UNIT 9: THE EAST-WEST SCHISM Flashcards
The East-West Schism
Developed over the entire Medieval Ages (from the end of the Roman Empire, right up to the 1200s). The schism is the last part of the medieval Church History.
The schism is often wrongly considered as having happened in 1054.
This schism was not a single event, but a number of events over a long period of time (from 5th to 13th centuries) that caused a gap between Latin Western churches and Greek Eastern churches.
Reasons were political, cultural and doctrinal.
The final reason for the schism was the fourth crusade; the straw that broke the camel’s back was the fourth crusade, and in particular, the sacking of Constantinople and the destruction of Hagia Sofia.
The schism is not a single event in 1054 (though many view it in this way), but rather, the four events of 1054 led to the schism.
What was the East-West Schism?
The East-West schism was the break of communion between the Latin western churches (i.e., now the Roman Catholic Church) and Greek eastern churches (i.e., now the Eastern Orthodox churches).
It was the result of centuries of disputes, differences, and strained relations between the Christian East and West.
The East and West remained divided today, however, there is still hope for unity.
When did the East-West Schism occur?
Although many attribute the date of the schism to one point in history - the year 1054 - the schism was in fact not a single event, but a multitude of events that increased tension between the East and the West throughout the Middle Ages.
Throughout the Medieval era, there were many political, cultural and doctrinal disputes between Latin Western churches and Greek Eastern churches, and these disputes caused tension between the two sides over ~500 years.
Thomas Bokenkotter describes that: “many diverse forces - political, social, cultural, and religious - were pulling the two sees a part.”
With these tensions in the background, four major issues brought Latin-Greek hostility to the forefront of the Church.
East-West Strained Relations: Political Factors
The churches were tied to local rulers (Greek & Byzantium) (Latin Church & various kings/emperors of Europe)
The East resented the restoration the Holy Roman Empire in the West. The West seemed to be operating politically against the East.
Problems in the papacy due to presence of anti-popes, some popes too old, some too young, and some caved into political interference
East-West Strained Relations: Cultural Factors
The regions of East and West did not understand each other. They no longer knew each other’s languages despite a series of Greek pope. This led to problems at Councils when they could not understand concepts, philosophies, etc.
Different approaches to culture and learning
East: great cultural tradition in music, art, and liturgy
West: Carolingian renewal faded
The few contacts between East and West led them to despise each other
East-West Strained Relations: Doctrinal Factors
( 1 ) Different Doctrinal Views
West: distinguished doctrine from ritual (but held to lex credendi, lex orandi). Ritual could change, but doctrine remained the same.
East: changing ritual meant a change in faith or belief.
SO questions about fasting, use of leavened bread or unleavened bread, bearded or non bearded priests, married or unmarried priests, etc., assumed great importance
( 2 ) Filioque (“and the Son”) Controversy
This word was added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan (Nicene) Creed.
( 3 ) Role of Petrine Primacy
East: Papal primacy hit zenith in 400s but began to gradually fade in the East. Greeks had a more collegial view of episcopacy: The pope had a primacy of honour, but not a power to intervene
Four Major Issues that led to Schism
With all of this tension in the background that happened throughout the Middle Ages (476-1300; 500 years), 4 major events took place from the 8th c. to the 13th c., leading to the East-West schism (it was not a single event in history)…
( 1 ) Iconoclasm
( 2 ) The Photian Schism
( 3 ) Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert
( 4 ) Fourth Crusade
( 1 ) Iconoclasm (8th century)
There were arguments in Byzantium at this time over the use of icons (“images”).
The early Church forbade images of God (based on 2nd commandment).
Two Views of Icons:
(a) Silent Sermons (had a role in teaching the illiterate) and icons venerated as though they captured the presence of the person.
(b) Icons were seen as superstition and idolatry, as well as being heretical.
Arab incursions an underwater explosion in the Sea were viewed as God’s punishment for having these “idols.” Some believed that use of icons led to Monophysite and Manichaean heresies among others. Some believed also that Jews and Muslims would not convert because of their use.
( 2 ) The Photian Schism (9th century)
Pope Nicholas I was asked to intervene when the Byzantine emperor deposed Ignatius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and put Photius in his place in 858.
Pope asked to send papal delegates to a synod in 861 to resolve the issue and decide who is rightful patriarch.
Pope’s two delegates attended but, under pressure from Michael, they agreed to the deposition of Ignatius.
Nicholas reacted the next year by blaming his legates’ behaviour, saying his letter had been tampered with. He called a synod in Rome in 863, annulled the proceedings of the synod of 861 at Constantinople.
Photius was deposed along with all clerics he promoted, and Ignatius was reinstated.
This led to a schism between these two dioceses, which lasted four years (863-867), but did not affect whole Church.
During the schism conflicts were accentuated.
( 3 ) Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert (1054)
Michael Cerularius (Patriarch of Constantinople) did not approve of the Pope Leo XI and the Papacy’s alliance with the Byzantines against the Nomrans (who were the enemy of the Eastern and Western Churches), and began a campaign against the Latin churches.
He took drastic measures at Constantineople (e.g., closed all Latin Churches), and Cardinal Humbert (ally of Pope Leo IX) responded, charging Greek Church with more than ninety heresies.
Pope Leo XI was captured by the Normans, so he had to send representatives to Constantinople to deal with problems (one of whom was Cardinal Humbert).
Cardinal Humbert handed over papal letter with no discussion, issues the Bull of Cardinal Humbert, and left the city.
Bull of Cardinal Humbert: Humbert laid a bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia 16 July 1054 → the excommunication ONLY included Michael and his accomplices
Bull of Cardinal Humbert:
Humbert laid a bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia 16 July 1054 → the excommunication ONLY included Michael and his accomplices
The text went too far: Anathematized Michael (calling him the “pseudo-patriarch”), Leo and other adherents. Anathematized Greek doctrine and customs.
How did Michael Cerularius (patriarch of Constantinople) respond to the Bull of Cardinal Humbert?
The emperor tried to recall the legates to a meeting.
Michael incited mobs against them, and they fled for safety. Eventually the emperor bowed to the pressure of the patriarch.
Constantine convoked a synod, and the legates were disqualified as legates of political powers from the West.
The text of Humbert’s bull of excommunication was read into the record of the synod as an example of a horrible act. It was interpreted as an excommunication of the entire Byzantine Church.
The legates and their supporters were in turn excommunicated.
( 4 ) Fourth Crusade (1204)
The fourth crusade of 1204 is the fourth reason for the split. It left an indelible mark on the Orthodox with the sack of Constantinople and the desecration of Hagia Sophia
It is considered the “final straw” in East-West tensions
The Christians of the East had kept the Muslims at bay for 500 years only to fall to other Christians.
The Byzantine empire was weakened, Baldwin of Flanders was named “Latin Emperor of Constantinople”, and Latins ran the affairs there for almost sixty years.
Why were the mutual excommunications of in 1054 not a schism?
Pope Leo was already dead before the excommunication, and a dead pope cannot excommunicate anyone, so the document could not be valid.
Excommunications were limited to 6 people (3 on either side). Even if the document is valid, only 3 people were excommunicated.
Ridiculous use of dogmatic deductions (not even clear dogmatic statements).
Questionable nature of the proceedings (e.g., Humbert had no discussion with the letter, just handed it to them)
The synod was called by Emperor under pressure to address insult, so it was not called for a good reason.
Essentially, no discussion took place. Characters involved on both sides were impetuous and unreasonable.
Therefore, in fact, no schism occurred. If a schism is a rupture between Churches/dioceses/sections of the Church, no schism occurred.
The Schism Unfolds
Not a “nice, neat thing”, nor a sudden thing, but as seen above, something that occurred over a period of centuries – the definitive point was the Fourth Crusade of 1204 – the people only became aware of the split gradually
The fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 meant that the Byzantine capital finally succumbed to Muslim influence
Then, politics intervened on another level – eventually, the Turks got rid of the pro-Catholic patriarch