www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why did Rome attempt to excommunicate the Eastern Patriarch Cerul

Could anyone give me the Eastern Catholic and / or Eastern Orthodox perspective on why Rome tried to excommunicate the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius?

I'm on a mission to discover Christ's Church. But the more I research the less confident I am that I'm in that Church. But nothing is very cut and dry in the history of Christianity. Leading up to the schism, leadership on both sides seemed filled with pride and a desire for power. Both seemed a far cry from the likes of St. Peter and St. John.

Sparrow,

First of all, welcome to the Byzantine Forum!

Many of us on this forum can sympathize with the struggle you describe here. For myself, I am happy to be Eastern Catholic, precisely because it is, in a sense, "the best of both worlds."

As to why Rome tried to excommunicate the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius, it seems clear that there were many on both sides that wanted to see the other side excommunicated, while there were also many on both sides that did not. Unfortunately, those who opposed to the schism either underestimated the real danger of schism, or were uncertain of how to oppose it effectively.

Either way, once Card. Humbertus' infamous bull was placed on the holy table of Hagia Sophia, the pro-schism parties quickly claimed the victory ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I have also read that Card. Humbertus was kind of a hot head and also at that time most Greeks didn't speak Latin and most Latin’s didn't speak Greek and this hurt the possibility of dialogue between the two Churches.

It is interesting to note that communion between the faithful continued long after 1054 and it wasn't until the sacking of Constantinople during the Crusades that the split was really finalized.

Like Fr. Deacon Richard, I'm very happy to be an Eastern Catholic having come over from the EO Church this last Febuary.

Here's an interesting article on Michael Cerularius, somewhat sympathetic to the Patriarch but from a Catholic perspective:

http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/on-michael-cerularius/

Thank you all for the warm welcome. I've spent the morning trying to find a consensus across Churches. Here's what I've found from a couple different sources.

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).

Deacon Richard,
I like the idea of having the "best of both worlds." Intellectually, my discovery of who was right is important to me. But my heart definitely yearns for the Eastern style of worship. That's part of the problem for me. I can't tell if my "falling in love" with the East is affecting my judgement in reading the past.

What is important to recognize is neither Cerularius nor Humbertus had any authority to anathematize each other or the Pope. In the case of Cerularius, the head of one patriarchal Church could not unilaterally condemn the head of another; only a universal council could do that. In the case of Humbertus, he was the legatus of Pope Leo IX, who died before Humbertus could deliver his bill of excommunication. Therefore, Humbertus' authority expired with Pope Leo.

Also note that the anathemas were personal, and did not encompass the wider Latin or Orthodox Churches. Various Orthodox Churches remained in communion with Rome after 1054, most notably the Church of Antioch under Patriarch Peter III--who also remained in communion with the Church of Constantinople. So much for the all-or-nothing approach.

The excommunication was caused, in part, by the fear of castration among the priests of Rome if they visited the East!!!

The text of the Bull of Excommunication giving the Catholic reasons for the excommunication is here

http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

Thank you, Stuart. Would an Eastern Orthodox agree with the above statement? Do/did they believe Cerularius did not have the authority to anathematize another head of a patriarchal Church?

This looks very interesting. Thank you, Venite.

Thank you, Hieromonk. I've read through some of this bull. Do you think castration was a real concern or was it merely a statement made from anger?

Presumably this document was composed by the Pope in Rome before Humbert and his delegation set out for Constantinople.

Humbert is quite clear that the anathema comes from the Pope himself.... "we thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers..."

Humbert lied.

I know.

You're shocked!

They insist that the Pope could not excommunicate Cerularius; ergo, Cerularius could not excommunicate the Pope. All patriarchs are equal in grace and dignity.

militantsparrow,

I hate to sound like I'm objecting to a line of inquiry, but I personally think that this issue, in itself, isn't going to help you understand the difference between the two communions.

Basically, the events of 1054 took place in the context of many historical events, and in my opinion reading the modern "Orthodox/Catholic" division back into them is about as accurate as using 21st century concepts of democracy as a lens to judge ancient Athens rather than looking at Athen's own ideologies and context. There will be similarities, but you'd be just asking to get inaccurate results.

Key problems include the fact that the Emperor was not condemned and in fact (I believe based on memory - I don't have access to my books right now) was praised by Humbertus and/or subsequent Popes; political balances and choices among figures in the Roman, Norman, and the Church of Old Rome; as well as the Roman Empire's concept of Roman-ness at the time and its ecclesiastical manifestation. Despite the fact that these issues (at a minimum) are critical to understanding 1054, they are completely irrelevant today.

Some sources I've thought have been enlightening on this particular matter include:

- Father John Meyendorrf's "Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions" and "The Byzantine Legacy of the Orthodox Church"

- Dr Aristeides Papadakis' "Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy".

- Jonathan Harris' "Byzantium and the Crusades"

- M.B. Efthimiou's Greeks and Latins on Cyprus

Anyway, this is a start. These are all academic works which claim to derive heavily from the primary sources, and which ideally would not be (and I don't believe are) confessional apologies. Again, I'm not at all convinced that really understanding this issue will be of any help to understand the division, much less choosing which side to go on, or (most importantly) what parish you will attend.

Markos