The Great Schism

I write this because I am very curious about discussions with my Catholic and Orthodox friends. Both groups (Catholics and Orthodox) tell me that they are the true Church (with a capital "C"). To not join them is to put myself in the unenviable position of being outside the true Church. Yet, I want to ask: who is right, who truly has the authority? There was a great division: the Great Schism, which separated Catholics and Orthodox (West and East). How did that divide authority? Is it that one side retained all authority and the other side lost it unequivocally? Was there a 50/50 split? Does one side have the greater authority, but not the whole authority it once had? I wanted my Catholic and Orthodox friends to inform me of their perspective on this matter--hence this post.

There is only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. There cannot be divided authority. Rome and Constantinople are two of the five historical Sees known as the Pentarchy, the other three were Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. These five Sees were historically the leaders of the Early Church. The Great Schism occurred when the Sees of Constantinople and Rome excommunicated each other. However the other three Sees of the Pentarchy stayed in communion with Constantinople not Rome. To me that is the best argument against Rome's supposed universal authority.

I see. If there is a hypothetical scenario where more schisms within EO take place, will it depend on having a majority of the Sees to retain the authority? Once a See goes against the group will it lose its authority? Could it ultimately whittle down to one if you keep having disagreements?

It depends on staying true to the faith.

I think that the EO lost some of it's authority when it left. I don't agree that just because the majority of see stayed with Constantinople the Roman See is wrong. In matters of truth, majority does not rule, rather truth rules. Also the position on marriage taken by the EO is the biggest thing I see wrong with them and the strongest argument for the RCC. Through everything we have stayed consistent with the Bible and the Tradition handed on to us.

Okay so why did the Catholics okay Christians killing Muslims, when Jesus said to love your enemies, which incidentally was a tradition the apostles kept? @Jehoshaphat

I still see that as a inconsistent thing. It's just a complete fact. Excuses really don't cut it.

Catholics didn't specifically support the killing of Muslims. The Church support the defense of Europe against the invading forces of Islam. Also the Patriarch of Constantinople asked for our help. We are called to help those in need aren't we? We are called to defend the powerless, are we not? That's what the Crusades were. A defense of Christendom and an outreach to help the powerless.

The was a union between all Churches. Before 1054 there was only one Church. After 1054 there was the Eastern and the Western Church. Which stayed the same until the 1400s when Protestants came along.

What caused the splits?

Pride, people disagreeing with other people. The usual things that lead to division.

tbh, I'm not exactly happy with what I see the Catholic church represented as. Although to be fair, I hear the Orthodox are even worse in some areas. 

Why exactly is a church that supposedly represents Jesus representing His mother? I understand "worship" is not the term used to describe the adoration for her, however when her name goes into the names of millions of parishes, doesn't that ring to outsiders as a church about her, not Christ?

Worse in what ways? 

Following your logic ever parish should be called the Church of Jesus, it doesn't ring to outsiders as a church about her anymore than a church called First Baptist of City Name is about worshiping that city.

The mysticism, which I've heard tell is similar to New Age. 

And why not? Doesn't sound to me like a bad alternative. However, First Baptist is representing a denomination not a person.

Ahh, a common misunderstanding but no the mysticism in Orthodoxy is very rooted in the Spirit and Christianity. Also much older than New Age stuff. 

Well that'd be kinda boring then but I don't think it's any different than telling a story about a person from the Bible or a missionary, the stories are not about those people but how God used them. Any glory attributed to them is rightly Gods. 

True, it'd be different if there was a denomination named after a person; know of any?

Hmm, intriguing. Do you have a definition for this mysticism? 

Fair point. But if I recall correctly, the term Baptist refers to "baptizing" more than John the Baptist.

I would say the main form of Orthodox mysticism is found in the practice of Hesychasm http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hesychasm 

I was more referring to Luther and Lutheranism

Luther was a good man. I cannot, however, say much on Lutheranism.

What do you like about Luther?

The courage he possessed. The Reformation that he in part, helped cause.

Why was the Reformation good?

Because it uncovered many of the false, binding cult-like practices of the Catholics and ushered in a new age of freedom and thinking for one's own self without an overruling "Church" enforcing that on everyone.

What false practices? 

Do you think this new age of freedom is responsible for the now tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations?

Indulgences, the baptism of the innocent used as a control method to enslave the people to the church, to name two. 

Of course. How could it be any other way? I see freedom at last to serve God in the way one chooses.

Was Luther against indulgences? 

Do you think infant baptism can be practiced without the motivation of control? 

Can one choose any way to serve God?