Misplaced Pages

Talk:East–West Schism

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skamnelis (talk | contribs) at 13:16, 17 May 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:16, 17 May 2022 by Skamnelis (talk | contribs)(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.
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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WP1.0Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChristianity: Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
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.
WikiProject iconEuropean history High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconGreece: Byzantine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 7, 2005.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
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.
Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on East–West Schism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Vanity press detected

While we appreciate this edit which cleaned up the citation style, it tripped the edit filter which claims "Content sourced to vanity press", which is highly undesirable. Therefore I have tagged the article as possibly having unreliable sources. Elizium23 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mis-placed sentence?

In lead paragraph 1: 

 > ... culmination of theological and political differences 
 > which had developed during the preceding centuries

That is absolutely fine. Also fine is the start of lead paragraph 3: 

 > In 1053, the first step in the process which led to a formal schism was taken

In contrast, however, lead paragraph 3 closes thus: 

 > ... only the first act in a centuries-long process 
 > that eventually became a complete schism.

This makes no sense at the close of a paragraph narrating the 1053-1054 events. Such a sentence might belong further down, in connection with something much earlier; but its presence at the end of lead paragraph 3 is clearly accidental: I am therefore deleting the sentence. I have checked that Runciman 1955 does not thereby become orphaned, as it's also cited in References. --Peter010101 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Title

This event is mainly referred to as the “Great Schism” in English, and using the term “East-West Schism” downplays this. Undoubtedly, this was the biggest schism in Christian history, paving the way for later western schisms. The title should be changed to “Great Schism”. Ri Osraige (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears this issue was last raised at a 2011 requested move, so it may be time to revisit it. The main reason it wasn't at the time is that the later Western Schism is sometimes called the Great Schism, but I still this is the primary topic for that term. -- Calidum 20:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Section on Hell

I significantly modified this section as it relates to Eastern Orthodoxy, since it contained blatant errors such as claiming that the Orthodox believe there "is no hell," and made sweeping generalizations and universal, doctrinal claims on behalf of Orthodoxy as a whole, when even the Misplaced Pages article on hell, in the Orthodox subsection, clearly states and explains the variety of opinion in this area, and the lack of a single, official doctrine, as is found in Catholicism.

67.42.97.177 (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the prospect of punishment in Hell features more prominently in the Catholic Church compared to the Orthodox Church. There are statements in the Liturgy that the Father is all loving, merciful and forgiving. There is no mention of Hell in the liturgy. Skamnelis (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Reason and Orthodoxy

The statement that "Eastern Orthodox theologians argue that the mind (reason, rationality) is the focus of Western theology, whereas, in Eastern theology, the mind must be put in the heart, so they are united into what is called nous; this unity as heart is the focus of Eastern Orthodox Christianity" is based on a reference by the American Romanian Carpathian Church. I am not sure this interpretation (and the entire paragraph that follows it) is representative. Of course, it is in the nature of the Orthodox tradition that there are differences in interpretation of the sacred texts because their meaning depends somewhat on the education and understanding of the individual. However, the contrary position has many defendants: The opening of the Gospel of St John quotes Heraclitus: In the arche (first principle) there was Logos ... Through it everything came to be". Heraclitus by Logos meant Reason (in fact that is what the word means in Greek). The translation into Latin as "In the beginning was the Word" certainly does not reflect Heraclitus accurately and rather detracts from the position of Logos (Reason) in Christian thought. St John the Evangelist lived in Ephesus, the city where Heraclitus had lived, and the reference to Heraclitus could not have been accidental. See also https://orthodoxwiki.org/Logos and https://www.orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/IJOT1-2010/12-popescu-trinity.pdf Skamnelis (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Categories: