The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1922. THE GREEK CHURCH

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XLIX, Issue 35, 7 September 1922, Page 25

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1922. THE GREEK CHURCH

fT the Greek Church, we mean the branch i] ijyWl , in schism which calls itself the Orthodox /T Ivlm Greek Church, to distinguish, it from the *jj 12yju) V United Greek Church which is really, the |pss£yL orthodox branch. The latter only differs from us -on certain recognised matters of liturgy and discipline, while on all essen--*t ! tial questions its faith-and practice are . the same as our own. The Greek Schismatic Church embraces various religious factions which are issues of the great schism begun in the East in the ninth century by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and consummated in the eleventh century owing to the ambition of another Patriarch, Michael Cerularius. The Schismatic Greeks have true sacraments and their Orders are valid, as they have come down to them in a line of- validly consecrated prelates. In a few points they reject Catholic teaching and they refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Pope. In view of the recent efforts made by Anglicans to - secure recognition by the Greeks, it is worth while recalling the history of their schism. ■'...'■ * '■;.'; .- In the fourth century the. Third Canon of the Council of Byzantium conferred on the Bishop of Byzantium "the primacy of r honor after the Bishop of Rome." When Constantino chose Byzantium for his new capital, the Greek bishops • began to assert that their capital ought to have the primacy of jurisdiction which belonged to Rome, alleging the foolish pretext \ that' because Byzantium, which now became Constantinople, was exalted politically it ought to be similarly exalted in ecclesiastical affairs. In A.D. 583 John the Faster assumed the title of Ecumenical or Universal Patriarch in spite of the protests of the 1 Popes, Pelagius 11. and Gregory the Great. Notwithstanding their arrogant assumptions, the Patriarchs still con- . tinued to regard-as indispensable the' Pope's confirmation 1 establishing the orthodoxy of the newly" elected Patriarchs. Even Photius himself did riot fail to send ah embassy to Rome, asking that Pope Nicholas I. should- confirm him.'Confirmation was refused and Photius was excommunicated as an usurper 'by a Ro- , man Council. Later, he became reconciled to Rome, but only for a short'time; for, under John V111.,.he ■ again revolted and : defied what he ,: called the yoke v 0

Rome. To give a * semblance of reason to his rebellion he claimed that the Popes by. tolerating the addition of ■'- the word Filioque ■, to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, had become heretical, although • the addition, of l the word had taken place four hundred" years- before the excuse was thought of. When Photius died Rome and Constantinople remained united until in the middle of the, eleventh century there was a definite breach in the time of the Patriarch Michael Cerularius (10541059) who again renewed the charges made by Photius against Rome. Later, the breach was again healed, and a reconciliation was solemnly proclaimed in the Council of Florence, held in 1439, in.the reign of Pope Eugene IV. No later Council having abrogated this union it legally exists still. But shortly after the reconciliation the bad will of the clergy. of Constantinople rendered the union almost null, and the breach continues to this day. The Greeks admit the authority of the first seven Councils and recognise the authority of. the Patriarchs, united in Council, to,give doctrinal decisions. But no such decisions are given, and in practice the rule of faith is recourse to the first seven Councils. . Thus it happens, as the seven Councils did not decide everything, that there is no real unity of belief, and it is rather inconvenient for them that in their rule of faith they nowhere find it defined that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father alone. That is, they find in it no justification for their schism. Likewise, unity of government is merely nominal, like the dependance of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch upon the Church of Constantinople, which exists in name only, while the Russians are subject to the Holy Synod, which used to be controlled by . the Tsar. When Russia embraced the schism it had a Metropolitan dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the bond uniting Russia to the rest of the East has long been broken. In 1589 the Metropolitan of Moscow was raised to the patriarchal dignity; but Peter the Great suppressed the Patriarchate and from that time up to the recent revolution the Russian Church was ruled by the Holy Synod, which had its authority from the Emperor and was usually presided over by an officer of the Court. Thus, it was that the Russian branch of Greek 'Schismatics really became a National Russian Church which was as much Anglican or Prussian as it was Greek. * Thus, the only real bond between the Greek Schismatic Churches is their common opposition to the authority of the successors of St. Peter. In this they are also in plain opposition to their own traditions and history, for they know that their Patriarchs recognised the Pope in the early centuries and were careful to secure his confirmation in their Sees as a proof that they were orthodox. What the position of the Russians is at present it is impossible to say, owing to the disturbed state of the country; but beforethe War there were definite signs that the best Russian minds were trending towards unity with Rome. As for the position' of the Orthodox Greeks, their reply to the Anglicans shows us where they stand at present. They are still opposed to us on a few points of doctrine and with regard to the jurisdiction of the Pone but they cling steadfastly to their Orders and Sacraments and will not stand for union with a sect which covers with its mantle all sorts of different beliefs..; One important fact is evident from a study of the schismatic Churches. They broke away from Rome before the days of Henry VIII. and Martin Luther. Some schisms date a long way farther back. Yet, they all, like Catholics, reject as heresy Protestant -doctrines, and they recognise as of Apostolic origin practices which Protestants ' denounce as superstition. - In this we have a clear proof that if there is one Church not .-in" succession with the teaching of the Apostles; it is the conglomeration known; as Protestantism. •■■ . ; •••. ■■•

As to' the - blessing' and sweetness of solitude and silence, let those who have chosen them tell their charm, for only those who- have- experienced their joys can speak of them ■ worthily.-*—St. Bruno.' - ‘ ' C. . _