What do you think?
Rate this book
The Eastern Schism; a Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XIth and XIIth Centuries
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
206 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1955
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 15, 2020
This is an exceptional study about a very obscure and oft-misunderstood period in the Church's history. It's written by a classic historian of the "old school" of Cambridge scholars, Sir Steven Runciman. I have never read another work by an historian that combines such religious sensitivity with such fine scholarship. I found the book to be clear, engaging, and insightful from beginning to end. It cleared up so many false ideas I had about the schism between East and West.
Runciman is at pains to show in his book that there was no single moment that the East and the West decided to split. There was also no single figure who was responsible, and there was no single disagreement that led to it. Rather, there was a vast conglomeration of factors political and historical, cultural and theological, that slowly separated East from West and West from East over the period of two centuries. The year 1054 is often pinpointed as the date when the schism happened, but it would be more accurate to put it at 1204 when the Latins sacked Constantinople and the popular opinion of the Greeks - both religious and lay - turned entirely against the Latins. As the book shows, it wasn't until the Crusaders came and established colonies in former Byzantine lands that the people of the West and the people of the East rejected each other's traditions and ways. Up until then, the idea of a schism was entertained only by small numbers of agitated church leaders.
I will be returning to this classic study again and again in the future.
Runciman is at pains to show in his book that there was no single moment that the East and the West decided to split. There was also no single figure who was responsible, and there was no single disagreement that led to it. Rather, there was a vast conglomeration of factors political and historical, cultural and theological, that slowly separated East from West and West from East over the period of two centuries. The year 1054 is often pinpointed as the date when the schism happened, but it would be more accurate to put it at 1204 when the Latins sacked Constantinople and the popular opinion of the Greeks - both religious and lay - turned entirely against the Latins. As the book shows, it wasn't until the Crusaders came and established colonies in former Byzantine lands that the people of the West and the people of the East rejected each other's traditions and ways. Up until then, the idea of a schism was entertained only by small numbers of agitated church leaders.
I will be returning to this classic study again and again in the future.
January 17, 2022
A great summary if not a little cliché and antiquated in the significance given to certain dates
November 1, 2025
It has been popularly believed that the year 1054 marks the date that the Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox split. That was the year in which a Papal legate to Constantinople, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Michael Cerularius , the Patriarch of Constantinople. And then Cerularius called a synod, and they excommunicated the Pope. But in this well-written book, Runciman shows why the story is a lot more complicated than that. Divergences had been growing between the churches for a long time. The East objected to the West's addition of the "Filioque" clause to the Nicene Creed, to say that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 'and the Son'". They also differed on the bread to be consecrated in the Eucharist - the West uses unleavened bread - the flat wafers still used today in Catholic, Anglican and I believe, most Lutheran churches. The Eastern Orthodox use leavened bread. Perhaps the most consequential difference was over the issue of the status of the Bishop of Rome. The East had no problem of recognizing him as the first among equals of the five historical Patriarchates - Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. But they did object to the Roman Pope claiming universal jurisdiction over the entire church.
For all these differences, the politics of these centuries played a big role. The Byzantine Emperor often allied with the Pope over against the Norman invaders of Southern Italy in the 11th century and also over against the German Emperors. The Papacy in the 10th century had become rather decadent, but reforming movements had arisen in the West, at the monastery of Cluny and elsewhere. The German Emperor Otto I revived the power of the Western Emperor and controversy arose over who was dominant - the Pope or the Emperor. These German Emperors generally allied with the reforming movements and began causing powerful reforming Popes to be elected. So, the power politics of the times got complicated. And the theological differences were played down as often as not.
The other big factor was the Crusades. Turks from central Asia had invaded the Middle East and in 1072 overwhelmingly defeated a Byzantine army at Manzikert, which opened up all Anatolia (Asia Minor) to Turkish invasion. In 1099 the First Crusade was launched. The Second and Third Crusades followed. Latin kingdoms were established in Jerusalem and the Middle East. As the crusading armies marched through the Balkans toward Constantinople, there were conflicts with the local populations. The Byzantine Emperor had hoped to use Western troops to augment his own depleted army, but the Western leaders wouldn't cooperate with that. And they set up their principalities on formerly Byzantine lands. Byzantine Emperors had for some time had had decent relations with Arab dynasties in Egypt and elsewhere which the Westerners saw as a betrayal of their common cause. In any case, the Muslims led by Saladin. took back Jerusalem in 1187. Also, in these centuries Italian merchants from Venice, Genoa and other cities became dominant in the economic life of Constantinople which caused its own frictions.
Perhaps the crucial breaking point was the 4th crusade. Instead of going on to the Holy Land, the Crusaders sacked Constantinople and set up a Latin Empire. By that time the misunderstandings of Easterners and Westerners, particularly among the common people, had become too deep to be bridged. The Latin empire lasted until 1261, when a Greek dynasty, the Palaeologoi, recaptured Constantinople. But the Byzantine Empire was a shadow of its old self and although its emperors would try to reconcile with the West, too many thought they would prefer to be ruled by the Turkish turban rather than the Western Papacy.
This book also has an excellent extensive bibliography of original source material. Since it was first published in 1955, it's probably outdated by now, at least as to the modern literature.
Recommended to anyone with an interest in medieval or church history.
For all these differences, the politics of these centuries played a big role. The Byzantine Emperor often allied with the Pope over against the Norman invaders of Southern Italy in the 11th century and also over against the German Emperors. The Papacy in the 10th century had become rather decadent, but reforming movements had arisen in the West, at the monastery of Cluny and elsewhere. The German Emperor Otto I revived the power of the Western Emperor and controversy arose over who was dominant - the Pope or the Emperor. These German Emperors generally allied with the reforming movements and began causing powerful reforming Popes to be elected. So, the power politics of the times got complicated. And the theological differences were played down as often as not.
The other big factor was the Crusades. Turks from central Asia had invaded the Middle East and in 1072 overwhelmingly defeated a Byzantine army at Manzikert, which opened up all Anatolia (Asia Minor) to Turkish invasion. In 1099 the First Crusade was launched. The Second and Third Crusades followed. Latin kingdoms were established in Jerusalem and the Middle East. As the crusading armies marched through the Balkans toward Constantinople, there were conflicts with the local populations. The Byzantine Emperor had hoped to use Western troops to augment his own depleted army, but the Western leaders wouldn't cooperate with that. And they set up their principalities on formerly Byzantine lands. Byzantine Emperors had for some time had had decent relations with Arab dynasties in Egypt and elsewhere which the Westerners saw as a betrayal of their common cause. In any case, the Muslims led by Saladin. took back Jerusalem in 1187. Also, in these centuries Italian merchants from Venice, Genoa and other cities became dominant in the economic life of Constantinople which caused its own frictions.
Perhaps the crucial breaking point was the 4th crusade. Instead of going on to the Holy Land, the Crusaders sacked Constantinople and set up a Latin Empire. By that time the misunderstandings of Easterners and Westerners, particularly among the common people, had become too deep to be bridged. The Latin empire lasted until 1261, when a Greek dynasty, the Palaeologoi, recaptured Constantinople. But the Byzantine Empire was a shadow of its old self and although its emperors would try to reconcile with the West, too many thought they would prefer to be ruled by the Turkish turban rather than the Western Papacy.
This book also has an excellent extensive bibliography of original source material. Since it was first published in 1955, it's probably outdated by now, at least as to the modern literature.
Recommended to anyone with an interest in medieval or church history.
March 6, 2012
This book is recommended by Timothy Ware in his book The Orthodox Church and should be read by every Christian - whether catholic, orthodox or protestant. The Great Schism of the Churches is one of the most misunderstood events in world history and I seriously believe that the future of Christianity depends on Christians - especially Roman Catholics - understanding and admitting that the unquestioned authority of the popes is a profoundly illegitimate claim since its beginning.
February 25, 2011
Sir Steven is a solid, old school historian, with little evidence of any agenda. His work on the schism between Rome and Constantinople is a classic and a mainstay on most graduate reading lists for the MA or Ph.D. (he was on mine). Very good book, not dry, flowed very well.
Read
December 23, 2007library1
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews