The Acacian Schism (485-519 CE)

The Acacian Schism, named after Acacius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was a defining religious and political rift between the Christian Churches of Rome and Constantinople. This division, which lasted from 485 to 519 CE, stemmed from Acacius’s controversial support of the Henotikon, a document aiming to reconcile divergent Christian theological perspectives in the Eastern Roman Empire. Its consequences reshaped the relationship between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity, solidifying the divide that ultimately led to the Great Schism of 1054.

The Acacian schism, between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches, lasted 35 years, from 484 to 519 CE. It resulted from a drift in the leaders of Eastern Christianity toward Miaphysitism and Emperor Zeno's unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the parties with the Henotikon.
The Acacian schism, between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches, lasted 35 years, from 484 to 519 CE. It resulted from a drift in the leaders of Eastern Christianity toward Miaphysitism and Emperor Zeno's unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the parties with the Henotikon.

Background of the Schism: Theological Conflicts on the Nature of Christ

The roots of the Acacian Schism lay in the unresolved theological disputes surrounding the nature of Christ, an issue that divided Christian leaders in the Eastern Roman Empire. The main controversy centered on whether Christ had one single nature (Monophysitism) or two distinct yet unified natures — divine and human — a doctrine upheld by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. The Chalcedonian position was that Christ exists "in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation." However, this view was contentious among many Eastern Christians, particularly in Egypt and Syria, who adhered to Monophysitism, seeing it as a truer expression of the divine mystery of Christ.
The theological landscape in the East was dominated by two prominent schools: the Alexandrian and Antiochian. The Alexandrian school, influenced by theologians such as Cyril of Alexandria, emphasized the unity of Christ’s divine nature, aligning more with Monophysitic thought. In contrast, the Antiochian school upheld the distinctiveness of Christ’s human and divine natures, closer to the Chalcedonian definition. The diverging views created a fault line that the Council of Chalcedon attempted to resolve but only intensified.

Acacius’s Role and the Rise of the Henotikon

Acacius of Constantinople, initially a trusted leader within the Orthodox Chalcedonian camp, found himself in the middle of these complex theological battles. Although his initial actions aligned with Chalcedonian orthodoxy, he later shifted his position, motivated by both theological concerns and a desire to assert Constantinople’s influence in the Eastern Christian world. His rise to power coincided with the reign of Emperor Zeno, who faced the ongoing challenge of maintaining religious unity within the empire amidst these heated debates.
In 482 CE, to bridge the growing divide, Zeno issued the Henotikon, or "Edict of Union," a document designed with Acacius’s counsel to reconcile Chalcedonian and Monophysitic factions. The Henotikon sought a theological middle ground, affirming key points of shared belief but deliberately omitting mention of the Council of Chalcedon to avoid provoking opposition. Instead, it condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches, whose views were deemed heretical, and upheld the Nicene Creed as a unifying statement of faith. However, the Henotikon’s ambiguity, particularly its silence on Christ’s dual nature, rendered it controversial.

Initial Reception and the Reaction of Pope Felix III

In the West, the Henotikon’s omission of the Chalcedonian formula troubled the Roman Church, which saw the Council of Chalcedon as essential to Orthodox doctrine. Pope Felix III, determined to defend Chalcedonian orthodoxy and resist perceived encroachments by Constantinople, opposed Acacius’s compromise. The Pope’s opposition was further fueled by Acacius’s support of Peter Mongus, a Monophysite appointed as Patriarch of Alexandria, whom Rome had refused to recognize.
Felix sent emissaries, Bishops Vitalis and Misenus, to Constantinople to demand Acacius’s loyalty to the Chalcedonian doctrine. Acacius not only refused their demand but humiliated the emissaries by publicly denouncing them. In retaliation, Felix convened a synod in 484, where Acacius was excommunicated, marking a historical moment in the relationship between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople. Acacius responded by removing Pope Felix’s name from the sacred diptychs—lists of names commemorated during liturgy—formalizing the schism.

Escalation and Effects on the Eastern Church

The excommunication of Acacius and his subsequent retaliation set off a power struggle between Constantinople and Rome, further deepening the schism. In Eastern territories, Acacius, with the support of Emperor Zeno, initiated a campaign to enforce acceptance of the Henotikon, often using imperial power to suppress resistance. Monastic communities and religious leaders who resisted the Henotikon faced persecution, and Acacius's influence grew, effectively making him the de facto leader of Eastern Christianity. This period saw Constantinople's increasing autonomy and set a precedent for future disputes with Rome.
The schism not only allowed Monophysitism to gain strength in Eastern provinces but also solidified the political and theological divides that would characterize the relationship between Eastern and Western Christianity. This episode underscored the growing assertiveness of the Byzantine Church and state in shaping Christian orthodoxy independently of Rome.

Resolution of the Schism under Justin I and Pope Hormisdas

The Acacian Schism continued for three decades after Acacius’s death in 489. Successive Patriarchs of Constantinople, while sometimes sympathetic to Chalcedonian doctrine, struggled to reconcile with Rome, given the entrenched support for the Henotikon within the Byzantine state. It wasn’t until 519 CE, under the reign of Emperor Justin I and the leadership of Patriarch John II of Constantinople, that a reconciliation was achieved.
The resolution, known as the Formula of Hormisdas, named after Pope Hormisdas, stipulated the reacceptance of the Chalcedonian definition and a formal renunciation of the Henotikon. The formula demanded that Eastern bishops acknowledge Rome's primacy and anathematize those who had promoted the schism, including Acacius. This agreement formally ended the schism, but the rift it revealed between Eastern and Western Christian thought persisted, foreshadowing the more lasting East-West Schism that would occur centuries later.

Significance of the Acacian Schism

The Acacian Schism was the first significant breach between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople and served as a precursor to later ecclesiastical and theological disputes. It highlighted the emerging rivalry between the two major centers of Christianity, each vying for leadership within the faith. The schism set a precedent for the assertion of independence by the Byzantine Church and the Eastern Roman Empire’s intervention in religious matters—a recurring theme in Byzantine history.
Additionally, the schism exposed the challenges inherent in balancing theological differences within a politically unified Christian empire. The attempt to forge doctrinal unity through political compromise, as seen in the Henotikon, ultimately proved unsustainable. The schism’s resolution reinforced Rome's authority over doctrinal matters in the West, yet it also revealed the limits of papal influence in the East, where the Byzantine Church increasingly looked to the emperor for guidance.

Last update: November 3, 2024

DONATE

Go to definitions: A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z