The Rise of the Papacy and the East West Schism

Historical Theology

Historical Setting

When the Western Roman Empire collapsed in the fifth century, the bishop of Rome was left standing amid the rubble of the old order. Emperors had fled east to Constantinople; the great civic institutions of the West were failing; and into that vacuum the Roman church stepped, providing not only spiritual leadership but food, defense, and governance. The papacy did not seize power so much as inherit responsibility no one else could carry. Any fair account of its rise must begin here, with a church doing genuine good in a world falling apart.

The towering figure of the early period is Gregory the Great (pope 590–604). He fed Rome during famine, negotiated with the Lombards when the empire would not, reformed the liturgy and church music, and sent missionaries — including Augustine of Canterbury — to convert the pagan English. Tellingly, Gregory called himself servus servorum Dei, “servant of the servants of God,” and rebuked the patriarch of Constantinople for taking the title “universal bishop,” which Gregory thought arrogant and unfitting. The irony of later history is that the office Gregory served so humbly would, in the hands of his successors, claim exactly the universal lordship he refused.

What Was at Stake

At issue was the most basic question of church government: who, under Christ, holds authority in the church, and how widely does it extend? Rome’s answer developed into the doctrine of Petrine primacy — that Christ made Peter the rock and chief of the apostles (Matt. 16:18–19), that Peter’s authority passed to the bishops of Rome as his successors, and that therefore the Roman pontiff holds a divinely instituted primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church. On this view, communion with Rome was the test of catholicity, and the pope was the final court of appeal in matters of doctrine and discipline.

The stakes were enormous. If the claim was true, the church had a visible head on earth and a guaranteed center of unity. If it was false, the claim threatened to set a man’s authority above the apostolic Word and to fracture the very unity it promised to secure. Behind the question of papal power stood the deeper question of where final authority in Christ’s church truly lies.

Key Players

Gregory the Great, the model pastor-pope who paradoxically advanced Rome’s standing while disclaiming its later pretensions. Leo I (pope 440–461), earlier but formative, whose Tome shaped Chalcedon and who pressed Petrine claims vigorously. The patriarchs of Constantinople, especially Michael Cerularius (d. 1059), who defended the dignity and independence of the Eastern sees. Cardinal Humbert, the abrasive papal legate whose mission in 1054 ended in mutual excommunication. Hovering over the whole story is the Donation of Constantine, a forged document, probably composed in the eighth century, which purported to grant the popes imperial authority over the West — and which was widely believed until the humanist Lorenzo Valla exposed it as a forgery in 1440.

The Outcome

The estrangement of East and West was not the work of a single day but of centuries — of language (Greek East, Latin West), of culture, of politics, and of genuine theological difference. The flashpoint was the filioque: the Western insertion of the words “and the Son” into the Nicene Creed, so that the Spirit was confessed to proceed “from the Father and the Son.” The East objected on two grounds. First, the original creed said simply “from the Father,” and no local church had the right to alter an ecumenical creed unilaterally. Second, the East feared the filioque blurred the distinct persons and subordinated the Spirit. The Eastern position deserves to be stated fairly: it was a principled defense of conciliar authority and of the Father as the single fountain of deity within the Godhead.

In 1054, a dispute over these matters and over papal jurisdiction came to a head. Humbert laid a bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia; the patriarch excommunicated the legates in return. Both sides later treated 1054 as the symbolic date of the schism, though the breach widened irrevocably only after the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204. East and West have remained divided ever since.

Scriptural Grounding

The whole controversy turns on the reading of one passage:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18, ESV)

Rome reads “this rock” as Peter himself and his successors. The Reformed tradition, following Augustine in his maturer reflections and the wider witness of Scripture, reads “this rock” as Peter’s confession — “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16) — or as Christ Himself, the only foundation:

“For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 3:11, ESV)

The keys given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) are given two chapters later to the whole body of disciples (Matt. 18:18), and the authority to bind and loose is exercised by the gathered church. Peter himself writes not as a prince of bishops but as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1) and warns the elders against “domineering over those in your charge” (1 Pet. 5:3).

Doctrinal Significance

This controversy is fundamentally about ecclesiology — the doctrine of the church — and about the seat of authority. The Reformed confession is that Christ alone is the Head of the church, that no man can be His vicar, and that the church is governed not by a single monarch but by Christ ruling through His Word and Spirit, ordinarily by the ministry of elders gathered in assemblies. The Westminster Confession states it bluntly:

“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.” (WCF 25.6)

A Reformed Assessment — Wheat and Chaff

The wheat: the early Roman see really did preserve orthodoxy, anchor unity in turbulent times, and send the gospel into pagan lands. Gregory’s pastoral humility is a model still. The dignity of the Roman church was not nothing; it was a true apostolic see honored by the whole early church.

The chaff: the gradual transformation of a primacy of honor into a claim of universal jurisdiction, buttressed in part by a forged Donation, and finally hardened into the doctrine of papal supremacy. Here a man’s authority was raised toward the place that belongs to Christ and His Word alone. On the filioque, the Reformed tradition affirms the doctrine — Scripture does teach that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son (Rom. 8:9; John 15:26) — while granting that the East had a legitimate grievance about the manner of its insertion, made without ecumenical consent.

Connections

This topic touches the locus of Ecclesiology and WCF 25 (Of the Church) and WCF 31 (Of Synods and Councils), which insists that councils may err and are subordinate to Scripture. It looks back to the early councils of era 02 and forward: the inflated papal claims defined here are precisely what the Reformation (04_00, 04_01) will challenge, and the medieval sacramental system (03_04) drew much of its force from papal authority.

Lessons for Today

Authority in Christ’s church is real but ministerial, never magisterial in the sense of standing over the Word. The slow inflation of the papacy warns every church and leader that titles and offices, however humbly begun, tend to grow beyond their warrant unless tethered to Scripture. And the tragedy of 1054 — a church divided over a word and a jurisdiction — reminds us that unity is precious and not to be sacrificed to pride, even as truth is not to be sacrificed to a false peace.