They said: 1) the Latins commune only on Good Friday and on their deathbeds, and moreover only with ordinary, and not consecrated unleavened bread, defending themselves in such a practice by the fact that it is not known who is worthy of the Eucharistic gift; 2) the communicant rinses his mouth with water, then spits it out on the floor, tramples it under his feet, and thus dishonors the most holy; 3) even earlier they accused the Latins of placing a lamb on the altar on the feast of Pascha (?), but now they added to this that after the slaughter this lamb was eaten, the remains were burned, and the ashes were kept for a year (obviously, this custom was some kind of addition to the most solemn, Paschal Liturgy, perhaps in remembrance of the Last Supper of the Gospel); 4) Communion under one form was denounced. It should also be noted that some of the Greeks began to look very strictly at the celebration of the Eucharist by the Latins on unleavened bread, to such an extent that the twelfth-century Greek writer Nicholas, Bishop of Meton, compares the Greek Eucharist with the sacrifice of Abel, and the Latin Eucharist, celebrated on unleavened bread, with the sacrifice of Cain. [66] Concerning the sacrament of Baptism, the Greeks indicated the following deviations of the Latins: 1) that they baptize by a single immersion, and thus the three Persons of the Godhead are mixed into one; 2) that salt is put in the mouth of the baptized infant and smeared with saliva, and not anointed with oil, as prescribed by the Church; 3) that they baptize twice, because adults, when forgiving their sins, are anointed with oil (?); 4) In later times, the Latins were accused of baptizing not by immersion, but by sprinkling, and especially by pouring. As for the sacrament of Penance, the Latins were accused of having no spiritual fathers, since otherwise they would have to know who was worthy of the Eucharist (let us recall one of the accusations mentioned above), and also of the fact that when an excommunicated person received absolution, he was scourged on the naked body. The sacrament of the priesthood of the Latin Church was also the subject of attacks on the part of the Greeks, namely, that the latter declared that the Latins did not perform this sacrament at all times, but only four times a year, and that suddenly a large number of deacons and bishops were consecrated. It was also asserted that the pope, after being elected by the council, was ordained to his dignity through the laying on of hands of his deceased predecessor. Marriage in the Latin Church also gives the Greeks a lot of room for various kinds of accusations against Western Christians. In this regard, it was pointed out first of all that marriages in impermissible degrees of kinship were allowed, and then that the second and third marriages were quite permissible among them. The fasts of the Western Church gave rise to many reproaches against it; But there are few new reproaches. Let us note in particular that the Greeks sarcastically described the so-called day of ashes among the Latins, which opened the fast of the Forty Days. Eastern polemicists asserted that in the spring the Latins began to collect the bones of all kinds of unclean animals, then burned them, and mixed the ashes with water, which was sprinkled for the purpose of consecration. With this mixture, the Greeks said, the Latin clergy anointed the faithful at the beginning of the fast: they anointed the head, forehead and face, on the assumption that this gave strength to observe the fast. Other censure of the Latins by the Greeks concerns the way of life and behavior of the clergy. The Greeks pointed out the following strange custom, which allegedly existed in the Latin Church: the highest of the bishops, when they go to church to celebrate the liturgy, have naked boys with them, which they sprinkle, claiming that this rite gives them invulnerability and invincibility in war when they reach maturity. The Greeks then condemned the frequent transfer of bishops, simony, the immorality of the clergy, the disrespectful treatment of the Eucharist, which the clergy carried with them in their travel bags, and the variety of monastic orders. The everyday life of Latin Christians also did not remain without polemical remarks from the Greeks. They were accused of eating blood and strangled flesh, becoming "soul-eaters," of eating unclean food in general, of often swearing, that it was their custom to break oaths, that they did not read the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures and church ordinances, that they eat with the dogs, let them lick the plates, and then eat from them again, that they wash themselves with urine and drink it. In general, the Greeks considered the Latins to be religiously no higher than the heretical Armenian Church. [67] Some of the Greeks considered the Latins to be so ingrained in error that they found it useless to carry on any discussions and debates with them on religious subjects; they were considered to have deviated too far from the way of views and opinions of Orthodox people.

The well-known Byzantine historian Nicephorus Gregoras tells about himself that when (in 1333) two Latin bishops came to Byzantium to discuss the faith, he made a speech in which he proved by all means that it was by no means necessary to enter into discussions with the arriving Latins.

therefore have no need to enter into completely useless discourse; that, finally, the Latins do not enter into a debate in order to take the right side, but in order to boast of their imaginary victory, although without any grounds, after the debate. [68]

Speaking so far about the conditions under which the religious enmity of the two Churches, Latin and Greek, developed and in what forms was expressed in the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, we should not, however, think that at that time all religious ties between the West and the East were really broken. Such a view should have some limitations. We wish to point out facts from the time we are studying, which testify to the fact that it happened that the most prominent representatives of both Churches forgot their mutual religious hostility, treating each other as members of a single, indivisible Church. To such facts we include the frequent marriages of the Latins with the Greeks, and vice versa, and religious differences do not prevent the conclusion of marriage ties. Thus, in the twelfth century, the first and second wives of Emperor Manuel Comnenus were Latins. The niece of this emperor, Maria Comnena, was married to Frederick Barbarossa, and then to the Hungarian prince Stephen. The son of the same Manuel, Alexius II Comnenus, was married to the French princess Agnes. [69] Numerous examples of such marriages can be found later. The same limitation of the idea of a complete rupture between the Greek and Latin churches is also led by the fact that at that time there were still cases of liturgical communion between the Greeks and the Latins. This is evident during the visit to Constantinople in the middle of the twelfth century by the French king Louis VII, Conrad III and other Western princes. During the reign of the Emperor John Comnenus, Abbot Peter of Cluniac appealed to the Emperor and the Patriarch of Byzantium with a request to restore the monastery in Constantinople belonging to the Cluniac Congregation, and this implied a more or less friendly disposition between the Churches. Further, it should be mentioned that the emperor Manuel, in a letter to Conrad III, calls the Latins and Greeks: όμονρήσκους, i.e., coreligionists. The Venetians, Pisans, and Genoese, who lived in Constantinople in business of trade during the time of this emperor, were given an honorable place at divine services in the famous St. Sophia Church. Many Latins lived at the court of the emperor Manuel, and no renunciation of error was required of them. Two Italians, Hugon Etherian and his brother Leo, were of great importance to Manuel. [70] Such was the practice, but in theory some Greek writers and theologians of those times looked condescendingly at the Latin Church with its theological and ritual features, and vice versa — some Latin writers looked at the Greek Church with the same eyes. Both of these writers rejected the idea that the division of the Churches is a decisive and irrevocable matter. On the Latin side, the views of Peter of Cluniac and Bernard of Clairvaux deserve attention in this respect. The first wrote to the Byzantine Patriarch John of Chalcedonia in the twelfth century: "Although we are separated from you spatially and by the difference of languages, we are nevertheless inseparably united by the unity of faith and love. I wish to conclude an indissoluble alliance of friendship with you, if you will not be ashamed of it." [71] The Western saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to Pope Eugene III in the same twelfth century: "The obstinate Greeks, we are united in faith and not with them, united in faith, divided in love, although they are also mistaken in some things." — The tone is generally soft. [72] Let us cite the testimonies of the Greeks in the same way. The Greek philosopher Theorian, to whom the emperor Manuel entrusted so many missions in religious matters, and who occasionally entered into disputes with the Latins, exhorted the monks to look upon the Latins as brothers, and Orthodox Christians at that; He considered most of the points of disagreement to concern only disciplinary issues and had nothing to do with doctrine. [73] Bishop John of Kytra in Macedonia (end of the twelfth century), when asked whether it was possible to be present at the Latin divine services, replied that the dissensions between the Churches concerned only two points – the filioque and unleavened bread, that the reading of the Holy Scriptures was not the same. Scriptures, prayers, hymns, churches, veneration of the precious Cross and the Holy Trinity. icons — all this among the Latins does not differ from what we have. Latin worship (meaning funerary) is not pagan (φαλμωδία όυκ έστιν έύνική), but in accordance with the Holy Scriptures. Scripture. [74] Not without Christian sympathy, Demetrius Chomatin, Archbishop of Bulgaria (thirteenth century), also treats the Latins, who were asked whether the Eucharist, celebrated by the Latins on unleavened bread, should be considered holy or not, and also whether the church vessels and vestments of the Latins should be considered sacred. In answer to the question, Demetrius does not approve of the Latin custom of celebrating the Eucharist on unleavened bread, but finds that many of the Greeks show exaggerated zeal in the struggle against this custom. At the same time, he points out that some of the Greeks look more leniently at the Latin custom of celebrating the Eucharist, and only on the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit. They do not make concessions and do not agree with the Latins. Demetrius further draws the following conclusion: neither the Eucharist of the Latins, nor their ecclesiastical vessels and utensils can be considered unclean.

Italy, notes Demetrius, is full of churches, the most significant of which is the church of St. Paul. Peter in Rome. This church includes both our clergy and our laity, praying here, and they do not suffer any harm from being in Latin churches. [75] Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, also speaks of the Latins in a spirit of tolerance, and it should be noted that he lived in the fifteenth century, when the discord between the Greek and Latin churches had gone very far. [76] With what condescension the representatives of the Greek Church treated the Latin Church even at the time under study, and with what benevolence the representatives of the Latin Church treated the Eastern Church, this can be clearly judged from the tolerant views expressed in literature, both Greek and Latin, on one of the most controversial questions between the two Churches – we speak of unleavened bread. Among the Greek writers of this epoch we find not only those who did not think of judging the Latins harshly for the use of unleavened bread among them, but even those who were not averse to admitting that it was most likely that Christ celebrated the Eucharist on unleavened bread, but did not see the need to hold on to unleavened bread in the further life of the Church. Such writers include, first of all, Theophylact of Bulgaria (who died at the beginning of the twelfth century). Here is how Theophylact wrote on this issue: "The use of unleavened bread (among the Latins) causes great rivalry in many, and as they say, it is hotter than fire, so that some are ready to give up their spirit rather than abandon their protest." He finds that such excessive jealousy cannot be praised, and considers it his duty to explain how unimportant it is in fact that which the jealous consider especially important. He expresses his fear that the controversy over unleavened bread would stir up more and more enmity towards the Latins. Moreover, he recognized that since the Supper of Christ took place at the same time as the Old Testament Passover, Christ used unleavened bread at the Supper. "I believe," he says, "that first the Lord tasted the lawful Passover, and then handed down to His disciples also the sacrament of His Passover, having celebrated it, evidently, from the bread that was then and then was unleavened." [77] Another prominent representative of the Greek Church of the twelfth century, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia, disputing with a Western bishop about unleavened bread, expresses the following humane view on the question: proposing as the best means of resolving the question the assembly of an Ecumenical Council (of Eastern and Western bishops), Nicetas wants this council to decree either that everyone should accept the rite of eating leavened bread, or that that all should eat unleavened bread, or, if there is no general agreement, at least agree that neither the Greeks should recklessly condemn the Latins, nor the Latins should condemn the Greeks on account of leavened bread. In general, he calls both the Greeks and the Latins to peace and mutual love. Nicetas, for example, said: "It is necessary that all should flock to the riches of love, for both love in the holy offering (the Eucharist) and the holy offering in true love cover a multitude of sins, and just as the saving sacrifice does not bring salvation without love, so perfect love is not offended by the different offerings of the same sacrifice." [78] A similar view, moderate and meek, of the difference in the use of bread for the Eucharist was sometimes found at the same time among Western theologians.

The famous Anselm of Canterbury (in the twelfth century) wrote about leavened bread as follows: "Regarding the sacrifice, in which the Greeks so disagree with us, for many reasons it can be seen that they perform it not contrary to the Christian faith, since the sacrifice is equally offered by the one who blesses leavened bread and the one who blesses unleavened bread. When it is told about the Lord how He made His Body out of bread, having accepted the bread and blessed it, it is not explained whether it was unleavened bread or leavened." Anselm desires one thing on the part of the Greeks, that they should not condemn those who celebrate the Eucharist on unleavened bread. [79]

Unfortunately, these few voices, in the East and in the West, calling for mutual peace and love of the members of the Greek and Latin Churches, were not strong enough to drown out the voices of a different mindset, and the separation between the Churches could not be replaced by harmony and brotherhood.

II. The Religious and Moral Character of the Byzantine Empire from the End of the Eleventh to the Middle of the Fifteenth Centuries

The study of the religious and moral character of Christian society at any time presents great difficulties. Morality and religiosity are facts not so much of the external, as of the internal, innermost life of man. The historian could only justifiably assert that he has sufficiently studied these subjects if he were able to penetrate into the soul and inner disposition of past generations, but as this is impossible, he has to be content only with the study of the external facts noted by the chroniclers, facts that are accidental, scattered, often contradictory, and transmitted by the narrators, perhaps very inaccurately.

One of the difficulties in studying the question is that in stories about the past, dark, unattractive features always come to the fore. This is understandable, for true morality and religiosity, if they are not expressed in high-profile feats, remain invisible, while vices and violations of the requirements of religion, due to the inherent human desire to find faults in others in order to justify one's own shortcomings, are retold in different ways and very often in an exaggerated form. As a result, historians who described the former time more vividly note the religious and moral shortcomings of society than its merits and virtues. This is not enough. The historian of our time has at his disposal many such documents, from which he can extract only information about the unattractive aspects of the life of society in this or that century. Such are the records of the trials. In any such record there are many indications of certain offenses and immoral actions of members of society, but they say nothing, in the very essence of the documents, about virtues and bright phenomena in the sphere of the moral life of society. Neither panegyric speeches nor descriptions of famous ascetics can fill this gap, for panegyric speeches very rarely give a correct assessment of the depicted personalities, and descriptions of ascetics deal with exceptional phenomena.

Even the philosopher Seneca said: "We complain, the ancestors complained, and the descendants will complain that morals have deteriorated and everything sacred has been trampled upon." This is a very correct remark. It is applicable not only to the pagan, but also to the Christian world. With the exception of the first two centuries of Christian history (and even here we must not lose sight of the phenomenon of Montanism, which arises in part from the same causes as later monasticism, from a protest against the moral relaxation of the Christian life), the moralist remains dissatisfied with the life of Christians of all times.

After all this, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the historian who describes the history of Christian morality for the period from the end of the eleventh to the middle of the fifteenth centuries, during the period of the obvious and indisputable decline of the Byzantine state, in almost all respects, on the one hand, cannot but complain about the decline of public morality, and on the other hand, is compelled to paint more sad pictures of moral depravity. than gratifying pictures of moral height and religious perfection.

In any case, the historian in question cannot claim that he has quite correctly understood the side he is describing and has unmistakably revealed it. No historian of the moral relations of this or that age can boast that he has penetrated into the depths of the question and is able to exhaust it. For our part, we shall consider our work to be satisfactorily accomplished, if those who know Byzantine history do not find it possible to reproach us for our lack of impartiality, and recognize our description of the religious-moral character of Byzantine society in these centuries as relatively correct and giving a sufficient idea of the subject matter.