8/10/2019 With the Greeks Of

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/with-the-greeks-of 1/3

Pope Innocent III as Crusader and Canonist: His Relations with the Greeks of 

Constantinople, 1198-1216

Alfred J. Andrea

Church History, Vol. 39, No. 1. (Mar., 1970), pp. 133-134.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-6407%28197003%2939%3A1%3C133%3APIIACA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

Church History is currently published by American Society of Church History.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/asch.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.orgThu Sep 6 01:32:05 2007

8/10/2019 With the Greeks Of

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/with-the-greeks-of 2/3

DISSERTATION ABSTRACT

Pope Infiocent III

as

Crusader Ca nm ist : H is Relations w ith the Greeks of Colz-

stantinople 1198-1216. By ALFRED AND REA.Cornell University, 1969

Advisor RI NTIERNEY.

T hi s dissertation attem pts to evaluate the importance of Po pe Innocent

I11

in the development of the ecclesiastical schism between Rome and Constantinople.

T h e essay begins by tracing the history of t he schism from 330 t o 1198 T h e

argument is developed that the estrangement had three major aspects and causes:

the temporal (i.e. the political and cultural) ; he ecclesiastical (i.e. the doctrinal,

liturgical and disciplinary)

;

and the ecclesiological. Of these the ecclesiological

was the most basic.

Th ese different ecclesiologies developed ou t of basically different canonical

traditions. T he re was, it is true, room for a great d iversity of opinion within

these tw o canonical traditions. Still, each perm itted t he evolution of a g eneral

ecclesiology tha t was antithetical towar d the o ther. By th e late eleventh cen-

tur y the difference was so great t hat it constituted a n actual state of schism. T hi s

schism, however, did not become appa rent to the va st ma jority of Christendom

until the twelfth century. I n this same century the schism became even mo re

serious. Th is was due to the flurry of canonical activity in both E ast and W est

which defined more closely and hardened these different ecclesiologies. It was

also due to the economic, cultural, and political clashes which occurred with ever

increasing frequency and bitterness.

W hen Innocent ascended the papal thron e in

1198

the schism was quite

real and very deep.

Ho we ver, it was not beyond repair. I t was possible tha t a

pope, especially one who was such a gifted canon lawyer, could begin to heal

the breach.

By Innocent s death in 1216

the schism had become virtually final. The

political and ecclesiological differences had become quite unmendable. Ironica lly,

the ecclesiastical ar ea of controv ersy had become partially resolved.

T he arm y of the F ou rth Crusade, which captured and pillaged C onstantinople,

created an insurmountable barrier of hatred between Greeks and Latins. In-

nocent had not originally planned th e Latin c apture of Constantinople. H e tried

unsuccessfully to stop the diversions of th e arm y to Z ara a nd Constantinople.

His major reason for opposing any attack on Byzantium was that he feared

greatly the Greeks military might. H is firs t concern was and remained always

the successful prosecution of a crusade. H e was frustrated in his attem pt to

stop the army s diversions largely by two factors. H e misjudged his own control

over the consciences of the Fr enc h crusade rs. H e had been convinced by a num -

ber of the leading nobles within the army that the French crusaders would not

act without explicit papal command. Therefore, he was not willing to abort the

crusad e lest it go to Co nstantinople. T he re was also a definite conspiracy by

certain crusade leaders such as Enrico Dandalo, Boniface de Montferrat, and

Nevelon, B ishop of Soissons, to diver t the arm y despite the pope s clear verbal

prohibitions.

Although Innocent had strenuously opposed the primary diversion of the

arm y t o Constantinople he did not oppose the second assault upon th at city. Afte r

he learned of the basic inability of the G reeks to oppose the L atin arm y he w as

more than ready to allow the Latin crusaders to use force against the Greeks

again. T his time they were to use their ar ms not for a young G reek prince s

benefit but for the everlasting benefit of Christ s church. W e can actually say

that Innocent countenanced, before the fact, further Latin action against the

Greeks in order to insure that the Latins original actions prove fruitful.

W he n the crusaders established the La tin em pire of Constantinople the pope

received the news with joy. H e was convinced tha t this god-sent miracle had

8/10/2019 With the Greeks Of

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/with-the-greeks-of 3/3

  HUR H HISTORY

brought the Greek church back into the fold of the Roman church and would

also insure the success of a future crusade. He became and remained until his

death the empire's staunchest patron and defender.

Such action in support of a

hated oppressor caused the Greek populace to mistrust and hate the papacy more

than ever before.

Innocent's ultrapapal ecclesiology also became an insurmountable barrier be-

tween the two churches. He took the strong papalist teachings of the Western

canonical tradition and derived from them a totally absolutist papalism. So far

as Innocent was concerned the Roman church was the church universal. The

bishop of Rome held all power within his hands. All authority exercised within

the church was derived from his plenitude of power. No legitimate ecclesiastical

or temporal authority could be exercised outside of the Roman church. Indeed,

outside of this church there was no salvation.

To a very real degree Innocent set Latin canon law of the thirteenth century

into this ultrapapalist framework.

This ecclesiology became the predominant ec-

clesiology of the lawyers of the Roman church. These lawyers dominated the

thirteenth century chair of St . Peter.

This ultrapapalist ecclesiology was totally antithetical to the general collegial

ecclesiology of Constantinople. Even their Latin overlords could not force the

Greeks to abandon their pentarchic view of a mystical, collegial church and ac-

cept this alien view of a monarchically directed church.

Because of his ultrapapalism Innocent was willing to compromise on secondary

issues. To his mind the only absolute prerequisite for reunion of the two chuches

was that the Greeks render total obedience to the papacy. When, following the

establishment of the Latin empire at Constantinople, he was faced with almost

total Greek opposition to his papalism he began a policy of compromise in order

to win over their hearts. Very slowly and reluctantly he abandoned an earlier

program of Latinizing all rites and customs which were in opposition to Western

canon law. It was probably not until 1214 that he finally decided to grant the

Greeks full license to follow their non-Latin rites and customs. This policy was

clearly formulated at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. The concession ap-

plied only to ecclesiastical ritual and custom. In no way did Innocent concede

anything in regard to doctrine or ecclesiology.

This concession proved to be ineffectual. The vast majority of Greeks still

refused to accept Innocent's definition of papal primacy. They continued to despise

the Roman pontiff as not only a heretic but also as a man who had destroyed

their empire.

The dissertation contains eight appendices. Appendix I studies Innocent's

policy toward the Greek rite among the Greek uniate Catholics of the West.

Special emphasis is placed upon his relations with the Greeks of southern Italy

and Sicily. Appendix I1 is devoted to an investigation of the role of Gratian's

Decretunz in changing the papacy's age old attitude toward Constantinople's

claim to patriarchal honor and a position of dignity second only to Rome. p

pendix I11 is involved with the problem of when John X Camaterus became

patriarch of Constantinople. Appendix IV studies the problem, When did Alexius

I11 write his letter concerning Cyprus to Innocent 111' Appendix V treats of the

question, Were the Crusaders excommunicated for their attack on Zara? Ap-

pendix V I attempts to make clear a point of confused chronology in the Gesta

Innocentii III

Appendix V I I contains the Greek text of the first letter of

1206/07 from the Greek clergy of Constantinople to the pope. Appendix VIII

contains the Greek text of the second letter of this period from the Greek clergy

to

Innocent.