If you are interested in some factoids from Chadwick’s East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church that are not the obvious stuff you already know, here is a list of them!
Saint Meletius lived out his entire episcopate outside of communion with Rome.
Meletius would posthumorously enter the Roman calendar of saints, but during his lifetime he was never in communion with the Roman see (p. 23).
Comment about a “prickly letter from a second synod at Constantinople in 382 replying to the western barrage of criticism.”
[T]he council (381) claimed the title ecumenical…Among Greek Bishops there was astonishment when [Pope] Damasus summoned them to a further revising council in Rome ‘as if we belonged to him‘. They were of course glad to know that the doctrine of the creed was welcome in the west. But for Damasus that meant that the decisions of Nicaea enjoyed authority not merely because a consensus in the west accepted it but because and insofar as the Roman see had ratified it with Petrine authority, not because the conciliar decision had weight on its own (p. 25).
Interesting points by Augustine.
Parmenian, Donatist bishop of Carthage, even claimed that the bishop in the true (Donatist) succession stands as the authorized mediator between God and the laity–language which Augustine regarded as ‘intolerable to Christian ears’, indeed ‘the voice of the Antichrist’. [Second Sermon against Parmenian] For Augustine, the voice of Christ is heard whenever the preacher proclaims the truth (sermo 17.1). (p. 31)
‘Mary died because of Adam’s sin in the flesh of the Lord’ (En. in Ps. 34.3). (p. 43)
Saint Theodore the Studite doubted the ecumenicity of Nicea II.
The second Council of Nicea was only acknowledged to have the rank of an ‘ecumenical council’, not merely in the west because of Frankish opposition and papal caution, but also because of the reservations of iconophile monks like Theodore of Studios. (p. 82)
Hinchmar, a western writer with “eastern” ecclesiology.
In 870 Hinchmar defended the rights of metropolitans in a special work, De iure metropolitanorum (PL 126, 282-496), which provoked opponents to charge him with thinking the pope’s powers were no greater than a metropolitan’s. Flodard reports that such accusations were brought up at a synod at a Troyes in 878…
Both the Franks and perhaps to a lesser degree Pope Nicolas regarded with misgiving the more iconophile enthusiasms of Byzantine monks. Neither the Frankish bishops nor the pope would admit the second Council of Nicaea to their catalog of ecumenical councils with universal authority. The Liber Diurnus, containing formularies of the papal chancellery compiled at the end of the eight century, allows for six general councils [i.e. they did not accept Nicea II]. For Hinchmar, the necessary qualification for a council to be ranked ecumenical was not merely that it enjoyed magisterial sanction of emperor and pope but also that its decisions were generally received (receptissima) and therefore accepted as manifestly correct guidance for the whole Church…the second council of Nicaea…for Hinchmar was a ‘pseudo-synod’ lacking western ratification (p. 104-105).
Interesting Note on Saint Theodore the Studite
Erick Ybarra and other Roman Catholic apologists like to cite Saint Theodore as a supporter of Papal Supremacy. I have seen Orthodox apologists cite “a letter” where Saint Theodore calls the Patriarch of Jerusalem “first among the pentarchy” (note 6, p. 116). Orthodox apologists use this as proof that Theodore often used flattery and exaggerations when he wrote and taking him literally would be out of context. The following is a synopsis of Saint Theodore having a “Pentarchic” view of ecumenicity, courtesy of Orthochristian.com:
In the patristic writings, the teaching on the five patriarchates and their role in the Universal Church is presented most consistently and fully in the letters of St. Theodore the Studite. According to St. Theodore, the Church is the mysterious Body of Christ, and Christ Himself is her invisible head (see for instance, Ep. 469.23-24. ; cf PG. Vol. 99. Col. 1397A), while visibly she is headed on earth by the five patriarchs. On this basis St. Theodore speaks of ‘the five-headed church body’ (πεντακόρυφον ἐκκλησιαστικὸν σῶμα — Ep. 406.27–28, 407.20–21; cf.: PG. Vol. 99. Col. 1280B, 1281B) and ‘the five-headed power of the Church’ (πεντακόρυφον κράτος τῆς ἐκκλησίας — Ep. 478.63–64; cf.: PG. Vol. 99. Col. 1417C). In his letter to Leo Sachellarius, St. Theodore stated that the five patriarchs jointly possessed the power necessary for making dogmatic judgments; a legal Ecumenical Council could not be convened without the knowledge and consent of the five patriarchs. Singling out the five primatial patriarchal sees, St. Theodore conceded that the primates occupying them and their flocks could divert from Orthodoxy but believed that by God’s providence the right faith was always preserved in one of the Churches. If any one of the patriarchs diverted from the true faith, St. Theodore said, he should ‘accept a correction’ from another patriarch and reunite with the body of the Church. Thus, reflecting on ‘the five patriarchs’, St. Theodore spoke of them as primarily the mouthpieces of the faith of the Churches they headed. He did not affirm that the ‘division’ of the one Church into five parts was something established by God and that it should exist to the end of time but rather described the situation of the contemporary Universal Church, stressing that all her parts (‘five heads’) should have one true faith which had been asserted from of old and should be asserted by Ecumenical Councils.
Further, Father Kappes cites Letter 418 and writes, “Following the rule of St. Theodore the Studite, if one of the five patriarchs were to fall away, Orthodoxy would always be found with the other four.” (p. 5 of this source)
Pope Innocent I rejected the canons of Serdicia.
[Pope] Innocent I had been insistent that only the canons of Nicaea were accepted by the Roman see and that the canons of Serdicia were not regarded as valid (ep. 7.3). Presumably that was a reflection of the view that the actual Serdician canon on appeals to Rome did not actually correspond to what had come to be regarded as proper procedure at Rome. The Serdician establishment of Rome as a court of appeal was highly qualified, and did not allow for an autocratic decision by Popes (p. 135).
Constantinople 869-870 was not accepted by eastern Bishops.
The handful of Greek metropolitans present began to feel that their church was being subjected to humiliation by the west, above all when the Roman legates required them to sign a document affirming unreserved obedience to all decisions of the Roman see as the supreme teacher of truth. To sign was a condition of restored communion. Privately some bishops conveyed to Emperor Basil and to Ignatius that this was an unreasonable humiliation for the ecumenical patriarchate, making it ‘a servant to a mistress.’ In a Watergate-like incident the signed papers were stolen from the lodging of the Roman legates; but this created such a fuss that they had to be rapidly recovered and returned. After the council, however, the Roman legates taking ship from Durazzo in the Adriatic encountered Slav pirates who took their text of the conciliar Acts and all the signed papers, a fact which strongly suggests that the pirates were hired for this purpose by the emperor. So it came to be that the Acts of 869-870 survive not in the Greek original but in a Latin translation by Anastasius, who traveled to Italy by a different ship on another route. (p. 166-67)
Pope Hadrian speculates a Pope can be heretical.
Pope Hadrian could allow that an accusation of heresy was ‘the one matter on which an inferior bishop might accuse a greater.’ (p. 168) [No primary source citation is given, rather Gerson vi. 42-3]
Comments on Constantinople IV and A Greek Manuscript Accuses Saint Photius of Forgery.
The six and seventh sessions contained language that surprised a medieval Greek. Here Photius had no difficulty in persuading the Roman and other patriarchal legates to accept that the second Council of Nicaea could be reckoned the Seventh Ecumenical Council. A marginal note in one (Vatican) manuscript of the Acts rejects these last two sessions as spurious ‘forged to imply the the Filioque was the cause of the schism’ (Mani xvi. 474 ch. xvii, 527-30). To Hardouin [French historical conspiracy theorist from the 17th century] this was intended to give plausibility to sessions I-V, which he though equally false. The west was sure the Council of 879 never took place (e.g. Andrew, archbishop of Rhodes, at the Council of Ferrara/Florence, Greek Acts 135).
Although the content of the Acts becomes so favourable to Photius as to raise questions, the probability is strongly in favor of their originality and (qualified) authenticity. The subsequent letters of Pope John VIII to the emperor Basil indicate that while he accepted the council’s decisions, he remained unhappy at the version of his letters. The pro-Photian bishops had evidently had a free hand from the Roman legates in the drafting of the record. But the Council of 869 was canceled was known to Deusdedit and to Ivo of Chartres; and a short treatise found by Dvornik ascribed to Patriarch Euthymius (907-12) presupposes knowledge of the sixth and seventh sessions.
A Greek note (printed by Hardouin vi.i (1714), 331, thence in Coleti or Mansi xvii. 511) declares that Photius himself forged the sixth and seventh sessions. This presupposes the negative attitude to [sic] him found in patriarch John Bekkos at the time after the Council of Lyon (1274)…The Roman legates cheerfully agreed that no addition might be made the to ‘Nicene’ creed (by which the council meant that of Constantinople, 381). The proposal was qualified by a clause ‘provided that the Devil starts no new heresy’. (p, 176)
Cerularius allegedly did not excommunicate the Pope.
Cerularius took care about his response. There was no excommunication of the Pope, though eventually it came to be supposed that that [sic] was what the patriarch had done (p. 212).
Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) by Norman military force reclaimed jurisdiction in Italy.
Gregory VII was a pugnacious pope, resorting to the arm of authority in his determination to end simony and to enforce priestly celibacy. He acquiesced in Norman ambitions to take over east Roman lands not only in the south of Italy and Sicily, but also on the eastern side of the Adriatic….Gregory particularly wished to establish his jurisdiction over the eastern churches (p. 220).
Calabria still had Greek interdiction by the late 11th century.
Basil, the Greek metropolitan of Reggio (Calabria), wrote to patriarch Nicholas III reporting on an interview he had with the Pope…[that would] presumably protect them from molestation by Normans. Bishop Basil declined [the Pope’s] proposal since it entailed submitting to Papal jurisdiction (p. 223).
Schism apparently did not exist after 1054 excommunication.
In the same year  emperor Alexios received a letter from Pope Urban II complaining that his name was not being included in the diptychs at the eastern capital and that Latins living in the Greek empire were being excluded from communion if they attended a Latin mass…Urban asked the emperor if perhaps there was a schism of which no one had told him; to the best of his knowledge there had been no canonical decision to that effect. Urban evidently did not know or chose to ignore the fact that in 1054 the initiative in the exchanges had been substantially on the Latin side. He received the answer that there was no schism…The Greek patriarch and bishops accepted their emperor’s view that no state of schism existed. (p. 222-223)
Popes have spoken of the usage of leavened bread.
[T]he use of leavened bread (fermentum) is attested as authorized by Popes Melchiades and Siricius (from Liber Pontificalis 33 and 40). (p. 231)
Nicetas of Nicomedia states that unleavened bread led to schism.
“From that time [Charlemagne’s invasion of Italy] dates the Latin use of blasphemous words about leavened bread, and in retort ‘we call them heretics and hold no communion with them, saying azyma are unworthy of the altar.'” (p. 231)
Greeks were not rebaptizing Latins.
His [Niectas] answer is to deny that this [an anointing with oil and a bath before a Latin marries a Greek] is rebaptism; it is no more that a purification applied when outsides join Greek society. (The difficulty in distinguishing it from the baptismal rite being so great, it is obvious that most Greeks understood the rite as at least a conditional baptism.) (p. 231)
Desecration of eastern churches led to the view that Roman Catholic altars were defiled. Latins established a parallel church.
The crusading soldiers had admittedly inflicted massive damage on looted churches, removing gold and silver vessels, overturning altars, throwing holy relics into the sea, trampling on the icons of the saints, even using churches to stable their horses. Such actions were not calculated to impress Greek Christians with the devotional sensitivity of those whom they took to be representatives of the western churches inviting them to union in obedience to the will of God. The Greeks retorted by declining to celebrate the eucharist at any altar which had been used for the Latin rite unless it were first washed and disinfected. It was a manifestation of the rancour reflected in western treatment of Greek churches and clergy that once a year (westerners mistakenly believed) the bishop of Rome was declared excommunicate. But well before 1204 there was a groundswell of anti-Latin feeling. The measure of mutual hostility can be exemplified in the Life of patriarch Leonitus of Jerusalem (1110-1185) who found himself forbidden by the Latins to visit Jerusalem except incognito and unofficially, so that he was not allowed to celebrate liturgy at the Holy Sepulchre, and had to meet a death threat (p. 236).
An excommunication and recantation reported in 1234.
The four emissaries then obtained the use of a church for Latin mass the next morning, which was attended by Franks, Englishmen, and other Latins living at Nicaea. One of these Latin after mass wept as he told the envoys that for attending this mass his Greek priest excommunicated him. The priest in question with other clergy were sent to apologize to the Latin emissaries, for an act done in naivety, not out of malice. (p. 239)
Council at Nicaea and Nymphaion in 1234.
The [Latin] friars uttered anathema on all who deny the Filioque and withdrew (p. 240).
The meeting [a later one] ended with each side condemning the other for heresy (p. 243).
Emperor Michael, who helped organize the Uniate Council of Lyon, was excommunicated.
Charles of Anjou’s influence with the French Pope Martin IV (1281-5) brought a papal excommunication of the emperor Michael, to which the emperor retorted by having the Pope’s name deleted from the commemoration in the diptychs (p. 251-252).
Barlaam of Calabria was “Greek Orthodox”.
Barlaam started life in a Greek Orthodox family in Calabria in the south of Italy–a region for a long time the juxtaposition of Latin and Greek had been a source of tension (p. 253).
Council of Florence did not include intercommunion.
[After the signing of the council.] The western bishops and Pope Eugenicus wanted a thanksgiving Eucharist, which the Greeks then attended without participating. There was no Greek reception of the sacred elements. (That the Greeks were offered them is not recorded.) No one thought of a joint celebration. (p. 271)