Division of the Christian Church in 1054 table. Division of churches

Church schism(Greek σχίσματα (schismata) - schism) - a violation of intra-church unity due to differences not related to the distortion of the true teaching about and, but for ritual, canonical or disciplinary reasons. The founders and followers of the schismatic movement are called schismatics.

Schism should be distinguished from other forms of apostasy - and self-inflicted gathering (). Following St. , the ancient holy fathers called schismatics those who were divided in opinions about certain church subjects and about issues that allowed for healing.

According to the outstanding commentator on canon law, John Zonar, schismatics are those who think sensibly regarding faith and dogma, but for some reason move away and form their own separate assemblies.

According to the expert on church law, Bishop of Dalmatia-Istra, schisms are formed by those who “think differently about certain church subjects and issues, which, however, can easily be reconciled.” According to St. , a schism should be called “a violation of complete unity with the Holy Church, with the exact preservation, however, of the true teaching about dogmas and sacraments.”

Comparing schism with heresy, St. asserts that “schism is no less evil than heresy.” The saint teaches: “Remember that the founders and leaders of the schism, violating the unity of the Church, oppose, and not only crucify Him a second time, but tear apart the Body of Christ, and this is so serious that the blood of martyrdom cannot atone for it.” Bishop Optatus of Milevitsky (IV century) considered the schism one of the greatest evils, greater than murder and idolatry.

In today's sense, the word schism is found for the first time in St. . He was in schism with Pope Callistus (217-222), whom he accused of weakening the requirements of church discipline.

The main reason for the splits in Ancient Church– the consequences of the persecutions: Decius (Novata and Felicissima in Carthage, Novatian in Rome) and Diocletian (Heraclius in Rome, Donatists in the African Church, Melitian in Alexandria), as well as a dispute about the baptism of heretics. Serious disagreements were caused by the question of the procedure for acceptance into the “fallen” - those who renounced, retreated and stumbled during persecution.

In the Russian Orthodox Church, there were schisms: the Old Believer (overcome by the Edinoverie communities), the Renovationist (overcome) and the Karlovac (overcome on May 17, 2007). Currently, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is in a state of schism.

What happened in 1054: the split of the Ecumenical Church in two or the split of one part of it, the Roman Local Church?

In theological historical literature there is often a statement that in 1054 there was a split in the One Ecumenical Church of Christ to East and West. This opinion cannot be called convincing. The Lord created one single Church, and it was about one, and not about two and, especially, not about several Churches that He testified that it would exist until the end of time and that it would not be overcome ().

Moreover, the Messiah made it clear that “every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and every city or house divided against itself cannot stand” (). This means that if the Church had really been divided against itself, then, according to His assurance, it would not have stood. But she will definitely resist (). The fact that there cannot be two, three, one thousand three Churches of Christ is also supported by the image according to which the Church is the Body of Christ (), and the Savior has one Body.

But why do we have the right to claim that it was the Roman Church that broke away from the Orthodox Church in the 11th century, and not vice versa? - There is no doubt that this is so. The true Church of Christ, according to the words of the Apostle, is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (). Therefore, that one of the two Churches (Western, Eastern) that did not stand in the truth, did not preserve it unchanged, and broke away.

Which one couldn't resist? - In order to answer this question, it is enough to remember which particular Church, Orthodox or Catholic, preserves it in the immutable form in which it received it from the apostles. Of course, this is the Ecumenical Orthodox Church.

In addition to the fact that the Roman Church dared to distort, supplementing it with a false insertion about the procession “and from the Son,” it distorted the teaching about the Mother of God (we mean the dogma of immaculate conception Virgin Mary); introduced a new dogma about the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, calling him the vicar of Christ on earth; interpreted the doctrine of man, etc., in the spirit of crude jurisprudence.

Split

Doctor of Theology and Philosophy
Archpriest Alexander Fedoseev

A schism is a violation of complete unity with the Holy Church, with the exact preservation, however, of the true teaching about dogmas and sacraments. The Church is unity, and its entire existence is in this unity and unity about Christ and in Christ: “ For we are all baptized into one body by one Spirit" (). The prototype of this unity is the Trinity Consubstantial, and the measure is catholicity (or conciliarity). Schism, on the contrary, is separation, separation, loss and denial of conciliarity.

The question of the nature and meaning of church divisions and schisms was raised with all its severity already in the memorable baptismal disputes of the 3rd century. The saint then with inevitable consistency developed the doctrine of the complete lack of grace of any schism, precisely as a schism: “ We must beware of deception, not only obvious and obvious, but also that which is covered with subtle slyness and cunning, as in the enemy’s invention of a new deception: to deceive the unwary by the very name of a Christian. He invented heresies and schisms to overthrow faith, pervert truth, and dissolve unity. Whoever cannot be kept on the old path by blindness is led astray and deceived by the new path. It delights people from the Church itself and, when they were apparently already approaching the light and getting rid of the night of this age, a new darkness again spreads over them, so that they, not adhering to the Gospel and not preserving the law, nevertheless call themselves Christians and, wandering in the darkness, they think they're walking in the light"(Book on the Unity of the Church).

In a schism, both prayer and alms are fueled by pride - these are not virtues, but opposition to the Church. For them, schismatics, ostentatious goodness is only a means to tear people away from the Church. The enemy of the human race is not afraid of the prayer of a proud-hearted schismatic, for the Holy Scripture says: “ Let his prayer be a sin" (). The devil finds their schismatics, vigils and fasts funny, since he himself does not sleep or eat, but this does not make him a saint. Saint Cyprian writes: “ Is it possible for someone who does not adhere to the unity of the Church to think that he keeps the faith? Is it possible for someone who resists and acts contrary to the Church to hope that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul, discussing the same subject and showing the sacrament of unity, says: one body, one Spirit, just as the calling is fast in the one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God" ()? It is characteristic that schismatics consider all other schisms, except their own, to be disastrous and false, arising under the influence of passions and pride, and they accept their own schism, which is not much different from others, as the only happy exception in the entire history of the Church.

The schismatics, shedding crocodile tears over the “violation” of the canons of the Church, in fact long ago threw under their feet and trampled all the canons, because the true canons are based on the belief in the unity and eternity of the Church. The canons are given to the Church, outside the Church they are invalid and meaningless - so the laws of the state cannot exist without the state itself.

Hieromartyr Clement, Bishop of Rome, writes to the Corinthian schismatics: “ Your division has corrupted many, plunged many into despondency, many into doubt and all of us into sadness, and your confusion still continues" The unrepentant sin of schism is even more terrible than the sin of suicide (a suicide destroys only himself, and a schismatic destroys both himself and others, therefore his eternal fate is worse than that of a suicide).

« The Church is one, and she alone has all the fullness of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit. Whoever, no matter how, departs from the Church - into heresy, into schism, into an unauthorized gathering, he loses the communion of God's grace; We know and are convinced that falling away into schism, heresy, or sectarianism is complete destruction and spiritual death", - this is how he expresses Orthodox teaching about the Church hieromartyr.

People susceptible to distortion of faith even try to use the word “schism” less. They say: " official Church” and “unofficial”, or “different jurisdictions”, or prefer to use abbreviations (UOC KP, etc.). Saint: " Orthodoxy and schism are so opposed to each other that the patronage and defense of Orthodoxy should naturally constrain the schism; condescension to schism should naturally embarrass the Orthodox Church».

History of the Orthodox Church in countries post-Soviet space The last few years have been full of important and dramatic events, many of which continue to have a powerful influence on the current state of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Soviet Union has collapsed and is growing social stratification society, problems associated with information inequality are growing. The Russian Orthodox Church has preserved its unity throughout the entire territory of the former Soviet Union, creating new forms of church structure. Over the past decade, autonomous Local Churches have been formed, which reflects new political realities modern world. It is appropriate to talk about radical changes in the CIS countries related to the understanding of the unity of the Church today. It's about first of all about canonical and social aspects Orthodox ecclesiology.

Negative phenomena, of course, include the processes of rapid politicization of religious life in the countries of the former Soviet camp. Involvement in it political parties of a nationalist nature created the basis for the subsequent formation of political and religious structures hostile to Orthodoxy such as the UGCC, UAOC, UOC-KP, TOC, etc. But no less dangerous are internal contradictions, disagreements and disciplinary-psychological splits within church-parish life.

The main feature of disciplinary-psychological splits, from which all other parachurch movements are derived, is their emergence in the era of the collapse of socialism and in the midst of the death of mass atheism. Because it doesn't exist yet scientific literature, which specifically treats the activities of church schisms and new sects, it seems appropriate to briefly characterize a number of features that distinguish them from traditional sectarianism.

First of all, disciplinary-psychological splits do not spread primarily in rural areas, and in big cities, with a dense cultural and educational infrastructure. As studies have shown, church schisms find the most fertile soil among specialists with secondary and higher education. Hence the active professional orientation of the newest schisms: they try to religiously comprehend and “sanctify” the activity of man as a specialist. It is the specialty that is the area of the most intense sectarian and schismatic self-awareness and self-determination. Therefore, new sectarians are often grouped according to professional characteristics - of course, associations of this kind can also include ordinary amateurs who show interest in a given profession. Associations of a schismatic type are created among writers, historians, doctors, and physicists who are trying to give a religious interpretation of the facts in their subject area.

Some people like to justify schismatics, saying that they were allegedly forced to retreat from the Church by some difficult circumstances - some of them were treated poorly or unfairly, offended, etc. But these excuses are not worth a damn. This is what St. said about them. , in a letter to the schismatic Novat: “ If, as you say, you separated from the Church involuntarily, then you can correct this by returning to the Church of your own free will" Priest once said: “ I would rather sin with the Church than be saved without the Church" Florensky wanted to say that only in the Church is salvation and that by leaving the Church, a person commits spiritual suicide. Schisms were born with shouts of victory, and died with dull groans, but the Church still lived! Condemned to death by schismatics, she exists, she is full of spiritual powers, she remains the only source of grace on earth.

In order to prevent the emergence of heresies, the Russian Orthodox Church has always tried, through exhortation and persuasion, to return those who have fallen away to the path of true faith, genuine Christian piety, and has tried again and again to gather its lost sheep, who have lost the voice of their shepherd. We must not forget about the great danger to the spiritual health of every person emanating from a possible fall into heresy through schism, since a heretical worldview penetrates much more deeply into the soul and infects it with the sores of sin, which are very difficult to get rid of.

The Holy Fathers recognize the possibility and necessity of healing the schism in the spirit of church economy. The saint in the Rules from the First Canonical Epistle indicates the peculiarities of accepting repentants from schisms:

« For example, if someone, having been convicted of sin, is removed from the priesthood, does not submit to the rules, but himself retains the position and priesthood, and with him some others retreat, leaving the Catholic Church, this is an unauthorized gathering. To think about repentance differently than as existing in the Church is a schism... To accept the baptism of schismatics, as not yet alien to the Church; and those in unauthorized gatherings should be corrected by decent repentance and conversion, and re-joined to the Church. Thus, even those in church ranks, having retreated along with the disobedient, when they repent, are often accepted again into the same rank».

St. very aptly defines the schism. : " Christ will judge those who cause schisms - those who do not have love for God and who care more about their own benefit than about the unity of the Church, who, for unimportant and random reasons, cut and tear apart the great and glorious body of Christ and, as much as depends on them, destroy it, saying about peace and those who make war" (Five Books Against Heresies, 4.7).

As we can see from the statements of the holy fathers and a small analysis of the problem of schisms, they need to be healed, or even better, prevented. It is quite obvious that, in addition to the personal charisma of the next dissenter, a big role is played by the low spiritual education of his followers, political unrest in the state, and personal motives. The time has come to develop a large-scale project to prevent church schisms, covering all possible aspects of this problem. It is absolutely necessary to create some body, a church structure with extensive powers, capable of providing the proper level of monitoring of the spiritual state of believers and promptly nipping in the bud schismatic movements in the ranks of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Schism is a real danger not only to the integrity of the Church, but first of all to the spiritual health of schismatics. Such people voluntarily deprive themselves of saving grace and sow division within the unity of Christians. The split cannot be justified from any point of view: neither political, nor national, nor any other reasons can be considered as a sufficient reason for the split. There can be neither sympathy nor understanding for the schism and its leaders - church division must be fought and eliminated - so that something worse does not happen.

God Holy Spirit

Split christian church in 1054, Also Great Schism And Great Schism- church schism, after which the Church was finally divided into the Roman Catholic Church in the West, centered in Rome, and the Orthodox Church in the East, centered in Constantinople.

History of the schism

In fact, disagreements between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople began long before, however, it was in 1054 that Pope Leo IX sent legates led by Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople to resolve the conflict, which began with the closure of the Latin churches in Constantinople in 1053 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. 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 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 anathemas were lifted.

Reasons for the split

The historical background of schism goes back to late antiquity and early Middle Ages(starting with the defeat of Rome by the troops of Alaric in 410 AD) and are determined by the emergence of ritual, dogmatic, ethical, aesthetic and other differences between the Western (often called Latin Catholic) and Eastern (Greek Orthodox) traditions.

The 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 Pope's legate, Cardinal Humbert. In the letter of excommunication, after a preamble dedicated to the primacy of the Roman Church, and praise addressed to “the pillars of the imperial power and its honored and wise citizens” and the whole of Constantinople, called the city “most Christian and Orthodox,” the following accusations were made against Michael Cyrularius “and the accomplices of his stupidity ":

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

The point of view of the Eastern (Orthodox) Church

According to some Orthodox authors [ Who?], the main dogmatic problem in the relationship between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople was the interpretation of the primacy of the Roman Apostolic Church. According to them, according to the dogmatic teaching consecrated by the first Ecumenical Councils with the participation of the legates of the Bishop of Rome, primacy “in honor” was assigned to the Roman Church, which modern language may mean “most respected,” which, however, did not abolish the Conciliar structure of the church (that is, making all decisions collectively through convening Councils of all churches, primarily apostolic). These authors [ Who?] claim that for the first eight centuries of Christianity, the conciliar structure of the church was not subject to doubt even in Rome, and all bishops considered each other as equals.

However, by the year 800, the political situation around what had previously been a unified Roman Empire began to change: on the one hand, most of the territory of the Eastern Empire, including most of the ancient apostolic churches, fell under Muslim rule, which greatly weakened it and diverted attention from religious problems in favor of foreign policy, on the other hand, for the first time since the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, the West had its own emperor (Charlemagne was crowned in Rome in 800), who in the eyes of his contemporaries became “equal” to the Eastern Emperor and in political power which the Bishop of Rome was able to rely on in his claims. It is attributed to the changed political situation that the Popes began to pursue the idea of their primacy “by divine right,” that is, the idea of their supreme individual power in the entire Church.

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.

This event began to be assessed as something extremely important only a couple of decades later in the West, when Pope Gregory VII came to power, and Cardinal Humbert became his closest advisor. 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'

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. If hierarchs of Greek origin were prone to anti-Latin polemics, then Russian priests and rulers themselves did not participate in it. 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 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 the pope. 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'. In the end, Izyaslav returned to Kyiv (). Izyaslav himself and his son Yaropolk were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.

In Kyiv there were Latin monasteries (including the Dominican - s), on lands subject to the Russian princes, Latin missionaries acted with their permission (for example, the princes of Polotsk allowed Augustinian monks 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 intermarriages. Large Western influence is noticeable in some [ which ones?] spheres of church life.

This situation persisted until the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

Removal of mutual anathemas

In 1964, a meeting took place in Jerusalem between the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, the 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. 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 by ex cathedra(that is, when the Pope acts as “the earthly head and mentor of all Christians”), as well as a number of other decrees of a dogmatic nature.

Schism of the Christian Church

In the minds of early Christians, the unity of the church was identified not only, so to speak, with the form, but primarily with the content of Christianity itself: Christ came to “gather together the scattered children of God,” to unite people separated by “natural” reasons into the unity of the new people of God, in which, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, but Christ is all and in all.” This unity was embodied in the unity of each local church; each church-community was at the same time in full or the embodiment of the unity of Christ and the church, and at the same time equally organically felt herself to be part of the universal unity of all Christians as one people of God. But if the structure of the local church and its connection with others flowed directly from the very essence of Christianity, then external forms These connections between churches changed and developed depending on changing historical conditions. Thus, in the apostolic era, the undoubted center of the unity of all churches was the Jerusalem community, the “Mother Church” in the full and absolute sense of the word - the source and image of all other communities.

With the end of the Palestinian Judeo-Christianity We already see in the church several such “centers”, consecrated by apostolic authority, but “central” also in terms of the number of Christians and the importance of the city. At first, no “jurisdictional” or “canonical” rights were associated with these centers - Antioch and Alexandria in the East, Rome in the West. But, being the source of preaching and spreading Christianity around them, they naturally enjoyed special respect and have special authority.

Among these “centers,” undoubtedly, the Church of Rome, the Church of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and the church of the capital of the empire enjoyed special recognition from the very beginning. But very soon some friction arose: the Roman bishops ensure their authority with formal “rights”; the tradition of “presiding in love” is interpreted more and more legally. But every time this kind of claim encounters a unanimous rebuke from the entire church - equally in the west and in the east of the empire.

Until the 11th century. there was a single Christian Ecumenical Church. What led to its split? The first political prerequisite for the split was the division in 395 of the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western. This circumstance predetermined the claims of each party to the sole leadership of the church.

The fate of the Western and Eastern empires developed differently. The Western Roman Empire was soon conquered by Germanic tribes. Over time, independent feudal states were formed on the territory of the western Roman provinces. In the Eastern Roman Empire (later called Byzantium) strong imperial power remained for a long time. The development of the eastern and western regions was once single state went different ways.

The disunity between the state and the economy was followed by the church. Officially, the church remained united, ties were not severed until the end, but over time, East and West, not only politically, but also ecclesiastically, each became isolated in its own horizon. During the period of the iconoclastic movement, Byzantium severed the last ties connecting it with the papacy Western Empire. Two worlds, two traditions, two church psychologies are being created, already knowing little about each other, and if formally the unity of the church was still preserved, it no longer existed in life.

Pope Pius V

During this troubled and stormy time of the “Dark Ages,” the popes had no time for the East, while Byzantium, immersed in its difficulties, stopped thinking about the West. The Eastern Church got used to completely doing without Rome, completely confining itself to its “imperiality.” Everything that was outside the Eastern Empire was defined in Byzantium by the term “barbarians,” and the attitude towards these barbarians was uncertain.

Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus. Stained glass

Not only did the process of feudalization proceed differently in the formed parts of the former Roman Empire, but it also reflected differently on Western and Eastern Christianity. In the western regions, the formation of feudal relations occurred at a more rapid pace; here the influence of Roman law remained strong, especially that part of it that concerned economic relations. In symbiosis with the contractual laws of the Germans, this legal system became the basis for the development of feudal vassalage relations, which was reflected in church law. Taking into account the rapidly changing situation, the Western Church accordingly made amendments to its doctrine and rituals, to the interpretation of the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and Christian dogmas.

The feudalization of the eastern parts of the former Roman Empire proceeded much more slowly. Stagnation public life also determined the conservatism of the church life of Orthodoxy. Thus, under the influence of very specific historical circumstances, two characteristic features of Eastern and Western Christianity that have survived to this day were formed. The Western Church has flexibility and quick adaptability, while the Eastern Church has conservatism, an affinity for tradition, for customs steeped in and sanctified by antiquity.

Paradoxically, both branches of Christianity subsequently successfully used these features. Western Christianity turned out to be a convenient form of religion for countries in which the social situation was changing relatively quickly. Eastern Christianity was more suitable for countries with a stagnant social life. The characteristics of the Western Church were formed in conditions of feudal political fragmentation. The Christian Church turned out to be the spiritual core of the Western world, fragmented into a number of independent states.

Jesus supports Peter on the water

In this situation, the Western clergy managed to create their own international church organization with a single center in Rome, with a single head - the Bishop of Rome. A number of factors contributed to the rise of the Roman bishop. One of them was the transfer of the capital of the empire from Rome to Constantinople. At first, this weakened the authority of the Roman hierarch, who later received the title dads, but soon Rome also appreciated the benefits that could be derived from the new situation. The Western Church got rid of the daily tutelage of the imperial power. It turned out to be very beneficial for the Western clergy to implement certain government functions, for example, the collection of taxes by the Roman hierarchy.

Jesus Christ emerges from the cave in which he was buried

Gradually, the Western Church gained increasing economic and political influence. And as its influence grew, so did the authority of its head. By the time the empire was divided, there was only one major religious center in the West, and there were four in the East. At the time of the Council of Nicaea there were three patriarchs - the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Soon the bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem also achieved the title of patriarch.

Eastern patriarchs often quarreled with each other, fought for primacy, each sought to strengthen their influence. In the West, the bishop of Rome did not have such powerful competitors. In the conditions of feudal fragmentation of the West, the Christian Church for a long time enjoyed relative independence. Playing the role of the spiritual center of the feudal world, she even fought for the primacy of her power over secular power and sometimes achieved serious success. The Eastern Church could not even dream of anything like this. She, too, at times tried to measure her strength with the secular authorities, but always unsuccessfully.

The strong imperial power, which persisted much longer in Byzantium, from the very beginning assigned Eastern Christianity a secondary role as a more or less obedient servant. The Church was constantly dependent on secular sovereigns. Emperor Constantine and his successors, strengthening their power, turned the Christian church into a state institution. The Patriarch of Constantinople was essentially the Minister of Religious Affairs.

The character of the Christian church government agency in the Eastern Roman Empire was clearly manifested during the convening of the Ecumenical Councils. They were not only assembled by the emperors, but were also presided over either by the ruler himself or by a secular official appointed by him. This is how the first six Ecumenical Councils took place, and only at the seventh (Nicaea, 787) did the patriarch sit in the presiding position.

Of course, one should not imagine the hierarchs of Constantinople as meek lambs. The Patriarch of Constantinople had several ways of resisting imperial power. Sometimes he exercised his right to obligatory participation in the coronation of the new emperor and could refuse to crown him if the conditions he put forward were not accepted.

The patriarch also had the right to excommunicate a heretic emperor, for example, the Byzantine emperor Leo VI was excommunicated on account of his fourth marriage. Finally, he could turn to the Roman high priest for support, who was not subject to the authority of the Byzantine emperors. True, at the end of the 8th century. the bishop of Rome was subordinate to Byzantium for some time, but soon the pope again left the influence of the emperors of Constantinople. From the middle of the 9th century. There was a stubborn struggle between the papacy and the patriarchy for dominance in the Christian world. The main reason The schism was the desire for power of the Patriarch of Constantinople Photia and the Pope Nicholas!.

Mosaic of the dome of the Baptistery in Ravenna. V century

In 857 the Emperor of Byzantium Michael III deposed the patriarch Ignatius and elevated to the patriarchal throne the one he liked Photia. Pope Nicholas I considered this a reason to intervene and strengthen his influence over the Eastern Church.

He demanded that Ignatius be restored, and at the same time made a number of territorial claims (in particular, in relation to Bulgaria).

The Byzantine emperor did not make concessions, and the pope declared Ignatius the true patriarch and Photius deposed. From this time on, the confrontation between the two churches began, and the search for accusations against the rival began. Dogmatic and organizational differences boiled down to the following main issues:

– The Eastern Church recognized the origin of the Holy Spirit only from God the Father, and the Western Church - from God the Father and God the Son;

- each of the churches disputed the legitimacy of the Councils that took place on the territory of the rival (for example, the Council of Constantinople, 381).

Ritual disagreements boiled down to the fact that the Eastern Church denied the need to fast on Saturday, as was the case in the Western Church, did not accept the celibacy of the Western clergy, refused to elevate deacons directly to bishops, etc. Canonical disagreements were expressed in the fact that the Pope appropriated to himself the right to be the head and judge of the entire Christian church. The doctrine of the primacy of the pope made him superior to the Ecumenical Councils. The Eastern Church played a subordinate role in relation to state power, while the Western Church put itself in a position independent of secular power, trying to strengthen its influence on society and the state.

In the middle of the 11th century. The papacy drove the Greeks out of southern Italy. In response to this, the Byzantine patriarch Mikhail Kerulariy ordered that worship in the Latin churches of Constantinople be conducted according to the Greek model, which led to the closure of Latin monasteries. In 1054 both churches betrayed each other anathema- church curse.

The split has finally taken shape. The Western Church eventually received the name Catholic(ecumenical), and the Eastern Church was given the name orthodox– Orthodox (i.e., correctly glorifying God). The rupture of 1054 was only the beginning of the division of churches. At first it was experienced, rather, as one of those temporary gaps between two departments, which had happened many times before. Church ties were not immediately severed everywhere.

In the first time after the schism, both churches made attempts to unite. This gap truly grew into final division, into racial and religious hatred only in the next era - and here the Crusades played a fatal role. The Fourth Crusade in 1204 ended with the capture of Constantinople and its barbarian plunder. Then the division of churches ceased to be a dispute between hierarchs and a theological dispute. “Latin” in the East, “Greeks” in the West - these words have become synonymous with evil, heresy, and enmity.

Results crusades began the strengthening of the power and importance of the Roman high priests as the main initiators of these campaigns, the emergence of spiritual knightly orders that defended the interests of the papacy. At the same time, relations between the Catholic and Orthodox churches became even more strained.

Attempts to reunite churches were, however, made in subsequent times. They were especially active by the Eastern Church in the first half of the 15th century, when the threat of the conquest of Byzantium by the Ottoman Turks grew. True, this activity ended for Orthodox Church spiritual catastrophe.

Ancient plan of Constantinople

Lamentation of Christ

At the Council of Florence 1438-1439. The Greek hierarchs capitulated to Rome, agreeing to submit to the supremacy of the Pope in exchange for help against the Turks. But when the Greeks returned to their homeland, they almost immediately rejected this forced union. And the fall of Byzantium just 14 years after the Council of Florence (1453) made the very reason for the union tragically unnecessary. The empire, for which others were ready to sacrifice Orthodoxy, ceased to exist.

Only in 1965 did the Pope Paul VI and Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras I mutual anathemas were lifted from both churches, but the reunification of the church did not occur. Too many mutual grievances and complaints have accumulated. After the split of the Christian religion, several independent directions arose in it, of which the most widespread are Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and later Protestantism. While remaining faithful to the tenets of Christianity, these movements differ from each other in their unique interpretation of some of them and certain features of the cult.

From the book Apostolic Christianity(1–100 AD) by Schaff Philip

§ 24. The miracle of Pentecost and the birthday of the Christian Church (30 A.D.) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts 2:4 The first Pentecost, which the disciples celebrated after the ascension of our Savior, was

From the book Apostolic Christianity (1–100 AD) by Schaff Philip

§ 39. Consequences of the destruction of Jerusalem for the Christian Church Jerusalem Christians, remembering the warning of the Lord, promptly left the doomed city and fled across the Jordan, to the Decapolis, to the city of Pella in the north of Perea, where King Agrippa II gave them refuge, before

author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich

The role of the Christian Church in the Late Empire. Monasteries. The evolution of the Christian Church in the Roman Empire is also connected with the crisis of slave society. Christianity arose as a religion of the exploited and oppressed masses, but never opposed

From the book History of the Middle Ages. Volume 1 [In two volumes. Under the general editorship of S. D. Skazkin] author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich

The social role of the Christian religion and the church in feudal society Christianity stood at the cradle of feudal society as an established religious ideology. Already in the last centuries of the Roman Empire, it turned from a religion of the oppressed into a weapon

From the book Early Christianity: Pages of History author Sventsitskaya Irina Sergeevna

FROM COMMUNITY TO CHURCH (On the formation of the Christian Church) Preface The book offered to the reader is devoted to only one aspect of the history of early Christianity, namely the formation of the Christian church organization during the first centuries of the spread of the new

author Ranovich Abram Borisovich

Section II Christian ideology, Christian organization

From the book Primary Sources on the History of Early Christianity. Ancient critics of Christianity author Ranovich Abram Borisovich

V. Organization of the Christian Church 197. “Didache” (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) This is a small manual for provincial Christian communities, known from references to it among ancient church writers, discovered in 1875 by Bryennius in an 11th century manuscript. Author

author Posnov Mikhail Emmanuilovich

Boundaries of the history of the Christian Church and its division into periods. If by the Christian Church we mean the society of believers in Jesus Christ as their Savior, then the history of the Church should begin precisely with Jesus Christ, as the preacher of the Gospel and Redeemer, and the first

From the book History of the Christian Church author Posnov Mikhail Emmanuilovich

Founder of the Christian Church, Jesus Christ. Forerunner of Christ, John, son of Zechariah and Elizabeth, the last prophet Old Testament, the first called Christ the “Messiah”: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29) and pointed to His approaching kingdom, but did not himself

From the book History of the Christian Church author Posnov Mikhail Emmanuilovich

Birth of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. After the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, there were more than 500 people who believed in Him in Galilee (cf. 1 Cor. 15:6) and in Jerusalem with the apostles 120 souls (Acts 1:13-16). We know nothing about the fate of the Galilean believers. All the interest

From the book History of the Christian Church author Posnov Mikhail Emmanuilovich

Chapter III. The internal life of the Christian Church in the 1st-3rd centuries. Organization of the Church. Without organization there is no society. The Church is a Christian society; therefore it must have one organization or another. Without a well-established organization, society cannot properly and successfully

From the book History of World Religions: Lecture Notes author Pankin S F

6. The cycle of readings in the Christian church. Missal, Typikon, Menaion, Breviary All Christian corporate services, including the most important of them - the liturgy - include common prayers, singing and reading passages from the holy books (Old and New Testaments, writings of the fathers

From the book History of Orthodoxy author Kukushkin Leonid

From the book Icons of Russia author Trubetskoy Evgeniy Nikolaevich

From the book Language and Religion. Lectures on philology and history of religions author Mechkovskaya Nina Borisovna

From the book General history religions of the world author Karamazov Voldemar Danilovich

The split of the Christian Church In the minds of early Christians, the unity of the church was identified not only, so to speak, with the form, but primarily with the content of Christianity itself: Christ came to “gather together the scattered children of God,” so that those separated by “natural”

Schism of the Christian Church (1054)

Schism of the Christian Church in 1054, Also Great Schism- church schism, after which the division finally occurred Churches on Roman Catholic Church on West And Orthodox- on East centered at Constantinople.

HISTORY OF THE SCHIPT

In fact, disagreements between pope And Patriarch of Constantinople started long before 1054 , however, it is in 1054 Roman Pope Leo IX sent to Constantinople legates led by Cardinal Humbert to resolve the conflict, which began with the closure of 1053 Latin churches in Constantinople by order Patriarch Michael Kirulariy, at which it Sacellarium Konstantin thrown out of tabernacles Holy Sacrament, prepared according to Western custom from unleavened bread, and trampled them underfoot

[ [ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm Mikhail Kirulariy (English)] ].

However, it was not possible to find a path to reconciliation, and July 16, 1054 in the cathedral Hagia Sophia papal legates announced on the deposition of Kirularius and him excommunication. In response to this July 20 the patriarch betrayed anathema to legates. The split has not yet been overcome, although in 1965 mutual curses were lifted.

REASONS FOR THE SPIT

The split had many reasons:

ritual, dogmatic, ethical differences between western And Eastern Churches, property disputes, the struggle between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople for championship among Christian patriarchs, different languages of worship

(Latin V western church And Greek in eastern).

POINT OF VIEW OF THE WESTERN (CATHOLIC) CHURCH

The letter of excommunication was handed over July 16, 1054 in Constantinople V Sophia Church on the holy altar during the service of legate of the Pope Cardinal Humbert.

Letter of excommunication contained the following charges to eastern church:

PERCEPTION OF THE SCHIPT in Rus'

After leaving Constantinople, the papal legates went to Rome in a roundabout way to notify of excommunication Mikhail Kirularia other eastern hierarchs. Among other cities they visited Kyiv, Where With were received with due honors by the Grand Duke and the Russian clergy .

In subsequent years Russian Church did not take a clear position in support of any of the parties to the conflict, although it remained Orthodox. If hierarch of Greek origin were prone to anti-Latin polemic, then actually Russian priests and rulers not only did they 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 "division of churches" there was a significant conversion case Grand Duke of Kyiv (Izyaslav-Dimitri Yaroslavich ) to authority Pope St. Gregory VII. In his feud with his younger brothers over Kyiv throne Izyaslav, the legitimate prince, was forced run abroad(V Poland and then in Germany), from where he appealed in defense of his rights to both heads of the medieval "Christian republic" - To to the emperor(Henry IV) and to dad.

Princely Embassy V Rome headed it son Yaropolk -Peter who had an assignment “to give all Russian land under the protection of St. Petra" . Dad really intervened in the situation Rus'. In the end, Izyaslav returned to Kyiv(1077 ).

Myself Izyaslav and him son Yaropolk canonized Russian Orthodox Church .

Near 1089 V Kyiv To Metropolitan John the embassy has arrived Antipope Guibert (Clement III), apparently wanting to strengthen his position at the expense of his confessions in Rus'. John being by birth Greek, responded with a message, although composed in the most respectful terms, but still directed against "misconceptions" Latins(this is the first time non-apocryphal scripture "against the Latins", compiled on Rus', although not by a Russian author). However, the successor John a, Metropolitan Ephraim (Russian by origin) himself sent to Rome a trusted person, probably with the aim of personally verifying the state of affairs on the spot;

V 1091 this messenger returned to Kyiv And “bring many relics of saints” . Then, according to Russian chronicles, ambassadors from dads came to 1169 . IN Kyiv there were Latin monasteries(including Dominican- With 1228 ), on lands subject to Russian princes, acted with their permission Latin missionaries(so, in 1181 Princes of Polotsk allowed Augustinian monks from Bremen baptize those under their control Latvians And Livs on the Western Dvina).

The upper class included (to the displeasure Greeks) numerous mixed marriages. Great Western influence is noticeable in some areas of church life. Similar situation remained until Tatar-Mongolian invasions.

REMOVAL OF MUTUAL ANATHEMAS

IN 1964 year in Jerusalem a meeting took place between Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, head Orthodox Church of Constantinople And by Pope Paul VI, as a result of which mutual anathemas were filmed in 1965 year was signed Joint Declaration

[ [ http://www.krotov.info/acts/20/1960/19651207.html Declaration on the lifting of anathemas] ].

However, this formal "gesture of goodwill" had no practical or canonical significance.

WITH Catholic points of view remain valid and cannot be canceled anathemas 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 Dad acts as 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 Vladimir Cathedral V Kyiv accompanied by leadership unrecognized others Orthodox churches Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate .

A April 8, 2005 for the first time in history Orthodox Church in Vladimir Cathedral passed funeral service committed by representatives Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate head of the Roman Catholic Church .

Literature

[http://www.krotov.info/history/08/demus/lebedev03.html Lebedev A.P. History of the division of churches in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries. St. Petersburg 1999 ISBN 5-89329-042-9],

[http://www.agnuz.info/book.php?id=383&url=page01.htm Taube M. A. Rome and Rus' in the pre-Mongol period] .