You are on page 1of 11

The Great Schism, 1378-1415

1. There was a general failure of leadership in 14th-century urope! "! The #onarchy and "ristocracy A. The aristocracy and the monarchies seemed unable to defend their lands in any effective manner. The monarchs involved their subjects in conflicts such as the 100 Years' War. The military strategist von Clauswit stated that war is !olitics carried out by other means. There is a good deal of validity in this view. "or the most !art# warfare can be viewed as a means of settling conflicts that could not be settled by more !eaceful means. $ut leaders must be able to e%tricate themselves from a war that is no longer directed at accom!lishing its original !ur!ose. The warfare between "rance and &ngland# involving most of the rest of western &uro!e at one time or another# dragged on and on with no clear resolution in sight. The !eo!le who !aid heavy ta%es to su!!ort the monarchies and aristocracies could not have hel!ed but wonder why these grou!s could not meet their res!onsibilities and !erform the functions for which they claimed the right of ta%ing the !eo!le. 'n addition to this difficulty# with the increasing use of (new( wea!ons# the ruling classes ) (those who fight( ) were losing their traditional su!eriority on the field of battle. Time after time# armored aristocrats were slaughtered by !easants and urban militia using longbows# crossbows# !i*es and gun!owder. The aristocracy of "rance and &ngland had very little effect on the !rogress of the conflict and were relegated to the !osition of !aying ta%es to the monarchs to su!!ort the mercenary armies who now seemed to dominate warfare. +either the monarchy nor the aristocracy seemed able to !rovide effective leadershi! in this matter. The u!rising of the ,ac-uerie in "rance and the .easants' /evolt in &ngland were both radical rebellions. Although they failed in their !ur!ose# their leaders demanded nothing less than u!rooting of the entire feudal system. $! The #iddle %lasses The gilds# the basic unit of organi ation of the middle class# were designed to o!erate non)com!etitively within a general framewor* of economic e%!ansion. They were unable to ada!t to the stagnant or shrin*ing mar*ets of the fourteenth century. 'n an effort to maintain their status and standard of living# gild masters across &uro!e began to cut labor costs by e%!loiting their own wor*ers# reduce !roduction by limiting access to gild membershi!# and to reduce incidental costs by reducing or eliminating their traditional social contributions. were slowly re!laced by ca!italist organi ations. The (greater( gilds fought the (lesser( for !olitical control of the cities# all the while that both great and lesser gilds were being su!!lanted by new# ca!italist forms of !roduction. 'n the !rocess# wor*ers

and artisans found their com!ensation and !olitical !ower steadily shrin*ing. These conflicts were already underway at the s!read of the $lac* 0eath. $oth ca!italists and gild masters# the leading members of the middle class# were confronted with a situation in which laborers were in short su!!ly and in which they nevertheless did not wish to increase their labor costs by !aying higher salaries. They solved this by allying with the nobility in su!!ort of measures to free e salaries at !re).lague levels. This alliance created a class that might be termed (the wealthy( that was isolated from the mass of the !o!ulation and that# far from leading the way to a restored general !ros!erity# seemed intent on increasing their own wealth and !ower at the e%!ense of everyone else. %! The %hurch "ar from !roviding leadershi! during the difficult times of the fourteenth century# the Church steadily lost !ower and !restige. 'n effect# it tied itself into an ecclesiastical *not that the !o!es were !owerless to unravel. 'n their efforts to do so# the !o!es actually contributed significantly to the ills of the age. The failure of the Church to !rovide s!iritual and moral leadershi! and e%am!le during this time affected all elements of society. The !rocess can be viewed as having consisted of four stages. 1! The "&ignon 'apacy (13)5-1378* (Note that this is only a summary review of the lecture notes for the Avignon Papacy a. The Church in Avignon was seen as a "rench !u!!et# was driven into corru!tion by its need for money# diminished social services# did not condemn the e%cesses of the 100 Years' War# and failed to meet its res!onsibility of !roviding sacraments to all the dead and dying during the $lac* 0eath. b. 't was attac*ed by various grou!s. 1. 1ome demanded that the Church give u! its wealth and !ro!erty because ,esus and the A!ostles were without !ro!erty. 2. 3thers claimed that the state should !olice the Church. 4. 3r that an organi ed Church was unnecessary because 5od dwells in each !erson. 6. 3r that sacraments were unnecessary because they were not su!ernatural and the individual could reach 5od through meditation. 7. 3r that the Church consists of the members and not the head. C. The !a!acy res!onded by a stubborn defense of its righteousness and an

energetic attac* u!on its critics. 't relied u!on its mono!oly of the sacramental system# used the 'n-uisition to silence its critics# and accused many of its detractors of heresy. 0. 5enerally s!ea*ing# the Church lost much moral authority during the !eriod. 3! The Great Schism (1378-1415* a. At the death of 5regory 8' in /ome# the cardinals were forced by a /oman mob to elect an 'talian !o!e. They chose 9rban :' in ho!es that he would be com!liant to their advice. They were mista*en in this ho!e. 9rban decided that both !o!e and !a!al administration should resume its residence in /ome# and threatened to reform the college of cardinals to increase 'talian re!resentation u! to a majority in the body. 9nable to control their new !a!er as they had ho!ed# the "rench cardinals fled /ome. The 'talian cardinals# naturally# remained with /ome's new cham!ion. When the "rench cardinals reached a !oint where they were safe from the !o!e's !ower and the !ressure of the /oman mobs# they assembled and declared that the election of 9rban was invalid and void because they had acted under duress. They held another# rum!# election# chose a "renchman and returned to Avignon. b. This created a *notty !roblem. The clergy had wor*ed long and hard to establish the !rinci!les that the Church was inde!endent of the 1tate and immune from secular sanctions for its actions# and that the !o!e# once selected as bisho! of /ome by the College of Cardinals# held absolute and su!reme !ower within the Church. 1ince there was no secular !ower or !erson su!erior to the !o!e in churchly affairs# it followed that there was no !ower or !erson com!etent to judge the !o!e's actions. This meant that neither was there any !ower or !erson -ualified to determine which of two claimants to the bisho!ric of /ome# was the true :icar of Christ. c. The financial situation of the Church as a whole grew even worse than it had been during the Avignon !a!acy. There were now two !a!al ca!itals for which it was necessary to !rovide u!*ee!; there were two entire !a!al administrations to be maintained in a style befitting their dignities. When the two !a!al claimants began com!eting with each other in matters such as !om!# lavish gifts# !atronage# and bribery# the drain on ecclesiastical resources increased still further. 2. There were other forms of com!etition available and the rivals soon made use of them. +ot only did each !a!al administration declare the other and its clergy to be heretical# but they reached the !oint of declaring that anyone acce!ting sacraments from a heretical ) for which you may read (rival( ) cleric would be considered e%communicate. 't didn't ta*e a genius to figure out that# since the rival !o!es each enjoyed the su!!ort of about half of &uro!e# half the !o!ulation might be receiving the sacraments from a true !riest# but the other half were being attended by a

heretic# were dying e%communicate. While all of the !o!ulation were ma*ing !erfect acts of contrition# being absolved of their sins# receiving the sacrament of &%treme 9nction and dying in certain ho!e of a 5lorious /esurrection and <ife &verlasting# the souls half of them were descending directly into the first of =ell to suffer the uns!ea*able torments of the damned for all eternity. This was obviously a difficult matter for the faithful to acce!t# and it was clear that the true !o!e# whichever of the claimants he might have been# was !owerless to save many thousands of believing Christians from being cast into =ell. As a matter of fact# it was at the command of the true !o!e that they were being so cast. There were two ways to solve the dilemma. 3ne was to have the real !o!e stand u! and so be able to reunify the Church. The other was to conclude that the Church was an ineffective institution as it had been o!erating and to reorgani e it# or# if that !roved im!ossible# to toss the Church hierarchy and established doctrine aside as being unnecessary for individual salvation. +aturally enough# the established leaders of society chose to !ursue the first o!tion and to find the real !o!e. 1everal secular rulers were as*ed to e%ert their !ower and influence in settling the matter# but the secular rulers had already entered the game and chosen to su!!ort whichever of the claimants it was more advantageous for them to su!!ort. They were in no mood to su!!ort their o!!onents' man# and so did nothing to solve the !roblem. 0istinguished figures called u!on both !o!es to abdicate for the good of Christendom# but failed to !ersuade the rivals. The theological faculty of the 9niversity of .aris was as*ed the decide the issue# but could come to no clear decision. 3ne must note# however# that the reali ation that# if they o!ted for either one# the other would e%communicate them collectively and individually may have affected their logical !owers. The -uestion they had to decide# though# was not really which of the claimants to the Throne of 1aint .eter was truly 5od's choice as e%ercised through the College of Cardinals but whether they had any right to !ass u!on the -ualifications of the :icar of Christ. 3ne of the claimants# you see# must have been the true !o!e# and for the theology faculty to have !resumed to !ass judgment on his worthiness would have been a grievous sin. 1ome !eo!le went so far as to !oll those !eo!le ) and it was not all that small a body ) who were generally considered to be saints in all things save the final re-uirement of being dead. 9nfortunately# of those who were willing to offer an o!inion# there was not clear majority for either claimant. The !o!e himself# the *ing and !rinces# the wealthy and famous# the learned# and the holy ) none of them !rovided the leadershi! needed in what was far from a minor difficulty. While members of the establishment were trying# and failing# to distinguish the true !o!e from the false claimant# others were a!!roaching the matter in more basic ways. 3n the !rinci!le that the bisho!ric of /ome would not be such a bone

of contention were it not for the wealth and ta%es that accrued to the !osition# some !eo!le revived the call for the Church to acce!t (a!ostolic !overty#( in emulation of ,esus and his disci!les. 'nfluential thin*ers and writers began to claim that the authority of the monarchs was su!erior to that of the !o!e and# in its role as !rotector of the !eo!le# the state had the res!onsibility of overseeing the Church's discharge of its functions. 5enerally s!ea*ing# the radical reformers of the Avignon !eriod regained strength# but at too slow a !ace to suggest to anyone that their resolution of the !roblem could be e%!ected in the near future. .o!ular res!onses to the situation arose )) critics of the Church and its !ractices that neither !a!al administration found easy to silence. 1ome of these critics addressed some of the basic beliefs that underlay the !ower and !restige of the Church. Wyclif and =us# after all# claimed that the sacraments ) which the ecclesiastical administrations recogni ed as essential to the Church's continued e%istence ) were sim!ly memorial rituals )) ("or ' received from the <ord that which ' also delivered to you# that the <ord ,esus in the night in which =e was betrayed too* bread; and when =e had given than*s# =e bro*e it# and said# This is >y body# which is for you; do this in remembrance of >e( ?1Cor.11@24)26A. without su!ernatural !ower. The res!onse of many members of a !o!ulation that found itself without leaders and# to a certain degree without restrictions# was to embrace mystic movements such as the /hineland >ystics of >eister &c*hardt. The (.ietist( movements that s!read among the !easantry stimulated a new sense of !ersonal religiosity. All of these movements were similar in their tendency to circumvent ) even without intending to do so ) the entire Church hierarchy by !lacing !riestly !owers in the hands of the individual. 'n many ways# this was the foundation of the conce!t of (the universal !riesthood of all true believers( that would form an im!ortant element in the .rotestant /eformation of the ne%t century. 3ver time# the situation only grew worse. There were still two !a!al claimants# and their rivalry led to increased corru!tion within their administrations and a decrease of interest in anything other than gaining advantage over their o!!onent. As time !assed# the various reformers managed to settle on common !rinci!les and u!on the way in which those !rinci!les might be !ut into action. They agreed u!on the !rinci!le that the so&ereignty of the Church rested in a body re!resentative of its members. 3n this basis# they claimed that a general council would have the !ower to de!ose !o!es and address the other !roblems facing the church. $ecause of their insistence on the !ower of a council# they were *nown as the Conciliarists# and the grou! soon included virtually everyone committed to ecclesiastical reform. They su!!orted their !osition that general councils held su!reme !ower within the

church by numerous arguments@ 1. 1cri!tural@ 'n order to gain a!!roval of his conversion of non),ews to the Christian faith# .aul felt it necessary to gain a!!roval of the %ouncil of ,erusalem. 2. =istorical@ When the &m!eror Constantine wanted Christians to formulate their common set of beliefs# he called the %ouncil of +icaea into session. 4. .arallels@ 3ther monarchs# even though claiming su!reme authority ($y the 5race of 5od# shared their !ower with re!resentative assemblies on matters of general im!ort. 6. .hiloso!hical@ +ominalism# acce!tance of which was growing# held that truth is what has been established and acce!ted by common will )) that justice is su!erior to law and that justice is a social construct. 4! The %ouncil of 'isa 3ne should not assume that all leaders were oblivious to their res!onsibilities or that all clergy were interested only in !a!al !olitics. >any were in fact acutely aware of the situation and !assionate in the search for a solution. 'ndeed# several cardinals# members of each of the rival !a!al administrations had embraced the !rinci!le of Conciliarism. They joined together to act as a council to deal with the !roblem !osed by rival !o!es. ' su!!ose that the logic of this solution was that# if a College of Cardinals could act as a vehicle for the voice of 5od in choosing the :icar of Christ from among many li*ely candidates# it could also act as a vehicle for the voice of 5od in se!arating the wheat from the chaff# the shee! from the goats# and :icars of Christ from mere !retenders. The logic is a!!ealing and if the men who met at the Council of .isa in 160B had followed through on that !rinci!le# everything might have turned out well. They made the serious error# however# of trying to !lease all sides and de!osed both claimants and selecting a new# com!romise# candidate as !o!e. 't was !ointed out# and not too gently# that# by de!osing both claimants# they had assuredly assumed the right to dethrone a true !o!e. This logical failing made little difference# however# since neither !a!al claimant would obey the decision of the council# but e%communicated the !artici!ants and their electee along with anyone who would su!!ort or wor* with him. There were now three !a!al claimants# and the situation had grown even worse. 't was clear to the Conciliarists that they would need organi ed secular force and the threat of withholding !a!al ta%es and renders if they were to accom!lish their aims. $y 1617# the !roblems raised by the tri!le !o!es# C ech ?=ussiteA heresy and revolt# Church corru!tion# and !o!ular concern had become so !ressing that the =oly /oman &m!eror threw his su!!ort behind the Conciliarists and arranged for a new council to meet at the im!erial city of Constance.

Lecture for ChD 612 "The Great Schism of 1054 AD"


<ecture for Ch0 C12 (The 5reat 1chism of 1076 A0( $ro >acfonse 3smond# 31> The &ast)West 1chism# or the 5reat 1chism# is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the 1ee of /ome ?now the /oman Catholic ChurchA and the sees of Constantino!le# Ale%andria# Antioch and ,erusalem ?now the 3rthodo% ChurchA. 't divided medieval >editerranean Christendom into &astern and Western branches# which later became *nown as the &astern 3rthodo% Church and the /oman Catholic Church# res!ectively. /elations between &ast and West had long been embittered by !olitical and ecclesiastical differences and theological dis!utes. .o!e <eo '8 and .atriarch of Constantino!le >ichael Cerularius heightened the conflict by su!!ressing 5ree* and <atin in their res!ective domains. 'n 1076# /oman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title &cumenical .atriarch and to insist that he recogni e the Church of /ome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches. Cerularius refused. The 5reat 1chism was a gradual estrangement that has been conventionally dated to the year 1076. The schism actually too* centuries to crystalli e. The roots of the 5reat 1chism between the Christian West and the Christian &ast are e%tensive. The drifting a!art occurred gradually over a !eriod of centuries of time. The &astern /oman &m!ire ?the $y antine &m!ireA used the 5ree* language. The Western /oman &m!ire used the <atin language. +ot only the languages were different# but also the bases of theological thought were different. While 3rthodo% 5ree* theology is based on the =oly $ible and the writings of the early Church fathers# Western <atin theology is largely based on 5ree* !hiloso!hy# in !articular Aristotelian !hiloso!hy. 'n addition# the historical develo!ment of the West differed greatly from the &ast. $arbarian invasions and migrations in the Western /oman &m!ire disru!ted the &ast)West unity of culture and economy# and brought 5ermanD"ran*ish influence on the Western Church. The "ourth &cumenical Council at Chalcedon in 671# confirming the authority already held by Constantino!le# granted its archbisho! jurisdiction over the three !rovinces mentioned by the "irst Council of Constantino!le@ The "athers rightly granted !rivileges to the throne of old /ome# because it was the royal city. And the 3ne =undred and "ifty most religious $isho!s Ei.e.# the 1econd &cumenical CouncilF# actuated by the same consideration# gave e-ual !rivileges to the most holy throne of +ew /ome# justly judging that the city which is honoured with the 1overeignty and the 1enate# and enjoys e-ual !rivileges with the old im!erial /ome# should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is# and ran* ne%t after her; so that# in the .ontic# the Asian# and the Thracian dioceses# the

metro!olitans only and such bisho!s also of the 0ioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians# should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantino!le. The council also ratified an agreement between Antioch and ,erusalem# whereby ,erusalem held jurisdiction over three !rovinces# numbering it among the five great sees. There were now five !atriarchs !residing over the Church within the $y antine &m!ire# in the following order of !recedence@ the .atriarch of /ome# the .atriarch of Constantino!le# the .atriarch of Ale%andria# the .atriarch of Antioch and the .atriarch of mpires ast and +est 0isunion in the /oman &m!ire further contributed to disunion in the Church. Theodosius the 5reat# who established Christianity as the official religion of the /oman &m!ire# died in 4G7 and was the last &m!eror to rule over a united /oman &m!ire; following his death# the &m!ire was divided into western and eastern halves# each under its own &m!eror. $y the end of the fifth century# the Western /oman &m!ire had been overrun by the 5ermanic tribes# while the &astern /oman &m!ire ?*nown also as the $y antine &m!ireA continued to thrive. Thus# the !olitical unity of the /oman &m!ire was the first to fall. 'n the West# the colla!se of civil government left the Church !ractically in charge in many areas# and bisho!s too* to administering secular cities and domains. When royal and im!erial rule reestablished itself# it had to contend with !ower wielded inde!endently by the Church. 'n the 'apal Supremacy and 'entarchy Com!ounding the dogmatic issue was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed u!on at an &cumenical Council and revised at another# bearing universal authority within the Church. "or the .o!e of /ome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an &cumenical Council was considered by the &astern bisho!s to be offensive to other bisho!s# as it undermined the collegiality and right of the e!isco!acy. This led to the !rimary causes of the 1chism ) the dis!utes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction# in !articular over !a!al authority. .o!e <eo '8 claimed he held authority over the four &astern !atriarchs. .o!e <eo '8 allowed the insertion of the "ilio-ue into the +icene Creed in the West in 1016. &astern 3rthodo% today state that the 2Bth Canon of the ECouncil of Chalcedon e%!licitly !roclaimed the e-uality of the $isho!s of /ome and Constantino!le# and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical a!!eal in Constantino!le. The se&enth canon of the %ouncil of phesus declared, 't is unlawful for any man to bring forward# or to write# or to com!ose a different "aith as a rival to that established by the holy "athers assembled with the =oly 5host in +icea. $ut those who

shall dare to com!ose a different faith# or to introduce or offer it to !ersons desiring to turn to the ac*nowledgment of the truth# whether from =eathenism or from ,udaism# or from any heresy whatsoever# shall be de!osed# if they be bisho!s or clergymen; bisho!s from the e!isco!ate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen# they shall be anathemati ed. &astern 3rthodo% today state that this Canon of the Council of &!hesus e%!licitly !rohibited modification of the +icene Creed drawn u! by the "irst &cumenical Council in 427# the wording of which but# it is claimed# not the substance# had been modified by the "irst Council of Constantino!le# ma*ing additions such as (who !roceeds from the "ather(. 'n the 3rthodo% view# the $isho! of /ome ?i.e. the .o!eA would have universal !rimacy in a reunited Christendom# as !rimus inter !ares without !ower of jurisdiction. -ilio.ue "ilio-ue is a word that changes the <atin version of the +icene)Constantino!olitan Creed to include the wording E1!iritus 1anctusF -ui e% .atre "ilio-ue !rocedit or (E=oly 1!iritF who !roceeds from the "ather and the 1on.( The first a!!earance of this insertion into the Creed ha!!ened in Toledo# 1!ain# where <atin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the Arian heresy. Those theologians had better access to the writings of <atin theologians# !articularly of 1t. Augustine of =i!!o# than to 5ree* theologians. Augustine used the teaching from ,ohn 1C@H to em!hasi e that the =oly 1!irit !roceeds from the "ather and the 1on# and that neither is subordinate to the other. 1o the Creed was changed by the local synod of bisho!s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ ?refuting ArianismA# and asserts the unity of the Trinity and the e-uality of each hy!ostasis of the Trinity. 't should also be noted that 1t. <eo the 5reat# .o!e of /ome# and many other !re)schism .o!es disagreed with the decision of the Toledo Council# one even going so far as to engraving the Creed without the "ilio-ue on the doors of 1t. .eter's $asilica. There were other less significant catalysts for the 1chism however# including variance over liturgical !ractices. /ther points of conflict >any other issues increased tensions. &m!eror <eo ''' the 'saurian outlawed the veneration of icons in the eighth century. This !olicy# which came to be called 'conoclasm# was rejected by the West. The Western Church's insertion of ("ilio-ue( into the <atin version of the +icene Creed. 0is!utes in the $al*ans# 1outhern 'taly# and 1icily over whether /ome or Constantino!le had ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 'n the &ast# endorsement of Caesaro!a!ism# subordination of the church to the religious claims of the dominant !olitical order# was most fully evident in the $y antine &m!ire at the end of the

first millennium# while in the West# where the decline of im!erial authority left the Church relatively inde!endent# there was growth of the !ower of the .a!acy. As a result of the >uslim con-uests of the territories of the !atriarchates of Ale%andria# Antioch and ,erusalem# only two rival !owerful centres of ecclesiastical authority# Constantino!le and /ome# remained. Certain liturgical !ractices in the West that the &ast believed re!resented illegitimate innovation such as the use of unleavened bread for the &ucharist. Clerical celibacy of Western !riests ?both monastic and !arishA# as o!!osed to the &astern disci!line whereby !arish !riests could be married men. 're&ious schisms 1ome scholars have argued that the 1chism between &ast and West has very ancient roots# and that s!oradic schisms in the common unions too* !lace under .o!e :ictor ' ?second centuryA# .o!e 1te!hen ' ?third centuryA and .o!e 0amasus ' ?fourth and fifth centuryA. <ater on# dis!utes about theological and other -uestions led to schisms between the Churches in /ome and Constantino!le for 4H years from 6B2 to 71G ?the Acacian 1chismA# and for 14 years from BCC) BHG# .atriarch .hotios the 5reat. And eventually# the >utual e%communication of 1076 >ost of the direct causes of the 5reat 1chism# however# are far less grandiose than the famous filio-ue. The relations between the !a!acy and the $y antine court were good in the years leading u! to 1076. The em!eror Constantine '8 and the .o!e <eo '8 were allied through the mediation of the <ombard cate!an of 'taly# Argyrus# who had s!ent years in Constantino!le# originally as a !olitical !risoner. <eo and Argyrus led armies against the ravaging +ormans# but the !a!al forces were defeated at the $attle of Civitate in 1074# which resulted in the !o!e being im!risoned at $enevento# where he too* it u!on himself to learn 5ree*. Argyrus had not arrived at Civitate and his absence caused a rift in !a!al)im!erial relations. >eanwhile# the +ormans were busy im!osing <atin customs# including the unleavened breadI with !a!al a!!roval. .atriarch >ichael ' then ordered <eo of 3chrid# to write a letter to the bisho! of Trani# ,ohn# an &asterner# in which he attac*ed the (,udaistic( !ractices of the West# namely the use of unleavened bread. The letter was to be sent by ,ohn to all the bisho!s of the West# .o!e included. ,ohn !rom!tly com!lied and the letter was !assed to one =umbert of >ourmoutiers# the cardinal)bisho! of 1ilva Candida# who was then in ,ohn's diocese. =umbert translated the letter into <atin and brought it to the !o!e# who ordered a re!ly to be made to each charge and a defence of !a!al su!remacy to be laid out in a res!onse. Although he was hot)headed# >ichael was convinced# !robably by the &m!eror and the bisho! of Trani# to cool the debate and !revent the im!ending breach. =owever# =umbert and the !o!e made no concessions and the former was sent with legatine !owers to the im!erial ca!ital to solve the -uestions raised once and for all. =umbert# .o!e 1te!hen '8# and .eter# Archbisho! of Amalfi set out in early s!ring and arrived in A!ril 1076. Their welcome was not to their li*ing# however# and they stormed out of the !alace# leaving the !a!al res!onse with >ichael# whose anger e%ceeded even theirs. The seals on the letter had been tam!ered with and the legates had !ublished# in 5ree*# an earlier# far less civil# draft of the letter for the entire !o!ulace to read.

The !atriarch determined that the legates were worse than mere barbarous Westerners# they were liars and croo*s. =e refused to recognise their authority or# !ractically# their e%istence. When .o!e <eo died on A!ril 1G# 1076# the legates' authority legally ceased# but they did not seem to notice. The !atriarch's refusal to address the issues at hand drove the legatine mission to e%tremes@ on ,uly 1C# the three legates entered the church of the =agia 1o!hia during the divine liturgy on a 1aturday afternoon and !laced a !a!al bull of e%communication on the altar. The legates left for /ome two days later# leaving behind a city near riots. The !atriarch had the immense su!!ort of the !eo!le against the &m!eror# who had su!!orted the legates to his own detriment# and Argyrus# who was seen still as a !a!al ally. To assuage !o!ular anger# Argyrus' family in Constantino!le was arrested# the bull was burnt# and the legates were anathematisedI the 5reat 1chism had begun. 3rthodo% bisho! >etro!olitan Jallistos writes# that the choice of cardinal =umbert was unfortunate# for both he and .atriarch >ichael ' were men of stiff and intransigent tem!er... . After an initial# unfriendly encounter# the !atriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. &ventually =umbert lost !atience# and laid a bull of e%communication against .atriarch >ichael ' on the altar of the Church of the =oly Wisdom... . >ichael and his synod retaliated by anathemati ing =umbert. The +ew Catholic &ncyclo!edia says# (The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1076# when this unfortunate se-uence of events too* !lace. This conclusion# however# is not correct# because in the bull com!osed by =umbert# only .atriarch >ichael ' was e%communicated. The validity of the bull is -uestioned because .o!e <eo '8 was already dead at that time. 3n the other side# the $y antine synod e%communicated only the legates. 't should be noted that the bull of e%communication issued against .atriarch >ichael stated as one of its reasons for the e%communication the &astern Church's deletion of (filio-ue( from the original +icene Creed. 't is now common *nowledge that the &astern Church did not delete anything# it was the Western Church that added this word to the +icene)Constantino!olitan Creed.
References A Summary of the History of MAJOR CHRISTIAN SCHISMS http://3lotus.com/e /Reflectio s!"#$Misc/Christia %schisms.htm &reat Schism http://ortho'o()i*i.or+/&reat,Schism

SCHISM O- MIN. AN. H/ART The 0or' 1yro -ou 'atio for 1al*a Stu'ies 2 3 May 4%5$6 5774 3 8i ce t Rossi http://))).freerepu9lic.com/focus/f%reli+io /55$:3;</posts