Hopefully it leads to better things, but man it's an all-out war right now.
Just me being nosy and curious 🧐
I just thought it was kind of weird you could mend the great schism before it actually happened, and the fact that the orthodox and Catholic Church in the earlier start date don’t practice communion together. I thought this could be a creative way to get around this
Although not a lot of time passes between the last time we see earth in Halo 2 and then again at the beginning of Halo 3, there are a number of significant events that occur.
One is the Great Schism. In Halo 2, we see that the invading force is led by Elites, and in 3 it’s lead by Brutes. I would imagine that there would have been chaos among the Covenant ranks after word of the Schism reached Earth. Do we ever hear about any of that?
Greetings!
I'm trying to understand the theological and symbolic notions underpinning the Great Schism. I'm interested in what you think about it.
In particular, I'm interested in how the Orthodox Church not accepting the notion of Filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son as well) might reflect the other differences that underpinned the Great Schism. Here's a possible connection, realted to symbolism.
Both the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church hold the position that the Church is led, guided, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church also holds, that there has to be a Vicar of Christ, namely the Pope, who embodies the office of Christ as head of the Church in this world. Since Catholics hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well they view it as important that there be a manifestation, a visible symbol of Christ's person.
In constrast, the Orthodox do not hold this, the Holy Spirit proceed only from the Father, who is transcendent, immaterial. The need for a single human, personified symbol of Christ is not necessary for the Chruch in their eyes, since the ability to lead the Church directly comes from the Father through the Holy Spirit. They may view themselves in a similar position as Christ Himself, who received divine guidance from the Father directly, through the Holy Spirit.
Do you think this is a pertinent connection?
What do you think about the other issues, like the use of unleavened bread in communion?Interestingly enough, I think this also has to do with a symbol being relevant or not in the Church.
After Arbiter claims "then you must be silenced!" and impales Truth, you finish off the voice and leader of the Covenant. Then in Halo 4, you still have the Storm Covenant, which by the name I am assuming they follow the faith even if it seems that Jul Mdama in Spartan Ops was using the faith of others to his own advantage/plans versus his personal faith (I didn't finish it and it was a long time ago please correct me if wrong).
They pursued the Sangheili to their home planet to gain control, seemingly for the Covenant to regain their greatest asset, the Sangheili, in full before continuing the rest of their galactic conquest and crusade? Or is it just who remained there in Sangheilios space? The latter wouldn't make sense to me purely because of the attempted genocide by the Covenant. So Jul dies but they're still organized enough to wreak havoc on Sagheilios, I'm assuming cause you don't just stomp out a long seated religion easily. But since then, is that all that remains of their faith? They weren't all killed every single one. Is there more Storm Covenant out there just imprisoned and/or struggling to survive? Are there any more factions that the Storm Covenant?
I know the Banished exist but obviously Atriox and them broke away in totality, including Sangheili before the Great Journey was known to be a lie and they were betrayed by the Jiralhanae/rest of Cov. And Swords of Sangheilios obviously stayed away permanently, most of their species lead by none other than our Arbiter who went to their homeworld. But who else remains, if we know? And what do we know about them?
I re-summarized a lot of information from memory so people may correct me if I am wrong.
Currently at a point in my faith where I’m drawn between Catholic or Orthodox but can’t decide which one, both sort of claim to be the original church founded by Jesus so I have to find out for myself which I think is more legitimate or agrees with me more.
Is there one particular scholarly work, or maybe one work from an early church member, which outlines why the split happened and what the differences in opinion are, that I can explore?
Any help or point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated, thank you very much.
It's pretty objective that the elites helping humanity is what causes us to prevail over the covenant. Or at least, the internal distraction of a civil war allowed us to to have a chance.
But why did Truth go through so much trouble to replace the elites with the brutes? He's so smart and strategic, there must have been a remarkable reward he saw at the end to risk so much. Especially at such a critical time as discovering Delta Halo.
I’m getting into Halo novels for the first time after playing the games for several years and it’s been cool to finally understand some things like why the Prophets chose genocide against the humans.
One thing I have never understood is why the Prophets deliberately burned a bridge with their most valuable soldiers at a critical point in the war. Like obviously the Brutes and Elites hated each other but rather than trying to keep a lid on it they actively chose one side and it arguably cost them everything. Do any books talk about the period before Halo 2 discuss why they did that?
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/species/sangheili
In another discussion, people have already discussed other things in K5.But I'd like to single this out and say that the Sangheili are the most interesting faction to me, they went through a lot in Halo 1~3 and eventually reached a temporary friendship to face bigger problems (they should be the only non-human characters ever operated by players?) I don't think it was too much of a problem to see them fall into internal problems afterwards (because UNSC was too), but I was a little frustrated to see them described as being unable to operate the factory without floating balloons and people sitting in chairs, but I'm also glad to see in various media sources that they are slowly getting back on their feet, and many things are marked as being built by Sangheili artisans. , ships provided by Sangheili are carrying humans and Sangheili to revive those lost worlds, their scientists are working with human scientists to decipher the information of ancient objects, and they (or at least SoS) are moving into the future instead of being limited by ancient thinking, what do you think of these changes?
What's wrong with this one ?
During the conflict in the High Charity, hundreds of ships were invested by both sides, but there were only two CAS carriers on the scene, while a large number of ships answered the call of Xytan 'Jar Wattinree, but at the same time there were also ships like Let 'Volir who commanded his ships outside the High Charity to participate in the Great Schism, so Jiralhanae did not only have to fight against vadum's fleet in the High Charity, but also against all the ships loyal to Sangheili in the whole Covenant area?
According to what I read in the novel, some of the Jiralhanae gave up their mission and fled to their home planet, but most of their ships were broken by the fleet that came after Sangheili, which seems to indicate that the entire Covenant area.Jiralhanae control fleet is still not enough to suppress the fleet controlled by Sangheili?After many years of review, it seems that the situation of Jiralhanae's fleet during the Great Schism is really not optimistic.
When Sesa ‘Refumee tells the arbiter that the elites are blind, he is referring that the elites are blinded by horniness and thus unable to see past the lies of the prophets. With an autojacker the elites would have been able to see clearly with constant post nut clarity.
Greetings!
I'm trying to understand the theological and symbolic notions underpinning the Great Schism. I'm interested in what you think about it.
In particular, I'm interested in how the Orthodox Church not accepting the notion of Filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son as well) might reflect the other differences that underpinned the Great Schism. Here's a possible connection, realted to symbolism.
Both the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church hold the position that the Church is led, guided, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church also holds, that there has to be a Vicar of Christ, namely the Pope, who embodies the office of Christ as head of the Church in this world. Since Catholics hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well they view it as important that there be a manifestation, a visible symbol of Christ's person.
In constrast, the Orthodox do not hold this, the Holy Spirit proceed only from the Father, who is transcendent, immaterial. The need for a single human, personified symbol of Christ is not necessary for the Chruch in their eyes, since the ability to lead the Church directly comes from the Father through the Holy Spirit. They may view themselves in a similar position as Christ Himself, who received divine guidance from the Father directly, through the Holy Spirit.
Do you think this is a pertinent connection?
What do you think about the other issues, like the use of unleavened bread in communion?Interestingly enough, I think this also has to do with a symbol being relevant or not in religion.
Currently at a point in my faith where I’m drawn between Catholic or Orthodox but can’t decide which one, both sort of claim to be the original church founded by Jesus so I have to find out for myself which I think is more legitimate or agrees with me more.
Is there one particular scholarly work, or maybe one work from an early church member, which outlines why the split happened and what the differences in opinion are, that I can explore?
Any help or point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated, thank you very much.
Greetings!
Since Mr. Pageau is part of the Orthodox Church, I think this issue might be relevant.
I've noticed that the theological differences behind the Great SChism contained a fair bit of symbolism. I'm interested in what you think about it.
In particular, I'm interested in how the Orthodox Church not accepting the notion of Filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son as well) might reflect the other differences that underpinned the Great Schism. Here's a possible connection, realted to symbolism.
Both the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church hold the position that the Church is led, guided, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church also holds, that there has to be a Vicar of Christ, namely the Pope, who embodies the office of Christ as head of the Church in this world. Since Catholics hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well they view it as important that there be a manifestation, a visible symbol of Christ's person.
In constrast, the Orthodox do not hold this, the Holy Spirit proceed only from the Father, who is transcendent, immaterial. The need for a single human, personified symbol of Christ is not necessary for the Chruch in their eyes, since the ability to lead the Church directly comes from the Father through the Holy Spirit. They may view themselves in a similar position as Christ Himself, who received divine guidance from the Father directly, through the Holy Spirit.
Do you think this is a pertinent connection?
What do you think about the other issues, like the use of unleavened bread in communion?Interestingly enough, I think this also has to do with a symbol being relevant or not in religion.
Currently at a point in my faith where I’m drawn between Catholic or Orthodox but can’t decide which one, both sort of claim to be the original church founded by Jesus so I have to find out for myself which I think is more legitimate or agrees with me more.
Is there one particular scholarly work, or maybe one work from an early church member, which outlines why the split happened and what the differences in opinion are, that I can explore?
Any help or point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated, thank you very much.
Currently at a point in my faith where I’m drawn between Catholic or Orthodox but can’t decide which one, both sort of claim to be the original church founded by Jesus so I have to find out for myself which I think is more legitimate or agrees with me more.
Is there one particular scholarly work, or maybe one work from an early church member, which outlines why the split happened and what the differences in opinion are, that I can explore?
Any help or point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated, thank you very much.
