The Real Date of the Eastern Schism

If one opens a typical Catholic history textbook today and looks up the history of the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, one will most likely find that the date given for the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches was AD 1054, the date of the mutual excommunications between Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople and the papal legate, Cardinal Humbert. [1] This date has been cited for decades, even centuries, among historians as the definitive separation of the Churches. But, certain reputable scholars have questioned this. Does this date really represent what it has always claimed to be? There is a body of substantial evidence that indicates this is not the case. 

The background preceding the events of 1054 make one realize that this time in history was not the best for Eastern and Western Church relations. From the end of the ninth into the eleventh century, the Roman Church, it could be said, was in a dark period of her history. Many unworthy and incapable men were elected to the throne of St. Peter, with much ecclesiastical disorder prevailing. Reform was under way during Pope Leo IX’s (d.1054) pontificate, but, in general, the Eastern Church held Rome in contempt due to these centuries of corruption. [2] 

 

1054 also saw the Patriarchate of Michael Cerularius of   Constantinople. An ambitious and arrogant man, Cerularius began a heated debate with the Latin West with its differences of canonical discipline and liturgical practices, triggered by Norman attacks on Byzantine Christians living in Southern Italy. This lead to the unfortunate action on his part of the closing of the Latin Rite churches in Constantinople. [3] In response to this, the Pope dispatched a delegation to meet with the patriarch. The leader of the delegation was Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, who, in his turn, held Byzantine rites and customs in contempt. Upon meeting the patriarch, both sides refused to show the other the proper respect, casting a dark shadow over subsequent events. The Byzantines, questioning the validity of the documents brought by the Roman delegation, refused to give an official response. Cardinal Humbert, frustrated with the patriarch’s refusal, then took matters into his own hands. Drawing up an excommunication, he entered the Cathedral of Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, on the morning of July 16^th, right before the beginning of the Liturgy, and placed the excommunication on the altar. [4] Patriarch Cerularius in turn, later excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and his delegation, but, not Pope Leo IX. [5] 

 

A mutual excommunication happened, yes, but was it really the beginning of a definite schism? Some facts seem to dispute this:

      1. The excommunication of Humbert only explicitly calls out the patriarch, one of his Metropolitan-Archbishops, his treasurer, and, “those who were in agreement with them.” In no way could this be considered as an excommunication of everyone in the Byzantine Church, especially since the document praises the Byzantine Emperor and citizens of Constantinople for their “orthodox” faith! [6]

            2. For an excommunication to be valid the Pope must personally issue or agree to it. There is no evidence that the Pope had even suggested the idea of excommunication to Cardinal Humbert. The Pope desperately needed a Papal-Byzantine alliance at the time to fight against the Normans invading Italy. The last thing Pope Leo wanted was to antagonize and further divide the East from the Roman See.[7]

             3. In order for an excommunication to be valid and binding, a Pope…must be alive! When Cardinal Humbert walked into Hagia Sophia and placed the excommunication of the altar, Pope Leo IX was dead, having passed away before the act took place. In such a case, even if Humbert had received the Pope’s instructions to issue an excommunication, since the Pope had died, Humbert was acting “without canonical mission” and thus the excommunication would have no force of law. [8]

  

 4. In the sixteen charges in the document, a few of them were valid, but most were errors due to Cardinal Humbert’s very limited knowledge of Byzantine Church’s customs and history. an excommunication that errors in its basic facts is without force. [9]

            5. As Catholic priest and scholar Fr. Francis Dvornik points out, “One thing is sure: in spite of what happened in 1054, the faithful of both churches remained long unaware of any change in their relations and acts of intercommunion were so numerous that 1054 as the date of the schism becomes inadmissible…” [10] There is much evidence to back this claim, but, a few examples include the witness of Arab Christian author, Muhtar Ibn Butlan, who was present in Constantinople in the summer of 1054. He later wrote that though the excommunications caused tension, neither he nor those present in the city at the time thought they were permanent. Another example is the correspondence between Pope Gregory VII and Byzantine Emperor Alexios VII. Neither side shows any sign of a sense of permanent division between the Churches.[11]

Now the question is, if AD 1054 was not the date of the schism, then, when was it? Fr. Dvornik continues, “…These and other circumstances converge on the Crusades as the first starting point of the schism, or more correctly, of the estrangement that arose between East and West.” [12] With the advent of the Crusades, some great abuses and later atrocities would be committed by the Christians of the West toward their Eastern brothers. Both the eastern patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem were usurped by Latin Rite Archbishops due to Crusaders by AD 1100. Both patriarchs fled to Constantinople and remained in exile for the next two hundred years. This trend sadly culminated in the sacking of Constantinople and desecration of the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia by the Latin Crusaders in AD 1204. The Pope of the time, Innocent III rightly condemned this outrage, but then, made the incredibly sad and foolish move of replacing the Byzantine bishops, including the patriarch, with Latin Rite bishops, and tried to force Latin customs onto Byzantine liturgical practice. [13] 

This date, AD 1204, could reasonably be argued as the date of, or at the very least the beginning of, the definitive schism between the Eastern and Western Churches. The Eastern hierarchs consciously ceased to commemorate the Pope of Rome in their liturgies starting from this time on. As Professor Geoffrey Hull points out: “While most Orthodox theologians continued thereafter to accept the Roman Primacy in theory, their justification of the breach with Rome was that the contemporary incumbent of the throne of St. Peter had forfeited his authority by breaking so radically with Catholic tradition.” The papal “coup d'etat” that Pope Innocent tried on the Byzantine Church had devastating effects. When the Latin rule over Constantinople was finally overturned in AD 1261 by the Byzantine Emperor Michael Palaeologus, the Eastern Church refused to re-establish communion with Rome until, it said, Rome had repented of its new ideas of absolutist supremacy. [14]

Though the mutual excommunications of AD 1054 were a great trial for the Church, it seems pretty clear that this date was not the real date of the schism. This event did though reveal a strain on the relations between East and West, a lack of understanding between the two, which, sadly, culminated in the unfortunate political and ecclesiastical events of AD 1204, which could be said to be the real date of the schism: both sides cease to commemorate each other in the Liturgy, and polemics about either side being in schism and heresy began to appear. Fifteenth century Orthodox Archbishop Symeon of Thessalonica sums up the attitude of the East with regard to the schism: “One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of Peter, let him be the first, the head, the chief of all and the Supreme Pontiff…then we will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself…By no means do we reject the Pope; it is not with the Pope that we refuse to enter into communion. We are bound to him, as to Christ, and we recognize him as father and shepherd…But in as much as he [the present Bishop of Rome] is no longer their successor in the faith, he is no more the inheritor of the throne. The one whom one calls Pope will not be Pope as long as he has not the faith of Peter.” [15] 

Let us pray with much fervor for the day when both Catholics and Orthodox can see eachother as members of one Church again.

 

1 Morrow, Louis LaRavoire. My Catholic Faith. (Kenosha: My Mission House, 1958), p. 153.

2 Attwater, Donald. The Christian Churches of the East-Volume I: Churches not in Communion with Rome. (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1961), p. 8.

3 Ibid.

4 Frazee, Charles. “1054 Revisited,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies,42, no. 2 (2007), p. 268-271.

5 Erickson, John H. “Leavened and unleavened: some theological implications of the schism of 1054,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 14, no. 3 (1970), p. 156.

6 Frazee, Charles. “1054 Revisited,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies,42, no. 2 (2007),  p. 271.

7 Ibid. p. 268.

8 Faulk, Edward. 101 Questions on Eastern Catholic Churches. (New York: Paulist Press, 2007), pg. 31.

9 Frazee, Charles. “1054 Revisited,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies,42, no. 2 (2007),  p. 271.

10 King, Archdale. The Rites of Eastern Christendom-Volume I. (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2007), p. 6.

11 Frazee, Charles. “1054 Revisited,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies,42, no. 2 (2007),  p. 276.

12 King, Archdale. The Rites of Eastern Christendom-Volume I. (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2007), p. 7.

13 Hull, Geoffrey. The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church. (New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), p. 102-103.

14 Ibid. p. 103-105.

15 Ibid. p. 104.