East–West Schism
The East–West Schism, also known as the Great Schism or the Schism of 1054, is the break of communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church since 1054. A series of ecclesiastical differences, theological disputes and geopolitical tensions between the Greek East and Latin West preceded the formal split in 1054. Prominent among these were the procession of the Holy Spirit, whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist, iconoclasm, the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor of the Romans in 800, the pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the pentarchy. Although 1054 has become conventional, various scholars have proposed different dates for the Great Schism, including 1009, 1204, 1277, and 1484.
The first action that led to a formal schism occurred in 1053 when Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople. In 1054, the papal legate sent by Leo IX travelled to Constantinople to deny Cerularius the title of "ecumenical patriarch" and insist that he recognize the pope's claim to be the head of all of the churches, and to seek help from the Byzantine emperor, Constantine IX Monomachos, in view of the Norman conquest of southern Italy, and to respond to Leo of Ohrid's attacks on the use of unleavened bread and other Western customs, attacks that had the support of Cerularius. When the leader of the legation, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, learned that Cerularius had refused to accept the demand, he excommunicated him, and in response Cerularius excommunicated Humbert and the other legates.
The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful because Pope Leo had died and Cerularius' excommunication only applied to the legates personally. Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed: each side occasionally accuses the other of committing heresy and of having initiated the schism. Reconciliation was made increasingly difficult in the generations that followed; events such as the Latin-led Crusades, though originally intended to aid the Eastern Church, only served to further tension. The Massacre of the Latins in 1182 greatly deepened existing animosity and led to the West's retaliation via the Sacking of Thessalonica in 1185, the pillaging of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and the imposition of Latin patriarchs. The emergence of competing Greek and Latin hierarchies in the Crusader states, especially with two claimants to the patriarchal sees of Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, made the existence of a schism clear. Several attempts at reconciliation did not bear fruit.
In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I nullified the anathemas of 1054, although this merely as a gesture of goodwill and not constituting any sort of reunion. The absence of full communion between the Churches is even explicitly mentioned when the Code of Canon Law gives Catholic ministers permission to administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist, and the anointing of the sick to members of eastern churches such as the Eastern Orthodox Church and members of western churches such as the Old Catholic Church, when those members spontaneously request these. Contacts between the two sides continue. Every year a delegation from each joins in the other's celebration of its patronal feast, Saints Peter and Paul for Rome and Saint Andrew for Constantinople, and there have been several visits by the head of each to the other. The efforts of the ecumenical patriarchs towards reconciliation with the Catholic Church have often been the target of sharp internal criticism.
Differences underlying the schism
emphasizes that "while the East–West schism stemmed largely from political and ecclesiastical discord, this discord also reflected basic theological differences". Pelikan further argues that the antagonists in the 11th century inappropriately exaggerated their theological differences, whereas modern historians tend to minimize them. Pelikan asserts that the documents from that era evidence the "depths of intellectual alienation that had developed between the two sections of Christendom." While the two sides were technically more guilty of schism than of heresy, they often charged each other with blasphemy. Pelikan describes much of the dispute as dealing with "regional differences in usages and customs", some of which were adiaphorous. However, he goes on to say that while it was easy in principle to accept the existence of adiaphora, it was difficult in actual practice to distinguish customs which were innocuously adiaphoric from those that had doctrinal implications.Ecclesiological disputes
, an English Eastern Orthodox theologian, asserted that the underlying cause of the East–West schism was and continues to be "the clash of these two fundamentally irreconcilable ecclesiologies". Roger Haight characterized the question of episcopal authority in the Church as "acute" with the "relative standings of Rome and Constantinople a recurrent source of tension". Haight further characterized the difference in ecclesiologies as "the contrast between a pope with universal jurisdiction and a combination of the patriarchal superstructure with an episcopal and synodal communion ecclesiology analogous to that found in Cyprian". However, Nicholas Afanasiev has criticized both the Catholic and Orthodox churches for "subscribing to the universal ecclesiology of St. Cyprian of Carthage according to which only one true and universal church can exist".Another point of controversy was celibacy among Western priests, as opposed to the Eastern discipline, under which parish priests could be married men. However, the Latin church has always had some priests who were legally married. They have been a small minority since the 12th century.
Ecclesiological structure
There are several different ecclesiologies: "communion ecclesiology", "eucharistic ecclesiology", "baptismal ecclesiology", "trinitarian ecclesiology", and "kerygmatic theology". Other ecclesiologies are the "hierarchical-institutional" and the "organic-mystical", and the "congregationalist".The Eastern Churches maintained the idea that every local city-church with its bishop, presbyters, deacons, and people celebrating the eucharist constituted the whole church. In this view called eucharistic ecclesiology, every bishop is Saint Peter's successor in his church, and the churches form what Eusebius of Caesarea called a common union of churches. This implied that all bishops were ontologically equal, although functionally particular bishops could be granted special privileges by other bishops and serve as metropolitan bishops, archbishops or patriarchs. Within the Roman Empire, from the time of Constantine the Great to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, universal ecclesiology, rather than eucharistic, became the operative principle.
The view prevailed that, "when the Roman Empire became Christian the perfect world order willed by God had been achieved: one universal empire was sovereign and coterminous with it was the one universal church". Early on, the Roman Church's ecclesiology was universal, with the idea that the Church was a worldwide organism with a divinely appointed center: the Church/Bishop of Rome. These two views are still present in modern Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism and can be seen as foundational causes of the schisms, including the Great Schism between East and West.
The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of papal authority outlined in the First Vatican Council, and taught today in the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church has always maintained the original position of the bishops' collegiality, resulting in a church structure closer to a confederation. The Orthodox have synods in which the highest authorities in each church community are brought together, but unlike the Catholic Church, no central individual or figure has the absolute, infallible last word on church doctrine. In practice, this has sometimes led to divisions among Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, as no central authority can serve as an arbitrator for various internal disputes.
Since the second half of the 20th century, eucharistic ecclesiology has been upheld by Catholic theologians. Henri de Lubac writes: "The Church, like the Eucharist, is a mystery of unity—the same mystery, and one with inexhaustible riches. Both are the body of Christ—the same body." Joseph Ratzinger called eucharistic ecclesiology "the real core of Vatican II's teaching on the cross". According to Ratzinger, the one church of God exists in no other way than in the various individual local congregations. In these, the eucharist is celebrated in union with the Church everywhere. Eucharistic ecclesiology led the council to "affirm the theological significance of the local church. If each celebration of the Eucharist is a matter not only of Christ's sacramental presence on the altar but also of his ecclesial presence in the gathered community, then each local eucharistic church must be more than a subset of the universal church; it must be the body of Christ 'in that place'."
The ecclesiological dimension of the East–West schism revolves around the authority of bishops within their dioceses and the lines of authority between bishops of different dioceses. It is common for Catholics to insist on the primacy of Roman and papal authority based on patristic writings and conciliar documents.
Papal privilege and authority
The Catholic Church's current official teachings about papal privilege and power that are unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox churches are the dogma of the pope's infallibility when speaking officially "from the chair of Peter " on matters of faith and morals to be held by the whole Church, so that such definitions are irreformable "of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church" and have a binding character for all Christians in the world; the pope's direct episcopal jurisdiction over all Christians in the world; the pope's authority to appoint the bishops of all Christian churches except in the territory of a patriarchate; and the affirmation that the legitimacy and authority of all Christian bishops in the world derive from their union with the Roman see and its bishop.Principal among the ecclesiastical issues separating the two churches is the meaning of papal primacy in any future unified church. The Orthodox insist that it should be a "primacy of honor", and not a "primacy of authority", whereas the Catholics see the pontiff's role as required for its exercise of power and authority, the exact form of which is open to discussion with other Christians. According to Eastern Orthodox belief, the test of catholicity is adherence to the authority of Scripture and then by the Holy Tradition of the church. It is not defined by adherence to any particular see. The Orthodox Church holds that it has never accepted the pope as the de jure leader of the entire church.
Referring to Ignatius of Antioch, Carlton says:
The church is in the image of the Trinity and reflects the reality of the incarnation.