Reasons for the division of the Christian Church into Western and Eastern. History of the schism of the Christian church

In 1054 there was a collapse christian church 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. This meant that the Greek East and 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 claiming to be of apostolic origin - namely, the Roman See. 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" on modern language 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 final decision remains 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 days autumn days 1048, in a coarse hair shirt - the clothing of penitents, with bare feet and a head sprinkled with 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 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. 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 a strong excitement 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, it was a gap between Local Churches 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. The Church in the West over time 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 the spirit of hatred and malice, as well as after the capture and destruction of Constantinople by the crusaders during the IV crusade in 1204.

Material prepared by Sergey SHULYAK

Used Books:
1. History of the Church (Callistus Ware)
2. Church of Christ. Stories from the history of the Christian Church (Georgy Orlov)
3. The Great Church Schism of 1054 (Radio Russia, cycle World. Man. Word)

Film by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev)
Church in history. Great Schism

Themes: the formation of the Latin tradition; conflicts between Constantinople and Rome; schism 1051; Catholicism in the Middle Ages. Filming took place in Rome and the Vatican.

Christianity is the largest religion in the world by number of followers. But today it is divided into many denominations. And an example was set a long time ago - in 1054, when the Western Church excommunicated Eastern Christians, rejecting them as if they were aliens. Since then, many more events have followed that only worsened the situation. So why and how the division of churches into Roman and Orthodox happened, let's figure it out.

Prerequisites for the split

Christianity was not always the dominant religion. Suffice it to remember that all the first Popes, starting with the Apostle Peter, ended their lives as martyrdom for the faith. For centuries, the Romans tried to exterminate an obscure sect whose members refused to make sacrifices to their gods. The only way for Christians to survive was unity. The situation began to change only with the coming to power of Emperor Constantine.

Global differences in the views of the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity clearly revealed themselves only centuries later. Communication between Constantinople and Rome was difficult. Therefore, these two directions developed on their own. And at the dawn of the second millennium they became noticeable ritual differences:

But this, of course, was not the reason for the split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The ruling bishops increasingly began to disagree. Conflicts arose, the resolution of which was not always peaceful.

Photius schism

This split occurred in 863 and lasted for several years.. The head of the Church of Constantinople was then Patriarch Photius, and Nicholas I was on the Roman throne. The two hierarchs had difficult personal relationships, but formally the reason for disagreement was given by Rome’s doubts about Photius’ rights to lead the Eastern churches. The power of the hierarchs was complete, and it still extends not only to ideological issues, but also to the management of lands and finances. Therefore, at times the struggle for it was quite tough.

It is believed that the real reason for the quarrel between the heads of the church was the attempts of the Western governor to include the Balkan Peninsula under his guardianship.

The election of Photius was the result of internal dissensions, who then reigned in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Patriarch Ignatius, who was replaced by Photius, was deposed thanks to the machinations of Emperor Michael. Supporters of the conservative Ignatius turned to Rome for justice. And the Pope tried to take advantage of the moment and take the Patriarchate of Constantinople under his influence. The matter ended in mutual anathemas. The next church council that took place temporarily managed to moderate the zeal of the parties, and peace reigned (temporarily).

Controversy over the use of unleavened dough

In the 11th century the complication of the political situation resulted in another aggravation of the confrontation between the Western and Eastern rituals. Patriarch Michael of Constantinople did not like the fact that the Latins began to displace representatives of the Eastern churches in the Norman territories. Cerularius retaliated by closing all the Latin churches in his capital. This event was accompanied by rather unfriendly behavior - unleavened bread was thrown into the street, and the priests of Constantinople trampled it underfoot.

The next step was theological rationale for the conflict - message against the Latin rite. It brought forward many accusations of violating church traditions (which, however, had not previously bothered anyone):

The work, of course, reached the head of the Roman throne. In response, Cardinal Humbert composed the “Dialogue” message. All these events took place in 1053. There was very little time left before the final divergence between the two branches of the single church.

Great Schism

In 1054 Pope Leo wrote to Constantinople, demanding recognition for him full power over the Christian church. As justification, a forged document was used - the so-called deed of gift, in which Emperor Constantine allegedly transferred the management of churches to the Roman throne. The claims were rejected, to which the Supreme Bishop of Rome equipped an embassy. It was supposed, among other things, to obtain from Byzantium military assistance.

The fateful date was July 16, 1054. On this day the unity of the Christian Church formally ceased. Although by that time Leo I. X. had already died, the papal legates still came to Michael. They entered the Cathedral of St. Sophia and placed on the altar a letter in which the Patriarch of Constantinople anathematized. The response message was drawn up 4 days later.

What happened main reason division of churches? Here the opinions of the parties differ. Some historians believe that this is the result of a struggle for power. For Catholics, the main thing was the reluctance to recognize the primacy of the Pope as the successor of the Apostle Peter. For Orthodox Christians, the debate about the Filioque - the procession of the Holy Spirit - plays an important role.

Rome's arguments

In a historical document, Pope Leo for the first time clearly formulated the reasons, according to which all other bishops should recognize the primacy of the Roman see:

• Since the Church stands on the firmness of Peter’s confession, moving away from it is a big mistake.
• Anyone who questions the authority of the Pope also renounces Saint Peter.
• He who rejects the authority of the Apostle Peter is an arrogant proud man who independently plunges himself into the abyss.

Arguments of Constantinople

Having received an appeal from the papal legates, Patriarch Michael urgently assembled the Byzantine clergy. The result was accusations against the Latins:

For some time, Rus' remained aloof from the conflict, although initially it was under the influence of the Byzantine rite and recognized Constantinople, not Rome, as the spiritual center. The Orthodox have always made the dough for prosphoras using sourdough. Formally, in 1620, a local council condemned the Catholic rite to use unleavened dough for church sacraments.

Is a reunion possible?

Great Schism(translated from ancient Greek - schism) occurred quite a long time ago. Today, relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are no longer as strained as in past centuries. In 2016 there was even brief meeting between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis. Such an event seemed impossible 20 years ago.

Although mutual anathemas were lifted in 1965, the reunification of the Roman Catholic Church with the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches (and there are more than a dozen of them, the Russian Orthodox Church is only one of the professing Orthodoxy) is unlikely today. The reasons for this are no less than a thousand years ago.

It is not so important in what year the schism of the Christian church occurred. The more important thing is that today the church represents many movements and churches- both traditional and newly created. People failed to preserve the unity bequeathed by Jesus Christ. But those who call themselves Christians should learn patience and mutual love, and not look for reasons to move further apart from each other.

The Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople canceled the decree of 1686 on the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate. The granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not far off.

There have been many schisms in the history of Christianity. It didn't even start with Great Schism 1054, when the Christian Church was divided into Orthodox and Catholic, and much earlier.

All images in the publication: wikipedia.org

The papal schism is also called the Great Western Schism in history. It happened due to the fact that almost at the same time two people were declared popes at once. One is in Rome, the other is in Avignon, the place of the seventy-year captivity of the popes. Actually, the end of the Avignon captivity led to disagreements.

Two popes were elected in 1378

In 1378, Pope Gregory XI, who interrupted the captivity, died, and after his death, supporters of the return elected a pope in Rome - Urban VI. The French cardinals, who opposed leaving Avignon, made Clement VII pope. All of Europe was divided. Some countries supported Rome, some supported Avignon. This period lasted until 1417. The popes who ruled in Avignon at this time are now considered by the Catholic Church to be antipopes.

The first schism in Christianity is considered to be the Acacian schism. The schism began in 484 and lasted 35 years. Controversy erupted over the Henotikon, a religious message from the Byzantine Emperor Zeno. It was not so much the emperor himself who worked on this message, but the Patriarch Akakios of Constantinople.

Acacian schism - the first schism in Christianity

On dogmatic issues, Akaki did not agree with Pope Felix III. Felix deposed Akakios, and Akakios ordered the name of Felix to be crossed out from the funeral diptychs.

The collapse of the Christian Church into the Catholic Church, centered in Rome, and the Orthodox Church, centered in Constantinople, was brewing long before the final division in 1054. The so-called Photius schism became a harbinger of the events of the 11th century. This schism, dating back to 863–867, was named after Photius I, the then patriarch of Constantinople.

Photius and Nicholas excommunicated each other from the church

Photius's relations with Pope Nicholas I were, to put it mildly, strained. The Pope intended to strengthen the influence of Rome on the Balkan Peninsula, but this caused resistance on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Nicholas also appealed to the fact that Photius became patriarch illegally. It all ended with church leaders anathematizing each other.

Tension between Constantinople and Rome grew and grew. Mutual discontent resulted in the Great Schism of 1054. The Christian Church then finally split into Orthodox and Catholic. This happened under the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cerularius and Pope Leo IX. It got to the point that in Constantinople, prosphora prepared in the Western style - without leaven - was thrown out and trampled.

The threat of schism, which translated from Greek means “schism, division, strife,” became real for Christianity already in the middle of the 9th century. Usually, the causes of schism are sought in economics, politics, and in the personal likes and dislikes of the popes and patriarchs of Constantinople. Researchers perceive the peculiarities of the doctrine, cult, and lifestyle of believers of Western and Eastern Christianity as something secondary, insignificant, which makes it difficult to explain real reasons, which, in their opinion, lie in economics and politics, in anything but the religious specifics of what is happening.

Meanwhile, Catholicism and Orthodoxy had features that significantly influenced the consciousness, life, behavior, culture, art, science, philosophy of Western and of Eastern Europe. Between Catholic and Orthodox world not only a confessional, but also a civilized border emerged. Christianity did not represent a single religious movement. Spreading across numerous provinces of the Roman Empire, it adapted to the conditions of each country, to existing social relations and local traditions. A consequence of the decentralization of the Roman state was the emergence of the first four autocephalous (independent) churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Soon the Cypriot and then the Georgian Orthodox Church separated from the Antiochian Church. However, the matter was not limited only to the division of Christian churches. Some refused to recognize the decisions of the ecumenical councils and the dogma they approved. In the middle of the 5th century. The Armenian clergy did not agree with the condemnation of the Monophysites by the Council of Chalcedon. Thereby armenian church put herself in a special position by accepting a dogma that contradicts the dogma of orthodox Christianity.

One of the largest divisions of Christianity was the emergence of two main directions - Orthodoxy and Catholicism. This split has been brewing for several centuries. It was determined by the peculiarities of the development of feudal relations in the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire and the competitive struggle between them.

The prerequisites for the split arose at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century. Having become the state religion, Christianity was already inseparable from the economic and political upheavals experienced by this huge power. During the Councils of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople, it appeared relatively unified, despite internal divisions and theological disputes. However, this unity was not based on everyone’s recognition of the authority of the Roman bishops, but on the authority of the emperors, which extended to the religious area. Thus, the Council of Nicea was held under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, and the Roman episcopate was represented at it by presbyters Vitus and Vincent.

As for the strengthening of the power of the Roman episcopate, it was associated, first of all, with the prestige of the capital of the empire, and then with Rome’s claim to possess the apostolic see in memory of the apostles Peter and Paul. Cash handouts from Constantine and the construction of a temple on the site of the “martyrdom of Peter” contributed to the exaltation of the Roman bishop. In 330, the capital of the empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. The absence of an imperial court automatically brought spiritual power to the fore. public life. By deftly maneuvering between warring factions of theologians, the Roman bishop managed to strengthen his influence. Taking advantage of the current situation, he collected in 343. in Sardica all Western bishops and achieved recognition of the right of arbitration and actual primacy. The Eastern bishops never recognized these decisions. In 395 the empire collapsed. Rome again became the capital, but now only in the western part former empire. Political turmoil in it contributed to the concentration of extensive administrative rights in the hands of bishops. Already in 422, Boniface I, in a letter to the bishops of Thessaly, openly declared his claims to supremacy in the Christian world, arguing that the relationship of the Roman Church to all others was similar to the relationship of “head to members.”

Beginning with the Roman bishop Leo, called the Great, Western bishops considered themselves only locums, i.e. actual vassals of Rome, governing their respective dioceses on behalf of the Roman high priest. However, such dependence was never recognized by the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch.

In 476, the Western Roman Empire fell. On its ruins, many feudal states were formed, the rulers of which competed with each other for primacy. They all sought to justify their claims by the will of God, received from the hands of the high priest. This further increased the authority, influence and power of the Roman bishops. With the help of political intrigues, they managed not only to strengthen their influence in Western world, but even create their own state - the Papal States (756-1870), which occupied the entire central part of the Apennine Peninsula. christian religion schism monotheistic

Since the 5th century. The title of pope was assigned to the Roman bishops. Initially, in Christianity, all priests were called popes. Over the years, this title began to be assigned only to bishops, and many centuries later, it was assigned only to Roman bishops.

Having strengthened their power in the West, the popes tried to subjugate all of Christianity, but without success. The Eastern clergy submitted to the emperor, and he did not even think of giving up even part of his power in favor of the self-proclaimed “vicar of Christ” who sat on the episcopal see in Rome.

Quite serious differences between Rome and Constantinople appeared at the Council of Trulla in 692, when out of 85 rules, Rome (the Roman pope) accepted only 50. Collections of Dionysius and others came into circulation, which accepted papal decritals, omitted rules not accepted by Rome and emphasizing line of cleavage.

In 867, Pope Nicholas I and Patriarch Photius of Constantinople publicly cursed each other. The cause of the discord was Bulgaria converted to Christianity, since each of them sought to subjugate it to their influence. This conflict was resolved after some time, but the enmity between the two highest hierarchs of Christianity did not stop there. In the 11th century it flared up with renewed vigor, and in 1054 the final split in Christianity occurred. It was caused by the claims of Pope Leo IX to the territories subordinate to the patriarch. Patriarch Michael Kerullariy rejected these harassments, which was followed by mutual anathemas (ie, church curses) and accusations of heresy. The Western Church began to be called Roman Catholic, which meant the Roman universal church, and the Eastern Church - Orthodox, i.e. true to dogma.

Thus, the reason for the split in Christianity was the desire of the highest hierarchs of the Western and Eastern churches to expand the boundaries of their influence. It was a struggle for power. Other differences in doctrine and cult were also discovered, but they were more likely a consequence of the mutual struggle of church hierarchs than the cause of the split in Christianity. Thus, even a cursory acquaintance with the history of Christianity shows that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have purely earthly origins. The split in Christianity was caused by purely historical circumstances.

If we group the main differences that exist to this day between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, they can be presented as follows:

Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

The dogma of the Western Church about the descent of the Holy Spirit from both God the Father and God the Son, in contrast to the dogma of the Eastern Church, which recognizes the descent of the Holy Spirit only from God the Father; The leaders of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches themselves considered this disagreement to be the most important and even the only irreconcilable one.

• -The doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary (the Immaculate Conception), which existed back in the 9th century. and raised to dogma in 1854;
• -The doctrine of merit and purgatory.

The teaching of the Catholic Church about the “extraordinary merits” of saints before God: these merits constitute, as it were, a treasury, which the church can dispose of at its own discretion. The practice of indulgences - remissions of sins sold by the church from this sacred fund. The doctrine of purgatory (adopted at the Council of Florence in 1439), where sinful souls, burning in flames, are purified in order to subsequently go to heaven, and the duration of the soul’s stay in purgatory, again through the prayers of the church (for payment from relatives), can be reduced

• -The doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith, adopted in 1870;
• -Doctrine of the Church. Celibacy.

The ritual features of the Catholic Church in comparison with the Orthodox Church are: baptism by pouring (instead of Orthodox immersion), anointing not on an infant, but on an adult, communion of the laity with one bread (only clergy receive bread and wine), unleavened bread (wafers) for communion, cross the sign with five fingers, the use of Latin in worship, etc.

The sources of Orthodox dogma are the Holy Scriptures and sacred tradition (decrees of the first seven ecumenical and local councils, the works of the “fathers and teachers of the church” - Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, etc.). The essence of the doctrine is set out in the “Creed” approved at the Ecumenical Councils of 325 and 381. In the 12 members of the “symbol of faith”, everyone is required to recognize one God, believe in the “holy trinity”, in the incarnation, atonement, resurrection from the dead, speaks of the need for baptism, faith in afterlife and so on. God in Orthodoxy appears in three persons: God the Father (creator of the visible and invisible world), God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, emanating only from God the Father. The Triune God is consubstantial and inaccessible to the human mind.

In the Orthodox Church (the Russian Church is the most influential of the 15 independent churches), as a whole, due to its relative weakness and political insignificance, there were no mass persecutions such as the Holy Inquisition, although this does not mean that it did not persecute heretics and schismatics in the name of strengthening its influence on the masses. At the same time, having absorbed many ancient pagan customs of those tribes and peoples who accepted Orthodoxy, the church was able to rework and profess them in the name of strengthening its authority. Ancient deities turned into saints of the Orthodox Church, holidays in their honor began church holidays, beliefs and customs received official consecration and recognition. The church transformed even such a pagan rite as the worship of idols, directing the activity of believers to the worship of icons.

Church Special attention pays attention to the interior design of the temple and the conduct of worship, where an important place is given to prayer. Orthodox clergy They require believers to attend church, wear crosses, perform the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, communion, repentance, marriage, priesthood, consecration of oil), and observe fasts. Currently, Orthodox dogma and liturgy are being modernized taking into account modern conditions, which does not affect the content of Christian doctrine.

Catholicism was formed in feudal Europe and is currently the largest denomination in Christianity.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church is based on sacred scripture and sacred tradition, and among its sources of doctrine it includes the decrees of the 21st council and the instructions of the popes. Special place In Catholicism, the veneration of the Mother of God - the Virgin Mary takes place. In 1854, a special dogma was proclaimed about the “immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary,” free from “original sin,” and in 1950, Pope Pius XII announced a new dogma - about the bodily ascension of the Virgin Mary to heaven.

With the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church, many cultural traditions of “pagan antiquity” with its free thinking were consigned to oblivion and condemned. Catholic priests zealously monitored the strict observance of church dogmas and rituals, mercilessly condemned and punished heretics. The best minds medieval Europe died at the stake of the Inquisition.

9th century

In the 9th century, a schism occurred between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Papacy, which lasted from 863 to 867. The Patriarchate of Constantinople at that time was headed by Patriarch Photius (858-867, 877-886), the head of the Roman Curia was Nicholas I (858-867). It is believed that although the formal reason for the schism was the question of the legality of the election of Photius to the patriarchal throne, the underlying reason for the schism lay in the pope’s desire to extend his influence to the dioceses of the Balkan Peninsula, which met resistance from the Eastern Roman Empire. Also, over time, personal conflict between the two hierarchs intensified.

10th century

In the 10th century, the severity of the conflict decreased, disputes were replaced by long periods of cooperation. The 10th century manual contains the formula for the Byzantine emperor’s appeal to the Pope:

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, our one and only God. From [name] and [name], emperors of the Romans, faithful to God, [name] to the Holy Pope To the Roman and our spiritual father.

In a similar way, respectful forms of addressing the emperor were established for ambassadors from Rome.

11th century

At the beginning of the 11th century, Western European conquerors began to penetrate into territories that had previously been under the control of the Eastern Roman Empire. The political confrontation soon led to a confrontation between the Western and Eastern churches.

Conflict in Southern Italy

The end of the 11th century was marked by the beginning of active expansion of immigrants from the Norman Duchy in Southern Italy. At first, the Normans entered the service of the Byzantines and Lombards as mercenaries, but over time they began to create independent possessions. Although the main struggle of the Normans was against the Muslims of the Sicilian Emirate, the conquests of the northerners soon led to clashes with Byzantium.

Struggle of the Churches

The struggle for influence in Italy soon led to a conflict between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope. The parishes in Southern Italy historically fell under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, but as the Normans conquered the lands, the situation began to change. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Cerularius learned that the Greek rite in the Norman lands was being replaced by the Latin one. In response, Cerularius closed all the churches of the Latin rite in Constantinople and instructed the Bulgarian Archbishop Leo of Ohrid to compose a letter against the Latins, which would condemn various elements Latin rite: serving the liturgy on unleavened bread; fasting on Saturday during Lent; the absence of Hallelujah singing during Lent; eating strangled meat and more. The letter was sent to Apulia and was addressed to Bishop John of Trania, and through him to all the bishops of the Franks and "the most venerable pope." Humbert Silva-Candide wrote the essay “Dialogue”, in which he defended Latin rites and condemned Greek ones. In response, Nikita Stifat writes a treatise “Anti-Dialogue”, or “A Discourse on Unleavened Bread, Saturday Fasting and the Marriage of Priests” against Humbert’s work.

1054

In 1054, Pope Leo sent a letter to Cerularius which, in support of the papal claim to full authority in the Church, contained lengthy extracts from a forged document known as the Deed of Constantine, insisting on its authenticity. The Patriarch rejected the Pope's claims to supremacy, after which Leo sent legates to Constantinople that same year to settle the dispute. The main political task of the papal embassy was the desire to obtain military assistance from the Byzantine emperor in the fight against the Normans.

On July 16, 1054, after the death of Pope Leo IX himself, three papal legates entered the Hagia Sophia and placed on the altar a letter of excommunication anathematizing the patriarch and his two assistants. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates. Neither the Roman Church by Constantinople nor the Byzantine Church were anathematized by the legates.

Consolidating the split

The events of 1054 did not yet mean a complete break between the Eastern and Western Churches, but the First Crusade exacerbated the differences. When the crusader leader Bohemond captured the former Byzantine city of Antioch (1098), he expelled the Greek patriarch and replaced him with a Latin one; Having captured Jerusalem in 1099, the crusaders also installed a Latin patriarch at the head of the local Church. The Byzantine Emperor Alexios, in turn, appointed his own patriarchs of both cities, but they lived in Constantinople. The existence of parallel hierarchies meant that the Eastern and Western churches actually were in a state of schism. This split had important political consequences. When in 1107 Bohemond went on a campaign against Byzantium in retaliation for Alexei's attempts to recapture Antioch, he told the Pope that this was completely justified, since the Byzantines were schismatics. Thus, he created a dangerous precedent for future aggression against Byzantium by Western Europeans. Pope Paschal II made efforts to bridge the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, but this failed as the pope continued to insist that the Patriarch of Constantinople recognize the primacy of the Pope over "all the churches of God throughout the world."

First Crusade

Church relations improved markedly in the lead-up to and during the First Crusade. New policy was associated with the struggle of the newly elected Pope Urban II for influence on the church with the “antipope” Clement III and his patron Henry IV. Urban II realized that his position in the West was weak and, as an alternative support, began to look for ways of reconciliation with Byzantium. Soon after his election, Urban II sent a delegation to Constantinople to discuss the issues that had provoked the schism thirty years earlier. These measures paved the way for renewed dialogue with Rome and laid the foundation for the restructuring of the Byzantine Empire in the run-up to the First Crusade. A high-ranking Byzantine cleric, Theophylact Hephaistos, was commissioned to prepare a document that carefully downplayed the importance of the differences between Greek and Latin rites in order to calm the concerns of Byzantine clerics. These differences are mostly trivial, wrote Theophylact. The purpose of this cautious change of position was to heal the rift between Constantinople and Rome and lay the basis for a political and even military alliance.

12th century

Another event that strengthened the split was the pogrom of the Latin Quarter in Constantinople under Emperor Andronicus I (1182). There is no evidence that the pogrom of the Latins was sanctioned from above, but the reputation of Byzantium in the Christian West was seriously damaged.

XIII century

Union of Lyons

Michael's actions met resistance from Greek nationalists in Byzantium. Among those protesting against the union was, among others, Michael's sister Eulogia, who stated: " Let my brother's empire be destroyed rather than purity Orthodox faith ", for which she was imprisoned. The Athonite monks unanimously declared the union a fall into heresy, despite cruel punishments from the emperor: one particularly disobedient monk had his tongue cut out.

Historians associate protests against the union with the development of Greek nationalism in Byzantium. Religious affiliation associated with ethnic identity. Those who supported the emperor's policies were reviled not because they became Catholics, but because they were perceived as traitors to their people.

Return of Orthodoxy

After the death of Michael in December 1282, his son Andronikos II (reigned 1282-1328) ascended the throne. The new emperor believed that after the defeat of Charles of Anjou in Sicily, the danger from the West had passed and, accordingly, the practical need for a union had disappeared. Just a few days after the death of his father, Andronicus released from prison all those imprisoned opponents of the union and deposed Patriarch John XI of Constantinople, whom Michael had appointed to fulfill the terms of the agreement with the Pope. The following year, all bishops who supported the union were deposed and replaced. On the streets of Constantinople, the prisoners' release was greeted by jubilant crowds. Orthodoxy was restored in Byzantium.
For refusing the Union of Lyons, the Pope excommunicated Andronikos II from the church, but towards the end of his reign, Andronikos resumed contacts with the papal curia and began to discuss the possibility of overcoming the schism.

XIV century

In the middle of the 14th century, the existence of Byzantium began to be threatened by the Ottoman Turks. Emperor John V decided to turn to the Christian countries of Europe for help, but the Pope made it clear that help was possible only if the Churches united. In October 1369, John traveled to Rome, where he took part in a service in St. Peter's Basilica and declared himself a Catholic, accepting papal authority and recognizing the filioque. To avoid unrest in his homeland, John converted to Catholicism personally, without making any promises on behalf of his subjects. However, the Pope declared that the Byzantine Emperor now deserved support and called on the Catholic powers to come to his aid against the Ottomans. However, the Pope's call had no result: no help was provided, and John soon became a vassal of the Ottoman Emir Murad I.

15th century

Despite the rupture of the Union of Lyons, the Orthodox (except in Rus' and some areas of the Middle East) continued to adhere to triplicity, and the Pope was still recognized as the first in honor among equal Orthodox patriarchs. The situation changed only after the Ferraro-Florence Council, when the insistence of the West in accepting its dogmas forced the Orthodox to recognize the Pope as a heretic, and the Western Church as heretical, and to create a new one parallel to those who recognized the council - the Uniates. Orthodox hierarchy. After the capture of Constantinople (1453), Turkish Sultan Mehmed II took measures to maintain the split between Orthodox and Catholics and thereby deprive the Byzantines of hope that Catholic Christians would come to their aid. The Uniate patriarch and his clergy were expelled from Constantinople. At the time of the conquest of Constantinople, the place Orthodox Patriarch was vacant, and the Sultan personally saw to it that within a few months it would be occupied by a man known for his uncompromising attitude towards Catholics. The Patriarch of Constantinople continued to be the head of the Orthodox Church, and his authority was recognized in Serbia, Bulgaria, the Danube principalities and Rus'.

Justifications for the split

There is an alternative point of view, according to which the real cause of the schism was Rome's claims to political influence and monetary collections in the territories controlled by Constantinople. However, both sides cited theological differences as a public justification for the conflict.

Rome's Arguments

1. Michael is wrongly called the patriarch.
2. Like the Simonians, they sell the gift of God.
3. Like the Valesians, they castrate newcomers and make them not only clergy, but also bishops.
4. Like the Arians, they rebaptize those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, especially the Latins.
5. Like the Donatists, they claim that throughout the world, with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ, the true Eucharist, and baptism have perished.
6. Like the Nicolaitans, altar servers are allowed marriages.
7. Like the Sevirians, they slander the law of Moses.
8. Like the Doukhobors, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (filioque) in the symbol of faith.
9. Like the Manichaeans, they consider leaven to be animate.
10. Like the Nazirites, the Jews observe bodily cleansing, newborn children are not baptized before eight days after birth, parents are not honored with communion, and, if they are pagans, they are denied baptism.

As for the view of the role of the Roman Church, then, according to Catholic authors, evidence of the doctrine of the unconditional primacy and ecumenical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter has existed since the 1st century (Clement of Rome) and is then found everywhere in both the West and the East ( St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage, John Chrysostom, Leo the Great, Hormizd, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, etc.), therefore attempts to attribute only a certain “primacy of honor” to Rome are unfounded.

Until the middle of the 5th century, this theory had the character of unfinished, scattered thoughts, and only Pope Leo the Great expressed them systematically and set them out in his church sermons, delivered by him on the day of his consecration before a meeting of Italian bishops.

The main points of this system boil down, firstly, to the fact that the holy Apostle Peter is the princeps of the entire rank of apostles, superior to all others in power, he is the primas of all bishops, he is entrusted with the care of all sheep, he is entrusted with the care of all shepherds Churches.

Secondly, all the gifts and prerogatives of the apostleship, priesthood and shepherdhood were given fully and first of all to the Apostle Peter and through him and no other way than through his mediation are given by Christ and all other apostles and shepherds.

Thirdly, the primatus of the Apostle Peter is not a temporary, but a permanent institution.

Fourthly, the communication of the Roman bishops with the Supreme Apostle is very close: each new bishop receives the Apostle Peter in the Chair of Peter, and from here the grace-filled power granted to the Apostle Peter spills over to his successors.

From this it practically follows for Pope Leo:
1) since the entire Church is based on the firmness of Peter, those who move away from this stronghold place themselves outside the mystical body of Christ’s Church;
2) whoever encroaches on the authority of the Roman bishop and refuses obedience to the apostolic throne does not want to obey the blessed Apostle Peter;
3) whoever rejects the power and primacy of the Apostle Peter cannot in the least diminish his dignity, but the arrogant spirit of pride casts himself into the underworld.

Despite the petition of Pope Leo I for the convening of the IV Ecumenical Council in Italy, which was supported by the royals of the western half of the empire, the IV Ecumenical Council was convened by Emperor Marcian in the East, in Nicaea and then in Chalcedon, and not in the West. In the conciliar discussions, the Council Fathers treated very restrainedly the speeches of the legates of the Pope, who presented and developed this theory in detail, and the declaration of the Pope announced by them.

At the Council of Chalcedon, the theory was not condemned, since despite sharp form in relation to all eastern bishops, the content of the speeches of the legates, for example, in relation to Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, corresponded to the mood and direction of the entire Council. But nevertheless, the council refused to condemn Dioscorus only because Dioscorus committed crimes against discipline, not fulfilling the orders of the first in honor among the patriarchs, and especially because Dioscorus himself dared to carry out the excommunication of Pope Leo.

The papal declaration did not mention Dioscorus' crimes against the faith anywhere. The declaration also ends remarkably, in the spirit of papist theory: “Therefore, the most serene and blessed Archbishop Leo of the great and ancient Rome, through us and through this most holy council, together with the most blessed and all-praised Apostle Peter, who is the rock and affirmation of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the Orthodox faith, deprives him of his bishopric and alienates him from all holy orders.”

The declaration was tactfully, but rejected by the Fathers of the Council, and Dioscorus was deprived of the patriarchate and rank for the persecution of the family of Cyril of Alexandria, although they also recalled his support for the heretic Eutyches, disrespect for bishops, the Robber Council, etc., but not for the speech of the Alexandrian pope against Pope of Rome, and nothing from the declaration of Pope Leo was approved by the Council, which so raised the tomos of Pope Leo. The rule adopted at the Council of Chalcedon 28 on granting honor as the second after the Pope to the Archbishop of New Rome as the bishop of the reigning city second after Rome caused a storm of indignation. Saint Leo the Pope did not recognize the validity of this canon, interrupted communication with Archbishop Anatoly of Constantinople and threatened him with excommunication.

The Arguments of Constantinople

After the legate of the Pope, Cardinal Humbert, placed on the altar of the Church of St. Sophia a scripture with an anathema to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Patriarch Michael convened a synod, at which a reciprocal anathema was put forward:

With anathema then to the wicked writing itself, as well as to those who presented it, wrote it and participated in its creation with any approval or will.

The retaliatory accusations against the Latins were as follows at the council:

In various bishops' messages and conciliar decrees, the Orthodox also blamed the Catholics:

1. Celebrating the Liturgy on Unleavened Bread.
2. Post on Saturday.
3. Allowing a man to marry the sister of his deceased wife.
4. Catholic bishops wearing rings on their fingers.
5. Catholic bishops and priests going to war and desecrating their hands with the blood of the slain.
6. The presence of wives of Catholic bishops and the presence of concubines of Catholic priests.
7. Eating eggs, cheese and milk on the Saturdays and Sundays of Lent and not observing Lent.
8. Eating strangled meat, carrion, meat with blood.
9. Catholic monks eating lard.
10. Carrying out Baptism in one rather than three immersions.
11. The image of the Holy Cross and the image of saints on marble slabs in churches and Catholics walking on them with their feet.

The patriarch's reaction to the defiant act of the cardinals was quite cautious and generally peaceful. Suffice it to say that in order to calm the unrest, it was officially announced that the Greek translators had distorted the meaning of the Latin letter. Further, at the ensuing Council on July 20, all three members of the papal delegation were excommunicated from the Church for misbehavior in the church, but the Roman Church was not specifically mentioned in the council’s decision. Everything was done to reduce the conflict to the initiative of several Roman representatives, which, in fact, took place. The Patriarch excommunicated only legates from the Church and only for disciplinary violations, and not for doctrinal issues. These anathemas did not apply in any way to the Western Church or the Bishop of Rome.

Even when one of the excommunicated legates became pope (Stephen IX), this split was not considered final and particularly important, and the pope sent an embassy to Constantinople to apologize for Humbert's harshness. This event began to be assessed as something extremely important only a couple of decades later in the West, when Pope Gregory VII, who at one time was a protégé of the now deceased Cardinal Humbert, came to power. It was through his efforts that this story acquired extraordinary significance. Then, in modern times, it ricocheted from Western historiography back to the East and began to be considered the date of the division of the Churches.

Perception of the schism in Rus'

Check information.

Having left Constantinople, the papal legates went to Rome in a roundabout way to notify of the excommunication of Michael Cerularius his opponent Hilarion, whom the Church of Constantinople did not want to recognize as metropolitan, and to receive military assistance from Rus' in the struggle of the papal throne with the Normans. They visited Kyiv, where they were received with due honors by the Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich and the clergy, who should have liked the separation of Rome from Constantinople. Perhaps the seemingly strange behavior of the papal legates, who accompanied their request for military assistance from Byzantium to Rome with an anathema of the Byzantine church, should have favored the Russian prince and metropolitan in their favor, with them receiving significantly more help from Rus' than could have been expected from Byzantium.

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 origin, 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). 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 the Augustinian monks from Bremen to baptize the Latvians and Livs subject to them in Western Dvina). In the upper class there were (to the displeasure of the Greek metropolitans) numerous mixed marriages (with Polish princes alone - more than twenty), and in none of these cases anything resembling a “transition” from one religion to another was recorded. Western influence is noticeable in some areas of church life, for example, before the Mongol invasion there were organs in Rus' (which then disappeared); Bells were brought to Rus' mainly from the West, where they were more widespread than among the Greeks.

Removal of mutual anathemas

Postage stamp dedicated to the historical meeting of Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI

In 1964, a meeting took place in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras, primate of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and Pope Paul VI, as a result of which mutual anathemas were lifted in December 1965 and a joint declaration was signed. However, the “gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness” (Joint Declaration, 5) had no practical or canonical meaning: the declaration itself read: “Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his Synod are aware that this gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness is not sufficient to to put an end to the differences, both ancient and recent, that still remain between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church." From the point of view of the Orthodox Church, the remaining anathemas of the First Vatican Council against those who deny the dogma of the primacy of the Pope and the infallibility of his judgments on issues of faith and morals, pronounced by ex cathedra, as well as a number of other decrees of a dogmatic nature.

In addition, during the years of division, the teaching of the Filioque in the East was recognized as heretical: “The newly appeared teaching that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” was invented contrary to the clear and deliberate saying of our Lord on this subject: who comes from the Father(John 15:26), and contrary to the confession of the entire Catholic Church, witnessed by the seven ecumenical Councils in the words who comes from the Father <…> (