The Orthodox Schism Neil Patterson Originally published in Issues IV and V  of Vulgata, January andFebruary, 2002.

Part I

In Canada it is easy to forget about the Orthodox Church of Eastern Europe.  North America is full of Protestants and even more full of secularists, but the nations in the east are home to the second largest group of Christians there are (second only to the Catholics).  Since we are ready to embrace fundamentalists who blaspheme Mary and evangelicals who drink grape juice instead of the Blood of Christ as our brothers and sisters, it is especially heartening to remember the Orthodox.  And yet, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are in schism.  What follows should give you an understanding of what the Orthodox Church is, why it is in schism and why the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

There are approximately 225 million members of the Orthodox Church (this is compared with just over 1 billion Catholics) and is quickly gaining new members since the end of Communist persecution.  Orthodox Christians make up the great majority of the population of Eastern Europe and the most of the small Christian population in Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa.  In many ways they are very similar to Catholics.  They revere and pray to Mary and the Saints (although since the schism they have a different list than Catholics do).  They have the same Eucharist that we do.  They have validly ordained bishops and priests and they even believe that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter.  So why are they in schism?  The main reasons are the infallibility and primacy of the Pope and the addition of the Filioque (The fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, not just the Father) into the Nicene Creed.  But before I explain those I think its time for a  history lesson.

Some Background

In the early Church there were five Patriarchal Sees, one in each of the most important cities of the Roman world.  Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Rome.  Each See was presided over by a patriarch (that's why the Pope is sometimes called the Patriarch of Rome).  These Patriarchs functioned very much like archbishops in the modern church.  They were the ones who ordained bishops and took care of the administration of the Church in their area.  At the time, the newly-Christian Roman Empire was divided into two halves, east and west.  The east (Greece, Turkey, Middle East) was prosperous, well defended and heavily populated.  Thus four of the five patriarchs were in the east.  The Pope in Rome, while having jurisdiction over the universal church,  was the only patriarch in the impoverished west (Italy, France, Britain, Spain).

In 325, very soon after the Roman Emperor stopped persecuting Christians, the Church came out of hiding and held the first Ecumenical Council in Nicea.  This is exactly the same kind of council as Vatican II in the 1960's.  The Church as a whole infallibly defined certain matters of faith.  The first council was primarily concerned with the basics such as the Trinity and core doctrines.  It is from this council that we get the original version of the Nicene creed, although later councils made clarifying additions to it.

After that, there were six more councils (Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, Nicea II).  Both Catholics and Orthodox hold these councils in common and accept them as valid and infallible.

How the Split Happened

There is no specific date at which the split formally happened.  In many ways the schism is more a product of the difficulties of holding the Church together across a politically chaotic Europe than of a specific doctrinal dispute.  The Western Empire, while still technically in existence, was ruled by Germans and was certainly not the unified whole it once was.  The Eastern Empire, starting in the seventh century was virtually overrun by Islam and was reduced to Constantinople, Greece and the Balkans.   While the Roman Empire was at one time mostly bilingual, increasingly the West only spoke Latin and the East only spoke Greek.  In many ways, even though the Churches were not formally in schism, by the ninth century the Church in the east had very little contact with the Church in the west.

In the ninth century, there was a major conflict between Photius, the alleged Patriarch of Constantinople (the most important ecclesiastical leader in the east) and Pope Nicholas I.  In  858, the Byzantine emperor forced St. Ignatius, the Patriarch of Constantinople into exile, where he then resigned (whether voluntarily or under pressure is a subject of much dispute).  Photius, who by all accounts was a brilliant diplomat, learned theologian and good Christian, then claimed to be the next Patriarch.  Photius, as was required, sent a letter to the Pope announcing his accession.  The Pope, not being sure if the accession was valid or not, sent three legates to Constantinople to investigate.  Even though the initial findings of the legates found that Photius was the valid Patriarch, Nicholas was not convinced.  Later, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869)  the Church condemned Photius as an invalid Patriarch.  Orthodox do not accept this eighth ecumenical council as valid and infallible.  But, when faced with the choice between three papal legates and a few Byzantine bishops and the decision of a Church Council with over a hundred Bishops from all over Christendom and the Patriarch of Rome, it is difficult to choose the former.  After Constantinople IV, St. Ignatius was put back on the Patriarch's Chair.  There is little evidence to suggest that Photius was an evil man -- indeed, he is canonized in the east as St. Photius the Great -- but the fact remains that he was not the valid patriarch of Constantinople.  While the Church was still one at this point, it was clear that the east had decided not to respect the authority of the Pope.

In 1054 another conflict between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople occurred.  There was a dispute over the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist.  The Normans forced the Byzantine Christians in Italy to use unleavened bread, as was the Latin custom.  In response, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cerularius, demanded that the Latin churches in Constantinople use leavened bread.  When they refused, he had them closed.  To resolve this, Pope Leo IX sent three legates to Constantinople to discuss the matter with Cerularius.  The Pope made the unfortunate selection of Bishop Humbert as the head of the delegation.  Both Humbert and Cerularius were known for their stubbornness and hot temper and when Humbert handed Cerularius a demanding and rude letter signed by the Pope, Cerularius refused to have any further dealings with the legates.  It is likely that the letter was written by Humbert, and not by the Pope and it is quite possible that the Pope never even read it, but in any case, Humbert issued a Bull of Excommunication to Cerularius by slamming it on the altar at the Church of Holy Wisdom.  The Patriarch promptly reciprocated by excommunicating all three legates.  The Excommunications themselves were of dubious validity.  At the time of the issue of the Bull of Excommunication against Cerularius, Leo IX, whose signature it bore, was dead.  As for the other excommunications, it is highly contestable that the Patriarch of Constantinople had any authority to excommunicate Latin Bishops.  In any case, the fiasco of 1054 was a major blow for Christian unity and left the East and West more estranged.  However, although 1054 is the traditionally cited date for the schism, the two churches were still technically in communion for some time yet.

A serious, and some say final, blow to unity happened in 1204 when the ill-fated fourth crusade sacked Constantinople.  The fourth crusade was not a true crusade since it has the distinction of not attacking any non-Christian lands.  Its original intention was to attack Egypt, the centre of Muslim power, but quickly became diverted.  First, the Venetians promised to pay for the crusaders' passage to Egypt in exchange for their help in capturing the Hungarian city of Zara.  After that the crusaders were hired by Alexius, the son of the Byzantine emperor Isaac Angelus, to retake the city of Constantinople from the Saracen Turks.  After the city had been recaptured, Alexius did not deliver on his promise of wealth.  The crusaders sacked the city, destroying churches, stealing relics and committing many blasphemies and sacrileges.  This treatment, which was far worse than that given by the Muslims was atypical for crusaders, but the black mark left by these men remains in the consciousness of Eastern Christians to this day.

In all practicality, the Church was split in two by this point.  The two main points of theological dispute were clearly defined as being the Filioque and papal primacy.  There were two noble attempts made by Catholic and Orthodox leaders to solve the dispute.  At the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1274, the eastern delegates accepted the Filioque and Papal authority, but the decision didn't hold water in practice since it was not accepted by the great majority of Eastern clergy.  Another attempt was made at Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1438.  This time, a much larger eastern delegation, headed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, again conceded on the two major points of theological dispute and many other minor issues, but even this was not enough when again the eastern church as a whole did not accept the rulings of the council or even the Patriarch.

The schism truly became complete after the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453.  Most of the Churches in the east formerly declared themselves separate from Rome and prepared for rule under the Ottoman Turks.

Part II

Last month I covered the unfortunate series of events that led to the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. At the end of the article it was not clear who was in the right:  east or west.  Well, rest easy everyone.  I now present to you Part II: Why the Catholics are Right (as usual).

A Quick Recap

The Orthodox Church is very similar to ours.  They pray to Mary and the saints, have the same Eucharist, and have apostolic succession (an unbroken line of Bishops going back to the Apostles).  The Orthodox Church has roughly 225 million members, most of whom are in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.  The east and western halves of Christendom have been estranged from each other for a long time and while it is hard to pin an exact date on the schism, it was pretty much complete by the 13th century.

The reasons for the schism are probably more historical than doctrinal, but there are two main doctrinal issues that actually prevent the two churches from uniting again: the filioque and Papal Supremacy.

The Filioque

Filioque is a compound Latin word meaning "and the Son".  It refers to the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, not just the Father.  The filioque was unofficially added into the Nicene Creed by Spanish Bishops in the seventh century in response to the Arian heresy.  The practice spread in the west and was eventually officially adopted by the Church at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.  Remember that the Orthodox only accept the first seven councils of the Church to be infallible; Lateran IV was the twelfth.  Many theologians in the East, including some of the Greek Church Fathers, did not agree that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son, but since it had not been defined officially one way or another by the Church, it was not a source of great dispute.  Many eastern Christians, even before Lateran IV, accused the west of heresy.  It seems like a small point of disagreement, the real dispute is not over theology.  The Orthodox argue that the filioque constitutes a change in infallibly defined doctrine.  I will explain.

The Nicene Creed was written at the Council of Nicea in 325, the first Ecumenical Council of the Church.  However, it was much shorter than the version you're familiar with.  There were some additions made for the sake of clarification at the Council of Constantinople in 381 and it began to look like the Creed we know today.  Two later councils, Lateran IV and Vienna, included other professions of faith, which included the dual procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son but were very different in format from the Nicene Creed.  Finally at Vatican I, the familiar version of the Nicene Creed with the filioque was formally proclaimed, although it had been in common use for a long time before that.

The problem is, after the formation of the Creed at Constantinople, the next five councils (the last ones the Orthodox accept as infallible) all profess the Creed as it is written at Constantinople and, using varying levels of strong language forbid anyone to make any additions to it or subtractions from it.  So, the Orthodox argue, however picky the theology may be, the Pope and the Church in the west  is in heresy for adding to the Creed.

Firstly, it is important to realize that the Constantinopolitan formation of the Creed was not meant to exclude the possibility of the filioque.  If the Council Fathers wanted to exclude that, they could have said "proceeds from the Father and not the Son."  So, if the Church at a later point wanted to define the dual procession of the Holy Spirit it was free to do so without fear of contradicting itself.

There is still the matter of the Creed itself.  It is true that no one was allowed to add to or subtract from the Creed.  However, this is not an infallible statement on the same level as a statement over a moral or theological issue.  It would be wrong to change the Creed so that it was heretical, but it is ridiculous to say that the Church cannot add one word of clarification that expresses an infallibly defined doctrine.

The Authority of the Pope

The early and medieval Church had five patriarchs, who acted very much like archbishops today.  There was one in each of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.  The Patriarch of Rome is the Pope, but most of the other patriarchates no longer exist or have been moved.  The early Councils of the Church do not say specifically that the Pope has any kind of infallibility.  He is mentioned in reference to the Patriarch of Constantinople who was supposed to be second in honour only to the Pope.  We know also from the way he is referred to in the early councils as "most blessed" or "most holy" that he certainly occupies a position of great importance.  The Orthodox agree that the Pope deserves to be honoured above all other Bishops, but argue that he has no infallibility or authority outside of the west.  The simplest way to clear this up is to appeal to the councils that infallibly define the Pope's role in the Church, but, of course, the Orthodox don't accept any of the relevant councils.

The fact that the Pope is not mentioned much in the first seven councils of the Church is no indication that he wasn't its head.  Church councils are not catechisms, indeed we don't see a formal declaration of the seven sacraments until the Council of Trent in the 16th Century when the Protestants wanted to dispute their validity.  We can assume that, given there is no evidence to the contrary, the Pope was considered to be the actual head of the Church, not just the "first among equals" as the Orthodox contend.

I think that Scripture shows clearly that the role of the successor of Peter is greater than ceremonial.  There is, of course Matt 16:18 where Jesus declares that Peter is the "rock" upon which the Church will be built.  We also see in Acts 15 that when Paul and Barnabas had an argument about doctrine they went to the Church in Jerusalem where it was Peter who made the decision that gentiles did not have to be circumcised.  The decision was then ratified by the rest of the Church leaders.  Perhaps these passages don't prove Papal infallibility, but they do not allow for the weak "position of honour" doctrine held by the Orthodox.

The strongest argument for the infallibility of the Pope still lies in the councils.  If the councils are infallible, then so is the Pope.  So let's have a look at why the Orthodox don't accept any councils after the seventh.

The Councils

The Orthodox believe that for an ecumenical council to be infallible it has to be "accepted by the Church".  This isn't a workable test of a true council. This is what happened at Constantinople IV when Photius, the false Patriarch of Constantinople was condemned.  The eastern Church simply refused to accept the council because they didn't like what was said.  A similar problem arose at the councils of Lyons and Florence in the 13th and 15th centuries, respectively.  Both councils tried to reconcile east and west and during both the delegates from the east (including the Patriarch of Constantinople in the case of Florence) conceded Papal authority and the filioque, but both times the Church in the east as a whole did not accept the councils and no real reunion happened.  I seems then, that the Church is only infallible when those in the east agree with it.

Let's do a thought experiment.  Lets' assume for the moment that the Orthodox are correct about what constitutes a valid council and let's say that the Church in the west is in schism.  How would this situation be rectified?  A council would have to be called which included the bishops from the east and the west and, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church as a whole would have to side with the east.  But would this happen?  It seems highly likely that at such a council neither the west nor the east would budge an inch on any point of schism.  Again, I argue that any council that says something they don't like is simply declared invalid.

Satan's Victory Over the Church?

Finally I ask, what infallible authority has declared the western Church to be wrong?  None of the first seven councils denied the authority of the Pope or the dual procession of the Holy Spirit.  Also consider the fact that if the Orthodox are right, Satan has won an incalculable victory over the Church.  It means the Magisterium is hamstrung and has been unable to properly respond to any heresy that has appeared in the last thousand years -- Protestantism included.

God gave us an infallible Pope to prevent His Church on Earth from falling to pieces.  A captain cannot commit mutiny on his own ship and no mutineer can publicly proclaim his intentions without denouncing the captain.  God has ensured that we have a functioning Magisterium that has steered the Church through the centuries and will continue to until She reaches Her final and heavenly port of call.