4,000 Anglican priests to join Catholics

The Church of Georgia became autocephallous in 446 as an archbishopric, like the Church of Cyprus and the Church of Sinai. Bulgaria’s patriarchate was proclaimed in 919.

The Church of Greece, though autocephallous, is an archbishopric, not a Patriarchate.

There is no doubt that the main event of the Great Schism was between Rome and Constantinople, but aside from the Maronites, all of the Eastern Churches, so far as I know, broke with Rome. Thereafter smaller groups, break offs from the larger churches, left Orthodoxy and went into communion with Rome. In other instances, Byzantine/Orthodox type churches were created and went into communion with Rome. All of that makes for interesting and intricate history, but right now, if we are to be faithful to what the late Pope and the EP have asked of us, we should at least agree on who is “Catholic”. I thought we had.

There is no doubt that the main event of the Great Schism was between Rome and Constantinople, but aside from the Maronites, all of the Eastern Churches, so far as I know, broke with Rome.

Come on, which others? In the East, the Big groups were the Church of Constantinople and adherents (for practical and historical purpose these would have a strong influence over the nascent Patriarchate of Bulgaria), then the Armenia and Coptic and Ethiopian Churchs -- all of whom, being Oriental Orthodox were not in communion with either Rome or Constantinople.

The Churchs of Antioch and Jerusalem were dominated in every way by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Church of Georgia -- well, we don't know their viewpoint, but being on the other side of Constantinople, they would not doubt follow Constantinople.

no, the fight was purely between Rome and Constantinople, with the other Orthodox following in line as they were mostly of the line of Constantinople ("line" being a poor choice of words, but I hope a good enough definition).

I'm not really commenting on your debate with verga -- I just glanced over it, but am commenting on the actualities of history i.e. it was really R v/s/ C not R v/s all the other patriarchates

“...but am commenting on the actualities of history i.e. it was really R v/s/ C not R v/s all the other patriarchates.”

C, which patriarchate, indeed which particular church other than the Maronites, stuck with Rome? None, right? I will grant you that the main event was between Rome and Constantinople, but the filioque issue, for example, really came to a head in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem where French monks accused the local monks of heresy for changing the Creed by “removing the filioque”. Of course, a couple of centuries later Leo IX definitively declared that the “removal” of the filioque in the Divine Liturgy in Constantinople was heresy. I suspect that that put the fat in thie fire more than the earlier incidents at Jerusalem although they lead to at least two local Western Councils who declared the “removal” by the Orthodox as heresy.

Politically, the fight was between Constantinople and Rome, but theologically it was broader than that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.