What is the split between the Catholics and Orthodox Christians?

Answer 1

Christianity had never really been the single, monolithic Church often imagined by modern Christians. There had always been division among various branches of Christianity. In order to distinguish what first became the dominant branch and later split into the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, from other branches of Christianity, some modern scholars refer to it as the Catholic-Orthodox Church. Roman state patronage for the Catholic-Orthodox Church ensured that it was able to expropriate the property of other churches which did not share their views until there was essentially only one Christian Church left in the Roman Empire.

In 325, the Council of Nicaea established the Nicene Creed, a pivotal statement of doctrine and practice in the Catholic-Orthodox Church. Over time, the text of the Nicene Creed acquired a definitive authority of ecumenical value and importance. The third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus in 431, had forbidden any further changes to the Creed, except by another Council.

The view held by religious authorities in the mainly Greek-speaking eastern regions was that there were 5 senior leaders, or metropolitans, in this Christian Church, one of whom was the Bishop of Rome. However, the Bishop of Rome, designated in the West as the Pope, insisted that he had greater authority than the other metropolitans. Gradually, differences built up until, in 1054, Pope Leo IX insisted on the right to make a change to the Nicene Creed, on his own and apart from an ecumenical council. According to Cynthia White (The Emergence of Christianity,page 102) "Pope Leo had also demanded that the patriarch insert the word filioque, "and the son," into the Nicene Creed, to harmonize their discrepant doctrines of the Holy Spirit ..."

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches split when the papal legate Cardinal Humbert placed a papal bull of excommunication, already prepared by Leo before Humbert left Rome, on the altar of the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. This bull supposedly excommunicated Patriarch Michael I, who responded by excommunicating the papal legate. Although the filioque was only one of many issues between Leo and Michael, the principal reasons actually given for the excommunication of Michael were that he had omitted the filioque from the Nicene Creed, in defiance of Leo, and for allowing the marriage of the clergy (John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, page 49).

There were attempts at reconciliation and the Churches came close to being reunited in 1274 and in 1439, but the schism eventually became permanent. The western Church, based on Rome, has become known as Roman Catholic, while the eastern Churches have become known as Orthodox Churches.

:

Historical background

During the period of persecution, the Early Christian Church developed differently according to the part of the Roman Empire; the Church in the East developed differently from the West and the Church in Africa (Copts) differed again. Although there was only one Church it took on the language, culture and flavour of each area. After the legalisation of Christianity, the Church came to accept that there were 3 main leaders (Patriarchs): the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. To these were added the bishop of Constantinople (by the Council of Constantinople in 381) and the bishop of Jerusalem (by the Council of Chalcedon in 451).

With Constantine's transfer of the capital of the Empire to Constantinople, the Empire was effectively split into two sections: East and West. (Diocletian formally divided the Empire into 2 sections in early part of the 4th century)

The Church

When the western part of the Empire fell into decay, and was eventually overrun by invaders, the political, judicial and social responsibilities of its officials were assumed by the leaders of the Church in the West, centred on Rome. Inevitably, this dual responsibility led to a centralisation and codification of the manner in which things were done in the Western part of the Church. The Church in the East, largely unaffected by the collapse of the Western Empire, continued to be less centralised.

As time progressed, the Bishop of Rome (acknowledged by the others as being First Among Equals) began to claim greater authority due to the apostles Peter and Paul being martyred in that city. This claim was refuted by the other patriarchs. However, Rome's position became strengthened when the spread of Islam effectively isolated and diminished the influence the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, leaving Rome and Constantinople in something of a state of rivalry.

A further cause of tension arose when the Western Church inserted the "filioque" into Nicene Creed. Traditionally, the Holy Spirit was seen to proceed from God the Father; the insertion of the "filioque" clause meant that, in the West, the Holy Spirit was believed to proceed from God the Father and God the Son. For the Church in the East, Rome had overstepped its authority by altering a Creed which had been approved by an ecumenical council. In 867 the Patriarch of Constantinople (Photius I)declared the insertion to be heretical, thereby accusing the Patriarch of the West (the Bishop of Rome) of heresy.

Other factors also caused the East and West to drift apart: language, different manners of liturgical celebration, different approaches to solving ecclesiastical conflict, different ways of explaining doctrine and the gradual imposition of clerical celibacy in the West.

The consummation of the schism is generally dated to 16 July 1054 due to a disagreement between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the papal legate who had been sent to solve a disagreement on the matter of the type of bread to be used in the Eucharist. However, in reality little changed in the lives of ordinary Christians or the clergy. The two churches continued to drift apart with the rise of nation states in the West (the Byzantine Empire continued) and the disaster of the Fourth Crusade when the crusaders attacked and looted Constantinople.

In brief, the schism between East and West developed over centuries and the reasons are several: linguistic, societal, judicial, ecclesiastical, political and theological.

There was no single, unifying reason for the Schism ( generally pronounced ( Skissum) there were a number of theological angles , some which would be dismissed today as trivial, such as the Filioque controversy- whether the Holy Spirit was diffused through the Father and the Son, or only as a separate member of the Trinity- this was a most serious theological debate, though with few practical angles. There were probably other angles such as, of course, the supremacy of the Pope, rejected by the Orthodox churchmen. Almost certainly there was a political admixture and some have argued the five domes of many R.O.l churches MAY have been influenced by Islamic architecture though the authorities will never admit this directly.

Answer 2

They split up because Roman Catholics believed in Pope as the head of the church and Eastern Orthodox didn't so they split up.

AnswerEastern Orthodox was originally Byzantium. They had the iconoclastic mov't (belief icons of religion sinful) while Roman Catholics (Western Rome) regarded icons as perfect for devotion. Roman Catholics believed priests should shave beards and east unleavened bread... small things: precise relationship between God/Jesus/Holy Ghost, forms of worship, precise wording etc.

And of course the seat of power that Pope is head of church. The Byzantium didn't think so since they practically had the emperor lead the church too.

.

Catholic AnswerRoman is an epithet first commonly used in England after the protestant revolt to describe the Catholic Church. It is never used by the Catholic Church.

.

This is a really tough question to answer, there was no single reason that you can point to and say, "that's the reason." Just as the schism took place literally over centuries, although you can put a mark on a calendar and say 1054 A.D., so you can write down reasons like Papal Primacy or leavened versus unleavened bread, or even the Filoque clause in the Creed. But, bottom line, none of these were "the reason." The reasons were mostly political, having more to do with ruler's opinions about their personal prerogatives, etc. The rest was pretty much window dressing to make the split look better. But in truth, it will never look better.

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 3

Roman Catholic Answer

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 Easter 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.