GOOD NEWS - BAD NEWS (Don't Say You Weren't Warned)

Self | 1-22-04 | Sidebar Moderator

[TradicalRC]

Yahtzee!!!

[Alex Murphy]

My claim is not that any of the referenced groups denies the other's claim but rather each group places a stronger emphasis on these particular areas. My claim is that the RCC most definitely places a stronger emphasis on human authority (The role of the church and the pope) than do Calvinists or Arminians. My claim is that this stronger emphasis directly impacts ones political philosophy. (whew)

Nicely put!

[polemikos]

Exactly.

It is this incident which has conventionally been taken to mark the beginning of the great schism between the Orthodox east and the Latin west. But the schism, as historians now generally recognize, is not really an event whose beginning can be exactly dated. It was something that came about gradually, as the result of a long and complicated process, starting well before the eleventh century and not completed until some time after.

Thanks for the post. I don't disagree (although it seems Orthodox Bishop Ware emphaizes Latin mistakes more than Greek mistakes. Witness: 1182 merits 15 words; whereas Latin response atrocities in 1204 merit about 8 sentences. Nor does he note that the 2 atrocities ought to be independent of the doctrinal issues.) Is this online somewhere?

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This conclusion, however, is not correct, because in the bull composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Cerularius was excommunicated. The validity of the bull is questioned because Pope Leo IX was already dead at that time. On the other side, the Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legates and abstained from any attack on the pope or the Latin Church."