In this publication, the reader is offered an abbreviated version of the article by Archimandrite Plakida (Dezey) "The History of a Schism". This is a brief study of the causes and history of the gap between Western and Eastern Christianity. Without examining dogmatic subtleties in detail, dwelling only on the sources of theological disagreements in the teachings of Blessed Augustine of Hippo, Father Plakida gives a historical and cultural overview of the events that preceded the mentioned date of 1054 and followed it. He shows that the division did not happen overnight or suddenly, but was the result of "a long historical process, which was influenced by both doctrinal differences and political and cultural factors."

The main translation work from the French original was carried out by students of the Sretensky Theological Seminary under the guidance of T.A. Shutova. Editorial correction and preparation of the text was carried out by V.G. Massalitina. The full text of the article is published on the website “Orthodox France. View from Russia".

Harbingers of a split

The teaching of the bishops and church writers whose works were written in Latin—St. Hilary of Pictavia (315-367), Ambrose of Milan (340-397), St. John Cassian the Roman (360-435) and many others—was completely in tune with the teaching Greek holy fathers: Saints Basil the Great (329-379), Gregory the Theologian (330-390), John Chrysostom (344-407) and others. The Western Fathers sometimes differed from the Eastern ones only in that they emphasized more on the moralizing component than on a deep theological analysis.

The first attempt on this doctrinal harmony occurred with the appearance of the teachings of Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430). Here we meet with one of the most disturbing mysteries of Christian history. In Blessed Augustine, to whom the feeling of the unity of the Church and love for it were inherent in the highest degree, there was nothing of a heresiarch. And yet, in many directions, Augustine opened up new paths for Christian thought, which left a deep imprint in the history of the West, but at the same time turned out to be almost completely alien to non-Latin Churches.

On the one hand, Augustine, the most "philosophizing" of the Fathers of the Church, is inclined to exalt the abilities of the human mind in the field of knowledge of God. He developed the theological doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which formed the basis of the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. and Son(in Latin - filioque). According to more ancient tradition The Holy Spirit originates, just like the Son, only from the Father. The Eastern Fathers have always adhered to this formula contained in Holy Scripture New Testament (see: John 15, 26), and seen in filioque distortion of the apostolic faith. They noted that as a result of this teaching in the Western Church there was a certain belittling of the Hypostasis Itself and the role of the Holy Spirit, which, in their opinion, led to a certain strengthening of the institutional and legal aspects in the life of the Church. From the 5th century filioque was universally allowed in the West, almost without the knowledge of the non-Latin Churches, but it was added to the Creed later.

As far as the inner life is concerned, Augustine emphasized human weakness and the omnipotence of Divine grace to such an extent that it appeared as if he belittled human freedom in the face of Divine predestination.

Augustine's brilliant and highly attractive personality, even during his lifetime, was admired in the West, where he was soon considered the greatest of the Fathers of the Church and almost completely focused only on his school. To a large extent, Roman Catholicism and the Jansenism and Protestantism that splintered from it will differ from Orthodoxy in that which they owe to St. Augustine. Medieval conflicts between the priesthood and the empire, the introduction of the scholastic method in medieval universities, clericalism and anti-clericalism in Western society are in varying degrees and in different forms either a legacy or a consequence of Augustinism.

In the IV-V centuries. there is another disagreement between Rome and other Churches. For all the Churches of East and West, the primacy recognized for the Roman Church stemmed, on the one hand, from the fact that it was the Church of the former capital of the empire, and, on the other hand, from the fact that it was glorified by the preaching and martyrdom of the two supreme apostles Peter and Paul . But it's superior inter pares("between equals") did not mean that the Church of Rome was the seat of central government for the Universal Church.

However, starting from the second half of the 4th century, a different understanding was emerging in Rome. The Roman Church and its bishop demand for themselves a dominant authority that would make it the governing organ of the universal Church. According to Roman doctrine, this primacy is based on the express will of Christ, who, in their opinion, gave this authority to Peter, saying to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16, 18). The Pope of Rome considered himself not just the successor of Peter, who has since been recognized as the first bishop of Rome, but also his vicar, in whom, as it were, the supreme apostle continues to live and through him to rule the Universal Church.

Despite some resistance, this position of primacy was gradually accepted by the whole West. The rest of the Churches generally adhered to the ancient understanding of primacy, often allowing some ambiguity in their relationship with the See of Rome.

Crisis in the Late Middle Ages

7th century witnessed the birth of Islam, which began to spread at lightning speed, which was facilitated by jihad- a holy war that allowed the Arabs to conquer the Persian Empire, which for a long time was a formidable rival of the Roman Empire, as well as the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Starting from this period, the patriarchs of the cities mentioned were often forced to entrust the management of the remaining Christian flock to their representatives, who stayed on the ground, while they themselves had to live in Constantinople. As a result, there was a relative decrease in the importance of these patriarchs, and the patriarch of the capital of the empire, whose see already at the time of the Council of Chalcedon (451) was placed in second place after Rome, thus became, to some extent, the highest judge of the Churches of the East.

With the advent of the Isaurian dynasty (717), an iconoclastic crisis broke out (726). Emperors Leo III (717-741), Constantine V (741-775) and their successors forbade the depiction of Christ and the saints and the veneration of icons. Opponents of the imperial doctrine, mostly monks, were thrown into prison, tortured, and killed, as in the time of pagan emperors.

The popes supported the opponents of iconoclasm and broke off communication with the iconoclast emperors. And they, in response to this, annexed Calabria, Sicily and Illyria (the western part of the Balkans and northern Greece), which until that time were under the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

At the same time, in order to more successfully resist the offensive of the Arabs, the iconoclast emperors proclaimed themselves adherents of Greek patriotism, very far from the universalist "Roman" idea that had prevailed before, and lost interest in non-Greek areas of the empire, in particular, in northern and central Italy, claimed by the Lombards.

The legality of the veneration of icons was restored at the VII Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (787). After a new round of iconoclasm, which began in 813, Orthodox teaching finally triumphed in Constantinople in 843.

Communication between Rome and the empire was thus restored. But the fact that the iconoclast emperors limited their foreign policy interests to the Greek part of the empire led the popes to look for other patrons for themselves. Previously, the popes, who had no territorial sovereignty, were loyal subjects of the empire. Now, stung by the annexation of Illyria to Constantinople and left unprotected in the face of the invasion of the Lombards, they turned to the Franks and, to the detriment of the Merovingians, who had always maintained relations with Constantinople, began to contribute to the arrival of a new dynasty of Carolingians, bearers of other ambitions.

In 739, Pope Gregory III, seeking to prevent the Lombard king Luitprand from uniting Italy under his rule, turned to Major Charles Martel, who tried to use the death of Theodoric IV in order to eliminate the Merovingians. In exchange for his help, he promised to renounce all loyalty to the Emperor of Constantinople and take advantage of the patronage exclusively of the King of the Franks. Gregory III was the last pope to ask the emperor for approval of his election. His successors will already be approved by the Frankish court.

Karl Martel could not justify the hopes of Gregory III. However, in 754, Pope Stephen II personally went to France to meet Pepin the Short. In 756, he conquered Ravenna from the Lombards, but instead of returning Constantinople, he handed it over to the pope, laying the foundation for the soon formed Papal States, which turned the popes into independent secular rulers. In order to give a legal justification for the current situation, a famous forgery was developed in Rome - the Gift of Constantine, according to which Emperor Constantine allegedly transferred imperial powers over the West to Pope Sylvester (314-335).

On September 25, 800, Pope Leo III, without any participation of Constantinople, laid the imperial crown on the head of Charlemagne and named him emperor. Neither Charlemagne nor later other German emperors, who to some extent restored the empire he had created, became co-rulers of the Emperor of Constantinople, in accordance with the code adopted shortly after the death of Emperor Theodosius (395). Constantinople repeatedly proposed a compromise solution of this kind that would preserve the unity of Romagna. But the Carolingian Empire wanted to be the only legitimate Christian empire and sought to take the place of the Constantinopolitan Empire, considering it obsolete. That is why the theologians from Charlemagne's entourage took the liberty of condemning the decrees of the 7th Ecumenical Council on the veneration of icons as tainted with idolatry and introducing filioque in the Nicene-Tsaregrad Creed. However, the popes soberly opposed these careless measures aimed at belittling the Greek faith.

However, the political break between the Frankish world and the papacy on the one hand and the ancient Roman Empire of Constantinople on the other was sealed. And such a break could not but lead to a proper religious schism, if we take into account the special theological significance that Christian thought attached to the unity of the empire, considering it as an expression of the unity of the people of God.

In the second half of the ninth century The antagonism between Rome and Constantinople manifested itself on a new basis: the question arose of what jurisdiction to include the Slavic peoples, who at that time were embarking on the path of Christianity. This new conflict also left a deep mark on the history of Europe.

At that time, Nicholas I (858-867) became pope, an energetic man who sought to establish the Roman concept of the dominance of the pope in the Universal Church, limit the interference of secular authorities in church affairs, and also fought against the centrifugal tendencies that manifested themselves in part of the Western episcopate. He backed up his actions with counterfeit decretals circulating shortly before, allegedly issued by previous popes.

In Constantinople, Photius (858-867 and 877-886) became patriarch. As modern historians have convincingly established, the personality of St. Photius and the events of the time of his reign were strongly vilified by his opponents. He was a very educated man, deeply devoted to the Orthodox faith, a zealous servant of the Church. He understood well what great importance has the enlightenment of the Slavs. It was on his initiative that Saints Cyril and Methodius went to enlighten the Great Moravian lands. Their mission in Moravia was eventually stifled and supplanted by the intrigues of the German preachers. Nevertheless, they managed to translate liturgical and most important biblical texts into Slavonic, creating an alphabet for this, and thus laid the foundation for the culture of the Slavic lands. Photius was also involved in the education of the peoples of the Balkans and Russia. In 864 he baptized Boris, Prince of Bulgaria.

But Boris, disappointed that he did not receive from Constantinople an autonomous church hierarchy for his people, turned for a while to Rome, receiving Latin missionaries. It became known to Photius that they preach the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and seem to use the Creed with the addition filioque.

At the same time, Pope Nicholas I intervened in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, seeking the removal of Photius, in order to restore the former Patriarch Ignatius, who was deposed in 861, to the throne with the help of church intrigues. In response to this, Emperor Michael III and Saint Photius convened a council in Constantinople (867) , whose regulations were subsequently destroyed. This council, apparently, recognized the doctrine of filioque heretical, declared unlawful the intervention of the pope in the affairs of the Church of Constantinople and severed liturgical communion with him. And since Western bishops complained to Constantinople about the "tyranny" of Nicholas I, the council proposed to Emperor Louis the German to depose the pope.

As a result of a palace coup, Photius was deposed, and a new council (869-870), convened in Constantinople, condemned him. This cathedral is still considered in the West the VIII Ecumenical Council. Then, under Emperor Basil I, Saint Photius was returned from disgrace. In 879, a council was again convened in Constantinople, which, in the presence of the legates of the new pope John VIII (872-882), restored Photius to the throne. At the same time, concessions were made regarding Bulgaria, which returned to the jurisdiction of Rome, while retaining the Greek clergy. However, Bulgaria soon achieved ecclesiastical independence and remained in the orbit of Constantinople's interests. Pope John VIII wrote a letter to Patriarch Photius condemning the addition filioque into the Creed, without condemning the doctrine itself. Photius, probably not noticing this subtlety, decided that he had won. Contrary to persistent misconceptions, it can be argued that there was no so-called second Photius schism, and liturgical communion between Rome and Constantinople continued for more than a century.

Gap in the 11th century

11th century for the Byzantine Empire was truly "golden". The power of the Arabs was finally undermined, Antioch returned to the empire, a little more - and Jerusalem would have been liberated. The Bulgarian Tsar Simeon (893-927), who was trying to create a Romano-Bulgarian empire that was beneficial to him, was defeated, the same fate befell Samuil, who raised an uprising to form a Macedonian state, after which Bulgaria returned to the empire. Kievan Rus, having adopted Christianity, quickly became part of the Byzantine civilization. The rapid cultural and spiritual upsurge that began immediately after the triumph of Orthodoxy in 843 was accompanied by the political and economic flourishing of the empire.

Oddly enough, the victories of Byzantium, including over Islam, were also beneficial to the West, creating favorable conditions for the emergence of Western Europe in the form in which it would exist for many centuries. And the starting point of this process can be considered the formation in 962 of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation and in 987 of Capet France. Nevertheless, it was precisely in the 11th century, which seemed so promising, that a spiritual rupture occurred between the new Western world and the Roman Empire of Constantinople, an irreparable split, the consequences of which were tragic for Europe.

From the beginning of the XI century. the name of the pope was no longer mentioned in the diptychs of Constantinople, which meant that communication with him was interrupted. This is the completion of the long process we are studying. It is not known exactly what was the immediate cause of this gap. Perhaps the reason was the inclusion filioque in the confession of faith sent by Pope Sergius IV to Constantinople in 1009 along with the notice of his accession to the throne of Rome. Be that as it may, but during the coronation of the German emperor Henry II (1014), the Creed was sung in Rome with filioque.

In addition to the introduction filioque there were also a number of Latin customs that revolted the Byzantines and increased the occasion for disagreement. Among them, the use of unleavened bread for the celebration of the Eucharist was especially serious. If in the first centuries leavened bread was used everywhere, then from the 7th-8th centuries the Eucharist began to be celebrated in the West using wafers of unleavened bread, that is, without leaven, as the ancient Jews did on their Passover. Symbolic language was of great importance at that time, which is why the use of unleavened bread by the Greeks was perceived as a return to Judaism. They saw in this a denial of that novelty and that spiritual nature of the Savior's sacrifice, which were offered by Him instead of the Old Testament rites. In their eyes, the use of "dead" bread meant that the Savior in incarnation took only a human body, but not a soul...

In the XI century. the strengthening of papal power continued with greater force, which began as early as the time of Pope Nicholas I. The fact is that in the 10th century. the power of the papacy was weakened as never before, being the victim of the actions of various factions of the Roman aristocracy or being pressured by the German emperors. Various abuses spread in the Roman Church: the sale of church positions and the award of them by the laity, marriages or cohabitation among the priesthood ... But during the pontificate of Leo XI (1047-1054), a real reform of the Western Church began. The new pope surrounded himself with worthy people, mostly natives of Lorraine, among whom stood out Cardinal Humbert, Bishop of White Silva. The reformers saw no other means to remedy the disastrous state of Latin Christianity than to increase the power and authority of the pope. In their view, the papal power, as they understood it, should extend to the universal Church, both Latin and Greek.

In 1054, an event occurred that might have remained insignificant, but served as a pretext for a dramatic clash between the ecclesiastical tradition of Constantinople and the Western reformist movement.

In an effort to get help from the pope in the face of the threat of the Normans, who encroached on the Byzantine possessions of southern Italy, Emperor Constantine Monomachus, at the instigation of the Latin Argyrus, who was appointed by him as the ruler of these possessions, took a conciliatory position towards Rome and wished to restore unity, interrupted, as we saw, at the beginning of the century . But the actions of the Latin reformers in southern Italy, infringing on Byzantine religious customs, worried the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cirularius. The papal legates, among whom was the adamant Bishop of White Silva, Cardinal Humbert, who arrived in Constantinople for negotiations on unification, planned to remove the intractable patriarch by the hands of the emperor. The matter ended with the fact that the legates placed a bull on the throne of Hagia Sophia excommunicating Michael Cirularius and his supporters. And a few days later, in response to this, the patriarch and the council he convened excommunicated the legates themselves from the Church.

Two circumstances gave the hasty and thoughtless act of the legates a significance that they could not appreciate at that time. First, they again raised the issue of filioque, wrongfully reproaching the Greeks for excluding it from the Creed, although non-Latin Christianity has always regarded this teaching as contrary to the apostolic tradition. In addition, the Byzantines became clear about the plans of the reformers to extend the absolute and direct authority of the pope to all bishops and believers, even in Constantinople itself. Presented in this form, ecclesiology seemed completely new to them and also could not but contradict the apostolic tradition in their eyes. Having familiarized themselves with the situation, the rest of the eastern patriarchs joined the position of Constantinople.

1054 should be seen less as the date of the split than as the year of the first failed attempt at reunification. No one then could have imagined that the division that occurred between those Churches that would soon be called Orthodox and Roman Catholic would last for centuries.

After the split

The schism was based mainly on doctrinal factors relating to different ideas about the mystery of the Holy Trinity and about the structure of the Church. Differences were also added to them in less important matters relating to church customs and rituals.

During the Middle Ages, the Latin West continued to develop in a direction that further removed it from Orthodox world and his spirit.<…>

On the other hand, there were serious events that further complicated the understanding between the Orthodox peoples and the Latin West. Probably the most tragic of them was the IV Crusade, which deviated from the main path and ended with the ruin of Constantinople, the proclamation of the Latin emperor and the establishment of the rule of the Frankish lords, who arbitrarily cut the land holdings of the former Roman Empire. Many Orthodox monks were expelled from their monasteries and replaced by Latin monks. All this probably happened unintentionally, yet this turn of events was a logical consequence of the creation of the western empire and the evolution of the Latin Church since the beginning of the Middle Ages.<…>

Archimandrite Placida (Deseus) was born in France in 1926 into a Catholic family. In 1942, at the age of sixteen, he entered the Cistercian abbey of Belfontaine. In 1966, in search of the true roots of Christianity and monasticism, together with like-minded monks, he founded a monastery of the Byzantine rite in Aubazine (Corrèze department). In 1977 the monks of the monastery decided to accept Orthodoxy. The transition took place on June 19, 1977; in February of the following year, they became monks at the Simonopetra monastery at Athos. Returning some time later to France, Fr. Plakida, together with the brethren who converted to Orthodoxy, founded four courtyards of the monastery of Simonopetra, the main of which was the monastery of St. Anthony the Great in Saint-Laurent-en-Royan (Drome department), in the Vercors mountain range. Archimandrite Plakida is an assistant professor of patrology in Paris. He is the founder of the series "Spiritualitй orientale" ("Oriental Spirituality"), published since 1966 by the publishing house of the abbey of Belfontaine. Author and translator of many books on Orthodox spirituality and monasticism, the most important of which are: The Spirit of Pahomiev Monasticism (1968), We Have Seen the True Light: Monastic Life, Its Spirit and Fundamental Texts (1990), Philokalia and Orthodox Spirituality "(1997), "Gospel in the Desert" (1999), "Babylonian Cave: Spiritual Guide" (2001), "Fundamentals of the Catechism" (in 2 volumes 2001), "Confidence in the Invisible" (2002), "Body - soul - spirit in the Orthodox sense" (2004). In 2006, the publishing house of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University for the first time saw the publication of a translation of the book "Philokalia" and Orthodox Spirituality ". Those wishing to get acquainted with the biography of Fr. Plakidy recommend referring to the application in this book - an autobiographical note "Stages of Spiritual Journey". (Note per.)

Pepin III Short ( lat. Pippinus Brevis, 714-768) - French king (751-768), founder of the Carolingian dynasty. The son of Charles Martel and hereditary major, Pepin overthrew the last king of the Merovingian dynasty and achieved his election to the royal throne, having received the sanction of the Pope. (Note per.)

Saint Theodosius I the Great (c. 346–395) – Roman emperor from 379. Commemorated 17 January The son of a commander, originally from Spain. After the death of Emperor Valens, he was proclaimed emperor Gratian as his co-ruler in the eastern part of the empire. Under him, Christianity finally became the dominant religion, and the state pagan cult was banned (392). (Note per.)

Romagna called their empire those whom we call "Byzantines".

See especially: Janitor Frantisek. Photius Schism: History and Legends. (Coll. Unam Sanctam. No. 19). Paris, 1950; He is. Byzantium and Roman primacy. (Coll. Unam Sanctam. No. 49). Paris, 1964, pp. 93–110.

Nika Kravchuk

How Orthodox Church different from Catholic

Orthodox Church And Catholic Church two branches of Christianity. Both originate from the preaching of Christ and apostolic times, honor Holy Trinity, worship the Mother of God and the saints, have the same sacraments. But there are many differences between these churches.

The most fundamental dogmatic differences, Perhaps there are three.

Symbol of faith. The Orthodox Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Catholic Church has the so-called "filioque" - the addition of "and the Son." That is, Catholics claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Honoring the Mother of God. Catholics have a dogma about the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, according to which the Mother of God did not inherit original sin. The Orthodox Church says that Mary was freed from original sin from the moment of the conception of Christ. Catholics also believe that the Mother of God ascended to heaven, so they do not know such a revered holiday in Orthodoxy of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The dogma of the infallibility of the Pope. The Catholic Church believes that the teaching on matters of faith and morality delivered by the Pope ex cathedra (from the pulpit) is infallible. The Pope is filled with the Holy Spirit, so he cannot make mistakes.

But there are many other differences as well.

Celibacy. In the Orthodox Church there are black and white clergy, the second one is supposed to have families. The Catholic clergy take a vow of celibacy - celibacy.

Marriage. The Catholic Church considers it a sacred union and does not recognize divorce. Orthodoxy allows different circumstances.

Cross sign. Orthodox are baptized with three fingers, from left to right. Catholics - five and from right to left.

Baptism. If in the Catholic Church it is supposed only to water the person being baptized with water, then in the Orthodox Church - to dip with his head. In Orthodoxy, the sacraments of baptism and chrismation are performed at the same moment, while among Catholics, chrismation is performed separately (possibly on the day of the First Communion).

Communion. Orthodox during this sacrament eat bread from leavened dough, and Catholics - from unleavened bread. In addition, the Orthodox Church blesses children to receive communion from the very beginning. early age, and in Catholicism this is preceded by catechesis (teaching the Christian faith), after it big celebration- The first communion, which falls somewhere in the 10-12th year of a child's life.

Purgatory. The Catholic Church, in addition to hell and heaven, also recognizes a special intermediate place in which the soul of a person can still be cleansed for eternal bliss.

Temple arrangement. IN Catholic churches an organ has been installed, there are relatively fewer icons, but there are still sculptures and many places to sit. IN Orthodox churches there are many icons, murals, it is customary to pray while standing (there are benches and chairs for those who need to sit).

Universality. Each of the Churches has its own understanding of universality (catholicity). Orthodox believe that the Universal Church is embodied in each local Church, headed by a bishop. The Catholics specify that this local Church must have communion with the local Roman Catholic Church.

Cathedrals. The Orthodox Church recognizes these Ecumenical Councils, while the Catholic Church recognizes 21.

Many are concerned about the question: can both churches unite? There is such an opportunity, but what about the differences that have existed for many centuries? The question remains open.

Take it, tell your friends!

Read also on our website:

show more

When people first come to the temple, the text of the services seems completely incomprehensible to them. “Elitsya catechumens, come out,” the priest gives an exclamation. Who does he mean? Where to go? Where did such a name come from? The answers to these questions must be sought in the history of the Church.