Talk:Patriarchal cross

message: "Some authorities describe the cross of Lorraine as a variant of the patriarchal cross."  Would that the the librarians of the Some Library? or the professors of the Some university? This isn't information. Wetman 08:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and plan to change it to say that the cross of Lorraine resembles it, thus removing the authorities. On a separate note, it would be nice to have a picture of an example. Wesley 17:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: I removed:
It is also found on silver pennies of Cnut minted at York, England c AD900.
It can be reinserted if someone has a source. This was an anonymous addition, with no edit summary.--tufkaa 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cnut

message: There's a bit of a mix-up regarding the Byzantine Cross.  What's pictured is the Eastern Cross, used primarily by the Russian Orthodox Church.  The Byzantine cross looks different, and is generally used by the Greek Orthodox Church.  Here are the examples of these two different crosses:  
Example of Byzantine Cross ( http://www.lutheransonline.com/lo/230/FSLO-1134560228-111230.jpg )
Example of Eastern Cross ( http://www.lutheransonline.com/lo/542/FSLO-1134560541-111542.jpg )
Byzantine cross should not redirect to this page, as its design is not similar to the Eastern Cross or Patriarchal Cross.  Does anyone mind if I correct this in the Byzantine cross page, creating its own entry?  Thanks! --Dulcimerist 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error regarding the term "Byzantine Cross"

message: alot of the info is similar to what I found here.
http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/eastorth.html
--Tehol (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to info 

message: I agree with the post above regarding the Byzantine cross; and would also like to put forth my opion that "Russian cross" should not reidrect here either. The Russian Orthodox cross is not a subset of the Patriarchal cross, but has its own distinct history, unrelated to ecclesiastical heraldry--it derives from Byzantine icons of the Crucifixion--though in the Byzantine format the footrest is often horizontal (though shown in Byzantine perspective) rather than slanted. MishaPan (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian cross

message: "The Byzant Christianization came to the Morava empire in the year 863, provided at the request of Prince Rastic sent Byzantine Emperor Michael III.[1]" - why is it relevant in any means to the double cross? The sentence doesn't mention any crosses - any fact about the double cross needs to be added here, or the sentence needs to be deleted. 
By the way, the article doesn't mention that double cross can be found on coins minted by Stephen I. (1000-1036).
81.183.245.214 (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant sentence 

message: "Imagery" should be about what the cross represents, while "Other Variations" should be about the different variations of the cross and what they represent. I think that whoever made these sections may have first created "Imagery" for a description of the basic symbolism and then "Other Variations" for variations on the symbolism, however as it is now "Other Variations" is about the slight aesthetic variations of the cross on different coats of arms etcetera. Maybe whoever wrote up the section felt that they should explain the symbolism for the variations, but the symbolism is basically the same so it ends up being repetitive. Anyway, the information about symbolism (in the second and third paragraphs of "Other Variations") should either be merged with "Imagery", replace "Imagery", or be removed. 
Gidonka181 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetitive information between "Imagery" section and "Other Variations" section

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Orthodox cross which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I have not gone over the entirety of the article yet, but I will note some things on the 'Byzantine Empire' section.
My knowledge of coinage is not broad enough to say anything definite to the effect of surviving examples of a two-barred or three-barred Cross, although the regarding of other forms as 'ordinary' out of hand is very much suspect, as is the claim of some 'standard'.
In regards to the two sources mentioned, neither gives anything on this (One being almost entirely a descriptive collection of coins).  The same goes for other historical and theological claims here.  Where the thought that Leo III actively abolished the use of the two-barred or three-barred Cross on coinage comes from is a question that must be asked;  Although other forms do, at least, appear to be more common among extant coinage of his reign, the simple truth that all these regularly display the Cross, and display Leo III holding the Cross, makes the claim that a perceived lack of the two-barred or three-barred form in comparison to Justinian II must be related to Leo III's iconoclasm seem very strange.  Again, none of these historical and theological claims can be found in either cited work.
There is also the question of the seemingly tenuous distinction between this article and the 'Russian Orthodox Cross' article - the actual origin of the term 'Patriarchal Cross' should be clarified, and more distinction, or elucidation on the use of two-barred and three-barred Crosses in Medieval and later Western Imagery as opposed to Eastern may be needed, perhaps this being even to the extent of two separate articles.Zusty001 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Byzantine Empire' section - sourcing and accuracy - necessity of separate article