Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople

the sixth synod this matter was ventilated, and much more carefully under Photius; the union would certainly have been culpable. For it was right that what they judged to be wicked, they should either shun or correct, or at least attempt to make an amendment in words, if the matter happened to exceed our strength. But if the accusations were not harmless—which is incredible, as we conclude from the fact that they were allowed to go unpunished by the bishops for so long a time—why do the Greeks now reproach the Romans? You see, therefore, how the schisms enumerated thus far had their cause from our own people. For Photius, moved by hatred against Pope Nicholas, etc. ^B

16. Later, long afterwards, under the patriarch of Constantinople Cerularius, who flourished during the reign of Monomachus, as he writes to the prelate of Antioch, and to whom Peter himself wrote, after the accusations against the Latins were renewed, the Church of Constantinople completely severed itself from their communion, and the Pope was erased from the sacred diptychs.

YEAR OF OUR LORD 1055. MICHAEL CERULARIUS PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

NOTICE

Michael Cerularius held the see of Constantinople from the year 1045 to 1059 [when he died]. Against him, as the principal author of the schism—even worse than Photius—many inveigh, after Baronius: Allatius, *De consensu* II, 9; Stephanus de Altimura, or Michel Le Quien, in *Panoplia contra schisma Græcorum*, p. 214 sqq., 284 sqq., and others. And Nic. Comnenus, p. 561, *Prænot. myst.*, thus we hear: "His arrogance the royal power itself could not endure; the Byzantine Church detested his tyranny, and they took pains to erase his successors from the diptychs, until Michael of Anchialus secretly inscribed them all." Regarding his Epistle to John of Trani, bishop in Apulia, or to Pope Leo IX himself, translated into Latin by Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida, in which he objected various things against the Latins, see Mabillon, *pref. ad*...

^A part II *Act. sanctorum ordinis Benedictini* saeculi vi (from the year 1000 to 1100), and Allatius, *De libris Eccles. Graecor.* diss. 2, p. 158 sqq. (FABR.) In the Florentine codex Laurent. 40, no. 69, plut. 5, it is from the epistle of Michael, patriarch of Constantinople, beginning: "Exi των εκ του αυτου γενους", and no. 70 from another epistle of the same. See Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr. Laur.* I, p. 79, who cites Leunclavius, *Jus Gr. Roman.* lib. IV, p. 263 sq. (HARL.) The epistle of Michael Cerularius and Leo, bishop of Achrida, to John, bishop of Trani, in Basnage, *Thes. mon.* tom. III, p. I, p. 277 sqq.

Epistles II to Peter of Antioch (with Peter's responsoria against the Latins, pp. 145-162), in Greek and Latin in Cotelerius, tom. II, *Monument.*, pp. 135-145 and 162-168, of which the former is in Baronius, at the year 1054, in Latin, n. 28 sq. The latter is in a manuscript in the Imperial Library, Lambec. III, p. 160, and at the same time a third, still unpublished, which begins: "Πρὸ καιροῦ τινος ἀναμαθόντες παρὰ τῶν ἐκ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ρώμης." The beginning of the first, edited by Cotelerius: "Τὰ γράμματα τῆς μακαριότητός σου." The second: "Οὐ παύσεταί ποτε τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμῶν ἐπιβουλῶν." (FABR.) Or, p. 597 of the edition of Kollar, on codex LXVII, n. 60 and n. 61, is the responsoria epistle of Peter, patriarch of Antioch, to Michael, patriarch of Constantinople, and Lambecius. Baronius cites it in *Annal. eccles.* tom. XI, a. 1043, n. 4; ibid., a. 1054, n. 28, who is said to have refuted Michael's third epistle, and n. 36-43, where Peter's Epistle is praised; likewise the Binian edition of the Councils, tom. III, part II, pp. 189-207; as well as Allatius, *De Ecclesiae Occident. et Oriental. perpetua consensione*, lib. II, cap. 9. In the same place, in codex CCXLVII, n. 22, is the *Enumeration of the causes for which the Roman pontiff was ejected from the diptychs of the Greeks*, from the epistles of Michael Cerularius, Peter, and certain others; and n. 23, Mich. Cerul. Epistle (n. 1) to Patriarch Peter, with the work against the Latins appended. See Lambecius V, p. 264 sqq., Kollar. — At Munich in codex CXVIII, Michael's Epistle to Peter, and his response, according to the catalogue of Greek codices of Bavaria, p. 50 sq. At Turin in codex CC, n. 11, exists Peter's Epistle; and n. 14, Mich. Cerul. Epistle (n. 1) to him. See *Cat. codd. Gr. Taurin.* p. 298. At Florence in codex Laurent. XI, n. 20 and 21, plut. 57, are found Mich. Cerul.'s epistles (I and II), and n. 22, Peter's response. See *cat. codd. Gr. Laurent.* II, col. 412 sq. At Venice in codex DLXXV, the same epistles. See *Cat. codd. Gr. bibl. Marc.* p. 303. — According to the catalogue of English manuscripts, etc., II, n. 3781, among the codices of Abraham Seller, two Epistles of Mich. Cerul. to Peter of Antioch. According to Montfaucon, *Bibl. biblioth. Mss.* I, p. 500; in Milan, in the Ambrosian library, an Epistle of ^B Michael, patriarch of Constantinople, to Marc (sic) of Antioch, with a response; also an Epistle to the emperor, which are in codex CCCLV, Epist. (n. 1) and Peter's Response; see Matthaei's *notit. codd. Gr. Mosquens.* p. 236, and in codex MCCLXVIII, n. 1, an Epistle to Peter. (HARL.)

Synodal Edict, or *semeiosis*, of the year 1054, concerning the *pittacium* or Charter of excommunication cast by the Roman legates upon the holy table, in Greek and Latin, edited by Allatius, *De libr. Eccles. Graecorum*, pp. 161-173. It begins: "Οὐκ ἦν ἄρα, ὡς ἔοικε, κόρος τῷ πονηρῷ τῶν κακῶν." (FABR.) At Vienna, in codex LXXVII, n. 62: "Note concerning the *pittacium* thrown upon the holy table of the Great Church by the legates from Rome against the most holy patriarch, lord Michael. Presiding, Michael — in the right parts of the catechumens, etc." f. The Relation of Mich. Cerularius of how he, together with his followers, was excommunicated by the apocrisiaries or legates of the holy Roman and apostolic see of Constantinople in that great church of St. Sophia. Inserted is a copy of the excommunicatory formula, which the legates of the apostolic see placed upon the principal altar of the church of St. Sophia in the presence of the whole clergy and people of Constantinople. See Lambecius III, p. 398 sq., who calls that relation calumnious and virulent, and adds the same, p. 311. (HARL.)

Concerning the Mass, cited by Michael Nau in *La Véritable Image de l'Eglise Romaine et Grecque*, p. 290, ms. Mentioned by Lambecius II, p. 160. (FABR.) *Explanation of the Sacred Mysteries*, Rome, in a codex of the Vatican Library. See Montfaucon, *Bibl. biblioth. mss.* p. 11. (A. HARL.)

Work against the Latins, Epistle 1 to Peter of Antioch appended, which begins: "Ὡς πολὺ τὸ πλῆθος τῆς χρηστότητος τοῦ παναγάθου Κυρίου." Ms. in the Imperial Library, as witnessed by the same Lambecius V, p. 123 seq. [p. 265, ed. Kollar.]

Homily delivered on the first Sunday of Lent, at the feast of the Restoration of the Icons, circa the year 1044. It begins: "Προφητικαῖς ἑπόμενοι ῥήσεσιν, ἀποστολικαῖς τε παραινέσεσιν εἴκοντες." In this homily, Michael the metropolitan celebrates the eternal memory of Photius, p. 99, and on p. 100, Sisinnius, patriarch of Constantinople, who died in the year of Christ 999, and anathema is pronounced upon those things which have been written or said against Photius. This homily was edited in Greek and Latin from the Coislinian codex by the most learned Montfaucon, pp. 96-102 of the ^C *Catalogi mss. Graecorum* of that library, under the title: *Epistola synodi Nicaenae ad sanctam Alexandrinorum Ecclesiam*, Paris, 1715, fol. See *Mémoires de Trévoux* year 1716, p. 40 seq. (1).

Several synodal decrees, such as *On not contracting marriage in the seventh degree*, lib. III *Juris Graeco-Romanorum*...

[COLUMNS 723-724]

(Regarding the bibliographic and historical notes provided above: they concern the authenticity and dating of the following homily, noting that while it has been attributed to the second council [iconoclast era], certain internal evidence suggests it was composed by Michael Cerularius around the year 1044.)

HOMILY DELIVERED ON THE FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT, ON THE FEAST OF THE RESTORATION OF THE IMAGES.

The annual thanksgiving owed to God, on the day we received back the Church of God, together with a demonstration of pious dogmas and the destruction of the impieties produced by malice. ^A

Following the prophetic utterances, obeying the apostolic exhortations, and being instructed in the evangelical histories, we celebrate the day of the Dedication. For Isaiah says, "The islands shall be renewed to God," by which words he implies the Churches from among the Gentiles. But the Churches are not merely the buildings and decorations of the temples, but the fullness of the pious gathered within them, and those to whom they [the]

^A honor the Deity. The Apostle, too, exhorting to this very thing, commands us to walk in newness of life, and [says]: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; be renewed." [II Cor. v, 17] The sayings of the Lord, moreover, declare the prophetic condition in their own manner: "It was the Feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem, and it was winter" [John x, 22]; whether this refers to the spiritual winter, in which the nation of the Jews stirred up sanguinary storms and tumult against the common Savior; or to that winter which, through a change of air, afflicts the bodily senses with cold. For there truly was, even in our time, a winter of no small account, but one that poured forth the cruelty of great wickedness. But the early spring of God’s graces has flourished for us, at which time we have gathered together to offer to God the thanksgiving for the harvest of blessings, that we might express ^B it in a more Psalmic way: "The summer and the spring, thou hast made them; be mindful of this." [Ps. LXXIII, 17] For, truly, those enemies who reproached the Lord and dishonored His holy veneration in the holy icons—those who had been puffed up and exalted in their impieties—the God of wonders has dashed them down and destroyed the roaring of their apostasy, nor did He overlook the voice of those crying out to Him: "Be mindful, O Lord, of the reproach of thy servants, which I have borne in my bosom of many nations, wherewith thy enemies have reproached, O Lord; wherewith they have reproached the exchange of thy Christ." [Ps. LXXXVIII, 51-52] Now, the "exchange" of Christ would be those who have been redeemed by His death and have believed in Him through the word of preaching ^C and through the figurative representation of His icon; through which the great work of the dispensation is recognized by the redeemed, through the cross, and through the sufferings and miracles displayed before and after the cross; from which the imitation of His own sufferings passed on to the apostles, and thence to the martyrs, and through them it has descended as far as the confessors and ascetics. Being mindful, therefore, of this reproach, which the enemies of the Lord cast, through which they reproached the exchange of His Christ, our God, who is moved by His own compassions and maternal supplications, and yet further by those of the apostles and all the saints—who were insulted and despised together with Him in His icons, so that just as they suffered with Him in the flesh, it was fitting that they should also share in the insults He suffered in the icons—has performed at last what He decreed today; and He has done a second time ^D what He had accomplished before. For before, after a period of many years of the disparagement and dishonor of the holy icons, He restored piety to Himself; but now, which is the second time, a little after thirty years of affliction, He has provided for us unworthy ones the deliverance from our hardships, and redemption from those who afflict us, and the proclamation of piety, and the security of the veneration of the icons, and the feast that brings us all salvation. For in the icons we see the sufferings of Christ, which He underwent for us,

^A His cross, His tomb, hell destroyed and devastated, the struggles of the martyrs, their crowns, and that very salvation which our primary Prize-giver and Crown-bearer worked in the midst of the earth.

This is the feast which we celebrate today. In it, rejoicing and exulting together with prayers and supplications, we cry out with psalms and songs: "Who is so great a God as our God? Thou art the God who alone workest wonders." [Ps. LXXVI, 14] For Thou hast mocked the contemners of Thy glory; Thou hast shown those who were bold and ferocious against Thy image to be timid fugitives. But so far concerning the thanksgiving to be rendered to God and the trophy of the Lord against the adversaries. As to what concerns the contests and battles waged against the Iconoclasts, another sermon and another description will explain it more fully. But as if resting in a certain place after the passing of the desert, having been established in the possession of the spiritual Jerusalem, moved by the Mosaic example, or rather by divine command, as if on a certain stele constructed of great stones and arranged for the receiving of writing, we have thought it just and equitable to transcribe into the hearts of the brethren the blessings that are owed to those who observe the law, and the curses to which the transgressors make themselves obnoxious. Wherefore we say these things:

For those who confess the incarnate advent of the Word of God by word, mouth, heart, and mind, [as well as] ^B by writing and images, eternal be their memory.

For those who acknowledge in the one and same hypostasis of Christ the difference of the substances, and that in it there is both created and uncreated, visible and invisible, passible and impassible, circumscribed and uncircumscribed; and who attribute to the divine substance the reason for being uncreated and what is similar, but acknowledge that to the human nature both the other things and the property of being circumscribed pertain, as much by word as by images, eternal be their memory.

For those who believe and preach or announce words in writings, and realities in figures; and who deem that both contribute to the same utility, namely, the proclamation through words and the confirmation of the truth through ^C images, eternal be their memory.

For those who sanctify their lips with the Word, and then their hearers through the Word itself; and who know and preach that through the venerable images the eyes of those who behold them are likewise sanctified, and their mind is raised up to the knowledge of God, just as through the divine temples, the holy vessels, and the other sacred treasures, eternal be their memory.

For those who know that the rod and the tablets, the ark and the lampstand, and the table and the altar of incense [previously] pointed out and prefigured the most holy Virgin Theotokos Mary; and [who know] that those things indeed prefigured her, yet she herself was not that very thing which those were ^D

^A but that she was a maiden, and remained a virgin after the birth of God; and thus, those who depict her as a maiden in images, eternal be their memory.

Eternal be the memory of those who know and accept the prophetic visions as the Divine Being Himself shaped and fashioned them, and who believe the things which the choir of the prophets recounted having seen; and who corroborate the tradition passed down through the apostles to the Fathers, whether written or unwritten, and for this reason represent and honor holy things through images.

Eternal be the memory of those who understand Moses speaking: "Take heed to yourselves, because on the day the Lord God spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, you heard a voice of words, but you saw no likeness," ^B and who know how to respond rightly: "If we have seen anything true, we have surely seen it as the Son of Thunder taught us: 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched concerning the word of life, and we testify to this,'" and again, as the other disciples of the Word: "And we ate and drank with Him, not only before the passion and resurrection, but also after the passion and resurrection." Eternal be the memory of those who are divinely empowered to distinguish the commandment in the Law from the teaching in grace, and the invisibility in the former from the visibility and the capacity to be touched found in the latter; and who for this reason represent and adore in images those things that have been seen and touched. ^C

As the prophets saw, as the apostles taught, as the Church received, as the doctors defined, as the world consented, as grace shone forth, as the truth was demonstrated, as falsehood was driven away, as wisdom spoke with confidence, as Christ awarded the prizes—so we think, so we speak, so we preach Christ our true God and His saints, honoring Him in words, writings, thoughts, sacrifices, temples, and images: worshipping Him indeed as God and Lord, but honoring them as His genuine servants for the sake of the common Lord, and ascribing to them relative adoration. This is the faith of the apostles, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the ^D orthodox, this is the faith that sustained the world.

To these preachers of piety, with brotherly and fatherly affection, for the glory and honor of the piety for which they contended, we give praise and say: Eternal be the memory of Germanus, Tarasius, Nicephorus, and Methodius, who were truly the supreme priests of God, and defenders and teachers of the true faith.

Eternal be the memory of Ignatius and Photius, the most holy, orthodox, and celebrated patriarchs.

^A Eternal be the memory of Stephen, Anthony, and Nicholas, the most holy and orthodox patriarchs.

Everything that has been written or spoken against the holy patriarchs Tarasius, Nicephorus, Methodius, Ignatius, Stephen, Photius, Anthony, and Nicholas, anathema.

Everything that has been innovated, or done, or shall hereafter be done, contrary to the ecclesiastical tradition and the doctrine and definition of the holy and celebrated Fathers, anathema.

Eternal be the memory of Euthymius, Theophilus, and Aemilianus, the celebrated confessors and archbishops.

Eternal be the memory of Theophylact, Peter, Michael, and Joseph, the blessed metropolitans.

Eternal be the memory of John, Nicholas, and George, the thrice-blessed confessors and archbishops, and of all the bishops who were of the same mind as they.

Eternal be the memory of Theodore, the most holy hegumen of Studium. Eternal be the memory of Isaac the Wonderworker, and of Joannicius, most filled with the prophetic spirit.

Eternal be the memory of Hilarion, the most holy archimandrite and hegumen of the Dalmatoi. Eternal be the memory of Symeon, the most holy Stylite.

Eternal be the memory of Theophanes, the most holy hegumen of the Great Agros.

To the conventicle that raged against the sacred images, anathema. ^B To those who take the sayings of holy Scripture against idols and apply them to the sacred images of Christ our God and of his saints, anathema.

To those who knowingly hold communion with those who insult the sacred images, anathema. To those who say that another besides Christ our God has delivered us from the error of idols, anathema.

To those who dare to say that the Catholic Church has at any time received idols, as they thereby overturn the whole mystery and insult the faith of the Christians, anathema.

Many years we pray for our emperors: may God guard their empire; may God grant peace to their empire. Heavenly King, guard those on earth.

Eternal be the memory of Michael, our orthodox emperor, and of Theodora his mother. ^C Eternal be the memory of Basil and Constantine, Leo and Alexander, Christopher and Romanus, Constantine Romanus, Nicephorus and John, Basil, Constantine, Romanus, and Michael, who exchanged their earthly empire for the heavenly. Eternal be the memory of Zoe, the most pious and thrice-blessed Augusta.

Eternal be the memory of Germanus, Tarasius, Nicephorus, and Methodius, the venerable patriarchs.

Eternal be the memory of Ignatius, Stephen, and Anthony, Nicholas and Euthymius, Stephen, Tryphon, Theophylact, Polyeuctus, Anthony, Nicholas, and Sisinnius, the orthodox patriarchs.

Just as these blessings from these Fathers descend unto us their children who emulate their piety, ^D

^A so too do the curses overtake the murderers of fathers and the despisers of the Lord's commandments. Therefore, we all, in common voice, as many as constitute the assembly and the fullness of piety, inflict upon them the curse to which they have subjected themselves.

To those who in word accept the incarnation of the Word of God, but refuse to behold this through images, and for this reason—while pretending in word to accept it—in deed deny our salvation, anathema.

To those who maliciously cling to the expression "the uncircumscribed one," and because of this do not wish that He who partook of flesh and blood just as we did, Christ our true God, be represented in an image, and who are thereby proven to be phantasiasts, anathema.

To those who—willingly or unwillingly—admit the prophetic visions, but do not accept the images seen by the prophets themselves (O miracle!) even before the incarnation of the Word, but rather blather that the incomprehensible and invisible essence was seen by them; or who admit that these were images of truth, and figures, and forms appearing to those who saw them, yet who do not wish for the Word made man and the passions He suffered for us to be represented in images, anathema. ^B

To those who hear the Lord saying: *If you believed Moses, you would believe me,* and what follows; and that: *A prophet will the Lord our God raise up for you from among your brethren, like me;* and who understand Moses when he speaks, but then say that they receive the prophet, yet do not introduce the grace of the prophet through images, nor the salvation of the world as it was seen, as it conversed with men, as it healed affections and diseases beyond all remedy, as it was crucified, as it was buried, as it rose again, as it suffered and did all things for our sake; to those, I say, who do not endure to see these world-saving works in images, nor honor and worship them, anathema. ^C

To those who persist in the iconoclastic heresy—or rather, in the Christ-opposing apostasy—and who do not wish to be brought to their salvation through the Mosaic law, nor choose to align their piety with apostolic teachings, nor wish to be converted from their error by patriarchal exhortations and instructions, nor are put to shame by the consensus of God's Churches throughout the whole world, but have handed themselves over, once and for all, to the lot of the Jews and pagans (for what those blaspheme directly against the prototype, these do not blush to dare against the icon-represented one through His very image!); to those, therefore, who are irretrievably held by this error, and who have stopped their ears to all divine rebuke and spiritual instruction, seeing as they are already putrid, and have cut themselves off from the common body of the Church, anathema.

Anastasius of Constantinople and Nicetas, who in the time of the Isaurians gave rise to heresies, as execrable leaders of perdition, anathema. To Paul, who turned into a Saul, and to Theodore nicknamed Gastas, and to Stephen Molites, and furthermore to Stephen Krithinos, and to Leo Lalondios; and besides these, if any other person is found similar to the aforesaid in impiety, in whatever catalogue of the clergy or dignity or office he may be examined—to all these who remain in their impiety, anathema. To Theodotus, Antonius, and Joannes, who communicated evils to one another and received impiety from one another in a kind of succession, anathema. To Gerontius, who came indeed from Lampe, but in Crete vomited out the virus of his execrable heresy, and called himself captured for the overturning (alas!) of the saving economy of Christ, together with his perverted dogmas and writings and his like-minded followers, anathema; to all heretics, anathema. ^B May there be many years for the emperors. To Christophoros, Theodorus, Agapius, Joannes, Nicolaus, Elias, Theodorus, and Basilius, venerable patriarchs of Antioch, eternal memory. The Holy Trinity has glorified them. ^C Beseeching God that we may be instructed and strengthened by their battles and struggles for piety even unto death, and by their teachings, and asking that we be shown as imitators of their godly manner of life until the end, may we be deemed worthy to attain what we desire through the mercy and grace of the great and first Prince of Priests, Christ our true God, through the intercessions of our most glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, the godlike angels, and all the saints. Amen.

MICHAEL CERULARIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE: SYNODAL EDICT

^D Edict concerning the [pittakion] thrown onto the holy table by the Roman legates against the most holy Patriarch, the Lord Michael, in the month of June, in the seventh indiction.

Presiding was our most holy master and ecumenical patriarch Michael, in the right parts of the catechumena, and sitting with him were the most God-beloved metropolitans Theophanes of Cyzicus and Sy-

Syncellus, Nicetas of Chalcedon and Syncellus, Laurentius of Dyrrachium and Syncellus, Anthimus of Side, Nicolaus of Pisinoe, Leo of Myra, Leo of Trebizond, John of Smyrna, Eusebius of Adrianople, Constantine of Mitylene, Nicolaus of Chonae, Hypatius of Hydruntum, and the archbishops Leo of Carabyzia and Gregory of Mesembria, along with the patriarchal nobles ^A in attendance.

It did not suffice for the wicked and abominable demon, as it seems, [to have done only these] evils. For that reason he never made an end, crawling upon pious men, and always devising something new against the truth. Wherefore, he deceived the human race with nearly countless frauds before the Lord’s advent in the flesh, and afterward he did not desist or ever cease to supplant and cast down those who believed in him with countless errors and enticements. But even when these were removed from the way, and a pious and deep hope was being nurtured in those who honor piety, lest they should ever become inventors of newer impieties, in all those things which the wicked one strove to attempt against the right reason—with his machinations having been turned against him—now certain impious and abominable men (and what, indeed, would one who fears God not call these men, who emerged from darkness—for they were offspring of the Western parts), ^B having come to this pious and God-guarded city, from which—as from some high and elevated lookout—the fountains of Orthodoxy emerge, and the pure waters of piety flow into the ends of the inhabited world, and like rivers irrigate the souls of all who live under the sun with pious dogmas: having rushed into this city, like a lightning bolt, or a storm, or a mass of hail, or—if one should speak more appropriately—like a wild boar, they attempted to destroy the right reason through the diversity of their dogmas, to the point that they even laid the Scripture upon the mystic table of the great Church of God, by which they placed us—or rather, the orthodox Church of God and all the orthodox who are not swept away by their impious dogmas—under anathema ^C for this very reason: that we desire to live piously and to advance in the orthodox faith. They accused us in many other things, and besides that, [they accused us] because we do not endure to shave our beards like them, and to alter the form of man, which is according to nature, contrary to nature. And furthermore, that we do not refrain from receiving communion from priests who have entered into marriage. In addition to all these things, [they accused us] because we do not wish to adulterate the holy and sacred Symbol—which has an unshakable and impregnable strength in all synodal and ecumenical decrees—with spurious thoughts and perverted words and an excess of audacity; and because we do not say, as they do, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son—O the machinations of the wicked demon!—but that He proceeds from the Father; ^D nor are they willing to heed the Scripture, which says: “You shall not shave your beards,” nor are they willing to consider at all that God the Creator established this to be becoming for women, but unbecoming for men; but also the fifth Gan->

- ^A grensis synod canon regarding those who abhor marriage, which they openly despise, saying: “If anyone separates from a married presbyter, as though one ought not, after he has performed the sacred rite, to partake of his oblation, let him be anathema.” And by this very same act they also reject and despise the Sixth Synod, which says: “Since we have learned that it has been handed down in the Roman Church as a canon that those who are to be deemed worthy of ordination to the diaconate or presbyterate should profess that they will no longer be joined to their wives, we, following the ancient canons of apostolic precision and order, desire that the marriages of sacred men be from this time forward firm and stable, by no means dissolving their joining with their wives, or depriving them of their association with one another at the appropriate time.” Therefore, if anyone is found worthy to be ordained a subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, let him by no means be prohibited from being promoted to such a rank while living with his lawful wife, nor let him be required at the time of his ordination to profess that he will abstain from his lawful association with his wife, lest we be forced to insult the marriage which was ordained by God and blessed by His presence, while the voice of the Gospel cries out: “What God has joined, let no man separate,” and the Apostle teaches: “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled,” and, “Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not loosing.” If anyone, therefore, should dare, moving against the apostolic canons, to deprive any of the ^C sacred orders—that is, presbyters, or deacons, or subdeacons—of their association and communion with their lawful wife, let him be deposed. Likewise, if any presbyter or deacon should cast out his own wife under the pretext of piety, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.

Furthermore, in addition to all these things, they are not willing to consider at all that they affirm the Spirit to proceed not from the Father, but also from the Son; since they have this utterance neither from the Evangelists, nor have they derived this blasphemous dogma from an Ecumenical Synod. For our Lord God says: “The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.” But the fathers of this new impiety say the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; not, however, regarding at all that if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the property of Him is recognized; ^D and likewise, if the Son is begotten, that of the Son; and that if—as they babble—the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, the Spirit is distinguished from the Father by more properties than is the Son. For the procession from the Father is common to the Spirit and to the Son, but the procession from the Son is not. But if the Spirit is distinguished by more differences than the Son, the Son would be closer to the Paternal substance than the Spirit. And thus the attempts of the Macedonians against the Holy Spirit will emerge again, their drama, their scen-

scenery, and the mask of those men. Moreover, beyond what has been said, they do not wish to understand at all that if everything which belongs to one of the three is not common to the omnipotent and consubstantial Trinity, then the procession of the Spirit is not common to the three. But in this way they have behaved shamelessly towards both us and the orthodox Church of God. ^A Coming to our most pious emperor from a different place than elder Rome, they contrived other deceits against the orthodox congregation of the Church; nay more, they even lied from the very beginning about their arrival, pretending that they had come from the city of Rome and had been sent by the Pope, when in actual fact, full of fraudulent pretexts and the counsel of Argyros, they had arrived of their own accord, by no means sent by the Pope. Furthermore, they fabricated the letters which they claimed to bring from him—a fact recognized by many others, and especially by the circumstance that the seals of the letters were openly discovered to be forged. The document, however, which these impious men deposited against us, written in Italian characters, was first placed by them upon the table of the Great Church of God in the presence of the subdeacons of the second week. Afterwards, because the subdeacons removed it and cast it from the holy table, and insisted that those who had placed it there should take it back, and they refused, it was cast upon the floor. When it had since come into the hands of many, our mediocrity took it up, lest the blasphemies contained within it be spread abroad. ^B And so, having summoned some who were skilled in translating from the Italian tongue into Greek—that is, the protospatharios Kosmas, the Roman Pyrrhos, and the monk John the Spaniard—we entrusted them to translate the document. The text of the document, having been translated by them, ran in their words as follows:

"Whoever opposes the faith and sacrifice of the Roman and apostolic see, let him be anathema, and let him not be called orthodox, but a Prozymite and a new Antichrist."

Humbert, by the grace of God bishop of the holy Roman Church, Peter, archbishop of the Amalphitans, Frederick, deacon and sacellarius, to all the sons of the catholic Church. The holy Roman first and apostolic see, to which, as to a head, the care of all Churches specially applies, for the sake of ecclesiastical peace and necessity, deigned to send us as its apocrisiarii to this royal city: that, as it is written, we might descend and see whether the cry, which continuously ascends to its ears from such a city, is fulfilled in deed, or if it be otherwise, that it may know. ^C Let it therefore be known before all things to the glorious emperors, the clergy, the senate, and the people of Constantinople, and to the whole catholic Church, that we have recognized here that which we rejoice in most as a good thing, and that which we grieve for most as a great evil. For what pertains to the columns of the empire,

^A and its honored men, and its wise citizens, the city is most Christian and orthodox; but as pertains to Michael, who uses the patriarchate abusively, and the associates and partners of his folly, the most numerous tares of heresies are sown daily in its midst. For just as the Simoniacs sell the gift of God, and as the Valesians castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy, but furthermore to the episcopacy; as the Arians rebaptize those who have been baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially the Latins; as the Donatists rule ^B that outside the Church of the Greeks, the Church of Christ, and the true sacrifice, and baptism have perished from the entire world; as the Nicolaitans allow carnal marriages, and defend them for the ministers of the holy altar; as the Severians declare the law of Moses to be accursed; as the Pneumatomachians or Theomachians have cut the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son out of the Creed; as the Nazarenes keep the carnal purification of the Jews to such an extent that they argue against the baptism of infants dying before the eighth day from birth; and they forbid women in their menstrual periods, or those in danger in childbirth, from communicating if they have not been baptized, or forbid them to be baptized; and for the hair of the head and the beard, just like the Nazarenes (nurturing them), they do not receive into communion those who cut their hair, and who shave their beards according to the institution of the Roman Church. Regarding which errors, and many other works, this same Michael, having been admonished by the letters of our lord, Pope Leo, neglected to repent. Afterwards, to us as his messengers setting forth the arguments for similar evils in a reasonable manner, he denied his presence and speech entirely, nor did he listen to the sacred counsel of the emperors and the wise men exhorting him to a sound mind; ^C just as he previously closed the churches of the Latins, and calling them Azymites, he persecuted them everywhere in word and deed to such an extent that in his followers he anathematized the apostolic see, against which he still signs himself as ecumenical patriarch. Wherefore we, not bearing the signal injury and force upon the same holy and primary apostolic see, and suspecting that the Catholic faith could be submerged in many ways, with the prejudice of the holy and indivisible Trinity, and of the apostolic throne, of which we are the representatives, and of all orthodox Fathers, and of the seven synods, from the entire Catholic Church, we subscribe in this manner to the anathema which our lord the most pious Pope has decreed for this Michael and his followers, if they are unwilling to be persuaded. Michael, who ^D abuses the patriarchate, a neophyte, who only out of human fear took on the monastic habit, but now is disfigured by incurable sins before many, and together with him Leo, who is called of Achrida, and Nicephorus, the sacellarius of this same Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins under his feet in the sight of all, and all others who follow them in the already stated errors and wicked deeds, let them be anathema, maranatha, with the Simoniacs, the Valesians, the Arians, the Donatists, the Nicolaitans, the Severians, the Manichaeans, with whom they establish their dogmas, and with all those who say that leavened bread is ensouled, and with

all heretics, nay rather even with the devil and his angels, if they do not repent. Amen, Amen, Amen.

^B And these things, indeed, were contained in that impious and detestable writing. Our mediocrity, however, not tolerating such boldness and impudence against piety, nor leaving it unexamined and unpunished, held discourse regarding this matter with our ^C powerful and holy emperor. And he, since they had departed the city only one day before, as soon as it was reported to him, sent men to bring them back to this great city. They were summoned most quickly, but they were unwilling to meet our mediocrity, or to appear before the holy and great synod, or to give any answer concerning the impious things they had uttered; but they contended that they had much more against our faith than what they themselves had set forth in the scripture they had written, and they claimed they would rather choose to die than to appear ^D before us and the synod. For our powerful and holy emperor made known to us and to the synod that they spoke these things through the reply of the illustrious magister, and the master of petitions, and the most God-beloved chartophylax, and the referendary. But since our powerful and holy emperor did not approve of forcing those who were unwilling to come to the synod and to us, on account of the embassy mission which they seemed to be bearing, yet it was not proper for such impudence against piety to remain unavenged, nor was it otherwise worthy, he prepared an excellent remedy for the matter, and sent a precious and venerable letter to our mediocrity through Stephen, the most holy monk and oikonomos of the Great Church, and John, the magister and master of petitions, and Constans, the vestarches and hypatos of the philosophers. Its tenor is as follows: Most holy lord, my imperial majesty, having investigated what has occurred, found that the root of this evil originated with the interpreters and the party of Argyros; and as for the foreigners, since they are strangers and were prompted by others, we can do nothing, but as for the true authors, we have sent them to your holiness after they have been scourged, so that others may be instructed through them not to spout such things in the future. Let this chartula, after the anathema has been pronounced, be burned in the presence of all, together with those who advised it, and those who published it, and those who wrote it, or who even slightly understand the matter as it happened.

...the royal majesty has commanded that the vestarches, son-in-law of Argyros, and the Vestes, his son, be shut up in prison, so that they may pass their lives there, afflicted by evils, just as they are deserving on account of this matter. In the month of July, indict. 7. This, then, the royal and divine writing contained. ^A According therefore to the providence of the emperor, that cultivator of piety, the impious writing itself, and those who published it, and either exhorted unto its making or afforded aid to its authors, were subjected to anathema in the presence of the envoys sent by the emperor in the great secretum; and judgment was rendered on the fourth day, which is the first of the current week.

On the twenty-fourth day of the current month of July, on which the exposition of the fifth synod is customarily read ^B before the hearing of the multitude, it was resolved that the same impious writing must be anathematized again; likewise also those who published, wrote, or provided any agreement or counsel for its making. The original of that impious and detestable writing, cast out by the impious, was not burned, but was deposited in the sacred secretum of the chartophylax for the perpetual disgrace and more stable condemnation of those who have blasphemed in such ways against our God. It is further to be known that on the twentieth day of the current month, on which those who blasphemed against the Orthodox faith were struck with anathema, there were present with the ^C archpriests who sat in council with us, all the metropolitans and archbishops who were residing in the city; namely, Leo of Athens and syncellus, Michael of Sylaios and syncellus, Nicholas of Euchaneia and syncellus, Demetrius of Caria and archbishop, Paul of Lemnos, Leo of Cotradia, and Antony of Zichia. ^D

OTHER SYNODAL EDICTS OF MICHAEL CERULARIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

(See volume CXIX, col. 747, 850, 851.)

OF THE PATRIARCH, LORD MICHAEL, A DECREE OR EPISTLE REGARDING A PRIEST'S WIFE WHO HAS COMMITTED ADULTERY.

^A This John, the priest who delivers the present writing to you, most God-beloved, has said that his own wife has fallen into the charge of adultery, and that he himself, as soon as he learned that adultery had been committed, separated from her and no longer endured to live with her. Having said these things, he asked whether he is in any way hindered from the priesthood because of his wife’s adultery. And we have answered that he is not hindered from handling the sacred things for this reason. For he who marries a woman who has already committed adultery is forbidden to be ordained a priest; but if someone marries a woman who is a virgin, and she who is joined to him in marriage commits adultery, if the priest, knowing this, remains quiet and neither sends her out of his own house nor determines to separate from her, he is considered unworthy of the priesthood because of his toleration of such a crime. But if, upon learning of the adultery, he immediately drives the adulteress from his house and divorces her, he remains in the dignity of the priesthood which he possesses. Therefore, if John speaks the truth, and after he knew that his wife had committed adultery he separated from her and refused to live with her, let him be a priest again, and let him not be hindered in any way from handling the sacred things because of his wife's adultery. ^B And since the priest also says that he has a child by the woman who was caught in adultery, let the priest retain two-thirds of the dowry on account of the child, and let the third part be given to the woman, so that she may bring it into a monastery and have her hair shorn.

MUTUAL LETTERS OF MICHAEL CERULARIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, AND OF DOMINIC OF GRADO AND PETER OF ANTIOCH, BISHOPS.

(Ex Joan. Bapt. Cotelerii Monumentis Ecclesiæ Græcæ, t. II.)

^A 1. *Epistola Dominici patriarchæ Venetiarum ad Antiochæ patriarcham.*

To the president of the most exalted and holy see of the Church of Antioch, eminent patriarch, great and apostolic man, Dominicus, by the grace of God, patriarch of the Church of Grado and Aquileia.

1. Admonished by every desire and vow of reverence, with the purpose of most faithful obedience, [I wish] that your Church be honored and revered by our reverence and friendship; which is known to be the sister of our mother, the Roman Church, and—by the merits of its founder, namely Peter, the prince of the apostles—is preached after the second. These things therefore set aside, the report of your piety, which is full of faith and works and declares itself everywhere, compels us to render you humble reverence, and also to follow in your footsteps as you walk along the way of the Lord.

2. We, therefore, in the northern zone, divided by the longest intervals of land and sea, yet joined together by the love of the mind, desire to be attached to the knowledge of your sanctity, and seek in return a participation of mutual love. Wherefore we make known that our Church has taken its origin from the preaching of the blessed evangelist Mark; likewise, due to the blessed Peter constituting it, [we have held] the honor of the patriarchial name ^B within Italy alone.

Joan. Bapt. Cotelerii nota.

^C

^A And we have been deemed worthy of the seat of the ecumenical pope at the Roman synod. We will set forth the order of this matter to you more fully in the future, once we have clarified things pertaining to the faith to one another by the mutual use of written replies. For the present, however, captivated by the love of your probity, we hasten to arrive at your notice alone, about to establish perfect charity among us, upon which we shall in the future build higher the things that are of God.

3. Yet we cannot pass over in silence to your paternity ^B that which we have heard the clergy of Constantinople blaming the holy Roman Church for. They reproach, therefore, the most holy unleavened breads, which we sanctify and take in the body of Christ; and in this they claim that we are lacking in that same body, and judge us separated from the unity of the Church, because we offer the Eucharist without the mixing of leaven. Whereas we, desiring to preserve the unity of the Catholic Church without any schism ^C, adhere most firmly to the custom of unleavened bread, not only by apostolic, but also by the Lord's own tradition. Nevertheless, because the sacred mixture of leavened bread is believed to have been received by the most holy and orthodox Fathers of the Eastern Churches and held lawfully, we faithfully understand both customs, and by spiritual understanding we healthily confirm them. For the mixture of leaven and flour, which the Churches of the East use, declares the substance of the incarnate Word; while the simple mass of unleavened bread, which the Roman Church holds, presents beyond controversy the purity of human flesh, which the divinity was pleased to unite to itself.

4. Therefore, those are to be reproved by your paternity ^D who so impudently contradict the sacred and apostolic decrees; and in that in which they think they are building up, they not only destroy what has been built, but even dig up the foundation itself. For in vain did the most blessed Peter and Paul preach in Italy, if the whole Western Church is deprived of the blessedness of eternal life, to which no one will attain unless he has been a participant in the body and blood of Christ, just as He Himself testified: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you"

If, therefore, the offering of unleavened bread is not the body of ^A Christ, we are all aliens to life. Having briefly grasped these things, therefore, from your holiness, in accordance with the tokens of our love, we ask that the testimonies of your mind also be written back to us.

II. VERERABLE CO-ANGELIC LORD AND SPIRITUAL BROTHER, THE MOST HOLY ARCHBISHOP OF GRADO, OR AQUILEIA, PETER, BY THE MERCY OF GOD PATRIARCH OF THEOPOLIS, GREAT ANTIOCH.

1. Many reasons for joy, and for great spiritual exultation, were provided by your sacred letters, most holy and most dear to God, spiritual brother and venerable lord. For we have truly rejoiced not a little, having perceived in them the sincerity of your love in Christ, and the orthodox disposition of your God-favoring soul; ^B even if the discourse concerning unleavened bread has seemed to have no small variation, being incompatible with the tradition of our most holy catholic Church; concerning which, God assisting, we shall speak more fully later, supported by your sacred prayers. Furthermore, [your letter] has suffused us with a blush... ^{C D}

O man of God, by attributing to our mediocrity such great achievements, of which, believe me, we are conscious of possessing none. For we recognize nothing in ourselves other than the fact that we are orthodox Christians; we are but insignificant among the pontiffs of God, the least of all, and the servants of the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet perhaps we shall become such as your letter has testified us to be, if you will but increase your prayers to God on our behalf.

^B 2. Your honorable letter, filled with charity toward God, dealt with the most holy Church over which you preside, stating that Peter, the chief of the apostles, established it and entrusted it to the holy apostle and evangelist Mark, from whom its primate was raised to the order and honor of patriarch, so that he might hold authority and preeminence through doctrine, and in Roman assemblies sit at the right hand of the blessed pope; and [you stated] that you can easily demonstrate this from many ancient acts—namely, that your see obtained the special designation of patriarchate from Saint Peter; and that I ought to receive your letters as those of a patriarch and converse with you by letter concerning the faith.

^C 3. My insignificance—most holy spiritual brother—has received and embraced your letters with the honor befitting not only a patriarch, but one equal to the apostles and a great pontiff of God. Yet, nourished from childhood to old age in the sacred letters and ever occupied in their reading, I have never anywhere, from anyone, until this day, learned or heard that the primate of Aquileia, or of Venice, is called a patriarch. For in the whole world, by the dispensation of divine grace, there are five patriarchs: the Roman, the Constantinopolitan, the Alexandrian, the Antiochene, and the Hierosolymitan. ^D Moreover, not even each of these is strictly called a patriarch, but rather catachrestically [or: abusively]. For they are proclaimed as follows: the pontiff of Rome as pope; of Constantinople as archbishop; of Alexandria as pope; and of Jerusalem as archbishop; while the bishop of Antioch alone has been specially allotted to be heard and called patriarch. And your charity, if it diligently examines this, will find it confessed in every scripture.

^A 4. Further, attend to what I say. The human body is guided by one head; yet in it there are many members; and all are governed by only five senses: and these are sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. And the body of Christ, I mean the Church of the faithful, is fitted together in diverse nations as in members, and is administered as if by five senses, by the mentioned great sees, and is guided by one head, I mean Christ Himself. And just as there is no other sense beyond the five senses, so no one will grant that there is another patriarch beyond the five patriarchs. Since, therefore, by these five sees, which perform the role of the senses in the body of Christ, all the members, that is, all the nations of the gentiles, and the episcopacies scattered in various places, are arranged and guided fittingly by God, as in one head, our true God Christ, being fitted together and led by one orthodox faith by Him Himself.

^C 5. But if you justify yourself in being called patriarch, as you wrote, from your sitting at the right hand of the most blessed Pope, we accept this. But hear how the faithful word is accustomed to call bishops and high priests "Fathers"; while those who hold the first place in each synod, it is accustomed to name "exarchs" and "protothrones" and "presidents." According to which logic it is reasonable for you also to be called patriarch, as one bearing the first parts of the Roman synod—just as among us the first of the deacons is called archdeacon. For how could we otherwise be able to introduce a sixth patriarch, when there is no sixth sense, as has been said, in the body? And this even though there are in the world many great provinces and regions, exceeding your diocese, regulated by metropolitans and archbishops and led to the worship of God. For consider how much larger than your region is Bulgaria; and how much more vast than this again is great Babylon, and the Roma-gyris ^D (12), that is, Khorasan (13), and the [land] now called Baghdad. For there, too, the Bishop of Antioch used to send a catholicos to Irenopolis, the one called [the catholicos] of Irenopolis.

And the remaining parts of the other province of the East, to which archbishops and catholici ^A are sent by us, who ordain metropolitans in those parts, who have many bishops under them; yet none of them was ever called patriarch. But enough of these matters.

5. Your writing also addressed the most holy and most blessed patriarch of Constantinople, [saying] that he despises, accuses, and defames the God-honored Roman Church on account of the unleavened bread, which you, taking it according to custom as a figure of the Lord’s body, believe to be sanctified; and that because of this, you are estranged by him from the right and blameless faith and from the very venerable and precious Body of the Lord, being cut off from the Catholic Church, whose rule you follow, along with all the churches of the West, adhering to it with all subjection as a body to its head. Further, it was added in your letter that we also act contrary to the ancient doctrine of the apostles, whereas we have received the tradition of unleavened bread not only from the apostles themselves but from the Lord Christ himself; not being ignorant that all the illustrious Fathers of the East acknowledged the unbloody sacrifice [offered] through leavened bread—men who excelled in both life and word, and who instructed the whole world with their doctrine; and [who] considered this [form] holy, just as [they considered] that of the unleavened bread. You calculate that the leavened bread ^B represents the perfect man who was born for us, inasmuch as he is also perfect God; ^C and that the mystery celebrated through unleavened bread [represents] the pure and impassible nature of the incarnation of God the Word.

6. As these things are dictated by the writing, we make our defense to your prudence and love according to God: that the most holy patriarch of Constantinople does not so harshly—as you wrote—invade your reputation, nor call you heterodox or men of evil opinion, cutting you off from the holy Catholic Church; but he well knows that you are orthodox and of one mind with us regarding the secure theology of the life-giving and consubstantial holy Trinity, and concerning the incarnate dispensation of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ; but [he knows] that you falter in this one thing alone—namely, in the offering of unleavened bread—[concerning which] he suffers gravely, feels pain, and is indignant that you do not [act] regarding the divine

^Amystagogy according to the tradition of the holy Church, and are of one mind with the four holy patriarchs, and do not offer the bloodless sacrifice in unleavened bread, but in leavened bread, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have handed down to us.

8. For to participate in unleavened bread is to participate in the old sacrifice, and not in the New Testament. For the Lord did not take unleavened bread, give thanks, break it, and give it to the disciples; but [He gave] bread, as the four evangelists, being of one mind, confirmed, and as the Apostle Paul testifies, saying: *I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, he broke it and said: Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you; do this in my remembrance*, and what follows. Now, unleavened bread was established for the Hebrews in remembrance of the flight from Egypt in haste, so that, by remembering the wonders which God had wrought for them, they might persevere in His commandments and no longer forget His works and benefits. But the bread made perfect through the leaven [pre-fermentation], which by consecration is changed into the ^B immaculate body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, was given in remembrance of His economy, or dispensation, done in the flesh. For *as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup*, He says, *you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes*. And again, Paul says: *The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread and one body. For we all partake of the one bread*. ^C

9. And mark, most sacred spiritual brother, that everywhere bread is proclaimed as the body of the Lord, on account of its perfection and integrity, and not unleavened bread. For unleavened bread is dead and inanimate, and altogether imperfect. But leaven, when cast into the mass of flour, becomes for it, as it were, a soul and a constitution. And how is it not absurd that that which is imperfect, dead, and inanimate, should be received as the living and life-giving flesh of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by those who believe in Him? Do not, therefore, brethren, conduct yourselves ^D dangerously in this great matter; nor, seeking to establish your own opinion, do you desire evilly to win; but in this [matter...]

^A a locus is found to admit being defeated well: for the persuasion, says the Apostle, is not from Him who calls us. For if we still partake of unleavened bread, it is evident that we still live under the shadow of the Mosaic Law, and eat at a Jewish table; and not the rational and living flesh of God, which is supersubstantial and consubstantial to us who have believed. ^B But if we also believe that we are eating the living flesh of Christ, who is perfect in divinity and humanity, what is there in common between the animated and living flesh of God, and inanimate and dead unleavened bread? For unleavened bread is not bread; for it is not integral, nor self-sufficient; but deficient and semi-perfect, and needing the complement of leaven. Bread, however, is integral, absolute, perfect, and most full.

10. Now understand, most intelligent man, by paying attention to the division of the word: In unleavened bread, there is no vital power, for it is dead, as we have already said; but in bread, that is, in the body of Christ, there are three things that live and provide life to those who receive them: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; just as John, who reclined upon the breast of Christ, bears witness to this word, thus speaking through the revelation: "The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one," ^C namely, the body of Christ. And this became manifest at the time of the Lord’s crucifixion, when the blood and the water flowed from his immaculate side, his flesh having been pierced with a lance; but the living Holy Spirit remained in his deified flesh; which the faithful, eating in the bread that is changed by the Holy Spirit into the flesh of Christ, we live in him, as those who eat living and deified flesh.

11. For we are no longer under the Law, so that we should offer unleavened leaven, but under grace. For we are a new creation in Christ, ^D since the old things have passed away, as Paul cries out, and all things have become new. But those who wish to eat unleavened bread, why are they not also circumcised? Since Christ was also circumcised. And why do they not also keep the Sabbath according to the ancient tradition? And hear what Paul says to the Galatians: "Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to fulfill the whole law. You are evacuated from Christ, you who are justified in the law; you are fallen from grace. For we, in the Spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of justice." But these things are from Paul. I, however, not at all from the aforementioned...

are accustomed to perform, I would say conveniently: If you eat unleavened bread, Christ will profit you nothing; for these were ordained by the Law in remembrance of the flight from Egypt, and not of His saving Passion.

^B 12. But alas, what shall I say? Blessed be God, tears come to me when I consider that you live securely according to all things that please God, and that you glorify the name of Christ by your very deeds, and that you undertake a laborious and long journey, moving from the ends of the earth to Jerusalem for the sake of the adoration of the life-giving tomb; yet in this one thing you become a stumbling block and an offense to the holy Churches of God, inasmuch as the president of the one Church, namely the most blessed Pope of Rome, is unwilling to agree and be in harmony with the other patriarchs concerning the divine mystery, but alone among all others shows contumacy and hastens to confirm his own will.

13. But that I may leave aside every other argument, I am able to show in Christ, if you will listen placidly, that when the Lord took supper with His disciples toward the evening of the Great Thursday, the unleavened bread had not yet been prepared, since the Jews were to sacrifice the Passover on the Great Preparation Day ^C, upon which the fourteenth day of the moon coincided. And attend to me here, having set aside every insistence of contention and also vain expectation. For we do not desire to win, but to join to ourselves the brothers by whose separation we are torn apart. For the evangelist and theologian John says—he who reclined at the supper upon the breast of our Lord Jesus Christ (and who among the disciples could be more trustworthy?)—"Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them unto the end. And supper being made, the devil having already cast into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He came from God and is going to God, rises from supper," and the rest.

14. So the saying of the Beloved: "Before the feast of the Passover, and supper having been made," ^D clearly shows that the Passover did not happen to be on the Thursday.

^A that it did not fall on the Thursday to be the Passover. But a certain dispensation occurred, so that since He was to be betrayed on that night, He might deliver to the disciples the mystery of the divine system of initiation; and for this reason He said: "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you" (Luke xxii, 15). So it is clear from this that at that time the unleavened bread had not yet been prepared, as has been said, but that what was set before them was bread. For the supper took place before the feast of the Passover, in which He broke this and gave it to the disciples, and said: "Take, eat." ^B And the Beloved himself bears witness to this again, in the passage where he says: "They lead Jesus from Caiphas into the praetorium; and it was morning; and they themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover" (John xviii, 28). 15. And again the same author says in another chapter: "The Jews therefore, that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, because it was the Parasceve; for that was a great Sabbath day, besought Pilate" (John xix, 31) ^C that their legs might be broken, and they might be taken away. Whence it appears again that before they celebrated the Passover between the evening hours, plainly on the evening of the Parasceve, in which also the feast of unleavened bread was beginning, they approached Pilate, requesting that the bodies might be taken down from the cross, perhaps lest they appear as murderers on their feast day. Observe exactly, therefore, that the supper took place before the Passover and the unleavened bread. For it was not yet unleavened bread on the evening in which the Savior had supper with His disciples, but what was set before them was bread, which, having broken, ^D He gave to them, saying: "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke xxii, 19). 16. And He did not say "bread" once, but many times. And not he alone says this, but the rest of the evangelists as well. And Matthew indeed says: "And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread," you see, he also calls it bread, "and blessed, and broke, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take, eat" (Matt. xxvi, 26). In a similar way Mark and the rest report the same things. And nowhere is unleavened bread mentioned by them. Since, however, it was necessary for Christ to suffer on the very day of the legal Passover, on which the lamb was slain by the Jews, and the Passover was to be celebrated by the God-killers on the day of the Parasceve, onto which it happened at that time that the fourteenth moon of the first month fell—for it was the eighteenth cycle of the sun and the fifth of the moon—lest perhaps, prevented by the betrayal, He might not be able to deliver the proper Passover to the disciples; reclining at the supper, on the night leading to the twenty-third of the month of March, the fifteenth indiction. And on this very night leading to the twenty-third of the same month, the Lord was delivered up and crucified—plainly on the twenty-third, on the evening of which was the Passover of the Jews. And so that...

he might not, by being delivered up, fail to deliver the mystery to his own disciples, reclining at supper on the evening of the fifth day, after he had supped, taking bread and breaking it, he delivered to the apostles ^A the mystery of the New Testament, on the night of that same fifth day, on which he was also delivered up by Judas, as it is written.

17. But what says Luke also? And taking bread, he gave thanks, and broke it. Behold, Luke likewise says that Christ took bread, and not unleavened bread; for it was not yet the time for that, since it was the fifth day. For on that fifth day, the moon was still in its thirteenth day, and unleavened bread was not there, because the removal of leavened bread had not yet occurred. For it was ordained by the law that unleavened bread should be made on the fifteenth day of the moon, while only the lamb was to be sacrificed on the fourteenth. Hence the law calls the fourteenth of the first month of the moon the Passover, but calls the fifteenth the first of the unleavened breads and a Sabbath. ^B [Alas for the madness of the unlearned!] And there was no unleavened bread on that fifth day, the moon being in its thirteenth day. For it was ordained that the unleavened bread should be prepared on the fifteenth day of the moon, just as also the lamb was commanded to be sacrificed on the fourteenth, on which day Christ was sacrificed, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. But if Christ was sacrificed and crucified on the fourteenth of the moon on the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath is the feast of the unleavened bread, when then did he eat the unleavened bread, and when did he deliver to the apostles in the New Testament to do these things? Since you say: We received from the apostles to prepare unleavened bread. Was it after he rose from the dead? Do you not see how openly you are refuted by the facts themselves?

18. Being proven in this way, do you ^C have anything to object to these things? For behold, it has been shown manifestly that the supper took place before the feast of the Passover, and it was not in accordance with the prescription of the law that unleavened bread should be eaten before the Passover. Furthermore, for the most certain proof of the doctrine proposed, I shall set forth for you also another chapter from the same evangelist, containing what you yourself will also acknowledge; for it is certain that the Gospels which we use are exactly the same and without any difference among you: When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in his spirit, and testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, that one of you shall betray me. ^D The disciples therefore looked at one another, doubting of whom he spoke. Now there was reclining one of his disciples in the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him to inquire who it might be of whom he spoke. And so when he had reclined upon the breast of Jesus, he says to him: Lord, who is it? Jesus answered: It is he to whom I shall reach dipped bread. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas.

son of Simon Iscariot. And after the bread, then Satan entered into him. Jesus therefore says to him: What you do, do quickly. But no one of those reclining knew for what he said this to him. For some thought, since Judas had the money-box, that Jesus was saying to him: Buy those things we have need of for the feast.

^B 19. And with the evangelist thus clarifying these things, how could it not be clear even to a blind man that the supper took place before the legal Passover? For by his saying [to him], "For some thought, since Judas had the money-box, that Jesus was saying to him: Buy those things we have need of for the feast," he clearly proved the time when the Lord supped with the disciples. Let there not, therefore, bring upon you any hesitation or doubt concerning that time because of the things said by the other evangelists; namely, by Matthew indeed: "Now on the first day of the Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?" By Mark: "And on the first day of the Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover, his disciples say to him, Where do you want [us] to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?" And by Luke: "But the day of the Unleavened Bread came, in which it was necessary that the Passover be sacrificed. ^C And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go, prepare for us the Passover, that we may eat."

20. But these utterances of the three evangelists have no opposition or disagreement with this statement of the evangelist John, when he said: "And before the feast of the Passover," and what follows. For the divine Gospels give us to understand as the first [day] of the Unleavened Bread, the tenth of the first month, being a certain preparation for the Passover, along with the other three days, that is to say, the eleventh, the twelfth, and the thirteenth, just as it is written in the book of Exodus: "The Lord said to Moses: This month shall be for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first for you among the months of the year. Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying: ^D On the tenth of this month let each one take a lamb, according to the houses of their fathers, a lamb for each house." And after a little: "And let it be kept by you until the fourteenth of this month." For that which with us is called the Great Week, being a certain preparation and pre-feast of the holy passion and the resurrection from the dead of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, this also among the Hebrews was considered that quaternion of days, being a certain Preparation of the legal Passover.

^A 21. And the other evangelists, having gone before, did not reach the evangelical preaching of John the Theologian. But he, having become very long-lived, encountered their compositions, and at the end of his own life, stirred by God on the island of Patmos, during the reign of Domitian, wrote his own holy Gospel, explaining and manifesting, and proclaiming with a great voice, many things that had been spoken of obscurely or omitted entirely by them, such as the miracle of Lazarus (26), the time of the Supper, and certain other things. Stop, for the sake of God, opposing so manifest a truth; and what we, the alumni of the Church, have accepted to do, do you also easily follow, following the four holy patriarchs: for the vote of the majority prevails (27), while one is nothing; "Good are the two above the one." But where four, like-minded, (38) stand on the same line, who doubts that God is present among them? Just as Christ says: "Where two or three are gathered in my name [Al. in my name], there am I in the midst of them."

^B 22. And for this reason I beseech you that we may come together spiritually; and let us become lovers of our brothers rather than lovers of self. For we have not been taught by Christ or the apostles to eat or offer unleavened bread: since neither did Christ himself, at the time of his passion, as we have already said beforehand, reach the point of eating unleavened bread, as it had not yet been prepared by the Jews, as it has been stated; nor, on the other hand, did the apostles hand down that which they had not received. For after they had supped, the evangelists say, he handed down through the bread the mystery of the New Testament, saying: "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you (29)," the hour being obviously reached...

of His passion.

23. ^A But those who partake of unleavened bread are in danger of slipping secretly into the heresy of Apollinaris (50). For that man dared to say that the Son and Word of God took from the holy Virgin a body alone, devoid of soul and mind, asserting that His divinity sufficed in place of soul and of mind. And those who bring forward unleavened bread offer a dead flesh, and not a living one. For the leaven becomes in the dough in place of a soul, and the salt in place of the mind; and when the unleavened bread lacks these, how is it not inanimate, dead, and in very truth death-dealing? For our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect God and perfect man, dual in nature but not in subsistence, having taken from the ever-virgin a body endowed with soul and mind, fittingly handed down the mystery of the New Testament through perfect bread, which He blessed and broke and said: "Take, eat; this is the heavenly and vital bread, and giving life to those who eat it," just as Christ promised, saying: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

24. ^B If, however, you chafe against the force of what has been said and contend contentiously, claiming to have received the tradition of unleavened bread from the holy apostles Peter and Paul, we also gather with you, our brethren, and with God’s help we shall demonstrate that some of those things which had been handed down by the apostles were later corrected by those same men, and transformed toward a greater piety, as the faith in Christ was being strengthened and the Church was being established and expanded by the grace of God. For we were commanded to honor the Sabbath as well, with equal honor to the holy Lord's Day, and to keep it and to do no work on it; but this is not done now. ^C And Peter used to circumcise those from the Gentiles who were coming to the blameless faith of the Christians, and thus he would baptize (31); and Paul circumcised Timothy. Furthermore, the catechumens were baptized at thirty years of age. And the believers observed several other legal requirements. And the high priests were joined with wives. But now nothing of the sort is in practice, since the holy Church of God, as has been said, having grown in strength and advanced to a more perfect state.

25. ^D And what is wonderful or strange, if at that time the disciples, at the beginning of the preaching, accommodating themselves to the weakness of the many, permitted some of the customs...

^A of theirs to be retained: to wit, by a gradual and altogether complete subtraction, wisely changing them and leading them to the Gospel, as they were already trained toward obedience? For a crooked branch cannot endure a sudden bending or the force of a hand straightening it—as one of our theologians said—for it would sooner break than be straightened. And therefore, as it has been said, unleavened bread was permitted for a time, because a great multitude of Hebrews lived in Rome then, as the book of the Acts of the Apostles clarifies. But afterward, when the time came, these things also were abolished. And this same dispensation of God is to be seen in Moses, who permitted sacrifices to the Hebrews for a time, so that he might establish God among them; then, ^B when this also was successfully accomplished, he later abolished them. These things are sufficient for a man full of the Holy Spirit and spiritual understanding. For "give to a wise man an opportunity," he says, "and he will be wiser."

26. ^C But previously, at the beginning of my episcopate, I sent a letter of commendation to the most blessed Pope of Rome, and I sent it by means of someone who, by solemn vow, was traveling to Jerusalem, to the most illustrious magister and duke of Italy, Argyrus, so that he might direct it to his holiness. Since that time, two years have elapsed, and I have been unable to learn anything about them. And behold, I have now copied them again and sent them to your love for God, so that for the sake of our love, or rather for the sake of God, for whom and on behalf of whom the letter is, "for we act as ambassadors for Christ," says the divine Apostle, you may cause it to be delivered to his most venerable beatitude; and at the same time ask that he reply in writing, which you may send to us.

27. But if your piety, after reading the present letter, transmits it to him, ^D and if this command is posted and deposited in the holy archives, it will be acceptable to the most holy Churches, even if only duplicates of it, confirmed by competent authority, are presented by the parties themselves. May Christ, who reconciles all things, our true God, deem us worthy to give thanks to him with one heart, and to minister together, being of the same mind.

^A

28. As for us, he has greeted your holy and sacred ^B congregation according to God. Our humility also greets your holiness with a holy kiss, joining with us in imploring your prayers. Farewell, and may you rejoice always in the Lord, being mindful of our lowliness in your holy sacrifices.

III.

1. Our humility has read the letters of your beatitude, and having learned through the one who brought them that, by the grace of God, things are faring well with you, we have given thanks to His goodness, as is fitting, praying that you may live a long and sorrow-free life. Your letter also contained matter regarding the religious deacon and imperial cleric, Peter: namely, that following our promptings to your holiness, he obtained your seal for the rank of cleric to which he had been gifted by your predecessor; and that since then, having received other benefits from your perfection, he has proven ungrateful, not even deeming you worthy of a letter. ^D

2. And because our humility knows what ardent love and affection you have had towards us—not just now, nor recently, but from the beginning—and that you do not take in an ill sense the letters which we send to you on behalf of certain persons, for this reason it writes and requests: at once desiring that those who seek may be benefited through you, to the praise and proclamation of your magnificently generous soul; and at the same time securing for us no small reward, in which respect

-ed illam pertinet. The deacon, judging himself unworthy, as he says, to write to your Holiness, has for that reason never dared to send letters to you. However, he ceases not to offer you abundant thanks and to pray to God for you, on account of your countless benefits and gifts toward him; and he asks that ^A the seal be exchanged, since it has been soaked and can scarcely be read. And these things indeed are concerning that matter.

5. But some time ago, having learned from those who come here from Elder Rome concerning the virtue, nobility, and knowledge of the Pope of that city, who has recently departed—I speak of him, that is to say, regarding our concord and agreement with him on account of the scandals spread abroad concerning those matters of the orthodox faith ^B—we signified no small amount to him through our letters with much humility, as you yourself can also know from such a document. We did this, on the one hand, wishing to win him over entirely; and on the other, striving to have him well-disposed and on our side, so that he might provide us with aid against the Franks. When we had handed these letters into the hand of the *vestiarios* who was carrying the Emperor's letters to him, we hoped that he would both carry both letters to the person to whom they had been sent, and also receive a reply from him and bring it back to us.

6. But he, having received such letters, and having arrived as far as the *magistros* and Duke of Italy, Argyrus, when he ^C had artfully crept up to him—intending that he should quickly send them to the Pope—handed the letters to him. But the *magistros*, as we have accurately learned, never having forgotten his own religion and cunning, but ever being ill-disposed toward the imperial city and the Roman Empire, did not depart in this from his custom; but he retained the money which the *vestiarios* was carrying, having received it from the Emperor, wishing to convert it, as also that which was sent before, into his own uses, as one who was devoting effort and attention to the building of his own castles ^D.

7. And this plot, as we shall say, he prepared. For he called together certain persons, to whom especially...

^A he seemed worthy of trust. One of them, having once held a bishopric in Amalfi, as we have heard, was later expelled from that Church for reasonable causes, and for five whole years now has remained a fugitive; another has only the name of archbishop, while being utterly devoid of the function; for it has not been found where he even exercised the episcopate. But the third, having donned the mask of a chancellor—as he supposed—and having persuaded this one to be addressed by such a Roman title, out of overwhelming craftiness ^B and wickedness, he did so in order that he might have power to control the things he had crookedly contrived through him, as if through some impregnable wall. And having removed the seal from my letters, and having read the contents, he composed other letters as if sent to us from the Pope, and having equipped the aforementioned men with these, he persuaded the wretches—alas for the error ^C and the perversity—to reach the great city and to present such letters to us. 6. And having entered the imperial city, they first showed themselves to our powerful and holy emperor with an arrogant and haughty manner, spirit, and gait. But afterwards, when they came to our humility, who could say with what insolence, boastfulness, and stubbornness they acted? They did not even deign to give us any greeting at all, nor could they bring themselves even slightly to bow their heads or to offer us the customary prostration, nor even to sit in the secretum ^D with us behind the metropolitans who were gathered there, entirely against established custom.

But why should I not say what is more foolish than this? Indeed, they have not humbled themselves at all before the imperial dignity and majesty; rather, exalting themselves greatly and imagining things above their station, they entered the imperial palace with cross and staffs.

7. Having done none of these things, as was to be expected, they handed us a sealed letter and immediately withdrew. Our mediocrity, having taken it and attempted to remove the seal, and having examined it carefully, found it itself to be forged, and the letter full of deceit and craftiness. For it declared without distinction those things which, while Argyrus was tarrying in this great city, he often brought forward to our mediocrity, especially regarding the unleavened bread, on account of which he was not only once, but already twice, thrice, and four times driven out and cast out by us from divine communion and the partaking of the Eucharist.

8. Moreover, we have sent a copy of our letter to the pope, and indeed also of that one which was allegedly brought to us from the pope by wicked men, and which was translated into the Greek tongue, to your beatitude; so that you might know what we wrote to him, and what things were signified by the letter delivered to us, and so that you might clearly understand from this that we were not moved by bare suspicion, but grasped the naked truth itself. Furthermore, this same fabrication was more clearly exposed through the Archbishop of Trani and syncellus, who, coming to us from there, revealed the whole truth, just as I have narrated to our powerful and holy emperor.

^C 9. Now a rumor has reached our ears, that your perfection also commemorates the aforementioned pope in the sacred diptychs, and likewise the Alexandrian and Jerusalemite prelates. But I do not think that your incomparable virtue, above all others, is held by such great ignorance. For you know that from the time of the holy and ecumenical sixth synod, and thereafter, the commemoration of the pope in the sacred diptychs was cut off ^D in our holy Churches, because Vigilius, who was then pope of Rome, would not come to that synod, nor would he pronounce anathema upon Theodoret...

against the true faith and against the twelve chapters of St. Cyril, nor upon his letter; and from that time until now the pope has been cut off from our most holy and catholic Church. Wherefore, this report seemed to us absolutely unbelievable, not so much because of those prelates, as because of your own great erudition and exceptional wisdom.

10. Nor was this the only thing, but also that the two aforementioned pontiffs not only receive others who eat unleavened bread, but sometimes even celebrate the divine mysteries themselves in unleavened bread. And since we have no one at hand through whom we might make inquiry of them concerning this matter, and we do not at all trust others in these things, we entrust the whole of the investigation ^B to your holiness, so that you, having carefully examined the matter, may make it known to our mediocrity. And so much for these things.

11. There was handed to us, through the most illustrious president and duke of Antioch, Sclerus, a copy of your letter to the bishop of Grado, that is, Aquileia; which being read, it was found to rush mostly into the subject of unleavened bread alone, omitting other Latin errors which are much more serious. If by chance he did write to your holiness that our mediocrity sent him letters concerning these things, yet he never made mention of any of them to the pope himself, or to any other of his bishops, except for the letter a copy of which we have now sent to you. But, as appears from their letters and actions, they are fundamentally mendacious and crafty. But you should rightly know that the Latins are not transfixed by one dart alone, namely that concerning unleavened bread—which is known to all—but by many and various ones, for which it is necessary that we shun them. ^C

12. And the things which they perform as Judaisers are these: that same crime hanging over them concerning unleavened bread, and their eating things strangled, and shaving [(51)], and observing the Sabbaths, eating things polluted, monks feeding on meat, fat ^D [original-script column: see facsimile] [alt-version omitted] [index: entries preserved]

fasts, and the Meatfare and Cheesefare in the same week, and eating meat on the fourth day, and on Friday eating cheese and eggs, and fasting the entire day on the Sabbath. Regarding matters outside of these, such as they are and as they exist, they make the following addition to the holy Symbol, thinking evilly and dangerously; it reads thus: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son." And in the divine liturgy they proclaim: "One holy, one Lord Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father, through the Holy Spirit."

13. Furthermore, they forbid the marriage of priests ^B—that is, they do not accept those who have wives into the rank of the priesthood, but they must be without marriage if they are to be ordained. But we do not endure to change the shape which is according to nature for humans, contrary to nature. Neither heeding the Scripture, which says, "Ye shall not shave your beards" (Levit. xix, 27), nor even wishing to consider at all that God the Creator made this becoming for women, but rightly considered it unfitting for men. The hair of the head and of the beard, like the Nazarenes, those who cut their hair, and according to the regulation of the Roman Church those who shave their beards, they do not receive into communion.

^C 13. [Additionally] they forbid the marriage of priests; that is, they require that those who have wives should not accept the dignity of the priesthood, but rather be experienced in celibacy, and... that which is according to human nature, we do not endure changing against nature... Neither wishing to turn their minds to Scripture, which says, "Thou shalt not depilate thy beards" (Levit. xix, 27)... nor wishing to think at all that God the Creator brought it about that this was becoming for women, while he considered it, rightly, inappropriate for men. Moreover, the Greeks themselves in the Index of Accusations against the Latins, edited by Stevartius (Observation upon Manuel Calecas, no. 36), raise this charge: "They shave the beard, and the hair of the whole body, thinking it contributes to a certain expiation." Which is Judaic. And no. 51: "Monks shave their beards, in the manner of women" (See Zonaras and Blastares on the Trullan Canon 96). Nor have the Latins spared the Greeks in turn. For it is said in the *Pittacium*: "In the councils: just as the Nazarenes, nourishing the hair of the head and the beards, do not receive into communion those who cut their hair and shave their beards according to the institution of the Roman Church." And in the treatise On the Bad Customs of the Greeks, with the same Petrus Stevartius, p. 418: "The Greeks, by no means honoring that apostolic precept (1 Cor. xi, 14), 'If a man nourishes long hair, it is a disgrace unto him,' provide with the greatest zeal for the growth (I would add, of hair). The clergy are especially guilty of this lapse, and even the monks, whom it in no way behooves to grow it. They do not make a tonsure of their hair in the manner of a crown, as the rule prescribes; but they part it on the forehead almost like women, with the hair preserved all around so as to protect the nape of the neck and the cartilages of the ears" (p. 419). "Their priests, in the Jewish manner, promote beards which are moistened by the Lord's blood when it is drunk by them." That some Latins have not permitted the Greeks to grow a beard, you will find attested in the book of Allatius, *De aetate et interstitiis in collatione ordinum*, p. 6, 15. So much do light matters, through party zeal, turn into atrocious crimes. But Photius, in the letter cited by Joannes Veccus, produced by Leo Allatius in his *Dissertatio de perpetuo consensu Occidentalis et Orientalis Ecclesiae* (p. 597, 593), says: "Thus, to be shaved is ancestral to some, but to others it is to be rejected by synodical definition." ^D It would have been better to speak of the matter mildly, as we have said. If indeed we had also proposed the Canon of Side, we would have seemed burdensome and very importunate. I leave the rest and the others, having perhaps said more than was necessary.

^A wishing to be ordained. And two brothers marry two sisters. And in the Liturgy, at the time of communion, one of the ministers eats the unleavened bread, and greets the others. And the bishops, wearing rings on their hands, as if they had taken the Churches in place of wives, say that the pledge is worn by them, and advancing to war, they defile their hands with blood; before which, being defiled, they both slay souls and are slain by them. And as some have confirmed to us, even when celebrating divine baptism, they baptize those who are being baptized with a single immersion, uttering the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; nay, they even fill the mouths of those being baptized with salt. Moreover, they interpret that saying of the Apostle badly: *A little leaven leavens the whole lump*; ^B they have it written thus: *A little leaven corrupts the whole lump*; and they try, from this small occasion of a word, to overturn the leaven which raises and lifts up the bread.

14. But they do not even endure to venerate the relics of the saints; and some of them not even the holy icons. Nor do they count our holy and great Fathers and teachers and high priests—I mean Gregory the Theologian, and Basil the Great, and the divine Chrysostom—among the other saints, or in any way accept their teaching. They also do other things, which it is laborious to enumerate in detail. Living thus, therefore, and nurtured in such customs, and daring to do things that are clearly illicit, forbidden, and abominable, will they ^C indeed seem to those who think rightly to be placed in the company of the orthodox? I do not think so. But those who perhaps declare that they who act thus think rightly, may they have a part in their portion. For we would never envy them this concord and agreement. Far be it from us to be so insane and to lose our own senses.

15. We have mentioned these things in passing, so that your perfection—knowing the things that are performed by them—should not think that they err only concerning the unleavened bread, just as we also supposed until now; but having recognized other and equally worse ^D offenses, she may number them with those among whom they deserve to be. Moreover, that which is of all the most grave and less to-

be endured, and which reveals their madness in excess, is this: for they say that they arrived at these places not to be taught or to discuss, but rather to teach and to persuade us to hold their dogmas, and this with authority and an overflowing impudence. May the Lord preserve your beatitude for many years, as you pray for us.

IV. A dissertation by Peter of Theopolis and Patriarch of all the East, written at the time when the Italian Argyrus arrived to criticize our affairs.

1. How much evil the enemy has done to your sanctuary, and how much craftiness they who hate you have devised, lifting their head in the midst of your Church, your holy letters have abundantly taught us, most divinely holy master. And a great wonder seized us at this, being unable to understand from where the Italian Argyrus was moved, or what he wished, that he should have so much deviated from the way, and that, being an unconsecrated man, he should have invaded sacred things. For what, he says, has a dog in common with a bath, that he, being ranked among the laity, should busily intrude into the business of priests, and devise and perpetrate such writings, as you have indicated, [which are] false? From which he was going to carry away nothing but the infamy of a stage-play he had composed. And this, although the Pope has exchanged life for death. But thanks be to God, who catches the wise in their craftiness nor has allowed the deception to lie hidden for long.

2. Your holiness’s sacred letters contained [a report] that a certain rumor had reached your ears, that I mention the Pope in the sacred diptychs, and that the other most holy patriarchs do the same; and that it was not fitting to be kept in such ignorance, especially me ahead of others, who [should] have known that from the time of the holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod and thereafter—to use your own words—the commemoration of the Pope in the sacred diptychs had been cut off, because Vigilius, the Pope at that time, would not come to the synod, nor would he anathematize in writing those things which had been written by Theodoret against the right faith and the twelve chapters of holy Cyril; and that from that time until now the Pope has been cut off from our most holy Church. ^{A B C D}

Peter of Antioch’s response to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. On those things... To my most divinely holy, venerable, and worshipful holy master, the most holy Archbishop of Constantinople, the New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, Peter, by the grace of God Archbishop of the great city of Theopolis, Antioch. On those things...

^A which thy venerable epistle contains, I am filled with shame; I know not how to express it, believe me, and especially on thy account, and the more so if, following the likeness of the epistle sent to us by thee, thou hast already written similar things to other most blessed patriarchs. For before an examination and perfect understanding, that which had not happened thou didst set forth as having happened, from vain report. For how was I to report him, the Pope, while thy holy Church was not reporting him? I, who am an alumnus of this Church and as zealous as any other, always commending and extolling her privileges in word and deed? And as to the matters concerning Vigilius, that they were wrongly interpreted, the truth being otherwise, what great carelessness ^B does this not attest in thy pious chartophylax? For even if the man is skilled in the discipline of rhetoric, as we hear, yet being young he does not yet have sufficient knowledge of ecclesiastical matters. But faith, says John of the Ladder, does not have [the quality of] wine squeezed straight from the winepress.

4. Therefore, it is necessary for him who has been raised to such ^C a great degree to examine the Scriptures with inquiry, and not cursorily. For the substance of our hierarchy is the God-delivered oracles, that is, the true knowledge of the divine Scriptures, as the great Dionysius declared. For Vigilius was at the time of the fifth synod, in which those things pertaining to Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, and others, Peter, Severus, and Zooras, but also the writings of Theodoret, were moved; but not at the time of the sixth synod. The interval between the two synods was 159 years. But it happened that Vigilius was for a short time cut off from the report, on account of the contention which he had with the most holy Patriarch Menas, because he had deposed him; until the pontiffs, having established ^D peace between them, were again reconciled. But at the times of the holy sixth synod, the Pope was the holy Agatho, a man venerable and wise in divine things. Read the Acts of this sixth council, which are wont to be read on the following Sunday.

after the Exaltation of the precious Cross. For you will find the aforementioned Agatho gloriously proclaimed by this holy synod.

^A 5. Furthermore, I am an irrefutable witness to this, as are many others with me among those who excel in the Church, that in the time of the blessed patriarch of Antioch, Lord John, the Pope of Rome, John—himself also named John—was mentioned in the sacred diptychs. And having entered Constantinople forty-five years ago, I found that under the blessed patriarch, Lord Sergius, this Pope was mentioned in the divine liturgy together with the other patriarchs. But how his commemoration was later cut off, and for what cause, is hidden from me. But having such a persuasion regarding these matters, I do not wish for you to labor any further concerning the mention of the Pope.

6. Furthermore, we have gone through all those faults and errors of the Latins that you enumerated. And some of these seemed detestable and to be shunned, others remediable, and some finally worthy to be overlooked. ^B For what is it to us if the bishops shave their beards, and wear a ring as a symbol, as you wrote, of their betrothal to the holy Church of God? For we also make a *Garara* upon our heads, altogether in honor of the chief of the apostles, Peter, upon whom the great Church of God was built. For that which the impious invented for the insult of the saint, we, led by piety, have turned to his glory and honor: the Latins shave their beards, while we practice the tonsure on the crown of the head. But we ourselves also wear gold, being clothed in *encheiria* (68), maniples, and stoles interwoven with gold.

7. But as for the charge that they eat polluted food, and that their monks eat meat and swine’s fat, you will find these things occurring among some of our own people, if you only investigate. For the Bithynians ^C and Thracians and Lydians eat magpies, jackdaws, turtledoves, and land hedgehogs, whose use the Fathers left as indifferent. For no creature of God is to be rejected when taken with thanksgiving. And the vessel of the linen sheet let down from heaven, in which were all the four-footed beasts of the earth, the wild beasts, the reptiles, and the birds of heaven, convinces me of this; and Peter hearing from God: "Rise...

^D (66) *Daktylophorein*. For *wearing rings*, as Demetrios Chomatenos more correctly explains in *Juris Græco-Roman* p. 318-321, quest. 3, which is about the Latins. Wearing rings: see above in the Epistle of Michael, n. 13. apud Allatium, *De Ecclesia Occident. et Orient. consensione*, cap. 1125, from the tract of John Citrius on the customs and dogmas of the Latins.

(67) *Garara* or *Gararan*. A name, if I am not mistaken, which is Syriac, signifying the clerical tonsure. Indeed, among the Hebrews [the word] *...* means "to cut." What follows concerning the crown of St. Peter and the *papalethra* of the Greeks has been handed down and explained sufficiently by the ancients and moderns, and should not delay us.

(68) *Encheiria*. This is somewhat obscure, appearing in an Epistle of Nicephorus of Constantinople to Leo the Third, as a stole and *simichenium* varied with gold. For according to the most illustrious Baronius, it was read in Greek as *encheirion*. Whence most excellent men corrected it to *semicinctium*. Perhaps, however, it was read wrongly by the interpreter as *semicherium*, and therefore changed later to *simichenium*. Be that as it may, by *encheiria* here, I understand either gloves according to Allatius, or rather maniples, napkins, or handkerchiefs.

^A beasts and reptiles and birds of the air. And Peter, hearing from God: *Rise, Peter, kill and eat*; and saying: *Far be it, O Lord, for never has anything common or unclean entered my mouth*; and again hearing: *What God has cleansed, do not call common*.

8. It is time also to cite the words of Saint Basil. He says: "As in vegetables we separate the harmful from the suitable, so also among meats we distinguish the harmful from the useful; since hemlock is a vegetable, and the vulture is flesh, but nevertheless no person in his right mind would eat either hemlock or vulture, or touch the meat of a dog, unless forced by great necessity, such that he who has eaten it is not at fault. Likewise, that pork fat should be put into legumes and vegetables, this has been examined and permitted by the holy Fathers, especially among those where good oil is not to be found."

9. And hear what the great Basil says in his *Ascetics*: "A monk should by no means seek the diversity of foods, nor devise distinctions in items of food under the pretext of continence. For this is a subversion of common discipline and an occasion of scandal; and he who gives such causes of disturbance in an ascetic community becomes an heir to the woe. But even if that preserved concoction, which was approved by the holy Fathers as a substitute for some other seasoning, is put in the smallest amount into the foods, mixed with the remaining dish of water or vegetables, let no one—under the pretext of a vainglorious, self-chosen piety, as if shunning meat—seek out more precious and better foods; but dipping a morsel into the decoction of the smallest scrap without observation, let him partake with all thanksgiving. For that smallest piece, in such a great quantity of water and, if it should happen, of seed-based food, is not an indication of appetite, but the most exact and truly arduous ^D continence of the ascetics. Therefore, one who exercises himself in monastic holiness ought not to observe such things. For we do not abstain from such things because we follow the rites of the Jews, but because we are fleeing the satiety of delicacies." These are the words of Saint Basil.

^A 10. But Saint Pachomius, in the holy monastery under his rule, used to feed pigs with the crumbs and the leftovers from the table; and when they were slaughtered, he would serve the remaining meat to the guests whom he received, while he would set the entrails and the extremities of the feet and the head before the aged monks who had fallen into infirmity. How pleasant, moreover, is such a dish, most honorable master—a pig’s snout, ears, and the tips of the feet, and also lentils and beans cooked in hog fat? If it were not seasoned with an abundance of good oil, so that I might be even slightly exhilarated by grace in a spiritual manner, would I—pierced daily by many arrows of sadness, as the Lord knows—always take them as food?

^B 11. But an evil, and the worst of evils, is the addition to the holy Symbol: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son." For if the Gospels among us and among the Latins are the same, whence did they learn something more, or why did they compose such an alien addition? The holy Gospel according to John most manifestly teaches us concerning the Holy Spirit, in which it includes these things: "If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; but you know him, because he abides with you, and is in you. And after a few words: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will bring to your mind all things ^C whatsoever I shall have said to you." And again: "But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will give testimony of me." Then: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will teach you all the truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall announce to you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall announce to you. All things whatsoever the Father has, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shall announce to you."

12. Since the Evangelist—most clearly declaring this—who among the orthodox ^D would dare or be able to add or...

^A to diminish? For concerning those things which the divine Scripture has most clearly decreed, one must not calculate, but rather follow. But, as it seems, the Latins lost the copies of the first synod of Nicaea, because the race of the Vandals long held dominion over Rome; from whom perhaps they also learned to act in the manner of the Arians, and, if this be true, as you have signified, to perform baptism by a single immersion. For us, the Symbol of divine grace, full of wisdom and salvation, suffices for the perfect recognition and confirmation of piety. For it teaches perfectly concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and presents the incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it with faith. But those who add anything to it, or take anything away, we strike with anathema. For if anyone, says the Apostle, evangelize to you ^B besides what you have received, let him be anathema.

13. But we do not accept the other addition, which has been made in the, *One holy, one Lord Jesus Christ, in the glory of God the Father, through the Holy Spirit*; although we can, by understanding it piously, in no way be harmed in the true faith. For that which is performed among us appears to be equivalent to this; whenever the divine ^C Bread is exalted, and the people cry out, *One holy, one Lord Jesus Christ, in the glory of God the Father*, on either side the archdeacon and he who performs the second part, raising the first and second chalice, say: "Fill, Lord"; and those who cast in a portion of the consecrated oblations, we cry out aloud: "The Fullness of the Holy Spirit."

14. For it is good, when we look towards what is well-pleasing, and especially where God or the faith is not in danger, to incline always towards the peaceful and the brotherly. For these too are our brothers, even if it happens ^D that because of rusticity or ignorance they often fall away from what is fitting, following their own will; and we ought not to seek such accuracy among barbarian nations, as is required of us who are well-versed in doctrine. For it is a great thing if even among them the life-giving Trinity is securely...

^A confessed and the mystery of the Economy in the flesh is held according to our view. And yet, neither do we praise nor accept this—even if it were true—that priests having lawful wives are not permitted to handle the holy things, and that during the week of carnisprivium, as you have written, they eat meat and cheese just as in the first week of the holy fasts.

15. For the question concerning unleavened bread, as your holiness already knows—having received the copy of the letter sent by us to the bishop of Venice—has been sufficiently examined by us, and inasmuch as it is not done according to ecclesiastical order, it has been overthrown and refuted. Unless, relying on this canonical pronouncement: "It seemed good to all to use ancient customs," they claim that their tradition of unleavened bread is also ancient. But indeed, that they eat things strangled, and that two brothers are joined in marriage to two sisters, is not done, I think, by the command and consent of the Pope or other pontiffs, ^B but is brought about by the audacity of those who choose to do such things: just as many such nefarious and abominable things are wont to be perpetrated in our Roman Empire without our knowledge.

16. For the Book of the Acts of the Apostles clearly teaches that we must abstain from things strangled, where James the brother of God is introduced saying: "Known from the beginning are to God all His works. Wherefore I judge not to trouble those who from the Gentiles are turning to God, but to write to them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood," (Act. xv, 18-20). Nor can I ever persuade myself that the Pope and the other pontiffs lack knowledge of that book; therefore, if they possess exact knowledge of the regulations contained in other scriptures, why would they disregard and permit such an offense? ^C You will find, moreover, both in the city and outside the city, many who eat pigs' blood. And the sausages which hang from the eaves of the taverns or shops, and which are full of swine's blood, bear witness to this.

17. And see, most honorable master, how, while not paying attention to the many things which are sinned by our own people, or even living alongside them, we occupy ourselves with greater care in idle chatter and curiously examine the affairs of others. Shall I add this? But do not take it in bitterness. In the most holy Studite monastery, the deacons ^D

gird themselves, performing a deed inconsistent with ecclesiastical tradition. And observe how, after having toiled much and exerted yourself, you have not been able to uproot such a solitary custom. And if we cannot prevail over those under us, how shall we be able to make that proud and stiff-necked 81 nation desist from its own customs? For it is acceptable, as has been said, if the Divine is rightly divided among them, and if, according to the word of truth, He is unanimously hymned and glorified.

^B 18. For concerning the addition in the holy Symbol, and the fact that they do not partake of the sacraments from the hand of a priest who is joined in marriage, your holiness rightly and God-pleasingly insists; and may it never cease to insist upon this and to persuade, by both the holy Scriptures and the written evangelical proclamations, until you lead them to agree with the truth, and to believe with us concerning the divine procession of the holy Spirit from the Father. But the other matters seem to me to be worthy of disregard, since the doctrine of truth is not at all harmed by them. For perhaps the greater part of them is false. For we ought not easily to lend an ear to idle calumnies, nor to put faith in our own suspicions, and to disturb things that are established and are in a good state.

^C 19. Hence, it is also highly necessary, most holy lord, that, when the pope has been elected, your holy perfection should set all these things out to him by a venerable letter; so, with the Lord assisting you in all things, and granting grace to your holiness for this. For perhaps, as the Apostle 43 says, if we with mildness gather those who think differently, God will give them repentance to recognize the truth, and they will cease from their much contentious insistence, having been led captive to His will. Perhaps also the pope will offer a defense, denying that the things which rumor has spread about the Latins are true; or he will assert that these things

43 II Tim. II, 25.

^A are perhaps done by some without his opinion and knowledge.

20. Who, then, could consider this acceptable, that the Romans or Latins do not venerate the holy and venerable icons, nor honor the relics of the saints? And this, while the relics of the saints and chief apostles, Peter and Paul, are deposited with them—relics in which they seem to glory more and to boast more magnificently than in all other Roman narratives and illustrious deeds, with which every history and poem is full? Moreover, since the Roman Pope Hadrian presided over the seventh synod along with the other most holy patriarchs, and anathematized the alien and new doctrine of the heretical iconoclastic Christians, for what reason would anyone grant that the holy and venerable icons are not honored by the Romans? Especially since many holy icons have been translated from Rome to Constantinople, possessing ^B great excellence and accuracy, being images that are likenesses of the original holiness. For we see the Frankish pilgrims visit our most venerable temples and bestow every honor and reverence upon the holy icons.

21. Therefore, I entreat, I beseech, I implore, and with my mind I clasp your holy feet, that your God-like beatitude, abandoning excessive rigor, may accommodate itself to the circumstances. For one must fear that, while wishing to mend the schism, one might make the rent worse; and while striving to raise up what has fallen, one might bring about a greater fall. Consider also whether it is not manifest from this, namely, from this long division and discord—that this great, first, and apostolic see has been severed from our holy Church—that all malice has increased in the world, that the whole world is in a bad state, that all the kingdoms of the earth are troubled, that mourning prevails everywhere, that there is much woe, and frequent famines and plagues in regions and cities, and that our armies, for the most part, do not fare ^C prosperously in any way?

22. As for me, I would make my opinion known: if they would correct the addition to the holy Creed, I would ask for nothing else; I would leave the question concerning unleavened bread, along with other matters, as a matter of indifference, although ^D

^A I have clearly proven by the things I sent to the Bishop of Venice that the Supper, during which our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ delivered the mystery of the divine initiation to the disciples, took place before the Passover at a time when it was not lawful to eat unleavened bread. I exhort your godlike blessedness to accept this, that we may not, by seeking everything, lose everything. Wherefore these things suffice to set forth our opinion regarding what you pointed out, and to move your holy soul to pity; even though the discussion ^B is drawn toward the development and explanation of many other deeper matters and considerations.

23. I have also read copies of the letters which you sent to the most blessed Pope, and his replies, unless they have been forged or altered by Argyros, as you indicated; and I praised you as blessed in God for such great humility and meekness. However, the causes of the dissension ought to have been included, since you were writing regarding unity and concord, so that by their clarification the letters might appear perfect. The sacred letters of your holiness, which you sent to the priests and God-bearing brothers and our fellow-ministers, the Alexandrian and the Jerusalemite, were also forwarded. My response to the Venetian, however, did not contain any indication from him that he had sent letters to your blessedness, as your letter suggests. Wherefore ^C you seem to me to complain without cause about a man who wrote nothing of the sort.

24. I have also sent a copy of the reply sent to me by the Pope of blessed memory, written in Roman [Latin] letters. For we were unable to find anyone who could accurately translate that tongue into this Greek language. Therefore, I persuaded the Frank who brought it, as he is skilled in Roman letters, to transcribe it. It is now your task to interpret it faithfully, so that it may be fully known what the aforementioned Pope wrote back to us after receiving our letters of recommendation.

25. But let these things be as they are. May the God of peace—for it is good that the epilogue of my writing should be rendered from Scripture—who preached peace to those who are near and to those who are far, ^D to those who are under the law and to those who are outside the law, the Father of love, who loves to be called "Love" above all other titles, that by his very names he might ordain fraternal love, awakening and rousing himself.

and ^A brotherly love; beseeching you to beseech your own sanctified soul, and to persuade it to approach matters with greater moderation and condescension; especially where, as I have already said, God does not tolerate contempt.

V. Of the most holy Michael, archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and ecumenical patriarch, Cerularius, to Peter, patriarch of Antioch.

1. The wicked one never ceases his insidious plots against us and his mechanisms against the human race, most blessed one; but from time to time he stirs up various calamities in life, and daily sets in motion countless inventions against men, striving to shake us by them completely and to cast us down. And at other times he has sent into life other storms, truly infinite in number and at different times. But now, when both the scandals of heresies have been removed and the fountains of the orthodox faith pour forth abundantly and copiously to the ends of the earth, he has driven from the Western region into this great city certain detestable and impious men—by what name would any pious person not call these?—who, indeed, pretended that the cause of their coming was having been sent by the Pope, but in truth came to the imperial city through the guileful suggestions and counsels of Argyros, striving to provide causes of great scandals both against others and against piety itself.

^B 2. And as for their other guiles and perverse and foolish machinations, what need is there to recount them? For the letters which they brought to us and to our powerful and holy emperor turned out to be forged, the fraud and adulteration of the seals openly proving the invention. But that which is last in order, but first in the magnitude of malice and wickedness, this I shall represent in writing to your perfection.

3. For as they were discovered to have made a guileful departure and to have forged the letters, so they also added other words, full of pride and audacity, against the right faith: asserting that orthodoxy had been corrupted by us, both in other matters and in that we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not also from the Son; while pretending that among themselves this remains sound and firm. They even boastfully said that they had set out for our correction, not for the perversion of their own. And we, for our part, declined their conversation and meeting; as much because we were certain that they could not be moved from their impiety, as because we considered that, without your blessedness and the other most holy patriarchs, to stir up words about such matters with the legates of Rome was altogether unworthy and contrary to the custom which has prevailed in such matters in previous times, and by no means fitting. ^{C D}

^A 4. But those men, wishing to act with even greater over-boldness than before and desiring to surpass their former deeds, deposited a writing against us in the mystical table of the Great Church of God. ^B It sets forth certain other ravings of their impiety, and finally it subjects to anathema the entire Church of the Orthodox, because those who are in it will not shave their beards like the Latins, nor do they hesitate to receive the oblation from married presbyters, and because they offer leavened bread, and because in the Symbol of our faith they do not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but from the Father alone; laying them under anathema.

^B 5. Now, it would have been better for this impious writing to have been burned, and not to have come to our sight at all. But that did not happen at the time, because it was deposited openly and in the sight of others, and of all the weekly-service subdeacons. Furthermore, we considered it unseemly to take vengeance on those who had thus blasphemed against us, or rather against all the Orthodox, in the Great Church of God, lest we give an occasion for scandal to those in Rome. ^C For among others, he who seemed to hold the first place in the legation called himself the chancellor of the Roman Church and a cousin of the King and of the Pope. In the meantime, however, by the same right, we subjected both the blasphemy itself against us and those who had set forth that impious writing against the Orthodox to anathema in the great secretum, by imperial command; having, indeed, after the placing of that writing, frequently exhorted them to come into our presence and to renounce both the other things contained in it, and the depravation of the holy Symbol. But after they refused, and threatened to lay violent hands upon themselves if they were further troubled in this matter, we determined that we had to proceed to anathema against their blasphemy.

^D 6. And these are the things which have been done by wicked men. We communicate them to your perfection, first, as you are a partaker with us in this same insult, for we are persuaded that you consider our position as your own. Second, because the right doctrine, of which you are a firm bulwark and an unconquerable defender, has been not moderately affected by disgrace and stained by the blasphemies of impious men. Then, so that having obtained knowledge and a full understanding of those things which have happened, if by chance letters should come to you from Rome concerning these matters, you may with deliberation and...