There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.
I know it gets simplified that way in modern textbooks, but Henry VIII never asked for a divorce. He asked for an annulment. He thought he had a valid case (based on the fact that his wife had been originally betrothed to his brother, and God's apparent judgment on that violation of the marriage canons in their failure to produce viable offspring), the Pope disagreed, possibly for valid canonical reasons, possibly because the wife in question also happened to be the sister of the King of Spain, the Pope's biggest royal ally of the time--but Henry assumed the latter and based his breaking the Church of England loose from Rome on Rome's playing politics with the canons.
It was more than that the elder brother Prince Arthur was betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, they had married on November 14, 1501 and the Prince of Wales did not die until April 2, 1502. He was fifteen by the way and she was sixteen. A special dispensation was obtained from the Bishop of Rome so that Henry who was now the heir to the throne could marry her which did not take place for 8 years due to things like negotiations about the dowry and other complications from Henry VII.
It was not "viable offspring" but male
children. That is one or more sons to continue the royal line. This is not something that was new. The need for a male heir was important in many situations. Henry knew that he could produce sons since he'd had Henry Fitzroy,the first Duke of Richmond and Somerset by a mistress. And before anyone throws that against him, kings and nobles and popes and others have had mistresses and concubines and other encounters throughout history. It's what happened.
So anyway, he had an illegitimate son, whom he tried to get decreed as his heir, but the young man died at 17. His reasoning, and he had been educated for a career in the Church so he wasn't making things up, was that there must be something wrong with being married to his brother's wife and that's why God wasn't giving him any male children who survived.
Catherine was the aunt of Emperor Charles V who had Pope Clement VII as his prisoner following the Sack of Rome. That was the connection and it wasn't a matter of alliance but of imprisonment. Also as a side note Charles V also had mistresses and illegitimate offspring, just for information's sake.
The point was "Who would rule? An English king and parliament or a Spanish King/Emperor telling the Bishop of Rome what to do?"
And by the way, as an example that I have mentioned in another thread in which the start of the Anglican Church was covered some time ago, Louis VII of France (1120-1180) was first married to Eleanor of Aquitaine. When she only bore him two daughters the marriage was annulled and he married Constance of Castille who also only had girls. She died and Louis married a third time and finally got an heir, Phillip II. Meanwhile Eleanor married Henry Plantagenet (Henry II of England) and had five sons and three daughters.
So this mindset was not something new.