The Schism of 1054

Schism of 1054

Rifts

The Schism of 1054 was one of the seminal events responsible for the historical and contemporary distinction between the East and Western components of Christianity. It preceded the Catholic Reformation by several centuries and was essentially the culmination of a number of political and ecclesiastical differences between the two primary factions of the Christian church at the time. The western faction was the Catholic Church, which was represented by the interests of both the papacy and the primarily Germanic-based emperors of what was referred to as the Holy Roman Empire. The eastern faction was represented by the eastern extension of that kingdom, the Byzantine Empire, which was centered in Constantinople and represented by a number of bishops as well as by secular political leaders (who had the blessings and authority of the ecclesiastical powers as well). Although there had been divisions between these two primary sources of Christianity during the several centuries that preceded the Schism of 1054 (most notably the Photian Schism that occurred in the 860's), prior to this event such splintering was largely short-lived and the conception of Christianity was widely considered unified and embodying a solidarity that extended within and beyond globular regions. The Schism, however, was responsible for the (as of yet) irreparable separation of the western branch of Christianity from that found in the east, and can largely be attributed to the political objectives of the parties involved in the sundering at that particular time.

The political climate that served to assist in the separation of the Eastern and Western powers during the Schism of 1054 had a background that was evinced in the tensions created during the Photian Schism, as the following quote evinces. "…it really involved more central issues such as the rival claims by the papacy and the Byzantine Empire to represent the will of God on earth and, not incidentally, the rival missionary activities by the two churches in the Christianization of the Slavs (Gregory 3)." Furthermore, the immediacy in which the Schism of 1054 can be traced to unabashed political developments that helped to spur along its progress. Specifically, the Vikings of Normandy had recently come into the southern portion of Italy at the dawning of the millennia. These warriors threatened Christianity as a whole, and in particular the Byzantine Empire, when they began conquering various religious strongholds and fortifications erected by Byzantium ecclesiastical and military powers. The fact that the Normans were perceived as a threat to both the western and eastern varieties of Christianity is largely due to both divisions having both significant presences and interest in this portion of Italy. An alliance was proposed between the papacy and the Byzantine religious and political orders, which were headed by Michael Constantinople bishop Michael Cerularius and emperor Constantine IX Momachus, respectively.

However, the conflict that would largely cause the Schism of 1054 was readily apparent from the earliest formation of the proposed cooperative effort between the eastern and western factions, as the following quotation elucidates succinctly.

Common opposition to the Normans propelled the pope and the emperor [of the Byzantine Empire] toward an alliance, which had to be predicated on the pope and the emperor agreeing on religious policy. From the papal point-of-view, such a policy required the subjection of the eastern church to the pope (Gregory 4).

Naturally, to the point-of-view of the authority figures in Constantinople, the western church would need to submit to the will of the eastern power. One of the most eminent factors related to this schism is that each respective empire originated as branches of the original Roman Empire, although for several centuries the eastern and western branches of this empire had grown increasingly distant in respect to ecclesiastical customs and government rule. Although up until 1054 the Christian empire was widely regarded as homogenous, the political necessity of forging a union to defeat the Normans required a degree of humility on the part of the divergent sources of religious and political viewpoints of both Rome and Constantinople that proved impossible, largely due to the obstinacy of Cerularius and his followers and that of the papacy, which was best represented in this conflict by Cardinal Humbert. When the latter effectively excommunicated Cerularius in decidedly dramatic fashion in the midst of Constantinople's most revered houses of worship (known as Haggia Sophia) the long implied rift between the two points-of-view was complete, resulting in the Schism of 1054.

Although the split between the two factions was largely created by political motives, these were based upon or made manifest in varying ecclesiastical practices which each side accused the other of as being heretical. These viewpoints of the differing ecclesiastical customs were conceived of during the epoch in which there was a singular conception of Christianity, and any variance from that was considered incorrect, both morally and otherwise, and deserving of grounds for one to be "anathematized" (Humbert 9) what was perceived as the true and proper form of Christian practice. When attempting to analyze which of these factions was correct in its viewpoints of the proper religious customs of this religion, it is important to note that the Byzantine empire's version of Christianity was largely orthodox, and was based upon the original texts and practices of Christianity as disseminated directly from the Bible.

To that end, it should be understood that several points of variance between these two factions can be attributed to the papacy's proclivity for varying with orthodox practices written about in the Bible. The history of the Catholic church's corruption, particularly during the Reformation which took place centuries after the Schism of 1054, does not endear the Church in several respects. One of the differences between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity had to do with the divinity and regard of Jesus himself. Whereas traditional Christianity states that the Holy Ghost stems from God himself, "In the eighth century the Latin church began adding the phrase "and from the Son" to the Creed" (Gregory 7). The following quotation appears to justify the Byzantine perspective of this 'heresy'.

…we do not wish to temper with the sacred and holy creed, which holds its authority inviolate from synodal and ecumenical decrees, by the use of wrongful arguments and illegal reasoning and extreme boldness. And unlike them we do not wish to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son -- O what artifice of the devil! But rather we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" (Cerularius and the Bishops in Constantinople 10)

Although this quotation may be extreme in its working, its point is well taken. The Catholic church altered one of the religious creeds (a fundamental one at that) by adding "and the son" to attribute the Holy Ghost coming from Jesus, and was not authorized to do so.

Another point of contention between the pair of churches was related to the question of hair, beards, and how long they were allowed to be. In regards to this matter, the orthodoxy of the empire centered in Constantinople refers to the Bible as the authority, which the following quotation indicates in which Cerularius accuses the papacy of not following such written mandates. "But we declare that they do not follow the Scripture which says "Do not shave your beards" (Cerularius and the Bishops in Constantinople 10). The church of Rome refutes this claim, or rather accuses the Byzantine ecclesiastical body of heresy for following this tradition, by basing their logic on the authority of the Roman church -- which the following quotation delineates, and which cannot be considered the same source of authority as that of the Bible.