The Church Before and After the Schism

theeastwestseries.com

The following is a portion of first lecture from The East-West Series, a 25-lecture exploration of the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western Christianity. I’m currently crowdfunding to complete production of the full series, which will launch Summer 2026.

If this work resonates with you, I hope you’ll consider backing the project. Supporter tiers start at the lowest price the series will ever be offered, and go up to tiers that include live Q&A sessions, a 14-week live course, and private calls with me.

Watch the series trailer:

Read part 1 here.

Read part 2 here.

Read part 3 here.

Now, my mention of the Ecumenical Councils brings us to a further term in need of explanation. Throughout the history of the Church, gatherings of deacons, presbyters (or priests), and episcopates (or bishops) were common. We see this as early as the book of Acts with the Apostolic council in Jerusalem, which adjudicates whether gentile converts should abide by Jewish Law. Such an assembly was common in the early Church — regional clergy gathering to adjudicate a theological issue or provide spiritual guidance. But the Ecumenical Councils were unique. These gatherings were so named because they concern the “whole house” (οἰκουμενικός) — that is, the members of the worldwide Church.

These Ecumenical Councils were occasioned by controversies about the Apostolic faith that grew to such influence that they required a gathering of the entire Church — clergy from East and West — to adjudicate the matter. The first of these was occasioned by the Arian dispute, previously mentioned, which led to the Council of Nicea (in 325 A.D.). Despite the decision of the council, the controversy did not die and new versions of Arianism continued to arise in its wake, leading to the next Ecumenical Council, the Council of Constantinople (in 381 A.D.). Seven such gatherings occurred within the first millennium of the Church, prior to the Great Schism between East and West. Hence, when speaking about the Ecumenical Councils in this series, I’ll be referring to these seven gatherings.

Now, I mentioned the Great Schism, which we’ll return to momentarily. But first, three points of note are worth mentioning about these seven assemblies. The first concerns the unique authority of these councils. Local and regional councils were not deemed binding for the entire Church. Some local councils would be ratified and accepted by the Ecumenical Councils, but often, local or regional decisions would be overturned. In other words, local judgments were subordinate to the judgment of the whole house.

A second point concerns how the Ecumenical Councils themselves were understood. Councils were never treated as a formula for infallible judgment, as if a certain number of clergy gathered in one place yields unimpeachable truth. As Georges Florovsky points out, the Ecumenical Councils were seen as charismatic events, having to do with moments in which God led his Church in all truth, as Christ promised to do, preserving the Apostolic faith. And truth be told, looking at the history of the Councils, you can see why: Often, the colluding political and clerical powers look as if they might win the day against the Apostolic faith, only to see the faith of the fathers prove victorious by what can only be deemed a work of providence.

A third point concerns the Apostolic faith itself. Neither the Church fathers nor the Ecumenical Councils see themselves as theological inventors or innovators. The controversies that occasion the Councils are never treated as new questions in need of fresh theological insights. Instead, the question of the Councils is always, What did we receive? When considering, for example, the dispute between Arius and Athanasius over whether the Son of God is divine or created, the question concerns the Apostolic faith: Who accurately represents the faith we received, Arius or Athanasius? And this is why the proclamation of the Councils is always: This is the faith of the Apostles; this is the faith of the fathers. The concern is “tradition” in the true sense of the Greek word παράδοσις, meaning something handed down from one generation to the next — in this case, the faith once given over to the Saints, to quote St. Jude.

Allow me two additional terms before turning to the Great Schism. Often, theologians will speak about “Nicene Trinitarianism” and “Chalcedonian Christology.” These terms are shorthand for the orthodox understanding of the Trinity and of Christology. We’ll delve into the specifics of these doctrines in later lectures, but for now, let it suffice that Nicea and Chalcedon are two of the Ecumenical Councils. The Council of Nicea, already mentioned, affirms that the Son of God is divine, being of the same nature as God the Father. This council also occasioned the first draft of the Nicene Creed. The Creed would later be expanded into the form said today (minus the filioque) at the Council of Constantinople, which not only affirmed the divinity of Christ but also codified the Trinitarian formula of three persons of one essence. Hence, “Nicene Trinitarianism” is shorthand for the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, memorialized in the Nicene Creed.

Chalcedonian Christology is named for the fourth ecumenical council, Chalcedon, which offers the most complete formulation of the Incarnation. Put simply, Christ is fully God and fully human, and these two natures are unconfused in one person. To be sure, the doctrines of Trinity and Christology are addressed in all Seven Councils: Nicene Trinitarianism is not limited to the declarations of Nicea, nor is Chalcedonian Christology restricted to the proclamations of Chalcedon. Rather, as I said, these terms are shorthand for the orthodox understanding of the Trinity and Christology, which are fleshed out in all Seven Councils, along with the writings of the fathers.

Now, I mentioned the Great Schism. This term refers to the rift between the Eastern and the Western Churches, when the regional and linguistic divide became a formal break in communion between the two. This schism is typically dated to 1054 A.D., marking the end of the unity of the Church in the first millennium. The labels “Eastern Orthodoxy” and “Roman Catholicism” thus signify this divide: Eastern Orthodoxy being the churches of the East, while Roman Catholicism is the church of West.

Worth noting is that the 1054 schism was not immediately viewed as definitive; both East and West harbored hope for reconciliation. The solidifying blow came later with the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 A.D. The Eastern Roman Empire had requested military aid from the West against the invading Ottomans, but instead of receiving help, the Western forces of the Fourth Crusade invaded and sacked the Eastern capital. This betrayal effectively destroyed any remaining optimism for mending the relationship between the two churches.

While there were both political and theological favors in the divide, our concern in this series is the theological side. The most famous theological point of contention is the filioque — mentioned earlier. This Latin term translates to “and the Son,” a clause the Western Church added to the Nicene Creed in reference to the Holy Spirit’s procession. In other words, the Western Church now proclaimed that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father [and the Son] (filioque),” while the East maintained the original text — “who proceeds from the Father.”

The problem with the addition was twofold. First, the Eastern Church rejected the claim, believing dual procession to be theologically false. But the second problem was no less important. The Pope of Rome did not have unilateral authority to alter the Creed of the Church. Historically, the five great papal seats (sometimes called “the Pentarchy”) were considered equals, and the authority for defining universal doctrine resided in the Ecumenical Councils, not in any single bishop, such as the Pope of Rome. The Roman Pope’s act of changing the Creed signified an assertion of supremacy over the other patriarchates, an assertion the Eastern Churches rejected as contrary to the established tradition and structure of the Church. Hence, even if the filioque were true (which the East denied), its unilateral addition by a single pontiff would be no less theologically problematic.

The above discussion requires a word about the terms “papal” or “pontiff” or “pope.” The term papal derives from the Latin papa, which means “tutor” in classical Latin. Within medieval Latin, however, the word comes to signify a bishop, and specifically the bishop of Rome. For this reason, most who hear the word today think of Roman Catholicism and the bishop or “Pope” of Rome. What far fewer realize, however, is that the Pope of Rome was one of five Popes within the early Church. These five Popes or Patriarchates (as called in the East) formed the Pentarchy, the five primary seats of episcopal authority within the ancient Christian Church. The Roman Patriarchate was the sole Patriarchate in the Western half of the Empire, while the other four Patriarchates resided in the East.

These five seats of episcopal authority were first established by the Apostles themselves in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. The significance of these places is obvious. Rome was the traditional capital of the Western Empire, while Constantinople would later be established as the capital in the East. Jerusalem had obvious spiritual significance. Antioch was the first place where Christ’s followers were called Christians. And Alexandria was the intellectual heart of the Hellenistic world for both philosophy and theology. But more important than all of this was the fact that the Apostles themselves established these seats of episcopal authority. According to tradition, both Rome and Antioch were established by Peter. Constantinople was established by Andrew. Jerusalem was established by James, and Alexandria by Mark. Hence, the Pentarchy refers to these five Apostolic seats of episcopal authority. And amongst these five, the respective capitals of East and West — Rome and Constantinople — came to be held in highest esteem.

Now, as noted, the Pope of Rome was the sole Apostolic seat in the West. Hence, when the Great Schism between East and West occurs, the West proceeds with only a single Patriarchate with claim to Apostolic succession, which is why Westerners think solely of Rome when calling to mind the succession of Apostolic authority. Yet, the Patriarchate of Rome is only one of many ancient seats, all of which continue to this day.

The point brings us to the concept of Apostolic Succession. The concept, in short, is that Christ gave to his Apostles unique authority to build his Church, not only preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments, but also establishing the authorities of the visible Church — ordaining bishops, priests, and deacons. The aforementioned five seats were seen as representative of this Apostolic authority. Hence, those bishops chosen to occupy these seats were seen as successors to the Apostles, occupying a unique position of authority over the Church — hence, Apostolic Succession. The doctrine is an ancient one. We see, for example, that Irenaeus of Lyons (the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of the Apostle John) recounts the unbroken chain of episcopal authority from the Apostles to those bishops who occupy their seat in his own day.

Important to understand is that Apostolic Succession was never understood in a strictly administrative sense. Rather, the doctrine was inherently Incarnational. We will explore the point at greater length in our lectures on ecclesiology. But suffice it to say here that the early Christian understood the work of Christ as ontological in nature. The Son of God took on flesh for the purpose of healing our nature by placing it in communion with his divinity. The purpose of the Church is to spread that healing throughout the world. Such healing is not disembodied, as if it were a mere idea. Rather, much like the way Christ heals our nature by union with it, or heals the leper by touching his flesh, so the Church is an organism, spread by union with Christ. Christ does not simply declare his Apostles to be administrative representatives. Instead, he breathes on them, giving them a share of his power, his grace, and his Spirit. And these unite others to Christ by burying them in baptism, by eating and drinking of his life-giving flesh and blood. And likewise, ordination — the establishment of clergy empowered to administer these incarnate realities — are ordained by the laying on of hands, giving to them a share of this same authority and grace. Apostolic Succession, then, was not seen as a mere matter of governance, but as a spiritual reality: The authority and grace of Christ being transferred to his Apostles and from his Apostles to others, as his Church spreads like a living organism throughout space and time. Unless one understands this incarnate understanding of the Church, he can’t understand the doctrine.

Now, since we’ve touched on the concept of an episcopate (or bishop), let’s briefly discuss the structure of the Christian Church in the first millennium. We see there a common structure, characterized by three clerical ranks: bishops (or episcopates), priests (or presbyters), and deacons. Within this structure, Christ is the head of the Church, and the bishop is the earthly representative of Christ upon the earth. The bishop ordains priests and deacons, who are extensions of the bishop — these being his hands, as it were, ministering to the people. The priest tends to the sacramental, theological, and pastoral needs of the people, while the deacons assist the priest in the liturgy and the bishop in tending to the administrative and charitable needs of the people. Such are the basics of the bishop-priest-deacon structure of the Church.

This structure is still visible today in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism. But the question, of course, is when this structure emerged? Was this structure present during the Apostolic era? Or was it a later invention? While this basic structure is present from the start, there are developments in both terminology and logistics of governance over time. Let’s begin with the terminological developments.

Early on, in both the New Testament and in the Apostolic fathers (which is to say, those fathers who knew the Apostles), we find that the Greek term for “priest” (πρεσβύτερος) is applied to both priests and bishops. We can see this, for example, in the writings of Paul as well as in Ignatius of Antioch. The fact has led some to suggest that there was no difference between bishops and priests in the early Church. But the conclusion is fallacious.¹ Yes, both bishops and priests were presbyters, but not all presbyters were bishops, or episcopates (ἐπίσκοποι). The reason is that bishops had the power to ordain, elevating a person to the status of priest or deacon. This unique authority thus differentiated non-ordaining presbyters from ordaining presbyters — which is to say, priests from bishops — while also creating a natural hierarchy.

Later, for the sake of clarity, the terms would become more rigid in their application. But important to understand is that this development in language was not a shift in theology. The language of the early Church changes often in an effort to clarify some aspect of its lived faith. We’ll see this when discussing the Trinity, for example. Prior to the Council of Constantinople, the Greek terms translated “persons” and “essence” did not carry the meaning assigned by the Church fathers. But because of confusion in the wake of the Council of Nicea, the Church fathers saw a need to differentiate two Greek words that were previously synonyms for the sole purpose of clarifying this doctrine. And this is far from the only example from the first millennium. So it is with the terms bishop and priest. The linguistic refinement is meant to more plainly differentiate those who could ordain from those who could not, along with the hierarchy this difference signifies. But this difference was already present in the Church.

Now, where we do find development is in the matter of episcopal jurisdictions. From the start, ordaining bishops had care over the clergy they ordained and thus over the communities in their care. But we must remember that the earliest days of Christianity were lived in hiding, which meant that episcopal jurisdictions were often small, overseeing a cloistered and persecuted community. As Christianity grew and became more public, we find commensurate growth of episcopal jurisdictions with more formalized governance.

The natural structure of the Church is that Christ is its head, with the Patriarchates serving as successors to his Apostles — these overseeing the largest jurisdictions. And within these jurisdictions, we find bishops, ordained by the Patriarchates and are subordinate to them, each one overseeing his own smaller jurisdiction. These sub-jurisdictions were typically over a major town or “mother city” (μητρόπολις). Hence, these bishops were Metropolitans (μητροπολίτης), or citizens of a metropolis. These Metropolitan bishops were overseers of the clergy and churches in that specific city, and the scope of their authority was generally determined by the civil borders of the day. Notice that within this structure, there is no single head over the Church other than Christ. Each episcopate is entrusted with a jurisdiction — the Patriarchtes holding care over the broadest regions, which contain various cities whose care is entrusted to a Metropolitan, under whom are various priests and deacons.

Before we close this introductory lecture, a final word is in order about the confession in the Nicene Creed that we believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We have already touched on the early Christian understanding of the Apostolic nature of the Church. But a word should be said about the word “catholic” (καθολικός). For most today, the term Catholic calls to mind the Roman Catholic Church. But such is not the meaning in the Creed. The word καθολικός comes from the Greek words κατά and ὅλος — that is, concerning the whole. The term indicates both that the Church is one, but also that the faith that the Church received and preserves is whole and complete, lacking nothing. Such is the conviction, already discussed, of the Ecumenical Councils, whose sole question is “What did we receive?” For the faith they received lacks nothing. The question, of course, is what is this faith? And as we will see in the lectures to follow, the Christian East and Christian West offer very different answers.

Stay tuned for part 4 of the first lecture. If you found this valuable, please consider backing the full East-West Series. Your support will help bring all 25 lectures to life.

Can’t contribute right now? Becoming a paid Substack subscriber helps support all my work, and you’ll unlock my full archive plus the 15+ hour Orthodox Foundations series.

1. As I explain, within these early uses, all episcopates are presbyters but not all presbyters are episcopates. The inference from “all p is q” to “all q is p” is the fallacy of illicit conversion or simple conversion.