Michael I of Constantinople | |
|---|---|
| Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople | |
 The enthronement of Michael I, from theMadrid Skylitzes | |
| See | Constantinople |
| Installed | 25 March 1043 |
| Term ended | 2 November 1058 |
| Predecessor | Alexius of Constantinople |
| Successor | Constantine III of Constantinople |
| Personal details | |
| Born | Michael Cerularius c. 1000 |
| Died | 21 January 1059 (agedc. 59) Constantinople, Byzantine Empire |
| Nationality | Byzantine |
| Denomination | Eastern Orthodoxy |
| Residence | Constantinople |
Michael I of Constantinople (Cerularius orKeroularios;Greek:Μιχαὴλ Κηρουλάριος,romanized: Mikhaḗl Keroulários;c. 1000 – 21 January 1059) was theEcumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 1043 to 1059. His disputes withPope Leo IX over church practices in the 11th century played a role in the events that led to theGreat Schism in 1054.[1]
Michael Cerularius was born inConstantinople around 1000 and joined the Church at a young age.[citation needed]
Michael I quarreled with Pope Leo IX over church practices in which the Roman Church differed from Constantinople, particularly the use ofunleavened bread in theEucharist.[2] Dissenting opinions were also exchanged over other theological and cultural issues, ranging from the issue ofpapal supremacy in the Church to theFilioque clause and other disagreements between the patriarchates.[citation needed]
In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent a letter to Michael I, citing a large portion of theDonation of Constantine believing it genuine:[3]
Some scholars say that this letter of September 1053, the text of which is available inJacques Paul Migne,Patrologia Latina, vol. 143, coll. 744–769, was never actually dispatched, but was set aside, and that the papal reply actually sent was the softer but still harsh letterScripta tuae of January 1054.[4]
Pope Leo IX assured Michael I that the donation was completely genuine, not a fable or old wives' tale,[citation needed] arguing that only the apostolic successor toPeter possessed primacy in the Church.
This letter of Pope Leo IX addressed both to Patriarch Michael I and ArchbishopLeo of Ohrid, was in response to a letter sent by Archbishop Leo to Bishop John ofTrani that categorically attacked the customs of the Latin Church that differed from those of the Greeks. Especially criticised were the Roman traditions of fasting on theSaturday Sabbath and consecration of unleavened bread. Leo IX in his letter accused Constantinople of historically being a center of heresies (referring toNestorius,Acacius,Sergius I,John VII and otherpatriarchs who at various points supportedArianism,Monothelitism &iconoclasm) and claimed in emphatic terms theprimacy of thebishop of Rome over the patriarch of Constantinople. Michael I would have none of it. It can be argued that in 1054, Michael's letter to Leo IX initiated the events which followed because it claimed the title "Ecumenical patriarch" and addressed Pope Leo IX as "brother" rather than "father".[citation needed]
Pope Leo IX sent an official delegation on a legatine mission to meet with Michael I. Members of the papal delegation were CardinalHumbert of Silva Candida, papal secretaryFrederick of Lorraine, and Archbishop Peter ofAmalfi. Soon after their arrival in Constantinople, news was received that Pope Leo IX had died on 19 April. Since the official position and authority of papal legates was dependent upon the pope who authorised them to represent him, the news of Leo IX's death placed his envoys in an awkward position.[5] In spite of this, they decided to proceed with their mission, but even before any religious discussions were held, problems arose regarding some basic formalities and ceremonies. During the initial audience, Michael I refused to meet with papal envoys in their official capacity and left them waiting with no further audience for months.
During that time, from April to July 1054, Cardinal Humbert and his colleagues continued with their activities in Constantinople, taking part in informal religious discussions on various issues. This was seen as inappropriate by Patriarch Michael I. Despite the fact that their legatine authority officially ceased after the pope's death, Cardinal Humbert and his colleagues decided to engage in open dispute with the patriarch. On Saturday, 16 July 1054, they produced acharter ofexcommunication (lat.charta excommunicationis),[6] directed against Patriarch Michael I, ArchbishopLeo of Ohrid, and all of their followers. On the same day, Cardinal Humbert and his colleagues entered the church of theHagia Sophia during thedivine liturgy and placed the charter on the altar.[5]
Soon after that, the patriarch decided to react. On 20 July 1054, a synod of 21 metropolitans and bishops was held in Constantinople, presided over by Michael I. The council decided to excommunicate Cardinal Humbert and his colleagues.[7][8] Only the three men wereanathematised, and a general reference was made to all who support them - there was no explicitexcommunication of the entire Western Christianity, or of the Church of Rome. On Sunday 24 July, the conciliar anathema was officially proclaimed in the Hagia Sophia Church.
The events of 1054 caused theEast–West Schism and led to the end of the alliance between theByzantine emperors and thePopes. Later popes allied with theNormans against theByzantine Empire. Patriarch Michael I closed the Latin churches in his area, which exacerbated the schism. In 1965, those excommunications were rescinded byPope Paul VI andPatriarch Athenagoras following their 1964 meeting inJerusalem.[9]
Although the excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbert was invalid, the 1965 gesture represented a significant step towards restoringcommunion between Rome and Constantinople.[citation needed]
The short reign of the EmpressTheodora Porphyrogenita then saw Michael I intriguing against the throne.Michael Psellos notes that while their initial relations had been cordial, once Theodora took the throne, they entered into open conflict, as Michael I "was vexed because the Roman Empire was being governed by a woman", and on this topic "he spoke his mind freely".[10] The historian suggests that Theodora would have deposed Michael I for his open effrontery and sedition, had she lived longer.
Michael I had a hand in negotiating the abdication of Theodora's successor,Michael VI Bringas, convincing him to step down on 31 August 1057, in favour of the rebellious generalIsaac I Komnenos, for whom the army declared on 8 June,[11] and whom his nephewConstantine Keroularios supported. The emperor duly followed the patriarch's advice and became a monk. Having had a role in bringing him to the throne, Michael I soon quarrelled with Isaac I over confiscation of church property. Michael I went so far as to take the highly symbolic step of donning the purple shoes ceremonially reserved for the emperor. Michael I apparently planned a rebellion, intending to overthrow Isaac I and claim the throne for himself or for his relativeConstantine Doukas. Isaac I exiled Michael I toProconnesus in 1058 and, as Michael I refused to step down, had Michael Psellos drew up accusations of heresy and treason against him.[12] Michael I died before coming to trial. Soon after in the same year his maternal niece became EmpressEudokia Makrembolitissa.
Pope Paul VI met with the Eastern patriarch Athenagoras in Jerusalem in 1964. On 7 December 1965, Paul VI in Rome and Athenagoras in Constantinople revoked the mutual excommunication of each church by the other in 1054.
| Eastern Orthodox Church titles | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople 1043 – 1058 | Succeeded by |
