1- Wikipedia - East vs. West Schism 1054

7/16/2019 1- Wikipedia - East vs. West Schism 1054

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-wikipedia-east-vs-west-schism-1054 1/22

East – West Schism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other great schisms, see Nestorian Schism,Chalcedonian Christianity, and Western Schism.

The East – West Schism[1] divided medieval Christianity intoEastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which laterbecame known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the RomanCatholic Church, respectively. Relations between East and Westhad long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical

differences and theological disputes.[2] Pope Leo IX andPatriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened theconflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respectivedomains. In 1054, Roman legates travelled to Cerularius to deny

him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognizethe Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the

churches.[2] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latincontingent, Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated Cerularius,while Cerularius in return excommunicated Cardinal Humbert

and other legates.[2]

The Western legates' acts may have been of doubtful validitydue to Leo's death, while Cerularius's excommunication applied

only to the legates personally.[2] Still, the Church split alongdoctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical

lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed. TheCrusades, the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, the capture andsack of Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of Latin Patriarchs made reconciliation more

difficult.[2] This included the taking of many precious religious artifacts and the destruction of theLibrary of Constantinople. On paper, the two churches were actually reunited in 1274 (by the SecondCouncil of Lyon) and in 1439 (by the Council of Florence), but in each case the councils wererepudiated by the Orthodox as a whole. In 1484, 31 years after the Fall of Constantinople to theOttoman Turks, a Synod of Constantinople repudiated the Union of Florence, making the breachbetween the Patriarchate of the West and the Patriarchate of Constantinople final. In 1965, the Pope

and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople nullified the anathemas of 1054.[2] Contactsbetween the two sides continue: every year a delegation from each joins in the other's celebration of its patronal feast, Saints Peter and Paul (29 June) for Rome and Saint Andrew (30 November) forConstantinople, and there have been a number of visits by the head of each to the other.

Contents

1 History 1.1 Rise of Constantinople 1.2 Primacy 1.3 Constantine

1.4 Council of Chalcedon 1.5 Empires East and West 1.6 Language and culture 1.7 Dark Ages

The Second Ecumenical Councilwhose additions to the originalNicene Creed lay at the heart of one of the theological disputesassociated with the East-WestSchism. (Illustration, 879-882

AD, from manuscript, Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus,

Bibliothèque nationale de France)

of 22East – West Schism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

01/02/2010http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism



History

Main article: History of the East-West Schism

See also: History of Christianity

There was no single event that marked the breakdown. In the centuries immediately before theschism became definitive, a few short schisms between Constantinople and Rome were followed byreconciliations. Even during the period of Early Christianity, part of the East was in disagreementwith Pope Victor I over the Quartodeciman question.

Rise of Constantinople

John Binns writes that, after the fall and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the natural leadingcentres of the Church were Antioch and Alexandria. Constantinople was not founded (that is,renamed from "Byzantium") until after the First Council of Nicaea (325).

The historian Will Durant writes that, after Jerusalem, the church of Rome naturally became the

primary church, the capital of Christianity.[3] Rome had an early and significant Christian

population.[3] It was closely identified with Paul the Apostle, who preached[4] and was martyred

there, and the Apostle Peter, who was a martyr there as well. While the Eastern cities of Alexandriaand Antioch produced theological works, the bishops of Rome focused on what Romans admittedly

did best: administration.[3]

1.8 Papal Supremacy and Pentarchy 1.9 Other points of conflict 1.10 Mutual excommunication of 1054 1.11 Fourth Crusade and other military conflicts 1.12 Reunion attempts 1.13 Fall of Constantinople 1.14 Rise of the Russian Orthodox Church 1.15 The Uniate question 1.16 First Vatican Council

2 Recent efforts at reconciliation 2.1 Second Vatican Council 2.2 Joint Theological Commission 2.3 Other moves toward reconciliation

3 Prospects for reconciliation 3.1 Theological issues

3.1.1 Trinity

3.1.2 Experience of God (Theoria) vs Scholasticism 3.1.3 Sin, Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception

3.2 Ecclesiological issues 3.2.1 Ecclesiological structure 3.2.2 Papal privilege and authority 3.2.3 Apostolic succession 3.2.4 Sacraments

4 See also 5 Notes 6 References 7 External links



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism





In the early church, up until the ecumenical councils, Rome was regarded as an important centre of Christianity, especially since it was the capital of the Roman Empire. Bishops of churches in theeastern and southern Mediterranean generally recognized the persuasive leadership and authority of

the Bishop of Rome.[citation needed ] But these bishops did not regard the Bishop of Rome as

infallible, nor did they acknowledge any juridical authority of Rome.[citation needed ]

In the fourth century, when the Roman emperors were trying to control the Church, theological

questions ran rampant throughout the Roman Empire[5]. The influence of Greek speculative thought

on Christian thinking led to all sorts of divergent and conflicting opinions[6]. Theology was also usedas a weapon against opponent bishops, because being branded a heretic was the only sure way for abishop to be removed by other bishops — incompetence was not sufficient grounds for removal.[citation needed ]

Primacy

Main article: Primacy of the Roman Pontiff

The patriarchs of Constantinople often tried to adopt an imperious position over the other patriarchs.[citation needed ] The opinion of the Bishop of Rome was often sought, especially when the patriarchsof the Eastern churches were locked in fractious dispute. The bishops of Rome never obviouslybelonged to either the Antiochian or the Alexandrian schools of theology, and usually managed tosteer a middle course between whatever extremes were being propounded by theologians of eitherschool. Because Rome was remote from the centres of Christianity in the eastern empire, it wasfrequently hoped its bishop would be more impartial. For instance, in 431, Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, appealed to Pope Celestine I, as well as the other patriarchs, charging Nestorius withheresy, which was dealt with at the Council of Ephesus (431).

The opinion of the bishop of Rome was always canvassed, and was often longed for. However theBishop of Rome's opinion was not always accepted by all. For instance, the Tome of Leo of Romewas highly regarded, and formed the basis for the formulation of the Council of Chalcedon (451).

But it was not universally accepted and was even called "impious" and "blasphemous" by some.[7]

The next ecumenical council corrected a possible imbalance in Pope Leo's presentation.[citation needed ] Although the Bishop of Rome was well respected even at this early date, the concept

of the primacy of the Roman See and Papal Infallibility were developed much later.[citation needed ]

Constantine

When the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great embraced Christianity, he summoned the FirstEcumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 to resolve a number of issues which troubled the Church. Thebishops at the council confirmed the position of the metropolitan sees of Rome and Alexandria ashaving authority outside their own province, and also the existing privileges of the churches in

Antioch and the other provinces.[8] Later, these sees were called Patriarchates and were given anorder of precedence: Rome, though it was no longer capital of the empire, was naturally given firstplace, then came Alexandria and Antioch. In a separate canon, the Council also approved the special

honor given to Jerusalem over other sees subject to the same metropolitan.[9]

Soon, Constantine erected a new capital at Byzantium, a strategically-placed city on the Bosporus.He renamed his new capital Nova Roma (New Rome), but the city would become known as

Constantinople. The Second Ecumenical Council, held at the new capital in 381, elevated the see of Constantinople itself, to a position ahead of the other chief metropolitan sees, except that of Rome.[10] Mentioning in particular the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, it decreed that the synod of








each province should manage the ecclesiastical affairs of that province alone, except for the

privileges already recognized for Alexandria and Antioch.[11]

Council of Chalcedon

The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451 confirmed the authority already held by

Constantinople. There were now five patriarchs presiding over the Church within the ByzantineEmpire, in the following order of precedence: the Patriarch of Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople,the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem (see Pentarchy).

Empires East and West

Disunion in the Roman Empire further contributed to disunion in the Church. The EmperorDiocletian famously divided the administration of the eastern and western portions of the Empire inthe early 4th century, though subsequent leaders (including Constantine) aspired to and sometimesgained control of both regions. Theodosius the Great, who established Christianity as the officialreligion of the Roman Empire, died in 395 and was the last Emperor to rule over a united Roman

Empire. Following his death, the division into western and eastern halves, each under its ownEmperor, became permanent. By the end of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire had beenoverrun by the Germanic tribes, while the Eastern Roman Empire (known also as the ByzantineEmpire) continued to thrive. Thus, the political unity of the Roman Empire was the first to fall.These Germanic tribes, particularly the Franks, influenced and changed the Latin Church.

In the West, as a practical matter, the collapse of civil government left the Church in charge in many

areas, and bishops took to administering secular cities and domains.[3] When royal and imperial rulereestablished itself, it had to contend with power wielded independently by the Church. In the East,

however, imperial and, later, Islamic rule dominated the Eastern bishops.[3]

Language and culture

Many other factors caused the East and West to drift further apart. The dominant language of theWest was Latin, whilst that of the East was Greek. Soon after the fall of the Western Empire, thenumber of individuals who spoke both Latin and Greek began to dwindle, and communicationbetween East and West grew much more difficult. With linguistic unity gone, cultural unity began tocrumble as well. The two halves of the Church were naturally divided along similar lines; theydeveloped different rites and had different approaches to religious doctrines. Although the Great

Schism was still centuries away, its outlines were already perceptible.[12]

Dark Ages

Following the Sack of Rome by invading European Goths, Rome slid into the Dark Ages whichaffected most parts of Western Europe, and became increasingly isolated from the churches in theeastern and southern Mediterranean. This was a situation which suited and pleased many of the

patriarchs and bishops of those churches.[13]

It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose out of

obscurity on the back of their military successes.[citation needed ]

Papal Supremacy and Pentarchy

The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over conflictingclaims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authority — Pope Leo








IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs (seealso Pentarchy) — and over the insertion of the Filioque clause into

the Nicene Creed by the Western patriarch in 1014.[14] EasternOrthodox today state that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the highest court

of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople.[citation needed ]

Eastern Orthodox argue that the seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creeddrawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325. The Councilmade this prohibition despite the fact that the earlier secondEcumenical Council, had already modified the Creed adopted atNicaea, making additions such as "who proceeds from the Father".[15][16] It is claimed that this was a change of the wording, not of the substance,

There were other less significant catalysts for the Schism however,including variance over liturgical practices.

Other points of conflict

Many other issues increased tensions.

Emperor Leo III the Isaurian outlawed the veneration of icons in the 8th century. This policy,which came to be called Iconoclasm, was rejected by the West.

The Western Church's insertion of "Filioque" into the Latin version of the Nicene Creed. Disputes in the Balkans, Southern Italy, and Sicily over whether Rome or Constantinople had

ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In the East, endorsement of Caesaropapism, subordination of the church to the religious claims

of the dominant political order, was most fully evident in the Byzantine Empire at the end of

the first millennium,[17] while in the West, where the decline of imperial authority left the

Church relatively independent,[18] there was growth of the power of the Papacy. As a result of the Muslim conquests of the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria,

Antioch and Jerusalem, only two rival powerful centres of ecclesiastical authority,

Constantinople and Rome, remained.[19]

Certain liturgical practices in the West that the East believed represented illegitimateinnovation: the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, for example (see Azymite).

Celibacy among Western priests (both monastic and parish), as opposed to the Eastern

discipline whereby parish priests can be married men.

Mutual excommunication of 1054

Most of the direct causes of the Great Schism, however, are far less grandiose than the famousFilioque. The relations between the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the years leadingup to 1054. The emperor Constantine IX and the Pope Leo IX were allied through the mediation of the Lombard catepan of Italy, Argyrus, who had spent years in Constantinople, originally as apolitical prisoner.

Patriarch Michael I ordered a letter to be written to the bishop of Trani in which he attacked the

"Judaistic" practices of the West, namely the use of unleavened bread. The letter was to be sent byJohn to all the bishops of the West, including the Pope. John promptly complied and the letter waspassed to Humbert of Mourmoutiers, the cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida, who translated the letter

Icon depicting the EmperorConstantine (centre) and the

bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the

Niceno – ConstantinopolitanCreed of 381.








into Latin and brought it to the Pope, who ordered a reply to be made to each charge and a defence of papal supremacy to be laid out in a response.

Although he was hot-headed, Michael was convinced to cool the debate and thus attempt to preventthe impending breach. However, Humbert and the Pope made no concessions and Humbert was sentwith legatine powers to the imperial capital to resolve the questions raised, once and for all.Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi arrived in April 1054 and were

met with a hostile reception; they stormed out of the palace, leaving the papal response withMichael, who in turn was even more angered by their actions. The patriarch refused to recognise

their authority or, practically, their existence.[20] When Pope Leo died on April 19, 1054, the legates'

authority legally ceased, but they effectively ignored this technicality.[21]

In response to Michael's refusal to address the issues at hand, the legatine mission took the extrememeasure of entering the church of the Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy and placing a bull of excommunication on the altar.

The consummation of the East – West Schism is thus generally dated from the year 1054, when thissequence of events took place. However, these events only triggered the beginning of the schism,and it was not actually consummated by the seemingly mutual excommunications. The New CatholicEncyclopedia reports that the legates had been careful not to intimate that the bull of excommunication implied a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church. The bullexcommunicated only Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents. Thus, the New CatholicEncyclopedia argues that the dispute need not have produced a permanent schism any more thanexcommunication of any "contumacious bishop." The schism began to develop when all the otherEastern patriarchs supported Caerularius. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, it was the

support of Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos that impelled them to support Caerularius.[22] Somehave questioned the validity of the bull on the grounds that Pope Leo IX had died at that time and so

the authority of the legates to issue such a bull is unclear.[21]

The legates left for Rome two days after issuing the bull of excommunication, leaving behind a citynear riot. The patriarch had the immense support of the people against the emperor, who hadsupported the legates to his own detriment. To assuage popular anger, the bull was burnt, and thelegates were anathematised. Only the legates were anathematised and, in this case too, there was noexplicit indication that the entire Western church was being anathematised.

In the bull of excommunication issued against Patriarch Michael by the papal legates, one of thereasons cited was the Eastern Church's deletion of the "Filioque" from the original Nicene Creed. Infact, it was precisely the opposite: the Eastern Church did not delete anything. It was the Western

Church that added this phrase to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.[21]

"Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendomwere not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained

something of which ordinary Christians in the East and West were largely unaware."[23] In fact,efforts were made in subsequent centuries by Popes and Patriarchs to heal the rift between thechurches. However, a number of factors and historical events worked to widen the separation over

time.[24]

Fourth Crusade and other military conflicts

The participants (crusaders and Venetians) in the Fourth Crusade captured and sacked

Constantinople in 1204, looting The Church of Holy Wisdom and various other Orthodox holy sites,and converting them to Latin Catholic worship. The holy artifacts were taken to the West. Thevictors set up in what had been the empire's territory a number of feudal crusader states, of which themost important was the Latin Empire of Constantinople, thus initiating the period of Greek history








known as Frangokratia (dominion by the Franks). The break-up of the Byzantine Empire is seen as afactor that led to its conquest by Islam. The crusaders also appointed a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. An attempt by the Latin Empire to capture the city of Adrianople, then a Bulgarianpossession, was defeated in the Battle of Adrianople (1205).

In northern Europe, the Teutonic Knights, after their successes in the northern crusades,[25]

attempted to conquer also the Orthodox Russian Republics of Pskov and Novgorod, an enterprise

endorsed by Pope Gregory IX.[25] One of the major defeats they suffered was the Battle of the Ice in1242. Sweden also undertook several campaigns against Orthodox Novgorod. There were alsoconflicts between Catholic Poland and Orthodox Russia. Such conflicts solidified the schismbetween East and West.

Reunion attempts

The Second Council of Lyon was convoked to act on a pledge by Byzantine emperor Michael VIII to

reunite the Eastern church with the West.[26] Wishing to end the Great Schism that divided Romeand Constantinople, Gregory X had sent an embassy to Michael VIII Palaeologus. On June 29, 1274,

Gregory X celebrated a Mass in St John's Church, where both sides took part. The council declaredthat the Roman church possessed “the supreme and full primacy and authority over the universalCatholic Church.” The council was seemingly a success, but did not provide a lasting solution to theschism; the Emperor was anxious to heal the schism, but the Eastern clergy proved to be obstinate.However, Michael VII's son and successor Andronicus II repudiated the union.

In the 15th century, the eastern emperor John VIII Palaeologus, pressed hard by the Ottoman Turks,was keen to ally himself with the West, and to do so he arranged with Pope Eugene IV fordiscussions about reunion to be held again, this time at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. After severallong discussions, the emperor managed to convince the Eastern representatives to accept the Westerndoctrines of Filioque, Purgatory and the supremacy of the Papacy. On 6 June 1439 an agreement was

signed by all the Eastern bishops present but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continuedin both heresy and schism. It seemed that the Great Schism had been ended. However, upon theirreturn, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace andby civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committedto union until the Fall of Constantinople two decades later). The union signed at Florence has neverbeen accepted by the Eastern churches.

Fall of Constantinople

In 1453, the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Ottoman Empire. But Orthodoxy was still very strongin Russia which became autocephalous (since 1448, although this wasn't officially accepted by

Constantinople until 1589); and thus Moscow called itself the Third Rome, as the cultural heir of Constantinople.

Eastern Christians expressed a belief that the Fall of Constantinople was God's punishment for theEmperor and clergy accepting the West's doctrines of Filioque, Purgatory and the supremacy of thePapacy. The West did not fulfil its promise to the Eastern Emperor of troops and support if he agreedto the reconciliation. The Sack of Constantinople is still considered proof by the East that the Westultimately succeeded in its endeavor to destroy the East.

Under Ottoman rule, the Orthodox Church acquired power as an autonomous millet. The ecumenicalpatriarch was the religious and administrative ruler of the entire Rum Millet (Ottoman administrativeunit), which encompassed all the Eastern Orthodox subjects of the Empire. Those appointed to therole were chosen by the Muslim State. In fact, Mehmed II when he conquered the City formallyassumed the legal function of the Byzantine Emperors, and the appointment of the patriarchGennadius II. Mehmed and his agents did all they could to stamp out pro-Roman parties among the








Greek Christians, and to that end Mehmed enormously strengthened the Greek church, as this helpedto protect the Ottoman Sultunate from any united Christian foe.

As a result of the Ottoman conquest, the entire Orthodox communion of the Balkans and the NearEast became suddenly isolated from the West. For the next four hundred years, it would be confinedwithin the Islamic world, with which it had little in common religiously or culturally. The RussianOrthodox Church and the Orthodox Churches from Wallachia and Moldavia were the only part of

the Orthodox communion that remained outside the control of the Ottoman Empire.

Rise of the Russian Orthodox Church

The growing might of the Russian state contributed also to the growing authority of theAutocephalous Russian Church. In 1589, Metropolitan Job of Moscow became the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'; making the Russian Church one of the five honourable Patriarchates.

However, in 1721 Tsar Peter I abolished completely the patriarchate and so the Church effectivelybecame a department of the government, ruled by a Most Holy Synod composed of senior bishopsand lay bureaucrats appointed by the Tsar himself. An independent (from the state) patriarchate was

reestablished in 1917, but after the death in 1925 of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, who had beenpersecuted by the Soviet authorities, the patriarchate remained vacant until 1943, when, during theSecond World War, the Soviet government allowed somewhat greater freedom to the Church.

The Uniate question

See also: Union of Brest, Union of Uzhhorod, andRomanian Church United with Rome

The Eastern Catholic Churches consider themselves to have reconciled the East and West Schism bykeeping their prayers and rituals similar to those of Eastern Orthodoxy, while also accepting theprimacy of the Bishop of Rome. Some Eastern Orthodox charge that joining in this unity comes at

the expense of ignoring critical doctrinal differences and past atrocities.

Since the beginnings of the Uniate movement, there have been periodic conflicts between the

Orthodox and Uniate in Ukraine and Belarus, then under Polish rule,[27] and later also inTransylvania. During Russia's Time of Troubles there was a plan by the conquering Polish monarchy

(of Latin Rite, not Uniate) to convert all of Russia to Roman Catholicism.[citation needed ] The Russiannational holiday, Unity Day, was established due to this conflict. Patriarch Hermogenes wasmartyred by the Poles and their supporters during this period (see also Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite

Commonwealth).[28].[29]

Similar pressure was also used by the Orthodox against Eastern Catholic Churches such as the

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.[30]

At a meeting in Balamand, Lebanon in June 1993, the Joint International Commission for theTheological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church the delegatesof the Eastern Orthodox Churches declared "...and that what has been called 'uniatism' can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches areseeking" (section 12 of the document).

At the same time, the Commission stated:

Concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the CatholicCommunion, have the right to exist and to act in response to the spiritual needs of theirfaithful.

The Oriental Catholic Churches who have desired to re-establish full communion with the See








of Rome and have remained faithful to it, have the rights and obligations which are connectedwith this communion.

First Vatican Council

The doctrine of papal primacy was further developed in 1870 at the First Vatican Council which

declared that "in the disposition of God the Roman church holds the preeminence of ordinary powerover all the other churches". This council also affirmed the dogma of papal infallibility, declaringthat the infallibility of the Christian community extends to the pope himself, when he defines adoctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

Recent efforts at reconciliation

Second Vatican Council

A major event of the Second Vatican Council, known as Vatican II, was the issuance by Pope PaulVI and Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras of a joint expression of regret for many of the past actions

that had led up to the Great Schism between the Western and Eastern churches, expressed as theCatholic-Orthodox Joint declaration of 1965. At the same time, they lifted the mutual

excommunications dating from the eleventh century.[31]

Joint Theological Commission

The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and theOrthodox Church first met in Rhodes in 1980.

Other moves toward reconciliation

In June 1995, Patriarch Bartholomew I, who was elected as the 273rd Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in October 1991, visited the Vatican for the first time, when he joined in the historicinter-religious day of prayer for peace at Assisi. Pope John Paul II and the Patriarch explicitly statedtheir mutual "desire to relegate the excommunications of the past to oblivion and to set out on the

way to re-establishing full communion."[32]

In May 1999, John Paul II was the first pope since the Great Schism to visit an Eastern Orthodoxcountry: Romania. Upon greeting John Paul II, the Romanian Patriarch Teoctist stated: "The secondmillennium of Christian history began with a painful wounding of the unity of the Church; the end of this millennium has seen a real commitment to restoring Christian unity." Pope John Paul II visited

other heavily Orthodox areas such as Ukraine, despite lack of welcome at times, and he said thathealing the divisions between Western and Eastern Christianity was one of his fondest wishes.

In June 2004, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I's visit to Rome for the Feast of Saints Peterand Paul (29 June) afforded him the opportunity for another personal meeting with Pope John PaulII, for conversations with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and for taking part inthe celebration for the feast day in St. Peter's Basilica.

The Patriarch's partial participation in the Eucharistic liturgy at which the Pope presided followed theprogram of the past visits of Patriarch Dimitrios (1987) and Patriarch Bartholomew I himself: fullparticipation in the Liturgy of the Word, joint proclamation by the Pope and by the Patriarch of theprofession of faith according to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in Greek and as the conclusion,

the final Blessing imparted by both the Pope and the Patriarch at the Altar of the Confessio.[33] ThePatriarch did not fully participate in the Liturgy of the Eucharist involving the consecration and

distribution of the Eucharist itself.[34][35]








In accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's practice of including the clause when reciting the

Creed in Latin,[36] but not when reciting the Creed in Greek,[37] Popes John Paul II and BenedictXVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek

without the Filioque clause.[38][39] The action of these Patriarchs in reciting the Creed together withthe Popes has been strongly criticized by some elements of Eastern Orthodoxy, such as the

Metropolitan of Kalavryta, Greece, in November 2008[40]

Prospects for reconciliation

Despite efforts on the part of Catholic Popes and Orthodox Patriarchs to heal the schism, onlylimited progress towards reconciliation has been made over the last half century. One stumblingblock is the fact that the Orthodox and the Catholics have different perceptions of the nature of thedivide.

Most of the ecclesiological issues seem to be within the realm of compromise and accommodationwith the exception of the doctrines of Papal Primacy and Papal supremacy. The official Catholic

teaching is that the Orthodox are schismatic meaning that there is nothing heretical about theirtheology, only their unwillingness to accept the supremacy of the Pope which is presented inCatholic teaching as an ecclesiological issue, not a theological one. With respect to Primacy of thePope, the two churches agree that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, has primacy although they continueto have different interpretations of what that primacy entails. The Eastern Orthodox insist that theprimacy is largely one of honor, the Pope being "first among equals" primus inter pares. TheCatholic Church, on the other hand, insists on the doctrine of Supremacy. It is widely understoodthat, if there is to be reconciliation, both sides will have to compromise on this doctrine. Althoughsome commentators have proposed ways in which such compromise can be achieved, there is noofficial indication that such compromise is being contemplated.

From the perspective of the Catholic Church, the ecclesiological issues are the central issue which iswhy they characterize the split between the two churches as a schism. In their view, the EasternOrthodox are very close to them in theology and the Catholic Church does not consider the Orthodoxbeliefs to be heretical. In contrast, the Catholic Church does consider a number of Protestantdoctrines to be heretical. However, from the perspective of Orthodox theologians, there aretheological issues that run much deeper than just the theology around the primacy and/or supremacyof the Pope. In fact, unlike the Catholics who do not generally consider the Orthodox heretical,[citation needed ] some prominent Orthodox theologians do consider the Catholic Church to be heretical

on fundamental doctrinal issues of theology.[citation needed ]

These doctrinal issues center around the Orthodox perception that the Catholic theologians lack the

actual experience of God called theoria and thereby fail to understand the importance of the Heart asNoetic or Intuitive faculty. It is the Catholic Church's reliance on pagan metaphysical philosophy andrational methods such as scholasticism rather than on intuitive experience of God (theoria) thatcauses Orthodox to consider the Catholic Church heretical. Other points of doctrinal differenceinclude a difference regarding human nature as well as a difference regarding original sin, purgatoryand the nature of Hell.

The most frequently discussed point of theological difference is embodied in the dispute regardingthe inclusion of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. From the perspective of the Catholic Church, theFilioque is seen as the primary theological obstacle to reconciliation. The Orthodox, on the otherhand, view inclusion of the phrase to be almost heretical (see also the Trinity section). The Catholic

Church does not consider the Filioque as an insurmountable obstacle. In contrast, the Orthodox viewthe unilateral insertion of Filioque into the Creed as a much more important issue than the Catholicsdo; where the Catholics have striven to be flexible, the Orthodox seem to admit to little room for








flexibility, if any.[citation needed ]

More importantly, the Orthodox see the Filioque as just the tip of the iceberg and really just asymptom of a much more deeply rooted problem of theology, one so deeply rooted that theyconsider it to be heretical and even, by some characterizations, an inability to "see God" and knowGod. This heresy is allegedly rooted in Frankish paganism, Arianism, Platonist and Aristotelianphilosophy and Thomist rational and objective Scholasticism. In opposition to what they characterizeas pagan, heretical and "godless" foundations, the Orthodox rely on an intuitive and mystical

knowledge and vision of God (Theoria) based on Hesychasm and noesis.[citation needed ] WhileCatholics accept the Eastern Orthodox intuitive and mystical understanding of God as valid,[citation needed ] they consider it to be complementary to the rational and philosophical Scholasticismof Thomas Aquinas. Pope John Paul II has characterized the Western and Eastern approaches as

operating as "two lungs" in the Body of Christ.[41] In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox reject therational and philosophical foundations of Western Christianity as pagan and heretical and assert thatuntil the Western Church learns to see God and know God as the Eastern Church does, there cannot

be even the remotest possibility of reconciliation.[citation needed ]

Despite this pessimistic opinion of the prospects for reconciliation, Patriarchs of the EasternOrthodox Church have shown a willingness to work with successive Popes of the Catholic Church inoint ecumenical efforts. A Joint Theological Commission meets regularly to identify areas where

progress is needed in order to achieve reconciliation.

Theological issues

Main articles: Catholic - Orthodox theological differences and Contra Errores Graecorum

Some Eastern Orthodox theologians point to a number of theological issues outstanding. Theseissues have a long history as can be seen in the 11th Century works of Orthodox theologian and saint

Nikitas Stithatos.

In the Roman Catholic Church too, some writers can be found who speak pejoratively of the Eastern

Orthodox Church and its theology, but these writers are marginal.[42] The official view of theCatholic Church is that expressed in the Decree Unitatis redintegratio of the Second VaticanCouncil:

In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developeddifferently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if fromtime to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these varioustheological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather thanconflicting. Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern Church are concerned, we mustrecognize the admirable way in which they have their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they arenurtured and given expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from the livingtradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the EasternChurches. Thus they promote the right ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full

vision of Christian truth.[43]

The Roman Catholic Church's attitude was expressed by Pope John Paul II in the image of the

Church "breathing with her two lungs".[44][45] He meant that there should be a combination of themore rational, juridical, organisation-minded "Latin" temperament with the intuitive, mystical and

contemplative spirit found in the east.[46]

Trinity








See also: Filioque

Eastern Orthodox charge that the Eastern and Western churches have different approaches tounderstanding the Trinity. The influence of St Augustine and, by extension, that of Thomas Aquinas

in the western Mediterranean on this issue are not generally accepted in the Orthodox Church.[47]

Various Orthodox theologians argue that the Filioque clause is symptomatic of this difference.

[48]

[49][50][51]

The "Filioque", Latin for "and (from) the Son", was added in Western Christianity to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This insertion emphasizes that Jesus, the Son, is of equal divinity withGod, the Father. The doctrine expressed by this phrase, as inserted into the Nicene Creed, is accepted

by the Catholic Church,[52] by Anglicanism[53] and by Protestant churches in general.[54] Christiansof these groups generally include it when reciting the Nicene Creed. Nonetheless, these groupsrecognize that Filioque is not part of the original text established at the First Council of

Constantinople in 381[citation needed ] and they do not demand that others too should use it when

saying the Creed.[citation needed ] Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church does not add the phrase

corresponding to Filioque (κα ὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek text of the Creed, even in the liturgy for Latin

Rite Catholics.[55]

At the 879-880 Council of Constantinople the Eastern Orthodox Church anathematized the"Filioque" phrase, "as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed", and in their 1848 encyclical the

Eastern Patriarchs spoke of it as a heresy.[56] It was qualified as such by some of the EasternOrthodox Church's saints, including Photios I of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, GregoryPalamas, who have been called the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy.

The Eastern church believes by the Western church inserting the filioque unilaterally (withoutconsulting or holding council with the East) into the Creed that the Western church broke

communion with the East.[57]

Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky criticize the misguided focus of Western theology of God in 'God in uncreated essence', which he alleges is a modalistic and therefore a speculative

expression of God that is indicative of the Sabellian heresy.[58] Orthodox theologian MichaelPomazansky argues that, in order for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son in theCreed, there would have to be two sources in the deity (double procession), whereas in the one Godthere can only be one source of divinity, which is the Father hypostasis of the Trinity, not God's

essence per se.[59] In contrast, Bishop Kallistos Ware suggests that the problem is more one of

semantics than of basic doctrinal differences.[60]

Pope John Paul II recited the Nicene Creed several times with patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox

Church in Greek according to the original text.[61] Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recitedthe Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the

Filioque clause.[38][39] The action of these patriarchs in reciting the Creed together with the Pope hasbeen strongly criticized by some elements of Eastern Orthodoxy, such as the Metropolitan of

Kalavryta, Greece.[62][63][64]

Experience of God (Theoria) vs Scholasticism

Further information: Theoria

Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, argues the difference in East andWest is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and








scholasticism) rather than actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmasof Roman Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky argues that Eastern Orthodox and Roman

Catholics have become "different men".[65] Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John

Romanides[66] and Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos have made similar pronouncements.[67]

According to the Orthodox teachings, Theoria can be achieved through ascetic practices likehesychasm (see St John Climacus), which was condemned as a heresy by Barlaam of Seminara.

Orthodox theologians charge that, in contrast to Orthodox theology, western theology is based on

philosophical discourse which reduces man and nature to cold mechanical concepts.[68][69] Orthodoxtheologians argue that the mind is the focus of Western theology, whereas in Eastern theology, the

mind must be put in the heart, so they are united into what is called nous,[70][71][72] involving the

unceasing Prayer of the heart.[73]

In Orthodox theology, mankind as a complete whole is called the soul, the Nous being often referred

as the "eye of the heart or soul",[74][75] and mankind's reason being called logos or dianoia,[76] while

mankind's spirit and body are energies vivified by the soul.[77] According to Orthodox theology,noetic understanding can be neither circumvented nor satisfied by rational or discursive thought (i.e.

systematization),[74] and denying the needs of the human heart (a more Western expression would bethe needs of the soul) causes various negative or destructive manifestations such as addiction,

atheism and evil thoughts etc.[78][79]

Further information: Nous,Noesis, andSpiritual Warfare

Orthodox theologians assert that the theological division of East and West culminated into a directtheological conflict known as the Hesychasm controversy during several councils at ConstantinopleNew Rome, between the years 1341-1351. They argue that this controversy highlighted the sharpcontrast between what is embraced by the Roman Catholic Church as proper (or orthodox)

theological dogma and how theology is validated and what is considered valid theology by theEastern Orthodox. The essence of the disagreement is that in the East one cannot be a genuine truetheologian or teach knowledge of God, without having experienced God, as is defined as the visionof God (theoria). At the heart of the issue was the teaching of the Essence-Energies distinctions(which states that while creation can never know God's uncreated essence, it can know His uncreatedenergies) by Gregory Palamas. It is important to note also that the Roman Catholic Church hasexplicitly taught that Hesychasm was a new phenomenon that was specific to the 13th century and aheresy which goes against the Roman Catholic theology which builds on the metaphysics of

Aristotle and scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas.[citation needed ]

Further information: Hesychasm

See also: Tabor light andNicholas Cabasilas

Sin, Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception

Another point of theological contention between the western and eastern churches, is the doctrine of

purgatory (as it was shown at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Ferrara-Florence).[80]

It was developed in time in western theology, according to which, those who are in God's grace andfriendship, but still imperfectly purified, undergo a cleansing fire, to achieve the holiness necessary

to enter the joy of heaven,[81] however eastern theology considers that suffering cannot purify sin,

since it has a different view of sin (and considers suffering as a result of a spiritual sickness).[82]

Western theology usually considers sin, more like a legalistic or judiciary act, which mainly requires

punishment and forgiveness,[83] while eastern theology considers the desire to sin, as the result of a

spiritual sickness (caused by Adam and Eve's pride), which needs to be cured.[84] According to








orthodox theologians, the western teaching of Augustine of Hippo about Original Sin, that all people

inherit the sin of Adam and Eve[85] is incorrect, since they believe that people inherit only thespiritual sickness (in which all suffer and sin) of Adam and Eve, caused by their ancestral sin (their

choice for self-love, instead of loving God).[86][87] At the Council of Ferrara-Florence, the Orthodox

Bishop Mark of Ephesus argued that there are no purifing fires,[88] this also involves however,

according to eastern theologians, differences about the way Heaven and Hell are seen.[89] The

eastern Church, believes that hell or eternal damnation and heaven exist and are the same place,which is being with God, and that the very same Divine love (God's uncreated energies) which is asource of bliss and consolation for the righteous (because they love God, His love is Heaven forthem), is also a source of torment (or a "Lake of Fire") for sinners (because they don't love God, they

will feel His love this way).[90][91][92][93]

Orthodox theologians also consider that the doctrine of Original Sin has led western theology todevelop the doctrine about the "Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary" (which was defined by

Pope Pius IX in 1854).[94] Eastern theologians consider this doctrine to be wrong, since it claims thatGod Himself protected the Virgin Mary from sin, so that she could give birth to Christ, while theybelieve that the Virgin Mary was chosen to give birth to Christ, because of her own desire to love

God and follow God's will.[95][96][97]

Ecclesiological issues

Many of the issues that currently separate the two churches are ecclesiological. Several of the issuesmentioned below have been raised against the Western Church for centuries, as can be seen in The

Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins, by Tia M. Kolbaba (University of Illinois Press, 2000), whichtreats of the Latins' prohibition of clerical marriage, the addition to the creed, improper Lentenfasting, fasting on the Sabbath, azymes in the Eucharist, errors involving baptism, marriage withinforbidden degrees, failure to revere icons, bishops wearing rings, insufficient reverence for the

Virgin Mary, making the sign of the cross incorrectly, various liturgical differences and many similarerrors.

Ecclesiological structure

See also: Primacy of the Roman Pontiff andEastern Orthodox Church organization

A major sticking point is the style of church government. The Orthodox Church has alwaysmaintained the original position of collegiality of the bishops resulting in the structure of the church

being closer to a confederacy in structure..[98] The Orthodox have synods where the highestauthorities in each Church community are brought together, but unlike Roman Catholicism no

central individual or figure has the absolute and infallible last word on church doctrine. In practice,this has sometimes led to divisions among Greek, Russian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian Orthodoxchurches, as no central authority can serve as a rallying point for various internal disputes. TheSecond Vatican Council has re-asserted the importance of collegiality to a degree that appears

satisfying to most if not all ecclesial parties.[citation needed ]

Papal privilege and authority

The Roman Catholic Church's current official teachings about papal privilege and power that areunacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox churches are the dogma of the pope's infallibility whenspeaking officially "from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra Petri)" on matters of faith and morals to be

held by the whole Church, so that such definitions are irreformable "of themselves, and not by theconsent of the Church" (ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae)[99] and have a binding character for all(Catholic) Christians in the world; the pope's direct episcopal jurisdiction over all (Catholic)








Christians in the world; the pope's authority to appoint (and so also to depose)[citation needed ] the

bishops of all (Catholic) Christian churches except in the territory of a patriarchate;[100] and theaffirmation that the legitimacy and authority of all (Catholic) Christian bishops in the world derivefrom their union with the Roman see and its bishop, the Supreme Pontiff, the unique Successor of

Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth.[citation needed ]

Principal among the ecclesiological issues that separate the two churches is the meaning of papalprimacy within any future unified church. The Orthodox insist that it should be a "primacy of

honor", as in the ancient church and not a "primacy of authority",[101] whereas the Catholics see thepontiff's role as requiring for its exercise power and authority the exact form of which is open to

discussion with other Christians.[102]

The declaration of Ravenna in 2007 re-asserted these beliefs, and re-stated the notion that the bishopof Rome is indeed the protos, although future discussions are to be held on the concreteecclesiological exercise of papal primacy.

Apostolic succession

Some of the Orthodox Churches unofficially acknowledge Apostolic succession within the Catholic

Church and admit the validity of its episcopal ordination.[citation needed ] The relationship between theAntiochian Orthodox and the Maronite Catholic bishops is a case in point.

Sacraments

Some Orthodox Churches do not require baptism in the case of a convert already baptized in theCatholic Church. Most Orthodox Churches allow marriages between members of the CatholicChurch and the Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church allows its clergy to administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist andAnointing of the Sick to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, if these spontaneously ask for the

sacraments and are properly disposed.[103] It also allows Catholics who cannot approach a Catholicminister to receive these three sacraments from clergy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whenevernecessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or

indifferentism is avoided.[104] Catholic canon law allows marriage between a Catholic and an

Orthodox only if permission is obtained from the Catholic bishop.[105]

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches authorizes the local Catholic bishop to permit aCatholic priest, of whatever rite, to bless the marriage of Orthodox faithful who being unable without

great difficulty to approach a priest of their own Church, ask for this spontaneously.[106]

Inexceptional circumstances Catholics may, in the absence of an authorized priest, marry beforewitnesses. If a priest who is not authorized for the celebration of the marriage is available, he should

be called in, although the marriage is valid even without his presence.[107] The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches specifies that, in those exceptional circumstances, even a "non-Catholic" priest

(and so not necessarily one belonging to an Eastern Church) may be called in.[108]

See also

Western Christianity

Eastern Christianity Western Rite Orthodoxy Sobornost (theological journal) Library of Constantinople destroyed by Western Crusaders during the sack of Constaninople.








Notes

1. ^ Sometimes called the Great Schism, a term that is also applied to the Western Schism (OxfordDictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3, articleGreat Schism)

2. ^ a b c d e f Cross, F. L., ed., ed (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York:

Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280290-9.3. ^ a b c d e Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ . New York: Simon and Schuster. 19724. ^ Acts 28:17-315. ^ John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK,

2002, pp 162-1646. ^ John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK,

2002, p687. ^ The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, vol. II, p. 2548. ^ "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have

jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch andthe other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges" (First Ecumenical Council, Canon VI).

9. ^ "Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should behonoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour" (FirstEcumenical Council, Canon VII

10. ^ "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome" (Second Ecumenical Council, Canon III)

11. ^ "Let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and letthe bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which arementioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administerthe Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops onlyThracian affairs" (Second Ecumenical Council, Canon II)

12. ^ http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ 13. ^ Aristeides Papadakis The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, SVS Press, NY, 1994 esp p1414. ^ Aristeides Papadakis The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, SVS Press, NY, 1994 p14)15. ^ The seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus declared: "It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or

to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathersassembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or tointroduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether fromHeathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops orclergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shallbe anathematized"

16. ^ (Extracts from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus). The creed quoted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (the Third Ecumenical Council) is that of the first Ecumenical Council, not the creed asmodified by the second Ecumenical Council, and so does not have additions such as "who proceeds fromthe Father" (ibidem).

17. ^ "Church and State in the Byzantine Empire". Archived from the original on 2009-10-31.http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1257013941639739.

18. ^ "Church and State in Western Europe". Archived from the original on 2009-10-31.http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1257013948737440.19. ^ "During the decade following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, his followers captured three

of the five 'patriarchates' of the early church — Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — leaving onlyRome and Constantinople." (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

20. ^ Norwich, John J. (1967). The Normans in the South 1016-1130. pp.102.

21. ^ a b c Norwich, John J. (1992). Byzantium, The Apogee. pp.320 – 321.22. ^ New Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm. ""...in 1053 he [Michael

Caerularius] sends off a declaration of war, then shuts up the Latin churches at Constantinople, hurls astring of wild accusations, and shows in every possible way that he wants a schism, apparently for themere pleasure of not being in communion with the West. He got his wish. After a series of wantonaggressions, unparalleled in church history, after he had begun by striking the pope's name from hisdiptychs, the Roman legates excommunicated him (16 July 1054). But still there was no idea of ageneral excommunication of the Byzantine Church, still less of all the East. The legates carefullyprovided against that in their Bull. They acknowledged that the emperor (Constantine IX, who wasexcessively annoyed at the whole quarrel), the Senate, and the majority of the inhabitants of the city



http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/

http://www.webcitation.org/query


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm



http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/




were "most pious and orthodox." They excommunicated Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and theiradherents. This quarrel, too, need no more have produced a permanent state of schism than theexcommunication of any other contumacious bishop. The real tragedy is that gradually all the otherEastern patriarchs took sides with Caerularius, obeyed him by striking the pope's name from theirdiptychs, and chose of their own accord to share his schism. At first they do not seem to have wanted todo so. John III of Antioch certainly refused to go into schism at Caerularius's bidding. But, eventually,the habit they had acquired of looking to Constantinople for orders proved too strong. The emperor (not

Constantine IX, but his successor) was on the side of his patriarch and they had learned too well toconsider the emperor as their over-lord in spiritual matters too. Again, it was the usurped authority of Constantinople, the Erastianism of the East that turned a personal quarrel into a great schism.""

23. ^ Bishop Kallistos (Ware), p. 6724. ^ Gallagher, Clarence (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press.

pp.596. ISBN 0199252467, 9780199252466. http: //books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pnkxofhi4mQC&pg=PA596&lpg=PA596&dq=Massacre+of+the+Latins&source=web&ots=KZ5JtcG2jN&sig=SJx8NwIiehNFz7OCT2ZIMSby1f8&hl=en&ei=RzGeSby8ONSujAetx6nLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result.

25. ^ a b Christiansen, Erik (1997). The Northern Crusades. London: Penguin Books. pp.287. ISBN 0-14-026653-4.

26. ^ Wetterau, Bruce. World history. New York: Henry Holt and company. 1994.27. ^ Dimitry Pospielovsky, The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia, p. 9728. ^ Reverend R Thornton. Lives of Eminent Russian Prelates. Kessinger Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-4179-

4649-0. Page 329. ^ "He endured to the end and was accounted worthy of the crown of martyrdom: inflexible alike to

prayers and threats, he was starved to death in prison, to be a pledge of deliverance to his country". -- AN Mouravieff. A History of the Church of Russia, 1842, reprinted 2004. ISBN 1-4179-1250-2. Page 166.

30. ^ The Ukrainian Greek Catholics: A Historical Survey31. ^ "JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI AND

THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I".http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/ documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html.

32. ^ Common Declaration33. ^ Report on Catholic-Orthodox Relations

34. ^ Presentation of the Celebration35. ^ Common Declaration36. ^ Missale Romanum 2002 (Roman Missal in Latin), p. 51337. ^ Ρωμαϊκό Λειτουργικό 2006 (Roman Missal in Greek), vol. 1, p. 347

38. ^ a b programme of the celebration

39. ^ a b Video recording of joint recitation40. ^ The Metropolitan's own blog, reported also by this Religious News Agency and the Russian Orthodox41. ^ “I, myself, have often spoken of the ‘two lungs’ – the East and the West – without which Europe could

not breathe. There will be no peaceful Europe in the future, nor one whose civilisation will shine forth,without this osmosis and this sharing of values which are different yet complementary. It is on this‘humus’ that the Europeans are called to build up their common house” (John Paul II 22 December 1989)

42. ^ An example is Curiosities from the "Orthodox" Arena, by Atila Sinke Guimarães

43. ^ Unitatis Redintegratio 1744. ^ Encyciclical Ut unum sint , 5445. ^ Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones46. ^ Obituary of Pope John Paul II47. ^ Romanides, John S.. Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine — [ Part 2 Empirical Theology versus

Speculative Theology -Empirical Theology-].http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.02.htm. "A basiccharacteristic of the Frankish scholastic method, mislead by Augustinian Platonism and ThomisticAristotelianism, had been its naive confidence in the objective existence of things rationally speculatedabout. By following Augustine, the Franks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual observation,(which they had found firmly established in Gaul when they first conquered the area) with a fascinationfor metaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations had foundations neither in created nor inspiritual reality."

48. ^ Pomazansky, Michael. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P14.HTM. "The ancient Orthodox teaching of the personalattributes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was distorted in the Latin Church by the creation of a



http://books.google.co.uk/books

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.02.htm

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P14.HTM





http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-

http://books.google.co.uk/books




teaching of the procession, outside of time and from all eternity, of the Holy Spirit from the Father andthe Son — the Filioque. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son originated incertain expressions of Blessed Augustine. It became established in the West as obligatory in the ninthcentury, and when Latin missionaries came to the Bulgarians in the middle of the ninth century, theFilioque was in their Symbol of Faith."

49. ^ Romanides, John S.. "Part I: Augustine's Teachings Which Were Condemned As Those of Barlaam theCalabrian by the Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1351.".

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctrine.01.htm. "Augustine unknowingly rejects the doctrine of the ecumenical councils concerning the Old Testament Lord of glory incarnate and his Vatican and Protestant followers do the same"

50. ^ Romanides, John S.. "Filioque".http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/romanides_filioque.html. "The pretext of the Filioquecontroversy was the Frankish acceptance of Augustine as the key to understanding the theology of theFirst and Second Ecumenical Synods."

51. ^ Romanides, John S.. "Filioque".http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/romanides_filioque.html. "During the ensuing centurieslong course of the controversy, the Franks not only forced the Patristic tradition into an Augustinianmold, but they confused Augustine's Trinitarian terminology with that of the Father's of the First andSecond Ecumenical Synods. This is nowhere so evident as in the Latin handling of Maximos theConfessor's description, composed in 650, of the West Roman Orthodox Filioque at the Council of

Florence (1438-42). The East Romans hesitated to present Maximos' letter to Marinos about this WestRoman Orthodox Filioque because the letter did not survive in its complete form."

52. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church. pp.246 – 248.http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm.

53. ^ "Article 5 of the Thirty-Nine Articles". http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html.54. ^ Lutheranism (Book of Concord, The Nicene Creed and the Filioque: A Lutheran Approach),

Presbyterianism (Union Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, ReformedPresbyterian Church); Methodism (United Methodist Hymnal)

55. ^ Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding theProcession of the Holy Spirit (scanned image of the English translation on L'Osservatore Romano of 20September 1995); also text with Greek letters transliterated and text omitting two sentences at the start of the paragraph that it presents as beginning with "The Western tradition expresses first …"

56. ^ Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"57. ^ Quoting Aleksey Khomyakov on the filioque and economy of the Eastern Churches and RomanCatholicism pg 87 The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have theirroots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the WesternChurch without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Sucharbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "Inorder not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole andbecame an organization based upon external authority.History of Russian Philosophy by Nikolai LosskyISBN 9780823680740

58. ^ Lossky, Vladimir (1997). The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. SVS Press. ISBN ISBN 0-913836-31-1.

59. ^ Pomazansky, Michael. "On the procession of the Holy Spirit".

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P14.HTM. "Oneness of Essence, and it is absolutely essentialto distinguish this from another dogma, the dogma of the begetting and the procession, in which, as theHoly Fathers express it, is shown the Cause of the existence of the Son and the Spirit. All of the EasternFathers acknowledge that the Father is monos aitios, the sole Cause” of the Son and the Spirit. OrthodoxDogmatic Theology"

60. ^ "The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a meretechnicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The OrthodoxChurch twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences." (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from EliasZoghby's A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43)

61. ^ Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, 25 October2003

62. ^ The Metropolitan's own blog63. ^ Ο Πάπας, ο Πατριάρχης και η…ένωση των εκκλησιών64. ^ The kiss of Judas65. ^ In the Introduction pg 21 "We have become different men" The Mystical Theology of the Eastern



http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctrine.01.htm

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/romanides_filioque.html


http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html





http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm



http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctrine.01.htm




Church, by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991.(ISBN 0-227-67919-9)

66. ^ Romanides, John S.. "FRANKS, ROMANS, FEUDALISM, AND DOCTRINE/ EMPIRICALTHEOLOGY VERSUS SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY".http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.02.htm. "A basiccharacteristic of the Frankish scholastic method, misled by Augustinian Platonism and ThomisticAristotelianism, had been its naive confidence in the objective existence of things rationally speculated

about. By following Augustine, the Franks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual observation,(which they had found firmly established in Gaul when they first conquered the area) with a fascinationfor metaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations had foundations neither in created nor inspiritual reality. No one would today accept as true what is not empirically observable, or at leastverifiable by inference, from an attested effect. So it is with patristic theology. Dialectical speculationabout God and the Incarnation as such are rejected. Only those things which can be tested by theexperience of the grace of God in the heart are to be accepted. "Be not carried about by divers andstrange teachings. For it is good that the heart be confirmed by grace," a passage from Hebrews 13.9,quoted by the Fathers to this effect."

67. ^ Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. "Knowledge of God according to St. Gregory Palamas".http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.06.htm#2k. ""As I have indicated, Barlaaminsisted that knowledge of God depends not on vision of God but on one's understanding. He said thatwe can acquire knowledge of God through philosophy, and therefore he considered the prophets and

apostles who saw the uncreated light, to be below the philosophers. He called the uncreated lightsensory, created, and "inferior to our understanding". However, St. Gregory Palamas, a bearer of theTradition and a man of revelation, supported the opposite view. In his theology he presented theteaching of the Church that uncreated light, that is, the vision of God, is not simply a symbolic vision,nor sensory and created, nor inferior to understanding, but it is deification. Through deification man isdeemed worthy of seeing God. And this deification is not an abstract state, but a union of man with God.That is to say, the man who beholds the uncreated light sees it because he is united with God. He sees itwith his inner eyes, and also with his bodily eyes, which, however, have been altered by God's action.Consequently theoria is union with God. And this union is knowledge of God. At this time one isgranted knowledge of God, which is above human knowledge and above the senses.""

68. ^ Pomazansky, Michael. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P2N.HTM.69. ^ "Roman Catholicism rationalizes even the sacrament of the Eucharist: it interprets spiritual action as

purely material and debases the sacrament to such an extent that it becomes in its view a kind of atomistic miracle. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there isno need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that 'everything, without in the least changing its physical substance' could become His Body. Christ's Body in theEucharist is not physical flesh." History of Russian Philosophy by Nikolai Lossky ISBN 9780823680740p. 87

70. ^ Rossi, Vincent. "Schism of Mind and Heart".http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2006/07/schism_of_mind_and_heart.html.

71. ^ "The Relationship between Prayer and Theology" from the official website of the "The AmericanCarpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese"

72. ^ "The difference is between the cure of a neurobiological sickness residing in a short-circuit betweenthe heart and the brain and no cure." from "THE CURE OF THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL SICKNESSOF RELIGION, THE HELLENIC CIVILIZATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, CHARLEMAGNE'S

LIE OF 794, AND HIS LIE TODAY" by John Romanides73. ^ Romanides, John. THE CURE OF THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL SICKNESS OF RELIGION, THE

HELLENIC CIVILIZATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, CHARLEMAGNE'S LIE OF 794, AND HIS LIE TODAY .http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness_of_rel.03.htm. "theunceasing prayer in the hearts which repairs the short-circuit between the heart and the brain."

74. ^ a b Neptic Monasticism75. ^ Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos (January 1, 2005). Orthodox Psychotherapy CHAPTER III . Birth of

Theotokos Monastery,Greece. http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.03.htm.76. ^ What is the Human Nous? by John Romanides77. ^ "as the Trinitarian God is Nous, Word and Spirit, so the soul too has nous, word and spirit." (but in

humans' case they "are not hypostases") Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos (2005), Orthodox

Psychotherapy, Tr. Esther E. Cunningham Williams (Birth of Theotokos Monastery, Greece), ISBN9789607070272

78. ^ "JESUS CHRIST - THE LIFE OF THE WORLD", John S. Romanides79. ^ "THE ILLNESS AND CURE OF THE SOUL" Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos




http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.06.htm#2k

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P2N.HTM

http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2006/07/schism_of_mind_and_heart.html

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness_of_rel.03.htm

http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.03.htm



http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.03.htm

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness_of_rel.03.htm

http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2006/07/schism_of_mind_and_heart.html

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P2N.HTM

http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.06.htm#2k





80. ^ Catholicism in the Third Millennium By Thomas P. Rausch, Catherine E. Clifford ISBN9780814658994

81. ^ CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH82. ^ WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM? By

Father Michael Azkoul83. ^ "Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's

progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal

punishment." CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH84. ^ "Human nature, according to St Symeon, needs a physician who can heal it from its corruptibility, andthis physician is Jesus Christ Himself." An Online Orthodox Catechism

85. ^ "Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted"CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

86. ^ "Augustine claims that all humans have sinned in Adam. The Council, however, interprets Rom. 5:12as saying that, "By one man sin entered the world, and by sin death, and thus to all men [death] passed, inwhich all have sinned." In other words all sin because of the spiritual death which each one suffers by notbeing in communion with the glory of God." from "THE CURE OF THE NEUROBIOLOGICALSICKNESS OF RELIGION, THE HELLENIC CIVILIZATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE,CHARLEMAGNE'S LIE OF 794, AND HIS LIE TODAY" by John Romanides

87. ^ Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy by V. Rev. AntonyHughes, M.Div St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts

88. ^ Life After Death by Metropolitan Hierotheos89. ^ "Paradise and Hell are an energy of the uncreated grace of God, as men experience it, and therefore

they are uncreated. According to the holy Fathers of the Church, there is not an uncreated Paradise and acreated Hell, as the Franco-Latin tradition teaches". Life After Death by Metropolitan Hierotheos

90. ^ An Online Orthodox Catechism91. ^ "the biblical concept of heaven and hell also becomes distorted, since the eternal fires of hell and the

outer darkness become creatures also whereas, they are the uncreated glory of God as seen by those whorefuse to love." Filioque by John Romanides

92. ^ Life After Death by Metropolitan Hierotheos93. ^ "Hell is not so much a place where God imprisons man, as a place where man, by misusing his free

will, chooses to imprison himself. And even in Hell the wicked are not deprived of the love of God, butby their own choice they experience as suffering what the saints experience as joy. ‘The love of God will

be an intolerable torment for those who have not acquired it within themselves" (V. Lossky, TheMystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 234 ISBN 9780913836316).94. ^ "The Orthodox Way" by Kallistos Ware ISBN 978091383658395. ^ "from the first instant of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by a most singular grace and

privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, preserved from all stain of Original Sin. It is a doctrine revealed by God, and therefore to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful (from the Bull Ineffabilis Deus)." WHAT ARE THEDIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM? By Father MichaelAzkoul

96. ^ "However, we do believe that the Virgin Mary is an image, as St. Maximos the Confessor says, of theChristian goal of becoming Christ-like, of theosis. Just as the Theotokos gave birth to Christ in a bodilyway, so we must, St. Maximos tells us, give birth to Christ in an unbodily or spiritual way. In so doing,we imitate her practical spiritual life, including the purity and humility by which she formed her free will

into perfect obedience to the Will of God.", "we cannot lose sight of the importance of free will in thedevelopment and expression of her rich personality." An Orthodox View of the Virgin Mary

97. ^ "The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895"98. ^ Quoting Aleksey Khomyakov pg 87 The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman

Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly thanever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed thefilioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one'sbrethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced toascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from theChurch as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to theunity of the state: it is not super-rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to thedoctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and

man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of transferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; inshort, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house. History of RussianPhilosophy by Nikolai Lossky ISBN 978-0823680740 p. 87








This page was last modified on 28 January 2010 at 19:43. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional

terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit

99. ^ "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, chapter 4".http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6.

100. ^ "Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 181".http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P51.HTM.

101. ^ as can be seen in the words of Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia of the Twelfth Century: “My dearestbrother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister patriachates and werecognize her right to the most honorable seat at the Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself

from us by her own deeds when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to heroffice… How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and evenwithout our knowledge? If the Roman pontiff seated on the lofty throne of his glory wished to thunder atus and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule usand our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves not the sons, of sucha church and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.”The Orthodox Church London by Ware, Kallistos St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0913836583

102. ^ In 1995 Pope John Paul II wrote: "With the power and the authority without which such an officewould be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches." He invited"Church leaders and their theologians to examine with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on thissubject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another,

keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved byhis plea 'that they may all be one ... so that the world may believe that you have sent me' (Encyclical Ut unum sint section 96). The Ravenna document of 13 October 2007 is one response to this invitation.

103. ^ Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 125; cf. Code of Canon Law,canon 844 §3 and Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 671 §3

104. ^ Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 123; cf. Code of Canon Law,canon 844 §2 and Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 671 §2

105. ^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 813 and Code of Canon Law, canon 1124106. ^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 833107. ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 1116 and Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 832108. ^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 832

References

Joseph P. Farrell. God, History, & Dialectic: The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes and Their Cultural Consequences. Bound edition 1997. Electronic edition 2008.

Aidan Nichols. Rome and the Eastern Churches: a Study in Schism. 1992

External links

Byzantium: The Great Schism, by Bp. Kallistos Ware Catholic Encyclopedia: The Eastern Schism

Encyclopaedia Britannica: Schism of 1054 Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I,

7 December 1965 BBC Radio 4 round table: In Our Time: Schism (16 October 2003) (audio) Orthodox Church in the Philippines: East-West Schism The Great Schism from Orthodox SCOBA

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism"Categories: Religion in the Byzantine Empire | East-West Schism | 1054 | Schisms in Christianity |Christianity-related controversies | Christian history | Christian terms



http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6







http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6




organization.


1- Wikipedia - East vs. West Schism 1054

Documents

Transcript of 1- Wikipedia - East vs. West Schism 1054