Why West-East Schism could be happened? How Eastern Schismatics emerged?

               Hagia Sophia, former Church of Constantinople
 

                                 Hagia Sophia on evening 

Before we know about Why West-East Schism could be happened, We should know what Lord Jesus said about Simon Peter as First Pope and Head of Disciples where Jesus commanded him to feed, to rule, and to run HIS Church. It indicates that Jesus Christ built His Church with Papal Supremacy :

" Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” Jesus said to him again, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” Jesus said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt that Jesus had asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” “Lord,” he said to him, “you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. “ Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were young you used to fasten your own belt and you would go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will put a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.” He said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. After this, he said to him, “Follow me.” (John 21:15-19) 

And Jesus said about Simon that Simon had Infallibility to minister what He got from His Rabbi, until His Church was not prevailed by Gates of Hell :

" And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the death will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19) 

So, about Rome as Holy See or Papal Throne Location, It was explained by First Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle, The ending of the letter includes a statement that implies that it was written from "Babylon", which may be a reference to Rome. And The letter is addressed to the "chosen pilgrims of the diaspora" in Asia Minor suffering religious persecution.

Rome is called as Babylon, because like Babylon where the Idolatry was embraced and preserved, Rome is. Rome also conquered Jerussalem as Babylon on First time, Rome as Second Babylon who destroyed Second Temple of Jerussalem. Like Babylon which was a infidel and pagan kingdom, Rome was also identified with pagan infidelity. 

" The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark " ( 1 Peter 5:13) 

Since we know that St. Mark the Evangelist was with St. Paul the Apostle at the end of his career in the mid-60s (2 Tim. 4:11), it seems likely that Peter is writing from Rome, where is not Babylon or Babel in Mesopotamia. 

Epistles to the Romans from St. Paul also indicated that Rome as Center of Evangelization and Magisterium where The Church delivers teaching messages to Early Christians.

The book of Revelation symbolically refers to Babylon as Rome (Revelations 16:19; 17:5; 18:2)

The early Christian leaders said that Peter and Paul both died in Rome. Dionysius (the bishop of Corinth, AD 170) wrote, “Peter and Paul also taught in Italy, Exactly in Rome in the same place and were martyred at the same time” (Cited in Eusebius, Church History, 2.25.8). In the context of writing about Rome, Tertullian (AD 200) wrote, “How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s!” (Against Heretics, 36). Eusebius also wrote that Origen (AD 250) claimed that Peter was crucified upside down and Paul was beheaded in Rome under the reign of Nero (Church History, 3.1.2-3). Eusebius adds that Peter “composed this [1 Peter] in Rome itself” (Church History, 2.15.2), getting his information from Papias (AD 110).

Since 2 Peter is written at the very end of Peter’s life (2 Peter 1:14), it is more likely that Peter was writing from Rome. 

  St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the Defender of Catholic Faith

St. Irenaeus (130 AD-210AD) said on Against Heresies (Book III Chapter 3) no. 2 : " Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

          Martyrdom of St. Ignatius, He was bitten by Lions

" Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" . (Letters to the Smyrnaeans Chapter VIII: Let nothing be done without the bishop.
, St. Ignatius of Antioch) 

St. Ignatius of Antioch (107 AD) added his praises to Rome as Primary Throne and Bishop's Praesidium, 

" Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. " ( The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans:Greetings, by St. Ignatius of Antioch) 

Tertullian  (AD 200) , the Doctor Church also said, 

" Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago — in the reign of Antoninus for the most part, — and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed [Pope] Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. " ( The Prescription Against Heretics XXX, by Tertullian)

                            St. Cyprian of Carthage

St. Cyprian of Carthage, (AD 254) wrote a large number of epistles where he makes use of the term:

" Marcianus, who abides at Aries, has associated himself with Novatian, and has departed from the unity of the Catholic Church. [...] While the Bishop Cornelius [from Roman Pontiff] was ordained in the Catholic Church by the judgment of God, and by the suffrages of the clergy and people.

When we were together in council, dearest brethren, we read your letter which you wrote to us concerning those who seem to be baptized by heretics and schismatics, (asking) whether, when they, come to the Catholic Church, which is one, they ought to be baptized.

They strive to set before and prefer the sordid and profane washing of heretics to the true and only and legitimate baptism of the Catholic Church. [...] We ought by all means to maintain the unity of the Catholic Church, and not to give way to the enemies of faith and truth in any respect. [...] Whose opinion, as being both religious and lawful and salutary, and in harmony with the Catholic faith and Church, we also have followed." (Epistle 70,by St. Cyprian of Carthage)

                                      Theodosius the Great

Theodosius I, the Destroyer of Roman Paganism, as Roman Catholic Emperor from 379 to 395, declared "Catholic" Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, declaring in the Edict of Thessalonica of 27 February 380:

It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pope Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, (noted: Peter as Bishop of Alexandria, He obeyed to Pope Damasus I until Pope Damasus I as Head of Pentarchy)

, men of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one God of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven, will decide to inflict.( Theodosian Code XVI.i.2) 

During his papacy, Pope Damasus I gave Peter II of Alexandria a Protection, where Peter II sought refuge in Rome from the persecuting Arians. He was received by Pope Damasus, who supported him against the Arians. 

                                 St. Cyril of Alexandria

When Saint Cyril the Great of Alexandria (420 AD) refuted and opposed the Heresy of Nestorius of Constantinople, he consulted with Rome, under Pope Celestine I. When The Council of Ephesians was running, Saint Cyril did not make a decision without the consent of the Pope of Rome, Celestine I (note: Pope Celestine I was the legitimate Pope of Rome, and his Infallibility and Supremacy were clear)

“Cyril sends greetings…It would be more agreeable if we could keep silence, but God demands of us vigilance, and ancient church custom requires me to inform your holiness…I have hitherto observed a profound silence….I was unwilling openly to sever communion with him until I had laid these facts before you. Deign therefore to decide what seems right, whether we ought to communicate at all with him, or to tell him plainly that no one communicates with a person who holds and teaches what he does. Further, the purpose of your holiness ought to be made known by letter to the most religious and God-loving Bishops of Macedonia, and to all Bishops of the East, for we shall then give them, according to their desire, the opportunity of standing together in unity of soul and mind, and lead them to contend earnestly for the orthodox faith which is being attacked” (St. Cyril to Pope St. Celestine, PL 77.80)

                                Pope Celestine I

Upon receiving this letter, the Pope convened a Synod in Rome to discuss the case of Nestorius. At the close of this Synod, Pope St. Celestine writes to St Cyril with the following:

“If he, Nestorius, persists, an open sentence must be passed on him…and so, appropriating to yourself the authority of our See, and using our position, you shall with resolute severity carry out this sentence, that either he shall within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, condemn in writing this wicked assertion of his….or if he will not do this he will know that he is in every way removed from our body….We have written the same to our brothers and fellow Bishops John, Rufus, Juvenal, and Flavian, so our judgment about him, or rather the divine sentence of our Christ, may be known”

“In his correspondence and through his legates at the Council Celestine repeatedly asserted, with an unprecedented insistence, the Pope’s claim, as successor and living representative of St. Peter, to paternal oversight of the entire Church, Eastern no less than Western“ (Oxford Dictionary of Pope, Pg. 42)



Pope Innocent I  

Pope Innocent I (401 AD) was seen as the general arbitrator of ecclesiastical disputes in both the East and the West. During his papacy, the Roman apostolic See was seen as the ultimate resort for the settlement of all ecclesiastical disputes. His communications with Victricius of Rouen, Exuperius of Toulouse, Alexander of Antioch and others, as well as his actions on the appeal made to him by St. John Chrysostom against Theophilus of Alexandria, show that opportunities of this kind were numerous and varied.

                                 St. Basil the Great

About St. Basil the Great from East, He also contributed to obey Rome as His Communion, Some difficulty has arisen out of the correspondence of St. Basil with the Roman See. That he was in communion with the Western bishops and that he wrote repeatedly to Rome asking that steps be taken to assist the Eastern Church in her struggle with schismatics and heretics is undoubted; but the disappointing result of his appeals drew from him certain words which require explanation. Evidently he was deeply chagrined that Pope Damasus on the one hand hesitated to condemn Marcellus and the Eustathians, and on the other preferred Paulinus to Meletius in whose right to the See of Antioch St. Basil most firmly believed. At the best it must be admitted that St. Basil criticized the Pope freely in a private letter to Eusebius of Samosata (Ep. ccxxxix) and that he was indignant as well as hurt at the failure of his attempt to obtain help from the West. Later on, however, he must have recognized that in some respects he had been hasty; in any event, his strong emphasis of the influence which the Roman See could exercise over the Eastern bishops, and his abstaining from a charge of anything like usurpation are great facts that stand out obviously in the story of the disagreement. Although St. Basil ever criticized the Pope about a private letter to Eusebius of Samosata, but without lack of respect, St. Basil still obeyed to Pope for any problem about doctrines and teachings. 

                                       Vatican

 

St. Peter's Basilica

From just a few examples, we can see that the Apostolic Fathers and the Eastern Church Fathers in viewing the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope in regulating all lines of the Church both in the East and the West, are very clear.

Before the West-East Schism, the Churches in the East were Catholic Churches and under the auspices of Rome. Since Saint Peter established his See in Rome, it is clear that the Papal Supremacy is clear both in the Bible and in the Tradition of the Apostolic and Church Fathers.

In the past, the thrones of the early Church were only Rome (where Saint Peter established the center of its spread with Saint Paul), then Antioch (where the first congregation gathered and was called as Christians in Acts 11:26), then Alexandria (because it was founded by Saint Mark the Evangelist), and then Jerusalem (the place where Christ was crucified and as a witness that the Messiah would atone for sins and His Church began to spread by ordering his disciples to baptize, and James the Apostle, his disciple became the Head of the Jerusalem Church).

Before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East. Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction; but Rome is the Apostolic See, because its occupant perpetuates the Apostolate of Blessed Peter extending over the whole Church. Hence also the title Apostolicus, formerly applied to bishops and metropolitans, was gradually restricted to the Pope of Rome, the Domnus Apostolicus, who still figures in the Litany of the Saints at the head of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The authoritative acts of the popes, inasmuch as they are the exercise of their Apostolical power, are styled acts of the Holy or Apostolic See. The See is thus personified as the representative of the Prince of the Apostles, as in Pope Leo II's confirmation of the Sixth General Council (Constantinople, 680-681): "Ideirco et Nos et per nostrum officium haec veneranda Sedes Apostolica his quae definita sunt, consentit, et beati Petri Apostoli auctoritate confirmat." (Therefore We also and through our office this venerable Apostolic See give assent to the things that have been defined, and confirm them by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter.) 

While Constantinople is the newest as the throne of the Church, Constantinople is said to be the newest because the city was only built by Emperor Constantine the Great (the Emperor who converted to Catholicism and began fighting the Pagans) himself in 330 AD.

The beginning of the Schism, first of all from the emergence of theological problems that caused the fall into Heresy.

Let's draw from the outline of history, First when Arianism appeared, all 5 thrones rejected Arianism. But some years after, Macedonius as Anti-patriarch of Constantinople was emerged and spread the Heresy like Pneumatochian. Then when Nestorianism appeared, which throne fell first? Rome condemned Nestorianism, Jerusalem condemned Nestorianism too, even the Patriarchate of Alexandria under Saint Cyril was the defender of the Theotokos against the Heresy of Nestorius, Antioch had not yet fallen at that time.

However, Nestorius was the Bishop of Constantinople who was a Heretic, from here Constantinople lost its way and had already fallen before the West-East Schism in the 430s. Nestorius was already considered an Anti-Patriarch and could not excommunicate the Bishops under him because he himself had fallen into Heresy.

Pope Celestine I, in an epistle to John of Antioch, which is contained in Volume One of the Council of Ephesus, ch. 19, says: “If anyone who was either excommunicated or exiled by Bishop Nestorius, or any that followed him, from such a time as he began to preach such things, whether they be from the dignity of a bishop or clergy, it is manifest that he has endured and endures in our communion, nor do we judge him outside, because he could not remove anyone by a sentence, who himself had already shown that he must be removed.” And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople: “The Authority of our See has sanctioned, that the bishop, cleric or Christian by simple profession who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy, shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preaching, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice: On the Roman Pontiff, trans. by Ryan Grant [Mediatrix Press, 2015], p. 308)

However, when Pope Celestine I appointed Maximian as Valid Patriarch of Constantinople replacing Anti-Patriarch Nestorius, then Constantinople until the time of St. Anatolius (November 449 - July 458), Constantinople was still remained a Catholic and Orthodox Patriarchate, not yet schismatic.

Then when the Monophysite Heresy emerged, pioneered by Euthykes, which was condemned and opposed by Pope Saint Leo the Great and the Council of Chalcedon 451, slowly there was a schism, especially the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Under Patriarch Dioscorus, who, because of political reasons that were reluctant to submit to the influence of Rome, even depraved himself to protect Euthykes and did not release Euthykes from his rehabilitation room. From here came the seeds of Miaphysite and Schism which gave birth to the Coptic Schism and Ethiopian Schism following Dioscorus' current. Even Armenia did not hesitate to follow this current, even Antioch aka Syria. (For know more about Council of Chalcedon, can read : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2024/11/council-of-chalcedon-451-citation.html?m=1 ) 

From Monophysitism, there was a Heretical Patriarch or Anti-Patriarch who came from Jerusalem, like Theodosius, 

He was installed as bishop of Jerusalem in opposition Juvenal in 451 or 452, but was forced into exile by the emperor Marcian in 453. 

Information about his life comes mainly from the works of John Rufus. These include a biography of Peter the Iberian and a narration of Theodosius' exile and death, the Narratio de obitu Theodosii Hierosolymitani. The latter is a short text known only from the Syriac version in two manuscripts.  

Slowly, Alexandria and Antioch were schism from Rome, and Jerusalem started to be presided by Anti-Patriarch Theodosius from Palestine. 

From the emergence of the Fall of Alexandria and Antioch into Schism and the adoption of Miaphysites, even Jerusalem also fell to Monophysites and Jacobites, Constantinople always took the opportunity and sometimes even had a Council called the Second Council of Ephesus.Under Theodosius II the Byzantine Emperor, many Constantinople peoples were persuaded to start rebellion against Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople and labelled Flavian as " Rome's minion, Leo's minion "

                                        Pope Leo the Great

The Second Council of Ephesus was named the Latrocinium aka Robber Council  by Pope Leo I. 

Where this fake council was made by Emperor Theodosius II who betrayed the Catholic Faith in order to achieve his political ambitions, as did Emperor Constantius II who betrayed by giving the Patriarchal throne to Eusebius of Nicomedia and Macedonius who were Arian and Pneumatochian heretics (before the case of Nestorius), Theodosius II gave this and recognized Dioscorus as "Pope" who rivaled Pope Leo the Great. From here it is clear how Constantinople's character is Caesaropopia, so it is natural that this is one of the factors why Constantinople fell into the Schism.

Constantinople even fell into the Monophysite abyss under Patriarch Acacius from 472-489. Where when Emperor Zeno with his Caesaropopia character made Acacius as Patriarch to support his Empire, 

In the events leading up to the schism, Pope Felix III of Rome wrote two letters, one to Emperor Zeno and one to Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, reminding them of the need to defend the faith without compromise, as they had done previously. When former patriarch John Talaia, exiled from Alexandria, arrived in Rome and reported on what was happening in the East, Felix wrote two more letters, summoning Acacius to Rome to explain his conduct. The legates who brought these letters to Constantinople were imprisoned as soon as they landed and forced to receive communion from Acacius as part of a liturgy in which they heard Peter Mongus and other Miaphysites named in the diptychs. Felix, having heard of this from the Acoemetae monks in Constantinople, held a synod in 484 in which he denounced his legates and deposed and excommunicated Acacius.

Acacius advised the Byzantine emperor Zeno to issue the Henotikon Edict in 482, which condemned Nestorius of Constantinople and Eutyches, accepted the Twelve Chapters of Cyril of Alexandria and ignored the Chalcedonian Definition. Though the Henotikon aimed to resolve the conflict surrounding the Chalcedon council's orthodoxy, it ultimately failed. Pope Felix III considered Acacius' slighting of Chalcedon and his predecessor Pope Leo I to be an affront to the prestige of his Holy See. Acacius was condemned and deposed by Pope Felix III, an action which was met with contempt by Acacius and resulted in a schism between the two sees, which continued after Acacius's death. The schism extended throughout the tumultuous reign of the Byzantine emperor Anastasius I Dicorus and was only resolved by emperor Justin I under Pope St. Hormisdas in 519. (For more know about How Pope Hormisdas against Monophysitism and Theopaschism, read : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2024/11/pope-st-hormisdas-condemns-theopaschism.html?m=1)

                                  Pope St. Felix III

" God can do everything, it's not just thousands detail, but trillions and infinity for amounts, He can do. So, if they (Scythian Monks) believe if one of The Holy Trinity was died with us, let them be anathematized. God the Son never dies, but just on his Human Nature He died, He never died on His Divine Nature. When He died on the Cross, at the same time, He also with God The Father and Holy Spirit, controlled this World and Heaven, He ruled and managed what happened on this universe, because He is Word of God who is The Most Eternally and Invisible. His Divinity is Infinity, but His Humanity is limited. He descended to the world to be a Human, but didn't change his Divine Nature which was the First is His own. " (Synod of Rome 483 against Henotikon, by Pope Felix III) 

Since the time of Pope Honorius I, Constantinople has acted up again. When Patriarch Sergius proposed the New Heresy after Monophysitism, namely Monothelitism and this is intervention from Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius. 

And this happened even between the Byzantine and Persian Wars, in which the Persians defeated Byzantium so that Jerusalem fell and then the Holy Cross was taken by the Avars. But then after that the Persians were defeated again by Byzantium and the Holy Cross was returned to its original state to the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. And Jerusalem returned under the protection of Heraclius.

Pope Honorius did not accept the statement of Anti-Patriarch Sergius who was Monothelitism and Heresy, but Pope Honorius only stated that if it is said that Christ has two different and conflicting Wills then it will lead into Nestorianism, but if Christ only has one will it even sounds like Monophysitism. But that was also confirmed by Pope John IV,

“…So, my aforementioned predecessor [Honorius] said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh; and certain ones converting this to their own meaning, suspected that he taught one will of His divinity and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth.” (Pope John IV, “Dominus qui dixit” to Constantius the Emperor, Regarding Pope Honorius, 641) 

With the victory over the Persians, rifts in the religious society began to emerge again between Monophysite and Chalcedonian beliefs. Both Heraclius and Sergius I planned to adopt a form of "Monoenergism". The hope was that their religious formula would be able to connect the different religious beliefs and provide a sense of unity within the empire.

Sergius I promulgated the belief that Jesus Christ had two natures but one will, known as Monothelitism. It was hoped that the idea would appeal to both Chalcedonians and to Monophysite followers in the empire as it fused basic principles taken from both realms of practice. Initially, Sergius I had success, converting the Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyrus of Alexandria, and the Patriarch of Antioch. It was not until 633 that Heraclius's Monoenergism began to receive resistance from the Chaldeconians, primarily from the monks Sophronius of Jerusalem and Maximus the Confessor.

The Ecthesis of 638 AD was issued by Emperor Heraclius with the agreement of Sergius I. This document defined Monothelitism as the official imperial form of Byzantine Christianity, and it would remain very controversial in the next years after its implementation. The initial effects of the Ecthesis were strongly felt throughout religious society. Sergius I's successor, Pyrrhus of Constantinople, who Sergius I had handpicked to take over, declared his confidence in Monothelitism belief as the official imperial doctrine. Furthermore, the majority of the subsequent Eastern successors were of Monophysite faith, furthering the spread of Monothelitism doctrine. Chalcedonian belief had been severely reduced and the remainder of its practice was in a critical state. This would all change the following year in a very contrasting way.

When Byzantine had been fallen into Monophysite again for majority successors from Constantinople Patriarchate, with Wrath of God, God let Saracens occupied and conquered mainland in Middle East like Egypt with Alexandria, Syria with Antioch, and then Jerusalem was conquered by Umar ibn Khattab after that in 639. Heraclius lose to Umar ibn Khattab on many wars.

It was from this wrath of God that the Saracens began to show their fangs when the Byzantine Emperor prioritized his own doctrine rather than that determined by the Pope of Rome.

Despite the strong initial spread to Monothelitism belief, 640 brought an abrupt end to this. A series of events happened in short order following 638. First, the new pope, Pope Severinus of Rome, showed condemned Monothelitism belief strongly. His successor, Pope John IV, was an even stronger opponent of the practice. Finally, following the death of Heraclius in 641, both the subsequent Emperors Constantine III and Constans II were of orthodox practice and appeared to have removed the Ecthesis as the official imperial doctrine, by request of Pope John IV. 

After Constans' son and successor, Constantine IV had overcome the Saracen siege of Constantinople in 678, he immediately set his sights on restoring communion with Rome: he wrote to Pope Donus suggesting a conference on the matter. When the letter reached Rome, Donus had died. Still, his successor, Pope Agatho, agreed to the Emperor's suggestion and ordered councils held throughout the West so that legates could present the tradition of the Western Church.

The holy and universal synod said:

" This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein. But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose–namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome, Cyrus, who held the see of Alexandria, and Macarius, who was recently bishop of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen — and has not been idle in raising through them obstacles of error against the full body of the church sowing with novel speech among the orthodox people the heresy of a single will and a single principle of action in the two natures of the one member of the holy Trinity Christ our true God, a heresy in harmony with the evil belief, ruinous to the mind, of the impious Apollinarius, Severus and Themistius, and one intent on removing the perfection of the becoming man of the same one lord Jesus Christ our God, through a certain guileful device, leading from there to the blasphemous conclusion that his rationally animate flesh is without a will and a principle of action.

Therefore Christ our God has stirred up the faithful emperor, the new David, finding in him a man after his own heart, who, as the scripture says, did not allow his eyes sleep or his eyelids drowsing until through this holy assembly of ours, brought together by God, he found the perfect proclamation of right belief; for according to the God-spoken saying, Where there are two or three gathered in my name, there am I in their midst. " (Third Council of Constantinople: Exposition of Faith 680) 

   Pope St. Agatho, who declared the Third Council of Constantinople with Emperor Constantine IV convoked this Council

Later in the 8th century, Constantinople, which had previously converted from Monothelitism, which was exactly the same as Monophysitism, eventually fell again. Constantinople was fallen into Iconoclasm. 

And this happened in the time of Leo Isaurian. Emperor Leo III was the only Emperor who spread the Iconoclasm ideology where according to him, the images and paintings of the interior of the Church were Idols. This influence also influenced the newly developing Saracen teachings where in this new heretical religion, the Saracens had the same views as Byzantine Iconoclasm.

What Emperor Leo III implemented was used to expand his influence over the Saracens under the pretext of making peace with the Saracens as well as stopping their invasion of Constantinople.

                                             Byzantine Iconoclasm

A recommendation to summon an ecumenical council, The Council of Nicaea II, in order to correct the iconoclast heretics, had been addressed to Empress Irene, then acting as regent for her son Emperor Constantine VI (780-797) who was still a minor, both by Patriarch Paul IV of Constantinople (who had repented of his earlier iconoclast views) before his abdication from the see in 784 and by his successor as patriarch, Tarasius. The aim was to unite the church and to condemn the decrees passed by the council of 338 bishops held at Hiereia and St Mary of Blachernae in 754.

The convocation of the council was announced to Pope Hadrian I (772-795) in a letter of Constantine VI and Irene, dated 29 August 784. They urged him either to attend in person or to send legates. Patriarch Tarasius sent the same message in synodal letters to the pope and the three eastern patriarchs. Pope Hadrian I gave his approval for the convocation of the council, stipulating various conditions, and sent as his legates the archpriest Peter and Peter, abbot of the Greek monastery of St Sabas in Rome.

" the God-spoken teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the catholic church — for we recognize that this tradition comes from the holy Spirit who dwells in her–

• we decree with full precision and care that,
• like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross,
• the revered and holy images,
• whether painted or
• made of mosaic
• or of other suitable material,
• are to be exposed
• in the holy churches of God,
• on sacred instruments and vestments,
• on walls and panels,
• in houses and by public ways,
• these are the images of
• our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of
• our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of
• the revered angels and of
• any of the saintly holy men.
• The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration {latria} in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honour these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honour paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.
• So it is that the teaching of our holy fathers is strengthened, namely, the tradition of the catholic church which has received the gospel from one end of the earth to the other., who spoke in Christ, and the entire divine apostolic group and the holiness of the fathers, clinging fast to the traditions which we have received.
• So it is that we sing out with the prophets the hymns of victory to the church: Rejoice exceedingly O daughter of Zion, proclaim O daughter of Jerusalem; enjoy your happiness and gladness with a full heart. The Lord has removed away from you the injustices of your enemies, you have been redeemed from the hand of your foes. The Lord the king is in your midst, you will never more see evil, and peace will be upon you for time eternal.Therefore all those who dare to think or teach anything different, or who follow the accursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions, or who devise innovations, or who spurn anything entrusted to the church (whether it be the gospel or the figure of the cross or any example of representational art or any martyr’s holy relic), or who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing any of the lawful traditions of the catholic church, or who secularize the sacred objects and saintly monasteries, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people. " (Second Council of Nicaea, proposed by Pope Hadrian I) 

Although Leo III managed to stop the Saracen Invasions, but some time after his death, Byzantine power was waned and the Saracens controlled the Mediterranean Sea to the island of Cyprus. But after his successor returned to Catholicism, Cyprus began to return under Byzantine rule. Before the Schism carried out by Photius, The Byzantine state became increasingly weak and its empire became increasingly under less and less control.

       Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople, Patriarch who defended Pope Hadrian I to preside the Third Council of Constantinople

After a few decades of the Iconoclasm heresy, Photius, a power-hungry and sycophantic man of Constantinople, even boasted and arrogantly claimed to be equal to the Pope of Rome. 

With the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III in 800, the papacy had acquired a new protector in the West. This freed the pontiffs to some degree from the power of the emperor in Constantinople but it also led to a schism, because the emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople interpreted themselves as the true descendants of the Roman Empire.

After the Byzantine emperor summarily dismissed St. Ignatius of Constantinople as Patriarch of that city, Pope Nicholas I refused to recognize his successor, Anti-Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople. Photios did not at this stage raise the Filioque issue. The Council condemned Photius and defrocked his supporters in the clergy.

In 858, Photius, a noble layman from a local family, was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, the most senior episcopal position save only that of Rome. Emperor Michael III had deposed the previous Patriarch, Ignatius. Ignatius refused to abdicate, setting up a power struggle between the Emperor and Pope Nicholas I. The 869–870 Council condemned Photius and deposed him and reinstated his predecessor Ignatius to be throned.

From this history, it is clear that once again, the Byzantine Emperor had acted boldly in defying and opposing the Pope.

                             Michael III The Amorian

One thing that is notorious about Michael III is that besides being greedy for power, he was a drunkard. Drunkenness is a Mortal Sin which clearly leads many people go to Hell. And this one was defended by the Byzantine Schismatics regarding his defense of the Anti-Patriarch Photius as Patriarch, Invalid.

" This is what happened in recent times through the folly, cunning and evil machinations of the wretched Photius. He entered the sheepfold not through the door but through a window, and, like a thief or a robber, a destroyer of souls, as the Lord’s words indicate, has tried, on every occasion and by every means, to steal, slaughter and destroy the right-thinking sheep of Christ and, by engineering all manner of persecution, he has not ceased from contriving numerous arrests and imprisonments, confiscations of property, protracted periods of exile and, in addition to these, accusations, charges, false testimonies and forgeries against all who worked for true religion and fought for the truth. For he, like another Severus or Dioscorus, engineered the expulsion of the most just, lawful and canonically appointed high priest of the church of Constantinople, namely the most holy patriarch Ignatius, and like an adulterous robber, breaking into his see and repeatedly submitting him to a thousand charges involving dethronement and as many anathemas, he roused continuous turmoil and storms for all the churches of Christ our saviour, in a multiplicity of ways.

However, the salt of the earth has not lost its savour, nor has the eye of the church become completely darkened, nor has the light of true religion been extinguished by the spirits of wickedness; nor has the fire of divine charity lost its destroying and burning power over sinful and worthless material, nor has the word of the Lord, which is sharper than a two-edged sword and a discerner of thoughts, been found ineffectual, nor did the foundation of solid stone collapse when submerged by swollen waters and floods of rivers and storms, but the precious cornerstone, which was laid down in Sion, that is, in the church, upon which the foundation stone of the apostles and prophets was laid for the building up of the church, in our time has sent out from every one of the church’s established ranks, even into the ruling city, the new Rome, many other stones rolling over the land, as the prophet says, to destroy and lay waste the intrigues of those who desired and attempted to destroy truth and divine justice.But with greater force and particular significance, Nicholas, the most blessed and aptly-named pope of old Rome, was sent from above as another cornerstone for the church, preserving as far as possible the figurative likeness, as from an exalted and pre-eminent place, to confront the carefully organised opposition of Photius. By the missiles of his letters and speeches, he struck down the powerful leading supporters of Photius and, reflecting a story of the old Testament, after the manner of the zealot Phinehas, he pierced Photius with the lance of truth as if he were another Midianite defiling the assembly of Israel; and he completely destroyed him on his not agreeing to accept the remedies of a healing discipline aimed at treating the scars and healing the adulterous wound, and just as another Peter dealt with Ananias and Sapphira, who stole what belonged to God, by an anathema included as it were in his priestly dignity, he committed him to death.

Following these directives and decrees, the most religious friend of Christ, our emperor, whom the heavenly Emperor and Lord of majesty has raised up for the salvation of the world, has consigned Photius to a suitable place and recalled the most holy patriarch Ignatius to his rightful seat. Furthermore, for the perfect discernment and definition of what is agreed to be good and is beneficial, he has gathered together vicars from all the patriarchal seats and the whole college of bishops which is under his authority. Those of us who came together have celebrated this great and universal synod and, with much examination, testing and discussion, with due care and consistency, we have cut out with the sword of the spirit the roots of scandals and weeds along with their shoots, as we establish the truly innocent and most holy patriarch Ignatius in the controlling seat, while we condemn Photius, the interloper and illegal occupier with all his supporters and promoters of evil. For almighty God says somewhere by the mouth of a prophet: Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will do no more to love them. Ephraim is stricken, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit; and again: Canaan, there is a deceitful balance in his hand, he has loved oppression. And Ephraim said: But yet I am become rich, I have found for myself a place of repose: all his labours shall not find me, despite the iniquities that I have committed; and again: And the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions. The house of Jacob shall be afire and the house of Joseph aflame, and the house of Esau stubble; they shall burn them and consume them, and there shall be no survivor to the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken.

For the wretched Photius was truly like the person who did not make God his refuge; but trusted in the abundance of his cunning and sought refuge in the vanity of his iniquities, following the example of Ephraim of old, in turning his back on the divine mercy; the word of the prophet mocks and derides him, saying: Ephraim is become as bread baked under ashes, that is not turned. Strangers have devoured his strength and he knew it not, grey hairs also are spread upon him, and he is ignorant of it. He shall be humbled by the insult of Israel before his face; and in all this he has not returned to the Lord, his God. Ephraim is become as a dove, that called upon the table of Egypt and went to the Assyrians. When they shall go, I will spread my net upon them as upon the birds of the air; I will bring them down, I will strike them to make their tribulation heard. For Photius was lifted up to the heights of arrogance in attacking the most blessed pope of old Rome, Nicholas, and he vomited out the poison of his evil. He gathered together false vicars from three supposedly eastern sees, set up what was thought to be a synodical council, and, making lists of the names of accusers and witnesses, fashioning profiles and speeches which seemed to be suited to each person who plays a part in a synodical investigation, and making up, writing down and organizing forged records as accounts of those proceedings, he had the audacity to anathematize the aforementioned most blessed pope Nicholas and all those in communion with him. Photius did this in such a way that as a result all the existing bishops and priests, that is, the other patriarchal sees and all the clerics within them, were included in the same anathema, for all were most certainly in communion with the leading bishop, and amongst them himself and his followers. The word of the prophet condemns and refutes him when it says: They have multiplied their transgressions, they have enacted extraneous laws and invoked their confession; and again: They conceived in their heart lying words and turned justice back, and righteousness has stood afar off from them; for truth has been destroyed in their streets and they have been unable to follow the right path. Truth has disappeared and changed their mind so that it cannot understand. And: He who turns from evil is attacked, and the Lord saw and it displeased him because there was no judgment, and again: Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Judah and for four, I will grant them no reprieve; because they have rejected the law of the Lord and have not kept his statutes. Therefore, as regards the man who has acted in this way and has disturbed and shaken the whole holy, catholic and apostolic church with so many brazen attacks of this kind, has utterly refused to be converted and repent, and has refused to submit to the decrees and judgment of the holy patriarchal sees, just as long ago the most blessed pope Nicholas and then his successor, the most holy pope Hadrian, anathematized him, so too this holy and universal synod has reproved him and put him under an ever severer anathema while addressing to him, in the person of all God’s people, the words of the prophet Isaiah: Just as a garment soiled in blood will not be clean, so you will not be clean, for you have defiled the church of Christ and have been a source of scandal and destruction to the people of God on many counts and in many ways. We command that those who do not share this view, but give Photius their willing support, if they are bishops or clerics, must be deposed for ever; we anathematize monks or lay people, until such time as they are converted from their false ways and wickedness. " (Fourth Council of Constantinople, by Pope Adrian II and Basil I) 

                               Photius the usurper

And what caused hostility between Rome and Constantinople when tensions began to arise was simply the matter of the Filioque. Indeed, Photius, who overthrew Patriarch Ignatius, refused to accept the Filioque, but the Filioque issue was not the main thing that caused the Schism, but many people were mistaken about this, so it seemed as if this was what caused the Schism. Photius who rejected Filioque also denounced Pope as Intervener and Comspirator to Byzantine Empire. 

Regarding the Filioque, as we see the Eastern Churches which are still Catholic Churches such as the Maronites, Melkites in Syria, and some Syro-Malankara who during the West-East Schism did not use the Filioque, and that was not a problem for Latin Catholics. But the Byzantine Schismatics began to plant black seeds by sowing poison including accusations against the Liturgy problem of using unleavened bread or leavened bread. The Byzantines blamed Catholics for using unleavened bread and did not hesitate to accuse Latinization as a form of Judaizer because on their view, Latins were using unleavened bread by influences from the Law of Torah, this is something baseless. Because Christ himself used unleavened bread, but Christ himself who fulfilled the Law of Torah, so He who finished Torah Law, replaced it with Cross Law. And the case regarding this happened even before the West-East Schism pioneered by the Evil Emperor named Michael Cerularius in 1054 AD. The use of unleavened bread was questioned by the Greeks in the 900s because when the Gospel had been promulgated and Jesus had risen, then the bread used must be different from unleavened bread because the Law of Torah had been replaced, this is how the Greeks viewed it. So unethically, they blamed the Latins for using Unleavened Bread.

                  Prosphora, Leavened Bread for Byzantine Liturgy

Once again, Catholic Church has no problem with Leavened Bread, during this matter for Eucharist is Valid. The first action that would lead to a formal schism was taken in 1053: Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople. In 1054, the papal legate sent by Leo IX travelled to Constantinople in order, among other things, to deny Anti-Patriarch Cerularius the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch" and insist that he recognize the pope's claim to be the head of all of the churches. 

              Pope Leo IX (Left) and Michael Cerularius (Right) 

Pope Leo IX however responded it by keeping the Greek liturgical churches were still opened, and did not retaliate by acting cruelly towards Cerularius. With the note that Cerularius will be repented.

And it was made even worse by what they (the Byzantine Schismatics) did to people of Italian descent in Constantinople, where many Latins were massacred in 1182, numbering around 60,000. Cardinal John, a Legate from the Papacy, had his head cut off and dragged through the street on the tail of a Dog.

And this was eventually retaliated by the Latins with the attack on Thessalonica in 1185 and then the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) which massacred the Byzantines. "He who sows will reap what he sows." (Galatians 6:7-8) This is what our Lord said about the law of sowing and reaping.

And the Byzantine Schismatic's situation worsened with the influence of the Scholasticism heresy of a polytheist named Gregory Palamas. 

 

Gregory Palamas the Heretic and Polytheist 

Scholasticism is not contradicted with Catholic Church during it's suitable for Tradition and Magisterium, but Palamism is really Heresy and this philosophy which founded Hesychasm in 1330s.

He was a monk of Mount Athos (modern Greece) and later Archbishop of Thessalonica, he is famous for his defense of hesychast spirituality, the uncreated character of the light of the Transfiguration, and the distinction between God's essence and energies (i.e., the divine will, divine grace, etc.). His teaching unfolded over the course of three major controversies, (1) with the Italo-Greek Barlaam between 1336 and 1341, (2) with the monk Gregory Akindynos between 1341 and 1347, and (3) with the philosopher Gregoras, from 1348 to 1355. His theological contributions are sometimes referred to as Palamism, and his followers as Palamites.

Gregory has been venerated as a saint by Byzantine Schismatics since 1368.

Errorness of Palamas: 

1)  there is a distinction between the essence (ousia) and the energies (energeia) of God. It generally regard this distinction as a real distinction, and not just a conceptual distinction. Historically, Roman Catholics thought, since the time of the Great Schism, has tended to reject the essence–energies distinction as real in the case of God, characterizing the view as a heretical introduction of an unacceptable division in the Trinity and suggestive of polytheism. The Church rejected the idea that there is in God a real essence–energies distinction, because a real distinction between the essence and the energies of God contradicted the teaching of the First Council of Nicaea on divine unity.

2) Concept of Uncreated Light, which was contradicted by Catholic Teachings, because Transfiguration Light was created when Jesus shown his face with Moses and Elia, Transfiguration Light was exist when Jesus did something when He appeared himself at the Mount Tabor. According to Actus Purus by St. Thomas Aquinas, God can also be defined as the act of all acts, the perfection of all perfections and the perfect Being. This Being is also called being in the strong sense or intensive Being (Esse ut actus, or Actus essendi) to distinguish it from being in the weak sense or common being (esse commune) of all created entities. The intensive Being includes every possible determination, thus excludes any other addition, is the highest real perfection; the common being is the highest abstraction and the lowest perfection, universal and totally indeterminate, indifferent to any addition (which neither excludes nor even includes). So, Transfiguration is a event when Jesus appeared at the Mount Tabor, and this event was planned as Transfiguration Light was made.

3) Hesychasm practice like Jesus Prayer , according to Kallistos Ware "its origins may well be far more ancient, influenced by the Sufi practice of dhikr, the memory and invocation of the name of God , which in turn may have been influenced by Yoga practices from India, though it's also possible that Sufis were influenced by early Christian monasticism. (Source: "Praying with the body: the hesychast method and non-Christian parallels"Kallistos Ware (1992)) 

In 1310, he went to Mount Athos, where he remained until 1335 as a monk at the Skete of Magoula near Philotheou Monastery, introducing hesychast practice there. The terms Hesychasm and Hesychast were used by the monks on Mount Athos to refer to the practice and to the practitioner of a method of mental ascesis that involves the use of the Jesus Prayer assisted by certain psychophysical techniques.

About the year 1337, hesychasm attracted the attention of Barlaam of Seminara, a Calabrian monk who at that time held the office of abbot in the Monastery of St. Saviour in Constantinople and who visited Mount Athos. Mount Athos was then at the height of its fame and influence, under the reign of Andronicus III Palaeologus and under the leadership of the Protos Symeon. On Mount Athos, Barlaam encountered hesychasts and heard descriptions of their practices, also reading the writings of the teacher in hesychasm of Gregory Palamas, himself an Athonite monk. Then, Barlaam condemned it as Messalianism and Bogomilism Heresy. 

Barlaam (Later converted to Catholicism and received Filioque Concept) wrote on his book to dispute against Messalianism. 

Fall of Constantinople (1453) 

From the theological destruction of the Byzantine Schismatics, this led to Constantinople finally being conquered and falling into the hands of the Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed II and this incident occurred on May 29, 1453. Before the fall of Constantinople, Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos and his Patriarch Gregory Mammas were initially willing and wanted to declare their union with Rome. However, because when they returned to Constantinople without heeding the union they published at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, the Roman Church did not really help Byzantium in facing the Ottomans. Even Patriarch Gregory Memmas was expelled from the Empire with the encouragement of Patriarch Athanasius II of Constantinople and Patriarch John Eugenikos, which caused Emperor Constantine XI who was originally with Patriarch Gregory Memmas to finally leave the Patriarch because the Patriarch fled to Rome. Constantine XI died in the fall of Constantinople, but was canonized as a Saint by Most Byzantine Schismatics. Palaiologos himself was a devotee of Mount Athos, from which it is clear that the Council of Ferrara-Florence explained the binding dogma and doctrine to unite East and West but with the condition that the East must submit fully to Rome in terms of Theology and doctrine, not only in terms of Papal Supremacy.

   Constantine XI Palaiologos as Saint by Byzantine Schismatics

From the sad and humiliating story from fall of Constantinople in 1453, this City was only a City which became a memory of Byzantine civilization, until 1918 it was finally conquered again by Catholic Generals during the First World War. And Hagia Sophia at that time was only a museum.

From here we can conclude that from the malice of the Byzantine side towards Rome and its Pope, it produced bad results.

Not to mention the division between the Byzantine Schismatics, between Greeks and Russians. In terms of Altar Service and Liturgy, Russian Liturgy is much more conservative and more upright than Greek. There is even a group that rejects the Reform of Patriarch Nikhon in Moscow, namely the Old Believers who even rejects the Canonization of the Heretic Gregory Palamas, Palamism was viewed as Idolatry by Old Believers although they also rejected Rome.

The first printed Church Slavonic editions of the Triodion did not include the Sunday of Gregory Palamas until liturgical reforms of Petro Mohyla who, inter alia, aimed to update Kievan use of the Byzantine rite to then-contemporary version of its Greek counterpart. Mohyla's reforms inspired subsequent Nikon's reforms that brought liturgical veneration of Gregory Palamas to Moscow.

But the liturgical uses of communities that did not accept these reforms or were not affected by them, namely Old Believers and Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church, did not traditionally have this celebration. (Source: "Russian Orthodox encyclopedia, article on Gregory Palamas") Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church rejected Palamas and viewed him as "Idolater" or "Polytheist" which refers to Synod of Zamosc (1720),  where was held by Eastern Catholics from Schismatics who converted to Catholicism and accepted The Ferrara-Florence Council. 

Russia only truly became Schismatic in the 12th century, where before that, Russia under Saint Vladimir the Great of Rus Land was fully Catholic which was submitted to Rome. However, due to the impact of the slander from Greece that spread around the 12th century and began to put forward its negative stigma towards Rome, Russia finally fell into the abyss of Schismaticism. But uniquely, the Russian Schismatic Church still maintained some parts of Catholic teachings which included the rejection of female altar servers and the rejection of Hesychasm (before the Anti-Patriarch Nikhon Reformation). Even uniquely, some of the Russian Schismatics from among the Old Believers believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.