Eastern Orthodox Church

Crux Orthodoxa

The Eastern Orthodox Church refers to those Christians who are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople established during the Byzantine Empire (the eastern Roman Empire), which was originally united with the western European (Roman Catholic) Church. This article will discuss the Eastern Orthodox Church, which includes those bodies which date their foundation in the period of the Roman Empire in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Alexandria, plus the churches that hold they were established directly from these bodies, including those of Armenia, Georgia,Russia, Ethiopia and others. The topic is limited specifically to those bodies who accept the canons of all of the original Seven Ecumenical Councils from 324 AD to 787 AD, and will include an account of those who have in the past accepted, but do not currently accept, the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. It does not include those churches known as Monophysitic churches that employ the term 'orthodox' as part of their names. The Monophysite Churches embrace the belief that Jesus the Christ had only a divine nature and did not also have a human nature.

Defining the Eastern Orthodox Church

The Eastern Orthodox Church may also be called:

• The Orthodox Christian Church
• The Church of the Seven Councils
• The Apostolic Church
• The Ancient Christian Church.
• The Church Ecumenical

Traditionally and formally the Orthodox Church refers to itself as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" (Ware, p. 307). Unlike the Western Christian Churches, it did not undergo a Reformation in the 16th century (wherein the Roman Church experienced significant separations from other churches within its jurisdiction) or a Counter-Reformation (Ware p. 1)..

The most basic statement of faith of the Orthodox Church is the Nicene Creed (without the Filioque, see below). The Creed, referred to as the 'Symbol of the Faith', is also at the heart of many Western Christian churches’ beliefs, but over the years there have been additions which are not shared by the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church is a 'conciliar' Church, and consists of various national churches that share a common faith, history, tradition, and worship. The national churches cooperate with each other, but are each governed by their own local councils of bishops, in contrast to the centralized authority of the Papacy (Timothy Ware, p 23).

Canonicity

The Church of the Seven Councils is “canonical” in that The Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils established basic beliefs and administrative guidelines. Adherence to these is the foundation of a church’s canonical status and thus its interaction with other Orthodox Churches. Canonical churches are “in communion” with each other; those that are not canonical are removed from the list of those in communion. Adherence to the Seven and only the Seven Ecumenical Councils is another distinguishing character of the Orthodox Catholic Church. The Roman Church convened numerous other councils in which the other churches did not participate or vote.

Patriarchates, Autocephalous and Autonomous Jurisdictions

The primary divisions in the Eastern Orthodox Church are administrative and not theological; they reflect geophysical, national, and often linguistic differences. The Ancient Church constructed jurisdictions around ancient Roman districts and countries from which the current regions have evolved.

Ancient Patriarchates

As of the 21st century, the four ancient patriarchates are claimed as still existing intact (Ware pp. 127, 133 & 134).

• The Patriarchate of Constantinople. Also known as the 'Ecumenical Patriarchate', this is the legal leader in a number of areas of the Church of the Seven Councils, in that it can consecrate bishops and establish monasteries in other canonical districts.
• The Patriarchate of Alexandria
• The Patriarchate of Antioch
• The Patriarchate of Jerusalem

The Roman Patriarchate, which technically still exists in the Pope and the Vatican, does not envisage itself as a patriarchate in the sense of being an equal with the other ancient patriarchates. This is one of the major divergence principles, and dates to the 11th century.

The jurisdictional regions also include other autocephalous and autonomous divisions. An autocephalous church may appoint their own metropolitan (archbishop) and is self-governing. Some of them are designated Patriarchates. An autonomous church receives a metropolitan or bishop that is consecrated (and thus appointed) by another jurisdiction but is otherwise largely self-governing.

Other Patriarchates

• Armenia: Also known as the 'Armenian Apostolic Church', the Armenian Orthodox Church is no longer in communion with the canonical churches. Armenia separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church in 506 AD after the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).
• Bulgaria: Bulgaria’s autocephaly has been recognised more than once due to political and military upheavals which extinguished or exiled members of the church. Autocephaly dates first to 927 AD (declared in 919 in Bulgaria and recognised later by the Ecumenical Patriarchate) and was reinstated twice thereafter, in 1235 and 1945 following World War II.
• Georgia: the Georgian church was originally part of the territory of the Patriarchate of Antioch. The church was granted autocephaly by the Patriarch of Antioch in 466 AD. The Georgian Orthodox Church lost its autocephalous status in 1811 when it was subsumed by the Russian Synod. It regained its autocephalous status in 1943 by the Russian Orthodox Church and was recognised again in 1989 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
• Russia: Autocephaly recognised in 1589 by Ecumenical Patriarchate
• Serbia: Autocephalous stature dates from the mid 14th century; it was briefly lost and restored in the mid 16th century
• Romania: Although Romania’s Orthodox Church dates from the 1st century, it was only recognised as autocephalous in 1885 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Autocephalous and autonomous churches without Patriarchate status

• The Church of Sinai. The Church is centered around St Catherine’s Monastery on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. The original construction was a chapel denoting the site of Moses’ encounter with God (the Burning Bush), it was built by Helen, the mother of Emperor Constantine I. The Monastery was built by Emperor Justinian I in 527-565 AD. The Church of Sinai is autonomous, and its Archbishop is consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Ware. p. 135).
• The Church of Cyprus: autocephalous since the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) (Ware, p. 136)
• The Church of Greece: autocephaly recognised in 1850 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Ware. p. 136).
• Poland: autocephaly was recognised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1924.
• Albania: autocephaly recognised in 1937 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
• Orthodox Church in the Czech Lands: autocephaly recognised in 1998 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate
• Orthodox Church in Slovakia: autocephaly recognised in 1998 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate
• Orthodox Church in America: formerly known as the 'Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America', it was granted autocephalous status by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1970 and as yet has not been recognised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
• The Church of Japan: autonomy recognised in 1970 at the same time the Patriarchate recognised the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America. Its primate (Bishop) is consecrated by the Russian Patriarchate.
• The Church of China: has a mission in Hong Kong whose Metropolitan is appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
• The Church of Finland: autonomous status granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1923.
• Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church: granted autonomy by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1921 and again in 1996
• Orthodox Church of Ukraine: autonomy recognised by the Russian Patriarchate in 1990. There are three churches in the Ukraine: the 'Church of Ukraine (Moscow Patriarchate)' is in communion with the Orthodox Church); the 'Church of Ukraine (Kiev Patriarchate)' and the 'Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church' are not in communion with the mainstream Orthodox Churches.

Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed (also referred to as the Nicene-Constantinople Creed) embodies the fundamental beliefs of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became man; and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; and suffered, and was buried; and arose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; Who procedeeth from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the prophets. In One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; I look for the resurrection of the dead, And the life of the age to come. Amen.

The Creed is sung or read at every celebration of the Eucharist and twice daily at Midnight Office and Compline. The Nicene Creed, unlke the Apostles Creed or the Athanasian Creed, is the only creed proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council and thus the only creed vested with the authority of the Orthodox Church. The Apostles Creed is an ancient statement of faith whose use as a Baptismal Creed and inherent teaching is respected by the Orthodox Church but it is never used in Orthodox Service. The Athanasian Creed is also not used in Orthodox worship services but is occasionally printed in the Book of Hours (Horologian) without the Filioque

Filioque

The Filioque is an important difference between the Orthodox Christian Church and the Roman Catholic Church and, arguably, was one of the causes of the Great Schism of 1054. The divergent opinions on the Filoque that are expressed today by these Churches are often couched in strong terms.

In 589 AD, the Synod of Spain at the Third Council of Toledo added “filioque” (Latin for from the son) to a phrase in the Nicene Creed:

“Credo ... in Spiritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem: qui ex patre [filioque] procedit. Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur: qui locútus est per Prophétas.” (“And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and from the Son] who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.”)

The Filioque, simply put, is a dogma in which the Holy Spirit (pneuma Theou) proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Western Church argued that, although the text of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed did not contain the Filioque, it was implicit and known to the participants in the Council; they contend that the change merely clarifies the Creed. The Eastern Church denies this, and interprets the original Creed as asserting that the Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father.

The dispute engages another principle that the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects, the Primacy of the Roman Catholic Pope, an issue that the Eastern Orthodox Church believes was resolved at the Fourth Ecumencial Council, as worded in Canon XXVIII in which the Ecumencial Patriarchate was recognised. Western churchmen they argued that the Bishop of Rome, as the ultimate arbiter of truth in the Church, could modify the creed as he saw fit.

Western theologians also drew upon scripture to justify their addition of the Filioque, and upon the writings of both Western and Eastern theologians, in particular, Augustine and Hilary of Poitiers who came very close to the doctrine of the Filioque in their writings.

The issue is a very particular doctrine, since the Eastern Orthodox Church's concept of the divinity of the three involves their eternal nature and their one substance--not three but one--and must not imply a beginning, hence the use of procedit (proceeds). The canonicity of the placement of filioque in the creed is disputed on the basis that it was not in the original creed of Nicea nor subsequent amendments in the Seven Councils. Its theological import is that it indicates a different relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Spirit which, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, is not confirmed by the Scriptures. As such, it is a paramount issue in the beliefs of Orthodox Christians.

Apostolic Succession

The Orthodox Christian Church adheres to the concept of Apostolic Succession, by which the Church hierarchy has a heritage of ordination descended directly from the original Apostles. This implies three essential components: beliefs handed down from the first followers of Jesus, the Twelve Apostles ; a physical succession of ordination of the church hierarchy unlike most other churches and a spiritual lineage. This line of succession therefore dates to the Twelve Apostles without break over nearly 2000 years.

The primary reference for the Apostolic Succession is in the New Testament, Matthew 16:13-19. When Peter declares “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”, Jesus replies “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In the Eastern Orthodox Church, some important concepts are derived from this passage:

• Jesus states the intention to form a corporate Body, the Church ('corporate' in that it has a physical form). Believers are not to be disassociated individuals, but are to be members of this Church, with a shared faith.
• Peter is a rock upon which the church will be built, metaphorically, the essence of the foundation. St. Paul elaborates on this in his Letter to the Ephesians (2:20), “the church has been built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone.” In the Gospel of John, (21:15-23) Jesus states Peter’s mission (“Feed my sheep”) and gives Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the authority to bind on earth what is bound in heaven. While this authority is given to Peter first, it is also given to the other Apostles (John 20:20-23).
• The 'Rock' upon which the Church is built is faith embodied in Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The Orthodox perception is thus that the Christ Himself, the Truth, is the One upon whom the Church is built.

These points are contested by the Roman Catholic Church, who hold that Peter is the one and only Rock, and hence that authority rests with his direct successors in Rome. It also diverges from Protestant and non-denominational Christian beliefs that the concept of succession is to all Christians, and is wholly spiritual or metaphorical in that there is no actual physical succession handed down through a church hierarchy and, therefore, no unified corporate body of the Church. There are many interpretations integral to other creeds and denominations which diverged from the original Orthodox doctrine.

A premise of Apostolic Succession is that the Christ is the 'Truth Incarnate', or 'God made flesh'. The concept of Jesus as God and Man is integral to the Nicaene Creed and is axiomatic in the Ancient Christian Church. Truth, from this perspective, is not a body of ideas or a proposition but a physical manifestation, the Christ.

Apostolic Succession also places the authority of church in the priests and bishops who are fulfilling the sacramental office as the officers of the first true believer, Peter the Disciple.

The early church sent leaders to the new Christians (Acts 8:14,15)

• “14. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
• “15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.”

In this instance, the interpretation is that those who heard the Word of God were not a church nor in the Church per se, and having heard the Word of God they had yet to undergo the act of receiving the Holy Ghost. In the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, the premise is that although the Christians of Samaria had heard the Word of God, they were still to be administered directly to by the Apostles (in this case, the first generation, those who had been with the Christ in the beginning). The doctrine of Apostolic Succession in this instance draws on the recorded act of going to the Christians of Samaria and taking part in their leadership physically as well as spiritually. While they had merely been baptised, they were still not physically or spiritually a part of the Church.

Earlier, Philip the Evangelist, one of the original deacons, had gone to Samaria to preach. Philip had been made a deacon (Acts 6:3-6), along with six others who were not of the original Apostles, to serve the church and tend to the needs of Christians. He later went to the Gaza desert to speak to the Eunuch (Acts 8:27-39) and then on to Caesarea (Acts 8:40). Apparently Philip was at Samaria at the same time as the Apostles Peter and John, but as a deacon and evangelist he had specific roles, and John and Peter had roles that Philip did not. In other words, deacons could preach and baptise, but a bishop (one who was an Apostle or had received the Succession) had to confirm the baptism and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit.

The process of Apostolic ordination

The act of making Philip and the others deacons also provides the doctrine of Apostolic Succession with a precedent, in that the Apostles themselves (including Matthias who had replaced Judas Iscariot) ordained the seven deacons.

This appointment and ordination and its attendant process and its ultimate goal also provides further definition to the doctrine of Succession. The Apostles had a role to fulfil while members of the community complained that some of their number were not being taken care of. The Christian community at that time was Jewish, and followed the traditions of that faith. The needy in Jewish communities were administered to through the synagogue collections that provided food, the weekly kuppah (basket) and the daily tamhui (tray). The early Christian Church did the same for their community. However, Greek-speaking Jews felt that their widows were not receiving the same daily distribution of food as Hebrew-speaking widows. The Twelve Apostles dealt with this discord by directing the main body of disciples to choose seven men to fulfil the required roles, so that they would not have to “abandon the word of God to serve tables.”

The seven men were chosen (Acts 6:5) and the Apostles prayed for them and laid hands on them. The process then included an appointment by the disciples and subsequent ordination by the Apostles, which included placing their hands on the heads of the seven (the laying on of hands). The act of physically ordaining and preserving a direct corporeal lineage is supported in several instances in the New Testament

• Acts 8:14-19: Peter and John placed their hands on new Christians in Samaria;
• Acts 9:12,17: Ananias places his hands on Saul (later known as Paul the Apostle);
• Acts 13:2-3: The Apostles lay hands on Barnabas and Saul before sending them out;
• Acts 19:6: Paul the Apostle administers the laying on of hands;
• Acts 28:8: Paul the Apostle administers the laying on of hands.


The physical act of laying on of hands is also mentioned in 1 Timothy 4:14 and 5:22, 2 Timothy 1:5-6, and is listed in the elementary teachings about Christ in Hebrews 6:1-2

Another aspect of act of ordination shows that the Church was developing as a structured institution, consistent with Christ’s commission in Matthew 16:13-19.

The demarcation between the administrators and managers was also clear: the Apostles defined roles for the deacons and for the Apostles, and they were not the same. These role models are developed through the New Testament. The differences between Philip the Evangelist (one of the ordained deacons in Acts 6:1-7) and the Apostles becomes apparent in later events conveyed in the Acts of the Apostles.

Christian and Church

The doctrine of Apostolic Succession does not say that one cannot be a Christian unless one is in the Apostolic Church. It simply does not support the idea found in many non-Catholic communities that they are of the Christian Church.

A great deal might happen to an individual before entering the Church. An individual might experience divine visions, baptism of the Holy Spirit might precede the baptism with water but the presence of an Apostle or one who has received the Succession is still paramount in the act of placing the Christian within the Church. A centurion by the name of Cornelius (Acts 10) was instructed in a vision to locate the Apostle Simon Peter. After they met, Simon Peter preached and the centurion and others received the Holy Spirit:

• "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word."(Acts 10:44)

An integral aspect of Acts 10 is that the centurion required the intervention of an Apostle to complete the transition into the Church.

Apostolic Commission

The Commission inherent in the Apostolic Succession is, simply put, a directive issued by the Christ to the original disciples, sending them out into the world as he had been sent by God. The implications for the role and authority and the responsibility of the Orthodox Clergy are stated in John 20:21-23. The Disciples are to “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”

Historical Perspective

Clement, the third Bishop of Rome in the first century, referred to the purpose of the Apostolic Succession when dealing with the problem of authority in the Church of Corinth. Members of that Church had deposed their ordained leaders, and Clement reminded them that Apostolic Succession was to provide continuity and to prevent strife over the office of the bishop

• 1Clem 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office.
• 1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

Tertullian, a priest in the Church of Carthage, writing at the beginning of the third century, referred to the Apostolic Succession to confront heresy (false teachings). He declared that heresies were to be revealed by the roll of bishops from that day back to the beginning to demonstrate that any Church in question had initially received its commission from an Apostle: “Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, . . . to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,“ In this passage Tertullian also confirms the Apostolic Succession of Polycarp in the Smyrnaean Church and that of Clement in the Church of Rome.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils

The doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox Church were estabished in seven different ecumencial councils in the first millennium. These are, in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, infallible statements of faith and constitute "an abiding and irrevocable authority".

The Eastern Orthodox Church recognises only the canons of the Seven Councils. This position differs significantly from that of the Roman Catholic Church which stipulates canons added after the last of the Seven Councils, notably, in the case of the Filioque, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). This last council was declared fully ecumenical by the Latin Church in that the Eastern Orthodox Church had sent representatives. At the time, the Greek Empire (Constantinople) was attempting to enrol allies in their conflict with the Ottoman Turks. To this day, Roman Catholic sources insist that a reunification of the ancient patriarchates was effected at the Council of Florence ; Orthodox sources emphatically deny this.

See also this list of councils; only the first seven are recognised by the Eastern Church.

Ecumenical Patriarchate

At the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon in 451 A.D., the bishops resolved in Canon XXVIII that the Bishop of New Rome (Patriarch of Constantinople) was to have the same honour as the Bishop of Old Rome--the Pope--and was charged with ordaining the metropolitans (leaders of the clergy in specified areas) of Pontus, Asia, Thrace, and Barbarian bishops. This decision, attributed to the 150 bishops present at the Council, has been contested by the Roman Catholic Church, but to this day the Eastern Orthodox Churches must maintain, by definition, communion with the Patriarchate in Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) where the current Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew maintains the Patriarchate.

Schism with Rome

The schism, or separation of the Western and Eastern Churches, is variously referred to as "The Great Schism", "The Eastern Schism," "The East-West Schism" or the "Schism of 1054".

Numerous scholars argue that the schism did not happen all at once. Bishop Timothy Ware lists many contributing factors, including: fragmentation brought about by the division of the Roman Empire into two parts with two emperors and the establishment of an Eastern capitol in Constantinople by emperor Constantine at the end of the third century and the barbarian invasions which began in the fifth century; the rise of Islam and the control of the Mediterranean by the Arab world which made travel difficult; and decentralisation of the Church's collegial authority beginning with the pope’s coronation in the year 800 of Charlemagne as Emperor. The steady decline of the use of Greek in the West and of Latin in the East also contributed to poor communication between the two halves of the Church. Over time, the two halves became alienated.

In 1009 the newly elected Pope Sergius IV is purported to have sent out a systatic letter, the Synodicon, notifying the other patriarchs (including Sergius II who was elected patriarch of Constantinople, about July 1001) of his election. In the 'Synodicon' he was to have included the filioque in the creed for the first time.

The story goes that the response of Patriarch Sergius II was to omit Pope Sergius IV’s name from the diptychs (Byzantine prayer intercessions) which are the official lists read out at the Eucharist. This has been refuted as an invention of 12th-century controversialists and the episode is not mentioned in many standard Roman Catholic sources.

See also discussion in the Roman Catholic Church article.

Anathema of 1054

In 1054 an event took place that was a pivotal episode in the Great Schism. Pope Leo IX sent three legates, led by Cardinal Humbert, the Bishop of Silva Candida, to Constantinople in a mission of reconciliation to look into growing tensions between the Eastern and Western Churches (political control in Norman Italy, liturgical and Eucharistic practices etc.) and the supreme authority of Rome being asserted by the papacy. It became a confrontation: Michael, the Patriarch of Constantinople, either refused to see the legates or treated them in a manner the legates perceived as disrespectful. The legates for their part evidently presented themselves as arrogant in the demands for Papal authority, and Cardinal Humbert placed a letter of excommunication (anathema) on the alter of the St. Sophia Cathedral July 16, 1054.

Humbert’s letter was directed at Patriarch Michael Cerularius (or Keroularios) and his closest associates. While it contained many accusations, two that stand out historically was that the Eastern Church was using the Nicene Creed without the Filioque and that Michael did not merit the position of Patriarch. After placing the letter on the alter, Humbert and the other two legates left Constantinople.

The rationale for excommunication involved several disagreements between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Pope. These included the removal of the Filioque from the Creed (which was not in any of the versions approved by the Seven Ecumenical Councils), the practice of married clergy (a change brought about by the Roman Church long after the tradition of married clergy had been established in the Western and the Eastern Church) and liturgical practices that diverged from the Roman Church (practices which had a long standing tradition in the Eastern Churches predating the Roman changes by centuries). Patriarch Michael responded by drawing up a list of abuses committed by the Latin Church and issued a Bull of Excommunication against the legates and their associates after a synod of Eastern Orthodox Bishops on July 20, 1054. This was in turn supported by the other Patriarchates.

Pope Leo the IX had died in April, 1054, and his successor was not chosen until that September. Patriarch Cerularius thus knew that the letter was composed by Cardinal Humbert and was in his name, not the Pope’s; he treated it with reserve, and may have believed that it and the mission which Humbert led were invalid. It is perhaps with these factors in mind that Patriarch Cerularius and the Eastern Synod excommunicated Humbert and those associated, but did not refer in the excommunication to the Pope or the Western Church. The result was that the Eastern and Western Churches did not declare a schism and the dispute was largely unknown throughout both Churches. The real basis for the schism was yet to come with the Crusades, particularly as a result of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 when the Western Crusaders sacked Constantinople, carrying off a vast amount of wealth and installing their own bishops. This, for the Eastern Church, was a clear sign that the Western Church had little regard for the Eastern Church.

The "Schism" was the culmination of events taking place over a lengthy period of time. There were earlier disagreements and after 1054, there were many issues that led to alienation between the two jurisdictions. The Anathema stood for 911 years. In January 1964, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras met in Jerusalem, the first time the leaders of the two churches had met face to face since the Council of Florence in 1438-39. On December 7, 1965 the Anathemas of 1054 were revoked by the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch at the Vatican Council and the Holy Synod respectively (Ware, page 315).

Another disputed factor, the filioque, still listed as a divisive issue today as well as then, was not apparently viewed as such in the late eleventh century: Anselm (Archbishop of Canterbury) and Theophylact (head of the Bulgarian Church) thought the issue not important enough for a schism.

When the crusaders captured Antioch in 1097, Jerusalem in 1099 and Constantinople in 1204, they deposed the patriarchs and appointed replacements. These appointments were confirmed by the Papacy. Alexandria never fell to the crusaders, and legates of its patriarch took part in the 4th Lateran Council in Rome in 1215. The Pope appointed his own Patriarch of Alexandria in 1310.

In 1274, at the Council of Lyons, and again in 1439, at the Council of Florence, Constantinople agreed to reunion with Rome. Although agreed by the patriarch in each case, these reunions were very unpopular with those lower in the hierarchy, and ended in 1282 and 1453 respectively.

In later centuries a number of patriarchs of Antioch were in communion with Rome and Constantinople simultaneously, the last being Athanasius III. On his death in 1724, a successor was elected who wished to continue this policy, but Constantinople refused to recognize him and appointed its own patriarch. In the resulting schism, most of the faithful ended up Roman Catholic.

In 1729 the Pope forbade sharing of worship and sacraments, ending the common practice whereby visiting Jesuits in the East would preach sermons in Orthodox churches and hear confessions from the faithful. In 1755 the Orthodox Church decreed that Catholics converting to Orthodoxy must be rebaptized.