I. Mihail (Konstantinopolis patriği): Revizyonlar arasındaki fark

Bazı akademisyenler, Eylül 1053 mektubunun [https://archive.org/stream/patrologiaecurs86unkngoog#page/n375/mode/2up Migne, ''Patrologia Latina'', vol. 143, coll. 744-769]'da bulunan metnin aslında hiçbir zaman gönderilmediğini fakat bir kenara bırakılmıştır ve gerçekte gönderilen papalık cevabı, 1054 Ocak tarihli ''Scripta tuae'' mektubun daha yumuşak ama yine de sert olduğunu söylerler.<ref name=WUP>[https://books.google.com/books?id=RfO1J6hjcdgC&pg=PA210&dq=Setton+%22take+office%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R0XzVK6nDoyQ7AaSqIAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Setton%20%22take%20office%22&f=false Kenneth Meyer Setton (editor), ''A History of the Crusades'' (Wisconsin University Press 1969] {{ISBN|9780299048341}}) pp. 209-210</ref>

 

<!--

This letter of Pope Leo IX was addressed both to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and [[Leo of Ohrid]], Archbishop of [[Bulgaria]], and was in response to a letter sent by [[Leo of Ohrid|Leo]], [[Archbishop of Ohrid|Metropolitan of Achrida]] to John, Bishop of [[Trani]] (in [[Apulia]]), that categorically attacked the customs of the Latin Church that differed from those of the Greeks. Especially criticized were the Roman traditions of fasting on the Saturday Sabbath and consecration of unleavened bread. Leo IX in his letter accused Constantinople of historically being the source of heresy and claimed in emphatic terms the [[Papal primacy|primacy]] of the Bishop of Rome over even the Patriarch of Constantinople, who would have none of it.