Misplaced Pages

Talk:East–West Schism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:38, 7 September 2014 editChris troutman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers54,800 edits →Change Title?: support move to Great Schism← 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 
(120 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Vital article|topic=History |level=3 |class=C}}
{{On this day|date1=2005-12-07|oldid1=30302760 }} {{On this day|date1=2005-12-07|oldid1=30302760 }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=C |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 }}
|theology-work-group=yes |theology-importance=Top {{WikiProject European history|importance=high }}
|catholicism=yes |catholicism-importance=High {{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Greece|importance=mid|topic=history|byzantine-task-force=yes}}
|eastern-orthodoxy=yes |eastern-orthodoxy-importance=Top
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid|Interfaith=yes}}
|core-topics-work-group = yes |core-topics-importance=Top
}} }}
{{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
|to_oldid1 = 520850463
|date1 = 2012-11-04T12:10:02

|from2 = East–West Schism#Other points of conflict
|from_oldid2 = 921808857
|to2 = 15th-16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism
|to_diff2 = 922823306

}} }}
{{Archive box|search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=1 |units=month |index=/Archive index |
{{Off topic warning}}
{{Archive box|search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |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 26: Line 35:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 7 |counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 36: Line 45:
}} }}


== Tried to shorten lead == == Section on Hell ==

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.

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)

== Erase entire article? ==

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.

See comments at ]. ] (]) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
: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)

::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)

:::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, '&#39;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)
:::::::I apologize to Jason Quinn and thank him for fixing the problem in both places. ] (]) 19:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Reflist|close=1}}


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.
== Who is Jeffrey D. Finch? ==


] (]) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
His quote is used quite a bit on various Orthodox articles and I was just wondering if anyone knows who this person is? ] (]) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
:Good question. He apparently has the key to "East-West rapprochement," but you probably found that out yourself. :) I tried all ways I could think of, in searching for his background and could find nothing that isn't already in Misplaced Pages. Do we need hard copy on this? ] (]) 21:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Well no. It is just that I find this something odd from Richard and Esoglou (inner glory or whatever he is). They are Richard largely responsible for Mr Finch being so prominently mentioned here on Wiki. ] (]) 17:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
:Hi guys. I don't hang around Misplaced Pages as religiously (forgive the pun) as I used to. Instead of checking my watchlist several times a day, I give it a quick glance once every couple of days, sometimes only a couple of times a week. If there is something that you would like me to take a look at, please send me an email. My Misplaced Pages account is email-enabled.


: 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)
:That said, I confess that I don't know who Jeffrey Finch is either. If you Google his name, it shows up prominently in 3-4 Orthodox-related Misplaced Pages articles and not really anywhere else on the first page of results. I'm sure if I worked hard enough, I could eventually figure out who he is. Presumably, he is some scholar specializing in the boundaries of Eastern and Western Christian theology. Still, LM's point is well-taken. His name sticks out like a sore thumb and it would be OK if we were describing a view of Lossky, Meyendorff or Kallistos (Ware) but Finch appears to be a relatively minor star in the theological community. (NB: The last time I wrote something like this, it was about Edward Siecinski who subsequently emailed me to take umbrage at my having slighted his reputation. Quite good-naturedly, of course.)


::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)
:I do feel that the current text (and its copies in other Orthodox-related articles) is not satisfactory and I'd like some thoughts about how to fix it. I think what Finch wrote is reasonable. Perhaps some might take issue with it but I think it's a reasonable assessment of the situation from a Western point-of-view.


== Reason and Orthodoxy ==
:I ran across the quote in this and thought it was useful. Here is a to the beginning of Finch's essay titled "Neopalamism, Divinizing Grace and the Breach between East and West". I will grant that the book is described in at least one review as looking at Eastern Orthodox ideas from a Western perspective and so the essays in it may be more canted towards the Western point of view. Perhaps we need to rephrase the sentence that mentions Finch in a way that de-emphasizes or even drops his name and says something like "Some Western scholars such as Jeffrey Finch believe....". Better yet would be to find a reliable source who surveys all of the essays in Christiansen and Wittung's book and provide a summary of Western views regarding deification. I am, alas, not aware of such at the moment. When time permits, I might look further for one. In the meantime, I am open to suggestions on how to implement a temporary fix to the problem that LM has brought to our attention.
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)
:--] (]) 19:24, 6 May 2013 (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. ] (]) 18:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


== Move discussion in progress ==
:Here is a of the Christiansen and Wittung book by Andrei Antokhin (yeah, I know, another "who is that?"). Still, I think what Antokhin writes provides some perspective on the ideas presented in the book.


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)
:The problem, I think, is that we have "big names" in the East (Lossky, Romanides, Meyendorff) who have held forth on these topics and no "big names" in the West who have held forth in the same depth and breadth. Even Fortescue doesn't have the stature in the West of any of the preceding "big names" from the East. This fact alone speaks volumes about the relative importance of the topic to the West vs. the East. (NB: I'm not saying it's not an important topic; I'm just saying that the West doesn't tend to focus on it and this is, perhaps, precisely the criticism that the East makes against the West.) So we are left with a bunch of "little lights" in the West trying to explain the Eastern views to a West that is, for the most part, not really listening.


== Council of Constantinople of 1170 ==
:Meyendorff tried to bridge the chasm by explaining the East to the West. The West took some notice but then moved on. Some in the East criticized Meyendorff for having "got it wrong".


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:
:It remains a difficult patch of ground to till.


"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)
:--] (]) 19:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


I had added a brief entry on it, but it was deleted. I am sincerely wondering why it was deleted.
== Astonomical coincidence? ==


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.
1054 AD is considered the year of the Great Schism, but is also the year when the Crab Nebula Supernova (M1 - Messier object #1 / SN 1054) was observed by the chinese astronomers. Bigshotnews 01:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


You can verify the quote by Macarius of Ancyra here:
== Damaged sentence ==
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">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== The Map is Wrong ==
Hi, today the intro has a damaged sentence, starting with lowcase "attacks":
"of the churches. attacks that had the support".
I cannot find at what revision the sentence was mutilated, please someone who know this page better restore the original text.
Ciao, Nick
] (]) 07:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
:Fixed. Thanks for drawing attention to the problem. ] (]) 07:53, 9 September 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)
==Change Title?==
Hey everyone, in the majority of the academic literature on the subject, the name historians have given to this slow divergence of Western Christianity away from the historic theological traditions which began in Jerusalem, is almost always referred to as the "Great Schism". In terms of population, this is the largest schism which has ever developed in Christian history, and has had the largest consequences and theological ramifications. It makes the other "Great Schism", nearly always termed "The Papal Schism" seem less-than-great. Certainly this was the more lasting schism. Can the title change, but the disambig page remain? ] (]) 20:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
:I favor this idea, and agree that there is a primary well-recognized meaning to "Great Schism". It seems to me that this is therefore the most appropriate name for the article under ]. And in general, WP should tend to use such common terms internally as well. It doesn't help if we develop a WP-specific terminology/language. We need to keep a focus on how things are described "out there" in order to describe them well "in here". ] (]) 20:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
:::It would be interesting to learn what basis Rí Osraige can present for his claim that most academics and historians use the term "Great Schism" rather than the clear, specific, unambiguous term "East-West Schism". ] (]) 20:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Has this been discussed thoroughly before? Perhaps there are some bases for either term that can be found in a prior discussion. ] (]) 21:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
:::: The Great Schism here: <ref>http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx</ref> Another is a website devoted to the great schism here: <ref>http://www.greatschism.org/Great-Eastern-Schism.html</ref> However, the Papal Schism has many mentions as the great Schism in this google books search: <ref>https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=great+schism&tbm=bks</ref> A noted difference is that the Papal Schism has years next to it when its called the Great Schism while the Catholicism-Orthodox split does not. I would rather rename this article to be the '''Catholocism-Orthodox Schism''' and rename ] to be '''Papal Schism'''. These titles would be much more descriptive. I have to admit though that I always thought of the Catholocism-Orthodox Schism as the '''Great Schism'''. Perhaps this should be opened up to RFC. ] (]) 22:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
{{Reflist|close=1}}
:::::I've just added a notice for the Christianity, European History, and Middle Ages Projects. ] (]) 23:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Please note St.Anselm's suggestion at ] that this discussion should take place by filing a move request. I'm not going to get to that filing right away if someone else wants to go ahead. ] (]) 01:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, this split is called "Great Schism" in the literature. I can only assume this was named "East-West Schism" for an audience unfamiliar with history. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 04:38, 7 September 2014 (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.
Article policies
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:
WikiProject iconChristianity: Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconEuropean history High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGreece: Byzantine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
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.
Archiving icon
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:
Talk:East–West Schism: Difference between revisions Add topic