Student ID: 6419
Student ID: 6419
HIS322
Essay III
5 December 2013
The Tension of the Schism
Religions have always been a unifying factor when it comes to any nation. The
Great Schism of 1054 brought about many controversies and debates within the Christian
church, and caused Europe to split. The schism was the split between the East and the
West (Later to be known as the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church
respectively). The Western Church exercised powers that the East thought were
damaging to the Christian religion. The split brought about anger between the people of
each side. Patriarch Michael Cerularius was the head of the East at the time, and Pope
Leo IX was the head of the West.1 The split was largely brought upon because of
language barriers, the use of unleavened bread in communion, the way in which both
sides described their church, and the filioque. These theological topics not only divided
the church, but it made the people within the church look at the opposing side with anger
and distrust. The schism would go on to cause a long-term disruption in the Christian
church and cause Europe to weaken.
The first major tension between the Eastern and Western churches was the oral
and written language barrier between the two churches. The West was using Latin to say
mass, while the East was using Greek. The language barrier caused misunderstanding
between the individuals of both sides.2 With a large language barrier, it was hard for the
East and West to communicate with each other, especially in the area of theology. This
made it hard for the church officials to come to agreements and exchange ideas about the
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), 126
2
George Holmes, The Oxford History of Medieval Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 45.
1
Student ID: 6419
church with each other. Without good communication between the churches, the tension
started to build between the two.
Language seems to be a unifying factor when it comes to how people interact with
each other. The Greek language unified all the early Christians.3 This was lost when the
West started to use Latin as the official language inside the church. A unified language
could have led to a unifying church and a unified people. Both sides were keen to keep
the language that they believed to be right though. The resistance by both sides to keep
their languages just lead to more conflict then it was solving. Each side wanted to be seen
as the correct form of Christianity. Both sides thought they were right, so there could
never be an agreement.
When it came to church councils, language was also very important. All of the
ecumenical councils, until the split, were held in Greek speaking areas and were even
held in the Greek language.4 This made sure that the Latin speaking West had some
knowledge of the language, even though they did not like it. The West wanted the
councils to be held in Latin, and they eventually got what they wanted when the church
officially split. In later councils, it was hard for the councils to come to a conclusion
because of the West not wanting to communicate in Greek. The councils needed to be
held though because they were the deciding factors of how the church was to operate.
The church councils were also important because they effected the people inside
the church. The councils made the final decisions for what the church implemented in the
mass. There was still the difference of language though, and language seemed to be a
3
Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic times until the Council of
Florence, 8.
4
Joseph F. Kelly, The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History (Collegeville, Minn.:
Liturgical Press, 2009), 1.
2
Student ID: 6419
very difficult obstacle to overcome. Without the councils though, there was no way to
discuss topics that were arising in the church. When something in the church needed to be
changed, ecemunical councils were the way that it was supposed to be done. With how
hard it was to communicate because of the barriers, the language not only effected the
high church officials, but it effected the people that were attending the church.
Language was important to the common person because they were the ones that
were operating everything outside of the church. With a lack of a common language, the
communication between everyone in the nation seemed to be difficult. The language
barrier could then hinder trade between the East and the West because of not being able
to speak to each other effectively. This also made it hard for areas such as philosophy and
education to expand. The language seemed to be having an effect on the way that each
side lived. It made it hard for each side to effectively communicate with each other
regardless of what was being talked about. Not only was the oral language making it
difficult to communicate, but also the written language was just as difficult.
Written language is just as important, if not more important then oral language,
when it comes to preserving and discussing. The East and West had a very hard time
communicating with each other in the area of written language. A great example is seen
in a letter written to John the Greek bishop of Trani, from Leo the archbishop in the
West. 5 Pope Leo IX got his hands on this note and decided to have it translated from
Greek in to Latin. When Pope Leo IX read the translated note, he was enraged by what
was said. There were some words that were not translated correctly. The word ecumene,
which to the Greeks meant throughout the empire, was translated differently in the Latin
5
J. M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2013), 132.
3
Student ID: 6419
language to mean universally.6 The West thought that the East saw the patriarch as the
ruling body of the church. The West did not want the Patriarch of Constantinople to be
seen as the universal patriarch. Since the translation was different in Latin, the West was
furious by the claims that they thought the Eastern Church was making. Common errors
made in the translation show how important the language of the time really was to both
sides. Without a unifying language, the church officials always had problems with each
other. This shows how the use of one language is much more beneficial to everyone then
trying to use two different languages.
Bad translations also made it hard for both sides to understand what the other side
was thinking. There was too much that was left to chance with the translation of
documents from Latin to Greek and vice-versa. Since there was confusion, the West was
very upset when they read the letter by Leo because they did not fully understand the
letter. The West got very defensive when the East was really trying to communicate and
grow with the help of the West. Through bad translation the West had been hurt by the
East, which would effect everyone in the West. The bad translation of the note would
lead to a Libellus written by Pope Leo IX.
A Libellus, written in 1053, was written by Pope Leo IX to defend the Western
Church against the Eastern Church, specifically the Patriarch of Constantinople. Leo IX
was defending the Western church to show that they held the power. Leo IX called the
East a place for heresies and that they had been abusing the Western Church for many
years.7 This angered the East and was the wrong way to retaliate by the West. The West
was too quick to judge and respond in a terrible fashion, which only worsened the
6
7
Ibid., 133.
Ibid., 43.
4
Student ID: 6419
relationship of both churches, and the people within the church. The West wanted to
show that they were the supreme rulers when it came to the church because they believed
they had been given the power by God to rule the church effectively.
The Libellus even accused the East of being heretical themselves because of the
use of leavened bread. It said that they were attacking the Roman papacy, which Jesus
had built his church upon.8 The East had every right to be angered when this happened
because they had not done anything wrong in their eyes, and the West had just made
assumptions about a language that they did not use. There was not much that the East
could do except to believe what they thought to be the true Christian way. The East was
not easy to give in to what the West was pushing for when it came to matter of the
church.
The theological differences, especially the leavened bread controversy, were
brought up even in the politics of the East and West. In 1053, Leo was interested in
forming an alliance with the Byzantines against the Normans. The Normans were starting
to gain power, and the Western church was afraid of being overrun.9 This was crucial
because the West still needed the East when it came to military conflicts. The church
needed the Byzantine Empire to make sure that they were protected and could defeat the
Normans. This effected the regular life of the every day people because they were the
ones that were going to be overrun by the Normans. The people did not want to be taken
down by the Normans, but they were not strong enough to defend themselves from
attack. They needed someone to help them, and the Byzantine Empire was a strong force
8
Mary Stroll, Popes and Antipopes: The Politics of Eleventh Century Church Reform (Leiden: Brill, 2012),
43.
9
Clifford R. Backman, The Worlds of Medieval Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 208.
5
Student ID: 6419
at the time. The West needed Byzantine, but theological differences seemed to be at the
forefront of the partnership.
Cerularius, the Patriarch at the time in the East, decided that the East could not
help the West because the West wanted him to start using unleavened bread. The Libellus
already had angered him, and he was going to have to give up the use of leavened bread
in communion. The East believed in leavened bread, while the West had believed in
using unleavened bread for Communion.10 Slight differences in theological thinking, such
as the use of unlevened bread, had such a huge impact on rather or not the East and West
would join sides to defeat the Normans. Both sides could not seem to put aside their
theological differences, so the determining factor for alliance always seemed to go back
to theology.
Cerularius would not give up his theological stance, so there could be no political
agreement between Byzantine and the West. Both sides could have come together to be a
strong central body, but they could not give up their differences. There always seems to
be some sort of difference that causes people to not like each other and show distrust. In
the case of the East and West, it always seemed to come down to theology. Without
theology and the language barrier, it would have been easier for both sides to stay unified
and be a strong unifying body. Instead, the West had very little political power, which
made them vulnerable for attack by the Normans.
In 1053, Cerularius even closed down the Latin speaking churches in
Constantinople.11 This was major because it effected anyone that was going to those
churches. Chances are they did not understand the Latin in the first place, but they
10
11
Robert Andrew Baker, A Summary of Christian History (Nashville: Broadman Press, 2005), 110.
Walter Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London: Methuen, 2003), 85.
6
Student ID: 6419
believed in the Latin speaking church. Cerularius was making a statement against what
the East was doing in the church and how it was wrong. He pushed for the Eastern
Church and how the people in the West were just heretics. To the East, the West was just
being heretical and changing the church in any way that they seemed was right. The East
believed that the West was leading people astray, and that would effect everyone that was
in the church. The wrong doings of the church would also have an effect on the politics of
the day.
Political power at the time was just as important as the theological power that the
church had. The political power was responsible for protecting the people when it came
down to war. The church could not protect itself because of a lack of army. Politics
provided the army that the church did not have and they could work together. The West
was not as strong in political power as the East was. This gave the advantage to the East
when the West attacked them politically and theologically. The East knew that the West
would need to ask for help at some point because of the power that the East held when it
came to politics.
Another major difference that effected the relationship between the West and the
East was the way in which they described the church. The West used the Latin word
sacramentum, which was used to show a loyalty sworn to the church by the people.12 The
West saw the people as always being loyal and faithful to what the church believe in. The
West believed that this was the right way to describe the church at the time. They
believed that the people needed to understand how serious it really was to belong to the
12
John Anthony McGuckin, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual
Culture (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub Ltd., 2008), 278.
7
Student ID: 6419
church. The East looked at the church differently though, and had come up with another
way to describe the church that they belonged to.
The East used the Greek word mysterion to describe their church. This meant that
their church was more apostolic in nature and was spiritually original.13 The East took a
very biblical stance on describing their church. They were angered because the West
seemend to not care as much about the apostolic nature of the church. The East saw the
West as turning their backs on what the original purpose of the church was supposed to
be. The East wanted to make sure that they were honoring God in the right way, so they
did not conform to everything that the West was doing at the time. The different
descriptions of each church caused even more tension.
The filioque issue was the topic that finally sent everything overboard, and caused
both sides to split. The filioque is a Latin term that describes the Holy Spirit as
proceeding from the Father and the Son, instead of only from the Father. It was first
adopted at the Third Council of Toledo in 589, but not used till later.14 The slight altering
of this phrase sparked major outcry in the Eastern church. The East was enraged by the
changing of what they already believed because it was a change to what they believed
about the Holy Spirit. It is important to understand this because it was a major
controversy at the time. Without the filioque, there would have been a better chance that
there would still be one unified Christian church.
The filioque issue challenged the power of the pope and was considered heretical
by the East. The Western first officially used the filioque in their creed in about 1000.15
13
Ibid., 278.
Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday Publishing
Group, 2005), 135-136.
15
Ibid., 136.
14
8
Student ID: 6419
When the West started to use this, the East was appalled that they would distort the image
of God like they thought they were. The East did not want to conform and start using the
fiilioque in their creed. This caused a lot of argument between the Eastern and Western
church. The Eastern Church believed that the nature of God was at stake because of the
filioque.
Since the Eastern Church believed that the nature of God was at stake, it caused
them to look at the West with resentment and hate. They did not want to have to accept
something that they felt was being forced against them, and in their eyes, heretical. The
Eastern Church argued that the Council of Ephesus could be used to show the use of the
filioque as heretical.16 The Eastern Church made a good argument against the filioque
because going against what a Council had previously said would have been seen as
heretical. The Eastern Church would have felt like they were disobeying what God had
lead them to believe if they started to use the filioque in their creed. They saw the filioque
as something that would have damaged their church and their relationship with God.
The East saw the addition of the filioque in the creed said in mass as heretical also
because there was no push for an ecumenical council that could officially include it in to
the creed.17 If the West had a council to discuss the addition of the filioque, then the East
may have accepted it in to their creed. The East believed that the papacy was abusing its
power. To the East this was blasphemy and just another theological dispute that would
cause the tension between the East and West to build. This also starts to show that the
papacy believes that they have power to do anything they want, especially when it comes
to church matters. This angered the East because they do not think that the church should
16
A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque; History of a Doctrinal Controversy (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2010), 5.
17
Ibid.,115.
9
Student ID: 6419
have that amount of power. The East saw the West as changing the church in a way that
was going to compromise everything that the believed.
The West, on the other hand, saw the attack of the East on the church as a creation
of the devil.18 They believed that Cerularius was an evil person and was trying to destroy
the church. Cerularius was upset when he heard this, and it added a lot of tension to the
East. After the West said this about Cerularius, Cerularius started to ignore what the East
had to say and did not acknowledge them at all. Since Cerularius ignored the West, it hurt
the relationship between the two sides even more because the East was practically done
with dealing with the West.
Finally, in 1054, Leo IX sent papal legates with a bull to excommunicate Michael
Cerularius.19 This officially split the Eastern and Western church. This was a major blow
to the East. Their leader was now excommunicated from the church that they had
belonged to for so long. The theological differences that lead to this were great, and the
tension had been building for quite some time. The East had every right to be angered by
this though because they believed what they were doing was what God had wanted the
church to do all along. They believed that they were following God in the correct way,
and the West was not doing what they should be doing within the church.
Not only did Pope Leo IX excommunicate the pope, but he also excommunicated
the people that received communion from a Greek speaking church.20 This was major
because the pope had now attacked the people of the east directly. The only churches they
had to go to were Greek-speaking churches. This caused the people of the East to be
angry with the pope and not trust him as a spiritual leader. The Eastern people now
18
Stroll, Popes and Antipopes: The Politics of Eleventh Century Church Reform, 44.
F. Donald Logan, A History of the Church in the Middle Ages (London: Routledge, 2002), 108
20
Stroll, Popes and Antipopes: The Politics of Eleventh Century Church Reform, 45.
19
10
Student ID: 6419
looked at Michael Cerularius as their leader when it came to spiritual and theological
topics within the church. There were now two leaders of the church, the pope and the
patriarch.
The East was so frustrated that Cerularius responded by excommunicating the
pope.21 This was so significant because now both sides had excommunicated one another.
The East showed that they were not going to back down and conform to what the West
was doing in the church. It took a lot of guts for the East to stand up to the West. The
East knew that they had very good political backing though and that would help to keep
them strong. They were also doing everything in the church that they believed to be the
correct way that God wanted it.
The West never was able to respond to the excommunication because Leo IX died
in the spring of 1054.22 This was significant to the West because they were now split
from the East, and they had no pope to replace Leo IX. The death just added to the
confusion of what was happening on both sides. Both the East and the West were still
upset and angry at each other over what had happened. The West seemed to be the
angriest because of the way in which the East did not conform to what the West wanted
them to. There seemed to be no reconciliation within the first few years. Both of the
excommunications were valid though, and both sides were now officially split in the
matter of the church.
Since the church was now officially split, it made unification all the more
difficult. Both sides now had to add an official split between them to add to the factors
that were separating them. There had been so much tension that led to this point that it
21
S. Wise Bauer, The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First
Crusade (New York: W.W. Norton, 2010), 594.
22
Ullman, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, 87.
11
Student ID: 6419
was inevitably going to happen. It was now official though, and both sides would look at
each other differently. This effected everyone because pretty much everyone went to
church during this time. Everyone wanted to be saved and sent to heaven, so they all
attended church. When they knew that they were separated from the each other, it would
just add to the disunity that was already apparent.
When both sides did eventually split, the use of ecumenical councils became
irrelevant to the East. All councils after the split were all Latin speaking councils, and did
not include the Eastern Church.23 The East did not bother with any council beyond the
schism in 1054. This caused even more division between the two churches because the
East was not accepting anything that was happening in those councils. As the West
started to put in to effect anything that was said at the council, the East was not aware of
any of the changes. This made the East and West church look very different from each
other, which made the East and West bitter toward each other in all aspects of life.
Overall, the Great Schism of 1054 caused problems between East and West. The
theological differences had caused an impact on all aspects of life to both sides. Had they
unified in some areas, there would have been a much larger church body. Unification
would have also made for a stronger Europe. The East took the brunt of the blow with
being excommunicated first, when they were only doing what they saw as the right way
to be a Christian. This caused the Christian church to be weaker as a whole and would
cause many other splits down the road. If both sides could have come to an agreement in
every way, the church would have been strong. That would require a perfect world
though, so there was always tension between the two sides.
23
Kelly, The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History, 1.
12
Student ID: 6419
Bibliography
Backman, Clifford R.. The Worlds of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2003.
Baker, Robert Andrew. A Summary of Christian history. Nashville: Broadman Press,
2005.
Bauer, S. Wise. The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine
to the First Crusade. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010.
Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday
Publishing Group, 2005.
Chadwick, Henry. East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church : From Apostolic
Times until the Council of Florence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Holmes, George. The Oxford History of Medieval Europe. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Hussey, J. M.. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
2010.
Kelly, Joseph F. The Ecumenical Ccouncils of the Catholic Church: A History.
Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2009.
Logan, F. Donald. A History of the Church in the Middle Ages. London: Routledge, 2002.
McGuckin, John Anthony. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History,
Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Ltd., 2008.
Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2010.
Stroll, Mary. Popes and Antipopes: the Politics of Eleventh Century Church Reform.
Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Ullmann, Walter. A short history of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London: Methuen,
2003.
13