I just realized that Orthodox should not exist in the early game start.

[Sola Fide]

It's pre-schism so Catholicism should be the religion from West to East.

How could the devs overlook this? This is a pretty major thing.

[jpcerutti]

IF you're going to be 'technical' about it, Catholicism *still* claims to be the only Christian faith and that Orthodxy is merely astray and actually answerable to Rome.

If you're going by the excommunication to mark the schism that's just when they made it 'official'. Orthodoxy existed waaaaaay before that and the beginnings of unrepairable differences in dogma and doctrine go at LEAST as far back as Nicene (300's).

[Razorblade]

The Great Schism was the "formal" split between the Latin and Greek churches. Their differences, however, go back way further. As you may recall, the Pope appointed a rival emperor in the West, well before the Great Schism.

I suppose now that multiple Faiths can have the same Head of Faith, the devs could reasonably implement that for Orthodoxy in 867, but the two branches having distinct Tenets is absolutely appropriate, regardless of start date. However, it's fine how it is, in my opinion. The Emperor always thought himself above the Pope, and the Papacy wasn't even much of a power player in 867.

[spasti696969]

Not quite. I dove into this stuff on wikipedia once and it was pretty interesting.

The "Great Schism" was the formal split when they put it into writing, but things had been coming to a head for many centuries prior. Basically Rome was merely one of the "high churches" at first along with Antioch and Constantinople and such, but as Rome grew in power so did the tension between the "high high church" and then other high churches. Eastern Orthodoxy was losing power at the time Rome was gaining power due to the encroachment of the Muslims.

That's the real main reason for the split, not the thing about the holy wafer or whatever that everyone always points to.

[brownacs]

The Photian schism's the generally given point of no return vis-a-vis Catholicism/Orthodoxy splitting and, as it so happens, 867's typically given as its end (debatable). It's a bit arbitrary though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photian_schism

Islam's the worse offender for religious ahistoricism. Al-Ash'ari hadn't been born yet in 867, to name one of the more glaring issues, and it (Asharism) also isn't really a religious denomination.

[Sola Fide]

It was very interesting to read your comments, it's always a blessing to learn something new. Thank you for enriching me with knowledge.

[Fighter of the Nightman]

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

IF you're going to be 'technical' about it, Catholicism *still* claims to be the only Christian faith and that Orthodxy is merely astray and actually answerable to Rome.

If you're going by the excommunication to mark the schism that's just when they made it 'official'. Orthodoxy existed waaaaaay before that and the beginnings of unrepairable differences in dogma and doctrine go at LEAST as far back as Nicene (300's).

Not even remotely true but sure go ahead and make up your own history. Eastern Orthodoxy didn't exist until the schism. The Oriental Orthodox schism and the Eastern Schism are not the same thing.

And no, we don't just say they're merely astray. "merely astray" is not a Catholic idea, there is Catholicism, and there is heresy and schism. There is no weird inbetween like you're trying to say

[Fighter of the Nightman]

Originally posted by spasti696969:

Not quite. I dove into this stuff on wikipedia once and it was pretty interesting.

The "Great Schism" was the formal split when they put it into writing, but things had been coming to a head for many centuries prior. Basically Rome was merely one of the "high churches" at first along with Antioch and Constantinople and such, but as Rome grew in power so did the tension between the "high high church" and then other high churches. Eastern Orthodoxy was losing power at the time Rome was gaining power due to the encroachment of the Muslims.

That's the real main reason for the split, not the thing about the holy wafer or whatever that everyone always points to.

No it isn't merely a high schurch, theres a reason why John referred anyone who asked him to settle disputes to Rome.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is Apostolic See (mainly Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria). Constantinople was an irrelevant bishopric until the East sold themselves to Erastianism and the Byzentine emperor was jealous of the Bishop of Rome's authority. Constantinople usurped Alexandria and Antioch before trying to usurp Rome

[The Sylvan Learning Center]

oh boy a bunch of revisionist lies itt i see from catholics obsessed with "purity" identity.

[The Sylvan Learning Center]

i love when people just make up ♥♥♥♥ and pretend its history

[Bigc]

congo africa always becomes muslim too, its a coded game. Just is what it is.

[jpcerutti]

Originally posted by Fighter of the Nightman:

Originally posted by jpcerutti:

IF you're going to be 'technical' about it, Catholicism *still* claims to be the only Christian faith and that Orthodxy is merely astray and actually answerable to Rome.

If you're going by the excommunication to mark the schism that's just when they made it 'official'. Orthodoxy existed waaaaaay before that and the beginnings of unrepairable differences in dogma and doctrine go at LEAST as far back as Nicene (300's).

Not even remotely true but sure go ahead and make up your own history. Eastern Orthodoxy didn't exist until the schism. The Oriental Orthodox schism and the Eastern Schism are not the same thing.

And no, we don't just say they're merely astray. "merely astray" is not a Catholic idea, there is Catholicism, and there is heresy and schism. There is no weird inbetween like you're trying to say

Sorry man, but the supremacy of Rome has been challenged farther back than any schism. Christianity started to splinter probably from the time of the Apostle Paul. There are more variants of Christianity than 'Roman Catholic and NOT Roman Catholic'.

There are many, many variants in doctrine and dogma in Christianity, your "weird inbetweens", and calling any of that "not even remotely true" doesn't make it any less true. Drift happens, differences emerge, it happens both fast AND slow. Drawing a line in it is... is just drawing a line somewhere.

[Delta-Kilo]

In many of these cases, the differences in practices and disputes leading to the splits long preceded the 'formal' breaks, that themselves weren't recognized until centuries later as well. An argument could be made the split occurred as early as the 4th century, or as late as the 13th with regards to the Great Schism. The dueling excommunications is simply a nice demarcation line to point to. The same is so to any other great cultural event, they tend to need time to take hold and be recognized.