OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 12:03:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why did Rome attempt to excommunicate the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius?  (Read 3205 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« on: November 15, 2009, 09:57:35 PM »

At least one Catholic apologist states that it was in direct response to the Massacre of the Latins.

Could anyone give me the Orthodox perspective on why Rome tried to excommunicate the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius?



Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990



« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2009, 10:44:44 PM »

Essentially (other posters can provide more technical details), my general recollection is that a Cardinal Humbard had led a small delegation from the Church of Rome to Constantinople, in an effort to reconcile a dispute between the two churches, due to Rome's addition to the 8th Article of the Nicene-Constantinopolen Creed, the Symbol of Faith, with the words "and from the Son," "Filoque," in Latin, which, had been unaltered since it was issued by the First and Second Ecumenical Synods (Councils), and had stated that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" (only), consistent with the Gospel of Saint John, Chapter 15, Verse 26, "but when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, He will testify of Me."  The Undivided Church had held previously that once an Ecumenical Synod had promulgated matters of Faith, and it was accepted by the Church as a whole, and was reconfirmed by a subsequent Ecumenical Synod, it is doctrine that must be believed by the the faithful; and that no one had the authority to alter it.  When the local synod in the West had first added this language to the Symbol of Faith, the Pope had rejected their addition of the "Filioque."  A Pope had also emblazoned it in silver on the walls of the Vatican, so that it wouldn't be altered.  It was Charlemagne, as I recall, who had pressed a subsequent pope to amend the Creed. The Eastern Patriarchs refused to make the change, advising that no one had the authority to alter church doctrine, especially when it has scripture as its basis. After a few meetings with Constantinople's representatives, Cardinal Humbard issued the Anathema against "Patriarch Michael, and all who follow him," as I recall, having placed it upon the Holy Table of the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom of God (Hagia Sophia), July, 1054.

If you enter a "search" of this topic, there have been lots of discussions of this matter, which remains Orthodoxy's principle dispute with the Church of Rome, as it symbolizes the authority that the Western Church has ascribed to the pope, which Eastern Orthodoxy wholly disputes.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,826



« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2009, 10:46:59 PM »

Long and short of it was that Cerularius and Humbert were both very arrogant, haughty men.  Humbert exceeded his authority as a papal legate since the Pope had died two weeks prior to his laying of the excommunication bull on the altar at Hagia Sophia while the Liturgy was celebrated.  Also, there were serious language differences.  Humbert thought he understood Greek but only made the situation worse when he translated, very poorly, comminques to the Pope from both the Patriarch and the Emperor.

I think the most balanced perspective can be found in Sir Steven RUnciman's book, The Eastern Schism.  Chapter 2 is dedicated particularly to Cerularius.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,146


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2009, 10:58:49 AM »

Long and short of it was that Cerularius and Humbert were both very arrogant, haughty men.  Humbert exceeded his authority as a papal legate since the Pope had died two weeks prior to his laying of the excommunication bull on the altar at Hagia Sophia while the Liturgy was celebrated.  Also, there were serious language differences.  Humbert thought he understood Greek but only made the situation worse when he translated, very poorly, comminques to the Pope from both the Patriarch and the Emperor.

I think the most balanced perspective can be found in Sir Steven RUnciman's book, The Eastern Schism.  Chapter 2 is dedicated particularly to Cerularius.
Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) also provides a detailed discussion of this matter in his book, The Orthodox Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2009, 11:01:42 AM »

Thank you all for your comments, but why did the pope try to excommunicate him? On another board, someone posted a portion of the actual bull. Here is the OP summary of the reasons outlined in the bull for the excommunication:

Quote
(of the Greeks)
...they sell the gift of God
...they castrate their guests
...they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins
...they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world
...they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar
...they say that the law of Moses is accursed
...they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
...they state that leave is ensouled (animatum)
...they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth
...they refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan
...they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church.

The bull is filled with very angry language and some of the claims I know are not true. But if some of the things are true, I find the truth of it upsetting as well. The East (of the 9th century) sounds a bit like the Judaizers mentioned in scripture. Both sides seemed filled with pride and a desire for power. Both seemed a far cry from St. Peter and St. John.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,146


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2009, 11:04:01 AM »

Thank you all for your comments, but why did the pope try to excommunicate him? On another board, someone posted a portion of the actual bull. Here is the OP summary of the reasons outlined in the bull for the excommunication:

Quote
(of the Greeks)
...they sell the gift of God
...they castrate their guests
...they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins
...they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world
...they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar
...they say that the law of Moses is accursed
...they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
...they state that leave is ensouled (animatum)
...they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth
...they refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan
...they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church.

The bull is filled with very angry language and some of the claims I know are not true. But if some of the things are true, I find the truth of it upsetting as well. The East (of the 9th century) sounds a bit like the Judaizers mentioned in scripture. Both sides seemed filled with pride and a desire for power. Both seemed a far cry from St. Peter and St. John.
Be careful. You have to remember that the good Cardinal was not exactly a saintly man. Read what he wrote with a grain of salt. Also remember, he was very ignorant of the valid practices and traditions of the Byznatine East. He saw heresy where there was none.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2009, 11:14:05 AM »

Be careful. You have to remember that the good Cardinal was not exactly a saintly man. Read what he wrote with a grain of salt. Also remember, he was very ignorant of the valid practices and traditions of the Byznatine East. He saw heresy where there was none.

Papist,
Thanks for your quick response. I do understand that there is some issues with language and ignorance within this bull, but isn't there at least some truth to its claims? I'm not suggesting the excommunication was valid or right, but doesn't the East have some issues concerning menstruating women? Also, wasn't long hair and beards a requirement at some point? Or have I been reading too much Western propaganda.

It's so hard to find the truth when each side tells the story from their own POV.

P.S. I did just recently read Metropolitan Kallistos' book and found it very good. I really enjoyed his account and I thought he went out of his way to be fair. But it's still coming from an Eastern Metropolitan so there is still the potential for bias to slip in.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 11:14:30 AM by militantsparrow » Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,146


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2009, 11:15:29 AM »

Be careful. You have to remember that the good Cardinal was not exactly a saintly man. Read what he wrote with a grain of salt. Also remember, he was very ignorant of the valid practices and traditions of the Byznatine East. He saw heresy where there was none.

Papist,
Thanks for your quick response. I do understand that there is some issues with language and ignorance within this bull, but isn't there at least some truth to its claims? I'm not suggesting the excommunication was valid or right, but doesn't the East have some issues concerning menstruating women? Also, wasn't long hair and beards a requirement at some point? Or have I been reading too much Western propaganda.

It's so hard to find the truth when each side tells the story from their own POV.

P.S. I did just recently read Metropolitan Kallistos' book and found it very good. I really enjoyed his account and I thought he went out of his way to be fair. But it's still coming from an Eastern Metropolitan so there is still the potential for bias to slip in.
I'll let the Eastern Orthodox posters answer this as this part of this forum is not for Catholics to debate with the EOs here.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2009, 11:22:03 AM »

Be careful. You have to remember that the good Cardinal was not exactly a saintly man. Read what he wrote with a grain of salt. Also remember, he was very ignorant of the valid practices and traditions of the Byznatine East. He saw heresy where there was none.

Papist,
Thanks for your quick response. I do understand that there is some issues with language and ignorance within this bull, but isn't there at least some truth to its claims? I'm not suggesting the excommunication was valid or right, but doesn't the East have some issues concerning menstruating women? Also, wasn't long hair and beards a requirement at some point? Or have I been reading too much Western propaganda.

It's so hard to find the truth when each side tells the story from their own POV.

P.S. I did just recently read Metropolitan Kallistos' book and found it very good. I really enjoyed his account and I thought he went out of his way to be fair. But it's still coming from an Eastern Metropolitan so there is still the potential for bias to slip in.
I'll let the Eastern Orthodox posters answer this as this part of this forum is not for Catholics to debate with the EOs here.

Fair enough. Maybe you could PM me your personal thoughts.

Just for the record, I am not here to debate. I'm just looking for truth. Asking questions is how I find truth. In my own personal journey, I am continually getting closer to leaving the CC and entering an EO church, but I don't want to because the grass looks greener on the other side. I want to make sure it actually is greener. I want to discover the Church Christ founded.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2009, 11:36:03 AM »

Thank you all for your comments, but why did the pope try to excommunicate him? On another board, someone posted a portion of the actual bull. Here is the OP summary of the reasons outlined in the bull for the excommunication:

Quote
(of the Greeks)
...they sell the gift of God
...they castrate their guests
...they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins
...they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world
...they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar
...they say that the law of Moses is accursed
...they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
...they state that leave is ensouled (animatum)
...they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth
...they refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan
...they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church.

The bull is filled with very angry language and some of the claims I know are not true. But if some of the things are true, I find the truth of it upsetting as well. The East (of the 9th century) sounds a bit like the Judaizers mentioned in scripture. Both sides seemed filled with pride and a desire for power. Both seemed a far cry from St. Peter and St. John.

LOL what Judaizer would say that the Law of Moses is accursed?
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2009, 11:37:28 AM »

Note, this topic has moved from the Convert section to the Religious Topics section to allow for greater freedom of discussion in accordance with forum policies.

-Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2009, 12:00:13 PM »

LOL what Judaizer would say that the Law of Moses is accursed?

LOL I know. It sounds self contradictory.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2009, 12:27:31 PM »

I just thumbed trough two books I have: Triumph by H.W. Crocker III (Catholic), and Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy by Alexander Schmemann (Orthodox).

Though Crocker's book is quite frankly hateful towards anything not Catholic, it appears his account of the build up to the schism jives with Fr. Alexander's.

Here is my summary of both of their accounts:

Crocker
  • The original issue was that there was disagreement on how the liturgy should be celebrated.
  • Patriarch Cerularius persecuted and shut down Latin-right churches in the East.
  • The Pope responded by excommunicating Cerularius.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating the Pope.

Fr. Alexander
  • The original issue was over ritual divergences (i.e., unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, etc.).
  • Patriarch Cerularius instructed Leo of Ohrid to write a tract against the Latin rites.
  • The papal legates, after being ignored for five weeks, responded by publicly excommunicating Cerularius and his supporters.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating all those responsible for the action.

Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,146


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2009, 12:31:42 PM »

I just thumbed trough two books I have: Triumph by H.W. Crocker III (Catholic), and Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy by Alexander Schmemann (Orthodox).

Though Crocker's book is quite frankly hateful towards anything not Catholic, it appears his account of the build up to the schism jives with Fr. Alexander's.

Here is my summary of both of their accounts:

Crocker
  • The original issue was that there was disagreement on how the liturgy should be celebrated.
  • Patriarch Cerularius persecuted and shut down Latin-right churches in the East.
  • The Pope responded by excommunicating Cerularius.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating the Pope.

Fr. Alexander
  • The original issue was over ritual divergences (i.e., unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, etc.).
  • Patriarch Cerularius instructed Leo of Ohrid to write a tract against the Latin rites.
  • The papal legates, after being ignored for five weeks, responded by publicly excommunicating Cerularius and his supporters.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating all those responsible for the action.


Who is Fr. Alexander?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2009, 12:38:34 PM »

I just thumbed trough two books I have: Triumph by H.W. Crocker III (Catholic), and Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy by Alexander Schmemann (Orthodox).

Though Crocker's book is quite frankly hateful towards anything not Catholic, it appears his account of the build up to the schism jives with Fr. Alexander's.

Here is my summary of both of their accounts:

Crocker
  • The original issue was that there was disagreement on how the liturgy should be celebrated.
  • Patriarch Cerularius persecuted and shut down Latin-right churches in the East.
  • The Pope responded by excommunicating Cerularius.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating the Pope.

Fr. Alexander
  • The original issue was over ritual divergences (i.e., unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, etc.).
  • Patriarch Cerularius instructed Leo of Ohrid to write a tract against the Latin rites.
  • The papal legates, after being ignored for five weeks, responded by publicly excommunicating Cerularius and his supporters.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating all those responsible for the action.


Who is Fr. Alexander?

Fr. Alexander Schememann.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2009, 12:50:57 PM »

Here is my summary of both of their accounts:

Crocker
  • The original issue was that there was disagreement on how the liturgy should be celebrated.
  • Patriarch Cerularius persecuted and shut down Latin-right churches in the East.
  • The Pope responded by excommunicating Cerularius.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating the Pope.

Fr. Alexander
  • The original issue was over ritual divergences (i.e., unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, etc.).
  • Patriarch Cerularius instructed Leo of Ohrid to write a tract against the Latin rites.
  • The papal legates, after being ignored for five weeks, responded by publicly excommunicating Cerularius and his supporters.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating all those responsible for the action.

This sounds like a fine sketch. You have to keep in mind that these issues had been points of disagreement and even schism for hundreds of years between the East and West, going back to the Trullan Ecumenical Council and  then to the reign of St. Photios the Great. West and East had argued very passionately against each other's divergent liturgical practices for many, many generations. Nothing unusual about that.

Also keep in mind that these issues were made even more contentious because of centuries of conflict over areas like Illyricum/Thrace. Beginning in the 8th century, Constantinople got particularly mad at Rome whenever it would send missionaries into places like Thrace and convert local populations to the Latin Rite (including the oversight of the Pope). Since most common people might not understand the issues surrounding the filioque, a lot of the apologetical/polemical arguments centered around things they did understand: clerical celibacy, dress, fasting, celebration of divine services, etc.

In a way, it is like the 11th century version of today's conflict between Moscow and Rome.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 01:00:11 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2009, 01:08:14 PM »

Thank you all for your comments, but why did the pope try to excommunicate him? On another board, someone posted a portion of the actual bull. Here is the OP summary of the reasons outlined in the bull for the excommunication:

Quote
(of the Greeks)
long list snipped

The bull is filled with very angry language and some of the claims I know are not true. But if some of the things are true, I find the truth of it upsetting as well. The East (of the 9th century) sounds a bit like the Judaizers mentioned in scripture. Both sides seemed filled with pride and a desire for power. Both seemed a far cry from St. Peter and St. John.

Perhaps you could identify which of the charges specifically concern you? Some of them are false, some are distortions of standard Eastern practice, and some are cases of Humbert 'accusing' the East of maintaining the Apostolic position. You note that you realize that 'some' are not true, so others might be able to respond more effectively/specifically, if you identified which ones you are actually concerned about?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2009, 01:09:00 PM »

...they state that leave is ensouled (animatum)

What does this even mean? I assume something is being lost in translation?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,875


« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2009, 01:13:16 PM »

Let us not forget that one major  source to legitimize Papal authority was a forgery like the alleged Donation of Constantine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm Of course by the 11th c, most Latin clerics were probably unaware of this forgery & assumed it was true.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,826



« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2009, 01:31:12 PM »

A correction is in order.  The Pope did not excommunicate Cerularius.  That was done all by Humbert.  The Pope, Leo IX, had died two weeks prior to Humbert laying the excommunication bull on the altar.

Also, Pope Leo IX was held hostage in Benevento by the Normans, who were waging war against the Byzantines in Italy to establish a foothold there as well as in Sicily.  The Normans did not wish for church governance to cease so they allowed Humbert to act as Leo's go-between so the Latin church would continue to function.  It is not unreasonable to presume that the NOrmans, wanting to drive a wedge between the Emperor (constantine IX) and the Pope, probably dictated to Leo what was to be said in any correspondence so as to make the split a reality and the NOrmans would have an easier time conquering Southern Italy.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2009, 01:40:19 PM »

Here is my summary of both of their accounts:

Crocker
  • The original issue was that there was disagreement on how the liturgy should be celebrated.
  • Patriarch Cerularius persecuted and shut down Latin-right churches in the East.
  • The Pope responded by excommunicating Cerularius.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating the Pope.

Fr. Alexander
  • The original issue was over ritual divergences (i.e., unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, etc.).
  • Patriarch Cerularius instructed Leo of Ohrid to write a tract against the Latin rites.
  • The papal legates, after being ignored for five weeks, responded by publicly excommunicating Cerularius and his supporters.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating all those responsible for the action.

This sounds like a fine sketch. You have to keep in mind that these issues had been points of disagreement and even schism for hundreds of years between the East and West, going back to the Trullan Ecumenical Council and  then to the reign of St. Photios the Great. West and East had argued very passionately against each other's divergent liturgical practices for many, many generations. Nothing unusual about that.

Also keep in mind that these issues were made even more contentious because of centuries of conflict over areas like Illyricum/Thrace. Beginning in the 8th century, Constantinople got particularly mad at Rome whenever it would send missionaries into places like Thrace and convert local populations to the Latin Rite (including the oversight of the Pope). Since most common people might not understand the issues surrounding the filioque, a lot of the apologetical/polemical arguments centered around things they did understand: clerical celibacy, dress, fasting, celebration of divine services, etc.

In a way, it is like the 11th century version of today's conflict between Moscow and Rome.

pensateomnia,
I understand the passion to protect the liturgy, but I don't believe either side was right in condemning the other's liturgy. As far as converting local populations, why would the East care? I almost understand it now in Moscow (though I heard this is a resolved issue now) because they're separated churches, but in the 10th and 11th century, they were not yet separated. Unless they were trying to convert one rite to another rite.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2009, 01:45:49 PM »

...they state that leave is ensouled (animatum)

What does this even mean? I assume something is being lost in translation?

I didn't understand this one either. It's probably a translation problem--I took the text verbatim from the other forum. The full text is comparing the East to the Manichaeans if that helps any.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,146


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2009, 01:47:13 PM »

...they state that leave is ensouled (animatum)

What does this even mean? I assume something is being lost in translation?

I didn't understand this one either. It's probably a translation problem--I took the text verbatim from the other forum. The full text is comparing the East to the Manichaeans if that helps any.
WHAT?    Huh That's crazy. Eastern Orthodox Christians are anything but Manicheans.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2009, 01:48:10 PM »

Let us not forget that one major  source to legitimize Papal authority was a forgery like the alleged Donation of Constantine http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm Of course by the 11th c, most Latin clerics were probably unaware of this forgery & assumed it was true.

Even if this was not a forgery, how does an emperor grant Papal Authority or universal jurisdiction? The church is always at its worst when it is entangled in politics.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2009, 01:52:35 PM »

Thank you all for your comments, but why did the pope try to excommunicate him? On another board, someone posted a portion of the actual bull. Here is the OP summary of the reasons outlined in the bull for the excommunication:

Quote
(of the Greeks)
long list snipped

The bull is filled with very angry language and some of the claims I know are not true. But if some of the things are true, I find the truth of it upsetting as well. The East (of the 9th century) sounds a bit like the Judaizers mentioned in scripture. Both sides seemed filled with pride and a desire for power. Both seemed a far cry from St. Peter and St. John.

Perhaps you could identify which of the charges specifically concern you? Some of them are false, some are distortions of standard Eastern practice, and some are cases of Humbert 'accusing' the East of maintaining the Apostolic position. You note that you realize that 'some' are not true, so others might be able to respond more effectively/specifically, if you identified which ones you are actually concerned about?

Sorry. Yes, I should have probably done this in the other post.

...they sell the gift of God (not true)
...they castrate their guests (I'm sure this is untrue--sounds more like a slam)
...they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins (this may be true...I'm not sure)
...they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world (I don't believe this is true, but not sure)
...they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar (they allow marriage for priests but this isn't a problem)
...they say that the law of Moses is accursed (I sure this is not true)
...they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (they don't cut off the procession, but this is a much bigger topic)
...they state that leave is ensouled (animatum) (I have no idea what this is)
...they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth (I don't know anything about this claim)
...they refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan (there are issues with menstruating women not being able to receive communion so at least part of this is true)
...they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church. (I know today it is recommended for clergy to grow their beards, but I don't know if it was required in the past of all people)
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2009, 01:55:00 PM »

Quote
...they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church. (I know today it is recommended for clergy to grow their beards, but I don't know if it was required in the past of all people)

I think the larger sticking point in this one is the accusation that the long-haired, bearded priests will not receive in communion those who are tonsured and clean-shaven. 
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 01:55:14 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2009, 02:16:25 PM »

Quote
...they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church. (I know today it is recommended for clergy to grow their beards, but I don't know if it was required in the past of all people)

I think the larger sticking point in this one is the accusation that the long-haired, bearded priests will not receive in communion those who are tonsured and clean-shaven. 

Yes, I think you are correct. So, is it a true claim?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2009, 02:26:41 PM »

Quote
...they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church. (I know today it is recommended for clergy to grow their beards, but I don't know if it was required in the past of all people)

I think the larger sticking point in this one is the accusation that the long-haired, bearded priests will not receive in communion those who are tonsured and clean-shaven. 

Yes, I think you are correct. So, is it a true claim?

Was Humbert (who I believe we can assume was tonsured in the Latin style) received in communion prior to the collapse of the talks and his issuance of the bull? That would seem to be the quickest way to know the official position of Constantinople (as opposed to the occasional error by the over-zealous and under-educated).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2009, 02:29:25 PM »

Quote
...they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church. (I know today it is recommended for clergy to grow their beards, but I don't know if it was required in the past of all people)

I think the larger sticking point in this one is the accusation that the long-haired, bearded priests will not receive in communion those who are tonsured and clean-shaven. 

Yes, I think you are correct. So, is it a true claim?

That's something I do not know, but would love to find out! Smiley
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2009, 02:44:19 PM »

I almost understand it now in Moscow (though I heard this is a resolved issue now) because they're separated churches, but in the 10th and 11th century, they were not yet separated.

First, Rome and Constantinople hadn't had canonical relations for 40 years before 1054, and, before that, in the period I was thinking of, they were separated churches, officially in schism. East and West were divided at various points before 1054.

Second, even when officially not in schism, it's still like any other dispute over canonical jurisdiction: simmering and seriously able to ignite into schism at any point. Rome believed Illyricum was wholly part of its Patriarchate, even after its jurisdiction there was discontinued.

Unless they were trying to convert one rite to another rite.

Yes, they were, according to the Easterners. And they were also teaching that Eastern practices (and jurisdiction) were illegitimate or anathema (and that's to say nothing of the filioque). Hence, the mutual polemics. It's not that jurisdiction was necessarily THE major issue, but it provides a real, tangible testing ground for theology and liturgy. When your dispute is no longer in books, but in churches and villages and cities over centuries, then it gets personal.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Tags: Cerularius  1054  Massacre of the Latins 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.126 seconds with 57 queries.