However, things were set to start to become uncomfortable between East and West, with the debate over whether the timing of the Jewish feast of Passover (which fell of the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan, and therefore could occur any day of the week) should control the timing of the entire Easter festival. This controversy itself had many reasons for existing, such as wanting to display the Christian break with Judaism, wanting uniformity over the length of time solemn fasts would be held before the Easter festival, etc. Churches in Asia Minor had been keeping to the timing of the Jewish Passover for remembering Christ as the true Passover Lamb, whereas other churches followed Rome in fixing the celebration of the death of Christ to the Friday, and set the following Sunday, which followed the full moon after the spring equinox, as a memorial of Christ’s resurrection. This difference came into discussion on a visit from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, to Anicetus, bishop of Rome, between A.D. 150 and 155. No agreement was reached, but rather both agreed to disagree. However, the same controversy broke out more severely between A.D. 190 and 194, when Victor, bishop of Rome branded as heretics those who held to the Eastern tradition, and threatened to excommunicate them. He believed that Rome had the authority to make such a demand, but the Eastern churches did not, and they refused to submit and the difference continued. However, the rivalry between East and West had started to grow. (Schaff; 1852, 1882, 1890, 1910; Vol. 2. chap. 5 cf. McManners; 1990, 1993, pp. 38-39)
There were other events which caused division between East and West. For example, The Council of Constantinople of 381 involved no representatives of Rome, did not simply serve to ratify the Christological doctrines agreed at the Council of Nicaea of 325, but also served to present the East as having an authority equivalent to that of the West, particularly Rome (Cross, Livingston; 1957, 1974, 1977, 1978; pp. 339, 967). Further Christological definitions mixed with Eastern ambitions came out of the Council of Chalcedon of 451, which involved between 500 and 600 bishops, all but four of which were Easter, gave the Bishop of Constantinople the title ‘Patriarch’ and made his see second only to Rome. (Cross, Livingston; 1957, 1974, 1977, 1978; p. 263). In 476, political separation was increased through the West falling to the Germanic invasion, which isolated Rome from the East.
Reunion was attempted by the Eastern emperor Zeno, in the late 5th century. He sponsored the theological formula known as the Henoticon, chiefly the work of Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria. The aim was to secure unity over the Monophysite controversy, but it was severely rejected by the West because of the omission of any mention of the number of natures in Christ, and therefore the concessions it made to Monophysism. (Cross, Livingston; 1957, 1974, 1977, 1978; pp. 8, 632, 932, 1511). This schism of a sort continued until the time of the Roman Emperor Justinian I who reigned from 527. He attempted to regain religious and political unity between East and West. He retook Northern Africa from the Vandals, and Italy from the Goths. He persecuted pagans and the Montanists, and attempted to reconcile the Monophysites by a show of anti-Nestorian zeal. The Eastern Patriarchs supported this, but the Emperor’s interference in the West proved unpopular. Justinian’s efforts led to the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, which Pope Vigillus refused to attend for fear of violence, as well as in protest at the fact that almost all of the bishops at the council were from Eastern churches. Vigillus eventually accepted the Canons of Constantinople II, but only after being badly treated in the East, and dying on his return trip. This humiliating treatment of their leader caused further schism in the West (Cross, Livingston; 1957, 1974, 1977, 1978; pp. 339-340, 770, 1375). In the 7th century, the Arab Invasion then weakened the Eastern Empire, and further separated the East and West.
By the 8th century, the use of icons in Eastern Church worship was commonplace. However, the Eastern Emperor, Leo III (717-741), possibly through Muslim influences, rejected such practices and tried to encourage others to abandon their icons. However, when a violent underwater volcano erupted in the Aegean Sea, tidal waves swept inland and clouds of volcanic ash darkened the sky. Constantinople was shaken, and Leo interpreted it to be a sign from God of impeding judgement because of the Church’s use of icons, and then started to use force to have them destroyed. This effort was continued by Leo’s son, Constantine V, who annexed Illyricum to Constantinople, because of the West’s pro-icon stance. The whole controversy lasted over a century. (Nassif; 2002)
From 843, the Eastern Church restored icons without humiliating iconoclasts. The emperor replaced Patriarch Ignatius with a previously only a layman, Photius. Although Photius was a highly intellectual individual, his succession from layman to deacon, to priest, to bishop, to patriarch in just one week caused suspicion in Rome, and Pope Nicholas supported the deposed Ignatius. Meanwhile, it had been the case that Western bishops had inserted the filioque (“and the Son”) clause into the Nicene Creed as a way of combating Arianism, by promoting the double-procession of the Holy Spirit (from the Father and the Son, not just the Father alone). When Bulgaria requested Rome take over the previously Eastern mission, the East was exposed to this modified form of the Creed. Photius saw this as a Western theological failure to distinguish between the eternal procession and the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit described in John 15:26. He also saw it as arrogance that the West would make such a significant addition to that which had been fixed at an Ecumenical Council, without even calling for another Council meeting at all. Pope Nicholas supported a 867 Council which condemned Photius, but he was later vindicated in 879. The Filioque controversy continued into the 11th century, when Patriarch Nicetas broke communion with Rome because of it. The final blow was dealt in 1054, when the Pope sent Cardinal Humbert with a Papal bull excommunicating Patriarch Cerularius and denouncing the Eastern Church as heretics. The East then drew up and issued a sentence of excommunication against the West. (Jones; 2003)
Bibliography
-
Cross, F.L., Livingston, E.A.; 1957, 1974, 1977, 1978; The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; Oxford; Oxford University Press
-
Fortescue, A; 1912, 2003; The Eastern Schism; published at
-
Jenkins, N., Mirza, N., Tsang, J.; 2002; Diocletian and the Division of Power; published at
-
Jones, C.; 2003; The Whole Filioque Thing; published at
-
Manstrantonis, G.; 2001; The Great Schism of the Ecumenical Church; published at
-
McManners, J.; 1990, 1993; The Oxford History of Christianity; Oxford; Oxford University Press
-
Nassif, B.; 2002; Kissers and Smashers; published at
-
Schaff, P.; 1852, 1882, 1890, 1910; The History of the Christian Church; Mercersburg, Philadephia; CCEL