Last Friday, a long-awaited event took place at the Havana airport: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill talked, signed a joint declaration, declared the need to stop the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, and expressed the hope that their meeting would inspire Christians around the world to pray for full unity of the churches. Since Catholics and Orthodox pray to the same god, venerate the same holy books and believe, in fact, in the same thing, the site decided to figure out what are the most important differences. religious movements and when and why the split happened. Interesting facts - in our brief educational program about Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

7 facts about the split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism

a katz / Shutterstock.com

1. The split of the Christian church occurred in 1054. The Church was divided into Roman Catholic in the West (center in Rome) and Orthodox in the East (center in Constantinople). The reasons were, among other things, disagreements on dogmatic, canonical, liturgical and disciplinary issues.

2. In the course of the schism, Catholics, among other things, accused the Orthodox of selling the gift of God, rebaptizing those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, and allowing marriages for altar servers. The Orthodox accused the Catholics of, for example, fasting on Saturday and allowing their bishops to wear rings on their fingers.

3. The list of all issues on which Orthodox and Catholics cannot reconcile will take several pages, so we will give only a few examples.

Orthodoxy denies the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Catholicism - on the contrary.

"Annunciation", Leonardo da Vinci

Catholics have special closed rooms for confession, while Orthodox confess in front of all parishioners.

Shot from the film "Customs Gives Good". France, 2010

Orthodox and Greek Catholics are baptized from right to left, Catholics of the Latin rite - from left to right.

A Catholic priest is required to take a vow of celibacy. In Orthodoxy, celibacy is obligatory only for bishops.

Great Lent for Orthodox and Catholics begins on different days: for the former, on Clean Monday, for the latter, on Ash Wednesday. Advent has a different duration.

Catholics consider church marriage to be indissoluble (however, if certain facts are discovered, it may be declared invalid). From the point of view of the Orthodox, in the event of adultery, the church marriage is considered destroyed, and the innocent party can enter into a new marriage without committing a sin.

In Orthodoxy, there is no analogue of the Catholic institution of cardinals.

Cardinal Richelieu, portrait by Philippe de Champaigne

In Catholicism there is a doctrine of indulgences. There is no such practice in modern Orthodoxy.

4. As a result of the division, Catholics began to consider the Orthodox only schismatics, while one of the points of view of Orthodoxy is that Catholicism is a heresy.

5. Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church ascribe the title of "one holy, catholic (cathedral) and apostolic Church" exclusively to themselves.

6. In the 20th century, an important step was taken in overcoming the division due to schism: in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras lifted mutual anathemas.

7. Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill could have met two years ago, but then the meeting was canceled due to the events in Ukraine. The meeting of the heads of churches that took place would be the first in history after the "Great Schism" of 1054.

Schism of the Christian Church, also Great split and Great Schism- Church schism, after which the Church was finally divided into the Roman Catholic Church in the West with a center in Rome and the Orthodox Church in the East with a center in Constantinople. The division caused by the schism has not been overcome to this day, despite the fact that in 1965 mutual anathemas were mutually lifted by Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  In 1053, an ecclesiastical confrontation for influence in southern Italy began between Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople and Pope Leo IX. Churches in southern Italy belonged to Byzantium. Michael Cerularius learned that the Greek rite was being replaced by the Latin there, and he closed all the temples of the Latin rite in Constantinople. The Patriarch instructs the Bulgarian Archbishop Leo Ohrid to draw up an epistle against the Latins, which would condemn the serving of the Liturgy on unleavened bread; fasting on Saturday during Great Lent; the lack of singing "Hallelujah" during Lent; eating strangled . The letter was sent to Apulia and was addressed to Bishop John of Trania, and through him to all the bishops of the Franks and "the most venerable pope". Humbert Silva-Candide wrote the essay "Dialogue", in which he defended the Latin rites and condemned the Greek ones. In response, Nikita Stifat writes the treatise "Antidialog", or "The Sermon on Unleavened Bread, the Sabbath Fast and the Marriage of the Priests" against Humbert's work.

  Events of 1054

  In 1054, Leo sent a letter to Cerularius, which, in support of the papal claim to full power in the Church, contained lengthy extracts from a forged document known as the Deed of Constantine, insisting on its authenticity. The Patriarch rejected the Pope's claim to supremacy, whereupon Leo sent legates to Constantinople that same year to settle the dispute. The main political task of the papal embassy was the desire to receive military assistance from the Byzantine emperor in the fight against the Normans.

  On July 16, 1054, after the death of Pope Leo IX himself, in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the papal legates announced the deposition of Cerularius and his excommunication from the Church. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates.

  Reasons for the split

  The historical premises of schism date back to late antiquity and the early Middle Ages (beginning with the destruction of Rome by the troops of Alaric in 410) and are determined by the appearance of ritual, dogmatic, ethical, aesthetic and other differences between the Western (often called Latin Catholic) and Eastern (Greek- Orthodox) traditions.

  Western (Catholic) Church Perspective

  1. Michael is wrongly called a patriarch.
  2. Like the Simonians, they sell the gift of God.
  3. Like the Valesians, they castrate the aliens, and make them not only clerics, but also bishops.
  4. Like the Arians, they rebaptize those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, especially the Latins.
  5. Like the Donatists, they claim that all over the world, with the exception of the Greek Church, both the Church of Christ, and the true Eucharist, and baptism have perished.
  6. Like the Nicolaitans, they allow marriages to altar servers.
  7. Like the Sevirians, they slander the law of Moses.
  8. Like the Doukhobors, they cut off in the symbol of faith the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (filioque).
  9. Like the Manichaeans, they consider leaven to be animate.
  10. Like Nazirites, Jewish bodily cleansings are observed, newborn children are not baptized earlier than eight days after birth, parents are not honored with communion, and if they are pagans, they are denied baptism.

  As for the view on the role of the Roman Church, then, according to Catholic authors, evidence of the doctrine of the unconditional primacy and universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter exist from the 1st century. (Clement Roman) and further are found everywhere both in the West and in the East (St. Ignatius God-bearer, Irenaeus, Cyprian Carthaginian, John Chrysostom, Leo Great, Hormisd, Maxim Confessor, Theodore Studite, etc.), so attempts to attribute to Rome only some kind of "primacy of honor" are unfounded.

  Until the middle of the 5th century, this theory was in the nature of unfinished, scattered thoughts, and only Pope Leo the Great expressed them systematically and outlined them in his church sermons, delivered by him on the day of his consecration in front of a meeting of Italian bishops.

  The main points of this system boil down, firstly, to the fact that St. the apostle Peter is the princeps of the whole rank of apostles, superior to all others and in power, he is the primas of all bishops, he is entrusted with the care of all the sheep, he is entrusted with the care of all the pastors of the Church.

  Secondly, all the gifts and prerogatives of the apostleship, priesthood and pastoral work were given completely and first of all to the Apostle Peter, and already through him and not otherwise than through him, they are given by Christ and all other apostles and pastors.

  Thirdly, primatus an. Peter's is not a temporary institution, but a permanent one. Fourthly, the communion of the Roman bishops with the chief apostle is very close: each new bishop accepts ap. Peter on the chair of Petrova, and from here bestowed by ap. For Peter, grace-filled power is also poured onto his successors.

  From this, practically for Pope Leo, it follows:
  1) since the whole Church is based on the firmness of Peter, those who move away from this stronghold place themselves outside the mystical body of Christ's Church;
  2) who encroaches on the authority of the Roman bishop and refuses obedience to the apostolic throne, he does not want to obey the blessed apostle Peter;
  3) whoever rejects the authority and primacy of the Apostle Peter, he can in no way diminish his dignity, but haughty in the spirit of pride, he casts himself into the underworld.

  Despite the request of Pope Leo I to convene the IV Ecumenical Council in Italy, which was supported by the royal people of the western half of the empire, the IV Ecumenical Council was convened by Emperor Marcian in the East, in Nicaea and then in Chalcedon, and not in the West. In conciliar discussions, the Fathers of the Council were very reserved about the speeches of the legates of the Pope, who set out and developed this theory in detail, and about the declaration of the Pope they announced.

  At the Council of Chalcedon, the theory was not condemned, because despite the harsh form in relation to all the Eastern bishops, the speeches of the legates in content, for example, in relation to the Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, corresponded to the mood and direction of the entire Council. Nevertheless, the council refused to condemn Dioscorus only because Dioscorus committed crimes against discipline, not fulfilling the order of the first in honor among the patriarchs, and especially because Dioscorus himself dared to carry out the excommunication of Pope Leo.

  The papal declaration nowhere indicated Dioscorus' crimes against the faith. The declaration also ends remarkably, in the spirit of the papist theory: holy cathedral, together with the most blessed and all-praised Apostle Peter, who is the stone and affirmation of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the Orthodox faith, deprives him of his episcopacy and alienates him from any holy order.

  The declaration was tactfully but rejected by the Fathers of the Council, and Dioscorus was deprived of his patriarchate and rank for persecuting the family of Cyril of Alexandria, although he was remembered for the support of the heretic Eutychius, disrespect for bishops, the Robber Cathedral, etc., but not for the speech of the Alexandrian pope against Pope of Rome, and nothing from the declaration of Pope Leo by the Council, which so exalted the tomos of Pope Leo, was approved. The rule adopted at the Council of Chalcedon on the 28th granting honor as the second after the pope of Rome to the archbishop of New Rome as the bishop of the reigning city of the second after Rome caused a storm of indignation. Saint Leo the Pope of Rome did not recognize the validity of this canon, broke off communion with Archbishop Anatoly of Constantinople and threatened him with excommunication.

  Eastern (Orthodox) Church Perspective

  However, by the year 800, the political situation around what used to be a unified Roman Empire began to change: on the one hand, most of the territory of the Eastern Empire, including most of the ancient apostolic churches, fell under Muslim rule, which greatly weakened it and diverted attention from religious problems in favor of foreign policy, on the other hand, in the West, for the first time after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, an emperor appeared (in 800 Charlemagne was crowned in Rome), who in the eyes of his contemporaries became “equal” to the Eastern Emperor and on the political strength of which the Roman bishop was able to rely in his claims. changed political situation it is attributed that the popes of Rome again began to carry out the idea of ​​their primacy, rejected by the Council of Chalcedon, not according to honor and according to the Orthodox teaching, which was confirmed by the voting of bishops equal to the Roman bishop at councils, but “by divine right”, that is, the idea of ​​​​their supreme sole power throughout the Church.

  After the legate of the Pope, Cardinal Humbert, placed the scripture with an anathema on the throne of the Church of St. Sophia against the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Michael convened a synod, at which a response anathema was put forward:

  With an anathema then to the most impious scripture, as well as to those who presented it, wrote and participated in its creation with some kind of approval or will.

  The reciprocal accusations against the Latins were as follows at the council:

  In various hierarchical epistles and conciliar resolutions, the Orthodox also blamed the Catholics:

  1. Serving the Liturgy on Unleavened Bread.
  2. Saturday post.
  3. Allowing a man to marry the sister of his deceased wife.
  4. Wearing rings on the fingers of Catholic bishops.
  5. Catholic bishops and priests going to war and defiling their hands with the blood of the slain.
  6. The presence of wives in Catholic bishops and the presence of concubines in Catholic priests.
  7. Eating on Saturdays and Sundays during Lent of eggs, cheese and milk and non-observance of Great Lent.
  8. Eating strangled, carrion, meat with blood.
  9. Eating lard by Catholic monks.
  10. Baptism in one, not three immersions.
  11. The image of the Cross of the Lord and the image of saints on marble slabs in churches and Catholics walking on them with their feet.

  The reaction of the patriarch to the defiant act of the cardinals was quite cautious and, on the whole, peaceful. Suffice it to say that in order to calm the unrest, it was officially announced that the Greek translators had perverted the meaning of Latin letters. Further, at the Council that followed on July 20, all three members of the papal delegation were excommunicated from the Church for unworthy behavior in the temple, but the Roman Church was not specifically mentioned in the decision of the council. Everything was done to reduce the conflict to the initiative of several Roman representatives, which, in fact, took place. The patriarch excommunicated only legates and only for disciplinary violations, and not for doctrinal issues. These anathemas did not apply to the Western Church or to the Bishop of Rome.

  Even when one of the excommunicated legates became pope (Stefan IX), this split was not considered final and particularly important, and the pope sent an embassy to Constantinople to apologize for Humbert's harshness. This event began to be assessed as something extremely important only after a couple of decades in the West, when Pope Gregory VII came to power, who at one time was the protégé of the already deceased Cardinal Humbert. It was through his efforts that this story gained extraordinary significance. Then, already in modern times, it rebounded from Western historiography to the East and began to be considered the date of the division of the Churches.

  Perception of the split in Russia

  Leaving Constantinople, the papal legates went to Rome by a circuitous route to announce the excommunication of Michael Cerularius to other Eastern hierarchs. Among other cities, they visited Kyiv, where they were received with due honors by the Grand Duke and the clergy, who did not yet know about the division that had taken place in Constantinople.

  There were Latin monasteries in Kyiv (including the Dominican one since 1228), on the lands subject to the Russian princes, Latin missionaries operated with their permission (for example, in 1181 the princes of Polotsk allowed the Augustinian monks from Bremen to baptize Latvians and Livs subject to them on Western Dvina) . In the upper class (to the displeasure of the Greek metropolitans) numerous mixed marriages were concluded (only with Polish princes - more than twenty), and in none of these cases is anything like a "transition" from one religion to another recorded. Western influence is noticeable in some areas church life, for example, in Russia there were organs before the Mongol invasion (which then disappeared), bells were imported to Russia mainly from the West, where they were more widespread than among the Greeks.

  Removal of mutual anathemas

  In 1964, a meeting was held in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras, primate of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and Pope Paul VI, as a result of which mutual anathemas were lifted in December 1965 and a joint declaration was signed. However, the “gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness” (Joint Declaration, 5) had no practical or canonical meaning: the declaration itself read: “Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with their Synod are aware that this gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness is not enough to to put an end to differences, both ancient and recent, still remaining between Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. From the point of view of the Orthodox Church, the anathemas that remain in force remain unacceptable

  So what is the reason for the division between Orthodox and Catholics? This question is often heard, especially at moments of such striking events as the recent visit of Vladimir Putin to the Vatican or the famous “Havana meeting” of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia with Pope Francis in February 2016. Today, on the days of the 965th anniversary of this division, I would like to understand what happened in July 1054 in Rome and Constantinople, and why it is customary to count the beginning of the Great Schism, the Great Schism, from this date.

  Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Pope Francis at the Vatican on July 4, 2019. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

  Not so long ago we already wrote about the main stereotypes related to the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Like, their priests can shave, but they can’t get married, but in themselves Catholic churches for worship services, which are already shorter than Orthodox ones, it is allowed to sit on special benches. In a word, look at the Pope and the Patriarch: one is clean-shaven, the other is bearded. Isn't it obvious what the difference is?

  If you take this issue more seriously and dig a little deeper, you understand that the problem is far from being only appearance and rituals. There are many religious differences, the degree of depth of which allowed the Orthodox Christians of those distant centuries to accuse the Latins (now more often called Catholics or Roman Catholics) of heresy. And with heretics, according to church rules, there can be no prayerful and even more so liturgical communication.

  But what are these heresies that led Western and Eastern Orthodox Christians to the Great Schism, which led to many wars and other tragic events, and also became the basis of the civilizational division of European countries and peoples that exists to this day? Let's try to figure it out.

  And for this, we first rewind the time line several centuries earlier than the already mentioned year 1054, to which we will return a little later.

  Papism: the key "stumbling block"

  It is important to note that even before 1054, divisions between Rome and Constantinople, the two capitals of the Christian world, occurred repeatedly. And not always through the fault of the popes, who in the first millennium were the real, legitimate bishops of Old Rome, the heirs of the supreme apostle Peter. Alas, during this period, the Patriarchs of Constantinople repeatedly fell into heresy, whether it was Monophysitism, Monothelitism, or iconoclasm. And just the same, the popes of Rome in these same times remained faithful to patristic Christianity.

  However, in the West at the same time, the basis for falling into heresy was ripening, which turned out to be much more difficult to heal than the already mentioned ancient ones. And this foundation is the very “papal primacy” that practically elevates the popes of Rome to inhuman dignity. Or at least violates the conciliar principle of the Church. This teaching boils down to the fact that the popes of Rome, as "heirs" of the supreme apostle Peter, are not "first among equals" bishops, each of whom has apostolic succession, but "vicars of Christ" and should lead the entire Universal Church.

  Pope John Paul II. Photo: giulio napolitano / Shutterstock.com

  Moreover, in asserting their undivided power and striving for political power, even before the separation of the Western and Eastern Churches, the popes were ready to go even to outright forgery. A well-known church historian and hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Archbishop Justinian (Ovchinnikov) of Elista and Kalmykia spoke about one of them in an interview with the Tsargrad TV channel:

  In the 8th century, the document "Veno Konstantinovo" or "Konstantin's gift" appeared, according to which Emperor Constantine the Great Equal to the Apostles, leaving Old Rome, allegedly left all his imperial powers to the Bishop of Rome. Having received them, the Popes of Rome began to rule in relation to other bishops not as elder brothers, but as if they were sovereigns ... Already in the 10th century, the German emperor Otto I the Great rightly treated this document as a fake, although for a long time he continued to stir up ambition Popes.

  Read also:

  Archbishop Justinian (Ovchinnikov): "The claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople are based on historical forgeries" Exclusive interview of Archbishop Justinian of Elista and Kalmykia to Tsargrad TV channel

  It was this exorbitant papal lust for power, based on one of the most famous mortal sins - pride - that, even before Western Christians openly succumbed to heresy, led to the first significant schism of the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Constantinople and other Local Orthodox) Churches. The so-called "Photian schism" of 863-867 from the Nativity of Christ. In those years, there was a serious conflict between Pope Nicholas I and Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (the author of the District Epistle against Latin errors).

  Patriarch Photius of Constantinople. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

  Formally, both Primates were equal First Hierarchs of the two Local Churches: Roman and Constantinople. But Pope Nicholas II sought to extend his power to the East - to the dioceses of the Balkan Peninsula. As a result, a conflict occurred, culminating in the mutual excommunication of each other from the Church. And although the conflict was rather ecclesiastical-political, and as a result, it was settled by political methods, it was during its course that the Roman Catholics were first accused of heresies. First of all, it was about ... filioque.

  filioque: the first dogmatic heresy of the Latins

  A detailed analysis of this complex theological and dogmatic dispute is very complicated and clearly does not fit into the framework of a survey church history article. And therefore - thesis.

  The Latin term "Filioque" (Filioque - "and from the Son") was introduced into the Western version of the Creed even before the separation of the Western and Eastern Churches, which violated the immutable principle of the immutability of this most important prayer text, which contains the foundations of the Christian faith.

  
  Photo: www.globallookpress.com

  So, in the Creed, approved back at the IV Ecumenical Council in 451 from the Nativity of Christ, the teaching about the Holy Spirit, it was said that it comes only from God the Father (in the Church Slavonic translation, “who proceeds from the Father”). The Latins, on the other hand, arbitrarily added “and from the Son,” which contradicted the Orthodox teaching about Holy Trinity. And already at the end of the 9th century, at the Local Council of Constantinople in 879-880, it was said very clearly on this subject:

  If anyone formulates another wording, or adds to this Symbol words which he probably invented, if he then presents it as a rule of faith to infidels or converts, like the Visigoths in Spain, or if he thus dares to distort the ancient and revered Symbol in words , or additions, or omissions emanating from himself, if the person is spiritual, such a person is subject to defrocking, and a layman who dares to do this is subject to anathema.

  Finally, the heretical term Filioque was established in the Latin Creed only in 1014, when relations between the Western and Eastern Churches were already extremely strained. Of course, this was categorically not accepted in the Christian East, once again rightly accusing the Roman Catholics of a heretical innovation. Of course, in Rome they tried to theologically justify the change in the Creed, but in the end everything came down to the same proudly papist explanations in the spirit of “We have the right!” and even “Who are you to argue with the vicar of Christ Himself ?!”, which led to the final division in 1054.

  Later, many others would be added to this dogmatic heresy among the Roman Catholics: the dogma of " Immaculate Conception Virgin Mary", the dogma of "purgatory", the infallibility (infallibility) of the Pope in matters of faith (continuing the logic of "papal primacy") and a number of other doctrinal, as well as numerous liturgical and ritual innovations. All of them only aggravated the division between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which actually took place at the turn of the millennium and was only officially established in 1054 from the Nativity of Christ.

  Photo: www.globallookpress.com

  Great Schism of 1054

  But let's get back to the tragic events, whose 965th anniversary is being celebrated these days. What happened in Rome and Constantinople in the middle of the 11th century? As it has already become clear, by this time church unity was already quite formal. Nevertheless, the parties did not dare to finalize the “divorce”. The reason for the break was the theological discussion of 1053, known as the "Dispute about unleavened bread".

  As already mentioned, the term “filioque” had already become the main dogmatic divergence by this time. But there was another significant moment, in which the Orthodox and the Latins were already divided by that time. The moment is sacramentological, that is, concerning the doctrine of the Sacraments, in this case about the main Sacrament - the Eucharist, Communion. As you know, in this Sacrament the liturgical bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, after which, in Communion, the faithful who have prepared to receive them are united with the Lord Himself.

  So, in Orthodoxy this Sacrament during Divine Liturgy is performed on leavened bread (prosphora, having a large symbolic meaning), and among the Latins - on unleavened bread (small round "wafers" or, in other words, "guests", a bit reminiscent of Jewish matzo). For the Orthodox, the latter is categorically unacceptable, not only because of different traditions, but also because of the important theological meaning of leavened bread, which goes back to the Gospel Last Supper.

  Later on one of the Greek Local Councils will be stated:

  The one who says that our Lord Jesus Christ at the Last Supper had unleavened bread (without yeast), like the Jews; but did not have leavened bread, that is, bread with yeast; let him be far away from us and let him be anathema; as having Jewish views.

  Photo: pravoslavie.ru

  The same position was held in the Church of Constantinople in the middle of the 11th century. As a result, this theological conflict, multiplied by the ecclesiological (church-political) dispute about the canonical territories of the Western and Eastern Churches, led to a tragic outcome. On July 16, 1054, papal legates arrived at the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and announced the deposition of Patriarch Michael Cirularius of Constantinople and his excommunication from the Church. In response to this, on July 20, the Patriarch anathematized the legates (Pope Leo IX himself had died by that time).

  De jure, these personal anathemas (excommunications from the Church) did not yet mean the Great Schism of the Churches themselves, but de facto it happened. Due to some inertia of the first millennium, Western and Eastern Christians still retained a visible unity. But a century and a half later, in 1204, when the Roman Catholic "crusaders" seized and ravaged Orthodox Constantinople, it would become clear that Western civilization had finally fallen away from Orthodoxy.

  And in recent centuries this falling away has only worsened, despite the attempts of some near-Orthodox liberal-minded figures (often referred to as "philo-Catholics") to close their eyes to this. But that is "an entirely different story."

  The Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople canceled the decree of 1686 on the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate. Not far off is the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

  There have been many schisms in the history of Christianity. It all began not even with the Great Schism of 1054, when the Christian Church was divided into Orthodox and Catholic, but much earlier.

  All images in the publication: wikipedia.org

  The papal schism in history is also called the Great Western. It happened due to the fact that almost at the same time two people were declared popes at once. One is in Rome, the other is in Avignon, the site of the seventy-year captivity of the popes. Actually, the end of the Avignon captivity led to disagreements.

  Two popes were elected in 1378
  

  In 1378, Pope Gregory XI died, interrupting the captivity, and after his death, the supporters of the return elected Pope Urban VI in Rome. The French cardinals, who opposed the withdrawal from Avignon, made Clement VII pope. The whole of Europe was divided. Some countries supported Rome, some supported Avignon. This period lasted until 1417. The popes who ruled at that time in Avignon are now among the antipopes of the Catholic Church.

  

  The first schism in Christianity is considered to be the Akakian schism. The split began in 484 and lasted 35 years. The controversy flared up around the "Enotikon" - the religious message of the Byzantine emperor Zeno. It was not the emperor himself who worked on this message, but the Patriarch Akakii of Constantinople.

  Akakian schism - the first split in Christianity
  

  In dogmatic matters, Akaki did not agree with Pope Felix III. Felix deposed Akakiy, Akakiy ordered that the name of Felix be deleted from the funeral diptychs.

  

  The tension between Constantinople and Rome grew and grew. Mutual dissatisfaction erupted Great Schism 1054 years. The Christian Church was then finally divided into Orthodox and Catholic. This happened under the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cerularia and Pope Leo IX. It got to the point that in Constantinople they threw out and trampled prosphora prepared in the Western manner - without leaven.

  1054 - the year of the Great Schism
  

  For many centuries the Catholic Orthodox Church formally remained implacable enemies. Only in 1965 mutual anathemas were lifted, but contradictions and differences remain to this day.

  

  The disintegration of the Christian Church into the Catholic with its center in Rome and the Orthodox with its center in Constantinople was brewing long before the final division in 1054. The harbinger of the events of the XI century was the so-called Photius schism. This schism, dating from 863-867, was named after Photius I, the then patriarch of Constantinople.

  Photius and Nikolai excommunicated each other from the church
  

  Photius' relationship with Pope Nicholas I was, to put it mildly, strained. The pope intended to strengthen the influence of Rome in the Balkan Peninsula, but this caused resistance from the patriarch of Constantinople. Nicholas also appealed to the fact that Photius had become patriarch unlawfully. It all ended with the church leaders anathematizing each other.

  The history of a split. Orthodoxy and Catholicism

  This year the whole christianity notes at the same time main holiday Churches - Resurrection of Christ. This again reminds us of the common root from which the main Christian denominations originate, of the once existing unity of all Christians. However, for almost a thousand years this unity has been broken between Eastern and Western Christianity. If many are familiar with the date of 1054 as the year officially recognized by historians of the separation of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, then perhaps not everyone knows that it was preceded by a long process of gradual divergence.

  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 separation did not happen overnight and not 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 teachings of bishops and church writers whose works were written in Latin - Saints Hilary of Pictavia (315-367), Ambrose of Milan (340-397), Reverend John Cassian the Roman (360-435) and many others - was completely in tune with the teachings of the 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 at this doctrinal harmony occurred with the appearance of the teachings of Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430). Here we meet one of the most exciting mysteries 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 ways, Augustine opened up new paths for Christian thought, which left a deep imprint on the history of the West, but at the same time turned out to be almost completely alien to the 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 an older tradition, the Holy Spirit, like the Son, originates 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.

  With regard to the inner life, Augustine so emphasized human weakness and the omnipotence of Divine grace that it turned out 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 clearly expressed 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 only the successor of Peter, who has since been recognized as the first bishop of Rome, but also his vicar, in which, as it were, he continues to live supreme apostle 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 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 of this, 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). The 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 gap could not but lead to the actual 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), an energetic man who sought to establish the Roman concept of the dominance of the pope in the Universal Church, to limit interference 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 Orthodox faith, a zealous minister 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 driven out by the intrigues of the German preachers. Nevertheless, they managed to translate into Slavic the liturgical and most important biblical texts, having created 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 him to the cathedra with the help of church intrigues. former patriarch Ignatius, who was deposed in 861. In response to this, Emperor Michael III and Saint Photius convened a council in Constantinople (867), whose decrees 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 West 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 tried 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, but the victories of Byzantium, including over Islam, were beneficial to the West, creating favorable conditions for the emergence Western Europe in the form in which it will 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 - France of the Capetians. Nevertheless, it was 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 It was still whole line Latin customs, which revolted the Byzantines and increased the reasons 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 made from 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 the incarnation received only human body but not the 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 to 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 mind 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 have seen, 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 with the hands of the emperor. The matter ended with the legates placing 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. Added to this were differences on less important issues relating to church customs and rites.

  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 have been serious developments that have made it even more difficult to understand between 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, he founded, together with like-minded monks, 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 next year they became monks Athos monastery Simonopetra. 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 "Spiritualité 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), “The 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.) He is. Byzantium and Roman primacy. (Coll. Unam Sanctam. No. 49). Paris, 1964, pp. 93–110.

  
  
  
  

  11 / 04 / 2007