The Dynamics of Mutual Condemnations in the Filioque Controversy from the Carolingian Era to the Late Middle Ages

The Dynamics of Mutual Condemnations in the Filioque Controversy From the Carolingian Era to the Late Middle Ages

Peter Gemeinhardt Georg-August-UniversitätGöttingen

I. INTRODUCTION

Among the topics of the present conference, the subject of my lecture is a favorable one, as it seems. Not only because the medieval time in general is such a fascinating period of history – though widely neglected by most Protestant scholars –, but also because of the fact that, in contrast to many other long-standing doctrinal debates in the history of Christianity, the Filioque controversy resulted not only in mutual condemnations but also in their eventual repeal. I am referring of course to the exchange of excommunications between Humbert of Silva Candida and Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054 and their uplifting more than nine hundred years later. At the very end of the Second Vatican Council, on 7th December 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople jointly proclaimed:

a) that they regret the offending words, the baseless reproaches, and the blameworthy symbolic acts which on both sides marked or accompanied the sad events of this time; b) that in the same way they regret and remove from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed, the remembrance of which acts right up to our own times as an obstacle to our mutual approach in charity, and they condemn these to oblivion; c) that they deplore, finally, the troublesome precedents and the further happen- ings which, under the influence of various factors, including misunderstanding and distrust on both sides, eventually led to a rupture of ecclesial communion1.

Of course, the Pope and the Patriarch were aware that erasing medieval anathemas would only be the first step to a common understanding of the theological and ecclesiological aspects involved in the Filioque debate.

1. French original: DH 4431-4433; tr. E.J. STORMON (ed./tr.), EcumenicalDocumentsIII: TowardstheHealingofSchism.TheSeesofRomeandConstantinople.PublicStatements andCorrespondencebetweentheHolySeeandtheEcumenicalPatriarchate1958-1984, New York – Mahwah, NJ, Paulist, 1987, p. 127.

998150.indb8150.indb 201201 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 202 P. GEMEINHARDT

While in the aftermath of the Vatican Council, the joint efforts of Athena- goras and Cardinal Johannes Willebrands led to a remarkable improvement of the dialogue between the Old and the New Rome, though an ecumenical council or eucharistic communion is still to be awaited today2, a quick glance at the bilateral and multilateral dialogues about the Filioque during the last four decades reveals that a solution of the controversy is by no means to be expected in the near future3. Lifting anathemas is, in this case like in others, not the same as doing away with the reason for the condemnations in question. It is therefore important that both sides had already agreed in 1965 that the condemnations of 1054 are also tightly linked to other aspects like cultural and political differences, misunderstanding and mistrust, history and memory of the religious communities involved – aspects which are not to be removed by a joint declaration of theological consensus4. Especially the impact of memory has recently been highlighted in scholarship: though it is beyond doubt that inretrospect the year 1054 represents a dramatic and regrettable turning point in the history of the relationship between Eastern and Western traditions, on both sides there is little evidence confirming the perception of a schism in the course of the following decades5. Moreover, even the very validity of the condemnation

2. For recent research regarding these forceful developments (and the severe disillusions which followed), see K. SCHELKENS, NoObstaclesLeft:TheDialoguebetweenRomeand Constantinople (1962-1971), in Materialdienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts 64 (2013) 23-30 with further references. 3. The literature is abundant. See now the comprehensive, though not in every respect convincing account of the history of the controversy provided by A.E. SIECIENSKI, The Filioque:HistoryofaDoctrinalControversy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, and the magistral volume of B. OBERDORFER, Filioque–GeschichteundTheologieeinesöku- menischenProblems(Forschungen zur Systematischen und Ökumenischen Theologie, 96), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. For a concise summary of recent ecumenical dialogues see J. WASMUTH, Das“Filioque”inderökumenischenDiskussionderGegenwart, in MaterialdienstdesKonfessionskundlichenInstituts 61 (2010) 90-94 and J. OELDEMANN, DasFilioqueimökumenischenDialog:DieErgebnissederbisherigenDialogeimÜberblick, in M. BOEHNKE etal. (eds.), DieFilioque-Kontroverse:Historische,ökumenischeunddog- matischePerspektiven1200JahrenachderAachenerSynode(Quaestiones Disputatae, 245), Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2011, 180-200. 4. This perspective is highlighted, e.g., by the recent studies of A. BAYER, Spaltungder Christenheit:DassogenannteMorgenländischeSchismavon1054 (Beihefte zum Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 53), Köln – Weimar – Wien, Böhlau, 2002 and P. GEMEINHARDT, Das Schismavon1054–seinegeschichtlicheundökumenischeBedeutung, in Materialdienst desKonfessionskundlichenInstituts 55 (2004) 63-69. 5. This has time and again be stressed by Suttner, though it is surely an exaggeration that in 1054 virtually nothing should have happened and the whole controversy should be an invention of modern polemicists (see, e.g., E.C. SUTTNER, DaswechselvolleVerhältnis zwischendenKirchendesOstensunddesWestensimLaufderKirchengeschichte, Würzburg, Der Christliche Osten, 1996, p. 27) or even a modern “myth” (E.C. SUTTNER, DerMythos vom“großenSchisma”imJahr1054:ZumVerhältnisderKirchenlateinischerundbyzan- tinischer Tradition vor und nach dem angeblichen Wendepunkt, in Catholica 58 [2004] 105-114). That there is no real theological issue at stake is also argued (not convincingly, in my view) by D. MÜLLER, DerStreitumdasFilioquealsProfilierungsmomentderwestlichen

998150.indb8150.indb 202202 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 MUTUAL CONDEMNATIONS IN THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 203

of the Byzantine Patriarch by Humbert of Silva Candida itself is already questionable on canonical grounds6. It thus seems much rather that the history of mutual condemnations in the Middle Ages is itself an interpretation of history, and interestingly, this perception first appears simultane- ously with the attempt of bringing the schism to an end. It is therefore important to differentiate between single instances of condemnations within the Filioque controversy and its history as a whole. In the following, I will investigate three crucial steps of the controversy, namely the Carolingian age, the year 1054 and its aftermath, and the councils of union in the Late Middle Ages. The respective anathemas do not only touch upon theological issues in a strict sense but pose also ecclesiological and hermeneutic questions: who is teaching novelties and who is the guardian of tradition, who is entitled to draw this line and by which criteria? The anathemas also witness to a growing cultural alienation loom- ing large in the background of the controversy. Yet many stages of the Filioque debate did not end up with harsh condemnations. Medieval theologians were, as it seems, hesitant to propose such anathemas, and this observation calls for an attempt at an explanation. Finally, I will briefly outline some overarching aspects of the dynamics of the condemnations in the Filioque controversy which were to shape mutual perceptions between East and West until today7.

II. THE EMERGENCE OF THE CONTROVERSY IN CAROLINGIAN TIMES

1. TheMatteroftheControversy I would like to begin with a brief sketch of what the Filioque controversy is about. Christians from the very beginning confessed God as one and three: Father, Son and Spirit (cf., e.g., Matt 28,19). But it was not at

Kirche(789-1439), in O. MEUFFELS – J. BRÜNDL (eds.), GrenzgängederTheologie.FSAlex- andreGanoczy (Symposion, 6),Münster, Lit, 2004, 37-57. 6. For this debate see BAYER, SpaltungderChristenheit (n. 4), pp. 99-101, who correctly points out that in the 11th century, there was simply no canonical jurisdiction on the respective situation, but then speculates about a possible mandate given to the legation by Pope Leo IX which is however nowhere mentioned in the sources. For a canonical assessment see W.M. PLÖCHL, ZurAufhebungderBannbullenvon1054imBlickfeldderkirchlichenRechts- geschichte, in ZSRG.K 57 (1971) 1-21 and (referring to recent ecumenical debates) P. NEUNER, DieTilgungdesBannes(1965)undihretheologischeRelevanz:EinökumenischerVersuch ausrömisch-katholischerSicht, in T. NIKOLAOU etal. (eds.), DasSchismazwischenOst-und Westkirche.950bzw.800Jahredanach(1054und1204)(Beiträge aus dem Zentrum für ökumenische Forschung München, 2), Münster, Lit, 2004, 178-195, pp. 191f. 7. Most of the texts I will discuss in parts II and III of the present paper have been treated extensively in my doctoral thesis: P. GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-KontroversezwischenOst- undWestkircheimFrühmittelalter(Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 82), Berlin – New York, de Gruyter, 2002. Thus, I will not repeat the detailed discussions but refer to the account in my book with which I am still inclined to agree. For the biblical aspect, see now P. GEMEIN- HARDT, Filioque:Christianity, in EncyclopediaoftheBibleandItsReception 9 (2014) 24-35.

998150.indb8150.indb 203203 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 204 P. GEMEINHARDT

all clear how this tri-unity could be conceived of theologically, while adhering to the inherited claim of God’s unity (Deut 6,4-5). Only in the 4th century – after unravelling a “mixture of error and violence” (“Misch- masch von Irrtum und Gewalt”), as the German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe termed it – a solution was proposed which seemed appropriate: On the level of divinebeing (substance, οὐσία), the single and eternal God is strictly detached from anything created; but on the level of divineagency (person, ὑπόστασις), God consists of three individual agents who share the same substance and are therefore together separated from anything created. Central to this solution was a new perception of the process of begetting: while ancient philosophers had maintained that any divine being is eternal, immaterial, and unbegotten, the Cappadocians in their debate with Eunomius held that the crucial difference between divine and non- divine beings should be seen in the notion of nothavingbeencreated as opposed to nothavingbeenbegotten. Thus, whilst “begetting” does occur within the divine realm, as the notions of Father and Son indicate, this does not diminish the divine status of the begotten with respect to the created realm. This conception of divine tri-unity lies behind the Creed of the Council of Constantinople in 381, the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum (NC), though the creed itself, as should be noted, employs biblical terms rather than theological ones. The question how the Holy Spirit was connected to Father and Son was, however, not settled at this moment. While the late Basil of Caesarea was hesitant to present a precise pneumatological definition, Gregory of Nazi- anzus, short-term president of the Council, advocated the notion of “procession” (ἐκπόρευσις) as characteristic of the Holy Spirit, thus distinguish- ing the Spirit who proceeds (ἐκπορευόμενον) from the Son who is begotten (γεννητός). In the Greek tradition, this distinction between two ways of coming forth from the Father as the sole unbegotten source of divinity became the gold standard of trinitarian theology. This interpretation of the NC was not shared by Latin theologians, especially not by Latin Christi- anity’s most influential thinker, Augustine. While recently the common ground has been highlighted between the Cappadocians and Augustine in respect of their trinitarian thinking8, it remains undeniable that Augustine conceived of the Spirit as coming forth from the Father andfromtheSon, in order to elucidate the relationship of Son and Spirit: while the Father is the primordial source within the Trinity from whom the Spirit proceeds “in the first place” (principaliter), also the Son is involved in this procession, since he gives the Spirit to creation9. Thus, while the Cappado- cians differentiated between the eternal “bringing-forth” and the temporal

8. L. AYRES, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, esp. p. 383. 9. I reckon this a distinct Latin variant of “Neo-Nicenism”, starting with the Nicene Creed of 325 but then developing in a different, though not contradictory manner to Cappadocian

998150.indb8150.indb 204204 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 MUTUAL CONDEMNATIONS IN THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 205

“sending” of the Spirit as central for an understanding of trinitarian relationships, taking John 15,26 as proof-text, Augustine highlighted the par- ticipation of the Son in the Spirit’s procession which he reckoned identical with the Son’s gift of the Spirit in sending out his apostles, as Latin theologians inferred from, e.g., John 20,2210. The Filioque controversy thus involves biblical interpretation, but also theological and philosophical concepts of divine being; and it touches, as should be stressed, upon the way(s) of defining and rewriting the ecclesial dogma. It is thus connected to questions of proper theological teaching as well as ecclesial authority and, of course, common liturgical celebration which is hindered by the fact that the text of the NC differs in the East and West precisely by the words “and from the Son” (filioque). But, and this is my starting point for reviewing the medieval debates and condemnations, this difference has its history, since neither on the textual level nor on the theological level, these questions had been settled by the Council of 381 or other ecumenical synods of Late Antiquity. Instead, it was not until the Carolingian era that the procession of the Spirit from the Father andthe Son had made its way into the normative text of the NC (and in Rome this would occur even later); and it was not until the age of Patriarch Photius (d. 886) that Byzantine theologians had realised that the Latins’ differing opinion deserved a condemnation.

2. EmperorsandPopesaroundtheYear800 Leaving aside the rather extraordinary case of Maximus Confessor and his irenic response to obscure accusations against Latin pneumatology in the 7th century11, the first real controversy about the Filioque arose in the 790s. Notably, dispute started not between East and West, but between Char- lemagne and Pope Hadrian I. A Carolingian stance against Byzantium has often be inferred from the fact that the OpusCaroliregiscontrasynodum (formerly known as Libri Carolini) reproached Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople for not teaching the procession of the Spirit from the Son but only through the Son (δι’ υἱοῦ), for this would be nothing less than a relapse into Arianism12. While there certainly was considerable hostility

theology; see P. GEMEINHARDT, LateinischerNeunizänismusbeiAugustin, in Zeitschriftfür Kirchengeschichte 110 (1999) 149-169. 10. An analysis of the most prominent biblical proof-texts is provided by SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque (n. 3), pp. 17-31, though it is problematic to start with biblical quotations which gained their controversial potential only within the conflict about the appropriate pneumatology. 11. The debate in Maximus’ lifetime is quite obscure and should not be contaminated with his paramount importance in Late Medieval debates about ecclesiastical union, especially at the Council of Florence. For Maximus and his reception see now SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque (n. 3), especially pp. 73-86. 12. OpusCaroliregiscontrasynodum 3.3 (MGH.Conc. II, suppl. 1, p. 346.14-23 FREEMAN). This accusation is first pronounced in the Capitulareadversussynodum, written c. 792 and

998150.indb8150.indb 205205 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 206 P. GEMEINHARDT

towards the East, the synod of Frankfurt in 794, however, displayed that the most important opponents of the Carolingians were not Byzantine but Hispanic theologians, namely the Adoptionists Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel who were condemned as heretics13. And an analysis of their refutation by Alcuin and his contemporaries reveals that the Adoptionist teaching (i.e., Jesus is the first-born of the new creation and thus exempli- fies how God will adopt us all as his beloved children) evoked an emphasis on Christ being God’s son from eternity, to which the procession of the Spirit from the Son witnesses. Whether this is a proper assessment and critique of the Hispanics’ teaching is open to debate14. It is, however, obvi- ous that Alcuin and Charlemagne reckoned the Filioque an appropriate and necessary expression of the orthodox faith, as they conceived of. Thus the first condemnation within the Filioque controversy was not aimed at Byzantium but at inner-Western opponents. And it is precisely this context that led to the formulation of the Latin text of the NC as we use it still today. This text, firstly attested to in the proceedings of a synod in Northern Italy held by Patriarch Paulinus of Aquileia soon became mandatory for the Carolingian Church15. It was thus a theological struggle which led to the fixation of the text, but in turn it was this text which soon evoked a theological debate. This debate started neither in the Frankish nor in the Byzantine empire but in Jerusalem where Latin and Greek monks had grown accustomed to living together as neighbours. In 807 one of the Greeks, John, tried to expel the Carolingians from the Chapel of Nativity in Bethlehem because of their utterly pernicious heresy, namely, the uttering of the filioque in the Creed16. The Western monks, thoroughly confused, wrote to Pope Leo III and pro- tested that they had learned this Creed from Charlemagne himself and that it was in accordance with the teaching of Pope Gregory I, Saint Benedict, and Saint Athanasius17. In the mid-9th century LifeofMichaelSynkellos,

quoted in Hadrian I., Ep. 2 (MGH.Epp V, p. 7.22-25 HAMPE). – For the controversy in the lifetime of Charlemagne, see GEMEINHARDT, Die Filioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 108-164. The theological and polemical method of Charlemagne’s court theologians has been scrutinized by K. MITALAITÉ, LeCredodanslaméthodethéologiquedelapremière périodecarolingienne, in RecherchesdeThéologieetPhilosophieMédiévales 74 (2007) 377-421. 13. ConciliumFrancofurtense, cap. 1 (MGH.Conc. II.1, p. 165.21-25 WERMINGHOFF). 14. For a thorough analysis of the so-called “adoptionism” and its patristic background see J.C. CAVADINI, TheLastChristologyoftheWest:AdoptionisminSpainandGaul,785- 820, Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. 15. Concilium Foroiuliense 796/7 (MGH.Conc. II.1, p. 187.11-23 WERMINGHOFF); Walafrid STRABO, Derebusecclesiasticis(PL 114, 947C); see GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque- Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 127f. 16. LetteroftheWanderingMonkstoPopeLeoIII (MGH.Epp. V, pp. 64.29–65.19 HAMPE). 17. Ibid. (pp. 65.32–66.2 HAMPE).

998150.indb8150.indb 206206 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 MUTUAL CONDEMNATIONS IN THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 207

this episode is echoed from an Eastern perspective18. It appears that the bone of contention which had almost led the Greek monks to pronounce an anathema was first and foremost the alteration of the Creed’s wording (and thus the liturgical practice) and only secondarily the theological appropriateness of the Filioque. For the Franks it was precisely the other way round: their response to the accusations (which Pope Leo had sent to Charlemagne) was the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 whose decretum underlined the theological adequacy of the Filioque but completely neglected the textual question19. It would take two more centuries until the Latin side understood the Greeks’ insistence on the unchangeability of the Creed, and Pope Leo in his resistance against the Carolingian text, which earned him much praise in the East20, did not refer to the Greek herme- neutics of patristic tradition but tried to maintain the right to decide in ecclesiastical matters against the new Emperor.

3. TheForerunnerofSchism?PhotiusandtheFilioque In order to avoid the arising question whether there were any condemnations in the Filioque controversy at all, I will swiftly move on to the second half of the 9th century, that is, to the so-called “Photian Schism”. Here we find the first eruption of polemics, culminating in a solemn condemnation of a Pope by a Patriarch. It would, however, be unfair to ascribe the outset of the conflict to Photius alone. In fact it was Pope Nicholas I who uttered the first condemnation of his counterpart. In nuce, the events leading up to the condemnation ensued as follows: Photius had replaced

18. There has been some debate whether this saint’s life is trustworthy and whether the whole correspondence between Jerusalem, Rome, and Aix-la-Chapelle is a forgery of the 11th century (C. SODE, Jerusalem–Konstantinopel–Rom:DieVitendesMichaelSynkellos undderBrüderTheodorosundTheophanesGraptoi [Altertumswissenschaftliches Kollo- quium, 4], Stuttgart, Steiner, 2001, pp. 163-202, drawing on D.F. CALLAHAN, TheProblem ofthe“Filioque”andtheLetterfromthePilgrimMonksoftheMountofOlivestoPope Leo III and Charlemagne: Is the Letter another Forgery by Adémar of Chabannes?, in RBén 102 [1992] 75-134). While the Life of Michael might indeed be written from a later point of view, the latter hypothesis has not proven to be valid according to recent scholarship; see P. GEMEINHARDT, Der Filioque-Streit zwischen Ost und West, in P. BRUNS – G. GRESSER (eds.), VomSchismazudenKreuzzügen:1054-1204, Paderborn, Schöningh, 2005, 105-132, esp. p. 110 n. 17; S. SCHOLZ, Politik–Selbstverständnis–Selbstdarstel- lung:DiePäpsteinkarolingischerundottonischerZeit (Historische Forschungen, 26), Stuttgart, Steiner, 2006, pp. 139-143. SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque (n. 3), p. 96 globally refers to Sode’s book but does not discuss her thesis. 19. The documents are available in MGH.Conc. II, suppl. 2, ed. WILLJUNG. The synod and its background have recently received a thorough treatment in BOEHNKE etal. (eds.), DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 3). 20. See, e.g., PHOTIUS, Ep. 291.5 (Photius:EpistulaeetAmphilochiae, ed. B. LAOURDAS – L.G. WESTERINK, vol. III, Leipzig, Teubner, 1985, pp. 141.80-142.84); J. BEKKOS, Refutatio libri Photiani de Spiritu sancto (PG 141, 845B-848B); further sources are indicated in GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 163f.

998150.indb8150.indb 207207 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 208 P. GEMEINHARDT

the dethroned Patriarch Ignatius in 858. The latter’s followers persuaded Nicholas to intervene and revoke Ignatius’ deposition (a privilege that Pope Julius I had already once claimed in 341). Nicholas’ intervention was of course neither appreciated nor accepted in Constantinople. For the time being, Photius managed to keep his position, supported by the Emperor Michael III. But in the aftermath of this debate, a first condemnation took place: In 863, Nicholas convened a synod in Rome which condemned his rival as offending “the evangelic, prophetic, and apostolic principles” and expelled him and his followers from the Eucharistic communion21. The Filioque question had not yet entered the scene. It was much rather the Christianisation of the Bulgarian empire which led to heated polemics between Rome and Constantinople. In this context, the Filioque issue soon became acute when Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria started to introduce their liturgical practice, including the Latin version of the NC. Having heard of this, Photius convened a synod in Constantinople in the spring of 867 which decided to convoke an ecumenical Council in order to pass judgement upon this new and unheard-of heresy as well as upon the Roman intrusion into Bulgaria, as Photius saw it. This encyclical is the first Byz- antine text to deal explicitly with the Filioque issue and thus deserves our attention. The Patriarch first reproaches the Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria for having transcended ecclesiastical law and tradition in respect to discipline and rite and then proceeds to what he considers their most offending practice:

Moreover, they have not only been carried to the end of transgression of the law in the aforementioned things, but also have progressed to the crown of all evils, if there is such a thing. For in addition to the aforementioned oddities they have also tried, with spurious reasoning, interpolated arguments, and an excess of impudence, to adulterate the divine and holy creed which has its impregnable strength from all the synodical and ecumenical decrees (oh, the subtle deceptions of the Evil One!), for they have added new words [to the creed], that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Father alone, but also from the Son22.

21. ConciliumRomanum a. 363, cap. I (MGH.Conc. IV, p. 143.10-24 HARTMANN). 22. PHOTIUS, Ep. 2 (ed. LAOURDAS – WESTERINK, vol. I, pp. 40-53). For a discussion of this text, see GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 189-197; T.M. KOLBABA, InventingLatinHeretics:ByzantinesandtheFilioqueintheNinthCentury, Kalamazoo, MI, Medieval Institute Publications, 2008, pp. 57-75; and T. HAINTHALER, DieEnzyklika des Photios an die Patriarchen des Ostens: Eine Vorlage für antilateinische Polemik, in OstkirchlicheStudien 60 (2011) 266-279. KOLBABA, InventingLatinHeretics, pp. 64f., following P. SPECK, DiegriechischenQuellenzurBekehrungderBulgarenunddiezwei erstenBriefedesPhotius, in C. SCHOLZ – G. MAKRIS (eds.), Πολύπλευροςνοῦς:Miscellanea fürPeterSchreinerzum60.Geburtstag (Byzantinische Arbeiten, 19),München – Leipzig, Saur, 2000, 342-359, pp. 353-357, doubts whether the encyclical is authentic and concludes that these “doubts about the authenticity of Ep. 2 make it impossible to use it either as evidence that Photios was especially concerned about the Filioque (beyond his concern

998150.indb8150.indb 208208 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 MUTUAL CONDEMNATIONS IN THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 209

Are we entitled to classify this passage (which is followed by an extensive discussion of pneumatology according to Photius’ guiding principles) as a condemnation? Literally, this is not the case, since the encyclical was but a convocation to a synod intended to judge upon the errors of the Latins. The encyclical proclaims, however, not a private theological opinion but the utterance of a synod of the capital of Eastern Christianity which was intended to be read (and acclaimed) by the other patriarchs and thus by the whole church. And the reproach of the false teaching on the Spirit’s procession is echoed in Nicholas’ letter to Hincmar of Reims from the same year23 (which in turn effected several treatises aimed at justifying the pneumatological stance on the Filioque)24. Most importantly, Photius’ encyclical is an example of the interrelation of history and memory as noted above: though its impact on the 9th-century debate was limited, the encyclical was the predominant source of Michael Cerularius’ critique of the Filioque teaching two centuries later and thus became the basis of Byzantine heresiology in the later Middle Ages25. The synod announced by the encyclical is attested to only in anti- Photian texts, but it is beyond serious doubt that it actually took place in the fall of 867. However, its decisions were never carried out, since the participants had just departed when the Emperor Michael III was over- thrown and Photius deposed26. The Constantinopolitan synod of 869-870, gathered in order to reestablish communion with Rome and to reconcile

about other Latin ‘errors’) by 867 or as evidence that certain arguments were made by the Greeks already in 867”. This is not the place to discuss the issue in detail; see my review of Kolbaba’s book in ZeitschriftfürKirchengeschichte 123 (2012) 359-361, and already my remark on Speck’s thesis in GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), p. 188, n. 87. Here, it may suffice to say that the manuscript tradition does, though it is not unanimous, testify to Photius’ authorship already in the late 9th century (KOLBABA, Inventing Latin Heretics, p. 61) and that the argument of the encyclical is repeated (and elaborated) in the Mystagogia. If one does not want to view all the relevant texts as spurious (and I do not see any reason for this), Photius’ anti-Latin argumentation can be gathered from the writings mentioned, to which one should add the Amphilochia. An investigation into Photius’ theology which takes into account all writings from his pen has not yet been undertaken; but see my preliminary attempt in GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse, pp. 289-298, and since then G. KAPRIEV, PhilosophieinByzanz, Würzburg, Königshausen & Neumann, 2005, pp. 180-189 and T. ALEXOPOULOS, Der Ausgang des thearchischen Geistes: Eine Untersuchung der Filioque-FrageanhandPhotios’“Mystagogie”,KonstantinMelitiniotes’“ZweiAntirrhetici” undAugustins“DeTrinitate”, Göttingen, V&R unipress, 2009, pp. 3-44 (though the latter’s account is not fully satisfying from an historical point of view). 23. The list of errors which was probably sent by the Byzantine Emperor to the Khan of the Bulgars and from the latter to the Pope is found in NICHOLAS’ Ep. 100 (MGH.Epp. VI, p. 603,23-34 PERELS). 24. For the treatises of Ratramnus of Corbie and Aeneas of Paris and the proceedings of the synod at Worms in 868 see GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 204- 227. 25. Details in GEMEINHARDT, Die Filioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 357f. and below, section III.2. 26. See ibid., pp. 197-201 (with a discussion of the extant sources).

998150.indb8150.indb 209209 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 210 P. GEMEINHARDT

“Ignatians” and “Photians” among the Constantinopolitan clergy, tried to suppress any memories of the previous council and physically destroyed its remnants. Probably the synod of 867 proclaimed the synod of Nicaea (787) as ecumenical and stressed the unanimity of all the decisions of the seven ecumenical councils (which would by inference render the Filioque heret- ical). Moreover, Nicholas I was excommunicated and deposed – this is known due to the annulment of this decision two years later27. The Filioque was, however, not explicitly mentioned, according to the extant sources. The stiff rivalry in Bulgaria did not derive from doctrinal reasons, and Photius knew well that it was a Frankish (not a Roman) alteration of the Creed which had caused irritations. It would therefore not be entirely cor- rect to speak of a formal condemnation of Pope Nicholas on the grounds of the Filioque teaching. While the council of 869-870 explicitly revoked the excommunication of the Pope, it also made no mention of any doctrinal difference concerning the Trinity. The joint Roman and Byzantine stance against any alteration of the Creed’s wording was also affirmed by the “Synod of Union” of 879-880, which had been convoked in order to reconcile the Pope with Photius who in 877 had replaced his deceased rival Ignatius. Photius and Pope John VIII jointly declared their adherence to the faith of the Fathers and condemned anyone who dared to

impose on the Creed their own invented phrases and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy and display the audacity to falsify completely the antiquity of this sacred and venerable horos with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions28.

There is, however, a qualification to this condemnation: neither subtrac- tion from nor addition to the Creed is acceptable, “unless there is a new heresy instigated by the machinations of the Devil”29. The wording of the NC may actually be revised or enlarged if a new challenge by an unheard- of heresy arises, as was the case with the Pneumatomachians in the decades right before the council of 381. The synod of 879-880 wanted to underline

27. ConciliumConstantinopolitanum 869-870, can. 6 (G. ALBERIGO – A. MELLONI [eds.], ConciliorumOecumenicorumGeneraliumqueDecreta [COGD, II.1], Turnhout, Brepols, 2013, pp. 29.259–30.294). 28. ConciliumConstantinopolitanum 879-880, Horos (COGD II.1, 66.69-79; tr. SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque [n. 3], p. 104). For the proceedings of the synod of 879-880 see J. MEIJER, ASuccessfulCouncilofUnion:ATheologicalAnalysisofthePhotianSynodof879-880 (Analecta Blatadon, 23), Thessalonike, Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, 1975 and GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 260-269; ID., ConciliumConstantino- politanum IV 879/80 [Introduction], in COGD II.1, pp. 51-61. 29. ConciliumConstantinopolitanum 879-880, Horos (COGD II.1, p. 65.36-38). For this clause and its interpretation see GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 266f.

998150.indb8150.indb 210210 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 MUTUAL CONDEMNATIONS IN THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 211

that there was no threatening heresy in Carolingian times and thus no reason for changing – that is, adulterating – the Creed. This condemnation reflects that in the 9th century the Filioque was debated between theologians in the Carolingian empire, on the one hand, and Rome and Constantinople on the other. While Photius and the papal legates were concerned with the wording of the NC, the Western replied to Photius’ accusations concentrated on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Rome found itself right in the middle of this struggle, for the Popes adhered to the doctrine of their Western contemporaries (on a purely theological level) but sided with the East in order to defend the wording of the Creed. Clearly the theological struggle was always also intertwined with questions of formal authority and of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. After Photius’ second deposition in 886, the Filioque issue was widely neglected for nearly two centuries30 but then resurfaced with significant results: the mutual condemnations which were lifted in 1965. So let us now move right on to the year 1054.

III. THE SCHISM OF 1054: MYTH AND REALITY

1. HumbertandCerularius I will again start with a very brief sketch of the events that led to the encounter of a Roman delegation with Emperor and Patriarch in Constan- tinople between May and July of 105431. The starting point was the con- quest of Southern Italy by the Normans. Europe’s “foyer d’hellénisme”, as Jules Gay has called it32, had ever been a bone of contention between Roman and Constantinopolitan jurisdictional claims, and Pope Leo IX hoped to win back Apulia and Sicily which had been transferred to the jurisdiction of Constantinople during the iconoclast struggle in the 8th century.

30. There are however some treatises on the Filioque question and its corollaries, e.g., by Nicetas of Byzantium or Liudprand of Cremona. See GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kon- troverse(n.7), pp. 300-321. 31. For the following section cf. the account of BAYER, SpaltungderChristenheit (n. 4), pp. 63-106, and GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 322-359. A fresh approach, focused on the debate on the azyme and critical of Bayer’s assessment, is offered by B. WHA- LEN, RethinkingtheSchismof1054:Authority,Heresy,andtheLatinRite, in Traditio 62 (2007) 1-24; the latter topic is extensively discussed by G. AVVAKUMOV, DieEntstehung desUnionsgedankens:DielateinischeTheologiedesHochmittelaltersinderAuseinander- setzungmitdemRitusderOstkirche (Veröffentlichungen des Grabmann-Instituts, 47), Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 2002, pp. 29-159. An exhaustive treatment of the extant sources is provided by M.G. D’AGOSTINO, IlPrimatodellaSedediRomainLeoneIX(1049-1054): Studiodeitestilatininellacontroversiagreco-romananelperiodopregregoriano (Storia del Cristianesimo. Saggi, 24), Milano, San Paolo, 2008, pp. 71-248. 32. J. GAY, L’Italieméridionale et l’empire byzantin depuis l’avènement de Basile Ier jusqu’àlaprisedeBariparlesNormands(867-1071), Paris, Albert Fontemoing Éditeur, 1904.

998150.indb8150.indb 211211 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 212 P. GEMEINHARDT

In contrast, Patriarch Michael Cerularius was eager to maintain his influence in the Greek-speaking part of Italy. This constellation led to mutual accusations initiated by Leon of Ohrid who criticised the Latin use of azyme (unleavened bread) for the Eucharist, for which in the East leavened bread was commonly used. This is not the place to discuss this issue at length, but it should be noted that the exchange of letters in 1053-1054 and also the first discussions in Constantinople did not touch upon the Filioque question but solely on the Eucharistic rite and on questions of ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction33. Furthermore, there is most surely a political level to the conflict which should, however, by no means be reduced to a simple question of miscarried politics. Although Rome and Constantinople were rivals in Southern Italy, Pope Leo and the Emperor Constantine Monomachos established contact after they had both been defeated by the Normans. Leo himself was captured in Civitate in June 1053 and returned to Rome not earlier than March 1054 where he died only a few weeks later. Before his death, he sent Humbert of Silva Candida (who had already been ordained arch- bishop of Sicily but had not yet been able to take up his office) and two other envoys in order to negotiate a joint military campaign with the Emperor. This involved settling the argument about the Eucharistic rite. The Emperor had already put pressure on Cerularius who in the end had written in a conciliatory tone to Leo34. But the Pope replied that the precondition for a common enterprise would be the acknowledgement of the Roman primacy by the Patriarch, and in his letter to the Emperor he added that the accusations against the Latins had to be withdrawn prior to any political agreement35.

2. MutualCondemnations The scene was thus set in a way that a hardening of the conflict between Cerularius and the legates was virtually inevitable. While the Patriarch refused to even meet Humbert, the Emperor forced the renowned ascetic and theologian Nicetas Stethatos to let his writings against the azyme be burnt publicly. Understandably, this did not soften Cerularius’ attitude.

33. This has recently been highlighted by WHALEN, RethinkingtheSchism (n. 31), p. 9, hinting at the fact that the azyme debate and the inner-Western controversies about the Eucharistic rite coincided. 34. This letter is lost, but its contents can be reconstructed from Leo’s answers to Emperor and Patriarch; see GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 342-344. The basic edition of the documents relating to the events of 1054 is still C. WILL (ed.), Acta etscriptaquaedecontroversiisecclesiaegraecaeetlatinaesaeculoundecimocomposita extant, Leipzig – Marburg, W. Engelmann, 1861. 35. LEO IX, SecondLettertoCerularius (p. 92a.4-9 WILL); LettertoEmperorConstantine (p. 88b.9-21 WILL).

998150.indb8150.indb 212212 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 MUTUAL CONDEMNATIONS IN THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 213

Be it the unwaving tenacity of the Patriarch or the news of Pope Leo’s death36: the Roman legates decided to go a step further and accuse the Patri- arch of heresy. This was at least later claimed by Cerularius himself37, and it is also attested by Michael Psellos in his Encomium for the deceased Patri- arch, in which he laments that Old Rome had offended New Rome, not in something incidental but “concerning the foundation of piety and touching upon the theological language of the divine Trinity”38. It should be noted that Psellos did not use the notion of “schism” in his brief account39. In his “Arguments on the procession of the Holy Spirit”, Humbert had indeed accused the Greeks of “deviating from the faith and cutting away the procession of the Spirit from the Son”40. The bull of excommunication which was placed on the altar of the Hagia Sophia on July 16th was directed against “Michael, false neophyte patriarch, who only out of human fear assumed the monastic habit, now known to many because of his extremely wicked crimes”41. It is not the people of Constantinople or the Emperor himself, but the Patriarch and his followers who deserve and receive excommunication. The long list of severe errors committed by Cerularius enumerates Donatist, Nicolaite, Manichaean and Nazoraean elements and claims last but not least that they like Pneumatomachians or Theoumachians have deleted from the creed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son42. I only mention in passing that the legates employed a common polemical tool: identifying the opposite position as the resurgence of an ancient and long ago condemned heresy. It was an entirely unsubstantiated accusation, in this case, since the Pneumatomachians did not delete anything from the Nicene Creed but simply denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit and accord- ingly his inclusion in the NC’s text, as the Council of 381 decided to do. More importantly, this was the very first time that a Roman theologian refers to the difference in the Creed’s text, not only to the theological aspects of

36. Leo’s death became known in Constantinople between June 24th and July 16th. As M. KAPLAN, Le“schisme”de1054:Quelquesélémentsdechronologie, in Byzantinoslav- ica 56 (1995) 147-157, p. 153, remarks, no party felt thereof compelled to change its attitude. 37. LettertoPeterofAntioch II.3 (pp. 185.32–186.4 WILL). 38. Michael PSELLOS, EncomiumonMichaelCerularius (ed. by A. MICHEL, Humbert undKerullarios:QuellenundStudienzumSchismadesXI.Jahrhunderts,vol. II, Paderborn, Schöningh, 1930, p. 477.1-3) = ID., FragmentumcontraLatinos (ed. by G.T. DENNIS, An Anti-LatinEssayAttributedtoPsellos, in OrientaliaChristianaPeriodica 64 [1998] 403-407, p. 404.3-5). For Psellos’ role in the year 1054 and its aftermath, see P. GEMEINHARDT, Die TrinitätslehredesMichaelPsellos:GriechischerNeunizänismusalsphilosophischeTheologie im11.Jahrhundert, in TheologieundPhilosophie 76 (2001) 509-529, pp. 524-527. 39. This is stressed, among others, by E. CHRYSOS, 1054: Schism?, in Cristianità d’OccidenteeCristianitàd’Oriente(secoliVI-XI) (SSCI, 51/1), Spoleto, Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2004, 547-567, p. 556. 40. HUMBERT, RationesdeprocessioneSpiritussancti 3,1 (ed. by MICHEL, Humbertund Kerullarios [n. 38], vol. I, Paderborn, Schöningh, 1924, p. 99.17f.). 41. Excomm. II (p. 154b.7-10 WILL; tr. SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque [n. 3], p. 114). 42. Excomm. II (p. 153b.14-16 WILL; tr. SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque [n. 3], p. 114).

998150.indb8150.indb 213213 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 214 P. GEMEINHARDT

the controversy. Only four decades ago, the Carolingian text of the Nicene Creed had been adopted in Rome and inserted into the mass43. As it seems, this history was already unknown to Humbert44. But the Cardinal had obviously grasped the crucial point for his eastern interlocutors45. Recalling the classical heresies elucidates the fact that Cerularius is the true heir of those long-since condemned heretics. There- fore it is only to be expected that such a man would not hesitate to tamper with the Creed, prevent the Latin people in Constantinople from celebrat- ing the Eucharist, and finally, resist the solicitude of Rome as the head of all churches46. While the Filioque issue represents the culmination of the aforementioned debates on a theological level, it is embedded in liturgical and ecclesiological disputes. Put briefly, the legate’s writ of condemnation on 16th July 1054 summarizes the main elements of the forthcoming debates in medieval times and beyond: doctrine, rite, and authority47. It goes without saying that Michael Cerularius paid them back in their own coin: eight days later, a synod was summoned refuting the bull and placing the Roman legates under excommunication48. Any judgement of the Roman Church or the Pope per se was carefully avoided – the only malefac- tors were the legates who had “adulterated the faith”49. The Patriarch in turn regarded himself as the guardian of orthodoxy: [We do not wish to tamper with] the sacred and holy Creed, which holds its authority unviolated from synodal and ecumenical decrees, by the use of wrongful argument, illegal reasoning, and extreme boldness. And unlike them, we do not wish to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son – O what artifice of the devil! – but rather we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father50. Without mentioning it, Cerularius borrowed freely from Photius’ encyclical (see above). The same is also true for other crucial passages, e.g., those about the impious men from the West who came to seduce the faithful people of Constantinople. The refutation of the Roman claim to supreme authority in the Church does derive from Cerularius’ pen, since it was part and parcel of the papal position as proposed by Leo. The azyme controversy, which was so hotly debated since 1053, plays only a minor role in Cerularius’ synodical decree. Apparently, the Patriarch was more eager to exploit his famous predecessor’s pattern of argumentation against the Filioque.

43. See GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 313-316. 44. See A. LOUTH, GreekEastandLatinWest:TheChurchAD681-1071(The Church in History, 3), Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2007, p. 309. 45. See GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), p. 355. 46. Excomm. II (p. 153a.7f. WILL). 47. I leave aside minor differences with respect to rites, e.g., the Greeks pouring water into the eucharistic wine or the Latins appreciating clean-shaven priests. 48. Semeioma (p. 167.22-26 WILL). 49. Ibid. (p. 168.7-9 WILL). 50. Ibid. (p. 158.5-14 WILL; tr. SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque [n. 3], pp. 114f.).

998150.indb8150.indb 214214 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 MUTUAL CONDEMNATIONS IN THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 215

3. TheAftermathof1054 In view of the aforesaid, the mutual condemnations of July 1054 should indeed be regarded as a turning point in the history of the Filioque controversy. This holds true even if the contemporaries did not consider each other to be in open schism. In an exchange of letters in 1062, the abbot and reformer Peter Damian and Patriarch Constantine Lichoudes discussed the differences between Latin and Greek pneumatology without referring to the condemnations of 1054 at all. Although, as Tia Kolbaba has put it, “everybody who was anybody in the Church hierarchy must have known what had happened”51, memory apparently soon faded. A synod in Con- stantinople in 1089 discussed the lament of Pope Urban II that he was not named in the Byzantine diptychs, a fact which seemed to indicate schism52. Neither Urban nor the synod were able to determine the origins of this situation, and at the end of the day, obscurity remained. The colloquy at Bari 1098, which Anselm of Canterbury attended, displayed growing aware- ness of the fact that something had definitely gone wrong, though, remark- ably, the condemnations of 1054 did not play any role in this53. Both the suspicion that ecclesiastical unity had vanished and the uncertainty about the reasons are typical for the last third of the 11th century. Although all three main components of the forthcoming schism (doctrine, rite, authority) were present in 1054, the mutual estrangement had not yet led to an acknowledged account of the origins of separation.

IV. IN SEARCH OF ECCLESIAL UNION: THE COUNCILS OF LYONS AND FLORENCE

1. BecomingAwareoftheExtantSchism It was not before the 12th century that such an account gained shape. Soon after 1100, the later metropolitan ofNicaea, Nicetas, wrote a short treatise “On Schisms” in which he traced the current schism back beyond 1054 to the beginning of the 11th century and blamed Pope Sergius IV (1009- 1012) for having deleted the Byzantine Patriarch’s name from the Roman

51. T.M. KOLBABA, TheLegacyofHumbertandCerularius:TheTraditionof“The Schismof1054”inByzantineTextsandManuscriptsoftheTwelfthandThirteenthCenturies, in C. DENDRINOS etal. (eds.), Porphyrogenita:EssaysinHonourofJulianChrysostomides, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2003, 47-61, p. 50. 52. For the following, see GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 411-418; F. TINNEFELD, DieEreignissevon1054undihreBedeutungfürdasSchismazwischenOst- undWestkirche, in T. NIKOLAOU etal. (eds.),DasSchismazwischenOst-undWestkirche. 950bzw.800Jahredanach(1054und1204)(Beiträge aus dem Zentrum für ökumenische Forschung München, 2), Münster, Lit, 2004, 7-14, pp. 12f.; T.M. KOLBABA, TheOrthodoxyof theLatinsintheTwelfthCentury, in A. LOUTH – A. CASIDAY (eds.), ByzantineOrthodoxies?, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006, 199-214, pp. 202-206. 53. The same holds true for Anselm’s congenial contemporary, Theophylact of Ohrid.

998150.indb8150.indb 215215 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 216 P. GEMEINHARDT

diptychs. There has been some dispute whether this text stems from a contemporary of Cerularius’, but in any case the Filioque as cause of the schism is only mentioned in a 14th century manuscript of this treatise and might thus be inferred from the point of view of later controversialists54. Be that as it may, the notion of “schism” spread in the 12th century on both sides55. And viewing the other as teaching something suspicious or even heretic became a common opinion, in the theological summae of the West – most prominently in Peter Lombard’s Librisententiarum56 – and in major Eastern heresiological works like the Panopliadogmatica of Euthymius Zigabenus57. This perception of the Latins having fallen into error does not, however, regularly refer to the condemnations of 1054 or to the figure of Michael Cerularius. Not till the eve of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 is he invoked as a hero of Orthodoxy58. But the real protagonists of the schism – be it that they are praised for their resistance against the Latins or blamed for their stubbornness – are considered to be other Patriarchs, like Michael III Anchialos (1170-1178) or, in most cases, Photius. Thus, it is not till the High Middle Ages that the memory of mutual condemnations related to the Filioque controversy began reaching back to Carolingian and Photian times. This is paralleled by Western chronicles and treatises like, e.g., the Opusculumtripartitum written by Humbert of Romans before the Council of Lyons in 1274, in which he identified as the cause of the schism “the Greeks’ refusal to maintain community with the Bishop of Rome”59. Hum- bert, however, did indicate ways to achieve the healing of the Greek’s tendency to schism and heresy: they were certainly misled but still broth- ers in Christ. This observation is important for our topic: a real history of condemnations connected to disputes over the Filioque issue only emerged when

54. For the recent debate about Nicetas’ treatise, see BAYER, SpaltungderChristenheit (n. 4), pp. 36-45, esp. pp. 37f., who – in my view not convincingly – claims an origin in the 1050s (see GEMEINHARDT, DerFilioque-Streit [n. 18], pp. 128f., n. 86, and KOLBABA, The LegacyofHumbertandCerularius [n. 51], p. 53 with n. 21). The same obscurity is true for an anonymous TreatiseontheOriginoftheSchism (see GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque- Kontroverse [n. 7], pp. 318f.). 55. See, e.g., Pope HADRIAN IV, LettertoBasiliusofOhrid (PG 119, 925C-928A). 56. Sent. I dist. XI cap. 1(37)-2(38) (SpicBon IV, pp. 114-117). 57. Panopliadogmatica 13.12 (PG 102, 396AB). See KOLBABA, TheLegacyofHumbert andCerularius (n. 51), p. 54. T.M. KOLBABA, TheByzantineLists:ErrorsoftheLatins, Urbana, IL – Chicago, IL, University of Illinois Press, 2000, pp. 175-180 provides a useful account of Byzantine lists of the Latin’s errors from the 11th to the 13th century and an enumeration of the items which feature in every list (ibid.,pp. 34-43; for the Filioque, see ibid., pp. 41f.). 58. See KOLBABA, TheLegacyofHumbertandCerularius (n. 51), p. 57, referring to V. L AURENT – J. DARROUZÈS (eds.), Dossiergrecdel’uniondeLyon(1273-1277) (Archives de l’Orient chrétien, 16), Paris, Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1977, pp. 262-267; CHRYSOS, 1054:Schism? (n. 39), pp. 557f. 59. Quoted in SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque (n. 3), p. 135.

998150.indb8150.indb 216216 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 MUTUAL CONDEMNATIONS IN THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 217

Pope, Emperor and Patriarch tried to terminate the schism. They did so by convoking ecumenical councils and uttering condemnations themselves in order to reach a common understanding by excluding extreme errors. We will take a quick glance at the canons of the councils of Lyons in 1274 and of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-1439 and investigate the dynamics of these condemnations which were – paradoxically – meant to create unity.

2. TheCouncilofLyons(1274) In both cases, as is well known, the political circumstances motivated the Byzantine Emperors to seek union with the Papacy (and thus receive military support from the West), although they knew that such a union was quite unpopular among the clergy and monks of Constantinople. In 1274, Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus urged the clergymen to agree with the council’s agenda by promising that the only effect would be the inclusion of the Pope’s name in the diptychs, while nobody would be forced to recite the Filioque in the NC60. This was indeed the case on January the 16th of 1275 when the union was proclaimed in the imperial chapel of the Blachernae. But during the council itself, the legates from Byzantium had been repeat- edly forced to chant the Creed, including the Filioque. Moreover, even before they had arrived, the exact wording for a definition of the Trinity and a condemnation of dissenters had already been decided upon:

The most holy Roman Church, which according to God’s authority is the mother and teacher of all believers, holds firmly, professes and teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration; such confessed, proclaimed and taught the most holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all believers, until now; and this contains the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike61.

This definition was followed by a corresponding condemnation:

But since some people, not being aware of the aforementioned inviolable truths, have fallen in manifold errors, we wish to bar the way to such errors and thus condemn and reprove, with the approval of the sacred council, anybody who

60. For this period of relationships between East and West, see briefly T.M. KOLBABA, ByzantinePerceptionsofLatinReligious“Errors”–ThemesandChangesfrom850to1350, in A.E. LAIOU – R.P. MOTTAHEDEH (eds.), TheCrusadesfromthePerspectiveofByzantium andtheMuslimWorld, Washington DC, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2001, 117-143, pp. 130-132, and the extensive account of H. CHADWICK, EastandWest: TheMakingofaRiftintheChurch.FromApostolicTimestotheCouncilofFlorence, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 238-273. 61. COGD II.1, pp. 357.807–358.812 (tr. SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque [n. 3], p. 136, com- plemented and modified).

998150.indb8150.indb 217217 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 218 P. GEMEINHARDT

presumes to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one62.

Thus, before the Greeks had arrived, the Latins had already reached a decision, and – not surprisingly – their traditional position had been affirmed. The long-standing accusation that the Latins had introduced a second source into the Godhead was retorted with nothing but the simple assertion that this was not the case, since the Spirit proceeded from both Father and Son “as from one principle” (tanquamabunoprincipio) and thus “by one single spiration” (unicaspiratione). A glance at the heated debates in Constantinople during the following years reveals that such a position was acceptable to some theologians, like Patriarch John Bekkos63. The main problem lay in the fact that the framework of any theological discussion was set by the proclamation of the primacy of the Roman See as well as the condemnation of the traditional “Photian” position, namely the Spirit’s procession from the Father alone. Although the Latins’ formulation was meant to create unity, it in fact established an exclusively Western standard of orthodoxy. And it did so by uttering a solemn condemnation of the Eastern view. Here we can grasp the papal claim for universal authority which had been growing during the 12th and 13th centuries (and which would soon culminate with Boniface VIII). The condemnation of the non- Filioquist teaching was a means to put pressure on Emperor Michael and the Byzantine clergy to acknowledge this papal superiority. The consensus between Rome and Constantinople in 880 when the NC had been jointly affirmed without the Filioque was thus reversed entirely: only adhering to the procession of the Spirit exPatreFilioque would henceforth qualify as orthodox.

3. TheUnionofFlorence(1439) One and a half centuries later, at the Council of Ferrara and Florence of 1438-143964, the theological outcome seems to be exactly the same at

62. COGD II.1, p. 358.812-818 (tr. SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque [n. 3], pp. 136f., modified). 63. See SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque [n. 3], pp. 140-143, for an account of the theology of Patriarch Gregory of Cyprus (1283-1289), who was neither “unionist” like Bekkos nor radical “Photianist” but sought to distinguish between the eternal hypostatic existence of the Spirit by virtue of his procession fromtheFather and his equally eternal manifestation or shining forth throughtheSon. ALEXOPOULOS, DerAusgangdesthearchischenGeistes (n. 22), pp. 82-88 does not allow for such a nuanced view but still adheres to the dualist view of an opposition between the orthodox Gregory and the “filioquist” Bekkos. For a less partial assessment of the latter’s doctrine, see A. RIEBE, RominGemeinschaftmitKonstan- tinopel:PatriarchJohannesXI.BekkosalsVerteidigerderKirchenunionvonLyon(1274) (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik, 8), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2005. 64. See CHADWICK, EastandWest (n. 60), pp. 261-273; SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque (n. 3), pp. 151-172; for the discussions at Ferrara and Florence about patristic testimonies and

998150.indb8150.indb 218218 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 MUTUAL CONDEMNATIONS IN THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 219

first sight: again, ecclesial community has to be restored by signing a decree of union. Again the Filioque is affirmed, and like in Lyons the Holy Spirit is described as proceeding from Father and Son eternally as from a single source and by virtue of a single spiration. And again the union would not be implemented (or be implemented too late) in Constantinople; in conse- quence, the military support the Emperor had hoped for was only to arrive as the Turks were already about to take the city by storm. But there is a significant difference (and I have to apologize one last time): once again Latins and Greeks did not condemn each other65. Instead a certain growth of mutual understanding between the participants from East and West can be observed. For several weeks, theologians of both sides had dedicated themselves to a close reading of patristic texts, and in some cases, with Athanasius of Alexandria or Maximus the Confessor for example, this did eventually lead to a review of the diverging manuscripts that were in use66. Perhaps at no other point in the history of Christianity until modern times, the feeling that the Fathers were the common antecessors and thus the stone on which unity could be built was as strong as in the spring of 1439. And it was this acknowledgement of the unanimity of the Fathers’ trinitarian doctrine that finally persuaded leading Greek theologians like Bessarion and George Scholarius to accept that the Latin doctrine of the procession from Father and Son must be understood in the same way as the Greek expression “from the Father through the Son”67. They even went as far as to subscribe to the modified text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, as the decree Lae- tenturcaeli demonstrates:

In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and with the assent of this holy and universal council of Florence, we define that the following truths of the faith should be believed and accepted by all Christians and that everyone should confess: the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense

theological options, see H.J. MARX, FilioqueundVerboteinesanderenGlaubensaufdem Florentinum:ZumPluralismusindogmatischenFormeln (Veröffentlichungen des Missi- onspriesterseminars St. Augustin bei Bonn, 26), St. Augustin, Steyler Verlag, 1977. 65. To be precise: The Council of Florence in fact decreed condemnations against false accounts of the doctrine of the Trinity, but not in the bull of union with Constantinople but in the document which sealed the union with the “Jacobites” (Coptic and Ethiopic Christians); see COGD II.2, p. 1277.3368-3381. This decree quotes the famous definition of trinitarian relationships by relations of oppositions by Anselm of Canterbury (COGD II.2, p. 1276.3345- 3346); see GEMEINHARDT, DieFilioque-Kontroverse (n. 7), pp. 465-468. 66. See H.C. BRENNECKE, DieFilioque-KontroverseaufdemKonzilvonFlorenz, in P. GEMEINHARDT (ed.), AthanasiusHandbuch, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 425-428. 67. See SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque (n. 3), pp. 162f.

998150.indb8150.indb 219219 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 220 P. GEMEINHARDT

that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father. And since the Father himself gave everything what he owned by begetting to his only-begotten Son, the Son himself has eternally from the Father (by whom he is eternally begotten) the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the Creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need68.

The decree, moreover, contained definitions of the legitimacy of azyme, of the purgatory and of papal primacy. Without going into details, I would just like to stress again the combination of doctrine, rite, and authority. It may well be doubted whether Laetenturcaeli provided a substantial solution to this threefold problem (surely the history of its reception does not reveal an unanimous understanding). But at least for the time being, it satisfied a majority of the Greek envoys (though it was not enough for the die-hard anti-filioquists like Marcus Eugenicus). Put briefly, if the Fathers had really taught in this way, then there was no further justification for obsti- nacy, and to accept a Latin formula as groundwork for the ecclesial union would no longer mean yielding to a heresy. Thus there was no need of formulating a condemnation. The deterioration of the relationship between Rome and Constantinople after the capture of the city by the Ottomans and the endurance of that estrangement has continued up to the 20th century (and probably still endures today), but that is another story.

V. C ONCLUSION

To conclude: The Filioque controversy is indeed a “mixture of error and violence”, at least in many episodes. And it is a story of condemnations, though we did not encounter as many of them as one would perhaps expect. While many heresiologists time and again reiterated the condemnations of late antique heretics, they were hesitant to label their contemporaries as heretics. It was only under extraordinary and in most cases political circumstances – the rivalry in converting the Bulgars, the claim to universal power by the reforming papacy, the threat posed by the Ottomans to the Late Byzantine Empire – that condemnations were uttered. The Filioque controversy was not only a political affair. Political agreement could only be imagined as including doctrinal, disciplinary and ecclesial consensus. Underlying the whole story is the perception of the Church as one, and – in my opinion – it is exactly this presupposition that prevented the protagonists from condemning the other side. In contrast to the often repeated

68. COGD II.2, pp. 1215.1113–1216.1144; tr. partly taken from SIECIENSKI, TheFilioque (n. 3), p. 170.

998150.indb8150.indb 220220 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 MUTUAL CONDEMNATIONS IN THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY 221

expulsion of the ancient heretics, both sides saw themselves as members of the one Church that was mentioned in the Creed about which the Filioque debate arose. Obviously, it took several centuries until the theological differences had been fully acknowledged; and once Greeks and Latins had fully become aware of the fact that they actually lived in a state of schism, they regarded this as irregular. It is not without irony that in 1965 condemnations were lifted that contemporaries soon tended to neglect69. For the ecumenical dialogue, this was without doubt a promising step. Pope and Patriarch expressed the hope that Christians would rediscover “the full communion of faith, of brotherly harmony, and of sacramental life, which obtained between them throughout the first thousand years of the life of the Church”70. Such a romantic view of the common past as opposed to later estrangement has been endorsed especially by the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and (now retired) Pope Benedict XVI during the last four decades71. I would rather argue that the eruption of 1054 is not the harbinger of the ensuing schism, but that it derives from the plurality of the Church (regarding its structure, rites, and patterns of theological argumentation) already extant during the first millen- nium. If so, the surprising absence of too many condemnations might testify to the contemporaries’ presentiment that such a plurality within the Church should better be dealt with by dialogue than by solemn judgement. Though this may appear as a very protestant view, it could explain the comparatively low number of condemnations in the Filioque controversy.

Georg-August-Universität Peter GEMEINHARDT Theologische Fakultät Platz der Göttinger Sieben 2 DE-37073 Göttingen [email protected]

69. KOLBABA, TheLegacyofHumbertandCerularius (n. 51), argues that the memory of 1054 was consciously suppressed due to political reasons in the era of the Comnenes, that is, until the late 12th century. This would imply that not only the patriarchal synod in Constantinople but virtually every theologian in the Empire (and also in the West) would have obeyed to this policy. I do not reckon this quite probable. 70. Text: DH 4435; tr. STORMON, EcumenicalDocumentsIII (n. 1), p. 128. For a recent debate about the impact and outcome of the lifting of the anathemas see A. VLETSIS, Die “Aufhebung”desSchismasimJahr1965ausorthodoxerSicht, and P. NEUNER, DieTilgung desBannes(1965)undihretheologischeRelevanz:EinökumenischerVersuchausrömisch- katholischerSicht, both in NIKOLAOU etal. (eds.), DasSchismazwischenOst-undWestkirche (n. 6), 159-177 and 178-195. 71. J. RATZINGER, PrognosenfürdieZukunftdesÖkumenismus, inÖkumene,Konzil, Unfehlbarkeit(Pro Oriente, 4), Innsbruck, Tyrolia, 1979, 208-215. See my critique in P. GEMEINHARDT, “EcclesiaRomanasemperhabuitprimatum”:DieEntwicklungdespäpst- lichenPrimatsimerstenJahrtausend, in W. FLEISCHMANN-BISTEN (ed.), Papstamt–pround contra:GeschichtlicheEntwicklungenundökumenischePerspektiven (Bensheimer Hefte, 97), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001, 9-38.

998150.indb8150.indb 221221 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 222 P. GEMEINHARDT

ABSTRACT. — This essay focuses on condemnations that were uttered in the Filioque controversy, the debate about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son (exPatrefilioque). Starting with the lifting of the Anathemas of 1054 at the end of the Second Vatican Council, the paper investigates the dynamics of the controversy from Carolingian times to the late medieval Councils of Union. Strikingly, the controversy did not lead to many explicit and mutual condemnations, though polemics were vivid on both sides at least from the late 11th century on. As it seems, East and West tried to stay in touch and solve doctrinal matters by dialogue rather than by anathema, thus testifying to an underlying conviction of the unity of the Church. However, the realization of this unity by synodal procedures and theological argument became more and more difficult. Therefore, mutual perceptions and excommunications of ancient times are still a challenge for modern ecumenical encounters.

998150.indb8150.indb 222222 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54