Table Of ContentTo all those throughout the centuries who worked to
bridge the gap between Christian East and West
D
o
w
n
lo
a
d
e
d
fro
m
h
ttp
s
://a
c
a
d
e
m
ic
.o
u
p
.c
o
m
/b
o
o
k
/4
4
0
2
2
/c
h
a
p
te
r/3
7
1
8
7
6
9
2
8
b
y
U
n
iv
e
rs
ity
o
f E
d
in
b
u
rg
h
u
s
e
r o
n
1
0
O
c
to
b
e
r 2
0
2
2
Preface
D
o
w
In 2008, while working on The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, I gave a nlo
paper at the annual meeting of the Byzantine Studies Conference (BSC) called “Damn ad
e
ThLatoinse CBherairsdtilaenssit yA.”z Aym feitwes :y eRahrse tloartiecr aIn pdr eRseenaltietdy abnehotinhder tphaep Bery,z “aHntoinlye HCariirt:i qBueeasr dosf d from
in the Patristic Tradition,” at the 2012 meeting of the North American Patristics h
Society that, like the earlier talk at the BSC, was greeted with the occasional giggle.1 ttps
This was not an unwelcome response, for both papers were written and presented ://a
c
with tongue firmly in cheek.2 You see, by this time I had spent several years dealing ad
e
m
with the Filioque debates and I thought it might be a fun distraction to speak about
ic
the “other issues” that once divided Christendom—t he beardlessness of the Western .o
u
p
clergy and the Latins’ use of unleavened bread (azymes) in the mass. These questions, .c
o
once thought so central to the genesis and maintenance of the East-W est schism, were m
/b
now regarded by most scholars as nothing more than relics of a bygone age— that is, as o
o
tools used by medieval polemicists to vilify the religious “other” that, even then, had k/4
4
little or no theological significance. To the twenty-fi rst- century mind it seemed ridic- 0
2
ulous that a church- dividing schism should occur on account of beards or different 2/c
h
types of Eucharistic bread, and I used that fact in order to elicit a few laughs. As time a
p
passed I realized I was probably wrong to do so. te
The more I worked through the material, especially as I was researching my second r/37
1
book (The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate), the more 8
7
6
I came to regret the lighthearted way I treated the “other issues” that came to divide 9
4
Christian East and West. It is true that today the Filioque and the papacy are the two 6 b
y
(and perhaps only) significant barriers to restored communion between the Catholic U
n
and Orthodox Churches. Yet in working through these questions and examining the iv
e
literature, it was impossible to escape the conclusion that for centuries the Filioque rs
and papacy were not the only issues at stake, and indeed, for many of the partici- ity o
pants in the medieval debates they were not even issues at all. For example, while the f E
d
Roman primacy was never mentioned during the events of 1054, included in Cardinal in
b
u
Humbert’s anathema against Patriarch Michael Keroularios was the charge that “pre- rg
h
serving their hair and beards [the Greeks] do not receive into communion those who, u
according to the custom of the Roman church, cut their hair and shave their beards.”3 se
r o
n
1
0
O
1 An expanded version of this paper was later published as “Holy Hair: Beards in the Patristic Tradition,” c
to
St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 58 (2014): 41–6 7. b
2 Because of its humorous tone one friend continues to regard the “Beards” paper as the best I have ever er 2
given, and on several occasions has expressed disappointment that none of my subsequent talks have been 0
2
as funny. 2
3 Excommunicatio qua feriuntur Michael Caerularius atque ejus sectatores; Cornelius Will, ed., Acta et
Scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saeculo undecimo composite extant (Leipzig, 1861),
153– 54; Eng. trans.: Deno John Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society and Civilization Seen through
Contemporary Eyes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 208–9 .
x Preface
For others the schism was not about the Filioque, but rather caused by the “heresy
of the fermentacei, which poured scorn on the holy Roman see, or rather the whole
Latin and western church, for offering a living sacrifice to God in unleavened bread.”4
Today the schism persists because of the Filioque and the papacy, but it did not begin
that way.
D
By the Council of Ferrara- Florence (1438–3 9) another issue had raised its head o
w
and become an obstacle toward reunion— the Western doctrine of Purgatory. First nlo
raised during a thirteenth- century debate between the metropolitan of Corfu, George ad
e
Bwaitrhd agnreeast, asunsdp aic Fiorann bcyis tchaen G frrieaerk nsa, mwhedo tBhaoruthgohlto imt aedwv,o tchaet eLda ttihne t seoarcth oinf gu nwiavse rvsiaelwisemd d from
once taught by Origen.5 In fact, of all the issues discussed during the council (among h
ttp
which were the Filioque, azymes, and the primacy) it is interesting to note that both s
sides decided that “the fires of Purgatory” (ignis purgatorium) should be discussed ://a
c
first.6 Purgatory, although introduced rather late as a reason for the schism, had by the ad
e
m
fifteenth century taken its place among its chief causes.
ic
Purgatory, beards, and azymes— these were the “other issues” that separated East .o
u
p
and West that few spoke of anymore. Today there are (quite literally) hundreds of .c
o
books on the Roman primacy, and over the last fifteen years more than a few on the m
/b
Filioque, but one has to look very hard for recent books or articles on azymes, or cler- o
o
ical beards, or the East-W est debates on Purgatory.7 Even those who have written k/4
4
about these issues tended to view them as historical curiosities rather than as genuine 0
2
theological problems, or as Tia Kolbaba put it, as cultural differences that only gained 2/c
“religious significance as the conflict between East and West heated up.”8 Having ha
p
played so central a role in the genesis of the schism, they had simply receded into the te
background, not even considered worthy topics for modern- day dialogues between r/37
1
the two churches. 8
7
6
However, if ecumenical dialogue truly aims to heal the millennium- old schism be- 9
4
tween the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, it will certainly be necessary to retrace 6 b
y
the steps that separated them in the first place. Of course, when one asks what actu- U
n
ally “caused” the Great Schism, there are a variety of possible answers—d ivergent the- iv
e
ological methodologies and ecclesiological approaches, differences in language and rs
culture, different political systems and ways of reading history—a ll of which are, to a ity o
certain degree, valid. Yet there is another level where one is forced to admit that the f E
d
immediate cause of the schism was the simple fact that half the church used leavened in
b
u
rg
h
u
s
of 4P Thopee LLeifoe IoXf P aonpde PLoeop eI XG rineg Ioarny RVoIbI,i nMsoannc, hedes. taenr dM treadnies.v, aThl Seo Puarcpeasl R(Mefaonrmch oefs ttehre: EMleavnecnhthes Cteern Utunriyv:e Lrisviteys er on
Press, 2004), 146. 1
0
5 Martiniano Roncaglia, ed., Georges Bardanès, métropolite de Corfou et Barthélémy de l’ordre franciscain, O
Studi e Testi Francescani 4 (Rome: Scuola tipografica italo-o rientale, 1953). c
6 Joseph Gill, ed., Quae supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini: Res Ferrariae gestae, CF 5.1.1 tob
e
( R7o mThee: rPeo anrteifi, coaf lc Oouriresnet, anl oIntasbtilteu teex,c 1e9p5t3io)n, 1s,9 .many of which I utilized in the writing of this book. These r 20
2
include, but are not limited to, the works of Yury Avvakumov and Chris Schabel on azymes, Christopher 2
Oldstone- Moore on beards, and Jerry Walls, Vasileios Marinis, and Demetrios Bathrellos on Purgatory.
Older works, such as Jacques Le Goff’s The Birth of Purgatory, Mahlon Smith’s And Taking Bread . . . , and
Giles Constable’s “Introduction on Beards in the Middle Ages” were also invaluable.
8 Tia Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 57.
Preface xi
bread and the other unleavened bread. One is forced to admit that beards (or their
lack) among the clergy was seen as reason for breaking Eucharistic communion. One
is forced to admit that divergent understandings of the soul’s fate after death helped
poison the last attempt at repairing the breach at Ferrara-F lorence. The “other issues”
cannot, and should not, be laughed off.
D
It was for this reason that I decided to write the present book, essentially completing o
w
the trilogy I began over a decade ago with The Filioque. The idea was simple— three nlo
books that would cover all of the issues that had separated Christian East and West, ad
e
aplrleoswenint.g Th thee briega ddeiffr etroe ntrcaec ew tahs et hhaits ttohrey t hoifr tdh besoeo dk ewboatuelsd fdroeaml wthitehir i sbseugeisn tnhiantg, uton ltihkee d from
the Filioque and the papacy, did not appear very often in ecumenical dialogues or in- h
ttp
ternet discussion forums. To put it simply, I did not have to convince anyone familiar s
with the history of Catholic-O rthodox relations that the papacy was still an important ://a
c
a
ecumenical issue. Beards were going to be a tougher sell. d
e
m
In choosing only three topics— Purgatory, clerical beards, and azymes— I was con-
ic
sciously avoiding a host of other issues raised in the millennium- old debate between .o
u
p
East and West. In fact, when one studies the Byzantine lists of Latin errors drawn up .c
o
between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, one discovers dozens of other differ- m
/b
ences cited as reasons for breaking communion with the West— Konstantinos Stilbes’s o
o
“On the Faults of the Latin Church” found no fewer than seventy-fi ve! For over a thou- k/4
4
sand years polemicists on both sides had kept busy cataloguing the errors of their 0
2
Latin or Greek counterparts, and they did their job remarkably well. According to the 2/c
h
Byzantines the Latins fasted improperly (especially during Lent), ate unclean foods, a
p
stood and sat at the wrong time during the liturgy, and crossed themselves incorrectly. te
Their bishops wore rings and silken vestments, and because they forbade their clergy r/37
1
to marry, many priests engaged in secret fornication under the bedcovers, allowing 8
7
6
them to pretend that ejaculation was caused by “a dream and a sleeping fantasy which 9
4
they [then] hold blameless.”9 According to some of the lists, the Latins did not prop- 6 b
y
erly revere the Theotokos (calling her instead simply “Mary . . . [like] the Nestorians U
n
and the Jacobites”), the Greek fathers, or the icons, a charge given legitimacy by their iv
e
behavior inside Byzantine churches during the sack of Constantinople in 1204.10 rs
Naturally the Latins had their own grievances— aside from their refusal to ac- ity o
knowledge the orthodoxy of the filioque and the primacy of the Roman pontiff, they f E
d
complained that the Greeks “castrate their guests and promote them not only to the in
b
u
priesthood but even to the episcopate, . . . permit and defend [carnal] marriage for rg
h
ministers of the holy altar . . . [and deny] communion to menstruating women or u
those about to give birth.”11 Greek priests did not consecrate wine mixed with water, se
r o
but rather (incorrectly) added water to the wine only after the consecration, rebap- n
1
tized Latin Christians as if they were pagans, and administered the holy chrism as if 0
O
they were bishops. c
to
b
e
r 2
0
9 Jean Darrouzès, ed., “Le mémoire de Constantin Stilbès contre les Latins,” Revue des études byzantines 2 22
(1963): 70; Eng. trans.: Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists, 40.
10 Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists, 51– 53.
11 Excommunicatio qua feriuntur Michael Caerularius atque ejus sectatores; Will, Acta et Scripta, 153– 54;
Eng. trans.: Geanakoplos, Byzantium, 208– 9.
xii Preface
Any one of these charges, to the degree that they were factually true, could be in-
cluded in a volume like this. One could also add those issues that arose only much
later in Catholic-O rthodox relations, including the debate about the precise mo-
ment of consecration (i.e., the epiclesis debate)12 and the two Marian dogmas of the
Catholic Church: the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Bodily Assumption of
D
Mary (1950).13 In fact, there are no shortage of issues one could explore if one went o
w
searching for them— for example, the Gregorian versus Julian calendar, the allegedly nlo
diverse metaphysical/ philosophical approaches of the East and West14— any of which ad
e
couAlmd boen gci ttehde ares aas goennsu Ii lnimelyit cehdu mrcyhs-ed lfi vtoid tihnegs de ipffaerrteincucela.r three issues was, first of all, d from
the time period involved. I wanted to deal only with those questions that were part h
ttp
of the eleventh- to fifteenth- century debates leading up to the Council of Ferrara- s
Florence, the last great encounter between East and West prior to the twentieth cen- ://a
c
a
tury. This time frame naturally precluded the Marian dogmas, while the epiclesis d
e
m
debate was just beginning in the fifteenth century and had not yet ripened into a gen-
ic
uinely church- dividing issue by the Council of Florence. The question of Purgatory .o
u
p
was still relatively “new” in 1438, but its presence among the five key topics discussed .c
o
at the council, and its subsequent importance in both Eastern and Western theology, m
/b
both argue for its inclusion. o
o
The second reason was relevance. Even a cursory examination of the literature is k/4
4
enough to convince the reader that for the medievals the Latins’ use of unleavened 0
2
bread was the immediate cause of the schism and remained for centuries the chief 2/c
h
difference between the two halves of Christendom. For the Greeks, “azymite” became a
p
(along with “Frank”) the chief referent for the Latins and their unionist allies. For ex- te
ample, when the Florentine delegates arrived back in Constantinople in February r/37
1
1440, already regretting their signatures on the union decree, they allegedly cried 8
7
6
out: “We have betrayed our faith. We have exchanged piety for impiety. We have re- 9
4
nounced the pure sacrifice and become azymites.”15 The people’s response was equally 6 b
y
revealing: “We need neither the aid of the Latins nor Union. Keep the worship of the U
azymites far from us.”16 niv
e
rs
ity
o
f E
12 We see this clearly in the Commentary on the Divine Liturgy of Nicholas Cabasilas (d. 1392): “Certain d
Latins attack us thus: they claim that, after the words of the Lord ‘Take and eat’ and what follows, there is inb
no need of any further prayer to consecrate the offerings, since they are already consecrated by the Lord’s urg
word. They maintain that to pronounce these words of Christ and then to speak of bread and wine and to h
pray for their consecration as if they had not already been hallowed, is not only impious but also futile and us
u(Lnonnedcoesns:a SrPy.”C NKi,c 1h9o6l0as) ,C 7a1b–a7 s2il. aThs, Ceroem ism eevnidtaernyc oen f rtohme D Civyipnreu Ls itthuargt yth, tirsa wnas.s J a. lMre.a Hdyu sas emya atntedr Po.f A c.o MntceNntuioltny er on
by the 1310s. 1
0
13 See, for example, the works of Christiaan Kappes, The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas O
Denied, While John Duns Scotus, Gregory Palamas, & Mark Eugenicus Professed the Absolute Immaculate c
to
Existence of Mary (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 2014). b
14 See David Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom er 2
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 0
15 Doukas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks (Historia Turco- Byzantina), trans. Harry 22
Magoulias (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1975), 181. See George Demacopoulos, “The Popular
Reception of the Council of Florence in Constantinople (1439–1 453),” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly
43 (1999): 37–5 3.
16 Doukas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium, 204– 05.
Preface xiii
I will admit that clerical beardlessness does not so easily fit into this last category de-
spite the fact that it was featured in Humbert’s Anathema, Michael Keroularios’s Letter
to Peter of Antioch, and over half the lists of Latin errors.17 Yet what is fascinating about
the beard debate is how this seemingly inconsequential cultural difference—G reeks had
beards while the Latins did not—b ecame endowed with such deep theological signifi-
D
cance. For the Byzantines beardlessness manifested a clear “Judaizing” tendency within o
w
Latin Christianity, as well as a willingness to violate the “apostolic institutions” and the “an- nlo
cient canons” of the undivided church. Whether any of this was true, and whether clerical ad
e
bbueat ritd csa ancntuoat lblye dcaernriieedd tthhaeto mloagnicya ol fs tihgonsifie cinanvocelv, ewdi ilnl b the ee dxpebloarteed g einn usiunbesleyq bueelinetv cehda ipt wtearss,. d from
The third reason was personal. Over the last decade I have plowed through a great h
ttp
deal of primary and secondary literature concerning the East- West schism and its s
causes. Although focusing my attention on the Filioque and the papacy, I have read ://a
c
a
a great deal on these other subjects and increasingly wanted to learn more about how d
e
m
these debates affected the course of events. Simply put, having spent so much time in
ic
my peripheral vision, I wanted to give beards, azymes, and Purgatory the focus and .o
u
p
attention I thought they deserved. Lest this sound like simple self- indulgence, let me .c
o
say that I also became convinced that these debates still had something to contribute m
/b
to East- West ecumenical dialogue. For in the midst of all the heated exchanges, many o
o
of which manifested an appalling lack of Christian charity, there were those who were k/4
4
able to distinguish genuinely problematic issues (like the Filioque) from those other 0
2
questions (like beards and the azymes) that so occupied the polemicists. Even Photios, 2/c
h
revered today in the East as a great defender of the Orthodox faith, knew that “a def- a
p
inition issued by a local church can be followed by some and ignored by others. Thus te
some people customarily shave their beards while others reject this practice through r/37
1
local conciliar decree.”18 Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (1052–5 6) and Theophylact of 8
7
6
Ohrid (d. 1107) likewise condemned those who “through unmeasured zeal . . . and 9
4
lack of humility” accused the Latins of all sorts of heresies, despite the fact that many 6 b
y
of their charges were either laughably erroneous or based on nothing but differences U
in custom.19 Moderation and charity, while rare qualities in the age of polemics, did niv
e
exist, allowing figures on both sides to recognize the fundamental truth that not every rs
difference in theology or practice need be church-d ividing. ity o
f E
d
in
b
17 In a private email to the author, Yury P. Avvakumov suggested that beards might better be handled “as urg
one issue among many other questions of this type, i.e., controversial questions about ritual (including but h
not limited to: baptismal formula, zeon, Sabbath fasting, singing of alleluia, blood consumption, time and us
mthionsies tneur mofe crhoruiss misasutieosn t,h aadtm arine imsteernitniog nthede Einu cthhea rliisstt st oo ifn Lfaantitns ,e crlreorrics)a l. m. . aI rtrhiaingek, tehtce.s,e e itscs.—ue ps rcaocntisctaitlulyt ea lal er on
special type of controversial questions— the ‘ritual type’ which deserve further discussion and interpreta- 1
0
tion.” For Dr. Avvakumov’s own treatment of ritual studies as it relates to the schism see his “Die Fragen des O
Ritus als Streit- und Kontroversgegenstand. Zur Typologie der Kulturkonflikte zwischen dem lateinischen c
to
Westen und dem byzantinisch-s lawischen Osten im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit,” in Rainer Bendel, ed., b
e
Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichtsschreibung in Nordost- und Ostmitteleuropa. Initiativen, Methoden, Theorien r 2
(Münster: LIT Verlag, 2006), 191–2 33. 0
18 Photios of Constantinople, Letter to Pope Nicholas I of Rome (Epistle 2) (PG 102: 604–5 ); Eng. 22
trans.: John Meyendorff, Living Tradition (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978), 24. See
also Jack Turner, “Was Photios an Anti‐Latin? Heresy and Liturgical Variation in the Encyclical to the
Eastern Patriarchs,” Journal of Religious History 40 (2016): 475–8 9.
19 Theophylact of Ohrid, De Iis in quibus Latini Accusantur (PG 126: 224).
xiv Preface
Today two of these debates, concerning azymes and beards, are thought by most to be
over. Even the more fervent anti-e cumenists among the Orthodox find it hard to make
the case that these are still reasons for refusing communion with the Catholic Church,
perhaps explaining their absence from modern-d ay dialogues and debates. Purgatory is
a different matter, as it remains at issue in the (extremely interesting) intra-O rthodox de-
D
bates about the state of souls after death, especially the legitimacy of the τελώνια, or “toll- o
w
house,” tradition,20 and David Bentley Hart’s call to re-e xamine the possibility of universal nlo
salvation.21 Nevertheless, while maintaining its historic objections to the Latin doctrine ad
e
othf inPkuirngga toonr yt haes adfteefirlnifeed i sa nnodt tehxaptl adiinsseidm ailta rF efrroramra t-hF el omreondceer,n c Conatthemolpico praorsyit iOonr,t hwohdiochx d from
today “understands purgatory in terms often more similar to those of Mark [of Ephesus] h
and the Greeks than to their Latin predecessors.”22 The debate over Purgatory is not over, ttps
but it certainly does not generate the “heat” it did centuries ago. ://a
c
a
As with its predecessors, this book attempts to trace the history of these three d
e
m
debates— Purgatory, clerical beards, azymes— from their beginnings to the present
ic
day, chronicling not only their development as doctrines or practices, but also the .o
u
p
context in which the Latin or Greek response was framed. Context, as always, is key. .c
o
For example, the first Greek critiques of the azymes, inspired in part by Byzantine in- m
/b
teraction with the Armenians, came at a time when the pope was becoming increas- o
o
ingly self- aware of his universal role as “pastor and teacher of all Christians.” Cardinal k/4
4
Humbert’s subsequent attacks upon the Byzantines as “impudent” and “bold” can 0
2
only be understood in this light, as he thought it the height of presumption to teach 2/c
h
the Roman church how to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, “as if the Heavenly Father has a
p
hidden from Peter, the Prince of apostles, the proper rite of the visible sacrifice.”23 This te
is primarily a work of dogmatic history, but the political, cultural, and ecclesiological r/37
1
background of the East-W est “estrangement” cannot and will not be forgotten. 8
7
6
For the biblical and patristic material, I was able to avail myself of resources that the 9
4
participants in these debates did not always have on hand. Medieval authors arguing 6 b
y
over the fate of souls did not have critical editions of the fathers to consult, which is why U
n
so much effort was wasted debating the authenticity of texts, many of which were in- iv
e
deed spurious.24 In this book I have tried to utilize the most recent critical editions and rs
translations when I could, although many of the works cited can still only be found in ity o
the Patrologia Graeca (PG) or Patrologia Latina (PL). Where there are English-l anguage f E
d
in
b
u
20 See, for example, Michael Azkoul, Aerial Toll-H ouse Myth: The Neo- Gnosticism of Fr Seraphim Rose rgh
(Dewdney, BC: Synaxis Press, 2005); Lazar Puhalo, The Soul, the Body and Death (Dewdney, BC: Synaxis us
PDroecsus,m 2e0n1t3 a);n Ld aaz aGr ePnuehraall oS,u Thrveey T oafl eG onfo Estlidceisrm B a(sDile “wThdnee Ny,e BwC” :a Snydn tahxei sTh Preeosdso, r1a9 M99y)t; hS:e Srtaupdhyi mof Rao Gsen,o Thstiec er on
Soul after Death (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2009); St Anthony’s Greek Orthodox 1
0
Monastery, The Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church (Florence, AZ: St O
Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery, 2017). c
21 David Bentley Hart, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (New Haven: Yale tob
e
U n22i vDeresmitye tPrrioesss , B20at1h9r)e.llos, “Love, Purification, and Forgiveness versus Justice, Punishment, and r 20
2
Satisfaction: The Debates on Purgatory and the Forgiveness of Sins at the Council of Ferrara-F lorence,” 2
Journal of Theological Studies, NS 65 (2014): 120–2 1.
23 Leo IX, Epistola ad Michaelem Constantinopolitanum Archiepiscoporum in Will, Acta et Scripta, 68.
24 The patristic quotations employed by Thomas Aquinas to defend Purgatory in his Contra Errores
Graecorum, most of which were taken verbatim from the Libellus de fide ss. Trinitatis of Nicholas of Cotrone,
Preface xv
translations I have utilized them, occasionally adding the original Greek or Latin when
clarity demanded it. Through an email exchange with Dr. Christopher Oldstone-M oore,
who kindly put me in contact with Katie Derrig, I was fortunate enough to gain access
to her unpublished translations of Ratramnus and Aeneas of Paris that she had done for
the book Of Beards and Men. Dr. Jeff Brubaker provided advance copies of his transla-
D
tion of the 1234 debates, soon to be published by Liverpool University Press. All other o
w
translations are my own unless otherwise noted. nlo
I would like to thank the library staff at Stockton University for their assistance in ad
e
ombatnaiyn oinf gw mhiacnhy w oefr eth oensley porbimtaianrayb alen dth sreocuognhd tahrey Isnotuerrcliebsr athrya tL Io aunse sdy swtehmile. Mwuricthin ogf, d from
this book was written in 2020 and 2021, when the Covid- 19 pandemic made access h
ttp
to materials quite difficult, making their job even harder. Several authors were kind s
enough to send their books or articles directly to me during this time, including Drs. ://a
c
a
Alessandra Bucossi, Angel Nikolov, and Nicholas Zola, all of whom have earned my d
e
m
enduring gratitude. Drs. Andrea Riedl and Matt Briel answered several questions
ic
about particular texts, helping me to understand and handle the material better. .o
u
p
Dr. Tia Kolbaba along with Dr. Jeff Brubaker read draft chapters of the book, pro- .c
o
viding insights that were key in improving the final product. Drs. Yury P. Avvakumov, m
/b
Christopher Schabel, and Demetrios Bathrellos not only sent me books and articles o
o
during lockdown, but also graciously read and commented upon the azyme and k/4
4
Purgatory material, areas in which they are quite rightly regarded as experts. I would 0
2
also like to thank my dear friend, Dr. Allan Austin at Misericordia University, who, 2/c
h
as he did with my other books, read through the manuscript and made invaluable a
p
suggestions in order to make the work more accessible to a wider readership. My col- te
leagues in the Philosophy/R eligion Program at Stockton University— Drs. Rodger r/37
1
Jackson, Anne Pomeroy, Lucio Privitello, and Jongbok Yi—h ave always been sup- 8
7
6
portive of my work and have, through their kindnesses to me, made it possible to de- 9
4
vote time to the necessary research. 6 b
y
My parents, Edward and Terri Siecienski, have continued to be a source of support U
n
and inspiration, and my mother-i n- law, Martha Matwijcow, can always be counted iv
e
upon when help is needed with the children. Of course, my children, Alex and Alana, rs
are getting older now and no longer need “babysitting”—t hey are in high school and ity o
have even begun to ask questions about my work. While the questions about the af- f E
d
terlife were occasionally perspective-c hanging, our dinner table conversations about in
b
u
beards were (quite frankly) more fun. Last, I want to thank my wife, Kiev, whose rg
h
strength and love provide the foundations for everything I have been able to accom- u
s
plish, both at home and at work. e
r o
n
1
A capable wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels. 0
O
The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. c
to
(Proverbs 31:10– 11) b
e
r 2
0
2
2
were either corrupted or completely spurious. See Antoine Dondaine, “Nicolas de Cotrone et la sources du
Contra errores Graecorum de Saint Thomas,” Divus Thomas 29 (1950): 313– 40; Mark Jordan, “Theological
Exegesis and Aquinas’ Treatise ‘Against the Greeks,’” Church History 56 (1987): 445–5 6.
Abbreviations
D
o
w
ACW Ancient Christian Writers n
lo
ANF Ante- Nicene Fathers a
d
e
CCCM Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis d
CCG Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca fro
m
CCL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina h
ttp
CF Concilium Florentinum: Documenta et Scriptores s
CSCO Corpus of Oriental Christian Writers ://a
c
a
FC Fathers of the Church d
e
m
MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica ic
NPNF Nicene and Post-N icene Fathers .ou
p
PG Patrologia Graeca .c
o
m
PL Patrologia Latina
/b
SC Sources chrétiennes oo
k
/4
4
0
2
2
/c
h
a
p
te
r/3
7
1
8
7
7
1
5
7
b
y
U
n
iv
e
rs
ity
o
f E
d
in
b
u
rg
h
u
s
e
r o
n
1
0
O
c
to
b
e
r 2
0
2
2
Introduction
D
o
w
n
lo
In 1576, as the Protestant Reformation continued to sweep across Western Europe ad
e
afonrdm Cinagth aogleicn pdrae,1la tthees tcraireddi ntoa ls taermch tbhiseh toidpe o tfh Mroiulagnh, dCilhigaerlnets aBpoprlircoamtioeon (o1f5 T3r8e–n 1t’5s 8r4e-) d from
penned a letter to his clergy. In order to restore the church to its former glory, he en- h
ttp
joined his “beloved brethren” to “bring back good observances and holy customs s
which have grown cold and been abandoned over the course of time.”2 Chief among ://a
c
a
them, he wrote, was a custom that, although ancient, had been “practically lost nearly d
e
m
everywhere in Italy. . . . I mean the practice that ecclesiastical persons not grow, but
ic
rather shave the beard. . . . a custom of our Fathers, almost perpetually retained in the .o
u
Church” that was “replete with mystical meanings.”3 Yet Borromeo knew that a clean- p.c
o
shaven face was of little good unless “accompanied by a true resolution to execute m
/b
and put into practice the things that are signified by this custom,” for it would be a o
o
“source of shame to us to have an external appearance different from laymen if we are k/4
4
going to be no different in our habits from worldly people. . . . With our disdain for 0
2
this common decoration of the face, let us renounce all vain human adornments and 2/c
glories.”4 ha
p
Borromeo was certainly right to worry that this practice had largely been lost, for te
since the pontificate of Julius II (1503–1 3), who had vowed to grow his beard as a re- r/37
1
sponse to the loss of Bologna, beards had begun to reappear among the Western clergy 8
7
after an absence of almost 140 years.5 Martin Luther, while disguised as “Junker Jörg” 72
1
in 1521, grew out his beard (although he later chose to remain clean-s haven), and sub- 4 b
y
sequent Protestants came to see facial hair as a sign of both manliness and resistance U
to Rome.6 By the time of Clement VII (1523– 34), whose own beard of mourning was a niv
e
response to the 1527 sack of Rome by imperial troops, a new, hairier era was dawning rs
in Western Europe. In 1531 Pope Clement gave permission for all priests to grow ity o
beards, a policy defended by Pierio Valeriano, whose now famous Pro sacerdotum f E
d
in
b
u
1 The Council of Trent, which met intermittently between 1545 and 1563, tried to rid the Catholic Church rgh
of many of the abuses (e.g., concubinage, sale of indulgences) that had occasioned such fierce Protestant us
a tt2a cCkhsa.rles Borromeo, Selected Orations, Homilies, and Writings, ed. and trans. John Clark and Ansgar er on
Santogrossi (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 97. 1
0
3 Ibid., 96. O
4 Ibid., 99, 101. c
5 Christopher Oldstone- Moore, Of Beards and Men: The Revealing History of Facial Hair (Chicago: tob
e
U n6 iLveurtshiteyr olaf tCerh sicaaidg:o “ PThreess o, r2i0g1in7)a,l 1s0in8 .in a man is like his beard, which, though shaved off today so that r 20
2
a man is very smooth around his mouth, yet grows again by tomorrow morning. As long as a man lives, 2
such growth of the hair and the beard does not stop. But when the shovel beats the ground on his grave, it
stops. Just so original sin remains in us and bestirs itself as long as we live, but we must resist it and always
cut off its hair.” Martin Luther, What Luther Says: An Anthology, ed. Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1959), 1302–3 .
Beards, Azymes, and Purgatory. A. Edward Siecienski, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2023.
DOI: 10.1093/ oso/ 9780190065065.003.0001
