Talk:East–West Schism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:35, 16 February 2016 editAxxxion (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users13,218 edits →Kirill and Francis joint statement ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:40, 16 February 2016 edit undoAxxxion (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users13,218 edits →Kirill and Francis joint statement Next edit →
Line 98:		Line 98:
	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)		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)		: 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. 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)		::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 esception 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)

Revision as of 14:40, 16 February 2016

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.

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

Template:Vital article

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

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

	Christianity portal 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).
	Catholic Church portal 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

	Europe portal 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

	Middle Ages portal 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

Text and/or other creative content from this version of East–West Schism was copied or moved into Primacy of the Bishop of Rome with this edit on 2012-11-04T12:10:02. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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.

What the schism is

@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? Evensteven (talk) 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. Esoglou (talk) 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". Esoglou (talk) 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. Evensteven (talk) 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?PatrickAnthony2 (talk) 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 sham 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 Michael VIII Palaiologos 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)

Inaccurate citation

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 1054.77.28.29.150 (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on East–West Schism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Kirill and Francis joint statement

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill#NPOV diligence

I added:

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 East–West Schism § Other moves toward reconciliation

Axxxion (talk · contribs) removed it from that section because it had "vry scant relevance to the topic" and added it into East–West Schism § Eastern Catholicism were "it is much more relevant for this"

Spirit Ethanol (talk · contribs) added a section about the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill into the History below East–West Schism § Nullification of mutual anathemas in 1965

Axxxion removed Spirit Ethanol's section because there is a "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.

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: "journalistic hoopla, mostly feeding on blatant ignorance". I only saw that opinion on some radical orthodox sites that I would call fringe.

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. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BoBoMisiu (talk · contribs), meeting/joint statement should be in History section. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 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 esception I have come across is this Polish author′s article in the Polish edition of Newsweek: O co naprawdę chodzi w spotkaniu Franciszka z Cyrylem? ). 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.Axxxion (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories: