|
|
Schism. This is a harsh word, blunt and to the point. Webster’s dictionary defines schism as a division within a church. There have been many schisms in the Christian church. The first major split though officially occurred in 1054 AD. This set in motion two separate religions known today as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. This schism will be discussed in detail. What will be looked at are the major events leading to the Schism and the people involved that caused the Schism. Also what will be looked at will be the aftermath of this Schism, what effects it causes to this day and ways to reevaluate the schism and repair past damage done.
This schism propagated itself in the Roman Empire long before Christianity was made legal. In fact it began with an unlikely emperor named Diocletian, who himself persecuted Christians. A general in the army, as stated in a Concise History of Byzantium, Diocletian knew all too well the difficulties of defending an empire as large as Rome. So in order to ease some of his troubles. He named a friend Maximan Emperor of the Western Empire, and himself emperor of the Eastern Empire.
This arrangement worked for a while but soon there was civil war. The details of this are unimportant for the history of the Schism. All that is necessary to know is that a general later known as Constantine the Great came to power and in 313 AD made Christianity legal in the empire. Then he committed an unexpected act and moved the capitol of the Roman Empire to a place renamed New Rome or preferably Constantinople, the City of Constantine. It was also Constantine who set up a precedent of emperors getting involved in Christian church doctrine, which he did in 325 AD at the council of Nicaea.
For the next several hundred years Christianity was a united religion. Of course there were a few heresies but none lasted long enough to cause a schism. However there was a slight splitting that occurred during this time. Regional differences caused the two following different forms of worship: a Western Rite, which would evolve into Roman Catholicism and an Eastern Rite, which would evolve into Eastern Orthodoxy. The rites differed on how a service at church would operate, the hierarchy of the church and what prayers would be said. These differences in rites never much affected Christians. Until the schism neither of the rites was wrong or inherently better. The rites were just different and any Christian could choose their preferred rite without fear.
In the early centuries of Christianity a heretical group known as the Arians began teaching a different doctrine. They said that the father and son were separate beings and that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the father and not the son. For this reason a few bishops began to use a phrase in the Nicene Creed known as the Filioque after the phrase “ex Patre Filioque.” This phrase loosely translated from Latin means “from the father and the son” in reference to the Holy Spirit. These cause problems because the Nicene Creed states the basic tenants of what Catholics and Orthodox must believe. By only the West adopting the Filioque the East felt left out of the theological reasoning.
This hadn’t been a problem to eastern bishops and other church leaders at first. However in 1009 AD the Germans took Rome and appointed their own Pope named Sergius. This pope greatly approved of the creed whereas previous popes vehemently opposed it. Sergius made the Filioque into church doctrine and gave the revised creed to all of the church leaders in Christendom. The Eastern Church was opposed to this addition since it believed that all changes in church doctrine should have to be decided in an ecumenical council. Not only that but they saw the pope as nothing more than a German puppet and more proof that the papacy though of itself as the sole leader of the patriarchates. Besides at the last council of bishops it said that there would be no more additions made to the creed. United Christianity survived this setback mostly because the East and West had come to an understanding of mutual apathy, unconcern and coexistence.
It took many people to bring the church into union. Sages, churchmen and rulers. Over the past thousand years they had overcome adversity and come out stronger than before. It is surprising to believe that all it took was two people to destroy a thousand years of union. The main players in the Eastern Schism will be reviewed to show why this even occurred.
Recently in the two churches a predicament had arisen. An arrogant and stubborn man named Michael Cerularius was made Patriarch of Constantinople. This is similar to the pope of the Eastern Church. In fact Cerularius tried to make himself equal if not superior to the pope. Although before the schism the eastern clergy believed that all patriarchs were equal and that the pope was equal with them. The pope though, did have a special privilege status. It wasn’t much, like having his name addressed first in a letter but nothing more. Anyway, Cerularius began to call himself the “Ecumenical Patriarch” which even in the east seemed too great a title to use.
The second person to initiate this schism is the pope’s legate, Cardinal Humbert. Humbert was a rash man who put his own thoughts and ideas, especially those that could aid his career, before anyone else’s. It was a well-known fact at the time that Humbert wanted to become pope after the present one, Leo IX, had served his time.
Before leaving for Constantinople Pope Leo sent Humbert and other delegates with some parting words. The understanding was Humbert would try to explain the West’s views to the East try to understand the East’s point of view discuss the major splitting elements and make a compromise with the Patriarch. Also he was forbidden to publish a refutation to Leo of Achrida. Leo of Achrida had earlier written a document that was obviously anti-west and Humbert wanted to shut him up for good.
When Humbert arrived in Constantinople Cerularius had concocted a cold reception. When Humbert finally reached the Patriarch he was so offended that he just thrust the letter meant to begin the reunion process in Cerularius’ hands. Cerularius didn’t enjoy the letter either because it clearly stated Humbert’s views. It blatantly started off criticizing Cerularius’ new title of “Ecumenical Patriarch” and how he ran his portion of the church. Before words could be exchanged between the parties the pope’s delegates left.
The eastern emperor at the time Constantine IX took in Humbert in regal style. Humbert preferred the Emperor’s greeting which was completely the opposite of the one he received from Cerularius. The Emperor at this time wished to keep the pope as an ally. This Emperor was just following his namesake, Constantine the Great at the Council of Nicaea. Since this emperor sincerely wanted to keep the church united. Of course he had political reasons behind this as well.
It was Humbert speaking with the emperor when he brought up the refutation to Leo of Achrida. The emperor was intrigued by this paper and gave the idea that Humbert should publish it. How was the Emperor to know without seeing the document the damage it would cause? Now Humbert disobeyed the Pope and published the document in Constantinople. This document was very anti-east and caused such a response in the city that Humbert should have never printed it.
After printing this document Humbert did an even greater affront to the East. He composed an excommunication bull saying that basically everything the West did was right and everything Michael Cerularius’ East did was wrong. He even accused the Eastern Church of leaving out the Filioque in the Nicene Creed when it was added in the West. To make matters worse he interrupted a service in the Haggia Sophia, the East’s largest and most important church, to place the Bull on the altar. Effectively excommunicating Cerularius in his own “home turf.” As common sense would dictate after this abominable act Humbert and his companions left Constantinople as soon as possible. Of course before they could return to Rome the Eastern Emperor recalled them to try and work things out with Cerularius. He failed and the schism began.
After Humbert left Cerularius finally felt he was rid of the pope and could finally be the “Ecumenical Patriarch” he had always wanted to be. He went so far as to depose the Emperor who had tried to keep the church united. Isn’t it funny that the religious leader was the one to split the church while the secular leader wanted to keep the church together? At that time Cerularius appointed a new emperor. However this new emperor didn’t like being pushed around be the arrogant patriarch and had Cerularius exiled to a Greek island. For all his suffering Michael Cerularius became a saint in the Eastern Church.
As for Humbert he never became pope. In the West though, he was respected for defending their beliefs and as such got much praise for a while. Mostly from himself but Humbert was always his biggest fan. The common people were hardly affected by this Schism. Everything went on as it had before. People still went to each other’s rites and behaved on peaceful terms. The East and West had also continued their mutual apathetic coexistence with one another. The real break didn’t occur until the Fourth Crusade in 1204 AD when the crusaders sacked Constantinople. This act did so much damage in the eyes of the east that the Greeks still do not want the pope to step foot on their soil.
Historically the pope excommunicated the patriarch and the patriarch excommunicated the pope. Technically though this was impossible. Cerularius excommunicated a dead man, the pope dying earlier that year. Also Humbert couldn’t excommunicate the patriarch considering only the pope could do that. Besides being dead the pope also never authorized Humbert to excommunicate so no schism could have taken place. Unfortunately, a schism did take place although it would take a few hundred years to be felt throughout the world. In recent years there have been some campaigns to unite the two churches. This has occurred with the Maronites of Lebanon and the Uniates of the Ukraine. Many more churches are too stubborn to commit to such a union. They shouldn’t live in the past when Humbert and Cerularius fought. The differences now are too great for a formal union into an identical structure. The best idea would be to revert back to the time before the Fourth Crusade, when the churches coexisted with one another. This is the only practical plan and this could foster a new “anti-schism.”
• Arms of the Cross. Reception at Constantinople. 11/18/2002
• Attiah, George. The Great Schism (1054). 11/18/2002
• Clendenin, Daniel B. Why I’m Not Orthodox. 2001. 11/18/2002
• Erickson, John H. Orthodox Christians in America.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1999
• Marshall, C.T. Great Schism. Spring 1997. 11/18/2002
• Treadgold, Warren. A Concise History of Byzantium.
New York: Palgrave, 2001