Can someone give me a rundown of the 1054 schism, what led up

There were some theological differences that developed between the West and East over time (not that the Copts, who split long before the great schism, are still on the same page as the Eastern Orthodox theologically, so these developing differences came mostly from the West's theology changing over time). But these differences were at the time relatively minor, and could have been resolved. Really the only serious issue was that Pope Leo IX started pushing the Donation of Constantine in letters to the East in order to justify Papal Supremacy (which is far different from primacy, primacy is not an actual office).

>>1461090
Lets be frank, while Orthodox and Copts have solved most of there differences now, a thousand years ago, they most certainly saw their theology as being incompatible.

Its pretty clear that the papacy and its allies as least from late antiquity considered itself to have supremacy, you can see it from the church councils. its also clear that the east generally rejected this.

>>1461137
*sigh*

If you want to understand theology from a thousand years ago, I recommend "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought". It literally ALWAYS was semantics and it was pointed out as such, the only reason it became an issue of contention is because there were many theologians imposing a crypto-Nestorian reading on Chalcedon. It wasn't so much that Copts disagreed with the formula as it is intended by the Eastern Orthodox, it is that they saw it as a back door for Nestorianism (which did happen with several theologians). Likewise, the Eastern Orthodox never had an issue with the intent of the Coptic formula, they're only concern was that it could be used as a backdoor for Apollinarism (which it was by several theologians).

Literally all Orthodox and Copts have done is agree to what was already in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which gives qualified approval for both formulas; two natures is approved so long as it is intended as purely a conception division, and one nature is approved so long as "nature" is intended as an extension or synonym of hypostasis

The idea that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over the whole Church was certainly not a large idea in antiquity.

>>1461221
*their

What is the Protestant view of the Great Schism?

>>1461339
They think Catholic and Orthodox are the two legs of the statue in Daniel 2

>>1461221
That totally ignores the actual events that took place, including the pressure form Constantinople that was put of Coptic Christians. This is not even considering the issue of excommunication.

>The idea that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over the whole Church was certainly not a large idea in antiquity.

It certainly was in central Italy, and in a few areas outside it. As far as modern Catholics are concerned the councils confirmed it and the orthodox idea of Papal primacy is a misinterpretation. I dont necessarily agree with that, but it was probably what the pope and his allies at the councils were going for.

What was the patriarch of Rome's role and influence in say France or any country that is historically considered Catholic after the schism?
The anglos are considered catholic from the start right, but as I understand there was some shenanigans with the norman invasion, that they got the papal banner because anglos were pointing their own bishops like Stigand who paid homage to an "anti-pope" etc
And how long would it have taken for example places like Ireland or Scots to be brought under papal authority after the schism if they weren't under the influence of Rome beforehand?

>>1461524
>What was the patriarch of Rome's role and influence in say France or any country that is historically considered Catholic after the schism?
Meant what the pope's role was in those places before the schism

It was in the making since the Cluniac Reforms.

So starting 910.

>>1461491
>That totally ignores the actual events that took place, including the pressure form Constantinople that was put of Coptic Christians. This is not even considering the issue of excommunication.
No, isn't. I suggest you read the book I mentioned, which gives a review of all theology of the times and what caused the debates, or if you can't manage that, at least read the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

>>1461524
The Pope had even less power in those lands before the schism than the bishops of Alexandria or Constantinople had over their jurisdictions.

>It certainly was in central Italy, and in a few areas outside it.
Patristically? No.

>>1461612
I'm giving the catholic side of things. this is what they teach. and from my readings on the period, which I admit do not include that book, its pretty clear that Rome thought they were in charge.

>>1461612
Who would have been the religious authorities then? The archbishops?

I remember reading something along the lines that the wends for example were a lot more pro-danish when they were still on the verge of converting and flipflopped a lot between Christianity and their traditional paganism because they didn't want to fall under the influence of "church of saxony" or something

>>1461624
Not really. There was a power struggle between Papists and Conciliarists for a long time in the West that wasn't really resolved until long after the Schism. A Western Ecumenical Council, The Council of Constance, even overtly denied the doctrine of Papal Supremacy (that part of the Council is not accepted today among Catholics though, since it didn't have Papal ratification, but it was in effect for a while nonetheless).

>>1461652
>Who would have been the religious authorities then? The archbisho
Each bishop runs his own diocese. There are larger chains of command but only for broad issues that affect all bishops. If something has to be decided in a council, archbishops or patriarchs can't do that unilaterally, it requires a ton of bishops.

>>1461695
I was referring to the early church councils, and I said Rome thought they were in charge. I know the Catholics have certain church fathers they point to to justify this but I dont know the citations