Talk:East–West Schism/Archive 7

More contentious editing
I added this small entry to confirm that the Western Roman Empire was no longer part and in political alliance with the Eastern Roman Empire because it fell to the goths. Esoglou then removes and replaces it with more history than is necessary and with the same kind of over--information that bloats the article. Esoglou just can't leave my contributions alone. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In spite of what has been claimed in the referenced edit of the article and again here on the Talk page, the Western Roman Empire did not fall to the Goths, at least not to the Goths alone.
 * The section "East-West Schism: In 476, the Western Roman Empire in Italy was overthrown, when Odoacer deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus and declared himself rex Italiae ('King of Italy')" needs rewriting to make sense instead of nonsense.
 * The Germanic chieftain Odoacer, who deposed Romulus Augustulus, was not a Goth but instead probably of Scirian descent.
 * The deposition of Romulus Augustulus from his merely nominal position as emperor is often conventionally chosen as a date for the end or fall of the Western Roman Empire, not for its overthrow. It had been overthrown long before 476.  Romulus Augustulus did not rule over even a single town.  All parts of the Western Empire were ruled by others: Italy by Odoacer; North Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, the Balearic Island by the Vandals; Iberia by the Visigoths; Roman Britain by Britons and English; Roman Gaul by Franks and other Germanic tribes.  If you count Dalmatia as part of the Western Roman Empire, then the Western Roman Empire was finally overthrown only in the following year, when Odoacer annexed it.
 * It is abnormal to call the Western Roman Empire "Western Rome" (if that is what the editor meant); and, if by "Western Rome" he meant Rome as opposed to Constantinople ("New Rome"), that fell 66 years earlier, when it was sacked by the Visigoths. Esoglou (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No response has been made in four days in defence of the section that has been demonstrated to have all these faults. It must either be revised or deleted.  The editor who inserted it reverted the revision that was made and restored the fault-ridden text.  Perhaps then it must be deleted.  Esoglou (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Student7 has "tweaked" one word used by the editor who inserted and insists on keeping this section but does not defend it with reasons. I don't know whether he meant this to suggest that the section be amended rather than deleted.  Something remains to be done about its claim that "Western Rome" (whatever that is) fell to the Goths, followed by a statement that the Western Roman Empire "in Italy" (whatever about the rest of the Western Roman Empire) was terminated when Odoacer, who was not a Goth, deposed the last nominal Western Roman Emperor.  So, amend or delete?  Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure where we are going with all this. We need to focus on the Schism. The Western Empire, when functional, had different leadership than the East. When it fell, it still had different leadership, one that respected Roman law when it felt like it, and ignored the rest. The West "fell" into feudalism. But, for this article, so what? We are still talking about the Church, not the dominant governments, which can hamper things considerably. But the point is not whether the Goths or Celts conquered the West. The point is, how did this affect East West Church relations? Not sure that is filtering through. The "Kings" of Italy periodically tried to talk to or fight with the Emperor of the East. But how did this affect East-West relations? Not every governmental change is automatically a religious obstacle. They could, in fact, but an opportunity for religious sympathy! Student7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleting would be the simplest solution for this section whose author is not cooperating. An alternative is to amend it and add that the church in the west, being free of political control by the emperor in Constantinople, was in a situation different from that of the Caesaropapist state church of the Roman Empire.  Remember that, after the setting up of that state church by Theodosius, who ruled both east and west, only a very few years passed until the west, even before Odoacer's gesture, was no longer part of the empire, apart from the very small part, including the city of Rome, that the empire managed to hold on to for a few centuries (but far short of the start of the East-West Schism) after Justinian's partial reconquest.   Esoglou (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that Western Rome fell to the Goths is critical to the schism. All of the elaborations by Esoglou amount to obfuscating that. Esoglou just keeps on obscuring the Eastern perspective to the point of making it into his POV. Well it is not. Esoglou's over elaborates as a tactic to over give meaningless and off on a tangent nonsense that is not needed. As for Student 7 I have sent you a link that covers that this very point of the Western Roman Empire falling to the Goths and then those Goths corrupting the Western church (Christianity in general) is the heart and soul of a great deal of debate in the East. John Romanides outlined these things repeatedly when he represented the Orthodox at the World Council of Churches. No one here cares to listen but everyone wants to be heard. Who has the time for this kinda of nonsense? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Western Roman Empire did not fall to the Goths (alone) (LMonkey has presented no source to back up his claim that it did fall to the Goths, and the link LMonkey has now given does not even mention them!), the "Western Rome" that LMonkey says fell to them, if it does not mean the Western Roman Empire, still needs to be explained (does it mean Iberia, where the Goths established a long-lasting kingdom?). Following up the statement about the Goths with information about the non-Goth Odoacer is yet another bit of nonsense.  In the past LMonkey has cited Romanides as saying that it was the Franks who corrupted the western church, but now LMonkey says Romanides put the blame instead on the Goths!  However, LMonkey's comment that the fall of the Western Roman Empire is critical to the schism is to some extent true: the removal of the west from the emperor's power meant that the west took to the idea of a universal church linked to no one particular state (Gerland, Ernst. "The Byzantine Empire" in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908) and of which the state church of the Roman Empire was only part, while in the east the church came to merge psychologically with the empire to the extent that its bishops had difficulty in thinking of Christianity without an emperor (Schadé, Encyclopedia of World Religions).  To that extent LMonkey is right.  So, if properly edited, this section invented and insisted on by LMonkey can be justified.  But, as it stands, it is nonsense that should be deleted.  Esoglou (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More pedantic wrangling. Dodging. Typical tools of Esoglou. According to Esoglou since the link I posted uses the word Franks instead of goths, by Esoglou's logic the Franks are therefore not goths. Esoglou denies the entire history behind the term Frankokratia and how it very clearly applies to the schism. Esoglou now wishes to revise history and change how the East used the term Franks. Should anyone really be surprised? Esoglou's point has very little meaning in the face of the fact that the Franks went thru ethnogenesis after all of the events and historical episodes we are discussing. No, we should now go back in history and superimpose on the past the perspective of now even though it is not what was said then, those points must be ignored for the conclusion Esoglou holds now. This is the very core of Esoglou's problem the past can not be undone nor are people going to ignore it, nor should they. The more politically correct term for this would be Germanic peoples people from Germania but the history books themselves specifically say GOTHs over ran the Western Roman Empire Sack of Rome (410). Now did this Germanic tribe double cross another Germanic tribe and take their winnings after the effects of their warring? Probably. But article can very easily and without fanfare say that the Germanic Visigoths took Rome and then the Germanic Franks took Rome from the Visigoths or however simply and clearly such a sentence can be framed, articulated or clarified. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that, as long as he keeps his idea to himself, LMonkey has a right to think in Humpty Dumpty fashion that Franks means Goths, but not to put it into Wikipedia without backing from reliable sources. On the other hand, he now seems to admit the need either to rewrite his statement: "In 476, the Western Roman Empire in Italy was overthrown, when Odoacer deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus and declared himself rex Italiae ('King of Italy')" (which says not a word about 410, or about Vandals, Lombards or Franks, none of whom are called Goths, any more than Odoacer is); or else to revise the heading that he gave to this statement: "The Fall of Western Rome to the Goths".  Can we advance on that basis?
 * In addition, of course, the relationship between this section and the East-West Schism needs to be made explicit, as Student7 says. Otherwise it is off topic and must be deleted.  Esoglou (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose demeaning people's intelligence indeed should be included under the summary heading Contentious editing'. More of the same from Esoglou. All this because European historians used the word goth instead of Germanic. All this ink over something that petty. As my sentence and contribution.
 * "In 476, the Western Roman Empire in Italy was overthrown, when Odoacer deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus and declared himself rex Italiae ("King of Italy")."
 * Is accurate and there is no need to remove it from the article. Now all the other things that Esoglou added after that are obfuscating and unnecessary they are contentious editing by way of adding superfluous data.  Esoglou knows this It is completely historically correct to state that the Western Roman Empire fell to the goths. All of this other additions are just confusing and adding too much information. Which is typical of Esoglou who ruins by rewording with superfluous information people's contributions just to get the whole thing and underlying point deleted. As for the ultimate sack of Rome. I did not get to add that and or write it as Esoglou plowed into the article. Now I will change the summary to Germanic tribes and try to not add any more superfluous data to the section. As Esoglou just added allot of data that was un-needed.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, LMonkey for agreeing to change your text. There still remains the need to attend to Student7's observation: "We need to focus on the Schism. ... The West "fell" into feudalism. But, for this article, so what? ... The point is, how did this affect East West Church relations?"  Esoglou (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a single word Esoglou. How can all of this by you not be labelled contentious. You would rather play games like this with people's contributions and Wikipedia does nothing to you. Ed Johnston protects you and threatens to ban me from editing Eastern Orthodox articles whenever I post how you have violated your restrictions. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When there is nothing greater to be thankful for, I appreciate it when you finally accept to change even a single word of a faulty text that you have been insisting on. Now how about linking that text with the article, as suggested by Student7?  It would be best if the person who insists on inserting a mention of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in an article on the East-West Schism would indicate what that event has to do with the East-West Schism.  But, if that editor refuses to do so, someone else must either indicate the connection or else delete as irrelevant the mention of the loss of the Empire's western provinces.  Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How many years and editors Esoglou pulling your edit warring? LoveMonkey (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit war. Here there is no edit war.  There is instead a refusal to explain the relevance to the article of an insisted-on insertion.  Esoglou (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No there is an edit war and its sole basis is in the fact that you have to satisfied over and beyond any other contributing editor and that you can not leave my contributions and the article in general ALONE. Nor can you leave Eastern Orthodox articles alone. And you get a free pass while other people get confronted when they abuse and engage in the same behaviors. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you still neglect to indicate what the loss of the Empire's western provinces has to do with the East-West Schism, someone else must either indicate the connection or else delete the mention as irrelevant . Esoglou (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I neglected nothing I copied and pasted the sentence from another article. The only person making any such suggestions or complaints is just YOU Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know that "voting" amounts to anything here, but I agree that the Western Church was "barbarized" when Rome fell. Having said that, St. Patrick was a barbarian, by that definition, I suppose. And lots of others. Still, Christianity in the West lost a bit of traction and it's culture definitely changed. People have remarked on the differences in St. Augustine, just barely pre-fall, to post fall theologians.
 * This is all a summary, anyway. Why not just say, without too much elaboration, that the Western Empire fell to barbarians (who were usually Christians/Arians) by the year Odacer dismissed Romulus. Having said that, most people in the West still "felt" part of the Empire. The West (and maybe not the East either) didn't make this fine distinction until maybe the time of Gibbon, or the Reformation.
 * Does the reality of the conquerors being Arians/Christians do anything for/against the Schism?
 * And the West fell under the control of the East for awhile there after the fall. Does that reverse the "barbarization" for that time frame? Student7 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my someone actually trying to have a discussion and not pedantic wrangle. Hmm. My what a refreshing change. Thank You Student 7 for actually pointing out a good way forward, and trying to get us there. Let me say this. Better than to answer your questions (which are all valid and good questions) it would be better to say that what we should look to point out (in whatever way is functional) that the Western Roman Empire due to the goths, Germanic tribes, Franks, barbarians, Arians (or whatever title we give them), took the Western part of the Roman Empire over (causing it to fall whatever, etc) and made it so the Western Roman Empire was no longer under the same management as the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, on any level. How we articulate that is an issue of style. But somehow that political schism, break, change (or whatever) needs to be addressed in the article as the goals of the Franks were not the goals of the Eastern Romans. Though that is political it plays into the relationship between both general factions. And it plays into things that the Franks did in the Western Church and through the Western Church to move toward their own political goals as such.. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Obvious bias in the lede

 * The lede has this paragraph in it.
 * "Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin usages in their respective domains,[2] involving in the case of Constantinople the closing of all Latin churches in the city and the trampling of the Eucharist consecrated with unleavened bread.[7] In 1054, Roman legates traveled to Constantinople for purposes that included refusing to Cerularius the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch" and insisting that he recognize Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches.[2][8] On the refusal of Cerularius to accept the demand, the leader of the legation, Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated him, and in return Cerularius excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the other legates.[2] This was only the first act in a centuries-long process that eventually became a complete schism.[9]"
 * How can it be appropriate to include in the lede of any wikipedia article lines like..
 * "the trampling of the Eucharist consecrated with unleavened bread."
 * If that information belongs in the article at all it does not have a place in the lede. As it has obvious bias. If the article is to be NPOV then why is it there? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In spite of what is stated in the article, there are sources that say that it was the Sicilian Normans who suppressed Greek usages and that they did so in their own domain, the area that they had conquered from the Byzantines. However, the source cited in the article does say that Leo IX suppressed Greek usages "in his domain", and so the statement in the article cannot be removed unless a reliable source can be cited that explicitly says Leo IX did not suppress Greek usages in his domain.  So too, unless a reliable source can be cited that explicitly says Michael Caerularius's chancellor Nicephorus did not trample on the consecrated unleavened bread of the Latins, the statement that he did cannot be removed.  (The statement that Nicephorus did trample on the consecrated unleavened bread is found, for instance, also here.)  It is unquestioned surely that Cerularius himself "invented the new name Azymites" for what he called "the heresy of using unleavened bread (azyma) instead of common bread"  (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. IV).  We cannot pick and choose among the referenced statements just to suit our personal tastes.  Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement is biased it is POV at the very least the statement should not be in the lede. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An editor's personal dislike of a well-sourced relevant statement of historical fact does not make the statement objectively biased. Esoglou (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More Esoglou wanting to be read and heard but too incompetent to actually read what is being said. More Esoglou trying to frustrate people because poor Esoglou is just to dense to see that what they are objecting too and what he is addressing are two completely different things.
 * My objection is to this POV pushing in the lede..
 * "the trampling of the Eucharist consecrated with unleavened bread."
 * My objection is to this POV pushing in the lede..
 * "the trampling of the Eucharist consecrated with unleavened bread."
 * My objection is to this POV pushing in the lede..
 * "the trampling of the Eucharist consecrated with unleavened bread."
 * Name me valid sources that are current which have in them
 * "the trampling of the Eucharist consecrated with unleavened bread."
 * Not a source from 1913 and one you yourself pick and choice to support at your fancy as you claimed it was an invalid source for the inflammatory comments by Adrian Fortescue made about Hesychasm in the past here on Wiki. Esoglou never ever ever doesn't hear or actually listen to when he is acting inappropriately toward other edits. Even when those editors complaint to the point that Esoglou can't edit on abortion articles or Eastern Orthodox articles. Esoglou is never culpable no no it's other people. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * POV in the lede is proof of a POV pusher and a POV article. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move part of lead
I propose the moving of this entry..
 * "To speak more exactly, the domain in which Greek usages were suppressed was that part of southern Italy where the Sicilian Normans, after conquering it from the Byzantines, enforced Latin customs.[7][8] It was different in the area that the Pope himself ruled, for he declared: "Both in and outside Rome many monasteries and churches of the Greeks are found, none of them has been disturbed or hindered in the traditions of their fathers, or their customs; but rather they are advised and encouraged to keep these."

And this entry to later in the article
 * "Cerularius, for his part, ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople, an action accompanied by removing the unleavened hosts from the tabernacles and trampling them underfoot,[12][13][14][15] for Cerularius "invented the new name Azymites" for what he called "the heresy of using unleavened bread (azyma) instead of common bread"[16] and considering the Eucharist consecrated (invalidly in his view) with unleavened bread as no more than "dry mud".[9][10][17][18][19] According to the historian John Bagnell Bury, Cerularius's purpose in closing the Latin churches was "to cut short any attempt at conciliation".

and remove them from the lede..LoveMonkey (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These passages are well sourced and highly relevant to the schism. If there is any moving, the whole context should be moved. I have made the move, in a form that is easily reversible if an editor wishes to revert it and then continue the discussion here.  Esoglou (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had to step away after Esoglou's last edit in order to not become ugly. Esoglou removed and rewrote more than what was being requested. In order to perpetuate conflict. He used this opprotunity to again engage in contentious editing. Not one suggestion here on the talkpage first. NOT ONE. As whatever he does is obviously not up for discussion. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposal to move out of the lead an important part of the immediate lead-up to the mutual excommunications of 1054 is opposed. The text must therefore remain as before until either a compromise agreement is reached or opinions of others are received.  OK?  I have given the reasons for my opposition: the part that LMonkey dislikes is very well sourced and, in the view of some, even essential to understanding the events of 1054, more so than much of the other material that is included.  At least a summary of that information, comparable to the information given on other elements, should be kept in the lead.  Surely we can agree on that?  Esoglou (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More contentious editing by Esoglou. All these policies and rules according to Esoglou. So Esoglou has removed my good faith contributions which included sourcing of information in the lede. Esoglou should now at least add the sourcing I spent my person time BACK INTO THE ARTICLE. Since Esoglou is deletion and revert happy with my good faith contribution AGAIN WITHOUT discussion here on the talkpage first. For the record let it be noted that Esoglou just committed at WP:3RR on the article., , Wikipedia will do nothing. Or probably retaliate against me if I report Esoglou.  LoveMonkey (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why complaint is made because I returned the text to how it was, just as LMonkey had done before me. To be more constructive, let us discuss the proposal to leave in the lead proportionate summaries of the various items, while moving the items themselves to the body of the article.  Esoglou (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think shorter is better. He closed the churches (maybe he got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning, but should we care? In the lead?) I think the way I left it still conveys the sense of what brought the schism to a boil. He closed the churches. Rome sent an "unqualified embassy" (to be polite here) to deal with him. The end. Student7 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Most excellent Student7. I think that my edit with a short list of events gave a very quick and clear overview and I was done. Esoglou just had to revert out my contributions and continue his POV pushing edit warring ways. LoveMonkey (talk)
 * I think, Student7, that you have forgotten my suggestion to keep in the body of the article, even if not in the lead, the well-sourced mention of the provocative action that you have now entirely eliminated from the article. You have also entirely removed the mention of the accusation of Azymite heresy levelled by Cerularius against the Latins.  This, not the Filioque, was his accusation, and it seems to deserve to be at least referred to in the lead, even if the offensive action is mentioned only in the body along with the explanation that Cerularius declared the Latin Eucharist invalid.  The supposition that it may have been only as a result of getting out of bed on the wrong side one morning that Cerularius began his campaign does not accord with these views: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  When you reinsert in the body the mention of the extremely offensive action and description of the Latin Eucharist, perhaps you would be good enough also to do something about the paragraph in the body that presents the dispute as arising from a letter by Leo demanding that Cerularius accept the genuineness of the so-called Donation of Constantine.  The letter that mentioned that false document was in fact carried by Humbert in 1054, but the article says instead that Humbert was sent to settle a dispute that had arisen out of that letter!  Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter of "taking sides." To me, the lead should be short. I don't see why this material can't be in the separate article "History of.."
 * If the material has to be in this article, can you remove something else from the subtitled history to make room for it?
 * As a separate issue, while they were obviously suspicious, were the Greeks able to discern that the Donation of Constantine was false from a copy of the "original" fabrication?
 * If something I wrote suggested I thought you were taking sides, it was certainly unintended. No source says Cerularius gave any reply whatever to the letter that Humbert brought, which Cerularius may even have refused to accept .  I imagine that , even if he read it, perhaps privately and certainly only in a Greek translation, he had never before heard of the false/forged document known as the "Donation of Constantine", since Leo's letter is the first known instance of the document ever being cited by any pope.  Esoglou (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tisk, tisk, tisk.., Ask other people Student 7 you won't get objective information from Esoglou. There was more than reading it there was a council about the letter left by Humbert. Remember Robert Guiscard did not hide his programme of conquest of the Greek provinces.  What a shameful bit of disinformation. How dare the Patriarch of Constantinople address the Patriarch of Rome as a brother and not Father (how dare Constantinople follow tradition Paul never called Peter Father)!
 * pg 17 when the new Pope (Pope Martin IV) excommunicated the Byzantine Emperor (Michael VIII, you know the one that forced the Orthodox clergy to accept Rome's demands without reservation at Lyons, Mike the 8th got excommunicated for taking Constantinople back from crusaders), DURING AN ATTEMPT BY THE POPE TO GATHER A LATIN FORCE FOR RETAKING CONSTANTINOPLE FROM MICHAEL. Its all the Christ like behavior there. As Pope Martin IV had broken the tenuous union which had been reached between the Greek and the Latin Churches at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 and further compromise was rendered impossible. But ignore that its because people were flamboyant and all that jazz.
 * Student 7 either Esoglou knows what he's talking about and just lied to you (which is original research) or he is ignorant and is speculating (which leads to original research). You choose, however you should look into the tiny historical fact the translators for Humbert, Hubert were flogged and into why they were flogged or whipped or beaten. Even the Eastern Catholic perspective covers that.

LoveMonkey (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I trust Student7 to fix the faults in the body of the article that I pointed out to him. That is why I have not done so myself.  As things stand, the lead gives far more detail than the body does about the circumstances of the mutual excommunications of 1054, generally seen as the key date of the schism.  It should be the other way round.  I recalled to him that I had already indicated that I had no objection to thinning down the lead and placing the material removed from there in the body of the article.  Surely the accusations aimed at the Latins, of which particular stress was laid on their use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, should be mentioned in the body.  Read for instance what Angeliki Laiou writes of the importance the Byzantines of that period attached to the Azymite question and, perhaps especially, where she describes as "usually seen as the first volley in the war between Michael Keroularios and Humbert of Silva Candida" the letter against the use of unleavened bread that Leo of Ohrid wrote in 1053, a letter that other scholars indeed say he probably wrote at Cerularius's instigation.  I also pointed out to Student7, trusting that he will remedy it, the mispresentation in the body of the article (opening paragraph of the section "Mutual excommunication of 1054") of the quarrel as originating in a 1054 letter of Pope Leo IX, who had already the year before sent Cerularius a response to Leo of Ohrid's attack.  A mispresentation that LMonkey believes is proved by the copy made (by a certain A. Chaney?) of the Wikipedia article on Cerularius.  On the other hand, I thank him for the source that indicates that a supposition of mine, that I had clearly flagged as such, was unfounded (I have now stricken it out).  He is mistaken, however, if he thinks that the synod/council that Cerularius held in Constantinople after Humbert's departure was about Leo IX's 1054 letter rather than Humbert's bull and it was Humbert, not the pope, that the council/synod excommunicated.1, 3, 3, 4, 5, ... Esoglou (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would rather see the lead as short as possible, admittedly a challenge in an article which covers so much time.
 * Ultimately all citations need to be removed from the lead. The lead is supposed to be a mere summary of the article. The citations go into the body of the article. I concede that this may not be possible for reasons that the material is disputed today and it is easier to put it in the lead than both the article and the lead and then have both reverted. Maybe a good reason to put facts in the article (or "History of..") first, then, once the tumult has died down, summarize it in the lead. Student7 (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * blah blah blah..The sources I posted say Cerularius thought the Leo letters were forgeries (like the Donation of Constantine maybe) as I already posted. Honestly, Student 7 is the only one proposing something. I agree with what he posted. As for Esoglou..Blah blah blah. The train for bickering and making OR to cover up on the shameful behavior of Western Christians toward Eastern Christians has passed, Esoglou is here just doing apology. Esoglou would do better on articles like Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše where he can retaliate against the Serbs for trying to tell people what happened to enrage them. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that some points (such as what was only one argument advanced in the letter that Humbert brought with him) might best be left for the "History of" article alone, and that other points (such as the major charges that either side made against the other) are perhaps not worth giving in the lead (which could thereby be shortened, as it should), but have an essential place in this article's treatment of the 1054 spat. I look forward to seeing the lead's treatment of 1053-1054 reduced to a summary of well-sourced information given in the body of the article, where it covers the 1054 mutual excommunications.  That event, leading to a breach that in spite of superficial agreements in 1274 and 1439 has never been healed, deserves fuller treatment than now in the body.  Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Or maybe taking down the pettiness of the conflict (at least in the lede) and focus on the large battles, massacres and conflicts there (but only in general as an overview). But here let me re-tally just to make sure things are somewhat clear.. There was this Emperor Mike, Mike the 8th (1223-1282). Mike here made lots and lots and lots of compromises with Rome in order to get help fighting off common enemies and heal the rifts between the groups because the Sack of Constantinople happened BEFORE he was made Emperor. Mike tried to make peace and forge an alliance, even though the Popes sent an idiot in the past to help forge an alliance. The idiot in the name of the Pope excommunicates the Patriarch of Constantinople and anyone whom agrees with the Patriarch (YES THAT MEANS THE WHOLE CHURCHES OF THE EAST) but no one takes this seriously. Then surprise Constantinople is taken by Crusaders and pretty much destroyed in the name of the Pope 1204AD. Mike the Emperor tries AGAIN to make peace and tells his clergy (even though they have been done WRONG and by the West) they are now officially NOT ALLOWED to disagree and the East capitulates. Then the Pope of Rome in light of this excommunicated Emperor Mike the 8th DURING AN ATTEMPT BY THE POPE TO GATHER A LATIN FORCE FOR RETAKING CONSTANTINOPLE FROM MIKE. And what people are supposed to take from that is the East are just being crybabies about all of this..REALLY??


 * Think about that, Emperor Mike the 8th here is trying to keep his Empire from falling and even after fighting off the Frankokratia Roman Catholic crusaders he still tries to compromise with them. But the Pope then excommunicates him and tries to raise an army to wipe him out. And people read about how the Pope was so so so so sad at what had happened to the Eastern Orthodox Christians (by his crusaders) and how the Pope just never never ever wanted those bad crusaders to do that to Constantinople. And yet when the Emperor Mike fought back and won.. What did the Pope do? He tried to raise ANOTHER army and go back in to war and kill to take back the Constantinople that he (or they even) where so sad about getting done in such away that they were now endorsing. Does that bother anyone? No probably not Esoglou. Does that make sense as something Christians should be doing? To one another? I mean even after recovering and fighting off the Crusaders to take back Constantinople and the East from Roman Catholic forces. EVEN then Emperor Mike tried to make peace and possibly accept that the Pope indeed was not behind the Sacking of Constantinople and yet what does the Pope do? The Pope tries to mount another campaign against the Eastern Orthodox! Which is what was the straw that broke the camels back (this is what caused and or made concrete the schism not the going back in time and trying to find some obscure event where an idiot showed his a$$ to the Eastern Orthodox). This is the same kind of nonsense that has even recently happened with the Wests' bombing of Yugoslavia on the side of Al Qaeda and the arming of Al Qaeda forces  in Syria AGAINST EASTERN CHRISTIANS . So for maybe uninformed people this is something that happened a 1000 years ago, but to Eastern Christians this is something that has been continuous up until this very moment. This is not a dead event but rather something that is on going. Anyone whom has ever read James H. Billington knows that this is a long long long history and this is just one tiny piece of it.  LoveMonkey (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What the 1054 excommunication was about - azymites or Filioque?
Happy New Year to all. I've been less active on Wikipedia in the last few months but I've been checking in periodically and have sort of caught up on the recent discussion about the lead although I confess to not having looked at this very closely. Here are a few comments from my perspective...

1) There has been a failure to assume good faith and maintain civility. Please, let's be more collegial.

2) Keeping the lead short is important. I didn't look at it closely but the extended discussion of azymites and trampling of the Eucharist is not appropriate for the lead.  As Esoglou suggested, this discussion should probably be covered in the body of the article although mostly in summary form.  As Student 7 suggested, the details should either be in the "History of..." article or somewhere else.

3) Esoglou asserts that Cerularius' attack was regarding azymites and not the Filioque. This goes against what popular sources say and so we are exhorted that "extraordinary assertions require extraordinary support".  If we are to make this assertion, I think we need to assert that many sources (if not most) attribute the schism to a dispute over the Filioque and, if we are to assert that the dispute began over the azymites, we need to have sources that assert specifically that it was this and NOT the Filioque that was at the root of the original dispute.  Ideally, we would find a source that explicitly said something along the lines of "Although it is commonplace to consider the Filioque as the cause of the 1054 schism, it was in fact the issue of azymites that triggered the original dispute."  Anything less than this smacks of Original Research and so we must make the sourcing robust enough to withstand such charges.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder what are "the popular sources" of weight that say Cerularius attacked the Latin Church principally on the Filioque, apart from responding to Humbert's stupid attack on the Greeks for allegedly omitting it! When he himself picked what to attack the Latins on, the use of azymes was his main target.  Having been absent, Richard is probably unaware of some sources that have been mentioned: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Michael Caerularius. Meyendorff does not mention the Filioque as a point of attack by Cerularius (9). Neither does Cunliffe-Jones, who says: "The dispute in 1054 between Humbert and Cerularius was dominated by a matter of relatively minor importance: the Greeks objected to the Latin practice of using 'azymes' or unleavened bread in the eucharist, and they argued that leavened bread alone constituted the proper matter of the sacrament" (10). Angeliki Laiou, speaking not of Cerularius alone but of other Greek polemicists of the same period also, writes: "Among the 'Roman' errors Keroularios mentioned is the use of unleavened bread (azymes) in the eucharist. Other texts of the period echoed the theme.  In terms of number of words written, or number of treatises written, azymes far outstrip the procession of the Holy Spirit" (11). Earlier, Photius had attacked the Latin clergy in Bulgaria for using the Filioque, but didn't and couldn't attack the Pope on that matter, since the Pope had not yet accepted inclusion of Filioque in the Creed.  It was only later that the Filioque became the main complaint of the Greeks against the West. Francis Dvornik, who paints a favourable picture of Photius, writes: "One would at first have expected Photius to grow in popularity in the Greek literature of the eleventh century, chiefly after the schism of Michael Cerularius; but here again we shall be disappointed. One of the first anti-Latin controversialists, the Russian Metropolitan Leo, for instance, breaks off the controversy on the Filioque started by Photius to confine himself to the discussion on the Azymes" (12).  Enough, surely.  Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. Just nope. Again missing the bigger picture. The West establishing things unilateral-ly encompasses all of it. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By chance, while searching for other information, I have come across a study that explicitly and succinctly states that Cerularius had not referred to the Filioque question before Humbert raised it (13).
 * While to some extent disagreeing with the general verdict, the same book notes: "Scholars have tended to attribute the schism of 1054 to the Byzantine patriarch. This is because Cerularius was responsible, by his sponsorship of the manifesto of Leo of Ochrida, for provoking the controversy" (p. 211). The manifesto was issued more than a year before Humbert, not Cerularius, raised the Filioque question in July 1054.  The same book states that the manifesto was "against certain usages of the Latin church, particularly the use of unleavened bread in the celebration of the Eucharist" (p. 209, emphasis added).
 * And yet the section of this article that deals with the schism of 1054 still states that it all began because Pope Leo demanded that Patriarch Cerularius accept that the document known as the Donation of Constantine was genuine! Esoglou (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * More original research and disinformation. At best this is an argument from silence. It contradicts the whole reality that Humbert mentions the filioque in his bull of excommunication. Scholars have been wrong (even Esoglou points this out when one one hand he uses the New Advent and then when it says something that contradicts his POV he then states that it is out of date which is to say the scholars on it where and are wrong). One source and Esoglou's opinion mean nothing. We are here to post what is commonly agreed upon for either side. There is plenty of speculation from "scholars." However since Esoglou likes to have it his POV way. I can't see Esoglou doing anything but making arguments like the one he just made since Esoglou is completely unwilling to try and see both sides of this schism. He has in his head that his side is right and refuses to respect the points given by the East as to why they disagree. And he will post fallacies like the argument from silence to further his POV. Thats all he is doing above. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Universal church vs. state church
Esoglou wrote: " LMonkey's comment that the fall of the Western Roman Empire is critical to the schism is to some extent true: the removal of the west from the emperor's power meant that the west took to the idea of a universal church linked to no one particular state (Gerland, Ernst. "The Byzantine Empire" in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908) and of which the state church of the Roman Empire was only part, while in the east the church came to merge psychologically with the empire to the extent that its bishops had difficulty in thinking of Christianity without an emperor (Schadé, Encyclopedia of World Religions). "

It seems to me that we have not really made this point anywhere in this article. It should be made perhaps in the section titled "Differences contributing to the schism"

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * True. Sometimes overestimated perhaps since the papacy was, for a time, under Byzantine control, German (HRE) control, and French control (Avignon captivity, and, by the Reformation, under the thumb of the Spaniards. Student7 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmm... good point. The idea, as stated by Esoglou, glosses over some key historical details that Student7 alludes to but does not elaborate upon.  The point, as I see it, is that the Catholic Church today is a church that is independent of any one country, nationality or ethnicity.  To consider Vatican City a "state", as LMonkey does in his comment below, glosses over the fact that the Vatican is no longer a "state" in the sense of having any significant temporal power as it did in centuries past.  Since the end of the Papal States in 1870, the power of the Catholic Church has lacked temporal power and exerted only spiritual power.  "How many divisions does the Pope have? - Adolf Hitler"


 * It is true that there are national conferences of bishops but all bishops in the Catholic Church answer to the Bishop of Rome, not to the Patriarch of a particular state church. However, this independence from state control was achieved after many centuries of struggle over "separation of church and state" during which the state often sought to exert influence over the Catholic Church and vice versa.  The separation did not happen as soon as the Western Roman empire was "removed from the emperor's power".  The concept of "separation of church and state" took over a millenium to evolve and many bloody wars were fought in which the relationship of church and state was a major issue.


 * By comparison, as I understand it, it is much more natural for Orthodox Churches to be associated with a nationality or ethnicity (e.g. Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.) Moreover, the independence of a national church from the government of that nation is not so clear-cut as it has come to be in the West (once again, this separation in the West is a relatively recent development of the last few centuries).


 * My understanding is that an Orthodox Christian is more likely to be bewildered by the idea that church and state should be separate and more likely to believe that church and state should work together, "hand in glove". To paraphrase Schadé, they would have "difficulty in thinking of Christianity without an emperor". We see this most evident in the rising influence of the Russian Orthodox Church after the end of Communism.  A role similar to that of the Orthodox Church in Russia has not been seen in the West since the days of Franco's Spain and even that was a bit of an historical anomaly.  Christian prelates had ceased to exert such influence in the rest of Europe more than a century earlier.


 * In any event, my point is that the two churches evolved in a way that led the East to an ecclesiology based on collegiality among patriarchs (affiliated more or less with national or ethnic churches) and led the West in another direction towards a hierarchical ecclesiology based upon the primacy of the Pope. It is important to point out how the differences in political development in the West vs. in the East influenced the schism as indicated by Esoglou's sources, Gerland and Schadé.


 * And, yes, I recognize that the "affiliation with national or ethnic churches" has been influenced by the diaspora and globalization of the Orthodox faith so that, for instance, it becomes complicated to describe Orthodoxy in the United States since there is no single Orthodox Church in the U.S. but several Orthodox Churches.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Its linked to the state or country called the Vatican. Catholicos means equality and sameness for all in the pursuit of theosis. There is no rich or poor, no Greek or Jew, no man or women in the eyes of God his love is the same for the devil as it is for his saints. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the conversation above, there seems to be a certain confusion between the growth of an idea and its concrete realization. Again, since the question is about the influences that led to the East-West Schism, comments on present-day attitudes of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics are irrelevant, as also are comments on a supposed Spanish control over the papacy centuries later (a highly questionable supposition, the only basis for which may be the control that the Spanish crown exercised over the church in its own dominions alone).  The churches that in the schism chose communion with Constantinople rather than Rome were those under the emperor's political control or those who, if they were now ruled by Muslims, still identified in some way with the empire, to the extent that the Christians who had earlier broken from imperial control and are now called Oriental Orthodox called them Melkites, from the Syriac term for "Emperor".  Russia was not dependent on the emperor, but its church was: in 1054 its bishops were still Greeks, sent by the emperor.  Chalcedonian Christians who in no way looked to the emperor in Constantinople as, in a way, the one head of Christians chose communion with Rome, whether they were Poles or English or Spaniards or Normans, and so were not ruled either by the other (the Frank or Holy Roman) emperor.  One of the factors that led to the growth in the West of the idea of a church in which the Byzantine emperor had no more status than other rulers may even have been the control that (as Student7 says) he exercised for a while over the appointment of the Bishops of Rome, when all the rest of the West was altogether independent of the emperor and at times parts of it were even at war with him.  (This is mere speculation.)  In any case that period ended a whole three centuries before 1054!   Esoglou (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So what we are aiming at here is a statement that today, Latins would regard national Patriarchs (of which there are a few, but no "Patriarch of the US" no "Patriarch of Brazil", major nationalities) as unusual, but that Orthodox regard as normal? i.e. We have "Greek Orthodox" in the US, while Latins have "Byzantine churches" which are an umbrella for all former Orthodox churches who affiliate with Rome and later immigrated to the U.S. Student7 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my jurisdictionalism, batman. Hmmmmm next we'll be talking about SCOBA. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely, what we are aiming at in this article is a statement about the attitudes that led to the 1054 schism, not about present-day attitudes, which aren't necessarily the same. The churchmen who chose the Constantinopolitan side of the schism were all associated with an emperor whom they saw as de jure ruler of all orthodox Christians.  Those who chose the Roman side saw orthodox Christianity (their view of what constitutes orthodox Christianity) as linked to the emperor in Constantinople no more than it was to their own rulers.  That's what the cited sources say.  The Byzantine emperor is now no more and present-day attitudes on the Constantinopolitan side can no longer be what they were then.  Esoglou (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again more non-sense I posted above how Emperors like Michael VIII went against the Orthodox Clergy and people repeatedly in order to try and overcome the schism (and others attacking Niketas Stethatos forcing him to capitulate, or forcing the Orthodox clergy at the Council of Lyon to capitulate or placing and the support of John Bekkos all show that the Emperors of the East worked to overcome the schism). It again was Pope Martin IV's attempts to mount another army together to go and overthrow Michael VIII Palaiologos after he as Emperor had defeated the Latins and recovered Constantinople, this was the start of schism. When this was made known in the East Michael VIII Palaiologos had no leg to stand on and his son Andronikos II Palaiologos did much to reverse this most unpopular and ugly set of circumstances in the East. People here are spreading disinformation. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again what made the schism real was the West's attack of Michael VIII Palaiologos by Pope Martin and Charles I of Naples.. Not some nonsense about church structure. When Emperor Michael VIII was double crossed by the Latins he and the Unionist LOST. There is no other reason for this than the Pope double crossing them thats why we have a schism. Michael VIII Palaiologos killed and persecuted allot of Eastern Orthodox to establish and force the union with the Papacy. Which means this disinformation about the supposed Caesaropapism is just that, disinformation and propaganda, and not history. Many Emperors failed as their power was not absolute nor taken in the way that is being implied by the statements above. The Vatican and or Vatican City is closer to what Max Weber is talking about than any supposed Constantinian shift or any other made up anachronisms that Esoglou and or Richard post here. Things like ignoring that the English were Orthodox until 1066 as a good chunk of Europe was without taking orders from Constantinople or Rome. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What caused the schism and keeps it going.. Is the West can do what it wants because it is the West and it is by it's own opinion its own authority. And that might work out for awhile but sooner or later it begins to feed on itself. And if it was OK for the Roman Catholic church to make and establish itself and its own customs, theology and even try and force the East to accept those customs then it is completely acceptable for the Protestants against the Roman Catholic church to follow that example and do what they want and believe as they want and they too can claim whatever justification for their POV because of the example already set. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I make a comment on the irrelevance of LMonkey's remarks here, which is surely obvious. The hardened attitudes at the time of the Council of Lyon, attitudes provoked above all by the intervening Crusades, were more than two centuries later than the 1054 break.  The difference in views on the place of the Emperor of Constantinople in the Church, differences that were one factor that led to the break, is noted not only by Westerners such as Gerland and Schadé, whom I cited, but also by people such as the late Deno John Geanakoplos (text)


 * The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms states that this was "a source of contention between Rome and Constantinople that led to the schism of 1054" (text). Resentment in the West against the Byzantine emperor's governance of the Church is shown as far back as the 6th century, when "the tolerance of the Arian Gothic king was preferred to the caesaropapist claims of Constantinople" (text). The origins of the distinct attitudes in West and East are sometimes traced back even to Augustine, who "saw the relationship between church and state as one of tension between the 'city of God' and the 'city of the world'", and Eusebius, who "saw the state as the protector of the church and the emperor as God's vicar on earth" (text).


 * An interesting list of factors (not just one or two) in bringing about the schism is found here. Interesting too is the letter of Patriarch Antony IV of Constantinople (as mentioned in the Wikipedia article on him) to Basil I of Muscovy defending, as late as 1393, only 60 years before the Fall of Constantinople, the liturgical commemoration in Russian churches of the Byzantine emperor on the grounds that he was "emperor (βασιλεύς) and autokrator of the Romans, that is of all Christians", as recounted by Meyendorff in this book published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press.  According to Patriarch Antony, "it is not possible among Christians to have a Church and not to have an emperor. For the empire and the Church have great unity and commonality, and it is not possible to separate them" (Borys Andrij Gudziak - 1992) and "the holy emperor is not like the ruler and governors of other regions" (J. Chrysostomides in Kathēgētria and Dimitri Obolensky).


 * I apologize to anyone who thinks I have gone on too long about this matter. I began with the intention of writing no more than three lines, but the abundance of material has tempted me to continue.  It is time to stop.  Esoglou (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Who has time for Esoglou? Really? Meyendorff made terrible mistakes and I have repeatedly pointed this out to Esoglou and Richard. Sergei Bulgakov's theology was heretical . And yet Esoglou is here again posting their opinions (from the Comforter) as the positions of the Orthodox Church.. Why? Because they are a way for Esoglou to further his POV. However if I post Miroslav Filipović's opinion and or even the mainline Adrian Fortescue Esoglou concocts up some of his original research and claims no no no that's not valid because the New Advent is 70 years old..Never mind Roman Catholic sources contradict Esoglou's original research. Esoglou just loves to play both sides for the middle. He has consistently provided misleading disinformation and he is doing so now. I will say in as clear as way as possible. Jesus Christ, God is the king of all kings. Christ is king is a king not a revolutionary but the head of a monarchy. This is the same nonsense that got Tolsoy in trouble. Esoglou is giving the disinformation and impression that the West as Roman Catholic Christians endorse republicanism and were in essence taking the stance of republicanism. When they did not. But again don't think for yourself be lazy and let Esoglou inform you. If you believe the road he is taking you down. You would be denying that Greece right now is a republic and you would be also denying that Greece is the birthplace of democracy. If you buy Esoglou's POV that is. As for Russia you can thank the Polish trying to force the "Russians" to convert to Roman Catholicism for the Czars or at least the Romanov Dynasty (see Time of Troubles). Remember the Bolsheviks DID NOT OVERTHROW THE CZAR he (the Emperor) as an Orthodox Christian Emperor abdicated to the Parliament in Russia and it was the democratically elected Parliament called the Duma that the Bolsheviks overthrew (see the Russian Provisional Government and the Russian Republic) after the Czar had given up his power to the Duma. That's the October Revolution. You have to just love the whole let's invade Russia every 100 years or so thingy and see if we can't get them to convert to Roman Catholicism thingy along with it.. I mean Napoleon would have done it (forced conversion), I can't say one way or the other about Hitler but I think Hitler was Roman Catholic? (see Religious views of Adolf Hitler) I personally think he was a patronizing atheist and if he had to tell people he worship gall bladders to get them to follow him he would have.. Either way Russia has never invaded France nor German so why such a one way historical street? Why all the bow to the Pope business in all of this? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Shortening
Several myths seem to prevail in the very long "histories, whether in the lead, the subsection, or (for that matter), the moved subsection in "History of...":
 * Every move by the pope was anti-Eastern Empire or anti-Orthodox. More likely, the pope was mostly subservient to the Eastern Emperor whom he thought would save the papacy from the barbarians until the truth finally emerged under the Lombards in the 8th century and he was forced to turn to the Franks for succor.
 * Every political or military setback for the Emperor was felt deeply by the Orthodox. Doubtful.
 * Every dispute between the Pope and his Eastern contemporaries had the Emperor of East stridently supporting the Eastern Patriarchies. Doubtful.
 * There were no, or very few, benign exchanges between Eastern and Western Christianity after some fixed date. Whether earlier or later than 1054 is immaterial.
 * Every military loss by the East, was deeply noted by everybody. With communications being what they were, nobody really knew one way or the other, and, most likely, depending on their distance from action, probably believed the best for their side. The military situation only became apparent after the fact, sometimes well after the fact.
 * Every little detail about some parcel of land won or lost needs to be in this article.

This is not supposed to be a military article. It has only become that way because of our supposition that the papacy cared about every loss of territory. The pope was often dealing with Christians on both sides, and never really got "into" following Muslim military conquests, which (to him) was an "Eastern Concern". So his main concern was which set of Christians he wanted to deal with. His choice was Constantinople until 780 or so. The rest before that period should be removed or highly condensed.

And, no, we're not talking about rm the 4th crusade! That was another era. Student7 (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say in the ballpark..However the Papacy as the supreme seat of power of Christianity is a Western tradition Popes got removed from power (Emperor Otto I having forcibly removed Pope John XII for example). There are counter examples that go on and on but the point most important is to be Orthodox Christian is not the same as to be Roman Catholic. In Orthodoxy you are to seek the vision of God to see God in this life above all things this ends in theosis. This is the whole meaning of Christianity to obtain the light of Tabor as this is distinctively Christian it is an emphasis as Western Christians from time to time got a taste of it as a reminder from God. Theosis must not be compromised as the truth is theosis and theosis is not unity for the sake of unity. God is breaking it down to re-establish this over and above human rational and reason which are of the head and not the spirit, people seek the truth and will find it when they put their minds in their hearts and think from their hearts instead. The fact that it is so foreign to people reading this shows just how far removed from Christianity some people really are. People have chosen. And it will all play out that way.. Western Christians are very ignorant of their religion and what it is and where it comes from. Oh well. All of this does nothing for the Syrians and Copts bullets and bombs are real. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Student7. Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope Student7 sees that my recent contributions address each of his points. Example Pope Martin excommunicating Emperor Michael got people killed. People getting killed is instantly a big deal. And that move was massively anti-Eastern and anti-Orthodox it destroyed the union created at Lyons. Every loss by the Emperor weakened the Emperor to the onslaught of Islam the result of that is history. Michael executing, punishing Orthodox clergy opposed to the union with him siding with the Pope. Doesn't really fit in with your points. There were active trade agreements and business going on as an everyday affair between say the Venetians and Byzantines (there were others)yes DAILY involving 10s of thousands of people. Read about the communicated desires of Western European power players wishing conquest on the East..I have tried to add the data. Hopefully you see how what information I have tried to add recently shows some of your comments are not actually the right direct to guide (as an overview) the article content. But rather than simply disagreeing I wish to use actual events that would and will hopefully enlighten readers to why things actually worked the way did. In general though not down to every battle and conflict.LoveMonkey (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why Caesaropapism is a nonsensical Roman Catholic allegation toward the Orthodox..

 * Esoglou removed my contribution completely from the article as it stands right now . Esoglou is interpreting and censuring and repressing what he does not like. Esoglou is inserting superfluous data he is edit warring and can not leave my contributions alone. My source states the Orthodox perspective and is an Orthodox source. My contribution was a summary of what the sources says.
 * Here is the actual passage that I am sourcing from, word for word.
 * pg 16-17
 * Emperor Michael VIII, eager to consolidate his realm now that its captial was back in Constantinople, arranged in 1274 for an Orthodox delegation to attent the Latin Council of Lyons, where on July 6, 1274 a union of the Latin and Orthodox Churches was proclaimed, after the Orthodox delegation was forced by the Emperor to accept all alterations in the faith that had occured in the western Church. This unconditional "union", which caused waves of protest in the Empire and the Orthodox world collapsed in 1281 when the new Pope excommunicated the Byzantine Emperor during an attempt to gather a Latin force for retaking Constantinople.
 * Esoglou has no source saying what he is implying which is that the Orthodox source is invalid nor does Esoglou have a source stating that the reasons that Michael VIII attempts failed were because "the vast majority of Byzantine Christians remained implacably opposed to union with the Latin "heretics". Which is the inappropriate POV pushing information that he restored and is currently in the article due to Esoglou putting it in there. The sources he is trying to use do not say what he interprets them to say they do not contradict the idea that Pope Martin IV excommunicating Michael VIII and attempting to reconquer Michael's lands from him ended Michael's work for union between East and West. Esoglou's interpretation is original research and is plainly intellectually dishonest he is edit warring deleting distorting and obfuscating by adding superfluous data.
 * Here are more comments and sources to the effect that Emperor Michael VIII attempts at ending the schism were ended by him getting double-crossed by Pope Martin IV.
 * Martin IV, d. 1285, pope (1281–85), a Frenchman named Simon de Brie; successor of Nicholas III. He was chancellor under ::Louis IX of France and was created cardinal by Urban IV. He was thus a supporter of the Angevin
 * dynasty in S Italy and Sicily. In supporting the design of Charles of Anjou (see Charles I
 * ) to restore the Latin Empire of Constantinople, and in his excommunication of Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII
 * , Martin sacrificed (1281) the recent union of East and West made at Lyons (1274). The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
 * And again, Martin IV
 * Dependent on Charles of Anjou in nearly everything, the new Pope quickly appointed him to the position of Roman Senator. At ::the insistence of Charles, Martin IV excommunicated the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus (1261-1282), who stood in ::the way of Charles' plans to restore the Latin Empire of the East that had been established in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. He thus broke the tenuous union which had been reached between the Greek and the Latin Churches at the Second Council ::of Lyons in 1274, and further compromise was rendered impossible.
 * and again
 * And again here's the Roman Catholic source the New Advent also saying what I put in the article
 * Martin IV
 * He also assisted him in his endeavours to restore the Latin Empire of the East, and excommunicated the Greek emperor, ::Michael Palaeologus, of Constantinople, who opposed the plans of Charles of Anjou. By this imprudent act he broke the union which had been effected between the Greek and the Latin Churches at the Council of Lyons in 1274.
 * Esoglou is an edit warring POV pushing editor who frustrates other editors with his contentious editing and his fabricating original research in an attempt to change and or rewrite history. Esoglou edit wars to try and cover up historcial facts or events that put his POV or his church in a negative light. Rather the information is true or not is of no accord to him. This is yet another example of how far he is willing to go. Including committing 3rr. NPOV and other policies here at Wikipedia don't mean anything to Esoglou. Nor does providing valid and obviously widely held fact or piece of information if Esoglou does not like that information he will do what he just did here and has done over and over again in the past. And if you report him administrators will accuse you of being the problem and do nothing to Esoglou. Who wants to suffer this kind of thing to try and contribute to Wikipedia in good faith to only have POV editors delete their contributions? Esoglou put in the article what he put in the article the article right now stands with what Esoglou put in it. Emperor Michael dying did not put an end to his endeavor to end the schism between East and West the Pope put an end to his endeavors. God help any editors trying to post sourced information that is even agreed on by both sides if Esoglou disagrees. Cause he will edit war delete bicker and frustrate you into giving up and leaving this nightmare called Wikipedia. No matter how commonly held and source-able your contributions maybe. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The text as it is now is exactly as it was before the quarrel began. If you prefer, I'll gladly restore it to how it was when it included your editing but also mine.  Then you can try to explain on what objective grounds you were insistently deleting well-sourced highly relative information that shows that the planned war was not plain Latins against plain Greeks: instead two Latin military powers, only two, with support from Greek, Serb and Bulgarian powers in the Balkans, were against a Greek power, with support from a Latin power that successfully foiled the plans of Naples-Albania and of Venice.  Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See Esoglou owns the page Esoglou runs wikipedia. Esoglou has the final say. Esoglou puts and packs superfluous data in articles and then makes outrageous claims cause this is about Esoglou. Esoglou adds unnecessary information that others valid sources don't even bother with (I posted FOUR for example and none of them posted his nonsense) and they don't or didn't need and he then starts telling people how it should be there because Esoglou says so. Nonsense and SUPERFLUOUS. Esoglou violating more policies against good rules of thumb on article content being pertinent, concise and easy as possible to follow. LoveMonkey (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on people here, just edits! "Heretics" seems a bit strong without citation. Maybe even with citation. The Orthodox opposed union (for whatever reason) and that was that. The "whys" can be somewhere else.
 * Caesaropapism is linked multiple times in the article. If it went anywhere as a "see also" (inappropriate since it is linked), it should be under Constantine IMO. But it's linked enough to make the point, Lord knows. Student7 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I think its bogus the whole Caesaropapism of it. Its an opposite perspective that is documented and must therefore be in the article so if you find it overused then it is closer to my end of this, than you may realize. Remove the overuse, I have no complaints as such. I think in light of the actual history of the schism, I find it really doesn't work to explain things. But so be it. As for the why all the opinion in the world won't change the need for that in anything labelled knowledge or informative. The why is the whole thing that brings people to the article and is the biggest complaint against it . So I hope that some of the feedback might be considered. LoveMonkey (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou edit warring and what caused the failure of Emperor Michael to end the schism
(A POV heading that the author insists on Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

Esoglou just can't leave my contributions alone. 1 2 3 3rr. Esoglou contunies to restore POV and contentious comments into the article that are not supported by their sources.. The sentence


 * " the vast majority of Byzantine Christians remained implacably opposed to union with the Latin "heretics".

Is sourced with a source that I could not find such an allegation in. Why is Esoglou revert warring and putting back into the article such invective sentences without at least providing valid sourcing? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to have the article reflect the reason that Michael VIII and his attempts to the end the schism failed. The reason given in my source provided was not that he died but that the Pope excommunicated him and started to create another army of to retake the territories Michael VIII had liberated from the Pope and his Latin forces. Right now I can find no source that says what ended ended Michael the VIII attempts at reconciliation were that he died. And that is what Esoglou restored to the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This good-faith but wishful-thinking distortion of history is one of several in the article that require attention but that I don't feel up to fighting about. I am limiting myself to dealing with fresh ones like the one this discussion is about: insertion of the statement that "attempts at healing the schism were ended when the Pope Martin IV excommunicated Michael VIII during an attempt to gather a new Latin army and re-establish the Latin domains (including Constantinople) from Michael" (emphasis added); or as LoveMonkey has said above: "The reason that ... attempts to the end the schism failed ... was ... that the Pope excommunicated him and started to create another army of to retake the territories Michael VIII had liberated from the Pope and his Latin forces."

The force that was being organized to conquer Constantinople was not the pope's army. Pope Martin IV, a creature of Charles of Anjou (source), was giving moral support, but he was not contributing men or ships (source). It was instead an alliance between Charles of Anjou (who as well as being King of Naples was King of Albania, where he had recently suffered losses at the hands of Michael's forces) and Venice, with the agreement also of almost all the Balkan powers (source), namely the Greek despotate of Epirus and equally non-Latin Serbia and Bulgaria, with whom Charles of Anjou had made alliances (source). LoveMonkey's insertion was a serious distortion in that it presented the force being organized as an army being created by the Pope. His insertion was a serious distortion also in that it presented the force as representing the Latins, since only two of the many Latin powers were involved and since the Byzantine Emperor, as well as being father-in-law to the Latin King of Hungary and enjoying support from Latin Genoa, was in alliance with another Latin power, Aragon, an alliance for which he had obtained the agreement of Martin IV's immediate predecessor Pope Nicholas III, no creature of Charles of Anjou (source, p. 103), an alliance too that put a sudden end, through the event known as the Sicilian Vespers, to the plans of Charles of Anjou, a whole year before they were to be put into effect (source) (source).

I did not remove LoveMonkey's insertion: I merely added to it well-sourced information that gave a true picture of the situation. I also thereby remedied the ungrammatical text, with no main verb, that LoveMonkey's edit created: "In spite of a sustained campaign by Bekkos to defend the union intellectually, and vigorous and brutal repression of opponents by Michael." But the restoration of the previous grammatical text was not meant as a defence of it. When LoveMonkey insisted on deleting part of my additions, I proposed as a remedy a return to the text as it was before these interventions by either of us. Esoglou (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Esoglou is deleting my good faith contributions and or rewriting them to the point that they are not understandable. Esoglou is engaging in tendentious editing practices due to not liking the substance of my contributions. This is causing articles to be at the very least inaccurate and at worst unreadable, incomprehensible POV. I mean think about it when was the last time that the Greeks had an actual Emperor? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As if I disagreed, you insist: "Emperor Michael dying did not put an end to his endeavor to end the schism between East and West the Pope put an end to his endeavors." Read my text.  You will see that I state expressly that "Michael VIII's attempts at healing the schism were ended when, on 18 November 1281, Pope Martin IV excommunicated Michael VIII".  Read your own text.  You will see that you state expressly that "Michael's death in December 1282 put an end to the union of Lyons."  What are you complaining about?  Don't you understand that "endeavor to end the schism" and "attempt to heal the schism" mean the same thing?  Esoglou (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * More outright lies and distortion Esoglou has put what is in the article, right now. Not me. The sentence he quoted "Michael's death in December 1282 put an end to the union of Lyons" was in the article already before I touched the section I was actually "working" on the section when Esoglou started removing and rewriting my good faith contributions  and then deleted them wholesale. Its not like I got to do allot before Esoglou was there owning the page and screwing up my contributions. As the entire end of the section is unsourced and should be deleted anyway. LoveMonkey (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement that Michael's death put an end to the union was in the article before you edited it and you let it remain. Your statement that Michael's excommunication put an end to his efforts to end the schism was in the article before I edited it and I let it remain.  Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes its called trying to contribute, who other than you, said I was done contributing before you had to just jump in and screw up my contributions? "Your statement that Michael's excommunication" hey dense if I didn't write it or contribute it hows is it mine? I'll make it easy for you..IT ISN'T. You assume I was going to leave it. YOU ASSUME. And somehow this is supposed to distract from me trying to add the information that sources both East and West say the Pope doublecrossing the Emperor ended his efforts? That data is to be ignored? Of course it is cause that means the Roman Catholic Churches Pope caused the schism by doublecrossing the Emperor Michael VIII whom was trying to heal the schism, the Pope ended his efforts as such. Thats what I actually added and sourced and Esoglou couldnt leave alone. I never got to touch that "he died" part. Esoglou jumped in editwarring before I got the chance. LoveMonkey (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did let your edit stand. Why didn't you let my edit stand?  Esoglou (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You have got to be joking. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

-
 * Here's is why Emperor Michael VIII's attempts to end the schism failed. THE POPE DOUBLE-CROSSED HIM. This is a very widely held historical position and one missing from this article due to POV pushing Roman Catholic editors.
 * This is the sentence that I would to like add to the section on Lyons..
 * Emperor Michaels' attempts to resolve the schism ended with Pope Martin IV excommunicated Michael the VIII in 1281 to show support of Charles of Anjou's attempts to mount a new campaign to retake the Eastern Roman providences lost to Michael VIII.         LoveMonkey (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added the sentence to the article. It appears that the two edit warring editors User:Pseudo-Richard and User:Esoglou are maybe looking at a different article talkpage. Since they have made no suggestions for improvement for this article on its respective talkpage. They are doing one off edits to drop their opinions in the article body though. That is when they are not deleting my good faith contributions and edits to conform the article to policy WP:How.  But then policy is for other editors to follow not Richard and Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC Comment - First, I think it is useful to indicate that complaints about edit warring should be posted on the appropriate noticeboard, such as perhaps WP:ANI, rather than being made the subject of an RfC. Second, I honestly have to say that I don't see from the comment opening this thread exactly what the cause for contention which presumably prompted the RfC actually is. Could someone please summarize exactly what is the basis for this discussion? John Carter (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey John as far as can be said right now it all appears to be over. The edits made it back into the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked because I have access to the Highbeam Research and Questia databanks, which I'm not sure anyone else here has, and I would be more than willing to check the encyclopedic and other articles which might be on them on the subject for the amount of weight they give some information, as well as some print reference sources available to me, if I had a clear idea as to exactly what the point of dispute is. Also, honestly, if you don't want any further RfC comments, then you might as well withdraw the RfC, which is at this point still listed.
 * Well uh. Sure but forgive me uh how to I withdraw the RFC? LoveMonkey (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Restraint or not
If LoveMonkey resumes editing here, I will of course be free to do so too (tomorrow). A repeated attempt by him afterwards to arrogate to himself the sole right to edit might necessitate a rollback to the text preceding the resumption. I hope that can be avoided. Esoglou (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Esoglou's recent edits appear to be strange. Let me clarify. Why did the Pope and the Roman Catholic church need to rule the Eastern Empire at all? Would not the efforts of Emperor Michael indicate at least an alliance with the Eastern Orthodox? Was the Venetians and the Pope or Normans ever really threatened by the Eastern Orthodox by potential conquest? Why did the Popes whom claimed uniformity and apostolic tradition need the Eastern Orthodox to add the filioque, at all? Why not just accept that the Eastern Orthodox accepted, due to the rules of Latin or whatever, that the Western Church was going to use it and leave it at that? Why is it that allot of apologists for the Roman Catholic church when speaking of the schism and the Fourth Crusade never mention the conquest and occupation of Eastern Orthodox lands after the sack of Constantinople? How is the retaliation against the Venetians destroying a quarter of the city of Constantinople even close to justification for Roman Catholic forces conquering, weakening and economically destroying their Christian brothers of the east? How is this behavior by the Pope Christ like? Why is it that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and not the Pope of popes?
 * Here is an example..This is the historical misinformation and distortion of Solovyev by the Roman Catholic church.
 * "If the Eastern churches were to be reunited with Rome, they would not have to sacrifice anything of their unique heritage." Father Ray Ryland
 * So it was added just today that Pope Nicholas wished to change the Eastern culture as a historical FACT. By not only forcing the Eastern Orthodox to accept theological and ecclesiastical changes strictly on Papal Supremacy for his domain but that they also must conform to the changes to their own culture. Superimposed on the whole of Christianity by one man.
 * Here's another. This is of course to an even more perfect example of the outright lies that some POV people here on Wikipedia are willing to go to. As anyone whom goes to the Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher) article can see where Roman Catholic POV pushers deleted my sourcing from N. O. Lossky saying explicitly that Vladmir Solovyev died an Orthodox Christian and that the Roman Catholic church is spreading lies about Solovyev. As Orthodox people know he is buried as an Orthodox Christian in the graveyard at Novodevichy Convent beside his father. But again people shouldn't let something like the truth get in the way to their doing the good work of God, to other Christians none the less. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My edit does not mention Solovyov or say that either side was right in the rivalry between Michael Palaeologus and Charles of Anjou. It did mention that Pope Nicholas III tried to insist on actual application of the acceptance in Lyon of the Filioque doctrine - again without making a value judgement, sourced or unsourced, on his action.  The above comments are overwhelmingly value judgements, as if in a discussion forum.  The implied statement that Michael's efforts indicated the existence of "an alliance with the Eastern Orthodox" is false: the fact that Michael had to make those efforts shows instead that the Eastern Orthodox (apart from Michael and not many others) were not in agreement.  And here too I make no value judgement for or against Michael, for or against his opponents.  Esoglou (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So now Esoglou is in a vacuum and Esoglou has no history between him and my contributions outside of 72hours ago? Really. As speaking to Emperor Michael VIII so you missed the point again and it appears to be on purpose. If Michael defeated the Roman Catholic forces, occupiers and retook Byzantium from them and he did that as an Orthodox Christian and then stood against his Orthodox brethren and did in the real world actual things to force an end to the schism. How is it that any Pope has even a shred of justification to question his actions and undermine them and people not see them as being driven by another agenda? (I mean there is nothing more or of greater possibility that Michael could have done short of donating his Empire to the Pope and isn't that the REAL problem isn't that the real agenda here?) How can what the Popes did not show their hand in that they NEVER really wanted an equal partner from the East, no it is obvious from their actions they wanted ownership and subordination and would not settle on anything less. You see your POV here and it limits or blinds you to something more obvious to an objective observer. You miss the whole thing about Michael not having to do any of it. You miss the gravity of the fact that he tried and his endeavor failed and that it was not for the Roman Catholic side to claim anything, unless again what their true motives are or were, was not what they have been conveying. If they had left it alone all together and Michael's efforts were true or not what would they care? What business is it of theirs? If the Orthodox did or did not accept any of it how is it even remotely sane to think that the Roman Catholics the Pope, Charles or whomever has any business invading their country and subjecting them? But hey its real Christ like of you Esoglou to be morally ambivalent to that, no? Thats real silence. That's one of a list of silences from the West. The Pope has no business doing the bidding of any Charles or Charlemagne and then claiming anything about some supposed Caesaropapism in the East. These massive contradictions should at the very least give people pause. As Esoglou reserves the right to abstain from making a judgement call as he puts it, then the Orthodox editors on here have to spend upwards of a year or two of their time to add some very common held and essential components of their perspective to articles about them. Because non-judgement calling Roman Catholic editors keep deleting the contents or information of important events to them. Spreading and perpetuating disinformation like Emperor Michael dying is what undermine his efforts to the end the schism (when historically that is simply NEVER given nor expressed as what put his efforts to an end as such by either side any where but here on wikipedia). Talk about rewriting history. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Blanking out of section of article
Why was this section blanked out or deleted ? There was no discussion about this edit. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I saw that edit by an anon IP. The text has a strong pro-Rome POV to it and I assumed it was some pro-Orthodox editor (frankly, I wasn't sure if it might be you) who was objecting to sentences like "After Jerusalem was destroyed, the church of Rome naturally became the primary church, the capital of Christianity."  I can find lots in this section that an Orthodox editor might wish to take issue with.  At the least, it needs to be rewritten with a more NPOV tone.  I don't think it should have been deleted without explanation, though. Perhaps you can suggest ways to rehabilitate the text.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny I found that to be your forte'. Restore it please. No one here in discussion has raised any objections to the substance of it as far as I can tell. I just don't want to restore it because I want to keep my edits to a bare minimum on the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hostility East and West
Why is it that the history of the Schism dances around the idea that the Roman Catholic church had to go "into the Middle East" and establish itself? Look at the way the crusades are depicted historically. Why would the Roman Catholic church if indeed the true church have to not only conquer the Muslims factions it faced in the Middle East but also have to conquer Orthodox communities (see the Latin Empire)? Think of it this way if St Thomas was Roman Catholic and so was his community (Saint Thomas Christians) that was outside of Byzantium (they had broken communion by way of the Persian schism) why would they need to conform to the ideas of Roman Catholicism? Why would they not already have a history of Papal understanding and Roman Catholic theology? Why was San Thome Basilica established in India in the 16th century but not sometime in the 1600 hundred years before that? Would it not stand to reason that the community there would not have had to adapt Roman Catholicism since it was already established there (see Catholic Church in India)? Why do none of the early schismatic communities or churches adhere to any of the supposed things that divide the Eastern Orthodox from the Roman Catholics? Why would these communities appear to be closer in the theology and practice to the Eastern Orthodox than the Roman Catholic? Even within their own respective circles of understanding they make no claims to things like Papal Supremacy and the filioque they have no history of these practices and it would seem to reason (again) that if the Roman Catholic church were the true church these communities would have a history of these practices.

If there was in the schism ill will between what became the Greek Orthodox church and these communities that ill will does not seem to validate in any of these communities a desire to "return" to the Roman Catholic church now that the Roman Catholic church has left the Middle Eastern and or Greek Church. Why is that? HOWEVER there is indeed ecumenism between the Greek Orthodox and these communities. Why is it that these communities without communion with the Greek Orthodox Church have themselves had to fight off and have wars with the Roman Catholic Church (see Fasilides for example)? Whats with the forced conversions and all that nonsense? Let alone what happened to Menelik I or even Haile Selassie I at the hands of Mussolini (see Second Italo-Ethiopian War). I mean really historically where is their Caesaropapism? It would seem that they have a right to claim themselves to be the true church and they can historically claim apostolic session. Where is it in their history that the church of Rome was above and ruler over all of Christianity? I mean there is information for people interested in what these communities hold as a stance on the theology of the filioque or Papal Supremacy for example. . Again if the Greek Orthodox got it wrong and these other churches then people are to believe that the whole entire historical location of Christianity and its people have fallen away from true Christianity? REALLY? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please use this talk page only for suggestions to improve the article. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for theological disputes. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not present yourself as someone whom speaks with authority User:Cengime. Also have a nice day. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As explained in the policies and guidelines linked at the top of this page, Wikipedia is not a blog or forum, and off-topic posts such as this may be removed. I see nothing aimed at improving the article in your lengthy post, and I would be within my rights to delete it, but instead I'm asking you to stop. Defying the policies and guidelines after being advised of them is likely to lead to administrative action. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh wow man Cengime thank you so much for all the work and time you have contributed to this article and your drive by and assessment. Your comment just made this entire experience just wonderful that is so awesome that you care so much that you would take the time to do this. After 4 years of editing on this page and being blocked by administrators and having threats by edit warring POV pushing editors on my talk page and all that, it appears your drive by and inappropriate and out of touch comment was just what was needed. Why I am now enlightened. Please go ahead and post that you did what you did to an administrator. Go ahead post for them to finally do something. Please. I hope that they bring to your attention that this very thing you just did is the biggest factor in other contributors leaving wikipedia en mass. I think that if anyone should stop it should be you. Just in case you didn't notice and considering what you posted you didn't some of my comment above is already in the article. And will likely be the next set of edits I suggest be pared down and contributed to the article text. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could Cengime possibly contribute to the discussion and article rather than engage in disruptive behavior? This person is now behaving like a troll. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. I have entered the Twilight Zones or something or did Cengime here just do a set of excellent edits? Man this is weird but uh Cengime THANK YOU. Hmm maybe I should make people mad more often..oh never-mind. But WOW thanks to you again Cengime. Good job. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Tried to shorten lead
I tried to shorten lead. Left footnotes, as usual which now out-volume the text by about 3:1. Eventually all the footnotes have to go. Supposed to be summarizing what is in text.

My focus is still the same. The History subsection still desperately needs shortening IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent thank you Student7. I think it is fair to have the information Esoglou added just not in the lede. It could probably be shorten a bit more though. But that is again excellent. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent job on your recent edits Student 7 thank you for moving the article in the direction of improvement. I have a question for you and you can treat it, if you like as rhetorical, and just think about it. The underlying reason for the schism as held by EO representatives like Romanides for example was nothing about the Pope per se or theology. What Romandies says is the real heart and soul of it was that the Western Empire got conquered by the German and French and the German and French in the process of conquering Europe also sought to conquer the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). All these things are fragmented and appear to be petty because no one is contextualizing them in this way. That the Italians never were against the Eastern Empire nor their church but all of that changed once the French and Germans started to take over the Western Christian church. It is then that the Western Church (in order to justify its thirst for conquest and subjugation) invented some of this stuff that has no history to the Eastern Christians as whole. As I have tried to point out the Persian Christians whom were the first group to schism from the catholic church did not do so being for or against anything such as Papal supremacy such a thing never existed in their and the Eastern Orthodox shared history. They are in schism because of Christianity being made synonymous to being a citizen of the Roman Empire.
 * The Persians were Persians and the Roman Empire rather it be Hellenistic and then Roman for sure was their greatest enemy. The first schism was over the Persians being able call themselves Christians and having that statement divorced from also meaning "Roman". However we as EO (and let no devil tell you otherwise) love the Persians Christians as we do the Coptics and Ethiopians however the Armenians still bother us but that is for a different time (just kidding however who could excuse them for the monstrosity known as Cher?). Oh the Melkites bother us too but whom is keeping count? All funniness aside. The bigger picture is how state or government and or political plays a role in causing these kinds of things like schisms, heresy and or religious wars. As right now in Russia there is a very big discussion about Putin is perceived as being a bit to much involved into directing the goals and affairs of the Russian Church. So this is as much a contemporary thing as it is an ancient one and I think that the Caesaropapism nonsense makes it all rather confusing. As there is every bit reason to believe that the schism would have been over in the 1990s from both parties if the things like the priest sex scandals hadn't darkened all of the negotiations. But to go further sobornost works without any councils without any formalities. We can just get along right now, can't we? There is need for the government or any worldly power to be divorced from the church and for any worldly power to not be able to in the name of Rome, Moscow or Constantinople to do anything close to welding the power of unity in Christianity to do the will of the state. This is the real underlying problem that the schism is about. Christianity divined is Christianity defeated (yes this is all very Soloviev). LoveMonkey (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Incoherence in the lede
This passage in the lede if read out loud makes no sense and is not in context..
 * The date of the 1054 mutual excommunication between the legates of the pope and patriarch approached. Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople.[7][8][9] According to the historian John Bagnell Bury, Cerularius' purpose in closing the Latin churches was "to cut short any attempt at conciliation".[9] The Normans who had newly won Apulia and part of Calabria from the Byzantine Empire suppressed Greek liturgical usages in these parts of southern Italy

Could it be rewritten to make sense? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that this was awkward. Tweaked first sentence only. Maybe should drop the Norman reference entirely? Student7 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Erase entire article?
You know the guy that is putting "reason=" in all the tagged cns? He apparently does other things as well. He wants to erase the entire History of the East-West Schism because (he claims) it violates copyright in the same subsection I copied from here, which is East-West_Schism. He claims it is a copy of the Romanides lecture series from http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm. If someone would like to talk to him about that information, which, BTW, seems largely uncited in this article, I would appreciate it.

See comments at User_talk:Student7. Student7 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor said it was my fault for copying into text, what was intended as a quote. He has corrected it to his satisfaction in History of the East-West Schism. The problem is still in here. I cannot quite put my finger on it, other than what was mentioned above. Student7 (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That editor (an administrator) is me. I never said I wanted to "erase the entire" article. That's an exaggeration. I wrote that perhaps a long series of Student7's edits on the History of the East–West Schism should be reverted back when it appeared there was a possibility that Student7 had (at least once, intentional or not) added copyrighted material. It turned out that he/she accidentally added copyright material to History of the East–West Schism by copying it from this article. In this article, the text under question used to be in a footnote, which, as it happens, was turned into regular text by Student7 (by breaking a ref tag accidentally during a large, complicated edit... do a search for "During the seventh century, however, the seeds of schism", for example, and you can find it). Once it become clear that Student7 accidentally submitted copyrighted material, the rest of his/her edits were no longer under suspicion.
 * Student7, you seem to be skeptical and confused about the copyright violation itself. I gave a link to the "duplication detector" on your talk page that provides the matched text between the violating article and the source URL. Using it, you can confirm that there was a copyright violation. The same tool can also be used with the URL of a version of this article. for Here's a link comparing the source URL against the recent 15:51 26 March 2013‎ version by Student7. [The tool is slow but be patient, it will load.] Saying "he claims" above sounds rather dismissive when I've tried to provide the necessary material to substantiate my claims.
 * As for this article, I made the same solution I did at History of the East-West Schism: I deleted the entire "Political division between East and West" section because it was the only section containing large amounts of obvious violation. If you wish to sort through that material to decide what's was valid free content and what wasn't, please do.
 * Tracking down the origins of copyrighted material is time-consuming and tedious. It's even moreso when an editor (like me) wasn't involved in the article history until that point. In total, this probably took about an hour and a half to resolve. It's best to be very careful when editing so that mistakes don't creep in in the first place. If you are having trouble following your own edit diffs, Student7, perhaps you are making too many changes per edit.
 * Lastly, I'm curious about the "You know the guy that is putting 'reason=' in all the tagged cns?" remark. Is there some discussion somewhere about that? Why did you mention this? If other editors have complained about me fixing those, I'd like to tell them that there's more to it than meets the eye. This copyvio was, for example, found and solved as part of fixing of citation needed templates (or "reason=" editing, if you wish to call it that). Jason Quinn (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * One last thing, when copying text from one Wikipedia article to another, it needs to be cited (see Copying within Wikipedia). The cite is typically made in an edit summary. The original edit on the History of the East–West Schism article that introduced the copyrighted material from this article did not give a cite. This caused confusion and prolonged the investigation. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well either way this data should be re-integrated by into the article.
 * The Franks applied their policy of destroying the unity between the Romans under their rule and the Romans under the rule of Constantinople and the Arabs. They played one Roman party against the other, took neither side, and finally condemned both the iconoclasts and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod (786/7) at their own Council of Frankfurt in 794, in the presence of the legates of Pope Hadrian I (771–795), the staunch supporter of Orthodox practice. Their obliteration of the Empire's boundaries and an outburst of missionary activity among these peoples who had no direct links with the Eastern Roman Empire and among Celtic peoples, who had never been part of the Roman Empire fostered the idea of a universal church free from association with a particular state. On the contrary, "in the East Roman or Byzantine view, when the Roman Empire became Christian, the perfect world order willed by God had been achieved: one universal empire was sovereign, and coterminous with it was the one universal church"; and, according to the author of the Encyclopedia of World Religions, the Empire's state church came, by the time of the demise of the Empire in 1453, to merge psychologically with it to the extent that its bishops had difficulty in thinking of Christianity without an Emperor.
 * As this is central (right or wrong) to the more common Greek perspective (called Frankokratia and Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae).. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize to Jason Quinn and thank him for fixing the problem in both places. Student7 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is Jeffrey D. Finch?
His quote is used quite a bit on various Orthodox articles and I was just wondering if anyone knows who this person is? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. He apparently has the key to "East-West rapprochement," but you probably found that out yourself. :) I tried all ways I could think of, in searching for his background and could find nothing that isn't already in Wikipedia. Do we need hard copy on this? Student7 (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well no. It is just that I find this something odd from Richard and Esoglou (inner glory or whatever he is). They are Richard largely responsible for Mr Finch being so prominently mentioned here on Wiki. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. I don't hang around Wikipedia as religiously (forgive the pun) as I used to.  Instead of checking my watchlist several times a day, I give it a quick glance once every couple of days, sometimes only a couple of times a week.  If there is something that you would like me to take a look at, please send me an email.  My Wikipedia account is email-enabled.


 * That said, I confess that I don't know who Jeffrey Finch is either. If you Google his name, it shows up prominently in 3-4 Orthodox-related Wikipedia articles and not really anywhere else on the first page of results.  I'm sure if I worked hard enough, I could eventually figure out who he is.  Presumably, he is some scholar specializing in the boundaries of Eastern and Western Christian theology.  Still, LM's point is well-taken.  His name sticks out like a sore thumb and it would be OK if we were describing a view of Lossky, Meyendorff or Kallistos (Ware) but Finch appears to be a relatively minor star in the theological community.  (NB: The last time I wrote something like this, it was about Edward Siecinski who subsequently emailed me to take umbrage at my having slighted his reputation.  Quite good-naturedly, of course.)


 * I do feel that the current text (and its copies in other Orthodox-related articles) is not satisfactory and I'd like some thoughts about how to fix it. I think what Finch wrote is reasonable.  Perhaps some might take issue with it but I think it's a reasonable assessment of the situation from a Western point-of-view.


 * I ran across the quote in this book and thought it was useful. Here is a link to the beginning of Finch's essay titled "Neopalamism, Divinizing Grace and the Breach between East and West".  I will grant that the book is described in at least one review as looking at Eastern Orthodox ideas from a Western perspective and so the essays in it may be more canted towards the Western point of view.  Perhaps we need to rephrase the sentence that mentions Finch in a way that de-emphasizes or even drops his name and says something like "Some Western scholars such as Jeffrey Finch believe....".  Better yet would be to find a reliable source who surveys all of the essays in Christiansen and Wittung's book and provide a summary of Western views regarding deification.  I am, alas, not aware of such at the moment.  When time permits, I might look further for one.  In the meantime, I am open to suggestions on how to implement a temporary fix to the problem that LM has brought to our attention.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a review of the Christiansen and Wittung book by Andrei Antokhin (yeah, I know, another "who is that?"). Still, I think what Antokhin writes provides some perspective on the ideas presented in the book.


 * The problem, I think, is that we have "big names" in the East (Lossky, Romanides, Meyendorff) who have held forth on these topics and no "big names" in the West who have held forth in the same depth and breadth. Even Fortescue doesn't have the stature in the West of any of the preceding "big names" from the East.  This fact alone speaks volumes about the relative importance of the topic to the West vs. the East.  (NB: I'm not saying it's not an important topic; I'm just saying that the West doesn't tend to focus on it and this is, perhaps, precisely the criticism that the East makes against the West.)  So we are left with a bunch of "little lights" in the West trying to explain the Eastern views to a West that is, for the most part, not really listening.


 * Meyendorff tried to bridge the chasm by explaining the East to the West. The West took some notice but then moved on.  Some in the East criticized Meyendorff for having "got it wrong".


 * It remains a difficult patch of ground to till.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Astonomical coincidence?
1054 AD is considered the year of the Great Schism, but is also the year when the Crab Nebula Supernova (M1 - Messier object #1 / SN 1054) was observed by the chinese astronomers. Bigshotnews 01:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Damaged sentence
Hi, today the intro has a damaged sentence, starting with lowcase "attacks": "of the churches.[2][10] attacks that had the support". I cannot find at what revision the sentence was mutilated, please someone who know this page better restore the original text. Ciao, Nick Nicola.Manini (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for drawing attention to the problem.  Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Change Title?
Hey everyone, in the majority of the academic literature on the subject, the name historians have given to this slow divergence of Western Christianity away from the historic theological traditions which began in Jerusalem, is almost always referred to as the "Great Schism". In terms of population, this is the largest schism which has ever developed in Christian history, and has had the largest consequences and theological ramifications. It makes the other "Great Schism", nearly always termed "The Papal Schism" seem less-than-great. Certainly this was the more lasting schism. Can the title change, but the disambig page remain? Ri Osraige (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I favor this idea, and agree that there is a primary well-recognized meaning to "Great Schism". It seems to me that this is therefore the most appropriate name for the article under WP:TITLE. And in general, WP should tend to use such common terms internally as well. It doesn't help if we develop a WP-specific terminology/language. We need to keep a focus on how things are described "out there" in order to describe them well "in here". Evensteven (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to learn what basis Rí Osraige can present for his claim that most academics and historians use the term "Great Schism" rather than the clear, specific, unambiguous term "East-West Schism". 86.43.174.235 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Has this been discussed thoroughly before? Perhaps there are some bases for either term that can be found in a prior discussion. Evensteven (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Great Schism here: Another is a website devoted to the great schism here: However, the Papal Schism has many mentions as the great Schism in this google books search: A noted difference is that the Papal Schism has years next to it when its called the Great Schism while the Catholicism-Orthodox split does not. I would rather rename this article to be the Catholocism-Orthodox Schism and rename Western Schism to be Papal Schism. These titles would be much more descriptive. I have to admit though that I always thought of the Catholocism-Orthodox Schism as the Great Schism. Perhaps this should be opened up to RFC. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just added a notice for the Christianity, European History, and Middle Ages Projects. Evensteven (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note St.Anselm's suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard that this discussion should take place by filing a move request. I'm not going to get to that filing right away if someone else wants to go ahead. Evensteven (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this split is called "Great Schism" in the literature. I can only assume this was named "East-West Schism" for an audience unfamiliar with history. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the vast majority of hits in Google Books (8 out of the first 10) for "Great Schism" are about the schism of 1378. StAnselm (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rules for article titles are given at WP:TITLE. What rule given there demands a change of title here?  "Great Schism" is ambiguous.  Deciding to call something great is largely subjective.  From the point of view of Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopian Christians, the real Great Schism was the Chalcedonian.  From their point of view, the 1054 schism was a domestic quarrel between those who broke from Orthodoxy in 451, and it was followed by further interior schisms within each of these further divisions of those who split in the basic, the great, schism.  From their point of view, the fact that the now divided group that broke away is now more numerous than those who preserved the faith whole and entire does not alter what is or is not Orthodox faith (as Ri Osraige would agree if another date were put in place of 451).  Thus, selecting one particular schism for the title of "The Great Schism" may not be in accord with the NPOV principle.  Common use?  Whichever use is more common, it is clear, as PointsofNoReturn and StAnselm have pointed out, that "Great Schism" is widely used in academic circles of what Wikipedia calls, in the title of the article about it, the Western Schism.  "East-West Schism" is what WP:TITLE calls a "non-judgmental descriptive title" and is "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that".  If someone does start a formal proposal of change of title here, it will be a waste of time and effort, for it is quite unlikely to win consensus.  "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia."  Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very open to what Esoglou is saying. He's absolutely right about the way the Coptics view the schisms, and Copts, EO, and RC all share the idea that schism means a reduction in the Church's size, but leaving only one Church, and that numbers of members have nothing to do with that. "Great Schism" may be ambiguous, but it is used commonly, more so than others. Western Schism's lead paragraph says it refers more commonly to the East-West Schism. I'm not so sure that there a judgmental (condemnatory) character about application of the term "Great Schism" so much as a matter of what one's principal perspective is. Never having been RC myself, although I knew of the 14th-century competition among rival claimants to the papacy, I've never really considered it to be a schism myself. It had the potential, but it burned out and was eventually resolved. RC/Protestant was a schism. So we of various faiths all have our perspectives, though I have no reason to condemn another's. Precision and clarity are the arguments I find most persuasive in what Esoglou has to say, yet common usage comes into applying WP:TITLE also. And I am not going to push one direction or another. I thought this item to be worth considering, but I wouldn't like to see it become controversial. Evensteven (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * By "schism" you seem to mean a difference in faith, since you say that the so-called Western/Great Schism was not a schism and only had the potential to become one. and you call the division between Catholicism and Protestantism a schism. "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (Code of Canon Law, canon 751).  The Catholic Church generally sees itself divided from the Eastern Orthodox Church by schism, a break not of faith but of communion, with the fault not necessarily lying on one side alone.  Accusations of heresy have indeed been exchanged between theologians on both sides, but on the Catholic side (not so clearly on the Eastern Orthodox side) that is not the official line.  The Catholic Church sees the relationship as similar to the schism known as the Western Schism or Great Schism.  On the other hand, the Catholic Church sees itself divided from Protestantism not just by schism but by heresy, by a difference on some point or points of faith, though not as severe a break as apostasy, which is total repudiation of the Christian faith.
 * I don't think it is clear that "common usage" normally understands "the Great Schism" to mean the East-West Schism. You have only cited an unsourced and therefore unreliable Wikipedia statement that "Great Schism" is "more often" applied to the East-West Schism than to the Great Western Schism.  It doesn't go so far as to say that in common usage the East-West Schism is the normal or even the usual meaning of "the Great Schism".  PointsofNoReturn and StAnselm have cast doubt on that idea and have cited something a little better than Wikipedia.  So I don't think the "common usage" argument would win a change of title.  It seems the question is unavoidably controversial.  Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed the text at Western Schism. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, if "Great Schism" is not the common usage term for East-West Schism, I have the impression that it changed somewhere in the last X years, but that can happen. I wasn't trying to cite the article, just to point out that its text was relevant to this discussion and might also require examination.


 * Thanks for your observations on how the RC views the east-west schism. I hadn't understood it quite that way before. It's also pretty clear that the EOC would not define schism as a refusal to submit to the Pontiff. But for the EOC, it is also a break of communion; however, the break of communion constitutes a break (separation) of faith, and the separation is the fullness of the point. But perhaps that's one way of saying that schism is just what one recognizes it to be; if one sees a break, there it is, and one break is not necessarily just like another. Personally, I find the schism to be one of the great tragedies of church history, perhaps the greatest, and long to see it overturned. It's a tall order, restoring trust after bad blood, but a proving ground for faith. So if there's no way to avoid controversy here, I'm in favor of leaving it alone. Evensteven (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What the schism is
, I almost feel I must apologize for continuing to revert your well-intentioned edits here, but you do seem continually to be missing the point I have been trying to make to you in the edit comments. The schism itself was a one-time event. It occurred, and became a historical event, and does not continue. True, depending on how it is defined, it took quite some time to happen, for it was a developing event through centuries of time. But the reason 1054 is so often used as "the time" of its occurrence is that this was the single point at which the churches, formerly one church, underwent the division of faith, the break in inter-communion, which was and is the primary mark of disunity, which is the essence of schism itself. Being a "one-time" event, it happened, and does not continue to happen. It is the results of that schism that continue into the present day, the consequences. But those are a series of ongoing events in themselves, not the schism itself. They are related without being the same thing in essence. The consequences (literally, "events following"), sharing in meaning and effect that which produced them (the schism itself), are separate in not being the schism, and also in not being each other, and yet the whole does retain a connection of effect. I am not trying to deny the nature of the continuation, especially as history also records many attempts, first to prevent the schism, and afterwards also to heal and overturn it, and some of those are going on today as well. But the schism is the break, the division, the sundering, the setting in place, the cause, and not the multiple effect(s). It's just mistaken to say the schism is still happening. It is its results which continue. Have I made this clear and understandable? Evensteven (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is still schism between EOC and RCC, isn't there? The word does not mean only the initial break.  The break can endure.  The schism can widen or narrow.  It can perdure or be transitory.  Unfortunately, the East-West Schism is an enduring one. Esoglou (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I must have misunderstood Evensteven, since I see his latest edit was to make Wikipedia say the schism persists. I confess my inability to understand what Evensteven sees wrong in saying the still persisting schism began in the 11th century.  Something still persisting must have had a beginning.  Saying something "occurred" in the 11th century suggests it is just a past event, not something that is still ongoing.  The assassination of Julius Caesar and the Battle of Marathon are events that "occurred" but are not now ongoing.  The East-West Schism is ongoing, is persisting.  For that reason, Haldraper's "began" seems more suitable than Evensteven's "occurred".  Esoglou (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * [intervening edit conflict] Sigh. I must admit that you are perfectly correct, Esoglou. It looks as though I was fixating on the initial break, but the continuation does indeed provide another context for a proper application of the word. It seems I've been out of order; so sorry to all! I do think that the word alone doesn't necessarily supply enough context to know which meaning is implied (or both). Maybe that's where I started to misconstrue. I've overturned myself at the article. Evensteven (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

why do lede graphs keep reverting to clear bias?
by that I meant this: ''In 1053, the first step was taken in the process which led to formal schism. Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople.[9][10][11] According to the historian John Bagnell Bury, Cerularius' purpose in closing the Latin churches was "to cut short any attempt at conciliation".[11]''

This is the western Church's POV and all the cites are western/Roman Catholic. Firstly there were many steps before, including as many by the both sides. Secondly, even on the closures of churches in respective areas, both sides did this -- as the lede used to reflect.

Why do the balanced ledes keep getting reverted?PatrickAnthony2 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is not up to standard as for an encyclopedia article. I say this because look at this passage of bias that no scholarly source would teach as history let alone support..

--- The union effected was "a sham and a political gambit", a fiction maintained by the emperor to prevent westerners from recovering the city of Constantinople, which they had lost just over a decade before, in 1261.[160][161][162] It was fiercely opposed by clergy and people[163][164] and never put into effect,[165] in spite of a sustained campaign by Patriarch John XI of Constantinople (John Bekkos), a convert to the cause of union, to defend the union intellectually, and vigorous and brutal repression of opponents by Michael.[163][166] In 1278 Pope Nicholas III, learning of the fictitious character of Greek conformity,[162] sent legates to Constantinople, demanding the personal submission of every Orthodox cleric and adoption of the Filioque,[167] as already the Greek delegates at Lyon had been required to recite the Creed with the inclusion of Filioque and to repeat it two more times.[168] Emperor Michael's attempts to resolve the schism ended when Pope Martin IV, seeing that the union was only a sham, excommunicated Michael VIII 1281 in support of Charles of Anjou's attempts to mount a new campaign to retake the Eastern Roman provinces lost to Michael.[163][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176] Michael VIII's son and successor Andronicus II repudiated the union, and Bekkos was forced to abdicate, being eventually exiled and imprisoned until his death in 1297. ---

A sham, really is that how this is taught by history departments? Of course it is not as that is POV. I say this because this is an interpretation of the sources given as who as a valid and academic source in this day and age considering the people Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos had put to death for opposing the union, could consider Michael VIII Palaiologos' efforts a sham? Other than the biased or partisan? This is not [WP:NPOV] this isn't even close to NPOV. This is taking history and rewriting to make so that the excommunication of Michael VIII Palaiologos by the Pope can not be seen as a betrayal even though to the Greek Orthodox whom supported the union it is indeed nothing short of a betrayal by the West. But again that is not what is said in the article. I have agreed not to edit this article and I will not edit it however this article is not up to standard as it is ripe with POV through out. LoveMonkey 18:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate citation
According to the historian John Bagnell Bury, Cerularius' purpose in closing the Latin churches was "to cut short any attempt at conciliation".[11]. Actually the fourth volume of CMH was only planed by J. B. Bury. The passage you are reffering to is by L. Bréhier, the author of the chapter The Greek Church: Its relations with the West up to 1054.77.28.29.150 (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)