4) The Great Schism 1054 AD.

​

Catholic / Orthodox Schism of 1054 AD

​

As the Empire effectively split in two in 800 AD, Roman and Byzantine,  when the Pope crowned Charlemagne Emperor, it is a surprise this schism took another 250 years to occur. As Charlemagne was such a war monger, it is just another proof of the nonsensical claim Orthodoxy is supposed to be pacifist, an oxymoronic claim that show the people in their religion have lost contact with reality.

 

By 1054, the East–West Schism resulted in the Great Church further splitting into bodies that are today known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church based, it is said, on Christological differences. But is it possible this was due to the political climate also? And the never ending scene throughout history that when one country gained power it simply attacked other countries. It seems clear at some point in history it was realised that religion can be melded with politics and used to covertly conquer nations. Its interesting isn't it that within 50 years of the Great Schism the First Crusade appeared. The later idea of "Christendom" used to fight the Arabs and Muslims was in effect a religious empire that would kill and murder any religious sect member inside it, including Evangelical types. The Popes are far more identified with political leadership than any "first among equals" or Titular head of Orthodoxy. It is obvious to me that at some point the Popes had Empire ambitions to conquer using religion and politics in the same way Constantine had.

 

According to Ryan Reeves the Schism was less doctrinal and more based on Rome usurping its own independent power, firstly making a Pope without feeling they needed the consent of the Eastern Empire, and secondly that Rome modified the Nicene Creed by adding the Filioque once again without consent. It was more the lack of consent than the doctrinal significance of the Filioque that was apparently the fuel for the division. This resulted in an egotistical clash after Humbert of Silva Candida (Pope Leo 9th's Advisor) instigated it by conveying the contents of a letter by Leo of Ochrid condemning the Western "Church" for not only the Filioque but the use of unleavened bread in the communion (which he termed as Judaising their Faith). Pope Leo 9th was incensed and wrote complaining to The Patriarch Michael 1st (also known as Michael Celularius),  

 

Humbert of Silva Candida was then sent as an emissary, with some others, to smoothe this situation out by travelling to Constantinople. The Patriarch Michael 1st inflames the egotistical clash further by forcing the delegation to wait to see him, usurping his power on his own turf for a number of weeks. This is taken as an affront to the dignity both of Humbert and Pope Leo 9th. When Humbert eventually does discuss this with Patriarch Michael 1st the Papal authority issue seems to be very much prevalent over doctrine, which took a significant second place. And so eventually on Easter Sunday 1054 while Michael is in Hagio Sophia performing the vigil for the Easter Service  Humbert sanctimoniously marches in and places a Bull for excommunication on the altar, excommunicating Michael for his insolence. Michael then eventually does the same to the entourage, and according to historian Ryan Reeves that egotistical double excommunication of each other was the cause of the great schism, though obviously the underlying factors were also of authority and dogma.

 

It would be of great interest to see the exact date of the development of the Roman Catholic doctrine that this centres on - that is - Peter being wrongly seen as Head of the Early Church, and that he was in Rome (there is no bible evidence Peter was ever even in Rome) and when the first recorded clash is recorded between the two sides over that specific doctrine. At the time it first occurred apparently few people thought this Schism would last over 1,000 years, but as time went on without reconciliation, and especially after the 4th Crusade when both sides actually fought each other, the Schism finally became a solid East versus West Schism, lasting to this day.  The use of the word "Schism" in regard to the Orthodox Church breaking away from the Roman Catholics involves a direct heresy in itself. The Roman Catholic religion has certain unique heresies, like the Pope being head of the church, "The Holy Father", the doctrine of Purgatory, etc, that are unique and enough to damn a person's soul in themselves.

 

To say therefore that the Orthodox church is only in "schism" with them, by which they mean seeing them as a wayward sister church with whom they are not in direct fellowship, but still regard as saved, is utterly heretical in itself. However that applies in reverse, as the Roman Catholics do not adhere to the doctrines of lax adulterous second marriage that Orthodoxy has. It is necessary to try to keep referring to the Catholics as specifically the "Roman Catholics" as the word Catholic appears in the Nicene Creed, thus the Orthodox church sees itself as Catholic, and sometimes calls itself the Orthodox Catholic Church.

​

A Pope's eye view:

​

In the year 1054 the Pope says

 

1) Bishop of Byzantium - Michael I Cerularius (1043–1058).

2) Bishop of Alexandria - Leontius (1052–1059)

3) Bishop of Antioch - John VI, (or Dionysus) (1051-1062)

4) Bishop of Jerusalem - Joannichius? (???–???)

 

All fell away from God into Anathema, and lost their so called "sacramental powers" partly because they would not recognize Pope St. Leo IX (1049-54) or Victor II (1055-57) as Head of the church.

​

ridiculous

​

How can you "fall away from God" if for hundreds of years before that they had never professed the Pope as Head of the Church in the first place, so they never had any place to "fall away from" from the Catholic perspective in the first place.

​

The Great Schism (continued):​

​

Orthodoxy says its doctrine was established over the centuries at Councils dating from as early as 325CE where the leaders from all the Christian communities were represented. The Eastern Church recognizes the authority of the Councils of Nicea 325 CE, Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431) Chalcedon (451) Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680) and Nicaea II (787).Although initially the Eastern and Western apostate churches say they shared the same beliefs (both sides say this in order to maintain the lie of a direct link with the first century church believers), the two traditions began to divide after the seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 CE and is commonly believed to have finally split over the conflict with Rome in the so called Great Schism in 1054.In particular this happened over the papal claim to supreme authority and the Filioque doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The break became final with the failure of the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century.However, in the minds of most Orthodox, a decisive moment was the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the (Western) Fourth Crusade. The sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders eventually led to the loss of this Byzantine capital to the Muslim Ottomans in 1453. This has never been forgotten.The divisions between these two East and Western Apostate Churches happened gradually over the centuries as the Roman Empire fragmented.Eventually, while the Eastern Churches maintained the principle that the Church should keep to the local language of the community, Latin became the language of the Western Church.Until the schism the five great patriarchal "sees" were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. After the break with Rome Orthodoxy became 'Eastern' and the dominant religion in the eastern Mediterranean, much of Asia Minor, Russian and Balkans.

​

​
THE RIDICULOUS CONTRADICTION
There is a ridiculously superficial contradiction among Roman Catholics and Orthodoxy about the great schism of 1054, that is almost laughable. The contradiction is that both will say things like "Saint Vincent of Saragossa was neither Orthodox nor Roman Catholic, as he was pre-schism of 1054." the fact is that after the Great Schism of 1054 both the Catholics and Orthodox both claim that the church had always had only their identifying doctrines. To take 3 examples, the Catholics claim that the pre-schism church had always believed 1) That Peter was the head of the church, 2) That divorce and marriage is adultery, 3) That everyone believed in the Filioque, whereas Orthodoxy insist that 1) Saint Peter never was and never will be seen as the head of the church by true believers, 2) That divorce and remarriage for adultery can be allowed, 3) That everyone denied the Filioque, In other words before the schism almost everyone was either Catholic or Orthodox, and so Saint Vincent and other martyrs were not called Orthodox or Roman Catholic, but were in doctrine.
​

It runs like this..... B and C say before B and C was A. When asked to define A, B says A was B, and C says A was C. Thus A never even existed to either B or C. B says C simply diverted from A and A is B. And C says B diverted from A and A is C.

This schism got worse and worse and worse, theologically, doctrinally, and nationally. The Fourth Crusade (1202–04) when the Catholic Crusaders sacked the city of Constantinople, which was the capital of the Byzantine Empire was no help, but the development of two Empires in itself shows the violent and caustic effect of the violent Constantine the Great leading them into the scarlet and purple empire (political and religious power violently combined.)

link:
The Great Schism of 1054 (youtube video_ 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_s9Rcsg5UI

​

​

​

​