Talk:East–West Schism/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Attempts by POV pushing editors to force people to commit plagiarism

I posted a summary of the section of the book starting on page 147 and ending on 148 of which Richard posted this citation complaint [1] which by doing so engaged in edit warring by policy abuse. This is inflammatory behavior. The book supports the summary of what the intro to that section of the book says. Richard's edit is in vio and is edit warring. As dare anyone to read the link and then read my summary of it and say that the summary I posted is not reflective of source. If the words are correct that is what the talkpage is for. Richard did not post any such objection here on the talkpage. Richard did not try and even read that section of the book nor try and re-word my good faith contribution here on the talkpage into an acceptable passage. Instead he posted a citation request implying that I had lied about what I had posted in that it did not reflect the source I provided. Setting a standard that nothing short of plagiarism would suffice (which Richard has even used to then silence contributions that he did not like in the past that way too). LoveMonkey (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

While I am not ready to concede that your text accurately represents what Cleenewerck wrote, I will say that my use of the {{failed verification}} tag was meant to highlight that support for the article text could not be found on the page given in the citation (i.e. page 157). I did look backward and forward a few pages but I did not find support for the assertion in the article text. You are now asserting that the article text is "a summary of the section of the book starting on page 147 and ending on 148". Your article text is not an accurate summary of what is Cleenewerck says on pages 147 and 148. It would seem to me that the text that is most relevant to the argument that you want to make can be found at the bottom of pages 151 and 153. However, even then, that text does not support the assertion in the the article text that you wrote. Cleenewerck has written a fairly NPOV treatment of these two incidents (the Epistle of Clement and the Quartodeciman controversy). His presentation of how Eastern Orthodox view these two incidents is not the same as what you wrote in the article text. There may be other sources that support what you wrote but Cleenewerck is not one of them. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense your edit warring. You purposed that the mention of the Quartodeciman controversy be removed from the article.

Why?
  • (1 Because you are not informed about the subject of the article.
  • (2 Because you have never read the Eastern Orthodox side of the schism
  • (3 Because you listen to another ignorant person whom has a degree in nothing about both sides of this issue
  • (4 Because your pride drives you and you should have stopped edit warring awhile back but you can't.
  • (5 Because your side is wrong has done evil things about this and you can't live with that. But you think you can find a way to stop people from find out what the Eastern Orthodox side is.
  • (6 All of the above.

Look at all the time and work I had to do to the article to even mildly reflect why the controversy was important. Look all the time I explain just this one thing and all the time it took and then how there was no consensus and WP:YOU CAN'T HEAR ME. Look how after all of that you and Esoglou still tried very very hard to distort what happened and what was said by allowing Esoglou to fabricate a position for Eusebius [2] engaging in a type of Original Research that would get this person in the academic world punished. As Eusebius out of context is not Eusebius. But you are unethical and you look the other way. Time and time again. Since when did Eusebius say that the Eastern Churches were not following their own ancient traditions? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

POV rules here. Montalban (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

LoveMonkey has placed an NPOV tag at the top of the article page. Putting an NPOV tag on an entire article page is not very helpful as it gives little indication of what the NPOV dispute is about. If the dispute is about a specific section of the article, then placing a {{POV-section}} tag on the relevant section would be much more helpful.

The following text is taken directly from Wikipedia:NPOV dispute

How to initiate an NPOV debate

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

Adding a tag to a page

Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which there is no relevant discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution. In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time.?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I want Richard to explain this piece of original research typical of Esoglou's POV pushing added into the article.
The Quartodeciman controversy arose because the Christians in the Roman province of Asia (Western Anatolia) disagreed, Eusebius says, with "the churches in the rest of the world",[1] [3]
When what Eusebius actually says is ""But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour." How is that not original research and POV pushing? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It would be helpful to know what do you think is meant by "It was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it (i.e. the fast) at this time (i.e. at "the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, ... whatever day of the week it should happen to be"), as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour (Sunday)". In what way is that distorted by the expression in the article: "Christians in the Roman province of Asia (Western Anatolia) celebrated Easter at the spring full moon, like the Jewish Passover, while the churches in the rest of the world observed the practice of celebrating it on the following Sunday ("the day of the resurrection of our Saviour")? If you would explain what distortion you think you see in it, we could work out a better rendition of it. Please explain, so that we can dialogue. Esoglou (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is Esoglou just today trying to clean up his POV original research posting mess from the article. Because he knows it is unacceptable [4], what could the both of you be thinking by doing edits like this one to the article? That Eusebius was saying that Polycarp and the Apostle John were out touch with the rest of the world and should then let the world dictate what they establish as tradition which directly contradicts what Eusebius is quoted as saying in the article (i.e. " Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom"). Is this supposed to be in good faith? How is this kind of behavior supposed to be perceived? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this means you no longer insist that what the article says is false to what Eusebius wrote about the difference between the practice in the Roman province of Asia and that in the rest of the world. If so, thanks. Esoglou (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Or perhaps as usual you are wrong. As your "out of context" quote from Eusebius misrepresented him and it is obvious you have no issue with doing such a thing. As you where exaggerating part of his sentence to make him look like he was taking an extreme position that he never has. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If LoveMonkey's NPOV concern is solely related to the sentence above, then the appropriate action would have been to add the {{POV-section}} to the relevant section rather than applying a {{NPOV}} tag to the whole article.

The current article text reads: "The Quartodeciman controversy arose because Christians in the Roman province of Asia (Western Anatolia) celebrated Easter at the spring full moon, like the Jewish Passover, while the churches in the rest of the world observed the practice of celebrating it on the following Sunday ("the day of the resurrection of our Saviour")"

Does this resolve the NPOV issue? If so, the NPOV tag should be removed from the top of the page. If not, please list any outstanding NPOV issues that should be addressed.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

  • )The creation of the Latin Empire and why it is important and why Roman Catholic POV edit warring editors like Richard and Esoglou wish to either remove it's mention and or diminish it as much as Wikipedia will allow them.
  • )The existence of the Latin Patriarchs and the Latin Empire (Frankokratia) show that the Roman Catholic church collectively benefited from and exploited the Fourth Crusade and Sacking of Constantinople. This directly contradicts the idea put forward by the Roman Catholic church that the entire evil committed against the Eastern Orthodox Christians by the Roman Catholic crusaders was not the Roman Catholic churches fault and or that the Roman Catholic church did not condom it. It shows very clearly how the Roman Catholic church specifically exploited the events to impose on the Eastern Orthodox the power of Pope and the West and it's practices and doctrine. As it also shows that the Roman Catholic church did not try and REVERSE what had been done but rather exploited it. As after the Sacking of Constantinople the crusaders did not just leave, the Roman Catholic clergy actually moved in and took over. Thats pretty damn important to give people a perspective and understanding of the extent of what actually happened.
  • )The imposing of Latin Empire onto the Eastern Orthodox shows that there was a long long long history of Western Roman Catholics warring against the Eastern Orthodox. As people here like to point to things like the Massacre of the Latins but miss that William II of Sicily in 1185 sacked Thessalonica as retaliation for that (see Eustathius of Thessalonica which is a little hard to get the EO side of history in general considering the Roman Catholic crusaders destroyed the library of Constantinople). This for people whom might have missed it means that the Roman Catholic church warred on exploited and killed Eastern Orthodox Christians long before any Crusade and that the goal of the Roman Catholic church (as such) was finally obtained (at least from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) by the establishment of the Latin Empire and it's Latin Patriarchs. Example of Western double-cross. The West double crossed the East when it tried to with force, make the Eastern Orthodox recite the filioque, and or put the filioque in the Eastern Orthodox's recitation of the Nicene Creed (in Greek mind you not Latin) in the East, not simply accept that the West said it, but to make the Greeks say it as well. Pope Nicholas III indeed tried that very thing after promising that they would not do that exact thing (after the East agreed to reconciliation). And after the Eastern Orthodox accepted the Roman Catholic using the filioque modification in the Creed as recited in the West.. [5]
  • )How is it that the Pope was sorry for and said that the Fourth Crusade was a bad thing and yet setup a Latin Speaking Patriarch in Hagia Sophia after converting the church to a Roman Catholic church (if East and West are Christian what conversion was really needed). How is it that the Popes and the West was so against what had happened to the Eastern Orthodox by way of the Fourth Crusade, that after the Fourth Crusade rather than leave and try and clean up they instead CONQUERED? And CONQUERED MORE causing a set of wars (The Eastern Orthodox rebelling and removing them from their lands). There is allot of fabricating documents by the Roman Catholic church (the donation of Constantine for example) and killing and warring and double crossing that simple is missing from the article. Right now the article tries to sell the Roman Catholic non-sense that the Roman Catholic church really are misunderstood, never did nothing wrong and the Eastern Orthodox are just but hurt about a bunch of things that happened so long in the past (like Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše) that the Eastern Orthodox are just being big babies. There is no attempt at the higher ups in the Roman Catholic church to tell their parishioners the truth about this and that it has been going on and continues to go on to this very day. Christians confess their sins and atone for them. They don't cover them up and lie about it. They don't tell other Christian groups that they have murdered (for a non Orthodox one see St. Bartholomew's Day massacre) and slandered in the past that they have no justification for being traumatized for what happened in the past nor do they have a right to their grievances. When the establishment of the Latin Empire further drained the Eastern Empire of men and resources so desperately needed to fight off the on coming Muslims. Of course this is without mentioning that the Westerners like Orban actually helped the Muslims successfully win against the Eastern Orthodox in the fall of Constantinople. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • )If Richard wants to resolve the NPOV tag then he should at least make a nominal attempt at reading the Eastern Orthodox side of it and as I have repeatedly suggested that would be covered in this book [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615183611/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00]. If Richard does not have time or resources then he should not be editwarring and or making demands of other editors here on the article talkpage. As it is not a matter of the Roman Catholic side but the repeated distortions of the Eastern Orthodox side that have caused the tag to get posted. Richard just can't leave the article alone and is pretty much right now WP:OWN. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
From anyone else it would be strange to read this complaint that others don't accept at face value the complainant's superabundant presentation of an Eastern Orthodox view (whether it can be called the Eastern Orthodox view is debatable) and of often unsourced views of some Eastern Orthodox about Roman Catholic teaching or practice, as when he inserts an independent section under the heading "Orthodox rebuttal (not exactly a neutral term) of (unspecified) Catholic arguments". Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I have provided sources and names [6], [7]

This is just a rough start off of the top of my head and I have been consistent about Esoglou. These are people he has never read nor understood because if he did would not say some of the ignorant things like he just did. Esoglou has made it abundantly clear that he will never accept what is presented to him and that he was and is and will remain ignorant. All the while telling people what he knows all about this when he does not know at all. At some point with this kind of disregard to the information and sources and the fact that Esoglou can find no Orthodox to counter what is being said than Esoglou is going to have to be restricted. Each of these theologians and Church representatives teach that the Papacy is wrong each that the primacy is of vision not of men or positions of worldly power. The truth does not come from a Bishop. I could the Laurent Cleenewerck book to source the above all by its lonesome. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Orthodox rebuttal of Catholic arguments" Esoglou (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou has no idea what Political Hesychasm is...[http://www.amazon.com/Revival-Political-Hesychasm-Contemporary-Orthodox/dp/073914720X].Completely clueless. So what does Esoglou do? He posts a link of where I copied text from the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome article about the Orthodox's opinion of Roman Catholic arguments. Clueless about the text as it is text I copied and pasted and actually did not write. Esoglou can't hear. Esoglou doesn't understand and that is why Esoglou is allowed to get away with his restriction violations, but no one else is. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This in LM's view completely clueless, ignorant of political hesychasm editor at least did not add here a sourceless new section claiming to "rebut" unspecified arguments. But enough of this. Esoglou (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I section he did not write but copied and pasted from another article. Pay attention Esoglou. Nothing is stopping you from providing a source. Ask Montalban to provide one. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Refactoring of text

Now richard just deleted the entire section I created outright. [28] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My edit summary read "Refactoring to make for a better flow of ideas". Refactoring means moving text around without changing the actual text. For example, I just refactored your comment above into a new section. In the case of the edit to which you are objecting, I kept most of the text intact and simply moved it around to fit better into the flow of the article. When you create an article, a section or even just a block of text in Wikipedia, it is not your article, section or text. You have released your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Other editors are free to add to, modify or even delete your text. Your only recourse is the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Of course, the first step is to discuss the issue with other editors on the Talk Page.
So.. let's discuss. Are you asserting that the article suffers from the refactoring that I did? If so, why? My contention is that the article does not benefit from a bunch of short one-paragraph sections. If nothing else, it makes the TOC too long but, more importantly, it makes the article harder to read because it is harder for the reader to maintain context across sections. I am not arguing that the current section organization after my refactoring is perfect and final. As new text is added, the outline structure (as created by section headings) has to change to accomodate the new text.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Since when? Since you are the arbitrator of such? Your the boss of Wikipedia? Have you looked to see why people have stopped contributing to Wikipedia? [29] Who has the time to educate you? And no one here cares about how you also think you are a copyeditor and how you are trying to use that as cover to delete peoples (that includes Montalban for example) contributions. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
LoveMonkey - there is a Catholic POV team here. I'm sure that there's a genuine belief that it will gain reward for them in heaven.

Montalban (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Halo Montalban, good to see you. I was just going over the concept of cultural identity and that concept as political common ground between good and bad movements like the slavophil and hesychast or the Ustashe or the Ton Ton Macoute. I must agree with Dostoevsky, this is not between fellow Christians this is a war for the partisans, and the partisans alone.
I am no partisan but there is no excuse for this stuff or the catholic encyclopedia's content. As this is not a matter of Christian it's a matter of power and history. Things in the news make allot more sense if people understand most sides, right now it's just easier to act like nothings wrong and get shocked when people actually are angry with you. It's when someone asks "why?" that people might begin to understand one another. MAYBE. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of POV - the editorialising here by two Catholics; it's one of the reasons I'm a very confirmed ex-Catholic. That the church needs people to stifle real information demonstrates to the world the veracity of that church's arguments. I'm sure the people doing the POV actually feel that they're doing their church a service. They are not. They are presenting argument as useful as the Donation of Constantine.

I was on an several debate sites recently trying to find out more information about a source catholic apologists refer to; e.g. Catholic blogger PhilVaz refers to this person as "Anglican historian Edward Giles". But, I can find no information on him. Giles' book "Documents illustrating Papal Authority"

He's not on Wiki. I e-mailed PhilVaz, he couldn't provide info. I went onto a Catholic debate site, they couldn't. I went onto an Orthodox site, and the Catholics there couldn't either. Yet they cite him as an authority.

Also, by the way, the Catholics on both sites also demanded that I set out why I was asking about this person - as if merely raising a query about a Catholic source was suspect.

And yet they continue to use him as a source! Catholic writer, S. Ray calls him a scholar - a person no one knows who he is!!! They simply go on repeating this 'evidence' unchallenged.

Here the endless editorialising by two Catholic contributors is something I use as a tool for demonstrating the lack of depth of Catholic apologetics.

By the way, I'm writing a book on the subject of papal supremacy. At present I have over 82,000 words. Montalban (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Most excellent. I hope that you follow sobornost (brotherly love) and Dostoevsky and see that fellow Christians in general are not the bad guys at all (regardless of their affiliation). I'd say people in general aren't. It's the leaders whom distort to obtain power that are the problem in that they have corrupted theosis. Even Esoglou and Richard are not seen as evil or bad or wrong only of a way of thought a form of indoctrination if you will. They are our Christian Brothers and this is a family affair. And the only counter to this is to confront them with a different perspective (kicking and screaming all the way) in order for them to be able to come to the truth of it. All heresy is gnosticism in the sense of, a priori gnosis (Ego driven), schism however is a distortion of dogma and holding to the distortion as truth over a posteriori evidence (i.e. tradition). As the schism is about making the church an earthly power and a political and or government power rather than a place (hospital if you will) that allows people to escape the world and seek after God. For the seeking after God (to seek the truth of existence) is the real heaven as it is the process theosis that leads from glory to glory. To be Orthodox is to have inner peace (apatheia) and hate no one, of course there are clowns everywhere and Orthodoxy is no exception. Inner peace (apathea) is the final stage of theosis. I am not here out of any malice I am here because it should that the Orthodox side actually have a voice in this since according to Wikipedia articles should be free from one POV and should as much as possible reflect all sides of a given issue. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou's recent edit

I had to revert Esoglou's edit because an error in the citations was breaking the page. I did not get a chance to read it closely and won't be able to do so right away due to real-world obligations. However, I am concerned that it is a long edit and I am not convinced that we need so much text on this topic. In general, this article is already very long and getting longer. For example, the section on the Quartodeciman Controversy is longish and I have been refraining from making it longer because I think the article is rapidly getting unreadable (if it's not already at that point now).

Once Esoglou fixes the problem that his edit was causing, I'll take another look at the text and evaluate whether we really need that much detail in this article. I urge everybody else to do the same.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. I posted it rather too hurriedly before going away for a short while. As for length, the solution is to remove the repetitions scattered in disorganized fashion elsewhere. The growth of the power of the see of Constantinople to primacy over all others in the east and to at least equality with Rome is a topic that deserves, even requires, specific treatment. Esoglou (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Unity through division???

The Catholic church recognises at least 3 different primates of the church in Antioch.

They are in effect sponsoring schism.

Montalban (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Confused Catholic apologetics

It's rather bemusing the confused Catholic stance towards this, especially the fourth crusade which really drove the nail in the coffin.

Catholics try to make excuses for this, and try to minimalise the pope's involvement in it. And yet the previous pope (John Paul II) apologised for the crusade. Either Catholics believe their pope, or they don't. If they do, then they need to stop making excuses for something he at least came to grips with. Montalban (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah it is really hard to be forgiven for something you don't own up to (as a matter of fact God does not forgive by default one has to ask and one has to atone). It appears that allot of things are just not addressed. How is it that the Eastern Christians don't call their leaders Popes? Well there is no, "how is it", as one only need to look at what happened this week in Egypt.[30] "How is it" that only the Fourth Crusade is really the only one shown here as hostile to the Eastern Orthodox when in reality (and more so than the blank mention of the Northern Crusades) that the Eastern Christians from even before the 1st Crusade were called heretics it's in the history books.
I have wondered for a long time how this very essential thing is overlooked by Western Christians and their leaders. How are people to reconcile when so much is being denied? So much history and recent history too. Like I keep bringing up things like the Crimean War no one wants to acknowledge the role that war played in starting World War I. Go ask people how much they know about why there was a World War I. That they know that a Serb assassinated the Austrian-Hungarian King because now that Serbia had finally gotten it's freedom from the Turks all of the sudden the Holy Roman Empire was going to take them over and force them to become part of Europe when all the Slavs wanted was to be their own people and have their own country and not be forced to be part of yet another Empire. People just don't want to talk about it because it puts Europe in a bad light. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a well-known fact that the first crusaders all swore to follow the Eastern Roman Emperor. Instead as soon as they took lands they made little "Latin" enclaves throughout.

Montalban (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

LoveMonkey I often see a general dislike from the west towards the east. At the end of WWI the allies had taken Constantinople. It was finally 'free' after 500 years. What did the allies do? Hand it back to the Turks. They then stood by and let the Turks kill off eastern Christians -the Armenians epecially, and Greeks (such as in Smyrna).

They even consider now admitting Turkey into the EU despite Turkey's oppressions in Cyprus. Montalban (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria. Esoglou (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


I don't know what Esoglou's contribution to this means. I accept that there is a single list of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs in Alexandria. What it's got to do with the pope asking for forgiveness I don't know. Perhaps he is simply wishing to advertise more examples of confused Catholic apologetics??? Montalban (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal reunification

I have edited the article. I believe it had said that a formal reunification had been achieved at the Council of Lyons and/or at Florence.

I have not seen any evidence to show that this is so. Certainly the delegates at those conventions may have signed, but as anyone knows something is not formal until it is ratified.

So unless people have evidence that the churches were properly reunited I think the edit I made should stand Montalban (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think most people understand "formal" in the dictionary sense and contrast what is merely formal with what is substantial, but some may indeed understand the word as Montalban does. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it helps to reduce this to my opinion only - it helps Esoglou to pretend that he has the majority on side, but we're not merely talking about a general (dictionary) definition, but specifically relating to a type of treaty. And of course if it were just me, and my opinion I'm sure Esoglou can provide any evidence that a formal union was actually achieved Montalban (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Montalban. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


I take it Esoglou has no evidence???? The "everyone knows" argument doesn't work (it's called vox populi and is a logical fallacy) Montalban (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Canon 9

The article text reads "This has been interpreted as conferring on the see of Constantinople a greater privilege than what any council ever gave Rome (Johnson) or as of much lesser significance than that (Hefele)." What are the references to Johnson and Hefele in parentheses? The citation is to Schaff whose note to Canon 9 asserts the first part of the sentence. If I am interpreting the article text as the author intended, it appears that Johnson and Hefele have differing opinions as to how much privilege Canon 9 conferred upon the see of Conatantinople. If I got the intended meaning right, the presentation of the idea could be improved. In particular, the attribution to Johnson and Hefele in parentheses is an unorthodox way of presenting sources in Wikipedia. Use of <ref></ref> tags is preferred.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right. The shorthand was too severe. I must fix it. Esoglou (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Issue with lede

The introduction doesn't make it clear that the 1st crusade was just 40 years after the schism and also against the Eastern Orthodox. As a matter of fact the lede is a big fat distortion and is very misleading because it does not show that the hostility between East and West was there (throughout the Middle East) before the 1st crusade. It implies that only some people were privy to the schism when in reality the schism was VERY MUCH a hot topic in the Middle East as the Eastern Empire was now fighting the Muhammadian AND the Gothic conquered Western Empire at the same time. And that the schism played a role IN ALL THE CRUSADES. There is no mention of the killing and taking possession of the Holy Sepulchre in the article as the history of the 1st crusade. As it actually occurred instead, it reads real unclear about the 1st crusaders whom TOOK Eastern Orthodox Holy sites and relics FROM Eastern Orthodox taking Orthodox Holy relics (not just from Constantinople) back to Europe. And killing Eastern Orthodox in the 1st crusade. The lede reads like everything was kinda fine until the Massacre of the Latins and the sack of Constantinople.

The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful, since Pope Leo had died, while Cerularius's excommunication applied only to the legates personally.[2] Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed, with each side accusing the other of having fallen into heresy and of having initiated the division. The Crusades, the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, the capture and sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Latin Patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult.[2] This included the taking of many precious religious artifacts and the destruction of the Library of Constantinople.

It TOTALLY MISREPRESENTS the role of the schism in all of the Crusades and reads as if the Eastern Orthodox were not victims of any of the crusades but the 4th one. As it is from an Eastern perspective that the Roman Catholics initiated the Crusades against the Orthodox, not just against the Muslims and in later history this was a common ground shared with many Muslims and Eastern Christians (see Patriarch John Scholasticus). This article could do better to inform people reading it that the crusades were against other Christians not just Muslims. And it would well to anyone interested in history to understand that the schism was also tied to the entire crusade enterprise and that the Muslims were the conquerers to start with and that with the Eastern Roman Empire falling to them that there was some affinity (in the beginning) between East and West. It was not until the schism that the Crusades (all of them in one way shape or fashion) took on a rather European outlook toward the Middle East in general Eastern Christian and Muslim alike. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I heard a History Channel suggestion (not using them as a RS normally) that the Pope, seeing how fragmented the West was and how they were consuming their resources fighting each other proposed the 1st Crusade in order to help unify the West. Contrasting with the East which was more or less unified under the Muslims. Student7 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


@Student7, I am confused about what you wrote. In what sense was the East "more or less unified under the Muslims" at the time of the First Crusade? I presume you meant the "Eastern Orthodox Church" but I can't make sense of your sentence. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"The East at the time of the 1st Crusade" was not unified under the Moslems. "The East" was divided between that which was under Islam and that which fought to avoid that situation.

Certainly the crusades might be seen as unifying the west. Montalban (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I was (the tv article appeared to be) implying that the Muslims were unified. As everyone knows from looking a map of Western Europe during the same time frame, there were perhaps a hundred duchies, counties, and supposed "kingdoms", etc. all wasting a great deal of resources fighting each other. I am not that familiar with the structure of the surviving Eastern Roman Empire supporting Eastern Orthodoxy. Student7 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What's the issue here with Pope Victor?

What's the issue here with Pope Victor? Montalban (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... perhaps I am conflating Clement with Victor. Cleenewerck questions whether Clement was even a "bishop". There are some sources who doubt that monepiscopacy had been adopted in Rome by the end of the 1st century.
I was under the impression that they did not call the Bishop of Rome "Pope" during the ante-Nicene era. However, I just dug up this source that says:
"Pope, the title of, formerly given to all bishops. The emperor, in 606, confined it to the bishops of Rome; Hygenus was the first bishop of Rome that took the title, 154; the pope's supremacy over the christian church established by Boniface III, 607.""Mnemonika: or, The The tablet of memory" By William Darby, Edward J. Coale
So... since Hygenus predates Victor, I suppose it is reasonable to say "Pope Victor" even though his powers are radically different from the doctrine of the papacy that developed subsequently, I'll change it back.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing some issues. Clement is said to have written the Epistle on behalf of all the church of Rome, but he may not have been pope at the time - according to a number of commentators. This does not mean that he did not later become bishop/pope. I agree that there are some sources who might argue that there was no single bishop of Rome at that time.

Furthermore it is irrelevant whether they call him pope at the time. Words are often taken back to mean something before that word was first used. E.g. I can pick up a book on Australian history and it deals with "Australia" before it was called "Australia". It is simply a common practice.

I still don't know what your issue is. Montalban (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


Montalban wrote: "I still don't know what your issue is." That's OK. I don't think Esoglou thinks much of my making an issue of this point either. Probably it's just something I made up in my brain. Cleenewerck makes it clear that he doesn't think Clement wrote the epistle at all and that it eventually got attributed to Clement because he was so revered in the early Christian community. He also doesn't seem to like calling Victor "Pope" but he may not be representative of common practice. Until someone else more knowledgeable wants to demonstrate that it is inappropriate to say "Pope Victor", I will go with the flow and stop being concerned about this point. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Pope is not exclusive to Rome.[31] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This made me smile at the remembrance of this edit related to this question: "How is it that the Eastern Christians don't call their leaders Popes?" Excuse my amusement :-) Esoglou (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou, I have no idea what your post has to do with anything. I suspect you know something and it's just so obvious to you you think everyone else should see it too.

Pseudo-Richard, I accept that some don't think Clement wrote the Epistle of Clement. Abee Guetee (spelling?) cast doubts on this earlier than the source you refer to. Montalban (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou still seems to be writing here for his own amusement. Perhaps a blog page would suit better. I'm not sure what his point is or who he's addressing Montalban (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how the comment that "Pope" not exclusive to Rome relates to the East-West Schism. "Pope" just means "father." This is driven home by Spanish and other Latins calling out "Papa" in audiences with the Pope. So it is "just" a title. Meaningful to believers, like most titles. Orthodox call their priests "Father", as well. As do Latin Catholics. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
And yet we Orthodox do not call out priests "Pope". But anyway, Richard's objection (from what I understand of it) is we can't call someone a pope before that term was first used for that office. I have pointed out that it is a regular thing to back-date terms. As an objection, it seems rather pointless.

Montalban (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I support Student7's view on the lack of any clear relation to the East-West Schism of the remark that the title "Pope" is not exclusive to Rome, which is on the same level as the same editor's earlier remark that the Eastern Christians don't call their leaders Popes. Richard has long since withdrawn any objection he had to the use of "Pope" for the earliest of those to whom that title is commonly applied, an objection that, whether well or ill founded, was clearly related to the text of this article on the East-West Schism. Esoglou (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Earliest signs of the growing schism

The article text reads "Although Catholic apologists have typically pointed to the 7th century controversy over the Filioque and the 9th century schism of Photios as the earliest signs of the growing schism,..." Esoglou has put a {{citation needed}} tag on this text. I believe Cleenewerck said something along these lines but I'll have to check. However, Cleenewerck is not the most reliable of authors; EdJohnston has pointed out that he appears to be writing for a popular audience as he is not cited by other scholars.

More importantly, I'd like to understand what Esoglou's concern is here so that I can research in the direction of his concern. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Experience indicates that a Wikipedia editor's use of the word "typically" usually betrays an original-research generalization. Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeh, OK... I can't find the source for the Catholic side of the assertion although I remember substituting "Catholic apologists" for "Catholic theologians" because I didn't care for the implication that dating the origin of the schism as a theological point rather than a historical one. That said, a review of sources in Google Books suggests that a fuller explication is needed than the sentence in question. I will work on it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Richard. I think the phrase "most sources agree that" could simply be omitted, but I also think nobody would question it. Not even me. :-) Esoglou (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Or, maybe Esoglou can provide evidence for something???


Montalban (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou, I believe you need to set out what it is you're concerned about

Montalban (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Montalban, Esoglou is setting an inappropriate criteria. If they don't like it they will attack it and they will try and attack it and second guess it to pieces. Esoglou and Richard are not here to make a Wikipedia article. They are here to protect the Roman Catholic POV about this issue. However they are not here to protect it by providing the POV from validate sources and then allowing people to read that and draw their own conclusions.
NO.
They are here attacking the Orthodox position and it's sources RATHER THAN LEAVING THEM ALONE. And also making on the spot original research. Cleenewerck is an Orthodox source (and a pro-ecumenist one at that, so even Cleenewerck is not something the average Orthodox christian will espouse to) Esoglou has edit restrictions that say Esoglou doesn't get to edit and or depict the Orthodox side of this issue. Richard can't leave the article alone. Now why is that. I'll tell you this. If people read this issue and one, don't pick a bias on the front end and or two get mad their side is wrong and poison the well.


They will see that the Roman Catholic side had no business telling the other churches of the Middle East that it should rule them and that it could make policy and theological changes unilaterally without Council. If people are able to see both sides then it will not be logic or respect or fairness that they would use to validate siding with the Roman Catholic side of this. Because that is why the schism happened. The Eastern Churches did not invade the West. If you notice this entire conflict has been in the East. The Roman Catholics had no business putting the strangle hold on the Eastern Roman Empire rather that be for the Venetians or Charlemagne. How is it that the Roman Catholic position so far has been to hid that the very churches (communities) that Jesus came from reject them? How is anything that they might say counter that reality?


How delusion does someone have to be? I mean you have European "scholars" telling these different ethnic groups that they don't understand their own cultural identity, history and languages. That Europe has to give them that. Think about how ignorant this whole side of it is. Here is a very obvious and ugly truth of just how ignorant the Western Christian side is. Go out and ask them if they know who Plato and Aristotle is. They will say yes. Ask them to name you just one living and breathing Greek philosopher that they know of. If they are honest they will tell you that there are no more or that they do not know if any even still exist. Or they might just say that European philosophers carried that on since the East fell to Islam and that philosophy died out or the new stupidest one of all that the philosophical tradition was destroyed by Christianity with the death of (fill in the blank, Hypatia) etc etc. They will not be able to tell you who Christos Yannaras is. The problem is in the bigger picture that Christianity as having been taken over by the West is dying. And the nihilism that failed to over take Orthodoxy is now what is coming in and over taking Western Christianity. By way of sobornost the Orthodox can only do so much but the mind hustle of human reason (a-priori) validation of the existence of God is coming to an end. In the East it simply never was to begin with. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


This would seem to be the case as Esoglou has made a number of comments here which, when I ask for details are met with silence. I see him requesting citations over and over again but offers no evidence whatsoever when requested.


The really weird thing is that such people think that they are doing their church some kind of service - whereas in truth the opposite is happening. People reading these discussions will see an utter lack of conviction not only to the rules of this site, but also in actually discussing any valid concern. It's like a major advertisement saying "Catholicism cannot stand criticism". Montalban (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the fastest way to reconciliation is by full disclosure. Let's just get all of the grievances out there and address them one by one. How can there be any understanding if one side (which from the way this article is written) disagrees and keeps refusing to reconcile and yet isn't really given a voice in the first place to clarify their position. I mean the West is still saying the same stuff and has yet to speak to things like Jesuits pulling nonsense (for an objective look at it look up what the Ethiopians did as to why they sided with the Muslims OVER the Portuguese Jesuits i.e. Fasilides, let alone Battle of Adwa and Second Italo-Abyssinian War). There is books and books and books of things. And yet there is just a tiny thin onion skin of it here in this article. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If you're interested in criticism by a Jesuit of what the Jesuits did in Ethiopia, read this. Esoglou (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
See Montalban, Esoglou did just exactly as you pointed out above, right here. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I find it odd when they deny the fourth crusade that their own pope has apolgised for - all arguments at once, again

Montalban (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Naming names

I get a little confused when someone says "Jack did this." "John said that." This tends to border on WP:ATTACK. I would rather that participants say that they disagree with a statement and perhaps we can go from there. I value editorial relationships with most of you (and usually pov) and am reluctant to point fingers!

Also, I get confused over what we are discussing when I read "Look, he did it again!" Uh, did what? What should the text read? Is the material mis-cited? Is the citation summarized incorrectly? Have we used an unreliable source? We do each have our rights to our own pov. I confess we often have to satisfy most of the other editors when we edit, however. Student7 (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Statute of Limitations on time to complain?

A paragraph reads "Towards the end of the 2nd century, Victor, the Bishop of Rome, attempted to resolve the Quartodeciman controversy by excommunicating churches in the Roman province of Asia. This incident is cited by some Orthodox Christians as the first example of overreaching by the Bishop of Rome and resistance of such by Eastern churches. Laurent Cleenewerck suggests that this could be argued to be the first fissure between the Eastern and Western churches.(footnote)"

But the point here is, did anyone complain about meddling then? Complaining now seems a tad tardy IMO.

I think there are other instances of Roman meddling prior to Constantine establishing a second Patriarchy in the "New Rome." Not sure they are all here. Student7 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is understanding "cutting off"

For the Catholic church you have to be in communion with the Pope to be Catholic therefore if the pope cut you off your cut-off from the entire Catholic Church.

However this assumes that this was the position at the time of Pope Victor.

It may have been that way, but not necessarily.

Cutting off, by Victor may have been where like where Australia cuts off relations with the US, but both are still in the United Nations. The act of cutting off relations does not equate to expulsion from the 'universal' body.

There are instances where others were 'cut off' from each other – e.g. Meletius of Antioch was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria but was still chosen to head an ecumenical council.

As to complaining, well Irenaeus and other bishops complained AT THAT TIME. It says so in Eusebius, that Victor's actions were not to the liking of the bishops.

Montalban (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not wish to go properly into a discussion of this matter and will make only two remarks:
  1. Victor's action was not the only case of one Christian bishop cutting off communion with another. A possible difference lies in Eusebius's description of Victor's action as attempting to cut certain churches off "from the common unity". This perhaps does not have to be interpreted as a claim to universal jurisdiction, however much both proponents and opponents of papal primacy (such as certain editors here) would like to see it that way. Could it be seen as a reference to the fact that the practice in the province of Asia was different from that in, as Eusebius said, "the rest of the world"? Irenaeus complained about breaking unity with an important minority over the question, not about any supposed "meddling" in affairs of no concern to bishops like Victor.
  2. The Letter of Clement to the church in Corinth, also mentioned in the article, was not seen by anyone as "meddling", least of all by the church in Corinth, which used to read the letter regularly. Esoglou (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Montalban below attacks some "Catholic argument" that is not in the article, which says instead that "Orthodox apologists" point to the Victor episode as an example of "claims by Rome to papal primacy and rejection by Eastern Churches thereof". I don't question that some unspecified Montalban-like "Orthodox apologists" hold that view, nor do I wish to go off-topic to discuss some "Catholic argument" or other. It is best just to hand the matter back to Student7. Esoglou (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If there were five people united, they'd have a common unity. If anyone of them broke off with any other, then the common unity would be ended. They'd be 'cut off from the common unity'.

There's real signs why the Catholic argument doesn't work

One is Cardinal Newman trying to explain why in the first 3 centuries there's NO EVIDENCE of papal supremacy. Catholics of course want to argue here all points at once; that there's no evidence (because papal supremacy was never questioned) and that there is evidence.

Two is that Victor, if he felt this matter was so important utterly failed to have his way. Catholics of course try to have all arguments at once, that it was an important issue (to demonstrate papal supremacy), and that it wasn't (in order to excuse the fact Victor didn't get unity of calculation of the calendar).

The churches of Asia Minor continued in their ways until a general council ruled. And by that time Quartodecimanism was more a heresy as they adopted other Jewish rituals. Montalban (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I take it then that Esoglu doesn't have an opinion derived from the article regarding whether Victor was supreme pontiff of all the church, or not. Montalban (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See Pentarchy#Early_Christianity. Also see Pontifex Maximus. While no longer used, this designation appears to clarify religious supremacy as far as the government was concerned. Clearly "First among equals," a patriarch, and not a mere bishop. There were no other recognized Patriarchs until quite a bit later. Student7 (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


Sudent7 I think the church in Alexandria might disagree with you there. Not to mention that Antioch is also a "See of Peter"

Montalban (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The article Pentarchy says (boldfacing mine):
"The greater authority of these sees in relation to others was tied to their political and ecclesiastical prominence; all were located in important cities and regions of the Roman Empire and were important centers of the Church. Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were prominent from the time of early Christianity, while Constantinople came to the fore upon becoming the imperial residence in the 4th century. Thereafter it was ranked consistently just after Rome. Jerusalem received a ceremonial place due to the city's importance in the early days of Christianity. Justinian and the Quinisext Council excluded from their pentarchical arrangement churches outside the Empire, such as the then-flourishing Church of the East in Sassanid Persia, which they saw as heretical. Within the empire they recognized only the Chalcedonian incumbents, regarding as illegitimate the non-Chalcedonian claimants of Alexandria and Antioch."
Infighting among the sees, and particularly the rivalry between Rome (which considered itself preeminent over all the Church) and Constantinople (which came to hold sway over the other Eastern sees and which saw itself as equal to Rome, with Rome "first among equals")
Granted, this is retrospective (violating the subtitle of this discussion! :(. Some of these arguments are mentioned above by other editors. The pentarchy never existed except as a concept. Agree about Antioch being "early." There are no photographs extant of St. Peter taking over the Patriarchies of either Antioch or Rome. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Schism as a defense of cultural identity

Montalban you are seeing it very clearly. Let me throw some petrol on the fire here. Hypatia was killed by the pro Egyptian Christians in Alexandria (now called the Copts). She was defending the Byzantine Orthodox Christian ruler at the time Orestes. Now think about what that REALLY MEANS. Instead of the stupid nonsense and distorted ignorance of like saying that Christians killed Hypatia or that Christians destroyed the library at Alexandria (which no historical source I know of says that). It was a Neoplatonic philosopher Hypatia (remember Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus were from Egypt) being killed by local pro-Egyptian Christians for her defending Orthodox Christianity. Now here's something to see in all of that. The Copts adopted a very pro-Neo-platonic language in their Christology.
In this I mean that the Egyptians wanted to run out the Greek and Roman Emperors from controlling their country. They did it first by claiming to reject the very very very anti-Mystery religion language and wording of the Chaldean statements about the hypostasis of Christ. It maybe said that Hypatia was kind of selling out the Egyptians to Ptolemy rulers or due to the Ptolemy never really understanding the true religions of Egypt (Iamblichus was actually completely wrong now that modern scientists have been able to translate the hieroglyphics of the actual pre Christian period) Hypatia kinda of hoping for the Eastern Orthodox to adapt what the Neoplatonics got the Egyptians to adapt. And she was a tragic loss captured in a very earlier power struggle between East and West. As Augustine would have far more in common with Hypatia than he would with St Symeon the New Theologian or even Gregory of Nyssa.
This means that there was already in all of the different parts of the Roman Empire pro-ethnic forces that would use theology as means to obtain independents. Just look at the arguments made by the Egyptians to this day. As they still refer to the Orthodox as "the Emperors men". This means that the early schism between the Eastern Empire and the Persian Christians and the Egyptians was a much a reputation of the power of Rome as it was anything theological. And that these schisms were rejecting Rome (ever so subtly) in order to maintain their own cultural and nation Identity again the power or Rome. This is the very thing that the Eastern Orthodox did as well. Notice it is all of the Eastern Churches that this eventually happened to.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It is difficult through the Protestant breakaway, to disassociate national politics from religious ones. They were often similar, or even identical. What does that mean for this article? It sounds like we must include nationalistic reasons for schism and allow rs to weight them as appropriate.
To take it out of East-West, for a moment, consider the split from Rome by Henry VIII. He wanted a divorce (a second one, BTW). They refused him. He could see clear profit in taking over church property and clearly realized, that short of an unlikely invasion by France or Spain, the he could get away with it. Until his dying day, he truly believed himself a "Catholic," only with himself as "leader."
The Lutheran split wasn't really that much different with the exception that it could be portrayed by somebody with some learning, as a "theological" difference. But the real reason was that Luther's duke, or whoever, would really like to keep the money within his territory; to heck with donating to Rome to build St. Peters. Without his lord's approval, Luther would have been kindling at the stake. Student7 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hell Froze over?

Everyone pull out the vodka martinis and ice picks cause hell froze over and there might be a good bit of ice for my drink. Esoglou has made a good point with this edit [32]. Anyone else agree? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why, what's your problem? The text is well-sourced, isn't it? Don't I now have the right to bitch and moan that POV-pushing editors want to delete my well-sourced material? Or should I consider whether it is, in fact, off-topic as you and Esoglou are pointing out?
Should I malign your motives and biased POV-pushing or should I consider that perhaps it really is straying from the topic as Esoglou asserts?
In fact, I have been seriously considering the question of whether it is off-topic since Esoglou had already pointed out his objection to me last week. I just haven't convinced myself to do it and he has been kind enough not to push me (or just delete it outright as I would have) although his placing a {{off-topic}} tag on that section is clearly a gentle nudge that I should get off my ass and fix this problem (that he sees).
I concede that it seems off-topic but I think it is important background material to explain that the concept of episcopacy went through a development and was not understood the same way in all churches initially.
However, I am not wedded to the text and I can see the point that Esoglou raises although (since I researched and wrote the text) I am not quite ready to give up on making the points that my text makes. [I think you know how this feels since you complain every time someone wants to delete your text.] When I get over my pride of authorship, I will probably give in and delete it like a good colleague and collaborator should.
I just want you to understand that this knife cuts both ways. The next time I propose deleting your text, don't whine that it's well-sourced. Sourcing alone does not justify inclusion at a particular point in an article or even in the article at all. It's also important that the text be directly relevant to the topic and written in an encyclopedic style.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I have only proposed the problem for consideration. If my doing so makes LoveMonkey happy, I have no objection whatever to his enjoyment. It would be more helpful, however, if he indicated objective reasons for or against keeping the section, instead of talking about hell freezing over (!). Esoglou (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am saying this. I am saying I agree with Esoglou..Delete the content. Richard needs to stop characterizing people's comments as bitching an moaning. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Please! WP:NPA. Student7 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Who are you referring to Student 7? I have made no person attack in my comments in this section. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I confess to having violated WP:NPA with my comment about "bitching and moaning". I was going to add "whining and whinging" but then thought better of it as it fell under my deletion criterion of "true assertion but provides excessive detail". I also note that there was something they taught me in Sunday School about the "log in one's own eye and the mote in your neighbor's eye". If I am to be held guilty of personal attacks, then perhaps a review of the rest of this Talk Page might identify others who are equally or, dare I suggest it, even more culpable than I. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Can we start referring to specific material, rather than by editors names?
While it's probably not necessary on other discussion pages, announcing agreement on this page with an editor (or disagreement) by name is probably not a good idea either in the near future. It would be more calming to agree (or disagree) with the material/edit/citation.
Sometimes "voting isn't necessary. So if Lovemonkey were to say (in reply to someone) "But Martin, page 56, has been shown by Jones to be a mistranslation (1999), pg 20. Therefore the material is false." I would not, at this point, need to say, "I agree with Lovemonkey (or "the above"). Lovemonkey has said it all, already. If someone wants to refute this claim with a counterclaim, that would be another matter. But "voting" in all discussions, gives the appearance of "ganging up" on an editor. This may not be necessary in all cases. In the case I just gave, if no one has a refutation, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lovemonkey editing out the material in a day or so. But he does not require my support, per se. Student7 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The author of the material whose questioning by me LoveMonkey was amazed to find he agreed with has himself edited it out after the discussion below (#Governance). Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Historical context

There needs to be more clearer a summary or overview of the schism than what is here in the article right now. As there appears to be a lack of history in the wars between the Venetians, Sicilians and Normans and the Eastern Roman Empire. None of this is even mentioned in the article even though it plays a very critical role in the violence behind the subject. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that political hostility between the Byzantine Empire and not only Venetians and Normans of southern Italy and Sicily, but also Genoese, Pisans, Catalans, Franks, Hungarians, Anjevins, must have played a large part in the estrangement between the church loyal to the emperor and these other Christians. Esoglou (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a number of sources point to political and cultural factors as well as religious ones. However, the question is whether this article should provide a litany of sins and offenses with a detailed blow-by-blow account of who did what to whom and when. This article is already too long and any expansion with detailed accounts of specific incidents is likely to make it unreadable. We should keep in mind that this article is a summary article and keep the discussion at the broad overview level. I propose that we develop the litany of incidents on this Talk Page and then find a way to write a few short sentences with links to fuller articles on each incident.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Again I agree. It was enough to see the other side as a political/military threat. Something similar can be discerned in the popular literature of England half a century or more ago, when the villains were associated with the Soviet Union (think of the James Bond books). Half a century or more before that, the villains were German (think, for instance, of The Riddle of the Sands). Before that the villains were French, before that Spanish ... Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I hope people reading this will see Esoglou attempting to poison the well and marginalize or discredit again any perspective that does not jive with his POV. This is just more dirty pool. James Bond villians REALLY. According to Esoglou only hyper Orthodox zealots go around trying to get people to engage in forms of open dialog (sobornost). Like wikis. This kind of fallacy is closing people's minds by giving them distorted perspectives from the start. Maybe next Esoglou can claim that the KGB infiltrated the Slavic churches because the KGB's love for leather and bananas drove them to extremes and when caught stealing said leather and bananas they quickly blamed it on the Jews or the Papists. I can not make it more idiotic for effect and this is sad but not nearly a sad as Esoglou now comparing real world destruction to fictional characters like James Bond. Thats a sure fire way to show how serious he takes the historical events behind this subject. No red flags on Esoglou. Hmm. No alarms going off, no nothing to see here folks.LoveMonkey (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:NPA. -- Esoglou (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Governance

I don't see how we can discuss governance in the early church without discussing bishops. I agree that it is confusing. c.f. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm. Even Protestants admit there were presbyters. I think the East and West agree on the development of dioceses. They were certainly not instantaneous, nor did they have to be since churches were only in major cities/towns. Student7 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The key point in all this is that an inexpert reader may easily form misconceptions if we say "Pope Clement" and "Pope Victor". Victor may have been styled a "Pope" but the title had a radically different meaning than it did after Pope Gregory the Great. Cleenewerck questions whether Clement was even a bishop rather than a presbyter and whether he even wrote the Letter of Clement. I'm not saying Cleenewerck is 100% correct in all his assertions. I'm just saying that little is known about ante-Nicene church governance and so there is a certain amount of supposition, interpolation, extrapolation and educated guesswork. We should not point to ante-Nicene incidents and say "See! that's an example of Rome asserting papal supremacy" without qualifying that statement by presenting the context of what is known about ante-Nicene church governance. Finally, even if both Catholics and Orthodox agree on something (e.g. Clement having been the bishop of Rome), that doesn't mean it's true. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
An appreciative applause for Student7 and Pseudo-Richard for addressing the question of the relevance of early church governance to the East-West Schism directly instead of attacking editors as deluded and out to attack the religious beliefs of others.
Does anyone claim that the Letter of Clement is evidence of papal primacy? I don't think so. But there are those who see it as an indication or alleged indication of primacy of the church of Rome. Does it matter whether Clement or whoever wrote it was merely a secretary or was one of several equal members of a presbytery or was a bishop? The East-West Schism is not just a disagreement between two individuals, one of whom is called Benedict and the other Bartholomew. The East-West Schism is a schism between churches.
Student7 rightly says we cannot discuss governance in the early church without discussing bishops. The point is that we do not at all need to discuss governance in the early church to understand the East-West Schism. Whatever developments there have been in the development of church governance by bishops were concluded long before the schism began.
Victor also was not acting as an individual when he tried to cut the churches in the Roman province of Asia (not just some individuals there) off from the common unity. As bishop or presiding presbyter of the church in Rome, or whatever other term you apply to his capacity, he had communicated to Polycrates as bishop of the church in Ephesus, not as an individual, the condemnation of the Quartodeciman observance of Easter by a synod held in Rome. And it was in the same capacity that he reacted to the rejection by Polycrates of this condemnation by trying to cut the churches associated with Polycrates off from the common unity.
We don't have to take a position on whether the Clement and the Victor events were in any way harbingers of the East-West Schism. It is enough to report that certain sources say they were. I myself have difficulty in believing that these events have any direct relevance, but I accept that there seem to be sources that do make a link at least with the Victor event. There is no source that says that the rate of development of episcopal church governance (according to some, perhaps quickest in Syria and Asia, later in Rome, latest in Alexandria) has anything whatever to do with the East-West Schism.
If anyone thinks that giving the title "Pope" to Clement or Victor is misleading, they can simply omit the title, as Pseudo-Richard did at first. He should not have let another's comments lead him to insert the title, which he obviously still does not consider appropriate, even calling its possible misunderstanding "the key point". I have spoken of them here without using the title "Pope". Eusebius did so also. We don't even have to call them bishops, unless reporting a source that does use the term. Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard, your argument here is rather silly. E.g. - Elizabeth II is queen of England. She has less power than Elizabeth I did as queen. The fact that the office has changed in power doesn't mean that either of them are more or less entitled to be called 'queen'. Your argument re: the pope is as illogical. It is in fact so illogical that I find myself agreeing with Esoglou!!! (to some extent)

Your argument can be shown to be flawed by its application to any number of long-standing institutions, including presidents of the US, et al (in this case Obama has the power to destroy a nation with nuclear weapons. Washington couldn't - therefore by your logic Obama is more a 'president' than Washington was) Montalban (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would consider off-topic also any treatment in this article of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of using the term "pope" as a specific designation of the bishop of Rome in the earlier Christian centuries. On this see Pope#Title and etymology. Esoglou (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Where I disagree with Esoglou, and this goes directly to the subject at hand is that he cannot prove that Victor 'cutting off from the common unity' means what he thinks it does. I already explained above that if five people are in unity and one decides to break relations with another of the five then they have cut the common unity.

This is regardless of whether you call someone pope. Montalban (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It is too late by many centuries to take up with Eusebius his use of the expression "cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them". Of more immediate importance, it has nothing to do with the question discussed here of the relevance to the East-West Schism of whatever system of church governance was in use within churches (dioceses) in the first century or century and a half from the appearance of Christianity, but which was definitively abandoned a century and a half or more before Constantinople was founded, and longer still before the churches of Rome and Constantinople entered into conflict. Esoglou (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again I agree with Esoglou (to an extent) - it's simply 'evidence' that doesn't necessarily support papal supremacy. Yet Catholics use it as such.

It does relate to governance... the power of the pope in a time of schism

Montalban (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Again off-topic. The discussion here is about whether relevance to the East-West Schism can be discerned in the view that in the first decades of Christianity the individual churches were governed not by a single (a monarchic) bishop but by a group of presbyters. This view is about the domestic governance of the individual churches, not "evidence" about inter-church primacy. Esoglou (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This is to Montalban.. The Western Europeans are devoid of the Jewish traditions and how those traditions "created" or have informed the foundation of the Christian Church around this subject. This is why in this discussion there is no mention of Jewish tradition and how in Jewish tradition there are clergy and or priestly orders (for example the Kohen and Levites) and titles like Bishop, but there is no title like "Pope" in a way that is Monarchical. Remember in the Eastern Christian context someone can not be a follower of "Judaism" or a Jew, even if born of Jewish parents and be called a Jew if they do not attend temple. Let alone if they do not believe in God (are atheists). This is important because allot of what is Orthodox Christian remains close to what is Judaism. And allot of people called atheists whom were born in the Jewish communities are called "Jews" when in reality they were not. This is because it is an old tradition to think of Jews as being without atheists. As even Aaron was a High Priest but he was not what would be called a Pope, let alone Moses or Abram. As high priest were appointed by the King or Emperor and there were usually allot more than one or two at a time. Note that the High Priests married and allot of time it was their off spring that succeeded them. For clarity look here at the Samaritan High Priest and or course at the tradition of the Sanhedrin and the Beth din shel Kohanim. In order for there to be a Pope like the Roman Catholic church is claiming then some of the things that people like Josephus would have has to been mistaken when speaking as he did of the Sadducees the Pharisees and the Essenes.[33] it was the Jewish tradition that is the primary back bone and foundation of the clerical tradition in Eastern Christianity. There is need of clarity on how or to what degree the Mystery Religions and their tradition of the Hierophants influenced Eastern Christianity. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I quite fail to see a relationship between this comment by LoveMonkey and the question whether the section East–West Schism#Governance in the early Christian church should be kept or be removed. Esoglou (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So... the issue seems to be that the one line discussing the Letter of Clement is inadequate but my efforts to provide background via the "Governance" section are straying off the topic. (In my defense, I believe many of these points are made by Cleenewerck and other sources who discuss the development of papal primacy). I think we could remove the "Governance" section if we beef up the mention of the Letter of Clement to say that "some Catholic apologists" (we should identify who) point to the Letter of Clement as an indication of the role of Rome as a respected authority in adjudicating disputes. If we can find sources that draw a distinction between the respect given to the Roman church and its later assertion of papal primacy, that would also be good.

The issue, as I see it, is that (some) Orthodox writers want to point out that the East has *NEVER* accepted Rome's assertions of primacy except as one of respect and honor (primus inter pares) whereas (some) Catholic writers would cast the schism as starting much later (as early as 4th century but maybe as late as 7th-9th centuries). This approach would suggest that the Orthodox originally accepted Rome's primacy but later changed their minds as Rome attempted to assert more and more authority and power. I believe our task is to present these views in an NPOV way to the reader. It seems unlikely that either Clement nor Victor envisioned themselves as autocratic, monarchical rulers of the Church but later Catholic apologists did refer to their actions as indicative of early assertions of papal primacy. And, of course, Orthodox apologists look for Eastern rejections of such assertions.

What would be really great would be to find a secondary source that says all of the above. Cleenewerck comes closest but, being a popular writer with no academic citations to his work (per EdJohnston), he is not as reliable a source as we woudl like.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of secondary sources, I can't resist pointing out that Henry Chadwick (1920-2008) wrote a book on this topic which is already mentioned in our article. In their publisher blurb Oxford U.P. describes Chadwick as "probably the greatest and best-known of English scholars of early Christianity". Chadwick was a Church of England clergyman and a scholar. You can see an [http://www.amazon.com/East-West-Apostolic-Florence-Christian/dp/0199280169/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353025690&sr=1-1&keywords=henry+chadwick+%22east+and+west%22 online preview] of the book via Amazon's site: "East and West: The making of a rift in the Church: From apostolic times until the Council of Florence (Oxford History of the Christian Church)". An obituary of Chadwick appeared in the Daily Telegraph in 2008. As a student of the East-West schism, Chadwick encountered one irony. According to the Telegraph he failed in his efforts to reconcile the Anglicans with the Church of Rome. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I completely disagree with Chadwick. Cleenewerck has issues sure but at least he's Orthodox. Chadwick is not. No one suggested Christos Yannaras so is anybody there at wikipedia actually trying? Are the only academics going to be Western ones wow I hope Mormon or Muslims historians should not count either. Can somebody stop moving the goal posts or is this same B.S. of setting up a rule and then changing it going to continue? Think about it. By wikipedia standards set here Eustathius of Thessalonica can't be used to source the Norman Sack of Thessalonica (1185). REALLY how more biased is this going to get? There is no excuse for this. Is Ed Johnston suggesting Chadwick would understand this better then those involved because he has a degree from Oxford? P.S. There is already a history article on the schism. History of the East–West Schism LoveMonkey (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
(inserted in front of Esoglou's response below)It appears to me that almost any history at all is off topic, except that summarized under the "History" subsection. Having pointed out that a history article existed, we seem confined to describe what the state is today. What else is there left to mention? Student7 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Not "almost any history". Only the question of when, if churches were originally governed by colleges of presbyters, they began to be governed instead by a single monarchical bishop. Whenever it was (certainly already in the first century in some areas, as seen in the letters of Ignatius), it had nothing to do with the schism between East and West. Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I think Richard agrees to removal of the (off-topic?) section on governance in the early Christian church. The section on "Early assertions of the primacy of Rome" can certainly be modified in line with Richard's comment. (Everyone but me takes it that the two events were indubitably assertions of the primacy of (the church in) Rome, and I raise no objection.) LoveMonkey and Montalban agree with removal of the section, while expressing amazement at finding that in anything they agree with me and while preferring at the same time to talk about other matters. Unless Student7 opposes removal of the section, I will soon make bold to delete it. (I make no explicit comment on the opposition expressed to citing Chadwick for not being an Orthodox.) Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Very good the article is better for it. Richard should have used something like this source. [34]LoveMonkey (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I stood up to be counted, and the count was one!  :(
I agree that the title of "Pope" was retrospective to the various leaders of the early Roman church. I don't think we should avoid this term when avoiding it introduces confusion, as it might when the name isn't linked. I think of "Linus" as a character in the comic strip Peanuts. "Pope Linus" might not be strictly correct, but is unambiguous and doesn't require a lot of extra explanation.
I think that part of the Latin argument is that the Roman "leader", however he was thought of then, was called upon, or felt called upon, to comment on controversies and attempted to solve them in some manner.
The Primate of Rome, as the term goes, was still "first among equals" which the pentarchy never really agreed to, but nevertheless conveys a information constructed by an Easterner, not a Latin.
Can a "guru", or whatever position the Latin leader held, excommunicate someone? This sounds suspiciously like Muslim fatwas which any imam can write. The Christian church has never (as far as we know) given this extreme type of authority to just anyone. In asserting excommunication, the person doing so is also expressing authority. Governing authority. This would probably go "unrecognized" by the recipient if far enough away, and had their own, apparently large, group of adherents. This too has been true throughout Christian history.
Many heresies were fought by both East and West in the early centuries. Gnosticism, Marcionism, Docetism, Montanism, and various "minor" heresies. This can't be done, one person at a time. I could only be combatted by ecclesiastical government.
There were the Early Church Fathers. Do we assume that all organization ended there? Student7 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


History: introductory paragraph

Thank you, Richard, for attending to the subsection on governance in the early Christian church. I am sorry to have to add that the same problem affects the introductory paragraph to the whole section on History. It claims that the East-West schism revolves ecclesiologically around the authority of bishops within their dioceses, and talks unnecessarily about "three" major forms of ecclesiology, when the East and West of the schism have never had any dispute about "the Ignatian tri-partite structure of bishops, elders and deacons". It claims that for East and West "their definition of the authority of bishops evolved in different ways". I think no support can be found for this claim with regard to the authority of bishops within their dioceses. What developed differently in East and West was the view of the authority of the bishops of certain sees with regard to other sees. The already traditional authority of metropolitans (the bishop of the capital of a province) over the other bishops of the province was canonized by the 325 Council of Nicaea and was accepted in both East and West. In the East there was a development of the power of a few "patriarchs" even over metropolitans (the seeds of which are found in the already existing power of Alexandria acknowledged by Nicaea) and a further development whereby the bishop of the empire's capital was empowered to judge disputes even in areas subject to other patriarchs (canon 9 of the Council of Chalcedon). In addition, the schism that gave rise to Oriental Orthodoxy reduced to very little the power of the Chalcedonian patriarchs other than the patriarch of Constantinople and soon, with the diminishment of the Byzantine Empire, he found himself the sole ecclesiastical head of practically the whole of that empire's state church (over which the Byzantine emperor was acknowledged to have a certain power). In the West, on the other hand, the corresponding development was in the concept of the authority of the bishop of Rome over all other bishops, regardless of titles of primacy or patriarchate or any other other titles they might have, and regardless of whoever might be the political rulers of the various sees. This entailed non-recognition of any special authority claimed by the bishop of Constantinople and acceptance of nothing more than what the Council of Nicaea had sanctioned for Alexandria and Antioch.

Because of the difficulty of framing an accurate introductory paragraph that all can accept, perhaps it is best to omit it entirely. Esoglou (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not the time today to respond to your comment with the thought and diligence that it deserves. Please allow me to come back to this when I have more time. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's a source.. [35] here it uses the term papal centralism. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It is in fields other than the internal organization of dioceses that this summary too by a Romanian of his doctoral thesis sees East-West divergences and what he calls heterodox Western influences on Orthodox theology. Esoglou (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It is the Orthodox perspective. That is how one understands other people is they listen to them and honestly depict what they actually stand for and or represent in their perspectives. It seems that Esoglou thinks that only ecumenist Orthodox have an actual position every other Orthodox are to be ignored. Even though the ecumenists usually work for Roman Catholic institutions and are not only NOT the general Orthodox perspective, but usually attack the general Orthodox perspective so much so that the Orthodox have declared that ecumenism is essentially heresy.[36], [37], [38], [39], [40] Esoglou is not about giving people as clear understanding he is about discrediting anything that does not jive with his POV. If anyone else wants to take the time they can read on how sobornost works in the story of the Anti-Christ by Soloviev. Notice in the story the different Christianities worked together just fine without having to have "communion" of theology. And there is nothing stopping sobornost from being more wider scale even now, as the most excellent Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) has shown repeatedly that we as Christians can all work together beyond our theological differences and this can be done right now. None of any Christian community have to stop being who they are to help others, that's just obvious, that's sobornost. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that the question is whether ecumenism is mainstream Orthodox belief or a minority view, perhaps even a heresy. I note that all of the sources provided in LoveMonkey's comment above are websites and thus require further scrutiny before they can be admitted as reliable sources. In particular, I note that [41] attacks certain patriarchs as heretics and apostates for their support of "world orthodoxy". You may agree with the views on this website but it is hard for us to evaluate a claim that trueorthodoxy.org represents "the TRUE Orthodox faith" as opposed to the what it characterizes as the heretical apostasy of patriarchs. Even more difficult to do so without citations to published sources such as books and journal articles. How do we know that trueorthodoxy.org is not a crackpot website? Anyone can lay claim to a domain name titled "trueorthodoxy.org" or "truecatholicism.org". That doesn't assure us that such a website represents the views of the Orthodox Church. It seems far safer to rely on the pronouncements of patriarchs and metropolitans. Similar criticisms can be lodged against all the links that LoveMonkey provides in his comment above except for the last one. I also don't quite know what to make of the following quote from [42]:

Our father in the faith and convert to Orthodoxy, the late Fr. Seraphim Rose, though against Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement, in his later years, reacted strongly against Orthodox who over-reacted in their condemnation of fellow-Orthodox for attending ecumenical gatherings by calling them “heretics”. He clearly articulated his thoughts in his “Defense of Fr. Dimitry Dudko” (p. 130), where he wrote:

“Ecumenism is a heresy only if it actually involves the denial that Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. A few of the Orthodox leaders of the ecumenical movement have gone this far; but most Orthodox participants in the ecumenical movement have not said this much; and a few (such as the late Fr. Georges Florovsky) have only irritated the Protestants in the ecumenical movement by frequently stating at ecumenical gatherings that Orthodoxy is the Church of Christ. One must certainly criticize the participation of even these latter persons in the ecumenical movement, which at its best is misleading and vague about the nature of Christ’s Church; but one cannot call such people ‘heretics’, nor can one affirm that any but a few Orthodox representatives have actually taught ecumenism as heresy. The battle for true Orthodoxy in our times is not aided by such exaggerations.

Isn't Fr. Seraphim Rose saying that participation in the ecumenical movement is NOT heresy? Doesn't he say that one cannot affirm that "any but a few Orthodox representatives have actually taught ecumenism as heresy." He continues "The battle for true Orthodoxy in our times is not aided by such exaggerations." If I am reading Fr. Rose correctly, LoveMonkey's exaggerations are not aiding "the battle for true Orthodoxy in our times".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't what? What are you doing Richard? Why don't you let Esoglou speak for himself instead of you making all this nonsense distraction. I will again let Yannaras have the final say in this matter [43] as you Richard are so completely out of touch with this you just posted paragraphs of nothingness. But you can't see that. Seraphim Rose died 1982. Romanides in 2001. Yannaras is still alive. Rose did not represent the Orthodox church by appointment to anything. What are you doing? It looks to me like your rationalizing things engaging in original research and making a distorted mess of it all. STOP. LoveMonkey (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
To quote Student7, "Please! WP:NPA." Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
"I dream of an ecumenism which will begin with a confession of sins on the part of each Church. If we begin with this confession of our historic sins, perhaps we can manage to give ourselves to each other in the end." Christos Yannaras. LoveMonkey (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ecumenism as heresy

My question about the 1983 Anathema against Ecumenism is part of my effort to address LoveMonkey's comment "It seems that Esoglou thinks that only ecumenist Orthodox have an actual position every other Orthodox are to be ignored. Even though the ecumenists usually work for Roman Catholic institutions and are not only NOT the general Orthodox perspective, but usually attack the general Orthodox perspective so much so that the Orthodox have declared that ecumenism is essentially heresy." I think we have to continue to seek an NPOV stance while giving each viewpoint its due weight. If we consider that Orthodox Christians have two perspectives towards ecumenism: a guarded pursuit of union while preserving Orthodox doctrine, practices and values on the one side and a hostile rejection of ecumenism on the grounds of heretical teachings and untraditional practices on the other, the question is how much weight to give to each? I am not aware of any patriarch that has rejected ecumenism. However, we are aware of various Orthodox scholars, theologians and metropolitans who have criticized and even rejected ecumenism. That suggests to me that the "official" position of the church is more or less favorable to ecumenism (as far as anything can be said to be "official" given the decentralized and collegial nature of Orthodox ecclesiology. There seems, at the same time, to be a minority faction that is strongly against this "official" position. To me, the key questions are: how many Orthodox scholars, clergy, laity are opposed to ecumenism? Is this a position of a minority of scholars and clergy or is it something every Orthodox layperson will tell you?

In the U.S., at least, I think it highly unlikely that a Catholic priest or layperson would express animosity or hostility towards the Orthodox Church. The "party line" from the Catholic Church seems to be "Orthodox are separated brethren but they are brothers in Christ nonetheless". I imagine that might be different in parts of Russia and Eastern Europe but that is pure supposition on my part and I think we need to find reliable sources that discuss this topic. Now, I expect that Orthodox Christians might follow a similar pattern (more amicable towards Catholics in the U.S., more hostile in Europe). Once again, this is based on supposition and I would very much appreciate being educated by someone with more knowledge.

LoveMonkey has pointed us at a number of Orthodox websites that are critical of ecumenism (even to the point of calling it heresy). The problem with websites as resources is that their reliability must be suspect unless they meet the conditions set out in WP:WEB. Just because some Orthodox websites are critical of ecumenism, doesn't mean that all Orthodox websites are. Even if some of those websites are hosted by Orthodox churches, that doesn't necessarily mean that the opinion expressed is that of all Orthodox churches. It doesn't matter if we find 10, 100 or even 1000 such websites. Any attempt to infer the status of "ecumenism is heresy" as a majority or minority view based on the number of websites that we can find is inherently susceptible to the charge of original research. We *MUST* find secondary sources that meet the criteria of WP:RS in order to adequately represent the status of "ecumenism is heresy".

Based on the evidence we have now, it is impossible to write a good sentence about "ecumenism is heresy".

Here are some examples:

  • "A small minority of Orthodox theologians believe ecumenism is heresy."
  • "A substantial minority of Orthodox theologians believe ecumenism is heresy."

The above assertions are susceptible to the charge of WP:WEASEL.

  • "Despite the pronouncements of the patriarchs, a majority of Orthodox clergy and laity believe ecumenism is heresy."

The above statement is susceptible to {{factcheck}}. How would we support such an assertion?

The closest we can come to a supportable statement right now is:

  • "Some Orthodox theologians believe ecumenism is heresy."

and even then "some" is open to WP:WEASEL. We would have to state "who" these theologians are and, for most non-expert readers, it wouldn't help to hear the names Romanides and Yannaros.

I wonder how many Orthodox laity have heard the names Lossky, Romanides and Yannaros? For that matter, does every Orthodox priest know these names?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we need to go into this? Isn't it better to ignore such talk-page comments rather than trying to address them? I had better explain what I mean by this question. It is just that experience indicates that the hope of reaching an agreement with the editor who made the comment is too slim to even consider making the effort. Am I too pessimistic?
There are Eastern Orthodox with a more open mind, but citations of such theologians only led to them being rejected on "no true Scotsman" lines and being immediately deleted from articles, so that I was happy to accept an agreement that spared me such unproductive efforts. Esoglou (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is Ed Johnston commenting on this and not Esoglou's edit restriction violation? As for all this ink from Richard is again completely wrong. If anyone wants to understand the ecunemist criticism from the Orthodox side they need to go back to John Romanides. It is what he did it's who he was him along with people like George Florovsky. Other's like Sergei Bulgakov and David Bentley Hart are just ignored by the Orthodox. John Zizioulas has some support but not much he's respected though. Richard again doesn't understand the whole "been there done that got the t-shirt" and thinks now he's going to distract from the ugly history of the schism by him and Esoglou concocting a misguided and ill-informed perspective on what happened in the last hundred years or so between the Orthodox and other Christian groups, under the "good intentions" called ecunenism. I am now going to stop contributing and suggest to other Orthodox to do the same as it is again obvious that not only are Richard and Esoglou going to editwar FOREVER but more clearly Ed Johnston has picked a side in this and anytime they break the rules he will look the other way. But come right back and make time to egg along Richard and Esoglou distractions. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... just for the record, LoveMonkey wrote:

...the Orthodox have declared that ecumenism is essentially heresy.[44],[45],[46],[47],[48]

I visited each one of those links and noted that they are all webpages for which I do not have sufficient knowledge to evaluate their reliability. This doesn't mean that they are not reliable; just means that I am insufficiently knowledgeable to evaluate their reliability. I did note a reference to the 1983 Anathema against Ecumenism which seemed to be highly relevant to the topic of this article PROVIDED it represented an anathema declared by a significant body of Orthodox Christians. If it was declared by ROCOR as EdJohnston suggests, it seems to me that it must be given some weight under NPOV. What I am unclear on is whether the rest of Orthodoxy agrees with this declaration or not. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Which Ecumenism Richard? Which Ecumenism was ROCOR talking about? As ROCOR engaged in ecumenism when they reconciled with Patriarch Alexi. Why are you like this? Why do you do this? You can not hear and you do not listen. Why does it take such a monumental effort to get through to you? Let me post this for others since it is lost on you. In Seraphim Roses book on the Ecumenism movement of his time "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future" [http://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Religion-Future-Seraphim-Rose/dp/188790400X] Seraphim Rose was for all Christianities to resist the onslaught of the upcoming one world religion that the Ecumenical meetings of the time were working on, that means a state religion that incorporates by way of syncretism all world religions into a new religion (based on Alexander the Great Mystery Religions template or model) into a globalist one world government religion. So is that the Ecumenism your going after? Is it not better and more NPOV to say that this ecumenism in general is a nebulous mess that can lead to heresy? You Richard seem so much inclined to over simplify. And here is the bigger picture in all of this. If the East and West do reconcile the way that you and Esoglou are promoting then you will be fulfilling the prophecy of the East that Dostoevsky talked about in the Brothers Karamazov in particular The Grand Inquisitor. The prophecy that the Roman Catholic church becomes the one world globalist religion. I do not subscribe to this point of view again because I believe in the sobornost that V. Soloviev depicts in the story of the Anti-Christ. But I am sure all of this is lost on you. For the record understand that the Dostoevsky thingy here is what is behind and or the meaning people have at heart when as an Eastern they say or throw around terms like "Papist". If it is to be this way I think that the statements of sobornost from Khomyakov are appropriate to include in whatever content is added. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The 1983 Anathema against Ecumenism

The 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism

TO THOSE who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, ANATHEMA.

Does anyone know who pronounced this anathema and whether it is Orthodox doctrine held by the majority of Orthodox Christians?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I found some links. The anathema against ecumenism is said to have been issued in 1983 by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, but our article on ROCOR doesn't mention this. There is something about it on ROCOR's web site, but they call it an 'anathema on the branch theory'. The anathema is mentioned on Wikipedia in our article on the Holy Orthodox Church in North America. If we assume that Orthodoxwiki is mainly presenting a Greek Orthodox point of view, that part of the church seem to be more favorable to ecumenism, judging from Orthodoxwiki's article on Ecumenism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
"The pan-heresy of ecumenism" is a phrase repeatedly used by Greek Old Calendarists (see for instance this document) and similar groups such as the Serbians mentioned in this news item and even by certain monks of the Holy Mountain (Athos) and other Greeks (and, I suppose, other nationalities) who have not formally separated from mainstream Eastern Orthodoxy. The October 1983 anathema issued by the council of bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia did not use the term "pan-heresy", but it did say "heresy of Ecumenism". What it understood by ecumenism is, as quoted by Richard, the teaching "that Christ's Church is divided into so-called branches which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all branches or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish between the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation". The text is given, for instance, here. That understanding of "ecumenism" is of course not everyone's.
I mentioned Greek Orthodox in particular because it is clear that a condemnatory attitude towards ecumenism is expressed more or less openly by several members of the hierarchy (bishops, all of whom, except auxiliaries of Athens, have the rank of "metropolitan") of the (official) Church of Greece. Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has had more than once to defend himself against criticism by them and by Athonites. For a recent example see this.
I would like to express my appreciation of EdJohnston's continued interest in this discussion. I feared he had abandoned it. Esoglou (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I am also pleasantly surprised by EdJohnston's following and contributing to this discussion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Totally a distraction totally pushing misinformation. I hope that people reading this will see that there are many kinds of Ecumenism in Orthodoxy. Like the form embraced to reconcile the fractured jurisdictionism between the ethnic Orthodox churches in North America. There is ecumenism between Orthodoxy and the world religions. Between Orthodoxy and Judaism [49]. Orthodoxy and Protestantism (the WCC). Not just Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic church. There are clear statements made by authority figures within the church [50] for people to seek for themselves. I am done trying inform people here who don't know, wont listen. This is a nightmare in trying to reason with people whom are ignorant, misinformed and it takes far too much effort to educate them. I just don't have the time and with wikipedia admins not doing their roles and picking sides it is just better to let people know how wikipedia does not work and simply is not creditable. What is the point. How is this not a distraction? Why would anyone put themselves through any of this? With people being dense and whom WP:YOU CAN'T HEAR ME and there's admins looking the other way. Yannaras is right, people will only open their minds when people walk away from the whole thing and there is no worldly power in their camp anymore. People will be free to lok at all of this with fresh indoctrinated eyes. I have no worries then where the truth will lead them.
Ecumenism for the Eastern Orthodox did not begin with the Roman Catholic Second Vatican Council. It is the Eastern Orthodox churches' work to embrace estranged communions as (possibly former) beneficiaries of a common gift, and simultaneously to guard against a promiscuous and false union with them. The history of the relationship between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Oriental Orthodox churches is a case in point. Likewise, the Eastern Orthodox have been leaders in the Interfaith movement, and some Orthodox patriarchs enlisted their communions as charter members of the World Council of Churches. Nevertheless, the Orthodox have not been willing to participate in any redefinition of the Christian faith toward a reduced, minimal, anti-dogmatic and anti-traditional Christianity. Christianity for the Eastern Orthodox is the Church; and the Church is Orthodoxy—nothing less and nothing else. Therefore, while Orthodox ecumenism is "open to dialogue with the devil himself", the goal is to reconcile all non-Orthodox back into Orthodoxy. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you source that to something other than a website? Cause it would be great to put into the article if you had a reliable source to use as a citation.
Actually, some websites are OK as sources. If a website is the best source you have, let's look at it and see if it would qualify under WP:RS. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on sources

Considering the pedantic bickering against using Eastern Orthodox sources. I would purpose this source as a first step.[51] It contains allot of information about the schism not just information about the filioque. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation abuse as edit warring

Not one talkpage comment from Esoglou before engaging in citation abuse yet again. WP:TEDIOUS I will be very clear. At the disruptive behavior that Esoglou has engaged in here yet again. Why is Esoglou still allowed to engage in citation abuse? Why are no administrators calling Esoglou to task? How is it that people here are supposed to contribute with this hypocrisy? Who can read Esoglou's mind and guess how he will read wiki policy? Esoglou posted original research in the theoria article. [54] Where the hell does any source say "The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on theoria (contemplation) and prayer is expressed without polemical disparagement of other Christian traditions, but instead with appreciation of spiritual writings of both East and West."? I call him on it [55] and he opens up and ANI on me for adding an original research tag to the article [56]. Then all of the sudden Esoglou reverts out the Original research from the article [57].

I post sourcing here in this article in good faith to two sentences that are summaries of large topics in the subject and he posts that because that the sentences are not verbatim in the sources (in essence telling people that they have to engage in plagiarism to appease him) that the sources failed verification [58], [59].
This type of behavior is against policy it is frustrating, disruptive and intellectually lazy. Esoglou clearly has not read the sources and is just posting this attack on my good faith contributions as nothing other than to discredit themons and frustrate me and make me leave, and stop contributing as he has done to several editors here at Wikipedia time and time again (User:Taiwan boi, User:Montalban). Where are the administrators to stop this disruptive behavior?

Why should people waste their time with this B.S.? Why is he allowed to attack people contributions like this how does his actions foster a spirit of voluntary contribution? As my additions to the sources after his edit warring clearly show he did read the source nor did he then post his attacks on my contributions in good faith. As if he had read the sources he could have just added in what he was looking for rather then attack the sourcing as failed verification. If he doesn't have time to then he certainty has not business assuming other do. NOT ONE MENTION HERE ON THE TALK PAGE OF ANY OBJECTION AND OR REQUEST OF CLARIFICATION. NOT ONE. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A complaint that an editor self-reverted a questioned edit rather than defend it tooth and nail! Would that more editors had such a peaceful attitude! And a complaint about supposed evil intentions merely attributed by the complainer, who thus avoids either justifying or removing questioned edits! Esoglou (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
And Esoglou turns right back around and added the failed verification tag back in the article just now. [60] As for your comments about the second revert you had to do on the theoria article. Tell me why what you removed you put in the article in the first place. Thats two reverts and your citation tag abusing TODAY alone. Why can you not leave Orthodox sources alone? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Origins and causes section, why it is wrong and needs to be rewritten

Well if I came to this article and wanted to know as clearly and quickly as possible what caused this split between the Eastern Orthodox churches of the middle East and the Roman Catholic church of the West. What is currently there in that section verges on a joke. There needs to be a very direct statement and not more obfuscations like there is now. If we want jokes I can hopefully keep it correct and still leave it a joke (albeit a bad one). So jokingly I guess we could try a different approach. Since it appears that crazy is the general motif of how this article's creation is being handled. It could be posted when people ask this question of the Orthodox the quick and dirty answer they get is, think of the Original Church of Jesus as a hand. The Church in Jerusalem was the thumb but it got smashed so the people started using Rome as the thumb and then the Rome got cut off because it thought as a thumb it could act like it was the whole hand. So the people moved the thumb to Constantinople and got their community or hand working again. After Rome got chopped off for getting an outrageous sense of entitlement it got moved to the other hand and became that hands middle finger. And this middle finger began to harass and abuse it's old hand, which had rejected it for its outrageous hubris. Now if people here want to actually put something serious in the article section we can do that too. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh BTW the same above analogy could be used with any schismatic or heresy like say Islam. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert edit warring

Esoglou reverted and therefore added back into the article his failed citation tag. Esoglou is refusing to read the source and what the source says as it is provided in the article. [61] I provided in the source an actual quote from the source. Esoglou claims that Esoglou interprets the Ravenna document differently and that his interpretation disagrees with Laurent Cleenewerck. But why is the source invalid? What scholars have complained from the Orthodox side that Laurent Cleenewerck is to be disregarded? Also who is Esoglou to trump Cleenewerck? Esoglou is now engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Along with edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If you persist, I suppose the only solution will be to raise on the noticeboard about reliable sources the question whether in Wikipedia terms the statement, "The ecclesiological dimension of the East-West schism revolves around the authority of bishops within their dioceses", really is supported by the cited page 22 (which lists "sources and abbreviations"!), or by the quotation on page 65, not 22, which says the catholic Church is fundamentally the local Eucharistic assembly, gathered around its bishop, without declaring this to be the centre around which the schism's ecclesiological dimension revolves, or even by what LoveMonkey in a shouting edit summary calls a "summary", which I suppose means an original-research interpretation or synthesis. Esoglou (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please please report yourself Esoglou

Here's Esoglou committing 3rr in 24hrs

Esoglou needs to explain what it is he is looking for as the quote I provided.

"It is my contention in this book, not as a pioneer but as a follower of the great proponents of Eucharistic theology, that the catholic Church is fundamentally the local Eucharistic assembly, gathered around its bishop. Thus, the "Church of God which is at Ephesus or Corinth' is the "whole Church" and the "catholic Church." Appears to at least address the role of the bishop more so the entire section of the book does. LoveMonkey (talk) 18
32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou flat out refuses to get it. FLAT OUT ignores and doesn't hear..LoveMonkey (talk)WP:TEDIOUS

Off topic

Since the section now headed "Ecclesiology" has had much added to it, I have removed the "off topic" tag as no longer appropriate for the section as a whole. However, the mention of the threefold order of episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate still is off topic, being quite unrelated to the schism, as is also the claim that the authority of the bishop within his diocese is something that the "ecclesiological dimension" of the schism revolves around. Esoglou (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not had time (or energy) to address the issue that you raised about the discussion of the tri-partite Ignatian structure partly because the constant yammering by some editors on this Talk Page has sapped me of motivation and partly because I didn't really know how to fix the overall problem that there was no good intro to the overall topic. I like the direction that you are taking the "Ecclesiology" section. Feel free to eliminate the discussion of the tri-partite Ignatian structure. After reading what you have inserted lately, I am beginning to see that what I was really fumbling around with was a way to explain how differences in ecclesiology developed early on and could be seen by some to have been the seeds of the schism several hundred years later. My point is that some point to the Filioque controversy which didn't really come to the fore until the Pope authorized its use in the liturgy (quite late in the history of the first millenium), others point to the Photian schism, still others point to various Church Councils. But some go all the way back to pre-Nicene Christianity and view the development of different ecclesiologies and Roman/papal primacy as having been the seeds of the schism. I can't say whether this is a "mainstream" view but most of the sources that I've looked at in Google Books don't reach back that far. I'm guessing that books aimed at a popular audience don't want to explain a thousand years of church history and simply point at the more proximate causes rather than trying to identify "root" causes, the argument for which is a bit dicey anyways. I can support various "origin" attributions with a source and I can even cite sources that say "There are many complex factors that gave rise to the schism". What I haven't found is a source that steps back and says, "Different people see different events as having been the origin of the schism" and then names those people (or groups of people) and what they saw as the origin. I think it would be great if we could find a reliable source to support that statement. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The difficulty you face does require a certain headstrongness, a quality that has good as well as bad aspects. I have not come across any source that meets your wish to have a source that lists people who take this or that view on the origin of the schism. Perhaps it is enough to accept what a source that can scarcely be objected to, published as it is by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, says about the view of "most scholars these days" (leaving aside theories of some odd people who just blame the schism, for instance, on the "Franks"). I quoted from it above. Thanks for your consideration about what is said of the three orders of clergy, whose removal I hope (rather than trust) will not stir another to replace it because of being done by me. Esoglou (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Now that I have removed the reference, together with the immediate context, it strikes me how doubtful it is that the question of "Eucharistic ecclesiology" has anything whatever to do with the origin of the schism. It has simply been used, for less than two hundred years, as an attempt to explain or justify the continuation of the schism. Proponents of "Eucharistic ecclesiology" as something opposed to "universal ecclesiology" admit that "universal ecclesiology" became dominant with the Christianization of the Roman Empire. "Eucharistic ecclesiology" is in fact accepted by both sides. The real distinction is between two divergent understandings of "universal ecclesiology". Esoglou (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article should be about the current state of the East-West schism. Catholics perceive it doesn't exist with a few minor points. Orthodox believe it does exist. Latins are not excommunicated; rather they believe heresy, making participation in sacraments impossible. List those points.

List participants: Pope, Patriarchs of various Orthodox churches.

There is about 24 display "pages" in the main article History of the East-West Schism. There are "38" display pages in the "summary" which is here. Most needs to be moved out. I'd like to see the history section "summary" cut by 3/4.

Then you can move your arguments about history to the History article. Student7 (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the History section is too long although it's really hard to see where to cut. Perhaps you could make some suggestions. It is also important to recognize that LoveMonkey thinks that more needs to be added to the History section to make it NPOV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Nope. I agree with Student 7. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Really? Then help me reconcile that position with the following statement: "there appears to be a lack of history in the wars between the Venetians, Sicilians and Normans and the Eastern Roman Empire. None of this is even mentioned in the article even though it plays a very critical role in the violence behind the subject.". I read the sentence to be a call to include information about the "wars between the Venetians, Sicilians and Normans and the Eastern Roman Empire." in the History section. Help me understand what I misunderstood. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
WOW talk about being selective. Since when is the lede in an article "the article" (HINT you took my comment out context as usual)? I mean Richard appears to talk out of all the holes in his head. As how is what he just posted reconciled with this comment of his [65]? Why again did you Richard copy and paste together that "History of" article again? Why are you wasting people's time to contribute to wikipedia to try again to explain to you that people can do things like use hyperlinks in articles to other articles for more clarification on any give topic contained within the article. etc etc. The lede can be rewritten to be shorter and more direct but whatever. Maybe marginalizing people's good faith contributions, to Richard and his ilk is nothing after all but a rant. It seems that wiki rules just don't apply to his group. They can insult sky high and it's all just misunderstood. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
That the schism exists is not denied by anyone, certainly not by the Catholic Church.
The article History of the East-West Schism has not been on my watchlist. Though I must have noticed its creation by Richard "to enable East-West Schism to be shortened", I became completely unaware of its existence until now. I have strong doubts about its usefulness. I think it is impossible to have an article on the East-West Schism without discussion of its origin and causes and without accounts of the efforts to undo it made over the centuries and recently. My first impression therefore is that having a separate article on those matters is an unnecessary duplication. What could be done and in my opinion ought to be done is to remove from here repetitions within the article and information not clearly linked with the schism.
I find it hard to grasp the concept, "the current state of the East-West schism". I don't understand what popes and patriarchs of various Orthodox churches (which churches?) are to be considered participants. Participants in "the current state"? That list, requiring constant updating, would not really add anything to the simple statement that there is a schism dividing all the hierarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church from all the hierarchs of the Roman Catholic Church. Participants in the original and still unhealed split? It is quite unclear which was the "original" split. The 1054 excommunications were arguably not a schism: they have been annulled by both sides, but the schism persists. The setting up of Latin hierarchs, especially patriarchs, in the crusader states established by westerners in the Middle East is seen by many Catholic historians, perhaps rightly, as the real beginning of actual schism. I don't think listing the names of the individual hierarchs involved in that would be of much help or interest. Much can quite certainly be said in support of the statement that "it may be misleading to identify 'the consummation of the schism' with any single event or date. It would be more accurate to speak of a progressive alienation of the churches, which, although this would be experienced and expressed in various ways, eventually led each side to regard the other as estranged from right belief and practice, as being outside the mystery of the fullness of the Church". In this view it is nonsense to even think of separating consideration of the East-West Schism from consideration of the history of the "progressive alienation". This was the view expressed decades ago by an official of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, who said that mutual hostility preceded and gave rise to a search for theological justifications of the hostility, and that in the same way healing of the hostility must precede agreement on the theological questions. Esoglou (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Richard was and is correct to create the "history of" article and before he became your tagteam partner I supported him and wrote quote a few of the articles with him when he created History articles. This is the correct course of action. Richard knows he is pulling stuff and he knows that he is not justified when he does. He also knows that if he is right I will support him. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
LoveMonkey wrote "Richard knows he is pulling stuff and he knows that he is not justified when he does.". Just for the record, I don't know anything of the sort and I would thank LoveMonkey to restrict his comments to what he knows and not what he thinks I know. He may think I am "pulling stuff" but, frankly, I don't even know what he means by "pulling stuff" and I don't admit to doing anything that I think is "not justified" except perhaps the short digression into the history of ecclesiology in the early Christian church.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Richard wrote "stuff it." [66] Is this not the same thing that Esoglou gets everyone to do? How is this (yet another inappropriate comment from Richard) in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia? Yet no one notices Richard doing this no one will do anything about his NPA his hypocritical comments and behavior. Just incase Richard can't hear me (by now a given), making comments like he just did in the edit comment field is "pulling stuff". But Richard just doesn't have the intellectual capacity to see that so.. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
History was correctly forked IMO. I can merge with "relative" ease to the History article. The problem is avoiding similar material but stated in a different manner. Afterwards, chopping out history in the "summary" here, is possible but not at all "easy." Painful, in fact. I can probably chop it down to a certain extent but will need help after that point.
The real difficulty it seems to me, is focusing on the current state of affairs. Student7 (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Well Student 7 I will try to help if I can. Some editors are here playing games and I have just lost my humor about it all. There is however no such abyss between me and you so. Hopefully I can help. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I would hope that all of this concern and attention that Student 7 is showing might manifest in getting some of the history out there in wiki articles. History that Richard and Esoglou have worked so hard to repress. Here's an example. I posted in the filioque article how the Pope had tried to force as a matter of law that the Eastern Orthodox (due to reconciling the schism) recite the Creed in Greek with the filioque added to it (to actually change the Nicene Creed without a council for the whole church not just the Roman Catholic) in order to show "universal" conformity. The West forcing the East again not by council but by Pope. Forcing the East to accept changes that it can not justify to "it's own Creed and it's own theology".

I added that very important historical information and Richard removed it claiming it was in the wrong section [67]. Richard has never restored that data back into the article. He could have moved it but then that would be out of character. How important is it for people to understand the pattern of repression, murder, stealing and double-dealing, double crossing that have been the hallmarks of the Schism and in essence, sabotages it. How is pointing to Richard's behavior like this a personal attack? That's just attempting cover up, that's a distraction.

Richard and Esoglou are just engaging in the same type of behavior that is at the very heart of people's open contempt for Christianity in general. They are doing all of Christianity a dis-service but their conduct is consistent with the "stuff" that Western Christianity has pulled with it's bogus scholasticism for centuries. Of course the import into Russia of the movement to corrupt the scholastic system by corrupting the scholastics (modern term for these people are intelligentsia) is not lost on the Orthodox (James H. Billington articulated that all quote well). Western Christianity not listening means it will not get heard (but hey whose ever read the writing on the wall, of course until its too late). When there are POV editors pulling this kind thing? Why should people bother with wikipedia? It's just one example of what Richard, Esoglou have pulled time and time again when I and others have tried to contribute. I add information they don't like, even though it is sourced. They attack it. They attack the source. They make up some bogus justification for their behavior and corrupt it or remove it.

I complain to the management at Wikipedia. And nobody is home. It's too complicated too long didn't read, don't care even though by title I am supposed to, on and on, to bureaucratic impotency. Unless I make a mistake, WOW then Wikipedia can make things happen FAST. Other people come along and are too whatever to familiarize themselves with this whole ugly stuff and then pick sides, make assumptions and then complicate, ignore, don't listen, and the whole thing just wears me and other Eastern Orthodox editors out. Wikipedia does not work. No one is home and no one listens. And its all just too bad, so sad, aint it. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
On the merger of data from here, I am trying for credibility primarily. You guys may have to trust me on some edits and therefore I will not be adding information to the History article that is not here. I will try to "blend" duplicate or near-duplicate material, which may lead to problems, but I will not do it pov.
Trying to compress the history here will definitely result in some problems, like skipping stuff I don't think seems important, or summarizing too much in short sentences. I will do the best I can. I will try for npov, but that may slightly harder to achieve. Student7 (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The merge to History of the East-West Schism has been completed. It isn't necessarily pretty, but it is fairly thorough. Please "watch" that article, if you are interested in history. This article will be focused more on the current state of affairs. I will try to compress the "summary" of this article's history subsection to 1/3 of its current size. I will place an "In use" template when I start this, which won't be today. Thanks for your patience. Student7 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I intend to start the rather drastic compression of the History subsection soon. There have only been 8 editors these past few weeks. "They" must be counting bots and spellcheckers, I only count about 4 of us or so. I would hope, at this point, that true history buffs would be watching the History of the East-West Schism. I will no longer be moving gobs of stuff there!
It would really be a good idea to forebear on adding material to the History subsection for the near future. Add it to the History article first and maybe make a note of it if you think it needs to be summarized here as well. I may move some material out of history. That should be "fair game" for changing.
I will try to compress out nearly all quotes by summarizing (which has mostly been done anyway). That is, I will move the quote into the reference.
Please wait until I am done before trying to replace stuff you feel was rm improperly. Two of us in there at once may result in inadvertent overwriting. Thanks for your patience. Student7 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I will respond to the citation request for the statement that Byzantium became Constantinople later than 325; but, while Student7 is doing his general revision of this article, I refrain from making substantial corrections. On reflection, he will himself realize that this edit very seriously confuses matters by, among other things, dating the East-West Schism between "the Orthodox" and "Rome" that the article is about to the ninth century (or even earlier?) and having "Rome" hold a council (of what bishops?) in Constantinople! Esoglou (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for documenting your concerns, for now. That is probably a good way. The paragraph does seem a "bit" terse. I don't agree that it states that Rome held a council in Constantinople. That doesn't mean that the sentence can't be improved by adding places. But, yeah, if you can hold off, that would be helpful. And remember, this is still all in clinical detail in the History article. I've placed a "follow up" section below to ensure that overly compressed material gets revisited. Student7 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
All three councils in question were held in Constantinople, as indicated even by the titles of the articles about them. The background was not, as you have presented it, Rome trying to replace a seated patriarch; instead it was Rome refusing to recognize an emperor's deposition of a seated patriarch, whose replacement then used the Filioque question as a weapon to attack Rome. Later, a new emperor exiled the replacement patriarch and restored the one whom the previous emperor had deposed. On the death of this patriarch, the replacement patriarch became patriarch again and this time was recognized by Rome as a regular patriarch. The account that you shortened was so slanted that it is no wonder it misled you. And, as I said, at the time of those councils there was no "Eastern Orthodox Church"/"Roman Catholic Church" distinction, no distinction between "the Orthodox" and "Rome". Esoglou (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I see I must repeat: the three councils were held in Constantinople:
  1. Council of Constantinople (867) - note the word "Constantinople"
  2. Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) - note the word "Constantinople": "Roman Catholic" means that the RCC reckons this council, held in Constantinople, as an ecumenical council called the Fourth Council of Constantinople; it does not mean that the council was held in Rome
  3. Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) - note the word "Constantinople". Esoglou (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow up on history compression

The following changes may need revisiting after the compression is finished:

  1. omits covening cities, and other concerns - Esoglou

OK now what about getting rid of the Other points of conflict section?

I think that stuff can be merged and or is already in the article body. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Constantinople's growing power

It takes more than one lone editor's mere preference to get well-sourced and relevant material deleted. Such deletions are bold moves that may be reverted until discussed. If desired, I would not object to restoring the text to the situation before the extensive edits of today. Perhaps it is inappropriate to make any extensive edits while Student7 is working on the article. Esoglou (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Worse than that. I need to copy over the entire, very large History of the East-West Schism to here. So that is even more than you asked for. This has everything including a superior (though hardly perfect) organization, the footnotes have been upgraded, as well. (BTW, you overwrote me in the middle of a change. No big deal since I realized it was going to have to be changed). Student7 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
May I ask: does "you" mean "you two", or "you, Esoglou", or "you, LoveMonkey"? And please notice the need to undo or revise the mistake that I wrote about much earlier today. Esoglou (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I was sort of hoping it would be me! Alone.
Everyone has been keeping up the History of the East-West Schism with the same changes you have been making here? There first? Here second? Otherwise I would be overwriting changes with unchanged material from the main History article. I'm going to wait.
I apologize for this reset. It is harder to compress than to merge. And slower. I'm sort of the only one anyone can trust to do this without bias. I had hoped to revert to the original version as mentioned by LoveMonkey, but that would indeed revert changes that would be hard to recover.
Waiting for me to finish would mean tracking "issues" in a list and not dealing with them in real time or it screws up what I'm trying to do. Doing it "in concert" is impossible, as I found on my last complicated (messy) edit when LoveMonkey started editing and stopped my edit. Which probably turned out just as well, considering. Except right now, there is some info that may be missing (in a .doc on my computer). Or maybe never got changed and is just fine.
I could do it in a sandbox and stuff it in here, but I would have to lock the article and I'm pretty sure I can't get an admin to do that for me!  :) And it lacks credibility, though not everyone may need credibility. Sandboxing would diminish the watchlist. But I think that is out.
To try to answer LoveMonkey's concern. Correct, material would be removed that you disagreed with. Esoglou already pointed out an issue to me on the discussion page, for example. These can be addressed later. I'm not doing it out of bias. Most material will not survive. Most. In truth, I try to save footnotes even when they don't seem that applicable. That is the way compression works. Otherwise no point in forking. This history is way too long for what is now, a "satellite"/summary of history. Student7 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I am quite happy to pause, if others too agree, and let Student7 make his edits before we judge them. Esoglou (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Student7 I took your comments earlier to mean that we could all collectively get to it. Since you were removing the history part. I was going to try and slim down the first half of the article by a third. I can refrain from editing until your done. So you are actually moving more than just the history of the subject and are incorporating data from all over the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've started. The newer one from History of the East-West Schism was just overlayed over history. In theory, it should have contained everything, assuming you've been keeping it up to date with this one. I will now try to shorten it. Considerably. Student7 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Questioned paragraph about Augustine

Regarding the paragraph about the East objecting to Augustine here

Student7, at the risk of telling you things you already know, I will attempt to explain what I understand about the importance of the East venerating Augustine as a saint while rejecting his theology. I'm not fully competent to construct the philosophical and theological foundations of this argument but, in brief, Catholic theology is based very much on Augustine and Aquinas and (at least some) major Orthodox theologians reject both of these as having gone very far wrong. A fuller explanation can be found in the Theological issues section of this article and in the article on Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences.

One of my gripes about some of the edits made by Orthodox Wikipedians to this article has been the introduction of theological issues into the "History" section. This is, of course, a difficult thing to get right. Clearly, there is a historical development of theology on both sides and the "History" section has to spend some time describing the development of the theological issues as well as the role that those issues played in the development and continuance of the schism. The difficulty lies in figuring out what is history and what is theological exposition and sticking to history while leaving the exposition to the "Theological issues" section.

It looks like you're doing a great job so far. Keep it up and please don't be offended when we come back with suggestions for improvement when you're done. I certainly would not have been able or willing to take on this gargantuan task and your efforts are very much appreciated.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I am the best person to do this because I usually try to be unbiased. I don't always succeed! I really do see and sympathize with both sides.
I was definitely not aware that the Orthodox reject much (probably not all) Augustine and Thomas.
On the other hand, I am the worst person of four editors because I am ignorant about any number of subtleties and will have to be informed and maybe, if it can be left, edited by someone else. The plus side of ignorance is I am taking nothing for granted, and am linking and trying to understand. A lot of material that I have painstakingly linked and tweaked may go out the window, once I truly grasp what is going on. Student7 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Student7... I always try to be unbiased. Unfortunately, it is not always obvious when one has biases and I have to admit that I have learned a lot about my Western biases from my Orthodox colleagues even if their tone has been insulting, hostile and nasty more often than not. I have generally tried to ignore the lack of civility and collegiality although I do bristle at it from time to time. I have been meaning to write more about my epiphany on this topic but have not yet taken the time to do so. I will make an initial attempt to do so now.
In brief, the Catholic Church takes the position that the difference is primarily one of ecclesiology and that the theological differences are minor and easily resolved. Liberal Orthodox theologians will tend to agree with this. However, some conservative Orthodox theologians (e.g. Lossky and Romanides) take the position that the theological differences are so great that the West has strayed into heresy. It is easy to find sources that put forth the Catholic view and Lossky and Romanides are good sources for the conservative view. The conservative Orthodox go so far as to argue that the liberal Orthodox who pursue ecumenism with the Catholics are committing the "heresy of ecumenism" with a concept that is dubbed "global Orthodoxy". Once again, it is easy to find sources to support any one POV but it is harder to find a single source that describes all three POVs (i.e. Catholic, liberal Orthodox and conservative Orthodox). I confess that, two years ago, I was only aware of the Catholic POV on this question and the last two years have really opened my eyes to understand that not all of the Orthodox are as accepting of the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church has (only recently in the last 50 years) become accepting of the Orthodox Church.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Student 7 on Augustine and Augustinian theodicy in relation to the schism. I have to step away from the ugliness of all of this from time to time so not to let my disgust of it poison my contributions. I feel that what has been said about the Orthodox position is again wrong and people making those comments by now should simply know better but they will not. Let me try some minor correcting. Here is what is the best approach to this. Sobornost. The Ecumenism movement within Orthodoxy has failed (with outside communions per se, with internal ones it has succeeded). Now that being said the why is not what is being presented. Instead people are projecting. What is ecumenism? It is the desire to reconcile with opposing groups or sects. To re-establish communion if you will. Here for example is a book about ecumenism between the Orthodox and the gnostic Bogomils. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Bogomilism-Penetration-into-Constantinople/dp/1933275596] In the end the leader (Basil the Physician) refused to accept that his rebellion against Byzantium was over and surrender, as his group whom was warring and killing people would not stop due to him directing them too. This caused him to be executed. Now the Western take on Basil here in the Wiki article is exactly the same issue, we have with disinformation. What Richard posted is EXACTLY the same thing it is disinformation. Here's how people in power have no problem lying to maintain their power.
Might makes right (in Realpolitik, realism). This is the greatest flaw in being human. Take Basil the Bogomil here. He is a leader in a rebellion that got people killed. Basil was no Jesus. How so? Why? Because Basil's opinion was more important than giving people theoria. He gave them mystery religion gnosis (false gnosis so-called) instead, which is imitation REAL. Its mind games. Just like the mystery religions were and are. Reality, existence, life is not a system or nomenclature, and to divorce the mystery religions systems of their pagan-ness and then recast those systems with Jewish and or Christian and Muslims theological components is gnosticism (or gnostic which is what Western Christians try to claim Orthodoxy is). God is real, God is reality and beyond. As such a thing as gnosticism does not take away from the necessitarianism , determinism underneath the systematization of existence. Which always ends in the same logical conclusions, either God does not exist or God (Zeus or Yahweh) or material existence (life) are an evil and a fixed game (determinism). Evil in paganism (chaos or uncertainty) is not the evil of Judea-Christianity (which is to seek that all things be make into nothingness, to seek the destruction of life and all things and or that all existence be reduced to oblivion). In Christianity Evil is here because man divorced God and said I want to do it on my own (i.e. I can be God). This brought evil into the world and the unknowability of God (apophaticism) now appears to be the absence of God. That starts with the Mystery Religions and ends in Western Christianity (apophaticism as the the absence of God (Barlaam) rather than the unknowability of God (Palamas).[http://www.amazon.com/Absence-Unknowability-God-Heidegger-Areopagite/dp/0567045323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356976459&sr=8-1&keywords=yannaras+unknowability] Jesus Christ's life (as represented in liturgy) is the destruction of the Mystery Religions (fatalism in a religious context and necessitarianism in a philosophical context). It is the refutation of each of the fates (Moirai). As Christ was not born of a human Father (rejection of Clotho) he refused fortune good or bad (i.e. Lachesis ) and instead embraced asceticism and then overcame death (i.e. Atropos).
Now the book doesn't really say that kind of stuff so clearly it mostly just covers the history of the entire affair. So here's a point that transcends attempts at reconciliation between Christians. There are leaders and when those leaders and their power become more important than people being able to experience God then you have what's called heresy. Christ gave up HIS LIFE to reconcile God with people, not just giving up his position or his power but his entire existence (as a man). That's how one bears their cross. Did Christ die to not have to capitulate to the Romans or the Sanhedrin? No, he died to show us that our desires for worldly power are meaningless. The schism is first and foremost about worldly power and Roman Catholicism in specific is the biggest and most powerful group of Christians in the world. It's so successful at getting people to be Roman Catholic that it thinks that it can do that to Orthodoxy. Sobornost says we respect each other and we leave each other alone (in trying to force each other to convert). Beyond this then it is more trying to get the West to accept that the East has the right to exist at all and to just leave the East alone and respect that and stop trying to shame or browbeat and entice the East into reconciliation. The West needs to correct the corruptions it has done to itself and the image of Christ FIRST rather than pull the East into it and tarnish the whole of Christianity. As a by product, that is really why ecumenism has failed no matter what disinformation you read.
Now sobornost is that we focus on what is common between each other and not focus on our differences. I agree with that. I also think it is fair to have that properly represented. As I do for both sides. The Orthodox are not Roman Catholics without a Pope. People need to stop the disinformation. People have it worked out in their heads and because of that what's in their heads once established that just has to be true and must be fought for. Instead of the reality that none of us can have all of the information. And also that no collective in itself can have all of the information. Heresy was and is a rejection of God as freedom and the establishment of God as a tyrant or tyranny (i.e. making God into evil, making God into the devil). Using God to establish a system or systems which gives people worldly power is not what Orthodox Christianity is. Orthodox Christianity is to establish a community of people to practice a specific way of praying to God (hesychasm) in order to reconcile with God (achieve theosis). It is not to establish a theocracy like the warring Popes for example. These are two different ways of thinking and they are not to be reconciled. Hopefully this will give you places to look and you can see the substance in that and ignore people whom try to get my points rejected out of hand by calling my comments rants or any of that nonsense. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Intended shortening

I thank everyone for their support during this difficult phase. It has become too difficult for me to proceed. I do not see any major opportunities for compression. I resign. I have removed the "in use" template from the article.

My idea that putting them in chronological order has not paid off as well as I thought. Though, for a summary, going back to the same theme to make a point, seems tendentious. Cyril/Nestorius; Constantine building Constantinople; etc. This lengthy exposition is fine for "History of the..." just not for here IMO.

Well worded. For example, I tried to find fault with the use of "Roman" ("East Roman", instead of Byzantine) during the Early Middle Ages and couldn't.

I have some additional changes I would like to make, but if they get overwritten or reverted, so be it. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In a comment on someone's talk page, I admitted that I did not know what to "purge as trivial" (I won't admit what since it has already caused too much confusion). Just as reminder, we are not trying to purge out important events in history. What I was trying to do was compress the summary here. The material remains in all it's detail in the main article, History of the East-West Schism. Student7 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Eusebius, Church History, chapter 23
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East–West_Schism/Archive_6&oldid=816885642"