A Church Divided: The East-West Schism of 1054
A Church Divided: The East-West Schism of 1054
Surely a division now called the "Great Schism" should command our attention, but it is vital that we do not impute similar significance to all modern disagreements in the church.
In the twenty-first century, we're no strangers to church schism, and if we read our Bibles closely, we realize that the more things change, the more they stay the same. From the time of the New Testament right up to the year of our Lord, 2024, irreconcilable division remains an unfortunate personality feature of Christ's bride.
On this day, we remember the greatest schism of them all: the East-West Schism, which broke communion between Constantinople and Rome and was formalized on July 16, 1054.
The formality of this schism came in the delivery of a papal bull to the Hagia Sophia, excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, and, by extension, the clergy under his authority from communion with Rome.
To understand how the church reached this breaking point, I want to start by explaining why we have an “East” and a “West” to consider at all in the Christian church of the Middle Ages. The church's eastern and western centers of power had been on different trajectories since the fall of the Roman empire in the West in the fifth century. Constantinople emerged as the locus of political power for what remained of the empire in the East (also called the Byzantine Empire) while remaining a religious power among equals – the bishoprics of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The latter two fell in prominence with the rise of Islam in the seventh century – a threat that remained present on the eastern frontier as it was firmly rebuffed in the West in 732.
On top of the external threat of Islam, politically and religiously, the churches in the East struggled to maintain orthodoxy within their ranks, holding four major ecumenical councils between the sixth and ninth centuries on issues relating to the person of Christ and the Trinity. Meanwhile, in the West, theological disputes remained minimal as monasteries cropped up across the Italian peninsula and beyond – even producing Gregory the Great, the first monastic bishop of Rome at the end of the sixth century. As the church enjoyed its stability, new European peoples entered its ranks, such as the Goths, the Vandals, and, most significantly to our story, the Franks.
The Christianization of the Franks marks an important turn in the history of the church, as their greatest king, Charlemagne, was a key player in the merging of interests between secular and sacred powers in the West. The Latin-speaking church finally had a strong protector, and the Franks found an avenue to "make their kingdom into a western empire as Roman as possible." [1] Those in Constantinople, who saw themselves as the rightful heirs to Rome's legacy, didn't love Charlemagne, but they worked with him as the geopolitical situation required.
The Filioque clause (literally "and the Son") was added by the Western Church to the Nicene Creed at the Council of Toledo in 598, meaning that Latin-speaking Christians affirmed that within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Their agreeableness was rewarded with the papacy's refusal to pressure Greek-speaking Christians on doctrinal matters, most notably the Filioque issue, a matter critical to Frankish Christians, generally accepted within the West and wholly rejected in the East. The Filioque clause (literally "and the Son") was added by the Western Church to the Nicene Creed at the Council of Toledo in 598, meaning that Latin-speaking Christians affirmed that within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. I'm a historian, not a theologian by training, so I am especially wary of wading too deeply into Trinitarian discussions, but I will quote Steven Nicols, writing for Ligonier, who summarizes the issue nicely: "The Eastern churches, while affirming the Trinity as three persons in one substance, tend to emphasize the threeness of the Trinity, the individual persons. The West, again while affirming the orthodox definition of the Trinity, tends to emphasize the unity of the Godhead." [2]
Theologically, the Filioque was indeed a significant issue of contention. Still, a deeper dive into the preceding years indicates that this credal clause was one among many points of contention, and even then, not a major one. It comes up repeatedly in church relations, but as theologian Henry Chadwick points out, the popes attempted as late as 800 to brush over the issue, even posting the creed sans Filioque in Latin and Greek in Rome. [3] Similarly, icons, popular in the East and regarded with suspicion in the West, were also a sticking point, but this difference could be withstood.
The generations after Charlemagne could not maintain this relative stability, as his successors failed to sustain a united, western front, such that the dynasty ended in 887. The Frankish kings' relationship with the papacy deteriorated in the intervening years, leading to frustrated popes, imprisoned popes, and anti-popes. Rather than wither away in weakness, the bishops of Rome throughout the ninth century pressed on in their pursuit of ecclesiastical primacy. The "most forceful" of these power-seekers was Pope Nicholas I, who forced a preview of our Great Schism in his challenge to Photius, an on-again, off-again patriarch of Constantinople in the 860s. [4] The two leading Christian figures excommunicated one another, triggering the ecumenical Fourth Council of Constantinople. Photius was deposed, and the use of icons was affirmed. Ten years later, the Eastern churches held their own council (confusingly, also called the Fourth Council of Constantinople), where Photius presided, and the rejection of the Filioque by the East was reaffirmed.
The Frankish kings' relationship with the papacy deteriorated in the intervening years, leading to frustrated popes, imprisoned popes, and anti-popes.
Papal legates attended this council, but historians debate how well this Eastern council was accepted in the West. Any assumptions that the schism had been put to rest were tested when the Normans came on the scene at the beginning of the eleventh century. In 1016, these Christian descendants of the Vikings invaded southern Italy, which, at the time, was a part of the Byzantine Empire. As successful invaders, the Normans immediately began to impose their western religious practice over the existing Byzantine practices. While the Filioque was added to the creed, the issue that drew the most fire from the East was the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. The Eastern churches strictly use leavened bread as the Eucharist is seen as a completion of the Passover, indicating that there is no need to fast, and Christians could rest and rejoice in Christ's resurrection.
The year before the fated bull, 1053, a letter from the archbishop of Ochrid (in present-day North Macedonia) decrying the use of unleavened bread circulated among the Italian bishops, including the one in Rome, Pope Leo IX. At the same time, Patriarch Michael Cerularius banned Latin practices at churches within Constantinople. In a time of intense papal reform and pursuit of central ecclesiastical power, Leo IX could not let this slide. It was time to cement Rome's position as the center of authority for a unified Christian church.
Pope Leo IX decided the best response was to send a delegation to Constantinople. Not only would his legates be able to work out their theological issues, but they would also be able to appeal to the emperor for a military alliance against the Normans, who were becoming a source of concern for the pope. To lead this delegation, Leo IX brought in Humbert of Silva Candida, a monk turned cardinal who was serving as the archbishop of Sicily by the 1050s. Humbert is often cast as a fiery character and had written against Cerularius in his tract, "Against the Slander of the Greeks." None of this boded particularly well for the delegation in either mission.
Theologically, Cerularius and Humbert never got along, and after two months in Constantinople, Humbert ended the matter with his bull of excommunication. Cerularius responded in short order with a synod that resulted in the pope's excommunication from the East. Though the pope had died by this point, his successor failed to address the matter when the delegation returned. The appeal for an alliance failed, too, but it worked out just as well for the papacy, who allied with the Normans five years later. [5]
Excommunications had been delivered between the fall of Rome and the East-West Schism, but the two sides had always managed to work things out before 1054. Even decades following the schism, Eastern Christians joined Western Christians on Crusade. While there were periods when reconciliation seemed possible, any chances of reunion died along with thousands of Eastern Christians in the vicious sack of their capital, Constantinople, in 1204.
It took over nine centuries before much healing could take place. While still not formally reconciled, Rome recognized the validity of the Eastern church's sacraments at the Second Vatican Council, including the leavened bread so greatly valued by Cerularius and his fellow Eastern Christians.
We have good reason to be concerned with schisms in the church. They fracture the bride of Christ on important issues of the faith. Surely a division now called the "Great Schism" should command our attention, but it is vital that we do not impute similar significance to all modern disagreements in the church. Rather than a one-off flashpoint, this schism represented the culmination of four hundred years of theological division, and it was still nearly two hundred years until this divide made its way to the people of these churches in outright warfare. This suggests that the most important issues dividing the church are rarely the hot-button issues of the day but instead the long-simmering disputes, and that even then, there is always room for healing.
[1] Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 84
[2] Stephen Nichols, "The Great Schism of 1054," Ligonier, accessed June 27, 2024.
[3] "Chadwick, East and West, 91.
[4] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Saint Nicholas I," Encyclopedia Britannica, March 28, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Nicholas-I.
[5] Robin Pierson, “Episode 188 –– The Great Schism,” The History of Byzantium, March 15, 2019,
https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2019/03/15/episode-188-the-great-schism.
