Hello! Welcome to your third lesson.
In our previous lessons, we mapped out the foundational beliefs and the first major division in Christianity. We started with the shared doctrine of the Trinity and then explored the 5th-century schism over Christ's nature, which separated the Miaphysite churches (like the EOTC) from the Dyophysite, or Chalcedonian, churches.
Today, we will examine the next great rupture, which occurred within the Chalcedonian world. While the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church was not a direct participant in this dispute, understanding it is essential for contextualizing the EOTC's unique position relative to the two largest Christian bodies in the world today: the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
This lesson focuses on the Great Schism of 1054. We will describe the key theological and political factors that led to this division, focusing on the two most famous points of contention: the Filioque clause and the doctrine of Papal Primacy.
1. A Gradual Estrangement
The dramatic events of 1054—when a papal representative excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, who in turn excommunicated the papal representatives—was not the cause of the schism but its breaking point. The division between the Latin-speaking West (centered in Rome) and the Greek-speaking East (centered in Constantinople) was a slow drift that occurred over centuries.
To begin, let's get an overview of this long process.
This article from OrthodoxWiki, 'Great Schism,' provides an excellent summary of the long-term factors that led to the split. It will help us understand that this was more than just a single argument in 1054.
Please read the introduction (the first two paragraphs) and the section titled 'Other points of conflict'. Focus on how the schism is described as a 'gradual estrangement' and take note of the non-theological issues listed, such as language, political realities (Caesaropapism), and liturgical practices.
As the reading highlights, a host of cultural, political, and linguistic differences created two distinct worlds. Communication broke down, and mutual suspicion grew. Within this context of growing estrangement, two fundamental disagreements emerged.
2. The Political Dispute: Papal Primacy
The most significant political and structural disagreement concerned the authority of the Bishop of Rome—the Pope. Everyone agreed that the Pope held a "primacy of honor" as the successor of St. Peter, the chief of the apostles, and as the bishop of the old imperial capital. The conflict was over what this "primacy" meant in practice.
-
The Eastern View (Collegiality): The East saw the Pope as the "primus inter pares" or "first among equals." He was the senior patriarch among the five great ancient sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem—known as the Pentarchy). While he could be a final court of appeal in disputes, his authority was not absolute. For the East, the ultimate authority in the Church was an Ecumenical Council, where all bishops met collectively.
-
The Western View (Supremacy): The West gradually developed a more centralized model of authority. It taught that the Pope, as Peter's successor, possessed supreme, direct, and universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. His authority was not just one of honor but of governance.
Let's explore how these differing views of authority developed.
The 'Great Schism' article explains the historical development of papal authority and the concept of the Pentarchy. This section is crucial for understanding the political heart of the conflict.
Please read the sections titled 'Rise of Rome,' 'Five patriarchs,' and 'Papal Supremacy and Pentarchy.' Pay close attention to how the East and West's understanding of the Pope's role diverged over time.
This clash over authority became the framework for the main theological dispute.
3. The Theological Dispute: The Filioque
The most famous theological cause of the Schism is a single Latin word: Filioque, which means "and the Son."
The conflict centers on the Nicene Creed, the foundational statement of faith we discussed in our first lesson. The original text, finalized at the councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), states that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father."
καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον...
(And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father...)
However, in the late 6th century, churches in Spain—battling the Arian heresy which denied Christ's full divinity—added the Filioque to the Creed. The revised phrase read that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque)." This was done to emphasize that the Son was equal to the Father. The practice slowly spread throughout the West and was finally adopted in Rome in the early 11th century.
The Eastern churches had two major objections to this:
- Theological: They believed the Filioque distorted the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father alone is the sole source or "fount" of divinity. Both the Son and the Spirit originate from the Father. To say the Spirit also proceeds from the Son creates, in their view, two sources within the Godhead and subordinates the Spirit.
- Canonical: Even if the theology were debatable, the Western church had no right to unilaterally alter the text of the Creed, which had been established and affirmed by Ecumenical Councils representing the entire Church. This was seen as a flagrant and unacceptable exercise of papal supremacy.
This reading from OrthodoxWiki explains the issue clearly.
This section of the 'Great Schism' article focuses specifically on the Filioque controversy.
Please read the section titled 'Filioque.' It explains the origin of the term and the theological reasoning behind the Eastern objection.
Test your understanding!
How did the dispute over the Filioque reinforce the Eastern Church's concerns about Papal Primacy?
Show answer
The Eastern Church believed that the Creed could only be changed by another Ecumenical Council, representing the whole Church. The Pope's decision to authorize the addition of the Filioque was seen as a unilateral action that bypassed this conciliar process. It was a practical demonstration of the very claim to supreme authority that the East rejected. The issue wasn't just the word itself, but who had the authority to add it.
4. The Breaking Point: 1054
By the mid-11th century, tensions were high. The Normans were forcing Greek churches in Southern Italy to adopt Latin customs, like using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. In response, Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople closed the Latin churches in his city.
In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent a delegation led by the notoriously rigid Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople to resolve these issues. The mission was a disaster. Humbert and Cerularius were both proud and intransigent men. After a series of hostile encounters, Humbert lost his patience. On July 16, 1054, he marched into the great cathedral of Hagia Sophia and placed a bull (a papal decree) of excommunication on the main altar.
For a powerful, first-hand account of this event, we can turn to the document written by Humbert's party itself, which includes the text of the excommunication. As you read it, notice how the Western legates list all the ways they believe the Eastern church has gone astray.
Account-of-the-Embassy-of-Humbert-of-Silva-Candida-to- ...
This is a translated primary source: the account of Cardinal Humbert's embassy, which includes the actual text of the excommunication he issued against Patriarch Michael Cerularius. This gives you direct insight into the mindset and accusations of the Roman side.
Please read the section titled 'The Excommunication with which Michael Kerularios and his Followers are wounded.' Look for accusations related to the topics we've discussed: the Holy Spirit (Filioque), married priests, and other issues. This list of 'heresies' is a catalogue of the era's disputes.
In this text, you can see the accusation that the Greeks "cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son"—a direct reference to their rejection of the Filioque. You can also see complaints about married clergy ("Nicolaitists") and other liturgical differences.
In response to this act, Patriarch Michael Cerularius convened a synod and, in turn, anathematized (excommunicated) the papal legates. The Great Schism was formalized.
Conclusion
Today we have traced the long and complex path to the Great Schism of 1054, which formally divided the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
Key Takeaways:
- The Schism was the result of centuries of growing cultural, linguistic, and political divergence between the Latin West and Greek East.
- The core political issue was Papal Primacy: The West saw the Pope as having supreme, universal jurisdiction, while the East saw him as "first among equals" in a collegial church.
- The core theological issue was the Filioque: The West's unilateral addition of "and the Son" to the Nicene Creed was rejected by the East on both theological and canonical grounds.
- Other issues like liturgical practices (unleavened bread) and clerical discipline (married priests) added to the friction.
- The mutual excommunications of 1054 between Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularius were the final breaking point in a long-deteriorating relationship.
You now have a complete map of the three great Apostolic branches of Christianity: the Oriental Orthodox (including the EOTC), the Eastern Orthodox, and the Roman Catholic. This framework is crucial for understanding the distinct history and theology we will explore next.
Preview of the Next Lesson:
With this foundational context in place, we will now turn our full attention to Ethiopia. In our next lesson, we will begin Module 2 by delving into the ancient origins of Christianity in the Aksumite Kingdom and examining the EOTC's foundational relationship with its "mother church," the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt.