1054: History, Myth, and the Making of a Schism (Full Essay)

Last updated on: November 11, 2017 at 4:33 pm by Guest Contributor

1054: History, Myth, and the Making of a Schism (Full Essay) 2017-11-11T16:33:23-04:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

As for the excommunication itself, it is a remarkable document. First of all, Humbert takes pains to distance Cerularius and his associates from the rest of Constantinople, and especially from the Emperor. His is by no means an excommunication of the entire Eastern Church, or even of the entire Church of Constantinople. In fact, as earlier stated, Humbert indicates that his inspection of the Church and people of Constantinople had discovered “great good” (Humbert Exc.) in them, and found them “most Christian and Orthodox” (Ibid.).

However, as for “Michael, wrongfully called Patriarch, and the partisans of his stupidity” (Humbert Exc.), Humbert is not so positive. Rather, these are guilty of an entire list of theological charges, each one designed to link them directly to a past form of heresy. “Just like Valesians they castrate their guests” (Ibid), and “just like Arians they rebaptize Latins baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity” (Ibid); and so on and so forth. The charges show a haphazard mentality. Some of them, like the charge of defending married priests, would doubtless be true of all Eastern Christians; others, such as believing fermented bread was alive, were obviously not true even of Cerularius and his associates. Most inaccurate of all would be Humbert’s charge that Cerularius and his associates had, “like the Theomachian heretics” (Humbert Exc.), actually deleted the words “and the son,” or filioque, from the Nicene Creed. As a matter of a fact, it was the Western Church that had added these words, as Popes and Western bishops had been aware for hundreds of years; and the controversy occasioned by this addition, under the name filioque, is generally considered the most significant issue leading to the Great Schism. Yet, in fact, this is the first time the filioque appears in this controversy, brought up not by the Eastern Christians, but by Humbert and his fellow Westerners.

The most significant charges, though, seem to be those concerning Cerularius’ attacks on the Western Church and the Papacy. As in Pope Leo’s letter, the title of Ecumenical Patriarch is singled out as an indication of pride and an assault on Papal authority. Likewise, Cerularius is accused of refusing to receive into communion those following the Western custom of shaving their beards, and also of having Western Christians rebaptized. The reason for these actions, Humbert argues, is Cerularius’ heretical belief that “except for the Church of the Greeks, the Church of Christ and the true sacrifice and baptism have perished from the whole world” (Humbert Exc.). Because of these heresies, Cerularius closed the Western Churches and persecuted the Western Christians in Constantinople; and by doing this, he “in her children has anathematized the Apostolic See” (Humbert Exc.), Rome. In the view of a Western Christian, excommunicating the Roman Church was equivalent to excommunicating oneself. Furthermore, Humbert argues, Cerularius then “denied his presence and conversation” (Ibid) to the Roman legates, refusing to answer the charges against him. Because of this, and because Cerularius refused to listen to Pope Leo’s admonitions, Humbert now “subscribes to that which our Lord Pope Leo has written” (Ibid) and delivers the formula of excommunication: “Let Michael the abusive neophyte Patriarch […]; and with him Leo called Bishop of Ohrid; and Michael’s sacrilegious accomplice Constantine […]; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and presumptions; let them be Anathema Maranatha […] with all heretics, and with the Devil and his angels, unless perhaps they will repent” (Humbert Exc.).

This, then, is Cardinal Humbert’s account of the incident. Cerularius’ stated views are given principally in two documents: a decree of the Synod of Constantinople excommunicating the legates, and a letter written by him after the incident to his fellow Patriarch, Peter of Antioch. According to Michael, the incident began when, having heard of the noble character of Pope Leo, he decided to write to him to discuss “the scandals, subject of common talk, having to do with” (Cer. Petr.) the Western Christians. He then entrusted these letters to an Imperial official, who was tasked with carrying letters from the Emperor to the Pope. At some point after sending these letters, however, Michael claims he was visited by the Archbishop of Trani, a Bishop from the Byzantine areas of Italy According to Michael, the Archbishop revealed to him a remarkable conspiracy against him being played out in Italy. Apparently, the Imperial official bearing Cerularius’ letters had been coopted by one Arguros, the Byzantine Duke of Southern Italy and a political enemy of Cerularius. Arguros, a Latin Christian, had previously disputed with Cerularius about the use of unleavened bread, and as a result had been “not even once only, but even twice and thrice and four times” (Caer. Petr. VII) excommunicated by him. Having persuaded the Imperial official to deliver Cerularius’ and the Pope’s letters to him, Arguros had then summoned together some of his closest allies for a secret meeting. Perhaps through the Archbishop of Trani, Cerularius was supposedly able to learn some fragmentary details about this meeting and who was present at it, information which pointed directly to the three members of the supposed Roman delegation to Constantinople: Humbert, the Archbishop of Amalfi, and the deacon Frederick. According to Michael, however, this delegation was not, in fact, from Rome at all, nor was Frederick actually a Chancellor of the Roman Church. Rather, Arguros and his cronies had merely feigned their Roman positions and commission, “so that he might be able to rule in fraud through this, as through some seemingly irresistible wall” (Caer. Petr. V). These miscreants had then taken the Pope’s letters intended for Cerularius and deliberately altered them, adding arguments taken directly from Arguros’ past disputes with Cerularius. Armed with this fraudulent mission and with fraudulent documents, they had then set out for Constantinople.

Go back Continue Reading

Previous Post

November 10, 2017

What’s so Great About the Great Books?

Next Post

November 13, 2017 Finding Yourself and Other Half-Truths

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Culture Politics Reviews Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 December 2020 November 2020 July 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Why did Joseph's brothers sell him?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Poverty Mercy Love Jealousy