The missionary activity of the Roman church in the 11-15^th centuries took on a character that is not proper for a Christian. The peaceful path of spreading Evangelical teachings by means of sermons and persuasion was forsaken. During the conversion of the unbelievers, the Roman church was more willing to allow the use of forceful measures — fire and sword. It was also not backward in sending her missionaries into those countries, where Orthodox missionaries were active, forcing them out and converting the newly Christened Orthodox faithful to the Latin faith. At the same time, they were also attempting to spread their teachings among the established Orthodox faithful, trying to convert them to their faith.

The following methods were employed to spread Christianity throughout Europe: 1) A number of crusades of the cross to convert the Baltic Slavs (Wends); 2) Converting Prussians through force of arms — initially by the order of Prussian knights, and then by the order of German knights; 3) affirming Christianity, which had been established in the 12^th century, by sword and flame of the sword-wielders in Livonia, Courland and Estonia, and 4) making Latvia into a Christian state through the marriage of the Latvian prince Yagailo with the successor to the Polish throne, princess Yadviga. Heathen Latvians were baptized through force, while Orthodox Latvians were subject to persecution.

In Asia, the Latinos organized a variety of missions. They conducted propaganda among the Orthodox faithful, and endeavored to convert Muslims and heathens. They had no success among the Orthodox and the Muslims, and while they did establish a Christian congregation in the 13^th century among the heathens (Mongols in China), it disappeared without a trace in the middle of the 14^th century. After the discovery of new lands in western Africa and subsequently America, the Portuguese and Spaniards brought Christianity to these conquered lands. As a result of their brutal methods of converting the indigenous peoples, Christianity spread very feebly.

The papal authority that was placed on such an elevated position by Nicholas I (858-867), fell significantly in the 10^th and mid 11^th centuries. This came about as a result of the Italian authorities’ interference in papal affairs, and because of the moral dissipation and inactivity of the Popes and clergy.

In mid 11^th century, control of the papal throne was relinquished by the Italian Rulers into the hands of the German Emperor Henry III (1039-56) — from the Finnish dynasty — who restored the Emperor’s authority in Italy. As a consequence of the papal iniquities in those times (one of them sold his papacy for a large sum of money to a wealthy Roman), there arose a movement demanding the reform of the clergy. It soon found itself zealous champions and disseminators in the form of monks from the French monastery of Cluny (in Burgundy). The Clunytians preached that the clergy should reject their secular interests and worldly lifestyles. This applied especially to the Popes. Henry III was in sympathy with the Clunytians, inasmuch as it was aimed against simony and disorder in the church. Henry appointed three Popes, while the Clunytian movement aimed at freeing the church from the influence of secular authorities. A fervent champion of this concept was a monk named Hildebrand, who was made a cardinal by Pope Leo IX (1049-54) and then administered all the papal affairs for the next 20 years. At the outset, Hildebrand with the aid of some skilful politics removed the Emperor’s influence over the papacy. Son of a Tuscany peasant, Hildebrand was first the Pope’s personal chaplain, having spent some time in Cluny. Returning to Rome and supporting reforms, he occupied a prominent position, adroitly defending the independence of the papal authority. After the death of Leo IX, with changes in the papal seat of power, he acted so skillfully that the selection of the Pope, was made without any reference to the Emperor’s court — as though by chance and not by design. True, it was soon that the juvenile Henry IV (1056-1106) became Emperor. Through Hildebrand’s suggestion, he appointed Nicholas II, who decided to openly remove the Emperor’s influence in electing Popes.…

In 1059, he decreed at the Lateran council that the election of Popes belongs to the College of Cardinals bishops from Roman districts, priests from major churches and several deacons attached to the Pope and his cathedral. The rest of the clergy and people had to show only their concurrence. With regards to the Emperor, he could confirm the election to the extent of the right given to him by the apostolic throne. Roman nobility was dissatisfied with being relegated to a secondary position. They asked Henry IV to take advantage of the right to appoint Popes, just as his father had done. However, Hildebrand elected his own candidate, Alexander II (1061-73). After his death, Hildebrand decided to take up the throne himself, and after being elected by the cardinals, assumed it under the name of Gregory VII (1073-85). The Emperor was simply notified of the election.

Gregory ascended the papal throne, filled with those ideas on papal omnipotence, which had long ripened and developed into a whole system in his mind. Adopting the Roman church’s long-held view on the Pope as being Christ’s ruling vicar on earth, Gregory wanted to establish a universal theocratic monarchy under papal domination. According to his conception, the Pope had to rule not only over the spiritual but also secular authorities. He regarded every authority, not excluding that of the Emperor, as lower than the Pope’s. Every power receives its blessing and authority from the Pope. In cases where there is abuse from spiritual or secular powers, the Pope has the right to deprive them of their privileges that are attached to their calling, and grant those privileges to someone else, according to his discretion. According to Gregory, the Pope has the authority to grant omophorions and Emperor’s and king’s crowns. Before beginning to bring his ideas into fruition, Gregory needed to completely remove the secular influence on papal affairs. Although having rid itself of the Emperor’s pressure on the election of Popes, the investiture still remained under secular influence i.e. the right to allocate spiritual responsibilities. Consequently, Gregory immediately went about in abolishing the investiture. At a council in 1075, he passed an act banning investitures. It was decreed that those religious individuals that received their investiture from secular authorities be replaced, while those who carried out the investiture, be excommunicated from the church. The same council forbade priests to marry. In Gregory’s view, because unwedded priests were denied relatively ties with the surrounding world, this would make them more zealous workers of the church. The struggle against investiture was undermining the feudal dependence of church lands — bishop, abbot and priest must appear as church pastors and not vassals of king or prince.

The clergy itself submitted unwillingly to the spiritual reforms. The decision of a celibate priesthood was received especially harshly. Some clerics rose up against the papal legates. The worst reception received for these papal decrees was in Germany. Papal legates appeared before Henry IV and presented him with the situation regarding investitures. As at that time Henry was setting out to war, he agreed to the papal demands. However, when he returned, he continued the practice of investiture. Then in 1076, the Pope summoned him to Rome to be tried. The Emperor disdainfully sent his envoys to the Pope, and assembled a council of German bishops at Worms. In fulfilling the wishes of the Emperor, the council decided that it was unnecessary to submit to Pope Gregory as he was trying to enslave the church and remove the authority of the bishops. Henry declared that the Pope is subverting social order, established on two beginnings and blessed by God’s grace — Emperor’s power and priesthood. Having mixed these two fundamentals together, the Pope should resign and give way to a worthier individual.

However, Gregory was not to be frightened or driven from his path. In turn, the Pope excommunicated Henry and the bishops from the church. He declared that Henry is deprived of his regal worthiness, and that his subjects are released from their allegiance to him. He charged the German princes to select a new king. Had Henry not turned the German princes against himself by his earlier actions against them, this papal command would have had no effect. These papal allies were the same feudalists, whose influence the Pope tried to eradicate from the church. The East German dukes began a war against Henry. An uprising flared up in unruly Saxony. The spiritual hierarchy, having just expressed their opposition to the Pope, was confused by the Pope’s determination and with the common people, who due to their sympathy for church reforms, organized riots against the Pope’s enemies. The dukes, having gathered for an assembly in Tribur and decided that if Henry is not re-instated to the church by the Pope, he would be denied his throne. Henry became bewildered.

In the winter of 1077, he left with a small retinue to Italy. At the time, the Pope was located at a castle in Canossa, owned by his faithful supporter countess Matilda. Having arrived there, Henry was not allowed entry into the castle. He sent an envoy to the Pope with the acknowledgment of his guilt, to express his acceptance of the Pope’s demands and to secure absolution. The Pope forced Henry to stand three days before the castle walls for his decision, dressed as a penitent in bare feet, and not eating. The Pope forgave him, but only on the condition that the matter be resolved by the German dukes at an assembly.

However the humiliation, which Henry endured, proved fruitless. The German dukes not only didn’t lay down their arms, but also elected Rudolf, Duke of Swab as their king, who commenced a war against Henry. The Pope acknowledged Rudolf as king and once again, excommunicated Henry (1080). However, Henry was still able to attract a large number of supporters. Part of the spiritual hierarchy remained by his side, fearing that with the removal of their investiture they would become fully dependent on the Pope. Among those low echelon clergy were married priests. He attracted to his side, minor knights and populations of large cities, which were growing wealthy and were endeavoring to rid themselves of the oppression of seniors. In banning the Emperor, the Pope declared that the Apostles having received the authority from Christ to bind or unbind human consciences, were placed over the church and the whole world. If their successors can control spiritual responsibilities, they would more so authoritative over kingdoms and princedoms. Henry did not fall in spirit. Convening a gathering of bishops that were supporting him, he repeated Gregory’s declaration at the councils in Mölsen and Brixen (1080), and elected a new Pope Clement III. In one of the battles, Rudolf of Swab was killed and Henry consolidated his power in Germany. He then decided to end the matter with the Pope. In 1084, he stormed Rome, raised Clement to the papal throne and was crowned Emperor by him. Pope Gregory locked himself away in the castle of Sant’Angelo and firmly refused all talks with Henry. At this time, the Norman's who have conquered southern Italy came to the Pope’s aid. Their duke, Robert Guiscard, assembled a large force, which included enlisted Saracens. Henry was forced to leave Italy with the approach of Guiscard. The Norman's and Saracens savagely looted the city in front of the Pope’s eyes. Naturally, the citizens of the city were outraged at the behavior of the Pope’s allies. Realizing his grave position, Gregory VII withdrew to Salerno in the east where he shortly died in 1805, declaring to his close associates: "All my life I loved the truth and hated iniquity, for which I now die in exile." The Roman church canonized him.

Popes Victor III (1086-87), Urban II (1088-99) and Paschal II (1099-1118), that controlled the Roman church after Gregory, were all his students and tried to realize his plans. Consequently, the struggle against investiture continued. They demanded its abolition, subjected Emperors to excommunication from the church and organized political unions against them. Henry IV, his son Henry V and their troops used to come to Italy, drive out the Pope and restore the antipope Clement. Pope Urban was especially resolute in his battle against Henry IV. In 1092, he was even able to provoke Henry’s son Conrad (who eight years later ruled Lombardy and Tuscany) against him. Urban’s sermon in Piacenza and Clermont (in France), aroused fanatical inspiration among the masses, which he was able to utilize for his own purposes. In 1096, while marching through Italy, the crusaders helped him to drive Clement out of Rome and subdue the Roman nobles that maintained the Emperor’s side. Urban then occupied the papal throne. Urban’s successor, Paschal II was able to completely dislodge antipope Clement from the domain of Rome, whereupon he died in that same year. Henry IV could do nothing with Urban II. The domain of countess Matilda barricaded Rome from the north and the support of the Norman's in the south, ensured protection for the Pope. Advanced in age, Henry IV was obliged to go to war against his son Henry. In 1106, their forces met on the banks of the river Rhine, where Henry IV died suddenly. The son was conditioned to oppose his father by the Pope, who sent him flattering letters with requests "to show some help to God’s church."

Initially, Henry V followed in his father’s footsteps. Countess Matilda died, leaving her huge estate to the Roman throne. Henry V didn’t want to allow this strengthening of the Pope’s secular possessions, and continued to insist on the Emperor’s right of investiture of hierarchy clergy in the German and Italian kingdoms. Although he occupied Rome, his precarious position in Germany once again performed a great service to the Popes. Both sides had been fatigued through battle. During Pope Callistus II (1118-24) at the assembly in Worms, the Pope concluded a very favorable treaty for himself with Emperor Henry V and the German knights. On the basis of the 1122 Worms’ concordat, the Pope, as a spiritual figure, was presented with the right to spiritual investiture i.e. the right to select and ordain bishops and abbots, in conformity with church laws, together with bestowing the ring and scepter. The Emperor, as a secular head, was accorded the secular investiture i.e. the right to grant the same bishops and abbots, princely rights, land holdings etc., while accepting from them their feudal allegiance. For a time, discords and disorders that separated the western Christian world ceased.

Striving toward the realization of Pope Gregory’s theocratic plans, his successors entered into the conflict with the Emperors for ascendancy of church power over the state. Thus, Innocent II (1130-43) began to openly declare that Emperors obtained their worthiness just like a fief from a Pope. The same declaration was made by Adrian IV (1154-59) in a letter written to Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (1152-90), from the house of Hohenstaufen.

A struggle began between the Popes and Hohenstaufens on this issue, which lasted for nearly 100 years. Frederick Barbarossa came to Italy, wanting to limit Pope Adrian’s pretensions. He called an assembly, where he argued that bishops had to submit to the Emperor and that if the Popes enjoyed secular powers, it is not because of a divine right, but rather by the directive of kings that grants them this authority. Soon after the election of Adrian’s successor, opinions of the cardinals became divided. Some selected Alexander III (1159-81), opponent to the Emperor, while the others — Victor IV (1159-64), his supporter. Frederick took advantage of the situation to subordinate the Popes to his influence. He called a council and demanded that both Popes appear before it. Alexander didn’t appear at the council and committed both Victor and Frederick to excommunication. The Emperor then expelled Alexander from Rome and installed Paschal as the new Pope. Leaning on the support of the Lombard cities, Alexander was not capitulating. When matters in Italy turned unfavorable for Frederick, he made peace with Alexander in 1177, on conditions that were favorable to the Pope.

Alexander’s successors were insufficiently strong to stand up to Frederick Barbarossa and his successor, Henry VI (1191). With the help of his wedding to Constance, sole heir to the Sicilian throne, Henry appended to his holdings the Norman kingdoms of both Sicilies, making him overlord of all Italy. Even in Rome, the Popes were greatly constricted under the ordinance of the Emperor’s prefect.

With the death of Henry V (1197), who left a very young son Frederick, the situation changed. Constance became ruler of Sicily, while the knights in Germany decided to select a new Emperor. The papal throne was taken by Innocent III, one of the most outstanding politicians of his time. He set himself the task of realizing in all its fullness, Pope Gregory’s plan for theocracy, and was able to place papacy on such a high level, that it never experienced before nor surpassed subsequently. After ascending the papal throne, he forced the prefect of Rome to swear allegiance to him, thereby eliminating the Emperor’s authority over Rome. Replicating this in other cities within the church domain, he was able to created an independent papal kingdom. Having re-established opposition from the rest of the Italian cities to the Emperor’s authority, thereby securing their support, the Pope embarked on Sicily. He was fortunate in that Constance herself asked Innocent to confirm her son as heir, Frederick, to the dominion of Sicily, as a fief of the papal throne. Before her death, Constance (1198) in her will passed guardianship of her son to the Pope, making Innocent ruler of Sicily. Meanwhile in Germany, a fierce struggle was taking place for the country’s throne, and both pretenders turned to the Pope for help. In 1209, Innocent placed the crown on Otto of Saxon. Having received his crown in Rome, Otto violated his promise to protect all papal rights and expand them in Italy. He declared many papal lands as Emperor’s fifes and attacked Sicily. Innocent III excommunicated Otto from the church (1210) and declared that he is deprived of his worthiness to be Emperor. The Pope offered the German knights to elect his pupil Frederick II as their Emperor, which in fact they did.

Innocent III also revealed his power in France, Portugal and England. With the latter, he had to endure a war with the English king John "Lakeland." In 1207, the king refused to accept the Pope’s nominee, Stephen Langton as the Bishop of Canterbury. As a result of this battle, the Pope excommunicated John in 1209 and thereupon in 1212, deprived him of him of his throne. The people disliked the king for his cruelty and an uprising began in England. John became subdued, accepted Langton and acknowledged England to be a papal fief that was obliged to pay a tribute.

It was under Innocent that a Latin empire arose, and his authority and influence spread throughout a significant part of the East. He completed his brilliant manipulation with the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which was attended by many bishops, abbots, priors and many kings of Western Europe.

After Innocents death, the Emperor’s authority became predominant over the Pope’s. Frederick II began to restore his power in Italy. He didn’t separate the Sicilian crown from the German one, as Innocent wanted. Innocent’s second successor, Pope Gregory IX (1227-42), attempted to banish Frederick from Italy and demanded the fulfillment of the promised crusade. Frederick moved on Palestine, but due to sickness among his soldiers, soon had to return. The Pope committed him to excommunication. Ignoring this and without the Pope’s permission, Frederick made a fifth crusade in 1228, temporarily seized Jerusalem from the Turks, and as a result of his marriage to Yolande — heiress to the throne of Jerusalem — and her subsequent death, crowned himself king of Jerusalem. After his return in 1229, Frederick temporarily made peace with the Pope, who was unhappy with both his successes and his actual return. Shortly after, there began a terrible hostility between them. Frederick started to appropriate papal territories. In 1239, Gregory IX again committed him to excommunication. Frederick sent an epistle to the princes and cardinals, in which he called Gregory an enemy of all governments, and promised to liberate everyone from papal tyranny. In response, the Pope sent a dispatch to them presenting Frederick as a non-believer. In 1240, the Emperor approached Rome. Counting on the French bishops as not being subordinate to Frederick, the Pope convened a council for 1241; while he in turn, seized the French bishops travelling from France. Occupying Rome, Frederick made the Pope his prisoner, who couldn’t bear the pressure and died in 1241. His successor, Celestine IV, lived just three weeks after his election. Because of dissension among the cardinals, the papal throne remained vacant for two years. In 1243, Innocent IV (1243-54) was elected and he continued his struggle with Frederick. In 1245, the Pope withdrew to Lyons, convened a council where he damned Frederick as a heretic and sacrileges, declaring his throne vacant and offering the Germans and Sicilians to choose another Emperor. Not having finished his battle with Innocent IV, Frederick II died in 1250. Having found out about this, Innocent rapturously announced Frederick’s death to the whole world as an event that was joyous to both heaven and earth.

Frederick’s children, Conrad IV and Manfred, began to consolidate the Emperor’s authority, the former — in Germany, the latter — in Naples and Sicily. Conrad died shortly thereafter, leaving a son Conradin. Just as Innocent lead the battle against the Hohenstaufens, so did his successors. In order to force them out of Naples and Sicily, the Popes placed a French prince Charles of Anjou to oppose them by inviting him to Italy with a crusading army. In the ensuing battle Manfred was killed, while Conradin was taken prisoner and executed by Charles in Naples (1268), but not without the knowledge of Pope Clement IV (1265-68).

After a century of stubborn struggle against the hostile house of Hohenstaufens, the papacy gained a complete victory over them. However, this very victory was the beginning of the fall of papacy. Charles of Anjou, obligated to the Popes for his sovereignty over Naples and Sicily, and having given them a lot of promises, aspired to occupy such a position in Italy that were occupied by German Emperors. The Popes were forced to undertake measures in order to weaken his authority. Pope Nicholas III (1277-80) concluded a union with German and Byzantine Emperors, and before his death prepared an uprising in Sicily against him, known as the Sicilian supper (?). Notwithstanding this, Charles succeeded in securing such an influence in Italy that in 1281, he insisted on the election of his subordinate Pope Martin IV (1281-85).

However, the more dangerous opponent for papacy was the French king Philip the Fair (1285-1315). He rejected the papal right, established by Popes, to interfere in secular matters of other states. He delivered the first savage blow against Boniface VIII (1294-1303). Philip was at war with England. The Pope offered himself as a mediator, which Philip rejected, not wanting any interference from the Pope. The Pope became indignant, having learned that in order to cover his military expenses Philip had levied taxes on the French clergy, In 1296, the Pope issued a bull (without naming Philip), in which he threatened excommunication from the church to all laymen that are applying the taxes on the clergy, and all the clergy that are paying such taxes. The Pope replied by forbidding the export from France of all precious metals. As a result, the Pope began losing his income from France, and because of this, he agreed to concessions. The clergy was not forbidden to make voluntary donations for the state’s needs. A compromise was established, and Philip even accepted the Pope’s offer of mediating in his talks with the English king. However, it was soon discovered that in the role of adjudicator between the two, the Pope was supporting the English king. Hostilities renewed and the struggle between Philip and Boniface reached extremes. In 1301, because the papal legate spoke to the king so rudely, he had him arrested, ignoring the Pope’s demands to have the matter dealt with in Rome. The Pope wrote indignantly to the king: "Fear God and preserve His commandments. We wish you to know, that in spiritual and temporal matters, you are subordinate to us… We regard those who think otherwise as heretics. " In another letter, he offered Philip to come to Rome with the French clergy — or an authorized body — in order to explain these matters. Philip burned both letters and replied: " Let your immense stupidity know that in temporal matters, we are subordinate to no one… We regard those who think otherwise as insane." In 1302, Philip convened an assembly of deputies from all classes of society, who expressed the same opposition as the King’s to the Pope, and triumphantly declared that the king received his crown directly from God and not the Pope. The French clergy concurred with this. Boniface responded by calling a council in Rome and condemning the behavior of the French with a bull "unam Sanctam" (opening words), in which he developed with full determination, Gregory VII system. He declared: "Christ entrusted the church with two swords, symbols of two authorities — spiritual and secular. One and the other had been established for the benefit of the church. The spiritual authority is found in the hands of the Popes, while the secular one — in the hands of kings. The spiritual one is greater than the secular one, just as the soul is greater than the body. Consequently, just as the body is subordinate to the soul, so must the secular authority be in subordination to the spiritual one. Only under these circumstances can the secular authority serve the church beneficially. In case of abuse by the secular power, then the spiritual authority must try her. The spiritual authority cannot be tried by anyone. To separate secular authority from the spiritual one and recognize it as autonomous, means to introduce a dualistic heresy — manicheism. In contrast, to acknowledge the Pope’s total spiritual and secular authority, is to acknowledge the faith’s dogma."

Philip answered this bull by convening an assembly of government representatives, where the jurist Wilhelm Nogare accused the Pope of many crimes, and proposed the king be authorized to arrest and try the Pope. Boniface couldn’t tolerate this; in 1303, he damned Philip, applied interdictions on France and dismissed the whole French clergy. Philip convened a third assembly. Here, his skilful jurists accused Boniface of simony and other crimes, even non-existing ones e.g. of witchcraft, and as a consequence of this, it was decided to immediately convene a council in Lyons so that the Pope could be tried and the king vindicated. Meanwhile, Wilhelm Nogare was entrusted to arrest Boniface and present him to the council. Nogare set forth to Italy; he was joined by another enemy of the Pope, a cardinal who was a descendant of Colonna and who was driven out of office when Boniface became Pope. When they arrived, they found the Pope in a small town of Anagni. In order to disarm his enemies, he met them in full papal regalia, sitting on his throne. However, ignoring his endeavors, they arrested him in his own house. They treated him so harshly that after being liberated by the townspeople 3 months later, upon his return to Rome, he went insane and died shortly thereafter (1303).

Boniface’s successor, Benedict XI, realizing that his predecessor acted too brusquely, attempted to have a reconciliation with France. However, after 8 months in office, he died (1304). During the election of the new Pope, the cardinals were divided — those who had France’s interests at heart, wished to see a Frenchman occupy the papal throne, while those committed to Boniface’s interests — an Italian. Finally, the French bloc took the upper hand. The chosen Pope was an Archbishop Bertrand of Bordeaux, who took the papal name of Clement V (1305-14). Having an influence on the election, Philip the Fair secured an oath from the new Pope that he will revoke all of Boniface’s arrangements concerning him, denounce Boniface and destroy the Knights Templar. Fearing repercussions in Rome for his concessions to France, Clement decided to remain in France permanently by summoning the cardinals and confirmed his residency in Avignon. The Popes remained here up to 1377, and this nearly 70-year stay is known in history as the Avignon papal captivity. The Popes of Avignon, beginning with Clement V, became fully reliant upon the French kings and functioned under their influence. Despite this, the Avignon Popes strived to play the role of universal overlords — if not in France, then in other countries. However, they were not successful.

Awareness of independence of secular powers from spiritual ones developed everywhere. Following France, the next protestations against papal pretensions emerged in Germany. The Popes sent ineffectual excommunications and interdictions — but they were ignored. In 1338, the German Emperor Ludwig of Bavaria, the dukes and electorates even decided to show that the secular power was independent of the spiritual one, by passing a triumphant act. Having declared that the papal pretensions of controlling the Emperors crown as being unlawful, they decided that future coronations will not require papal affirmation. The same thing was passed in the "golden bull" (1356) of Emperor Carl IV. During the Avignon captivity of Popes, England being totally enslaved by the Popes since the times of John Lackland, also liberated itself from their influence. During Edward III reign, feudal tributes to the Popes were terminated, as was the practice of sending appellations to Rome. Even in Italy, the power of the Popes weakened. Only in the church sphere were they formally acknowledged as overlords. Whereas in reality, neither the Pope nor his successors and legates had any influence on the running of the state. Adherents of the Pope invited them to return to Rome, fearing that if the Popes remained in Avignon, papal authority would be completely obliterated. The Popes themselves were well aware of this. Employing a mercenary force for his resettlement within the church dominion, Gregory XI (1370-78) finally moved his residence to Rome (1377), where he eventually died (1378).

With his death, the Roman church experienced the beginning of the so-called Great Schism. The majority of cardinals in the papal curia were French, having come from Avignon. They insisted that the Pope be French while the Roman people demanded that he be a Roman. Eventually, an Italian was chosen as Pope — Urban (1379-89), a man of harsh and even cruel nature. The new Pope began his reign with trying to improve the morals of the clergy; this touched upon the cardinals. Insulted by this, the French cardinals seized the Pope’s valuables, left Rome declaring the election of Urban as invalid and elected their own Pope Clement VII (1379-94), who shortly thereafter settled in Avignon. Clement was recognized by France, Naples and Spain, while the other nations acknowledged Urban. Thus a dual authority appeared in the Roman church.

With the advent of the Great Schism, the western world, used to seeing the Pope as the sole head of the church, became very confused with this development. Furthermore, both the Roman and the Avignon Popes increased this confusion through their intrigues, malediction and dissolute lifestyles. Church discipline fell. Church transgressions intensified, especially simony. In the west, belief in the necessity for a visible church head wavered. Moves against the papal authority as head of the church began to emerge. Opinions began to be expressed that the Ecumenical council was greater than the Pope and it can pass judgement on him, and that only through that council can church transgressions and schism be stopped. After several discussions, the western powers agreed to initiate decisive measures to end the schism.

In 1397, an assembly of representatives of various powers decided to invite both Popes to voluntarily relinquish their positions. However, their concurrence didn’t eventuate. Greatly vexed at the two Popes behavior, the French and Roman cardinals agreed on convening a council. This council in the name of the two bodies was convened in 1409, in Pisa. At the same time, the Popes convened their own councils, which rejected the legality of the Pisa council. Apart from cardinals, bishops and abbots at the council in Pisa, there were also many magisters of theology and canonical rights. France and England sent their empowered representatives. However, the council that strived to end the dual papacy, didn’t achieve this because of the mistakes committed. The council decreed that the council can judge Popes and demanded the appearance of both Popes for judgement. When the Popes didn’t appear, the council declared them deposed. The question of transforming the head of the church and its members was raised. However, the cardinals attempted to convince the council to first elect a new Pope and then effect the reforms under his control. Alexander V was elected as the new Pope, and this was the mistake that the council made. Contending that the reforms need preparatory work before they can be introduced, he dismissed the council with a promise of reconvening it in 3 years time. Effectively, in addition to the two Popes, the Roman church received a third one. Each one regarded himself as the lawful Pope and was recognized as such by one or the other kingdoms. Alexander V died in 1410. It was said that Baldassare Cossa, who assumed the papal throne under the name of John XXIII, poisoned him.

After persistent calls, especially from the German Emperor Sigismund, the Pope agreed to convoke a general council, which continued from November 1414 till May 1418 in Constance.

In reality, there were three Popes ruling simultaneously: Gregory XII in Rome, recognized by middle and south of Italy; Benedict XIII in Avignon from 1394 and recognized by France and Spain; John XXIII in Bologna, recognized by northern Italy, Switzerland and Germany. They finally found no remedy than to dethrone all three Popes and elect a new one (11 Nov. 1417) — Martin V, who in turn closed the council with a promise to reconvene it in 5 years time. All the representatives of different kingdoms were able to achieve is to conclude separate concordats with the Pope, regarding the removal of some of the church’s failings. Martin was able to convince the council to defer the major reforms until the convening of the new council. The sitting council was closed in 1431. During Martins reign, the other Popes died and the schism ended. He didn’t concern himself with reform and only called the council in 1431 at Basle, but died the same year.

Martins successor, Eugene IV (1431-47) had to open the council at Basle, because all the representatives invited by Martin, had already arrived in 1431. The new Pope sent his cardinal to represent him and under whose auspices the council sitting opened. Eugene counted on the council acting according to his directives. However, this didn’t occur; the council immediately announced that it will act quite independently concerning the followers of Huss. As a result, the Pope declared the council closed. However the fathers at Basle didn’t want to recognize this. Verifying the prior state that an ecumenical council is higher than the Pope, they demanded that Eugene appear for trial and that if he failed to do so, they threatened him with removal. After some opposition, the Pope was forced through circumstances in 1433, to rescind his order for the closure of the council. However, the peace didn’t last long. The council of Basle took to church reforms, and its first enactment was to curb the unlimited authority of the Pope. Naturally, Eugene didn’t want to agree with this. Polemics ensued. The Basle fathers insisted that that the council was above the Pope and consequently he had to obey it. But the Pope maintained that the council was totally dependent on the him, as all its determinations received its legal status through the Pope’s confirmation. In 1437, so as to terminate the Basle fathers’ dangerous endeavors for reform, Eugene decided to relocate the council to Italy. At the time, there were discussions between the Pope and the Greek government about convening a council to deliberate over the question of unity between the two faiths. Eugene insisted that the council be held in Italy, and proposed that the Basle fathers relocate themselves over there. They refused.

Nonetheless, Eugene declared the Basle council closed and in 1438, appointed a new council at Ferrara, which was subsequently moved to Florence. Notwithstanding this, the council at Basle continued its sittings, and shortly after the opening of the council in Ferrara, declared the Pope dethroned. In response, the Pope excommunicated the Basle fathers from the church. After this, the Basle council started to wane; many of its bishops departed and some went over to the Pope’s side. Not being fazed by this, in place of Eugene, the remaining bishops elected a new Pope — Felix V. However, as everyone was conscious of the schism, the election of the new Pope was greeted with displeasure. Only a small number of the German electors approved of Felix. Even so, the Basle council continued sporadically in various cities until 1449, significantly weakening the papal authority. The council’s reforms were adopted in France and Germany and because of them, it was here that the clergy and churches were more independent of the Pope. In 1438, there appeared in France the so-called pragmatically sanction, while in Germany, in 1448 — the Vienna concordat, which defined the relationship of the French and German churches with the Pope.

Having concluded the matter with the Greeks, Eugene IV applied all his power in order to eliminate the aftermath of the Basle council — and so did his successors. However, because papal despotism was well known to everybody, their endeavors to have absolute power over all the churches met with little success. The 15^th century saw the Popes ceasing their endeavors to have influence on political affairs of western states. They understood that the era of Hildebrand’s ideas had passed. Italy was the only country — in church domains — where the Popes enjoyed secular authority. The successors of Eugene IV, before the reformation, turned their attention toward consolidating this power. They wanted to make their domain a true kingdom, with the Pope as Emperor. As a consequence, more than at any other time, papacy assumed a secular characteristic. It is through this that the hierarchy and "Christ’s vicars" turned into sly politicians, intriguers, warriors, extravagant and immoral tyrants etc. For example Pope Leo X (1513-21), during whose time reformation commenced, was nothing more than an indulgent and extravagant secular ruler. The arts and sciences (of which he was patron), provided him with a more refined enjoyment. Religion and the church were completely forgotten by this Pope. The Pope himself treated Christianity with skepticism, while his confidants openly expressed their non-belief, and mocked everything that was holy.

In both the pre-Christian and Christian eras, the Roman empire was sharply divided into two divisions — east and west. This division was dependent upon the different types of inhabitants; the first side had a preponderance of Greeks, while in the other — Laotians or Latin-orientated inhabitants, each with their special character, direction in life and activity. Having spread throughout the whole world, the Christian Church — according to the potency of differences within the population, from which came differences in national character, morals, inclinations, outlook etc., was also noticeably divided into two sections — eastern and western. We can see from the very early Christian times, certain distinctive features in the eastern and western churches, the most visible one being the difference in the church’s directions toward enlightenment.

Contrary to the East, the western Church, by rejecting reasoning in matters of faith, it in the main avoided research into dogmas of faith, and in general were disinterested in theological abstract matters; however, they paid a great deal of attention to the internal aspects of Christianity — the ceremonies, discipline, administration, relationship of the Church with government and society, etc. In resolving dogmatic questions, heresy appeared among the eastern churches; in the west, inasmuch as there was no interest in theological matters, there was practically no heresy; the absence of a sensible understanding of Christianity saw only the emergence of schisms. The Eastern hierarchy strived to refute all heresies and establish the Orthodox faith on practical beginnings; while the West endeavored with all the means under its disposal, to retain church order, place themselves in a position of independence from secular powers and intensify their influence over society and government. In a word, the Eastern church had her own interests and aims while the West — hers. These differing interests and aims separated the Eastern and Western churches of the empire, although not to the extent so as to regard one another as alien. Unity of faith, the Mysteries and church structure all kept them bound together as one for a long time.

A split and the termination of all relations between the western and eastern churches could only follow upon the violation of the unison of faith, Mysteries or church structure by one church or the other. Much to the misfortune for the whole Christian world, the Western church did violate this unison and broke its union with the Eastern church. It can be seen from the above that over a period of several centuries, the Western church permitted wanton injections of new and distorted teachings in the areas of dogma, rites and canons. Thus, in the 6-11 centuries, all the Western churches asserted the teaching on the Holy Spirit emanating also from the Son (filioque). The Ecumenical Church — which included the Western one — had always recognized all similar teachings that distorted the fundamentals of Christian dogmas as heretical, and had always excluded from her assembly anyone that held such beliefs. Furthermore, the Western church permitted many deviations in its rites — introducing lent on Saturday, performing the Eucharist with unleavened bread, permitting only Bishops to perform chrismation, celibacy for all its clergy etc. Finally, in the canonical area, the Western church permitted unbelievable innovations, making the Pope the high judge of the whole Ecumenical Church. The teachings on the primacy of the Pope, placing him higher than the Ecumenical councils, subverted church order that had been established by the Apostles and the holy fathers. Its realization in practice could have brought — as it happened to the Western Church — distortion of the whole theology, all Christianity. This is because one individual, through a wanton and unabashed free will, could insert new teachings, rites, and alter the church structure, thereby altering the appearance of the Church as given to Her by the Founder — Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles. In relation to the long existing differences in the character, direction and life in the activity of the Eastern and Western churches, these aberrations and digressions from the general church order prepared the severance in unity by the former from the latter.

In the middle of the 9^th century, conditions became right for the commencement of the separation. The following served as the cause.

Upon the death of Emperor Theophilus in 842, his six-year-old son Michael III inherited the Byzantine Empire. His guardians-rulers were: his mother Theodora, kooropalat Theoktist, patrician Bardas, the empress's brother and general Manuel. After the cessation of iconoclasm, Saint Methodius was elevated to the post of Patriarch. After his death in 846, the Patriarch’s throne passed to Abbot Ignatius, son of Emperor Michael Rangebé, well known for his pious life. Becoming of age, Michael III handed over the affairs of the state to his Uncle Bardas and surrendered himself to drunkenness and debauchery. In 854, he overthrew his mother and incarcerated her in a palace at Cariana, and contrary to the will of the Patriarch, he forcibly had his mother tonsured at a monastery in 857. Having banished his wife, Bardas began living with his daughter-in-law. After fruitless admonishments, the Patriarch refused him Holy Sacraments on the day of Theophany. Bardas came to hate the Patriarch and began to incite Michael against him, finally succeeding in having the holy father banished to the island of Terebinthus.

In 857, Photius was forcibly elevated to the Patriarch’s throne. He was around 60 years old (his brother was married to Emperor Theodore’s sister), was outstanding in his love for the sciences and education, having at one time taught Emperor Michael and Constantine the Philosopher, and more recently was the government’s first secretary. In a matter of days, he passed the stages of reader, deacon, priest and finally, ordained as bishop. Upon becoming a bishop, he gave the council of bishops a written assurance that he was not guilty of dismissing Ignatius, and that he will always treat him with respect. Ignatius had decreed excommunication to all that do not recognize him as Patriarch. In 859, the local council of bishops in Constantinople met Ignatius’ conduct with disapproval and endorsed Photius as the head. Despite Photius’s intercession, Patriarch Ignatius’s supporters were subjected to persecution by those (they were called "akribeets") who regarded it essential to conduct a merciless struggle against iconoclasts. Photius’s supporters, so-called "economy," had a condescending attitude toward heretics, and the enmity between the two sides was becoming more aggravated.

In order to end these church disorders and through Bardas’s advice, Emperor Michael decided to convene a great council and invite Pope Nicholas I to attend.

The council was called in Constantinople in 861. The Pope was sent letters of invitation by the Emperor and Patriarch. Although the Emperor hid the real purpose of the council, Nicholas was well aware of the hierarchical upheaval, and as he aspired to realize Isadore’s false decretals about the Pope’s omnipotence, hastened to take advantage of the situation so as to make himself arbitrator of the Eastern Church. He sent two legates to the council with letters to the Emperor and Photius. He wrote to the Emperor in arrogant terms, that he had acted against church rules, having dethroned one Patriarch and replacing him with another without the Pope’s — his –knowledge; at the same time accusing Photius of being ambitious and illegally accepting the Patriarch’s post, because church rules forbid the instant elevation of a laymen through all church levels; moreover, he added that he will not recognize him as the Patriarch until such time as the legates had sorted out this matter.

Actually, a council was convened at Constantinople in 861, with the attendance of the Pope’s legates. However, contrary to the Pope’s expectations, the Eastern fathers acted independently, outside his influence. Ignatius was regarded as dethroned, while Photius as the legal Patriarch of Constantinople. The determinations of the council were relayed to the Pope by the legates for his information. Photius also enclosed with this information, his own letter of response to the Pope’s accusations, explaining with dignity that he agreed to the Patriarch’s post not because of ambition, as he didn’t seek it, but because he was forced to accept it. Regarding the violation of rules, Photius pointed out that these regulations are decisions of local churches and are not obligatory to Constantinople, and that even the Western church permits these enactment's. Furthermore, Photius mentioned to the Pope that in being concerned for church harmony, the Pope himself had violated this as he was associating with runaway spiritual figures from the Constantinople patriarchate, who had no accreditation. Nicholas was extremely displeased with the conclusions of the council and Photius’s letter. He most probably, would have recognized Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople, if he hadn’t seen in him a firm opponent to his pretensions to being the head of the Church. He now begins the struggle with the Eastern church, figuring to vanquish Photius and then subject the eastern church to his influence — just as the western churches. With this in mind, he sent a letter to Emperor Michael. Assuming the tone of a judge, he expresses in it that with regard to Ignatius and Photius, he doesn’t recognize the council’s determinations, and that he charged his legates to sort out the matter and not decide it. Also, that he now declares Photius as having his post as Patriarch revoked, while ordering that Ignatius be elevated to this post without any scrutiny etc. In his letter to Photius, the Pope again argued the illegality of his appointment as Patriarch, and that if they don’t have any rules forbidding such appointments, then they exist in the Roman church, which is the head of all churches and because of this, everybody must abide by its decisions.

Whereupon, the Pope convened a council of his bishops in Rome (862), where he damned Photius and reinstated Ignatius. Apart from this, he sent a circular epistle to all the Eastern bishops, calling on them to cease relations with Photius and deal with Ignatius. Of course, Constantinople didn’t take heed of the Pope. The Emperor sent him a sharp letter, in which he unashamedly expressed the bitter truth to him — that he as Pope, is meddling in other’s affairs and that church of Constantinople does not recognize his right to be head and judge of the Universal Church. The Pope responded with a likewise, terse letter — and the rift between the churches commenced.

The question as to who controlled the Bulgarian church caused greater enmity between the two churches. As is known, the Bulgarian king Boris was christened in 864. His subjects followed suit. Just as the first Christian preachers in Bulgaria were Greek missionaries, so was the first hierarchy — bishops and priests. Boris’s fear of succumbing to Constantinople’s political and spiritual influence prompted him to seek a church union with Rome, especially as the Roman preachers had already infiltrated into Bulgaria. In 865, Boris dispatched a delegation to Nicholas I in Rome, requesting that he send some Latin priests to Bulgaria. Nicholas was overjoyed at this request and sent Latin bishops and priests. Following this, the Greek clergy were driven out of Bulgaria and replaced with the Lateens. The Pope’s clergy again began to inject their misguided teachings into the newly-created churches. Thus, the newly-christened Bulgars had to be Chrismated again on the grounds that the previous one was ineffective; changed the fast day from Wednesday to Saturday; permitted the consumption of dairy products during the first week of Great Lent; labelled the married Greek priests as being unlawful, and taught the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Son also etc. This papal usurpation of power and the clergy’s behavior in Bulgaria, produced bad feelings in Constantinople.

Photius assembled a local council, condemned all the Roman fallacies and advised all the Eastern Patriarchs of this by way of a circular, inviting them to a new council for the purpose of examining the erroneous teachings of the Roman church. This council opened in Constantinople in 867. It was attended by local representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, many bishops and Emperor Michael himself with the new Caesar, Basil of Macedonia. Photius unveiled before the council in convincing fashion, all the fallacies of the Roman church, and proposed that Pope Nicholas be unseated. To this end, it was decided to approach the western Emperor Ludwig. The conflict between the churches took a different turn. Due to the intrigues of Basil the Macedonian, Emperor Michael III was killed and was replaced by him. His agenda didn’t include a rift with the Pope. Consequently, he decided to dethrone Photius and re-instate Ignatius. He sent a letter to the Pope in Rome, humiliating the Eastern Church. Basil subordinated the Eastern Church to the Pope by handing him Photius for his judgment, at the same time requesting his confirmation of Ignatius. However, Nicholas didn’t live long enough to savoir the moment — he died before the arrival of the messenger.

The new Pope, Adrian II, hastened to take advantage of the situation that was favorable to the Roman cathedra. He convened (868) a council in Rome, pronounced an anathema on Photius and his supporters, and publicly burned the 867 Constantinople’s decrees against Nicholas, which were sent to him by Basil of Macedonia. He thereupon sent legates so as to finally resolve the matter between Photius and Ignatius, thereby confirming his authority in that country. In 869, a council was held in Constantinople, regarded by the West as the 8^th Ecumenical Council. At this council, Photius was dethroned and condemned, while Ignatius was reinstated. However, worst of all was the fact that at this council, the Eastern Church agreed to all the demands of the Pope and subordinated Herself to him. The legates engaged in council matters and reasoning in the spirit of the false Isadore’s decrees about the Pope’s primacy, attempted to pass an edict forbidding even the Council to pass resolutions against the Pope. This mistake was realized by the Greek bishops only after the closure of the Council. When the legates presented the Pope with the Council’s acts, he at first confiscated them but then returned them. However, on the question of the Bulgarian Church, the Eastern bishops and even Patriarch Ignatius remained uncompromising.

After the closure of the Council, notwithstanding the demands from the legates in private meetings with Ignatius and representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, and despite their dire threats to Ignatius, the representatives found that the Bulgarian Church should be answerable to Constantinople. After the departure of the legates, Ignatius dispatched a Greek Archbishop to Bulgaria, who was accepted by Basil. At the same time, all the Latin clergy were removed. Although Pope Adrian — after learning of this — forbade Ignatius to interfere in the administration of the Bulgarian Church, this was ignored in Constantinople. Consequently, the abated disagreement between the churches flared up with new strength when Photius, once again, assumed the throne (879).

After being dethroned in 869, Photius was incarcerated. Notwithstanding his confined situation, he bore this with exceptional resoluteness, continuing to oppose the subordination of the Eastern Church to Rome. He even succeeded to gain sympathy from Ignatius’s adherents and the Emperor Basil himself, who recalled him from confinement and charged him with his children’s education. Upon the death of Ignatius, the Emperor offered the Patriarch’s throne to Photius. At this time Basil didn’t value the peaceful relationship he had with the new Pope — John VIII — particularly as the Saracens had attacked Italy, and blatantly re-instated Photius. A council was held in 879 to remove the condemnation of Photius. At the request of the Emperor, Pope John sent his legates. He agreed to acknowledge Photius as Patriarch, on the conditions that Photius acknowledge that his reinstatement was due to the Pope’s mercy, as well as renounce his authority over the Bulgarian Church.

At the council, the legates didn’t even raise the first condition, as they were advised that because Photius had already been recognized by the Constantinople Church, a confirmation from the Pope was unnecessary. As for the Bulgarian Church, the council explained that demarcation of dioceses rested in the Emperor’s hands. Thus the Pope’s conditions were left unfulfilled. However, the legates had to agree to the lifting of Photius’s condemnation and the re-establishment of relations with him by Rome. They didn’t even protest when the Nicene Creed was read at the council, without any additions — from the Son (filioque). It was confirmed that it was not to be changed under the threat of anathema. Having received the council acts and having learned that his conditions had not been met, Pope John VIII demanded through his legate Marina that the Emperor rescind the council’s determinations. Because of Marina's impertinent behavior in Constantinople, he was imprisoned. Now, as it became perfectly clear to the Pope that Photius was not going to give him any concessions and he would have no influence over him, he passed a new anathema on Photius. Again, polemics and conflicts ensued between Constantinople and Rome. The ensuing Popes all subjected Photius to the same anathema, which collectively totaled 12 in all. The rift between the Churches had begun

After Photius’s second dethroning (886) by Leo the Wise and up to the middle of the 11^th century, contacts between the Eastern and Western Churches were sporadic and rare. Because of their personal motives, only the Byzantine Emperors made contact with the Popes. Finally, in the middle of the 11^th century, active undertakings began, culmination in a full rift between the Churches. At that time, the Pope was Leo IX, while the Constantinope Patriarch was Michael Cerularius. Leo IX tried with all his might to reassert the waning papal influence, both in the East as well as the West. His first efforts were to consolidate his influence in a number of churches in southern Italy, which belonged to the Constantinople Patriarch. Thus, the Latin outlook began to spread among these churches, and the Eucharist was performed with unleavened bread. Whereupon, Pope Leo attempted to reactivate opposition from the Patriarch of Antioch to Michael Cerularius, who in turn decided to put an end to papal intrigues. He banned Argira — commander of the Greek forces in Italy — from having Holy Communion, because he cooperated in the performance of Eucharist with unleavened bread; closed all Latin monasteries and churches so as to eliminate temptation to the Orthodox faithful, and directed (1053) the Bulgarian Archbishop Leo, to issue an epistle, condemning the new teachings of the Lateens. This epistle reached the Pope, creating a big stir in Rome. While wishing — for political considerations — to maintain peaceful relations with the East, the Pope nevertheless responded to Leo’s epistle by sending a letter to Michael Cerularius, stating that nobody has the right to judge the apostolic cathedra, and that the Patriarch of Constantinople should treat it with respect, seeing as how the Popes granted him his privileges. Because the Byzantine Emperor Constantine (1042-1054) — also for political considerations — wished for peace with the Pope, the papal letter was received favorably. Moreover, the Emperor and the Pope wanted to establish a practicable peace between the churches, and to that end the Pope sent his legates to Constantinople. Among them was a cardinal Goombert a fervent and conceited individual. Because they treated Michael Cerularius with open contempt, he refused to hold talks with them. Ignoring this and relying on the Emperor’s protection, the legates, under the guise of reconciliation between the churches, commenced to act in favor of the Roman cathedra. Thus, Goombert issued a refutal of Leo’s epistle, and the Emperor had it distributed among the people. Upon the insistence of the legates, the Emperor forced monk Nikita Steefat — author of the publication condemning the Latinos — to burn the book. Finally the legates, not hopeful of bringing the Patriarch under their influence, issued an act excommunicating him and the whole Greek Church, accusing them of all possible types of heresies. They placed it triumphantly on the altar during Mass in a church at Sophia, and left Constantinople.

In the "Chronicle of Church events," Bishop Arsenius describes the legates’ behavior thus: "And so the papal legates, weary of the opposition from the Patriarch" — as they said — "decide on a most insolent act. On the 15^th of July, while the clergy was getting ready for church service at 3 o’clock on Saturday, they enter the church in Sophia and in full view of the clergy and worshippers, they place the decree on the main altar. In leaving, they shake the dust off their shoes as a testimony to what is written in the Gospel (Mat. 10:14), exclaiming: ‘Let god observe and judge.’" This is how Goombert himself saw it. Among other things, the decree spoke of: "with regard to the pillars of the empire and honored, wise citizens, then the city (Constantinople) is — utmost Christian and Orthodox. With regard to Michael, being illegally called Patriarch, and supporters of his folly, countless weeds of heresy are being scattered within him…" Further on, they are called simoniacs and compared to the worst heretics — (because they had erased from the Creed "and from the Son"; this is how little the legates knew about history!), once again, I don’t know (for permitting married clergy) etc.. Consequently "Michael, for his abuse in calling himself Patriarch, neophyte, having donned the monastic vestment through human fear, and who is now accused of grave crimes; also Leo, bishop of Akreed, a dignitary of Miguel, Constantine, who trampled the Roman sacrificial offering, and all those that share their fallacy and pride, all heretics, the devil and his demons — until such time as they come to their senses, let them be anathematized, let them be anathematized — maranatha, and let them not be regarded as Catholic Christians but heretics and prozymites).

Let it be, let it be . let it be! The arrogance of the papal legates aroused the whole population of the capital against them, and it was only due to the Emperor’s respect for their status as envoys, were they allowed to leave the city. On the 20^th July, at the meeting of the Patriarch’s "permanent" synod that was made up of 12 Metropolitans and 2 Archbishops, and in the presence of 7 Archbishops that were present at the time in the capital, a council epistle was drawn up. It condemned the activities of the papal legates and damned the authors of the anathema decree. This was relayed to all the other Eastern Patriarchs. In its informative pronouncements, it stated that the legates were liars that acted without the Pope’s knowledge or authority. Indeed, in September 1053 the Pope was a Norman prisoner in Benevent and after his release, died on the 19^th April, 1054 i.e. 2 months before the complete rift. Consequently, it is not without foundation to conclude that the legates carried out the will of the powerful enclave of Roman cardinals, as well as those forces in Eastern Italy that were antagonistic to the Greek authorities, and in their activities, leaned on the active Latinos in the Greek empire, which are mentioned in the Patriarch’s epistle.

In the 9^th and 10^th centuries, the governing direction in spiritual enlightenment in the West was based on the Biblical-practical teachings. The whole theological interest consisted of studying the Holy Gospel, according to the interpretations of the ancient teachers. Apart from the Holy Writings, studies of Church dogmas didn’t exist and therefore, there were no theological disciplines. However, in the 11^th and 12^th centuries, a love to pursue the study of abstract theological questions and aspirations to bring together all the components of the Church and its religious doctrines into a scientific system, arose in the West. This tendency coincided with the political elevation of the Pope and Church, together with the spread of philosophies by Plato and especially Aristotle. The result of the commencement of the "thinking movement" in the West was the appearance of theological studies, developed in two directional forms — scholastic and mystic.

The essence of these theological studies, known under the term scholastic (from the word school, "schola"), was the drive to unite Revelation and philosophy, faith and learning within its confines. The amalgamation of Revelation and philosophy was presented in the following manner. Revelation gave the material for theology, while philosophy — its form. The truth of the Revelation had to always remain inviolable as this was the characteristic feature of scholasticism, in that it never concerned itself with the nature of the Church’s teachings, and everything the Church believed in (correctly or incorrectly), was accepted as the absolute truth.

Philosophy on the other hand (proper dialectics), had to fashion, explain, prove and orderly arrange all the material provided by Revelation. It was from this — as they used to say in the middle ages — philosophy was the servant of theology. For example: in examining the Church’s teachings that everyone has sin through Adam, or that God became human, or that Christ is always present at Eucharist — scholasticism had always accepted all this as immutable truths. However, at the same time, it was involved in investigating questions as to how could everybody have sinned through Adam, why did God become human, how can Christ be present at every Eucharist. This initiation provided a full spectrum for dialectic conclusions and all possible types of intellectual reasoning. Here indeed was a matter of philosophy and its dialectics. And indeed, the scholastic theologians were always outstanding for their plethora of thoughts and subtle dialectic intelligence. Furthermore, the philosophical issue was to bring about into a unified whole — all the different points in the religious doctrine, examine the pro and contra, explained and approved from all sides — and outline their unique totality, i.e. create a theological system. The various points in the religious doctrine that were initially proven by reason, were becoming a subject of learning and not of faith. Thus the purpose of scholasticism was to elevate faith to the level of learning. In its endeavors to achieve its tasks and aspirations, scholasticism created much good and at the same time, made many errors. Scholasticism’s main accomplishment is found in its research and contentions, which gave clarity, accuracy and definition to the Church’s teachings on faith, and brought it systematic order. The ugly side of scholasticism is found in the following — in substantiating theological truths, scholastics often cited meaningless and petty forms of evidence, regarding them as being important; presented many preposterous and curious questions, and resolved them in a likewise ridiculous manner; indulged in dialectical arguments, placing agility and expediency of proof ahead of substance of the religious doctrine. Its theological system was presented as a collection of truths in a connected outline, but because of its divisions and subdivisions that were not pertinent to the subject, it was entangled. In short, scholastic theologians were paying exclusive attention to the formal side of the matter: to them, it wasn’t the religious doctrine itself that was important, but its presentation. It is from this that the scholastics elevated as dogmas, many incorrect teachings that existed in the Roman Church, either in their infancy or in the form of detached opinions. With the passing of time and scholastics being in full control, all the Roman Church’s theology was contained in one form only, and all her dogma’s could be accepted only in the form that it was presented by the scholastics. Live and active faith, as well as intelligent study within the realms of religion but not suitable to scholastic thinking, were totally eradicated by scholasticism.

Running parallel with the scholastic direction in theology was mysticism (from the word to close your eyes). Scholasticism strove to comprehend religious doctrines of the Church, by way of reason and through logical conclusions. The theologians on the contrary, wanted to understand the dogmas through feelings, by way of inner contemplation and immersion into one’s self. Mysticism, asserted that a person can get to know God and all the revealed teachings, not through dialectical proof, but by spiritual elevation toward God in the form of direct contemplation. Being in a state of meditation and ecstasy, a person will be able to perceive the presence of God in his soul and feel fulfilled and enlightened. It is this condition that entails the direct, inner understanding of God. It is the feeble level that will have a place in the next world. In order to attain a vision and awareness of God here on earth, said the mystics, one needs to have passed through a number of stages of self-improvement. In essence, they offered three stages. The first is cleansing i.e. the release of the spirit — with the aid of asceticism — from all of the ties of nature’s feelings. The second is enlightenment i.e. the inner, purely spiritual life, when the spirit lives and functions absolutely free of the influences of the sentient world. The third is realization i.e. fulfillment in God, Who fills the whole essence of a human being. Being filled with the presence of God, a person is in a state of enlightenment and ecstasy, which manifests itself — here on earth — in acts that have divine characteristics (miracles, prophesies etc.).

The scholastic direction of theology in the West was consolidated by Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (died 1109), while the mystical aspect — by the renowned Bernard Klervosski (died 1153). In the thirteenth century, scholasticism attained its full maturity in the person of Thomas Aquina (died 1274). The 15^th century saw the darker sides of scholastic directions, empty formalism and casuistry, come into overwhelming importance. In practice, the scholastic directions with its attestations of for and anti — in a moral sense — proved to be harmful. With the aid of casuistry, attempts materialized to justify crime, and it was because of this that scholasticism exhausted itself. In the beginning of the 16^th century it disappeared completely, although traces of it remained for a long time in theological teachings. In the 15^th century, mysticism assumed a more practical direction, expressed in sermons on genuinely pious living.

The most outstanding representative of practical mysticism was Thomas a` Kempis (died 1471), having written "Imitation of Christ," which received world renown. To this day, it enjoys universal respect throughout the west.

During scholasticism’s reign and with its assistance, many new dogmas appeared in the Roman Church. Among them, the following three stand out especially — teachings on the over and above obligatory achievements of saints, on indulgences and purgatory. All these teachings was the result of the scholastic theologians’ warped ideas on redemption.

The teachings on over and above obligatory achievements of saints, emerged from their Pelagian outlook on the condition of a human being — before and after his fall from sin — and through this viewpoint, his absolution and salvation. According to their conception, the original truth (justitia originalis) was made up exclusively in the supernatural gifts of grace (dona supernaturalia).

The fall from sin led to the loss of these gifts only; the moral powers of a person remained the same as they were before the fall, with all their perfection's and flaws, which Nature was endowed with by the Creator. However, before the fall, these flaws did not surface while the gifts of grace were active. With the loss of the latter, they began to emerge and according to the scholastics, redemption consisted in a person’s return to the primary truth i.e. the supernatural gifts of grace. Through the power of the Lord Jesus Christ’s achievements, grace returns to a person. With regard to the restoration of a person’s moral powers, there is no mention by the scholastics, inasmuch as they were never subjected to corruption. To them, fall from sin and redemption is presented as some sort of judicial act. A person sins — grace is taken away; redeemed — grace is returned. In both instances, grace is restored to the person through outward manner. However — the Latin theologians continue — Jesus Christ redeemed humanity from its primary sin and eternal torment. For sins committed after the initial redemption, a person has to bring satisfaction (satisfactio) himself through good deeds. This is quite possible for an individual as his moral powers had not been corrupted, and he can personally perform many good deeds. Saints have so many good deeds that they not only cover their sins, but have a surfeit. It is this surplus of good deeds that represent over and above obligatory achievements. In trying to prove their teachings, the scholastics erroneously cited the Savior's decrees regarding about a morally complete life e.g. not marrying, voluntary poverty etc. Having discovered the saints good deeds above those required, the scholastics nominated them as a treasury of above the obligatory achievements of the saints.

This treasury became the basis for indulgences. Indulgences are no more than the abuse of disciplined repentance. In the ancient Ecumenical Church, it was the practice to allot an act of penance to the penitent. In the middle ages, with the general dissipation of morals within the Roman church, allocation of such acts of penance e.g. fasting, seemed difficult to fulfil. The obliging clergy began to make concessions; it replaced these acts with other, more easier directives e.g. nominated that the penitent attend one or another church etc. for which his sins were forgiven. More than that — in line with the judicial structure of church life in the West, it became possible to replace an act of penance with a monetary donation to a good cause, the Church or to the poor. In the 10^th century, donation of money as an act of penance became the norm. Thus, for money, acts of penance were avoided through concessions i.e. indulgences. Release of sins could be obtained through payment of money. At the end of the 11^th century, the crusades began. According to the opinion of the Lateens, the deeds of the crusaders were regarded as the fulfillment of any type of act of penance. Being the main initiators of the Crusades and in order to attract people to the cause, the Popes began to grant bulls for these deeds, which carried indulgences — release of not only those sins that had been already committed but for future ones. Participation in these Crusades could be through joining personally, or by donating money for its armaments. The Popes found it quite legal to grant indulgences to those who had donated this money. Realizing quickly that these indulgences were an excellent source of raising money, they began to grant them to others outside the Crusades.

Consequently, these indulgences became a commercial enterprise. In the 14^th and 15^th centuries, the sale of indulgences took on a scandalous character. They outraged every true religious feeling. The scholastic theologians took it upon themselves to give this abusive practice a dogmatic basis, emanating from the viewpoint that Jesus Christ’s sacrifice satisfied Divine justice and redeemed mankind from eternal suffering, in terms of the primal sin only. All other sins committed by a person after this redemption, had to be repaired by that person, and decreed acts of penance are such deeds that would satisfy Divine justice.

(According to Orthodox teachings, decreed acts of penance are only a type of healing method to spiritually elevate the moral strength of a person, and are certainly not deeds that release sins.) Scholastic theologians regard decreed acts of penance equal to all types of voluntary exploits of atonement and good works. However, not every person has sufficient good works so as to be free from temporary punishment. In these instances, the Church comes to his aid. At her disposal, or more specifically — the Pope’s — there is a treasury of deeds by saints. The Pope takes a sufficient amount of these deeds to cover the sins of the individual and transfers it to him. On the basis of these good deeds of the saint being ascribed to the sinner, he is released from his sins through the granting of this indulgence. This is closely tied in with the teachings on purgatory (purgatotrium).

Teachings on purgatory is a deformed approach to the orthodox teachings concerning the disorderly state of the soul after death, and prayers for it. The scholastics pronounced that if a person doesn’t liberate himself of punishment for his sins — through the performance of good deeds during his life — then punishment will follow him into the life hereafter. They stated that in the life beyond the grave, there is a place where these souls enter and endure punishment, which cleanses them of their outstanding sins. This place is purgatory. In line with what people envisioned, the scholastics allowed purgatory to contain corporeal flames. In order to release the soul from these flames, it was necessary to turn to the treasury of the saints and secure indulgences in the name of the sinner. In 1477, Pope Sixtus IV finally established a dogma that after death, the soul is released from purgatory by means of indulgences; moreover, he noted the full weight of his prayers for the sinners.

In the 11^th-15^th centuries, Church life in the West presented very many abnormalities. The Popes used their spiritual authority to secure corporeal power and appeared not so much as hierarchy of the Church, but as despots that trampled all the laws on morality and justice. The majority of bishops too were not outstanding for their moral qualities, being interested in earthly matters only; the clerics shocked with their rudeness and corruption; the people, unfamiliar with Christian truths, were immersed in superstition. With the Roman Papacy, as with the hierarchy, there was complete incomprehension of, or oblivion to, the aim of true Christian living. Church life in the West turned toward a sentient direction, and the Roman Church appeared not so much as a divine institution as a human one. This degradation of the Church was leading people that valued religious interests, to dissatisfaction and protests. As a consequence, their discontent with the arrangement within the Church separated them from her, and there appeared independent religious societies that aimed to restore the true Church. However, arming themselves against the abuses of the ruling Church, the separatists themselves violated acceptable bounds, thereby becoming sectarians. Thus the endeavors to reform the Church in the 11-15^th centuries in the West, produced the formation of sects — cathari and albigenses, waldenses etc.

Kafaros and Albigenses. In the 11^th and especially in the 12^th centuries, the West saw the appearance of many sects. They were called various names — manicheos, bulgarians, publicans, weavers and others." Whereas, they called themselves kafaros, because they regarded their sect as being a true, pure church. In the south of France, they called themselves good people. During the crusades (in the 13^th century) against the heretics — kafaros — in the south of France, they were called albigenses, after their center, the town Albi. The teachings of the kafaros is very similar to that of the eastern pavliquians and bogomilov. Because they were also called Bulgarians, publicans (pabliquianos) it is thought with certainty, that their sect drifted into the west from Bulgaria, which was the bogomilov's center. Its thoughts were easily accepted in the West, because they could be conveniently used in opposition to the ruling Church. The basis of the kafaros, as with bogomilov's teachings, lies in the Manichaeist dualism. Also, part of the kafars permitted absolute dualism, two beginnings — good and evil, with two creations. While the other part accepted relative dualism, believing that the introduction of evil into life on earth was by the fallen spirit. The kafaros regarded the Holy Mysteries, honoring the Cross, icons and all the formal aspects of religion, in the same way as the bogomiles. Instead of christening, they had a spiritual baptism through the laying of hands and Evangelist John’s apocryphal gospel on the individual, believing that this was how the Holy Spirit was imparted. In rejecting the Eucharist, they declared that they partook of Holy Communion daily, through the food they ate that was blessed with the prayer "Our Father." They also spurned marriage, and lived with their wives as brothers and sisters. They too rejected hierarchy and the Pope, regarding him as the antichrist. Like the bogomiles, they gave no importance to the Old Testament. Their sect was divided into listeners, believers and the chosen or complete ones. Finally, the lives of kafaros were that of strict ascetics.

Generally speaking, the kafaros sect developed essentially the practical side of dualism and not the theoretical one. Its characteristic features are — rejection of all outward church appearance and rituals, and to live directly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the second half of the 12^th century, being under the protection of the ruling counts and barons, the "KAFARS" grew stronger in southern France. The Popes undertook various measures to eliminate the heretics, but neither persuasion nor harsh demands achieved their aims. The temporal authorities in southern France did not give in an inch. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) attempted fervently to convert the heretics. In 1198, he dispatched his legates with unlimited authority to the south of France. However, only Dominic — who was attached to the legation — succeeded in converting a few of the kafaros. The legates had accomplished little, and one of them was even killed. Pope Innocent then decided to raise a crusade against the heretics. The crusaders were made up of the most desperate criminals, who marched into the south of France and began to convert the heretics with fire and sword. Thus, in taking the city of Basier, some 20,000 people were slaughtered. In order to resolve the hesitancy of the crusaders, who were afraid that they may kill Catholics by mistake, the Papal legate kept crying out: "kill them, as the Lord knows His own!" For 20 years they devastated southern France until finally, they rid it of heretics. The Roman Church ensured that these heretics didn’t reappear in the future. At the Council of Toulouse (1229), strict laws were drawn up regarding the pursuit of heretics and their punishment. In 1232, Pope Gregory IX founded an inquisitorial court, which was presented to the Dominican order. In 1259, Innocent IV permitted the use of torture in the inquisitorial court.

The sect of waldenses had its beginning at the start of the second half of the 12^th century by Peter Waldo a merchant from Lyons. He was a devout Christian that loved to read the Gospel, which were translated for him by two clergy. Through this reading, he became familiar with the Church of the Apostolic era, and in comparing it with the Roman Church, came to the conclusion that Rome had digressed greatly from the former. The sudden death of one of Waldo’s friends served as the motive to take a decisive step. He gave away his possessions to the poor, and in order to restore the Apostolic Church, began to roam the countryside preaching repentance and the return to the true path. Others attached themselves to him, and a whole society of itinerant preachers was formed. They were called "the poor of Lyons, the humiliated, saboteurs" (because of their footwear — sabot). Their sermons had nothing that was prejudicial. Nonetheless, the bishop of Lyons prohibited them from preaching, while in 1184, the Pope damned them because their pretensions to teach in churches was an insult to the clergy. To this, the Waldenses asserted that the only true teachers in church are those that have voluntarily accepted the ordeal of Apostolic poverty. Waldo was banished from Lyons; he preached for a long period in Italy, Germany, and finally settled in Bohemia, where he died in 1197. His followers also dispersed, some forming their own societies. Initially, the Waldenses were not prepared to leave the Church. However, when the ruling Church herself rejected them, they began to oppose her. Arming themselves against her, they reached the point of rejecting her hierarchy in general, and consequently, their performance of divine services. Thus, they rejected Papacy, the right of the clergy to release from sin and Confession in general, Holy Communion etc. Furthermore, they ceased to revere icons and holy relics and thereby, instead of re-establishing the Apostolic Church, the partially attached themselves to the "KAFARS." In life, they were people of high morals. By drawing exclusively on the gospel, they wanted to fulfil literally all the Savior's commandments. Consequently, they rejected all forms of self-protection, wars, oath of allegiance etc. Even the Catholics responded favorably of their lifestyle. Attempts by Pope Innocent III to have the Waldenses return to the Church and convert their society into an order of poverty failed, as their divisions with the Church were too great.

The appearance of sectarian societies in the West, reflected the strong protest against the depravity of the Roman church. However, between the 11^th and 15^th centuries, the sectarians were not the only ones to arise against the deficiencies that ruled the church. There were many dissatisfied individuals of all levels in the Christian society in the West with the then prevailing situation. However, they didn’t separate themselves from the church but only demanded reformation. When abuse by the papacy and clergy reached its limits, the demands for reform became more insistent. Papacy especially became hated, having converted the church into a human kingdom. In the 14-15 centuries — Emperors with their governments, and intellectuals, bishops, clergy and the people — demanded in the name of the Gospel and Apostolic Christianity, that there be a church reform in the leadership and its members. They demanded from the Pope, that he abandon his secular power and confine himself to spiritual authority only — to be used without force and with discretion within the confines of church laws. The introduction of strict discipline among the hierarchy and clergy, and improvement in their morals was also demanded. There were calls for the elimination of indulgences as well as cleansing the teachings of their scholastic excrescence's. There were also demands for the spread of religious education among the people and the restoration of piety within the church etc..

Such reforms were thoroughly enunciated in the writings of educated theologians, proving their essentiality. The center of the reform movement was located in a Paris university. It was from this university that the champions of reform emerged — Chancellor of the university, John Jerson (died 1429), university rector Nicholas von Clemange (died 1440) and others. Naturally, the Popes didn’t want to know about any reforms. This prompted governments and even some private individuals, to undertake their own efforts. The government aimed to achieve this through reformatory councils of — Pisa, Constance and Basle. Private figures, like John Wycliffe in England, John Huss in Bohemia and Savonarola in Italy, all relied on the assistance of the intellectuals and the masses. However, endeavors remained just that — endeavors. The western Christian society was still under the influence of papal might, and was afraid to make the decisive step. On the other hand, centuries-old papal experience gave them an opportune chance to destroy the plans for reformation. Nevertheless, all these endeavors paved the way toward real reformation.

The English theologian, John Wycliffe (1324-84) emerged with his reformatory ideas in the latter half of the 14^th century. The situation was favorable to him. During the reign of Edward the III, the English government had begun to gradually free itself from papal tutelage, and therefore looked favorably upon its opponents. Wycliffe began in 1356 with the publication of his work "about the last days of the Church." Then during the confrontation of (1360), between Oxford university and impoverished monks, he began to orally and in writing argue that monasticism was insolvent. When the government refused to pay the papal tribute, Wycliffe came out in defense of the government. This earned him a professorship and doctorate at Oxford university.

In 1374, commissioned by the government and in the company of others traveled, he traveled to Avignon for talks with the Pope. Here, he came face to face with the corruptness of the papacy and upon his return, began to preach that the Pope is an "antichrist." In his attacks, Wycliffe began to reject the priesthood, arguing that it’s not the consecration that is the basis of their right to control and celebrate Divine Services, but the piety of individuals. This gave the impoverished monks the opportunity to accuse him of heresy. In 1378, a court was convened by Pope Gregory the XI to judge Wycliffe. Due to the protection of the English government, he was found guiltless, having satisfied the court with his explanations.

This coincided with the papal split. Wycliffe renewed his attacks and began to completely reject the bishopric authority. He proposed to re-establish the "apostolic Presbyterian order." He fully rejected Holy Tradition, teachings on purgatory and indulgences. He recognized the Gospel as the only norm of religious doctrine. He regarded Chrismation as not essential, oral confession as a violation of conscience, proposing that an inner penitence before God is sufficient. In the Mystery of the Eucharist, he recognized Christ’s spiritual and not His actual presence.

He argued about the necessity of having full simplicity in Divine Services, proposed the allowance of priests to marry, and abolish the monastic order, or at least regard the monks on the same level as laymen. In general, Wycliffe strove to limit all means of contact between God and man, and regarded salvation as being dependent upon the personal relationship between man and the Redeemer. He founded an order of pious men for the dissemination of religious teachings and Evangelical sermons to the people. He began to translate the Gospel into English.

Once again persecutions re-commenced against him. In 1382, a council in London condemned 24 areas of his teachings as heretical. King Richard the II could protect only Wycliffe himself, who retired from Oxford to his parish at Lutterworth, where he later died. Shortly before his death, Wycliffe wrote a treatise in which he outlined his thoughts on reform. As a result, he was condemned at the councils of Rome (1412) and Constance (1415). He left followers not only from the ordinary people, but from the highest class of society. They were called heretical Lollards. Under papal pressure, the English government refused them sympathy, and even assisted the church in their persecutions against them and they soon lost their significance. However, Wycliffe’s ideas sent out deep roots in England, as in many other countries.

John Huss was a professor of theology in a Prague university in Bohemia. While Wycliffe reached a point of rejecting a great deal that was significant in religion, Huss on the other hand, in revolting against the evil practices of the Roman church, remained firm on the basics of the church, and even more — he was a defender of the early Orthodoxy. He was born in 1369, in Husinec that was located in Southern Bohemia; he received his education in a Prague university, where from 1398 he taught theology. There was talk of regeneration of the church even in Bohemia. It was there in the 14^th century that a desire arose for the restoration of early Orthodoxy, which was preached in that region by Saints Cyril and Methodius. Divine Services in Slavonic language and the partaking of Holy Sacraments under both guises, formed the foremost desire of the Bohemians.

In occupying the professorial chair, John Huss became a passionate champion for church reform, in the sense of returning to her early Orthodoxy. In 1402, he took up the post of preacher in a Bethlehem chapel (private church). In his sermons in Slavonic language, he taught the people faith and life according to the Gospel, which in turn forced him to make sharp criticisms of the Catholic priests and monks. Familiarizing himself with Wycliffe’s writings, he sympathized with them, but did not share their extreme views. The upholders of Latinism began to accuse Huss of Wycliffe’s heresy.

Shortly after, there was a confrontation. Two theologians — followers of Wycliffe — arrived in Prague and presented to paintings. One depicted Christ, wearing a thorny crown and walking with His disciples toward Jerusalem — the other, the Pope wearing a three-sided golden crown and walking toward Rome, accompanied by his cardinals. Discussions commenced with the Bohemians having one voice, while the Germans and Poles, three. Not sanctioning the Anglican split from the church, Huss expressed his opposition to papacy in a spirit maintained by Wycliffe. Impelled by their nationalism, the foreign professors were against Huss. In 1408, they compiled some conclusions, in which they condemned 44 of Wycliffe’s opinions. However, in 1409, Huss received a decree from king Wenceslas, which presented the Bohemian university members with the majority of voices. Soon after, the Bohemians with Huss as their head, commenced to decisively speak out against the Roman church.

The archbishop of Prague then came out against Huss. He sent a report to Rome, which in 1410, replied with a bull, directing that all of Wycliffe’s works be burned and his followers be brought to trial. It was also forbidden for them to preach in private churches. Huss appealed to the Pope, pointing out the many truths in Wycliffe’s teachings; he continued to preach in the Bethlehem chapel. The Pope demanded his presence in Rome. Owing to the intercession of the king and the university, the Huss affair ended peacefully in Prague.

Soon after, in organizing a crusade against his enemies, Pope John XXIII sent a bull to Bohemia in which he granted a full indulgence to all crusaders. Huss rose against it in sermons and articles, while Jerome of Prague burnt the Papal bull. They people were on their side: unrest began. In 1413, a new bull followed, which excommunicated Huss from the Church and carried an interdictum against Prague. Huss wrote an appeal to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, hoping to find justice on earth. At the same time, he published an article titled "About the Church," where he argued that a true church must consist of believers. As the Pope had digressed from the Faith, he was no longer a member of the Church and his excommunication is of no importance. However, the archbishop of Prague was successful in forcing Huss out of Prague.

In 1414 the Council of Constance convened. As a result of his former appeals to the Ecumenical Council, Huss’s presence was demanded in Constance. Emperor Sigismund even issued him a protective edict. Having arrived in Constance, Huss had to wait a long time to be interrogated, after which he was immediately arrested. The Emperor didn’t wish to insist on his release. The Council was annoyed over Huss’s demand that they prove him wrong in his thinking, based on the Gospel. This was regarded as heresy. The Council only sought to curb the Pope’s arbitrary powers while viewing all other matters with a narrow point of view. The future of Huss was not determined immediately, because the Council was dealing with the matter regarding John XXIII. Interrogation of Huss took place in prison. After 7 months, he was summoned to the solemn sitting of Council so that his matter can be concluded. He continued to insist on being shown his errors, based on the Gospel. The Council recognized him as a heretic and condemned him to be burned at the stake. On the 6^th July, 1415, Huss died at the stake.

Jerome of Prague, who arrived with Huss, was also burned at the stake in 1416 after a lengthy incarceration.

However, the reformist movement in Bohemia didn’t end. After Huss’s death, the Bohemians, who had supported Huss before and after the Council sitting, revolted en masse against the Roman Church. Huss’s followers (Husseites) — with his permission — introduced a dual Holy Communion. While the Constance Council rejected this as heresy, the Bohemians decided to defend this with force of arms. Many citizens and nobility joined the Husseites. John Zizka became their leader. He and 40,000 of his adherents fortified themselves on a mountain, which he named Tabor. In the Czech language, a fortified camp is called Tabor, hence they began to call themselves Taborites. They were the left-wing part of the Husseite movement. Their religious element was evident in divine services, where the clergy took confessions, preached and gave Holy Communion in two forms. They practiced brotherly, communal dining and strived to maintain moral purity.

At the same time, nationalistic and social questions had immense significance within the movement. The Taborites aimed at eliminating German rule and establishing a self-sufficient and independent Czech nation. The lower classes were imbued with hatred toward the Catholic clergy, who lived in luxury while burdening them with tithes and taxes. As an example, the archbishop of Prague owned 900 villages and many towns, which equaled possessions those of a king. The Taborites, living in their mountain and harboring hatred toward the clergy and the affluent classes, destroyed many churches, and carried out many discreditable acts. Their ideal was a democratic republic, rejecting secular and spiritual hierarchy.

When Wenceslas — king of Bohemia — died in 1419, the Bohemians refused to swear allegiance to the new emperor Sigismund, because he betrayed Huss. All of Bohemia upraise against him. Pope Martin V, sent a number of armed crusades against them, which achieved nothing. The Bohemians were successful in repelling these attacks. Victories of Procopius the Great -their second leader — created great fear among the bordering nations. This situation continued until the convening of the Basle Council in 1431, where it was decided to attempt a reconciliation between the Husseites and Rome. By this time the Husseites had divided into two parties. The more moderate party, which was against extreme views, agreed to the reconciliation under certain conditions — the retention of dual Holy Communion, sermons to be in their native tongue, the clergy denied of church possessions and that they be subjected to a stern church court. These Husseites were also called the "followers of the chalice" and Utraquists. The other Husseites — Taborites — having reached a stage of fanatic hatred, made additional demands of iconoclasm, abolition of Confession etc.. In response to an invitation from the Basle Council in 1433, the Husseites sent a delegation of 300 men. Prolonged meetings didn’t produce any results, so the Husseites departed for home. The Council sent a deputation after them with a compromise offer. The Council was prepared to the 4 demands of the Chaliceites, who in turn joined the Church. However, in 1462, Pope Pius II declared all these concessions as null and void. Following this, the Chaliceites performed the dual Holy Communion clandestinely. Even after Basle Council’s concessions, the Taborites remained irreconcilable enemies of the Roman Church. Having suffered a savage defeat in 1434 — from the Catholic forces — they were forced to calm down. Around 1450, the remaining Taborites formed a small order under the heading of bohemian or moravian brothers, which renounced arms and strove to lead their lives according to the strict teachings of the Gospel. In the 16^th century, it began to spread and achieved the same level of importance as other religious orders, which appeared after reformation.

Attempts to bring about Church reform appeared even in Italy, close to the Papal throne. In Florence, a Dominican monk — Girolamo Savonarola — emerged as a Church reformer. He led a disciplined life but was a zealous and captivating individual.

During his time, the so-called renaissance of the sciences and the epoch of humanism in Italy, began an intense study of ancient pagan classics among the Italians, which reflected destructively on their spiritual outlook. The mixture of pagan and Christian outlooks, brought society to a new classical paganism. Religious understanding was so entangled in Rome that Christ was often confused with Mercury and the Madonna with Venus. Religious ceremonies were performed in honor of Virgil, Plato and Aristotle. Even the cardinals and bishops viewed the Gospel as some sort of Greek mythology. The spread of unbelief, associated with the lowering of morals among the Popes, clergy and society in general, prompted Savonarola to take the path of reform activity.

Jerome (Girolamo) Savonarola was born in 1425, in a town named Ferrara. He was a descendant of an ancient family of Padua. His grandfather was a renowned physician. His father was preparing Jerome for a medical career and tried to give him a comprehensive upbringing. Early in his life, the quiet and pensive youth displayed an ascetic beginning, a love for contemplation and a deep religious feeling. The then prevailing situation in Italy deeply distressed Savonarola. A combination of an unsuccessful romance and an attraction toward theological works, especially Thomas Aquinas, brought him to a decision to enter a monastery. In 1475, he fled secretly from the family home to a Dominican monastery in Bologna. There, he led a austere life, gave away his money, donated his books (leaving the Bible for himself) to the monastery, fortified himself against the excesses of the monastery and devoted his spare time to studying patristic heritage. It was here that he wrote his poetical work "About the fall of a church," where he pointed out that people didn’t have their prior purity, scholarship or Christian love, and the main reason for that was the decadence of the Popes. The father superior entrusted him with teaching novices and to preach. He was sent to preach in Ferrara, then in Florence where he became celebrated as an erudite at the monastery of San Marco. Because his sermons were less successful, he left for a small township to improve this deficiency. He later captivated his parishioners with his sermons.

In 1490, he was summoned to Florence by its governor, the renowned Lorenzo Medici. Once again Savonarola took up teaching in the monastery of San Marco. His fame as a preacher grew. The monastery used to swell with laymen that came to listen. In 1490, he delivered his famous sermon in which he expressed his firm opinion that it was imperative to renovate the Church immediately, otherwise Italy will be struck down with God’s wrath. He asserted that like the ancient prophets, he is just relaying God’s commands, at the same time he censured the corrupt morals of the Florentines, not being coy with his choice of words. Because some of his prophecies came true — death of Pope Innocent, invasion by the French king etc — his influence increased. His kind and sincere treatment of the brothers made him the monastery favorite, and in 1491, he was elected as father superior of San Marco.

He immediately placed himself in an independent position with Lorenzo Medici, who was forced to take it into account. After his renowned sermon against the extravagance of women’s ornaments, they ceased to wear them to church. Often, under the influence of his sermon, merchants returned profits that they acquired unfairly. He declared: "The power of Italy’s sins are making me a prophet." Through his writings, it can be seen that he was convinced in his "divine calling," and the people believed in his prophecies. When Peter Medici became governor of Florence and the infamously immoral Alexander VI Borgia — Pope, Savonarola’s warnings became sharper. At one time — as a consequence of being banned to preach by the governor — he quit Florence. Upon returning, he undertook monastery reform. He sold monastery possessions, banned extravagance, and forced all the monks to work. In order to achieve preaching success among the heathens, Savonarola founded teaching chairs in Greek, Jewish, Turkish and Arab languages.

Pope Alexander attempted to attract Savonarola to his side, at first offering him the archbishop’s seat of Florence, then a cardinal’s cap. However, rejecting these offerings from the pulpit, Savonarola started to fulminate against the papal dissoluteness. During France’s king Charles VIII entry into Italy and the expulsion of Peter Medici from Florence, Savonarola became its true overlord. He restored republican establishments and carried out a variety of political and social reforms. Through his proposal, the Great Council — reinstated anew — replaced the land tax with an income tax, and freed borrowers from their debts. Decisive measures were undertaken against usurers and money-changers. Savonarola proclaimed Jesus Christ to the Senior and to the King of Florence, while remaining in the eyes of the people as Christ’s chosen one. He also attempted to transform Florence morally. In 1494, a strong transformation was already noticeable: the Florentines began to fast, attend church, and the women stopped wearing expensive adornments. The streets resounded to the singing of Psalms instead of songs and only the Bible was read. Many eminent people isolated themselves in the monastery of San Marco. He nominated sermons during the hours of ballet and masquerades; the people flocked to him. Savonarola decreed that sacrilegists have their tongues torn out and the debauchers — burned alive. Inveterate gamblers were punished with huge fines. He had his own spies.

The people on Savonarola’s side were common people, a party of "whites" that were called "weepers." The ones opposing him were called "the possessed" — followers of the aristocratic republican rule, and the "gray," who supported Medici. In his sermons, Savonarola didn’t spare anyone and as a consequence had many enemies among the lay, as well as the clergy. On a number of occasions, preachers emerged opposing him; the Pope banned him from preaching. However, his fame spread beyond the boundaries of Italy. His sermons were translated into foreign languages, even in Turkish for the sultan. Strong intrigues were maintained by Peter Medici. Savonarola’s enemies turned the Pope against him, who invited him to Rome; but he refused to come due to illness, and continued his sermons of censure. The Dominicans, appointed by the Pope to examine the substance of his sermons, found no grounds to accuse Savonarola of heresy. The Pope, once again, tried unsuccessfully to offer him the purple robes of a cardinal.

Enjoying a popularity, strengthened through the saving of Livorno that was besieged by the emperor — which was predicted by him and defended by his faithful "VALORI" — Savonarola decided to strike a decisive blow against "the possessed." He organized a squad of boys who, barged into eminent homes to see if the 10 commandments were being fulfilled, ran around the city confiscating playing cards, dice, secular books, flutes, perfumes etc. after which there was a ceremonial burning of these items in the city square. Secular books on humanism and classical antiquities were irreconcilable enemies to Savonarola. He even argued about the evil of the sciences in general. A society of degenerate youths was formed, who tried to kill him.

On the 12^th May, 1497, having labeled the teachings of Savonarola as "suspicious," Pope Alexander VI excommunicated him from the Church. However, Savonarola refused to submit to this command and issued "an epistle against the falsely obtained bull of excommunication." At the same, he issued his work " Triumph of the Cross," where he defends the true Catholic faith and explains the dogmas and mysteries of the Catholic Church. On the last day of the carnival in 1498, Savonarola performed a triumphant liturgy and "the burning of the anathema." The Pope demanded he stand trial in Rome so that he may be imprisoned; threatened the whole of Florence with an interdict and excommunication of everyone who listens to Savonarola. However, the latter continued to preach, arguing the essentiality of convening an ecumenical Council as the Pope may be in error. After the Pope’s second decree — "breve" — the Florence authorities, signoria banned Savonarola from preaching.

On 18^th of march 149, Savonarola bid farewell to the people. He wrote "A letter to the emperors," in which he urged them to convene an ecumenical council so as to dismiss the Pope. The letter to the French king Charles was intercepted and ended up in the Pope’s hands. The Florentines were worried. In order to test the righteousness of Savonarola’s teachings, a "God’s trial" was appointed — trial by fire. This was a trap organized by Savonarola’s enemies — "the possessed" and Franciscans. On the 7^th of April. Savonarola and a Franciscan monk had to walk through fires. However, this never occurred. Disillusioned in their prophet, the people started to accuse him of cowardice. The following day, the monastery of San Marco was besieged by an irate mob. Savonarola and his friends were imprisoned.

The Pope appointed an investigative committee of 17 individuals, selected from the party of "the possessed." Savonarola’s interrogation and abuse was conducted in the most barbarous manner. They abused him 14 times a day, forcing him to contradict himself; through interrogation and threats compelled him to acknowledge that everything he preached were lies and deception. Savonarola was still able to write a final work. At the request of his jailer, his last work "Guidance in a Christian life," was written a few hours before his death on a cover of a book. On the 23^rd of May 1498, in the presence of a large crowd, Savonarola was hanged and his body burned.

Savonarola’s teachings were vindicated by Pope Paul IV (1555-59), while in the 17^th century, a church service was created in his honor. However, his activities evoke divided opinions. Some idealize his honesty, candor and broad plans, and see him as a reformer that exposed the corruptness of the Church. Others argue that he lived with ideas of the middle-ages; that he didn’t create a new church, but retained a strong Catholic essence; that in emerging initially as a reformer, he intermingled politics into his work and appeared as a demagogue, which is what brought about his downfall.

The general dissatisfaction with the Roman Church and endeavors toward its reformation in the 14^th and 15^th centuries, was decided in the 16^th century by the so-called reformation. It began in Germany with the emergence of Martin Luther — an Augustinian friar — who was the founder of a new religious order in the West.

Luther descended from poor parents that were peasants. He was born in 1483 and received his education in Erfurt university. Being a zealous Catholic and religiously disposed, he entered an Augustinian Erfurt monastery in 1505, where he led an ascetic life. He began to study the teachings of the Scripture, works of Augustine and the middle-age mystics. He became a priest in 1507, while in 1508 he relocated to Wittenberg where he took up a post as a professor at the university. In 1510 Luther undertook a trip to Rome on matters relating to the order. The dissolute life of the papal court of Leo X, disbelief and blasphemy among the clergy, all brought about an upheaval in his convictions. Imbued with the knowledge of his own sinfulness, he strived to attain absolution from God with the help of the Church and its means (deeds of self-denial). Now, he began to think that the Church and the hierarchy that he witnessed in Rome, were incapable of giving this to people. Under the influence of Augustine’s writings and the mystics, he became convinced that only a personal contact with and faith in the Redeemer may justify a human being.

In 1517, requiring finances to sustain his extravagant lifestyle, Pope Leo X resorted to selling indulgences. A Dominican monk Tezel — an agent of the archbishop of Mainz — appeared in Wittenberg and began to sell indulgences in a shop, just like a market trader. Outraged by this sacrilege of the release of sins, he compiled 95 theses against indulgences, and on deeds that are above those that are required, as well as on purgatory. According to tradition of those times, he presented his theses in the church of a Wittenberg castle, and challenged Tezel to a debate. Tezel and his supporters accepted the challenge. Luther’s theses and the controversy attracted a universal interest in other cities in Germany. Luther received much support and the Saxon koorfurst Frederick the Wise.

Initially the Pope regarded the encounter between Luther and the Dominicans as an ordinary argument, albeit unpleasant to him, among monastic orders, and only wished for it to cease. In 1518, he summoned Luther to Rome. When koorfurst and the university demanded this be resolved immediately, the Pope referred the matter for resolution to cardinal Gaetano. Arriving at Augsburg, the cardinal took the side of Luther’s opponent and superciliously demanded renouncement of his ideas. Luther refused. Another authorized agent from the Pope acted in a different manner. He punished Tezel thereby letting Luther know that he was on his side. Furthermore, he convinced him to write a letter to the Pope, indicating his obedience, to which Luther complied, promising not to raise any arguments if his opponents did likewise. Meanwhile, in 1519, a professor Johann Eck of Ingolstadt university entered into a dispute with one of Luther’s students, and eventually with Luther himself. The dispute now widened to include the question of the Pope’s primacy. The adversaries remained with their own convictions although in Germany, the empathy for Luther strengthened. Another Wittenberg professor — Philip Melanchthon — joined him. He was an authority on the Jewish and Greek languages, and participated actively in the reformation. All the free-thinking people in Germany (humanists) were also on Luther’s side, who became bolder after the dispute and decidedly went down the path of reformation, not having any dealings with papacy. In 1520, he published an appeal to "the Imperial Highness and Christian knighthood of the German nation," in which he invited everyone to reject the papal yoke. The appeal spread throughout the whole of Germany and created a strong impression.

The Latin theologians informed Pope Leo X that the dispute aroused by Luther, was posing a serious danger to the Church. This forced the Pope to act more harshly. In 1520, he issued a bull, which subjected Luther — as a heretic — to excommunication, and all his works to the flames. This bull did not realize the expected reaction. Luther’s works were burned in a few towns only. Luther responded to the general Council with an "appellation" and a treatise "against antichrist’s bull." The actual bull itself was publicly burned by Luther. In 1520, the Pope damned him as an unrepentant heretic, and requested the German Emperor, Carl V (1519-56) to banish him. Although Carl favored this, because of the wishes of the Germany’s knights, he decided to examine the matter at the imperial diet in Worms (1521).

Present at this assembly were a number of Pope’s legates as well as many supporters of reform. Occupying a prominent position among them was the elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony. At the insistence of Luther’s supporters, he was invited to the diet for his explanation, even though the legates protested against this, pointing out that he was excommunicated from the Church. At one of the sittings, Luther was shown his works and suggested that he renounce them. However, he was resolute and in his own defense stated that the only time he will do this is if his teachings are refuted on the basis of the Gospel and clear deductions. Consequently, the diet released Luther without making any decision against him. It was only at the end of the sitting — when many of adherents of reform had left — and for political reasons in maintaining good relations with the Pope, that the emperor passed a decree, which denied Luther and his followers protection of the law and were condemned to banishment. Anticipating this to happen, the Saxon elector had earlier organized to hide Luther in a remote castle at Wartburg. Moreover, nobody in Germany worried about fulfilling the Worms edict. In Wartburg, Luther spent most of his time in translating the Bible into German.

At the same time, while Luther was in isolation, the reform movement in Wittenberg — with Melanchthon’s participation — continued. A complete rift with the Roman Church eventuated — private church services were abolished, priests entered into marriage, monks were abandoning their monasteries etc. Some of the Luther’s more zealous followers, reached such a stage where they forcibly stopped church services, threw out icons from churches etc. So-called prophets from Zwickau appeared in the city of Zwickau who subsequently crossed over into Wittenberg. In the name of direct revelations, they preached the overthrow of all church and civil order. As soon as he became are of this, Luther hurried to Wittenberg and through his sermons, succeeded in subduing the unrest — at least in that city. In other parts of Germany, religious turmoil still persisted and assumed a political character, having evoked a big movement — the peasants’ war.

The German emperor was engaged in a war against the French, while the nobles, themselves disgruntled with the Roman Church, were sympathetic to the new c