CONSTANTINOPLE
312
CONSTANTINOPLE
renewed, the heresy of Honoriiis is again condemned
(can. i), and marriage with a lieretic is invalid because
Rome says it is merely imlawful; Rome had recog-
nized fifty of the Apostolic Canons; therefore the other
thirty-five obtain recognition from this council, and
as inspired teaching (see Canons, Apostolic).
In the matter of celibacy the Greek prelates are not content to let the Roman Church follow its own dis- cipline, but insist on making a rule (for the whole Church) that all clerics except bishops may continue in wedlock, while they excommunicate anyone who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife, and any cleric who leavqs his wdfe because he is ordained (can. iii, vi, xii, xiii, xlviii). The Orthodox Greek Church holds this council an oecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. In the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a reprobate synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an erratic one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, "Conciliengesch." (Ill, 345-48).
III. In 754 the Iconoclast Emperor Constantine V called in the imperial city a council of 338 bishops. Through cowardice and servility they approved the heretical attitude of the emperor and his father Leo III, also the arguments of the Iconoclast party and their measures against the defenders of the sacred images. They anathematized St. Germanus of Con- stantinople and St. John Damascene, and denounced the orthodox as idolaters, etc. ; at the same time they resented the spoliation of the churches imder pretext of destroying images (see Iconoclasm).
IV. For the three Photian synods of 861 (deposition of Ignatius), 867 (attempted deposition of Nicholas I), and 879 (recognition of Photius as lawful patri- arch), recognized by the Greeks as Eighth General Coimcil in opposition to the council of 869-70, which they continue to abominate, see Photius.
V. In 1639 and 1672 councils were held by the Orthodox Greeks at Constantinople condemnatory of the Calvinistic confession of Cyril Lucaris and his followers. [See Semnoz, " Les dernieres annees du patr. Cyrille Lucar" in "Echos d'Orient" (1903), VI, 97-117, and Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church" (London, 1907), 267].
Thom.\s J. Shahan
Constantinople, Creed of. See Nicene Creed.
Constantinople, The Rite of (or Byzantine Rite), the Litiirgios, Divine Office, forms for the ad- ministration of sacraments and for various blessings, sacramentals, and exorcisms, of the Church of Con- stantinople, which is now, after the Roman Rite, by far the most widely spread in the world. With one insignificant exception — the Liturgy of St. James is used once a year at Jerusalem and Zakynthos ( Zacyn- thus) — it is followed exclusively by all Orthodox Churches, by the Melkitos (Mclchites) in Svria and Egypt, the Uniats in the Balkans and the Italo-Greeks in Calabria, Apulia, Sicily, and Corsica. So that more than a hundred millions of Christians perform their devotions according to the Rite of Constantinople.
I. IIi.story. — This is not one of the original jxirent- rites. It is derived from that of Antioch. Even apart from the external evidence a comparison of the two liturgies will show that Constantinople follows Anti- och in the disposilion of the jjarts. There are two original Eastcni types of liturgy: that of Alexandria, in which the great Intercession comes before the Con- secration, and that of Antioch, in which it follows after the Epiklesis. The Byzantine use in both its Litur-
gies (of St. Basil and St. John Chrj-sostom) follows ex-
actly the order of Antioch. A number of other par-
allels make the fact of this derivation clear from inter-
nal evidence, as it is from external witness. The tra-
dition of the Church of Constantinople ascribes the
oldest of its two Liturgies to St. Basil the Great (d.
379), Metropolitan of C^sarea in Cappadocia. This
tradition is confirmed by contemporary evidence. It
is certain that St. Basil made a reformation of the
Liturgy of his Church, and that the By;;antine service
called after hini rc])resents his reformed Liturgy in its
chief parts, although it has undergone further modifi-
cation since his time. St. Basil himself speaks on sev-
eral occasions of the changes he made in the services of
Ca>sarea. He writes to the clergy of Neo-Csesarea in
Pontus to complain of opposition against himself on
accoimt of the new way of singing psalms introduced
by his authority (Ep. B;isilii, cvii, Patr. Gr., XXXII,
763). St. Gregory of Nazianzos (Nazianzen, d. 390)
says that Basil had reformed the order of prayers
(eixwi- Sidra?!!— Orat. xx, P. G., XXXV, 761).
Gregory of Nyssa (died c. 395) comjiares his brother
Basil with Samuel because he " carefully arranged the
form of the Service" ('I«poi'p7ia. In laudem fr. Bas.,
P. G., XLVI, 808). Proklos (Prochis) of Constanti-
nople (d. 446) writes: "When the great Basil . . .
saw the carelessness and degeneracy of men who feared
the length of the Liturgy — not as if he thought it too
long — he shortened its form, so as to remove the weari-
ness of the clergy and assistants" (De traditione di-
vina> Missa;, P. G., XLV, 849). The first question
that presents itself is: What rite was it that Basil
modified and shortened? Certainly it was that used
at Ciesarea before his time. And this was a local form
of the great Antiochene use, doubtless with many
local variations and additions. That the original rite
that stands at the head of this line of development is
that of Antioch is proved from the disposition of the
present Liturgy of St. Basil, to which we have already
referred ; from the fact that, before the rise of the Pa-
triarchate of Constantinople, Antioch was the head of
the Churches of Asia Minor as well as of Syria (and in-
variably in the East the patriarchal see gives the
norm in liturgical matters, followed and then gradu-
ally modified by its suffragan Churches); and lastly
by the absence of any other source. At the head of
all Eastern rites stand the uses of Antioch and .Alex-
andria. Lesser and later Churches do not invent an
entirely new service for themselves, but form their
practice on the model of one of these two. SjTia,
Palestine, and Asia Minor in liturgical matters derive
from -Antioch, just as Egy]5t, .\byssinia, and Nubia do
from Alexandria. The two Antiochene liturgies now
extant are (1) that of the Eighth Book of the Apos-
tolic Constitutions and (2), parallel to it in everj- way,
the Greek Liturgy of St. James (see Antiochene Lit-
urgy). These are the starting-points of the develop-
ment we can follow. But it is not to be supposed that
St. Basil had before him either of these ser\-ices, as
they now stand, when he made the changes in ques-
tion. In the first place, his source is rather the Lit^
urgy of ,St. James than that of the Apostolic Constitu-
tions. There are parallels to both in the Basilian
Rite; but the likeness is much greater to that of St.
James. From the beginning of the Eucharistic
j)rayer {Verc diijnum ct justum est, our Preface) to the
dismissal, Basil's order is ahnost exactly that of
James. But the now ext.ant Liturgy of St. James
(in Brightman, "Liturgies Eastern and Western",
31-68) has it.self lieen considerably modified in later
years. Its earlier jiart especially (the Liturgy of the
Catechumens and the Offertory') is certainly later than
the time of St. Ma.sil. In any ca.se, then, we must go
back to the (irif/iiidl .Vntiochene Rite as the source.
But neither wa.s tliis the innnediate origin of the i-^
form. It nuist be remembered that all living rites ati
subject to gradual modification through use. Th
