In spite of his exalted position and his impressive title of “Ecumenical Patriarch,” the Patriarch of Constantinople wielded an authority that in many ways was restricted, and was never able to covet supreme authority throughout the world. The political glory of his throne was overshadowed by the apostolic origin or the renowned holiness of other cities in the East, and his liberty was curtailed not a little by the Byzantine Emperor, who convened the Ecumenical Synods, and sometimes himself issued Decrees of Faith, appointed the Patriarch, and constantly interfered in ecclesiastical affairs. The Pope's position was, however, entirely different. Rome was the only Apostolic Church in the West, and was, therefore, looked up to reverently by the Christians of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa and even beyond. The Emperor, whose throne was now in the East, was too far away to meddle in the affairs of the Church of Rome, and heads of the Eastern Church, persecuted by the heretical Emperors, as was, for instance, Athanasius, sought refuge with the Popes. Even the historic past of Rome, once ruler of the whole world, fostered in the heart of the Popes despotic and imperialistic ambitions. Thus, from the very early times, we see the Popes adopting an arrogant attitude towards their fellow-bishops, as when Pope Victor (193-202) tried to impose the Roman customs of celebrating Easter on Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, and was rebuked by Irenaeus of Lyons; or when Stephen (257-259) summoned Bishop Cyprian of Carthage to comply with Roman practice regarding the Baptism of heretics, when he was publicly censured by Firmilian of Cappadocia. In spite of all protests, however, the Popes never failed to take advantage of any circumstance that might contribute towards the subjection of other bishops, until, having gathered all the Western Churches under their authority, they judged the moment opportune to encroach on the Churches of the East. They found a pretext for their intrusion in the domestic quarrels and disputes at Constantinople during the ninth century.

The Pretension of Pope Nicholas to Become Arbiter of the East.

   Having certain causes of dissatisfaction with the Patriarch Ignatius, the Byzantine Emperor Michael III (842-867) and his uncle and colleague Bardas, deposed him and appointed in his place a man whose virtue, wisdom and competence were universally acknowledged — the chief Secretary of State, Photius. The supporters of Ignatius, instead of accepting the situation for the sake of maintaining peace in the Church, appealed to Rome, complaining of the injustice done them. Nicholas I, who was Pope at that time, was the most ambitious of all the Popes; and in order to uphold the un-evangelical principle of papal supremacy he did not scruple to make use of certain false documents, namely, the forged decretals that appeared about that time. Seeing a favorable opportunity for intervening in Eastern affairs, Nicholas thereupon appointed himself as judge over the two conflicting parties by his own authority. He declared that the throne of Constantinople legally belonged to Ignatius, and rejected the election of Photius on the one hand because it had been made without his approval, and on the other because it had raised, within a single week, a mere layman to the rank of Archbishop. In putting forward these claims, the Pope overlooked the facts that his pretended right of general supervision had never in any place been acknowledged; that Photius had the support not only of the court, but of the majority of the clergy and people; and that Ambrosius, Farasius, Nicephorus and other Church leaders of the past had all been elected bishops straight from the rank of laymen.