Why did the church not schism in the East?

[Joykins]

My knowledge of this is not particularly detailed, in the historical sense, so I'd appreciate any pro or con thoughts or references.

In the 1000s, there was a schism in the existing Church, which had theretofore been essentially one body. There had been small splinter groups but they remained small and were either reassimilated, died out, or eradicated.

The western church proceeded under the pope in Rome. The eastern church continued to be guided by a confederation of regional patriarchs.

Then things got Interesting. In the West, the church remained a temporal power in all places, and became tightly tied to secular power. In the East, the church at first (like in Russia and the Byzantine Empire) the church was also a tied to temporal/secular power. However, the East also fell under a wave of invasions--from the Turks and Arabs in the East, from other Christians in the West, from the Mongols in Russia, etc. So for many times and places the church in the East was a church of the temporally conquered. We know that the church and Christians in the Ottoman empire was officially tolerated but also oppressed.

In the West, a growing movement against abuses within the Western church gained too much political power and schism again occured. The Protestant reformation had begun. Although Luther made some overtures to one of the eastern Patriarchs, the contact ceased when the 2 factions could not come to any major agreement. Protestantism continues to be a schisming religion to this day, although there are undercurrents of unity among similar sects and different denominations often work together.

Why did the church not schism in a similar way in the East? Was it because the church did not have the political power that it did in the West and so rebelling against it did not serve the political motives that it did, say, for Luther's patrons? Was it because the "power" of the Eastern church was not concentrated to any one leader? Was it because the Eastern church did not have the same "abuses" as the Western church was thought to have by the reformers? Also, if one thinks of the Protestant Reformation as having within it a thread of iconoclasm, why did this ideology not re-emerge in the East?

 

[PaladinValer]

It did.

Ever heard of the Old Rituatists (aka Old Believers)? Fascinating subject.

And there were some very small and short-lived Protestant movements within EO territory, but they were quite insignificant.

 

[Joykins]

Old Believers...it's pinging a bell, was it a Russian movement?

 

[NewToLife]

There have been no major schisms since the time that Rome went into schism, the reason for this is essentially that there is unity of belief within Orthodoxy. That is not to say that there have not been problems of course, simply that there has been no issue that remained unresolved for long enough to break the communion of the Church.

For one reason or another Orthodox theology seems less brittle, this may well have to do with the fact that it does not define in areas where definition is deemed unnecessary, we are often content to allow that many things outside of the core areas of faith are mysterious, we cannot say for certain so there is no scope for disagreement.

 

[Philip]

Old Believers...it's pinging a bell, was it a Russian movement?

Yes

 

[QuantaCura]

I think it's because Sola Scriptura never took hold in the East. With Sola Scriptura, there's no solid way of saying one's interpretation is right and the other's are wrong. Two totally reasonable people read the same book and come to different conclusions, which they both believe are absolute Truth. Since no one compromises Truth (as well they shouldn't), people would just start up their own new churches preaching the Gospel as they interpreted it...and so on and so on. That's why Protestantism is always splintering anyway. The Eastern Churches maintain unity because everyone makes sure their interpretation is consistent with Tradition--that which has always been taught.

 

[Joykins]

But *why* did Sola Scriptura never take root in the East? No native proponents?

 

[Philip]

But *why* did Sola Scriptura never take root in the East? No native proponents?

I think it has to do with the culture. Theology in the West was greatly influenced by Scholasticism and other reason-based philosophies. This is especially true of the developments of Thomas Aquinas and Anselm, but it reaches back to at least Blessed Augustine. Now, when we combine this with the Renaissance and its emphasis on humanistic interpretations of Classical literature, we have a renewed interest in the general public (or at least the wealthy) in reading the Scriptures. The writings of Plato, Plutarch, and other Classical authors were rediscovered. Many felt that the Scriptures also had to be 'rediscovered'. (If they were ever 'undiscovered' is debatable.)

At the same time, we have the breakdown of Feudalism. This has at least two major effects pushing towards Sola Scriptura. The first is obvious: as the rising middle class developed a resentment for their secular feudal lords, it is only natural that some also rejected the percieved feudal church. (A similar thing happened in Orthodox Russia as people became disenchanted with the Tzar.) Remember, we are seeing the seeds of modern democracy spout at this time. Economically and politically, people were feeling more independent and self-sufficient. And this extended into the religious realm. It occurs at several levels. In addition to Sola Scriptura, we can see the rise of the idea of 'the local church' along with Congregational and Presbyterian forms of church polity.

The second, less obvious, effect of the breakdown of Feudalism has to do with theology. Anslem's theological ideas, especially those dealing with the Fall, Justification and Sanctification, were largely based on Feudalism. As people saw errors in the political theory of Feudalism, they also began to see errors in the religious theory of Feudalism. Calvin, especially, tried to rectify this. But no matter who tried to fix the theories, it required a rejection of some parts of Catholic tradition. This opened the door for Sola Scriptura.

Now, why didn't this happen in the East? Eastern culture in general, and Eastern theology in particular, tends to be more mystic. It does not lend itself well to reason-based Sola Scriptura. Also, Eastern cultures tend to focus more on the group rather that the emphasis on the individual that predominates the in the West. The East did not experience a Dark Ages. The Scriptures were always availible in the native tongues, so there was not a feeling that the Scriptures had to be rediscovered.

While there were feudal/monarchal political systems in Orthodox Russia and Byzantium, much of Orthodoxy was under the political power of Muslim governments. This prevent Orthodoxy from taking a feudal form that seems to have arrisen in European Church. Thus, except for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the Orthodox Church was not subject to secular, political revolutions.

Finally, Orthodoxy was spread over a much greater breadth of cultures. This helped prevent a single theological theory from predominating as Anselm's did in the West. Thus, there was no one theory that could break down and need repair.

 

[Albion]

Why did the church not schism in a similar way in the East? Was it because the church did not have the political power that it did in the West and so rebelling against it did not serve the political motives that it did, say, for Luther's patrons? Was it because the "power" of the Eastern church was not concentrated to any one leader? Was it because the Eastern church did not have the same "abuses" as the Western church was thought to have by the reformers? Also, if one thinks of the Protestant Reformation as having within it a thread of iconoclasm, why did this ideology not re-emerge in the East?

As several have hinted, there were indeed schisms in the East both before 1054 and after. However, the main reason for there not being an equivalent of the Reformation in the East is that all the cultural and intellectual dynamics were different in the East--no stimuli on the level of the appearance of Capitalism, the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, etc. Whether one likes or dislikes the Reformation, without the advances in information and government, changes in other parts of our lives would not be forthcoming. One very important aspect of the Renaissance and the Reformation was the rediscovery of ancient thought, both religious and secular. This made society newly appreciative of the Early Church and Scripture.

 

[NewToLife]

One very important aspect of the Renaissance and the Reformation was the rediscovery of ancient thought, both religious and secular. This made society newly appreciative of the Early Church and Scripture.

One should stress that it is in fact only within Europe that such a rediscovery was necessary, ancient thought had never been lost in the first place in the east and the scriptures had been available in the languages of the faithful all along.

The root causes of the reformation must lie elsewhere. I'd suggest an examination of the Catholic churches political ambitions and the reaction of national governments threatened by those ambitions might in fact be a better place to start.

 

[Albion]

One should stress that it is in fact only within Europe that such a rediscovery was necessary, ancient thought had never been lost in the first place in the east and the scriptures had been available in the languages of the faithful all along.

You have a point, but the knowledge of the ancients there was not clean or complete, having been overlain with centuries of commentary and legend. The thrust of the Renaissance was to recover what had been lost and genuine, and both East and West were not free from needing that. What may be more important to say is that the West rallied to this challenge and was positioned to do so in a way that the East could not.

The root causes of the reformation must lie elsewhere. I'd suggest an examination of the Catholic churches political ambitions and the reaction of national governments threatened by those ambitions might in fact be a better place to start.

Oh, that was a stimulus all right, but the "causes" speak of something more extensive. Merely having a grievance against the policies and practices of the Roman Church would not necessarily have made the Reformation what it was.

 

[Joykins]

Some* have suggested that the Reformation would not have been more than a tiny theological dispute within the church had the printing press not been recently invented.


*my 8th grade teacher or someone like that at any rate

 

[PaladinValer]

The printing press is really a two-edged sword. The fact that the Vatican Church reclaimed a lot of territory shows that both used it to great effect.

 

[Albion]

Some* have suggested that the Reformation would not have been more than a tiny theological dispute within the church had the printing press not been recently invented.


*my 8th grade teacher or someone like that at any rate

Probably true...and a very interesting fact to think about and study. Consider all the forerunners of Luther who never gained a mass following because it was possible for the authorities to contain them.

 

[NewToLife]

Probably true...and a very interesting fact to think about and study. Consider all the forerunners of Luther who never gained a mass following because it was possible for the authorities to contain them.

Actually there were forerunners to the reformation with mass followings, the Hussites are the most notable example.

 

[Albion]

Actually there were forerunners to the reformation with mass followings, the Hussites are the most notable example.

What I wrote was: "Consider all the forerunners of Luther who never gained a mass following because it was possible for the authorities to contain them."

So if we do this, would we say that this would be the only example? And that assumes that this movement does qualify as "mass." If so, how would it square with the point about Luther and printing?

 

[Lotar]

Given the small scale of similiar movements, starting with the Waldenses, the short lived success of the Hussites seems to help show the point that the key to the spread and long lasting success of Luther's Reformation wasn't the printing press, but political support. If the Reformation was merely a battle of theological proofs and tracts, Protestantism and Catholicism would be more evenly spread across Europe, not sharply geographically defined.

 

[Canadian75]

If the Reformation was merely a battle of theological proofs and tracts, Protestantism and Catholicism would be more evenly spread across Europe, not sharply geographically defined.

Excellent point. Northern Europe mostly went Protestant, Southern Europe mostly stayed Catholic. The farther from Rome (geographically) the more likely to become Protestant and the least likely to be physically persecuted by the RCC.


Peace.

 

[NewToLife]

Given the small scale of similiar movements, starting with the Waldenses, the short lived success of the Hussites seems to help show the point that the key to the spread and long lasting success of Luther's Reformation wasn't the printing press, but political support. If the Reformation was merely a battle of theological proofs and tracts, Protestantism and Catholicism would be more evenly spread across Europe, not sharply geographically defined.

That was exactly the point I was making, not that printing was unimportant but that it is political support that was the deciding factor in the survival of Protestantism.

 

[Albion]

That was exactly the point I was making, not that printing was unimportant but that it is political support that was the deciding factor in the survival of Protestantism.

Of course, historians identify both of these (printing press and support of political leaders) and other considerations, too, as contributing to Luther's success.

What we do know is that circunstances, including for instance the weakened state of the Papacy at that time, helped. In contrast, those who came before did not have these non-theological benefits going for them (at least, not as many of them as Luther did).