The Greeks were indelibly impressed by the occupation of Thessalonica by the Latins, who indulged in unexpected barbarism. This impression, in addition to the Greek historian, is beautifully depicted by the Greek writer of the time, Metropolitan Eustathius of Phassalonica, a contemporary, who described this sorrowful event in his work "On the Conquest of Thessalonica by the Latins." [12] To what we have said about the conquest of Thessalonica, on the basis of the historian Nicetas, we can add the following characteristic features found in Eustathius: the streets were covered with corpses, which all, thanks to the predation of the conquerors, remained in a naked state. Not only that: the Latins allowed themselves the most impudent mockery of the corpses of the defeated Greeks. Human bodies were deliberately placed next to fallen donkeys, killed dogs and cats, and moreover they were given such postures as if they wanted to embrace and satisfy sensual lusts (cap. 98). The corpses of the dead remained unburied for a long time, and when the conquerors were asked to fulfill this universal duty, they replied with mockery: "We are used to this; moreover, such a sight and such a smell give us pleasure." Finally, the bodies of the dead were burned, but together with the corpses of various animals (cap. 107). The Greek temples not only did not stop the fury of the victors, but, it seems, inflamed it even more. Many of the vanquished, in view of the severity of the calamities, sought for themselves, if not protection, then consolation in the temples, and exclaimed: κύριε έλέησον,[13] but the Latins burst into the churches and, not in the least respecting the sanctity of the place, slaughtered the pilgrims, saying: "This is what it means: κύριε έλέησον," and laughed madly at this (cap. 99). Women and maidens fell prey to the bestial passion of the soldiers, and cynicism knew no bounds (ibid.). Many men and women from among the Thessalonians, unable to bear the misfortune, threw themselves from the roofs and broke or drowned in wells (cap. 104). Those who survived the conquest of the city by the Latins began a terrible life for them: the noses of the vanquished were either broken or cut off by the victors, so that the friend could not recognize his friend's face and had to ask: "Who is he?" (cap. Ill); almost no one had clothes: many considered themselves lucky to have a scrap of matting with which they could cover their loins (cap. 108); There was no bread, and if a Greek asked a Latin for bread, he received in response the name "devil" and blows (cap. 113).

But the capture of Thessalonica was not the only instance of the Latins' fury against the Greeks. What happened during the occupation of Thessalonica by the Latins was later repeated during the invasion of Byzantium by the same Latins. This event, which took place at the beginning of the thirteenth century and had a sad consequence for the capital, overflowed the cup of suffering, which the Greeks had to drink to the dregs through the fault of their Western brethren in the faith. The conquest of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders, who turned their sword instead of the infidels against Christians like themselves, took place in 1204, on April 13. It is necessary to know with what pride and admiration the Greeks looked at their capital, Constantinople, with its sacred monuments of antiquity, with its most remarkable works of art, in order to understand what irreconcilable hatred they must have breathed upon the Latins after this event. The Greeks liked to call Byzantium "the common capital of the entire universe and the universal harbor." [14] But the pride of the Greeks, Byzantium, was not only conquered by the Latins, but also plundered, but also desecrated; Could the Greeks ever forgive the Latins for this? Nicetas Choniates, a contemporary and eyewitness of the event, has left us both a vivid image of the sorrow that every Greek was imbued with at the sight of misfortune, and a description of the very fury of the Latins in Byzantium. Nikita writes: "Here are the remains of the martyrs scattered in unclean places! What is terrible to hear about, this very thing could be seen then: namely, how the divine Blood and Body of Christ were thrown down and spilled to the ground. Plundering precious vessels, the Latins broke some of them, hiding the jewelry that was on them in their bosoms, and others turned them into ordinary use at their table, instead of baskets for bread and goblets for wine, as the true forerunners of the Antichrist," the historian notes. "The precious altar of the St. Sophia Church, consisting of a variety of substances, merged into one beautiful whole by means of fire, was chopped into pieces by the crusaders and divided among themselves. All jewelry, gold, silver, precious stones were torn from their places. Beasts of burden were brought into the church, on which the treasures of the church were taken out, they were brought to the very altar, and since some of them slipped and could not rise to their feet because of the smoothness of the polishing of the stone floor, they were stabbed with daggers here, thus desecrating the sacred church platform with their dung and spilled blood. Here is a certain woman, the historian continues to depict, full of sins, a whistle of indecent, seductive and shameful melodies, sat down on the patriarchal seat (co-throne), singing her shrill melody, and then threw herself into the dance, quickly whirling and shaking her legs. [15] And not only these iniquities were committed, and others were not, — or these are more, and others less; but all kinds of crimes were committed with equal zeal by all" (i.e., the victors). "And now we have seen," the historian continues, "many things that were completely contrary to what Christians call pious and in accordance with the word of faith." [16] It is remarkable: not only soldiers participated in the robbery, but also Latin clergymen. From ancient times, Constantinople was famous not only for its wealth, but also for its abundance of shrines. The emperors of Greece collected sacred and venerable objects of Christian antiquity from everywhere. [17] And so, while the soldiers were plundering gold and silver and jewels,18 the Latin monks and abbots rushed rapaciously upon the precious treasures of the shrines, and did not neglect any violent means to achieve their goal. One of these, the Abbé of Paris, Martin Lietz, has become famous for his insolence in the plunder of shrines, and yet this man is called by Western chroniclers for all this, though a predator, but a holy predator — praedo sanctus. [19] In this way many of the sacred treasures of the Greek Church passed to the West; the churches in Rome, Paris and Venice were especially enriched by them. [20] What could the Greek people feel, except the utmost hatred, when they saw all this? The social position of the Greeks in Constantinople reaches an intolerable extreme. Nicetas Choniates notes: "The Latin soldiers gave no mercy to anyone or anything; they did not want to have communion with the subjugated, even in food and maintenance, behaved arrogantly and uncommunicatively towards them, turned them into slavery or drove them out of their homes." Wives and nuns were regarded by the brutal conquerors as natural prey for their sensuality. [21] The story of the conquest of Constantinople which we have quoted might perhaps be doubted, since it is borrowed from a Greek witness, if the modern Western Church itself, for its part, did not give us testimony that what the Greek writer told us was not in vain, not a slander against the Latins. Pope Innocent III wrote the following letter to Cardinal Peter in the East, directing a speech against the Crusaders who had forgotten their vows: "You have vowed to use your efforts to liberate the Holy Trinity. The land is out of the hands of the infidels, and instead they have foolishly deviated from the purity of your vow. You have taken up arms not against the infidels, but against the Christians, you have desired not the return of the Holy Spirit. But the possession of Constantinople, preferring earthly riches to heavenly blessings. And the worst of it is that some of you have spared neither religion, nor age, nor sex, but, committing fornication and adultery in the eyes of all, have abused not only ordinary wives, but also virgins who have dedicated themselves to God. The imperial treasures and the property of noble and simple people were not enough for you, you stretched out your hands against the riches of the Church and, what is most criminal, against sacred objects, for you stole sacred vestments and carried off icons, crosses and relics, so that the Greek Church, with all its sufferings, will not wish to return to the apostolic see, and, seeing in the Latins pernicious examples and works of darkness, he will justly hate them more than dogs." [22] Innocent, as we see, in his description of the sack of Constantinople by the Latins, almost literally repeats the testimony of Nicetas Choniates about the same event, and thus confirms beyond any doubt the story of the Greek historian. The Pope was not mistaken when he said that for these actions the Greeks would hate the Latins like dogs. The Greeks were deeply outraged by the violence and disrespect for their religious beliefs by the Latins! And indeed, how could one not be indignant? In the opinion of a modern historian, "this conquest of Constantinople by the Latins brought about the greatest changes in the condition of the Greek people like no other event. The supremacy of Roman law and civil institutions is now undermined in the East, and from here, according to it, all the later sad and unfavorable phenomena in relation to the Byzantine kingdom, the Orthodox Church and the Greek nation must be produced." [23] Seeing the strange behavior of his Western brethren in Christ, Nicetas Choniates, drawing the attention of his contemporaries to the events in Constantinople, exclaimed: "Look, such are the Latins, "this people, who consider themselves more pious and righteous, more faithful keepers of Christ's commandments than the Greeks; here are these zealots who have raised their Cross on their shoulders; they," remarks Choniates, "turned out to be utter hypocrites." [24] Without a doubt, under the influence of the awareness of the severity of the disasters to which the Latins subjected the Byzantines, under the pretext of the liberation of St. John. This historian declares directly and decisively: "The excessive hatred of the Latins for us and our extreme disagreement with them do not allow for a single moment the thought of friendliness between us." [25] The Greeks began to expect only one evil thing from the Latins, and that to the highest degree: "What most terrible evil will men not do," says Nicetas of the Latins, "who have gathered in their hearts such a malice towards the Greeks as the ancient serpent himself, the enemy of the human race, never had?" [26] After this, could one expect that the disunity of the Christian Church, which took place in the eleventh century, would again come to its wholeness, heal in the centuries following this sad event? And the Greeks are not to blame for this!

As soon as the fact of the conquest of Constantinople by the Latins took place, a series of measures began aimed at restricting and suppressing the Orthodox faith and the Church; and this continued during the reign of the Latin emperors in Constantinople for more than fifty years. It turned out that Pope Innocent himself was only performing an empty formality when he condemned the Crusaders for the capture of Byzantium; In his heart, he was glad of such an event and admired the possibility of important religious consequences. Innocent expressed these heartfelt thoughts in a letter addressed to the bishops and abbots who were among the Crusaders in Constantinople. The Pope pathetically wrote: "In the Scriptures it is said, God changes the times and sets up kingdoms; in our time, to our joy, this is apparently being fulfilled in the kingdom of Greece. God handed over the Byzantine Empire from the proud to the humble, from the disobedient to the obedient, from the separated to the faithful sons of the Church, i.e. from the Greeks to the Latins." [27] In another letter to the East, the Pope expresses the hope that with the conquest of Constantinople not only the Byzantines will turn to the Roman faith, but also Jerusalem and the Church of Alexandria. [28] To this end, Innocent made orders that threatened both the faith and the Greek Church. As early as the same year, when the occupation of Constantinople by the Westerners took place, the Pope ordered that priests and clergy be appointed in Constantinople to perform the Latin divine services; At the same time, the pope impressively remarked that it would be reprehensible to remain without divine services according to the Roman rite where the Latin people were perhaps destined to remain rulers forever. [29] Under the influence of such ideas, the Latin Patriarch in Constantinople, whom the Westerners hastened to appoint, soon came to the question: Should not the Greeks be forcibly converted to Latinism? With this question, the Patriarch addresses Innocent. For the first time, the Pope answers this question not quite definitely, but in any case with a clear inclination in favor of a positive solution to the question put to him. Innocent wrote to the Patriarch: "If the Greeks cannot be turned away by you from their divine services and from their celebration of the sacraments, then leave them both, until I, after mature reflection, lay down something else regarding this matter." [30] This mature reflection was not long awaited by the Greeks on the part of the Pope. In 1213, a strong persecution of Greek Christians by the Latins flared up. This persecution became especially intense on the arrival in Constantinople of the papal legate Pelagius (cardinal, bishop of Alban), who struck the Greeks both by his arrogance and by the splendor of his retinue, which shone with the purple color of their clothes, to which, according to the natives, only the emperors had the exclusive right. He began his activity by threatening and persecuting all those who refused to obey the statutes of the Roman Church; he banned Greek worship, threw Orthodox priests and monks into prison, threatening the stubborn even with the death penalty. Many of them sought refuge in flight, while the noblest Byzantines, alarmed by the cruel measures, demanded that the then Latin emperor in Constantinople, Henry (Eric in the Greek pronunciation), avert persecution. They directly said to the emperor: "We recognize your authority, but only in external matters, and not in spiritual and matters of conscience. We cannot give up our rites and what we consider sacred for ourselves." Fearing indignation within the very walls of the capital, Emperor Henry ordered the Greek churches to be unlocked and the monks and priests who suffered for their adherence to Orthodoxy were released from prison. [31] But, of course, this measure did not erase the heavy, painful impression that the arbitrariness and intolerance of the Latins must have made and did make on the Greeks.

It is in these features that historians depict the attitude of the Latins towards the Greeks in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The discord, which was more and more established between the two Christian peoples, became even sharper and more decisive when the Greeks, for their part, did not miss an opportunity to harm the Latins in the East at the time under consideration. They took advantage of the opportunity to respond to the arrogance and rudeness of the Latins by causing them trouble. Their patience, especially with the passage of time, was wearing thin, and cruelty was the retribution of this people for their Acts. If we read in Nicetas Choniates' account of the attitude of the Greeks under the emperor Manuel towards the army of a certain leader of the Crusaders, Conrad III, we shall see that even before the sack of Constantinople the Greeks looked with suspicion and unfriendliness at the hordes of Latins, who frightened the former by their movements through the regions of the Eastern Empire.

The emperor himself did not stay away from these actions. He either ordered secret ambushes against the passing troops, or persuaded the Turks to attack the crusaders by surprise. [32] This is how the Greeks treated the Crusaders, the temporary guests of their countries, just as they treated or even worse the Latins, who had previously settled in the Byzantine Empire. Worthy of historical attention is the following case of an outburst of popular indignation on the part of the Greeks against the Latins in the second half of the twelfth century. This was enough for the Byzantines to massacre the Latins in Constantinople. According to Nicetas Choniates, "the inhabitants of Byzantium rose up against the Latins, agreeing among themselves to a united attack, and a battle began on land and sea. The Latins rushed to save themselves as best they could, leaving their houses full of wealth to the mercy of the robbers. Some of them scattered throughout the city, others took refuge in noble houses, others sought salvation on the ships of their fellow tribesmen. And those who were caught were all condemned to death and all without exception lost their property." [33] The Western historian of the time, William of Tyre, relates stories of terrible things that happened during this revolt of the Greeks against the Latins. "A whole part of the city inhabited by Latins," he says, "was burned. Also, the churches in which many of them sought refuge were set on fire. In the Latin hospital, the patients were thrown out of their beds. Even the bones of dead Latins were dug out of graves and dragged through the streets and alleys. The papal legate, Cardinal John, was beheaded, and his head was tied to the tail of a dog, which walked around the city. The Greek priests and monks, according to William, showed the most active participation in this. They rewarded the murderers with money, went from house to house and found the Latins who had hidden in them and handed them over to the executioners. More than 4,000 Latins, as slaves, were sold to the Turks and other barbarians. The Latins, for their part, fleeing on ships from Constantinople, plundered all the Greek cities that they met on the way, and beat the inhabitants with the sword." [34]

Here are the facts of deep national enmity in which in the XII and ΧΠΙ centuries the mutual dislike of the Latins and Greeks was expressed. These facts took place in the political and social relations of the two Christian peoples, but at the same time they quite naturally placed new insurmountable obstacles to the brotherly rapprochement of the East with the West in the religious sphere as well. Sworn enemies in life could not be friends of conviction. The Latins saw in the Greeks people who were unfit in all respects, and, consequently, had a low regard for both religious rites and their convictions; In turn, the Greeks saw in the Latins barbarians in all respects, including religion.

Now, in what ecclesiastical-historical facts was expressed the ever-increasing hostility of the Latin Church to the Greek Church and vice versa at the time under consideration, a hostility that had been strong even before that time, and as a result of the circumstances we have narrated, it increased tenfold?

Already at the very beginning of the Crusades we find that the religious strife between the Latins and the Greeks was deep and decisive. One of the first leaders of the Crusaders wrote to another leader (Bohemond to Godfrey): "Know, my beloved, that you are dealing with the most dangerous beasts and the most unworthy people," he called the Greeks. "All their thoughts are directed only to the destruction of the entire Latin people. I know the malice and irreconcilable hatred of the Greeks towards the Latins." In response to this letter, a notice was received of the following kind: "I knew about all this before on the basis of public rumors, and now I am convinced of it by the very fact." Consequently, it was with blind hatred of the Greeks that the Latins came from the West to the East. It is not surprising, then, that the Latin chroniclers speak with shameful indifference of the burning by the Latins of the Greek cities, with their heretical inhabitants, as they called them. [35] For their part, the Greeks considered and called the Latins outright heretics and apostates from the Church.

The history of mutual relations between the Roman and Byzantine Churches in later times clearly indicates that such hostile feelings between the two Churches kindred in the spirit of faith not only did not weaken, but even greatly increased. The Roman high priests did not miss any opportunity to express their contempt, their contempt, their prideful and hostile attitude towards the Greek Church. In this sense, the epistle of Pope Adrian IV of the middle of the twelfth century, which he refers to the Thessalonian Archbishop Basil, is extremely interesting. Here the Pope compares himself to the Son of God, who deigned to descend from heaven to earth, and likens the Greeks to the lost coincis, the lost sheep of the Gospel, and compares them to the stinking Lazarus, whom he, the Pope, in his mercy wants to resurrect. [36] It is understandable in itself that such a tone must have offended the religious feeling of the Greeks to the highest degree. The famous Pope Innocent III at the end of the twelfth century also dares to describe the Eastern Church in the same features that are offensive to the Greek feelings. [37] Innocent began to treat the same Greek Church with even greater pride after the conquest of Constantinople by the Latins. In his epistle to the Latin clergy in the East, he calls it Samaria, which has departed from Jerusalem, Dan and Bethel, which are alien to Zion. [38] In the same epistle to the same clergy, the Pope, considering the apostolic activity of Peter and John, and debasing the activity of the latter before that of the former, of course, in order to present the Roman Church, founded by Peter, as superior to the Asian Churches, founded by Ap. John, wrote: "Peter founded only one Church, but he is the head of all the Churches, and John founded many Churches in Asia, as if many members of one head. Mary Magdalene proclaimed the resurrection of the Lord to Peter and John, but this one, i.e., John, although he came first to the tomb (of Christ), only looked, and did not enter into it: in the same way the Greek people, although they received the preaching of the Gospel earlier than the Latin people, they did not assimilate it, because the Greek teachers neither before nor now have attained a full understanding of the Old and New Testaments, they have not comprehended the deep mysteries of the Godhead; the exception was only a very few persons in Greece, while the Latin people, the Pope self-boasts, penetrated into the innermost and deepest mysteries" (by analogy with Peter, who entered the interior of the tomb of Christ). "Not in condemnation of himself, but precisely referring to the Greeks, the Evangelist John says that he (?!) he did not yet know the Scriptures (20:9). The Latin people are, the Pope wrote in a spirit of conceit, the image of Christ Himself, Lord of heaven and earth, and the Greek Church is the image of the Holy Spirit. Spirit; and as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, so the Greek Church must learn from the Latin." [39] The Latins were ready to consider the Greek Church even as some kind of kingdom of Satan, the destruction of which is the sacred purpose of the Westerners. The first Latin emperor in Constantinople, Baldwin, wrote to the pope in 1204: "We are convinced beforehand that whatever we do to the Greeks is the work of God, yet that whatever the Greeks undertake in their treachery must be considered the works of the devil (daemonum opera)." Then, after presenting the points of disagreement between the Greeks and the Latins as the greatest crimes of the Eastern Christian people, Baldwin remarked: "These crimes overflowed all measure, and God became the avenger of the Greeks; and we have become ministers of God's vengeance, being called upon to expel the enemies of God from the land, which will be taken away from them and given to us." [40] With such religious hatred of the Greeks, the Latins did not want to have any communion with the former in public worship. The presence of the Latins at divine services together with the Greeks seemed to be tempting. Persons famous for their scholarship among the Latins reasoned as follows: it is unseemly for the Latins (Franks) to enter into liturgical communion with Greeks excommunicated from the Church. [41]

Such a partly pretentious, partly contemptuous, partly proud, partly hostile attitude of the Church of Rome towards the Church of the East led, as a natural consequence, namely, that the adherents of the Eastern Church did not remain unresponsive at the sight of such mockery of them. The adherents of the Greek Church with all zeal proved the full rights of their Church to respect and reverence in the Christian world; sometimes they went so far as to humiliate the Church of Rome without proper grounds, and very often repaid it in the same coin for the obvious dislike shown by the Latin Church towards the Greeks. Here are a few facts. The porphyry-born historian Anna Comnena, who wrote her history in the twelfth century, of course, guided by the discord that had established between the Greek and Latin churches, introduced into her history arguments in which she expressed a desire to belittle the authority of the pope, which had then risen so highly, and to transfer to the person and authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople what the popes self-confidently appropriated for themselves. Here are the Historian's Discourses: "The Latins think and say that the Roman high priest is the head and lord of the entire universe; it is nothing more than an expression of their arrogance. Know that when the royal throne, the senate, and all the institutions of the state were transferred from Rome to Constantinople, the hierarchical privilege was also transferred there. From that time on, primacy was given to the cathedra of Constantinople, and especially the Council of Chalcedon (of course, the 28th canon) elevated this cathedra to the first degree, subordinating to it the dioceses in the whole earth." [42] That is, Comnena wants to say that, in spite of all the papal intrigues, the Patriarch of Constantinople in the eyes of Greece remains not only above all the patriarchal sees of the East, but also above the "apostolic" papal see. The idea is pretentious, but it arose under the influence of the strife between the Greek and Latin churches. We find this view of the historian often repeated in various Greek ecclesiastical writers of the period under study. This is what the Greek writer Nilus Doxopater did in the middle of the twelfth century. He develops the idea that since Rome fell away from the Eastern Empire, the latter has ceased to be the capital and at the same time the first see in the Christian world. Doxopater says: "Every living body is governed by five senses, and if one of these senses is lacking, then the organism is not perfect; so the Church of Christ, forming His one body, is governed by five patriarchs, as if by five senses. Therefore, since the Church needed five patriarchs, the Second Ecumenical Council, in the presence of four (?) patriarchs, decreed that Constantinople should have equal rights with ancient Rome." Then, citing the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which reinforces the previous legitimation of the Second Ecumenical Council, Doxopater remarks: "You see how this canon refutes the absurd assertion of those who insist on the idea that Rome received its advantage for the sake of the Apostle Peter. It is clearly stated here that the advantage of Rome was based on the fact that this city was the imperial capital. And of course, after Rome ceased to be the capital, it lost the privileges associated with this throne along with the deprivation of the imperial throne." Doxopater's conclusion: Constantinople has now become what Rome used to be in the hierarchical respect. [44] A little later, Doxopatra Basil, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in order to prick the pope, argued that there were two supreme high priests in Christendom: the Pope of Rome in the West and the Patriarch of Constantinople (also a kind of pope, according to Basil, in the East). [45] The famous Greek canonist Balsamon, not without the obvious intention of belittling the dignity of the Roman Church in comparison with that of Constantinople, speaks as follows about the importance of the Roman Church in the Christian world. "The five patriarchal sees remain to this day in veneration as the supreme heads of the Church in the whole earth; and the arbitrary exclusion of himself by the pope of ancient Rome from the number of patriarchs did not abolish such a canonical order." Nevertheless, according to Balsamon, Rome no longer occupies the first place among the patriarchal sees; this primacy belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople. We cite the proof that this canonist uses to confirm his view; it must be said beforehand that Balsamon's argument is very artificial and strange. Balsamon argues as follows: the supreme authority of the Church, the patriarchs, is called by the Greek word κάραι (plural of the word κάρα – head). In this word κάραι, Constantinople is denoted by the first letter (kappa), and Rome by the third letter (p). From this Balsamon concludes that Rome has now ceded the hierarchical primacy to Constantinople, occupying the third place in the series of patriarchal sees. The other letters in the word κάραι are considered by the canonist to be the initials of the names of the other patriarchal sees, and he observes that the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch do not dispute which of them belongs to the first and to whom the second of the two alphas in the word κάραι belongs, since, according to Balsamon, as the five senses of man peacefully coexist together, so there is no dispute about rank between the patriarchs. At the conclusion of his arguments, Balsamon makes it clear that, although he does not single out the Roman see from a number of others, he nevertheless looks upon it as having deviated from the right path. Balsamon expresses this idea in the following words: "As some creeping plant, for example, ivy, coils around the trunk of a tree, so I hold fast to the Pope of Rome, and my heart breaks for his falling away, passionately awaiting the day of his conversion." [46] From these arguments of Balsamon it is evident that in the twelfth century the question of the division of the Churches was understood in a strange way: the pope at one and the same time occupied a certain place among the other patriarchs, he was looked upon as one of the heads of the Church, and at the same time regret was expressed for his falling away from the general union with the Church. In any case, this canonist, wishing to belittle the authority of the Church of Rome, or, more precisely, of its high priest, quite illegally assigns him the third place in the series of patriarchs: canon law demanded either to recognize the pope as the first patriarch, or, as he is soon considered to have separated from the Church, not to recognize him altogether as patriarch of the Universal Church. One thing is clearly seen in Balsamon's judgments: to the claims which Rome allowed herself in relation to the Church of Constantinople, the Eastern writer wants to respond in the same way to the bishop of Rome. The attack on the Roman Church in the person of its high priest was made even stronger and more decisive by the Byzantine patriarch of the same twelfth century, Michael Anchialus. This Patriarch – let us say so – wants to trample in the mud the ecclesiastical significance of the See of Rome; he completely denies such a significance in it. It was he who proved to the emperor Manuel Comnenus that the pope had lost his episcopal dignity, that he had now become a layman and himself needed grace-filled consecration from others (through the sacraments), that he could not teach consecration to others, that he could not ordain priests, deacons, elevate priests to the highest hierarchical degrees, and be a judge of priests. At the same time, Anchialus adds: "That priests ordained by the pope have the right to absolve sins, I consider this opinion to be at least the greatest absurdity. From this it follows, in the words of this Eastern Patriarch, that the Bishop of Rome is not a shepherd, but a sheep, and a black sheep (πρόβατον ψωριών) that needs healing, a sheep in many ways worse than all the other sheep of the flock of Christ that remain healthy." [47] Remarkable features in which the degree of dislike of the Greeks towards the Latin Church is expressed can also be found in an anonymous fragment dating back to the twelfth century, with the following title: "To those who assert that Rome is the first see." Here we find the following reasoning in the writings of an unknown author: if papal authority is derived from the Apostle Peter, who was bishop of Rome, then from this point of view Antioch will be higher than Rome, for Peter first served as bishop of Antioch, and then of Rome. If the Latins say that Rome received primacy because Peter died a martyr here, then Jerusalem is higher than Rome, for here the Lord Himself suffered. And in any case, Byzantium is higher than Rome, because Peter's elder brother Andrew, the first-called apostle, was bishop here before Peter went to Rome. The author derives the origin of papal authority from the pagan emperor of the third century, Aurelian, who entrusted the Bishop of Rome with the task of resolving the dispute over the possession of the Church of Antioch between the heretic Paul of Samosata, who had been deprived of his episcopal cathedra but had not left it, and Domnus, who had been appointed bishop of Antioch in place of Paul by a conciliar decree. "From this we see," declares the author, "that none else, but the pagan emperor, granted primacy to the bishop of his capital and made him tyrant over all." [49]

Let us now consider other facts, from which it is evident how far the dislike of the adherents of the Eastern Church and the Latin Church extended in the time we are studying. The alienation of the Eastern Church from the Western Church began, among other things, to be expressed in the fact that the Eastern Christians began to exclude Latin Christians from their worship. Theodore Balsamon, in response to the question of Mark, Patriarch of Alexandria, whether Latins should be allowed to be present at Greek services and to partake of Holy Communion. He answered in the negative, referring to the Gospel saying: "He who is not with Me is against Me" (Matt. 12:30). [50] On the other hand, Patriarch Germanus II of Constantinople (thirteenth century) considered worthy of excommunication those Greeks who would accept the prosphora from the hands of Greek priests, but who had expressed submission to the pope during the possession of Constantinople by the Latins. [51] In general, regarding the attitude of the Greeks to the Latins, one could find the following reasoning: "Since the Roman Church has long since fallen away from communion with the four most holy patriarchs and has deviated to teachings and customs far from the Orthodox Church, the Latins cannot receive the Holy Mysteries from the Greek priests, unless they promise in advance to renounce Latin dogmas and rites." [52] One Western chronicler, Odon, mentions that at the time in question the Greeks washed the altars on which the Latins worshipped; he assures us that the Greeks had already rebaptized the Latins (in the case of conversion to the Greek Church). [53] The canonist Balsamon forbids the giving of Greek women in marriage to Latins and considers it impermissible for Latins to be godparents of children among the Orthodox, equating in the present case the Latins with the Monophysites (Armenians), Monothelites, and Nestorians. [54] If we are to believe the Latin writers who lived at that time, then already in the twelfth century the antipathy of the Greeks towards the Latins reached the point of decisive hostility of the former to the latter. The Bishop of Münster, who had come to Constantinople to the Emperor Isaac Angelus as an ambassador from the Emperor Frederick I, informed Frederick that the Byzantine Patriarch Nicetas Muntanus in the Church of St. Sophia, in the presence of himself, the Bishop of Münster, and other ambassadors, had said the following in his sermon: "If a Greek kills a hundred Latin pilgrims, he will receive absolution for his sin, even though he at the same time stains himself by the murder of ten Greeks." [55] The story of such a sermon is, it must be said, incredible,[56] but it is nevertheless very characteristic.

To our consolation, it must be said that in all the facts cited of the religious dislike of the Greeks towards the Latins, not some blind fanaticism is expressed, but the deepest devotion to the faith of their fathers, to the Greek faith. There is no doubt that the Byzantines had many shortcomings in the religious sense, but on the other hand, it must be admitted that at that time there was no people so closely tied to their religion, to their Church, as the Byzantines exactly. It was this zeal for their faith and the Church that guided them when they shunned the Latins and showed hostile feelings towards them. Such zeal is evidenced by many facts that occurred during the clashes between the Greeks and the Latins. There were, no doubt, among the Greeks people who, seduced by worldly gains, fell away to the religion of the Latins, the temporary conquerors of the Byzantine kingdom, but the majority of the population stood firmly for Orthodoxy and, yielding everything else, did not betray it. Earlier we had occasion to note the following fact: the Byzantines, after the conquest of Constantinople by the Latins, told one of the Latin emperors (Henry) that he had dominion over the body, and not over their soul and conscience, and added that they were ready to die for him with arms in their hands, but declared "the decisive impossibility of renouncing the faith of their ancestors." [57] Or another fact: the best inhabitants of the Moray (i.e., Greece proper), when they agreed to assist Geoffrey de Villehardouin in the conquest of the fortified places of the country, first of all demanded of him an oath in writing, which they could convey to their children, that no Frank would compel them to change their faith, would not require them to become Latins. [58] Further, when the Latins had established themselves on the island of Cyprus, and the Latin metropolitan began to demand of the Greek Cypriot bishops that they should take an oath of obedience to him, as vassals do, the Cypriots appealed to the Patriarch of Byzantium, who was then living at Nicaea, asking him to explain to them what to do in such a case. The Patriarch, Germanus (II), replied to the Cypriots that such an oath would be an apostasy from the faith. He exhorted the Church of Cyprus to compete with their brethren in Constantinople (then already conquered by the Latins), who, being separated from their pastors, nevertheless firmly preserved their faith. [59] According to the judgment of one modern German historian, Catholic by faith, "in this answer of the Greek Patriarch was expressed a high moral force and dignity. The neglect of earthly things for the sake of religion is, as the same historian remarked, an essential difference between the Greek Church and the Latin Church." [60] And indeed, the Cypriots proved worthy of the admonition given to them by the Byzantine Patriarch. The very history of the Latin dominion in the Greek Empire shows that it was stronger and more durable where there was no or at least less oppression in the religious sense. However, it should be noted that the measures of meekness that the popes and Catholic sovereigns used to convert the Greeks also remained fruitless. [61]

But we continue to tell: in what, in what phenomena in the epoch under study was the increasing mutual religious hostility between the Greeks and the Latins, which was expressed more and more.

One of the most remarkable expressions of the mutual alienation of the Latin and Greek Churches, of mutual religious hostility, was the denunciation by writers belonging to one Church of various religious deviations from the norm of faith and church customs of adherents of the other. Only an overly skeptical attitude of one Church towards another could give rise to the scrupulousness with which the writers of the Latin Church sought out pretexts for exposing irregularities in the structure of the Greek Church, and vice versa. Accusations often, moreover, turn into vain, slander. Every writer-polemicist of the Latin or Greek Church presented another infinitely long list of its religious errors. The rivalry between writers in this field was very zealous, but it would have been better if there had been no such rivalry at all. The twelfth-century Latin writer Hugon Etherian, an Italian by birth, but who had lived in Constantinople for a long time, who was in close relations with the Emperor Manuel, who more than once conducted disputes both with this emperor and with the most famous Greeks, a skilful theologian, who with the diligence of a bee (as he put it) studied Greek and Latin ecclesiastical literature,[62] in the work attributed to him: Graecorum malae consuetudines, which became famous in the thirteenth century, [63] makes numerous accusations against the Greek Church. We will not critically examine under what conditions this or that accusation could have appeared, how true or false it is, for this would carry us too far; and often our searches of this kind would have to result in more or less probable hypotheses, and not any exact explanations. Let us confine ourselves to one objective exposition of Hugon's accusations. For the sake of greater clarity of the case, let us divide these accusations into several classes. The first class includes accusations regarding the dogmatic teaching of the Greeks. Thus, Hugon declared that the Greeks, by denying the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, thereby recognized the Son as less than the Father, like Arius, divided the divine essence, and abolished the distinction between birth and procession. With regard to the sacraments of the Greek Church, Hugon's accusations are as few as with regard to dogmatics. These accusations concern the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. About Baptism according to the Greek rite, Hugon writes that during Baptism the Greeks observe two very superstitious customs: the priests anoint the entire body of the person being baptized with oil so that water does not stick to him, then they heat the water to make the baby clean, which neither Christ nor His disciples did. Regarding the Eucharist, in addition to the reproach of performing it on leavened bread, Hugon accuses the Greeks of ascribing the sanctifying power in this sacrament to the leavened bread itself (and animated with leaven), and not to the words of blessing.