Talk:East–West Schism

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Title[edit]

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

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

Section on Hell[edit]

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

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

There is no reference to Hell in the Orthodox Liturgy or the Latin Mass, unlike with the Lutheran Liturgy and Eucharist of the Church of England. I am also uncertain as to whether there is a concept of eternal punishment in the Orthodox Church as God is stated in the Liturgy to be all loving, merciful and forgiving. Perhaps a reference is needed or possibly a different wording where it is presently stated that "there is damnation or punishment in eternity for the rejection of God's grace". Not being graced by the presence of God does not necessarily imply one is punished or damned by God. There is a good presentation in the Orthodox wiki: https://el.orthodoxwiki.org/Κόλαση - that the distancing from God's grace is a voluntary choice and not a punishment imposed by God as is made clear by a cited quote from St John of Damascus: "Και τούτο ειδέναι δει, ότι ο Θεός ου κολάζει τινά εν τω μελλόντι αλλ' έκαστος εαυτόν δεκτικόν ποιεί της μετοχής του Θεού. Εστίν η μεν μετοχή του Θεού τρυφή, η δε αμεθεξία αυτού κόλασις" - God does not punish but each one decides on his receiving of God, whose reception is joy and his absence a Hell. I am inclined to slightly change the current text to better reflect the Orthodox Christian view that God does not punish. Skamnelis (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comments on Hell which were backed up by references, were reverted by another editor, even though I had added this comment in the talk section several weeks before making the change and the change had remained for a year without discussion in the talk section. Unless I receive a good explanation I will refer the issue to the arbitration committee. Please explain.Skamnelis (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reason and Orthodoxy[edit]

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

@Skamnelis: OrthodoxWiki is a WP:SPS so it cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia articles. If you have a good source more authoritative than the current one to support the change you want (e.g. Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church or The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity), feel free to use it. Veverve (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After the response that OrthodoxWiki is a WP:SPS so it cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia articles, I had added a reference from Kallistos Ware that seems to have been lost in favour of a statement from a publication attributed to the Romanian Carpathian Church. I do not see why the latter is more representative. At the very least the editor should have opted for presenting the range of views. Unless I have a good explanation, I will refer this issue to the arbitration committee. Skamnelis (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Link to Supernova of July 4, 1054 A.D.? Or Coincidence?[edit]

Has any theological or anthropological scholar ever looked into the coincidental occurrence of the supernova of July 4,1054 A.D. which is now known as The Crab Nebula? This event would have been observed at the time, as it was brighter than any object in the night sky except perhaps the moon (which was new at the time, so it would have been the brightest object in the night sky at the time of explosion). I am not speculating the supernova had any material effect on the schism, but maybe from a psychological perspective and given the fact "signs in the sky" were always associated with "messages from God" may have been an impetus for the official breakaway less than 2 weeks after the supernova occurred? The supernova was even visible during daylight hours. It is difficult to imagine this event had no influence on the psychology of those observing such an event, and I would think the question should be asked. Was this event part of the reason why July 16th, 1054 A.D. was chosen as the official date for the schism?

It is interesting to note that in Italy and Eastern Europe, this supernova would have been visible rising in the east just before daybreak near a new moon when it initially exploded. Over subsequent days, it would have been observed rising earlier and earlier over the month of July and into August, and then started dimming later that summer. This was an extremely significant celestial event that unfortunately has been lost to historical record except for Chinese, Native American, and some other civilizations who witnessed the event. It is also possible the event was documented by Roman and other scholars, but may have been lost to fire, vandalism, or might have been suppressed by the Catholic Church who felt betrayed by the schism, and might have felt the appearance of this "sign from God" would be used by the eastern church to justify the schism. I can only speculate, as I am an outsider to the Catholic Church and not a theologian.

I would hope someone with more insight into this matter would step forward and investigate this possibility. It is not so much whether this particular supernova event had any psychological bearing on the decision of the churches to breakaway from each other, but whether future events might have some psychological bearing on future institutions who have had longstanding riffs in beliefs, ideologies, or other issues. Sometimes one small and seemingly insignificant event has the ability to trigger a much larger series of events, especially if the equilibrium of the situation is tenuous to begin with, such in the case of religion, politics, or other issues. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with the Protestant Reformation[edit]

Would this ariticle benefit from a comparison of the East-West schism with the Protestant Reformation, if there is credible historical literature which discusses the similarities between the two events? They were both events of Christianity splitting into Christian denominations, they both challenged and rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Roman Catholic Church and interestingly, both started in a state called "Roman Empire": The East-West Schism happened with the break of communion of the church of the Byzantine Empire, officially the Eastern Roman Empire, and Martin Luther started the Reformation in the Holy Roman Empire. Also, both new denominations of Christianity were confined approximately within regions of the same language family: the Schism was confined to the Greek East, the Byzantine Empire, whose major language was Greek, while most of the newly Protestant countries spoke Germanic languages. Meanwhile, in both events countries which spoke Romance languages remained traditionally Catholic. 2804:14D:8084:8B09:34C0:EFB5:C9FD:DDD (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East–West_Schism&oldid=1220733174"