In this episode, we trace how one global faith became divided between East and West — from the councils of Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Constantinople to the final break in 1054 — and discover what it means to return to the unified, Spirit-led Church Jesus originally envisioned.
--
The PursueGOD Truth podcast is the “easy button” for making disciples – whether you’re looking for resources to lead a family devotional, a small group at church, or a one-on-one mentoring relationship. Join us for new episodes every Tuesday and Friday.
Find resources to talk about these episodes at pursueGOD.org.
Help others go "full circle" as a follower of Jesus through our 12-week Pursuit series.
Click here to learn more about how to use these resources at home, with a small group, or in a one-on-one discipleship relationship.
Got questions or want to leave a note? Email us at [email protected].
Donate Now
--
Last week, we ended with a coronation that changed history.
In 800 A.D., Pope Leo III placed a crown on the head of Charlemagne, declaring him “Emperor of the Romans.” It was the rebirth of a Christian Rome — what we now call the Holy Roman Empire.
It seemed like a moment of triumph for the Church, but it came with a cost.
That act blurred the line between heaven and earth — between spiritual authority and political control.
The pope gained protection.
Charlemagne gained divine legitimacy.
But the partnership that promised unity in the West sent shockwaves through the East.
In Constantinople, Christian leaders looked on in disbelief. The Eastern emperor was already the rightful heir of Rome — so who gave a Western pope the right to crown another?
It was more than a political power play; it was the outworking of deeper cracks that had been forming for centuries.
So before we move forward to the Great Schism of 1054, we’re going to back up — to the early councils of the Church, when East and West still sat at the same table.
We’ll see how questions about who Jesus is, who leads the Church, and how truth is defined began to pull believers in different directions long before anyone realized the family was breaking apart.
From One Empire to Two Worlds
When Emperor Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in 330 A.D., the center of gravity in the Christian world began to shift.
Rome was still revered as the old seat of power, but Constantinople — “New Rome” — quickly became the heart of a thriving, educated, and deeply spiritual East.
In the West, life revolved around survival. As the empire crumbled under invasions and chaos, the Church became the glue that held society together. Latin was the common language, law and order were prized, and the bishop of Rome — later known as the pope — grew in influence as emperors disappeared. By the time Rome finally fell in 476 A.D., it was the Church, not the state, that provided leadership and stability.
In the East, the story looked very different. The Byzantine Empire remained strong and sophisticated, speaking Greek, preserving classical learning, and weaving theology into every part of public life. The emperor saw himself not just as a ruler, but as a protector of the faith, working hand in hand with church leaders in Constantinople.
This wasn’t a rivalry at first — just two cultures expressing the same faith in different ways.
But over time, those differences deepened.
In the West, Christianity took on a more legal and institutional shape. The Church developed systems, laws, and hierarchies, with the pope eventually claiming to stand in Peter’s place as the “Vicar of Christ.”
- When Did the Bishop of Rome Become “the Pope”?
- The title pope (from the Latin papa, meaning “father”) was originally used broadly for bishops across the Christian world.
- By the 4th century, it became increasingly associated with the bishop of Rome.
- Under Gregory the Great (590–604 A.D.), the office gained immense influence during times of crisis, and from then on, pope became an exclusive title for the bishop of Rome.
- By the time of the Great Schism (1054 A.D.), the pope’s title symbolized Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction — something the Eastern Church could not accept.
In the East, Christianity retained a mystical and communal spirit. Authority was shared among several patriarchs — in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — each overseeing their own region while recognizing one another as equals.
Even as East and West developed distinct personalities, they still saw themselves as one Church — united by their faith in Christ and their commitment to guard the truth.
But as Christianity spread across languages, cultures, and continents, new questions began to surface: Who is Jesus, really? How does His divinity relate to His humanity? Who has the final say when the Church disagrees?
To answer those questions, Church leaders from every corner of the empire gathered in a series of monumental meetings known as the ecumenical councils.
These councils would clarify essential truths about God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit — and at the same time, begin to expose the tensions that would one day divide the family of faith.
The Early Councils: Defining Christian OrthodoxyThe Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.)
Called by Emperor Constantine in the city of Nicaea (modern-day Turkey), this was the first worldwide gathering of Church leaders — bishops from both East and West.
They met to confront the teaching of Arius, who denied that Jesus was fully divine. The council affirmed that Jesus is “of one substance (homoousios) with the Father,” and produced the Nicene Creed — the first official statement of Christian orthodoxy.
This was a rare moment of unity: East and West stood together in defense of the truth about Christ.
✝ The Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.)
Half a century later, Emperor Theodosius I called a second council — this time in Constantinople, the new imperial capital.
Only Eastern bishops attended, since travel from the West was difficult and the Roman Church was preoccupied with internal struggles.
This council expanded the Nicene Creed to include a fuller statement about the Holy Spirit — affirming His divinity and role in the Trinity.
While the council’s conclusions were later accepted by the West, the lack of Western participation began to show early cracks in Church unity.
The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) — The First Great Split
70 years after Constantinople, Church leaders gathered again at nearby Chalcedon to settle lingering questions about Christ’s nature. The result was another milestone — and another fracture.
The Council of Chalcedon declared that Jesus Christ is one person in two natures, fully God and fully man, “without confusion, change, division, or separation.” This balanced statement — called the Chalcedonian Definition — became the cornerstone of orthodox Christology for both East and West.
However, not everyone agreed.
Christians in Egypt, Syria, and Armenia rejected the Chalcedonian formula, believing it overstated the distinction between Christ’s natures. They preferred the language of “one united nature” (miaphysis) — a view they believed best preserved the mystery of the Incarnation.
The result was the first enduring break in the Christian world:
- The Coptic Orthodox Church (Egypt),
- The Ethiopian Orthodox Church,
- The Syriac Orthodox Church (Syria), and
- The Armenian Apostolic Church
all separated from the imperial (Chalcedonian) Church. These are known today as the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
This split, happening centuries before 1054, revealed a recurring pattern: theological disagreements expressed in different languages, shaped by culture and politics, could tear the Church apart.
Chalcedon was the first precursor to the Great Schism, proving that even sincere pursuit of truth can divide when humility and communication break down.
The point: By the time the Roman Empire finally fell in the West (476), the seeds of future division — linguistic, cultural, and theological — had already been planted.
The
Filioque Controversy (pronounced “FEE-lee-oh-kway”)
One of the most famous theological flashpoints that illustrated the tension centered on a single Latin word — filioque, meaning “and from the Son.”
Originally, the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.), reaffirmed at Constantinople (381 A.D.), declared that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” Both East and West agreed on that wording for centuries.
But in the late 6th century, bishops in Spain added the phrase filioque to the Creed, teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. They did this to defend the full divinity of Christ against lingering Arian heresies in the West. The change spread slowly through the Latin-speaking world and gained traction during the Carolingian era (8th–9th centuries) under Charlemagne’s influence.
The Eastern Church, however, was never consulted. To them, the addition broke the rules of unity — a universal creed could not be changed without a universal council. Theologically, they also worried the phrase confused the distinct roles of the Father and the Son within the Trinity.
By the time Rome officially adopted the phrase in 1014 A.D. under Pope Benedict VIII, the damage was done.
For the West, the filioque was a necessary clarification — an expression of Christ’s equality with the Father.
For the East, it was an act of theological arrogance — a symbol of the West’s growing independence and disregard for shared authority.
What began as a single word in a creed became a defining fault line between two visions of the Church: one emphasizing doctrinal precision and papal authority, the other emphasizing mystery and conciliar unity.
Political Tension — Two Empires, One Faith
The political divide between East and West came to a breaking point in 800 A.D., when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, king of the Franks, as “Emperor of the Romans.”
To believers in the West, it was a moment of renewal — the Church and the empire united once again under Christian leadership. But to the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople, it looked like open rebellion. The East already had a Christian emperor; the pope had no right to crown another.
That single act created two competing centers of power — two “Roman Empires,” each claiming divine authority to rule in Christ’s name.
The Western Church tied itself ever more closely to political power, while the Eastern Church remained intertwined with imperial authority in Constantinople.
What had once been one faith under one empire was now a rivalry between two worlds — each convinced it was defending the true kingdom of God.
Worship and Practice — One Faith, Different Expressions
The split between East and West wasn’t just political or theological — it was cultural.
Even the way believers worshiped began to reflect their distinct worlds.
- In the East, Communion was celebrated with leavened bread, symbolizing the risen Christ. In the West, it was unleavened bread, following the Jewish Passover tradition.
- Eastern priests could marry, while the Western Church required clerical celibacy as a sign of full devotion to God.
- The Eastern liturgy was poetic and mystical, filled with incense, chant, and sacred icons meant to draw the heart toward heaven. The Western liturgy was structured and formal, emphasizing order, logic, and Latin precision.
None of these differences, on their own, were heresies. But over time, they became symbols of suspicion.
Each side began to view the other as drifting from “true faith” — not because of what they believed about Christ, but because of how they expressed that belief.
Cultural diversity, once a strength, had become another source of mistrust.
Transition: From Division to Disaster
By the time the eleventh century arrived, the divide between East and West was more than theological — it was personal, political, and deeply human.
Centuries of miscommunication and mistrust had hardened into arrogance on both sides.
In Rome, popes saw themselves as guardians of order and truth — but too often mixed spiritual authority with political ambition, using faith to strengthen their influence over kings and emperors.
In Constantinople, the patriarchs were no saints either. Many had become entangled in imperial politics, defending their own prestige just as fiercely as the truth of the gospel.
The result was a Church led by men who often claimed to represent Christ — yet acted more like rivals defending territory than brothers pursuing unity.
Each side spoke a different language, followed different customs, and operated under different assumptions about leadership, worship, and power.
What began as diversity within one family of faith had become a cold distance between estranged relatives.
All it would take was a spark — a clash of egos and empires — to turn that tension into a permanent break.
That spark came in 1054 A.D., when envoys from Rome arrived in Constantinople, and the long-simmering differences between two churches, two empires, and two visions of Christianity finally exploded into open division.
The Breaking Point — 1054 A.D.
The split that had been centuries in the making finally erupted in 1054 A.D., and it wasn’t over a single issue — it was over everything that had been festering for generations.
Language barriers, theological disputes, political rivalry, and personal pride all collided in one combustible moment.
When Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople, it was supposed to be a diplomatic mission — a chance to repair strained relations and reaffirm unity. But by the time Humbert arrived, tensions were already boiling. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, was outspoken, defiant, and fiercely protective of Eastern traditions. He had publicly condemned Latin practices, even closing Western-style churches in the city.
Humbert, for his part, was no diplomat. Known for his arrogance and quick temper, he arrived with letters from Rome that accused the Eastern Church of heresy and rebellion. He and Cerularius clashed almost immediately — two proud men representing two proud institutions, both convinced they alone were defending the faith.
On July 16, 1054, in a moment that would define the next thousand years of Christian history, Humbert marched into Hagia Sophia, the great cathedral of Constantinople, and placed a bull of excommunication on the altar during worship. The document denounced Cerularius and the entire Eastern Church.
Cerularius responded in kind. He convened his own council, denouncing Humbert and excommunicating the pope’s envoys. The two sides effectively excommunicated each other, each claiming to speak for the one true Church — and neither willing to back down.
The rift was now official.
The Church that had once stood united under persecution was permanently divided:
- The Roman Catholic Church in the West, centered in Rome and led by the pope.
- The Eastern Orthodox Church in the East, centered in Constantinople and governed by councils of patriarchs.
And while later attempts would be made to heal the wound, the bitterness of 1054 would never fully fade.
What began as a family dispute over theology and leadership ended as a tragic story of pride, politics, and lost unity — a reminder that even those who claim to represent Christ can forget to act like Him.
After the Divide
The Great Schism of 1054 was only the beginning of separation. Over the next several centuries, events cemented the divide.
10th–11th Centuries — Seeds of Separation
Even before the split, Saints Cyril and Methodius (9th century) had brought the gospel to the Slavs, creating the Cyrillic alphabet and translating Scripture.
Their work led to Prince Vladimir of Kiev’s conversion in 988, establishing Orthodox Christianity among the Slavs — the foundation for the future Russian Orthodox Church.
12th–13th Centuries — Deepening the Divide
Relations worsened during the Crusades. The most devastating moment came in 1204, when Western Crusaders sacked Constantinople, looting churches and desecrating holy sites. To the Orthodox world, this betrayal by fellow Christians sealed the wound.
14th–15th Centuries — New Centers of Orthodoxy
As the Byzantine Empire declined, leadership in Eastern Christianity shifted northward.
In 1448, the Russian Orthodox Church declared independence from Constantinople.
When Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, the ancient Christian capital came under Islamic rule.
Moscow soon saw itself as the new guardian of Orthodoxy — the “Third Rome.”
The Family of Eastern Churches
By the late Middle Ages, Eastern Orthodoxy was a communion of autocephalous (self-governing) yet...
