Skip to main content

Full text of "After Nine Hundred Years The Background Of The Schism Between The Eastern And Western Churches"

See other formats


Yves Cougar, O.P. 

The traditional date of the beginning 
of the Oriental Schism is 1054, w h eri 
the Papal Legate placed on the altar of 
Santa Sophia the Bull of Excommuni- 
cation of Michael Cerularius, the Pa- 
triarch of Constantinople. In this book, 
Fr, Congar shows that the seeds of this 
formal break were sown many cen- 
turies before when the creation of By- 
zantium as a Second Rome, the Crown- 
ing of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor, 
and the knife-thrust of Islam divided 
East and West politically. Further, in 
the course of the centuries, East and 
West had developed each its own cul- 
tural and intellectual milieu: divergent 
ways of thinking, a vastly different un- 
derstanding of the nature of The Church 
and an ever growing distrust and dis- 
dain. The painful experience of the 
Crusades further aggravated the wound- 
ed feelings of the East, so that there 
grew up an "Estrangement* 1 a com- 
plex of suspicion, distrust and separa- 
tism between the two parts of Christen- 
dom. It is in the acceptance of this 
Estrangement that Fr. Congar finds the 
essence of the Schism. The first steps 
toward the reconciliation so ardently 
desired by Pope John XXIII in the Ecu- 
menical Council he has announced 
must be taken in humble charity and 

continued on backfldp 

3 1148 00458293? 

MAI JUN 2 3 193 

270*3 C74af 66-11902 


After nine hundred years 

1 'i ' ' . ;'*' ? 






Divided Christendom: A Catholic Study of the Problem of Reunion, 1939 
Christ, Our Lady and the Church 1957 
Lay People in the Church, 1957 





A Translation of 
Neuf cents ans apres, originally published as part of 

1054-1954, L'figlise et Les tglises 


John A. Goodwine, J. C. D. Francis Cardinal Spdlman 

Censor Librorum Archbishop of New York 

Sept. 26, 

The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet 

is free from doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that 

those who have granted the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents 

opinions or statements expressed. 



Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 59-15643 









Notes 9i 

MteinS UilTf to-.Uo - -^^ "tfKM 




On January 25, 1959, His Holiness Pope John XXIII, 
still in the opening months of his pontificate, made known 
to the world his intention of convoking an Ecumenical 
Council which would be "an invitation to the separated 
Christian Communities to find unity." 

It seemed to us that it would be an excellent preparation 
for the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Christians, if 
we were to assist in making available in an English translation 
the masterly study of Father Yves Congar, O.P., first pub- 
lished in 1954. We were fortunate in receiving the enthusias- 
tic approval of Father Congar for the project and he has 
been kind enough to supplement his original text with con- 
siderable new material and to bring up to date the already 
abundant bibliography and copious notes of the first edition. 

The year 1954 marked the ninth centenary of the excom- 
munication pronounced by the legates of the Holy See 
against Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, a 
date which for long has been accepted as that of the break 
between Rome and Byzantium. As a result of his long and 
profound studies of the relations of East and West from 
the earliest days of Christianity, Father Congar has seen, 
and exposes with luminous clarity, the many political, cul- 


tural, and ecclesiological influences which have tended, long 
before 1054, to bring about an estrangement between the 
Oriental and the Western Churches. Even after that mem- 
orable date, he shows us the numerous occasions when a 
lack of mutual understanding, resulting from deeply-rooted 
psychological prejudices, closed men's minds and, unfortun- 
ately, caused serious breaches of charity. Ignorance and 
disdain lasting for centuries, inevitably brought it about 
that each went its own way, oblivious and unaware of the 

It is in the acceptance of this estrangement that Father Congar 
finds the real Oriental Schism. Separation was growing in 
the minds and hearts of men before it took place in the pages 
of History. If, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a 
reconciliation is to take place, it will surely begin and grow 
under the warming rays of Divine Charity and men will 
learn to understand, to respect and to love one another, 
each for what they are. 

Through the collaboration of the staff of Fordham Univ- 
ersity Press and that of the Russian Center of Fordham 
University, the original work, which in French is so rich 
and suggestive in the conciseness of its thought, has been 
carefully translated into English. 

Paul Mailleux, S.J. 


Graeci, qui nobiscum sunt 
et noliscum non sunt, 
junctifide, pace divisi. 

St. Bernard of Clairvaux 
De Considerations, III.i. 


Figures in the text refer to 
notes beginning on page pi. 




The year 1054 is indeed a memorable date in the history 
of the Church. However, this date is more a symbolic than 
an historical one, such as are the dates of October 31, 1517, 
or July 14, 1789, from which we are accustomed to date 
"the beginning of the Reformation," or "the beginning of 
the French Revolution," respectively. The following pages 
will once again illustrate the thesis, rather generally acccepted 
today, 1 that July, 1054, cannot be put down as marking the 
beginning of the "Oriental Schism." These pages do not 
pretend to bring any new information to the historian fa- 
miliar with the events called to mind: he will more likely 
be inclined to correct and complete what is but a rough 
sketch revealing the limitations of the non-specialist. Only 
a certain number of facts and significant references have been 
marshalled here for the purpose of suggesting to theologians 
and churchmen some thoughts on the nature of the "Oriental 
schism." If our rough outline is accurate, those two words 
can with justification be placed within quotation marks. 

Not that the words do not express something very real: 
historically, canonically and theologically, the Oriental schism, 
unfortunately, is a fact. It can be defined according to the 


canonical and doctrinal criteria of the Catholic Church, cri- 
teria which, needless to say, we accept unequivocally. Those 
criteria are simple: they may be summed up as the union 
with the Apostolic See of Rome on the basis of a recognition 
of its primacy as coining from Christ and the Apostles. In 
the light of these, we can determine quite accurately when 
and where schism has occurred. The separation may likewise 
be attributed to any one of the local churches with the ex- 
ception of the Church of Rome, for she, while being also 
a local church, is something else too: as a local church which 
belongs to the union of the Universal Church, she has an 
autonomous and decisive value. Legitimate authority can 
act wrongly: yet one may not separate oneself from it and 
the final wrong lies always on the side of those who cause 

When a dispute concerns a church or an ensemble of chur- 
ches and not merely an individual or individuals, when what 
is at stake is an historical situation which involves the complex 
reality of collective rather than individual responsibility, 2 the 
problem becomes far more complicated. We would speak 
of the schism of Photius, the schism of Cerularius, and many 
others without the use of quotation marks; not so with the 
"Oriental schism." The latter cannot be put in the same 
category with the former: it presents an original problem 
with elements and values involving other considerations, the 
most important of which we shall try to suggest in the follow- 
ing pages. 

That this is so, is borne out by the fact that the break-up 
had begun before Photius and Cerularius, that it was not 
completed after the latter's time and was not concluded all 
at once, or even in a consistent manner, in the various Eastern 


churches. To present it as a declaration of war to which a 
date can be assigned, or as a state of hostility inaugurated by 
a single and definable act even though followed by tem- 
porary but complete and satisfactory reconciliations would 
be a fiction to which the facts do not correspond. As has 
often been said before, there were numerous breaches between 
Rome and Constantinople or another portion of the East, 
before Michael Cerularius and even before Photius him- 
self. 3 According to Marxist dictum, quantity, carried to 
a certain degree, modifies the category and becomes qual- 
ity. One cannot consider 217 years of separation in 506 
years of history without realizing that this does not mean 
normal union simply interrupted by accidents. On the other 
hand, the instances of union are so numerous between the 
year 1054 and the Council of Florence, that it is even less 
correct to speak of total separation merely punctuated by 
some happy accidents, or by exceptions. Many instances of 
union still existed 4 even after the rejection of the Council of 
Florence by the Eastern churches a date which, were it 
absolutely necessary to indicate a beginning, would be the 
best chronological reference mark for the true beginning of 
the schism; 5 moreover, union was not rejected at once and 
immediately everywhere. 6 This time, however, the instances 
of union were sufficiently exceptional to warrant speaking 
of them as fortuitous happenings. The fact remains that this 
"Oriental schism" which began before Cerularius, was not 
completed with him and, in a sense, never has been totally 
carried through. 

There were many differences and many inconsistencies exist- 
ing from place to place. Very often, local churches broke 
the union with other churches, or even with Rome; some- 


times, however, they maintained union among themselves 
and with Rome, while they either remained in communion 
with, or broke away from, various churches that had different 
relations among one another. The indivisible character of 
the communion is an old ecclesiological principle, sanctioned 
by a canon of the first Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, Can. 5), 
but it is far from having always been applied. 7 From this 
viewpoint as well, the "Oriental schism" cannot be dealt 
with as a homogeneous, and if I may say so, monolithic, 

An essential fact emerges from all this: the "Oriental schism" 
extends over a long period of history; in many respects it is 
coextensive with the very history of the Church, at least since 
the Fourth Century and even before. It is in this framework 
and according to these dimensions that the "Oriental schism" 
must be interpreted, not only when recounting its history, 
but even when attempting to give a theological interpreta- 
tion of it. The theological analysis of the notion of schism 
can be considered to have been made and rather well; but a 
further task must be undertaken, namely, the theological 
interpretation of the great facts of history, of concrete situa- 
tions such as the one under discussion the "Oriental schism" 
and the situation in which the Roman Catholic Church, and 
the Oriental Church separated from Rome, find themselves 
in relation to each other and in relation to the unity to be 

If nothing more than the analysis of the notion of schism 
were involved, the task would be relatively simple and easy. 
It would suffice to define the sin of schism and the unity 
which it destroys. But when one passes from the sin of 
schism personally and formally committed, to Christian com- 


munities in a state of schism, the thing becomes rather more 
complicated. In this connection, Monsignor Journet has made 
a new aftd extremely interesting study, 8 which remains, how- 
ever, on the plane of a theological presentation of typical 
cases or typical circumstances. Would it not be desirable to 
extend the effort to a theological interpretation of history itself, 
of the historical reality implied by the words "Oriental schism ?" 
While in the theology of schism per se, the one who breaks 
away is absolutely in the wrong, here the wrongs are not 
all on one side, as Humbert of Romans remarked long ago. 9 

The aim of these pages is to suggest to theologians a few 
elements of an interpretation of the historical reality of the 
"Oriental schism." Briefly, the "schism" appears to us as 
the acceptance of a situation by which each part of Christen- 
dom lives, behaves and judges without taking notice one of 
the other. We may call it geographical remoteness, provin- 
cialism, lack of contact, a "state of reciprocal ignorance," 10 
alienation, 11 or by the German word "Entfremdung." 12 The 
English word "estrangement" expresses all this quite admir- 
ably. The Oriental schism came about by a progressive 
estrangement: this is the conclusion to which the follow- 
ing analysis seems to lead us. 

For several reasons we have restricted the extent of our 
treatment in this book: first, by omitting developments which 
would have necessitated a more thorough elaboration of 
many questions; secondly, to show that the present account 
does not pretend to be exhaustive; third, and principally, to 
indicate the tentative, quasi-hypothetical character of our 
remarks: what we have to say is really in the realm of 
basic research. We thus consciously accept the risk of being 
reproached for schematization, when we frankly merely list 


the various aspects, causes, or manifestations of the global and 
continuous fact of this estrangement, and likewise give un- 
equal development to the different respective sections which 
we sometimes limit to simple notations, even when they 
deal with quite important points. We shall begin by exam- 
ining the outward the historical framework, and then 
proceed to the core of the question by examining, in this 
order, the political, the cultural, and the ecclesiological factors. 




The division of the Roman Empire into two parts was 
perhaps inevitable for there had already been the Tetrarchy of 
Diocletian in 292. However, the split that is here under 
study, the seed of which was indisputably planted by Con- 
stantine, finally had an effect on the Church itself. For this 
reason it is important that we understand the cause and the 
consequences of this act of Constantine, of creating a new 
capital in Byzantium. 

The cause is not to be found merely in the fact of a new 
capital in Byzantium, in the early years of the Fourth Century, 
but in the vast complex of ideas and practices which linked 
the essential realities of the Empire with the essential realities 
of the Church: an identification of the center of the Church 
with the center of the Empire, a joining of the highest ec- 
clesiastical reality of the Church to the highest civil reality 
of the Empire, which united the whole life of the Church to 
the Emperor and to his authority. It was a concept of a 
Church within the framework of the Empire, to become 
as it were, the Church of the Empire, much more than a mere 


parallel existence of the two powers, or, as they would say 
in the East, a "symphony." 1 Such is the Christian interpreta- 
tion, according to which the best men of the Church, espe- 
cially the popes, try to line up the facts. Such has been, 
and still is, the Christian ideal. But Constantine achieved 
something else and he has transmitted it through many cen- 
turies to the Christian world, something else and more. It 
consists of some very extensive elements of the pagan system 
giving the Emperor the quality of Sovereign in religious 
matters as well as in civil affairs. The separation of powers 
was unknown in antiquity, but it became an acquisition 
characteristic of the Middle Ages, especially in the West, 
through the action of the papacy. The intentions of Con- 
stantine are not in question: the Oriental Church canonized 
him; there can be absolutely no doubt about his religious 
sincerity and his Christian faith. But it still is the old pagan 
system which became Christian only in the person of the 
Emperor, and which was transferred in large part to the 
shores of the Bosphorus. The thesis of Am. Gasquet needs 
to be rewritten in the light of new knowledge about Byzan- 
tium which indeed we have only recently acquired. 2 But the 
general lines of Gasquet's thesis remain solid and are corro- 
borated by the studies of others. 3 

The quasi-sacerdotal role of the Emperor and its effect on the 
theological concept of a universal church. 

According to this system, the Emperor had a sovereign 
role in the matter of worship. Not that he celebrated the 
mysteries and preached the word of God as do priests al- 
though the Byzantine Basileis often delivered veritable ser- 


mons and intervened in dogmatic questions 4 : his situation 
was more to be compared to that of Elizabeth of England 
according to the syth of the XXXDC Articles, but the person 
of the Basileus was more sacred, had a quasi-sacerdotal, almost 
episcopal character. 5 The charge of the Emperor, his sov- 
ereignty, was simultaneously exercised in matters of religion 
and was therefore ecclesiastical, but kept itself within the 
bounds of coercive power. It was, in effect, the power of the 
State. But instead of confining itself to the temporal order, 
this power existed and was exercised in the domain of the 
Church. It is well known that the Emperor appointed the 
patriarchs of Constantinople, created or modified the eccles- 
iastical districts and the episcopal Sees, convoked Councils, 
supervised the proceedings of their deliberations, declared 
them closed, and above all gave the value of Imperial law to their 
decisions in our opinion the essential point. Thus, for the 
organization of the Ecumenical Church ("Ecumenical" "of 
the Empire") 6 and for the regulation of her life, the Emperor 
exercised his authority conjointly with the bishops. 7 Seen in 
this perspective, there was the danger that the juridical attri- 
butes of the Church, the aspect of authority and coercion 
that she bears as a society would, in an Established Church, 
make these attributes practically Imperial, and not Apostolic. 
It could perhaps be debated whether such an interpretation 
of the famous declaration of Constantine, "Bishop from with- 
out," 8 should be accepted; however, we should be inclined to 
do so for what there is of real historical meaning in the episode 
rather than for the literal meaning of the words. 

When the Patriarch Nil wrote in an act of 1380: "The 
authority of the Basileus regulates by law exterior and visible 
things, while the Church is experienced in the things within, 


the things of the soul (of the rog)" 9 he was giving a theo- 
logical formula of the situation created by Constantine. But 
one may hesitate over the ecclesiological implications of both 
Constantine's invention and the Patriarch's formula. In Divided 
Christendom, we have advanced the idea that the Byzantine 
ecclesiology had, through Constantine, an entirely mystical 
idea of the Church, and refused to develop its juridical aspects. 10 
The question is certainly more intricate than that, and it in- 
volves a whole complex of thought. Moreover, as V. Lossky 
has rightly remarked, we must not forget "the stupendous 
wealth of canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church," 11 
aside from the properly theological treatises. Perhaps, even 
so, a certain incapability of perceiving how the "visible" and 
"exterior" are themselves of the Church an inability parti- 
cularly felt in the Slavophile systematization 12 has its origins 
in the sequence of events that we shall try to retrace. 

At this point also we cannot refrain from mentioning the 
thesis of Jalland. 13 This writer has placed the question of 
the papacy and the Roman primacy in the framework of the 
problems posed by the need for unity unity for the Empire, 
to begin with, then and above all, unity for the Church. 
The Empire, before Diocletian, was more or less a federa- 
tion of cities and provinces. Diocletian organized it, dividing 
it into two great administrative domains, and promoted po- 
litical unity: the cult of the Emperor which the Christian 
refused, thereby provoking a very serious persecution, was 
a means toward unity. It is into this same perspective of a 
policy of unity for the Empire that the actions of Constan- 
tine may be fitted, along with the legislation that stemmed 
from the "Edict of Milan." Thenceforth, and thanks to the 
role played by the Emperor in the Church, the unity of the 



Empire was sought within the Christian framework, taking 
account of the delays permitted and the circumspection ob- 
served in regard to a mortally-wounded paganism. This 
entire evolution, thinks Jalland, continued to present a grave 
problem for the Church. In an Empire that was provincial, 
the Church had existed as something of a federation more 
exactly, a fraternity or a union of local churches; such a 
semi-clandestine regime adapted itself rather well to the sit- 
uation. But in a unified Empire, especially a unified Empire 
that had become Christian in the person of the Emperor, the 
Church, from then on part of the ecumenical life of the Em- 
pire, found it necessary to eleborate her ecumenical organiza- 
tion and her theory of ecumenical authority. A great many 
happenings of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries become clear, 
as Jalland shows, 14 if we interpret them in the light of this 
question: "Will the ecumenical authority in the Church be 
the Apostolic institution and tradition, or will it be the dogma 
of the Emperor?" 

The persistent theme of the Popes' opposition to the Ba- 
sileus and the Patriarch of Constantinople was their refusal 
to accept the idea that any exercise of juridical power on the 
part of the Church in the Empire derived from some po- 
litical or imperial statute. They insisted, in these cases, that 
it flowed from an Apostolic law, one properly ecclesiastical, 
particularly in the case of supreme authority in the Universal 
Church, which it is the divine prerogative of Rome to exer- 
cise. The crisis, a veritably endemic one after Nicaea, was 
to become decidedly acute when Rome, politically eman- 
cipated from the Empire, could more independently assert 
the right to regulate the canonical life of the Universal Church 
without appeal. In this respect, all the events which were 



to render the Church more effectively independent of Con- 
stantinople and the Basileus were to have their ecclesiological 
and canonical repercussions. Among these events were: the 
conversion of the barbarian kings and peoples upon whom 
the Church depended in the West (a fact that was resented 
in Constantinople, as was clearly noticeable at the end of 
the Sixth Century); the emergence of Pepin the Short and 
Charlemagne; the Donatio Constantini, to which we will refer 
later on; and the establishment of the Normans in the south- 
ern part of Italy to the direct injury of Constantinople, 
a step which provided the context for the affair of Michael 

Thus the relations between Rome and Constantinople have 
often represented so many occasions for a struggle and a 
competition wherein the point at issue sometimes had juri- 
dico-political aspects (Illyricum, the Bulgars), but was funda- 
mentally an ecclesiological concept. Rome followed the logic 
of a Universal Church centered round its primacy. In this, 
she obeyed her profound vocation, based on the institution 
.of Our Lord and on the presence of the Apostles Peter and 
Paul; she was likewise favored by various factors that were 
both political and natural: the Roman genius, the ideological 
and sentimental heritage of Imperial Rome, and the fact, 
which Baumstark 15 stresses, that in a West occupied by the 
barbarians Rome appeared as a center and even as a unique 
source of civilization. She had complete freedom to realize, 
in the peoples who did not erect against her the barriers of 
a secular culture and a Christianity that already had its own 
existence, a life of a unified Church, which was Latin and, 
finally, Roman. These and other data which reveal the 
social and ecclesiological history of the West, provided the 



ecclesiology of the Universal Church with every chance to 
take hold in that part of Christianity. This ecclesiology, 
however, ran the grave risk of being seriously tinged with 
Latinism and juridicism. 

In the East, on the contrary, Christianity developed from 
the beginning in various regional and very ancient cultures. 
There, according to the extent that Constantinople dominated 
(and this extent varied according to political destinies), it was 
the idea of a Church of Empire, ecumenical in that sense, 
which prevailed, with the ecclesiological risks pointed out 
above. 16 The rise of the authority of the Ecumenical Pa- 
triarch (authority de facto stronger than authority de jure], 
even in the times, (more numerous than is often thought) 
when this authority displayed an independence towards the 
Basileus, "took place within the framework of the Imperial 
idea. Moreover, while the existence of local churches, with 
their own liturgical language and their autonomy, had from 
the beginning oriented people's minds towards the idea of a 
communion or fraternity of churches, the aggressive contact 
with Islam made Byzantium consolidate herself as a nation 
confronting other national powers, and the Byzantine Church 
thus became a national Greek Church. 17 The idea of an 
organization of the Church on a universal plane, with an 
appropriate hierarchical court of appeal, had not the least 
chance of finding favor in Eastern thought. Baumstark notes 
with subtlety 1 8 that the West approaches ecclesiastical reality 
in an analytical way; to begin with, the whole is posited, then 
the particular communions are conceived of as parts of this 
whole. In the East what is first envisaged are the local chur- 
ches, then the exigencies of their communion are postulated. 
In the West, one prays for the unity ofjiie Church ("pro 



Ecclesia tua sancta catholica, quam pacificare, custodire, adun- 
are et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum, una cum famulo 
tuo papa nostro..."; "ne respicias peccata mea, sed fidem 
Ecclesiae tuae..."); in the East, one prays "for the prosperity 
of the holy Churches of God/' 19 In the West, die first and 
concrete given fact is the total unity, in the East, it is the 
local diversity. In the West, separation is all the more felt 
as a scandal, a kind of amputation which mutilates the body; 
in the East, unity is regarded more as an ideal, as a family 
reunion can be a reunion in which many things can, at one 
time or another, prevent one or the other member from 
taking part. In fact, among the Eastern Churches it is im- 
possible not to be struck by a certain lack of any uneasiness 
or discomfort in the midst of multiple and often, rather long 
interruptions of communion. 20 

For all these reasons and still others, the ecclesiological acqui- 
sitions of the West (an ecclesiology of the universal Church 
and a hierarchical court of appeal, likewise universal and 
apostolic in origin) have remained foreign to the East. On 
the other hand, the ecclesiological significance of the local 
Church, centered on the mystery and the sacrament, which 
has unceasingly inspired Eastern thought, has played a smaller 
part in this half of Christendom. 

The pagan concept of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine ideal 
of the Emperor as God's representative. 

The position taken by Constantinople in regard to Rome 
was largely fostered by the powerful Roman ideology that had 
been transferred to Constantinople, the 'New Rome.' The 
politico-religious thought of the Emperors and the people 



was to be affected first; the canonico-theological thought 
of the Patriarchs and clergy was to be affected later. 

The idea of Constantinople as the New Rome was not 
that of Constantine himself, but it devolved from his action, 
and the transference of all the rdgis of ancient Rome to 
Byzantium. The theme has been treated in many publica- 
tions. 21 Along with the immense prestige of Rome, there 
was in Byzantium the consciousness of continuing the Roman 
Empire; this, too, has often been emphasized by the com- 
mentators; 22 (P(DfjLa.loq = Byzantine). 23 It was inevitable, 
especially in the actual and ideological framework of a Church 
of Empire, that the idea of Constantinople as New Rome 
should entail ecclesiological and canonical consequences, the 
very ones that are generally and quite simply classed under 
the heading "ambition of the Patriarchs of Constantinople." 
We will return to this later in our comments. If there had 
been a transfer of Empire, it was reasoned, there had conse- 
quently also been a transfer of ecclesiological primacy. 24 

Needless to say, Rome regarded with coolness, or rather 
affected to ignore, the idea of Constantinople as a New 
Rome. 25 Likewise, from the Eighth Century onward, in order 
to hold back the spread of this idea, Rome made use of the 
famous Donatio Constantini, one of the most harmful pieces 
of forgery known to history (and not merely to the history 
of Rome). 26 It was a weapon, moreover, which betrayed 
the very cause of Rome, since by argument ad hominem, the 
Donatio in seeking to check an Emperor, presents the dignity 
of Peter and his successors and the privileges attached to that 
position as emanating from the political power of an Emperor 
and not from the Apostolic institution. 27 Byzantium retained 
all the more the logic of her positions by retorting with her 



own argument from the Tenth Century onward, and by 
relying v upon the Donatio to affirm that Constantine had 
transferred all the rd^iq to Constantinople, including that 
of making decisions in ecclesiastical affairs. 28 

The transfer of the ideology of Rome to Byzantium con- 
stituted for the East and for a Church of Empire a principle 
all the more powerful in that it was reinforced by what we 
may call the "unitarian" ideal or idea. According to this 
idea, terrestrial government and the terrestrial order of things 
imitate celestial government and the celestial order of things; 
therefore, there can be on earth but one order, one truth, 
one justice, one power, of which the custodian is the image 
and representative of God; to one God in Heaven, one sole 
monarch corresponds on earth, by right at least. The origins 
of these ideas have been traced 29 from Aristotle (whether in 
the original text which ends the Metaphysics or in the "plato 
nizing" text found in De Mundo), passing through Philo Ju- 
daeus down to Eusebius of Caesarea, the thinker who has 
expressed the idea most theologically by applying it precise- 
ly to the Christian Empire of Constantine. Despite his weak- 
ness in theology, the influence of Eusebius cannot be exagger- 
ated. 30 Christian society is in the image of the Heavenly 
Kingdom, and of the politeia of Heaven. It embraces in a 
unique order, under the authority of the Emperor, all the 
aspects of life. By right, it covers the whole world and 
thus the Byzantine Basikis affirmed their right to the obedi- 
ence of the barbarian and pagan kings themselves, beyond 
the frontiers of the Empire. 

This "unitarian" ideology reigned in Byzantium. 31 Indeed, 
a thesis could be developed on the idea of sovereignty which 
resulted from it. It also prevailed in the West, at least from 



the Eighth Century onward, first of all to the profit of the 
Emperor (from Charlemagne to Gregory VII), then rather 
to the profit of the Pope not without claims asserted on the 
part of the temporal monarchs. A great many things in the 
history of Christianity may be explained if one keeps this 
"unitarian idea" in mind. The instances are almost innumer- 
able. Here we need interest ourselves in these themes only 
from the viewpoint of the estrangement, which we will try 
to understand in its origin and development. It might not 
go beyond the facts to state that in Byzantium there pre- 
vailed the idea of a transfer of the universal sovereignty of 
God to a "unitarian" order; but this transfer was more im- 
perial than ecclesiastical. The idea that the unity of the King- 
dom should be reflected in the Church, in its very structure, 
was not applied as far as the visible and social features of the 
Church were concerned, but it remained entirely mystical 
in the order of prayer and sacraments. 32 

Besides, considering the total Christian world, there was 
not merely one "unitarian" order but two: therefore, one too 
many. For opposing the Byzantine Basileus there arose an- 
other "Emperor." And, opposing the Emperor and finally 
confronting any monarch claiming to be the sovereign head 
of the Christian world, the pope raised a higher claim, pro- 
gressively expressed in occasional assertions of power, first 
in Canon law in the Eighth to Eleventh Century then in 
theology in the Thirteenth Century and finally in dogma, 
by the Vatican Council. 

Rome under barbarian rulers: treason oj the ideal 

But many episodes in the history of Western Christianity 
have completely betrayed the Byzantine ideal just defined, 



We generally blame both sides in this betrayal; it has also 
been said that the Basikis lacked a feeling of solidarity with 
the West which they abandoned to its destiny save for a few 
attempts such as the grandiose one of Justinian. 33 They also 
lacked an historical sense, if we may use a modern expression; 
they did not accept the West for what it was, and were too 
prone to assume an attitude of contempt. But it is evident 
that the West was the more at fault regarding the Roman 
idea transferred to Constantinople and the "unitarian" ideal 
embodied in the Empire. To begin with, the West fell under 
the domination of the barbsgigns and Rome itself was cap- 
tured. Thus, barbarian Rome could be considered as no 
longer a part of the Empire, and as no longer expressing the 
Roman idea, which continued only in Constantinople. Better 
still, the West and Rome itself "went over to the barbar- 
ians" in the sense that Ozanam expressed in his famous declar- 
ation. 34 The Romans allied themselves with the enemies of 
the Empire as, for example, happened in the Eleventh Cent- 
ury with the Normans. In short, while rendering momentary 
homage to the Byzantine idea and to the legitimacy of the 
unique claims of Constantinople, 35 the West completed its 
betrayal by creating an Emperor supposedly Roman, but in 
reality Germanic and barbarian: Pope John XIII was to go 
so far as to write in 967, that there was "an Emperor of the 
Scqgks" and "an Emperor of the Romans"! 36 

Here the estrangement is between two worlds simultane- 
ously political and cultural: the Byzantine world which 
affirms that it is the legitimate continuation of Rome, and 
the Latinized barbarian world, spiritually dominated by 
Apostolic and Papal Rome. The two worlds do not accept 
each other. Rome does not accept Constantinople, Con- 



stantinople does not accept the West as it is, and rather feels 
that this West has betrayed "the Roman idea of unity," at 
least as considered in Byzantium, which is to say, Roman, 
in the sense of Imperial. 


Let us now consider the famous thesis of Henri Pirenne 37 
in his Mohammed and Charlemagne. In his wonted sweeping 
manner, his theory combines the explanation of spiritual 
factors with an' examination of economic factors. From a com- 
mercial point of view, says Pirenne, the Carolingian epoch 
lags in comparison with the Merovingian epoch. What 
happened, essentially, was the conquest by Islam of the 
Mediterranean shores and the islands of Crete, Sicily and 
Malta, and the consequent interruption of commerce and 
free exchange. Instead of being a Roman-Byzantine sea, a 
unifying agent between the two parts of the Christian 
world, the Mediterranean had become a Mohammedan do- 
main. Apart from the economic consequences that have been 
adduced, and the retreat of the West within a closed domain, 
this decisive event brought about two great happenings: a 
breach betweenJEast.aiid.West, and, within the West, a dis- 
placement of the economic and cultural life of the Sputh 
towards the North, from the Italic and Provencal regions, 
that were still in contact with the Greek world, toward the 
territories inhabited by Germanic elements. It was in this 
sense that Mohammed prepared the way for Charlemagne. 
Thus, although the "idea of Rome" had existed until the 
Seventh Century despite barbarian invasions, maintaining the 



unity and continuity of the Roman empire, it was Islam 
that provoked the split which marked the end of the an- 
cient world and the beginning ojthe Middle Ages. 

There is certainly some truth in this thesis of Pirenne, 
and some Byzantine scholars have adopted it or suggested 
analogous considerations. 38 In recent years, however, it has 
drawn some very strong criticism and not only its deduc- 
tions and explanations, but its economic facts themselves have 
been seriously questioned. 39 Navigation and commerce con- 
tinued, as well as relations with the East; in Rome, the ser- 
ies of Oriental Popes that mark the last twenty years of the 
Seventh Century extended to the middle of the Eighth Cen- 
tury. Moreover, many other factors came into play, and 
the causes of the alienation already at work before Moham- 
med, the barbarian invasions in particular, seem to have been 
minimized by Pirenne. 

Be that as it may, the Mohammedan expansion had im- 
portant consequences in the East itself. It prevented the 
free comnuimcation^pf Eastern .Christians, other than those 
of Byzantium, and eventually of Antioch, with Rome. 40 It 
brought about a consolidation of Byzantium, both political 
and ecclesiastical; the patriarchs of Constantinople quite nat- 
urally tried to regroup under their authority the remnants 
of Christendom spared by the conquest 41 Byzantium be- 
came the hope of the populations subdued by that conquest, 
and every armed victory of Byzantium was to the advantage 
of her Patriarch, and so, the national character of the Greek 
Church became intensified. 

In any case, the Mohammedan conquest finds a place 
among the causes of that estrangement which in so great a 
measure caused the "Oriental schism." 




For a long time the coronation of Charlemagne has been 
cited by Orthodox writers or controversialists among the 
Orthodox as one of the most decisive causes, if not thfL& 
of the separation. We find this stated, for example, in a Rus- 
sian polemic of the end of the Sixteenth Century which 
has been made known to us by "the father of Panslavism" 
Krijanich, 42 whose ideas are echoed in more than one page 
of modern writers, though in a style less violent and bom- 
bastic. 43 The importance of the coronation of Charlemagne 
also struck more than one Latin writer of medieval times, 
to say nothing of the views of Joachim of Flora who, even 
so, is narrow and unjust towards the Greeks. 44 Here let us 
give honorable mention to the remarkable report drawn up 
by Humbert of Romans for the Council of Union in 1274. 
Very realistically, Humbert places first among the three cau- 
ses of discord between the Greeks and the Latins, the dispute 
over the empire and the various political questions that may 
be attached to it. 45 Modern historians, no doubt more en- 
lightened as to the ins and outs of the question, nevertheless 
recognize the decisive importance of the coronation of Char- 
lemagne. 46 

The "ins and outs" are those which we have already men- 
tioned in regard to Constantine: the legitimacy of the suc- 
cession of Constantinople to Rome as the seat of Empire and 
the unity of the Empire. Ever since the fall of the Empire 
of the West, the Emperor of Byzantium held a protective 
right over the Christian regions of the West a rather theo- 
retical guardianship which he in no way exercised, but which 



existed nonetheless and was recognized by the barbarian prin- 
ces themselves. 47 These barbarian princes were also avid 
of Byzantine tides, which assimilated them to the hierarchy 
of the Empire at least as avid as Bonaparte was in later 
centuries to be crowned by the Pope and to espouse an Aus- 
trian Archduchess. But Byzantium was careful not to be- 
stow upon them a title which would have cast a shadow 
on the Imperial monarchy. 48 

As regards Byzantium therefore, the coronation on Christ- 
mas day of the year 800 was a veritable betrayal; a present- 
day Catholic historian has gone so far as to write: "The con- 
ferment of the Imperial title upon Charlemagne therefore 
marks on the part of the Pope, the intention of breaking with 
the Empire of the East." 49 Already in the years following 
781 when the papal state was established by Pepin, the popes 
no longer dated their acta in accordance with the reign of 
the Emperor of Constantinople; after the year 800 they 
dated them from the reign of Charlemagne. From then on, a 
Church of Empire was to be constituted in the West, neces- 
sarily a rival to that at Byzantium. Instead of appearing 
as an arbiter, the pope, exposed to many acts of violence, 
would, from this time onward, be regarded by Constan- 
tinople as an adversary. In addition, the Latin world, shar- 
ing the same "unitarian" ideology with the East, would suf- 
fer from the eleventh-century breach consequences of ap- 
parently fearful dimensions in the direction of estrangement. 
The canonical authorities, who were then the authors of ju- 
ridico-political theories, declared that there could be but one 
Emperor, as there was but one Orbis, and that Emperor 
must be Roman. The Basileus of Constantinople was there- 
fore no longer the true Emperor, since he was in schism. 50 



He showed himself incapable of ensuring his function as 
defender of the (Roman) Church; therefore the Empire had 
been transferred to the Germans. Some people even declared 
that he no longer had the authority, that he had no imperium, 
since no authority existed outside the Church. 51 Still others 
were more conciliatory and pointed out that for the sake 
of peace, two Emperors could be allowed. 52 Actually, in 
the practical steps taken in the transactions to bring about 
union, and in the theological treatises such as that of Hum- 
bert of Romans, as well as in the pontifical bulls, the Basileus 
was still treated as Emperor. 53 In these details can be sensed 
all the bitterness of the question and the depth of feel- 
ing of estrangement which the coronation of Charlemagne 


Fleury, whose historical views are often interesting, dates 
the schism from the Crusades. 54 In fact, the capture of Con- 
stantinople by "the Franks" the same who had already given 
themselves an Emperor during the Fourth Crusade, created 
an almost irremediable situation. Up to then, there had been 
men of substance in the East who deemed the schism capable 
of being remedied and they were working toward union. 55 
There would still be men of this stamp afterwards, but 
they would have to work in much more difficult conditions 
of distrust and the darkening of the atmosphere would in 
great part be due to the Crusades. 

The facts are known. They have been studied very pre- 
cisely in their relation to the anti-Latin controversy and the 



growth of distrust of Latins in Byzantium. 56 From the first 
Crusade on though this was undertaken to aid Byzantium 
and doubtless as a result of its appeals the Latins were re- 
garded as people to fend off and to be avoided. The Em- 
peror Alexis Comnenus had the rear guard of Bohemund at- 
tacked even before he reached Constantinople. On that oc- 
casion, the Norman warrior responded by an act of clemency 
and had the Greek prisoners released. The acts of hostility 
on the part of the Byzantines continued during the Second 
and the Third Crusade, going even to the extent of poisonings. 
Then came the Fourth Crusade, of which Venice was the 
evil genius. There was the double capture of Constantinople, 
the burning of an entire section of the town in the midst of 
which the Crusaders had found a mosque, there was pillage, 
the installation of a Latin Emperor and of a Latin patriarch 
and the distribution of Byzantine territories as fiefs to the 
Latin nobles. In short, there was all the hatefulness of an 
armed occupation. And there was no Semeias to raise his voice 
and say: "Do not wage war upon your brothers !" 57 However, 
Innocent III saved the honor of the papacy and of the 
Christian name. Before the enterprise, he condemned it, 
publicly disavowing ?11 hostile projects against the Chris- 
tian Byzantines; after the capture of the city at the insti- 
gation of the Venetians, he accepted the event and saw in 
it a means, providentially allowed by God perhaps, to re- 
establish union and to group the Christian forces against 
the Turks* But he emphatically disavowed the outrages 
committed against the Byzantines. 58 

Unfortunately and against the interests of Christianity, 
Venice relentlessly pursued an imperialistic policy which, in 
all the territories of the Near East where she had estab- 



lished the centers of trade of her dominion, caused Latinism 
of the narrowest kind to reign and ruined for a long time 
the chances of union. 59 

The Latinization was a natural result of the Crusades 
wherever the Latins were able to assert themselves. 60 It 
is clear that at this period, which saw the development of 
ecclesiastical power, of canon law, and of Scholastic philosophy, 
the lack of an historical sense and of curiosity towards 
other men and other worlds gave Western Christianity that 
self-confidence which comprised its strength. On the other 
hand, it deprived the Latins of the feeling of legitimate di- 
versity in the matter of rite, of ecclesiastical organization, of 
canonical tradition, and even of doctrine. 61 True, the East 
had likewise hardly shown an attitude of tolerance in re- 
specting legitimate differences; the controversy of the epoch 
of Photius, and more especially of Cerularius, was largely 
based upon a condemnation of Latin usages differing from 
Byzantine practice, as contrary to true Christianity. With 
the Fourth Crusade, we enter in a period when the Latins 
in their turn displayed a similar exclusiveness. This was the 
epoch in which Innocent III compelled, as much as he could, 
the Bulgarian and Greek clergy to complete their ordina- 
tion by. the anointing with oil, though it is not a part of 
their rite. 62 At this same epoch the apocrisiaries of Pope 
Gregory IX to the Synod of Nicaea-Nymphaeum in 1233, 
which could have been a reunion council, demanded a rigid 
and unconditioned agreement with the Latin viewpoint on 
the two unsettled questions of the Filioque and azymes. 63 
At this time also, Innocent IV desired the Greeks to speak 
in future of Purgatory "in conformity with the traditions 
and authority of the Holy Fathers." 64 These examples might 



be multiplied. 65 It is evident that, in the spiritual atmosphere 
of the Crusades, with little historical sense or toleration of 
differences, the Latins of the time considered their tradition 
to be the tradition, their formulas to be those of the very 
Apostles, and of the Church Fathers; it is clear as well, that 
by their deeds, they frequently denied the existence and legiti- 
macy of a tradition, of a rite and of an Eastern Church. The 
actual measures of subordination of the Greeks to the Latins 
such as one finds formulated by Innocent III or Innocent IV, 
rather lamentably recall the situation created by colonization, 
when native officials are allowed some jurisdiction but are 
supervised by representatives of the dominating power. Thus 
the contact between the East and the West, resumed on the 
occasion and by the fact of the Crusades, turned into a new 
and very grave cause of estrangement. Today the memory 
of the Crusades still remains in the Greek mind as the mem- 
ory of Latin aggression. 66 

The Greeks began to think, "Better the turban than the 
tiara! Anything rather than Rome." This feeling in the 
end influenced their behavior; "If there was a betrayal of 
the Christian cause, long before that of Francis I (in allying 
himself with the Turks,) it was the betrayal by the Orthodox 
in the Fifteenth Century." 67 Their responsibility is a heavy 
one, even though it should be understood. We are refer- 
ring to another capture of Constantinople, that in 1453. 
This too, in a way, intensified and hardened the schism by 
bringing about the decadence of science and letters in Byz- 
antium, by causing a kind of contraction and withdrawal 
into a national Church. This was a withdrawal which oc- 
curred everywhere in the Near East as the result of the con- 
quest of the Turkish regime that followed. The schism was 



intensified, also, by the isolation in which the Orthodox 
world found itself, and finally by the policy pursued by 
the Turks, who willingly treated with the Orthodox hier- 
archy as the heads of national communities, while discrim- 
inating against the Latins. 68 


The list of politico-religious causes of the alienation is not 
yet ended, for contacts between Greeks (Orientals) and 
Latins did not cease after 1453. There were, of course, politi- 
cal, human and commercial contacts; there were as well, 
contacts with the Easterners as Christians. To give a complete 
and therefore a just picture, one should list the acts of true 
Christian fraternity, cooperation, sympathy and patience as 
well as the benefactions which the Latins brought constant- 
ly to the Near East in hospital, school and charitable works 
of all kinds, as well as in scientific and other endeavors. 69 
But this is not our theme. 

Real as all this was, moreover, and actual as were the 
events which may be cited as convicting the Easterners 
of a lack of gratitude, there is another very serious factor: 
the separated Easterners, or shall we say the Orthodox, re- 
proach the Latins and more precisely, Roman Catholics 
for having ceaselessly exercised towards Orthodoxy a le- 
velling and unchecked proselytism. 70 They speak of the pride 
of the Latins and of the Popes and their taste for domination 
and power. 71 The Orthodox reproach the Catholics for what 
they call their proselytism a vague word which lends it- 
elf to the expression of many unreasonable rancors. 


In all these reproaches, there is an approximation of truth 
which would not stand up before a serenely objective exam- 
ination; there are many exaggerations and also quite a few 
candid alibis for a serious examination of conscience. But we 
are not trying to justify ourselves at all costs, and still less 
are we trying to accuse others. No matter what the circum- 
stances, it is much better to become aware of the accusations 
that are brought against us, to know that they exist. We are 
accused of using methods of force and, instead of considering 
the separated Orientals as brothers whose particular gifts 
should be respected, of approaching them as second-rate 
Christians who must be won, or rather conquered, so that 
we may bring to them riches of which they do not have 
the equivalent. It is this condescension of ours, this "coloni- 
zation psychology," this barely veiled desire for power, with 
which we are reproached. On the other hand, it is in the 
light of these views that, rightly or wrongly, the Eastern 
Christians have regarded the presence of the Latins, the con- 
tacts they have had with the West and all enterprises of the 
Latins, ever since the separation. 

Thus, the end result of all this, especially on the part of 
the Orthodox and their attitude towards us, is a complex 
of distrust, secretly fed by all the unreasoned violence of 
an instinct of self-preservation. Now, there is no complex more 
powerful than distrust, especially when it is grafted on an 
esprit de corps and serves to justify the feeling of being different. 
This invalidates the clearest and soundest explanations, ren- 
dering every effort toward reconciliation ineffective, since by 
this standard the least sign of weakness, the lightest causes of 
annoyance, are seized upon as a justification for all the cher- 
ished motives for remaining apart and continuing the war* 72 






We shall not stress the importance of language as a cult- 
ural factor, for it has long, since Become a classic question 
which has been studied so thoroughly that there is little 
more to be said on the matter. 1 

Yet, the question of language is important to us here, and 
from three points of view. A language is, to begin with, 
an instrument of communication. Where there is no under- 
standing, contact becomes impossible. Thus, in Constan- 
tinople, the use of Latin was restricted to administrative and 
juridical formulae. 2 In the West, thanks to the monks who 
came from the Neapolitan region and Sicily, there were al- 
ways men especially in Rome who understood Greek, and 
this language of prime importance for the sources of tra- 
dition was studied by numerous scholarly churchmen. 3 But 
unfortunately it is a fact that the Christian world split in 
two according to a line that practically corresponded to the 
linguistic boundary. The Greek Fathers were amazingly 
lacking in curiosity regarding the Latin Fathers, and the 
latter were scarcely better informed as to the Greeks. Such 
a situation was an obstacle to the true unity that lives by 


the exchange of ideas and by the awareness thus acquired, 
of the existence of ways other than one's own for approach- 
ing, and feeling, and conceiving intellectually the Holy 
Mysteries; and also other ways, equally legitimate, of ex- 
pressing one's faith in worship and of organizing the life 
of the Church. The toll exacted by linguistic provincial- 
ism was bound to be, sooner or later, a certain provincial- 
ism in thought, perspective and judgment, a certain narrow 
separatism in the theological and canonical tradition. In 
short, it was bound to bring about a serious lessening of the 
spirit of communion and of the likelihood, if not of the 
very possibility, of communion. 

Language is a symbol of culture and it plays a great part 
in the esteem civilizations have 'for each other. We will 
later return to the highly critical way in which Latins and 
Greeks mutually viewed each other. But, merely from the 
viewpoint of language itself, although the Latins were an- 
noyed by what they considered an excess of subtlety in 
Greek, the Greeks themselves felt a certain condescension, 
if not a kind of contempt, for the Latin language. 4 

But language is not merely the symbol of ideas which would 
exist of themselves: language also shapes ideas. It contributes, 
before the thought is expressed, to the very formation of the 
mechanics of thought, and to the formation of that kind of 
inner mirror wherein our perceptions are "refracted"; it 
really constitutes the climate which is called "the mind." 5 

It is a fact well known to translators that for a great many 
words and phrases which are most expressive of profound 
conviction, there is no exact equivalent in another language. 
For example, how do we translate into any other lan- 
guage the German Gemut, the English worship, the French 



carrefour, the Russian sobornost ? Historians of dogma, and 
all those working for union, are likewise well aware that 
many of the difficulties between the Orthodox and our- 
selves are linked with questions of language and that this 
was so in the past as it often still is today. There are the well- 
known instances of prosopon, hypostasis substantia. There 
are also minor instances, equally decisive; the fact that the 
Greeks and the Russians have generally expressed "infal- 
libility" by the word that also signifies "impeccability" 
(infallible avapagrrirog or in Russian nepogresmyi), and 
that in Greek there is no equivalent for the Latin word 
vicarius; 6 the fact that the word atria signifies "to proceed 
as from the first principle"; 7 the fact that the word "satis- 
faction" practically does not exist in Greek; 8 and that, on 
the other hand, after having translated juerdvoia by poeni- 
tentia, the Latins have often joined poenitentia with poena and 
developed their thought in the direction of the idea of acts 
of penance and satisfaction. 9 These are but a few instances 
of many expressions that could be mentioned; while their 
translation is quite clear, the difficulty of achieving an exact 
understanding of them is likely to have serious theological 
and ecclesiological consequences. This language difficulty has 
much to do with the conditions even with the possibilities 
of union, hence of unity. Their consequences lead once 
again to estrangement on the level of thought and mutual 


The Latins considered the Greeks inordinately subtle; actu- 
ally they often complained about the Greeks' quibbling and 



their perfidy. 10 It was the Greeks, they said, who had in- 
vented all the heresies. 11 The Greeks, for their part, accused 
the Latins of barbarism and lack of culture. Had not the 
West been overrun by the barbarians since the beginning of 
the Fifth Century ? 12 It has often been noted that just as 
Constantinople perpetuated the Roman Empire, so its schools 
and its culture perpetuated those of Antiquity without a 
break. 13 Whereas the West, after being overrun by the bar- 
barians and resuming life with them, was in great part igno- 
rantwith its culture being preserved by monks in small 
Church centers while its secular population was often illit- 
erate there always existed in Byzantium a cultivated laity, 
a corps of literate imperial functionaries. 14 Byzantium derived 
great advantages from this, not the least of which was, no 
doubt, the one pointed out by Fleury (not without a hint 
of gallicanism): in Byzantium the laity were more or less 
capable of preoccupying themselves with ecclesiastical mat- 
ters; it was impossible there for the clergy to modify certain 
points in traditional ecclesiastical discipline, as was done in 
the West. Besides, and in a way as a consequence, the East 
experienced neither the exaggerated increase of ecclesiastical 
power, nor the bitter secular criticism and anticlericalism 
which followed and for which Fleury sets the Twelfth Cen- 
tury, with Arnold of Brescia, as a beginning in Western 
Europe. 15 

However, the question includes other aspects which are 
not as positive but have their bearing on the process of the 
gradual estrangement which we are analyzing. Without over- 
looking the counter-argument of "caesaropapism," of which 
we have already spoken and which so many Catholic writers 
stress, let us note at this point a very important fact which 



has been particularly studied by Baumstark. 16 In both the 
East and the West Christianity had encountered some en- 
tirely different historical presuppositions: in the East there 
was a millenary culture; in the West, there were barbarians 
and a recent culture stemming entirely from Rome. In both, 
West and East, there had been an invasion of new people, 
but under very different conditions: in the West, the Ger- 
mans entered the Church, bringing with them a new vi- 
tality; in the East the Arabs, professing another faith, brought 
nothing into the Church but rather impelled the Greek world 
to withdraw into itself with its national Church. Hence, 
in the West, with youth and a free field, Christianity figured 
as a mounting force and did not hesitate to plunge into new 
undertakings., such as Scholasticism, a phenomenon of, and a 
result of youth. The West even recognized the possibility 
of creating a new law, based simultaneously on Rome and 
on the Germanic world. In the East, with its ancient cul- 
ture, Christianity was held in check by Islam, and from 
then on figured as a force of the past, thus strengthening its 
traditionalism. 1 7 

It is relatively easy to determine the different general 
conditions of the development of civilization in the East and 
in the West. It would be less easy, especially in this limited 
space, to characterize adequately the content of those cul- 
tures. Restricting ourselves to the viewpoint of the Church, 
we will be content here to say a few words on the subject 
of rite a subject which we hope to take up again one day 
and study more thoroughly and to point up the differ- 
ences between East and West which occurred in theological 
method. We shall suggest a few resulting major differences, 
shall recall a few moments when a feeling of profound differ- 



ence, even oppositeness, was particularly marked. We shall 
finally note the deplorable solidification caused in the long 
run by so many differences, and at least in the East by 
the deep consciousness of these differences. We shall devote 
a section to each of these. 


Considered in its most limited sense, "rite" would be noth- 
ing more than an external system, no matter what its con- 
tent; a certain conviction, considered as existing in itself and 
universally valid which could be transferred indifferently from 
one linguistic group to another, from one "rite" to another. 
Such a transfer would involve no more than a substitution 
of another language, different rubrics and ceremonies. On 
the other hand, we can understand the notion of "rite" in 
a much wider and deeper sense. In that case, "rite" encom- 
passes the totality of forms and symbols by which a com- 
munity gives complete expression to, and lives its Christian 
faith. It is then not merely a collection of liturgical rubrics 
but includes the theology as well as the whole manner of 
organization of the ecclesiastical and religious life of a people. 
Fundamentally then, it is the Christian life itself, collectively 
perceived and felt in a particular way and which creates for 
itself its own personal, communal manner of expression. 

Now, for a long time the people and the clergy maintained 
a kind of profound spiritual liberty in regard to rite. It has 
been shown how, even in the second half of the Sixth Century 
and beyond into the beginnings of the Thirteenth, one passed 
easily from the East to the West and vice versa, celebrating 
the mass with the people of any particular place, in their 



language and according to their rubrics. 18 "In the Sixth 
Century in Rome," writes Brehier, "when a child was brought 
to the baptistery, the acolyte asked: 'In what language does 
he confess our Lord Jesus Christ?' According to the answer, 
he recited the creed in Greek or in Latin." 19 Surely this 
state of things can be considered a wholesome pluralism. 
It was, however, spoiled after the Fourth Crusade as a result 
of Latin domination in the Orient, and the wholly Latinizing 
policy of Innocent III and Innocent IV. 

According to Dom O. Rousseau, the Council of Florence 
fully recognized the existence of the Oriental rite and at the 
same time laid down the principle of an air-tight partition 
between the Greek and the Latin rites. In truth, we believe 
that a study of the usage of the word ritus leads to the follow- 
ing conclusion which, far from going counter to the findings 
mentioned above, only serves to sharpen them. Before mod- 
ern times, ritus meant a concrete ritual, a manner of cele- 
brating the liturgy, the concrete expression of one's faith. 
The Council of Florence with precisely this meaning uses 
the word consuetudo? But since then and who can say 
precisely when? "rite" became an abstract reality, a thing 
in itself; it became a separate entity and one begins to speak 
of the Oriental Rite. 

No doubt this change came about by the very reason of 
the separation: by reason of the Latinization, the creation 
of the Uniate Church, the reaction of the Orthodox and the 
methodical arrangement they made of their differences in 
the course of ten centuries of controversy, and finally in the 
Nineteenth Century. Today we have lost the kind of spir- 
itual liberty which is respected in other fields, with which 
the variation in the manner of celebrating the liturgy was 



formerly treated. Tke question of rite has become identified 
with the very question of Church. 

On the other hand, the East makes little or no distinction 
between rite and faith. In Greece, the same word, dogma, 
designates the one and the other. We Westerners are inured 
to analysis and abstraction. We conceive of faith as a body 
of truths which, definite in themselves, are susceptible of 
different expressions; we have studied the* relation of symbol 
to reality. The Easterners see a much closer union between 
the two: the ritual symbol is for them but faith in action. 
Therefore, different expressions should correspond, so they 
think, to different faiths. They say of someone who has 
changed rite that he has changed faith. 21 It is a very well- 
known fact that in the list of grievances made by the Orthodox 
against the Latins, all kinds of minor variations of rite and 
custom have been mingled with points that are properly 
dogmatic, although a man such as Photius knew how to 
distinguish these two orders of things. Finally, and this is 
an important fact, in the East the Church is felt to be less 
an object of conviction of faith and the resulting choice, than 
as an actual community of peoples of which, as a Christian, 
one is a member. 

From all this it follows that although in the West the word 
"rite" is taken in the narrow sense, it is understood in a 
broader arid deeper sense in the East. 22 This brings about a 
type of piety that is very simple and yet very deep, not analyti- 
cally developed in logical deductions and practical applica- 
tions, but continually vitalized in the services of the Church, 
a type of piety in which the meanings of the rite, the faith, 
and the Church are united in a single living attitude. Possibly 
this involves some weaknesses; it may not perhaps respond 



in all points to the needs of the modern world as evolved 
through the ages; but it seems still more certain that such a 
type of piety lends itself to an exaggerated "absolute inter- 
pretation" of rite, identified with what may be held to be 
most absolute. In our opinion, only the reestablishment of 
unity and communion could restore to Christians the liber- 
ty of a kind that apparently reigned in the first six or eight 
centuries. In the present state of separation, there is an ex- 
aggerated tendency to "absolutize" things which are certainly 
important, but just as certainly not absolute: in the West 
there is the organization, with its administrative and juridical 
involvements; in the East, there is the rite. 23 

At any rate, it is in the light of these perspectives, without 
prejudice to other influences perhaps less sublime or even 
conscious, that the Orthodox peoples so severely criticise 
every attempt at reuniting them by giving to a Catholicism 
imbued with Latin spirit the mere aspect of an Oriental rite. 
Let us reread these lines by Father George Florovski: "There 
is a fatal mistake here: rite either remains merely 'ritual', 
incapable of bringing about reunion, the rite itself changing, 
becoming transformed or even degenerating into rubricism, 
dissipating and losing meaning; or else it is accepted in its 
hieratic reality, in which event, the bounds of Western or 
Roman consciousness must inevitably be broken. In the one 
case as in the other, reunion is not accomplished. In fact, 
Rome does not possess any of the 'Oriental rite/ What is 
involved is not 'rite* but the living reality of a non- Roman 
Christianity." 24 That is to say, there can be no Oriental 
rite except the Orthodox. 

A rebuttal of such an assertion would require some distinc- 
tions. In a few words we can say that if "Orthodox" here 



signifies only Apostolic Christianity according to its Oriental 
tradition, the assertion may be accepted. This disposes of 
the subject a little cursorily, since it neglects the possibility 
of veritable catholicity which could be realized within the 
Roman Catholic Church, and in which Apostolic Chris- 
tianity in its Oriental form, and according to its tradition, 
could co-exist with an Apostolic Christianity of Occidental 
tradition and form, under the primacy of the cathedra Petri. 
The Uniate Churches are, in the intention of Rome and 
often in reality, anticipations, preparations for this: a kind 
of promise, somewhat as the presence of Benjamin with Judah 
during the schism of the Ten Tribes, was a promise of the 
reunion to come. 25 However, in fact and historically, the 
existence of Uniate Churches and of a persevering effort of 
Rome to organize them, has been felt by the separated Eastern 
Christians as a veritable betrayal, as a lack of respect towards 
the East, as a refusal to take seriously or a congenital in- 
ability to take seriously their reasons for not aligning them- 
selves with a Latinized Catholicism: in short, to take seriously 
the reasons for estrangement that the present study is at- 
tempting to analyze. In our opinion, it is quite certain that 
many sentimental complexes, irrational rather than rational, 
are intermixed with all this. However, it is a fact and one 
would be wrong not to take it into serious consideration that 
Uniatism appears to the Orthodox as being, by its profound 
presuppositions, the very caricature and contradiction of unity. 26 


Theological method and major differences in doctrinal con- 
ceptions are other factors to be considered. Dom Wilmart, 



a profound student of ancient texts, has written that a Chris- 
tian of the Fourth or Fifth Century would have felt less be- 
wildered by the forms of piety current in the Eleventh Cent- 
ury than would his counterpart of the Eleventh Century 
in the forms of the Twelfth. The great break occurred in 
the transition period from the one to the other century. 27 
This change took place only in the West where, sometime 
between the end of the Eleventh and the end of the Twelfth 
Century, everything was somehow transformed. This pro- 
found alteration of view did not take place in the East where, 
in some respects, Christian matters are still today what they 
were then and what they were in the West before the end 
of the Eleventh Century. This is a statement that becomes 
clearer the better one knows the facts. It is indeed very 
serious, for it concerns precisely the moment when the schism 
asserted itself in a way that has been without a true remedy 
up to now. It seems impossible that this be a purely exterior 
and fortuitous coincidence. Perhaps, it is much more likely 
that we have come to the very core of our subject. However, 
with the idea of returning elsewhere to it some day, we will 
not now treat this immense and fascinating subject as a whole, 
but merely from the theological point of view and to begin 
with, from the actual state of theology, without however, 
supplying detailed and elaborated proofs. 

In the period between the end of the Eleventh Century 
and the end of the Twelfth, a decisive turning-point was 
reached in the West. It was a time characterized by .several 
transitions. There was first, the transition from a predominant- 
ly essential and exemplarist outlook to a naturalistic one, 
an interest in existence. This was a transition from a uni- 
verse of exemplary causality, in which the expressions of 



thought or of act receive their truth from the transcendent 
model which material things imitate, to a universe of efficient 
causality in which the mind seeks for the truth in things and 
in their empirical formulations. Secondly, there was the 
transition "from a symbol to dialectic," 28 or, as one might 
say with greater precision, from a synthetic perception to 
an inclination for analysis and "questions." Here we have 
the beginning of Scholasticism, to which so many scholars 
have devoted their talents. 29 This, it seems to us, is the es- 
sential point. The difference between the two worlds is the 
difference between the attitude of synthetic perception in 
quest of the relation of the parts to the whole, and an ana- 
lytical attitude. Basically, was it not against this analytical 
attitude of Catholics that the Slavophile religious philosophy 
aimed its criticism of Catholicism, in the Nineteenth Cen- 
tury? 30 

Another transition was that from a culture where tra- 
dition reigned and the habit of synthesis became ingrained, 
to an academic milieu where continual questioning and re- 
search was the norm, and analysis the normal result of study. 
The East followed the road of tradition, and we have shown 
how one of the principal differences among the various 
peoples of the Orthodox faith is in fact that they are not 
trained, as are the Latins, by the schools. 31 The Latin theo- 
logians, inured to Scholasticism, have often been baffled at 
seeing the Greeks refuse to yield to their compelling argu- 
ments from reason, but instead taking refuge in the realm 
of Patristic texts and conciliar canons, as Humbert of Ro- 
mans very pertinently remarked. 32 The times had greatly 
changed since the period when the Greeks treated the Latins 
as barbarians; now the so-called barbarians had created a 



new science, full of developments which have made the mo- 
dern world. But this remained foreign to the East which 
knew no Scholasticism of its own, 33 and was to experience 
neither the Reformation or the i6th-i8th-century rationalism. 
In other words, the East remained foreign to the three in- 
fluences that shaped modern Catholicism. Therefore, the 
West has evolved towards a type of analytical knowledge 
which, in sum, is rational; it needs to define the exact shape 
of things, to see them independently of one another. In the 
period that we have been studying, or rather at a slightly 
later time, the first half of the Thirteenth Century, a new 
kind of theological teaching and study appeared and es- 
tablished itself in the West. Until this time, the dominant 
type of teaching or study had been of a contemplative or 
monastic nature, linked with the liturgical life of the abbeys 
or cathedrals. Now, there was added a new type of teaching 
and study, of an academic and rational nature which was 
soon to take the place of the former. Here the significant 
incident is that of Abailard leaving the cloister of Notre-Dame 
to go to Mont Ste. Genevieve, where our great schools arose. 
In the East, on the other hand, the teaching and study 
of theology, and even of philosophy, kept its religious status. 
It was only in the neo-Orthodox school of which Fr. Serge 
Bulgakov was the most accomplished representative, that sa- 
piential knowledge was neither a separate philosophy nor a 
pure mystique, nor a "scientific" theology, but all three 
combined. 34 It was not only among the Slavophiles that 
the idea of an integral and living knowledge was proposed, 
within the epistemological structure in which love and moral 
uprightness meet and join. 35 As far as we know, this may 
be a general characteristic of the Byzantine philosophy it- 



self. 36 The Orthodox Slavs have a distrust, if not contempt, 
for the "rational/* the "Euclidean," as Dostoevsky says, con- 
sidering them "extrinsic" or "worldly" (the famous Russian 
vnesnost'), which may not be entirely fortunate or of posi- 
tive value. It is possible that half a century of the Marxist 
regime will bring Russian Orthodoxy in one bound to the 
point which we have reached through seven centuries of 
analysis and rationalism. They will, of course, cover the 
road in the continuity and spirit of Orthodox tradition, but 
perhaps Orthodoxy will thus be brought a little closer to us. 
For the moment, it is in a climate of living knowledge and 
negation. Just as the Latins in general feel the need to define 
especially Rome, which has the calling and charism to 
effect this so the Orientals feel the need not to define: not 
to define, be it noted, even the beliefs they hold in common 
with us. The example of the Assumption of the Virgin 
Mary is significant in this respect. 37 

It is a fact that many points of doctrine have not been 
decided in the Orthodox East and that various positions were, 
and indeed still are, occasionally upheld there, sometimes 
even the Catholic position. Jugie felt that he could deduce 
from this that reunion should be easy since, in the state of 
doctrinal uncertainty in which they find themselves, the Or- 
thodox churches could admit the definitions already accepted 
in our Church, definitions which have for us the force of 
dogmatic law. 38 But is this not treating the Orientals pre- 
cisely as if they were Latins ? For the point is not exactly 
that they do not have definitions; the point is rather that 
they do not need them, do not want them at all. One cannot 
straightaway employ as a means of union that which precisely 
constititutes one of the obstacles to union. We must all the 



more take into account the ethos of the Oriental Churches, 
their pietas, we might say, recalling the similar case of the 
Anglicans, to whom this word means so much, representing 
so many things that cannot be defined and which, on a re- 
ligious plane, are analogous to culture if it is true that, ac- 
cording to a famous remark, culture is what remains when 
we have forgotten everything else. 

This indeterminate state of things is, however, valuable 
from the viewpoint of reunion, and Jugie's idea involves 
a great truth to which we should pay careful attention. 
Orthodoxy has kept itself malleable and retains possibilities 
which might crystallize into a favorable position towards 
reunion, a position which, however, it would be folly to 
force from the outside. In studying Eastern thought in all 
its diversity and ramifications, or at least its expressions on 
a certain number of things as important to union as the sub- 
ject of Purgatory or the Roman primacy, 39 we personally 
have been amazed to note that there is a broad and deep 
domain of ideas wherein the East and the West cherish a 
fundamentally common tradition. In the apparently vast 
area where definitions exist among us, but not in the East, 
it has happened that theologians and Churchmen of the 
East have sometimes expressed themselves in a manner wide- 
ly divergent from, if not totally opposed to, the Western 
position, and again, in a thoroughly Catholic sense, or very 
close to it. This has happened especially in moments that 
were favorable to reunion, or has come from men who were 
favorably disposed toward reunion. 

Catholic apologists are fond of quoting and using these 
favorable texts, and they are right to do so. Yet we would 
no longer follow them if, once again, their secret design 



were to abolish any and all differences between the East- 
ern and the Western tradition, to the advantage of Latin 
Catholicism. On the other hand, we would like to stress 
a very important point to which we will return in our con- 
clusion to this study: the schism, the "estrangement," has 
not been brought to completion. It is possible that it could 
become complete if we were to push to the limit the dif- 
ferences which, explained intelligently, could smooth the path 
to reunion. (The question of the Filioque is a case in point.) 
On the other hand, we might halt the movement toward 
total schism and work towards a healing of the wound when- 
ever, faithful to what we hold to be the truth, we seek and 
find on the level of thought and then on the level of for- 
mulae, an acceptable view which tends towards reunion. 

Understandably, we cannot risk the choice of deepening 
the estrangement instead of achieving a rapprochement and 
a profound unity on the basis of the famous pronouncement 
of St. Cyprian: "licet, salvo jure communionis, diversum sen- 
tire." 40 Everything is fundamentally common to the East 
and the West, and yet everything is different. We have 
elsewhere suggested that, loosely speaking, a great many of 
these differences may be due to the platonic line of thought 
followed in the East, and the aristotelian one followed in 
the West, without, of course, any technical or historical 
dependence on either Plato or Aristotle. 41 But we trust no 
one expects us to insert at this point a chapter on compara- 
tive symbolism. 


These cultural and religious differences are very important; 
consequently, even where the fundamental positions are iden- 



deal, still almost everything is different because differently 
felt, interpreted, construed, expressed and experienced. That 
is why we have given so much space to these elements in 
our book, Divided Christendom. 42 The extremely interest- 
ing criticism raised by Vl. Lossky, which we have since 
taken into account, has not shaken our actual convictions 
confirmed since by so many facts, and which are likewise 
the convictions of some excellent experts and friends of the 
East. 43 We wish that all Catholics would become aware 
of these factors and their importance; we wish they might 
enter into a sympathetic and patient consideration of the 
spirit of the East and, since we must face it, the spirit of 
Orthodoxy. This is the main reason why we have welcomed 
a number of works on the Slavophile movement into our 
French collection, Unam sanctam. 

It is not a question of abolishing these differences, but 
it is imperative that we do not elevate them to an absolute. 
We have seen in the matter of rite, how this danger is not 
merely imaginary. Moreover, the danger presents itself in 
slightly different ways in the East and in the West. 

On the Catholic side, there is the danger of reconciling 
a Latinism in fact with a catholicity of intention; there is 
the danger of practically identifying part of the Christian 
tradition with that tradition as a whole, and this in matter 
of piety and theological thought. We say "a part of the 
Christian tradition," and mean by this not its Western form 
alone but a period of that tradition for example its scho- 
lastic or medieval or baroque period, or its period of 
administrative centralization, or similar instances. It is 
quite a natural tendency to mistake "accepted" ideas for 
tradition ! 



On the part of the Orientals, or more precisely the Ortho- 
dox, the clanger lies in identifying true Christianity with 
the Orthodox Church, not only dogmatically but with its 
national and Eastern forms as such. The conscience of Chris- 
tianity tends to be identified with the conscience of the East 
itself, and the East, as such, becomes, by definition, pure, 
holy, profound, and blessed by God. 44 Many times, when 
talking to an Orthodox, have I felt the unconscious atti- 
tude of one who has a fixed point of reference for all his per- 
ceptions and which could be explained like this: what is 
Western is insipid, superficial, exterior, mechanical; what is 
Eastern is profound, interior, living. . . 

For a great many peoples of the Near East, the Church 
not only the Orthodox, but also the Nestorian or Mono- 
physite has represented a national refuge; it is in the Church 
that they have preserved their national pecularities despite 
the various invaders and conquerors to whom they have been 
subject. The consequences have been a strengthening of 
national characteristics and the hemming-iii of Christianity 
within national and ethnical boundaries. As the late lamented 
Dom Clement Lialine said, making a play on the French 
word pierre (rock=Peter), "Just as the Catholics have been 
accused of * rock-like insensibility,' so the Orthodox could 
be accused of 'rock-like incuriosity.'" 45 In Russia, where 
this has played a smaller part, and the Orthodox Church 
has been closely and almost inextricably linked to the na- 
tional life, the continuity has been so strong that even the 
Bolshevik regime has not succeeded in breaking it. Besides, 
the Slavophiles of the Nineteenth Century systematized with 
remarkable profundity the sentiment of identification between 
a whole people the Russians and true Christianity. Slavo- 



philes benefitted by the contributions of German Roman- 
ticism and Idealism, of the German idea of a Volksgeist, 
which the Slavophiles transposed into a highly spiritual 
theology of the Church wherein the people themselves the 
Orthodox Russian people are the bearers of truth and 
holiness. 46 It seems clear to us, at least, that the Slavophiles 
have erected into absolutes the Eastern and national elements, 
at least as they are conceived by them and highly idealized. 
The criticism of Soloviev is to a great extent well founded. 47 
Every reader of Dostoevsky knows that in his writings this 
has been carried to the point of an idolatry of "Russian 
Christianity" and of "the Russian God." 48 It was towards 
the end of the Nineteenth Century and following the new 
ways opened by the Slavophiles, that anthropological dif- 
ferences and religious peculiarities were sytematized. Prince 
Eugene Troubetskoy seems to have been the first to do it 
with scope and penetration. 49 Aside from a whole literature 
on "the Russian Soul," all of this has had the result of in- 
creasing and crystallizing the consciousness of being quite 
different from the Westerners, and in many respects has 
even widened the breach. 

It is clear that such "absolutisations" of local and cul- 
tural elements would destroy all possibility of one day re- 
uniting the separated communities into one communion. 
Assuredly, the accentuation of cultural peculiarities has been 
both the cause and the effect of schism. The late lamented 
Dom Nicholas Oehmen 50 analyzed with great theological 
perspicacity the way in which it was the fatal cause of schism. 
Israel, chosen to be the people of God, was not noted for 
its high culture; men were called to unite themselves (eccle- 
sia) in pure faith in the Word, in the pure grace of Jesus 



Christ, in short, they were called upon to adhere to a supra- 
human, supra-rational, supra-cultural plan. The divisions result- 
ed from the fact that elements of a cultural and human 
order were brought into religion, such as Hellenism, Latin 
temperament, Scholasticism, and others. From this point of 
view, the schisms are linked together as in a chain, and 
one might say that the schism of the Sixteenth Century 
would not have occurred had there not been the schism 
of the Eleventh Century, and that the latter in turn would 
not have occurred had there not been the first breach, the 
one by which the Christian Church left the human pov- 
erty of the people of God for the human wealth of nations. 
Much indeed, could be said on this subject. It is possible 
to visualize, as we have done in Divided Christendom, the 
work of unification being carried out within a truly Catho- 
lic framework and this with an amplitude that would admit 
the possiblility of contributions from all peoples and all cul- 
tures. At least the problem has been stated in all its force. 




Two ecclesiastical worlds, a duality, have asserted them- 
selves ever since the time of Constantine if not from the 
very beginnings: "uterque orbis," as Pope St. Simplicius was 
to write. 1 If we were to trace the development of this du- 
ality in this state of mutual ignorance and estrangement, the 
acceptance of which really constitutes the schism, we would 
have to rewrite the whole history of the two churches. Here 
I can only stake out the terrain, indicating significant land- 
marks rather than give a complete documentation. In the 
year of 342 "the first great manifestation of antagonism 
between the two halves of Christiantiy" 2 took place during 
the Council of Sardica (now Sofia). Not that the Council 
was purely Western in composition, 3 as it has sometimes 
been said, but it remained on the periphery of the two 
worlds, within the area of Western obedience: at the Coun- 
cil, Latin was spoken, the acts were first drawn up in Latin, 
but their Greek translator significantly enough, transformed 
or toned down the implications of the canon which cited 
Rome as supreme. 4 Not only were the two doctrinal po- 
sitions in opposition that of the Westerners being saner but 
two groups of church leaders and two ways of conceiving 



the canonical regime of life or of Church union were op- 
posing each other. 

The crisis and the quarrel aroused by Arianism gave both 
the East and the West the opportunity to note that they 
did not have the same preoccupations, the same way of 
reasoning. There began to be held two parallel councils 
as at Sardica: so, for instance, in 359, when the Council of 
Rimini and that of Seleucia Trachea were held simultane- 
ously. As we have seen from the number of periods during 
which Constantinople and Rome broke off communion be- 
tween the years 323 and 787, or between 337 and 843, it is 
clear that a kind of "separateness" had become a kind of 

It was in the atmosphere of this latent rupture that the 
complicated and interminable episodes of the schism of An- 
tioch took place 5 in spite of the noble attempt of St. Basil 
to find a unanimity under the aegis of Rome. What was 
at the bottom of this affair ? Questions of personalities, of 
strictness in matter of orthodoxy, or in matters concerning 
personal qualities or, as Cavallera thinks, a misunderstanding 
as to the way of conceiving ecclesiastical discipline ? In any 
case, long interruptions of communion ensued, often only 
partial and not always continuing, since a given see some- 
times remained in communion with either of two churches 
in schism with each other. And once again, parallel and 
discordant councils were held at Constantinople and at Rome 
in 382. It was in this rather unfavorable atmosphere that 
the name of "Constantinople, the second Rome," acquired 
its official and canonical existence, sanctioned by the Coun- 
cil of Constantinople in 381. In short, the East and the 
West were separated. 6 Even if we do not stress the indications, 



with Cavallera, of a marked anti-Western trend on the part 
of the Eastern Church in this case the Syrians there remains 
the fact that the "relations between the Church of the East 
and the Church of the West, during the last third of the 
Fourth Century, had already crystallized as strained. On the 
part of the one and the other, there were misunderstandings, 
disagreements and lack of sympathy despite a sincere desire 
for concord." 7 

The reactions were often different in the East and the 
West in regard to the 5th-century heresies: Pelagianism and 
questions of grace, 8 Christological difficulties, Nestorianism, 
and Monophysitism. Before and especially after the Coun- 
cil of Chalcedon, the East was prone to react in the Alex- 
andrian way, that is to say, to show itself more favorable 
toward Monophysitism; the West always wanted to save, 
if one may so express it, the portion of the Nestorian truth 
consecrated by Chalcedon. The resistance to the condem- 
nations of the Three Chapters desired by Justinian (Theo- 
dora) unified Africa, Italy and Illyricum. 9 The different 
ways of approaching the unique mystery of Christ in the 
East and the West the one putting a more lively value on 
the acts of his humanity, the other on a line of descent from 
celestial realities to the midst of the sensible word were 
bound to have correspondences or consequences in liturgy 
and ecclesiology. In the Orient there developed a rather 
sumptuous liturgy, imbued with the Holy Mysteries and the 
idea of "Heaven on Earth." It was a church essentially 
sacramental, a church of prayer with less attention to the 
exigencies of its militant and its itinerant state. The West, 
especially Rome, held to a more sober liturgy which was 
aimed at the edification of the individual and his moral 


needs. 10 This was a church much more effectively marked 
by the sytem of militant action and the human expression 
of the spiritual-celestial authority that of Peter and that of 

At a time when Rome was more and more finding and 
accepting a co-existence with the Western, that is to say, 
the barbarian powers, Constantinople was becoming more 
and more Oriental. Dvornik has noted some significant in- 
dications of this fact, particularly in observing which churches 
were represented at the councils of the Seventh, Eighth 
and Ninth Centuries. 11 Illyricum, Greek in language but 
Roman in patriarchical obedience, was conspicuously absent 
from them. We have already pointed out that, after Her- 
aclius (610-641), in the course of the concentration and ren- 
ovation undergone by the Byzantine Empire in consequence 
of the Arab peril, there took place a more complete Hel- 
lenization and nationalization of the Church under the rule 
of the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose influence in- 
creased, 12 Following the Iconoclast crisis in the mid-Eighth 
Century, the quarrel was intensified and the politico-religious 
breach widened. The Emperors used Iconoclasm as a means 
of controlling the Church, (The Ecloge of the Emperor Leo 
III in 776 opens with a declaration in which he applies to 
himself the text of John XXI,is and following). 13 This oc- 
curred at the moment when Prankish protection was of- 
fered to the papacy and brought to it the material basis of 
its independence of the Basileus. Through all this, the dis- 
affection and estrangement of the two orbis became trag- 
ically complete. However, the iconophiles who had found 
support in Rome from Pope Gregory II and had partially 
triumphed thanks to his support, submitted to an Occidental 


Council the Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council 
the last which East and West held in common of the year 
787. Unfortunately, the new protector of the papacy, Charle- 
magne, ruined this chance for unanimity (The Libri Carolini 
and the Council of Frankfurt in 790 and 794). It is true 
that the Acts of the Seventh Council had been transmitted 
to Charlemagne in a poor version and that the Pope had 
delayed approving them by reason of the caesaropapism 
which was mingled in them. Charlemagne was also guilty 
of having deepened the mutual distrust. For it was likewise 
the period when he imposed the Filioque upon the churches 
of his empire and went so far as to refuse the per Filium in 
the Libri Carolini, thus giving for a long time credence in 
the Greek mind to the idea that the Latins allow two princi- 
ples of the Holy Ghost and that the formula of several East- 
ern Fathers, a formula which the Council of Florence was 
to recognize as possibly equivalent in meaning to the Filio- 
que, was in reality opposed to it. Thus, Khomiakov and the 
Slavophiles date from this period the "moral fratricide" and 
the beginning of the rupture which they attribute entirely 
to the West ! 14 Yet Pope Adrian I defended the Seventh 
Ecumenical Council against the Libri Carolini as well as the 
procession of the Holy Ghost "a Patre per Filium"; Pope 
Leo HI, confronting the envoys of Charlemagne, held the 
position which was to be that of many Orientals: legitimacy 
of the doctrine, illegitimacy of the addition of the Filioque. 
He then caused to be engraved and placed before the tomb 
of St. Peter two silver placques bearing the text of the Creed, 
the one in Latin, the other in Greek, without the Filioque. 15 





Throughout an entire history of which we have recalled 
just a few episodes, but which is, as a whole, the history of 
gradual estrangement, the Metropolitans of Constantinople 
increased their influence and developed what many West- 
ern historians call their pretensions or ambitions. It is a his- 
tory often retraced since it is regarded as the most decisive 
chapter in the preparation and causes of the schism itself. 16 
Certain Orthodox historians, for their part, admit that the 
ambitions of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were partially 
responsible for the schism. 17 The schism had, indeed, begun 
from the moment that there could be constituted a Patri- 
archate of Constantinople in a national Church, coextensive 
with the political jurisdiction of the Emperor. Significantly 
enough, HergenrSther commences his authoritative work, 
Photius, sein Leben, seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma 
(1867-69), with the founding of Constantinople. It seems 
hardly debatable that thenceforth an implacable logic drove 
the Church of Constantinople towards an autonomy indep- 
endent of any other ecclesiastical metropolis, and towards 
playing a dominant role in the Eastern portion of Chris- 
tianity. Moreover, other cities argued at one time or another 
that they had been, or still were, imperial residences, in order 
to claim an independence: so, for example, Milan and Aquil- 
eia (Roma secunda); and why not Ravenna, Aries, Treves, or 
Aix-la-Chapelle, which was called "new Rome" in the poetry 
of the time of Charlemagne? 18 

This pretension of Constantinople is inscribed not only 
in the events but in the canonical texts. The sequence of 



the latter is so well known that we may be excused if we do 
not go into detail. There was, first of all, the Council of 
Constantinople in 381: 

That the Bishop of Constantinople holds primacy of rank ( Ta xoea- 
fiela rf^ Tifitrj~) after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople 
is the new Rome. 19 

Then we have the famous canon 28 of the Council of 
Chalcedon in 451: 

Following in all things the decrees of the Holy Fathers and recogni- 
zing the Canon of the 150 bishops beloved of God, the said canon 
having been read, we also, being of the same mind, decree and ac- 
cord equally the same prerogative (rrsgt raw nQeapefov) to the 
Holy Church of Constantinople, the new Rome. It was with justice 
indeed that the Fathers had granted to Old Rome the prerogatives 
it enjoyed because that city is the place where the Emperor reigns. 
Moved by the same considerations, the 150 bishops have decided that 
the new Rome, which now has the honor of being the seat of Em- 
pire and of the Senate and enjoys, on the civilian plane, privileges 
equalling those of the ancient imperial Rome, shall have the same 
privileges in the ecclesiastical order, and be second only to Rome." 20 

We know what St. Leo's reaction was on the subject of 
the 28th Canon: "In irritum mittimus et per auctoritatem 
B. Petri apostoli, generali prorsus definitione cassamus." 21 
Thus the Pope reacted against the principle that assimilated 
the ecclesiastical order to the political one. 22 But, as Wuyts 
has well shown (see Note 20 supra), he especially reacted in 
the name of the ancient tradition establishing the ecclesias- 
tical order of itself on the canonical plane (Canon 6 of Nicaea). 
His Holiness Pope Pius XII noted that the 28th Canon of 
Chalcedon did not fundamentally go counter to the Roman 
primacy, and that it was for other reasons that St. Leo rejected 
it. The reaction of the Pope had its effect, since the Slavic 
Nomocanon in the Ninth Century expressly omits our Canon 



because of St. Leo's refusal to sanction it. 23 Practically, 
however, no attention was paid in Byzantium to this reaction 
or to the way in truth, rather debatable in which Rome 
constructed its vision of the Apostolic regime of the Church, 
herself flourishing and strong, beginning with the Apostle 
Peter. 24 The Metropolitan of Constantinople to whom Rome 
for a long time avoided even giving the tide of Patriarch, 25 
later refusing to recognize the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch, 
that is, "principal" or perhaps "imperial" 26 contin- 
ued to increase and affirm the primacy of his rank as well 
as his prestige, independence, and real influence over all 
churches of the Byzantine Empire. 27 The legal texts con- 
tinued after the Council of Chalcedon, such as Novella 131 of 
Justinian (March 18, 545) , 28 or the Second Quinisext Council 
of Trullo (6p2). 29 One might say that the idea of the Patriarch 
of Constantinople ranking immediately after the Bishop of 
ancient Rome was fixed in the consciousness of the East. 
Rome, for her part, accepted this idea only reluctantly 
and without giving to it the exact meaning it had in By- 
zantium. And Rome, while holding out against the pre- 
tensions of the Patriarch, unceasingly pursued the struggle 
against those of the Emperor, setting Apostolic principles 
against the politico-religious principle in the conception of 
the life of the Church. Though sometimes expressed with 
regrettable bluntness, and a lack of preciseness in wording 
and even by the use of formulae that were themselves debat- 
able, the Apostolic principle and the correlative theory of 
the distinction of powers as Pope Gelasius defined them, 
animated the Roman attitude in the course of the numerous 
crises which, until the fatal date of 1054, set her in opposition 
to Constantinople. 



The painful points are familiar: as always, they brought 
about a truly irreconciliable opposition when political inter- 
ests or questions of influence became entangled with reli- 
gious questions (as in usages and liturgy), canonical matters 
(as in the affair of the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI 
the Wise, [886-912]), or points of dogma such as Iconoclasm 
or the various imperial heresies. This was particularly the 
case for the question of Illyricum, a latent irritation ever 
since the Fourth Century, which became acute in the Eighth 
Century during the Iconoclast dispute, when Constantinople 
annexed what remained of the province, and later, when 
the Bulgarian difficulty added fuel to the conflict between 
Photius and Rome. 30 Thus, Constantinople had accomplished 
her aim of making her ecclesiastical domain coincide with 
the political and cultural domain of the Empire. The logic 
was to be carried through to its ultimate conclusion, that is, 
to the claim of an independent and therefore sovereign author- 
ity; and to the point of the estrangement of two worlds* 
two orbis. But since the schism was realized in the minds 
and hearts of men before it entered into events and formal 
declarations, we must now, before describing the final episode 
of the separation, trace the main lines of a secular opposition 
to the canonico-theological concept of the organization and 
administration of ecclesiastical life. 


It must be clearly specified at what level the two theories 
of the Church differ. The difference is not, first of all, on 
the dogmatic level. There is an idea of the Church as the 
body of Christ, as communication of the faith through the 



catechism and baptism, then of sanctifying grace through the 
other sacraments, supremely the Eucharist; this idea is the 
same in both the East and the West. This identity of belief 
extends to the sacramental and hierarchical structure of the 
Church, to the respective positions of the priesthood and the 
faithful in regard to the sources of sanctification. 31 Briefly, 
the mystery of the Church is fundamentally the same in both 
the East and the West. 

Therefore, is it right to see, as Zankov does, 32 for example 
the conceptual differences of the two ecclesiologies as the 
cause of the breach ? Doubtless, the author professes a "neo- 
orthodox" theology of the Church, a theology which some 
would call "modernist," or shall we say precisely, Slavophile, 
and perhaps he unduly traces this concept back to the Tenth 
Century. Let us study the question more closely: here is 
our hypothesis, based on the study of the historical develop- 
ment of ecclesiology, especially in the West, a study the 
results of which we hope some day to present elsewhere. 
The theology of the mystery of the Church, both in the West 
and in the East, may be summed up as a point of view on 
the constitution and administration of the Church, a "polity" 
of the Church, as it was called in the Sixteenth and Seven- 
teenth Centuries. This point of view is expressed in the 
canonical declarations. Now, although the mystery of the 
Church is fundamentally the same in the East and the West, 
yet two different canonical traditions developed independently 
in the East and in the West; very soon, and with ever greater 
force, they were in opposition to each other and clashing. 33 
The clash was all the more irremediable since, in both the 
East and the West, the canonical determinations involved a 
certain theological interpretation and outlook as to the Church 



and so, they took on dogmatic value. This was especially 
so in the West, where the principal and decisive question of 
this practical ecclesiology the primacy and infallibility of 
the Roman See became the focal point of ecclesiology and 
finally received a formal dogmatic definition. 

Such, in a few words, is the drama that we will have to 
unfold in this section. We will first of all present the develop- 
ment of the Eastern tradition, then that of the Roman and 
Catholic position; but it must be remembered that, his- 
torically, these two developments were concomitant and pro- 
duced that progressive alienation, that decisive estrangement, 
the acceptance of which, we repeat with some qualification 
which will be given in our last chapter represents the very 
reality of the schistn. 

The East: misunderstanding of how the West conceived the 


It is a fact that the East recognized the primacy of the 
Bishop of Rome. Doubtless not entirely with the meaning 
and to the degree that we are led to believe by certain Catholic 
writings, but much more widely than the Orthodox today 
are willing to admit. These present-day members of the 
Orthodox faith are apparently held back by their determina- 
tion not to admit the modalities and consequences of the 
primacy as developed by the Roman Church and by their 
refusal even to admit what is historically and categorically 
attested. Here again it is impossible to give a full account 
of the two positions, since even a summary would require a 
whole volume. We refer the reader to those studies that 
exist 34 and will here merely give the argument in outline. 



To begin with, let us recognize that a good number 
of facts proposed as proof demonstrate no more than 
the Orthodox of today would not -refuse to admit. This 
is particularly true of the "appeals to Rome," or the laws 
handed down by the Basileis. The appeals were often not 
addressed to the Pope alone; for instance, Origen did not 
submit his orthodoxy to Fabian alone, but to other bishops 
as well; St. John Chrysostom addressed himself to Milan and 
Aquileia as well as to Rome; and the Emperor Leo VI sub- 
mitted the question of his fourth marriage to the other Pa- 
triarchs as well as to the Pope. Again, the appeals sometimes 
presupposed nothing other than the position of the prima 
sedes, of which there never was any question. 

On the other hand, we see Rome affirming her primacy 
throughout the centuries without this causing the East to break 
off communion or denounce an abuse. Let us admit the deba- 
table point, 35 that the very forceful texts of Pope Siricius, (3 84- 
398), of Pope Innocent I (401-417), of Pope Zosimus (417- 
418), and of Pope Boniface (418-422) are aimed directly at 
the East. 36 The fact remains that Pope Julius I (337-352) 
voided a Council held in the East, and that Athanasius sub- 
mitted to this judgment; there remain the universal and 
unconditional claims of St. Leo (440-46i) 37 and of Gelasius; 
there remains the famous Formula of Hormisdas (515) to 
which the bishops of the East, perhaps unwillingly, subscribed 
at the end of the schism of Acacius; 38 and there remain the 
affirmations of St. Gregory the Great which the Patriarch 
John IV ("The Faster") and Cyriacus admitted, although the 
Pope reprimanded them strongly. (See note 26, supra). In 
the impressive mass of writings and facts assembled by Jugie 
to demonstrate that the East recognized the Roman primacy, 



a great number of them which concern the Fourth and Fifth 
Centuries, in particular the Great Councils of the period, 

seem to be conclusive. 39 The testimonies continued after the 

Seventh Century: that of St. Theodore of Studion (f 826) 
is famous, and that of his contemporary, St. Nicephorus, 
Patriarch of Constantinople, deserves to be no less so. 40 They 
even continued to a certain degree after the schism, if indeed 
the texts cited by our authors will bear the sense attributed 
to them. 41 

However, it must be confessed that the consciousness of 
the Roman primacy was not expressed in the East at the 
period when that primacy became classically fixed in tra- 
dition, at least not with a clarity that alone could have avoided 
schism. In the great councils held in the East, there had never 
been a formula on the universal primacy by divine right. 
Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged 
to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so 
considered by the Universal Church, do not offer us any 
more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they 
recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they re- 
garded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major 
part in the Catholic communion we are recalling, for exam- 
ple, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil 
who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the diffi- 
culties of the schism of Antioch but they provide us with 
no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome 
by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Na- 
zianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, 42 St. John Chrys- 
ostom, 43 St. John Damascene. 44 We do not find texts in 
the East as strong as those in the West; the rescripts of Theo- 
dore and of Valentinian II and Valentinian III concern the 



West. In a number of documents Rome is merely portrayed 
as an ecclesiastical and canonical court of first instance. In 
other texts, Rome is recognized as having the right as first 
See, of intervening to preserve the purity of doctrinal tra- 
dition, but not to regulate the life of the churches or to settle 
questions of discipline in the East. Finally and to our mind 
this is the most important point although the East rec- 
ognized the primacy of Rome, it did not imply by this 
exactly what Rome herself did, so that, even within the 
question on which they were in agreement, there existed the 
beginning of a very serious estrangement bearing upon the 
decisive element of the ecclesiastical constitution and the rule 
of communion. 

Batiffol has summed up all this very well: 
I believe that the East had a very poor conception of the Roman 
primacy. The East did not see in it what Rome herself saw and 
what the West saw in Rome, that is to say, a continuation of the 
primacy of St. Peter. The Bishop of Rome was more than the suc- 
cessor of Peter on his cathedra, he was Peter perpetuated, invested with 
Peter's responsibility and power. The East has never understood 
this perpetuity. St. Basil ignored it, as did St. Gregory Nazianzen 
and St. John Chrysostom. In the writings of the great Eastern Fathers, 
the authority of the Bishop of Rome is an authority of singular 
grandeur, but in these writings it is not considered so by divine right. 
It is regrettable thac so fundamental an issue was not settled by full 
discussion and by an ecumenical council, during the centuries when 
there was still union. 45 

Despite this difference in the content of ideas, despite the 
opposite positions taken the Romans with their thesis of 
supreme apostolic power attached to Peter, the Greeks with 
their leanings towards an Imperial Church regulated by the 
canonical systems more or less subordinate to the Basileus a 
modus vivendi was established. The expression is, we believe, 



that of L. Brehier; 46 it has proven popular and the idea has 
been taken up by several Catholic historians. 

Batiffol has proposed the very enlightening idea of three 
zones in which the papal potestas was exercised: (i) a zone 
around the city of Rome, immediately subject to Rome, 
(2) the zone of the West outside of Italy, and (3) a zone of 
universal extension but concretely representing the East where 
Rome only intervened, but with authority, as arbiter of the 
whole communion and as judge in causae majores. 47 

Even at the most brilliant epoch of the Roman primacy, 
that of St. Leo (440-461) to which the subsequent epochs 
added very little, that was the state of things; St. Leo wanted 
to avoid the possibility of Constantinople's isolating herself 
and becoming a completely autonomous center in the East, 48 
but he allowed the Eastern churches to administer themselves 
and intervened only in affairs which placed Catholic unity 
in question. 49 While struggling for the principle of the Kir- 
chenfilhrung that should be apostolic and deriving from Peter 
instead of being politico-local, Rome finally came to accept 
many things on the part of the Emperor and of the Patriarch 
of Constantinople. 50 Dvornik has shown, principally on the 
basis of the Council of 86 1, that Photius had admitted the 
Roman primacy as imbedded in our modus Vivendi: ad- 
ministrative and canonical autonomy of the local churches 
under the rule of the Universal Church, assured by a cano- 
nical primacy of Rome. This was exercised in the appeals 
to Rome and the judgment by the Pope and his legates of 
the canonical debates of the East. 51 It was a regime of this 
type, with a more precise recognition of the primacy, that 
Innocent III himself approved for the Bulgarians. 52 
Thus we find a certain duality in the exercise of the pri- 



macy: There were, moreover, frequent interventions, as 
well as the exercise of the role of arbiter which involved a 
true and proper power of jurisdiction. The Christian op- 
timism of Brehier in the study cited above makes him consider 
the continuation of such a modus vivendi or even its eventual 
reestablishment quite possible and almost easily achieved. 53 
Perhaps this results from not seeing quite clearly enough that 
beneath the duality of the regime there was in reality an 
ambiguity of canonical and ecclesiological views. The devel- 
opment of the consciousness of the primacy in Rome and in 
the West, with the even stronger affirmation that it entailed, 
caused this ambiguity to be tragically revealed, 54 and the dog- 
matic definition pronounced since then in the Catholic Church, 
makes it henceforth impossible to be overlooked. Before 
examining the ideas that prevailed in Rome and in the West 
let us try to grasp the point of view of the East. 

Once more we must go back to the Council of Sardica, 
which we have already seen was the first great manifestation 
of the estrangement on the plane of the Church as such. 
Sardica was an attempt by the West to canonize the regulatory 
role of Rome. Now, if it would be inexact to believe that 
Sardica was in no way accepted in the East, 55 it still is true 
that it did not play the same part there, as in the West, where 
its canons were for a long time confounded with those of 
Nicaea, indeed were still so confounded until the time of 
St. Leo, and this despite the discussion begun in 419 between 
Rome and Carthage. 56 The cause of the estrangement 
was that some authorities considered certain canons which 
regulated appeals to Rome to apply to the whole Church 
and in reality they were hardly ever applied in the West 
and others gave them no such value. 


The canons reflect certain interpretations and a certain 
way of conceiving things. Now, as we have seen, the East 
did not feel quite the same as the West did about the Church. 
In the East there was an empirical feeling attached to the 
local community, much more than an idea bearing upon the 
(universal) Church. 57 There was also a taste for freedom and 
a kind of individualism or particularism which called for 
free discussion and which should fit into a collegial or synodal 
regime. 58 In fact, the East was eventually to crystallize its 
canonical tradition along the lines of administrative autonomy 
of the local churches (as expressed by Canon 5 of Nicaea and 
Canon 8 of Ephesus) with only very grave matters to be 
brought before a council. Rome, on the other hand, was to 
tend more and more to intervene in the life of the churches, 
certainly for their welfare, to be sure and was soon to insist 
upon considering that what she had judged was no longer a 
matter to be discussed, but to be carried out. The case of 
the two great councils, of Chalcedon and of Ephesus, where 
the Roman primacy was clearly established, is a significant 
example. At Ephesus the East, that is, Cyril and his followers, 
had passed judgment already before the arrival of the legates. 
But in Rome the matter was already considered judged by the 
letters of Celestine. When the legates arrived in Ephesus, 
Nestorius being already condemned and deposed, they called 
attention to the fact that the Council had been called together 
to carry out the decisions already made in Rome, and to 
adhere to the faith of the Head. 59 Very instructive for Chal- 
cedon, especially if we compare it with the opposite tendency, 
noted previously with regard to Sardica, was the slight var- 
iation which is found between the two following texts. 
The first is that of the Papal legates to the Council, and the 



second that of Pope Leo I communicating the judgment to 

the Bishops of Gaul: 

For these reasons, Leo, the most holy and most blessed Archbishop 
of the great and older Rome, through us and through this holy synod 
here assembled, and in union with the thrice-blessed Peter the apostle 
who is worthy of all praise and is theVone and support of the Cath- 
olic Church and the foundation of the true faith, deprived Diosco- 
rus of all episcopal dignity... 60 

For these reasons the holy and most blessed Pope Leo, head of the 
universal Church, through us his legates, with the agreement of this 
holy synod, endowed with the dignity of the Apostle Peter... 61 

It is the same text, and yet there is a subtle difference 
between the Greek version and the Latin translation. 

According to the law followed in the West and in eccle- 
siastical life, from the end of the Fourth Century onward, 
the Decretals that is to say, the papal epistles replying authori- 
tatively to some questions take on more and more impor- 
tance. We have already noted this date in conjunction with 
the Council of Constantinople (381), then with the reply 
of Damasus (382) and with a whole series of his immediate 
successors, as the crucial one when the East and the West 
began to drift apart ecclesiologically. It was also exactly 
the period when the Byzantine Church provided itself with 
a canonical institution corresponding to the Roman synods, 
the council of the Pope, whose judgments, once given, be- 
come imperative: the avvodog svdrj/tovaa or permanent syn- 
od. The institution began to function after the Council of 
381, even though it did not officially receive its name of synod 
until the Council of Chalcedon. 62 Between 381 and 451, 
Constantinople extended its jurisdiction over the two "dioce- 
ses" of Asia Minor; Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon laid down 
the procedure for appeals to the Patriarchal See. The per- 



manent synod became an ecclesiastical tribunal of empire; 
and this at the very time when Rome, for her part, was af- 
firming her right of universal judgment. 

But the creation of a properly so-called Oriental canonical 
tradition came long after this. Two great blocks entered 
into it: (i) the legislation of Justinian I, under whom the 
opposition of an Eastern tendency towards Monophysitism 
was particularly felt and, in the West, a sharper affirmation 
of the dual nature of Christ; 63 (2) the canons of the Quinisext 
Council (the Second Council of Trullo) of 692, At this 
council, canons were enacted which were not only based on 
the right of local churches to self-determination but in the 
very name of the Apostles canons which in reality dated 
only from the Fourth and Fifth Century. 64 Pope Sergius 
refused his signature. In the subsequent quarrels between 
the East and Rome, at the time of Photius and of Cerularius 
in particular, and even today, a great portion of the grievance 
over rites, customs, and discipline that the Easterners were 
to put before Rome, would have their source in the canons 
of this Second Council of Trullo, which had assumed the 
force of law in the East but had not been recognized by 
Rome. 65 When, for example, the quarrel broke out in 905 over 
the fourth m arriage of Emperor Leo VI, which was to be another 
stage in the alienation of the two churches, it was in the name 
of his own legislation and his canonical autonomy that the Pa- 
triarch of Constantinople was to resist a decision taken by Rome 
in the name of her own tradition. 66 The decisive estrangement, 
however, in matters of law, liturgy and customs dates from 
692. 6 7 This is also the date of the Monothelite dispute, the 
Arab conquest, the growth of the Church in the Germanic 
lands, where the devotion to St. Peter was to flourish. 



The West The Pope as Primate and arbiter for 
the Universal Church. 

Quite soon, Rome became conscious of her power to 
promulgate definitive decrees, valid in themselves, anywhere 
in the world. Without doubt, testimonies to this could be 
found from the time of, say, Pope Victor (189-199); but 
we are not at present writing a history of the primacy. It is 
certain that Rome, in her various contacts with the East, 
has always held this position. Apparently it is also scarcely 
debatable that the East, except for a few remarkable cases, 
never willingly and unreservedly admitted that something 
decided in the East by a synodal tribunal and according to 
Eastern tradition, should be considered as not decided and 
therefore subject to a decision from Rome which, once given, 
would be irreversible and without appeal. The cause of the 
Easterners opposing the Council of Sardica was doubtless 
bad from a doctrinal point of view; but are we straining the 
meaning of the motives advanced if we see in them an initial 
protestation against the rejudging of a cause already judged 
by a council in the East? 68 At the same time the Eastern 
bishops who were partisans of Eusebius were reproaching 
Pope Julius I for having supported Athanasius despite the 
Council of Tyre where he had been judged and deposed. 69 
But Rome maintained her position, and that brilliantly, as 
for instance at the Council of Ephesus where the behavior 
and actions of the legates could not be more unambiguous. 70 
There is no lack of the most explicit declarations by the 
popes. 71 And in the affair of Photius we shall soon find 
the clash between the Roman "already-judged" and the Byz- 
antine intention to follow the Eastern synodal procedure. 



And yet, when the popes of the Fifth Century addressed 
themselves to the bishops of the East, they did not do so 
in the same tone and manner they adopted when addressing 
themselves to the bishops of Italy or even, more generally, 
to the bishops of the West. To the West, the popes spoke 
in the tone of the decretals; the East was treated as an assoc- 
iate. 72 Let us recall what was said above on the three zones 
of the papal potestas. The development was oriented towards 
a certain abolition of the lines of demarcation between these 
different zones. The papacy tended to govern all the churches 
as if they were within her metropolitan competence and, 
from the liturgical point of view as well as from the canonical 
and, apparently, from the dogmatic as well, to bring them 
in line with herself. 73 She succeeded in the West except, 
of course, in the countries affected by the Reformation Eng- 
land being the particularly interesting case but never in 
the East. 

We may now note the principal stages of the centralizing 
movement in its beginnings: Nicholas I and the False De- 
cretals 74 take us to the epoch of Photius, to Gregory VII 
and his powerful reform, and to the epoch of Cerularius. 75 

Photius and Cerularius: differences become formal opposition 

The history of the events has been remarkably well re- 
created (or reestablished) by Catholic scholars; there are the 
works of Grumel and Jugie, of Amann and Dvornik (espec- 
ially the latter) on the Patriarch Photius. 76 But this history 
has not been studied in the perspective of ecclesiological and 
canonical ideas, although this point of view is of prime impor- 
tance. Throughout the history of the estrangement we 



have the feeling that each side took up its stand without 
clearly stating it, in the name of a theology of the Church, 
of her unity, of her regime, and of the conditions of her 

Rome, especially under Nicholas I, acted in the concious- 
ness of her primacy understood as plenitude potestatis; she 
wished to impose upon Constantinople her point of view 
of an authority regulating everything in the Church, directly 
and definitively. 77 

Constantinople, on the other hand, whether represented 
by the Emperor or by Photius, or by other Eastern Patriarchs, 
acted as if power were exercised in the Church by the Pent- 
archy of the Patriarchs and by the Councils; as if that power 
were less a personal authority than a tradition preserved by 
the churches, 78 its exercise being controlled by the Councils, 
and in the intervals between Councils, by the fact of com- 
munion between the great sees which manifested itself parti- 
cularly by the sending of synodal letters. This opposition 
of ideas was obvious at the Council that opened on October 5, 
86p. 79 The legates wanted only to execute a sentence already 
handed down by Rome, whereas the Byzantines wanted the 
Council to take up the question from the beginning, with 
an investigative hearing of the accused: this is evident in 
the reticence of the Eastern bishops and the suggestions or 
demands of the wily Emperor. 

The human estrangement had reached its peak at the time 
of Photius, 80 who seriously increased the psychological tension 
and misunderstanding by transforming simple differences into 
oppositions by strenuous polemic. 81 Even after the reestablish- 
ment of union, both sides sank deeper into that "state of 
reciprocal ignorance" of which Jugie speaks. The general 



situation was favorable to Byzantium and unfavorable to 
Rome. At the end of the Tenth Century, the popes succeeded 
each other rapidly and were caught up in political and family 
intrigue, and this in the midst of anarchy and civil war. 
Between 896 and 1049, there was a succession of 43 popes, 
not one of whom has left a memory of a significant attempt 
at reconciliation with the East. In Byzantium, during the 
same time, the ecclesiology of the Patriarchs found definite 
expression entirely to the benefit of Constantinople, 82 and 
there was a strengthening of the intention to establish total 
independence. Historians admit 83 that the split had virtually 
occurred before Cerularius or from the beginning of the 
Eleventh Century, the time of Sergius II. No longer was 
word received in Rome from the East; when Peter of Antioch 
sent his synodal letter to Pope Leo DC, it was a matter for 
pleased astonishment. In 1025, the Patriarch Eustathius ex- 
pressed to John XIX the desire that Constantinople might 
be independent and sovereign "in suo orbe." 84 Thus, Jugie 
has been able to write of the separation that took place in 
1054: "Instead of speaking of a definitive schism, it would 
doubtless be more exact to say that at this date we are in 
the presence of the first abortive attempt at reunion." 85 

The part played by Cerularius was still the decisive one. 
Likewise decisive was the part played by the Roman legate, 
combative, stiff-necked Cardinal Humbert, whose bull of 
excommunication is a monument of unbelievable lack of under- 
standing. 86 Rome was certainly too ruthless at a moment 
which, as events were to prove, happened to be crucial, 
even though we may to some extent dissociate her cause 
from that of her impetuous legate, since the Pope had been 
dead for several months when Cardinal Humbert placed the 


bull of excommunication on the altar of Santa Sophia. We 
might indeed even question the canonical validity of the 
gesture. 87 But Cerularius very decidedly wanted the rup- 
ture. He wanted complete independence for Constantinople, 
and he worked towards that end not only against the Pope 
but against the Emperor Constantine Monomacus, whose 
anti-Norman policy in Southern Italy called for an entente 
with the Pope. 88 Cerularius wanted anything but an entente 
with the Pope and did everything to make the breach a lasting 
one, if we discount a few of his overtures that were calculated 
to put the imponderables on his side and give him the ap- 
pearance of being justified. We can even attribute to him 
the ambition to supplant both the Pope and the Emperor. 89 
By his violent polemic he poisoned the atmosphere. Wrapped 
up in his Byzantine tradition just as Humbert was in the 
Roman tradition, Cerularius accused the Latins of heterodoxy 
on all the points of custom or discipline in which they did 
not agree with his own practices. 90 

Even so, we have to recognize here once more something 
other than a vulgar quarrel or an act of personal ambition. 
The "Oriental schism" can no more be explained by the 
ambition of Cerularius than the Reformation can be explained 
by Martin Luther's efforts to shake off the yoke of his religious 
vows. There were also two ecclesiological systems confront- 
ing each other. The legates declared to Cerularius, as they 
had formerly done at the Council of 869, that they had come 
"not to learn and discuss but to teach and convey their de- 
cisions to the Greeks-" 91 Humbert was the man of the Gre- 
gorian reform, and in ecclesiology he held the most rigid 
views on pontifical power, as was presently to be seen in 
the famous Dictatus Papae, a kind of syllabus originating, it 



has recently been suggested, as a document responding to 
the conditions of union expressed by the Greeks, directed 
against the theory of the Pentarchy and setting forth the basic 
terms on which Rome would agree to resume union with 
the East. 92 It is not merely a polemical thesis proposed by 
that frenetic adversary of the papacy, Paolo Sarpi, 93 but 
rather an explanation admitted by many Byzantine scholars 
that the Gregorian reform movement contributed by its wil- 
fully ruthless ways and by its ecclesiological tendencies to 
precipitate the breach. 94 At any rate, in the Twelfth and 
Thirteenth Centuries, Byzantium was to critizise the absolut- 
ism, the centralization, and the fiscal policies of the Roman 
Curia to which the necessary and grandiose reform of Gre- 
gory VII was, so to say, the preface. 95 

We have reached the culminating point: the schism has 
occurred. Our thesis on the progressive estrangement has 
reached the date of 1054 which, though far from being the 
date of a total alienation, is a fatal one, since it seems to mark 
one of the greatest misfortunes that have ever befallen Chris- 
tianity. 96 
And now, what can be done, what can we conclude? 




The present, which is given us for action, is illumined by 
the past; history provides us with experiences of the past 
which can prepare us for the future. We can therefore ask 
ourselves two questions: What is the balance sheet of history 
on the actual substance of the "Oriental schism?" What 
can we do that will contribute to bringing it to an end? 


From the earliest centuries, manifold "differences" between 
East and West about practically everything evolved in such 
divergent ways that soon an estrangement began to set in 
which was hardened by mistrust and mutual ignorance. This 
development was gradual and simultaneous on almost every 
point of difference. 

At some periods, political questions dominated, at others 
ecclesiological questions came to the fore. But from the 
beginning to the end, the estrangement affected the whole 
situation, so that the different aspects that we have discerned 
and treated separately, must be reconstituted in a complex 
process as continuous as life itself. At times we have mentioned 



azymes, at others the Filioque; we have at times spoken of 
barbarism, and finally of papal monarchy. There were and 
still are many points of opposition, but in the long run there 
was an opposition, the opposition of an East and a West. 
The separation became more marked by the fact that each 
of the two portions of Christendom withdrew behind the 
barrier of its own tradition and always judged the other from 
the point of view of that tradition. Following the breach^f 
3054* each side set up its particular tradition as an absolute; 
oppositions became fixed, with the result that every step 
taken towards union, only resulted in a greater separation. 1 
Moreover, it must be recalled that the following century 
and a half was a period of great change in the West. In study- 
ing over a period of years our differences and the dialogue 
with our Orthodox friends, when we examined more closely 
the theological points that are the stumbling blocks, we saw 
that they crystallized in their present forms in the West par- 
ticularly from the end of this Eleventh Century, in which the 
estrangement became a complete separation. 2 Many of these 
points have since been the subject of dogmatic definitions in 
the West which only increases the difficulty. A dogmatic 
definition is not merely a juridical fact, but it is a reality 
touching the conscience of the Church, implying a maturing 
of that consciousness and determining its content in a way 
which has profound repercussions. When a dogmatic defini- 
tion is made without the participation of a portion of Chris- 
tei^dom, an occasion for estrangement is created which may 
never be adjusted. We have a significant example of this in 
the case of the Armenians who, by force of circumstances, 
remained outside the Christological debates of the Fifth Centu- 
ry and the Council of Chalcedon, and thus became Mono- 



physites. 3 Theological thought was amazingly active in the 
West from the Eleventh Century onward, but it was almost 
exclusively Latin, especially since Scholasticism soon entirely 
dominated it, and Scholasticism was an exclusively Western 
phenomenon. In fact, so thoroughly Western was it and this 
is one of the remarkable constants of its history that several 
attempts to introduce into Scholasticism the Greek point of 
view provoked a crisis. 4 

In any case, the ecclesiological difference that we pointed 
out, with regard to the ways of organizing the life of the 
Church, was strongly accentuated. In the very documents 
calculated to reestablish union, Innocent III speaks of decisions 
made by the Pope as completely binding in themselves, just 
as his predecessor Nicholas I, the legates of Hadrian II in 
869, or Leo IX had done, in IO54. 5 Later on, at the time of 
the Conciliar Movement, the author of a treatise composed 
in 1406, is under no illusions when he flatly sets the Eastern 
law (wholly based on the canons of councils) towards which, 
in fact, his preferences inclined, in opposition to the law that 
was growing in the Latin Church, which rested on the inalter- 
able decision of authority. 6 The elimination of Conciliarism 
on the very eve of the Council of Florence, then later, that 
of Gallicanism and Episcopalism, not to mention the tightening 
that took place during the Counter Reformation, inevitably 
resulted in la further sharpening of the difference in the way 
of conceiving the life of the Church. 7 

Quite frequently in this book, we have made the point 
that the estrangement has created further suspicion. We have 
even encountered the evil and vicious offspring of this sus- 
picion which has generated the violent anti-Latinism that, more 
than once has cried: "Death rather than Rome ! Rather the 



turban of Islam than the mitre of Rome." 8 Now, it is well 
known that, in accordance with one's feelings, one either 
looks for and finds a basis of agreement, or, on the other 
hand, tends to push differences into formal oppositions and 
thus soon contrasts become contraries. 9 A mind entirely 
set on resistance and opposition fundamentally does not want 
union; it not only does not seek or see the means, it does 
not even believe in the possibility of union and in fact does 
not even want that possibility. Luther, in his time, upon 
learning that a Reform Council was finally to be opened and 
that it would no doubt accord the chalice to the laity, declared 
that, in despite of the Council, he would establish communion 
under only one species and would anathematize those who 
would follow the Council. 10 Certain complaints, only too 
often repeated by the Orthodox down the centuries, indicate 
a complex of distrust and disdain which erects a mental barrier 
and thus blocks the path to unity. On the other hand, we 
have a quite remarkable example of what hearts really filled 
with the spirit of unity can accomplish in the interpretation 
of differences: it is to be found in the admirable letter which 
Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, wrote to Cerularius shortly after 
the events of July 1054; it is again to be found in the responses 
made 3 5 years later, by Theophylactus, Archbishop of Bulga- 
ria, in a letter to a cleric of Constantinople who had spoken 
to him of the shortcomings of the Latins. 11 

"It is recounted," writes Tournier, "that when Im Grund 
went to Nicholas de Flue to tell him of the grave dissensions 
of the Confederates and to ask for his advice, the blessed 
Nicholas took his rope girdle, tied a knot in it and held it 
out saying, "Will you untie this knot?' Ira Grund easily 
did so. 'It is thus/ said Nicholas 'that we must untangle the 



difficulties of mankind/ But when his interlocutor protested, 
saying that it was not as easy as that, Nicholas replied, 'You 
would not be able to untie this knot in the rope either, if 
we both pulled on each end, and that is always the way people 
try to untangle their difficulties/" 12 

Now, in quoting this allegorical tale, as well as in the 
exposition that precedes it, we may perhaps have seemed to 
present Rome and Constantinople as two separate Churches, 
equal partners in a conflict in which each has committed 
wrongs obviously of the same degree of seriousness. And 
certainly all the wrongs have not been on one side: Humbert 
of Romans quite frankly admitted that in his admirable mem- 
oir for the Council of Lyons in 1274 which we have already 
cited. 13 He likewise even posed the question: "Why do we 
call the Greeks schismatics rather than the Latins ?" 14 And he 
replied as follows: "It is because they are in rebellion against 
the Head." Both the question and the answer are of sufficient 
importance as to deserve a pause for detailed discussion. 
Recently, an Anglican posed fundamentally the same pro- 
blem, not quite seriously, however, 15 but for lack of a solid 
ecclesiology and being a victim of the vague nominalism 
so widespread in England, perhaps he did not know how to 
reply to it. One can only reply if one has (i) an organic idea of 
the Church; and (2) an ecclesiology of the Universal Church. 

The total Church is a unit and as such, has her own struct- 
ure. The Church is not composed uniquely of local churches 
identical in worth, although the Church is this. Nor is each 
local church merely a collectio fidelium, made up solely of the 
individual faithful, identically situated in regard to the apos- 
tolic faith. "Illi sunt Ecclesia," says St. Cyprian, "plebs sacer- 
doti adunata et pastori suo grex adhaerens." 16 ("These make 



up the Church: a people united to its priesthood and a flock 
at one with its shepherd.") 

In the Church there are simultaneously multitude and 
hierarchy, cells and a principle of unity: in short, it is an 
organism. In the Acts of the Apostles likewise, the Church is 
defined as the faithful who joined themselves to the Apostles 
and submitted to their ride. 17 And the Apostles themselves 
were not twelve individuals but "The Twelve"; they formed 
a body, a college; they were organically united. The con- 
gregation were "those with the Twelve"; the Eleven were 
"those with Peter." 1 ^ Within the Church, there is an organic 
structure; all parts of it are the living stones of the edifice, 
some being the foundation stones. Or, to change the figure 
of speech, all members of the Church are members of a flock, 
some being shepherds, and all belong to the house of God, 
of which some are stewards. 19 But among the foundation 
stones, one apostle is the rock upon which the edifice is built 
(Matthew 16.18); and among the shepherds, one has received 
the universal charge of the flock (John, 21); among the 
stewards, there was one upon whom were first bestowed the 
keys which the others subsequently obtained with him. The 
comparison of Matthew 16.16-19, with Matthew, 18. 15-18, 
which is often made in the controversies between the Ortho- 
dox and Catholics is at this point very appropriate. There 
are two texts, the only two of the Gospels in which the word 
ecdesia is spoken by Jesus, and ecclesiology must honor both 
texts. One of the texts applies to the jurisdiction of the bishops 
in each local ecdesia, the other applies to the jurisdiction of 
Peter in the ecdesia universalis. 

It should be understood that we make these brief remarks 
not so much to prove in a few lines a diesis which a large 



volume would scarcely suffice to establish, as to clarify and 
illustrate what we have to say. In the preceding pages we 
have seen how the East was mainly interested in local churches 
and the immediate experience acquired through living in 
them; how it paid little attention to the jurisdictional im- 
plications of the Church as a society centered, as it was, upon 
the mystical and sacramental aspects of ecclesiastical life: all 
reasons why the East has only poorly succeeded in realizing 
an ecclesiology of the Universal Church. But the Universal 
Church exists and, under God, possesses her structure as a 
Church Universal. If we say under God, we mean that it was 
instituted by Jesus Christ. But we do not mean to deny in 
expressing ourselves in this way, that history, circumstances, 
canonical determinations and other causes, all under provident- 
ial guidance, have contributed greatly to the development of 
pontifical authority and to the modalities, of themselves con- 
tingent and variable, for its actual exercise. This fact was 
recognized more widely and more generously by the ancients, 
popes as well as theologians, than is customary today by 
Catholic apologetics, harried as it is by controversy. 20 

All this shows sufficiently well that, in the separation 
brought about by a long and general estrangement, the faults 
are not equal, even though they are shared. In a quarrel 
between a father and a son, the responsibilities are never equal. 
Authority may have its faults, but it can never be fundament- 
ally at fault; we may rightly have reasons against it, but we 
are never right to go against it. Authority has its fundamental 
and intrinsic justification by its legitimate right, and by law. 
It is for this reason that we may say, speaking in all objec- 
tivity, that the Greeks rather than the Latins should be called 
schismatics. In the Oriental schism, which at this point we 



may write without the quotation marks, there are not merely 
two portions of Christianity which have drifted apart; there 
is an ensemble of local churches which separated themselves 
from the Apostolic See of Peter. This means thaF^Jhey are 
separated from the Center which exercises, with the primacy, 
the role of moderator of the Universal Church, of guide in 
her life, of criterion of her unity. This is~-alsQL-why as we 
have never concealed, either from our Orthodox friends or 
from our Protestant friends that union, while not repre- 
senting an "absorption" in the odious sense of the word, can 
only be, from the point of view of ecclesiology, a reunion 
with the Apostolic See. This may be said in a few words, 
but these words are decisive, for ecclesiologically speaking, 
they qualify the whole historical process which we have traced 
in broad lines. 

Still another remark is necessary if our account is to be 
entirely truthful, not so much from the point of view of 
ecclesiology, as from that of history. It is impossible to 
develop all the themes at once. Our theme has been that of 
"estrangement." To be entirely fair, we should also have 
noted at each stage the profound reality of what remains 
common to both portions and the valiant efforts expended 
on each side to maintain communion. All through this long 
history and continuing after 1054, there have been the realities 
of a shared Christian life and Church, 21 friendly acts, 22 con- 
cessions, 23 a pro-Rome party in Constantinople, a pro-Oriental 
party in Rome. 24 To collect and evaluate all these matters 
would require a separate study. But these efforts were not 
the ones which have prevailed in the course of history. Since 
1054, no effort has succeeded in uniting the two parts of the 
Christian world in an enduring form and we are still faced 



with the fact that the living tissue of the Church, so tragically 
torn apart at that time, is still unmended. 


Much work has already been accomplished. For neither 
side, especially the Roman, has ever resigned itself fully to 
the separation. 25 Explanations have been exchanged, and some 
rather remarkable progress may be noted. This progress 
becomes clear if, for example, we compare the discussions on 
the subject of the Filioque at different periods of history. At 
the synod of Nicaea-Nymphaeum in 1234, neither party 
would cede a point, but maintained its position to the letter. 
At Florence, in 1438-1439, where the discussion was straight- 
forward and penetrating, it was limited by imperfect exegeti- 
cal and patristic resources. Compare these two also with 
conferences on the same question held during the Nineteenth 
and Twentieth centuries, 26 and it will be seen that great 
progress has been made in the documentation and compre- 
hension of each other's point of view; yet, this question was 
for a long time presented as the decisive and insurmountable 
reason for the separation. 27 The dispute has now reached 
the point where more than one Orthodox theologian has 
declared that the doctrinal question of the Filioque would not 
be an obstacle to the reestablishment of union. 28 Today 
the more commonly held view is that, fundamentally, there 
is but one decisive point of difference: the question of the 
primacy, 29 and, of course, the question of the infallibility 
of the Pope, which is intimately connected with the primacy 
but involves its own special difficulties. 



Thus, to some extent the way has been cleared. Why 
should not more of this clearing-up be done, and on these 
very points which today seem to present an insurmountable 
obstacle? We can hope for much in this respect from his- 
torical studies. BatifFol sees "a great virtue of pacification and 
concord" emerging from them; 30 we would add: and of union 
in the truth. 

As we have said, much work has been done; the attempts 
at reunion have multiplied in the course of the centuries, 31 
and yet, despite some limited "successes" reunion has not 
taken place. Much work has been done, but the estrangement 
remains. We must therefore learn a lesson from these past 
failures for the future. Perhaps we should use the word in 
the singular, to give it greater weight: the failure to achieve 

To begin with, there is the fact that all the negotiations, 
and indeed all the relations of any kind between the Greeks 
and the papacy, were for centuries closely linked with politics. 
On the one hand, the Emperor seemed to hold the key to 
everything: the Latins believed that with him the Church was 
won. But, the Emperor needed the Pope who was also a 
political power, to combat the Normans and to hold off the 
Turks. Especially after the Crusades, a politico-religious 
papacy successively considered two means of regaining the 
Greek Church through the Basileus without, however, neglect- 
ing the means of discussion and persuasion: military conquest 
and diplomatic negotiations, above all diplomatic negotia- 
tions. 32 Some reconciliations were thus arranged, some unions 
concluded. But oftentimes, nothing of this survived, except 
perhaps, a heightened distrust and the whole estrangement. 
The reason for this was, that apart from these diplomatic 


overtures, and on a much deeper level, "the vast world of the 
East continued to lead its life without worrying any more 
about Rome, and Rome continued to exist without caring 
whether or not it was understood and loved by the East/' 33 

The Council of Florence, in regard to which the Orthodox 
seem to us to be excessively unjust, marked a considerable 
advance. Owing to the participation of learned theologians 
from the West and the East, it was, in fact, a great theological 
debate. Then came the fall of Constantinople, after which 
the problem caused by the political power of Constantinople 
was lessened. In modern times, the end of Czarism and the 
constitution of independent countries in Central and Balkan 
Europe, and along the Baltic after World War i have often 
been hailed as a promise that the political problem had, at 
long last, been finally eliminated. 34 Unfortunately, however, 
it still exists and has appeared in other forms: the dividing 
line, cutting the world into an Eastern World and a Western 
World, has, for a vast extent of Eastern lands, become an 
"East-West curtain," which places Greece and Constanti- 
nople politically on the side of the West; but even this does 
not make things any easier. The period of bargaining against 
a political background may be considered finished, but the 
period of the estrangement has not yet come to an end. 

We may well ask the crucial question: has each side as 
yet done everything that needs to be done, in order to under- 
stand and to love, everything to make itself understood and 
loved ? 

The advances made to the East from the Catholic side 
in modern times, seem to be dominated by the sincere desire to 
respect the Eastern churches in their own rites. The documents 
promising the East respect and enjoining the Latins to this 
respect, have been extremely numerous, especially in the 
past century. 35 The papacy seems to have considered the 

<fy 85 


problem of reunion as that of a double and reciprocal rec- 
ognition; the recognition by the papacy of the rights and 
canonical practices of the Orientals, their recognition of the 
traditional primacy of the Roman See. On the part of Rome, 
it would seem that everything could be summed up as foL 
lows: We respect and shall respect your rites and your disci- 
pline; there is no reason why you should not come back to 

us. 36 

It seems to us that these conditions are fair, but only if they 
are taken with full seriousness and with all their deepest 
implications. Neither the rites nor the primacy can be re- 
duced to a purely canonical and external question. We are 
dealing with extremely profound realities, varying though 
they be in importance, and coming to us from God by differ- 
ent paths. But on both sides there must be acceptance of 
things as they are: acceptance of the East as the East, accept- 
ance of Rome and the West as the West and as Rome. This 
amounts to recognizing the inalterable conditions of unity 
which, providentially, are especially borne by Rome, and 
also recognizing the full diversity which, under God's Provi- 
dence, is offered the Church under the species of the duality 
of an Eastern and a Western Christendom. 

On the part of the East, there is need of an openmindedness 
towards what is irreversible in the development of the theo- 
logical theory of the Church, and in the fact of the primacy: 
not necessarily the primacy in all the modalities it has been 
made to take on by history, or even in its present-day form, 
for a great portion of these elements are of relative and histo- 
rical order; but a papacy in that minimal form compatible 
with a local ecclesiastical autonomy such as Photius ac- 
knowledged under Nicholas I, and the Bulgarians under Inno- 



cent III, and which Innocent IV still found the Greeks ready 
to accept. 37 This presupposes the successful completion of 
a vast amount of ecclesiological, biblical and historical work. 
On the part of the West and Rome, it all comes back to 
their accepting in truth the existence of an East, with its own 
mentality, its genius, its temperament, and its history, and 
the right it has to be known, accepted and loved for what 
it is. How good it is to be able to write with A. d'Avril, 
"We must not let the Orientals believe that they are tolerated, 
with their diversities, as an annoying necessity; no, the Catholic 
Church loves them for themselves, for what they are, and 
she would not want them to be otherwise." 38 This, of course, 
must be entirely true if it is to have real validity. It is easy 
enough to say: "Let the Orthodox realize that the return 
towards Rome does not imply the renunciation of any ele- 
ment of their legitimate tradition; but there is only one way 
for them to realize this, namely, that it be true; and the means 
for making it be true, is for us to believe in it, and to have no 
other desire in our hearts. The Orientals are never fooled as 
to our feelings for them; they appreciate every sign of real 
respect 39 and if such signs were to increase, the complex of 
distrust which shuts all the other doors, would surely vanish 
before long. For this, the scientific studies that have been 
pursued for several decades in the Catholic Church under the 
very powerful encouragement of the papacy, through the 
Assumptionist Fathers or the Pontifical Oriental Institute, 
are of inestimable value. Necessary as they are as prelimi- 
naries to a better understanding of things, these studies are, 
nonetheless, merely preliminaries. Even the rather general 
revival of interest in the Greek Patristic sources of Christian 
life and thought, as evidenced by Father Danielou and the 



French collection, Sources Chretiennes, must be counted also 
on the level of preparations. We must hope that, thanks 
to all this and beyond all this, a true sympathy and a warm 
esteem for the Christian East will enter into the living tissue 
of Latin Catholicism. 

Thus a general rapprochement is the indispensable prep- 
aration for a reunion. No doubt, one of the causes of the 
failure of past advances and efforts, was the lack of psycho- 
logical preparation on both sides. A reunion should not 
merely be discussed and decreed. If the historical process 
of the schism was a gradual and general estrangement, anjj 
in substance it consists in the acceptance of a situation of 
non-rapport, then the reunion, which should be the curejrf 
the schism, can only be the result of a resumption of contacts 
full of esteem and sympathy two words that really stand 
for charity. Adopting the expression of a German author 
we have cited before, we can say that there will be no "Wie- 
dervereinigung" (reunion) without long, patient, intelligent 
and loving "Wiederbegegnung" (renewal of contact). The 
actual means are not hard to imagine: what the heart desires, 
the mind will invent. Before arguing on the points of diver- 
gency, and especially before seeking union by way of canonical 
or diplomatic dealings, a psychological and spiritual recon- 
ciliation must be sought and feelings of confidence, and of 
real sympathy, aroused. This can only be done by converting 
into actual fact to the highest degree, and, if it be necessary, 
emphasizing the mutual affinity of the two churches 40 or, if 
needs be, by recreating it. We have borrowed the phrase 
"mutual affinity" from an Anglican writer, just as we have bor- 
rowed the word "estrangement" from the English, thus proving 
that we can learn from those with whom we often disagree. 



The Churches of the East and the West have an affinity 
between them that goes much deeper than their estrangement. 
The Orthodox are well aware of it, and some of them, not 
the least eminent in their Church, have told us that in their 
ecumenical conferences they felt they were also speaking for 
the Catholic Church. The differences will tend to grow in 
the same measure that they are not respected; similarly, if 
they are recognized for what they are, the profound affinities 
between the Churches will assert themselves and the chance 
for reunion will be strengthened. At the same time, the seri- 
ous reasons which contribute towards a favorable recon- 
sideration or interpretation of the disputed questions will be 
freed from the burden of the distrust which prevents them 
from exerting all their force. In any case, no matter how effi- 
cacious the visible results, one worthwhile consequence will at 
least have been attained: the spirit of schism will no longer 
be able to claim a place in our hearts. 

We repeat: dogmatically and canonically, the main factor 
in the Oriental schism is the refusal to submit to the primacy 
of the Roman See; actually and historically, the schism is the 
result of a gradual and general, estrangement. Not that the 
schism is of itself the estrangement; rather the schism is the 
acceptance of the estrangement. The sin of schism is already 
committed in the heart when we behave as though we were 
not an integral part of the whole with others, alter alterius 
membra (Rom. 12.5). In this organic whole which is the 
Church, each local church not only realizes the mystical 
nature of the whole, mainly through the sacramental life, 
but is itself also a part of that whole, according to the plan 
of God which is to assemble all mankind into one Church 
and to represent, in the catholicity of that Church, the infinite 



riches of His gifts. If the Church is like a body, of which 
the East and the West are, we might say, the two sides, Rome 
is the visible head of the body, for the purpose of regulating 
its movements as a unity. To accept each other really means 
that each accept the other according to the role that each is 
to play in the total organism; it means that each one accepts 
the other as members of the same body, according to the 
vocation and function that is assigned to each part. 

Depending upon the dogmatic and canonical reality of 
non-submission to, or acceptance of, the Head, the schism 
is made or abolished at a single blow. The actual acceptance 
of the estrangement, according to history, had begun long 
before the year 1054; but it has not been completed so long as 
there exist, here and there, people who do not share the 
feeling of estrangement. We contribute to the schism, even 
today, whenever we assume the attitudes of, pstrangem en t 3 
or when we accept the results of many centuries of alienation: 
we continue it every time we commit, even today, acts analo- 
gous to those, positive or negative, which in the past made 
evident a lack of union. On the other hand, we contribute 
towards ending the schism and actually end it, to the extent 
that it exists in us, by every act or attitude of ours wch 
rejects and weakens that estrai^gement. Every time we rec- 
ognize the existence of the East, and the East recognizes the 
existence of Rome and the West, to that extent, the wound 
has been healed. 




1. Indeed, this idea is clearly stated in the second part of the very re- 
markable Opus tripartitum by Humbert of Romans, especially in chapters 
ii and 12; the text is quoted in Brown, Appendix ad fasdcuhm rerum 
expectandarum et fugiendarum II (London 1690). Of the many modern 
historians who have expressed the idea, we list only a few: A. Michel, 
"Bestand eine Trennung der griechischen und romischen Kirche schon 
vor Kerullarios *" Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch. 42 (1922) i-n; A. Baumstark, 
"Grundgegensatze morgenlandischen und abendlandischen Christen- 
tums," (typewritten ms, Rheine 1932); M. Jugie, Le Schisme byzantin, 
Apercu historiaue et doctrinal (Paris 1941) (see for example p. i, and 229- 
233); E. Amann, Histoire de FEglise (Fliche et Martin, 7, Paris 1940) 139; 
G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204 (London 1947) see espec- 
ially p. I53f; C. A. Bouman, "Scheiding en hereniging in het perspectie 
der Historic," Het christelijk Oosten en Hereniging, Oct. 1952, 93-101; 
R. Mayne, "East and West in 1054", Cambridge Hist. Journal 2 (1953- 
1955) 134-148; c 136, where the author cites as agreeing on this subject, 
W. Holtzmann, B. Leib, E. Herman, G. Ostrogorsky, Prince D. Obol- 
ensky, A. Michel. 

2. In the sense as specified by us: "Culpabilite et responsabilite col- 
lectives," Vie intellectuelle Mar. 1950, 259-284; April 1950, 387-407; cf. 
also Vraie et fausse rejbrme dans I'Eglise (Paris 1950) 579-596". 

3. L. Duchesne, The Churches Separated from Rome (London 1907) 
no, lists between the years 323 and 787 five great interruptions of com- 
munion between Constantinople and Rome, representing a total of 203 
years. Jugie Le schisme byz. 9, counts between the years 337 and 843, 
217 years of interruption divided into seven schisms. 

4. For a certain number of these, see Every, op. at. 165 and 168-69 
(in the Twelfth Century), 186, 191 (At Mount Athos, after the Fourth 
Crusade); Jugie, op. cit. 234f; A. Palmieri, Theologia dogmatica orthodoxa 



II Prolegomena (Florence 1913) 85 H. Rees, The Catholic Church and 
Corporate Reunion. A Study of the Relations between East and West from 
the Schism of 1054 to the Council of Florence (Westminster 1940); S. Runci- 
man, The Extern Schism. A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches 
during the Xlth and the Xllth Centuries (Oxford 1955), cites a great many 
such cases; Francis Dolger, in Relazioni del X Congress* internazionale di 
Scienze Storiche, III Storia del Medioevo (Florence 1955) 92 (until the Twelfth 
Century there was a Benedictine Monastery founded by Amalfitans on 
Mount ^Athos); 112 (relations with southern Italy and even with Monte Cas- 
s ino, until the Twelfth Century); Raissa Block "Verwandtschaftliche 
Beziehungen des sachsischen Adels zum russischen Fiirstenhause im XL 
Jahrhundert," Festschrift, A.Brackmann (Weimar 1931) 184-206 (marriages). 

5. It would seem that this criterion was applied in determining which 
saints should be invoked during the prothesis of the Byzantine rite, in 
the Roman edition of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Grottaferrata 
1940; brought out in 1941 by the Congregation for the Oriental Church); 
cf. A. Raes, S.J.,"La premiere edition romaine de la liturgie de S. Jean 
Chrysostome en staroslave," Orientalia christ. period. 7 (1941) 518-26 
esp. 521 522. 

6. The union was not rejected everywhere at once: it is probable that 
the union agreed upon at Florence was upheld in Jerusalem, and per- 
haps at Antioch, until 1534; the Archbishopric of Sinai remained Catholic 
until the Eighteenth Century. Cf. C. Korolevsky in Stoudion 17 (Feb. 
1929) and in Irfaikon (Nov. 1929) 646 n. 2. As for instances of communion 
we are especially referring to the communicatio in sacris. These were num- 
erous until the Eighteenth Century and did not really cease to occur until 
after the middle of the Nineteenth Century. There is no doubt that a 
close examination of the archives of the Roman congregations concerned 
would produce an ample harvest. We refer the reader to but a few of 
the publications: A. Battandier, Le cardinal J. B. Pitra (Paris 1893) 374 
377 and esp. 435-38. Dom Pitra justifies the numerous cases to which he 
refers by the fact that, according to him, no official canonical act of the 
Oriental Churches had denounced the union of Florence; but he con- 
siders that this could no longer happen in view of the many acts of hostil- 
ity towards the Catholic Church. Dom Pitra contributed to a stiffening 



of the Roman attitude in these matters around 1860; cf. R. Aubert, Le 
Pontifical de Pie IX, (Paris 1952) 479-8o. But that attitude is already 
seen soon after the rejection, by the East, of the union concluded at 
Florence (Palmieri, op. at. 105). Numerous facts concerning the Fif- 
teenth- to Eighteenth Centuries can be found in Echos f Orient, 1934 
and 1935 (esp. 1935, 350-367, on the Jesuit Missions to Naxos in the 
years 1627-1643); "L'Unite de 1'Eglise," Sept. 1936; Stoudion 3 (1928) 
75f; Irenikon 1926, i8t f; 1930, 270, no. i; and 1936, 561 (Russia of the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century). 

7. Cf. A. Fortescue, Tlie Uniate Eastern Churches (London 1923) 190; 
Every, The Byz. Patr. 154. The case of Russia merits a special study. 
After the schism of Cerularius, the Metropolitan Hilarion (1051-1072) 
and his successors George, John I, John II, Ephraim I and Nicholas I 
(1096-1106) remained in communion with Rome. As to the fidelity of 
the Kievan monks in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, see J. Mart- 
ynov, Acta SS, Octobris X 868f. D. Papebroch was no doubt too generous 
when he opined that the Russian Metropolitans were Catholic until 
1520, but in criticizing his opinion, V. De Buck admits he is partially 
right (cf. Acta SS. Octobris XI, III and IV, sections 9-12). 

8. Since our article "Schism," Dictionnaire de thlologie catholiaue XIV 
coL 1286-1312 (1938), there has appeared VoL II of the great work by 
Ch. Journet, UEglise du Verbe income (Paris 1951), which contains an 
extremely thorough elaboration of the Thomist theology of schism. 

9. C)p. dt. part 2, 14 (Brown, 218). 

10. The excellent formula of Jugie, op. tit. 188, referring to the sit- 
uation in the first half of the Eleventh Century. 

11. C. Silva-Tarouca, Fontes hlstoriae ecclesiasticae, II (Rome 1933) 
7, n. 51. 

12. W. de Vries, Der christliche Osten in Geschichte und Gegenwart 
(Wurzburg 1951) 72 : "Eine langsame, immer weiter fortschreitende 
Entfremdung fiihrte schliesslich zum Bruch zwischen Ost und West"; 
Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des Byzantinischen Staates (2nd ed. Munich 1952) 
266; DSlger, Byzanz und die europaische Staatenwelt (Ettal 1953) 288. 



I. Cf. A. Karatschow, "Die Entstehung der kaiserlichen Synodalgewalt 
unter Konstantin dem Grossen, litre theologische Begriindung and ihre 
kirchliclie Rezeption," Kirche und Kostnos (Orthodoxes und Evangelisches 
Christentum, Studienheft No. 2) (Witten 1950) 137-152. The same sub- 
ject is treated under the same heading in the same collection, 153-168 
by E. Wolf from a less ideal point of view and constitutes a critique of 
the Catholic thesis as well as of the Orthodox view. In seeking a certain 
logic in the sequence of ideas, we evidently risk presenting historical 
moments that are really unlike, as being intrinsically similar. According 
to Ostfogorsky, "The Relations between Church and State in Byzantium," 
Seminarium Kondakovianum 4 (1931) 122-134 (in Russian, with German 
summary), there never was any caesaropapism in Byzantium. The 
history of Constantinople has been a history of the emancipation of the 
Church from the control of the State; in this history, two periods can 
be discerned: first, a survival of Roman paganism, in which the Emperor 
played a part in the Church, a state of things accepted in the West even 
by the popes, as well as in the East; next, from the Seventh Century on- 
ward, the birth in both the East and the West, of a new "medieval" 
ideology, setting forth the distinction between the spiritual and the tempo- 
ral, the independence of the Church from the State. The iconoclast con- 
flict responded to the reaction of the Emperor to this tendency; it was 
formulated, for example, by the Epanagoge of 879-886. This point of 
view seems to be more or less that of Byzantinists such as Dvornik (see 
supra No. 3); L. Brehier, Le monde byz. II, Les institutions de I'Empire lyz- 
antin, 444, 46if. On the other hand, Dom Chr. Baur, "Die Anfange des 
Casaropapismus," Arch. f. kathol Kirchenrecht 3 (1931) 99-H3> sees the 
beginning of caesaropapism in Constans: in effect, Constans set himself 
up as autonomous judge of dogmatic formulae, decided whether commun- 
ion should be maintained or not, and had himself recognized even by the 
bishops (Synod of The Oak) as holding a sovereign position beyond the laws. 



2. Am. Gasquet, De fautorite imperiale en matiere religieuse a Byzance 
(Paris 1879). 

3. Among others by F. Kattenbusch, Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Con- 
fessionskunde I (Freiburg i. Br. 1892) 374-83 (Excursus on the eccle- 
siastical signification of imperial dignity); L. Brehier and P. Batiffol, Les 
survivances du culte imperial romain. A profos des rites shintoistes (Paris 1920) 
esp. 36f; Dolger, "Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner," Zeifschr. 
f. Kirchengeschichte 56 (1937) 1-42; O. Treitinger, quoted infra, n. 6; 
H. Berkhof, De Kerk en de Keizer (Amsterdam 1936; German translation 
Zollikon-Ziirich 1947).; Dvornik, "Emperors, Popes and General Coun- 
cils, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 6 (1951) 4-23, emphasizes the normal charac- 
ter of this role of the emperor which the popes themselves have, on 
the whole, recognized. Also Dvornik, "Pope Gelasius and Emperor 
Anastasius I," Byzant. Zeitschr. 44 (1951) m-n6; his view has been 
criticized by Michel, "Der Kampf um das politische oder petrinische 
Prinzip der IGrchenfiihrang," in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Geschichte 
und Gegenwart, A. Grillmeier-H. Bacht (Wiirzburg 1953) 557-62. Michel 
shows here and on p. 524 and 54o that the Hellenistic formulas 
on the sacred character of kings did not have the same meaning and did 
not play the same part in Byzantium as in Rome (the West). The 
debate has not been settled. Cf. K. M. Setton, The Christian Attitude 
towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century, especially as shown in Addresses 
to the Emperor (New York 1941); a -work criticized by Berkhof in Vi- 
giliae christ. 2 (1948) 120 Berkhof considers that St. John Chrysostom 
limited himself to showing the duality of the powers or domains, while 
St. Ambrose affirms the subordination of the one to the other. F. Dolger, 
Byzanz und die europ. Staatenw. 142 n. 2; W. Ullmann, The Growth oj 
Papal Government in the Middle Ages (London 1955) 33, n. 4; c 16-17 
and all of part III of the Introduction, 3i 

4. Gasquet, op. cit. 56 (sermons) 221-64 (well-known result of the im- 
perial heresies which provoked conflicts with the papacy); Brehier, Le 
monde byz. UtvoL de FHumanitt II (Paris 1949) 43 2f. 

5. The Basileus was not a mere layman, but a consecrated person having 
a quasi-sacerdotal dignity in the Church (entry into the sanctuary, the 



rite of communion at the rime of his coronation, etc.) and a quasi-episcopal 
function in the care of souls. In the Fifteenth Century even, Macarius 
of Ancyra was to say that the Emperor Manuel II, bishop like other bish- 
ops, except for the power to celebrate mass, was above other bishops 
in the care of souls. The references to the text and to the studies made 
on them are very numerous: besides those given in our Jalons pour une 
theologie du lalcat (Paris 1953) 299, n. 360 and 340, n. 78, see Am. Gasquet, 
op. cit. 38f. and esp. 44f. and 55; BatifFol, "Sur le titre de *pontifex' des 
empereurs chretiens des V e et VI e siecles," Bull. Soc. des Antiquaires de 
France (1926) 222f; F. Cavallera, "La doctrine du Prince chretien au V e 
si&cle," Bull, de Litter. eccUs. (1937) 67f. H9f. 167$ R. Janin, "L'empereur 
dans 1'Eglise byzantine," Now. Rev. th&ol, 77 (1955) 49-6o. The popes 
themselves often gave such tides to the emperors, and the sovereigns of 
the West followed in this matter those of Byzantium: cf. Jalons, ibid. 
and J. Hashagen, Stoat und Kirche vor der Reformation. Eine Untersuchung 
der vorreformatorischen Bedeutung des Laicneinflusses in der Kirche (Essen 
1931); K. Voigt, "Leo der Grosse und die 'Unfehlbarkeit* des ostro- 
mischen Kaisers," in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 47 (1928) 11-17. 

6. "Ecumenical" is rather hard to translate in its Byzantine usages 
("Ecumenical Council," "Ecumenical Patriarch"): cf. for example, Gas~ 
quet, op. cit. 113. We do not believe that we are mistaken in translating 
it by "Imperial" or "of the Empire," in the sense that German historians 
speak of the "Reichskirche," "Reichspatriarch," provided we do no* 
forget the "unitarian" ideal of which we speak further on, according to 
which the vocation of the Empire was to express and realize upon the 
earth the unique reign of God (of Christ), by assembling all the ofoov- 
fiivri, all the inhabited earth, under the authority of the Emperor, the 
representative of God. Cf. Treitinger, Die ostrb'mische Kaiser- und Reichs- 
idee nach ihrer Gestaltung im hofischen Zeremoniell (Jena 1938) 164-66. In 
the sense of "Ecumenical" = "of Empire," see R. Devreesse, "Le cin- 
quieme concile et rcecumenicite byzantine," Miscellanea G. Mercati III 
(Rome 1946) 1-15. One might also at times translate the word by "pa- 
triarchical" for example: the direction of the Patriarchical School fell to 
the "Ecumenical Professor," but no doubt in the sense of principal or 
universal professor; cf. Brehier, Le monde byz. Ill, La civilization byzan- 



tine, 493. As may be seen, the expression was rather vague, connoting 
without great precision an idea of universality; consequently, when com- 
bined in the tide "ecumenical patriarch" (c Ch. IV n. 26) lending itself 
to expressing the idea of a supreme dignity exclusive of submission to 
the primacy of the pope. 

7. This point seems to us well treated in Gasquet, nyf. Cf. the very 
subde indications given by J. Gaudemet, "Droit romain et droit cano- 
nique en Occident aux IV e et V c siecles," Actes du Congres de Droit ca- 
noniaue... April 1947 (Paris 195) 254-67* ? 2<52: "Constituting them- 
s elves the auxiliaries of Christianity, the Christian Emperors rendered 
canon law binding as civil law. Hence, the Church herself did not have 
to formulate her law. She simply indicated the measure she wished and 
solicited it from the Emperor..." The author cites relevant examples and 
refers the reader to W. K. Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian 
Code (1905) 264; he specifies his thought by challenging the too systematic 
thesis of Hinschius, according to which, from Constantine onward, ec- 
clesiastical law was if so facto and totally state law, jus publicum. 

8. *AU' vpetQ pev ra>v siaco rfjs 'ExxArjalas, ey<b de r&v SXTOG vno 
Beov xaBearattevoG iniaxonos av dr\v : Eusebius, Vita Constantini 
IV 24. The exact meaning of this text is still being debated. Dvornik, 
in the study cited n. 3 supra (sep. prtg. p. 12), who stresses the normal 
character of the situation, sees in it a corrective gloss of Eusebius, aimed 
at reducing the Emperor from the rank of Aposde to that of Bishop. 
W. Seston, "Constantine as a Bishop," The Journal of Roman Studies 
(Papers presented to N. H. Baynes) 37 (i94?) 127-31, does not Mtetpret 
it in the sense of rd earrog, but in the sense of ol euros, that is, in the 
sense of propagator of the Gospels to the pagans: as in E. Th. Babut, 
"Eveque du dehors," Re me critique 68 (1909), 362-64; J. Palanque, Histoire 
de I'liglise (Fliche et Martin, 3) 63 and Brehier, and again Janin, Nouv. 
Rev. thtol 77 (1955) 50, n. I and very recendy J. Straub, Studia Patristica 
ed. K. Aland and F. L. Cross (T. U. 64), (Berlin 1957)- This seems to us 
very debatable as it does to V. Laurent in his review of Seston's article in 
the Rev. des et. byz. 6 (1948) 115-16. We believe it concerns the exterior 
life of the Church: her defense, her organization, her material means, her 



policy and also the exercise of juridical sanctions. Cf. Gasquet, op. cit. 
48, IIT, 

9. E. Miklosich and J. Muller, Acta et diplomata graced medii aevi sacra 
etprofana, 6 vols (Vienna 1860-1890) II 9, cited by Laurent, Rev. et. byz. 
6 (1948) 114; and id. "Les droits deTEmpereur en matiere ecclesiastigue: 
L'accord de 1380-82," ibid. 13 (1955) 6-20. 

10. A contemporary Orthodox writer advances the same idea: A. Schme- 
mann, "La theocratic byzantine et TEglise orthodoxe," Dieu Vivant 
25 (1953/4) 35-53, esp. 45. 

11. Essai sur la thtologie mystique de I'Eglise d' Orient (Paris 1944) 172. 
May be useful compared with Palmier!, Theologia dogm. orthod. I 757f. 
Note that the strongest formulas on the power of the Emperor in reli- 
gious matters are to be found among the great Canonists Balsamon and 
Demetrius Chomatenus. 

12. See our prefatory note in the posthumous volume of A. Gratieux, 
Le mouvement slavophile a la veille de la Revolution'. Dimitri AL Khomiakov 
(Paris 1953)- 

13. T. G. Jalland, The Church and the Papacy (London 1944). In Black- 
friars (Feb. 1945) 56-57, Dvornik criticized Jalland's way of presenting 

the role of the Emperor in f a "caesaropapist" light See our review in 
Rev. des Sc. phil et thtol. (194?) 282-87. C the study by Michel cited 
supra, no. 3. 

14. Of course we cannot here expound or even summarize this entire 
history; as we have said, the estrangement which fosters the "Oriental 
schism" is co-extensive with the history of the Church herself. However, 
in spite of everything, we would like to mention here a few of the events 
which Jalland sees as so many occasions or episodes of the ecclesiological 
conflict between the Church of Empire and papal Rome: (a) the 6th 
Canon of Nicaea (21 if.); (b) the summoning of the Eusebians to Rome 
by Pope Julius, to present their accusations against Athanasius, the pope 
being aware that Eusebius of Nicomedia was by way of substituting the 



dogma of the Emperor as law for the apostolic tradition (213-18); (c) the 
testimony of the Council of Sardica, so categorical that the confessional 
adversaries of Rome denied the authenticity of its Canons or at least of 
the final clause; yet, says Jalland, when we examine the list of signatories 
of the address to Pope Julius, we begin to think that this appeal issued 
from men having the feeling that an ecumenical organ was needed by 
the Church, that Rome was that organ, and that disjoined from her, one 
fell into subjection to the Imperial power (219-23); (d) the struggle 
between Constantius, and autocratic Emperor, and Pope Liberius, a 
struggle which represented that of two conceptions of the source of 
dogmatic truth in the Church, in as much as the "fall" of Liberius rep- 
resented a momentary defeat of the apostolic tradition by the dogma of 
Caesar (224); (e) the rescript of Gratian and the edict of Theodosius, 
both of them in line with Sardica, but of short-lived success (246-49); 
(f ) the Roman document dating back to Pope Damasus, in which is formu- 
lated with great clarity the point of view of Rome, according to the 
apostolic tradition (255-57); (g) the appeal to Damasus by Timothy t>f 
Berytus and the terms in which Damasus replied (258); or (h) in view of 
the caesaroapism of Theodosius, the promulgation by Pope Siricius of 
the "First Decretal," a juridical instrument adapted to the situation ca- 
nonically established at Sardica according to which the Roman See is the 
universal arbiter of the life of the Church within the framework of the 
Christianized Empire (265-72); or again, from the same Siricius the claim, 
against Theodosius II, of a primacy of the Church of Rome which, in 
the body of the Church, is like the head in relation to the members (273-77) 
and yet again (i), under St. Leo, the affair of the 28th Canon of Chal- 
cedon; or (j) the protestation of Felix III against the pretention of Con- 
stantinople, the city of the Emperor, to be the See of the "ecumenical 
patriarch"; and, in the face of the Henoticon, the dogmatic decree of the 
Emperor, the resistance of the same Felix III and the deposition by bjm 
of Acacius of Constantinople; and Gelasius I carrying this affair one step 
further; then (k) the theology of the resistance of the Studite monks, 
partisans at Constantinople of the Roman position, turning towards Rome 
in order to free themselves of the imperial tutelage; and finally, (1) there 
is the action of Nicholas I, the contemporary and in some respects antag- 
onist of Photius, loudly claiming for the Bishop of Rome the canonical 



prerogative of the ecumenical authority for example, the right to con- 
voke the Synods; c Gasquet, op. tit. 149, 181-82). Thus the pope* 
gradually came to regain the prerogatives involving a role of direction 
or supreme arbitration in the Church; the privilege of sending the Pal- 
lium (Gasquet, op. at. i8s), and to give the Councils their legitimacy 
and value (Wolf, [cited supra, n. i]i62). 

15. Op. dt. 8-1 1, i8 Dvornik, National Churches and the Church 
Universal (Westminster 1944), has likewise insisted on the fact that in the 
East national churches were organized quite early, having their respec- 
tive liturgical languages and that these churches were sometimes within 
the Roman Empire, sometimes outside it (Persia, Armenia, Abyssinia), 
la the West, before the conversion of the peoples to Christianity, Rome 
had imposed her order, language and often her worship. This fact is also 
to be found in Bardy, cited injra > ch, IV, n. i. 

K>. An interesting piece of evidence of the idea of a Church of Em- 
pire: in 1393, the Grand Duke of Moscovy, upon having had the diptychs 
bearing the name of the Basileus abolished, declared: "We have a Church, 
we no longer have an Emperor"; to which the Patriarch of Constant- 
inople, Antonius IV, replied: "It is impossible to have the Church with- 
out having the Emperor." (Miklosich and Miiller, Acta et diplomata... 
II 191;) and c Brehier, Le monde byz. II 431; and on the episode, the 
article by M. de Taube, "A propos de 'Moscou Troisieme Rome*," 
Russie et Airitienti (1948, 3/4) 24, n. 7. 

17. Cf. Baumstark, "Gnmdgegensatze..." 18. 

18. C for what follows, Baumstark, op. dt. Sect. 4, i8 and ch' 
III, 3. It is instructive to compare with this the Orthodox accounts, 
such as those of S. Zankov, Die Orthodoxe Kirche des Ostens in okume- 
nischer Sicht (Zurich 1946) 72f. or Schmemann, "'Unity*, 'Division,' 
'Reunion*, in the Light of Orthodox Ecclesiology," 'OeoAoyta 22 
(Athens 1951) 242-54. See also C. Swiedinski, La conception sodologiaue 
de Yoecumenidtt dans la pensle religieuse russe contemporaine, (Paris 1938). 
Similarly, from the point of view of the diversity which appears even in 
the apostolic times, we recall the conclusions of J. Olson, "L'eveque dans 



les communautes primitives..." Unam Sanctam, 21 (Paris 1951) on a Paul- 
ine tradition (stressing the existence of a Universal Church) flourishing 
in Rome, and a Johannine tradition (stressing the existence of local com- 
munities, each one with its bishop) flourishing in the East. 

19. Cf. infra Kattenbusch, Lehrbuch A. vgl. Confessions!?. I. 231-35- 
Notice, however, the phrase, "Preserve the Plenitude (TO ?t/.rJQa)fjia) of 
thy Church" in the prater that precedes the final benediction in the li- 
turg} of St. John Ctr^sostom. 

20. S. L. Greenslade often stresses this fact in his Schism in the Early 
Church (London 1953). 

21. In all the works concerning the Empire and the Byzantine Church. 
See particularly Dolger, "Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner," 
Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 56 (1937) 1-42 (a wealth of bibliographical in- 
formation); W. Hammer, "The Concept of the New or Second Rome 
in the Middle Ages," Speculum 19 (1944) 50-62 (the idea of "Second 
Rome" was applied, even in the West, to towns where the Imperial 
court sojourned; Aix-la-Chapelle, Treves, Milan, Reims, Tournai, Pavia, 
even Bordeaux). See also the numerous studies devoted to the theme 
of "Moscow, Third Rome," particularly M. Schraeder, Moskau, das 
dritte Rome (Hamburg 1929); H. Rahner, Vom Ersten bis zum Dritten 
Rom (Innsbruck 1949); de Taube, "A propos de Moscou, 'Troisifcme 
Rome*" Russie et Clevtitienti (1948, 3/4), 17-24, taking account of a Rus- 
sian study by N. Tchaev, "'Moscou, troisi&ne Rome* dans la pratique 
politique du gouvernement russe du xvi c sifccle," Istoriceskie Zapiski, 
17 (Moscow 1945) 3-23; W. K. Medlin, Moscow and East Rome, a Po- 
litical Study of the relations of Church and State in Moscovite Russia (Geneva 

22. Brehier, Le monde byz. II i; as is known, Montesquieu takes this 
point of view in De la grandeur et de la decadence des Romains. See also, 
particularly, the publications of J. B. Bury. 

23. Cf. Dolger, art. cit. (supra, n. 21) jf.; he shows that the Byzantines 
even claimed a monopoly on the tide of "Romans." 



24. C Dolger, 31-34; this idea of the transfer of the primacy first ap- 
pears in the monophysite John Philoponus in the Sixth Century, but 
not linked with the Donatio Constantini (31, n. 54), which later on was 
used to bolster it (36, n. 64). 

25. Dolger, 13. 

26. Dolger, 33f. 

27. Cf. numbers n, 12 14 and 16. Text in Karl Mirbt, Quellen zur 
Geschichte des Papsttums und des romischen Katholizismus (Tubingen 1934) 
n. 228. 

28. Dolger, 36f. 

29. E. Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Leipzig 1935), 
reprinted in Theologische Traktate (Munich 1951) 49-147. See also Re- 
lazioni del Congresso internazionale di Sdenze Storiche, II Storia dell' An- 
tichita (Florence 1955) "La Monarchic hellenistique": A. Heuss, "Ursprung 
und Idee" 201-13; A. Aymard, L' Institution monarchique, 215-34. 

30. Eusebius in Laus Constantini (Ed. Heifcel, GCS 7, 195-295, Leipzig 
1902). On this political theology of Eusebius and Constantine, < E. 
Schwartz, Constantin und die christliche Kirche 2nd ed. (Leipzig 1913); 
J. M. Pfattische, "Die Kirche in den Sdiriften Konstantins d. Grossen," 
Histor.-Polit. Blatter, 151 (1913) (754-70; F. E. Cranz, "Kingdom and 
polity in Eusebius of Caesarea," Harvard Theol. Rev. 45 (1952) 47-66 
(bibliogr.); Dolger, Antike und Christentum, 3 (1932) 128-31, and Bjzanz 
u. europ. Staatenwelt, 141; Ullmann, The Growth... 17, n. 4, and an overall 
history of Constantinople and Rome from the viewpoint of the unitary 
world idea, either for the benefit of the Empire and the Byzantine pa- 
triarchate or for the benefit of the papacy is found in EL Jantere, Die ro- 
mische Weltreichsidee und die Entstehung der weltlichen Macht des Papstes 
(Turku 1936). For the rather considerable influence of Eusebius in 
orienting the themes of practical ecclesiology in Greek thought, see 
J. Ludwig, "Die Primatworte Mt. 16, 18-19 in der altkirchlichen Exe- 
gese," Neutestl Abhdlg. XK, 4 (Miinster 1952) 45-47- 



31. Cf. Gasquet, De I'autorite imperiale..,*, Brehier, Le monde byz. II 4; 
Les survivances du culte imperial remain, 47; Dolger, art. cit. n. 21, supra. 

32. Here we find a point in ecclesiology which has already been touched 
upon and which seems important to us. In the East rather than in the 
West, the translation of the visible and terrestrial expression has been 
accomplished by the State. On the plane of the Church and the exterior 
Christian life, there has reigned, so it seems to us, a dialectic of the celestial 
life manifesting itself through grace in human sin and corruption. A Church 
which should have the form of a unique visible society is an ideal of the 
Catholic Church, if it is not carried to extremes, as in the famous pages 
of St. Robert Bellarmine (De Eccle. Militante III, c. 2), which lack a sense 
of eschatology and the corresponding dialectic. 

33. L. Genicot, Les lignes de faite du moyen age (Tournai-Paris 1951), 


34. Pope Gregory II (f 831) wrote to the Emperor Leo III: "Uni- 
versus Occidcns principi apostolorum fructus fidei profert ... quern omnia 
regna Occidentis tamquam Deum in terra colunt. Nos viam ingredimur 
in extremas Occidentis regiones versus illos qui sanctum baptisma efHa- 
gitant. Qua de causa nos ad viam, Dei benignitate, accingimus..." Cf. 
E. Caspar, "Gregor II und der Bilderstreit," Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 
52 (i933) 29-89; cf. Michel, art. in Chalkedon II 539. (n. 3, supra.) 

35. Innumerable events support this statement. Thus, for example, 
Hugh Capet, even at that late date, made efforts to find a bride of im- 
perial blood for his son Robert; cf. A. A. Vasiliev, Dumbarton Oaks Pa- 
pers 6 (1951) 226-251. The Basileis jealously reserved for themselves the 
title of Emperor: the "Barbarian" princes were only Qfjyeg* On the 
conflicts of tides, in which something other than semantics is involved, 
see Jugie, Le Schisme byz... 9 30, 158, n. 3 (Nicephorus Phocas); Brehier, 
Monde byz. II 348-52. 

36. Cf. Amann, Histoire de I'figlise (Fliche et Martin 8), 59; other 
examples may be seen in Brehier, op. cit. 52. 



37. H. Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne (New York 1955). 

38. See for example, Every, Tlie Byz. Patriarchate, 451-1204 which 
s not cited by Pirenne. 

39. General criticism: aside from reviews (see Speculum, 23 [1948] 
165, n. i): H. Laurent, "Les travaux de M. H. Pirenne," in Byzanthn 
7 (i932) 495-509; M. Bloch, "La derniere oeuvre d'Henri Pirenne," An- 
nales 10 (1938) 325-30; L. Lambrecht, "Les theses de Henri Pirenne," 
ibid. 14 (1939) 513-36; D. C. Dennett, "Pirenne and Muhammad," 
Speculum 23 (1948) 165-90; Genicot, op. at. 2s; H. Aubin, "Die Frage 
nach der Scheide zwischen Altertum und Mittelalter," Histor. Zeitschr. 
173 (1951) 245-63; we know only the title of A. Riising, "The Fate of 
Henri Pirenne's Theses on the Consequences of the Islamic Expansion," 
Classica et Mediaevalia 13 (Copenhagen 1952) 87-130; Dolger, Byz. u. d. 
europ. Staatenwelt, 359^ n. 170 (ref.) 368f.; Edw. Perroy, "Encore Ma- 
homet et Charlemagne," in Rev. histor. 212 (1943) 232-38. Theories 
based on the other factors have been given by Genicot, "Aux origines 
de la civilisation occidentale: Nord et Sud de la Gaule," Miscellanea his- 
torica L. Van der Essen (Louvain 1947) 81-93. Criticism of this theory 
on the grounds of the economic data brought forward have been ex- 
pressed by E. Sable, "L*importation des tissus orientaux en Europe occi- 
dentale au haut moyen age (DC C et XI e s.)" Rev. beige de PMologie et 
d'hist. 14 (1935) 8nf. and I26i; F. L. Ganshof, "Notes sur les ports 
de Provence du VIII e au DC e siecle." Annales, Economies, socittes, civili- 
sations, 2 (1947) i43-6o; R. Dochard, "Au temps de Charlemagne et 
des Normands: ce qu'on vendait et comment on vendait dans le bassin 
parisien," ibid. 266-80. 

40. Cf. Jugie, Leschisme byz. 234, n. 2; cf. infra, ch. IV, n. 12. Another 
consequence of the Mohammedan conquest was that, by suppressing 
the Churches of Africa, it destroyed a Christianity which, while being 
Western and Latin, had and maintained a relative autonomy in relation 
to Rome. Cf. F. Heiler, Altkirchliche Autonomie und papstlicher Zentralis- 
mus (Munich 1941). Thus disappeared the sole resistance to a total Roman 
ascendancy in the West. Islam favored the constitution of two "prima- 
cies," the one functioning in the Christian East, the other in the West, 



41. Brehier, Le monde byz. II, 456f. 

42. Cf. P.-G. Scolardi, Au service de Rome et de Moscou au XVII C siecle, 
Krijanich, messager de funitl des chretiens et pere du panslavistne (Paris 1947). 
This study is very well worth reading. 

43. For example, the \vritingsofNicolasJakovlevicDanilevskij (f 1885): 
cited in B. Schultze, Russische Denker: Hire Stelhmg zu Christus, Kirche* 
und Papsttum (Vienna 1950) io<5. 

44. Tractates super Quatuor Evangelia (ed. E. Buonaiuti, Rome 1930) 
106, note 280. 

45. Opus tripartitum, pars 3, c. 18; ed. cited supra, ch. I. n. i. 

46. Aside from our usual authors, this point is well explained in G. B. 
Howard, The Schism between the Oriental and Western Churches, with 
Special Reference to the Addition oj the Filioque to the Creed (London 1892) 
2o H. Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy (London 1929) 310; 
Dolger, Byz. u. L europ. Staatemvelt, 286f. On the problems of civil and 
canon law arising from the duality of emperors, cf. W. Ohnsorge, Das 
Zweikaiserproblem im friihen Mittelalter (Berlin 1947); P. Koschaker, Eu- 
rop a und das Romische Recht (Munich 1947); A. M. Stickler, Sacerdotium 
et Regnum net Decretisti e Primi Decretalisti (Turin 1953) i8f., 25. 

47. The history of the epoch of Clovis well illustrates all this. In be- 
coming Catholic in the West where Roman civilization and religion were 
practically overwhelmed by the Arian barbarians, Clovis aimed there 
at becoming a protector who would "henceforth render useless appeals 
to the Emperor of Byzantium." de Labriolle, Histoire de rglise (Fliche 
et Martin) 4, 395. Byzantium recognized the victory of Clovis by con- 
ferring upon him the tide of consul, a kind of fiction by which the fact 
became stamped with the approval of the Empire. But Byzantium again 
intervened in Spain against the Arianism of the middle of the Sixth Cen- 

48. After Charlemagne, the Emperors of Constantinople were careful 
to call themselves "Basileus of die Romans" (Dolger, art. cit. 10); 



Michael II, Balbus, (820-29) writing to Louis the Pious, thus pens his 
address: "To the glorious King of the Franks and the Lombards, their 
so-called Emperor," Jugie, Le schisme bfz., 30, who cites some other in- 

49. J. de Pange, Le Roi chretien (Paris 1949) 167. Compare Fustel de 
Coulanges: "The coronation of Charlemagne was, on the part of the 
Pope, a breach with Constantinople." Histoire des Institutions politiques, 
6, Les transformations. (Paris 1892) 312. 

50. See texts and references in Gierke, Political Theories of the Middle 
Age, trl. F. W. Maitland (Cambridge 1900) 126, n. 55. S. Mochi Onory, 
Fonti canonistiche dell 9 idea moderna dello Stato (Milan 1951) 233, 244, 264f. 
(one sole emperor in the Orbis); 165 (Huguccio: the Emperor of Constan- 
tinople no longer legitimate), 237 (one sole Emperor, but the Empire 
had been handed over to the Germans). 

51. Thus Laurentius Hispanus, Johannes Teutonicus; cf. Mochi Onory, 
op. cit. 225, n. 3. 

52. Thus Ricardus Anglicus, cited by Mochi Onory, op. cit. 267. 
The Basileus was usually treated as Emperor by the popes: by Gregory VII, 
and by Innocent III. 

53. Even the election of Count Baldwin of Flanders as Latin Emperor 
of Constantinople in 1204 in effect pays homage to the permanence of 
the Byzantine Empire. 

54. Fleury, Hist, eccksiast. X 646-47. Cf. Palmieri, article on Filioaue 
DTC V, 2, col. 2321. 

55. C Palmieri, Theol. dogmat. orthod. II 75-87. Jugie, Schisme byz. 
Ch. 5 and 6. 

56. On the Crusades, aside from the general histories, see the works of 
the Orientalists and Byzantinists: R. Grousset, L. Brehier, L*gli$e et 
rOrient au tnoyen age. Les Croisades 2nd ed. (Paris 1907). For the history 
of the Crusades as a whole, from the viewpoint of gradual alienation 


of the East and the West, see Howard, The Schism between the Oriental 
and Western Churches..., 38f. Of the lamentable effects of the Fourth 
Crusade upon the relations between Greeks and Latins see. W. Norden, 
Der vierte Kreuzzug im Rahmen der Beziehungen des Abendlandes zu By- 
zanz (Berlin 1898), and the volume cited infra, Chapter V, n. 32. A. Lu- 
chaire, Innocent III: la question d' Orient (Paris 1907); Palmieri, op. cit. 
36-52, gives the bibliography of the whole question up to 1913, and has 
written the definitive history of the controversy. See also A. Frolow, 
"La deviation de la IV e Croisade vers Constantinople. Probleme d'His- 
toire et de Doctrine," Rev. Hist, des religions 145 (*954) 168-87; 146 
(1954) 194-219, On the part played by Venice and Amalfi, aside from 
various monographs, cf. H. F. Brown and W. Miller, in Vol. IV of Cam- 
bridge Medieval History, chapters 13 and 15 respectively. S. Runciman, 
The Eastern Schism, A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during 
the Xlth and the XHth Centuries (Oxford 1955)- Following the docu- 
ments, Runciman shows that the breach of 1054 was not really felt on 
either side as a definitive alienation of the Greek world from the Catholic 
Church of Rome. What caused the final break and irreparable hostility 
between the two portions of Christendom were oppositions of political 
interests and then the Crusades with their consequences of Latinisation. 
See also P. Lemerle, "Byzance et la Croisade," Relazioni del X Congresso 
int. di Sden. Stor. Ill Storia del Medioevo 595-620. 

57. Cf. 3 Kings, 12. 24 and 2 Paralip. 11.4. 

58. Epist. CXXVI, Petro legato: PL 215, 701. Besides Luchaire, see 
for the facts the review Stoudion (Feb. 1949) 27f. in note; for the ideas, 
see P. Villey, "La Croisade, Essai sur la formation d'une theorie juridique," 
L'glise et I'ttat au Moyen age, 6 (Paris 1942) 228f. 

59. Cf. C. Korolevski, "Le passage au rit oriental," Ire'nikon 6 (1929) 
457-87, 477- 

6b. Brehier, Monde byz. II 458, gives a very rich documentation of 
the Latinisation in different studies of Korolevski (numerous articles in 
Stoudion 1922-1929) a series of articles on "Le clerge occidental et 1'apos- 
tolat dans 1'Orient asiatique et grco-slave," Rev. apologfa., (15 Nov.-i5 

1 10 


Feb. 1923) a separate printing; a brochure on L'Uniatisme: Irtnikon 
coll. 1927, n. 5-<5); the articles of E. Michaud, "Etudes sur la latinisa- 
tion de 1* Orient," Rev. intern, de theol 3 (1895) 217-42, 488-504 673- 
89, and 4 (1896) 108-29; this study concerns the Seventeenth and 
Eighteenth Centuries and is the work of an Old-Catholic; R. L. Wolff, 
"The organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople," Traditio 
6 (1948), 33-6o; E. A. R. Brown, "The Cistercians in the Latin Empire 
of Constantinople and Greece, 1204-1276," Traditio 14 (1958) 62-120; 
and finally H. L. Hoffman, "De Benedicti XIV latinisationibus in Const. 
*Etsi pastoralis' et * Inter multa'," Ephem. Juris canon. 4 (1948) 9-54. 

61. Even Anselm of Havelberg, a broad-minded man, who spoke Greek, 
saw a sign of schism in the different way of celebrating the Holy Eu- 
charist in the East (Dial III 12, PL 188. 12250). But it must be noted that 
the West has generally recognized the legitimacy of this celebration: 
thus Gregory VII, Reg. VIII, i; ed. Caspar, 313, St. Anselm, Efist. de 
sacrif. azjmi etfermentati and Epist. de sacram. Eccl. n. i; Opera, ed. F. S. 
Schmitt, II 233, 240; Innocent III, cf. H. Tillmann, Papst Innocenz III 
(Bonn 1954) 216-17. 

62. A few significant documents of Innocent III may be cited: Letter 
Cum vetiisset to the Archbishop of the Bulgarians, Feb. 25, 1204, P. Th. 
Haluscynsky, ed.; Acta Innocentii III (Pont. Comm. ad redig. Cod. iur. 
canon, orient.), Fontes, Ser. Ill, vol. II, Romae 1944 n. 52, 258f; Letters 
Ex parte tua of August 2, 1204, PL 215.407, Fontes, n. 61, 271; Ex parte 
tua of March 8, 1208, PL 1353; Fontes n. 109, 341. Compare for the role 
of monastic consecration, Letter Super episcoporum of October 4, 1208. 
PL 1468, Fontes n. 120, 352. It is important to note that here reordina- 
tions are not involved and that the validity of Greek orders is not quest- 
ioned. But reunion or plenary reintegration into the Church is con- 
ceived as entailing the observance of Latin (Roman) practices. See also 
the bull Quia divinae sapientiae of 1215, taken up again in 1257 by Alex- 
ander IV. 

63. The Greeks showed an equal inflexibility. See, for the azymes, 
Mansi, XXIII, 298; for the Procession of the Holy Spirit, 305. On the 
synod of Nymphaeum in 1234, cf. B. Palazzo, "Historique d'une dis- 



cussion sur la Procession du Saint- Esprit," Lc grand retour (Istamboul 
1953) S7-99- 

64. Instruction to Odo, Cardinal of Tusculum, his legate to Cyprus, 
1254: Mansi, XXII, 581-82; and cf. our study on Purgatory in Le mystere 
de la mort et sa celebration (Lex orandi, 12), (Paris 1951) 296-97. 

65. The Decretal of Innocent IV, Sub catholicae professione of March 6 y 
1254, will alone furnish us with a great number: Mansi, XXIII, 578-82 
(Potthast, II 15, 265). 

66. Cf. P. Hammond, The Waters of Marah: The Present State of the 
Greek Church (London 1956) 24. 

67. F. Braudel, La Meiitenanee et le monde m&ditenaneen a Vepoque de 
Philippe II (Paris 1949) 672. 

68. Janin, "La prise de Constantinople (1453) et ses consequences 
religieuses," Nouv. Rev. theol 75 (i953) 5H-I9- 

69. Pope Pius XII recalled these beneficent works in his Encyclical 
Orientales omnes Ecclesias of Dec. 23, 1945, for the anniversary of the Union 
of Brest: AAS, 1946, 45^ 

70. Here we will reproduce only a few recent declarations that are 
rather representative: "Roman Catholicism has always been aggressive 
towards Orthodoxy. It has never recoiled before any effort to detach 
from the Orthodox faith entire populations whose political and cultural 
existence lacks a solid basis. ..." Msgr. Anthony, Orthodox Archbishop 
of Finland, in the Messager de I'feglise (St. Petersburg); reproduced in 
Rev. internal, de thloL 5 (1897) in. What follows in the text rather 
frankly illustrates the word of Our Lord on the mote and the beam. 
N. Gloubokovski declared at the Conference of Stockholm in 1925 (Cf. 
The Stockholm Conference 1925. The Official Report . . . ed . by G. K. A. 
Bell, Oxford-London 1926, 654), "Proselytism of a purely pharisaical 
type has become a kind of disease of the new Romanism, and the con- 
version of the whole universe to the foot of the Roman Chair ha 



become the bright vision and the sweet dream of the contemporary papacy. 
From these visions not one church is excepted, not one Christian con- 
fession; they are all represented as the obligatory field for Catholic mis- 
sionary practice, just as though they formed a purely heathen domain. 
Such among others is Anglicanism with all its ramifications. And as 
regards relations towards Orthodoxy everywhere, here the conduct G 
Romanism recalls the action of a rich and cunning landlord, who strive s 
to get as much as possible of the goods of his sick and disheartened neigh- 
bor into his own hands, availing himself of every opportunity and of 
every possibility. I say this with great sorrow, but the facts cry out. In 
the East, the Mohammedan Crescent has been openly preferred to the 
Christian Cross. And in this direction the whole papal policy has been 
carried on which is now, for some reason, penetrated with Soviet sym- 
pathies, of course not for the sake of the tranquillity of Orthodoxy in 
Palestine. Against Orthodox Russia, moreover, there is divised, since 
the time of the unlucky Genoa Conference, some mysterious bond with 
the atheist Bolsheviks, and by consent of the latter, apostolic expeditions 
are fitted out, acquiring special purpose since the death of the Orthodox 
leader and common Christian martyr, His Holiness the Patriarch Tikhon." 
This enumeration of gravamina continues, but this will suffice to illustrate 
quite well the part played by subjectivity and short-sightedness in a 
reaction of this type. This attitude is a fact and it is quite typical. We 
hear the same sort of thing in the remarks of St. Zankow: "Dies ist das 
traurige Verhaltnis zwischen den zwei altesten und grossten christlichen 
Kirchen, der Romisch-Katholischen und der Orthodoxen: Zaher Er- 
oberungsdrang einerseits, harte, stille Abwehr auf der andern Seite. . . ." 
Die Orth. Kir. d. Ost. in okumen. Sicht. 60; cf. 26-27 and 54$ in which 
the Catholic Church is presented as always having sought unity by poli- 
tical means. All the same, we should take intelligent account of the situa- 
tion and of the ideas of the time; cf. infra, ch. V, n. 32. 

71. A frequent reproach; c Jugie, ThloL dogm. christ. oriental dissid. 
IV, 407, n. ii 420. 

72. See also our Introduction to the French edition of Dvornik, Le 
schisme de Photius: Histoire et Ifyende, Unam Sanctam 19, (Paris 1950) 12-15. 


1. Cf. Jugie, Le schisme byz., 3p on the diversity of languages and re- 
ciprocal ignorance as one of the causes of the schism; Bardy, "La question 
des langues dans T^glise ancienne," Et. de thloL histor. I (Paris 1948); 
Michel, "Sprache und Schisma," Festschrift der Freisinger Hochschule f. 
Kard. Faulhaber zum So. Geburtstag, 37-6*9, which traces the process of 
estrangement on the background of the ignorance of the respective lan- 
guages from the time of Justinian. The point is not touched upon by 
Greenslade, Schism in the Early Church. As a preparation for his book 
or as an outgrowth of it, Bardy has written some very suggestive articles 
summarizing the question, among others, "La latinisation de 1'Eglise 
d'Occident," Irtnikon 14 (1937) 3-20, 113-30; "Orientalisme, occidenta- 
lisme, catholicisme," L'Antiee Molog. (1947) 230-44. 

2. Dolger, Zeitschr.J. Kirchengesch. (1937) 6-7- 

3. Cf. Cardinal E. Tisserant, "Orient et Occident," Rev. cThist. eccles. 
67 (1952) 604-18; see also Michel, "Die griechischen Klostersiedlungen 
zu Rom bis zur Mitte des n. Jahrhunderts," OstkirchL Studien i (1952) 
32-45; id. "Der kirchliche Wechselverkehr zwischen West und Ost vor 
dem verscharften Schisma des Kerdlarios," ibid. 145-73; H. Steinacker, 
"Die romische Kirche und die griechischen Sprachkenntnisse des Fruh- 
mittelalters," Mitteilg. L Inst.j. Oesterr. Geschichtsforschg. 62 (1954) 28-86, 
treating the decline of a knowledge of Greek in the Fifth and Sixth Cen- 
turies; a recovery in the Seventh and Eighth. 

4. St. Gregory Nazianzen says that the Latins do not distinguish Es- 
sence and Person accurately, "because of the limitations of their language 
and its poverty in words," quoted by Michel, art. dt. 46. In the discus- 
sions on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the Greeks have often spoken- 
of the poverty of the language of the Latins, which made them, they 
said, confuse "procession" with "mission"; cf. Jugie, Le schisme byz. 216, 


227; Howard, The Schism between the Oriental and Western Churches ..., 
103, on the response of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the English non-jurors 
in 1718. Cf. infra, n. 12. 

5. The remarks of H. De Man, Au dela du marxisme (Paris 1929) 237 
are very significant: "The mother- tongue is something else and more 
than the language of the mother, it is the veritable mother of the spiritual 
self. It is not merely the technical means of expressing an intellectual 
content of some kind; the content itself is determined, nay, in great part 
created, by it..." On the problem itself, see the indications given by 
Essertier, Psychologic et Sodologie (Paris 1927) 89f. and the reviews in 
U Annie sociologist^ which pay a good deal of attention to this aspect of 
things; the special number of the Journal de Psychologie normale et patho- 
logique, 30 (1933) on language. We should mention here the analyses 
of J. Guitton on the mind: cf. La petisee moderne et le Catholicisme, fasc. VI, 
"Le problfcme de Jesus," (Paris 1948) I9if- &sc. IX; "Developpement 
des id6es dans 1'A. T. (Aix 1947) 85$ "Difficultes de croire," (Paris 1948) 
7 6 

6. The translation of "infallible" by a word which also signifies "im- 
peccable" is evidently linked with the profound thought of the Eastern 
theology on infallibility which regards it as being connected with holiness 
and with the Holy Spirit; cf. Jugie, Theol. dogm... IV 465^ Gratieux, 
(art. cit. injra, n. 35) 359. The fact, however, makes it difficult for the 
Orthodox to perceive the true implications of papal infallibility which 
are, moreover, so often emphasized by us; it also leads them to say that 
we maintain the "impeccability" of the Pope; cf. Jugie, op. cit. 490(1 
Palmieri, op. cit. II 125, 127, 135; et passim. According to A. von Harnack, 
the Greeks do not have an equivalent word for vicarius: "Christus praesens- 
Vicarius Christi," ... . SbBerlin, 34 (1927) 415-446, n. i. 

7. This point is well known. At Florence, the discussion bore exten- 
sively on questions of vocabulary, on the equivalence of Greek and Latin 
terms. Pusey thought that the difficulty was a question of vocabulary. 
Cf. R. Gavin, Some Aspects of Contemporary Greek Orthodox Thought 
(Milwaukee 1923) 140 and 142. Among so many pages which deal with 



this question, we should mention the very enlightening ones of Jugie, 
"St. Gregoire et k procession du Saint-Esprit," Echos d' Orient n (1908) 
321-31; 328-30. 

8. See K. Holl, Entlnisiasmus und Bussgewah (Leipzig 1898) 417, n. 2. 
Schokrios employs for "satisfaction" the Greek word ixavoxotTjai;: 
DTC XIII i, 1330. 

9. Cf. J. Weisweiler, Busse. Bedeutungsgeschichtliche Beitrage zur Kidtur- 
und Geistesgeschichte (Halle 1930) 228, 249. For our part, we believe tha t 
this is a very important point and marks the true difference between East- 
ern and Western thought. Cf. our study on Purgatory, Le mysiere de 
la mart.... 

10. A propos of the Greeks being too subtle, the Roman apocrisiaries 
to the synod of Nicaea-Nymphaeum in 1234 complained of their "cavilla- 
tiones": Mansi, XXIII, 280 C. Their perfidy was already noted by Ci- 
cero, quoted by Jugie, Le schisme byz. 28. Luitprand, Bishop of Cremona, 
took away this impression from Constantinople in 968; (Jugie, ibid. 158, 
n. 3.) The reproach was often formulated at the time of the Fourth Cru- 
sade; c Norden, cited infra, Ch. IV, n. 32. 

11. Even as early as St. Gregory the Great, normally gentle, cf. Ep. 
XX ad Mauritium Augustum PL 77.746; Pope Vitalian in 668, cited by 
Jugie, Le schisme byz. 31; Pope John VIII, Ep. 108, ad Michaelem, regem 
Bulgarorum, PL 126.7580; and Pope Leo IX to Cerularius, PL 143. 
748. For reasons justifying this approach, cf. Duchesne, Churches Separated. .. 
73. See also Anselm of Havelberg, during the discussion of 1136 
(Dial III, 4 and 6: PL 188.12130, I2i5f.); Ill, 12 (coL 1226). 

12. Cf. Michel, cited supra, n. i; the constantly repeated reproach is 
clearly expressed in the polemic of Photius (c Jugie, Le schisme byz. 140) 
and of Cerularius (ibid. 216), and even in the irenic intervention of Peter 
of Antioch, 227. Nicholas I sharply took up these accusations in his 
response to Emperor Michael III: "We can only be astonished at seeing 
Your Majesty dare to mock the language of a Christian people as if it 



were a barbarous and Scythian idiom. The barbarians and the Scythians 
live like mindless beasts, they ignore the true God and pray before stones 
and pieces of wood. ... You qualify Latin as barbarian because you do not 
understand it. But think, now, how ridiculous you become when you 
call yourself * Roman Emperor' while not understanding anything of the 
Roman language,.." PL 119.932. See also Palmieri, op. cit. II 53 and 
supra, n. 4. 

13. Besides, Ch. 5, n. 22, infra, cf. H. I. Marrou, History of Education 
in Antiquity, (New York 1956) 340. Brehier, Monde byz. Ill La civiliza- 
tion byzantine 42o, 4s6f.; R. Guilland, "La vie scolaire a Byzance," 
Bull. Assoc. G. Butt (March 1953) 63-83. Cf. infra, n. 37. 

14. For laicus as equivalent to "illiterate" in the West, cf. our volume 
todes conjointes pour une Thtologie 'LaicaL For Byzantium, as well as 
the studies cited in n. 13 and infra, n. 32, and the well-known existence 
in the Empire of a body of well-educated laymen employed in the service 
of the State; c the fact that "Greek" sometimes signified "lettered, or 
cultivated man": E. Goldmann, "Graecus" = "Gebildet," Melanges mile 
Boisacq, (Brussels, 1937) 399-409. 

15. C. Fleury, Histoire ecctisiastique (25 vols.) (Nimes 1778-80) X 100. 

16. Baumstark, Grundgegensatze... esp. 8-9, n, 17-18, 33-43, 73. Cf. 
E. Goller, Die Periodisierung der Kirchengeschichte und die epochale Stellung 
des Mittelalters zwischen dem christlichen Altertum und der Neuzeit (Friburg 
1919) 23 ; J. de Ghellinck, L'essor de la Litterature latine au XII* siecle (Paris- 
Brussels 1946) 12; de. Vries, Der christliche Osten... 2i 

17. Baumstark wrote before the most recent revival of Byzantine stu- 
dies in the domain of religion and theology, or even art. One could not 
speak today, as in former times, of the static character of the East in its 
thought and art. The movement fostered by Palamas, which was really 
an anti- Scholastic reaction but has its own positive substance, surely cannot 
be called a phenomenon of "immobility" and old age. On the subject 
of art, see I? Art saai (May-June 1953). 



1 8. C O. Rousseau. "La question des rites entre Grecs et Latins des 
premiers siecles au concile de Florence,'* Irenikon, 22 (1949) 233-69. 

19. Brehier, "Avant le schisme du xi e siecle. Les relations normales 
entre Rome et les Eglises d'Orient," Docum. cathol 19 (1928) 387-404; 
citing J. Gay, L' Italic mlridionale et VEmpire byzantin, 188. 

20. Rousseau, art. cit. 267. The author spontaneously translates this 
"rite"; Hofmann, "Notae hist, de terminologia theologica Concilii Flo- 
rentini," Gregorianum 20 (1939) 257-63, esp. 261-62. 

21. This is a well-known point; it is particularly well expressed by 
Th. Kraline, "Paysans de Russie- blanche. Essai de psychologic religieuse," 
Constndre 8 (1942) 92-119; esp. nof. 

22. Since we are not here treating the question per se, we will content 
ourselves with mentioning the profound pages of S. Boulgakov, L'Or- 
thodoxie (Paris 1932) I94f. As testimony drawn from literature, see N. 
Gogol, Meditations sur la divine Liturgie. Introduction by Pierre Pascal 
(Paris 1952). 

23. Cf. Kattenbusch, Confessionskmde... 118-19; the East tends to make 
the rite an absolute, the West a juridical interpretation, by which the rite 
becomes purely a means. 

24. G. Florovski, "Problematical Aspects of Christian Reunion," (in 
Russian), Put\ n. 37, supplement: translated into French in Irenikon n 
(1934) 601; c CL Lialine, "De la methode irenique," Irtnikon 15 (1938) 
239, note, and Rev. &. byz. 10 (1953) 157-58. The Orthodox are re- 
proaching Uniatism, "the unija," for making the rite a means of obtaining 
a reunion which would in the long run be a pure and simple submission 
and therefore of not truly respecting the Oriental Church, intrinsically 
characterized by the rite. 

25. "Considerations sur le schisme d' Israel dans la perspective des divi- 
sions chrtiennes," Proche-Orient chre'tien, i (1951) 169-91- 

26. To supplement these far too brief remarks, it would be well to 
read C. Korolevski, "L'Uniatisme," Collection Irenikon (1927), n. 5-6; 



Lialine, art. cit. printed separately. Among the countless expressions of 
Orthodox reactions, one of the most characteristic is that of Msgr. Chryso- 
stom Papadoupoulos, Orthodox Archbishop of Athens; cf. Hieromonius 
Pierre, "L'union de 1'Orient avec Rome. Une controverse recente..." 
Orientalia christ. period. 18/1 (1930) 3 and 54; c Stoudlon 6 (Feb. 1929) 

27. A. Wilmart, Aiiteurs spirituels et textes divots du moyen age Latin 
(Paris 1932) 59-6o, 62, 506. Still other authorities" might be mentioned. 

28. These words compose the title of a chapter in Corpus Mysticutn, 
H. de Lubac (Paris 1944); the entire book traces a history of the point 
under examination, which agrees with that of this passage. 

29. See the works of Grabmann, Landgraf, Mandonnet, R. Martin, 
de Ghellinck, Chenu, and Gilson, of the centers in Saulchoir, Toronto, 
Ottawa, etc. Cf. also our article, "Theologie," in DTC. To give but 
one example: J.-P. Bonnes has edited and studied two sermons bearing 
upon the same subject, one by Geoffrey de Loroux (f 1158), the others 
by Peter Comestor (fnyS 2-1179 ?). The former, still living in the at- 
mosphere of the Church Fathers, considered the texts as a whole. The 
latter considered them through analysis and posed some questions: quis, 
i&i, ad quid...? J.-P. Bonnes, "Un des plus grands predicateurs du xn e 
sifccle, Geoffroy de Leroux, dit Geoffrey Babion," Rev. Wntdictine 56 
(1945-46) 174-215- 

30. See Gratieux, A. S. Khomiakov et le Mouvement slavophile 2 vols. 
Unam Sanctam 5 and 6 (Paris 1939); cf. Kireevski, cited by E. Schultze, 
Russische Denker (Vienna 1950) 85-7 and cf. in ra, n. 35. 

31. There is a very astute remark in this sense by Ph. de Regis, in his 
"Confession et direction dans TEglise orientale," Ufeglise et le pfaheur, 
Cahiers de la Vie spirituelle 2nd ed. (Paris 1948) 132-150. 

32. Tertium est inscitia Graecorum. Periit enim apud eos pro magna 
parte scientia cum studio, et ideo non intelligunt quae dicuntur eis per 
rationes, sed adhaerent semper quibusdam conciliis, et quibusdam quae 



tradita sunt eis a praedecessoribus suis, sicut faciunt quidam haeretici idiotae, 
ad quos ratio nihil valet." Opus tripart. pars 2, c. n; ed. Brown, 216. 
It is to be remarked that what Humbert notes is not in contradiction with 
what we said above on Byzantine culture: this culture was in the profane 
sciences, and theology was rather cut off from it, the Patriarchal school 
being something quite different from a University: cf. Brehier, "Notes 
s ur Thistoire de Penseignement superieur a Constantinople, "Byzantion 
3 (1926) 84-85, and III of his Monde byz. 426f, 492f; Fuchs, "Die hoheren 
Schulen von Konstantinopel im Mittelalter," Byzantinisches Archiv 8 
(1926) 5; J. M. Hussey, Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire (London 
1937) 22-23, cited by C. Toumanoff, Theol. Studies (194.6) 328. 

33. In any case, not having accepted the knowledge of the Scholastics 
as having the status of religious knowledge. Such, of course, was the 
trend of the followers of Palamas. We are not unaware that in Byzan- 
tium there was during the Sixth Century and then in the Eleventh with 
Michael Psellos, something analogous to the Occidental dialectical move- 
ment of the Eleventh Century. 

34. Cf. K. Pfleger, "Sinn und Sendung des neuorthodoxen Denkens," 
Der christliche Osten edd. v. J. Tyciak, G. Wunderle, P. Werhun (Ratisbon 
1939) 259-74- 

35. To the references given supra no. 30, add: Gratieux, "L'element 
moral dans la theologie de Khomiakov," Bessarione (1910) 358-66; N. von 
Arseniev, "J. V. Kirejewskij und seine Lehre von der Erkenntnis der 
Wahrheit," Kyrios (1936) 233-44. 

36. Cf. Dolger, "Zur Bedeutung von q>Maoq>oQ und ydoaoyia in 
Byzantinischer Zeit," a survey reprinted in Byzanz u. d. europ. Staatenw. 
I93; cf. VI. Valdenberg, "Sur le charactere general de la philosophic 
byzantine," Rev. d'Hist. de la Philosophic 3 (1929) 277-95, perhaps a 
little contrived; the best survey in French on the subject of Byzantine 
philosophy is that of B. Tatakis, which appeared as Philosophie byzantine 
in the 2nd supplementary section of Histoire de la Philosophie by Em. 
Brehier, (Paris 1907) 217. 



37. On this and many other points, J. Wilbois has been very perceptive 
in his UAvenir dc rfylise russe (Paris 1907) 217. 

38. Jugie, "L'union facile avec les Orientaux?" Unitas (April 1949) 
261-73; reprinted in the Docum. cathol (Sept. n) 1949, 1193-1206. 

39. On the subject of Purgatory, cf. our study cited supra, Le mystere 
de la mart... 279-336, esp. 2946 Concerning the primacy, cf. Jugie, TheoL 
dogm. or. diss. IV 366f. 

40. Quoted by St. Augustine, De bapt. 3, n. 5. 

41. "La deification dans la tradition spirituelle de 1'Orient," Vie spirit. 
Suppl. (May 1935), 91-108. 

42. Divided Christendom, chs. I and IV. Vl. Lossky, Essai sur la theologie 
mystique de I'Zglise d'Orient (Paris 1944) 55 and 172: the disunion, ac- 
cording to Lossky, does not arise from differences of mentality or an- 
thropological differences, but all the disagreements have their source in 
the one point of dogma, that which concerns the Procession of the Holy 

43. Thus J. B. Aufhauser writes: "Der letzte Grund der nahorientalisch- 
anatolischen Kirchenspaltung liegt nach meiner auf Grund langjahriger 
Studien wie vielfacher personlicher Aussprachen mit nahostlichen Kirchen- 
fuhrern gewonnenen Uberzeugung nicht so sehr in theologischen, als 
volkisch-kulturellen Unterschieden." "Die Theologie der getrennten Kir- 
chen und die Frage der Wiederbegegnung," Das Morgenlandische Chris- 
tentum ed. P. Kruger and J. Tyciak, (Paderborn 1940) 79- We should 
merely add that the differences of mentality are in a very substantial way 
reflected in the theological structure itself. 

44. We find in the "Great Catechism" of Philarete, which was, and 
perhaps still is, in use in Russia, the following question-and-answer: 
"Q.: What ideas and what recollections may we associate with the 
name of the Eastern Churches ? 

"A.: In Paradise, which was set in the East, was founded the first Church 



of our first parents in innocence; in the East, too, after the Fall, was set 
die foundation of the Church of the redeemed, by the promise of the 
Savior. It was in the East, in the land of Judah, that Our Lord Jesus 
Christ, having consummated the work of our salvation, founded His 
own Church; it was from there that He spread the Church over the entire 
Universe. And until today, the Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic faith, 
confirmed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, is kept without change in 
its original purity by the ancient Churches of the East and in those Churches 
which are in agreement with them, as is by God's Grace, the Church 
of Russia." The Doctrine of the Russian Church, Toeing the Primer or Spelling 
Book, the Shorter and Longer Catechisms... tr. by R, W. Blackmore (Aber- 
deen 1845) 82. As for the Patriarch Photius, the Latins arriving in Bul- 
garia came from the darkness, since they came from the West. (Epist. 4, 4, 
in sxiarohai (ed. by J. N. Valetta, London 1864) 168. Analogous state- 
ments were made at the Council of Constantinople in 1054, quoted by 
Soloviev, La Grande Controverse 104. 

45. De la Me*th. irin. Offprint, 76. 

46. It is an aspect of the sobornost' that must be kept in mind. Cf. E. von 
Ivanka " 'Geisteskirche* und 'Gottragervolk,' Zum KirchenbegrifF der 
Ostkirche," Zeitschrif. kath. Theol 71 (1949) 347-54- 

47. They are thus resumed by D. Stremoukhoff, Vladimir Soloviev et 
son ceuvre messianiaue (Paris 1935) 203; with reference to the CEuvres russes 
V, 167-69: "Soloviev could therefore say that in the system of the Slaves 
philes, religion has no place, that their stylized Orthodoxy, their 'Ortho- 
doxism* (pravoslavnicanie) is much more faith in the Russian people than 
in the Orthodox and Christian faith of that people. He was even to go 
further and declare that Orthodoxy is for the Slavophiles the true religion 
because the Russian people confess it, since it is *an attribute of the Rus- 
sian nationality. '" 

48. "God sums up in Himself a whole people. When the peoples begin 
to have common gods, it is already a sign of their decline. Each people, 
in order to remain a separate ethnic group, should have its own God." 



And c KL Kohn, Prophets and Peoples, Studies in Nineteenth Century Na- 
tionalism, (New York 1946) ch. 5. 

49. See the analysis made by Palmieri, TheoL dogm. orth. n, i$6f. 

50. N, Oehmen, "Le ' lieu theologique' du Schisme et le travail pour I'Union" 
Irfaikon, 17 (1945) 2<S-50. 



1. Epist. Quantum presbyteromm to Acacius, Jan. 9, 476 PL 58. 42. 
Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum no. 159; St. Basil in his Epist. XC, 
PG 32.473; in 372 and especially St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Carmen de 
vita sua, PG 37.1068, in 382: "In nature, there is only one sun, but there 
are two Romes, one of which illumines the West, the other the East"; 
however, ancient Rome, "Unites all the Occident by a true teaching, which 
is just, since she presides over the whole and guards the universal and 
divine harmony." "We say, "if not from the beginnings": there has been 
from the beginning an East and a West. St. Irenaeus, wanting to express 
the catholicity of the Church, enumerates three churches of the Occident 
(Germania, Iberia, Gaul) and three churches of the Orient (East An- 
tioch, etc. Egypt, Libya) and those of the middle world (Rome?); but 
he primarily stresses that the apostolic tradition is the same in all these 
churches, which are as one sole house. PG 7.552. Cf. St. Augustine, 
Contra Jul. 1.13, P. 44.649A: "ulriusque partis terrarum fides." 

2. Bardy, "Le sens de 1* unite dans 1'Eglise et les contro verses du V e 
siecle," IJ Annie theolog. 9 (1948) 169. Very impressive is the following 
text of H. Lietzmann: "So it came about that the synod which had been 
called as representing the whole Empire, fell asunder from the first, break- 
ing into two halves, each of which condemned and deposed the leader of 
the other. Then each party returned home, the question now being which 
of them would be able to carry out its will. Schism had become a fact. 
For the first time in the history of the Church, East and West separated 
from each other by formal decision. It was not merely differences in 
church politics that found expression in the present division; there were 
also differences both in theological thought beneath the ambiguous for- 
mulae, as well as in many aspects of religious feeling, as between Eastern 
and Western Christianity. A straight line runs from Sardica to the final 
separation in A.D. 1054." From Constantine to Julian, trl. by Bertram Lee 
Woolf (New York 1950) 206. 



3. See Jugie, Le schisme byz. 60. 

4. Lietzmann, op. ciL 205. 

5. On the subject as a whole, see Cavallera, Le schisme fAtitioclie (IV*- 
V siecles) (Paris 1905); Schwartz, "Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten 

Jahrhunderts," Zeitschr. j. Neutestamentliches Wissen. 34 (1935) 129-213; 
Devreesse, Le Patriarcat d'Atitioch... (Paris 194.5)- 

6. Cf. the remark of St. Ambrose in his Ep. XIV to Theodosius: "Dolori 
erat inter Orientalcs atque Occidentales interrupta sacra communionis esse 
consortia." PL 16.954. See Palanque, 5. Ambrose et I 9 Empire remain ... 
(Paris 1933) 96f. 505. It is not certain that Orientates in this text has the 
restricted meaning of applying to the diocese of the Orient. 

7. Cavallera, op. cit. 299. 

8. The favor the Eastern Fathers showed towards human liberty derives 
from their sociological background. Bardy, op. cit. n. 2, supra, 167, writes: 
"[... the Pelagian affair] throws into relief the depth of the abyss which 
had insensibly been made between the Greek Church and the Latin Church. 
Not only did the two Churches not speak the same language, but they 
did not concern themselves with the same questions. The Orientals, who 
are mystics, were concerned with the way man should achieve the vision 
of God and, better still, achieve divinization. The Westerners, who are 
moralists and jurists, were, on the contrary, concerned with the question 
of how man should render his account to God...." Note also remarks of 
the same tenor made, beginning with the liturgy, by Baumstark, "Grund- 
gegensatze...," 54f. 

9. See the monumental work, Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte 
und Gegenwart) Grillmeier and Bacht, I, the survey by Ch. Moeller, "Le 
chalcedonisme et le neochalcedonisme de 451 jusqu'a la fin du VI e siecle," 
II; the article by Hoffmann, iliJ, "Der Kampf der Papste urn Konzil und 
Dogma von Chalkedon, von Leo dem Grossen bis Hormisdas, 451-519." 

10. In the Roman liturgy, from the beginning, the stress is rather more 
on the element of instruction than on the mystical. Baumstark, foe. cit. 



11. "Quomodo incrementum influxus orientalis in Imperio byzantino 
s. VII- DC dissensionem inter Ecclesiam Romanam et Orientalem promo- 
verit?" Acta Con. Pragensis pro studiis oriental (Olomouc 1930) 159-72; 
c 166-171. 

12. Supra ch. I, n. 40. and Ch. Diehl, Histoire de T Empire byzantin 
(Paris 1920) 59f. 

13. C Michel supra, ch. I, n. 3, 532. 

14. See the text and the studies made of them in P. Baron, Une Mologie 
orthodoxe, A. S. Khomiakov ... (1940) 1531".; also Ufcglise latine et le pro- 
testantisme au point de vue de I'Eglise d' Orient (Lausanne and Vevey 1872) 
33f. 86 ("moral fratricide"); Birkbeck and the Russian Church... collected and 
edited by A. Riley, (London 1917) 343. 

15. See the numerous historical treatments of the question, the articles 
on the Filioque; Howard, op. cit. 22-30. The difficulties raised by the 
Carolingian councils were the cause of a certain delay in counting the 
Council of 787 among the Ecumenical Councils; cf. Dvornik, Les Ugendes 
de Constantin et de Mfahode vues de Byzance (Prague 1933) 3o6f. 

16. Besides Hergenrother, see: Duchesne, The Churches Separated...*, 
Brehier, Le schisme oriental du XI 6 siecle (Paris 1899); id. Cambridge Mediaeval 
History IV 246-273, ch. IX: The Greek Church; its Relations with the West 
up to 1054 (Cambridge, 1923); j. Pargoire, LtEglise byzantine de 527 a 
847 (Paris, 3rd. ed. 1923) gives the facts but touches only occasionally on 
the problems as a whole; Ivanka, "Orient et Occident: Une contribution 
au problme du schisme," Irtnikon 9 (1932) 409-21; Congar, Div. Chris- 
tendom., 3-14; A. Hamilton Thompson, The Division between East and 
West (brochure, reprinted in Union of Christendom, ed. by K. Mackenzie, 
London, 1938, 109-32) 45sf. Jugie, Le schisme byz. 232, on Cerularius: 
"The true cause of the schism was the indomitable determination of the 
Byzantine Patriarch to maintain his full autonomy vis-a-vis the Roman 
pontiff"; Michel "Kampf..." D. Konzil von Chalkedon. II 491-562. See 
also V. Monachino, infra n. 20; Herman, infra n. 27. 

17. See Palmieri, Theol dogm. orth. II 139. 



18. See Heiler, Altkirchliche Autonomie ... on Milan, p6; on Aquil- 
leia, 108; on Aix-Ia-Chapelle, cf. Jordan, Nouv. Rev. hist, droit (1921) 
364. The theme: Translate studii E. Gilson, "L'Humanisme Medieval," 
Les Idles et les Lettres (Paris 1932) 184-85. 

19. Council of Constantinople, 381, Canon 3 (Mansi, III 5576) See 
W. Bright, The Canons of the First Four General Councils . . . with notes 
(Oxford 1892) 106-11. As we have already seen and as we shall see 
later on, the year 381 is a notable date in the process of estrangement. 
If Damasus did not reject the Canon, at least the text of the Council of 
382 (cf. infra, n. 35) is implicitly a criticism of it; cf. Jugie, Le schisme 
lyz. 87-88. 

20. Council of Chalcedon, 451, Canon 28, (Mansi VII 3571*). Bright, 
op. dt. 219-233; Jugie, Le schisme byz. 12, whose translation we follow 
in part. The studies made of Canon 28 are numerous and recent: J. Chap- 
man, Bishop Gore and the Roman Catholic Claims (London 1905) 86f. 
Batiffol, Le Siege apostoliaue (Paris 1924) VIII; Jalland, The Life and Times 
of St. Leo the Great (London 1941) 3O3f.; Schwartz, "Der 6. Nicanische 
Kanon auf der Synode von Chalkedon," SbBerlin 27 (1930); A. Wuyts, 
"Le 28 c canon de Chalce*doine et le fondement du Primat romain," 
Orient, christ. period. 17 (1951) 265-82; Monachino, "Genesi storica del 
Canone 28 di Calcedonia" et "11 Canone 28 e S. Leone Magno" Grego- 
rianum 33 (1952) 261-91 and 331-65; TL O. Martin, "The Twenty-Eighth 
Canon of Chalcedon, A Background Note, "Das Konzil von Chalkedon, 

Gesch. u. Gegenwart II 433-58. 

21. Epist. CV to the Empress Pulcheria (22 May, 452) PL 54.995. 

22. "Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium, aha divinarum; praeter 
illam petram quam Dominus in fundamento posuit, stabilis erit nulk 
constructio." Epist. CIV to the Emperor Marcian (22 May 452) PL 
54.995. Cf. Gelasius I to the Bishops of Dardania (ist Feb. 495) PL 

23. Cf. Jugie, "Le plus ancien recueil canonique slave et la primaute" 
du pape," Bessarione 34 (1918) 47-55; A. D'Ales, "Le 28 e canon de Chal- 



cedoine dans la tradition de 1'Eglise serbe," Rech. Sc. relig. 12, (1922) 87-89- 
M. d'Herbigny, Theologica de Ecdesia II 293. That the Nomocanon was 
not drawn up by St. Methodius himself (cf. Echos f Orient 1936, 503) 
does not lessen the force of the fact here signalized. 

24. That is to say, according to the scheme of the three principle Sees, 
(Rome, Alexandria, Antioch) linked with the Apostle Peter: cf. the 
history of this theory in Michel, Der Kampf..., 500-524. It is to be regretted 
that several times in history Rome actually linked her best-founded claims 
to historical fictions, e. g. when she claimed to be the origin of all the 
Western Churches. Even St. Leo's interpretation of Canon 6 of Nicaea 
is not entirely invulnerable to discussion. 

25. Cardinal Humbert was to call Cerularius "Bishop of the Imperial 
city." Michel, Der Kampf... 518-19. 

26. The first bishop of Constantinople to have adopted this title seems 
to have been Acacius, thus giving rise to the protestation of Pope Felix II 
(Jalland, The Church and the Papacy 315; Michel, Der Kampf... 497). 
Before him, the title had been given without great significance other 
than honorary, to Dioscoros of Alexandria (449) by St. Leo. As is well 
known, when John IV, The Faster, bestowed upon himself this tide in 
586, Pope Pelagius and St. Gregory the Great protested with vehemence 
and insistence. St. Gregory saw in it a title of pride, regarded it as a 
profane and ambitious and monopolizing title, by means of which the 
reality of their episcopate was implicitly refused to the other bishops. 
Cf. S. Vailhe, **Le titre de Patriarche oecumenique avant St. Gregoire le 
Grand," and "S. Gregoire le Grand et le titre de Patriarche oecumenique," 
Echos d 9 Orient n (1908)65-69 and 161-71. After John The Faster and 
his successor Cyriacus, the title became current in Constantinople, but it 
was only Michael Cerularius who introduced it into the patriarchal seal, 
where it afterwards remained; Laurent, "Le titre de patriarche oecume"- 
nique et la signature patriarcale. Recherches de diplomatique et de si- 
gillographie byzantines," Rev. hist, da Sud-Est europten (1946) and "Le 
titre de patriarche oecumenique et Michel Cerulaire. A propos de deux 
de ses sceaux inedits," Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati III 373-386 (Vatican 
1946). On the meaning of "oecumenical" cf. supra, ch. I, n. 6. 



27. Besides those studies cited n. 142, cf. Herman, "Chalkedon und die 
Ausgestaltung des Konstantinopolischen Primats," Das Konzil von Chal- 
kedon II 459-90- 

28. Cf. Mirk, Quellen zur Gesch. d. Papsttums n. 204; C. Kirch, Enchir. 
Fontium Hist, ecclesiast. ant. n. 1035-1036. 

29. Canon 36: Mansi, XI 959J Kirch, op. cit. n. 1096. 

30. Dvornik, "La lutte entre Byzance et Rome a propos de l f niyricum au 
DC e stecle," Melanges Charles Diehl (Paris 1930) 61-80; Les Ugendes de 
Constantm et de Methode vues de Byzance 248-83; R. Honig, Beitrage 
zur Entwicklung des Kirchenrechtes (Gottingen 1954) 3o 

31. We give a few references only, less to prove these assertions which 
will be evident to anyone versed in the texts, than to clarify what we wish 
to say. We allude, for example, to ecclesiological studies such as those of 
the contemporary Greek theologians so well summarized by Gavin, Some 
Aspects... 2376 the collection of testimony on the Church gathered by 
J. A. Douglas, The Relations of the Anglican Churches with the Eastern 
Orthodox (London 1921) App. I, H5~i35, or again the many studies by 
Russian Orthodox theologians, of which we will list the main ones. Ma- 
carius (Boulgakov) Thfologie dogmatique orthodoxe (French translation 
Paris 1860) II 2i9f.; Msgr. Serge, Bishop of Yamburg and Rector of the 
Ecclesiastical Academy of St. Petersburg, "Qu'est-ce qui nous separe des 
anciens catholiques f Fr. transL Rev. intermit, de Thtol. 12 (1904) 175- 
188; Serge Boulgakov, speech made at the Ecumenical Conference of 
Faith and Order, Lausanne, 12 August 1927, Foi et Const. Actes Offi- 
ciels... (Paris 1928). 296-303; Florovsky, "Le Corps du Christ vivant," 
La Sainte glise umverselle. Confrontation oecumfaiaue (Cahier the'oL de 
TActualitl protestante), (Neuchltel-Paris 1948) 9-57. Shades of differences 
are to be detected here and there, and even some slight emendations. 
But on the whole, studies such as these display a profound identity of 
dogmatic opinion on the mystery of the Church. For the position of the 
priesthood and of the people, cf Kattenbusch, Lehrb. d. vergl. Confes- 
sionskd. I 346f., and the two volumes of our Jalons.... 



32. Zankov, Die Orthod. Kirche des Ostens in okumen. Sicht, 52-54. 

33. For this reason, after citing above the texts assembled by Canon 
Douglas in his Appendix I (The Church, its Composition and Infallibili- 
ty...) as evidences of our accord on the mystery of the Church, we now 
cite those he groups in Appendix II of the same work, 163-73: "The 
Oecumenical Church and the Autocephalous Churches'*, as evidences 
of our opposition: at this point what is involved are the constitution, the 
regime, the policy of the Church. 

34. We recommend the collection of texts (accompanied by a brief 
and very objective status auaestionis) Documents Illustrating Papal Authority 
A. D. 96-454 (ed. and intr. by Giles, London 1952): the author stops 
with St. Leo but, with the Russian Orthodox historian Bolotov, or with 
another Anglican historian, one may say that the Petrine and Roman 
ideology, formulated by St. Leo in order to prevent Constantinople from 
isolating herself within a closed ecclesiastical autonomy, was the one taken 
up by the Vatican Council: B. J. Kidd, The Roman Primacy to A.D. 461 
(London 1936) 153. In addition, there are the classic surveys by Duchesne, 
The Churches Separated...', J. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (Lon- 
don 1928); Batiffol, Le catholicisme des origines a S. Lion 4 vis. (Paris 1909- 
1924); Catholicisme et Papautl, Les difficult^ anglicanes et russes (Paris 1925) 
Cathedra Petri. Et. d'hist. anc. de I'Sglise (Paris 1938); S. H. Scott, The 
Eastern Churches and the Papacy (London 1928); Jalland, c supra, ch. I 
n. 13; Jugie, Le schisme byz. "Oil se trouve le christianisme integral?" 
(Paris 1947). Monographs on this subject abound. 

35. Of special importance is the decree taken up again in the Gela- 
sianum Mirbt, n. 191, which in reality is of the Roman synod of 382 
(Damasus) and corresponds to the Council of Constantinople of 381 
(supra n. 19); it contains a very strong affirmation of the universal prima- 
cy of Rome. 

36. Cf. Mirbt, n. 139, 145-155; H. Gebhardt, Die Bedeutung Innocenz 
fur die Entwicklung der pdpstlichen Gewalt (Leipzig 1901). 

37. For St. Leo, cf. Batiffol, Kidd, Jalland (cited supra) and the num- 
erous works on the Primacy of Chalcedon. For Gelasius, cf. various works 
of Schwartz, Kissling, H. Koch, without forgetting Vol. II of Caspar. 



38. Mirbt, n. 195. Cf. W. Haacke, Die Glaubensformel Jes Papstes Hor- 
misdas im Acacianischen Schisma (Rome 1929); J- San Martin, "La 'Prima 
sedes* del Papa Honnisdas (514-523),'* Rev. espanola de Teol I (1940-41) 

39. A good statement on the primacy at the turn of the Fourth to 
Fifth Centuries is to be found in Bardy, Hist, de TEglise, (Fliche et Mar- 
tin 4) 24if. See Jugie, Le schisme byz. $j.: a good number of these facts 
and statements are, however, to be placed in the perspective of a simple 
canonical prima sedes. 

40. Cf. S. Salaville, "La primaute de S. Pierre et du pape d'apres 
S. Theodore Studite," 6chos fOr. 17 (1914) 23-42; Jugie, Le schisme byz. 
94-96. For St. Nicephorus, see Apologeticus Major, c. 25 PL 100.597. 

41. Palmieri, Theol. dogm. orth. II cites only Simeon of Thessalonica 
(f 1429) 57: PL 145.100. Jugie, ThloL dogm. christ. oriental, diss. IV 366f. 
cites a rather large number of authorities; c "De B. Petri Ap. Romanique 
Pontif. Primatu a theologis byzantinis etiam post schisma consummatum 
assertio...," Angelicum 6 (1929) 47-66. But some of them speak of the 
primacy in a vague and indeterminate way. Besides, a great difference 
may be noted between the texts by Orientals and the texts subscribed to 
but not drawn up by them, those of the councils of union, for instance, 
among others the profession of faith of Uroch III of Serbia addressed to 
Pope John XXII, p. 373. Thus, even in the documents of union may be 
noted the permanence of what is the cause and actual substance of the 
schism, the existence of two different canonico-ecclesiological points of 
view. The testimony of the historians should also be noted: cf. for exam- 
ple, in Jugie, op. dt. 402f., those of A. P. Lebedev, V. V. Bolotov and 
N. Suvurov. 

42. Cf. Batiffol, "L'Ecclesiologie de S. Basile," chos f Orient, 21 (1922) 

43. Jugie, Le schisme byz. 62 f. does not quote any text and with good 
reason. A. Moulard, St. Jean Chrysostome (Paris 1941) 116, recognizes 
this absence and states well John's concept of the status of Rome. Much 


has been written on this subject. Card. N. Marini, II primate di S. Pietro 
et del suoi successors in S. Giovanni Crisostomo 2nd ed. (Rome 1922); J. 
Hadzega, Acta II L Conv. Velehradensis (Prague 1912) (but what is dealt 
with here is the primacy of Peter, while the whole question bears on that 
of the pope and the connection this question has with that of Peter...); 
Jugie, "S. Jean Chrysostome et la primaute du pape," ibid. 193-202. 

44. The texts cited by Jugie, Le schisme byz. 83-84, speak of Peter. 

45. Cathedra Petri. Et. d'Hist. anc. de rglise, (Unam Sanctam 4, Paris 
1938) 75-76- This idea that Rome and the East do not give the same 
content to the concept of primacy, emerges from the (Anglican) book 
by H. E. Symonds, The Church Universal and the See of Rome... (London 
1939). Moreover, the question should not be too lighdy dismissed. Some 
Roman documents accepted in the East expressly argue that the authority 
exercised by the Bishop of Rome derives from the authority of the Apostle 
Peter, exercised by the Bishop of Rome. For example, the letter of Pope 
Julius to the Eusebians: Athanasius, Apol. 35, and that it resides in the 
Roman See-Formula of Hormisdas; cf. the study by Haacke cited supra 
n. 38. Of course, not forgetting Sardica.... Occasionally but rarely, one 
even runs across the idea that Peter himself is incarnated in the Bishop of 
Rome; Theodore Abu-Qarra (Syria, f 867?) Ignatius of Constantinople, 
at Nicaea in 867: cf. Jugie, Le schisme byz. 96-97 and 90. 

46. "Normal relations between Rome and the churches of the East 
before the schism of the Eleventh Century," The Constructive Quarterly 
(Dec. 1916) 645-73: French text in Docum. cathol 19 (1928) 387-404. 

47. Cathedra Petri,... 41-59; special application to the East, 199-214. 
The account given by Bardy, cited supra n. 29 well illustrates the idea 
which is a simple statement of facts. The same may be said of the book 
by Heiler, cited si4pra n. 18. 

48. Batiffol, Siege apostoliaue..., 577$ Kidd, Rom. Primacy 152-53. 

49. Jugie, "Interventions de S. Leon le Grand dans les affaires inte- 
rieures des ^glises orientales," Miscellanea P. Paschini (Rome 1948) I 



50. Michel, "Der Kampf...," Das Konzil von Chalkedon II 544-54- 

51. The earlier studies of Dvornik, outlined for a wider public in several 
articles, "Le patriarche Photius, pere du schisme ou apotre de 1'union?" 
La Vie intell (Dec. 1945) 16-38; "East and West: The Photian Schism. 
A Restatement of Facts," The Month. 179 ( W3) 357-7, have been taken 
up as a whole again in the work cited infra n. 76. See also Jugie, "Pho- 
tius et la primaute de S. Pierre et du pape," Bessarione 35 and 36 (1919 
and 1920) 121-30 and 16-76; Le schisme byz., 90-93- M. Gordillo, "Photius 
et Primatus Romanus," Oriental, christ. period. 6 (1940) 6-39; (the polemic: 
"To those who claim the Primacy for the See of Rome," is not by Photius; 
it dates from the Thirteenth Century. But this study by Gordillo has 
been critizised by Jugie, "L'opuscule contre la primaute romaine attribue a 
Photius," Et. de Critique et d'hist. relig., Pull de la Fac. cath. de Theol de 
Lyon, 2 (Lyon 1948) 43-6o- 

52* C Dvornik, art. mentioned supra n. n, 76. 

53. Here are the last lines of his fine study, which opens such interest- 
ing vistas: "The schism which has shattered our souls was not wanted by 
the faithful but was imposed upon them by the politicians. After cent- 
uries of fearful crises, the Churches of the West and the East had managed 
to establish a regime of mutual harmony which had not attained perfection 
but could endure and be improved. A whole series of usages, traditions, 
practices, assured between them normal and peaceful relations; on the 
greater portion of the terrain where their interests might be in opposition, 
they had reached compromises; the autonomy of the Churches of the East 
was not incompatible with the dogmatic and disciplinary authority of the 
Holy See; and finally, the daily interchanges between their congregations 
could become the best token of their unity. Had the question remained 
in the domain of religion, the accord would have become definitive. 
Unfortunately, the ambitions of the Patriarch Michael Cerularius began 
to clash with the resistance of the legates sent by Leo IX, and there was 
no longer room for anything but the schism." 

54. The reply of the Orthodox to the idea outlined above, that the 
primacy had been affirmed and exercised for centuries without causing 
the East to interrupt communion, is generally that communion was pre- 


cisely interrupted by Nicholas I, who first made a radical theological 
theory of the primacy. Cf. Jugie, TheoL dogm.... IV 407. This reply is 
in sum, not historically valid, but contains a seed of truth we will try to 
take into consideration in the following pages. 

55. Cf. N. Milasch, Das Kirchenrecht der tnorgenlandischen Kirche, 2 ed. 
Mostar 1905) 93-95; as to the exact position of Photius in regard to this 
subject, cf. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 92. 

56. On the debate with Carthage (Apiarius), cf. Chapman, Stud, on 
the Early Papacy i84f. H. E. Feine, Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte I (Weimar 
1950) 81, 97f. For the epoch of St. Leo, cf. Jalland, The Ch. and the Pa- 
pacy 312. 

57. Aside from what has been said above, cf. ch. II, n. 19, 20, see the 
original and penetrating remarks of Kattenbusch, Lehrb. d. vergl. Con- 
fessionskunde 331-35- 

58. Again, a remark of Kattenbusch, 361. The collegia! idea is deeply 
rooted, moreover, in Eastern social history: cf. "La personne et la liberte" 
humaines dans Tanthropologie orientale," Recherches et Dtbats, (May 
1952) 99-n i. 

59. Cf. the account by Bardy in the Hist, dc FJiglise (Fliche et Martin 4) 
184, and n. 4. 

60. Session III (13 Oct. 451): Mansi, VI 1047: "Unde sanctissimus et 
beatissimus archiepiscopus magnae et senioris Romae, Leo, per nos et 
per praesentem sanctam synodum, una cum ter beatissimo et omni laude 
digno beato Petro apostolo qui est petra et crepido cathoh'cae ecclesiae et 
rectae fidei fundamentum, nudavit eum Dioscorum tarn episcopatus digni- 
tate quam etiam et ab omni sacerdotali ah'enavit ministerio." 

6j. Epist. CIH PL 54.992. I am indebted for this juxtaposition to 
W. Schneemelcher, "Chalkedon, 451-1951," Evangelische Theologie (1951) 

62. Cf. Jugie, Le schisme byz. 19; Brhier, Monde byz. II 489-90. On 
the origins of the permanent synod see a rather unfriendly notice by 



H. Leclercq, Hist, des candles II/i, 519, n. i. On Chalcedon, cf. Mansi, 
VII 92f. For the ulterior development of the institutions: B. Stephanidis, 
"Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Synoden des Patriarchats von Kon- 
stantinopel," Zeitschr. / Kirchengesch. 55 (1936) 127-57. 

63. Brehier, Hist, de l'glise (Fliche et Martin 4) 535f. Milasch, op. 
c it. supra, ch. Ill, n. 55. 

64. There is a good exposition in Symonds, The Church Universal and 
the See of Rome 2091"; and cf. Jugie, Le schisme byz. 26-27, 45. 

65. Pichler, Gesch. d. kirchl. Trennung zw. Orient u. Occident I 87f. 
And see, infra, Photius and Cerularius. Mirbt gives as title to n. 224, 
wherein are quoted a good number of these canons: "Abgrenzung der 
Kirche des Ostens gegen das Abendland in Recht, Gottesdienst u. Sitte." 
It would naturally be unfair to say that Rome has never in any way rec- 
ognized the legitimate differences of discipline between the East and 
herself. The pronouncements and the facts in this matter are numerous, 
but they do not pertain to our present theme. 

66. This important dispute went on from 905 to 923; c Amann, Hist, 
de rglise (Fliche et Martin 7) 116-25, especially this last page. 

67. Cf. P. Founder and G. Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniaues 
en Occident I (Paris 1931) 79, and also most particularly, W. M. Plochl, 
Geschichte des Kirchenrechts II (Vienna-Munich 1953) 256f. Plochl names 
the year 692 as a crucial point in his "Periodisierung." 

68. See the' texts of Collectio antiariana Parisina n. 17 and 26, CSEL, 
LXV, 59 and 65: "Verum nos iterum illos atque iterum rogabamus, ne 
firma solidaque concuterent, ne subverterent legem nee jura divina tur- 
barent, ne cuncta confunderent atque traditionem Ecclesiae ne quidem in 
modica parte frustrarent..."; "Nee hoc propter bonum quoque justitiae in- 
quirunt, non enim ecclesiis consulunt, qui leges juraque divina (ac) cete- 
rorum decreta dissolvere perconantur, propterea hanc novitatem mohe- 
bantur inducere, quam horret vetus consuetude Ecclesiae, at, in concilio 
Orientales episcopi quidquid forte statuissent, ab episcopis Occidentalibus 



refricaretur, similiter et, quidquid Occidentalium partium episcopi, ab 
Orientalibus solveretur, etc..." Cf. Greenslade, Schism in the Early Ch. 156. 

69. Cf. Jugie, Le schisme byz. 57-58. 

70. Id., op. tit. 63-64. 

71. For example, the letter of Gelasius, ad Dardanos, Feb. i, 495 (Jaffe, 
664); double text in PL 59, 6i, or Thiel I, 38a A decisive passage, taken 
up again in the Occidental canonical collections is, for example, Gratian, 
c. 17 C. DC q. 3 (Friedberg, I 611). 

72. We owe this remark, as well as those concerning the False Decretals, 
to Hartmann, Der Primat des romischen Bischofs bei Pseudo-Isidor (Stuttgart 
1930) 28. 

73. This affair has been traced by Heiler, Altkirchliche Autonomie... (see 
our review in Rev. des Sc. philos. et thloL 1947, 276f.) 

74. For Nicholas I, cf. J. Haller, Nikolaus I. und Pseudo-Isidor (Stuttgart 
1936) (not very favorable to Rome). Cf. supra n. 54. Concerning the 
False Decretals, we need not repeat what is today universally admitted, 
that they were not the acts of Rome but of Prankish clerics, seeking to 
ensure to the Church her independence in regard to the secular powers. 
But they contributed to the increasing of papal power and the ideology 
expressing that power. Cf. Fleury, Hist, ecclesiast. 4th "Discours" at the 
beginning of Vol. XVI, and Haller, op. tit. Hartmann, op. tit. 28, has 
shown that the Pseudo-Isidore has the popes using the same imperative 
terms with the Eastern bishops that they employed in their metropolitan 
or Western competence. The pontifical texts of the False Decretals treat 
the bishops of the whole world as suffragans of die Pope, with the obliga- 
tion of conformity, not only in the faith, but in discipline and usages. 
On the point under consideration, this is the contribution of the False 
Decretals. It is important to note that the decisive affirmations of Ni- 
cholas I on his authority in regard to the councils, are to be found in the 
documents anterior to the "reception" of the False Decretals by Rome; 
cf. Gordillo, Compendium Theol. Orient. 2nd ed. (Rome 1939) 80. 



75. One of the best accounts of the development of the exercise of 
pontifical power is that of V. Martin, art. Papc in the DTC XI/2, iSyyf 
Cf. Jugie, "Oil se trouve...," 35-6, 2oSf. 

76. See. V. Grumel, "Y eut-il un second schisme de Photius?" Rev. des 
Sc. philos. et Afol 12 (1933) 432-57; >gie, "Origine de la controverse 
sur 1'addition du Filioque au Symbole," ibid. 18 (1939) 369-85, and Le 
schisme byz. loif. Amann, various articles (among others, the articles 
Jean VIII and Photius in DTC, and portions of Hist, de I'Eglise (Fliche 
et Martin 7). Dvornik, numerous studies resumed in The Photian Schism, 
History and Legend (Cambridge 1948.) 

77. Jugie, Le schisme byz. 141, remarks: "In Rome they seemed to forget 
the true situation of the Byzantine Church in relation to the Western 
Church on the canonical plane. In his letters on the Photius affair, it is 
not rare to find Pope St. Nicholas and his secretary, Anastasius Biblio- 
thecarius, calling upon the Decretals of the popes to show the illegalities 
of which Photius was guilty. Now, the Byzantine Church totally ignores 
this source of the canon law. Even for the sources which are common, 
there are many divergencies in the details. This is so, for example, in 
the canons of Nicaea and Sardica, some of which had already fallen more 
or less into disuse in the Byzantine Church..." Ostrogorsky, Gesch. d. byz. 
Staates 2nd ed. 189, has well, if briefly, noted the difference of canonico- 
ecclesiological concepts existing between the Greeks and the Roman 
legates at the Council of 869-70. 

78. Photius wrote to Nicholas I: "The authentic Canons should be kept 
by all, but principally by those whom Providence has called to govern 
others; and among the Utter, those who have received a share of the 
primacy should outshine all others in faithfully observing them." PG 
102.616; cited in Jugie, op. cit. 92-3. At the Synod of St. Sophia in 879- 
880, Photius had it decreed that each Church should remain faithful to 
her particular customs: "Each see observes certain ancient customs, which 
have been transmitted by tradition, and one should not enter into dispute 
and litigation on this subject. The Roman Church conforms to her 
particular usages, and that is proper. On her side, the Church of Con- 



stantinople..." (Jugie, op. cit. 143). This formula is unassailable if it is 
not made to imply that each Church is fully autonomous. By this reason- 
ing, too, Photius justified the canonically debatable circumstances of his 
promotion to the patriarchate. 

79. Cf. Dvornik, The Photian Schism 145-50. 

80. Cf. Jugie, op. cit. 

81. Cf. the encyclical addressed by him to the Oriental Patriarchs 
after the Synod of 867; Jugie, op. cit. 113. 

82. Jugie, op. cit.' 232-33. 

83. See Michel, "Bestand eine Trennung der griechischen und romi- 
schen Kirche schon vor Kerullarios ?" Hist. Jahrb. 42-(ip22) i-ii; Hum- 
bert und Kerullarios (Paderborn, 1924 and 1933) I 2of. and II 22f. Jugie, 
op. cit. 170, 221; Ostrogorsky, Gesch. d. byz. Staates 267; Amann, Hist, de 
rglise (Fliche et Martin 7) 126: "The separation of the two Churches of 
Rome and Constantinople has not yet been consummated in fact as it has been 
in the literature." But Amann does not admit the rupture which Michel, 
for example, ascribes to Sergius II; Herman, "Le cause storiche della se- 
parazione della Chiesa Greca secondo le piu recenti ricerche," La Scuola 
cattolica (1940) 12-14; Grumel, "Les preliminaires du schisme de Michel 
Cerulaire ou la question romaine avant 1054," Rev. des t. byz. (1953) 

84. Michel, 10-11; Jugie, 168. Brehier, II 487- 

85. Jugie, Le schisme byz. 230. 

86. C Mirbt, n. 269; French translation in Jugie, op. cit. 2o6f. On 
Humbert and Cerularius, Michel, Humb. u. Kerull 2 vis. reviewed in 
Byzantion 2 (1926) 615-19, by M. Viller, and 8, 1933, 321-26 by Jugie; 
id'. "Lateinische Aktenstiicke und -sammlungen zum griechischen Schisma, 
(1053-1054)" Hist. Jahrb. 60 (1940) 46-64 (he calls Humbert "Sturmvogel 
der gregorianischen Reform", "der heissbliitige Sturmer"). 



87. Cf. Herman, "I Legati inviati da Leone IX nel 1054 a Constanti- 
nopoli erano autorizzati a scomunicare il patriarca Michele Cerulario?" 
Oriental christ. period. 8 (1942) 209-18; we share the opinion of others 
(cf. Irenikon 1954, 153) that the mandate of the legates was still valid. 

88. Amann, Hist, de rglise (Fliche et Martin 7) 139^ Ostrogorsky, 
Gesch. d. fyz. Staates, 2nd ed.\ (who notes that it was not cesaropapism 
which caused the break.) 

89. Laurent, Miscell Mercati III 373-96. 

90. C Jugie, op. dt 2i2f. 216, 23 if. 

91. Cf. Michel, art. cit t in following note, 74. 

92. On the ecclesiological ideas of Humbert and their connection with 
those of the Gregorian reform, cf. Michel, "Die folgenschweren Ideen 
des Kardinals Humbert und ihr Einfluss auf Gregor VII," Studi Gregoriani 
I (Rome 1947) 65-92; Ullmann, "Cardinal Humbert and the Ecclesia 
Romana," ibid. (1952) II 111-27; Michel, Die Sentenzen des Kardinals 
Humbert, das erste Rechtsbuch der pdpstlichen Reform (Leipzig 1943). For 
a hypothesis on the origin of the Dictates Papae (March 1075): J. Gauss, 
"Die Dictatus-Thesen Gregors VII als Unionsforderungen, Zeitschr. d. 
Savigni-Stiftung, Kanon. Abt. 29 (1940) 1-115. 

93. C V. Buffon, Chiesa di Cristo e Chiesa Romana nelle lettere di Fra 
Paolo Sarpi (Louvain 1941) 62. 

94. This is the opinion of Michel, op. dt. 77, n. 3* and of Every, Introd. 
n. i, who received the approbation of Brehier, Rev. historique, 199 (1948). 
263-0*4; K. Jordan, "Zur papstlichen Finanzgeschichte im 11. und 12. 
Jahrhundert," Quellen u. Forschg. aus ital. Archive^ 25 (1933-34) 61-104 
and "Die papstliche Verwaltung im Zeitalter Gregor VII," Studi Gregor- 
iani I (Rome 1947) 111-35. 

95. C Norden, Das Papsttum und Eyzanz (Berlin 1903) 97f. and 203 
Nicetas of Nicomedia, in his dispute of 1136 with Anselm of Havelberg, 



reproached the Roman Church for wishing to decide everything, alone, 
by her authority: Anselm of Havelberg, Dialog. Ill 8, PL 188.1219. 

96. At the synod at Nicaea-Nymphaeum in 1234, the Basileus said: "The 
schism has lasted for close to three hundred years." (Cf. Mansi, XXIII, 
297, D.) He was therefore counting it from the year 1054. 



1. See for example Jugie, Le schisme byz. 252-53, 258 (Twelfth and 
Thirteenth Centuries). Cf. for the Orthodox viewpoint, L. Gafton (in 
Rumanian), "The Aggravation of the Schism, following the Attempts 
at Union made in the period from the nth to the I5th centuries," Or- 
thodoxia (Bucharest) 8 (1956) 397-4JO- 

2. As a sampling of such differences (and not a comprehensive list), 
we may mention the expression "transsubstantiation" (first employed 
about 1130); the theology of indulgences (first attested concessions in 
1016, then at the Council of Clermont, 1095) and, in a general way, the 
insistence on the aspects of penal satisfaction (St. Anselm), with conse- 
quences as to our way of understanding Purgatory (c our study cited 
supra, ch. Ill, n. 39); the development of the theology of papal power 
and the tendency to exercise it in sense ofplenitudo potestatis, the tendency 
towards centralization; the restriction of canonizations to the pope, etc. 

3. Cf. Algermissen, Konfesslonskunde... 577. 

4. Such attempts were that of John the Scot, a movement which ended 
with the condemnation of 1241. Cf. M.-D. Chenu, "Le dernier avatar 
de la theologie orientale en Occident au XIII e siecle:" Melange Aug. Peber 
(Louvain 1947) I59f. H. F. Dondaine, "Hugues de Saint-Cher et k con- 
demnation du 1241," Rev. des. Sc. phil. et th&ol. (1947) 170-74, and Rech. 
Thlol. anc. et med. 19 (1952) 6of. Mendoza on the Eucharist in the Six- 
teenth Century; cf. Rev. des. Sc. phil et thtol (1950) 401-2. Here we 
may add, in recent times, the theology of the liturgical mysteries of Dom 
Odo Casel, ibid. 60 and the "new theology", linked to the current redis- 
covery of the Orient as to the interpretation of biblical sources. There were, 
indeed, some fortunate successes or at least, half-successes. Apart from 
the influence of Denis the Areopagite (who was not followed in all his 


oriental themes), there were the Cistercians (St. Bernard and William 
of St. Thierry), Nicholas of Cusa, Petavius and Scheeben. 

5. See Epist. CCXI PL 214.771: "If the Patriarch invited by us comes 
(to the general Council...) we will receive him benevolently and joyfully 
as a beloved brother and one of the principal members of our Church. 
On other matters, by the authority of the Apostolic See and with the 
approbation of the Holy Council, with his advice and the advice of the 
other brethren, we will enact what should be enacted." Hofmann, "L'ide*e 
du concile oecumenique comme moyen d'union dans les tractations entre 
Rome et Byzance," Vnitas 3 (July 1950) 25-33- 

6. C R. Scholz, "Eine Geschichte und Kirchenverfassung vom Jahre 
1406," Papsttutn und Kaisertum... (Festg. P. Kehr), (Munich 1926) 595-^1 ; 
c 607, n. 3. 

7. C Aubert, Le pontifical. .. 402-26. 

8. Already in 1169-1177, and therefore before the conquest by the 
Latins, the Patriarch Michael Anchialus declared: "Let the Saracen be my 
Lord in outward things, and let not the Italian run with me in the things 
of the soul, for I do not become of one mind with the first, if I do obey 
Kim, but if I accept harmony in faith with the second, I shall have deserted 
my God, whom he, in embracing me, will drive away." Every, Byzantine 
Patriarchate 184-85. At the Council of Florence, Dositheus, Bishop of 
Monemvasia (Morea) said: eyd) Povhopat dnodavelv, rj harwiaai nore 
(Mansi, XXXI/A 885C). Cf. Gloubokovski cited supra, ch. II, n. 70. 
Preferring the turban to the tiara, the Greeks defended Constantinople 
without enthusiasm: Diehl, Hist, de fEmpire byzanttn 199-209. 

9. We are alluding to the distinction established by Mohler between 
"Gegensatz" and "Widerspruch." Journet translates: contrast and contrary. 

10. Concilium Tridentinum Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova 
colkctio. Ed. S. Elises, Societas Goerresiana (Freiburg i/B. 1901-1951) 
V/2, 870 (Articuli haereticorum... n. 7). The theologians of Wittenberg 
were later to find the Byzantine theologians equally ill-disposed. One 



of them, Zygomalas, gave them the following response at the beginning 
of the Eighteenth Century: "Etsi Christus ipse de coelo descenderet, dicens 
Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et Filio procedere, tamen Graecos id non esse 
credituros." (Gavin, Some Aspects... 141, n. i.) 

11. We should like to quote here some truly irenic texts; see the one 
of Peter of Antioch, PG I20.796f; Jugie, Sclnsme Byz. 22$, and that of 
Theophylactus, PG I26.22if; Jugie, 243. 

12. P. Tournier, Medecine de la personne 5th. edit. (Neuchatel-Paris 
1941) 21 if. 

13. Opus tripartitum pars 2, c. 14; (Edit. Brown) II, 218. 

14. Ibid. 214. 

15. The Roman conception of the unity of the Church, he said, could 
be rather well shown by the analogy of a pkte with the letter P on it 
which is unbreakable because when broken the fragment with P on it 
is the pkte. F. Ckude Kempson, The Church in Modern England (New 
York 1908) 202, cited in C. Smyth, The Appeal of Rome-, its Strength and 
its Weakness n. d. (1945 r J 94^) 9- 

16. Epist. LXVI, (Edit. Hartel, CSEL) VIII 723. 

17. See Acts 2.41-2, 47; cf. 9.26. 

1 8. The faithful "those who were with the twelve," Mark 8.45 and 
Luke 24.33. The Apostles "those who were with Peter," Mark 1.36; 
Luke 8.45 and cp. 5.1-11, and for the sense, Luke, 22.31-2. 

19. See Congar, Jalons... 638-39. 

20. Humbert of Romans, op. dt. pars 2, ch. 6f. (Brown, II 21 if.) has, 
in this respect, some particularly interesting formulas. The popes have 
often joined to the institution by Our Lord, the mention of "patrum 
decreta" (the Councils), and the imperial recognition (Donatio Constantini), 



21. To such effect that, as Leo XIII remarked (infra, n. 29), we may 
illustrate many of our doctrines by Oriental testimonies. Here we will 
restrict ourselves to quoting some words of Pius XI: "Eucharistiae sacra- 
mentum percolamus, pignus causamque praecipuam unitatis, mysterium 
illud fidei, cujus amorem studiosamque consuetudinem quotquot Slavi 
Orientales in ipso a Romana Ecclesia discessu conservarunt... Ex quo 
tandem sperare licebit... Alterum unitatis reconciliandae vinculum cum 
Orientalibus Slavis in eorum singular! studio erga magnam Dei Matrem 
Virginem ac pietate continetur, eos ab baereticis compluribus sejungens, 
nobisque efficiens propriores..." Encycl Ecclesiam Dei 12 Nov. 1933 for 
the third centenary of St. Josaphat: Acta Ap. Sedis 15 (1923) 581. And 
finally see our "Note surles mots' Eglise,' 'Confession,' et 'Communion,'" 
Irtnikon 23 (1950) 3-3<5- 

22. Cf. Brehier, art. cit. supra, Docum. cath. col 40of. This excellent 
Christian historian who in his considerable work has given perhaps the 
most exact picture of things, is fond of stressing the elements of non- 

23. See supra. Ch. IV, n. 50 and 52. Thirty years before Cerularius, 
Pope John XXI had not been intractable: Jalland, The Church and the 
Papacy 399; Innocent III (c Tillmann, Papst Innocenz III, 2i6f.) and 
Innocent IV (cf. infra, n. 37) while conceiving the union to be more than 
anything, a submission to the authority of the Roman See, still did not 
utterly reject the idea of a Uniate Church statute that, in principle, would 
be respectful of the Oriental rite. At Florence, Rome agreed to leave 
undiscussed the points already defined as dogma in the West: Hofmann, 
art. cit. 97, n. 3. 

24. Jugie, Le schisme lyz. passim, has given quite a few references on 
this subject, 

25. If the reconstruction of events attempted by Grumel is exact, Rome 
seems to have taken the initiative towards a reconciliation in the year 
1062: "Le premier contact de Rome avecTOrient apres le schisme de Michel 
Cerulaire," Bull. Litter. eccUsiast. 43 (1952) 21-29. 



26. We have in mind essentially the conversations held (i) between 
the Orthodox and the Old-Catholics at Bonn in 1874 and 1875; (2) between 
the Anglicans and the Orthodox in the Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twen- 
tieth Centuries, the journey of P. Puller in Russia in 1912; the report of 
the mixed commission published in 1932 ; (3) between the Orthodox and 
the Catholics, cf. Russic et Chrstiente, n. 3-4. We hope to indicate elsewhere 
the documentation and the results of these exchanges. Evidently to be 
pointed out among the causes of a better comprehension is the publication, 
by Th. De Regnon, of his remarkable Etudes de theologie positive sur la 
Ste. Trinitt 4 vols. (Paris 1892-1898). 

27. This was the decisive matter, if not for Photius himself (Jugie says 
"no" in the article cited supra n. 76, and in Le schisme byz. 143-46; Grumel 
says "yes" in Rev. des t. byz. 5 [1947] 218-234), then at least for Cerularius, 
perhaps even for the Irenicals, Peter of Antioch and Theophylactus (Pal- 
mieri, Theol. dogm. orth. II 30-32); again in the attempt at reconciliation 
in the year 1062, and, fundamentally, until the Council of Florence (Pal- 
mieri, supra and 82), at which, moreover, the question of the primacy, 
perhaps slightly camouflaged, seems not to have caused great difficulty. 
At the synod of Nicaea-Nymphaeum in 1234 and at Lyons, the Greeks 
raised only two difficulties: regarding the Filioque and the Azymes. Among 
the causes of discord, Humbert of Romans gives very little place to ques- 
tions of doctrine, and mentions only the Filioque, (op. cit. 2, c. 18: Brown, 
II 222). 

28. Some of the Orthodox do not blame the Filioque in itself but only 
its unilateral insertion into the Creed; thus, for example, A. S. Khomiakov, 
writing to W. Palmer: cf. Russia and the English Church, ed. Birkbeck, 
6o; or Msgr. Gerasino Messara, Greek-Arab Metropolitan of Beyrouth 
in his letter of 1910; cf. &hos d'Orient 14 (1911) 48-51. Today, the greater 
number of the Orthodox say that the Filioque is not a heresy or even a 
dogmatic error but an admissible theological opinion, a "theologoumenon." 
Thus, in a very positive way, Soloviev; cf. his "Questions" in d'Herbigny 
Vladimir Soloviev, Russian Newman tr. A. M. Buchanan (London 1918) 166. 
Similarly, as early as the Twelfth Century, Nicetas of Nicodemia; cf. 
Van Lee, Les idles d'Anselme de Havelberg sur k dtveloppement des dogmes 



(Tongerloo 1938) 10 and n. 26; and again, in contemporary times, Bolotov, 
Florovsky, Boulgakov (cf. Hadzega, "Der heutige orthodoxe Standpunkt 
in der Filioque-Frage," ThcoL und Glaube 34, [1942] 324-330) which gives 
the references.) Many consider that the Filioque, correctly understood, 
should not be an obstacle to reunion; thus Lossky, Irlnikon (1938) n. 24, 
Eulogius and Svetlov, Rev. des &. byz. (1953) 162. Cassien and several 
professors of the Institut St. Serge, Russie et Chrltientt, (1950) n. 3-4. 
One could also bring other testimonies to bear. In touching lightly upon 
the question, Gavin, Some Aspects... 134-143, does not mention such clear 
and positive statements emanating from Greek theologians as the sampling 
of testimonies we have just given, which come almost entirely from 
Russian theologians. 

29. Thus, for example, Msgr. Elias Meniate, Bishop of Zarissa, La 
pierre d' achoppement Germ. transL Vienna, (1787) cited by De Maistre, 
Du Pape, 417; the Procurator of the Holy Synod, C. Pobedonoscev; 
Prince G. Troubetskoy (cited by Th. Spacil, Oriental, christ. period. 2 
(1924) 95, n, i; Boulgakov, Put 9 (May 1929) 47-48. To these let us add 
the following text of Leo XIII: "Si pauca excipias, sic cetera consentimus, 
ut in ipsis catholici nominis vindiciis non raro ex doctrina, ex more, ex 
ritibus, quibus Orientales utuntur, testimonia atque argumenta promamus. 
Praecipuum dissidii caput, de Romani Pontificis prirnatu..." Letter Prae- 
clara gratulationis, June 20, 1894: Acta 14 (1895) 199; ed. B. Presse, Lettres 
et Actes de Uon XIII V 86-88. 

30. Cathedra PetrL. 79. Cf. our preface to Photius by Dvornik, 17-21. 

31. The Hst of these would be impressive. Very many studies exist; 
we will cite only, besides Norden in the following note, and studies 
mentioned infra, n. 35., the rapid survey of Smit, Roma e fOriente cristiano, 
L'azione dei Papi per funita delta Chiesa (Rome 1944). 

32. Cf. Hergenrother, Neue Studien fiber die Trennung der morgenlandi- 
schen und abendlandischen Kirche (Wurzburg 1865) KSpfi Norden, Das 
Papsttum und Byzanz. Die Trennung der beiden Machte und ihre Wiederver- 
einigung bis zum Untergang des byzantinischen Reiches (1453) (BerUn 1903). 
See also Jugie, Le schisme byz. 197, 252; Fliche, "Le probl^me oriental au 



second concile ceoimenique de Lyon, 1274," Melanges de Jerphanion, 
Orient, christ. period. 13 (i94?) 475-85 ^ Vffier, "La question de 1'Union 
des glises entre Grecs et Latins depuis le concile de Lyon jusqu a celui 
de Florence, 1274-1438," Rev. fHist. eccles. 17 (1921) 260-305, 5*5-32; 
1 8 (1922), 20-60. C supra ck II, n. 70. 

33. P. R. Regamey in La Maison-Dieu 26 (1951/2) 159- 

34. See G. Goyau, L'tiglise libre dans I'Europe libre (Paris 1920). 

35. See the very interesting but incomplete collection in A. d'Avril, 
Documents relatifs aux glises de rOrient considerees dans leur rapports avec 
le Saint-Siege de Rome (Paris 1862); again the list of documents, complete 
within the indicated limits, with quotations from important passages, 
in J. Schweigl, "De unitate ecclesiae orientalis et occidental restituenda, 
documentis S. Sedis ultimi saeculi (1848-1938) illustrata," Periodica de re 
morali, canonica, liturgica 28 (1939) 209-33. See also A. Korenec, 5. Sedes 
Apostolica et disciplinae graeco-catholicorum agitur de Calendario (Vienna 1916). 
For documents on the union of Brest, sometimes unjustly criticized by 
the Orthodox, for it was based on respect for the rites and customs, cf. 
Hofmann, "Wiedervereinigung der Ruthenen mit Rom," Oriental Christ, 
period. 3 (1924) 125-72. And, for an overall view of the attitude of the 
Holy See and its development, c Aubert, Le Saint-Siege et funion des 
glises. [Chrttientd nouvelle] (Brussels 194?)- 

36. It is clear in Aubert, op. cit. 83; cf. Herman, "Eglises orientales, 
catholiques et dissidentes," Unites 2 (July 1949) 17-27. 

37. For Photius, cf. supra ch. IV, n. 57; for the Bulgarians, ibid. n. 58. 
In the dealings carried out under Innocent IV (who, for his part, sacrificed 
the Latin Empire of the Orient), the Greeks accepted the following condi- 
tions: recognition of the papal primacy, oath of obedience of the Greek 
clergy, obedience to the decisions of the pope in so far as they be not contrary 
to the canons of the Councils, the Roman curia as jurisdiction of appeal, 
the right of the pope to preside over Councils, and to vote first at these; 
cf. Norden, Das Papsttum... 369. Complete this with Hofmann, "Patriarch 
von Nikaia Manuel II an Papst Innozenz IV," Oriental, christ. period. 16 



(i953) 59-70- A church dignitary as authoritative as Msgr. G. Calavassy, 
declared that the Oriental Churches, while remaining autocephalous, could 
nevertheless find their place in Catholic unity. Cf. Irtnikon (1955) 173- 

38. Op. cit. 145- 

39. Since they state an exact fact and express very significantly a true 
feeling, we will here quote these lines that end the splendid collection of 
the Proces-verbaux du Premier Congres de Thlologie orthodoxe a Afhenes; 
29 Nov.-6 Dec. 1936 (Athens 1939) 506: "We have noted with particular 
joy that in reporting the Erst Congress of Orthodox Theology in Athens, 
both the official organ of the Vatican and the daily and periodical Cath- 
olic press have commented upon it with interest and at length... It i s 
true that no least excuse for displeasure was given the Catholic Church 
during the sessions of the Congress. On the contrary, the divergent points, 
as they came up for discussion, were handled respectfully and with tact. 
The correctness and dignity of the articles that appeared in the Catholic 
press incontestably produced an excellent impression in Orthodox circles. 
This will perhaps serve on later occasions as a first important step toward 
bringing about a good attitude and a Christian and holy understanding 
between the two Churches." 

40. Douglas, The Relations of the Anglican Churches... 95. 


continued from front flap 

'understanding. The West must accept 
the East for what it is, and the East 
must, in turn, come to an understanding 
of Rome and the West. Only in such 
an atmosphere of love and forgiveness 
of the past can the most grievous wound 
the Church has ever suffered, be healed. 


Fr. Yves Congar was born in Sedan in 
1904 and after studies at the Institut 
Catholique in Paris, became a Domini- 
can in 1925. Since 1931 he has been 
professor of theology at Saulchoir, spe- 
cializing in ecclesiology and ecumenical 
problems. He is the foundg/and direc- 
tor of the collection UnawSanctam and 
each year has participated by preaching 
and conferences in the week of prayer 
for Christian Unity. 


After M'ne Hundred Years is set in 
Aldine Bembo 270, originally designed 
by Aldus Manutius in Venice in 1495 
for a small tract of Pietro Bembo, the 
young humanist poet, later Cardinal 
and secretary to Pope Leo X. Later 
forms became the basis for the adapta- 
tion of Garamond, which finally re- 
sulted in Caslon Old Face. 

Jacket design by Johannes Troyer 


1 26 269