Not Bread Alone In 1054
It is tempting to say the Great Schism was about bread.
That is too neat.
The breach between Rome and Constantinople involved papal authority, the filioque, jurisdiction, language, imperial politics, and ritual practice. Bread was part of that bundle, not the whole bundle.1
Still, bread was not decorative. The exchange of accusations made altar bread visible as a public sign of ecclesial identity.
Cardinal Humbert’s excommunication text accused Michael Cerularius and his allies in sweeping terms. The Greek side had already pressed Latin practice over unleavened bread. Each side saw the other’s loaf as a clue to deeper error.2
For this book, that is enough.
The bread dispute shows how a staple food could carry church authority, inherited exegesis, and communal boundary all at once. A loaf could become a referendum on communion.
The counter-tradition in Not by Bread Alone remains nearby. Even in a dispute about sacred bread, scripture had already warned against making bread ultimate.
Related sections: Azymes At The Altar; Leaven As Fullness.
Footnotes
-
For the wider context, see Humbert of Silva Candida, Adversus Graecorum calumnias, in Will, Acta et scripta, 93-126; and A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Primary and secondary sources. ↩
-
Humbert of Silva Candida, bull of excommunication against Michael Cerularius and his supporters, placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia, July 16, 1054, in Will, Acta et scripta, 150-54. Primary source. ↩