Religion is the spiritual component of life, according to many. There are many different beliefs now, but in the center there are always two areas that attract the most attention. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches are the largest and most global in the religious world. But once it was one single church, one faith. It is rather difficult to judge why and how the division of the churches occurred, because only historical information has survived to this day, but nevertheless, certain conclusions can be drawn from them.
Split
Officially, the collapse took place in 1054, it was then that two new religious directions appeared: Western and Eastern, or, as they are also called, Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic. Since then, it is believed that adherents of the Eastern religion are orthodox and faithful. But the reason for the division of religions began to emerge long before the ninth century and gradually led to great disagreement. The division of the Christian church into Western and Eastern was quite expected on the basis of these conflicts.
Disagreements between churches
The ground for the great schism was laid on all sides. The conflict affected almost all areas. The churches could not find agreement either in rituals, or in politics, or in culture. The nature of the problems was ecclesiological and theological, and it was no longer possible to hope for a peaceful solution to the issue.
Controversy in politics
The main problem of the political conflict was the antagonism between the emperors of Byzantium and the popes. When the church was just in its infancy and rose to its feet, all of Rome was a single empire. Everything was one - politics, culture, and there was only one ruler at the head. But from the end of the third century, political divisions began. While still remaining a unified empire, Rome was divided into several parts. The history of the division of churches directly depends on politics, because it was Emperor Constantine who initiated the schism by founding a new capital on the eastern side of Rome, now known as Constantinople.
Naturally, the bishops began to base themselves on the territorial position, and since it was there that the see of the Apostle Peter was founded, they decided that it was time to declare themselves and receive more power, to become the dominant part of the entire Church. And the more time passed, the more ambitious the bishops perceived the situation. The Western Church was filled with pride.
In turn, the popes defended the rights of the church, did not depend on the position of politics, and sometimes even opposed the imperial opinion. But what was the main reason for the division of churches on political grounds was the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III, while the Byzantine successors to the throne completely refused to recognize Charles's rule and openly considered him a usurper. Thus, the struggle for the throne was reflected in spiritual matters.
What was the main reason for the separation of churches? The division of the Christian church into Catholic and Orthodox. In 1054, the Christian Church disintegrated into Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Greco-Catholic). The Eastern Christian Church began to be called Orthodox, i.e. orthodox, and those professing Christianity according to the Greek rite - orthodox or faithful. The differences between East and West, which caused the "great schism" and accumulated over the centuries, were of a political, cultural, ecclesiological, theological and ritual character. a) Political differences between East and West were rooted in the political antagonism between the popes and the Byzantine emperors (Basileus). In the days of the apostles, when the Christian church was just in its infancy, the Roman Empire was a unified empire both politically and culturally, headed by one emperor. From the end of the III century. the empire, de jure still unified, de facto divided into two parts - Eastern and Western, each of which was under the rule of its own emperor (Emperor Theodosius (346-395) was the last Roman emperor who headed the entire Roman Empire). Constantine aggravated the process of division by founding a new capital in the east, Constantinople, alongside ancient Rome in Italy. The Roman bishops, based on the central position of Rome as an imperial city, and on the origin of the pulpit from the supreme apostle Peter, began to claim a special, dominant position in the entire Church. In the centuries that followed, the ambitions of the Roman high priests only grew, and pride sank deeper and deeper into the ecclesiastical life of the West. Unlike the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the Roman popes retained independence from the Byzantine emperors, did not obey them, if they did not consider it necessary, and sometimes openly opposed them. In addition, in 800, Pope Leo III in Rome crowned the imperial crown as a Roman emperor, King of the Franks Charlemagne, who in the eyes of his contemporaries became "equal" to the Eastern emperor and on whose political power the Bishop of Rome was able to rely in his claims. The emperors of the Byzantine Empire, who themselves considered themselves the successors of the Roman Empire, refused to recognize the imperial title for Charles. The Byzantines viewed Charlemagne as a usurper and the papal coronation as an act of schism within the empire. b) The cultural alienation between East and West was largely due to the fact that in the Eastern Roman Empire they spoke the Greek language, and in the West they spoke Latin. In the days of the apostles, when the Roman Empire was unified, Greek and Latin were understood almost everywhere, and many could speak both languages. However, by 450, very few in Western Europe could read Greek, and after 600, few in Byzantium spoke Latin, the language of the Romans, although the empire continued to be called Romeian. If the Greeks wanted to read books by Latin authors, and the Latins wanted to read the writings of the Greeks, they could only do so in translation. And this meant that the Greek East and Latin West drew information from different sources and read different books, as a result of which they were increasingly moving away from each other. In the East, they read Plato and Aristotle, in the West, Cicero and Seneca. The main theological authorities of the Eastern Church were the fathers of the era of the Ecumenical Councils, such as Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria. In the West, the most widely read Christian author was Blessed Augustine (who was almost unknown in the East) - his theological system was much easier to understand and more easily perceived by the converted to Christianity barbarians than the refined reasoning of the Greek fathers. c) Ecclesiological differences. Political and cultural differences could not but affect the life of the Church and only contributed to the church discord between Rome and Constantinople. Throughout the era of the Ecumenical Councils in the West, the doctrine of the papal primacy (that is, of the Roman bishop as the head of the Ecumenical Church) was gradually formed. At the same time, in the East, the primacy of the Bishop of Constantinople, who from the end of the 6th century adopted the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch", was growing. However, in the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople was never perceived as the head of the Ecumenical Church: he was only second in rank after the Roman bishop and first in honor among the Eastern patriarchs. In the West, the Pope began to be perceived precisely as the head of the Universal Church, to whom the Church throughout the world must obey. In the East, there were 4 cathedrals (i.e. 4 Local Churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) and, accordingly, 4 patriarchs. The East recognized the Pope as the first bishop of the Church - but the first among equals. In the West, however, there was only one throne that claims to be of apostolic origin - namely, the Roman See. As a result, Rome came to be regarded as the only apostolic see. Although the West made the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, it itself did not play an active role in them; in the Church, the West saw not so much a collegium as a monarchy — the monarchy of the Pope. The Greeks recognized for the Pope the primacy of honor, but not universal superiority, as the Pope himself believed. modern language may mean "most respected", but it does not abolish the conciliar structure of the church (that is, the adoption of all decisions collectively through the convening of Councils of all churches, primarily the apostolic ones). The Pope considered infallibility to be his prerogative, while the Greeks were convinced that in matters of faith, the final decision remained not with the Pope, but with the council, representing all the bishops of the church. d) Theological reasons. The main point of the theological dispute between the Churches of the East and West was the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Filioque). This teaching, based on the Trinitarian views of Blessed Augustine and other Latin fathers, led to a change in the words of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, where it was about the Holy Spirit: instead of “from the Father coming out” in the West they began to say “from the Father and the Son (lat . Filioque) outgoing. " The expression “comes from the Father” is based on the words of Christ Himself (see: John 15:26) and in this sense has indisputable authority, while the addition “and the Son” has no basis either in Scripture or in the Tradition of the early Christian Church: its began to be inserted into the Symbol of Faith only at the Toledo Councils of the 6th-7th centuries, presumably as a protective measure against Arianism. From Spain, the Filioque came to France and Germany, where it was approved at the Frankfurt Council in 794. Charlemagne's court theologians even began to reproach the Byzantines for reciting the Creed without the Filioque. Rome has been opposed to amendments to the Creed for some time. In 808, Pope Leo III wrote to Charlemagne that although the Filioque was acceptable from a theological point of view, its inclusion in the Creed was undesirable. Leo placed tablets with the Symbol of Faith without Filioque in St. Peter's Basilica. However, by the beginning of the 11th century, the reading of the Creed with the addition of "and the Son" became part of Roman practice. Orthodoxy objected (and still objected to) the Filioque for two reasons. First, the Symbol of Faith is the property of the entire Church, and any changes can be made to it only by the Ecumenical Council. Having changed the Symbol of Faith without consulting the East, the West (according to Khomyakov's conviction) is guilty of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the Church. Second, most Orthodox Christians are convinced that the Filioque is theologically wrong. The Orthodox believe that the Spirit comes only from the Father, and they consider it heresy to say that He also comes from the Son. e) Ritual differences between East and West have existed throughout the history of Christianity. The liturgical statutes of the Roman Church differed from the statutes of the Eastern Churches. A whole series of ritual trifles divided the Churches of the East and the West. In the middle of the 11th century, the main question of a ritual nature, on which the controversy between East and West flared up, was the use of unleavened bread by the Latins at the Eucharist, while the Byzantines ate leavened bread. Behind this seemingly insignificant difference, the Byzantines saw a serious difference in the theological view of the essence of the Body of Christ taught to the faithful in the Eucharist: if leavened bread symbolizes that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial with our flesh, then unleavened bread is a symbol of the difference between the flesh of Christ and our flesh. In the service on unleavened bread, the Greeks saw an attempt on the heart of Eastern Christian theology - the doctrine of deification (which was little known in the West). These were all disagreements that preceded the conflict of 1054. Ultimately West and East parted on doctrinal issues, mainly on two issues: the papal primacy and the Filioque. The reason for the schism The immediate reason for the schism in the Church was the conflict between the first hierarchs of the two capitals - Rome and Constantinople. The Roman high priest was Leo IX. While still a German bishop, he refused the Roman See for a long time, and only at the persistent requests of the clergy and the emperor Henry III himself agreed to accept the papal tiara. One rainy autumn day in 1048, in a rough hair shirt - the clothes of the penitents, with bare feet and a head strewn with ash, he entered Rome to take the Roman throne. This unusual behavior flattered the pride of the townspeople. With the cheers of the crowds, he was immediately proclaimed pope. Leo IX was convinced of the high importance of the Roman See for the entire Christian world. He did his best to restore the previously swayed papal influence in both the West and the East. From that time on, the active growth of both ecclesiastical and socio-political significance of the papacy as an institution of power began. Pope Leo achieved respect for himself and his department not only through radical reforms, but also actively acting as a defender of all oppressed and offended. This is what made the pope seek a political alliance with Byzantium. At that time, the political enemies of Rome were the Normans, who had already conquered Sicily and now threatened Italy. Emperor Henry could not provide the pope with the necessary military support, and the pope did not want to give up the role of defender of Italy and Rome. Leo IX decided to ask for help from byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Since 1043, Michael Kerullarius was the Patriarch of Constantinople. He came from a noble aristocratic family and held a high office under the emperor. But after a failed palace coup, when a group of conspirators tried to elevate him to the throne, Michael was deprived of his property and forcibly tonsured a monk. The new emperor Constantine Monomakh made the persecuted his closest adviser, and then, with the consent of the clergy and the people, Michael took the patriarchal see. Having surrendered to the service of the Church, the new patriarch retained the features of an imperious and state-minded person who could not tolerate belittling his authority and the authority of the See of Constantinople. In the resulting correspondence between the pope and the patriarch, Leo IX insisted on the primacy of the Roman See. In his letter, he pointed out to Michael that the Church of Constantinople and even the entire East should obey and honor the Roman Church as a mother. By this provision, the Pope also justified the ritual differences of the Roman Church with the Churches of the East. Michael was ready to come to terms with any discrepancies, but on one issue his position remained irreconcilable: he did not want to recognize the Roman See above the Constantinople. The Roman bishop did not want to agree to such equality. In the spring of 1054, an embassy from Rome arrived in Constantinople, headed by Cardinal Humbert, an ardent and arrogant man. Deacon-Cardinal Frederick (future Pope Stephen IX) and Archbishop Peter of Amalfia arrived with him as legates. The purpose of the visit was to meet with Emperor Constantine IX Monomakh and discuss the possibilities of a military alliance with Byzantium, as well as reconcile with the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Kerullarius, without detracting from the primacy of the Roman See. However, the embassy from the very beginning took a tone that was inconsistent with reconciliation. The pope's ambassadors treated the patriarch without due respect, arrogantly and coldly. Seeing such an attitude towards himself, the patriarch repaid them in kind. At the convened Council, Michael gave the papal legates the last place. Cardinal Humbert considered this a humiliation and refused to conduct any negotiations with the patriarch. The news that came from Rome about the death of Pope Leo did not stop the papal legates. They continued to act with the same boldness, wishing to teach a lesson to the disobedient patriarch. On July 15, 1054, when St. Sophia Cathedral was overcrowded with praying people, the legates went to the altar and, interrupting the service, denounced Patriarch Michael Kerullarius. Then they placed on the throne a papal bull in Latin, which spoke of the excommunication of the patriarch and his followers from communion and ten accusations of heresy were brought forward: one of the accusations concerned the "omission" of the Filioque in the Creed. Leaving the temple, the papal ambassadors shook off the dust from their feet and exclaimed: "Let God see and judge." Everyone was so amazed by what they saw that there was deathly silence. Numb with amazement, the patriarch at first refused to accept the bull, but then ordered to translate it into Greek. When the content of the bull was announced to the people, there was such a strong excitement that the legates had to hastily leave Constantinople. The people supported their patriarch. On July 20, 1054, Patriarch Michael Kerullarius convened a Council of 20 bishops, at which he betrayed the papal legates to church excommunication. The Acts of the Council were sent to all the Eastern Patriarchs. This is how the "great schism" happened. Formally, this was a gap between the Local Churches of Rome and Constantinople, but the Patriarch of Constantinople was subsequently supported by other Eastern Patriarchates, as well as young Churches that were part of the orbit of Byzantine influence, in particular the Russian one. The Church in the West eventually adopted the name Catholic; The Church in the East is called Orthodox because it keeps the Christian faith intact. Both Orthodoxy and Rome equally considered themselves to be right in controversial issues of doctrine, and their opponent was wrong, therefore, after the schism, both Rome and Orthodox Church claimed to be the true church. But even after 1054, friendly relations between East and West continued. Both parts of Christendom had not yet grasped the entire chasm of the rift, and people on both sides hoped that misunderstandings could be resolved without much difficulty. Attempts to negotiate reunification were made for another century and a half. The dispute between Rome and Constantinople largely escaped the attention of ordinary Christians. The Russian abbot Daniel of Chernigov, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1106-1107, found the Greeks and Latins praying in holy places. True, he noted with satisfaction that during the descent of the Holy Fire on Easter, the Greek lamps miraculously kindled, but the Latins were forced to light their lamps from the Greek ones. The final division between East and West came only with the beginning of the Crusades, which brought with them a spirit of hatred and anger, as well as after the capture and destruction of Constantinople by the crusaders during the IV Crusade in 1204.
Question 1. What ideas about the structure of society, about exemplary behavior, about poverty and wealth did the church assert? Did the church itself follow these statements?
Answer. According to the teachings of the church of that time, it was fair to divide society into those who pray, those who fight, and, finally, those who work. Following the commandments of the New Testament was considered exemplary behavior. In particular, those who renounced earthly goods were considered saints. As an example, people were given, for example, hermits who went to the deserts and lived there alone for years, eating poorly and constantly praying to the Lord. But the church itself did not strive for poverty. She concentrated in her hands significant wealth, sometimes the most significant in the country.
Question 2. What was the main reason for the division of the churches?
Answer. The reason was a dispute about who should be in charge in the Christian world: the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople. And they found many reasons, mostly they were discrepancies in rituals, accusations from Catholics that the Orthodox patriarch forced the priests not to shave their beards, etc.
Question 3. Give the facts that indicate that under Innocent III the power of the pope reached its highest power.
Answer. Innocent III Facts:
1) expanded the borders of the Papal States to the largest volume in its history;
2) in a confrontation with the king of England John the Landless won a complete victory, forced the king to accept all his conditions;
3) organized the first ever crusade in the territory Western Europe - in Languedoc (today the southern part of France);
4) not only organized the IV Crusade, but was the first of the popes to organize the collection of money for the needs of the campaign;
5) organized the Lateran IV Ecumenical Council, which made many important decisions;
6) England, Poland and some states on the Iberian Peninsula were his vassals.
Question 4. What did the heretics preach?
Answer. There were many heretical teachings; they preached different things. But there was often criticism of the splendor of the rituals of the church, their high cost, the wealth of the church and the power of the Pope. Also, many (and not only among heretics, but also in the church itself) argued that a person who sins cannot be a priest.
Question 5. How did the Catholic Church fight the heretics?
Answer. The heretics were fought fiercely. Those who repent were imprisoned and forced to make long and dangerous journeys to holy places. Those who did not repent were excommunicated. The Pope could excommunicate an entire region, or country. It was an instrument of political struggle. Then usually the vassals rebelled against the lord of this area or the king of this country. And some people, excommunicated from the church for heresy, fell into the hands of the secular authorities, who sentenced them to be burned at the stake.
Question 6. What are mendicant orders?
Answer. Some people renounced earthly goods in order to live according to the commandments of Christ. They united in monastic orders in order to live according to the same rules and have their own organization. Members of such orders took vows (that is, they took oaths) that are common for monks, but their rules of life were different from ordinary monastic ones.
Question 7. Which of the monastic orders especially helped the Pope in the fight against heresies? How was this expressed?
Answer. The Dominican Order helped the Pope. The monks of this particular order carried out the investigation of the papal inquisition (besides it, there were other types of inquisition, where other people conducted the investigation). But at the same time, they tried to protect them from heresies and sermons.
Question 8. Draw a chart for the Sources of the Church's Wealth.
Answer. Sources of Church Wealth:
1) tithe from all believers;
2) payment for all church rites;
3) sale of indulgences;
4) gifts of kings and feudal lords (in the form of large sums of money and land with peasants).
