Talk:East–West Schism - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.28.29.150 (talk) at 04:35, 25 December 2015 (→Inaccurate citation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:35, 25 December 2015 by 77.28.29.150 (talk) (→Inaccurate citation: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Astonomical coincidence?

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)

Damaged sentence

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 Nicola.Manini (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for drawing attention to the problem. Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2013 (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? Ri Osraige (talk) 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 WP:TITLE. 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". Evensteven (talk) 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". 86.43.174.235 (talk) 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. Evensteven (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Great Schism here: Another is a website devoted to the great schism here: However, the Papal Schism has many mentions as the great Schism in this google books search: 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 Western Schism 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. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just added a notice for the Christianity, European History, and Middle Ages Projects. Evensteven (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note St.Anselm's suggestion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#East-West Schism article proposed name change 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. Evensteven (talk) 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the vast majority of hits in Google Books (8 out of the first 10) for "Great Schism" are about the schism of 1378. St Anselm (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages rules for article titles are given at WP:TITLE. What rule given there demands a change of title here? "Great Schism" is ambiguous. Deciding to call something great is largely subjective. From the point of view of Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopian Christians, the real Great Schism was the Chalcedonian. From their point of view, the 1054 schism was a domestic quarrel between those who broke from Orthodoxy in 451, and it was followed by further interior schisms within each of these further divisions of those who split in the basic, the great, schism. From their point of view, the fact that the now divided group that broke away is now more numerous than those who preserved the faith whole and entire does not alter what is or is not Orthodox faith (as Ri Osraige would agree if another date were put in place of 451). Thus, selecting one particular schism for the title of "The Great Schism" may not be in accord with the NPOV principle. Common use? Whichever use is more common, it is clear, as PointsofNoReturn and StAnselm have pointed out, that "Great Schism" is widely used in academic circles of what Misplaced Pages calls, in the title of the article about it, the Western Schism. "East-West Schism" is what WP:TITLE calls a "non-judgmental descriptive title" and is "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". If someone does start a formal proposal of change of title here, it will be a waste of time and effort, for it is quite unlikely to win consensus. "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Misplaced Pages." Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm very open to what Esoglou is saying. He's absolutely right about the way the Coptics view the schisms, and Copts, EO, and RC all share the idea that schism means a reduction in the Church's size, but leaving only one Church, and that numbers of members have nothing to do with that. "Great Schism" may be ambiguous, but it is used commonly, more so than others. Western Schism's lead paragraph says it refers more commonly to the East-West Schism. I'm not so sure that there a judgmental (condemnatory) character about application of the term "Great Schism" so much as a matter of what one's principal perspective is. Never having been RC myself, although I knew of the 14th-century competition among rival claimants to the papacy, I've never really considered it to be a schism myself. It had the potential, but it burned out and was eventually resolved. RC/Protestant was a schism. So we of various faiths all have our perspectives, though I have no reason to condemn another's. Precision and clarity are the arguments I find most persuasive in what Esoglou has to say, yet common usage comes into applying WP:TITLE also. And I am not going to push one direction or another. I thought this item to be worth considering, but I wouldn't like to see it become controversial. Evensteven (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

By "schism" you seem to mean a difference in faith, since you say that the so-called Western/Great Schism was not a schism and only had the potential to become one. and you call the division between Catholicism and Protestantism a schism. "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (Code of Canon Law, canon 751). The Catholic Church generally sees itself divided from the Eastern Orthodox Church by schism, a break not of faith but of communion, with the fault not necessarily lying on one side alone. Accusations of heresy have indeed been exchanged between theologians on both sides, but on the Catholic side (not so clearly on the Eastern Orthodox side) that is not the official line. The Catholic Church sees the relationship as similar to the schism known as the Western Schism or Great Schism. On the other hand, the Catholic Church sees itself divided from Protestantism not just by schism but by heresy, by a difference on some point or points of faith, though not as severe a break as apostasy, which is total repudiation of the Christian faith.

I don't think it is clear that "common usage" normally understands "the Great Schism" to mean the East-West Schism. You have only cited an unsourced and therefore unreliable Misplaced Pages statement that "Great Schism" is "more often" applied to the East-West Schism than to the Great Western Schism. It doesn't go so far as to say that in common usage the East-West Schism is the normal or even the usual meaning of "the Great Schism". PointsofNoReturn and StAnselm have cast doubt on that idea and have cited something a little better than Misplaced Pages. So I don't think the "common usage" argument would win a change of title. It seems the question is unavoidably controversial. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the text at Western Schism. St Anselm (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if "Great Schism" is not the common usage term for East-West Schism, I have the impression that it changed somewhere in the last X years, but that can happen. I wasn't trying to cite the article, just to point out that its text was relevant to this discussion and might also require examination.

Thanks for your observations on how the RC views the east-west schism. I hadn't understood it quite that way before. It's also pretty clear that the EOC would not define schism as a refusal to submit to the Pontiff. But for the EOC, it is also a break of communion; however, the break of communion constitutes a break (separation) of faith, and the separation is the fullness of the point. But perhaps that's one way of saying that schism is just what one recognizes it to be; if one sees a break, there it is, and one break is not necessarily just like another. Personally, I find the schism to be one of the great tragedies of church history, perhaps the greatest, and long to see it overturned. It's a tall order, restoring trust after bad blood, but a proving ground for faith. So if there's no way to avoid controversy here, I'm in favor of leaving it alone. Evensteven (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Categories: