The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1911-01-21
PRINCE MAX AND THE VATICAN
HIS MISTAKES AND HIS RE-
TRACTION
No Union of Roman and Greek
Churches at Expense of Dogma.


One of the important personages
upon whom the limelight of publicity
was focused during the past few
weeks is Prince Maximilian of Sax
ony, upon whose injudicious zeal in the
cause of Church unity the Vatican
has placed the stamp of disapproval.
Prince Max, as he is called, is a
brother of King Ferdinand of Saxony,
and a most estimable and, in many
way, remarkable man. Early in life
he voluntarily renounced his royal pre-
negatives, his princely title and right
of succession to the throne, together
with all the opportunities for distin-
guished service afforded by life at
court, and entered the ranks of the
Priesthood. For some years after his
ordination he labored among the poor
in the slums of London. OF late he
has been professor in the theological
faculty of the Catholic University of
Fribourg, Switzerland. He is learned
and devoted priest whose exemplary
fidelity to duty and ascetic life are
source of ediication to all with whom
he comes in contact
But notwithstanding his well-known
loyalty to the Holy See and his ardent
zeal for the welfare of the Church or,
perhaps, because of it, he was un-
willingly led to place himself in a
very embarrassing position. The main
facts of the case are as follows:
Towards the close of last year the
monks of the Abbey of Grottaferrata,
a small town among the Alban Hills,
about fifteen miles from Rome, un-
dertook the publication of a monthly
Review entitled, Rome and the
Orient" The purpose of the Review
was to bring about truer understand
ing between the Roman and the Greek
Churches by making the former better
known in the East and the latter better
known in the West. The Monks of the
Abbey belong to a community of Basil
ians, who take their name from ST.
Basil, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappa-
docia, in the fourth century. They fol-
low the Greek rite and are not in COM
munion with the Church of Rome.
The leading article in the first num-
Der of the Review was entitled:
Thoughts on the Question OF the
Union of the Churches" It was from
the pen of Prince Max and was writ
ten with the evident intention of gain
ing the good will of the Greeks
Bishops, priests and people-and in the
hope that it would, in some measure,
at least, help to remove the obstacles
which have prevented, for so many
centuries, a union between the Mother
Church of Rome and the Greek Church.
This article contained not only mis-
statements of historical facts, but also
a false exposition of certain portions
of the dogmatic teaching of the
Church.
In the first place, it maintained that
the Popes of Rome, rather than the
Patriarchs of Constantinople, were re-
sponsible for the Greek Schism in the
ninth century; that Nicholas l, DOM
mated by pride and ambition in his
dealings with Photius, caused the first
rupture of relations; that Leo TX, by
his arrogance and harshness in coer-
cling the leaders of the Greek Church
in the eleventh century, brought about
the final separation from Rome; that
the Popes who strove to effect a re-
union of the Churches were animated
by selfish motives rather than by So
licitude for the flock of Christ. Furth-
ermore, it AYERS that at the Council of
II "
the Greek Church were forced to sub
scribe to the conditions under which
a temporary union was effected; and
that false arguments were used to in
duce them to assent to- some of the
dogmas proposed for their acceptance.
In the second place, the article writ
ten by Prince Max miminizes the
teaching of the Church regarding the
DYno nf
Ghost from the Son as well as from
the Father, which is one of the chief
points of difference between the Ro-
man Church and the Greek Church to-
day. 1t calls in question the explicit
belief in Purgatory and in the Inn
maculate Conception of the Blessed
Virgin in the early Church; and i'm
plies denial of the Primacy of St.
Peter by asserting that st. Paul en-
ioyed an equal authority with his
brother Apostle in the infant Church
Besides these, several inaccuracies of
minor import appear in the article in
question.
1t would seem that Prince Max was
animated with laudable desire to
contribute something to the efforts
made, during the past eleven centuries,
to effect reunion of the Greek with
the Roman Church. Since the time
when Photius, by his usurpation of
the Office of Patriarch of Constan-
tinople, then lawfully held by Ignatius,
and his consequent insubordination to
Pope Nicholas I, drew down upon him.
self and his followers the excommuni-
cation of Rome, many efforts have
been made to bring about reconcilia-
ton A temporary union was effected
at the Eighth General Council of
Constantinople in 869; at the Fourth
Lateran in 1915: at Lyons in 1874; and
again at Florence in 1439. Since then
many of the Roman Pontiffs have la
bored to bring all the faithful into
one fold and under one Shepherd.
Prince Max seems to have forgotten,
or at least ignored, all this. In fact,
as has been already stated, he lays the
blame for the continuance of the