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.

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.

And if wishes were fishes we'd all have a fry.

The See of Rome has run a long way from home. But in order for her to get back, she must first admit she's gotten lost. She'll have to renounce her innovations, up to and including the Papacy itself. That's about as likely as Protestants renouncing the Reformation.

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.

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.

Do you really believe that papal infallibility has anything to do with a piece of furniture?

That still doesn't compute.

Surely, the original error of the previous Pope had to be ex-cathedra as well, right?

Or, do we sweep all errors of Popes into the non-ex-cathedra category? Isn't that too convenient?

If infallibility is limited only to ex-cathedra, then why all the furor over Vatican II? Oh, is it because, ex-cathedra, that Pope changed a lot of things, that had been ex-cathedra before him? And thus, any change corrected an error or introduced an error, and thus, even ex-cathedra, some pope somewhere erred?

I'm trying to figure out how an infallible Pope can apologize for something a previous Pope did, and still claim that Popes are infallible.

You are very confused.

"Infallible" means "capable of teaching without error," not "incapable of sin or wrongdoing." The Pope goes to confession weekly; he is a sinner, as we all are, and admits it.

The 4th Crusade's attack on Constantinople was not "something [the] Pope did". It was something Catholics did, however. It's a historical fact that the Pope at the time condemned the acts of the Crusaders in sacking Constantinople.

"From the throne" is the Latin church's phrase, not mine, and I have no doubt it would be interpretted in the narrow sense if necessary to retract a Papal pronouncement which became troublesome for the Vatican at some future time.

regarding your assertion about retracting an infallible pronouncement (an impossibility) leaving aside your deep seated distrust, dislike or what ever, of the Church, do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Your confusion is based on a wrong definition of "infallible." You are thinking of "inerrant," "impeccable," or "omniscient."

The Pope is not omniscient. He has no magic crystal ball, or oracle to give him any knowledge. He has no knowledge other than public revelation (i.e., scripture), and the discerning powers of the magisterium to correctly interpret that revelation.

The Pope is not inerrant. In other words, even when he does believe he knows something, he may be wrong. If the Pope states that the Marlins would win the NLCS, I wouldn't buy game tickets in Florida. We can know he is correct only when he speaks with the authority of the entire Catholic Church from the throne of St Peter for the purpose of teaching doctrine and morality.

The Pope is not impeccable. Although many accusations against Popes are gross distortions and inventions, the plain and obvious truth is that there have been many Popes who were sinners.

Be confused, instead, as to why people who claim to be men of God will falsely assert that the Pope has claimed impeccability, inerrancy and omniscience, when it plain he has not.

East and West have sinned against each other. West offers East a hand in reconcilliation, and East demands west concede that East is blameless, and that all her lies are truth.

For the record, Photios was no apostle. The power brokers in Byzantium wanted an excuse to teach people to reject the Bishops who had authority over them in Czeckoslavakia. So they invented false accusations against the bishops, claiming that their tolerance for the filioque was heresy: The Nicene council certainly had not stated that the Holy Spirit proceded from the Father, and only from the Father! Finding no apostle of the Catholic Church to disseminate their lies, they elevated a mere priest, Photios, to that of Patriarch!

Recognizing the invalidity of such an action, and also probably the motives, the Pope rejected the elevation. The East took the rejection as excommunication, and the religious conflict was born. It Photius' followers who were the ones preaching that Rome and those aligned with her were in apostasy. It would not be heresy to insist that the Filioque was unneccesary; what was heresy was teaching that the insertion of the Filioque amounted to invalid masses and that the acceptance of the Filioque demonstrated apostasy.

The Catholic Church was not wrong to disallow the elevation of Photius. It was not wrong to to allow missionaries into the Eastern Churches to promulgate its views. It was not wrong to prefer kings who advocated the truth over kings who advocated lies. And it did not order the war crimes which took place in Constantinople. But it did create an environment wherein armed forces came to falsely consider Eastern Orthodox Christians as enemies to the purposes of Christ, and heretics who deserved retribution, even though the Western Church did not formally proclaim such wicked things. As a result, many horrific abuses occurred in Constantinople, and most of the East fell into Muslim hands.

I propose as restitution for the West's errors, Rome once again recognize the urgent mission to rescue the souls of those in Muslim lands from the demonic horror that is Islam. When this is done, the Eastern Church will regain her see, and the cause for bitterness that the East bears against Rome will be in the past.

Me: That is a significant difference from the "normal" meaning of the word.

You:Actually, it isn't. Check the dictionary.

From dictionary.com...

in·fal·li·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fl-bl) adj.
1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
3. Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

Notice how the first definition, i.e., the most common definition, means without erring. Notice how the third and last definition, and one that is clearly specified to mean the RCC's own special defintion, is the only one that means what you say it means. I rest my case.

Me: That aside, working with the novel definition, what about Vatican II?

You: What about it?

Are you just trying to be obtuse? The "what about it" I went into in post #7. I'll admit to plenty of ignorance, but surely, Vatican II was ex-cathedra, no?

Notice how the first definition, i.e., the most common definition, means without erring.

Yes, I believe that was my point. "Error" is not the same thing as "sin". "Infallible" means without error, and, applied to the Pope, it specifically means his ability to teach without error under Divine protection.

I fail to see what you are arguing about. Yes: sometimes words have specific technical meanings. "Mouse" is either a computer peripheral, or a small rodent which is often a pest. Do you call the thing next your keyboard a "pointing peripheral device" because you don't want to stray from the commonly accepted definition of a word?

But, as I point out, the commonly accepted definition of "infallible" is "without error". That's what I said it was.

Are you just trying to be obtuse?

No, I'm trying to get you to be specific.

The "what about it" I went into in post #7. I'll admit to plenty of ignorance, but surely, Vatican II was ex-cathedra, no?

The term ex cathedra is usually reserved to an infallible Papal pronouncement. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, which is also capable of teaching infallibly.

So the question is, did Vatican II infallibly teach something concerning faith or morals which contradicted something which had been infallibly taught before?

The answer is no, it didn't. There are some Catholic traditionalists who argue that Vatican II contradicted early Papal pronouncements concerning religious liberty. However, the case is weak for arguing either that Vatican II's pronouncement or the earlier Papal documents are infallibly defined teachings. (Not everything is infallible; not everything needs to be.) And, the case is even weak for arguing that a contradiction exists at all.

So, one more time: what, exactly, do you think Vatican II changed that contradicted something previously defined infallibly?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Be confused, instead, as to why people who claim to be men of God will falsely assert that the Pope has claimed impeccability, inerrancy and omniscience, when it plain he has not.

Even this limited claim to inerrancy, that he is inerrant when speaking ex-cathedra, is plenty enought to get worked up about. There are many who hold the written word of God, the Holy Scriptures, as a higher authority. If the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, says something that contradicts the Bible, then what are we left with? We are left with one of only two options: A: the Pope is not infallible speaking ex-cathedra, or B: the Bible is not inerrant in its original manuscripts. But, if B: is the case, and the Bible does contain errors, then the question becomes what parts are errors and what parts are not, and there is no rational way to achieve a firm answer, so the whole foundation crumbles.

So, then, the only thing that remains is to determine if the Pope, when speaking ex-Cathedra, has ever contradicted scripture.

Not being Catholic (don't look surprised, lol) I can't be very specific about Vatican II. I'm obviously blurring things around a great deal from ignorance. Thank you for taking my ramblings and seeing the point of the question - do some infallible teaching contradict other infallible teachings? Admittedly, without specifics, I can't argue the point very well, and am destined to lose this debate unless I do more research. And maybe even then. 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. Again, I can see how specifics might bear out your contention, but from a high level, it seems improbable.

>>If the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, says something that contradicts the Bible, then what are we left with? We are left with one of only two options: A: the Pope is not infallible speaking ex-cathedra, or B: the Bible is not inerrant in its original manuscripts. But, if B: is the case, and the Bible does contain errors, then the question becomes what parts are errors and what parts are not, and there is no rational way to achieve a firm answer, so the whole foundation crumbles. <<

Basically what you are saying could be applied to any law of science: If the impossible happened, then the fact that it happened would disprove that it was impossible; therefore, it is not impossible. But the reason it is "impossible" is because Christ promised the Holy Spirit would not allow it to happen.

Papal correctness can not be used to prove Papal infallibility. Papal infallibility can only be used to prove Papal correctness.

We're waiting ...

Hmm, I don't have my handy-dandy reference sheet, on exactly which teaching and saying were ex-cathedra, or otherwise infallible. Is it safe to assume all major teachings, ordinances, practices, etc., are from infallible teachings? Is the Catechism an infallible teaching?

"The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ’Sacramental grace’ is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament."

“One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience.”

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.