Answer 1

The Christians or people of any other faith are treated no different than the Muslims.

Constitutionally, Turkey is a secular country and is a candidate for membership in EU.

Turkey is a multicultural and ethnically diversified society and has been for centuries due to the influx of peoples from different race, religion, color, creed, national origin and culture. During Ottoman empire, Jews were not only tolerated but flourished.

We have found Turkish people in general to be hospitable and friendly during our extended trips to Turkey. In general, it is highly unlikely, that anybody will be particularly interested in your faith, except perhaps as a curiosity in very friendly conversation.

In business settings, the question of religion is completely inappropriate and is never asked. Personal prejudices and biases of individuals cannot be eradicated by enforcing laws except to learn to respect others' points of view and tolerance.

Answer 2

There is an important distinction to be made between tourists who happen to be Christians (even overtly like missionaries) and endemic Christians who live in Turkey on a day-to-day basis. The former are well-treated since speaking well of Turkey will promote tourism to that country and increase its wealth. As for the few remaining endemic Christians, especially in Istanbul (which remains one of the most important Patriarchates in Orthodox Church) have been the targets of abuse and bullying.

Historically, the area of modern Turkey had a much larger Christian population than it does today and had two major Christian minorities: the Armenian Apostolics and the Greek Orthodox. The Armenians were mass-murdered (1.8 million individuals) from 1915-1917 in what the Turks refuse call a genocide to this day. The towns and cities in which they used to live have been renamed and there are now almost no Armenians left in Turkey. The Greek Orthodox were removed through a population exchange with Greece in which Greece gave up its Muslim population. This would serve to create two relatively homogenous countries, but remove the need of the Turkish government to deal with the Greek Orthodox community within its borders.

from A Catholic Dictionary, edited by Donald Attwater, Second edition, revised 1957

The Great Schism, otherwise know as the Schism of the West was not strictly a schism at all but a conflict between the two parties within the Church each claiming to support the true pope. Three months after the election of Urban VI, in 1378, the fifteen electing cardinals declared that they had appointed him only as a temporary vicar and that in any case the election was invalid as made under fear of violence from the Roman mob. Urban retorted by naming twenty-eight new cardinals, and the others at once proceeded to elect Cardinal Robert of Geneva as Pope Clement VII, who went to reside at Avignon. The quarrel was in its origin not a theological or religious one, but was caused by the ambition and jealousy of French influence, which was supported to some extent for political reasons by Spain, Naples, Provence, and Scotland; England, Germany, Scandinavia, Wales, Ireland, Portugal, Flanders and Hungary stood by what they believe to be the true pope at Rome. The Church was torn from top to bottom by the schism, both sides in good faith (it was impossible to know to whom allegiance was due), which lasted with its two lines of popes (and at one time three) till the election of Martin V in 1417. It is now regarded as practically certain that the Urbanist popes were the true ones and their names are included in semi-official lists; moreover, the ordinal numbers of the Clementine claimants (who, however, are not called anti-popes,) were adopted by subsequent popes of the same name.

In older history texts, the term Great Schism was used to refer to the multiple papacies in the decades following the Avignon papacy. There is no question, however, that the schism of East and West is much "greater" - having a more profound impact, even to this day - than the political posturing of papal claimants in the 14th century

Answer:

The main form of worship for Catholics and Orthodox is the Mass which is NOT a commemoration of the Last Supper. It is the Passover, the Dying of Our Blessed Lord on the Cross for our salvation. Think of it this way, to attend Mass is to actually witness the One and Only Event of Our Blessed Lord dying on Calvary. At the Mass or the Eucharist you are witnessing Our Blessed Lord offering Himself to the Father, on the cross, and its graces are available to you as if you were on Calvary Hill in 33 A.D. because you are. Remember that with God there is no time, and He is making that one time event present right now for you. Catholics witness the Crucifixion of Our Blessed Lord every time they attend Mass - it is NOT repeated but we are able through God's miracle of the Mass to witness it.

Answer

The main form of worship for Anglicans is a commemoration of the Last Supper; it is celebrated every Sunday.

It is called by different names: Catholics and High Anglicans use the term "Mass"; Catholics and mainline Anglicans use the term "Eucharist"; Eastern Rite Catholics, Copts and Orthodox use the term "Divine Liturgy"; Evangelical (Low Church) Anglicans use the term "Lord's Supper" and, unlike the others, do not normally have the celebration every week.

Answer

The Holy Eucharist is the main part of worship just like Roman Catholics.

The Great Schism of 1054 AD had three main causes, which were: 1) Papal claims of supremacy, 2) the change to the Creed (adding the 'filioque'), and 3) Papal teachings about purgatory and indulgences.

In addition to these, there were a few other lesser reasons, such as the use of unleavened bread, the laity receiving communion as bread only, rather than bread and wine together, the separation of baptism and confirmation, and the compulsory celibacy of Catholic clergy, the use of statues, and not allowing divorced people to re-marry. However, most other beliefs about the Christian faith remain the same.

The reasons for the East/West schism are complicated and developed over a period of many centuries; even the date of 1054 is largely symbolic of a process that started much earlier and ended much later. There were cultural, linguistic, and liturgical differences from rather early, and although these were never seen as church-dividing, they probably contributed to mutual misunderstandings. The two biggest issues were the addition of the word filioque (and the Son) to the Western text of the Creed, and the growth of papal power. In addition were a host of smaller conflicts, over matters such as the use of leavened bread vs. unleavened bread for the Eucharist, fasting on Saturday, etc. The schism was probably inevitable by the ninth century, but a case can be made that it was not "final" until the East repudiated the reunion Council of Florence in 1453. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Historical background During the period of persecution, the Early Christian Church developed differently according to the part of the Roman Empire; the Church in the East developed differently from the West and the Church in Africa (Copts) differed again. After the legalisation of Christianity, the Church came to accept that there were 3 main leaders (Patriarchs): the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. To these were added the bishop of Constantinople (by the Council of Constantinople in 381) and the bishop of Jerusalem (by the Council of Chalcedon in 451). With Constantine's transfer of the capital of the Empire to Constantinople, the Empire was effectively split into two sections: East and West. (Diocletian formally divided the Empire into 2 sections in early part of the 4th century) The Church When the western part of the Empire fell into decay, and was eventually overrun by invaders, the political, judicial and social responsibilities of its officials were assumed by the leaders of the Church in the West, centred on Rome. Inevitably, this dual responsibility led to a centralisation and codification of the manner in which things were done in the Western part of the Church. The Church in the East, largely unaffected by the collapse of the Western Empire, continued to be less centralised. As time progressed, the Bishop of Rome (acknowledged by the others as being First Among Equals) began to claim greater authority due to the apostles Peter and Paul being martyred in that city. This claim was refuted by the other patriarchs. However, Rome's position became strengthened when the spread of Islam effectively isolated and diminished the influence the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, leaving Rome and Constantinople in something of a state of rivalry. A further cause of tension arose when the Western Church inserted the "filioque" into Nicene Creed. Traditionally, the Holy Spirit was seen to proceed from God the Father; the insertion of the "filioque" clause meant that, in the West, the Holy Spirit was believed to proceed from God the Father and God the Son. For the Church in the East, Rome had overstepped its authority by altering a Creed which had been approved by an ecumenical council. In 867 the Patriarch of Constantinople (Photius I)declared the insertion to be heretical, thereby accusing the Patriarch of the West (the Bishop of Rome) of heresy. Other factors also caused the East and West to drift apart: language, different manners of liturgical celebration, different approaches to solving ecclesiastical conflict, different ways of explaining doctrine and the gradual imposition of clerical celibacy in the West. The consummation of the schism is generally dated to 16 July 1054 due to a disagreement between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the papal legate who had been sent to solve a disagreement several matters: the type of bread to be used in the Eucharist, the claim to greater power by the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch's use of the title "Ecumenical". However, in reality little changed in the lives of ordinary Christians or the clergy. The two churches continued to drift apart with the rise of nation states in the West (the Byzantine Empire continued) and the disaster of the Fourth Crusade when the crusaders attacked and looted Constantinople. In brief, as was already mentioned in the first , the schism between East and West developed over centuries and the reasons are several: linguistic, societal, judicial, ecclesiastical, political and theological. See related links

.

from The Modern Catholic Dictionary, edited byDonald Attwater, Second edition, revised 1957

The Schism of the East

the estrangement and severance from the Holy See of what is now called the Orthodox Eastern Church was a gradual process extending over centuries. After a number of minor schisms the first serious, though short, break was that of Photius; from then on tension between East and West increased, and the schism of Cerularius occurred in 1054. From then on the breach gradually widened and has been definitive since 1472. There was a formal union from the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 until 1282, and a more promising one after the Council of Florence from 1439 to 1472. After the capture of Constantinople it was in the Turkish interest to reopen and widen the breach with the powerful Roman church; the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were dragged into this policy, Russia and the Slav churches stood out the longest of any: none of these churches, except Constantinople itself in 1472, formally and definitely broke away from the unity of the Church. But in the course of centuries the schism has set and crystallized into a definite separation from the Holy See of many million people with a true priesthood and valid sacraments. The origins, causes and development of the schism are matters of much complication, still not fully unraveled.

Well, it might be like this in theory, however, in practice, it is not necessary for a women to cover her head when entering Serbian Orthodox Monastery. Of course, it is necessary to be decently dressed in the same way like entering any other Christian church which mean no mini skirts, shorts or naked bally and sholders.

If they use the KJV or present Bible version, then yes they have to wear head-covering inside the church. I can't find any exemption to this, so I guess all Christian women MUST have her head covered whenever they enter church.

If a woman refuses to cover her head in church, then her her head must be shaved. 1 Cor 11:5-6

Women are REQUIRED to have their heads covered while in an Orthodox Church. It is customary and a sign of respect. May have a correlation to images we see of St.Mary/Mother Mary with her head covered in a shawl.

Although some may think it is "not required for a woman to cover her head" while in a Serbian Orthodox Monastery, I would not want to be the woman who walked in without a head covering-she would be told quickly, and in no uncertain terms that she needed a head covering. Are the monks and nuns "mean" for beng rather short, and to the point abot this? No, not at all. I would say the person woman going in without head covering is showing a complete disrespect for the monastics and the House of God-especially if she already knew she should have her head covered. Ignorance od the law, however, is no excuse. Anyone going to any Eastern Orthodox Monastery who would not check on the customs and requirements is going there frivolously and does not need to go. Monastics dedicate their lives to God; people coming in and, who, in the eyes of the monastics, and according to Orthodox Tradition, are showing disrespect for God and the Holy Icons, etc., are not "suffered gladly." Again-if someone is not serious enough about their visit to find out what is required, they should not go in the first place. A monastery is not a museum, a cinema, or an amusement park. It is not a place to go to satisfy idle curiousity. It is the House of God, amnd a place of repentance and prayer. Period.

from A Catholic Dictionary, Edited by Donald Attwater, Second Edition, revised.