Open conflict

From the sixth century on, a number of disputes began between Rome and Constantinople. One conflict in the middle of the ninth century revealed just how far East and West had become. The incident is usually known as the "Photian schism" – though the East would prefer to call it "the schism of Pope Nicholas."[23]

It began in 858, when Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople was exiled[24]by the Byzantine emperor (for criticizing the emperor's private life). Ignatius resigned his office under pressure, and a talented layman named Photius became patriarch of the capital city. Photius has been called "the most distinguished thinker, the most outstanding politician, and the most skillful diplomat ever to hold office[25]as patriarch of Constantinople."

Photius, as was the custom, sent a letter to the bishop of Rome, Pope Nicholas I, announcing his accession.[26] Normally the pope would immediately recognize a new patriarch. But Nicholas balked.[27] He had heard that the former patriarch still had supporters who considered Photius a usurper.[28] Pope Nicholas decided to look into the matter. In 861 he sent legates to Constantinople.

Photius wanted no dispute with the papacy, so he treated the legates with great respect; he even invited them to preside at a local council to settle the issue. The council decided Photius was the legitimate[29] patriarch.

When the legates returned to Rome, though, Nicholas accused them of exceeding their powers. He retried the case himself at Rome. This council rejected Photius's claims, deposed[30] him of all priestly dignity, and recognized Ignatius as patriarch.

The Byzantines ignored this Roman council and refused to answer the pope's letters.

The dispute centered on the papal claims, which had become another growing issue between East and West. Among Eastern churches, there was a strong sense of equality[31] among bishops because a number of city churches claimed to have been founded by an apostle. The East acknowledged the pope as the first bishop of the church but saw him as only the first among equals.

In the West, only one great city church claimed apostolic foundation – Rome – so that Rome was regarded the apostolic see. The Western church was seen less as a college[32]of equals and more as a monarchy with the pope at its head. But the Byzantines didn't care if the Western Church was centralized, as long as the papacy did not interfere in the East.

Furthermore, the East had a strong secular head, the emperor, to support the civilized order. But after the invasion of Germanic tribes in the West, there were only warring chiefs. Only the Roman pope could act as a representative of the remaining political life of western Europe. It was Pope Leo I,[33] for example, who persuaded Attila the Hun in 452 to bypass Rome on one of his campaigns. After this the pope increasingly issued commands not only to ecclesiastical subordinates[34] but to secular rulers as well. Still, the Eastern church didn't mind – as long as the pope claimed absolute power only in the West.

Nicholas I was a reforming pope, with an exalted[35] idea of the rights of his office. He believed his absolute power extended to the East. As he put it in a letter of 865, he believed the pope had authority "over all the earth, that is, over every church." When a dispute began in Constantinople, Nicholas thought it a good opportunity to make both parties submit to him, to claim his universal jurisdiction.

Ironically, Photius's initial submission to the legates had proved to be a problem. His action did not in itself confirm the supremacy of the pope but only that Photius had shown diplomatic courtesy.[36] To demonstrate his authority, then, Nicholas called a new council.

Again, the Byzantines were not troubled about appeals going to Rome but only under the specific conditions laid down in Canon 111 of the Council of Sardica (343). This canon states that retrials[37]cannot be conducted by the pope at Rome but only by bishops of the provinces neighboring to that of the condemned[38]bishop. The Byzantines believed Nicholas had violated this canon.

On the issue[39] of papal authority alone, then, the incident between Nicholas and Photius had explosive potential. But there was another issue, more delicate but equally divisive[40].

<== попередня сторінка	\|	наступна сторінка ==>
Becoming strangers	\|	Missionary politics

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.005 сек.