Why did Rome attempt to excommunicate the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius?

  • Thread starter Thread starter militantsparrow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

militantsparrow

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

Could anyone give me the Eastern Catholic and / or Eastern Orthodox perspective on why Rome tried to excommunicate the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius?
 
I find it difficult to believe it was a reaction to the Massacre of the Latins, since that didn’t happen for another 128 years, although I have heard the sack of Constantinople in 1204 was done as a reaction of the massacre. I find that hard to believe as well, sounds more like coming up with a reason after the fact. Nonetheless this does show that both sides hold some blame for the bad relations that developed.

As for why Rome did it, power politics very simply. The fact that no one attempted to show that the mutual excommunications were illegitimate (since the Pope in question died before they were exchanged, and thus could neither excommunicate nor be excommunicated) even though it was obvious, seems to show this.
 
I beleive Rome had shut down all the Byzantine churches within the Papal states, the Patriarch got mad and shut down all the Latin churches in the Empire. The Pope sent Cardinal Humbert to settle the matter, which turned out to be a horrible choice of delegate.
 
Some reading.
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/379884/Michael-Cerularius
jrank.org/history/pages/2094/Michael-Cerularius.html
newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

The legates were in Constantinople to respond to attacks on the Latin church, but not the “massacre” of over a century later. Their affairs with the Patriarch went south.
New Advent and the Catholic Encyclopedia is a horrible source for anything like that, and that article is no exception.

The Britannica article is horribly researched and seems to draw conclusions it shouldn’t based on what it presents.

The middle article seems like a decent biography on who he is, but mentions little about the schism, other than that it was seen as not being noteworthy by contemporaries.
 
Could anyone give me the Eastern Catholic and / or Eastern Orthodox perspective on why Rome tried to excommunicate the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius?
The Catholic encyclopedia devotes three paragraphs to demonizing the Eastern Catholic Patriarch Saint Photios, although he and the Pope in fact died in full communion with one another. Then it says this:

The real tragedy is that gradually all the other Eastern patriarchs took sides with Caerularius, obeyed him by striking the pope’s name from their diptychs, and chose of their own accord to share his schism. At first they do not seem to have wanted to do so. John III of Antioch certainly refused to go into schism at Caerularius’s bidding. But, eventually, the habit they had acquired of looking to Constantinople for orders proved too strong. The emperor (not Constantine IX, but his successor) was on the side of his patriarch and they had learned too well to consider the emperor as their over-lord in spiritual matters too. Again, it was the usurped authority of Constantinople, the Erastianism of the East that turned a personal quarrel into a great schism. We see, too, how well Photius’s idea of calling Latins heretics had been learned. Caerularius had a list, a longer and even more futile one, of such accusations. His points were different from those of Photius; he had forgotten the Filioque, and had discovered a new heresy in our use of azyme bread. But the actual accusations mattered little at any time, the idea that had been found so useful was that of declaring that we are impossible because we are heretics. It was offensive and it gave the schismatical leaders the chance of assuming a most effective pose, as defenders of the true Faith.

The reasons for the Latin Catholic church excommunicating the Greek Catholics are given in the text of the bull. One seldom finds this posted on Catholic websites.

A brief summary (the full text will follow):
(of the Greeks)

  1. *]…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.

    {continued below}
 
{continued from above}

The Excommunication with which Michael Kerularios and his Followers were wounded:

Humbert, cardinal bishop of the holy Roman Church by the grace of God; Peter, archbishop of Amalfi; and Frederick, deacon and chancellor, to all the children of the catholic Church.

The holy, primary, and apostolic see of Rome, to which the care of all the churches most especially pertains as if to a head, deigned to make us its ambassadors to this royal city for the sake of the peace and utility of the Church so that, in accordance with what has been written, we might descend and see whether the complaint which rises to its ears without ceasing from this great city, is realized in fact or to know if it is not like this. Let the glorious emperors, clergy, senate, and people of this city of Constantinople as well as the entire catholic Church therefore know that we have sensed here both a great good, whence we greatly rejoice in the Lord, and the greatest evil, whence we lament in misery.

For as far as the columns of the imperial power and its honored and wise citizens go, this city is most Christian and orthodox. But as far as Michael, who is called patriarch through an abuse of the term, and the backers of his foolishness are concerned, innumerable tares of heresies are daily sown in its midst. Because…
like Simoniacs, they sell the gift of God;
like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy;
like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins;
like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world;
like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar;
like Severians, they say that the law of Moses is accursed; like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;
like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum);
like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and,
in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan;
and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church.

For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent. Furthermore, when we, the Pope’s ambassabors, wanted to eliminate the causes of such great evils in a reasonable way, he denied us his presence and conversation, forbid churches to celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them “azymites,” had persecuted the Latins everywhere in word and deed. Indeed, so much [did he persecute them] that among his own children, he had anathematized the apostolic see and against it he still writes that he is the ecumenical patriarch. Therefore, because we did not tolerate this unheard of outrage and injury of the first, holy, and apostolic see and were concerned that the catholic faith would be undermined in many ways, by the authority of the holy and individuated Trinity and the apostolic see, whose embassy we are performing, and of all the orthodox fathers from the seven councils and of the entire catholic Church, we thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless they should repent.

Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office (abusivus), who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption:

Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the
heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent.

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.

Another Excommunication Performed There Out Loud in the Presence of the Emperor and his Princes

Whoever has stubbornly opposed the faith of the Roman Church and its sacrifice, let them be anathema Maranatha, nor let them be considered a catholic Christian, but a prozymite heretic.

Let it be done, let it be done!
 
The Bull of Excommunication placed on the altar of Agia Sophia by Cardinal Humbert and the other legates excommunicated Patriarch Michael Cerularius and all who followed him. The Council which was held in Constantinople soon afterwards only excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the other legates.

John
 
Wow! This is a ton of great information. I have a lot to digest now.

My deep desire is to know who was right–to know which is Christ’s Church so I can be in it. But the issue is unfortunately not very cut and dry. It sounds like both sides acted foolishly and not very Christian. The bull Hesychios cited 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. Leadership on both sides seemed a far cry from St. Peter and St. John.
 
**Actually, Rome did not excommunicate His All-Holiness Patriarch Michael.

Cardinal Humbert did.

But his legatine authority had lapsed with the death of the pope at the time, so this act was actually null and void.

Patriarch Michael retaliated by excommunicating Cardinal Humbert and those with him, NOT the Pope or Roman Church.**

\The real tragedy is that gradually all the other Eastern patriarchs took sides with Caerularius, obeyed him by striking the pope’s name from their diptychs, and chose of their own accord to share his schism.\
**
Not quite true.

Peter III, the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch, wrote letters to both Pope and Patriarch telling them to reconcile. **
 
I think there are various versions of all this, and I think one’s belief about it is largely attributable to the source one wants to credit.

I might not get a chance to research it before the thread moves on into altogether different arguments, as the East/West arguments tend to do, but I recall reading in one (non-Catholic, non-Orthodox) source that Cerularius excommunicated the Pope and all those accepting his authority first, shut down the Latin churches and so on, before he was ever excommunicated. (If, indeed, he was.) But, if I recall correctly, Cerularius’ excommuication from the Pope was already on its way to him when he did it. The Pope who issued the excommunication of Cerularius was, indeed, dead by the time it reached Constantinople. The “excommunications”, if they ever were “real” were secondary to other events, and there was a long train of those.

My overall impression of the whole series of events has been that both sides were off-again-on-again about their relations with each other, and that there were breathtaking blunders involved on both sides; and the ambitions of secular authorities played no small part in them.

The whole thing was a great tragedy, at least in my opinion, but it has also resulted in a hardening of attitudes over the centuries. We might soon see an exhibition of that in this very thread. I’m guessing we will.
 
Wow! This is a ton of great information. I have a lot to digest now.

My deep desire is to know who was right–to know which is Christ’s Church so I can be in it. But the issue is unfortunately not very cut and dry. It sounds like both sides acted foolishly and not very Christian. The bull Hesychios cited 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. Leadership on both sides seemed a far cry from St. Peter and St. John.
The little bit of research I’ve done into it is that both the Pope and EP of the time were power hungry individuals who put the church second to their own grandeur (the pope may have been dead, but Humbert carried his attitudes with him).

The reason I’ve only done a little bit of research though is because the event is largely symbolic. It was neither the start or the end of the rocky relations between the East and West, and both well before and well after the two churches were considered to be in full communion with each other.

I also don’t think who caused it matters nearly as much as who is today practicing the orthodox catholic faith.
 
The little bit of research I’ve done into it is that both the Pope and EP of the time were power hungry individuals who put the church second to their own grandeur (the pope may have been dead, but Humbert carried his attitudes with him).

The reason I’ve only done a little bit of research though is because the event is largely symbolic. It was neither the start or the end of the rocky relations between the East and West, and both well before and well after the two churches were considered to be in full communion with each other.

I also don’t think who caused it matters nearly as much as who is today practicing the orthodox catholic faith.
Or the Catholic Faith, perhaps. Why don’t we not start that in here. The young man can consult with whomever he wishes and study what he wishes, and attend the services of both and come to a decision. This forum is not the right place to do that. 🙂

But I will add (and hopefully without trying to “spin” it more than I can subconsciously help) that in my opinion at least, the schism would not have happened had both the East and the West not been too closely tied to secular rulers. Sometimes the East was militarily strong and impinged on the rulers of the West. Sometimes the East was weak and was impinged upon by near-barbarian rulers in the West. Oftentimes, rulers tended to want religious uniformity within their realms for political reasons. All too often, the Church leaders saw more merit in that than there was, and became too closely allied with the “state”.

All religions seem to have a tough time shaking that. Protestantism itself would probably have never thrived had it not been for secular rulers’ seeing some political advantage in it.
Islam was a vehicle for conquest, and in our own time Hindus and Muslims split a state over it.

On the other hand, the secular state sometimes tries to dominate religion, even from within. It’s easy enough to see the political hand attempting to intrude into religion nowadays, even though it’s not as obvious as it was long ago.

Makes a person almost want to go back to the Old Testament when the Jews demanded a king who also held a high position within the religion, and tell them “No! no! You will regret this! Don’t do it!”
 
Or the Catholic Faith, perhaps. Why don’t we not start that in here. The young man can consult with whomever he wishes and study what he wishes, and attend the services of both and come to a decision. This forum is not the right place to do that. 🙂
Actually I said “orthodox catholic” because each church claims both. It was an attempt to be neutral.😉
 
Actually I said “orthodox catholic” because each church claims both. It was an attempt to be neutral.😉
Capisce. Nomenclature gets confusing sometimes, and there are land mines everywhere in the subject matter, it seems. Shouldn’t be, but there are.
 
Thank you everyone for your responses. You’ve helped me a great deal. I have spent a good amount of time today researching this question and here is what I’ve kind of put together as a summary.

Triumph by H.W. Crocker III (Catholic)
  • The original issue was that there was disagreement on how the liturgy should be celebrated.
  • Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, persecuted and shut down Latin-right churches in the East.
  • The Pope responded by excommunicating Cerularius.
  • Cerularius responded by excommunicating the Pope.
Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy by Fr. Alexander Schmemann (Orthodox).
  • The original issue was over ritual divergences (i.e., unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, etc.).
  • Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael 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.
The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kalistos Ware (Orthodox).
  • The original issue was that the Normans had been forcing the Greeks in Byzantine Italy to conform to Latin usages.
  • Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, demanded that the Latin churches at Constantinople adopt Greek practices. When they refused, he closed them.
  • The papal legates were supposed to meet with the Patriarch and come to an agreement on Latin vs. Greek practices and languages.
  • Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida, was one of the legates. He wrote a letter which was unfriendly in tone. The letter was portrayed as being from the Pope.
  • The Patriarch did not respond well to Humbert’s behavior or the letter and therefore refused to have further dealings with the legates.
  • Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a Bull of Excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom.
  • Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such).
 
I also don’t think who caused it matters nearly as much as who is today practicing the orthodox catholic faith.
I agree with this statement, but I only know what is the “orthodox catholic faith” because of the Catholic Church. If the CC was wrong then maybe they are today as well. The Eastern Orthodox churches, after all, claim they have the “orthodox catholic faith.” Who is one to believe?

I’m not saying this is the case, but merely trying to explain my inquiry.
 
But I will add (and hopefully without trying to “spin” it more than I can subconsciously help) that in my opinion at least, the schism would not have happened had both the East and the West not been too closely tied to secular rulers. Sometimes the East was militarily strong and impinged on the rulers of the West. Sometimes the East was weak and was impinged upon by near-barbarian rulers in the West. Oftentimes, rulers tended to want religious uniformity within their realms for political reasons. All too often, the Church leaders saw more merit in that than there was, and became too closely allied with the “state”.
Ridgerunner, I find this aspect of the past very frustrating. It never seems to work out well when the Church entangles itself (or gets entangled) with the State.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top