77
edits
Changes
no edit summary
#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? [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
---------------------------------------
The idea that I'm going to do with this article is to give a general overview on some of the issues surrounding the G.E.S. So in a sense the structure is the same as Bishop Kallistos' ''The Orthodox Church''. But in the section on when exactly did it occur, I will try to talk about what issues were important. This can also continue into the other sections afterward (the attempts to reconcile and the continuing progress/regress). It's going to be a huge undertaking (in addition to my thesis) but I think it can be done. I'll continue to tweak it here and there as time goes on and I may end up with something different. I hope that clarifies some things. -[[User:Fedya911|Fedya]]
