Some like to think they have this figured out, but it's really quite complicated. What is the nature of schism? How does it really affect things? When Rome and Constantinople's hierarchs mutually excommunicated each other (individually), did it automatically change something on the coasts of Ireland, almost as if a plug were pulled from its socket? Some seem to think so. Others don't.
Determining when, and to what extent, a supposed schism has occurred, especially in regards to the Western Rite, seems to be at the heart of many disagreements about what has value and worth and a genuine place in an Orthodox context. For many, it seems, it's really as simple as the date with which we can identify the arrival of the thing in question. Sacred Heart? No, it didn't come about until the 13th century (or whenever), and it was propagated by an evidently mentally ill woman. Never mind its liturgical context (as opposed to devotional), or the actual texts of its Office, or how Orthodox Christians might actually understand it; its time, place, and personal associations are enough. We'll have none of it.
Pick your hot button issue: Corpus Christi, Rosary, Tridentine Mass, Book of Common Prayer services, Benediction, who wears what and when, etc., it all seems to focus on the timeframe of its provenance and the reasons (real or imagined) for which these various things occurred.
It's not that those factors aren't important (even if mostly logically fallacious, e.g. Genetic Fallacy, Slipper Slope Fallacy, Non Sequitur, etc.) but that the conversation hardly ever seems to be centered on how actual Orthodox Christians, under Orthodox bishops, holding to the Orthodox faith, understand these things. If it's after a certain date, we can label it "Roman Catholic" or "Anglican" or "Protestant" and be done with it.
I say all that to say, I personally find a narrative framework built upon "schism" to be largely useless. History isn't clean like that.