THE APOLOGY OF THE POPE TO THE ORTHODOX; THE 4th. CRUSADE OF 1204

THE APOLOGY OF THE POPE TO THE ORTHODOX; THE 4th. CRUSADE OF 1204. ( On the 800th. Anniversary of this infamous event.)

By Rev. Dr. Miltiades B. Efthimiou
Protopresbyter of the Ecumanical Patriarchate

Recently, the spiritual leader of Orthodoxy, Bartholomew, Ec. Patriarch of Constantinople,accepted an “Apology” from Pope John Paul II for the destruction of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, by Crusaders coming from the Latin West to the Greek East in 1204. It was accepted by the spiritual leader of world-wide Orthodoxy, ( as 1st. among equal spiritual leaders) on the 800th. Anniversary of the city’s sacking, an acknowledgement which conjures up “old wounds” between Greek East and Latin West, and which became the basis of much discussion relative to major and minor differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. What happened back then? Why this animosity between East and West when historically, Eastern doctrine, intact to the present day, was held by the overwhelming majority of Christians who lived throughout the Empire and who irrespective where they resided, were still part of the Community of Churches professing a common faith of the “ One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. (Creed, 1st. Ecumenical Council, 325 A.D.) To answer this and understand what led up to the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, which set up a Latin Empire for about 50 or 60 years, ( 1204 – 1261), we must look at : Ecclesiastical and political differences, between East and West.

The Latin-Greek split or schism before, during, and after the Fourth Crusade led to the theory that the Roman Catholic Church has one bishop ( the Pope ), and all the other bishops are in essence his local representatives. ( This eventually led to the erroneous dogma of papal infallibility proclaimed in 1870).Even after the great Schism of 1054, the split was not perceived consciously and the two churches of East and West considered themselves in complete union. During the Frankish occupation of Greece and Cyprus, this relationship was readily demonstrated. But by the end of the twelfth century and well into the thirteenth economic and political clashes and a deeper exposure to one another’s beliefs engendered a deep and vehement hatred. ( For a good discussion on this, see: Runciman, A HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES, 3 Vols. Dvornik, BYZANTIUM AND THE ROMAN PRIMACY.) This became a pronounced reality in 1204 immediately following the sack of Constantinople, when the Pope approved the Venetian cleric Thomas Morisini as Patriarch of Constantinople.

One of the key areas of doctrine which separated Latin from Orthodox Christianity was the Latin innovation and addition of the phrase “filioque” to the Nicene – Constantinopolitan Creed of the 1st. and 2nd. Ecumenical Synods (325 and 381 A.D., respectively.) With this innovation the Latin creed reads; “…The Holy Spirit…which proceeds from the Father and the Son”. The Eastern Church rejected this addition both from an historical point of view, as well as a doctrinal one. The alteration of the original Creed occurred some time in the sixth or seventh century in Spain probably by mistake, for the Spanish Church had few men of learning in those early centuries. Most likely those who first introduced the “filioque” clause thought that they were using the original version and had no intention of challenging the authority of the Ecumenical Synods. This tradition spread North , and in the eighth century , it entered into the theological tradition of the Frankish Church. From Charlemagne on forward, theologians began interpreting the “filioque” in the strictest and most literal terms. Although a few popes ( Hadrian I and Leo III ) opposed it, by the ninth century the “filioque” had become a permanent tradition in the West. This tradition became the object of attack by Patriarch Photios, whose opposition to the Latins included a strong admonition to the hierarchy of the Western Church. In one of his homilies, Photios, probably for the first time, suggests that the “shepherds” of the West were heretics: “ Is the shepherd a heretic? Then he is a wolf, and it will be needful to flee and keep away from him….is the shepherd orthodox?…then submit to him, since he governs according to the standards of Christ”. ( Photios, “Homily on the Annunciation” ed.Laourdas.)

As the issues of the procession of the Holy Spirit became the object of heated debate in the next several centuries, the Orthodox began to reason like Patriarch Photios in their attitudes toward the Latins. The Latins in turn,in total ignorance of the history of the addition of the “filioque”, actually charged the Byzantines of Constantinople with the crime of having “ deleted “ the phrase from the Creed. By the fourth crusade in 1204, each side retreated from earlier more moderate positions, and took up extreme ones, and in the case of the Latins, used it as one of the main reasons for sacking Constantinople and defiling the great Church of Hagia Sophia, firmly believing that as crusaders, they were defending orthodoxy against heresy. Ergo, pillaging, raping, killing, in the name of the Church and Pope.

What were some of the other key ecclesiastical differences? Married clergy. In East and West there had always been married clergy as well as celibates. Until the sixth century bishops could be married, but from that century on, Church canons stated that bishops must be celibate. In the West, however, the Spanish Council of Elvira ( 300 A.D.) insisted that the clergy must renounce cohabitation with their wives. In the East a married man was eligible to be ordained bishop, but no clergyman already ordained was allowed to marry. Canon thirteen of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod condemned the Latin practice of obligatory celibacy.

Although there were other religious theological differences with the Greeks of Byzantium, the throng of crusaders entering Constantinople in 1204 had a long list of religious indictments which they used to persecute their fellow Christians in the East. The most serious one was the use of leavened bread in the Holy Eucharist, or, in the case of the Latins, unleavened bread (azyma.) In the eleventh century Patriarch Michael Kerularios initiated a formal attack upon the western practice of the use of unleavened bread. He ordered Archbishop Leo of Ochrid to draw up a treatise attacking the Latin innovation as not consistent with how the Eucharist was used in the early Church when leavened bread – enzyma – was used. There were other innovations of doctrine ( i.e. purgatory, divorce, liturgical abuses, which would take a whole book to list,and which were defended by the crusaders and Latins to subjugate the Byzantines in 1204.)

Prior to 1204, the opposing views between East and West first came into serious collision with Patriarch Photios when he encouraged missionaries to propagate the Creed, without the ‘filioque” clause among the Slavic people in the North. Pope Nicholas I, (858-867) told the Byzantine emperors that they were not emperors of the Romans in the West. This was consistent with the Council of Frankfort in 794 which decided that the Frankish king, independent of both of Pope and Emperor had now replaced, by this alleged universal council, the Byzantine Basileus, and was now directing the entire Church. By the 10th. century, beginning with Otto I in 962, the Saxon emperors came to Rome to be crowned according to Frankish-Germanic liturgical practices which had permeated the West ( since the time of Charlemagne,) almost 2 centuries earlier. From the time of Henry II, and with the blessings of Benedict VIII, (1012-1024), the “filioque” clause was permanently added to the Creed in the Roman mass, and from this time, popes appointed by the Saxon emperors were not commemorated in the liturgies in the East, (a practice which continues to the present day.) In the days of the crusaders, the Byzantines considered the Western Church as heretical.

Following the tragic event of July 16,1054, when cardinal Humbert entered Hagia Sophia and immediately before the Divine Liturgy placed a bull of excommunication on the Altar, on behalf of the deceased pope Leo IX, things went from bad to worse when in 1071, the Normans conquered Bari (Italy), the last remaining Byzantine possession in Italy. By that time, the Byzantine Empire found itself unable to defend its land even closer than Italy. They were unable to cope with the double invasion that swept the empire – by the Patzinaks from across the Danube and by the Turks from the heart of Asia Minor. In 1071 they defeated and captured Emperor Romanos IV in the tragic battle of Manzikert. The loss of Bari and defeat at Manzikert in the same year indicated the condition of the Empire. In 1071 Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre also passed into Turkish hands for the 1st. time.

These desperate circumstances minimized the ecclesiastical differences between Byzantium and the West. Leaders in all parts of Europe, including Byzantium, considered the papacy as the only power able to restrain the Normans and the Patzinaks and Turks. After the fall of Manzikert, the new Emperor of Byzantium, Michael VII, opened negotiations with the Normans and with Gregory VII, the new Pope. Gregory opened a new page in the history of East – West relations. Church and Imperium assumed new dimensions which presaged the disastrous betrayal of the papacy which led to the tragic fourth Crusade of 1204. ( for a detailed discussion of this, see author’s work: M.B. Efthimiou, “Greeks and Latins on Cyprus” Hellenic College Press, 1987.) It includes an account of the reconciliatory policies of practically all Byzantine Emperors toward the Pope for mercenary troops, beginning with Pope Urban II, and the first Crusade in 1095, and ending with the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when Emperor Alexios enlisted sympathy and aid from the West in battling the Turks, with a pre-requisite that any negotiation with Pope Innocent III, must include acknowledging the primacy of Rome over all aspects of Byzantium, ( which was now a shell of what was once a great Empire.) In April, 1204, they sacked Constantinople, and Count Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut became the Emperor of the newly-established Latin Empire. Contributing to the demise of the Byzantines and the establishment of a Latin Empire following the Fourth Crusade was the weakness of the Angeloi dynasty and the greed and hostility of Byzantium’s Latin enemies. The pattern in the West was very consistent. Innocent declared that Christians who did not adhere to the Latin West were “ worse than Saracen Turks” because they stood in the way of the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre.

While Pope John Paul II gives an apology to Patriarch Bartholomew for the Fourth Crusade, there are several things that historically need to be always before us: Historians and Church leaders often emphasize political and military causes of the Crusades, but have glossed over,- even ignored – the religious, economic, social and intellectual causes. This oversight indicates that the study of Byzantium itself has been too long a neglected area of Western history. Now that the darkness is gradually lifting (see the various exhibitions of “Byzantine Iconography” at the Metropolitan Museum of New York since 1998 with lectures and 3 day symposia,) One sees that in the East, the history of the Empire was much more than a chronicle of palace intrigues, internal revolutions, theological controversies, conclaves and ritualistic ceremonies, which historians viewed as trivial.

The Fourth Crusade also gives us an opportunity to observe how people or rulers confronted the accidents and peculiarities of history and how,as a result, the course of human events were determined. These events involved not only the establishment of an empire in Constantinople, but also in other places. The history of Frankish Greece begins with the Fourth Crusade – an attempt to unite Europe and the East in the interest of temporal and ecclesiastical gain. Does the “apology” of Pope John Paul II include this? After an existence of half a century , the Latin Empire of Constantinople also failed, nevertheless, the East remained full of Latin settlements. Does the “apology” of Pope John Paul II include this? Venice retained the essential positions of her colonial empire in the Levant, Negrepont and Crete, and the strong citadels of Modon and Coron; her patrician families kept most of their signories in the Archipelago, as did the other Latin states in Greece which were products of the Crusade. Does the Pope’s “Apology” include these? The tragedy of the Fourth Crusade was that by the time of Michael Palaiologus’ Solemn entry into Constantinople on August 15th, 1261, marking the end of the Latin Empire, darkness befell a disillusioned Europe. Once and for all, the course of events, the ideology of a united Christendom between Latins and Greeks had diminished, and despite many “Apologies” by many church leaders through the ages, subsequent history after the Fourth Crusade was one of gradual decay.

Perhaps there is hope. But it will take more than an “Apology”. It means a return wholly to the Traditional Faith of the Church, which includes an ecclesiology before there was any such thing as a Byzantine Empire or a Papacy. Not an endorsement of an alien sectarian or modern concept of “church” but simply an Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Faith held in common by all those who lived during the first centuries of Christian history. An “Apology” coupled with this acknowledgement will go far to clean up the misnomers of 1204.

MILTIADES B. EFTHIMIOU (Rev. Dr.), having retired as a priest of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America after 45 years, has served parishes in New York, Michigan, Ohio and New Jersey. For 15 years, (1981-1996), he held leadership positions in the Archdiocese among them Director of the Department of Church and Society, Executive Director of Archons-Order of St. Andrew, and Ecumenical Officer of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America. He has represented the Orthodox Church throughout the world. He holds the highest honorific title for a priest: Protopresbyter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and has published numerous articles and essays, as well as two books:”The History of the Greek Orthodox Church of America;” and “Greeks and Latins on Cyprus”. Dr. Efthimiou has two children and two grandchildren and resides in New York.

professing a common faith of the “ One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. (Creed, 1st. Ecumenical Council, 325 A.D.)

Ummm ... no. Secodn Ecumenical Council.

Well, that isn't really the Catholic view, but lets not quibble over that. The same theory that is attempting to be propounded here (primacy of the Bishop of Rome) is found in kernel form in the letters of Pope St. Cornelius and St. Cyrpian of Carthage circa AD 250.

The alteration of the original Creed occurred some time in the sixth or seventh century in Spain probably by mistake, for the Spanish Church had few men of learning in those early centuries.

The men who added it to the Creed in Spain were among the most learned in all the West, who produced the mangificent creedal statements of the Councils of Toledo. They were following in the common teaching of the west what your Fr. Romanides has termed the "Western Orthodox filioque" to show that he felt it was not heretical) as asserted by Sts. Amrbose, Augustine, Leo, and others. The earliest citation in a Creed out of Toledo is from AD 447. The west, of course, did not even recognize Constantinople II as an ecumenical council until the ratification of Chalcedon in AD 451. Witness the lack of citation of the creed at Ephesus, which knew only of Nicea.

Ergo, pillaging, raping, killing, in the name of the Church and Pope.

The Pope had prior to this point excommunicated the Crusaders after they fell upon Zadar on the Dalmatian Coast. They were of course spurred on to Constatinople by the pretender to the East Roman throne, in whose pay they were operating.

These type of little mistakes make it difficult to trust larger assertions.

You would think someone might see the Hand of God in all this.

Speaking in general terms, it still seems unlikely that significant and controversial change could ever occur without some infallible teaching not contradicting another infallible teaching.

I think you're assuming that practically everything is defined infallibly. In practice, very little is.

Vatican I laid out 4 criteria for an infallible Papal statement:

It must state a doctrine concerning faith and morals. (Matters of practice or discipline don't qualify.)
It must be teach that doctrine definitively. (Merely suggesting it, or conceding that it can be taught, doesn't qualify.)
It must be addressed to the whole church.
The Pope must be teaching in his capacity as supreme shepherd, not, for example, expressing his personal opinion, or merely his opinion as the Bishop of Rome.

It takes a certain amount of effort to meet all 4 criteria.

That little quandry is why the heretical declaration of papal infallibility introduces a second innovation besides the placing of the authority of the Bishop of Rome above that of an Ecumenical Council: it makes a distinction between a bishop's teaching 'ex cathedra' and other pronouncements of a bishop. Somehow the Pope speaking when sitting on his throne is more authoritative than the Pope speaking at a Mass or writing in his study, a bizarre notion for which there is no warrant in Holy Tradition just as there is no warrant for localizing the infallibility which the Church posesses by virtue of the indwelling the Holy Spirit in one man or one office.

Understanding your objection, what you are objecting to is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Pope is held to be infallible when he teaches Christians on a point of dogma or morals with an intent of binding them defniitively to his judgement. He is not infallible when he makes private theological speculations or declines to settle a controversy at some point in time.

Infallibility is also not localized in the Pope. While the Pope can speak infallibly on his own and definitively settle controversies, we believe an ecumenical council can also do likewise. And of course, we believe that all Bishops and Priests teach infallibly when they repeat the universally held beliefs of the Church in instructing us.

Lastly, infallibility is nothign more than a protection from error. It is not a positive power that gives the Pope especial knowledge, wisdom, eloquence, or understanding. The Pope cannot speak for the Church so as to lead the Church astray that's all. On the other hand, he might very well speak poorly, or perhaps not at all.

Lets look at it this way. You believe an ecumenical council is infallible in a way that the sermon of a Bishop in his cathedral is not. What essentially is the difference? Also, no ecumenical council has every included the participation of all the Bishops. Therefore, it seems like some fo the Bishops are being made more authoritative than all the Bishops. How is this different from your objection?

“Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Romans 3:24

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: It is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8, 9

“For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” Rom 5:17

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us...” Titus 3:5-6

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Galatians 2:21

Or, to put in into the terms of the Reformation, sola gratia. Not by ordinances, not by works of righteousness.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those crazed evangelicals that thinks the Pope is the Antichrist or that all Roman Catholics are going to hell. I don't. I think God has used the RCC in a mighty way, preserving the Christian faith through the centuries. I don't, however, think they, or any other denomination, has perfect wisdom, or perfect teaching. And I think God is big enough to use us, his imperfect vessels and the imperfect Church (meaning all true believers, Roman Catholic and otherwise).

The passages you cite concern justification through the Mosaic Law ("righteousness ... come by the law", "works of righteousness we have done", etc.).

But the sacraments of the New Law are not anything "we have done," but are works Christ has done in is. The same St. Paul you cite says "as many as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). Does that sound like the Sacraments are irrelevant?

Christ himself says with crystal clarity, "Whose sins you remit, are remitted; whose sins you hold bound, are held bound." (Jn 20:23) He addresses those words to the apostles, who gave that power to their successors, the bishops, who delegate that power to their priests. Why do you think St. Paul contradicts Christ? He doesn't!

The Reformation contradicted the constant understanding of the whole Church -- East and West -- that had been in place since the earliest times. (Read the Fathers if you don't believe me.) The Sacraments are the channels of God's grace, not the antithesis of it.

>> Would this be a bad time to mention that several of the Popes were condemned as heretics by the Councils? <<

No, but it would be a incorrect. I get Honorius and Liberius mixed up, but there was one incident where a council condemned a letter which was believed to have been issued by a Pope who was being persecuted by Emperor Constantinus. The council did not condemn the Pope, but only the letter. In any event, three things are relevant:

1. The belief the Pope signed the letter was a false inference from lies by Constantinus.
2. The council declined to condemn the Pope.
3. Even if the Pope had signed the letter, it would have been a sin, since it would have sown much confusion, but could a letter extracted through torture, hundreds of miles away from the Papal see, possibly be understood to be ex cathedra?

If you have any other citations of a council condemn a Pope as proclaiming heresies, please do share. The incident I described is explained in "Pope Fiction," but the author engaged in written "debates" after the publication. No-one proffered any better examples than the one I cited.

>> That little quandry is why the heretical declaration of papal infallibility introduces a second innovation besides the placing of the authority of the Bishop of Rome above that of an Ecumenical Council: it makes a distinction between a bishop's teaching 'ex cathedra' and other pronouncements of a bishop. Somehow the Pope speaking when sitting on his throne is more authoritative than the Pope speaking at a Mass or writing in his study, a bizarre notion for which there is no warrant in Holy Tradition <<

The issue is the intent of the Pope. Infallibility is the product of discernment; the Pope may still wish to offer his weighty opinion on matters, or make assertions without meaning to exclude all other possible opinions. When he speaks in some contexts, he is presenting his understanding. The Pope is a very learned man, and certainly his own understanding is very valuable, and far more knowledgeable than most of his critics. But he can make errors.

The author of "Pope Fiction" does not merely move to disprove assertions of heresy from the throne, but all assertions of heresy. He does a decent job: he even cites one case of a Pope who wished to release an authoritative biblical translation (if I remember right) who was struck dead just as he prepared to issue the Papal Bull endorsing it. No wonder Pope John Paul II's staff was quick to clarify that the Pope's privately expressed opinion about "The Passion of the Christ" was not a Church teaching! The nit-pickers would treat any historical error as proof that "it" was NOT "as it was," and therefore assert the Pope was a heretic!

So, how is it we make the leap from there to anyone else?

We look at what the Apostles did, and said, and what the early Church believed. The Apostles' powers of preaching, teaching, and administering the Sacraments were given to their successors, the bishops. See 2 Timothy 2:2 for an early example.

We have instructions already from the early 3rd century on how to choose a good confessor. So if the 3rd century church thought that that power was passed down from the Apostles to their own time, why should we go with your assertion that it wasn't, 17 centuries after the fact?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.