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
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. -Fedya
- Sounds good, thanks! Fr. John
Peace and goodwill. I'm a Latin Catholic; I stumbled across this website a while ago and found it interesting in helping answer a couple of the questions I have about the Eastern Orthodox Church. I would just like to comment (as a guest of this forum) on this article. I appreciate the Great Eastern Schism is a complicated event that will take a while to describe properly in a wiki article. As it stands currently however this really is one-sided. I would suggest that the Filioque issue has been really overplayed (for instance, ask an Eastern Rite Catholic what they think of this) in the context of the 1054 schism; in the context of the schism following Florence it obviously becomes important but in a different way than that presented, this needs to be all explained. But what I am worried about is that not a single of the many Eastern-stemming reasons for the split is mentioned - eg, the trial of Pope Formosus, the iconoclastic schism, Monothelitism, the Photian schism (though this is an issue of some tenderness between us I know). All up I can tell you that Westerns have a pretty different view of this history than is presented here. With the ultimate aim of the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches in mind I think a truly balanced account of why we are separated, with respect to both parties, is needed to be understood by all first. Making out that it's all our fault is not true and will not help. Thanks for reading - good luck with it and God grant we may be one Church again, it's about time! Christ be with you. Daniel--Seperatedbrother 14:42, December 10, 2008 (UTC)
Major rewrite needed
- Agree, although some of that article is contentious. W:user:Lima is causing some trouble there with frequent reverts, re-edits, and non-collaborative single-minded behaviour. Chrisg 14:37, December 11, 2008 (UTC)
- I am not an expert on writing "Encyclopedically" however i am good at reading and understanding and it is my personal opinion that the way this article is WORDED is written in a 'persuasive' tone rather than an encyclopedic/neutral tone ... its almost like you are being pushed to be convinced of an idea that has no back up with Church historical documentation. An example is the following:
Neither "formerly" nor "formally"
A change was made that said: "AD 1054 is the date formerly given for the split between East and West." If "formerly" is meant, it is wrong in that many still give that date. It it was a typo and "formally" was meant, that is wrong, too, as it wasn't finally accomplished for two centuries. --Fr Lev 01:52, December 12, 2008 (UTC)