Who started the East-West Schism in 1054 AD?

I have always ponder about the East-West Schism for a while and since it was the Papal Legate who issued the bull of Excommunication against the Church of Constantinople, it would seem that Roman Legates were responsible for the Schism since it was the Papal Legate who issued the excommunication.

Who is really to blame, but based on my research the repeated answer is that the Church in Rome was responsible for the most part. Though the Pope had little to do with it rather than his legates were the ones who started the division.

In your own words, do you think both Churches were responsible? Was the Eastern Orthodox who started the split, or was it Catholic Church?

How come of the Five Patriarchiate Churches, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, and Constantinople, only One Church split (Rome) but the rest of the other 4 remain in full communion?

Do you have a source, so that the more ignorant among us (i.e. me) can look a bit into this?

It wouldn’t be the only time a schism started due to a “misunderstanding” (See: Johann Tetzel) :shrug:

I done some google search and wiki was the site that pull out the link and the detail about the Schism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

I do not hold wikipedia to be accurate since the information can be changed. However, if I find more resources about the exact nature of the 1054 Schism from a neutral unbias source. I will let you know.

Looks to me, from that source, as though the Roman legates asked something… excessive; however, the “ecumenical patriarch” bit sounds only slightly less egotistical. :shrug:

The underlying question here seems to be whether the seat of Peter moved to Constantinople when the seat of government did. :shrug:

But all I know about this issue is what I just read from the first section of the wikipedia article, so… :stuck_out_tongue:

I would recommend History of the Orthodox Church or simply, The Orthodox Church (i think, its close to that in any event) by Fr. Timothy Kalistos Ware. That’s one on the Orthodox side, and there may be some info in Franky Schaeffer’s “Dancing Alone” (Protestant convert to Eastern Orthodoxy).

On the Roman side, well just check in the encyclopedia and from there you’ll have more than enough to intake.

My own words . . .it was mutual, but perhaps also inevitable, and not because of the little squabbles and resentments that grew up over the centuries. I think that at its root there was a fundamental difference in understanding, politically, theologically and sacerdotally and this is a common theme in east/west relations, not simply in the history of Christendom. In some ways it was inherited from pagan times and ancient rivalries and patterns of thought. In others still, it was real and objective treachery going on at the time on both parts. The East’s insistence that the Byzantine Emporer be the head of the Church off and on, and Rome’s often overhanded judgements, as if to rub a little salt in old wounds. The final straw wasn’t the filioque as I hear lots of folks say, it was a little aside. The main thing was the Eastern bishops excommunicating Papal supporters and replacing them with the Emporers buffoons . . .er. . .friends. I’m biased, though. Consider the source . . .:tiphat:

It’s complicated, though, just like history always is complicated. The main issues remain, although great progress has been made, at least in theory. Time heals all wounds, and in such weighty matters one can’t be too careful, nor too cautious, either. I’d say that’s where the two sides are lately . . .they just still agree to disagree but will always work together if they can.

Perhaps that’s enough. Although I entertain a certan pious and folksy hope that reunion would not only occur, but that the impartation owing to unity would renew the earth. :gopray2:Hope abounds.

All my best . . .

The schism was a pretty bad event that, I believe, started with a dispute over authority.

The Roman Empire and the Catholic Church were at odds, and the Bishop of Constantine was acting like the Emperor’s pawn. Some theological disputes rose up over the Holy Spirit and this strained the relations between the Church in Rome and the Church in Constantine even more. Than things got really ugly. The Bishop of Constantine and the Pope started fighting back and forth over authority and over theology and morals, the former saying the Pope had no right to tell him what to do in politics and how to lead the faithful in his jursdiction and the latter saying the Bishop had to be obedient and had to stop the political corruption. It got so bad that the Pope decided to excommunicate the Bishop, and the Bishop decided to excommunicate the Pope (that is, act as an antipope). They each placed a notice of excommunication on the Altar, and that’s what triggered the schism.

Here is the chapter from Kalistos’ Ware book about the Great Schism, brought online by Decani Monastery.

Here is the text of Bull of Excommunication that Cardinal Humbert da Silva Candida left at Hagia Sophia.

I really do not have the time tonight to go into this in great detail, but I will try to put a bit down here before I fall asleep. :compcoff:

There were many background issues, there had been disputes in the past.

THE NORMAN CONQUEST OF SICILY
One thing that happened was the Norman invasion of southern Italy and Sicily, which were Byzantine Catholic (for purposes of this post I will refer to the Constantinople faction as Byzantine Catholic) and had been provinces of the Roman Empire. The Normans gave the Pope all kinds of trouble too, they were equal opportunity bandits, but they were Latin Rite Catholics.

One consequence of this invasion was the sacking of the Byzantine Catholic churches, and the closing of many, then the introduction of the Latin Rite through new bishops. As a result, the Latin Rite parishes in the Metropolitan See of Constantinople were closed (under the ecclesiology of the day, all parishes of whatever rite in a city would be under the same bishop) by order of the Eastern Catholic Patriarch. This meant that any Latin Rite parishioners had to go to the Byzantine Catholic parishes for Holy Communion. It was essentially the Sicilian problem in reverse, designed to put pressure on the Latins to stop suppressing the Byzantine Rite in their territory.

[ATTACH]6177[/ATTACH]

THE LEGATION
The Pope of the day (Leo IX) selected Cardinal Frédéric de Lorraine and Cardinal Humberto to go to Constantinople for two known reasons: [1] arrange a military-political alliance with the emperor to drive out the Normans from Italy, and [2] reopen the Latin parishes in Constantinople, if possible.

The two Cardinals (and their Pope) were part of an emerging reform movement in the Latin church we now know as the Gregorian Reform Movement. It was driven by the great monasteries to the north, like Cluny, which were trying to liberate the church from secular control, seen as a serious concern. (there were also other problems which needed addressing, but royal power over the church is what concerns us here.) Their goal was to prop up the Papacy to counterbalance the royal prerogatives already in place throughout Europe.

They used many arguments toward this end, including some that (at the time) they probably didn’t realize were spurious *. The movement itself is commendable in many ways, it dealt with corruption on many levels, and attempted to free the church of bad associations.

Once the Legates arrived in the Byzantine Catholic east, they dialogged with the emperor, then turned their attention to the religious matters and called upon the Eastern Catholic Patriarch. They did not hit it off very well. In fact, there were personality clashes from the beginning. It does not seem the Legates and the Patriarch liked each other at all.

{continued below}

{continued from above, post # 8}

THE EXCOMMUNICATION
Just about this time, the Pope had died and news of this had reached Constantinople. Technically they were now without portfolio because they specifically represented the bishop of Rome, and there was none.

According to the canons of the church the highest ranking churchmen were the Patriarchs. Cardinals even today in the Roman Catholic church rank lower than any Patriarch. So in this sense, the two Cardinals were now dealing with their superior.

The accounts after this have been recounted many times before, and I shouldn’t elaborate:
The Cardinals then produced a Bull of excommunication, which was placed upon the altar of Hagia Sophia in the middle of High Mass (Divine Liturgy) and marched out of the building. A deacon was sent running after them, pleading with them to take it back! They let it fall into the street.

The Bull excommunicated the Patriarch and all who follow him, in response the patriarch (who was at that time the highest ranking churchman alive) excommunicated the two pseudo-Legates and their associates, but none others.

There were opportunities to reverse this horrible situation. In the first place it has been argued that the legates did not have the authority to present the Bull in the name of the church, because all of their authority was delegated to them by the Bishop of Rome, and he was now dead. They were acting on their own. The patriarch seemed to recognize this, because he did not excommunicate the Latin church, but only the two men and their associates. Whether this meant the traveling party of the Cardinals, or the whole College of Cardinals, or anyone and everyone who agreed with them I don’t know.

The next Pope, Victor II, did nothing to reverse the situation, he may have agreed with it or he may have had too many other serious problems to address the situation. In effect he let the excommunication stand.

Finally Cardinal Frédéric himself was elected Pope, as Pope Stephen IX. He knew that the Bull was delivered when the Legates were without authority, but he did nothing to restore communion. His lack of concern over the affair leads one to believe that he was satisfied with the outcome.

One has to wonder what the motive was for this action. It can be presumed that the reformers at Rome wanted the split at that time, and their movement was to continue it’s work for another fifty years or so, through many more Colleges of Cardinals and Popes.

One idea might be that the reformers did not want the reactionary and very conservative bishops of the Eastern Catholic churches as possible opponents to some of their reform efforts. In any council they would have been a large voting block which might be assumed to oppose some of the changes to ecclesiology and discipline to come in the west.

From our perspective we Orthodox Eastern Catholics believe that our bishops would have been a moderating influence, providing a counterbalance to the forthcoming excesses of the western church.

http://www.orthodox.pl/Uczelnie/Images/196-vinietka2.gif

  • [size=3]THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE
    [/size] Many of the recent critical students of the document locate its composition at Rome and attribute the forgery to an ecclesiastic, their chief argument being an intrinsic one: this false document was composed in favour of the popes and of the Roman Church, therefore Rome itself must have had the chief interest in a forgery executed for a purpose so clearly expressed. Moreover, the sources of the document are chiefly Roman. Nevertheless, the earlier view of Zaccaria and others that the forgery originated in the Frankish Empire has quite recently been ably defended by Hergenröther and Grauert. They call attention to the fact that the “Donatio” appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983-1002, i.e. in case the famous “Diploma” of this emperor be authentic).

At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the “Donatio” to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the “Donatio” acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power.
Catholic Encyclopedia 1909

I really do not have the time tonight to go into this in great detail, but I will try to put a bit down here before I fall asleep. :compcoff:

There were many background issues, there had been disputes in the past.

THE NORMAN CONQUEST OF SICILY
One thing that happened was the Norman invasion of southern Italy and Sicily, which were Byzantine Catholic (for purposes of this post I will refer to the Constantinople faction as Byzantine Catholic) and had been provinces of the Roman Empire. The Normans gave the Pope all kinds of trouble too, they were equal opportunity bandits, but they were Latin Rite Catholics.

One consequence of this invasion was the sacking of the Byzantine Catholic churches, and the closing of many, then the introduction of the Latin Rite through new bishops. As a result, the Latin Rite parishes in the Metropolitan See of Constantinople were closed (under the ecclesiology of the day, all parishes of whatever rite in a city would be under the same bishop) by order of the Eastern Catholic Patriarch. This meant that any Latin Rite parishioners had to go to the Byzantine Catholic parishes for Holy Communion. It was essentially the Sicilian problem in reverse, designed to put pressure on the Latins to stop suppressing the Byzantine Rite in their territory.

[ATTACH]6178[/ATTACH]

THE LEGATION
The Pope of the day (Leo IX) selected Cardinal Frédéric de Lorraine and Cardinal Humberto to go to Constantinople for two known reasons: [1] arrange a military-political alliance with the emperor to drive out the Normans from Italy, and [2] reopen the Latin parishes in Constantinople, if possible.

The two Cardinals (and their Pope) were part of an emerging reform movement in the Latin church we now know as the Gregorian Reform Movement. It was driven by the great monasteries to the north, like Cluny, which were trying to liberate the church from secular control, seen as a serious concern. (there were also other problems which needed addressing, but royal power over the church is what concerns us here.) Their goal was to prop up the Papacy to counterbalance the royal prerogatives already in place throughout Europe.

They used many arguments toward this end, including some that (at the time) they probably didn’t realize were spurious *. The movement itself is commendable in many ways, it dealt with corruption on many levels, and attempted to free the church of bad associations.

Once the Legates arrived in the Byzantine Catholic east, they dialogged with the emperor, then turned their attention to the religious matters and called upon the Eastern Catholic Patriarch. They did not hit it off very well. In fact, there were personality clashes from the beginning. It does not seem the Legates and the Patriarch liked each other at all.

{continued below}

{continued from above, post # 8}

THE EXCOMMUNICATION
Just about this time, the Pope had died and news of this had reached Constantinople. Technically they were now without portfolio because they specifically represented the bishop of Rome, and there was none.

According to the canons of the church the highest ranking churchmen were the Patriarchs. (Cardinals even today in the Roman Catholic church rank lower than any Patriarch.) So in this sense, the two Cardinal/pseudo-legates were now dealing with their superior in church ranking, although not their own Patriarch.

The stories over this episode have been recounted many times before, and I shouldn’t have to elaborate here:
The Cardinals then produced a Bull of excommunication, which was placed upon the altar of Hagia Sophia in the middle of High Mass (Divine Liturgy) and marched out of the building. A deacon was sent running after them, pleading with them to take it back! They let it fall into the street.

The Bull excommunicated the Patriarch and all who follow him, in response the patriarch (who was at that time the highest ranking churchman alive) excommunicated the two pseudo-Legates and their associates, but none others.

There were opportunities to reverse this horrible situation. In the first place it has been argued that the legates did not have the authority to present the Bull in the name of the church, because all of their authority was delegated to them by the Bishop of Rome, and he was now dead. They were acting on their own. The patriarch seemed to recognize this, because he did not excommunicate the Latin church, but only the two men and their associates. Whether this meant the traveling party of the Cardinals, or the whole College of Cardinals, or anyone and everyone who agreed with them I don’t know.

The next Pope, Victor II, did nothing to reverse the situation, he may have agreed with it or he may have had too many other serious problems to address the situation. In effect he let the excommunication stand.

Finally Cardinal Frédéric himself was elected Pope, as Pope Stephen IX. He knew that the Bull was delivered when the Legates were without authority, but he did nothing to restore communion. His lack of concern over the affair leads one to believe that he was satisfied with the outcome.

WHY?
One has to wonder what the motive was for this action. It can be presumed that the reformers at Rome wanted the split at that time, and their movement was to continue it’s work for another fifty years or so, through many more Colleges of Cardinals and Popes.

One idea might be that the reformers did not want the reactionary and very conservative bishops of the Eastern Catholic churches as possible opponents to some of their reform efforts. In any council they would have been a large voting block which might be assumed to oppose some of the changes to ecclesiology and discipline to come in the west.

From our perspective we Orthodox Eastern Catholics believe that our bishops would have been a moderating influence, providing a counterbalance to the forthcoming excesses of the western church.

http://www.orthodox.pl/Uczelnie/Images/196-vinietka2.gif

  • [size=3]THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE
    [/size] Many of the recent critical students of the document locate its composition at Rome and attribute the forgery to an ecclesiastic, their chief argument being an intrinsic one: this false document was composed in favour of the popes and of the Roman Church, therefore Rome itself must have had the chief interest in a forgery executed for a purpose so clearly expressed. Moreover, the sources of the document are chiefly Roman. Nevertheless, the earlier view of Zaccaria and others that the forgery originated in the Frankish Empire has quite recently been ably defended by Hergenröther and Grauert. They call attention to the fact that the “Donatio” appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983-1002, i.e. in case the famous “Diploma” of this emperor be authentic).

At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the “Donatio” to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the “Donatio” acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power.
Catholic Encyclopedia 1909

{continued from above, post # 8}

THE EXCOMMUNICATION
Just about this time, the Pope had died and news of this had reached Constantinople. Technically they were now without portfolio because they specifically represented the bishop of Rome, and there was none.

According to the canons of the church the highest ranking churchmen were the Patriarchs. (Cardinals even today in the Roman Catholic church rank lower than any Patriarch.) So in this sense, the two Cardinal/pseudo-legates were now dealing with their superior in church ranking, although not their own Patriarch.

The stories over this episode have been recounted many times before, and I shouldn’t have to elaborate here:
The Cardinals then produced a Bull of excommunication, which was placed upon the altar of Hagia Sophia in the middle of High Mass (Divine Liturgy) and marched out of the building. A deacon was sent running after them, pleading with them to take it back! They let it fall into the street.

The Bull excommunicated the Patriarch and all who follow him, in response the patriarch (who was at that time the highest ranking churchman alive) excommunicated the two pseudo-Legates and their associates, but none others.

There were opportunities to reverse this horrible situation. In the first place it has been argued that the legates did not have the authority to present the Bull in the name of the church, because all of their authority was delegated to them by the Bishop of Rome, and he was now dead. They were acting on their own. The patriarch seemed to recognize this, because he did not excommunicate the Latin church, but only the two men and their associates. Whether this meant the traveling party of the Cardinals, or the whole College of Cardinals, or anyone and everyone who agreed with them I don’t know.

The next Pope, Victor II, did nothing to reverse the situation, he may have agreed with it or he may have had too many other serious problems to address the situation. In effect he let the excommunication stand.

Finally Cardinal Frédéric himself was elected Pope, as Pope Stephen IX. He knew that the Bull was delivered when the Legates were without authority, but he did nothing to restore communion. His lack of concern over the affair leads one to believe that he was satisfied with the outcome.

WHY?
One has to wonder what the motive was for this action. It might be presumed that the reformers at Rome actually wanted the split at that time. Their movement was to continue it’s work for another thirty years or more, through many more Cardinals and Popes, and there was much to do.

One idea might be that the reformers did not want the reactionary and very conservative bishops of the Eastern Catholic churches as possible opponents to some of their reform efforts. In any potential council they would have been a large voting block which might be assumed to oppose some of the changes to ecclesiology and discipline proposed in the west.

From our perspective we Orthodox Eastern Catholics believe that our bishops would have been a moderating influence, providing a counterbalance to some of the forthcoming excesses of the western church.

http://www.orthodox.pl/Uczelnie/Images/196-vinietka2.gif

  • [size=3]THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE
    [/size] Many of the recent critical students of the document locate its composition at Rome and attribute the forgery to an ecclesiastic, their chief argument being an intrinsic one: this false document was composed in favour of the popes and of the Roman Church, therefore Rome itself must have had the chief interest in a forgery executed for a purpose so clearly expressed. Moreover, the sources of the document are chiefly Roman. Nevertheless, the earlier view of Zaccaria and others that the forgery originated in the Frankish Empire has quite recently been ably defended by Hergenröther and Grauert. They call attention to the fact that the “Donatio” appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983-1002, i.e. in case the famous “Diploma” of this emperor be authentic).

At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the “Donatio” to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the “Donatio” acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power.
Catholic Encyclopedia 1909

.

It’s interesting, after reading the links provided by Oxy, how the Orthodox Church still dose not understand the Filique and continues to ignore the constant teaching of the Church regarding the primacy of Rome. It is very simple, in fact.

The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and, because He proceeds from the Father through the Son, He proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”.72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. the Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration… And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. the use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). the introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

The Church teaches that Peter was given primacy, and, as such, the Roman church, the Church in Rome, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope, is head of the whole Church.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ dose the Father. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who dose anything without the knowledge of the bishop, dose serve the devil. - St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch 107 AD

When we refer them to that Tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters [bishops] in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser, not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles. - St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lychos 180 AD

It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles. - St. Irenaeus

For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence, that every church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree. - St. Irenaeus

Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. - St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage 251 AD

There are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house. - St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo 397 AD

If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. - St. Augustine, 412 AD

My dear Roman Catholic friend,

While we could go on over Petrine Primacy and filioque, what does it have with the fact that we were excommunicated for we have been castrating our guests and raising them not only to the priesthood, but to the episcopacy, too.

That’s why Humbert excommunicated us.

That’s not what the Bull says. It says the Orthodox were excommunicated for simony, for refusing Communion to those who followed the degree of the Church, and for the heresies of valesians, arianism, donatism, nicolatism, severianism, pneumatomachians, manichaeism, and nazareans.

The Bull of Excommunication

But as far as Michael, who is called patriarch through an abuse of the term, and the backers of his foolishness are concerned, innumerable tares of heresies are daily sown in its midst. Because like Simoniacs, they sell the gift of God; like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy; like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins; like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world; like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; like Severians, they say that the law of Moses is accursed; like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum); like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and, in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan; and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church. For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent.

It does say what you emphasized.

But it does say what I asked, too. See the part of the above text you quoted colored red.

And the patriarch was not excommunicated for castration above the other errors which he committed and persisted in. But what dose it matter? Why do you Orthodox continually bring up the issue of the Schism? Why must you constanty make us remember that painful event, as if shoving it in our faces will make things better? You should instead be trying to help Catholics better understand what you believe, and try to better understand what Catholics believe, and help one another become pure of heart, for only by conversion, true conversion, not from church to church but from enmity to love, can unity be achieved.

At this specific occasion, I did provide the link since it was explicitly asked question. I further quoted only the text of Bull you quoted.

AMEN.

Yes, and I apologize for a poorly worded repsose. I did not mean you specifically but Orthodox in general. Many have come on this board simply to tell Catholics they’re wrong about the Schism.

As in most schisms, historically, the powers-that-be had more to do with it than the people in the pews did.

Or, in the case of the Orthodox, the people standing in the church. :wink:

May we all be One in Christ.

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.