The Great Schism was in 1285

The jurisdictions of the Great Church of Christ and their administrative territory in the year of Our Lord, 1045

What is Schism?

The obvious answer is separation from the Orthodox Church. The question of what separates you from the Orthodox Church is where things get a bit more complicated.

In the first place, the term “schismatic” was always used patristically and synodically to refer to groups or people who had abandoned the Great Church of Christ, and did not simply refer to all people who weren’t Orthodox. So most protestant groups aren’t schismatics because they were never part of our Church and thus could not have possibly schismed from it. In a broader sense, you could be a schismatic and still be part of the Church if you encouraged schism or committed schismatic acts, such as the establishment of overlapping jurisdictions or the invasion of another jurisdiction’s ecclesiastical territory.

Many different things can be described as schismatic or “in schism” in different contexts, but this is not a contradiction. Rather, this occurs because there are degrees of schism ranking in severity.

From lowest (1) to highest.

1. Invasion of foreign jurisdictions
   
   This would be if a bishop entered another diocese and celebrated the sacraments there without the permission of that diocese’s bishop.
2. Overlapping jurisdictions
   
   This would be if one bishop set up a diocese on the same space of land as a preexisting diocese.
3. Cessation of liturgical commemoration
   
   This is when a priest or bishop stops commemorating his bishop/Patriarch in the Divine Liturgy. In such a scenario, that clergyman would still interact with the other clergy of the diocese or Church, but they personally would not commemorate the bishop in the diptychs.
4. Breaking Communion (Excommunication)
   
   This means one bishop or Patriarch prohibits his own clergy and/or laity from receiving the sacraments from another bishop/Patriarch and his clergy. The word “excommunication” may be used, however it refers more often to the individual level where one person is forbidden from receiving the sacraments by his bishop or Holy Synod.
5. Anathema
   
   This is the ultimate casting out and a judicial cursing of the personage who is in guilt. This act is always has a universal effect as it demands an input from all the jurisdictions. Most of the anathemas we popularly know about are the heretics condemned at the Ecumenical Councils and in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy. This is understood as a complete separation from God,¹ and therefore we know exactly what happens to those who have been anathematized.

While one Patriarch could break communion with another, the Church would still be One Church, usually because both Patriarchs maintain communion with other Patriarchates. However, that reasoning is too vague. After all, what is the source of the Church? It is our Apostolic Succession: our episcopal lineage tracing back to the Apostles. You cannot sufficiently define the presence of the Church by communion alone, you absolutely must use apostolic succession as the means by which the Church is found. If communion alone were sufficient, then a Bishop could claim to enter communion with anyone and thereby magically make them the Church as well. It therefore follows that any bishop who maintains apostolic succession is part of the Orthodox Church, even if he is a heretic.

How does this relate to the Great Schism?

Most Church Fathers, theologians, and historians would acknowledge that the year 1054 is only the beginning of the Great Schism, and not its conclusion. For while Rome and Constantinople had broken communion, Rome still maintained communion with Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, and Ohrid (Bulgaria). So Rome remained in the Church at this time, and certain holy men and miracles continued to appear in the West after 1054, such as Saint Edward the Confessor (1066), King Cnut IV of Denmark (1086), Saint Margaret of Scotland (1093), King Harold II Godwinson of England (1066), and the miracle of Our Lady of Walsingham (1061).

Sadly, although Rome remained in the Church, their descent into heresy would rapidly continue. It should be noted that the Patriarchs of Constantinople had stopped commemorating the Pope in Rome starting in 1009 because Pope Sergius IV wrote a letter to Patriarch Sergius II containing the filioque, but they did not break communion. The break in communion occurred in 1054, but the anathemas exchanged that year were not universally received by the Church, and thus did not have any actualizing force.

We know exactly when Rome broke communion with most of the Patriarchs.

• 1054 - Rome breaks communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
• 1099 - Rome installs an unordained deacon (Arnulf of Chocques) as a latin patriarch of Jerusalem, thus breaking communion with the actual Jerusalem Patriarchate
• 1100 - Rome establishes a latin patriarchate in Antioch, displacing and breaking communion with the actual Patriarchate of Antioch
• 1235 - The Bulagarian Patriarchate voluntarily broke communion with the Rome
• 1240 - The Georgian Patriarchate was most certainly out of communion with Rome by 1240, as the Pope had written that the Georgian Monarchs ought to “Join Him and the Roman Church and regret that you are so late,”² indicating that unity had not existed at that point.
• 1276 - This is the first record of the existence of a latin patriarchate in Alexandria, which would indicate that communion was broken sometime around then, as evidence exists that Alexandria continued to recognize Rome up to around 1215 when they sent legates to Rome’s Fourth Lateran Council
• There is no telling when Cyprus broke communion with Rome, however the island was militarily occupied by the Raynald of Châtillon in 1191, whereupon Cypriot Orthodox clergy were killed or deported and replaced with latins instead, thus abolishing the Church of Cyprus.

There is just cause to believe from the available facts that Rome had broken communion with all the Eastern Patriarchs by 1276 at the latest. So why do I say 1285?

The Canons are not Self-Enforcing

When a person sins, he does not automatically receive a penance; he needs to confess first. When a priest sins, he does not automatically lose his priesthood; he needs to be defrocked first. When a bishop espouses, he does not lose his episcopate, he needs to be deposed first. The same applies to all levels, even to administrative divisions of the Church. No canon operates on its own, but must be enforced by its relevant canonical authority. Priests enforce them for the laity, bishops enforce them for their clergy, Synods enforce them for their bishops, and a universal (or pan-Orthodox) Council enforces them for local synods as a whole.

Since the presence of communion is not enough to define the location of the Church, and the canons are not self-enforcing to depose heretical bishops, it should stand to reason that the Church of Rome was still part of the Great Church of Christ even in 1276, despite having broken communion with all the Eastern Patriarchates and having affirmed many heresies up until this point.

This concept is already accepted by many, and one example to cite would be On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church³:

“When heresies have arisen within the Church historically, complete separation and schism has usually not resulted immediately or universally. As heresies spread, confusion results among the faithful and clergy regarding which bishops are teaching heresy and which bishops are Orthodox. Prior to a formal and synodal condemnation at an authoritative council, confusion may persist regarding the boundaries of the Church. Until a formal condemnation of heretics and heresies at a true council that is guided by the Holy Ghost, until bishops or priests are formally anathematized or deposed, or until the erring party completely breaks off from the rest of the Church in schism, Orthodox and heretics may remain for a time as both belonging to the one Church. A priest or bishop of the Church who begins to believe or teach heresy does not cease to serve grace-filled mysteries as long as the Church recognizes that priest or bishop as a priest or bishop of the Church.”

What happened in 1285?

Although the Pope and all his clergy had been singing the filioque in the Creed since 1014, they had no formal dogma on the matter. There were many understandings of the filioque, some heretical, and some not (Saint Maximus). There was still hope up to now that Rome would not dive headfirst into any heretical beliefs, but that all changed in 1274. In 1274, Rome called the Second Council of Lyons. At this council, they dogmatically affirmed the double procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. Also at this time, the Patriarch of Constantinople, John XI Beccus, had unified with the Church of Rome and attempted to enforce this union on all of Constantinople, even going as far as to allow latin soldiers to kill Athonite monks who resisted the union.

John XI Beccus was deposed by his Patriarchate in 1282. He tried to appeal his case for years culminating in the 1285 Council of Blachernae which addressed the cause of the deposition of Beccus, that being the 1274 Council of Lyons. It was actually the first Council to address Lyons II or to explicitly mention the filioque cause, and its conclusions were thus:

• John XI Beccus was justly deposed because he was a heretic
• Lyons II was a heretical council and was not the belief of the Orthodox Church
• The double-procession of the Holy Ghost is a heresy and its followers are anathematized from the Great Church
• The Holy Ghost proceeds essentially and hypostatically from the Father alone, and all references in the Bible and the Holy Fathers of a procession from the Son are referring to an energetic procession, which is not from eternity.
• The phrase “from the Father through the Son” is acceptable to our Church as long as it is understood the Son does not have an eternal part in the procession or origin of the Holy Ghost.

The most important thing here with regards to the Great Schism is the anathema against the filioque and its followers, not only including Beccus, but also all the clergy of the Church of Rome were anathematized. It is unknown when the Acts of this council were delivered to the other Patriarchates, but we know that it contains the true belief concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost, and this council’s Tome would be the first and form the foundation for the dogmatic belief of the Orthodox Church concerning the filioque. Previously, in 879, Pope John VIII was charged with enforcing the Council of the Holy Wisdom on those who added to the Creed, so the judgements were entrusted to him rather than being sent out from the Council itself. Blachernae behaves differently, however. It casts the judgement all the way from the top, including against the Pope who did not even have communion with the other Patriarchates. Thus it is my belief that the Church of Rome was actually cast out of the Church in 1285 at the Council of Blachernae.

What does that mean for Roman Christians?

If what I’m saying is correct, then it reasonably concludes that sanctifying and deifying grace ceased in the Roman Church in 1285, such that all future episcopal consecrations would not actually consecrate, all priestly ordinations would not actually ordain, and their bread and wine no longer changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So while I don’t think the people of the West dropped off the cliff face into hell in the Spring of 1285, I do believe it was the last generation of real Bishops and priests in the West. And I should mention preemptively that I don’t intend for this idea of mine to lead to introducing impious venerations into our Orthodox Church. While this idea does mean that some men like Thomas of Aquino and Francis of Assisi died in union with our Church, they also believed in the heresy of the double procession, which provides an impediment to introducing their veneration. Not all influential historical figures who died in communion should be venerated, and I believe anyone else would affirm that without difficulty.

Furthermore, this is all my own speculation concerning history and ecclesiology. I give it entirely to the Church for judgement and would change my mind if the Church speaks out against it or if new evidence is presented which complicates what I’ve provided.

In Christ, Kaleb of Atlanta

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. “What else, therefore, do you mean by “anathema” than: let this man be consigned to the Devil, let him no longer have any possibility of salvation, and let him be estranged from Christ?”
   
   Saint John the Goldenmouth (Chrysostom), “That We Should Not Anathematize the Living or the Dead”
2. Tamarashvili M. The History of Catholicism among Georgians. Tbilisi; 1902. Georgian
3. On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church, Chapter 5: The Ecumenical Councils and the Reception of the Heterodox, page 115.