Why did the church not schism in the East?

[ps139]

In the west, there were many rich people who benefitted from the rise of Protestantism, because if territories broke from Roman authority, they could raise their interest rates on loans and not fear papal condemnation. The rise of burghers, and the whole economic changes in the west really gave the Reformation a fertile ground. This is one of many factors in why there was schism in the west, but not in the east. Christopher Dawson, professor at Harvard, has written excellent books on this subject.

 

[ScottBot]

The Church in the East did schism as a result of Emperor Zenos declaration of Henotikon, with several churches breaking away from the Eastern Patriarch and forming what are known as Akephaloi, or acephalous(without a head) churches. They were also known as Eutychians who, in 482, separated from the Patriarch of Alexandria, Peter Mongus, because of the latters abject refusal to outright condemn the heresy of monophysitism. One of the current remaining acephalous or autocephalous churches is the Albanian Orthodox Church.

 

[NewToLife]

Scott, what has an episode that occurred long before the Great Schism have to do with the OP exactly?

Very clearly the OP addresses the period after the Great Schism. Prior to that there was only one Church which yes was in both East and West but which was not separated in the manner that it was post schism.

 

[stray bullet]

The unia in the Ukraine was actually largely the result of Kiev being annexed by Polish Catholic forces and happened under political pressure from the Poles. It's interesting that what we see, as in the Protestant reformation, is that even here it is political power that has determined the outcome to a large extent.

The church in Lithuania was not made Catholic though, as I recall.

 

[ScottBot]

Scott, what has an episode that occurred long before the Great Schism have to do with the OP exactly?

Very clearly the OP addresses the period after the Great Schism. Prior to that there was only one Church which yes was in both East and West but which was not separated in the manner that it was post schism.

To demonstrate that the seeds that divided the eastern church from the western church were planted LOOOOOOONG before 1054. The Great Schism was an event that had been cooking for almost 600 years.

 

[Albion]

In the west, there were many rich people who benefitted from the rise of Protestantism, because if territories broke from Roman authority, they could raise their interest rates on loans and not fear papal condemnation. The rise of burghers, and the whole economic changes in the west really gave the Reformation a fertile ground. This is one of many factors in why there was schism in the west, but not in the east. Christopher Dawson, professor at Harvard, has written excellent books on this subject.

I think you've overstated the point. There was a financial benefit to both Catholic and Protestant princes --and others -- depending upon which country we are discussing. However, the Reformation's success can hardly be attributed to that.

 

[Lotar]

To demonstrate that the seeds that divided the eastern church from the western church were planted LOOOOOOONG before 1054. The Great Schism was an event that had been cooking for almost 600 years.

From about the time of Augustine?



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...bs_b_2_1/002-4458101-2880050?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...gy_img_2/002-4458101-2880050?v=glance&s=books

 

[ScottBot]

From about the time of Augustine?



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226653714/qid=1127178557/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-4458101-2880050?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226653730/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2/002-4458101-2880050?v=glance&s=books

I would say that the seeds were planted when Constantine moved the Capital from Rome to Byzantium. But that's just a guess. I am not that up on the history. If we could agree on a neutral and accurate historical source, I'd love to delve into this topic with you. No debate, no fingerpointing, just charitable discussion between two servants of Christ.

 

[Lotar]

I would say that the seeds were planted when Constantine moved the Capital from Rome to Byzantium. But that's just a guess. I am not that up on the history. If we could agree on a neutral and accurate historical source, I'd love to delve into this topic with you. No debate, no fingerpointing, just charitable discussion between two servants of Christ.

I gave you a couple; the rest of the series is very good as well.

It probably would be good for you to read up on it. At the moment you are reminding me of Protestants who claim that the Church was paganized at the time of St. Constantine. It sounds reasonable enough, as long as you don't actually know very much about the history.

Love the reputation count, btw.

 

[NewToLife]

The church in Lithuania was not made Catholic though, as I recall.

I checked, it would appear that the conversion of nobles was voluntary but the conversion of the peasentry was forced, this lead to violence in the Vitebsk Rebellion and The Ukrainian Liberation War.

 

[Mick116]

It has been correctly established here that the Christian East did not experience any schism even remotely comparable to that of the Protestant reformations. However, were there any much smaller, localised Eastern movements or sects that rejected Orthodoxy in favour of characteristically Protestant or evangelical beliefs and/or ideology?

One example that I can think of are the Molokans, who rejected the ritual of the Russian Church in the mid-sixteenth century, and attempted to found a more Bible-centric religion.

The Bogomils of the 10th century were apparently an heretical sect that also abandoned much of the ritual of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (including the celebration of sacraments and the veneration of images). Theologically, though, the beliefs of this sect cannot be identified as evangelical in any meaningful sense of the word.