The Greek Schism [pp. 758-774]

766 The Creek Schism.
ever, that Photius should in a public cholas and Adrian, my predecessors,
synod acknowledge the decrees of left him, let him be anathema."' PhoPopes Nicholas and Adrian, and the tius, however, remained in possession
general council, beg pardon for the as long as Basil lived. His son and
faults he had committed and the successor, Leo the Philosopher, albeit
scandals he had given, be absolved educated by Photius, caused the senfrom censure, and then, and not till tence of the pontiffs to be executed.
then, be acknowledged as Bishop of As the newly-elected prelate, Stephan,
Constantinople. He sent legates to had been ordained deacon by Phoexecute this decree of mercy. But tius, a circumstance which renderthe pride of Photius would not brook ed him irregular, a dispensation was
submission, and he resorted to his old prayed for from Rome. This was
arts. Again the apostolic legates were granted by Pope Formosus, with a
corrupted or intimidated; again Pho- saving clause that it should not be intius mutilated the pope's letters; re- terpreted against the condemnation
ceived in a numerous synod, from the of Photius. Thus the schism was
legates themselves, the insignia of the healed for a time. Photius died in a
patriarchal dignity; and without any monastery, A.D. 891.
opposition from them, if not with their We have entered into these details
consent, the eighth council was abro- to show on what grounds the origin
gated, and the acts of Popes Nicho- of the Greek schism rests. It was
las and Adrian condemned. not, we repeat it, a contest for supre On their return to Rome, the le- macy. New Rome had never even
gates, of course, reported that the claimed equality with the see of Peten
injunctions of the pontiff had been Its bishops had never asked but the
strictly observed; but the pride of second place. Could Photius have
Photius betrayed il~em. In his letter obtained the confinnation of his eleche said he had fulfilled all the condi- tion from il~e pope, it is probable he
tions save that of begging pardon, be- never would have rushed into sd~ism.
cause he had done nothing to require It has been said that St. Nicholas was
pardon. This led John to an investi- too harsh with him. But had the
gation which revealed to him how pontiff neglected to do justice to St.
shamefally he had been disobeyed. Ignatius, the very wnters who now
He accordingly sent to Constantino- criticise him for severity, would have
ple the same Marinus, who had been blamed him with culpable weakness.
one of the legates to the general Indeed, John VIII. has met with
council, ordering him to rescind eve- such censure. But how did Photius
ry thing that had been done against repay his kindness? By fraud, by
his mandate. This brave and intelli- the grossest insult to his predecessors,
gent man fully and faithfully perform- and to an ~cumenical council. It is
ed his duty, and was imprisoned for useless to speak of the erudition of
thirty days; but as his constancy the usurper, or of his services to litecould not be overcome, he was allow- rature. These, great though they be,
ed to return to Rome. Whereupon cannot palliate his cnmes. The popes
Pope John, " ascending the pulpit, defended oppressed virtue and the
taking the Gospel in his hands, in canons of the church; Photius, havthe hearing of the whole congrega- ing failed to deceive, seduce, or intition, thus spake,`Whoever doth not midate them, was driven to the dehold Photius condemned by the sen- sperate resort of schism. A sceptic
tence of God, as the holy Popes Ni- like Gibbon may indeed scoff at the