The major event that is often cited as the separation of the East and West is the Great Schism of 1054. Actually at the time it was seen as simply another temporary schism between the two regions. But this one never resolved as the two Churches drifted farther apart. Also, though the date seems to be an easy reference, it must be seen as wider political and theological context which lead to the division.

The situation between Rome and Constantinople had been increasingly tense and the two centers were becoming increasingly isolated from each other. The temporary Photian Schism in the 860s was due to disagreements over papal interference into the life of the Church in Constantinople and Bulgaria as well as differing liturgical practices. Though resolved, the basic outline of disagreements were established but the two centers isolated themselves from each other.

By the mid-eleventh century, a disagreement arose over Byzantine liturgical practices in South Italy and Latin practices in the East. In addition, the recent popes were beginning to claim universal supremacy over church matters which led to further disagreements. The Orthodox Church failed to answer these issues in any substantive manner which led to further disagreements. Finally, political developments in the West led to the papal throne and other Western powers to make claims on property and jurisdiction over disputed areas which the Emperor in Constantinople was unwilling to concede. The result was increased tensions and a lack of communication which would be costly in the end.

With these issues in place, there simply needed to be an excuse which would spark the division. In 1053, Pope Leo IX sent legates to Constantinople to negotiate with Patriarch Michael Cerularius. He was a powerful supporter of the Church and not very accommodating to any changes or negotiations. He refused to see the legates led by Cardinal Humbert….all of whom would be influential in the papal reforms of Gregory VII and believed strongly in papal supremacy. On July 16, 1054, tired of waiting for an audience, the placed a document of Anathema or excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia. The document was only supposed to apply the patriarch and those who supported him. The reason cited for the excommunication was the removal of the Filioque from the Creed (which was never in there in the first places), the practice of married clergy (which had been a part of both churches’ traditions since the earliest times) and divergent liturgical practices (which the East had always followed). In response, Patriarch Michael drew up a list of Latin abuses and issued a Bull of Excommunication against them after a synod of Bishops on July 20. This was in turn supported by the other Patriarchates and the division was complete.

The results from there began to snowball. Documents were produced to prove the legitimacy of each side. One such document was the forged 'Donation of Constantine' which supposedly gave the Pope universal power over the Church since he helped cure the Emperor Constantine from leprosy in the early 4^th century.

Interestingly, many of the issues that continue to divide the Church today came to be divisive much later. These included papal infallibility and Immaculate Conception which were later papal doctrines. But clearly there was a split among the Churches that would not heal. There was an attempt in 1089 for a reconciliation between Pope Urban II and Patriarch Nicholas III but it came to nothing. The Crusades really sealed the issue when in 1204, the Western powers sacked Constantinople and dragged the treasures back to Venice and Rome where they remain until today. The Churches lifted the mutual excommunications in the 1960s but it has led no where as the divisions and increasingly divergent practices and theology continue to divide us.

The main people from the Orthodox side were Patriarch Michael Cerularius. It is worth reading his life because of his truly interesting past and part in the drama. Leo of Ohrid wrote the famous tract against Latin Rites which outlines many of the Orthodox objections to the West. A life of Photius and the documents from the Photion schism also shed light on the events leading to the Schism.

On the Latin side, Pope Leo IX and Pope Urban II. Cardinal Humbert was the main legate. Bishop Peter of Amalfi and Cardinal Deacon Fredrick of Lotharingia (the future Pope Stephen IX) were also in accompaniment. Finally, the papal reforms of Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) really set in motion the shift in papal power and triumphalism.

The primary sources for the Great Schism are available in English as well as many of the recorded details of the events. Most historical books on the subject include these and they can be found quite easily over the internet. There are some interesting modern takes on the subject after Vatican II and the lifting of the anathamas which can prove to be illuminating.

There are many secondary sources which talk about the Great Schism in detail. Some are quite well done with an even handed approach, however many diverge into polemics and it is hard to gather the nature of the issues. Alexander Schmemann’s 'The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy' has a good chapter on this issue. Aristeides Papadakis’ 'The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy' is an exhaustive look at the subject and spans many centuries. 'The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire' by J.M. Hussey also has a great deal to say on the subject. For a more popular and readable version on these and other issues, read John Julius Norwich’s 'Byzantium' series of books.

Meanwhile Cerularius had appointed Archbishop Leo of Achrida to write the letter to bishops of southern Italy, and this letter was been passed on to the pope from Apulia in southern Italy. Pope Leo asked his Cardinal secretary, Humbert, to answer it. Humbert threw himself into the task with all the vigor, thoroughness and anger he could muster, and came up with a letter (!) which was so strong and vitriolic that the pope refused permission to send it or publish it in any way. The pope could see that such a letter would only make matters worse.

But the pope had another reason for not wanting to send that particular letter. Now a captive of the Normans, the pope had been hoping for some word from Constantinople as to whether the emperor would send his army to improve the political situation in Italy, and maybe rescue him in the process. Letters finally arrived, and with high expectations the pope listened as his Cardinal secretary, Humbert, read them (perhaps translating from the Greek rather poorly and giving the worst possible meaning to the words). The letters were not promise of help, however, but two apologies. The apology from the emperor was all right enough, but that from the patriarch was hardly an apology at all. Carefully couched in terms, whose meaning the emperor might not fully comprehend, were implications which the patriarch knew the pope would understand well enough. From beginning to end the apology was full of innuendoes.

First of all the patriarch addressed the pope as "Brother", which no patriarch had ever done before. They had always addressed the pope as "Father". In our time the term "Brother" was used by Pope Paul V1 and Patriarch Athenagoras, as well as by their successors, but used endearingly as "brother patriarchs". Cerularius meant for the pope to get the idea that he considered himself absolutely equal to the pope in all respects, and that the primacy of Rome meant nothing as far as he was concerned.

And lastly, the Patriarch concluded his apology with an extra strong use of the term "Ecumenical Patriarch". Some previous popes had objected to this term especially in early days, but for some time now in the West many had come to realize that they were attaching a broader meaning to the word "ecumenical" than the Greeks intended. Latins generally had first thought that the term meant authority over all including the pope, but when they found out that it was intended to mean authority coextensive only with the imperial authority out of Constantinople, many of the popes approved use of the term but with some reluctance on account of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, whose patriarchies Rome saw as independent of Constantinople. What Pope Leo IX thought about the term per se, history does not say, but we can almost hear him saying as regards Cerularius, "'Ecumenical Patriarch' has gone to his head".

At any rate, the Pope, already a prisoner of the Normans, and with a head full of troubles with his own emperor, the Church in France and England, missionaries being persecuted, and lords and kings putting their nogood sons and nephews in as abbots and bishops, was probably not a little upset over Cerularius' apology.

It was then that he decided (perhaps on the advice of Humbert) that a delegation ought to go to Constantinople to see if some settlement or better understanding could be reached. His idea was communication; Humbert's was showdown. The Pope instructed Humbert to draft answers to both apologies and deliver them in person.

Just how responsible was the pope in his selection of Humbert as a drafter and deliverer of the letters? Did the Pope see the letters before Humbert took off? History doesn't tell us.

Certainly the Pope must have known something about the man he was sending as his personal legate, and something about Humbert's attitude toward the question of the Greeks. After all, had he not withdrawn Humbert's first letter and refused him permission to send it? To this extent the Pope was certainly responsible. Some have excused the Pope because he had been vanquished in battle and was a prisoner at the time, to say nothing of all his other problems. There may be reason for some excuse here, but in as much as he considered this an important enough matter to send his personal legates (he could hardly go himself being a prisoner) perhaps he should have used greater care in the selection of the man who would head his representation to Constantinople. With the hindsight we have in the light of what happened, we can say today that the Pope made a very bad decision.

It is possible too that the Pope was so upset with the Patriarch's closing the Latin churches and his "apology" on top of it, that he felt that just such a man with the frame of mind that Humbert had toward the Greeks was the right one to send. Perhaps he felt he needed a "strong" man to deal with a strong situation. This is how many of the Greeks felt and feel about it. They argue that the reason why Humbert was chosen for the job, was that he represented well the Pope's own feelings toward them.

Some historical writers have suggested that maybe it was in anger that the Pope sent Humbert, and that his judgment was blinded by this anger. This does not, however, fit the character of the saintly Leo IX.

Cardinal Humbert of Moyen Moutier (also called "of Silva Candida")  in company of two assistants, Frederick of Lorraine and Bishop Peter of Amalfi, and armed with his two letters, took off for Constantinople. They had hardly left Rome —maybe they weren't out of Italy yet—when the captive Pope Leo IX died. Hence, the legates were delegates of no one! Probably Humbert had not heard about the death of the Pope (or maybe he had — it would not be out of character for him to go ahead with what was probably his plan any way.)

Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople

Pope Leo IX