The first ever meeting between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Moscow took place only in February 2016 on neutral Cuban territory. The phenomenal event was preceded by failures, mutual suspicions, centuries of hostility and attempts to reduce everything to peace. The division of the Christian Church into Catholic and Orthodox branches occurred due to disagreements in the interpretation of the "Creed". So because of a single word, according to which the Son of God became another source of the Holy Spirit, the church was divided into two parts. Less than preceded the Great Schism, which eventually led to the current state of affairs.
The split of the church in 1054: the reasons for the division of Christians
Ritual traditions and views on dogmatic principles in Rome and Constantinople began to gradually differ long before the final separation. In the past, communication between states was not so active, and each church developed in its own direction.
- The first prerequisites for a split began in 863. For several years, Orthodox and Catholics have been in opposition. The events went down in history as the Photius Schism. The two ruling church leaders wanted to divide the land, but did not agree. The official reason was doubts about the legitimacy of the election of Patriarch Photius.
- Ultimately, both religious leaders anathematized each other. Communication between the heads of Catholics and Orthodox was resumed only in 879 at the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which is now not recognized by the Vatican.
- In 1053, another formal reason for the future Great Schism clearly stood out - the dispute about unleavened bread. The Orthodox used leavened bread for the sacrament of the Eucharist, while the Catholics used unleavened bread.
- In 1054, Pope Leo XI sent Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople. The reason was the closing of the Latin churches in the capital of Orthodoxy that happened a year earlier. The Holy Gifts were thrown away and trampled underfoot because of the insipid way of making bread.
- The papal claims to the lands were substantiated by a forged document. The Vatican was interested in receiving military support from Constantinople, and this was the main reason for the pressure exerted on the Patriarch.
- After the death of Pope Leo XI, his legates nevertheless decided to excommunicate and depose the leader of the Orthodox. The retaliatory measures were not long in coming: four days later they themselves were anathematized by the Patriarch of Constantinople.
The split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism: results
It seemed impossible to anathematize half of the Christians, but the then religious leaders saw this as acceptable. Only in 1965 did Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras abolish the mutual excommunication of churches.
After another 51 years, the leaders of the divided churches met in person for the first time. The ingrained differences were not so strong that the religious leaders could not be under the same roof.
- A thousand-year existence without being tied to the Vatican has reinforced the separation of two approaches to Christian history and the worship of God.
- The Orthodox Church never became united: there are many organizations in different countries headed by their Patriarchs.
- Catholic leaders realized that neither subjugating nor destroying the offshoot would work. They recognized the vastness of the new religion as equal to their own.
The split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism did not prevent believers from glorifying the Creator. Let the representatives of one denomination pronounce perfectly and recognize dogmas that are unacceptable to another. Sincere love for God has no religious boundaries. Let Catholics dip babies at baptism once, and Orthodox three times. Little things of this kind matter only in mortal life. Having appeared before the Lord, everyone will be responsible for their actions, and not for the design of the temple they visited earlier. There are many things that unite Catholics and Orthodox. First of all, it is the Word of Christ, which is followed with humility in the soul. It is easy to find heresy, it is more difficult to understand and forgive, to see in everyone - the creation of God and his neighbor. The main purpose of the Church is to be a shepherd for the people and a shelter for the destitute.
Religion is the spiritual component of life, according to many. Now there are many different beliefs, but in the center there are always two directions that attract the most attention. The Orthodox and Catholic churches are the most extensive and global in the religious world. But once it was one single church, one faith. It is rather difficult to judge why and how the division of churches took place, because only historical information has survived to this day, but nevertheless certain conclusions can be drawn from them.
Split
Officially, the collapse occurred in 1054, it was then that two new religious directions appeared: Western and Eastern, or, as they are also commonly called, Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic. Since then, it is believed that adherents of the Eastern religion are orthodox and orthodox. But the reason for the division of religions began to emerge long before the ninth century, and gradually led to great divisions. The division of the Christian Church into Western and Eastern was quite expected on the basis of these conflicts.
Disagreements between churches
The ground for the great schism was laid on all sides. The conflict touched almost all spheres. The churches could not find agreement either in rites, or in politics, or in culture. The nature of the problems was ecclesiological and theological, and it was no longer possible to hope for a peaceful solution to the issue.
Differences in politics
The main problem of the conflict on political grounds was the antagonism between the emperors of Byzantium and the popes. When the church was in its infancy and rising to its feet, the whole of Rome was a single empire. Everything was one - politics, culture, and only one ruler stood at the head. But from the end of the third century, political differences began. Still remaining a single empire, Rome was divided into several parts. The history of the division of churches directly depends on politics, because it was Emperor Constantine who initiated the schism by founding a new capital on the eastern side of Rome, known in our time as Constantinople.
Naturally, the bishops began to be based on the territorial position, and since it was there that the See of the Apostle Peter was founded, they decided that it was time to declare themselves and gain more power, to become the dominant part of the entire Church. And the more time passed, the more ambitiously the bishops perceived the situation. The western church was seized with pride.
In turn, the popes defended the rights of the church, did not depend on the state of politics, and sometimes even opposed the imperial opinion. But what was the main reason for the division of churches on political grounds was the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III, while the Byzantine successors to the throne completely refused to recognize the rule of Charles and openly considered him a usurper. Thus, the struggle for the throne was also reflected in spiritual affairs.
hello to you, lovers of everything interesting. Today we would like to touch on religious topics, namely the division of the Christian Church into Orthodox and Catholic. Why did this happen? What contributed to this? You will learn about this in this article.
Christianity has its origins in the 1st century AD. It appeared on the lands of the pagan Roman Empire. In the period of the IV-VIII centuries, the strengthening and formation of the doctrine of Christianity took place. When it became the state religion of Rome, it began to spread not only within the state itself, but throughout the European continent. With the collapse of the Roman Empire, Christianity became the state religion. It so happened that it broke up into a western one (with a center in Rome) and an eastern one (with a center in Constantinople). The threat of schism (schism) began somewhere in the 8th-9th centuries. The reasons for this were different:
- Economic. Constantinople and Rome became self-sufficient powerful economic centers of their territories. And they did not want to reckon with each other.
- Political. The desire to centralize in the hands of not only economic independence, but also religious. And frank confrontation between the patriarchs of Constantinople and the popes. Here it should be said
- About the main difference: the patriarch of Constantinople did not have enough power and the Byzantine emperors often interfered in his affairs. In Rome it was different. European monarchs needed the public support of the popes, receiving the crown from them.
The way of life of two different parts of the former part of the empire led to irreversible consequences of the split of Christianity.
In the 9th century, Pope Nicholas I and Patriarch Photius anathematized each other (curses). And already in the XI century, their hatred flared up with even greater force. In 1054 there was a final and irrevocable split in Christianity. The reason for this was the greed and desire to seize the lands by Pope Leo IX, who were subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople. At this time, Michael Cerularius ruled in Constantinople. He severely cut down the attempts of Leo IX to seize these lands.
After that, Constantinople and Rome declared each other religious opponents. The Roman Church began to be called Catholic (that is, world, world), and the Constantinople Church became Orthodox, that is, truly faithful.
Thus, the main cause of the schism was an attempt by the higher clergy of Rome and Constantinople to influence and expand their borders. Subsequently, this struggle began to diverge in the doctrines of the two churches. The split of Christianity turned out to be an exclusively political factor.
The fundamental difference between the churches was the presence of such a body as the Inquisition, which destroyed people accused of heresy. At the present stage, in 1964, a meeting was held between Patriarch Athenogoras and Pope Paul VI, the result of which was an attempt at reconciliation. As early as next year, all mutual anathemas were removed, but in practice this had no real significance.
In 1054, the Christian Church split into Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Greek Catholic). The Eastern Christian Church began to be called orthodox, i.e. orthodox, and those who profess Christianity according to the Greek rite - orthodox or orthodox.
The “Great Schism” between the Eastern and Western Churches matured gradually, as a result of long and complex processes that began long before the 11th century.
Disagreements between the Eastern and Western Churches before the Schism (brief review)
The disagreements between East and West, which caused the "great schism" and accumulated over the centuries, were of a political, cultural, ecclesiological, theological and ritual nature.
a) Political differences between East and West were rooted in the political antagonism between the popes and the Byzantine emperors (basileus). In the time of the apostles, when the Christian church was just emerging, the Roman Empire was a single empire both politically and culturally, headed by one emperor. From the end of the 3rd century the empire, de jure still united, de facto was divided into two parts - Eastern and Western, each of which was under the control of its own emperor (the emperor Theodosius (346-395) was the last Roman emperor who led the entire Roman Empire). Constantine deepened the process of division by establishing a new capital, Constantinople, in the east along with ancient Rome in Italy. The bishops of Rome, based on the central position of Rome as an imperial city, and on the origin of the see from the supreme apostle Peter, began to claim a special, dominant position in the entire Church. In subsequent centuries, the ambitions of the Roman pontiffs only grew, pride deeper and deeper planted its poisonous roots in the church life of the West. Unlike the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the Popes of Rome maintained their independence from the Byzantine emperors, did not submit to them if they did not consider it necessary, and sometimes openly opposed them.
In addition, in the year 800, Pope Leo III in Rome crowned the King of the Franks Charlemagne as Roman Emperor, who in the eyes of his contemporaries became “equal” to the Eastern Emperor and on whose political power the Bishop of Rome was able to rely in his claims. The emperors of the Byzantine Empire, who themselves considered themselves the successors of the Roman Empire, refused to recognize the imperial title for Charles. The Byzantines viewed Charlemagne as a usurper and the papal coronation as an act of division within the empire.
b) Cultural alienation between East and West was largely due to the fact that in the Eastern Roman Empire they spoke Greek, and in the Western in Latin. In the time of the apostles, when the Roman Empire was unified, Greek and Latin were understood almost everywhere, and many could speak both languages. By 450, however, very few people in Western Europe could read Greek, and after 600, few in Byzantium spoke Latin, the language of the Romans, although the empire continued to be called Roman. If the Greeks wanted to read the books of Latin authors, and the Latins the writings of the Greeks, they could only do so in translation. And this meant that the Greek East and the Latin West drew information from different sources and read different books, as a result, more and more moving away from each other. In the East they read Plato and Aristotle, in the West they read Cicero and Seneca. The main theological authorities of the Eastern Church were the fathers of the era of the Ecumenical Councils, such as Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria. In the West, the most widely read Christian author was Blessed Augustine (who was almost unknown in the East) - his theological system was much easier to understand and easier to understand for the barbarians converted to Christianity than the refined arguments of the Greek Fathers.
c) Ecclesiological differences. Political and cultural disagreements could not but affect the life of the Church and only contributed to church discord between Rome and Constantinople. During the entire era of the Ecumenical Councils in the West, a the doctrine of papal primacy (i.e., the bishop of Rome as the head of the Universal Church) . At the same time, the primacy of the Bishop of Constantinople increased in the East, and from the end of the 6th century he assumed the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch". However, in the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople was never perceived as the head of the Universal Church: he was only second in rank after the Bishop of Rome and first in honor among the Eastern patriarchs. In the West, the Pope began to be perceived precisely as the head of the Universal Church, to whom the Church throughout the world should obey.
In the East there were 4 sees (i.e. 4 Local Churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) and, accordingly, 4 patriarchs. The East recognized the Pope as the first bishop of the Church - but first among equals . In the West, there was only one throne claiming to be of apostolic origin - namely, the See of Rome. As a result, Rome came to be seen as the only apostolic see. Although the West adopted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, it did not itself play an active role in them; in the Church, the West saw not so much a collegium as a monarchy - the monarchy of the Pope.
The Greeks recognized for the Pope the primacy of honor, but not the universal superiority, as the Pope himself believed. Championship "by honor" in modern language it can mean "the most respected", but it does not cancel the Council structure of the church (that is, the adoption of all decisions collectively through the convening of Councils of all churches, primarily apostolic ones). The Pope considered infallibility to be his prerogative, while the Greeks were convinced that in matters of faith, the final decision rests not with the Pope, but with the council representing all the bishops of the church.
d) Theological reasons. The main point of the theological dispute between the Churches of East and West was the Latin the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Filioque) . This teaching, based on the trinitarian views of Blessed Augustine and other Latin Fathers, led to a change in the words of the Niceno-Tsaregrad Creed, where it was about the Holy Spirit: instead of “coming from the Father” in the West they began to say “from the Father and the Son (lat. Filioque) outgoing". The expression "he proceeds from the Father" is based on the words of Christ Himself ( cm.: In. 15:26) and in this sense has unquestioned authority, while the addition “and the Son” has no basis either in Scripture or in the Tradition of the early Christian Church: it was inserted into the Creed only at the Toledo Councils of the 6th-7th centuries, presumably as defensive measure against Arianism. From Spain, the Filioque came to France and Germany, where it was approved at the Frankfurt Council in 794. The court theologians of Charlemagne even began to reproach the Byzantines for reciting the Creed without the Filioque. Rome has for some time resisted making changes to the Creed. In 808, Pope Leo III wrote to Charlemagne that although the Filioque was theologically acceptable, it was undesirable to include it in the Creed. Leo placed in St. Peter's the tablets with the Creed without the Filioque. However, by the beginning of the 11th century, the reading of the Creed with the addition of “and the Son” also entered Roman practice.
Orthodoxy objected (and still objects) to the Filioque for two reasons. Firstly, the Creed is the property of the entire Church, and any changes can be made to it only by the Ecumenical Council. By changing the Creed without consulting the East, the West (according to Khomyakov) is guilty of moral fratricide, of sin against the unity of the Church. Second, most Orthodox believe that the Filioque is theologically wrong. Orthodox believe that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and consider heresy the assertion that He also proceeds from the Son.
e) Ritual differences between East and West have existed throughout the history of Christianity. The liturgical charter of the Roman Church differed from the charters of the Eastern Churches. A whole series of ritual trifles separated the Churches of the East and the West. In the middle of the 11th century, the main issue of a ritual nature, on which a controversy broke out between East and West, was the use by the Latins of unleavened bread at the Eucharist, while the Byzantines used leavened bread. Behind this seemingly insignificant difference, the Byzantines saw a serious difference in the theological view of the essence of the Body of Christ, taught to the faithful in the Eucharist: if leavened bread symbolizes that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial with our flesh, then unleavened bread is a symbol of the difference between the flesh of Christ and our flesh. In the service on unleavened bread, the Greeks saw an attack on the core point of Eastern Christian theology, the doctrine of deification (which was little known in the West).
These were all disagreements that preceded the conflict of 1054. Ultimately, the West and the East disagreed on matters of doctrine, mainly on two issues: about papal primacy And about filioque .
Reason for split
The immediate cause for the schism was the conflict of the first hierarchs of the two capitals - Rome and Constantinople .
Roman high priest was Leo IX. While still a German bishop, he for a long time refused the Roman see, and only at the persistent requests of the clergy and Emperor Henry III himself agreed to accept the papal tiara. On one of the rainy autumn days of 1048, in a coarse hair shirt - the clothes of the penitents, with bare feet and head sprinkled with ashes, he entered Rome to take the Roman throne. Such unusual behavior flattered the pride of the townspeople. With the triumphant cries of the crowd, he was immediately proclaimed pope. Leo IX was convinced of the high significance of the See of Rome for the entire Christian world. He tried with all his might to restore the previously shaken papal influence both in the West and in the East. Since that time, the active growth of both the ecclesiastical and socio-political significance of the papacy as an institution of power begins. Pope Leo sought respect for himself and his department not only through radical reforms, but also by actively acting as a defender of all the oppressed and offended. This is what made the pope seek a political alliance with Byzantium.
At that time, the political enemy of Rome were the Normans, who had already captured Sicily and were now threatening Italy. Emperor Henry could not provide the pope with the necessary military support, and the pope did not want to give up the role of defender of Italy and Rome. Leo IX decided to ask for help from the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople.
From 1043 Patriarch of Constantinople was Michael Kerullarius . He came from a noble aristocratic family and held a high position under the emperor. But after a failed palace coup, when a group of conspirators tried to elevate him to the throne, Michael was deprived of his property and forcibly tonsured a monk. The new emperor Constantine Monomakh made the persecuted one his closest adviser, and then, with the consent of the clergy and the people, Michael also took over the patriarchal chair. Having given himself over to the service of the Church, the new patriarch retained the traits of an imperious and state-minded person who did not tolerate the belittling of his authority and the authority of the See of Constantinople.
In the resulting correspondence between the pope and the patriarch, Leo IX insisted on the primacy of the See of Rome . In his letter, he pointed out to Michael that the Church of Constantinople and even the entire East should obey and honor the Roman Church as a mother. With this position, the pope also justified the ritual divergence of the Roman Church with the Churches of the East. Michael was ready to accept any differences, but on one issue his position remained intransigent: he did not want to recognize the Roman see above Constantinople . The Roman bishop did not want to agree to such equality.
The beginning of the split
The Great Schism of 1054 and the Division of the Churches
In the spring of 1054, an embassy from Rome arrives in Constantinople, headed by Cardinal Humbert , a man hot and arrogant. Together with him, as legates, came the deacon-cardinal Frederick (future Pope Stephen IX) and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi. The purpose of the visit was to meet with Emperor Constantine IX Monomakh and discuss the possibilities of a military alliance with Byzantium, as well as to reconcile with the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius, without detracting from the primacy of the Roman See. However, from the very beginning, the embassy took a tone inconsistent with reconciliation. The papal ambassadors treated the patriarch without due respect, arrogantly and coldly. Seeing such an attitude towards himself, the patriarch repaid them in kind. At the convened Council, Michael singled out the last place for the papal legates. Cardinal Humbert considered this a humiliation and refused to engage in any negotiations with the patriarch. The news of the death of Pope Leo that came from Rome did not stop the papal legates. They continued to act with the same boldness, wanting to teach the disobedient patriarch a lesson.
July 15, 1054 When Sophia Cathedral was overflowing with people praying, the legates went to the altar and, interrupting the service, spoke with denunciations against Patriarch Michael Cerularius. Then they put on the throne a papal bull in Latin, which spoke of the excommunication of the patriarch and his adherents from communion and made ten accusations of heresy: one of the accusations concerned the "omission" of the Filioque in the Creed. Leaving the temple, the papal ambassadors shook the dust from their feet and exclaimed: "Let God see and judge." Everyone was so amazed by what they saw that there was deathly silence. The patriarch, speechless with astonishment, at first refused to accept the bull, but then he ordered it to be translated into Greek. When the content of the bull was announced to the people, such a strong excitement began that the legates had to hastily leave Constantinople. The people supported their patriarch.
July 20, 1054 Patriarch Michael Cerularius convened a Council of 20 bishops, at which he betrayed the papal legates to church excommunication.The Acts of the Council were sent to all the Eastern Patriarchs.
This is how the Great Schism happened. . Formally, this was a break between the Local Churches of Rome and Constantinople, however, the Patriarch of Constantinople was subsequently supported by other Eastern Patriarchates, as well as young Churches that were in the orbit of Byzantine influence, in particular the Russian one. The Church in the West eventually adopted the name Catholic; The Church in the East is called Orthodox because it preserves the Christian doctrine intact. Both Orthodoxy and Rome equally considered themselves right in controversial issues of dogma, and their opponent was wrong, therefore, after the schism, both Rome and the Orthodox Church claimed the title of the true church.
But even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West were maintained. Both parts of Christendom had not yet realized the full extent of the gap, and people on both sides hoped that misunderstandings could be settled without much difficulty. Attempts to agree on reunification were made for a century and a half. The controversy between Rome and Constantinople largely passed the attention of ordinary Christians. The Russian abbot Daniel of Chernigov, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1106-1107, found the Greeks and Latins praying in holy places. True, he noted with satisfaction that during the descent of the Holy Fire on Easter, the Greek lamps miraculously ignited, but the Latins were forced to light their lamps from the Greek ones.
The final division between East and West came only with the beginning of the Crusades, which brought with them the spirit of hatred and malice, as well as after the capture and devastation of Constantinople by the Crusaders during the IV Crusade in 1204.
Material prepared by Sergey SHULYAK
Used Books:
1. History of the Church (Kallist Ware)
2. Church of Christ. Stories from the history of the Christian Church (Georgy Orlov)
3. The Great Church Schism of 1054 (Radio Russia, cycle World. Man. Word)
A film by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev)
Church in history. Great Schism
Themes: the formation of the Latin tradition; conflicts between Constantinople and Rome; the schism of 1051; Catholicism in the Middle Ages. Filming took place in Rome and the Vatican.
In 325, at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, Arianism was condemned - a doctrine that proclaimed the earthly, and not divine, nature of Jesus Christ. The Council introduced into the Creed a formula about the "consubstantiality" (identity) of God the Father and God the Son. In 451, at the Council of Chalcedon, Monophysitism (Eutichianism) was condemned, which postulated only the Divine nature (nature) of Jesus Christ and rejected His perfect humanity. Because the human nature of Christ, taken by Him from the Mother, dissolved in the nature of the Divine, like a drop of honey in the ocean, and lost its existence.
Great Schism of Christianity
churches - 1054.
The historical background of the Great Schism is the difference between Western (Latin Catholic) and Eastern (Greek Orthodox) church and cultural traditions; property claims. The split is divided into two stages.
The first stage dates back to 867, when differences emerged that resulted in mutual claims between Pope Nicholas I and Patriarch Photius of Constantinople. The basis of the claims are issues of dogmatism and dominance over the Christian Church in Bulgaria.
The second stage refers to 1054. Relations between the papacy and the patriarchate deteriorated so much that the Roman legate Humbert and the Patriarch Cirularius of Constantinople were anathematized by each other. The main reason is the desire of the papacy to subjugate the churches of southern Italy, which were part of Byzantium, to their authority. The claims of the Patriarch of Constantinople for supremacy over the entire Christian Church also played an important role.
The Russian Church, right up to the Mongol-Tatar invasion, did not take an unambiguous position in support of one of the conflicting parties.
The final break was sealed in 1204 by the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders.
The removal of mutual anathemas took place in 1965, when the Joint Declaration was signed - "Gesture of Justice and Mutual Forgiveness". The Declaration has no canonical meaning, since from the Catholic point of view, the primacy of the Roman Pope in the Christian World is preserved and the infallibility of the Pope's judgments in matters of morality and faith is preserved.
