Three Popes and a Patriarch

[ComplineSanFran]

I found a nicely written (and brief) history lesson about the Eastern and Western splits in the Church. All this around the Pope’s visit (the Western Pope, that is) to Egypt.

The writer states: “The three popes represent three different streams of Christianity that have been separated for hundreds of years, so seeing them all together in one place is quite something.”

History depends on one’s perspective, doesn’t it?

khanya.wordpress.com/2017/04/30/three-popes-and-a-patriarch/

 

[PluniaZ]

I have yet to see any document which shows a split between any churches in the 11th Century, other than Patriarch Michael Cerularius removing Pope Leo IX’s name from the diptychs in Constantinople. The Catholic bull of excommunication against Cerularius was only given by a cardinal, not the Pope, so it had no effect.

 

[twf]

So the Ecumenical Patriarch was there! I didn’t see that mentioned in the coverage I read.

That’s very cool. The three current Protos of the three largest apostolic Communions.

 

[Peter_J]

I have yet to see any document which shows a split between any churches in the 11th Century, other than Patriarch Michael Cerularius removing Pope Leo IX’s name from the diptychs in Constantinople. The Catholic bull of excommunication against Cerularius was only given by a cardinal, not the Pope, so it had no effect.

Indeed, the year 1054 has acquired a great significance in the popular imagination that does not correspond to reality.

 

[PluniaZ]

Indeed, the year 1054 has acquired a great significance in the popular imagination that does not correspond to reality.

True. Historian Warren Carroll notes that Constantinople stopped recognizing Popes after Sergius IV in 1012 - I’m guessing because they viewed the Pope as allies of the Holy Roman Empire and/or Normans in the war for southern Italy.

From everything I’ve read, the real schism came when the Venetians sacked Constantinople in 1204. I don’t think the Byzantines ever got over that.

 

[Peter_J]

True. Historian Warren Carroll notes that Constantinople stopped recognizing Popes after Sergius IV in 1012 - I’m guessing because they viewed the Pope as allies of the Holy Roman Empire and/or Normans in the war for southern Italy.

As I understand that was 1014 after the Pope permitted the Filioque to be inserted into the recitation of the creed in Rome.

From everything I’ve read, the real schism came when the Venetians sacked Constantinople in 1204. I don’t think the Byzantines ever got over that.

That was definitely a dark time, but it didn’t really change anything in principle. That didn’t happen until the Second Council of Lyons – and then more strongly at the Council of Florence.

 

[prodromos]

The Catholic bull of excommunication against Cerularius was only given by a cardinal, not the Pope, so it had no effect.

You don’t think the fact that Humbert’s fellow legate becoming pope might have given it authority. Frederick of Lorraine later became Pope Stephen IX. I don’t recall him ever rescinding the Bull of excommunication.

 

[PluniaZ]

You don’t think the fact that Humbert’s fellow legate becoming pope might have given it authority. Frederick of Lorraine later became Pope Stephen IX. I don’t recall him ever rescinding the Bull of excommunication.

No, a person becoming Pope does not give Papal authority to all of their prior actions. Especially when there was an intervening Pope (Victor II) for 2 years between Humbert’s attempt at excommunication and Frederick’s elevation to the Papacy.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

True. Historian Warren Carroll notes that Constantinople stopped recognizing Popes after Sergius IV in 1012 - I’m guessing because they viewed the Pope as allies of the Holy Roman Empire and/or Normans in the war for southern Italy.

From everything I’ve read, the real schism came when the Venetians sacked Constantinople in 1204. I don’t think the Byzantines ever got over that.

Worse than the Sack itself, as bad as that was, were Rome’s actions in installing Latins as Patrirachs of Constantinople, plus the 4th Lateran Council enshrining the theology that had developed around the Filioque, and the blooming of Scholasticism in the west. From that point on theology in the west and east developed along almost entirely different lines.

 

[prodromos]

No, a person becoming Pope does not give Papal authority to all of their prior actions. Especially when there was an intervening Pope (Victor II) for 2 years between Humbert’s attempt at excommunication and Frederick’s elevation to the Papacy.

If it had no authority, then why did it remain in force until a few decades ago?
Pope Victor didn’t rescind it either.

 

[PluniaZ]

If it had no authority, then why did it remain in force until a few decades ago?
Pope Victor didn’t rescind it either.

Please provide a cite showing that it had authority or remained in force.

 

[Peter_J]

Please provide a cite showing that it had authority or remained in force.

Good question.

In any case, once the subjects of the excommunications (Cerularios and Humbert) died it became a pretty moot point. At least until centuries later when 1054 was conveniently picked as the date that the schism began.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I have yet to see any document which shows a split between any churches in the 11th Century, other than Patriarch Michael Cerularius removing Pope Leo IX’s name from the diptychs in Constantinople. The Catholic bull of excommunication against Cerularius was only given by a cardinal, not the Pope, so it had no effect.

You are leaving out that Cardinal Humbert went to Constantinople for the express purpose of “laying down the law” (as Rome saw it) to the Patriarch about unleavened bread, the Filioque, and the other issues dividing Rome from the other Patriarchates. In the early 11th century, Rome adopted a “my way or the highway” attitude. That was when the schism really began in earnest.

 

[PluniaZ]

You are leaving out that Cardinal Humbert went to Constantinople for the express purpose of “laying down the law” (as Rome saw it) to the Patriarch about unleavened bread, the Filioque, and the other issues dividing Rome from the other Patriarchates. In the early 11th century, Rome adopted a “my way or the highway” attitude. That was when the schism really began in earnest.

Please there’s no need for one sided polemics. It’s 2017. The leaders of our respective churches agreed to put the whole incident out of memory in 1965. They just met together with the leader of the Copts in Cairo last weekend to try to bring all the ancient churches into communion once again. Let’s help them and pray for them as best we can.

 

[Peter_J]

You are leaving out that Cardinal Humbert went to Constantinople for the express purpose of “laying down the law” (as Rome saw it) to the Patriarch about unleavened bread, the Filioque, and the other issues dividing Rome from the other Patriarchates. In the early 11th century, Rome adopted a “my way or the highway” attitude. That was when the schism really began in earnest.

Cardinal Humbert and others’ belligerence was unfortunate of course, and was one of the factors that ultimately led to the schism.

 

[Peter_J]

Please there’s no need for one sided polemics. It’s 2017. The leaders of our respective churches agreed to put the whole incident out of memory in 1965. They just met together with the leader of the Copts in Cairo last weekend to try to bring all the ancient churches into communion once again. Let’s help them and pray for them as best we can.

I would also suggest that anyone who hasn’t read the 1993 document “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion” yet should do so right away.

 

[prodromos]

Please provide a cite showing that it had authority or remained in force.

You mentioned it yourself in a subsequent post, the lifting of the excommunication in 1965 by Pope Paul VI.

 

[PluniaZ]

You mentioned it yourself in a subsequent post, the lifting of the excommunication in 1965 by Pope Paul VI.

All that document says about the events in 1054 is:

Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html

This is also good to keep in mind:

They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

And of course:

They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.

 

[pablope]

You are leaving out that Cardinal Humbert went to Constantinople for the express purpose of “laying down the law” (as Rome saw it) to the Patriarch about unleavened bread, the Filioque, and the other issues dividing Rome from the other Patriarchates. In the early 11th century, Rome adopted a “my way or the highway” attitude. That was when the schism really began in earnest.

It goes both ways…you are also forgetting that the raising of temperatures can also be attributed to the actions of the Patriarch…he could have acted differently…

 

[prodromos]

It goes both ways…you are also forgetting that the raising of temperatures can also be attributed to the actions of the Patriarch…he could have acted differently…

If the seals on the Popes letters were intact, he probably would have…