1054? The More Complicated History of East-West Relations

This is my second post exploring the connection of East and West in the Church (with the first focused on Orthodox saints brought into the Catholic Church through the Eastern rites). When looking at the relationship of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (as distinct from the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which are not treated in this post), we generally point to 1054 as the clear cut date when the two churches split in a great schism. Is 1054, however, a clear line in the sand? The excommunication placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia by Cardinal Humbert Moyenmoutier did not have the entire Orthodox Church in its scope and, furthermore, did not have the force of law, as the Pope Leo IX had died during this diplomatic mission.

1054 captures our imagination, nonetheless, and it is therefore worth exploring the much more detailed narrative of the complicated history East and West that entailed more back and forth both before and after 1054. I’ve been thinking about this for many years, and, even after jotting down some initial notes for this post, I was happy to see two other articles addressing a more complete account of what occurred, trying to give a bigger picture: Nathan Smolin’s helpful overview of the events of 1054 and Charles Yost’s reconsideration of the traditional narrative of the schism. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware also provides important testimony to continuing intercommunion in the early modern period, pointing to a process of growing apart, rather than a single event.

Here is my own broader timeline to give more historical perspective on the gradual divergence of East and West:

Pope Clement I (late 1st century): His first letter intervenes in the Church in Corinth, asking for the restoration of presbyters, showing already Rome’s concern for the practices of her sister church. The Church in Rome worshipped in Greek in its early centuries.

Quartodeciman Controversy (2nd century): The first major conflict between Rome and at least some Greek churches in Asia occurred over the dating of Easter, whether it should follow the dating of the Passover (as the Quatrodecimans held) or should be held on a Sunday, the day of the Resurrection. Pope Victor I sought to excommunicate the churches that held to this view, although he was criticized, including by St. Irenaeus, for excessive harshness.

Arian Controversy (4th century): The popes were stalwarts in the first against Arian Emperors, particularly Constantius II and Valens (with the possible exception of the imprisoned Pope Liberius, who seemed to have relented to Constantius, while continuing to support the orthodox position). These emperors assured that Arian bishops populated eastern sees, while the Church in the West, allied with St. Athanasius, firmly opposed them. This was the first of a series of heresies and schisms that pitted Pope against Emperor.

Early Ecumenical Councils: Although the early councils were held in the East, under the supervision of the Roman (Byzantine) emperors, the popes were highly influential in establishing and preserving orthodox belief. One particular disagreement arose over canons related to Constantinople’s precedence over Alexandria and Antioch. Damasus I would reject this provision in the canons of the First Council of Constantinople, addressed during a synod in Rome in 382. Pope Leo the Great rejected its insertion into the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This was also a factor in the rejection of the Council by the Oriental Orthodox churches.

Acacian Schism (481-519): In order to reconcile the Miaphysites, the Patriarch Acacius devised a vague formula called the Henotikon, which was promulgated by the Emperor Zeno. Pope Felix III excommunicated Acacius and the Henotikon largely did not appeal to the Oriental churches. The Emperor Justin I eventually accepted the condemnation of the then deceased Acacius. Tension would also break out over Justinian’s condemnation of the three chapters to appease the Miaphysites, embroiling the scheming Pope Vigilius who waffled under pressure and captivity by the Emperor (leading to the Three Chapter Schism between Rome and churches in Northern Italy, which saw the condemnation as contradicting Chalcedon).

Byzantine Influence in Papal Elections (537-752): The Byzantine emperors exerted influence and pressure on papal elections for over two hundred years, beginning with Justinian’s reconquest of Italy. Within this period, popes sought imperial approval before their installation (a prerogative preserved by the veto of the emperors of the West until the 20th century), with many chosen from among the pope’s ambassadors/liaisons (apocrisiarii) to Constantinople. Of the popes of this period, eleven were native Greek speakers (from throughout the Mediterranean world) and Greek culture heavily influenced Rome, bolstered by those fleeing both the Persians and the Arabs. For a thorough overview of this time period, see Andrew J. Ekonomou’s Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes : Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy From Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752 (Lexington Books, 2007).

Monothelite Schism (7th century): Patriarch Sergius I, with support from the Emperor Heraclius, first put forward the heresy of monoenergism and then monothelitism (Christ having only one will) in a document called the Ecthesis in an effort to restore union with the non-Chalcedonian churches. Rome opposed Eastern heresy once again, leading to a schism between East and West with a condemnation by Pope John IV, the excommunication of Patriarch Paul II by the Greek Pope Theodore I, and a more formal condemnation by the Lateran Council of 649, which flaunted the imperial typos that banned discussion of the matter. It also led to the exile and death of the last martyr-pope, Martin I, at the hands of the Empire, although also to the condemnation of Pope Honorius at the Third Council of Constantinople for complying with the Emperor (although Leo II, who approved the Council, criticized Honorius only for silence and failing in his duty).

Quinisext Council (692): The Council in Trullo (as it also called) caused conflict with the West by seeking to impose distinctively Eastern practices upon it, to the point of seeking to depose those who hold that subdeacons, deacons, and priest cannot continue to live with their wives (canon 13). It also said that Constantinople should have equal privileges to Rome (canon 36) and sought to ban the Latin custom of fasting on Saturday (canon 55), as well as celebrating Mass during the weekdays of Lent and refraining from singing Alleluia during the season. Pope Sergius refused to accept its canons, even when threatened with arrest by Justinian II. Later popes came to terms with this Council (as it was thought to be connected to Constantinople III, even though it met many years later), though they reserved the right to refuse anything that contradicted their own decrees, such as clerical celibacy.

Iconoclasm (8th-9th centuries): The popes once again stood firm against the Byzantine emperors, with many Byzantine artists finding refuge in Italy. Pope Gregory III declared iconoclasts anathema. For an overview of the nuanced response of the Carolingians to iconoclasm, see Thomas Noble’s Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009).

New Emperor in the West (800): The crowning of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans in 800 during an alleged interregnum (under the Empress Irene) was certainly an affront to the East (and a recognition of its diminishing power). Charlemagne’s father, Pepin, had created the Papal States, which established a sphere of independence, not only from the Lombards (as usually it described) but also from the Byzantines. This coronation led to a new political situation in the West, with the emperors there allegedly in subordination to the popes who crowned them, though the two became major rivals.

Filioque Controversy Begins (808): Conflict broke out at the Mount Olivet monastery in Jerusalem over Latin monks reciting the Filioque – that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (articulated early on in the West by Tertullian, Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine, though first recited in the creed in 6th century Spain). The monks appealed to Pope Leo III, who consulted Charlemagne, a supporter of the Filioque, who in turn called a Council at Aachen in 809-10 to uphold it. While Leo III was sympathetic to the theology behind the Filioque, he thought it best to recite the Creed without it, famously having the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed written on silver shields in Greek and Latin and posted within St. Peter’s without the Filioque included. It was only in 1014, at the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry II, that the Filioque was recited in Rome.

The Mission of Sts. Cyril and Methodius (9th century): After serving as missionaries to the Khazars, these brothers received the blessing of both Constantinople and Rome for their efforts to inculturate the faith among the Slavs, despite the opposition of German bishops.

Photian Schism (863-67): Pope Nicholas I refused to recognize the emperor’s act of deposing Patriarch Ignatius in favor of Photius. In response to growing papal influence in Balkans (including the introduction of the Filioque there), Photius sought in turn to depose the Pope and excommunicate his followers. Photius accused the West of heresy, particularly for the Filioque. Photius was later deposed and then restored, and eventually came to peace with the West. This schism was a major foreshadowing of the larger split that would occur in the 11th century.

Normans in Italy and Greece: The Byzantines, Lombards, and the Saracens all claimed and fought for Sicily and southern Italy, with the papacy also seeking to preserve its own patrimony there. In the midst of the iconoclast controversy, the emperor Leo III seized the papal patrimony in southern Italy and sought to move the jurisdiction of the episcopal see there to Constantinople. The Lombards and then Byzantines hired Normans as mercenaries, who, deciding to implant themselves, turned on both the Byzantines and the Lombards. After conquering Byzantine territory in Italy, the Normans continued to push into Greece and set their sites on Constantinople, sacking Thessalonica, until being defeated in 1185, although the Empire would never regain its Italian territories. The Norman threat did lead to an alliance between the Byzantine and German Empires, including the marriage of Manuel I Komnenos with Bertha of Sulzbach, sister of the Holy Roman Emperor, Conrad III.

1054: This date certainly marks a breakdown in effective communication between the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople, pointing to their diverging views of authority and sacramental practice, though the mutual excommunication was largely symbolic (though a powerful and long lasting symbol). Nonetheless, it represented the real sense of distance arising between East and West. Latin scholars in the past actually pointed to 1053 as the time of schism, when the Patriarch Michael Cerularius closed the Latin churches, citing the use of unleavened bread and fasting on Saturdays, among other things.

Synod of Constantinople (1089): Called by the emperor to determine relations with the West, the synod stated that no previous anathema could be found, although it expressed concern about irregular practices. It stated: “‘Not by a synodical judgement and examination was the Church of Rome removed from communion with us, but as it seems from our want of watchful care the pope’s name was not commemorated in the holy diptychs.” Even if no clear break could be identified, a breakdown of proper and full relations had occurred by this time.

Ongoing Monastic Connections: After 1054, Greek monks continued to live in Rome, particularly at Grottaferrata (see Yost for more details on this point), and that Benedictines remained at St. Mary’s monastery at Mount Athos until the 13th century (their monastery was also called the Amalfitan for its connections to Amalfi, Italy). See this post for more details on St. Mary’s and some connections between Benedictines and Mount Athos in the 20th century.

Call for the Crusades (11th century): The estrangement of East and West could not have been serious enough to prohibit the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos calling upon Pope Urban II for aid against the Turks in the East at the Council of Piacenza in 1095. Gregory VII had excommunicated Alexios, although Urban had lifted it in 1088. The leaders of the First Crusade did pledge fealty to the Emperor, although they renounced this when he abandoned them at Antioch. The crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 and would remain rivals of the Byzantines in the East. Pope Innocent II excommunicated John Komnenos for attempting to retake Antioch, even as he sent ambassadors to work for reunion (see John Gordon Rowe’s “The Papacy and the Greeks”).

Attempted Reunion in Crusading Period (1112, 1147): Alexios I Komnenos proposed himself as a candidate for Holy Roman Emperor to Pope Paschal II and sought a reunion of East and West. Efforts failed when Paschal insisted on papal primacy over “all the churches of God throughout the world.” Eugune III used the occasion of the Second Crusade to press unsuccessfully for reunion with the Emperor Manuel Komnenos, although Manuel opted to focus more on a military alliance with his brother-in-law Conrad III against the Normans at the expense of papal claims to southern Italy.

Massacre of the Latins (1182): After years of economic and military conflict with the Normans, Venice, and Genoa, the pro-Western Byzantine regent, Maria of Antioch, was deposed and Andronikos I Komnenos rose to power. During the transition of power, mobs attacked the Latin quarter and slaughtered a large part of its population, estimated around 60,000, including the pope’s Cardinal-legate.

Fourth Crusade (1204): There is no doubt that the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 and the establishment of both a Latin emperor and patriarch had considerable and lasting damage on East-West relations, much more so than 1054. It is easy to mischaracterize the event, however, as a simple attempt at plunder when it actuality involved an entanglement into a Byzantine disputed succession, orchestrated by Alexios Angelos, whose plans went awry. The crusaders were excommunicated for attacking a Christian city. Ironically, the terrible and sinful plunder may have preserved some relics and sacred art from the Turks.

Venetian Empire (1204-1797): Originally a Byzantine city, in the Fourth Crusade Venice acquired 3/8 of the Byzantine Empire, including Crete (until 1669) and Euboea. It began acquiring gradually the Ionian islands in 1363, which variously had been in the hands of Normans, crusaders, and the Turks, holding them until the Republic’s collapse in 1797. It added Cyprus in 1489, although it had to defend its maritime positions against the Turks (part of the context for the Battle of Lepanto in 1571), taking the Peloponnesian peninsula from them in 1699 (holding it only until 1715). One of the greatest cultural expressions of Venice’s control of Greek territory came from the Cretan school of art, which blending Eastern and Western techniques and formed the great El Greco.

Medieval Attempts at Dialogue (12th and 13th centuries): The document, The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?, produced by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation in 2003, listed a number of failed attempts at theological reconciliation: “The German Emperor Lothair III sent bishop Anselm of Havelberg to Constantinople in 1136, to negotiate a military alliance with Emperor John II Comnenos. While he was there, Anselm and Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicomedia held a series of public discussions about subjects dividing the Churches, including the Filioque, and concluded that the differences between the two traditions were not as great as they had thought (PL 188.1206B – 1210 B). A letter from Orthodox Patriarch Germanos II (1222-1240) to Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) led to further discussions between Eastern and Western theologians on the Filioque at Nicaea in 1234. Subsequent discussions were held in 1253-54, at the initiative of Emperor John III Vatatzes (1222-1254) and Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254). In spite of these efforts, the continuing effects of the Fourth Crusade and the threat of the Turks, along with the jurisdictional claims of the papacy in the East, meant that these well-intentioned efforts came to no conclusion.”

Teutonic Knights (13th century): The Germanic crusading knights invaded the Novgorod Republic in 1240, occupying some of its dependencies until defeated by Alexander Nevsky at the Battle of the Ice in 1242. This conflict increased tensions between Catholics and Orthodox in Eastern Europe. In 1348-49 King Magnus IV of Norway and Sweden led a failed crusade against Novgorod. There were better relations to the south in the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia, where a papal representative crowned Danylo Romanovych as the first King of the Ruthenians in Drohiczyn in 1253, though in partial subjection to the Golden Horde (the Kingdom was conquered and divided by Poland and Lithuania in the mid-14th century).

Second Council of Lyon (1245): After the restoration of Constantinople to the Greeks, Pope Gregory X invited Michael VIII Palaiologos to send representatives to the Lyon II to work toward reunion. The emperor’s representatives agreed to the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed, although, despite the emperor’s efforts, the union never took popular hold in the East and failed with his death. Previous councils in the West did have some representatives from the East, such as Lateran III (a Greek legate) and Lateran IV (an Alexandrian Greek legate). Pope Martin IV excommunicated Michael VIII in 1281 as relations soured again.

Greek Reception of Aquinas (14th-15th centuries): St. Thomas Aquinas, the most prominent Latin theologian of the medieval ages, despite speaking of the Greeks as schismatic and advancing the theology of the Filioque, found an audience among Orthodox theologians, such as Nicholas Cabasilas and Gennadius II Scholarius (see Marcus Plested’s Orthodox Readings of Aquinas for many other examples). Plested explains: “Aquinas, as we have briefly seen, found admirers among the anti-Unionists as well as among the Unionists, among the Palamites as well as among the anti-Palamites. The Byzantines too welcomed Thomas in, welcomed him as ‘one of us’ but welcomed him in critical fashion.” The Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos, whose prime minister Demetrios Kydones translated Aquinas into Greek (and became Catholic), appreciated the Angelic Doctor and sought unsuccessfully to a call a Council with the West in 1367.

Council of Ferrara-Florence and aftermath (1437-49): This council picked back up the efforts of reunion with more of a robust participation from the East, including the appearance of the Emperor John VIII Palaiologos, although this attempted union was also was short lived. The Emperor and Isidore of Kiev (later imprisoned, exiled, and made a Cardinal) tried to champion union, though it was extremely unpopular and ultimately was rejected, especially through the efforts of Mark of Ephesus. Although Orthodox accounts of the Filioque controversy tend to point to it as as example of a papal overreach of authority. Lyon and Ferrara-Florence at least point to an attempt to involve the East on this point. Some remained open to union for a time, including a number of the Metropolitans of Kiev, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Among [Isidore’s] successors who were friendly to the union were Mikhail Drucki (1475-80), Semion (1481-88), Jonah Glezna (1492-94), Makap (1495-97), and Josef Soltan, who in 1500 wrote a letter to Alexander VI asking for papal confirmation of his metropolitan dignity. At the death of Josef II, which according to Stroeff was in 1519, the Metropolitanate of Kieff became again wholly Orthodox.”

Fall of Constantinople (1453). The union of Ferrara-Florence was proclaimed in 1452 with a concelebration in Hagia Sophia. The collapse of the Empire, however, led also to the collapse of the pro-union party, which had obviously failed in its attempt to draw support from the West to save the city. The patriarch Symeon I oversaw a 1484 synod in Constantinople that spoke specifically of heresies in the Latin West and condemned the Council of Florence, although it said that Latins should not be rebaptized. The Sultans, who exerted control over the patriarchs, certainly did not want good relations with the West, and propped up the anti-union party (which was also more popular with the people). Italy benefited from a number of scholars who fled West from the Turks, including Cardinal Bessarion.

17th Century Contact: Kallistos Ware explains: “Greeks and Latins continued in practice quietly to ignore the separation and to behave as if no breach in communion had occurred. Instances of communicatio in sacris are especially abundant in the seventeenth century, and if we are to speak of a ‘final consummation’ of the schism, perhaps this should not be placed earlier than the years 1725-50.” He gives examples such as frequent intercommunion and intermarriage in Rome, mixed churches on the Greek islands (under Venetian rule), Latin religious orders, especially the Jesuits, seeking faculties successfully from Greek bishops to serve in their dioceses, and that some bishops, especially in the Levant, asked for a Jesuit presence. He notes hostility elsewhere, especially in Russia, although he also points to Latin authors of the time who posited that no complete and definitive schism had ever occurred. Nonetheless, both sides dug in the following century and grew further apart.

“Uniate” Greek Catholic Churches (16th-18th centuries): The newly Catholic Grand Duchy of Lithuania expanded into Belarus and Ukraine in the early 14th century and its successor state, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, achieved a major victory over Russia in the early 17th century (Polish-Luthuanian troops even installed a Catholic Tsar in Moscow in 1605, False Dmitry I, although he only lasted 11 months). Within this context, Orthodox bishops at Brest (1595-96) and then priests in Uzhhorod (1643) entered into a union with Rome, laying the foundation for the Ruthenian, Ukrainian, and Slovak Churches within the Catholic Church, ensuring them the ability to preserve their distinct traditions intact. The Romanian Catholic Church traces its origin to an act of union in 1698, within territory of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1724 a pro-Western Patriarch of Antioch was elected, who was then rejected by the Patriarch of Constantinople, leading to a schism and a distinct Melkites Rite in union with Rome. That a majority of the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch followed this Melkite union greatly placed the Orthodox in a defensive position. The Italo-Albanian Rite preserves the Greek rite and language in Italy, bolstered by refugees fleeing the Turks. As mentioned in my last post, these unions brought Orthodox saints into Catholic worship.

Rebaptism: The Orthodox Patriarchs in 1755 issued a regulation requiring rebaptism of Latin converts. This has not been followed consistently. Ware, in his book The Orthodox Church, pages 94-95, mentions that earlier the Russians rebaptized Catholics in the period between 1441 and 1667, a practice upheld by a council in Moscow in 1620, though specifically rescinded in 1667, stipulating that Catholics should be received by a rite of repentance, a repudiation of heresy, and a confession of the Orthodox faith (which has become the more common practice).

Renewed Appreciation (19th century): The thought of Vladimir Solovyov marked a new opening to the Catholic Church and the Papacy, especially in his Russia and the Universal Church. On the Latin side, Pope Leo XIII expressed greater appreciation for the distinct witness of the East against Latinizing tendencies, such as his encyclical Orientalium Dignitas (although he focuses on the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church). This period also marked conflict within the Russian Empire as Poles fought for freedom and the Tsars regularly imposed limits or even persecution on Catholic clergy.

Development of Doctrine and Authority (19th-20th centuries): The First Vatican Council’s pronouncement on papal infallibility (1870), as well as the papal ex cathedra pronouncements on the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950) have presented new theological challenges to union. The whole understanding and acceptability of the notion of the development of doctrine undergirds these new challenges.

Lifting of Anathemas: In 1965, in a largely symbolic, though significant, act, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the mutual excommunications between their Churches. This action has to be seen in light of the Second Vatican Council, which accepted Orthodox observers and tried to establish a renewed ecumenical approach. Following the Council there has been an increase in dialogue, including joint study commissions (especially the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church).

Sacramental Necessity: John Paul II’s revised Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, reaffirmed Catholic permission to request sacraments from the Orthodox Church in cases of necessity. Although permission is not always given reciprocally, a synod of the Russian Church, meeting on December 16, 1969, did state that Catholics seeking the sacraments should not be forbidden (see appendix 2 of this post from the Russian Church Abroad).

Apology and a Plea: As a part of the Jubilee Year 2000, John Paul II apologized for the historical sins of Catholics. He reiterated his apology, specifying the Fourth Crusade, during an historic visit to Greece in 2001. John Paul had already asked for forgiveness in 1995 for papal failures in serving unity in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (88), going on to make a plea for new cooperation: “Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea ‘that they may all be one … so that the world may believe that you have sent me’ (Jn 17:21)?” (96). He pointed to the unity and governance of the first millennium of the Church as a model.

Restoring Practices: John Paul II also encouraged Eastern Rite Catholics to rediscover their heritage, some of which had been lost in efforts to Latinize them. In 1996 Byzantine Catholics removed the Filioque from their recitation of the Creed and a married priesthood was restored in some areas where it had been forbidden, such as the United States (with the Vatican rescinding the prohibition on married priests outside of the traditional territory of the Eastern rites in 2014).

Return of Relics and Dioceses: In 2004 John Paul II returned relics of St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory Nazianzen to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Francis gifted some relics of St. Peter in 2019. In 2002, John Paul II created four dioceses in Russia, an act that was received coldly and Catholic clergy have had difficulties in obtaining visas for their ministry.

A Breakthrough Meeting: In 2016 Pope Francis met with the Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill, an historic first meeting between the Pope and the head of the Russian Church.

Reunion Inevitable? In 2019 Patriarch Bartholomew told the monks of Mt. Athos to prepare for reunion, as historical and not dogmatic issues separate the Churches, calling reunion inevitable.

I am sure that I missed some significant moments (and feel free to post additional points in the comments) but I hope that this brief overview paints a more complete picture than the simplistic understanding that there was a clean break between the Churches after one event in 1054. In reality, there is a long and multifaceted relationship that ebbed and flowed. The split cannot be overly simplified, although getting a clearer picture of history can help us to understand that 2,000 years of a rocky relationship might mean that things do not need to be perfect for reunion (as they never were). Forgiveness and mutual appreciation are essential and a willingness to accept distinct and complementary traditions alongside of one another. Following Jesus’s own prayer, let us pray that “they may be one” (John 17:21).