• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

1054 - Cerularius

After Photius, John Bekkos says there was "perfect peace" between East and West. But the peace was only on the surface. From the first deposition of Photius by the emperor Leo the Philosopher (y. 886), down to the reign of Constantine Monomachus - that is, for nearly a century and a half - the union of the Greeks with the center of unity remained unbroken. Once, indeed, (in. 998), it had been endangered, when the patriarch Sergius, of the same family as Photius, assembled a Synod, and, having renewed all the calumnies of that schismatic against the Holy See, endeavored in vain to induce the other patriarchs to revolt ; and the successor of Sergius, though he persistently tried to obtain from Pope John XIX. the title of Ecumenical, did not revenge his disappointment by rebellion.

Photius's cause did not die. It remained latent in the party he left, the party that still hated the West, that was ready to break the union again at the first pretext, that remembered and was ready to revive this charge of heresy against Latins. Certainly from the time of Photius hatred and scorn of Latins was an inheritance of the mass of the Byzantine clergy. How deeply rooted and farspread it was, is shown by the absolutely gratuitous outburst 150 years later under Michael Cerularius (1043-58). For this time there was not even the shadow of a pretext. No one had disputed Cerularius's right as patriarch; the pope had not interfered with him in any way at all. And suddenly in 1053 he sends off a declaration of war, then shuts up the Latin churches at Constantinople, hurls a string of wild accusations, and shows in every possible way that he wants a schism, apparently for the mere pleasure of not being in communion with the West.

The schism was completed in 1053 and 1054, when Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, publicly condemned the bishop of Rome, Leo IX., and all the Latins, adding to all the reproaches against them by Photius that, contrary to the practice of the apostles, they dared to make use of unleavened bread in the eucharist; that they wickedly ate blood puddings, and twisted the necks, instead of cutting off the heads, of pigeons intended for the table. The following are the terrible accusations against the Roman, and therefore against all the Latin churches, which the profundity and sincerity of Cerularius put forth as a justification of revolt against the See of Peter,

1. By the use of unleavened bread for the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Latins communicate with the Jews, and, furthermore, adopt an invalid matter for said Sacrifice.
2. The Latins eat the flesh of suffocated animals,
3. They shave their faces.
4. They fast on Saturday.
5. They eat the flesh of unclean animals,
6. They allow their monks to eat meat.
7. They violate the Lenten fast, by permitting the use of flesh on Quiuquagesima [the fiftieth day before Easter Sunday, or rather the period when fifty special services will be held before Easter] and in the first week of Lent.
8. They have added the clause "And from the Son" to the Creed, and they err in the doctrine as to the Holy Ghost.
9. They loudly proclaim, in their liturgy : " Our Holy Lord Jesus Christ, in the glory of God the Father, through the Holy Ghost."
10. They allow two brothers to marry two sisters.
11. At the time of Communion, the officiating and other clergy give each other the kiss of peace,
12. Their bishops wear rings, as though espoused to their churches,
13. Their bishops go to war, and soil their hands with human blood.
14. They immerse the subject, in Baptism, one only time.
15. They put salt into the mouth of the candidate for Baptism,
16. They do not venerate the relics or the images of the saints,
17. They do not sing the Alleluia during Lent.

All the Latin churches in the Greek empire were shut up, and all intercourse with those who ate blood puddings was forbidden.

Pope Leo IX. entered into serious negotiation on this matter with the Emperor Constantine Monomachus, and obtained some mitigations. It was precisely at this period that those celebrated Norman gentlemen, the sons of Tancred de Hauteville, despising at once the pope and the Greek emperor, plundered everything they could in Apulia and Calabria, and ate blood puddings with the utmost hardihood. The Greek emperor favored the pope as much as he was able; but nothing could reconcile the Greeks with the Latins. The Greeks regarded their adversaries as barbarians, who did not know a single word of Greek. The irruption of the Crusaders, under pretence of delivering the Holy Land, but in reality to gain possession of Constantinople, completed the hatred entertained against the Romans.

After a series of wanton aggressions, unparalleled in church history, after he had begun by striking the pope's name from his diptychs, the Roman legates excommunicated him (16 July, 1054). But still there was no idea of a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church, still less of all the East. The legates carefully provided against that in their Bull. They acknowledged that the emperor (Constantine IX, who was excessively annoyed at the whole quarrel), the Senate, and the majority of the inhabitants of the city were "most pious and orthodox". They excommunicated Cerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents.

This quarrel, too, need no more have produced a permanent state of schism than the excommunication of any other contumacious bishop. The real tragedy is that gradually all the other Eastern patriarchs took sides with Cerularius, obeyed him by striking the pope's name from their diptychs, and chose of their own accord to share his schism. At first they do not seem to have wanted to do so. John III of Antioch certainly refused to go into schism at Cerularius's bidding. But, eventually, the habit they had acquired of looking to Constantinople for orders proved too strong. The emperor (not Constantine IX, but his successor) was on the side of his patriarch and they had learned too well to consider the emperor as their over-lord in spiritual matters top. Again, it was the usurped authority of Constantinople, the Erastianism of the East that turned a personal quarrel into a great schism.

Photius'e idea of calling Latins heretics had been learned. Cerularius had a list, a longer and even more futile one, of such accusations. His points were different from those of Photius; he had forgotten the Filioque, and had discovered a new heresy in our use of azyme bread. But the actual accusations mattered little at any time, the idea that had been found so useful was that of declaring that we are impossible because we are heretics. It was offensive and it gave the schismatical leaders the chance of assuming a most effective pose, as defenders of the true Faith.