grouped by Liz James 24-10-03:
Abstract paper a
My paper will be dealing with the ways the Byzantines dealt with problem of religious and more specifically ecclesiastical legitimacy mainly in the period between 1204 and 1261, and the long-term consequences in this sphere of the first Fall of Constantinople. Once the City had been taken the Patriarch, who by that time acted as the Head of the main body of the Eastern Church, was replaced by a Latin Patriarch who had no real authority over the Byzantine Church and served mainly the needs of the new Kingdom the capital of which was Constantinople. Nominally, the new ‘Byzantine’ (let’s use this rather problematic term for the time being) set up his seat in Nicaea but his authority only stretched as far as the Kingdom of Nicaea. The whole period is a period of Ecclesiastical and religious anomaly. The best way to make a cross-section of this anomaly is to cut straight through with two test-cases. On canonical grounds, Metropolitan of Thessaloniki Constantinos Messopotamitis refused to crown Theodoros Emperor or King. A pretext or a genuine apprehension at the ecclesiastical consequences of such an act? And on what grounds did Demetrios Homatianos finally crown him King? Secondly, the Church of Bulgaria was recognized as an autonomous Church in precisely this period. It was clearly a diplomatic move. The Emperors of Nicaea simply wished to lure the Bulgarians into an alliance with them, lest, despite their differences, they ally with the state of Epirus. How canonical was this autokephalon ( the Greek technical term for the independence of a local Church?), especially if we take into consideration that it was first pushed through the Imperial Senate and then through the Synod? What I hope to prove is that as the Patriarch-centred system broke down, they had to go back to the older, almost forgotten Metropolitan system. I understand that these are fairly old-fashioned, slightly technical matters and do not clearly fall into any of the categories in the announcement but hope that there may be a bit of time in the IMC 2004 for such crucial matters.
Abstract paper b
In the wake of the Latin occupation of Constantinople in 1204, the Crusaders, no doubt encouraged by Pope Innocent III, supplanted the indigenous Orthodox Church. Among other things, they replaced Orthodox bishops with those loyal to Rome, subordinated the lower clergy, seized monastic lands, imposed Western liturgical customs, and even forced (re-)baptism and (re-)ordination upon converts. Not surprisingly, many Byzantines did not conform. This paper explores the sporadic uprisings by Byzantine clergy, monks and lay persons during the Latin occupation of Byzantium and argues that its principal sources were religious and ethnic partisanship.
Abstract paper c
Joachim of Fiore (d. 1202) interpreted the schism between the Latin and Greek churches as a preordained development in post-biblical history. The abbot also foretold their pre-apocalyptic reunion. In 1204, the Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople, inaugurating an expectation for the churches’ reunion that manifested itself among the adherents to Joachim’s schemes. The restoration of the Eastern church to Roman authority formed a central strand of Joachite thought during the thirteenth century. After the Fourth Crusade, at the council of Nympha (1234) and at the second council of Lyon (1274), important ecclesiastical figures were influenced by Joachim’s writings, including Innocent III and Gregory IX, as well as members of the Franciscan order. Modern examinations of the schism are incomplete without an appreciation of how Latin Christians viewed the division of Christendom and its restoration as part of a divine plan for history.
Abstract paper d-
Novgorod stood on the frontier between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in northern Europe, and it too was faced with crusades by the Teutonic knights in the 13th century, although it was not conquered as was Constantinople. The paper looks at the role of the Archbishop of Novgorod, the preeminent ecclesiastic in northwestern Rus’ (Russia) as a defender of Orthodoxy against the Catholic encroachment from the west.