WI Schism of 1054 never occurs (at least formally)?

In 16 July 1054 the Papal Legate Umberto de Mourmoutiers Cardinal-Bishop of Silva Candida entered the Church of Hagia Sophia interrupting Divine Liturgy on a Saturday afternoon and placed a Papal Bull of Excommunication on the altar. The legates left for Rome two days later, leaving behind a city near riots. The patriarch had the immense support of the people against the Emperor, who had supported the legates to his own detriment, and Argyrus, who was seen still as a papal ally. To assuage popular anger, Argyrus' family in Constantinople was arrested, the bull was burnt, and the legates were anathematised... the Great Schism had begun...
It must be noted though that Pope Leo IX had died 3 months earlier on 19 April 1054.
WI Patriarch Michael Keroularios instead of excommunicating the Legate invokes the "illegality" of the Papal Bull since Pope Leo IX was dead before the whole matter surfaces? Maybe the Schism still occurs but not formally... How is that altering History? Any thoughts?
 
No schism means that today there would be no Eastern Orthodox Church. Armenia, Greece, Cyprus, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and Romania today would be Catholics. And Catholics today would be estimated to 2 billion members. Catholics would dominate Eastern Europe and perhaps Caucasus mountain region and Central Asia region.
 

Philip

Donor
By 1064, the Schism is virtually assured. Avoiding it may require ASBs in white robes and halos.
 
Actually since Pope Leo IX was dead 3 months earlier the Papal Bull was composed by Papal Legate Humbert and excommunicated only Keroularios and not the whole Eastern Church...
If Patriarch Keroularios wasnt that hot-tempered and instead of starting excommunicating everyone in sight invoked the "illegality" of the Bull (since Leo IX was dead who signed the Bull?) Things would be much easier for both sides...
 

Philip

Donor
Actually since Pope Leo IX was dead 3 months earlier the Papal Bull was composed by Papal Legate Humbert and excommunicated only Keroularios and not the whole Eastern Church...

True. But the entire Eastern Church supported the EP. Things like the filioque and Roman claims of universal jurisdiction did not sit well with anyone in the East.

If Patriarch Keroularios wasnt that hot-tempered and instead of starting excommunicating everyone in sight invoked the "illegality" of the Bull (since Leo IX was dead who signed the Bull?) Things would be much easier for both sides...

Not for long. Remember, this was not the first time Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other. The disputes had been around for 600+ years. At some point, claims the Papal authority will lead to a formal Schism. To the common man, the extent of the division between East and West was not clear. However, it is only a matter of time until these differences surface. Things like filioque, the Eighth Council, and Photius are not going to go away.
 
Actually u have a dead Pope (Leo IX was dead by 19 April 1054 and mutual excommunications happened in 16 July 1054) excommunicating only Keroularios and not the entire Eastern Church... The Bull was illegal in the first place and if Keroularios wasnt that hot-tempered he could have declared it simply null and void... (dont forget that later on Keroularios lead a popular uprising against Emperor Isaakios I)
There were differences yes but the whole matter was just a quarrel between Keroularios and the Papal Legate... So Humbert in order to humiliate Keroularios composed the Bull himself and excommunicated only him... NOT the entire Eastern Church hoping that the Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem would have sided with the Papacy...
 
Top