GREEK CHURCH, THE, taken in its widest sense, comprehends all those Christians following the Greek or Greco-Slavonic rite, who receive the first seven general councils, but reject the authority of the Roman pontiff, and the later councils of the western church. The Greek church calls itself "the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic church," and it includes three distinct branches—the church within the Ottoman empire, subject directly to the patriarch of Constantinople; the church in the kingdom of Greece; and the Russo-Greek church in the dominions of the czar. The last shall form the subject of a separate article, but it must also be alluded to in treating of the sister-churches. The proper history of the Greek church as a separate body dates from the commencement of the Greek schism, or rather from the commencement of the efforts on the part of the church of Constantinople to establish for itself a distinct jurisdiction, and an independent headship in the eastern division of the empire. The ecclesiastical pre-emineuce of Constantinople, it need hardly be said, fol lowed upon the political distinction to which it rose as the seat of the imperial resi dence, and the center of the imperial government. Originally, was but a simple episcopal see, subject to the metropolitan of Heraclea; but the rank of the see rose with the fortunes of the city; and before the close of the 4th c., a canon of the first council of Constantinople, held in 881, assures to it, on the ground that "Constan tinople is the new Rome," the "precedence of honor" next after the ancient Rome. This privilege, however, was purely honorary, and did not imply any pre-eminence of jurisdiction in the see of Constantinople, and there arc many early instances in which questions arising within the district which afterwards became the patriarchate of Con stantinople, nay, questions affecting the bishop himself, and even in his relations to the other patriarchs, were referred to the bishops of Rome. But the transition was not difficult, and was aided by the eminent qualities of some of the bishops, and especially of St. John Chrysostom, so that in the council of Chalcedon (451), a decree was passed, which confirmed the precedence already given, and not only assigned to Constantinople an extensive range of jurisdiction, but also grounded these ecclesiastical privileges, in the case of the new as well as in that of the old Rome, upon the political precedence to which both successively had risen. The Roman legates protested against this canon, and the claim led to a misunderstanding between the two churches, which was widened and confirmed by the doctrinal differences which prevailed on the Entychian question, in which the patriarchs of Constantinople gave their support to the ilenoticon, a hetero dox or equivocal formula put forth by the emperor Zeno, which was warmly resisted in the west. The pope, in consequence, in 484, excommunicated the emperor, together with the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria; and thus the east and west were, de facto, separated for a period of nearly 40 years. The terms upon which the excommunication was withdrawn by pope Ilonnisdas in 519, involved a complete and explicit acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Roman pontiff; but the rivalry of Constantinople still subsisted. In the end of the 6th c., the Trullan council (see TRI7I, LAN COUNCIL) caused a renewal of the misunderstandings. Many circumstances com bined to hasten a rupture: the title of "Ecumenical patriarch" claimed by the patriarch John the faster, and reprobated by Gregory the great (see GREGORY I.); the contests about image-worship, in which the patriarchs, in more than once instance, took the part of the iconoclast emperors; the abandonment by the emperors of the defense of Italy against the Lombards; the gradual growth of an independent confederation of Italian states, and ultimately the foundation of a new empire of the west, the political antagonism of which with the eastern empire almost necessarily involved an antagonism of the churches themselves. Hence when, upon occasion of his own personal contest with the see of Rome, the deposed patriarch Photius (862) (see Pnovmus), identified his cause with that of the eastern church, he found a ready sympathy among hist country men. The Latin doctrine of the twofold procession of the Holy Ghost, and the addition of " Filioque" to the Latin creed, the Latin practice of clerical celibacy, and of denying to priests the power of administering confirmation, supplied the grounds of quarrel; and although the Photian schism fell with its author, and the communion of the churches was restored, their reconciliation was imperfect and far from cordial. The same causes of controversy, with others of a disciplinary nature, were renewed in the 11th c.; and in 1054 the pope Leo IX. issued a formal sentence of excommunication against the patriarch Michael Cerularins, which was solemnly published in Constanti nople by the papal legates. Beyond the points of difference alleged by Photius, the
most important of the new grounds of division was the use of unleavened bread by the Latins in the eucharist. Since that time, the separation has been Perseveringly main tained. More than one attempt was made by the authorities upon either side to restore the former relations of the two churches, but in vain. The old antipathies of cast and west became more inveterate by the separation; and the occupation of Constantinople by the Latins (1201). the outrages and atrocities by which it was disgraced, the establish ment of the Latin kingdom at Constantinople, and the arbitrary tyranny by which it was maintained, widened still more the ancient estrangement. Nor was the breach healed by the of the.Greek empire (n01). The emperors, from political motives, pressed,On all sideS by the fears of foreign invasion and the embarrassments of domestic discontent, proposed, as the price of the' assistance of the west in their necessity, the restoration of the eastern church to the obedience of Rome. Michael Paleologus (see MICHAEL PALEOLOGUS) by his ambassadors abjured the schism at the council of Lyons in 1274; and endeavored, by a synod held subsequently at Constantinople, to obtain a ratification of the union ; but he failed to gain the assent of the body of bishops; and in the succeeding pontificate. the breach was even more seriously renewed, by two synods held at Constantinople in 1283 and 1285. The necessities of John Paleologus compelled him once again to resort to the same expedient; and the negotiations for union were on this occasion conducted with much more deliberation. Delegates of the Greek church, with the patriarch of Constantinople at their head, attended at the great western council (1137) of Ferrara (better known, from the place of its close, as that of Florence), and a protracted discussion took place, the chief points of which were the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, the addition of " Filioque " to the creed, the nature of the purgation of souls after death, the use of unleavened bread in the eucharist, and the supremacy, by divine right, of the Roman pontiff. On all these points, the Greek delegates, with the exception of Mark, bishop of Ephesus, subscribed the decree of the council; but this union was equally short-lived. On the return of the delegates to Constantinople, their proceedings were repudiated by the large body of the Greeks; and the downfall of the,Greek empire and capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, obliterated every trace of the attempted reconciliation. Since that time, some isolated bodies of Christians of the Greek rite have joined the church of Rome (see end of this article); but every attempt at a general union on the part of the Roman pon tiffs has proved a failure. It has been the same with the attempts which have been made by the Protestant communions to establish an understanding with the Greek church. Very early after the reformation, a letter was addressed by ?elanctlion to the patriarch Joseph of Constantinople through a deacon, Demetrius Mysus, who visited Germany in the year 155S. Another Lutheran embassy of a more formal character, headed by the well-known Tilbingen divines, Andrew and Crusius, visited Constantinople during the patriarchate of Jeremias (1576-81). But both missions were equally without result. In the following century, the celebrated Cyril Lucaris (see Lucants), who had been educated in the west, and had carried home with him a strong, though for a tune carefully concealed bias towards Protestantism, opened the way for negotiations with the Calvanistic party. Soon after his elevation to the patriarchate, he issued a decidedly Calvanistical confession of faith (1629). But far from carrying his fellow-churchmen with him in the movement, the innovations which he attempted not only led to his own deposition and disgrace, hut called forth a doctrinal declaration signed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, awl ninny metropolitans and bishops, which, by the clearness and decision of its definitions, draws the line so markedly between the Greeks and reformers as to shut out all possibility of accommodation in mat ters of doctrine. This exposition was adopted by all the churches; and in a synod held in Jerusalem 1672, it was adopted as the creed of the Greek church. This declaration having been originally drawn up by Magilas, metropolitan of Kiew, it was published in 1722, by order of Peter the great, as an authorized formulary of the Russian church, under the title of The Russian Catechism. With a few exceptions, to be specified here after, it coincides with the formularies of the Roman Catholic church.