| Revision as of 15:00, 3 April 2013 editLoveMonkey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,892 editsm →Erase entire article?: And also Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:19, 26 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,054 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:East–West Schism/Archive 8) (bot | ||
| (144 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= | |||
| ⚫ | {{On this day|date1=2005-12-07|oldid1=30302760 }} | ||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | ||
| |theology-work-group=yes |theology-importance=Top | |||
| {{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top |theology-work-group=yes |theology-importance=Top |catholicism=yes |catholicism-importance=Top |eastern-orthodoxy=yes |eastern-orthodoxy-importance=Top }} | |||
| {{WikiProject European history|importance=high }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=High }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Greece|importance=mid|topic=history|byzantine-task-force=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid|Interfaith=yes}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Copied | |||
| {{WikiProject European history |class=c |importance=high }} | |||
| |from1 = East–West Schism | |||
| {{WikiProject Middle Ages |class=C |importance=High }} | |||
| |from_oldid1 = 521379119 | |||
| {{WP1.0|class=C|category=category|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}} | |||
| |to1 = Primacy of the Bishop of Rome | |||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| |to_diff1 = 521379635 | |||
| {{VA |topic=History |level=3 |class=C}} | |||
| |to_oldid1 = 520850463 | |||
| |date1 = 2012-11-04T12:10:02 | |||
| |from2 = East–West Schism#Other points of conflict | |||
| ⚫ | {{On this day |
||
| |from_oldid2 = 921808857 | |||
| {{Off topic warning}} | |||
| |to2 = 15th-16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism | |||
| ⚫ | {{Archive box |
||
| |to_diff2 = 922823306 | |||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| ⚫ | {{Archive box|search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=1 |units=month |index=/Archive index | | ||
| * ] <small>(Dec 2004 – Jan 2009)</small> | * ] <small>(Dec 2004 – Jan 2009)</small> | ||
| * ] <small>(January–March 2009)</small> | * ] <small>(January–March 2009)</small> | ||
| Line 27: | Line 35: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 8 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 37: | Line 45: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
== Section on Hell == | ||
| I significantly modified this section as it relates to Eastern Orthodoxy, since it contained blatant errors such as claiming that the Orthodox believe there "is no hell," and made sweeping generalizations and universal, doctrinal claims on behalf of Orthodoxy as a whole, when even the Misplaced Pages article on hell, in the Orthodox subsection, clearly states and explains the variety of opinion in this area, and the lack of a single, official doctrine, as is found in Catholicism. | |||
| ] (]) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| If LoveMonkey resumes editing here, I will of course be free to do so too (tomorrow). A repeated attempt by him afterwards to arrogate to himself the sole right to edit might necessitate a rollback to the text preceding the resumption. I hope that can be avoided. ] (]) 19:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Esoglou's recent edits appear to be strange. Let me clarify. Why did the Pope and the Roman Catholic church need to rule the Eastern Empire at all? Would not the efforts of Emperor Michael indicate at least an alliance with the Eastern Orthodox? Was the Venetians and the Pope or Normans ever really threatened by the Eastern Orthodox by potential conquest? Why did the Popes whom claimed uniformity and apostolic tradition need the Eastern Orthodox to add the filioque, at all? Why not just accept that the Eastern Orthodox accepted, due to the rules of Latin or whatever, that the Western Church was going to use it and leave it at that? Why is it that allot of apologists for the Roman Catholic church when speaking of the schism and the Fourth Crusade never mention the conquest and occupation of Eastern Orthodox lands after the sack of Constantinople? How is the retaliation against the Venetians destroying a quarter of the city of Constantinople even close to justification for Roman Catholic forces conquering, weakening and economically destroying their Christian brothers of the east? How is this behavior by the Pope Christ like? Why is it that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and not the Pope of popes? | |||
| ::::::Here is an example..This is the historical misinformation and distortion of Solovyev by the Roman Catholic church. | |||
| :::"If the Eastern churches were to be reunited with Rome, they would not have to sacrifice anything of their unique heritage." Father Ray Ryland | |||
| ::::::So it was added just today that Pope Nicholas wished to change the Eastern culture as a historical FACT. By not only forcing the Eastern Orthodox to accept theological and ecclesiastical changes strictly on Papal Supremacy for his domain but that they also must conform to the changes to their own culture. Superimposed on the whole of Christianity by one man. | |||
| ::::::Here's another. This is of course to an even more perfect example of the outright lies that some POV people here on Misplaced Pages are willing to go to. As anyone whom goes to the ] article can see where Roman Catholic POV pushers deleted my sourcing from ] saying explicitly that Vladmir Solovyev died an Orthodox Christian and that the Roman Catholic church is spreading lies about Solovyev. As Orthodox people know he is buried as an Orthodox Christian in the graveyard at ] beside his father. But again people shouldn't let something like the truth get in the way to their doing the good work of God, to other Christians none the less. ] (]) 21:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :My edit does not mention Solovyov or say that either side was right in the rivalry between Michael Palaeologus and Charles of Anjou. It did mention that Pope Nicholas III tried to insist on actual application of the acceptance in Lyon of the ''Filioque'' doctrine - again without making a value judgement, sourced or unsourced, on his action. The above comments are overwhelmingly value judgements, as if in a discussion forum. The implied statement that Michael's efforts indicated the existence of "an alliance with the Eastern Orthodox" is false: the fact that Michael had to make those efforts shows instead that the Eastern Orthodox (apart from Michael and not many others) were ''not'' in agreement. And here too I make no value judgement for or against Michael, for or against his opponents. ] (]) 07:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::So now Esoglou is in a vacuum and Esoglou has no history between him and my contributions outside of 72hours ago? Really. As speaking to Emperor Michael VIII so you missed the point again and it appears to be on purpose. If Michael defeated the Roman Catholic forces, occupiers and retook Byzantium from them and he did that as an Orthodox Christian and then stood against his Orthodox brethren and did in the real world actual things to force an end to the schism. How is it that any Pope has even a shred of justification to question his actions and undermine them and people not see them as being driven by another agenda? (I mean there is nothing more or of greater possibility that Michael could have done short of donating his Empire to the Pope and isn't that the REAL problem isn't that the real agenda here?) How can what the Popes did not show their hand in that they NEVER really wanted an equal partner from the East, no it is obvious from their actions they wanted ownership and subordination and would not settle on anything less. You see your POV here and it limits or blinds you to something more obvious to an objective observer. You miss the whole thing about Michael not having to do any of it. You miss the gravity of the fact that he tried and his endeavor failed and that it was not for the Roman Catholic side to claim anything, unless again what their true motives are or were, was not what they have been conveying. If they had left it alone all together and Michael's efforts were true or not what would they care? What business is it of theirs? If the Orthodox did or did not accept any of it how is it even remotely sane to think that the Roman Catholics the Pope, Charles or whomever has any business invading their country and subjecting them? But hey its real Christ like of you Esoglou to be morally ambivalent to that, no? Thats real silence. That's one of a list of silences from the West. The Pope has no business doing the bidding of any Charles or Charlemagne and then claiming anything about some supposed ] in the East. These massive contradictions should at the very least give people pause. As Esoglou reserves the right to abstain from making a judgement call as he puts it, then the Orthodox editors on here have to spend upwards of a year or two of their time to add some very common held and essential components of their perspective to articles about them. Because non-judgement calling Roman Catholic editors keep deleting the contents or information of important events to them. Spreading and perpetuating disinformation like Emperor Michael dying is what undermine his efforts to the end the schism (when historically that is simply NEVER given nor expressed as what put his efforts to an end as such by either side any where but here on wikipedia). Talk about rewriting history. ] (]) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : There is no reference to Hell in the Orthodox Liturgy or the Latin Mass, unlike with the Lutheran Liturgy and Eucharist of the Church of England. I am also uncertain as to whether there is a concept of eternal punishment in the Orthodox Church as God is stated in the Liturgy to be all loving, merciful and forgiving. Perhaps a reference is needed or possibly a different wording where it is presently stated that "there is damnation or punishment in eternity for the rejection of God's grace". Not being graced by the presence of God does not necessarily imply one is punished or damned by God. There is a good presentation in the Orthodox wiki: https://el.orthodoxwiki.org/Κόλαση - that the distancing from God's grace is a voluntary choice and not a punishment imposed by God as is made clear by a cited quote from St John of Damascus: "Και τούτο ειδέναι δει, ότι ο Θεός ου κολάζει τινά εν τω μελλόντι αλλ' έκαστος εαυτόν δεκτικόν ποιεί της μετοχής του Θεού. Εστίν η μεν μετοχή του Θεού τρυφή, η δε αμεθεξία αυτού κόλασις" - God does not punish but each one decides on his receiving of God, whose reception is joy and his absence a Hell. I am inclined to slightly change the current text to better reflect the Orthodox Christian view that God does not punish. ] (]) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Blanking out of section of article == | |||
| ::My comments on Hell which were backed up by references, were reverted by another editor, even though I had added this comment in the talk section several weeks before making the change and the change had remained for a year without discussion in the talk section. Unless I receive a good explanation I will refer the issue to the arbitration committee. Please explain.] (]) 18:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Why was this section blanked out or deleted ? There was no discussion about this edit. ] (]) 20:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeh, I saw that edit by an anon IP. The text has a strong pro-Rome POV to it and I assumed it was some pro-Orthodox editor (frankly, I wasn't sure if it might be you) who was objecting to sentences like "After Jerusalem was destroyed, the church of Rome naturally became the primary church, the capital of Christianity." I can find lots in this section that an Orthodox editor might wish to take issue with. At the least, it needs to be rewritten with a more NPOV tone. I don't think it should have been deleted without explanation, though. Perhaps you can suggest ways to rehabilitate the text.--] (]) 17:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Funny I found that to be your ]'. Restore it please. No one here in discussion has raised any objections to the substance of it as far as I can tell. I just don't want to restore it because I want to keep my edits to a bare minimum on the article. ] (]) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Reason and Orthodoxy == | ||
| The statement that "Eastern Orthodox theologians argue that the mind (reason, rationality) is the focus of Western theology, whereas, in Eastern theology, the mind must be put in the heart, so they are united into what is called nous; this unity as heart is the focus of Eastern Orthodox Christianity" is based on a reference by the American Romanian Carpathian Church. I am not sure this interpretation (and the entire paragraph that follows it) is representative. Of course, it is in the nature of the Orthodox tradition that there are differences in interpretation of the sacred texts because their meaning depends somewhat on the education and understanding of the individual. However, the contrary position has many defendants: The opening of the Gospel of St John quotes Heraclitus: In the arche (first principle) there was Logos ... Through it everything came to be". Heraclitus by Logos meant Reason (in fact that is what the word means in Greek). The translation into Latin as "In the beginning was the Word" certainly does not reflect Heraclitus accurately and rather detracts from the position of Logos (Reason) in Christian thought. St John the Evangelist lived in Ephesus, the city where Heraclitus had lived, and the reference to Heraclitus could not have been accidental. See also https://orthodoxwiki.org/Logos and https://www.orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/IJOT1-2010/12-popescu-trinity.pdf ] (]) 12:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Skamnelis}} OrthodoxWiki is a ] so it cannot be used as a source on Misplaced Pages articles. If you have a good source more authoritative than the current one to support the change you want (e.g. Kallistos Ware's ''The Orthodox Church'' or ''The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity''), feel free to use it. ] (]) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Why is it that the history of the Schism dances around the idea that the Roman Catholic church had to go "into the Middle East" and establish itself? Look at the way the crusades are depicted historically. Why would the Roman Catholic church if indeed the true church have to not only conquer the Muslims factions it faced in the Middle East but also have to conquer Orthodox communities (see the ])? Think of it this way if St Thomas was Roman Catholic and so was his community (]) that was outside of Byzantium (they had broken communion by way of the Persian schism) why would they need to conform to the ideas of Roman Catholicism? Why would they not already have a history of Papal understanding and Roman Catholic theology? Why was ] established in India in the 16th century but not sometime in the 1600 hundred years before that? Would it not stand to reason that the community there would not have had to adapt Roman Catholicism since it was already established there (see ])? Why do none of the early schismatic communities or churches adhere to any of the supposed things that divide the Eastern Orthodox from the Roman Catholics? Why would these communities appear to be closer in the theology and practice to the Eastern Orthodox than the Roman Catholic? Even within their own respective circles of understanding they make no claims to things like Papal Supremacy and the filioque they have no history of these practices and it would seem to reason (again) that if the Roman Catholic church were the true church these communities would have a history of these practices. | |||
| ::After the response that OrthodoxWiki is a WP:SPS so it cannot be used as a source on Misplaced Pages articles, I had added a reference from Kallistos Ware that seems to have been lost in favour of a statement from a publication attributed to the Romanian Carpathian Church. I do not see why the latter is more representative. At the very least the editor should have opted for presenting the range of views. Unless I have a good explanation, I will refer this issue to the arbitration committee. ] (]) 18:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Move discussion in progress == | |||
| If there was in the schism ill will between what became the Greek Orthodox church and these communities that ill will does not seem to validate in any of these communities a desire to "return" to the Roman Catholic church now that the Roman Catholic church has left the Middle Eastern and or Greek Church. Why is that? HOWEVER there is indeed ecumenism between the Greek Orthodox and these communities. Why is it that these communities without communion with the Greek Orthodox Church have themselves had to fight off and have wars with the Roman Catholic Church (see ] for example)? Whats with the forced conversions and all that nonsense? Let alone what happened to ] or even ] at the hands of ] (see ]). I mean really historically where is their ]? It would seem that they have a right to claim themselves to be the true church and they can historically claim apostolic session. Where is it in their history that the church of Rome was above and ruler over all of Christianity? I mean there is information for people interested in what these communities hold as a stance on the theology of the filioque or Papal Supremacy for example. . Again if the Greek Orthodox got it wrong and these other churches then people are to believe that the whole entire historical location of Christianity and its people have fallen away from true Christianity? REALLY? ] (]) 19:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 25 April 2024 crosspost --> —] 15:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Please use this talk page only for suggestions to improve the article. Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate forum for theological disputes. - ] (]) 20:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please do not present yourself as someone whom speaks with authority User:Cengime. Also have a nice day. ] (]) 20:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As explained in the policies and guidelines linked at the top of this page, Misplaced Pages is ], and off-topic posts such as this ]. I see nothing aimed at improving the article in your lengthy post, and I would be within my rights to delete it, but instead I'm asking you to stop. Defying the policies and guidelines after being advised of them is likely to lead to administrative action. - ] (]) 21:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh wow man Cengime thank you so much for all the work and time you have contributed to this article and your drive by and assessment. Your comment just made this entire experience just wonderful that is so awesome that you care so much that you would take the time to do this. After 4 years of editing on this page and being blocked by administrators and having threats by edit warring POV pushing editors on my talk page and all that, it appears your drive by and inappropriate and out of touch comment was just what was needed. Why I am now enlightened. Please go ahead and post that you did what you did to an administrator. Go ahead post for them to finally do something. Please. I hope that they bring to your attention that this very thing you just did is the biggest factor in other contributors leaving wikipedia en mass. I think that if anyone should stop it should be you. Just in case you didn't notice and considering what you posted you didn't some of my comment above is already in the article. And will likely be the next set of edits I suggest be pared down and contributed to the article text. ] (]) 21:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Could Cengime possibly contribute to the discussion and article rather than engage in disruptive behavior? This person is now behaving like a troll. ] (]) 23:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Alright. I have entered the Twilight Zones or something or did Cengime here just do a set of excellent edits? Man this is weird but uh Cengime THANK YOU. Hmm maybe I should make people mad more often..oh never-mind. But WOW thanks to you again Cengime. Good job. ] (]) 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Council of Constantinople of 1170 == | ||
| I am asking here if this page could mention, even briefly the 1170 synod held at Constantinople. It is listed in John McClintock and James Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (where it is listed as a council of 1168 or 1170). According to them, the synod was "attended by many Eastern and Western bishops on the reunion of the Eastern and Latin Churches" (Volume 2, 1883, p. 491), and elsewhere they list this same council as being that at which "the Greek Church was entirely separated from the Roman" (Supplement Volume 2, 1887, p. 89). Horace Kinder Mann, quotes Macarius of Ancyra as saying the following about the council: | |||
| I tried to shorten lead. Left footnotes, as usual which now out-volume the text by about 3:1. Eventually all the footnotes have to go. Supposed to be summarizing what is in text. | |||
| "The emperor, the council, and the whole senate gave their vote in favour of a total separation from the Pope... But it was not thought proper to consign (the Latins) a great and distinguished nation, to formal anathema, like other heresies, even while repudiating union and communion with them." (Nicholas Breakspear (Hadrian IV.) A.D. 1154-1159 The Only English Pope, p. 88) | |||
| My focus is still the same. The History subsection still desperately needs shortening IMO. ] (]) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excellent thank you Student7. I think it is fair to have the information Esoglou added just not in the lede. It could probably be shorten a bit more though. But that is again excellent. ] (]) 23:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Excellent job on your recent edits Student 7 thank you for moving the article in the direction of improvement. I have a question for you and you can treat it, if you like as rhetorical, and just think about it. The underlying reason for the schism as held by EO representatives like Romanides for example was nothing about the Pope per se or theology. What Romandies says is the real heart and soul of it was that the Western Empire got conquered by the German and French and the German and French in the process of conquering Europe also sought to conquer the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). All these things are fragmented and appear to be petty because no one is contextualizing them in this way. That the Italians never were against the Eastern Empire nor their church but all of that changed once the French and Germans started to take over the Western Christian church. It is then that the Western Church (in order to justify its thirst for conquest and subjugation) invented some of this stuff that has no history to the Eastern Christians as whole. As I have tried to point out the Persian Christians whom were the first group to schism from the catholic church did not do so being for or against anything such as Papal supremacy such a thing never existed in their and the Eastern Orthodox shared history. They are in schism because of Christianity being made synonymous to being a citizen of the Roman Empire. | |||
| :::::The Persians were Persians and the Roman Empire rather it be Hellenistic and then Roman for sure was their greatest enemy. The first schism was over the Persians being able call themselves Christians and having that statement divorced from also meaning "Roman". However we as EO (and let no devil tell you otherwise) love the Persians Christians as we do the Coptics and Ethiopians however the Armenians still bother us but that is for a different time (just kidding however who could excuse them for the monstrosity known as Cher?). Oh the Melkites bother us too but whom is keeping count? All funniness aside. The bigger picture is how state or government and or political plays a role in causing these kinds of things like schisms, heresy and or religious wars. As right now in Russia there is a very big discussion about Putin is perceived as being a bit to much involved into directing the goals and affairs of the Russian Church. So this is as much a contemporary thing as it is an ancient one and I think that the Caesaropapism nonsense makes it all rather confusing. As there is every bit reason to believe that the schism would have been over in the 1990s from both parties if the things like the priest sex scandals hadn't darkened all of the negotiations. But to go further sobornost works without any councils without any formalities. We can just get along right now, can't we? There is need for the government or any worldly power to be divorced from the church and for any worldly power to not be able to in the name of Rome, Moscow or Constantinople to do anything close to welding the power of unity in Christianity to do the will of the state. This is the real underlying problem that the schism is about. Christianity divined is Christianity defeated (yes this is all very Soloviev). ] (]) 22:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Incoherence in the lede=== | |||
| This passage in the lede if read out loud makes no sense and is not in context.. | |||
| :::::The date of the 1054 mutual excommunication between the legates of the pope and patriarch approached. Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople. According to the historian John Bagnell Bury, Cerularius' purpose in closing the Latin churches was "to cut short any attempt at conciliation". The Normans who had newly won Apulia and part of Calabria from the Byzantine Empire suppressed Greek liturgical usages in these parts of southern Italy | |||
| Could it be rewritten to make sense? ] (]) 17:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree that this was awkward. Tweaked first sentence only. Maybe should drop the Norman reference entirely? ] (]) 19:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I had added a brief entry on it, but it was deleted. I am sincerely wondering why it was deleted. | |||
| == Erase entire article? == | |||
| The Council was called by the Emperor Manuel and envoys of Pope Alexander III met in Constantinople along with Patriarch Michael III Anchialus. The Pope required that in all matters the Greeks adopt Latin practices and consent to the papal primacy, and so the Patriarch broke communion with Rome. Further information can easily be found online. | |||
| You know the guy that is putting "reason=" in all the tagged cns? He apparently does other things as well. He wants to erase the entire ] because (he claims) it violates copyright in the same subsection I copied from here, which is ]. He claims it is a copy of the Romanides lecture series from http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm. If someone would like to talk to him about that information, which, BTW, seems largely uncited in this article, I would appreciate it. | |||
| You can verify the quote by Macarius of Ancyra here: | |||
| See comments at ]. ] (]) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nicholas_Breakspear/xLY-AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=horace+kinder+mann+nicholas+breakspear&printsec=frontcover <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Editor said it was my fault for copying into text, what was intended as a quote. He has corrected it to his satisfaction in ]. The problem is still in here. I cannot quite put my finger on it, other than what was mentioned above. ] (]) 22:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == The Map is Wrong == | |||
| ::That editor (an administrator) is me. I never said I wanted to "erase the entire" article. That's an exaggeration. I wrote that perhaps a long series of Student7's edits on the ] should be reverted back when it appeared there was a possibility that Student7 had (at least once, intentional or not) added copyrighted material. It turned out that he/she accidentally added copyright material to ] by copying it from this article. In ''this'' article, the text under question used to be in a footnote, which, as it happens, was regular text by Student7 (by breaking a ref tag accidentally during a large, complicated edit... do a search for "During the seventh century, however, the seeds of schism", for example, and you can find it). Once it become clear that Student7 accidentally submitted copyrighted material, the rest of his/her edits were no longer under suspicion. | |||
| ::Student7, you seem to be skeptical and confused about the copyright violation itself. I gave a link to the "" on your talk page that provides the matched text between the violating article and the source URL. Using it, you can confirm that there was a copyright violation. The same tool can also be used with the URL of a version of this article. for comparing the source URL against the recent 15:51 26 March 2013 version by Student7. Saying "he claims" above sounds rather dismissive when I've tried to provide the necessary material to substantiate my claims. | |||
| ::As for this article, I made the same solution I did at ]: I deleted the entire "Political division between East and West" section because it was the only section containing large amounts of obvious violation. If you wish to sort through that material to decide what's was valid free content and what wasn't, please do. | |||
| ::Tracking down the origins of copyrighted material is time-consuming and tedious. It's even moreso when an editor (like me) wasn't involved in the article history until that point. In total, this probably took about an hour and a half to resolve. It's best to be very careful when editing so that mistakes don't creep in in the first place. If you are having trouble following your own edit diffs, Student7, perhaps you are making too many changes per edit. | |||
| ::Lastly, I'm curious about the "You know the guy that is putting 'reason=' in all the tagged cns?" remark. Is there some discussion somewhere about that? Why did you mention this? If other editors have complained about me fixing those, I'd like to tell them that there's more to it than meets the eye. This copyvio was, for example, found and solved as part of fixing of {{tl|citation needed}} templates (or "reason=" editing, if you wish to call it that). ] (]) 03:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The map at the top of the article shows many areas Catholic that were not in 1045. Lithuania, for example, was not, nor was Pomerania, nor what later became East Prussia. ] (]) 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::One last thing, when copying text from one Misplaced Pages article to another, it needs to be cited (see ]). The cite is typically made in an edit summary. The on the ] article that introduced the copyrighted material from this article did not give a cite. This caused confusion and prolonged the investigation. ] (]) 03:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Well either way this data should be re-integrated by into the article. | |||
| ::The Franks applied their policy of destroying the unity between the Romans under their rule and the Romans under the rule of Constantinople and the Arabs. They played one Roman party against the other, took neither side, and finally condemned both the iconoclasts and the ] (786/7) at their own ] in 794, in the presence of the legates of ] (771–795), the staunch supporter of Orthodox practice.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm#s2 |title=FRANKS, ROMANS, FEUDALISM, AND DOCTRINE Part 1 |publisher=Romanity.org |date= |accessdate=2013-02-23}}</ref> Their obliteration of the Empire's boundaries and an outburst of missionary activity among these peoples who had no direct links with the ] and among ], who had never been part of the Roman Empire fostered the idea of a universal church free from association with a particular state.<ref> in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. Retrieved 9 November 2012</ref> On the contrary, "in the East Roman or Byzantine view, when the Roman Empire became Christian, the perfect world order willed by God had been achieved: one universal empire was sovereign, and coterminous with it was the one universal church"; and, according to the author of the ''Encyclopedia of World Religions'', the Empire's state church came, by the time of the demise of the Empire in 1453, to merge psychologically with it to the extent that its bishops had difficulty in thinking of Christianity without an Emperor.<ref>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XRkfKdho-5cC&q=%22one+universal+empire+was+sovereign%22&redir_esc=y |title=Johannes P. Schadé, ''Encyclopedia of World Religions (Foreign Media Group 2006 ISBN 978-1-60136000-7), article "Byzantine Church" |publisher=Books.google.com |date=2006-12-30 |accessdate=2013-02-23}}</ref> | |||
| ::::::::::::As this is central (right or wrong) to the more common Greek perspective (called ] and ]).. ] (]) 14:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:19, 26 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the East–West Schism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about East–West Schism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about East–West Schism at the Reference desk. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 7, 2005. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Section on Hell
I significantly modified this section as it relates to Eastern Orthodoxy, since it contained blatant errors such as claiming that the Orthodox believe there "is no hell," and made sweeping generalizations and universal, doctrinal claims on behalf of Orthodoxy as a whole, when even the Misplaced Pages article on hell, in the Orthodox subsection, clearly states and explains the variety of opinion in this area, and the lack of a single, official doctrine, as is found in Catholicism.
67.42.97.177 (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is no reference to Hell in the Orthodox Liturgy or the Latin Mass, unlike with the Lutheran Liturgy and Eucharist of the Church of England. I am also uncertain as to whether there is a concept of eternal punishment in the Orthodox Church as God is stated in the Liturgy to be all loving, merciful and forgiving. Perhaps a reference is needed or possibly a different wording where it is presently stated that "there is damnation or punishment in eternity for the rejection of God's grace". Not being graced by the presence of God does not necessarily imply one is punished or damned by God. There is a good presentation in the Orthodox wiki: https://el.orthodoxwiki.org/Κόλαση - that the distancing from God's grace is a voluntary choice and not a punishment imposed by God as is made clear by a cited quote from St John of Damascus: "Και τούτο ειδέναι δει, ότι ο Θεός ου κολάζει τινά εν τω μελλόντι αλλ' έκαστος εαυτόν δεκτικόν ποιεί της μετοχής του Θεού. Εστίν η μεν μετοχή του Θεού τρυφή, η δε αμεθεξία αυτού κόλασις" - God does not punish but each one decides on his receiving of God, whose reception is joy and his absence a Hell. I am inclined to slightly change the current text to better reflect the Orthodox Christian view that God does not punish. Skamnelis (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- My comments on Hell which were backed up by references, were reverted by another editor, even though I had added this comment in the talk section several weeks before making the change and the change had remained for a year without discussion in the talk section. Unless I receive a good explanation I will refer the issue to the arbitration committee. Please explain.Skamnelis (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Reason and Orthodoxy
The statement that "Eastern Orthodox theologians argue that the mind (reason, rationality) is the focus of Western theology, whereas, in Eastern theology, the mind must be put in the heart, so they are united into what is called nous; this unity as heart is the focus of Eastern Orthodox Christianity" is based on a reference by the American Romanian Carpathian Church. I am not sure this interpretation (and the entire paragraph that follows it) is representative. Of course, it is in the nature of the Orthodox tradition that there are differences in interpretation of the sacred texts because their meaning depends somewhat on the education and understanding of the individual. However, the contrary position has many defendants: The opening of the Gospel of St John quotes Heraclitus: In the arche (first principle) there was Logos ... Through it everything came to be". Heraclitus by Logos meant Reason (in fact that is what the word means in Greek). The translation into Latin as "In the beginning was the Word" certainly does not reflect Heraclitus accurately and rather detracts from the position of Logos (Reason) in Christian thought. St John the Evangelist lived in Ephesus, the city where Heraclitus had lived, and the reference to Heraclitus could not have been accidental. See also https://orthodoxwiki.org/Logos and https://www.orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/IJOT1-2010/12-popescu-trinity.pdf Skamnelis (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Skamnelis: OrthodoxWiki is a WP:SPS so it cannot be used as a source on Misplaced Pages articles. If you have a good source more authoritative than the current one to support the change you want (e.g. Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church or The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity), feel free to use it. Veverve (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- After the response that OrthodoxWiki is a WP:SPS so it cannot be used as a source on Misplaced Pages articles, I had added a reference from Kallistos Ware that seems to have been lost in favour of a statement from a publication attributed to the Romanian Carpathian Church. I do not see why the latter is more representative. At the very least the editor should have opted for presenting the range of views. Unless I have a good explanation, I will refer this issue to the arbitration committee. Skamnelis (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Council of Constantinople of 1170
I am asking here if this page could mention, even briefly the 1170 synod held at Constantinople. It is listed in John McClintock and James Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (where it is listed as a council of 1168 or 1170). According to them, the synod was "attended by many Eastern and Western bishops on the reunion of the Eastern and Latin Churches" (Volume 2, 1883, p. 491), and elsewhere they list this same council as being that at which "the Greek Church was entirely separated from the Roman" (Supplement Volume 2, 1887, p. 89). Horace Kinder Mann, quotes Macarius of Ancyra as saying the following about the council:
"The emperor, the council, and the whole senate gave their vote in favour of a total separation from the Pope... But it was not thought proper to consign (the Latins) a great and distinguished nation, to formal anathema, like other heresies, even while repudiating union and communion with them." (Nicholas Breakspear (Hadrian IV.) A.D. 1154-1159 The Only English Pope, p. 88)
I had added a brief entry on it, but it was deleted. I am sincerely wondering why it was deleted.
The Council was called by the Emperor Manuel and envoys of Pope Alexander III met in Constantinople along with Patriarch Michael III Anchialus. The Pope required that in all matters the Greeks adopt Latin practices and consent to the papal primacy, and so the Patriarch broke communion with Rome. Further information can easily be found online.
You can verify the quote by Macarius of Ancyra here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nicholas_Breakspear/xLY-AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=horace+kinder+mann+nicholas+breakspear&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:8E80:A9E0:129C:633E:6D7B:96FC (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The Map is Wrong
The map at the top of the article shows many areas Catholic that were not in 1045. Lithuania, for example, was not, nor was Pomerania, nor what later became East Prussia. 2604:3D09:2181:BCD0:A8A9:85A7:47C0:2C6F (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Selected anniversaries (December 2005)
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- B-Class Christian theology articles
- Top-importance Christian theology articles
- Christian theology work group articles
- B-Class Catholicism articles
- Top-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- B-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- Top-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class European history articles
- High-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- B-Class Middle Ages articles
- High-importance Middle Ages articles
- B-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- B-Class Greek articles
- Mid-importance Greek articles
- Byzantine world task force articles
- WikiProject Greece history articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- B-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles