Theology 1.0: What is the great schism?

Armenian Church in Singapore, an Eastern Orthodox Church

Growing up in Singapore, I often think of Christianity of two kinds -- Roman Catholic and Protestant. However that was a myopic view. That view was to largely ignore my Eastern Orthodox friends, who mainly reside in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

In this post I will explore the historic background of the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church.

[Note that this page intents to be a summary; I would like to go into detail into many things, such as the issue of unleavened bread, the Donation of Constantine and many others.]

Prologue

Figure 1:
Western Roman Empire (in purple) and Eastern Roman Empire (in pink)

Language
As shown in Figure 1, the Roman Empire was very big indeed. To administer the regions better, the Empire was split into East and West around 300 AD. The Western Romans spoke Latin, while the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) spoke Greek.

As Christianity became increasingly accepted in the Empire, the Eastern and Western Churches started to develop almost independently, partially due to language barriers. The Church of Constantinople (now Istanbul) took prominence in the East, while the Church of Rome took prominence in the West.

Nevertheless, there was some level of communication between the churches as they met in councils to decide theological issues.

The role of Rome and Constantinople
The role of Bishop of Rome became even more elevated when the Western Roman Empire fell to barbarian invasions in 476 AD. As the only existing administrative authority in the West, the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) manage political as well as logistical issues.

This role became more pronounced as the bishops in the East often looked to Rome to settle their disputes (as Rome was an independent observer).

However, the appointment of the Pope was subjected to the approval of the Eastern Roman Emperor (as he was the only emperor left). This brought the Pope (and by extension the Western rulers) at the mercy of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Holy Roman Empire vs Eastern Roman Empire

Figure 2: Medieval Europe around 1200

In 800 AD, Pope Leo III crowned barbarian king Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor for his military, educational, theological and administrative achievements. This shifted the religious power from the Eastern Rome to the West.

As expected, the Eastern Romans did not take to this kindly. After all, they had not fallen yet. As Charlemagne's descendant Otto I founded the Holy Roman Empire in Germany, the friction between the Roman Christians and the Greek Christians increased.

Filioque
Finally the straw that broke the camel's back was the issue of Filioque. The Filioque was the inclusion of the words "and from the Son" in the Nicene Creed, one of the common creeds (statement of beliefs) between the Western and Eastern churches.

The creed read (with the added words in []):
the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]

Pope Leo IX started using the creed with the inserted words in 1014. When questioned by the Eastern bishops, he simply asserted the supremacy of Rome. To the Eastern Bishops, they felt that changing the creed required the need and consent of a council (involving them also).

Schism
Humbert vs Michael
In 1054 due to numerous theological and polititcal differences, Pope Leo IX sent a delegate which consisted of Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople to discuss the matters with Patriarch Michael of the Eastern Churches.

Snubbed by Michael, Humbert excommunicated the Eastern churches while they were celebrating the Divine Liturgy. In return, Michael excommunicated the Western churches. While this date was regarded as the official date of the split, many Eastern Roman historians did not think it was a significant event at that time.

Attempts to reconcile
Crusades
Despite being split, the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy Christians still regarded each other well. For instance, when Eastern Romans needed help to retake their lands from the Muslims, they appealed to the Pope for help. (This later led to the concept of the infamous Crusades.)

Nevertheless with the Eastern Romans massacring the Roman Catholics in Constantinople in 1182, and the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 soured relations between East and West to the point where reconciliation was off the table.

Yet in recent years, there have been attempts to improve relations. In 2004, Pope John Paul II expressed sorrow to Patriarch Bartholomew I for the sack of Constantinople (800 years after the incident!). This was seen an apology by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Conclusion
To me I wonder if the split was inevitable. While the Protestant Reformation was a split due to theological (in the case of Luther and Calvin) and political (in the case of England), this split seems to be more political to me.

To the Eastern Orthodox, the result of the Filioque caused Roman Catholicism to be drastically different in doctrine.

For further information