www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholic V. Orthodox

I read that in the year 1054 the Pope and the Orthodox churches "basically excommunicated each other"....what was the Catholic Church excommunicated FROM? Is it just the Western Catholics who were excommunicated? What of the Easter Catholics....were they excommunicated as well? Who was the Patriarch who did the excommunicating? What was his name and he was the Patriarch of __________? And how could he excommunicate the Pope?
Thanks.
The Carmelite

I think he excommunicated Cardinal Humbert

>>> read that in the year 1054 the Pope and the Orthodox churches "basically excommunicated each other"....what was the Catholic Church excommunicated FROM? Is it just the
Western Catholics who were excommunicated? What of the Easter Catholics....were they excommunicated as well? Who was the Patriarch who did the excommunicating? What was
his name and he was the Patriarch of __________? And how could he excommunicate the Pope?
Thanks.<<<

In the year 1054, the Pope of Rome dispatched the German Bishop Humbertus of Silva Candida as his legatus to the Church of Constantinople. The purpose of his mission was to patch up relations, which had been deteriorating for some time as a result of disputes over jurisdiction in the Balkans. Also adding some flavor to the pot was a disagreement over just what sort of authority the Pope had over the Church of Constantinople, and whether the addition of the term "and the Son" to the Creed in relation to the procession of the Holy Spirit was appropriate or heretical.

Humbert was an arrogant and somewhat narrow-minded man, a leader of the reform movement in the Latin Church, who having come out of the German Church, had little experience with or understanding of the Eastern Christian Churches. Like others in the reform movement, he tended to take for granted that the Latin way was normative for all Christians, and that uniformity in doctrinal expression and ritual was a guarantee of fidelity to the Apostolic Faith. It is highly significant that Humbertus knew little or no Greek, and had no familiarity whatsoever with the Greek Fathers.

Opposing Humbertus was the Patriarch Michael Kerularios. A man of equally towering ego, he was immensely better educated than Humbertus (it would be hard not to), but he also had an axe to grind, trying to set up the Patriarchate as the dominant force in the Empire by acting as champion of the Orthodox Faith. Humbertus and Kerularios were a hypergolic mix, no doubt about it, and it was shear hatred at first sight. Interestingly, Humbertus and the Emperor got on pretty well, but given the nature of his mission and the Emperor's relations with Kerularios, that wasn't much help.

Eventually, their disputes degenerated into shouting matches, at the end of which Humbertus drafted a bill of excommunication against Kerularios and his immediate subordinates. It is doubtful that Humbertus in fact had any authority to do this, since the Pope had died before he wrote it, and no successor had been appointed yet. So Humbertus was on his own, and way out of his depth. The bill is full of unsubstantiated accusations, lies, and misunderstandings of history. For instance, it actually does say that the Greeks had removed the Filioque clause from the original Creed, whereas in fact, the Latins had added it.

Humbertus plopped his illegitimate bill down on the altar of Hagia Sophia, and stormed out of the cathedral. A member of the Patriarch's staff ran out and tried to give it back, but Humbertus wouldn't take it. Kerularios, in a fine rage, wrote is own bill, excommunicating Humbertus and his followers. Interestingly, before he left Constantinople, Humbertus had a very cordial meeting with the Emperor, who said he hoped things would be sorted out soon.

Two things are important to note here:

First, it is highly doubtful whether Humbertus and Kerularios had any power to excommunicate anyone not within their jurisdiction; moreover, the excommunications themselves did not apply to the entire Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but just to the people mentioned by name in the bills; they certainly did not extend to the successors of those persons.

Second, at the time, the excommunications were not seen as totally severing relations between East and West. Indeed, other Eastern Churches, notably the Church of Antioch led by Patriarch Peter III, continued to maintain communion with both Churches until the advent of the Crusades (when the supplanting of legitimate Eastern patriarchs by Latin titularies alienated the entire East).

So, to sum up, the excommunications of 1054 cannot be viewed as a cataclysmic event, but merely (like the deposition of the Western Emperor Romulus Augustulus in 476) a convenient signpost for a long-term process that has no definitive beginning and no definitive end. In and of themselves, the excommunications were meaningless, which is why the lifting of the anathemas by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenegoras were more of a good will gesture than anything else.

Stuart,

Just a couple of small trivia points. Cerularius excomunicated all three of the legates that arrive there, not just Humbertus. Sadly, one of the legates, Fredrick of Lorraine, went on to become Pope Stephen IX (X?)!

With the death of Pope Leo IX Humbertus was "without canonical mission" meaning that his excommunication was absolutely null and void.

Edward, deacon and sinner

I STILL don't understand....did the Orthodox then, only take up the title of Orthodox for their group AFTER the split? It would help my understanding if this were the case. Cerularius was the Patriarch of which tradition? Greek? Byzantine? Thanks.

The pre-schism church referred to itself as Catholic and Orthodox. After the schism, the two each tended to gradually let the other term fall into disuse, without disowning it. Therefore, the Catholic Church considers that it is orthodox, and the Orthodox Church considers that it is catholic.

Kerularios was the Patriarch of Constantinople, the "Mother Church" of the Byzantine tradition.

Brendan

Dear Carmelite,

Patriarch Cerularius was the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time.

The terms "Orthodox" and "Orthodoxy" were in use, especially in the Eastern Church but in the West as well, following the Council of AD 325 which condemned the heresy of Arianism.

"Orthodox" is a term that is normally associated with the idea of "faith." "Catholic" is normally associated with "church." Thus, the "Orthodox Faith" and the "Catholic Church." Although one may also speak of an Orthodox Church and Catholic Faith as well.

The Pope of Rome during his Pontifical Liturgies prays for all those "who teach the Orthodox Faith."

The official title of the Orthodox Church is: The Holy Apostolic Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Church (I believe that is right).

But the "split" wasn't church-wide at 1054. The excommunications effected then were excommunications of persons, not churches, even though they did reflect a widening estrangement between East and West that was already at work for some time before this date (St Photios and the Filioque controversy, for example).

The Sack of Constantinople at the beginning of the 13th century truly marks the "break-off" point between East and West. I am treating this sad event not as if the Byzantines never attacked the Latins, but as the real point of departure of the Churches from one another.

Your Brother in Carmel,

Alex

"The pre-schism church referred to itself as Catholic and Orthodox"

Hence in Ravenna you have the Baptistry of the Orthodox, meaning those with the Pope as opposed to the Arians.

I need more, please! I've heard that some members of ALL traditions and rites had broken away from the Pope at some time. That is, all except the Maronites who were always in communion with the Pope. Did they all leave at the same time? For the same reason? For instance, why and when did the Ruthenians leave and return? Why did they leave? When did the various groups return? And why are the Orthodox and Catholics still separate even though the leaders of both mutually cancelled the excommunications in the early 60's ('64?) Who was the Orthodox leader then? Who was the Pope then? John XXIII or Pius VI who did that? Does there exist a geneology chart of these splits as they exist today so I can get this straight in my mind? Thanks!!

>>>I need more, please! I've heard that some members of ALL traditions and rites had broken away from the Pope at some time.<<<

That's not quite the correct terminology. They could not "break away" from the Pope because they were never "under" the Pope. The Church of the First Millennium saw the Church of Rome as possessing a primacy of authority, not jurisdiction, and Rome as one Church among several, all of which were equal in grace. Thus, it is better to say that all Traditions had periods of estrangement and broken communion with the Church of Rome, many of which exist to this day.

>>>That is, all except the Maronites who were always
in communion with the Pope. <<<

The Maronites like to say so, but the record is mixed. The Maronites were descendants of that portion of the Syrian Church which remained loyal to the Byzantine Empire, and which survived because of its isolation in the mountains of Lebanon. At the time they lost contact with the rest of the Christian world (an isolation that lasted from the 7th until the 11th centuries), the Church of Constanintinople was formally monothelite and not in communion with the Church of Rome; it is not clear whether the Maronites followed suit. It is clear that when the Franks showed up in 1089, the Maronites were overjoyed to be out from under Moslem oppression. Any theological disputes between them and Rome had long since been forgotten, but as to whether that amounts to an "unbroken" communion with Rome is debatable.

>>>Did they all leave at the same time? <<<

The first great split in the Body of Christ occured after the Council of Ephesus in 431, when most of the Church of Antioch broke communion with the other Churches over the condemnation of Nestorius and the what was seen as a rejection of the exegetical methods and Christology of the Antiochean School. The bulk of this Church, residing in Persia and India, was outside the Roman Empire, and communications between it and the other Churches was tenuous at the best of times. In point of fact, it is now recognized that the Christology of the Church of the East, as it came to be called, is consistent with the faith proclaimed by the Chalcedonian Churches.

The next major spit occured over time, beginning with the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon by major portions of the Churches of Alexandria and Syria, because of the perceived "Nestorianism" of the Chalcedonian definition, the apparent rejection by Chalcedon of the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, and the cultural domination of the Church of Constantinople. From 451 until the end of the 7th century, there were repeated efforts to conciliate the "non-Chalcedonians" (mistakenly called "monophysites"), but these ended after the loss of Egypt and Syria to the Moslems in the 7th century. Today it is also recognized that the differences between the Non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian Churches is largely terminological, and efforts are under way to reestablish communion with them.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches, meaning specifically the Church of Constantinople and those portions of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem that accepted the Council of Chalcedon, plus those Churches founded by the Church of Constantinople in the Slavic lands, severed communion with Rome many times between the sixth and the twelfth centuries. The usual excuse was some minor point of ritual or doctrine, but this was merely camouflage for an essentially political dispute between the Church of Rome, increasingly wielding temporal power in the West, and claiming an increasingly jurisdictional primacy over other Churches; and the Church of Constantinople acting in synergy with Imperial Byzantium. For various reasons, the two Churches became estranged, and gradually they lost the ability to understand one another (both literally and figuratively speaking). The excommunications of 1054 were merely one more bump on the road to permanent separation. More important was the First Crusade, in the wake of which the Latin Church deposed the Orthodox bishops throughout the Crusader states and imposed Latin bishops worshiping according to the Latin rite. The sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade was really the point of no return, though communion between portions of the Orthodox and Latin Churches continued for another 500 years. Today, communion among Latin Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox is almost unprecedented, but communion between the Orthodox and Greek (or Byzantine) Catholic Churches remains common albeit not acknowledged at official levels.