East–West Schism

The East–West Schism also requested as the Great Schism or Schism of 1054 is the break of communion since 1054 between the Roman Catholic in addition to Eastern Orthodox churches. Immediately coming after or as a total of. the schism, this is the estimated that Eastern Christianity comprised a slim majority of Christians worldwide, with the majority of remaining Christians being Western. The schism was the culmination of theological together with political differences which had developed during the previous centuries between Eastern and Western Christianity.

A succession of ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between the Greek East and Latin West preceded the formal split that occurred in 1054. Prominent among these were: the procession of the Holy Spirit Filioque, whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist, the bishop of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of the See of Constantinople in version to the pentarchy.

In 1053, the number one action was taken that would lead to a formal schism: The Greek churches in southern Italy were forced to conform to Latin practices and, if all of them did not, they were forced to close. In retaliation, Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople ordered the closure of any Latin churches in Constantinople. In 1054, the papal legate returned by Leo IX travelled to Constantinople for purposes that covered refusing Cerularius the title of "ecumenical patriarch" and insisting that he recognize the pope's claim to be the head of all of the churches. The leading purposes of the papal legation were to seek assist from the Byzantine emperor, Constantine IX Monomachos, in opinion of the Norman conquest of southern Italy, and deal with recent attacks by Leo of Ohrid against the use of unleavened bread and other Western customs, attacks that had the assistance of Cerularius. The historian Axel Bayer says the legation was sent in response to two letters, one from the emperor seeking assistance in arranging a common military campaign by the eastern and western empires against the Normans, and the other from Cerularius. On the refusal of Cerularius to accept the demand, the leader of the legation, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, O.S.B., excommunicated him, and in advantage Cerularius excommunicated Humbert and the other legates. According to Ware, "Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".

The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful because Pope Leo had died and Cerularius' excommunication only applied to the legates personally. Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the necessary breach has never been healed, with regarded and identified separately. side sometimes accusing the other of falling into Latin patriarchs reported reconciliation more difficult. Establishing Latin hierarchies in the Crusader states meant that there were two rival claimants to each of the patriarchal sees of Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, devloping the existence of schism clear. Several attempts at reconciliation did not bear fruit.

In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I nullified the anathemas of 1054, although this nullification of measures which were taken against a few individuals was essentially a goodwill gesture and did not represent any sort of reunion. The absence of full communion between the churches is even explicitly mentioned when the program of Canon Law accords Catholic ministers permission to administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and the anointing of the sick to spontaneously requesting members of eastern churches such(a) as the Eastern Orthodox Church as living as the Oriental Orthodox churches and the Church of the East and members of western churches such(a) as the Old Catholic Church. Contacts between the two sides continue. Every year a delegation from each joins in the other's celebration of its patronal feast, Saints Peter and Paul 29 June for Rome and Saint Andrew 30 November for Constantinople, and there cause believe been several visits by the head of each to the other. The efforts of the ecumenical patriarchs towards reconciliation with the Catholic Church realise often been the target of sharp criticism from some fellow Orthodox.

Differences underlying the schism

Jaroslav Pelikan emphasizes that "while the East–West schism stemmed largely from political and ecclesiastical discord, this discord also reflected basic theological differences". Pelikan further argues that the antagonists in the 11th century inappropriately exaggerated their theological differences, whereas advanced historians tend to minimize them. Pelikan asserts that the documents from that era evidence the "depths of intellectual alienation that had developed between the two sections of Christendom." While the two sides were technically more guilty of schism than heresy, they often charged each other with allegations of blasphemy. Pelikan describes much of the dispute as dealing with "regional differences in usages and customs," some of which were adiaphorous i.e. neither correct nor wrong. However, he goes on to say that while it was easy in principle to accept the existence of adiaphora, it was unoriented in actual practice to distinguish customs which were innocuously adiaphoric from those that had doctrinal implications.

Philip Sherrard, an Nicholas Afansiev has criticized both the Catholic and Orthodox churches for "subscribing to the universal ecclesiology of St. Cyprian of Carthage according to which only one true and universal church can exist."

Another portion of controversy was celibacy among Western priests both monastic and parish, as opposed to the Eastern discipline whereby parish priests could be married men. However, the Latin church has always had some priests who were legally married. They have been a small minority since the 12th century.

There are several different ecclesiologies: "communion ecclesiology", "eucharistic ecclesiology", "baptismal ecclesiology", "trinitarian ecclesiology", "kerygmatic theology". Other ecclesiologies are the "hierarchical-institutional" and the "organic-mystical",and the "congregationalist".

The Eastern Churches maintain the belief that every local city-church with its bishop, presbyters, deacons and people celebrating the eucharist constituted the whole church. In this view called eucharistic ecclesiology or more recently holographic ecclesiology, every bishop is Saint Peter's successor in his church "the Church", and the churches form what Eusebius called a common union of churches. This implied that all bishops were ontologically equal, although functionally particular bishops could be granted special privileges by other bishops and serve as metropolitans, archbishops or patriarchs. Within the Roman Empire, from the time of Constantine to the fall of the empire in 1453, universal ecclesiology, rather than eucharistic, became the operative principle. The view prevailed that, "when the Roman Empire became Christian the perfect world layout willed by God had been achieved: one universal empire was sovereign and coterminous with it was the one universal church". Early on, the Roman Church's ecclesiology was universal, with the idea that the Church was a worldwide organism with a divinely not functionally appointed center: the Church/Bishop of Rome. These two views are still introduced in contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism and can be seen as foundational causes for the schisms and Great Schism between East and West.

The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of Papal a body or process by which power to direct or determine or a particular factor enters a system. classification forth in the Vatican Council of 1870, and taught today in the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church has always continues the original position of collegiality of the bishops resulting in the array of the church being closer to a confederacy. The Orthodox have synods where the highest authorities in each Church community are brought together, but, unlike the Catholic Church, no central individual or figure has the absolute and infallible last word on church doctrine. In practice, this has sometimes led to divisions among Greek, Russian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, as no central sources can serve as an arbitrator for various internal disputes.

Starting from thehalf of the 20th century, eucharistic ecclesiology is upheld by Catholic theologians. Henri de Lubac writes: "The Church, like the Eucharist, is a mystery of unity – the same mystery, and one with inexhaustible riches. Both are the body of Christ – the same body." Joseph Ratzinger called eucharistic ecclesiology "the real core of Vatican II's Second Vatican Council teaching on the cross". According to Ratzinger, the one church of God exists in no other way than in the various individual local congregations. In these the eucharist is celebrated in union with the Church everywhere. Eucharistic ecclesiology led the council to "affirm the theological significance of the local church. if each celebration of the Eucharist is a matter not only of Christ's sacramental presence on the altar but also of his ecclesial presence in the gathered community, then each local eucharistic church must be more than a subset of the universal church; it must be the body of Christ 'in that place'."

The ecclesiological dimension of the East–West schism revolves around the sources of bishops within their dioceses and the lines of authority between bishops of different dioceses. it is for common for Catholics to insist on the primacy of Roman and papal authority based on patristic writings and conciliar documents.

The Catholic Church's current official teachings approximately papal privilege and power that are unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox churches are the dogma of the ] the bishops of all Catholic Christian churches except in the territory of a patriarchate; and the affirmation that the legitimacy and authority of all Catholic Christian bishops in the world derive from their union with the Roman see and its bishop, the Supreme Pontiff, the unique Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth.[]

Principal among the ecclesiastical issues that separate the two churches is the meaning of papal primacy within any future unified church. The Orthodox insist that it should be a "primacy of honor", and not a "primacy of authority", whereas the Catholics see the pontiff's role as invited for its interpreter of energy and authority, the exact form of which is open to discussion with other Christians. According to Eastern Orthodox belief, the test of Scripture and then by the Holy Tradition of the church. It is not defined by adherence to any particular see. It is the position of the Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church.

Referring to Ignatius of Antioch, Carlton says:

Contrary to popular opinion, the word catholic does not intend "universal"; it means "whole, complete, lacking nothing." ...Thus, to confess the Church to be catholic is to say that She possesses the fullness of the Christian faith. To say, however, that Orthodox and Rome symbolize two lungs of the same Church is to deny that either Church separately is catholic in any meaningful sense of the term. This is not only contrary to the teaching of Orthodoxy, it is flatly contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which considered itself truly catholic

The church is in the image of the Trinity and reflects the reality of the incarnation.

The body of Christ must always be equal with itself… The local church which manifests the body of Christ cannot be subsumed into any larger organisation or collectivity which lets it more catholic and more in unity, for the simple reason that the principle of result catholicity and total unity is already intrinsic to it.

The iconoclast policy enforced by a series of decrees of Emperor Leo III the Isaurian in 726–729 was resisted in the West, giving rise to friction that ended in 787, when the Second Council of Nicaea reaffirmed that images are to be venerated but not worshipped. The Libri Carolini, commissioned by Charlemagne, criticized what a faulty translation gave as the council's decision, but their objections were rebutted by Pope Adrian I.

From the Catholic Church's perspective, the ecclesiological issues are central, which is why they characterize the split between the two churches as a schism. In their view, the Eastern Orthodox are veryto them in theology, and the Catholic Church does not consider the Eastern Orthodox beliefs to be heretical. However, from the perspective of Eastern Orthodox theologians, there are theological issues that run much deeper than just the theology around the primacy of the Pope. In fact, unlike Catholics, who do not generally consider the Orthodox heretical and speak instead approximately the Eastern "schism".

In the Catholic Church too, some writers can be found who speak pejoratively of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its theology, but these writers are marginal. The official view of the Catholic Church is that expressed in the decree Unitatis redintegratio of Vatican II:

In the discussing of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their apprehension and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern Church are concerned, we must recognize the admirable way in which they have their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they are nurtured and given expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from the well tradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the Eastern Churches. Thus they promote the correct ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of Christian truth.

Although the Western churches do not consider the Eastern and Western understanding of the Trinity to be radically different, Eastern theologians such as John Romanides and Michael Pomazansky argue that the Filioque clause is symptomatic of a fatal flaw in the Western understanding, which they atttributes to the influence of Augustine and, by extension, to that of Thomas Aquinas.

Filioque, Latin for "and from the Son", was added in Western Christianity to the Latin text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which also varies from the original Greek text in having the additional phrase Deum de Deo God from God and in using the singular "I believe" Latin, Credo, Greek Πιστεύω instead of the original "We believe" Greek Πιστεύομεν, which Oriental Orthodoxy preserves. The Assyrian Church of the East, which is in communion neither with the Eastern Orthodox Church nor with Oriental Orthodoxy, uses "We believe".

Filioque states that the Holy Spirit service from the Son as well as from the Father, a doctrine accepted by the Catholic Church, by Anglicanism and by Protestant churches in general. Christians of these groups loosely include it when reciting the Nicene Creed. Nonetheless, these groups recognize that Filioque is not factor of the original text established at the First Council of Constantinople in 381, and they do not demand that others too should ownership it when saying the Creed. Indeed, the Catholic Church does not put the phrase corresponding to Filioque καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the Greek text of the Creed, even in the liturgy for Latin Rite Catholics.

At the 879–880 Council of Constantinople the Eastern Orthodox Church anathematized the Filioque phrase, "as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed", and in their 1848 encyclical the Eastern Patriarchs spoke of it as a heresy. It was qualified as such by some of the Eastern Orthodox Church's saints, including Photios I of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory Palamas, who have been called the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. The Eastern church believes by the Western church inserting the Filioque unilaterally without consulting or holding council with the East into the Creed, that the Western Church broke communion with the East.

Eastern Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky criticize the focus of Western theology of God in 'God in uncreated essence' as misguided, which he alleges is a modalistic and therefore a speculative expression of God that is indicative of the Sabellian heresy. Eastern Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazansky argues that, in order for the Holy Spirit to stay on from the Father and the Son in the Creed, there would have to be two sources in the deity double procession, whereas in the one God there can only be one acknowledgment of divinity, which is the Father hypostasis of the Trinity, not God's essence per se. In contrast, Bishop Kallistos Ware suggests that the problem is more in the area of semantics than of basic doctrinal differences:

The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so numerous centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences.

Lossky argues the difference in East and West is because of the Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy and scholasticism rather than actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky states that Eastern Orthodox and Catholics have become "different men". Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as Romanides and Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos have made similar pronouncements. According to the Orthodox teachings, theoria can be achieved through ascetic practices like hesychasm, which was condemned as a heresy by Barlaam of Seminara.

Eastern Orthodox theologians charge that, in contrast to Eastern Orthodox theology, western theology is based on philosophical discourse which reduces humanity and set to cold mechanical concepts.

Roman Catholicism rationalizes even the sacrament of the Eucharist: it interprets spiritual action as purely fabric and debases the sacrament to such an extent that it becomes in its view a kind of atomistic miracle. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there is no need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that 'every thing, without in the least changing its physical substance' could become His Body. Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not physical fesh.