👇 Why did The Great Schism occur (and still continue)? 1. A rejection of Papal authority by Patriarchs of the East 2. Growing tension caused by geography, shift of power in the Roman empire from West to East and language. 3. The Filioque Controversy: the addition of the phrase "and the Son" (filioque) to the Nicene creed in the Western Church, which the East rejected. 4. Actions during the First Crusade. The schism was further exacerbated when Western soldiers, sent to aid the East during the First Crusade, instead acted greedily and hostilely, causing deep animosity between the people of both regions. Despite the schism, efforts towards reconciliation and reunification have been made throughout history. We continue to pray for our Eastern Orthodox separated brethren for their return, like a prodigal son, to union with the Holy See. It’s important to note that there have been a number of Eastern Church that have come back to communion with Rome such as the Ukrainian, Melkite, Syro-Malabar, Chaldean, Maronite Churches among others.
@@polycarp1334 in that passage Jesus is talking about Peter’s calling specifically. For a more general application I would probably agree with Augustine who says “Peter, in receiving the keys, represented the holy Church” (Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John). Likewise Origin states, “we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us” (Commentary on Matthew).
I love how Catholics talk about the Great Schism as if it only happened in 1054, and as if 300 before the Pope haven't had sold himself to Charlemagne and the Frankish kings in the West .
Rome faced many issues and popes grabbing for power. It ended sadly in the pope leaving the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and being outside of her ever since
There were eight councils of the Church before the schism in 1054 split into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, when the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. None of these eight councils was called by the Bishop of Rome, but by the emperor, who also put his stamp of approval upon their decrees. As for papal authority: "Pope Pelaguis (556-60) talks of heretics separating themselves from the Apostolic See, that is, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria plus Constantinople. In all the early writings of the hierarchy there is no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, nor yet the special name of 'Pope' ... Of the eighty or so heresies in the first six centuries, not one refers to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, not one is settled by the Bishop or Rome ... No one attacks the [supreme] authority of the Roman pontiff, because no one has heard of it". The Easter Synod of 680 called by Pope Agatho was the first ecclesiastical body that asserted the primacy of Rome over the rest of the Church, but this was not an ecumenical council of the entire Church, so its decision was not generally accepted. "...not one of the early Fathers of the church say in the Bible any reference to papal jurisdiction over the church. On the contrary, they take it for granted that bishops, especially metropolitans, have the full right to govern and administer their own territory without interference from anyone. The Eastern church never accepted papal supremacy; Rome's attempt to impose it led to the schism". "...one looks in vain in the first millennium for a single doctrine or piece of legislation imposed by Rome alone on the rest of the church. The only general laws came out of Councils such as Nicaea. In any case, how could the Bishop of Rome have exercised universal jurisdiction in those early centuries when there was no [Roman] Curia, when other bishops brooked no interference in their dioceses from anyone, when Rome issued no dispensations and demanded no tribute or taxation, when all bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome, had the power to bind and loose, when no bishop or church or individual was censured by Rome? Further, for centuries, the Bishop of Rome was chosen by the local citizens--clergy and laity. If he had jurisdiction over the universal church, would not the rest of the world want a say in his appointment? When he was believed to have [universal] supremacy the rest of the church did demand a say in his election. This came about only in the Middle Ages".
@@nazgul225 Romanists deleting my comments from yesterday? As a young man Daniel was called upon to stand before Nebuchadnezzar and declare to him a mysterious dream, which none of the magicians and sorcerers could speak of. By a revelation of God, Daniel was enabled to declare the vision and its interpretation. "Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. "This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter's clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof is sure." (Daniel 2. 31-45). This passage of scripture has been given in full, because it gives a profound summary of history from the time of Nebuchadnezzar up to the present day. The vision concludes with that almighty and glorious kingdom of Christ made "without hands," which will ultimately overthrow all worldly empires and dominions at the Lord's second coming. In addition to the vision of Nebuchadnezzar, the four kingdoms are later represented by another vision as four beasts in Daniel chapter 7. It was explained to Daniel, "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever." (Daniel 7. 17-18). For the purpose of this discussion, it suffices to give just a brief summary of what these four kingdoms are.....wouldn't you agree?
Catholics broke away from the early church practice of autonomous churches and concillarism in favor of autocratic government control by the Papacy and the Papal States.
Praying for an increase in faith, hope and charity. Stay with me, Lord, for it is necessary to have You present so that I do not forget You. You know how easily I abandon You. Stay with me, Lord, because I am weak and I need Your strength, that I may not fall so often. Stay with me, Lord, for You are my life and without You I am without fervour. Stay with me, Lord, for You are my light and without You I am in darkness. Stay with me, Lord, to show me Your will. Stay with me, Lord, so that I hear Your voice and follow You. Stay with me, Lord, for I desire to love You very much and always be in Your company. Stay with me, Lord, if You wish me to be faithful to You. Stay with me, Lord, as poor as my soul is I want it to be a place of consolation for You, a nest of Love. Stay with me, Jesus, for it is getting late and the day is coming to a close and life passes, death, judgment and eternity approaches. It is necessary to renew my strength so that I will not stop along the way and for that, I need You. It is getting late and death approaches, I fear the darkness, the temptations, the dryness, the cross, the sorrows. O how I need You, my Jesus, in this night of exile! Stay with me tonight, Jesus, in life with all its dangers, I need You. Let me recognize You as Your disciples did at the breaking of the bread so that the Eucharistic Communion be the Light which disperses the darkness, the force which sustains me, the unique joy of my heart. Stay with me, Lord, because at the hour of my death, I want to remain united to You, if not by Communion, at least by grace and love. Stay with me, Lord, for it is You alone I look for, Your Love, Your Grace, Your Will, Your Heart, Your Spirit, because I love You and ask no other reward but to love You more and more. With a firm love, I will love You with all my heart while on earth and continue to love You perfectly during all eternity. Amen. Amen
"both churches excommunicated each other" blantly lying it was the Roman church which excommunicated orthodox and thus orthodox had to do the same while also working for reunion....if someone slap you first it obvious you will slap him too
And that is what we say both churches excommunicated each other. When one slaps other and other slaps the same as a consequence, we say both slaped each other. Learn some English dude
The problem is only the true pope with the keys of heaven could truly excommunicate . Where as the Eastern Orthodox who don't have the keys of heaven are simply writing on paper . The power is with whom Jesus entrusted. And that's Peter I'm Rome. That's Latin west Roman Catholic and also when Jesus founded his church before the schism it wasn't superate it was one , the earliest church fathers recognized the primacy of Peter .
@@AthanSMaliakkal pretty sure that's not how it work, it called been dishonest in justice, when Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine started resisting we can't say "both side were wrong and unjust" logically it russ who started it first for whatever xyz political reasons, the Roman church did this not once but twice , remember Protestant excomicado? It was even a bigger blunder for whole world 🌍
@@sus527 Russia attack have a valid reason because Ukraine stood against the treaty they signed. Protestant excommucation was not the excommucation of a church but a group of heretical group. There is a difference and church has the power to excommunicate anyone. And I don't see any blunder here. The biggest blunder is 100 genders ,lol
Or it was just an administrative issue that doesn’t have anything to do with salvation. Protestants deal with it too but we’re Christians. And Catholics are Christians. And Orthodox are Christians.
👇 Why did The Great Schism occur (and still continue)?
1. A rejection of Papal authority by Patriarchs of the East
2. Growing tension caused by geography, shift of power in the Roman empire from West to East and language.
3. The Filioque Controversy: the addition of the phrase "and the Son" (filioque) to the Nicene creed in the Western Church, which the East rejected.
4. Actions during the First Crusade. The schism was further exacerbated when Western soldiers, sent to aid the East during the First Crusade, instead acted greedily and hostilely, causing deep animosity between the people of both regions.
Despite the schism, efforts towards reconciliation and reunification have been made throughout history.
We continue to pray for our Eastern Orthodox separated brethren for their return, like a prodigal son, to union with the Holy See.
It’s important to note that there have been a number of Eastern Church that have come back to communion with Rome such as the Ukrainian, Melkite, Syro-Malabar, Chaldean, Maronite Churches among others.
Great explanation 🙏🏽
@@Mortylicious_ Thank you!
You forgot to mention the great arrogance of the pope in demanding others bow to his authority, forgetting he is not higher than any other patriarch.
@@redrkstone
You must be Eastern Orthodox.
What is your take on Matthew 16:13-20?
@@polycarp1334 in that passage Jesus is talking about Peter’s calling specifically. For a more general application I would probably agree with Augustine who says “Peter, in receiving the keys, represented the holy Church” (Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John). Likewise Origin states, “we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us” (Commentary on Matthew).
I love how Catholics talk about the Great Schism as if it only happened in 1054, and as if 300 before the Pope haven't had sold himself to Charlemagne and the Frankish kings in the West .
Rome faced many issues and popes grabbing for power. It ended sadly in the pope leaving the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and being outside of her ever since
There were eight councils of the Church before the schism in 1054 split into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, when the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. None of these eight councils was called by the Bishop of Rome, but by the emperor, who also put his stamp of approval upon their decrees. As for papal authority:
"Pope Pelaguis (556-60) talks of heretics separating themselves from the Apostolic See, that is, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria plus Constantinople. In all the early writings of the hierarchy there is no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, nor yet the special name of 'Pope' ... Of the eighty or so heresies in the first six centuries, not one refers to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, not one is settled by the Bishop or Rome ... No one attacks the [supreme] authority of the Roman pontiff, because no one has heard of it".
The Easter Synod of 680 called by Pope Agatho was the first ecclesiastical body that asserted the primacy of Rome over the rest of the Church, but this was not an ecumenical council of the entire Church, so its decision was not generally accepted.
"...not one of the early Fathers of the church say in the Bible any reference to papal jurisdiction over the church. On the contrary, they take it for granted that bishops, especially metropolitans, have the full right to govern and administer their own territory without interference from anyone. The Eastern church never accepted papal supremacy; Rome's attempt to impose it led to the schism".
"...one looks in vain in the first millennium for a single doctrine or piece of legislation imposed by Rome alone on the rest of the church. The only general laws came out of Councils such as Nicaea. In any case, how could the Bishop of Rome have exercised universal jurisdiction in those early centuries when there was no [Roman] Curia, when other bishops brooked no interference in their dioceses from anyone, when Rome issued no dispensations and demanded no tribute or taxation, when all bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome, had the power to bind and loose, when no bishop or church or individual was censured by Rome? Further, for centuries, the Bishop of Rome was chosen by the local citizens--clergy and laity. If he had jurisdiction over the universal church, would not the rest of the world want a say in his appointment? When he was believed to have [universal] supremacy the rest of the church did demand a say in his election. This came about only in the Middle Ages".
@@nazgul225 Romanists deleting my comments from yesterday?
As a young man Daniel was called upon to stand before Nebuchadnezzar and declare
to him a mysterious dream, which none of the magicians and sorcerers could speak of. By a revelation of God, Daniel was enabled to declare the vision and its interpretation.
"Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness
was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
"This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter's clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron
is not mixed with clay. And the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other
people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof is sure." (Daniel 2. 31-45).
This passage of scripture has been given in full, because it gives a profound summary
of history from the time of Nebuchadnezzar up to the present day. The vision concludes with that almighty and glorious kingdom of Christ made "without hands," which will ultimately overthrow all worldly empires and dominions at the Lord's second coming.
In addition to the vision of Nebuchadnezzar, the four kingdoms are later represented by another vision as four beasts in Daniel chapter 7. It was explained to Daniel, "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever." (Daniel 7. 17-18). For the purpose of this discussion, it suffices to give
just a brief summary of what these four kingdoms are.....wouldn't you agree?
Bro is rocking 💪🗿☦️
I'm Great Schism ❤❤✝️
So which side was the OG church? The oldest? Which side broke away from the original tradition 🤔
From my understanding it was both
Catholics broke away from the early church practice of autonomous churches and concillarism in favor of autocratic government control by the Papacy and the Papal States.
Praying for an increase in faith, hope and charity.
Stay with me, Lord, for it is necessary to have You present so that I do not forget You. You know how easily I abandon You.
Stay with me, Lord, because I am weak and I need Your strength, that I may not fall so often.
Stay with me, Lord, for You are my life and without You I am without fervour.
Stay with me, Lord, for You are my light and without You I am in darkness.
Stay with me, Lord, to show me Your will.
Stay with me, Lord, so that I hear Your voice and follow You.
Stay with me, Lord, for I desire to love You very much and always be in Your company.
Stay with me, Lord, if You wish me to be faithful to You.
Stay with me, Lord, as poor as my soul is I want it to be a place of consolation for You, a nest of Love.
Stay with me, Jesus, for it is getting late and the day is coming to a close and life passes, death, judgment and eternity approaches. It is necessary to renew my strength so that I will not stop along the way and for that, I need You. It is getting late and death approaches, I fear the darkness, the temptations, the dryness, the cross, the sorrows. O how I need You, my Jesus, in this night of exile!
Stay with me tonight, Jesus, in life with all its dangers, I need You. Let me recognize You as Your disciples did at the breaking of the bread so that the Eucharistic Communion be the Light which disperses the darkness, the force which sustains me, the unique joy of my heart.
Stay with me, Lord, because at the hour of my death, I want to remain united to You, if not by Communion, at least by grace and love.
Stay with me, Lord, for it is You alone I look for, Your Love, Your Grace, Your Will, Your Heart, Your Spirit, because I love You and ask no other reward but to love You more and more. With a firm love, I will love You with all my heart while on earth and continue to love You perfectly during all eternity. Amen.
Amen
"both churches excommunicated each other" blantly lying it was the Roman church which excommunicated orthodox and thus orthodox had to do the same while also working for reunion....if someone slap you first it obvious you will slap him too
And that is what we say both churches excommunicated each other. When one slaps other and other slaps the same as a consequence, we say both slaped each other. Learn some English dude
The problem is only the true pope with the keys of heaven could truly excommunicate . Where as the Eastern Orthodox who don't have the keys of heaven are simply writing on paper . The power is with whom Jesus entrusted. And that's Peter I'm Rome. That's Latin west Roman Catholic and also when Jesus founded his church before the schism it wasn't superate it was one , the earliest church fathers recognized the primacy of Peter .
@@AthanSMaliakkal pretty sure that's not how it work, it called been dishonest in justice, when Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine started resisting we can't say "both side were wrong and unjust" logically it russ who started it first for whatever xyz political reasons, the Roman church did this not once but twice , remember Protestant excomicado? It was even a bigger blunder for whole world 🌍
@@sus527 Russia attack have a valid reason because Ukraine stood against the treaty they signed. Protestant excommucation was not the excommucation of a church but a group of heretical group. There is a difference and church has the power to excommunicate anyone. And I don't see any blunder here. The biggest blunder is 100 genders ,lol
That is mean by the prodigal son i see
July 14th of 1054
Now for an Orthodox video on this
Proof that neither churches are following god.
Or it was just an administrative issue that doesn’t have anything to do with salvation. Protestants deal with it too but we’re Christians. And Catholics are Christians. And Orthodox are Christians.
False.
@@gaiusmariuscaesar true
@@davidvernon3119 Proof?
@@gaiusmariuscaesar god told me.