The Great Schism

[Cruxador]

So... How is this going to work? It seems like when AsaTJ asked about it, he received an evasive answer.

But presumably writing a whole new game is enough that whatever difficulties prevented it in CK2 can be overcome. It's not going to just be handwaved like in Old Gods/Charlemagne is it? Even as DLC, planning for something so major to be nickel and dimed so early is a bit scummy, but how can a feature like that be added via DLC anyway?

 

[Weyird]

I think with the new religion system, it could quite easily be implemented via an event when it happens, or just done as heresies of each other. No DLC needed, I think.

 

[MrNewVegas]

Like how it would have been easy to do in CK2, all you need is a series of events for the Prince-Bishop of Constantinope to declare that the pope is not infallible.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

As per when this came up *multiple* times in CKII, there is a fairly convincing position that the Schism had already in practice happened, although it had not yet been formalised.

In 867 the council held to discuss the Filoque question resulted in the Eastern bishops excommunicating the Pope, which is as close to formal schism as you are going to get without an actual formal schism.

This council actually followed on the back of a 4 year schism (the Photian schism), and so however you slice it, 867 would see the churches sundered, whether you place it in the last months of the Photian schism, or following the council.

Ergo the schism is likely to be in effect.

 

[treb]

So... How is this going to work? It seems like when AsaTJ asked about it, he received an evasive answer.

But presumably writing a whole new game is enough that whatever difficulties prevented it in CK2 can be overcome. It's not going to just be handwaved like in Old Gods/Charlemagne is it? Even as DLC, planning for something so major to be nickel and dimed so early is a bit scummy, but how can a feature like that be added via DLC anyway?

To answer the question you have to understand what caused it and why did it happen, essentially the great schism arose from two things the defacto independence of the Pope (nee Patriarch of Rome) from the Byzantine Empire and a number of doctrinal and hierarchical disputes inside the church. By the first confirmed start date 867 the papacy has not needed the explicit permission of the emperor to be anointed for about 115 years and is still technically not the Pope as we know it today but the ecumenical patriarch of Rome. So at this point a potential schism is easily avoidable if the Byzantine empire reasserts authority over Italy and the nascent papacy. The big stumbling block here is that the squabbling heirs of Charlemagne probably wouldn't look to kindly on Byzantium regaining is spot as protector of the see of Rome and their ticket to emperorship. The pope could probably call on Charlemagne's heirs to scrap with the Byzantines on his behalf but he has nowhere near to power and clout he will gain in the centuries to come and will most lightly just end up as as the second most powerful see in the Christian world after Constantinople should Byzantium prevail.

Post schism is a lot more complicated. Even if a Pope willingly conceded his temporal authority to the emperor of Byzantium, its more than lightly would cause a further schism in the catholic church as bishops that refuse to accept the emperors authority formally split with the 'reunited' church and crown a new pope effectively keeping the split going just with the papacy being 'orthodox'.


But in game play terms just have a 'communion score' on how united a given religion/denomination is and run the risk of a major schism if certain conditions are not met eg. If 'papal Christianity' and 'Constantinoplian? Christianity' agree on 4 out of 5 doctrines and their both vassals of the same liege a huge schism is very unlighted but if they only agree on 2 out of 5 doctrines and are not under the same liege then they will probably fall out of communion and become different denominations.

 

[treb]

As per when this came up *multiple* times in CKII, there is a fairly convincing position that the Schism had already in practice happened, although it had not yet been formalised.

In 867 the council held to discuss the Filoque question resulted in the Eastern bishops excommunicating the Pope, which is as close to formal schism as you are going to get without an actual formal schism.

This council actually followed on the back of a 4 year schism (the Photian schism), and so however you slice it, 867 would see the churches sundered, whether you place it in the last months of the Photian schism, or following the council.

Ergo the schism is likely to be in effect.

While this is true both sides still saw themselves as the same faith. the denominational split had yet to occur and as of yet the Pope was still fairy powerless compared to his position in 1053. Its entirety possible from that point had the Byzantines reined in the papacy the split wouldn't have happened or at the least as it happened in 1053.

Edit: Filioque was only formalized as western doctrine in 1014

 

[Cruxador]

I think with the new religion system, it could quite easily be implemented via an event when it happens, or just done as heresies of each other. No DLC needed, I think.

I certainly agree that it's possible without DLC, but for that reason especially, I wonder why (or if) nothing is being done about it now.

Like how it would have been easy to do in CK2, all you need is a series of events for the Prince-Bishop of Constantinope to declare that the pope is not infallible.

Well, it's not quite that simple. The split of the religion would also have to decide which counties, which bishops, and which rulers in general would follow which rites. In particular, the orders for closure of churches in the "wrong" language/rites was a pretty significant event.

As per when this came up *multiple* times in CKII, there is a fairly convincing position that the Schism had already in practice happened, although it had not yet been formalised.

In 867 the council held to discuss the Filoque question resulted in the Eastern bishops excommunicating the Pope, which is as close to formal schism as you are going to get without an actual formal schism.

This council actually followed on the back of a 4 year schism (the Photian schism), and so however you slice it, 867 would see the churches sundered, whether you place it in the last months of the Photian schism, or following the council.

Ergo the schism is likely to be in effect.

This argument fails the common sense test. If the two were already separate, why did they schism in 1054? Yes, the rites differed slightly and there were theological differences, but if that's all it takes to be considered a separate religion, there should be a separate religion for many many different countries and times. Pretty much every case where local pagans were converted to Christianity should have their own syncretic religion, by that metric, and changing to a a version more in keeping with the parent religion over successive generations of missionary work from the Church. That kind of organic granularity of religion would be pretty cool, actually, but it would be utterly unlike how religion has always been handled in Crusader Kings and the new "dynamic religions" system thus far described for CK3 doesn't go nearly that far: it's just a "make your own heresy" decision. I don't think we can expect the game to represent the applicable sort of theological disagreement while still being in communion. If it does, great, but then why wouldn't they just say "wait for the dev diary"? Or, hell, why wouldn't they be bragging about it already? That would be a tremendous overarching redesign of the religion system which would be a flagship feature of the new game. They definitely wouldn't have bogged up a comparatively surface level feature if they had something that fundamental to disclose.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

While this is true both sides still saw themselves as the same faith. the denominational split had yet to occur and as of yet the Pope was still fairy powerless compared to his position in 1053. Its entirety possible from that point had the Byzantines reined in the papacy the split wouldn't have happened or at the least as it happened in 1053.

Edit: Filioque was only formalized as western doctrine in 1014

They still nominally see themselves as the same faith - the schism has not caused them to reject each other's ordinations, and they are sufficiently acceptable to each other that in extremis the church services of one are acceptable for members of the other *if* there is no practical way to seek the services of your own church.
The churches had been in formal schism for the four years previous to this, and the split is reinforced by the excommunication.

And whilst the filioque may have only be formalised in 1014, it had been a point of contention since around 650 - and the Pope excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople.

It was a long and contentious issue, and the whole thing is quite frankly more complicated than we're going to manage to thrash out here.

The two churches had however been in and out of schism over the Filioque and other matters (chiefly governance and rite) for centuries by the point of the formal and final schism.

But in game play terms just have a 'communion score' on how united a given religion/denomination is and run the risk of a major schism if certain conditions are not met eg. If 'papal Christianity' and 'Constantinoplian? Christianity' agree on 4 out of 5 doctrines and their both vassals of the same liege a huge schism is very unlighted but if they only agree on 2 out of 5 doctrines and are not under the same liege then they will probably fall out of communion and become different denominations.

This *sounds* in line with what was being said about the dynamic heresy system, that there's a certain distance you can push the differences in tenets before getting a heretical split.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

This argument fails the common sense test. If the two were already separate, why did they schism in 1054? Yes, the rites differed slightly and there were theological differences, but if that's all it takes to be considered a separate religion, there should be a separate religion for many many different countries and times. Pretty much every case where local pagans were converted to Christianity should have their own syncretic religion, by that metric, and changing to a a version more in keeping with the parent religion over successive generations of missionary work from the Church. That kind of organic granularity of religion would be pretty cool, actually, but it would be utterly unlike how religion has always been handled in Crusader Kings and the new "dynamic religions" system thus far described for CK3 doesn't go nearly that far: it's just a "make your own heresy" decision. I don't think we can expect the game to represent the applicable sort of theological disagreement while still being in communion. If it does, great, but then why wouldn't they just say "wait for the dev diary"? Or, hell, why wouldn't they be bragging about it already? That would be a tremendous overarching redesign of the religion system which would be a flagship feature of the new game. They definitely wouldn't have bogged up a comparatively surface level feature if they had something that fundamental to disclose.

The two churches had schismed *several* times, with the schisms getting larger and harder to resolve at each stage.

The answer though is that essentially the schism had been temporarily healed, the two churches were back on board with each other, and then they schismed *again* in 1054, and that was the last point at which they were united for any reasonable length of time. De facto the churches had already separated though, even if de jure they had not.

The whole filioque thing fails the common sense test to be honest. It's largely a matter of trying to say the same thing in two different languages, but one of them having to insert a phrase to make up for an interpretation of a word, but not translating it *perfectly*.

They might have been evasive if they're not 100% certain *exactly* how they're handling it. They might not actually have a definitive "we're having the churches split" or "we're having a united church" answer at this stage.
They might have the state of de facto schism cause 867 to have already separated churches just so they don't have to have a mechanic in place to (relatively) cleanly break the larger church in two. They may have it in place so as to allow Catholicism to have Crusades early in the case that relevant triggers happen, without also bringing in the "Orthodox" world.
They might have a united church lined up for 867 but not have revealed it yet because they're not certain it'll make it to the final version, and they don't want to announce it and then have to walk it back - which could equally apply to announcing a schism and walking it back to a united church.

 

[treb]

They still nominally see themselves as the same faith - the schism has not caused them to reject each other's ordinations, and they are sufficiently acceptable to each other that in extremis the church services of one are acceptable for members of the other *if* there is no practical way to seek the services of your own church.
The churches had been in formal schism for the four years previous to this, and the split is reinforced by the excommunication.

And whilst the filioque may have only be formalised in 1014, it had been a point of contention since around 650 - and the Pope excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople.

It was a long and contentious issue, and the whole thing is quite frankly more complicated than we're going to manage to thrash out here.

The two churches had however been in and out of schism over the Filioque and other matters (chiefly governance and rite) for centuries by the point of the formal and final schism.

Your still missing the point, in the first start date the churches are one and the same if you went back and asked the then pope and patriarch what faith they were they wouldn't have answered Catholic and Orthodox they'd have answered Chalcedonian Christian. As long as it wasn't formalized they were despite the differences one denomination.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Your still missing the point, in the first start date the churches are one and the same if you went back and asked the then pope and patriarch what faith they were they wouldn't have answered Catholic and Orthodox they'd have answered Chalcedonian Christian. As long as it wasn't formalized they were despite the differences one denomination.

They probably wouldn't have answered Chalcedonian.

They'd just have said "Christian".

As would the Assyrian churches.
As would the Miaphysites.
As would the Arians in the 6th and 7th centuries.

 

[treb]

They probably wouldn't have answered Chalcedonian.

They'd just have said "Christian".

As would the Assyrian churches.
As would the Miaphysites.
As would the Arians in the 6th and 7th centuries.

I figured by the way I worded it, it implied that it went deeper then just asking basic faith and into denomination which was a thing back then. Yes, they were all Christian but they were the result of earlier schisms in church thought that had formally split ant they were fully aware of that...

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I figured by the way I worded it, it implied that it went deeper then just asking basic faith and into denomination which was a thing back then. Yes, they were all Christian but they were the result of earlier schisms in church thought that had formally split ant they were fully aware of that...

OK.

So if you're asking which creed they adhered to, that's more complicated.

The Chalcedonian (450 or so) creed had in the west been supplemented or supplanted by the Athanasian (assigned to Athanasius, but having details that date it to the 6th century) creed.

If you're asking which church councils were accepted in Constantinople and Rome, there were differences on that list, placing them slightly at odds.

But "Chalcedonian Christian" is not a term that I would expect them to have recognised.

Interestingly the Athanasian creed - in use in the West - wasn't widely accepted in the East, and so a question of "which creed do you adhere to?" may actually have had different answers even prior to the schisms that we've been talking about.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Like how it would have been easy to do in CK2, all you need is a series of events for the Prince-Bishop of Constantinope to declare that the pope is not infallible.

The infallibility of the Pope became a catholic dogma only in the First and Second Vatican Council in the late 19th century. That was not the reason for the schism betwen Catholix and Orthodox christianity, but for the schism between Catholic and "Alt-Katholisch"/Old Catholic.

 

[kviiri]

Your still missing the point, in the first start date the churches are one and the same if you went back and asked the then pope and patriarch what faith they were they wouldn't have answered Catholic and Orthodox they'd have answered Chalcedonian Christian. As long as it wasn't formalized they were despite the differences one denomination.

They would've called themselves "Christians", but asked specifically whether their church was "Catholic" and "Orthodox", both would've answered yes on both counts. In fact the name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is officially "Orthodox Catholic Church", and there's a bunch of other churches that include "Catholic" in their name or description without being Roman Catholic.

The words "Orthodox" and "Catholic" are often used as shorthands for the Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church, respectively, but they're actually descriptive words. Orthodox means "adhering to correct opinion", and Catholic means "universal"* (transcending national boundaries, representing the whole humanity at least in their view). Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches consider both of these to be true to themselves.

No idea when the current Catholic/Orthodox terminology became predominant, but I assume devout Christians of the Catholic side of the schism would not refer to their opponents as "Orthodox". My guess would be that the most neutral terms of the time would've been "Latin" and "Greek" churches, but 'tis only a guess.


* An interpretation is that a church self-labeling as Catholic means it considers itself to be the legitimate successor of the original Early Christian church community. Many Protestant denominations use the term somewhat more loosely, to mean they are simply of direct descent from the Early Christian church. The term "catholic" is also used in the Nicene creed where a common Protestant interpretation is that it refers not to the Roman Catholic Church specifically but to the world-wide Christendom, the idea of a single church or body of believers that is currently split between many denominations.

 

[Cruxador]

They still nominally see themselves as the same faith - the schism has not caused them to reject each other's ordinations, and they are sufficiently acceptable to each other that in extremis the church services of one are acceptable for members of the other *if* there is no practical way to seek the services of your own church.
The churches had been in formal schism for the four years previous to this, and the split is reinforced by the excommunication.

And whilst the filioque may have only be formalised in 1014, it had been a point of contention since around 650 - and the Pope excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople.

It was a long and contentious issue, and the whole thing is quite frankly more complicated than we're going to manage to thrash out here.

The two churches had however been in and out of schism over the Filioque and other matters (chiefly governance and rite) for centuries by the point of the formal and final schism.



This *sounds* in line with what was being said about the dynamic heresy system, that there's a certain distance you can push the differences in tenets before getting a heretical split.

Where did you see that? What I saw sounded more like just making dynamic heresies, but I know that separate from that, they've also talked about adding more nuance in the relationships between different religions. If there's a significant source of information that I missed, I'd be happy to learn of it.

 

[kviiri]

Nuance between different religions and their heresies would be cool. I think it's quite silly how Catholics are so (relatively) tolerant of something like Bogomils just because they're not their heresy.

 

[treb]

Nuance between different religions and their heresies would be cool. I think it's quite silly how Catholics are so (relatively) tolerant of something like Bogomils just because they're not their heresy.

Wouldn't that technically be double heresy? From a gameplay standpoint

 

[kviiri]

Wouldn't that technically be double heresy? From a gameplay standpoint

The way Crusader Kings 2 treats it is that each religious family is divided into religions, and each religion has one mainstream interpretation and potentially many heresies. One only gets the heretic opinion penalty within one's own religion: inside the same religious family but outside one's own religion the game considers no one a heretic, but just... kinda misguided in good faith, I guess? I'd think the idea behind the design choice is that matters of heresy are often this relatively minor stuff that doesn't fundamentally affect the external perception of one's church --- which isn't exactly true since some of CK2's heresies are really separate religions in their own right with doctrines clearly contradicting and sometimes even directly attacking the mainstream opinion. (eg. how Paulicians believed the Old Testament God to actually be evil)

 

[treb]

Attacking the source logical fallacy. Did you want to counter with your own facts and documents? No? Welcome to ignore.

Attacking the source is not pointing out that a source is unreliable, A religion is going to be biased toward itself, and a fiction writer by their nature is not going to be factual.

If what you assert from them websites is true then you should have absolutely no trouble finding a reliable source for your points.

https://guides.libs.uga.edu/c.php?g=571070&p=3936511