| Revision as of 06:17, 4 December 2004 edit68.79.140.104 (talk) Should we not speak of more context & end of schism in 1965? | Revision as of 06:24, 4 December 2004 edit undo68.79.140.104 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The schism in question here is said, as is commonly done, to begin in 1054. Would it not be appropriate to |
The schism in question here is said, as is commonly done, to begin in 1054. Would it not be appropriate to say more of the antagonists at that time, as well as something of the historical context? Also, should it not be mentioned that other important parts of the Eastern Church, such as that of Antioch never did explicitly participate in the excommunications of 1054? Michael Gilligan ] 06:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:24, 4 December 2004
The schism in question here is said, as is commonly done, to begin in 1054. Would it not be appropriate to say more of the antagonists at that time, as well as something of the historical context? Also, should it not be mentioned that other important parts of the Eastern Church, such as that of Antioch never did explicitly participate in the excommunications of 1054? Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 06:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)