Many think that it was for theological reasons that the schism, but in reality there were more political issues (like with the Photian schism) that convoluted the issue.

Have you ever read Greek East and Latin West: The Church AD. 681-1071 by Andrew Louth? I recommend this to anyone wanting to know genuinely what happened in this period of time, quite unbiased and organic. Your article reminded me much of this.

Great job!

I have a strong layman’s background in medieval history which provided a base to work from, but the single most useful source for this article was a monograph written by Tia M. Kolbaba: “The Legacy of Humbert and Cerularius: The Tradition of the ‘Schism of 1054′ in Byzantine Texts and Manuscripts of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries” published in Porphyrogenita: Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides” ed. by C. Dendrinos et al.. It’s quite expensive but a pdf version is available at:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Xrbg8_8lrzoC&dq=porphyrogenita&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=nf0Sn0qSo1&sig=50yHM8ScuXQ0u_lU8lBueaflgKM&hl=en&ei=j_b5StPANo-Dngf-5oD4DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Next most useful was And Taking Bread… mentioned by Perry. I used a library copy, but I think it is still available though initially published in the 1970s. You can find experts in pdf on the ‘Net. It gives the whole background to the azymes dispute, and doesn’t just focus on the 1054 incident. Mahlon Smith, as I recall, makes a good argument that Humbert’s scholarship (flawed as it was) was actually superior to that of his Eastern counterparts, particularly compared to Michael who was a bit out of his depth in high powered theological disputation and had a limited grasp of ecclesiastical history. On the other hand, Smith tends to take the testimony of the participants (and Michael in particular) too much at face value with respect to their motives, actions and understanding when, of course, we are really being exposed to highly tendentious ’spin’.

The next most useful source was actually the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Michael (I am not sure who the author was) which is very sharp and scrupulous on the facts and chronology, though almost amusingly partisan and over the top in terms of its interpretation. It was a good source for useful nuggets and gems that I subsequently found confirmed in other sources.

One primary source which is almost essential reading for understanding all the Byzantine court intrigues and personalities is, of course Michael Psellus’ Chronographia. He has almost nothing to say about the incident, however, and spends a lot of time marveling at his own brilliance and trying to justify his serial betrayals of both masters and allies. Psellus is actually responsible for Michael’s reputation as an obsessively ambitious kingmaker which I find largely unjustified.

The other main primary sources were the correspondence between Michael Cerularius’ and Peter of Antioch, as well as the letters Humbert drafted for Leo and his account of the proceedings in Constantinople. I could only find these in Latin and Greek, however, which limited my use. They are commented on extensively in the secondary sources, however, especially in Smith. I perused them with my limited Latin to verify a few conclusions.

Finally, the biographical sketches of the various actors available on the Wikipedia were useful in placing them in a wider context and in resolving a few inconsistencies and minor errors in the other secondary sources.

I should note that I am a political scientist, and not a historian or theologian. This undoubtedly must have coloured my interpretatoin of the evidence.

In ICXC
John

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/on-anastasius-the-librarian/#comment-294

‘As I have pointed out in a previous blog exchange, St. Maximus elsewhere writes, “For just as the Holy Spirit exists, by nature, according to substance, as belonging to the Father, so also does he, according to substance, belong to the Son, in that, in an ineffable way, he proceeds substantially from the Father through the begotten Son” (Question 63 to Thalassius, PG 90, 672). St. Maximus says here that the Holy Spirit proceeds substantially from the Father through the begotten Son, and that this substantial proceeding from the Father through the begotten Son occurs in an ineffable way. A sending in time hardly qualifies as an ineffable, substantial proceeding. It seems to me that St. Maximus is saying here, as many other Greek fathers had said before him, that the Holy Spirit receives his very divine substance, from the Father, through the begotten Son. The Spirit’s proceeding through the Son is not an afterthought or an optional extra; it pertains to what he is, not only to what he does in time. And that is the teaching, I would say, that St. Maximus sees as compatible with what Latin fathers like St. Augustine of Hippo say when they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son.”

I wrote:

“From the CCC:

263. The mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of the Son and by the Son from the Father, reveals that, with them, the Spirit is one and the same God…

264. (quoting Augustine) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son.”

You wrote:

“There is nothing in the two paragraphs You offered that teaches that Father and Son have different roles. It only says that the Father gives the power of procession as a gift to the Son — it says “this”, … it doesn’t say “something similar” or “something else”.

For 263:

1. The Spirit is “sent by the Father in the name of the Son;”
2. The Spirit is “sent by the Son from the Father;”
3. The Spirit is not sent by the Son in the name of the Father;
4. The Spirit is not sent by the Father from the Son;
5. Ergo, the roles of the Father and the Son differ.

For 264:

1. The Spirit proceeds “from the Father as the first principle;”
2. The Spirit does not proceed from the Son as the first principle;
3. Ergo, the roles of Father and the Son differ.

Seriously, I tire of this discussion. I found Gilbert’s article interesting and enlightening, but find our failure to engage substantively on it disheartening. It seems we can’t get past our prejudices. I have nothing more to say on the filioque, and will not post any further on this thread until and unless it returns to discussing the article (preferably dispassionately).

If Perry or Samn! need further clarification from me on anything I wrote here regarding the filioque, they can send their questions to our host who can then forward them to me privately if he feels they need answering.

If I have misrepresents the Catholic position in any way, Fr. Paul, who knows vastly more than I do on the subject should feel free to step in and correct what I have written.