How Fake Is Church History?

羅馬教會的歷史有多假？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處



The Gregorian Coup and the Birthright Theft

格里高利的政變和欺世盜名

This is the second of three articles drawing attention to major structural problems in our history of Europe in the first millennium AD. In the first article (“How fake is Roman Antiquity?”), we have argued that the forgery of ancient books during the Renaissance was more widespread than usually acknowledged, so that what we think we know about the Roman Empire — including events and individuals of central importance — rests on questionable sources. (We have not claimed that all written sources on the Roman Empire are fake.)

這是這個系列的三篇文章中的第二篇，這三篇文章關(guān)注的都是公元后的首個千年中我們歐洲歷史中的主要結(jié)構(gòu)性問題。在第一篇文章（古羅馬的歷史有多假)中,我們指出，在文藝復(fù)興時期，古書的偽造比通常所認(rèn)為的更為普遍，因此我們可以這樣理解羅馬帝國--其核心的事件和個人--都是基于可疑的來源。(當(dāng)然我們并沒有聲稱所有關(guān)于羅馬帝國的文字資料都是假的)

We have also argued that the traditional perspective of the first millennium is distorted by a strong bias in favor of Rome, at the expense of Constantinople. The common representation of the Byzantine Empire as the final phase of the Roman Empire, whose capital had been transferred from the Latium to the Bosphorus, is today recognized as a falsification. Politically, culturally, linguistically, and religiously, Byzantium owes nothing to Rome. “Believing that their own culture was vastly superior to Rome’s, the Greeks were hardly receptive to the influence of Roman civilization,” states a recent Atlas de l’Empire Romain, mentioning only gladiator combats as a possible, yet marginal, debt.[1]

我們也認(rèn)為，對第一個千年的傳統(tǒng)認(rèn)知被對羅馬的強(qiáng)烈偏愛所扭曲，而這是以君士坦丁堡為代價的。有一個通常的看法，拜占庭帝國是都城從意大利轉(zhuǎn)移到博斯普魯斯的羅馬帝國的最后階段，這在今天被認(rèn)為是對事實(shí)的歪曲，在政治上，文化上，語言上，以及在宗教上，拜占庭不欠羅馬什么，“希臘人相信他們自己的文化比羅馬的優(yōu)越得多，很難接受羅馬文明的影響?！弊罱囊徊苛_馬帝國地圖集中如此寫道，其中提到角斗士競技僅是一種可能因債務(wù)而存在的影響很小的活動。

The assumption that Western civilization originated in Rome, Italy relies partly on a misunderstanding of the word “Roman”. What we now call “the Byzantine Empire” (a term that only became customary in the sixteenth century) was then called Basileía t?n Rh?maí?n (the kingdom of the Romans), and for most of the first millennium, “Roman” simply meant what we understand today as “Byzantine”.

認(rèn)為西方文明起源于意大利羅馬(Rome)的假設(shè)，部分是基于對“羅馬人（Roman)”一詞的誤解。我們現(xiàn)在所稱的“拜占庭帝國”(這個術(shù)語在16世紀(jì)才成為習(xí)慣用語)當(dāng)時被稱為“羅馬人王國”，在第一個千年的大部分時間里，“羅馬人”只是指我們今天所理解的“拜占庭人”。

Our perception of Rome as the origin and center of Western civilization is also lixed to our assurance that Latin is the mother of all Romance languages. But that filiation, which became a dogma in the mid-nineteenth century,[2] is under severe attack (we thank the commenters who directed us to this documentary and that one, to Yves Cortez’s book Le Fran?ais ne vient pas du latin, and to Mario Alinei’s work). It seems that Dante was correct when he assumed in De vulgari eloquentia (c. 1303), the first treatise on the subject, that Latin was an artificial, synthetic language created “by the common consent of many peoples” for written purposes.[3]

我們認(rèn)為羅馬是西方文明的起源和中心，這也與我們確信拉丁語是所有羅曼語之母有關(guān)， 但是，這種在19世紀(jì)中期成為了一種教條的語言譜系，受到了嚴(yán)重質(zhì)疑，似乎但丁在"俗語論"（公元1303）中的假設(shè)是正確的，他關(guān)于這個問題的第一篇論文認(rèn)為，拉丁語是一種人造的語言，是“在許多人的共同意志下”為書寫目的而創(chuàng)造的人工合成語言。

The distortions that produced our textbook history of the first millennium have both a geographical and a chronological dimension. The geographical distortion is part of that Eurocentrism that is now being challenged by scholars like James Morris Blaut (The Colonizer’s Model of the World, Guilford Press, 1993), John M. Hobson (The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization, Cambridge UP, 2004), or Jack Goody (The Theft of History, Cambridge UP, 2012). The chronological distortion, on the other hand, is not yet an issue in mainstream academia: historians simply do not question the chronological backbone of the first millennium. They don’t even ask themselves when, how and by whom it was created.

我們教科書上對第一個千年歷史的歪曲既有地理維度上的，也有年代時間維度上的，這種地理上的歪曲是歐洲中心主義的一部分，現(xiàn)在正受到James Morris Blaut等學(xué)者的挑戰(zhàn)(《殖民者的世界模型》，吉爾福德出版社，1993，約翰·m·霍布森(《西方文明的東方起源》，劍橋大學(xué)出版社，2004年，或杰克·古迪(《盜竊歷史》，劍橋大學(xué)出版社，2012年)，另一方面，年代維度上的歪曲在主流學(xué)術(shù)界還沒作為一個問題: 歷史學(xué)家根本不會質(zhì)疑第一個千年的時間主干，他們甚至不會問自己，它是何時、如何以及由誰創(chuàng)建的。

So far, we have formulated the working hypothesis that the Western Roman Empire is, to some extent, a phantom duplicate of the Eastern Roman Empire, conjured by Rome in order to steal the birthright from Constantinople, while concealing its debt to the civilization that it conspired to assassinate. The Roman Empire, in other words, was a dream rather than a memory, exactly like Solomon’s empire. But, one will instantly obxt, while archeologists have found no trace of Solomon’s empire, the vestiges of Augustus’ empire are plentiful. True, but are these vestiges really from Antiquity, and if so, why are medi vestiges nowhere to be found in Rome? If Rome was the beating heart of medi Western Christendom, it should have been busy constructing, not just restoring.

到目前為止，我們已經(jīng)建立了一個有效的假說，在某種程度上，西羅馬帝國是東羅馬帝國的影子復(fù)制品，羅馬塑造它是為了從君士坦丁堡竊取名分，同時隱瞞自己對這個文明的虧欠，因?yàn)樗\害這個文明。換句話說，羅馬帝國是一個夢，而不是一個記憶，就像所羅門帝國一樣。但是，立刻就會有人反對說，雖然考古學(xué)家沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)所羅門帝國的遺跡，但奧古斯都的帝國遺跡非常之豐富。 是的，但這些遺跡真的來自古代嗎? 如果是這樣，為什么中世紀(jì)的遺跡在羅馬找不到呢？如果羅馬是中世紀(jì)西方基督教世界跳動的心臟，它應(yīng)該忙于建設(shè)，而不僅僅是修復(fù)古跡。

The Commune of Rome was founded in 1144 as a Republic with a consul and a senate, in the wake of other Italian cities (Pise in 1085, Milano in 1097, Gene in 1099, Florence in 1100). It defined itself by the phrase senatus populusque romanus (“the Senate and the Roman people”), condensed in the acronym SPQR. Beginning in 1184 and until the early sixteenth century, the city of Rome struck coins with these letters. But, we are told, SPQR was already the mark of the first Roman Republic founded in 509 BC and, more incredibly, it was preserved by emperors, who apparently didn’t mind being thus ignored. As outrageous as it sounds, one cannot easily brush aside the suspicion that the ancient Roman Republic, known to us thanks to Petrarch’s “piecing together” Titus Livy’s History of Rome,[4] is an imaginative portrait of late medi Rome in antique garb. Petrarch was part of a circle of Italian propagandists who celebrated Rome’s past glory. “His intentions,” writes French mediist Jacques Heers, “were deliberately political, and his approach was part of a real struggle.” He was “one of the most virulent writers of his time, involved in a great quarrel against the papacy of Avignon, and this relentlessness in fighting determined his cultural as well as political options.”[5]

羅馬公社是繼意大利其他城市之后，于1144年建立的共和政體，有執(zhí)政官和元老院（比薩的公社建立于1085年，米蘭的建立于1097年，熱那亞的建立于1099年，佛羅倫薩的建立于1100年），它用詞語senatus populusque romanus來定義自己，意為元老院與羅馬人民， 縮寫為SPQR。從1184年開始直到公元 16世紀(jì)早期，羅馬城都把這些母鑄在硬幣上。但是，有人告訴我們說，SPQR本來是公元前509年建立的第一羅馬共和國的標(biāo)志，而且更令人難以置信的是，它被皇帝保留了下來，顯然皇帝不介意如此被忽視，盡管這聽起來很離譜，但人們不能輕易地忽視，因彼特拉克的“拼湊歷史”和提圖斯·李維的《羅馬史》而聞名于世的古羅馬共和國，其實(shí)是披著古董服飾的中世紀(jì)晚期羅馬的一幅富有想象力的畫像。法國中世紀(jì)史學(xué)家雅克·希爾寫道：“彼特拉克有刻意的政治意圖，他的創(chuàng)作方式與其真實(shí)意圖充分結(jié)合，他是那個時代最有惡意的作家之一，他深度卷入了一場針對教皇阿維尼翁的大論戰(zhàn)，這場殘酷的斗爭也決定了他的文化觀點(diǎn)與政治取向?！?/b>

In the first article, we have questioned the obxtivity and even the probity of those humanists who claimed to resurrect the long forgotten splendor of Republican and Imperial Rome. In this second article, we turn our attention to ecclesiastical historians of earlier times, who fashioned our vision of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Their history of the Christian Church, peopled with miracle-performing holy men and diabolical heretics, is hard to connect with political history, and secular historians specialized in Late Antiquity are generally happy to leave the field to “Church historians” and teachers of faith. That is a shame, because the credibility of this literature has largely gone unchallenged.

在第一篇文章中，我們曾質(zhì)疑那些聲稱要復(fù)興被遺忘已久的羅馬共和國與羅馬帝國的輝煌歷史的人文主義者們的的客觀性，甚至是公正性。在第二篇文章中，我們將注意力轉(zhuǎn)向早期的教會歷史學(xué)家們，他們塑造了我們對古典時代晚期和中世紀(jì)早期歷史的認(rèn)識，他們的基督教歷史之中，充滿了展現(xiàn)奇跡的圣人和邪惡的異教徒，這實(shí)在很難與政治史聯(lián)系起來，而且專門研究古典時代晚期的世俗歷史學(xué)家通常樂于離開這個領(lǐng)域，將其留給“教堂歷史學(xué)家”和信仰導(dǎo)師們。這是一大遺憾，因?yàn)檫@使得這些文獻(xiàn)的可信性在很大程度上沒有受到挑戰(zhàn)。

The pontifical forgery factory

羅馬教皇的造假工廠

“Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature is the degree to which it was forged.” So Bert Ehrman begins his book Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. Throughout the first four centuries AD, he says, forgery was the rule in Christian literature, and genuine authorship the exception. Forgery was so systemic that forgeries gave rise to counterforgeries, that is, forgeries “used to counter the views of other forgeries.”[6] If forgery is part of the DNA of Christianity, we can expect it to continue throughout the Middle Ages.

“可以說，早期基督教文學(xué)最鮮明的特征是無所不在的偽造?！彼?，伯特·埃爾曼開始了他的著作《偽造與反偽造:早期基督教辯論中文學(xué)欺騙的運(yùn)用》他說，在公元前四個世紀(jì)，偽造是基督教文學(xué)的慣例，不偽造的創(chuàng)作者是例外。偽造是如此的系統(tǒng)性，以至于偽造產(chǎn)生了反偽造，也就是“用來反駁其他偽造的觀點(diǎn)”的偽造。如果偽造是基督教基因的一部分，那么我們可以預(yù)期它會一直延續(xù)到中世紀(jì)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


One of the most famous medi forgeries is the “Donation of Constantine.” By this document, Emperor Constantine is supposed to have transferred his own authority over the Western regions of the Empire to Pope Sylvester. This forgery of outrageous audacity is the centerpiece of a whole collection of about a hundred counterfeit decrees and acts of Synods, attributed to the earliest popes or other Church dignitaries, and known today as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals. Their aim was to set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church, as well as over kings and emperors.

最為著名的中世紀(jì)偽作是所謂的“君士坦丁贈禮”，根據(jù)這份文件，君士坦丁皇帝應(yīng)該將自己的權(quán)力移交給了羅馬帝國西部地區(qū)的西爾維斯特教皇，在上百件偽造的法令和主教會議議案組成的一整套贗品中，這一件最為無恥，它們被認(rèn)為是最早的教皇或其他教會要人所為，今天被稱為偽伊西多利安教令集，他們這么做的目的是為教皇對普世教會以及國王與皇帝們行使最高權(quán)力提供先決條件上的合法性。

These documents were not used until the middle of the eleventh century, and it is not before the twelfth century that they were incorporated by Gratian into his Decretum, which became the basis of all canon law. Yet the scholarly consensus is that they date back from the time of Charlemagne. For that reason, Horst Fuhrmann, a specialist in medi forgeries, classifies them as “forgeries with anticipatory character,” which “have the characteristic that at the time they were written, they had hardly any effect.” According to him, these fakes had to wait, depending on the case, between 250 and 550 years before being used. Heribert Illig rightly protests against this theory of forgeries allegedly written by clerics who had no immediate use of them and did not know what purpose their forgeries could serve a few centuries later. Forgeries are produced to serve a project, and they are made on demand when needed. The Donation of Constantine and other false Decretals are therefore most probably pure products of the Gregorian reform. Their “anticipatory character” is an illusion created by one of the chronological distortions that we have set out to correct.[7]

這些文件直到十一世紀(jì)中葉才被使用，直到十二世紀(jì)，格蘭西才把它們納入他編撰的后來成為所有教會法令基礎(chǔ)的《教令集》，然而學(xué)術(shù)界的共識是，它們都可以追溯到查理曼大帝時代，出于這個原因，研究中世紀(jì)贗品的專家霍斯特·福爾曼(Horst Fuhrmann)將它們歸類為“具有預(yù)期特征的贗品”，這種贗品“在當(dāng)時被寫下來時，幾乎沒有發(fā)揮任何影響，”據(jù)他說，根據(jù)具體情況，這些贗品需要等待250到550年才有用。赫里伯特·伊利格(Heribert Illig)明確地反對這種偽造理論，他說，該理論聲稱是由神職人員寫的，他們沒有立即使用它們，也不知道他們的偽造可以在幾個世紀(jì)后發(fā)揮什么作用。而他認(rèn)為，偽造品是為某個項(xiàng)目服務(wù)的，而且在需要的時候可以按需制作。因此“君士坦丁贈禮”和其他虛假的法令很可能純粹是格里高利改革的產(chǎn)物，大家所說的“預(yù)期特征”只是一種錯覺，是由我們經(jīng)手修正后的時間排列上的某種扭曲所造成的。


The Gregorian reform, which started with the accession of Pope Leo IX in 1049, was a continuation of the monastic revival launched by the powerful Benedictine Abbey of Cluny, which a century after its foundation in 910 had developed a network of more than a thousand monasteries all over Europe.[8] The Gregorian reform can be conceived as a monkish coup over Europe, in the sense that celibate monks, who used to live at the margin of society, progressively took the leadership over it.

格里高利改革始于1049年教皇利奧九世登基，它是強(qiáng)大的克呂尼本篤會修道院發(fā)起的修道復(fù)興運(yùn)動的延續(xù)，克呂尼本篤會修道院于910年建立，在一個世紀(jì)之后，它在整個歐洲發(fā)展出一個由1000多所修道院組成的網(wǎng)絡(luò)，格里高利改革可以被認(rèn)為是對整個歐洲的一場修道士政變，從這個意義上說，曾經(jīng)生活在社會邊緣的獨(dú)身的修道士們逐漸掌握了領(lǐng)導(dǎo)權(quán)。

It is worth insisting on the revolutionary character of the Gregorian reform. It was, wrote Marc Bloch in Feudal Society, “an extraordinarily powerful movement from which, without exaggeration, may be dated the definite formation of Latin Christianity.”[9] More recently, Robert I. Moore wrote in The First European Revolution, c. 970-1215: “The ‘reform’ which was embodied in the Gregorian program was nothing less than a project to divide the world, both people and property, into two distinct and autonomous realms, not geographically by socially.” The reform triumphed at the Fourth Lateran Council convoked by Innocent III in 1215. The world created by Lateran IV was “an entirely different world — a world pervaded and increasingly moulded by the well-drilled piety and obedience associated with the traditional vision of ‘the age of faith’, or medi Christianity.” Yet in a sense, Lateran IV was only a beginning: in 1234, Innocent III’s cousin Gregory IX instituted the Inquisition, but the great period of witch-hunting — the last battle against paganism — was still two centuries away.[10]

格里高利改革的革命性是值得強(qiáng)調(diào)的，對此，馬克·布洛赫在《封建社會》一書中寫道:“這是一場非常強(qiáng)大的運(yùn)動，可以毫不夸張地說，它標(biāo)志著羅馬基督教的形成?！辈痪们?，羅伯特·i·摩爾在其《第一次歐洲革命:970-1215年》一書中寫道:“體現(xiàn)在格里高利的策劃中的改革，不亞于一個分裂世界的計劃，它將世界上的人和財產(chǎn)劃分為兩個截然不同的自治范疇，而不是地理上和社交上的?！痹诮袒视⒅Z森三世于1215年在羅馬召開的第四次拉特蘭會議上，改革取得了勝利。第四次拉特蘭會議創(chuàng)造的世界是“一個完全不同的世界——一個被傳統(tǒng)的‘信仰時代’或中世紀(jì)基督教所推崇的虔誠和順從所滲透和塑造的世界?！比欢?，從某種意義上說，第四次拉特朗只是一個開始:1234年，英諾森三世的堂兄教皇格里高利九世建立了宗教裁判所，但大規(guī)模的獵巫時代——對異教徒的最后一戰(zhàn)——仍然在兩個世紀(jì)之后。

In his book Law and Revolution, the Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Harvard UP, 1983), Harold Berman also insists on the revolutionary character of the Gregorian reform, by which “the clergy became the first translocal, transtribal, transfeudal, transnational class in Europe to achieve political and legal unity.” “To speak of revolutionary change within the Church of Rome is, of course, to challenge the orthodox (though not the Eastern Orthodox) view that the structure of the Roman Catholic Church is the result of a gradual elaboration of elements that had been present from very early times. This was, indeed, the official view of the Catholic Reformers of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries: they were only going back, they said, to an earlier tradition that had been betrayed by their immediate predecessors.”[11] The Reformers, in other words, established a new world order under the pretense of restoring an ancient world order. They created a new past in order to control the future.

哈羅德·伯曼(Harold Berman)在《法律與革命:西方法律傳統(tǒng)的形成》(Law and Revolution, the Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Harvard UP, 1983)一書中也堅持格里高利改革的革命性特征，“神職人員成為歐洲第一個跨地方、跨種族、跨封建、跨國界的階級，實(shí)現(xiàn)了政治和法律上的統(tǒng)一。”“談到羅馬教會內(nèi)部的革命性變化，當(dāng)然是在挑戰(zhàn)正統(tǒng)(不過不是東正教)的觀點(diǎn)，即羅馬天主教會的結(jié)構(gòu)是由從很早時候就存在的元素逐漸細(xì)化的結(jié)果，這確實(shí)是11世紀(jì)末12世紀(jì)初天主教改革者的正式觀點(diǎn)，他們說，他們只是回到了被他們的前任們所背叛的更早的傳統(tǒng)?！睋Q而言之，改革派打著恢復(fù)古代世界秩序的幌子，建立了新的世界秩序。為了控制未來，他們創(chuàng)造了一個新的古代歷史。
【譯注，格里高利七世是公元1073—1085年在位的羅馬教皇，意大利人，早年曾領(lǐng)導(dǎo)克呂尼運(yùn)動，擔(dān)任教皇后進(jìn)行一系列教會改革措施，這與其后的帕斯卡爾二世等教皇的改革活動一起統(tǒng)稱為“格里高利改革”。格里高利要求已婚的教士離婚，強(qiáng)調(diào)主教授職權(quán)應(yīng)屬于教會。其后的帕斯卡爾二世宣布教會不再充當(dāng)國王和世俗封建主的封臣。這場改革提出了許多原則和具體辦法來捍衛(wèi)教皇權(quán)威，加強(qiáng)教會獨(dú)立性和整肅神職人員風(fēng)紀(jì)】

For that, they employed an army of legists who elaborated a new canonical legal system to supersede customary feudal laws, and made their new legal system appear as the oldest by producing forgeries on a massive scale. Besides the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals and the false Donation of Constantine, they crafted the Symmachian forgeries, destined to produce legal precedents to immune the pope from criticism. One of these documents, the Silvestri constitutum, contains the legend of Pope Sylvester 1st curing Constantine the Great of leprosy with the waters of baptism, and receiving in gratitude Constantine’s imperial insignia and the city of Rome. Charlemagne’s father was also made to contribute with the false Donation of Pepin. It is now admitted that the vast majority of legal documents supposedly established before the ninth century are clerical forgeries. According to French historian Laurent Morelle, “two thirds of the acts entitled in the name of the Merovingian kings (481-751) have been identified as false or falsified.”[12] It is very likely that the real proportion is much higher, and that many documents which are still deemed authentic are forgeries: for instance, it is our view that the wording of the foundation charter of the Abbey of Cluny, by which its founder William I (the Pious) renounced all control over it, cannot possibly have been dictated or endorsed by a medi duke of Aquitaine (virtually a king).[13]

為此，他們雇傭了一批法學(xué)家，精心炮制了一套新規(guī)范的法律制度，以取代傳統(tǒng)的封建法律，并通過大規(guī)模制造贗品，使他們的新法律制度顯得最為古老，除了假伊西多利安教令和假君士坦丁贈禮，他們還偽造了西馬基亞贗品，刻意創(chuàng)造出一些成文的法令判例，以免除教皇受到批判?！段鳡柧S斯特立憲書》是其中的一份文件，該文件講述了教皇西爾維斯特一世用洗禮水治愈了君士坦丁皇帝的嚴(yán)重麻風(fēng)病的傳說，以及教皇以感激的心情接受了君士坦丁捐贈的帝國徽章和羅馬城，查理曼大帝的父親也被編造捐獻(xiàn)出了丕平城?，F(xiàn)在人們承認(rèn)，絕大多數(shù)據(jù)說創(chuàng)立于九世紀(jì)之前的法律文件都是神職人員偽造的，在法國歷史學(xué)家洛朗·莫雷勒看來，“在墨洛溫王朝的國王(481-751年)的名義下的作品中，有三分之二被認(rèn)定為虛假或偽造的。”但很可能實(shí)際的比例要高得多，許多現(xiàn)在仍然被認(rèn)為是真實(shí)的文件都是偽造的，例如，在我們看來，位于法國的克呂尼大修道院的建造特許狀中的文字，不可能是由中世紀(jì)的阿基坦公爵(實(shí)際上是國王)口述或簽批的，這些文字稱它的創(chuàng)建者威廉一世(一個虔誠的基督徒)放棄了對它的所有控制。

These fake documents served the popes on several fronts. They were used in their power struggle against the German emperors, by backing up their extravagant claim that the pope could depose emperors. They were also powerful weapons in the geopolitical war waged against the Byzantine church and empire. By bestowing on the papacy “supremacy over the four principal sees, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth,” the false Donation of Constantine justified Rome’s claim for precedence over Constantinople, which led to the Great Schism of 1054 and ultimately the sack of Constantinople by the Latins in 1205. By a cruel irony, the spuriousness of the Donation of Constantine was exposed in 1430, after it had served its purpose. By then, the Eastern Empire had lost all its territories and was reduced to a depopulated city besieged by the Ottomans.

這些虛假文件在幾個方面為羅馬教皇服務(wù)，他們被用來與德國皇帝進(jìn)行權(quán)力斗爭，按照他們過分的主張，教皇可以廢黜皇帝，在同拜占庭教會和拜占庭帝國的地緣政治斗爭中，這些也是強(qiáng)有力的武器。通過賦予羅馬教皇“凌駕于亞歷山大、安條克、耶路撒冷、君士坦丁堡四大牧首區(qū)之上的至高無上的權(quán)力，同時也凌駕于全世界的所有教會之上，”虛假的君士坦丁贈禮證明了羅馬對君士坦丁堡具有優(yōu)先地位，它導(dǎo)致了1054年的東西方教會的大分裂，并最終在1205年君士坦丁堡被拉丁人洗劫。諷刺的是，君士坦丁贈禮的謊言在達(dá)到了它的目的之后，于1430年被揭穿，在那時，那個東方的帝國已經(jīng)失去了所有的領(lǐng)土，只剩下一個被奧斯曼人包圍的人口不多的城市。
【譯注：君士坦丁贈禮的文本在1430年前后被德國人尼古拉主教和意大利人瓦拉先后證明是偽造的，尤其是瓦拉，利用嚴(yán)密的詞源考證證明該文本是后人的偽作】

It is little known, but of great importance for understanding medi times, when ethnicity played a major part in politics, that the Gregorian reformers were Franks, even before Bruno of Egisheim-Dagsburg gave the first impulse as pope Leo IX. That is why Orthodox theologian John Romanides blames the Franks for having destroyed the unity of Christendom with ethnic and geopolitical motivations.[14] In Byzantine chronicles, “Latin” and “Frank” are synonymous.

有一點(diǎn)很少有人知道，但對于理解種族在政治中扮演重要角色的中世紀(jì)非常重要，格利高里時期的改革派是法蘭克人，甚至在布魯諾以教皇利奧九世的身份第一次推行改革時也是如此，因此，東正教神學(xué)家約翰·羅馬尼德斯指責(zé)法蘭克人利用種族和地緣政治動機(jī)破壞了基督教世界的統(tǒng)一，在拜占庭編年史中，“拉丁”和“弗蘭克”是同義詞。
（待續(xù)......)