Site Loader

The Great Schism of 1054 The Great Schism was the division of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages. The split occurred in 1054 due to doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political and geographical reasons. The patriarch of Constantinople (Greek Church) and the Pope (Roman Church) were principal players in this event, as they had different opinions on minor things. These included debate on procedures during mass; the exact nature of the Holy Trinity and whether the use of icons was appropriate instead of sculptured or engraved image.

Their opinion on marriage and what to use during communion differed. When the leaders of the Churches refused to compromise with each other, they resulted in excommunicating each other. Therefore, the Christian church split into the Eastern branch (Greek Orthodox) and the Western (Roman Catholic) and has remained that way until this day. The experience of the schism shook the foundation of religion, which held that the one true pope was the ultimate authority on religious matters.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The nature of the Church changed from being one whole and believing in the same things, to having he same goal but practicing different ways of achieving it. This teaches us that although things change, the mission of the Catholic Church remains the same. That is to be evangelists and proclaim the kingdom of God through mass/ceremonies. Bibliography Elliot, P. (2003). To Know Worship and Love: Year 10. James Gold House publications Melbourne. Henry Chadwick. (De. 2) East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Portrayal of the passion in Marks Gospel The mocking of Jesus occurred when a group of soldiers dressed Jesus in a purple obey, then twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They mocked him yelling, “Hail, king of the Jews! ” They continuously struck him on the head with a staff and spat on him. They paid homage to him. Once they were finished, they took off the purple robe, put his own clothes on him and led him out to crucify him. Marks account of the arrest of Jesus differs from John’s gospel because John has inside knowledge throughout the narrative and the servants name is one of them.

John also gives us the names of the swordsman whereas Mark doesn’t. Marks gospel differs in he sense that Mark gives detail of the time in the garden whereas John excludes much of the detail and is more to the point’. Lake’s gospel tells us that Jesus then healed the servant who had his ear chopped off with the sword, Marks doesn’t. Evident difference between Matthew and Marks gospel is wording. For example, Matthews says “The one I will kiss is the man; seize him. ” And Mark says “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard. They’re both the same thing, Just put differently. Matthews writes with extended dialogue- “Put your sword jack into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? ” – Marks gospel has no account of Jesus saying this. At the following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. ” A literary device of the time was when writers did not give his own name in what they wrote. Therefore, some believe that the young man is Mark.

This incident of a naked fleeing man is not in the other Gospels which can be used as evidence that other Ritter would not have wished to humiliate Mark, however, Mark would’ve been more likely to relate an event concerning himself. This could be a strong possibility as the identity of the man following Jesus is not stated and therefore unknown in the Gospel. The transfiguration of Jesus was the most important event in Mark’s Gospel. The event is significant as it was the son of God that was raised. “Truly this man was the Son of God! ” (Mark 15:39). The resurrection of Jesus was necessary proof that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be.

It’s important because his resurrection was unique, as no one had ever been raised from the grave before and completely transformed. Our Lord’s resurrection was the first genuine resurrection in the history of man. – “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. Mimi are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. ” The significance of this event in Marks gospel validated Chrism’s claims that He would be raised on the third day (Mark 8:31). When Jesus Christ was resurrected He became the “first fruits” of all who would be raised. Therefore, If Chrism’s body was not resurrected, we have no hope that ours will e.

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Kari!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out