Final answer:
The Great Schism was primarily caused by differences in language, culture, and authority recognition between the Eastern and Western Churches. The Eastern Church permitted married clergy and held a more collegial view of church governance, while the Western Church practiced clerical celibacy and vested supreme authority in the pope. This division still influences the two distinct branches of Christianity.
Explanation:
The division between the eastern and western Christian churches, known as the Great Schism of 1054, was largely due to differences in language, culture, and ecclesiastical authority. The Western Church, centered in Rome, conducted its services in Latin, enforced celibacy among its clergy, and recognized the pope as the ultimate authority on church matters.
In contrast, the Eastern Church, based in Constantinople, used Greek, allowed its priests to marry, and saw the patriarch as having authority equal to that of the pope. These differences were emphasized and made more pronounced by the reform movements of the time.
Over time, differing interpretations of religious texts and controversies over church leadership further deepened the divide. The Eastern Orthodox Church now comprises various national churches, including Greek and Russian Orthodox, while Western Christianity was entirely Roman Catholic until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, which led to the development of numerous Protestant denominations.
The initial split had ripple effects through the centuries, impacting religious practices, church governance, and ultimately leading to separate paths in the evolution of Eastern and Western Christian traditions.
One pivotal moment in this division was when the pope's representative excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, who then excommunicated the pope's envoy in response. This official separation resulted in what are now known as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. Despite the schism, the western Church retained its organizational hierarchy and continued to exert considerable influence across Europe.
State constitutions today share which of the following features?
no system of checks and balances
separation of powers
vague descriptions of state institutions
complicated procedures for amendment
Answer:
B for my plato peoples
Explanation:
I will make the first person who answers this brainliest!!!
Scenario 2
State law recognizes that the owner of a vehicle is the person or company whose name appears on the title, or legal and official ownership document. The state also recognizes payment agreements that people and businesses make through official, legal means.
A young woman says her neighbor agreed to purchase her old car. She agreed to accept payments from him on a monthly basis until he paid off the car and trusted that he would honor this plan. She signed ownership over to him on the title, which he also signed. She says that he has not made any payments and still has possession of the car.
The neighbor says he understood the car to be a gift and has no obligation to make payments. He did not sign an official agreement to make payments. He says that she gave him the car in exchange for his electric scooter, which is new and gets great gas mileage. The neighbor maintains she just wants the car back now that he fixed it and it looks better.
Is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? How do you know? ____________________________________________________________________________
Is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or combination? How do you know? ____________________________________________________________________________
Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? Explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. Use details from the scenario to support your answer. _____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Do you think the young woman has a valid argument that her neighbor owes her payment for the car? In other words, should government make an exception to the law about the owner being the person whose name is on the title? Use details from the scenario to support your answer. ____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
The legal dispute over a car between a young woman and her neighbor falls under civil law, which aims to protect individuals' property rights. The woman's claim is complicated by the lack of a written payment agreement, and the title's presence in the neighbor's name usually indicates ownership in the eyes of the law.
Civil law deals with the rights and duties of individuals among themselves. In this case, the source of law is likely a statute, as the state recognizes the owner of a vehicle through the title, an official document. Without the law in place, individuals would risk losing their property without legal recourse, and it might lead to an increase in fraudulent activities. Here, the purpose of law is to protect people's property rights and provide a mechanism for resolving disputes like the one between the young woman and her neighbor.
The young woman could argue that despite the title being in her neighbor's name, there was a verbal contract relating to the payment plan. However, verbal agreements can be difficult to enforce, especially if not witnessed or recorded. The absence of an official, written and signed payment agreement makes this case more challenging. Thus, government intervention by making an exception to the law based on verbal agreement claims could set a complicated precedent. Therefore, usually the person whose name appears on the title is recognized as the owner, as possession and ownership rights are well-established to avoid ambiguity and conflict.
Why did kings of France, England, and Spain urge exploration and settlement of the New World?
Answer:
The kings of France, England, and Spain urged exploration and settlement of the New World because they wanted to expand their empires by acquiring land.
Explanation:
In the 1400s, trade routes to China and the other eastern countries were cut for Europeans. It happened that the Muslim peoples, after several religious clashes in the Middle East, decided that no Christian kingdom could trade using its routes. This led to many European countries, mainly Spain, Portugal, France and England, deciding to explore various routes with the aim of reaching the east to trade with China and India, and obtain the precious spices that were highly valued in the European market.
This was how the Spanish kings financed the trip of Christopher Columbus, who in 1492 discovered the American continent. Once the Europeans became aware of the existence of this territory, and found that it did not belong to any of the known European kingdoms, they began to invade these lands and conquer them, seeking to obtain the maximum benefit from the natural resources available in the American lands.
what did the Babylonians develop through their study of astronomy A. the first 12-month calendar B. a calendar that predicted lunar eclipses C. a theory that the earth revolved around the sun D. a telescope to observe the planets
Compare and contrast
compare and contrast the exploration made by Lewis and Clark with Pike’s, and tell why the Lewis and Clark journey was considered more valuable. Include the material each exploration team brought back, the territory covered, the people they met, and the amount of information each contributed.
please be specific
thank you!