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.

Actually religious reasons There are two schisms: 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 development of Christianity in the West and 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 “ungodly 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 decisions made 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 amazed 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 opinions, which sometimes leads them astray.”

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

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  In 1053, a church confrontation for influence in southern Italy began between the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cyrularius and Pope Leo IX. Churches in Southern Italy belonged to Byzantium. Michael Cerularius learned that the Greek rite was being replaced by the Latin rite there, and closed all the temples of the Latin rite in Constantinople. The Patriarch instructs the Bulgarian Archbishop Leo of Ohrid to compose a letter against the Latins, in which the service of the liturgy on unleavened bread would be condemned; fasting on Saturday during Lent; the absence of Hallelujah singing during Lent; eating strangled meat. 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 Stiphatus writes a treatise “Anti-Dialogue”, or “A Discourse on Unleavened Bread, Sabbath Fasting and the Marriage of Priests” against Humbert’s work.

  Events of 1054

  In 1054, Leo sent a letter to Cyrularius 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 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, in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the papal legates announced the deposition of Cyrularius and his excommunication from the Church. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates.

  Reasons for the split

  The historical background of the schism goes back to late antiquity and the early Middle Ages (starting with the destruction of Rome by the troops of Alaric in 410) and is determined by the emergence of ritual, dogmatic, ethical, aesthetic and other differences between the Western (often called Latin Catholic) and Eastern (Greek) Orthodox) traditions.

  The point of view of the Western (Catholic) Church

  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 on 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's have existed since the 1st century. (Clement of Rome) and further found everywhere both in the West and in the East (St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage, John Chrysostom, Leo the Great, Hormizd, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, etc.), so attempts to attribute only to Rome some kind of “primacy of honor” is 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 St. The 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 the shepherds of the Church.

  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, primatus an. Peter's 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 department of Petrova, and hence the gift of the apostle. Peter, the power of grace flows onto his successors.

  From this 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 papal legates, who presented and developed this theory in detail, and the declaration of the pope they announced.

  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 of the great and ancient Rome Leo, through us and through the present holy cathedral, together with the most blessed and all-praised Apostle Peter, who is the rock and the affirmation Catholic Church and base 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 exalted 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, Pope of Rome, did not recognize the validity of this canon, interrupted communication with Archbishop Anatoly of Constantinople and threatened him with excommunication.

  The point of view of the Eastern (Orthodox) Church

  However, by 800, the political situation around what had previously been 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, its own emperor appeared (Charlemagne was crowned in Rome in 800), who in the eyes of his contemporaries became “equal” to the Eastern Emperor and on whose political power the Roman bishop was able to rely in his claims. It is attributed to the changed political situation that the Roman popes again began to pursue the idea of ​​their primacy, rejected by the Council of Chalcedon, not in honor and Orthodoxy of teaching, which was confirmed by the vote of bishops equal to the Roman bishop at councils, but “by divine right,” that is, the idea of ​​their the highest individual authority in the entire Church.

  After the legate of the Pope, Cardinal Humbert, placed a 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 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 Saturdays and Sundays during Great Lent and non-observance of Great 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 schism was not considered final or 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'

  Having left Constantinople, the papal legates went to Rome by a roundabout route to notify other eastern hierarchs of the excommunication of Michael Cerularius. 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 occurred in Constantinople.

  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 the Augustinian monks from Bremen to baptize the Latvians and Livs subject to them in Western Dvina). In the upper class there were (to the displeasure of the Greek metropolitans) numerous mixed marriages (with Polish princes alone - more than twenty), and in none of these cases anything resembling a “transition” from one religion to another was recorded. Western influence is noticeable in some areas of church life, for example, in Rus' there were organs before Mongol invasion(which then disappeared), bells were brought to Rus' mainly from the West, where they were more widespread than among the Greeks.

  This situation persisted until the Mongol-Tatar invasion. [ ]

  Removal of mutual anathemas

  In 1964, a meeting took place in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras, the 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 his Synod are aware that this gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness is not sufficient to to put an end to the differences, both ancient and recent, that still remain between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church."

  Schism of the church (Orthodox, Catholic, great schism)

  The official split (great schism) of the church into the Catholic in the West, centered in Rome, and the Orthodox in the East, centered in Constantinople, occurred in 1054. Historians still cannot come to a consensus regarding its causes. Some people think main premise breaking the claim of the Patriarch of Constantinople to supremacy in christian church. Others are the Pope's desire to subordinate the churches of Southern Italy to his authority.

  The historical background of schism goes back to the 4th century, when the Roman Empire, whose state religion became Christianity, had a second capital - Constantinople (now Istanbul). The geographical distance from each other of the two political and spiritual centers - Constantinople and Rome - led to the emergence of ritual and dogmatic differences between the churches of the west and east of the empire, which over time could not but lead to the search for truth and the struggle for leadership.

  The gap was consolidated by military action, when in 1204, in the 4th crusade of the papacy, the crusaders defeated Constantinople. The split has not yet been overcome, although in 1965 the mutual curses were lifted.

  A second schism of comparable magnitude began in the church when believers began to translate the Bible into their native languages ​​and return to the chief apostolic sources, abandoning the doctrines of state churches that contradicted and added to the Holy Scriptures. It should be noted that for a long time in a significant part of the churches only the Latin text of the Bible was used. And in 1231, Pope Gregory IX, with a bull, prohibited the laity of the Western Church from reading the Holy Scriptures in any language, which was officially abolished only by the Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965. Despite the ban, in more progressive Europe, translating the Bible into native understandable ordinary people languages ​​began in the 16th century.

  In 1526, the Speyer Reichstag, at the request of the German princes, adopted a resolution on the right of every German prince to choose a religion for himself and his subjects. However, the 2nd Reichstag of Speyer in 1529 overturned this decree. In response, a protest followed from the five princes of the imperial cities of Germany, from which the term “Protestantism” came from (Latin protestans, gen. protestantis - publicly proving). Thus, new churches that emerged from the bosom of the dominant faiths received the name Protestant. Now Protestantism is one of the three, along with Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the main directions of Christianity.

  Within Protestantism there are many denominations that mainly disagree in the interpretation of any texts of the Bible that do not affect the basic principle of salvation in Christ. In general, a significant part of these churches are friendly with each other and are united in the main thing - they do not recognize the supremacy of the pope and the supreme patriarchs. Many Protestant churches are guided by the principle of “Sola Scriptura” (Latin for “Scripture only”).

  As for Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church did not allow the Bible to be translated into a language understandable to ordinary people until the 19th century. Synodal translation The translation of Holy Scripture from Church Slavonic into Russian was carried out in Rus' only in 1876. It is still used by Russian-speaking believers of most Christian denominations.

  According to Operation Peace, there are approximately 943 million Catholics, 720 million Protestants, and 211 million Orthodox Christians worldwide (Operation Peace, 2001).

  There are countries in which certain religions predominate. The website, specializing in statistical data on the world's religions, provides the following data. More 50% population Catholics constitute in Italy, France, Spain, Ireland, Mexico, Poland, Canada, Argentina, Portugal, Austria, Vatican City, Belgium, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba; Orthodox– in Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, Cyprus; Protestants– in the USA, Great Britain, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Samoa, Namibia, South Africa, Jamaica, Tahiti.

  However, all these figures do not entirely correctly reflect reality. In fact, there may be even more Protestants than Orthodox and Catholics combined. After all, the number of believers really professing in its Everyday life Orthodoxy and Catholicism are much smaller than the number of those who claim to belong to these denominations. I mean, a significant portion of Protestants know what they believe. They can explain why they are Protestants and belong to a particular church. They read the Bible and attend worship services. And the majority of Catholics and Orthodox Christians only visit church occasionally, but do not know the Bible at all and do not even understand the doctrinal differences between Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Such believers simply consider themselves Catholics or Orthodox according to the church where they were baptized, that is, according to their place of residence or according to the faith of their parents. They cannot claim to have become Catholic or Orthodox because they know, fully share and accept the doctrines of their church. They cannot say that they have read the Bible and are confident that the tenets of their church correspond to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

  Thus, most Catholics and Orthodox are not them, since they do not know the doctrines of their churches and do not put them into practice. This is confirmed by the results of many sociological surveys. So according to the data All-Russian Center A study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM), obtained in the spring of 2009, only 4% of respondents who identify themselves as Orthodoxy receive the sacraments, 3% pray as the church prescribes. The results of a VTsIOM study conducted in the spring of 2008 showed that only 3% of Orthodox Christians fully observe Lent. A population survey conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) in the spring of 2008 showed that only 10% of Orthodox Christians go to church at least once a month. According to data obtained in 2006 by the sector of the sociology of religion of the Institute for Socio-Political Research Russian Academy Sciences (ISPI RAS), 72% of Russians who consider themselves Orthodox Christians have not picked up the Gospel at all or have read it a long time ago!

  Unfortunately, currently in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and other countries former USSR In relation to Protestant denominations, the image of totalitarian sects is often deliberately formed. Meanwhile, Protestantism is the largest churches with centuries-old history and a multimillion-dollar flock, beautiful houses of worship and churches, spectacular worship, impressive work on the missionary and social field, etc. As mentioned above, countries with a predominance of Protestantism include Sweden, the USA, Great Britain, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway..., that is, the most developed economically and socially states. Less than half, but more than 20% of the population, are Protestants in Germany, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Scotland, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Guatemala and other countries.

  Updated: 08/27/2012 - 17:19

  2. Split of the Christian Church.

  Throughout its history, Christianity has developed in conditions of internal contradictions. There were various reasons for these contradictions - both serious and insignificant. Serious reasons have always been the heterogeneity of the class composition of adherents of Christianity and the difference in interests between the Roman papacy and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Along with these reasons, the contradictions between the Western Latin Catholic and Eastern Greek Orthodox traditions in Christianity were also caused by differences in issues of dogma, church rituals, the order of worship, the timing and order of holding church holidays, in relation to marriages of clergy, in matters of church ethics, etc.

  In 1054, a split in the Christian Church occurred, called in the history of religion the Great Schism. Schism translated from ancient Greek means “schism, strife.” As a result of this schism, the Christian Church was divided into the Roman Catholic Church in the West, centered in Rome, and the Orthodox Church in the East, centered in Constantinople.

  The immediate cause of the schism was the closure of the Latin churches and monasteries in Constantinople in 1053 by order of Patriarch Michael Cyrularius. At the same time, the so-called holy gifts were thrown out of the Latin churches.

  To resolve the conflict, Pope Leo IX sent his legates (representatives) led by Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople. But they failed to come to an agreement with the patriarch. As a result, the Pope anathematized Patriarch Kirulai and excommunicated him from the Church. The legates of the Pope declared the patriarch deposed. The Patriarch did everything in his power to extinguish the conflict, but he failed and in response he anathematized and excommunicated Legate Humbert and his two companions. But the letter of excommunication against Patriarch Kirulai was not legitimate, because was signed not by the Pope, but by Cardinal Humbert, i.e. in fact, this was not a decision of the Roman Church, but the arrogance of this cardinal. However, the event of 1054, through the efforts of Pope Gregory VII (the organizer of the first crusades) and Cardinal Humbert, who soon became his adviser, was given historical significance, which it actually did not have.

  In fact, the complete split of the Christian Church occurred much later, already in the 18th century, when the contradictions and mutual alienation between the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Christian Church reached their limit. More full information We have posted about this below on this page.

  Well, the very first disagreements began in the 2nd century. It was a dispute about the timing and content of Easter. The Roman Church celebrated Passover according to the Jewish lunar calendar on the first Sunday after Nisan 14 (April), and the churches of Asia Minor celebrated Easter only on April 14, i.e. on any day of the week on which the date April 14 fell. The highest bishops of the Church of Asia Minor discussed this problem with Pope Anicetas (his papacy 155-166), but did not reach a common solution. Of course, no split in Christianity resulted from this dispute.

  In the 5th-6th centuries, disagreements were observed within the Christian Church and over serious reasons. For example, at the Council of Chalcidan (451), disputes arose over the wording of the formula about Jesus Christ, defining him as true God and true man, representing two natures in one hypostasis. And the Second Council of Constantinople (553) tried to resolve theological differences on the problem of Christ and the Mother of God, because some theologians then did not consider Christ to be a God-man, and Mary to be the Mother of God.

  The so-called Acacian schism, which is considered the first church schism between the eastern and western branches of the Christian church, left a big mark on the history of the Christian church. This schism received its name from the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius. The schism lasted 35 years (from 484 to 519), although Akaki himself died in 489. The contradictions concerned mainly questions of dogma, and they arose not only between the Eastern and Western churches, but also between the Orthodox of Constantinople and Alexandria. Upon ascending the thrones, emperors, popes and Orthodox patriarchs forbade the use of encyclicals and other church documents of their predecessors in worship if these documents contained provisions that did not correspond to their religious views. Then such documents were declared “heretical” and anathematized along with their authors.

  THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST.

  During the Acacian schism, the most serious contradictions were the contradictions and disputes over the issue of the divine-human nature of Christ. During the debate on this issue, two religious movements arose: Monophysitism and Miaphysitism. The followers of Monophysitism recognized in Christ only one divine nature, and considered his human nature to be absorbed by the divine principle. His human nature dissolved into the divine “like a drop of honey in the sea.” The Miaphysites, unlike the Monophysites, affirmed the unity of the divine-human nature of Christ. They believed that the two natures of Christ constitute an indissoluble unity, fully retaining their properties. The Miaphysites considered themselves followers of the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the ancient Orthodox doctrine.

  It is difficult for the uninitiated to judge the degree of dogmatic importance of these issues. The only thing we can add is that the theological dialogue and dispute between the Orthodox churches on these issues continues to this day.

  The Roman Catholic Church has always claimed supremacy over the entire Christian Church, declaring its supposed “divine right” to this. Catholic researchers believe that the Roman Church deserved the right to primacy in universal jurisdiction from the first centuries of its existence. As for Orthodox researchers and hierarchs, they agree that the Roman Church has primacy “by honor,” i.e. as "highly respected". However, in their opinion, this cannot cancel the collegial adoption of all decisions by convening ecumenical councils, i.e. The conciliar structure and conciliar activity of the entire Christian Church must be unshakable.

  In 395, the Roman Empire was divided into Western and Eastern. The capital of the Eastern Empire was the city of Constantinople, which Emperor Constantine the Great began to build back in 330. In the history of Christianity, Emperor Constantine left his mark, because... in 313 he allowed the free exercise of the Christian faith. Years of reign of Constantine: 306-337.

  After the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476), the historical situation changed radically. The Eastern Roman Empire turned into a new state - Byzantium. This meant that a new civilization began to form in the Eastern Mediterranean. The 6th century marked the beginning of the European Middle Ages. Europe in this era was divided into “West” and “East” in the modern sense. Byzantium considered itself the heir Ancient Rome and the first truly Christian country. Its heyday occurred during the reign of Emperor Justinian (527-565).

  In 800, Charlemagne was crowned in Rome by Pope Leo III, becoming the first emperor in the West after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and declaring himself equal to the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Now the Pope has received political support in his claims to his primacy in the entire Christian Church “by divine right.” In addition, the strengthening of the position of the Pope was facilitated by the fact that a significant part of the Eastern Empire, along with the ancient apostolic churches, had by that time been captured by Muslims. The emergence of two empires meant a political split, and church schism became inevitable.

  It is worth mentioning one more event that occurred before 1054 and became a certain stage in the schism of the Christian church. In 857, the great religious thinker and politician Photius was elevated to the patriarchal throne in Constantinople. In this post, he replaced Patriarch Ignatius, who for some reason fell into disgrace, abdicated the throne and was sent into exile by Emperor Michael III. However, part of the clergy refused to consider Patriarch Photius legitimate and Ignatius’ abdication valid. Then Pope Nicholas I (858-867) sends his legates to Constantinople to find out the causes of the conflict. At the same time, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that Photius was elected to the post of patriarch from the laity and did not even have the experience of a clergyman.

  The legates of Nicholas I, at the invitation of Photius, took part in the work of the Council of Constantinople, which was supposed to consider the dispute over the patriarchate of Photius. The participants of the council, including the legates of the Pope, recognized Photius as the legally elected patriarch. But, having learned about this, Pope Nicholas I canceled the decision of the council, citing the fact that his legates allegedly exceeded their powers. In 863, Pope Nicholas I held a council in Rome, at which he sought a decision to deprive Photius of the priesthood and recognize Ignatius as patriarch.

  This event once again showed the papacy's claims to absolute power over the entire Christian Church and deepened the gap between the Roman and Constantinople (Byzantine) churches. Of course, communication between the two churches did not stop after this, and could not have stopped, not so much for dogmatic reasons as for political ones. Let us not forget that the Christian Church already from the 4th century became an integral part state power and very effective tool in the hands of monarchs. As for the fate of the former Patriarch Photius, he soon made peace with Ignatius and after the latter’s death (877) he again received the patriarchate in Constantinople, which was recognized by the Holy See in Rome. Until the end of his patriarchal service (886), Photius constantly maintained contact with the Roman Church.

  Thus, some reasons for the schism (schism) between the two branches of the Christian Church were eliminated through joint efforts, while others arose again. To the modern reader, some of these reasons may seem insignificant and not worthy of attention. But it is unlikely that we will be able to confidently and somewhat objectively judge the religious consciousness of believers, and especially the clergy, which existed in the Middle Ages. However, some disputes in the Christian Church of that time give us the opportunity to at least speculate on this complex topic. Here is a typical example.

  Starting from the time of Patriarch Photius (IX century) and until the end of the 19th century, i.e. For a whole millennium, there was a dogmatic disagreement between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches on the issue of the so-called “filioque”, which both churches considered an almost insurmountable obstacle to their normal communication and interaction. What is this obstacle? It turns out that Orthodox theologians argued that the Holy Spirit comes only from God the Father, and according to the teachings of the Latin Church, he, i.e. The Holy Spirit also comes from the Son (Latin Filioque - “and from the Son”). Accordingly, when reading the “Creed” and prayers among Catholics and Orthodox Christians in in the right places an exclamation of different “content” was uttered, and this difference in the utterance of the prayer was considered almost a fundamental dogmatic difference between two churches professing the same Christian teaching. It took a detailed scientific work by a major church scientist, professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy V. Bolotov, entitled “Theses on the Filioque,” ​​in order to to some extent reduce the differences of churches on this, at first glance, insignificant issue of dogma. And only at the end of the 20th century, Pope John Paul II recognized it as possible to read prayers in churches without the “filioque,” ​​as is customary in Orthodox churches.

  But the reason why, after 1204, relations between the Catholic and Orthodox churches sharply deteriorated was truly serious. This year a terrible event occurred. A detachment of crusaders heading from the Venetian Republic to Palestine in the fourth crusade, on the way turned to Constantinople. This happened by the decision of the leader of the campaign, Alexei Angel, the son of the deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II. Alexei wanted, with the help of the crusaders, to restore his father to the throne and become an heir. For this, he promised to generously reward the crusaders. Having captured Constantinople, the crusaders within three days they robbed the city, killed and raped citizens, plundered churches and private homes, and desecrated Orthodox shrines. Not receiving what was promised, they killed Emperor Isaac II Angel and his son Alexei. The Latin Baudouin became the Byzantine emperor. The Latin Empire existed on the territory of Byzantium for more than half a century. Only in 1261, when Constantinople was occupied by the troops of the Nicaean emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, was the power of the Byzantines restored.

  The aggression of the Latins and their desecration of Orthodox shrines led to further alienation between the Orthodox East and the Catholic West. After the barbaric sack of Constantinople, periods of alienation and hostility between the two Christian churches were interrupted by attempts to achieve reconciliation and establish cooperation. Thus, in 1274, the Second Council of Lyon tried to create a union of churches. Emperor Michael VIII took part in the work of the cathedral. In fact, the union did not work out; the Greek Orthodox churches did not agree with the decisions of the council. The split continued. Centuries passed.

  In 1453, the Turks captured Constantinople. Byzantine Empire ceased to exist. Constantinople became the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Difficult times have come for the Christian church, because... The Muslim government of Turkey was not at all interested in bringing Greek and Western Christians closer together.

  The prelates of the Catholic Church constantly instilled in believers the idea that a church can be considered Christian only if it is under the full jurisdiction of the Pope, who is supposedly the successor of the holy Apostle Peter himself. The idea that the Apostle Peter is a biblical character, and therefore a semi-mythical person, this thought should not have occurred to a Christian. The constantly inculcated idea of ​​the “divine right” of the Catholic Church to its primacy in Christianity, although accompanied by talk about the need for unity of the entire Christian world, caused protests from churches of the Orthodox Christian tradition.

  At the Council of Constance (1414-1418), decrees on church reform were proclaimed, and ecumenical councils were called upon to control papal power. But in reality, no one controlled or limited papal power. On the contrary, the power of the Holy See grew stronger over time.

  Indicative in this sense was the decision of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), which proclaimed the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope’s judgments on issues of the Christian faith. There is only a small step left to reach the divine halo above the head of Pope Pius IX, who held the aforementioned Vatican Council. By the way, at the same council the dogma of immaculate conception.

  
  According to the Bible, Jesus' mother, Mary, was a virgin.
  By the power of the Holy Spirit, she conceived, and Christ was able to be born in human form.

  Whether the holy fathers made a mistake or not when they accepted the dogmas of papal infallibility and the immaculate conception at the First Vatican Council is not for us to judge. But the Popes are also people who can make mistakes and have their own weaknesses and shortcomings, including terrible vices, which were told to us by the French writer and journalist, a deep expert in the history and teachings of Catholicism, Leo Taxil (1854-1907) in his book “The Sacred Nativity Scene” " For ethical reasons, we will refrain from making any quotations from this book. Let us only add that the dogma of the infallibility of the pope’s judgments on issues of Christian faith and morals was confirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

  In the first half of the 16th century, the Reformation began in Europe - a broad anti-feudal and anti-Catholic movement, which laid the foundation for Protestantism, the third religious direction in Christianity after Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Beginning in politically fragmented Germany, the Reformation movement spread across a number of European countries. Despite the defeat of the anti-feudal movement in Germany, the Reformation led to the exit from the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland and parts of Germany and the Czech Republic. Where the Reformation prevailed, the church came under the control of the state and had less power than in Catholic countries.

  
  As a result of the Reformation movement, most of Northern Europe became Protestant, while Southern Europe remained predominantly Catholic. Most Orthodox Christians live in Russia and some parts of Eastern Europe, for example in Greece and the Balkans.

  Catholics immediately began the Counter-Reformation, as a result of which the further spread of Protestantism in Europe was stopped, and Protestantism was eradicated in Poland and France. By the way, in France, according to the concordat (agreement) of 1801 between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII, Catholicism was recognized as the state religion. The Concordat was in force until 1905.

  In the fight against the Reformation, the Catholic Church used its weapon, which was as reliable as it was criminal - the “holy” Inquisition.

  Great geographical discoveries expanded the world. In these conditions, the Catholic Church considered one of its main tasks to attract as many people as possible on all continents to its faith. Catholic missionaries carried the banner of Christ, or rather the Roman Papacy, throughout the open lands. Propaganda for the superiority of the Catholic Church over Orthodoxy and Protestantism intensified. Finally, it came to the point that Catholic theologians decided to consider illegal all sacraments performed on believers without observing papal orders and Catholic rites. In 1729, the Vatican administration issued a decree prohibiting communion in the sacraments between the Roman Catholic and Greek (Orthodox) churches. Believers who have received the sacraments Orthodox canons, Catholics did not recognize them as Christians and began to “convert” them back to Christians in their churches.

  Since 1755, the Orthodox churches also received instructions from their patriarchs to cease participating in joint sacraments with Catholics. This was already a real, deep split between the two branches of the Christian church. Thus, from the middle of the 18th century, the Catholic and Orthodox churches ceased to consider each other the true Church of Christ. This meant that two different religious denominations actually emerged.

  Over the next 200 years, the schism in Christianity continued, although, of course, both Christian denominations took some steps towards mutual reconciliation. For example, in 1918, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, chaired by Patriarch Tikhon, formed a special department for uniting churches. But to date, no unification of the Catholic and Orthodox churches has taken place. How this process will go in the future and whether it will go at all largely depends on the positions and efforts of the current high priests of both churches - Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'.

  The first meeting in history between the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow took place only in February 2016 on neutral Cuban territory. The phenomenal event was preceded by failures, mutual suspicions, centuries of hostility and attempts to bring everything to peace. The division of the Christian Church into Catholic and Orthodox branches occurred due to disagreements in the interpretation of the Creed. So, because of the single word, according to which the Son of God became another source of the Holy Spirit, the church was divided into two parts. The Great Schism was preceded by less, which ultimately led to the modern state of affairs.

  Church schism in 1054: reasons for the division of Christians

  Ritual traditions and views on dogmatic principles in Rome and Constantinople began to gradually differ long before the final separation. In the past, communication between states was not so active, and each church developed in its own direction.

  1. The first preconditions for the schism began in 863. For several years, Orthodox and Catholics were in confrontation. The events went down in history as the Photius Schism. The two ruling church leaders wanted to divide the lands, but did not agree. The official reason was doubts about the legality of the election of Patriarch Photius.
  2. Ultimately, both religious leaders anathematized each other. Communication between the heads of Catholics and Orthodox was resumed only in 879 at the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which is now not recognized by the Vatican.
  3. In 1053, another formal reason for the future stood out clearly. Great Schism- dispute about unleavened bread. The Orthodox used leavened bread for the sacrament of Eucharast, and the Catholics used unleavened bread.
  4. In 1054, Pope Leo XI sent Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople. The reason was the closure of Latin churches in the capital of Orthodoxy that occurred a year earlier. The Holy Gifts were thrown away and trampled underfoot due to the unleavened method of preparing bread.
  5. The papal claims to the lands were justified by a forged document. The Vatican was interested in receiving military support from Constantinople, and this was the main reason for the pressure put on the Patriarch.
  6. After the death of Pope Leo XI, his legates nevertheless decided to excommunicate and depose the leader of the Orthodox. Retaliatory measures were not long in coming: four days later they themselves were anathematized by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

  The split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism: results

  It seemed that it was impossible to anathematize half of the Christians, but the religious leaders of that time saw this as acceptable. Only in 1965 did Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras lift the mutual excommunication of churches.

  After another 51 years, the leaders of the divided churches met in person for the first time. The deep-rooted differences were not so strong that religious leaders could not be under the same roof.

  • A thousand years of existence without reference to the Vatican has strengthened the separation of two approaches to Christian history and worship of God.
  • The Orthodox Church never became united: there are many organizations in different countries, headed by their Patriarchs.
  • Catholic leaders realized that it would be impossible to subdue or destroy the branch. They recognized the enormity of the new religion, equal to their own.

  The split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism did not prevent believers from glorifying the Creator. Let representatives of one confession perfectly pronounce and recognize dogmas that are unacceptable to another. Sincere love for God has no religious boundaries. Let Catholics immerse babies at baptism once, and Orthodox - three times. Little things of this kind matter only in mortal life. Having appeared before the Lord, everyone will be responsible for their actions, and not for the decoration of the temple they previously visited. There are many things that unite Catholics and Orthodox Christians. First of all, it is the Word of Christ, which is followed with humility in the soul. It’s easy to find heresy, it’s more difficult to understand and forgive, to see in everyone a creation of God and one’s neighbor. The main purpose of the Church is to be a shepherd for the people and a shelter for the disadvantaged.

Return