accustomed to command us and ours; we utterly deny it. . . . The Roman Church encompasses and comprehends within herself, she being in herself the universal church, the mirror and model of that which she embraces within her bosom. Moreover, this vessel was shown to Peter alone, and he alone was commanded to kill and eat; as in like manner, after the resurrection, he alone of all the apostles received the divine command to draw to the shore the net full of fishes. And if unto us he committed that identical commission—which is verily and indeed so committed—to embrace in our paternal arms the whole flock of Christ, is it to be believed that we surrender to you any one of those sheep whom he hath given into our keeping?[285:1]

In 1054, the Pope excommunicated the patriarch and his whole Church for censuring the faith of Rome. The courtesy was solemnly returned by Constantinople against the Roman Church. Other eastern patriarchs adhered to the See of Constantinople and the rupture was complete. The sack of Constantinople by Latin Christians in the fourth crusade (thirteenth century) widened the breach. At the Council of Lyons, 1274, delegates of the Eastern Empire abjured the schism, by receiving the Nicene Creed with "filioque" in it and by swearing to conform to the Roman faith and to accept the supremacy of the Pope, but the eastern patriarchs refused to do so. When, in 1439 at the Council of Florence, the Eastern Emperor and churchmen signed a compact of reunion, they were induced to acknowledge the Pope as the "successor of Peter the chief of the apostles, and the vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians,

to whom plenary power was given by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church." Other differences were patched up. The Pope, for his part, agreed to induce the rulers of the West to go to the defence of the East against the Turks, but failed to make his promise good. The people of the East were sorely disappointed and forced the repudiation of the agreement. In 1453, however, Constantinople fell a prey to the Mohammedan Turks, and the strength of the Eastern Church was broken. In modern times, papal absolutism and eastern stagnation have prevented the reunion.[286:1]

In conclusion, the differences and resemblances between the Greek and Roman Churches to-day might be stated. The Greek Church rejects the filioque in the Latin creed; repudiates the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary (1854), and denies the infallibility of the Roman Pope (1870). All the clergy are "popes" in the Greek Church and the lower clergy are permitted to marry. The Greek Church gives and the Roman Church withholds the communion wine from the laity. The Greek Church uses leavened, and the Roman Church unleavened bread in the Eucharist. The Greek Church holds to the trine immersion in baptism, repetition of Holy Unction in illness, and infant communion. There is a difference in rites of worship, in language, in art, in architecture, and in the vestments employed. But both hold the fundamentals in the Nicene Creed; both accept all the doctrinal decrees of the seven œcumenical councils from 325 to 787; both practise image worship[286:2]; both accept

the mediæval doctrine against which the Reformation protested; both believe in tradition and the Bible; both believe in the seven sacraments; both teach transubstantiation; both offer masses for the dead and the living; both sanction priestly absolution; both have three orders of ministry; both are episcopally organised on a hierarchical basis; both have rites and ceremonies that are identical, or at least similar. All things considered, therefore, it seems that the resemblances are far more striking than the differences.

From now on, interest in Church history centres in the Roman Church of western Europe. The undignified quarrel over images gave the Pope an occasion to declare his absolute independence of eastern imperial rule. That fact gave a new bent to the Roman Church, forced upon it a more genuine unity, compelled it to devote all its energies to the great problems in the West, and enabled it to attain its acme under Innocent III. in the thirteenth century. Had the unsatisfactory relationship with the Eastern Church not been severed the history of the mediæval Church in western Europe would have been very different. The separation must be regarded, therefore, as a factor of no small moment in that process. While the effective missionary efforts, having their source and purpose in Rome, were winning all western Europe to a recognition of the Pope's sovereignty, it was very essential that he should completely accomplish his independence of Constantinople so that he would have a free hand to work out the problems of the Western Church.

Sources

FOOTNOTES: