[ CONTENTS ]
|Part 1|
|Part 2| — |Part 3|[ Return ]
In the background of dialogue and the Ecumenical Movement for
the reunion of Christendom lies the generally recognized fact
that there is an interplay between theology and society, which
may lead to a dogmatic formulation and become the cause of
doctrinal differences.
Within the Roman Empire doctrinal conflicts took place usually
among Roman citizens in a atmosphere of religious and
philosophical pluralism. With the official recognition of
Orthodox Christianity, we witness the beginning of the use of
doctrinal differences in support of nationalistic movements of
separate identity and secession from Roman rule, both political
and ecclesiastical. Both Nestorianism and so-called
Monophysitism, although initially promoted by Roman nationals,
were finally supported by separatist tendencies among such ethnic
groups as Syrians, Copts, and Armenians. Indeed, both Persians
and Arabs took care to keep Christians separated.
By the eighth century, we meet for the first time the
beginning of a split in Christianity which, from the start, took
on ethnic names instead of names designating the heresy itself or
its leader. Thus in West European sources we find a separation
between a Greek East and a Latin West. In Roman sources this same
separation constitutes a schism between Franks and Romans.
One detects in both terminologies an ethnic or racial basis
for the schism which may be more profound and important for
descriptive analysis than the doctrinal claims of either side.
Doctrine here may very well be part of a political, military, and
ethnic struggle and, therefore, intelligible only when put in
proper perspective. The interplay between doctrine and ethnic or
racial struggle may be such that the two can be distinguished,
but not separated.
The schism between Eastern and Western Christianity was not
between East and West Romans. In actuality, it was a split
between East Romans and the conquerors of the West Romans.
The Roman Empire was conquered in three stages: 1st by
Germanic tribes who became known as Latin Christianity, 2nd by
Muslim Arabs, and finally, by Muslim Turks. In contrast to this,
the ecclesiastical administration of the Roman Empire disappeared
in stages from West European Romania (the Western part of the
Roman nation), but has survived up to modern times in the Roman
Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and
Jerusalem.
The reason for this is that the conquerors of the West Romans
used the Church to suppress the Roman nation, whereas under Islam
the Roman nation survived by means of the Church. In each
instance of conquest, the bishops became the ethnarchs of the
conquered Romans and administered Roman law on behalf of the
emperor in Constantinople. As long as the bishops were Roman, the
unity of the Roman Church was preserved, in spite of theological
conflicts. The same was true when Romanized Franks became bishops
during Merovingian times and shared with Roman bishops church
administration.
During the seventh century, however, the seeds of schism
appear. The Visigoths in Spain had abandoned their Arian heresy
and had become nominally Orthodox. But they preserved their Arian
customs of church administration, which became that of the
Carolingian Franks, and finally, of the Normans. The Visigoths
began subjugating the Spanish Romans by replacing Roman bishops
with Goths and by 654, had abolished Roman law.
During this same century, especially after 683, the Franks
also had appointed Frankish bishops en masse and had rid
their government administration of Roman officials.
Earlier, during the sixth and early seventh century,
rebellions of leaders in Francia were joint conspiracies of
Franks and Romans. By 673, however, the rebellions had become
purely Frankish.
The fact that Constantinople sent its navy twice to Spain at
the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century to
reestablish the beachhead lost in 629 is testimony to the plight
of Roman Christians in Spain. In the face of the victorious
Arabs, who had completed their conquest of the Middle East and
had driven across Northern Africa, within striking distance of
Carthage, Constantinople seemed ill-prepared for such military
ventures into Spain. However, judging from the pattern of events,
it seems that these attempted East Roman landings in Spain were
supposed to touch off a general uprising of the Christian and
Jewish Romans in Spain and Gaul against Visigothic and Frankish
rule. The success of such rebellions in Spain and Gaul would
perhaps have helped Constantinople in stemming the Arab tidal
wave, which at times seemed to swamp the whole empire.
At the Seventeenth Council of Toledo in 694, the Jews were
condemned to slavery because they had confessed to a plot to
overthrow the 'Christians' (meaning Goths) in Spain, with the
help of "those who dwelt in lands beyond the sea," the
Roman, and not the later Arabic province of Africa, as is
commonly believed. The Arabs at this time had not yet reached
Carthage, the capital of this province or exarchate. Egica
(687-701), the Gothic king, had fought off an attempt by the East
Roman navy to reinstall the beachhead lost in 629. There can be
no doubt that the Jews were condemned at this Seventeenth Council
of Toledo in 694 for plotting with Constantinople and Spanish
Romans for the overthrow of Gothic rule in Spain.
King Witiza (701-708/9), the son of Egica, also defeated an
East Roman attempt to liberate some of the cities in Southern
Spain. Since 698 the Arabs were in firm control of Carthage and
its environs and were establishing their control in the area of
Ceuta.
These attempts of Constantinople failed, and the Roman Berber
(Numedian) governor of Ceuta[ 1 ]in 711, and a
bit later, the Gallo Romans, chose what seemed the lesser evil by
establishing ad hoc alliances with the Arabs against
Visigoths and Franks. These Roman Arab alliances overthrew
Visigothic rule in Spain (711-719), but were defeated by the
Frank warlord Charles Martel, first at Poitiers in 732, and then
in Provence in 739.
The Roman revolts reduced Francia to the northern kingdoms of
Austrasia and Neutrasia. Eudo, the Roman duke of Aquitane, who
made the first mentioned alliance with the Arabs against the
Franks[ 2 ], had temporarily
occupied Paris itself in an attempt to keep the pro-Roman
Merovingian Franks in power. It fell to Charles Martel, Pippin
III, and Charlemagne to restore Frankish rule over Burgundy,
Auvergne, Aquitane, Gascony, Septimania, and Provence.
Carolingian feudalism had its origin in the need to prevent
the disaster which had overtaken the Visigoths in Spain. The
Franks were obliged to develop and extend the already existing
system of controlling slave populations. Their goal was to keep
the Romans subjugated and pacified, first in Austrasia and
Neustrasia, and then elsewhere in Gaul, and, finally, in Northern
Italy, as circumstances permitted.[ 3 ]
While still consolidating their grip on Gaul, the Franks
conquered Northern and Central Italian Romania in the middle of
the eighth century, in the guise of liberators of Italic of Papal
Romania from Lombard oppression. At this time, the papacy was
deeply involved in the iconoclastic controversy, having taken a
firm stand, against the Roman emperors and patriarchs of New Rome
who supported the iconoclastic movement.
The Franks applied their policy of destroying the unity
between the Romans under their rule and the Romans under the rule
of Constantinople and the Arabs. They played one Roman party
against the other, took neither side, and finally condemned both
the iconoclasts and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod (786/7) at their
own Council of Frankfurt in 794, in the presence of the legates
of Pope Hadrian I (771-795), the staunch supporter of Orthodox
practice.
In the time of Pippin of Herestal (697-715) and Charles Martel
(715-741), many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were
military leaders who, according to Saint Boniface, "shed the
blood of Christians like that of the pagans."[ 4 ]
In order to defend itself against foreign interference and
protect itself from the fate of conquered Romans elsewhere, the
papacy promulgated electoral laws in 769, according to which
candidates for the papal dignity had to be cardinal deacons or
presbyters of the city of Rome, and Romans by birth. Only Roman
nationals were allowed to participate in the elections. Thirteen
Frankish bishops were in attendance when these decisions were
made.[ 5 ]
Meanwhile, Roman revolutionary activity in Gaul had not yet
been fully suppressed. Pippin III had died the year before and
Charlemagne and his brother Carloman had taken over the rule of
Austrasia and Neustria. Within the surprisingly short period of
only twenty-two years, from 732 to 754, the Franks had defeated
the Roman-Arab alliance, swamped all the provinces of Gaul, and
had swept into Northern Italy. This was made possible by the new
feudal order which was first established in Austrasia and
Neustria. The Roman administrative units of the civitates
were abolished and replaced by the military comitates. The
former free Romans were transferred en masse from the
cities and were established on the slave labor camps called villae
and mansi, alongside the serfs. They were called villeins (villains),
a term which, for understandable reasons, came to mean enemies of
law and order.
The Visigoths in Spain were overthrown by the Romans, who
opened their city gates to the Berbers and Arabs. The Franks
reacted with determination to avoid the occurrence of the same in
Francia (Land of the Franks) by abolishing Roman urban society.
By the middle of the eighth century, the Frankish armies of
occupation were overextended far beyond Austrasia and Neustria,
where the main body of their nation was established. They could
not yet afford to take over the church administration of Papal
Romania as they had done elsewhere. It was expedient to play the
part of liberators for the time being. Therefore, they appointed
the Roman pope as a vassal of Francia.
The measure of freedom left to the Romans in Papal Romania
depended on their right to have their own Roman pope, bishops,
and clergy. To lose this right would have been tantamount to the
same loss of freedom suffered by their compatriots in Northern
Italy and Francia. Therefore, they had to be very careful not to
incite the Franks.
An unsuccessful attempt was made on the life of Pope Leo III
(795-816), the successor of Hadrian. Pope Leo was then accused of
immoral conduct. Charlemagne took a personal and active interest
in the investigations which caused Leo to be brought to him in
Paderborn. Leo was sent back to Rome, followed by Charlemagne,
who continued the investigations. The Frankish king required
finally that Leo swear to his innocence on the Bible, which he
did on December 23, 800. Two days later Leo crowned Charlemagne
'Emperor of the Romans.'
Charlemagne wanted the title 'Emperor', but not that of
'Emperor of the Romans'. His biographer Einhard claims that had
Charlemagne known what the pope was up to, he would not have
entered the church.[ 6 ]
Charlemagne had arranged to get the title 'Emperor' in
exchange for Leo's exoneration. Leo almost spoiled things because
Charlemagne wanted the title recognized by Constantinople-New
Rome whose real 'Emperor of the Romans' would never recognize
this full title for a Frank. This is why Charlemagne never used
this title in his official documents, using instead the titles
'Emperor and Augustus, who governs' or 'administers the Roman
Empire'. By claiming that he ruled the Roman Empire, Charlemagne
thus clearly meant that he governed the whole Roman
Empire. The Franks decided that the Eastern part of the Empire
had become 'Greek', and its leader, an emperor of 'Greeks'. This
is why Otto III (983-1002) is described in the year 1000 by his
chronicler as 'visiting the Roman Empire', meaning, simply, the
Papal States.[ 7 ]
The Romans called their empire Romania and respublica.
The Franks reserved these names exclusively for the Papal States
and literally condemned the Eastern part of the Empire to be Graecia.[ 8 ] The Franks were very careful to always condemn
'Greeks' as heretics, but never Romans, although East and West
Romans were one nation. Thus at the Council of Frankfurt (794),
the Franks condemned the 'Greeks' and their Seventh Ecumenical
Synod in the presence of the legates of the Roman Pope Hadrian
II, an aggressive promoter of this same Seventh Ecumenical Synod.
Hadrian had already excommunicated all those who had not
accepted the Seventh Ecumenical Synod. Technically the Franks
were in a state of excommunication. But to implement this would
have brought down upon Papal Romania and her citizens the wrath
of Frankish feudalism, as had been the fate of the Romans in the
rest of Francia (Gallia, Germania, and Italia).
Charlemagne had also caused the Filioque to be added to the
Frankish Creed, without consulting the pope. When the controversy
over this addition broke out in Jerusalem, Charlemagne convoked
the Council of Aachen in 809 and decreed that this addition was a
dogma necessary for salvation. With this fait accomplit
under his belt, he tried to pressure Pope Leo III into accepting
it.[ 9 ]
Leo rejected the Filioque not only as an addition to the
Creed, but also as dogma, claiming that the Fathers left it out
of the Creed neither out of ignorance, nor out of negligence, nor
out of oversight, but on purpose and by divine inspiration.
What Leo is clearly saying, but in diplomatic terms, is that
the addition of the Filioque to the Creed is a heresy. The Franks
were a too dangerous a presence in Papal Romania, so Leo acted as
Hadrian had done before him. Leo did not reject the Filioque
outside of the Creed, since there is in the West Roman tradition
an Orthodox Filioque which was, and is, accepted as such by the
East Romans until today. However, this West Roman Orthodox
Filioque could not be added to the Creed where the term
procession had a different meaning. In other words in a wrong
context.
In any event, Charlemagne cared very little about the pope's
thoughts on icons and the Filioque. He needed the condemnation of
the East Romans as heretics in order to prove that they were no
longer Romans, but Greeks, and he succeeded in getting this in
the only way the Frankish mind at this time could devise.
Believing that the Franks would eventually take over the Papacy,
he knew that future Frankish popes would accept what Roman popes
of his day had rejected. Charlemagne in his youth heard stories
of his father's and uncle's struggles to save Francia from the
Roman revolutions, which had destroyed Visigothic rule in
Hispanic Gothia (Spain) and had almost destroyed the Franks in
Gaul.
Many historians take for granted that, by this time, the
Franks and Romans in Gaul had become one nation, and that the
Romans were supposedly included under the name Frank or populus
Francorum.
So there is not doubt about the identity of the
revolutionaries in Gaul, we quote a contemporary Frankish
chronicler who reports that in 742, the year of Charlemagne's
birth, the Gascons rose in revolt under the leadership of
Chunoald, the duke of Aquitaine and son of Eudo, mentioned above.
Charlemagne's father and uncle "united their forces and
crossed the Loire at the city of Orleans. Overwhelming the
Romans, they made for Bourges."[ 10 ]Since
Chunoald is here described as a beaten Roman, this means that his
father Eudo was also a Roman, and not a Frank, as claimed by
some.
The resulting Carolingian hatred for Romans is reflected in
Charlemagne's Libri Carolini and in Salic law, and is
clearly expressed by Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona, during the
following century, as we shall have occasion to see.
Meanwhile, the West Romans and the pope continued to pray in
church for their emperor in Constantinople. Even the Irish prayed
for the Imperium Romanum. However, when the emperor
supported a heresy like iconoclasm, West Romans stopped praying
for him and prayed only for the Imperium.
The name Roman had come to mean Orthodox, while the name
Greek, from the time of Constantine the Great, meant pagan.[ 11 ] By Frankish logic this meant that if the East
Romans became heretics, this would be proof that they had given
up Roman nationality and that their empire was no longer Romania.
Thus, West Roman prayers would no longer apply to a heretical
emperor of 'Greeks', but to the Orthodox Frankish emperor of
'doctrinally true' Romans. Also part of Frankish logic was the
belief that God grants conquests to the orthodox and defeats to
the heretics. This supposedly explains the explosive growth of
Franacia already described, but also the shrinkage of Romania at
the hands of the Germanic and Arabic tribes.
These Frankish principles of reasoning are clearly spelled out
in a letter of Emperor Louis II (855-875) to Emperor Basil I
(867-886) in 871. Louis calls himself "Emperor Augustus of
the Romans" and demotes Basil to "Emperor of New
Rome." Basil had poked fun at Louis, insisting that he was
not even emperor in all of Francia, since he ruled only a small
part of it, and certainly was not emperor of the Romans, but of
the Franks. Louis argued that he was emperor in all of Francia
because the other Frankish kings were his kinsmen by blood. He
makes the same claim as that found in the Annals of Lorsch:
he who holds the city of Old Rome is entitled to the name
"Emperor of the Romans." Louis claimed that : "We
received from heaven this people and city to guide and (we
received) the mother of all the churches of God to defend and
exalt."
Louis claimed that Rome, its people, and the papacy were given
to the Franks by God because of their orthodox beliefs and were
taken by God away from the 'Greeks', who used to be Romans when
they were orthodox.
Louis responded by saying: "We have received the
government of the Roman Empire for our orthodoxy. The Greeks have
ceased to be emperors of the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only
have they deserted the city (Rome) and the capital of the Empire,
but they have also abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin
language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up
a completely different nationality and language."[ 12 ]
These remarks explain the Frankish use of the name Romania for
territories they conquered from the East Romans and Turks during
their so-called crusades. These provinces, and the Greek
language, now become once again Romania because the Frankish
armies had restored them to the 'orthodoxy' of the Frankish
Papacy and to the 'supremacy' of the Latin language.[ 13 ]
Emperor Basil I fully understood the dangers of Frankish plans
revealed in the letter of Emperor Louis II and answered by
sending his army to expel the Arabs from Southern Italy in 876.
Frankish occupation of Papal Romania and Arab pressure from the
South had put a tremendous strain on the papacy, and gave rise to
a pro-Frankish party of Romans who managed to elect Nicholas I
(858-867) as pope.
However, with the Roman army now established in the south, the
papacy gained enough freedom and independence to react
doctrinally to the Franks on the questions of icons and the
Filioque. Pope John VIII (872-882) felt strong enough to
participate in the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879 in
Constantinople, which condemned Charlemagne's Councils of
Frankfurt (794) and Aachen (809). However, this Synod of
Constantinople did not mention these Frankish Councils or the
Franks by name. It simply condemned and excommunicated all those
who rejected the Seventh Ecumenical Synod[ 14 ]
and altered the Creed, either by addition or by deletion.[ 15 ]
Pope John VIII was on good terms with the Frankish rulers and
kept them pleased with gifts of the title emperor. He never
ceased to appeal to them for aid against the Saracens. The Franks
were not as powerful then as they were in the time of
Charlemagne, but they were still dangerous, and could be useful.
In a private letter to Patriarch Photios (858-867, 877-886),
Pope John VIII assured his colleague that the Filioque was never
added to the Creed in Rome (as had been done by the Franks when
they feudalized Northern Italy), that it was a heresy, but that
the question should be handled with great caution..."so that
we will not be forced to allow the addition..."[ 16 ] This papal letter was added at the end of the
minutes of the Synod and explains why the Synod did not name the
heretics who were condemned.[ 17 ]
Pope John also proposed to this same Synod of Constantinople
the adoption of two of the provisions of the 769 decree on papal
elections by a college of cardinal clergy already mentioned.
However, they were to be applied to the election of the Patriarch
of Constantinople. One proposed canon forbids the candidacy of
laymen. The second restricts candidacy to the cardinal clergy of
the city of Constantinople.[ 18 ] Both papal
proposals were rejected as inapplicable to New Rome, but accepted
as applicable to Old Rome.[ 19 ] Thus in this
indirect manner, the 769 decree on papal elections became part of
Roman law when the acts of this Synod were signed by the emperor.
Pope John could not directly petition that the 769 papal
election law be incorporated into Roman law, since this would be
tantamount to an admission that for more than a hundred years
popes were being elected illegally. It appears that Franks and
pro-Frankish Romans had been promoting the argument that papal
election practice was neither that of the East Roman
Patriarchates, nor legal, since not a part of Roman law. Now it
was at least part of Roman law.
It was very important for the Romanism and Orthodoxy of the
papacy that it remain self-perpetuating, without the possibility
of infiltration by pro-Franks such as Nicholas I, or even of a
Frankish takeover, if clergy from outside of the papacy could
become candidates, as had happened in the East where it was
permissible for a presbyter of one Patriarchate to become
patriarch of another.
In addition, the canons which forbid the transference of
bishops became extremely important. The successor of John VIII
was not recognized as pope by Emperor Basil I because he had been
bishop and had become pope by transference.
The sixth and seventh centuries witnessed a continuing
controversy in Francia over the place of the Frankish king in the
election of bishops. One party insisted that the king had no part
in the elections. A second group would allow that the king simply
approve the elections. A third group would give the king veto
power over elections. A fourth group supported the right of the
kings to appoint the bishops. Gregory of Tours and most members
of the senatorial class belonged to this fourth group. However,
while supporting the king's right to appoint bishops, Gregory of
Tours protested against the royal practice of selling bishoprics
to the highest bidder.
From the time of St. Gregory the Great, the popes of Old Rome
tried to convince the Frankish kings to allow the election of
bishops according to canon law by the clergy and people. Of
course, the Frankish kings knew very well that what the popes
wanted was the election of bishops by the overwhelming Roman
majority. However, once the Franks replaced the Roman bishops and
reduced the populus Romanorum to serfdom as villeins,
there was no longer any reason why the canons should not apply.
Thus Charlemagne issued his capitulary of 803, which restored the
free election of bishops by the clergy and people secunda
statuta canonum. Charlemagne restored the letter of
the law, but both its purpose and that of the popes were
frustrated. The church in Francia remained in the grip of a
tyrannical Teutonic minority.
It is within such a context that one can appreciate the
appearance of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, a large collection
of forged documents, mixed with and fused into authentic ones
compiled and in use by 850.
Incorporated into this collection was the forgery known as the
Donation of Constantine whose purpose was to prevent the Franks
from establishing their capital in Rome. This is strongly
indicated by the fact that Otto III (983-1002), whose mother was
an East Roman, declared this document a forgery as part of his
reason for establishing Old Rome as his capital. Constantine the
Great allegedly gave his imperial throne to the pope and his
successors because "it is not right that an earthly emperor
would have power in a place where the government of priests and
the head of the Christian religion has been established by the
heavenly Emperor." For this reason he moved his "empire
and power" to Constantinople. And it was hoped that the
Franks would fall for the ruse and leave Rome to the Romans.
Translated into feudal context, the Decretals supported the
idea that bishops, metropolitans or archbishops, patriarchs and
popes are related to each other as vassals and lords in a series
of pyramidal relations, similar to Frankish feudalism, except
that the pope is not bound by the hierarchical stages and
procedures and can intervene directly at any point in the
pyramid. He is at the same time the pinnacle, and directly
involved by special juridical procedure in all levels. Clergy are
subject only to the church tribunals. All bishops have the right
of appeal directly to the pope who alone is the final judge. All
appeals to lower level church courts are to be reported to the
pope. Even when no appeal is made, the pope has the right to
bring cases before his tribunal.
The throne of Saint Peter was transferred to Rome from
Antioch. Constantine the Great gave his throne to Pope Silvester
I and his successors in Rome. Thus the pope sat simultaneously on
the thrones of Saints Peter and Constantine. What more powerful
rallying point could there be fore that part of the Roman nation
subjugated to Teutonic oppression?
The Decretals were strongly resisted by powerful members of
the Frankish hierarchy. However, they very quickly had wide
distribution and became popular with the oppressed. At times the
Frankish kings supported the Decretals against their own bishops
as their interests dictated. They were also supported by pious
Frankish clergy and laymen, and even by Frankish bishops who
appealed to the pope in order to nullify decisions taken against
them by their metropolitans.
The forged parts of these Decretals were written in Frankish
Latin, an indication that the actual work was done in Francia by
local Romans. The fact that the Franks accepted the Decretals as
authentic, although not in the interests of their feudal
establishment, means clearly that they were not a party to the
forgery. The Franks never suspected the forgery until centuries
later.
Both Old and New Rome knew that these Decretals were
forgeries.[ 20 ] Roman procedure for
verification of official texts can leave no doubt about this.
Therefore, it is very possible that agents of Constantinople, and
certainly, agents of Old Rome, had a hand in the compilation.
The strongest argument that Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims
(845-882) could conjure up against the application of these
Decretals in Francia was that they applied only to Papal Romania.
He made a sharp distinction between canons of Ecumenical Synods,
which are immutable and applicable to the whole Church because
they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and laws which are limited
in their application to a certain era and to only a part of the
Church.[ 21 ] One can see why Hincmar's
contemporary, Pope John VIII (872-882), expressed to Patriarch
Photios his hope, that he, John, might be able to persuade the
Franks to omit the Filioque from the Creed. What Pope John did
not fully grasp was the determination with which the Franks
decided that the East Romans be only 'Greeks' and heretics, as is
clear from the Frankish tradition now inaugurated to write works
against the errors of the 'Greeks'.[ 22 ]
The Decretals were an attack on the very heart of the Frankish
feudal system, since they uprooted its most important
administrative officials, i.e., the bishops, and put them
directly under the control, of all things, of a Roman head
of state.
The astute Franks understood the danger very well. Behind
their arguments against the application of the Decretals in
Francia, one finds lurking two Frankish concerns. On the one
hand, they contended with a Roman pope, but on the other hand,
they had to take this pope very seriously because the villeins
could become dangerous to the feudal establishment if incited by
their ethnarch in Rome.
Pope Hadrian II (867-872), John VIII's predecessor, threatened
personally to restore Emperor Louis II (855-875) to his rightful
possession in Lotharingia, taken by Charles the Bald (840-875),
who had been crowned by Hincmar of Rheims (845-882).[ 23 ] Hincmar answered this threat in a letter to
the pope. He warned Hadrian not to try "to make slaves of us
Franks", since the pope's "predecessors laid no such
yoke on our predecessors, and we could not bear it...so we must
fight to the death for our freedom and birthright."[ 24 ]
Hincmar was not so much concerned with bishops becoming slaves
of the pope, but that a Roman should "make slaves of us
Franks."[ 25 ]
In 990, King Hugh Capet (987-996) of West Francia (Gaul or
Gallia) and his bishops applied to Pope John XV (985-996) for the
suspension of Archbishop Arnulf of Rheims as required by the
Decretals. Arnulf had been appointed by Hugh Capet, but
subsequently betrayed his benefactor, in favor of the Carolingian
Duke Charles of Lotharingia who was his uncle.
Impatient with the pope's eighteen month delay in making a
decision, Hugh Capet convened a council at Verzy near Rheims in
990. Arnulf pleaded guilty and begged for mercy. Nonetheless, a
group of abbots challenged the proceedings as illegal because
they were not consistent with the Decretals.[ 26 ]
The Council deposed Arnulf. Hugh Capet caused Gerbert de
Aurillac, the future Pope Silvester II, to be appointed in his
place.[ 27 ]
Pope John, however, rejected this council as illegal and
unauthorized. He sent a Roman abbot named Leo to depose Gerbert,
restore Arnulf, and pronounce suspension on all the bishops who
had taken part in the council. The pope's legate announced the
pope's decision at the Council of Mouson in 995.[ 28 ]
Gerbert vigorously defended himself.[ 29 ]
He rejected the papal decision in the presence of the papal
legate Leo and refused the advice of colleagues to desist from
his duties until the matter could be brought before the next
Council of Rheims. The bishop of Triers finally persuaded him not
to celebrate mass until the final decision on his case was
reached.[ 30 ]
Thus Gerbert was completely abandoned by both the
ecclesiastical and lay Frankish nobles who felt obliged to
display, at least publicly, their support for the pope's
decision. They even avoided every kind of contact with Gerbert.
But Abbot Leo had aroused the faithful in support of the pope who
sat on the thrones of Saints Peter and Constantine the Great. Out
of prudence, Gerbert went into seclusion.
At the next Council of Rheims in 996, Gerbert was deposed and
Arnulf was restored.[ 31 ]The Frankish
ecclesiastical nobility could not afford to oppose popular
support for the pope.
It seems that it was not popular superstition and piety alone
that was the foundation of the people's fervor for the pope, but
also the common Romanism the majority shared with the pope. It is
this Romanism which constituted the power basis for the papal
thrones of Saints Peter and Constantine the Great.
That the underlying problem was a clash between Romans and
Franks is clearly stated by Gerbert in a letter to Wilderod,
bishop of Strassburg. He writes: "The whole Church of the
West Franks lies under the oppression of tyranny. Yet remedy is
not sought from the West Franks, but from these (Romans)."[ 32 ] It is easy to understand the enthusiasm with
which the subject populus Romanorum welcomed the Roman
pope's interventions, punishing and humiliating Frankish nobles
guilty of injustice. That the legate Leo could reverse the
decisions of Hugh Capet and his bishops, and drive the nobility
into conformity and Gerbert into seclusion by means of the
faithful indicates that the makings of a revolution were present.
The Frankish establishment, however, had the power to react,
and it did so on two fronts. It stepped up its propaganda against
alleged papal "corruption" and, of all things,
"illiteracy," and made the decisive move to replace
Roman popes with alleged "pious" and
"literate" Germanic popes.
The alleged corrupt Roman popes could have been replaced by
pious Roman popes. At the time there were at least some 200
monasteries and 50,000 Roman monks south of Rome.[ 33 ] But this was exactly the danger that had to be avoided.
The Decretals in the hands of the pious Roman popes were even
more dangerous than when in the hands of corrupt ones. The
purpose of this smear campaign was to shatter the people's
confidence in the Roman Papacy and justify the need to cleanse it
with "virtuous" and "literate" Lombards, and
East and West Franks.
Otto II (973-983) had appointed a Lombard, Peter of Pavia to
the papacy in 983. He became the first non-Roman pope as John XIV
(983-984), and thus provoked a revolution of the Roman populace
aided by Constantinople. However, it took another forty years for
the noble vassals of King Robert the Pious (996-1031) to get up
enough Christian courage to take an oath that they would no
longer violate "noble women." They were careful not to
include villeins and serf women in the oath.
The concern of the Frankish bishops for the morality of Roman
popes is quite interesting, as they did not seem concerned with
their own morality when passing the death sentence in their
episcopal courts. Charlemagne's many wives and fifteen
illegitimate children were taken in stride, together with the
fact that he forbade the marriage of his daughters. But
Charlemagne did not mind their having children, although he
castigated such practices in his capitularies.
At the Council of Rheims in 991, already mentioned, Arnuld,
the bishop of Orleans, lists and violently attacks the alleged
"corrupt" popes and, of course, praises Peter of Pavia,
i.e., Pope John XIV, the Lombard already mentioned. It is,
perhaps, not by accident that the allegedly corrupt popes were
attached to Constantinople and the pious one was a Lombard.
In this same speech, Arnulf remarks: "But as at this time
in Rome (as is publicly known) there is hardly anyone
acquainted with letters-without (as it is written) one may
hardly be a doorkeeper in the house of God-with what face may he
who has himself learnt nothing set himself up as a teacher of
others? Of course, in comparison with the Roman pontiff,
ignorance is tolerable in other priests, but in the Roman (pope),
in him to whom it is given to pass in review the faith, the
morals, the discipline of the priesthood, indeed, of the
universal church, ignorance is in no way to be
tolerated." [ 34 ]
This deliberate fabrication should raise the question of the
veracity of such Frankish sources concerning the corruption and
illiteracy of Roman popes. Certainly many of them were neither
saints nor scholars, but it is likely that Frankish propaganda
exaggerates their weaknesses and it is certain that it does not
stop short of fabrication.
In this same speech Arnulf lists among the papal
"monsters" Pope John XII (955-964), who was put on
trial in 963 by Otto I (936-973) and condemned in absentia. The
report of Liutprand, the Lombard bishop of Cremona, that no proof
was necessary at the trial because the pope's alleged crimes were
publicly known may be indicative of the need to reexamine such
cases.
Perhaps the most important incentive for replacing Roman popes
with Franks and Lombards is that revealed by this same Liutprand,
a chief adviser to Otto I. He writes: "We...Lombards,
Saxons, Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians, Sueni, Burgundians,
have so much contempt [for Romans and their emperors] that when
we become enraged with our enemies, we pronounce no other insult
except Roman (nisi Romane), this alone, i.e., the name of
the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning:
whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and,
indeed whatever is evil."[ 35 ]
Perhaps the real reason that Pope John XII became the monster
of Frankish propaganda was that he dared restore the older
tradition of dating papal documents by the years of the reign of
the Roman emperor in Constantinople. In any case, Liutprand's
tirade against the Romans, just quoted, reveals the fact that he
knew very well that East and West Romans were one nation, and
that the emperor in Constantinople was the real emperor of the
Romans.
This tirade also reveals the fact that Liutprand was not aware
of the prevailing theory among modern European historians that
the Germanic nations became one nation with the Romans in Western
Europe. As is clear from Liutprand, the Germanic peoples of his
time would have been insulted by such claims.
Otto III (983-1002) solved the main problem of Frankdom in 996
by appointing to the papacy Bruno of Carinthia, an East Frank,
who, as Gregory V (996-999), demanded the reinstatement of Arnulf
as archbishop of Rheims. Thus Gerbert de Aurillac gave up trying
to be restored to Rheims. He was compensated, however, by his
fellow Frank, now on the papal throne, with confirmation of his
appointment as archbishop of Ravenna (998-999).
Upon the death of Bruno, Gerbert was appointed to the papacy
by Otto III and ruled Papal Romania as Silvester II (993-1003).
For European and American historians, this Silvester II is one of
the great popes in the history of the papacy. But for Romans, he
was the head of the Frankish army of occupation, and the pope who
introduced the feudal system of suppression into Papal Romania
and enslaved the Romans to the Frankish nobility. There was no
other way the people of Old Rome would accept Germanic popes.
In defending himself against the decision of the Roman pope,
John XV, the future Frankish Pope Gerbert d'Aurillac, staunchly
and eloquently supported the positions of Hincmar against the
universal application of the Decretals. When d'Aurillic became
Pope Silvester II, he found their universal application useful.
The Decretals in the hands of the Frankish Papacy, sealed the
tomb of the West Romans very firmly for many centuries.
Between the years 973-1003, and especially between 1003-1009,
the Romans of Papal Romania made valiant efforts to preserve
their freedom and independence from Frankish feudalism by having
or attempting to have their own popes; once, at least, with the
assistance of the East Roman army which had reached Rome and
entered the city. The German emperors, however, devised an
interim method of keeping the Romans somewhat pacified, by
confirming the election of Roman popes from the Roman Tusculan
family, which secured the papacy for itself, in exchange for the
betrayal of Constantinople and her Orthodoxy represented by the
Crescenti family. However, this temporary facade was abolished at
the Council of Sutri in 1046. Thenceforth, Germanic popes were
once again appointed by the German emperors, until the Normans
became the deciding factor in allowing the reformer Franks to
wrest the papacy from the imperial Germans. Even Italian popes
like Gregory VII are descended from the Frankish army of
occupation, established in Italy since the time of Charlemagne.
It is no wonder that Beatrice and Matilda, wife and daughter of
Boniface II, marquess of Tuscany, should become the great
supporters of the reformed Papacy, since this is also a Frankish
family established there since the ninth century.
The conclusions, I believe, seem clear. The underlying forces
which clashed on the battlefield were not the Decretals, canon
law, and the Filioque, but Romans and Franks. The Franks used
church structure and dogma in order to maintain their birthright,
to hold the Roman nation in "just subjection." The
Romans also used church structure and dogma to fight back for
their own freedom from oppression and for their independence.
Both sides used the most convenient weapons at hand. Thus, the
same canonical and decretal arguments are to be found now on one
side, now on the other, according to the current offensive and
defensive needs of each nation. The Filioque, however, became a
permanent feature of conflict between East Romans and Franks with
the West Romans attempting to side with the East Romans.
From all that has been pointed out, it should be evident that
there are strong indication that Roman historical terms are much
closer to the reality of the schism than is Frankish terminology.
The first is consistent with its own past, whereas the second is
a deliberate provocation of a break with the past.
To speak of the schism as a conflict between Franks and
Romans, to which theology was subjected as an offensive weapon on
the Frankish side, and as a defensive and counter-offensive
weapon on the Roman side, would seem close to taking a picture of
history with a movie camera. On the other hand, to speak of a
conflict between so-called "Latin" and
"Greek" Christianities is tantamount to commissioning
Charlemagne and his descendants to prophesy the future, and see
to it that the prophecy is fulfilled.
There is strong evidence that the higher and lower nobility of
European feudalism were mostly descendants of Germanic and Norman
conquerors, and that the serfs were mostly descendants of the
conquered Romans and Romanized Celts and Saxons. This explains
why the name Frank meant both noble and free in contrast to the
serfs. This usage was strong enough to get into the English
language by way of the Normans. Thus, even the African-American
was described as receiving his franchise when set free.
The implications are quite tantalizing when applied to the
task of understanding the framework of Frankish or Latin
Christianity and theology in relation to Roman Christianity and
theology. Feudalism, the Inquisition, and Scholastic theology
were clearly the work of the Franks, Germans, Lombards, Normans,
and Goths, who took over the Church and her property, and used
the religion of the Romans to keep the conquered Romans in a
servile state. In contrast to this, the Romans who were conquered
by Arab and Turkish Muslims, had their own Roman bishops. Thus in
the one case, the institutional aspects of Christianity became a
tool of suppression, and in the other, the means of national
survival.
Because it is impossible to believe that four Roman
Patriarchates broke away from a Frankish Papacy, the Franks were
forced to forge the somewhat more believable myth that four
"Greek" Patriarchates broke away from a so-called Roman
but, in reality, Frankish Papacy. European and American
historians continue to teach and support this.
The schism began when Charlemagne ignored both Popes Hadrian I
and Leo III on doctrinal questions and decided that the East
Romans were neither Orthodox nor Roman. Officially, this Frankish
challenge was answered at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod in 879 by
all five Roman Patriarchates, including that of Old Rome.
There was no schism between the Romans of Old and New Rome
during the two and a half centuries of Frankish and German
control over Papal Romania.[ 36 ]
The so-called split between East and West was, in reality, the
importation into Old Rome of the schism provoked by Charlemagne
and carried there by the Franks and Germans who took over the
papacy.
The atmosphere for dialogue between Old and New Rome may be
cleared by the realization that the so-called "French"
Revolution was essentially not much different from the so-called
"Greek' Revolution. One was a revolt of Romans against their
Frankish conquerors, and the other, a revolt of Romans against
their Turkish conquerors.
It would seem that there is a much stronger unity among the
Romans extending from the Atlantic to the Middle East than there
can ever exist among those working for a union based on only a
Charlemagnian Europe.
Perhaps the best path to the political reunion of Europe is to
first realize that the already existing Roman Republics should,
and can, unite into a Federation of Roman Republics. In other
words, the so-called "French" and "Greek"
Revolutions must be completed by becoming a Roman Revolution.
However, the path to the reunion of Christianity is not at all
political or ethnic in nature. The Church's involvement in
politics, and state structures for the preservation or the
suppression of Roman society produced an interplay between church
and society, but not necessarily between dogma and society.
The Medieval papacy incorporated the feudal structure into her
fabric of administration and elevated it to the level of dogma.
The Orthodox Churches have also been adapting themselves to
changing circumstances which affect their administrative fabric
also, but have left this at the level of canon law.
The Protestant churches have rejected not only the dogmatic
aspects of the Medieval papal administrative structure, but, on
the whole, they have rejected the Orthodox development also, and
have attempted to go back to what they understand to be Biblical
or Apostolic Christianity.
Thus, Roman Orthodox and so-called "Roman Catholics"
find themselves heirs to differences due to historical
circumstances, and Protestants see themselves as a series of
third alternatives.
|
[ 2 ] "When Duke Eudo saw that he was beaten
and an object of scorn, he summoned to his assistance against
Prince Charles and his Franks the unbelieving Saracen people. So
they rose up...and crossed the Garonne...From thence they
advanced on Poitiers..." Fredegarii, Chronica
Continuationes 13, trans. J.M. Wallace-Hadril (London, 1960),
p. 90
[ 3 ] On the origins of European feudalism, see my
books Romanism, Romania, Roumeli (in Greek) (Thessaloniki,
1975).
[ 4 ] Migne, PL 89: 744.
[ 5 ] F. Mourret, A History of the Catholic
Church, 3 (London, 1936), pp. 351-55. The main conditions of
this decree were restated in 817 in an agreement between Louis
the Pious (814-840) and Pope Paschal I (817-824), but reversed in
824 by Emperor Lothar (823-855) who added the provision that the
pope was to be elected with his consent and consecrated after
swearing an oath of fealty. Brian Pullan, Sources for the
History of Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1971), pp. 47-52.
[ 6 ] It is within such a context that the seeming
contradiction between Einhard and the Annals of Lorsch may
be resolved.
[ 7 ] Thietmar of Mersebourg, Chronicon,
4.47; Brian Pullan, Sources for the History of Medieval Europe
(Oxford, 1971), pp. 120-121.
[ 8 ] John S. Romanides, Romanism, pp.33,
50-51, 205-249.
[ 9 ] For a review of the historical and doctrinal
aspects of this question, see J.S. Romanides, The Filioque,
Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussions, St. Albans
1975-Moscow 1976 (Athens, 1978).
[ 10 ] Fredegarii, Chronica Continuationes
25.
[ 11 ] Thus Saint Athanasios the Great's work
entitled Discourse against the Greeks, Migne, PG 25: 3-96.
[ 12 ] Pullan, Sources, pp. 16-17.
[ 13 ] Romanides, Romanism, pp. 224- 249.
[ 14 ] Mansi, 17. 493-496.
[ 15 ] Ibid., 17.516-517.
[ 16 ] Ibid., 17.525. Romanides, Romanism,
p. 62ff.
[ 17 ] It has been argued that the surviving
version of this letter is a product of the fourteenth century.
However, the letter fits in quite snugly with the conditions of
Papal Romania at this time and could not have been known by
either the Franks or East Romans in the fourteenth century.
[ 18 ] Mansi 17.489.
[ 19 ] Ibid., Romanides, Romanism, pp.
149-50,, 325-27.
[ 20 ] It is no accident that Otto III declared
the Donation of Constantine to be a forgery, as already
mentioned, a fact he probably learned from his East Roman mother
and tutors. However, he evidently never suspected that the rest
of the decretals had been tampered with.
[ 21 ] Hincmar's copious arguments are contained
in his writings about his nephew's illegal appeal to the pope, Opuscula
et Epistolae quae spectant ad causam Hincmari Laudunensis,
Migne, PL 126:279-648.
[ 22 ] Of these, the following three survive: 1) Responsio
De Fide S. Trinitatis Contra Graecorum Haeresim, Migne, PL
110:111-112; 2) Ratramnus of Corbie, Contra Graecorum
Opposita, Migne, PL 121:225-346; 3) Aeneas of Paris, Liber
Adversus Graecos, Migne, PL 121:685-762.
[ 23 ] Mansi 16.555-60.
[ 24 ] "...nos Francos non jubeat servire,
quia istud jugam sui antecessores nostris antecessoribus non
imposuerunt, et nos illud portare non possumus, qui scriptum esse
in sanctis libris audimus, ut pro libertate et haereditate nostra
usque ad mortem certare debeamus." Migne, PL 126:181.
[ 25 ] Mansi 19.97-100.
[ 26 ] It is interesting to carefully note that
Richerus (Historiae 68), a student of Gerbert, reports that the
abbotts were answered by the claim that it was impossible to
notify the Roman pontiff about the matter because of obstacles
caused by enemies and the bad conditions of the roads.
[ 27 ] Mansi 19.103-08. For Gerbert's own
spontaneous version of the proceedings, see his report to
Wilderod, bishop of Strassbourg. Mansi 19.107-68. It is clear
that Richerus s attempting to cast the factual material in such a
way as to cover up the clash that was in process between the West
Frankish establishment and the Roman papacy. This is nowhere so
much in evidence as in the fact that he carefully avoids
mentioning that Gerbert and the bishops who ordained him were
deposed by Pope John XV, a fact which Gerbert himself complains
about in his letter to Empress Adelaide. Mansi 19.176-78.
[ 28 ] Mansi 19.193-96. This evidence should be
used in the light of Gerbert's letter to Empress Adelaide,
already mentioned in the previous footnote. Richerus makes a
feeble attempt to present pope John as having sent Leo to simply
investigate the matter at the Council of Mouzon (Historiae 4.95)
and for this reason the text of the Papal decision had to be omitted
from his acts of the Council. One can understand why this text
has also disappeared from the Papal archives most probably when
Bruno of Carinthia or Gerbert himself took over the Papacy.
[ 29 ] Richerus, Historiae 4.101-05. Mansi
19.193-96.
[ 30 ] Mansi 19.196. Richerus gives us an
important key to these deliberations. Gerbert finally promised to
abstain from the celebration of mass in order to avoid the
appearance of an open revolt against the pope. Historiae
4.106. In other words, there was a general agreement among the
lay and church nobles (i.e., the Franks) that the pope and the
Gallo-Roman (Walloon) multitude are to be out-flanked, and for
this reason, a final decision was at all costs avoided. That a
Frankish candidate for the Papacy was being prepared for the
succession of John XV was perhaps already decided upon and known
by key Frankish leaders. In order to govern the predominantly
Roman multitude effectively, the Franks had to always give the
impression that they were faithful and obedient to the Roman
pope.
[ 31 ] Mansi 19.197-200. Richerus mentions this
council, but is silent about its decisions. Historiae
4.108. As already mentioned, he carefully avoids giving out the
information that Gerbert was suspended by John XV. By not
mentioning the death of this pope, Richerus gives us the
impression that Gerbert twice visited the same papacy, which also
recognized his appointment to the Archbishopric of Ravenna.
[ 32 ] "Pressa jacet tyrannide omnis Ecclesia
Gallorum; atqui non a Gallis, sed ab his sperabatur salus,"
Mansi 19.166. Gallia, Germania, and Italia were parts of the
Frankish Empire ruled in the past by members of the Carolingian
families. Within this context, Ecclesia Gallorum signifies
the Church of the West Franks and certainly not the French, who
at this time were predominantly the Gallo-Roman serfs and
villeins under Frankish rule. This is clear from the use of the
title Rex Francorum by the Capetian Kings. See, e.g.,
Mansi, 19.93-94, 97, 105, 107-08, 113, 129, 171-72, 173-74.
[ 33 ] F. Mourret, A History of the Catholic
Church, 3 (London, 1936), p. 439; J. Gay, L'Italie
Meridionale et L'Empire Byzantine (867-1071) (Paris,
1904), p. 285.
[ 34 ] Mansi 19.132-33.
[ 35 ] Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana
12. Migne, PL 136. 815
[ 36 ] In his letter to Emperor Michael I
(811-813), Charlemagne refers to the restoration of the unity of
the Churches within the context of the establishment of peace
between the Western and Eastern Empires, Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Epistolae 4, p. 556ff. Charlemagne is here
thinking in terms of the Frankish West and the Roman or Greek
East and not of Old and New Rome. Pope Leo III had never accepted
Charlemagne's doctrinal adventures about icons and the Filioque,
and the East Roman Patriarchs desisted from reacting against
them, evidently in support of the delicate and dangerous position
of the West Romans under Frankish occupation. In any event,
Charlemagne's remarks are his own admission that he himself had
provoked a schism which existed only in his own mind, since all
five Roman Patriarchs avoided being provoked, and seemed not to
take the Franks doctrinally serious at that time. For an English
translation of this letter, see Robert Folz, The Coronation of
Charlemagne (London, 1974), pp. 242-43.
|
 © HydroGraphiX. |
 "Romanity". |