Why did Rome attempt to excommunicate the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius?

[SyroMalankara]

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.

Not to throw more confusion into the mix, but the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East also claim to have the “orthodox catholic faith” in it’s fullness.

These two bodies view the “Westerners” as the Romans and Greeks. ‘Real’ Easterners being the Semitic Churches.

 

[Hesychios]

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 Pope responded by excommunicating Cerularius.
• Cerularius responded by excommunicating the Pope.

If this is exactly what he wrote, this is poor scholarship on the part of the particular author.

No Pope was involved, period. The See was vacant, the author should have known this.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not to throw more confusion into the mix, but the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East also claim to have the “orthodox catholic faith” in it’s fullness.

These two bodies view the “Westerners” as the Romans and Greeks. ‘Real’ Easterners being the Semitic Churches.

Yes, you’re right about the first statement. I had not read the second before, but have no reason to question it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

That’s true. On the other hand, it has to be recognized that both churches would have had a lot of difficulties without the state too. When you get right down to it, there were political aspects to, for example, Eastern Orthodoxy’s conversion of most of the Slavs and Western Catholicism’s conversion of the Teutonic peoples, along with some western Slavs and, of course, the various Avars, Magyars and such.

A difficult balancing act, always.

 

[militantsparrow]

If this is exactly what he wrote, this is poor scholarship on the part of the particular author.

No Pope was involved, period. The See was vacant, the author should have known this.

Here is his exact quote which can be found on page 135 paragraph 2 of his book.

The Great Schism arrived more than a hundred years later, with the patriarch Michael Cerularius, who persecuted and shut down Latin-rite churches in the East. In response, the pope excommunicated him in 1054. The patriarch, in turn, excommunicated the Holy See…

The book is terrible, but it happened to be the only pro-Catholic book about the church history on my bookshelf. But it’s really more than pro-Catholic–its anti-Orthodox and anti-Protestant to the point of being down right mean. At one point, the author suggests that he thinks the Sack on Constantinople should be declared a feast day.

 

[militantsparrow]

That’s true. On the other hand, it has to be recognized that both churches would have had a lot of difficulties without the state too. When you get right down to it, there were political aspects to, for example, Eastern Orthodoxy’s conversion of most of the Slavs and Western Catholicism’s conversion of the Teutonic peoples, along with some western Slavs and, of course, the various Avars, Magyars and such.

A difficult balancing act, always.

Yes, it is a tough balance. I think we currently, in the U.S. and Europe, have let the pendulum swing too far the other way.

 

[josephdaniel29]

At one point, the author suggests that he thinks the Sack on Constantinople should be declared a feast day.

That does sound a bit extreme although I have heard the opinion expressed on the Traditional Catholicism forum here that the sack of Constantinople and the other trials and persecutions the Orthodox have suffered are God’s judgment on us for breaking with Rome.

Could never quite wrap my brain around that mindset.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Hesychios]

At one point, the author suggests that he thinks the Sack on Constantinople should be declared a feast day.

One wonders what he thinks of the sack of the Roman Catholic city of Vara by those same men?

 

[bpbasilphx]

One wonders what he thinks of the sack of the Roman Catholic city of Vara by those same men?

To say nothing about the various sackings of Rome and imprisonment of the Pope.

 

[militantsparrow]

One wonders what he thinks of the sack of the Roman Catholic city of Vara by those same men?

To say nothing about the various sackings of Rome and imprisonment of the Pope.

If I think of it, I’ll try to look it up tonight. It’s really an awful book. I couldn’t get through half of it. It’s so filled with hate and pride. It’s got lots of praise from conservative Catholic pundits–maybe not a surprise. But I was surprised to see that even Raymond Arroyo praised it too.

Check out some of these quotes:

“Mr.Crocker’s book is engaging, provocative, and eminently readable. It should be around for Vatican III.”
William F. Buckley Jr.

“Harry Crocker propels us through two millennia with wit and insight. While irreverent to man, his reverence to God is never questioned in a must-read for non-Catholics as well as Catholics.”
Robert D. Novak, syndicated columnist and commentator

“Harry Crocker has written the best short history of the Church in English since the Second Vatican Council. In short, a Triumph.”
Fr. C. J. McCloskey III, director, Catholic Information Center

“I used to think that the history of the Catholic Church was the greatest story never told. But it’s been told now?in Triumph?with all the verve, aggression, and even humor of John Wayne in The Quiet Man. This is rock-solid history?delivered with a rock-solid punch?and is the most essential Catholic book since the Catechism of the Catholic Church (though it’s a lotmore fun to read). Buy it and enjoy.”
Sean Hannity, Fox News

“H. W. Crocker III has indeed brought about a triumph with his concise and informative history. Here is a book for the general reader that provides a grand view of the Church’s progress through time. Triumph is a book that will strengthen the faith of Catholics and give others an exciting and complete account of the two millennia of the Catholic Church. Magnificent!”
Ralph McInerny, Michael P. Grace Professor of Medieval Studies, University of Notre Dame, and author of the Father Dowling mysteries

“A biting, unaplolgetic romp through Catholic history that debunks some long held myths and celebrates the glory of the Catholic faith. A much needed Triumph.”
Raymond Arroyo, EWTN news director and host of The World Over

 

[Formosus]

Unbelievable! How they could glory in one of the saddest days of Christendom is beyond me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If I think of it, I’ll try to look it up tonight. It’s really an awful book. I couldn’t get through half of it. It’s so filled with hate and pride. It’s got lots of praise from conservative Catholic pundits–maybe not a surprise. But I was surprised to see that even Raymond Arroyo praised it too.

Check out some of these quotes:

Since the Franks and Venetians were excommunicated for the sack of Constantinople, it’s hard for me to see how anyone could think it should be made a feast day. If Crocker says that, I can’t imagine how he justifies it. (ARGHHHH!!! Another book to get just to see what’s in it. Can’t turn around nowadays without running into another one. Guess if I was a real scholar, I would have already read all them there books )

 

[militantsparrow]

Since the Franks and Venetians were excommunicated for the sack of Constantinople, it’s hard for me to see how anyone could think it should be made a feast day. If Crocker says that, I can’t imagine how he justifies it. (ARGHHHH!!! Another book to get just to see what’s in it. Can’t turn around nowadays without running into another one. Guess if I was a real scholar, I would have already read all them there books )

It was lent to me by a friend. It looked really interesting and he told me it was “fantastic.” If you’re interested in this sort of thing its probably worth reading, but you’ll probably get frustrated at some parts. On the positive side, he is very pro-Catholic so that can be uplifting at times.

 

[Hesychios]

Since the Franks and Venetians were excommunicated for the sack of Constantinople, it’s hard for me to see how anyone could think it should be made a feast day.

I think that actually they were excommunicated en masse for the sack of Vara, and were already under the cloud of excommunication when they laid siege to Constantinople. Pope Innocent III actually threatened to excommunicate at the time he learned of the plans to attack Zara.

Wiki says this (Yes, I know Wiki is not a Sterling source, but the author gives citations):
Historian Geoffrey Hindley’s The Crusades: Islam and Christianity in the Struggle for World Supremacy mentions that in 1202, Pope Innocent III “forbade” the Crusaders of Western Christendom from committing any atrocious acts on their Christian neighbours, despite wanting to secure papal authority over Byzantium (Hindley 143, 152). This letter was concealed from the bulk of the army and the attack proceeded. The citizens of Zara made reference to the fact that they were fellow Catholics by hanging banners marked with crosses from their windows and the walls of the city, but nevertheless the city fell after a brief siege. When Innocent III heard of the sack he sent a letter to the crusaders excommunicating them, and ordered them to return to their holy vows and head for Jerusalem. Out of fear that this would dissolve the army the leaders of the crusade decided not to inform the army of this.

There were (I think… I scoped around for confirmation but can’t find any) two bishops present during the seige and they gave assurances to the leadership that everything would be OK. I don’t think they stopped serving Mass (at least the only accounts I have read did not mention it) which would have been obligatory if they were all under the pale of excommunication.

Wiki does state (my apologies for this, no direct citation):
**The clergy discussed the situation amongst themselves and settled upon the message they wished to spread through the demoralized army. They had to convince the men that the events of 9 April were not God’s judgment on a sinful enterprise: the campaign, they argued, was righteous and with proper belief it would succeed. The concept of God testing the determination of the crusaders through temporary setbacks was a familiar means for the clergy to explain failure in the course of a campaign.

The clergy’s message was designed to reassure and encourage the crusaders. Their argument that the attack on Constantinople was spiritual revolved around two themes. First, the Greeks were traitors and murderers since they had killed their rightful lord, Alexius IV. The churchmen used inflammatory language and claimed that “the Greeks were worse than the Jews”, and they invoked the authority of God and the pope to take action.

Although Innocent III had again demanded that they not attack, the papal letter was suppressed by the clergy, and the crusaders prepared for their own attack, while the Venetians attacked from the sea; Alexius V’s army stayed in the city to fight, along with the imperial bodyguard, the Varangians, but Alexius V himself fled during the night.**

It does so happen that the excommunications were eventually lifted, but precisely when is hard to determine from the written accounts. It is very clear that the Crusaders and the clergy present acted against the wishes of the Pope, and Innocent III accepted it as a fait accompli some time afterward, desiring to make the best of the situation. The clergy present elected one Thomas Morosini Patriarch of Constantinople, this was uncanonical for the Latin church at that time, but eventually confirmed by the Pope.

I am sure that a lot of very good wine was spilled in celebration within Constantinople after the success of the siege, and more after the Pope lifted the excommunications, but this Crocker fellow needs to have his head examined for promoting an attitude like that about these horrors, capital crimes and mortal sins. I feel quite sure the Pope himself was very saddened and conflicted over the whole episode, and could perceive how negatively these events would affect the unity and harmony of the church in later times.

I think that this escapade, including the acceptance of the results by the Pope (far more than the events of 1054AD) is what sealed the schism.

 

[Hesychios]

Since the Franks and Venetians were excommunicated for the sack of Constantinople, it’s hard for me to see how anyone could think it should be made a feast day. <<

I agree.

I think that actually they were excommunicated en masse for the sack of Vara, and were already under the cloud of excommunication when they laid siege to Constantinople. Pope Innocent III actually threatened to excommunicate at the time he learned of the plans to attack Zara.

Wiki says the following (Yes, I know Wiki is not a Sterling source, but the author gives citations):
Historian Geoffrey Hindley’s The Crusades: Islam and Christianity in the Struggle for World Supremacy mentions that in 1202, Pope Innocent III “forbade” the Crusaders of Western Christendom from committing any atrocious acts on their Christian neighbours, despite wanting to secure papal authority over Byzantium (Hindley 143, 152). This letter was concealed from the bulk of the army and the attack proceeded. The citizens of Zara made reference to the fact that they were fellow Catholics by hanging banners marked with crosses from their windows and the walls of the city, but nevertheless the city fell after a brief siege. When Innocent III heard of the sack he sent a letter to the crusaders excommunicating them, and ordered them to return to their holy vows and head for Jerusalem. Out of fear that this would dissolve the army the leaders of the crusade decided not to inform the army of this.

There were (I think… I scoped around for confirmation but can’t find any) two bishops present during the seige and they gave assurances to the leadership that everything would be OK. I don’t think they stopped serving Mass (at least the only accounts I have read did not mention it) which would have been obligatory if they were all under the pale of excommunication.

Wiki does also state (my apologies for this, no direct citation in this text):
**The clergy discussed the situation amongst themselves and settled upon the message they wished to spread through the demoralized army. They had to convince the men that the events of 9 April were not God’s judgment on a sinful enterprise: the campaign, they argued, was righteous and with proper belief it would succeed. The concept of God testing the determination of the crusaders through temporary setbacks was a familiar means for the clergy to explain failure in the course of a campaign.

The clergy’s message was designed to reassure and encourage the crusaders. Their argument that the attack on Constantinople was spiritual revolved around two themes. First, the Greeks were traitors and murderers since they had killed their rightful lord, Alexius IV. The churchmen used inflammatory language and claimed that “the Greeks were worse than the Jews”, and they invoked the authority of God and the pope to take action.

Although Innocent III had again demanded that they not attack, the papal letter was suppressed by the clergy, and the crusaders prepared for their own attack, while the Venetians attacked from the sea; Alexius V’s army stayed in the city to fight, along with the imperial bodyguard, the Varangians, but Alexius V himself fled during the night.**

It does so happen that the excommunications were eventually lifted, but precisely when is hard to determine from the written accounts. It is very clear that the Crusaders and the clergy present acted against the wishes of the Pope, and Innocent III accepted it as a fait accompli some time afterward, desiring to make the best of the situation. The clergy present elected one Thomas Morosini Patriarch of Constantinople, this was uncanonical for the Latin church at that time, but eventually confirmed by the Pope.

I am sure that a lot of very good wine was spilled in celebration within Constantinople after the success of the siege, and more after the Pope lifted the excommunications, but this Crocker fellow needs to have his head examined for promoting an attitude like that about these horrors, capital crimes and mortal sins. I feel quite sure the Pope himself was very saddened and conflicted over the whole episode, and could perceive how negatively these events would affect the unity and harmony of the church in later times.

I think that this escapade, including the eventual acceptance of it’s results by the Pope (far more than the events of 1054AD between Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Cerularius) is what sealed the schism and doomed it to a 1000 year fact.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Since the Franks and Venetians were excommunicated for the sack of Constantinople, it’s hard for me to see how anyone could think it should be made a feast day. <<

Not much room for reply, and sorry to cut part of your post to make room, but I think the threat of excommunication was in the event they made war on “Christians”. It was already known that the deposed Byzantine emperor’s son had made a deal with Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, to pay the crusaders’ expenses and provide 10,000 Byzantine soldiers for the crusade IF they would put him back on the throne. I think the deposed emperor’s name was Isaac Angelus. Since that carried the potential for warfare, I think the Pope’s injunction was a bit broader than just attacking Zara.

The Franks, to my understanding, weren’t originally aware they were going to have to take Zara for the Venetians as well. But they were in Venice with no money, no ships and no supplies, and made the deal with Enrico Dandolo, who was the central villain in the piece. Dandolo’s motives can be said to be various; revenge for previous partial blinding by the Byzantines, loot, Venetian shipping. Lots of things. But he was a skunk.

The Franks kept their part of the bargain, and were encamped near Constantinople demanding the restoration of Isaac Angelus and his son, and starving in the bargain. The Byzantines did, but then backed out when they learned the price and deposed Isaac and fils again. The Byzantines could have stood secure behind their walls and starved the Franks out, but made the mistake of attacking them. The rest is well known.

Personally, I don’t see anything to be proud of in it. It was a shameful event all the way around; motivated by the worst motivations once the Franks made the bargain with Dandolo.

 

[militantsparrow]

Personally, I don’t see anything to be proud of in it. It was a shameful event all the way around; motivated by the worst motivations once the Franks made the bargain with Dandolo.

That’s the sad truth.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s the sad truth.

It’s difficult, I think, for most Christians in our time to really comprehend how things were back then. It isn’t as if the people were somehow subhuman. Some were as well or better educated that “well educated” people now. Some, of course, were absolutely illiterate. But there was a brutality to the age, particularly in the West, that was never very far from the surface. It has to be remembered that those people were barely one generation away from the Viking era, and there were competing “nations” (large tribes, really) that were at war with each other almost constantly. Remember, that the Franks had been the primary enemies of the Vikings on the Continent, and quite often bested them. The Normans of the Norman Conquest were the very sons or grandsons at most, of Viking invaders of northwest France, for example. It was that close in time. (“Norman” is a contraction of “North Men”) Savagery was met with savagery, and brutality with brutality. The Church struggled mightily to “Christianize” them, but it was a centuries-long struggle, and there were many, many setbacks.

So, while we can, and should, condemn the motivations and actions of the Franks in the attack on Constantinople (in my opinion, the Venetians more) we can’t fully think of the event from a modern perspective. The whole thing, from start to end, seems far stranger to us than it doubtless did to them.