Printer Friendly

1054 revisited.

The background for the events of 1054 begins with the Norman invasion of southern Italy and Sicily. At the time of this conquest in the eleventh century, the population of Calabria and the cities of Apulia was entirely Greek and directly ruled by governors dispatched from Constantinople with residence in Bari. Although within the patriarchal jurisdiction of the Roman papacy nearly everyone of Greek ancestry living in these regions worshiped according to the Byzantine rite and for cultural and historical reasons looked to Constantinople's patriarch for ecclesiastical leadership, there were some small and relatively poor Latin bishoprics that coexisted with the Greek dioceses in southern Italy.

In the tenth century, after the Arab occupation of Sicily, a large number of Greek refugees also settled in southern Italy, and in about 965 C.E., Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas acted to enhance the Byzantine presence by forbidding the use of the Latin rite in the two provinces of Apulia and Calabria. He then set up an archbishopric in Otranto and placed five suffragans within its jurisdiction, a decision demonstrating the dramatic growth of the Greek population in southern Italy. (1)

For everyone in this region the Norman invasion was unsettling. For the Normans, the Greeks of southern Italy with their strange language and foreign ways were altogether a new experience. They had never encountered Christians who were different from themselves. The Normans much preferred to receive the sacraments from their own bishops, priests, and monks who they brought with them, rather than from married Greek clerics with their long beards. Whenever possible they installed Latin bishops in the Greek cathedrals and took over the revenues of the clergy for the use of their own clerics, accentuating the usual tension between rulers and ruled when cultures are so contrasting. (2)

The Norman invasion was also not welcomed in Rome because, although professing Latin Catholicism, the warriors from the West were not above appropriating papal estates for their own use. How to deal with these foreigners became a major issue for the pope and his advisers as well as for the imperial court in Constantinople. In 1054 the pope was Leo IX, born Bruno of Egisheim, formerly bishop of Toul, who had held the papal office for the previous five years. The pope owed his election to Emperor Henry II, but on his arrival in Rome he insisted that the clergy and people nominate him according to the canons of the church. German interference with papal elections had, in fact, soured relations with the Byzantine emperors and patriarchs who still could not admit the legitimacy of a Western empire. In Constantinople's view, the pope should remember that he is a Roman citizen and act accordingly. (3)

The Byzantine governor, who was also the imperial representative in Italy, was Marianos Argyros, by nationality a Lombard. The father of Argyros had once led a rebellion against the Byzantines, which resulted in his wife and son's being taken as hostages to Constantinople. There, the young Argyros held fast to his Western heritage, remaining a staunch Latin Catholic. Later he returned to Italy, where he continued to resist Byzantine control over lands that he was insistent rightly belonged to his inheritance.

In 1045, in a political about-face, Argyros left Italy for service in Constantinople at the court of Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos, who became a close friend. When a challenger, Leon Tornikios, sought to overthrow Constantine, Argyros remained at Constantine's side, and his loyalty was never forgotten by the emperor. From the point of view of Patriarch Michael Keroularios, however, Argyros was a baneful influence on imperial decisions. Several times the two men clashed publicly, and on at least four occasions the patriarch turned Argyros away from the reception of the eucharist. Finally, Keroularios declared Argyros excommunicated. (4)

Patriarch since 1043, Keroularios was a stern man with recognized administrative skills, but he was altogether hostile to Latin Catholicism. For Keroularios the Byzantine style of worship was not just one rite among many; its style of worship was the model for all Christians to approach God in the Liturgy and sacraments.

In 1051 the emperor named Argyros the first Latin to hold the title "master and duke of Italy," which replaced the old title of "kapitan," and Argyros returned to southern Italy. His charge was to hold back the Norman invaders and to form an alliance with Pope Leo IX. Both raised armies to challenge the Normans. Early in 1053 Argyros suffered a defeat, and on June 18 at Civitate the Norman cavalry easily disposed of the papal forces. The Normans took the pope prisoner, placing him under comfortable house arrest in Benevento until their leaders could decide what to do with their distinguished captive. There, Leo spent his days in prayer, the study of Greek, and thinking of ways to escape from his embarrassment while matters in progress in Constantinople were leading to the events of 1054.

In the imperial city, news of the Norman treatment of Greek Christians in southern Italy confirmed the patriarch's view of Latin aggression against his church. How to strike back was the problem, for Italy was far away. A much easier target was at hand: the Italian colonies along the southern bank of the Golden Horn with their own clergy and churches in which the Mass was offered in Latin according to the Roman rite. (5)

What especially troubled Keroularios was that the Latins used unleavened bread in the Mass, contrary to the ancient and the Byzantine Liturgy's use of leavened bread. The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire also used unleavened bread, and there were considerable numbers of these Eastern Christians in the empire after Emperor Basil II's successful campaigns in eastern Anatolia. The patriarch believed it essential for the empire to have liturgical conformity. Keroularios could hardly expect the Armenians to change their rite if he tolerated the Latin practice. (6)

There were, in fact, two ways of looking at Jesus' institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper. The Eastern Churches followed the chronology given in the Gospel of John, which clearly states that Jesus died on the day before Passover; therefore, he used leavened bread at the final meal. The Latin Church, however, regarded the Synoptics as more reliable. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus dies on Passover, so he would have used matzo at the Last Supper. Because the text simply uses the word "artos" (bread), it is impossible to appeal to the Christian Scriptures for the answers.

For centuries it appears that the use of leavened or unleavened bread (azymes) had been a matter of indifference, but in the West, by the eleventh century, all the churches consecrated unleavened bread at the Mass in imitation of the Synoptics' account of Jesus' Last Supper. For Keroularios and the clergy of the Byzantine church, unleavened bread was dead bread--no better than a rock--a symbolic denial in the eucharist that Jesus had risen from the dead. From the Orthodox theological viewpoint, unleavened bread could never be the proper element for consecration, and extremists went so far as to deny the validity of any eucharist in which it was used. Patriarch Keroularios agreed with that assessment, and, beginning in 1052, he ordered the closing of the Latin churches and monasteries in the capital. If the Normans were appropriating Greek churches in southern Italy, Keroularios could use the issue of the azymes to lock the Italian churches in Constantinople. (7)

In the summer of 1053, most likely, Archbishop Leo of Ochrid, no doubt with the full approval of the patriarch, fired an opening salvo against Latin practice, sending a letter to Italy, addressed to Bishop John of Trani, which he was supposed to pass along to the pope. John was the highest-ranking Greek prelate in Italy, appointed by Constantinople in an effort to counter the influence of the Latin archbishop of Bari over the Greek Christians of southern Italy. The letter was addressed to John as the intermediary and "to all the princes of the Frankish priests, the monks, the people, and the venerable pope himself." (8) Four points were made against Latin customs: the Western use of unleavened bread in the eucharist; the Latin practice of fasting on Saturdays during Lent; and two minor but unorthodox issues, the eating of the meat of animals that had been strangled and omitting the "alleluia" in Lent. The letter urged the pope to correct the bishops of the Western Church on these matters.

Leo was then archbishop of Ochrid in Macedonia, having obtained that position about 1025, but his office called him to other tasks, for he was the first Greek in that position since Basil II had won back the Bulgarian lands for the empire. Leo had gone to southern Italy in order to present the Greek position on the azymes, summoning several councils to confirm the Byzantine clergy in their Eastern tradition. He later became sakellarios, the second-highest-ranking official in the patriarchal court. On both sides of the Adriatic, relations were turning progressively sour.

John did as he was required, dispatching the tract of Archbishop Leo of Ochrid to the pope's secretary, Humbert of Moyenmoutier, cardinal of Silva Candida, requesting Humbert to deliver it to the pope. Humbert, like Leo IX, was a product of the reform movement in the Catholic Church that had arisen in the Rhineland. Both were convinced that two evils were now bedeviling the Latin Church: clerical marriage and simony. The connection between them was the common practice of clerics' buying a church office so as to gain revenues to enrich their families. Solving this problem required tightening the rules on celibacy, but this was difficult to effect in southern Italy, where married Greek priests were the norm. Humbert was of the same temperament as Keroularios; it just happened that they were on different sides regarding the question of the azymes, but neither wanted to leave well enough alone.

During Pope Leo's captivity, Humbert had access to the pope and made certain that he learned of Leo of Ochrid's letter. The cardinal knew a bit of Greek, which Leo did not, so he could emphasize how the bishop's tract was a studied effort to insult the Latin Church. In Leo's name, Humbert addressed a response, somewhat sarcastically, "to bishops Michael of Constantinople and Leo of Ochrid." (9) For Byzantine clerics, who were always concerned with correct protocol, failure to give them their proper titles was already an insult. Further, Humbert argued that the charges raised in Leo's letter were quite unjustified, since the Latins had not been allowed to present their case. For 1,000 years, according to Humbert, the eucharist had been offered in Rome, and the pope needed no lesson on how it should be done. The cardinal reminded the archbishop that several Greek churches and monasteries were located in Rome, living in peace with the Latins and sharing common festivals where unleavened bread was used without complaint. Why, he asked, does the archbishop want to disturb the peace? Is not Constantinople the daughter and Rome the mother? On a personal note that was sure to irritate the recipient, the letter mentioned questions concerning the legitimacy of Keroularios's appointment to the patriarchate: Were the canons followed, and was he not attempting to whittle away at some of the prerogatives of the other Eastern patriarchs?

In September a meeting of Latin and Greek clergy took place in Bari to discuss the issues dividing them. At its conclusion, the Latin archbishop of Bari and the abbot of the monastery of Monte Cassino set off for Constantinople to report on the meeting's activities.

The pope gave Humbert a free hand to deal with a response to Leo of Ochrid's letter, but possibly this second communication, composed in January, 1054, was not sent, for in the interim an envoy had arrived from Constantinople carrying letters from the emperor and the patriarch. Keroularios suggested that he and the pope should commemorate each other in their respective liturgical diptychs. His letter blamed the Germans for causing all the trouble between the churches and had nothing but praise for Pope Leo. The emperor's concerns were concentrated on the anti-Norman alliance. The pope, in his reply, objected that "your Archbishop Michael" claims to want peace and harmony, but he has launched "an open persecution of the Latin church" and denied the rights of the other patriarchs. (10)

While talks continued in the Byzantine capital, Pope Leo decided that a direct approach was needed. He appointed a fact-finding delegation of three to go to Constantinople: Humbert; Frederick, chancellor of the Roman Church; and the exiled Peter, bishop of Amalfi. They were to investigate the reason for the Greek charge that unleavened bread could not be consecrated and to negotiate the reopening of the closed Latin churches. Even more importantly, they were to forge a papal-Byzantine coalition against the Normans, who were a serious threat to both the pope's and the emperor's authority. If the reconciliation of the differences between the churches was really expected, the pope had made a strange choice, for not one of his representatives was a man who was likely to seek compromise.

Humbert, sometime before he left, and possibly before the September assembly in Bari, drew up in the pope's name one more response to Leo of Ochrid. It was called Against the Calumnies of the Greeks, or the Dialogue. It offered a detailed point-by-point refutation of the Greek archbishop's charges against the Latin Church. The cardinal reiterated that the Greek Church was in no position to challenge either the Roman faith or its liturgical practice. As an appendix to this argument, Humbert produced the spurious Donation of Constantine, which gave almost unlimited power to popes. (11)

Both Leo and Humbert knew that John of Trani was in Constantinople at the time, working to smooth over relations with the patriarch. Keroularios respected John, which meant that progress on the issues between the churches could possibly take place. On another front, Humbert now enlisted the aid of Archbishop Dominic of Grado, whom he encouraged to write to Patriarch Peter III of Antioch to explain the Latin position. This attempt was unsuccessful, for Peter responded that the Roman position on unleavened bread for the eucharist "is contrary to the traditions of our most holy, catholic church." (12)

In January, 1054, the Roman delegation left Benevento, halting along the way at Monte Cassino, carrying with them the letters of Humbert written in the pope's name and the Donation of Constantine. Without doubt, they visited Argyros for confirmation of their mission before taking a ship to Dyrrachium, which arrived in Constantinople at the end of March or early April. (13) The papal delegates were initially put up at the Stoudite monastery, just inside the walls of the city, near the Golden Gate, but later they were transferred to the Pege palace, a summer home of the emperors in the countryside. The Stoudite monks had a long tradition of resisting patriarchal demands and often supported the intervention of Rome in the capital's ecclesiastical affairs, so the Westerners would have found a welcome there. The delegates then paid their respects to Emperor Constantine, delivering their letter from the pope. Thence they made their way to the residence of Patriarch Keroularios. According to the patriarch's account, they approached him saying nothing, refused to make the usual bow, ignored the metropolitans gathered to meet them, and thrust the documents they had brought with them into his hands. They then immediately left, setting up a situation that obviously cast a dark cloud over any future negotiations.

When the patriarch examined the papal correspondence, he recognized that its contents were altogether prejudicial to the Greek Church. Could the letters be genuine? The patriarch decided they were not. Rather, Argyros, his longtime enemy, must have forged them, for the seals on the letters that guaranteed their authenticity were broken. From this time forward, Keroularios refused to acknowledge that the delegation had the right to act in the pope's name. (14) On this point, Keroularios was possibly correct. After nine months in captivity, Pope Leo IX had been released by the Normans and allowed to return to Rome. The pope, however, did not have long to live, and on April 19, 1054, he died. Almost a year went by before the Roman emperor in the West, Henry II, promoted the candidacy of his protege, Gebhard of Dollnstein-Hirschberg, to become Pope Victor II. Gebhard's enthronement took place on April 13, 1055, long after Humbert and the other delegates had returned to Italy. It is doubtful that Gebhard even knew of the delegation to Constantinople. After April 19, Pope Leo IX's delegates were probably without authority; however, even though they knew of his death, the delegates continued to act in his name as if their powers were still in force. From a legal point of view, any actions they took were doubtfully valid, and for this reason alone 1054 is not a certain date for the schism between the Latins and Greeks. (15)

While the delegates waited for some response on the part of the Greeks, the monk Niketas Stethatos acted as the go-between with Byzantine officials and the Latins. Events moved slowly, for the Latin texts had to be translated into Greek. Niketas drew up a lengthy statement that again presented the Greek positions on unleavened bread, Sabbath fasting, and the marriage of priests. It was a mild response, written in a conciliatory way, but Humbert replied with a diatribe, full of personal attacks and insults, concluding, "You, O miserable Niketas, should be excommunicated for your perverse tradition!" (16) Humbert demanded that the emperor call Niketas to task, and on June 24 Niketas was required to make a public retraction--sincerely or not--before an assembly of the emperor and court meeting in the Stoudios monastery. His statement was then publicly burned. (17)

Despite Humbert's inflammatory language and the shoddy behavior inflicted on Niketas, the Latins and the Greek representative began to find common ground. However, the patience of the Latins toward the patriarch became exhausted as the days of summer passed with no response. Humbert then prepared his dramatic move. On the morning of Saturday, July 16, while the Greek clergy gathered for the office of the third hour before the Liturgy commenced, Humbert and his companions charged into the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom and laid an excommunication on the altar. According to Humbert, the Latins then walked out, but Keroularios tells a different story. He claims that Humbert sought to give the excommunication to the subdeacons of the week, who refused to receive it, so that it fell on the floor before reaching the altar. Someone picked it up, and it was passed from hand to hand until finally the patriarch received it, but, because it was in Latin, Keroularios was unaware of its contents.

The excommunication fell by name on three people--Keroularios, Archbishop Leo of Ochrid, and Constantine (or Nikephoros, in the Greek translation)--the sakellarios of the patriarchate and "those who were in agreement with them." (18) How many would this include? It must have included the members of the patriarchal staff, most of the city clergy, probably the monks and nuns of the capital, and many of the Byzantine citizens who resented the Italian colonists in Constantinople. In no way can the document of excommunication--already of doubtful validity because of the pope's death--be considered an excommunication of everyone in the Greek Church. The personal charges fell against three people and their supporters. Even though they held important offices within their community, they were surely not the whole of it. In fact, the document praised the emperor and the citizens of Constantinople for their orthodox faith.

They were sixteen charges against the Greek tradition in the document of excommunication. A few were valid, but most were just as surely in error, adding one more reason to deny its effect upon the whole Greek Church. An excommunication that errs is without force. The list proceeds as follows:

(1) Simony. In the eleventh century, simony was a very serious problem in the Latin Church, for the feudal nobility in Western Europe sought positions that carried benefices for themselves or their families and were quite willing to pay for them. The result was to place the church under the rule of the laity instead of the bishops and the pope. Leo IX was especially intent upon deposing clerics who had purchased their positions or had married, and Humbert was leading the fight in the papal attempt to stamp out simony. In this instance, Humbert presumed that the problem was equally severe in the Greek Church, but, in fact, it was not. (19)

(2) Castration of clerics. Humbert charges the Greeks with espousing the practice of the Valesians, a rather obscure Christian sect founded by an Arab or Persian of that name during the early centuries of the church that demanded castration of all males. A reference to them is found in Epiphanios's Panarion. Canons of both East and West prohibited the ordination of eunuchs. There was, however, always a small group of literalists who wanted to make themselves "eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven" (Mt. 19:12), wrongly interpreting Jesus' words. Keroularios's predecessor, Patriarch Ignatios, was a eunuch, but Humbert was off the mark in claiming it was an approved practice in the Greek Church. (20)

(3) Baptizing converts from other Christian churches when they seek admission to the Greek Church. The Orthodox Church has always held that baptism should ideally be conferred by a priest within that community in a triple immersion. The charge of "rebaptism" of other Christians, which the excommunication attributes to Arians, more properly should be directed against the Donatists. The Donatists, a fourth-century church of North Africa, demanded correct belief and worthiness in the minister for a sacrament to have efficacy. It seems Humbert has confused the groups. (21)

(4) Claiming that the Greek Church is the one and only true Christian church. Humbert was probably exaggerating the claims for exclusivity by the Greek Church. Keroularios would certainly have recognized the legitimacy of the churches and their patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. His statements may refer to the fact that the ancient Melkite churches of Syria and Egypt were also Greek in composition and supported the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon.

(5) Following the Mosaic Law. On this charge, Humbert claimed that there was a curse on any who followed the tenets of the Mosaic Law and accused the Greeks of adopting the ideas of Severos of Antioch, who was much better known for his Monophysite views.

(6) The marriage of priests. Clerical marriage has always been the norm in the Eastern traditions, a fact well known to Humbert from his experience with the situation in southern Italy. The Nikolaitans appear in Rev. 2:6 and 2:14, where they advocate returning to the Greek and Roman gods. In the Middle Ages Latin authors gave the title "Nikolaitan" to married priests. It is easy to see why Humbert was upset; the issue was a major one for the reforming papacy, but the popes in the Middle Ages never tried to impose celibacy on the Eastern churches' clergy within their jurisdiction. (22)

(7) Failure to acknowledge the role of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit. At last a doctrinal issue appears, where Humbert argues that the Greeks had taken the filioque out of the creed, presuming that it was once there, which it was not. The filioque had first entered the Latin recitation of the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo, in 589 C.E., and it was later adopted by the Carolingian Church and reached Rome in 1014 at the coronation of the Western emperor Henry II. As early as the ninth century, Patriarch Photios broke with Pope Nicholas I over what the Greeks considered illegitimate, for "and the Son" not only added a clause to the original creed unilaterally, but it was also doctrinally suspect, for it did not clearly distinguish that the Father is the sole source of the divine life. Humbert's accusation that the Greeks were "Pneumatomachoi" (those fighting against the Spirit), was the result of a serious misunderstanding. (23)

(8) Claiming that only leavened bread could be used at the eucharist. The proper bread to use at the eucharist had started the problem, hence its importance. Connected to this point was the accusation that the patriarch espoused Manichaeism, believing that the agents of fermentation were equivalent to something alive. (24)

(9) Restrictions on abstinence. Each church, East and West, had been free to determine its own rules regarding fasting and abstinence, so differences have always existed within their disciplines. The Nazirites were a strict Jewish group that had certain dietary prohibitions, among them not drinking wine. They were also forbidden to cut their hair. Greek religious sentiment held that to fast on Saturdays and Sundays was to deny the reality of the risen Christ after his death. In the fourth century, the obligation of Saturday fasting differed even between Rome and Milan. St. Ambrose said, "When I go to Rome, I fast on Saturdays; when I am here, I do not. If you go to any church, observe the local custom." (25)

(10) Refusal to baptize infants until they are eight days old. Whether this was a fact or merely hearsay, it must have been due to an effort to imitate the circumcision of Jewish infant boys and in accordance with the naming of John the Baptist. In the Byzantine rite, the baby received its name on the eighth day after birth. In the Western Church, limbo was put forward as a possible solution to infants who died before baptism. (26)

(11) Refusal to baptize pagans. Once more, Humbert's charge is difficult to understand. Does he mean that the Greeks were denying baptism to slaves, or perhaps prisoners of war, before they had some instruction in the Christian faith?

(12) Refusal to allow women to communicate during their menstrual period and immediately after childbirth. After the eighth century and the Iconoclast era, it became a tradition in the Greek Church to demand ritual purity of those who would communicate. These ideas were drawn out of the religious atmosphere of the Bible (Lev. 15:31). The canons followed the restrictions of the Hebrew Scriptures that defined what made a woman "impure"--not morally, but on issues of worship. (27)

(13) Refusal to communicate with Latin clergy, who shave rather than wear beards. Wearing a beard has always been considered a necessity for Eastern clergy, based on Paul's advice to the Corinthians. Once more, we see evidence of two traditions, one faith. (28)

(14) Failure to meet with the papal delegation or accept its advice. This complaint about the Greeks follows from the patriarch's decision neither to receive the Latin delegation nor to consider authentic the letters brought to Constantinople.

(15) Forbidding the celebration of the Mass and the closing of Latin churches. Humbert is rightly indignant that Keroularios closed the few Latin churches and monasteries in Constantinople. The patriarch should have been aware that such a measure would poison the relations between the churches, but it was one way to respond to the Norman actions in southern Italy. (29)

(16) Using the title "ecumenical patriarch." Constantinople's patriarch had claimed this title for at least 400 years, and for all that time Roman popes had protested its use and made every effort to ignore it. From the Western point of view, Constantinople was challenging both Rome's primacy and the ranking of the other Eastern patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch. The title did not have such significance, but it was hard to convince the popes that it was innocuous. (30)

To sum up, Humbert demonstrates the difficulty for a Western cleric, especially one whose temperament was so unbending, to understand the legitimate division between the Latin and Greek traditions. Either because he was poorly informed, or because he hoped to make his case stronger through exaggeration, most of his accusations against the Byzantine church were without foundation. Patriarch Keroularios had the same aggressive personality as Humbert and was hardly likely to accept such a criticism of his church that contained so many evident flaws.

According to Humbert's account, the document was read aloud to the emperor before the delegates packed their bags on the day following the excommunication and started the journey home with Constantine's blessing. The emperor exchanged the kiss of peace and sent gifts to be delivered to the pope. According to the cardinal, the emperor also received a copy of the excommunication, but only later did a deacon bring him the original, after the delegates were a day's journey from the capital. Constantine had requested the original because some clerics thought the document in Keroularios's hands was not a faithful rendition. The emperor sent a messenger to halt the delegation, which caught up with Humbert and his fellows near Selymbria on the Via Egnatia.

The emperor asked the papal delegates to return to meet with the patriarchal Holy Synod, which the legates agreed to do, and therefore they returned to the Pege palace. Constantine insisted that he be present at the meeting of the Holy Synod, but Keroularios refused his request, so the meeting was aborted. An angry mob of Keroularios's supporters gathered in the square before the Church of the Holy Wisdom, having learned of the incident and of the document critical of their church. Sensing the hostile mood of the clergy and the people, with Keroularios's aides cheering on the crowd, Constantine told the Latins, for their own safety, to leave the city. (31)

An indignant Keroularios flew into action once the Latin legates were gone. Still blaming Argyros for forging the letters, Keroularios punished the Latin translators of the documents for their cooperation with Humbert's delegation, and two relatives of Argyros in the capital were arrested. On July 20, at a synod of twenty-one metropolitans and archbishops, called by the patriarch, a copy of the excommunication--the patriarch said the original was put into the archives--was ceremoniously burned. Four days later, in a more formal declaration, the Holy Synod, meeting in the Church of the Holy Wisdom's Hall of the Catechumens, excommunicated the interpreters and "the party of Argyros" (32) who had dared to challenge the leaders of the church in Constantinople. For the moment, among the people in Constantinople, the patriarch was the hero of the day, the defender of Orthodoxy. His popularity soared, and an embittered Emperor Constantine had to give up any idea of an alliance with the papacy to challenge the Normans in southern Italy. (33)

The patriarch, however, issued his own version of the events in the Church of the Holy Wisdom, which is found in his letters to Patriarch Peter III of Antioch. Keroularios expressed once more his conviction that Argyros was behind the rift, for the letter he had sent to Pope Leo had been tampered with, and this explained the intemperate language of the response of Humbert and his colleagues. As for the three delegates, "They burst in like a wild boar, upsetting the right order of doctrine, and put down a document on the sacred table of God's great church. Then they insulted us, or in fact the Orthodox church of God and all the Orthodox people, who are not even their subjects, with a curse, because we hold to what is true belief and follow it. In addition they charged us with many other matters." (34) Keroularios may have assembled the Panoplia against the Latins, a tract that lists the faults of his adversaries, soon after the events of the summer of 1054. (35)

Keroularios spoke of sending letters to the other Eastern patriarchs, those of Alexandria and Jerusalem, to win them to his side, but these letters are no longer extant. In his correspondence with Peter of Antioch, Keroularios wrote that he had heard that the pope's name was in the diptychs of the Antiochene Church, and he added, "I do not believe that you especially, who are of special distinction, would be guilty of such carelessness." (36) Peter responded that he was sympathetic with some, but not all, of Keroularios's positions. Unleavened bread, he agreed with the patriarch, was not used at the Last Supper, and he faulted the Latins accordingly, but Peter saw no need of uniformity with Constantinople on all matters. (37)

Humbert's account of what occurred in his mission to Constantinople, titled Brevis et succincta commemoratio, was the only one to reach the West, with the result that everyone accepted it as an accurate account of what had transpired. Subsequently, leaders of the Latin Church put all the blame for the schism on Keroularios and viewed Humbert's mission with favor. Byzantine historians did not bother to record what was to them one more conflict between Eastern and Western church leaders that had little impact upon the life of the Christians of the empire.

A Christian Arab author, Muhtar Ibn Butlan, was present in Constantinople in the summer of 1054 and wrote of the difficulties caused by the two excommunications, but neither he nor anyone else thought of them as permanent. Only a generation later, Emperor Alexios II Komnenos asked the pope for military assistance to be used against the Seljuk Turks, and Gregory VII responded that he personally intended to come to the aid of Constantinople. This never happened, but the correspondence shows there were no lasting wounds to heal. Moreover, when Alexios asked the synodal bishops why the Roman pope's name was not mentioned in the diptychs of the church of Constantinople, they answered that it had been omitted through carelessness. In 1054 an honest attempt to reconcile difficulties between the churches had failed, but it was not the beginning of a permanent schism between the two parts of European Christendom. (38)


The Excommunication of Patriarch Michael Keroularios: The Report of Humbert of Moyenmoutier (39)

In the eleventh year of Emperor Constantine Monomachos, in the seventh indiction, on the day of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, Humbert, cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida, Peter, archbishop of Amalfi, and Frederick, both deacon and chancellor, having been sent as legates of Pope Leo IX, arrived at the Stoudite monastery in the city of Constantinople. (40)

Before the emperor and his court the Roman ambassadors condemned whatever the monk Niketas, also known as Pektoratos, had written or spoken against the Apostolic See and the whole Latin Church. Specifically, these statements concerned unleavened bread, the Sabbath, and the marriage of priests. Moreover, Niketas denied that the Holy Roman Church held a primacy over all other churches and presumed to question its perpetual orthodox faith. Immediately after this, and in the presence of all, at the suggestion of the Roman ambassadors, the orthodox emperor ordered any such writings burned. Then he dismissed the ambassadors.

On the following day, Niketas left the city while the legates settled down in the Pege palace. They continued to seek a peaceful solution, but again condemned all writings, actions, or charges that defamed the first of the Apostolic Sees. Niketas was now received in communion by them, and he was made to feel that they were friends. By their words and actions the legates responded to the calumnies of the Greeks, especially those advanced by Bishop Michael of Constantinople and of the monk Niketas. The emperor ordered their response be translated into Greek and be preserved in the city archives.

Michael, however, continued to speak out against their presence and their charges and continued to act in a hostile manner. On the seventeenth day before the Kalends of August [July 16], the ambassadors entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, at the third hour. Over the objections of some who were present, as the clergy was preparing for the Liturgy in the usual way the legates placed a letter of excommunication on the church's principal altar in the presence of the clergy and the people. Then they walked out. On their departure they shook the dust from their feet, following the Gospel injunction where it says, "May God look to it and pass judgment."

The ambassadors made some arrangements with the Latin churches of Constantinople, once again deploring those among the Greeks finding fault with the Roman Mass. Then the orthodox emperor gave them permission to leave, shared the kiss of peace with them, and presented gifts to St. Peter and themselves. They made preparations to leave on the sixteenth day of the Kalends of August. However, at that moment Michael, whose prestige had been enhanced because of these events, won over the emperor to his side of the conflict, forcing him in a solemn letter to nullify the condemnation of the seventeenth day before the August Kalends. As a result, the ambassadors returned to the Pege palace.

On the next day, after Michael, that master of heretics, learned of this, he summoned a synod to meet in the Church of the Holy Wisdom. Here he showed the translated excommunication before the eyes of all the people. The prudent emperor had warned him not to convoke the synod unless he was present. Nevertheless, because of Michael's activities, the emperor ordered the legates to interrupt their journey. They agreed to do so.

Upon this news the wicked Michael, fearing he could not proceed with his plot, aroused a great outcry among the people, claiming the papal legates were planning a major insurrection. The compromised emperor responded, turning over to Michael, beaten and stripped, the interpreters of the Latins, Paul and his son, Smaragdus. This served to quiet the crowd. According to the emperor's orders, a true copy of the excommunication was brought from the city of Rusion, so that Michael's document could be compared with that of the Roman legates. Once this was done, he persuaded his aides and officials of the palace to hold no resentment and thereby stilled any anger coming from them, for they were convinced that Michael had falsified the document of the Latins. This is a copy of the excommunication:
 Humbert, by the grace of God, cardinal-archbishop of the Holy
 Roman Church, Peter, archbishop of the Amalfians, Frederick, deacon
 and chancellor, to all the sons of the Catholic Church.

 The holy and Roman, the first and Apostolic See, to which belongs
 the headship and special care for all the churches, their harmony,
 and their activities, saw fit to send us as ambassadors to the
 imperial city.

 In conformity with our instructions, we came here to find out why
 there was such trouble. Without any intermission, people filled our
 ears with reports, some saying this, others that. Now the glorious
 emperor, the clergy, the Senate, and the people of the city of
 Constantinople and the whole Catholic Church know very well that we
 only rejoice in the good and are saddened by the evil that
 threatens the foundations of the empire and its most wise,
 Christian, and orthodox citizens.

 What we discovered was that Michael, unworthily holding the title
 of patriarch, and those of his followers, equally ignorant, were
 daily sowing the weeds of heresy in this city's midst. He and his
 officials sell the gifts of God like the Simoniacs. Following the
 example of the Valesians, they castrate those who seek Holy Orders,
 even bishops. They act as the Arians, rebaptizing those who have
 already received the sacrament in the name of the Trinity,
 especially if they are Latins. They claim, as the Donatists, with
 the exception of the Greek Church, that the church of Christ, the
 true eucharist, and baptism have perished in all the world.

 Like the Nikolaitans, they sponsor carnal marriage even for
 ministers of the sacred altar. Just as the Severians, they place a
 curse on the Mosaic Law. Following the Pneumatomachi, or Theumai,
 they omit from the Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
 Son. Like the Manichaes, among others, they consider anything
 fermented to be alive. Like the Nazirites and the Jews, they refuse
 good meat and deny baptism to small children if they die before the
 eighth day after their birth. They will not permit women to receive
 communion during their menstrual period or if they have given
 birth. If pagans request baptism, they forbid it. They spend a
 great deal of time caring for the hairs of their head and beards,
 and because it is the custom of the clergy in the Roman Church to
 shave, they refuse to be in communion with them.

 Added to these errors and similar to them, Michael has shown
 contempt for the advice of our lord, Pope Leo. He has refused to
 speak or to allow us, his ambassadors, who arrived here, hoping to
 settle some of these problems, to present ourselves to him. He has
 forbidden the offering of the Mass and closed the Latin churches,
 calling us azymites. He has persecuted us in word and in deed. He
 has condemned the sons of the Apostolic See while daring to call
 himself "ecumenical patriarch."

 Therefore, because of his defiance and unspeakable affronts in
 attacking the Catholic faith and the many actions he has undertaken
 to its detriment, by the authority of the holy and undivided
 Trinity and the Apostolic See in whose name we act, and with the
 approval of all the orthodox Fathers of the Seven Councils and of
 the whole Catholic Church, let it be known that our most reverend
 pope excommunicates Michael and those who are in agreement with him
 unless they recant their errors. Such we declare.

 We condemn the neophyte Michael, mistakenly known as patriarch.
 He is a man who wears the habit of a monk only out of human
 ambition. We accuse him of the worst crimes. With him we charge
 Bishop Leo of Ochrid and Nikephoros, the sakellarios of Michael.
 These have trod under their feet the elements of the Latin Mass.

 We also condemn all those who subscribe to their errors and
 false opinions. May they be condemned on the Day of Judgment along
 with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nikolaitans,
 Severians, Pneumatomachians, and Manichaes, as well as the
 Nazirites and all heretics who will take their place with the Devil
 and his angels unless they repent.

 The legates made the following statement orally before the
 emperor and his court: "Let anyone who perniciously contradicts the
 faith of the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church and its eucharist and
 does not share its beliefs be declared a heretic and deserving of
 condemnation. Maranatha! Fiat, fiat, fiat!"

On December 7, 1965, Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI lifted the two excommunications of 1054, beginning a new era of reconciliation between Constantinople and Rome. Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I made unity a goal at the papal visit in November, 2006.

(1) The documentation for the excommunictions of 1054 is to be found in Cornelius Will, Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant (Leipzig and Marburg, 1861; repr., Frankfort: Minerva, 1963); J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857-66), vol. 120; and Series Latina (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844-55), vol. 143. The standard works are three books in English: Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955); Mahlon Smith, III, And Taking Bread...: Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1978); and Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church from Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). The dating of the schism to 1054 goes back to Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. David Womersley (London: Penguin, 1994), vol. 3, pp. 658-659. For a thorough discussion on the dating of the break between the churches, see Richard Mayne, "East and West in 1054," Cambridge Historical Journal, vol. 2, no. 2 (1954), pp. 136-148.

(2) John Norwich, The Normans in the South, 1016-1130 (London: Longmans, 1967), pp. 220233; R. Allen Brown, The Normans (Woodbridge : Boydell & Brewer, 1984), pp. 84-116; Huguette Taviani-Carozzi, La terreur du monde. Robert Guiscard et la conquete normande en Italie, mythe et histoire (Paris: Fayard, 1996), pp. 450-483; Jules Gay, L'Italie meridionale et l'empire byzantin,, depuis l'avennment de Basile ler jusqu'a la prise de Bari par les Normands, 867-1071 (Paris, 1904; repr., New York: Burr Franklin, 1972), vol. 2, pp. 414-429; F. Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande en Italic et en Sicile (Paris, 1907; repr., New York: Burr Franklin, 1960), vol. 1, pp. 134-142; V. Gramel, "Preliminaires du schisme de Michel Cerulaire, ou la question romaine avant 1054," Revue des etudes byzantines, vol. 10 (1952), pp. 6-23; and Vera von Falkenhausen, La dominazione byzantina nell' Italia meridionale dal IX all 'XI secolo (Bari, Italy: Ecumenica Editrice, 1978), pp. 59-62.

(3) "Brunonis episcopi Signiensis vita sancti Leonis PP. IX," in Johann Matthias Watterich, ed., Pontificum Romanorum qui fuerunt inde ab exeunte saeculo IX usque ad finem saeculi XIII vitae (Leipzig, 1862; repr., Aalen, Germany: Scientia Verlag, 1966), vol. I, pp. 96-98. This text is now thought to be the work of Humbert of Moyenmoutier.

(4) Franz Tinnefeld, "Michael I. Kerullarios, Patriarch yon Konstantinopel (1043-1058), Kritische Uberlegungen zu einer Biographie," Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinisk, vol. 39 (1989), pp. 102-105; Louis Brehier, Le schisme oriental du XIe siecle (Paris, 1899; repr., New York: Burt Franklin, 1968), pp. 68-81, George Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate, 451-1204 (London: S.P.C. K , 1962), pp. 148-158; Joan Hussey, The Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), pp. 129-137; and Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York: Fordham University Press, 1986), pp. 131-142.

(5) R. Janin, "Les sanctuaires des colonies latines a Constantinople," Revue des etudes Byzantines, vol. 4 (1946), pp. 163-177. Neither the number of the earliest churches nor the year of their foundation is known. The Venetians, whose colony dated from 991 C.E., had four or five churches before the thirteenth century.

(6) Peter Charanis, Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon: Livario Bertrand, 1963), pp. 4950; Sirarpie Der Neressian, Armenia and the Byzantine Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1945), pp. 10-11.

(7) Donald Nicol, "Byzantium and the Papacy in the Eleventh Century," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 136 (1962), pp. 1-20; Pierre Brunelle, Le cardinal Humbert de Moyenmoutier (Lille: Universite catholique de Lille, 1947), p. 50. In Canon 11 of the Council in Trullo, matzo was forbidden. See G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Syntagma ton Theion kai Hieron Kanon (Athens, 1852-59; repr., Athens: A. G. Chartophylakos, 1966), vol. 2, p. 328. Although the Byzantine Church recognized this council as binding, it was never accepted in the West. The Latin switch to unleavened bread had occurred in the late eighth century in the Carolingian Empire, first witnessed in the works of Alcuin of York and Rabanus Maurus.

(8) Gay, L'Italie meridionale, pp. 495-496. The text of Leo's letter is to be found in Will, Acta et scripta, pp. 56-64, and in Migne, Patrologia graeca, pp. 120, 836ff. John Meyendorff sees the Byzantines as believing that the Latins had fallen into Apollinarianism, denying Jesus a complete humanity. See his Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Theses (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), pp. 94-101.

(9) Will, Acta et scripta, p. 65.

(10) Leo IX to Michael Keroularios, in Will, Acta et scripta, pp. 65-85; Leo IX to Emperor Constantine Monomachos, in Will, Acta et scripta, pp. 85-89; and Migne, Patrologia latina, pp. 143, 764-781. The pope notes, "Happy is he who seeks unity with the head of the churches." He pointed out that the Normans had descended on Italy in an unbelievable rage, "with a brutality that surpasses the pagans" (Will, Acta et scripta, p. 88). According to him, they despoiled the churches and monasteries and spared no one in their conquests. The letters from the emperor and patriarch are not extant and must be inferred from later correspondence.

(11) The Dialogue may be found in Will, Acta et scripta, pp. 92-126. The Donation of Constantine was a forgery of the late eighth or early ninth century, written by an anonymous church leader in the Frankish lands. In it Emperor Constantine gave Pope Sylvester I authority over the other patriarchates and temporal rule over all of Italy and the provinces attached to Rome. It further stated that Constantine offered the imperial crown to the pope, but he would not accept it. The Donation was introduced into the Western canons, initially appearing in the Pseudo-Isidoran Decretals about 850 C.E., and became widely accepted as authentic until the fifteenth century. This is its first known use to assert papal claims.

(12) Peter of Antioch to Dominic, in Will, Acta et scripta, p. 210; and Brunelle, Le cardinal Humbert, pp. 53-66.

(13) There are four documents on these events, Humbert's (in Will, Acta et scripta, pp. 150-152) and three Greek sources: letter 1 of Keroularios to Peter of Antioch, letter 2 of Keroularios to Peter of Antioch (both in Will, Acta et scripta, pp. 172-188), and the Synodal Edict (in Will, Acta et scripta, pp. 155-168). See also Brehier, Schisme oriental, pp. 105-112; Brunelle, Le cardinal Humbert, pp. 39-43; and Smith, And Taking Bread, p. 173, which has a chart on the complex interchange of correspondence between the parties. Frederick of Lorraine was subsequently elected to the papacy as Stephen IX.

(14) According to Keroularios, Argyros had recruited the three delegates for his own purposes. They were a sorry lot; one was an exiled archbishop who for five years had been ousted from his residence, the second was an archbishop who was a fraud, and the third was altogether untrustworthy. Such were the charges Keroularios reported to Peter of Antioch in letter I, in Will, Acta et scripta, p. 175.

(15) The issue is discussed in Emilio Herman, "I Legati inviati da Leone IX nel 1054 a Constantinopoli erano autorizzati a scomunicare il patriarcha Michele Cerulario?" Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 8 (1942), pp. 209-218. The author lists the pros and cons, noting that the powers of eleventh-century papal legates were as yet undefined. Mayne has pointed out that other papal delegations continued to act after the death of the pope who commissioned them; see Mayne, "East and West," pp. 145-146.

(16) Will, Acta et scripta, p. 150.

(17) The work of Niketas, Tract against the Latins, is in Will, Acta et scripta, pp. 126-136; Humbert's response is on pp. 136-150. See also Emile Amman, "Michel Cerulaire," in Alfred Vacant, Eugene Mangenot, and Emile Amman, eds., Dictionnaire de theologie catholique (Paris: Letouzey and Ant, 1909-50), vol. 10, pp. 1677-1703; and Martin Jugie, Le schisme byzantin (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1941), pp. 205-208.

(18) Will, Acta et scripta, p. 154.

(19) In Acts 8:14-24 Simon Magus sought to buy the powers of the Holy Spirit; hence, the name "simony." One of Humbert's major works, Adversus simoniacs, dealt with the problem. This was a new issue, not dealt with in previous correspondence. Numerous canons as well as the civil law sought to limit the practice without much success, e.g., Canon 29 of the Apostolic Canons, Canon 2 of the Council of Chalcedon, Canon 22 of the Council "in Trullo," and Canons 4 and 19 of the Second Council of Nicaea, in Rhalles and Potles, Syntagma, vol. 2, pp. 37, 217, 354, 566, and 567, respectively.

(20) Epiphanios said of the Valesians, "But these people are really crazy ... Since the resurrection is a resurrection of the body, all the members will be raised and not one of them left behind" (Frank Williams, tr., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, c. 310-402, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36 [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994], 4:38, 2-1 [vol. 2, p. 98]). The prohibition is to be found in number 23 of the Apostolic Canons, in Rhalles and Potles, Syntagma, vol. 2, p. 31.

(21) See Timothy Ware, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Domination (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), pp. 66-80.

(22) Tradition has it that in 325 C.E. the bishops at the Council of Nicaea had a proposal before them to make celibacy a requirement for the clergy, but they rejected it. Canon 13 of the Council in Trullo (in 692) legislated for the Greek Church that priests and deacons could marry before ordination; see Rhalles and Potles, Syntagma, vol. 2, pp. 333-334.

(23) The Pneumatomachi were those who would deny the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. At the first council of Constantinople they were condemned as heretics. See Epiphanios, Panarion, 6:1, pp. 1-14; Francis Dvomik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 91-151. In the eighth century, the filioque appeared in the Nicene Creed sanctioned by a council in Toledo that was anxious to accent the role of God the Son in opposition to the Arian Visigoths.

(24) In Smith, And Taking Bread, the whole issue receives extensive treatment. See also J. H. Erickson, "Leavened and Unleavened: Some Theological Implications of the Schism of 1054," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, vol. 14 (1970), pp. 155-161. Erickson noted an underlying christological heresy in the use of unleavened bread.

(25) Ambrose is quoted in letter 54 in S Aureli Augustini Hipponiensis episcopi Epistulae, in A. Goldbacher, ed., Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum (Prague, Vienna, and Leipzig, 1895; repr., New York: Johnson Reprints, 1970), vol. 34, p. 161.

(26) For the earliest extant Byzantine text on baptism, see Edward Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy (London: S.P.C.K., 1960), pp. 60-73.

(27) Canon 2 of the letter of Dionysios of Alexandria to Bishop Basilides reads, "Menstruous women should not come to the Holy Table or touch the body and blood of Christ, nor go to churches, but pray somewhere else." See Migne, Patrologia graeca, vol. 10, col. 1281. For an E.T., see Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd ser. (London, 1890-1900; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), vol. 14, p. 600. See also Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Menstruants and the Sacred," in Sarah B. Pomeroy, ed., Women's History and Ancient History (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), pp. 287-291. On women in Byzantine culture, see A. Laiou, "The Role of Women in Byzantine Society," Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinisk, vol. 31, no. 1 (1981), pp. 233-260; and Judith Herrin, "In Search of Byzantine Women: Three Avenues of Approach," in Averil Cameron and Ame1ie Kurht, eds., Images of Women in Antiquity (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1983), pp. 167-189.

(28) Beards for Greek clerics were a sign of virility and gravity and made a statement that they were not Latins. See Henri Leclercq, "Barbes," Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie (Paris: Letouzey and Ane, 1903-53), vol. 1, pp. 478-486.

(29) In the eleventh century, Benedictine monks from Amalfi possibly had two foundations in Constantinople: Holy Savior and St. Mary de Latina.

(30) The title of "ecumenical patriarch" was vigorously resisted by Pope Gregory the Great. In a letter to the patriarch John, the pope complained, "By this unspeakable title the church is torn apart and the hearts of the faithful are offended" (Gregory to John the Faster, Rome, July, 593, in Dag Norberg, Registrum epistularum S. Gregorii Magni, vol. 5, p. 44, in Corpus christianorum: Series latina [Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1982], vol. 140, p. 330).

(31) Synodal Edict, in Will, Acta et scripta, p. 165; Franz Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen Reiches yon 556-1453 (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1924-65), vol. 2, p. 11.

(32) Will, Acta et scripta, pp. 166-167.

(33) The phrase is "to merous tou Argyrou," in Will, Acta et scripta, p. 167.

(34) Will, Acta et scripta, p. 157.

(35) The text of Panoplia against the Latins may be found in Anton Michel, Humbert undKeroularios (Paderborn: F. Schoningh, 1930), vol. 2, pp. 208-281. It rehearses the charges that the coming of Jesus and his death and resurrection require a break from anything associated with the Mosaic Law. To keep any part of the Jewish law is to deny the efficacy of Christ's mission. The Latins err in using unleavened bread at the Mass and by prescribing fasting on the Sabbath, which violates Canon 66 of the Apostolic Canons. See Rhalles and Potles, Syntagma, vol. 2, p. 84.

(36) Will, Acta et scripta, p. 178.

(37) Keroularios was mistaken in his charge that Antioch and Alexandria had broken relations with Rome centuries earlier. He was also wrong in asserting that the pope's name was taken out of the Constantinopolitan diptychs from the sixth century.

(38) Georg Graf, "Die Eucharistielehre des Nestorianers al-Muhtar ibn Butlan," Oriens Christianus, vol. 35 (1938), pp. 53-70.

(39) Author's translation; taken from Will, Acta et scripta, pp. 150-152, 153-154.

(40) The title of "apokrisiarios" was given to a Roman ambassador to the Byzantine court in Constantinople.

Charles Frazee (Roman Catholic) has been on the faculty of Episcopal Theological School in Claremont, CA, since 1994. He has taught previously at the U.S. Air Force Academy (1993-94), California State University in Fullerton (1970-93), and Marian College, Indianapolis (1956-70). He holds an A.B. from St. Meinrad (IN) College, an MA from Catholic University of America, and a Ph.D. (1965) from Indiana University, Bloomington (including certification from its Russian and East European Institute). The most recent of his seven books is Two Thousand Years Ago: The Worm at the Time of Jesus (Eerdmans, 2002). He has written three two-volume sets in the area of world history, published by Delos, Barton's, and Greenhaven. His articles have appeared in nine edited collections and nearly thirty have appeared in professional journals, most recently including three in Sacred History Magazine. He has lectured in England, Greece, Cyprus, and Spain, as well as in conferences in the U.S., most recently delivering the 2006 Cunningham Lecture at the University of Minnesota.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Journal of Ecumenical Studies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Frazee, Charles
Publication:Journal of Ecumenical Studies
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:4EUIT
Date:Mar 22, 2007
Previous Article:Ecumenical marriage as leaven for Christian unity.
Next Article:Ecumenism and interreligious dialogue seen through an emancipatory theory.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters