Today,
there are three main branches of the Christian Faith: Roman Catholic, Eastern
Orthodox, and Protestant. In the West, there has been a great deal written
about the break in the Christian faith that occurred because of the Protestant
Reformation; however, there is very little written about the first major break
in the Christian Faith between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. In
fact, only one book in print deals with the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, the
person at the center of the Schism. There are several reasons for this.
First, the West tends to view the
Eastern branch of the faith as Catholic without the pope. With that outlook,
there is little reason to study its history or its theology. Unfortunately for
the West, the Eastern Orthodox Church is quite different from the Roman
Catholic Church so the West needs to revise its opinion.
Secondly, the West is more concerned
with the Protestant Churches and Roman Catholic Church because these churches
are in the West. They share a common heritage and many in the West belong to
either of these two branches. In addition, the Eastern Orthodox Church
has been hurt first by the Muslim
development in the Middle East and then by the Communist conquest of its
territories in Eastern Europe.
Third, the further back in history, the less primary sources survive. In addition, when there were disputes in the church, the victor usually destroyed the writings of the vanquished leaving only a biased view. In many cases, the only remains of an argument are the lines quoted by the victor.
Most Church historians, including Sir
Steven Runciman, believe that the Schism came to its climax in 1054 with the
two anathemas between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome.
These historians propose that the actual schism began several centuries before
when the Roman Empire split into two empires with capitals in Rome and
Constantinople. A second proposal for the Schism is that it came to its climax
during the patriarchate of Photius in the eighth century. This theory proposes
that the two churches were in denial that they had diverged into separate
churches. A third set of historians contend that the events of 1054 were just a
bump in the road and that the Schism was actually a result of the West
conquering Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, which made
possible its eventual downfall to the Muslims in 1453. They contend that the
Eastern Church and the Greek people have never forgiven the West for its part.
The first proposal is the most common and the following pages examine it.[1]
Without Rome’s cohesive ability or
presence, historians believe that the empire and church divided along cultural,
political, and economic lines. Rome had
always been an empire of many different cultures. There have been claims that
the different ethnic groups actually welcomed Roman conquest because their rule
was preferable to the corrupt local leaders; however, other sources portray the
Romans differently: they recall the Romans’ harsh treatment of the Gauls and
Spaniards when those territories were conquered.[2]
The Romans held their empire together
by building a strong system of roads to connect the provinces. Some sources
claim that the Roman roads were better than modern roads. Many modern European
roads follow the same path that the Romans made. Some modern roads are simply
the Roman roads repaved.
In addition, the Romans kept the empire
together with a strong military. The roads made it possible for the soldiers to
get to trouble quickly. Early in the empire’s history, every male citizen was
required to serve in the military. Later in its history, the empire no longer
required its citizens to enlist in the army. Instead, it filled its army with
German mercenaries. The mercenaries were less concerned with serving the Romans
than earning their pay.[3]
The German mercenaries slowly became the majority in the Roman army. They were not willing to fight the other German tribes as they migrated south into Roman territory. This opened the Western Empire to the German “barbarians.” A few years before, Constantine had seen this happening so he moved the main capital from Rome to Constantinople.
The move of the capital to the East
also moved the economy to the East despite the continuation of Rome as the
western capital. The city of Rome became a shell of its former self. The
barbarians continued their march south and sacked Rome. The western capital
moved northwest to Ravenna, Italy, because the empire could not defend the city
of Rome. This left the pope as the only authority figure left in the city of
Rome. Eventually, the empire could not sustain the western capital and it fell
leaving the pope as the only authority figure in the West that remained from
the days of Roman glory.[4]
The Eastern Empire was different
culturally from the West. Most importantly, the East spoke Greek while the West
spoke Latin. This meant that communication between the East and West was
difficult. There were times when the church leaders could not comprehend each
other. This effectively divided the church into eastern and western
counterparts.[5]
According to J. Végh, the cultural
difference goes deeper than just language. In fact, it relates to the Eastern
and Western views of life and human purpose. The Eastern Orthodox view life and
their purpose in this world:
It is said of the Easterners that they are passive and tend to be mystical, naturally inclined to meditation, consideration, and reflection. Their interest is more directed to the glorification of heaven and earth, the deification of man, than to the social, political, and cultural problems of the present time. In their opinion, government must take care of these. The Westerners, on the other hand, are active, practical, aggressive, and progressive. They show tremendous interest in life here and now. They want to give direction to this life and enjoy giving attention to all sorts of social problems of the present; they stimulate the organization of Christian political parties and “doing” science. They have never abandoned the rule of the church and given it to the state or the head of state, as one often sees in the Orthodox countries. On the contrary, the pope has often played a big role in world politics, crowning and deposing emperors and kings.[6]
In addition, the Eastern churches are
more communal in their approach to the faith. The community is the most
important thing to the Eastern Orthodox. The West, on the other hand, has been
much more individualistic. According to Vegh, in the West, the rights of the
individual are more important then the community.[7]
These differences led to different
theological beliefs in the Eastern and Western Churches. For instance, during
the Protestant Reformation, transubstantiation was an important issue of
debate. For the most part, Protestants claimed that it was a remembrance
ceremony while the Roman Catholics claimed that the bread and wine became the
actual blood and body of Christ. For the Eastern Orthodox, there is no reason
to debate the issue. As part of the creation, Jesus gloried the bread and wine
by touching them while he ministered on the earth. That was the importance of
the Eucharist for the Eastern Orthodox.[8]
In addition, historians argue that the
different heresies the two churches faced shaped their beliefs. In the West,
heretics challenged the divinity of Christ. While in the East, heretics
challenged the humanity of Christ. This difference greatly enhanced the debate
that existed between the East and West and influenced the practices that they
followed. Neither side could understand why the other was following different
practices because of the language barrier. This caused the division to grow.
Undoubtedly, the theory is correct that
the two churches slowly moved away from one another; however, the theory does
not take into account the arguments that the two sides presented against one
another. The prominent historians accept that there was a disagreement between
the two churches and that they agreed to separate over it. Instead of looking
at the argument, they look at the history that led up to the split and claim
that it had been building for centuries. Perhaps it was; however, the
historians should examine the issues under debate. This paper will attempt to
look at and examine the debate between the East and the West.
When one looks at the arguments presented, the whole event begins to look less dramatic. The issues in the disagreement had been under discussion for centuries and the two churches remained technically together. But there was a point in the relationship of the two churches where the differences were simply too great for one church to exist and this division remains to this day. What made 1054 so unique?