The split of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The division of Christian churches into Orthodox and Catholic. Dispute over the use of unleavened dough

Last Friday, a long-awaited event took place at the Havana airport: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill talked, signed a joint declaration, declared the need to stop the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, and expressed the hope that their meeting would inspire Christians around the world to pray for full unity of the churches. Since Catholics and Orthodox pray to the same god, venerate the same holy books and believe, in fact, the same thing, the site decided to figure out what are the most important differences between religious movements, as well as when and why the separation occurred. Interesting facts - in our brief educational program about Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

7 facts about the split of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism

a katz / Shutterstock.com

1. The split of the Christian church occurred in 1054. The Church was divided into Roman Catholic in the West (center in Rome) and Orthodox in the East (center in Constantinople). The reasons were, among other things, disagreements on dogmatic, canonical, liturgical and disciplinary issues.

2. In the process of schism, Catholics, among other things, accused the Orthodox of selling the gift of God, rebaptizing those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity and allowing marriages for altar servers. The Orthodox accused the Catholics of, for example, fasting on Saturday and allowing their bishops to wear rings on their fingers.

3. The list of all issues on which Orthodox and Catholics cannot reconcile will take several pages, so we will give only a few examples.

Orthodoxy denies the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Catholicism - on the contrary.

"Annunciation", Leonardo da Vinci

Catholics have special closed rooms for confession, while Orthodox confess in front of all parishioners.

Shot from the film "Customs Gives Good". France, 2010

Orthodox and Greek Catholics are baptized from right to left, Catholics of the Latin rite - from left to right.

A Catholic priest is required to take a vow of celibacy. In Orthodoxy, celibacy is obligatory only for bishops.

Great Lent for Orthodox and Catholics begins on different days: for the former, on Clean Monday, for the latter, on Ash Wednesday. Advent has a different duration.

Catholics consider church marriage to be indissoluble (however, if certain facts are discovered, it may be declared invalid). From the point of view of the Orthodox, in the event of adultery, the church marriage is considered destroyed, and the innocent party can enter into a new marriage without committing a sin.

In Orthodoxy, there is no analogue of the Catholic institution of cardinals.

Cardinal Richelieu, portrait by Philippe de Champaigne

In Catholicism there is a doctrine of indulgences. There is no such practice in modern Orthodoxy.

4. As a result of the division, Catholics began to consider the Orthodox only schismatics, while one of the points of view of Orthodoxy is that Catholicism is a heresy.

5. Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church ascribe the title of "one holy, catholic (cathedral) and apostolic Church" exclusively to themselves.

6. In the 20th century, an important step was taken in overcoming the division due to schism: in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras lifted mutual anathemas.

7. Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill could have met two years ago, but then the meeting was canceled due to the events in Ukraine. The meeting of the heads of churches that took place would be the first in history after the "Great Schism" of 1054.

Schism of the Christian Church, also Great split and Great Schism- Church schism, after which the Church was finally divided into the Roman Catholic Church in the West with a center in Rome and the Orthodox Church in the East with a center in Constantinople. The division caused by the schism has not been overcome to this day, despite the fact that in 1965 mutual anathemas were mutually lifted by Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  In 1053, an ecclesiastical confrontation for influence in southern Italy began between Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople and Pope Leo IX. Churches in southern Italy belonged to Byzantium. Michael Cerularius learned that the Greek rite was being replaced by the Latin there, and he closed all the temples of the Latin rite in Constantinople. The Patriarch instructs the Bulgarian Archbishop Leo Ohrid to draw up an epistle against the Latins, which would condemn the serving of the Liturgy on unleavened bread; fasting on Saturday during Great Lent; the lack of singing "Hallelujah" during Lent; eating strangled . The letter was sent to Apulia and was addressed to Bishop John of Trania, and through him to all the bishops of the Franks and "the most venerable pope". Humbert Silva-Candide wrote the essay "Dialogue", in which he defended the Latin rites and condemned the Greek ones. In response, Nikita Stifat writes the treatise "Antidialog", or "The Sermon on Unleavened Bread, the Sabbath Fast and the Marriage of the Priests" against Humbert's work.

  Events of 1054

  In 1054, Leo sent a letter to Cerularius, which, in support of the papal claims to full power in the Church, contained lengthy extracts from a forged document known as the Deed of Constantine, insisting on its authenticity. The Patriarch rejected the Pope's claim to supremacy, whereupon Leo sent legates to Constantinople that same year to settle the dispute. The main political task of the papal embassy was the desire to receive military assistance from the Byzantine emperor in the fight against the Normans.

  On July 16, 1054, after the death of Pope Leo IX himself, in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the papal legates announced the deposition of Cerularius and his excommunication from the Church. In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates.

  Reasons for the split

  The historical premises of schism date back to late antiquity and the early Middle Ages (beginning with the destruction of Rome by the troops of Alaric in 410) and are determined by the appearance of ritual, dogmatic, ethical, aesthetic and other differences between the western (often called Latin Catholic) and the eastern (Greek- Orthodox) traditions.

  Western (Catholic) Church Perspective

  1. Michael is wrongly called a patriarch.
  2. Like the Simonians, they sell the gift of God.
  3. Like the Valesians, they castrate the aliens, and make them not only clerics, but also bishops.
  4. Like the Arians, they rebaptize those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, especially the Latins.
  5. Like the Donatists, they claim that all over the world, with the exception of the Greek Church, both the Church of Christ, and the true Eucharist, and baptism have perished.
  6. Like the Nicolaitans, they allow marriages to altar servers.
  7. Like the Sevirians, they slander the law of Moses.
  8. Like the Doukhobors, they cut off in the symbol of faith the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (filioque).
  9. Like the Manichaeans, they consider leaven to be animate.
  10. Like Nazirites, Jewish bodily cleansings are observed, newborn children are not baptized earlier than eight days after birth, parents are not honored with communion, and if they are pagans, they are denied baptism.

  As for the view on the role of the Roman Church, then, according to Catholic authors, evidence of the doctrine of the unconditional primacy and universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter exist from the 1st century. (Clement Roman) and further are found everywhere both in the West and in the East (St. Ignatius God-bearer, Irenaeus, Cyprian Carthaginian, John Chrysostom, Leo Great, Hormizd, Maxim Confessor, Theodore Studite, etc.), so attempts to attribute to Rome only some kind of "primacy of honor" are unfounded.

  Until the middle of the 5th century, this theory had the character of unfinished, scattered thoughts, and only Pope Leo the Great expressed them systematically and outlined them in his church sermons, delivered by him on the day of his consecration in front of a meeting of Italian bishops.

  The main points of this system boil down, firstly, to the fact that St. the apostle Peter is the princeps of the entire rank of apostles, superior to all others and in power, he is the primas of all bishops, he is entrusted with the care of all the sheep, he is entrusted with the care of all the pastors of the Church.

  Secondly, all the gifts and prerogatives of the apostleship, priesthood and pastoral work were given completely and first of all to the Apostle Peter, and through him and not otherwise than through him, they are given by Christ and all other apostles and pastors.

  Thirdly, primatus an. Peter's is not a temporary institution, but a permanent one. Fourthly, the communion of the Roman bishops with the chief apostle is very close: each new bishop accepts ap. Peter on the chair of Petrova, and from here bestowed by ap. For Peter, grace-filled power is also poured onto his successors.

  From this, practically for Pope Leo, it follows:
  1) since the whole Church is based on the firmness of Peter, those who move away from this stronghold place themselves outside the mystical body of Christ's Church;
  2) who encroaches on the authority of the Roman bishop and refuses obedience to the apostolic throne, he does not want to obey the blessed apostle Peter;
  3) whoever rejects the power and primacy of the Apostle Peter, he cannot in the least diminish his dignity, but haughty in the spirit of pride, he casts himself into the underworld.

  Despite the request of Pope Leo I to convene the IV Ecumenical Council in Italy, which was supported by the royal people of the western half of the empire, the IV Ecumenical Council was convened by Emperor Marcian in the East, in Nicaea and then in Chalcedon, and not in the West. In conciliar discussions, the Fathers of the Council were very reserved about the speeches of the legates of the Roman pope, who set out and developed this theory in detail, and about the declaration of the pope they announced.

  At the Council of Chalcedon, the theory was not condemned, because despite the harsh form in relation to all the eastern bishops, the speeches of the legates in content, for example, in relation to the Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, corresponded to the mood and direction of the entire Council. Nevertheless, the council refused to condemn Dioscorus only because Dioscorus committed crimes against discipline, not fulfilling the order of the first in honor among the patriarchs, and especially because Dioscorus himself dared to carry out the excommunication of Pope Leo.

  The papal declaration nowhere indicated Dioscorus' crimes against the faith. The declaration also ends remarkably, in the spirit of the papist theory: “Therefore, the most radiant and blessed Archbishop of the great and ancient Rome, Leo, through us and through this most holy council, together with the most blessed and all-praised Apostle Peter, who is the stone and the foundation of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the Orthodox faith, deprives him of his episcopacy and alienates him from any holy order.

  The declaration was tactfully but rejected by the Fathers of the Council, and Dioscorus was deprived of his patriarchate and rank for persecuting the family of Cyril of Alexandria, although he was remembered for the support of the heretic Eutychius, disrespect for bishops, the Robber Cathedral, etc., but not for the speech of the Alexandrian pope against Pope of Rome, and nothing from the declaration of Pope Leo by the Council, which so exalted the tomos of Pope Leo, was approved. The rule adopted at the Council of Chalcedon 28 on granting honor as the second after the pope to the archbishop of New Rome as the bishop of the reigning city second after Rome caused a storm of indignation. Saint Leo the Pope of Rome did not recognize the validity of this canon, broke off communion with Archbishop Anatoly of Constantinople and threatened him with excommunication.

  Eastern (Orthodox) Church Perspective

  However, by 800, the political situation around what used to be a unified Roman Empire began to change: on the one hand, most of the territory of the Eastern Empire, including most of the ancient apostolic churches, fell under Muslim rule, which greatly weakened it and diverted attention from religious problems in favor of foreign policy, on the other hand, in the West, for the first time after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, an emperor appeared (in 800, Charlemagne was crowned in Rome), who in the eyes of his contemporaries became “equal” to the Eastern Emperor and on the political strength of which the Roman bishop was able to rely in his claims. The changed political situation is attributed to the fact that the popes of Rome again began to carry out the idea of ​​their primacy, rejected by the Council of Chalcedon, not according to honor and according to the Orthodox teaching, which was confirmed by the voting of bishops equal to the Roman bishop at councils, but “by divine right”, that is, the idea of ​​their own supreme sole authority in the whole Church.

  After the legate of the Pope, Cardinal Humbert, placed the scripture with an anathema on the throne of the Church of St. Sophia against the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Michael convened a synod, at which a response anathema was put forward:

  With an anathema then to the most impious scripture, as well as to those who presented it, wrote and participated in its creation with some kind of approval or will.

  The reciprocal accusations against the Latins were as follows at the council:

  In various hierarchical epistles and conciliar resolutions, the Orthodox also blamed the Catholics:

  1. Serving the Liturgy on Unleavened Bread.
  2. Saturday post.
  3. Allowing a man to marry the sister of his deceased wife.
  4. Wearing rings on the fingers of Catholic bishops.
  5. Catholic bishops and priests going to war and defiling their hands with the blood of the slain.
  6. The presence of wives in Catholic bishops and the presence of concubines in Catholic priests.
  7. Eating on Saturdays and Sundays during Lent of eggs, cheese and milk and non-observance of Great Lent.
  8. Eating strangled, carrion, meat with blood.
  9. Eating lard by Catholic monks.
  10. Baptism in one, not three immersions.
  11. The image of the Cross of the Lord and the image of saints on marble slabs in churches and Catholics walking on them with their feet.

  The reaction of the patriarch to the defiant act of the cardinals was quite cautious and, on the whole, peaceful. Suffice it to say that in order to calm the unrest, it was officially announced that the Greek translators had perverted the meaning of Latin letters. Further, at the subsequent Council on July 20, all three members of the papal delegation were excommunicated from the Church for unworthy behavior in the temple, but the Roman Church was not specifically mentioned in the decision of the council. Everything was done to reduce the conflict to the initiative of several Roman representatives, which, in fact, took place. The patriarch excommunicated only legates and only for disciplinary violations, and not for doctrinal issues. These anathemas did not apply to the Western Church or to the Bishop of Rome.

  Even when one of the excommunicated legates became pope (Stefan IX), this split was not considered final and particularly important, and the pope sent an embassy to Constantinople to apologize for Humbert's harshness. This event began to be assessed as something extremely important only after a couple of decades in the West, when Pope Gregory VII, who at one time was the protégé of the already deceased Cardinal Humbert, came to power. It was through his efforts that this story gained extraordinary significance. Then, already in modern times, it rebounded from Western historiography to the East and began to be considered the date of the division of the Churches.

  Perception of the split in Russia

  Leaving Constantinople, the papal legates went to Rome by a circuitous route to announce the excommunication of Michael Cerularius to other Eastern hierarchs. Among other cities, they visited Kyiv, where they were received with due honors by the Grand Duke and the clergy, who did not yet know about the division that had taken place in Constantinople.

  There were Latin monasteries in Kyiv (including the Dominican one since 1228), on the lands subject to the Russian princes, Latin missionaries operated with their permission (for example, in 1181 the Polotsk princes allowed Augustinian monks from Bremen to baptize Latvians and Livs subject to them on Western Dvina) . In the upper class, there were (to the displeasure of the Greek metropolitans) numerous mixed marriages (only with Polish princes - more than twenty), and in none of these cases anything resembling a "transition" from one religion to another is recorded. Western influence is noticeable in some areas of church life, for example, in Russia there were organs before the Mongol invasion (which then disappeared), bells were brought to Russia mainly from the West, where they were more common than among the Greeks.

  Removal of mutual anathemas

  In 1964, a meeting was held in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras, primate of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and Pope Paul VI, as a result of which mutual anathemas were lifted in December 1965 and a joint declaration was signed. However, the “gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness” (Joint Declaration, 5) had no practical or canonical meaning: the declaration itself read: “Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with their Synod are aware that this gesture of justice and mutual forgiveness is not enough to to put an end to the differences, both ancient and recent, still remaining between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. From the point of view of the Orthodox Church, the anathemas that remain in force remain unacceptable

  A powerful scandal shook Orthodox Christianity this week. A new church schism is brewing. Due to disputes over the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its dependence/independence on the Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox Church severed all relations with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is headed by the "first among equals" in Orthodoxy, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Now there are no joint services, and Orthodox loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church are forbidden to pray in churches controlled by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

  All participants in the conflict and outside observers understand that religion has nothing to do with it, the matter is heavily involved in politics. This, however, has always been the case with church schisms. And the Great Schism of almost a thousand years ago, which divided Christianity into Catholicism and Orthodoxy, is no exception.

  Paul's Hopeless Call

  Already in the letter to the Corinthians 54-57 years. Apostle Paul warned the early Christians against strife among themselves: "I hear that when you gather in church, there are divisions between you." And this at a time when the main concern of Christians was the desire not to end the day on spears or in the teeth of a lion (until the 4th century, Christianity in the Roman Empire was considered a dangerous heresy). It is not surprising that as the church grew from a persecuted and struggling sect into a powerful and wealthy institution, the number of divisions within Christians only increased.

  In 313, the emperor of the Roman Empire, Constantine the Great, legalized Christianity, whose popularity had been steadily growing for three centuries, and the emperor Theodosius in 380 made the teachings of Christ the state religion. The problem is that after Theodosius, the once united Roman Empire split into the Western (actually Roman) and Eastern (with its capital in Constantinople). After that, the division of Christianity into two branches became a matter of time. But why?

  East: The second Rome is higher than the first?

  

  The emperor in the Roman Empire had absolute power, including over Christianity: it was Constantine who convened the First Ecumenical (Nicene) Council, which established the fundamental tenets of Christianity, such as the concept of the Holy Trinity. In other words, the higher clergy were subordinate in everything to the person on the throne.

  As long as the emperor remained alone at the pinnacle of power, everything was relatively simple - the principle of one-man command was preserved. After the formation of two equal centers of power, the situation became more complicated. Especially after Rome collapsed under the onslaught of the barbarians (476), and political chaos reigned in Western Europe for a long time.

  The rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire, which we know as Byzantium, positioned themselves as the heirs of the empire, including in terms of power over the church. Constantinople unofficially acquired the status of the "second Rome" - the capital of world Christianity.

  West: Heirs of the Apostle Peter

  

  Apostle Peter

  Meanwhile, in the real Rome, which was going through hard times, the Christian clergy were not going to lose their primacy in the world of believers. The Roman Church felt special: in addition to the partially lost position of the capital, she claimed special rights that go back directly to Christ.

  “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church,” Jesus tells his disciple Peter (whose name means “rock” in the Gospel of Matthew, even in Holy Scripture there is a place for a play on words). The Roman bishops interpreted this quote quite unambiguously: the Roman bishop, the Pope, is the successor of Peter, who preached and was martyred by the pagans in Rome, which means that it is Rome that should rule the entire Christian church.

  

  In Constantinople, such an interpretation was gently ignored. This inconsistency in the issue of sovereignty has become a ticking time bomb for Christianity. Long before 1054, the number of dogmatic disputes between the Greek-Byzantines and the Latins-Romans grew: for about 200 years in the 4th-8th centuries, the churches interrupted and then resumed communion.

  Perhaps the greatest blow to the unity of the church was the crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor in 800. This directly offended Constantinople and finally destroyed the formal unity of the empire. However, Pope Leo III, who crowned Charles, can be understood: Charles may be a Frank by origin, but a great commander and can guarantee the protection of the papal throne here and now, while the Greeks are somewhere far away solving their own problems.

  Brief list of controversies

  

  By 1054, the Greeks and Latins had accumulated difficult questions for each other. The most important is the above-described disagreement about the status of the pope: is he the head of the Universal Church (as Rome believes) or is he only the first among equal bishops (as Constantinople is sure)? As you can understand today, this was the main question. It was not only about religious, but also about political power over believers.

  The main theological contradiction is the so-called Filioque formula (Filioque - "from the Son"). Over time, Western tradition has established that in the Christian Trinity the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from God the Father, but also from God the Son (Jesus), while Eastern Christians have traditionally relied on older sources that claim that the Spirit proceeds only from Father. For Christians in the Middle Ages, this was more than a matter of principle, and the mere thought of including the Filioque in the Creed caused great indignation among Eastern Christians.

  

  Of course, there were also a number of smaller, ritual contradictions between the two branches of Christianity.

  For example, Eastern Christians allowed priests to marry, for all Western Christians celibacy was mandatory. Western Christians fasted on the Sabbath during Lent, Eastern Christians did not. The Roman Church allowed the use of unleavened bread (liturgy on unleavened bread) in the sacrament of the sacrament, but this outraged the Eastern churches, who accused the papists of almost returning to Judaism. Quite a lot of such everyday differences have accumulated. And, since in the Middle Ages people attached much more importance to rituals, everything was very serious.

  Failed embassy

  

  Pope Leo IX

  What exactly happened in 1054? Pope Leo IX sent an embassy to Constantinople. His goal was to mend relations that had been increasingly tense in recent years: the influential patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, strongly resisted attempts by the Latins to impose their theocracy in the east. In 1053, militant Michael even ordered the closure of all churches in the city that served according to the Latin model: the Latins were expelled, some especially indignant Greek priests kicked the bread prepared for the Eucharist with their feet.

  

  Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius

  It was necessary to resolve the crisis, but it only turned out to aggravate: the embassy was headed by Cardinal Humbert Silva-Candide, as irreconcilable as Michael. In Constantinople, he communicated mainly with the emperor Constantine Monomakh, who politely received him, and even tried to persuade him to depose the patriarch, but to no avail. Humbert and the two other legates sent with him did not even speak to the patriarch himself. It all ended with the fact that the cardinal, right at the service, presented Michael with a papal letter deposing and excommunicating the patriarch from the church, after which the legates left.

  Michael did not remain in debt and quickly convened a council, which anathematized three legates (one of whom later became Pope himself) and cursed them. This is how the church schism took shape, which later became known as the Great Schism.

  Long story

  

  Mutual excommunication in 1054 was rather symbolic. Firstly, the papal legates excommunicated only Michael and his entourage (and not all the Eastern churches), and he himself - only Humbert associates (and not the entire Latin Church and not even the Pope).

  Secondly, with a mutual desire for reconciliation, the consequences of that event could be easily overcome. However, for the reasons described above, this was no longer needed by anyone. Thus, quite casually, not the first, but the most significant split in the history of the Christian Church took place.

  Schism of the Christian Church (1054)

  Schism of the Christian Church in 1054, also Great Schism- church schism, after which the division finally occurred Churches on the Roman Catholic Church on the West and Orthodox- on the East centered on Constantinople.

  HISTORY OF THE SPLIT

  In fact, disagreement between pope and Patriarch of Constantinople started long before 1054 , however, in 1054 Roman Pope Leo IX sent to Constantinople legates led by Cardinal Humbert to resolve the conflict, the beginning of which was laid by the closure in 1053 Latin churches in Constantinople by order Patriarch Michael Kirularius, at which it Sacellarius Constantine thrown out of the tabernacles Holy Gifts prepared according to Western custom from unleavened bread and trampled them underfoot

  [ [ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm Mikhail Kirulariy (English)] ].

  However, it was not possible to find a way to reconciliation, and 16 July 1054 in the cathedral Hagia Sophia papal legates announced about the deposition of Cirularius and his excommunication. In response to this July 20 patriarch betrayed anathema to the legates. The split has not yet been overcome, although in 1965 mutual curses were lifted.

  REASONS FOR THE SPLIT

  The split had many reasons:

  ritual, dogmatic, ethical differences between Western and Eastern Churches, property disputes, the struggle of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople for championship among Christian patriarchs, different languages ​​of worship

  (Latin in the western church and Greek in eastern).

  

  THE VIEWPOINT OF THE WESTERN (CATHOLIC) CHURCH

  Certificate of Appreciation was awarded July 16, 1054 in Constantinople in Sophia temple on the holy altar during the service of the legate of the pope Cardinal Humbert.

  Certificate of Excellence contained in itself the following accusations to eastern church:

  PERCEPTION OF DISCHANGEMENT in Russia

  leaving Constantinople, papal legates went to Rome in a roundabout way to announce the excommunication Michael Kirularia other Eastern hierarchs. Among other cities they visited Kyiv, where with with due honors were received by the Grand Duke and the Russian clergy .

  In later years Russian church did not take an unequivocal position in support of any of the parties to the conflict, although it remained Orthodox. If a hierarchs of Greek origin were inclined to anti-Latin controversy, then actually Russian priests and rulers not only did not participate in it, but also did not understand the essence of the dogmatic and ritual claims made by the Greeks against Rome.

  Thus, Russia maintained communication with both Rome and Constantinople making certain decisions depending on political necessity.

  Twenty years after "separation of churches" there was a significant case of conversion Grand Duke of Kiev (Izyaslav-Dimitriy Yaroslavich ) to authority pope st. Gregory VII. In his feud with younger brothers for Kyiv Throne Izyaslav, legitimate prince, was forced run abroad(in Poland and then in Germany), from where he appealed in defense of his rights to both heads of the medieval "Christian Republic" - to emperor(Henry IV) and to dad.

  Princely Embassy in Rome headed it son Yaropolk - Peter who had an assignment “give all Russian land under the patronage of St. Petra" . Dad really intervened in the situation on Russia. Finally, Izyaslav returned to Kyiv(1077 ).

  Myself Izyaslav and his son Yaropolk canonized Russian Orthodox Church .

  Near 1089 in Kyiv to Metropolitan John embassy arrived Antipope Gibert (Clement III), who apparently wanted to strengthen his position at the expense of his confessions in Russia. John, being by origin Greek, replied with a message, although drawn up in the most respectful terms, but still directed against "delusions" Latins(this is the first time non-apocryphal scripture "against the Latins" compiled on Russia, but not a Russian author). However, the successor John a, Metropolitan Ephraim (Russian by origin) himself sent to Rome a trustee, probably for the purpose of personally verifying the state of affairs on the spot;

  in 1091 this messenger returned to Kyiv and "bring many relics of the saints" . Then, according to Russian chronicles, ambassadors from dads came to 1169 . AT Kyiv there were Latin monasteries(including Dominican- with 1228 ), on lands subject to Russian princes, with their permission acted latin missionaries(so, in 1181 princes of Polotsk allowed Augustinian friars from Bremen baptize those under them Latvians and Livs on the Western Dvina).

  In the upper class were (to the displeasure of Greeks) numerous mixed marriages. Great Western influence is noticeable in some areas of church life. Similar situation kept up to Tatar-Mongolian invasion.

  REMOVAL OF MUTUAL ANATHEMAS

  AT 1964 year in Jerusalem a meeting took place between Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, head Orthodox Church of Constantinople and by Pope Paul VI, as a result of which mutual anathemas were filmed in 1965 was signed Joint Declaration

  [ [ http://www.krotov.info/acts/20/1960/19651207.html Declaration on the removal of anathemas] ].

  However, this formal "goodwill gesture" had no practical or canonical significance.

  With catholic points of view remain valid and cannot be canceled anathemas I Vatican Council against all those who deny the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope and the infallibility of his judgments on matters of faith and morals, pronounced "ex cathedra"(that is, when Dad acts as earthly head and mentor of all Christians), as well as a number of other decrees of a dogmatic nature.

  John Paul II I was able to cross the threshold Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv accompanied by leadership unrecognized others Orthodox churches Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate .

  BUT April 8, 2005 for the first time in history Orthodox Church in Vladimir Cathedral passed funeral service committed by representatives Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate head of the Roman Catholic Church .

  

  Literature

  [http://www.krotov.info/history/08/demus/lebedev03.html Lebedev A.P. The history of the division of churches in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries. SPb. 1999 ISBN 5-89329-042-9],

  [http://www.agnuz.info/book.php?id=383&url=page01.htm Taube M. A. Rome and Russia in the pre-Mongol period] .

  See also other dictionaries:

  St. martyr, suffered about 304 in Ponte. Ruler of the region, after vain persuasion renounce Christ, ordered Haritina cut his hair, pour hot coals on his head and all over his body, and finally condemned him to corruption. But Kharitina prayed Lord and…

  1) holy martyr, suffered from Emperor Diocletian. According to legend, she was first taken to brothel house but no one dared to touch her;

  2) great martyr, ...

  4. The Great Schism of the Western Church - (schism; 1378 1417) was prepared by the following events.

  The long stay of the popes in Avignon greatly undermined their moral and political prestige. Already Pope John XXII, fearing to finally lose his possessions in Italy, intended ...

  He took a similar step in relation to papal legates. These events are considered to be the turning point in the process of splitting the Christian world. Subsequently, several attempts were made to restore the unity of the church, but they all ended in failure. Only in 1965, mutual anathemas were lifted, but religious structures are still far from merging to this day. According to experts, the church schism was one of the reasons why the western and eastern parts of Europe took different paths in their development.

  On July 16, 1054, three papal legates placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia a letter of exclusion, anathematizing the Patriarch of Constantinople and his two assistants. This event is often called the reason for the split of the Christian world, however, according to historians, the process of confrontation began much earlier.

  Road to split

  Disagreements between Rome and Constantinople have existed for centuries. They escalated, according to the doctor of historical sciences, academician Oleg Ulyanov, under Charlemagne, who founded the Carolingian Empire and received the title of Emperor of the West.

  “On the personal initiative of Charlemagne, the Orthodox dogma of icon veneration was rejected in the West and the Creed (a summary of the dogmas of the church) was changed by adding filioque (in the Latin translation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to the dogma of the Trinity, which refers to the procession of the Holy Spirit from God- Father, “and the Son” was added. - RT ),” the historian explained.

  “The first obvious split between the Western and Eastern churches occurred in 867 due to a dispute over the canonical subordination of the newly baptized Bulgaria. However, the cathedral in Constantinople in 869-870 again reunited the Eastern and Western churches for a while, ”Oleg Ulyanov said in an interview with RT.

  The formal reason for the conflict then became Rome's claims to the legality of the procedure for electing Patriarch Photius of Constantinople. However, in fact, at that time, the Roman Curia tried to penetrate the Balkans, which was contrary to the interests of the Byzantine Empire.

  According to Oleg Ulyanov, at the global level, the rivalry between Rome and Constantinople was associated with different interpretations of primacy in the Christian church.

  “The Roman concept is based on the definition of the Apostle Peter in the Gospel and affirms the advantages of the churches depending on the activities of the apostles. And Constantinople, like New Rome, adheres to the political principle of the primacy of thrones, according to which the church hierarchy is completely subordinate to the political structure of the Christian empire and depends on the political importance of church pulpits,” the historian said.

  In the 10th century, the intensity of the conflict decreased, but in the 11th century, the rivalry became fierce again.

  Split clearance

  In the Middle Ages, part of the lands in southern Italy belonged to Byzantium, and local Christian parishes were under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. However, the Byzantines on the Apennine Peninsula were opposed by the Holy Roman Empire and representatives of the local people of the Lombards. It was they who in the 10th century called for the help of the Normans, who were actively involved in the political struggle in the Apennines. In the first half of the 11th century, two Norman counties arose in southern Italy, which in 1047 accepted vassalage from the Holy Roman Empire.

  In the lands controlled by the Normans, Western Christian rites began to crowd out Eastern ones, which caused strong discontent in Constantinople. In response, the temples of the Latin rite in the capital of Byzantium were closed. In parallel, a controversy escalated between Greek and Latin theologians regarding which bread - unleavened or leavened - should be used in the sacrament of Holy Communion, and on a number of other canonical and dogmatic issues.

  In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent his legates to Constantinople, led by Cardinal Humbert. The Pope sent a message to Patriarch Michael Cerularius, in which he set out his claims to full power in the Christian Church, referring to the so-called Constantine Gift - a document that was supposedly a message from Emperor Constantine the Great to Pope Sylvester and transferred to Rome the highest spiritual power in the Christian world. Subsequently, the gift of Constantine was recognized as a fake (a fake was made, presumably, in the 8th or 9th century in France), but in the 11th century, Rome still officially called it genuine. The patriarch rejected the claims of the pope set out in the message, and negotiations with the participation of the legates turned out to be fruitless. Then, on July 16, 1054, the papal legates entered the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and placed on its altar a letter of excommunication, anathematizing Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his assistants. Four days later, the patriarch responded by anathematizing the papal legates.

  Consequences of the split

  “It was after the schism of 1054 that the Roman Church in the West proclaims itself Catholic (“universal”), and in the East the naming of the Orthodox Church was fixed - to designate the community of all Orthodox thrones,” said Oleg Ulyanov. According to him, the consequence of the schism in 1054 was the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 by the crusaders, who considered the Orthodox schismatics.

  Against the backdrop of the weakening and then the death of the Byzantine Empire, Rome several times tried to persuade the Orthodox Church to unite under its rule.

  In 1274, the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII gave his consent to the merger of the churches on the terms of the Pope in exchange for military cooperation with the West. This agreement was formalized at the Second Council of Lyons. But it was recognized as insignificant under the new Byzantine emperor - Andronicus II.

  Another attempt to conclude a union was made at the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral of 1438-1445. However, his decisions also turned out to be fragile and short-lived. After a short time, even those bishops and metropolitans who initially agreed with them refused to fulfill them: they referred to the fact that they recognized the supremacy of the Pope under pressure.

  Subsequently, the Catholic Church, relying on the secular authorities of states controlled by Catholics, persuaded individual Orthodox churches to conclude unions. Thus, the Union of Brest in 1596 was concluded, which established the Greek Catholic Church on the territory of the Commonwealth, and the Union of Uzhgorod (1646), which resubordinated the Orthodox population of Transcarpathia to the Pope in spiritual terms.

  In the XIII century, the German Teutonic Order made a large-scale attempt to expand to the east, but its invasion of Russian lands was stopped by the prince

  “To a large extent, as a result of the division of churches, cultural and political development went differently in the West and in the East. The papacy claimed secular power, while Orthodoxy, on the contrary, was subordinate to the state,” the expert noted.

  True, in his opinion, in the twentieth century, the contradictions and differences between the churches were to a certain extent smoothed out. This was expressed, in particular, in the fact that the Pope began to lose secular power, and the Orthodox Church in a number of situations found itself in opposition to the state.

  In 1964, Pope Paul VI met with Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople in Jerusalem. The following year, mutual anathemas were lifted. At the same time, Orthodoxy did not recognize the filioque, and Catholicism did not agree with the denial of the dogmas about the primacy of the Pope and the infallibility of his judgments.

  “At the same time, despite the differences, there is a process of rapprochement: the churches demonstrate that they can be allies in certain issues,” Roman Lunkin summed up.