/essay/
1.
Intro
2.
Political Factors
3.
Cultural Factors
4.
Ecclesiastical Factors
5.
Doctrinal Factors
6.
The Schism Itself
7.
Conclusion
To what extent was the Great
Schism of 1054 between the Eastern and Western Churches the beginning of
something new, and to what extent was it the culmination of a long process?
Intro
The history of the Church is full of events that have
brought hostility, estrangement and separation. In the three main branches of
Christianity today there are thousands of denominations and faiths, that often
confuse the new believer, who has just read Christ’s prayer in Gethsemany for
his followers[1]. Still,
the Great Schism stands out as the major historical separation having taken
place between brothers and sisters in Christ. That’s why we may legitimally ask
ourselves, what the reasons were why the Eastern and Western Churches took this
dramatic and, by all standards, tragical step?
Of course, there were particular historical and
ecclesiastical circumstances that brought about the definitive split between
Rome and Constantinople in mid eleventh century. But, in the preceding
centuries there had been many diverse factors that caused the Churches to drift
apart. Long before the actual schism between the East and the West took place,
there were divergencies and tensions that were undermining the communion
between both branches of the Christian church. So, in the following essay I
will try to prove that the Great Schism of 1054 was not a suprising event in
history, but a moment that was preconditioned by the centuries-long interplay
of many political, cultural and religious factors.
Political
factors
From the time of the apostle Paul the Roman Empire was
characterised by political, economical and cultural unity. Even though it
included many ethnic groups, all with their own languages, dialects and local
cultures, it was ruled by one and the same emperor. All the Roman citizens
spoke or at least understood either Greek or Latin. A good network of roads
connected each of the imperial cities with the rest of the Roman world, and
thus facilitated the development of different trades and the exchange of people
and ideas.
But this unity at all levels would soon start to evaporate.
Politically, since the end of the third century the Roman Empire had been
practically divided into two parts[2],
each having its own emperor, Constans in the West and Constantius in the East
(Part 1, 11.2). It all started with Constantine’s decision to move the capital
of the empire from Rome to the newly-built city of Constantinople in 330[3].
This shift was resented by the older Patriarchal Sees in the east and by the
Western Churches. The latter feared that the authority of Rome would diminish
and so were provoked to make even higher claims for the pope’s authority over
the entire Church, which would eventually lead to the actual division of both
Churches.
Another factor which precipitated the gulf between the two
parts of the Empire was the barbarian invasions at the outset of the fifth
century[4].
As early as the second and third centuries these tribes moved and settled in
new territories of Western Europe, still beyond the Empire borders. Yet, this
was just the beginning of a great shifting of peoples and within a century and
a half the Alemani, the Franks, the Goths, the Visigoths, the Vandals and other
tribes took over considerable territories of the Empire. In addition,
Palestine, Syria, Spain, North Africa and other territories in the
Mediterranean region were conquered by the Arabs. As a result the West was
severed from the East politically, economically and culturallly.[5] It
should have been not a surprise then that in such a situation the Pope tried to
fill the political vacuum by crowning Charlemagne, the King of the Franks, as
Emperor in 800. The project for creating a “Holy Roman Empire” in the west not
only failed to consolidate the Empire, it actually broadened the gulf between
east and west. Nobody has expressed it more aptly than Southern: “It (the
corronation of Charlemagne) was at once the symbol of political liberation of
the West, and of the political – and ultimately therefore religious –
disruption of Christendom”[6].
As Southern puts it,
The threads which had been broken in
the eighth century were never replaced. This is the ultmate secret of the
division of Christendom. Nothing that happened ever seemed irremediable… By the
middle of the eleventh century Christendom was held together only by the force
of inertia.
Cultural
factors
Culturally, both parts of the Empire were still very close
to one another. The common
“sought to create a new Christian
civilization of their own. In fourth-century Europe there had been one
Christian civilization, in thirteenth-century Europe there were two; perhaps it
is in the reign of Charlemagne that the schism of civilizations first becomes
clearly apparent”[8].
Ecclesiastical
factors
Thus, it was only a matter of time for the political and
cultural differences to impact the life of the Church. The Church situation in
the East and the West had been different from the very start of Christendom. In
the East there were
many Churches, whose authority rested on the foundation of
the apostles, whose bishops were all equal and who solved all their theological
issues by Church councils. The East acknowledged the Pope as “the first among
equals”. In the West there was only one See claiming apostolic succession, the
See of Rome. It accepted the decisions of the councils but did not play an
active role in it. The Pope acted more as a monarch rather than “first among
equals”. This was due not only to the more centralized nature of the western
Church, but also to the barbarian invasions in the West. Since there wasn’t a
strong secular monarch in the West, but several warring usurpers, the only one
who could assure relative unity, stability and continuity in both political and
spiritual life was the Pope[9].
This new status quo led the Pope to believe that his power extended not
only to the West, but also to the East. At last, the dream of many popes for
supremacy of Rome over the other Sees seemed to have become true. And yet, this
was something that the Greeks could not accept. For they acknowledged his
“primacy of honour”[10],
but were not the least willing to let him interfere or have the final decision
in their religious or secular affairs.
Doctrinal
factors
After the iconoclast controversy had been solved and
iconoclasm condemned at Nicea in 787, for a time it seemed that in spite of the
political disruption, the Greek East and the Latin West will manage to preserve
their cultural and spiritual unity. Still, in Southern’s words, “this exalted
unity of mind and spirit had little chance of surviving when it was cut off
from the natural strength that springs from political and social cohesion”[11].
Though the popes felt spiritually and intellectually closer to their brothers
in the East, they couldn’t act independently of their supporters in the West.
The schism was on the way.
There were other doctrinal ‘apples of discord’, of course,
like the marrital status of clergy, and the rules of fasting. But the second
biggest issue apart from the jurisdiction of the popes was the filioque.
As early as 381 the Council of Constantinople issued the Nicaean Creed, which
contained the statement that the Holy Spirit comes ‘from the Father’. Even
though this creed was accepted by both the Eastern and Western churches,
someone added to it the word Filioque or ‘and the Son’ and later on some
of Charlemagne’s advisers added it to the Creed to be read at mass in their
chapel. They insisted that for the matter of uniformity this addition should be
accepted in all the Western church and even though the Pope adviced the king
drop the addition, eventually it became universal in the Western church. There
was no papal authorization or formal decision of a Church Council, but the
first doctrinal difference between the East and West was a fact[12].
On the surface it might have seemed just like a minor theological disagreement;
in reality this incident illustrated the further enstrangement of the papacy
from the East and it’s taking sides with the unlettered West. This
‘westernalization’ of the papacy was evident even by the fact that between 752
and 1054 there wasn’t a single Pope of Greek origin[13].
The
schism itself
All the above-mentioned factors played their role for the
gradual estrangement of the East and West, starting from the fourth century
onwards. But as always in human history, there was a particular event that led
to the definite schism. The Normans, who had conquered southern Italy and
Sicily with predominantly Greek population wanted to bring them under
supervision of Rome. In 1052, Michael Cerularius, then Patriarch of
Constantinople, answered by closing the Latin churches at Constantinople for
not following the Greek usages. It is important to note here that some decades
earlier, in 1009, Pope Sergius IV had sent a statement of faith to the Eastern
Church which included the filioque. The Patriarch of Constantinople abstained
from protesting, but ‘quietly retaliated by not including the new Pope’s name
in the Diptychs’[14], or the
lists containing the names of all other Patriarchs, whom he consideres
orthodox. In 1053 Cerularius wrote to Pope Leo IX suggesting to restore the
Pope’s name to the Dyptichs. The Pope then sent a small delegation to
Constantinople, led by Cardinal Humbert, the Bishop of Silva Candida. The
legates gave the letter to the Patriarch and then retired without saluting him.
Neither was the letter written in a very friendly manner. Feeling offended,
Cerularius cancelled any further talks with the legates. Humbert’s reaction was
to write a Bull of Excommunication of Cerularius which he brought and laid on
the altar of St. Sophia. The Patriarch answered with a reciprocal measure,
excommunicating the Pope. Even though this event marked the official schism
between both Churches, it did not affect the relations between them, and
practically, the majority of Christians in the East and the West had no idea
about it. What brought the schism on a more popular level were the Crusades.
Some fifty years later the first military campaigns against the Turks ended
victoriously, regaining Antioch and Jerusalem from the enemy[15].
But in 1204 the Crusaders got involved in Bysantine politics and in the long
run, after loosing patience, sacked and raped the city. Their aggression and
sacrilege would never be forgotten by the Eastern Orthodox Christians. As
Runciman put it, “The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword
was to sever Christendom”[16].
There wasn’t any doubt any more that the de jure schism of 1054 had
become a de facto one in 1204[17].
Conclusion
The Great Schism between the Eastern and Western churches
did not happen overnight but was a culmination of a long process. It is
considered that it was final and irrevocalbe only in 1350. As Ware points out,
the schism “is not really an event whose beginning can be exactly dated… it
came about gradually, as the result of a long and complicated process, starting
well before the eleventh century and not completed until some time after.”[18]
There were many political, cultural and religious factors that contributed to
it. As early as the end of the third century the Empire, though theoretically
one, was practically separated in two parts, having two capitals and two
emperors. The barbarian invasions in the north and the conquests of Islam in
the Mediterannean region in the fifth century severed the political and
cultural ties between the East and the West. ‘Charlemagne’s corronation was
regarded as an act of schism within the Empire’[19].
The lack of political cohesion led to cultural and ecclesiastical estrangement.
Christians and men of learning from both Empires were no longer bilingual and
spoke different languages, misunderstanding each other and mistranslating each
other’s letters and books. The East regarded the West with contempt for its
illiteracy and the West answered with the same indifference towards the
writings and achievements of the East. On top of all these factors there were
the differences of doctrine and Church practice, namely, the filioque and the
Papal claims of hegemony, that brought about the separation between the
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church[20].
The accummulative effect of all these factors was too strong for the schism to
be avoided and has been too overwhelming to be recovered.
- The End -
Word count: 2195
BIBLIOGRAPHY
NIV Study Bible, Hodder & Stoughton, 1995
Ware, T., The Orthodox Churh, Harmondsworth,
Penguin, 1963
Southern, R.W., Western Society and The Church in the
Middle Ages, OTC, 2004.
Chadwick, H., The Early Church, Penguin Books, 1993
Хотън, С.М., Щрихи
от Църковната история, Мисия Възможност, 1998
Кернс, Ъ., Християнството
през вековете, Нов човек, 1998
The Church in the Middle Ages, Part 2, OTC
[2] Ware, T., The Orthodox Church, pp.
51-58, 60 – 70, quoted in “The Church in
the Middle Ages”, Part II, Reader II.32.
[4] Ware, The Orthodox
Church, pp. 51-58, 60-70, quoted in “The Church in the Middle Ages”, Part
II, Reader II.32.
[7] Ware, The Orthodox
Church, pp. 51-58, 60-70, quoted in “The Church in the Middle Ages”, Part
II, Reader II.33.
[15] It’s a strange world
we live in; in history some military victories have proven to cost more to the
winning party than the losses. Such was the victory at Antioch, after which the
Latins set up their own Patriarch even though the Greek one was still in
office. Almost 90 years later a similar situation took place in Palestine.
These local rivalries were not just a quarrel between the Pope and the
Patriarch; they affected very practically the ordinary Christians, as each one
of them had to take sides with one of the Patriarchs and thus experience the
hostility of the other side.
[16] From The Eastern
Schism, p. 101, quoted in The Church in the Middle Ages, Part II, Reader
II.42.
[18] Ware, The Orthodox
Church, pp. 51-58, 60-70, quoted in “The Church in the Middle Ages”, Part
II, Reader II.31.
