1054’te Patrik Michael Cerularius ve Papa Leo IX birbirini karşılıklı olarak aforoz ettiler. Zamanla Papalık ve Patriklik politik düşmanlar oldular ve Haçlı Seferlerinde Katolik Hıristiyanlar Ortodoks Hıristiyanları kitle kıyımlarından geçirdiler, Konstantinopolis'i ele geçirerek yağmaladılar.
Katolik ve Ortodoks Kiliseleri arasındaki bölünme yalnızca adda dinsel, gerçekte kültüreldir.
Ne Patrik, ne Papa, ne de herhangi bir keşiş vb. herhangi bir dinsel yetke taşır.
Din Kavramının bilincinin yokluğunda, Erken Hıristiyanlar kaçınılmaz olarak inanılamayacak sonsuz yalanlar ürettiler.
East-West Schism, also called Schism of 1054, event that precipitated the final separation between the Eastern Christian churches (led by the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius) and the Western church (led by Pope Leo IX). The mutual excommunications by the pope and the patriarch in 1054 became a watershed in church history. The excommunications were not lifted until 1965, when Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, following their historic meeting in Jerusalem in 1964, presided over simultaneous ceremonies that revoked the excommunication decrees.
The relation of the Byzantine church to the Roman may be described as one of growing estrangement from the 5th to the 11th century. In the early church three bishops stood forth prominently, principally from the political eminence of the cities in which they ruled—the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The transfer of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople and the later eclipse of Alexandria and Antioch as battlegrounds of Islam and Christianity promoted the importance of Constantinople. Concurrently, the theological calmness of the West, in contrast to the often violent theological disputes that troubled the Eastern patriarchates, strengthened the position of the Roman popes, who made increasing claims to preeminence. But this preeminence, or rather the Roman idea of what was involved in it, was never acknowledged in the East. To press it upon the Eastern patriarchs was to prepare the way for separation; to insist upon it in times of irritation was to cause a schism.
The theological genius of the East was different from that of the West. The Eastern theology had its roots in Greek philosophy, whereas a great deal of Western theology was based on Roman law. This gave rise to misunderstandings and at last led to two widely separate ways of regarding and defining one important doctrine — the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son. The Roman churches, without consulting the East, added “and from the Son” (Latin: Filioque) to the Nicene Creed. Also, the Eastern churches resented the Roman enforcement of clerical celibacy. the limitation of the right of confirmation to the bishop, and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.
Political jealousies and interests intensified the disputes, and, at last, after many premonitory symptoms, the final break came in 1054, when Pope Leo IX struck at Michael Cerularius and his followers with an excommunication and the patriarch retaliated with a similar excommunication. There had been mutual excommunications before, but they had not resulted in permanent schisms. At the time there seemed possibilities of reconciliation, but the rift grew wider; in particular, the Greeks were bitterly antagonized by such events as the Latin capture of Constantinople in 1204. Western pleas for reunion (on Western terms), such as those at the Council of Lyon (1274) and the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1439), were rejected by the Byzantines.
The schism has never healed, though relations between the churches improved following the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which recognized the validity of the sacraments in the Eastern churches. In 1979 the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was established by the Holy See and 14 autocephalous churches to further foster ecumenism. Dialogue and improved relations continued into the early 21st century.
The East-West Schism, also called the Great Schism and the Schism of 1054, was the break of communion between what are now the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches, which had lasted until the 11th century. The Schism was the culmination of theological and political differences between the Christian East and West which had developed over the preceding centuries.
In 1053, the first step was taken in the process which led to formal schism: the Greek churches in southern Italy were forced either to close or to conform to Latin practices. In retaliation, the Ecumenical Patriarch of ConstantinopleMichael I Cerularius ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople. In 1054, the papal legate sent by Leo IX travelled to Constantinople for purposes that included refusing to Cerularius the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch” and insisting that he recognize the Pope’s claim to be the head of all the churches. The main purpose of the papal legation was to seek help from the Byzantine Emperor in view of the Norman conquest of southern Italyand to deal with recent attacks by Leo of Ohrid against the use of unleavened bread and other Western customs, attacks that had the support of Cerularius. Historian Axel Bayer says the legation was sent in response to two letters, one from the Emperor seeking assistance in arranging a common military campaign by the eastern and western empires against the Normans, and the other from Cerularius.On the refusal of Cerularius to accept the demand, the leader of the legation, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, O.S.B., excommunicated him, and in return Cerularius excommunicated Humbert and the other legates. This was only the first act in a centuries-long process that eventually became a complete schism.
The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful, since Pope Leo had died and Cerularius' excommunication applied only to the legates personally. Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed, with each side sometimes accusing the other of having fallen into heresy and of having initiated the division.
made reconciliation more difficult. Establishing Latinhierarchies in the Crusader states meant that there were two rival claimants to each of the patriarchal sees of Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, making the existence of schism clear. Several attempts at reconciliation did not bear fruit. In 1965, Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras I nullified the anathemas of 1054, although this nullification of measures taken against a few individuals was essentially a goodwill gesture and did not constitute any sort of reunion. Contacts between the two sides continue: every year a delegation from each joins in the other's celebration of its patronal feast, Saints Peter and Paul (29 June) for Rome and Saint Andrew (30 November) for Constantinople, and there have been a number of visits by the head of each to the other. The efforts of the Ecumenical Patriarchs towards reconciliation with the Catholic Church have often been the target of sharp criticism from some fellow Orthodox.
In 1053 Leo of Ohrid, at the instigation, according to J. B. Bury, of Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople,wrote to Bishop John of Trani a letter, intended for all the Latin bishops, including the pope, in which he attacked Western practices such as using unleavened bread for the Eucharist, and fasting rules that differed from those in Constantinople, while Cerularius himself closed all Latin churches in Constantinople.
In response, Leo IX wrote the letter In terra pax of 2 September 1053, addressed to Cerularius and Leo of Ohrid, in which he speaks at length of the privileges granted through Saint Peter to the see of Rome. In one of the 41 sections of his letter he also speaks of privileges granted by the emperors, quoting from the Donation of Constantine document, which he believed to be genuine (section 20).Some scholars say that this letter was never actually dispatched, but was set aside, and that the papal reply actually sent was the softer but still harsh letter Scripta tuae of January 1054.
The advance of the Norman conquest of southern Italy constituted a threat to the possessions of both the Byzantine Empire and the papacy, each of which sought the support of the other. Accordingly, conciliatory letters, the texts of which have not been preserved, were written to the pope by the emperor and Cerularius. In his January 1054 reply to the emperor, Quantas gratias,Leo IX asks for his assistance against the Normans and complains of what the pope saw as Caerularius's arrogance. In his reply to Caerularius,he upbraided the patriarch for trying to subject the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch to himself and for adopting the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, and insisted on the primacy of the see of Rome.
These two letters were entrusted to a delegation of three legates, headed by the undiplomatic cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, and also including Frederick of Lorraine, who was papal secretary and Cardinal-Deacon of Santa Maria in Domnica, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi. They were given friendship and support by the emperor but were spurned by the patriarch. Finally, on 16 July 1054, three months after Pope Leo's death in April 1054 and nine months before the next pope took office, they laid on the altar of Hagia Sophia, which was prepared for celebration of the Divine Liturgy, a bull of excommunication of Cerularius and his supporters. At a synod held on 20 July 1054, Cerularius in turn excommunicated the legates. In reality, only Michael may have been excommunicated along with his then-living adherents.
At the time of the excommunications, many contemporary historians, including Byzantine chroniclers, did not consider the event significant.
Efforts were made in subsequent centuries by emperors, popes and patriarchs to heal the rift between the churches. However, a number of factors and historical events worked to widen the separation over time.
Fourth Crusade (1204) and other military conflicts (W)
In the course of the Fourth Crusade of 1202-1204 Latin {!} crusaders and Venetian merchants sacked Constantinople itself (1204), looting the Church of Holy Wisdom and various other Orthodox holy sites, and converting them to Latin Catholic worship. The Norman Crusaders also destroyed the Imperial Library of Constantinople. Various holy artifacts from these Orthodox holy places were taken to the West. The crusaders also appointed a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. The conquest of Constantinople and the final treaty established the Latin Empire of the East and the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople (with various other Crusader states). Later some religious artifacts were sold in Europe to finance or fund the Latin Empire in Byzantium – as when Emperor Baldwin II of Constantinople (r. 1228-1261) sold the relic of the Crown of Thorns while in France trying to raise new funds to maintain his hold on Byzantium. In 1261 the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos brought the Latin Empire to an end. However, the Western attack on the heart of the Byzantine Empire is seen as a factor that led eventually to its conquest by Ottoman Muslims in the 15th century.
📹 Great Schism — The Bitter Rivalry Between Greek and Latin Christianity (VİDEO)
📹 Great Schism — The Bitter Rivalry Between Greek and Latin Christianity (LINK)
In our new animated historical documentary we will talk about the rivalry between the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the Middle Ages and how it shaped the history of Christianity and the whole world leading to the events of the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople.
📹 Fourth Crusade — Sack of Constantinople 1204 (VİDEO)
Fourth Crusade — Sack of Constantinople 1204 (LINK)
Although the First Crusade was succeeded in taking Jerusalem and a number of Frankish kingdoms were created in the Levant, by 1187 the Ayyubid leader Saladin managed to reconquer most of the region. The Third Crusade launched by the English king Richard I Lionheart, French king Philip II Augustus and German emperor Frederick I Barbarossa wasn't able to take Jerusalem, so the pope called for the Fourth Crusade led by Enrico Dandolo, Boniface of Montferrat and Baldwin of Flanders, which indeed up in one of the biggest tragedies for the Christian world.
📹 Great Schism or East-West Schism (Khan Academy)
📹 Great Schism or East-West Schism — Part 1 — Khan Academy (VİDEO)
Great Schism or East-West Schism — Part 1 — Khan Academy (LINK)
After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th Century, division between the Latin Church in the West and the Greek-speaking church in the East widen over issues such as primacy of the Bishop of Rome, iconoclasm, filioque and the crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor.
📹 Great Schism or East-West Schism — Part 2 — Khan Academy (VİDEO)
Great Schism or East-West Schism — Part 2 — Khan Academy (LINK)
After hundreds of years of increasing division between the Latin Church led by the Pope in Rome and the Eastern. Greek church led by the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Great Schism in 1054 marks the beginning of the formal division between what will be known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204-1261)
🛑 BİR ‘LATİN İMPARATORLUĞU’ OLARAK ‘GERMEN İMPARATORLUĞU’
Germenler Roma İmparatorluğunu yalnızca Batıda yerle bir etmekle kalmadılar.
1204’te İmparatorluğunun Doğusu da Osmanlılardan önce Germenler tarafından ele geçirildi.
“Latin İmparatorluğu” terimi yine örtmeceli bir terimdir.
Bu “Latin” İmparatorluğunun ilk “Latin” İmparatoru I. Baldwind bir Germendir (Flanders ve Hainaut Kontu).
Romalılar “Latinlik” ve “İmparatorluk” ile pek bir ilgisi olmayan bu Germanik feodal işgal rejimini “Frankokratia” olarak adlandırdılar.
Frankokratia (Φραγκοκρατία) “Frank Erki” demektir.
Yine “Franklar” durumunda da etnik tarihçilik tarafından bir örtmece yapılır ve bu Flandersli “Germenlerden” “Fransız” olarak söz edilir.
The term derives from the name given by the Orthodox Greeks to the Western EuropeanLatin ChurchCatholics: "Latins". Most Latins had French (Frankish), Norman, or Venetian origins. The span of the Frankokratia period differs by region: the political situation proved highly volatile, as the Frankish states fragmented and changed hands, and the Greek successor states re-conquered many areas.
With the exception of the Ionian Islands and some isolated forts which remained in Venetian hands until the turn of the 19th century, the final end of the Frankokratia in the Greek lands came with the Ottoman conquest, chiefly in the 14th to 16th centuries, which ushered in the period known as "Tourkokratia" ("rule of the Turks"; see Ottoman Greece).
Barbarizmden feodalizme gelişmiş olan Germenler Konstontinopolis’i ele geçirdikten sonra günlerce yağmalamalarına karşın, Roma’da yaptıkları gibi kenti bütünüyle yerle bir etmediler.
Romalılar sonunda 1235’te kendi kentlerini, Konstantinopolis’i kuşatarak Germenlerin elinden aldılar.
Roma İmparatorluğu bağlamında kullanılan “Bizans” ve “Latin” sözcükleri çok daha sonraki yüzyıllarda etnik Germanik tarihçilerin olguları tanımlamak için gereksindikleri terimlerdir.
‘Latin’ İmparatorluğu feodal ilkeler üzerine kuruldu. Feodal bir konum olan ‘imparator’ her biri fethedilen topraklardan belli parçaları aralarında paylaşan prenslerin üstü idi. İmparatorun kendisi Konstantipolis’i ve hem Asya hem de Avrupa’da kente komşu olan toprakları özel bölümleri olarak aldı. (W)
The original name of this state in the Latin language was Imperium Romaniae ("Empire of Romania"). This name was used based on the fact that the common name for the Byzantine Empire in this period had been Romania(Ῥωμανία, "Land of the Romans").
The names Byzantine and Latin were not contemporaneous terms. They were invented much later by historians seeking to differentiate between the classical period of the Roman Empire, the medieval period of the Byzantine Empire,{!} and the late medieval Latin Empire, all of which called themselves "Roman." The term Latin has been used because the crusaders (Franks, Venetians, and other westerners) were Roman Catholic and used Latin as their liturgical and scholarly language. It is used in contrast to the Eastern Orthodox locals who used Greek in both liturgy and common speech.
The empire's precarious situation forced him to travel often to Western Europe seeking aid, but largely without success. In order to gain money, he was forced to resort to desperate means, from removing the lead roofs of the Great Palace and selling them, to handing over his only son, Philip, to Venetian merchants as a guarantee for a loan.
The Latin Empire 🔎 The Latin Empire with its vassals (in yellow) and the Greek successor states of the Byzantine Empire (in red) after the Treaty of Nymphaeum in 1214.
The Empire of Romania (Latin: Imperium Romaniae), more commonly known in historiography as the Latin Empire or Latin Empire of Constantinople, and known to the Byzantines as the Frankokratia or the Latin Occupation, was a feudalCrusader state founded by the leaders of the Fourth Crusade on lands captured from the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. It was established after the capture of Constantinoplein 1204 and lasted until 1261. The Latin Empire was intended to supplant the Byzantine Empire as the titular Roman Empire in the east, with a Western Roman Catholic emperor enthroned in place of the Eastern OrthodoxRoman emperors.
Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem (c.1058-1118), from the Abrégé de la Chronique de Jerusalem, France, 15th century. (De Agostini.
Baldwin IX, Count of Flanders, was crowned the first Latin emperor as Baldwin I on 16 May 1204. The Latin Empire failed to attain political or economic dominance over the other Latin powers that had been established in former Byzantine territories in the wake of the Fourth Crusade, especially Venice, and after a short initial period of military successes it went into a steady decline. Weakened by constant warfare with the Bulgarians and the unconquered sections of the empire, it eventually fell when Byzantines recaptured Constantinople under Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos in 1261. The last Latin emperor, Baldwin II, went into exile, but the imperial title survived, with severalpretenders to it, until the 14th century.
Name
The original name of this state in the Latin language was Imperium Romaniae (“Empire of Romania”). This name was used based on the fact that the common name for the Byzantine Empire in this period had been Romania (Ῥωμανία, "Land of the Romans").
The names Byzantine and Latin were not contemporaneous terms. They were invented much later by historians seeking to differentiate between the classical period of the Roman Empire, the medieval period of the Byzantine Empire, and the late medieval Latin Empire, all of which called themselves "Roman." The term Latin has been used because the crusaders (Franks, Venetians, and other westerners) were Roman Catholic and used Latin as their liturgical and scholarly language. It is used in contrast to the Eastern Orthodox locals who used Greek in both liturgy and common speech.
The empire was formed and administered on Western European feudal principles, incorporating some elements of the Byzantine bureaucracy. The emperor was assisted by a council, composed of the various barons, the Venetian Podestà of Constantinople and his six-member council. This council had a major voice in the governance of the realm, especially in periods of regency, when the Regent (moderator imperii) was dependent on their consent to rule. The podestà, likewise, was an extremely influential member, being practically independent of the emperor. He exercised authority over the Venetian quarters of Constantinople and Peraand the Venetian dominions within the empire, assisted by a separate set of officials. His role was more that of an ambassador and vicegerent of Venice than a vassal to the empire. The podestà was granted the title of Governor of One-Fourth and One-Half of the Empire of Romania, and was entitled to wearing the imperial crimson buskins like the emperor.
The Podestà of Constantinople was the official in charge of Venetian possessions in the Latin Empire and the Venetian quarter of Constantinople during the 13th century. Nominally a vassal to the Latin Emperor, the Podestà functioned as a ruler in his own right, and answered to the Doge of Venice. The podestà was also officially known as Governor of One-Fourth and One-Half of the Empire of Romania and was entitled to wearing the crimson buskins as the emperors.
The Venetians had enjoyed their own quarter in the Byzantine capital of Constantinople since the 1082 chrysobull of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. How that colony colony was governed is unknown; most likely it elected its own local elders, but occasionally consuls sent from Venice, or passing captains of the Venetian fleet, may have assumed some political responsibility.
The Venetian position in Constantinople was immensely strengthened as a result of the Fourth Crusade, in which the Venetian fleet, and the Doge Enrico Dandolo, played a critical role. In the aftermath of the Sack of Constantinople and the establishment of the Latin Empire, he secured for Venice terms that made it paramount in the new state: the Republic claimed three eighths of the former Byzantine possessions, ensured recognition of the privileges the Republic had enjoyed under the Byzantine emperors, secured a dominant voice in the election of the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, and pushed through its own candidate, Baldwin of Flanders, as the first Latin Emperor. Dandolo himself remained in Constantinople and received the exalted Byzantine title of Despot. Until his death on 29 May 1205, in the aftermath of the disastrous Battle of Adrianople, he remained the ruler of the local Venetians, and one of the most important statesmen of the Latin Empire.
📹 Byzantine Empire successor states / 1204-1261 — Nicaea, Epirus, Trebizond (VİDEO)
📹 Byzantine Empire successor states / 1204-1261 — Nicaea, Epirus, Trebizond (LINK)
The Empire of Nicaea was the largest of the three Byzantine Greek successor states founded by the aristocracy of the Byzantine Empire that fled after Constantinople was occupied by Western European and Venetian forces during the Fourth Crusade. Founded by the Laskaris family, it lasted from 1204 to 1261, when the Nicaean recovered the Byzantine Empire in Constantinople.
The Latin Empire, established by the Crusaders in Constantinople, had poor control over former Byzantine territory, and Greek successor states of the Byzantine Empire sprang up in Epirus, Trebizond, and Nicaea. Trebizond had broken away as an independent state a few weeks before the fall of Constantinople. Nicaea, however, was the closest to the Latin Empire and was in the best position to attempt to re-establish the Byzantine Empire.
📹 Wars of the Byzantine Partition / Every Month (4th Crusade) (VİDEO)
Wars of the Byzantine Partition / Every Month (4th Crusade) (LINK)
Following the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantine Empire was partitioned between the Latin crusaders who had sacked Constantinople. A 57 year long struggle for control of Greece ensued between the Latin and Greek successor states.
📹 Early Christian Schisms (Extra History — VİDEO)
📹 Early Christian Schisms (Extra History — VİDEO)
📹 Early Christian Schisms (2) Before Imperium
Early Christian Schisms (1) Before Imperium (LINK)
Understanding the early theological struggles of the Christian church is vital to understanding history. This series will focus on Rome and the political and religious forces that drove various interpretations of Christ and his teachings - and a push towards orthodoxy.
Disclaimer: This series is intended for students, to give them a broad overview of a complicated subject that has driven world history for centuries. Our story begins and focuses on Rome.
One of the toughest questions early Christians had to face was Mosaic Law. Did the laws of Moses still apply, or did the teachings of Jesus Christ replace them? The issue of circumcision became a focal point for this conflict. In an era without surgical anaesthetic or procedures, asking grown men to have their foreskins removed was a painful process. Paul the Apostle argued vehemently against the practice because he believed that Christianity needed to be accessible to Romans, the gentiles, and he knew that requirements like circumcision would vastly reduce the number of people willing to convert. Gradually, Judaizing forces were pushed out of mainstream Christianity as the religion began to convert more Romans. But it soon faced another crisis: what was the nature of Christ? This issue would come up time and time again, but one of the earliest conflicts over it came from the Docetists. They believed Christ was a being of pure spirit, and that it would denigrate his godhood to consider him a human man. But in the Epistles, John argued fervently against that idea, saying that Christians must believe in Christ "in the flesh" in order for his sacrifices to be meaningful. A bishop named Ignatius of Antioch embraced that idea when facing a conviction to be thrown to lions in the Colossuem, believing that his martyrdom echoed Christ's and he was proud to give his body to prove his faith. Then the 3rd Century Crisis hit, and the Roman government fell apart. The Church stepped in, and many people believed its prophesies of apocalypse had come to pass in this era. Although the government eventually recovered thanks to men like Aurelian and Diocletian, conversion rates had gone up. But civil war rocked the empire again, and it came down to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Constantine, one of the claimants for the throne, supposedly had a vision telling him to paint "Chi Rho" (the Greek letters for Christ) on his soldiers' shields. He did so, and won the day. In gratitude he converted to Christianity and eventually brought most of the empire with him, with the population going from about 10% Christian to 50% Christian followers.
📹 Early Christian Schisms (2) The Woes of Constantine
Early Christian Schisms (2) The Woes of Constantine (LINK)
Constantine had restored full rights to Christians in the Roman Empire with the Edict of Milan, but he did not expect theological debates to divide the church. Conflict between the orthodox church and both the Donatists and the Arians drew him to intervene.
Disclaimer: This series is intended for students, to give them a broad overview of a complicated subject that has driven world history for centuries. Our story begins and focuses on Rome.
Constantine had gained control of the Roman Empire, its first Christian emperor, and he restored full rights to people of the Christian faith with the Edict of Milan. But his generosity immediately raised a question: what did the church do with so-called traditors, who had renounced the Christian faith during the days of persecution and now wanted to return? The Roman Church demanded they be restored, because the doctrine of penance declared that anyone could repent for any sin, no matter how grievous. But in North Africa, one group was outraged when a traditor named Caecilian was not only restored to the faith but elected Bishop of Carthage. They refused to accept him and elected their own bishop, Donatus, instead. Donatus performed the role of a bishop without official church authority and he insisted on re-baptizing traditors in contradiction to the doctrine of penance. The church wanted to put him on trial, but since Donatus had rebelled against the people calling for his trial, he didn't believe it would be a fair trial. He wrote Constantine asking for help and the emperor decided to intervene, setting a dangerous precedent for imperial involvement in affairs of the church. Over a series of several trials, church leaders continued to condemn Donatus and he continued to ask Constantine for retrials until the emperor grew fed up and washed his hands of the matter. The unrepentant Donatists went on to become a splinter church that divided North Africa for centuries. Around the same time, a bishop named Arius had begun to teach a view on the nature of the Father and the Son which contradicted the trinitarian belief in co-equal and co-substantial natures. The Bishop of Alexandria excommunicated him when his teachings attracted too many followers and again threatened to split the church. Since the debates continued to rage, Constantine sent a cleric to try and broker peace between the two sides - but the cleric he sent was a strident trinitarian who only tried to put down the Arian sect and sparked riots instead. That cleric attempted to call a local council to resolve the matter, but Constantine - well aware by now that his representative was probably laying a trap for the Arians - suggested instead that a universal council of bishops from across the empire be called together at Nicea.
📹 Early Christian Schisms (3) The Council of Nicaea
Early Christian Schisms (3) The Council of Nicaea (LINK)
The Council of Nicaea convened to decide the guiding rules of the church - and to resolve the questions posed by Arian theology. A deacon named Athanasius set himself against Arius and succeeded in getting his teachings declared heresy.
Disclaimer: This series is intended for students, to give them a broad overview of a complicated subject that has driven world history for centuries. Our story begins and focuses on Rome.
Constantine called the Council of Nicaea not only to address the teachings of Arius, but also to decide basic matters for how the church would go forward. Yet it was the debate over Arian theology which quickly came to dominate the council's time. The bishops effectively split into two factions, one backing Arius and the other led by a deacon named Athanasius. Athanasius vehemently opposed the Arian teachings and would not allow any compromise to be formed with the other group. Yet he played the politics very carefully, adopting in his own arguments the phrase "homoousian" (or "of the same substance") to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, knowing full well that Arius would never accept an agreement which included this idea. Even when others tried to compromise with the phrase "homoiousian" (or "of similar substance"), Arius would not agree. Athanasius used the extra time to make private deals and assemble a majority coalition, with which he successfully caused Arianism to be declared heresy and forced Arius himself into exile. Emperor Constantine was just happy a decision had been reached, but a bishop in his own court would not let matters rest so easily. This bishop, Eusebius, campaigned tirelessly for the restoration of Arius and managed to get Athanasius exiled instead. Constantine himself wound up being baptized by Eusebius, and his son Emperor Constantius II would be a die-hard Arian in his turn. Eusebius even ordained a Goth named Ulfilas to preach to the Gothic tribes, and his sucess meant that the tribes became Arian Christians who would never completely assimilate into the Roman Empire. Thus, despite the firm decree at the First Council of Nicaea, Arian Christianity continued to grow and thrive alongside orthodox teachings.
📹 Early Christian Schisms (4) Ephesus, the Robber Council, and Chalcedon
Early Christian Schisms (4) Ephesus, the Robber Council, and Chalcedon (LINK)
The Council of Ephesus meant to heal a rift between Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, but instead it set off a chain of ecumenical councils that disagreed with each other, excommunicated rivals, and ultimately led to more factions within the church.
Disclaimer: This series is intended for students, to give them a broad overview of a complicated subject that has driven world history for centuries. Our story begins and focuses on the Roman Empire.
A centuary after Constantine, the Emperor Theodosius II found himself wrapped up in yet more theological disputes. His chosen patriarch of Constantinople, Archbishop Nestorius, had angered many other church leaders with his teachings that Christ had separate human and divine natures. Cyril of Alexandria wrote to the Pope in Rome for support against Nestorius, and received permission to excommunicate him. Nestorius responded by having the emperor call an ecumenical council, at which he intended to excommunicate Cyril. But Cyril acted first, declaring for the excommunication of Nestorius and forming a majority by pushing the council to begin early before the supporters of Nestorius could gather. When they did, they formed their own council and excommunicated Cyril right back, only to be excommunicated in turn by Cyril's Council of Ephesus. Theodosius II attempted to resolve this by calling a second council, but this time none of the Western delegates had time to arrive and in their absence, monophysite leaders from the East excommunicated Nestorius again and declared monophysitism the official doctrine of the church. Those who didn't get to participate called this the Robbers Council and refused to acknowledge it. Then Theodosius II died, and this fight devolved onto his successor, Marcian. Marcian called together the Council of Chalcedon to rule on the previous councils, where it was finally decided that Christ had two unified natures, human and divine, and everyone who'd supported the Robbers Council should be excommunicated. Instead of bringing Christians together under an orthodox theology, they split the faith as those who wouldn't accept their decisions continued to preach and believe their own doctrines and a multitude of Christian sects became their own separate orders. Ultimately, these new denominations followed regional lines, which meant that different areas of the empire formed distinct cultural identities shaped in part by their faith, and these areas were less connected to Constantinople and became the first to split off as the empire weakened over the centuries.
The Donation of Constantine (Latin: Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree (Diplom) by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Greatsupposedly transferred authority over Romeand the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy. Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest and Renaissance humanist, is credited with first exposing the forgery with solid philological arguments in 1439-1440, although the document's authenticity had been repeatedly contested since 1001.
In many of the existing manuscripts (handwritten copies of the document), including the oldest one, the document bears the title Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris. The Donation of Constantine was included in the 9th-century Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals collection.
The text, purportedly a decree of Roman EmperorConstantine I dated 30 March, in a year mistakenly said to be both that of his fourth consulate (315) and that of the consulate of Gallicanus (317), contains a detailed profession of Christian faith and a recounting of how the emperor, seeking a cure for his leprosy, was converted and baptized by Pope Sylvester I. In gratitude, he determined to bestow on the seat of Peter “power, and dignity of glory, and vigour, and honour imperial,” and “supremacy as well over the four principal sees, Alexandria,Antioch,Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth.” For the upkeep of the church of Saint Peter and that of Saint Paul, he gave landed estates “in Judea,Greece,Asia,Thrace,Africa, Italy and the various islands.” To Sylvester and his successors he also granted imperial insignia, the tiara, and “the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy and the western regions.”
(W)
The painting depicts an apocryphal historical event: Emperor Constantine kneels before Pope Sylvester I and offers the Pope and his successors control of the city of Rome and the entire Western Roman Empire.
The depiction of Sylvester is modeled after Pope Clement VII who became pope in 1523. The painting (anachronistically) shows the interior of the original Saint Peter's Basilica, which was in the process of being rebuilt at the time the painting was made. In the center background of the painting is the altar with its twisted, Solomonic columns. These columns were a gift from Constantine who supposedly took them from the ruined Jewish temple.
Medieval use and reception
What may perhaps be the earliest known allusion to the Donation is in a letter of 778, in which Pope Hadrian I exhorts Charlemagne, whose father, Pepin the Younger, had made the Donation of Pepingranting the Popes sovereignty over the Papal States, to follow Constantine's example and endow the Roman Catholic church.
The first pope to directly invoke the decree was Pope Leo IX, in a letter sent in 1054 to Michael I Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. He cited a large portion of the document, believing it genuine, furthering the debate that would ultimately lead to the East-West Schism. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the Donation was often cited in the investiture conflicts between the papacy and the secular powers in the West.
In his Divine Comedy, written in the early 14th century, the poet Dante Alighieri wrote: "Ahi, Costantin, di quanto mal fu matre, / non la tua conversion, ma quella dote / che da te prese il primo ricco patre!" ("Ah, Constantine, how much evil was born, / not from your conversion, but from that donation / that the first wealthy Pope received from you!").
The Latin Empire with its vassals (in yellow) and the Greek successor states of the Byzantine Empire (in red) after the Treaty of Nymphaeum in 1214.
, from the Abrégé de la Chronique de Jerusalem, France, 15th century. (De Agostini.jpg)
The 
