Who separated from whom? It is not a simple question!
The formal separation occurred in 1054. It had nothing to do with Diocletian. Diocletian was a secular persecutor with no authority over the Church.
The Catholic Church in the West had been in tension with the Catholic Church in the East for hundreds of years before the formal separation.
The East had a different mentality from the West. The people of Anatolia, modern day Turkey, delved into theological questions almost as a hobby, and there was constant theological strife in the East. The people of the West did not question or look into things as deeply, but they also fought a lot less over questions of religion.
Most of the great early theologians of the Church came from the East, usually from Anatolia. The one exception was St. Augustine.
Another contributing cause to of the tension were the varying secular fortunes
of the East and the West after the fall of the Western Empire.
Rome became a town of about 25,000 people. Constantinople developed into a big city of, perhaps, approaching a million people---definitely the greatest city in Europe for close to a thousand years.
In profane matters, the authority of the Eastern Emperor was unquestioned until the time of Charlemagne. After Charlemagne, the Easterners only grudgingly accepted that there could be another Emperor. To their view, they were the legitimate line from the time of the Romans, when Constantine built "New Rome" on the Bosporus to get away from the ingrained paganism of old Rome in Italy. They actually considered and called themselves Romans until the end, which came in 1453.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople looked down on the Pope in Rome. Gradually, the idea had taken hold in the East that the West had nothing but ruins of its formerly superior past, and descendants of the barbarians who had ruined that past--- who were now baptized, but were still definitely uncouth. The Popes in Rome counted themselves as the holder's of the primary Apostolic See, that of Peter.
Gradually, the West recovered power and dignity starting from about the time of Charles Martel in the 700s. The East began to lose out to the Moslems at that time.
Theological disputes came up. In the greatest one, the Filioque Clause, the East took the position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from only the Heavenly Father.
The West took the position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Finally, the question became one of who had authority to pronounce on the matter. The West demanded obedience. The East demanded obedience.
Both sides have adhered to their respective positions since before the exchange of anathemas in 1054. It is superficial to regard the theological difference as being the sole or primary cause of the rupture, in my opinion. It is not to be disregarded, however. Both Catholic and what became known as the Orthodox Church have always had an attitude of fidelity to and reverence for Divine Truth that is fairly incomprehensible to modern people. The average Protestant also believes that any old guy can start a church based on any old guy's theological opinions and call it a Christian church.
It is a curious fact that many Orthodox feel closer, emotionally, to Protestants than they do to Catholics. Doctrinally, they are much, much closer to Catholics.
The anathemas were removed in 1965. The notion that some little secular political beef from a thousand years ago instigated and perpetuated a break-up that has lasted a thousand years is almost too superficial to argue against.
Perhaps that person might consider the American Revolution to be an anti-tea tax revolt.
I suggest you look up Great Schism in Wikipedia and see if it doesn't focus on trends of hundreds of years duration to explain the separation.
Hello, here is a concise and accurate answer for you.
The Norman conquest of Sicily in the early 1050's AD gained them considerable wealth and influence around the Italian Peninsula and Mediterranean sea. They now had to ability to threaten Papal State provinces, having already captured Pope Leo IX in the battle of Civitate. As a result, the Roman Catholic Church considered an alliance with the Byzantine Empire, in hope of defeating the invaders. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, discouraged the Byzantine Emperor, Constantine IX, and suggested he decline the offer. Cerularius was concerned that this agreement would reduce the authority and importance of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Constantine IX accepted his high-priests advice, and refused to assist the Western Church in their conflict with the Sicilian Normans. When Pope Leo IX was released, he ordered Michael Cerularius to be excommunicated. Consequently, Pope Leo IX found himself excommunicated by the Eastern Orthodox Church shortly after. This is known as the 'Great Schism' of 1054 AD, and this is when the two Church's separated.
Basically, the Western religious power attempted to discredit and ignore the Eastern Church, because they didn't provide any support during the war. The Orthodoxians therefore punished the Catholics using this very same method. Most people believed the dispute would be resolved quickly, but it was never am mended in history, and still hasn't to this date.
In my opinion, it is not just a pure politic or religious matter but also a cultural matter. Western part of Europe was following Roman costumes in ritual and the way priests should dress or act (exp :short hair). While oriental Church had different traditions and had different relation with non Christian (Jews, Muslims). They used also to accept more regional autonomy of Christian communities (patriarch, metro polite) as long as Constantinople could still keep some control. Rome Church was much more centralized and directive, and never accepted kind of autonomy from regional units. All these cultural differences became obvious when Western and Eastern Christians were put in direct contact during Crusades
You will find more detail about historical fact in other contributions. This was rather a cultural explanation.
Diocletian divided the Roman Empire into two which become Christian after Constatine's rule. Then when the Empire fell, Ottoman Turks occupied the ea tern part of the empire and in there started the Orthodox as the Roman west also originated.
Glenn gave you the best answer. The problems between these two churches are different cultural, theological, ethnic, and social roots that predate split 1054 for at least for 500 years.
1 national-cultural) The Greek Church transformed itself into a national church of the Byzantine Empire, where the Greek language became part of their liturgy and theological writings. The Emperor had much to say and control the Orthodox Church, while early medieval Western Europe except Charlemagne lacked a dominant person who would interfere with Roman Church. This gave the popes opportunity to control theology and doctrine to their needs and come up with their own interpretation of the Scriptures. Roman Church became a faith for heterogeneous Christendom where multiple national languages needed Latin language as the tool of international communication.
2 theological) Since the beginning of the Christianity, there were numerous conflicts about everything. The biggest clash between Greek and Roman church was definition of Trinity, and this problem was never resolved. The Greek believed that the Holy Spirit is only from Father, but Catholic Church defined it that it also comes from the Son. Both churches reacted with mutual excommunications on this issue.
3 ideological) The basis for the Christian philosophy in the East and West were two different group of thinkers. The West was influenced by St. Augustine and the East by St. Basil. Each group builds additional theology around these thinkers and perceived mutually that the other group is heretical in their beliefs. The iconoclasm within the Byzantine society was perceived negatively by the Rome and opposed vigorously and veneration of statues, saints, and relics became good business for the church.
4 social-economical) Church in the West became the largest land holders, and became dominant economical force within the society. It also became the largest employer. The ownership of the church was deeded as eternal right and possession. In the East, the church property was often seen as a property of the emperor. Wealth of the church also meant prestige and Rome was more ambitious, greedy, and economical than Greeks and used its economical position to gain more power.
5 political) By 6Th century, Frankish realm proved to be the most successful and powerful state in Western Europe and they became the dominant sponsor and supported of the Rome. The Frankish influence on Rome increased by Charlemagne, and by Lateran Synod in 769, it pretty much controlled ideologically the Roman Church. Greeks on that synod performed rather poorly, and it was seen as an omen of weakening of ideological and political power of Byzantine on Italian peninsula. While Frankish empire was getting stronger and the Western Europe wealthier, Byzantine Empire was weakening, and succumbing to Muslims. Popes were hoping to get control of the entire Christendom, and excommunication of Constantinople was good way to start a political control of the East, which eventually led to establishment of Latin Byzantine state in 13Th century. Rome was hoping to unite all Christian faiths under its domination, and was unwilling to relinquish any political or ideological power or compromise with weakened Greeks. Getting control of Constantinople would unify salvation of Christians only under Rome.
I've read books regarding the 'Great Schism', and B.G Knocc Out certainly has given you the best and most correct answer. It was basically a political dispute, unrelated to theology or cultural differences. The ethnic and social roots are relatively the same, not different as Morav suggested. The Byzantine Empire did inherit all its aspects from Western Rome after all.
why did roman catholic church separate from eastern orthodox?
