1053- Year of the Great Schism

[unmerged(7759)]

One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about to begin in the Church of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia) at Constantinople, Cardinal Humbert and two other legates of the Pope entered the building and made their way up to the sanctuary. They had not come to pray. They placed a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar and marched out once more. As he passed through the western door, the Cardinal shook the dust from his feet with the words: 'Let God look and judge.' A deacon ran out after him in great distress and begged him to take back the Bull. Humbert refused; and it was dropped in the street.

It is this incident which has conventionally been taken to mark the beginning of the great schism between the Orthodox east and the Latin west. But the schism, as historians now generally recognize, is not really an event whose beginning can be exactly dated. It was something that came about gradually, as the result of a long and complicated process, starting well before the eleventh century and not completed until some time after.

Will the Great Schism be reflected in the game?

 

[Demetrios]

Of course, Cardinal Humbert wasn't a Papal Legate at that point - the Pope ha died and his office and authority had expired upon the Pontiff's death, and he knew it. So technically, the Bull of Excommunication was illegal...

 

[unmerged(5664)]

An interesting anecdote, but from my knowledge that still marked the official start to the schism nonetheless.

 

[unmerged(6324)]

Originally posted by MagnusWallachus


Will the Great Schism be reflected in the game?

I believe it should be reflected in the game, as it was regardless of boiling point, a major part of the game's time frame. Even if it started to separate after the Fall of Rome, it wasn't really major, nor as impacting as during this time IMO. Also, I believe that to allow people knowledge of this, it would be good to have a major Schism event or something, to let them know the separation of the Church in the East.

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
An interesting anecdote, but from my knowledge that still marked the official start to the schism nonetheless.

I would say that it ended the schism and started the true division. From that point forward it would be impossible to unite the church again.

 

[Alexandre]

Re: Re: 1053- Year of the Great Schism

Originally posted by Euro-Maniac


I believe it should be reflected in the game, as it was regardless of boiling point, a major part of the game's time frame. Even if it started to separate after the Fall of Rome, it wasn't really major, nor as impacting as during this time IMO. Also, I believe that to allow people knowledge of this, it would be good to have a major Schism event or something, to let them know the separation of the Church in the East.

But, it shouldn't be automatic. If the Emperor controls the Pope, for example, he should be able to stop it. Likewise, if the Ducas have a lot of piety, it should be a lot harder (more expensive in terms of piety loss) etc.

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(8523)]

another question might be "how will the schism not be handled?" my impression so far is that the diplomatic matrix in e.u. between catholic and orthodox is a bit overdone...

i mean, in 1419 the palaiologoi and the acciajuoli are intermarried and by extension the feudal hierarchies of the greek and latin states are intertwined; then don't forget that later the pope raises the army to crusade for constantinople even after he knows that the people have not accepted the edict.

what am i missing?

steph

 

[Duque de Bragança]

Originally posted by stephanos
another question might be "how will the schism not be handled?" my impression so far is that the diplomatic matrix in e.u. between catholic and orthodox is a bit overdone...

i mean, in 1419 the palaiologoi and the acciajuoli are intermarried and by extension the feudal hierarchies of the greek and latin states are intertwined; then don't forget that later the pope raises the army to crusade for constantinople even after he knows that the people have not accepted the edict.

what am i missing?

steph

So it starts with the Filioque by Charlemagne's time, Photius goes on, there's this 1054 incident during the Empire/Pope fight but in 1453 this is the final point as Western Christianity let fall Constantinople. Some Orthodox people must have believed that at least.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Well I suppose technically there is no "final" point. John-Paul II keeps talking to various orthodox leaders about re-uniting the churches still.

 

[unmerged(8523)]

i'm still no better off, here

i know that once it became apparent to the west that constantinople could not save itself it became a matter of who was going to get the leftovers - my point is that if byzantium could save herself, she would not have faced that kind of attitude. if i remember correctly, the angevins are still in naples in 1430-whatever and thus still have a claim as princes of achaea and yet raise no finger when the despotate puts an end to it. (well, they did tell constantine to give athens back, earlier on though.)

what i'm saying is that i don't like the "relations between orthodox and catholic deteriorate over time" - i think they should be completely stagnant over time and that the player should have to work to make them go up or down; save through events between a particular orthodox power and a particular catholic one, of course.

steph

 

[unmerged(6160)]

In the EEP there is an envent re-uniting the church, Byzantium becoming catholic.

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by historycaesar
In the EEP there is an envent re-uniting the church, Byzantium becoming catholic.

just as unlikely as the papal states becoming orthodox; you'd need a new religion tag and a new name.

 

[unmerged(6324)]

Re: Re: Re: 1053- Year of the Great Schism

Originally posted by Alexandre


But, it shouldn't be automatic. If the Emperor controls the Pope, for example, he should be able to stop it. Likewise, if the Ducas have a lot of piety, it should be a lot harder (more expensive in terms of piety loss) etc.

Alexandre

I believe if one controls the Patriarch and the Pope...perhaps then...

 

[Winkelried]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1053- Year of the Great Schism

Originally posted by Euro-Maniac


I believe if one controls the Patriarch and the Pope...perhaps then...

Could be a wee bit hard to achieve.

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1053- Year of the Great Schism

Originally posted by Euro-Maniac


I believe if one controls the Patriarch and the Pope...perhaps then...

that's a common misconception; "controlling the patriarch" - the partriarch is not the head of the orthodox church - the byzantine emperor is (was): that's an attitude directly descended from constantine the great, who oversaw the rise of his city's patriarchate and personally conducted the first few ecumenical councils.

steph

 

[unmerged(6324)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1053- Year of the Great Schism

Originally posted by stephanos


that's a common misconception; "controlling the patriarch" - the partriarch is not the head of the orthodox church - the byzantine emperor is (was): that's an attitude directly descended from constantine the great, who oversaw the rise of his city's patriarchate and personally conducted the first few ecumenical councils.

steph

Oh thank you. I didn't know that.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

I could be wrong, but it was my understanding there was no single "head" of the Orthodox church. The Emperor had a significant role, the Patriarch had a significant role, and ecumenical councils had a significant role. This differs from the Roman church, where the Pope is all-powerful.

 

[unmerged(6324)]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
I could be wrong, but it was my understanding there was no single "head" of the Orthodox church. The Emperor had a significant role, the Patriarch had a significant role, and ecumenical councils had a significant role. This differs from the Roman church, where the Pope is all-powerful.

Hmm....interesting....I think I have to do some more research on this. It is fascinating.

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
I could be wrong, but it was my understanding there was no single "head" of the Orthodox church. The Emperor had a significant role, the Patriarch had a significant role, and ecumenical councils had a significant role. This differs from the Roman church, where the Pope is all-powerful.

there was the concept of symphonia, meaning "harmony" which is essentially the anti-thesis of "separation of church and state".

so, in one sense you are right, that in conception and practice it was a "team" effort - but i was replying more toward the idea of who is the "de facto" head of the church (who gets the last word.)

the byzantine emperor was considered to be the head of both the church and the state - in fact he (or she ) was the church and state, personified. this is how they thought, especially after justinian. the emperor personally led the processions to the hagia sophia on certain occasions and prayed on behalf of the people; this is in contrast to an expectation that only a priest would officiate ceremonies.

so you really have a dichotomy here: in the west you had one pope and many kings, in the east you had one emperor and many patriarchs. the patriarchs as "the" heads of their churches really comes from the ottomans, who gave the patriarch of constantinople temporal as well as spiritual authority over the orthodox christians in lieu of the deposed emperors.

i just didn't want e.m. to think that it was a situation in which the patriarch was "under someone's thumb" if it seemed that he didn't wield the same clout as the pope (which of course even the emperor would have to pay lip service to early on in terms of the whole church). in other words the emperor saw himself as the pope's equal or just-barely-underling, not the patriarch.

stephanos

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Agreed, but the patriarch wasn't simply subservient to the Emperor. There were historical examples where the Patriarch successfully took on the Emperor.