How extensive was Eastern Orthodoxy immediately after the 1054 split?

[dmar198]

Basic question: How pervasive was Eastern Orthodoxy compared to (Western) Catholicism immediately after the East/West schism?

Another way of asking: After the 1054 schism, was there ever a time when there were more Orthodox than Catholics?

Today, there are far more Catholics in the world than Orthodox, which may give the impression that Orthodoxy is a an offshoot of Catholicism (and not the other way around). Currently, around 1.2 billion Catholics and about 300 million Orthodox. Has the proportion always been similar? I know that a lot of the Catholic numbers come from the Americas, which come so much later than the initial split.

So could it have been there were actually more Orthodox than Catholics at one time, sometime in the 11th century or after?

Numbers don’t tell the whole story, but I do wonder: what was the extent of Catholicism (under papal authority) compared to Eastern Christianity that went into schism? What lands were thoroughly Catholic right after the split (11th century)? Obviously plenty of Western European lands. But did Orthodoxy also have a firm hold on many of the lands we consider Eastern Europe and the Near East at this time—beyond Constantinople? Some Orthodox give the impression that Rome was the odd man out, while everyone else remained orthodox.

Obviously, distinctly Catholic and Orthodox lands would go on to influence other peoples. So, for instance, I believe Russia was heavily influenced by Eastern Orthodoxy only after the split (but that may be wrong). But you get the idea.

This is a difficult question to answer because most of us do not have data about the populations of Catholic countries and Orthodox countries from almost a thousand years ago. To begin answering your question, I think we should find out who Does know that information, and ask them (or see if they’ve already given us an answer somewhere).

On a related note, I think a good place to ask this question would be the American Museum of Natural History. They seem to know a lot about historical population centers because, late last year, they put out this video:

Human Population Through Time
youtube.com/watch?v=PUwmA3Q0_OE

That video tracks the human population through the use of yellow dots on a world map, with each yellow dot signifying a population center. In the 600s, when Islam arises, Western Europe has 16 population centers while the lands that would later be Orthodox have 21 population centers. In 800 A.D., the. (soon-to-be) Orthodox lands have 28 population centers, while Western Europe has 17 population centers. In 900 A.D., the (soon-to-be) Orthodox lands still have 28 population centers, while Western Europe has 18 population centers. In 1000 A.D., the (soon-to-be) Orthodox lands have 29 population centers, while Western Europe has 22 population centers. A bit over halfway through the 1000s A.D. ,the Orthodox lands still have 29 population centers, while Western Europe has 23 population centers.

This indicates that, at the time of the split, the Orthodox lands had a higher population because they had roughly six more population centers than there were in Western Europe. However, a lot of the population wasn’t even Christian, and that’s true in both Catholic and Orthodox territories. Demographics is equally as important to this question as population is. Are we overcounting the “Orthodox” population centers because four of them (in the mid-1000s) are in Saudi Arabia, three of them are in Egypt, and one of them is in Israel, all of which were (at this time) under the control of Muslims?

That’s eight population centers in question on the Orthodox side. Should we take all those population centers away from their “count” because they weren’t Orthodox territory? There was a high Orthodox population in them – just, how much? Should we take away half of each dot? I’m not sure because I don’t know the demographics. Similarly, in Western Europe, at least three and maybe four of our population centers at this time were in areas of Spain that were under Muslim control, not to mention that one of our population centers was in Sicily, which was under Muslim control. That’s four or five population centers in question. How much should we discount?

If we take away half of each population in territories that were under Muslim control, and do the same for both Catholic and Orthodox lands, we get Catholics: 21 or 20 population centers, Orthodox: 25 population centers. In other words, the Orthodox had about 4 or 5 more population centers than we did, discounting half the disputed territories.

Now, in this guesstimate, I’ve done some pretty sketchy comparisons based on a youtube video that was not meant for this purpose. And I’ve just guessed that half the population of some places were Christian when I really don’t know that. The point is, these estimates suggest the following: the populations of Catholic lands and Orthodox lands at the time of the Great Schism were comparable, but the Orthodox had a slightly population. This is a hypothesis for testing, not a conclusion for certain. I encourage you to contact the American Museum of Natural History for better and more complete information about demographics in historical areas.

 

[dmar198]

So how did this entire eastern region go with the Orthodox side of the schism? Did they all just automatically disagree with the [east’s] view of papal primacy? Were those eastern areas influenced by Constantinople?

For example, did Alexandria and Antioch and other ancient Eastern Christian communities side with Orthodox because these areas were “controlled” by Constantinople? Or did they independlty agree?

Antioch did not side with the Eastern Orthodox of their own choosing. There was plenty of back-and-forth within several of the Eastern Patriarchal Sees, including Antioch, with pro-Roman patriarchs occasionally gaining power and anti-Romans gaining power at other times. Consider this evidence: when the Patriarch of Constantinople originally sent out his epistle announcing the supposed errors of Rome, the Patriarch of Antioch wrote him back, saying:

“I beg you, I implore you, and in spirit I embrace your sacred feet and entreat your Divine Beatitude to give way and to accommodate itself to circumstances. For it is to be feared that you, in trying to heal these differences, may only make a schism, which is worse, and that in trying to lift them up you may cause a great calamity… I would not ask for more than the correction of the Creed… Consider what would certainly happen if that great first and Apostolic See be divided from our holy Churches – wickedness would spread everywhere, and the whole world would be upset, the kingdoms of all the earth would be shaken, everywhere would be much woe, everywhere tears.”

(The original Greek of the above document with a Latin translation can be found here at paragraph 21. Some selections are translated into English here.)

The Patriarch of Antioch who wrote that letter was named Peter III. He became the Patriarch of Antioch in 1052 A.D. according to this page, and remained in communion with Rome until his death, at which time Constantinople (which had broken Communion with us) appointed an anti-Roman patriarch. Antioch was taken out of Communion with us – they did not leave voluntarily. However, there was still back-and-forth: Patriarch John VI was appointed to the see of Antioch in 1090 A.D., and he was in Communion with Rome. In 1098 A.D., the whole territory of Antioch was restored to Catholicism during the Crusades, only to be lost again (with its people) in Islamic counter-attacks.

These Islamic counter-attacks set off a whole new period in the Catholic-Orthodox drama. We lost again the territories we had recovered through the Crusades. Between the 1100s and the 1400s, more and more Orthodox land was continually ceded to Islamic conquerors, and many Orthodox people in these areas relocated to Western Europe, where they adopted Western customs, universities, jobs, and, often, the Catholic faith. The Christians who remained in Islamic lands were partly Catholic, partly Orthodox, and were subjected to Shariah Law. The Orthodox patriarchs were appointed and deposed by their Muslim overlords as puppet governments within an Islamic empire.

The Orthodox churches could not last forever under such oppression and internal chaos, and their numbers dwindled. In the 1200s and the 1400s, the Orthodox churches officially reunited with Rome and sent emissaries to the Fourteenth and Sixteenth ecumenical councils. At the Seventeenth, this was the first part of their profession of faith: “Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.”

After this council, not all the Orthodox were on board, and the Muslims frequently deposed patriarchs who accepted union with Rome, because it was more profitable to the Muslims to keep us divided. They kept the Orthodox priests and people in ignorance, with few schools or pastoral training, and the churches were continuously racked by internal factions and external oppression. It got so bad in the 1500s that the pope started sending missionaries to Muslim territories to offer the Sacraments to the Orthodox.

Cont’d next post.

 

[dmar198]

Cont’d from last post.

One of the reasons the Patriarchs were frequently appointed and deposed was because this was a cheap source of income for the Muslims. Some factions within Orthodox communities offered bribes to the Muslims to depose the current patriarch and install someone from their own faction. Sometimes, these factions were pro-Roman. Kallistos Ware is an Orthodox scholar whose book Eustratios Argenti goes into this in considerable detail. He goes through a whole list of Orthodox patriarchs who reunited with Rome during this period of Muslim oppression and includes examples of the formulas by which Catholic missionaries had them attest to their reunion with the pope:

“To your beatitude I render all due obedience and submission, acknowledging you to be the true successor of the leader of the Apostles, and the chief shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the whole world. With all piety and obedience I bow before your holy feet and kiss them, asking your blessing, for with full power you guide and tend the whole of Christ’s chosen flock. So I confess and so I believe; and I am zealous that my subjects also should be such as I myself. Finding them eager, I guide them in the ways of piety; for there are not a few who think just as I do…” (Page 27)

Orthodox bishops who signed their names to this formula (or similar ones) included the following:

Constantinople
Neophytos II the Patriarch of Constantinople signed a formal profession of Catholicism in 1608
Timothy II the Partriarch of Constantinople signed in 1615, but not the formal letter of submission; instead he wrote a letter to the pope acknowledging the pope as his head and declaring his willingness to obey him in all things
Gregory IV the Patriarch of Constantinople may have signed in 1623, my sources aren’t clear
Athanasius III Patellaros the Patriarch of Constantinople signed in 1635
Cyril II the Patriarch of Constantinople signed in 1638

Antioch
Ignatius III the Patriarch of Antioch signed in 1631
Euthymios II the Patriarch of Antioch had already reunited with Rome previously and became Patriarch of Antioch in 1634, continuing his union with Rome
Parthenios II the future Patriarch of Constantinople signed in 1640, while he was Metropolitan of Chios
Euthymios III the Patriarch of Antioch gave a verbal profession of faith (but not a written one) and reigned over the See of Antioch until 1647
Macarius III the Patriarch of Antioch signed in 1662
Athanasius III the Patriarch of Antioch signed in 1687
Cyril V the Patriarch of Antioch signed in 1716

Other
Three Patriarchs of Ochrid between 1624 and 1628 signed formal professions of Catholicism
Josaphat the Metropolitan of Lacedaemon signed in 1625
Six Greek bishops in the Kyklades signed in 1662
The monks of the monastery of St. John on Patmos signed in 1681 and again in 1725
A convent of nuns on the island of Santorin signed in 1710
An abbot from the monastery of Iviron on Mount Athos signed in 1726
Kallinikos the Metropolitan of Aegina signed with many of his clergy in 1727

Citation for the above: Kallistos Ware, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Oxfod, UK: Clarendon Press, 1964), 25-29.

I do not see any mention, in my sources, about the Patriarchs of Jerusalem reuniting with Rome during this period. That does not mean that they didn’t do it, only that I am not aware of it.

So, in fact, I think it is not true at all that the West was the one who broke with the East. Considered historically, the Great Schism has been continually and repeatedly in the mist of repair from 1054 all the way up through 1727, and in the modern period the popes and patriarchs (with the ecumenical movement) have made great strides as well. I hope this helps. Please let me know. God bless!