SCHISM
538
SCHISM
any other contumacious bishop. The real tragedy is
that gradually all the other Eastern patriarchs took
sides with Carularius, obeyed him by striking the
pope's name from their diptychs, and chose of their
own accord to share his schism. At first they do not
seem to have wanted to do so. John III of Antioch
certainly refused to go into schism at Caerularius's
bidding" But, eventually, the habit they had ac-
quired of looking to Constantinople for orders proved
too strong. The emperor (not Constantine IX, but
his successor) was on the side of his patriarch and they
had learned too well to consider the emi)eror as their
over-lord in spiritual matters too. Again, it was the
usurped authority of Constantinople, the Erastian-
ism of the East that turned a personal quarrel into a
great schism. We see, too, how well Photius's idea of
calling Latins heretics had been learned. Csrula-
rius had a list, a longer and even more futile one, of
such accusations. His points were different from those
of Photius; he had forgotten the FiUoquc, and had dis-
covered a new heresy in our use of azyme bread. But
the actual accusations mattered little at any time, the
idea that had been found so useful was that of declar-
ing tliat we are impossible because we are heretics.
It was offensive and it gave the schismatical leaders
the chance of assuming a most effective pose, as de-
fenders of the true Faith.
IV. After Ccerularius. — In a sense the schism was now complete. What had been from the beginning two portions of the same Church, what had become two entities ready to be divided, were now two rival Churches. Yet, "just as there had been schisms before Photius, so there have been reunions after Caerularius. The Second Council of Lyons in 1274 and again the Council of Florence in 1439 both arrived at a reunion that people hoped would close the breach for ever. Unhappily, neither reunion lasted, neither had any sohd basis on the Eastern side. The anti-Latin party, foreshadowed long ago, formed and organized by Photius, had under Csrularius become the whole ""Orthodox" Church. This process had been a grad- ual one, but it was now complete. At first the Slav Churches (Russia, Servia, Bulgaria, etc.) saw no rea- son why they should break communion with the West because a patriarch of Constantinople was angry with a pope. But the habit of looking to the capital of the empire eventually affected them too. They used the Byzantine Rite, were Easterns; so they settled on the Eastern side. Cajrularius had managed cleverly to represent his cause as that of the East; it seemed (most unjustifiably) that it was a question of Byzan- tines versus Latins.
At Lyons, and again at Florence, the reunion (on their side) was only a political expedient of the Gov- ernment. The emperor wanted Latins to fight for him against the Turks. So he was prepared to concede anything — till the danger was over. It is clear that on these occasions the religious motive moved only the Western side. We had nothing to gain; we wanted nothing from them. The Latins had everything to ofTer, they were prepared to give their help. All they wanted in return was that an end should be made of the lamentable and scandalous spectacle of a divided Christendom. For the religious motive the Byzantines cared nothing; or, rather, re- ligion to them meant the continuation of the schism. They had called us heretics so often that they had Ix'gun to believe it. Reunion was an unpleasant and humiliating condition in order that a Frank army might come and protect them. The common people hafi been so well drilled in their hatred of Azymites and creed-tamperers, that their zeal for what they thought Orthodoxy prevailed over th(;ir fear of the Turk. "Rather the turban of the Sultan than the tiara of the Pope" expressed their mind exactly. When the bi.shops who ha*l signed the decrees of re- union came back, each time they were received with a
storm of indignation as bet rayors of the Orthodox faith.
Each time the reunion was broken almost as soon as it
was made. The last act of schism was when Diony-
sius I of Constantinople (1467-72) summoned a synod
and formally repudiated the union (1472). Since
then there has been no intercommunion; a vast "Or-
thodox" Church exists, apparently satisfied with be-
ing in schism with the bishop whom it still recog-
nizes as the first patriarch of Christendom.
V. Reasons of the Present Schism. — In this deplor- able story we notice the following j^oints. It is easier to understand how a schism cont inues than how it be- gan. Schisms are easily made; they are enormously difficult to heal. The religious instinct is always con- servative; there is always a strong tendency to con- tinue the existing state of things. At first the schis- matics were reckless innovators; then with the lapse of centuries their cause seems to be the old one; it is the Faith of the Fathers. Eastern Christians espe- cially have this conservative instinct strongly. They fear that reunion with Rome would mean a betrayal of the old Faith, of the Orthodox Church, to which they have clung so heroically during all these cen- turies. One may say that the schism continues mainly through force of inertia.
In its origin we must distinguish between the schis- matical tendency and the actual occasion of its out- burst. But the reason of both has gone now. The tendency was mainly jealousy caused by the rise of the See of Constantinople. That progress is over long ago. The last three centuries Constantinople has lost nearly all the broad lands she once acquired. There is nothing the modern Orthodox Christian re- sents more than any assumption of authority by the oecumenical patriarch outside his diminished patri- archate. The Byzantine see has long been the play- thing of the Turk, wares that he sold to the highest bidder. Certainly now this pitiful dignity is no longer a reason for the schism of nearly 100,000,000 Christians. Still less are the immediate causes of the breach active. The question of the respective rights of Ignatius and Photius leaves even the Orthodox cold after eleven centuries; and Caerularius's ambi- tions and insolence may well be buried with him. Nothing then remains of the original causes.
There is not really any question of doctrine in- volved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The De- cree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Chun^h.
That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latini/ing them, that the old Faith is not incompa1il)le with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They n(>cd not add the Filioqne to the Creed; they will always keep their ven(!rable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of St. Photius on G Feb.) altered. All that is asked of them is to come back to where their fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostoin trea((!(l her. It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers. There is no humiliation in retracing one's
