www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Anathema

Hi Peeps!

Im new here and was looking for something about the authority of Rome and Constantinople...

The question is who had the authority to use anathema against each other, which one worked? Or what were the implications of their excommunications?

Im confused since BOTH lifted the anathemas

I know that the One Church can separate herself from a particular member but this is something different... a part separating from a part. For me, I dont think the anathemas or excomunication had any effect at all, if it did, it destroys the One Church. I dont know... maybe Rome had the authority, but that sounds unfair...

Any thoughts on this.

Thanks

Dear Hooded,

You remind me of the 80's TV series and song by Clannad - "Robin, the Hooded Man!"

The anathemas that occurred in 1054 were actually personal anathemas hurled between Cardinal Humbertus and Patriarch Michael Caerularios.

Although East and West came to define it as a "church-wide schism" later, the fact is that neither side at the time considered this to be anything but one more episode in an eroding relationship between Rome and the Eastern Churches.

The Cardinal did not have papal authority to speak on behalf of the Western Church and Patriarch Michael would have had to consult with his brother Patriarchs and get their approval for anything approaching a church-wide excommunication of Rome.

One Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch later wrote to his brother Patriarch in Constantinople and said "After all, these Latins are our brothers" as recorded in Wares' "Orthodox Church" as a popular and readily available source.

It was really only with the Sack of Constantinople that the mutual estrangement of East and West solidified to the point of no return.

Language was always a big issue and I really don't understand those who say it wasn't.

East and West, as part of the single Roman Empire, Christian and Orthodox-Catholic, spoke Latin and Greek as national languages.

The Latins slapped the excommunication on the altar of St Sophia's in New Rome/Constantinople and the Patriarch and others had no idea what it said as it was in Latin.

It was only after a translation was obtained that a response in Greek could be made which then also had to be translated into Latin.

They had stopped "speaking the same language" in more ways than one!

Alex

Dear Orthodox Catholic,

Thanks. It makes sense for me now. I just hope everybody would feel the same way. It is a pain to see our Church divided.

"It was really only with the Sack of Constantinople that the mutual estrangement of East and West solidified to the point of no return."

The occupation of Constantinople by the West lasted but 60 years. Unless otherwise persuaded, I will continue to hold that he real point of mutual estrangement and of no return occurred with the establishment of rival Latin bishops in Antioch and Jerusalem at the very end of the 11th century.
The year 1204 is the easy touchstone for those Orthodox and students of cultural history who insist on cultivating anti-western prejudices and suspicions. I believe the history of the crusader states holds the more promising key for the ecclesially minded who are trying to understand the true nature of the Great Schism.

Thanks Durak.

I hope people will come to this realization and end this painful separation.

Durak, I think I respectfully disagree...

The image of the crusaders in 1204, when they were supposedly Christian soldiers, en route to fight the infidels in the Holy Land and instead ransacking beautiful Constantinople is a vivid image indeed, and shouldn't be underestimated in its historical significance...

I am disturbed by that event as an Eastern Catholic, and I for one can buy that date as a more definitive "split date" than the mutual temper tantrum of Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerlarius.

The old quote of Nicetas Choniates comes to mind, "Even the Saracens are merciful and kind, compared to these men who bear the Cross of Christ on their shoulders..."

Dear Diak,

You are more than correct, as you always are!

The Crusaders or, really, "Sword-bearers" committed acts of unspeakable blasphemy against the Church of Constantinople and the entire East.

They slashed icons and threw Communion into the streets etc.

These blasphemous acts, rather than the usual rape and murder, are what is called to mind by the Orthodox when they think of the "Sack of Constantinople."

Alex

Wow! They did that? All I learned was that they just did loot the City (that includes the Church) but it bever mentioned to me this sacrilegious and blasphemous acts! Must read more history books about this.

Prostitutes were even brought into the altars of some churches by the Crusaders according to some chronicles. Very bad ju-ju.

Yes, do read deeply.
Study will reveal that, contrary to popular assumption, those crusaders did not "represent Western Christianity." The spokesman for the Latin Church, Pope Innocent III, deplored the attack upon hearing about it after the fact, and made good his previous threat to excommunicate anyone acting against the Easterners.
Those renegades acted not only out of greed, but the crusading attackers were in large part constituted by Venetians who were acting of our revenge. In 1171 and again in 1182 the "faithful" Byzantines slaughtered and imprisoned thousands of Venetians who were quartered in Constantinople. (The Byzantine Empire needed their ship-building skills - which is why they were quartered in the capital in the first place. For the populace to let their anti-western antipathy get the best of them was just plain not smart besides being of criminal extent.)
The Pope's Cardinal representative among the Venetians had his head cut off, after which it was tied to a dog's tail and ran through the streets.
Also, leading up to 1204, the Byzantine claimant to the Imperial throne (Alexius IV) cheered the idea of attacking the city, thinking that he could ride his way to the throne on the coattails of the conquering crusaders.
The phrase "Healing of Memories" is common in East/West ecumencial discussions these days. And both sides affirm that it would be well to do serious, objective and non-polemical study of exactly what it is that needs to be confessed so that the healing may begin. For too long the Orthodox have been giving the sorry impression that they are just picking at an old scab with regard to the Fourth Crusade. This is not helpful.
I believe that it is helpful to remind that those crusaders did not represent true Western Christianity any more than the generations of Iconoclasts (including the attrocities and sacrileges they committed at the behest of emperors and patriarchs alike) truly represented Eastern Christianity.

But then again, I am just an ordinary kind of fool.

Dear Diak,

This is a horrible catastrophe in the history of the Church of God. It was a great blow from which the East has never recovered.

"I am disturbed by that event as an Eastern Catholic"

As we all must be. We must always be willing to do penance and pray for the reconciliation of Christians.

It helps us to remember just how important this "ecumenical" task is, and what happens when ignorance and prejudice enter the hearts of men. In some small way, our dialogue here, and the spirit of respect and sincere love we have for one another, serves to dispel the darkness of ignorance. Let us pray that as we continue to learn more about each other, and to respect one another's Churches, we may grow in the love that is God's will for his Church.

Dear Friends,

I am deeply hurt to learn what the crusaders did. If in fact true, I cant blame the Christian East for what has its attitude been towards the Christian West up to now. A rape victim will always be suffering. But none the less we should heal these memories. The characters of the past indeed can not be real representatives of the Church.

The erroneous history books will not help. I thank you all for sharing this most tragic event. By opening this truth, I can approach this subject in an unbiased attitude and sensitivity. And this too would work for all.

Thanks again.

[ 07-21-2002: Message edited by: Hooded ]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/4cde.html#sack

Sermon given by the Roman Catholic Bishop before the attack -

1. The sermons before the final attack on Constantinople.

Robert de Clari, ch. lxxiii-xxiii, in Hopf: Chroniques, pp. 57-58. Old French.

LXXII. When the pilgrims saw this,[TR has"a course expression in the original"] they were very angry and grieved much; they went back from the other side of the harbor to their lodgings. When the barons had returned and had gotten ashore, they assembled and were much amazed, and said that it was on account of their sins that they did not succeed in anything and could not capture the city. Meanwhile the bishops and the clergy in the army debated and decided that the war was a righteous one, and t they certainly ought to attack the Greeks. For formerly the inhabitants of the city had been obedient to the law of Rome and now the were disobedient, since they said that the law of Rome was of no account, and called all who believed in it " dogs." And the bishop said that for this reason one ought certainly to attack them, an that it was not a sin, but an act of great charity.

LXXIII. Then it was announced to all the host that all the Venetian and every one else should go and hear the sermons on Sunday morning; [Apr 11, 1204] and they did so. Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist [Halberstadt] master Jean Faicette [De Noyon, chancellor of Baldwin of Flanders], and the abbot of Loos, and they showed to the pilgrims that the war was a righteous one; for the Greeks were traitors and murderers, and also disloyal, since they had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than Jews. Moreover, the bishops said that, by the authority of God and in the name of the pope, they would absolve all who attacked the Greeks. Then the bishops commanded the pilgrims to confess their sins and receive the communion devoutly; and said that they ought not to hesitate to attack the Greeks, for the latter were enemies of God. They also commanded that all the evil women should be sought out and sent away from the army to a distant place. This was done; the evil women were all put on a vessel and were sent very far away from the army.

================
3. Account of the sack.

Nicetas Choniates: Alexii Ducae Imperium, ch. iii-iv, in Recueil des historiens des Croisades, hist. grec., 1, 397. Greek.

3. � How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

Nor can the violation of the Great Church [Hagia Sophia] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so, great and infinite splendor.

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with go , which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of t temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.

4. Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantationsand poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch's seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?

Nothing was more difficult and laborious than to soften by prayers, to render benevolent, these wrathful barbarians, vomiting forth bile at every unpleasing word, so that nothing failed to inflame their fury. Whoever attempted it was derided as insane and a man of intemperate language. Often they drew their daggers against any one who opposed them at all or hindered their demands.

No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, t groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, t separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. . Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, how great the distress!

4. Abbot Martin's theft of relics.

Gunther: Historia Constantinopolitana, ch. xix, in Riant: Exuviae, Vol. 104 ff. Latin.

While the victors were rapidly plundering the conquered city, which was theirs by right of conquest, the abbot Martin began to cogitate about his own share of the booty, and lest he alone should remain. empty-handed, while all the others became rich, he resolved to seize upon plunder with his own sacred bands. But, since he thought it not meet to handle any booty of worldly things with those sacred hands, he began to plan how he might secure some portion of the relics of the saints, of which he knew there was a great quantity in the city.

Accordingly, having a presentiment of some great result, he took with him one of his two chaplains and went to a church [The Pantokrator] which was held in great reverence because in it the mother [Irene, d. 1124] of the most famous emperor Manuel [Manuel I Komnenos] had a noble grave, which seemed of importance to the Greeks, but ours held for naught. There a very great amount of money brought in from all the surrounding country was stored, and also precious relics which the vain hope of security had caused them to bring in from the neighboring churches and monasteries. Those whom the Greeks had driven out, had told us of this before the capture of the city. When many pilgrims broke into this church and some were eagerly engaged in stealing gold and silver, others precious stones, Martin, thinking it unbecoming to commit sacrilege except in a holy cause, sought a more retired spot where the very sanctity of the place seemed to promise that what he desired might be found.

There he found an aged man of agreeable countenance, having a long and hoary beard, a priest, but very unlike our priests in his dress. Thinking him a layman, the abbot, though inwardly calm, threatened him with a very ferocious voice, saying -. " Come, perfidious old man, show me the most powerful relics you have, or you shall die immediately." The latter, terrified by the sound rather than the words, since be heard but did not understand what was said, and knowing that Martin could not speak Greek, began in the Romana lingua, [i.e. Greek] of which he knew a little, to entreat Martin and by soft words to turn away the latter's wrath, which in truth did not exist. In reply, the abbot succeeded in getting out a few words of the same language, sufficient to make the old man understand what he wanted. The latter, observing Martin's face and dress, and thinking it more tolerable that a religious man should handle the sacred relics with fear and reverence, than that worldly men should, perchance, pollute them with. their worldly hands, opened a chest bound with iron and showed the desired treasure, which was more grateful and pleasing to Martin than all the royal wealth of Greece. The abbot hastily and eagerly thrust in both hands and working quickly, filled with the fruits of the sacrilege both his own and his chaplain's bosom. He wisely concealed what seemed the most valuable and departed without opposition.

Moreover what and how worthy of veneration those relics which the holy robber appropriated were, is told more fully at the end of this work h When he was hastening to his vessel, so stuffed full, if I may use the expression, those who knew and loved him, saw him from their ships as they were themselves hastening to the booty, and inquired joyfully whether he had stolen anything, or with what he was loaded down as he walked. With a joyful countenance, as always, at, with pleasant words he said: " We have done well." To which they replied: " Thanks be to God."

5. List of relies stolen by Abbot Martin.

Gunther, ch. xxiv, in Riant: Exuviae, Vol. 1, p. 120 ff.

Therefore " Blessed be the Lord God, who only doeth wondrous things," who in His unspeakable kindness and mercy has looked upon and made glorious His church at Paris through certain gifts of His grace, which he deigned to transmit to us through the venerable man, already so frequently mentioned, abbot Martin. In the presence of these the church exults and by their protection any soul faithful to God is aided and assisted. In order that the readers' trust in these may be strengthened, we have determined to give a partial list.

First, of the highest importance and worthy of all veneration: A trace of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for redemption of all mankind.

Second, a piece of the cross of our Lord on which the Son of the Father, the new Adam, sacrificed for us, paid the debt of the old Adam.

-------------

For a partial list of some of the sacred items looted, stolen & carted back to the Vatican & western Cathedrals or destroyed forever -

http://www.stmichael.org/ConSack.shtml

[ 07-21-2002: Message edited by: OrthoMan ]

Two views illuminating the geo-politics of the sack.

http://latter-rain.com/crusade/curfor.htm
"The Crusaders were originally bound for Egypt, but were persuaded by Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus, the dispossessed Emperor of Byzantium, to turn aside to Constantinople in order to restore him and his son to the throne.
A motley collection of French knights setting out from Venice by sea to fight in the Holy Land, the crusaders appealed to the Venetians for transportation and food. ... The merchants of Venice agreed to furnish at a high price, more than the crusaders could pay, and also to contribute 50 armed warships if they could share equally in all future conquests. The Duke of Venice, the blind Enrico Dandoelo, used the indebtedness to use the crusaders to his own political ends. They were to capture for Venice, the port of Zara, who had revolted against Venice and had gone over to the king of Hungary. ...So the crusade began with the sack and destruction of a Roman Catholic town, in 1202. Angrily, the pope had excommunicated the crusaders. Pope Innocent was infuriated by this bargain which had diverted them ... This departure from their original design was followed by a still more remarkable deviation. Instead of proceeding to Palestine, they sailed against Constantinople, to dethrone the usurper, Alexius Angelus. The crusaders succeeded in restoring the lawful emperor, Isaac, to his Empire. The reward which they required was extravagant, and Isaac's efforts to comply with the stipulations provoked such resentment, that he was deposed by his subjects, and put to death, together with his son. But worse was to follow. In July, 1203, the Crusaders took Constantinople by assault. ... The city was sacked. Naturally the pope protested at this second diversion of the crusading army "Ye took not the Cross to avenge the wrongs of the prince Alexius," he wrote. "Ye are under the solemn obligation to avenge the Crucified, to Whose service ye are sworn.” "

ALSO
http://www.falangist.com/crusades.htm
"The Fourth Crusade began as a fundamental part of the reforming zeal of Pope Innocent III. He negotiated with the Emperor Alexius III, who had ascended the imperial throne in 1195 after overthrowing his brother, for a healing of the schism and a joint effort to retake the Holy Land. But under the machinations of the Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, the Crusade was taken from papal hands and turned toward Venetian goals. An attack was launched for control of Dalmatia and a horrified pope condemned this betrayal of crusading goals. The armies then turned toward Constantinople where, in league with the son of the deposed Byzantine emperor, a revolution was hatched to secure Constantinople as a Venetian puppet. When the citizens of Constantinople rejected the young pretender and refused to pay-off the Crusaders, the city was attacked. It was virtually destroyed, it's art works stolen or destroyed, it's citizenry ruthlessly murdered. ... But the attack on Constantinople was never planned or ordered by the Church."

Well I don't know how accurate these reports are, but they indicate that the Franks were certainly in Constantinpole not by request of the Pope. Instead it stemmed from the need to finance the Crusade to the holy land, coupled with the deal made between the Venetians and a faction contending for the Constantinopolitan throne. The sack occurred in lieu of payment for services rendered, and to complete the planned installation of a Venice-friendly regime.

War is, indeed, hell.

But what does/did this have to do with the Church?

djs

[Well I don't know how accurate these reports are, but they indicate that the Franks were certainly in Constantinpole not by request of the Pope.]

[War is, indeed, hell.

But what does/did this have to do with the Church?]

It has everything to do with the Church my friend! The horror Innocent supposedly felt didn't last to long. For it didn't stop him from taking advantage of the situation by installing a Latin Patriarch -

-----------------

Later, when confronted with the possibility that he might have a unified church on his hands, Innocent acquiesced and went along with the reality that what was done was done. He did nothing to stop the flow of desecrated wealth into Latin cathedrals and churches.

Baldwin of Flanders was put on the throne and a Latin kingdom was established in the East. A Venetian replaced the Patriarch . Orthodox bishops were deposed and replaced by Roman prelates. Pressure was put on priests to submit to the papacy, but they resisted firmly. There was no union.

--------------

Nor, as you can see from the above, did it stop the steady flow of sacred religious artifacts that were taken from the Orthodox Catholic churches and monasteries over the next 20-40 years while this Latin Patriarch sat on the throne.
If the Pope was so horrified by it all, why did he accept what he knew to be stolen property while his Latin stooge sat on the Patriarchal throne?
So, it has everything to do with the Church!

OrthoMan