bs_bs_banner

Journal of Religious History

Vol. ••, No. ••, •• 2015
doi: 10.1111/1467-9809.12327

JACK TURNER

Was Photios an Anti-Latin?: Heresy and Liturgical

Variation in the Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs*

In discussing Epistle 2, most of the attention has been focused on the discussion of
the filioque, to the exclusion of Photios’ other liturgical and ecclesiastical comments.
While the filioque arguments are now widely seen as an interpolation into the text
(though whether by the hand of Photios or another author can be debated), these
additional comments are largely glossed over. However, the liturgical comments in
Photios’ Ep. 2 are indeed a central point of contention for the Patriarch himself, rather
than a scribe or secondary author. Photios’ antagonism towards Latin liturgy is part of
a broader cultural conflict between the two halves of medieval Christendom. For
Photios, as well as his predecessors and successors, Orthodoxy was increasingly
defined as not only a theological issue, but an issue of praxis, and the presence of
innovative liturgical practices was indicative of a perverted theology. These sorts of
differences would have been especially notable for Greek missionaries to the
Bulgars who lived and worked beside, and in opposition to, Latin missionaries in a com-
petition for ecclesiastical hegemony. Ultimately, Photios’ writings against the liturgical
practices of the Latins were of considerably greater importance to his contemporaries than
the filioque was to his successors, and the implications of Photios’ theology, given his
enduring importance to Orthodox Christianity, have the potential to create new flashpoints
in contemporary discussions between Orthodox and Western Christians.

Though conflict between Christianity and the prevailing culture seems to be a

unique feature of our modern society, the original culture war within Christianity
was the competition between Greek and Latin Christianities in the last quarter
of the first millennium. Contacts between an increasingly homogenous Greek
East and a decreasingly familiar Latin West created occasions for conflict that
was as cultural as it was theological. Such an opportunity arose in the middle of
the ninth century when Western and Greek missionaries were competing for the
ecclesiastical loyalty of the newly converted Bulgarian Church. Simultaneously,
with the deposition of Patriarch Ignatios of Constantinople by Emperor Michael

Dr Jack Turner is coordinator and instructor of LIBR 101 and teaches in the Religious Studies
Department at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
* An earlier version of this article was delivered as a paper during the meeting of the History of
Christianity section of the Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion, March 2013,
Greenville, South Carolina.

1
© 2015 Religious History Association
2 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY

III and quick elevation of Photios to the patriarchate from the civil service, there
was an open opportunity for Pope Nicholas to forcefully assert his perceived
authority in a way considered hostile by the new patriarch Photios. Partisans
of the deposed patriarch appealed to Rome where Pope Nicholas ruled that
Photios had invaded the patriarchate and that Ignatios must be restored. Simul-
taneously, the conflict reached a head with Photios charging the West with
various liturgical and theological irregularities and calling a council in 867
which declared Pope Nicholas deposed, resulting in an open schism.1
Francis Dvornik’s The Photian Schism, written in 1948, stands as the
epitome of scholarship on the conflict between Nicholas and Photios in the
ninth century, and has yet to be surpassed, so we need not go over the matter
extensively here. However, there are still a great many questions which remain
to be answered regarding the affair, and most of the research to date on the
Schism of 863–67 has been focused either on the role of doctrinal disputes
in the fight or the competition for the allegiance of the nascent Bulgarian
church. Very little has been directly said about differences in ecclesiastical
customs as an important sticking point in the fight between the two sides,
and what has been said is generally dismissive.2 However, new research into
the era of Photios, particularly the letter he used to call for a council to
condemn the pope in 867, indicates that the cultural dimension to the conflict
is of greater significance than previously considered.

Eastern and Western Conflict in Context

Historically, the Greek East and the Latin West considered themselves to
constitute together one whole and catholic church, sharing a single doctrine
and a common Roman identity3 against the northern barbarians and the
churches opposed to the Council of Chalcedon. By the sixth century, impor-
tant political and cultural shifts had begun to occur within the two halves of
the old Roman Empire that would affect the relationship between the two
halves of Christendom. In truth, East and West had been growing apart for
a number of centuries, as can be seen from the development of specific
distinctive theological positions in both forms of Christianity as early as
the fourth century.4 These distinctives were highlighted by developments in
1. Those unfamiliar with the Photian Schism should consult the classic study F. Dvornik, The
Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1948), as well as
H. Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times to the
Council of Florence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 119–92, which treats the Photian
affair at length while making use of more recent studies.
2. See, for example, T. M. Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Urbana and
Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 24–25, where she identifies Patriarch Michael Keroularios
as instigating a new genre of anti-heretical writing. She states that Photios, while making a brief list of
Latin religious errors, dismisses all but the filioque as unimportant. See also R. Haugh, Photius and the
Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1975), 97.
3. T. M. Kolbaba, Inventing Latin Heretics: Byzantines and the Filioque in the Ninth Century
(Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University Press, 2008), 41.
4. This would include such things as clerical celibacy, translation of bishops from one see to
another, combating different heresies in different parts of Christendom (Monophysiteism in the
East, Pelagianism, Arianism, and Adoptionism in the West) and, of course, the emergence of the
filioque as early as the fifth century.

© 2015 Religious History Association

 WA S P H O T I O S A N A N T I - L AT I N ? 3

the seventh and eighth centuries which set the stage for the conflict between
Photios and Nicholas.
The first major change was invasions, first from the Slavs in the north and
then the Arabs from the south. These shrunk the Byzantine Empire to a shadow
of its former self, reducing the region of its effective control to Anatolia, a slice
of Macedonia along the coast, the Peloponnesus, and a few tenuous enclaves in
Italy by 842, the year Michael III was named co-emperor with his father.
Things had actually been worse at one point, with Thrace cut off from
Macedonia by the Bulgarians, thus precluding travel over land between Italy
and Constantinople, but the empire would regain some of its lost territory
beginning as early as 860. Thus, the empire which had once been composed
of multiple ethnic groups with diverse cultural and liturgical practices had
been reduced to its Greek-speaking heartlands; ecclesiastically, liturgical
non-conformists had been lost much earlier as Egyptian and Syrian Christians
largely sided with the Monophysites and were thus lost to the official Chalcedonian
church. The homogeneity of the Eastern Chalcedonian church after the seventh
century is best illustrated in the canons promulgated by the Council in Trullo,
which promoted Greek practices at the expense of all others in the form of a
supposedly ecumenical council.
The second major challenge to mutual understanding between East and West
was the independence of the papacy from the Emperor which allowed succes-
sive popes to argue for and gain claim to greater hegemony than was possible
in the East. Peoples converted after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire
were largely converted by missionaries supported by the pope, and as a conse-
quence the prestige of the papacy increased significantly. Even in areas that
were Christianised earlier, the pope was able to assert significant influence over
the episcopate, an influence which had reached an apex with Pope Nicholas I
who forcefully asserted what he perceived to be his canonical right as final
arbiter of the Christian world.5 This papal independence was bolstered in the East
by the papacy’s resistance to the monothelite and iconoclast heresies, though fre-
quently the papacy regarded that prestige as more significant than was warranted.6
Thus, with very different conceptions of themselves and very different ideas
about the practices and traditions of the other half of their one church, it was only
a matter of time before the two halves of the church entered into open conflict.
That opportunity came with the conversion of the Slavs in the ninth century.
Relations became volatile during the first patriarchate of Ignatios and this
continued into that of his successor, Photios. Ignatios had been a younger son
of Emperor Michael I Rangabes, but at his father’s abdication before Leo V
the Armenian, he was castrated and sent to a monastery in the Princes’ Islands.
While there, he gained a considerable reputation for piety and asceticism, as

5. J. C. Bishop, “Pope Nicholas I and the First Age of Papal Independence” (PhD diss.,
Columbia University, 1980), 107–8.
6. This is, of course, a very brief and rough summary. Those seeking further background should
consult Chadwick, East and West; Kolbaba, Inventing Latin Heretics, 49–56, and A. Louth, Greek
East and Latin West: The Church, AD 681–1071 (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
2007), esp. 13–39.

© 2015 Religious History Association

4 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY

well as his opposition to iconoclasm during the waning days of the movement.
In 847 he was chosen by Theodora to succeed Methodios I as patriarch, though
he never submitted to a canonical election. Early on during his patriarchate,
Ignatios had created a difficult situation for himself. First, he had deposed
Greogry Asbestas of Syracuse who had deplored Ignatios’ uncanonical nomina-
tion and election. Gregory had appealed to Rome, which only reminded the
current incumbent, Leo IV, that papal jurisdiction over Sicily and Illyria had
been transferred to Constantinople, and provided an occasion to demand their
return. While Ignatios was able to hold power until the fall of Theodora in
855, after the ascension of Emperor Michael III he was quickly convinced to
resign as patriarch. A successor was quickly elected in the person of Photios.
Photios was not an ecclesiastic, but was an unmarried layman within the
civil administration. His uncle was Patriarch Tarasios, and his parents had suf-
fered under the iconoclast emperors.7 He was quickly elected and ordained in
time for the Christmas celebrations in 858. Though Photios had been elected
with the understanding that he would continue the policies of Ignatios (which,
in large measure, he did), he incurred the wrath of Ignatios’ remaining sup-
porters by overturning the deposition of Gregory Asbestas and allowing the lat-
ter to participate in his consecration.8 Ignatios’ supporters appealed to Rome to
consider Photios’ election and the pope, now Nicholas I, agreed, perhaps sensing an
opportunity to press papal appellate jurisdiction even further. Initially relations
between Photios and Nicholas seemed to have been cordial enough. The pope
had received Photios’ synodika (though it contained no request for ratification),
and Nicholas responded expressing his concerns to Photios, including his rapid
elevation, jurisdiction in Illyricum, and the role of Gregory in his consecration,
whose appeal had never been addressed.9 There was also the matter of evangel-
ical ambition between the two sides. After receiving the request of Ignatios’ par-
tisans for papal intervention, Nicholas sent two legates to Constantinople with
instructions to adjudicate the matter and secure the return of Illyricum to the
papacy. The legates confirmed Photios’ election but failed to gain concessions
on the other papal demands. Following the legates return, Nicholas decided they
had exceeded their authority and excommunicated Photos as a usurper.
On being informed of the Roman synod’s decision, Michael replied to the
pope with what has been described as “one of the rudest letters of Byzantine
history,”10 demanding the withdrawal of Nicholas’ condemnation and threaten-
ing retaliatory action if the pope failed to yield. Photios, for his part, simply
ignored the deposition and excommunication, preferring to go on with a
myriad of other tasks that absorbed him, especially missionary activity in the
Balkans. Photios began making his case against the Roman missionaries in
Bulgaria by sending an encyclical to the other patriarchs condemning the

7. Chadwick, East and West, 127.

8. Chadwick, East and West, 125–56. Ignatios’ supporters contended that the deposed patriarch
had instructed his followers to elect a replacement from among his communion, and thus not
Gregory. By allowing the supposedly deposed Gregory to share in his own consecration, Photios
seemed to have broken the terms laid down by Ignatios.
9. Chadwick, East and West, 134–37.
10. Chadwick, East and West, 147.

© 2015 Religious History Association

 WA S P H O T I O S A N A N T I - L AT I N ? 5

Roman activity in the region and summoning a council to repudiate the errors he
had found. In 867, Photios held a synod at which Nicholas was condemned. But
that would be the highlight of Photios’ first patriarchate. In 867, Michael was
assassinated and Basil, Michael’s co-emperor, was proclaimed as his successor.
Suddenly, just as Ignatios before him, Photios found himself without imperial
support. The legates sent to inform the pope of his deposition were recalled and
Photios found himself removed from office and exiled. A synod was convened
in 869 where Photios was declared to have never been a bishop and anathematised.
Despite formal communion having been restored, the papacy was still unable to
secure the return of its former territory in Illyricum. Photios was able to return to
the patriarchate after the death of Ignatios in 877, and a synod was convened in
879 to rehabilitate his previous patriarchate. Though the council had restored
union between Rome and Constantinople, the issues that lead to the council were
never fully addressed. In short, the air was thick with conflict and the council
achieved little in terms of dissipating future danger. Perhaps this is best repre-
sented by the fact that, in the East, Photios is venerated as a saint while in the West
he has been viewed as a father of schism while Nicholas is venerated in the West
and in the East is regarded as an ambitious promoter of papal tyranny.

Photian Letters in Context

To date, there has been no comprehensive study of Photios’ epistles. There
have been studies of the homilies11 and the Bibliotheca,12 but little work done
on the letters themselves.13 In addition, there is only one study of a few of
Photios’ epistles in English translation, and is there no complete English trans-
lation of all the epistles. What letters are translated have been done piecemeal,
usually in the course of other studies.14 Part of the issue is that Photios himself

11. C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople: English Translation,

Introduction, and Commentary (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958).
12. A good English-language overview would be W. T. Treadgold, The Nature of the Bibliotheca of
Photius (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1980) and A. Diller, “Photius’ ‘Bibliotheca’ in Byzantine
Literature,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1964): 389–96; A partial English translation of the Bibliotheca
can be found in J. H. Freese, The Library of Photius, Vol. 1, and N. G. Wilson, The Bibliotheca: A Selection
(London: Duckworth, 1994); however, there is a complete French translation which includes the original
Greek text and commentary: R. Henry, Photius: Bibliothèque, 9 vols. (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1991).
13. The sole exception to this is the focus which has been paid to Photios’ letter to Boris-Michael
in D. S. White and J. R. Berrigan, The Patriarch and the Prince: The Letter of Photios of
Constantinople to Kahn Boris of Bulgaria (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982); a single
study dedicated to some of the letters of Photios, D. S. White, Patriarch Photios of Constantinople: His
Life, Scholarly Contributions, and Correspondence Together with Fifty-Two of His Letters (Brookline,
MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981), was produced but was of questionable quality.
14. Because of the volume of correspondence, this study is, in fact, no exception. I have delib-
erately narrowed my focus to Ep. 2 because it is the clearest statement of Photios’ views on Western
customs. While there are several hundred letters in Photios’ correspondence, it is beyond the scope
of the current study to investigate all of those letters fully. Other letters of Photios, where they
illustrate similar points made in Ep. 2, will be considered as appropriate, but the primary focus
remains Ep. 2 and not his letters in general. I have chosen to follow the numbering of B. Laourdas
and L. G. Westernick in their critical edition of the works of Photios, Ep. 2 “encyclia ad sedes
orientales,” Photii, Patriarchae Constantinopolitani: Epistulae et Ampholichia, Vol. I: Epistularum
pars prima (Leipzig: Teubner Verglagsgesellschaft, 1983), 9–53. However, it is also available as
“Epistula XII: ad archiepiscopales thronos per Orientem obtinentes,” PG 102, cols. 721–41. The
only complete, if somewhat idiosyncratic, English translation available is in J. Popovich, “The Life
of St Photios the Great,” Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, ed. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, trans.
R. Wertz (Brookline, MA: Studion Publishers, 1983), 33–64.

© 2015 Religious History Association

6 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY

was a prolific author and scholar even before he entered the service of the
church, as has been acknowledged by modern authors and Photios’ own con-
temporaries, who regarded him as well versed in classical Greek literature.15
Had he not been associated with the schism in the West, he no doubt would
have been considered the greatest luminary of the Middle Ages.16
As it has come down to us, Ep. 2 was ostensibly written as a circular letter to
the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem by Photios for the
purpose of convincing the other patriarchs of the fallacy of the filioque and
to condemn the Western church for inserting the clause into the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.17 While few doubt the authenticity of the
letter,18 it is evident that the extant form has fallen under the hand of a redactor
who has assembled multiple fragments on different subjects into a single
letter.19 It consists of an introduction which briefly summarises the history of
all the heresies overcome by the seven ecumenical councils before informing
the reader of the existence of irregularities within the newly converted Bulgarian
church. The letter then goes on to describe the variances in the tradition that
have been introduced to the Bulgarians, the most heinous of all being the
doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and from the
Son; this latter issue is most grievous of all because the interlopers dared mod-
ify the Nicene Creed to suit their own innovation. The letter then launches into
a long refutation of this doctrine of the double procession (about 100 lines)
before returning to the liturgical matters. The text refutes each of these in their
turn, including a brief mention of the double procession, noting that everyone
who promotes such teachings has been “condemned by divine and conciliar
decree,” before calling on the recipients to send representatives to Constantino-
ple for a council. Finally, the author notes that a letter has been received from
the Italian bishops citing a dispute with the Bishop of Rome, which will be
discussed in the aforementioned council, as well as the need to reaffirm the
Seventh Ecumenical Council. The letter closes with a petition for prayers from
the recipients for the author.
As can already be seen, the letter itself is highly unusual in its structure. In
particular, the long section on the filioque (lines 108–99) is wholly out of place
in the context of the rest of the letter, given the attention paid to this point rel-
ative to the other points. Simultaneously, the call for a council juxtaposed with
the notice that the heretics have already been condemned in council lends to

15. This was a fact that Ignatios’ followers complained about bitterly, accusing him of reciting
pagan poetry quietly during the Eucharist. See Nicetae Paphlagonis, “Vita Ignatii,” PG 105, cols.
509–10.
16. A. Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1908), 138.
17. It should be noted that, during the time of Photios, the filioque had not been added to the
creed of the Church of Rome. Indeed, the creed would not be recited with the filioque until
1008. Thus, what Photios is disputing is not the liturgical use of the filioque, but the theology of
the double procession.
18. This point is asserted by Kolbaba, Inventing Latin Heretics, 57.
19. See Kolbaba, Inventing Latin Heretics, 57–61 and P. Speck, “Die griechischen Quellen zur
Bekehrung der Bulgaren und die zwei ersten Briefe des Photios,” in Polypleuros nous: Miscellanea
für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, ed. C. Scholz, G. Makris, and P. Schreiner (Munich:
Saur, 2000), 353–55.

© 2015 Religious History Association

 WA S P H O T I O S A N A N T I - L AT I N ? 7

the conclusion that, if this is a letter, it has been very poorly constructed. But,
there is at least some evidence that the extant text may be a composite of sev-
eral different works. The section related to the filioque frequently circulated
separate from the rest of the letter or as a part of the Mystagogia of the Holy
Spirit, also attributed to Photios.20 As such, there are likely four different
strands that have been edited together to form the extant letter, as enumerated
by Speck: an encyclical letter stripped of its boilerplate, a separate text that
develops an early argument against the filioque, a separate letter describing a
local council in Constantinople that had renewed the condemnation against
iconoclasm, and a final collection of miscellany, including a reference to some
Italian bishops who have been complaining about Pope Nicholas’ interference
in their dioceses.21 While there is no reason to conclude that Photios or a
secretary did not write most, if not all, of what currently comprises the extant
version of the Encyclical,22 in the strand that would have been the letter calling
for the council, the filioque is only one matter among several.
At first, it seems strange that Photios would give so much attention to litur-
gical custom vis-à-vis doctrinal aberration, and yet when the filioque section of
the letter is removed, this is precisely what we are left with. Aside from the
filioque, the irregular practices that Westerners have taught to the Bulgarians
include: fasting Saturday (67–69), eating dairy during Lent (69–73), com-
manding that priests must be unmarried (73–79), and claiming that chrismation
is only valid when performed by a bishop (101–7). Nor is Photios alone in
looking down upon supposedly deviant liturgical practices. Nicholas, in his let-
ter to Boris-Michael, makes derisive mention of several particularly Greek
practices, though he does not elevate these deviations to quite the same level
as Photios. He is certainly convinced that the Roman practice is superior and
denigrates the Eastern practices, though without going so far as to say that they
are manifestly heretical.23 Shortly after the restoration of communion between
East and West in 880, Pope Stephen V demanded that Saturday fasting be kept
in Bulgaria.24 So, the conflict over proper liturgical custom was a normal part
of East–West relations after the time of Photios, and it is therefore not unrea-
sonable to conclude that liturgical matters would have been equally important
to him in his conflict with Nicholas I. Setting aside the Encyclical, there are a
few places to look for corroboration of the importance of liturgical and cultural
matters to Photios.

20. Kolbaba, Inventing Latin Heretics, 63–64. In the same volume, 165–68, Kolbaba set overlap-
ping passages from lines 108–99 and the Mystagogia side by side.
21. Speck, “Die griechischen Quellen,” 354–55.
22. Kolbaba, Inventing Latin Heretics, 62, 64–65. She bases her argument on Treadgold’s theory
of how the Bibliotheca developed.
23. The exemplar in this case would be his stand on clerical marriage, wherein he states that
married priests are “licet valde reprehensibiles sint,” but that it is the role of the bishop to judge
the life of a priest and not the duty of any layman, even the king. See Nicholas, Epistle 99, “ad
Bulgarorum consulta respondet,” Cap. LXX, in MGH: Epistolae, Bd. IV, 592. Of course, Nicholas
was most likely speaking of married clergy who continued to have marital relations with their
spouses rather than priests who lived in perpetual continence with their wives.
24. Pope Stephen V, Epistle Fragment 33, “ad Slavos euntibus commonitorium dat.,” Cap. XII, in
MGH: Epistolae, Bd. V, 353.

© 2015 Religious History Association

8 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY

The first place to look would be in the acta of the Council of 867 which was
ostensibly called to adjudicate the matters detailed in Ep. 2. However, the acts
of the council have been lost as they were destroyed after the pro-Ignatian
council of 869. Even though the council of 879 acknowledged Photios as the
legitimate patriarch and condemned the filioque, it did not necessarily reinstate
the council held in 867. The council in 879 only issued three canons: anyone
deposed or excommunicated condemned by Pope John would also be deposed
or excommunicated by Photios and John would depose or excommunicate
anyone deposed or excommunicated by Photios; bishops who resigned their
sees to become monks could not resume episcopal office; and lay authorities
are not to imprison bishops without just cause.25 The horos of the council
also denounces those who insert invented phrases into the creed
(εύρεσιολγίας),26 but says nothing about the 867 council. In the sessions
of the council itself, Photios nowhere refers to the condemnations in the
Encyclical or to the council of 867. Johan Meijer speculates that this was
because Photios felt vindicated that John VIII recognised Photios’ right to
be patriarch and that there was no need to revisit the condemnations against
Nicholas and the West.27 As a result, we cannot get any sense of what the
decisions of that council were from this source.
One further place to look is in the letters of Nicholas I, for he surely knew of
Photios’ opposition to the Roman mission in Bulgaria. Nicholas died in
November of 867 having never learned of the synod called by Photios to depose
him, and Nicholas’ successor Hadrian II made no response to the condemnation
of Nicholas. However, Nicholas was very likely aware of the proceedings
against him, stating that he has received letters from the Byzantine emperor to
Kahn Boris-Michael, possibly, but not definitely, including the Encyclical of
Photios.28 In light of the attack “against the whole church throughout the area
that uses the Latin language,”29 he makes a call to other Western bishops to join
in common cause against the Greeks and their errors. To that end, Nicholas
wrote to Hincmar of Rheims30 and Liutburt of Mainz31 asking them to condemn
the errors of the Greeks. The letter to Hincmar is particularly interesting because
it reiterates all of the condemnations made in the Encyclical and adds a few

25. J. Meijer, A Successful Council of Reunion: A Theological Analysis of the Photian Synod of
879–880 (Thessaloniki, Patriarkikon Idrima Paterikon Meleton, 1975), 269–70; for English trans-
lation with ancient epitomes and commentary, see Nikodemos the Hagiorite, The Pedalion
(Rudder) of Orthodox Christians, or All the Sacred and Divine Canons, trans. D. Cummins
(Chicago: Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1957), 475–82.
26. Meijer, A Successful Council of Reunion, 268, lines 164–68.
27. Meijer, A Successful Council of Reunion, 268, lines161–62.
28. It is also possible that Nicholas received Photios’ encyclical; however, Haugh, Photios and
the Carolingians, 101 n.1, notes that Nicholas never mentions Photios and instead focuses on
attacking the emperors Michael and Basil. It does not seem that any of Nicholas’ correspondents
would have received the Encyclical either since none address their replies to Photios, but to the em-
perors only. Even so, there is a remote possibility that Photios’ Encyclical was among the texts
received by the Boris-Michael and Nicholas has merely included its charges with theirs, consider-
ing that Nicholas did not recognise Photios’ patriarchate as legitimate in any case.
29. Nicholas, Ep. 100, “ad Hincmarum et episcopos in regno Karoli,” MGH: Epistola, Bd. IV, 603.
30. Nicholas, Ep. 100, MGH: Epistola, Bd. IV, 601–9.
31. Nicholas, Ep. 102, “ad Carolum Calvum regem,” MGH: Epistola, Bd. IV, 609.

© 2015 Religious History Association

 WA S P H O T I O S A N A N T I - L AT I N ? 9

more for good measure: that the Westerners eat meat seven weeks before Lent
when it should be prohibited, that they mix the aqua fluminis with the chrism,
that they ordain deacons to the episcopate without ordaining them as priests
first, and that clerics illicitly shave their beards.32
Nicholas’ request for a rebuttal of the Greek attacks on Latin customs pro-
voked two replies. The first, from Aeneas of Paris, consists primarily of patris-
tic quotations without any elucidation, which Dvornik describes as “extremely
feeble.”33 His attention is devoted to the filioque, but he does offer several pa-
tristic quotations in favour of some Western practices. A more robust defence
was made by Ratramnus of Corbie in Contra Graecorum opposita Romanam
ecclesiam infamantium.34 Even though the work was primarily concerned
with the defence of the filioque,35 the fourth book is dedicated to the defence
of other Western customs. While defending the rights of Churches to have
differing customs generally, he specifically favors the Western customs of
fasting on Saturdays (chs. 2–3), fasting during Lent (ch. 4), the form of
clerical tonsure (ch. 5), clerical celibacy (ch. 6), and episcopal chrismation
(ch. 7).
The key point throughout the Latin responses is clearly the filioque, since it
was the issue that the Frankish theologians considered to be the most impor-
tant. While they do not hesitate to attack Greek Christians as heretical and blas-
phemous, particularly the emperors Michael and Basil, they do not go on to
attack Greek customs. Whether this due to their ignorance of Greek customs
or because they did not believe such matters were in and of themselves heret-
ical is open to interpretation; however, it is unlikely that they would have been
wholly ignorant of Greek customs since Frankish monks lived on the Mount of
Olives in Jerusalem and, at least for a period, Frankish and German missionaries
would have encountered Greeks in Moravia and Bulgaria. For our purposes, what
the defence of Western customs tells us is that they were definitively condemned
in the East, if not more generally, then at least by Photios and his circle. This
would especially be true if what Nicholas received from Boris-Michael were
imperial letters and not ecclesiastical circulars from Photios: if the Latin practices
were significant enough for the emperors to condemn, then esteem for these
practices at the church of Constantinople must have been particularly low.

Photios Condemning All Innovations

But how does this view of Western customs fit with other examples from
Photios’ writings? Here specifically, many authors refer to Photios’ apologia

32. Nicholas, Ep. 100, MGH: Epistola, Bd. IV, 603–4. However, I would not necessarily agree
with Kolbaba (Inventing Latin Heretics, 135) that this is an indication that there already existed lists
of Latin errors circulating among Greeks and Slavs. The additional items in Nicholas’ letter may
have been reported by the legates based on what they had heard and may not therefore indicate
the presence of a circulating list like we see in later centuries.
33. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 280.
34. Ratramnus Corbeiensis Monachus, “Contra Graecorum opposita Romanam ecclesiam
infamantium, libri quattor,” PL 121, cols. 223–346.
35. See A. E. Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2010), 106–7, Siecienski identifies Ratramnus’ defence of the filioque as one of the
most thorough expositions of Latin pneumatology of the Carolingian era.

© 2015 Religious History Association

10 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY

to Nicholas, as an example of Photios’ tolerance of liturgical and cultural

variation. This is certainly the conclusion provided by Hussy36 and Chadwick.37
Yet, if we look more closely at the letter, we have reason to question whether this
toleration refers to liturgical customs or if it refers to something else. The
majority of the letter is designed to justify Photios’ own irregular ascension to
the patriarchal throne following the deposition of Ignatios and his own rapid
advancement from the lay state. Photios does argue that if something is not
commanded by an ecumenical council or is not received from the church fathers
in a place, that thing can be disregarded without fear. Photios goes on to argue
that his rapid elevation to the patriarchal office within a period of a week was not
expressly condemned by an ecumenical council, and indeed there was precedent
for such an elevation going all the way back to St. Nectarios in the fourth
century, therefore there should be no reason that Photios could not be
accepted as the legitimate patriarch, the contrary canon (§10) from the council
of Sardica notwithstanding.38 In other words, whatever toleration Photios is
requesting, it is not tolerance for different liturgical customs or cultural differ-
ences but tolerance for legitimate variations of canon law, what we might today
refer to as oikonomia. This at least is consistent with Photios’ own view of the
role of the pentarchy and the role of the patriarch within his own jurisdiction:
each patriarchate is free to decide for itself what restrictions should be placed
on who can become a bishop, and under what circumstances, provided it is
not contrary to apostolic custom or ecumenical decree.39 While Photios does
state that he has accepted this rule for himself, he also indicates that he does
so out of his own volition and because he believes it a good idea and not because
of any particular authority ascribed to Rome.40 Consequently, Photios, while
respectful of Rome’s position, is careful to point out that Constantinople can
manage its affairs on its own without Roman interference.
Nor is Photios particularly novel in proclaiming that certain Western prac-
tices are erroneous. In this area, he was preceded by the Council in Trullo,
which was called in 692 to issue disciplinary canons and reform ecclesiastical
law for the entire Christian world. Composed as it was primarily of Greek prel-
ates, lacking representation from Miaphysite Armenians, Syrians and Copts as
well as effective representation from the Christian West,41 the council primarily
promoted Greek interests and Greek customs at the expense of other customs,
36. J. M. Hussy, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1986), 75.
37. Chadwick, East and West, 142–43.
38. Photius, Ep. 290, “Nicaolao papae,” Aug./Sept. 861 Photii, Epistulae et Ampholichia, Vol.
III: Epistularum pars tertia (Leipzig: Teubner Verglagsgesellschaft, 1983), 124–38. PG 102, cols.
616–17.
39. Bishop, “First Age of Papal Independence,” 347. Nor is this the first time such an argument was
made. When Gregory Nazianzen was named Archbishop of Constantinople, the papal legates attending
the council in Constantinople in 381 objected that Gregory’s elevation was contrary to the canon which
forbade bishops to be translated from one see to another, since Gregory had already been ordained
Bishop of Sasima. Gregory resigned and the council continued, ironically, under the presidency of
Nectarios who was elected as a layman and led to his episcopal throne still in his baptismal robes.
40. Photius, Ep. 290, “Nicaolao papae,” Aug./Sept. 861 Photii, Epistulae et Ampholichia, Vol.
III, 124–38; Photius, “Epist. II: ad Nicolae,” PG 102, cols. 616–17.
41. One bishop, Basil of Gortyna, claimed to be a papal legate, but his right and competency to
so represent the see of Rome, much less the rest of the Western church, is debatable.

© 2015 Religious History Association

 WA S P H O T I O S A N A N T I - L AT I N ? 11

and many of these preferences are paralleled by Photios’ encyclical. The list of
customs condemned in later anti-heretical Greek writing is widely variable, as
is evidenced by Kolbaba,42 but a few of the more frequently condemned prac-
tices had already been seen in the Council in Trullo 692. Specifically, the
Trullan canons prohibited only allowing unmarried men to be ordained as dea-
cons (§6, §13, and §30), forbade fasting on Saturdays (§55), and eating dairy in
Lent (§56); only the question of a presbyter chrismating a neophyte is not men-
tioned by the Trullan canons but is found in Photios’ Encyclical. Of particular
note, two of the canons which condemn these practices specifically note that
the church of Rome (τής Ῥωμαίων άγίωτάής έκκλήσίας) is the perpetrator
of these variants. While Rome’s acceptance of these variances is given signif-
icant deference, especially compared to the rough treatment given to Armenian
practices, they are nevertheless ordered to cease and desist immediately.43
The canons of Trullo have a varied history in the West, which need not be
explained in detail here,44 suffice to say that Roman acceptance of the canons
ranged from outright hostility during the reign of Pope Sergius I (r. 687–701)
to qualified acceptance by John VIII (r. 872–82). However, it is important to
note that even where the canons were accepted, the ones that were contrary
to Roman practice were explicitly disregarded.45 Only one other Western coun-
cil ever mentioned the Council in Trullo: the Council of Toledo XVIII
acknowledged the ecumenicity of the Trullan canons at the behest of King
Wittiza (ca. 703), but this council was later rejected at the council of
Asturias.46 However, the Eastern church definitively accepted the council,
which would partially explain Photios’ readiness to condemn Western customs
which diverged from those of the East.47

42. For Kolbaba’s summary of errors, see The Byzantine Lists, 102–23.
43. It is perhaps debatable whether the canons in Trullo represent a deliberately anti-Roman
tendency or simply a preference for Byzantine practice. The former perspective has a long history
in scholarship on the council, but this has recently been challenged, notably by H. Ohme, “Die
sogenannten ‘antirömischen Kanones’ des Concilium Quinisextum (692),” in The Council in Trullo
Revisited, ed. G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone (Rome: Pontifico Instittuo Orientale, 1995),
307–21. While agreeing with the overall conclusion that Ohme makes, specifically that the canons
of the council are not so much anti-Western as pro-Byzantine, it is not a stretch to conclude that by
the time of Photios they were interpreted in a far less conciliatory manner. That being said, there are
still problems with the council and its attitude toward non-Byzantine practices. See J. Turner,
“Western Rite Orthodoxy as a Canonical Problem,” LOGOS 51, nos. 3–4 (2010): 233–38.
44. On the varied history of this acceptance, see N. Dură, “The Ecumenicity of the Council in
Trullo,” in The Council in Trullo Revisited, ed. Nedungatt and Featherstone. For a different
approach to that of Dură, which argues that the Trullan canons, if accepted at all, were only ever
selectively accepted and the council itself was only regarded as ecumenical in the West for a limited
period of time, see Turner, “Western Rite orthodoxy as a Canonical Problem,” 235–37.
45. This was the case for Pope Constantine, the first pope who accepted the council under
pressure from Justinian II, but who nevertheless refused to receive any of the canons which were
contrary to Roman practice.
46. R. Collins, The Arab Conquest of Spain (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 18–19.
47. It would be easy to write an entire monograph on just one of the liturgical practices
condemned by the Council in Trullo, on why it arose in the Western Church and why the practice
was different from the Eastern Church. The simplest explanation for these differences is that, like
the filioque, they are the result of a variety of different theological and ecclesiastical preferences
and pressures, and there are a great many studies which cover them in detail. On the matter of
clerical continence, see S. Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church: The Beginnings of a Discipline of
Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000). On
Lenten fasting, see G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: Dacre Press, 1945), 355–57.

© 2015 Religious History Association

12 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY

Photios’ Encyclical was written during a period of radical transformation in

the Byzantine perspective on their own liturgical tradition. During the iconoclastic
controversy, Byzantine spirituality underwent a fundamental shift in its under-
standing of the liturgy. The iconoclasts proclaimed that the only acceptable repre-
sentation of Christ was in the Eucharist, while the orthodox party maintained that
the Eucharist was not a symbol but the very reality of Christ’s glorified flesh.48
Consequently, Byzantine mystagogical texts from the iconoclastic period and
afterwards emphasise the representational aspects of the eucharistic liturgy,
linking each element to a specific event in the life of Christ, even to the point of
unchecked “flights of allegorism” absent a coherent vision of the liturgy.49 Even
by the start of iconoclasm, Byzantine conceptions of unity of practice and unity of
doctrine were already cemented; the iconoclast’s interpretation of the Eucharist
necessitated a vigorous response, and defection from that response indicated a
dogmatic deficiency.50
Divergences in liturgical practice increasingly became a liability for mutual
understanding between East and West. Byzantine ecclesiastics had viewed the
Latins as a part of the great Christian oikumene, and expected that they shared
the same theological outlook as evidenced by a shared liturgical practice.
Where Latins and Greeks came into contact with one another, especially on
the missionary fields in Bulgaria and when Rome questioned Photios’ legiti-
macy as patriarch, the resulting conflict can be attributed as much to liturgical
differences as to direct theological disagreement. Kolbaba characterises the
Encyclical as more accommodating of variants of Latin practice than later
anti-Latin lists51; certainly, Photios took issue with fewer points of Latin
practice than later authors, but treats the points of divergence with equal
seriousness. The objections mentioned by Photios were repeated by later
authors who added other accusations,52 and these categories described here are
generalisations based on Kolbaba’s studies of the lists. However, the lists them-
selves were very specific in their criticism, including Konstantinos Stilbes’ fury that
that the Latins “utterly neglect the performance of the divine liturgy established by
Basil the Great and Chrysostom.”53 In general, these lists select those items where
the West differs notably from the East and utilises these as examples that the West
has fallen from orthodoxy. Photios’ Ep. 2 stands at the head of, following the
example of the Council in Trullo, a genre of anti-heretical writing which is

48. D. J. Sahas, Logos and Icon: Sources in Eighth Century Iconoclasm (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1986), 95–96.
49. P. Meyendorff, “Eastern Liturgical Theology,” in Christian Spirituality: Origins to the
Twelfth Century, ed. B. McGinn, J. Meyendorff, and J. Leclercq (New York: Crossroad, 1987),
357–61.
50. J. H. Erickson, “Leavened and Unleavened: Some Theological Implications of the Schism of
1054,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 14, no. 3 (1970): 170–3.
51. Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists, 25.
52. Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists, 189–202.
53. J. Darrouzes, “Le memoire de Constantin Stilbes ‘Memoire’ contre les Latins,” Revue des
Études Byzantines 21 (1963): 65. Stilbes also rails that the Latins, in addition to offering an im-
proper liturgy, do not even celebrate their own impious substitute at the proper hour. Stilbes is
clearly unaware that the liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil were never widely celebrated in the
West, but to him, that does not seem to be the point: variation in the type of liturgy is evidence
of impiety and must be condemned.

© 2015 Religious History Association

 WA S P H O T I O S A N A N T I - L AT I N ? 13

focused on the practices of “the other” as examples of their deviancy rather than
merely their taught beliefs.
This period was also a time when increasingly greater authority was claimed
for the ecumenical councils in all their aspects, including their disciplinary leg-
islation so as to settle previously argued questions. This was particularly im-
portant with regards to iconoclasm which, even though it had been
condemned in 787, was still a living force in the Byzantine church, and it is
precisely this kind of iconoclastic resurgence that Photios and his contempo-
raries were always trying to guard against.54 Keeping that in mind, it makes
sense that he sought to actively oppose the Western practices as enumerated
in the Encyclical since they were an affront to the authority of the council.
Photios himself bases his arguments, at least implicitly, on the authority of
the ecumenical councils, as is demonstrated in his reference to the authority
of both Trullo and the Synod of Gangra in his opposition to the West’s
enforced clerical celibacy.55 For Photios, just as it was an affront to Nicaea I
to insert the filioque into the creed and, in consequence, opened the possibility
that Nicaea II might be overturned yet again by the iconoclasts, the continu-
ance of liturgical “errors” by the West would have offered the same possibility.
Photios had experienced persecution at the hands of the iconoclasts as a child,
his family being sent into exile during the iconoclastic renewal of Leo V the
Armenian, and any threat to one of the councils was interpreted as a threat to
all of them, but especially to Nicaea II. Consequently, the Western customs
at variance with the Council in Trullo represented a direct attack on the sanctity
and the unassailability of the councils deemed ecumenical.
Of course, it also remains to be explained why Photios did not return to the
theme of erroneous liturgical practices in the council of 879 and why his later
writing instead expounded on the filioque to the exclusion of liturgics, as is the
case in the Mystagogy. Any questions about the synod are relatively straightfor-
ward since it was convoked specifically to resume normal relations between
Constantinople and Rome. In the remaining records we have, Photios never di-
rectly charged the papacy with heresy, and we cannot be certain on what
grounds Nicholas was declared deposed in 867. What we can discern from
the minutes of the 879 council is that Photios did not regard Rome as in a state
of heresy and likely did not believe that it practiced any of the errors associated
with the Western missionaries in Bulgaria. Indeed, even the Encyclical states
that it is “Westerners” who are causing trouble and not men from the papacy
specifically. For the Mystagogy, the answer lies in the fact that, for Photios,
the filioque was a significant innovation. While the Western doctrine of the
procession of the Holy Spirit had been known in the East for a number of
centuries,56 there had never been an attempt, much less a pressing need, to

54. Kolbaba, Inventing Latin Heretics, 51–52.

55. Though the Synod of Gangra was not itself an ecumenical council, its canons were received
as having an ecumenical force in Canon §2 of Trullo. Canon §1 of the Council in Chalcedon has
been interpreted as referring to the Synod of Gangra since it states that “the canons made by the
Holy Fathers in every synod to this time remain in force.”
56. See Siecienski, The Filioque, 3–15.

© 2015 Religious History Association

14 J O U R N A L O F R E L I G I O U S H I S T O RY

refute the doctrine before the era of Photios. Regarding the Mystagogy, it is
now regarded as a late entry into Photios’ work, likely completed following
his deposition by Leo VI in 886. The invective utilised in the Mystagogy
against the Franks, and the entire West by extension, is reflective of the fact
both that Photios had more leisure to consider the matter fully and, uncon-
strained by imperial politics or the need to maintain good relations with the
papacy, Photios no longer had anything to lose by speaking his mind. For
Photios, there was a need to refute the Franks on the filioque because it
had not been done, and so the Mystagogy sets about doing that. On the
other hand, the offensive liturgical practices of the Franks, in reality of
the whole West, were already condemned by an Ecumenical Council and
the error of the Westerners on these points was exposed in the Encyclical; there
was no need to state why they were wrong because anyone who looked at the mat-
ter could see the Council in Trullo’s condemnation of what the West was doing
liturgically.

Conclusions
Unity was restored between East and West at the council in 879, and East and
West maintained a tenuous unity for the next 174 years before the next formal
breach in 1054. Once again, the matter of the breach was liturgical, specifically
over the use of unleavened bread in the Western Eucharist.57 For his part,
Photios, writing his Mystagogy in his second exile, went on to praise all the
popes up to Zacharias, but concluded that Nicholas, by allowing the Frankish
missionaries in Bulgaria to introduce their unorthodox doctrines and practices,
showed that he was really a heretic after all.58 The condemnation of Nicholas in
867 is as much a product of Nicholas’ own attempt to interfere in matters
where Photios felt he had no place as much as it is the culmination of the work
done at the Council in Trullo. It is the consequence of two once united societies
growing so far apart that they can no longer recognise one another as siblings,
much less the same. It also brings up an excellent point about the dangers of
investing a council with ecumenical authority when that same council is neither
the product of all or received by all.59

57. See M. H. Smith, “And Taking Bread…”: Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054
(Paris: Beauchesne, 1978) for an overview of the role that the use of unleavened bread played in
the opening of the Great Schism. Erickson, “Leavened and Unleavened,” 155–76, provides a thor-
ough description of how the conflict over azymes was a proxy for presumed theological deficien-
cies (in this case, the Greek conclusion that, by using azymes, the Latins were secretly
monophysites), and there were political and jurisdictional issues which made such a breach easier,
in the writings of the main antagonists and their immediate successors, the issue of azymes is cen-
tral and nearly exclusive (Erickson, “Leavened and Unleavened,” 156–58). This should not be
taken to mean that there were not other issues, but to say that liturgical matters were at the forefront
of the minds of the participants in the schism. Other issues, like the filioque or papal supremacy,
while a later source of division between East and West, are barely mentioned (filioque) or are not
mentioned at all, and attempts to read these problems back into the formal cause of schism is
anachronistic.
58. Bishop, “First Age of Papal Independence,” 359–60.
59. Here, see Turner, “Western Rite Orthodoxy as a Canonical Problem,” 245–47.

© 2015 Religious History Association

 WA S P H O T I O S A N A N T I - L AT I N ? 15

Was Photios himself an anti-Latin? In one sense, he was not “anti-Latin” in

the same way as later Greek authors who, rigidly opposed to all things Western,
were anti-Latin. The condemnations levelled by Photios against the Frankish
practices in his Epistle were not a general condemnation of the West, but
a condemnation of specific practices which had already been condemned
by an ecumenical council; later Greek authors, beginning with Patriarch
Michael I Kerolarios, started out hostile to the West and used liturgical de-
viation to justify that hostility.60 It is difficult to determine, but it does not
appear that Photios believed these erroneous practices were rampant among
Westerners, even though such a conclusion would have been mistaken. But,
Photios was a product of his era and likely believed in the greater superiority of
Greek culture against other forms of culture. In this respect, Photios is hardly mali-
cious and is a product of his particular time and place. Nor would he have been alone
in his anti-Latin sentiments, as there was plenty of anti-Greek sentiment among the
Franks and even in Rome as evidenced by the replies of Pope Nicholas’ partisans.
It would be easy to disregard the antagonism over liturgical practices in the
epistles of Photios and the Westerners who responded to it directly or indi-
rectly, but that would ignore the very real feelings of importance which were
attached to these issues. The proper regulation of liturgical life was an effective
means of marking boundaries between those who adhered to and those who
deviated from apostolic faith. This is why there were riots when Anastasios I
Dikoros attempted to add the Trisagion to the Byzantine liturgy and why later
lists of Latin “errors” frequently include liturgical deviations. Thus, as we can
see from the Photian conflict, as much as the filioque matters, and it certainly is
very important, 61 these other things matter, too. One need only look at the
experience of the Roman Catholic Church over the last several decades with
Traditionalist Catholics who make use of the Tridentine liturgy a rallying cry,
or Western Rite Orthodox who insist on their Orthodoxy but not at the expense
of their Westernness as expressed through liturgy. Liturgy and ecclesiastical
customs matter a great deal, and they are more readily apparent to the average
layperson than more abstract questions like double procession. The specific
condemnations of Photios were expanded upon by subsequent Greek
controversialists, especially after the Schism of 1054, and many of these
condemnations are still repeated today in ecumenical and ecclesiastical
contexts. By understanding the source of Photios’ condemnations and the
context in which they arose, Eastern and Western Christians will have a better
opportunity to avoid the parroting of old accusations and gain a better
understanding of the matters which continue to divide them.

60. See Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists, 23–31.

61. Even as early as the time of the Great Schism, there were those in the East who said that mat-
ters of ecclesiastical custom do not matter, that only the filioque matters. See, for example, T. M.
Kolbaba, “The Orthodoxy of the Latins in the Twelfth Century,” in Byzantine Orthodoxies, ed.
A. Louth and A. Cassidy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 199–214.

© 2015 Religious History Association