The Great Schism of 1054

The major event that is often cited as the separation of the East and West is the Great Schism of 1054. Actually at the time it was seen as simply another temporary schism between the two regions. But this one never resolved as the two Churches drifted farther apart. Also, though the date seems to be an easy reference, it must be seen as wider political and theological context which lead to the division.

The situation between Rome and Constantinople had been increasingly tense and the two centers were becoming increasingly isolated from each other. The temporary Photian Schism in the 860s was due to disagreements over papal interference into the life of the Church in Constantinople and Bulgaria as well as differing liturgical practices. Though resolved, the basic outline of disagreements were established but the two centers isolated themselves from each other.

By the mid-eleventh century, a disagreement arose over Byzantine liturgical practices in South Italy and Latin practices in the East. In addition, the recent popes were beginning to claim universal supremacy over church matters which led to further disagreements. The Orthodox Church failed to answer these issues in any substantive manner which led to further disagreements. Finally, political developments in the West led to the papal throne and other Western powers to make claims on property and jurisdiction over disputed areas which the Emperor in Constantinople was unwilling to concede. The result was increased tensions and a lack of communication which would be costly in the end.

With these issues in place, there simply needed to be an excuse which would spark the division. In 1053, Pope Leo IX sent legates to Constantinople to negotiate with Patriarch Michael Cerularius. He was a powerful supporter of the Church and not very accommodating to any changes or negotiations. He refused to see the legates led by Cardinal Humbert….all of whom would be influential in the papal reforms of Gregory VII and believed strongly in papal supremacy. On July 16, 1054, tired of waiting for an audience, the placed a document of Anathema or excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia. The document was only supposed to apply the patriarch and those who supported him. The reason cited for the excommunication was the removal of the Filioque from the Creed (which was never in there in the first places), the practice of married clergy (which had been a part of both churches’ traditions since the earliest times) and divergent liturgical practices (which the East had always followed). In response, Patriarch Michael drew up a list of Latin abuses and issued a Bull of Excommunication against them after a synod of Bishops on July 20. This was in turn supported by the other Patriarchates and the division was complete.

The results from there began to snowball. Documents were produced to prove the legitimacy of each side. One such document was the forged 'Donation of Constantine' which supposedly gave the Pope universal power over the Church since he helped cure the Emperor Constantine from leprosy in the early 4^th century.

Interestingly, many of the issues that continue to divide the Church today came to be divisive much later. These included papal infallibility and Immaculate Conception which were later papal doctrines. But clearly there was a split among the Churches that would not heal. There was an attempt in 1089 for a reconciliation between Pope Urban II and Patriarch Nicholas III but it came to nothing. The Crusades really sealed the issue when in 1204, the Western powers sacked Constantinople and dragged the treasures back to Venice and Rome where they remain until today. The Churches lifted the mutual excommunications in the 1960s but it has led no where as the divisions and increasingly divergent practices and theology continue to divide us.

The main people from the Orthodox side were Patriarch Michael Cerularius. It is worth reading his life because of his truly interesting past and part in the drama. Leo of Ohrid wrote the famous tract against Latin Rites which outlines many of the Orthodox objections to the West. A life of Photius and the documents from the Photion schism also shed light on the events leading to the Schism.

On the Latin side, Pope Leo IX and Pope Urban II. Cardinal Humbert was the main legate. Bishop Peter of Amalfi and Cardinal Deacon Fredrick of Lotharingia (the future Pope Stephen IX) were also in accompaniment. Finally, the papal reforms of Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) really set in motion the shift in papal power and triumphalism.

The primary sources for the Great Schism are available in English as well as many of the recorded details of the events. Most historical books on the subject include these and they can be found quite easily over the internet. There are some interesting modern takes on the subject after Vatican II and the lifting of the anathamas which can prove to be illuminating.

There are many secondary sources which talk about the Great Schism in detail. Some are quite well done with an even handed approach, however many diverge into polemics and it is hard to gather the nature of the issues. Alexander Schmemann’s 'The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy' has a good chapter on this issue. Aristeides Papadakis’ 'The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy' is an exhaustive look at the subject and spans many centuries. 'The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire' by J.M. Hussey also has a great deal to say on the subject. For a more popular and readable version on these and other issues, read John Julius Norwich’s 'Byzantium' series of books.