In the sae way as the Roman Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity, in 313, in order to give his people a new religious unity, so Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev, when e saw that the traditional faith othe Russians was dangerously nearing a poinst of dissipation, decided to give tham a new, a more vigorous religion. In 986, according to Nestor's Chronicle (1056-1114), Grand Prince vladimir received religious representatives of different faiths and churches: Bulgars from the reiver Volga, who were Mohammedans, Khazaks professing Judaism, German Christians faithfulto Rome, and greek philosopher-missionaries owing allegiance to Constantinople. Which of these faiths would it be politically most expedient to accept? The choice at hand was of decisive political and cultural importance for the development of Russia [i.e. Kiev]. The acceptance of Islam presented some drawbacks. It would mean postpning the enjoyment of intoxicating drink . . . Besidesit would draw Russia [i.e. Kiev] into the Arabian orbit and make her politically dependent onthe leadership of the Caliph, successor to the Prophet. On the other hand, the acceptance of Romanrites would make her a country of Latin culture, under the authority of the bishop of Rome, who resided beyond the reach of Russian rulers. [i.e. Vladimir]. Ultimately, he acceptance of Judaism did not seem to hold great promise, since the Jews were scatted all over the world. The Greek rite seemed to appeal most to the Grand Prince because of its federal principle, which would insure Russia's [i.e. Kiev's] political and cultural independence from both Europe and Asia.
Nestor relates that Vladimir, after listening to the representatives of the four religious missins, convoked the Council of Boyars (barons) and town wardens, to debate the adoption of the Greek rites. Yet, before taking a final decision, he sent emissaries to Constantinople, with a mission to go to the Basilica
of Saint Sophia and find out "by whom andf how God was worshiped." Here one factor sheds essential light . . . The Ruler did not charge his emissaries to inquire into the nature of the God the Byzantines worshiped, nor into their creed. All he was interested in knowing was what sort of people worshiped God in Constantinople, and by what ritual they worshiped Him. Upon their return, the emissaries reported onthe ritual, thus: "We do not know whethere we were in heaven or upon earth. . . . . Their God lives among men." Hence, the Russian Grand Prince chose the religion which makes God live among men, and, what is more, through the Holy Spirit, makes Him reside in man.
The role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian community was considered by this time to be of fundamental importance. Its nature and function were the object of impassioned discussions by priests and bishops alike. The Nicene Council had decided, in 325, that the Trinity was a hierarchy and that the Holy Spirit proceeded from God the Father only, and not from God the Son.
. . . If consensus is found, truth is established. Consensus was the key to the Nicene Council. Later, whenthe Westernbishops modified the Niene Creed, in the absence of their Eastern opposites, at the Council of Toledon, in 589, by the celebrated adjunction "filioque," meaning that the Holy Spirit proceeded not only from God
the Father but also from God the Son, the Eastern bhishops accused the Westerners of having betrayed the true Christian religion, and refused to accept a modification contradicting John XV : 26, where it is said that the Spirit of truth "proceedeth from the Father." And they argued that, since the cristian community was based upon consensus, the Nicene Council was, in spiritual matters, infallible.
The disagreement between the Western bhishops, who recognized the supreme administrative authority of the bishop of Rome,1 and the Eastern bhishops, who followed the Patriarch of Constantinople, ultimately led to a schism (1054). Its avowed cause was the arbitrary, uniilateral alteration of the fundamental creed concerning the Trnity, made by the Western bhishops at the Toledo Council. However, there were other, contributing reasons. History teaches, and practical experience corroborates, that when politicians and governments are engaged in better struggle against teir rivals, they never like to admit publicly that they are fighting for supremacy and power. they prefer to disguise their ambitions by claiming to defend igh principles. the fact is, that when the victorious march of Islam prevented the further expansion of Christianity into the countries lying east of Asia Minor, the Patriarch of Constantinople directed his attention to the Balkans and the Danubian Valley, which he had neglected before. There were two conrete cases around which the fight became centered: Bulgaria and the Moravian Empire. The first issue at stake was whether the Bulgarians,who had founded a powerful empire on their arrival in the Balkans, should fall under the administration of the bishop of Rome or that of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The second, whether the Czechs and the Slovaks,
1 All bishops bore the title of pope ("father") until the end of the 6th century. It was not until the first Council of Rome (1081) that Gregory VII was exclsively given the title of Pope as St. Peter's successor.
who had been converted to Christianity by the Mount Athos Greek scholars, cyril and Methodius, were administratively subordinated to the bishop of Rome. Aother point of political controversy was the crowning, by the bishop of Rome, of Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Roman Emperor, by invocation of the Constantine Donation. This was subsequently aggravated by the election of Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople, whom the bishop of Rome refused to recotgnize. All these events were instrumental in bringing about the schism of 1054. Russia [Kiev ?] sided with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and looked upon the West as having betrayed true Christianity.
Once the schism was complete the Western Princes, the Hohenstaufen iperial dynasty of the holy Roman Empire, made no special efforts to dissimulate their real motives and purposes in undertaking the Crusades. Officially, their aim was the liberation of the Holy Places from the infidel ohammedans. In fact, behind these expeditions was a crusading grudge against the Byzantine Empire and a determination to wrest from it the whole Levant, the lands which the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor regarded as their lost provinces. It was only during the Fourth Crusade, in 1204, that they carried out thier idea. They stromed and occupied Constantinople, looted it, set fire to it, and proclaimed Baldwin of Flanders the first Latin Emperor of Constantinople. The Russian [Muscovite ?] Orthodox Church looked uponthis as a shameful betrayl of Christianity to the infidel ohammedans and at no time did it allow the Russian people [Muscovites ?] to forget that the West had preferred the Crescent to the Orthodox Cross.
From then on, the West continued to commit one hostile act after another against Russia [Muscovy ?], which was destined to widen the breach separating them. The West did not miss a single opportunity of jabbing its sword in russia's [Kiev's ? Muscovy's ?] wound whenever
it hurt most. Thus, during the Golden Horde's great onslaught against Europe, at a time when the Russians [Muscovites ?] stood barring Jenghis Khan's way, the Teutonic Kinghts and the Swedes proclaimed, in 1237, a crusade against the Orthodox Russians [Muscovites ?]. Attacked simultaneously from the east, the north and the west, the Russians [Muscovites ?] succumbed and had to live under the Mongol yoke for some 240 years. The rising prosperity of the cities in the Volga Valley and in the Ukraine [Ruthenia ?] was stymied by the heavy hand of the conqueror. The Russians [Muscovites ?] never forgot that instead of helping them to defend themselves agains th onrush of the Golden Horde, Western Christianity had [by inaction ?] helped Jengis Khan to conquer their country.
That was not all. Wile the golden Horde was squeezing the lifeblood out of Russia [Muscovy ?], the Lithuanians and the Poles were installing themselves in byelorussia and the Ukraine [Ruthenia ? Red Ruthenia ?]. During a period of national [?] misfortune, such an undertaking could only be viewed by the Russians with greatest misgivings. Yet it was not the territorial, but the religious aspect of the affair the Russians [Muscovites ?] were most sensitive about. This was due to the fact that, during the Mongol occupation, the Orthodox faith was the only cementing element that protected them from complete national disintegration.* That is why the founding of the Uniat Chruch by the Poles for the Ukrainians [Ruthenians ?], in 1596, was viewed by the Russians [Muscovites ?] as the most inimical act not only the Poles, but the Pope could essay against them, and saw it s directed against the very existence of the Russian [Muscovy ?] nation [?]** The Uniat Church was authorized to retain the Russian Orthodox rites, litury, and the marriage of priests, but had to recognized the Pope as its head.
All this happened in a period when the Russians [Muscovites ?] were grappling with a crisis of succession to their throne, in which the very life of their country was at stake. To solve tis problem intheri own favor, the Poles occupied Moscow, in 1610, and
put their own pretender on the throne. This provoked a widespread popular movement in the country, wich lead to the liberation of Moscow two years later.***
It was naturalthat such acts and events should develop, in the Russian, an attitude of profound distrust and grievous hostilit toward the West.
What actually caused the cup of Russia's [Muscovy's ?] distrust to over flow, was the conclusion of a treaty by the Patriarch of Constantinople with th Vatican, at Florence, in 1439, by which the Patriarch subordinated the Greek Orthodox church, to which the russian Church belonged, to the authority of the Pope. the Russians [Muscovites ?], when they learned of the treaty, accused the Patriarch of having betrayed the true Christian Church, established by the Apostles. Te Greek Metropolitan Isidor, who brought the treaty to Moscow, was impeached by Grand Prince Basil as the Devil's son.
\
The growing mistrust and animosity of the Russians toward the West gave rise to a sense of religious and national individuality in their minds. the fall of Constantinople to the Turks (1453) only fourteen years after the Florence Treaty, was considered by the Russians [Muscovites ?] as God's terible punishment for the Patriarch's betrayal of the Orthodox Church to the Pope. The russian [Novgorodian ?] Metropolitan, Philip, wrote to the Novgorodians: "Pender ye upon this, my children. Constantinople did stand unshakable so long as there did shine in it, like unto the rays of the sun, the spirit of piety. The moment it did forsake truth, and joined the Latin Curch, it fell into the hands of pagans."