What was the primary cause of the Western Schism?

[SolomonVII]

Was the Western schism truly a reformation, or were other factors more important?

 

[PaladinValer]

The actual source, historically, was the intense desire of wealth to pay for the restoration of St. Peter's in the Vatican. From that one source came most of the key problems.

 

[linden branch]

I entered "a rejection of papal temporal interference by emerging nation-states", not because I believe this to be the primary cause, but because it was the primary catalyst which enabled all of the other factors, and I would include your whole list as actual "causes" without assigning a primary one (I believe that task to be both too difficult to call as well as largely immaterial), to result in what is know known as the Reformation.

Without this emerging sense of nationalism to come into conflict with the growing centralization of the papacy, there may not have been the cataclysmic release of tensions that actually occured. What would have happened is anybodies guess.

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

I voted for the last option. Luther, Calvin, and co. all used the printing press to spread their ideals. I think that Protestantism is almost necessarily more appealing than Catholicism, at least on the surface, because it promotes "independent" thinking, personal Bible interpretation, etc. On the other hand, Catholicism requires obedience. That is why there are so few stories of converts to Catholicism, when compared with Protestant conversions.

Now, I happen to be an ultramontanist so I highly reject the Protestant views of nationalism or congregationalism. And for those who don't know what ultramontanism is, that means a strong obedience to an authority beyond the mountains (the Pope.) It tends to emphasize the papal infallibility and, to an extent, caricatures of Jesuits.

 

[PaladinValer]

Montanism is a heresy; care to explain?

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Montanism is a heresy; care to explain?

I know. Montanism and ultramontanism are two very different things. Monantism is named after a heretic named Montanus, while ultramontanism is a compound of "ultra" and "montans". That means "beyond the mountains." It just means obedience to the Pope over local or national authorities, which is very orthodox in Catholic doctrine.

 

[PaladinValer]

In matters of faith, not politics.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I voted for the last option. Luther, Calvin, and co. all used the printing press to spread their ideals. I think that Protestantism is almost necessarily more appealing than Catholicism, at least on the surface, because it promotes "independent" thinking, personal Bible interpretation, etc. On the other hand, Catholicism requires obedience. That is why there are so few stories of converts to Catholicism, when compared with Protestant conversions.

Now, I happen to be an ultramontanist so I highly reject the Protestant views of nationalism or congregationalism. And for those who don't know what ultramontanism is, that means a strong obedience to an authority beyond the mountains (the Pope.) It tends to emphasize the papal infallibility and, to an extent, caricatures of Jesuits.

Ultramontanism is a relatively recent development. I can't give an exact date because my reference books are two thousand miles away at present, but I believe it is less than four hundred years old. It also is not in agreement with historical practice and belief of Christianity.

I must say that I am impressed that you know what it is and use it as an identifier. Most who are ultramontane in practice don't seem to know that they are.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I know. Montanism and ultramontanism are two very different things. Monantism is named after a heretic named Montanus, while ultramontanism is a compound of "ultra" and "montans". That means "beyond the mountains." It just means obedience to the Pope over local or national authorities, which is very orthodox in Catholic doctrine.

Papal secular authority was promoted using forged documents. It is not in agreement with Christian Tradition.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I think that The schism was mainly a rejection of papal temporal interference by emerging nation-states.

Protestantism could not have survived without the support of princes and nations who used it to further their own power.

Vatican excesses were the spark, but like other problems they could have been reformed without schism. Something else is needed to explain why Luther's reform movement caused schism while Francis's reform movement did not.

 

[Ave Maria]

The Protestant Reformation was primarily a response against a corrupt papacy and Church.

 

[PaladinValer]

Holly, that was, honestly, more of an afterthought.

 

[Lotar]

I think there are different reasons for different schisms, though all except of 2 would probably factor some into all of them, plus there were a number of issues not listed.

Number 1 would factor into all of them. Number 2 would be a factor for the Anabaptist and Reformed. Number 3 would be a factor for the Anglicans. Number 4, as in the rejection of Scholasticism, would be a factor for the Lutherans. Number 5 is subjective. I would answer 5 as, Roman officials who loved riches and temporal power more than Christ's Church, but that is my opinion.

 

[linden branch]

Hello Lotar,

Wouldn't you agree though that the support of the amicable German princes was an important factor in Protestantism's success (and the failure of Protestantism to win over the monarchy in France a crucial factor in its weakness there)? I know that having a friendly government (i.e., England, parts of Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia) was certainly a good indicator of where Protestantism was largely successful.

I don't believe the boundaries you delineated are nearly as clean cut and distributed as your list seems to make out, but perhaps that wasn't your intention, and if so, please forgive me for misreading you.

God bless,

Isaac

 

[Lotar]

Yes, of course. Protestants rose up in Spain and Italy as well, they just did a good job of burning and drowning them. But, once it was rooted in Northern Germany, friendly government was no longer as much of a factor, as the results of the aftermath of the Smaldcaldic Wars testify.

 

[SolomonVII]

Matthew 10

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."



An adequate prophecy for the reformation would be the one that Jesus
made about not coming to not to bring peace but the sword. Sons would
rise up against thier father and daughters against their own mothers. In fact,
in the Wars of religion that followed Luther, this is exactly what
happened. In spite of the tightness of the gene pool of the European
monarchies, Europe became devastated due to the teaching of our Prince
of Peace.

The actual model of a strong-willed individual leading to the Protestant
Reformation could almost certainly be seen in Christ Himself. Even
during a cursory reading of the gospels, one cannot help be struck by
how thoroughly Jesus came out against the religious establishment of the
day. From calling the Pharisees hypocrites and vipers, through to
violently clearing the Temple of its den of thieves; and as symbolized so
clearly by his curse upon the fig tree on the road to Jerusalem, Jesus
cursed the entire Jerusalem priesthood with this act.

In comparison, Luther's burning of Church canonical writings pales in comparison.
Nevertheless, in a society with a belief that one's very eternal soul
was dependant on the very Church whose tenets and teachings were literally being put to the fire, the actions of Luther, Calvin and the early reformers were truly revolutionary. To criticize the corruption and temporal excesses of the Church, as did Hus in previous centuries, would one thing. To actually change what had been proposed to be doctrine inspired by the Holy Spirit speaks of an individualism that was truly novel up to that point in European history.



The waxing and waning of corruption have been the lot of all earthly institutions from time immemorial. Political divisions were always present throughout the history of Christianity, and yet had not up until that point in time led to any rejecting the sacramental Church as the instrument of salvation. As evidenced even in the workings of Catholics such as Erasmus and Christian humanism, what had changed in Europe was the rise of a new consciousness where the emphasis became placed upon the individual.

Like Jesus, with his oft-repeated formula, “you have heard it said that …, but now I say unto you…”, the reformers became so filled with confidence in their own spirit-filled selves that they could propose to change traditional teachings and practices according to their own revelations.


With the rise of the spirit-filled individual as an authority unto himself, the traditional authority of the spiritual institutions becomes directly opposed to such an idea. This, then. would seem to be the primary influence on the Protestant schism. It was much more a revolution based on the rise of the individual, than a reformation, based on the shortcomings of institutional religion.

 

[Ann M]

Personally, this is a hard question to answer. I know that to look logically at the situation of the Church and the Pope from a 20th century point of view, just doesn't work, because the Papal office as I know it today, does not truly reflect the Papal Office of the time. Whilst today the Pope is a spiritual authority first and foremost, at the time of the revolution, he wasn't only this, but also a nation leader with his own 'country' - The Papal States. Decisions that a person needs to make, can be majorly affected by the number of people directly reliant on the outcomes, we only have to look at upcoming elections in both our countries. Could you imagine John Kerry or John Howard as both president/prime minister and Pope? Could you imagine being totally reliant on a group of high ranking politicians/churchmen to determine who could best run the counntry and the faith?...... hmm I suppose we have that part already, but at least we're not reliant on them for spiritual direction. I think the single most daunting repercussion of the Schism is that it continues today with more and more denominations appearing to cater to the needs of people. And a lack of central authority for some denominations seem to reflect in some churches of same denomination having nothing in common with others.