Excommunications and the Great Schism

[JesuXPIPassio]

Could someone shed some light on the nature of Excommunications?

As you all know, the Great Schism happened when the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other. But, how is it that the excommunicated affected both the Bishops and the people? Back then, could individuals of the Constantinople Church decide not to side with the Patriarch and just keep Communion with Rome?

If two bishops were to excommunicate each other, does this mean that they no longer are of the same Church?

If this is the case, how come some Orthodox Patriarchs are not in Communion with other Orthodox Patriarchs, yet they all still belong to the Orthodox Church?

Furthermore, since the excommunications were mutually lifted, where does that leave things? Like, isn’t Communion and Excommunication a black and white issue – if you’re not Excommunicated, then you’re in Communion with each other. Hence, in going with this logic, Communion should have been re-established already.

 

[prodromos]

Could someone shed some light on the nature of Excommunications?

As you all know, the Great Schism happened when the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other.

This is a common error. the Papal Bull of excommunication which Cardinal Humbert placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia, excommunicated the Patriarch Michael and all who followed him. The synod which followed only excommunicated Humbert and his companions (one of whom would later become Pope)

But, how is it that the excommunicated affected both the Bishops and the people? Back then, could individuals of the Constantinople Church decide not to side with the Patriarch and just keep Communion with Rome?

Orthodox ecclesiology does not jive with what you are asking. Being in communion with Rome is not what defines the Church.

If two bishops were to excommunicate each other, does this mean that they no longer are of the same Church?

If this is the case, how come some Orthodox Patriarchs are not in Communion with other Orthodox Patriarchs, yet they all still belong to the Orthodox Church?

In the short term no. It would require a synod of bishops to determine where matters stood and whether one or the other or both bishops were at fault. If they refused to repent then the bishop(s) would likely be deposed and a replacement elected. This happened not too long ago with the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Furthermore, since the excommunications were mutually lifted, where does that leave things? Like, isn’t Communion and Excommunication a black and white issue – if you’re not Excommunicated, then you’re in Communion with each other. Hence, in going with this logic, Communion should have been re-established already.

The lifting of the excommunications was purely a symbolic gesture with no real effect. The Patriarch of Constantinople does not con-celebrate with the Pope of Rome. A lot that has changed since 1054 would have to be reversed before that could possibly happen.

John

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’ll just add to Prodromos’ excellent post is that the Pope of Rome had already been stricked from the diptychs, as the filioque had been inserted into the Creed at Rome 40 years earlier.

 

[bpbasilphx]

It’s important to remember that Pope Leo IX had died at the time that Cardinal Humbert placed the Bull of excommunication on the altar, and that therefore his legatine authority was expired.

 

[Hesychios]

Very true!

But one of the Cardinals was Frederic of Lorraine, he must have assumed the the Bull was valid, for he was intimately connected with it’s composition and delivery. Within a few years he was Pope Stephen, and could have done something about it.

There is no record whatever of Pope Stephen, his predecessor or his successor rectifying the situation. He (Stephen) would have known that he had delivered a Bull of (theoretically, at least by todays argument) no value. And he knew he was personally excommunicated by the Patriarchate because of that Bull, yet he did nothing. It was just as if he considered it a done deal.

I think that in his mind, and the mind of all the other Popes of that day, the Bull was valid.

We still consider other Bulls valid long after the repose of both the author and the intended recipients. These include grants of land, foundation of monasteries and universities, excommunications, matters of international statecraft and all sorts of other important issues. The fact that the Pope has died does not automatically nullify the document. If the legates had died along the way, the document would still be valid too, if delivered by another hand.

That is why I believe Pope Stephen, aka Frederic of Lorraine, did nothing.

Michael

 

[Peter_the_Aleut]

But, how is it that the excommunicated affected both the Bishops and the people? Back then, could individuals of the Constantinople Church decide not to side with the Patriarch and just keep Communion with Rome?

If two bishops were to excommunicate each other, does this mean that they no longer are of the same Church?

If this is the case, how come some Orthodox Patriarchs are not in Communion with other Orthodox Patriarchs, yet they all still belong to the Orthodox Church?

Actually it was a break in communion between two patriarchates. A patriarch is considered to embody or represent his patriarchate. If two patriarchs aren’t in communion, then neither are their patriarchates. The only way subjects of a patriarch can remain in communion with another patriarch in this situation would be by going into schism from their own ruling hierarch, whose chief bishop their patriarch is - ie, by setting up schismatic congregations. (Actually, some say the break in communion between East and West only became a “schism” when Rome started setting up dioceses on the territories of Eastern Patriarchates and Cyprus, as a result of the Crusades, some generations later than 1054.)

Today no Orthodox Patriarchs who have ever been recognized as Orthodox Patriarchs are **not **in communion with each other. Although as in the first millennium, sometimes there are brief interruptions in communion, as a couple years ago when Constantinople felt its rights in northern Greece were being violated by the Archdiocese of Athens, and in the '90s when Moscow felt it was being intruded upon in Estonia by Constantinople. Think of these things as like temporary suspensions in diplomatic relations between sovereign states over some international disagreement.