Talk:15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Schism

I cannot find any work about the schism in English, so for this part as well as for how the schism endend I am relying on you.

I'm sorry for my slow work. This age of church history is the new area for me and the more I read, the more questions I have. Do you have this book: Philippides, Marios and Hanak, Walter K., Cardinal Isidore (c.1390–1462): A Late Byzantine Scholar, Warlord, and Prelate, Routledge, 2018? Google books, unfortunately, are trimmed in the most interesting places.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am going to write two more preliminary sections: "Jonah - the first self-proclaimed Metropolitan of Moscow" and "Gregory Bulagarian and the beginning of the schism".--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem, you are not slow, I only wanted to indicate to you that the background section hald already enough information in it. I do not expect this article to be ready before 2019.

I do not have the book, but if you want it can be bought here: https://www.routledge.com/Cardinal-Isidore-c13901462-A-Late-Byzantine-Scholar-Warlord-and/Philippides-Hanak/p/book/9780815379829 Veverve (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This could be turned into a note, but there are problems: "In the accusing charter of the Russian clergy against Shemyaka, sent in December 6956 (1447) Jonah is still referred to as "the bishop of Ryazan" and is named on the third place - after Efrem of Rostov and Abraham of Suzdal" (J. Lurie)

Who is "Shemyaka"? Dmitry Shemyaka? December 6956? which calendar is it from?

Also, I found this if it canbe useful to you: https://www.academia.edu/10452665/The_Unorthodox_Itinerary_of_an_Orthodox_Bishop_Abraham_of_Suzdal_and_His_Travels

• Yes he is Dmitry Shemyaka. In fact, "Shemyaka" is a rather unique identifier, this is a nickname.
• December 6956 - this is Julian calendar. But in the Russian calendar there are many difficult problems, as a result of which an exact translation from a new style to an old one is difficult.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"he had broken with the Union in 1484"

@Veverve: about this two claims: "after the Patriarchate of Constantinople turned away from the Union in 1484" and "Patriarch of Constantinople, although he had broken with the Union in 1484". In fact, the Union was broken immediately after the Patriarchate was re-established by Turks. The first patriarch, Gennadius Scholarius, was the staunch opponent of the Union. Synod of Constantinople (1484) was just the fist known Synod after the fall of the City. It is usual stated that "It was the first synod to condemn the Council of Florence" because the so-called Synod of 1450 in Saint Sophia is considered fictional, and its documents (were the Union was condemned) are falsified. Synod of 1484 did not discuss to stay in the Union or not, but only practical issues, such as how to convert to Orthodoxy from Roman Church.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"But, as this was the first Council of an Oecumenical status to meet since the Council of Florence, its first action was to declare that the Council of Florence had not been canonically summoned or composed, and that its decrees were therefore invalid." [1]--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: Oh, ok. thanks for correcting me. Please explain it in the page if it is not already done, and also the fact that some Patriarchs under the Ottomans, before 1484, defended the union. You are doing a great job so far, I wish I could help you more. Veverve (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

1) Thank you for your kind words! 2) and also the fact that some Patriarchs under the Ottomans, before 1484, defended the union - but who were they? I've read through Wikipedia quickly. As I see the Patriarchs were:

• Isidore II - "was one of the signatories of a 1445 document against the East-West Union of Churches."
• Mark II - "he and his family <...> opposed the East-West Union of Churches established in the Council of Florence"
• Symeon I - "The most remarkable act of his third and last reign was the Synod of Constantinople of 1484."
• Dionysius I - "he was a pupil of Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus" and the later was the chief anti-unionist.
• Sophronius I - "Almost nothing is known about the life and the patriarchate of Sophronius"
• Raphael I - a drunkard who "was not recognized as Patriarch by a large part of the Greek clergy." Nothing known about his defense of the Union
• Maximus III - "In 1481 he convened a Synod on the revocation of the decisions of the Ferrara-Florence Synod" [2]--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong again and no pro-union Patriarch of Constantinople existed after the fall of Constantinople. Veverve (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

New sources to check

I added Ostrowski, Donald (1998). "Byzantine political thought and Muscovy" as well as Miklosich, Franz; Müller, Joseph (1860). Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana: Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, MCCCXV-MCCCCII, e condicibus manuscriptis Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonensis (in Greek). 1. C. Gerold. Veverve (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Byzantine political thought and Muscovy in Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304-1589--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

""This spiritual betrayal of the Orthodox faith was also the main reason for the Kiev archdiocese's secession from Constantinople. The union dented the church relations and caused the mistrust later exacerbated by centuries of our lands having no due pastoral care and help from the Church of Constantinople at most difficult times for the Orthodox faith," the Synod said. " - http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=14783 / http://news.church.ua/2018/12/18/address-of-the-holy-synod-of-the-ukrainian-orthodox-church-of-17-december-2018-to-the-hierarchy-clergy-monastics-and-faithful/?lang=en Veverve (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=012E6d49waU&feature=youtu.be&t=459 Veverve (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

From my point of view, this is propaganda of a very strongly biased side in conditions of acute political struggle. I would prefer to be based on more neutral sources.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"Even if we take the history of the Orthodox Church in Russia, we see that its autocephaly was self-proclaimed in 1448, when Moscow elected metropolitan Jonas independently, without the consent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is interesting to emphasize that the Orthodox Church in Russia has never been given a tomos of autocephaly! In 1589-1590, Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II simply normalized the situation by raising this see to a patriarchal rank, while allowing the Moscow bishop “to be called” patriarch, provided that he would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch and consider him “as his head and protos”, as stated in the letter." - https://risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/interview/72661/

Can you check if it's true? http://basilica.ro/en/original-1590-synodal-tomos-of-foundation-of-moscow-patriarchate/ seems to confirm it. Veverve (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC) The DECR deputy head reminded that the autocephalous and patriarchal status of the Russian Orthodox Church was granted in 1589 by Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople, and in 1593 this decision was approved by the All-Orthodox Council in Constantinople. - https://spzh.news/en/news/59162-v-upc-prokommentirovali-trebovanija-poroshenko-prodemonstrirovaty-tomos Veverve (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

“Thus, the ROC does not have the Tomos but the Letter by Patriarch Jeremiah, although the Tomos and the Letter are essentially the same,” said Fr. Nikolai. “The ROC also has decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Council, or rather of the Council of the oldest patriarchs.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonia_(theology) Veverve (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXUmKsitV-M Veverve (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Absence

From tomorrow until late January I really think will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia, or will only be able to make small contributions. It is due to personnal life (nothing bad, do not worry). Veverve (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Good luck to you. I'll try to finish the draft by this time.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Back

@Nicoljaus: I am now totally back. I still had to find time to update pages about the current Orthodox schism during my absence, mainly because I knew that if I did not then nobody would. So, what do we do? Veverve (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This case should be completed

Hello, Veverve. I had an extremely difficult period, my lifestyle has changed and I can’t work on articles as carefully as before. I was hoping this would change, but it seems not. However, I would like this article to be published, because a lot of work has been invested in it and it would be (for my taste) good. Now in the article there are a lot of quotes, including contemporary figures who seem inappropriate to me, as well as requests for clarification, which seem to me either redundant or lacking an answer (sources are not detailed enough). I offer two options: either you are completing the article, or I am. Then we move the draft to the main space and further modify it (if desire) there. I am sure it will immediately be better than most articles of a similar subject )) --Nicoljaus (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: no problem, I totally understand. I have done all I could to polish the article. Now the only thing needed are citations and clarifications where they are needed (I have indicated where), as well as a conclusion, i.e. the section "Recognition of Moscow's autocephaly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, end of the schism" and maybe a short section concerning the relationship between the EP and the ROC after the end of the schism. Now, since I cannot speak Russian you will have to do those parts alone. The name in Russian should also be put into the forst line of the article (Google translate gives me "1467-1560 Москва – Константинопольский раскол", but again I do not speak Russian). I will try to do some research by myself in English whenever I have time to support your effort.

Please note that you have to indicate once you publicly publish this article that part of the "Role of the Byzantine emperor in the Eastern Orthodox Church" is taken from East–West_Schism#Other_points_of_conflict. Veverve (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Also I would greatly appreciate if you could credit me for my work :) Veverve (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, Veverve, I've added part for 1560. But I did not understand a bit. I meant to publish an article in the main Wikipedia space. How do I make credits in this case?--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC

Ok, now the only thing needed is for you to clarify and source the points I indicated in the draft article. As for the credits, when you publish the article you have an Edit summary at the bottom. In it, simply states that some parts of the "Role of the Byzantine emperor in the Eastern Orthodox Church"section is taken from East–West_Schism#Other_points_of_conflict and that you thank Veverve for his help in writing this article. Veverve (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I undestand the issue about credits. But I still do not understand why we need a quote from Metropolitan Hilarion, "in the middle of the 15th century" and so on. I think it's too long. For such cases (overly lengthy quotations.) there is even a special template: Template:Over-quotation--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove this quote. Veverve (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! So, one more thing. Now we have a section "Background" which for the most part repeats other sections, which actually are the background ("Premises of the schism"). And the "The role of the emperor" section, as it seems to me, is disproportionately large. I would cut it (especially a huge quote) and move it to “Fall of Constantinople – Moscow, third Rome” (because in this section it is important to understand the context about the role of the emperor).--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe the "Brief history of the Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus'" repeats what is said anywhere else in the article. I tried to reduced the quote in the "The role of the emperor" section; I believe this section should be put in the "Background" section as it is, well, a background information. I also remind you I have indicated three problems which you must fix. Veverve (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe the "Brief history of the Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus'" repeats what is said anywhere else in the article. - Look, the fist sentence is Before 1589, the Orthodox Church of Kiev (Galicia) and all Rus' was a metropolis under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. - but the whole article is devoted to how Moscow came out of the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch! And the metropolis was actually divided by the Polish-Lithuanian and Moscow parts. By placing this sentence in the first place in the article, you made a strong POV, violating at the same time the Content forking rule. The rest of this section talks about Jonah. Well, but why tear this text away from the section "Election of Metropolitan Jonah of Kiev and all Rus"? In my opinion there is no point here. But, as I have already said, I no longer have time to play these obscure games. If you are satisfied with only this variant - publish in the main space. And please do not credit me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed the section and put some information where it chronologically made sense. I am sorry if I have been difficult to deal with, or if my attitude was hard to bear. Are you satisfied of the draft article? Veverve (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I also apologize, but I have little patience left. Now I am not ready for long disputes over each sentence. I still don’t like some things in the draft. For example, I do not like the use of the word "filioque", instead of the word "Union", so the phrases “accepted the filioque in the name of the whole Metropolis of Kiev” appeared, which are rather meaningless (filioque was only one aspect of the Union with Rome, that the common folk poorly understood). Perhaps when the article appears in the main space, “someone out there” will correct it. Maybe I'll fix it when I have time.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The serious question is under what name should the article be published. In Russian literature, the name used now in the Lead (Московско–Константинопольский раскол 1467-1560 годов) does not occur and I don't want to be an inventor )) V. Lurie in his work called this period "the Moscow church schism of 1467-1560" but his opinion is not yet widely distributed. Maybe the "Moscow-Constantinople schism of 15-16 centuries"? As I understand it, everything is complicated with exact dates there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"15th-16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism" could be a good idea. I have corrected as you said. So, I guess you now wish this article to be published as soon as possible. If so, tell me and I will publish it, or if you want you can publish it. Veverve (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hurry is not needed, I just can drop editing again and the draft will hang hang for a long time. I’m not rushing you, just when you decide that everything is ready, publish it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In the summary I tried reflect the lack of precise dates. Now I think the article is ready. Still, I ask you your feedback if you want to provide some. Veverve (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Article published

At last, the article has been published! Veverve (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! the week was so crazy that I missed this moment.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus:Could you have a look at this edit of mine? I tried to make a better translation, since "ordination" implies a sacrament of ordination. Veverve (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, as I see, Daniel Shubin in his History of Russian Christianity usually used this word: "He [Jonah] hesitated to travel to Constantinople for ordination" ... "Gerasim was accepted by Patr. Joseph II and was ordained in 1432" and so on.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus:Ok, I reversed my edit. Thanks! Veverve (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

History merge

I believe the history of this draft should be merged to the article, i.e. 15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism, as required by WP for attribution. What do you think? Veverve (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I see you are retired and no longer active, so I will allow myself to request a history merge. Veverve (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)