The year link was copied from the filioque article--should that link likewise be removed? --magda 15:25, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
- Yep. I don't think we're likely to have enough articles here for a particular year that would justify a year having its own article. (The Filioque article also needs some serious work.) --Rdr. Andrew 15:34, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
This is a major article. I suspect it will be under development for some time. A couple notes for the moment:
- I remember being taught (in a Roman Catholic University) that the "Great Schism" was when there was one pope in Avignon and another in Rome. This usage is worthy of a mention, for the sake of clarity.
- I'm not sure how deeply we should jump into the details of the debates about, e.g. the Filioque here - these things should be referred to separate pages for all the nitty gritty details. I do think we need to discuss or survey some of the many different ways of constructing the schism. It's not an easy thing to pin down: Charlemage? 1056? 1204? etc. We should discuss different evaluations of what was primary, and so on. I think that kind of perspective would be most useful here, rather than a simple repeat of, e.g., what's in Bishop Kallistos' The Orthodox Church. Other thoughts? Fr. John