Wikipedia

Talk:East–West Schism/Archive 8

< Talk:East–West Schism
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Calidum in topic Title
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on East–West Schism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Kirill and Francis joint statement

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I added:

In February 2016, Pope Francis, of the Roman Catholic Church, and Patriarch Kirill, of the Russian Orthodox Church, met at José Martí International Airport near Havana, Cuba, and signed a thirty point joint declaration, prepared in advance, addressing global issues including their hope for re–establishment of full unity.

into East–West Schism § Other moves toward reconciliation

Axxxion (talk · contribs) removed it from that section because it had "vry scant relevance to the topic" and added it into East–West Schism § Eastern Catholicism were "it is much more relevant for this"

Spirit Ethanol (talk · contribs) added a section about the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill into the History below East–West Schism § Nullification of mutual anathemas in 1965

Axxxion removed Spirit Ethanol's section because there is a "link to the article about this statement and the mention thereof is above: journalistic hoopla, mostly feeding on blatant ignorance, apart, it has no significance for this section." I.e. the East–West Schism § Other moves toward reconciliation where I also thought this content should go.

What I read online shows a consensus that this document and the meeting of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill are both historic and not as Axxxion wrote: "journalistic hoopla, mostly feeding on blatant ignorance". I only saw that opinion on some radical orthodox sites that I would call fringe.

The document and the meeting are both seen more as "Other moves toward reconciliation" than "Eastern Catholicism" – since there are only a few points about Eastern Catholicism in this 30 point document. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BoBoMisiu (talk · contribs), meeting/joint statement should be in History section. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
What I actually meant is that this article, due to its content, is meant to be scholarly (unlike some others that cover current international affairs). By reading mass media coverage, all I can gather is that the overwhelming majority of journalists have not the faintest idea of what they are writing about (the sole exception I have come across is this Polish author′s article in the Polish edition of Newsweek: O co naprawdę chodzi w spotkaniu Franciszka z Cyrylem? ). Which is all but natural, as they have no theological education and essentially treat this event as a pow–wow between two prominent statesmen (celebrities), which is fair enough but has no relevance hereto. As this article is not on international affairs, I am quite satisfied that opinions expressed by non-experts (mainstream press journalists) are not authoritative references for the purposes of this article. That does not mean that those should not be presented here; but they ought to be presented as (uneducated) opinions of journalists, as this is what they are. To every one who has any understanding of the subject, it is clear that this paper is worth just the cost of paper it is written on: Patriarch Kirill has no authority to speak on behalf of Eastern Christians, or even on behalf of the ROC for that matter. And he actually does not pretend to: the document contains absolute zilch relevant to reconciliation of East and West. That is if you read the document, not what the journalists write.Axxxion (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
BoBoMisiu, That said, I do respect your opinion and appreciate the fact that you and Spirit Ethanol have not rushed to reverting. I am open to discussion on this, and would propose we wait for some impartial expert analysis of the event, in line with Wikipedia:Recentism, which ought to be honoured for such article covering nearly two millennia of controversial history. Let us endeavor to keep things in perspective: we are not after copy, are we?Axxxion (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Incidentally, the Russian media is putting a strictly (geo)political spin on the tryst, as they know full well who is Kirill and on whose behalf he speaks (just one example from the biggest print-run Moscow tabloid, an interview by a very popular clergyman of the ROC (!) and a thoroughly educated theologian Andrey Kuraev: Андрей Кураев: "Встретившись с папой, патриарх Кирилл выполнил "партийное поручение" ("Having met the pope, Kirill fulfilled the [Communist] party′s task"): "для Папы эта встреча по большому счету не значит ничего. Он здесь точно ничего не теряет и вряд ли приобретает что-то серьезное. Для него это, в общем, символическая история. И достаточно привычная: он каждый день проводит такие встречи с лидерами разных стран и самых разных религий, конфессий. А у патриарха, во-первых, "партийное поручение", которое важно не провалить, правильно исполнить. И второе: патриарх разговаривает сейчас не только с папой. .... - Под "партийным поручением" вы имеет в виду то, что он выступает как посланец Путина? - В общем, да."). They do understand who made this meeting (solicited in vain by the Vatican for decades) possible and to what ends: as is pretty clear, the Kremlin′s message was in effect meant for the U.S. and its satellites in Europe: You start respecting us now, Or we shall nuke you all! (See: We need to do everything possible to engineer a drastic improvement of the relationship between the US and Russia. We need to realize that these are two major powers that have the military power to destroy each other and the whole world. A large-scale war should be averted at all costs. This is what we discussed with Pope Francis. -- To those who understand the Kremlinspeak, this signifies a direct threat and blackmail.)Axxxion (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I personally was struck by the way the Pope looked when Kirill spoke to the press after the talks: he was physically depressed, not to say crushed.Axxxion (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Axxxion: I agree with you. I understand the revolutionary Marxist politics and the religious conflict; I noticed Kirill did not pray with Francis and I noticed the prominent placement of the icon of Our Lady of Kazan. I see it. The document is historic, the content about it will develop, but Wikipedia is not limited to scholarly sources – especially on a recent event. The journal articles will be published in time. The document is a common statement on several world issues by the two religious leaders of the largest groups of the East–West Schism. It is a rapprochement. The world has to wait to see the many ways the document will be exploited by the Russian government, not WP:SPECULATION. The content of the document is not only about Ukraine or about Eastern Catholic Churches. There is analysis of the event and of the document which will, no doubt, change over time. You add facts about what the document states, how commentary explains it, how it is exploited (it inevitably will be), and the perspective will develop then. Nevertheless, the meeting and document is historic and is a move toward reconciliation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
From the facts you have bullet–pointed above, it appears to be a move toward one′s own trench. We now have a full-on article on the Declaration. ″Especially on a recent event″ — precisely my point: THIS article is essentially about the event that happened nine hundred years ago.Axxxion (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
As for ″speculation″: journalists calling it ″historic″ is a sheer speculative assessment for the purposes of sensationalism. What we actually have in the document? "it is our hope that our meeting may contribute to the re–establishment of this unity willed by God" -- Ok, let us wait and see if it WILL contribute WHEN/IF that reconciliation does actually happen.Axxxion (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Axxxion: the meeting is historic because it is the first of its kind – there is no speculation that Kirill is the first Russian patriarch to meet and kiss a pope. The document is historic because it points out 30 points of common understanding about world issues between the patriarch of the largest Orthodox church and the pope – it is also the first of its kind – a move toward reconciliation by acknowledging that Catholic and Orthodox are "divided by wounds caused by old and recent conflicts, by differences inherited from our ancestors, in the understanding and expression of our faith in God, one in three Persons" (n. 5). "Mindful of the permanence of many obstacles," the meeting is a "sign of hope" for those who desire "tangible gestures" and "may contribute to the re–establishment of this unity willed by God" (n.6). "In our determination to undertake all that is necessary to overcome the historical divergences we have inherited, we wish to combine our efforts to give witness to the Gospel of Christ and to the shared heritage of the Church of the first millennium, responding together to the challenges of the contemporary world. Orthodox and Catholics must learn to give unanimously witness in those spheres in which this is possible and necessary. Human civilization has entered into a period of epochal change. Our Christian conscience and our pastoral responsibility compel us not to remain passive in the face of challenges requiring a shared response" (n.7). These words are not a reconciliation but are a move toward reconciliation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, I believe we would be better off if we take a pause and see how this declaration is going to play out further down the road. The main reason for caution is that this NOT the Pope′s meeting with the leader of the Eastern Church, but only with the leader one of the patriarchates, a relatively junior one at that. This is a consequential point that news media coverage overlooks, as the journalists, even those aware of the diptychs ranking, tend to think the size means might. Any one who has an idea how Eastern Church operates as a whole, knows this is not true. And size is a very tricky thing in this department. The Ecumenical Patriarch′s flock (the Greek lobby in the US) marshals influence commensurate with the influence of all other patriarchates put together.Axxxion (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 30 external links on East–West Schism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on East–West Schism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference to "Easter" is out of time frame

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The text says "The question was whether to celebrate Easter concurrently with the Jewish Passover." To call it Easter is confusing. The people of that time would not have called it Easter, they still called it Passover, and what is currently called Easter is on a different date. I think it would be better to say "The question was whether to celebrate Passover concurrently with the Jewish Passover" 2602:306:31B8:F550:8C82:B15:E0B6:D545 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Stan

They would have called it "Pascha" in Greek (Πάσχα) and Latin, which was the same word used for the (Jewish) Passover. And which was translated as "Easter" in English (and similarly in other Germanic languages) for various reasons. (As a side note, modern Greek, modern Latin, and modern Romance languages still call it "Pascha" or a similar translation (Spanish is Pascua for example).) So this is not at all anachronistic. juju (hajime! | waza) 07:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings, Per MOS, the lead section should be a maximum of 4 paragraphs, and this article has 6. I added the "lead too long" notice and am asking for help to condense the lead. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 08:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.[13]

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East–West_Schism/Archive_8&oldid=1221486371"