Difficulties among Christian have their roots in secular and ecclesiastical politics
This weekend Pope Francis will make a three-day visit to Jordan, the West Bank and Israel during which he will meet the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Jerusalem. His All Holiness Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch – to give him his official title – is leader of Orthodox Christians since 1991, the 270th successor of the local Christian Church founded by St Andrew.
The meeting is significant, for it commemorates 50 years since the historic meeting between Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in 1964, which set in train significant ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches and led to a joint declaration on December 7, 1965 (read out simultaneously in Rome and Istanbul) which finally lifted the mutual excommunications that had been put in place by their predecessors – papal legate Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054.
The words of the 1965 statement have not lost their power since. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras “regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period”.
Furthermore, “they likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.”
And, finally, “they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors — among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust — eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.”
Declaration
While the declaration did not mean the end of the schism, it did commit both parties to the path of reconciliation and healing and towards greater mutual understanding. But what led to the schism between these Churches in the first place? Therein lies a long and complex tale.
The difficulties which arose between the Christian Churches of the East and those of the West from the fourth through to the 11th century had their roots in secular and ecclesiastical politics, issues surrounding ecclesiastical jurisdiction and, in particular, the office and authority claims of the Bishop of Rome (Pope).
There were also differing theological emphases and ways of explaining doctrinal concepts, something that was compounded by the fact that Christian theologians in the eastern half of the Roman Empire wrote in Greek and those in the west wrote in Latin and, consequently, misunderstandings often arose between both parties.
There was also a good deal of missionary competition for new converts, so much so that one Boris, the Khan or leader of the confederation of tribes known as the Bulgars, managed to play both sides off against each other in the ninth century to see which would cut him the most advantageous deal.
In many respects, historical events, oftentimes outside of the immediate control of Church leaders, set in train a string of unfortunate consequences that could not have been anticipated. The founding of Constantinople (now Istanbul) as ‘New Rome’ by the emperor Constantine in the year 330 – and his relocation there – made traditional patriarchal cities such as Antioch and Alexandria nervous.
But it would also, in time, represent a challenge to ‘old’ Rome. The ‘fall’ of the Roman Empire in the West in 476 led to greater estrangement – not least because the figure of Bishop of Rome was increasingly expected to fill the vacuum when there was no longer any western emperor and the papacy began to assume functions normally fulfilled by civil government.
Meanwhile, the East regarded itself as the Roman Empire right up to 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks.
Eastern Christians generally recognised the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as successor to Peter and primus inter pares (first among equals) – who might be invited to arbitrate in disputes between other churches such as Alexandria and Antioch and whose views were highly regarded. But they baulked as, over time, the Bishop of Rome appeared to claim supremacy of jurisdiction over other churches and began to intervene in ecclesiastical disputes without being invited to do so.
Neither were eastern Churches impressed when a local addition to the common Creed which stated that the Holy Spirit proceeded “from the Father and the Son” (in Latin filioque) became widely used in the reign of Charlemagne, who was crowned emperor of the West in 800 by the Pope. Now east and west effectively had different creeds. For eastern Christians, no one had a right to change the Creed except by way of an ecumenical council. Even Rome resisted the controversial new wording until it was finally used for the first time in the Roman liturgy in 1014.
As the eastern and western Churches drifted further apart so, too, did some of their disciplines and practices.
The eastern Churches did not impose celibacy for priests – only for monks and bishops – but they did impose beards, whereas the West forbade them. The eastern Churches administered the sacraments of initiation together (as opposed to the West which by now administered Confirmation years later).
Types of bread
Latterly, they also used two different types of bread for the Eucharist – the east preferring leavened bread and the west unleavened bread, a practice which eastern Christians regarded as particularly Jewish.
The tragedy was that among more significant issues, many of these minor differences became the occasion of mutual insults and on July 16, 1054, two hot-headed and intemperate individuals – Cardinal Humbert, representing Pope Leo IX, and patriarch Michael Cerularius – clashed in Constantinople over a long-standing dispute concerning the independence of eastern churches in Sicily under Norman control, among other matters. The Roman legates laid a bull of excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of Hagia Sophia church. A little later a Byzantine synod responded in kind. By that July, however, the westerners were legates of a dead Pope (Leo IX had died in April).
Neither party realised the historical consequences of their actions. No-one at the time regarded this as precipitating a long-lasting schism. Arguably, the infamous sack of Constantinople in 1204 by Latin crusaders was much more significant in this regard.
Incidentally, precious relics of St John Chrysostom and St Gregory the Theologian, stolen from Constantinople by western crusaders during this episode were returned to Patriarch Bartholomew by Pope John Paul II in 2004.
The logo of Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew’s joint pilgrimage to Jerusalem this weekend depicts the embrace of St Peter and St Andrew, who represent their respective apostolic sees. Long may that embrace hold firm.
Salvador Ryan is Professor of Ecclesiastical History at St Patrick’s College, Maynooth.
