Revision as of 12:51, 13 November 2005 editCarlosHoyos~enwiki (talk | contribs)110 edits Should this article be merged with this one?← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:51, 13 November 2005 edit undoMirv (talk | contribs)16,966 edits →Should this article be merged with this one?: noNext edit → | ||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
:They are not at all about the same topic and should not be merged. —]] 20:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:51, 13 November 2005
Insertion of filioque
The word "non-canonical" before the insertion of the clause seems to be advocating the Eastern side of the schism. I mean, obviously the Catholics do not think that it is non-canonical, right? I might be wrong... Bratsche 20:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- the Pope claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs, while the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed since he was the spiritual leader of "new-Rome" that he was the head of the Christian Church
Is the above right? I thought the claim of the four Eastern patriarchs was that none of the five patriarchs could claim authority over the whole Christian church. Today, the various Eastern Orthodox hierarchies recognize the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople as only honorary; he has authority over only one of those hierarchical churches. My understanding has been that that has been the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church ever since the schism of 1054. Michael Hardy 22:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I always thought that the Patriarch of Constantinople was not called "ecumenical" until after the Schism. Am I wrong? 66.213.21.15 28 June 2005 19:42 (UTC)
Actually, the Patriarch of Constatinople at the time of the split did indeed make primatial claims, much as the modern Orthodox hate to admit it. He was an aberration, unfortunately it was at the wrong time for it to happen.
The 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
Should this article be merged with this one?
I have found this article, and Western Schism, about the same topic. Are there enough differences between the two, or should they be merged? DrJones 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- They are not at all about the same topic and should not be merged. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)