The main reasons for the Schism and Reformation were political not theological

[AvrilNYC]

Many people on this forum, myself included, have been arguing about the theological differences between the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. What most of us seem to neglect to state is that the main reasons for the schisms were political.

First, the Byzantine emperors, who had 100% control of the Church of Constantinople and appointed its bishops at will, would never accept the primacy of the Pope, regardless of its theological merits. The Pope at the same time allied himself with the Franks, pissing off the Byzantines. The reason the Orthodox never really acknowledged the primacy of the Pope was that their boss (the Byzantine emperor) would not let them.

Regarding the Reformation, Luther would have been a total failure without the support of the German princes who wanted to be independent of Rome's reach.

In England the driver of the Reformation was Henry the VIII's desire to divorce, not some high thelogical issue.

So we can be arguing subtle theological points all we want, but those points did not cause the splintering of Christianity.

I actually think this splintering has been good for Christianity in the long term, because every time we had a 100% tie between secular and religious powers the Church became corrupt and ineffective. IMHO the separation of Church and State is the best thing that happened to Christianity

[LightHammer]

Go Avril.  Look at him tackle the hard facts. I like that man.

But just because the underlining reason may have been political that doesn't mean that there were things that were in need of objection.

In any case could you shoot some of your sources my way? I would much appreciate it.

[trifecta]

. The reason the Orthodox never really acknowledged the primacy of the Pope was that their boss (the Byzantine emperor) would not let them.

Oh, it goes back further than that.

"By the end of the second century Pope Victor insisted, in a matter which other churches thought was rather autocratic, that all churches, including those of the Greek East, should observe Easter on the same day as determined by the church of Rome. But before the third century, there was no call for a sustained, theoretical justification of his leadership. All were brethren, but the church in Rome was accepted as first among equals" (Henry Chadwick, "The Early Church", p. 237).

I might add Chadwick is an Anglican, not Orthodox.

[Josiah]

Many people on this forum, myself included, have been arguing about the theological differences between the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. What most of us seem to neglect to state is that the main reasons for the schisms were political.

First, the Byzantine emperors, who had 100% control of the Church of Constantinople and appointed its bishops at will, would never accept the primacy of the Pope, regardless of its theological merits. The Pope at the same time allied himself with the Franks, pissing off the Byzantines. The reason the Orthodox never really acknowledged the primacy of the Pope was that their boss (the Byzantine emperor) would not let them.

Regarding the Reformation, Luther would have been a total failure without the support of the German princes who wanted to be independent of Rome's reach.

In England the driver of the Reformation was Henry the VIII's desire to divorce, not some high thelogical issue.

So we can be arguing subtle theological points all we want, but those points did not cause the splintering of Christianity.

I actually think this splintering has been good for Christianity in the long term, because every time we had a 100% tie between secular and religious powers the Church became corrupt and ineffective. IMHO the separation of Church and State is the best thing that happened to Christianity

I respectfully disagree with your point.

1.  In the singular case of the ENGLISH Reformation, it BEGAN as political.  But after Henry VIII, it became primarily theological - as the movement finally created the Anglican Church.    There were always other issues, of course, included taxes and land ownership, but the struggles, debates, etc. were eventually primarily theological.

2.  The final, official split between East and West seems to have had it's roots long before 313,  and just widened with time.  Some of this was cultural, some spiritual - but there were frequent East/West divisions.  With the fall of the city of Rome and rapid decline of the west, with the shift of political/economic power to the East, the focus of Christians did, as well.  In THIS sense, it's simply a result of the same thing that caused a look to Rome earlier - the center of everything was, by default, the center of Christianity in that realm, too.  Just as the Bishop in Rome was primary because he served in Rome, so after the fall of Rome, the Bishop in what is now Istanbul became the focus.  But the East/West growing divide was especially focused on ONE theological (and yes political) point:  church leadership.  The East always held to a collabrative, collective, consensus approach.  Increasingly, the Bishop of Rome claimed more and more POWER for himself.  The East embraced accountability, the Bishop of Rome insisted on being exempt.  The East more strongly embraced holding to the ways/views of old, the West embracing new views and things.  The East more spiritual, less dogmatic, more comfortable with mystery -  the west increasingly dogmatic, cognative, defining.  The the former Roman Empire itself, East and West drifted apart.   While the filoque was the "straw that broke the camels' back, ultimately, the divide was FAR deeper and broader than that - and ultimately centered the the West's obsession with POWER, politics, control, lordship, and with it's laser focus on the Bishop of Rome as all-powerful, the ultimate sole power.  Eventually, Rome took its ball and went home.  

3.  Luther, of course, was far from the first to regard the RCC as accountable.  But most before him met an untimely death for there was no worldly power greater than that of the Bishop in Rome, the Prince of the RCC (these were often horribly, immoral, unspiritual men - simply powerful kings who happened to have been ordained clergy of the RCC, political leaders of the largest, most powerful, wealthiest institution of the West).  And their ideas quickly stopped because it was easy to simply burn everything that expressed them.  In the 15th Century, two things changed:  The rise of power among various states.   Princes and kings began to have the force to stand up to the Prince of the RCC - and the Pope knew that.   Luther died a natural death for one reason: German princes could protect him.  And Luther's ideas could not be stopped because of a new invention - the printing press (and a corresponding rise in the literacy rate).   While the Pope burned Protestant books, he could not stop the flood of books and tracks being printed in various places.  Luther and the teachings of evangelicals could no longer be terminated by the Prince of the RCC.  Furthermore, princes and kings were - at times - eager to embrace evangelicalism because of the separation it afforded from the powerful RCC and its taxes and controls IN THE SAME WAY as others powerfully aligned WITH the RCC in hopes of greater power and benefits from it.   The POLITICAL forces reacted to all this for POLITICAL reasons - whether Catholic or Evangelical.  But, IMHO, that misses the point.  The Reformation was theological.   Luther had not a political motive and he obviously was nieve in that area, he was a Greek and Hebrew scholar with theological and pastoral concerns.  He needed to be stopped by the RCC because he embraced accountability - and the RCC could not and would not permit that in the case of itself.  

The REAL "politics" here (politics being the exercise of POWER) was almost solely in Rome, with the Bishop thereof.  The unmitigated quest to solidify unaccountable, unquestioned POWER.   Ultimately, that was the primary cause of 1054 and 1521.  To this day, Catholics tend to be extremely focused on the issue of power, control, authority, lordship, and for everyone else: the "docilic" acceptance, submission, obedience of such - it's political, an issue of power/lordship.


That's MY perspective.....


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.

[AvrilNYC]

Dear Josiah,

In England what the King/Queen wanted the King/Queen got. There was no such thing as a democratic debate. Henry very "democratically" closed down all the monasteries, stole their assets and killed many of the monks. In 1535 there were 825 religious houses, in 1540 there were none. And what happened to the big Catholic debaters like Thomas More...he was beheaded and his head was placed on a pole on London Bridge!!

Queen Elizabeth outlawed Mass and the government fined people who did not attend the Anglican service until they conformed. Penal laws prevented Catholics from becoming members of the professions, from holding political office, voting, and educating their children. By 1780 only 1% of England was Roman Catholic - not thanks to the Monarchs' theological debate skills, but "thanks" to their brutal oppression of everything Catholic.

Regarding the Continent after the 30 year war (a war not a theological debate) the treaty of Westphalia had "cujus regio ejus religio" as a working arrangement whereby if the ruling prince was of a particular religion, be it Lutheran or Roman Catholic, everyone in his region would either conform or mover to another area. So much for high theological debates!!

Regarding the East pre-1054, by 650AD the only Church not in Muslim hands was Constantinople. So there were only two major Patriarchates left Constantinople and Rome. Rome since 700 allied itself with the Franks and Constantinople was always "owned" by the emperors who legally had the "care" of the Church as one of their responsibilities. The Byzantine emperor (most of whom were corrupt) regarded himself as having authority of church and state and became the equivalent of the old Roman emperor God, a notion which became known as caesaro-papism. As per Wikipedia

"Caesaropapism's chief meaning is the authority the Byzantine emperors had over the Eastern Christian Church from the 500s through the tenth century. The Byzantine emperor would typically protect the Eastern Church and manage its administration by presiding over councils and appointing patriarchs and setting territorial boundaries for their jurisdiction. The emperor, whose control was so strong that "caesaropapism" became interchangeable with "Byzantinism", was called "Pontifex Maximus" after the fourth century, and the Patriarch of Constantinople could not hold office if he did not have the emperor's approval...Caesaropapism was most notorious in Russia when Ivan IV the Terrible assumed the title Czar in 1547 and subordinated the Russian Orthodox Church to the state. This level of caesaropapism far exceeded that of the Byzantine Empire. Caesaropapism existed in the Eastern Orthodox Church in Turkey until 1923 and in Cyprus until 1977, when Archbishop Makarios III died.

Josiah, you seem to really want to romanticize everything non-Catholic and vilify everything Catholic. The truth is, power corrupts everyone, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike. We are all very lucky that Church and State are separate in this country

[CDHealy]

I've looked over the thread thus far.  There's a marked lack of reputable sources to substantiate one or another position, so it appears as a conflagration of opinions.

Here's my take: Church and state have always been intertwined (cf. Israel), which, given our present postlapsarian world is an inescapable reality.  At times the Church has allowed the state too much interference with her life, usually with more negative consequences than positive ones.  The East was no more or less susceptible to caesaropapism as was the West--and the term itself, caesaropapism, was invented by the West to bludgeon the East with (such as happened with the term semi-pelagian as applied to the East).

Was the split purely theological?  No.  But the history shows that part of the reason why is that the Pope wanted to exercise political power (universal jurisdiction) over the Easter Patriarchates.  The Pope wanted to impose the filioque, again a political move.  The placing of the bull of excommunication by the papal legates on the altar during the celebration of the Nativity Liturgy!--which led to the date of AD 1054 as the marker of the Great Schism--was purely political.

That said, the East had solid theological ground to defend from the innovations of Rome (papal supremacy/universal jurisdiction; filioque), and if the response employed political means, it was in response to the politics that were already being employed against them.  This is not an excuse, but simply to remind you that for all the criticisms you level against the Orthodox, you have all those and then some that go right back to the Roman Catholic Church.

We're both converts--you from the Orthodox Church to Rome, myself from broad Protestantism/evangelicalism to the Orthodox Church--and of course we're going to advance the causes of our respective new homes.  That's to be expected.

[pointmade]

NYC: "Regarding the Reformation, Luther would have been a total failure without the support of the German princes who wanted to be independent of Rome's reach.

Right on NYC.....Not a Lutheran, but you have to love the old monk for telling the papacy (Leo) to kiss his "Sola Scripture" rear-end.
The Diet of Worms in 1521 (which was a civil legislature that function as a court). Fredrick the Wise said " Luther "must have a hearing in his own country before he could be sent to Rome. The emperor, Charles V finall agreed and called for Luther's safe conduct to Rome to recant for calling the Pope the "Antichrist" and speaking out against church traditions and councils. Had it not been for Fredrick the Wise to have hooded men kidnap Luther and put him in safe hiding to keep the Roman church from eliminating his voice, Luther would never have had the opportunity to translate the Bible into the German language and the origination of the state church in Saxony.

Luther was faced with massive ignorance in the population and soon the peasants revolted. Luther was blamed. The Catholic leaders had warned that religious plurality would destroy national unity. They also had warned that those who threw off ecclesiastical authority would also throw off civil authority. Luther was partly to blame, he wrote an exhortation to the German nobility, blaming them because they lived in splendor and pride while the peasants were in hopeless misery.

Luther wrote the peasants a more friendly and sympathetic message, but advising them to be submissive. Vengeance belongs to God. Anarchy is impossible. Luther was to blame in that his teaching taught the common man of his inherent and potential dignity and worth.  The revolt deteriorated, and the peasants were guilty of cruel excesses. In 1525, several princes began to talk in terms of withdrawing from Luther and returning to the old system. Luther turned on the peasants, calling on the nobility to kill them like dogs. The revolt was cruelly suppressed. Twenty thousand were destroyed in one place, and about 100,000 executed in all of Germany. Many had their eyes put out and were other wise tortured.

The effects of the Peasants' Revolt,
1. On the princes: Many returned to the Roman Church
2. On the Humanists: Many scholars backed off. Erasmus got off the fence and came down on the side of the RCC.
3. On the peasants: Spiritual disaster. They had called for divine Justice and had been treated miserably. Their faith in the new gospel and in Luther was
   shattered. They became indifferent to a theology that offered no temporal relief, and there was a popular move to materialism and atheism.
4. On Luther: His popularity with the peasantry was destroyed. Luther lost much of his confidence in the common man and leaned toward the nobility for
   support, with the result that the Reformation was tied to the aristocracy. His movement became a thoroughgoing state church.
5. On Lutheranism: Lutheranism assumed the attitude that the task of the Church is to procure individual, inner, personal salvation. It left to the state
   a task of building a Christian society which could restrain evil.
6. On the Holy Roman Empire: Lutheran territories began to organize themselves into independent states with independent territorial churches headed
   by their local priests. There was no central organization.

Which leads us to the Diet of Spier called by Charles V, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (1529), to deal with the problem of Lutheran territories vs. Roman Catholic territories, it was a new thing for a country to experience religious pluralism, and it occurred to few, if any, in the Holy Roman Empire that society could survive with any arrangement other than One State--One Church. Roman Catholic princes were in the majority, and they banded together to resist the spread of Lutheranism. Because they threatened forces, Charles V called the diet in order to avoid, if possible, the splitting-up of his domains.....Philip of Hesse pointed out to Luther that Lutheran princes must not only unite for survival, but they must form a league with Protestant territories in German-speaking Switzerland.

Time maches on! We in the U.S. have "Religious Liberty," this, of course is the idea that there not be a state church at all, or that the state church permit freedom of religious dissent and alternate forms of belief and worship within the state. In the early days of the Reformation, this concept was largely absent in Europe. Early on the Anabaptists called for this solution, but were set upon by both Catholics and Protestants. Holland, and later England, were the first European countries to move in this direction. Are you aware of the number of Muslim Mosques in America? Time marches on!

[Josiah]

Dear Josiah,

In England what the King/Queen wanted the King/Queen got. There was no such thing as a democratic debate. Henry very "democratically" closed down all the monasteries, stole their assets and killed many of the monks. In 1535 there were 825 religious houses, in 1540 there were none. And what happened to the big Catholic debaters like Thomas More...he was beheaded and his head was placed on a pole on London Bridge!!

Queen Elizabeth outlawed Mass and the government fined people who did not attend the Anglican service until they conformed. Penal laws prevented Catholics from becoming members of the professions, from holding political office, voting, and educating their children. By 1780 only 1% of England was Roman Catholic - not thanks to the Monarchs' theological debate skills, but "thanks" to their brutal oppression of everything Catholic.

As I posted, the ENGLISH Reformation BEGAN as political.  Henry VIII was solidly Catholic in theology.   

But, it soon began theological.  Once the "break" happened, any "politics" with Rome became moot (except - obviously - for "Bloody Mary" and others who wanted submit to Rome's Power again).  The issue became Lutheran vs. Calvinist vs. Catholicism (and various forms of Calvinism).  Once the POLITICAL issue was settled and the Church of England was not under the POLITICAL control of the Prince of Rome, it was THEOLOGICAL:  What would this Anglican Church be?  Lutheran?  Calvinist (and if so, which variety) or - as before - essentially Catholic?   What happens is a blending of all of these. 

Again, as I stated, there were not just theological/spiritual reasons but also POLITICAL reasons for POLITICAL figures to embrace one side or the other.   Princes acted like princes, political figures like political figures - both those who "sided" with evangelicalism OR Catholicism.  But I think it undeniable that Luther was not a political figure, interested or motivated by political interest and ambitions.  That may be said of the Pope, since he was a Prince and the most powerful man in the world - he was very interested in protecting his power and lordship. 

This was a major rift.  Kings, Princes and the Pope saw the political/economic implications and acted accordingly, for their own best political interests - I don't deny that.  But to frame the Reformation primarily as such - especially from the Evangelical standpoint - seems unreasonable.

Josiah, you seem to really want to romanticize everything non-Catholic and vilify everything Catholic. The truth is, power corrupts everyone, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike. We are all very lucky that Church and State are separate in this country

I don't deny that, but, as far as I can tell, the EO, CC and Lutheranism largely did NOT agree with you.  So I fail to see how that was a major factor in the 3 major splits in Christianity:  451, 1054 and 1521.   Of the 3, Luther - with his "TWO Kingdoms of God" comes closest to your position - certainly more than Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Calvin (with his "City of God" Geneva). 

I largely agree with you that the "marriage" of church and state that Constantine established was, at best, a mixed blessing.  But I disagree with you that that was the key factor in 451, 1054 or 1521 - or the main issue that divided Luther and the RCC Popes of his day.  There WAS a power issue for the popes, with MUCH at stake in terms of unquestioned lordship and great wealth (read about these popes of the 15th century?), but at least from the evangelical theologians' perspective.


But to your bottom line: that State and Church bedding up with each other, using each other (and I think you should blame Constintine for this, not Luther), largely worked against the Church - well, I agree.  Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I'm a voice around here for humility, community and accountability; a voice opposed to docilic submission to one who so requires.






.

[AvrilNYC]

The Pope wanted to impose the filioque, again a political move.

The Pope does not want to impose the filioque. The popes (including Benedict XVI) have been very explicit that if the East ever reunites with the West, the East will not have to add the filioque. In fact Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause. In addition, Eastern Catholic Churches do not necessarily include "Filioque" in their versions of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Even those Eastern Catholic Churches that are not of Greek tradition and that have incorporated the Filioque into their recitation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed are officially encouraged to omit it.

The word Filioque was first added to the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589). Of the seven ecumenical councils recognized by Orthodoxy (all of which are recognized also by the West as ecumenical) none explicitly rejected the Filioque. It took 300 years (after 589) for an Eastern Patriarch (Photios I) to condemn the filioque. Coincidentally, Photios (appointed by the Byzantine emperor) was ticked off at the pope for initially not recognizing him!! (so the whole thing was once more political. As per Wikipedia:
In 858, Emperor Michael III deposed Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, and Photios, still a layman, was appointed in his place. Amid power struggles between the Pope and the Emperor, Ignatius was reinstated. Photios resumed the position when Ignatius died (877), by order of the Emperor...

The deposition of Ignatios and the sudden promotion of Photios caused scandal and ecclesiastical division on an ecumenical scale as the Pope and the rest of the western bishops took up the cause of Ignatios. The latter's deposition without a formal ecclesiastical trial meant that Photios's election was uncanonical, and eventually Pope Nicholas I, as senior patriarch, sought to involve himself in determining the legitimacy of the succession. His legates were dispatched to Constantinople with instructions to investigate, but finding Photios well ensconced, they acquiesced in the confirmation of his election at a synod in 861. On their return to Rome, they discovered that this was not at all what Nicholas had intended, and in 863 at a synod in Rome the pope deposed Photios, and reappointed Ignatius as the rightful patriarch. Four years later, Photios was to respond on his own part by calling a Council and excommunicating the pope on grounds of heresy—over the question of the double procession of the Holy Spirit.

So really Photios was ticked off and wanted to get back at the pope, because the pope did not bend over at the emperor's wishes!!So much for the theological roots of the filioque controversy. Also, as this story demonstrates the pope was fighting with the emperor over church matters. The pope was the only bishop with the authority to challenge the corrupt emperor. The Patriarch of Constantinople was basically either emperor's puppet or was deposed by the emperor (like Ignatios)

[AvrilNYC]

Dear Josiah,

I don't think that on this thread we are far apart. I agree that Luther was not primarily motivated by politics. What I stated was that Luther was able to succeed primarily because of politics. The German princes couldn't care less about Luther's theology, all they cared about was to stick it to the pope.

Also, the Catholic Church acknowledges that in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church there have been corrupt, power hungry popes. In fact I will argue that one of the best things that ever happened to the  Catholic Church was the Reformation, because it forced the Catholic Church to enact some necessary positive reforms and get its act together.

Finally, you may know that in Protestant Europe Christianity is all but dead. Anglicanism was always tied to the corrupt monarchy. Currently, in England, every Sunday, there are more Catholics than  Anglicans going to Church!! In Germany, the UK and Northern Europe, the large majority of the people are declared atheists. The combination of Church and State in Protestant Europe, in the end destroyed Christianity

[winsome]

Regarding England. After Henry, VIII the powers behind the throne (of the child Edward) were stronly against any sign of the restoration of the Catholic Church because they were now in control of the land and buildings that Henry had confiscated, either because they had bought it, or because Henry had given it to them.

They wanted to make sure that they held on to them.

[winsome]

. The reason the Orthodox never really acknowledged the primacy of the Pope was that their boss (the Byzantine emperor) would not let them.

Oh, it goes back further than that.

"By the end of the second century Pope Victor insisted, in a matter which other churches thought was rather autocratic, that all churches, including those of the Greek East, should observe Easter on the same day as determined by the church of Rome. But before the third century, there was no call for a sustained, theoretical justification of his leadership. All were brethren, but the church in Rome was accepted as first among equals" (Henry Chadwick, "The Early Church", p. 237).

I might add Chadwick is an Anglican, not Orthodox.

Not quite as simple as that. The Celtic Church continued with a different way of reckoning the date of Easter. It was as late as 664, at the Synod of Whitby, that the Church in England sorted out the difference between the northern churches that originated from Celtic origins (Ireland via Iona) and the Latin custom that came in the south via Saint Augustine of Canterbury.

[Amo]

Regarding the Reformation, Luther would have been a total failure without the support of the German princes who wanted to be independent of Rome's reach.

There probably would never have been a Reformation in the first place, if the Church of Rome had not already secured the support of the vast majority of kings, queens, and princes of Europe.  Which support they used to persecute and destroy all those who would not submit to their usurped authority.  The gospel began as a completely separate entity from the politics of this world.  In it's purest form, it will always remain so.

[CDHealy]

The Pope does not want to impose the filioque.

Roman Catholic Councils which declared the filioque to be dogma:
IV Lateran Council AD 1215
II Lyons AD 1274
Council of Florence 1483-1485

The popes (including Benedict XVI) have been very explicit that if the East ever reunites with the West, the East will not have to add the filioque. In fact Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause. In addition, Eastern Catholic Churches do not necessarily include "Filioque" in their versions of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Even those Eastern Catholic Churches that are not of Greek tradition and that have incorporated the Filioque into their recitation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed are officially encouraged to omit it.

Then the recent popes have gone against their own conciliar dogmatic decrees.  That said, though, it's heartening that they want to give up the heresy.

The word Filioque was first added to the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589). Of the seven ecumenical councils recognized by Orthodoxy (all of which are recognized also by the West as ecumenical) none explicitly rejected the Filioque.

Argumentum ex silencio.  Proves nothing.  In fact, the Roman popes at first tried to discourage the singing of the filioque in the liturgy, until about AD 1014 when it was finally adopted.

It took 300 years (after 589) for an Eastern Patriarch (Photios I) to condemn the filioque.

Actually, it was :

At the 879-880 Council of Constantinople the Eastern Orthodox Church re-affirmed the condemnation of the "Filioque" phrase.[45][46]  Re-affirming it from the previous council held in Constantinople in 867 condemnation, declaring it "a novelty and augmentation of the Creed". On the other hand, at the council "there was no extensive discussion of the Filioque, which was not yet a part of the Creed professed in Rome itself, and no statement was made by the Council about its theological justification."[12]  Orthodox theologian John Romanides holds that, contrary to what has always been held by Western scholars, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican or Protestant, Pope John VIII did accept that the Filioque was a heresy.[47]

The council of 879 was at the time accepted[48] by Pope John VIII, who endorsed Photius being re-instated as the Patriarch of Constantinople. After Patriarch Ignatius' death in 877,[49] or was at least accepted by Pope John VIII legates but later repudiated by the Pope himself, while still accepting Photius as Patriarch.[50]

But I quibble.

Coincidentally, Photios (appointed by the Byzantine emperor) was ticked off at the pope for initially not recognizing him!! (so the whole thing was once more political. As per Wikipedia:
In 858, Emperor Michael III deposed Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, and Photios, still a layman, was appointed in his place. Amid power struggles between the Pope and the Emperor, Ignatius was reinstated. Photios resumed the position when Ignatius died (877), by order of the Emperor...

The deposition of Ignatios and the sudden promotion of Photios caused scandal and ecclesiastical division on an ecumenical scale as the Pope and the rest of the western bishops took up the cause of Ignatios. The latter's deposition without a formal ecclesiastical trial meant that Photios's election was uncanonical, and eventually Pope Nicholas I, as senior patriarch, sought to involve himself in determining the legitimacy of the succession. His legates were dispatched to Constantinople with instructions to investigate, but finding Photios well ensconced, they acquiesced in the confirmation of his election at a synod in 861. On their return to Rome, they discovered that this was not at all what Nicholas had intended, and in 863 at a synod in Rome the pope deposed Photios, and reappointed Ignatius as the rightful patriarch. Four years later, Photios was to respond on his own part by calling a Council and excommunicating the pope on grounds of heresy—over the question of the double procession of the Holy Spirit.

Riiiight.  And the pope was completely innocent in this power struggle with the Emperor.  Gotcha.

So really Photios was ticked off and wanted to get back at the pope, because the pope did not bend over at the emperor's wishes!! So much for the theological roots of the filioque controversy.

As though St Photios didn't actually construct a theological argument and prove that the filioque was a heresy.  Tell you what, read this:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html

Then demonstrate it was nothing but a temper tantrum by St. Photios.

Also, as this story demonstrates the pope was fighting with the emperor over church matters. The pope was the only bishop with the authority to challenge the corrupt emperor. The Patriarch of Constantinople was basically either emperor's puppet or was deposed by the emperor (like Ignatios)

Oh, that's hilarious.  And of course, the fact that the Western Empire had been obliterated and that the seat of the Roman Empire had moved to Byzantium/Constantinopel (remember that 28th canon?) and that the East had four patriarchs whereas the West only had one . . . oh, nooooooo, none of that had anything to do with anything.

Now *you're* historical revisionism is showing.

[AvrilNYC]

Dear CDHealy,

Do you agree or disagree with the Byzantine practice, which the Orthodox bishops had accepted, of the emperors being regarded as heads of Church and State, thereby appoiniting and dismissing bishops at will??

Do you agree or disagree with Byzantine emperors as Basiliscus, Zeno, Justinian I, Heraclius, and Constans II who published strictly ecclesiastical edicts either on their own without the mediation of church councils, or they exercised their own political influence on the councils to issue the edicts??

You seem to defend secular (Byzantine emperor) over Church (the Bishop of Rome) authority over purely religious matters!! You have become such a zealot that you basically say that an emperor has primacy over a Bishop over Church matters!! Regardless what you think about the pope, as a matter of principle Bishops should have primacy over secular rulers when it comes to secular matters like appointing or dismissing bishops, right?

Furthermore, please read some history, when the Photios, the emperor's appointee who was a layman prior to his appointment, got pissed and starting being outraged!! about the filioque there were only two Patriarchates left. The East had lost Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria to the Muslims. So at that point (800s), the only Patriarchate with some independence was Rome.