WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN 1054?

DID THE CHURCH REALLY SPLIT IN ONE DAY?

Open a short history of Christianity, and you may find a statement like this:

“THE GREAT SCHISM OCCURRED IN A.D. 1054.”

That date is important.

Something serious did happen in 1054.

But if we imagine that Christianity was one united church on Friday and suddenly became Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox on Saturday, we will misunderstand the history.

The division had been developing for centuries.

And even after 1054, the separation was not immediately complete.

So what actually happened?

1. BY 1054, EAST AND WEST ALREADY HAD A LONG LIST OF PROBLEMS

We have examined several of them.

Eastern and Western Christians increasingly differed in:

Language.

Culture.

Politics.

Worship customs.

The Filioque.

And especially:

The authority of the bishop of Rome.

Rome increasingly understood the pope’s authority in terms connected with Peter and succession from Peter.

Constantinople recognized Rome’s ancient importance and first place, but did not accept the developing Western claim that the pope possessed direct governing authority over the entire church.

So 1054 did not create these disagreements.

IT BROUGHT LONG-STANDING DISAGREEMENTS INTO A NEW AND SERIOUS CONFRONTATION.

2. THE TWO MEN AT THE CENTER OF THE CRISIS

In Rome, the pope was:

LEO IX.

In Constantinople, the patriarch was:

MICHAEL CERULARIUS.

Relations between Rome and Constantinople had become increasingly tense.

There were disputes over authority.

There were disagreements about church customs, including the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper.

There was the continuing Filioque controversy.

There were also political complications involving the Byzantine Empire, the papacy, and the Normans in southern Italy.

Not every dispute was simply a theological disagreement between two church leaders.

Political and ecclesiastical interests overlapped.

But behind many of the arguments stood the question we have been examining:

WHO HAD AUTHORITY OVER WHOM?

3. POPE LEO SENT REPRESENTATIVES TO CONSTANTINOPLE

Pope Leo IX sent a delegation to Constantinople.

Its leader was Cardinal Humbert.

The delegation was intended to address the dispute between Rome and Constantinople.

Instead, relations deteriorated.

Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularius became involved in an increasingly hostile exchange.

Charges and countercharges followed.

Then another important event occurred.

POPE LEO IX DIED.

He died in April 1054, while the delegation was still dealing with Constantinople.

That later raised questions about whether the representatives retained their authority after the pope’s death.

Nevertheless, Humbert and the other delegates continued their mission.

4. THEN CAME JULY 16, 1054

On July 16, Humbert and the other papal representatives entered the great cathedral of Constantinople:

HAGIA SOPHIA.

They placed a document on the altar.

The document pronounced a sentence of excommunication against Patriarch Michael Cerularius and certain people associated with him.

Then the representatives departed.

It was a dramatic act.

And it became one of the most famous moments in church history.

But notice something important.

THE DOCUMENT DID NOT EXCOMMUNICATE EVERY CHRISTIAN IN THE EAST.

It targeted particular people.

That distinction matters when we ask whether the entire Eastern and Western churches formally separated on that day.

5. CONSTANTINOPLE RESPONDED

Patriarch Cerularius and a synod in Constantinople responded.

They condemned the document left by the Roman representatives.

They also condemned the representatives responsible for it.

Now there were condemnations in both directions.

The Roman representatives had condemned Cerularius and certain associates.

The Constantinopolitan synod had condemned the Roman representatives and their actions.

That was serious.

But it was not the same as saying:

“EVERY EASTERN CHRISTIAN IS NOW EXCOMMUNICATED BY THE WEST.”

Nor was it the same as saying:

“EVERY WESTERN CHRISTIAN IS NOW EXCOMMUNICATED BY THE EAST.”

The actions of 1054 were more limited than that.

6. THEN WHY DO WE CALL 1054 THE GREAT SCHISM?

Because the events of 1054 became a major symbol of the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity.

The relationship between Rome and Constantinople had been strained for centuries.

Their differences were real.

Their disagreements about authority were real.

And their relationship continued to deteriorate.

But the process did not begin in 1054.

Nor was it completed neatly in 1054.

The date is useful because it identifies a memorable confrontation.

BUT THE GREAT SCHISM WAS A LONG HISTORICAL PROCESS, NOT SIMPLY ONE AFTERNOON’S EXCHANGE OF CONDEMNATIONS.

7. CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX LEADERS LATER ACKNOWLEDGED THIS

More than nine hundred years later, something remarkable happened.

In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras issued a joint declaration concerning the events of 1054.

They expressed regret over the offensive words, accusations, and actions that had contributed to the division.

They also made an important historical distinction.

The condemnations of 1054 had been directed against particular persons.

They were not blanket excommunications of the entire Eastern and Western churches.

And the original actions were not intended to produce a complete rupture of communion between the whole Church of Rome and the whole Church of Constantinople.

That is important evidence.

Even the churches most directly associated with the events of 1054 have acknowledged that the familiar one-day account of the Great Schism is too simple.

The division developed through a longer history of disputes and damaged relationships.

8. SO WHEN DID THE FULL BREAK HAPPEN?

There is no single date that captures every stage of the separation.

That may be frustrating.

We like dates.

Dates make history easier to remember.

But relationships between large communities do not always break at one clearly identifiable moment.

Communion between East and West deteriorated over a long period.

Sometimes relations improved.

Sometimes they worsened.

Eastern and Western Christians continued to interact in various ways.

There were attempts at reconciliation.

There were also new conflicts.

The events of 1054 were significant, but they did not end the story.

And then something happened that made the division much harder to heal.

9. THE YEAR WAS 1204

About 150 years after 1054, Western crusaders attacked Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.

The crusade had originally been directed toward a different destination.

But a series of political and financial developments brought the crusading army to Constantinople.

In April 1204, the crusaders captured the city.

They looted it.

Churches and sacred places were violated.

Treasures were carried away.

People suffered violence and displacement.

A Latin political and ecclesiastical order was established in the conquered city.

These were Western Christians attacking a city whose inhabitants were largely Eastern Christians.

Whatever theological arguments had existed before this, something else was now added:

THE MEMORY OF CONQUEST AND VIOLENCE.

You can debate a doctrine.

You can debate a church office.

It is much harder to forget an army attacking and looting your city.

10. 1204 DEEPENED THE DIVISION

The Fourth Crusade did not create the East-West disagreement.

But it intensified the separation.

For Eastern Christians, the attack on Constantinople became a lasting memory of violence inflicted by Western crusaders.

The disagreement was no longer only about:

THE FILIOQUE.

Or:

PAPAL AUTHORITY.

It now included conquest, bloodshed, and the establishment of Latin rule in Constantinople.

The events of 1204 made later attempts at reconciliation more difficult.

So if 1054 became the traditional date of the Great Schism, we must also remember this:

1204 HELPED MAKE THE SEPARATION MUCH HARDER TO HEAL.

11. NOTICE HOW FAR WE HAVE TRAVELED

Go back to Acts 2.

Luke writes:

“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

— Acts 2:42, KJV

Now follow the history.

Local churches appointed elders.

Over time, bishops became distinguished from presbyters.

Major bishops acquired wider regional responsibilities.

Patriarchal structures developed.

Rome’s bishops made increasingly explicit claims about their authority.

Constantinople rose in importance.

East and West disagreed over church authority.

They disagreed over the wording of the creed.

They disagreed over worship practices.

Representatives of Rome and leaders in Constantinople exchanged condemnations.

Later, Western crusaders attacked Constantinople.

The contrast with the fellowship described in Acts 2 is striking.

But we should be careful about what that contrast proves.

Acts 2 describes the life of the early Jerusalem church. It does not give us a complete history of every dispute that arose among the apostles and the first Christians.

The New Testament itself records disagreements.

Our question is how Christians were taught to handle them.

12. WE SHOULD NOT TURN THIS INTO A STORY OF GOOD PEOPLE ON ONE SIDE AND BAD PEOPLE ON THE OTHER

That would be too simple.

Eastern Christian leaders made mistakes.

Western Christian leaders made mistakes.

Political rulers interfered.

Church leaders sometimes acted unjustly.

Personal conflicts intensified disagreements.

Cultural differences made communication harder.

Christians on both sides also believed they were defending important teachings and responsibilities.

We should examine particular actions and claims rather than assign the same motives to everyone on either side.

Our purpose is not to decide:

WHICH SIDE HAD THE NICER PEOPLE?

That would not settle a question about biblical teaching.

Our question remains:

WHAT DID CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES TEACH?

And how did later Christians understand and apply that teaching?

13. JESUS HAD WARNED ABOUT THE DESIRE FOR POSITION

The apostles themselves sometimes struggled over who would hold the highest position.

Luke tells us:

“And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.”

— Luke 22:24, KJV

Jesus answered:

“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.”

— Luke 22:25, KJV

Then He said:

“But ye shall not be so.”

— Luke 22:26, KJV

Read the rest of His answer.

Jesus taught His disciples to understand greatness in terms of service.

That teaching does not eliminate every responsibility or distinction among Christian leaders.

But it does establish how leadership must be exercised.

Whenever Christians struggle over rank, prestige, territory, or control, we should return to Jesus’ words.

“BUT YE SHALL NOT BE SO.”

The question is not merely who holds an office.

It is whether the office is exercised in the spirit of Christ’s teaching.

14. REMEMBER JESUS’ PRAYER

Jesus prayed for those who would believe through the apostles’ word.

He prayed:

“That they all may be one.”

— John 17:21, KJV

By 1054, Christians who confessed the same Christ were moving into a deeper separation.

By 1204, Western crusaders had attacked and looted Constantinople.

Whatever conclusions we reach about the theological disputes, we should not overlook Jesus’ teaching about unity.

But we should also remember the context of His prayer.

Jesus spoke of those who would believe in Him through the apostles’ word (John 17:20).

Christian unity and apostolic teaching belong together.

We should not treat unity as a reason to ignore what the apostles taught.

Nor should we assume that every later disagreement required the complete separation of Christians who shared so much of their faith.

WHAT DID JESUS MEAN BY UNITY, AND HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS HANDLE DISAGREEMENTS WHILE REMAINING FAITHFUL TO HIS WORD?

That question belongs beside our historical study.

15. THE OLD CONDEMNATIONS WERE REMOVED FROM MEMORY

In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras took an important step.

They jointly expressed regret over the actions and words associated with the events of 1054.

They also removed the old sentences of excommunication from the memory and midst of their churches.

Their purpose was to address an ancient obstacle in relations between Rome and Constantinople.

But this did not instantly reunite the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Important theological and authority questions remained.

Removing the old condemnations did not erase centuries of separate development.

It was a step toward reconciliation, not a declaration that every disagreement had been resolved.

16. WHAT, THEN, ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN 1054?

Here is the historical answer.

1054 WAS A MAJOR CONFRONTATION WITHIN A DIVISION THAT HAD BEEN DEVELOPING FOR CENTURIES.

Representatives of Rome condemned Patriarch Michael Cerularius and certain associates.

Constantinople responded by condemning the Roman representatives and their actions.

The condemnations were directed against particular people rather than every Eastern or Western Christian.

The incident became a symbol of the growing rupture between East and West.

Later events, especially the sack of Constantinople in 1204, made reconciliation more difficult.

So we should remember both parts of the story.

THE EVENTS OF 1054 MATTERED.

But:

THE GREAT SCHISM WAS ALSO A LONG HISTORICAL PROCESS.

17. AND NOW CHRISTIANITY HAD TWO GREAT HISTORICAL STREAMS

In the West, the church centered increasingly upon:

ROME.

In the East, churches continued under their bishops, patriarchs, and synods.

Eventually, we commonly refer to these two great traditions as:

ROMAN CATHOLIC

and

EASTERN ORTHODOX.

But we must be careful again.

Eastern Christianity is not identical to the Eastern Orthodox communion alone. Other ancient Eastern Christian churches also have their own histories and relationships with Rome and Constantinople.

Our next study will concentrate on the churches commonly called Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is Eastern Orthodoxy?

Is there an Orthodox pope?

Who governs its churches?

What is a patriarch?

Are Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, and other Orthodox churches separate denominations?

And what do Eastern Orthodox Christians believe about the church and its authority?

Before we compare Eastern Orthodox church organization with the New Testament, we need to understand what Eastern Orthodoxy actually is.

That is where we go next.

WHAT IS THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

NEXT STUDY: WHAT IS THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH?