East–West Schism
Split of Eastern and Western churches / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Great Schism of 1054?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
The East–West Schism, also known as the Great Schism or Schism of 1054, is the ongoing break of communion between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches that began in 1054.[1] A series of ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between the Greek East and Latin West preceded the formal split that occurred in 1054.[1][2][3] Prominent among these were the procession of the Holy Spirit (Filioque), whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist,[lower-alpha 1] the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the pentarchy.[7]
Date | 16 July 1054 – present |
---|---|
Also known as | Great Schism, Schism of 1054, Eastern Schism |
Type | Christian schism |
Cause | Ecclesiastical differences Theological and liturgical disputes |
Participants | Pope Leo IX Ecumenical Patriarch Michael I Cerularius |
Outcome | Permanent split of the two churches into the modern-day Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church |
The first action that would lead to a formal schism was taken in 1053: the Greek churches in southern Italy were required to conform to Latin practices, under threat of closure.[8][9][10] In retaliation, Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople. In 1054, the papal legate sent by Leo IX travelled to Constantinople in order, among other things, to deny Cerularius the title of "ecumenical patriarch" and insist that he recognize the pope's claim to be the head of all of the churches.[1] The main purposes of the papal legation were to seek help from the Byzantine emperor, Constantine IX Monomachos, in view of the Norman conquest of southern Italy, and to respond to Leo of Ohrid's attacks on the use of unleavened bread and other Western customs,[11] attacks that had the support of Cerularius. The historian Axel Bayer says that the legation was sent in response to two letters, one from the emperor seeking help to organize a joint military campaign by the eastern and western empires against the Normans, and the other from Cerularius.[12] When the leader of the legation, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, O.S.B., learned that Cerularius had refused to accept the demand, he excommunicated him, and in response Cerularius excommunicated Humbert and the other legates.[1] According to Ware, "Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. ... The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".[13]
The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful because Pope Leo had died and Cerularius' excommunication only applied to the legates personally.[1] Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed: each side occasionally accuses the other of committing heresy and of having initiated the schism. Reconciliation was made more difficult by the Latin-led Crusades, the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, the West's retaliation via the Sacking of Thessalonica in 1185, the capture and pillaging of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and the imposition of Latin patriarchs.[1] Over time, the emergence of competing Greek and Latin hierarchies in the Crusader states, especially with two claimants to the patriarchal sees of Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, made the existence of a schism clear.[14] Several attempts at reconciliation did not bear fruit.
In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I nullified the anathemas of 1054,[1] although this was a nullification of measures taken against only a few individuals, merely as a gesture of goodwill and not constituting any sort of reunion. The absence of full communion between the Churches is even explicitly mentioned when the Code of Canon Law gives Catholic ministers permission to administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist, and the anointing of the sick to members of eastern churches such as the Eastern Orthodox Church (as well as the Oriental Orthodox churches and the Church of the East) and members of western churches such as the Old Catholic Church, when those members spontaneously request these.[15] Contacts between the two sides continue. Every year a delegation from each joins in the other's celebration of its patronal feast, Saints Peter and Paul (29 June) for Rome and Saint Andrew (30 November) for Constantinople, and there have been several visits by the head of each to the other. The efforts of the ecumenical patriarchs towards reconciliation with the Catholic Church have often been the target of sharp criticism from some fellow Orthodox.[16]
Jaroslav Pelikan emphasizes that "while the East–West schism stemmed largely from political and ecclesiastical discord, this discord also reflected basic theological differences". Pelikan further argues that the antagonists in the 11th century inappropriately exaggerated their theological differences, whereas modern historians tend to minimize them. Pelikan asserts that the documents from that era evidence the "depths of intellectual alienation that had developed between the two sections of Christendom." While the two sides were technically more guilty of schism than heresy, they often charged each other with allegations of blasphemy. Pelikan describes much of the dispute as dealing with "regional differences in usages and customs," some of which were adiaphorous (i.e. neither commanded nor forbidden). However, he goes on to say that while it was easy in principle to accept the existence of adiaphora, it was difficult in actual practice to distinguish customs which were innocuously adiaphoric from those that had doctrinal implications.[17]
Ecclesiological disputes
Philip Sherrard, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, asserts that the underlying cause of the East–West schism was and continues to be "the clash of these two fundamentally irreconcilable ecclesiologies." Roger Haight characterizes the question of episcopal authority in the Church as "acute" with the "relative standings of Rome and Constantinople a recurrent source of tension." Haight characterizes the difference in ecclesiologies as "the contrast between a pope with universal jurisdiction and a combination of the patriarchal superstructure with an episcopal and synodal communion ecclesiology analogous to that found in Cyprian."[18] However, Nicholas Afansiev has criticized both the Catholic and Orthodox churches for "subscribing to the universal ecclesiology of St. Cyprian of Carthage according to which only one true and universal church can exist."[19]
Another point of controversy was celibacy among Western priests (both monastic and parish), as opposed to the Eastern discipline whereby parish priests could be married men. However, the Latin church has always had some priests who were legally married. They have been a small minority since the 12th century.[citation needed]
Ecclesiological structure
There are several different ecclesiologies: "communion ecclesiology", "eucharistic ecclesiology", "baptismal ecclesiology", "trinitarian ecclesiology", "kerygmatic theology".[20] Other ecclesiologies are the "hierarchical-institutional" and the "organic-mystical",[21]and the "congregationalist".[22]
The Eastern Churches maintained the idea that every local city-church with its bishop, presbyters, deacons and people celebrating the eucharist constituted the whole church. In this view called eucharistic ecclesiology (or more recently holographic ecclesiology), every bishop is Saint Peter's successor in his church ("the Church"), and the churches form what Eusebius called a common union of churches. This implied that all bishops were ontologically equal, although functionally particular bishops could be granted special privileges by other bishops and serve as metropolitans, archbishops or patriarchs. Within the Roman Empire, from the time of Constantine to the fall of the empire in 1453, universal ecclesiology, rather than eucharistic, became the operative principle.[23][24]
The view prevailed that, "when the Roman Empire became Christian the perfect world order willed by God had been achieved: one universal empire was sovereign and coterminous with it was the one universal church".[25] Early on, the Roman Church's ecclesiology was universal, with the idea that the Church was a worldwide organism with a divinely (not functionally) appointed center: the Church/Bishop of Rome. These two views are still present in modern Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism and can be seen as foundational causes for the schisms and Great Schism between East and West.
The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of Papal authority set forth in the Vatican Council of 1870, and taught today in the Catholic Church.[26] The Orthodox Church has always maintained the original position of collegiality of the bishops resulting in the structure of the church being closer to a confederacy. The Orthodox have synods where the highest authorities in each Church community are brought together, but, unlike the Catholic Church, no central individual or figure has the absolute and infallible last word on church doctrine. In practice, this has sometimes led to divisions among Greek, Russian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, as no central authority can serve as an arbitrator for various internal disputes.[citation needed]
Starting from the second half of the 20th century, eucharistic ecclesiology is upheld by Catholic theologians. Henri de Lubac writes: "The Church, like the Eucharist, is a mystery of unity – the same mystery, and one with inexhaustible riches. Both are the body of Christ – the same body."[27] Joseph Ratzinger called eucharistic ecclesiology "the real core of Vatican II's (Second Vatican Council) teaching on the cross".[21] According to Ratzinger, the one church of God exists in no other way than in the various individual local congregations.[28] In these the eucharist is celebrated in union with the Church everywhere.[29] Eucharistic ecclesiology led the council to "affirm the theological significance of the local church. If each celebration of the Eucharist is a matter not only of Christ's sacramental presence on the altar but also of his ecclesial presence in the gathered community, then each local eucharistic church must be more than a subset of the universal church; it must be the body of Christ 'in that place'."[30]
The ecclesiological dimension of the East–West schism revolves around the authority of bishops within their dioceses[31] and the lines of authority between bishops of different dioceses. It is common for Catholics to insist on the primacy of Roman and papal authority based on patristic writings and conciliar documents.[32]
Papal privilege and authority
The Catholic Church's current official teachings about papal privilege and power that are unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox churches are the dogma of the pope's infallibility when speaking officially "from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra Petri)" on matters of faith and morals to be held by the whole Church, so that such definitions are irreformable "of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church" (ex sese et non-ex consensu ecclesiae)[33] and have a binding character for all (Catholic) Christians in the world; the pope's direct episcopal jurisdiction over all (Catholic) Christians in the world; the pope's authority to appoint (and so also to dismiss)[citation needed] the bishops of all (Catholic) Christian churches except in the territory of a patriarchate;[34] and the affirmation that the legitimacy and authority of all (Catholic) Christian bishops in the world derive from their union with the Roman see and its bishop, the Supreme Pontiff, the unique Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth.[citation needed]
Principal among the ecclesiastical issues that separate the two churches is the meaning of papal primacy within any future unified church. The Orthodox insist that it should be a "primacy of honor", and not a "primacy of authority",[35] whereas the Catholics see the pontiff's role as required for its exercise of power and authority, the exact form of which is open to discussion with other Christians.[lower-alpha 2] According to Eastern Orthodox belief, the test of catholicity is adherence to the authority of Scripture and then by the Holy Tradition of the church. It is not defined by adherence to any particular see. It is the position of the Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church.
Referring to Ignatius of Antioch,[38] Carlton says:
Contrary to popular opinion, the word catholic does not mean "universal"; it means "whole, complete, lacking nothing." ...Thus, to confess the Church to be catholic is to say that She possesses the fullness of the Christian faith. To say, however, that Orthodox and Rome constitute two lungs of the same Church is to deny that either Church separately is catholic in any meaningful sense of the term. This is not only contrary to the teaching of Orthodoxy, it is flatly contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which considered itself truly catholic
The church is in the image of the Trinity[39] and reflects the reality of the incarnation.
The body of Christ must always be equal with itself... The local church which manifests the body of Christ cannot be subsumed into any larger organisation or collectivity which makes it more catholic and more in unity, for the simple reason that the principle of total catholicity and total unity is already intrinsic to it.
Theological issues
The iconoclast policy enforced by a series of decrees of Emperor Leo III the Isaurian in 726–729 was resisted in the West, giving rise to friction that ended in 787, when the Second Council of Nicaea reaffirmed that images are to be venerated but not worshipped. The Libri Carolini, commissioned by Charlemagne, criticized what a faulty translation gave as the council's decision, but their objections were rebutted by Pope Adrian I.
From the Catholic Church's perspective, the ecclesiological issues are central, which is why they characterize the split between the two churches as a schism. In their view, the Eastern Orthodox are very close to them in theology, and the Catholic Church does not consider the Eastern Orthodox beliefs to be heretical. However, from the perspective of Eastern Orthodox theologians, there are theological issues that run much deeper than just the theology around the primacy of the Pope. In fact, this is in contrast to Catholics, who do not generally consider the Orthodox heretical and speak instead about the Eastern "schism".[40]
In the Catholic Church, too, some writers may be found, who speak pejoratively about the Eastern Orthodox Church and its theology, but these writers are marginal.[41]
The official view of the Catholic Church is the one expressed in the decree Unitatis redintegratio of Vatican II:
In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern Church are concerned, we must recognize the admirable way in which they have their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they are nurtured and given expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from the living tradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the Eastern Churches. Thus they promote the right ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of Christian truth.[42]
Trinity
Although the Western churches do not consider the Eastern and Western understanding of the Trinity to be radically different, Eastern theologians such as John Romanides and Michael Pomazansky argue that the Filioque clause is symptomatic of a fatal flaw in the Western understanding, which they attribute to the influence of Augustine and, by extension, to that of Thomas Aquinas.[43][44][45]
Filioque, Latin for "and (from) the Son", was added in Western Christianity to the Latin text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which also varies from the original Greek text in having the additional phrase Deum de Deo (God from God)[46][47] and in using the singular "I believe" (Latin, Credo, Greek Πιστεύω) instead of the original "We believe" (Greek Πιστεύομεν),[47] which Oriental Orthodoxy preserves.[lower-alpha 3] The Assyrian Church of the East, which is in communion neither with the Eastern Orthodox Church nor with Oriental Orthodoxy, uses "We believe".[52]
Filioque states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, a doctrine accepted by the Catholic Church,[53] by Anglicanism[54] and by Protestant churches in general.[lower-alpha 4] Christians of these groups generally include it when reciting the Nicene Creed. Nonetheless, these groups recognize that Filioque is not part of the original text established at the First Council of Constantinople in 381,[58] and they do not demand that others too should use it when saying the Creed.[59] The Catholic Church does not add the phrase corresponding to Filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek text of the Creed, including in the Roman Rite of Latin Church Catholics.[60]
At the 879–880 Council of Constantinople the Eastern Orthodox Church anathematized the Filioque phrase, "as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed", and in their 1848 encyclical the Eastern Patriarchs spoke of it as a heresy.[61] It was qualified as such by some of the Eastern Orthodox Church's saints, including Photios I of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory Palamas, who have been called the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. The Eastern church believes by the Western church inserting the Filioque unilaterally (without consulting or holding council with the East) into the Creed, that the Western Church broke communion with the East.[62]
Eastern Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky criticize the focus of Western theology of God in 'God in uncreated essence' as misguided, which he alleges is a modalistic and therefore a speculative expression of God that is indicative of the Sabellian heresy.[63] Eastern Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazansky argues that, in order for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son in the Creed, there would have to be two sources in the deity (double procession), whereas in the one God there can only be one source of divinity, which is the Father hypostasis of the Trinity, not God's essence per se.[43] In contrast, Bishop Kallistos Ware suggests that the problem is more in the area of semantics than of basic doctrinal differences:
The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences.
Experience of God versus scholasticism
Lossky argues the difference in East and West is because of the Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and scholasticism) rather than actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky states that Eastern Orthodox and Catholics have become "different men".[64] Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as Romanides[45] and Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos have made similar pronouncements.[65] According to the Orthodox teachings, theoria can be achieved through ascetic practices like hesychasm, which was condemned as a heresy by Barlaam of Seminara.
Eastern Orthodox theologians charge that, in contrast to Eastern Orthodox theology, western theology is based on philosophical discourse which reduces humanity and nature to cold mechanical concepts.[66]
Roman Catholicism rationalizes even the sacrament of the Eucharist: it interprets spiritual action as purely material and debases the sacrament to such an extent that it becomes in its view a kind of atomistic miracle. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there is no need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that 'every thing, without in the least changing its physical substance' could become His Body. Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not physical flesh.
Eastern Orthodox theologians argue that the mind (reason, rationality) is the focus of Western theology, whereas, in Eastern theology, the mind must be put in the heart, so they are united into what is called nous; this unity as heart is the focus of Eastern Orthodox Christianity,[67] involving the unceasing Prayer of the heart. In Orthodox theology, in the Eastern ascetic traditions, one of the goals of ascetic practice is to obtain sobriety of consciousness, awakeness (nepsis). For humankind, this is reached via the healing of the whole person, encompassing the soul/heart. When a person's heart is reconciled with their mind, this is referred to as a healing of the nous or the "eye, focus of the heart or soul".[68][69]
Part of this process is the healing and reconciliation of humankind's reason (logos or dianoia) with the heart or soul.[70] While mankind's spirit and body are energies vivified by the soul, Orthodoxy teaches man's sin, suffering, and sorrow are caused by his heart and mind being in conflict.[69] According to Orthodox theology, a lack of noetic understanding (sickness) can be neither circumvented nor satisfied by rational or discursive thought (i.e. systematization).[68] Denying the needs of the human heart (the needs of the soul) is seen to cause various negative or destructive manifestations such as addiction, atheism and evil thoughts etc.[71][72] A cleaned, healed or restored nous creates the condition of sobriety, or nepsis of the mind.
Uncreated light
Orthodox theologians assert that the theological division of East and West culminated into a direct theological conflict known as the Hesychasm controversy during several councils at Constantinople between 1341 and 1351. They argue that this controversy highlighted the sharp contrast between what is embraced by the Catholic Church as proper (or orthodox) theological dogma and how theology is validated by the Eastern Orthodox. The essence of the disagreement is that in the East a person cannot be a true theologian or teach the knowledge of God without having experienced God, as defined as the vision of God (theoria). At the heart of the issue was the teaching of the Essence-Energies distinctions (which states that while creation can never know God's uncreated essence, it can know his uncreated energies) by Gregory Palamas.
Original sin, free will, and the Immaculate Conception
Augustine's doctrine of original sin
Some Eastern Orthodox polemicists claim that Eastern Orthodox do not accept Augustine's teaching of original sin. His interpretation of ancestral sin is rejected in the East as well. Nor is Augustine's teaching accepted in its totality in the West.[73] The Catholic Church rejects traducianism and affirms creationism of the soul. Its teaching on original sin is largely based on but not identical with that of Augustine, and is opposed to the interpretation of Augustine advanced by Martin Luther and John Calvin. Its teaching departs from Augustine's ideas in some respects.[73][74]
Another Eastern Orthodox view is expressed by Christos Yannaras, who described Augustine as "the fount of every distortion and alteration in the Church's truth in the West".[75] This view is ahistorical. In fact, Augustine's teaching on original sin was solemnly affirmed by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus,[76][77] and the ecumenical Second Council of Constantinople numbered Saint Augustine among the great doctors of the Church, alongside Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, Theophilus, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Pope Leo the Great.[78] The late modern denial by some Eastern Orthodox writers of the supposedly "Western" teaching on original sin is regarded by some traditionalist Eastern Orthodox as a form of modernism.[79][80]
Eastern Orthodox teaching on original sin
What the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts is that ancestral sin corrupted their existence (their bodies and environment) that each person is born into and thus we are born into a corrupted existence (by the ancestral sin of Adam and Eve)[81] and that "original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. All of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam."[82] The teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is that, as a result of Adam's sin, "hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that everyone who is born after the flesh bears this burden, and experiences the fruits of it in this present world."[83]
Similarly, what the Catholic Church holds is that the sin of Adam that we inherit, and for the remission of which even babies who have no personal sin are baptized,[84] is called "sin" only in an analogical sense since it is not an act committed like the personal sin of Adam and Eve, but a fallen state-contracted by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.[85]
Both East[citation needed] and West[85] hold that each person is not called to atone for the actual sin committed by Adam and Eve.
According to the Western Church, "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants",[85] and the Eastern Church teaches that "by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin".[83] The Orthodox[citation needed] and the Catholics[86] believe that people inherit only the spiritual sickness (in which all suffer and sin) of Adam and Eve, caused by their ancestral sin (what has flowed to them), a sickness leaving them weakened in their powers, subject to ignorance, suffering from the domination of death, and inclined to sin.[86]
Immaculate Conception
The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which claims that God protected the Virgin Mary from original sin through no merit of her own,[87][88] was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Orthodox theology proclaims that Mary was chosen to bear Christ, having first found favor of God by her purity and obedience.[89][90][91][92][93][94]
Sin, Purgatory, and Hell
Purgatory
Another point of theological contention between the western and eastern churches is the doctrine of purgatory (as it was shown at the Second Council of Lyon and the Council of Ferrara–Florence).[95] It was developed in time in Western theology, according to which, "all who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."[96] However, some Eastern theologians, while agreeing that there is beyond death a state in which believers continue to be perfected and led to full divinization, consider that it is a state not of punishment but of growth.[97] They hold that suffering cannot purify sin, since they have a different view of sin and consider suffering as a result of a spiritual sickness.[90] Western theology usually considers sin not only as a sickness that weakens and impedes but also as something that merits punishment.[98]
The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that "there is a state beyond death where believers continue to be perfected and led to full divinization".[97][citation needed] Although some Orthodox[who?] have described this intermediate state as purgatory, others distinguish it from aspects associated with it in the West: at the Council of Ferrara–Florence, the Orthodox Bishop Mark of Ephesus argued that there are in it no purifying fires.[99]
Some Orthodox Christians also subscribe to the belief of aerial toll houses, which states that souls are tested by demons while on their way to Heaven. This concept is not found in Roman Catholicism.
Damnation
The traditional Orthodox teaching is that those who reject Christ will suffer his absence. According to the Confession of Dositheus, "persons go immediately to joy in Christ or to the torments of punishment".[97] In Orthodox doctrine, there is no place without God. In eternity there is no hiding from God. In Catholic theology, God is present everywhere not only by his power but in himself.[100] Hell is a state of self-selected separation from God.
Eastern theology considers the desire to sin to be the result of a spiritual sickness (caused by Adam and Eve's pride), which needs to be cured.[101] One such theologian gives his interpretation of Western theology as follows: "According to the holy Fathers of the Church, there is not an uncreated Paradise and a created Hell, as the Franco–Latin tradition teaches".[102] The Eastern Church believes that hell and heaven exist with reference to being with God, and that the very same divine love (God's uncreated energies) which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous (because they love God, His love is heaven for them) is also a source of torment (or a "Lake of Fire") for sinners.[103][44][102][104] The Western Church speaks of heaven[105] and hell[106] as states of existence rather than as places, while in Eastern Orthodoxy there is no hell per se, there is a "hell" in the absence of God's grace. To quote St John of Damascus: "God does not punish but each one decides on his receiving of God, whose reception is joy and his absence a hell (Gr. κόλασις)".[citation needed]
Governance
The Byzantine Empire was a theocracy; the emperor was the supreme authority in both church and state.[107][108][109][110] "The king is not God among men but the Viceroy of God. He is not the logos incarnate but is in a special relation with the logos. He has been specially appointed and is continually inspired by God, the friend of God, the interpreter of the Word of God. His eyes look upward, to receive the messages of God. He must be surrounded with the reverence and glory that befits God's earthly copy; and he will 'frame his earthly government according to the pattern of the divine original, finding strength in its conformity with the monarchy of God'".[111][112]
In the East, endorsement of Caesaropapism, the subordination of the church to the religious claims of the dominant political order, was most fully evident in the Byzantine Empire at the end of the first millennium,[113] while in the West, where the decline of imperial authority left the Church relatively independent,[114][115][116][117] there was the growth of the power of the papacy. As a result of the Muslim conquests of the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, only two rival powerful centres of ecclesiastical authority, Constantinople and Rome, remained.[118] Until this happened, Rome often tried to act as a neutral mediator in disputes among the Eastern Patriarchies.
In Eastern Christendom, the teaching of papal supremacy is said to be based on the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals,[119] documents attributed to early popes but actually forged, probably in the second quarter of the 9th century, with the aim of defending the position of bishops against metropolitans and secular authorities. The Orthodox East contests the teaching that Peter was the Patriarch of Rome, a title that the West too does not give him. Early sources such as St. Irenaeus can be interpreted as describing Pope Linus as the first bishop of Rome and Pope Cletus the second.[120]
The Oxford Dictionary of Popes states: "In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e. the government of the local church by a single bishop, as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. The earlier tradition, however, which placed Peter and Paul in a class apart as the pioneers who together established the Roman church and its ministry, was never lost sight of."[120]
St. Peter was according to tradition bishop of Antioch at one point, and was then succeeded by Evodius and Ignatius. The Eastern Orthodox do not hold the primacy of the Pope of Rome over the Eastern church; they teach that the Pope of Rome is the first among equals. The first seven Ecumenical Councils were held in the East and called by the Eastern Emperors; Roman pontiffs never presided over any of them.[lower-alpha 5]