July 16, 2014 marked 960 years since the split of the Christian Church into Catholic and Orthodox

Last year I “passed by” this topic, although I assume that for many it is very, very interesting. Of course, it’s interesting to me too, but I didn’t go into details before, I didn’t even try, but I always, so to speak, “stumbled across” this problem, because it concerns not only religion, but the entire history of the world.

In different sources, by different people, the problem, as usual, is interpreted in a way that is beneficial to “their side.” I wrote in Mail's blogs about my critical attitude towards some of today's religious educators who impose religious dogmas as law on the secular state... But I have always respected believers of any denomination and made a distinction between ministers, true believers, and grovelings of faith. Well, the branch of Christianity is Orthodoxy... in two words - I am baptized in the Orthodox Church. My faith does not consist of going to temples, the temple has been inside me since birth, there is no clear definition, and in my opinion there shouldn’t be...

I hope that someday the dream and goal of life that I wanted to see will come true unification of all world religions, - "There is no religion higher than truth" . I am a supporter of this view. There are many things that are not alien to me that Christianity, or Orthodoxy in particular, does not accept. If there is a God, then he is one (One) for everyone.

On the Internet I found an article with the opinion of the Catholic and Orthodox churches about Great Schism. I copy the text into the diary in full, very interesting...

Schism of the Christian Church (1054)

Great Schism of 1054- church schism, after which it finally happened division of the Church into the Catholic Church in the West and the Orthodox Church in the East.

HISTORY OF THE SCHIPT

In fact, disagreements between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople began long before 1054, but it was in 1054 that Pope Leo IX sent legates to Constantinople led by Cardinal Humbert to resolve the conflict, which began with the closure of 1053 Latin churches in Constantinople by order of Patriarch Michael Cyrularius , during which his sacellar Constantine threw out the Holy Gifts, prepared according to Western custom from unleavened bread, from the tabernacles, and trampled them under his feet
Mikhail Kirulariy (English) .

However, it was not possible to find a path to reconciliation, and July 16, 1054 In the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia, the papal legates announced the deposition of Kirularius and his excommunication from the Church. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates.

The split has not yet been overcome, although in 1965 the mutual curses were lifted.

REASONS FOR THE SPIT

The split had many reasons:
ritual, dogmatic, ethical differences between the Western and Eastern Churches, property disputes, the struggle of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople for primacy among the Christian patriarchs, different languages ​​of worship (Latin in the Western Church and Greek in the Eastern) .

POINT OF VIEW OF THE WESTERN (CATHOLIC) CHURCH

The letter of excommunication was presented on July 16, 1054 in Constantinople in the St. Sophia Church on the holy altar during a service by the legate of the Pope, Cardinal Humbert.
The letter of excommunication contained the following accusations against the Eastern Church:
1. The Church of Constantinople does not recognize the Holy Roman Church as the first apostolic see, which, as the head, has the care of all Churches;
2. Michael is wrongly called the patriarch;
3.Like the Simonians, they sell the gift of God;
4. Like the Valesians, they castrate newcomers and make them not only clergy, but also bishops;
5. Like the Arians, they rebaptize those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, especially the Latins;
6. Like the Donatists, they claim that throughout the world, with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ, and the true Eucharist, and baptism perished;
7.Like the Nicolaitans, they allow marriages for altar servers;
8. Like the Northerners, they slander the law of Moses;
9. Like the Doukhobors, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (filioque) in the symbol of faith;
10. Like the Manichaeans, they consider leaven to be animate;
11. Like the Nazarenes, the Jews observe bodily cleansing; newborn children are not baptized until eight days after birth; mothers are not honored with communion, and if they are pagans, they are denied baptism.
Text of the excommunication letter

POINT OF VIEW OF THE EASTERN (ORTHODOX) CHURCH

“At the sight of such an act of the papal legates, publicly insulting the Eastern Church, the Church of Constantinople, in self-defense, for its part, also pronounced condemnation on the Roman Church, or, better to say, on the papal legates, led by the Roman Pontiff. On July 20 of the same year, Patriarch Michael convened a council, at which the instigators of church discord received due retribution. The definition of this council stated:
“Some wicked people came from the darkness of the West into the kingdom of piety and into this city preserved by God, from which, like a spring, the waters of pure teaching flow to the ends of the earth. They came to this city like thunder, or a storm, or a famine, or better yet, like wild boars, to overthrow the truth.”

At the same time, the conciliar resolution pronounces an anathema on the Roman legates and persons in contact with them.
A.P. Lebedev. From the book: History of the division of Churches in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries.

Text full definition of this council in Russian still unknown

You can get acquainted with Orthodox apologetic teaching regarding the problems of Catholicism in the curriculum on comparative theology of the Orthodox Church: link

PERCEPTION OF THE SCHIPT IN Rus'

Having left Constantinople, the papal legates went to Rome by a roundabout route to notify other eastern hierarchs of the excommunication of Michael Cyrularius. Among other cities, they visited Kyiv, where they were received with due honors by the Grand Duke and the Russian clergy.

In subsequent years, the Russian Church did not take a clear position in support of any of the parties to the conflict, although it remained Orthodox. If the hierarchs of Greek origin were prone to anti-Latin polemics, then the Russian priests and rulers themselves not only did not participate in it, but also did not understand the essence of the dogmatic and ritual claims made by the Greeks against Rome.

Thus, Rus' maintained communication with both Rome and Constantinople, making certain decisions depending on political necessity.

Twenty years after the “division of the Churches” there was a significant case of the appeal of the Grand Duke of Kyiv (Izyaslav-Dimitri Yaroslavich) to the authority of Pope St. Gregory VII. In his feud with his younger brothers for the Kiev throne, Izyaslav, the legitimate prince, was forced to flee abroad (to Poland and then to Germany), from where he appealed in defense of his rights to both heads of the medieval “Christian republic” - to the emperor (Henry IV) and to dad.

The princely embassy to Rome was headed by his son Yaropolk-Peter, who had instructions “to give the entire Russian land under the protection of St. Petra." The Pope really intervened in the situation in Rus'. Eventually, Izyaslav returned to Kyiv (1077).

Izyaslav himself and his son Yaropolk were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Around 1089, an embassy of antipope Gibert (Clement III) arrived in Kyiv to Metropolitan John, apparently wanting to strengthen his position through his recognition in Rus'. John, being a Greek by birth, responded with a message, although composed in the most respectful terms, but still directed against the “errors” of the Latins (this is the first non-apocryphal writing “against the Latins”, compiled in Rus', although not by a Russian author ). However, John’s successor, Metropolitan Ephraim (Russian by birth), himself sent a trusted representative to Rome, probably with the goal of personally verifying the state of affairs on the spot;

In 1091 this messenger returned to Kyiv and “brought many relics of saints.” Then, according to Russian chronicles, ambassadors from the pope came in 1169. In Kiev there were Latin monasteries (including the Dominican - from 1228), on lands subject to the Russian princes, Latin missionaries acted with their permission (for example, in 1181 the princes of Polotsk allowed monks -Augustinians from Bremen to baptize the Latvians and Livs subject to them on the Western Dvina).

Among the upper class there were (to the displeasure of the Greeks) numerous mixed marriages. Great Western influence is noticeable in some areas of church life. This situation persisted until the Tatar-Mongol invasion.

REMOVAL OF MUTUAL ANATHEMAS

In 1964, a meeting took place in Jerusalem between the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, the head of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and Pope Paul VI, as a result of which mutual anathemas were lifted and a Joint Declaration was signed in 1965
Declaration on lifting anathemas

However, this formal “gesture of goodwill” had no practical or canonical meaning.

From the Catholic point of view, the anathemas of the First Vatican Council against all who deny the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope and the infallibility of his judgments on matters of faith and morals pronounced “ex cathedra” (that is, when the Pope acts as an earthly head and mentor of all Christians), as well as a number of other dogmatic decrees.

John Paul II was able to cross the threshold of the Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv, accompanied by the primacy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, unrecognized by other Orthodox churches.

And on April 8, 2005, for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church, a funeral service was held in the Vladimir Cathedral, performed by representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate at the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, over time, the personal conflict between the two hierarchs intensified.

10th century

In the 10th century, the severity of the conflict decreased, disputes were replaced by long periods of cooperation. The 10th century manual contains the formula for the Byzantine emperor’s appeal to the Pope:

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, our one and only God. From [name] and [name], emperors of the Romans, faithful to God, [name] to the most holy Pope and our spiritual father.

In a similar way, respectful forms of addressing the emperor were established for ambassadors from Rome.

11th century

At the beginning of the 11th century, Western European conquerors began to penetrate into territories that had previously been under the control of the Eastern Roman Empire. The political confrontation soon led to a confrontation between the Western and Eastern churches.

Conflict in Southern Italy

The end of the 11th century was marked by the beginning of active expansion of immigrants from the Norman Duchy in Southern Italy. At first, the Normans entered the service of the Byzantines and Lombards as mercenaries, but over time they began to create independent possessions. Although the main struggle of the Normans was against the Muslims of the Sicilian Emirate, the conquests of the northerners soon led to clashes with Byzantium.

Struggle of the Churches

The struggle for influence in Italy soon led to a conflict between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope. The parishes in Southern Italy historically fell under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, but as the Normans conquered the lands, the situation began to change. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Cerularius learned that the Greek rite in the Norman lands was being replaced by the Latin one. In response, Cerularius closed all churches of the Latin rite in Constantinople and instructed the Bulgarian Archbishop Leo of Ohrid to compose a letter against the Latins, which would condemn various elements of the Latin rite: serving the liturgy on unleavened bread; fasting on Saturday during Lent; the absence of Hallelujah singing during Lent; eating strangled meat and more. 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 Latin rites and condemned Greek ones. In response, Nikita Stifat writes a treatise “Anti-Dialogue”, or “A Discourse on Unleavened Bread, Saturday Fasting and the Marriage of Priests” against Humbert’s work.

1054

In 1054, Pope Leo sent a letter to Cerularius which, in support of the papal claim to full authority 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 claims to supremacy, after which Leo sent legates to Constantinople that same year to settle the dispute. The main political task of the papal embassy was the desire to obtain military assistance from the Byzantine emperor in the fight against the Normans.

On July 16, 1054, after the death of Pope Leo IX himself, three papal legates entered the Hagia Sophia and placed on the altar a letter of excommunication anathematizing the patriarch and his two assistants. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates. Neither the Roman Church by Constantinople nor the Byzantine Church were anathematized by the legates.

Consolidating the split

The events of 1054 did not yet mean a complete break between the Eastern and Western Churches. The First Crusade initially brought the churches closer together, but as they moved towards Jerusalem, disagreements intensified. When the crusader leader Bohemond captured the former Byzantine city of Antioch (1098), he expelled the Greek patriarch and replaced him with a Latin one; Having captured Jerusalem in 1099, the crusaders also installed a Latin patriarch at the head of the local Church. The Byzantine Emperor Alexios, in turn, appointed his own patriarchs of both cities, but they lived in Constantinople. The existence of parallel hierarchies meant that the Eastern and Western churches actually were in a state of schism. This split had important political consequences. When in 1107 Bohemond went on a campaign against Byzantium in retaliation for Alexei's attempts to recapture Antioch, he told the Pope that this was completely justified, since the Byzantines were schismatics. Thus, he created a dangerous precedent for future aggression against Byzantium by Western Europeans. Pope Paschal II made efforts to bridge the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, but this failed as the pope continued to insist that the Patriarch of Constantinople recognize the primacy of the Pope over "all the churches of God throughout the world."

First Crusade

Church relations improved markedly in the lead-up to and during the First Crusade. The new policy was associated with the struggle of the newly elected Pope Urban II for influence over the church with the "antipope" Clement III and his patron Henry IV. Urban II realized that his position in the West was weak and, as an alternative support, began to look for ways of reconciliation with Byzantium. Soon after his election, Urban II sent a delegation to Constantinople to discuss the issues that had provoked the schism thirty years earlier. These measures paved the way for renewed dialogue with Rome and laid the foundation for the restructuring of the Byzantine Empire in the run-up to the First Crusade. A high-ranking Byzantine cleric, Theophylact Hephaistos, was commissioned to prepare a document that carefully downplayed the importance of the differences between Greek and Latin rites in order to calm the concerns of Byzantine clerics. These differences are mostly trivial, wrote Theophylact. The purpose of this cautious change of position was to heal the rift between Constantinople and Rome and lay the basis for a political and even military alliance.

12th century

Another event that strengthened the schism was the pogrom of the Latin Quarter in Constantinople under Emperor Andronicus I (1182). There is no evidence that the pogrom of the Latins was sanctioned from above, but the reputation of Byzantium in the Christian West was seriously damaged.

XIII century

Union of Lyons

Michael's actions met resistance from Greek nationalists in Byzantium. Among those protesting against the union was, among others, Michael's sister Eulogia, who stated: " Let my brother's empire be destroyed rather than the purity of the Orthodox faith", for which she was imprisoned. The Athonite monks unanimously declared the union a fall into heresy, despite cruel punishments from the emperor: one particularly disobedient monk had his tongue cut out.

Historians associate protests against the union with the development of Greek nationalism in Byzantium. Religious affiliation was associated with ethnic identity. Those who supported the emperor's policies were reviled not because they became Catholics, but because they were perceived as traitors to their people.

Return of Orthodoxy

After the death of Michael in December 1282, his son Andronikos II (reigned 1282-1328) ascended the throne. The new emperor believed that after the defeat of Charles of Anjou in Sicily, the danger from the West had passed and, accordingly, the practical need for a union had disappeared. Just a few days after the death of his father, Andronicus released from prison all those imprisoned opponents of the union and deposed Patriarch John XI of Constantinople, whom Michael had appointed to fulfill the terms of the agreement with the Pope. The following year, all bishops who supported the union were deposed and replaced. On the streets of Constantinople, the prisoners' release was greeted by jubilant crowds. Orthodoxy was restored in Byzantium.
For refusing the Union of Lyons, the Pope excommunicated Andronikos II from the church, but towards the end of his reign, Andronikos resumed contacts with the papal curia and began to discuss the possibility of overcoming the schism.

XIV century

In the middle of the 14th century, the existence of Byzantium began to be threatened by the Ottoman Turks. Emperor John V decided to turn to the Christian countries of Europe for help, but the Pope made it clear that help was possible only if the Churches united. In October 1369, John traveled to Rome, where he took part in a service in St. Peter's Basilica and declared himself a Catholic, accepting papal authority and recognizing the filioque. To avoid unrest in his homeland, John converted to Catholicism personally, without making any promises on behalf of his subjects. However, the Pope declared that the Byzantine Emperor now deserved support and called on the Catholic powers to come to his aid against the Ottomans. However, the Pope's call had no result: no help was provided, and John soon became a vassal of the Ottoman Emir Murad I.

15th century

Despite the rupture of the Union of Lyons, the Orthodox (except in Rus' and some areas of the Middle East) continued to adhere to triplicity, and the Pope was still recognized as the first in honor among equal Orthodox patriarchs. The situation changed only after the Ferrara-Florence Council, when the insistence of the West in accepting its dogmas forced the Orthodox to recognize the Pope as a heretic, and the Western Church as heretical, and to create a new Orthodox hierarchy parallel to those who recognized the council - the Uniates. After the capture of Constantinople (1453), the Turkish Sultan Mehmed II took measures to maintain the split between Orthodox and Catholics and thereby deprive the Byzantines of hope that Catholic Christians would come to their aid. The Uniate patriarch and his clergy were expelled from Constantinople. At the time of the conquest of Constantinople, the place of the Orthodox patriarch was vacant, and the Sultan personally saw to it that within a few months it would be filled by a man known for his uncompromising attitude towards Catholics. The Patriarch of Constantinople continued to be the head of the Orthodox Church, and his authority was recognized in Serbia, Bulgaria, the Danube principalities and Rus'.

Justifications for the split

There is an alternative point of view, according to which the real cause of the schism was Rome's claims to political influence and monetary collections in the territories controlled by Constantinople. However, both sides cited theological differences as a public justification for the conflict.

Rome's Arguments

1. Michael is wrongly called the patriarch.
2. Like the Simonians, they sell the gift of God.
3. Like the Valesians, they castrate newcomers and make them not only clergy, 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 throughout the world, with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ, the true Eucharist, and baptism have perished.
6. Like the Nicolaitans, altar servers are allowed marriages.
7. Like the Sevirians, they slander the law of Moses.
8. Like the Doukhobors, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (filioque) in the symbol of faith.
9. Like the Manichaeans, they consider leaven to be animate.
10. Like the Nazirites, the Jews observe bodily cleansing, newborn children are not baptized before eight days after birth, parents are not honored with communion, and, if they are pagans, they are denied baptism.

As for the view of the role of the Roman Church, then, according to Catholic authors, evidence of the doctrine of the unconditional primacy and ecumenical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter has existed since the 1st century (Clement of Rome) and is then found everywhere in both the West and the East ( St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage, John Chrysostom, Leo the Great, Hormizd, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, etc.), therefore attempts to attribute only a certain “primacy of honor” to Rome are unfounded.

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

The main points of this system boil down, firstly, to the fact that the holy Apostle Peter is the princeps of the entire rank of apostles, superior to all others in power, he is the primas of all bishops, he is entrusted with the care of all sheep, he is entrusted with the care of all shepherds Churches.

Secondly, all the gifts and prerogatives of the apostleship, priesthood and shepherdhood were given fully and first of all to the Apostle Peter and through him and no other way than through his mediation are given by Christ and all other apostles and shepherds.

Thirdly, the primatus of the Apostle Peter is not a temporary, but a permanent institution.

Fourthly, the communication of the Roman bishops with the Supreme Apostle is very close: each new bishop receives the Apostle Peter in the Chair of Peter, and from here the grace-filled power granted to the Apostle Peter spills over to his successors.

From this it practically follows for Pope Leo:
1) since the entire 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) whoever encroaches on the authority of the Roman bishop and refuses obedience to the apostolic throne does not want to obey the blessed Apostle Peter;
3) whoever rejects the power and primacy of the Apostle Peter cannot in the least diminish his dignity, but the arrogant spirit of pride casts himself into the underworld.

Despite the petition of Pope Leo I for the convening of the IV Ecumenical Council in Italy, which was supported by the royals 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 the conciliar discussions, the Council Fathers treated very restrainedly the speeches of the legates of the Pope, who presented and developed this theory in detail, and the declaration of the Pope announced by them.

At the Council of Chalcedon, the theory was not condemned, since, despite the harsh form in relation to all eastern bishops, the content of the speeches of the legates, for example, in relation to Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, corresponded to the mood and direction of the entire Council. But nevertheless, the council refused to condemn Dioscorus only because Dioscorus committed crimes against discipline, not fulfilling the orders 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 did not mention Dioscorus' crimes against the faith anywhere. The declaration also ends remarkably, in the spirit of papist theory: “Therefore, the most serene and blessed Archbishop Leo of the great and ancient Rome, through us and through this most holy council, together with the most blessed and all-praised Apostle Peter, who is the rock and affirmation of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the Orthodox faith, deprives him of his bishopric and alienates him from all holy orders.”

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

The Arguments of Constantinople

After the legate of the Pope, Cardinal Humbert, placed on the altar of the Church of St. Sophia a scripture with an anathema to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Patriarch Michael convened a synod, at which a reciprocal anathema was put forward:

With anathema then to the wicked writing itself, as well as to those who presented it, wrote it and participated in its creation with any approval or will.

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

In various bishops' messages and conciliar decrees, the Orthodox also blamed the Catholics:

1. Celebrating the Liturgy on Unleavened Bread.
2. Post on Saturday.
3. Allowing a man to marry the sister of his deceased wife.
4. Catholic bishops wearing rings on their fingers.
5. Catholic bishops and priests going to war and desecrating their hands with the blood of the slain.
6. The presence of wives of Catholic bishops and the presence of concubines of Catholic priests.
7. Eating eggs, cheese and milk on the Saturdays and Sundays of Lent and not observing Lent.
8. Eating strangled meat, carrion, meat with blood.
9. Catholic monks eating lard.
10. Carrying out Baptism in one rather than three immersions.
11. The image of the Holy Cross and the image of saints on marble slabs in churches and Catholics walking on them with their feet.

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

Even when one of the excommunicated legates became pope (Stephen 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 a couple of decades later in the West, when Pope Gregory VII, who at one time was a protégé of the now deceased Cardinal Humbert, came to power. It was through his efforts that this story acquired extraordinary significance. Then, in modern times, it ricocheted from Western historiography back to the East and began to be considered the date of the division of the Churches.

Perception of the schism in Rus'

Check information.

Having left Constantinople, the papal legates went to Rome in a roundabout way to notify of the excommunication of Michael Cerularius his opponent Hilarion, whom the Church of Constantinople did not want to recognize as metropolitan, and to receive military assistance from Rus' in the struggle of the papal throne with the Normans. They visited Kyiv, where they were received with due honors by the Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich and the clergy, who should have liked the separation of Rome from Constantinople. Perhaps the seemingly strange behavior of the papal legates, who accompanied their request for military assistance from Byzantium to Rome with an anathema of the Byzantine church, should have favored the Russian prince and metropolitan in their favor, with them receiving significantly more help from Rus' than could have been expected from Byzantium.

It's no secret that Catholics and Orthodox Christians belong to the same religion - Christianity. But when, and most importantly, why did Christianity split into these two main movements? It turns out that human vices are to blame, as always; in this case, the heads of the church, the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, were unable to determine which of them was more important and who should obey whom.

In 395, the Roman Empire was divided into Eastern and Western, and if the Eastern was a single state for several centuries, the Western soon disintegrated and became a union of various German principalities. The division of the empire also affected the situation in the Christian Church. Gradually, differences between the churches located in the east and in the west multiplied, and over time, relations began to become tense.

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent legates to Constantinople led by Cardinal Humbert to resolve the conflict, which began with the closure of the Latin churches in Constantinople in 1053 by order of Patriarch Michael Cerularius, during which his sacellary Constantine threw out the Holy Sacraments prepared according to the tabernacles. Western custom from unleavened bread, and trampled them underfoot. However, it was not possible to find a path to reconciliation, and on July 16, 1054, in the Hagia Sophia, 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. That is, the heads of the church took it and excommunicated each other from it. From that moment on, the united church ceased to exist, and the future Catholic and Orthodox churches, cursed by each other, broke off relations for more than 900 years.

And only in 1964 in Jerusalem a meeting took place between the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, the primate of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and Pope Paul VI, as a result of which in December 1965 the mutual anathemas were lifted and a Joint Declaration was signed. However, the “gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness” (Joint Declaration, 5) had no practical or canonical meaning.

From the Catholic point of view, the anathemas of the First Vatican Council against all who deny the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope and the infallibility of his judgments on matters of faith and morals pronounced ex cathedra (that is, when the Pope acts as the “earthly head”) remain in force and cannot be repealed. and mentor of all Christians"), as well as a number of other dogmatic decrees.

The term “Orthodoxy” or, which is the same thing, “orthodoxy” existed long before the division of churches: Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century meant the true faith and unanimity of the entire church as opposed to dissent. The name “Orthodox” was strengthened by the Eastern Church after the church schism of 1054, when the Western Church appropriated the name “Catholic”, i.e. "universal".

This term (Catholicism) was used in the ancient creeds as the name of the entire Christian church. Ignatius of Antioch was the first to call the church “catholic.” After the division of the churches in 1054, both of them retained the name “Catholic” in their self-designations. In the process of historical development, the word “Catholic” began to refer only to the Roman Church. As a Catholic (“universal”) it opposed itself in the Middle Ages to the eastern Greek Church, and after the Reformation to the Protestant churches. However, almost all movements in Christianity have claimed and continue to claim “catholicity.”

Religion is a spiritual component of life, according to many. Nowadays there are many different beliefs, but in the center there are always two directions that attract the most attention. The Orthodox and Catholic churches are the largest and most global in the religious world. But once it was one single church, one faith. Why and how the division of churches occurred is quite difficult to judge, because only historical information has survived to this day, but certain conclusions can still be drawn from it.

Split

Officially, the collapse occurred in 1054, it was then that two new religious directions appeared: Western and Eastern, or, as they are commonly called, Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic. Since then, adherents of the Eastern religion have been considered to be orthodox and faithful. But the reason for the division of religions began to emerge long before the ninth century and gradually led to great differences. The division of the Christian Church into Western and Eastern was quite expected on the basis of these conflicts.

Disagreements between churches

The ground for the great schism was being laid on all sides. The conflict concerned almost all areas. The churches could not find agreement either in rituals, or in politics, or in culture. The nature of the problems was ecclesiological and theological, and it was no longer possible to hope for a peaceful solution to the issue.

Disagreements in politics

The main problem of the conflict on political grounds was the antagonism between the Byzantine emperors and the Popes. When the church was just emerging and getting on its feet, all of Rome was a single empire. Everything was one - politics, culture, and there was only one ruler at the head. But from the end of the third century political disagreements began. Still remaining a single empire, Rome was divided into several parts. The history of the division of churches is directly dependent on politics, because it was Emperor Constantine who initiated the schism by founding a new capital on the eastern side of Rome, known in modern times as Constantinople.

Naturally, the bishops began to base themselves on territorial position, and since it was there that the see of the Apostle Peter was founded, they decided that it was time to declare themselves and gain more power, to become the dominant part of the entire Church. And the more time passed, the more ambitious the bishops perceived the situation. The Western church was consumed by pride.

In turn, the Popes defended the rights of the church, did not depend on the state of politics, and sometimes even opposed imperial opinion. But what was the main reason for the division of churches on political grounds was the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo the Third, while the Byzantine successors to the throne completely refused to recognize the rule of Charles and openly considered him a usurper. Thus, the struggle for the throne also affected spiritual matters.

The division of the Universal Church into Eastern and Western occurred under the influence of many very different reasons, which for centuries, overlapping each other, undermined the unity of the Church, until finally the last connecting thread was severed. Despite the diversity of these reasons, we can conditionally distinguish two main groups among them: religious and ethno-cultural.

There are actually two religious reasons for the schism: the desire of the Roman high priests for absolute power over and dogmatic deviations from the purity of Catholic doctrine, among which the most important is the change in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by inserting the filioque. It directly violates the 7th rule of the Third Ecumenical Council, which determines: “Let no one be allowed to pronounce... or formulate a faith other than that determined by the holy fathers in Nicea, the city with the Holy Spirit gathered.”

The next group of phenomena that decisively contributed to the weakening of church unity even at a time when it was still preserved relates to the area of ​​national and cultural conditions for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East.

In church history, there is a point of view according to which Rome deliberately aggravated relations with the East before the Great Schism, seeking their rupture. There were reasons for such a desire, for the disobedience of the East clearly embarrassed Rome, undermined its monopoly, therefore, as B. Melioransky writes: “The East refuses to obey and there is no means to force it to obey; It remains to declare that the obedient churches are all that is true.”

The reason for the final break in July 1054 was another conflict over the church possessions of Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerullarius. Rome tried for the last time to achieve unconditional obedience of the East, and when it became clear that this was impossible, the papal legates, “bored, in their own words, by the resistance of Michael,” came to the Church of Hagia Sophia and solemnly placed on the throne the bull of excommunication, which read: “By the authority of the Holy and indivisible Trinity, the Apostolic See, of which we are ambassadors, all the holy Orthodox fathers of the Seven Councils and the Catholic Church, we sign against Michael and his adherents the anathema that our most reverend Pope pronounced against them if they do not come to their senses.” The absurdity of what happened was also complemented by the fact that the pope, on whose behalf they pronounced the anathema, was already dead, he died in April of this year.

After the departure of the legates, Patriarch Michael Cerullarius convened a Council, at which the legates and their “unholy writings,” after consideration, were anathematized. It should be noted that not all of the Western was anathematized, just as Cardinal Humbert did in relation to the Eastern, but only the legates themselves. At the same time, of course, the condemnation of the Councils of 867 and 879 remains valid. concerning Latin innovations, filioque and papal claims to primacy.

All eastern patriarchs were notified of the decisions made by a district message and expressed support for them, after which church communication with Rome ceased throughout the East. No one denied the honorary primacy of the pope established by the fathers, but no one agreed with his supreme power. The agreement of all Eastern primates in relation to Rome is confirmed by the example of Peter III, Patriarch of Antioch, where the name of the pope was crossed out from the diptychs long before the Great Schism. His correspondence with the Roman throne about the possibility of restoring unity is known, during which he received a letter from Rome outlining the papal point of view. It struck him so much that Peter III immediately sent it to Patriarch Michael, accompanied by very expressive words: “These Latins, after all, are our brothers, despite all their rudeness, ignorance and addiction to their own opinion, which sometimes leads them to direct roads."