 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Thank you for this nice Article. A couple of points:
- The oldest report of the 1552 schism I've found is the 1796 Becchetti [1] where is written the Patriarch was dead, having consacrated only a 8 years newphew who was believed to be dead without having the time to consacrate a new one. This is surely the Masius version, and it is luckly that the Vatican was in good faith in proceding into the consacration. But the Becchetti, who was a good historician, wrote who was believed to be death, not who was death, leaving the room to the suspect that the Vatican was badly informed.
- I dont like the beginning of the Article with the words: which resulted in the creation, in 1553, of the Chaldean Catholic Church. A Chaldean surely dont like to read that his Church was created in 1552. Actually the Church which resulted with the 1552 split has no continuity with the present Chaldean Catholic Church, and the term Chaldean Catholic Church can be used to define all the different and unrelated attempts of communion of the CoE with Rome (from the time of Council of Florence or even before) A ntv ( talk) 11:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good point. What we should say is that the schism divided the church permanently into factions, one of which one which entered into communion with Rome and one which remained independent. This eventually led to emergence of the Eastern Catholic Chaldean Church and the independent Assyrian Church of the East. Going through the whole complicated history of the church over the years, the patriarchal lineages that emerged from the split do not correspond to the lineages of the modern Chaldean and Assyrian churches.-- Cúchullain t/ c 12:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- A fair point about the lineage of the Chaldean Church. I've tried to come up with a more diplomatic form of words in the lead paragraph, along the lines suggested by Cuchullain.
- Thanks very much for Bechetti. I will bend my brows over it when I have time. I'll also dig out Beltrami, Habbi and the other writers, and see whether I can give direct quotes from the Vatican's consistorial act of April 1553.
- Remind me also to quote Shemon VII Ishoyahb's 'Nestorian' confession of faith (his epitaph, in Syriac, was published by Voste c. 1930, who translated it into French).
Very obvious POV/OR scattered throughout, basically declaring one version of historical events to be better than the other, with no references. Per WP:RS/AC we should not be making statements such as this. The opinions of individual scholars are fine as their opinions, and certainly may be included, but we cannot take those individual opinions and say they are the consensus. Further, the most "wiki-voiced" sections are completely unsourced. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A chart/diagramme clearing showing the succession of various lines would be a very helpful addition to this article.
1.126.48.130 ( talk) 05:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Present title of this article (" Schism of 1552") is quite problematic, because the very contents of this article clearly shows that nothing actually happened in 1552, since there was no real schism within the Church of the East in that particular year. In other words, not a single hierarch or diocese of the Church of the East went into any kind of schism at that point, and the only thing that really happened in 1552 was personal decision of a converted priest Yohannan Sulaqa to go to Rome. He was consecrated there in 1553, and he achieved that by misinforming officials of the Roman Curia. Only after returning from Rome, he started to gather and organize his supporters. It was he who consecrated first bishops for his community, during next few years. Therefore, so-called "schism" of "1552" is not an actual historical fact, but rather a convenient pseudo-historical construct. Unfortunately, that construct us occasionally used here on Wikipedia for creating the appearance of discontinuity in history of the Church of the East, and also it is used as an excuse for splitting articles and patriarchal lists. In this day and age, when scholarly literature is widely available, such actions are very transparent. Since there was no real "schism" in "1552", the title of this article should be corrected and changed to "Conversion of Yohannan Sulaqa" or some similar title that would truly reflect the contents of this interesting article. Sorabino ( talk) 09:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- I made some additional checking. Modern scholarly literature has placed a huge question mark on the entire account of the events that preceded the arrival of
Yohannan Sulaqa in Rome. Historians and other scholars have shown that not only his account of the alleged "death" of the current patriarch was false, but also the entire account of his own "election" by the "three bishops" should be considered as doubtful, since he did not produce any instrument of election, and also failed to state the names of his electors. Above that, he made an excuse in Rome that there was no metropolitan to consecrate him in the homeland, but in the same time he claimed that one of the "three bishops" who elected him was no other then the bishop of
Erbil, and since it is widely known that for centuries
Erbil was a metropolitan seat it is quite obvious that the entire account of Yohannan Sulaqa on his "election" is burdened by additional contradictions. David Wilmshurst stated that not even the date of his "election" in 1552 is known. So, some serious editing is needed, but only after additional discussions, based on the data from relevant scholarly works.
Sorabino (
talk) 14:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- You may propose a different title, something like Sulaqa schism (but this may be reductive), but I disagree in deleting this article as if nothing whappened.
A ntv (
talk) 19:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I did not propose the deletion of this article, on the contrary. This article is very relevant, and it describes many important events that happened after 1552, particularly during 1553, and in next few years. As article clearly states, crucial events were taking place in Rome during the first half of 1553, and after the return of Yohannan Sulaqa to the homeland by the end of that year. So, the main question is: which year is more relevant for the creation of the schism, 1552 or 1553? In 1552, there is just an initiative for the union, but in 1553 we have the crucial event: decision of the highest officials of the Catholic Church to accept, confirm, and consecrate Yohannan Sulaqa, and thus create entirely new hierarchical structure. That was the real seminal event. Sorabino ( talk) 19:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- You may propose a different title, something like Sulaqa schism (but this may be reductive), but I disagree in deleting this article as if nothing whappened.
A ntv (
talk) 19:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)