What factors led to the Great Schism?

Answer 1

• One of the main reasons for the Greast Schism of 1054 AD is the disagreement between the Romans and Byzantines concerning the "filioque." The filioque refers to the relative divinity of God the Father compared to the Son. In the place where the original Nicene Creed reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father", the amended, Roman Catholic version reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son". The addition is accepted by Roman Catholic Christians but rejected by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
• Additionally, there was also disagreement over the authority of the Pope.
• Disagreements in uses of beliefs led to the Great Schism

Answer2: As time passed, efforts were made to translate the Bible into the languages that people commonly spoke. Few could read the Bible in the Hebrew or Greek in which it was written. Almost 300 years before Jesus lived on earth, work began on translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. That translation is known as the Greek Septuagint. Some 700 years later, Jerome produced a famous translation known as the Vulgate. This was a rendering of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures into Latin, which was the common tongue of the Roman Empire of that time.

Later, Latin began to fade as a common language. Only the well-educated maintained familiarity with Latin, and the Catholic Church resisted efforts to translate the Bible into other languages. Religious leaders argued that Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were the only suitable Bible languages.

In the ninth century C.E., Methodius and Cyril, Thessalonian missionaries acting on behalf of the Eastern Church in Byzantium, promoted the use of Slavic as a church language. Their goal was to enable the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe, who understood neither Greek nor Latin, to learn about God in their own language.

These missionaries, however, met with fierce opposition from German priests, who sought to impose Latin as a defense against the expanding influence of Byzantine Christianity. Clearly, politics were more important to them than people's religious education. Increasing tensions between the Western and Eastern branches of Christendom led to the division between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054.

Answer 2

The east and west argued over whether the Holy Spirit came from just the Father or Father and Son. Rome gave in to Father and Son and the East separated because of it. The East only regards 7 councils as Ecumenical.

East also does not believe in the Primacy of Rome while they do regard the Papacy as legit. They got really mad when the Pope was declared the sole Heir to Gods kingdom.

.

Catholic Answer

The Great Schism, otherwise known as the Western Schism is not to be confused with the Schism of the East. The Schism of the East was when the Eastern Church broke into two factions, half staying with Rome, and half formed what is now called the Orthodox Church. The Eastern Schism, contrary to many popular opinions was not really theological but political. Many contemporary, particularly protestant scholars seem to confuse the two. What is called the Great Schism in the Catholic Church was the Western Schism, which, even more confusing, was not really a schism in the sense that the Schism of the East was, but a time when the Church had more than one claimant to the Papal Throne, finally resulted in three, one pope and two antipopes.

from

Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J. Doubleday & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY 1980

The Great Schism, otherwise known as the Western Schism, 1378-1417, when there was controversy over the true succession to the papacy. It began with the writings of Marsilius of Padua c. 1275- 1342), who claimed that a pope is subject to a council of bishops, priests, and laymen. Urban VI was elected Pope on April 8, 1378, following the seventy-year Avignon residence of the papacy. He was a stern reformer and also harsh. The French cardinals in retaliation declared that Urban had not been validly elected and proceeded to elect Robert of Geneva as the antipope Clement VII (1378-94). Clement withdrew to Avignon and the Great Schism was in full swing. France, Scotland, and Spain gave their allegiance to Clement; England, Italy, Flanders, Hungary, Poland, and most of Germany followed Urban, who died in 1389. There followed a succession of lawful popes at Rome and antipopes at Avignon. The universities of Paris, Oxford, and Prague disputed how the impasse should be resolved. Finally pope and antipope were invited to a council at Pisa (1409); both decline and were declared deposed by the council, which proceeded to elect yet another antipope, Alexander V (1409-10). In desperation, Emperor Sigismund of Germany appealed to the antipope John XXIII of Pisa, to call a general council at Constance, a German city on the Rhine. John agreed, and the council, later legitimized, was convened in 1414. It lasted four years and finally resolved the schism. The Pisan antipope John XXIII abdicated. Gregory XII, the true Roman Pontiff, having formally convoked the Council of Constance, sent his representatives, and then, for the good of the Church, freely resigned his office. The claim of Benedict XIII of Avignon was no longer worthy of serious consideration. The chair of Peter, vacant at last was filled by the election, November 11, 1417, of Pope Martin V. The Great Schism was ended.

Answer 3

Catholic Answer

First of all, there is no "Roman Catholic Church". It’s just Catholic, not Roman Catholic. Roman is an epithet first commonly used in England after the protestant revolt to describe the Catholic Church. It is never used by the official Catholic Church. Secondly, there was no one conflict that led to the Eastern Schism, when the Orthodox left the Church, it was a long and complicated process that was more due to political problems than anything else. When the Orthodox Church split, every single Rite, save the Russians, split in half: thus to this day, there is a Greek Uniate Rite (part of the Catholic Church) and a Greek Orthodox Church, and so on for all the Eastern Rites.

from

A Catholic Dictionary, edited by Donald Attwater, Second edition, revised 1957

The Schism of the East

the estrangement and severance from the Holy See of what is now called the Orthodox Eastern Church was a gradual process extending over centuries. After a number of minor schisms the first serious, though short, break was that of Photius; from then on tension between East and West increased, and the schism of Cerularius occurred in 1054. From then on the breach gradually widened and has been definitive since 1472. There was a formal union from the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 until 1282, and a more promising one after the Council of Florence from 1439 to 1472. After the capture of Constantinople it was in the Turkish interest to reopen and widen the breach with the powerful Roman church; the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were dragged into this policy, Russia and the Slav churches stood out the longest of any: none of these churches, except Constantinople itself in 1472, formally and definitely broke away from the unity of the Church. But in the course of centuries the schism has set and crystallized into a definite separation from the Holy See of many million people with a true priesthood and valid sacraments. The origins, causes and development of the schism are matters of much complication, still not fully unraveled.

from

Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J. Doubleday & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY 1980

Separation of the Christian Churches of the East from unity with Rome. The schism was centuries in the making and finally became fixed in 1054, when the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularisu (died 1059), was excommunicated by the papal legates for opposing the use of leavened bread by the Latin Church and removing the Pope’s name from the diptychs or list of persons to be prayed for in the Eucharistic liturgy. A temporary reunion with Rome was effected by the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439) but never stabilized.

Answer 4

Political, religious, sociology conflict.
The schism between them is that they are divided by the time of July 16, 1054.The leader of the Roman rite at that time was Pope Leo XI and Michael Cerularius the patriarch of Constantinople.

.

Roman is an epithet first commonly used in England after the protestant revolt to describe the Catholic Church. It is rarely used by the Catholic Church. The schism in which the Orthodox left the Church was primarily political, and a long time in the making.

Answer 5

The primary disagreement between the two branches of the Church were political in nature, but they were given, at the time of the break definite differences. The exact reasons latched onto for the actual split were the use of leavened bread in the East and the removal of the Holy Father's name from the diptychs.

(see the related question below)

from A Catholic Dictionary, edited by Donald Attwater, Second edition, revised 1957

The Schism of the East the estrangement and severance from the Holy See of what is now called the Orthodox Eastern Church was a gradual process extending over centuries. After a number of minor schisms the first serious, though short, break was that of Photius; from then on tension between East and West increased, and the schism of Cerularius occurred in 1054. From then on the breach gradually widened and has been definitive since 1472. There was a formal union from the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 until 1282, and a more promising one after the Council of Florence from 1439 to 1472. After the capture of Constantinople it was in the Turkish interest to reopen and widen the breach with the powerful Roman church; the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were dragged into this policy, Russia and the Slav churches stood out the longest of any: none of these churches, except Constantinople itself in 1472, formally and definitely broke away from the unity of the Church. But in the course of centuries the schism has set and crystallized into a definite separation from the Holy See of many million people with a true priesthood and valid sacraments. The origins, causes and development of the schism are matters of much complication, still not fully unraveled.

Answer 6

The schism was a rather complicated ordeal with many factors to it. Some were religious in nature, like the eastern preference for the title Theotokopoulos for the Virgin Mary, which wasn't as widely used (although accepted) in the West, the addition of the filioque to the Nicean creed and certain disputes about the icons. The most important, however, were the political ones. East and west, since the partition of the Roman Empire, were increasingly estranged, not the least because of difficulties in travel, and the eastern churches disagreed as to the pope's roll in the church. They agreed, of course, that the pope (patriarch of the West) had a primacy over the rest, but they disagreed as to the nature of this primacy, saying it was a primacy of honor and not jurisdiction and that, therefore, he did not have any authority to legislate for the east.

There were, of course, many other factors. These, however, I believe to give a pretty accurate picture as to the tensions of the time that led to the mutual excommunication of Michael Cerularius and pope Leo XI that is pointed to as the point of schism.

.

AnswerIt's just Catholic, not Roman Catholic. Roman is an epithet first commonly used in England after the protestant revolt to describe the Catholic Church. It is never used by the official Catholic Church.

The Schism of the East was mostly caused by political differences between the East and the West, over the centuries, people have attributed various religious reasons to it, but primarily, it was just political.

from A Catholic Dictionary, edited by Donald Attwater, Second edition, revised 1957

The Schism of the East the estrangement and severance from the Holy See of what is now called the Orthodox Eastern Church was a gradual process extending over centuries. After a number of minor schisms the first serious, though short, break was that of Photius; from then on tension between East and West increased, and the schism of Cerularius occurred in 1054. From then on the breach gradually widened and has been definitive since 1472. There was a formal union from the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 until 1282, and a more promising one after the Council of Florence from 1439 to 1472. After the capture of Constantinople it was in the Turkish interest to reopen and widen the breach with the powerful Roman church; the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were dragged into this policy, Russia and the Slav churches stood out the longest of any: none of these churches, except Constantinople itself in 1472, formally and definitely broke away from the unity of the Church. But in the course of centuries the schism has set and crystallized into a definite separation from the Holy See of many million people with a true priesthood and valid sacraments. The origins, causes and development of the schism are matters of much complication, still not fully unraveled.

from Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J. Doubleday & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY 1980

Separation of the Christian Churches of the East from unity with Rome. The schism was centuries in the making and finally became fixed in 1054, when the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularisu (died 1059), was excommunicated by the papal legates for opposing the use of leavened bread by the Latin Church and removing the Pope's name from the diptychs or list of persons to be prayed for in the Eucharistic liturgy. A temporary reunion with Rome was effected by the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439) but never stabilized

Answer 7

Roman Catholic AnswerA number of things, mostly political. Religious reasons were attached later, but the primary reasons seem to be political. It has been going on for a long time.

from A Catholic Dictionary, edited by Donald Attwater, Second edition, revised 1957

The Schism of the East the estrangement and severance from the Holy See of what is now called the Orthodox Eastern Church was a gradual process extending over centuries. After a number of minor schisms the first serious, though short, break was that of Photius; from then on tension between East and West increased, and the schism of Cerularius occurred in 1054. From then on the breach gradually widened and has been definitive since 1472. There was a formal union from the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 until 1282, and a more promising one after the Council of Florence from 1439 to 1472. After the capture of Constantinople it was in the Turkish interest to reopen and widen the breach with the powerful Roman church; the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were dragged into this policy, Russia and the Slav churches stood out the longest of any: none of these churches, except Constantinople itself in 1472, formally and definitely broke away from the unity of the Church. But in the course of centuries the schism has set and crystallized into a definite separation from the Holy See of many million people with a true priesthood and valid sacraments. The origins, causes and development of the schism are matters of much complication, still not fully unraveled.

from Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J. Doubleday & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY 1980

Separation of the Christian Churches of the East from unity with Rome. The schism was centuries in the making and finally became fixed in 1054, when the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularisu (died 1059), was excommunicated by the papal legates for opposing the use of leavened bread by the Latin Church and removing the Pope's name form the diptychs or list of persons to be prayed for in the Eucharistic liturgy. A temporary reunion with Rome was effected by the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439) but never stabilized