History of the East–West Schism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the History of the East–West Schism, Eastern and Western Mediterranean Christians had a history of differences and disagreements dating back to the 2nd century. Among the most significant disagreements are the Quartodeciman controversy at the time of Victor of Rome (c. 180) and the Rebaptism controversy at the time of Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage (250s). At the root of what became the Great Schism is the question of ecclesiology.


Eric Plumer writes that "(t)he divergence of the Eastern and Western churches, leading ultimately to the East-West Schism, was a process of many centuries, influenced by a host of political, cultural and theological factors.[1] Similarly, Roger Haight asserts that, "The [East-West Schism] should not be understood to have occurred in the mutual excommunications [of 1054]" because those excommunications were "only one factor in a much longer and larger story involving cultural, political and theological factors."[2] Because so many factors contributed to the ever-widening separation between East and West, it is difficult to point to a specific date when it began or even identify a single primary cause of the schism.[3] While most sources agree that the separation between East and West is clearly evident by the Photian schism in the ninth century, some point to tensions going back as far as the fourth century as the early signs of the separation between East and West.[4][5][6][page needed] Orthodox apologists point to incidents as early as the 2nd century as examples of claims by Rome to papal primacy and rejection by Eastern Churches.

Some scholars[7] have argued that the Schism between East and West has very ancient roots, and that sporadic schisms in the common unions took place under Pope Victor I (2nd century), Pope Stephen I (3rd century) and Pope Damasus I (4th and 5th century). Later on, disputes about theological and other questions led to schisms between the Churches in Rome and Constantinople for 37 years from 482 to 519 (the Acacian Schism), and for 13 years from 866-879 (see Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople).

The idea that with the transfer of the imperial capital from Rome to Constantinople primacy in the Church was also transferred is found in undeveloped form as early as John Philoponus (c. 490–c. 570); it was enunciated in its most advanced form by Photios I of Constantinople (c. 810–c. 893). Constantinople, as the seat of the ruler of the empire and therefore of the world, was the highest among the patriarchates and, like the emperor, had the right to govern them.[8]

Centers of Christianity[edit]

John Binns, a Director of the Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies at Cambridge University, specifically writes that, after the fall and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the natural learning centers of the Church were Antioch and Alexandria.

Founding of the Church of Alexandria had been assisted by Mark,[9] one of the Seventy Apostles. Antioch had attracted Peter and Paul and Barnabas, plus others of the Seventy. Antioch was the base from which Paul made his missionary journeys to the pagans.[10] The Church of Antioch sent the apostles Peter and Paul to Rome to assist the fledgling church there in its growth, and because Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire.[citation needed] Antioch regarded Peter as its first bishop.[9]

Early development of the Eastern Church[edit]

Saint Thomas went east, and was said to be instrumental in establishing the Church in the Persian Empire and satellite kingdoms, although Saint Addai and Saint Mari, two of the Seventy Apostles were credited with most of the work of establishment in Persia itself. The Persian Church was larger than the Mediterranean Church for some centuries, especially in the 6th to 8th centuries with its highly successful movement into India, Mongolia, China, Tibet, Korea, and Japan.[11]

Saint Andrew is credited with establishing the church in the Greek area of what became Byzantium and then Constantinople, some centuries later.[citation needed]

In the 4th century when the Roman emperors were trying to control the Church, theological questions were running rampant throughout the Roman Empire.[12] The influence of Greek speculative thought on Christian thinking led to all sorts of divergent and conflicting opinions.[13] Christ's commandment to love others as He loved, seemed to have been lost in the intellectual abstractions of the time. Theology was also used as a weapon against opponent bishops, since being branded a heretic was the only sure way for a bishop to be removed by other bishops. Incompetence was not sufficient grounds for removal.[citation needed]

Over the course of history, tensions have arisen when church leaders have been perceived to have overstepped their bounds.[14]

Rise of Rome[edit]

See also: First phase of papal supremacy and Early centers of Christianity

In the early church up until the ecumenical councils, Rome was regarded as an important centre of Christianity, especially since it was the capital of the Roman Empire. The eastern and southern Mediterranean bishops generally recognized a persuasive leadership and authority of the Bishop of Rome, because the teaching of the bishop of Rome was almost invariably correct.[citation needed] But the Mediterranean Church did not regard the Bishop of Rome as any sort of infallible source, nor did they acknowledge any juridical authority of Rome.

A 1st-century example occurred in the year 90, when a group of Corinthian clerics, who had been removed from their positions, petitioned Rome for help.[15]

The historian Will Durant writes that, after Jerusalem, the church of Rome naturally became the primary church, the capital of Christianity.[16] Rome had an early and significant Christian population.[16] It was closely identified with Paul the Apostle, who preached[17] and was martyred there, and the Apostle Peter, who was a martyr there as well; Peter was also considered chief among all the Apostles and the first Bishop of Rome. While the Eastern cities of Alexandria and Antioch produced theological works, the bishops of Rome focused on what Romans admittedly did best — administration.[16]

In the early church, up until the ecumenical councils, Rome was regarded as an important center of Christianity, especially since it was the capital of the Roman Empire. Bishops of churches in the eastern and southern Mediterranean generally recognized the persuasive leadership and authority of the Bishop of Rome.[citation needed] But these bishops did not acknowledge any juridical authority of Rome.[citation needed]

The church at Rome claimed a special authority over the other churches due, in part, to its connection with the apostles Peter and Paul. In the first three centuries, Rome gained increasing recognition as one of the centers of Christianity. However, the extant documents of that era yield "no clear-cut claims to, or recognition, of papal primacy."[18]

The historian Will Durant writes that, after Jerusalem, the church of Rome naturally became the primary church, the capital of Christianity.[16] Rome had an early and significant Christian population.[16] It was closely identified with the Apostle Paul, who preached[19] and was martyred there, and the Apostle Peter, who was a martyr there as well. The Eastern Orthodox liturgy calls Peter and Paul "the wisest Apostles and their princes" and "the radiant ornaments of Rome".[20][21] Peter is seen as founder of the Church in Rome,[22] and the bishops of Rome as his successors.[23][24] While the Eastern cities of Alexandria and Antioch produced theological works, the bishops of Rome focused on what Romans admittedly did best: administration.[16]

Father Thomas Hopko, a leading Orthodox theologian, has written: "The church of Rome held a special place of honor among the earliest Christian churches. It was first among the communities that recognized each other as catholic churches holding the orthodox faith concerning God's Gospel in Jesus. According to St Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch who died a martyr's death in Rome around the year 110, 'the church which presides in the territories of the Romans' was 'a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, bearer of the Father's name.' The Roman church held this place of honor and exercised a 'presidency in love' among the first Christian churches for two reasons. It was founded on the teaching and blood of the foremost Christian apostles Peter and Paul. And it was the church of the capital city of the Roman empire that then constituted the 'civilized world (oikoumene)'."[25]

Quartodeciman controversy, and beyond[edit]

Towards the end of the 2nd century, Victor, the Bishop of Rome, attempted to resolve the Quartodeciman controversy by excommunicating churches in the Roman province of Asia. This incident is cited by some Orthodox Christians as the first example of overreaching by the Bishop of Rome and resistance of such by Eastern churches. Laurent Cleenewerck suggests that this could be argued to be the first fissure between the Eastern and Western churches.[26]

The Quartodeciman controversy arose because Christians in the Roman province of Asia (Western Anatolia) celebrated Easter at the spring full moon, like the Jewish Passover, while the churches in the rest of the world observed the practice of celebrating it on the following Sunday ("the day of the resurrection of our Saviour")[27]

In 155, Anicetus, Bishop of Rome presided over a church council at Rome that was attended by a number of bishops including Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Although the council failed to reach agreement on the issue, ecclesiastical communion was preserved.[28] A generation later, synods of bishops in Palestine, Pontus (Northern Anatolia) and Osrhoene in the east, and in Rome and Gaul in the west, unanimously declared that the celebration should be exclusively on Sunday.[27] In 193, Pope Victor I presided over a council in Rome and subsequently sent a letter about the matter to Polycrates of Ephesus and the churches of the Roman province of Asia.[28] In the same year, Polycrates presided over a council at Ephesus attended by several bishops throughout that province, which rejected Victor's authority and kept the province's paschal tradition.[28] Thereupon, Victor attempted to cut off Polycrates and the others who took this stance from the common unity, but later reversed his decision after bishops that included Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, interceded, recommending that Victor adopt the more tolerant stance of his predecessor, Anicetus.[29][30]

Despite Victor's failure to carry out his intent to excommunicate the Asian churches, many Catholic apologists point to this episode as evidence of papal primacy and authority in the early Church, citing the fact that none of the bishops challenged his right to excommunicate but rather questioned the wisdom and charity of doing so.[26] Orthodox apologists argue that Victor had to relent in the end and note that the Eastern Churches never granted Victor presidency over anything other than the Church of Rome.[14] Cleenewerck points out that Eusebius of Caesarea simply refers to Victor one of the "rulers of the Churches", not the ruler of a yet unknown or unformed 'universal Church.'[26] Ultimately, the Quartodeciman controversy not resolved by papal authority; it was only finally resolved by an ecumenical council, the First Council of Nicaea.[14]

The rejection of Bishop Anicetus' position on the Quartodeciman, by Polycarp and later Polycrates' letter to Pope Victor I has been used by Orthodox theologians as proof against the argument that the Churches in Asia Minor accepted the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and or the teaching of Papal supremacy.[14]

The opinion of the Bishop of Rome was often sought, especially when the patriarchs of the Eastern Mediterranean were locked in fractious dispute. The bishops of Rome never obviously belonged to either the Antiochian or the Alexandrian schools of theology, and usually managed to steer a middle course between whatever extremes were being propounded by theologians of either school. Because Rome was remote from the centres of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean, it was frequently hoped its bishop would be more impartial. For instance, in 431, Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, appealed to Pope Celestine I, as well as the other patriarchs, charging Nestorius with heresy, which was dealt with at the Council of Ephesus.

The opinion of the bishop of Rome was always canvassed, and was often longed for. However the Bishop of Rome's opinion was by no means automatically right. For instance, the Tome of Leo of Rome was highly regarded, and formed the basis for the ecumenical council's formulation. But it was not universally accepted and was even called "impious" and "blasphemous" by some.[31] The next ecumenical council corrected a possible imbalance in Pope Leo's presentation. Although the Bishop of Rome was well respected even at this early date, the East holds that the concept of the primacy of the Roman See and Papal Infallibility were only developed much later.

Following the Sack of Rome by invading European Goths, Rome slid into the Dark Ages[clarification needed] which afflicted most parts of Western Europe, and became increasingly isolated and irrelevant to the wider Mediterranean Church. This was a situation which suited and pleased a lot of the Eastern Mediterranean patriarchs and bishops.[32]

It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose out of obscurity on the back of the military successes of the western Mediterranean adventurers.

Establishment of Constantinople, the New Rome[edit]

After the sole emperor of all the Roman Empire Constantine built the new imperial capital at Byzantium, a strategically placed city on the Bosporus. He renamed his new capital Nova Roma ("New Rome"), but the city would become known as Constantinople.[33][34][35][36][37][38] The centre of gravity in the empire was fully recognised to have completely shifted to the eastern Mediterranean. Rome lost the Senate to Constantinople and lost its status and gravitas as imperial capital, see also Fall of Rome.

Soon the local bishop was elevated to Patriarch under Constantine, as Metrophanes of Byzantium[39]

The patriarchs of Constantinople often tried to adopt an imperious position over the other patriarchs. In the case of Nestorius, whose actual teaching is now recognised to be not overtly heretical, although it is clearly deficient, (Saint Cyril called it 'slippery'),[40] other patriarchs were able to make the charge of heresy stick and successfully had him deposed. This was probably more because his Christology was delivered with a heavy sarcastic arrogance which matched his high-handed personality.[40]

In the fourth century, when the Roman emperors (reigning in Constantinople) were trying to control the Church, theological questions ran rampant throughout the Roman Empire.[41] The influence of Greek speculative thought on Christian thinking led to all sorts of divergent and conflicting opinions.[13] Theology was also used as a weapon against opponent bishops, because being branded a heretic was the only sure way for a bishop to be removed by other bishops—incompetence was not sufficient grounds for removal.[citation needed]

Growth in power of the see of Constantinople[edit]

Hagia Sophia, cathedral of Constantinople at the time of the schism

The bishop of Byzantium was under the authority of the metropolitan of Heraclea when in 330 Roman Emperor Constantine I moved his residence to this town, which, rebuilt on a larger scale, became known as Constantinople.[42] Thereafter, the bishop's connection with the imperial court meant that he was able to free himself from ecclesiastical dependency on Heraclea and in little more than half a century to obtain recognition of next-after-Rome ranking from the first Council held within the walls of the new capital. The First Council of Constantinople (381).[43] The Western bishops also took no part and which the Latin Church recognized as ecumenical only in the mid-6th century,[44] decreed: "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome",[45] thus raising it above the sees of Alexandria and Antioch. This has been described as sowing the seed for the ecclesiastical rivalry between Constantinople and Rome that was a factor leading to the schism between East and West[46][47] and was a basic fact in papal history

Alexandria's objections to Constantinople's promotion, which led to a constant struggle between the two sees in the first half of the 5th century,[48] were supported by Rome, which proposed the theory that the most important sees were the three Petrine ones, with Rome in first place.[44] However, after the Council of Chalcedon (451), the position of the Patriarchate of Alexandria was weakened by a division in which the great majority of its Christian population followed the form of Christianity that its opponents called Monophysitism.[44]

The patriarch of the imperial capital succeeded in his efforts[49] to become the leading bishop in the Byzantine Empire: he "headed a vast curia and other bishops who resided in Constantinople constituted a permanent synod, which became the real governing body of the church".[50]

Patriarch John IV of Constantinople, who died in 595, assumed the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch".[51]

Council of Nicaea (325)[edit]

Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine (centre) and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.
The Second Ecumenical Council whose additions to the original Nicene Creed lay at the heart of one of the theological disputes associated with the East–West Schism. (Illustration, 879–882 AD, from manuscript, Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, Bibliothèque nationale de France)

When the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great embraced Christianity, he summoned the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 to resolve a number of issues which troubled the Church. The bishops at the council confirmed the position of the metropolitan sees of Rome and Alexandria as having authority outside their own province, and also the existing privileges of the churches in Antioch and the other provinces.[52] These sees were later called Patriarchates[citation needed] and were given an order of precedence: Rome, as capital of the empire was naturally given first place, then came Alexandria and Antioch. In a separate canon the Council also approved the special honor given to Jerusalem over other sees subject to the same metropolitan.[53]

In 342 Pope Julius I wrote: "The custom has been for word to be written first to us [in the case of bishops under accusation, and notably in apostolic churches], and then for a just sentence to be passed from this place".[54]

Five patriarchs[edit]

Emperor Theodosius I called the Council of 381. The Second Ecumenical Council, held at the new capital in 381, elevated the see of Constantinople, to a position ahead of the other chief metropolitan sees, except that of Rome.[55] It divided the eastern Roman Empire into five "dioceses": Egypt (under Alexandria), the East (under Antioch), Asia (under Ephesus), Pontus (under Caesarea Cappadociae), and Thrace (originally under Heraclea, later under Constantinople);[44] The council mentioned in particular the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, it decreed that the synod of each province should manage the ecclesiastical affairs of that province alone, except for the privileges already recognized for Alexandria and Antioch.[56]

In 382 a synod in Rome under Pope Damasus I that protested against the raising of Constantinople to a position above that of Alexandria, spoke of Rome as "the apostolic see".[57] Pope Siricius (384-399) claimed for papal decretals the same binding force as decisions of synods, Pope Innocent I (401-417) said that all major judicial cases should be reserved for the see of Rome, and Pope Boniface I (418-422) declared that the church of Rome stands to "the churches throughout the world as the head to its members" and that bishops everywhere, while holding the one same episcopal office, must "recognise those to whom, for the sake of ecclesiastical discipline, they should be subject".[58] Pope Celestine I (422-432) considered that the condemnation of Nestorius by his own Roman synod in 430 was sufficient, but consented to the general council as "of benefit in manifesting the faith"[59] Pope Leo I and his successors rejected canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, as a result of which it was not officially recorded even in the East until the 6th century.[51][60] The Acacian schism (484-519), when, "for the first time, West lines up against East in a clear-cut fashion",[61] ended with acceptance of a declaration insisted on by Pope Hormisdas (514-523) that "I hope I shall remain in communion with the apostolic see in which is found the whole, true, and perfect stability of the Christian religion".[62] Earlier, in 494, Pope Gelasius I (492-496) wrote to Byzantine Emperor Anastasius, distinguishing the power of civil rulers from that of the bishops (called "priests" in the document), with the latter supreme in religious matters; he ended his letter with: "And if it is fitting that the hearts of the faithful should submit to all priests in general who properly administer divine affairs, how much the more is obedience due to the bishop of that see which the Most High ordained to be above all others, and which is consequently dutifully honoured by the devotion of the whole Church."[63] Pope Nicholas I (858-867) made it clear that he believed the power of the papacy extended "over all the earth, that is, over every church".[64][65] Eastern Orthodox state that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon[66] explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople,[67][68] and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople.[66]

Chalcedon (451)[edit]

The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, confirming the authority already held by Constantinople, granted its archbishop jurisdiction over Pontus and Thrace.[69]

The council also ratified an agreement between Antioch and Jerusalem, whereby Jerusalem held jurisdiction over three provinces,[70] numbering it among the five great sees.[71] There were now five patriarchs presiding over the Church within the Byzantine Empire, in the following order of precedence: the Patriarch of Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Pope being considered the first among equals.[72]

Although Pope Leo I, whose delegates were absent when this resolution was passed, he recognized the council as ecumenical and confirmed its doctrinal decrees. He rejected its canon 28 on the ground that it contravened the sixth canon of Nicaea and infringed the rights of Alexandria and Antioch.[44][73] However, by that time Constantinople, the permanent residence of the emperor, had in reality enormous influence, and had it not been for the opposition of Rome, its bishop could easily have been given first place among all the bishops.[44]

In its disputed 28th canon, the Council also recognized an authority of Constantinople over bishops of dioceses "among the barbarians", which has been variously interpreted as referring either to all areas outside the Byzantine Empire or only to those in the vicinity of Pontus, Asia and Thrace or to non-Greeks within the empire.[51] This canon would remain a constant source of friction between East and West until the mutual excommunications of 1054 made it irrelevant in that regard;[74] but controversy about its applicability to the authority of the patriarchate of Constantinople still continues.[75]

Canon 9 of the Council also declared: "If a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried." This has been interpreted as conferring on the see of Constantinople a greater privilege than what any council ever gave Rome,[76] or as of much lesser significance than that[77][78]

The fall of the Western Empire to Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths and others[edit]

In 476, the Western Roman Empire in Italy was declared defunct, when the Scirian Odoacer deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus and declared himself rex Italiae ("King of Italy").

Much earlier, the Vandals had crossed the Rhine in 406, entered Iberia in 409, crossed into North Africa in 429 and by 470 had built a kingdom that removed from the Empire all of North Africa, Sicily, Sardinia and other islands of the western Mediterranean and that had sacked Rome in 455. The Visigoths had already invaded Italy and sacked Rome in 410, before settling in Iberia and founding a kingdom that lasted for 200 years. They were followed into Roman territory by the Ostrogoths, led by Theodoric the Great, who settled in Italy. In Gaul the Franks (a fusion of western Germanic tribes whose leaders had been aligned with Rome since the third century AD) entered Roman lands gradually and peacefully during the fifth century, and were accepted as rulers by the Roman-Gaulish population. Fending off challenges from the Allemanni, Burgundians and Visigoths, the Frankish kingdom became the nucleus of the future France and Germany. The initial Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain also occurred during the 5th century, when Roman control of Britain had come to an end.[79]

By 476 the Germanic chieftain Odoacer had conquered Italy and deposed the last nominal western emperor, Romulus Augustus. He declared himself King of Italy and soon added Dalmatia to his dominions.

Empires East and West[edit]

Disunion in the Roman Empire further contributed to disunion in the Church. The Emperor Diocletian famously divided the administration of the eastern and western portions of the Empire in the early 4th century, though subsequent leaders (including Constantine) aspired to and sometimes gained control of both regions. Theodosius the Great, who established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire (see Edict of Thessalonica), was the last Emperor to rule over a united Roman Empire. Following his death in 395, the division into western and eastern halves, each for a few decades still under its own Emperor, was never reunited.

Following the Sack of Rome by invading European Goths, Rome became increasingly isolated from the churches in the eastern and southern Mediterranean. This was a situation which suited and pleased many of the patriarchs and bishops of those churches.[32]

The Western Roman Empire soon ceased to exist. In the early fifth century, its whole territory was overrun by Germanic tribes, and the year 476 saw the end even of the pretence of a Western Roman Emperor, when Odoacer forced Romulus Augustus to abdicate. By the end of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire had been overrun by the Germanic tribes, while the Eastern Roman Empire (known also as the Byzantine Empire) continued to thrive. Thus, the political unity of the Roman Empire was the first to fall.

When royal and imperial rule reestablished itself, it had to contend with power wielded independently by the Church. In the East, however, imperial and, later, Islamic rule dominated the Eastern bishops of Byzantium.[16] Whereas the Orthodox regions that were predominately Slavic experienced period foreign dominance as well as period without infrastructure.

The Eastern Roman Empire (known also as the Byzantine Empire) continued to thrive and in the 6th century recovered Italy and other sections of the western Mediterranean shore. It soon lost most of that territory. It continued to hold Rome, as part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, until 751.

Thus, the political unity of what had been the Roman Empire fell.

In the West, the collapse of civil government left the Church practically in charge in many areas, and bishops took to administering secular cities and domains.[16] In other areas, Christianity became mostly subject to the laws and customs of nations that owed no allegiance to the emperor.[80] These Germanic peoples, particularly the Franks, influenced and changed the Latin Church.[81]

Language and culture[edit]

Many other factors caused the East and West to drift further apart. The dominant language of the West was Latin, whilst that of the East was Greek. Soon after the fall of the Western Empire, the number of individuals who spoke both Latin and Greek began to dwindle, and communication between East and West grew much more difficult. When the Latins showed up at councils in the East, they spoke in Latin which was not understood by the other delegates, who continued to speak Greek, which, in turn, was not understood by the Latins. When the Latins had to sign something, it was in a language they didn't understand and had to take someone's word for it. Both sides were suspicious of the other.[82]

With linguistic unity gone, cultural unity began to crumble as well. The two halves of the Church were naturally divided along similar lines; they developed different rites and had different approaches to religious doctrines. Although the Great Schism was still centuries away, its outlines were already perceptible.[83]

Decline of three patriarchies[edit]

By 661, Muslim Arabs had conquered the territories assigned to the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, which thereafter were never more than partially and temporarily recovered. In 732, Leo III the Isaurian, in revenge for the opposition of Pope Gregory III to the emperor's iconoclast policies, transferred Sicily, Calabria and Illyria from the patriarchate of Rome (whose jurisdiction until then extended as far east as Thessalonica) to that of Constantinople.[84] The Constantinople patriarchate, after expanding eastward at the time of the Council of Chalcedon to take in Pontus and the Roman province of Asia, which at that time were still under the emperor's control, thus expanded equally to the west, and was practically coextensive with the Byzantine Empire.

Council in Trullo (Quinisext, 692)[edit]

The West's rejection of the Quinisext Council of 692 led to pressure from the Eastern Empire on the West to reject many Latin customs as non-Orthodox. The Latin practices that had got the attention of the other Patriarchates[citation needed] and that had been condemned by this Council included the practice of celebrating Mass on weekdays in Lent (rather than having Pre-Sanctified Liturgies);[85] fasting on Saturdays throughout the year;[86] omitting the "Alleluia" in Lent; depicting Christ as a lamb;[87] using unleavened bread.[88] Larger disputes were revealed regarding Eastern and Western attitudes toward celibacy for priests and deacons, with the Council affirming the right of married men to become priests (though forbidding priests to marry and forbidding bishops to live with their wives)[89][90] and prescribing deposition for anyone who attempted to separate a clergyman other than a bishop from his wife, or for any cleric other than a bishop who dismissed his wife.[91]

Pope Sergius I, who was of Syrian origin, rejected the council, preferring, he said, "to die rather than consent to erroneous novelties". Though a loyal subject of the Empire, he would not be "its captive in matters of religion" and refused to sign the canons.[92] Emperor Justinian II ordered his arrest and abduction to Constantinople by the notoriously violent protospatharios Zacharias.[93] However, the militia of the exarchate of Ravenna frustrated the attempt.[94] Zacharias nearly lost his life in his attempt to arrest Sergius I.[95][96] Meanwhile, in Visigothic Spain, the council was ratified by the Eighteenth Council of Toledo at the urging of the king, Wittiza, who was vilified by later chroniclers for his decision.[97] Fruela I of Asturias reversed the decision of Toledo sometime during his reign (757–768).[97]

The Eastern Orthodox churches hold this council be part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, adding its canons thereto.

Papal Supremacy and Pentarchy[edit]

Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine (centre) and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.

The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authorityPope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs (see also Pentarchy) — and over the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Western patriarch in 1014.[98] Eastern Orthodox today state that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople.[citation needed] The seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus declared:

It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized[99]

Eastern Orthodox today state that this Canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed drawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325, the wording of which but, it is claimed, not the substance, had been modified by the second Ecumenical Council, making additions such as "who proceeds from the Father".

In the Orthodox view, the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) would have universal primacy in a reunited Christendom, as primus inter pares without power of jurisdiction.[100]

Eastern Orthodox argue that the seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed by any man (not by Ecumenical church council) drawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325.[101] In reality, the Council made no exception for an ecumenical council or any other body of bishops,[102] and the Greeks participating in the Council of Florence emphatically denied that even an ecumenical council had the power to add anything to the creed.[103] The creed quoted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus of 431 (the third ecumenical council) is that of the first ecumenical council, that of Nicaea (325), without the modifications that the second ecumenical council, held in Constantinople in 381, is understood to have made to it, such as the addition of "who proceeds from the Father".[104][105] Eastern Orthodox theologians state this change of the wording of the churches' original creed, was done to address various teachings outside of the church in specific the Macedonius I of Constantinople teaching which the council claimed was a distortion of the church's teaching on the Holy Spirit. This was not a change of the orthodoxy of the churches' original creed.[106] Thus the word ἑτέραν in the seventh canon of the later Council of Ephesus is understood as meaning "different", "contradictory", and not "another" in the sense of mere explanatory additions to the already existing creed.[103] Some scholars hold that the additions attributed to the First Council of Constantinople were adopted only with the 451 Council of Chalcedon, 20 years after that of Ephesus,[107][108] and even that the Council of Ephesus, in which Alexandrian influence was dominant, was by this canon excluding the Constantinopolitan Creed, which eventually annexed the name and fame of the creed adopted at Nicaea.[109]

There were other less significant catalysts for the Schism however, including variance over liturgical practices.

Other points of conflict[edit]

Many other issues increased tensions.

  • Emperor Leo III the Isaurian outlawed the veneration of icons in the 8th century. This policy, which came to be called Iconoclasm, was rejected by the West with the exception of Emperor Charlemagne, who commissioned the Libri Carolini which affirmed a condemnation of the veneration of icons.
  • The Western Church's insertion of "Filioque" into the Latin version of the Nicene Creed without holding a council with or gaining consent from the Eastern Churches.[110]
  • In the East, the patriarch Photius responded to the practice of certain Frankish monks in Jerusalem who attempted to impose the practice of the Filioque on their Eastern brothers.[111]
  • Disputes in the Balkans, Southern Italy, and Sicily over whether Rome or Constantinople had ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
  • In the East, endorsement of Caesaropapism, subordination of the church to the religious claims of the dominant political order, was most fully evident in the Byzantine Empire at the end of the first millennium,[112] while in the West, where the decline of imperial authority left the Church relatively independent,[113][114][115][116] there was growth of the power of the Papacy.
  • As a result of the Muslim conquests of the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, only two rival powerful centres of ecclesiastical authority, Constantinople and Rome, remained.[117]
  • Certain liturgical practices in the West that the East believed represented illegitimate innovation: the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, for example (see Azymite).
  • Celibacy among Western priests (both monastic and parish), as opposed to the Eastern discipline whereby parish priests could be married men.

There were other less significant catalysts for the Schism however, including variance over liturgical practices.

In Eastern Christendom the teaching of Papal Supremacy is called False Isidorean Decretals[118] as it is based on the false documents of Christian canon law under the name Pseudo-Isidore. The Orthodox East contests the teaching that Peter was the Patriarch of Rome as St. Irenaeus says that Pope Linus was the first bishop of Rome and Pope Cletus the second.[119] It is generally conceded that St. Peter was bishop of Antioch who was then succeeded by Evodius and Ignatius. The Eastern Orthodox do not hold the primacy of the Pope of Rome over the Eastern church; they teach that the Pope of Rome is the first among equals. The Seven Ecumenical Councils were held in the East and called by the Eastern Emperors, Roman pontiffs never presided over any of them.[120]

Council of Constantinople in 867[edit]

At least three councils (867, 869, 879) were held in Constantinople over the deposition of Ignatius by Emperor Michael III and the replacing of him by Photius. The Pope in disagreement in 863 then held a synod at the Lateran that reversed the Eastern Churches and the Emperor's action, and this was taken by the East as an unacceptable intervention of the Pope of Rome. The use of the Filioque was also condemned. Due to various conflicts arising during the replacement of Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople by Photius, the Council of Constantinople (867) was convened via Photius, to address the question of Papal Supremacy over all of the churches and their patriarchs and the use of the Filioque.[121][122][123][124] Pope Nicholas I was intervening in the appointing of Patriarchs in jurisdictions other than his own, (Patriarchs that were supposed to be equal to him) and in their confirmation process. At the time of the early church and these councils there were no other Patriarchs in the West other than Rome, whereas there were the four other Patriarchs of the East.

Pope Nicholas had attempted to remove Photius and reappoint Ignatius as the Patriarch of Constantinople by his own authority and decree. Thus the Pope was intervening in the matters of Imperial authority as well as the other churches of the East and their own internal councils and authorities, which they understood to be outside the Pope's own jurisdiction of Rome. The council of 867 was followed by the Council of Constantinople 869. The Council of Constantinople in 879 then restored the conclusions of the Council of 867. The Roman Catholic Church rejects the councils of 867 and 879 but accepts the council of 869. Pope Nicholas I was deposed and the teaching of the Filioque was condemned in the council in 867.[122][123][124][125] The Council at Constantinople in 867 excommunicated Pope Nicholas I, who was then replaced by Pope Adrian II (due to the death of Nicholas I), and rejected Nicholas' claims of primacy, his efforts to convert Bulgaria, and the addition of the Filioque in parts of the Latin Church.[126]

Mutual excommunication of 1054[edit]

Changes in extent of the Empire ruled from Constantinople.
476 End of the Western Empire; 550 Conquests of Justinian I; 717 Accession of Leo the Isaurian; 867 Accession of Basil I; 1025 Death of Basil II; 1095 Eve of the First Crusade; 1170 Under Manuel I; 1270 Under Michael VIII Palaiologos; 1400 Before the fall of Constantinople

Most of the direct causes of the Great Schism, however, are far less grandiose than the famous filioque. The relations between the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the years leading up to 1054. The emperor Constantine IX and the Pope Leo IX were allied through the mediation of the Lombard catepan of Italy, Argyrus, who had spent years in Constantinople, originally as a political prisoner. Leo and Argyrus led armies against the ravaging Normans, but the papal forces were defeated at the Battle of Civitate in 1053, which resulted in the pope being imprisoned at Benevento, where he took it upon himself to learn Greek. Argyrus had not arrived at Civitate and his absence caused a rift in papal-imperial relations.

Meanwhile, the Normans were busy imposing Latin customs, including the unleavened bread—with papal approval. Patriarch Michael I then ordered Leo, Archbishop of Ochrid, to write a letter to the bishop of Trani, John, an Easterner, in which he attacked the "Judaistic" practices of the West, namely the use of unleavened bread. The letter was to be sent by John[clarification needed] to all the bishops of the West, including the Pope. John promptly complied, and the letter was passed to Humbert of Mourmoutiers, the cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida, who translated the letter into Latin and brought it to the Pope, who ordered a reply to be made to each charge and a defense of papal supremacy to be laid out in a response.

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent a letter to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, that cited a large portion of the forgery called the Donation of Constantine, believing it genuine.[127] The official status of this letter is acknowledged in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, entry on Donation of Constantine.[128][129]

Leo IX assured the Patriarch that the donation was completely genuine, not a fable or old wives' tale, so only the apostolic successor to Peter possessed that primacy and was the rightful head of all the Church. The Patriarch rejected the claims of papal primacy.

Michael became convinced to avoid debate and prevent the impending breach. However, Humbert and the pope made no concessions and the former was sent with legatine powers to the imperial capital to solve the questions raised once and for all. Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi set out in early spring and arrived in April 1054. They were met with a hostile reception. They stormed out of the palace, leaving the papal response with Michael, whose anger matched their own. The seals on the letter had been tampered with and the legates had published, in Greek, an earlier, far less civil, draft of the letter for the entire populace to read. The patriarch refused to recognize their authority.[130]

When Pope Leo died on 19 April 1054, the legates' authority legally ceased, but they ignored this technicality.[131]

In response to the patriarch's refusal to address the issues at hand, the legatine mission took an extreme measure. On July 16, the three legates entered the church of the Hagia Sophia during the divine liturgy on a Saturday afternoon and placed a Papal Bull of Excommunication (1054) on the altar. The legates left for Rome two days later, leaving behind a city near riots. The patriarch had the immense support of the people against the Emperor, who had supported the legates to his own detriment, and Argyrus, who was seen still as a papal ally. To assuage popular anger, Argyrus' family in Constantinople was arrested, the bull was burnt, and the legates were anathematised—the Great Schism had begun.

Orthodox bishop Kallistos (formerly Timothy Ware) writes, that the choice of cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Patriarch Michael I were men of stiff and intransigent temper... . After [an initial, unfriendly encounter] the patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a bull of excommunication against Patriarch Michael I on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom... . Michael and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert.

The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this sequence of events took place. However, these events only triggered the beginning of the schism but the schism was not actually consummated by the seemingly mutual excommunications. The New Catholic Encyclopedia reports that the legates had been careful not to intimate that the Bull of Excommunication implied a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church. The bull excommunicated only Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents. Thus, the New Catholic Encyclopedia argues that the dispute need not have produced a permanent schism any more than excommunication of any "contumacious bishop". The schism began to develop when all the other Easter patriarchs supported Caerularius. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, it was the support of Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos that impelled them to support Caerularius.[132] Some have questioned the validity of the bull on the grounds that Pope Leo IX had died at that time and so the authority of the legates to issue such a bull is unclear.[citation needed]

The legates left for Rome two days after issuing the Bull of Excommunication, leaving behind a city near riot. The patriarch had the immense support of the people against the Emperor, who had supported the legates to his own detriment. To assuage popular anger, the bull was burnt, and the legates were anathematised. It should be noted here that only the legates were anathematised and, once again, there was no explicit indication that the entire Western church was being anathematised.

In the bull of excommunication issued against Patriarch Michael, one of the reasons cited was the Eastern Church's deletion of the word "filioque" from the original Nicene Creed.[citation needed] It is now generally accepted that the Eastern Church did not delete anything and that it was the Western Church that added this word to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The bull of excommunication issued against Patriarch Michael by the papal legates made 11 accusations against Michael and "the backers of his foolishness", beginning with that of promoting to the episcopacy men who have been castrated and of rebaptizing those already baptized in the name of the Trinity, and ending with the accusation of refusing communion and baptism to menstruating women and of refusing to be in communion with those who tonsure their heads and shave their beards. Denial of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (with no mention of the Nicene Creed) is given seventh place in this list of eleven.[131][133]

"Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".[134] In fact, efforts were made in subsequent centuries by Popes and Patriarchs to heal the rift between the churches. However, a number of factors and historical events worked to widen the separation over time.

Aftermath of the mutual excommunications[edit]

Division between the Eastern and Western Churches in 1054 according to the "Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land"[135][136]
The religious distribution in 1054, according to Dragan Brujić, Guide to the Byzantine World[137]

At the time of the excommunications, many contemporary historians, including Byzantine chroniclers, did not consider the event significant.[138] Francis Dvornik stated: "In spite of what happened in 1054, the faithful of both church remained long unaware of any change in their relations and acts of intercommunion were so numerous that 1054 as the date of the schism becomes inadmissible."[139] Kallistos Ware agrees: "Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in the East and West were largely unaware."[134] In 1089, the Russian Church felt so little separated from the Western that it instituted a liturgical feast to commemorate the formerly disputed translation of about half of the relics of Saint Nicholas of Myra from Asia to Bari in Italy just two years earlier.[140] This fluidity explains in part the different interpretations of the geographical line of division in the two maps given here, one drawn up in the West, the other in a country where Eastern Orthodoxy predominates. Areas such as the extreme south of Italy are interpreted variously as adhering to either East or West. And even in areas whose rulers took one position, there were some who gave their allegiance to the other side. An example is Kingdom of Hungary, where the Roman Catholic Church was upheld by the crown from the time of Stephen I, but "monasteries and convents belonging to the Byzantine Church were founded sporadically in the eleventh century.[141]

Efforts were made in subsequent centuries by Popes and Patriarchs to heal the rift between the churches. However, a number of factors and historical events worked to widen the separation over time.[142]

East and West since 1054[edit]

"Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".[143]

There was no single event that marked the breakdown. Rather, the two churches slid into and out of schism over a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations.

Fourth Crusade[edit]

Fourth Crusade (1204) and other military conflicts[edit]

During the Fourth Crusade, however, Latin crusaders and Venetian merchants sacked Constantinople itself, looting The Church of Holy Wisdom and various other Orthodox Holy sites.[144] looting The Church of Holy Wisdom and various other Orthodox holy sites, and converting them to Latin Catholic worship. Various holy artifacts from these Orthodox holy places were then taken to the West. This event and the final treaty established the Latin Empire of the East and the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople (with various other Crusader states). This period of rule over the Byzantine Empire is known among Eastern Orthodox as Frangokratia (dominion by the Franks).

The break-up of the Byzantine Empire is seen as a factor that led to its conquest by Islam. The crusaders also appointed a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. An attempt by the Latin Empire to capture the city of Adrianople, then a Bulgarian possession, was defeated in the Battle of Adrianople (1205).[144]

In northern Europe, the Teutonic Knights, after their successes in the northern crusades,[145] attempted to conquer also the Orthodox Russian Republics of Pskov and Novgorod, an enterprise endorsed by Pope Gregory IX.[145] One of the major defeats they suffered was the Battle of the Ice in 1242. Sweden also undertook several campaigns against Orthodox Novgorod. There were also conflicts between Catholic Poland and Orthodox Russia. Such conflicts solidified the schism between East and West.

Second Council of Lyon (1272)[edit]

The Second Council of Lyon was convoked to act on a pledge by Byzantine emperor Michael VIII to reunite the Eastern church with the West.[146] Wishing to end the Great Schism that divided Rome and Constantinople, Gregory X had sent an embassy to Michael VIII Palaeologus, who had reconquered Constantinople, putting an end to the remnants of the Latin Empire in the East, and he asked Latin despots in the East to curb their ambitions.

On 29 June (Feast of Saints Peter and Paul patronal feast of Popes), Gregory X celebrated a Mass in St John's Church, where both sides took part. The council declared that the Roman church possessed "the supreme and full primacy and authority over the universal Catholic Church."

The council was seemingly a success, but did not provide a lasting solution to the schism; the Emperor was anxious to heal the schism, but the Eastern clergy proved to be obstinate. In 1275, Patriarch Joseph I Galesiotes of Constantinople abdicated, and was replaced by John Bekkos, a convert to the cause of union. In spite of a sustained campaign by Bekkos to defend the union intellectually, and vigorous and brutal repression of opponents by Michael, the vast majority of Byzantine Christians remained implacably opposed to union with the Latin "heretics". Michael's death in December 1282 put an end to the union of Lyons. His son and successor Andronicus II repudiated the union, and Bekkos was forced to abdicate, being eventually exiled and imprisoned until his death in 1297. He is to this day reviled by many in the Eastern Church as a traitor to Orthodoxy.[citation needed]

Council of Ferrara-Florence (1439)[edit]

In the 15th century, the eastern emperor John VIII Palaeologus, pressed hard by the Ottoman Turks, was keen to ally himself with the West, and to do so he arranged with Pope Eugene IV for discussions about reunion to be held again, this time at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. After several long discussions, the emperor managed to convince the Eastern representatives to accept the Western doctrines of Filioque, Purgatory and the supremacy of the Papacy. On 6 June 1439 an agreement was signed by all the Eastern bishops present but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism. It seemed that the Great Schism had been ended. However, upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the Fall of Constantinople two decades later). The union signed at Florence has never been accepted by the Eastern churches.

Fall of Constantinople[edit]

In 1453, the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Ottoman Empire. But Orthodoxy was still very strong in Russia which became autocephalous (since 1448, although this was not officially accepted by Constantinople until 1589); and thus Moscow called itself the Third Rome, as the cultural heir of Constantinople.[citation needed]

Eastern Christians expressed a belief that the Fall of Constantinople was God's punishment for the Emperor and clergy accepting the West's doctrines of Filioque, Purgatory, and the supremacy of the Papacy.[citation needed] The West did not fulfill its promise to the Eastern Emperor of troops and support if he agreed to the reconciliation. The Sack of Constantinople is still considered proof by the East that the West ultimately succeeded in its endeavor to destroy the East.[citation needed]

Under Ottoman rule, the Orthodox Church acquired power as an autonomous millet. The ecumenical patriarch was the religious and administrative ruler of the entire Rum Millet (Ottoman administrative unit), which encompassed all the Eastern Orthodox subjects of the Empire. Those appointed to the role were chosen by the Muslim State. In fact, Mehmed II when he conquered the City formally assumed the legal function of the Byzantine Emperors, and the appointment of the patriarch Gennadius II. Mehmed and his agents did all they could to stamp out pro-Roman parties among the Greek Christians, and to that end Mehmed enormously strengthened the Greek church, as this helped to protect the Ottoman Sultunate from any united Christian foe.[citation needed]

As a result of the Ottoman conquest, the entire Orthodox communion of the Balkans and the Near East became suddenly isolated from the West. For the next four hundred years, it would be confined within the Islamic world, with which it had little in common religiously or culturally. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Churches from Wallachia and Moldavia were the only part of the Orthodox communion that remained outside the control of the Ottoman Empire.

Rise of the Church of Moscow[edit]

The growing might of the Moscow contributed also to the growing authority of the Autocephalous Russian Church. In 1589, Metropolitan Job of Moscow became the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'; making the Russian Church one of the five honorable Patriarchates.

However, in 1721 Tsar Peter I abolished completely the patriarchate and so the Church effectively became a department of the government, ruled by a Most Holy Synod composed of senior bishops and lay bureaucrats appointed by the Tsar himself. An independent (from the state) patriarchate was reestablished in 1917, but after the death in 1925 of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, who had been persecuted by the Soviet authorities, the patriarchate remained vacant until 1943, when, during the Second World War, the Soviet government allowed somewhat greater freedom to the Church.

Twentieth century and beyond[edit]

Eastern Catholicism[edit]

The Eastern Catholic Churches consider themselves to have reconciled the East and West Schism by keeping their prayers and rituals similar to those of Eastern Orthodoxy, while also accepting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Some Eastern Orthodox charge that joining in this unity comes at the expense of ignoring critical doctrinal differences and past atrocities.

Since the beginnings of the Uniate movement, there have been periodic conflicts between the Orthodox and Uniate in Ukraine and Belarus, then under Polish rule,[147] and later also in Transylvania (see the Romanian Church United with Rome). During Russia's Time of Troubles there was a plan by the conquering Polish monarchy (of Latin Rite, not Uniate) to convert all of Russia to Roman Catholicism.[citation needed] The Russian national holiday, Unity Day, was established due to this conflict. Patriarch Hermogenes was martyred by the Poles and their supporters during this period (see also Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth).[148][149]

Similar pressure was also used by the Orthodox against Eastern Catholic Churches such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.[150]

At a meeting in Balamand, Lebanon in June 1993, the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church the delegates of the Eastern Orthodox Churches declared "...and that what has been called 'uniatism' can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking" (section 12 of the document).

At the same time, the Commission stated:

  • Concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in response to the spiritual needs of their faithful.
  • The Oriental Catholic Churches who have desired to re-establish full communion with the See of Rome and have remained faithful to it, have the rights and obligations which are connected with this communion.

First Vatican Council[edit]

The doctrine of papal primacy was further developed in 1870 at the First Vatican Council which declared that "in the disposition of God the Roman church holds the preeminence of ordinary power over all the other churches". This council also affirmed the dogma of papal infallibility, declaring that the infallibility of the Christian community extends to the pope himself, when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

Second Vatican Council[edit]

A major event of the Second Vatican Council, known as Vatican II, was the issuance by Pope Paul and Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras of a joint expression of regret for many of the past actions that had led up to the Great Schism between the western and eastern churches, expressed as the Catholic-Orthodox Joint declaration of 1965. At the same time, they lifted the mutual excommunications dating from the 11th century.[151]

Recent efforts at reconciliation[edit]

On June 29, 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople again withdrew the excommunications imposed in the 11th century and concelebrated the Eucharist together. In May 1999, John Paul II was the first pope since the Great Schism to visit an Eastern Orthodox country: Romania. Upon greeting John Paul II, the Romanian Patriarch Teoctist stated: "The second millennium of Christian history began with a painful wounding of the unity of the Church; the end of this millennium has seen a real commitment to restoring Christian unity."

Pope John Paul II visited other heavily Orthodox areas such as Ukraine, despite lack of welcome at times, and he said that healing the divisions between Western and Eastern Christianity was one of his fondest wishes.

The Roman Catholic Church recently[citation needed] has shown some flexibility on the Filioque issue. In accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's practice of including the clause when reciting the Creed in Latin,[152] but not when reciting the Creed in Greek,[153] Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause.[154][155][156][157][158][159] The action of these Patriarchs in reciting the Creed together with the Popes has been strongly criticized by some elements of Eastern Orthodoxy, such as the Metropolitan of Kalavryta, Greece in November 2008[160]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Granfield, Patrick; Phan, Peter C. (1 November 2000). The Gift of the Church: A Textbook Ecclesiology in Honor of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B.. Liturgical Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-8146-5931-1. Retrieved 26 October 2012. 
  2. ^ Haight, Roger D. (16 September 2004). Christian Community in History Volume 1: Historical Ecclesiology. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-8264-1630-8. Retrieved 26 October 2012. 
  3. ^ Schadé, Johannes P. (30 December 2006). Encyclopedia of World Religions. Foreign Media Group. p. 805. ISBN 978-1-60136-000-7. Retrieved 28 October 2012. 
  4. ^ Soloviev,, V.S.; Wozniuk, Vladimir (1 July 2009). Freedom, Faith, and Dogma: Essays by V. S. Soloviev on Christianity and Judaism. SUNY Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-7914-7536-2. Retrieved 9 November 2012. 
  5. ^ Makrides, Vasilios N. (1 September 2009). Hellenic Temples and Christian Churches: A Concise History of the Religious Cultures of Greece from Antiquity to the Present. NYU Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-8147-9568-2. Retrieved 9 November 2012. 
  6. ^ Rome and the Eastern Churches by Aidan Nichols pages 227-272 (chapter "The Photian Schism and the 'Filioque'") Publisher: Ignatius Press (February 1, 2010) ISBN 1586172824 ISBN 978-1586172824
  7. ^ Cleenewerck, Laurent His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Washington, DC: EUC Press (2008) pp. 145-155
  8. ^ Milton V. Anastos, Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome), Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series, 2001. ISBN 0-86078-840-7
  9. ^ a b John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2002, p144
  10. ^ Acts 11:19-26, Acts 12:24-25, Acts 13:1-3, Acts 14:24-28, Acts 15:1-2, Acts 15:22-40, Acts 18:22-23, Acts 19:21-22, Gal 2:11-14
  11. ^ John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2002, esp pp 28-29
  12. ^ John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2002, pp 162-164
  13. ^ a b John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2002, p68
  14. ^ a b c d Cleenewerck, Laurent (1 January 2008). His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Euclid University Press. p. 147-page148. ISBN 978-0-615-18361-9. Retrieved 28 October 2012. "Ending with "One could argue that the Great schism started with Victor, continued with Stephen and remained underground until the ninth century!"" 
  15. ^ Cleenewerck, Laurent (1 January 2008). His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Euclid University Press. p. 148. ISBN 978-0-615-18361-9. Retrieved 28 October 2012. [1]
  16. ^ a b c d e f g h Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972
  17. ^ Acts 28:17–31
  18. ^ Kling, David W. (20 April 2005). The Bible in History:How the Texts Have Shaped the Times. Oxford University Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-19-988096-6. Retrieved 31 October 2012. "Obviously, the church at Rome, given the dual presence of the apostles Peter and Paul, claimed a special authority. In the first three centuries, church leaders and thinkers throughout the empire increasingly recognized Rome as a center of Christianity. At the same time, the literary evidence yields no clear-cut claims to, or recognition of, papal primacy." 
  19. ^ Acts 28:17-31
  20. ^ Great Vespers of 29 June
  21. ^ Menaion, 29 June
  22. ^ The Illuminator, The Newspaper of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh, Oct.-Dec. 2004, p.7
  23. ^ "Linus was bishop of Rome after the holy apostle Peter"
  24. ^ Pope Benedict XVI is "the 265th successor of the St Peter" Order of Saint Andrew the Apostle, 2007 Annual Report to His All Holiness Bartholomew
  25. ^ Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time
  26. ^ a b c Cleenewerck, Laurent (1 January 2008). His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Euclid University Press. p. 155. ISBN 978-0-615-18361-9. Retrieved 28 October 2012. "One could argue that the Great schism started with Victor, continued with Stephen and remained underground until the ninth century!" 
  27. ^ a b Eusebius, Church History, chapter 23
  28. ^ a b c Orthodox Answers: An Orthodox Christian Historical Timeline
  29. ^ Eusebius, Church History, chapter 24
  30. ^ Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History V. p. xxiv. "But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom." 
  31. ^ The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, vol. II, p. 254
  32. ^ a b Aristeides Papadakis The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, SVS Press, NY, 1994 esp p14
  33. ^ John Freely (1 October 2000). The Companion Guide to Istanbul and Around the Marmara. Companion Guides. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-1-900639-31-6. Retrieved 2 June 2012. 
  34. ^ Jennifer Speake (2003). Literature of Travel and Exploration: A to F. Taylor & Francis. pp. 160–. ISBN 978-1-57958-425-2. Retrieved 2 June 2012. 
  35. ^ Marcus Louis Rautman (2006). Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-0-313-32437-6. Retrieved 2 June 2012. 
  36. ^ The Story of Civilization: The age of Faith; a history of medieval By Will Durant, Ariel Durant pg 3 "The city that Constantine had called Nova Roma, but which even in his lifetime had taken his name, had been founded on the Bosporus by Greek colonists about 657 bc For almost a thousand years it had been known as Byzantium;" ASIN: B001DA7Q0I
  37. ^ Lucius Boraks (1988). Religions of the West. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 48–. ISBN 978-1-55612-141-8. Retrieved 2 June 2012. 
  38. ^ Godfrey Higgins (1836). Anacalypsis an Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis: Or an Inquiry Into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions. Longman. pp. 625–. Retrieved 2 June 2012. 
  39. ^ St Metrophanes the first Patriarch of Constantinople. Saint Metrophanes, Patriarch of Constantinople, was a contemporary of St Constantine the Great (306–337). His father, Dometius, was a brother of the Roman emperor Probus (276–282). Seeing the falseness of the pagan religion, Dometius came to believe in Christ. During a time of terrible persecution of Christians at Rome, St Dometius set off to Byzantium with two of his sons, Probus and Metrophanes. They were instructed in the law of the Lord by Bishop Titus, a man of holy life. Seeing the ardent desire of Dometius to labor for the Lord, St Titus ordained him presbyter. After the death of Titus first Dometius (272–303) was elevated to the bishop's throne, and thereafter his sons, Probus (303–315) and in 316 St Metrophanes. The emperor Constantine once came to Byzantium, and was delighted by the beauty and comfortable setting of the city. And having seen the holiness of life and sagacity of St Metrophanes, the emperor took him back to Rome. Soon Constantine the Great transferred the capital from Rome to Byzantium and he brought St Metrophanes there. The First Ecumenical Council was convened in 325 to resolve the Arian heresy. Constantine the Great had the holy Fathers of the Council bestow upon St Metrophanes the title of Patriarch. Thus, the saint became the first Patriarch of Constantinople.[2]
  40. ^ a b John McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, SVS Press, NY, 2004, p173
  41. ^ John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2002, pp 162–164
  42. ^ Kallistos Ware, Orthodox Church , "Byzantium: The Church of the Seven Councils"
  43. ^ Following the establishment of Constantinople (the ancient city of Byzantium) as the state capital of the Roman Empire in the early part of the fourth century, a series of significant ecclesiastical events saw the status of the Bishop of New Rome (as Constantinople was then called) elevated to its current position and privilege.[3]
  44. ^ a b c d e f L'idea di pentarchia nella cristianità
  45. ^ Canon 3
  46. ^ Deno John Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West (University of Wisconsin Press 1989 ISBN 978-0-29911884-6), p. 172
  47. ^ Robert Andrew Baker, John M. Landers, A Summary of Christian History (B&H Publishing Group 2005 ISBN 978-0-80543288-6), p. 110
  48. ^ Klaus Schatz: Primat und Reichskirchliche Strukturen im 5. – 9. Jahrhundert
  49. ^ Matthew Bunson, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire (Infobase Publishing 2009 ISBN 978-1-43811027-1), p. 115
  50. ^ Johannes P. Schadé, Encyclopedia of World Religions (Foreign Media Group 2006 ISBN 978-1-60136000-7), section 8
  51. ^ a b c George C. Michalopulos, "Canon 28 and Eastern Papalism: Cause or Effect?"
  52. ^ "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges" (First Ecumenical Council, Canon VI).
  53. ^ "Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour" (First Ecumenical Council, Canon VII
  54. ^ Aidan Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches (Ignatius Press 2010 ISBN 978-1-58617282-4), p. 199. This was also decreed by the Council of Sardica, which declared Saint Athanasius to be the lawful bishop of Alexandria (Council of Sardica, canons 3-5).
  55. ^ "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome." (Second Ecumenical Council, [4])
  56. ^ "Let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs" (Second Ecumenical Council, Canon II)
  57. ^ Nichols (2010), p. 202
  58. ^ Nichols (2010), p. 203
  59. ^ Nichols (2010), p. 203. The First Council of Ephesus in 431 stated that it condemned Nestorius "compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Coelestine, the Roman bishop" ([http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xi.html Decree of the Council against Nestorius).
  60. ^ Nichols (2010), p. 208]
  61. ^ Nichols (2010), pp. 209-210
  62. ^ Nichols (2010), p. 210; Kenneth D. Whitehead, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic (Ignatius Press 2000 ISBN 978-0-89870802-8); Joseph Cullen Ayer, Jr, A Source Book for Ancient Church History (Mundus Publishing 2008), p. 537
  63. ^ Gelasius I on Spiritual and Temporal Power
  64. ^ Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Great Schism
  65. ^ Mark Galli, ''The Great Divorce''. Ctlibrary.com (1997-04-01). Retrieved on 2012-06-02.
  66. ^ a b NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils – Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Ccel.org (2005-06-01). Retrieved on 2012-06-02.
  67. ^ There are no primacies nor primates according to Roman Orthodox Canon Law, but only bishops with "Seniority of Honor" since all bishops are doctrinally equal. The Franco-Latin and Protestant translations of "Seniority of honor" by "primacy of honor" is theirs, not ours John Romanides [5]
  68. ^ Council of Chalcedon, 451: Resource Materials. Monachos.net (2012-05-28). Retrieved on 2012-06-02.
  69. ^ "Canon XXVIII". Fourth Ecumenical Council. "[T]he Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops [i.e., the Second Ecumenical Council], actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople." 
  70. ^ Fourth Ecumenical Council, Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Antioch
  71. ^ Bishop Kallistos (Ware) (1963), The Orthodox Church (Penguin Books, London, ISBN 0-14-020592-6), p. 34
  72. ^ Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion By Harold Joseph Berman pg 41 [6]
  73. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica 1911: Council of Chalcedon
  74. ^ McGuckin, John Anthony (18 October 2010). The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 32, 137. ISBN 978-1-4443-3731-0. Retrieved 9 November 2012. 
  75. ^ McGuckin (2010), p. 137
  76. ^ Johnson, quoted by Schaff
  77. ^ Hefele, quoted by Schaff
  78. ^ Canon 9 and Notes
  79. ^ cf. Dumville (1990)
  80. ^ Ayer, John Cullen, ed. (1913). A Source Book for Ancient Church History. Mundus Publishing (2008 reprint). pp. 538–539. 
  81. ^ Roman Revolutions and the Rise of Frankish Feudalism and Doctrine.
  82. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia
  83. ^ http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/
  84. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Leo III
  85. ^ Canon LII
  86. ^ http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.lvi.html Canon LV
  87. ^ Canon LXXXII
  88. ^ Canon XI
  89. ^ Canon VI and Schaff, "Excursus on the Marriage of the Clergy"
  90. ^ Canon XII
  91. ^ Canon XIII and Canon XLVIII
  92. ^ Andrew J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes (Lexington Books 2007 ISBN 978-0-73911977-8), p. 222
  93. ^ Ekonomou (2007), p. 223
  94. ^ Ekonomou (2007), p. 224
  95. ^ Ekonomou (2007), p. 44
  96. ^ Walter Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (2nd edition, Routledge 2003 ISBN 978-0-41530227-2), p. 64
  97. ^ a b Collins, 19.
  98. ^ Aristeides Papadakis The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, SVS Press, NY, 1994 p14)
  99. ^ (Extracts from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus). The creed quoted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (the Third Ecumenical Council) is that of the first Ecumenical Council, not the creed as modified by the second Ecumenical Council, and so does not have additions such as "who proceeds from the Father" (ibidem).
  100. ^ Emmanuel Clapsis. "Papal primacy". Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Archived from the original on 2008-06-17. Retrieved 2008-10-16. "The regional primacy can be conceived not as power or jurisdiction but only as an expression of the unity and unanimity of all the bishops, and consequently of all the churches, of an area. We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome's claims of universal primacy. [...] Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction." 
  101. ^ NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils – Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Ccel.org (2005-06-01). Retrieved on 2012-06-02.
  102. ^ The seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus declared: "It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized."
  103. ^ a b Excursus on the words πίστιν ἑτέραν
  104. ^ Extracts from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus
  105. ^ Council of Ephesus, 431: Definition of the faith at Nicaea
  106. ^ "However, the chief of the heretics who distorted the apostolic teaching concerning the Holy Spirit was Macedonius, who occupied the cathedra of Constantinople as archbishop in the 4th century and found followers for himself among former Arians and Semi-Arians. He called the Holy Spirit a creation of the Son, and a servant of the Father and the Son. Accusers of his heresy were Fathers of the Church like Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Amphilocius, Diodores of Tarsus, and others, who wrote works against the heretics. The false teaching of Macedonius was refuted first in a series of local councils and finally at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. In preserving Orthodoxy, the Second Ecumenical Council completed the Nicaean Symbol of Faith with these words: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets," as well as those articles of the Creed which follow this in the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith." Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood press 1994 (ISBN 0-938635-69-7) [7]
  107. ^ J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (Continuum International 2006 ISBN 978-0-82649216-6), chapter X
  108. ^ John Haddon Leith, Creeds of the Churches (Westminster John Knox Press 1982 ISBN 978-0-80420526-9), p. 31
  109. ^ Joan Mervyn Hussey, The Cambridge Medieval History (CUP Archive), vol. 8, p. 177
  110. ^ Quoting Aleksey Khomyakov on the Filioque and economy of the Eastern Churches and Roman Catholicism pg 87 The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the Filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. History of Russian Philosophy by N. O. Lossky ISBN 978-0-8236-8074-0
  111. ^ The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism By Richard McBrien, Harold Attridge pp. 529–530 ISBN 978-0-06-065338-5
  112. ^ "Church and State in the Byzantine Empire". Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. 
  113. ^ "Church and State in Western Europe". Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. 
  114. ^ John C. Dwyer, Church History (Paulist Press 1998 ISBN 978-0-8091-3830-2), p. 118
  115. ^ Matthew Bunson, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire (Facts on File 2002 ISBN 978-0-8160-4562-4), pp. 115–116
  116. ^ Deno John Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West (University of Wisconsin Press 1989 ISBN 978-0-299-11884-6), p. 226
  117. ^ "During the decade following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, his followers captured three of the five 'patriarchates' of the early church — Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — leaving only Rome and Constantinople, located at opposite ends of the Mediterranean and, eventually, also at opposite ends of the Schism of 1054" (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
  118. ^ Specifically, the popes recurred to Saint Peter, whose memory was sacred among all Christians, evolving a proposition known in Orthodox Catholic Church History as "False Isidorean Decretals," which alleges that Jesus made Peter head over all other Apostles setting him up as a Prince of the Church; that this headship after the death of Apostle Peter passed to subsequent Roman popes; and that therefore, the pope is the head of all bishops, a Vicar of Christ on earth. And as such he is alleged to be ipso facto an autocratic monarch of the Church, the Supreme Judge, higher than the Ecumenical Councils — one from whom all bishops and clerics receive gifts of Grace, their rights and "jurisdiction." [8]
  119. ^ J. N. D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 2005
  120. ^ The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia
    My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves (Quoted in S. Runciman, The Eastern Schism, p. 116).Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware Part I: History. ISBN 978-0-14-014656-1
  121. ^ A. Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pages 147–148;
  122. ^ a b Andrew Louth, Greek East and Latin West, pg171
  123. ^ a b S. Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI, pg69
  124. ^ a b The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy pg103 By A. Edward Siecienski Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (12 May 2010) ISBN 978-0-19-537204-5 [9]
  125. ^ A. Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pages 147–148
  126. ^ Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 2 By André Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Adrian Walford, Michael Lapidge Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (1 April 2001) ISBN 978-1-57958-282-1 Product Dimensions: 11.1x9 [10]
  127. ^ Migne's Patrologia Latina, Vol. 143 (cxliii), Col. 744–769. Also Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Amplissima Collectio, Vol. 19 (xix) Col. 635–656.
  128. ^ Knights of Columbus. Catholic Truth Committee (1913). The Catholic encyclopedia: an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic Church. Encyclopedia Press. pp. 120–. Retrieved 2 June 2012. "The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon it was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood." 
  129. ^ Wikisource-logo.svg "Donation of Constantine". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. 
  130. ^ Norwich, John J. (1967). The Normans in the South 1016–1130. p. 102. 
  131. ^ a b Norwich, John Julius (1992). Byzantium, The Apogee. New York: Alfred A. Knoff. pp. 320–321. 
  132. ^ New Catholic Encyclopedia. "...in 1053 he [Michael Caerularius] sends off a declaration of war, then shuts up the Latin churches at Constantinople, hurls a string of wild accusations, and shows in every possible way that he wants a schism, apparently for the mere pleasure of not being in communion with the West. He got his wish. After a series of wanton aggressions, unparalleled in church history, after he had begun by striking the pope's name from his diptychs, the Roman legates excommunicated him (16 July 1054). But still there was no idea of a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church, still less of all the East. The legates carefully provided against that in their Bull. They acknowledged that the emperor (Constantine IX, who was excessively annoyed at the whole quarrel), the Senate, and the majority of the inhabitants of the city were "most pious and orthodox". They excommunicated Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents. This quarrel, too, need no more have produced a permanent state of schism than the excommunication of any other contumacious bishop. The real tragedy is that gradually all the other Eastern patriarchs took sides with Caerularius, obeyed him by striking the pope's name from their diptychs, and chose of their own accord to share his schism. At first they do not seem to have wanted to do so. John III of Antioch certainly refused to go into schism at Caerularius's bidding. But, eventually, the habit they had acquired of looking to Constantinople for orders proved too strong. The emperor (not Constantine IX, but his successor) was on the side of his patriarch and they had learned too well to consider the emperor as their over-lord in spiritual matters too. Again, it was the usurped authority of Constantinople, the Erastianism of the East that turned a personal quarrel into a great schism." 
  133. ^ Text of the bull of excommunication. (PDF) . Retrieved on 2012-06-02.
  134. ^ a b Bishop Kallistos (Ware), p. 67
  135. ^ Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land
  136. ^ home.comcast.net
  137. ^ Brujić, Vodič kroz svet Vizantije (Beograd 2005), p. 51
  138. ^ John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches (Cambridge University Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-521-66738-8), p. 203
  139. ^ Eastern Churches Quarterly. Church History and Christian Reunion, January–March 1945, pp. 29–30, quoted in Archdale King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom (Gorgias Press 2007 ISBN 978-1-59333-391-1), vol. 1, p. 6
  140. ^ Dimiti Obolensky, Byzantium and the Slavs (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 1994 ISBN 978-0-88141-008-2), pp. 94–95
  141. ^ Lövei
  142. ^ The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. 2008. p. 596. ISBN 978-0-19-925246-6. 
  143. ^ Bishop Kallistos (Ware), op. cit., p. 67
  144. ^ a b During the Crusades the schism was deepened by the brutal atrocities of the French and Venetian soldiers in the pillage of Constantinople (1204), the establishment of a Latin empire, and the appointment by the pope of Latin bishops in Greek sees.318 Although this artificial empire lasted only half a century (1204–1261), it left a legacy of burning hatred in the memories of horrible desecrations and innumerable insults and outrages, which the East had to endure from the Western barbarians. Churches and monasteries were robbed and desecrated, the Greek service mocked, the clergy persecuted, and every law of decency set at defiance. In Constantinople "a prostitute was seated on the throne of the patriarch; and that daughter of Belial, as she is styled, sung and danced in the church to ridicule the hymns and processions of the Orientals." Even Pope Innocent III. accuses the pilgrims that they spared in their lust neither age nor sex, nor religious profession, and that they committed fornication, adultery, and incest in open day (in oculis omnium), "abandoning matrons and virgins dedicated to God to the lewdness of grooms." And yet this great pope insulted the Eastern church by the establishment of a Latin hierarchy on the ruins of the Byzantine empire.[11]
  145. ^ a b Christiansen, Erik (1997). The Northern Crusades. London: Penguin Books. p. 287. ISBN 0-14-026653-4. 
  146. ^ Wetterau, Bruce. World history. New York: Henry Holt and company. 1994.
  147. ^ Dimitry Pospielovsky (1998). The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia. St Vladimir's Seminary Press. pp. 96–. ISBN 978-0-88141-179-9. Retrieved 2 June 2012. 
  148. ^ Reverend R Thornton. Lives of Eminent Russian Prelates. Kessinger Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-4179-4649-0. Page 3
  149. ^ "He endured to the end and was accounted worthy of the crown of martyrdom: inflexible alike to prayers and threats, he was starved to death in prison, to be a pledge of deliverance to his country". – A N Mouravieff. A History of the Church of Russia, 1842, reprinted 2004. ISBN 1-4179-1250-2. Page 166.
  150. ^ The Ukrainian Greek Catholics: A Historical Survey. Risu.org.ua. Retrieved on 2012-06-02.
  151. ^ Joint Declaration
  152. ^ Missale Romanum 2002 (Roman Missal in Latin), p. 513
  153. ^ Ρωμαϊκό Λειτουργικό 2006 (Roman Missal in Greek), vol. 1, p. 347
  154. ^ Video recording of joint recitation
  155. ^ programme of the celebration
  156. ^ Pope, Patriarch appeal for unity
  157. ^ Asia News
  158. ^ Demetrius I
  159. ^ CNS
  160. ^ The Metropolitan's own blog, reported also by this Religious News Agency and the Russian Orthodox


External links[edit]