The Origins Of The East–West Schism
The East–
West Schism is the break of communion between what are now the
Eastern Orthodox and
Roman Catholic Churches which began in the
11th century.
There had long been ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between the
Greek East and Latin West. Prominent among these were the issues of the source of the
Holy Spirit ("Filioque"), whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the
Eucharist,[a] the
Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of
Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.
In 1053, the first step was taken in the process which led to formal schism.
Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius ordered the closure of all
Latin churches in Constantinople. According to the historian
John Bagnell Bury, Cerularius' purpose in closing the Latin churches was "to cut short any attempt at conciliation".
In 1054, the
Papal legate traveled to Constantinople for purposes that included refusing to Cerularius the title of "
Ecumenical Patriarch" and insisting that he recognize
Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches. The main purpose of the papal legation was to seek help from the
Byzantine Emperor in view of the
Norman conquest of southern Italy and to deal with recent attacks by
Leo of Ohrid against the use of unleavened bread and other
Western customs, attacks that had the support of Cerularius;
Axel Bayer says the legation was sent in response to two letters, one from the
Emperor seeking assistance in arranging a common military campaign by the eastern and western empires against the
Normans, and the other from Cerularius. On the refusal of Cerularius to accept the demand, the leader of the legation,
Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated him, and in return Cerularius excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the other legates. This was only the first act in a centuries-long process that eventually became a complete schism.
The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful, since Pope Leo had died and Cerularius' excommunication applied only to the legates personally. Still, the
Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed, with each side sometimes accusing the other of having fallen into heresy and of having initiated the division.
The Crusades, the
Massacre of the Latins in 1182, the West's retaliation in the Sacking of
Thessalonica in 1185, the capture and sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of Latin patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult. Establishing Latin hierarchies in the
Crusader states meant that there were two rival claimants to each of the patriarchal sees of
Antioch, Constantinople, and
Jerusalem, making the existence of schism clear.
The Second Council of Lyon in 1274 and the
Council of Florence in 1439 attempted to reunite the two churches.
Despite acceptance by the participating eastern delegations, no effective reconciliation was realized, since the
Orthodox believe that the acts of councils must be ratified by the wider Church and the acts of these councils never attained widespread acceptance among
Orthodox churches. In 1484, 31 years after the
Fall of Constantinople to the
Ottoman Turks, a
Synod of Constantinople repudiated the
Union of Florence, officially stating the position that had already been taken by Orthodox in general.
In
1965,
Pope Paul VI and the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras I nullified the anathemas of 1054, although this nullification of measures taken against a few individuals was essentially a goodwill gesture and did not constitute any sort of reunion between churches.
Contacts between the two sides continue: Every year a delegation from each joins in the other's celebration of its patronal feast,
Saints Peter and Paul (29 June) for Rome and
Saint Andrew (
30 November) for Constantinople, and there have been a number of visits by the head of each to the other. The efforts of the Ecumenical
Patriarchs towards reconciliation with the
Catholic Church have often been the target of sharp criticism from some fellow Orthodox.
The schism between the Eastern and
Western Mediterranean Christians resulted from a variety of political, cultural and theological factors which transpired over centuries. Historians regard the mutual excommunications of 1054 as th