Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:28:10.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rites and Wrongs: the Latin Mission to Nicaea, 1234*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

John Doran
John Doran*
Affiliation:
Royal Hollo way and Bedford New College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1232 Germanus II (1223-40), the Nicaean Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Pope Gregory IX and to the cardinals of the Roman Church requesting discussions on the reformation of peace between the Greek and Roman Churches. In response to this request the Pope sent two English Franciscans and two French Dominicans, at least one of them proficient in Greek, as his representatives to Nicaea. After their return the friars presented a detailed account of the mission to the Pope, which was copied into the Liber Censuum. The extant documentation of the mission allows us to examine the ideas of the Greeks and Latins about unity and schism in the Church. And it shows us that there was no prospect of a union of the Churches because each had a fundamentally different conception of the nature of ecclesiastical authority.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 32: Unity and Diversity in the Church , 1996 , pp. 131 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1996

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.)

Footnotes

*

I should like to thank Dr Margaret Harvey and Professor Bernard Hamilton for their helpful comments upon earlier versions of this paper.

References

1 Tautu, A. L., Acta Honorii III et Gregorii IX, Pontificia commissio ad redigendum codicem iuris canonici orientalis, Fontes ser. III, 3 (Vatican City, 1950), no. 179a, pp. 240—9 Google Scholar (Germanus’ letter to Gregory IX), no. 179b, pp. 249-52 (Germanus’ letter to the cardinals). The texts of the letter to Gregory, together with his replies, are also in Mansi, 23, cols 279-319.

2 For brief descriptions of the mission see: Gill, J., Byzantium and the Papacy 1198-1400 (Brunswick, NJ, 1979), pp. 63–72 Google Scholar; M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile: Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204-1261) (Oxford, 1975), p. 14: idem, , ‘Greeks and Latins after 1204: the perspective of exile’, in Arbel, B., Hamilton, B. and Jacoby, D., eds, Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204 (London, 1989), pp. 78–9 Google Scholar; R. L. Wolff, ‘The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans’, Traditio, 2 (1944), pp. 229-30; C. J. Heféle and H. Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, 5, pt 2 (Paris, 1913), cols 1565–72. For a useful introduction to the series of unity negotiations see M. Jugie, Le Schisme Byzantin (Paris, 1941), pp. 247-58. One of the Franciscans, Haymo of Faversham, was later a General of the order; see Golubovich, G., Biblioteca Bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell’ Oriente Francescana, 5 vols (Florence, 1906-23), 1, pp. 163–9.Google Scholar

3 Golubovich, H., ‘Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum seu Relatio Apocrisariorum Gregorii IX de gestis Nicaeae in Bithynia et Nymphaeae in Lydia’, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, 12 (1919), pp. 418–70 Google Scholar, at p. 426.

4 Golubovich, ‘Disputatio’, pp. 421-4, provides a list of the documentation of the mission. But see note 1 above for more recent editions of the initial correspondence. For a Greek description of the mission of 1234, confirming the accuracy of the friars’ report, see Heisenberg, A., ed., Nicephori Blemmydae Curriculum Vitae et Carmina (Leipzig, 1896), pp. 63–7 Google Scholar, XV-XVI, XLI-XLIII. For a full account of the Greek documentation of the mission see Laurent, V., Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, 1, fasc. 4, ‘Les Regestes de 1208 à 1309’ (Paris, 1971), pp. 62–8; 76–85.Google Scholar

5 M. Jugie, Le Schisme Byzantin, pp. 252-4; Gill, J., ‘Innocent III and the Greeks: aggressor or apostle?’, in Baker, D., ed., Relations between East and West in the Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1973), pp. 95–108.Google Scholar

6 Angold, ‘Greeks and Latins’, p. 64; Hamilton, B., The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church (London, 1980), pp. 159–87.Google Scholar

7 M. Jugie, Le Schisme Byzantin, pp. 253-4.

8 PG, 140, cols 293-8; Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, pp. 34-5.

9 Angold, Byzantine Government, p. 13, idem, ‘Greeks and Latins’, p. 67.

10 Angold, Byzantine Government, pp. 21-4, 28-32; Spiteris, J., La Critica Bizantina del Primato Romano nel secolo XII, Orientalia Periodica Analecta, 208 (Rome, 1979), p. 321.Google Scholar

11 Tautu, Acta Honorii, pp. 240-1.

12 Golubovich, Biblioteca Bio-bibliografica, pp. 161-2.

13 Tautu, Acta Honorii, p. 242.

14 Ibid., p. 243.

15 Ibid., pp. 244-5.

16 Ibid., p. 245.

17 Ibid., p. 250.

18 For a discussion of Byzantine ideas of authority in the Church see Meyendorff, J., Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (London and Oxford, 1974), pp. 97–102.Google Scholar

19 Dvornik, F., Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York, 1966), pp. 124–70 Google Scholar, idem, The Photian Schism (Cambridge, 1948), pp. 383-402; J. Spiteris, Critica Bizantina, pp. 1-24, 300-22; M. Jugie, ‘La primauté romaine dans l’église byzantine à partir du IXesiécle jusqu’à la derniére tentative d’union avec Rome, au concile de Florence’, in A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, and E. Amann, eds, Dictionnaire de theologie catholique 13/i (Paris, 1936) [hereafter DTC], cols 357-77.

20 Jugie, DTC, col. 639.

21 Tautu, Acta Honorii, p. 246.

22 Ibid., pp. 247-8.

23 Ibid., p. 248: ‘Qui autem ad speculum fuerit invitatus causa experientiae, cum recesserit, confitebitur, etiam invitus, suum vultum esse deformem.’

24 Ibid., no. 179, pp. 235-9. Gregory’s second letter: ibid., no. 193, pp. 266-8.

25 Ibid., pp. 235-6.

26 Ibid., p. 236.

27 Ibid., p. 237: ‘et corpus cum multis capitibus monstruosum, et sine capite acephalum censeatur’.

28 Ibid., p. 238.

29 Golubovich, ‘Disputatio’, p. 428.

30 Ibid., p. 429.

31 Ibid., pp. 429-30.

32 Jugie, DTC, col. 367; Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, pp. 90-4.

33 Dvornik, Roman Primacy, p. 134.

34 Golubovich, ‘Disputatio’, pp. 431-2; Mansi, 2, col. 666.

35 Mansi, 3, col. 565.

36 Golubovich, ‘Disputatio’, p. 432.

37 Ibid., p. 433.

38 Jugie, DTC, cols 369-77; D. M. Nicol, ‘The papal scandal’, SCH, 13 (1976), pp. 141-68; Spiteris, Critica Bizantina, pp. 300-21; Dvornik, Roman Primacy, pp. 155-67.

39 Jugie, DTC, col. 373.

40 Dvornik, Roman Primacy, pp. 124-5; see also Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, pp. 97-9; Geanakoplos, D. J., Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in the Middle Ages and Renaissance (Oxford, 1966), ch. 2, ‘Church and State in the Byzantine Empire: a reconsideration of the problem of Caesaropapism’, pp. 55–83.Google Scholar

41 Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (London, 1955), pp. 289–99 Google Scholar; Gaudemet, J., ‘Aspects de la primauté romaine du Ve au XVesiécle’ lus Canonicum, 11/22 (1971), pp. 106–16.Google Scholar

42 Geanakoplos, Byzantine East, pp. 68-9.

43 Dvornik, Roman Primacy, pp. 140-2; Jugie, DTC, col. 327; Spiteris, Critica Bizantina, pp. 306-11.

44 Jugie, DTC, col. 367; Dvornik, Roman Primacy, p. 147; Spiteris, Critica Bizantina, pp. 301-2, 314.

45 Golubovich, ‘Disputatio’, p. 444.

46 Ibid., p. 434.

47 Ibid., p. 444.

48 Ibid., p. 445.

49 Ibid., p. 465.

50 Tautu, Acta Honorii, no. 193, pp. 266-8, at pp. 267-8. For Innocent III’s letter making the same point see: Haluscynskyj, J., Acta Innocentii III, Pontificia commissio ad redigendum codicem iuris canonici orientalis, Fontes ser. III, 2 (Vatican City, 1944), no. 65, pp. 277–83.Google Scholar

51 Golubovich, ‘Disputatio’, pp. 454-5; ‘estimamus autem quod et diocesis antiquioris Rome sic et accepit et tenebit’.

52 Ibid., p. 451.

53 Ibid., p. 451.

54 Ibid., p. 451. On the development of the diptychs see F. Cabrol, ‘Diptyques (Liturgie)’, in F. Cabrol, ed., Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, 4/i (Paris, 1920) [hereafter DCL], cols 1045-94.

55 Golubovich, ‘Disputatio’, p. 451.

56 Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, p. 39; Jugie, Le Schisme Byzantin, p. 253.

57 Cabrol, DCL, col. 1050.

58 Angold, Byzantine Government, p. 21.

59 Mansi, 17, cols 497, 489; Dvornik, Roman Primacy, pp. 124-5.

60 J. Parisot, ‘Azymes’, DTC, 1/ii (Paris, 1903) cols 2653-64.

61 Ibid., col. 2653.

62 PL, 217, cols 857-8.

63 Haluscynskyj, Acta Innocentii, no. 52, pp. 258-60; Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, pp. 21–2.

64 Jugie, Le Schisme Byzantin, pp. 253-4; Dvornik, Roman Primacy, p. 147; Gill, ‘Innocent III and the Greeks’, pp. 98-101.

65 Tautu, Ada Honorii, no. 193, p. 267.

66 Parisot, DTC, col. 2663; Dvornik, Roman Primacy, p. 140.

67 Golubovich, ‘Disputatio’, pp. 453–4.

68 Ibid., p. 458.

69 Ibid., p. 459.

70 Ibid., p. 462.

71 Ibid., p. 437.

72 Ibid., pp. 452-3.

73 Ibid., p. 453.

74 Angold, Byzantine Government, p. 50.

75 Ibid., p. 51.

76 Ibid., p. 57.

77 Geanakoplos, Byzantine East, pp. 73-80.

78 Golubovich, ‘Disputatio’, pp. 462-4.

79 D. M. Nicol, ‘The Byzantine reaction to the Second Council of Lyons, 1274’, SCH, 7 (1984), pp. 113-46.

80 W. H. C. Frend, ‘Old and New Rome in the age of Justinian’, in D. Baker, ed. Relations between East ami West in the Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1973), p. 11.