The Great East-West Schism: The Final Rupture (1052–1054 AD)

The Great East-West Schism: The Final Rupture (1052–1054 AD)

The Catalyst: Norman Invasions and Latin Impositions in Southern Italy

• The immediate political spark originated in Southern Italy, a region historically under Byzantine political control and Eastern ecclesiastical jurisdiction. [1]
• In the 11th century, Norman mercenaries from northern France began conquering Byzantine territories in Italy.
• Despite being political adversaries of the papacy (they defeated and captured Pope Leo IX at the Battle of Civitate in 1053), the Normans adhered to the Latin rite.
• As they gained control, the Normans forced Greek churches in conquered areas to adopt Latin practices, including the use of unleavened bread (azymes) in the Eucharist and recitation of the filioque in the Creed.
• Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople (1043–1058) viewed these impositions as both theological errors and an infringement on his patriarchal jurisdiction.

Cerularius Retaliates: Closing of Latin Churches (c. 1052)

• Cerularius, a rigid and ambitious patriarch who regarded Western customs as barbaric, ordered the closure of all Latin-rite churches in Constantinople. [2]
• The closures were carried out aggressively; unleavened hosts were reportedly trampled to emphasise their alleged invalidity.
• To broaden the controversy, Cerularius commissioned Leo, Archbishop of Ohrid, to write a letter condemning Western practices.
• The letter targeted specific Latin customs: use of unleavened bread, Saturday fasting in Lent, eating meat with blood, and omission of Alleluia during Lent.

1054 AD: Mission of Cardinal Humbert

Papal Response and Legates

• The letter from Leo of Ohrid reached Pope Leo IX via an inflammatory translation by Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida. [3]
• Leo IX responded assertively, claiming Rome’s primacy as the “mother” church and invoking the (forged) Donation of Constantine to support universal papal authority.
• In early 1054, he dispatched three legates to Constantinople: Cardinal Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine (future Pope Stephen IX), and Peter of Amalfi.
• The mission aimed to deliver the papal reply and negotiate an anti-Norman alliance, but Humbert’s uncompromising and undiplomatic temperament proved disastrous.

Failed Negotiations

• Upon arrival on April 1054, the legates immediately antagonised Cerularius by failing to observe protocol and thrusting the papal letter at him abruptly.
• Humbert demanded that Cerularius recognise Roman supremacy and abandon Eastern “errors”. [4]
• He mistakenly accused the Greeks of deleting the filioque from the Creed (when in fact the West had added it).
• After news reached Constantinople that Pope Leo IX had died in April 1054, Cerularius refused further meetings, questioning the legates’ authority.

1054 AD: The Excommunication in Hagia Sophia (July 16)

• On Saturday, July 16, 1054, during the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia, Humbert and his colleagues entered the sanctuary and deposited a bull of excommunication on the high altar. [5]
• The bull condemned Cerularius and his followers, accusing them of various heresies (including simony, Arianism, and others) and anathematising them “with the devil and his angels.”
• As the legates departed, they shook dust from their feet and declared, “Let God look and judge.”
• Technically, the bull was invalid, as the death of Leo IX had already revoked the legates’ authority.

1054 AD: Counter-Excommunication (July 20–24)

• The bull’s publication provoked riots in Constantinople. [6]
• Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos, who had sought reconciliation for military reasons, was compelled to support Cerularius.
• On July 20–24, a synod convened by Cerularius issued a counter-anathema directed solely against Humbert and the other legates (not the Pope or the Western Church).
• The papal bull was publicly burnt.
• Subsequently, the Pope’s name was removed from the diptychs in Constantinople, formally breaking communion between the sees.

Theological Core: The Dispute over the Holy Spirit

• Eastern position: The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone (monarchy of the Father), as stated in the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. [7]
• Western position: The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque), intended to emphasise the Son’s full divinity and Trinitarian unity.
• The East regarded the addition as heretical, introducing two sources in the Godhead; the West saw it as legitimate clarification.

Legacy and Aftermath

Why the Schism Endured

• Unlike earlier ruptures (e.g., the Photian Schism), this breach became permanent due to deepening cultural, linguistic, and political estrangement. [8]
• The other Eastern patriarchates gradually aligned with Constantinople.

1204 AD: The Fourth Crusade and Irreversible Breach

• The sack of Constantinople by Western Crusaders in 1204, with the desecration of Hagia Sophia and installation of a Latin patriarch, cemented lasting Eastern resentment. [9]
• Many historians regard 1204 as the true consummation of the schism.

Modern Reconciliation

• The mutual excommunications of 1054 were formally lifted in 1965 by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, though full communion has not been restored.

Failed Attempts at Reunion

1274 AD: Second Council of Lyons

• Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos sought Western military aid against the Turks and accepted papal primacy and the filioque. [10]
• The union was rejected by Eastern clergy and laity upon the delegation’s return and collapsed after Michael’s death in 1282.

1438–1439 AD: Council of Ferrara-Florence

• Facing the Ottoman threat, Emperor John VIII Palaiologos and Patriarch Joseph II negotiated extensively with the West.
• A decree of union was signed in July 1439, recognising papal supremacy and accepting the filioque with explanatory clauses. [11]
• Resistance led by Mark of Ephesus prevented lasting acceptance; the union was repudiated after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Endnotes

[1] Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism (Oxford University Press, 1955), 28–36; Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford University Press, 2003), 151–160.

[2] Runciman, The Eastern Schism, 37–44; John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: The Decline and Fall (Penguin, 1996), 312–315.

[3] Chadwick, East and West, 161–170; Tia M. Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (University of Illinois Press, 2000), 45–60.

[4] Runciman, The Eastern Schism, 45–52.

[5] Text of the bull in Cornelius Will, Acta et Scripta quae de Controversiis Ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae Saeculo XI Composita Extant (Leipzig, 1861), 153–154; translation in Runciman, The Eastern Schism, 53–58.

[6] Chadwick, East and West, 171–180.

[7] A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford University Press, 2010), 113–130.

[8] Runciman, The Eastern Schism, 159–170.

[9] Donald M. Nicol, Byzantium and Venice (Cambridge University Press, 1988), 122–140; Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades, 2nd ed. (Bloomsbury, 2014), 165–180.

[10] Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge University Press, 1959), 269–283 (on the Lyons context).

[11] Gill, The Council of Florence, passim; Deno John Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West (Blackwell, 1966), 84–111.

Further Reading

• Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism (Oxford University Press, 1955).
• Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford University Press, 2003).
• Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, The Orthodox Church, new ed. (Penguin, 1997).
• A. Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox (Oxford University Press, 2017).