Lect. univ. dr. ANDRADA MARINĂU ABSOLVENT BON ȚEA IONUȚ -DANIEL ORADEA, 2017 UNIVERSITATEA DIN ORADEA FACULTAT EA DE LITERE PROGRAMUL DE STUDIU… [612990]

UNIVERSITATEA DIN ORADEA
FACULTATEA DE LITERE
PROGRAMUL DE STUDIU LICENȚĂ
FORMA DE ÎNVĂȚĂMÂNT: ZI

LUCRARE DE LICENȚĂ

CONDUCĂTOR ȘTIINȚIFIC
Lect. univ. dr. ANDRADA MARINĂU
ABSOLVENT: [anonimizat], 2017

UNIVERSITATEA DIN ORADEA
FACULTAT EA DE LITERE
PROGRAMUL DE STUDIU LICENȚĂ
FORMA DE ÎNVĂȚĂMÂNT: ZI

THE GREAT SCHISM OF 1054

CONDUCĂTOR ȘTIINȚIFIC
Lect. univ. dr. ANDRADA MARINĂU
ABSOLVENT: [anonimizat], 2017

T ABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMNTS
TIMELINE
INTRODUCTION… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… 1
CHAPTER 1 THE HISTORY OF CHURCH BEFORE AD 1054…………………………………………………………… ….2
1.1 Dating the Schism…………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………. ..2
1.2 Terminology……………………………………………………………………… ……………. …………………………2
1.3 Rise of Rome……………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………3
1.4 New Rome………………………………… ……………………………………………………. …………………………6
1.5 Empires of the East and West…………………………………………………………….. ………………………… 6
1.6 Language…. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………6
CHAPTER 2 THE FIRST SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS……………………………………… …………………………8
2.1 The First Council of Nicaea…………………………………………………………………. …………………………9
2.1.1 The Purpose of the Council…………………………………………………………….. …………………… …….. 11
2.1.2 Controversies Surrounding the Trinity…………………………………………………. ………………………. 11
2.1.3 The Nicene Creed……………………………………. ……………………………………….. ………………………. 12
2.1.4 The Men of the Council……………………………………………………………………… ……………………… .13
2.1.5 Emperor Constantine………………………………………………………………………… ………………………. 14
2.1.6 Athanasius………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………….. 15
2.1.7 Arius……………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………… ………. 17
2.2 The First Council of Constantinopole……………. ……………………………………… ……………………… .18
2.2.1 Setting & Purpose…………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………. 18
2.2.2 Major C haracters……………………………………………………………………………… ………………………. 18
2.2.3 The Connflict………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………… 19
2.2.4 The Result……………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………. 20
2.2.5 Lasting Significance……………………. …………………………………………………………………………………. …..21
2.3 The Council of Ephesus……………………………………………………………………… ……………………….21
2.3.1 Setting & Purpose…………………………………………………………………………….. ……. ………………… 21
2.3.2 Major Characters…………………………………………………………………………. …………………………… 22
2.3.3 The Conflict……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………. 22
2.3.4 The Result…………………………… ………………………………………………………….. …………. …………… 23
2.3.5 Lasting Significance…………………………………………………………………………… ………………………. 23
2.4 The Council of Chalcedon…………………………………………………………………… ……………………. …24
2.4.1 Setting & Purpose…………………………………………………………………… ……….. ………………………. 24
2.4.2 Major Characters & Conflict………………………………………………………………. ………………….. …..24
2.4.3 The Conflict…………………………….. ………………………………………………………. ………………………. 25
2.4.4 The Result……………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………. 25
2.4.5 Lasting Significance…………………………………………………………………………… ……… ………………. 26
2.5 The Second Council of Chalcedon………………………………………………….. ……. ………………… …….26
2.5.1 Setting & Purpose…………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………. 26
2.5.2 Major Characters……………………….. ……………………………………………………. ………………………. 27
2.5.3 The Proceedings……………………………………………………………………………….. ……. ……………….. 27
2.5.4 The Result………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………… ………. .29
2.5.5 Lasting Significance………………………………………………………… ………………… ………………………. 29
2.6 The Third Council of Constantinopole………………………………………………….. …………… …………. .30
2.6.1 Setting & Purpose………………………….. ………………………………………………… ………………………. 30
2.6.2 The Proceedings……………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………… 31.

2.6.3 The Result……………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………. 31
2.6.4 Lasting Significance……………………………………………………………. …………….. ……… ………………. 32
2.7 The Second Council of Nicaea…………………………………………………………….. ………………………..32
2.7.1 The Proceedings……………………………. …………………………………………………. …………………… ….33
2.7.2 Twenty -two canons………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………. 34
CHAPTER 3 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AFTER AD 1054……………………………………….. ……. …………………36
3.1 Papal Supremacy and Pentarchy…………………………………………………………. ……………………….36
3.2 Filioque…………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………….37
3.3 Other Points of Conflict………………………………………………………………… …………………………….38
3.4 Previous Schisms……………………………………………………………………………… ………………………..38
3.5 Mutual Excommunications of 1054………………………… …………………………… ………… …………….39
3.6 Ecclesiological Issues…………………………………………………………………………. ……………………….41
3.6.1 Divergent Theologies….. ……………………………………………………………………. ……………………… .42
CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………. …….. 43
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………. 44

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

After an intensive period of seven mont hs, today is the day: writing this note of thanks is
the finishing touch on my dissertation thesis. It has been a period of intense learning for me, not
only in the scientific arena, but also on a personal level. Writing this thesis has had a big impact
on me. I would like to reflect on the people who have supported and helped me so much
throughout this period.
My deepest gratitude is to my advisor, professor Andrada Marinău. I have been
amazingly fortunate to have an advisor who gave me the freedom to expl ore on my own, and at
the same time the guidance to recover when my steps faltered. Professor Andrada Marinău
taught me how to question thoughts and express ideas. Her patience and support helped me
overcome many crisis situations and finish this disserta tion thesis. I hope that one day I would
become as good an advisor to my students as professor Andrada Marinău has been to me.
I would also like to thank my parents for their wise counsel and sympathetic ear. You are
always there for me. Finally, there are my friends. We were not only able to support each other
by deliberating over our problems and findings, but also happily by talking about things other
than just our papers.
Thank you very much, everyone!

TIMELINE
. 33 Pentecost (A.D. 29 is thought to be more
accurate).
· 49 Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) establishes
precedent for address ing Church disputes in
Council. James presides as bishop.
· 69 Bishop Ignatius consecrated in Antioch in
heart of New Testament era -St. Peter had been
the first bishop there. Other early bishops
include James, Polycarp, and Clement.
· 95 Book of Revelation written, prob ably the
last of the New Testament books.
· 150 St. Justin Martyr describes the liturgical
worship of the Church, centered in the
Eucharist. Liturgical worship is rooted in both
the Old and New Testaments.
· 313 The Edict of Milan marks an end to the
period of Roman persecution of Christianity.
· 325 The Council of Nicea settles the major
heretical challenge to the Christian Faith posed
when the heretic Arius as serts Christ was
created by the Father. St. Athanasius defends
the eternality of the Son of God. Nicea is the
first of Seven Ecumenical (Church -wide)
Councils.
· 451 Council of Chalcedon affirms apostolic
doctrine of two natures in Christ.
· 589 A synod in Toledo, Spain, adds the
filioque to the Nicene Creed (asserting that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the
Son). This error is later adopted by Rome.
· 787 The era of Ecumenical Councils ends at
Nicea; the Seventh Council restores the
centuries -old use of icons to the Church.
issues include Rome's claim to a universal
papal supremacy .
· 1066 Norman Conquest of Britain. Orthodox
hierarchs are replaced with those loyal to
Rome.
·· 1054 The Great Schism occurs. Two major
issues include Rome's cla im to a universal
papal supremacy and her addition of the
filioque clause to the Nicene Creed. The
Photian Schism (880) further complicates the
debate.
1095 The Crusades begun by the Roman
Church. The Sack of Constantinople (1204)
adds to the estrangement between East and
West.
· 1333 St. Gregory Palamas defends the
Orthodox practice of hesychast spirituality and
the use of the Jesus prayer.
· 1453 Turks overrun Constantinople;
Byzantine Empire ends.
· 1517 Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the
door of t he Roman Church in Wittenberg,
starting the Protestant Reformation.
· 1529 Church of England begins pulling away
from Rome.
· 1794 Missionaries arrive on Kodiak Island in
Alaska; Orthodoxy introduced to North
America.
· 1870 Papal Infallibility becomes Rom an
dogma.
· 1988 One thousand years of Orthodoxy in
Russia, as Orthodox Church world -wide
maintains fullness of the Apostolic Faith.

1
INTRODUCTION
The East -West Schism , or the Great Schism , is the historic sundering of eu charistic
relations b etween Rome (now the Roman Catholic Church ) and the sees of Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (now the Orthodox Church). It divided medieval
Mediterranean Christendom into Eastern and Western branches, which later became known as
the Easte rn Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church , respectively. Relations between
East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and
theological disputes. Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius
heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. In 1054,
Roman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that
he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches. Cerularius
refused. The leader of the Latin contingent excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in
return excommunicated the legates.
The Western legate's acts are of doubtful validity because Leo had died, while
Cerularius's excommunic ation applied only to the legates personally.Still, the Church split along
doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach
has never been healed. Western cruelty during the Crusades, the capture and sack of
Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of Latin Patriarchs made reconciliation more
difficult.This included the taking of many precious religious artifacts and the destruction of the
Library of Constantinople. On paper, the two churches actually reuni ted in 1274 (by the Second
Council of Lyon ) and in 1439 (by the Council of Florence ), but in each case the councils were
repudiated by the Orthodox as a whole, on the grounds that the hierarchs had overstepped their
authority in consenting to reunification . In 1484, 31 years after the Fall of Constantinople to the
Ottoman Turks , a Synod of Constantinople repudiated the Union of Florence , making the breach
between the Patriarchate of the West and the Patriarchate of Constantinople final. In 1965, the
Pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople nullified the anathemas of 1054.
Further attempts to reconc ile the two bodies are ongoing.

2
CHAPTER 1
THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
BEFORE AD 1054

1.1 DATING THE SCHISM
The Great Schism was a gradual estr angement to which no specific date can be assigned,
although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems
to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward.
The schism actual ly took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint
Photios , for example — or even earlier — or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth
Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to pr event it.
1.2 TERMINOLOGY
A schism is a break in the Church's authority structure and communion and is different
from a heresy , which means false doctrine. Church authorities have long recognized that even if
their minister is in schism, the sacraments, e xcept the power to ordain, are valid. There have
been many other schisms, from the second century until today, but none as significant as the one
between East and West. (Boyle,1990: 23)
In Western circles, the term Great Schism is often used to refer to t he fourteenth century
schism involving the Avignon Papacy (an event also sometimes called the 'Western Schism',
'Papal Schism' or 'Babylonian Captivity').
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term Great Ecumenical Schism
to explain s uccinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself.
Other more recent historians prefer the term East-West Schism , because 'Ecumenical'
properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more

3
than j ust Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West
Mediterranean, and was between East and West Mediterranean. (1990: 23)
1.3 RISE OF ROME
John Binns writes that, after the fall and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the
natur al leading centres of the Church were Antioch and Alexandria. Alexa ndria had been
assisted by Mark , one of the Seventy Apostles. Antioch had attracted Peter and Paul and
Barnabas, plus others of the Seventy. Antioch was the base from which Paul made his mi ssionary
journeys to the pagans . The Church of Antioch sent the apostles Peter and Paul to Rome to assist
the fledgling church there in its growth, and because Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire.
Antioch reg arded Peter as its first bishop .
Will Dura nt writes that, after Jerusalem, the church of Rome naturally became the
primary church, the capital of Christianity. Rome had an early and significant Christian
population. It was closely identified with the Paul of Tarsus, who preached and was martyred
there, and the Apostle Peter, who was a martyr there as well. The Eastern Orthodo x liturgy calls
Peter and Paul the wi sest Apostles and their princes and the radiant ornaments of Rome . Peter is
seen as founder of the Church in Rome, and the bishops of Rome as his successors. While the
Eastern cities of Alexandria and Antioch produced theological works, the bishops of Rome
focused on what Romans admittedly did best: administration.
Leading Orthodox theologian, Father Thomas Hopko has written: The church of Ro me
held a special place of honor among the earliest Christian churches. It was first among the
communities that recognized each other as catholic churches holding the orthodox faith
concerning God's Gospel in Jesus. According to St Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch who died a
martyr's death in Rome around the year 110, 'the church which presides in the territories of the
Romans' was 'a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise,
worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Chris t,
bearer of the Father's name. The Roman church held this place of honor and exercised a
'presidency in love' among the first Christian churches for two reasons. It was founded on the

4
teaching and blood of the foremost Christian apostles Peter and Paul. And it was the church of
the capital city of the Roman empire that then constituted t he 'civilized world .
Saint Thomas went east, and was said to be instrumental in establishing the Church in
the Persian Empire and satellite kingdoms, although Addai and Mari, two of the Seventy
Apostles were credited with most of the work of establishment in Persia itself . (Gonzalez,1984:
15) The Persian Church was larger than the Mediterranean Church for some centuries, e specially
in the sixth to eighth centuries with its highly successful movement into India, Mongolia, China,
Tibet, [Korea, and Japan .
In the fourth century when the Roman emperors were trying to control the Church,
theological questions were running rampa nt throughout the Roman Empire. The influence of
Greek speculative thought on Christian thinking led to all sorts of div ergent and conflicting
opinions . Christ's commandment to love others as He loved, seemed to have been lost in the
intellectual abstracti ons of the time. (1984: 15) Theology was also used as a weapon against
opponent bishops, since being branded a heretic was the only sure way for a bishop to be
removed by other bishops. Incompetence was not sufficient grounds for removal.
In the early chu rch up until the ecumenical councils, Rome was regarded as an important
centre of Christianity, especially since it was the capital of the Roman Empire . (1984: 15) The
eastern and southern Mediterranean bishops generally recognized a persuasive leadership and
authority of the Bishop of Rome, because the teaching of the bishop of Rome was almost
invariably correct. But the Mediterrtanean Church did not regard the Bishop of Rome as any sort
of infallible source, nor did they acknowledge any juridical authorit y of Rome.
After the sole emperor of all the Roman Empire Constantine the Great built the new
imperial capital on the Bosphorous, the centre of gravity in the empire was fully recognised to
have completely shifted to the eastern Mediterranean. Rome lost t he senate to Byzantium and
lost its status and gravitas as imperial capital. (1984: 16)
The patriarchs of Constantinople often tried to adopt an imperious position over the other
patriarchs. In the case of Nestorius , whose actual teaching is now recognised to be not overtly
heretical, although it is clearly deficient, (Sai nt Cyril called it 'slippery'), other patriarchs were

5
able to make the charge of heresy stick and successfully had him deposed. This was probably
more because his christology was delivered with a heavy sarcastic arrogance which matc hed his
high-handed personality.
The opinion of the Bishop of Rome was often sought, especially when the patriarchs of
the Eastern Mediterranean were locked in fractious dispute. The bishops of Rome never obviou sly
belonged to either the Antiochian or the Alexandrian schools of theology, and usually managed
to steer a middle course between whatever extremes were being propounded by theologians of
either school. (1984: 17) Because Rome was remote from the centres of Christianity in the
eastern Mediterranean, it was frequently hoped its bishop would be more impartial. For instance,
in 431, Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, appealed to Pope Celestine I, as well as the other
patriarchs, charging Nestorius with heres y, which was dealt with at the Council of Ephesus.
(1984:15)
The opinion of the bishop of Rome was always canvassed, and was often longed for.
However, the Bishop of Rome's opinion was by no means automatically right. For instance, the
Tome of Leo of Rom e was highly regarded, and formed the basis for the ecumenical council's
formulation. But it was not universally accept ed and was even called impious and blasphemous
by some. The next ecumenical council corrected a possible imbalance in Pope Leo's
presenta tion. (1984: 17) Although the Bishop of Rome was well -respected even at this early
date, the concept of papal infallibility was developed much later.
Following the Sack of Rome by invading European Goths, Rome slid into the Dark Ages
which afflicted most parts of Western Europe, and became increasingly isolated and irrelevant to
the wider Mediterranean Church . (Schaff,1994: 20) This was a situation which suited and
pleased a lot of the Eastern Medit erranean patriarchs and bishops .
It was not until the ri se of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose
out of obscurity on the back of the military successes of the western Mediterranean adventurers.

6
1.4 NEW ROME
When the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great embraced Christianity, he summo ned
the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325 to resolve a number of issues which troubled the
Church. The bishops at the council confirmed the position of the metropolitan sees of Rome and
Alexandria as having authority outside their own province, and also the existing privileges of the
churches in Antioch and the other provinces . (1994:20) These sees were later called Patriarchates
and were given an order of precedence: Rome, as capital of the empire was naturally given first
place, then came Alexandri a and Antioch. In a separate canon the Council also approved the
special honor given to Jerusalem over other sees subject to the same metropolitan. (1994:20)
1.5 EMPIRES OF THE EAST AND WEST
Disunion in the Roman Empire further contributed to disunion in t he Church. Theodosius
the Great , who established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, died in 395
and was the last Emperor to rule over a united Roman Empire; following his death, the Empire
was divided into western and eastern halves , each under its own Emperor. By the end of the fifth
century, the Western Roman Empire had been overrun by the Germanic tribes, while the Eastern
Roman Empire (known also as the Byzantine Empire) continued to thrive. Thus, the political
unity of the Roman Empire was the first to fall. (1994:20)
In the West, the collapse of civil government left the Church practically in charge in
many areas, and bishops took to administering secular cities and domains. When royal and
imperial rule reestablished itself, it had to contend with power wielded independently by the
Church. In the East, however, imperial and, later, Islamic rule dominated the Eastern bishops.
1.6 LANGUAGE
Many other factors caused the East and West to drift further apart. The dominant
language of the West was Latin, whilst that of the East was Greek. Soon after the fall of the
Western Empire, the number of individuals who spoke both Latin and Greek began to dwindle,
and communication between East and West grew much more difficult. With linguistic u nity gone,
cultural unity began to crumble as well. The two halves of the Church were naturally divided

7
along similar lines; they developed different rites and had different approaches to religious
doctrines. (1994:21) Although the Great Schism was still c enturies away, its outlines were
already perceptible.
An example is the defective translation of the Canones of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council from Greek to Latin. It caused Charlemage to task his frankish theologians with the
wording of a refutation ("Li bri Carolini").

8

CHAPTER 2
THE FIRST SEVEN ECUMENICAL
COUNCILS
As the Church progressed through history it was faced with many difficult decisions. The
Church always settled difficulties and made decisions by reaching a consensus of opin ion among
all the believers inspired by God who were led by their appointed leaders, first the apostles and
then the bishops.
The First Seven Councils

9
The first church council in history was held in the apostolic church to decide the
conditions under which the gentiles, that is, the non -Jews, could enter the Christian Church.
From that time on, all through history councils were held on every level of church life to make
important decisions. Bishops met regularly with their priests, also called presbyters or elders, and
people. It became the practice, and even the law, very early in church history that bishops in
given regions should meet in councils held on a regular basis.
At times in church history, councils of all of the bishops in the church were called. All
the bishops were not able to attend these councils, of course, and not all such councils were
automatically approved and accepted by the Church in its Holy Tradition. In the Orthodox
Church only seven such councils, some of which were actually quite small in terms of the n umber
of bishops attending, have received the universal approval of the entire Church in all times and
places. These councils have been termed the Seven Ecumenical Councils. (Gonzales, 1984: 67)
The dogmatic definitions (dogma means official teaching) and the canon laws of the
ecumenical councils are understood to be inspired by God and to be expressive of His will for
men. Thus, they are essential sources of Orthodox Christian doctrine.
Besides the seven ecumenical councils, there are other local church councils whose
decisions have also received the approval of all Orthodox Churches in the world, and so are
considered to be genuine expressions of the Orthodox faith and life . (1984: 67) The decisions of
these councils are mostly of a moral or structural c haracter. Nevertheless, they too reveal the
teaching of the Orthodox Church.
2.1 THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA
On account of the growing Arian controversy, that was
causing a rift in the church. Emperor Constantine assembled the First
Council of Nicaea in the year 325 A.D. The purpose of the council
was two -fold. First, the council was to discuss the teachings of Arius
of Alexandria a very popular presbyter in the Alexandrian church.
Arius had a problem with the deity of Jesus Christ. Second, Emperor
Consta ntine wanted to mend the growing rift in the church and
Eastern Orthodox icon
depicting the First Council
of Nicaea

10
form a united church front (Boyle, 1990: 134). From this historical gathering The Council of
Nicaea was able to produce a theological confession called the Nicene Creed.
The Arian conflict began becau se of a fundamental difference over the deity of Jesus
Christ. The Church had always confessed their belief in God the Father and in His Son, Jesus
Christ. The church believed that God was divine and therefore Jesus was divine. The act of water
baptism was performed in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. This belief spoken of
in the A postles Creed, boldly states, < We believe in God the Father, Almighty . . . and in Jesus
Christ, Hi s only begotten Son, our Lord.> The church also spoke out against all pagan beliefs.
(1990 : 135)
The Apostle's Creed appeared to be too much for the Arians, for their interpretation of the
deity of Christ was much different than the views of the church. The Arians led by their leader
Arius of Alexandria, simply could n ot get over the philosophical difficulty that one who is man
cannot be also God.The Arians believe that Christ can be worship as the begotten Son of God,
who became flesh, died and rose again, and who sits at the right hand of the Father . (1990 : 136)
Arius did everything in his power to try and show the general council that Jesus could not be
equal to God. Arius quoted "John 3:15 to show that Jesus was referred as God's only begotten
Son, he also referenced Hebrews 1:5 -6 which speaks of Jesus being begotte n of God. Finally
probably out of frustration Arius stated flatly, Jesus is in no way part God . The Arians just could
not support the deity of Christ because if they did it meant that Christ was God. Arius and his
followers held firm to their belief that " Jesus the Son of God, was created before the foundation
of the world by God; thus Jesus is not eternal, He is but a creature. (Schaff, 1994 : 23) Despite
the backlash that was coming from the church and its followers the Arians continued to preach
their mes sage of heresy. Arius continued to teach to anyone that would listen that the dignity of
being the Son of God was bestowed on Jesus as a gift from the Father; however it is the Father
we mus t worship for He alone is God. (1994 : 25)It was because of these teaching that Arius and
his followers were excommunicated from the church.

11
2.1.1 The Purpose of the Council
The 15th chapter of Acts gives a good example of a council coming together to discuss a
problem that was causing a division within the church. In the Christian church when bishops and
pastors and other elected leaders of the church assembled together to consider and rule on
questions of doctrine, administratio n, disciple, and other matters, (Walker, 1985 : 125) this
group is usually referred to as t he general council. The Nicaea general council did not operated
on any regular schedule, whenever there was a need to meet the council would assemble. The
general council did not react to everything that might have come up within the church. However,
if something was important, the issue found its way into the general council's meeting. According
to Socrates this "council was convened at the request of Constantine, the current emperor of
Rome, because the Christian sovereign hated discord, and he therefore set three tasks that he
want to resolve during this gathering. (1985 : 128) Constantine officiated the meeting and he
told the bishops that were in attendance. You are the bishops whose jurisdiction is within the
church. But I also am the bishop, ordained by God to ov ersee those outside the church.
(Eusebius, 1994 : 26) The three issues Constantine wanted to resolve were the issue of the deity
of Christ, establishing a date for Easter and to bring unity to an already fragile church body . The
assembling of t he council was a sign that Christianity had assumed a new mode of government,
as well a s a new position in the empire. (1994 : 26)
2.1.2 Controversies Surrounding the Trinity
In John 10:30 -Jesus says, I and the Father are one. According to the Jews, Jesus h ad just
committed blasphemy, and for that, the Jews were ready to stone him. How could Jesus and the
Father be one? This question was becoming a headache for Constantine and the general council.
To this day the deity of Christ is a hot topic among many in the secular world. There are those
who still have a hard time grasping this theory. To the secular world Christ was just a humble
rabbi, or insightful teacher, or just a good man. Others go as far as to insinuate that Jesus was
radica l, egotistical, or eve n insane. (Schaff, 1994 : 48) However, this growing controversy was
more of a theological issue than anything. The relationship between the Father and the Son was
the main issue and there was no easy way to explain this unique process. Arius, himself a
Christian, now found himself at odds with Bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. Arius did not want

12
to lower the person of God or to refuse him worship, but to defend from the charge of polytheism
(many Gods). ( 1994 : 48) It was the concept of many God's that was keeping Arius and his
followers from accepting the deity of Christ. Arius and his followers failed to see the spiritual
significant of the Trinity. Which was God is one God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Each member of the Trinity is comp letely God. As part of the Trinity, Jesus Christ who is
God the Son is deity. This is the Christian doctrine of the trinity. God in his infinite mercy looked
up his finite creatures and knew that they would have a hard time comprehending him and
believing in him. So, he revealed himself to every one in three different aspects. ( 1994 : 49)
2.1.3 The Nicene Creed
A Creed, or Rule of Faith, or Symbol is a confession
of faith for public use, or a form of words setting forth with
authority certain articles of belief, which are regarded by
the framers as necessary for salvation, or at least for the
well-being of the Christian Church. (Gonzalez, 1984 : 87)
The creed may cover the whole area of the Christian
doctrine and process, or embrace only such points as
believed to be essential and acceptable. Creeds are generally
used at baptisms, or used for instructional purposes; they
can be more elaborate and theological, for ministers and
teachers. Creeds give everyone a chance to speak out with a
loud voice what they believe. The Nicene Creed would go
on to become one of the most important Christian texts ever to be produced. The Nicene Creeds
goes as follow
We believe in God the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible. And in
one Lord Jesus Christ , the only – begotten of the Father, that is, begotten of the substance of the
Father, God from God, light from light, true, begotten God from true God, begotten, not made,
of the same substance as the Father, through whom all things were made, in heaven an d earth;
who for us humans and our salvation came down, took flesh, and was made human, suffered and
rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and th e
The Nicene Creed

13
dead. And in the Holy Spirit. (Boyle, 1990: 139). By citing th e Nicene Creed the general council
and the followers of the Christian faith were affirming their belief in the deity of Jesus Christ.
2.1.4 The Men of the Council
At the invitation of Emperor Constantine three hundred and eighteen bishops assembled
for wha t would become the first official gathering of the Nicaea Council. The council lasted for
two months and twelve days. It was held in the spring of AD 325 i n what is now northwest
Turkey. (Gonzalez, 1984 : 90) The church had waited for over "three centu ries to officially call
its first general council meeting, because Christianity was still officially outlawed. This moment
has been declared the first ecumenical counc il of the Christian church and historically it marked
the end of early church history and the dawning of the middle Ages. (Schaff, 1994 : 48) The
Council of Nicaea was held during the first year of the reign of Constantine the Great. Out of all
the men in attendance at the council there were few men who stood out.
Constantine had invited all 1 ,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman
Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number
attended. Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire, including Britain . (1994 : 50)
The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council,
as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him
two priests and three deacons , so the total number of attendees could have bee n above 1,800.
Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests , deacons and acolytes .
The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the
three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Ant ioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem.
Many of the assembled fathers —for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and
Paul of Neocaesarea —had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the
marks of persecution on their faces. (1994 : 51) This position is supported by patristic scholar
Timothy Barnes in his book Constantine and Eusebius . Historically, the influence of these
marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into
question.

14
Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia ; Eusebius of Caesarea , the
purported first church historian; circumstances suggest that Nicholas of Myra attended (his life
was the seed of the Santa Claus legends); Aristakes of Armenia (son of Saint Greg ory the
Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Protogenes of Sardica;
Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly and
Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd From foreign
places came John, bishop of Persia and India, Theophilus, a Gothic bishop and Stratophilus,
bishop of Pitiunt of Georgia.The Latin -speaking provinces sent at least five representatives:
Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian o f Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from
Hispania, Nicasius of Die, from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube.
(1994 : 52)
Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of
Alexandria, was among th e assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling
against Arianism . Alexander of Constantinople , then a presbyter, was also present as
representative of his aged bishop. The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais,
Theonus of M armarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from the Libyan Pentapolis,
Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda,
Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicaea (1994 : 52)
2.1.5 Emperor Constantine
Besid es being called Constantine the Great, the emperor was also known as the first
Christian Emperor. There have been some debates by historians whether Constantine was even a
Christian at all. He was born in Illyria, a region around the Balkans in A.D. 280. H is father
Constantius Chlorus, was already a Roman official who was moving up the ranks. His mother
was Helena, the daughter of an innkeeper. Constantine was in line to become emperor of the
western empire by the time he was 31. Spring of 311 Constantine a nd his army of 40,000
soldiers rode toward Rome to confront an enemy who had four times the men he did. The battle
was for supremacy in the west. "While riding into battle it is said that Constantine saw a vision
in the sky: a bright cross with the words B y This Sign Conquer. Constantine believes that this
was a sign from God telling him to take the cross into battle so he ordered his men to mark their

15
shield with the now famous cross whi ch became known as the Chi -Rio (Eusebius, 1994 : 35)
With renewed hop e Constantine was victorious over his enemy. He would enter Rome as the
new ruler of the west; Constantine became the first Roman emperor with a cross in his crown.
Once Constantine had established himself as emperor he met Licinius, the ruler of the Balka n
provinces, and he issued the now famous Edict of Milan that gave Chr istians the freedom to
worship (1994 : 35) The reign of Constantine the Great marks the transition of the Christian
religion from under persecution by the secular government to union wi th the same; the beginning
of the state -church system. For fourteen years Christians under the rule of Constantine enjoyed
the freedom of worship however Constantine wavered back and forth with his faith, because he
was considered a friend of the Christian s, and because his Christian convictions grow over the
years Constantine now proclaimed himself a Christian. Nevertheless, all good things must come
to an end, and it ended with a resounding thud. Controversy had to rear its ugly head around
A.D.325. A fun damental issue regarding the deity of Christ was threatening to divide the church,
after Constantine had worked so hard to establish unity. To settle the matter Constantine, called
together a council of bishops at Nicaea to discuss the matter. Constantine told the bishops that
division in the church is worse than war.
2.1.6 Athanasius
Athanasius of Alexandria was born in the last decade of the third century AD and he died
in May of 373. He lived during a period where considerable change was happening in the
Christian church. (Boyle, 1990: 134) Athanasius grew up in a fatherless home, his mother a very
rich woman; was a worshipper of idols. Once Athanasius had become an adult his mother's
desire was that he would marry, Athanasius had no desire to get marry. As with most mothers
she continued to press her son to get married even suggesting that he get with a young lady that
was a sinner so maybe she would be able to convince to get married. Again Athanasius refused
for the Lord was keeping him for great. His m other didn't give up for she found different women
to send her son's way but each time he would refuse them. She finally stopped trying to get him
to marry someone after a magician told her that her son might be a Christian. Maybe it was
hearing that her s on might be a Christian that changed her heart. She immediately took
Athanasius to see Alexander, once there she told Alexander everything that she had done to get
her son to marry and how he refused. That day Alexander baptized both mother and son.

16
Athana sius lived during the period of pagan worship nevertheless; over time he saw how
Christianity was having a major effect on the Roman Empire, mainly due to the conversion of
Constantine the Great. While under the rule of Constantine the Roman Empire increas ed in size,
wealth and the Christian church increased in popularity. However, during this time of prosperity
for the church there were some significant changes taking place. The fourth century saw the
redefining of Christianity, church architecture, liturg y, clerical hierarchies, doctrinal creeds, and
the canon of Scripture. With these changes came some resistant which eventually led to divisions
within the church. Through all these changes Athanasius saw himself suddenly being thrust into
the spotlight whe n he became bishop of Alexandria in 328. "It was during his time as Bishop of
Alexandria that he would fight for his vision of Christianity, his conception of correct Christian
belief and practice, and his lead ership of the Egyptian Church (1990: 142). Ath anasius did not
know what trouble was until Arius, a presbyter from Libya started to speak out against the deity
of Christ. Arius announced, If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a
beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not " The
argument caused a fundamental split to rise up within the church. Athanasius spoke out against
Arius and his belief, by saying that it would deny the Trinity. (1990: 142). Athanasius was not
going to stand for this typ e of heresy; there was no reason to question the deity of Christ. When
you see Christ you see God because they are of the same substance. Arius's view begin to catch
on and soon he had followers and soon word got to Constantine about the growing divide in the
church. It was at the council that Alexander and Athanasius signed a letter attacking Arius's
statement regarding the deity of Christ. While at the Council of Nicaea, Arius was exiled from
the church and it was a major offense if anyone was found in po ssession of his writing. After few
months Arius's exile was lifted. While everyone was still at the council a statement of faith called
The Nicene Creed was written and everyone in attendance agreed to sign the creed even Arius.
Athanasius was ordered by C onstantine to restore Arius to full fellowship, however Athanasius
refused and because of his refusal false rumors started to spread around the empire. These
rumors eventually made their way to the emperor and because of the rumor of treason
Athanasius was sent into exile. When in exile the Constantine died and Arianism had taken over.
(1990: 142).

17
2.1.7 Arius
Arius, the North African priest who gave his name to one of Christianity's most
troublesome schisms, was born ca. 250, apparently in Libya. (Gonzal ez,1984: 120) He was a
pupil of Lucien of Antioch. Under the bishopric of Peter of Alexandria, he was made deacon.
However, Arius's path up the ranks of the Christian ladder was a rocky one. It started off with
him being excommunicated for his involved wi th Melitians (a self -proclaimed movement with
no church authority), being restored back to the fellowship by Bishop Achillas of Alexandria and
givenpriestly orders in the church of Baucalis. It appeared that things may have been going well
until Arius deci ded to speak out against Bishop Alexander over the deity of Christ. In deciding to
speak out against the theology of the church Arius took to the streets and he started teaching his
views to those who would listen . (1984: 120) Now the church had just gone through some major
transitions, the Christians were no longer being persecuted; they were allowed to worship freely,
the emperor himself proclaimed to be a Christian, was considered a friend of the Christians. The
church was seeing some of the best times it had ever seen. Well this did not sit well with the
Bishop Alexander and he started to speak out against the teaching of Arius. What was Arius
teaching that was causing this big of a divide in the church? The church had decided that Jesus
and God was one , Arius said this cannot be true because the Son was the begotten Son of God.
The debate went on for a while with each side gaining support the longer it went on. "Bishop
Alexander enlisted support of various bishops throughout Palestine and Syria. For his part Arius
gained the backing of several high -placed churchmen, including Eusebius of Nicomedia. As the
debate grew Arius's teachings became known as Arianism and his followers became known as
Arians. This debate went back and forth until it made it was t o the ears of the emperor. A
meeting of the general council was called to address this heresy. At the council Arius stated his
case and to no avail he was exiled. During the meeting of the council Eusebius of Caesarea,
whose name means faithful, attempted to mediate of behalf of Arius. It did not matter because the
council had already made its decision and Arius was anathematized. Eusebius was not too happy
with this decision and he even had some reservations about signing the statement of faith
document th at the council had drawn up . (1984: 120)
It is really amazing how something as trivial as the interpretation of a Scripture can cause
so much chaos in the church. The word of God does not produce confusion. Confusion comes

18
about because people refuse to ac cept the Word as being true. There is nothing wrong with a
person having a different view, however when it brings confusion and chaos into the house of
God it is wrong. Confusion is what the Emperor Constantine was trying to avoid by assembling
together th e general council. With prayer, faith and patience the council was able to over this
confusion and bring peace once again to the church body
2.2 THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPOLE
2.2.1 Setting & Purpose
The First Council of Constantinople was held in C onstantinople, modern day Istanbul,
Turkey. It was convened by Theodosius I who at that time was Emperor of the Eastern Roman
Empire. The council met from May to July, 381.
The council was convened to try to unite a church that remained divided over the i ssue of
Christ’s nature and his relationship with the Father. Though the First Council of Nicaea had
already attempted to reach consensus, Arianism and other heterodox understandings remained a
battleground in every region of the empire. (Schaff, 1994: 122)
2.2.2 Major Characters
There were 150 Eastern bishops present
at the council and among them were a handful
of notable characters. Meletius, bishop of
Antioch served as the first president of the
council, but died shortly after it began. Gregory
of Nazi anzus was elected bishop of
Constantinople at the start of the council and,
after the death of Meletius, took over as
president. However, shortly thereafter, the legality
of his election was challenged based on a canon
The First Council of Constantinopole

19
from the Council of Nicaea that bisho ps cannot be transferred from sea to sea (Gregory had
previously been bishop in Sasima). This dispute prompted Gregory to resign from the bishopric
and presidency. (1994: 122)
Nectarius was a civil official who was quickly baptized so he could take over as bishop of
Constantinople and president of the council when Gregory stepped down.
2.2.3 The Conflict
The main business of the council was to reestablish the doctrine that had been set forth in
the Nicene Creed. They did this by writing a new creed to remo ve some of the language of the
Nicene Creed that had proven controversial and problematic. They also adding further
clarification at other points where doctrine had developed a little further, or where orthodoxy
was being challenged.
One specific area whe re doctrine had developed was in regard to the Holy Spirit. The
council attributed four things to the Holy Spirit: (1994: 123)
 “a divine title, ‘Lord,’
 divine functions of giving life which He possesses by nature and of inspiring the
prophets,
 an origin fr om the Father not by creation but by procession,
 supreme worship equal to that rendered to Father and to Son” (from Leo Donal
Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils ).
The council sought to use biblical language to describe the Spirit so as to make the
doctrine as palatable as possible to all present. (1994: 123) Nevertheless, thirty -six Macedonian
bishops left because they were not willing to accept such high language for the Holy Spirit.
Eustathius of Sebaste represented their view when he said, For m y part I neither choose to name
the Holy Spirit God, nor should I presume to call him a creature.

20

2.2.4 The Result
The foremost result of the Council was the Creed of Constantinople. It was very similar
to the Nicene Creed, but it removed the anathema a gainst Arianism.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things
visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only -begotten Son of God, begotten of the
Father before all worlds (aeons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for
our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man; he was c rucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried,
and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and
sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge t he
quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and
Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is
worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church;
we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen. (Walker, 1985: 139)
Apart from reaffirming the faith of Nicaea, the council also approved severa l other items.
Most noticeable was the canon asserting that The Bishop of Constantinople shall have primacy of
honor after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the new Rome . In the time between
Nicaea and Constantinople, Constantine had rebuilt an d dedicated Constantinople as the new
capital of the Roman empire. Assuming such authority for the bishop of Constantinople was a
threat to Rome and the power of her bishop. It was considered a serious affront because there
was no spiritual significance to Constantinople (whereas Rome’s bishopric claimed to have
succeeded from Peter). This seemingly small change would cause all manner of grief in the
centuries to come. (Schaff, 1994: 56)

21
2.2.5 Lasting Significance
The First Council of Constantinople was si gnificant
theologically and administratively. Leo Donal Davis aptly
summarizes each: Theologically, it had carried on the logic of
the Council of Nicaea and cautiously applied that Council’s
reasoning about the Son’s relation to the Father to the Holy
Spirit, though confining its statement to biblical terminology.
Administratively, the Council continued the eastern practice of
accommodating the ecclesiastical organization to the civil
organization of the Empire, sowing the seeds of discord among
the four g reat sees of East and West by raising the ecclesiastical
status of Constantinople to correspond to its civil position as
New Rome. The council was significant, but many councils would remain before there would be
that unified Christian doctrine.
2.3 THE C OUNCIL OF EPHESUS
2.3.1 Setting & Purpose
The Council of Ephesus was convened in 431 by Theodosius II, emperor of the eastern
half of the Roman empire, and he did so at the request of Nestorius. Nestorius’ teaching about
the nature of Christ was generatin g a great deal of controversy in the church, and he requested a
council in the hopes of being able to prove his orthodoxy and silence his detractors. While
Theodosius did not attend, he sent the head of his imperial palace guard, Count Candidian, to
repres ent him. The council met in Ephesus, near present -day Selcuk in Turkey with between 200
and 250 bishops in attendance. (Schaff, 1994: 74)
This council came at a time of conflict over authority within the church. The First
Council of Constantinople had est ablished the bishop of Constantinople as second in authority
following Rome, whose bishop carried the title of Pope and who claimed his authority from the
line of Peter. Alexandria and Antioch were also powerful bishoprics and their schools of
Christology historically came from different positions. Phillip Schaff explains: Just as all
Sts. Gregory Palamas,
Photios the Great, and M ark
of Ephesus —the Pillars of
Otrhodoxy

22
philosophers are said to be basically either Aristotelian or Platonist, so, roughly speaking, all
theologians are in Christology either Antiochene, beginning with the Jesus of the Synoptic
Gospels and attempting to explain how this man is also God, or Alexandrian, beginning with the
Word of John’s Prologue and attempting to understand the implications of the Logos taking
flesh. This council would further expose the rift between the two schools of Christology.
2.3.2 Major Characters
Though he would not actually be present, the dominant personality at the Council of
Ephesus was Nestorius who was originally from Antioch in Syria. Nestorious was a gifted
speaker who had been appoin ted by Theodosius II as Archbishop of Constantinople . (Gonzalez,
1984: 133) The second major character was Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. The two men
would represent the two sides in a conflict with profound implications to the Christian faith.
2.3.3 The Conflict
Once in Constantinople, Nestorius found himself caught between two factions: one
faction insisted on calling Mary Theotokos (“God -bearer”) while the other rejected the title
because they held that an eternal being could not be born. ( Theotokos was an ancient title for
Mary that had been in use since the 3rd century, used by such men as Origen, Athanasius, and
Gregory of Nazianzus.) (Walker, 1985: 45) In an attempt to mediate the dispute, Nestorius
suggested calling Mary Christotokos (“Christ -bearer”). He wanted to affirm that Christ had a
fully human nature rather than a nature mixed with his Deity. He also wanted to affirm the full
reality of his Deity, which Nestorius believed could not involve change or suffering. By calling
Mary Christotokos , Nestorius was suggesting that she gave birth to Christ, which was
the prosopon (lit. in Greek “face” or “mask”) of the Son —the single perceived object of the Son,
but internally consisting of two distinct natures, one human and the other divine. ( 1985: 45)
When news of Nestorius’ teachings reached Cyril, he responded privately to Nestorius,
but also publicly, and this resulted in several letters back and forth in what became a growing
public debate. Some have suggested that Cyril was partly motivated not o nly by theology, but by
the political implications of an Antiochene theologian now holding the chair of the second
highest bishopric. In addition to these letters, Cyril wrote to Pope Celestine, who convened a

23
synod in Rome and soon called for Nestorius to recant his teaching. (1985: 45)Cyril also
convened a synod in Alexandria, which came to the same decision. He wrote to Nestorius to
deliver the news of both Rome’s and Alexandria’s synods and to call on him to recant. By this
time Nestorius had already ap pealed to Theodosius II for a council and the emperor had agreed.
At the council, Cyril would be the major defender of calling Mary Theotokos and the statement
that Christ is the perfect unity of God and man.
Because the Pope did not attend the council, C yril was made president. The council was
scheduled to begin on June 7th but had to be postponed when a major contingency of bishops
from the East (most notably John, the bishop of Antioch) had not arrived. On the 22nd, Cyril
finally decided to convene the council without them. (1985: 45) Despite repeated requests for his
attendance, Nestorius refused to attend because of Cyril’s role as president. The council met and
voted to affirm Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius (in which he had outlined his Christolog y in
full) as in agreement with the Nicene Creed and to denounce Nestorius’ Christology (outlined in
his response to Cyril’s second letter) as blasphemous and opposed to the faith of Nicaea.
When John and the Eastern bishops finally arrived, they were out raged to find that the
council had already convened and come to a decision. They convened their own council
immediately, condemning and excommunicating Cyril and others. Not surprisingly, this led to
confusion, conflict, and intrigue. Ultimately, though, t he decision of Cyril’s council was
approved by both Rome and Constantinople.
2.3.4 The Result
The Council of Ephesus confirmed the Nicene Creed and the title Theotokos for Mary as
a legitimate title based on that creed. They also condemned Nestorianism an d excommunicated
all those bishops who did not hold to the council’s decision.
2.3.5 Lasting Significance
The Council of Ephesus confirmed the hypostatic union of Christ as it was made explicit
in the Nicene Creed. And, as Phillip Shaff aptly summarizes, this had long -lasting significance:
This precipitated the Nestorian Schism, by which churches supportive of Nestorius, especially in

24
Persia, were severed from the rest of Christendom and became known as Nestorian Christianity,
the Persian Church, or the Ch urch of the East, whose present -day representatives are the
Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Syrian Church, the Ancient Church of the East, and
the Chaldean Catholic Church. Once again, Trinitarian doctrine had been defended and further
clarified.
2.4 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
2.4.1 Setting & Purpose
In 449, a Second Council of Ephesus was convened because of the excommunication of a
monk named Eutyches, who taught that Christ, after his incarnation, had only one nature. The
council itself devolved into drama when those who supported Eutychus, led by Dioscorus and
supported by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II, unilaterally and forcefully asserted their
doctrine over against those who held the orthodox view that Christ has two natures —one fully
human and one fully divine —which exist in hypostasis in one person. When news of the council
reached Rome, Pope Leo immediately termed it Latrocinium (a “robber council”). (1985: 46)
When Marcian, an orthodox Christian, became emperor, he wished to convene anot her
council in order to resolve the turmoil that the Second Council of Ephesus had stirred up. That
council met from October 8 to November 1, 451, in Chalcedon, now a district of modern -day
Istanbul . (Shaff, 1994: 120) It was held here rather than in Italy because of the pressing threat to
the Roman Empire from Attila and his Huns.
2.4.2 Major Characters & Conflict
Of the 350 to 500 bishops present, two stand out as
the major characters: Eutyches and Dioscorus. Eutyches was
an aged and influential monk f rom Constantinople. Because
of his unorthodox teachings about Christ he had already been
condemned as a heretic in 448 by a local synod in
Constantinople. Dioscorus became Bishop of Alexandria after
Cyril died in 444. When Eutyches was initially excommunic ated,
The Council of Ephesus

25
Dioscorus came to his defense. Eventually he would preside over the Second Council of Ephesus
where he strong -armed the assembly to restore Eutyches and depose those who had
excommunicated him. (1994: 120)
2.4.3 The Conflict
Eutyches’ doctrine appea red to be an overcorrection to the heresy of Nestorius Phillip
Shaff says, Since he was a confused and muddled thinker, his doctrine was far from clear and
consistent.” In essence, though, he taught that Christ had two natures before the Incarnation —
one hu man and one divine —and that in the Incarnation these two natures became one. “He
hated the idea of two natures in Christ after the Incarnation because he understood nature to
mean concrete existence. To affirm two natures was for him to affirm two concrete existences,
two hypostases, two persons in Christ.
The Council of Chalcedon was forced to clean up the mess caused by the Second Council
of Ephesus and they did this by reaffirming the creeds of previous ecumenical councils and other
expressions of faith which had been deemed orthodox such as Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius
and a tome by Pope Leo which summarized the Christology of the West . (1994: 121) They also
put on trial before the council Dioscorus and any other bishops who had supported the dec isions
of the Second Council of Ephesus.
Finally, they developed a creed that would restate orthodoxy for a new generation and
clarify it against the alternate views which had been battled through up to this point (Arianism,
Nestorianism, and now Eutychia nism).
2.4.4 The Result
Dioscorus was tried, found guilty of abusing his priestly authority (most specifically at
the Second Council of Ephesus), and defrocked. (1994: 121) The council then prepared and
affirmed a confession which denied a single nature o f Christ and reaffirmed that he has two
natures —a human and a divine —which coexist in hypostasis in his one person:
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is
to us One and the same Son, the Self -same Perfect in Godhead, the Self -same Perfect in

26
Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self -same of a rational soul and body; co -essential with
the Father according to the Godhead, the Self -same co -essential with us according to the
Manhood; like us in all things, si n apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the
Godhead, but in the last days, the Self -same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the
Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only -begotten;
acknowledged in T wo Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the
difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the
properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One
Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self –
same Son and Only -begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; (1994: 122) even as from the
beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath
taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us. The council also issued 28
canons regarding church discipline and administration.
2.4.5 Lasting Significance
While the council did have some lasting significance, Phillip Schaff poin ts out that, As
with the Creed of Nicaea, one hundred and twenty -five years before, the definition of Chalcedon
was not the end but the intensification of controversy. The intensification of this controversy
would lead to further disagreements and taking o f sides so that by 484 Felix III, Pope of Rome at
that time, would decree Acacius, the archbishop of Constantinople, by a sentence pronounced
from heaven … ejected from the priestly office. Acacius would respond by erasing Felix’s name
from the church’s di ptych, thus symbolizing the breaking of communion with him. Within thirty –
three years, because of the decisions of these councils, there would be a full schism between the
churches of the East and the West.
2.5 THE S ECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPOLE
2.5.1 Setting & Purpose
Like the First Council of Constantinople, the Second Council of Constantinople was held
in modern -day Istanbul, Turkey. The council met from May 5 to June 2, 553 and was convened

27
by Emperor Justinian I in an attempt to reconcile those who sided with the decisions of
Chalcedon a hundred years prior and the Monophysites who had not. (Gonzalez, 1984: 144)

2.5.2 Major Characters
Somewhere between 151 and 168 bishops
attended the council, most of them from the eastern half
of the church. Phi llip Schaff says, Among those present
were the Patriarchs, Eutychius of Constantinople, who
presided, Apollinaris of Alexandria, Domninus of
Antioch, three bishops as representatives of the
Patriarch Eustochius of Jerusalem, and 145 other
metropolitans and bishops, of whom many came also in
the place of absent colleagues. The two major players
were Emperor Justinian I and Pope Vigilius while Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople,
presided.
2.5.3 The Proceedings
Justinian I was a pious emperor who, in the interest of preserving his empire, saw the
necessity of preserving the integrity of the Christian faith. This demanded at least attempting to
heal the schism that had resulted between the Monophysites and those who submitted to the
decisions of Chalcedon a hundred years prior.
In an attempt to do this, Justinian issued an edict in 543 condemning three things: the
person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrusa’s writings against Cyril,
and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persia n. These were condemned because they were
understood to support Nestorius and his view of Christ’s human and divine natures being distinct
rather than that. (1984: 144)
The Second Council of
Constantinopole

28
Because the Monophysites were opposed to Nestorianism, Justinian’s edict condemning
these three items (which would come to be called the Three Chapters ) was readily accepted in
the east, where the Monophysite view was predominant. The edict was not so easily accepted in
the west, however, because it appeared to cast doubt on the actions of the Council of Chalcedon.
Pope Vigilius of Rome relocated to Constantinople in 547 to escape the Ostrogoth
invasion of Italy. While he initially resisted Justinian’s edict and encouraged other bishops in the
west to do the same, over the next year, and af ter convening a number of bishops who also had
resisted the edict, he came to accept Justinian’s Three Chapters , with reservations, in a
document called the Judicatum . (1984: 145) This document affirmed his confidence in the
decisions of the Council of Cha lcedon; nevertheless, the pope’s agreement to the Three
Chapters came with much opposition from the west.
To prevent further rifts in the church, the Emperor encouraged Vigilius to visibly retract
the Judicatum and call for a council that would examine th e reasoning of the east and, hopefully,
lead to universal agreement.
As plans were coming together for a council, Justinian and Vigilius could not agree on
who should participate or where it should be held. Vigilius did not want it to be held in the east
and also wanted more western bishops invited. This is the reason for his hesitation about it and
why, during the council, he repeatedly refused to appear up until the third week of assembly.
In the end, the council accepted the decisions of the first four ecclesiastical councils. On
May 24, Vigilius showed up with a new document, his Constitutum I , in which he refused to
condemn the Three Chapters wholesale because he said each of the men had died while in
communion with the church, and that the letter of Ibas had already been declared orthodox at
Chalcedon . He did, however, outrightly condemn some particular propositions of Theodore of
Mopsuestia and of Nestorius. The pope himself and several of the attending bishops and clerics
signed the Constitutum I , but the emperor rejected its validity, saying that the council had already
condemned the Three Chapters .
The Emperor responded by presenting evidence of pope Vigilius’ previous decision to
condemn the Three Chapters (expressed in his Judicatum ) and his agr eement to attend the

29
council (expressed in his personal correspondences with Justinian). (1984: 145)This
demonstrated Vigilius’ lack of integrity and his unwillingness to work with the council to come
to a consensus, which in turn resulted in a decision by the council to break communion with him,
without at the same time breaking communion with the Holy See of Rome.
In the eighth and final session, the council laid out their sentence, which summarized
their condemnation of the Three Chapters . As regards th e letter of Ibas, they concluded that the
Council of Chalcedon must have reviewed and approved a different letter, supposedly also by
Ibas, since they said the one they had revisited at this council was clearly in opposition to the
doctrine of Chalcedon an d could not have been approved by them. (Gonzalez, 1984: 111)
2.5.4 The Result
The council issued a sentence on the Three Chapters , which can be found here while also
issuing fourteen anathemas which served to lay out the rule of faith regarding Christ’s nature that
had been established and agreed upon in previous councils. A further fifteen
anathemas concerning the doctrines of Origen have come to be associated with this council, but
there is debate over whether they were part of the official proceedings and whether they are
actually attributable to Origen. The council also named and condemned the teachings of all the
heretics to date. (1984: 112)
2.5.5 Lasting Significance
Pope Vigilius was asked to return to Rome, but Justinian would not allow him to do so
until he submitted to the rulings of the council. Vigilius finally surrendered six months later,
making the excuse that he had been misled by his advisers. He died before he reached Rome.
Schaff says, Pelagius I, who succeeded [Vigilius] in the See of Rome, likewise confirmed
the Acts of the Fifth Synod. The council however was not received in all parts of the West,
although it had obtained the approval of the Pope. It was bitterly opposed in the whole of the
north of Italy, in England, France, and Spa in, and also in Africa and Asia. However, by 700,
“the Second Council of Constantinople was received all the world over as the Fifth Ecumenical

30
Council; and was fully recognized as such by the Sixth Council in 680 —the Third Council of
Constantinople.
2.6 THE THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPOLE
The Third Council of Constantinople was convened by
Emperor Constantine IV in an attempt to settle further differences
between the Eastern and Western church in the way they
understood the nature of Christ’s will a nd power. The council
began on November 7, 680 in the Trullus, a great domed room in
the imperial palace at Constantinople. Only 43 bishops were
present, marking this as the smallest of the seven ecumenical
councils . (Schaff, 1994: 150)

2.6.1 Major Charac ters & Conflict
Constantine IV opened the council and presided over the first 11 of the 18 sessions
(which would go on for 10 months). But unlike the councils before and after it, the Third Council
of Constantinople did not have one or two men who dominat ed the proceedings.
The primary conflict in the council was regarding the two doctrines of monoenergism
and monothelitism. Monoenergism arose not long after the Second Council of Constantinople as
another attempt to reconcile the churches of the East and West. It was the belief that, though
Christ may have had two distinct natures, there was but one energy operative in his person: the
divine energy .(1994: 151) Justo Gonzalez describes the position like this: Whatever was done by
the Incarnate Word was don e by Him as Creator and God, and that therefore all the things that
were said of Him either as God or in a human way were the action of the divinity of the Word.
Not long after the emergence of monoenergism, the discussion turned more toward
discussions a bout Christ’s will in place of his energy. From this came monothelitism , the belief
that Christ had only one will, namely his divine will, for at no time did His rationally quickened
flesh, separately and of its own impulse … exercise its natural activity, but it exercised that
St. Anatolius the Patriarch
of Constantinople

31
activity at the time and in the manner and measure in which the Word of God willed it. (1994:
152)
2.6.2 The Proceedings
During the council, two patriarchs were accused of advocating the doctrines of
monoenergism and monothelitism : George of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch. In an
attempt to bolster their belief that they were holding to the position of previous councils,
Macarius presented extracts from the Fathers showing evidence for his positions. These
documents were soo n called into question as having been corrupted or twisted out of context.
Alternate copies were found, demonstrating that this was exactly what had happened. In the face
of this evidence, George changed his mind and embraced the orthodox position. Macariu s,
though, held his ground and was tried before the council for falsifying the writings of the
Fathers. He was found guilty and deposed from his office.
One particularly bizarre event occurred at this Council. In one of the sessions after Macarius’
was dep osed, one of his followers, a priest named Polychronius, claimed that he could raise a
man from the dead and in this way prove monothelitism orthodox. A dead man was brought in, a
profession of faith was laid on his chest, and Polychronius whispered in his ear. Not
surprisingly, nothing happened, so Polychronius was quickly defrocked. (1994: 151)
2.6.3 The Results
The Third Council of Constantinople reaffirmed the decisions of the first five councils
and the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople I. The bis hops also prepared and signed A
Definition of Faith that explicitly condemned monoenergism and monothelitism as heretical,
saying, declare that in [Christ] are two natural wills and two natural operations indivisibly,
inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfuse dly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And
these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other as the impious heretics assert ,
(1994: 151) but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as
subject to h is divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but
subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is
the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is call ed and is the proper will of

32
God the Word, as he himself says: came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will
but the will of the Father which sent me! where he calls his own will the will of his flesh,
inasmuch as his flesh was also his own.
2.6.4 Lasting Significance
Once again, the church had clarified the nature of Christ as fully God and fully man, now
extending that definition to include his nature, power, and will. And once again, the church had
preserved orthodox, Trinitarian doctrine in the face of new assaults. For the time being there
would be peace between the church of the East and West .
2.7 THE SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church, held in
787.An attempt to hold a council at Constantinople, to deal
with Iconoclasm, having been frustrated by the violence of the
Iconoclastic soldiery, the papal legates left that city. When,
however, they had reached Sicily on their way back to Rome,
they were recalled by the Empress Irene. She replaced the
mutino us troops at Constantinople with troops commanded by
officers in whom she had every confidence. This accomplished,
in May, 787, a new council was convoked at Nicaea in
Bithynia. The pope's letters to the empress and to the patriarch
prove superabundantly t hat the Holy See approved the
convocation of the Council. The pope afterwards wrote to
Charlemagne: "Et sic synodum istam, secundum nostram
ordinationem, fecerunt" (Thus they have held the synod in
accordance with our directions). (Gonzalez, 1984: 142)
The empress -regent and her son did not assist in person at the
sessions, but they were represented there by two high officials: the patrician and former consul, Petronius,
and the imperial chamberlain and logothete John, with whom was associated as secretary the former
patriarch, Nicephorus. The acts represent as constantly at the head of the ecclesiastical members the two
Roman legates, the archpriest Peter and the abbot Peter; after them come Tarasius, Patriarch of
Constantinople, and then two Oriental monks and priests, John and Thomas, representatives of the
An icon of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council (17th
century, Novodevichy Convent,
Moscow).

33
Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The operations of the council show that Tarasius,
properly speaking, conducted the sessions . (1984: 142) The monks John and Thomas professed to
represen t the Oriental patriarchs, though these did not know that the council had been convoked.
However, there was no fraud on their part: they had been sent, not by the patriarchs, but by the monks and
priests of superior rank acting sedibus impeditis, in the st ead and place of the patriarchs who were
prevented from acting for themselves. Necessity was their excuse. Moreover, John and Thomas did not
subscribe at the Council as vicars of the patriarchs, but simply in the name of the Apostolic sees of the
Orient. W ith the exception of these monks and the Roman legates, all the members of the Council were
subjects of the Byzantine Empire. Their number, bishops as well as representatives of bishops, varies in
the ancient historians between 330 and 367; Nicephorus make s a manifest mistake in speaking of only 150
members: the Acts of the Council which we still possess show not fewer than 308 bishops or
representatives of bishops. To these may be added a certain number of monks, archimandrites, imperial
secretaries, and c lerics of Constantinople who had not the right to vote. (1984: 142)
2.7.1 The Proceedings
The first session opened in the church of St. Sophia, 24 September, 787. Tarasius opened the
council with a short discourse : Last year, in the beginning of the month of August, it was desired to hold,
under my presidency, a council in the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople; but through the fault of
several bishops whom it would be easy to count, and whose names I prefer not to mention, since
everybody knows them, that council was made impossible. The sovereigns have deigned to convoke
another at Nicaea, and Christ will certainly reward them for it. It is this Lord and Saviour whom the
bishops must also invoke in order to pronounce subsequently an equitable judgmen t in a just and
impartial manner. (1984: 143) The members then proceeded to the reading of various official documents,
after which three Iconoclastic bishops who had retracted were permitted to take their seats. Seven others
who had plotted to make the Cou ncil miscarry in the preceding year presented themselves and declared
themselves ready to profess the Faith of the Fathers, but the assembly thereupon engaged in a long
discussion concerning the admission of heretics and postponed their case to another ses sion. On 26
September, the second session was held, during which the pope's letters to the empress and the Patriarch
Tarasius were read. Tarasius declared himself in full agreement with the doctrine set forth in these
letters. On 28, or 29, September, in t he third session, some bishops who had retracted their errors were
allowed to take their seats, after which various documents were read. The fourth session was held on 1
October. In it the secretaries of the council read a long series of citations from the Bible and the Fathers
in favour of the veneration of images. Afterwards the dogmatic decree was presented, and was signed by
all the members present, by the archimandrites of the monasteries, and by some monks; the papal legates

34
added a declaration to the effect that they were ready to receive all who had abandoned the Iconoclastic
heresy. In the fifth session on 4 October, passages form the Fathers were read which declared, or seemed
to declare, against the worship of images, but the reading was not conti nued to the end, and the council
decided in favour of the restoration and veneration of images. On 6 October, in the sixth session, the
doctrines of the conciliabulum of 753 were refuted. (Walker,1985: 131) The discussion was endless, but in
the course of i t several noteworthy things were said. The next session, that of 13 October, was especially
important; at it was read the horos, or dogmatic decision, of the council. The last (eighth) was held in the
Magnaura Palace, at Constantinople, in presence of the empress and her son, on 23 October. It was spent
in discourses, signing of names, and acclamations.
2.7.2 Twenty -two canons
The council promulgated twenty -two canons relating to points of discipline, which may be summarized as
follows: (1985: 132)
 Canon 1 : The clergy must observe "the holy canons," which include the Apostolic, those of the
six previous Ecumenical Councils, those of the particular synods which have been published at
other synods, and those of the Fathers.
 Canon 2: Candidates for a bishop's orders must know the Psalter by heart and must have read
thoroughly, not cursorily, all the sacred Scriptures.
 Canon 3 condemns the appointment of bishops, priests, and deacons by secular princes.
 Canon 4: Bishops are not to demand money of their clergy : any bishop who through
covetousness deprives one of his clergy is himself deposed.
 Canon 5 is directed against those who boast of having obtained church preferment with money,
and recalls the Thirtieth Apostolic Canon and the canons of Chalcedon against those who buy
preferment with money.
 Canon 6: Provincial synods are to be held annually.
 Canon 7: Relics are to be placed in all churches: no church is to be consecrated without relics.
 Canon 8 prescribes precautions to be taken against feigned convert s from Judaism.
 Canon 9: All writings against the venerable images are to be surrendered, to be shut up with
other heretical books.
 Canon 10: Against clerics who leave their own dioceses without permission, and become private
chaplains to great personage s.
 Canon 11 : Every church and every monastery must have its own œconomus.
 Canon 12: Against bishops or abbots who convey church property to temporal lords.

35
 Canon 13 : Episcopal residences, monasteries and other ecclesiastical buildings converted to
profa ne uses are to be restored their rightful ownership.
 Canon 14: Tonsured persons not ordained lectors must not read the Epistle or Gospel in the
ambo.
 Canon 15: Against pluralities of benefices.
 Canon 16 : The clergy must not wear sumptuous apparel.
 Cano n 17: Monks are not to leave their monasteries and begin building other houses of prayer
without being provided with the means to finish the same.
 Canon 18: Women are not to dwell in bishops' houses or in monasteries of men.
 Canon 19: Superiors of church es and monasteries are not to demand money of those who enter
the clerical or monastic state. But the dowry brought by a novice to a religious house is to be
retained by that house if the novice leaves it without any fault on the part of the superior.
 Canon 20 prohibits double monasteries.
 Canon 21: A monk or nun may not leave one convent for another.
 Canon 22: Among the laity, persons of opposite sexes may eat together, provided they give
thanks and behave with decorum. But among religious persons, thos e of opposite sexes may eat
together only in the presence of several God -fearing men and women, except on a journey when
necessity compels.
 Canon 16: The clergy must not wear sumptuous apparel.
 Canon 17 : Monks are not to leave their monasteries and begin building other houses of prayer
without being provided with the means to finish the same.
 Canon 18 : Women are not to dwell in bishops' houses or in monasteries of men.
 Canon 19 : Superiors of churches and monasteries are not to demand money of those who enter
the clerical or monastic state. But the dowry brought by a novice to a religious house is to be
retained by that house if the novice leaves it without any fault on the part of the superior.
 Canon 20 prohibits double monasteries.
 Canon 21 : A monk or nun may not leave one convent for another.
 Canon 22 : Among the laity, persons of opposite sexes may eat together, provided they give
thanks and behave with decorum. But among religious persons, those of opposite sexes may eat
together only in the presenc e of several God -fearing men and women except on a journey when
necessity compels.

36

CHAPTER 3
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AFTER
AD 1054

3.1 PAPAL SUPREMACY AND PENTARCHY
Compounding the dogmatic issue was that the Creed was changed without agreement of
the wh ole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an Ecumenical Council and
revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an
Ecumenical Council was consi dered by the Eastern bishops to be offensive to other bishops, as it
undermined the collegiality and right of the episcopacy.
This led to the primary causes of the Schism – the disputes over conflicting claims of
jurisdiction, in particular over papal aut hority. Pope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the
four Eastern patriarchs . (Walker, 1985: 143)
Pope Leo IX allowed the insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed in the West in
1014 . Eastern Orthodox today state that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly
proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the
highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople.
The seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus declared: It is unlawful for any man to
bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established
by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicea. But those who shall dare to
compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to pe rsons desiring to turn to the
acknowledg ment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy

37
whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and
clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized (1985: 144)
Eastern Orthodox today state that this Canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited
modification of the Nicene Creed drawn up by the First Ecumenical Council in 325, the wording
of which but, it is c laimed, not the substance, had been modified by the First Council of
Constantinople , making additions such as who proceeds from the Father .
In the Orthodox view, the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) would have universal primacy
in a reunited Christendom, as primus inter pares without power of jurisdiction.
3.2 FILIOQUE
Filioque is a word that changes the Latin version of the Nicene -Constantinopolitan Creed
to include the wording [Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre Filioque procedit or Holy Spirit who
proceeds fr om the Father and the Son .
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where
Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the Arian heresy . Those theologians had better
access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. Augustine of Hippo , than to Greek
theologians. Augustine used the teaching from John 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. (1985: 144)
So the Creed wa s changed by the local synod of bishops at Toledo with the justification
that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the Trinity and
the equality of each hypostasis of the Trinity.
It should also be noted that St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome, and many other pre -schism
Popes disagreed with the decision of the Toledo Council, one even going so far as to engraving
the Creed without the Filioque on the doors of St. Peter's Basilica. There were other less
significant cat alysts for the Schism however, including variance over liturgical practices.

38
3.3 OTHER POINTS OF
CONFLICT
3.4 PREVIOUS SCHISMS
Some scholars have argued that the Schism between East and West has very ancient
roots, and that sporadic schisms in the com mon unions took place under Pope Victor I (second
century), Pope Stephen I (third century) and Pope Damasus I (fourth and fifth century). Later on,
disputes about theological and other questions led to schisms between the Churches in Rome and
Constantinopl e for 37 years from 482 to 519 (the Acacian Schism), and for 13 ye ars from 866 –
879. (1985: 144)

39

3.5 MUTUAL EXCOMMUNICATIONS OF 1054
Most of the direct causes of the Great Schism, however, are far less grandiose than the
famous filioque . The relations bet ween the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the
years leading up to 1054. The emperor Constantine IX and the Pope Leo IX were allied through
the mediation of the Lombard catepan of Italy, Argyrus, who had spent years in Constantinople,
originally as a political prisoner. Leo and Argyrus led armies against the ravaging Normans, but
the papal forces were defeated at the Battle of Civitate in 1053, which resulted in the pope being
imprisoned at Benevento, where he took it upon himself to learn Greek. (1985: 145) Argyrus had
not arrived at Civitate and his absence caused a rift in papal -imperial relations.
Meanwhile, the Normans were busy imposing Latin customs, including the unleavened bread —
with papal approval. Patriarch Michael I then ordered Leo of Ochrid , to write a letter to the
bishop of Trani , John, an Easterner, in which he attacked the " Judaistic " practices of the West,
namely the use of unleavened bread. The letter was to be sent by John to all the bishops of the
West, Pope included. John pro mptly complied and the letter was passed to one Humbert of
Mourmoutiers, the cardinal -bishop of Silva Candida, who was then in John's diocese . (Gonzalez,
1984: 144) Humbert translated the letter into Latin and brought it to the pope, who ordered a
reply to be made to each charge and a defence of papal supremacy to be laid out in a response.
Although he was hot -headed, Michael was convinced, probably by the Emperor and the bishop
of Trani, to cool the debate and prevent the impending breach. However, Humber t and the pope
made no concessions and the former was sent with legatine powers to the imperial capital to
solve the questions raised once and for all. Humbert, Cardinal Frederick of Lorraine, later Pope
Stephen IX, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi, set out in early spring and arrived in April 1054.
Their welcome was not to their liking, however, and they stormed out of the palace, leaving the
papal response with Michael, whose anger exceeded even theirs. The seals on the letter had been
tampered with and th e legates had published, in Greek, an earlier, far less civil, draft of the
letter for the entire populace to read. (1984: 145) The patriarch determined that the legates were

40
worse than mere barbarous Westerners, they were liars and crooks. He refused to r ecognise their
authority or, practically, their existence.
When Pope Leo died on April 19 , 1054, the legates' authority legally ceased, but they did
not seem to notice. The patriarch's refusal to address the issues at hand drove the legatine
mission to ext remes: on July 16 , the three legates entered the church of the Hagia Sophia during
the divine liturgy on a Saturday afternoon and placed a papal bull of excommunication on the
altar. The legates left for Rome two days later, leaving behind a city near riot s. The patriarch had
the immense support of the people against the Emperor, who had supported the legates to his
own detriment, and Argyrus, who was seen still as a papal ally. To assuage popular anger,
Argyrus' family in Constantinople was arrested, the b ull was burnt, and the legates were
anathematised —the Great Schism had begun. 1984: 145)
Orthodox bishop Metropolitan Kallistos writes, that the choice of cardinal Humbert was
unfortunate, for both he and Patriarch Michael I were men of stiff and intransig ent temper… .
After [an initial, unfriendly encounter] the patriarch refused to have further dealings with the
legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a bull of excommunication against Patriarch
Michael I on the altar of the Church of the Hol y Wisdom … . Michael and his synod retaliated by
anathematizing Humbert.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says, The consummation of the schism is generally dated
from the year 1054, when this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This conclusion,
howev er, is not correct, because in the bull composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Michael I was
excommunicated. The validity of the bull is questioned because Pope Leo IX was already dead at
that time. On the other side, the Byzantine synod excommunicated only t he legates.
It should be noted that the bull of excommunication issued against Patriarch Michael
stated as one of its reasons for the excommunication the Eastern Church's deletion of filioque
from the original Nicene Creed . It is now common knowledge that the Eastern Church did not
delete anything, it was the Western Church that added this word to the Nicene –
Constantinopolitan Creed. (1984: 146)

41
3.6 ECCLESIOLOGICAL ISSUES
A lot of the issues that currently separate the two churches are ecclesiological. Pri ncipal
among them is the content of papal primacy within any future unified church. The Orthodox
insist that it should be a primacy of honor , as in the ancient church and not a primacy of
authority , whereas the Catholics wish to maintain the pontiff's role as has been recently
developed. Celibacy of the clergy is also a dividing point, although the Catholic church does
allow married men to be ordained in its Eastern Rite particular churches . (Schaff,1994: 159)
Finally there is disagreement on divorce : the C atholic church forbids it, whereas the Orthodox
permits it, though allowing remarriage only in penitential form.
A major sticking point is the style of church government. The Orthodox Church has
always maintained the original position of collegiality of the bishops. The Orthodox Churc h has
also emphasized economia , or a certain amount of flexibility in the rules depending upon the
exigencies of a particular situation.
Some of the Orthodox Churches unofficially acknowledge Apostolic succession within
the C atholic Church and admit the validity of its episcopal ordination. The relationship between
the Antiochian Orthodox and the Maronite Catholic bishops is a case in point. Some Orthodox
Churches do not require baptism in the case of a convert already baptize d in the Catholic
Church, Most Orthodox Churches allow marriages between members of the Catholic Church
and the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church allows its clergy to administer the sacraments of
Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick to membe rs of the Eastern Orthodox Church, if
these spontaneously ask for the sacraments and are properly disposed. It also allows Catholics
who cannot approach a Catholic minister to receive these three sacraments from clergy of the
Eastern Orthodox Church, whene ver necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage
commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided. Catholic canon law
allows marriage between a Catholic and an Orthodox only if permission is ob tained from the
Catholic bisho p. (1994: 159). The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches authorizes the local
Catholic bishop to permit a Catholic priest, of whatever rite, to bless the marriage of Orthodox
faithful who being unable without great difficulty to approach a priest of thei r own Church, ask
for this spontaneously. In exceptional circumstances Catholics may, in the absence of an

42
authorized priest, marry before witnesses. If a priest who is not authorized for the celebration of
the marriage is available, he should be called in , although the marriage is valid even without his
presence. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches specifies that, in those exc eptional
circumstances, even a non-Catholic priest (and so not necessarily one belonging to an Eastern
Church) may be called in.
3.6.1 Divergent theologies
There are a number of divergent theological issues. The two Churches have different
approaches to understanding the Trinity. The influence of St Augustine and by extension Thomas
Aquinas in the western Mediterranean on this i ssue is not generally accepted in the Orthodox
Church.
The Filioque clause first introduced by the Council of Toledo (589) under the influence of the
teaching of St Augustine of Hippo. However the Roman Catholic Church recently has shown
some flexibility on the Filioque issue. In accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's practice
of including the clause when reciting the Creed in Latin, but not when reciting the Creed in
Greek, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly wi th
Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause . (1994: 150)
The action of these Patriarchs in reciting the Creed together with the Popes has been strongly
criticized by some elements of Eastern Orthodoxy, such as the Metr opolitan of Kalavryta,
Greece in November 2008 and the Russian Ortho dox Autonomous Church in America .

43
CONCLUSIONS

Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of
Christendom were not yet conscious of a great g ulf of separation between them. … The dispute
remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware.
There was no single event that marked the breakdown. Rather, the two churches slid into
and out of schism over a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations.
During the Fourth Crusade, however, Latin crusaders and Venetian merchants sacked
Constantinople itself, looting The Church of Holy Wisdom and various other Orthodox Holy
sites. This event and the final treaty established the Latin Empire of the East and the Latin
Patriarch of Constantinople (with various other Crusader states). This period of chaotic rule over
the sacked and looted lands of the Byzantine Empire is still known among Eastern Chri stians as
Frangokratia . (Boyle, 1990: 154) Later attempts at reconciliation, such as the Second Council
of Lyon , met with little or no success until the middle of the Twentieth Century.
In 1965, the Catholic Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Co nstantinople lifted
the mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century. In 1995 (Jun 29), Pope John
Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople again withdrew the previous 11th century
excommunications.
In May 1999, John Paul II was t he first pope since the Great Schism to visit an Eastern
Orthodox country: Romania. Upon greeting John Paul II, the Romanian Patriarch Teoctist stated:
The second millennium of Christian history began with a painful wounding of the unity of the
Church; the end of this millennium has seen a real commitment to restoring Christian unity.
Pope John Paul II visited other heavily Orthodox areas such as Ukraine, despite lack of
welcome at times, and he said that healing the divisions between Western and Eastern
Christianity wa s one of his fondest wishes.

44
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Boyle, Isaac. A Historical View of the Council of Nice , Baker Book House, Grand Rapids , 1990
Eusebius of Caesarea. The Life of Constantine. Nicene and Post -Nicene Fathers. 2nd Se ries, Vol.
1. Hendrickson Publisher , Peabody, 1994.
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. HarperCollins , San Francisco, 1984
Scha ff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds, The Seven Ecumenical Councils . Nicene and Post -Nicene
Fathers. 2nd Series, Vol. 14. Hendric kson Publisher , Peabody , 1994.
Walker, W., R.A. Norris, D.W. Lotz, R.T. Handy. A History of the Christian Church. 4th ed.
Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1985
Internet sites/articles
http://www.lordsandladies.org/the -great -schism.htm
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism
http://www.christ ianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue -28/1054 -east-west-schism.html
Images
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils#/media/File:Ni caea_icon.j
pg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First _seven_Ecumenical_Councils#/media/File:Byzantinische
r_Mosaizist_um_1000_002.jpg
https://blogs.ancien tfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/plucking -the-tulip -4-an-eastern -orthodox –
critique -of-the-reformed -doctrine -of-predestination/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wi ki/File:Seventh_ecumenical_council_(Icon)_detail_02.jp
g
https://conciliaranglican.com/2011/08/03/ask -an-anglican -the-ecumenical -councils/

45