East-West Schism, AD 1054

TEACHING: AD 1054, East - West Schism, Greek Orthodox versus Roman Catholic

Why do churches split? SIN.

Some will say that is harsh. The reality is that whenever a church splits, there is some kind of sin someplace in either the faction or the original organization -- usually both. Frequently, it is a power play -- politics. A power grab of some group of people. This ought not to be.

I was once informed by leadership of a denomination that a church split might be God’s way to cause church growth. I was questioning the validity and circumstances around the formation of numerous churches in the State. It still sounded to me like someone -- or everyone -- was not listening to the guidance of Holy Spirit. However, many of us have been asked to leave a church -- years ago now. Is that a justifiable split? Was that God’s method for church growth? But the reason for even that separation -- the root cause -- was still unrepented sin.

2 Cor 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

1 John 1:5-7 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

A church cannot have darkness. If it does, it is no longer a church. "Church" should mean "love."

John 13:34-35 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

This is Jesus talking. And it is His command. There is little "love" in a church split. And 1000 years after Jesus left, a church split occurred that has yet to be resolved. The "western" church is the one we are most familiar with: Roman Catholicism.

THE EAST-WEST SCHISM (1054)

by GEORGE T. DENNIS [GEORGE T. DENNIS Dr. George T. Dennis is professor of history at Catholic University of America in Washington. D.C., and author of several books on the Byzantine Empire.]

On Saturday, July 16, 1054, as afternoon prayers were about to begin, Cardinal Humbert, legate of Pope Leo IX, strode into the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia, right up to the main altar, and placed on it a parchment that declared the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, to be excommunicated. He then marched out of the church, shook its dust from his feet, and left the city. A week later the patriarch solemnly condemned the cardinal.

Centuries later, this dramatic incident was thought to mark the beginning of the schism between the Latin and the Greek churches, a division that still separates Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian, and other). Today, however, no serious scholar maintains that the schism began in 1054. The process leading to the definitive break was much more complicated, and no single cause or event can be said to have precipitated it.

Immediate Causes of the Break

In 1048 a French bishop was elected as Pope Leo IX. He and the clerics who accompanied him to Rome were intent on reforming the papacy and the entire church. Five years earlier in Constantinople, the rigid and ambitious Michael Cerularius was named patriarch.

Problems arose in Southern Italy (then under Byzantine rule) in the 1040s, when Norman warriors conquered the region and replaced Greek [Eastern] bishops with Latin [Western] ones. People were confused, and they argued about the proper form of the liturgy and other external matters. Differences over clerical marriage, the bread used for the Eucharist, days of fasting, and other usages assumed an unprecedented importance.

When Cerularius heard that the Normans were forbidding Greek customs in Southern Italy, he retaliated, in 1052, by closing the Latin churches in Constantinople. He then induced bishop Leo of Ochrid to compose an attack on the Latin use of unleavened bread and other practices. In response to this provocative treatise, Pope Leo sent his chief adviser, Humbert, a tactless and narrow-minded man with a strong sense of papal authority, to Constantinople to deal with the problem directly.

On arriving in the imperial city in April 1054, Humbert launched into a vicious criticism of Cerularius and his supporters. But the patriarch ignored the papal legate, and an angry Humbert stalked into Hagia Sophia and placed on the altar the bull of excommunication. He returned to Rome convinced he had gained a victory for the Holy See.

Dramatic though they were, the events of 1054 were not recorded by the chroniclers of the time and were quickly forgotten. Negotiations between the pope and the Byzantine emperor continued, especially in the last two decades of the century, as the Byzantines sought aid against the invading Turks. In 1095, to provide such help, Pope Urban II proclaimed the Crusades; certainly there was no schism between the churches at that time. Despite episodes of tension and conflict, Eastern and Western Christians lived and worshiped together.

In the latter half of the twelfth century, however, friction between the groups increased, caused not so much by religious differences as by political and cultural ones. Violent anti-Latin riots erupted in Constantinople in 1182, and in 1204 Western knights brutally ravaged Constantinople itself. The tension accelerated, and by 1234, when Greek and Latin churchmen met to discuss their differences, it was obvious they represented different churches.

Underlying Causes of the Break

What caused the schism? It was not the excommunications of 1054; not differences in theology, discipline, or liturgy; not political or military conflicts. These may have disposed the churches to draw apart, as did prejudice, misunderstanding, arrogance, and plain stupidity. More fundamental, perhaps, was the way each church came to perceive itself.

The eleventh-century reform in the Western Church called for the strengthening of papal authority, which caused the church to become more autocratic and centralized. Basing his claims on his succession from St. Peter, the pope asserted his direct jurisdiction over the entire church, East as well as West.

The Byzantines, on the other hand, viewed their church in the context of the imperial system; their sources of law and unity were the ecumenical councils and the emperor, whom God had placed over all things, spiritual and temporal. They believed that the Eastern churches had always enjoyed autonomy of governance, and they rejected papal claims to absolute rule. But neither side was really listening to the other.

In addition, since the ninth century, theological controversy had focused on the procession of the Holy Spirit. In the life of the Trinity, does the Spirit proceed from the Father only, or from the Father and from the Son (Filioque in Latin)? The Western church, concerned about resurgent Arianism, had, almost inadvertently, added the word to the Nicene Creed, claiming that it made more precise a teaching already in the creed. The Greeks objected to the unilateral addition to the creed, and they strongly disagreed with the theological proposition involved, which seemed to them to diminish the individual properties of the three Persons in the Trinity. In 1439 Greek and Latin theologians at the Council of Florence, after debating the issue for over a year, arrived at a compromise that, while reasonable, has not proven fully satisfactory. After the Byzantine Empire fell in 1453, the Eastern church lived on under Turkish rule and then in various nations. Millions of Orthodox Christians in those lands are still separated from the millions of Christians adhering to Rome. Today greater efforts are made to address the issues, but neither side seems willing to make the necessary concessions. As a result, Christians who share a common belief and accept Jesus as head of the church, feel that they cannot share his Eucharist.

The 100 Most Important Events in Church History: Christian History, Issue 28, (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, Inc.) 1997.

Almost 1000 years earlier, the Apostle Paul wrote a warning to the church at Rome. And it was the Roman church that delivered the bull of excommunication to the altar of Hagia Sophia.

Rom 16:17-19 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

Were they separating themselves from contrary teaching or had they, the Roman church, become the contrary teaching? Orthodoxy argues that the decision by the pope of Rome to change the creed -- thereby changing basic beliefs -- without an act of church councils, was wrong. In other words, Orthodoxy felt Rome had changed Apostolic teaching.

But history shows there were many other issues involved. Most were political and had to do with the perception of power.

KEEP AWAY FROM THEM

Paul, the Apostle, stated very clearly, "Keep away from them." And what is to be done with them.

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

That is strong language. That seems to be one interpretation of what excommunication is. However, church splits are seldom over doctrine, but rather some practice or political power grab.

-- a Sunday school teacher takes "his" class and starts another church

-- a deacon wants to control the preacher

-- a preacher kindly informs, "Its my way or the highway."

-- a family with money wants to rule

But always, there is sin someplace. Sin in leadership or sin in the body of Christ. Usually both. Dare I say that most schisms in the church today have little to do with belief or doctrine because people in the church don’t know enough about doctrine to split over it. The leaders don’t even know it. Look at the discussion surrounding The Da Vinci Code. A church that simply knew church history would ignore the idiocy; it is not worth a response.

PERFECTLY UNITED IN MIND

Paul presents an "impossible" concept for the church.

1 Cor 1:10-11 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

1 Cor 11:17-19 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.

Paul acknowledges that we are individuals and yet we are to agree and function as one body.

1 Cor 12:24-26 But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

The hand looks and acts differently from the eye, yet both are part of one body. If the eye is missing, it is difficult for the body to see. If the hand is missing, it is difficult for the body to pick anything up even though it can see just fine. All the various diverse parts of the body are important for the body. A schism or split in the body is not beneficial and is usually considered a catastrophe. But churches split. They are divided. Denominationalism thrives. Competition is between pulpits rather than against the Gates of Hell. Rather than looking at what Jesus has done for mankind, we look at what program First Church of the Only-Ones-Saved has developed. Ecumenicism is viewed with suspicion by Evangelicals who feel they are the only ones making it to heaven. (Pentecostals, however, know they are in fact the only ones who will make it. Especially, the "pre-Trib-ers.") And Romanists once again declare exclusivity to the Eucharist.

ONE LOAF

The Roman church claims they have the Apostolic succession and authority through Peter. The Orthodox claim they have unchanged doctrine and practice since the Apostles. The Protestants claim they have read the book of Romans and understand it. The Pentecostals re-discovered the practices of Acts and read portions of the first book to the Corinthians, but apparently not all of it: they didn’t get the one-loaf thing..

1 Cor 10:14-17 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

That is what the Eucharist is about. As we remember what Jesus has done -- his words -- we who are many, participate and become as one body. That applies to the room full of people who partake of the bread. And it applies to the globe full of Christians who partake of the bread of communion. It is the body of Jesus, not our pet building program.

The fact that some believers speak English and others speak Russian does not mean there are two bodies. There is only one church.

The fact that some believers sing with guitars and drums and others use pipe organ and choirs does not mean they are separate bodies. There is only one church.

The fact that some believers practice celibacy and others have wives does not mean there are separate churches. There is only one church which is formed on the confession -- the statement out of your mouth -- the declaration from your heart, soul, and mind -- that Jesus is Lord AND you believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead.

Talking in tongues does not save you. Nor does healing the sick or raising the dead. Nor does membership in a particular church whether it is "Full Gospel" or "Orthodox" in the original Greek. The priest pouring water over you does not save you even though he can trace his "laying on of hands" to Peter. And neither does falling down in the presence of Brother Hell Fire save you. It is your belief, your heart, your soul that accepts Jesus as God; that is what "Jesus is Lord" is about. And then you mysteriously join that single body that Peter is part of with his confession.

Matt 16:18-19 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

What is that rock? "Peter" means "rock." The argument can be made that the church is built upon Peter. And that is where the Roman church makes her argument. But the same scripture could mean that the confession of Peter -- "you are the Christ, the Son of the living God." -- is the "rock" that the church is built on. That seems to be what Paul is saying in Romans 10.

Rom 10:8-13 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

ONE FAITH

Just because there are churches in name only and preachers in pulpits presenting a gospel that is not the good news of redemption by Jesus does not mean the church is not one universal church. That is because the church is -- by definition -- people who are redeemed. I grew up with the teaching that people who attended cold, dead mainline churches needed to get saved. I also quickly learned by experience that the fire-breathing preachers in the "full gospel" environment all too frequently lived the same life or worse than the "sinners" in the mainline churches. Is an "affair" in the church office different from the "affair" at the bar? The denomination and their own hell-fire and brimstone did not keep them from sin. Both groups needed the one confession. The robes and sacraments did not save. Neither did the jumping over pews and falling down to thumping guitars and drums. Salvation is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.

Eph 4:1-6 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit- just as you were called to one hope when you were called- 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Cardinal Humbert and Leo IX both needed the same confession of faith as the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius. The bull of excommunication neither saved nor damned anyone in Hagia Sophia because Paul made it clear 1000 years earlier what needs to be done:

Rom 10:12-13 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Did Michael Cerularius call on the name of the Lord? He needed to.

Did Leo the IX call on the name of the Lord? He needed to even though he was French.

Did Cardinal Humbert call on the name of the Lord? He needed to -- in Greek.

It does not matter whether you worship in a gold mosaic domed church or a rented hall, what matters is whether you call on the name of the Lord. Then and only then will you be saved.

Paul could just as easily have said, "There is no difference between Greek Orthodox people in Hagia Sophia and Roman Catholic people in St. Peter’s Basilica, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.."

Or maybe in our denominationally divided society on the Cuyuna Range, Paul might have said, "There is no difference between Pentecostals, Independents, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics -- or for that matter, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Atheists -- EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

It is the LORD, not the denomination that saves. It is Jesus, not the patriarch, pope, or pastor who saves. If you are saved through the method Paul taught, you are part of the one universal church. And when you join in the Lord’s Supper, you confirm that symbol of sacrifice by sharing the one loaf with the one church remembering what one Lord, Jesus, has done, not what you have done.

Father Michael Azkoul , St. Catherine Mission, St. Louis, MO states, "Also, there can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, because the Church is formed through it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteries - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized."

Conclusion of the matter: there is ONE CHURCH. Membership is "EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."