Division of the Christian Church into the Catholic Church. Church schism

Disagreements between the Pope (the Western Church) and the Patriarch of Constantinople (and four more patriarchates - the Eastern Church), which began as early as the beginning of the 5th century, led to the fact that in 1054 the Pope received a refusal to demand that he be recognized as the dominant person of the entire church. The prerequisites for such a demand were the threat of Norman invasion and, as a result, the need for military and political assistance. As a result of the refusal, the next Pope, through his legates, informed the Patriarch of Constantinople of his deposition and excommunication. To which he replied with an anathema against the legates and the Pope.

It is pointless to deny the ancient Western commitment to arrogance and the desire to be above everyone else. It is thanks to these qualities that Western countries have become the dominant force in the world. Therefore, it can be said with certainty that the schism occurred because of the arrogance of the Western Church and the pride of the Eastern. Arrogance because instead of the standard diplomatic methods of gaining allies (which was exactly what the Pope required), a position of strength and superiority was used. Pride because instead of following the church canons about forgiveness, love for one's neighbor and others, a request for help (albeit a rather well-veiled one) was answered with a proud refusal. Consequently, ordinary human factors became the cause of the split.

Consequences of the split

The split was inevitable, because in addition to cultural differences and differences in the interpretation of faith and rituals, there was such an important factor as a sense of one's own importance and irreconcilability with the fact that someone is higher. It is this factor that many times played the first role throughout the history of both the world in general and the church in particular. The separation of such churches as the Protestant (already much later) happened exactly according to the same principle. However, no matter how much you prepare, no matter how much you predict, any division will inevitably lead to the violation of established traditions and principles, the destruction of possible prospects. Namely:

• The schism introduced discord and dissonance into the Christian faith, became the pre-final point of division and destruction of the Roman Empire and contributed to the approach of the final one - the fall of Byzantium.
• Against the backdrop of the strengthening of Muslim movements, the unification of the Middle East under the banners of one color and the increase in the military power of direct opponents of Christianity - the worst thing that could be thought of was division. If by united efforts it was possible to hold back the hordes of Muslims even on the outskirts of Constantinople, then the fact that the west and east (churches) turned away from each other contributed to the fact that the last stronghold of the Romans fell under the onslaught of the Turks, and then he himself was under a real threat Rome.
• The schism, initiated by the "Christian brothers" with their own hands, and confirmed by the two main clergymen, has become one of the worst phenomena in Christianity. For if we compare the influence of Christianity before and after, we can see that “before” the Christian religion grew and developed almost by itself, the ideas promoted by the Bible themselves fell into the minds of people, and the Islamic threat was an extremely unpleasant, but solvable problem. "After" - the expansion of the influence of Christianity gradually came to naught, and the already increasing area of ​​coverage of Islam began to grow by leaps and bounds.

Then there were many people who protested against Catholicism, so the Protestants appeared, led by the Augustinian monk Martin Luther in the 15th century. Protestantism is the third offshoot of Christianity, and it is quite common.
And now the schism in the Ukrainian church is bringing such confusion into the ranks of believers that it becomes scary, what will all this lead to?!

Gdeshinsky Andrey

In 1054, the Christian Church split into Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Greek Catholic). The Eastern Christian Church began to be called orthodox, i.e. orthodox, and those who profess Christianity according to the Greek rite - orthodox or orthodox.

The “Great Schism” between the Eastern and Western Churches matured gradually, as a result of long and complex processes that began long before the 11th century.

Disagreements between the Eastern and Western Churches before the Schism (brief review)

The disagreements between East and West, which caused the "great schism" and accumulated over the centuries, were of a political, cultural, ecclesiological, theological and ritual nature.

a) Political differences between East and West were rooted in the political antagonism between the popes and the Byzantine emperors (basileus). In the time of the apostles, when the Christian church was just emerging, the Roman Empire was a single empire both politically and culturally, headed by one emperor. From the end of the 3rd century the empire, de jure still united, de facto divided into two parts - Eastern and Western, each of which was under the control of its own emperor (the emperor Theodosius (346-395) was the last Roman emperor who led the entire Roman Empire). Constantine deepened the process of division by establishing a new capital, Constantinople, in the east along with ancient Rome in Italy. The bishops of Rome, based on the central position of Rome as an imperial city, and on the origin of the see from the supreme apostle Peter, began to claim a special, dominant position in the entire Church. In subsequent centuries, the ambitions of the Roman pontiffs only grew, pride deeper and deeper planted its poisonous roots in the church life of the West. Unlike the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the Popes of Rome maintained their independence from the Byzantine emperors, did not submit to them if they did not consider it necessary, and sometimes openly opposed them.

In addition, in the year 800, Pope Leo III in Rome crowned the King of the Franks Charlemagne as Roman Emperor, who in the eyes of his contemporaries became “equal” to the Eastern Emperor and on whose political power the Bishop of Rome was able to rely in his claims. The emperors of the Byzantine Empire, who themselves considered themselves the successors of the Roman Empire, refused to recognize the imperial title for Charles. The Byzantines viewed Charlemagne as a usurper and the papal coronation as an act of division within the empire.

b) Cultural alienation between East and West was largely due to the fact that in the Eastern Roman Empire they spoke Greek, and in the Western in Latin. In the time of the apostles, when the Roman Empire was unified, Greek and Latin were understood almost everywhere, and many could speak both languages. By 450, however, very few people in Western Europe could read Greek, and after 600, few in Byzantium spoke Latin, the language of the Romans, although the empire continued to be called Roman. If the Greeks wanted to read the books of Latin authors, and the Latins the writings of the Greeks, they could only do so in translation. And this meant that the Greek East and the Latin West drew information from different sources and read different books, as a result, more and more moving away from each other. In the East they read Plato and Aristotle, in the West they read Cicero and Seneca. The main theological authorities of the Eastern Church were the fathers of the era of the Ecumenical Councils, such as Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria. In the West, the most widely read Christian author was Blessed Augustine (who was almost unknown in the East) - his theological system was much easier to understand and more easily perceived by the barbarians converted to Christianity than the refined arguments of the Greek fathers.

c) Ecclesiological differences. Political and cultural disagreements could not but affect the life of the Church and only contributed to church discord between Rome and Constantinople. Throughout the era of the Ecumenical Councils in the West, a the doctrine of papal primacy (i.e., the bishop of Rome as the head of the Universal Church). At the same time, the primacy of the Bishop of Constantinople increased in the East, and from the end of the 6th century he assumed the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch". However, in the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople was never perceived as the head of the Universal Church: he was only second in rank after the Bishop of Rome and first in honor among the Eastern patriarchs. In the West, the Pope began to be perceived precisely as the head of the Universal Church, to whom the Church throughout the world should obey.

In the East there were 4 sees (i.e. 4 Local Churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) and, accordingly, 4 patriarchs. The East recognized the Pope as the first bishop of the Church - but first among equals. In the West, there was only one throne claiming to be of apostolic origin - namely, the See of Rome. As a result, Rome came to be seen as the only apostolic see. Although the West adopted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, it did not itself play an active role in them; in the Church, the West saw not so much a collegium as a monarchy - the monarchy of the Pope.

The Greeks recognized for the Pope the primacy of honor, but not the universal superiority, as the Pope himself believed. Championship "by honor" in modern language it can mean "the most respected", but it does not cancel the Council structure of the church (that is, the adoption of all decisions collectively through the convening of Councils of all churches, primarily apostolic ones). The Pope considered infallibility to be his prerogative, while the Greeks were convinced that in matters of faith, the final decision rests not with the Pope, but with the council representing all the bishops of the church.

d) Theological reasons. The main point of the theological dispute between the Churches of East and West was the Latin the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Filioque). This teaching, based on the trinitarian views of Blessed Augustine and other Latin Fathers, led to a change in the words of the Niceno-Tsaregrad Creed, where it was about the Holy Spirit: instead of “coming from the Father” in the West they began to say “from the Father and the Son (lat. Filioque) outgoing". The expression "he proceeds from the Father" is based on the words of Christ Himself ( cm.: In. 15:26) and in this sense has unquestioned authority, while the addition “and the Son” has no basis either in Scripture or in the Tradition of the early Christian Church: it was inserted into the Creed only at the Toledo Councils of the 6th-7th centuries, presumably as defensive measure against Arianism. From Spain, the Filioque came to France and Germany, where it was approved at the Frankfurt Council in 794. The court theologians of Charlemagne even began to reproach the Byzantines for reciting the Creed without the Filioque. Rome has for some time resisted making changes to the Creed. In 808, Pope Leo III wrote to Charlemagne that although the Filioque was theologically acceptable, it was undesirable to include it in the Creed. Leo placed in St. Peter's the tablets with the Creed without the Filioque. However, by the beginning of the 11th century, the reading of the Creed with the addition of “and the Son” also entered Roman practice.

Orthodoxy objected (and still objects) to the Filioque for two reasons. Firstly, the Creed is the property of the entire Church, and any changes can be made to it only by the Ecumenical Council. By changing the Creed without consulting the East, the West (according to Khomyakov) is guilty of moral fratricide, of sin against the unity of the Church. Second, most Orthodox believe that the Filioque is theologically wrong. Orthodox believe that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and consider heresy the assertion that He also proceeds from the Son.

e) Ritual differences between East and West have existed throughout the history of Christianity. The liturgical charter of the Roman Church differed from the charters of the Eastern Churches. A whole series of ritual trifles separated the Churches of the East and the West. In the middle of the 11th century, the main issue of a ritual nature, on which a controversy broke out between East and West, was the use by the Latins of unleavened bread at the Eucharist, while the Byzantines used leavened bread. Behind this seemingly insignificant difference, the Byzantines saw a serious difference in the theological view of the essence of the Body of Christ, taught to the faithful in the Eucharist: if leavened bread symbolizes that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial with our flesh, then unleavened bread is a symbol of the difference between the flesh of Christ and our flesh. In the service on unleavened bread, the Greeks saw an attempt on the core point of Eastern Christian theology - the doctrine of deification (which was little known in the West).

These were all disagreements that preceded the conflict of 1054. Ultimately, the West and the East disagreed on matters of doctrine, mainly on two issues: about papal primacy And about filioque.

Reason for split

The immediate cause for the schism was conflict between the first hierarchs of the two capitals - Rome and Constantinople.

Roman high priest was Leo IX. While still a German bishop, he for a long time refused the Roman See, and only at the persistent requests of the clergy and Emperor Henry III himself agreed to accept the papal tiara. On one of the rainy autumn days in 1048, in a coarse hair shirt - the clothes of the penitents, with bare feet and head sprinkled with ashes, he entered Rome to take the Roman throne. Such unusual behavior flattered the pride of the townspeople. With the triumphant cries of the crowd, he was immediately proclaimed pope. Leo IX was convinced of the high significance of the See of Rome for the entire Christian world. He tried with all his might to restore the previously wavering papal influence both in the West and in the East. Since that time, the active growth of both the ecclesiastical and socio-political significance of the papacy as an institution of power begins. Pope Leo sought respect for himself and his department not only through radical reforms, but also by actively acting as a defender of all the oppressed and offended. This is what made the pope seek a political alliance with Byzantium.

At that time, the political enemy of Rome were the Normans, who had already captured Sicily and were now threatening Italy. Emperor Henry could not provide the pope with the necessary military support, and the pope did not want to give up the role of defender of Italy and Rome. Leo IX decided to ask for help from the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople.

From 1043 Patriarch of Constantinople was Michael Kerullarius. He came from a noble aristocratic family and held a high position under the emperor. But after a failed palace coup, when a group of conspirators tried to elevate him to the throne, Michael was deprived of his property and forcibly tonsured a monk. The new emperor Constantine Monomakh made the persecuted one his closest adviser, and then, with the consent of the clergy and the people, Michael also took over the patriarchal chair. Having given himself over to the service of the Church, the new patriarch retained the traits of an imperious and state-minded person who did not tolerate the belittling of his authority and the authority of the See of Constantinople.

In the resulting correspondence between the pope and the patriarch, Leo IX insisted on the primacy of the See of Rome. In his letter, he pointed out to Michael that the Church of Constantinople and even the entire East should obey and honor the Roman Church as a mother. With this position, the pope also justified the ritual divergence of the Roman Church with the Churches of the East. Michael was ready to accept any differences, but on one issue his position remained intransigent: he did not want to recognize the Roman see above Constantinople. The Roman bishop did not want to agree to such equality.

The beginning of the split

The Great Schism of 1054 and the Division of the Churches

In the spring of 1054, an embassy from Rome arrives in Constantinople, headed by Cardinal Humbert, a man hot and arrogant. Together with him, as legates, came the deacon-cardinal Frederick (future Pope Stephen IX) and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi. The purpose of the visit was to meet with Emperor Constantine IX Monomakh and discuss the possibilities of a military alliance with Byzantium, as well as to reconcile with the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius, without detracting from the primacy of the Roman see. However, from the very beginning, the embassy took a tone inconsistent with reconciliation. The papal ambassadors treated the patriarch without due respect, arrogantly and coldly. Seeing such an attitude towards himself, the patriarch repaid them in kind. At the convened Council, Michael singled out the last place for the papal legates. Cardinal Humbert considered this a humiliation and refused to engage in any negotiations with the patriarch. The news of the death of Pope Leo that came from Rome did not stop the papal legates. They continued to act with the same boldness, wanting to teach the disobedient patriarch a lesson.

July 15, 1054 When Sophia Cathedral was overflowing with people praying, the legates went to the altar and, interrupting the service, spoke with denunciations against Patriarch Michael Cerularius. Then they put on the throne a papal bull in Latin, which spoke of the excommunication of the patriarch and his adherents from communion and made ten accusations of heresy: one of the accusations concerned the "omission" of the Filioque in the Creed. Leaving the temple, the papal ambassadors shook the dust from their feet and exclaimed: "Let God see and judge." Everyone was so amazed by what they saw that there was deathly silence. The patriarch, speechless with astonishment, at first refused to accept the bull, but then he ordered it to be translated into Greek. When the content of the bull was announced to the people, such a strong excitement began that the legates had to hastily leave Constantinople. The people supported their patriarch.

July 20, 1054 Patriarch Michael Cerularius convened a Council of 20 bishops, at which he betrayed the papal legates to church excommunication. The Acts of the Council were sent to all the Eastern Patriarchs.

This is how the Great Schism happened.. Formally, this was a break between the Local Churches of Rome and Constantinople, however, the Patriarch of Constantinople was subsequently supported by other Eastern Patriarchates, as well as young Churches that were in the orbit of Byzantine influence, in particular the Russian one. The Church in the West eventually adopted the name Catholic; The Church in the East is called Orthodox because it preserves the Christian doctrine intact. Both Orthodoxy and Rome equally considered themselves right in controversial issues of dogma, and their opponent was wrong, therefore, after the schism, both Rome and the Orthodox Church claimed the title of the true church.

But even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West were maintained. Both parts of Christendom had not yet realized the full extent of the gap, and people on both sides hoped that misunderstandings could be settled without much difficulty. Attempts to agree on reunification were made for a century and a half. The controversy between Rome and Constantinople largely passed the attention of ordinary Christians. The Russian abbot Daniel of Chernigov, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1106-1107, found the Greeks and Latins praying in holy places. True, he noted with satisfaction that during the descent of the Holy Fire on Easter, the Greek lamps miraculously ignited, but the Latins were forced to light their lamps from the Greek ones.

The final division between East and West came only with the beginning of the Crusades, which brought with them the spirit of hatred and malice, as well as after the capture and devastation of Constantinople by the Crusaders during the IV Crusade in 1204.

The Christian Church has never been united. This is very important to remember in order not to fall into the extremes that have so often taken place in the history of this religion. It can be seen from the New Testament that the disciples of Jesus Christ, even during his lifetime, had disputes about which of them was the chief and more important in the emerging community. Two of them - John and James - even asked for thrones to the right and left of Christ in the coming kingdom. After the death of the founder, the first thing that Christians began to do was to divide into various opposing groups. The book of Acts also tells about numerous false apostles, about heretics, about who came out of the environment of the first Christians and founded his own community. Of course, they looked at the authors of the New Testament texts and their communities in exactly the same way - as heretical and schismatic communities. Why did this happen and what was the main reason for the division of churches?

Pre-Nicene Church

We know very little about what Christianity was like before 325. We only know that this is a messianic movement within Judaism, which was initiated by a wandering preacher named Jesus. His teaching was rejected by the majority of the Jews, and Jesus himself was crucified. A few followers, however, claimed that he had risen from the dead and declared him to be the messiah promised by the prophets of the Tanakh and come to save the world. Faced with total rejection among their compatriots, they spread their sermon among the pagans, from among whom they found many adherents.

First divisions among Christians

In the process of this mission, the first split of the Christian church took place. Going to preach, the apostles did not have a codified written doctrine and general principles of preaching. Therefore, they preached a different Christ, different theories and concepts of salvation, and imposed different ethical and religious obligations on the new converts. Some of them forced Gentile Christians to be circumcised, observe the rules of kashrut, observe the Sabbath, and comply with other provisions of the Mosaic Law. Others, on the contrary, canceled all the requirements of the Old Testament, not only in relation to the new converts of the Gentiles, but also in relation to themselves. In addition, someone considered Christ a messiah, a prophet, but at the same time a man, and someone began to endow him with divine qualities. Soon a layer of dubious legends appeared, like stories about events from childhood and so on. Plus, the salvific role of Christ was assessed differently. All this led to significant contradictions and conflicts within the early Christians and initiated a split in the Christian church.

From clearly visible such differences in views (up to mutual rejection of each other) between the apostles Peter, James and Paul. Modern scholars who study the division of churches distinguish four main branches of Christianity at this stage. In addition to the three leaders above, they add a branch of John - also a separate and independent alliance of local communities. All this is natural, given that Christ left neither a vicar nor a successor, and in general did not give any practical instructions for organizing the church of believers. The new communities were completely independent, subject only to the authority of the preacher who founded them and to the elected leaders within themselves. Theology, practice and liturgy developed independently in each community. Therefore, episodes of separation were present in the Christian environment from the very beginning and they were most often doctrinal in nature.

Post-Nicene period

After he legalized Christianity, and especially after 325, when the first one took place in the city of Nicaea, the orthodox party favored by him actually absorbed most of the other areas of early Christianity. Those that remained were declared heretics and outlawed. Christian leaders in the person of bishops received the status of government officials with all the legal consequences of their new position. As a result, the question of the administrative structure and management of the Church arose with all seriousness. If in the previous period the reasons for the division of churches were of a doctrinal and ethical nature, then in post-Nicene Christianity another important motive was added - a political one. So, an orthodox catholic who refused to obey his bishop, or the bishop himself, who did not recognize legal authority over himself, for example, a neighboring metropolitan, could be outside the church fence.

Divisions of the post-Nicene period

We have already found out what was the main reason for the division of churches during this period. However, clerics often tried to color political motives in doctrinal tones. Therefore, this period provides examples of several schisms that are very complex in nature - Arian (after the name of their leader, the priest Arius), Nestorian (after the name of the founder - Patriarch Nestorius), Monophysite (from the name of the doctrine of the one nature in Christ) and many others.

Great Schism

The most significant split in the history of Christianity occurred at the turn of the first and second millennia. The united hitherto orthodox in 1054 was divided into two independent parts - the eastern, now called the Orthodox Church, and the western, known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Reasons for the split in 1054

In short, the main reason for the division of the church in 1054 is political. The fact is that the Roman Empire by that time consisted of two independent parts. The eastern part of the empire - Byzantium - was ruled by Caesar, whose throne and administrative center was located in Constantinople. The emperor was also the Western Empire, in fact, the bishop of Rome ruled, concentrating both secular and spiritual power in his hands, and in addition, claiming power in the Byzantine churches. On this basis, of course, disputes and conflicts soon arose, expressed in a number of church claims against each other. Petty, in essence, nit-picking served as a pretext for a serious confrontation.

In the end, in 1053, in Constantinople, by order of Patriarch Michael Cerularius, all churches of the Latin rite were closed. In response to this, Pope Leo IX sent an embassy to the capital of Byzantium, headed by Cardinal Humbert, who excommunicated Michael from the church. In response to this, the patriarch gathered a council and mutually papal legates. Right away, no special attention was paid to this, and inter-church relations continued in the usual way. But twenty years later, the initially minor conflict began to be recognized as a fundamental division of the Christian church.

Reformation

The next important split in Christianity is the emergence of Protestantism. It happened in the 30s of the 16th century, when a German monk of the Augustinian order rebelled against the authority of the Bishop of Rome and dared to criticize a number of dogmatic, disciplinary, ethical and other provisions of the Catholic Church. What was the main reason for the division of the churches at that moment is difficult to answer unambiguously. Luther was a convinced Christian, and for him the main motive was the struggle for the purity of the faith.

Of course, his movement also became a political force for the liberation of the German churches from the power of the Pope. And this, in turn, unleashed the hands of secular power, no longer bound by the requirements of Rome. For the same reasons, Protestants continued to divide among themselves. Very quickly, many European states began to appear their own ideologists of Protestantism. The Catholic Church began to burst at the seams - many countries fell out of the orbit of Rome's influence, others were on the verge of this. At the same time, the Protestants themselves did not have a single spiritual authority, not a single administrative center, and this partly resembled the organizational chaos of early Christianity. A similar situation exists among them today.

Modern schisms

What was the main reason for the division of churches in previous eras, we found out. What happens to Christianity in this respect today? First of all, it must be said that significant schisms have not arisen since the Reformation. Existing churches continue to be divided into similar small groups. Among the Orthodox, there were Old Believer, Old Style and Catacomb schisms, several groups also separated from the Catholic Church, and Protestants are relentlessly divided, starting from their very appearance. Today, the number of Protestant denominations is more than twenty thousand. However, nothing fundamentally new has emerged, except for a few semi-Christian organizations like the Mormon Church and Jehovah's Witnesses.

It is important to note that, firstly, today most churches are not associated with the political regime and are separated from the state. And secondly, there is an ecumenical movement that seeks to bring together, if not unite, the various churches. Under these conditions, the main reason for the division of churches is ideological. Today, few people seriously revise dogmatics, but the movements for the ordination of women, the wedding of same-sex marriages, etc., receive a huge response. Reacting to this, each group separates itself from the others, taking its own principled position, keeping the dogmatic content of Christianity intact on the whole.

Almost a thousand years ago, the Catholic and Orthodox churches went their separate ways. July 15, 1054 is considered the official date of the break, but this was preceded by a century of gradual separation.

Akaki's schism

The first church schism, the Akaki schism, took place in 484 and lasted 35 years. And although after him the formal unity of the churches was restored, further division was already inevitable. And it all started with a seemingly joint struggle against the heresies of Monophysitism and Nestorianism. The Council of Chalcedon condemned both false teachings, and it was at this council that the form of the Creed, which the Orthodox Church professes to this day, was approved. The decisions of the Council caused a prolonged "monophysite turmoil". The Monophysites and the seduced monks seized Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, driving out the Chalcedonian bishops from there. A religious war was brewing. In an effort to bring harmony and unity in the faith, Patriarch Akakios of Constantinople and Emperor Zenon developed a compromise doctrinal formula. Pope Felix II defended the Chalcedonian creed. He demanded that Akakios come to the council in Rome to give explanations on his policy. In response to Akakios's refusal and his bribery of the papal legates, Felix II excommunicated Akakios from the Church at a council in Rome in July 484, and he, in turn, crossed out the name of the Pope from the diptychs. Thus began the schism, which was called the Akaki schasma. Then the west and east reconciled, but "the sediment remained."

Pope: the desire for supremacy

Since the second half of the 4th century, the Roman bishop: claims the status of the dominant authority for his church. Rome was to be the center of government for the Universal Church. This was justified by the will of Christ, who, according to Rome, endowed Peter with power, saying to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16, 18). The Pope of Rome considered himself not just the successor of Peter, who has since been recognized as the first bishop of Rome, but also his vicar, in whom the apostle, as it were, continues to live and through the Pope rule the Universal Church.

Despite some resistance, this position of primacy was gradually accepted by the whole West. The rest of the Churches generally adhered to the ancient understanding of leadership through catholicity.

Patriarch of Constantinople: Head of the Churches of the East

The 7th century saw the birth of Islam, which began to spread at lightning speed, aided by the Arab conquest of the Persian Empire, long a formidable rival of the Roman Empire, as well as Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. From this period onwards, the patriarchs of these cities were often forced to entrust the management of the remaining Christian flock to their representatives, who stayed locally, while they themselves had to live in Constantinople. As a result of this, there was a relative decrease in the importance of these patriarchs, and the patriarch of Constantinople, whose see already at the time of the Council of Chalcedon, held in 451, was put in second place after Rome, thus became, to some extent, the highest judge of the Churches of the East. .

Iconoclastic Crisis: Emperors vs. Saints

The triumph of Orthodoxy, which we celebrate in one of the weeks of Great Lent, is another evidence of the fierce theological clashes of bygone times. In 726, an iconoclastic crisis broke out: the emperors Leo III, Constantine V and their successors forbade the depiction of Christ and the saints and the veneration of icons. Opponents of the imperial doctrine, mostly monks, were thrown into prisons and tortured.

The popes supported the veneration of icons and broke off communication with the iconoclast emperors. And they, in response to this, annexed Calabria, Sicily and Illyria (the western part of the Balkans and northern Greece), which until that time were under the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The legitimacy of the veneration of icons by the Eastern Church was restored at the 7th Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. But the chasm of misunderstanding between West and East deepened, aggravated by political and territorial issues.

Cyril and Methodius: the alphabet for the Slavs

A new round of disagreement between Rome and Constantinople began in the second half of the 9th century. At this time, the question arose of what jurisdiction to include the Slavic peoples who embarked on the path of Christianity. This conflict also left a deep mark on the history of Europe.

At that time, Nicholas I became pope, striving to establish the dominance of the Pope in the Ecumenical Church, to limit the interference of secular authorities in church affairs. It is believed that he supported his actions with fake documents allegedly issued by previous popes.

In Constantinople, Photius became patriarch. It was on his initiative that Saints Cyril and Methodius translated liturgical and most important biblical texts into Slavonic, creating an alphabet for this, and thus laid the foundation for the culture of the Slavic lands. The policy of speaking to neophytes in their dialect brought Constantinople more success than the Romans, who stubbornly spoke in Latin, won.

11th century: unleavened bread for communion

11th century for the Byzantine Empire was truly "golden". The power of the Arabs was finally undermined, Antioch returned to the empire, a little more - and Jerusalem would have been liberated. Kievan Rus, having adopted Christianity, quickly became part of the Byzantine civilization. The rapid cultural and spiritual upsurge was accompanied by the political and economic flourishing of the empire. But it was in the 11th century. there was a final spiritual break with Rome. From the beginning of the XI century. the name of the pope was no longer mentioned in the diptychs of Constantinople, which meant that communication with him was interrupted.

In addition to the question of the origin of the Holy Spirit, there was disagreement between the churches on a number of religious customs. The Byzantines, for example, resented the use of unleavened bread to celebrate Communion. If in the first centuries leavened bread was used everywhere, then from the 7th-8th centuries Communion began to be celebrated in the West with unleavened bread, that is, without leaven, as the ancient Jews did on their Easter.

Duel on anathema

In 1054, an event occurred that caused a break between the ecclesiastical tradition of Constantinople and the western trend.

In an effort to get the help of the pope in the face of the threat of the Normans, who encroached on the Byzantine possessions of southern Italy, Emperor Constantine Monomachus, on the advice of the Latin Argyra, who was appointed by him as the ruler of these possessions, took a conciliatory position towards Rome and wished to restore unity. But the actions of the Latin reformers in southern Italy, infringing on Byzantine religious customs, worried the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cirularius. The papal legates, among whom was Cardinal Humbert, who arrived in Constantinople to negotiate a unification, sought to remove Michael Cirularius. The matter ended with the fact that the legates placed a bull on the throne of Hagia Sophia excommunicating the patriarch and his supporters. And a few days later, in response to this, the patriarch and the council he convened excommunicated the legates themselves from the Church.

As a result, the pope and the patriarch exchanged anathemas against each other, which marked the final split of the Christian churches and the emergence of the main trends: Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

The first ever meeting between the Pope of Rome 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 reduce 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 a single word, according to which the Son of God became another source of the Holy Spirit, the church was divided into two parts. Less than preceded the Great Schism, which eventually led to the current state of affairs.

The split of the church in 1054: the 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 prerequisites for a split began in 863. For several years, Orthodox and Catholics have been in opposition. The events went down in history as the Photius Schism. The two ruling church leaders wanted to divide the land, but did not agree. The official reason was doubts about the legitimacy 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 Great Schism clearly stood out - the dispute about unleavened bread. The Orthodox used leavened bread for the sacrament of the Eucharist, while the Catholics used unleavened bread.
4. In 1054, Pope Leo XI sent Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople. The reason was the closing of the Latin churches in the capital of Orthodoxy that happened a year earlier. The Holy Gifts were thrown away and trampled underfoot because of the insipid way of making bread.
5. The papal claims to the lands were substantiated by a forged document. The Vatican was interested in receiving military support from Constantinople, and this was the main reason for the pressure exerted on the Patriarch.
6. After the death of Pope Leo XI, his legates nevertheless decided to excommunicate and depose the leader of the Orthodox. The 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 impossible to anathematize half of the Christians, but the then religious leaders saw this as acceptable. Only in 1965 did Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras abolish the mutual excommunication of churches.

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

• A thousand-year existence without being tied to the Vatican has reinforced the separation of two approaches to Christian history and the worship of God.
• The Orthodox Church never became united: there are many organizations in different countries headed by their Patriarchs.
• Catholic leaders realized that neither subjugating nor destroying the offshoot would work. They recognized the vastness of the new religion as equal to their own.

The split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism did not prevent believers from glorifying the Creator. Let the representatives of one denomination pronounce perfectly and recognize dogmas that are unacceptable to another. Sincere love for God has no religious boundaries. Let Catholics dip 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 design of the temple they visited earlier. There are many things that unite Catholics and Orthodox. First of all, it is the Word of Christ, which is followed with humility in the soul. It is easy to find heresy, it is more difficult to understand and forgive, to see in everyone - the creation of God and his neighbor. The main purpose of the Church is to be a shepherd for the people and a shelter for the destitute.