16,951
edits
Changes
m
link
Most of the direct causes of the Great Schism, however, are far less grandiose than the famous ''filioque''. The relations between the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the years leading up to 1054. The emperor [[Constantine IX]] and the Pope [[Leo IX]] were allied through the mediation of the Lombard catepan of Italy, Argyrus, who had spent years in Constantinople, originally as a political prisoner. Leo and Argyrus led armies against the ravaging Normans, but the papal forces were defeated at the Battle of Civitate in 1053, which resulted in the pope being imprisoned at Benevento, where he took it upon himself to learn Greek. Argyrus had not arrived at Civitate and his absence caused a rift in papal-imperial relations.
Meanwhile, the Normans were busy imposing Latin customs, including the unleavened bread—with papal approval. Patriarch [[Michael I Cerularius|Michael I]] then ordered [[Leo of Ochrid]], to write a letter to the [[bishop of Trani]], John, an Easterner, in which he attacked the "[[Judaizers|Judaistic]]" practices of the West, namely the use of unleavened bread. The letter was to be sent by John to all the bishops of the West, Pope included. John promptly complied and the letter was passed to one [[Humbert of Silva Candida|Humbert of Mourmoutiers]], the cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida, who was then in John's diocese. Humbert translated the letter into Latin and brought it to the pope, who ordered a reply to be made to each charge and a defence of papal supremacy to be laid out in a response.
Although he was hot-headed, Michael was convinced, probably by the Emperor and the bishop of Trani, to cool the debate and prevent the impending breach. However, Humbert and the pope made no concessions and the former was sent with legatine powers to the imperial capital to solve the questions raised once and for all. Humbert, Cardinal Frederick of Lorraine, later Pope Stephen IX, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi, set out in early spring and arrived in April 1054. Their welcome was not to their liking, however, and they stormed out of the palace, leaving the papal response with Michael, whose anger exceeded even theirs. The seals on the letter had been tampered with and the legates had published, in Greek, an earlier, far less civil, draft of the letter for the entire populace to read. The patriarch determined that the legates were worse than mere barbarous Westerners, they were liars and crooks. He refused to recognise their authority or, practically, their existence.<ref>[[John Julius Norwich|Norwich, John Julius]]. ''The Normans in the South 1016-1130''. (1967) pg 102.</ref>
