editorial ---Saints at the "Edge" of the Schism?

editorial ---

1054 Don't Cross That Line!

  Western converts to Orthodox Christian Faith, understandably, ask about the canonical status of their certain favorite Western saints when the dates of repose is close to the 1054 a.d.  

The year 1054 A.D. is conventionally cited as the formal beginning of the Great Schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, primarily due to the mutual excommunications exchanged between Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida and Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople. However, this editorial argues that while 1054 serves as a symbolic turning point, the schism was a gradual process rather than an instantaneous rupture. An analysis of primary sources, historiographical interpretations, and theological developments, would serve to examine how and by whom 1054 was designated as the moment of division. It would conclude that while the event of 1054 was significant, the schism was not fully realized until the Latin Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the later failed attempts at reunion.

The division between the Eastern and Western Churches was a long and complex process rooted in theological, political, and cultural factors. While 1054 is often cited as the official date of the schism, the reality is far more nuanced. The mutual excommunications exchanged between the representatives of Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerularius are frequently viewed as the definitive break, but the formalization of separate ecclesiastical structures occurred over centuries. The purpose of this editorial is to highlight how 1054 came to be the conventional date for the schism, analyzing the key players, historical narratives, and theological disputes that shaped its perception.

The Events of 1054: A Political and Theological Confrontation

The immediate cause of the so-called Great Schism was the papal legation to Constantinople in 1054, sent by Pope Leo IX to negotiate disputes concerning liturgical and doctrinal differences. The delegation, led by Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, Frederick of Lorraine, and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi, arrived in Constantinople with the intention of asserting Roman authority over the Eastern Church. The major points of contention included:

• The Filioque Clause – The Latin addition of Filioque ("and from the Son") to the Nicene Creed, rejected by the Byzantines.
• Liturgical Practices – The use of unleavened bread (azymes) in the Latin Eucharist, which the Byzantines viewed as a theological error.
• Papal Supremacy – The Byzantine rejection of the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over all Christians.

Patriarch Michael Cerularius, an ardent defender of Byzantine autonomy, refused to recognize Roman claims and condemned Latin liturgical practices. In response, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Cerularius on July 16, 1054, by placing a bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia. The Byzantine response was equally severe: Cerularius convened a synod in Constantinople, which anathematized the papal legates. Though Pope Leo IX had died three months earlier (April 19, 1054), rendering Humbert’s actions technically invalid, the event marked a public rupture between the two ecclesiastical centers.

Why 1054 Became the Conventional Date

1. The Role of Later Historians

The designation of 1054 as the formal beginning of the Great Schism was largely a product of Western historiography. Medieval and early modern Catholic historians sought a clear date to mark the division, and the dramatic mutual excommunications provided a convenient focal point. In contrast, Byzantine sources did not emphasize 1054 as decisive; rather, they viewed the Fourth Crusade (1204) and the subsequent establishment of the Latin Empire of Constantinople as the true moment of schism.

2. Theological and Political Estrangement Before 1054

The schism had roots that extended back centuries, with increasing tensions emerging between East and West:

• 9th Century: The Photian Schism (863–867), in which Patriarch Photius of Constantinople condemned the Filioque and papal claims.
• 11th Century: Growing disputes over papal authority, Byzantine independence, and political alliances.
• Post-1054 Developments: Despite the excommunications of 1054, East-West relations continued, and communion was not immediately broken. Several attempts at reconciliation.

The Great Schism was not the result of a single event in 1054 but rather a gradual process of estrangement exacerbated by theological, political, and military conflicts. While later Western historiography enshrined 1054 as the official date of division, Byzantine sources suggest that 1204 was a more decisive moment in the full separation of East and West. Furthermore, multiple reunion attempts in subsequent centuries underscore the fact that ecclesiastical relations remained fluid well beyond the eleventh century.

Ultimately, the designation of 1054 as the date of the schism reflects the human tendency to impose historical boundaries on complex processes so typical of Western thinking. While the excommunications of 1054 were significant, they did not in themselves create the definitive split that later histories have assigned to them.

Besides There Was No Internet Back Then.

True, communication back then was considerably slower. Determining how long it would have taken for all Western Churches under Rome to learn of the Great Schism of 1054 requires an analysis of medieval communication methods, ecclesiastical structures, and geopolitical realities. Unlike the modern world, where information travels instantaneously, medieval communication relied on oral transmission, letters, envoys, and Church councils, all of which were subject to the limitations of geography, transportation, and political stability.

Suffice to say, that the spread of the news of the Great Schism of 1054 would have been gradual and uneven, with some areas learning of it within months, while others may not have formally acknowledged it for years or even decades. The lack of instant communication, political fragmentation, and the complexity of Church relations meant that awareness and acceptance of the schism did not happen uniformly across the Latin West. Instead, the full realization of the division likely took shape over the course of the 11th and 12th centuries, particularly as theological and political tensions escalated in the Crusades and later Western efforts to assert papal supremacy.

Conclusion: Can a Western Saint Who Reposed 5–10 Years After 1054 Be Accepted?

In summary, the Orthodox Church must exercise extreme caution when considering a Western saint who reposed within the decade following 1054. While some cases may warrant careful theological investigation, the default stance should be one of skepticism due to the rapid theological divergence of the Western Church in the years prior and following the schism.

If the individual in question:

• Maintained a pure Orthodox confession of faith,
• Did not actively support or propagate schismatic innovations,
• Was not complicit in the Latinization or persecution of Eastern Christians,
• Exhibited unmistakable holiness consistent with Orthodox spiritual tradition,

then the Orthodox Church may consider further investigation into their possible veneration. 

However, if the individual was actively involved in post-1054 schismatic movements, supported the Filioque or papal claims, or participated in efforts that undermined Orthodoxy, their recognition would be inappropriate.

Ultimately, the decision must rest with the Orthodox Church as a whole, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Synodal authority, and Patristic tradition.

Here is His Grace Bishop Enoch's offering
his view on the matter