- Status
G
GKC
Guest
Two wives, each accused of infidelity and and convicted, then executed for treason. Anne B’s case was much weaker than Catherine Howard’s. And with Catherine was executed a Lady in Waiting, Jane Boleyn. That’s a complicated story.
And several servitors were executed, yes. Henry hated being failed, or betrayed. Or thinking he had been. Including one who died before the event or before he was convicted and sentenced (though he likely would have been), and one saved when Henry died before him. But I don’t think he was anything out of the ordinary, as to average annual axings, in the day.
GKC
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Henry wasn’t Eastern, nor the cause of the Eastern estrangements… although indirectly his descendants are responsible for some formerly Orthodox/Assyrian off-shoot protestant sects…
Back to the topic now we are
Back to the topic now we are
G
GKC
Guest
I didn’t even realize what the thread was.Henry wasn’t Eastern, nor the cause of the Eastern estrangements… although indirectly his descendants are responsible for some formerly Orthodox/Assyrian off-shoot protestant sects…
Back to the topic now we are
Knee-jerk reaction to the subject of Hank, I guess.
GKC
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Not a lot of interest in the actual op.Henry wasn’t Eastern, nor the cause of the Eastern estrangements… although indirectly his descendants are responsible for some formerly Orthodox/Assyrian off-shoot protestant sects…
Back to the topic now we are
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And the response almost Pavlovian.
Seven, I think.
P
prodromos
Guest
Have you read the litany of false accusations against Constantinople in the Bull of Excommunication which Cardinal Humbert threw down on the altar of Hagia Sophia after walking in in the middle of the liturgy. In my opinion the whole thing was orchestrated deliberately to antagonise the patriarch.
What do you expect to learn when you read articles based on the testimonies of the enemies of the above. Have you read the letters written by St Photius? Have you read what the Normans did to churches and monasteries under Constantinople’s jurisdiction which led to Patriarch Michael’s response?
It’s not so because what you have presented is not history.And Orthodox are *proud *of this history?Please tell me it’s not so.
What of the council attended by papal legates in Constantinople which found Photius’ election to be valid? What of the completely uncanonical council of 863 in Rome which decided against the Constantinopolian council despite not being comprised of bishops from the region in question as required by canon law?
Perhaps you can also explain how for 200 years and the reign of 50 Popes, Rome accepted the council of 879 as the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” and regarded the 869 council as a robber council, then at the end of the 11th century, suddenly did an about face, and without fanfare or explanation, shelved the 879 council and reinstated the false council of 869, calling it the “Fourth Council of Constantinople”?
This of course ignores the forcing of Latin customs on Byzantine churches in Southern Italy by the Normans without any response from the Pope condemning the actions. Since the West had long been demanding Southern Italy be placed back under Rome’s jurisdiction, you can appreciate how that must have looked to Constantinople.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But in addition to his issues with Cardinal Humbert, Cerularius’ political ambitions are well-documented…suggesting that perhaps he wanted a split between East & West. Here’s a second article supporting that view:
The future Patriarch Michael I Cerularius was born about the year 1000. His education was aimed for a career in the politically charged civil service, but in 1040, he was tonsured a monk. Three years later he was appointed patriarch of the Church of Constantinople by Emperor Constantine IX (Monomachus). Michael I Cerularius, with political pretensions, became patriarch during an era in which there were numerous tensions between the Churches in the east and west, including jurisdictional disputes in the Balkans, southern Italy, and Sicily. Added to this were disputes over differing church practices as well as the claims by the Patriarchs of Rome that they stand at a higher authority among the patriarchs than being primus inter pares, “first among equals”. Also, Michael I was noted for disputing with Pope Leo IX over church practices where the Roman Church differed from those of Constantinople, especially over the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.
During Michael’s reign the disputes deepened when the Roman see approved the use of Latin customs among the Norman Christians. Michael reacted by directing the Latin churches in Constantinople to use Eastern usages. In the ensuing correspondence, Pope Leo IX took issue with Patriarch Michael’s use of the title “ecumenical patriarch” in his correspondence and with addressing Leo IX as “brother’ instead of ”father”. Michael attempted to mediate the issues, but Leo would make no concessions in his objections.
In the spring of 1054, Leo sent a papal delegation headed by Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida to Constantinople to formally confront Michael. They arrived in Constantinople in April 1054. The legates’ welcome was not to their liking and they left the palace abruptly, leaving a papal letter with Michael whose anger exceeded even that of the papal delegation. Michael found the seals of the letter had been tampered with and with which was included a draft of a letter that was to be read to the Constantinople population. With that Patriarch Michael refused to recognize the authority of the delegation and completely ignored their mission.
The refusal of Michael to deal with the papal delegation drove them to extreme measures. On July 16, 1054, Cardinal Humbert placed a notice of excommunication on the altar of the Great Church of the Hagia Sophia that he had prepared, and then two days later the papal delegation fled to Rome. As Pope Leo died on April 16, the excommunication was not a ‘’bull’’ as it wasn’t signed by a pope, and Leo had not seen or signed it. However, in return for their actions Patriarch Michael excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the Pope, followed by removing the name of the pope from the diptychs, thus symbolicly creating the Great Schism.
**Asserting his political pretensions Michael had confronted the emperors, especially asserting a position of superiority for the patriarch and church over the emperor and state. This led to his dethronement as patriarch in 1058 by Emperor Isaac I Comnenus. **In exile, Patriarch Michael I Cerularius died suddenly on January 21, 1059 in Madytus, near Constantinople.
Is this a fair and balanced account? Or is it too biased in your judgment?
As I read the article, Cerularius exacerbated the problems with Rome, allowed his own personal feelings/pride to get in the way of a papal delegation’s visit, and got thrown out of his patriarchate in the end.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Anything that happened by the time of Cerularius and Humbert were just symptoms of an already widening gulf between east and west. To attribute it solely to individual political ambition, especially only on the part of the patriarchs, but never the popes, is more than just a little silly.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well, that is what the articles in my OP said.
The problems began with Photius, and an anti-Rome party formed that never dissolved. Cerularius was simply the capstone of that movement.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
You posted an extremely biased article from a bygone era. Did you listen to any of the podcasts? If you want to have a discussion it would be helpful if you learned something about those you want to dialogue with. And if you want to know about the horse you ask the horse. You don’t ask the cow what he thinks about horse.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Your podcasts are on my to-do list. For real.You posted an extremely biased article from a bygone era. Did you listen to any of the podcasts? If you want to have a discussion it would be helpful if you learned something about those you want to dialogue with. And if you want to know about the horse you ask the horse. You don’t ask the cow what he thinks about horse.
But I have posted two articles, both saying essentially the same thing. Did you read the second just posted?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I read what you quoted. There was no link to a larger article. I just don’t think it odd or particularly telling that a Catholic source would want to highlight the bad in their opponents. I would expect that from any group. That is especially true for older sources from a time when objectivity in writing was not as highly regarded. I mean honestly I don’t think the incident in 1054 had much of an effect on relations at all. Not in the grand scheme of things.
P
prodromos
Guest
Define “well-documented”. Its the first time I’ve heard of it.
What are the documents used to support this view and why is it ok for Pope Gregory VII to claim the same. This is obviously being claimed of Patriarch Michael to put him in a bad light, yet the same isn’t done with Pope Gregory VII? Double standard much?
Well for one it claims falsely that Patriarch Michael excommunicated the papal legates when in fact it was a synod of bishops which made the decision. It neglects to mention that the aforementioned Normans were forcing the papal approved Latin practices on churches under Constantinople’s jurisdiction, nor the fact that Rome had long been demanding the return of Southern Italy to Rome’s jurisdiction. It claims the Bull of Excommunication was not valid yet makes no mention of the fact that all subsequent Popes considered it valid nor the fact that one of the excommunicated legates was himself crowned Pope a little later, further cementing the divide.
It does seem a wee bit biased in my opinion
If official documents were delivered to you with the seal obviously tampered with, would you trust the people making the delivery?
P
prodromos
Guest
The anti-Rome party is a myth.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh, did I forget to provide the link for the second article on Caerularius?Define “well-documented”. Its the first time I’ve heard of it.
What are the documents used to support this view and why is it ok for Pope Gregory VII to claim the same. This is obviously being claimed of Patriarch Michael to put him in a bad light, yet the same isn’t done with Pope Gregory VII? Double standard much?
Well for one it claims falsely that Patriarch Michael excommunicated the papal legates when in fact it was a synod of bishops which made the decision. It neglects to mention that the aforementioned Normans were forcing the papal approved Latin practices on churches under Constantinople’s jurisdiction, nor the fact that Rome had long been demanding the return of Southern Italy to Rome’s jurisdiction. It claims the Bull of Excommunication was not valid yet makes no mention of the fact that all subsequent Popes considered it valid nor the fact that one of the excommunicated legates was himself crowned Pope a little later, further cementing the divide.
It does seem a wee bit biased in my opinion
If official documents were delivered to you with the seal obviously tampered with, would you trust the people making the delivery?
Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople
orthodoxwiki.org/Michael_I_Cerularius_of_Constantinople
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 6:7
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”
Now, before anyone responds, let me say that Catholics are fully aware of the fact that we have had our own problem popes, and those who live in stained-glass houses should not throw stones.
Nevertheless, it is worth asking
A) whether Caerularius meets the high standards of so many holy fathers of the East and
B) whether he is really worth defending.
Finally, one cannot help but wonder whether the unity of the East and West might have been maintained if not for the deep flaws of one man who may possibly be responsible for the separation of millions of people from the shepherd Jesus established for His flock, the Bishop of Rome.
And if those flaws are so clearly observed, then doesn’t it make sense to reconsider un-doing the damage done by reconciling oneself with that flock and shepherd?
1 Corinthians 6:7
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
- According to the OrthodoxWiki article, Caerularius’ anger exceeded that the the delegation from Rome. Does this sound like the reaction of a man who was willing to be wronged?
3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
- Does Caerularius strike you as the kind of man who was truly humble and looking out for the interests of others above his own?
35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”
- Does the “pretension” of Caerularius suggest that he was willing to be last and the servant of all?
Now, before anyone responds, let me say that Catholics are fully aware of the fact that we have had our own problem popes, and those who live in stained-glass houses should not throw stones.
Nevertheless, it is worth asking
A) whether Caerularius meets the high standards of so many holy fathers of the East and
B) whether he is really worth defending.
Finally, one cannot help but wonder whether the unity of the East and West might have been maintained if not for the deep flaws of one man who may possibly be responsible for the separation of millions of people from the shepherd Jesus established for His flock, the Bishop of Rome.
And if those flaws are so clearly observed, then doesn’t it make sense to reconsider un-doing the damage done by reconciling oneself with that flock and shepherd?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Goofball one of the sources for that article is newadvent.org.Oh, did I forget to provide the link for the second article on Caerularius?
Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople
orthodoxwiki.org/Michael_I_Cerularius_of_Constantinople
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Well Cerularius is not considered a saint and there is absolutely nothing he personally could have done to prevent the schism. Lots of things happened before and after 1054 that led to and cemented the division.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Just one last question before I drop this thread from my reading list:
According to OrthodoxWiki,
On July 16, 1054, Cardinal Humbert placed a notice of excommunication on the altar of the Great Church of the Hagia Sophia that he had prepared, and then two days later the papal delegation fled to Rome. As Pope Leo died on April 16, the excommunication was not a ‘’bull’’ as it wasn’t signed by a pope, and Leo had not seen or signed it. However, in return for their actions Patriarch Michael excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the Pope, followed by removing the name of the pope from the diptychs, thus symbolicly creating the Great Schism.
If Leo had not seen or signed the notice of excommunication, why did Caerularius excommunicate him?
Did Caerularius know that Leo had no knowledge of the excommunication? Or was Caerularius simply looking for any excuse to make his play for control of the Eastern church?
Oh, and don’t forget the questions I asked earlier about the character of the man who led the east into schism.
Thanks.
According to OrthodoxWiki,
On July 16, 1054, Cardinal Humbert placed a notice of excommunication on the altar of the Great Church of the Hagia Sophia that he had prepared, and then two days later the papal delegation fled to Rome. As Pope Leo died on April 16, the excommunication was not a ‘’bull’’ as it wasn’t signed by a pope, and Leo had not seen or signed it. However, in return for their actions Patriarch Michael excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the Pope, followed by removing the name of the pope from the diptychs, thus symbolicly creating the Great Schism.
If Leo had not seen or signed the notice of excommunication, why did Caerularius excommunicate him?
Did Caerularius know that Leo had no knowledge of the excommunication? Or was Caerularius simply looking for any excuse to make his play for control of the Eastern church?
Oh, and don’t forget the questions I asked earlier about the character of the man who led the east into schism.
Thanks.
- Status