THE SCHISM OF THE ROMAN CHURCH (Part II)

My beloved brothers and sisters in Christ God,

CHRIST IS IN OUR MIDST! HE WAS, IS, AND EVER SHALL BE.

THE SCHISM OF THE ROMAN CHURCH (Part II)
By John N. Karmiris, Professor of Theology in
the University of Athens.

Peter of Antioch, writing to the Cerularius, characterized it as "AN EVIL AND OF ALL EVILS THE WORST". Because, it meant THE FORGERY OF THE SACRED SYMBOL OF THE CHURCH and A CHANGE IN THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN DOGMA ABOUT THE HOLY TRINITY, WHICH THE FIRST ECUMENICAL SYOND HAD FORMULATED, WHICH THE Great Fathers of the Church had theologically and philosophically examined and fortified and which THE FIVE SUCCEEDING ECUMENICAL AND OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL SYNODS HAD RECOGNIZED AND VALIDATED. On this point, the Third Ecumenical Synod DECREED THAT "IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO ANYONE TO PRONOUNCE ANOTHER FAITH, BY WRITING AGAINST THAT WHICH WAS DEFINED BY THE HOLY FATHERS, WHO CONVENED AT NICAEA UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." Its president, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, added that TO NO ONE IS IT PERMITTED TO "CHANGE ONE WORD OF THE TEXT, NOT EVEN ONE SYLLABLE." This was accepted by earlier Popes, of whom Leo III in 810 in order TO PROTECT THE CREED FROM ALTERATION ORDERED IT TO BE WRITTEN ON TWO SILVER PLATES IN GREEK AND IN LATIN WITHOUT THE ILLEGITIMATE ADDITION AND SET IT UP IN THE CHURCH OF THE APOSTLE PETER IN ROME. Consequently, this NEW LATIN BELIEF of the PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT FROM THE SON ALSO, which by the Orthodox was considered ANTI-CANONICAL AND ARBITRARY AS WELL AS SCRIPTURALLY, HISTORICO-DOGMATICALLY, ECCLESIASTICALLY, AND LOGICALLY UNACCEPTABLE, naturally contributed a great deal TO THE DIVISION BETWEEN THE Eastern Church adhering steadfastly to the teaching of the Ecumenical Synods and the Western Church with its INCLINATION TO INNOVATE IN MATTERS OF FAITH.

"…The first disagreement between the East and West occurred with THE DECISIONS OF THE SECOND (381) AND PARTICULARLY THE FOURTH (451) ECUMENICAL SYNODS WHICH BESTOWED EQUAL PRIVILEGES TO THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE WITH "THE BISHOP OF ROME, FOR CONSTANTINOPLE BECOMING THE NEW ROME… (the Fathers) rightly deciding that the city which was honored for royalty and senate, should enjoy EQUAL RIGHTS WITH THE OLDER ROYAL ROME, and be magnified in church affairs like Rome, being the second after her…and to the older Rome did the Fathers reasonably give privileges because she was the ruling city."

"…Furthermore, deeper and more official became the antithesis and dissension between the Eastern and Western Church on account of the Canons 36, 13, 55, and 56 of the Quini-sextum Council (Trullanum) in 691 by which the primary rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople were again recognized and THE GENERAL OBLIGATORY CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY and the FAST OF THE LATINS DURING THE SATURDAY OF LENT WERE CONDEMNED. Contributing also to the antithesis was the decision of the Lateran Council of 769 against the synod of 754 called by Constantine V during THE ICON (image) CONTROVERSY. This antithesis continued until the end of the Icon controversy.

In addition to the intellectual, theological, and ecclesiastical differences, it is also necessary, to add the racial national and political antithesis and antipathies which existed before Christ between the Greeks and Romans and later between the Christian Emperors of Byzantium and the Popes of Rome. And, between the ancient Greeks and Romans, because of their mutual tyrannical conquests and subjections and the conflict of their great national and economic interests, it was natural for a permanent enmity to develop. This was intensified by the significant differences with respect to CULTURE, SPIRIT, LANGUAGE, NATIONAL, RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL CHARACTER, LIFE, MANNER, CUSTOMS, etc. But, this dissension continued after Christ when the Capital WAS TRANSFERRED TO BYZANTIUM. Since then, the bishops of Rome maintained an unfriendly disposition toward Byzantium which was dawning AS AN ECCLESIASTICAL AS WELL AS POLITICAL CENTER, and on the other hand, they began to try to invest themselves with and consolidate THE DOUBLE AUTHORITY OF THEIR PREDECESSORS, PONTIFICES MAMI, AS WELL AS THAT OF THE EMPERORS OF PAGAN ROME IN ORDER TO EXERCISE BOTH ECCLESIASTICAL AND POLITICAL AUTHORITY. They hoped to continue under the new cloak of PAPO-CAESARISM the old caesarean imperialism and totalitarianism. To this end, they contrived the theory of the so-called PAPA SUPREMACY.

This theory, however, inevitably caused conflict not only with the Patriarchs of the East but also with the Emperors of Byzantium. And in fact, the Byzantine Emperors bore heavily the loss of their sovereignty over central Italy, which was subjected during the 8th century by the Papal state established by the Franks. They resented, as well, the political manoeuvres of the Popes, conditioned each time by the advent of powerful rulers in the West. Similarly, the Popes also resented both the political and ecclesiasical subjection of Southern Italy, Sicily and Eastern Illyricum by Byzantium. Besides, the Popes souight to emancipate themselves fully from the Byzantine Court in order to effect more easily their ecclesiastico-political projects; towards this end, already from the middle of the 8th century they had placed themselves under the protection of the Franks who had recently appeared adn whose ruler Pepin and Charlemagne had crowned Emperors. In this way, they contributed to the establishment of the Westernn Empire, imitating the authority of the Byzantine Emerors to the East, which later was even threatened by the Christian West. Through such political manoevres the Popes sough chiefly to put an end to their dependence and relations with the lawful Roman Emperor in Byzantium and to invest themselves with political power by provoking and accepting the so-called Papal State in Italy as a gift of the Frankish rulers. So, already for one century, before Patriarch and Saint Photios, the Popes for the sake of their own ecclesiastiaco-political ambitions and pursuits had created first the political schism of the West from the East. The ecclesiasical schism followed as a necessary and inevitable consequence with the Popes taking the lead.

(To be continued)

____________

"Glory Be To GOD
For
All Things!"

– Saint John Chrysostomos

+ + +

With sincere agape in His Holy Diakonia (Ministry)
The sinner and unworthy servant of God

+ Father George