Why were Catholics and Orthodox Christians divided? Schism of the Christian Church

In 1054, the Christian Church collapsed into Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Greek Catholic). The Eastern Christian Church began to be called Orthodox, i.e. true believer, and those professing Christianity according to the Greek rite are orthodox or true believers.

The “Great Schism” between the Eastern and Western Churches matured gradually, as a result of long and complex processes that began long before the 11th century.

Disagreements between the Eastern and Western Churches before the schism (a brief overview)

The disagreements between East and West that caused the “Great Schism” and accumulated over the centuries were political, cultural, ecclesiological, theological and ritual in nature.

a) Political differences between East and West were rooted in the political antagonism between the Roman popes and the Byzantine emperors (basileus). At the time of the apostles, when the Christian Church was just emerging, the Roman Empire was a unified empire, both politically and culturally, headed by one emperor. From the end of the 3rd century. the empire, de jure still unified, was de facto divided into two parts - Eastern and Western, each of which was under the control of its own emperor (Emperor Theodosius (346-395) was the last Roman emperor who led the entire Roman Empire). Constantine exacerbated the process of division by founding a new capital in the east, Constantinople, along with ancient Rome in Italy. The Roman bishops, based on the central position of Rome as an imperial city, and on the origin of the see from the supreme apostle Peter, began to claim a special, dominant position in the entire Church. In subsequent centuries, the ambitions of the Roman high priests only grew, pride took its poisonous roots deeper and deeper into the church life of the West. Unlike the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the Roman Popes maintained independence from the Byzantine emperors, did not submit to them unless they considered it necessary, and sometimes openly opposed them.

In addition, in the year 800, Pope Leo III in Rome crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne with the imperial crown as Roman Emperor, who in the eyes of his contemporaries became “equal” to the Eastern Emperor and on whose political power the Bishop of Rome was able to rely in his claims. The emperors of the Byzantine Empire, who themselves considered themselves successors to the Roman Empire, refused to recognize the imperial title for Charles. The Byzantines viewed Charlemagne as a usurper and the papal coronation as an act of division within the empire.

b) Cultural alienation between East and West was largely due to the fact that in the Eastern Roman Empire they spoke Greek, and in the Western Empire they spoke Latin. In the time of the apostles, when the Roman Empire was unified, Greek and Latin were understood almost everywhere, and many could speak both languages. However, by 450 very few in Western Europe could read Greek, and after 600 few in Byzantium spoke Latin, the language of the Romans, although the empire continued to be called Roman. If the Greeks wanted to read the books of Latin authors, and the Latins the works of the Greeks, they could only do this in translation. And this meant that the Greek East and the Latin West drew information from different sources and read different books, as a result becoming more and more distant from each other. In the East they read Plato and Aristotle, in the West they read Cicero and Seneca. The main theological authorities of the Eastern Church were the fathers of the era of the Ecumenical Councils, such as Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria. In the West, the most widely read Christian author was St. Augustine (who was almost unknown in the East) - his theological system was much simpler to understand and more easily accepted by barbarian converts to Christianity than the sophisticated reasoning of the Greek fathers.

c) Ecclesiological disagreements. Political and cultural disagreements could not but affect the life of the Church and only contributed to church discord between Rome and Constantinople. Throughout the era of the Ecumenical Councils in the West, a doctrine of papal primacy (i.e. the Roman bishop as the head of the Universal Church). At the same time, in the East the primacy of the Bishop of Constantinople increased, and from the end of the 6th century he acquired the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch”. However, in the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople was never perceived as the head of the Universal Church: he was only second in rank after the Bishop of Rome and first in honor among the Eastern patriarchs. In the West, the Pope began to be perceived precisely as the head of the Universal Church, to whom the Church throughout the world must obey.

In the East there were 4 sees (i.e. 4 Local Churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) and, accordingly, 4 patriarchs. The East recognized the Pope as the first bishop of the Church - but first among equals. In the West there was only one throne that claimed apostolic origin - namely, the Roman throne. As a result of this, Rome came to be regarded as the only apostolic see. Although the West accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, it itself did not play an active role in them; In the Church, the West saw not so much a college as a monarchy - the monarchy of the Pope.

The Greeks recognized the primacy of honor for the Pope, but not universal superiority, as the Pope himself believed. Championship "by honor" in modern language it may mean “most respected,” but it does not abolish the Conciliar structure of the church (that is, making all decisions collectively through the convening of Councils of all churches, primarily apostolic). The Pope considered infallibility his prerogative, but the Greeks were convinced that in matters of faith the final decision rested not with the Pope, but with the council, representing all the bishops of the church.

d) Theological reasons. The main point of theological dispute between the Churches of the East and West was the Latin the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Filioque). This teaching, based on the Trinitarian views of Blessed Augustine and other Latin fathers, led to a change in the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, where it spoke of the Holy Spirit: instead of “from the Father proceeding” in the West they began to say “from the Father and the Son (lat. . Filioque) outgoing." The expression “proceeds from the Father” is based on the words of Christ Himself ( cm.: In. 15:26) and in this sense has indisputable authority, while the addition “and the Son” has no basis either in Scripture or in the Tradition of the early Christian Church: it began to be inserted into the Creed only at the Toledo Councils of the 6th-7th centuries, presumably as protective measure against Arianism. From Spain, the Filioque came to France and Germany, where it was approved at the Frankfurt Council in 794. The court theologians of Charlemagne even began to reproach the Byzantines for reciting the Creed without the Filioque. Rome resisted changes to the Creed for some time. In 808, Pope Leo III wrote to Charlemagne that although the Filioque was theologically acceptable, its inclusion in the Creed was undesirable. Leo placed tablets with the Creed without the Filioque in St. Peter's Basilica. However, by the beginning of the 11th century, the reading of the Creed with the addition of “and the Son” entered into Roman practice.

Orthodoxy objected (and still objects) to the Filioque for two reasons. Firstly, the Creed is the property of the entire Church, and any changes can only be made to it by an Ecumenical Council. By changing the Creed without consultation with the East, the West (according to Khomyakov) is guilty of moral fratricide, a sin against the unity of the Church. Secondly, most Orthodox believe that the Filioque is theologically incorrect. The Orthodox believe that the Spirit comes only from the Father, and consider it heresy to claim that He also comes from the Son.

e) Ritual differences between East and West have existed throughout the history of Christianity. The liturgical charter of the Roman Church differed from the charters of the Eastern Churches. A whole series of ritual details separated the Churches of the East and the West. In the middle of the 11th century, the main issue of a ritual nature, on which polemics flared up between East and West, was the Latins' consumption of unleavened bread at the Eucharist, while the Byzantines consumed leavened bread. Behind this seemingly insignificant difference, the Byzantines saw a serious difference in the theological view of the essence of the Body of Christ, taught to the faithful in the Eucharist: if leavened bread symbolizes the fact that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial with our flesh, then unleavened bread is a symbol of the difference between the flesh of Christ and our flesh. In the service of unleavened bread, the Greeks saw an attack on the core point of Eastern Christian theology - the doctrine of deification (which was little known in the West).

These were all disagreements that preceded the conflict of 1054. Ultimately, the West and the East disagreed on matters of doctrine, mainly on two issues: about papal primacy And about Filioque.

Reason for split

The immediate cause of the church schism was conflict between the first hierarchs of two capitals - Rome and Constantinople.

The Roman high priest was Leo IX. While still a German bishop, he refused the Roman See for a long time and only at the persistent requests of the clergy and Emperor Henry III himself agreed to accept the papal tiara. On one of the rainy autumn days of 1048, in a coarse hair shirt - the clothing of penitents, with bare feet and a head covered in ashes, he entered Rome to take the Roman throne. This unusual behavior flattered the pride of the townspeople. With the crowds cheering, he was immediately proclaimed pope. Leo IX was convinced of the high importance of the Roman See for the entire Christian world. He tried with all his might to restore the previously wavered papal influence in both the West and the East. From this time on, the active growth of both the church and socio-political significance of the papacy as an institution of power began. Pope Leo achieved respect for himself and his cathedra not only through radical reforms, but also by actively acting as a defender of all the oppressed and offended. This is what made the pope seek a political alliance with Byzantium.

At that time, Rome's political enemy were the Normans, who had already captured Sicily and were now threatening Italy. Emperor Henry could not provide the pope with the necessary military support, and the pope did not want to give up his role as defender of Italy and Rome. Leo IX decided to ask for help from the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Since 1043 the Patriarch of Constantinople was Mikhail Kerullariy. He came from a noble aristocratic family and held a high position under the emperor. But after a failed palace coup, when a group of conspirators tried to elevate him to the throne, Mikhail was deprived of his property and forcibly tonsured a monk. The new emperor Constantine Monomakh made the persecuted man his closest adviser, and then, with the consent of the clergy and people, Michael took the patriarchal see. Having devoted himself to the service of the Church, the new patriarch retained the features of an imperious and state-minded man who did not tolerate the derogation of his authority and the authority of the See of Constantinople.

In the resulting correspondence between the pope and the patriarch, Leo IX insisted on the primacy of the Roman See. In his letter, he pointed out to Michael that the Church of Constantinople and even the entire East should obey and honor the Roman Church as a mother. With this provision, the pope also justified the ritual differences between the Roman Church and the Churches of the East. Michael was ready to come to terms with any differences, but on one issue his position remained irreconcilable: he did not want to recognize the Roman See as superior to the See of Constantinople. The Roman bishop did not want to agree to such equality.

Beginning of the split

The Great Schism of 1054 and the Separation of the Churches

In the spring of 1054, an embassy from Rome headed by Cardinal Humbert, a hot-tempered and arrogant person. Together with him, as legates, came the deacon-cardinal Frederick (future Pope Stephen IX) and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi. The purpose of the visit was to meet with Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos and discuss the possibilities of a military alliance with Byzantium, as well as to reconcile with the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerullarius, without diminishing the primacy of the Roman See. However, from the very beginning the embassy took a tone that was not consistent with reconciliation. The pope's ambassadors treated the patriarch without due respect, arrogantly and coldly. Seeing such an attitude towards himself, the patriarch repaid them in kind. At the convened Council, Michael allocated the last place to the papal legates. Cardinal Humbert considered this a humiliation and refused to conduct any negotiations with the patriarch. The news of the death of Pope Leo that came from Rome did not stop the papal legates. They continued to act with the same boldness, wanting to teach the disobedient patriarch a lesson.

July 15, 1054, when the St. Sophia Cathedral was filled with praying people, the legates walked to the altar and, interrupting the service, made accusations against Patriarch Michael Kerullarius. They then placed on the throne a papal bull in Latin, which excommunicated the patriarch and his followers and brought forward ten charges of heresy: one of the charges concerned the “omission” of the Filioque in the Creed. Coming out of the temple, the papal ambassadors shook off the dust from their feet and exclaimed: “Let God see and judge.” Everyone was so amazed by what they saw that there was deathly silence. The patriarch, numb with amazement, initially refused to accept the bull, but then ordered it to be translated into Greek. When the contents of the bull were announced to the people, such great excitement began that the legates had to hastily leave Constantinople. The people supported their patriarch.

July 20, 1054 Patriarch Michael Cerullarius convened a Council of 20 bishops, at which he subjected the papal legates to excommunication. The Acts of the Council were sent to all Eastern Patriarchs.

This is how the “great schism” happened. Formally, this was a break between the Local Churches of Rome and Constantinople, but the Patriarch of Constantinople was subsequently supported by other Eastern Patriarchates, as well as young Churches that were part of the orbit of influence of Byzantium, in particular the Russian Church. The Church in the West over time adopted the name Catholic; The Church in the East is called Orthodox because it preserves the Christian doctrine intact. Both Orthodoxy and Rome equally considered themselves right in controversial issues of doctrine, and their opponent wrong, therefore, after the schism, both Rome and the Orthodox Church laid claim to the title of true church.

But even after 1054, friendly relations between East and West remained. Both parts of Christendom had not yet realized the full extent of the gap, and people on both sides hoped that the misunderstandings could be settled without much difficulty. Attempts to negotiate reunification were made for another century and a half. The dispute between Rome and Constantinople largely went unnoticed by ordinary Christians. The Russian abbot Daniel of Chernigov, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1106-1107, found the Greeks and Latins praying in agreement in holy places. True, he noted with satisfaction that during the descent of the Holy Fire on Easter, the Greek lamps miraculously ignited, but the Latins were forced to light their lamps from the Greek ones.

The final division between East and West came only with the beginning of the Crusades, which brought with them a spirit of hatred and malice, as well as after the capture and destruction of Constantinople by the Crusaders during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.

Greetings to you, lovers of everything interesting. Today we would like to touch on religious topics, namely the division of the Christian Church into Orthodox and Catholic. Why did this happen? What contributed to this? You will learn about this in this article.

Christianity has its origins in the 1st century AD. It appeared on the lands of the pagan Roman Empire. During the period of the 4th–8th centuries, the doctrine of Christianity was strengthened and established. When it became the state religion of Rome, it began to spread not only within the state itself, but throughout the entire European continent. With the collapse of the Roman Empire, Christianity became the state religion. It so happened that it split into the western (with its center in Rome) and the eastern (with its center in Constantinople). The threat of schism (schism) began somewhere in the 8th-9th centuries. The reasons for this were different:

• Economic. Constantinople and Rome became self-sufficient, powerful economic centers of their territories. And they didn’t want to reckon with each other.
• Political. The desire to centralize in the hands not only economic independence, but also religious independence. And the open confrontation between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and the Popes. It should be said here
• About the main difference: the Patriarch of Constantinople did not have enough power and the Byzantine emperors often interfered in his affairs. In Rome, everything was different. European monarchs needed the public support of the popes, receiving the crown from them.

The way of life of two different parts of the former part of the empire led to irreversible consequences of the split in Christianity.

In the 9th century, Pope Nicholas I and Patriarch Photius anathematized (cursed) each other. And already in the 11th century their hatred flared up with even greater force. In 1054, a final and irrevocable split in Christianity occurred. The reason for this was the greed and desire to seize the lands of Pope Leo IX, which were subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople. At this time, Michael Cerularius ruled in Constantinople. He harshly stopped Leo IX's attempts to seize these lands.

After this, Constantinople and Rome declared each other religious opponents. The Roman Church began to be called Catholic (that is, universal, world), and the Church of Constantinople - Orthodox, that is, truly faithful.

Thus, the main cause of the schism was the attempt of the high churchmen of Rome and Constantinople to influence and expand their borders. Subsequently, this struggle began to diverge in the beliefs of the two churches. The split in Christianity turned out to be a purely political factor.

A fundamental difference between the churches was the presence of such a body as the Inquisition, which exterminated people accused of heresy. At the present stage, in 1964, a meeting took place between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI, the result of which was an attempt at reconciliation. The very next year all mutual anathemas were lifted, but this had no real significance in practice.

Christianity is the largest religion in the world by number of followers. But today it is divided into many denominations. And an example was set a long time ago - in 1054, when the Western Church excommunicated Eastern Christians, rejecting them as if they were aliens. Since then, many more events have followed that only worsened the situation. So why and how the division of churches into Roman and Orthodox happened, let's figure it out.

Prerequisites for the split

Christianity was not always the dominant religion. Suffice it to remember that all the first Popes, starting with the Apostle Peter, ended their lives as martyrdom for the faith. For centuries, the Romans tried to exterminate an obscure sect whose members refused to make sacrifices to their gods. The only way for Christians to survive was unity. The situation began to change only with the coming to power of Emperor Constantine.

Global differences in the views of the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity clearly revealed themselves only centuries later. Communication between Constantinople and Rome was difficult. Therefore, these two directions developed on their own. And at the dawn of the second millennium they became noticeable ritual differences:

But this, of course, was not the reason for the split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The bishops in charge increasingly began to disagree. Conflicts arose, the resolution of which was not always peaceful.

Photius schism

This split occurred in 863 and lasted for several years.. The head of the Church of Constantinople was then Patriarch Photius, and Nicholas I was on the Roman throne. The two hierarchs had difficult personal relationships, but formally the reason for disagreement was given by Rome’s doubts about Photius’ rights to lead the Eastern churches. The power of the hierarchs was complete, and it still extends not only to ideological issues, but also to the management of lands and finances. Therefore, at times the struggle for it was quite tough.

It is believed that the real reason for the quarrel between the heads of the church was the attempts of the Western governor to include the Balkan Peninsula under his guardianship.

The election of Photius was the result of internal dissensions, who then reigned in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Patriarch Ignatius, who was replaced by Photius, was deposed thanks to the machinations of Emperor Michael. Supporters of the conservative Ignatius turned to Rome for justice. And the Pope tried to take advantage of the moment and take the Patriarchate of Constantinople under his influence. The matter ended in mutual anathemas. The next church council that took place temporarily managed to moderate the zeal of the parties, and peace reigned (temporarily).

Controversy over the use of unleavened dough

In the 11th century the complication of the political situation resulted in another aggravation of the confrontation between the Western and Eastern rituals. Patriarch Michael of Constantinople did not like the fact that the Latins began to displace representatives of the Eastern churches in the Norman territories. Cerularius retaliated by closing all the Latin churches in his capital. This event was accompanied by rather unfriendly behavior - unleavened bread was thrown into the street, and the priests of Constantinople trampled it underfoot.

The next step was theological rationale for the conflict - message against the Latin rite. It brought forward many accusations of violating church traditions (which, however, had not previously bothered anyone):

The work, of course, reached the head of the Roman throne. In response, Cardinal Humbert composed the “Dialogue” message. All these events took place in 1053. There was very little time left before the final divergence between the two branches of the single church.

Great Schism

In 1054 Pope Leo wrote to Constantinople, demanding recognition of his full power over the Christian Church. As justification, a forged document was used - the so-called deed of gift, in which Emperor Constantine allegedly transferred the management of churches to the Roman throne. The claims were rejected, to which the Supreme Bishop of Rome equipped an embassy. It was supposed, among other things, to obtain military assistance from Byzantium.

The fateful date was July 16, 1054. On this day the unity of the Christian Church formally ceased. Although by that time Leo I. X. had already died, the papal legates still came to Michael. They entered the Cathedral of St. Sophia and placed on the altar a letter in which the Patriarch of Constantinople anathematized. The response message was drawn up 4 days later.

What was the main reason for the division of churches? Here the opinions of the parties differ. Some historians believe that this is the result of a struggle for power. For Catholics, the main thing was the reluctance to recognize the primacy of the Pope as the successor of the Apostle Peter. For Orthodox Christians, the debate about the Filioque - the procession of the Holy Spirit - plays an important role.

Rome's arguments

In a historical document, Pope Leo for the first time clearly formulated the reasons, according to which all other bishops should recognize the primacy of the Roman see:

• Since the Church stands on the firmness of Peter’s confession, moving away from it is a big mistake.
• Anyone who questions the authority of the Pope also renounces Saint Peter.
• He who rejects the authority of the Apostle Peter is an arrogant proud man who independently plunges himself into the abyss.

Arguments of Constantinople

Having received an appeal from the papal legates, Patriarch Michael urgently assembled the Byzantine clergy. The result was accusations against the Latins:

For some time, Rus' remained aloof from the conflict, although initially it was under the influence of the Byzantine rite and recognized Constantinople, not Rome, as the spiritual center. The Orthodox have always made the dough for prosphoras using sourdough. Formally, in 1620, a local council condemned the Catholic rite to use unleavened dough for church sacraments.

Is a reunion possible?

Great Schism(translated from ancient Greek - schism) occurred quite a long time ago. Today, relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are no longer as strained as in past centuries. In 2016, there was even a brief meeting between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis. Such an event seemed impossible 20 years ago.

Although mutual anathemas were lifted in 1965, the reunification of the Roman Catholic Church with the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches (and there are more than a dozen of them, the Russian Orthodox Church is only one of the professing Orthodoxy) is unlikely today. The reasons for this are no less than a thousand years ago.

It is not so important in what year the schism of the Christian church occurred. The more important thing is that today the church represents many movements and churches- both traditional and newly created. People failed to preserve the unity bequeathed by Jesus Christ. But those who call themselves Christians should learn patience and mutual love, and not look for reasons to move further apart from each other.

It's no secret that Catholics and Orthodox Christians belong to the same religion - Christianity. But when, and most importantly, why did Christianity split into these two main movements? It turns out that human vices are to blame, as always; in this case, the heads of the church, the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, were unable to determine which of them was more important and who should obey whom.

In 395, the Roman Empire was divided into Eastern and Western, and if the Eastern was a single state for several centuries, the Western soon disintegrated and became a union of various German principalities. The division of the empire also affected the situation in the Christian Church. Gradually, differences between the churches located in the east and in the west multiplied, and over time, relations began to become tense.

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent legates to Constantinople led by Cardinal Humbert to resolve the conflict, which began with the closure of the Latin churches in Constantinople in 1053 by order of Patriarch Michael Cerularius, during which his sacellary Constantine threw out the Holy Sacraments prepared according to the tabernacles. Western custom from unleavened bread, and trampled them underfoot. However, it was not possible to find a path to reconciliation, and on July 16, 1054, in the Hagia Sophia, the papal legates announced the deposition of Cerularius and his excommunication from the Church. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates. That is, the heads of the church took it and excommunicated each other from it. From that moment on, the united church ceased to exist, and the future Catholic and Orthodox churches, cursed by each other, broke off relations for more than 900 years.

And only in 1964 in Jerusalem a meeting took place between the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, the primate of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and Pope Paul VI, as a result of which in December 1965 the mutual anathemas were lifted and a Joint Declaration was signed. However, the “gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness” (Joint Declaration, 5) had no practical or canonical meaning.

From the Catholic point of view, the anathemas of the First Vatican Council against all who deny the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope and the infallibility of his judgments on matters of faith and morals pronounced ex cathedra (that is, when the Pope acts as the “earthly head”) remain in force and cannot be repealed. and mentor of all Christians"), as well as a number of other dogmatic decrees.

The term “Orthodoxy” or, which is the same thing, “orthodoxy” existed long before the division of churches: Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century meant the true faith and unanimity of the entire church as opposed to dissent. The name “Orthodox” was strengthened by the Eastern Church after the church schism of 1054, when the Western Church appropriated the name “Catholic”, i.e. "universal".

This term (Catholicism) was used in the ancient creeds as the name of the entire Christian church. Ignatius of Antioch was the first to call the church “catholic.” After the division of the churches in 1054, both of them retained the name “Catholic” in their self-designations. In the process of historical development, the word “Catholic” began to refer only to the Roman Church. As a Catholic (“universal”) it opposed itself in the Middle Ages to the eastern Greek Church, and after the Reformation to the Protestant churches. However, almost all movements in Christianity have claimed and continue to claim “catholicity.”

Updated: 08/27/2012 - 17:19

2. Split of the Christian Church.

Throughout its history, Christianity has developed in conditions of internal contradictions. There were various reasons for these contradictions - both serious and insignificant. Serious reasons have always been the heterogeneity of the class composition of adherents of Christianity and the difference in interests between the Roman papacy and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Along with these reasons, the contradictions between the Western Latin Catholic and Eastern Greek Orthodox traditions in Christianity were also caused by differences in issues of dogma, church rituals, the order of worship, the timing and order of church holidays, in relation to marriages of clergy, in matters of church ethics, etc. .d.

In 1054, a split in the Christian Church occurred, called in the history of religion the Great Schism. Schism translated from ancient Greek means “schism, strife.” As a result of this schism, the Christian Church was divided into the Roman Catholic Church in the West, centered in Rome, and the Orthodox Church in the East, centered in Constantinople.

The immediate cause of the schism was the closure of the Latin churches and monasteries in Constantinople in 1053 by order of Patriarch Michael Cyrularius. At the same time, the so-called holy gifts were thrown out of the Latin churches.

To resolve the conflict, Pope Leo IX sent his legates (representatives) led by Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople. But they failed to come to an agreement with the patriarch. As a result, the Pope anathematized Patriarch Kirulai and excommunicated him from the Church. The legates of the Pope declared the patriarch deposed. The Patriarch did everything in his power to extinguish the conflict, but he failed and in response he anathematized and excommunicated Legate Humbert and his two companions. But the letter of excommunication against Patriarch Kirulai was not legitimate, because was signed not by the Pope, but by Cardinal Humbert, i.e. in fact, this was not a decision of the Roman Church, but the arrogance of this cardinal. However, the event of 1054, through the efforts of Pope Gregory VII (the organizer of the first crusades) and Cardinal Humbert, who soon became his adviser, was given historical significance, which it actually did not have.

In fact, the complete split of the Christian Church occurred much later, already in the 18th century, when the contradictions and mutual alienation between the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Christian Church reached their limit. We have provided more complete information about this below on this page.

Well, the very first disagreements began in the 2nd century. It was a dispute about the timing and content of Easter. The Roman Church celebrated Easter according to the Jewish lunar calendar on the first Sunday after Nisan 14 (April), and the churches of Asia Minor celebrated Easter only on April 14, i.e. on any day of the week on which the date April 14 fell. The highest bishops of the Church of Asia Minor discussed this problem with Pope Anicetas (his papacy 155-166), but did not reach a common solution. Of course, no split in Christianity resulted from this dispute.

In the 5th-6th centuries, disagreements within the Christian church were observed for more serious reasons. For example, at the Council of Chalcidan (451), disputes arose over the wording of the formula about Jesus Christ, defining him as true God and true man, representing two natures in one hypostasis. And the Second Council of Constantinople (553) tried to resolve theological differences on the problem of Christ and the Mother of God, because some theologians then did not consider Christ to be a God-man, and Mary to be the Mother of God.

The so-called Acacian schism, which is considered the first church schism between the eastern and western branches of the Christian church, left a big mark on the history of the Christian church. This schism received its name from the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius. The schism lasted 35 years (from 484 to 519), although Akaki himself died in 489. The contradictions concerned mainly questions of dogma, and they arose not only between the Eastern and Western churches, but also between the Orthodox of Constantinople and Alexandria. Upon ascending the thrones, emperors, popes and Orthodox patriarchs forbade the use of encyclicals and other church documents of their predecessors in worship if these documents contained provisions that did not correspond to their religious views. Then such documents were declared “heretical” and anathematized along with their authors.

THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST.

During the Acacian schism, the most serious contradictions were the contradictions and disputes over the issue of the divine-human nature of Christ. During the debate on this issue, two religious movements arose: Monophysitism and Miaphysitism. The followers of Monophysitism recognized in Christ only one divine nature, and considered his human nature to be absorbed by the divine principle. His human nature dissolved into the divine “like a drop of honey in the sea.” The Miaphysites, unlike the Monophysites, affirmed the unity of the divine-human nature of Christ. They believed that the two natures of Christ constitute an indissoluble unity, fully retaining their properties. The Miaphysites considered themselves followers of the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the ancient Orthodox doctrine.

It is difficult for the uninitiated to judge the degree of dogmatic importance of these issues. The only thing we can add is that the theological dialogue and dispute between the Orthodox churches on these issues continues to this day.

The Roman Catholic Church has always claimed supremacy over the entire Christian Church, declaring its supposed “divine right” to this. Catholic researchers believe that the Roman Church deserved the right to primacy in universal jurisdiction from the first centuries of its existence. As for Orthodox researchers and hierarchs, they agree that the Roman Church has primacy “by honor,” i.e. as "highly respected". However, in their opinion, this cannot cancel the collegial adoption of all decisions by convening ecumenical councils, i.e. The conciliar structure and conciliar activity of the entire Christian Church must be unshakable.

In 395, the Roman Empire was divided into Western and Eastern. The capital of the Eastern Empire was the city of Constantinople, which Emperor Constantine the Great began to build back in 330. In the history of Christianity, Emperor Constantine left his mark, because... in 313 he allowed the free exercise of the Christian faith. Years of reign of Constantine: 306-337.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476), the historical situation changed radically. The Eastern Roman Empire turned into a new state - Byzantium. This meant that a new civilization began to form in the Eastern Mediterranean. The 6th century marked the beginning of the European Middle Ages. Europe in this era was divided into “West” and “East” in the modern sense. Byzantium considered itself the heir of Ancient Rome and the first truly Christian country. Its heyday occurred during the reign of Emperor Justinian (527-565).

In 800, Charlemagne was crowned in Rome by Pope Leo III, becoming the first emperor in the West after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and declaring himself equal to the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Now the Pope has received political support in his claims to his primacy in the entire Christian Church “by divine right.” In addition, the strengthening of the position of the Pope was facilitated by the fact that a significant part of the Eastern Empire, along with the ancient apostolic churches, had by that time been captured by Muslims. The emergence of two empires meant a political split, and church schism became inevitable.

It is worth mentioning one more event that occurred before 1054 and became a certain stage in the schism of the Christian church. In 857, the great religious thinker and politician Photius was elevated to the patriarchal throne in Constantinople. In this post, he replaced Patriarch Ignatius, who for some reason fell into disgrace, abdicated the throne and was sent into exile by Emperor Michael III. However, part of the clergy refused to consider Patriarch Photius legitimate and Ignatius’ abdication valid. Then Pope Nicholas I (858-867) sends his legates to Constantinople to find out the causes of the conflict. At the same time, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that Photius was elected to the post of patriarch from the laity and did not even have the experience of a clergyman.

The legates of Nicholas I, at the invitation of Photius, took part in the work of the Council of Constantinople, which was supposed to consider the dispute over the patriarchate of Photius. The participants of the council, including the legates of the Pope, recognized Photius as the legally elected patriarch. But, having learned about this, Pope Nicholas I canceled the decision of the council, citing the fact that his legates allegedly exceeded their powers. In 863, Pope Nicholas I held a council in Rome, at which he sought a decision to deprive Photius of the priesthood and recognize Ignatius as patriarch.

This event once again showed the papacy's claims to absolute power over the entire Christian Church and deepened the gap between the Roman and Constantinople (Byzantine) churches. Of course, communication between the two churches did not stop after this, and could not have stopped, not so much for dogmatic reasons as for political ones. Let us not forget that since the 4th century the Christian Church has become an integral part of state power and a very effective instrument in the hands of monarchs. As for the fate of the former Patriarch Photius, he soon made peace with Ignatius and after the latter’s death (877) he again received the patriarchate in Constantinople, which was recognized by the Holy See in Rome. Until the end of his patriarchal service (886), Photius constantly maintained contact with the Roman Church.

Thus, some reasons for the schism (schism) between the two branches of the Christian Church were eliminated through joint efforts, while others arose again. To the modern reader, some of these reasons may seem insignificant and not worthy of attention. But it is unlikely that we will be able to confidently and somewhat objectively judge the religious consciousness of believers, and especially the clergy, which existed in the Middle Ages. However, some disputes in the Christian Church of that time give us the opportunity to at least speculate on this complex topic. Here is a typical example.

Starting from the time of Patriarch Photius (IX century) and until the end of the 19th century, i.e. For a whole millennium, there was a dogmatic disagreement between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches on the issue of the so-called “filioque”, which both churches considered an almost insurmountable obstacle to their normal communication and interaction. What is this obstacle? It turns out that Orthodox theologians argued that the Holy Spirit comes only from God the Father, and according to the teachings of the Latin Church, he, i.e. The Holy Spirit also comes from the Son (Latin Filioque - “and from the Son”). Accordingly, when reading the “Creed” and prayers, Catholics and Orthodox Christians uttered exclamations of different “content” in the right places, and this difference in the utterance of prayer was considered almost a fundamental dogmatic difference between two churches professing the same Christian teaching. It took a detailed scientific work by a major church scientist, professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy V. Bolotov, entitled “Theses on the Filioque,” ​​in order to to some extent reduce the differences of churches on this, at first glance, insignificant issue of dogma. And only at the end of the 20th century, Pope John Paul II recognized it as possible to read prayers in churches without the “filioque,” ​​as is customary in Orthodox churches.

But the reason why, after 1204, relations between the Catholic and Orthodox churches sharply deteriorated was truly serious. This year a terrible event occurred. A detachment of crusaders heading from the Venetian Republic to Palestine for the Fourth Crusade turned towards Constantinople along the way. This happened by the decision of the leader of the campaign, Alexei Angel, the son of the deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II. Alexei wanted, with the help of the crusaders, to restore his father to the throne and become an heir. For this, he promised to generously reward the crusaders. Having captured Constantinople, the crusaders plundered the city for three days, killed and raped citizens, plundered churches and private homes, and desecrated Orthodox shrines. Not receiving what was promised, they killed Emperor Isaac II Angel and his son Alexei. The Latin Baudouin became the Byzantine emperor. The Latin Empire existed on the territory of Byzantium for more than half a century. Only in 1261, when Constantinople was occupied by the troops of the Nicaean emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, was the power of the Byzantines restored.

The aggression of the Latins and their desecration of Orthodox shrines led to further alienation between the Orthodox East and the Catholic West. After the barbaric sack of Constantinople, periods of alienation and hostility between the two Christian churches were interrupted by attempts to achieve reconciliation and establish cooperation. Thus, in 1274, the Second Council of Lyon attempted to create a union of churches. Emperor Michael VIII took part in the work of the cathedral. In fact, the union did not work out; the Greek Orthodox churches did not agree with the decisions of the council. The split continued. Centuries passed.

In 1453, the Turks captured Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire ceased to exist. Constantinople became the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Difficult times have come for the Christian church, because... The Muslim government of Turkey was not at all interested in bringing Greek and Western Christians closer together.

The prelates of the Catholic Church constantly instilled in believers the idea that a church can be considered Christian only if it is under the full jurisdiction of the Pope, who is supposedly the successor of the holy Apostle Peter himself. The idea that the Apostle Peter is a biblical character, and therefore a semi-mythical person, this thought should not have occurred to a Christian. The constantly inculcated idea of ​​the “divine right” of the Catholic Church to its primacy in Christianity, although accompanied by talk about the need for unity of the entire Christian world, caused protests from churches of the Orthodox Christian tradition.

At the Council of Constance (1414-1418), decrees on church reform were proclaimed, and ecumenical councils were called upon to control papal power. But in reality, no one controlled or limited papal power. On the contrary, the power of the Holy See grew stronger over time.

Indicative in this sense was the decision of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), which proclaimed the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope’s judgments on issues of the Christian faith. There is only a small step left to reach the divine halo above the head of Pope Pius IX, who held the aforementioned Vatican Council. By the way, at the same council the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was also approved.

According to the Bible, Jesus' mother, Mary, was a virgin.
By the power of the Holy Spirit, she conceived, and Christ was able to be born in human form.

Whether the holy fathers made a mistake or not when they accepted the dogmas of papal infallibility and the immaculate conception at the First Vatican Council is not for us to judge. But the Popes are also people who can make mistakes and have their own weaknesses and shortcomings, including terrible vices, which were told to us by the French writer and journalist, a deep expert in the history and teachings of Catholicism, Leo Taxil (1854-1907) in his book “The Sacred Nativity Scene” " For ethical reasons, we will refrain from making any quotations from this book. Let us only add that the dogma of the infallibility of the pope’s judgments on issues of Christian faith and morals was confirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

In the first half of the 16th century, the Reformation began in Europe - a broad anti-feudal and anti-Catholic movement, which laid the foundation for Protestantism, the third religious direction in Christianity after Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Beginning in politically fragmented Germany, the Reformation movement spread to a number of European countries. Despite the defeat of the anti-feudal movement in Germany, the Reformation led to the exit from the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland and parts of Germany and the Czech Republic. Where the Reformation prevailed, the church came under the control of the state and had less power than in Catholic countries.

As a result of the Reformation movement, most of Northern Europe became Protestant, while Southern Europe remained predominantly Catholic. Most Orthodox Christians live in Russia and parts of Eastern Europe, such as Greece and the Balkans.

Catholics immediately began the Counter-Reformation, as a result of which the further spread of Protestantism in Europe was stopped, and Protestantism was eradicated in Poland and France. By the way, in France, according to the concordat (agreement) of 1801 between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII, Catholicism was recognized as the state religion. The Concordat was in force until 1905.

In the fight against the Reformation, the Catholic Church used its weapon, which was as reliable as it was criminal - the “holy” Inquisition.

Great geographical discoveries expanded the world. In these conditions, the Catholic Church considered one of its main tasks to attract as many people as possible on all continents to its faith. Catholic missionaries carried the banner of Christ, or rather the Roman Papacy, to all newly discovered lands. Propaganda for the superiority of the Catholic Church over Orthodoxy and Protestantism intensified. Finally, it came to the point that Catholic theologians decided to consider illegal all sacraments performed on believers without observing papal orders and Catholic rites. In 1729, the Vatican administration issued a decree prohibiting communion in the sacraments between the Roman Catholic and Greek (Orthodox) churches. Catholics did not recognize believers who received the sacraments according to Orthodox canons as Christians and began to “convert” them back to Christians in their churches.

Since 1755, the Orthodox churches also received instructions from their patriarchs to cease participating in joint sacraments with Catholics. This was already a real, deep split between the two branches of the Christian church. Thus, from the middle of the 18th century, the Catholic and Orthodox churches ceased to consider each other the true Church of Christ. This meant that two different religious denominations actually emerged.

Over the next 200 years, the schism in Christianity continued, although, of course, both Christian denominations took some steps towards mutual reconciliation. For example, in 1918, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, chaired by Patriarch Tikhon, formed a special department for uniting churches. But to date, no unification of the Catholic and Orthodox churches has taken place. How this process will go in the future and whether it will go at all largely depends on the positions and efforts of the current high priests of both churches - Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'.