Questo articolo è disponibile anche in: Italian English Spanish Portuguese

Dear Father Angelo,
I need some help understanding the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Is the bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope) really the head, or the first among all the other bishops?I had the occasion to discuss this topic with orthodox faithfuls who showed me pre-schismatic written documents. These documents demonstrate (according to their judgment) that the papal primacy was never really accepted nor granted in the Byzantine world, especially by the oriental fathers. Is that true?

I thank you and wish you a holy celebration of the Mass today,

Martin 

Priest’s answer

Dear Martin,


1. The whole Great Schism affair is genuinely wretched. It is mostly political intrigue.
To keep it short, I present its prodromes as reported by two scholars of Ecclesiastical History, Bihlmeier – Tuechle.

2. Up to the X Century, no contrasts between Rome and Constantinople occurred.
Byzantium openly recognized the primate of the bishop of Rome (the Pope), to the point that the Pope was often called to summon both civil or church-related controversies.
From the X Century, some problems arose (we will get to them). The main point is, that the schism mainly occurred not because of those problems, but rather because of intrigues and maneuvers of power.  Only after the schism occurred, the Byzantines started searching for reasons to justify it. 


From a political point of view, the Byzantines were saying that the Western Roman Empire had collapsed in the year 476, that the old Rome had fallen, and that a new Rome had arisen: Byzantium, also called Constantinople. Therefore, as the bishop of Rome was to govern the whole Church, then the primate should be given to the bishop of the new Rome, namely, Constantinople.
To this affirmation it was sufficient to reply that the Western Roman Empire collapsed, but the Church of Rome did not.


From a theological point of view, these were trifles, such as those you will be able to read. The Filioque issue itself was not difficult to resolve.

3. I will now point out some fundamental facts that occurred in the first thousand years of the history of the Church, which will help the readers understand the reasons that led to the Great Schism.

In the year 451 AD, the Council of Chalcedon (a city in Asia Minor opposite Byzantium) occurred. The Council Fathers (the bishops who attended the council) were largely coming from the Byzantine world. Pope Leo the Great did not attend the council, but sent an important doctrinal text to the bishop of Constantinople, the so-called Tome to Flavian. The text was read at Chalcedon. Right after the Tome to Flavian was read to the assembly, all the bishops present unanimously burst out in one voice saying: “Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo”.

4. On December 25, 800 AD, Pope Leo III crowned Charles the Great, a Frankish king, Holy Roman Emperor. The pope’s coronation of Charles the Great was deeply offensive to the Byzantines, whose empire of Constantinople was thought to be the direct continuation of the Roman Empire.

5.  In their book “Church History. Volume Two:The Middle Age, the authors Dr. Karl Bihlmeyer and Dr. Hermann Tüchle commented on these facts:

“1. In the second half of the IX Century the Greek Church was struggling again with a grave internal fight that we could identify as the prodrome of its final separation from the West. The occasion was provided by a controversial nomination of the new bishop of Byzantium. From 847 AD, the episcopal’s seat was occupied by Patriarch Ignatius, son of the Emperor Michael II. Ignatius, who had previously been a monk, was a pious person but politically he was a radical conservative. His position was very difficult, as he counted several political enemies, including a vast number of bishops. Among the enemies was Caesar Barda, uncle of the Emperor Michael III (called “The Drunken”). Caesar Barda completely dominated his young nephew after the latter was declared an adult and his mother, the Empress Theodora, was removed from the government (856 AD).

On the Epiphany day of 858 AD, Ignatius publicly refused to administer the Holy Communion to Barda because of his immoral life. The accusation turned out to be wrong in almost all its parts. Because of this, and also because of his political inflexibility, Ignatius was forced to abdicate in November 858 AD. He was replaced by Photius, a neutral figure who did not take any opponent’s part yet. Photius had all the most suitable characteristics to cover the role of bishop and call the quarrel to an end: he was a friend of the so-called “Apostle to the Slavs” Cyril, he was born into a very distinguished family connected to the imperial house, he was secretary of state and commander of the imperial bodyguard, and he was the most notable scholar of his time.

Photius was still a layman so he had to receive all the sacred orders, including episcopal consecration, within a very short period of five days. Archbishop Gregory Asbesta of Syracuse, who had been excommunicated by Ignatius, appointed him as bishop. Ignatius, who sacrificed his own interests to those of the church, had many supporters, especially among the monks: they badly received his abdication and disagreed with the pastoral governance of Photius, even though Photius had committed himself to a demeanor of deference to Ignatius.

Under the direction of Archbishop Metrophanes of Smyrna, the opponents of Photius gathered in the church of St. Irene where they declared Photius a usurper of the patriarchate, deposed him and excommunicated him.
During the spring of 859, the supporters of Photius reunited in a synod held in the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople, where they launched an excommunication and deposition act against Ignatius’ followers, and against Ignatius himself, should he wish to resume his post as patriarch.
Thus political opposition led to a deep division in the Byzantine church.

2. Emperor Michael III invited Pope Nicholas I  to send deputies to a council that was convened with the purpose to pronounce a final judgment on the question of images. At the same time, Photius shared with the pope the news of his election as the new bishop of Byzantium. The keen eye of Pope Nicholas I could not miss the flaws that had occurred in the enthronement of Photius (appointment of a layman, consecration by Archbishop Gregory, whose position had not yet been decided by Rome), as well as the fact that the position was already occupied by Ignatius. Therefore, the Pope sent two deputies to the East to better examine the situation, and urged at the same time the restitution of the rights and possessions that Emperor Leo III had confiscated from the Church of Rome.
Exceeding their faculties, the two deputies pronounced the sentence that the Pope had reserved for himself and reconfirmed Ignatius´s deposition from the role of bishop of Byzantium, which had been already reconfirmed by a great synod in Constantinople. On his part, Ignatius declared the abdication he was forced into invalid, and refused to recognize the two deputies from Rome as his judges. His supporters sent a report to Rome, as a result of which the pope, at a Roman synod in 863, decreed that the deputies were dismissed from their office and that Photius was deprived of all ecclesiastical dignity: in case of further disobedience both Photius and his partisans would have undergone excommunication; finally, the reinstatement of Ignatius and his supporters was ordered. The Pope hoped, this way, to gain a favorable attitude to his demands to transfer the Illyricum back to the jurisdiction of Rome. Instead, this sentence had no practical effect, because Photius was supported by the Emperor and his court. Emperor Michael III went so far as to drastically demand the withdrawal of the provision. Against him, Pope Nicholas I intrepidly defended the rights of the Apostolic See, but he declared himself ready to review the whole dispute about Ignatius and Photius once more in Rome, if the Greeks agreed to send him legates (865).
Shortly thereafter (866) the Bulgars were annexed to the Church of Rome: this fact raised serious discontent in Byzantium, and Photius began an open fight against Rome. In 867, Photius wrote an encyclical addressed to the other three patriarchs of the East. He raised strong accusations against Pope Nicolas’ decision to launch a Latin mission to the Bulgars and against the Western discipline introduced there: the Sabbath fast, the use of dairy products in the first week of Lent, ecclesiastical celibacy and the non-recognition of confirmation administered by Greek priests.

He also insisted that the doctrine of the Latin church regarding the “Filioque”, that is, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, was to be considered as a departed from the true faith, and fought it as an execrable heresy; nevertheless, he did not considered an heresy the addition of the Filioque in the Creed, an addition that was not yet common in the Roman liturgy.

In the same encyclical written in 867, Photius summoned the patriarchs to a great synod in Constantinople so that they could define a final judgment about the pope. The synod took place in the summer of 867, in the presence of the imperial court.

Without having any rights to do so, on the occasion of the synod Pope Nicholas I, who died before he was even informed about the decision on his person, was excommunicated and deposed as a “heretic and ravager of the Lord’s vineyard”. The fracture between the East and the West became irreconcilable. Almost all of the West was on the pope’s side. Two Frankish theologians, Aeneas of Paris and Ratramus of Corbie, rejected the attacks of the Greeks in special writings).

3. Photius’ triumph, however, did not last long. In September 867 Basil I the Macedonian (867-86) took the power after assassinating the Emperor Michael. As was often the case in the Byzantine empire, political change was coupled with ecclesiastical change. A few days after his coronation, the new emperor forced Photius to abdicate, restored Ignatius, and resumed relations with Rome. In consonance with the decision made by Pope Hadrian II (867-72) at the Roman synod of 869, the eighth ecumenical council was held in Constantinople (October 869-March 870) under the direction of three papal legates, but with rather infrequent attendance. Photius was condemned and excommunicated as an “intruder” and a “new Dioscurus”; his supporters were excommunicated and the clergy ordained by him were reduced to the lay state.

But Photius and his supporters were not defeated yet. At a later session of the council, despite the vigorous protests of the papal legates, the Bulgarians were annexed back to the patriarchate of Constantinople. A new and serious tension between Rome and Byzantium arose. Pope John VIII (872-82) urged Ignatius to return Bulgaria with warnings and even the threat of excommunication and deposition, but all was in vain.

4. After Ignatius’ death (877 or 878) Photius returned for the second time to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople. For even in exile he had retained his followers, was reconciled with Ignatius, and had long since earned the esteem of the emperor, who entrusted him with the education of his children. 

5. However Patriarch Photius, having reached the peak of his activity, had yet another tragic downfall: Emperor Leo VI the philosopher (866-912), out of personal dislike and for reasons of domestic politics, deposed his old master immediately after his enthronement and conferred the patriarchal dignity on his own 16-year-old brother, Prince Stephen. Photius was therefore relegated to a monastery, where he died around the year 892.

The Greeks held his memory in high honor. From the end of the 10th century he is even honored in official documents as an apostolic and ecumenical teacher and as a saint” (Bihlmeyer, Dr. Karl and Dr. Hermann Tüchle, Church History. Volume Two: The Middle Age, § 93,1-4).

6. The schism, as can be seen, began with a rift. Once the Easterners separated completely from Rome, they tried to justify their conduct with theologian lucubrations. This happened often in the past and could still happen today.

I wish you well, bless you and remember you in prayer.

Father Angelo