| Revision as of 13:27, 4 May 2006 editDiligens (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users780 edits factual error edit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:19, 26 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,540 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:East–West Schism/Archive 8) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| :Yes. ]. ]] ] 06:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| ==One holy cathloic...== | |||
| {{On this day|date1=2005-12-07|oldid1=30302760 }} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top |theology-work-group=yes |theology-importance=Top |catholicism=yes |catholicism-importance=Top |eastern-orthodoxy=yes |eastern-orthodoxy-importance=Top }} | |||
| {{WikiProject European history|importance=high }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=High }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Greece|importance=mid|topic=history|byzantine-task-force=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid|Interfaith=yes}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Copied | |||
| |from1 = East–West Schism | |||
| |from_oldid1 = 521379119 | |||
| |to1 = Primacy of the Bishop of Rome | |||
| |to_diff1 = 521379635 | |||
| |to_oldid1 = 520850463 | |||
| |date1 = 2012-11-04T12:10:02 | |||
| |from2 = East–West Schism#Other points of conflict | |||
| |from_oldid2 = 921808857 | |||
| |to2 = 15th-16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism | |||
| |to_diff2 = 922823306 | |||
| }} | |||
| The Phrase "one holy catholic and apostolic church" has been used by scads of Christians, not as a statement of allegiance to a particular church organization, but to the church community (the entire Christian church started by the apostles) so the last line needs to be rephrased but I’m not sure how best to do that. Ideas? | |||
| {{Archive box|search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=1 |units=month |index=/Archive index | | |||
| * ] <small>(Dec 2004 – Jan 2009)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(January–March 2009)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(March–December 2010)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(January–December 2011)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(February–October 2012)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(October–December 2012)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(January 2013 – )</small> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |counter = 8 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:East–West Schism/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| == Section on Hell == | |||
| :The idea of an "invisible" church (consisting of all Christians everywhere) began with the Donatist controversy, but it has tended to be used mostly by Protestants. RC and Orthodox alike tend to identify "the church" with the institution itself. Hence, the claim to be the "One True Holy Catholic" church. As it stands, the article seems like a fair description. ] 19:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (jrcagle) | |||
| I significantly modified this section as it relates to Eastern Orthodoxy, since it contained blatant errors such as claiming that the Orthodox believe there "is no hell," and made sweeping generalizations and universal, doctrinal claims on behalf of Orthodoxy as a whole, when even the Misplaced Pages article on hell, in the Orthodox subsection, clearly states and explains the variety of opinion in this area, and the lack of a single, official doctrine, as is found in Catholicism. | |||
| :more here: | |||
| ] (]) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Insertion of filioque == | |||
| : There is no reference to Hell in the Orthodox Liturgy or the Latin Mass, unlike with the Lutheran Liturgy and Eucharist of the Church of England. I am also uncertain as to whether there is a concept of eternal punishment in the Orthodox Church as God is stated in the Liturgy to be all loving, merciful and forgiving. Perhaps a reference is needed or possibly a different wording where it is presently stated that "there is damnation or punishment in eternity for the rejection of God's grace". Not being graced by the presence of God does not necessarily imply one is punished or damned by God. There is a good presentation in the Orthodox wiki: https://el.orthodoxwiki.org/Κόλαση - that the distancing from God's grace is a voluntary choice and not a punishment imposed by God as is made clear by a cited quote from St John of Damascus: "Και τούτο ειδέναι δει, ότι ο Θεός ου κολάζει τινά εν τω μελλόντι αλλ' έκαστος εαυτόν δεκτικόν ποιεί της μετοχής του Θεού. Εστίν η μεν μετοχή του Θεού τρυφή, η δε αμεθεξία αυτού κόλασις" - God does not punish but each one decides on his receiving of God, whose reception is joy and his absence a Hell. I am inclined to slightly change the current text to better reflect the Orthodox Christian view that God does not punish. ] (]) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| The word "non-canonical" before the insertion of the clause seems to be advocating the Eastern side of the schism. I mean, obviously the Catholics do not think that it is non-canonical, right? I might be wrong... ]<sup> <font color="orange">]</sup></font color> 20:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::My comments on Hell which were backed up by references, were reverted by another editor, even though I had added this comment in the talk section several weeks before making the change and the change had remained for a year without discussion in the talk section. Unless I receive a good explanation I will refer the issue to the arbitration committee. Please explain.] (]) 18:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::the Pope claimed he held authority over the four Eastern ]s, while the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed since he was the spiritual leader of "new-Rome" that he was the head of the Christian Church | |||
| == Reason and Orthodoxy == | |||
| Is the above right? I thought the claim of the four Eastern patriarchs was that none of the five patriarchs could claim authority over the whole Christian church. Today, the various Eastern Orthodox hierarchies recognize the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople as only honorary; he has authority over only one of those hierarchical churches. My understanding has been that that has been the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church ever since the schism of 1054. ] 22:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The statement that "Eastern Orthodox theologians argue that the mind (reason, rationality) is the focus of Western theology, whereas, in Eastern theology, the mind must be put in the heart, so they are united into what is called nous; this unity as heart is the focus of Eastern Orthodox Christianity" is based on a reference by the American Romanian Carpathian Church. I am not sure this interpretation (and the entire paragraph that follows it) is representative. Of course, it is in the nature of the Orthodox tradition that there are differences in interpretation of the sacred texts because their meaning depends somewhat on the education and understanding of the individual. However, the contrary position has many defendants: The opening of the Gospel of St John quotes Heraclitus: In the arche (first principle) there was Logos ... Through it everything came to be". Heraclitus by Logos meant Reason (in fact that is what the word means in Greek). The translation into Latin as "In the beginning was the Word" certainly does not reflect Heraclitus accurately and rather detracts from the position of Logos (Reason) in Christian thought. St John the Evangelist lived in Ephesus, the city where Heraclitus had lived, and the reference to Heraclitus could not have been accidental. See also https://orthodoxwiki.org/Logos and https://www.orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/IJOT1-2010/12-popescu-trinity.pdf ] (]) 12:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Skamnelis}} OrthodoxWiki is a ] so it cannot be used as a source on Misplaced Pages articles. If you have a good source more authoritative than the current one to support the change you want (e.g. Kallistos Ware's ''The Orthodox Church'' or ''The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity''), feel free to use it. ] (]) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| I always thought that the Patriarch of Constantinople was not called "ecumenical" until after the Schism. Am I wrong? ] 28 June 2005 19:42 (UTC) | |||
| ::After the response that OrthodoxWiki is a WP:SPS so it cannot be used as a source on Misplaced Pages articles, I had added a reference from Kallistos Ware that seems to have been lost in favour of a statement from a publication attributed to the Romanian Carpathian Church. I do not see why the latter is more representative. At the very least the editor should have opted for presenting the range of views. Unless I have a good explanation, I will refer this issue to the arbitration committee. ] (]) 18:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Move discussion in progress == | |||
| Actually, the Patriarch of Constatinople at the time of the split did indeed make primatial claims, much as the modern Orthodox hate to admit it. He was an aberration, unfortunately it was at the wrong time for it to happen. | |||
| There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 25 April 2024 crosspost --> —] 15:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : The above would seem to contradict the current article which says: "All five Patriarchs of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church agreed that the Patriarch of Rome should receive higher honors than the other four" So which is it? At that time, did the Patriarch of Constantinople accord some degree of primacy to the Roman Patriarch/Pope or did he assert his own primacy (or neither)? ] 21:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Council of Constantinople of 1170 == | |||
| ::The Patriarch of Constantinople never tried to claim any sort of primacy over the Pope. --] 15:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I am asking here if this page could mention, even briefly the 1170 synod held at Constantinople. It is listed in John McClintock and James Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (where it is listed as a council of 1168 or 1170). According to them, the synod was "attended by many Eastern and Western bishops on the reunion of the Eastern and Latin Churches" (Volume 2, 1883, p. 491), and elsewhere they list this same council as being that at which "the Greek Church was entirely separated from the Roman" (Supplement Volume 2, 1887, p. 89). Horace Kinder Mann, quotes Macarius of Ancyra as saying the following about the council: | |||
| ==The Origins' Content== | |||
| : Paragraph two is concluded with the line 'thus the Empire was the first to fall' or something similar; which empire? Byzantine or the Western? Both are mentioned in the preceding sentence. Celtmist 5-11-05 | |||
| "The emperor, the council, and the whole senate gave their vote in favour of a total separation from the Pope... But it was not thought proper to consign (the Latins) a great and distinguished nation, to formal anathema, like other heresies, even while repudiating union and communion with them." (Nicholas Breakspear (Hadrian IV.) A.D. 1154-1159 The Only English Pope, p. 88) | |||
| I have replaced the word decimated by destroyed, since to decimate means to destroy 10% of something.] 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I had added a brief entry on it, but it was deleted. I am sincerely wondering why it was deleted. | |||
| == Should this article be merged with this one? == | |||
| The Council was called by the Emperor Manuel and envoys of Pope Alexander III met in Constantinople along with Patriarch Michael III Anchialus. The Pope required that in all matters the Greeks adopt Latin practices and consent to the papal primacy, and so the Patriarch broke communion with Rome. Further information can easily be found online. | |||
| I have found this article, and ], about the same topic. Are there enough differences between the two, or should they be merged? ] 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You can verify the quote by Macarius of Ancyra here: | |||
| :They are not at all about the same topic and should not be merged. —]] 20:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nicholas_Breakspear/xLY-AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=horace+kinder+mann+nicholas+breakspear&printsec=frontcover <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == The Map is Wrong == | |||
| : Indeed, no. They're about two entirely different topics. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 12:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The map at the top of the article shows many areas Catholic that were not in 1045. Lithuania, for example, was not, nor was Pomerania, nor what later became East Prussia. ] (]) 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mutual recognition== | |||
| Should there not be something about the Roman and the Eastern Churches recognising the legitimacy of each other's priesthood and sacraments? That is, a Catholic could receive the Eucharist from a Greek Orthodox priest and would regard himself as having received "proper" communion. He would not so regard communion taken from an Anglican. ] 11:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : The recognition generally only goes in one direction. That is, while an RC might consider it okay to receive at an Orthodox church, no Orthodox priest would be allowed to commune him. And while an RC parish might receive an Orthodox Christian to communion, the act of doing so would automatically excommunicate that person from the Orthodox Church. | |||
| : The Orthodox Church has not made an official statement regarding the "validity" of RC sacraments, but they are certainly not treated in practice as "proper" to the life of an Orthodox Christian. —] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 12:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks. I'm glad I asked the question because I'm happy to learn the true situation. One lives and learns! ] 14:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Details== | |||
| This article contains no details about the actual excommunications and the immediate events surrounding them which occurred in 1054. It's a serious lacking and should be corrected. What about Bishop Leo of Ochrid's letter or Emperor Constantine IX's attitude? There is no mention here or at Leo IX's articel or Cerularius' about the prime human catalyst for the actual excommunications, ]. I can add it if necessary, but I would prefer someone more familiar with the topic do it. ] 05:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| OK, thanks for adding your stuff, but most unfortunately it reeks of Papist propaganda. Your account seems to put the blame for the rift on the Patriarch and whitewash the Pope and his legates. Such phrases as - "just at the time when the patriarch was set to open up a Pandora's box" or "the patriarch's refusal to address the issues at hand drove the legatine mission to extremes" - are judgmental and as such unacceptable. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I want to first disavow any connection to either church involved—I'm a Protestant. The tenor of the section almost certainly comes from ], my only source. He was not a Catholic, as far as I know. His book read impartially to me. | |||
| :For those reasons, I'll first address the alleged POV-ness of the above citations. The patriarch did open a Pandora's box; fault if you will the pope for refusing to close it, but as far as I can tell, it was the patriarch who initiated the whole affair: which seems to be universally regarded today as a Pandora's box. The patriarch, according to Norwich, basically ignored the legates, which led them to extremes. How is this POV? The legates may or may not have been justified, but what drove them to do what they certainly did not intend to do upon setting out on their mission was the patriarch's basic refusal to receive them as legates. The sentences may ''seem'' to blame the patriarch, but I believe if read critically, they are factual statements. What about the statement "legates' authority legally ceased, but they did not seem to notice," how is that less POV than the above statements? Certainly its a legal point of view the legates would probably have debated. | |||
| :Anyway, I won't dispute that further. If its POV, edit it. But I have been accused recently of having a POV I certainly didn't have (see ] if you care to read that long debate) because someone couldn't read what precisely I wrote. I rarely try and write something other than exacly what I mean and I think (I may be wrong) these statements are ones of fact if read to mean precisely what they say and no more or less. Perhaps, for an encyclopaedia, language must be watered down to accomodate those who can't read (not you, I'm sure), but I think that's sad. ] 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Factual Error Edit== | |||
| I made a correction to a factual error. Rome did not condemn intinction. For certain rites it has been ''forbidden'', but not condemned. There is a major difference. Rome has historically approved of it for certain rites. - ] 13:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:19, 26 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the East–West Schism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about East–West Schism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about East–West Schism at the Reference desk. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 7, 2005. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Section on Hell
I significantly modified this section as it relates to Eastern Orthodoxy, since it contained blatant errors such as claiming that the Orthodox believe there "is no hell," and made sweeping generalizations and universal, doctrinal claims on behalf of Orthodoxy as a whole, when even the Misplaced Pages article on hell, in the Orthodox subsection, clearly states and explains the variety of opinion in this area, and the lack of a single, official doctrine, as is found in Catholicism.
67.42.97.177 (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is no reference to Hell in the Orthodox Liturgy or the Latin Mass, unlike with the Lutheran Liturgy and Eucharist of the Church of England. I am also uncertain as to whether there is a concept of eternal punishment in the Orthodox Church as God is stated in the Liturgy to be all loving, merciful and forgiving. Perhaps a reference is needed or possibly a different wording where it is presently stated that "there is damnation or punishment in eternity for the rejection of God's grace". Not being graced by the presence of God does not necessarily imply one is punished or damned by God. There is a good presentation in the Orthodox wiki: https://el.orthodoxwiki.org/Κόλαση - that the distancing from God's grace is a voluntary choice and not a punishment imposed by God as is made clear by a cited quote from St John of Damascus: "Και τούτο ειδέναι δει, ότι ο Θεός ου κολάζει τινά εν τω μελλόντι αλλ' έκαστος εαυτόν δεκτικόν ποιεί της μετοχής του Θεού. Εστίν η μεν μετοχή του Θεού τρυφή, η δε αμεθεξία αυτού κόλασις" - God does not punish but each one decides on his receiving of God, whose reception is joy and his absence a Hell. I am inclined to slightly change the current text to better reflect the Orthodox Christian view that God does not punish. Skamnelis (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- My comments on Hell which were backed up by references, were reverted by another editor, even though I had added this comment in the talk section several weeks before making the change and the change had remained for a year without discussion in the talk section. Unless I receive a good explanation I will refer the issue to the arbitration committee. Please explain.Skamnelis (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Reason and Orthodoxy
The statement that "Eastern Orthodox theologians argue that the mind (reason, rationality) is the focus of Western theology, whereas, in Eastern theology, the mind must be put in the heart, so they are united into what is called nous; this unity as heart is the focus of Eastern Orthodox Christianity" is based on a reference by the American Romanian Carpathian Church. I am not sure this interpretation (and the entire paragraph that follows it) is representative. Of course, it is in the nature of the Orthodox tradition that there are differences in interpretation of the sacred texts because their meaning depends somewhat on the education and understanding of the individual. However, the contrary position has many defendants: The opening of the Gospel of St John quotes Heraclitus: In the arche (first principle) there was Logos ... Through it everything came to be". Heraclitus by Logos meant Reason (in fact that is what the word means in Greek). The translation into Latin as "In the beginning was the Word" certainly does not reflect Heraclitus accurately and rather detracts from the position of Logos (Reason) in Christian thought. St John the Evangelist lived in Ephesus, the city where Heraclitus had lived, and the reference to Heraclitus could not have been accidental. See also https://orthodoxwiki.org/Logos and https://www.orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/IJOT1-2010/12-popescu-trinity.pdf Skamnelis (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Skamnelis: OrthodoxWiki is a WP:SPS so it cannot be used as a source on Misplaced Pages articles. If you have a good source more authoritative than the current one to support the change you want (e.g. Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church or The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity), feel free to use it. Veverve (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- After the response that OrthodoxWiki is a WP:SPS so it cannot be used as a source on Misplaced Pages articles, I had added a reference from Kallistos Ware that seems to have been lost in favour of a statement from a publication attributed to the Romanian Carpathian Church. I do not see why the latter is more representative. At the very least the editor should have opted for presenting the range of views. Unless I have a good explanation, I will refer this issue to the arbitration committee. Skamnelis (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Council of Constantinople of 1170
I am asking here if this page could mention, even briefly the 1170 synod held at Constantinople. It is listed in John McClintock and James Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (where it is listed as a council of 1168 or 1170). According to them, the synod was "attended by many Eastern and Western bishops on the reunion of the Eastern and Latin Churches" (Volume 2, 1883, p. 491), and elsewhere they list this same council as being that at which "the Greek Church was entirely separated from the Roman" (Supplement Volume 2, 1887, p. 89). Horace Kinder Mann, quotes Macarius of Ancyra as saying the following about the council:
"The emperor, the council, and the whole senate gave their vote in favour of a total separation from the Pope... But it was not thought proper to consign (the Latins) a great and distinguished nation, to formal anathema, like other heresies, even while repudiating union and communion with them." (Nicholas Breakspear (Hadrian IV.) A.D. 1154-1159 The Only English Pope, p. 88)
I had added a brief entry on it, but it was deleted. I am sincerely wondering why it was deleted.
The Council was called by the Emperor Manuel and envoys of Pope Alexander III met in Constantinople along with Patriarch Michael III Anchialus. The Pope required that in all matters the Greeks adopt Latin practices and consent to the papal primacy, and so the Patriarch broke communion with Rome. Further information can easily be found online.
You can verify the quote by Macarius of Ancyra here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nicholas_Breakspear/xLY-AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=horace+kinder+mann+nicholas+breakspear&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:8E80:A9E0:129C:633E:6D7B:96FC (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The Map is Wrong
The map at the top of the article shows many areas Catholic that were not in 1045. Lithuania, for example, was not, nor was Pomerania, nor what later became East Prussia. 2604:3D09:2181:BCD0:A8A9:85A7:47C0:2C6F (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Selected anniversaries (December 2005)
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- B-Class Christian theology articles
- Top-importance Christian theology articles
- Christian theology work group articles
- B-Class Catholicism articles
- Top-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- B-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- Top-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class European history articles
- High-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- B-Class Middle Ages articles
- High-importance Middle Ages articles
- B-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- B-Class Greek articles
- Mid-importance Greek articles
- Byzantine world task force articles
- WikiProject Greece history articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- B-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles