Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:51:40.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking the Schism of 1054: Authority, Heresy, and the Latin Rite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Brett Whalen
Brett Whalen*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the year 1053, at the request of the Byzantine patriarch, Michael Kerullarios (1043–58), Archbishop Leo of Ochrid denounced the “priesthood of the Franks and the reverend pope” for observing Jewish rites through their celebration of the Eucharist with azymes, the same kind of unleavened bread used for Passover. Leo made these accusations in a letter addressed to John, archbishop of Trani in southern Italy, a region of coexisting Latin and Greek religious traditions that had been destabilized by the recent invasion of the Normans. The epistle was subsequently passed along to papal confidante Humbert of Silva Candida, who translated it into Latin and presented it to Pope Leo IX (1048–54). Around that same time, the two churchmen also heard news that the Greek patriarch had anathematized all those observing the Latin rite in Constantinople. A flurry of inconclusive correspondence ensued between the pope, the patriarch, and the Byzantine ruler, Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–55). In response to this persistent crisis, Pope Leo dispatched a legation to Constantinople that included Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine, and Peter of Amalfi. On 16 July 1054, after a series of acrimonious debates, the legates deposited a bull of excommunication against Kerullarios and his supporters on the high altar at Hagia Sophia. The patriarch responded in kind by excommunicating Humbert and his followers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Traditio , Volume 62 , 2007 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Both the Greek version and Latin translation of this letter are published in Will, Cornelius, ed., Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant (Leipzig, 1861), 56–64. On the Norman invasion of southern Italy and its impact on relations between the Latin and Greek churches, see Mayne, Richard, “East and West in 1054,” Cambridge Historical Journal 11 (1954): 133–48, and Herde, Peter, “Das Papsttum und die griechische Kirche in Süditalien vom 11. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittlealters 26 (1970): 1–46. This article, which first took shape as part of my Stanford University dissertation, owes a great deal to the insights and assistance of Philippe Buc, Stanford University, Brad Gregory, University of Notre Dame, and Jehangir Malegam, George Washington University.Google Scholar

2 For this exchange of letters and the bull of excommunication, see Will, , Acta et scripta , 65–92, 153–54.Google Scholar

3 Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , ed. Womersley, David, 3 vols. (London, 1994), 2:659. There is a rich and sometimes confessional tradition of scholarship on the schism of 1054. Among the more important titles, see the analysis of Bréhier, Louis, Le schisme oriental du XI e siècle (New York, 1899); Michel, Anton, Humbert und Kerullarios, 2 vols. (Paderborn, 1924–30); Runciman, Steven, The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XI and XII Centuries (Oxford, 1955), 28–54; Every, George, The Byzantine Patriarchate, 451–1204 (1947; repr., London, 1962), 144–58; Dvornik, Francis, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York, 1964), 124–48; Every, George, Misunderstandings between East and West, Ecumenical Studies in History 4 (Richmond, 1966), 9–25; and Chadwick, Henry, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church from Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence (Oxford, 2003). For the most recent monograph devoted to the events of 1054, see Bayer, Axel, Spaltung der Christenheit: Das sogennante Morgenländische Schisma von 1054 (Böhlau, 2002). Bayer, ibid., 1–7, surveys the historiography of the topic.Google Scholar

4 Southern, Richard, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1970), 67–68.Google Scholar

5 Congar, Yves, After Nine Hundred Years: The Background of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches , trans. Mailleux, Paul (1954; repr., New York, 1959), 73.Google Scholar

6 See Dawson, Christopher, The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity (1932; repr., New York, 1952), 183; idem, The Formation of Christendom (New York, 1967), 261; Geremek, Bronislaw, The Common Roots of Europe , trans. Aleksandrowicz, Jan et al. (Cambridge, 1996), 89; Jordan, William Chester, “‘Europe’ in the Middle Ages,” in The Idea of Europe from Antiquity to the European Union , ed. Pagden, Anthony (Cambridge, 2002), 75; Mitterauer, Michael, Warum Europa? Mittelalterliche Grundlagen eines Sonderwegs (Munich, 2003), 152–53; and the entry for the year 1054 in the time-line in Jacques le Goff, L'Europe est-elle née au Moyen Age? (Paris, 2003), 272: “Schisme définitif entre l'Église romaine latine et l'Église grecque orthodoxe.” Google Scholar

7 In addition to the analysis of Bréhier, Le schisme oriental, 147–65, see Dawson, , Formation of Christendom , 261; Every, , Misunderstandings, 30–31; and Magoulias, Harry, Byzantine Christianity: Emperor, Church and the West (Chicago, 1970), 112–13. U.-R. Blumenthal (The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century, 2nd ed. [Philadelphia, 1992], 64–105), never mentions the azymes controversy in her discussion of 1054. See also Michel, Anton, “Schisma und Kaiserhof im Jahre 1054: Michael Psellos,” in (1054–1954) L'église et les églises: neuf siècles de douloureuse séparation entre l'Orient et l'Occident (Paris, 1954), 377, who argues that Kerullarios chose the Eucharistic difference because he had a “sharp eye” for a visible point of liturgical difference and lacked the theological sophistication of his predecessor in dissent, the ninth-century Byzantine patriarch, Photios (of Photian schism fame).Google Scholar

8 This quotation is from the first (and superseded) edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1907), 12:43–46.Google Scholar

9 Tellenbach, Gerd, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century , trans. Reuter, Timothy (Cambridge, 1993), 191–92.Google Scholar

10 Bayer, , Spaltung der Christenheit , 209: “Das Morgenländische Schisma war in erster Linie nicht ekklesiologischer oder religiöser Natur, sondern die Auswirkung politischer Rivalitäten.” Typical of this disregard for the Eucharistic dispute, Bayer (ibid., 214–21) deals with the azymes controversy in a brief appendix to his main work. By contrast, scholars of Byzantine history taken the theological implications of the azymes controversy more seriously. See Mahlon, H. Smith III, And Taking Bread: Cerularius and the Azymes Controversy of 1054 (Paris, 1978); and Erickson, John, “Leavened and Unleavened: Some Theological Implications of the Schism of 1054,” Saint Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 14 (1970): 155–76. As noted by Erickson (ibid., 156), the debates about whether the lasting schism started in the mid-eleventh century or not “share at least one characteristic: a tendency to neglect or underestimate the religious questions raised in 1054.” In one of the more intriguing analyses of the Eucharistic dispute from the Byzantine side, Tia Kolbaba has suggested that the confrontation with the Latins over azymes reveals less about Greek attitudes toward the Latins themselves, and more about the formation of orthodox identity within the Byzantine church, defined against Latins, Jews, and also Armenians, all of whom sacrificed with unleavened bread. See Kolbaba, Tia, “Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious ‘Errors’: Themes and Changes from 850 to 1300,” in The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World , ed. Laiou, Angeliki and Mottahedeh, Roy Parviz (Washington, DC, 2001), 117–43; and Kolbaba, Tia, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Chicago, 2000).Google Scholar

11 On the Investiture Controversy, along with Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe; and Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy; see Fliche, Augustin, La réforme Grégorienne , 3 vols. (Paris, 1924); Tellenbach, Gerd, Libertas: Kirche und Weltordnung im Zeitalter des Investiturstreites (Leipzig, 1936), available in partial English translation as Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest , trans. Bennett, R. F. (1948; repr., Toronto, 1991); Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (1955; repr., London, 1965), 262–309; Smalley, Beryl, The Becket Conflict and the Schools: A Study of Intellectuals in Politics (Totowa, NJ, 1973); and Robinson, Ian, Authority and Resistance in the Investiture Contest (Manchester, 1978).Google Scholar

12 See Van Engen, John, “Faith as a Concept of Order,” in Belief in History: Innovative Approaches to European and American Religion , ed. Kselman, Thomas (Notre Dame, 1991), 19–67; and Bartlett, Robert, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950–1350 (Princeton, 1993). Bartlett (ibid., 5), defines Latin Christendom as “that area of Christendom that recognized papal authority and celebrated the Latin liturgy.” Google Scholar

13 Morris, Collin, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050–1250 (Oxford, 1989), 3. In addition to Morris, see Tellenbach, Gerd, “Die Bedeutung des Reformpapsttums für die Einigung des Abendlandes,” Studi Gregoriani 2 (1947): 125–49.Google Scholar

14 Morris, , Papal Monarchy, 4 (emphasis mine). For comments about the Latin “denigration” of non-Latin Christian cultural and intellectual traditions (including those of the Greek church) starting during the second half of the eleventh century, see Moore, R. I., The First European Revolution, c. 970–1215 (Oxford, 2001), 146.Google Scholar

15 In addition to Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe, 187–92; and Blumenthal, , Investiture Controversy, 64; see Moore, R. I., “Family, Community and Cult on the Eve of the Gregorian Reform,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 30 (1980): 49–69. See also Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe, 157–58, who provides some important caveats about casual usage of expressions such as “reform movement” and “reform program,” which make the period's diffuse agitation for social and ecclesiastical change sound too monolithic.Google Scholar

16 See Blumenthal, , Investiture Controversy , 70–79; and Ullmann, Walter, “Cardinal Humbert and the Romana Ecclesia,” Studi Gregoriani 4 (1952): 111–27.Google Scholar

17 Collections of canon law that assembled long-standing claims of Roman primacy were an important vehicle for the reformers' platform. For example, see the Diversorum patrum sententie sive Collectio in LXXIV titulos digesta , ed. Gilchrist, John, Monumenta iuris canonici series B: corpus collectionum 1 (Vatican City, 1973), 21, 32. Although scholars no longer ascribe its authorship to Cardinal Humbert, John Gilchrist convincingly insists that its sentiments reflect the environment of the early reform period in the 1050s. See Gilchrist, John, “Canon Law Aspects of the Eleventh-Century Gregorian Reform Programme,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 12 (1961): 21–38. For additional reform-era statements of universal Roman authority, see the two textual fragments in Percy Schramm, , ed., De sancta Romana ecclesia, in Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1929), 2:120–36; along with the analysis by Joseph Ryan, J., “Cardinal Humbert De s. Romana ecclesia: Relics of Roman-Byzantine Relations,” Medieval Studies 20 (1958): 205–38.Google Scholar

18 In third canon of the Council of Constantinople (381), Constantinople was awarded a place in the pentarchy (the five major sees of the ancient world, also including Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem) that was second only to Rome due to its status as the new imperial capital. See the Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta , ed. Alberigo, Giuseppe et al., 3rd ed. (Bologna, 1973), 32. This change in status, rejected by Rome, was repeated in the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta , ed. Alberigo, , 99–100). According to chronicler Ralph Glaber, this source of contention between Rome and Constantinople had resurfaced as recently as 1024, when the Greek patriarch, Eustathius, sought papal recognition of Constantinople's universal authority through generous “gifts” to the apostolic see. See Glaber, Ralph, Historiarum libri quinque (The Five Books of the Histories), ed. and trans. France, John (Oxford, 1989), 172–73. For some general observations about this dispute over the ecclesiastical hierarchy, see Meyendorff, John, “Rome and Constantinople,” in Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: Historical and Theological Studies (Crestwood, NY, 1996), 7–26.Google Scholar

19 The anonymous reform-era Epistola de sacramentis haereticorum , ed. Sackur, Ernst, MGH, Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XL et XII. conscripti 3 (Hannover, 1897), 14, lists a five-fold hierarchy of enemies ranged against the Church: 1) pagans, 2) heretics, 3) schismatics, 4) Jews, and 5) “carnal” Christians.Google Scholar

20 Damian, Peter, Liber gratissimus , ed. de Heinemann, Louis, MGH, Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XI. et XII. conscripti 1 (Hannover, 1891), 33–34.Google Scholar

21 Humbert of Silva Candida, Libri III adversus simoniacos , ed. Thaner, Friedrich, MGH, Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XI. et XII. conscripti 1 (Hannover, 1891), 174.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., 116.Google Scholar

23 See Remensnyder, Amy, “Pollution, Purity, and Peace: An Aspect of Social Reform between the Late Tenth Century and 1076,” in The Peace of God: Social Violence and Religious Response in France around the Year 1000 , ed. Head, Thomas and Landes, Richard (Ithaca, 1992), 280–307.Google Scholar

24 Humbert of Silva Candida, Adversus simoniacos , ed. Thaner, , 214. Humbert later reiterated this exegesis (ibid., 219–20). See also the Epistola de sacramentis haereticorum , ed. Sackur, , 14.Google Scholar

25 Humbert of Silva Candida, Adversus simoniacos , ed. Thaner, , 194–95: “Quibus utique principantur et carmina inspirant tres illorum auctores: gentilibus videlicet satanas, Iudaeis antichristus, hereticis autem pseudopropheta.” Google Scholar

26 See de Montclos, Jean, Lafranc et Bérenger: La controverse eucharistique du XI e siècle (Louvain, 1971); Macy, Gary, The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period: A Study of the Salvific Function of the Sacrament according to the Theologians c. 1080–1220 (Oxford, 1984); Cowdrey, H. E. J., “The Papacy and the Berengarian Controversy,” in Auctoritas et Ratio: Studien zu Berengar von Tours , ed. Ganz, Peter et al. (Wiesbaden, 1990), 109–38; and Charles, M. Radding and Newton, Francis, Theology, Rhetoric, and Politics in the Eucharistic Controversy, 1078–1079: Alberic of Monte Cassino against Berengar of Tours (New York, 2003).Google Scholar

27 See, for example, the accusations against Berengar in Hugh of Langres, Tractatus de corpore et sanguine Christi , PL 142:1327.Google Scholar

28 See Radding, and Newton, , Theology, Rhetoric, and Politics , 19–20. See also Stock, Brian (The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries [Princeton, 1987], 231–345), who examines the intersections of authority and competing “interpretative traditions” in the controversy over Berengar's teachings.Google Scholar

29 One exception in this regard is Geiselmann, J. R., Die Abendmahlslehre an der Wende der christlichen Spätanlike zum Frühmittelalter (Munich, 1933), 21–72. See also Macy (Theologies of the Eucharist, 35–43), who cites Geiselmann's observations that Humbert and his fellow reformers might have viewed the Greek attack on azymes as a common threat with Berengar's Eucharistic teachings.Google Scholar

30 La vie du Pape Léon IX (Brunon, évêque de Tout), ed. Parisse, Michel, trans. Goulet, Monique (Paris, 1997), 106: “Ea tempestate orta est haeresis fermentaceorum, quae calumniator sanctam romanam sedem immo omnem Latinam et occidentalem ecclesiam de azimis vivificum Deo offerre sacrificium.” Google Scholar

31 “Der Bericht des Pantaleo von Amalfi über den kirchlichen Bruch zu Byzanz im Jahre 1054 und seine angebliche Sammlung der Aktenstücke,” ed. Michel, Anton, in Amalfi und Jerusalem im griechischen Kirchenstreit (1054–1090), Orientalia Christiana Analecta 121 (Rome, 1936), 53: “erat quidem Michael Gonstantinopolitanae sedis patriarcha, actibus et intellectu stultissimus, qui, prout verba eius attestantur, haeresiarcha potius quam patriarcha esse monibus innotuit. Hic levitate sui cordis exactus, sanctae Romanae sedis eucharistiam nefanditer infamabat, tractans secum, quod melius esset Graecorum sacrificium quam Latinorum, eo quod ipsi fermentatum et Romana ecclesia, ut ab apostolis acceperat, azymum sacrificat.” Google Scholar

32 Fragmentum disputationis adversus Graecos , ed. Will, Acta et Scripta (n. 1 above), 256: “Minus enim peccaverunt Judaei manus impias in Jesum mittentes et daemones impellentes et milites crucifigentes. Per ignorantiam etiam fecerunt: si enim cognovissent, nunquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent: vos autem et vidistis et odistis et, secundum prophetam, odio Dominum gratis habuistis.” Google Scholar

33 For these evaluations, see Fliche, , La réforme Grégorienne (n. 11 above), 273; Runciman, , Eastern Schism (n. 3 above), 44; Congar, , Nine Hundred Years (n. 5 above), 71; and Chadwick, , East and West (n. 3 above), 215.Google Scholar

34 In addition to the sources cited above (nn. 1–2), the primary Latin documents for 1054 include the Dialogi , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta, 93–126 (a fictive dialogue composed in direct response to Leo of Ochrid's letter); the Responsio sive contradictio adversus Nicetae Pectorati libellum , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta, 136–52 (part of the “pamphlet war” at Constantinople); and the Rationes de Spiritus Sancti processione , ed. Michel, , in Humbert und Kerullarios (n. 3 above), 1:97–111 (a brief tract on the filioque controversy).Google Scholar

35 Dischner, Margit, Humbert von Silva Candida: Werk und Wirkung des lothringischen Reformmönches (Neuried, 1996), 51–67. The attribution of reform-era texts to Humbert's authorship without clear evidence is due largely to the work of Anton Michel. For criticism of this tendency, see Blumenthal, , Investiture Controversy, 91; and Morris, , Papal Monarchy, 91.Google Scholar

36 Epistola C , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta , 65–85. It is not clear when or if this letter was actually sent to Kerullarios.Google Scholar

37 See the observations of Cowdrey, H. E. J., “Eleventh-Century Reformers' Views of Constantine,” in Conformity and Non-Conformity in Byzantium , ed. Garland, Lynda (Amsterdam, 1997), 63–91.Google Scholar

38 Das Constitutum Constantini (Konstantinische Schenkung): Text , ed. Horst Furhmann, MGH, Fontes iuris Germanici antiqui in usum scholarum 10 (Hannover, 1968).Google Scholar

39 Large sections of the Constitutum were incorporated into the letter to the Epistola C , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta, 72–74. See Kraus, H.-G., “Das Constitutum Constantini im Schisma von 1054,” in Aus Kirche und Reich: Festschrift für Fricdrich Kempf , ed. Mordek, Hubert (Sigmaringen, 1983), 131–58.Google Scholar

40 It is not clear exactly when the Western churches began to use unleavened bread for the sacrifice, although there is evidence that this was the practice by the Carolingian era. See, for example, the liturgical commentary by Carolingian churchman Maurus, Hrabanus, De institutione clericorum libri tres , ed. Zimpel, Detlev (Frankfurt, 1996), 332. There are no signs, however, that the ritual difference was a point of contention between the two churches before the mid-eleventh century.Google Scholar

41 Epistola C , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta , 68: “Non ergo perpenditis quanta impudentia dicatur Pater, qui est in coelis, abscondisse a principe apostolorum, Petro, cultum, sive ritum visibilis sacrificii, per dispensationem Unigeniti sui, cui semetipsum plenissime revelare dignatus est illud ineffibile arcanum invisibilis divinitatis ejusdem Filii sui. Et cui non per angelum, nec per prophetam, sed proprio ore, ipse Dominus angelorum et prophetarum sic repromittit in sequentibus: ‘Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam.”’ Google Scholar

42 Ibid., 75.Google Scholar

43 Ibid., 76: “Quapropter a tanta amentia jam resipiscite et Latinos vere catholicos atque maximi Petri familiariores discipulos institutionisque ejus devotiores sectatores cessate subsannando azymitas vocare, aut ecclesias illis denegare, seu tormenta, sicut coepistis, inferre, si vultis nunc et semper pacem et portionem cum Petro habere.” Google Scholar

44 Ibid., 68–69: “Praeterimus nominatim replicare nonaginta et eo amplius haereses ab Orientis partibus, vel ab ipsis Graecis, diverso tempore ex diverso errore ad corrumpendam virginitatem catholicae ecclesiae matris emergentes.” Google Scholar

45 Ibid., 78–79: This reference invokes a basic scheme of Church history based on the seven seals of the Apocalypse, namely that there were four successive persecutions by Jews, pagans, heretics, and false brothers before the remaining three seals, which would mark the persecutions of Antichrist at the end of time. See Kamlah, Wilhelm, Apokalypse und Geschichtstheologie: Die mittelalterliche Auslegung der Apokalypse vor Joachim von Fiore (Vaduz, 1965).Google Scholar

46 Dialogi , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta , 93–126.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., 96: “In quo ergo communicamus Judaeis? Et in solemnitatem azymorum custodimus?” Google Scholar

48 Ibid., 94–96, 100.Google Scholar

49 Ibid., 96.Google Scholar

50 See Chenu, M.-D., “The Old Testament in Twelfth-Century Theology,” in Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth Century , trans. Taylor, Jerome and Little, Lester (Chicago, 1968), 146–61. As Chenu (ibid., 146–47) observes, this hermeneutical interpretation was fundamental to a Christian conceptualization of sacred history “that presupposed a single economy of salvation developed across two periods, the Old Covenant and the New, with the former seen as preparing and prefiguring the latter.” See also Dahan, Gilbert, Les intellectuels Chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge (Paris, 1990); and Fredriksen, Paula, “Excaecati Occulta Justitia Dei: Augustine on Jews and Judaism,” in Christianity in Relation to Jews, Greeks and Romans, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York, 1999), 37–62.Google Scholar

51 Dialogi , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta , 110: “Azyma vero neque commemorationem habent Domini neque mortem illius nuntiant, sicut Mosaica et ante mille quadringentos annos ex lege constituta, et per Novum Testamentum, hoc est, per sanctum evangelium et per Christum maledicta et derelicta.” There were, in fact, some problems with Humbert's translation of this passage. See Erickson, , “Leavened and Unleavened” (n. 10 above), 168.Google Scholar

52 Dialogi , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta , 111: “Maledicendusne ergo est uterus ille, qui Spiritu Dei gravidatus ab initio parturivit omnia sacramenta Christi et ecclesiae tandemque in fine saeculorum peperit ipsum evangelium praedicandum ubique?” Google Scholar

53 Ibid., 112: “Hoc utique Dominus utriusque Testamenti lator intelligi volens, cum posset omnipotenti voluntate vacuas sex hydrias in nuptiis vino de nihilo repente creato implere, maluit tamen certi mysterii gratia prius aqua easdem hydrias a festi ministris usque ad summum impleri et post solo nutu suo mirabile vinum fieri. In quo provido Redemptoris nostri facto dicimus aquam non substantiam suam, sed qualitates id est saporem et colorem et si qua sunt hujusmodi permutasse, ut animadvertamus ipsum Dominum Vetus Testamentum, quo sex mundi aetates per ministerium priorum patrum repleverat, non evacuasse, sed inovasse, nec inde quidquam reprobando minuisse, sed quod ei inerat et latebat approbando exhibuisse. In quibusdam enim sola permutatione temporum seu varietate excepta lex et evangelium idem concorditer clamat.” Google Scholar

54 Ibid., 113–14.Google Scholar

55 On the idea of translatio sacerdotii, see the insightful appendix in Goez, Werner, Translatio Imperii: Ein Betrag zur Geschichte des Geschichtsdenkens und der politischen Theorien im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit (Tubingen, 1958), 378–81.Google Scholar

56 Dialogi , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta , 114: “accipiamus necesse est Christum finem legis, consummantem, non consumentum: perficientem, non annihilantem: complentem, non evacuantem.” Google Scholar

57 Ibid., 116: “Denique si vetera non proficiendo, sed deficiendo transierunt, unde vobis templum, altare, sacrificum, candelabrum, et caetera sancti ministerii vasa seu ornamenta aut vestimenta sacerdotalia?” Google Scholar

58 See Funkenstein, Amos, “Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Later Middle Ages,” Viator 2 (1971): 373–82; Bat-Sheva, Albert, “Adversus Iudaeos in the Carolingian Empire,” in Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews , ed. Limor, Ora and Strousma, Guy (Tübingen, 1996), 119–42; and Taylor, Miriam, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus (Leiden, 1995).Google Scholar

59 Humbert, , Epistola ad Ioannem translata , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta , 63–64.Google Scholar

60 The Roman practice of fasting on Saturdays and the prohibition of clerical marriage were attacked in 1054 by Nicetas Pectoratus, Libellus contra Latinos editus et ab apocrisiariis apostolicae sedis Constantinopoli repertus , ed. Will, , Acta et Scripta , 127–36. The legates responded with the Responsio sive contradictio adversus Nicetae Pectorati libellum , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta, 136–52. Apparently, Humbert and his companions were the first to raise the filioque problem. In addition to the Rationes de Spiritus Sancti processione , ed. Michel, (Humbert und Kerullarios, n. 3 above), 1:97–111; see the Excommunicatio qua feriuntur Michael Caerularius , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta, 153, which (erroneously and somewhat amazingly) accuses the Greeks of removing filioque from the original creed. On the filioque con troversy, see Gemeinhardt, Peter, Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im Frühmittelalter (Berlin, 2002); and Oberdorfer, Bernd, Filioque: Geschichte und Theologie eines ökumenischen Problems (Göttingen, 2002).Google Scholar

61 Excommunicatio qua feriuntur Michael Caerularius , ed. Will, , Acta et scripta , 154: “Quicunque fidei sanctae Romanae et apostolicae sedis ejusque sacrificio pertinaciter contra-dixerit, sit anathema, Maranatha, nec habeatur Christianus catholicus, sed prozymita haereticus, fiat, fiat, fiat.” Google Scholar

62 As recently discussed by Bayer, , Spaltung der Christenheit (n. 3 above), 210–11.Google Scholar

63 Laycus of Amalfi, “Epistola Layci clerici missa Sergio abbati ad defendendum se de azimis contra Graecos,” ed. Michel, , Amalfi und Jerusalem (n. 31 above), 35–47. Michel (ibid., 5–8) argues that Laycus's position was largely determined by his familiarity with the Dialogi. Laycus was most likely familiar with the text, but his composition shows considerable originality.Google Scholar

64 “Epistola Layci,” ed. Michel, , Amalfi und Jerusalem , 38–42.Google Scholar

65 Ibid., 38: “Si veteris testamenti lex figura erat, ergo nostra tempora portendebat et quod in umbra latebat, in luce novi testamenti iam praefulgebat, ac propter quos descripta erant, ab ipsis etiam fideliter observanda erant. Nam quomodo in agni immolatione passio nostri prefigurabatur redemptoris et in mari rubro baptismum, in columpna nubis spiritus sanctus, in manna caelestis gratiae donum, in petra, que eos sequebatur, Christus: ita nempe in azimo pane nostris temporis ostendebatur sacrificium.” Google Scholar

66 Ibid., 42–45. Laycus's letter found at least one prominent admirer. Around 1110, it was redacted with minor changes by Bruno of Segni (De sacrificio azymo, PL 65:1087–90), who addressed it to Leo, a Latin monk living in Constantinople. See Réginald Grégoire, Bruno de Segni (Spoleto, 1965), 102–3; and Loud, Graham A., “Montecassino and Byzantium in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism , ed. Mullet, Margaret and Kirby, Anthony (Belfast, 1994), 30–58.Google Scholar

67 Rupert of Deutz, Liber de divinis officiis , ed. Haacke, Hrabanus, CCM 7 (Turnhout, 1967), 52–56. On Rupert's career and his composition of this liturgical commentary, see Van Engen, John, Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley, 1983), 58–67.Google Scholar

68 See the comments of Reynolds, Roger, “Liturgical Scholarship at the Time of the Investiture Controversy: Past Research and Future Opportunities,” Harvard Theological Review 71 (1978): 109–24; and Engen, Van, Rupert of Deutz, 58–60.Google Scholar

69 Rupert, , De divinis officiis , ed. Haacke, , 52.Google Scholar

70 Ibid., 53: “Tanta autem haerisibus fermentata est Graecia, ut mirum videri non debeat hoc, quod de fermentato immolat.” Rupert (ibid., 54–55) mentions as a source of information the Epistola ad Michelem Constantinum Monomachum , ed. Will, ( Acta et scripta , 85–89).Google Scholar

71 Rupert, , De divinis officiis , ed. Haacke, , 53–56.Google Scholar

72 Van Engen, , Rupert of Deutz , 61.Google Scholar

73 Epistola de sacrificio azimi et fermentati , ed. Schmidt, F. S. in Anselm: Opera Omnia (Edinburgh, 1946; repr., Stuttgart, 1968), 2:223–32.Google Scholar

74 Anselm, , De sacrificio azimi et fermentati , ed. Schmidt, , 226.Google Scholar

75 Ibid., 227–28.Google Scholar

76 See Abulafia, Anna, “The Ideology of Reform and Changing Ideas concerning Jews in the Works of Rupert of Deutz and Hermannus Quondam Iudeus,” Jewish History 7 (1993): 43–63; and Timmer, David, “Biblical Exegesis and the Jewish-Christian Controversy in the Early Twelfth Century,” Church History 58 (1989): 309–21; along with Abulafia, Anna, “St Anselm and Those outside the Church,” in Faith and Identity: Christian Political Experience , ed. Loades, D. M. and Walsh, Katherine (Oxford, 1990), 11–38; and Dahan, , Les intellectuels Chrétiens (n. 50 above), 366. More generally on Anselm's attitudes toward Judaism, see Dahan, Gilbert, “Saint Anselme, les juifs, le judaïsme,” in Les mutations socio-culturelles au tournant des XIe-XIIe siècles , ed. Pouilloux, Jean (Paris, 1984), 521–34.Google Scholar

77 Damian, Peter, no. 41, ed. Reindel, Kurt, Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani , MGH, Die Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 2 (Munich, 1988), 1.Google Scholar

78 Dominique of Grado, Epistola ad Petrum Ahtiochensem , ed. Will, , Acta et Scripta , 205–8 at 207: “Nam fermenti et farinae commistio, qua Orientis utuntur ecclesiae, incarnati Verbi declarat substantiam, simplex vero massa azymorum, quam Romana tenet ecclesia, puritatem humanae carnis, quam placuit divinitati sibi unire, citra controversiam repraesentat.” Google Scholar

79 Lanfranc of Bec, De corpore et sanguine Domini adversus Berengarium Turonensem , PL 150:440–41: “Omnes enim qui Christianos se et esse et dici laetentur, veram Christi carnem verumque ejus sanguinem, utraque sumpta de Virgine, in hoc sacramento se percipere gloriantur. Interroga universos qui Latinae linguae nostrarumque litterarum notitiam perceperunt. Interroga Graecos, Armenos, seu cujuslibet nationis quoscunque Christianos homines; uno ore hanc fidem testantur habere.” Google Scholar

80 Anselm, , De sacrificio azimi et fermentati , ed. Schmidt, , 223.Google Scholar

81 Alger of Liège, De sacramentis corporis et sanguinis dominici , PL 180:827–30.Google Scholar

82 On the role of rites and symbols in such an “authorizing process,” see Asad, Talal, “The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category,” in Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore, 1993), 27–54.Google Scholar