Last Friday, a long-awaited event took place at Havana airport: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill talked, signed a joint declaration, declared the need to stop the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa and expressed hope that their meeting will inspire Christians around the world to pray for complete unity of the Churches. Since Catholics and Orthodox Christians pray to the same god, read the same holy books and believe in essentially the same things, the site decided to figure out what the most important differences between religious movements are, as well as when and why the separation occurred. Interesting facts are in our short educational program about Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
a katz / Shutterstock.com
1. The split of the Christian Church occurred in 1054. The Church was divided into the Roman Catholic in the West (center in Rome) and the Orthodox in the East (center in Constantinople). The reasons were, among other things, disagreements on dogmatic, canonical, liturgical and disciplinary issues.
2. During the schism, Catholics, among other things, accused the Orthodox of selling the gift of God, rebaptizing those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity and allowing marriages to altar servers. The Orthodox accused Catholics of, for example, fasting on Saturday and allowing their bishops to wear rings on their fingers.
3. The list of all the issues on which Orthodox and Catholics cannot reconcile will take several pages, so we will give only a few examples.
Orthodoxy denies the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Catholicism - on the contrary.
"The Annunciation", Leonardo da Vinci
Catholics have special closed rooms for confession, while Orthodox Christians confess in front of all parishioners.
Still from the film "Customs gives the go-ahead." France, 2010
Orthodox and Greek Catholics cross from right to left, Latin Catholics cross from left to right.
A Catholic priest is required to take a vow of celibacy. In Orthodoxy, celibacy is obligatory only for bishops.
Lent for Orthodox and Catholics begins on different days: for the former, on Clean Monday, for the latter, on Ash Wednesday. The Nativity Fast has different durations.
Catholics consider church marriage to be indissoluble (however, if certain facts are discovered, it may be declared invalid). From the point of view of the Orthodox, in the event of adultery, the church marriage is considered destroyed, and the innocent party can enter into a new marriage without committing a sin.
In Orthodoxy there is no analogue of the Catholic institution of cardinals.
Cardinal Richelieu, portrait by Philippe de Champaigne
Catholicism has a doctrine of indulgences. In modern Orthodoxy there is no such practice.
4. As a result of the division, Catholics began to consider the Orthodox to be merely schismatics, while one of the points of view of Orthodoxy is that Catholicism is a heresy.
5. Both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches attribute the title of “one holy, catholic (conciliar) and apostolic Church” exclusively to themselves.
6. In the 20th century, an important step was taken in overcoming the division due to the schism: in 1965, Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras lifted their mutual anathemas.
7. Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill could have met two years ago, but then the meeting was canceled due to events in Ukraine. The meeting of the heads of churches would be the first in history since the “Great Schism” of 1054.
The first meeting in history between the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow took place only in February 2016 on neutral Cuban territory. The phenomenal event was preceded by failures, mutual suspicions, centuries of hostility and attempts to bring everything to peace. The division of the Christian Church into Catholic and Orthodox branches occurred due to disagreements in the interpretation of the Creed. So, because of the single word, according to which the Son of God became another source of the Holy Spirit, the church was divided into two parts. The Great Schism was preceded by less, which ultimately led to the modern state of affairs.
Church schism in 1054: reasons for the division of Christians
Ritual traditions and views on dogmatic principles in Rome and Constantinople began to gradually differ long before the final separation. In the past, communication between states was not so active, and each church developed in its own direction.
- The first preconditions for the schism began in 863. For several years, Orthodox and Catholics were in confrontation. The events went down in history as the Photius Schism. The two ruling church leaders wanted to divide the lands, but did not agree. The official reason was doubts about the legality of the election of Patriarch Photius.
- Ultimately, both religious leaders anathematized each other. Communication between the heads of Catholics and Orthodox was resumed only in 879 at the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which is now not recognized by the Vatican.
- In 1053, another formal reason for the future Great Schism clearly stood out - the dispute over unleavened bread. The Orthodox used leavened bread for the sacrament of Eucharast, and the Catholics used unleavened bread.
- In 1054, Pope Leo XI sent Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople. The reason was the closure of Latin churches in the capital of Orthodoxy that occurred a year earlier. The Holy Gifts were thrown away and trampled underfoot due to the unleavened method of preparing bread.
- The papal claims to the lands were justified by a forged document. The Vatican was interested in receiving military support from Constantinople, and this was the main reason for the pressure put on the Patriarch.
- After the death of Pope Leo XI, his legates nevertheless decided to excommunicate and depose the leader of the Orthodox. Retaliatory measures were not long in coming: four days later they themselves were anathematized by the Patriarch of Constantinople.
The split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism: results
It seemed impossible to anathematize half of the Christians, but the religious leaders of that time saw this as acceptable. Only in 1965 did Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras lift the mutual excommunication of churches.
After another 51 years, the leaders of the divided churches met in person for the first time. The deep-rooted differences were not so strong that religious leaders could not be under the same roof.
- Existing for thousands of years without reference to the Vatican has strengthened the separation of two approaches to Christian history and the worship of God.
- The Orthodox Church has never become united: there are many organizations in different countries, headed by their Patriarchs.
- Catholic leaders realized that it would be impossible to subdue or destroy the branch. They recognized the enormity of a new religion equal to their own.
The split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism did not prevent believers from glorifying the Creator. Let representatives of one confession perfectly pronounce and recognize dogmas that are unacceptable to another. Sincere love for God has no religious boundaries. Let Catholics immerse babies at baptism once, and Orthodox - three times. Little things of this kind matter only in mortal life. Having appeared before the Lord, everyone will be responsible for their actions, and not for the decoration of the temple they previously visited. There are many things that unite Catholics and Orthodox Christians. First of all, it is the Word of Christ, which is followed with humility in the soul. It’s easy to find heresy, it’s more difficult to understand and forgive, to see in everyone a creation of God and one’s neighbor. The main purpose of the Church is to be a shepherd for the people and a shelter for the disadvantaged.
In 1054, the Christian Church collapsed into Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Greek Catholic). The Eastern Christian Church began to be called Orthodox, i.e. true believer, and those professing Christianity according to the Greek rite are orthodox or true believers.
The “Great Schism” between the Eastern and Western Churches matured gradually, as a result of long and complex processes that began long before the 11th century.
Disagreements between the Eastern and Western Churches before the schism (a brief overview)
The disagreements between East and West that caused the “Great Schism” and accumulated over the centuries were political, cultural, ecclesiological, theological and ritual in nature.
a) Political differences between East and West were rooted in the political antagonism between the Roman popes and the Byzantine emperors (basileus). At the time of the apostles, when the Christian Church was just emerging, the Roman Empire was a unified empire, both politically and culturally, headed by one emperor. From the end of the 3rd century. the empire, de jure still unified, was de facto divided into two parts - Eastern and Western, each of which was under the control of its own emperor (Emperor Theodosius (346-395) was the last Roman emperor who led the entire Roman Empire). Constantine exacerbated the process of division by founding a new capital in the east, Constantinople, along with ancient Rome in Italy. The Roman bishops, based on the central position of Rome as an imperial city, and on the origin of the see from the supreme apostle Peter, began to claim a special, dominant position in the entire Church. In subsequent centuries, the ambitions of the Roman high priests only grew, pride took its poisonous roots deeper and deeper into the church life of the West. Unlike the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the Roman Popes maintained independence from the Byzantine emperors, did not submit to them unless they considered it necessary, and sometimes openly opposed them.
In addition, in the year 800, Pope Leo III in Rome crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne with the imperial crown as Roman Emperor, 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 successors to 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 division within the empire.
b) Cultural alienation between East and West was largely due to the fact that in the Eastern Roman Empire they spoke Greek, and in the Western Empire they spoke Latin. In the time 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 Roman. If the Greeks wanted to read the books of Latin authors, and the Latins the works of the Greeks, they could only do this in translation. And this meant that the Greek East and the Latin West drew information from different sources and read different books, as a result becoming more and more distant from each other. In the East they read Plato and Aristotle, in the West they read 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 St. Augustine (who was almost unknown in the East) - his theological system was much simpler to understand and more easily accepted by barbarian converts to Christianity than the sophisticated reasoning of the Greek fathers.
c) Ecclesiological disagreements. Political and cultural disagreements could not but affect the life of the Church and only contributed to church discord between Rome and Constantinople. Throughout the era of the Ecumenical Councils in the West, a doctrine of papal primacy (i.e. of the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Universal Church). At the same time, in the East the primacy of the Bishop of Constantinople increased, and from the end of the 6th century he acquired the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch”. However, in the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople was never perceived as the head of the Universal Church: he was only second in rank after the Bishop of Rome 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 sees (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 first among equals. In the West there was only one throne that claimed apostolic origin - namely, the Roman throne. As a result of this, Rome came to be regarded as the only apostolic see. Although the West accepted 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 college as a monarchy - the monarchy of the Pope.
The Greeks recognized the primacy of honor for the Pope, but not universal superiority, as the Pope himself believed. Championship "by honor" in modern language it may mean “most respected,” but it does not abolish the Conciliar structure of the church (that is, making all decisions collectively through the convening of Councils of all churches, primarily apostolic). The Pope considered infallibility his prerogative, but the Greeks were convinced that in matters of faith the final decision rested not with the Pope, but with the council, representing all the bishops of the church.
d) Theological reasons. The main point of 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-Constantinopolitan Creed, where it spoke of the Holy Spirit: instead of “from the Father proceeding” in the West they began to say “from the Father and the Son (lat. . Filioque) outgoing." The expression “proceeds from the Father” is based on the words of Christ Himself ( cm.: In. 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: it began to be inserted into the Creed only at the Toledo Councils of the 6th-7th centuries, presumably as protective measure against Arianism. From Spain, the Filioque came to France and Germany, where it was approved at the Frankfurt Council in 794. The court theologians of Charlemagne even began to reproach the Byzantines for reciting the Creed without the Filioque. Rome resisted changes to the Creed for some time. In 808, Pope Leo III wrote to Charlemagne that although the Filioque was theologically acceptable, its inclusion in the Creed was undesirable. Leo placed tablets with the Creed without the 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” entered into Roman practice.
Orthodoxy objected (and still objects) to the Filioque for two reasons. Firstly, the Creed is the property of the entire Church, and any changes can only be made to it by an Ecumenical Council. By changing the Creed without consultation with the East, the West (according to Khomyakov) is guilty of moral fratricide, a sin against the unity of the Church. Secondly, most Orthodox believe that the Filioque is theologically incorrect. The Orthodox believe that the Spirit comes only from the Father, and consider it heresy to claim that He also comes from the Son.
e) Ritual differences between East and West have existed throughout the history of Christianity. The liturgical charter of the Roman Church differed from the charters of the Eastern Churches. A whole series of ritual details separated the Churches of the East and the West. In the middle of the 11th century, the main issue of a ritual nature, on which polemics flared up between East and West, was the Latins' consumption of unleavened bread at the Eucharist, while the Byzantines consumed 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 the fact 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 of unleavened bread, the Greeks saw an attack on the core point 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, the West and the East disagreed on matters of doctrine, mainly on two issues: about papal primacy And about Filioque.
Reason for split
The immediate cause of the church schism was conflict between the first hierarchs of 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 Emperor Henry III himself agreed to accept the papal tiara. On one of the rainy autumn days of 1048, in a coarse hair shirt - the clothing of penitents, with bare feet and a head covered in ashes, he entered Rome to take the Roman throne. This unusual behavior flattered the pride of the townspeople. With the crowds cheering, he was immediately proclaimed pope. Leo IX was convinced of the high importance of the Roman See for the entire Christian world. He tried with all his might to restore the previously wavered papal influence in both the West and the East. From this time on, the active growth of both the church and socio-political significance of the papacy as an institution of power began. Pope Leo achieved respect for himself and his cathedra not only through radical reforms, but also by actively acting as a defender of all the oppressed and offended. This is what made the pope seek a political alliance with Byzantium.
At that time, Rome's political enemy were the Normans, who had already captured Sicily and were now threatening Italy. Emperor Henry could not provide the pope with the necessary military support, and the pope did not want to give up his role as defender of Italy and Rome. Leo IX decided to ask for help from the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Since 1043 the Patriarch of Constantinople was Mikhail Kerullariy. He came from a noble aristocratic family and held a high position under the emperor. But after a failed palace coup, when a group of conspirators tried to elevate him to the throne, Mikhail was deprived of his property and forcibly tonsured a monk. The new emperor Constantine Monomakh made the persecuted man his closest adviser, and then, with the consent of the clergy and people, Michael took the patriarchal see. Having devoted himself to the service of the Church, the new patriarch retained the features of an imperious and state-minded man who did not tolerate the derogation of his authority and the authority of the See of Constantinople.
In the correspondence that arose 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. With this provision, the pope also justified the ritual differences between the Roman Church and the Churches of the East. Michael was ready to come to terms with any differences, but on one issue his position remained irreconcilable: he did not want to recognize the Roman See as superior to the See of Constantinople. The Roman bishop did not want to agree to such equality.
Beginning of the split
The Great Schism of 1054 and the Separation of the Churches
In the spring of 1054, an embassy from Rome headed by Cardinal Humbert, a hot-tempered and arrogant person. Together with him, as legates, came the deacon-cardinal Frederick (future Pope Stephen IX) and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi. The purpose of the visit was to meet with Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos and discuss the possibilities of a military alliance with Byzantium, as well as to reconcile with the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerullarius, without diminishing the primacy of the Roman See. However, from the very beginning the embassy took a tone that was not consistent with reconciliation. The pope's ambassadors treated the patriarch without due respect, arrogantly and coldly. Seeing this attitude towards himself, the patriarch repaid them in kind. At the convened Council, Michael allocated the last place to the papal legates. 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, wanting to teach the disobedient patriarch a lesson.
July 15, 1054, when the St. Sophia Cathedral was filled with praying people, the legates walked to the altar and, interrupting the service, made accusations against Patriarch Michael Kerullarius. They then placed on the throne a papal bull in Latin, which excommunicated the patriarch and his followers and brought forward ten charges of heresy: one of the charges concerned the “omission” of the Filioque in the Creed. Coming out of 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. The patriarch, numb with amazement, initially refused to accept the bull, but then ordered it to be translated into Greek. When the contents of the bull were announced to the people, such great excitement began that the legates had to hastily leave Constantinople. The people supported their patriarch.
July 20, 1054 Patriarch Michael Cerullarius convened a Council of 20 bishops, at which he subjected the papal legates to excommunication. The Acts of the Council were sent to all Eastern Patriarchs.
This is how the “great schism” happened. Formally, this was a break 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 influence of Byzantium, in particular the Russian Church. The Church in the West eventually adopted the name Catholic; The Church in the East is called Orthodox because it preserves the Christian doctrine intact. Both Orthodoxy and Rome equally considered themselves right in controversial issues of doctrine, and their opponent wrong, therefore, after the schism, both Rome and the Orthodox Church laid claim to the title of true church.
But even after 1054, friendly relations between East and West remained. Both parts of Christendom had not yet realized the full extent of the gap, and people on both sides hoped that the misunderstandings could be settled without much difficulty. Attempts to negotiate reunification were made for another century and a half. The dispute between Rome and Constantinople largely went unnoticed by ordinary Christians. The Russian abbot Daniel of Chernigov, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1106-1107, found the Greeks and Latins praying in agreement in holy places. True, he noted with satisfaction that during the descent of the Holy Fire on Easter, the Greek lamps miraculously ignited, 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 malice, as well as after the capture and destruction of Constantinople by the Crusaders during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.
It's no secret that Catholics and Orthodox Christians belong to the same religion - Christianity. But when, and most importantly, why did Christianity split into these two main movements? It turns out that human vices are to blame, as always; in this case, the heads of the church, the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, were unable to determine which of them was more important and who should obey whom.
In 395, the Roman Empire was divided into Eastern and Western, and if the Eastern was a single state for several centuries, the Western soon disintegrated and became a union of various German principalities. The division of the empire also affected the situation in the Christian Church. Gradually, differences between the churches located in the east and in the west multiplied, and over time, relations began to become tense.
In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent legates to Constantinople led by Cardinal Humbert to resolve the conflict, which began with the closure of the Latin churches in Constantinople in 1053 by order of Patriarch Michael Cerularius, during which his sacellary Constantine threw out the Holy Sacraments prepared according to the tabernacles. Western custom from unleavened bread, and trampled them underfoot. However, it was not possible to find a path to reconciliation, and on July 16, 1054, in the Hagia Sophia, the papal legates announced the deposition of Cerularius and his excommunication from the Church. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates. That is, the heads of the church took it and excommunicated each other from it. From that moment on, the united church ceased to exist, and the future Catholic and Orthodox churches, cursed by each other, broke off relations for more than 900 years.
And only in 1964 in Jerusalem a meeting took place between the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, the primate of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and Pope Paul VI, as a result of which in December 1965 the mutual anathemas were lifted and a Joint Declaration was signed. However, the “gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness” (Joint Declaration, 5) had no practical or canonical meaning.
From the Catholic point of view, the anathemas of the First Vatican Council against all who deny the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope and the infallibility of his judgments on matters of faith and morals pronounced ex cathedra (that is, when the Pope acts as the “earthly head”) remain in force and cannot be repealed. and mentor of all Christians"), as well as a number of other dogmatic decrees.
The term “Orthodoxy” or, which is the same thing, “orthodoxy” existed long before the division of churches: Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century meant the true faith and unanimity of the entire church as opposed to dissent. The name “Orthodox” was strengthened by the Eastern Church after the church schism of 1054, when the Western Church appropriated the name “Catholic”, i.e. "universal".
This term (Catholicism) was used in the ancient creeds as the name of the entire Christian church. Ignatius of Antioch was the first to call the church “catholic.” After the division of the churches in 1054, both of them retained the name “Catholic” in their self-designations. In the process of historical development, the word “Catholic” began to refer only to the Roman Church. As a Catholic (“universal”) it opposed itself in the Middle Ages to the eastern Greek Church, and after the Reformation to the Protestant churches. However, almost all movements in Christianity have claimed and continue to claim “catholicity.”
July 16, 2014 marked 960 years since the split of the Christian Church into Catholic and Orthodox
Last year I “passed by” this topic, although I assume that for many it is very, very interesting. Of course, it’s interesting to me too, but I didn’t go into details before, I didn’t even try, but I always, so to speak, “stumbled across” this problem, because it concerns not only religion, but the entire history of the world.
In different sources, by different people, the problem, as usual, is interpreted in a way that is beneficial to “their side.” I wrote in Mile's blogs about my critical attitude towards some of today's religious educators who impose religious dogmas as law on the secular state... But I have always respected believers of any denomination and made a distinction between ministers, true believers, and grovelings of faith. Well, the branch of Christianity is Orthodoxy... in two words - I am baptized in the Orthodox Church. My faith does not consist of going to temples, the temple has been inside me since birth, there is no clear definition, and in my opinion there shouldn’t be...
I hope that someday the dream and goal of life that I wanted to see will come true unification of all world religions, - "There is no religion higher than truth" . I am a supporter of this view. There are many things that are not alien to me that Christianity, or Orthodoxy in particular, does not accept. If there is a God, then he is one (One) for everyone.
On the Internet I found an article with the opinion of the Catholic and Orthodox churches about Great Schism. I copy the text into the diary in full, very interesting...
Schism of the Christian Church (1054)
Great Schism of 1054- church schism, after which it finally happened division of the Church into the Catholic Church in the West and the Orthodox Church in the East.
HISTORY OF THE SCHIPT
In fact, disagreements between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople began long before 1054, but it was in 1054 that Pope Leo IX sent legates to Constantinople led by Cardinal Humbert to resolve the conflict, which began with the closure of 1053 Latin churches in Constantinople by order of Patriarch Michael Cyrularius , during which his sacellar Constantine threw out the Holy Gifts, prepared according to Western custom from unleavened bread, from the tabernacles, and trampled them under his feet
Mikhail Kirulariy (English) .
However, it was not possible to find a path to reconciliation, and July 16, 1054 In the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia, the papal legates announced the deposition of Kirularius and his excommunication from the Church. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates.
The split has not yet been overcome, although in 1965 the mutual curses were lifted.
REASONS FOR THE SPIT
The split had many reasons:
ritual, dogmatic, ethical differences between the Western and Eastern Churches, property disputes, the struggle of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople for primacy among the Christian patriarchs, different languages of worship (Latin in the Western Church and Greek in the Eastern)
.
POINT OF VIEW OF THE WESTERN (CATHOLIC) CHURCH
The letter of excommunication was presented on July 16, 1054 in Constantinople in the St. Sophia Church on the holy altar during a service by the legate of the Pope, Cardinal Humbert.
The letter of excommunication contained the following accusations against the Eastern Church:
1. The Church of Constantinople does not recognize the Holy Roman Church as the first apostolic see, which, as the head, has the care of all Churches;
2. Michael is wrongly called the patriarch;
3.Like the Simonians, they sell the gift of God;
4. Like the Valesians, they castrate newcomers and make them not only clergy, but also bishops;
5. Like the Arians, they rebaptize those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, especially the Latins;
6. Like the Donatists, they claim that throughout the world, with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ, and the true Eucharist, and baptism perished;
7.Like the Nicolaitans, they allow marriages for altar servers;
8. Like the Northerners, they slander the law of Moses;
9. Like the Doukhobors, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (filioque) in the symbol of faith;
10. Like the Manichaeans, they consider leaven to be animate;
11. Like the Nazarenes, the Jews observe bodily cleansing; newborn children are not baptized until eight days after birth; mothers are not honored with communion, and if they are pagans, they are denied baptism.
Text of the excommunication letter
POINT OF VIEW OF THE EASTERN (ORTHODOX) CHURCH
“At the sight of such an act of the papal legates, publicly insulting the Eastern Church, the Church of Constantinople, in self-defense, for its part, also pronounced condemnation on the Roman Church, or, better to say, on the papal legates, led by the Roman Pontiff. On July 20 of the same year, Patriarch Michael convened a council, at which the instigators of church discord received due retribution. The definition of this council stated:
“Some wicked people came from the darkness of the West into the kingdom of piety and into this city preserved by God, from which, like a spring, the waters of pure teaching flow to the ends of the earth. They came to this city like thunder, or a storm, or a famine, or better yet, like wild boars, to overthrow the truth.”
At the same time, the conciliar resolution pronounces an anathema on the Roman legates and persons in contact with them.
A.P. Lebedev. From the book: History of the division of Churches in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries.
Text full definition of this council in Russian still unknown
You can get acquainted with Orthodox apologetic teaching regarding the problems of Catholicism in the curriculum on comparative theology of the Orthodox Church: link
PERCEPTION OF THE SCHIPT IN Rus'
Having left Constantinople, the papal legates went to Rome by a roundabout route to notify other eastern hierarchs of the excommunication of Michael Cyrularius. Among other cities, they visited Kyiv, where they were received with due honors by the Grand Duke and the Russian clergy.
In subsequent years, the Russian Church did not take a clear position in support of any of the parties to the conflict, although it remained Orthodox. If the hierarchs of Greek origin were prone to anti-Latin polemics, then the Russian priests and rulers themselves not only did not participate in it, but also did not understand the essence of the dogmatic and ritual claims made by the Greeks against Rome.
Thus, Rus' maintained communication with both Rome and Constantinople, making certain decisions depending on political necessity.
Twenty years after the “division of the Churches” there was a significant case of the appeal of the Grand Duke of Kyiv (Izyaslav-Dimitri Yaroslavich) to the authority of Pope St. Gregory VII. In his feud with his younger brothers for the Kiev throne, Izyaslav, the legitimate prince, was forced to flee abroad (to Poland and then to Germany), from where he appealed in defense of his rights to both heads of the medieval “Christian republic” - to the emperor (Henry IV) and to dad.
The princely embassy to Rome was headed by his son Yaropolk-Peter, who had instructions “to give the entire Russian land under the protection of St. Petra." The Pope really intervened in the situation in Rus'. Eventually, Izyaslav returned to Kyiv (1077).
Izyaslav himself and his son Yaropolk were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.
Around 1089, an embassy of antipope Gibert (Clement III) arrived in Kyiv to Metropolitan John, apparently wanting to strengthen his position through his recognition in Rus'. John, being a Greek by birth, responded with a message, although composed in the most respectful terms, but still directed against the “errors” of the Latins (this is the first non-apocryphal writing “against the Latins”, compiled in Rus', although not by a Russian author ). However, John’s successor, Metropolitan Ephraim (Russian by birth), himself sent a trusted representative to Rome, probably with the goal of personally verifying the state of affairs on the spot;
In 1091 this messenger returned to Kyiv and “brought many relics of saints.” Then, according to Russian chronicles, ambassadors from the pope came in 1169. In Kyiv there were Latin monasteries (including the Dominican - from 1228), on lands subject to the Russian princes, Latin missionaries acted with their permission (for example, in 1181 the princes of Polotsk allowed monks -Augustinians from Bremen to baptize the Latvians and Livs subject to them on the Western Dvina).
Among the upper class there were (to the displeasure of the Greeks) numerous mixed marriages. Great Western influence is noticeable in some areas of church life. This situation persisted until the Tatar-Mongol invasion.
REMOVAL OF MUTUAL ANATHEMAS
In 1964, a meeting took place in Jerusalem between the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, the head of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and Pope Paul VI, as a result of which mutual anathemas were lifted and a Joint Declaration was signed in 1965
Declaration on lifting anathemas
However, this formal “gesture of goodwill” had no practical or canonical meaning.
From the Catholic point of view, the anathemas of the First Vatican Council against all who deny the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope and the infallibility of his judgments on matters of faith and morals pronounced “ex cathedra” (that is, when the Pope acts as an earthly head and mentor of all Christians), as well as a number of other dogmatic decrees.
John Paul II was able to cross the threshold of the Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv, accompanied by the primacy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, unrecognized by other Orthodox churches.
And on April 8, 2005, for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church, a funeral service was held in the Vladimir Cathedral, performed by representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate at the head of the Roman Catholic Church.
