Page:Orthodox Eastern Church (Fortescue).djvu/126

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
90
THE ORTHODOX EASTERN CHURCH

against Old Rome rankled. And when the schism at last came it was natural that it should be caused by a dispute between these two sees. Nor is it to be wondered that when Constantinople fell away, all the other Eastern Sees held by her and shared her schism. By that time Constantinople was almost as unquestioned a mistress of the Orthodox East as Rome was of the Catholic West. The great mass of the populations of Egypt and Syria had long ago fallen away from both and had nothing to do with the schism of the 9th century. What was left was the Byzantine Church, and its chief was the Œcumenical Patriarch.

We must confess that Rome had sometimes given these Eastern Christians cause for discontent. Of course nothing can justify schism; they had so often protested that at Rome still stood the Rock on which Christ had built his Church, they had so often acknowledged the Pope's right as Supreme Judge. Still, the most rightful judges have made mistakes; if we look for the cause of the anger against Rome which made the schism possible, we shall have to put at any rate some of it down to the account of Rome herself. It is not difficult to find examples. As far back as the 4th century she had taken a line in the Meletian schism at Antioch[1] that every one now regrets. In 330 Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch, was banished by the Arians; as usual they set up an Arian rival bishop, and when he died they carried on that line. Many of the Catholic Antiochenes seem to have accepted these Arian bishops; but a small party still clung to exiled Eustathius. In 360 the Arian bishop Eudoxius died; in 361 his party elected Meletius, Bishop of Sebaste, to succeed him. But this time they had made a mistake. Meletius showed himself to be Homoousian and Catholic; so they chose a real Arian, Euzoius, instead of him. But Meletius, whom they had banished, soon came back, still claiming to be Patriarch of Antioch, and he was supported by most of the Catholics, There were now three parties at Antioch, the Arians under Euzoius, and two Catholic parties, the larger one under Meletius and a small body of rigid

  1. Not to be confused with he schism of Meletius of Lycopolis in Egypt (c. 306).