The Cause of the Schism of 1054 According to The Western View Part One

When we think of splits from church history there are probably two that most likely come to our minds: The Protestant Reformation, and The Great Schism of 1054. Church splits have significant consequences, and some of them, at least so far, have never been healed. This post will focus briefly on The Great Schism of 1054, from the Western perceptive.
 I was looking at several Crusade accounts recently, and found it interesting that they talked about their distaste for the Greek Christians. Of those differences from the Greek Christians they named, The Filioque, and some differences over the priesthood, as well as their rite of Mass were all that was essentially mentioned. Nothing was mentioned of Papal Supremacy. Yes, that is right! I believe that that is because the papacy was not nearly as powerful at that time in the sense of infallibility or great supremacy, as we think of it today.
 While the issue of papal supremacy deserves attention for a future post, for now I'd like to reflect on what Western Christians said about the Greeks from their own words. This can give us perspective to what Western Christian believe, as well as insight to why the Great Western Schism happened.
 What was it that sparked the Great Western schism? I won't get into that long history, though I may do some of that in the future! For now, let the accounts speak for themselves.
 ''We think it worthwhile to make a brief note of the beliefs of the Greeks that differ from the faith of the universal church, namely that of the Holy Roman Church. They are in error about their belief about the Holy Trinity, since they teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the Son, and is less important than the Father and Son. In the Eucharist, they use Azyme, and in that sacrifice of solemnity of the Mass they do not offer that reverence, care and compunction of the heart with which we, although sinners and unworthy, celebrate and use. They make no distinction between their priests and other clerics, apart from the bishops, and peasants, and thus show no respect for the divine cult. They make no change to the chant or to the prayers from the collect for the feast days during the year or the saints' days, apart from the Biblical readings and the Gospels. They anathematise all those who do not agree with their beliefs: they describe all Christians, whether spiritual or secular people in the popular idiom, as secular, and they pour out arrogant prayers for their conversion. They describe themselves alone as spiritual and orthodox.  They separated themselves a long time ago from the jurisdiction of the Holy Roman Church, and they make themselves subject in divine matters only to their own patriarch, whom they describe as 'universal, ' giving this Greek patriarch of Constantinople precedence over the other two patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch by name alone. Their priests and clergy are neither vowed to nor observe continence. ''
 -The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa: The History of The Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Text translated by G. A. Loud.

As you can see, this Crusade account actually criticized the Greeks for the concept of a universal bishop. While many today wrongly assume that it was just the Popes of Rome that taught this, in reality, Greek Patriarchs taught it. It was to the concept of universal bishop by a Greek Patriarch that Pope Gregory the Great wrote was ''Antichrist.'' Though properly understood, Gregory actually saw himself as the head of the church. For more information on this, check out the following link:
 https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/incontext/article/gregory-the-great.