In July of 1054, after an unfortunate fight between the Patriarch of Constantinople and a delegate of the Pope, the leaders of the Eastern and Western Churches mutually excommunicated one another. For many, this event marks the definitive cause of the Great Schism, the moment when the two churches fell out of communion with one another. But is it really that simple? While undoubtedly the most dramatic event in the relationship, history reveals that it was neither the beginning, nor the end, of the story of Schism between East and West… This is Catholicism in Focus. Even though the Eastern and Western Churches did not declare an official state of schism until 1054, disharmony and conflict had been present for centuries, stemming from a wide variety of issues. The earliest and most obvious cause of conflict came down to culture. Essentially split between two nations, the Churches had different social structures, were influenced by different philosophies, and most of all, they spoke different languages. Imagine trying to determine precise and orthodox teachings about how God can be one and yet three, and eternal and yet died on a cross… and then imagine trying to do it in another language. Besides the fact that this added-difficulty led to less enthusiasm to work together, and the fact that great distance and danger of travel at times made it impossible to meet on a regular basis, there were numerous cases in which mistranslation caused major tension between the two. Take the issue of icons discussed in the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Officially promulgated in Greek, the council declared that venerating icons was permitted and not considered idolatry because the image was a vehicle for worship, not the object of worship itself. Unfortunately, when this was taken back to the west and translated for Charlemagne’s court, the word “venerate” was translated as “adore,” an obvious heresy. In turn, Charlemagne called a local council in Frankfurt in 794 to condemn the teaching of Nicaea, angering the East. Beyond strictly cultural issues, there were also issues of theology that caused strife between the Churches. One such issue was the role of clerical celibacy. Although its strict enforcement wasn’t universalized in the west until centuries later, there has always been an emphasis placed on it, something that the East never imposed and did not agree with. There were also differences when it came to defining and emphasizing the nature of the Trinity, the use of leavened or unleavened bread in worship, and varied rules when it came to fasting. But no matter how much culture, language, and theology created unrest, they were not enough to cause a schism on their own. No, what eventually pushed them over the edge is something that gets to all of us: politics. Originally, the Church had five major centers for religious authority where the most important bishops resided. Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. While a stretch to say that they worked together as a democracy, there is definitely a sense that, at least in the beginning, there was mutual respect and dependence on one another for leadership. Over the course of the first millennia, the political landscape of the Christian world changed tremendously, witnessing the fall of Rome, the rise of Islam, weakened nations, and constant war. As this political unrest continued, Rome became increasingly isolated from the other sees. While the remaining four still worked as collegial members of an authoritative body, the bishop of Rome began to work more independently, and as he gained more civil power, began to see himself as the sole shepherd of not only the Western Church, but all of Christendom. Yeah… how do you think the East reacted to that? As a result, issues like the filioque controversy began to arise. In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed of 381, the line regarding the Holy Spirit reads, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.” This may seem incomplete for Catholics today. That’s because, in the 6th century, the words “and the son” or “filioque” in Latin, were added to the end to combat heretics and to clarify the West’s interpretation. And while it might seem like a strictly theological issue without much practical importance, don’t be fooled: at its core, this was an issue of political and ecclesiastical authority. The East, coming from a collegial and Apostolic perspective, could not accept the pope’s authority over an ecumenical council. The West, coming from a more hierarchical and Christological prospective, saw it as the rightful place of the pope to make such decisions. Two centuries later, another controversy arose over this question of jurisdiction. In 858, Emperor Michael III deposed the Patriarch of Constantinople and replaced him with a more favorable leader. Pope Nicholas, believing himself to be the shepherd of the whole flock, investigated the events, summoned a council, and concluded that this was an inappropriate decision. Going over the emperor’s authority, he deposed the new Patriarch and reinstated the old one. But wait, it gets worse. When Nicholas was questioned by Michael, he essentially responded that kings need popes but popes do not need kings. Ooooooh buddy… yeah, Nicholas was excommunicated by the East for that. But the Church remained together. Even in 1009, when Pope Sergius IV sent a letter to the East that included the filioque and the East in term removed the pope from the official list of prayers, schism had not been reached. And yet, at the same time, the Church remained largely divided, officially in communion but unofficially fractured for centuries. Placed within the context of the wider contentious story, the events of 1054 might still jump out as dramatic and damaging to the relationship, but it’s unfair to say that it would have been understood in its time as a permanent split. Because, really, everything that has been mentioned at this point is operating on a very high level: political authority, esoteric theological formulas, translations of official documents. The working man or women did not give one iota about these matters. That was, until 1098 and the first crusade. You know how you try to do something nice to fix a problem but end up doing something much worse? Yeah, that’s sort of what happened. Extended an olive branch that had previously been withheld. Pope Urban sent troops to Constantinople to aid the East in defending its city. Unfortunately… instead of fighting for the East, the Western soldiers began fighting against the East for part of the reconquered lands, acted rude and greedy, and eventually drove the Greek Patriarch into exile so they could install their own Latin one. Oops. For the first time, the conflict between East and West had been brought to the level of the people, and they did not want anything of it. Language, culture, theology, and politics aside, they just hated one another on a gut level. More than any excommunication or power grab by a Pope, what cemented the division between the two Churches was the unfortunate actions of greedy soldiers, coming from the West but not representing it well. Luckily, things have changed since then. In 1964, Pope Paul VI embraced Patriarch Athenagoras I on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, a symbolic gesture of peace that established a tradition honored by their successors. The following year, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation began meeting and has been meeting semiannually since. In 2003, they even reached the conclusion and recommended to their respective bishops that the filioque was no longer a “Church-diving” issue.” In 2004, Pope John Paul II met with the Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and put forward a common declaration. And recently, being that he is a very collegially minded Pope, Pope Francis has made tremendous strides towards reunification, explicitly stating in 2014 that he is seeking communion with the Orthodox Churches. And maybe that’s where we’re headed. The point, I think, to remember in all of this is that division did not happen overnight. Rather than just being over one moment of passion that resulted in mutual excommunication, the division between East and West developed over a long period of time and on a wide variety of issues. Unification, if that is what we seek, is going to take a lot of time to develop as well. But if we truly believe that we are the body of Christ, and we can agree on so much of what makes us Christian, that’s one task we should be ready to take on. Thanks for watching this episode of Catholicism in Focus, made possible by Mary McNicholas and all of patrons on Patreon. Be sure to check out all of the great content on Breaking In The Habit .org, and follow me on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for more pictures, videos, and posts.