Page:Uniate Eastern Churches.pdf/124

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
94
THE UNIATE EASTERN CHURCHES

That is why he is called Œcumenical.[1] Once Rome had received appellations. Now that Constantinople has obtained the rights of Rome, that Patriarch has jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs.[2] It is easy to see on which side Neilos would have been, had he been conscious of schism between old and new Rome. As a matter of fact, in the latter part of his life, when he was at Constantinople, he was conscious of this. He certainly ended as a schismatic.[3] His views, in those earlier days, when he was at Palermo, show the tendency of the Greek clergy of Sicily.


4. From the Norman Conquest to the Coming of the Albanians (Eleventh to Fifteenth Century).

The first Norman kings and princes in Southern Italy and Sicily found established here a powerful body of Greek bishops, clergy, and people, who used the Byzantine rite and looked to Constantinople as their centre. They found, indeed, three religious establishments, those of the Latins (Lombards and others), Greeks, and Moslems. The Latins and Greeks were not yet two Churches; but they were becoming so. The Normans, however, turned back the tide towards Rome, so that from the time of their coming the Byzantine rite gradually retired. It had almost disappeared in Italy and Sicily, when in the fifteenth century the Albanians came and caused its great revival.

The Norman kings did not begin by forbidding or in any way persecuting the Byzantine rite. They found these three forms of religion in possession; and they, alone among mediæval sovereigns, followed a policy of absolute toleration for all. In their hearts the first Normans probably cared very little about any religious rite. They continued to maintain all institutions as they found them; the cynical Roger much preferred the conversation of learned Moslem divines to that of a lot of monks.[4] He had Moslem men of letters, Byzantine and Latin preachers, chaplains at his court. There are even cases in which the Normans restored Byzantine institutions which were disappearing.[5] But, in spite of their tolerance, under them the tide turned finally towards Rome. The Normans themselves were Latins of the Roman rite. Their

  1. Ed. Parthey, pp. 289-292.
  2. P. 292.
  3. Morisani calls poor Neilos Doxopatres "this schismatical sycophant" ("de Protopapis," p. 191).
  4. So says Ibnu-lAthīr alGazarī, "Kāmilu-tTawārīkh," in M. Amari, "Biblioteca arabo-sicula" (Turin and Rome, 1880), i, p. 118.
  5. See p. 65.