Who started the East-West Schism in 1054 AD?

[josie_L]

I think you are frustrated

I am not expecting to change your mind. But the questions are asked and I answer them from the Orthodox perspective. You don’t have to like it.

Name calling does not help one bit.

Are you overly sensitive? I’m actually refering to Satan as the cause of our division as was Hawkeye. So I’m not sure why you’re commenting as you are.

 

[Louie1983]

Tradition.

Now you are beginning to understand how the church really works, and how it will be if we are ever in communion again. That is exactly how it was, that is the Tradition. You will recall that even in scripture, Peter did not act very “Pope-like” in the modern sense.

Hesychios, the church has always had one pope that lead the church infallibly. I have looked into scriptures and i have looked into tradition and it all points to having one pope as the successor of st peter and the head of the church here on earth! The whole church, not just certain areas. So when peter closed the council in jerusalem with his teaching, he wasn’t acting very pope like? When he appointed bishops he wasn’t acting very pope like?
Recognize also, that by this time (1054AD) of schism the Popes of Rome were not being commemorated in the Eastern Catholic cathedrals. Perhaps a little background is necessary:

In the church as it was in the first millenium (and how it is today in the Orthodox church) each Patriarch would commemorate his fellow Patriarchs in the liturgy:

• Thus the Pope at Rome would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch and Patriarch of Jerusalem (in that order).
• The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Pope at Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem (in that order).
• The Pope at Alexandria would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem (in that order).
• The Patriarch of Antioch would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope at Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
• The Patriarch of Jerusalem would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope at Alexandria and the Patriarch of Antioch.

By 1005AD (or thereabouts) the Pope of Rome had been stricken from the dyptichs. This was because it had agreed to use the filioque in the liturgy at Rome.

**And here is where the real split began and where the orthodox church needs to realise it’s error. If the pope and the church approve the inclusion of the filioque then why couldn’t the east accept? The pope being the head of the church holds the authority who is guided by the holy spirit,how can he be wrong? what you explained above does nothing in my opinion to try to diminish the authority of the pope, all you have done is explain the “structure” of the church as it was back then, The problem for you is you have to try refute the fact there was a pope who was appointed leader of the church for both and the east and west from the time of Christ up until today!

The answer is simply is that they went against the authority of the pope and the church! Again there was a misguided idea that all the bishops or patriarchs held the same authority as the pope (regardless of the fact that the church had always one leader the 1000 years before ). This was simply untrue and an error. **
So Rome was already on probation, as far as the eastern churches were concerned.

 

[Louie1983]

The church at Rome likes to refer to itself as The Apostolic See. But in fact, it was the only Apostolic See in the west! In the east, there was not just one Apostolic See, but dozens of them.

**Exactly! there were dozens of them but Christ only gave the kingdom of the keys of heaven and the authority to loose and bound sin to one man and one man alone! Regardless of where this one man ended up (rome, constantinople, antioch etc - it’s all irrelevant) the successor of st peter was the one held the authority of the church full-stop! By referring to “dozens of sees” all you are trying to do is dillute the fact of the papacy! Smoke and mirrors as far as i’m concerned. **

In the early church the See at Rome controlled only central Italy, no further. That was to change later in the west but it had nothing whatsoever to do with the east, which continued to follow the pattern established by the canons. The Eastern Catholic churches did not see anything different about Rome from the first century to the tenth, while the churches in the west kept evolving their own understanding of what the bishop of Rome was, and what they hoped it could become.

**Ofcourse it was going to eveolve, but it didn’t change as people like to think. I think the church needed to evolve with certain issues (not change) to maintain it’s authority and to avoid confusion! The church needed to confirm the papacy and other areas so the faithfull knew what was apart of the faith and what wasn’t! As you could imagine, they way they communicated back then could give rise to the possibility of messages being mixed up! **

So your question to me sounds like you are asking “how dare they?” But that question would never have occurred to a bishop of the Eastern Catholic churches in the first one thousand years. All the Patriarchs are equal in authority. Each one is fully sovereign in his own church. There is one church in the east that has never had a churchman designated ‘Patriarch’ but has been totally sovereign and independent (Cyprus), this was confirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. No Patriarch can claim to rule over the church in Cyprus, that includes the bishop of Rome.

Here is where you error lies, all patriarchs are equal but none of them have the same authority as the pope as it was given to him by chirst. The pope is soveriegn over all churches, there is repeated support of this by early church fathers (tradition) and the scriptures! what more support could you need?

What I am suggesting to you is that your understanding of what a Pope of Rome is, is not traditional. When the Papacy changed, it became necessary to look for a rationale in scripture to support it. Some people think that if one quote-mines scripture, one can find support for almost any cause.

**The papacy never changed, it may have evolved but there was always a leader of the church and there was always the pope! My idea of the pope is very traditional, so traditonal tat it’s backed up by scritpure and by early church father teachings! Your suggestion that anyone can find support for any cause in scritpure is a little exaggerated, Christ promised to be with his church until the end of time so it cannot be incorrect. **

 

[Hesychios]

Who or what else could be behind this division?

The western church had a very hard time dealing with the interference and domination of local kings, princes and nobles.

It needed relief, it sought a stronger patriarch. We understand this, but those days are over, the church can return to it’s original configuration.

The church was not run this way from early times, it is a development.

The funny thing to me is that nobody seems to recognize the folly of the schism of 1054AD. The Pope was dead, and these Cardinals were running wild, as if they were in charge, as if they spoke for their church!

They were a total embarrassment, and they needed to be chastised severely for fomenting schism (a very great sin against Christ). Yet after Pope Victor was enthroned, he did nothing. It was as if the whole body of Cardinals was happy to see the schism begin. It is quite inexplicable.

 

[Louie1983]

I think that it was unwise for you to say such a thing. Might I remind you of another thread that asks “Are catholics their own worst enemy?”

You might wish to reflect upon that.

He actually has a point, he means to say that satan was the cause of the split because he likes to see disunity!

He is not accusing either side of being satan.

 

[josie_L]

He actually has a point, he means to say that satan was the cause of the split because he likes to see disunity!

He is not accusing either side of being satan.

Yes, that’s exactly what I think too.

 

[Louie1983]

The western church had a very hard time dealing with the interference and domination of local kings, princes and nobles.

It needed relief, it sought a stronger patriarch. We understand this, but those days are over, the church can return to it’s original configuration.

The church was not run this way from early times, it is a development.

The funny thing to me is that nobody seems to recognize the folly of the schism of 1054AD. The Pope was dead, and these Cardinals were running wild, as if they were in charge, as if they spoke for their church!

They were a total embarrassment, and they needed to be chastised severely for fomenting schism (a very great sin against Christ). Yet after Pope Victor was enthroned, he did nothing. It was as if the whole body of Cardinals was happy to see the schism begin. It is quite inexplicable.

So if you are asking what possibly could have inspired the schism, and what dark forces might be lurking behind it, you need to look into the College of Cardinals in 1054AD, in Rome.

If it is Satan, as hawkeye and Josie suggest; you, hawkeye and Josie need to look for his smoke in Rome, 1054AD.

Hesychios, could it be the fact that pope and the cardinals did nothing was because the orthodox might have actually been in error? By not accepting the filoque? By not accepting the pope’s authority? It’s not all the catholic church’s fault here, don’t go playing the victim.

By the sounds of things the “east” had already made up their mind about how they wanted to run the church and about who ran it! They were not the successors of the chair st peter fullstop! It’s that simple, No-one gave them the authority or the right to go against the papacy given it was governing the church for the previous 1000 years.

 

[josie_L]

The western church had a very hard time dealing with the interference and domination of local kings, princes and nobles.

It needed relief, it sought a stronger patriarch. We understand this, but those days are over, the church can return to it’s original configuration.

The church was not run this way from early times, it is a development.

The funny thing to me is that nobody seems to recognize the folly of the schism of 1054AD. The Pope was dead, and these Cardinals were running wild, as if they were in charge, as if they spoke for their church!

They were a total embarrassment, and they needed to be chastised severely for fomenting schism (a very great sin against Christ). Yet after Pope Victor was enthroned, he did nothing. It was as if the whole body of Cardinals was happy to see the schism begin. It is quite inexplicable.

So if you are asking what possibly could have inspired the schism, and what dark forces might be lurking behind it, you need to look into the College of Cardinals in 1054AD, in Rome.

If it is Satan, as hawkeye and Josie suggest; you, hawkeye and Josie need to look for his smoke in Rome, 1054AD.

Are you so “holier than thou” that you cannot see the mistakes the Orthodox church has made (with respect to the schism)? I’m starting to think you harbour some anti-catholic sentiments.

 

[Hesychios]

He actually has a point, he means to say that satan was the cause of the split because he likes to see disunity!

He is not accusing either side of being satan.

Ok, I can see that.

I am very sorry to have taken it the wrong way.

 

[Hesychios]

**And here is where the real split began and where the orthodox church needs to realise it’s error. If the pope and the church approve the inclusion of the filioque then why couldn’t the east accept? **

You cannot be serious!

 

[Louie1983]

Ok, I can see that.

I am very sorry to have taken it the wrong way.

All good brother!

 

[Louie1983]

You cannot be serious!

Really? why not?

 

[Louie1983]

Are you so “holier than thou” that you cannot see the mistakes the Orthodox church has made (with respect to the schism)? I’m starting to think you harbour some anti-catholic sentiments.

Whoa, no,no,no.

I understand that your defending the catholic church and god bless you for it but hesychios is not anti-catholic he is just orthodox.

Just by the discussion i’ve had with him on this forum he longs to see (back me up here hesychios) unity among the catholic ahd orthodox church. He is in no way anti-catholic.

 

[Hesychios]

In truth, I swear, I want to see us get around the impasse of disunity we see very vividly here.

I am sorry that I offend people. I try not to, and I have no animosity toward Catholic people or the Catholic church, I simply desire that we do what is necessary to get passed this monstrous schism. I think being bluntly honest is important, from both perspectives, but there is no justification for causing offense.

Again, I apologize for any offense I have caused.
*
Michael*

 

[Louie1983]

In truth, I swear, I want to see us get around the impasse of disunity we see very vividly here.

I am sorry that I offend people. I try not to, and I have no animosity toward Catholic people or the Catholic church, I simply desire that we do what is necessary to get passed this monstrous schism. I think being bluntly honest is important, from both perspectives, but there is no justification for causing offense.

Again, I apologize for any offense I have caused.
*
Michael*

Well said hesychios, i think you speak for everyone here when you speak of a burning desire to break the disunity and become one again to fight the evils of this world!

God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

How come of the Five Patriarchiate Churches, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, and Constantinople, only One Church split (Rome) but the rest of the other 4 remain in full communion?

Manny, I thought it worthwhile to add a comment on this part of your question.

There are “Greek Orthodox Patriarchs” of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. However, apostolic Christianity in the territory of Alexandria is overwhelmingly Oriental Orthodox and not in communion with either Eastern Orthodoxy or the Catholic Church; EO’s and Eastern Catholics of of roughly equal number in the Alexandrian territory. In Antioch and Jerusalem Eastern Catholics are a decided majority. Only in the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its daughter territories are apostolic Christians predominantly EO. So for the most part you are talking of what might be called “rump” Patriarchates, which do not have the significance implied in your remark.

The history of these Patriarchates is also more complex than suggested by your comment. Antioch, for example, did not take a position on the 1054 excommunications, until after the crusaders established Latin Hierarchs in the Holy Land. No joint declaration of communion exclusive of the Latins was given until after the fall of Constantinople when all of the Greek Patriarchates were under Moslem control. By the mid 18th century the elected Patriarchate sought and was received into communion with Rome, whereupon a competing Hierarch was installed in a parallel Orthodox jurisdiction.

 

[bpbasilphx]

And here is where the real split began and where the orthodox church needs to realise it’s error. If the pope and the church approve the inclusion of the filioque then why couldn’t the east accept?

---

**I stand with Pope John VIII who taught that filioque was a soul-destroying heresy, and those who confessed it were falsifiers of the faith and had their portion with Judas.

Why don’t you accept the teaching of Pope John VIII?

The Latin Church needs to realize its (note there is no apostrophe) error.**

 

[sancte_joseph]

And here is where the real split began and where the orthodox church needs to realise it’s error. If the pope and the church approve the inclusion of the filioque then why couldn’t the east accept?

---

**I stand with Pope John VIII who taught that filioque was a soul-destroying heresy, and those who confessed it were falsifiers of the faith and had their portion with Judas.

Why don’t you accept the teaching of Pope John VIII?

The Latin Church needs to realize its (note there is no apostrophe) error.**

WHY? well because not everything that a pope says is infallible and it was his opinion.
The church has declared that the filioque clause to be true… and your just and eastern church goer who has some indifference to the Church just like some Roman Catholic traditionalist have towards liberal roman Catholics… or Protestants towards catholics… just more and more fighting…

the split was very political… a little filioque clause did not create this GREAT DIVISION… rather politics… which i suspect more and more to be evil

 

[Louie1983]

And here is where the real split began and where the orthodox church needs to realise it’s error. If the pope and the church approve the inclusion of the filioque then why couldn’t the east accept?

---

**I stand with Pope John VIII who taught that filioque was a soul-destroying heresy, and those who confessed it were falsifiers of the faith and had their portion with Judas.

Why don’t you accept the teaching of Pope John VIII?

The Latin Church needs to realize its (note there is no apostrophe) error.**

There was no erroe here, just because a pope has his own personal opinion that doesn’t mean that adding the filioque was wrong. There are and were plenty of popes who accepted this.

Point is, the church has declared it as part of the faith (with traditonal and doctrinal evidence to support it) therefore it is true because Jesus promised he would be with the church until the end of time! The church simply cannot be wrong because it guided by the holy spirit.

 

[josie_L]

WHY? well because not everything that a pope says is infallible and it was his opinion.
The church has declared that the filioque clause to be true… and your just and eastern church goer who has some indifference to the Church just like some Roman Catholic traditionalist have towards liberal roman Catholics… or Protestants towards catholics… just more and more fighting…

the split was very political… a little filioque clause did not create this GREAT DIVISION… rather politics… which i suspect more and more to be evil