
(Above) The 2nd century AD “Porta Nigra” in Trier, Germany. St Simeon (died 1030) had his hermitage here. After his death, this Roman gate was converted into a church and thus survived relatively intact.
Peter Kwasniewski has replied to an article in The Catholic Thing by Dmitrii Solzhenitsyn, “The Original ‘Liturgy Wars’: between East and West,”thecatholicthing.org (9/18/2026). I also feel obliged to add a few words.
First, I take issue with the term “liturgy wars” which Solzhenitsyn has borrowed from another source. There is no “liturgy war” between opposing forces in the Roman Catholic Church. Insofar as we are talking of “violence” (physical or coercive measures) the campaign – directed by the Vatican, the mainstream religious orders and much of the hierarchy – is entirely one-sided. It is the representatives of the establishment who are prohibiting traditional masses, imposing malicious requirements on the laity, sanctioning scholars, excommunicating the FSSPX and issuing a never-ending barrage of ad hominem attacks. Aside from intellectual arguments the traditionalists have not replied in kind – of course, they are unable to do so.
Second, the conflict between the Church of Constantinople and the Roman Catholic Church is not – or not primarily – a liturgy war. It is a longstanding disagreement, varying in intensity over the years, involving political and theological issues even more than those strictly liturgical. Certainly, at times – such as under patriarch Michael Cerularios of Constantinople in the 11th century – liturgical issues were asserted, such as the use of unleavened or leavened bread. But this was not always or consistently the case.
What Mr. Solzhenitsyn’s article does reveal is the conviction in at least part of the Orthodox world that the conflict with the Catholic Church reflects a primordial, unbridgeable divergence between the “East” (meaning the Orthodox Church) and the West. In this view the Orthodox Church, in its current state, is an exclusive, perfect community which also happens correspond with the early Church. This “East” is seen as originating in the 4th century or even earlier, depending on the author.
There is no evidence, however, that this understanding of a monolithic bloc of the “East” as contrasted with a “West” ever existed before relatively recent times. There had been disputes, often fierce, between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches about specific theological, liturgical and disciplinary questions. But as we shall see, for centuries representatives of both the “Latin” and “Greek” churches also acted as if no such fundamental gap existed. Mr. Solzhenitsyn seems to acknowledge this difficulty by theorizing that a formal break between Constantinople and Rome only happened in the 11th century because it was only then that the respective liturgical traditions actually came in contact with each other each other. I don’t think the facts support that.
Let us consider the situation in the city of Rome itself. In the year 536 AD Emperor Justinian reconquered the city of Rome. It – and the papacy – remained more or less closely associated with the Eastern Roman Empire till about 750. An Eastern Roman garrison resided in the city. As time went on numerous popes from the East occupied the papal throne. These “Greeks” came from all of the territories under the control or influence of the Eastern Roman Empire ranging from Palestine to Sicily. It was at this time that the art of Constantinople began to exercise a direct influence in the city of Rome and that strong influences of the East – not just of the Church of Constantinople – were felt in the Roman liturgy itself. One thinks of the Trisagion chanted in the traditional Roman rite on Good Friday – among other importations. These centuries saw a “rebirth” of Greek in the city of Rome. Supposedly, this interchange was not a one-way street: according to Byzantine tradition the Mass of the Presanctified, which is much more commonly celebrated in the East than in the West, was composed by Pope Gregory the Great. However that may be, it is interesting that St. Gregory became associated with liturgical reforms in both Rome and Constantinople.
But these borrowings did not at all mean that the popes of this era, whether Latin or Greek, were subservient to the culture or dictates of the Eastern Empire. On the contrary, a series of popes, like St. Gregory the Great, vigorously defended Roman liturgical practices against those of the East. After initial waffling, the popes took a strong stand against the Monothelite heresy introduced by the emperor. Later, the same was true was true of Roman opposition to iconoclasm. So the creative interactions between Rome and Constantinople in this era involved intellectual, liturgical and theological exchanges that were conscious and selective.
Fortunately, we have a direct monument of these years. The church of Santa Maria Antiqua was decorated between roughly 550 and 800 AD. This church was likely associated with the imperial government and Greek bureaucrats and soldiers. In this church we have a wide variety of paintings – some overpainted repeatedly – that show the direct influence of the art of Constantinople in the city of Rome. Like the churches of Ravenna or the monastery of St. Catherine’s on Mount Sinai, Santa Maria Antiqua preserves art that was otherwise destroyed in the East during the iconoclastic period. Furthermore, these frescoes were saved from further change by the “Latins” themselves because the church was buried by an earthquake in the 9th century and abandoned for 1000 years.

(Above) Santa Maria Antiqua, so-called palimpsest wall (550-700 AD). Mary as a Byzantine Empress.

(Above and below) Santa Maria Antiqua. Frescoes (8th century AD) with saints of the West and East, perhaps with an anti-iconoclastic message. Note the language of the inscriptions.

After 750 the political bond between the papacy and the Eastern Empire ceased. But contacts between East and West continued and, in some cases, even intensified. In the 9th century we could think of the mission of Saints Cyril and Methodius which found both opposition and support in the Church of the West. According to tradition, the first hermit to live on Mount Athos, a Greek, St. Peter of Mount Athos, had received consecration from the Pope of Rome. This is not as startling as it may seem, because it likely happened during the years of iconoclast rule in Constantinople. Like the Islamic conquests, this resulted in the coming to Rome of a stream of religious refugees from the East.
And the interactions continued. Saint Nilus the Younger founded the Byzantine monastery of Grottaferrata near Rome in 1004. He was a Greek from Calabria, a mixed Greek and Latin area of South Italy. His successor at Grottaferrata, St. Bartholomew, (died 1065!) is credited as the second founder of that Abbey. He was also Greek from Calabria. He even gave refuge to the Pope of Rome, the notorious Benedict IX, who ended his days as a penitent in this monastery. In this same era, we encounter St. Simeon of Trier, who had been born in Syracuse of Greek parents under Arab rule. He was educated at Constantinople, traveled in the east and was for a time at Saint Catherine’s monastery at Mount Sinai. Later he acted as a kind of “tour guide “for western pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Thanks to these contacts he moved to Trier in Germany where he died in 1030 as a hermit and was subsequently recognized as a saint by all. In 1540 his unique Palestinian euchologion (= missal) of the Orthodox rite was translated and published by a German humanist. Unfortunately, the original manuscript has been lost!
I could take issue with other facts that Mr. Solzhenitsyn recites. So, he quotes an unidentified source for the proposition that the Orthodox church prohibited the use of three-dimensional art (statues) and that this had become a key liturgical difference with the West. But, at least in Russia, as an absolute rule this is untrue – there is a well-known museum in the city of Perm that has an outstanding collection of religious sculpture much of it dating from the 17th century. For the production of such statues continued, as demonstrated by the need for the Russian Church to issue repeated edicts against the practice, such as that of 1721.
My point is the none of the facts set forth above would have been possible if the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church in those times had been that of an exclusive bloc opposed to everything in the West and motivated above all by liturgical differences. Furthermore, these interchanges were often by people very familiar with one or both liturgies and traditions (for example, St. Gregory the Great had lived in Constantinople for years).
In subsequent ages political clashes multiplied and attitudes hardened. But even then, there were conflicting reactions, even by the same person. So, Nikolai Gogol, who wrote horrendous passages against Poles and Catholics, also was very much impressed by the city of Rome (he started a novel, never finished, set in that city). Whether a reconciliation between the Roman Catholic Church at the Orthodox Church will be possible anytime soon I do not know. But I do agree with the ecumenical movement to this extent: we should not be building up barriers derived from an incomplete understanding of what actually happened in the past.
I would recommend the following sources for further reading. Ekonomou, Andrew J., Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy From Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752, (Lexington Books, 2007) (a very pro-Greek account!); Rubery, E., Bordi, G., and Osborne, J., Eds., Santa Maria Antiqua: The Sistine Chapel of the Early Middle Ages(Harvey Miller Publishers, London 2021). And generally. the works of that profound scholar of Russia culture, Dmitry S. Likhachev(1906-1999) who detected all kinds of correlations between the artistic development of Russia and of the West. On the sculptures in Perm see “Permskaya Derevyannaya Skulptura,” ru.wikipedia.org. (accessed 10/11/2026) (“Wooden sculpture of Perm” (in Russian))


















































