The 1066 schism was the result of a dispute over the primacy of the See of Peter (aka the Pope). The Orthodox Churches each had Sees, called Patriarches, who had an apostolic succession to other Apostles, but the See of Peter was to be primary (Upon this rock...)
>Very good post. The Pope seems to be such a point of contention between >Catholics and others (wasn't the Pope at the center of the original schism >in 1066?). > I find the reliance on "conventional wisdom" by critics appalling. >But if he was better understood, at least as his role within the church, >many of those contentions could be dismissed me thinks. For instance, many >non-Catholics think that the Pope is viewed as infallible on all matters, >which is of course untrue. > True. I suspect many of the Cardinals who elected Benedict were a bit suprised by his allowing more Latin services that under Vatican II. Does this mean he is anti-VII, I'm not sure. Time will tell. >The biggest problem, if you ask me, is that the Pope is just a man. Anytime >you put a man out front as a leader of billions of people, perception of >those people becomes subject to the natural shortcomings of that one person. >Benedict's recent "problems" are indicative of that. > >On 7/17/07, Russel Madere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Macromedia ColdFusion MX7 Upgrade to MX7 & experience time-saving features, more productivity. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJW Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:238506 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
