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.

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?

The sacraments are most definitely something you "do." Can you be baptized without doing anything? No. For that matter, while we are on the subject of baptism, where do we see infant baptism in the Bible? In the Bible, baptism is consistently seen as an act, by an adult, as an outward show of repentance. Back to the point, it is an act of righteousness. It can't save. According to scripture, it is simply an act of obedience, which follows salvation.

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!

Where does it say that they had the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin? More important theologically was the splitting of the curtain in the holy of holies at Christ's crucifixion. Christ's death made the way for people to come directly into the presence of God Almighty, without priests. And, in the various passages where it discusses the roles in the church, you'll notice there are teachers, and preachers, and givers, and helpers, but no forgivers. Christ is the forgiver. Jesus himself taught us how to pray... "forgive us our sin" - if we can pray directly to God, and He is the One who can forgive, then He is the One to Whom we should confess. Ok, not exclusively, we are also encouraged to confess to each other. Which means it is certainly "okay," scripturally, for us to confess to a priest. But there are plenty of other instances where we are taught confession is directed to God.

I realize, of course, we are unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this. May God bless you.

The sacraments are most definitely something you "do."

Then so is repentance, belief, "taking Jesus as your personal Savior", prayer, Bible study ... etc. You'd better not do those, either.

For that matter, while we are on the subject of baptism, where do we see infant baptism in the Bible?

Tell me, when were Jewish boys circumcised? On the eighth day? When Peter speaks in Acts, he says "the promise is to you and to your children". What Peter giveth, FactQuest taketh away?

In the Bible, baptism is consistently seen as an act, by an adult, as an outward show of repentance.

Nonsense. Nothing in Scripture calls baptism "an outward show of repentance". Christ condemns anything done as an "outward show of repentance". Nothing in Scripture limits baptism to adults, either.

You have exalted the errors of Zwingli on the sacraments to be the equal of Scripture. Is Zwingli infallible? He'd better be, because you're taking his word about things, even down to saying things that are demonstrably false.

Where does it say that they had the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin?

Same place it says they had the authority to write a single word of the New Testament.

Christ's death made the way for people to come directly into the presence of God Almighty, without priests

The English word "priest" corresponds to and is derived from the Greek presbyter, or elder, an office which is clearly instituted in the NT.

We can't automatically extend every promise given to the apostles.

Why not? Or more precisely, which promises are extended and which are not? By what authority do you make such a pronouncement?

Good questions. Two simple thoughts:
We aren't the apostles, and the apostles may have received special priveleges.
We are Christians, i.e., disciples of Christ, and as such, any promises and instructions directed to disciples is directed to us as well. So, indeed, which is when?

So, Matt 28:19 instructs them to baptize. Is that just the apostles, or all disciples?
Mark 16:17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Luke 22:29 "And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,
30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Hey, no one said this was going to be easy.

The simple answer, on what authority, is other scripture. When the whole of scripture is studied, and the difficult passages worked out against each other, basing interpretation of the foundation that the Bible is inerrant, these issues work out rather nicely.

I leave the proof of that statement to the serious student of God's Word.

Me:The sacraments are most definitely something you "do."
You:Then so is repentance, belief, "taking Jesus as your personal Savior", prayer, Bible study ... etc. You'd better not do those, either.

Getting down to the nitty gritty, salvation comes from the acceptance of grace. God extends a gift to you. You receive it, or you reject it. Everything else in an act of righteousness. Repentance, belief... Not that any of these are to be avoided, on the contrary. They are the natural steps that are worked in the heart of the person who accepts God grace. But, these acts are not what saves.

Me:For that matter, while we are on the subject of baptism, where do we see infant baptism in the Bible?
You:Tell me, when were Jewish boys circumcised? On the eighth day? When Peter speaks in Acts, he says "the promise is to you and to your children". What Peter giveth, FactQuest taketh away?

Peter didn't say: "to you and your children... as long as you circumcise them on the 8th day... no, wait, better make that infant baptism." No, the promise is given without that condition... seems like you've added something. And I honestly haven't a clue as to what you think I've taken away, other than a condition that isn't there.

Me:In the Bible, baptism is consistently seen as an act, by an adult, as an outward show of repentance.
You: Nonsense. Nothing in Scripture calls baptism "an outward show of repentance". Christ condemns anything done as an "outward show of repentance". Nothing in Scripture limits baptism to adults, either.

Perhaps "show" was the wrong word choice... call it an outward manifestation of a real inner repentance. (putting aside the mental picture of someone walking the Via Dolorosa on their bloody knees...) No, nothing explicitly prohibits it. But, every example if that of an adult. Every example is coupled with repentance, save that of Jesus. (Hence John the Baptist's reluctance.) In the Jewish frame of reference, it was closely associated with ritual purification - cleansing from impurity. But forgiveness of sin was not its effect, that took a sacrifice at the temple.

Me:Where does it say that they had the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin?
You:Same place it says they had the authority to write a single word of the New Testament.

The two aren't even close. One is a power - until then - vested solely in God. The other is something many people do every day. And it was only later that people came to realize that the accounts and letters were more than just a preservation of history and encouragements and teachings, but inspired as well.

Me:Christ's death made the way for people to come directly into the presence of God Almighty, without priests
You:The English word "priest" corresponds to and is derived from the Greek presbyter, or elder, an office which is clearly instituted in the NT.

Words, labels, semantics. What is the function of the elder as seen in the NT? Teaching, training, shepherding. Forgiving sins? Not seen. Baptizing infants? Not seen. Interceding? Not seen. Having their faith substitute for the lack of faith of their followers? Not seen.

Then why do some Protestants, basing their belief on the Bible alone, accept infant baptism, and other Protestants, basing their belief on the Bible alone, reject it?

Obviously, at least one of them is wrong. I lean toward not baptizing infants. But, I'm willing to concede that I may be wrong about that. Underlying this whole difference is an underlying faith that baptism is not what effects salvation, and on that almost all Protestants agree. I would aruge that the Protestants that baptize infants do so more out of a tradition that is rooted in their Roman past, combined with, as you noted, no verses that prohibit it.

So you made an assertion that the councils had found Popes to be heretics, even though you accede that the assertion is false, and then say you *assume* Popes are fallible, just because they are "peccable"? (Yes, I probably made that word up!)

>>Given that, we're disinclined to recognize any one bishop, Pope or otherwise, as being infallible, even when speaking ex cathedra. Call us paranoid if you like. ;)<<

I'd rather say, "distrusting" than paranoid. Distrusting of who? The Pope? I'll readily concede that Popes are neither impeccable or inerrant. It's the *Holy* *Spirit* and not the Pope who confers infallibility apon the Pope. We careful who it is you distrust!

>>I lean toward not baptizing infants<<

A couple of times, there is reference to an entire wealthy household being baptised. In the biblical days, a household referred to a man, his wife, their kids, their servants, their servants' kids. A wealthy household with no kids at all was unheard of. Absolutely unheard of.

Also, please note that the NT is filled of phrases like, "we have been baptised in Christ." In such places, the authors probably would have said, "we have repented in Christ," if repentance brough salvation but baptism did not. The physical manifestation of a sacrament cannot be seperated from the spiritual occurrence, just as you cannot make conjugal love to your wife over the telephone.

But, these acts are not what saves.

Sure, God saves. The question is how he does it: instrumentality, not agent.

And I honestly haven't a clue as to what you think I've taken away

Baptism is the sign of entry into the covenant, just as circumcision was. You aren't permitting that to infants.

The early church very clearly disagrees with you on this, BTW. Justin Martyr even speaks of old women alive in his day who were baptized by the Apostles. Since he was writing in AD 150, a little bit of math tells you that they were baptized as infants or young children.

One is a power - until then - vested solely in God.

Excuse me, but Scripture is inspired by God. Sins are forgiven by God. Both are powers which come from God. And you've already admitted that Jesus gave that power to the Apostles; you just reject the 2000-year-old belief of the church that that power did not die with the Apostles.

What is the function of the elder as seen in the NT? Teaching, training, shepherding. Forgiving sins? Not seen.

Already mentioned: John 20.

Interceding? Not seen.

Surely you understand that all Christians are to intercede for one another.

Having their faith substitute for the lack of faith of their followers? Not seen.

We no more believe that about our priests than you believe it about your pastors. I know you don't mean to offend, but that's an offensive and nasty accusation to level at fellow believers.

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.