Please give me a history of the great schism (1054 AD)

[JRKH]

Yes David McDonald’s site is impressive.

You should read his conversion story as well. It is very touching.

I thought I’d cut and paste even after providing the link because sometimes people don’t bother going to the link, but if it is there before them then they just might read.

The one thing that I found troubling was when Patriarch Michael went to the Latin Churches and threw out the hosts! A Patriarch actually desecrating the Body of Christ when I think of the care that we take to make sure that the crumbs do not fall to the ground! And the Eastern Orthodox confirms this fact.

Well lets be clear here…The actual stamtent is this, “His army enters latin Churches in Constantinople and throws Eucharists into the street”
It does not say that michael personally did this or sanctioned it.
I think we can both agree that when “armies” of rampaging hotheads get going things can happen that perhaps the leader(s) are unaware of and would not have approved if they did know.

Peace
James

 

[benedictus2]

Well lets be clear here…The actual stamtent is this, "His army enters latin Churches in Constantinople and throws Eucharists into the street

"
It does not say that michael personally did this or sanctioned it.
I think we can both agree that when “armies” of rampaging hotheads get going things can happen that perhaps the leader(s) are unaware of and would not have approved if they did know.

Peace
James

Here is a more detailed explanation from the same website

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

The Excommunication of Cerularius

The Crusades began in the 1090’s, which was 40 years after the Orthodox desecrated the latin Eucharist and holy books (because they were in Latin rather than Greek). The Byzantine patriarch attacked the Latin churches in Constantinople - Latin-speaking churches which existed since the time of Constantine; and he declared that their Eucharist was invalid because the Romans use unleven (rather than leven) bread – something that the Western Church (along with the Armenian Church) had always done since the time of the Apostles (Jesus Himself used unleven bread at the Last Supper, since it was a Passover feast and there would not have been any leven bread in Jerusalem at the time). But, the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius tried to force the Byzantine rite on the Romans living in the Eastern Empire. So, he took armed soldier into the Latin churches in Constantinople, and had them open the Tabernacles and throw the consecreated Eucharist in the streets. This is a historical fact. It is discussed by both Kallistos Ware and by Meyendorff in their books. And this is why Rome (a church which continued to permit and encourage Byzantine worship in its own city) served Cerularius with a bull of excommunication in 1054. Cerularius did this because the Franks who were vassals of the Roman Empire were gaining political power in the Balkans and so the Emperor and Patriarch wanted to brand them as heretics and thus reject their authority in the Balkans.

 

[Hesychios]

This source is not reliable.

At least from what you have quoted it’s not very well written either, rather amateurish.

The Excommunication of Cerularius

 The  Crusades began in the 1090’s, which was 40 years after the  Orthodox  desecrated the latin Eucharist and  holy books (because they  were  in Latin rather than Greek).    The Byzantine patriarch  attacked  the Latin churches  in Constantinople  - Latin-speaking churches which  existed since  the time of Constantine;

First of all these churches probably existed only since the Venetians and Genoese set up trading colonies. Any parishes that may have existed from the time of Constantine would have been following the standard liturgy of the diocese under their bishop.

Secondly, these were not the Pope’s parishes, they were part of the local synod, and allowed to use the Latin rite (of the time, different in some ways from the modern EF) as practiced by their native cities with permission, a type of indult. The residents of the city were bound to follow their bishop, regardless of where they were born, and their bishop was the patriarch.

It is difficult to know now what incidents (or how many, or where) may have occurred at the time of the closures, and I am not going to claim that some offenses like stepping on hosts didn’t happen, but some writers and posters may blow the whole thing out of proportion. I think that polemicists have been doing that for centuries on both sides of the schism.

Your quote also neglects to mention the matter of the Byzantine churches in southern Italy and Sicily. For those who are unaware, south of Naples the dominant liturgy was the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and the churches were under the omophor of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Normans conquered the territory, replaced the bishops and systematically converted the entire diocesan structure to the Latin rite.

This kind of thing happened time and again, the missions of Cyril and Methodios to Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland were similarly converted to the Latin rite under force.

… and he declared that their Eucharist was invalid because the Romans use unleven (rather than leven) bread

The east and the west were calling each other heretics over this at the time, it was horrific both ways.

– something that the Western Church (along with the Armenian Church) had always done since the time of the Apostles …

This is not supportable historically. I am going to have to ask you to show some better evidence than this man’s claim.

I don’t have the time to find references right now, but I am pretty certain that most of the western churches, including probably Rome, originally used leavened bread for the holy eucharist.

It is almost certain the the churches in Spain and Gaul (and possibly Milan) very early had liturgies with a ‘Rite of Preparation’, but I am not so sure about the city of Rome. The Armeniians took up the practice after the western church.

But, the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius tried to force the Byzantine rite on the Romans living in the Eastern Empire.

Again, they were canonically part of the diocese of Constantinople, and the church has a right to regulate the liturgy as served.

Anyway, that is not the reason Cardinals Humbert and Frederic tried (without authority) to excommunicate the Patriarch. Cardinal Humbert was very vocal about it afterward, to the point of bragging, and for that writer to declare that ‘THIS IS WHY’ is not being completely honest about the affair.

This is why, in Cardinal Humbert’s own words (translated to modern English, of course ):

1. 
   *]…they sell the gift of God
   *]…they castrate their guests
   *]…they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins
   *]…they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world
   *]…they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar
   *]…they say that the law of Moses is accursed
   *]…they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
   *]…they state that leave is ensouled (animatum)
   *]…they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth
   *]…they refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan
   *]…they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church.
   
   He also had these things to say about the patriarch (his ecclesiastical superior) …
   
   Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the
   heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent.
   
   AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.
   
   That’s a long list of complaints, but it doesn’t mention closing churches.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

These timelines and details are great, everyone. Thanks!

 

[dzheremi]

Two of Cardinal Humbert’s complaints are confusing to me:

#2: They castrate their guests

What on earth does this mean? Are we to take this literally?

10: They refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan​

I’m not sure about the first clause, but how does the second one make any sense at all? If you can’t be baptized because you are a pagan, then how are you supposed to actually stop being a pagan and join the church?

 

[benedictus2]

This source is not reliable.

At least from what you have quoted it’s not very well written either, rather amateurish.

First of all these churches probably existed only since the Venetians and Genoese set up trading colonies. Any parishes that may have existed from the time of Constantine would have been following the standard liturgy of the diocese under their bishop.
Even it it was true that the existence was later than the article said, that it was in existence and was accepted, why close them?

Secondly, these were not the Pope’s parishes, they were part of the local synod, and allowed to use the Latin rite (of the time, different in some ways from the modern EF) as practiced by their native cities with permission, a type of indult. The residents of the city were bound to follow their bishop, regardless of where they were born, and their bishop was the patriarch.
But it still does not answer why at this point in time they should be closed by forced and the Eucharist desecrated. I think this has more to do with politics than doctrine.

Your quote also neglects to mention the matter of the Byzantine churches in southern Italy and Sicily. For those who are unaware, south of Naples the dominant liturgy was the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and the churches were under the omophor of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Normans conquered the territory, replaced the bishops and systematically converted the entire diocesan structure to the Latin rite.
This kind of thing happened time and again, the missions of Cyril and Methodios to Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland were similarly converted to the Latin rite under force.

Okay I’ll verify that one. But I did a quick research and I could not find any documents that said that Slavs were forced to accept the Latin rite. Cyril and Methodious both journeyed to Rome and Pope John VIII even made Methodious Archbishop.

This is not supportable historically. I am going to have to ask you to show some better evidence than this man’s claim.
I checked some other article and they do say that the early Church used leavened bread. I think they might have based this on St Thomas’s claim that unleavened bread has always been used by the west.

Again, they were canonically part of the diocese of Constantinople, and the church has a right to regulate the liturgy as served.
That is true, but if they always been allowed to have the Latin rite?

Anyway, that is not the reason Cardinals Humbert and Frederic tried (without authority) to excommunicate the Patriarch. Cardinal Humbert was very vocal about it afterward, to the point of bragging, and for that writer to declare that ‘THIS IS WHY’ is not being completely honest about the affair.

This is why, in Cardinal Humbert’s own words (translated to modern English, of course ):

1. 
   *]…they sell the gift of God
   *]…they castrate their guests
   *]…they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins
   *]…they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world
   *]…they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar
   *]…they say that the law of Moses is accursed
   *]…they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
   *]…they state that leave is ensouled (animatum)
   *]…they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth
   *]…they refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan
   *]…they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church.
   
   He also had these things to say about the patriarch (his ecclesiastical superior) …
   
   Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the
   heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent.
   
   AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.
   
   That’s a long list of complaints, but it doesn’t mention closing churches.
   I have tried to find the source of your list and I could not find it.
   
   Can you give me a reference for this?
   
   From what I’ve read, the legate was sent in 1053 and Michael Cerularius refused to see the legate. The built was given in July 1054. He made them wait almost a year.

 

[JRKH]

I’m going to poke my nose in here for just a moment and say that the info so far is most interesting…
While I think the site that benedictus linked to is good, I also think that it is quite slanted toward the Western view and that some of it’s wording could be taken by our Eastern brothers as incorrect and even inflamatory. In this sense, I think that such a table could be better written, or perhaps have a “side by side” east west view of the same issues/incidents.
The main thing that I like about it is that it is easy to read and in a “timeline” format.

Hesychios -
Thank you for bringing in an Eastern view and your charitable way of expressing differences of opinioni. Certainly ncesessary for any productive and balanced discussion.

Finally
Lets us keep all things civil and charitable as we move forward in this.
A thread like this can be most enlightening to us all in demonstrating the many layers, issues, prejudices, biases and misunderstanding that those charged with reconciliation have to deal with.
It could also demonstrate how quickly such discussion can degenerate into chaos that produces much heat but no light…

Anyway - that’s my 2 cents worth.

Peace
James

 

[GaryTaylor]

Many great points…

The unsightly scars of death and war and the wrongs of man. There is no forgetting, and amnesty doesn’t work. Theres only one solution, its called to completely forgive.

Imagine a Biblical concept proposed to Christians? Such a foreign idea. And one so readily preached by all Christians to the rest of mankind in the name of God and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The very same concept which we fail to apply to ourselves. Children call it “practice what you preach”. It becomes very easy to dismiss a message as nonsense when the messenger lives by a different standard they propose others to live by.

Just Sayin:shrug: Take a look at it.

 

[JRKH]

Many great points…

The unsightly scars of death and war and the wrongs of man. There is no forgetting, and amnesty doesn’t work. Theres only one solution, its called to completely forgive.

Imagine a Biblical concept proposed to Christians? Such a foreign idea. And one so readily preached by all Christians to the rest of mankind in the name of God and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The very same concept which we fail to apply to ourselves. Children call it “practice what you preach”. It becomes very easy to dismiss a message as nonsense when the messenger lives by a different standard they propose others to live by.

Just Sayin:shrug: Take a look at it.

And a point that all, no matter what side they are on, should take to heart…

Peace
James

 

[Hesychios]

Even it it was true that the existence was later than the article said, that it was in existence and was accepted, why close them?

I suspect that it had something to do with a reaction to the loss of the Italian population, which was canonically in the patriarchate of Constantinople at the time.

Probably a bargaining chip - quid pro quo and all that.

But it still does not answer why at this point in time they should be closed by forced and the Eucharist desecrated. I think this has more to do with politics than doctrine.

I am not excusing it. But this kind of thing was happening on both sides. It is later individuals who are trying to build a credible case that their side was always right and the other side was always wrong who give us these stories, but often if not usually one-sided.

Orthodox polemicists would be just the same in this regard.

It is human nature.

…
Okay I’ll verify that one. But I did a quick research and I could not find any documents that said that Slavs were forced to accept the Latin rite.

That is easy enough to verify, look at the prevailing Catholic religion in those areas, the eastern rite is almost non-existant.

Moravia is no longer of the eastern rite, and the kingdom of Moravia was the official sponsor of the mission. The prince asked Constantinople to send a mission and Saint Photios recruited the two brothers to lead the mission. They spent several years preparing.

Cyril and Methodious both journeyed to Rome and Pope John VIII even made Methodious Archbishop.

They were trying to get the Franks to back off, and the Franks were followers of the Pope.

Incredibly, the pope agreed to protect their mission, provided they agreed to recognize the region as canonically in the western church, but after he died the Franks destroyed it. Most of the mnissioners working under Ss Cyril and Methodios fled, and some of them brought the “Methodian form”, using Slavonic instead of Greek, to Bulgaria.

I checked some other article and they do say that the early Church used leavened bread. I think they might have based this on St Thomas’s claim that unleavened bread has always been used by the west.

Catholic scholarship is really quite good in this area, but one has to do some digging. Actually I think the best sources would be books prepared for the training of priests in seminary, but these books are not published for common sale.

I have tried to find the source of your list and I could not find it.
Can you give me a reference for this?

Sorry. I should have posted.

PDF the host appears to be Carleton college of Minnesota. I don’t know why these things are so hard to find on the internet.

From what I’ve read, the legate was sent in 1053 and Michael Cerularius refused to see the legate. The built was given in July 1054. He made them wait almost a year.

This is another example of how a story can be affected by omission of some of the facts.

The legates (delegates) actually went to Constantinople in order to negotiate an alliance between the empire and the Pope. At the time, the Normans were running around southern Italy like bandits, and were a threat to Rome.

However, the empire was strapped, fighting on the eastern frontier, and could not spare the resources necessary to fight an effective campaign on two fronts. Both the Papal party and the Byzantine government were too weak to develop a coordinated military campaign in Italy at that particular time, so that issue was a non-starter.

It is no secret that Cardinal Humbert despised the Greeks, and the patriarch abhored Cardinal Humbert. They didn’t like one another one bit.

Somewhere along the process, the Pope died and the See at Rome was Sede Vacante. At that point, the Cardinals lost all authority to negotiate and the patriarch declined to have any more discussions with them.

The proper thing for the gentlemen to do would have been to return to Rome for a conclave, and let the new Pope name legates for himself if he still had the need.

 

[benedictus2]

I am not excusing it. But this kind of thing was happening on both sides. It is later individuals who are trying to build a credible case that their side was always right and the other side was always wrong who give us these stories, but often if not usually one-sided.

Are you saying that the Latins desecrated the Eucharist as well?

The legates (delegates) actually went to Constantinople in order to negotiate an alliance between the empire and the Pope. At the time, the Normans were running around southern Italy like bandits, and were a threat to Rome.

However, the empire was strapped, fighting on the eastern frontier, and could not spare the resources necessary to fight an effective campaign on two fronts. Both the Papal party and the Byzantine government were too weak to develop a coordinated military campaign in Italy at that particular time, so that issue was a non-starter.

It is no secret that Cardinal Humbert despised the Greeks, and the patriarch abhored Cardinal Humbert. They didn’t like one another one bit.

Somewhere along the process, the Pope died and the See at Rome was Sede Vacante. At that point, the Cardinals lost all authority to negotiate and the patriarch declined to have any more discussions with them.

The proper thing for the gentlemen to do would have been to return to Rome for a conclave, and let the new Pope name legates for himself if he still had the need.

This, I do know. Cardinal Humbert’s commission ceased with the death of the Pope so he should not have gone ahead with the excommunication.

 

[JRKH]

This, I do know. Cardinal Humbert’s commission ceased with the death of the Pope so he should not have gone ahead with the excommunication.

I even question if he would have had the authority to excommunicate even if the pope had not died. He should have gone back to Rome and reported and let the Pope deal with the issue of whether or how the Patriarch might have needed censuring…

Peace
James