Causes of the Great Schism Between Eastern and Western Churches
The Great Schism, a significant division within Christianity, refers to the formal break in communion between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Catholic Church in 1054 CE. The term "schism" itself denotes a separation or alienation causing divisions among Christians who ought to be united [1]. While the 1054 event is often cited as the definitive moment, the schism was the culmination of centuries of theological, cultural, and political disagreements [2].
One of the primary theological points of contention was the filioque clause. This Latin phrase, meaning "and the Son," was added to the Nicene Creed in the West, asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Eastern Church maintained that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, viewing the Western addition as an unauthorized alteration of a universally accepted creed and a theological innovation [2]. This difference in understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit became a major point of dispute.
Another significant factor was the growing assertion of papal authority by the Bishop of Rome. The Western Church increasingly viewed the Pope as the universal head of the Church, holding supreme authority over all other patriarchs [2]. In contrast, the Eastern Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares (first among equals) but rejected the idea of his universal jurisdiction and infallibility. The Eastern patriarchs maintained a more collegial understanding of church governance, where decisions were made by councils of bishops [2]. This divergence in ecclesiology—the understanding of the nature and structure of the Church—was a fundamental cause of the split.
Cultural and linguistic differences also contributed to the widening gap. The Western Church primarily used Latin, while the Eastern Church used Greek. Over time, these linguistic barriers led to misunderstandings and difficulties in communication, hindering efforts to resolve theological disputes [2]. Different liturgical practices and customs further exacerbated these divisions. For instance, the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist in the West versus leavened bread in the East became a symbolic point of contention [2].
Political developments played a crucial role as well. The decline of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of the Byzantine Empire in the East led to distinct political spheres. The Byzantine emperors often exerted significant influence over the Eastern Church, while the Pope in the West gradually gained more temporal power, especially after the collapse of imperial authority in the West [2]. This differing relationship between church and state contributed to the growing estrangement. The crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800 CE, for example, was seen by the East as a challenge to the legitimate authority of the Byzantine emperor and a further assertion of Western independence [2].
The immediate events leading to the 1054 schism involved a dispute between Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople. Papal legates, led by Cardinal Humbert, traveled to Constantinople to address various issues, including the filioque and papal authority. The negotiations were fraught with tension, and ultimately, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius, who, in turn, excommunicated the papal legates [2]. While these excommunications were initially understood as targeting individuals rather than entire churches, they effectively formalized the existing separation.
The concept of schism has been understood in various ways throughout Christian history. Isidore of Seville described schism as a "scission of minds," directly opposed to unity [6]. Early church figures like Athanasius noted how acts of individual bishops could perpetuate tendencies toward schism [3]. The Meletian schism in the early 4th century, for instance, illustrates how internal disputes could lead to lasting divisions [5]. John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, also addressed the nature of church unity and division [7]. Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, discussed the various aspects of schism within the broader context of ecclesiology [8]. Adam Clarke, commenting on Acts 20:30, attributed divisions in the church to leaders speaking "perverse things" and seeking to draw away disciples, thereby creating "schisms or rents" [4].
The Great Schism was not a sudden rupture but a gradual process driven by a complex interplay of theological disagreements, differing ecclesiastical structures, cultural divergences, and political rivalries that accumulated over centuries [2].
Sources
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Schism — A separation, an alienation causing divisions among Christians, who ought to be united (1 Cor. 12:25).”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 5: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian — ELUCIDATIONS. (part 1): I. (On the unity of the Church, p. 421.) THE epistles have already been elucidated as the best exposition of this treatise. Little need be added. But, to illustrate the bearings of this treatise upon the history of Christian unity, we need only refer to the manner in which the subject was treated as soon as the papacy was created by Nicholas I. Thus, he astounded the Greeks by his consummate audacity (A.D. 860) in the matter of the disputed succession in Constantinople.[1] "It is our will," he says, "that Ignatius should”
- CCEL (Patristic) “Athanasius of Alexandria, Select Works and Letters, section 22: a bishop whom all would respect, and whose record was one of the most uncompromising resistance to heresy? Lucifer accordingly, with the aid we may suppose of Kymatius and Anatolius, ordained Paulinus, the widely-esteemed head of the irreconcileable or (to adopt Newman’s word) protestant minority, who had never owned any Bishop of Antioch save the deposed and banished Eustathius. The act of Lucifer had momentous consequences (see D.C.B. on Meletius and Flavian , &c.); it perpetuated the existing tendency to schism between East and”
- Acts (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Acts 20:30: Also of your own selves, etc. - From out of your own assembly shall men arise, speaking perverse things, teaching for truth what is erroneous in itself, and perversive of the genuine doctrine of Christ crucified. To draw away disciples - To make schisms or rents in the Church, in order to get a party to themselves. See, here, the cause of divisions in the Church: 1. The superintendents lose the life of God, neglect the souls of the people, become greedy of gain, and, by secular extortions, oppress the people. 2. The members of the Church, thus neglected, oppressed, a”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 6: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius, Julius Africanus, Methodius, Arnobius — ELUCIDATIONS. (part 1): I. (Meletian schism, p. 259.) THE date of the Meletian schism is very much in need of elucidation. I follow Neale, however, as follows: Athanasius places its origin A.D. 306 (according to Tillemont and Baronius) or A.D. 301; the latter more probable, as demonstrated by the Benedictine editors. But the dates are, perhaps, the least of the difficulties which encumber the whole matter. Somewhat distrustfully I have, after several efforts to construct an original elucidation, adopted the the”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part (Secunda Secundae), Of Schism, Art. 1: Article: Whether schism is a special sin? I answer that, As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name "from being a scission of minds," and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accide”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 109: 4:5-6 4:6 4:11 4:12 4:18 Colossians 1:2-3 1:4 1:5 1:5 1:9-10 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:16 1:16 1:16-18 1:17 1:18 1:19-20 1:20 1:20 1:21 1:21-22 1:24 1:24 1:26 1:26 1:26 2:2 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:12 2:13-14 2:14 2:14 2:14-15 2:16 2:16-17 2:17 2:17 2:17 2:19 2:20 2:20-21 2:23 2:23 3:1 3:1 3:1-2 3:2 3:3 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:10 3:10 3:11 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:16 3:19 3:24 3:25 4:3 4:17 1 Thessalonians 1:5 2:13 2:18 2:20 3:5 3:12 3:13 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:7 4:7 4:15 4:16 4:16 4:16-17 5:2 5:9 5:17-18 5:19 ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 98: 3:8 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:20 3:20 3:21 3:21 4:11 4:18 Colossians 1:18 1:20 1:27 1:27 2:10 2:10 2:12 2:14 2:16 2:19 2:19 3:3 3:4 3:4 3:4 3:10 3:20 1871 1 Thessalonians 1:10 2:10 2:19 3:13 4:15-17 4:15-17 4:16 5:1 5:2 5:23 14:4 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10 1:7 1:7-10 1:7-10 1:7-10 1:9 2 2:1-3 2:1-17 2:1-17 2:1-17 2:2 2:4 2:7 3:6 1 Timothy 1:12 2:4 2:4 2:5 2:6 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:16 3:16 3:16 4:1 4:3 5:14 6:14 2 Timothy 1:10 1:12 3:15 3:16 3:17 4:1 4:8 Titus 1:5 1:6 1:6 1:6 2:13 2:14 2:14 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:10 Hebrews 1:1-14 1:3 1:3 2:1-18 2:4 2:4 2:”