-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I mean Chechnya and the like weren't wahhabist-influenced before 1991/4 (take your pick). Emir Khatab being one of the most famous examples along with Shamil Bassaev as opposed to the more moderate president of Chechnya (forgot his name).
There's a new version of Islam being promoted there and it's worse than the previous *thanks to Saudi Arabia*.
I'd rather live under Orthodox christian rule than wahhabism. I can still drink alcohol & eat pork
Fate - not really, there are some good maps in Colin McEvedy's (?) Penguin History of Medieval Europe. From the discussions I've witnessed, the religions are pretty accurately placed, although I haven't looked too closely at the Caucasus.
Everyone else, can we try to keep this civil? Let's also keep in mind that real life is complex enough to supply fodder for both sides of an argument at once, especially a historical one.
driftwood
Everyone else, can we try to keep this civil? Let's also keep in mind that real life is complex enough to supply fodder for both sides of an argument at once, especially a historical one.
driftwood
Originally posted by DuquedeBraganca
I mean Chechnya and the like weren't wahhabist-influenced before 1991/4 (take your pick). Emir Khatab being one of the most famous examples along with Shamil Bassaev as opposed to the more moderate president of Chechnya (forgot his name).
There's a new version of Islam being promoted there and it's worse than the previous *thanks to Saudi Arabia*.
I'd rather live under Orthodox christian rule than wahhabism. I can still drink alcohol & eat pork
However you can't have 4 wives aged 13
Back on topic... another reason was the iconoclastic controversy that began in the 700s. Refer to my thread: http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36357
Eh, that was patched up for several centuries before the final split. Admittedly, it didn't do much for relations between east and west, but the signficance of the iconoclast controvery has also sometimes been overblown.
driftwood
driftwood
Originally posted by pithorr
Sorry guy, but you're absolutely wrong.
Russian church was collaborating with comunist regime (when it relieved a little bit after Stalin's death of course...) as it used to do the same with tsar earlier. In pre-communist Russia Orthodoxy was a state-relligion, like now it is in many muslim states (Saudi Arabia for instance).
BTW: Your story fits in 100% to Polish Catholic Church
Thus, the Russian Church helped the Russians through tough times (Communism). I think you also defended my point there at the end.
The Russians put much faith in their Faith, and when they were oppressed (in various ways), the Church was the chief unifying factor. It was true when the Tartars came, and it was true when Stalin came.
O.
Arrgh, I was tryin to explain it, but...
Mongols, Teutons, Poles, Swedes, French, Germans, Klingons and other all non-Orthodox guys were the INVADERS for the Motherhood and The Church really did help to defend Russian nation.
Stalin and bolsheviks did not. Common priests were oppressed ndeed not to spread the faith among the people. However The Church hierarchy was directly collaborating with KGB.
Maybe any Russian would be helpful here...
The Roman Catholic (Catholicos is Greek for Universal) and Eastern Orthodox (Orthodox is Latin for Correct) consider each other to be branches of the same Church. There are no doctrinal disputes between them (both accept the Four Ecumenical Councils, the basis for Orthodoxy in both Churches). The famed "Filoque" dispute is as much an argument about grammer as it is about doctrine. Each church recognizes the other's bishops, priests, and rites to be correct and valid.
That being said, there are ancient disputes and differences between the Churches. Marriage of priests, the authority of the Pope, the role of icons in worship, etc. are all sticking points. Many of these disputes were exaggerated for political reasons (that's why Antioch is the only city in the world with more than one Patriarch; it has three, Greek, Latin and Syriac); all this meant a great deal when religous organizations had lots of money and political clout. Apparently, (given the recent flap over a Roman Catholic bishop of Siberia), the exaggerations continue to this day.
BTW, both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox recognize the full divinity AND full humanity of Christ, and accept his divine conception (the Annunciation) and divine birth. The Monophysites accept Christ's humanity, but insist he had no human soul; it was replaced with the Son's divinity. The Nestorians accept Christ's human nature and divine birth but nix the divine conception; Christ's divinity was awarded at birth, but he was conceived as a human.
That being said, there are ancient disputes and differences between the Churches. Marriage of priests, the authority of the Pope, the role of icons in worship, etc. are all sticking points. Many of these disputes were exaggerated for political reasons (that's why Antioch is the only city in the world with more than one Patriarch; it has three, Greek, Latin and Syriac); all this meant a great deal when religous organizations had lots of money and political clout. Apparently, (given the recent flap over a Roman Catholic bishop of Siberia), the exaggerations continue to this day.
BTW, both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox recognize the full divinity AND full humanity of Christ, and accept his divine conception (the Annunciation) and divine birth. The Monophysites accept Christ's humanity, but insist he had no human soul; it was replaced with the Son's divinity. The Nestorians accept Christ's human nature and divine birth but nix the divine conception; Christ's divinity was awarded at birth, but he was conceived as a human.
Last edited:
Originally posted by Tambourmajor
isn't it ironic
Exactly. The Roman Catholic Church awarded the title Orthodox to the Greek Orthodox Church because the Catholics recognized the Greeks as orthodox in that the Greeks accepted the Four Eucumenical Councils (Nicaea, Ephesus, Constantinople and Chalcedon). The Greeks gave the Roman Catholic Church the title Catholic because the Greeks recognized the Pope as the most senior of the Patriarchs.
In effect, each church was given its common name by the other. Ironic, definitely.
The differences between the two started when the Eastern Emperors started to manipulate their Patriarchs in an effort to settle the Arian/Monophysite disputes about the nature of Christ. The Emperors sought a compromise, which the Pope refused to contenance. After the Monophysite provinces were lost to the Arabs, this bone of contention disappeared, but a new one soon arose over Iconoclasm. Once again, that was resolved, but the centuries of dispute had left a great deal of bad blood and divisions in practice. The "Filoque" dispute gave everyone what they wanted; a reason to despise the other side.
Very silly. Read a little about the Monothelites/Semi-Homo-Arians/Nestorians/Monoenergites/Three Chapters (or better yet, buy the game Credo; a great take on the whole thing) and you'll just shake your head in amusement and despair.