The Great Schism versus the Reformation

[tmcd]

To all:

I have had difficulty with the a certain concept for a long time. I have read in various articles over time something to the effect of the following: “The Catholic Church was the only christian church up until about 1500 when the Reformation took place.” A statement like this would be made to demonstrate how long the Catholic Church’s history is compared to the Protestant Church’s history and to lead into some article about how the protestants are really just break-off groups from the Catholic Church.

However, the Catholic Church underwent the great schism about 1000 with the Eastern Orthodox Church, so it was not the only christian church in 1500 – there were actually two. And it weakens the argument in the first paragraph which tries to show how united and strong the Catholic Church was up until the Reformation.

So what do you say to people regarding the schism versus the Reformation? I know there are major differences between the two and, in fact, Catholics are closer to the Eastern Orthodox in terms of belief and practice.

It bothers me that Protestants can point to the schism and say that, heck, the Catholic Church is not so unified after all – other christians have been disagreeing with the Catholic Church since 1000 AD – and use this to strengthen their argument that the Reformation was good.

Any resources or links to where I can find information about the differences between the two would be very helpful.

Thanks!

 

[jimmy]

tmcd:

To all:

I have had difficulty with the a certain concept for a long time. I have read in various articles over time something to the effect of the following: “The Catholic Church was the only christian church up until about 1500 when the Reformation took place.” A statement like this would be made to demonstrate how long the Catholic Church’s history is compared to the Protestant Church’s history and to lead into some article about how the protestants are really just break-off groups from the Catholic Church.

However, the Catholic Church underwent the great schism about 1000 with the Eastern Orthodox Church, so it was not the only christian church in 1500 – there were actually two. And it weakens the argument in the first paragraph which tries to show how united and strong the Catholic Church was up until the Reformation.

So what do you say to people regarding the schism versus the Reformation? I know there are major differences between the two and, in fact, Catholics are closer to the Eastern Orthodox in terms of belief and practice.

It bothers me that Protestants can point to the schism and say that, heck, the Catholic Church is not so unified after all – other christians have been disagreeing with the Catholic Church since 1000 AD – and use this to strengthen their argument that the Reformation was good.

Any resources or links to where I can find information about the differences between the two would be very helpful.

Thanks!

he break did not really fully come until the 1400’s after the council of Florence, so the arguement is not as bad as you think. In the 11th century the problems between the east and west started to get bigger but that is not when the official break occured. That is just a convenient time to place it.

There is some information on this site about the history of the great schism. Here is a link.

catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

 

[csr]

tmcd:

It bothers me that Protestants can point to the schism and say that, heck, the Catholic Church is not so unified after all – other christians have been disagreeing with the Catholic Church since 1000 AD – and use this to strengthen their argument that the Reformation was good.

The mere fact that others have disagreed with the Church doesn’t mean that they were correct to do so. Note that the Muslims were permitted to take over portions of the East, and that communism infected much of the rest. Now that we are aborting ourselves out of existence and feeding pornography to children, we in the West will find ourselves harmed as well. The Reformation, in any case, was not good, as it created new dissention from central truths. It carried whole populations away from confession and Eucharist: how are they supposed to abide on the vine of Christ? It may be clearer if you forget the notion of a “Christian” religion, and just focus on the existence of a Church, and of an anti-christ that seeks ways to destroy the Church. I don’t really see Protestants as Christians in any case; they are missing so much that their case is minimal. Protestantism is death, and Protestants who are saved by God are not saved through, but in spite of, their “religion”. Try to focus their attention on what they are missing, and how those things were always central to the hierarchical, monarchical Faith.

---

“The hammer of heresies”: St. Robert Bellarmine (September 17).

 

[twf]

CSR: Despite what they may be missing, Protestants who are validly baptized are indeed Christians. The Church refers to Protestants as the “Separated Brethren” since Vatican II times.
Now, are all Protestants validly baptized? No, but many are.

Actually the Assyrian Church of the East has been in schism since the 5th century, and the Oriental Orthodox Churches as well, though later during the 5th century. There were also various heretical groups throughout history. Does this disprove the claims of the Catholic Church? Of course not. There always have been and always will be heretics, schismatics, and dissenters. Even in the New Testament times Paul talks about the like! There were those who opposed Paul’s teachings, and there was discontent and disagreements even then. (Remember the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? This had to be called because some were claiming that circumcision et al was necessary).

Christ established a Church, and if you look back through history and see what Scripture and Tradition teach, backed-up by the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, it becomes quite clear, at least it did to me, that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

 

[Maccabees]

Well one thing the Orthodox and the earler Oriental Churches in Schism have in their benefit that they have holy tradition and valid aspostolic succession to this very day. Most were there the first and critical & ecunemical councils of the first milienia where most of the essential christian dogmas where settled and proclaimed.

Our divide is as much politics as it is theology. Considering we share all seven valid sacraments and the tradition of the apostles and you slowly realize that we are not broken in the way the Catholic Protestant Reformation and later Rebellion played out.
I think the Schism is a lack of understanding the way the first millinial church worked and how to get back to that rather than dogmatic absolutes that we can never agree upon. ( I know many a catholic and orthodox will disagree but hey its my take)
The Orthodox is our sister church while protestants by nature of their valid baptism if they have that (many do not especially in pentacostal, non denom, quaker, sects) are our seperated brethren. The cathechism does not refer to Orthodox as seperated brethren becuase in a way we are not seperated rather we are more united by the sacraments and the charism of apsotolic tradtion and succession encompass albeit in an imperfect way that is not fully united. But we are so close to being one that from a catholic perspective it would be permitted to take communion in an Orthodox Church (sadly this is not quite the case in reverse although individual priest seem to be open to the idea)

 

[mercygate]

The two-penny take-home point here for responding to Protestant objections is that in the Great Schism, Apostolic Succession was not broken in the Churches separated from Rome. All of their sacraments are valid.

 

[prodromos]

jimmy:

There is some information on this site about the history of the great schism. Here is a link.

catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

This is a very poor article which should have been pulled from this site ages ago. You would do much better to read stuff by recent Catholic historians such as Francis Dvornik
Byzantium and the Roman Primacy
Catholic libraries should carry copies of another work of his called “The Photian Schism: History and Legend”, which puts to rest the misinformation perpetuated by polemic articles such as the one linked above.

Here is another link regarding the schism
philthompson.net/pages/library/schism.html

John.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

This is a very poor article which should have been pulled from this site ages ago. You would do much better to read stuff by recent Catholic historians such as Francis Dvornik
Byzantium and the Roman Primacy
Catholic libraries should carry copies of another work of his called “The Photian Schism: History and Legend”, which puts to rest the misinformation perpetuated by polemic articles such as the one linked above.

At Mount Saint Mary’s University library in Emmitsburg, MD where I live they have a copy of the Photian Schism by Francis Dvornik and I am reading it voraciously. It is a remarkable book that should be read by all seminarians. www.msmary.edu is the site for this school. I am proud the Mt St Mary’s has this book.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I like to add that in 16-19 Century, certain Eastern Orthodox reunited with Rome. The majority of Eastern Catholic Churches are formerly Orthodox. The argument that the Catholic Church is not really united at all is false.

I have found no Church other than the Catholic Church have that have community of Churches united with it. You don’t find Eastern Orthodox Churches uniting with another Protestant Church.

You do see in history that Eastern Catholics the majority of them with the exception of the Meronite Eastern Catholic, Albanian-Italian Catholics reunited with Rome, as well as others.

 

[spauline]

To all:

…
Any resources or links to where I can find information about the differences between the two would be very helpful.

Thanks!

Actually, have them look at the bigger picture: Catholicism is vindicated in the history of the last 1700 years because her spiritual pyramid of sources of Divine Truth has been attacked from top to bottom perfectly. (Could it be, ummm, errr, SAAAtan?!)

I. The Trinity and Incarnation (the first heresies, culminating with Islam)
II. The Petrine Successor (Great Schism)
III. The General Apostolic Succession and Tradition (Protestant Rebellion)
IV. The Scriptures (the Enlightenment)
V. Reason (the modern secular apostasy)

Only way to look at these consistently is if you are either Catholic (the Seal of God) or a totally apostate secular messianist (the Mark of the Beast). In between are Trumpets. Gray areas maybe?

 

[m134e5]

However, the Catholic Church underwent the great schism about 1000 with the Eastern Orthodox Church, so it was not the only christian church in 1500 – there were actually two. And it weakens the argument in the first paragraph which tries to show how united and strong the Catholic Church was up until the Reformation.

The Great Schism usually refers to the schism where the Popes were in Avignon. St. Catherine of Siena eventually convinced the Pope to return to Rome. The East-West Schism is the one that divided the Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[PC_Master]

m134e5> Actually, most historians would know the “Great Schism” to be referring to the separation between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

The popes being out of Rome was hardly a great schism in comparison.

jimmy> My study of history shows the disunity actually starting some centuries before 1034AD. The excommunications in 1034AD were just the boiling point, really. There was much disagreement prior to this, obviously.

Et al> Whether Eastern Orthodoxy is “almost united” with Roman Catholicism or not, the fact remains that it is still divided, and has been divided for at least half of the lifetime of Christianity. One could argue that it’s been divided far longer than that, depending how far back the disagreement is believed to have gone, and when the disunity actually started. After all, the Western Roman Empire was overrun during the 5th century, and cultural and language barriers soon after emerged. So really, one could argue that Christianity was only united (assuming you ignore the other schisms) for perhaps 500 years.

 

[mercygate]

The Great Schism usually refers to the schism where the Popes were in Avignon. St. Catherine of Siena eventually convinced the Pope to return to Rome. The East-West Schism is the one that divided the Catholics and Orthodox.

I think you will find that the term “Great Schism” applies to the East-West split. The 70-year vacation in Avignon has been nicknamed “the Babylonian exile.” That was an in-house struggle. It pales in significance compared with the East-West rift.