Welcome to CFC world history forum Akhhorus.Akhhorus said:
New Cumulative General History Quiz
- Thread starter Knight-Dragon
- Start date
- Status
Well, I do know that the first schism between east and west was the Acacian Schism. This revolved around Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and it did concern the christological debates (although this was after the time of Nestorius, and certainly nothing to do with Arianism, which was a dead issue by this stage). Acacius drafted a document known as the "Henoticon" (or "image of unity") which sought to find a formula that everyone could agree on. This was issued by the Emperor Zeno. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with such attempts, both sides rejected it for not going far enough in their own direction. The Monophysites said it should have condemned Chalcedon. The westerners (staunch Chalcedonites to a man) said it should have endorsed Chalcedon more. In 484, therefore, a Roman synod formally condemned Acacius, thereby creating the first official rift between Pope and Patriarch. Although Acacius died in 489, the schism lasted for another thirty years.
However, this has nothing to do with Innocent I, who was Pope from 402 to 417. Innocent is remembered for condemning Pelagianism in 415, persecuting the Novatians in Rome (a non-heretical sect found throughout the empire) and for trying to intervene in the affair of John Chrysostom. Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, had been deposed by the infamous Synod of the Oak under the machinations of Theophilus of Alexandria (who was basically the Dr Evil of the early church). Innocent, like many, opposed this move, and tried to have Chrysostom rehabilitated. He wrote to him in his exile, and together with the western emperor, Honorius, tried to convene a council to bring him back. But the eastern emperor, Arcadius, would have none of it. However, this was not a formal schism between the two wings of the church, so I'm afraid that if this is the sought-for answer, it's not quite correct.
However, this has nothing to do with Innocent I, who was Pope from 402 to 417. Innocent is remembered for condemning Pelagianism in 415, persecuting the Novatians in Rome (a non-heretical sect found throughout the empire) and for trying to intervene in the affair of John Chrysostom. Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, had been deposed by the infamous Synod of the Oak under the machinations of Theophilus of Alexandria (who was basically the Dr Evil of the early church). Innocent, like many, opposed this move, and tried to have Chrysostom rehabilitated. He wrote to him in his exile, and together with the western emperor, Honorius, tried to convene a council to bring him back. But the eastern emperor, Arcadius, would have none of it. However, this was not a formal schism between the two wings of the church, so I'm afraid that if this is the sought-for answer, it's not quite correct.
My only hope was to sneak in an answer before you saw the question and ..., but that plan is now shot to hell. The big dog is now back in the yard,.Plotinus said:
However, my my suggested answer comes from a pretty impecible sourse: Jonathan Hill's "The History of Christian Thought". If I need to quote chapter and verse I can. Is this where I put the "So there!" ?
MCdread
Couldn't she get drowned?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2001
- Messages
- 5,348
Plotinus, you say that Arianism was a dead issue by then. IIRC, Arius and his ideas were condemned in Nicaea I, but weren't still notable arians around in the V century, particulary the Goths and other germanic tribes that invaded the western empire?
HolyEmperor
Now THIS is a Dromon!
Plotinus said:
The second part of your answer would be correct, except for the part you say it wasn't a schism. Since the pope simply didn't recognize the person in the patriarchal see, he wouldn't adress that person as the patriarch. However Eastern church did saw Atico (the new Patriarch) as their leader. Therefore, there was a schism. I'm gonna quote the book I took this information from, "History of the Byzantine Empire", by Mario Curtis Giordani:
"405-415 : Crisis provoked by the unfair deposition (404) of St. John Chrysostomos and his reaqbilitation by the pope Innocence I. There was schism beetween the Orient and the Occident until Atico, successor and enemy of Chrysostomos, consented in reintegrating his name in the diptics."
But you got it right, Plotinus, so your turn! Congratulations!
Akhhorus
Warlord
Birdjaguar said:Welcome to CFC world history forum Akhhorus.
thanx man, Im a history grad student, so these kinds of things always interest me.
Yay! I accept that the Chrysostom situation was a sort of schism, in that the Pope did not recognise the occupant of the throne of Constantinople. Personally I would want something a more definite doctrinal difference to make it a true schism, and that is why the Acacian schism is normally regarded as the first between east and west. But that's just an argument about definitions.
As for Arianism, yes, there was indeed still Arianism in the west among the barbarians well into the fifth century. But it was a dead issue *within* both halves of the empire by the time of Chrysostom, and certainly by the time of Acacius.
And I'm sure that BirdJaguar's source is *completely* impeccable! Apart from the bit about Heraclius - but you didn't hear that from me.
New question. This should be a fairly easy one. Since I answered a question on my speciality, I'll ask one on something that isn't.
On 11th June 1940, Adolf Hitler accepted the French surrender at Compiègne. The event was shown on newsreels around the world. Audiences in Allied countries watched as, on the film, immediately after the surrender was signed, the Führer did something very peculiar. In fact, he never did it at all. The film was doctored to make him seem bizarre. What was the action that Hitler was portrayed as doing, and how was he made to seem to do it?
As for Arianism, yes, there was indeed still Arianism in the west among the barbarians well into the fifth century. But it was a dead issue *within* both halves of the empire by the time of Chrysostom, and certainly by the time of Acacius.
And I'm sure that BirdJaguar's source is *completely* impeccable! Apart from the bit about Heraclius - but you didn't hear that from me.
New question. This should be a fairly easy one. Since I answered a question on my speciality, I'll ask one on something that isn't.
On 11th June 1940, Adolf Hitler accepted the French surrender at Compiègne. The event was shown on newsreels around the world. Audiences in Allied countries watched as, on the film, immediately after the surrender was signed, the Führer did something very peculiar. In fact, he never did it at all. The film was doctored to make him seem bizarre. What was the action that Hitler was portrayed as doing, and how was he made to seem to do it?
LouLong
In love with Rei Ayanami
Dancing !
He just raised his knee and it was cut and repasted so that it looks like he was dancing a jig or something.
He just raised his knee and it was cut and repasted so that it looks like he was dancing a jig or something.
That's right. Hitler stepped back from the table, and the Allied film editors simply played the footage backwards and forwards a few times, so it looked like he was dancing a little jig in childish glee at his victory.
Loulong has the floor...
Loulong has the floor...
LouLong
In love with Rei Ayanami
Plotinus, thanks for using a proper wording for the technical stuff behind the movie. Copy/pasting was probably not that popular back then :lol
Anyway next question :
what was the Jameson raid ? What was its aim, what were its results ?
Anyway next question :
what was the Jameson raid ? What was its aim, what were its results ?
LouLong said:
Jameson's Raid (December 1895 into January 1896) was a stupid attack by British irregulars into the Transvaal and was supposed to spark an uprising by the British Uitlanders in the Transvaal, but it didn't work. The raid was a fiasco and no uprising took place. Jameson surrendered to the Boers and the Brits paid lots of money to get them back. The raid worsened relations between the two countries and furthered the progress towards war.
LouLong
In love with Rei Ayanami
Yes. A more precise aim was to provoke the fall, if not the death, of Krüger.
It was organized by Cecil Rhodes (hence the cautious use of the word "irregulars" here) and the failure hasted Rhodes' departure.
He was then replaced by Minner under whose governorship the second Boer war would occur.
Birdjaguar's turn !
It was organized by Cecil Rhodes (hence the cautious use of the word "irregulars" here) and the failure hasted Rhodes' departure.
He was then replaced by Minner under whose governorship the second Boer war would occur.
Birdjaguar's turn !
Who said, under what circumstances: "If so small a son has cost us so dear, what price shall we have to pay for so large a father!"
Hints will be forcoming if they are needed.
Hints will be forcoming if they are needed.
HolyEmperor
Now THIS is a Dromon!
Birdjaguar said:
It was a comment by Mustapha Pasha, commander of the Turkish forces, after conquering (destroying) the little fortress of St. Elmo in Malta, that resisted for a month against continous turkish assaults. He looked at the much bigger and solid fort of St. Angelo and said that. Those forts were the new home for the St. John order, that was expelled from Rhodes with many Turkish attacks. The subsequent victory convinced many kings of Europe to pay for the creation of a new city/fortress for that order in Malta. And if i recall well, the year was 1565...
Bingo! Correct.
Some of you are just too well read.
Your turn.
Some of you are just too well read.
Your turn.
HolyEmperor
Now THIS is a Dromon!
Birdjaguar said:Bingo! Correct.
Some of you are just too well read.
Your turn.
Thanks, Birdjaguar.
So, since last question eas a hard one, this time will be an easy one
:Who were the Isaurians? When and where were they prominent?
Hints will be given if necessary...
Akhhorus
Warlord
HolyEmperor said:Thanks, Birdjaguar.
So, since last question eas a hard one, this time will be an easy one
Who were the Isaurians? When and where were they prominent?
Hints will be given if necessary...
A native peoples of South Central modern-day Turkey, they inhabited the foothills of the Taurus Mountain. They were prominent from the time of Alex the Great to 11th century, when the Sejuk Turks destroyed them. Their height was the 700s. The most Prominent ones were two Roman Emperors: Zeno and Leo III.
HolyEmperor
Now THIS is a Dromon!
Right Akhhorus! Good job.
Your turn.
Your turn.
Akhhorus
Warlord
Who was the longest reigning European Monarch? Who and when?
- Status
