What is the trace of the development of the Byzantine church to the schism?

Answer 1

There were doctrinal issues like the filioque clause ( Latin for "and (from) the Son", was added in Western Christianity to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This insertion emphasizes that Jesus, the Son, is of equal divinity with God, the Father, while the absence of it in Eastern Christianity emphasizes that the Father is the only one cause of the two other persons) and the authority of the Roman Pope involved in the split, but these were greatly exacerbated by political factors of both Church and state, and by cultural and linguistic differences between Eastern and Western members of the church. Prior to 1054, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during the periods of Eastern iconoclasm and the Photian schism (This conflict was precipitated by the opposition of Roman Catholic Pope Nicholas I (r. 858-867) to the appointment by Byzantine Emperor Michael III of a lay scholar as Patriarch Photius I of Constantinople. The schism effectively ended in 867 with both the death of Pope Nicholas I and the first deposition of Photius. Nevertheless, it took two councils at Constantinople (869-870 and 879-880) to fully resolve the situation. The controversy also involved Eastern and Western ecclesiastical jurisdictional rights in the Bulgarian church, as well as a doctrinal dispute over the Filioque ("and from the Son") clause that had been added to the Nicene Creed by the Latin church, which was the theological breaking point in the eleventh century Great East-West Schism.)

The final breach is often considered to have arisen after the capture and sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204; the final break with Rome occurred circa 1450. The sacking of Church of Holy Wisdom and establishment of the Latin Empire as a seeming attempt to supplant the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire in 1204 is viewed with some rancour to the present day