THE CRISIS OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY

by

Francis Dvornik

 

Chapter 7 of “Byzantium And The Roman Primacy”.

(Fordham University Press, NY).

 

 

 

Great hopes were entertained in Byzantium that the Council of Union of 879-880 was going to open a period of good rela­tions between Byzantium and Rome. The understanding that had been arrived at between the two Churches seemed to have been sealed for all time-at least that was what was thought at the time – by the first canon of this Synod[1] and by the proc­lamation made in the course of the fourth session which de­clared that each Church should preserve its own customs and maintain its own rights.[2] This appeared to be a solid base for good relations between the two Churches.

The matter was of great importance, for the two Churches –as we pointed out in our introduction[3] - had not been ac­customed to follow the same usage in matter of canonical legislation. The Byzantines were content with the so-called “apostolic canons” and the decisions of the ecumenical coun­cils and certain local Synods which they complemented by the imperial ordinances in religious matters. In the West, in the beginning of the sixth century they began to add to the con­ciliar canons the decretals of the Pope, without any concern for imperial legislation[4].

In any discussion of the validity of the canons of Sardica in the affair of Ignatius and of Photius, we must keep in mind the complications which arose from the differences of acceptance and interpretation of certain canons. The canon of the Council of Union and the declarations made during the fourth session kept these differences clearly in view. Tolerance of divergent practices and usages was re­quired if new conflicts between the two Churches were to be avoided in the future. Unfortunately, this tolerance was not practiced by either side. The story of the fourth marriage of the Emperor Leo VI, which the Church of the East considered as illicit, shows that the right of appeal to the Pope continued to be admitted and practiced in Byzantium. The Emperor Leo VI to whom the Patriarch Nicholas the Mystic had refused permission for this fourth marriage had turned toward Rome and toward the other patriarchs asking them if such a marriage would be per­missible. Pope Sergius III (904-9) sanctioned the marriage even though it was to result in an internal schism in the By­zantine Church. This appeal of Leo VI can, quite properly, be regarded as an appeal to Rome in a disciplinary matter.[5]

It is true that in 920 when Nicholas the Mystic, after having been reinstated in his office by the Regent and co-Emperor Romanus I (920-944), convoked a local Synod, the fourth marriage was condemned by him in the presence of the legates of Pope John X. But this incident itself at least shows that the two Churches were always on good terms. This also appears in 933, when John XI, at the request of Romanus II (959-963), sent legates to Constantinople to sanction the elevation of Theophylactus, the son of the Emperor, to the patriarchal throne even though he was then only sixteen years of age. These two incidents show that the papacy had become de­pendent on the Byzantine emperors because of the disastrous conditions which obtained in Italy as a result of the deterioration of the Carolingian empire, the protector of Rome, and because of the intrigues of the Roman nobility who made and unmade Popes at will.

This situation changed in 962 when Otto I became Em­peror and restored the idea of a Roman Empire of the West; from then on he acquired a direct influence over the election of the Popes. This was a sign that the new nations of the West, who had never lived under the direct government of ancient Rome and to whom the idea of a universal empire governed by a Roman Emperor resident in New Rome was completely strange, began to assert their part in the government of the Christian world.[6]

An incident that took place in 968 shows how little these newcomers understood the idea of a universal empire in which Byzantium believed so strongly. That year, Otto I sent a Lombard who knew Greek, Liutprand of Cremona, to the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas, to ask of him the hand of the Byzantine Princess for his son, the future Emperor. Pope John XII, recommending the ambassador to the Emperor, called Nicephorus “Emperor of the Greeks.” He could have hardly offered a more striking insult to the Byzantines who thought of themselves as Romans. The report that Liutprand[7] made on his mission also shows how little the new nations understood the Byzantine mentality.

However, this incident was closed in 972 when the Emperor John Tzimisces (969-976) consented to the marriage of his niece, Theophano, to Otto II. His son, Otto III, who had been raised by his Greek mother, seemed as if he would bring about a new stage in the relations between East and West. A By­zantine Princess, who was to marry Otto III, was already on her way to Rome when suddenly the news arrived of the death of the young emperor (1002).[8]

During the pontificate of the Germanic Popes who had been installed by the Ottos and by Henry II, some innovations that were strange to the Byzantines were introduced in Rome. The most important was the introduction of the Filioque which was officially inserted into the Nicene Creed.[9] It appears that Pope Sergius IV (1009-1012) had sent to Byzantium, with the customary synodical letter on taking possession of the Papal throne, his profession of faith containing the Filioque. Nat­urally, this resulted in a refusal on the part of the Patriarch Sergius II and the name of the Pope was not inscribed in the Byzantine diptychs, the list of the names of those to be com­memorated during divine service. It is possible that it was from this moment that the Byzantines discontinued their an­cient practice of inscribing the names of the Roman patriarchs in their diptychs. This incident was later regarded by some as the beginning of the schism. Nicetas of Nicaea who in the eleventh century wrote a treatise on the Greek schism, speaks of a rupture which took place under Pope Sergius, but he ad­mits that he was not aware of the reason for it.[10]

Nevertheless this incident was neither the denial of the Roman Primacy on the part of Byzantium nor, to tell the truth, the beginning of a schism. To be sure, since the end of the tenth century the two Churches had not had many points of contact but they were still not enemies. However, the estrangement of the two worlds continued to grow. Less and less did the Westerners understand the Byzantine concept of a universal Christian Empire and in the West, the idea that only the Emperor crowned by the Pope in Rome was the true successor of the Caesars began to receive general accept­ance. The existence of a Roman Emperor in Constantinople had all but faded from memory.

In spite of all this, Byzantium remained close to Rome, as long as she still had possessions in the south of Italy, in spite of her refusal or her incapacity to defend them. As long as there existed in South Italy this bridge between Byzantium and the West, it was still possible that contacts between Con­stantinople and Rome could become more frequent and more cordial. Unfortunately, this bridge was suddenly broken down by the conquest of the Byzantine territory in Italy by the Normans.[11] This event was to have consequences more disas­trous for the relations between the East and the West than the destruction of the bridge of Illyricum by the Avars and the Slavs in the sixth century.

One other circumstance was destined to bear an even greater responsibility for the separation which grew between the two Churches. This was the profound transformation which took place in Western Christendom as a result of the introduction of certain Germanic customs into ecclesiastical organization. The Germanic conception of real property was fundamentally different from that of the Romans and the Greeks. Being in­capable of conceiving the possibility that an institution could become the owner of land or of real estate, the Germanic na­tions continued to regard the man who had built it, as the only owner of real property or of a building. The application of this idea to ecclesiastical institutions was the cause of a revo­lutionary development in the Western Church. Thus it was that the bishops lost the administrative control of churches which they had not themselves constructed. The founders considered the churches built at their expense as their own property and they arrogated to themselves the right of naming the priests who were to be charged with their administration.

This system of privately owned churches (Eigenkirchen) was also applied in France to abbeys and bishoprics. When it was joined to the feudal system, it permitted the kings of the Ottonian dynasty to transform the church of Germany into a “Church of the Empire” (Reichskirche), totally under the control of the King and the Emperor.

As a consequence of this state of affairs, Western Christen­dom became, in the eleventh century , a collection of autono­mous and national churches, over which the princes, as “kings and priests,” not only claimed administration but also ownership. As a result, the central power, the papacy, the very back­bone of the Church, found itself deprived of its prerogatives.[12] The abuses which resulted therefrom – simony, lay investiture, ~ a married clergy-were responsible for the deterioration of the Church of the West in the tenth and eleventh centuries.

This provoked a reaction. Unfortunately this reaction – a reform movement – did not begin at Rome, the center of Christendom, but in the confines of France and the Empire, in Lorraine and in Burgundy, where the intervention of the Em­peror or the King was not normally to be expected.[13] The re­formers saw no other remedy than the restoration of the power and influence of the papacy as a means of freeing the Church from the stifling influence of the lay power. The principle was fundamentally good. As an antidote to the lay ownership of churches, the reformers invoked the ancient principle of Ro­man law according to which a moral person had the capacity to possess land and real property.

Unfortunately, these reformers were totally unaware of the peculiar situation of the Eastern churches and they naturally wished to extend everywhere the direct right of intervention of the papacy-even in the East where the churches had en­joyed a good deal of autonomy in running their internal af­fairs according to their own custom. In wishing to extend celibacy of the clergy which they were enforcing in the West, they forgot the practice of the East that priests were married. They also forgot that there were no churches under lay owner­ship in the East and that no reform was necessary in this mat­ter. In preaching obedience to Rome and in enforcing ob­servance of Roman customs they took no account whatever of the fact that the East had different customs and different rites.

An incident that took place in 1024 shows us well the danger for relations between the two Churches which could arise from the ignorance of the Byzantine mentality in reforming circles. Raoul Glaber, a Benedictine monk who spent some time in various monasteries, especially at Dijon under Abbot William and at Cluny under Abbot St. Odilo, reports in his chronicle that the reformers were very much disturbed when they learned “that the Byzantines wished, without any justifica­tion, to obtain Roman recognition of their supremacy.” That is the way he entitled the chapter in which he told the story,[14] It is altogether probable that this is the way in which the re­formers interpreted tlie intention of the Byzantines. However, even according to Glaber, the matter was not quite as scandal­ous as people wished to believe it was. According to him:

 

Around the year of Our Lord 1024, me Patriarch of Constantinople as well as the Emperor Basil and some other Greeks, decided to obtain from the Roman Pontiff authorization for the Church of Constantinople to be called “universal” in all parts of the territory which came under it, the same as me Church of Rome was con­sidered in the entire world.

 

What are we to make of this piece of information? It is alto­gether likely that the Emperor Basil II (976-1025) had ap­proached Pope John XIX (1024-1032), with a view to putting an end to the long controversy on the relative position of the two sees in the hierarchy of the Church. At this time, he was at the very summit of his power. After having stopped the advance of the Turks in Asia Minor and subdued Bulgaria, he dreamed of reconquering Sicily which was in the hands of the Arabs and of extending his influence over central Italy. In the accomplishment of this plan, an alliance with the Pope could not but have been advantageous. Basically, it was only a ques­tion of reissuing the ordinances of Justinian 11, of Phocas and of Justinian I. If we may believe Raoul Glaber himself, the Greeks were ready to recognize the supreme power of the Roman see over the whole Church and even over Constantino­ple. But the intervention of the reformers – the Abbot William had addressed to the Pope a rather stiff letter – seems to have intimidated the Pope, for whom, incidentally, Glaber did not have a very high opinion. As a result, this last attempt at agree­ment was to be a failure.

After the election of Pope Leo IX (1049-1054), the nephew of Emperor Henry III, and quite favorable to reform, the Re­form Movement took root also in Rome. The Pope had brought along with him to Rome some of the most zealous re­formers, notably Humbert whom he named a Cardinal and Frederick of Lorraine who became Chancellor of the Roman Church. The Romans extended their activities over South Italy into the Byzantine territory where were found both Greek and Latin communities. Taking their stand on the privileges granted by the Donation of Constantine[15] - this forged document had become one of the most “decisive argu­ments for the extension of papal power-the Pope tried to ex­tend his direct influence over the whole of Italy. He also laid claim to Sicily, a territory considered to be Byzantine although occupied by the Arabs and he appointed an archbishop there. He convoked a Synod at Siponto in 1050 where a great num­ber of decrees were voted with a view to furthering the re­form. Some of these decrees were directed against Greek liturgical usages which had been established in Italy. The re­forming clergy, thereupon, launched into an active campaign in all of the provinces, including Apulia, which was a By­zantine area.

The Greeks began to be disturbed. The Patriarch Michael Cerularius (1043-1058),[16] an ambitious and haughty man, who had little love for Latins, reacted with counter measures. Since it seemed that the Latins intended to replace the Greek liturgy by the Latin rite in Italy, he gave orders that all the Latin es­tablishments in Constantinople must adopt the Greek rite under penalty of being closed. Aiming at the Greeks in Apulia, he ordered Leo, the Archbishop of Ochrida, to compose a treatise defending the Greek rite and putting the blame on Latin usage. Leo sent his famous letter[17] to the Latin bishop of Trani, in Byzantine territory, in which he criticized Latin practices and in particular the use of unleavened bread in the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is interesting to note that he made no mention of the Filioque. This letter was circulated at the worst possible moment. It served to increase the anti-Latin grievances in Apulia at a time when, because of the advance of the Normans who threatened both papal and Byzantine territory, a military and political alliance between the Pope and Byzantium was absolutely necessary. In order to win over the Latin popula­tion, the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus (1042-1059), appointed as governor of the Byzantine territory a Latin named Argyrus who engineered a pact with the Pope directed against the Normans.[18] This caused the animosity of the Patriarch to grow still stronger because Argyrus was his per­sonal enemy. Unfortunately, the papal and Byzantine armies were defeated by the Normans in June, 1053 and the Pope was taken prisoner.

Meantime, Humbert, at the request of the Pope, had com­posed a letter of reply to Leo of Ochrida, a long treatise full of abusive criticism against Greek usages. This treatise was not directed to Constantinople because, in the interval, the Em­peror had sent a new embassy to conclude an anti-Norman al­liance and he persuaded the Patriarch to address a friendly let­ter to the Pope. The Pope then decided to send Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine and Peter of Amalfi as legates to Con­stantinople. Humbert prepared a second reply to the attacks of Leo. This one was shorter but in the circumstances, it was still extremely undiplomatic. He tried to include in it every­thing that he had said in his former treatise and the Patriarch could not help but be offended because the Cardinal expressed doubts as to the legitimacy of his election, doubts which had no justification whatever. Humbert was annoyed also at the use of the title “ecumenical” which, he said, violated the rights of Alexandria and of Antioch who had precedence over Con­stantinople because of their direct connection with the Apostle Peter. He further said that this title was a usurpation of the right which belonged to Rome, the Mother of all the sees. Once again, then, the Petrine argument was launched against the see of Constantinople.

The patriarch, who had been expecting a friendly letter in reply to his own, which had been short and polite, was surprised and suspected machinations on the part of his enemy Argyrus. He was offended by the attitude of Humbert whom he considered to be arrogant and he refused to continue the negotiations with the legates, declaring that they were not sent by the Pope at all but by Argyrus.

In reply, Humbert took the offensive, trusting, no doubt, in the assistance of the Emperor and probably encouraged by Argyrus in an attempt to depose the Patriarch. He published the first, very long letter which was translated into Greek as a sort of pamphlet against the Patriarch. In another dispute with the Monk Nicetas Stethatos, who had written a treatise in defense of the Greek usages attacked by the Cardinal, Humbert was the one to bring up the question of Filioque. His re­ply to the criticism of Latin usage which the Greek monk had discussed was impassioned and offensive.[19] The Emperor, how­ever, who was most anxious to bring about an agreement with the Pope, forced Nicetas to repudiate his writings and to hum­ble himself before Humbert.

The principles of the reformers became clear to the By­zantines for the first time in the pamphlets and letters of Hum­bert. Up to that time they had not realized the changes that lad taken place in the mentality of the Roman Church. In all ‘rankness, they simply did not understand them. If we cons­ider the development that had taken place in Byzantine thinki­ng with regard to the papacy and its position in the Church, we see that the extension of the absolute and direct authority of the Pope over all the bishops and the faithful such as it was preached by the reformers was, to the Byzantine mind, nothing less than a complete denial of the tradition with which they had been familiar. This extension would lead to the abolition of the autonomy of their churches. The liturgical uses of Byzantium were considered at least suspect, if not condemned outright. This is why the argument, which Humbert drew from the Donation of Constantine to support his view, was un­acceptable to the Byzantines.

What they did find particularly offensive was the mode of behavior of the legates, so much so that far from turning them against the patriarchs as Humbert had hoped, the whole of the Byzantine clergy closed ranks around their leader. What Hum­bert had to say to them was much too new for them and his criticism of Greek usages offended their patriotic sentiments. Humbert lost all patience and even though he knew that the 1~lr Pope had died, he composed his famous letter of excommunication against the Patriarch, laid it on the altar of Santa Sophia and departed from Constantinople.

The bull of excommunication composed by Humbert shows very clearly how far the mentality of the Roman Church had changed under the influence of the reformers and how little understanding they had of the Eastern Church and its customs. Humbert thought that he discovered in the East the roots of all the great heresies and he accused them of simony while, as a matter of fact, it was only in the West that simony was rampant. He condemned their married clergy, their beards and their long hair, and he accused the Byzantines of having suppressed the Filioque from the Nicene Creed, thereby show­ing his ignorance of the history of the Church.[20] The contents of the bull were found to be profoundly shocking not only by the Patriarch but also by the Emperor. The tumult that ensued among the people obliged the Emperor to abandon his efforts at peacemaking and to convoke the permanent Synod. This Synod condemned the bull, a copy of it was burned in public, and the Synod excommunicated the legates whom they said had been sent by Argyrus.

Thus it was that the embassy which was to have concluded an alliance between Byzantium and the papacy ended in this tragic rupture. The legates, especially Humbert, were gravely responsible. However, the correspondence between Michael Cerularius and Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, also show us that Cerularius should bear some of the blame. At the same time this correspondence makes clear how far the separation between Byzantium and Rome had progressed, and we can also see that Cerularius had some inaccurate and preconceived ideas on the Roman Church and its practices.[21]

However, just as Cerularius had not been turned against the Pope and against the Latin Church as such and since the legates had excommunicated only the Patriarch and his supporters, it is not proper to say that the Roman Primacy had been re­jected by Byzantium and that the schism was already in exist­ence between the two Churches. New negotiations were broached during the pontificates of Victor II, Stephen IX and, in 1072, Alexander II, but the Norman question made these ne­gotiations and any possible agreement extremely difficult.

At the invitation of Alexander II, St. Peter Damian composed a treatise on the errors of the Greeks,[22] which he dedicated to a patriarch-it is difficult to know which patriarch he had in mind-who had asked the Latins to explain their doctrine ac­cording to which the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son. In this treatise Damian expresses his pleasure that the patriarch had sought information not from just anybody, but directly from St. Peter. He identified the Pope with the apostle “to whom God himself has deigned to unveil these secrets.” After quoting the famous passage of Matt.16 he con­tinued:

 

The Creator of the world has chosen him before all other mortals on earth and has granted to him, in virtue of a perpetual privilege, the Chair of the Supreme Magisterium, so that any man who desires to know something that is profoundly divine, should turn toward the oracle and the doctrine of this teacher.

 

Damian went on to explain in irenic fashion the Catholic doc­trine on the Filioque.

This definition of the Primacy of the Pope could have been accepted by the Greeks. St. Peter was always venerated in the Byzantine Church and they accorded him very great respect,[23]  and his successors at Rome were always considered as the first masters in doctrinal matters. Although the approach made by the patriarch and the reply of Damian do not seem to have had any tangible results, the incident shows at least that it was always possible, even after 1054, to discuss in calm and friendly fashion the differences which existed between the two churches. Curiously, it seems that at the outset of the negotiations broached by the Emperor Michael VII with Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) they were of a nature to bring about a rapproche­ment between the two churches. The Byzantine Empire was then in great danger after the disaster of Manzikert. The Turks occupied a great part of Asia Minor and they threatened the eastern part of the empire. These difficulties caused the Em­peror to turn to the Pope for military aid, in return for a promise of a renewal of friendly contacts with Rome.

The Pope replied in a cordial letter in which he expressed his satisfaction at this gesture. He planned to raise an army to come to the aid of Constantinople and to accompany it in person. Unfortunately, the appeal that Gregory made to the princes­ – it was also addressed to the Emperor Henry IV – failed to win any support for granting assistance to Constantinople.[24] Soon after, the violent opposition which Henry IV raised against the new papal ideology of the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal power forced the Pope to seek aid and protection, from the Normans, the bitter enemies of Byzantium. The only result of this alliance of the Pope with the Normans was to put a definitive end to the possibility of agreement with By­zantium, and the memory of Gregory VII was always par­ticularly hated by the Byzantines, if we are to believe what Anna Comnena said of him.[25] In general, we may well doubt whether Gregory would have been any happier in his relations with Byzantium than had been Leo IX. We only have to read his Dictatus Papae[26] to see the enormous distance which, from then on, separated East and West, since by now, the ideas of the reformers had been completely developed and they were applied to the relations of the Sacerdotium and the Imperium. We also get the impression that Gregory, in composing this document, also had in mind certain pretensions of Byzantium. The declaration that the title “universal” belonged exclusively to the Pope seemed to indicate this fact. The same is clear from the fact that the name of the Pope was to be the only one men­tioned everywhere in the liturgy and that the title “Papa” was uniquely reserved to the Bishop of Rome. Likewise it was the Pope alone who should confirm the decisions of all Synods. Naturally there were many objections to these demands among the Byzantines. It was impossible for the Byzantines to grant the Pope the power of deposing an Emperor, of freeing his subjects from the obedience which was due to him even if he were failing in his duty; it was equally impossible for them to grant the Pope the right to wear the insignia of the Emperor and to oblige kings to salute him by kissing his feet.

The document issued by Gregory which proclaimed the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal power destroyed the last vestiges of Christian Hellenism which had remained in the West. The Roman Church now professed a new political ideology, very different from that which had existed up to this time in the East, and there was little chance that a compro­mise would ever emerge between these two ideologies.

It seems that even then the Byzantines did not fully under­stand how profound a change had taken place. For example, the Metropolitan of Kiev, John II (1080-1089),[27] sent a letter to the Anti-Pope Clement III which seems to indicate that he still believed in the possibility of agreement between Rome and Byzantium. The Metropolitan manifested a very friendly at­titude to Rome and the Primacy did not seem to bother him as much as certain other “abuses” which he observed in the Latin Church, notably the Filioque. He exhorted Clement III to enter into contact with the Patriarch of Constantinople and to work for the suppression of these “abuses.”

The alliance between Gregory VII and the Normans obliged the Emperor Alexis Comnenus (1081-1118) to turn to Henry IV[28] and toward his anti-Pope. The latter had already entered into contact with Constantinople when the successor of Greg­ory VII, Urban II, sent legates to the Emperor. The Emperor, at this juncture probably considering that Henry IV could not be very much use to him, opened negotiations with Urban II. He hoped that the Pope would be able to hold back the Normans from Byzantium.

We learn of all this from the Acts of the Synod which was convoked by the Emperor in 1089.[29] The Emperor who pre­sided declared that the Pope was ready to establish harmony between Rome and Byzantium but he was said to be annoyed that the names of the Pope had been suppressed in the diptychs of Constantinople. He also asked if there had been any canon­ical decision authorizing the rupture with Rome. The prelates declared that there had been no such document, but since im­ortent differences existed in the customs of the two Churches they felt it necessary that these should be removed before the name of the Pope could be inscribed in the diptychs.

It was then that the Patriarch Nicholas III (1084-1111) asked the Pope to send, as a beginning, his profession of faith to Constantinople, since that had happened each time a new Pope had addressed to Constantinople his letter of enthrone­ment. If this profession of faith was satisfactory his name would then be inscribed in the diptychs. In that case, a Synod would meet at Constantinople eighteen months later where, in the presence of the Pope and his envoys, they would discuss the differences which existed between the two Churches.

It seems fairly clear that the Pope was quite ready to go to Constantinople and that the Nonnan Prince Roger Guiscard encouraged him in this intention.[30] Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient infonnation to be able to decide if the Pope really sent the letter which the Patriarch asked for and if his name was inscribed in the diptychs.

Two documents of the same period show us the difficulties which barred the road to a renewal of more cordial contact. One is a letter of Basil, the Metropolitan of Reggio in Calabria. He had had to leave his see, being expelled by the Normans, when he refused, after the conquest, to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Pope. Before the convocation of the Synod by the Patriarch, Basil had been sent to the Pope and he met J Urban II at the Synod of Melfi where he had a rather painful interview with him. His letter, full of bitterness, was ad­dressed to Nicholas III at the end of 1089 and it is full of ac­cusations against the Pope, the Normans, and the Latins in general.[31] This letter reveals to us the sentiments of the Greeks whom the Normans had forced out of Calabria and who saw their sees occupied by Latin prelates. Once again the Pope laid claim to rights over that part of Italy that had been Byzantine, which had been taken from him by the Iconoclast Emperor Leo III in 732-733.[32] The Byzantines, quite naturally, found this as a source of irritation.

The other document is a letter sent by Nicholas III to Symeon II, Patriarch of Jerusalem.[33] This letter informs us that Pope Urban II had addressed the other patriarchs in mak­ing the same request as he had made to the Emperor. Symeon communicated this demand of the Pope to his colleague of Constantinople, Nicholas III. The reply of the latter shows us that he was very much preoccupied with the “errors” of the Latins, especially that of unleavened bread and the Filioque.

He quotes the usual arguments against these “errors,” and he also discusses the citations from Scripture by which the Pope endeavored to prove his right to Primacy in the Church. But, he did allow to the Pope a certain primacy.

 

There was a time when the Pope was the first among us, since he shared the same sentiments as we do. Now that he holds such dif­ferent views, how can we call him the first? If he will show us the identity of his faith with ours, he will then receive the Primacy . . . but, if he will not do that, he will never receive what he asks of us.

 

This letter was sent before the Synod of 1089. Subsequently, the Patriarch softened his view but the tone and content of this letter shows how strong was the memory of 1054 in Byzantium. In spite of this, the negotiations seemed to have continued, and the agreement between Rome and Byzantium always appeared as still a possibility.

It was once again an Archbishop of Ochrida, Theophylactus, who was invited to give his views on the “errors” of the Latins. This he did in a short treatise[34] and his judgment surprises us by its moderation and its obviously charitable intentions. He declares that the differences of rite and religious customs are not so important and they should not be allowed to lead to a schism. They should be considered with the eyes of Christian charity. He could also find excuses for the Filioque. He said that this formula had arisen because the Latin language did not possess a sufficiently accurate theological terminology, and he would allow the use of unleavened bread among the Latins, since the Scripture did not say precisely which bread was used during the paschal supper. As a result, he concluded, each Church should preserve its own customs and not reproach the other with having different usages from its own.

What is of real importance here, is the basic agreement in the matter of the true faith. If errors are found among the Westerners:

 

in the addition to the Creed of what concerns the Holy Spirit – this…an error affecting the doctrines of the Fathers as is the case is the greatest source of danger-those who would refuse to reject and to correct this error would surely be unworthy of pardon even if they spoke from the height of the throne which they professed to be the highest of all and even if they should put forth the con­fession of Peter and the blessing which he received from Christ for it, even if they should shake before our eyes the Keys of the King­dom. For in proportion that they pretend to honor Peter by these keys, they dishonor him if they destroy what he established, if they root up the foundations of the Church which he is supposed to support.

 

We have cited this passage because it contains all that The­ophylactus said on the Roman Primacy in his treatise. The words bear an ironical overtone, to be sure, but they show that Theophylactus accepted the Petrine thesis by which the Pope defended their Primacy, and this is an important fact. The whole treatise surprises us by the desire we find in it of a completely friendly relationship between the two Churches. For Theophylactus, the Primacy was not nearly as serious an obstacle to union as the Filioque.

Theophylactus also speaks of St. Peter in his commentary on the gospels. In commenting on Matt.16.18,[35] he stresses the fact that it is on Peter that Christ founded His Church. The confession of Peter is the foundation on which all believers should depend. “Since that has been affirmed to us in the con­fession of Christ, how can the gates of Hell, that is, sin, ever hold us in subjugation?” The Keys of the Kingdom were granted to Peter alone, but all bishops have the same power of loosing and of binding sin.

He is even more eloquent when he comments on the passage of Luke 22.32-33.[36]

 

“When you yourself have been strengthened, confirm your brethren.” This obviously means: Since I have made you the chief of the Apostles, when you have wept and repented of having de­nied me, confirm your brethren. This is the way you must act, you who are, after me, the rock and the foundation of the Church. We must believe that this command, that they be strengthened by Peter, holds not only for the Apostles at the time of Our Lord, but for ail the faithful unto the consummation of the world. For it is you, Peter, . . . who were an Apostle and you denied Him, but you are the one who, by your repentance, obtained the Primacy in the whole world.

 

In his commentary on John 21.15,[37] Theophylactus wrote “For the Lord entrusted the supervision over the whole flock to Peter alone and not to anyone else.” A bit later on, he says “He has granted to Peter the supervision over all the faithful. If James obtained the throne of Jerusalem, Peter has obtained that of the whole world.” Theophylactus did not here attempt to establish a direct link between Peter and his successors, but what he says of Peter is significant. He understood very well the Petrine argument for the Roman Primacy.

It is in this atmosphere of calm that preparations were made for that great enterprise of Western Christendom, the First Crusade. The Emperor Alexis I had halted the advance of the Turks in Asia Minor but since the Empire had lost a large part of that province and since it was from there that he recruited the largest proportion of his army, he turned to the West to seek additional troops. It seems that he had been engaged in conversation with the Pope on this matter since Anna Comnena writes in the Alexiade[38] that the Emperor in 1091 was awaiting a detachment of soldiers coming from Rome. In 1095 the imperial envoys petitioned the Synod which the Pope had convoked at Plaisance that the Christians of the West should come to the aid of their Oriental brethren to combat the infidel who was occupying the holy places so dear to all of Christendom.

It seems that it was this address and the conversations with the Emperor which suggested to the Pope the idea of inviting the faithful who were gathered at Clermont, some months later, to liberate the holy places from the hands of the infidel. The result was surprising, and the French nobility responded with enthusiasm to the exhortation of the Pope. But in the mind of the Pope, this First Crusade was launched not merely with the idea of assisting the Greeks in their struggle against the Turks and of liberating Jerusalem, but it was intimately linked, for him, with the idea of union of the two Churches. It is probable that he had come to an agreement with the Emperor and that they both hoped that the collaboration of Christendom, East and West, and the blood that would be spilled in common on the field of battle would seal for all time the union of the two Churches.[39] At the beginning, it looked as if these hopes would be realized. After the conquest of Antioch, the Crusaders reinstalled the Greek patriarch in that city. The relations between the legate of the Pope, Ademar of Puy, and the Patriarch Symeon II of Jerusalem before the con­quest of the Holy City were most cordial. The Pope himself, at the Synod of Bari in 1098,[40] discussed with the Greeks of Italy and of Byzantium the question of union and he decided to con­voke another Synod in Rome in the following year to continue these conversations.

Unfortunately the Pope died in the same year before he had the chance to name another legate to replace Ademar who died in 1098, and the selfish policy pursued by Bohemond, one of the chief Crusaders, spoiled everything. Although the Emperor had been promised that all the cities which belonged to the Empire would be returned to it, Bohemond decided to keep Antioch for himself and for his family.

The Emperor thought so highly of the possession of this important strategic center that he was prepared to go to every length to recover the city, if need be, by force. Thus it is at Antioch that we can see the first signs of schism, when in 1100 a Latin patriarch was installed there. Beginning with that year, the Greek patriarchs of Antioch continued, in exile, to reside in Constantinople and other cities.

Besides, the contact between the undisciplined army of the Crusaders and the local population had disastrous results for any agreement between the two Churches. The differences which had grown up between the two civilizations were now made clear to the general public. The depredations suffered by the population as the Crusaders passed through their towns made suspicion with regard to Latins universal throughout the Empire. The Greeks considered the Latins to be barbarians and savages; on their side, the Latins held the Greeks responsible for the disasters suffered by their army, even though most of these were due to their own fault, since they paid no attention to the advice which the Greeks had given them.[41] However, in spite of all it was still possible to discuss in a peaceful manner the differences that existed between the two Churches and the question of the Roman Primacy even at Constantinople. The debate which Bishop Anselm of Havelberg[42] was able to have in the capital in I 136 is most interesting from this point of view.[43] Naturally, Anselm was totally imbued with the ideas of the reformers as to the Roman Primacy. He based this pri­macy on the words addressed to St. Peter (Matt.16.18-19) and on the fact that Peter had preached and died in Rome with St. Paul. Making use of the Petrine argument of St. Leo the Great, he admitted only three principal sees in the primitive Church, those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, because each of them had been founded by Peter and by his disciple, Mark. The Church of Peter had always remained true to the Faith and according to the words of Our Lord (Luke 22.32), that Church had the mission of confirming the faith of all the other churches. The Church of Constantinople, on the contrary , was nothing but the seed bed for all the heresies which had defiled the Eastern churches. It was for this reason that all the churches should venerate the Roman Church and follow whatever she proposed.

The reply of his opponent Nicetas, Bishop of Nicomedia, was very dignified. Here is what he says with regard to the Roman primacy:[44]

 

I neither deny nor do I reject the Primacy of the Roman Church whose dignity you have extolled. As a matter of fact, we read in our ancient histories that there were three patriarchal sees closely linked in brotherhood, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, among which Rome, the highest see in the empire, received the primacy. For this reason Rome has been called the first see and it is to her that appeal must be made in doubtful ecclesiastical cases, and it is to her judgment that all matters that cannot be settled according to the normal rules must be submitted.

But the Bishop of Rome himself ought not to be called the Prince of the Priesthood, nor the Supreme Priest, nor anything of that kind, but only the Bishop of the first see. Thus it was that Boniface III, who was Roman by nationality, and the son of John, the Bishop of Rome, obtained from the Emperor Phocas confirmation of the fact that the apostolic see of Blessed Peter was the head of all the other Churches, since at that time, the Church of Constantinople was saying that it was the first see because of the transfer of the Empire.

In order to make sure that all the sees profess the same faith, Rome sent delegates to each of them [Perhaps Nicetas was think­ing of the delegations who carried letters of enthronement and the profession of faith joined to them], telling them that they should be diligent in the preservation of the true Faith. When Constan­tinople was granted the second place in the hierarchy because of the transfer of the capital, this custom of the delegations was like­wise extended to that see.

 We find that, my dear brother, written in the ancient historical documents. But the Roman Church to which we do not deny the Primacy among her sisters, and whom we recognize as holding the highest place in any general council, the first place of honor, that Church has separated herself from the rest by her pretensions. She has appropriated to herself the monarchy which is not contained in her office and which has divided the bishops and the churches of the East and the West since the partition of the Empire. When, as a result of these circumstances, she gathers a council of the Western bishops without making us (in the East) a part of it, it is fitting that her bishops should accept its decrees and observe them with the veneration that is due to them. . . but although we are not in disagreement with the Roman Church in the matter of the Catholic faith, how can we be expected to accept these decisions which were taken without our advice and of which we know nothing, since we were not at that same time gathered in council? If the Roman Pontiff, seated upon his sublime throne of glory, wishes to fulminate against us and to launch his orders from the height of his sublime dignity, if he wishes to sit in judgment on our Churches with a total disregard of our advice and solely according to his own will, as he seems to wish, what brotherhood and what fatherhood can we see in such a course of action? Who could ever accept such a situation? In such circumstances we could not be called nor would we really be any longer sons of the Church but truly its slaves.

 

If the authority of the Pope was such as described by Anselm what good could be served by Scripture, by studies and by Greek wisdom? If that is the way things are, the Pope is the only bishop and the only master.

 

But if he wishes to have collaborators in the vineyard of the Lord, let him dwell in humility in his own primatial see and let him not despise his brothers! The truth of Christ has caused us to be born in the bosom of the Church, not for slavery but for freedom.

 

In confirmation of these words, Nicetas quoted John 20.23 and Matt.16.19, the words by which Our Lord had granted the power to forgive sins, of binding and of loosing, to all the Apostles without exception. Anselm, while admitting this fact, quite rightly made the point that the Lord had also spoken to Peter alone and he stressed the predominant role which Peter had played among the Apostles and in the primitive Church. Nicetas brought his declaration to an end by speaking of the part played by the Oriental bishops and by the Popes in the suppression of heresy:[45]

 

In the archives of Santa Sophia we possess the account of the great deeds of the Roman Pontiffs and we possess the Acts of the coun­cils wherein are described all that you have said about the authority of the Roman Church. For this reason it would be a source of great shame to us if we were to wish to deny what we have seen with our own eyes and what was written by our Fathers. However, in all truth, we must recognize the fact that neither the Roman Pontiff nor his legates would have had any part in the condemnation of heresies in the East, if the Orthodox bishops established in the East had not welcomed, aided, and encouraged them. For it was they who, full of zeal for the faith, condemned these heresies and pro­vided confirmation of the true Catholic faith, sometimes with the Roman Church and sometimes without her.

 

These words of Nicetas illustrate very well the position taken by the Byzantine Church. From them we see that the Orientals continued to prefer the principle of accommodation to the principle of apostolicity. They rather looked for reasons for the Roman Primacy in the decisions of the councils and of the Emperors. Nicetas, however, did not deny the Scriptural argu­ment (Matt. 16.18-19), used by Anselm. In recalling the words by which Our Lord had granted to the Apostles a similar power to that which He had given to Peter, he raised a prob­lem which even today has not been resolved in definitive fash­ion by the Roman Church, that of the relation between the full power accorded to the successors of Peter and the powers granted to the bishops.

Drawing his inspiration from the ideology of the reformers, Anselm went even further in demanding not only the recogni­tion of the Primacy of the Roman Church – in principle this had not been denied, as we have seen – but also the accept­ance of all the liturgical practices that were proper to the West, especially the abandonment of the use of leavened bread in the celebration of the Mass. We can easily understand how strenuously the Orientals would defend their own usages and their autonomy in this matter. It is regrettable that, on both sides, they forgot the recommendations made by the Council of 879-880, that each Church should preserve its own proper customs and that there was no place for any quarrel with re­gard to such minor differences. Even so, it is quite surprising to observe that given these circumstances, during the first half of the twelfth century, the Byzantines still recognized the prin­ciple of the Roman Primacy in the Church in spite of all that had happened in 1054 and after.

We can also quote the declaration of the most famous of the Byzantine canonists, Zonaras,[46] who composed his canon­ical work in the first half of the twelfth century. In his ex­planation of Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon, he shows with con­siderable emphasis the words attributing to Constantinople the same advantages as to ancient Rome should not be extended so far as to imply the transfer of the Primacy from Rome to Con­stantinople. The preposition after means a relationship of dig­nity and does not imply succession in time. To prove that his in­terpretation is correct he quotes a passage from the profession of faith of the Patriarch Nicephorus[47] where he spoke of the condemnation of the Iconoclasts:

 

That the Iconoclasts have been rejected by the Catholic Church, we know from the wise testimony and from the confirmation in the letters which were, a short time ago, sent by the most holy and blessed archbishop of ancient Rome, that is to say, the first Apostolic See.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Mansi,17,497. It was stated in this canon that sentences passed by the Pope against anyone in the East should be approved by the patriarch, and vice versa. "However," the canon continued, "the privileges that belong to the most holy see of Rome or to its bishop should not suffer any change, neither now nor later on."

[2] Ibid.,489: "The holy synod has said: Each see has a number of ancient traditional practices. There is to be no discussion or quarrel on this matter. It is proper that the Roman Church should hold to its practices, but the Church of Constantinople should also preserve the customs that it has inherited from the past. And, the same is to be said for the rest of the Oriental sees."

[3] See p. 19, supra­

[4] See p. 63, supra

[5] It is true that the Emperor addressed himself to the other patri­archs, as Nicholas the Mystic mentions in his Letter 32, but, from all the evidence, it emerges from this letter that Nicholas himself, as well as the Emperor, considered the appeal to Rome and the intervention of the legates as of primary importance.

 

[6] The reaction of the Byzantines to this "intrusion" by the Ger­manic emperors into Roman affairs and the election of popes was quite violent. During the period of decadence of the Carol­ingian Empire the Byzantines regained a certain measure of control over papal elections. The struggle between the two parties of the Roman aristocracy, the one favoring the Franks and the other preferring Byzantine influence, poisoned the re­lations between East and West during the second half of the tenth century. When, for example, Pope Boniface VII, who upheld the Byzantine side, was expelled from Rome and had to take refuge in Byzantium (974), the Byzantines manifested their displeasure by "degrading" the patriarchate of Rome, which had at its head a pope they did not recognize, by putting it in the last place in one of their lists of patriarchates and bishoprics. Cf. H. Gelzer, Texte der Notitiae episcopatuum, Abhandl. d. Bay. Akad. (Munich, 1901), 569. The Notitia should be dated 974-76.

[7] Cf. De legatione Constantinopolotana, MGH, Scriptores Ill, 347-63. See also his Antapodosis, ibid., 273-339.

[8] Cf. F. Dvornik, The Making of Central and Eastern Europe, 95-185.

[9] Cf. J. A. Jungmann, Missarum solemnia (Vienna, 1948), on the singing of the Credo during Mass in Rome. The evolution seems to have been quite slow, and the practice of adding the Filioque did not become general until after 1014.

[10] PG 120, 717ff. Cf. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 410.

[11] The best work on the Norman Conquest in Italy is that of F. Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande en ltalie et en Sicilie, 2 vols. (Paris, 1907).

[12] A. Ftiche, La retorme gregorienne (Paris, 1924), I, 17ff.

[13] This reform movement should not be confused with the mon­astic reform stemming from Cluny. See my study National Churches and Church Universal (London, 1943), 33ff.

[14] Historiarum libri quinque, II, ch. I, PL 142, 671; Hugh of Flavigny, Chronicon, PL 154, 240-41. Cf. F. Grumel, "Les pretiminaires du schisme de Michel Ceru1aire ou la question romaine avant 1054," in Revue des Etudes Byzantines, 10 (1952), 18-20.

 

[15] On the Donatio and its utilization by the Greeks in the twelfth century, see the bibliography given by F. Dolger, Byzanz und die europiiische Staatenwelt, 107ff. The Donatio was already known in Byzantium in the tenth century .

[16] See E. Amann, "Michel Cerulaire," DTC, 10, 1683-84. Also, A. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, 2 vols. (Paderbom, 1924­30) ; V. Grumel, "Les preliminaires . . ." 5-24, and P. L 'Huil­tier, "Le schisme de 1054," in Messager de l'exarchate du patri­arche russe en Europe occidentale, 5 ( 1954), 144-64.

[17] In PG 120, 836ff.

[18] On this question, see ]. Gay, L'ltalie meridionale et byzantin de 867 a 1071 (Paris, 1904), 450-72. See also, D. M. Nicol, "Byzantium and the Papacy in the Eleventh Century," in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 13 (1962), 1-20.

 

[19] Cf. the writings of Humbert against the Greeks, in PL 143, 744-69 (among the letters of Leo), 929-1004. A new edition of the writings of Nicetas has been made by A. Michel in Humbert und Kerullarios, 2, 322-42.

 

[20] Here is what M. Jugie has to say of this Bull in his Le Schisme byzantin (Paris, 1941), 205-06; "This theatrical gesture was regrettable from every point of view; regrettable, because one might well ask himself if the legates, since the Holy See was vacant at the time, were sufficiently authorized to take so grave a step; regrettable also, because it was useless and ineffectual. . . ; regrettable especially, by the content of this sentence and the tone in which it was drawn up. It reproached Ceru1arius and his partisans, and indirectly even all the Byzantines, side by side with some legitimate complaints, of a whole series of heresies and imaginary crimes."

[21] See this correspondence in PG 120,751-819.

[22] PL 145, 633-42.

 

[23] See what J. Meyendorff says in his study "S. Pierre, sa primaute et sa succession, dans la theologie byzantine," in La primaute de Pierre dans l'Eglise orthodoxe (Neuchatel, 1960), 96ff. See also his article "St. Peter in Byzantine Theology," in St. Vladimir Seminary Quarterly,4 (New York, 1960) 26-48.

[24] See the edition of E. Caspar, Vas Register Gregors VII:, MGH, Epistolae Selectae (Berlin, 1920), 29 (Letter to Michael); 7°, 75 (appeal to the princes); 167 (Letter to Henry IV), 173.

[25] Anna Cornnenus, Alexiade, edited and translated by B. Leib (Paris, 1937), I, 47,48,50,52.

[26] Published by E. Caspar, op. cit., 202-08. Cf. H. X. Arquilliere, Saint Gregoire VII (Paris, 1934), 130ff. See the study of J. T. Gilchrist, "Canon Law Aspects of the Eleventh Century Gregorian Reform Programme," Journal of Ecclesiastical His­tory, 13 (1962),21-38.

 

[27] Ed. by A. Pavlov, Kriticeskie opyty po istorii dre'Znlejsej greko­russkoj polemiky protiv Latinjan (St. Petersburg, 1878), 169, 186.

[28] This probably earned him an excommunication by Gregory VII. The latter, who was faithful to Michael VII with whom he was in contact, in 1078 had excommunicated Nicephorus III Botaniates who had deposed Michael VII. These were the first applications of the Victatus papae. Cf. E. Caspar, op. cit., 400. 401,524.

[29]  Published by W. Holtzmann, in his study "Unionsverhand­lungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios L und Papst Urban II. im Jahre 1089," in Byzantin. Zeitschr., 28 ( 1928) 38-67, 60-62. See also V. Grumel, Les Regestes des Actes du patriarcat de Constan­tinople (Paris, 1947 ), I, fasc. 3, 48.

[30] This is confirmed by Godfrey Malaterra in his Historia Sicula, PL 149, 1192.

[31] See Holtzmann, op. cit., 64-66.

[32] On this problem, see M. V. Anastos, "The Transfer of Illyri­cum, Calabria and Sicily to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 731-733," in Silloge Bizantina in onore di S. G. Mercati, Studi bizantini e neoellenici, 9 (Rome, 1957), 14-31.

[33] Published by A. Pavlov, Kriticeskie opyty . . . , 158-69. See V. Grumel, "Jerusalem entre Rome et Byzance. Une lettre in­connue du patriarche de Constantinople Nicolas III a son col­legue de Jerusalem," in Echos d'Orient, 38 ( 1939 ), 104-117.

[34] Liber de iis quorum Latini accusantur, PG 116,111-49.

 

[35] PG 113, 310.

[36] Ibid., 1073D.

[37] PG 114, 309A-313A.

[38] Alexiade, 8, edit. of B. Leib, II, 139. Cf. Holtzmann, "Die Unionsverhandlungen," op. cit., 38-67. On Alexis I, see also F. Chalandon, Les Comnenes, I, "Essai sur le regne d' Alexis I, Comnene" (Paris, 1900).

[39] On the history of the Crusades, see R. Grousset, H istoire des croisades, 3 vols. (Paris, 1934-36), and S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1951-53).

[40] Cf. B. Leib, Rome, Kiev et Byzance a la fin du X[e siecle (Paris, 1914),187-97.

[41] The disastrous results which the clash of the crusaders and the native population had for the possibility of union have been illustrated by Runciman in his book The Eastern Schism ( Ox­ford, 1935), 114ff. See also B. Leib, op. cit., 236-75, 301-07 (Guibert de Nogent).

[42] See the two new studies on Anselm: Kurt Fina, " Anselm von Havelberg. Untersuchungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte des 11. Jhts.," in Analecta Praemonstratensia, 31 ( 1956), 33 (1957), 34 (1958), and G. Schreiber, "Anselm von Havelberg und die Ostkirche," in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 60 (1941), 354-411. On the discussions which the Greeks and the Latins had, in the twelfth century , on religious problems, especially on the Filioque, see P. Classen, "Das Conzil von Konstantinopel 1166 und die Lateiner," in Byz. Zeitschr. 48 ( 1955 ), 339-68; M. Anastos, "Some Aspects of Byzantine Influ­ence on Latin Thought," in Twelfth Century Europe, edited by M. Clagett, G. Post, R. Reynolds ( Madison, Wisconsin, 1961), 131-87. (On Hugo Eterianus and Nicetas of Nicomedia, 40-49.) According to Grumel, "Notes d'histoire et de literature Byzantines,” in Echos d’Orient, 29 (1930), 336, the discussion took place on Oct. 2-3, 1154.

[43] Dialogi, lib. 3, PL 188, 1213ff.

[44] Ibid., 1217ff

[45] Ibid., 1228.

[46] PG 137, 488-89.

[47] See p.103, supra.