> There were two Popes appointed at one time- one in Rome and the other in Byzantium. I think France had a third one, but he died. Anyway, the two Popes wouldn't concede to the other, and both countries expressed their wish to follow their own Pope. Eventually, they just became split and the Eastern Orthodox Church formed.

Er, no. I think you're combining two different events that are separated by a few hundred years.
If I may quote from a history of the Orthodox Church (http://members.aol.com/usapatriarchate/Articles/Church_History.htm) :

"The schism developed gradually. The first major breach came in the 9th century when the pope refused to recognize the election of PHOTIUS as patriarch of Constantinople. Photius in turn challenged the right of the papacy to rule on the matter and denounced the filioque clause as a Western innovation. The mounting disputes between East and West reached another climax in 1054, when mutual anathemas were exchanged. The sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade (1204) intensified Eastern hostility toward the West. Attempts at reconciliation at the councils of Lyon (1274) and Florence (1438-39) were unsuccessful. When the papacy defined itself as infallible (First VATICAN COUNCIL, 1870), the gulf between East and West grew wider. Only since the Second VATICAN COUNCIL (I 962-65) has the movement reversed, bringing serious attempts at mutual understanding."

And, of course, like most other flavors of Christiantiy, the Eastern churches believe that thier practices are the ones most directly descended from Christ's and his disciples, and that all the others split from *them.*

Here's a link on the other event to which you are referring.

Bal"Vote for me for Pope in 2004"anthalus