Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 1 May 2013

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:VA

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 7, 2005.

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.

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2004 – Jan 2009) Archive 2 (January–March 2009) Archive 3 (March–December 2010) Archive 4 (January–December 2011) Archive 5 (February–October 2012) Archive 6 (October–December 2012) Archive 7 (January 2013 – )

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Restraint or not

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. Esoglou (talk) 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 Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher) article can see where Roman Catholic POV pushers deleted my sourcing from N. O. Lossky 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 Novodevichy Convent 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. LoveMonkey (talk) 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. Esoglou (talk) 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 Caesaropapism 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. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Blanking out of section of article

Why was this section blanked out or deleted ? There was no discussion about this edit. LoveMonkey (talk) 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.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny I found that to be your forte'. 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. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hostility East and West

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 Latin Empire)? Think of it this way if St Thomas was Roman Catholic and so was his community (Saint Thomas Christians) 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 San Thome Basilica 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 Catholic Church in India)? 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.

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 Fasilides for example)? Whats with the forced conversions and all that nonsense? Let alone what happened to Menelik I or even Haile Selassie I at the hands of Mussolini (see Second Italo-Ethiopian War). I mean really historically where is their Caesaropapism? 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? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please use this talk page only for suggestions to improve the article. Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate forum for theological disputes. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not present yourself as someone whom speaks with authority User:Cengime. Also have a nice day. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As explained in the policies and guidelines linked at the top of this page, Misplaced Pages is not a blog or forum, and off-topic posts such as this may be removed. 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. - Cal Engime (talk) 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. LoveMonkey (talk) 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. LoveMonkey (talk) 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. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Tried to shorten lead

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. Student7 (talk) 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. LoveMonkey (talk) 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). LoveMonkey (talk) 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? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this was awkward. Tweaked first sentence only. Maybe should drop the Norman reference entirely? Student7 (talk) 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 History of the East-West Schism because (he claims) it violates copyright in the same subsection I copied from here, which is East-West_Schism#Political_division_between_East_and_West. 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 User_talk:Student7#Suspected_copyright_violation_at_.22History_of_the_East.E2.80.93West_Schism.22. Student7 (talk) 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 History of the East-West Schism. The problem is still in here. I cannot quite put my finger on it, other than what was mentioned above. Student7 (talk) 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 History of the East–West Schism 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 History of the East–West Schism by copying it from this article. In this article, the text under question used to be in a footnote, which, as it happens, was turned into 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 "duplication detector" 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 Here's a link 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 History of the East-West Schism: 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 {{citation needed}} templates (or "reason=" editing, if you wish to call it that). Jason Quinn (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages). The cite is typically made in an edit summary. The original edit on the History of the East–West Schism article that introduced the copyrighted material from this article did not give a cite. This caused confusion and prolonged the investigation. Jason Quinn (talk) 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 Seventh Ecumenical Synod (786/7) at their own Council of Frankfurt in 794, in the presence of the legates of Pope Hadrian I (771–795), the staunch supporter of Orthodox practice. Their obliteration of the Empire's boundaries and an outburst of missionary activity among these peoples who had no direct links with the Eastern Roman Empire and among Celtic peoples, who had never been part of the Roman Empire fostered the idea of a universal church free from association with a particular state. 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.

As this is central (right or wrong) to the more common Greek perspective (called Frankokratia and Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae).. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to Jason Quinn and thank him for fixing the problem in both places. Student7 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is Jeffrey D. Finch?

His quote is used quite a bit on various Orthodox articles and I was just wondering if anyone knows who this person is? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

1. "FRANKS, ROMANS, FEUDALISM, AND DOCTRINE Part 1". Romanity.org. Retrieved 2013-02-23.
2. Gerland, Ernst. "The Byzantine Empire" in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. Retrieved 9 November 2012
3. Johannes P. Schadé, ''Encyclopedia of World Religions (Foreign Media Group 2006 ISBN 978-1-60136000-7), article "Byzantine Church". Books.google.com. 2006-12-30. Retrieved 2013-02-23.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• C-Class Christian theology articles
• Top-importance Christian theology articles
• Christian theology work group articles
• C-Class Catholicism articles
• High-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• C-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Top-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class European history articles
• High-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• C-Class Middle Ages articles
• High-importance Middle Ages articles
• C-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• Selected anniversaries (December 2005)