The Great Schism

[LukeCreed13]

Mmm... considering that at launch there won't be any investiture/antipopes mechanics, I wonder if one of their very first DLCs may very well be about Christian religion interactions. So not only in Western Europes with all the Popes/Antipopes/excommunication shenanigans, but also the Great Schism as well.

 

[Cruxador]

Mmm... considering that at launch there won't be any investiture/antipopes mechanics, I wonder if one of their very first DLCs may very well be about Christian religion interactions. So not only in Western Europes with all the Popes/Antipopes/excommunication shenanigans, but also the Great Schism as well.

As much as I hope that this gets added, I fear they would be dissuaded from such a course of action by the inevitability of loads of fans complaining (and not without cause) that something which was a core feature of the previous game is a paid feature of the successor. They could make investiture and antipopes part of the free update and add other related features as part of a larger DLC, but even then I would be surprised to see it in the first three. The same applies to relics/inventory.

 

[MrCDexterWard]

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)

I believe one of the articles that interviewed Henrik mentioned that religions were now going to be structured as Super-group then group then sub-group as in the fashion of Abrahamic to Christian to Catholic. Thus you could kind of fix the issue by making heresies like the Paulicians be a heresy to Christianity or even Abrahamic thus making them a heresy to all main christian denominations (and possibly even Muslims and Jews as well if it is effectively a new religion). For example I would suspect that the Orthodox wouldn't have cared too much about the Fraticelli to call them a heresy but they would care enough about the cathars to see them as heretics.

 

[wingren013]

While the split was officially at a later date, the two churches became irrevocably separate with the crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. There's no reason not to represent Orthodox and Catholic as separate religions in game.

 

[treb]

While the split was officially at a later date, the two churches became irrevocably separate with the crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. There's no reason not to represent Orthodox and Catholic as separate religions in game.

Except that they stayed united for the next 300 years...

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Except that they stayed united for the next 300 years...

Absolutely!

Pre-1054 Christianity. Latin and Greek were not identical, but if they kept "orthodoxy" there was communion and reciprocal recognition.

 

[IlikeTrains]

This is a thread about the Great Schism, why are we discussing the Netzirs and Bar Kochba revolt?

 

[viola]

Except that they stayed united for the next 300 years...

Nominally, not in practice.

Practical separation between the Western and Eastern Churches was a thing even before Charlemagne. The unity of Chalcedonian Christianity could be sustained only as long as the Byzantines managed to keep control of Italy and the Pope in Rome under control and somewhat compliant to what was decided in Constantinople. Once the Byzantines became unable to make their influence felt in Rome (which is even earlier than CK2's 769 start date) the Western Church inevitably started acting independently from the Eastern Church.

 

[King Anund]

This argument fails the common sense test. If the two were already separate, why did they schism in 1054?

They did not schism in 1054, in that date only there was a mutual excommunication of the Pope and Patriarch as individuals, not as churches. That date was taken later by historians as the date of the schism but really it never was a moment where both churches broke its communion but a slow distancing between them from the 5th century to 1204.

and then they schismed *again* in 1054, and that was the last point at which they were united for any reasonable length of time.

Except in 1439-1455 where both churches reunited and almost all Greek Bishops approved it.

e 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.

None of them would have answered Chalcedonian Christian, that is a term that was never used in the period, unlike Catholic, Orthodox or, simply, Christian, terms which both denominations identify themselves even for today.

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

The doctrine of Papal Infalibility, while defined in 1870, it was developed over the medieval centuries and is a basic tenet of Catholicism. The way dogma works in the Catholic Chruch is not that a doctrine is made up when it is defined but that is something common to the Catholic Fait.
That's why we have medieval representations of the Assumption of Mary, even though the dogma was defined in 1950.
And when pope Gregory VII declares in 1075 in Dictatus Papae that: "The Roman Church has never erred. Nor will it err, to all eternity--Scripture being witness." he is assuring the Infallibility of the Papal institution, even though Papal Infallibility was defined as a dogma 800 years later.

 

[kviiri]

None of them would have answered Chalcedonian Christian, that is a term that was never used in the period, unlike Catholic, Orthodox or, simply, Christian, terms which both denominations identify themselves even for today.

Mandatory reminder that the Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself catholic (=universal, direct continuation of the ancient church) and the Roman Catholic church considers itself orthodox (=having the correct beliefs). I'm not saying that Pdox should obsessively stick to Medieval terminology within the game, but if they choose to, those two terms are not good ones to use for the Latin and Greek sides of the church.

 

[treb]

Nominally, not in practice.

Practical separation between the Western and Eastern Churches was a thing even before Charlemagne. The unity of Chalcedonian Christianity could be sustained only as long as the Byzantines managed to keep control of Italy and the Pope in Rome under control and somewhat compliant to what was decided in Constantinople. Once the Byzantines became unable to make their influence felt in Rome (which is even earlier than CK2's 769 start date) the Western Church inevitably started acting independently from the Eastern Church.

By that, wouldn't it stand to reason that if the Byzantines reined in the papacy that the final split could be prevented?

 

[ConjurerDragon]

...
Except in 1439-1455 where both churches reunited and almost all Greek Bishops approved it.

On paper perhaps. There never has been a true reunion. It was a political step of the Emperor who put considerably pressure on the Orthodox Bishops to accept and even then one of them continued to declare Rome to be in Schism, while in the churches the greek orthodox believers never accepted a union with the latin church. All that because they feared the end of Byzantium as a state due to imminent ottoman pressure and hoped a union would lead to more western help and not because they changed their mind over ecclesial matters.

The doctrine of Papal Infalibility, while defined in 1870, it was developed over the medieval centuries and is a basic tenet of Catholicism.
The way dogma works in the Catholic Chruch is not that a doctrine is made up when it is defined but that is something common to the Catholic Fait.
That's why we have medieval representations of the Assumption of Mary, even though the dogma was defined in 1950.
And when pope Gregory VII declares in 1075 in Dictatus Papae that: "The Roman Church has never erred. Nor will it err, to all eternity--Scripture being witness." he is assuring the Infallibility of the Papal institution, even though Papal Infallibility was defined as a dogma 800 years later.

No, a dogma is a church dogma only if officially declared to be a dogma. Before the Pope never was seen as infallible - the Roman Church was.
That was especially clear during the Council of Constance where the western schism between the antipopes was ended and where the Council deposed the Popes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Except in 1439-1455 where both churches reunited and almost all Greek Bishops approved it.

I wasn't really counting that bried 16 year period as lasting for a "reasonable" length of time.

There is also the point "However, upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the Fall of Constantinople two decades later). The union signed at Florence has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."
The reunion is a bit of an "well yes, but no" situation, in that the delegates were pushed into it, but back home the church didn't go along with the reunification.

 

[viola]

By that, wouldn't it stand to reason that if the Byzantines reined in the papacy that the final split could be prevented?

Yeah, that's what the "Mend the Schism" decision always meant to me in CK2.

 

[Ollum]

Implemetation a Great Schism is very good. Catholicism and Orthodoxy in 936, 867 and 769 is ahistorical and annoying. Obviously, must be a options, where Byzantine emperor keep Chalcedonian (pre-Great Schism Christanity) and any ruler after schism can choose Catholic, Orthodox or heretic faith, regardless of their geographic position.

 

[Alehkra]

Implemetation a Great Schism is very good. Catholicism and Orthodoxy in 936, 867 and 769 is ahistorical and annoying. Obviously, must be a options, where Byzantine emperor keep Chalcedonian (pre-Great Schism Christanity) and any ruler after schism can choose Catholic, Orthodox or heretic faith, regardless of their geographic position.

How realistic is that idea? I don't know nearly enough about the details of the split in the Church to say, but how many cases were there of Western rulers recognizing Greek Orthodoxy over the Roman Church? As I understand it one of the reasons Charlemagne can be used as at least sort of an important marker on the way to Schism is because it represented the Pope putting the official stamp of Church approval on the idea that there was no longer a legitimate Imperial authority in the West. I guess it's probably oversimplifying matters to say the Schism was more a political split than theological, but iirc with later Slavic or Magyar tribes whether you became Catholic or Orthodox depended a great deal upon whether you wanted to associated more with the Byzzies or the HRE. Aside from those specific cases of later Pagan converts, however, for existing Christians wasn't whether you became Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox post-Schism (whenever that can be said to have officially happened) already basically pre-determined based upon where you were?

 

[Byzantium2000]

How realistic is that idea? I don't know nearly enough about the details of the split in the Church to say, but how many cases were there of Western rulers recognizing Greek Orthodoxy over the Roman Church? As I understand it one of the reasons Charlemagne can be used as at least sort of an important marker on the way to Schism is because it represented the Pope putting the official stamp of Church approval on the idea that there was no longer a legitimate Imperial authority in the West. I guess it's probably oversimplifying matters to say the Schism was more a political split than theological, but iirc with later Slavic or Magyar tribes whether you became Catholic or Orthodox depended a great deal upon whether you wanted to associated more with the Byzzies or the HRE. Aside from those specific cases of later Pagan converts, however, for existing Christians wasn't whether you became Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox post-Schism (whenever that can be said to have officially happened) already basically pre-determined based upon where you were?

Well I mean Sardinia went from Orthodox to Catholic which it had no choice of course realistically with Byzantium kicked out of Italy and now all Catholic Norman neighbors though it’s the exception to the rule.

But man I gotta say I wouldn’t call the religions far apart enough pre 1053 if the Byzantines were still propping up their own Antipopes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XVI. Their was even a faction in Rome that supported Byzantine Control.

And of course theirs the shared saints with crazy examples like Otto iii Holy Roman Emperor seeking atonement from shared Pre Schism Saint Nilus a Byzantine Born Greek Rite priest.

Though Great Schism talk is beyond my pay grade and with only 1 Confirmed pre Schism start now I don’t consider it a absolute necessity.

 

[DPS]

with only 1 Confirmed pre Schism start now I don’t consider it a absolute necessity.

Yeah. Basically, the split between Rome and the eastern churches was more of a process than an event. The mutual excommunication of 1054 gives a nice, fixed date to use for textbooks intended for, say, grade-school level, but the reality is much more messy and complicated. By 867 there were already quite clear differences. Sure, if the ERE had been able to regain control of Rome, then things could probably have been patched up, but as viola said, that's what the "Mend the Great Schism" event was for (and I assume there will be a similar event in CKIII).

If later DLCs add in a 769 start date, though, having separate Catholic and Orthodox faiths is problematic.

 

[Byzantium2000]

Yeah. Basically, the split between Rome and the eastern churches was more of a process than an event. The mutual excommunication of 1054 gives a nice, fixed date to use for textbooks intended for, say, grade-school level, but the reality is much more messy and complicated. By 867 there were already quite clear differences. Sure, if the ERE had been able to regain control of Rome, then things could probably have been patched up, but as viola said, that's what the "Mend the Great Schism" event was for (and I assume there will be a similar event in CKIII).

If later DLCs add in a 769 start date, though, having separate Catholic and Orthodox faiths is problematic.

Well you can also argue the other way and say the Great Schism didn’t truly begin until the Fourth Crusade. But I agree with their only being 867 and no 769 or Confirmed 936 that leaves only 1 Ck3 Pre-schism start compared to CK2s 3.

 

[viola]

Well you can also argue the other way and say the Great Schism didn’t truly begin until the Fourth Crusade.

I don't really see how that argument could hold any water to be honest.
The separation between the churches was both gradual and with very ancient roots, as soon as the Byzantines couldn't keep the Papacy under control the Western church started behaving independently from Constantinople, and the only thing that kept the division from becoming official as early as the 8/9th century was that neither Catholics nor Orthodoxs wanted to split the universal church (although the division was actually already underway).