The Great Schism of East and West

Discussing the history of Army Rangers.

Moderator: Site Admin

Post Reply
User avatar
mortar_guy78
Ranger
Posts: 891
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:41 am

The Great Schism of East and West

Post by mortar_guy78 »

Ok, this is not RANGER history, but I did say that I would post something on the subject, so here goes.

In the summer of 1054, three papal legates walked into the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople and went up to the altar. Upon arriving there, they slammed down a Papal Bull excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Byzantine Emperor, and all who followed or supported them. They then turned and stormed out of the church, pausing at the door to solemnly shake the dust from their feet. A deacon of the church read the document and then ran after the group, begging them to take it back, but they refused and he dropped it in the street. This event which culminated in the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches is of such importance that it cannot be simple or easy to interpret. The Great Schism was the result of a long process of divergent theological and doctrinal development between East and West caused and ultimately exacerbated by linguistic and cultural differences. The most notable of these differences which caused the Schism was the role of the Bishop of Rome, known in the West as the Pope, in the hierarchy of the Church and the development of doctrine.

The churches of East and West both traced their origins back to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who traveled all over the Mediterranean evangelizing and founding Christian communities. Unfortunately for the Church in later years, the Roman Empire was not a single cultural entity. The East had been Hellenized during the conquests of Alexander the Great. The dominant language and culture of the eastern Roman Empire was therefore Greek, with an inheritance of the tradition of Greek philosophical thought with all of its subtleties and nuances, as well as a generally higher level of education and literacy. This led to much more discussion and debate in the East about matters of theology and worship. In fact, in the East it was considered preferable to only make formal declarations of the essentials of Christian doctrine and leave all else to the individual believer. The western Empire, on the other hand, was predominantly Latin in language and culture, which meant a heritage of legalism and adamantine sociopolitical ranking. Lower levels of literacy and education led to a Church hierarchy which was much more rigid and dictatorial. These differences of worldview would ultimately color the interpretation of scriptures and church tradition which led to the schism of the two Churches.

The first and possibly most important factor in the schism was the disagreement over the role of the Bishop of Rome in the governance of the Church as a whole. In the early Church, each local community had a bishop, episkopos (ἐπίσκοπος) in Greek, which literally means “overseer”. The bishop was seen as the foundation of that church. The first bishops were often the apostles themselves or men whom they designated to succeed them upon their death or absence. This succession was designated by the laying on of hands, which was to pass on the guidance of the Holy Spirit thought to be essential to the episcopate. It was (and still is) of the utmost importance in these churches that bishops have apostolic succession, that is, to be successors in direct line to one of the apostles.
In the early Church, all bishops had equal standing in ecclesiastical community. However, in time certain sees began to gain in prestige mostly in centers of learning such as Alexandria and Antioch, or in important civic capitals such as Rome. The bishop in these cities became known as the Patriarch or Metropolitan. The rest of the Church began to look to these great episcopates for guidance in matters of theology and church governance.

The bishop of Rome held the first place of honor in the early Church, by all accounts. There are two reasons for this deference. The first reason is that Rome is the place where Saints Peter and Paul were martyred. Church history also states that Saint Peter, who was considered the greatest of the Disciples of Christ, was the first bishop of Rome. Secondly, Rome was the capital of the Empire, which gave it huge importance and prestige in the ancient world. Unlike the interpretations of modern Roman Catholics, much of the early Church viewed the Bishop of Rome as the “first among equals” whose prestige was mainly a primacy of honor and not an executive power or a special role as the Vicar of Christ on earth.

However, as time went on, the Bishop of Rome, now known as the Pope (from the Latin epithet papa or father), began to see himself as the head of the Church in a real, hierarchical sense, and to take offense at any threats to his power. This can be seen by Pope Leo’s repudiation of Canon III of the Second Ecumenical Council, held in 381, which states that “The Bishop of Constantinople… shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.” This caused many of the Popes to see the Patriarch of Constantinople as a threat, much the way that Gregory I condemned the adoption of the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” by the Bishop of Constantinople in 595, which he felt was a threat to his position. However the Byzantines, far from seeing this title as a sort of rank, viewed it merely as an honorific title of the Patriarch of the Ecumenical Capital.

This is largely a result of a completely different view of theology and episcopal succession in the east. The Eastern Empire, as mentioned before, was much more permissive in its theology and did not view any single Patriarch as a sole authority. Even successive Patriarchs in the same see could hold conflicting views on a subject which was not central to the faith. No one thought of such pronouncements as binding.

However, by the fifth century the Pope was already attempting to assert his power over the entire Church. This can be seen in the western Emperor Valentian’s decree in 445 CE that “the primacy of the Apostolic See is established by the merit of St. Peter (who is the chief among the bishops)… no one, without inexcusable presumption, may attempt anything against the authority of that see. Peace will be secured among the churches if everyone recognizes his ruler.” It should be noted that in the East there were multiple sees that were of Apostolic origin, including several founded by St. Peter, while Rome was the only Apostilic see in the West. In fact, several sources indicate that prior to traveling to Rome, Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch.

In the successive centuries of Church history, the Byzantine Empire was relatively stable, allowing the Patriarchs in the east to concentrate on questions of theology and ecclesiastical issues. In Western Europe, on the other hand, local rulers came and went, leaving secular powers in a state of constant flux. In this situation, the Pope was a beacon of stability, responsible for much ecclesiastical and temporal power. The Pope crowned Emperors and exerted a great deal of influence on secular rulers for several hundred years as the preeminent hierarch of the Church in the West.

The precursor to the Great Schism was the so-called Photian Schism of 861-867. Photius was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople when his predecessor, Ignatius, was deposed by the Byzantine Emperor. Upon hearing of this, Pope Nicholas I sent legates to Constantinople to investigate the situation and report back to him. The legates met with Photius and declared that he was, in fact, the rightful Patriarch. Upon their return to Rome, Nicholas repudiated their decision and denied recognition to Photius. This was largely a result of the disagreement between East and West of the Latin addition of the word filioque to the Nicene Creed. The word, meaning “and from the Son” was used in the west to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit, which had traditionally been described as “from the Father” by the whole Church since the Council of Nicea in 325. Photius and many other eastern patriarchs viewed this addition, which was supported by the Pope, as illicit, and attacked it in his Encyclical of 867. In September of 867, Photius was deposed and Ignatius reinstated by the new Emperor Basil. Unity was restored. Ignatius died in 877 and Photius once again succeeded him but the new Pope, JohnVIII, endorsed his Patriarchate and crisis seemed to be averted. However, the major issues of papal power and the filioque had not been successfully dealt with. They had only been put on hold.

These issues came to a boiling point in the eleventh century when Norman conquerors forced Byzantine Christians in Italy to adopt the Latin Rite in their churches, including the filioque. Those churches which would not adopt these practices were closed with the permission of the Pope, Leo IX. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, responded in kind by forcing the Latin Churches in Constantinople to either adopt eastern liturgical practices or close their doors. In response, the Pope sent legates to Constantinople to investigate.

The papal legates, led by Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers, arrived in April of 1054 and were ignored by the Patriarch, which enraged the Cardinal. For three months they attempted to engage the Patriarch on the matters of papal authority, the filioque, and other differences in liturgical practice. In mid-July they laid the Bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia and stormed out.

There were many attempts after this event to restore the previous unity of East and West, and many setbacks as well. The greatest setback came in 1204 when Crusaders sacked Constantinople, desecrated the churches and carried off many of the holy relics there. Unity seemed impossible. The councils of Lyons in 1272 and Florence in 1438 addressed the issue, but were largely a result of the Byzantine Emperor reaching for a western alliance against Muslim aggression. The councils were rejected by most of the Christian East, who could not forget the actions of the Crusaders or agree to what they considered heterodox theology. The Schism has remained to the present.

The greatest factor contributing to the Great Schism was the conflict over the role of the Pope in the leadership and governance of the entire Christian Church. The divergence of thought stemming from linguistic and cultural differences led to this conflict between a legalistic interpretation of church tradition in the west, and a more permissive and democratic interpretation in the east. The difference in ecclesiastical and secular roles assumed by the episcopate, in addition to these differing worldviews, led to what many would say is the greatest tragedy in Christian history: the Schism of the Universal Church.
HHC 4/64 AR '97-'99
HHC 1/75 RGR '99-'01
HHC 1/508 ABCT '01-'04
C co, HHC 2/1 IN '04-'07
C co, B co 1/24 IN '07-'11
D co 308th MI '12-'15
7th SFG(A) MICO '15-'18
C co 308th MI '18-Present


Keep your mind in hell and despair not.

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
Post Reply

Return to “Ranger History”