From Berlin to Bagdad and Babylon

by J. A. Zahm

Neither Photius nor Cerularius, it must here be observed, instigated schism because of controverted questions of dogma. Photius caused it by his shameless usurpation of the See of the lawful Patriarch of Constantinople. Cerularius, in his opposition to Rome, was actuated by similar motives. But he was not, like his schismatic predecessor, satisfied to be Primate of the Byzantine Church. His pride and ambition led him to aim at something far higher. This was nothing less than the founding of a theocracy of which he was to be supreme head and in which the State was to be subservient to the Church. This theocracy was to be the antithesis of the Cæsaropapism which had flourished almost uninterruptedly since the death of Constantine. At one time, indeed, Cerularius thought seriously of uniting the imperial and the patriarchal functions and proclaiming himself the Emperor-Patriarch of the Roman Empire....[338] He began to wear purple shoes, one of the Emperor’s prerogatives, and to join royalty and the priesthood in his own person. Michael Prellos, who knew him well and who wrote a valuable history of this period, informs us in referring to Cerularius: “In his hands he held the cross while from his mouth issued imperial laws.”

But Cerularius’ ambition was the cause of his undoing. Like Photius he was made Patriarch by the Emperor. Like Photius he was deposed from his exalted position by imperial authority and sent into exile on the charge of high treason. But, although he failed in his stupendous scheme to make himself the Emperor-Patriarch of the East, he was successful where Photius fell short—in definitively separating the Greek from the Latin Church and by perpetuating the most disastrous schism which has ever befallen the Church of Christ. It was for this “unheard of offence and injury done to the Holy Apostolic and First See” that the Papal Legates in Constantinople, who tried to the last to prevent schism, pronounced Cerularius and his adherents Anathema Maran-atha.[339] Their last words after laying the bull of excommunication on the altar of Santa Sophia were Videat Deus et judicet.

These words in which they called upon God to witness and judge were uttered at nine o’clock in the morning, July 16, 1054. The Great Schism which—aside from a brief interval—has ever since continued unbroken was then a fait accompli.

No sooner had the schism of Cerularius become an accomplished fact, than God-fearing men of both the Eastern and the Western Church set to work to devise ways and means of closing the deplorable breach. The Popes especially never lost sight of their erring children to the east of the Adriatic. From the fateful sixteenth of July, 1054, until the present, they have made efforts innumerable to bring about a reunion between the tragically separated churches. With this object in view, two General Councils were convened, the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence in 1439.

But since the outbreak of the schism, a new barrier had been erected between the East and the West, which seemed almost insurmountable. This was the result of the horrible sack of Constantinople by the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade. The cruelties, massacres, and wholesale destruction of the choicest works of art which attended this unpardonable outrage made it one of the most shocking events in the history of the capital.[340] Then, too, there was the establishment of the Latin Empire in Constantinople and the erection of Frankish States in Syria and Palestine. This ruthless ignoring by the Latins of the sovereign rights of a Christian power and all the wanton cruelty that accompanied it was still fresh in the minds of the Greek delegates when they convened at Lyons and Florence and this, added to all the causes of friction that had so long rankled in the hearts of the Byzantines, made a successful issue of the deliberations of the assembled fathers almost hopeless.

Notwithstanding, however, all the causes of rancor that existed, a reunion was effected by each of the Councils but in each case it lasted only a very short time. For no sooner did the people of Constantinople hear of the action of the Council of Lyons than, exercising what should now be called the right of referendum, they rose in insurrection against it. As a result, however, of the reunion brought about by the Council of Florence, the Byzantine Church remained, at least nominally, in communion with the Holy See for a period of thirty-three years—from 1439 to 1472. It was during this fateful time that Constantinople was taken by the Turks under Mohammed II.

The Conquest of Constantinople was almost as great a turning point in the history of the Byzantine Church as was the Great Schism of Photius and Cerularius. For the Sultan had scarcely taken possession of the city when he sent for the leader of the anti-Papal party, one George Scholarios, and, with a view of winning him together with the schismatic Byzantines over to his rule as against that of the Catholic Powers of the West, he had him made Patriarch, although at the time of his appointment Scholarios seems to have been a layman.

No sooner had the Sultan championed the cause of the Greeks against Rome than they at once exultingly rallied around their Patriarch and, in words of deepest hatred and wildest fanaticism, shouted: “Rather the Sultan’s turban than the Pope’s tiara.” They have had their choice but with what long centuries of degradation and ignominy!

Neither the Patriarch nor his followers had to wait long before the scales fell from their eyes. For no sooner had Scholarios, under the direction of the Sultan, been appointed to the See of Constantinople than Mohammed sent for him and handed him the berat-diploma[341]—which defined what were his duties and prerogatives as Patriarch under the Moslem Government. But this was not all. For scarcely had he been invested with the signs of his spiritual jurisdiction than the unfortunate Patriarch was given to understand that he was nothing more than a puppet in the hands of his Moslem master who could depose him at will. Each of his successors since that time in the See of Constantinople has been obliged to submit to the same humiliating ceremony of investiture.

To their intense chagrin the Patriarchs soon learned furthermore that their appointment had to be followed by a gift to the Sultan of a large sum of money; that their tenure of office would rarely exceed two years;[342] that they could be deposed to make room for others who were forced to pay similar exorbitant sums for their appointment; that they might be deposed and reappointed no fewer than five times and at each appointment to the office from which they had been deposed, they would be obliged to renew the enormous bribe to their arbitrary and rapacious overlord.