What do you think?
Rate this book
After Nine Hundred Years: The Background of the Schism Between the Eastern and Western Churches
The traditional date of the beginning of the Oriental Schism is 1054. In this book, Fr. Congar shows that the seeds of this formal break were sown many centuries before when the creation of Byzantium as a Second Rome, the Crowning of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor, and the knife-thrust of Islam divided East and West politically.
150 pages, Paperback
First published August 17, 1978
1 person is currently reading
93 people want to read
About the author
Yves Congar
153 books32 followersA French Dominican priest who become one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century on the topic of the Roman Catholic Church and ecumenism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 18, 2025
The best book on the subject. it reads like it's a 1000, not 90, pages
August 21, 2020
Great insights. An Orthodox priest recommended it to me, enough said?
December 21, 2020
Yves Congar argued that the Great Schism of 1054 happened long before the excommunication of Michael Cerularius. It was a mix of political, cultural, and ecclesiological factors. While he acknowledged the West’s blunders in handling the problems, he believed the schism was mostly an oriental schism. He also believed that the reunion will be a similarly long process where both sides try to achieve symphony.
The Great Schism had its seeds in the Tetrarchy of Diocletian. As Constantine moved to Byzantium, the center of political power moved to the East but the center of spiritual power remained in Rome. As the West was conquered by the barbarians, the East became politically and culturally more supreme - the East had a well educated laity in bureaucracy, whereas the laity of the West was largely illiterate. To some extent, the West betrayed the East by coronating the barbarian king Charlemagne. The West still recognized the imperium of Basileus of Constantinople, but the relationship became more ambiguous. After the West pillaged Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade, the East simply distrusted the West. Loukas Notaras famously claimed: “I would rather see a Turkish turban in the midst of the City than the Latin mitre”.
The East, for its part, always honored the autonomy of local churches. It was partly due to the diversity of languages and cultures. Increasingly, religious life in the East was also imbued with national pride. Importantly, the East regarded its rite as an expression of its faith, whereas the West was more obsessed with definitions. In a sense, the West was more Aristotelian, whereas the East was more Platonian.
Fundamentally, the division was about the primacy of Rome. The Council of Sardica was an attempt by the West to canonize its regulatory power. In practice, though, “appeal to Rome” was always appealing to multiple bishops that included Rome. But the East could not accept Rome's final jurisdictional power. Importantly, the Eastern church fathers recognized the importance of Rome, but they did not indicate that they believed such importance was derived from a divine right.
The West has taken a more conciliatory pose towards ecumenism. On the other hand, some Eastern theologians hold that the issue of filioque would not be an obstacle to reunion. The single biggest roadblock is still about the Holy See.
Although a bit dry, it is a decent book that analyzed the deep issues of the schism. It is meant for an audience with some pre-existing knowledge - some issues such as filioque were mostly sidestepped (probably because they were well-known).
The Great Schism had its seeds in the Tetrarchy of Diocletian. As Constantine moved to Byzantium, the center of political power moved to the East but the center of spiritual power remained in Rome. As the West was conquered by the barbarians, the East became politically and culturally more supreme - the East had a well educated laity in bureaucracy, whereas the laity of the West was largely illiterate. To some extent, the West betrayed the East by coronating the barbarian king Charlemagne. The West still recognized the imperium of Basileus of Constantinople, but the relationship became more ambiguous. After the West pillaged Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade, the East simply distrusted the West. Loukas Notaras famously claimed: “I would rather see a Turkish turban in the midst of the City than the Latin mitre”.
The East, for its part, always honored the autonomy of local churches. It was partly due to the diversity of languages and cultures. Increasingly, religious life in the East was also imbued with national pride. Importantly, the East regarded its rite as an expression of its faith, whereas the West was more obsessed with definitions. In a sense, the West was more Aristotelian, whereas the East was more Platonian.
Fundamentally, the division was about the primacy of Rome. The Council of Sardica was an attempt by the West to canonize its regulatory power. In practice, though, “appeal to Rome” was always appealing to multiple bishops that included Rome. But the East could not accept Rome's final jurisdictional power. Importantly, the Eastern church fathers recognized the importance of Rome, but they did not indicate that they believed such importance was derived from a divine right.
The West has taken a more conciliatory pose towards ecumenism. On the other hand, some Eastern theologians hold that the issue of filioque would not be an obstacle to reunion. The single biggest roadblock is still about the Holy See.
Although a bit dry, it is a decent book that analyzed the deep issues of the schism. It is meant for an audience with some pre-existing knowledge - some issues such as filioque were mostly sidestepped (probably because they were well-known).
January 29, 2018
Picked this up at the library for my son who had asked for some information on this subject. He never read it but I decided to give it a go. This is an English translation of an original Belgian work written in the 50's (seemingly from the "West's" perspective). Pretty heady, academic stuff; only 150 pages but 50 pages were just notes! However by the end I was able to get at least a little more of a grasp of the contributing factors that went into the "estrangement" and the final schism. Looking forward to reading a little more on this subject. Next stop..."Byzantine East and Latin West" by Deno Geanakoplos, which I see is covered by other reviewers here.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews