Talk:East–West Schism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

First section

Yes. Be bold. —No-One Jones ^(m) 06:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One holy catholic...

The Phrase "one holy catholic and apostolic church" has been used by scads of Christians, not as a statement of allegiance to a particular church organization, but to the church community (the entire Christian church started by the apostles) so the last line needs to be rephrased but I’m not sure how best to do that. Ideas?

The idea of an "invisible" church (consisting of all Christians everywhere) began with the Donatist controversy, but it has tended to be used mostly by Protestants. RC and Orthodox alike tend to identify "the church" with the institution itself. Hence, the claim to be the "One True Holy Catholic" church. As it stands, the article seems like a fair description. 68.33.140.194 19:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (jrcagle)

more here:[14]

Insertion of filioque

The word "non-canonical" before the insertion of the clause seems to be advocating the Eastern side of the schism. I mean, obviously the Catholics do not think that it is non-canonical, right? I might be wrong... Bratsche ^(talk) 20:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

the Pope claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs, while the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed since he was the spiritual leader of "new-Rome" that he was the head of the Christian Church

Is the above right? I thought the claim of the four Eastern patriarchs was that none of the five patriarchs could claim authority over the whole Christian church. Today, the various Eastern Orthodox hierarchies recognize the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople as only honorary; he has authority over only one of those hierarchical churches. My understanding has been that that has been the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church ever since the schism of 1054. Michael Hardy 22:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I always thought that the Patriarch of Constantinople was not called "ecumenical" until after the Schism. Am I wrong? 66.213.21.15 28 June 2005 19:42 (UTC)

Actually, the Patriarch of Constatinople at the time of the split did indeed make primatial claims, much as the modern Orthodox hate to admit it. He was an aberration, unfortunately it was at the wrong time for it to happen.

The above would seem to contradict the current article which says: "All five Patriarchs of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church agreed that the Patriarch of Rome should receive higher honors than the other four" So which is it? At that time, did the Patriarch of Constantinople accord some degree of primacy to the Roman Patriarch/Pope or did he assert his own primacy (or neither)? Crust 21:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Patriarch of Constantinople never tried to claim any sort of primacy over the Pope. --Midnite Critic 15:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Pope, as the apostolic successor of St. Peter, has always been recognized as enjoying primacy among the patriarchs. This sentiment arises from Matthew 16:18, where Jesus is recorded as stating "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." As Midnite Critic rightly notes, the Patriarch of Constantinople, as successor to St. Andrew, has never claimed such primacy; nor could he. The disagreement has thus rested more over the degree of primacy to accord Rome. As finally incorporated into the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility, Rome has traditionally held that it is supreme over all pre-Reformation churches, especially on doctrinal matters. The Orthodox churches have conversely argued that while Rome is properly the first of patriarchates, it is, nonetheless, a first amongst equals—not the final and binding authority, which can only be accorded to the Counsels of the Church (such as Ephesus and Nicaea). Rome is, therefore, to be accorded particular respect and esteem, but not the rights historically asserted by Rome.

Thus as applicable to the "Filioque" controversy, the positions of Constantinople and Rome become clear. Constantinople looks to the Counsels of the Church, and particularly the final statement of the Third Ecumenical Counsel, which it interprets as forbidding further changes to the Nicaean Creed (which had been altered previous to address various heresies that afflicted the Christian Faith following its adoption as the creed of the Roman Empire). Rome, conversely, adhered to the position that the Pope, as the final word on doctrinal matters, had the right to authorize additions, to the extent consistent with orthodox practice. Rome did not regard the closing line of the Third Counsel, furthermore, that “No attempt to introduce any form contrary to these shall be of any avail,” as restricting Rome’s right to approve limited orthodox reformulations necessary to answer the specific needs of a community. Certainly, the Roman Church was confronting particular heresies on the specific nature of God—largely unknown in the East—that drove the addition of “Filioque” to the Creed as recited in the West.

In the final analysis, the “Filioque” controversy seems more a product of the debacle of the Fourth Crusade and its sacking of Constantinople—and Innocent III’s failure to definitively excommunicate those responsible—than having the flavor of an argument worthy of the status it has taken in relations between Rome and Constantinople. Certainly, the debate about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son or the Father alone, clouds the strong agreement of all orthodox faiths on the fundamental nature of the Godhead.

That said, I believe a seperate section should be added on the "Filioque" controversy, in addition to Papal Infallibility, if for no other reason than these items remains the major doctrinal impedements to reunification. Perhaps some short summary, and a reference to the Filioque page for further detail? Mikhelos 06:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter was the first Pope, but he was also the first Patriarch of Antioch before he was bishop in Rome. With that logic, couldn't that also make the Antiochian Patriarch superior (even though he never claimed it)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.181.54 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Origins' Content

Paragraph two is concluded with the line 'thus the Empire was the first to fall' or something similar; which empire? Byzantine or the Western? Both are mentioned in the preceding sentence. Celtmist 5-11-05

I have replaced the word decimated by destroyed, since to decimate means to destroy 10% of something.Mystery Man 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Should this article be merged with this one?

I have found this article, and Western Schism, about the same topic. Are there enough differences between the two, or should they be merged? DrJones 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

They are not at all about the same topic and should not be merged. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, no. They're about two entirely different topics. —Preost ^talk contribs 12:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Mutual recognition

Should there not be something about the Roman and the Eastern Churches recognising the legitimacy of each other's priesthood and sacraments? That is, a Catholic could receive the Eucharist from a Greek Orthodox priest and would regard himself as having received "proper" communion. He would not so regard communion taken from an Anglican. Avalon 11:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The recognition generally only goes in one direction. That is, while an RC might consider it okay to receive at an Orthodox church, no Orthodox priest would be allowed to commune him. And while an RC parish might receive an Orthodox Christian to communion, the act of doing so would automatically excommunicate that person from the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church has not made an official statement regarding the "validity" of RC sacraments, but they are certainly not treated in practice as "proper" to the life of an Orthodox Christian. —Preost ^{talk contribs} 12:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad I asked the question because I'm happy to learn the true situation. One lives and learns! Avalon 14:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Details

This article contains no details about the actual excommunications and the immediate events surrounding them which occurred in 1054. It's a serious lacking and should be corrected. What about Bishop Leo of Ochrid's letter or Emperor Constantine IX's attitude? There is no mention here or at Leo IX's articel or Cerularius' about the prime human catalyst for the actual excommunications, Humbert of Mourmoutiers. I can add it if necessary, but I would prefer someone more familiar with the topic do it. Srnec 05:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for adding your stuff, but most unfortunately it reeks of Papist propaganda. Your account seems to put the blame for the rift on the Patriarch and whitewash the Pope and his legates. Such phrases as - "just at the time when the patriarch was set to open up a Pandora's box" or "the patriarch's refusal to address the issues at hand drove the legatine mission to extremes" - are judgmental and as such unacceptable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to first disavow any connection to either church involved—I'm a Protestant. The tenor of the section almost certainly comes from John Julius Norwich, my only source. He was not a Catholic, as far as I know. His book read impartially to me.

For those reasons, I'll first address the alleged POV-ness of the above citations. The patriarch did open a Pandora's box; fault if you will the pope for refusing to close it, but as far as I can tell, it was the patriarch who initiated the whole affair: which seems to be universally regarded today as a Pandora's box. The patriarch, according to Norwich, basically ignored the legates, which led them to extremes. How is this POV? The legates may or may not have been justified, but what drove them to do what they certainly did not intend to do upon setting out on their mission was the patriarch's basic refusal to receive them as legates. The sentences may seem to blame the patriarch, but I believe if read critically, they are factual statements. What about the statement "legates' authority legally ceased, but they did not seem to notice," how is that less POV than the above statements? Certainly its a legal point of view the legates would probably have debated.

Anyway, I won't dispute that further. If its POV, edit it. But I have been accused recently of having a POV I certainly didn't have (see Talk:Kingdom of Galicia if you care to read that long debate) because someone couldn't read what precisely I wrote. I rarely try and write something other than exacly what I mean and I think (I may be wrong) these statements are ones of fact if read to mean precisely what they say and no more or less. Perhaps, for an encyclopaedia, language must be watered down to accomodate those who can't read (not you, I'm sure), but I think that's sad. Srnec 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual Error Edit

I made a correction to a factual error. Rome did not condemn intinction. For certain rites it has been forbidden, but not condemned. There is a major difference. Rome has historically approved of it for certain rites. - Diligens 13:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"You can imagine the uproar that ensued"?

this phrase does not seem very encyclopedic... why is it there? (unsigned by User:69.203.98.141 )

As is "and when the smoke cleared". The whole section read a bit oddly. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Took care of the first bit, and added some detail on the political events during the eventual slide into full schism. Epimetreus 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Excommunications and final break

I reverted the entire section because so much information had been removed that seems useful. Was there a good reason for this? Srnec 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Can anyone make sense of this sentence? :

Despite Pope John Paul II didn't participate as officiant, but only assisted to the Orthodox liturgy officiated by the Romanian Patriarch, the Greek monks in Mount Athos refused to admit Romanian priests and hieromonks as co-officiants to their liturgies for a few years afterwards.

It is found in the reconciliation section of the main article. I would change it myself if I knew what it was supposed to be saying Kaid100 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

see here (Re: East-West Schism # Reconciliation) Adriatikus 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks Adriatikus, I've now made a change. Kaid100 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

to be included ?

I don't know if the info at [15] (briefly: Pope dropping "Patriarch of the West" title, the Synod of the Constantinople saying it creates "grave difficulties" for dialogue) is significant enough to be included in #Reconciliation. See also [16]. Opinions? adriatikus | 11:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad point. Perhaps a section on recent developments?Mikhelos 16:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Request Clarification

Much of the section "Excommunications and final break" reads like a university lecture with lots of narrative and rhetorical flourishes, rather than an encylopedia article. Therefore, I suggest changing the cleanup tag to a copyedit tag and request editing of its tone. Foltor 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

the problem still exist as can be seen here: "The direct causes of the Great Schism are, however, far less grandiose than the famous filioque. The relations between the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the years leading up to 1054. The emperor Constantine IX and the Pope Leo IX were allied through the mediation of the Lombard catepan of Italy, Argyrus, who had spent years in Constantinople, originally as a political prisoner. Leo and Argyrus led armies against the ravaging Normans, but the papal forces were defeated at the Battle of Civitate in 1053, which resulted in the pope being imprisoned at Benevento, where he took it upon himself to learn Greek. Argyrus had not arrived at Civitate and his absence caused a rift in papal-imperial relations just at the time when the patriarch was set to open up a Pandora's box." How is the pope learning Greek relevant? How does the absence of Argyrus create a "rift in papal-imperial relations"? Does the "rift" refer to the relationship between the pope and Constantine IX; the pope and the Holy Roman Emperor; or some other patriarch entirely? Does the "patriach" refer to the Patriarch of Constantine; the Partriarch of Rome i.e. the pope; the Patriarch of Jerusalem; or others? Furthermore, the term "set to open up a Pandora's box" is a useless stylistic flourish and contributes to confusion. I would edit it myself, but I don't yet have the source. That's why I requested cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resu ecrof (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Chalcedonian Christianity?

This term, used in the first sentence of the article, is unfamiliar to me and I would guess 99% of the readers. Although it cross-references to an article explaining the term, it seems to me that a casual reader could easily see the term and mistakenly assume that the schism discussed in the article is unimportant or irrelevant to their concerns. At a minimum it's kind of jarring to encounter such a jargonish term in the first sentence of the article. According to the cross-referenced article, non-Chalcedonian Christianity was common in the 5th - 8th century, but was - I guess - pretty well suppressed after that. Could we get away with just saying "Christianity" here?

I agree, it's too jargonish. But "Christianity doesn't sound right either. Couldn't we just write: "The East-West Schism, or Great Schism, divided the Christian Church into Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) branches"?Zambetis 13:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you use "The East-West Schism, or Great Schism, divided the Christian Church into Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) branches," it would be incorrect. That's because "the Christian Church" would refer also to the Oriental Orthodox church, which has nothing do do with the event. I decided to replace the first line with "The East-West Schism, or Great Schism, divided the predecessor of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. This division divided a united Chalcedonian Christianity into Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) branches, which precede the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, respectively." I hope this remains accurate and makes the article more accessible. Resu ecrof 09:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Heretics?

I was just wondering: why did the Catholic Church never seek to crush the Orthodox Church? I understand that reconciliation comes before violence, but I thought that rejecting papal authority meant heresy and the Catholic Church wanted to stamp out heresy. When the Protestants separated from papal authority there were wars and bloodshed; why were there none in the earlier schism? (And if there were, what happened?) Brutannica 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There were wars and bloodshed. The sack of Constantinople is sometimes presented as Christians vs. Muslims but according to many accounts was also as much about Catholic vs. Orthodox. 67.135.240.36 21:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The sack of Constantinople in 1204, courtesy of the Fourth Crusade, was presented by those responsible as some form of Divine retribution for the Great Schism of 1054. Pope Innocent III rightly disagreed, and initially excommunicated them. But unfortunately, Innocent III soon came to regard the Crusade’s successful taking of Constantinople as perhaps God's way of forcing reconciliation between East and West. Soon, he appointed a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, which position became honorary after the Orthodox retook Constantinople in 1261. Rome abolished the title in the 1960’s, in part in recognition of the proper dignity to be accorded the lawful successors to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Certainly, if Rome and Constantinople had been able, there would have been other wars between them. But the rapid advance of the Seljuk Turks into the heartland of the Byzantine Empire rendered those arguments moot. Essentially, the two Churches had larger problems to worry about. By the first half of the 16th Century, the Ottoman Empire lapped the boarders of Austria. Hungary had fallen, as had Serbia, and Ottoman ships harried shipping and cities in the Adriatic and Mediterranean. Even Vienna was beseiged.

Also, unlike the Protestant Churches, Rome always conceded that the Orthodox Patriarchs enjoyed independent primacy over their specific jurisdictions. And on almost all doctrinal matters, Rome and her Orthodox counterparts were in agreement. The Protestants, conversely, fell squarly within the undisputed province of the Pope, and were reviving and developing various concepts that Rome considered unorthodox, or worse, heretical. Certainly, the fact they were in Rome's backyard, driving the dissintergration of Rome's temporal and spiritual authority, spurred Rome to a degree of action not implicated by the long-standing schism of 1054.Mikhelos 07:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   -the Non-chalcedonian church is still around. orthodoxwiki.org article on the subject
   68.102.184.230 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange as the Ustashe comes to mind when I have been asked this question in the past. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rapture 1000 didn't happen

There are examples of smaller sects, like the Millerites, fracturing along political boundaries after some fundamental prophecy failed to take place. According to the book "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", there had been a significant expectation that a "rapture" event would take place around year 1000, much as had been predicted recently around year 2000. I haven't seen explicit mention of any such prophecy being a fundamental part of Church doctrine at the time, but the timing is a bit coincidental. Had there been a general sense of failure with the Church?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.159.105 (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you will find that these concerns are more Protestant in nature. An orthodox interpretation of the Gospels, and particularly Revelation, does not accept the notion of the rapture or the literal reading of such Book, or other "end times" prophesy. In the orthodox idiom, the Revelation of St. John has already been attained by the succession of orthodox faith to primacy (i.e. the Churches of Rome and Constantinople). Thus the Church is not a "failure," as you put it, but the essential and continuing embodiment of God's plan of salvation, through the performance of the Mass/Divine Liturgy, prayers of intersession, and administration of the Sacraments/Mysteries (Baptism, Confirmation, Communion etc.). Mikhelos 07:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The rapture-1000 was a common belief at the time, according to the "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" book, whether or not it was expressed in official church writings. Note that this predated the protestant movements of today, so evidently these concerns were not "protestant in nature". Further, any politically driven choices would likely not be documented in church writings as it would acknowledge the church as a political entity rather than an authority of scripture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.41.157 (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Reformulation to Reconciliation

I find the Reconciliation section, as presently drafted, a little rough. Here's my suggested re-edit:

There have been other, more recent efforts at reconciliation. On May 7-May 9, 1999, Pope John Paul II visited Romania on the invitation of Patriarch Teoctist, the leader of the Romanian Orthodox Church. After the Pope celebrated mass at Izvor Park, Bucharest, the crowd of both Roman Catholic and Orthodox congregants chanted "Unity!" It was the first visit of a Pope to an Eastern Orthodox country since the Great Schism. Alison Mutler, Associated Press, May 28, 1999 ([(available at http://ardmoreite.com/stories/052899/new_poppe.shtml)]).

On November 27, 2004, in a further attempt to "promote Christian unity", Pope John Paul II returned the relics of SS. John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Orthodox believe the relics of the two patriarchs were stolen from Constantinople in 1204 by participants in the Fourth Crusade, a position that Vatican spokesman Dr. Joaquin Navarro Valls considered "historically inaccurate".[3]

This historic step was followed, less than a year later, by the death of Pope John Paul II. On April 8, 2005, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, together with other Orthodox Patriarchs and Archbishops, attended the funeral mass of the Pontiff. The honored position accorded Patriarch Bartholomew in the proceedings, the strong showing of senior Orthodox clergy, and the fact that the funeral mass was the first attended by an Ecumenical Patriarch in many centuries, were generally acknowledged as indications that a formal move towards a full reconciliation may have begun. [Need citation].

Shortly following his election, Pope Benedict XVI followed Pope John Paul II's lead on the question of reconciliation. Specifically, on May 29, 2005 in Bari, Italy, Pope Benedict XVI cited reconciliation as a cornerstone of his papacy: "I want to repeat my willingness to assume as a fundamental commitment working to reconstitute the full and visible unity of all the followers of Christ, with all my energy."[4] Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew responded by inviting Pope Benedict XVI to visit Turkey in November 2006, which was accepted.[2]

Archbishop Christodoulos, head of the Greek Orthodox Church, echoed Constantinople's efforts by visiting Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on December 13, 2006. It was the first official visit by a senior cleric of the Church of Greece to the Vatican. [Citation needed].

Any thoughts? I believe there should also be a brief section added for countercurrents. Mount Athos, and especially the Greek clergy, still remain a bulwark against reunification (at least to the best of my knowledge). And Rome's cessation of the title "Patriarch of the West" has also caused some controversy.Mikhelos 15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Border???

Where ON EARTH was the border between the Catholic and Orthodox??? There is nowhere data on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.114.42 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean there is no such data in this article, or in general? There was no real border, as "legally" at the time the Pope (Catholic) and the Patriarch of Constantinople (Orthodox) were only suppose to have control over their individual see/diocese. They only had power and influence over the Western and Eastern Holy Empire because of various complex doctrinal and political reasons. As such, there wasn't "legally" a whole separated area under the control of the Pope and the Patriarch.Resu ecrof 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not like there's a Patriarch of Pluto or the Archbishop of Mars...

I am quite confused

Being Eastern Orthodox attending a Catholic Church, their religion class, and the teachers/children themselves both imply the Eastern Orthodox Church split from the Western Catholic Church, whereas I don't quite agree. So was it that one split from the other or was it an "even" split? 71.194.63.161 (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty even if you read up on it. Naturally, it's very tempting for the Latins to blame the whole thing on us, and vice-versa, but it really isn't a black and white issue, so I'd take those statements you're hearing with a grain of salt. Best thing is to read about it, have some dialogue with people, and form your own opinion. (PS, I think we're supposed to limit this discussion to issues dealing with the article itself, but I hate to see you getting stonewalled!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the other 3 patriarchs?

I've never heard anywhere what the other three patriarchs did in 1054. I know they are part of the Orthodox Church, so they must have sided with the Patriarch in Constantinople. But was Cardinal Humbert's declaration of excommunication directed towards all four patriarchs or just the one in Constantinople? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.181.54 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Another question, how exactly does one cardinal excommunicate 4 patriarchs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.179.187 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He didn't. He only excommunicated Michael Cerularius, nobody else, on the strength of the authority delegated to him by the Pope. Did he know the Pope was dead? The article suggests he did, saying that the legates "ignored" the death. Is it possible that this is a bad translation of "ignorare", which means "to be unaware of"? Cerularius removed the Pope's name from the diptychs (the list of heads of major churches with whom he was in communion). Some even say he did so before the cardinal's action. As for the other patriarchs, only later did they decide that there was no longer communion between Rome and them. For a while there seemed to be a quarrel between Rome and Constantinople alone. "The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in east and west were largely unaware. It was the Crusades which made the schism definitive: they introduced a new spirit of hatred and bitterness, and they brought the whole issue down to the popular level" (Kallistos Ware). It has also been rightly said: "The schism was not an event. It was a process." Lima (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"The schism was not an event. It was a process." Reference: [17] Gubernatoria (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Legates of the Patriarch of Alexandria took part in the 4th Lateran Council (1215). Some later Patriarchs of Antioch were in communion with Rome & Constantinople simultaneously, the last being Athanasius III, who died in 1724. After his death the chapter/conclave/whatever elected another who wanted to continue that policy, but Constantinople refused to recognize him & parachuted in its own nominee, given possession of Church property by the Sultan. Most of the faithful stayed with Rome, constituting the present Greek Catholic (Melchite) rite. Peter jackson (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I did not know that the Greek Orthodox had parachutes in the 1700's, Louis-Sébastien Lenormand would have been impressed. Fascinating. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect title

This article uses a hyphen (-) incorrectly instead of an endash (–) and should be moved to East–West Schism.[18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacraments

For the second time Gubernatoria has added the assertion that "Since the second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has recognised the validity of the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church, but not their licitness". This time G. has claimed that this is stated in the "Second Vatican Council Decree on Ecumenism Article 12, et alia". Section 12 of the Council's DecreeUnitatis redintegratio says nothing whatever about validity or liceity of the sacraments of any Church. The claim that the Second Vatican Council marked some change in the Catholic Church's attitude to the validity or liceity of the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is quite gratuitous. What evidence is there that it ever declared either invalid or illicit baptism in those Churches of the children of their own faithful? Lima (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

you are right. The Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of Orthodox sacraments. It is enough to read the decrees of the Council of Florence 1431. You can check also in the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia that says that the Orthodox sacraments are like our. Orthodox bishops were also invited with right of vote (full recognition of their sacramental orders) also at the councils of Trent and Vatican I, even if they did not came. A ntv (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wiki-Editors, I find your editwarring very one sided. I also find your behaviour acting not in Good Faith, I support this assertion by your lack of conversation with me and my edits and also the rather "matter of factly" way my contributions have been removed by both of you. Lets see if your conduct continues. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving only Rome and Constantinople

The Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem continued to operate under Moslem rule. Antioch and Jerusalem generally did much better under the Moslems than under the Latin invaders.

The Britannica's suggestion that the Moslem conquest "only" left Rome and Constantinople, can only be understood in the context of these two patriarchates remaining under Christian rule. Though, again, when Constantinople was under Latin rule, it suffered much worse than under any Ottoman rule.

Perhaps the entry could be further clarified. Gubernatoria (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good set of points. Also much of this article is Roman Catholic. It is very Edward Gibbon'ish, very Eurocentric. Say if I where to add a Russian Orthodox theologian or two's opinion, I am suspicious that it would be edit warred out. Here is a case in point. I added this source and link and it was removed with no reason given but the article explicitly states and sources from an Eastern Orthodox Theologian and Priest exactly what you just stated.

"In sharp contrast to this Franco-Latin treatment of Roman society, both Arab and Turkish conquerors did not transform Romans into their slaves. On the contrary they appointed the Roman clergy as leaders of Roman society which became a very important source of taxes." [19]

What is stated here from Romanides is as a perspective is completely missing from this article. Also here is a list of theological differences which is completely missing from the article. Here below. The Orthodox stand point is very narrow at best and is depicted very hypocritically. I mean Caesaropapism is treated as if only Europe is allowed to speak of it. I am afraid to add Eastern sources because they are just not respected, it's like only the Roman Catholic opinion about it is valid and only the Roman Catholic opinion matters.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A few theological differences

In the Eastern Christian traditions theoria is the most critical component needed for a person to be considered a theologian (it is not necessary for ones salvation per se). Theoria as being with God, God in Eastern Christianity being the one thing that mankind truly desires the most, that which is infinite (apophatic or transcendent) and also personal and real (cataphatic or immanence). God as ever new, never ending love, happiness, joy and bliss as is glory to glory. An experience of God being necessary to the spiritual and mental health of each and all created things, including human beings.

Deification

Theosis is expressed as having "Being with God" and a relationship (God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of Heaven) that is infinite and unending, glory to glory. Since God is transcendent (incomprehensible in ousia, essence or being) the West has over emphasized the point by qualifying logical arguments that God can not be experienced in this life. This criteria is at the very heart of many theological conflicts between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity which is seen to culminate in the conflict over Hesychasm. This is expressed in the idea that Western theology is too dependent of logic and reason (culminating in scholasticism used to validate truth, and the existence of God which it can not completely do) over establishing an actual relationship with God (theosis and theoria).

Heaven and Hell

Another such example that is often used in Eastern Christianity is the example of St Augustine. From the works of Saint Augustine it is apparent to Eastern theologians that though a Saint, Augustine did not have theoria and many of his theological conclusions appear to be arrived at not from experiencing God and writing about his experience(s) of God. Augustine's conclusions appear to be arrived at by means of philosophical or logical speculation and conjecture. Hence Augustine is still revered as a Saint, but does not qualify as a theologian in the Eastern Orthodox church. Some of Augustine's Trinitarian conclusions appear to immanentize characteristics of theology which would be improper treatment of those things divine. This toward Eastern theologians who in light of their experiences would articulate their expressions of those things differently. Augustine's treatment of the inner relationship of the realities of God in Trinity and how God has manifest to mankind throughout time being an overview as such.. Finally the theological concept of hell or eternal damnation also via theoria is expressed completely different in the West. Hell in the West is a created place of damnation, this being taught most explicitly in Dante's classic work Inferno. The East teaches that hell or eternal damnation and heaven are the same place, which is being with God. For one who hates God (see Misotheism) such a place as in the presence of God, will be eternal suffering. This article completely leaves out the councils (i.e. Fifth Council of Constantinople) which condemned Barlaam's Roman Catholic, Augustinian Neoplatonic Christianity. I, for one believe in sobornost, but only a partial list and out line of the problem will not lead to a complete reconciliation.

The point

At some point the article should contain the truth of the matter which is "who did what to whom and just when did that happen?" Right now this article only frustrates people who have at least a passing understanding of this and are from the Orthodox side. This is much the same as what is happening in the Ukraine with the Roman Catholics there. Who are very sharp and quick about Russian misdeeds but do not acknowledge the misdeeds of Rome. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that these articles that want to explain the differences are extremely difficult to be NPOV. That happens because the creed of Catholics is described by Orthodox, and the creed of Orthodox is described by Catholics. I think that these 'comparison' Articles shall be as light as possible: only the historical facts should be listed and at least the titles and the links of the topic. The Orthodox or Catholic doctrines shall be placed in their own Articles. That is the only way to not to have POV A ntv (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that articles about difficult things has to be written and that your approach is not what is outlined and called for by the Wikipedia NPOV policy. An obvious and easy fix to your comment above would be to just have an Orthodox section in the article and then a Roman Catholic one. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There are already Articles about doctrines from a Catholic points of view and from an Orthodox points of view. What shall be left out is the doctrine of one explained by the other, in any section of this Article. I've no problem that an Orthodox explains what is the Hesychasm in the linked Article, my problem is when an Orthodox says that Barlaam's doctrine is the catholic doctrine. And I'm sure that you can find many opposite cases. The title of this Article is East-West Schism, it is not a place where to debate between C. and O. So I suggest to keep the opposite creeds sections of this Article as light as possible A ntv (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For your first comment, that is a distraction and waste of my time, you have posted an obvious non sequitur. "This is one of those articles but it is not". What a waste. What are you doing? As for your comments about the Hesychasm controversy, either the article is about the schism and what caused it or it is not. Hesychasm is a distinct reason in the East (as the culmination) for there to be a rejection of Roman Catholic theology. This is why John Romanides (among many) have wrote book after book on the issue. As for you having no problem and or having a problem, again you are missing the point. As long as this issue is treated so one sidedly, light or not, it will do nothing but be an exercise in ignorance. There is no debate. But there is two sides to the issue and right now the Eastern side is not being properly respected, and that just is not very Christian now is it. So lets try to have both sides. Right now the article does not reflect how an average Greek or Russian Orthodox Christian understands the issue. The links I have posted (that keep getting either distorted or removed) clearly address that there is something else going on here. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Promise of citations

Thanks, Gubernatoria, for your promise to provide references for the statements you have inserted in the article. Superficially, at least, some look like a Wikipedia editor's personal take on things, such as the attribution of certain statements to "the Roman Catholic perspective" or "a neutral perspective". I look forward to learning of the sources used for these and other observations included in the additions. Lima (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Lima Falsehood

Dear Lima, if you care to research the history of this section you will find I have never made any comment or added any material pertaining to "the Roman Catholic perspective". Perhaps you might care to withdraw that false imputation. You have a nice day now, ya hear? Gubernatoria (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant no imputation. I only asked that, in accordance with Wikipedia rules, you give a source for your statements. I still look forward to benefitting from the enlightenment you will be good enough to give. (Obviously, you know that the onus of indicating the source of a statement rests on the editor who inserts it. If you didn't insert either of the remarks I mentioned, you need not defend them. And after a suitable time, I can delete the one I have questioned. I am awaiting fulfilment of your promise before asking for a citation for the second of the two remarks.) Lima (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lima, let me spell it out for you. I DID NOT write the section starting with from "the Roman Catholic perspective". In your comment of 13:51, 25 November 2008, you said I did. You were wrong. I politely requested you to withdraw that comment. You didn't withdraw your comment. So let me be quite plain now: You were WRONG. Withdraw your FALSEHOOD. And have a nice day. Gubernatoria (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the contrast between the "Roman Catholic perspective" and the "neutral perspective" was yours. You tell me I was wrong. I don't question what you say. I won't even go and check whether you are right. I withdraw my comment and apologize. Εἰρήνη πᾶσι. Мир всем. Lima (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Rejection of Uniatism

The rejection of Uniatism is an example of how this article is bias toward one persepctive. Much of the distorted and defined differences between the East and West are talking points to this movement. Problem is the position is wrong thats why it is rejected and condemned by both sides. At a meeting in Balamand, Lebanon in June 1993, the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church declared that these initiatives that "led to the union of certain communities with the See of Rome and brought with them, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their Mother Churches of the East ... took place not without the interference of extra-ecclesial interests" (section 8 of the document); and that what has been called "uniatism" "can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking" (section 12).

At the same time, the Commission stated:

• 3) Concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in response to the spiritual needs of their faithful.
• 16) The Oriental Catholic Churches who have desired to re-establish full communion with the See of Rome and have remained faithful to it, have the rights and obligations which are connected with this communion.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What the East is stating the real difference actually is

Note this is completely missing from this article, at best it is extremely vaguely eluded to and even then indirectly. The difference is that theosis, theoria, hesychasm represent that Eastern Orthodox Christianity is based around the human conscious- the nous. These are things of vision. The obviousness of this is that the Orthodox do not see the word Orthodox to reflect literial and or allegorical interruptions of Christ and our community, the bible other traditions, etc. etc. What is expressed as Orthodox is that we always "see" things from and interpreted things from theoria. The is the difference between Orthodoxy and Gnosticism and Orthodoxy (yes the Oriental see this too with the EO) and Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Gnosis comes from Theoria. Theoria is with and from the Holy Spirit. That this is the difference where as other movements Gnosticism (relio-philosophical nonsense being sold as real spiritual knowledge or gnosis), Neoplatonism-metaphysics being repackaged as mysticism, Roman Catholicism/Protestantism-Christianity as metaphysical religion. This is not expressed in this article. No where in the article is this stated directly.

• Eastern Orthodoxy - GOA
• Differences between Orthodoxy and other religions
• Gregory Palamis' fight for the Vision of God
• Theoria, Tabor Light as Vision

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Church of Greece on "Filioque"

Would LoveMonkey please indicate why he classifies as "an extreme point of view" what Professor Apostolos Nikolaidis, Professor of the Sociology of Religion and Social Ethics at the University of Athens, said in a lecture given in the seat of the Holy Synod of the (Orthodox) Church of Greece on 26 May 2008, the text of which was published in the June 2008 number of the official bulletin of the Church of Greece. The Church of Greece clearly did not consider his view extreme: if they did, they wouldn't have included it in the bulletin in which they print messages of the Archbishop and official announcements. The inclusion in the official bulletin of the Church of Greece of his remarks on the part played by the Filioque in the present East-West Schism seems to indicate that it merits a mention also in the Wikipedia article on the same subject. Lima (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Would Lima show where the Eastern Churches embrace and post as doctrinal what this Priest is saying. It is pretty simple Lima. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course they don't. What Professor Nikolaidis said is not about doctrine. (By the way, he is not a priest.) It is about the factors that lead to and maintain division among Christians. How much of this article is made up of doctrine? Perhaps not even 2%. And how much of the article is about what led to the East-West Schism, especially with the latest additions to the article? Excluding what Professor Nikolaidis said because it is not a doctrinal matter is as baseless as excluding it on the grounds of alleged extremism. Lima (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can't. What he said then is not about this article. Hurriah he's not a Priest then again why are you using him as if he represents the entire Eastern Christians doctrinal position on the schism? Why I'll tell you why, to waste my time. That is also the response to the rest of your comment as well. The article is about posting what is accepted as doctrine. Filioque is doctrine. Shirting around that with inaccuriate statistics and causing distractions will not change that Filioque is doctrine. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here Lima heres just one example of a Orthodox Theologian and what he says that flies in the face of what you posted.

Quoting Aleksey Khomyakov pg 87 The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super-rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of transferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house. History of Russian Philosophy by Nikolai Lossky ISBN-13: 978-0823680740 p. 87

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Note that the charge of Caesaropapism according to Aleksey Khomyakov's position is more appropriate for the Roman Catholic church. Of course he specifically addressed Caesaropapism and refutes it as a Eurocentric propaganda construct.
Now maybe I should post some comments out of context by Roman Catholic priests that contridict each other and treat those points of view as representative of the entire Roman Catholic church and then make arguments to support such an unacceptable thing. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If the statements are relevant, and if you indicate their sources, so that readers can consider the writers' qualifications and the sort of publications in which their writings appeared, of course you can post them. Why not?

Now back to Professor Nikolaidis, what he said is about the "East-West Schism", the article. More precisely the quotation is about the part the Filioque played in starting and continuing the schism. He is a reliable source for the view that he expounds, and which therefore, by Wikipedia rules, cannot be excluded. You are of course free to balance his view with a sourced opposing view. Lima (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No policy states that one is not allowed to misue a source. Your take on him is a distortion of the understanding that he has in order to qualify his remarks. Your taking him out of cultural context makes his postion not one representative of the doctrine of the Orthodox church. And your edit warring out of my contributions in the past shows your comments as disingenuous, at best. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(I presume you mean "No policy states that one is allowed to misuse ...") On what grounds do you say I distort what Professor Nikolaidis said? I have quoted him exactly in translation. If you wish, I will transcribe what he said in the language in which he said it. The Church of Greece considered what he said worth printing in its official monthly bulletin. Are you accusing the Church of Greece also of distorting what Professor Nikolaidis said? Lima (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Read below. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Church of Greece on "Filioque" in context

Here is a link that explains what the actual position that the "professor" that Lima posted is actually saying which is not at all how Lima is using it. The East believes that the fall of Rome to the Franks and Goths was the basis of the schism (via the filioque). Not the specific doctrine of the filioque which was a symptom of that conquest. The split between the two churches is depicted in the East as a Frank/French and German divide and conquer stragegy. Romaniades shows when the Papacy was corrupted by the Franks and Goths as is taught in the East. Of course none of this is in the article or taught or addressed by the West rather that be Roman Catholic or Protestant. [20] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Note here is what Lima posted

---

However, a Greek Orthodox theologian has pointed to the 1054 schism as the most striking example of how practice, rather than theological differences, causes schisms:

---

"The local Churches coexisted for centuries with the 'Filioque' before Church events brought the problem to a head in the period of Photios the Great, but there was no schism, and in the 1054 period the 'Filioque' was dormant. It came back and was intensified after this to justify it and make it fixed."

---

I am sorry but what Lima is saying and what the source is saying are not the same. This is obvious in just the first paragraph of what Romanadies states on the link from my comment above-[21]

---

"One must take note from the very beginning that there never was a Filioque controversy between the West and East Romans. There were domestic quarrels over details concerning the Christological doctrine and the Ecumenical Synods dealing with the person of Christ. The West Romans championed the cause of Icons defined by the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, but they never supported the Frankish Filioque, either as doctrine or as an addition to the Creed. 'The Filioque controversy was not a conflict between the Patriarchates of Old Rome and New Rome, but between the Franks and all Romans in the East and in the West.'"

---

Hardly even close to-

However, a Greek Orthodox theologian has pointed to the 1054 schism as the most striking example of how practice, rather than theological differences, causes schisms:

---

Distortion and misrepresentation. Look at who John S. Romanides was. Your comments are hardly contextual, hardly the position of the East as it leaves out the comments concerning the Frankish/Goth influence on the schism. Let alone what is taught in the East about Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire being French and German and not Roman at all. You are distorting. This is against Wiki policy. What you are saying is not representive of the Eastern position and you are obviously not one to be posting or commenting on what that is Lima. So Lima are you saying that your source is in opposition to John Romanides? Of course you are. I bet though that your source would deny that he was saying anything that was against Professor and Priest Romanides. Why is that? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

LoveMonkey has made a grave accusation against me: "what Lima is saying and what the source is saying are not the same". On what grounds is LoveMonkey accusing me of falsely attributing something to Nikolaidis, the source I quoted? I did not quote Romanides or anybody else other than Nikolaidis. And Nikolaidis did say what I reported him as saying.

Herewith the transcription of what Nikolaidis said in the original language, together with its context: Εἶναι δυνατὴ ἡ ἑνότητα στὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴ πράξη; Ἡ ἐμπειρία ἀπέδειξε ὅτι αὐτὴ εἶναι πολὺ πιὸ δύσκολη ἀπὸ ὅ,τι ἡ θεολογική. Καὶ αὐτὸ γιὰ δύο βασικοὺς λόγους: α) γιὰ χάρη της γἰνονται τὰ σχίσματα καὶ ὄχι γιὰ τὶς θεολογικὲς δογματικὲς διαφορές. Ἁπλῶς αὐτὲς ἐπιστρατεύονται γιὰ νὰ κατορθωθεῖ, νὰ ἐμπεδωθεῖ καὶ νὰ διατηρηθεῖ ἡ σχισματικὴ κατάσταση. Τὸ σχίσμα τοῦ 1054 εἶναι τὸ χαρακτηριστικότερο παράδειγμα. Προηγήθηκαν αἰῶνες συνύπαρξης τῶν κατὰ τόπους Ἐκκλησιῶν μὲ τὸ φιλιόκβε, τὸ πρόβλημα κορυφώθηκε τὴν ἐποχὴ τοῦ Μ. Φωτίου μὲ ἀφορμὴ καὶ πάλι ἐκκλησιαστικὰ γεγονότα, ἀλλὰ σχίσμα δὲν ἔγινε, τὴ δὲ ἐποχὴ τοῦ 1054 τὸ φιλιόκβε ἦταν σὲ νάρκη. Ἐπανῆλθε καὶ ἐντάθηκε μετὰ ἀπὸ αὐτὸ γιὰ νὰ δικαιολογήσει καὶ νὰ τὸ ὁριστικοποιήσει.

So, what grounds does LoveMonkey have for making his grave accusation against me? Lima (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have and I also intend to ask a administrator to look at what I have posted and asked them to intervene. The above is very clear on what grounds I have my observations. As I have pointed out so that anyone can read the comments for themselves. I did not create Romanides website. I did not make him a Priest, I did not make him a Professor at the University of Thessaloniki. I did not make him a representative for the Greek Church (as you call it) to the World Council of Churches. I did none of these things for him. I also did not put his teachings in conflict with another person which if read in context neither disagree. I did not post distortions of East Orthodox theology and then use Greek Sources to misrepresent the Orthodox Churches position. Lima did that. This is a lot of typing to have to make a very simple point isn't it. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Your response also neglects that this way of inserting this strange interruption of what your source says is an example WP:UNDUE. -------- Again here is the link I posted [22](I have other theologians I can post too).

---

The link is about the specific issue (spot on) by a valid source. -------
It has not a strange interpretation of someone talking about practice or theological difference and then not actually using either word in what they say. It is very clear. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Finally to qualify my criticism, All of this typing from just editing out ONE of Limas contributions, just one, look in the article history and it is apparent that Lima has removed and or reworded allot more then just one of my contributions, all the while never contacting me or attempting dialog here on the talkpage which would be collaborating. Look at how difficult just one edit has become, just one. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Another example

"But the torches which inflamed the whole building of the schism, were the diabolical greed and lust for power which the Germans, and then the Normans, the English, and especially the Venetians, unleashed against the Greek-speaking Roman Empire. The Western Patriarch was at least partially complicit at most times. The theological disagreements were just the fretwork on the awnings." [23]

---

Normans/Franks/French LoveMonkey (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC) LoveMonkey (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, have you by now asked an administrator to intervene, as you said you intended? Please do. Lima (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the administrator I have in mind User:William M. Connolley. [24] Since this article is now owned by you and one revert out of your contribution instigates this amount of conflict. Maybe both of us should initiate his intervention. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Filioque accepted by Rome in 1014

The fundamental changes in the see of Rome which the Gregorian reformers were to generate ... were especially foreboding for the Christian East(ern Mediterranean). For the most part, before this revival the Byzantine government was able to ignore the papacy as a power. A weak and incompetent papal court, incapable until then of sustaining its prestige or its claims, was on the whole seldom useful to the Byzantines. The reform, however, was to transform the papacy into an independent political force in its own right... The other side of the Gregorian revolution - the theological and ecclesiological - was no less momentous. Actually, problems began to surface early in the century, before the launching of the Gregorian movement intself. While the 'mute schism' caused by the gaps in the commemoration diptychs ... was not serious, the sudden decision to alter the common creed certainly was. The step was taken in 1014, when the Filioque formula was accepted by the Roman bishop for the first time. Until then the western patriarchate had in actual fact faithfully adhered to the previous decision of the Church universal expressly prohibiting any addition. If this interpolation of the text of the creed was unilateral and illegal for the Byzantine world, it was also theologically ill-advised. For it was then possible for the first time to identify within the creed itself a clear and unmistakable doctrinal difference between the Churches. (Aristeides Papadakis The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, SVS Press, NY, 1994 p14)

Which shows that Lima's contention in this matter is quite unsound. Gubernatoria (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is the exact point. If Lima is trying to represent the Orthodox prespective then he is doing so in a way that is causing confusion and is conflicting with the position via what is available online that people can read. I can understand when my contributions are removed due to poor quality or poor articulation (though I feel here that their removal is based more on the Style over substance fallacy). Lima is also susceptible to the same standard.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not been trying to represent the Orthodox perspective or any other perspective. I would like the article to be encyclopedic. But I now prefer to let others judge the editing style of these two who have made abundantly clear their attitude to me. Finally, I thank Gubernatoria for removing the polemic-style contrast between a "Roman Catholic perspective" and a "neutral perspective", which I am careful not to attribute to Gubernatoria (see, above, "Lima Falsehood"). Lima (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The article and all articles are perspectives and points of view. WP:NPOV is supposed to give balance to the article not outlaw perspectives. As Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity clarifies.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unification

Lima has tried to unify two opposing treatments into one by simply merging words. One treatment was referenced. The other was not. In the referenced treatment, Lima decided to change the words cited, to words which cannot be found in the reference. Bad Scholarship. By putting two essentially opposite positions into the one article to "unify" them, without looking at the meaning of the words, is illogical. Also Bad Scholarship. It's like trying to "unify" an essentially collegial Church with an essentially monarchical Church. Bad move. Lima's vandalism has once more been reverted. Gubernatoria (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I will say it was very good of Lima to source the other parts of the article under Extant disputes. I can only hope as you have stated before that rather then fighting we could just collectively write a very informative and good article. Lima's sourcing was absolutely a step in that direction. Also Lima has very good prose. Hope Mr G, hope.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

3rr by Lima

A 3rr violation has been committed by Lima. A report has be posted [25] I was hoping the Lima would talk here on the talkpage rather then just keep rolling along editwarring again both me and Gubernatoria. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the report asking the 3 of you to discuss the issue, if problems continue feel free to let me know... regardless the reverting needs to stop. By all parties involved. —— nixeagle 21:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Free ride baby. Lima turned right around and restorted the heading. Lima also restored a citiation request trying to undermine what is explicitly posted in the source. Nix if you look I posted a notice on Williams Connelly's talkpage. Because I suspected that this free ride would happen. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and general lack of collegiallity

I have reviewed the edit history of this article and while there may be a technical violation of 3RR, the edit history doesn't really support the sense of edit-warring. There should not be edit-warring over a "{{weasel}}" tag anyway. It's just not that imiportant.

I note that there has been a rather incivil tone to the discussions on this Talk Page and I would urge all involved editors to cool down and seek compromise and consensus rather than confrontation and conflict.

I know both Lima and LoveMonkey from editing other Christianity-related articles although my direct interaction has been more with LoveMonkey than with Lima. I know Lima to be an established editor with a long history of contributing to Christianity-related articles. I also know LoveMonkey from working on the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church article.

Lima, LoveMonkey may be hot-headed and biased towards the Orthodox POV at times but he has done yeoman work in improving many Orthodox-related articles and so please try to work more collegially with him even if it may be difficult to do so at times. Also, consider following the WP:BRD model and follow the WP:0RR or WP:1RR rule. I myself try to hold myself to one revert although I make it up to two reverts sometimes.

LoveMonkey, Lima deserves respect as a longstanding editor. I note that his comments on this page have been a bit prickly but I suspect some of that has been a reaction to the abrasive tone in your comments.

If everyone would use a gentler and more respectful tone and seek compromise and consensus, work on this article could proceed more productively and pleasantly.

Good luck and happy editing.

--Richard (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Weasel in "extant disputes" section

"Although the Roman Catholic Church recently flirted with collegiality, it is still very much a bureau-monarchical institution." "The Roman Catholic Church is very much wrapped up in its codes of church law covering almost every aspect of church life." "The Roman Catholic Church recently has shown some flexibility". Perhaps these can be clarified. Lima (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding. The first two sentences have such a blatant POV tone that I give you credit for restraint in not just deleting them (as I have now done). We must stick to stating facts, not opinions or judgments. Of course, now that I have gotten involved in actually editing this page, I will very likely recuse myself from admin action on this article. --Richard (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well.. Dare I say (and you know I don't compliment lightly) that Richard has done some of the much needed editing to the article. Those two POV lines should have been removed along with most of the chatter in the article. Again the article has a purpose to reflect exactly what the conflict is actually about. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lima now is edit warring over John Romanides comments on Augustine

I guess of Greek heretics are just to blind to read our words, since Lima just restore the wording that he appears to complain about in the article.[26] After I removed the wording of the article to reflect an actual source. Then Lima added back in his complaint that the wording (was not specific enough maybe?) did not reflect the source. Well now Lima is getting coverage from administrators. Why am I being warning when Lima has enaged in rule breaking? Administrators are not being fair and are blanket attacking editors who do much to contribute to wikipedia. Lima's treatment of Gubernatoria is unacceptable. Again edit warring like this is not acceptable to wikipedia policy. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

LM, the wording you removed was the statement that the phrase was introduced at the Council of Toledo. Nobody questioned that, and it is easily sourced, so there was no need to remove it. What I questioned is the statement that the phrase was introduced "under the influence of Augustine" (a statement inserted by Gubernatoria, without citing any source, at 01:20 on 29 November). The Romanides texts that you have quoted seem to concern not 589 but the time of Charlemagne, centuries later. Would you be so good either to source the statement about the phrase being introduced under the influence of Augustine (perhaps it was, I don't know, one way or the other) or remove the statement about the influence of Augustine? I am sorry I was not clear enough for you. Lima (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I already (did that) removed it and you restored not only the citation request and contention but the mention of the Council of Toledo. The wording I left, I will repeat again, reflects the sourcing. Why do I have to do a revert to the article? Post here the wording that will keep you from edit warring over the "phrasing" or "wording" or the "text" in question. Pretty please with money on top.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove pertinent sourced edits, such as the indication of when "Filioque" was introduced. Lima (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

More discussion and less hostility is called for here. Please focus on collegiality and collaboration. Maybe discussion prior to editing would help. --Richard (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Man... I removed a source I added of Romanides opinion in the World Church Council for a more clear articulation from Romanides in another article. Come on.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please post a wording of the contented section that you can agree upon and we can collaborate here on the talkpage on the wording instead of butchering the article.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Me and Richard may not get along (or like each other :>) and fight allot but at least respect his effort Lima.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi, I'm the administrator that replied to the post at WP:AN3.

Right now I am seeing lots of fighting, thankfully that has not translated to too much revert warring on the article. Regardless I'm a tad upset at the failure of folks here to even attempt to get along with each other. Now there are 3 of you here at this moment. I ask that all 3 of you attempt to figure out what the problem is and attempt to come to a resolution that all 3 of you can get along with. That most likely means that all 3 of you are going to have to compromise some.

Remember: Just because information has a source does not mean it has to be included. and of course the flip side of this, if information is sourced by reliable sources, there needs to be a decent reason as to why it is not included. If it is because of fear of over representing one side of a debate, then consider adding a few other sides of the debate as well. If the problem is that it is too much information for this article, consider moving the information to another article more specific then this one.

Finally I note again that you guys seem to be fairly decent about editing the article so I don't see any need for a protection or blocks at this time, however if you guys are unable to keep that pattern going I will be forced to consider protections or blocks for editwarring. Lets not go here. —— nixeagle 19:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Theological differences on the Creator

The demiurge or "creator" is an expression of philosophy, in that it is a Greek or Hellenistic cultural concept as philosophy is a reflection of the unquiness of the Greek mind or the first document set of analytical tools to deconstruction consciousness (i.e. philosophy). This means that the Demiurge is a cultural concept from the Greeks who did not believe in the existence of nothingness as non-substantive (ex nihilo). They treated nothingness as a substance called aether. The Greeks as pagans and pagan philosophers did not believe that you can get "something from nothing" and or "nothing from something" therefore the creator had to create from "something". Plato it was the good, Aristotle it was energy, Plotinus it was force. This was the substance or essence or being from which the pagan philosophers believed all was derived from and all was reduced to. These are ontological noema that creates consciousness in humans it makes them more then other things it makes humans into human beings. This arises from the unique essence of Greek or Hellenistic philosophy treating the natural (physic) and supernatural (metaphysic) as extensions of human consciousness that are validatable by human consciousness. So everything that can be talked about or experienced stems from human consciousness and therefore must be expressed from a anthropomorphic perspective. God or Gods can not be anything outside of human. That's why Zeus and the Gods are flawed as their flaws reflect in man and mankinds flaws reflect in them. The demiurge as a phrase is creator and nothing can be created but in the way that mankind creates. The Greek Orthodox Christian God is not relatiable to the Actus et potentia as the Roman Catholic God since, God in essence is not action or inaction or potential nor impotential this would make God's being, essence or substance comprehenisible and that then is not the Hebrew or Orthodox Christian God. As St Gregory Palamas might point out - the Christian God is not one (the monad) or unity according to St Dionysus the Areopagite. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So the essence of God for

• Aristotle it was energy as actus meaning action.
• Aristotle it was energy as actus meaning action.
• Aristotle it was energy as actus meaning action.

• Plotinus it was force as potentia meaning potential
• Plotinus it was force as potentia meaning potential
• Plotinus it was dunamis as potentia meaning potential

Funny how the Eastern Orthodox get called Neoplatonic when we don't even share the same essence of our God with Plotinus (the Roman Catholics have the same essence of God as Plotinus though) you know Iamblichus tried though.

Orthodox Christianity did not have the same God therefore the "concept of God" uses and has familiar language (between Hellenstic Greek and Byzantine Greek) but in essence, substance is a different concept of God. In Greek Orthodox Christianity (which Iamblichus kinda tried to graft into Neoplatonism after the fact) God is in and outside the Universe. God is made up of a substance that is beyond substance since God's consciousness ontologically is hyper-being. Meaning that God as a substance can not be detected nor contained. Now this was dependent on the concept of hypostasis, immanence or existence (cataphatic). The Pagan philosophical God was a detectable substance that all things derive from and reduced to. The Orthodox Christian God is a hyper substance that is not empirically detectable or God then stops being God by definition and then becomes energy or dunamis/force or whatever. Mankind has to be altered in order to detect God's hypostasis, immanence mankind will not nor can he ever detect or comprehend God's ousia. Since the God in Greek Orthodox Christianity in his trinitarian completeness (uncreatedness) does not have the same consciousness as mankind, did not share mankinds consciousness until he became a human being AKA Jesus Christ. The reverse is only true in Philosophy since in Orthodox Christianity God as a whole has a consciousness which is completely unrelatable to mankind. Philosophy God and mankind have the same consciousness and Roman Catholicism and Protestantism treat God ontologically very much as modalistic (like Sabellianism) which creates also a different consciousness. Orthodox Christianity also rejects this as anthropomorphic-izing the Christian God, which can only come from not actually having experienced the Christian God (theoria) and only experiencing the template in your brain or intrinsic God of philosophy (dianoia). Orthodox Christianity does not say that God's essence and his energy are the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church. Orthodox Christianity states that the trinitarian God's substance, essence, being is not a consciousness that mankind can relate to, or comprehend. This is what Gregory Palamas was trying to explain to Barlaam in his teaching of the Essence-Energies distinction.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Theological issues

This section is getting a little too heavy on the theology and is starting to read more like a theological essay than an encyclopedia article. While I don't like the "back and forth" writing style, I think there is valuable content here and I am certainly learning a lot by reading it. My problem is that it is starting to overshadow the rest of the article and so I am uncomfortable with the percentage of the article that is devoted to this section.

Today, I have done some very light trimming, cutting out a phrase here, a sentence there. However, it will take a lot of time and effort at this pace and, at the end, it will be hard to cut the section down to size without cutting out some muscle along with the fat.

I have been pondering the idea of creating a new article titled something like Theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'm not sure of the title and scope but I figured I'd throw the idea out for discussion and learn from the feedback.

If we created such an article, it would be easier to try and summarize the key points in the "Theological Issues" section and referring the reader to the full discussion via a {{main}} article link.

--Richard (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck I mean this edit warring is completely out of hand. Lima just added back an invalid source for Dante from a work that is almost hundred years old. He did this after I posted from John Romanides arguments that Father Romanides submitted to the World Church Councels and I copied and pasted from his website. Lima is also gaming the system so that his edits are not easly detectable one edit from another and all of the text between the edits shows up red. Here he is doing it to your edits [27] This is gaming the system and I have already reported it to DGG. Between his edits which appear as nothing but to frustrate and his gaming the system and his earlier 3rr you'd think that the admins would do something other then post threats to other editors on the talkpage.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Richard I find your comments on Limas talkpage counter productive. "I think that LoveMonkey is putting a bit too much of the Orthodox POV into the article and, in general, making the article too heavy on the theological discussion." [28] I find your comments biased and also without substance. I have sourced the comments with Professors and scholars and I have used their works not my own. Your comments appear to want to deny what is being said. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have interpreted those comments in the way that you have. I just don't think this is the place to have so much theological material. If the Catholic side of these issues were explained at the same level of detail, this article would become one about theology rather than about the schism which has historical, political, cultural and ecclesiological dimensions in addition to the theological one. I have proposed a title under which we could delve into the theological issues in depth allowing both sides to provide detailed theological explanations replete with citations. --Richard (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article is too long at the moment and packed, particularly in the sections "Rise of Rome", and "Theological Differences", with far too much detail that shouldn't be there. This should go in a daughter article and important points should only be in WP:Summary Style in this article. Theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is not the right title for the daughter article though. How about Catholic - Orthodox theological disputes? Xandar 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, one because "the article is too long" is not valid and is like much of the criticisms above- which are nothing but the style over substance fallacy-which is an ad hom attack. That gets used almost nonstop on wiki. It is a fallacy its played out gentlemen. No article is too long read the policy. Richard has already been through this with me on the History of the EO article. Tired old. Richard is an admin he can create another article without hitting me over the head with an ad hom fallacy, hey more power to you Richard. Anyone want to call Lima on his gaming the system by making his reverts/changes (red) unreadable? Anyone? LoveMonkey (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking what I'm saying. "The article is too long" is a perfectly valid position to hold. That is why Wikipedia Summary Style was adopted. Articles should concentrate on their main topic for ease of reader use. If you cannot get through to the central information you want because of a morass of tangential detail that 95% of readers are not looking for, then the purpose of the article fails. In the two sections I mentioned there is about 80% too much clutter - namely detail of opinions on the History of the Church in Rome, or detailed minutiae of every conceivable theological difference between the Eastern and Western Churches, largely from one point of view. This is irrelevant IMO, and making the article unbalanced and unreadable. Xandar 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I stated Richard can make another fork in the article if he wants. It seems to me that everytime I have read about the event that the Eastern position is basically that the the filique caused it. Which is not the case. The schism was the culmination of years of hostility and the root causes of that hostility need to be addressed. They are many and they are almost never included in articles about the schism, if there is an article it is also almost always Eurocentric with the sources almost exclusively like the Roman Catholic Church and European, Western Christian. I mean can you not see that your sources are almost one sided already from the perspective of the West. in the article right now? The article has Oxford and the Vatican as sourcing until the theological section. I mean look at how Photios I of Constantinople from the Eastern side, who is a hot piont in the history of the schism. Photius is treated in his own article here on wikipedia like a criminal. Photius is vilified on wiki with things like(!!most scholars!! say he never taught at Constantinople, talk about a smir). So no where does it mention that he taught philosophy at the University of Constantinople (it implies he taught out of his home).. I mean I had to add the mention of the University into the See Also section of his article (since Wikipedia has zero respect for the first University ever and instead indrectly refers to it as Magnaura). Thats biased and its nothing but smir talk about POV. Its openly contested that Pholius even taught at the University???? Let alone that he was even a professor there?? These things are contested by the West many shcolars well who are these "scholars". THAT IS ONE SIDED. This article draws it's historical facts from the Vatican, and Oxford[29] and other Non Orthodox sources, BUT the one section that does offer Orthodox validated sources from Professors none less is undue. The theological section (which suprise) a bunch of Western and non Orthodox editors contest. Now because no one here working on the article actually knows any Roman Catholic responses (hint: I added one of the guy's name to the article as a see also) all the sudden it's contested as too long or too one sided (but the whole other part of the article and its Western sources are not...Hypocrasy. As if history and understanding are "too long". LoveMonkey (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, I'm sorry that there is so much emotion wrapped up in this for you. I have created the article as proposed. However, please understand the purpose of the article is to provide a suitable locus for the detailed discussion of theological differences. Now that the article has been created, I will start to trim down the discussion in the "Theological Issues" section of this article to a summary of the points. If you disagree with my judgment as to what is an important point and what is supporting detail, you are of course free to challenge me as is any other Wikipedia editor. --Richard (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that now Richard is again adding in the style over substance fallacy, can you please just address the substance of the issue at hand and stop with the appeals to emotion and hair splitting bickering over words. Please. As for the fork, like I stated I agree, to a separate article. But that does not justifiy removing and confusing the theological issues that played a part in the schism. That is my point.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I am not planning on removing any sections in toto. If you review my last few edits to this article, you will see that what I have done is trim sections by removing text that seems to be getting off track or providing excessive detail. All of that detail has been kept in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences for the time being. Some of it may not belong there but I am spending my effort looking at the text in this article for now.

I note that some of the material in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences is not in Eastern Orthodox theology and probably should be. In particular, the section on "Nous, noesis, and the Heart as Noetic faculty" and the section on "Eternal punishment" should probably be incorporated into Eastern Orthodox theology. I would go so far as to assert that, if a topic is not treated in Eastern Orthodox theology, then it doesn't belong in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences either. --Richard (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Still no comment of Lima's gaming the system and edit warring? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no. I confess that the huge blocks of red text are confusing and I don't know what to make of it. I've written it off as a system anomaly but you might be right that there is something else going on. Nonetheless, I'm not convinced that Lima is "gaming the system". There does seem to be some smoke but I'm not sure that there's a fire underneath it. If you can provide a "smoking gun", I'll look into it further.

As for "edit warring", it takes two to "edit war". I don't think the edit warring on this article has been that bad and I look for the underlying edit war rather than the technical 3RR violation (On the one hand, some edit warriors stay under 3RR but are still edit warring over several days. On the other hand, I don't try to slap down a block on every editor who crosses over the 3RR line.). I also tend towards protecting the page rather than blocking specific users. Finally, as an involved editor, I have to recuse myself from admin actions on this page. If you can find an uninvolved admin to exercise admin sanctions, be my guest.

--Richard (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

comment on this section

LoveMonkey asked me to comment. I'm no expert, just someone interested in early history of the christian church as part of a more general interest in medieval history, and most of what I do know is about the Western church. But:

1. this is the article about the schism. Regardless of its root causes, one of the key aspects about the schism is the theological differences. (I'm not going to try to decide if they were too some degree manufactured or at least emphasized to support the schism developed at least partially on other grounds). To mke the article intelligible, the theology must be discussed.
2. some (or all) of the aspects of the theology involved are ones in which there is considerable difficulty experienced by ordinary readers--to the extent that the differences are sometimes used by those ignorant of their meaning in a joking way as illustrations of insignificant differences.
3. The terminology used is specialized, and will not be familiar to anyone who may be coming to the article ware of the schism, in either ancient or modern times, but not the theology.
4. The Eastern and Western churches obviously take different views on this, and in any material it is necessary to indicate the standpoint. In any case it's obvious to those who know the material, but other readers need some help.
5. Most readers, if they know about Christian theology at all, are likely to be more familiar with the Western RC view of things.
6. Doctrine changes with time. Even when the actual formal doctrine remains the same, the way it is interpreted and discussed changes very much with time. Though a 1900 and a 2000 RC view may be formally the same, they are not expressed the same way, and the implications can be quite different. The older PD Catholic Encyclopedia has a particularly overt--and declared-- POV view towards presenting things, and, although impressively scholarly, can not be considered an unquestionably RS for the current RC view.
7. By the Western view we are mainly talking about the RC view. Many other denominations have similar or even identical creeds, but the interpretation and the emphases differ.
8. Different groups among the Eastern church have slightly different viewpoints. In particular it cannot be assumed that the Russian church has the same view as other branches, or the same emphases.
9. There is a difference between the official doctrine of a church and the view of individual writers within it. None of the theological positions are monolithic and without some areas still left open and under debate. Much of this is probably better in more specialized articles. This is a general article.
10. The material in this part of the article presents almost entirely the Eastern POV. Frankly, I don't see the reason for doing so. It can best be understood by most readers if presented in parallel and in contrast to the RC view. This is not necessarily the case in more specialized articles, but it is so here.

Hope this helps. DGG (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright D so are we to remove the EO parts until someone comes up the RC response? You can be clearer on how to proceed. P.S. As always thanks- Mr G.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I think we can leave the EO parts in but we need to try and look for the RCC side of these issues. For the most part, I think the problem is that the EOC views the RCC as heretical but the RCC does not view the EOC as heretical (which is why the RCC emphasizes that the split is a schism i.e. a divide that from their POV is more ecclesiological than dogmatic). So, you may have a hard time finding many Catholic sources who oppose the EOC view because they probably don't get wrapped up in it as much as the EO sources do.

I agree with just about everything DGG wrote. I would hope that we could find reliable sources that characterize the divide from an objective, third-party perspective (i.e. neither RCC nor EO POV).

--Richard (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please. I added the Roman Catholic apologist who calls the EO everything under the Sun, but tanned leather and you removed him (hint:Adrian Fortescue). You did Richard not me. I am doing my @#$% to try and keep the EO sourced and understandable. Let someone from the RC handle their side.

As for no POV nothing more but the same old tired played out cliches'. You know that getting a Pygmy to write this article would make it useless, so stop saying the NPOV is that.

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC) I removed Adrian Fortescue because the article on him had no obvious linkage to this article. It may be that he wrote something on this topic but we need to put that explicitly in the article not just link to him, vaguely suggesting that his work might be relevant. Perhaps someone else will choose to describe his work in this article but, until that time, there's no point in linking to his article.

As for "no POV", I didn't say that. I'm fine with saying "RCC says X" and "EOC says Y". I just think that there is often a third-party, neutral objective. Maybe not pygmies but there are scholars of history who are neither pro-RCC nor pro-EOC. In theology, it is perhaps a bit different but I still think there might be some neutral, third-party academics who can describe the landscape without situating themselves on it.

--Richard (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)