Great schism of 1054 and excommunications


#1

Were the priests and bishops who remained loyal to Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius excommunicated in 1054?

Thank you in advance for your answers! :)

frenchandcatholic.wordpress.com/


#2

[quote="French_Catholic, post:1, topic:293321"]
Were the priests and bishops who remained loyal to Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius excommunicated in 1054?

Thank you in advance for your answers! :)

frenchandcatholic.wordpress.com/

[/quote]

The excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 was actually illegal- meaning it never actually occurred. This is due to Pope Leo being dead when the Cardinal issued the Bull of excommunication. Also Constantinople didn't Excommunicate the Church of Rome at that point- only the Papal Legates.


#3

And the two Churches (Rome and Constantinople) weren't really out of communion with each other until much later, I believe.


#4

[quote="ConstantineTG, post:3, topic:293321"]
And the two Churches (Rome and Constantinople) weren't really out of communion with each other until much later, I believe.

[/quote]

The 'Schism' issue is a weird one, I am unaware of an exact date when Constantinople and Rome were declared to be in formal Schism. After the 'Great Schism of 1054' there was a gradual drifting away, eventually the Pope of Rome was no longer in the Anaphora of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Constantinople was no longer in the Anaphora of Rome which would be the biggest sign there was no longer communion between the two. I think it was not until after reconciliation was attempted several times and they failed you could say that communion was finally severed.

I am unsure when exactly the Eastern Orthodox believe true Schism happened but I know most Western Church Historians I have spoke to say there is no one exact moment Schism happened, it was more of a very gradual process that begun before 1054 and came to its climax much later (I've heard the Sack of Constantinople proposed for the final date) with us living with the out come to this day.

I pray that one day this comes to an end with both Patriarchs being able to say the Creed together and the Orthodox and Catholic Churches once again being one.


#5

The Sack of Constantinople was one of the more definite events that resulted in a formal schism.


#6

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmyfundi.co.za%2Fe%2FThe_Great_Schism_in_the_Christian_Church&ei=qTQXUO6kFKPG6gHitoHYDQ&usg=AFQjCNH-15SNuJtoVrZbpMSpclJEHi3ZKw&sig2=R2fKRxHoL9vcNuK5CKbCHw

A brief that is brief.


#7

[quote="Skeptic92, post:4, topic:293321"]

I am unsure when exactly the Eastern Orthodox believe true Schism happened but I know most Western Church Historians I have spoke to say there is no one exact moment Schism happened, it was more of a very gradual process that begun before 1054 and came to its climax much later (I've heard the Sack of Constantinople proposed for the final date) with us living with the out come to this day.

[/quote]

I am not certain of this, but I think that the crusades pretty much sealed the schism.

Most people will think "oh, those Orthodox can never forgive or forget" but that's not what I mean.

It was during the crusades that western soldiers were occupying major cities and deposing the bishops. It was only at that time that two separate church structures could be found together in the same locales. In fact it is still like that today.

Up until that time, if a westerner (a pilgrim perhaps, or a merchant) went east he would worship in the local church, and his bishop while he was there would be the local bishop. This was the same for eastern Christians who went west, to Spain or Italy or Gaul. You live in an area and you worship in the local church.

If a Spaniard goes to Italy, he worships in the local Italian church. If he goes on to Greece he worships in the local Greek church, then in Palestine just the same way.

That changed when the crusaders came through. They brought their own priests and bishops, like a military ordinariate, which served the troops and the commanders.

Ok so far, but with military successes the commanders placed Latin bishops over the eastern Christians, giving them the parish properties, the cathedrals and the episcopal residences. A bush church movement developed, and the Orthodox continued to function outside of the reach of the law. When the crusaders left they were back in business.

But they no longer saw the Latin westerners as co-religionists, they had become hostile aliens. To the Latin Catholics, the others were hostile natives. Each kept to their own churches.

It has strange parallels to the Irish Catholic church under the English protestant governments.

To this day the Latin church cares for it's own in the middle east, it does not entrust them to the care of Eastern Catholic bishops, although it could. That newer separate and parallel ecclesiastical structure continues.


#8

[quote="GaryTaylor, post:6, topic:293321"]
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmyfundi.co.za%2Fe%2FThe_Great_Schism_in_the_Christian_Church&ei=qTQXUO6kFKPG6gHitoHYDQ&usg=AFQjCNH-15SNuJtoVrZbpMSpclJEHi3ZKw&sig2=R2fKRxHoL9vcNuK5CKbCHw

A brief that is brief.

[/quote]

Erghh, that is a horrible explanation. 'Banned' is not synonymous with 'excommunicated' and the Pope of Rome didn't excommunicate the Ecumenical Patriarch- The Papal Legates invalidly and illegally excommunicated him on behalf of the deceased Pope Leo. The Ecumenical Patriarch didn't excommunicate the Pope or the Roman Church he excommunicated the Papal legates... I'm unsure when the true excommunications happened, I suspect it was an implicit excommunication rather then a pronouncement if anyone knows any better please enlighten me!

[quote="Hesychios, post:7, topic:293321"]
I am not certain of this, but I think that the crusades pretty much sealed the schism.

Most people will think "oh, those Orthodox can never forgive or forget" but that's not what I mean.

It was during the crusades that western soldiers were occupying major cities and deposing the bishops. It was only at that time that two separate church structures could be found together in the same locales. In fact it is still like that today.

Up until that time, if a westerner (a pilgrim perhaps, or a merchant) went east he would worship in the local church, and his bishop while he was there would be the local bishop. This was the same for eastern Christians who went west, to Spain or Italy or Gaul. You live in an area and you worship in the local church.

If a Spaniard goes to Italy, he worships in the local Italian church. If he goes on to Greece he worships in the local Greek church, then in Palestine just the same way.

That changed when the crusaders came through. They brought their own priests and bishops, like a military ordinariate, which served the troops and the commanders.

Ok so far, but with military successes the commanders placed Latin bishops over the eastern Christians, giving them the parish properties, the cathedrals and the episcopal residences. A bush church movement developed, and the Orthodox continued to function outside of the reach of the law. When the crusaders left they were back in business.

But they no longer saw the Latin westerners as co-religionists, they had become hostile aliens. To the Latin Catholics, the others were hostile natives. Each kept to their own churches.

It has strange parallels to the Irish Catholic church under the English protestant governments.

To this day the Latin church cares for it's own in the middle east, it does not entrust them to the care of Eastern Catholic bishops, although it could. That newer separate and parallel ecclesiastical structure continues.

[/quote]

The Crusades and the treatment of our Orthodox brethren is a dark stain on the history of the Western Church, not until we can atone for what we done during that period can reconciliation ever truly happen. I can't believe some of the arguments East and West got into of theological disagreements that simply didn't exist: from the form of Bread used at communion to the theological implications of the filioque (I agree with the idea that it shouldn't of been placed into the Creed but theologically it is fine- if it is translated with care into Greek)

Yours Fraternally in Christ
Skeptic92


#9

To be sure I didn’t want my post to be another “you dirty rats” kind of thing. Mistakes were made, of course, and no one comes out of that one smelling clean. I just wanted to show that it took a while for people to start thinking of themselves as separated, and it probably didn’t sink in until both churches existed side-by-side in places, and people chose one or the other for specific (sometimes emotional) reasons.

I agree that the form of the bread used for confection of the Sacred Species in the Mass should not be an issue between us. That is not an official statement, that’s just me.

Other issues are more serious, yet somehow I feel we can work it all out eventually.

I could only wish to live so long.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.