| Revision as of 15:00, 16 February 2016 editAxxxion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,218 edits →Kirill and Francis joint statement← 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 | ||
| (89 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| {{Vital article|topic=History |level=4 |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| |
{{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}} | |||
| |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 |
||
| |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 | | ||
| {{Copied|from=East–West Schism|from_oldid=521379119|to=Primacy of the Bishop of Rome|to_diff=521379635|to_oldid=520850463|date=2012-11-04T12:10:02}} | |||
| {{Off topic warning}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{Archive box|search=yes |bot= |
||
| * ] <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 == | ||
| {{ping|Haldraper}}, I almost feel I must apologize for continuing to revert your well-intentioned edits here, but you do seem continually to be missing the point I have been trying to make to you in the edit comments. The schism itself was a one-time event. It occurred, and became a historical event, and does not continue. True, depending on how it is defined, it took quite some time to happen, for it was a developing event through centuries of time. But the reason 1054 is so often used as "the time" of its occurrence is that this was the single point at which the churches, formerly one church, underwent the division of faith, the break in inter-communion, which was and is the primary mark of disunity, which is the essence of schism itself. Being a "one-time" event, it happened, and does not continue to happen. It is the results of that schism that continue into the present day, the consequences. But those are a series of ongoing events in themselves, not the schism itself. They are related without being the same thing in essence. The consequences (literally, "events following"), sharing in meaning and effect that which produced them (the schism itself), are separate in not being the schism, and also in not being each other, and yet the whole does retain a connection of effect. I am not trying to deny the nature of the continuation, especially as history also records many attempts, first to prevent the schism, and afterwards also to heal and overturn it, and some of those are going on today as well. But the schism is the break, the division, the sundering, the setting in place, the cause, and not the multiple effect(s). It's just mistaken to say the schism is still happening. It is its results which continue. Have I made this clear and understandable? ] (]) 15:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :There is still schism between EOC and RCC, isn't there? The word does not mean only the initial break. The break can endure. The schism can widen or narrow. It can perdure or be transitory. Unfortunately, the East-West Schism is an enduring one. ] (]) 17:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I must have misunderstood Evensteven, since I see his latest edit was to make Misplaced Pages say the schism persists. I confess my inability to understand what Evensteven sees wrong in saying the still persisting schism ''began'' in the 11th century. Something still persisting must have had a beginning. Saying something "occurred" in the 11th century suggests it is just a past ''event'', not something that is still ongoing. The assassination of Julius Caesar and the Battle of Marathon are events that "occurred" but are not now ongoing. The East-West Schism is ongoing, is persisting. For that reason, Haldraper's "began" seems more suitable than Evensteven's "occurred". ] (]) 19:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sigh. I must admit that you are perfectly correct, Esoglou. It looks as though I was fixating on the initial break, but the continuation does indeed provide another context for a proper application of the word. It seems I've been out of order; so sorry to all! I do think that the word alone doesn't necessarily supply enough context to know which meaning is implied (or both). Maybe that's where I started to misconstrue. I've overturned myself at the article. ] (]) 19:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == why do lede graphs keep reverting to clear bias? == | |||
| by that I meant this: | |||
| ''In 1053, the first step was taken in the process which led to formal schism. 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".'' | |||
| This is the western Church's POV and all the cites are western/Roman Catholic. Firstly there were many steps before, including as many by the both sides. Secondly, even on the closures of churches in respective areas, both sides did this -- as the lede used to reflect. | |||
| Why do the balanced ledes keep getting reverted?] (]) 15:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This article is not up to standard as for an encyclopedia article. I say this because look at this passage of bias that no scholarly source would teach as history let alone support.. | |||
| ------- | |||
| The union effected was "a <b>sham</b> and a political gambit", a fiction maintained by the emperor to prevent westerners from recovering the city of Constantinople, which they had lost just over a decade before, in 1261. It was fiercely opposed by clergy and people and never put into effect, in spite of a sustained campaign by Patriarch John XI of Constantinople (John Bekkos), a convert to the cause of union, to defend the union intellectually, and vigorous and brutal repression of opponents by Michael. In 1278 Pope Nicholas III, learning of the fictitious character of Greek conformity, sent legates to Constantinople, demanding the personal submission of every Orthodox cleric and adoption of the Filioque, as already the Greek delegates at Lyon had been required to recite the Creed with the inclusion of Filioque and to repeat it two more times. Emperor Michael's attempts to resolve the schism ended when Pope Martin IV, seeing that the union was only a sham, excommunicated Michael VIII 1281 in support of Charles of Anjou's attempts to mount a new campaign to retake the Eastern Roman provinces lost to Michael. Michael VIII's son and successor Andronicus II repudiated the union, and Bekkos was forced to abdicate, being eventually exiled and imprisoned until his death in 1297. | |||
| ------- | |||
| A sham, really is that how this is taught by history departments? Of course it is not as that is POV. I say this because this is an interpretation of the sources given as who as a valid and academic source in this day and age considering the people Emperor ] had put to death for opposing the union, could consider Michael VIII Palaiologos' efforts a sham? Other than the biased or partisan? This is not this isn't even close to NPOV. This is taking history and rewriting to make so that the excommunication of Michael VIII Palaiologos by the Pope can not be seen as a betrayal even though to the Greek Orthodox whom supported the union it is indeed nothing short of a betrayal by the West. But again that is not what is said in the article. I have agreed not to edit this article and I will not edit it however this article is not up to standard as it is ripe with POV through out. LoveMonkey 18:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Inaccurate citation == | |||
| ] (]) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| According to the historian John Bagnell Bury, Cerularius' purpose in closing the Latin churches was "to cut short any attempt at conciliation".. Actually the fourth volume of CMH was only planed by J. B. Bury. The passage you are reffering to is by L. Bréhier, the author of the chapter The Greek Church: Its relations with the West up to 1054.] (]) 04:35, 25 December 2015 (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) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| == Reason and Orthodoxy == | |||
| I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
| 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) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120418215517/http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/34-patrtexts/152-ephesus-definition-nicaea to http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/34-patrtexts/152-ephesus-definition-nicaea | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716055057/http://www.ana-mpa.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=6588051&maindocimg=6587712&service=10 to http://www.ana-mpa.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=6588051&maindocimg=6587712&service=10 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223192934/http://www.roacamerica.org:80/art-kiss-demetrios-latest.shtml to http://www.roacamerica.org/art-kiss-demetrios-latest.shtml | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=true}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 23:29, 6 January 2016 (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: | |||
| {{relevant discussion|Talk:Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill#NPOV diligence}} | |||
| "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) | |||
| {{diff|East–West Schism|prev|704880369|I added}}:{{talkquote|In February 2016, Pope Francis, of the Roman Catholic Church, and Patriarch Kirill, of the Russian Orthodox Church, met at José Martí International Airport near Havana, Cuba, and signed a thirty point joint declaration, prepared in advance, addressing global issues including their hope for re–establishment of full unity.}} | |||
| into {{Section link|East–West Schism|Other moves toward reconciliation}} | |||
| I had added a brief entry on it, but it was deleted. I am sincerely wondering why it was deleted. | |||
| {{user|Axxxion}} {{diff|East–West Schism|prev|704989960|removed it}} from that section because it had {{tq|"vry scant relevance to the topic"}} and {{diff|East–West Schism|prev|704990297|added it}} into {{Section link|East–West Schism|Eastern Catholicism}} were {{tq|"it is much more relevant for this"}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{user|Spirit Ethanol}} {{diff|East–West Schism|prev|705081912|added a section}} about the ] into the History below {{Section link|East–West Schism|Nullification of mutual anathemas in 1965}} | |||
| You can verify the quote by Macarius of Ancyra here: | |||
| Axxxion {{diff|East–West Schism|prev|705095905|removed}} Spirit Ethanol's section because there is a {{tq|"link to the article about this statement and the mention thereof is above: journalistic hoopla, mostly feeding on blatant ignorance, apart, it has no significance for this section."}} I.e. the East–West Schism § Other moves toward reconciliation where I also thought this content should go. | |||
| 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--> | |||
| == The Map is Wrong == | |||
| What I read online shows a consensus that this document and the meeting of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill are both historic and not as Axxxion wrote: {{tq|"journalistic hoopla, mostly feeding on blatant ignorance"}}. I only saw that opinion on some radical orthodox sites that I would call fringe. | |||
| 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) | |||
| The document and the meeting are both seen more as "Other moves toward reconciliation" than "Eastern Catholicism" – since there are only a few points about Eastern Catholicism in this 30 point document. –] (]) 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree with {{user|BoBoMisiu}}, meeting/joint statement should be in ''History'' section. ] (]) 08:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I actually meant is that this article, due to its content, is meant to be scholarly (unlike some others that cover current international affairs). By reading mass media coverage, all I can gather is that the overwhelming majority of journalists have not the faintest idea of what they are writing about (the sole exception I have come across is this Polish author′s article in the Polish edition of Newsweek: ). Which is all but natural, as they have no theological education and essentially treat this event as a pow–wow between two prominent statesmen (celebrities), which is fair enough but has no relevance hereto. As this article is not on international affairs, I am quite satisfied that opinions expressed by non-experts (mainstream press journalists) are not authoritative references for the purposes of this article. That does not mean that those should not be presented here; but they ought to be presented as (uneducated) opinions of journalists, as this what they are. To every one who has any understanding of the subject, it is clear that this paper is worth just the cost of paper it is written on: Patriarch Kirill has no authority to speak on behlf of Eastern Christians, or even on behalf of the ROC for that matter. And he actually does not pretend to: the document contains absolute zilch relevant to reconciliation of East and West. That is if you read the document, not what the journalists write.] (]) 14:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::], That said, I do respect your opinion and appreciate the fact that you and ] have not rushed to reverting. I am open to discussion on this, and would propose to wait for some impartial expert analysis of the vent, in line with ], which ought to be honoured for such article covering nearly two millennia of controversial history. Let us endeavor to keep things in perspective: we are not after copy, are we?] (]) 15:00, 16 February 2016 (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