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 like it is a "Media response" rather than an encyclopedic/neutral tone ... its almost like the person is offended and needs to tell you why ... An example is the following:
- Additionally offensive to the Orthodox" was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an Ecumenical Council and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.
- For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy. It demeaned all the other bishops.
- "Additionally offensive" ... "highly offensive" ... "undermind" ..."demeaned" - Like Oh My Gosssshh ...really! Perhaps, if this article was stripped of "emotive" adjectives and reduced to BASE FACTS ..then a bottom up approach could be adopted in the writing style rather than this editing war that is starting to prevail between ChrisG and Jay? ... Vasiliki 02:14, December 12, 2008 (UTC)
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)
Merge and new base
The two articles are now merged but need much more editing. For the next 3 weeks I'll be in an area where there is no electricity, phone, or internet, so regrettably will not be able to assist with the continuing edits needed. Chrisg 01:13, December 13, 2008 (UTC)
The content of Humbert's bull
Jacifus wrote on my talk page: "I respectfully disagree that the Entire Eastern Church was not excommunicated. The Bull said as much. I refer you to Bishop Kallistos "The Orthodox Church". I consider his account to be carefully researched and accurate."
I must respectfully disagree with this, myself, since Metr. Kallistos's book says no such thing but rather identifies Humbert's bull as being against Patr. Michael Cerularius (p. 67). What happened in 1054 was between two patriarchs (or rather, a papal legate and a patriarch). Even when Patr. Michael issued an anathema in retaliation, it was not against the whole Church of Rome, but only against Humbert.
It took nearly two centuries for the schism really to take full hold. Antioch, for instance, was still in communion with Rome as of 1180, and there was still a Benedictine monastery on Athos as of 1287. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 01:17, December 14, 2008 (UTC)
Where are the footnotes?
The text of this article contains footnote references, but it appears that the footnotes don't actually show up at the bottom of the article. I tried poking around in the editing help to see if it gave any clues about what might be wrong, but couldn't find anything. Steorra 03:28, December 14, 2008 (UTC)