Morgenländi Schisma

as Morgenländi Schisma, also as Greek Schisma designates (Schisma of Greek: σχίσμα s-chísma separation, splitting) is designated the separation between the eastern-orthodox churches and the Roman-catholic church. The designation is historically seen misleading, becauseit not around the separation of the eastern side concerns, but the break between the west church and the eastern Orthodoxie.

Often as date for it 1054 are indicated, when Pope and Patriarch of Konstantinopel mutually exkommunizierten themselves, but actuallyit concerned a process, itself approximately of 5. to in 15. Century moved. Today historians agree in the fact that east church and west church separated due to a progressive alienation, which coincided with the progressive growth of the papal authority.For the separation not theological differences, but church-political factors were crucial.

Table of contents

the everyday circumstance stood

for 5 literature 6 press 7

Web on the left of [works on


alienation between east and west [it works on] that it in the course of the first centuries in Rome and generallyin the west became less and less usual to control the Greek language which had been for many centuries around the whole Mediterranean lingua franca. That led natural-proves also in the church for smaller theological change. Already in the fourth century it gives onlyisolated western church fathers, the Greek can (Ambrosius of Milan, Hieronymus) - prominent latin church teacher Augustinus of Hippo does not belong to them. Also the highly educated Gregor the large one, in 6. Century Ambassador in Konstantinopel, spokeno Greek. The works of the Augustinus were turned around only in 14. Century in the Greek translates. The Greek Patriarchen generally did not control latin (the Philologe Photios e.g. defamed it to learn the “barbarian” language latin), one was in mutual traffic thusconstantly dependent on translators, secretaries and experts.

In addition Damasus I. became since Pope. (380) the language of the measuring rite of the earlier Greek changed on Latin.


a further aspect are culture-conditioned differences, different mental values and attitudes.Greeks saw Romans as ungebildet and barbarian, Romans saw Greeks quibbling as high well victory and.

Also education and vocational background of the church fathers were different:

Interestingly enough it goes also with the Häresien, tomost problems prepare, around parallel questions: with the Donatismus in the west primarily around church right, with air anise mash and Monophysitismus in the east around christologische questions and the relationship of the faith to lay philosophy.

In the east there were itself traditionally numerous educated laymen,actively in the church life and in theology took part, and from those it some (e.g.Photius) up to the Patriarchen brought. In the west it was added by the political development that the church off approx. that late 5. Century educationmonopoly had - all future clerics could get their training only within the church, laymen were only very rarely at all formed.

political development

by the transfer of the capital of the Roman realm from Rome to Konstantinopel andin particular by the case of the westRoman realm it came too much different political constellations: In the east there was the emperor as political center of power and in the church several Patriarchen in same rank, from which no authority over the others had.

In the west there was for many centuries no more central political power, but only arguing restaurant princes, and a church Patriarchen (the Roman Pope), that as only stability and continuity to ensure knew and thus to a central authority became - and thatfrom this situation also opposite the restaurant princes politically to engage had.

The political element in the office understanding strengthened still, as the Pope by beep pin the lay basic gentleman of the church state made itself and thereby more and more also in thatRolls a lay monarch saw.

As beep pins Sohn Karl the large one 800 in the west of Leo III. to the emperor , because both regarded the Byzantine emperor throne during the regency of Irene of Athens as vakant, was that was crowned a furtherBreak with the east. The Greeks, politician and cleric just like normal citizens, were frightened that the Roman bishop crowned arbitrarily a “barbarian prince” to the Roman emperor, as if would give it the Roman emperor in Konstantinopel no more - that was their opinionafter betrayal of state and church.


theology had different emphasis developed, which fertilized itself first mutually on both sides already soon, then however by the smaller exchange to a Auseinanderentwicklung led.

With the Dreifaltigkeit stressedthe east more the three persons - including the holy spirit - while the west arranged more the unit stressed and the holy spirit rather in second rank.

In the west Augustinus developed the dogma of the hereditary sin, according to which everyoneHumans stuck on from the generation by the debt of Adam and legally guilty are (which in the consequence the unbefleckte receipt-sneeze Marias makes necessary) - the east sees the hereditary sin in the consequences of the debt of Adam: Death, longing and thosehuman inclination to the sin.

From this also a different view of the release follows: in the west it concerns primarily the legal acquietal, which Jesus caused, by taking the punishment for the human sin on itself - cause in the eastDeath and Auferstehung Jesu Christi the liberty of death and sin, by which humans become again God similar and can in eternity with God live. The western church saw Christ as the victim, the eastern church saw Christ as thatWinner.

The nicäische Glaubensbekenntnis got the Filioque in the western church - additive, in the eastern church remained it in the original form. That was a concrete conflict, which itself not when mutual addition let interpret.

Meaning of the bishop office: In the east gaveit many local churches, which could appoint themselves to the establishment by a Apostel - of therefore it all bishops were regarded in principle as equal. Generally valid decisions could be met only by a ökumenisches council, besides general agreement inPeople to find had. In the west against it only the Roman church could appoint itself to Apostel, and thus the bishop von Rom had a monarchische privileged position. The eastern churches, which had given always traditionally the honour precedence to the bishop von Rom,so long if they did not have itself on the west, thus on the Roman Patriarchat with this monarchischen attitude a problem, limited. The bishop von Rom came however more and more to the opinion that his absolute authority itself not only on the west,separate on the entire church extended - and as the bishops of the east in the role of the command receivers of Rome saw itself at one time, they asked back, which council had decided, what again in the west as irrelevant question outstandinglybecame. It had come also here to a development, where the opinions were mutually exclusive.

Besides it had come also with less substantial things to different developments: In the east priests could marry, the west insisted on the Zölibat; itdifferent regulations concerning the Fastens, in the west ungesäuertes bread for the Eucharistie gave was used, in the east normal acidified bread.

development of the Schismas

Photius Schisma

up to the center 9. Century were the easternand the western church despite all of these differences in full coming union with one another.

To a first serious conflict it came 857. Emperor Michael III. the Patriarchen Ignatius had set off and to his place stepped the theologian Photius. At a council861 recognized in Konstantinopel Photius, also of the Legaten of the Pope. Pope Nikolaus I.however a second council 862 in Rome called up, the Photius set off and obtained this decision in the clay/tone of an absolute ruler after Konstantinopel, where itby Patriarch and emperors one ignored.

Photius engaged itself much in the Slawenmission - he sent Kyrill and its brother Methodius, the two Slawenapostel, to Mähren. To the conflict between it and Rome it came, as a Pope Nikolaus I. in Mähren Frankish mission acres supported, those the Glaubensbekenntnis with the Filioque introduced to Spain taught - so far Rome was in the Filioque - question neutrally or even against it been. Photius, a brilliant theologian, countered with a sharp Enzyklika and called upCouncil in Konstantinopel, where Nikolaus was exkommuniziert.

867 Nikolaus and Photius died were set off. In the fourth council of Konstantinopel the joggle was confirmed and decided, that Bulgaria comes to the Patriarchat of Konstantinopel. This council became only many later outpolitical reasons in the west avowedly as the “Ökumeni council”, in the east it is not recognized as such.

879, with a further council in Konstantinopel Photius was rehabilitated completely and it came to a complete reconciliation between Rome (Johannes VIII.)and Konstantinopel (again Photius), whereby the Pope (no friend of Franconias) in a private letter at Photius explained that the Filioque was in Rome never been used and heresy. On this council became, as wise compromise, for the westthe traditional Roman Primat recognition, for the east however each papal jurisdiction rejected.

Schisma from 1054

to the next serious conflict came it, when the Normannen conquered the Byzantine and majority griechischsprachige South Italies. Pope Leo IX.promisedthe Byzantine governor of the province assistance, on the condition that the eastern churches of this area should transfer the western rite to intersperse (in order so the jurisdiction of Rome in fact there), thus ungesäuertes bread to the Eucharistie, latin language tothe Liturgie and the Glaubensbekenntnis with Filioque. The governor agreed, the Klerus in no way. Michael Kerullarios, the Patriarch of Konstantinopel, arranged for his part the Byzantine rite for latin the churches into Konstantinopel on (mainly of thatthere resident western envoy, dealers etc. were visited), and as these likewise resisted, let he the churches close.

The autocratic cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, which became prominent theoreticians of an absolutist Pope rule, as an envoy after Konstantinopel skillfully, overto settle the conflict. Humbert brought (in truth of it wrote) a letter as authentication, in which “the Pope” explained to have jurisdiction over the Patriarchen from Konstantinopel to. It denied the ökumenischen Patriarchen its title, doubted the validity of its consecration,insulted a monk, which defended the eastern customs, he was probably not from a monastery separates risen from a brothel, the correction of several “mistakes” required in the eastern church, which had been already neglected of Rome to for a long time - andwhen it understandably did not advance with the negotiations, Humbert put to 16. July 1054 in an accumulation of “fair anger” bull with the Exkommunikation of Kerullarios and further orthodox Kleriken on the altar of the Hagia Sophia. In thisBull is called the orthodox church “source of all Häresien” and Kerullarios are ironically among other things accused the Filioque from the Glaubensbekenntnis to have painted (the eastern church was thus accused the Glaubensbekenntnis to have changed actually by thatwestern church changed was). In the consequence Humbert required still that the emperor and Klerus eliminated the specified “mistakes” immediately, which led to the fact that he was almost lynched by the population and by the emperor in protective custody to be taken had.

After the rather rapid departure from Humbert it and its companions for his part not surprisingly by Kerullarios and a council were exkommuniziert (Humbert and companions, not the Pope). The remaining eastern Patriarchen placed itself clearly on the side of Konstantinopel andthe requirements of Rome rejected likewise.

Different estimates over the event of 1054 coin/shape the picture in the historical research: a) Today the break is often if possible played down and said of 1054, the churches would not have themselves mutually,separate only individuals exkommuniziert. At that time it was a break: the name of the Pope was not no more called from then on in the Byzantine Liturgie and the churches in Konstantinopel remained closed for latin rites. b) The event from 1054 was only one mosaic stone into decades until centuries development is enough. Already 1054 ago it had given breaks between east and west church: allegedly with the reason eastFrankish-German dock ore around by Otto I. (962), then with „the Schisma of the twoSergioi “(Pope Sergius IV. (1009-1012) and Patriarch Sergios II. (1001-1019)) in the years 1011/1012. The churches stood themselves in the following decades without closer relations opposite, during itself in the decades after 1054 the alienation betweenboth Christian churches strengthened. Agreement efforts failed not least because of the Primatsanspruch of the reform papacy, because of the normannischen policy in South Italies and against Byzanz, because of the first crusade (1096 - 1099) and the political-military penetration of the western Christianity into the Orient,in addition, in the opposition of the konstantinopolitanischen church. The church, dogma tables and litiurgischen differences (Filioque, Azymon), which already 1054 in the power-politics argument between Pope and Patriarch a role played, came now completely to light, the event of 1054 gotnow afterwards another, greater importance.

plundering of Konstantinopel

on the fourth crusade (so-called. Veneziani crusade) Konstantinopel was conquered in the year 1204 and geplündert during three days - even the churches. Most the numerous Reliquieninto the west were shipped. The Byzantine emperor was driven out and replaced for some decades by a family of ethnic German small prince as an emperor von Papstes and Venedigs grace, the Greek church hierarchy by parallel structured latin. Greek ones of clergyman becamein a forced manner to an obedience oath opposite Rome. The Byzantine culture was formed gradually in several smallasiatic exile realms again.

Starting from this time the separation between east church and west church was no longer only one question of theologians and church politicians, but for the entirePeople of the eastern church an only too seizable reality.


On the second council of Lyon 1274 and the council of Florenz 1439 was tried to cause a new agreement of the east and west church. This agreement became ofthe Byzantine emperors because of the Turk danger and/or. because of the attacking Islam desired, against it and felt it was decided the church people and the largest part of the church hierarchy as total surrender before Rome - which meant from Rome quite also sowas, although there was compromise readiness also in the west with individual theologians. The Schisma was however even intensified by these Einigungsversuche in the long run, was not eliminated.

Starting from that 16. Century was maintained from Rome a policy of the “unions “, whereby outdifferent reasons dissatisfied groups within the individual east churches by western envoys were convinced to recognize the Pope and loose-assure themselves from their respective nut/mother church; one permitted them to maintain their own in each case Liturgie and its customs on the whole. This“divide and prevail” - strategy led naturally to large anger and discord with the remaining members and the lines of the east churches, which the papal envoys not as some, but when Spalter noticed. Some eastchurch leaders went through themselves now for their part the attempt,to fraternize the straight Protestanten developed again, which was criticized sharply however of the other eastern clergyman.

It lasted over 500 years, until it came to a new communication between the Roman-catholic and the eastern churches. To 7. December 1965, at the end of the second vatikanischen council Pope VI. lifted Paul. and Patriarch Athenagoras the mutual Exkommunikation up.

The theological differences concerning rites and liturgical forms, of 11. to 14. Century such a role played, become today upboth sides as theologically to a large extent overcome outstandingly, serious obstacles for a further approximation are however today still:


  • Colin Morris: The Papal Monarchy. The Western Church from 1050 tons of 1250. Clarendon press, Oxford, 1989, (a volume of the Oxford History OF the ChristianChurch row)
  • Axel Bavarian, Spaltung of the Christianity. The so-called Morgenländi Schisma of 1054 (= archives for culture history, Beih.53), 2002, Cologne Weimar vienna 2.Aufl. 2004


Web on the left of


  > German to English > (Machine translated into English)