Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10.djvu/319

 MICHAEL

273

MICHAEL

cross of the former being made a condition to member- ship in the latter. After the Revolution the order was revived, in 1816, as a distinction to be conferred on those who had accomplished notable work in art or science, or who had performed extraordinary services for the state. In 1825 there was a solemn reception into the ordres dii rui, which did not, however, survive the Revolution of 1830.

(3) Knights of St. Michael's Wing, founded in the Cistercian monastery of Alcol>aza, about 1171, by Alfonso I, King of Portugal, in commemoration of a victory over the Moors, in which, according to tradi- tion, he was assisted by St. Michael in person. The knights were placed under the jurisdiction of the Abbot of Alcobaza and were pledged to recite the same prayers as Cistercian lay brothers. The order was in existence but a short time.

Helyot, Ordres religieux (Paris, 1S59).

Flohence Rudge McGahan.

Michael Caerularius {K-npov\dpios), Patriarch of Constantinople (1043-.5S), author of the second and final schism of the Byzantine Church, date of birth unknown; d. 1058. After the reconciliation following the schism of Photius (d. 891), there remained at Constantinople an anti-Latin party that gloried in the work of that patriarch, honoured him as the great defender of the Orthodox Church, and waited for a chance of renewing his quarrel. The onl)' explanation of Michael Cserularius's conduct is that he belonged from the beginning to the extreme wing of that party, and had always meant to break with the pope as soon as he could. Belonging to one of the great families of Constantinople, he held in his youth some place at the (^ourt. He began his public career by plotting with Constantine Monomachus, the future emperor, to depose Emperor Michael IV (1034-1041). Both conspirators were banished, and, in their exile, formed the friendship to which Csrularius owed his later ad- vancement. Ca?rularius was known as a dangerous person, so the Government tried to stop his political career by making him a monk. At first he refused ; then suddenly the suicide of his brother caused his conversion, and he vohmtarily entered a monastery. In 1042 Monomachus became emperor peaceably by marrying Zoe, a descendant of Basil the Macedonian (Basil I, 867-86) and widow of both Romanus III (1028-34) and Michael IV. He remembered his old friend and fellow-conspirator and gave him an ambig- uous place at court, described as that of the emper- or's "familiar friend and guest at meals" (Psellus, "Enkomion", I, 324). As Cserularius was a monk, any further advancement must be that of an ecclesias- tical career. He was therefore next made syncellus (that is, secretary) of the patriarch, Alexius (1025-34). ■The syncellus was always a bishop, and held a place in the church second only to that of the patriarch himself. In 1034 Alexius died, and Constantine ap- pointed Caerularius as his successor. There was no election; the emperor "went like an arrow to the target" (Psellus, ibid., p. 326). From this moment the story of Cserularius becomes that of the great schism.

The time was singularly unpropitious for a quarrel with the pope. The Normans were invading Sicily, enemies of both the papacy and the Eastern Empire, from whom they were conquering that island. There was every reason why the pope (St. Leo IX, 1048-54) and the emperor should keep friends and unite their forces against the common enemy. Both knew it, and tried throughout to prevent a quarrel. But it was forced on them by the outrageous conduct of the patriarch. Suddenly, after no kind of provocation, in the midst of wliat John Beccus describes as " perfect peace" between the two Churches (L. Allatius, "Graecia orthod.", I, 37), Cserularius sent a declara- tion of War against the pope and the Latins. His X.— 18

agent was Leo, Metropolitan of Achrida in Bulgaria. In 1053 this latter sent a letter to Bishop John o£ Tranum in Apulia, complaining of certain Latin cus- toms, especially fasting on Saturday and the use of azyme (unleavened) bread for the Holy Eucharist. He says that the letter is meant for "all the bishops of the Franks and for the most venerable pope" (published by Will, " Acta et scripta ", 56-60). There is no doubt that it was dictated by Ccerularius. John of Tranum sent the letter on to Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, who translated it and showed it to the pope. Caerularius then sent to the other patriarchs a treatise written by Nicetas Pectoratus (Xiketas Steth- atos in Greek), a monk of Studion, against azyme bread, fasting on Saturday, and celibacy. Because of these "horrible infirmities", Nicetas describes Latins as "dogs, bad workmen, schismatics, hypocrites, and hars" (Will, op. cit., 127-36). Caerularius's third move made it plain that he meant war to the knife. Still entirely unprovoked, he closed all the Latin churches at Constantinople, including that of the papal legate. His chancellor Xicephorus burst open the Latin tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist because it was consecrated in azyme bread.

The pope then answered the letter of Leo of Achrida. Knowing well whence it came, he addressed his an- swer in the first place to Caerularius. It is a dignified defence of the customs attacked and of the rights of the Holy See. He points out that no one thought of attacking the many Byzantine monasteries and churches in the West (Will, op. cit., 65-85). For a moment Caerularius seems to have wavered in his plan tecause of the importance of the pope's help against the Normans. He writes to Peter III of Antioch, that he had for this reason proposed an al- liance with Leo (Will, 174). Leo answered this pro- posal resenting the stupendous arrogance of Michael's tone, but still hoping for peace. At the same time he wrote a very friendly letter to th.e emperor, and sent both documents to Constantinople by three legates Cardinal Humbert., Cardinal Frederick (his own cousin and Chancellor of the Roman Church, after- wards Stephen IX, 1057-58), and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi. The emperor, who was exceedingly annoyed about the whole quarrel, received the legates with honour and lodged them in his palace. Cserular- ius, who had now quite given up the idea of his al- liance, was very indignant that the legates did not give him precedence and prostrate before him, and wrote to Peter of Antioch that they are "insolent, boastful, rash, arrogant, and stupid" (Will, 177). Several weeks passed in discus.sion. Cardinal Hum- bert wrote defences of the Latin customs, and inci- dentally converted Nicetas Pectoratus (Will, 93-126, 136-50). Cicrularius refused to see the legates or to hold any communication with them: he struck the pope's name from his diptychs, and so declared open schism. The legates then prepared the Bull of ex- communication against him, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents, which they laid on the altar of Sancta Sophia on 16 July, 1054. Two days later they set out for Rome. The emperor was still on good terms with them and gave them presents for Monte Cassino. Hardly were they gone when Caerularius sent for them to come back, meaning to have them murdered (the evidence for this is given in Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 186-7). Caerularius, when this at- tempt failed, sent an account of the whole story to the other patriarchs so full of lies that John of Antioch answered him: " I am covered with shame that your venerable letter shoukl contain such things. Believe me, I do not know how to explain it for your own sake, especially if you have written like this to the other mof?t blessed patriarchs" (Will, 190).

After the schism Caerularius became for a time the strongest man at Constantinople. He fjuarrelled with his former patron, Constaatine IX, who appeased him