Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fakirbakir (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 19 October 2011 (→The Dragan Brujić-based map). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Christianity: Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. C‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance).

European history C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 7, 2005.

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.

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2004–June 2008) Archive 2 (May 2007–Jan 2009) Archive 3 (January–March 2009)

1965

I don't think "In 1965, the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople nullified the anathemas of 1054. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.56.90 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See, for instance, Miriam Webster New Book of Word Histories and for an English translation of the joint declaration by which each side consigned the excommunication (anathemas) to oblivion see the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of the two leaders. Esoglou (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Papal infallibility

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
Per the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

"No workable rule can be given for deciding when such subsequent ratification as this theory requires becomes effective and even if this could be done in the case of some of the earlier councils whose definitions are received by the Anglicans, it would still be true that since the Photian schism it has been practically impossible to secure any such consensus as is required — in other words that the working of infallible authority, the purpose of which is to teach every generation, has been suspended since the ninth century, and that Christ's promises to His Church have been falsified."

LoveMonkey (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Papal infallibility either has a history before it was made dogma or it don't. It either materialized out of thin air in the 19th century or it didn't.LoveMonkey (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read Conciliarism. (Other articles might also be cited, but that is perhaps the clearest to cite.) After that, ask yourself do you really think that Western bishops have always felt obliged to consider the Pope infallible? And that was centuries after the East-West schism, for which you seem to posit as a cause a refusal by the Eastern bishops as distinct from the Western, to consider the Pope infallible! Esoglou (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages can't be used to source wikipedia. Also I have and the article undermines your position.. I mean this passage is in the article.

Although Conciliarist strains of thought remain within the Church, particularly in the United States, Rome and the teaching of the Roman Church maintains that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, and has the authority to issue infallible statements. This Papal Infallibility was invoked in Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary

What did Photius say? Did Photius oppose the authority of the Pope as final say on church matters or not? You are for your POV about the Orthodox's position. But why is the Orthodox wiki making statements like this?

"Pope Nicholas I, who was eager to assert his power over the Eastern church. Pope Nicholas had previously been successful in bringing the Western church under his absolute control, and he now sought the same power over the East.". Why can't the Orthodox position be stated? You want your position but yours says ours as Orthodox is ignorant, misinformed, not historically relevant, corrupted by partisans etc etc. Also what you think and or what I think should not be the content of articles here.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister patriarchates and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at the Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman pontiff seated on the lofty throne of his glory wished to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves not the sons, of such a church and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves

— Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia of the Twelfth Century

LoveMonkey (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles can't be used as sources for Misplaced Pages articles, and in this case haven't been so used. The same holds for OrthodoxWiki articles. But such articles can be enlightening for people who don't have a closed mind. From what you say, it seems that even Photios the Great said nothing about papal infallibility. So what reliable source is there for the statement for whose preservation you have edit-warred by reverting twice, while two other editors see it as unrelated to the causes of the 11th-century East-West Schism? Or are you only using synthesis in support? Esoglou (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the statement as I have restored it.

"But these bishops did not regard the Bishop of Rome as infallible, nor did they acknowledge any juridical authority of Rome."

This is the edit summary that was used to justify the removal of the mention of papal infallibility.

"Papal infallibility was not promulgated until 1870, so the statement about bishops in the early Church is anachronistic, like saying early settlers of the state of New York didn't like the Mets."

The part of the statement called into question that is being readded and removed is "But these bishops did not regard the Bishop of Rome as infallible."

WP:SYN is not in direct conflict with WP:COMMON SENSE. I posted from the Catholic encyclopedia not exactly an Orthodox source where it acknowledges the history of papal infallibility. Also you comment about Orthodox wiki is wrong. As I have abit of a war with a sysop there over copying articles from there to wikipedia so yes Orthodox wiki can and is a source for wikipedia. As for sources I have already given at least three the Catholic encyclopedia, the Orthodox wiki and Kallistos Ware. As just because papal infallibility was made dogma in the 1800s doesn't mean was was invented whole cloth right there on the spot and that is what you are implying. As if the Christian Church did not exist before the biblical cannon was created. As if the bible fell right out of the sky and men did not lick the ends of pen and ink it.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In short, your only source is your own common sense? Or is it, after all, a synthesis that you have made between what the Catholic Encyclopedia said about conciliar infallibility and your own ideas of papal infallibility? Or, to be more exact, is it that synthesis topped with a further synthesis between it and your ideas of the causes of the East-West Schism?

(If OrthodoxWiki texts, like those in Misplaced Pages, can be freely copied anywhere, I doubt that the sysop is saying you can't copy from it to Misplaced Pages. Is it rather that the sysop is saying instead that you can't quote OrthodoxWiki as a reliable source for some disputed statement in Misplaced Pages? How convenient it would be to make an edit in OrthodoxWiki and then use it as a so-called reliable source for what someone wants to have in Misplaced Pages! But I refuse to discuss that matter further: it concerns you and the sysop, not this article.) Esoglou (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As for sources I have already given at least three the Catholic encyclopedia, the Orthodox wiki and Kallistos Ware.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Which of the two that can be counted as reliable sources says a dispute about papal infallibility (not just jurisdiction) was a cause of the East-West Schism? (No personal synthesis of your own, please.) Esoglou (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kallistos Ware.. Also Laurent Cleenewerck in His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. pp. 301-30, John Meyendorff, John Romanides, Vladimir Lossky. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you want Roman Catholic ones? Is that what this is about? Like say this one about this very debate as it happened in 1100 or so AD between Nicetas of Nicomedia and Anselm of Havelberg? Or maybe Tomáš Špidlík?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If your stick on the word infallible (even though thats how the filioque was made dogma justified) I am completely OK with the sentence saying.

"But these bishops did not regard the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as infallible, nor did they acknowledge any juridical authority of Rome."LoveMonkey (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation "A new stage in the history of the controversy was reached in the early eleventh century. During the synod following the coronation of King Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor at Rome in 1014, the Creed, including the Filioque, was sung for the first time at a papal Mass. Because of this action, the liturgical use of the Creed, with the Filioque, now was generally assumed in the Latin Church to have the sanction of the papacy. Its inclusion in the Eucharist, after two centuries of papal resistance of the practice, reflected a new dominance of the German Emperors over the papacy, as well as the papacy’s growing sense of its own authority, under imperial protection, within the entire Church, both western and eastern."
and
"The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445) again brought together representatives from the Church of Rome and the Churches of Constantinople, Alexan­dria, Antioch and Jerusalem, to discuss a wide range of controversial issues, including papal authority and the Filioque."
and finally
As in the theological question of the origin of the Holy Spirit discussed above, this divergence of understanding of the structure and exercise of authority in the Church is clearly a very serious one: undoubtedly Papal primacy, with all its impli­cations, remains the root issue behind all the questions of theology and practice that continue to divide our communions. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you please direct me to whichever of these spoke of infallibility as a bone of contention between East and West at the time of the schism? I must have overlooked whichever one or ones did speak of that question (rather than of the question of authority) as a live question in or around 1054. Please guide me to whatever it is that you found. Did someone as far back as 1054 maintain that some already existing ex cathedra papal declaration (which one?) about "Filioque" (with "procedit") was not only right but "infallible"? Have you perhaps anachronically projected back to that time disputes that arose only later? Esoglou (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be missing each other. I would have responded sooner but Misplaced Pages was down yesterday. I see however today someone appears to have added what I felt the addition was contributing. So I abnegate. I think the contribution, words the position and sources it quite well.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

However I would like to find out what the term is that the Roman Catholic church uses to justify the insertion of filoque by the Pope at say the coronation of Henry II, before any council was convened. Also what the term is that is used to justify Pope Clement II making it doctrine for the whole church before any council was convened.
So is the term

• 1.papal infallibility
• 2.papal primacy
• 3.papal universal jurisdiction
• 4.Unam Sanctam
• 5.papal supremacy
• 6.papal authority
• 7.Primacy of the Roman Pontiff
• 8.Petrine doctrine
• 9.Vicar
• 10.Vicar of Christ
• 11.vicarius principis apostolorum
• 12.Praetorian prefect
• 13.Dominium mundi
• 14.Papal Diplomacy
• 15.papal stature
• 16.Roman Curia
• 17.papism,
• 18.universal supremacy
• 19.papal magisterium]
• 20.Investiture Controversy
• 21.Petrine Primacy
• 22.the man behind the curtain
  

or whatever.
Please forgive me if I am abit confused and maybe fought for the wrong term for why the Pope believes he can change church dogma without council with the East based on his own stature.
LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose there was any theorizing whatever in 1014. If I remember right (perhaps I don't) the Creed was not sung in the divine liturgy in Rome until then, perhaps not even recited. They just decided on that occasion to sing it, as it was sung generally in the rest of Latin-speaking Europe. As you know, the Creed in Latin also has the phrase "Deum de Deo", which was in the original Nicene Creed, but not in the later "Niceno-Constantinopolitan" version, which is used in the Byzantine liturgy Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Deum de Deo"... was that recited in church in Latin? In the West at the time of the council? What you said is illogical. When in the West did the creed begin to be recited in Latin?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How does Roman Catholic theology resolve this passage of the creed..

"Jesus Christ who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;"

With the filloque?

So does Jesus incarnate of the Holy Spirit after the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son? Also if they come from one another why can't the father come from them. Also what is the father then? If Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, what the father for?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally to answer your question directly, who in the time of the schism can be attributed to having in the East said that it is the Pope's decision to make the filioque dogma for the whole church, was one of the causes of the schism. Well for one that would be Saint Nicetas . You don't seem to be wanting to address the things that he is said to have expressed. I think we should work together to have these points of contention stated in the article. I think there should be a wikipedia page created for the saint. We could do it together. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Four Crusade that ultimately destroyed the Byzantine Empire

So how should it be worded that the Fourth Crusade weakened the Byzantine Empire so much so that it could not recover?LoveMonkey (talk) 17:35,

25 March 2010 (UTC) http://vizantia.info/docs/73.htm 800 tons of gold is not enough?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.6.190 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou's edits, what gives?

I removed this passage that Esoglou added to the article claiming to correct distortions I had added to the article.

It was never condemned by the seven ecumenical councils formally accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, but has been rejected by the Synod of Jerusalem, which states that "for the regenerated to do spiritual good – for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual – it is necessary that he be guided and prevented by grace … Consequently he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life".

The views expressed by John Cassian to which critics have pointed as examples of his alleged semi-Pelagianism are found in his Conferences, in book 3, the Conference of Abbot Paphnutius; book 5, the Conference of Abbot Serapion; and most especially in book 13, the Third Conference of Abbot Chaeremon.

The source Esoglou provides makes no mention at all of Saint John Cassian nor mention of Semipelagianism. No mention that the ascetic doctrine of Cassian is rejected and not taught by the Orthodox Church. I can not find any Orthodox sources that stated that the Orthodox rejected Cassian AT ALL. Nor can I find any source Orthodox or not tying Cassian to any Synod of Jerusalem. Let alone the Synod that could be sourced by (i.e. the Synod of Jerusalem (1672)). Cassian and his teaching of Synergeia I can find no placed condemned by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Where is this coming from? LoveMonkey (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Synod of Jerusalem, which some Orthodox feel should be listed as an ecumenical council, declared that, unless grace is first given to him, man can do nothing contributory to salvation. This is against the teaching that man can take the first steps to salvation without divine grace, the teaching that the article called Semipelagianism. That is what was condemned, not Cassian. The Council of Orange also condemned Semipelagianism, but not Cassian. Cassian, who died a century before either condemnation of Semipelagianism was issued, is a saint for both the Eastern and the Western Church.

The second paragraph quoted above is not mine. It was already in the article. I thought it was absolutely unhelpful, and would have omitted it but for fear of stirring up a defence of it. I am grateful to LoveMonkey for now objecting to it, and so enabling it to be excised. Esoglou (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"which some Orthodox feel"? More doublespeak and gibberish. You posted that the Orthodox with a council have condemned a part of their own theology. You've done this TWICE.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong in thinking the Synod of Jerusalem was proposed as ecumenical. I mistakenly thought that an Orthodox source concerning the lack of formal recognition of any ecumenical council after the seventh (and which does mention the Synod of Jerusalem) had spoken of this synod/council as proposed for recognition. In reality, as I find, the source only spoke of proposals for recognition of an 8th and a 9th ecumenical council. The source mentioned the Synod of Jerusalem only as a local council. It is like the Council of Orange, which in spite of the 1912 remark of Joseph Pohle is not reckoned as ecumenical in the West. Thanks for drawing my attention to my error.

Love, do you really think that it is actual Orthodox teaching, and not just an opinion, that man can take the first steps towards salvation without any assistance of God's grace? What source can you cite? If it is actual teaching of the Orthodox Church, then I suppose that the Synod of Jerusalem, which upheld the contradictory view, must be considered heretical.

I don't see why you cancelled "The semipelagian doctrine, as expounded by Faustus of Riez, was denounced as heretical both at Constantinople and Rome by John Maxentius and his monks soon after 520" (practically a quotation from the cited source), on the grounds that "Maxentius position was not validated by any Eastern Council bad distortion Orange is not in Constaninople". Of course we know that John Maxentius failed to get a hearing in either Constantinople or Rome (and that Orange is in neither city), but it is a verified fact that he did denounce Semipelagianism as heretical. However, I think this verified fact can be omitted as unimportant, since you dislike it so strongly.

By the way, it is quite obvious that "Cassian took no part in his condemnation" (as if anyone would be likely to take part in his own condemnation). Is this perhaps a reference to the Council of Orange, as I notice you wrote at first? Apart from the fact that that council did not condemn Cassian himself nor, as far as I know, did any other council, Cassian was dead for nearly a century when the Council of Orange was held. Esoglou (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou does not know what they are talking about in relation to Orthodox theology

Vladimir Lossky in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church pg 198 speaks of John Cassian upholding the Orthodox position against the slow contamination of the Western church by the teachings of Augustine. Lossky states Cassian is a saint in both East and West that his teaching was condemned in the West but he does not say Cassian was in any, way, shape, form or fashion was EVER rejected or condemned in the East. Lossky makes no mention of any council. Also on Maxentius-LoveMonkey (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's Lossky's view, then. Put it in. Or, if you wish, I'll put it in myself. Esoglou (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny I posted Lossky before you posted this.

Love, do you really think that it is actual Orthodox teaching, and not just an opinion, that man can take the first steps towards salvation without any assistance of God's grace? What source can you cite? If it is actual teaching of the Orthodox Church, then I suppose that the Synod of Jerusalem, which upheld the contradictory view, must be considered heretical.

LoveMonkey (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

After more mistakes Lima/Esoglou continues to edit war

Why was this passage removed now for at least a second time? Without discussion.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Cassian's doctrine is not referred to as Semipelagianism it is referred to as the theological doctrine of synergy or cooperation between man's will and the will of God. The working together of the Holy Spirit and each person towards the person's salvation. The Eastern Orthodox teach the doctrine of synergy comparable to "saving a drowning man by throwing a rope to him, on which he must choose to or to not grab in order to receive the help offered". As Cassian had endeavored in his thirteenth chapter of Conferences section 11 to demonstrate from Biblical examples that God frequently awaits the good impulses of the natural will before coming to its assistance with His supernatural grace; while the grace often preceded the will, as in the case of Matthew and Peter, on the other hand the will frequently preceded the grace, as in the case of Zacchæus and the Good Thief on the Cross.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, Love, look more carefully. The above is still in the article. The last part, on what John Cassian actually wrote, has been moved to the exposition of his view in the first part of the subsection, but it is still in the article. See this edit.

Would you be so good as to let me know what are the mistakes that you say I have made, so that I can correct them? I feel confident that none of them is as bad as the twofold falsification of a quotation that you made, presumably by mistake, not out of malice. See here and here.

I am restoring my work, and please don't edit-war by deleting it. Instead, indicate what you think needs correction or further sourcing. And please back up your own statements for which I have asked you to provide valid sources. Esoglou (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have chosen to revert again. I must ask for a third opinion. Esoglou (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Esoglou.

On the grounds of "the amount of errors and the wholesale removal what Cassian actually states and a complete misrepresentation of the Orthodox position", LoveMonkey has twice blanket-reverted my editing of 21 June 2010. His reverting is not justified by the alleged removal of what Cassian actually states, which, as I have shown above, has not been removed. Nor is it justified on the grounds of alleged errors, which I would be happy to discuss if he would only specify them. Nor on the grounds of alleged complete misrepresentation of the Orthodox position: I have quoted sources on the Orthodox position, while he on the contrary has actually changed (falsified) the words of a quotation from an Orthodox catechism to make them fit his own view. I am sorry for being unable to put this in a single short sentence. Thank you for intervening. Esoglou (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by LoveMonkey

....

I'll respond (PS thanks for the vote of Good faith) Esoglou continues to misrepresent the Eastern Orthodox opinion. Esoglou it seems can not leave that position alone and has to reword it. Hence the streams and streams of editwarring away what Esoglou does not like being said. Lima/Esoglou is doing what is called in the East (by say George Florovsky for one example) as "Western captivity". Where the Eastern positions are not actually given by the Orthodox unless that Orthodox position is one that agrees with the West. The Orthodox theology is not allowed to stand by itself. As such many Western peoples have grave misconceptions about what the Orthodox actually believe and have not come to realize they have not actually asked the Orthodox but instead have asked what the Roman Catholic opinion of the Orthodox is. Lima/Esoglou is continuing this exact same tradition. It appears Esoglou just can not leave it as it is but instead has to constantly reword the opinion with Esoglou's own Original Research in some cases so that the Orthodox have no opinion of their own. So they are full of misconceptions about themselves and only the West really understands the East. This is completely ridiculous. Lima/Esoglou could just leave the Eastern entries as they stand. But Esoglou refuses to do that. I mean I have not went into the Roman Catholic sections and started any kind of this nonsense. Whats Esoglou afraid of, in letting the Orthodox positions stand unmolested? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion by Weaponbb7

Due to looking a LoveMonkey (talk · contribs) editing Pattern I don't think he is going to Respond to this, it seems this is actually may be a longterm problem with no easy solution.

I would appeciate the text in question to be presented below this text, as right now this discussion seems to border on a WP:CCN issue which i can not hope to solve by myself Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I who? your sig is missing.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok text in question below here Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's one this is hopefully simple enough to understand.

But the view that the first steps of salvation are in the power of the individual without any need of divine grace, a view expounded by Cassian and Faustus of Riez, was condemned by the local Council of Orange in 529. The local Synod of Jerusalem (1672) also laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good.

The Orthodox Church does not condemn it's own teachings from John Cassian. This above is something Esoglou made up. Esoglou can not find a single Orthodox theologian whom teaches this. Not one that ties the teachings of Cassian to any Orthodox authorized and accepted Synod of Jerusalem (1672). You won't find anything like this passage above in anything Orthodox. The council text Esoglou posted makes no mention of Cassian, synergy, semipelgainism. None of it. This is Original Research Esoglou made up.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

tentative WP:3O opinion

I am not a Theologian, But looking at the Diff provided, it does seem there is alot of primary sources being used in the Version posited by Esoglou, which intended or not do seem to be potentially run the very serious risk of OR when used to support a statement. In addtion the portion on this individual Cassian seems rather bizarre part of this dispute as The Greek Orthodox church considers him as a Saint thus I am concluding that LoveMonkey is perhaps more right than Esoglou. I would Recomend on this article that the use of Primary Sources be shunned as well as ones that are being sourced to that seem to be free floating sites that fail would likely Fail at the WP:RSN. Both Editors please review WP:PSTS Google Scholar and the Altla (I think thats how it is spelled) have troves of secondary sources and any normal Encyclopedia will would provide an excellent Tertiary sources. If Esoglou wishes to use a different diff that more accurately displays his position i will be happy to reconsider Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Weaponbb7.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to tentative WP:3O opinion by Esoglou

I am sorry I don't understand what are the primary sources that you are referring to. The one clearly primary source is the passage from John Cassian, which LoveMonkey inserted and accused me falsely of deleting. I have no objection whatever to its omission. LoveMonkey does.

Ok, Basicly the problem is here is various Websites that are Done by Various Churches Can be interpreted as Primary sources or could lack authority to speak on the Matter. Thus Secondary sources Preferably from some one a Religious Studies field or Religous History would extremely preferable. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think one needs to be a theologian to follow this. The Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC), you say, considers Cassian a Saint. That provides no ground for concluding that LoveMonkey is perhaps more right, since the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) too considers Cassian a Saint.

What I am asking is that LoveMonkey discuss the differences instead of reverting everything in edit-warring style. Which difference can we start with? I would gladly leave the choice to him. But since he still has not specified any particular difference, but has simply linked to the one reversion that I permitted myself and that he re-reverted immediately after, perhaps we can start with the first point of divergence between the two versions.

This is what i get for Walking in on this Middle of the conversation

The topic of these sections is the issues that are dividing the two churches and so perpetuating the schism. LoveMonkey says that the EOC does not accept Augustine's theology. So what? Neither does the RCC. The most logical thing would be to omit discussion of Augustine's theology, and limit the discussion to the teachings of the two churches. It was and is obvious that LoveMonkey would object to such an excision; so I kept the account of Augustine's theology, separating it from the account of the teachings of the two churches This I made my first paragraph. The citations in that paragraph were inserted in the article by LoveMonkey, not by me; so I presume there is no objection to those citations.

I concur, However Augstine was a BIG if not THE theologian for many centuries even if he is no longer considered by either faith to such status, he was key at one time around the time of the split so in historical terms it is relevant even if it is not currently perpetuating it. 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My second paragraph then is on the teaching of the EOC. It is taken from LoveMonkey's first paragraph, with one important change. LoveMonkey attributes to the catechism of Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios the following text:

"ancestral sin is therefore hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does their sin and corruption of existence. We all of us exist in the corrupted existence we inherited due to the ancestral sin of our forefathers forefather, Adam."

What that EOC catechism really says is:

"original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam."

Surely it is not legitimate to falsify quotations from our cited sources.

By the way, you surely don't object to catechisms as sources for knowing a church's teaching. Is that what you mean by "primary sources"? But official expositions of a church's teaching as in a catechism are incomparably the best source for sure and exact knowledge of what the church does teach.

Yes, Catechism is Tricky though as its meant to dumb it down so laypeople can understand How this disagreement sounds like Translation issues from the original greek. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I could go on, but I have no more time tonight. If it is so desired, I will gladly continue tomorrow. But I think I have given enough ground for raising doubts about whether LoveMonkey was right to revert my editing without agreeing to discuss it here on the Talk page or to ...

I must interrupt myself here, and first apologize for what seems to have been certainly a misunderstanding on my part. I thought that the difference that LoveMonkey had posted was the whole of the edit linked to with the number 11 above, in other words this one. I see now that LoveMonkey was more specific. (Pity he wasn't specific earlier, and we could have discussed the question here without having to bring someone else in.)

LoveMonkey objects to "But the view that the first steps of salvation are in the power of the individual without any need of divine grace, a view expounded by Cassian and Faustus of Riez, was condemned by the local Council of Orange in 529. The local Synod of Jerusalem (1672) also laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good." on the grounds that "The Orthodox Church does not condemn it's own teachings from John Cassian. This above is something Esoglou made up. Esoglou can not find a single Orthodox theologian whom teaches this. Not one that ties the teachings of Cassian to any Orthodox authorized and accepted Synod of Jerusalem (1672). You won't find anything like this passage above in anything Orthodox. The council text Esoglou posted makes no mention of Cassian, synergy, semipelgainism. None of it. This is Original Research Esoglou made up."|

What a lot there is to say on that! To begin with, LoveMonkey claims, without any source, that Cassian's idea is a teaching of the EOC, not just an idea that may be entertained by some of its members. Secondly, my text does not claim that the Synod of Jerusalem made mention of Cassian, synergy or Semi-Pelagianism (a correct spelling). What it says of that synod is that it "laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good". It did, didn't it? And isn't that related to the definition of Semi-Pelagianism given earlier in the same section (in LoveMonkey's version of the article), namely that the first steps to salvation are sometimes in the power of the individual, without any need of God's grace? So it is not off topic. And isn't this statement by a synod of the EOC that has been called "the most important in the modern history of the Eastern Church, and may be compared to the Council of Trent" an important enough source to make one doubt the accuracy of LoveMonkey's undocumented claim that Semi-Pelagianism is official doctrine of the EOC? It is simply not "something Esoglou made up".

A pity I had a visitor earlier this evening, making me rush this reply. But surely I have said enough to undo the impression that "LoveMonkey is perhaps more right than Esoglou". Far from justifying LoveMonkey's reversions, the comparison between the two versions indicates that the unsourced claims LoveMonkey makes in his own version and refuses to support with valid citations in reply to a "citation needed" or "verification failed" tag, together with his falsification of a source, are enough to perhaps justify repeated reversions by me, which I have not wished to do, so as not to imitate his edit-warring. Esoglou (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One Recmendation since this appears to be more than a minor issue but a whole host of issues of varying degrees of importance i recommend i Getting help From both Misplaced Pages:CATHOLIC and WP:EO as well as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity. 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if my hurried response yesterday evening was too sharp. First of all, you didn't walk in in the midst of a conversation. You very kindly accepted an urgent invitation to come in and get a conversation going. All I wanted was to get LoveMonkey to discuss the issues instead of blanket-reverting. If I had wanted to get others involved in discussing the issues – something I did have in mind – I would have made a Request for Comment on the discussion – if there had been one. Even if my editing were wrong on some points, that would justify reverting on those points, but not repeated total reverting. My question therefore was whether LoveMonkey's repeated total reverting was justified. Perhaps my question has not been answered.

Oh, with regard to the undoubted BIGness of Augustine, the bugbear for some people (in spite of the Fifth Ecumenical Council's statement: "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and their writings on the true faith"!), you will note that I did not eliminate him from the article, but merely distinguished his teaching from that of the churches. Surely not only legitimate but actually required. Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

monkey lover response

WOW I mean WOW to the magnitude of outright blatant misrepresentation. The primary source I posted here and noted that Esoglou is corrupting has no Cassian sourcing in it where is that? Me sourcing Cassian directly in the passage I posted here? In response to weaponbb7s request? No, Esoglou posted a passage from the council in Jerusalem 1672. Here is the passage I posted, again...

But the view that the first steps of salvation are in the power of the individual without any need of divine grace, a view expounded by Cassian and Faustus of Riez, was condemned by the local Council of Orange in 529. The local Synod of Jerusalem (1672) also laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good.

So again where Lima/Esoglou is quoting Dositheus (http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html Confession of Dositheus, Decree 14) directly to bolster that the Eastern Orthodox condemn the teachings of Cassian (which they don't) equate to
Esoglou wrote

"The one clearly primary source is the passage from John Cassian, which LoveMonkey inserted and accused me falsely of deleting"

From my perspective could someone please stop Esoglou from posting Dositheus (http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html Confession of Dositheus, Decree 14) as a source for the Orthodox council of Jerusalem supposedly saying the Orthodox condemned at it Cassian, semipelagaianism, synergy? As Dositheus is a primary source, a primary source that AGAIN makes no mention of Cassian, semipelagianism, synergy nor condemn any such thing. As "The local Synod of Jerusalem (1672) also laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good." did no such as thing as condemn Cassian, synergy, semipelagianism."
And to continue.. Esoglou wrote

"To begin with, LoveMonkey claims, without any source, that Cassian's idea is a teaching of the EOC,"

Sure I did provide sources for several days now in the article Michael Azkoul, An Introduction to the Orthodox Christian Understanding of Free Will and here on the talkpage . But I can provide more. How many mistakes and boo boos that cause edit warring and incredible amounts of personal time and frustration are going to be allowed? Enough with the playing dumb as an excuse to editwar already. Hes committed 3rr on the Filioque article twice already. And nobody can do anything? Tell me why its ok for Esoglou to be using that source to say something it does not say, is that not Original Research? Esoglou still can't find an Orthodox theologian that will state Cassian's view was condemn at any eastern council.
And some more.. Esoglou wrote

Pity he wasn't specific earlier, and we could have discussed the question here without having to bring someone else in.)

Yes I was. And I was just as specific. You have no excuses. Esoglou wrote

"Secondly, my text does not claim that the Synod of Jerusalem made mention of Cassian, synergy or Semi-Pelagianism (a correct spelling). What it says of that synod is that it "laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good". It did, didn't it?"

I am asking someone, anyone to explain how this passage belongs at all in this article for this section. Anyone to explain what this means? That Esoglou is doublespeaking? It is unjustified for what it implies by what it proceeds. Either its about the paragraph its in or its a random add it in that needs to be removed. Now here is a whopper.
Esoglou wrote

"And isn't that related to the definition of Semi-Pelagianism given earlier in the same section (in LoveMonkey's version of the article), namely that the first steps to salvation are sometimes in the power of the individual, without any need of God's grace? So it is not off topic."

So which is it? Is it a source or not. Either way its random or its original research.

Esoglou wrote

"And isn't this statement by a synod of the EOC that has been called "the most important in the modern history of the Eastern Church, and may be compared to the Council of Trent" an important enough source to make one doubt the accuracy of LoveMonkey's undocumented claim that Semi-Pelagianism is official doctrine of the EOC? It is simply not "something Esoglou made up".

What? What? The council says nothing about Cassian and no Orthodox theologian I can find makes this connection.
Esoglou wrote

"LoveMonkey makes in his own version and refuses to support with valid citations in reply to a "citation needed" or "verification failed tag,"

I've posted plenty where did I supposedly do any of this?
Esoglou wrote

together with his falsification of a source,

What source did I falsify?
Esoglou wrote

"are enough to perhaps justify repeated reversions by me, which I have not wished to do, so as not to imitate his edit-warring."

Nonsense I addressed this with you on the talkpage specifically 3 days ago you blew it off and keep right on reverting, rewriting and ignoring.LoveMonkey (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Love, the links you give to your elimination of a series of hyphens are not very enlightening. You ask what quotation you falsified. I repeat, you changed "original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam."" to "ancestral sin is therefore hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does their sin and corruption of existence. We all of us exist in the corrupted existence we inherited due to the ancestral sin of our forefathers forefather, Adam". Did you not? And surely a statement by a synod of the EOC is as good a source as any on what really is EOC teaching on the question whether one can take the first steps towards salvation without any help whatever from divine grace (which is how you define Semipelagianism, which in turn you attribute to John Cassian). Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can now get down to discussing whatever objections you can propose to my editing of the section that you have retouched after twice blanket-reverted my editing, the section on synergy (there is an interesting article on this) and free will. I have indicated separately this time the different elements of my editing of that section, so that you can indicate which elements you believe are wrong (every one of them?) and why. I will do the same for the other sections that you blanket-reverted, if that is required to get you to offer reasoned indications of why you thought they must all be reverted. Esoglou (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What is this? Where is Weaponbb7's response before you jump back in and try and change the subject? At least provide the diffs Esoglou. Get down to maybe you stop with your Original Research and edit warring.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey & Esoglou

This seems to be a bigger issue than I can handle by myself, as this is getting very theological and using terminology that is little out of my league. Both of your Edit histories show a lot of good work contributing to articles on related topics. I highly recommend getting help From both Catholic Work Group and The Eastern Orthodox Workgroup as well as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity. I recommend these groups since individuals working there will be able to evaluate source, interpretations and the like much more effectively than I can. I will maintain a presence on the page to facilitate the goal of of bringing knoledgeable editors on this topic to weigh in. Does this sound like a plan? Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is unbiased yes it does.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Tell me from the lack of conclusive decision what justification does Esoglou have to have reverted out my contributions to the article and to also rewrite almost this entire section of contested material. Esoglou rewrote the Orthodox parts to say that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic teach the same things when the sources that he used (some that I provided) do not state such a thing. Esoglou went ahead and removed and reverted without consensus.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this your proposal for an invitation to join the discussion? Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was already in the discussion. But sure. But I agree adn thought thhat we where in the middle of such a thing. That's why I complained about Esoglou going into the article today and wholesale rewriting and deleting and distorting.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry i need to make myself clear. What is a Neutral Statement of the problem that both of you can agree to that we can post on Respective Talk pages of these project to get a wider consensus on the issues?

You have some signature issues. They are making it hard for me to follow when you are saying something since I am unclear if and who might have made a post. But Yes I agree and that what was happening. And is why I made the complaint in Esoglou wholesale writing and edit warring today without getting consensus first here. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You know if you go and look on the Filioque article. You'll notice that Esoglou is now edit warring with an Orthodox Priest. Maybe he can tell Father Whiteford how Father Whiteford does not know his own churchs' theology and doctrine. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Predestination as Roman Catholic dogma

The Roman Catholic Church has a PR problem either Esolgou is correct that the Roman Catholic Church rejects Augustine's predestination or the New Advent is wrong. Now I obviously think that Esoglou Mr doublespeak confusion is wrong. But if the New Advent is wrong then ALL of the Roman Catholics who try and say it is (its 3000 years old or whatever lame excuse it is) are a party to something incredibly unethical. Since they need to clear their own house and not DARE be critical of anyone whom in good faith took the New Advent website at what it said.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly Augustine's predestination theory, as interpreted by you, Love, as contrary to free will, is contrary to Catholic teaching (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 600, 1730, 1705, 1037). Does the article by Joseph Pole in 1911 agree with your interpretation? If it does - and I see no reason for thinking that it does - that too is contrary to Catholic teaching. Esoglou (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Its so obvious. The article clearly states that the Roman Catholic church as a matter of DOGMA teaches the concept of predestination. PERIOD. Keep trying to twist it. I'll eventually get you to put enough mistakes that to administrators on here they will see the game your playing.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does. You don't have to go back a century to find that the Catholic Church teaches predestination. But it doesn't teach your idea of predestination, Love. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My idea. I was only quoting what I had read. Why did you remove it then in this diff?LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove what? Esoglou (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the diff Esoglou.14:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I did, but I imagined (wrongly?) that you might perhaps be courteous enough to specify what you mean by "it". Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets start here.. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Now baby steps.. Who is Thomas Aquinas? And in the teaching from the OCA website what does the last sentence of the teaching say about Thomas Aquinas? Next step, what is scholasticism? Who is considered the official founding person of Western Scholasticism? Now who is Duns Scotus? And what is it that Mr Scotus had as a point of contention with Mr Aquinas and his Thomism group?. Why is there a conflict in the Roman Catholic church for something that is agreed upon and so clearly at that, so that it also agrees with the Orthodox Church? As the Roman Catholic Church does indeed teach Augustine's predestination. As my next set of edits and section was going to be on Supralapsarianism. And how it is an outgrowth of Augustine's Predestination. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As indicated above, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (rather than speculation by one or more of the diverse schools of thought) will tell you what is the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh so you didn't read any of that. Nor can you answer it. So what does this statement from the website named RomanCatholics.org mean?

Augustine’s teaching was codified in canons infallibly approved by Rome as a rule of the doctrine of the faith. For instance, the II Council of Orange, approved by Pope Boniface II and recognised by all Catholic theologians as infallible, defined in AD. 529, using sentences taken from Augustine, the doctrine of the two loves, caritas (love of God) and cupiditas (worldly love).

What misconceptions Esoglou claims I have, are at least informed ones. But then this is not what Esoglou has been saying or fighting about and Esoglou denies that Augustine's teachings of Original Sin and Predestination are actually taught by the Roman Catholic church. the tactic that Esoglou is engaging in is called duplicitous or duplicity. In that Esoglou is taking both sides of the issue. And claiming to be both for and against.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, Love: I believe you've concluded that Augustine's teaching on predestination is the same as the RCC's teaching on predestination (which you'll find indicated in the parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church cited above), and I suppose you must therefore have concluded that Augustine's teaching too admits free will. As I said above, what the RCC does not teach is an interpretation of Augustine's teaching on predestination that denies free will, an interpretation that I perhaps mistakenly thought to be yours. Esoglou (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What? More gobble-dy gook. First the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach Augustine, then they kinda do and now well, they finally do. Taking both sides again. Well congratulations to Esoglou for finally facing what people actually hear and see in a Roman Catholic church on any given Sunday. Which is not about people coming to God of their own volition and synergy or Cassian. No its about Augustine and Aquinas and a deterministic God, a benevolent dictator. Still not going to address Aquinas and Scotus.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

May I repeat my request for a third opinion on the question whether LoveMonkey's blanket reverting of all edits by me, without attempting to give reasons for more than a couple of them (at best), is justified? He has done it again. As I remarked above, one could understand reverting individual items on which an editor disagrees, but I do not see how one can justify blanket reverting while reserving to oneself the right to continue to make edits. So is LoveMonkey's repeated blanket reverting justified or is it not? Esoglou (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you wait for the process to run its course or is it your to afraid to see what the results of it will be? We are not done it is just escalating.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I want to see the results from the process that I initiated. Instead of letting it go off on a tangent, I would like it to deal with the question I raised. Do you yourself, Love, really believe you can justify your blanket reverting? I split my editing up into individual elements so as to enable you to distinguish between these elements and say what, if anything, you find wrong with each of them. Yet you persist in your to my mind quite unjustified total reverting. Esoglou (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You wanted to see the results after you ignored that the process was still ongoing?LoveMonkey (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Page is now Locked from anyone (Except Admins) editing it for 72 hours Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I responded to a request at WP:RFPP for "full protection for 72 hours". As I mentioned at RFPP, my preference would have been to WP:BLOCK the two editors concerned, rather than fully protect the article. I chose to protect instead because there's clearly mediation occurring, and preventing the editors involved from participating would have been counter-productive. For that reason I hope mediation will succeed. TFOWR 15:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

While the page is protected, if a consensus emerges for a change to the page then that can be requested using the {{editprotected}} tag. Any admin seeing the request will - assuming there's a consensus for the change - make the change. I've also got this page watchlisted, so naturally I'll make any change I see requested. TFOWR 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to Relevant Wikiprojects

I have post an Invitation to Wikiprojects, on the Talk pages of WP:JESUS, WP:EO, WP:CATHOLIC I want both Editor to Discuss the Dispute with out refering to the other editor in the text

Esoglou Issues with E-W-Schism

The only issue I have raised is another editor's refusal to let me edit the article, reverting en bloc anything I add, while adding whatever he likes. This has been persisted in even when I split my editing of one section into individual small elements. Diff. 1; Diff. 2; Diff. 3. While reverting of individual elements could be a normal exercise of editing, I do not see as legitimate the unexplained reverting of absolutely all changes done by a fellow-editor. I would warmly welcome interventions by others. Esoglou (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey Issues with E-W-Schism

I would like a third party to authorize any edits and or suggestions that either I, LoveMonkey and or Esoglou purpose to the article here on the talkpage first. That means posting whatever changes or suggestions that either party would like to make here on the talkpage and receiving consensus from a third party first. But not just anyone. As the editor Weaponbb7 has already purposed the authorities would participants from BOTH churches not say a Roman Catholic working on the Orthodox Christianity project per se. Just for starters. Esoglou is distorting and I want other editors to see the type of nonsense and distorting Esoglou is engaged in.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you stike that and Name specific issues with Diffs? Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

PS I am having issues adding content where the pages are not responding and or I make the edit but it does not show up immediately. Very frustrating.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Diff 1 Esoglou arguing that Constantinople was ever named or called New Rome by Constantine.
• Diff 2 Here Had to fight Esoglou to even acknowledge that Constantine name his new city New Rome. And here I thought that was a commonly know historical fact. But Esoglou fought me over that. Why?
• Diff 3 After I created several sections Esoglou goes in and almost completely rewrites them. Why? no discussion. None.
• Diff 4 Again why? Esoglou deleted an entire passage here dealing with Cassian. Also Esoglou added this passage of made up original research and historically inaccurate statement.

"The semipelagian doctrine, as expounded by Faustus of Riez, was denounced as heretical both at Constantinople and Rome by John Maxentius and his monks soon after 520." NOT! That simply is not true about Constantinople. Nor Maxentius. The council I think Esoglou was implying happened almost a thousand years after Maxentius and the Council of Orange. But again semipelagainism was never outright condemned by Constantinople. If so what Orthodox person says so?

And this one to. Which Esoglou later changed and now denies what Esoglou put in the article.

"In the East it was rejected by the 1670 Synod of Jerusalem, which stated that "for the regenerated to do spiritual good – for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual – it is necessary that he be guided and prevented by grace … Consequently he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life".

There is no Orthodox teaching to this effect what Orthodox source says so? Here Esoglou is quoting a primary source to try and validate Esoglou's OR opinion. Again no Orthodox source to be found from Esoglou.

• Diff 5 Here Esoglou deletes and rewrites days worth of contributions. And argues over and asks for things already sourced. These have so many things wrong with them. I will post the diffs first and then cover the subtleties of Esoglou's edit warring. Here Esoglou very clearly against the Orthodox sources provided makes the statement.

"The teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, like those of the Roman Catholic Church, do not reflect the commonly held beliefs of Eastern and Western Christians, i.e. there is no Wrathful God in the sky,"

What?

Also Esoglou's sourcing for the comment that some Eastern Orthodox believe and teach purgatory -- What is this where does this source make such a clarification?

• Diff 6 Rewrite of my contribution again. There is no justification for this. Also why does Esoglou call this a response as I am not making my contributions to Esoglou.
• Diff 7 I again try and restore and write so Esoglou will stop rewriting and deleting. Here Esoglou removes my contributions again.
• Diff 8 And Esoglou's massive rewrite of my contributions again today.

I would like to also make a very clear statement. That the contributions to these articles, I have added do not spring from my own opinion. As I am not speaking officially for the church but rather am as best I can posting what the church officially is saying. They are commonalities being given by the Orthodox church. It seems that they are not allowed to be declare, clarified or documented here but rather Esoglou as an edit on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church seem to engage in Original Research here and is seeking to refute them. I personally find this inappropriate for the Misplaced Pages forum.

I also find it frustrating that such a point should even need to be pointed out. As I really thought that someone of position there at Misplaced Pages would have seized upon this. But oh well. Again there is a schism. It is not my place to use Misplaced Pages to attempt to resolve that. All I am doing is trying to post the side of the conflict that I am familiar with and trying to put forward what objections that side holds. I am not here to correct any misconceptions of the Roman Catholic church. Nor do I want to. I am not here to state the Roman Catholic side of this conflict.

I am however trying to add to the article about the conflict what are the causes of the disagreement from the Eastern side, as I understand it from sources I have read and posted here. I can not tell you what Esoglou is hoping to achieve that rewording or rewriting those positions to make it seem like one side is just being petty or stupid or misinformed. I really can't. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Respose by Weaponbb7

Frankly, I have been looking at histories here, and Frankly i am astonished at. How much time both of you contribute to Misplaced Pages and how much you interest overlap, as Wikistalk show you two has editing nearly 5000 seperate articles in common between you. Looking through ANI alone you two seem to have quite a history of disuptes between you two and this appears merley to be the latest between you two. I really don't think any amount of mediation between you two is really going to get us anywhere. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, then what about answering the question on which I asked for a third opinion: Is systematic reverting of all edits by a user, rather than of individual edits on which another user thinks he can present reasoned objections, legitimate?

When the present block ends tomorrow, will the editor who practises the systematic reverting be allowed to continue that practice, while also continuing to make his own edits, as he seems to have vainly tried to do during the block ("I am having issues adding content where the pages are not responding and or I make the edit but it does not show up immediately. Very frustrating.")?

(Weaponbb7 rightly comments on the amount of time that is dedicated to working on Misplaced Pages articles that allow insertion of claims that EOC and RCC teachings are in unhealable conflict. When I attempted to make my own changes, I often found them blocked by an edit conflict with yet more large or petty edits by the same user. As a result, I find it best to wait, if necessary, more than half a day for a pause in his activity, after which I try to take account of all the changes made in that waiting period.)

Since no third opinion has been expressed, neither "It is legitimate", nor "It is not legitimate", nor "It depends", may I make a fresh appeal for a third opinion? Esoglou (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There ya go exactly the problem, Esoglou taking the whole issue both sides and claiming Esoglou speaks for it in primacy. Because Esoglou has the best of intentions, but we know what road, to what place gets paved with the best of intentions, don't we. What Esoglou will not see is the perception that only one side (Esoglou and Esoglou's side) is allowed to be, to speak, to disagree. Thats so typical, that in order to do the right thing, one must do the wrong thing. Now what could be more out of place here then that? You see many Orthodox experience this first hand and are having none of this. How can an article be informative of the dynamics of an actual conflict in the real world when it has editors with the agenda of "Weaponbb7 rightly comments on the amount of time that is dedicated to working on Misplaced Pages articles that allow insertion of claims that EOC and RCC teachings are in unhealable conflict." Thats the bias I am talking about, my position is "why not just post both sides unmolested so people can decide for themselves".

Right now how can any one read the contested sections in this article and even see what the conflict (which is what the article is supposed to be about) actually is? Is this an encyclopedia article or a place where Esoglou should reword, rewrite and revert out what Esoglou thinks that allow insertion of claims that EOC and RCC teachings are in unhealable conflict. And wikipedia has let this go on and this editor engage in this kind of disruptive distorting. Now watch Esoglou back pedal out of how Esoglou mistaken whatever again and then goes right back to editwarring. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Renewed request for a third opinion

Is systematic blanket-reverting of all a user's edits legitimate, instead of reverting or modifying only those edits against which the reverting user thinks he can present reasoned objections?

There have been only two editors active on this article. One of the two is now systematically blanket-reverting all edits by the other. The most recent such blanket-reverting is this, done on the grounds that there was no consensus (since there are only two active editors, this means that the reverting editor was refusing his consent) for any of the six preceding edits by the other editor. Is this legitimate?

Is it legitimate to have Misplaced Pages proclaim as fact (with nobody allowed to present other views) that the Orthodox catechism of Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios does not mention "original sin" but instead says at one point "ancestral sin", at another "their sin and corruption of existence", and at the third an even more complicated expression, when the actual text, available also on the Internet, shows that the catechism does at these points use the expression "original sin" and the so-called quotation in the article is really an extensive falsification by the all-reverting editor?

Is it legitimate, in the context of alleged differences in teaching between EOC and RCC, to have Misplaced Pages suggest, by the insistent choice of the heading "Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin", rather than simply "Original sin", that RCC teaching is identical with Augustine's, indeed with a Calvinistic understanding of Augustine's doctrine, while allowing nobody to present other views?

Is it legitimate to have Misplaced Pages proclaim as fact that it is EOC teaching that man can take the first steps to salvation without the help of divine grace, and to exclude any mention of a synod of the EOC that said the Church's teaching is the opposite?

Is it legitimate to exclude citation of a source that says that some Orthodox have described the intermediate afterlife state of continued perfection and leading to divinization as "purgatory"?

Is it legitimate to suggest, by restricting to Western Christians the mention of belief in a Wrathful God in the sky, that this idea is exclusive to the West?

Is it legitimate to insist, while allowing nobody to present a different view, that the parable of the Lazarus and the rich man says that, after death, the rich man was in the "bosom of Abraham" ("It as the bosom of Abraham is where both Lazarus and the rich men existed"), when the parable's statement that the rich man saw Abraham afar off with Lazarus in his bosom is usually interpreted differently and the parable speaks of the rich man as separated by a large gulf from Abraham and Lazarus?

Is it legitimate to exclude a copyediting that consists in merely putting in a single paragraph the exposition of the teaching of Cassian that one editor prefers to have scattered over three distinct paragraphs, a copyedit that was presented separately from other edits?

The above are examples of the edits that I honestly think ought to be corrected or balanced, but that I am not allowed to do anything about. So, is systematic blanket-reverting of all a user's edits legitimate, instead of reverting or modifying only those edits against which the reverting user thinks he can present reasoned objections? Esoglou (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully a 3O editor will be able to help dig through the case, but the above list of complaints looks like something that might get some attention for the article content to be "fixed" if posted in a place such as the related WikiProject.

It's possible that someone is wikihounding the editor in question. I guess the object of the 3O request is to get an opinion on whether that's the case here. BigK HeX (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I mistakenly thought (my fault) that the editor who turned up in response to my first request for a third opinion and who treated the matter as a request for mediation had posted the matter on the project page suggested by BigK. I have now done the posting myself. If before the expiry of protection of this page nobody from among those who attend to 3O, the participants in the Christianity project, and the many who have this page on their watchlist responds to my request, I may very regretfully have to imitate LoveMonkey's reverting and join his edit-warring, even at the cost of being blocked (both of us?) from editing. It will be better than accepting a situation in which only one user gets to edit the page. Esoglou (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It seems clear to me that what you really need here is additional editors. The consensus concept was clearly not made for a situation where only two people are working on a page, and they disagree, and one person's attempts to edit are vetoed by the other on the grounds that there is no consensus (!) to change the status quo. If requesting additional input via a related WikiProject doesn't help, I'd suggest using WP:RFC to try to get more people involved. Be careful not to treat new editors as ignorant while you two original contributors see yourselves as the only ones who really understand the subject and whose judgments really matter! I'd advise both of you to take care not to act like you (or either one of you) WP:OWN the article and have a veto over what others might say. And finally, I would recommend that no one should descend into edit-warring; this won't solve the problem and could easily backfire (leaving one of the existing editors blocked while the other comes off superficially looking innocent).—Richwales (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Rich that was the first thing I suggested and was told to mark it out. Look above.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still think this article is suffering from a dearth of editors and urgently, desperately needs more people involved. Otherwise, there will never be any hope for a meaningful consensus on issues where the two current editors can't come to an agreement. I'd suggest trying WP:RFC — and as a so-far uninvolved third party, I would be willing to go make the RFC if the two of you (LoveMonkey and Esoglou) have no objection. It can't hurt, and it could help. Richwales (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection never have.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Richwales. I would have done the same earlier, but for thinking that one editor excluding another from editing called for something more than that. Esoglou (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

My thanks are due to all, without exception, who have intervened. The result of yesterday's test edit seems to indicate (touch wood!) that I am now permitted to work on this article: the other editor has been active on Misplaced Pages (discussing a separate dispute on a related matter), but has not again blocked me. I would very much welcome other editors, whether new or experienced, on this page. It is good to see that one editor, obviously experienced but who has remained anonymous, has already made some changes. Esoglou (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Test

I have made an edit to see whether the other editor will now allow me to take part. I have given above, when objecting to the use of blanket-reverting to defend matters such as the falsification of a quotation from a cited source, the reasons for the changes I have introduced. Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments (June 2010)

Serious content disputes. There appear to be only two editors actively involved on this page, and thus no possibility of a consensus when they disagree. More input from additional editors is urgently needed. Recent appeals to several WikiProjects (Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Catholicism) have so far failed to raise any interest. Richwales (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this subject, but I do know about it: I am only an interested amateur, in the history of Christianity not a professional, and I make no pretense to have kept up with the modern specialized literature. Although I do know the basic texts, I know them only in English translation. I think the article singularly confusing, to the point that I begin to doubt my own understanding. This is probably a result of the continual non-consensus editing. There are some things about the split everyone can agree one; there are some that are disputed. There are two articles that cover the identical subject: this, and History of the East–West Schism. Of the two, I find the other one the clearer, though I have not checked for details. I would suggest merging the two under the present title, using the History of ... article as the basic organization, though not necessarily of wording. If any part needs to be split & covered separately in detail, it should probably be the modern attempts at reconciliation., not the history, which is basic. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than discussing the cause of the problem (which, for my part, I think was basically misrepresentation of RCC teaching) let us see what can be done to fix the article. Would DGG be so good as to undertake (with help from anyone else who would be kind enough to volunteer) the merging of the two articles, while LoveMonkey and I stand aside for whatever length of time is necessary? Esoglou (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope DGG will indulge me in my (normally discouraged) editing of his/her comment in order to fix the link to the other article (which, like this one, has an em-dash in its title). For what good it may do, I've added this other article to my own watch list. I'm not an expert on this subject and am not sure if I can help very much with the actual editing, but I'll gladly try to help to whatever extent I can. Perhaps the fact that I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox (and thus have no particular vested interest in either side of the Great Schism) will make it possible for me to help here; I guess we'll see. Richwales (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad of a chance to work on something other than the BLPs. Neither I am in either denomination--I am not a Christian at all, by either personal faith or family heritage. My interest in the subject stems from my more general interest in early medieval history. But I must say that I know much better the Western than the Eastern tradition, because the subject as normally discussed in English generally treats that part more fully. I've just taken a look at a third article Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences which has analogous problems; I made some comments on the talk page there which are equally applicable here. And I agree with Esoglou that a good part of the problem is what I will call an oversimplified picture of Western opinion. I am willing to try some rewriting, but I must ask for sometime, because I would need to do some additional reading. I'd like those involved to suggest a few modern and widely-accepted books, and I'll try to read them this summer. But please do not expect too much: I do not think that Misplaced Pages will resolve a question that has been unresolved for over 1500 years. There's one particular point that the presentation of the Eastern position seems to depend on: the relationship of reason and of what could be neutrally called supra-rational belief. I do know that this is far from monolithic in the Western church, even the RC church--and very certainly not if one includes the protestant denominations. It is presented in these articles as uniform within the Eastern church; I cannot imagine any fundamental issue like this is likely to be quite so generally accepted. I've come to this topic here at Misplaced Pages because my help was asked at various points in the discussion of sources, and I know that in any tradition there are eccentric sources that are not totally or formally rejected as heretical, but which are not central. (In another tradition, Talmudic Judaism, the inclusion of these is explained by the need to promote the continued study of the questions as a religious duty, and also so that if necessary they can be used to justify an obviously needed equitable legal decision.) We therefore need sources which can be shown to represent the central tradition at various points in its history, and also ones that illustrate the range of opinions --this is part of WP:NPOV. In specialized topics at Misplaced Pages , we always have the risk of exaggerating the importance of fringe positions. In topics with a long history, it is also necessary to illustrate the change of opinion. (I am therefore less sure than I was that an article on the history of the controversy is inappropriate, but it shouldn't be the present one, which is just duplicative. e.g. Early medieval views of ...) DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Again without hesitation. David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West to DGG and Richwales. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If I don't add a list of books which are included in bibliographies of encyclopedia entries on this subject in the next week or so, please have someone remind me to do so. I have access to a really good academic library or two (one of which is unfortunately Catholic, but it is an older, highly regarded, and fairly large Catholic academic library), and should be able to work such a list up in a week or two. I think sources of encyclopedic material are probably among the best available, and there are enough reference books around here that I think I can probably find quite a few non-Catholic sources for material as well. I might even try to get information from books on such lists which others can't find myself. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

These are at least a few of the standard references and some of the more recent sources cited in some of the relevant encyclopedia bibliographies:

• Chadwick, H. - East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church
• Dvornik, F. - Byzantium and the Roman Primacy
• Dvornik, F. - The Photian Schism
• Every, George - The Byzantine Patriarchate, 451-1024
• Fahey, Michael Andrew - Orthodox and Catholic Sister Churches
• Hussey, J. M. - The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire
• Meyendorff, John - Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions
• Nichols, A. - Rome and the Eastern Churches
• Runciman, S. - The Eastern Schism
• Sherrard, Philip - Church, Papacy, and Schism
• Smith, M. H., III - And Taking Bread ... Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054
• Ware, K. T. - The Orthodox Church

Hope that helps a little. If anyone finds themselves using one, let me know and I'll try to use one of the others. I'm thinking Ware's book, if I can get it, might be particularly useful. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent set John.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

First, thanks to LoveMonkey for letting me edit. I applaud his latest edit, as a display of the attitude of some EOC writers towards the RCC. I do not applaud his other most recent edits. One was the removal of a reasoned failed-verification tag without any attempt to answer the objection: the first citation could perhaps be argued about, but the second seems clearly unrelated to the claim made. The other two edits were failed-verification tags about EOC doctrine. The statements originally made (by LoveMonkey) in the text were about EOC doctrine alone, with the innuendo that RCC doctrine contradicted it. I added sources that showed that RCC doctrine agreed, not contradicted. I left it to LoveMonkey to cite similar sources about EOC doctrine. Instead of doing that, LoveMonkey now complains that the sources about RCC doctrine say nothing about EOC doctrine. Of course, they don't. The verification-failed tags attached to the statements about RCC teaching should be replaced by citation-needed tags attached, a few words earlier, to the statements about EOC teaching. I am permitting myself to make that adjustment. I have not now restored the failed-verification tag that LoveMonkey removed, in the hope that, seeing the question raised here on Talk, he will be good enough to explain why he deleted it. Esoglou (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See this is the same nonsense. The edit esoglou points out is good is not. Why would Esoglou consider me naming one of the old school Orthodox theologians by name in an article good for an article that is not about individuals per se but rather in essences about two different church communities. My last complaint on the filioque article talkpage is this exact argument. Esoglou applauds outing people whom say things that are not to his liking but refuses to admit that the whole body or at least enough of it to be an overwhelming majority might actual hold the opinion that these individuals are actually articulating. Things don't get fixed by silencing one side or marginalizing their perspective. Let Esoglou complain. I am not here to please Esoglou I really would like the article to depict both perspectives not one. Esoglou applauds outing people whom say things that are not to his liking but refuses to admit that the whole body or at least enough of it to be an overwhelming majority might actual hold the opinion that these individuals are actually articulating. Things don't get fixed by silencing one side or marginalizing their perspective. Let Esoglou complain. I am not here to please Esoglou I really would like the article to depict both perspectives not one. Also thank God above Esoglou did not remove Cassian's actual teaching this time but rather moved it. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Let go of the past

To the greatest extent possible, I would urge everyone involved here to "let go" of past slights and grievances (real, perceived, contested, whatever) and concentrate on moving forward with improvement of Misplaced Pages in general and this article (and/or related articles) in particular. Richwales (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen. I repeat my suggestion that both LoveMonkey and I stand aside and let others at it. I hope he will agree. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I already have.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Then, from this moment I cease editing this article. Best wishes to those who will undertake to lick it into shape. Esoglou (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that, in spite of the above undertaking, LoveMonkey has again edited this article, reverting an edit by the editor at ISP 24.127.29.133. The edit he reverted seems to be solidly based on sources such as Orthodox Church Listing of Synods and Councils, Kallistos Ware, The Great Schism, Mark Galli, The Great Divorce. The edit summary with which LoveMonkey reverted this edit is "reverted to conform with source". Unfortunately the source to which he refers is unspecified.

I wish, if possible, not to return at this point to editing this article. I therefore request that some editor would kindly undo this reversal by LoveMonkey, which seems to be a breach of the agreement that I hope has been entered into between the two of us and other interested editors, and which also seems to be an unjustified reversal of a solid edit, for which the sources I have indicated here could be cited. Esoglou (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know I am not banned from editing this article let alone reverting unsourced anonymous edits. Since Esoglou is implying that Esoglou must edit if I edit and or not edit if I don't edit. Could an administrator here clarify that please? Also the wikipedia article that the words Pope Nicholas I hyperlinks to when you click them states quote explicitly

"Nicholas was seen in the East as trying to extend his papal power beyond what was the canonical authority asserting a "rulership" over the Church instead of the position of "highest honor among equals" accorded to the pope of Rome by the East."

I was conforming the passage to the source nothing more. What is Esoglou doing? Why is Esoglou complaining about this? Esoglou needs to maybe address the Pope Nicholas article as I noted I was conforming the statement to the source with notes Pope Nicholas' proactive and aggressive attitude.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, it seems that LoveMonkey has not, after all, agreed "to stand aside and let others at it". Nevertheless, I will continue to refrain from editing this article except to whatever extent he continues to intervene.

On this occasion I must undo his reversal and add a couple of citations in clear support of the well-founded edit made by an editor who, though making valuable edits for quite some time, has not yet chosen a name. The "source" mentioned in LoveMonkey's edit summary as what he was reverting to conform to turns out to be another Misplaced Pages article, not a reliable source to cite in Misplaced Pages. The text reverted to does not even conform to that source: where it has "Nicholas was seen in the East as trying to extend ...", that text puts "Pope Nicholas made it clear that he intended to extend ..." Esoglou (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably Esoglou has decided to edit war on another article .LoveMonkey (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Check

Added a neutrality check. The article seems to be written in favor of the Catholic Church as being the Christian Church as handed down by the apostles without siting any sources whatsoever. Causes, suspects, and reasons for schism need to be expanded on and written out more efficiently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.51.48 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Need input on how to split Catholic-Orthodox theological differences

In case you thought this article might be too long at 135kb, consider that it would be even longer had we not split out detailed discussion of the differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church into Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. However, that article has since blossomed to 215kb! We are now discussing how to reduce the size of that article. One proposal is to split out the "non-theological" topics into a separate article titled something like Catholic-Eastern Orthodox ecclesiological differences. However, I have some reservations as to whether this is the best way to go. Please take a look at the article and then provide your input at Talk:Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Inadvertent intervention

I have made a change in the article without adverting to the fact that I had determined not to intervene in this article. I apologize. However, my intervention would doubtless have the support of LoveMonkey, since I simply undid what seemed to me to be a pro-RCC POV change. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either you or LoveMonkey should keep away from this article. The model I like is WP:BRD which suggests that every edit is subject to reversion and that it is the responsibility of the first editor who is being WP:BOLD to stop and discuss the proposed edit if anyone reverts it.

That said, I support Esoglou's reversion of Resolver-Aphelion's edit but only because the new text was too wordy for that sentence. I don't think the new text was too POV. It provided important detail that needs to be made clear to the reader.perhaps in a follow-on sentence. It's not POV to mention that both sides basically thought the other had fallen away from the "true" Church.

---Richard S (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the version that was frozen when we both withdrew from editing this article is, from my point of view, "the wrong version", I think it is better that we two continue to stand aside, and air our differences only over the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article, which would profit greatly by some persistent active interest by other editors. If our disagreements over additions to that other article continue, I still intend not to involve myself again in this (although it remains on my watchlist), unless, of course, LoveMonkey takes the initiative of returning to editing it. Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a short (and, IMO, neutral) comment to the lede, along the lines suggested by Richardshusr, indicating that each side believes the other was responsible for the split. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Richwales. On reviewing the history, I think my edit was due to a misreading of the edit I reverted. I apologize also for this. Esoglou (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How porous was my schism

I don't have time today to figure out how to cover this topic in the text. It is, perhaps, a fringe opinion but it is, I think, notable. For now I'll just park this here and invite other editors to comment on it. I'll try to get back to this in the next couple of days unless there is a consensus that it should not be covered in this article. http://palamas.info/?p=5208

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a new discovery. I met this observation several times in pre-Internet days. There is still in Greece one annual public Corpus Christi procession through the streets of Kerkyra (Corfu), with participation by the civil authorities and by a representative of the Orthodox clergy. The bishop has to keep his distance (I am not referring in particular to this annual event) because of having been reprimanded in a publication of Mount Athos monks, who have expressed criticisms also of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

I do think that the sourced information (not my remarks) should be included in the article. Esoglou (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of reconciliation efforts

I deleted text which read very much like original research with this edit. In an effort to help provide sourced material on the general topic, I used Google Search and Google Books to look for sources. As it turns out, all I could find in the first few pages of results were Catholic sources which I used to support these two edits ( and ). I fear that my use of Catholic sources will re-inforce LoveMonkey's impression that I have a pro-Catholic bias. In this case, my use of Catholic sources are an artifact of the fact that no other suitable sources came up in response to my search requests. If there are other non-Catholic sources that can be used here, I would be more than amenable to using them. I just couldn't find any. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC) I will also note that it would really help if the appropriate text from the Metropolitan of Kalavryta's criticism were translated into English. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a non-polished English translation of some extracts from the Metropolitan's blog of 21 November 2008:

THE POPE, THE PATRIARCH AND THE … UNITY OF THE CHURCHES

His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomaios is once more in the epicentre of publicity with regard to the theological Dialogue between East and West, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

...

The participation of our revered Patriarch in the worship of the Catholics and his prayer in common with the Pope evokes in many not only disquiet but also grief. The sacred Canons do not permit it! In the liturgy of Ravenna he was condemned for his exceedingly bold steps. And now too he is being condemned. He shows that he is transgressing the allowed limits in East-West communion. The common proclamation of the Symbol of Faith is an act of worship! Certainly it does not reach the bounds of sharing the Common Cup, i.e., the shared offering of the unbloody Sacrifice, but it does not cease to be a confession of Faith. Since we have many and many differences in our Dogma and Faith, since in its last phase (Ravenna 2007) the Theological Dialogue created so many disturbances among the Orthodox, our steps should be very very cautious. ...

...

...

1. No, absolutely no, attempt at rapprochement can bear fruit unless the Roman Catholics stop their proselytism at the expense of the Orthodox in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and anywhere else in the erstwhile Eastern Bloc.

2. No attempt at rapprochement can bear fruit unless the Roman Catholics abolish the Unia in Greece and everywhere else.

3. No, absolutely no, attempt at rapprochement can bear fruit likewise unless the Roman Catholics cleanse themselves of the guilt laid upon them all these last years spilling the innocent blood of the Orthodox in Bosnia, in Croatia, by Stepinać and anybody else. And all that was done in the name of the Faith of our Christ!

4. No, absolutely no, attempt at rapprochement can bear fruit unless the Roman Catholics cleanse themselves of the guilt that they have shouldered by financing the Muslims in the war of Bosnia against the Orthodox, a crime committed only a few years ago. It has been written and said to satiety that the Vatican was at the time financing the Muslims in the war of Bosnia Herzegovina. We had the opportunity, when bringing supplies of food etc. to Serbia, to visit personally the battlefield in the front line and the zone of combat at the time that the Serbs were besieging Goražde and we heard with our own ears from the mouth of the Hero General Mladić that a) the vehicles of the United Nations that were taking food to the Muslims had hidden behind the food in the vehicles weapons and war material, and that b) the financier for the purchase of those weapons was the Vatican!

– A little later exactly the same information was given to me, quite confidentially, by an official political personage of the Ministry of National Defence.

– So whatever official visits there are between Constantinople and the Vatican, whatever prayers in common and concessions are granted, whatever good-will steps are taken by the Orthodox, there is no question of Unity of the two Churches unless beforehand the guilt of these crimes is not cleansed, crimes that inevitably bring to mind the events and crimes in the time of the Crusades! It appears that nothing has changed since then.

... Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is Esoglou editing on this article?

The arrangement was that Esoglou would not edit on this article and therefore neither would I. So now I am going to edit on this article. And I am going to add Orthodox opinions to this article. Lets see if Esoglou is going to stick to the promise that he made. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no! Esoglou's violation of the agreement (if it was a violation) does not entitle you to breach your end of the agreement. Please stop it now. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what the agreement is? If so please post it as since there is now an actual agreement lets stick to that instead of you telling me to stop posting. Can you do that? LoveMonkey (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Do you know what the agreement is? If so please post it"

The actual wording of the agreement is here. However, during the discussion of the wording, I offered an interpretation, which included the following clauses: "Esoglou will not edit in articles and sections specifically devoted to EO information. LM will not edit in articles and sections specifically devoted to RC information." You then posted, "I agree with what Phatius wrote above." Thus, you agreed not to edit any article "specifically devoted to RC information". Is this article "specifically" devoted to RC information? Arguably it is not: it is equally about both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and the same article arguably cannot be "specifically" about two different religions.

However, in your original post in this talk page section, you wrote, "The arrangement was that Esoglou would not edit on this article and therefore neither would I. So now I am going to edit on this article." To me, this can only mean that (1) you believed that the editing restrictions forbid you and Esolgou from editing that article, and (2) you started editing it anyway to "get back" at Esoglou. I find this appalling. Either this article is not specifically about either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, in which case Esoglou may edit it, or it is specifically about both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, in which case you are in violating the editing restrictions by editing here. It's that simple. If you think Esoglou is breaking the rules, alert Ed or another admin. Don't break the rules yourself. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

However, why are you telling people to slap some sense into me about this at all?? Now that's appalling. Why are you involved in this and taking Esoglou's side and assuming he is right? Because you make no statement here right now that Esoglou is not right? I can ask you to be even handed and that's not assuming anything, show me, don't tell me. Why are you assuming or involved in this at all? I remove a single word from the article in a weeks worth of editing and you exhibit this type of behavior. Your conduct is beyond bizarre. Why are you involved in this? Esoglou has informed you that he has already alerted Ed so why don't you let the administrators handle it? As it is quote obvious that whatever was going on is already over and done and people have moved on. Look at the article history one edit by me on this article in a week. I have posted more to the talkpage here. Why are you so alarmed? Why are you making statements like this?

Why are you so involved that you should feel appalled by my edits at all? And who are you to be appalled about any of this? Don't you think your a little out of line? Of the edits I did what agreement did they break? As what you posted and the link show as far as I can tell that I have broken no agreement. As for my comment before the agreement with Ed. Esoglou stated that he would not edit this article if I did not edit it. This is before the agreement with Ed. Esoglou was engaging in WP:OWN on this article. So I agreed to not edit it AS LONG AS ESOGLOU DID NOT. When Esoglou edited the article he then allowed me to. So I made changes to it that I have wanted to make and had wanted to make for some time but had not done so because I agreed I would not edit unless Esoglou edited. There are two different agreements here and you Phatius, don't know what going on. But here you are none the less. There is still more changes and information I would like to add to the article. But as for now I don't have the time and am wasting even more of my time having this conversation here with you.

Esoglou has friends like you who over react like this. Why could he not get you to remove the "vandalism" from the article? Why, because Esoglou has a history of making promises that he does not keep and that he breaks for "innocent" reasons and or "mistakes or accidents" that Esoglou continues to make and claim it's just once or it was OK no big deal. That's of course the rule for him and nobody else as this whole exchange is evidence of that. When in fact its not OK and he should leave it alone. As for the agreements on this article. Esoglou voided the 1st agreement. However that does not mean what I have agreed to with Ed on here is void at all, quite the contrary it is valid and as best as I can tell and in good faith the recent edits I did to this article adhere to it. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Edits by Esoglou on the article since the agreement for both of us to not edit on the article was made. NOTE I ignored almost all of them until now as I feel that since we have clear restriction from Abcom that there is no need to used the old agree upon agreement of both abstaining from the article and since Esoglou broke that original agreement first..

• .March 8th 2011
• .Jan8th2011
• . Jan6th 2011
• . Dec7th 2010
• .Nov28th 20102011
• .Nov9 2010
• .Sept 10th 2010

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you telling me that there was an earlier agreement to the effect that neither of you would edit East-West Schism as long as the other did not? Good grief. Apparently I did misinterpret the situation. I'm going to step out of this argument, since I clearly don't follow the Byzantine intricacies LM-Esoglou politics closely enough to help here. I frankly don't think that either you or Esoglou should be editing this article, but I can't see anything in the literal wording of the current editing restrictions that prevents you two from doing so. I guess the letter without the spirit really is deadly sometimes... --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no consensus that the 1054 event is the primary topic for the term "Great Schism", so a dab there is more appropriate than moving this article there. It may be appropriate to move Western Schism to Great Schism, or redirect Great Schism to Western Schism, but there does not seem to be any enthusiasm for doing either here at this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

East–West Schism → Great Schism – "Great Schism" is the common name for the event. There is already a hatnote directing users looking for the Western Schism to that article, since "Great Schism" redirects here, so there would be pretty much no change except for the bypassing of that unnecessary redirect. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Try searching Google Books for "Great Schism" and you get more references to the phrase in relation to the Great Western Schism than to the East-West one. Esoglou (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The present form is natural and immediately informative, and relatively immune to ambiguity. It conforms to policy at WP:TITLE, and punctuation guidelines at WP:MOS. Noetica 07:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The EO calls it the Great Schism. I have other sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, but... Much to my surprise, a google scholar search yields far more hits for the later Western schism than for the 1054 schism, as does Google books limited to university presses. While "Great Schism" may be the common name for the 1054 event, it's also used extensively for the later event, and so it would be inappropriate to have Great Schism as the title of this page. I would, however, support a move to Great Schism of 1054, currently a redirect. ("East-West Schism" is also attested with what appears to be equal frequency (often both titles appear side-by-side), but my searches suggest it's sometimes used parenthetically, and in some texts refers to other schisms, such as during the cold war. "Great Schism" itself should probably be a disambiguation page.) How would people feel about that? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Useful analysis, VK. I would prefer "Great Schism of 1054" over "Great Schism"; but I still think the present title "East–West Schism" is unproblematic and well supported in reliable sources. So far I'd stick with that. When we see a schism referred to, before anything about dates we want to know what the two sides are, yes? Well, east and west. Noetica 03:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that the current title is unproblematic enough and perfectly well attested, and wouldn't complain if no change were made. It's just if it were me, I'd prefer Great Schism of 1054, as that's how I prefer my history.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Question - based on the above, might there be general support for making Great Schism into a disambiguation page? -GTBacchus 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I support this proposal of a disambiguation page. Esoglou (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - in this case it would be positively useful, as the earlier and later schisms are in similar topic areas.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a dab page there. If one of the two schisms has a clear claim to being the primary topic, we can implement a redirect quite easily, but the names seem to combine the advantages of recognizability, precision, and clear uniqueness, whereas "Great Schism" shows some variability. Does this change, and the discussion here, obviate the need for this move request? -GTBacchus 22:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of the term Catholic by itself

Catholic means universal, thus it needs a noun attached to it to make sense. We should refer to the Church of Rome as Roman Catholic and the Eastern churches as Orthodox Catholic. Every church in existence believes it is the universal church! The Nicene Creed states "...I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church..." That belief by the originating Christian centers has not changed. Thus they believe they are the universal church. Many Protestant churches recite the Nicene Creed! I wonder if they really understand it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.254.227 (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Great Schism 1054.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Great Schism 1054.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Great Schism with former borders (1054).png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Great Schism with former borders (1054).png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

E-W schism map of Iaaasi and its unreliable reference

File:Great Schism 1054 with former borders.png

Originally the map was created in Hungarian wikipedia, later banned User Iaaasi multiply falsified it many times-See the history of the picture- Iaaasi depicted the political dreams of ultra nationalist Great Romania Party (& its ruler Corneliu Vadim Tudor) on that map, that party tried to prove that most territory of present-day Hungary was romanian and therefore Orthodox. That laughable ultranationalist extremist political fantasies and claims are not supported by even Romanian scientific academy and academic historians too.) Misplaced Pages is not the place where extremist ideologies (and maps) of chauvinist political organisations are spreadable. (Great Romania Party)

The sock puppets and the maps of banned users (user:Iaaasi) must be deleted/removed from wiki, even if they changed their internet providers. Fake references without URL in the citation are not reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.110.45 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide some links to show this? It would really help others to make a judgement.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have given one Internet link to the cited book. A better image can be got on www followed by 4shared followed by .com followed by /file/8USRUV21/Dragan_Brujic_-_Vodic_kroz_sve.html. The images on the site I gave can also be viewed full screen. Esoglou (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Use picassaweb for pictures, it's free, and it doesn't use external applications which could be harmfull for computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.58.99 (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Semantic problems of orthodox in map

discussion from the talk page of the disputed map

Do the borders of the states in this map follow religious or political lines? Please clarify. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This map contains several inaccuracies that need to be corrected before it can be used with articles. First: The Livonian coast around the Gulf of Riga was definitely not Christian in 1054. When Saint Meinhard arrived there in 1184, he only found pagan Livonians in the area who over the next 30 years were converted to Catholicism. Second, in 1054 the border between Estonians and the Russian principalities ran along the Narva River and Lake Peipus, mutual raids notwithstanding. This is where the border still lay 150 years later in 1208, when the Livonian Crusade was launched to convert the pagan Estonians to Catholicism. According to the current map, however, the eastern half of Estonia was supposedly Orthodox already by 1054. Please upload a corrected version of the map, this version should be deleted. --Vihelik (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The political borders are correct. Please don't delete this map which is based on real western political maps/sources. The map represents so called state-religions in >>>sovereign<<< states with estabilished church hierarchy and church infrastructure.

Just look the maps of Europe in the 11-12th century.:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg

http://www.old-map-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/map_19th_centuryKI_europe_in_the_11th_century.jpg

http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Europa-im-Hochmittelalter-(.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Europe_1000.jpg --Framedropped (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Framedropped (talk • contribs)

Oh, really? Than explain the Catholic areas in the Orthodox Byzantine State (aprox. area of modern Albania), the Orthodox areas in Catholic Croatia (on the southern border) and the religious mosaic in Prussia. Moreover, why isn`t the Emirate of Sicily painted green (i.e. muslim) if the color is an expression of the state-religion? If the map follows political borders + state-religios than what are all these issues? Please stop adding the map to articles since the map is factually wrong, or correct it: e.g. half of the Kingdom of Hungary is Orthodox (Romanian and Serbian) and the lands outside the Carpathian arch, possibly under Petcheneg political dependency, are also Orthodox (Romanian). ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and please add pagan areas in the hearth of the Kingdom of Hungary. Poor Gerard Sagredo and Bystrík didn't die for nothing... Ta ta! ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that southern Italy (which in 1054 was part of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire) and Sicily, were under the jurisdiction of the Partriarchate of Constantinople, since the Empreror Leo III transferred these territories from the jurisdiction of Rome in 740 (and as far as I know, they returned to Rome's jurisdiction only after the Normans conquered these regions), but the map seems to ignore this. And also (as already noted by someone else) the situation depicted in Transylvania does not seem very accurate, since there was a considerable Eastern Orthodox presence there, even in the 13th century there are mentioned to be a significant number of Orthodox monasteries there ("Pope Innocent III expressed in a number of letters between 1204—1205 his discomfort over the great number of Orthodox monasteries in Transilvania, Banat, and Crisana", "That the number of Greek-Orthodox churches and monasteries was large enough, is to be inferred from several letters Pope Innocent III wrote during 1204—1205"). Another problem is that Armenia is shown as Eastern Orthodox, but it is non-Chalcedonian. I am not really against the idea of having a map showing the religious situation after east-west schism (although, this schism does not really have a fixed start), however, I think it's obvious that the current map needs some fixes. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/631511/Vlach

Pope Innocent III wrote a letter because he worried about that new phenomenon.

And another interesting letter from 1234:

Pope Gregory IX sent a letter to Bela, Prince of Transylvania (later King Bela IV.( asking him "in the name of God" to grant asylum to "those poor Vlach refugees" who wished to escape the harsh rule of the Cumans.The asylum was granted, and the first three groups of Vlach immigrants entered Transylvania from the South, and were settled, under their own chieftans, in the Forgaras, Hunyad and Bansag districts, on specially designated mountain-pastures called in the royal documents as "Silva Vlachorum", Forest of the Vlachs. These Vlach immigrants, who received asylum within the Hungarian Kingdom, and others who followed later, became the ancestors of the Transylvanian Rumanians. Officially they were called VLACHS, from which the Hungarian name OLAH and the German name Wallach derived, in contradistinction to the Rumelians and later Rumanians who did not enter the Western culture-circle but stayed East and South of the Carpathians under Byzantine and later Slavic influence" finally evolving at the end of the nineteenth century into Rumania.

The existentence of Vlachs (similar to Daco-Roman ancestor theory of Romanians) in Transylvania is controversal and

discussed. Therefore all famous Western Encíclopedias write about the official Romanian Daco-Roman theory (as Romanians want to see their past) but they mention the immigration Theory about Vlach shepherd nomads. There aren't Valch material proofs (buildings cemeteries) in Transylvania before 13th century. The earliest contemporary sources are the Byzantine chronicles the Kievian Chronicles and later the Polish Chronicles. These chronicles are also support and depict the Vlach migration theory.

What did the old contemporary foreign chronicles write about Transylvania:

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/dfacts/dfacts01.htm#heading2

Similar to most folks of Balkan (except Croats and Greeks /Byzantine empire/), the vast majority of Vlachs (romanians) remained in their shepherd-nomadic lifestyle until the early 17th century.

The Daco-Roman discuss have a lot of literature, it can fill in a minor library. However it is offtopic.

Were they christian? Perhabs they were babtisted, however the church infrastructure and skilled clergy lacked. It was more like a christian-like superstition than a real christian population and faith. It was true for serbians until the 12th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.183.192 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The arguments and counter-arguments regarding the Vlach presence in Transylvania are discussed in more details in the Origin of Romanians article, and I don't think it's necessary to bring that debate here, the issues discussed here are more about the religious situation during the times of the East-West Schism (regardless of the ethnic situation). There are sources (as shown above) mentioning a considerable Orthodox monastic presence in Transylvania around the years 1204-1205, and this can also mean that the Orthodox were probably the majority (since the total number of Orthodox Christians must have been higher than the number of Orthodox monks), and I also doubt that a large number of Orthodox monasteries, can just suddenly appear as a new phenomenon. (And regarding, the religious situation of the regions which became known as Wallachia, I think the claim that it was pagan, it's just an unsourced assumption, if the Orthodox influence extended as far as Transylvania, and actually as far as northern Russia, I think it could rather be easily assumed that there was some Orthodox influence in Wallachia as well.) Cody7777777 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the age. Our time is 1054 which is the middle of the XI.century. However, 1204-1205 is the XIII. century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.228.236 (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There are also sources mentioning Eastern Orthodox influence in Transylvania before 1054, "the gyula in charge of Transylvania and the territory east of the River Tisza was baptised in Byzantium...the gyula did not attack Byzantium any more, he maintained his Orthodox faith of the Byzantine rite", "Gyula had Greek Orthodox priests brought to Transylvania to convert his people.", "Jula I (Gyula) had close relations with Byzantium — around 950 — , adopting the Orthodox confession", "One was Gyula, a relation of Stephen's and ruler of Transylvania. The other was Ajtony, the wealthy master of the southern part of the country. Both adhered to the eastern stream of Christianity and their Orthodox priests came from the nearby Byzantine Empire...", "...Gyula of Transylvania, and as late as 1030, Ajtony, lord of the Maros region, who both were Greek Orthodox...", "In the first years of the 11th century, Prince Achtum of Banat built a monastery in the name of St. John the Baptist in Morisena, where he settled some "Greek monks" (ie, Orthodox monks).", "...a chieftain known as Achtum (in Hungarian, Ajtony)...was baptized according to the Orthodox rite...There is evidence for the promotion of Orthodoxy in and around Szeged in the first quarter of the eleventh century", (I think there is enough evidence showing, in Transylvania, an Eastern Orthodox presence in the 10th-13th centuries). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of the early christians in Hungary was Otrhodox in the 10th century. Transylvania wasn't more orthodox than the other part's of the country. However Christians were minority that time. Orthodox church had many followers also in northern (present-day slovakia) and central parts of the country. Stephen's father, Prince Géza estabisilished catholic bishopry in the westernmost part of the country. Therefore the existence of greek (orthodox) or latin (catholic) church didn't mean ethnic background yet.

Gyula and other names are just fantasy. Gesta Hungaroroum is not a reliable source. It isn't considered as reliable source by western scholars. (Hungarian Slovak Serbian historians din't support the Gesta). Only Romanians considers tha gesta as a reliable source. Read the Gesta Hungarorum article. Gesta Hungaorum has serious contradictions/paradox with other more reliable sources, (like Byzantine chronicles , polish chronicles and kievian Nistor chronicle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.201.133 (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the map. I repaired the borders in connection with Prussia (User: Vihelik mentioned some problems) , and the northern borders. In addition, St Stephen of Hungary and Miesko I of Poland chose the western Christianity around 1000, these are facts. Those were deeply Catholic states where the Eastern Christianity was almost banned.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

However. Before Stephen's reign the "greek" Chruch had more followers than "latin" church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.239 (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Before Stephen,the population of Principality of Hungary was mostly pagan. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If Eastern Orthodox Christianity was so quickly banned from Transylvania, then why was there still a considerable Orthodox monastic presence there during the years 1204-1205? ("Pope Innocent III expressed in a number of letters between 1204—1205 his discomfort over the great number of Orthodox monasteries in Transilvania, Banat, and Crisana", "That the number of Greek-Orthodox churches and monasteries was large enough, is to be inferred from several letters Pope Innocent III wrote during 1204—1205"). I think there was enough evidence shown above about this (please also check the earlier posts), and at least, unless there is a considerable number of sources claiming that Transylvania was entirely Western Catholic, I think there's no reason to show it this way. And as said above, that's not the only problem, southern Italy (Calabria) and Sicily were under the jurisdiction of Constantinople in 1054, and they were brought under Rome's jurisdiction only after the Normans conquered these territories ("...Sicily and the rest of Byzantine Italy almost immediately. Placing the churches of these territories under the control of their new papal suzerain was only a matter of time...Invariably, the growing Norman menace was also disturbing for the patriarchate, since it was rapidly and increasingly undermining the Byzantine rite in Calabria and Apulia, where a sizable Orthodox population was still to be found.", "In 1059 the next pope, Nicholas II, desiring to increase papal power and reestablish authority over Southern Italy, met with the Norman leader Robert Guiscard and recognized him as the “Duke of Puglia and Calabria and future Duke of Sicily” in exchange for Robert's oath of loyalty to the pope. Robert swore to place all the churches in his state under papal jurisdiction, and thus the survival of these churches came to depend on their recognition of Rome's jurisdiction....In Calabria the Normans replaced Greek bishops when they could, and when this was not possible due to local opposition, they exacted only loyalty to Rome."). And as also said before, Armenia is not Eastern Orthodox (as currently shown in this map), it is non-Chalcedonian. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just one problem. Raguza (Dubrovnik). It was under Croatian control prior to 1054 if I am right, but I am not sure. Maybe we should repair those borders there (the surrounding area of Raguza). According to this map http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Europa-im-Hochmittelalter-(.jpg Raguza was part of the Croatian state.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindom of Hungary had Greek-Ortodox churches in the XI-XII-XIII centuries, I do not deny that. These churches were spread !everywhere! in Hungary (not just Transylvania) and the greatest number of them was in Pannonia and Southern Hungary. (of course, later, Transylvania because of the Vlach migration from XIII centuries)

• We know about Ortodox monasteries, Marosvar (Torontal county), Dunapentele (Fejer county), Visegrad (Esztergom county), Veszpremvolgyi (Veszprem county) St Demeter (Szeremseg county), (Sources: VI clement pope's letter to bishop of Nitra 1344 or Innocent III's letter 1204).
• The number of Ortodox churches was marginal (as compared to Catholic Churches) in Kingdom of Hungary and those had mostly Greek (moreover Slav and Hungarian) nones and monks
• By the XIII century, The majority of these churches, monasteries was controlled by the western clergy.(The history of churches of Transylvania from XIII-XIV centuries is another story)Fakirbakir (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I wish to thank you for fixing southern Italy and Armenia. Regarding the religious situation of Hungary, most of the sources posted earlier were explicitly speaking about Transylvania (and except those, the following also explicitly refer to Transylvania, "One complication was that the Orthodox Church, with its legitimately married priests, retained many outposts in eastern Transylvania in the 11th and 12th centuries","The Greek-Orthodox religious influence touched Transylvania the most. Many of the Magyar chieftains (later noblemen) converted not to Roman, but to Byzantine Christianity...", so I think there are enough sources which would support representing Transylvania in blue color on this map. However, if there was a considerable Orthodox influence also in Pannonia, then in that case, I think that Transylvania, and parts of Pannonia and Southern Hungary should be shown with both colors (by having orange and blue lines shown on these lands). I have still not seen yet any sources claiming that there was an overwhelming "Roman Catholic" majority in Transylvania (or in all of Hungary), and in that case showing only Orange color in Pannonia and Transylvania could give the impression that these lands were nearly entirely Western Catholic. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Transylvania was a Catholic district, diocese. Gyulafehervar was the centre of Diocese of Transylvania (established 1009). http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Hungary_11th_cent.png There were Ortodox churches (Southwest Transylvania, Banat), but the majority of the churches was Catholic.(After 1000, St Stephen forced the development of ecclesiastical, He tried to achieve (and it was successful) a 'western' standard development (Every 10 villages had to get a church among others). Do not forget there was a pagan mass. Pagan revolts were a lot. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages we need to support our views with reliable secondary scholarly sources (such as books written by modern historians, and a map from Misplaced Pages, or any other wiki website, cannot be considered a reliable source for another Misplaced Pages map or article, and the presence of a "Roman Catholic" diocese in Translyvania does not actually mean that there wasn't also a significant "Eastern Orthodox" presence there), please check Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for more information (it states there that "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true....Articles on Misplaced Pages or on websites that mirror its content should not be used as sources, because this would amount to self-reference"). There were already enough sources shown above, claiming explicitly that there was a significant "Eastern Orthodox" presence in Transylvania during these times, and unless there are shown other more reliable sources explicitly claiming that there was an overwhelming "Roman Catholic" majority in Transylvania, showing Transylvania on the map as being only "Roman Catholic" can be considered Original Research. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

More religious maps about middle ages:

• http://home.comcast.net/~DiazStudents/MiddleAgesChurchMap1.jpg
• http://www.creationism.org/images/SmithBibleAtlas/BibleAtlas16ChristianExpands.jpg
• http://homepages.udayton.edu/~schuerwc/Schism_and_Religious_Divisions.jpg
• http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg
• http://www.vaticanotours.com/g/western_schism.gif
• http://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/Reformations441/GreatSchismMap.jpg
• http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/ChurchHistory220/LectureEight/GreatSchism.htm
• http://www.emersonkent.com/images/great_schism_1378_1417.jpg
• http://www.mrburnett.net/apworldhistory/maps/religiongreatschism.bmp

Fakirbakir (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In Transylvania (and Southern Hungary, Pannonia), prior to Stephen, we can talk about stronger Greek-Orthodox presence (for instance the chieftains Gyula or Koppany), however after the coronation (in 1000), the catholic church founded Catholic bishoprics and began to proselytize the population (and little doubt that included Romanians in Transylvania).Source, after the !East-West Schism! we can observe growing Orthodox Romanian presenceSource, moreover nobility required adherence to Catholicism (If they had wanted social and political privileges). Hungary become a deeply Catholic state where the Greek-Orthodox church was marginal.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The first sources starting from the 12th century about Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for posting these maps and books. But many of these maps are more about the Avignon-Rome schism(,), and even have some serious errors, such as an Islamic Constantinople before 1453 (,), another one does not even show Transylvania. You have also shown a map about the Western schism from the Vatican tours website, but I could also mention another map from an article shown on the Vatican tours website about the East-West Schism, and it shows Transylvania as "Eastern Orthodox" (however, that map has some other problems). Others do not show the year when they're represesnting the division(,, it should also be noted that the last one was made in the year 1915, making it quite old). The one representing a period closer to this map seems to be the 1097 map, but it it was made in the year 1926, also making it somewhat old. However, I don't think a map can have more weight than a scholarly book (on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history"), the following support a significant Orthodox presence in Transylvania during the 11th century: "A history of East Central Europe: East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500", by Jean W. Sedlar, published by the "University of Washington Press" in the year 1994, ISBN 9780295972909, "...the Orthodox Church, with its legitimately married priests, retained many outposts in eastern Transylvania in the 11th and 12th centuries...", a book titled "The ethnic history of Transylvania" by Endre Haraszti (who seems to be a Hungarian historian, he also wrote another book where he speaks about the vlach migration, so he obviously does not refer to Romanians when he speaks about Eastern Orthodox religious influence), published by the "Danubian Press" in the year 1971, ISBN 9780879340049, "The Greek-Orthodox religious influence touched Transylvania the most. Many of the Magyar chieftains (later noblemen) converted not to Roman, but to Byzantine Christianity...", there is also a book published in 1975 by the St. Bonaventure University (which is a "Roman Catholic" university) which states "The Greek missionaries did a thorough job because, about 1000, King Stephen's uncle, Gyula of Transylvania, and as late as 1030, Ajtony, lord of the Maros region, who both were Greek Orthodox", another book which is titled "The legend of Basil the Bulgar-slayer" by Paul Stephenson, and published in 2003 by the Cambridge University Press, claims that "There is evidence for the promotion of Orthodoxy in and around Szeged in the first quarter of the eleventh century" (this actually refers to southern Hungary).

Now regarding the books you posted, I still do not see where are they claiming that the Eastern Orthodox influence in Transylvania was just marginal (or non-existent), this one claims that the Hungarians "began proselytizing Transylvania's indigenous people. There is little doubt that these included some Romanians who remained faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church" (there is no claim here that this made the "Eastern Orthodox" presence absent or just marginal, and it even suggests that there were Romanians who remained faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church). This other book you posted states "Participation in the social status and po- litical privileges of the nobility required adherence to Catholicism, prompting the resistance of pre-Christian Hungarians and Cumans in Hungary, then increasingly of the Orthodox Romanians after the East-West Church schism of 1054", this also does not say that the Eastern Orthodox presence was just marginal or inexistent (it just claims that there was increased resistance of Orthodox Romanians, after East-West schism of 1054, against conversion, and this doesn't mean that there wasn't a significant Eastern Orthodox presence there, and we're referring here to all Eastern Orthodox populations, not just Orthodox Romanians). And the last book you shown, also does not claim that there was no Eastern Orthodox presence in Transylvania during the 11th century (or that it was marginal), it just claims that "In historical sources starting from the 12th century, the Transylvanian Romanians are mentioned as belonging to the Eastern (“schismatic”) Church." (but this refers only to Transylvanian Romanians, not to all "Eastern Orthodox" people, and this does not mean that there was no "Eastern Orthodox" presence in Transylvania during the 11th century).

I admit that there was also a "Roman Catholic" presence in Transylvania, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't also a significant "Eastern Orthodox" presence there (and there are enough sources supporting this), in my opinion this wiki map should show both religions present in Transylvania and southern Hungary (by showing several blue and orange lines on these lands). I also wish to underline again, that when we're talking here about "Eastern Orthodox Christians" we're not referring here specifically to Orthodox Romanians (regardless when they appeared), it's not important for this map if these Eastern Orthodox Christians in Transylvania during the 11th century were Magyars, Slavs, Romanians, Bulgars or others (this is not an ethnic map, this map is supposed to just show how these religious influences extended around 1054, regardless of who these people were). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was asked by Cody to weigh in on whether there was an Orthodox presence in Transylvania as of 1054. I consulted a history of the Church by Fr. Mircea Păcurariu (an expert in the field), and it appears that, yes, the Orthodox Church continued to function in Transylvania after the province's incorporation into the Kingdom of Hungary. To be sure, the Hungarian authorities and the papacy strove to convert the native population to Catholicism, for instance replacing Orthodox bishops with Catholic ones. However, Păcurariu concludes that an Orthodox hierarchy, including bishops, remained, as well as monasteries and stone churches with numerous believers. For instance, a document of 1205 mentions an Orthodox bishop in either Hunedoara or Bihor, while the previous year, King Emeric, writing to the Pope, mentioned "Greek" (i.e., Orthodox) bishops and monks in his domains. So yes, the Eastern Rite Orthodox Church survived in Transylvania as of 1054, and was followed by a good many inhabitants there. I would suggest cross-hatching Transylvania and Eastern Hungary on the map. - Biruitorul 15:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a question. Is there any reliable source which not only states but also substantiates that there was a significant Orthodox presence in Transylvania around the year 1054? Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And just few remarks. (1) Byzantine and Slavic sources mention that Gyula was baptised in Constantinople around 948 and he was followed to Tourkia by a Greek bishop. However, when his grandson, Stephen I of Hungary conquered around 1003 "King Gyula's kingdom", it was still inhabited by pagans accourding to the contemporary Annals of Hildesheim. Therefore, based on the fact that Gyula was baptised it cannot be stated that afterward a significant Orthodox population inhabited Crisana and Transylvania. For example, there is no archaeological evidence that a Christian population inhabited any part of Transylvania in the course of the 10th century; maybe a small church found in Alba Iulia (which was the seat of the Gyula) can be dated to the period, but it has not been proven yet. (2) The Legend of St. Gerard actually mentions that Achtum was baptised according to the Greek faith, but the same source also describes him as a non-perfect Christian who had seven wifes. Moreover, the same source also describe the proces how the inhabitants of Achtum's domain were Christianized after Achtum had been defeated by Csanád. (3) None of the letters written by Pope Innocent III or Emeric of Hungary mentions bishoprics specifically in Transylvania, Crisana or the Banat. They refer to Orthodox bishoprics that existed in the Kingdom of Hungary. And under Béla III and Emeric significant parts of modern Bosnia and Serbia were annexed (for a short period) to the kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Except the books mentioned earlier, I have also found the following book, titled "Byzantium and the Magyars" by Gyula Moravcsik (an author who has written many books on these topics), which also offers more details regarding the "Eastern Orthodox" influence on Hungary "The oldest Hungarian books of liturgy preserved from the 11th — 12th centuries show that the feasts of several saints (St. Nicholas. St. John of the Flowers, and others) were held on the basis of the Byzantine, and not the western calendar.Thus, for instance, St. Demetrius' day was celebrated on 26 October, instead of 8 November. Further Byzantine influence can be seen in the celebration of St. Ivan's day or in the Hungarian cult of the Virgin Mary.Hungary was the first country where the Presentation of the Virgin Mary had been made a feast at the end of the 12th century.One should add the great cult of St. George at the beginning of the age of Arpad's dynasty as a further manifestation of the eastern influence. We find followers of the Orthodox Church in Hungary even after the 13th century.", (the last part could even suggest that there were more Eastern Orthodox Christians before the 13th century), the same book also makes the claims that "The influence of the Greek Church was strongest in eastern Hungary", and that "It appears from a letter written in 1234 by Pope Gregory IX to Bela IV that there were at the time many Magyars living in Transylvania who belonged to the Eastern Church". Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your answer. But I think my above question is still valid: is there any reliable source which substantiates and not only states that there was a significant Orthodox population in the Kingdom of Hungary around the year 1054? Latin liturgical books adopting some Orthodox practices can prove the influence of Orthodox practices, but as they were written for Western liturgical use cannot prove the existence of Orthodox believers (Believers for whose liturgy follows the Western rite cannot per definitionem be Orthodox). The letter of Pope Gregory IX written in 1234 to Béla IV does not mentions any Magyars living in Transylvania who belonged to the Eastern Church. The letter refers to (1) the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania (to the east of Transylvania) (2) where the Hungarian and German immigrants converted to Orthodoxy under the influence of the local (Orthodox) Romanians (Victor Spinei (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5, p. 155.) Catholic Hungarians who converted to Orthodoxy somewhere to the east of the Carpathians around 1234 cannot prove or suggest the existence of an Orthodox Hungarian population somewhere to the west of the Carpathians around 1054. Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned before Greek-Orthodox monasteries were in Szeremseg, Pannonia, Southern Hungary. I also did read something about Russian monks next to Tihany abbey ('Barat-lakasok') and it was dated by the 11th century (Andrew I, but unfortunately, I do not remember source exactly). That is also fact St Stephen chose the 'Western Christianity'. Hypothetically, before Stephen, The Eastern Christian church was stronger. However, there was a pagan mass. After the coronation, 54 years elapsed until the Schism and there was a serious 'western' proselytization. Whether there was a significant Orthodox presence or that was just marginal by 1054? Now I am really unsure.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for the long delay in response, but I do not always have a lot of time for Misplaced Pages. I realize my previous post has not entirely answered your question (and probably this one doesn't either), but still the evidence shown in the book by Gyula Moravcsik regarding the Eastern Orthodox influence on the Hungarian calendar and feasts in the 11th-12th centuries, could not have probably happened without also the presence of a significant "Eastern Orthodox" community. The following book published by a "Bible and Orthodox Mission Institute", also mentions the presence of an Eastern Orthodox monastic life in Transylvania, during the 11th century, "In addition to the churches at Dabica, several monasteries are mentioned by the documents, as those at Morisena, from the beginning of the 11th Century; at Meseseni, in the village Moigrad, district of Salaj (1165);at Hodos, district of Arad (1177); several cave churches around Salaj, etc.", it also claims that "there were in Transylvania — during the 11th Century — powerful centres of the Orthodox monastic life, which presuppose the existence of bishops to rule over the whole church activity." (and the presence of these monasteries can suggest that there must have been a significant Eastern Orthodox presence, since the total number of Eastern Orthodox Christians must have been significantly larger than the number of Orthodox monks). There is also the book shown earlier which mentioned in eastern Transylvania the presence of "Eastern Orthodox" married priests (which also discouraged the celibacy of some "Roman Catholic" priests) and of many outposts belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church during the 11th-12th centuries. (It is also possible that they may have largely used wooden churches, which could also explain the absence of more archaeological evidence during these times. And regarding the Western Catholic proselytization, it may have affected mainly pagans, and probably less the Eastern Orthodox communities, and I think people do not usually give up on their religion too easily.) It seems that English sources regrettably do not substantiate too much the situation (although, I intend to continue searching), but nonetheless, I do not think that these sources which speak about a significant "Eastern Orthodox" presence in the 11th century can be just simply ignored.Cody7777777 (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cody7777777, thank you for your remarks. I must accept that the source you cite substantiates the claim that there were Orthodox monasteries in Hungary (Let's forget, that the small monastery at Hodos was built as a Catholic monastery and it was a Catholic monastery until 1293 when it was destroyed by the Cumans. It was later rebuilt by Serbs in the 14th century and thus it became an Orthodox monastery.) Just one remark, the claim that married priest in the 11th century in Hungary proves the influence of Orthodox church (even it is based on a reliable source) is totally misleading: in the 11th century there were not only married priests, but also married bishops in Hungary (similarly to Norway, Scotland and other Western countries far from any Orthodox influence) - and the Orthodox Church prohibited the marriage of bishops even before the Western Church. Nevertheless, I accept that the reliable sources substantiate the above claim, and our task is to summarize the text of reliable sources and not to present our own concerns. :) Borsoka (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information you provided, it's interesting to learn about the married priests and bishops, and the monastery from Hodos. I'm glad we reached a consensus. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have repaired the map. I had to reassess my point of view. I found a detailed dissertation about this theme. It seems well established and contains reliable sources from -among others- Hungarian historians. Unfortunately,It is in Hungarian, however it states the Hungarian Kings (especially Andrew I 1046-1060, Geza I 1074-1077), cultivated very good relations with the Byzantine Empire in the 11th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The current version is indeed an improvement. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The map is wrong. The map is about the state religions after the great schism. The orthodox believers hadn't episcopates in medieval Hungary. Stil the majority of the population was catholic and the Hungarian kings were vassals of Virgin Mary (aka papal state) , the depiction of the Hungarian state (with 10 catholic episcopates and two archepiscopates) as a half orthodox state is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.167.28 (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

1. The Orthodox believers had no episcopate around 1054 in Hungary, but they had in Medieval Hungary (for example the one established for Gyula) 2. Around 1054 there were 8 bishoprics and 2 archbishoprics in Hungary 3. The Hungarian kings were not vassals of the Holy Virgin, the kingdom of Hungary was dedicated to her according to the legends of King St Stephen written at the end of the 11th century. (Moreover around 1074 Pope St Gregory VII claimed that St. Stephen had become the "vassal" of St Peter, that is the king had accepted the suzerainty of the Holy See.) 4. The map does not represent "half Orthodox population". Actually, I do not accept the claim that there were any significant Orthodox population in Hungary around 1054, but because there are reliable sources which substantiate (or better to say seem to substantiate) this claim, we should not take it simply aside. Borsoka (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The crown was sent from Rome. It's clear and traditional proof for vassalage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.203 (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Contemporary source (Theotmar of Merseburg) mentions that St Stephen received the crown "with the favor and the urging" of the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto III. But I think this is a new discussion. Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Andrew I was Greek-Orthodox,

• • • He was not Greek-Orthodox. He was baptised according to the Greek rite in Kiev before the Great Schism. But all the dioceses in Hungary were in the hands of bishops of the Latin rite during his reign. There is only one reference to Orthodox bishops in Hungary before the 13th century - the Greek Hierotheos who followed Gyula around 953 to Transylvania from Constantinoples. The Orthodox bishoprics in the 13th century Hungary were located most probably in the newly conquered Bosnian and Serbian territories.

• He established Orthodox monasteries, around 1050(for instance Tihany, Visegrad),

• • • He established monasteries that followed the Greek rite, but he also established Benedictine monasteries (Tihany Abbey).

• Andrew I and Geza I got crowns from the Byzantine Empire.

• • • Stefan Nemanjić the first crowned king of Serbia received the crown from the Pope, although Serbia was an Orthodox country and he was Orthodox. Similarly Kaloyan of Bulgaria received a crown from the Holy See, although he and his country was Orthodox.

• We can presume Orthodox monasteries in Tihany, Veszprevolgy, Marosvar, Dunapentele, Visegrad, St Demeter(Szeremseg).

• • • They are not just presumptions, they are facts. Those monasteries existed until the 13th century.

• We can assume Orthodox bishopric in Hungary in the 11th century (Turkia Metropolita), however It is debated, Gyula Kristo disagree with this.

• • • Yes, we can assume. Or we can also assume Buddhist monks in Pécs in the 9th century. :)

• A lot of temples had names of Eastern Orthodox saints in the 11th century.

• • • Not eastern Orthodox saints, but saints who were popular in the Orthodox Church. But those saint (St. Nicholas, St. Demetrios, the Holy Virgin, St. George...) were also venerated by the Latin rite Church.

• A lot of churches have been built in Greek-Orthodox style at this time.

• • • Similarly to a lot of Venetian churches. And some Orthodox churches were built in Western style.

We talk about around 1054. I am sure the Catholic Church was very 'strong' at this time, but I had to reassess my opinion in connection with Orthodox presence, please read this dissertation what I mentioned before, It is Hungarian work, from Hungarian historians. My problem is rather the Catholic-Pagan-Orthodox ratios. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • The Hungarian work looks like a well-written reliable source (and it qualifies a reliable source for WP purposes). However, lots of "probably", "might be", etc. expressions can be read in that source. Yes, Hungarian Greek Catholics have from the 19th century tended to trace back the origins of their Church to the ancienest Hungarians who followed the Greek rite, instead of to Serb, Romanian, Rusin Hajdús. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that my personal concerns are not relevant here against reliable sources (even if they only seems to be reliable, in my view). Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest in connection with the map? Fakirbakir (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ironically , there are only latin writings sources letters from these monastries & churches. They were under the control of Catholic church hierarchy, therefore they were (similar to the monarchs kings of Hungary) on the party of Roman Pope after the schism. The depiction of Hungary as a semi-orthodox state is laughable. Moreover the map represents state religions of countries, orthodox have never been state religion of Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.69 (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The map was not meant to represent state religions (for example, you can see that both religions are represented in north-western part of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, Armenia was also part of that emprie, but since it was mostly non-Chalcedonian it is not shown as Eastern Orthodox, also Sicily was part of an Islamic emirate, but the map shows only Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox influences), and anyway, if the king Andrew I was Eastern Orthodox, then it also makes sense to show some Eastern Orthodox influence in Hungary. I have also found something in the following book by Cyril Mango and published by the Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198140986 "Furthermore, monastic houses containing 'Greeks' and allowing for Orthodox styles of asceticism were founded by King Andrew I near Visegrad and on an Athos-like peninsula jutting into Lake Balaton.These sites lay beyond the lands in southern Hungary where Orthodox priests and churches were particularly prominent in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.", and even if these sources would be wrong, they cannot be ignored by Misplaced Pages. Cody7777777 (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

These (partly) greek monastries churchs were bilingual latin/greek, they didn't support Constantinople in the power-strugle after/in 1054, they supported the Roman pope. They didn't produced charters letters and other writigs in greek langauage, they used exclusively latin in their written language. Of course they used greek language for some religious singing. There weren't orthodox Hungarian kings, because the Archbishop of Esztergom was catholic, and he was the only person who had the right for coronation. These kings (who was babtisted by orthodox) had to convert to roman catholicism before the coronation.

All of the founder charters of these abbeys were written in latin. Again: In the history of medieval Hungary, there weren't greek writings which were created in Hungary. All medieval Hungarian written letters charters and documents were written in Latin language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.69 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The deed of foundation of Veszpremvolgy monastery was written in Greek-Byzantine style.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And nothing more... After the death of Stephen I, the Orthodox relgion wasn't more relevant than the Judaism or the Islam in medieval Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.21.208 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you state something, you have to prove that point of view with source. I am willing to fix the map if you give us reliable source in this theme. The distribution of religions in Kingdom of Hungary is not an obvious thing in the 11th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't prove the relevance of greek monks in the country after the reign of saint stephen. You can't cite written sources in greek language, however tons of contemporary written sources are in latin. Again, you can't prove that these "orthodox" (?) monks were under tha controll of church hierarchy of Constantinople after the schism. Your sources didn't write abot these basic facts, which had key-relevance in this topic.

Misplaced Pages is based mainly on secondary scholarly sources, not on our interpretations of primary sources (please check Misplaced Pages's policy for more information, "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"). Even if you are right, since there are secondary sources claiming that there was an Eastern Orthodox presence in southern Hungary, they cannot be ignored by Misplaced Pages. (Also, regarding you're earlier edit summary, the source mentioned earlier by Fakirbakir was Hungarian, not Romanian or Serbian.) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, the map is about the break schism between Roman hierarchy and Byzantine-greek church hiearachy. These eastern rite followers became part of roman hierarchy. (similarly to Eastern Catholic Churches in modern period). Therefore they became a greek-rite version of the sceptered roman catholic church in Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.211.137 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This map shows the extension of "Western Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" influences during the 11th century, and the secondary sources shown earlier mentioned an "Eastern Orthodox" (not a "Roman Catholic" Greek-Rite) presence in southern Hungary.Cody7777777 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I knew the originator of the map. It's about the religious power-struggle between the Papacy and Constantonople centered church from 1054.

What do you mean 'from 1054'? This map demonstrates power-struggle of religions or positions of religions at the eve of the East-West Schism (1054). Not from, or from to. We talk about the middle of the 11th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, you don't know the originator of the map. After the great schism, constantinople centered Eastern church hierarchy hadn't power in Hungary. It was similar to the Greek Catholic Church. These orthodox weren't more than the "greek branch" of Roman catholic church. Constantinople centered church defeated when Stephen became the first king of Hungary. The greek-speaking churches became the part of Roman Catholic hierarchy (led by the Pope). Read the history of the file. The theme / name of the map is not the language/rite, but the Scism. The schism is about the power strugle over the countries, therefore the language of the church is not relevant in the topic. Check mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.109 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I tend to accept 84.2.153.109's view (there is no contemporary reference to or other evidence of significant Orthodox communities in the Kingdom of Hungary around 1054), but WP is written based on reliable sources and some of these sources suggest that there were such communities in the medieval kingdom. Therefore, I think for the time being the discussion of this specific issue should be closed. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your version of map is about the church languages instead of east-west schism. The original designer of the map is not allowed to redraw his map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.109 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The books and authors don't support your claims. After Stephen's death ,the existence of 10 or 15 DENOMINATED orthodox churches doesn't matter in such a large kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.109 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As already said before, there are secondary sources which claim that there was an "Eastern Orthodox" presence in southern and eastern Hungary during the 11th century, they do not talk about a "Roman Catholic Greek-Rite", they clearly use the expressions "Orthodox" or "Eastern Orthodox", and these terms have been used when describing the Churches in communion with Constantinople, meaning that these Eastern-Rite Churches from Hungary were in communion with Constantinople (or "Eastern Orthodox"). Some of these secondary sources were also published by reputed universities(). They could be wrong, but our personal views, are not really important for Misplaced Pages (especially, if they're not supported by secondary sources). I think these things were already explained clearly enough before (and although I do not really want to not assume good faith on your actions, to be honest I have to say that I'm nearly starting to feel like I'm "feeding a troll" by replying). (I would also like to add that the East-West Schism is not just a conflict of jurisdictions, or "power-struggle", between Rome and Constantinople, it is a much more comlpex issue, also involving theological and rite differences, and it does not really have a fixed beginning, many differences where already starting to become obvious since the so-called "Photian Schism", 1054 is only a conventional date, but obviously this map shows the situation around 1054, and it should also be noted that the conflict during the years 1053-1054 had also started from rite differences, such as unleavened or leavened bread used in the Eucharist, so these rite differences also had an importance in this conflict.) Cody7777777 (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, the sources and authors didn't support the idea that the greek churches were under the controll of Constantinople ( Not the patriarches of Constantinople but the Byzantine Emperors were the top religious leaders of Orthodox church until the middle of 12th century, when the other Orthodox churches started to separate from Constantinople. ) Two antagonistic church-hierarchy in one country (led by a foreign moarchs who were overlords of orthodox countries at that time yet) was impossible. That greek languge or orthodox rite churches were under the roman catholic hierarchy. (similar to greek catholic church from the 18th century). The map is about the Schism. The schism is only about the break between Constantinople and Rome-led churches. You were not allowed to redraw this map. The designer (Tobi85) didn't allow it for you.

I think there is a misunderstanding in the above statement. None of the materials made for WP belong to any of the editors. There is no need for any licence to redesign any of the materials. (Nonetheless, I still tend to accept the above view. Hungarian monarchs whose wifes followed the Orthodox rite set up monasteries that followed the Greek rite. Some Orthodox monasteries were founded by Hungarian tribal leaders, for example by Achtum, who had adopted Orthodox Christianity for political purposes. The territories where other monasteries were situated, such Sremska Mitrovica, were annexed by the Kingdom of Hungary. But none of the monasteries were subordinated to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch, they were under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic diocesian prelate. But, as reliable sources claim that those monasteries belonged to the Orthodox religious community, we cannot ignore them.) I still suggest that the debate should be taken aside for some period (let's say for 30-60 days).Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:84.2.153.109! This map is a public domain. We have a right to edit that. If Tobi85 did not like it he could withdraw that -with good justification, of course-. And again, we talk about 1054. I can not disregard a Hungarian dissertation about this theme. I can not disregard Gyula Moravcsik's work. The dissertation is about -among others- religions in Kingdom of Hungary in the 11 th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, your biggest problem, that your books and authors didn't support your imaginations & claims. All of the greek churches in Hungary belonged to Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.21.128 (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you please share with us the reliable sources your above claim is based on? The "books of Fakibakir" substantiate the claim that there were Orthodox monasteries in the Kingdom of Hungary. Even if we do not accept that idea, we have to accept the fact that many scholars follow it. I do not like repeating myself but I still suggest that the endless and pointless debate should be suspended for a while. Borsoka (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you please share with us the reliable sources your above claim (that greek rite churches of Hungary belonged to Constantinople/Byzantine Emperor) is based on? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.152.142 (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should not even reply, but please check the sources from the earlier posts (they explicitly stated that there were Orthodox communities in southern and eastern Hungary, and in English the words "Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodox" do not describe a "Roman Catholic Greek-Rite", these words in English describe the religious community which also includes the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople). I don't think it is really necessary to post these sources again, especially if you intend to ignore them. (And the map legend just writes "Orthodox Church" and "Catholic Church", it does not write "Churches under the jurisdiction of Rome" and "Churches under the jurisdiction of Constantinople", so we need only sources claiming that there were Orthodox communities in Hungary, it doesn't even matter which bishops had jurisdiction over these communities.) Cody7777777 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

These greek-rite churches weren't more than the medieval analogous of Papacy led Greek Catholic Churches. However there aren't English terms/idioms for that medieval phenomenon. Therefore the books mentioned that greek-rite churches very simple: "Orthodox". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.236 (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cited: "Another source of conversion to Christianity was Byzantium, which affected the geographically close southern parts of Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania. As a function of the political relations of Hungarian kings, monasteries and convents belonging to the Byzantine Church were founded sporadically in the eleventh century, even in the central and western parts of the country." The architecture of historic Hungary (P. Lövei p. 11.)Fakirbakir (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've repaired the map because of the sourse (spread sporadically).Fakirbakir (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

However the situation which you mentioned existed before the great schism. After the schism, these greek churches became the scepter of Archbishop of Esztergom. Therefore Your reasoning wasn't correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.91.8 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Note: IP 84.0.91.8 is a sockpuppet of the banned user Stubes99 (Iaaasi (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

I would like to see a source about that. I am willing to fix the map if it is true. I mentioned two different sources about this theme, both of them assumed Orthodox presence in the eleventh century. Andrew I (1046-1060) was the biggest founder of Orthodox monasteries. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For instance, !after 1054!, Andrew I established a Greek-Orthodox monastery in 1056 (in Visegrad).Moreover, monastery of Visegrad was led by Byzantine rite till 1109.Magyarország képekben: honismertető album, Volume 1 /In Hungarian Fakirbakir (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a supporting source for your statement. Please prove that Hungarian kings estabilished Byzantine ruled churches and risked a papal excommunication after 1054. This greek-speaking churches weren't bízantine ruled churches especially after the schism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.58.99 (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Dragan Brujić-based map

I restored the long subsection immediately above this, because I think that "Don't mess up this page" is by no means a sufficient explanation for deleting it. However, I think it has little relevance to the present problem, which, as I see it, is whether the Dragan Brujić-based map is admissible to this Misplaced Pages article. In the first place, I think that the Dragan Brujić book must indeed be classified, in Misplaced Pages terms, as a reliable source - for the view of Dragan Brujić. A question can arise about the accuracy of the map as a depiction of the Brujić view. For one thing, even he doesn't claim that the whole of Sicily was on the Eastern side of the divide. (Besides, in 1054, wasn't practically the whole of Sicily in the power of the Moslem Arabs, who were soon conquered by the decidedly Western Normans? But that is by the way, since the map claims not to reflect the reality but only the view of Brujić.) And I think Brujić attributes more, not less, territory elsewhere to the Eastern side in 1054 than appears in the map, particularly in Anatolia. So while Brujić is a reliable source for the view of Brujić, the question must be asked whether the map accurately represents the view of Brujić. That is what should be discussed. Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Semantic problems: Are there any greek-speaking churches (mostly bilingual in Hungary) which are belonged to Byzantine rule? I think not. Using Greek language doesn't mean automatically Orthodox. Because they were under the controll of Archbishop of Esztergom. They were similar to the later Greek Catholic church, rather than Orthodox. The map has other serious problem, it depict territory of latter Vallachia and Moldavia as christian territory, despite the fact, that there aren't any material proofs (cemetries religious building churches monastries or other archeological founds) for the existence of christian spiritual life between the era from 600 A.D. to 1200. There aren't any contemporary sources and chronicles which support the existence of christian spiritual life there in that era.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.58.99 (talk • contribs)

We know about Byzantine monasteries in Kingdom of Hungary (south and central parts of Hungary) around 1054, but the map exaggerates this. The kingdom consisted of 10 Catholic bishoprics (there was no Orthodox bishopric) in the 11th century. There is no archeological evidence about existence of Orthodox churches in the pagan territory of Pechenges.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but to me it seems irrelevant to the question: Does the map accurately represent the (mistaken, if you wish) view of Dragan Brujić? Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it does (even if I can not agree with his map).Fakirbakir (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Esoglou, I reverse your question: Is wikipedia an encyclopedia with reliable sources (and maps) or a playground of unreliable articles? Is there a place for this map with such known faults in an encyclopedia?

I think that, in Misplaced Pages terms, the Brujić book does qualify as a reliable source for one point of view. It is decades since I was able to converse in Serbo-Croat and even then I did not have a profound knowledge of the language, but I think that anyone who just looks at the maps in the book, which are in the main understandable even by people who know nothing of the language, will have to accept that it is the product of research (well conducted or not is for professional historians to judge, rather than for us). If you think it does not qualify as a reliable source, you or someone else can raise the question at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think that the verdict there would be that the Brujić book qualifies for citation in Misplaced Pages no less than the Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land, the source of the other map and one that you do not question. Esoglou (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The problems with Orthodox faith in Hungary, and the depicting territory of later moldavia and wallachia as christian places were serous errors. It might that other maps are correct, but this map shows that he didn't do serius researches in that area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.58.99 (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Atlas-of-the-Historical-Geography-of-the-Holy-Land was a British University book.

DESIGNED AND EDITED BY GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., LL.D.,LITT.D. PRINCIPAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE, LITERATURE AND THEOLOGY UNITED FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW AND PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF J. G.BARTHOLOMEW,LL.D.,F.R.S.E., F.R.G.S. CARTOGRAPHER TO THE KING, AT THE EDINBURGH GEOGRAPHICALINSTITUT

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28041151/Atlas-of-the-Historical-Geography-of-the-Holy-Land-Smith

Professor JOHN DUNCAN, M.A., D.D. Professor JOHN FORBES, M.A., D.D., LL.D. Professor ANDREW BRUCE DAVIDSON,M.A., D.D., LL.D. Professor WILLIAM EOBERTSON SMITH, M.A., D.D., LL.D. Professor WILLIAM GRAY ELMSLIE, M.A., D.D.

The British Academics historians didn't make such a simple basic but huge error as Brujic did in his map.

To the user from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary

An off-topic message to the anonymous user who wants the map removed: You can continue editing anonymously, but since you are engaging in meritorical discussions on articles talk pages I strongly recommend that you create an account and log in. Doing so is easy, free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you don't do it, the bot will sometimes do it for you, but it has already missed many of your comments. Having comments not attributed to anyone makes the discussion much harder to follow. Please consider following those two suggestions. Thank you.

To everyone else: I'm sorry for posting an off-topic message for a user here but that user has already got many messages to the talk pages of many of the IP addresses that he used and ignored all of them. I am posting it here in hope that it will make the discussion easier to follow for everyone. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 05:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay--User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both Rafał and the Pécs editor for the above.

To the Pécs editor: To exclude the 2005 book by Brujić from Misplaced Pages, what we need is a negative review by a reliable source, not an expression of our own opinion. Others might defend it by saying that in the 90 years since the publication of the 1915 book there have been advances in knowledge and that it is the 1915 book that should be excluded. I feel that Dotonj might well try to advance other difficulties in order to attack the 1915 book (and so would LoveMonkey, who usually reacts against anything I write - see above). No, I don't see attacks by us as enough for excluding either source.

Apologies, especially to Fakirbakir, for my mistaken remark above, based on my mistaken memory, about Anatolia. I would also point out that neither Brujić nor the Brujić-based map claim that the disputed Hungarian area and the area east of it was solidly Eastern Orthodox at the time. They only claim that there was some Byzantine-aligned Christian presence there. Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Again: There were some (6-7???) Greek-speaking church building in such a large area, it doesn't mean that they were automatically ruled by Byznatine church. They were similar to later Greek Catholic Church which were under the rule of Roman Pope. It can mislead readers, because the map depicts the religious-political events and aftermatch of 1054--User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The map represents the view of the 2005 book, a book that has not been shown to fall outside the Misplaced Pages classification as a reliable source. So, even if all of us disagree with what the book says, we cannot exclude a mention of it from Misplaced Pages. Esoglou (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, the author is not specialist (he is not religious historian) in this field of History. There were religious historian in the above mentioned British academic professors. Serbian historians archeologists have never made any archeological researches in the territory of Present-day Hungay. Therefore: if he had done some researches about the territory of present-day Hungary, he would have red only Hungarian authors in English or German language. The other serious problem: Material archeological proofs and contemporary chronicles sources didn't support the existence of Orthodox christian church in Vallachia and Moldavia before the 1200s. Christian archology founds before the 1200s in that territory would be a real archeological sensation! :) What was his sources to depict such a map? It is not a well documented map. Serious maps have references citations at the end of the pages.--User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That is only our unsourced opinion about the worth of the 2005 book. Does any reliable published source support that opinion? Esoglou (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Esoglou, your opinion is just a private opinion too, and that type of reasoning is not belong to the rational types of reasoning :)--User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the majority of scholars supports User talk:User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary's opinion.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Does any reliable published source support that opinion?"(Esoglou) Which opinion do you think?--User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

1. ”The Orthodox Church London" by Kallistos Ware St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0913836583
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ODCC-Semipel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. "For the regenerated to do spiritual good – for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual – it is necessary that he be guided and prevented by grace … Consequently he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life" (Confession of Dositheus, Decree 14).
4. "For the regenerated to do spiritual good – for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual – it is necessary that he be guided and prevented by grace … Consequently he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life" (Confession of Dositheus, Decree 14).
5. Confession of Dositheus, Decree 14
6. Cite error: The named reference Confessions was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• C-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• C-Class Christian theology articles
• Top-importance Christian theology articles
• Christian theology work group articles
• C-Class Catholicism articles
• High-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• C-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Top-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class European history articles
• High-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• Selected anniversaries (December 2005)