, needing long-established Latin churches to convert to Greek
practice. Whenever he met resistance, he had these churches shut down. However his actions were not restricted to Latin churches: Byzantium had annexedmuch of Armenia in 1024. This had actually brought into the empire an Ancient Eastern church with customs various from those of the Greeks. Among these was using unleavened bread. As was the case in the Latin Church.
The distinctions went even more, as the Armenian Church was a Monophysite church, not having adopted the language of Chalcedon. In any case, Michael’s actions made enemies of the Armenians. Instead of keeping a friendly disposition towards these individuals in the east who could assist resist the Turks, he alienated them. This issue of unleavened vs. leavened bread was, it appears, the pretext of what, by now, was inevitable. Leo of Ohrid(an Eastern Leo, not to be confused with the Pope) would compose to Pope Leo on this matter, offering details behind the use of leavened bread. The reply, rather of engaging on the points, only focused on the issue that if the pope decides something, it is decided for the Church. The pope can not be incorrect– despite earlier popes having been anathematized for other doctrinal or doctrinal disobediences.
One last effort at reconciliation was used by both the Eastern Emperor Constantine and the Patriarch Michael. This did not prevent the delegation from the West from leaving for Constantinople– and specific mis-translations from the Greek to the Latin(purposeful or not)did not help in this matter. Throughout, Humbert, a confidant of and advisor to the pope, played a leading role– even to lead the delegation to the East. He was author or advisor relating to much of the correspondence from Rome to Constantinople; he was the one who would first provide the Contribution of Constantine which proclaimed papal preeminence, falsely made up most likely in the 8th century
however not discovered to be so until much later on. And, by now, Pope Leo had passed away– thereby eliminating any authority Humbert had in his objective(and it is practically particular that Humbert undoubtedly understood of this occasion). And throughout, Strickland provides most (but not all )of the correspondence and discussion flowing from East to West as respectful and based on a historical theological understanding, the replies from Humbert are labeled as violent and abusive. 3 months was long enough to encourage Humbert that Michael would not send to papal authority. And this is when he strode into Hagia Sophia prior to the Divine Liturgy on July 16, 1054– three months after Leo’s death, and for that reason without authority– and slapped a papal bull of excommunication on the alter. What the bull of excommunication lacked in authenticity it offseted with invective. Humbert implicated Michael and his fans of practically every blasphemy and heresy for which he had a name. the list was extensive, and it betrayed not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the East, however a practically farcical ignorance of
church history. A couple of days later, Michael would– with the emperor’s approval– return the favor. Conclusion Steven Runciman would write,” Couple of crucial documents have actually been so filled with demonstrable mistakes …”The errors mentioned regard simony, castration, the marriage of priests, the filioque, etc., and Runciman offers reasons he sees Humbert was in mistake– which might be true, but opens the door to a crucial bit … Sir James Cochran Stevenson Runciman CH
FBA(7 July 1903– 1 November 2000), called Steven Runciman, was an English historian best understood for his three-volume A History of the Crusades(1951– 54). His three-volume history has actually had a profound effect on common conceptions of the Crusades, primarily portraying the Crusaders adversely and the Muslims favourably. Runciman was a strong admirer of the Byzantine Empire, and as a result held a bias against the Crusaders for the 4th Crusade obvious in his work. While applauded by older crusade historians as a storyteller and prose stylist, he is deemed biased by some modern historians. Eton and Cambridge; multi-lingual; well-traveled; a buddy of George Orwell; studied
under Aldous Huxley; interests in the occult and homosexuality; never ever married; passed away at
97 years of age. Of Runciman, Thomas Madden would compose in 2005: It is no exaggeration to state that Runciman single-handedly crafted the present popular idea of the crusades. … Throughout his history Runciman portrayed the crusaders as simpletons or barbarians seeking redemption through the destruction of the sophisticated cultures of the east. Mark Vaughn states(in 2007)that Tyerman”precisely, if maybe with a bit of hubris, notes that Runciman’s work is now outdated and seriously flawed.”All history books are composed with a perspective, through a filter. This is as real for me when I work my method
through such books as it is for historians when they compose these books. I am not suggesting anything beyond noting that this book and series by Strickland is no exception. This does not diminish, for me, the worth it has in submitting a more comprehensive view of the history of Christendom– and who understands, maybe a more accurate view than that which I held before being exposed to this work. However all history books are written with a viewpoint, through a filter.