Primary source documents

chapter 10: The history of a growing division: The churches in East and West on separate ways

Justinian, Novella (New Constitutions) 137:6

Source: Joseph Cullen Ayer, A Source Book for Ancient Church History. From the Apostolic age to the Close of the Conciliar Period, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1941, 555-6.

Emperor Justinian of Constantinople (483-565, emperor from 527-565), also called Justinian the Great, was one of the most influential figures in late antiquity. He regarded the emperor as head of the church and saw it as his right and duty to regulate the church, even in the details of its work. With this system of state-church relations, Justinian is thus a foremost example of what would later be called Caesaropapism.

The text below is from Justinian I’s Novellae. It forms an important part of the laws that he initiated.

   We command that all bishops and presbyters shall offer the sacred  oblation [Eucharist)  and the prayers in Holy Baptism not silently,  but with a voice which may be heard by the faithful people, that by it the minds of those listening may be moved to greater contrition and to the glory of God. For so, indeed, the holy Apostle teaches (1Cor 14:16; Rom. 10:10) […]; for the holy priests should know that if they neglect any of these things they shall render an account at the terrible judgment of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and that we shall not quietly permit such things when we know of them, and will not leave them unpunished. We command therefore that the Governors of the eparchies, if they see anything neglected of those things which have been decreed by us, first urge the metropolitans and other bishops to celebrate the aforesaid synods, and do whatsoever things we have ordered by this present law concerning synods, and, if they see them delaying, let them report to us, that from us there may come a proper correction of those who put off holding synods. And the Governors and the officials subject to them should know that, if they do not observe these matters, they will be liable to the extreme penalty [i.e., death]. But we confirm by this present law all things which have been decreed by us in various constitutions concerning bishops, presbyters  and other clergy, and also concerning lodging-places for strangers, poor-houses, orphan asylums and others as many as are over the sacred buildings.

The Third Council of Constantinople, 680-81

Source: Denzinger. The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Fitzwilliam, N.H.: Loreto Publications, 1955, 114-5.

The most important decision of the Third Council of Constantinople, also called the Sixth Ecumenical Council, was the condemnation of the teaching that Christ had only one will.
The text below is from an English translation of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, an authoritative collection of doctrinal statements of the Catholic Church throughout its history. The original texts were written in Latin.

   And so we proclaim two natural wills in Him, and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, unfusedly according to the doctrine of the holy Father, and two natural wills not contrary, God forbid, according as impious heretics have asserted, but the human will following and not resisting or hesitating, but rather even submitting to His divine and omnipotent will. For, it is necessary that the will of the flesh act, but that it be subject to the divine will according to the most wise Athanasius. For, as His flesh is called and is the flesh of the Word of God, so also the natural will of His flesh is called and is the proper will of the Word of God as He Himself says: "Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of my Father who sent me" [cf. John 6:38], calling the will of the flesh His own. For the body became His own. For as His most holy and immaculate animated flesh deified has not been destroyed but in its own status and plan remained, so also His human will deified has not been destroyed, but on the contrary it has been saved according to the theologian Gregory who says: "For to wish of that one an entire deification, which is understood in the Savior, is not contrary to God."
   But we glorify two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, unfusedly, inseparably in our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, our true God, that is, the divine operation and the human operation, according to Leo the divine preacher who very clearly asserts: "For each form does what is proper to itself with the mutual participation of the other, that is, the Word doing what is of the Word and the flesh accomplishing what is of the flesh". For at no time shall we grant one natural operation to God and to the creature, so that neither what was created, we raise into divine essence, nor what is especially of divine nature, we cast down to a place begetting creatures. For of one and the same we recognize the miracles and the sufferings according to the one and the other of these natures from which He is and in which He has to be as the admirable Cyril says. Therefore we, maintaining completely an unconfused and undivided (opinion), in a brief statement set forth all: that we, believing that He is one of the Holy Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, and after the incarnation assert that His two natures radiate in His one substance, in which His miracles and His sufferings through all His ordained life, not through phantasy but truly He has shown, on account of the natural difference which is recognized in the same single substance, while with the mutual participation of the other, each nature indivisibly and without confusion willed and performed its own works; according to this plan we confess two natural wills and operations concurring mutually in Him for the salvation of the human race.

John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith. Book IV Chapter 16. On Images

Source: John of Damascus. Fathers of the Church, Volume 37: Writings. Translated by Frederic H. Chase, Jr. Baltimore, MD, USA: Catholic University of America Press, 1958, 370-3.

John of Damascus (c. 645-750) is one of the most important church fathers in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Through his writings he gave significant support to the veneration of icons. Living outside of the Byzantine realm, in Islamic-ruled Jerusalem, he was in a good position to oppose the iconoclastic emperors of Constantinople. He died before the iconoclastic controversy was resolved.
The following text is a section from The Orthodox Faith, which is part of his principal dogmatic work Source of knowledge (Πηγὴ γνώσεως).

   Since there are certain people who find great fault with us for adoring and honoring both the image of the Saviour and that of our Lady, as well as those of the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, let them hear how from the beginning God made man to His own image.  For what reason, then, do we adore one another, except because we have been made to the image of God? […]

   Now, sacred Scripture condemns those who adore graven things, and also those who sacrifice to the demons. The Greeks used to sacrifice and the Jews also used to sacrifice; but the Greeks sacrifice to the demons, whereas the Jews sacrificed to God. And the sacrifice of the Greeks was rejected and condemned, while the sacrifice of the just was acceptable to God. Thus, Noe sacrificed 'and the Lord smelled a sweet savor' [Gen 8:21] of the good intention and accepted the fragrance of the gift offered to Him. And thus the statues of the Greeks happen to be rejected and condemned, because they were representations of demons.

   But, furthermore, who can make a copy of the invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed, and unportrayable God? It is, then, highly insane and impious to give a form to the Godhead. For this reason it was not the practice in the Old Testament to use images. However, through the bowels of His mercy God for our salvation was made man in truth, not in the appearance of man, as He was seen by Abraham or the Prophets, but really made man in substance. Then He abode on earth, conversed with men, worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again, and was taken up; and all these things really happened and were seen by men and, indeed, written down to remind and instruct us, who were not present then, so that, although we have not seen, yet hearing and believing we may attain to the blessedness of the Lord. Since, however, not all know letters nor do all have leisure to read, the Fathers deemed it fit that these events should be depicted as a sort of memorial and terse reminder. It certainly happens frequently that at times when we do not have the Lord's Passion in mind we may see the image of His crucifixion and, being thus reminded of His saving Passion, fall down and adore. But it is not the material which we adore, but that which is represented; just as we do not adore the material of the Gospel or that of the cross, but that which they typify. For what is the difference between a cross which does not typify the Lord and one which does? It is the same way with the Mother of God, too, for the honor paid her is referred to Him who was incarnate of her. And similarly, also, we are stirred up by the exploits of the holy men to manliness, zeal, imitation of their virtues, and the glory of God. For, as we have said, the honor shown the more sensible of one's fellow servants gives proof of one's love for the common Master, and the honor paid to the image redounds to the original. This is the written tradition, just as is worshiping toward the east, adoring the cross, and so many other similar things.

   Furthermore, there is a story told about how, when Abgar was lord of the city of Edessenes, he sent an artist to make a portrait of the Lord, and how, when the artist was unable to do this because of the radiance of His face, the Lord Himself pressed a bit of cloth to His own sacred and life-giving face and left His own image on the cloth and so sent this to Abgar who had so earnestly desired it. 

   And Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, writes that the Apostles handed down a great many things unwritten: 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle'; and to the Corinthians: 'Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.'

Second Council of Nicaea (787) – definition of the sacred images and tradition

Source: Denzinger. The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Fitzwilliam, N.H.: Loreto Publications, 1955, 121-122.

The iconoclastic controversy of the 8th and 9th centuries set several emperors of Constantinople against large parts of the church, both East and West. The Second Council of Nicaea in 787, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, handed down a doctrinal decision of the church in favor of the veneration of the icons.
The text below is from that decision. The doctrinal statement makes reference to the distinction between adoration (in Greek proskynesis), which is right to be given to images, and worship [latreia], which belongs only to God. This distinction was introduced by the famous Orthodox theologian John of Damascus (c. 675-749).

   (I. Definition) […] We, continuing in the regal path, and following the divinely inspired teaching of our Holy Fathers, and the tradition of the Catholic Church, for we know that this is of the Holy Spirit who certainly dwells in it, define in all certitude and diligence that as the figure of the honored and life-giving Cross, so the venerable and holy images, the ones from tinted materials and from marble as those from other material, must be suitably placed in the holy churches of God, both on sacred vessels and vestments, and on the walls and on the altars, at home and on the streets, namely such images of our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Savior, and of our undefiled lady, or holy mother of God, and of the honorable angels, and, at the same time, of all the saints and of holy men. For, how much more frequently through the imaginal formation they are seen, so much more quickly are those who contemplate these, raised to the memory and desire of the originals of these, to kiss and to render honorable adoration [proskynesis] to them, not however, to grant true latria according to our faith, which is proper to divine nature alone; but just as to the figure of the revered and life-giving Cross and to the holy gospels, and to the other sacred monuments, let an oblation of incense and lights be made to give honor to these as was the pious custom with the ancients. "For the honor of the image passes to the original"; and he who shows reverence to the image, shows reverence to the substance of Him depicted in it.
   (II. Proof) For thus the doctrine of our Holy Fathers, that is, the tradition of the Catholic Church which has received the Gospel from and even to the end of the world is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spoke in Christ [II Cor. 2: 17], and all the divine apostolic group and the paternal sanctity keeping the traditions [II Thess. 2: 14] which we have received. Thus prophetically we sing the triumphal hymns for the Church: Rejoice exceedingly, O daughter of Sion, sing forth, O daughter of Jerusalem: be joyful and be happy with all your heart. The Lord has taken from you the injustices of those adverse to you: He has redeemed you from the power of your enemies. The Lord is king in your midst: You will not see more evils [Wisd. 3:14 f.: LXX] and peace to you unto time eternal.
    (III. Declaration) Those, therefore, who dare to think or to teach otherwise or to spurn according to wretched heretics the ecclesiastical traditions and to invent anything novel, or to reject anything from these things which have been consecrated by the Church: either the Gospel or the figure of the Cross, or the imaginal picture, or the sacred relics of the martyr; or to invent perversely and cunningly for the overthrow of anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church; or even, as it were, to use the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries as common things; if indeed they are bishops or clerics, we order (them) to be deposed; monks, however, or laymen, to be excommunicated.

Leo IX, Epistle "In terra pax hominibus" to Michael Cerularius and to Leo of Achrida, September 2, 1053 – on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

Source: Denzinger. The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Fitzwilliam, N.H.: Loreto Publications, 1955, 142-43.

The lasting break between the Eastern and the Western church came in 1054, with the mutual excommunication of Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerularius. The pope’s letter to the patriarch, reproduced below, was one of the events leading to this excommunication. It states strongly the pope’s position on his primacy. Whether the letter was ever sent is still a question of debate among scholars. Some suggest that another slightly softer letter, Scripta Tuae (from January 1054), was instead dispatched. 

   Chap. 5 [...] You are said to have condemned publicly in a strange presumption and incredible boldness the Apostolic and Latin Church, neither heard nor refuted, for the reason chiefly that it dared to celebrate the commemoration of the passion of the Lord from the Azymes [i.e., unleavened bread]. Behold your incautious reprehension, behold your evil boasting, when "you put your mouth into heaven. When your tongue passing on to the earth" [Ps. 72:9], by human arguments and conjectures attempts to uproot and overturn the ancient faith. [...]
   Chap. 7 [...] The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome; thus Truth itself promises, through whom are true, whatsoever things are true: "The gates of hell will not prevail against it" [Matt. 16: 18]. The same Son declares that He obtained the effect of this promise from the Father by prayers, by saying to Peter: "Simon, behold Satan etc." [Luke 22:31]. Therefore, will there be anyone so foolish as to dare to regard His prayer as in anyway vain whose being willing is being able? By the See of the chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail, been strengthened?
   Chap. 11. By passing a preceding judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of all the venerable Councils. [...]
   Chap. 32 [...] As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because "the highest See is judged by no one."

Gregory Palamas, The Triads. C. The Hesychast method of prayer, and the transformation of the body

Source: Gregory Palamas. The Triads. Edited with an introduction by John Meyendorff. Translation by Nicholas Gendle. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press 1983, 41-46.

Gregory of Palamas (1296-1359) was a famous Greek orthodox mystical theologian. He spent much of his life on Mt. Athos, the most important monastery of Eastern Orthodoxy. He played a core role in defending hesychasm against his main opponent, Barlaam. Hesychasm is a mystic spiritual exercise that emphasizes physical and breathing exercises to find mystical communion with God.

The following text is an extract from a longer treaty in which Palamas defends the hesychast concept with reference to the Bible and to the theological tradition, and explains some aspects of its method.

1
   My brother, do you not hear the words of the Apostle, "Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in us," and again, "We are the house of God"? For God Himself says, "I will dwell in them and will walk in them and I shall be their God." So why should anyone who possesses mind grow indignant at the thought that our mind dwells in that whose nature it is to become the dwelling place of God? How can it be that God at the beginning caused the mind to inhabit the body? Did even He do ill? Rather, brother, such views befit the heretics, who claim that the body is an evil thing, a fabrication of the Wicked One.

   As for us, we think the mind becomes evil through dwelling on fleshly thoughts, but that there is nothing bad in the body, since the body is not evil in itself. [...] Likewise, there is nothing evil in the fact that the mind indwells the body; what is evil is "the law which is in our members, which fights against the law of the mind".
  
3
   Our soul is a unique reality, yet possessing multiple powers. It uses as an instrument the body, which by nature co-exists with it. But as for that power of the soul we call mind, what instruments does that use in its operations? No one has ever supposed that the mind has its seat in the nails or the eyelids, the nostrils or the lips. Everyone is agreed in locating it within us, but there are differences of opinion as to which inner organ serves the mind as primary instrument. Some place the mind in the brain, as in a kind of acropolis; others hold that its vehicle is the very centre of the heart, and that element therein which is purified of the breath of animal soul.

   We ourselves know exactly that our rational part is not confined within us as in a container, for it is incorporeal, nor is it outside of us, for it is conjoined to us; but it is in the heart, as in an instrument. We did not learn this from any man, but from Him who moulded man, who showed that "it is not what goes into a man that defiles a man, but what goes out by the mouth", adding "for it is from the heart that evil thoughts come". And the great Macarius says also, "The heart directs the entire organism, and when grace gains possession of the heart, it reigns over all the thoughts and all the members; for it is there, in the heart, that the mind and all the thoughts of the soul have their seat."

   Thus our heart is the place of the rational faculty, the first rational organ of the body. Consequently, when we seek to keep watch over and correct our reason by a rigorous sobriety, with what are we to keep watch, if we do not gather together our mind, which has been dissipated abroad by the senses, and lead it back again into the interior, to the selfsame heart which is the seat of the thoughts? This is why the justly named Macarius immediately goes on to say, "It is there one must look to see if grace has inscribed the laws of the Spirit." Where but in the heart, the controlling organ, the throne of grace, where the mind and all the thoughts of the soul are to be found? Can you not see, then, how essential it is that those who have determined to pay attention to themselves in inner quiet should gather together the mind and enclose it in the body, and especially in that "body" most interior to the body, which we call the heart?
  
7
   You see, brother, how John teaches us that it is enough to examine the matter in a human (let alone a spiritual) manner, to see that it is absolutely necessary to recall or keep the mind within the body, when one determines to be truly in possession of oneself and to be a monk worthy of the name, according to the inner man.

   On the other hand, it is not out of place to teach people, especially beginners, that they should look at themselves, and introduce their own mind within themselves through control of breathing. A prudent man will not forbid someone who does not as yet contemplate himself to use certain methods to recall his mind within himself, for those newly approaching this struggle find that their mind, when recollected, continually becomes dispersed again. It is thus necessary for such people constantly to bring it back once more; but in their inexperience, they fail to grasp that nothing in the world is in fact more difficult to contemplate and more mobile and shifting than the mind.

   This is why certain masters recommend them to control the movement inwards and outwards of the breath, and to hold it back a little; in this way, they will also be able to control the mind together with the breath—this, at any rate, until such time as they have made progress, with the aid of God, have restrained the intellect from becoming distracted by what surrounds it, have purified it and truly become capable of leading it to a "unified recollection". One can state that this recollection is a spontaneous effect of the attention of the mind, for the to-and-fro movement of the breath becomes quietened during intensive reflection, especially with those who maintain inner quiet in body and soul.

   Such men, in effect, practise a spiritual Sabbath, and, as far as is possible, cease from all personal activity. They strip the cognitive powers of the soul of every changing, mobile and diversified operation, of all sense perceptions and, in general, of all corporal activity that is under our control; as to acts which are not entirely under our control, like breathing, these they restrain as far as possible.  

Council of Florence - Decree for the Greeks (July 6, 1439)

Source: Denzinger. The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Fitzwilliam, N.H.: Loreto Publications, 1955, 219-220.

The Decree for the Greeks from the Council of Florence in 1439 was an ultimately unsuccessful attempt at reuniting East and West. The Eastern Orthodox party was in a situation of weakness and was unable to negotiate any significant concession from the Catholic Church. The only significant concession from the West was to the use of leavened bread in the Orthodox tradition. The four sections below show agreements on some of the controversial issues: the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit (the ‘filioque’), the question of whether to use leavened or unleavened bread, the question of purgatory and of hell, and the question of the primacy of the pope. As Orthodox Christianity’s center of gravity was moving northwards, and as, only a few years later, Constantinople was conquered, the decree became irrelevant.

   [The procession of the Holy Spirit] In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And that all things, which are the Father's, the Father Himself has given in begetting His only begotten Son; without being Father, the Son Himself possesses this from the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son from whom He was moreover eternally begotten. We define in addition that the explanation of the words "Filioque" for the sake of declaring the truth and also because of imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed.

   We have likewise defined that the body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread; and that priests ought to effect the body of our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether that of the West or of the East.

   [De novissimis]  It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself, just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds. 

   We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.

Letter of Filofei to the Russian Grand Prince Vassilij and Ivan the Terrible – Moscow as the third Rome

Source: Wil van den Bercken, Holy Russia and Christian Europe: East and West in the religious ideology of Russia. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1999, 146.

Towards the end of the Byzantine Empire and after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the center of gravity of the Eastern Orthodox Church moved northwards. Russian Orthodoxy began to see itself as the political heir of Byzantium. The idea of a third Rome emerged in the middle of the 15th century, and was first claimed by Novgorod in 1490, where the term ‘Third Rome’ was used for the first time. The idea of Moscow as the third Rome became more widespread from the early 16th century on. It first appeared in the letter of the monk Filofei to the Russian Princes, of which an extract is shown below. From the late 17th century on, the Russian church had to give up this idea; in a 1667 council of the Russian Church in Moscow submitted itself theologically and canonically to the Greek Church. However, the idea of inheriting a long European tradition – and realizing it as the third Rome on a higher level than the two previous ones – still smolders in some politicians’ consciousness.

   I would like to say a few words about the existing Orthodox empire of our most illustrious, exalted ruler. He is the only emperor on all the earth over the Christians, the governor of the holy, divine throne of the holy, ecumenical, apostolic church which in place of the churches of Rome and Constantinople is in the city of Moscow, protected by God, in the holy and glorious Uspenskij Church of the most pure Mother of God. It alone shines over all the earth more radiantly than the sun. For know well, those who love Christ and those who love God, that all Christian empires will perish and give way to the one kingdom of our ruler, in accord with the books of the prophet, which is the Russian empire. For two Romes have fallen, but the third stands, and there will never be a fourth.

 
Copyright 2015 Tobias Brandner. All rights reserved.
Back to Top