him as his successor.Pope John VIII sanctioned this choice, and if subsequentpopesexcommunicated Photius it was for special reasons not yet sufficiently known.
In 886, Photius was deposed by the Emperor Leo VI, who disliked him, and, between 893 and 901, a reconciliation of the two Churches was effected byPope John IX and the Patriarch Antonius Cauleas. During the entire tenth century, and the first part of the eleventh, relations between the Roman and the Greek Churches were excellent. There were, no doubt, occasional difficulties, always unavoidable insocieties different in customs, speech, and civilization, but we may almost go so far as to say that the union between the Churches was as deep and sincere as it was during the first three centuries ofChristianity.Michael Cærularius, however, desired aschism for no other reason, apparently, than to satisfy hispride, and in 1054 he succeeded in making one at the very time when everything seemed to promise a lasting peace. For this purpose he brought forward, besides thetheological reasons stated by Photius, many others that Photius had neglected or merely hinted at, and which were judged particularly fitted to catch the popular fancy. The use ofazymes, or unleavened bread, in the liturgy, thecelibacy imposed on allpriests in the West, the warlike manners of Westernbishops andpriests, the shaven face and thetonsure, the Saturday fast, and other such divergencies of practice were used to discredit theLatin Church. Thoughtful men may not have been misled by these specious arguments, but the mass of the people and themonks were certainly influenced, and at Constantinople it was they who made up public opinion. For this very reason the policy ofMichael Cærularius, petty and superficial as it was, was better fitted than that of Photius to bring about permanent results. Indeed, so thoroughly did it cut off the Greek peoples fromRome that since then she has never won them back.
Unfortunately, this movement of separation under Photius andMichael Cærularius was on foot at the very time when theSlavs were beingconverted toChristianity, a fact in the history of the evangelization of the nations second only in importance to the conversion of the Germanic races. TheServians and Croatians, settled by the Emperor Heraclius (610-41) on the lands they still inhabit, had adopted theChristian teaching of Romanpriests andbishops. But the progress of the new religion was so slow that a second conversion was deemednecessary. It took place under the Emperor Basil the Macedonian (867-86); as it was entrusted to Byzantine missionaries theGreek Rite of Constantinople was adopted. This had no small weight in detaching fromRome whole provinces that were formerly subject to it, and when these numerous Servian Churches broke away from Byzantium, it was to organize autonomousecclesiastical bodies independent of bothRome and Constantinople. In this way a whole region was lost toCatholicism. TheBulgarians, who had crossed the Danube about the same time as theServians, formed a more or less homogeneous nation with theSlavs and became a warrior people that more than once struck terror into the heart of the Byzantine Basileus. Towards the end of 864, or in the opening months of 865, their king, Boris, wasbaptized by a Greekbishop and took the name of Michael after his godfather, the Emperor of Byzantium. Photius, who was patriarch at the time, did not see his way to granting all the demands of King Boris, so, like a cunning politician, the latter turned toRome and succeeded in obtaining successively several missionaries to organize the new-born Church within his territory. His next step was to send away all the German and Byzantine missionaries whom he found there. His realambition was to have a patriarch of his own who would anoint him emperor just as the Greek patriarch anointed the Basileus at Constantinople, and as thepope anointed the Germanic emperor of the West. Whether he got his patriarch fromRome or from Constantinople mattered little; the main thing was to have one at any cost.Rome did not fall in with his plan, and Boris turned again to Constantinople, thereby initiating a serious misunderstanding betweenRome and Constantinople which considerably added to the strain occasioned by the affairs of Ignatius and Photius.Rome claimed theBulgarians as inhabitants of ancient Illyricum (her formerecclesiastical territory) and as having beenbaptized by her missionaries; Constantinople claimed that itspriests had converted theBulgarians, that the land was once imperial territory, and that theCouncil of Chalcedon had given Constantinople theright toconsecratebishops for all barbarian countries. Between the two Churches theBulgarians did notknow which way to turn. They retained the Byzantine Rite, which, with its elaborate ceremonial, made a deep impression upon their child-like imaginations, and, formally, they submitted to Greekbishops, until they should havebishops and a patriarch of their own. When, in 886, the disciples of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, expelled fromMoravia by King Swiatopluk, took refuge inBulgaria, they were received with open arms. The newcomers introduced intoBulgaria the Byzantine Liturgy, but in the Slavonic tongue, whereas hitherto theBulgarianpriests had used the Greek language. FromBulgaria this Byzantino-Slavonic Liturgy spread among theServians, the Russians, and all theSlav peoples.
The firstBulgarianpatriarchate was originally established at Pereiaslaf, then was transferred to various centres in WesternBulgaria, finally to Ochrida (seeACHRIDA). In 1019 it was suppressed, when the town of Ochrida fell into the hands of theByzantines, or rather it was converted into an independentarchbishopric. As such it lasted until 1767 when it was definitively suppressed. However, independentpatriarchate or autonomous archdiocese, theBulgarian Church was from its foundation powerfully influenced by Constantinople; the long series of its Greek or Hellenisticarchbishops shared at all times the anti-Roman feelings of that city. The Russian Church is also a spiritual daughter of Constantinople (seeRUSSIA). We need not relate here the conversion of that nation; it probably took place about 853, perhaps a little earlier, and both Latins and Greeks probably participated in it. Progress was very slow, however, and when the Czarina Olga wished to become aChristian she had to go to Constantinople for instruction andbaptism, on which occasion she took the name ofHelena (c. 956 or 957). Olga's conversion had no great influence; the czar, Sviatoslav (964-972), refused to yield to her wishes that he should also be aChristian. It was not till 989 that Prince Vladimir allowed himself to bebaptized, and ordered that his subjects should ever afterwards receivebaptism.
The Russian Church was probably organized at this time, and a Greekmetropolitan sent by the Byzantine patriarch was installed at Kiev, the Russian capital. Unfortunately, we have no"Notitia Episcopatuum" of theByzantine Church contemporary with this event. The "Notitia" of 980 naturally makes no reference to Kiev, and the next "Notitia" goes from 1081 to 1118 only; in that year themetropolitan See of Kiev appears as number 60; similarly, in the "Notitia" of Manuel Comnenus which appeared about 1170. In this document Kiev appears as presiding over eleven suffragansees, and this is the earliest information we have concerning thehierarchy of the Russian Church. The head of this Church had a rather inferior place in the Byzantinehierarchy, but exercised the prerogatives of anexarch and, once installed, administered freely hisecclesiastical province. Heconsecrated itsbishops,crowned its czars, and he usually resided at Kiev. Generally, a Greek was chosen for the office so that themedieval Russian Church was but an extension of theByzantine Church, sharing the liturgy, the dogmatic teaching, and theecclesiastical antipathies of the latter.
In spite of the emperor and the Court, who favoured an understanding withRome and the West,Michael Cærularius proclaimed hisschism in 1054. He was followed by most of theclergy, also by themonks and the Greek people. Peter, thePatriarch ofAntioch, held aloof from this violent measure, but died soon afterwards, and his successor went over toCærularius. ThePatriarch ofAlexandria, usually resident at Constantinople, sided with thebishop of the capital; the GreekArchbishop of Ochrida was devoted toCærularius and was one of the first to stir up the question of theazymes as a grievance againstRome. Lastly, the head of the Russian Church was only ametropolitan dependent on theByzantine Church. Therefore, with the exception of the insignificantPatriarch ofJerusalem, who at first tried to agree with both parties, all the Greek Churches had taken sides againstCatholicism about the end of the eleventh century. In the years that elapsed from the death of Photius (891) to the fall ofConstantinople (1453) the anti-Romandoctrine of the Greek Church took definite shape. Photius was the first who attempted to co-ordinate all possible reasons of complaint against the Latins. He enumerated seven chief grievances: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the insertion of the "Filioque" clause in the Creed, the primacy of thepope, the reconfirmation of those confirmed by Greekpriests, the Saturday fast, the use of milk foods during the first week ofLent, theobligation ofcelibacy on thepriests. The last three do not in any way affectdogma, and as much might be said of the second. The reconfirmation of those already confirmed seems to have been afalse accusation, unless some Latin missionariessinned through excess ofzeal. The primacy of thepope had always been recognized by thepatriarchs of the East, and by Photius himself, as long as thepope was willing to condescend to their wishes. The first letter of Photius toPope Nicholas I does not differ from those of his predecessors, save for its more submissive tone and morehumble diction. Appeals to thepope from the East between the second and ninth centuries are very numerous. And as for the Greek theory of the procession of the Holy Ghost, it was no new thing in the ninth century;St. John Damascene and St. Maximus ofChrysopolis had favoured thisdoctrine long before Photius and were never accused ofheresy. It would, therefore, have been easy to find a common ground or compromise that would have harmonized the teaching of bothschools. Passing from Photius toMichael Cærularius, we find only one new complaint directed against the Latins, and thatliturgical: the use of unleavened bread (seeAZYMES). On this point the dispute was impossible of settlement, since each Church had been using its own particular kind of bread from time immemorial. Fresh differences in the meantime arose: the placing (about the thirteenth century) of theEpiclesis before the Consecration;Purgatory, which the Greeks would not admit, although theyprayed for the dead and mortified themselves in their behalf; the full glorification of the just prior to the general judgment; the general judgment itself, which they rejected, as did also some Latinmedievaltheologians; the giving of communion to thelaity under one species;baptism by infusion. To all these differences were to be added in the nineteenth century thedogma of the Immaculate Conception and that ofPapal Infallibility. Merely for the sake of recording them, we may mentionliturgical differences, as the manner offasting inLent, the adoption of a new calendar, the manner of making thesign of the cross — causes of offence which the Greekclergy took pleasure in keeping alive, and which made a deep impression on a people devoted to trifles and, generally, veryignorant.
The breach declared in 1054 has never been repaired. Yet this has not been the fault of thepopes. As early as 1072 we findAlexander II eager for reunion. This attempt failed because of the unflinching opposition of thephilosopher Michael Psellos, the Patriarch Xiphilinos, and their fanatical friends. Thenceforth until the fall ofConstantinople (1453) thepopes multiplied letters, embassies, and paternal advice to win back theerring Greeks to the fold oforthodoxy, and to keep them there on their return. All in vain. The two reconciliations effected by the Councils ofLyons (1274) and of Florence (1439) were solely due to the efforts of thepopes and the Byzantine emperors. At Lyons Michael VIII, Palæologus, a clever politician, proclaimed himself and his peopleCatholics in order to save his crown and to stay the formidable armament of Charles of Anjou. At Florence John VII, Palæologus, came to beg men and arms fromEurope to save his capital from the threateningTurks. It would be difficult for an impartial historian to affirm the sincerity of their desire for religious union. One thing iscertain, theirclergy followed them with the greatest reluctance, and atLyons the Greekclergy kept aloof from any union withRome, and would not listen to it at any price. Michael Palæologus was hardly dead (1282) when his son Andronicus undid all that he had accomplished, and even denied religious burial to hisfather; moreover, theCatholic patriarch, John Veccos, was deposed together with all his friends.
John VII, Palæologus, who had agreed to the union atFlorence, either could not, or did not dare, proclaim it in his capital. He feared either theanathemas or the intrigues of men like Mark of Ephesus, or George Scholarios. His brother, Constantine Dragases, the last of the Byzantine emperors, died heroically for his country. He, also, feared at the beginning of his reign to impose the union on hisclergy and people. He had to wait until 12 December, 1452, hardly six months before the entry of theTurks into the capital, whenCardinal Isidore solemnly proclaimed the union of Florence in the church of Saint Sophia. Admiral Notaras cynically observed that the Greeks preferred the turban of theprophet to thetiara of thepope. It must, however, be acknowledged that the seeds of union sown by the missionaries and by the envoys ofRome have never been completely stifled. There have always been Greeks who were sincerelyCatholics, even in the darkest days of their country's history. Among them some have always defended with their pens, and often at the risk of their lives, theunity of the Church and the primacy ofRome. Demetracopoulos, it istrue, has published a lengthy list of the principal anti-Roman writers among the Greeks, but it would be easy to prepare another very large work of the same kind exhibiting the pro-Catholic activity of many Greeks. John Veccos (Beccos), George Acropolites, Isidore of Kiev,Bessarion, Arcudius,Allatius, are names that carry weight with any unbiassed historian, and they had many disciples and imitators.
With few exceptions thepopes have always leaned to the religious policy of recovering the East by every means of pacification and, whennecessary, bytheological controversy. This last means, however, was as a rule foredoomed to failure. Polemics have rarely converted anyone, and when carried on, as in theMiddle Ages, with syllogisms and, above all, with insults and outrages, then, instead of conciliating and calming angrysouls, they leave behind them only bitterness, asperity, and sometimes hate. If thepopes, however, were misled in their choice of weapons, or rather, if their religious representatives in the East abused controversy and polemic, it must be conceded that thepopes stopped there. The violent solution of the Eastern question by the sword — thecrusade which was to profit only the Westerns — was no doing of thepopes. In his stirring appeal atClermont-Ferrand that set afoot the first armed enterprise,Urban II exhorted theChristians of the West to save their brethren in the East, even before undertaking to freeJerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre. Moreover — it is almost too well known to need repeating here —Innocent III denounced vigorously the diversion of theFourth Crusade to an attack onZara and Constantinople for the almost exclusive profit ofVenice. From 1261 to 1282 (theSicilian Vespers) Charles of Anjou was hindered from makingwar on Michael Palæologus and recapturing Constantinople solely by the influence of theRoman Curia. It would therefore be aninjustice to blame thepopes for the abortive issue of theCrusades. Had they been supported earnestly by East and West alike,Christendom would have fared immeasurably better. Unfortunately, theCatholic States, especially the Italian Republics, were too selfish to grasp the high moral and religious significance of the conduct and aims of thepopes. As a rule, the only success of contemporary politicians was in embarrassing thepopes. The East, moreover, it must be admitted, did its share in frustrating the work of theCrusades. Far from assisting the generous West in its sublime effort to saveChristendom, the Greeks saw in theCrusades only sources of profit for themselves or attempted to hinder their success. While theirtheologians and polemical writers showed more rudeness and spleen in controversy than did the Latins, their princes and emperors were likewise less disinterested than the leaders of theCrusades. It is to be carefully noted that thecrusading movement was by no means a complete failure. At the time of theFirst Crusade, in the eleventh century, theTurks were in possession of Nicæa, within a stone's throw of Constantinople. Before theFrankishknightsIslam retreated, or at least ceased its conquests, inAsia Minor, inSyria, and even inEgypt. And if in the fourteenth century it was enabled to resume its conquering march and cross intoEurope, a menace toChristian civilization, it was in consequence of the cessation of theCrusades. Nor must the foundation of the manyCatholic institutions in the East, which long outlasted theCrusades, be reckoned as useless. It was their slow but continuous efforts that paved the way for the emancipation of manyChristian peoples from theTurkish yoke, and brought about in those countries that increasing influence of theCatholic religion which we now behold. "More important perhaps", says M. Bréhier in "L'Église et l'Orient au moyen âge: les Croisades" (Paris, 1907), p. 354, "are the results which theCrusades never dreamed of and which sprang from the contact ofChristendom and the Orient. The very complex question as to whatEuropean civilization owes to the East cannot be discussed here; yet every day we find traces of the charm which the culture of the East exercised onEurope before and during theCrusades. What we are most concerned with is the advance thus made in geographicalknowledge and, in consequence, in the spread ofEuropean civilization by expeditions and travels in the East.Asia was really discovered in the thirteenth century by those Italian missionaries and merchants who were the guests of the Mongolian Khans. For the first time since the expedition of Alexander, countries which until then had remained in the penumbra of legend appeared as a reality." Literature, finally, owes much to theCrusades, which, by the literary relations they established between the Latin and Greek worlds, called forth the magnificent movement of theRenaissance.
We have already spoken of theBulgarian Patriarchate of Ochrida, which about 1020 was changed into an autonomous Græco-Bulgarianarchbishopric more or less Hellenized, and which, until its suppression in 1767, remained under the influence of Constantinople. AnotherBulgarianpatriarchate, that of Tirnovo, was established in 1204 bylegates fromInnocent III and remainedCatholic for a long time. Gradually, however, it began to lean towards the Greeks, till it finally disappeared in 1393, and itsbishops all passed under the authority of the œcumenical patriarch. Something similar happened to theServians. Up to about 1204 they were on the most cordial relations withRome, although it is probable that they recognized thejurisdiction of Constantinople. In 1217 Sabas the Youngercrowned his brother king in thepope's name, and established aServian Church which was at first composed of sixdioceses. It was recognized by theByzantines in 1219. In 1346 King Stephen Douchan threw off allecclesiastical dependence on Constantinople and set up the Servian Patriarchate of Ipek, which, after many changes of fortune, was suppressed in 1766 and incorporated in theByzantine Church. The Russian Church continued to depend on Constantinople through itsmetropolitans at Kiev and atMoscow until 23 January, 1589, when the Byzantine patriarch, Jeremias II, publicly recognized its autonomy, andconsecrated Job the first patriarch ofMoscow. From thatdate the Russian Church passes out of the purview of this article. It was not till the fourteenth century that theChurch of Constantinople succeeded in imposing upon the Rumanian people, who occupied the north bank of the Danube, a Greekecclesiastical hierarchy subject to itself. This was done through themetropolitan sees of Alania and Bitzinia, or Soteropolis, with the later sees of Hungaro-Wallachia, Mauro-Wallachia (Moldavia), and Wallachia.
During that troubled period which saw the establishment of theFranks in the East, the Greekpatriarchates of Alexandria,Antioch, andJerusalem suffered especially. As long as the Latins remained undisputed masters of these regions, their Latinpatriarchs stubbornly opposed the coexistence of Greekpatriarchs, so that the latter had no choice left but to take refuge in Constantinople at the Byzantine Court and to govern their Churches from there as best they could. This method soon became customary, and even after 1453 thepatriarchs continued to reside at the Phanar. ThePatriarch ofAntioch alone returned soon afterwards to his own territory. In the seventeenth century thePatriarch ofJerusalem ventured into Palestine, but it was not till the nineteenth century that thePatriarch ofAlexandria left the shores of the Bosphorus. It must also be remembered thatCyprus and Crete (the latter being directly under Constantinople) were unable to have Greekbishops during the long centuries that those islands remained in the hands of the Latius. It would be impossible within the limits at our disposal to give an exact description of thehierarchy of thepatriarchate of Constantinople from the tenth to the fifteenth century. A"Notitia Episcopatuum" drawn up soon after 1453 reckons 72metropolitan sees, 8 autocephalous archbishoprics, and 78 suffragansees divided among 21 ecclesiastical provinces or a grand total of 158dioceses. This relatively small number ofdioceses is explained by the fact thatAsia Minor was then but an immense ruin, and that inEurope, in the majority of theVenetian orFrankish possessions, the presence of Greekbishops was not tolerated.
Space forbids us saying more than a few words on the domestic history of the Greek Church. The election of the patriarch belonged by right to the Holy Synod;de facto, as we have seen, it was the Basileus or emperor, who elected him. Limited as was the authority of the Holy Synod, it could not always exercise what authority it had, and, on the death of a patriarch, the Basileus often appointed his successor without any previous consultation with the Synod. Nicephorus Phocas attempted to nullify anyecclesiasticalnomination not approved by him, an abuse of power which lasted during his lifetime only. Themetropolitans were elected by the Holy Synod, thebishops by themetropolitan and his suffragans, if they were sufficiently numerous, or, if not, with the assistance ofbishops from another province. Theclergy had undergone no change since the earlier period, except that after the twelfth century we hear of no moredeaconesses, though some religiouswomen hear that title without any right to it. Moreover, with the exception ofThebes and Bœotia, religiouswomen no longer wore a lay habit or dress. "Commendation" and "charisticariats" were as common as in the West, with their train ofsimony and vices still more hideous. Themensa episcopalis often found its way to the officials of the treasury or some other court functionary, and servility towards the State was the order of the day in all the ranks of theclergy. Thepatriarchs were obedient tools of the emperors. Yet there were not wantingpatriarchs formed in themonasticschools who had thecourage to defend theirrights and therights of theChurch against the encroachment of thecivil power.
Monasticism was more and more popular throughout the Greek world. In Constantinople there were hundreds ofmonasteries, and every provincial town tried to rival the capital, so that the Byzantine empire became one vastThebaid. Outside of Byzantium themonasteries formed into groups which surpassed the fame of the ancient solitudes ofEgypt and of Palestine. Without speaking of SouthernItaly, rich in Greekconvents, we must not omit to mention the famousmonasteries of Mount Ossa, of the Meteora, of Phocis, and of the Peloponnesus. On Mount Olympus in Bithynia (the neighbourhood of Broussa, Nicæa, and Ghemlek) many religious centres sprang up. On a little corner of land, with a maximum length of 63 miles and a width of from 12 to 20 miles, a veritable oasis of monasticism came into existence, comprising at that time more than a hundredconvents. Theseconvents, usually very well filled, sheltered a number ofsaints andecclesiastical celebrities. Beginning from the tenth century, the peninsula ofAthos saw the rise ofmonasteries properly so called, and saw the cenobitic usage (community life) supplant the hap-hazard methods of earlier days. Then it was that vocations abounded, and the holy mountain was transformed into an earthlyparadise ofmonks. Theconvents known to have existed atMount Athos between the tenth century and the thirteenth numbered more than a hundred. It was at this period, too, that the holy mountain played a preponderating part in thereligious history of Constantinople, and in the fourteenth century theHesychastic controversy, stirred up by its religious, became the dominating preoccupation of the time. There were many other active, though not so well-known, monastic centres — e.g. Mount Latrus nearMiletus, Mount Ganus, and Mount Galesius, Mount St. Auxentius nearChalcedon, the islands of the Archipelago and of the Gulf ofNicomedia, the region ofTrebizond, and especially the vicinity of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, with its picturesque laurœ clinging to the slopes of the hills.
The constant controversies with the Latins did not prevent the rise of other controversies that sometimes divided theByzantine Empire into opposing camps just as in the heart of theArian andMonophysite conflicts. We shall mention but a few. In 1082 a council condemned thephilosopher Italos, a subtilelogician whoseerrors had been refuted by the Emperor Alexius I, Comnenus. Four years later, Leo,metropolitan of Chalcedon, was accused of giving to images the cultus oflatria, due only to the Deity. In reality he had merely defended theproperty of his Church and prevented the emperor from carrying off the ornaments of beaten gold and silver from thestatues and images. After Leo came Nilos, amonk who had expressed some heterodox views concerning themystery of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. In a council of 20 August, 1143, the Bogomiles were condemned, together with manybishops who favoured them. In 1156 and 1157 two councilsanathematized Sotericus Pantengenius, Patriarch-elect of Antioch, who maintained that theSacrifice of the Mass was not offered up to theWord, but only to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. Two other councils, held in 1166 and in 1170, explained the text, "The Father is greater than I", apropos of which manybishops were again falling into theerrors ofArius. Themonk Irenicus, suspected of various dogmaticerrors was condemned in 1170. The thirteenth century is filled with the quarrel of the Arsenites or partisans of the Patriarch Arsenius, who had been deposed for condemning theassassination of youngLascaris by Michael VIII, Palæologus. Originally a personal affair, it grew eventually into atheological and canonical controversy.
With the fourteenth century we come uponHesychasm (hesychia, "quiet"), the greatesttheological conflict of the Greek Church since the old times ofIconoclasm. Gregory Sinaita first spread thisdoctrine, which he had learned from Arsenius of Crete.
Intrinsically, it offers nothing very remarkable. It is based upon the well-known distinction between the practicalreligious life, which purifies thesoul by cleansing it from itspassions, and thecontemplative life, which unites thesoul toGod bycontemplation, and is thus the ideal and end of religious perfection. Four or five successive stages lead the disciple from the practical to the contemplative mode of life. But while there was nothing startling in thetheological principles of the new teaching, the method pointed out for arriving at perfect contemplation recalled the practices ofHindu fakirs, and was no more than a crude form of auto-suggestion. The alleged Divine splendour which appeared to the hypnotized subject, and was identified with that which surrounded the Apostles on Thabor, was really nothing but a commonplace illusion. Yet this Thaboric brightness, and the omphalopsychic method of inducing it, gave a widespread reputation to theHesychasts. Nodoubt the leaders of the party held aloof from these vulgar practices of the moreignorantmonks, but on the other hand they scattered broadcast periloustheological theories. Palamas taught that by asceticism one could attain a corporal, i.e. a sense view, or perception, of the Divinity. He also held that inGod there was a real distinction between the Divine Essence and Its attributes, and he identified grace as one of the Divinepropria making it something uncreated andinfinite. These monstrouserrors were denounced by the Calabrian Barlaam, by Nicephorus Gregoras, and by Acthyndinus. The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemncanonization of Palamas and the official recognition of hisheresies. He was declared the "holy doctor" and "one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church", and his writings were proclaimed "theinfallible guide of theChristian Faith". Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection ofpolytheism.
Among themedieval Greektheologians the most famous are the ninth-century Photius, well-known for his anti-Latinism; Michael Psellos, in the eleventh century, an all-round capable writer,theologian,exegete, philologist, historian, scientist, poet, and, above all,philosopher; Euthymius Zigabenos, who composed, at the request of Alexius Comnenus, his "Dogmatic Panoply, or Armoury, Against all Errors"; Nicholas of Methona, Andronicus Cameterus, anti-Latin polemical writers, particularlyNicetas Acominatus (Akominatos), noted for his "Treasure of Orthodoxy". John Veccos (Beccos) and George Acropolites tried to reconcile the teachings of both Latins and Greeks while other Greeks opposed the Latins with all their might. Among the opponents of Palamas were Barlaam, Gregoras, Akyndinos, John theCypriot, and Manuel Calecas. Thetheological conflict went on both before and after theCouncil of Florence (1439); Mark of Ephesus and George Scholarios repudiated the Romantheology, which on the other hand, was adopted and upheld byBessarion, Isidore of Kiev, Joseph of Methone, and Gregory Mammas.
The capture of Constantinople by theTurks marks the apogee of the œcumenicalpatriarchate and the Greek Churches subject to it. By establishingGennadius Scholarius as the only patriarch of the Orthodox Churches within theOttoman Empire, Mohammed II placed all the other peoples —Servians,Bulgarians, Rumanians,Albanians, and Anatolians — under the exclusive domination of Greekbishops. Nodoubt the Servian andBulgarian Churches of Ipek and Ochrida still existed, but; pending their final suppression in 1766 and 1767 respectively, they were hellenized and under Greek control, so that they were in reality but an extension of the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople. Moreover, the conquest ofEgypt andSyria by Sultan Selim in the sixteenth century enabled the Greeks to control the honours and emoluments of the Patriarchates ofJerusalem and Antioch. In the seventeenth century the Patriarchate ofJerusalem was hellenized, and that of Antioch in the opening years of the eighteenth century. As for Alexandria, where thefaithful were very few, its Greek titular always resided at Constantinople. In this way the Greek Church gained gradual possession of the immenseOttoman Empire; as theTurks extended their conquests thejurisdiction of the Greekpatriarchs extended with them. This situation lasted until the first half of the nineteenth century. The whole Orthodox world was at that time Greek, save inRussia, whose religious autonomy had been recognized in 1589, and in theAustro-Hungarian Empire, whereServians and Rumanians constituted, from the end of the seventeenth century, autonomous Churches, eitherCatholic or Orthodox. During the greater part of the nineteenth century the principle of nationality — long cherished at Constantinople, which had employed it against thepopes when robbing them ofjurisdiction over Illyricum and at one time over SouthernItaly — was turned against the Greeks themselves, especially against theChurch of Constantinople. Every province or kingdom that shook off theTurkish suzerainty freed itself at the same time from theecclesiastical yoke of the Phanar. Curiously enough, it was the Greeks of the Hellenic Kingdom who first set up, in the nineteenth century, an autonomous Church. TheServians and Rumanians were not slow to imitate them. TheBulgarians went farther and, while remaining Ottoman subjectsde jure until October, 1908, they established about forty years ago an exarchate of their own, independent of the Phanar, withjurisdiction not only over allBulgarians inBulgaria, but also overBulgarians in Turkey. It is to be expected that the recent proclamation of aBulgarian kingdom will modify this state of things. ABulgarian Church may be established within the limits of that kingdom, and a secondBulgarian Church within the limits ofTurkey inEurope. The creation of aServian Church for theServians in Turkey is also projected, so that the œcumenicalpatriarchate seems on the eve of dismemberment. In recent times, also, the rivalry of nationalities has passed over fromEurope intoAsia. In 1899 the Greeks were ejected by the Syrians from the Patriarchate of Antioch; in the same way they may soon loseJerusalem. InEgypt similar divisions exist between the Greek- and Arabic-speaking elements; the latter, aided by theirMussulman fellow-countrymen, may eventually cast off theecclesiastical control of the Greeks. In short, at no very distant date the Greeks, who have so long ruled the Orthodox world, will have to be content with theChurch ofAthens, that ofCyprus, and the sadly weakened Church of Constantinople.
If we look at the domestic situation of the Greek Church during the period from 1453 to 1901, the year of the present titular's accession, we find that, of a total of one hundred and twopatriarchs, only twenty-nine have died in possession of their see, and that the seventy-three others either resigned or were deposed. It is a strange phenomenon, seldom met except among the Greeks, that, whereas a patriarch was nominated for life, as a rule he was deposed or forced to resign. It sometimes happened that the same man became patriarch more than once. In this way, while between 1453 and 1901 there were only one hundred and twopatriarchs, there were some one hundred and sixty patriarchal elections; thirty-fivepatriarchs having been elected several times (twenty-one twice, nine three times, two four times, two five times, and one seven times). The last of these records is that of Cyril Lucaris, the famous seventeenth-centuryCalvinistic patriarch. These continual changes gave rise to some amusing incidents. Thus on 19 October, 1848, Anthimus IV succeeded Anthimus VI, who was deprived of office the day before; at present Joachim III is œcumenical patriarch for the second time, twenty-three years after the death of Joachim IV who had succeeded him. This confusion is by no means peculiar to theChurch of Constantinople. In the hellenized Church of Ochrida. we find between the years 1650 and 1700 no fewer than nineteen forced resignations or depositions ofarchbishops. The two main causes of these sudden changes are the cupidity of theTurks and theambition of the Greekclergy covetous of the patriarchal throne. The cupidity of theTurks might never have been a factor, had it not been for the intrigues and cabals of the Greekclergy themselves, who put up theirpatriarchate at auction. On 20 November, 1726, Païsios paid out 145,000 francs for the office of patriarch, and in 1759 the Sultan Mustapha III fixed the tax on the office at 120,000 francs. And yet in many instances thepatriarchs did not remain even a year in office. Later, when theTurks had taken off the tax, depositions and resignations went on, and go on to this day as in the past, so much so that thelaity now come forward and ask that the duration of a patriarch's term in office be limited, e.g. to three or four years. However, in the Kingdom of Greece, where theChurch depends mainly on the State, thesescandals do not occur. What has been said of thepatriarchs might be even more truly said of themetropolitans andbishops. Though, according to Greek canon law, transfers from one diocese to another are forbidden or ought to be very rare, as a matter of fact everybishop has administered before his death four or five differentdioceses. Either thebishops did not find theirdioceses suited to their dignity or the people did not find thebishop suited to their taste. Of late the custom of lay interference in thenomination ofbishops is growing, and hardly a year goes by in which seven or eightbishops are not removed at the request of their flocks. Nor must it be forgotten that thebishops busy themselves mainly with anti-Bulgarian or anti-Servian politics and other secular affairs. TheTurkish government often has to request the withdrawal of some over-compromisedprelate.
It may be noted that the Greekbishops — those of today at least-have received a fairly goodeducation in the secondaryschools, followed by a very ordinary course oftheology in theseminary of Halki or that of Santa Croce, nearJerusalem. Some of them have spent a few years in theProtestantuniversities ofGermany, or in theecclesiastical academies ofRussia. Theirtheology is usually limited to aknowledge of the points of controversy between Latins and Greeks from the beginning of their Church until recent times; they use it to bias the minds of their people against the missionary efforts ofCatholics. They are more tolerant ofProtestants. With the exception of theclergy in the towns, who aim at the higher offices, the Greekpriesthood is veryignorant; thepriests can hardly get through the Mass and the other services in a fitting manner. Although married, they retain great influence over the illiterate butpious members of their flocks, who are attached toChristianity by tradition or patriotism, and whose ill-instructed religious sense shows itself mainly in ritual observances andsuperstitious practices. With the exception of two or threeseminaries, having about fifty pupils in all, there is no trainingschool for the lowerclergy.
Thedioceses are divided, as with us, intoparishes of various classes. Preaching is neglected and in many places is omitted altogether. For this reason in 1893 somelaymen atSmyrna founded the Eusebia Society for the diffusion and explanation of the Word of God. This example has been followed in other places, especially at Serræ,Magnesia, and Constantinople, wherelaymen preach in the churches as is the custom in someProtestantsects. The higherclergy, far from favouring this movement, which is a reproach for them, do all they can to hinder it. Feast days are the same as in theLatin Church; so are thesacraments, The latter are rarely received, and rather as a matter of custom than of genuine conviction. Communion is received four times a year after the four greatfasts: atEaster, on St. Peter's day, on the Assumption, and atChristmas. Confession ought to precede this solemn act, but as a rule it is omitted or treated so slightingly bypriests and people that it is better not to speak of it. Thepriests andbishops do not go to confession. Mass is heard onSundays and Feast-days, or, rather, on those days the people go and say someprayers before the icons, orholy images, the services being generally so long that very few remain to the end. In any case there is no definite teaching on this point any more than on others, everything remaining vague and uncertain in the minds of the people.
(For Feasts and Fasts of the Greek Church, Service Books, Vestments, Church Furniture, etc., see, underTHE RITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.)
The music of the Greek Church began with the ecphonetic chant, a sort of recitative based on thelaws of accent in prosody. Through the early melodists, or Syriacliturgical poets, this musical notation may reach back to the ancientliturgical chant of theJews. The musical characters or signs are Greek. The notation, known as that ofSt. John Damascene, is merely a development of ecphonetic notation. It increased the number of signs from nineteen to twenty-four. Inmedieval times amonk ofAthos, John Koukouzeles, raised it to sixty or more; but in the early part of the nineteenth century Chrysanthos modified or simplified this excessively complicated notation; his "Theoretikon", a very instructive work, has become the basis or guide for allliturgical chants and scientific works thereon. Gregory Lampadarios and Chourmouzios aided Chrysanthos in his reform, which can hardly be called successful. It seems that all three misinterpreted certain old musical signs; moreover, they are responsible for the horrible nasal intonation so abhorrent toEuropeans. However, musical reform is in the air; during the past thirty years it has been talked of, and plans have often been submitted, but so far without results. Thereligious music of the Russians is the only one that expresses anytruepiety. Its gravity, unction, and sweetness are beyond question. If areligious music trulyChristian ever existed, the Russians have inherited it. Between Russian and Byzantine music there is no connexion whatever. (See also underTHE RITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.)
Even after the taking of Constantinople by theTurks and the apostasy of the Greeks, the one aim of thepopes was to drive back theTurks intoAsia and to save theByzantines in spite of themselves. Nicholas V,Callistus III,Pius II,Paul II,Sixtus IV,Innocent VIII, andAlexander VI all followed this policy.Julius II sought to convert the Shah ofPersia, and to draw him into an alliance against the Sultan; the struggle against theTurks was the great concern of the whole pontifical life ofLeo X. If the plan to drive back theTurks intoAsia finally failed, the fault lay not with thepopes, but with the nations ofChristendom, jealous of each other and attentive to their own private gain rather than the interests ofChristianity. It must not be forgotten that the victory ofLepanto (1571) was the work of apope; that apope worked for the preservation ofCandia (1669), and that, had it not been for anotherpope,John Sobieski would never have relievedVienna (1683).
From 1453 until theFrench Revolution the relations between thepopes and the Greekpatriarchs were very different from what we find today. Cordial letters passed frequently between them;priests of either rite were recommended to one another's care and thepopes often intervened in the internal affairs of the Greek Church. Many Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople — among others, Cyril II — and the GreekArchbishops of Ochrida, Porphyrius about 1600,Athanasius in 1606, Abraham in 1629, Melecius in 1640,Athanasius about 1660, professed theCatholicFaith; at different times many Greekbishops did in like manner. It would be impossible to say how far their conversion was sincere. Possibly the need of monetary help or the wish to make a stand againstProtestantism was the motive power. It must at least be acknowledged that their conduct and attitude towardsCatholics gave evidence of genuine good will. Thus, to take some well-known examples, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries theJesuits andCapuchins were allowed to preach and hearconfessions in the Greek Churches, by the express permission of the patriarch and thebishops. That they made use of this privilege we learn from their correspondence. It is hard to explain the exact reason for the changed attitude ofCatholic missionaries since the end of the eighteenth century. Perhaps the change came with thesuppression of the Jesuits and the outburst of theFrench Revolution, which led to the substitution of a new body of missionaries in the East. Today, as a matter of fact, missionaries of allreligious orders and every nationality observe rigidly the rules ofPropaganda concerningcommunicatio in sacris. They practically ignore the higher Greekclergy — not the best way, perhaps, to break down prejudice and win esteem. It is nodoubttrue that as a rule the higher Greekclergy are noted for their anti-Catholic fanaticism and are never weary of railing against Roman missionaries and of insultingCatholics. Then, too, the Greek people do not distinguish between religion and nationality, a confusion mainly due to the teaching of theirclergy; consequently, a Greek will refuse to become aCatholic lest he should cease to be a Greek. Yet great progress has been made during the past twenty or thirty years, thanks to theschools of the French congregations which have been opened in nearly every town in Turkey. In spite of theanathemas of the Greekclergy, boys and girls flock to theseCatholicschools, and the consequence is a growing spirit of toleration and sympathy towardsCatholics everywhere.
Pius IX andLeo XIII tried to reopen official relations with the Greeks, but unsuccessfully. The reply of the Patriarch Anthimus VI to theEncyclical ofPius IX (1848) was far from friendly; the invitation to assist at theVatican Council the Patriarch Gregory VI refused even to accept. During his long pontificateLeo XIII was unceasing in his efforts to bring back the Greeks to unity, but they remained unmoved, and when, on 20 June, 1894, in theEncyclical "Præclara", he invited the Greek Church in all charity to recognize the successor of Peter, the answering encyclical from the Patriarch Anthimus VII was remarkable for its rudeness. The present patriarch, Joachim III, opened a purely theoretical consultation with his subjects on the matter a few years ago, but his attempt was not well received.
The firstProtestants with whom the Greek Church sought to unite were theLutherans. About 1560 the Greekdeacon Demetrius Mysos visitedWittenberg to learn at first hand the doctrines ofLuther, but his visit had no result. In 1573 two professors of Tübingen, Andreæ and Crusius, assisted by thechaplain, Gerlach, opened a correspondence with the Greek patriarch Jeremias II, which lasted until December, 1581. The patriarch and histheologians set forth over and over again very courteously and very fully the many dogmatic differences between their Church and that of theReformers. At last Jeremias II refused to answer further letters and wrote to Pope Gregory XIII in June, 1582, that he "detested those men and their like as enemies of Christ and of theCatholic and Apostolic Church." Later onCalvinist doctrines found favour with the patriarch himself, Cyril Lucaris, who occupied the œcumenical throne seven times between 1612 and 1638. The French and Austrian Embassies sided with the Orthodox Greeks; Geneva andHolland favoured theCalvinisers. The conflict lasted through the greater part of the seventeenth century. The main quarrel was over Lucaris's confession offaith, drawn up in Latin, which appeared atGeneva in March, 1629, and in the West stirred up bothCatholics andProtestants. Many councils of the Greek Church, especially those of Constantinople in 1638 and 1642, ofJassy in 1642, and ofJerusalem in 1672, extirpated theCalvinistheresy from the Orthodox Churches. Through Peter Mohila,Metropolitan of Kiev, the Russian Church took an active part in the controversy. The personalities that disfigured these disputes embittered the whole of the seventeenth century, and made it the most repulsive in the existence of theChurch of Constantinople. Fourpatriarchs at least were strangled, while in the space of one hundred years there were twenty-ninepatriarchs and fifty-four patriarchal elections, i.e. an average of one election every twenty-two months.
After theLutherans andCalvinists came theAnglicans, or that section of them known as theNon-jurors. Negotiations set on foot with the Greek and Russian Churches lasted from 1716 to 1725, but nothing ever came of them. Then came Zinzendorf, founder of the Moravian Brethren, 1740). Finally, in the nineteenth century we find theProtestant Episcopalian Church of England and of theUnited States coquetting with the Greeks. In severalAnglicansynods — e.g., 1866, 1867, 1868 — a desire for union with the Greeks was expressed, and the Patriarch Gregory VI showed sympathy, but did not hide the difficulties in the way of its immediate realization. At the Synod of Bonn (1874) theAnglicans resolved to remove the "Filioque" from the Creed, to insert the formula "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son", to recognize tradition as a source of revelation, to maintain that the Eucharist was a sacrifice, to admitprayers for the dead, and other points. But the Greeks would not make any concessions. In 1897 the 36th decision of the synod assembled at Lambeth Palace (London) charged the chief representatives ofAnglicanism to seek an understanding with Constantinople. TheBishop ofSalisbury, theArchbishop ofCanterbury, and theBishop ofGibraltar (who pays an annual visit to the œcumenical patriarch) were to be the principal negotiators. But the much-desired union is not yet a fact, the great drawback being the difficulty which both Churches find in defining exactly what they hold to be offaith, and what is onlytheologicaltruth. In 1902 the Patriarch Joachim III consulted the Orthodox Churches as to the usefulness of an understanding with theProtestant Churches; nearly all those who thought it worth while to reply were opposed to the suggestion. Nevertheless there are several unionsocieties in existence — e.g., the Anglo-Continental Society, founded in 1862, theEastern Church Association, and others similar — but so far they have effected nothing. On the other hand, Evangelicalsocieties of various countries have been very active in the East, and have often called forth protests from the higher Greekclergy. While their success among the Greeks has not yet equalled their success among theArmenians, their unceasing propaganda inAsia Minor has ended by creating Greek centres ofProtestantism, something hitherto unheard of.
The Old-Catholics from the beginning aimed at union with theOrthodox Church. Theological conferences were held atBonn in 1874 and 1875 with that object in view, and both parties made concessions, but nothing came of these efforts. Although frequent conferences have since been held, an Old-Catholic Committee instituted at Rotterdam, and the "Revue Internationale de Théologie," established atBerne (1893), the negotiations for union have not made the slightest advance.
With all the Orthodox churches, except theBulgarian exarchate and the Syrian Patriarchate of Antioch — both of them consideredschismatic for substituting a native episcopate to a Greek one — the Greek Churches are on terms of union arising from a commonfaith and a commonorthodoxy. By the canons of the œcumenical councils of 381 and 451 theChurch of Constantinople enjoys a sort of pre-eminence over the other Churches. But this must not be understood to mean a pontifical primacy so that the head of theOrthodox Church may command with authority the faithful of all other Churches. The Byzantine patriarch has a primacy ofhonour but not ofjurisdiction; he is foremost among his equals —primus inter pares — and no more. This oft-repeated declaration was renewed at the Council ofJerusalem in 1867, which proclaimed that the Orthodox Churches recognized only an œcumenical council as their supreme master and sovereign judge. When Joachim III, in 1902, wished to consult the other Churches on matters concerning the whole Orthodox party — e.g., union with theCatholics orProtestants or Old-Catholics, the reform of the calendar, and other matters — out of thirteen Churches five were not consulted, being inschism or manifestly unfavourable; two did not reply; six replied in the negative. Again inCyprus, since 1900, the attempts of the œcumenical patriarch to put an end to theschism of that Church are resented; at the present time (1909) his authority is being overthrown atJerusalem, just as at Alexandria. There is therefore no unity of authority among the Orthodox Churches. Nor is there any unity offaith or discipline. TheBulgarians and the Syrians of Antioch, who are looked on as schismatics by the various Greek Churches, are not such in the eyes of the other Orthodox Churches. TheRussians uphold the validity ofbaptism administered byCatholics orProtestants; the Greeks say suchbaptism is invalid. TheRussians do not admit the deuterocanonical books of theOld Testament, but the Greeks, until quite recently, accepted them. It would be easy to multiply examples. Formerly theChurch of Constantinople claimed theright to send thechrism to all Orthodox Churches as a sign of Orthodox unity and of their dependence on Constantinople. But since the seventeenth century, at least, the Russian Churchblesses its ownchrism, and sends it in our day to the Churches of Montenegro,Bulgaria, and Antioch. The three Orthodox Churches within theAustro-Hungarian Empirebless their ownchrism, as does also the Rumanian Church since 1882. So that the only Churches now receiving thechrism from Constantinople are those of Alexandria,Jerusalem,Cyprus,Greece, and Servia. The moral authority of the œcumenical patriarch over the other Churches is null; consequently it stands to reason he has no dogmatic privileges. The decrees of the first seven œcumenical councils alone have force of law. As a rule, a number of creeds are also considered as instructive concerningfaith, e.g., the confession of thePatriarch Gennadius, that of Peter Mohila, the decrees of the Council ofJerusalem in 1672, the confession of Metrophanes Critopoulos. At present these confessions are not held to beinfallible, but merely guides in matters offaith.
Greek religious literature since 1453 is mainly polemical, againstCatholics andProtestants. Literary interests, once so popular at Byzantium, have long been quite secondary. Greektheologians re-edit continually the most fiery controversial treatises, accentuate the causes of separation between the two Churches, and on occasion invent others. Such, in the fifteenth century, are the writings of Maximus of Peloponnesus and George Scholarius; in the sixteenth century, of Maximus Margunius,Bishop of Cythera, and of Gabriel Severus,Archbishop of Philadelphia; in the seventeenth century of theCalvinist, Cyril Lucaris, of George Coresios, Theophilos Corydaleos, halfpagan and halfProtestant, Meletius Syrigos, Doritheus ofJerusalem, Nicholas Kerameus of Janina, and Païsios Ligarides; in the eighteenth century the writings of the brothers Joannikios and Sophronius Lichoudes, who laboured especially inRussia, Chrysanthus ofJerusalem, Elias Miniates, Eustratios Argentis, etc. Apart from this truculentschool, always fairly numerous among the Greeks, there are but few historians and chroniclers, e.g., Manuel Malaxos, who wrote a history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from 1458 to 1578; Dorotheus of Monembasia, who drew up a chronological table from the creation to 1629, and Meletius of Janina or ofAthens (died 1714), their only historian of note. Themonks were the most conscientious workers and tireless editors: Nicodemos the Hagiographer, of amazing productivity; Agapios Landos, his rival; Eugenios Bulgaris, the most learned Greek of the eighteenth century; Œconomos, Meletius Typaldos, Gregory ofChios, and many others.
There are few livingtheological writers of note in the Greek church. Philotheos Bryennios,Metropolitan ofNicomedia, who rediscovered and edited the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", is the only one deserving of mention. It is no less strange thantrue, that within nearly a century only one manual ofdogmatic theology has appeared in Greek, a volume of about 450 pages published atAthens in 1907 by alayman, M. Androutsos — an index of the esteem thattheology enjoys in the Greek Churches. They have, however, translations of Russian, German, or English works, and in this wayProtestantideas are creeping in. The same might be said of other branches ofecclesiasticalknowledge. The only good manual of canon law is by aServianbishop, Mgr. Milasch; the manuals ofchurch history by an Athenianlayman, Diomedes Kyriakos, and by Mgr. Philaretes,Metropolitan of Dimotika, are merely translations or adaptations ofProtestant works. Among thelaity there are some learned men, e.g., Spiridion Lambros, C. Sathas, A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, and M. Gedeon. Theclergy take no interest intheology, nor, as a rule, in anythingintellectual. Politics and dull personal intrigues are their only concern. In this respect the coming generation will perhaps differ from their predecessors. Two reviews have been started: the "Nea Sion" (New Sion) atJerusalem, and the "Church Beacon" at Alexandria, but both are carried on in a spirit of controversy, and the impartiality and scientific honesty of many of the editors are not above question. The Phanar review, "Ecclesiastical Truth", is only a church weekly.
I have not touched on the religious spirit of the Greekclergy, for as a rule it is sadly deficient; nor on its missions, for there are none; nor its present monastic life, confined toAthos and no more than a recitation of endlessprayers interspersed with local intrigues. Otherreligious houses exist only in name; they are now, for the most part, farms managed by a so-calledmonk and supplying funds toAthos or elsewhere. Owing to the energy of the lay element, who take an active interest ineducation, there are many well-conducted primaryschools. We have only praise for the efforts of both sexes to create and supportworks of charity and of benevolence. On this score the Greeks are inferior to no people.
APA citation.Vailhé, S.(1909).Greek Church. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm
MLA citation.Vailhé, Siméon."Greek Church."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 6.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1909.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Douglas J. Potter.Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.