Mediaeval Church History # 4

 

 

 

THE PAINFUL GOODBYE PLUS ONE

The Tandem of the Great Eastern and Western Schisms

 

 

 

A)    Introduction:

 

            Here in this chapter, we will see two great schisms that happened in the Catholic Church: the Eastern Schism of 1054 and that of the Western Schism among the Catholics themselves.

 

            What was sad to note in these two schisms is that both were born out of human stupidity and closed-mindedness. It was human stupidity because many of those causes were petty things and could have been straightened out through honest dialogues. And it was a result of closed-mindedness of people because it just shows each party's unwillingness to see the truth in the other. Both regarded themselves as righteous and seeing the opposing group committing errors.

 

            If these happened in the 20^th century, these could not have gone that far. However, the Church had her own context. We have our own context too. And we could have our own 'mea culpa' which the future generation would deem it as part of the present Church's venue for more openness in the truth.

 

           

B) Content: The Great Eastern Schism (1054)

 

            The term 'Eastern Schism' refers to the willful separation of the Catholic Church in the East from the communion of the Church in the West, in 1054. When the Eastern Church divorced herself from the West, it was popularly called the Greek Orthodox Church. The Western Christianity was commonly called the Roman Catholic Church. By willful separation, it means that the Greek Orthodox does not anymore look up to the Pope as the visible head and the element of unity. Rather, the Patriarch of Constantinople replaced the Roman Pontiff as the visible head and the unifying factor of the Eastern Church.

           

            These are the more important causes. We can view these causes as gradual piling up of grudges and misunderstandings of cultures and events. They were also heated up by resentments that arose among the Latins and the Greeks.

 

 

 

B. 1 - Minor Causes of the Schism

 

            1) The 'Filioque' issue. The controversial insertion of the Latin word 'filioque' (meaning 'and the Son') in the Nicean - Constantinople Creed remained as one of the significant points of disagreement between the Eastern and the Western churches. The Greek Church states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. While the Latin Church espouses that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 'and the Son' (filioque). The Greeks did not accept the 'filioque'.

 

            2)The transfer of the capital from Rome to Constantinople in 330. By this transfer, Constantinople (named after Constantine, formerly Byzantium) grew in its imperial and ecclesiastical importance, so much so it became the center of Christianity in the East. Thus, Greeks regarded Constantinople as the New Rome, which the West vehemently denied. Why should she be? Constantinople was the last of the five ecclesiastical centers according to prominence (Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople).

 

            3) Constantinople disliked the coronation of Charlemagne as the Emperor of the new Holy Roman Empire. The resentment rests on the fact that it was the pope who raised this barbarian, a former enemy of the Roman Empire, to a reputation of an emperor. An injury was added to the insult when Charlemagne, after defeating the Lombards in 774, gave the territory, the exarcate of Ravenna, not to the Byzantine Empire but to the Pope, as the future Papal States.

 

                       

B. 2 - The Point of No Return: Solemn Condemnation by Cardinal Humbert

 

            The pope at this time was Leo IX (1049-1054). The Patriarch of Constantinople was Michael Cerularius. The year was 1054. The issue: Patriarch Michael Cerularius closed the Latin churches in the south of Italy. This area, though near Rome, was claimed by the East. The reason of the closure: the Pope allied himself with the Normans in order to acquire the south and thus extending his ecclesiastical territory.

 

            The pope wanted to patch up things with the patriarch. Solution: he sent three legates to Constantinople headed by a certain Cardinal Humbert. Accordingly, the legates were not received properly. And they were not allowed to say Mass in Latin. The dialogue turned out to be a death sentence for both of them: Cardinal Humbert announced Michael's excommunication in the great 'Hagia Sophia' cathedral. Michael, in turn, excommunicated the pope, who already died 3 months earlier. It was that move which changed the course of history between the Rome and Constantinople.

 

            Later, many efforts were made just to reconcile the two. But all were in vain. A ray of hope shone on them, however, when Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople made a historic embrace in the 20^th century.

 

 

C) Content: The Western Schism (1378-1417)

 

            The term 'Western Schism' is referred to the great division of Christianity that happened in the West due to the fact that there were two (and later three) popes who were leading the Roman Catholic Church together. But worst of all, they were even excommunicating and invalidating each other.

 

            As a result, the people, kingdoms, universities and even saints were divided in their loyalties. Enmeshed in the situation of the time, no one was sure whose the real and whose the fake - the one reigning in Avignon, in Rome, (and later) or in Pisa.

 

C. 1 - The Background: The popes in Avignon

 

            After the death of Boniface the VIII, popes became French puppies of King Philip the Fair. The king appointed French cardinals who were responsible in electing French popes. These popes chose to stay in Avignon, France rather than in Rome. Historians called this event as the Church's Babylonian Captivity (1303-1378). Fortunately, Gregory XI (1370-1378) returned to Rome at the request of St. Catherine of Siena. However, when at Rome, Gregory XI died. This meant that the conclave (election of the pope) must be held in Rome, where the Roman were pressuring the 16 cardinal (11 French, 4 Italians, 1 Spanish) to elect an Italian pope or else face bad an evil end.

 

            Forced by the circumstance, as they later recounted, they elected an Italian pope - Urban VI. On the other hand, the cardinal fled from Rome out of fear of from the people right after the election. Taking refuge in Avignon,  they proceeded to elect another pope - Clement VII.

 

C. 2 - From one pope, then two, and finally, there was three

 

            Why did the cardinals elect another pope? They believed that Urban VI was invalid, for one reason it was done out of coercion. And thus, they were not free in doing so. The famous Western Schism therefore started in the pontificate of Urban VI with his counterpart pope residing at Avignon - Clement VII.

 

            Thus, started the great divide among the Church members, with one pope condemning the other. The call for resignation was not effective. Aside from that, both have their own successors. What was the best solution for the mediaeval man for this problem? They resorted to 'conciliarism', a solution which popes dreaded to happen.

 

            Conciliarism is a theory exalting the general Council over the pope. That was unheard of before. The pope was superior to the Council. He presided over it and all its decision would pass through him for approval. In other words, the Council could not exist without the pope.

 

            Unsure of whoever was the true pope, the situation called for this solution. A council was convoked in Pisa without a papal leadership. They worked on two things: first, they deposed the two reigning popes. Then, after invalidating them, they elected another pope, Alexander V, thinking that this would now end the ongoing problem. But, it was far from what they expected. For by now, there were not two but three reigning popes.

 

            Fortunately, after resignation of Gregory XIII (1406 - 1415), it was easier for the council to depose Benedict XIII of the Avignon line. As for John XXIII (Pisan line), he was imprisoned after refusing to resign. The council that he convoked was the same council who deposed him. Later, this same council elected Martin V (1417-1431), the first pope after the Western Schism. With Martin V, the Western Schism ended with sad consequences.

 

  The Popes during the Western Schism

 

 

Roman popes	Avignon popes	Pisan popes
x	Gregory XI (1370 - 1378)	x
Urban VI (1378-1388)	Clement VII (1378-1394)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
	Benedict XIII (1394-1417) He was deposed
Innocent VIII (1404-1406)
Gregory XII (1406-1415) He resigned
		Alexander V (1409-10)
		John XXIII (1410-1415) He was imprisoned and deposed
x		Martin V (1417-1431)
	x

 

Note: the names written in bold letters are considered the true popes during the schism. Their contemporaries were the anti-popes.

 

 

D: CONCLUSION:

 

 

1)  The great effect of these two schisms was disunity in the Church. Our Lord wills and prays that all his disciples may be one (Jn. 17: 22-23). But, at this time, the Church did not reflect much the intention of Christ over his Church.

 

2)  All causes of separation can be summarized into one word - politics. The Church at this time was too political. This was shown in the way the Papacy was dealing with the Eastern Church and in the fact that some popes resided Avignon. She was also deeply involved in the propagation not of faith but of her temporal influence.

 

3) The separations of the Greek Orthodox Church from Rome marked a very sad event of our history. Actually, the only great difference we have with them is our deep esteem to the successor of Peter. They have all the seven sacraments, the ministerial priesthood, the Catholic doctrines on Trinity, Mary, the saints and morality. Like us, theirs is the original Church and faith of the Apostles.

 

 

E: Guides for Reflections:

 

1) What we need today is DIALOGUE not DEBATE ? Dialogue entails seeking what unite us. Debate is seeking what divides us. What is your attitude towards people who lambasted your Catholic faith? Do you have the spirit of dialogue or debate with them?

 

2) Many people who left the Catholic Church basically do not know their Catholic faith. How would assess your faith today?

 

 

 

F: Bibliography

 

Comby, Jean. How to Read Church History, vol 1, trans. John Bowden and Margaret Lydamore. New Yor: Crossroad, 1992

 

Franzen, August and John P. Dolan. A History of the Church, trans. Peter Becker. Montreal: Palm    Publisher, 1965

 

Notes on the Mediaeval Church History (unpublished). Don Bosco Center of Studies, 2001.

 

Poulet, Charles. A History of Catholic Church, Vol. 1 (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1934)

 

The History of Christianity, ed. Dr. Tim Dowley (Oxford, England: Lion Publishing, 1977).