Talk:Constantine XI

Saint?

His commemoration appears in the calendars and books published by the Greeks, the Serbs and the Russians. To be a saint of one national Church is to be a saint of the entire Orthodox Church - and he appears in three! Ergo, he is a saint not only of the Greek Church. InfernoXV 02:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Look this doesn't matter that much, but I'll insist on removing the statement about the Roman Empire. It's just an abundant statement which only serves at confusing the readers. Someone who knows about medieval history will know already the relation between Rome, Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire, so this won't help him. But to someone who is trying to learn this can only be confusing. Historians and civilisations have decided to differentiate Byzantium from the Roman Empire, without denying that it was its political continuation. Whether you like it or not that's how it's always been, and anyone who refuses to accept it is just on the POV side. Miskin 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not "how it's always been." It was in the 19th century that biased Western historians began to widely use the term "Byzantine." It was always meant in a biased Western POV fashion. This bias is very well documented. To this day the Middle East called the Greeks "Romans" and Greece "Rome" or "Land of the Romans" and the entire rest of Europe "Franks." Funny to try to differentiate "Byzantium" from the rest of Roman history simply because of the supposed Hellenization of the Empire once the capitol was moved to Constantinople... because when Pagan Rome conquered the Greek City States in the centuries before Christ they were in turn conquered by Greek culture and became thoroughly Hellenized. This is a very clear, straight fact. Indeed, during the Pagan Roman occupation of the Holy Land in the time of Christ the Koine Greek language was the international language of it's day (a legacy of Alexander) and the Aramaic language of Jesus was Hellenistic Aramaic. It would be very difficult to try to separate the Roman Empire from it Hellenic heritage, even long before Christ. Thus, the Western POV is clearly evident in this article. Call it the Eastern Roman Empire if you must. Call it Byzantium. Call it the "Empire of the Greeks" as it's medieval contemporaries did (derogatory; Latin Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox bias of it's day, see: Great Schism), but the Western view must be balanced by the Eastern view. Otherwise we risk allowing Wikipedia to become a tool for propagandists.

As to the Sainthood of Constantine XI; please read this article written, perhaps ideally, by a Byzantine Catholic on the subject. He is most certainly considered a Saint (and National Hero of Greece): http://rumkatkilise.org/statusconstantineXI.htm --Nikoz78 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Constantine was a Greek catholic, not an Orthodox. The Orthodox who believe him to have been a saint are in error.--131.220.75.84 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that Constantine XI was Greek Catholic. Evidence suggests he remained Eastern Orthodox, despite political support for the 1439 Council of Florence. George Sphrantzes, a contemporary, describes Constantine’s last eucharist as “immaculate and divine” (Sphrantzes, G. (1980). The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes 1401-1477, trans. Marios Philippides, p. 141), consistent with Orthodox practice. A 1450 letter from George-Gennadios Scholarios shows no indication of conversion, and the 1450 synod under Constantine elected an anti-unionist Patriarch (Sanidopoulos, J. (2020). “Was Emperor Constantine Palaiologos a Uniate?” Mystagogy Resource Center). These point to his personal faith remaining Orthodox.

The claim of Greek Catholicism lacks primary sources. Regarding the Orthodox view of him as a saint, this reflects cultural tradition, not error, as seen in Greek churches honoring him with icons (Reddit r/OrthodoxChristianity, “Constantine XI Palaiologos Religion and Icon,” 2021). Can you provide sources for the Greek Catholic claim? Happy to discuss further! Charalambus (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Constantine XI’s Religion: Evidence for Eastern Orthodox

The current entry listing Constantine XI as “Eastern Catholic, previously Eastern Orthodox” is incorrect and unsupported by evidence. All reliable sources point to him remaining Eastern Orthodox, even until death. George Sphrantzes, a contemporary, describes his last eucharist as “immaculate and divine” (Sphrantzes, G. (1980). The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes 1401-1477, trans. Marios Philippides, p. 141), a clear Orthodox practice. The 1450 synod under Constantine elected an anti-unionist Patriarch, and George-Gennadios Scholarios’ 1450 letter shows no sign of conversion (Sanidopoulos, J. (2020). “Was Emperor Constantine Palaiologos a Uniate?” Mystagogy Resource Center). His support for the 1439 Council of Florence was political, not personal. I’ve tried correcting this, but editors have reverted, citing “consensus” without providing sources for the Eastern Catholic claim. This resistance seems based on procedural reasons rather than evidence, which is unfair when the sources clearly support Eastern Orthodox. Can we update the page to reflect the evidence, or can editors provide sources for “Eastern Catholic”? Happy to discuss! Charalambus (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The source in the article is this book by Donald Nicol. He says "Yet there is no evidence that he ever repudiated the union of Florence. He too died in communion with the church of Rome, a catholicus zelator as a German poet of the fifteenth century described him." Obviously one German poet is very weak evidence, but other historians agree. Marios Philippides says here that "Constantinople was a divided city. Two political parties were formed: the unionists, headed by the Palaeologi and other Greeks, and the antiunionists". Roger Crowley says here, apparently quoting someone else, that Constantine was there on 12 December 1452 when the union was celebrated. Not to mention that, the night before he died, he received communion from a Catholic cardinal, Isidore of Kiev. Maybe he didn't personally believe in Catholicism and only supported the union for political reasons, but then again many people converted to Islam for their careers while continuing to privately believe in Christianity, and we don't call them Christians.

I'm Orthodox myself, so I would love for the last Roman Emperor to have died Orthodox, but I've searched through many academic sources and I can't find one that says, or even speculates, that he did. If you can find a legitimate source (not this blog) saying that he may have died Orthodox, I would be happy to change the article to reflect that. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"he received communion from a Catholic cardinal, Isidore of Kiev" Isidore of Kiev was also one of the main supporters of Constantine during the siege of Constantinople, and he managed to flee the Ottomans by faking his death. Per the main article on him: "Before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, he subsidized the repair of fortifications at his own expense and was wounded in the early hours of the sack. He managed to escape the carnage by dressing up a dead body in his cardinal's robes. While the Turks were cutting off its head and parading it through the streets, the real cardinal was shipped off to Asia Minor with a number of insignificant prisoners as a slave, and later found safety in Crete. He composed a series of letters describing the events of the siege.^[1] He warned of the danger of further expansion of the Turks in the multiple letters and even seems to be the earliest eyewitness to have compared Mehmed II with Alexander the Great.^[2][3]" Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response and sources. I appreciate your effort to ground this discussion in evidence.

Regarding your sources, Donald Nicol’s The Immortal Emperor (1992) notes Constantine XI died in communion with Rome, citing a German poet’s “catholicus zelator” description, which is weak evidence. Marios Philippides’ The Fall of the Byzantine Empire (1980) and Roger Crowley’s Constantinople: The Last Great Siege 1453 (2005) highlight his unionist actions, like attending the December 12, 1452, service and receiving communion from Cardinal Isidore. However, these reflect political necessity, not personal belief, as you acknowledged.

I propose that Constantine likely remained Eastern Orthodox, based on primary sources. George Sphrantzes, his confidant, describes his last eucharist as “immaculate and divine” (The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes 1401-1477, trans. Marios Philippides, 1980, p. 141), a distinctly Orthodox term. Sphrantzes, an anti-unionist Orthodox Christian, would not use such language for a Catholic rite. Additionally, George-Gennadios Scholarios’ 1450 letter shows no hostility toward Constantine, suggesting he wasn’t seen as Uniate. The 1450 synod, overseen by Constantine, elected anti-unionist Patriarch Athanasios, further aligning him with Orthodoxy.

I find the remark “I would love for the last Roman Emperor to have died Orthodox” taunting, as it dismisses my evidence without engagement. I’ve cited Sphrantzes’ Chronicle, a primary source, not the Sanidopoulos blog, to meet the request for legitimate sources.

I suggest revising the article to state: “Constantine XI supported the 1439 Council of Florence politically but likely remained Eastern Orthodox personally, as evidenced by Sphrantzes’ account and contemporary Orthodox relations.” This balances the evidence. Can you provide sources explicitly confirming his personal conversion to Eastern Catholicism? I’m open to further discussion. Charalambus (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you use ChatGPT to write that response for you? I'm happy to have a respectful discussion, but if you just use AI to respond to me I'm not going to waste my time writing out another response.

Sphrantzes and Gennadios are both WP:PRIMARY sources. You can't just rely on your interpretation of them, you need to cite WP:SECONDARY sources such as modern historians. And I don't see why Sphrantzes couldn't have described an Eastern Catholic Eucharist as "immaculate and divine". The Orthodox still believe that the Catholic Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, and vice versa. As for the 1450 letter and synod, that was before Constantine celebrated the union on 12 December 1452. Neither of them are evidence that he remained Eastern Orthodox his whole life.

Since you want to make a change, the burden of proof is on you. You need to find a reliable secondary source supporting your claims.

Also, when I said "I would love for the last Roman Emperor to have died Orthodox", my intention wasn't to taunt you or dismiss your claim at all. I meant "I hope you're right, but I can't find any evidence". I'm not sure how you interpreted that as taunting. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

No I didn't use ChatGPT, I used Grok. Nonetheless, you mentioned something as if I quoted a blog which I didn't, in that same finishing line, hence why it's easy to take offence at that sort of response. Primary sources are good, secondary sources might be good, but not if they are biased. What I mentioned was the bias of the PRIMARY sources and the fact that the Orthodox after schism do NOT consider the eucharist of the Catholics neither as immaculate nor divine, so calling it as such, as a anti-unionist primary source would be absurd. In fact I personally consider the Catholic communion a dead eucharist, and in no way commune nor condone it. I believe this to be the stance of my church as well. I'm open to listening to otherwise from current Church fathers.

On the topic of me needing to find a secondary source to prove my point: A single historian's (biased) interpretation (in this case a catholic background) of a primary source with more than a century difference is as good as any interpretation, and it is as good as my interpretation, of the events. Although, at this time the evidence I found is that the litourgy in Hagia Sophia the night before the fall was led by a Catholic bishop, and so, because I don't (as a member of the church) consider the communion of the catholics immaculate or divine, I refrain from making further arguement on this until I find more evidence that he did have a final Orthodox communion. As you and the A.i. like to claim, a communion with the catholics does not mean that he had a personal conversion, well, you go further to claim that it does mean that, but at the same time, say that we, orthodox, consider the catholic communion as valid. So, in this way we are stuck in a conundrum. You think that catholic communion is valid to the orthodox but you go further to claim that he had a personal conversion (with no evidence other than communing a catholic eucharist - to me - and for you, that he politically pushed for a union, that does not signal a personal conversion); the Ai thinks that he has not personally converted so he has remained Eastern Orthodox; and I affirm, that the communion of the catholics is not accepted as valid by the Church, and we are not to commune with them, hence if the Last Roman emperor has received a final communion in the Catholic terms, he could be considered in communion with heretics and outside of the body of the church, although still not a personal conversion (by your standards), but a bad string of unfortunate events that lead ultimately to the fall of The City... and the sacrifice of the Emperor.

That said, if his last communion was indeed catholic, and I have no other evidence of the contrary, I do not mind ceasing this debate at the current time. But your arguement that we orthodox accept the catholic eucharist, makes me think that it is according to your opinion on the matter again, that the single evidence, do not show a personal conversion, and that he remained Orthodox his entire life. I cannot, although, in good conscience, press on this matter because I consider it false (that we Orthodox consider the Catholic communion valid). Charalambus (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Constantine ever was Eastern Catholic

The current entry listing Constantine XI as “Eastern Catholic, previously Eastern Orthodox” is incorrect and unsupported by evidence. All reliable sources point to him remaining Eastern Orthodox, even until his death in 1453. This needs to be cited or changed. While he and his predecessor, John VIII, believed a union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was necessary to secure military aid from Catholic Europe, neither ever converted. Hazythundermc (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

How about the source cited directly to the statement, that you happily removed alongside it? Remsense ‥ 论 23:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

there, happy now? Hazythundermc (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Whether you were trying to spite me there or thought that was actually what I wanted somehow, you need to stop putting your uninformed edits back immediately, and you need to stop ignoring signs that articles may be how they are for good reasons you don't yet know about. You're wrong that there's "no evidence", and there's an inline citation if you actually care to learn more. Remsense ‥ 论 23:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense I have noticed that this issue comes back from the dead several times lately , , , etc. Do we have any other sources that support the particular issue, i.e., Constantine was an Eastern Catholic? I read Nicols book, but I found it rather convoluted. Essentially, the author states in the particular page that just because we do not have evidence of Constantine refuting the "union of Florence" (about the union of the churches, which prevented his coronation but not as far I know baptizing emperors) is thus not an Orthodox Christian (still reading the book, e.g., on the last days he asked for forgiveness in Hagia Sofia etc). This is not a good argument that he is an eastern catholic. Constantine had a gun on his head (the Turks) and he would say/do anything to get the help from Western states. This is not necessarily reflective of his beliefs. After all the guy gave his life to protect the city, the very center of Christian Orthodoxy, which is why he is high esteem by the Orthodox Church. I hope you see the difference and the source of the conflict. Perhaps we could have an explanatory note to better describe this issue. Though we need more sources to make this work. Hopefully, this could stop people revert this. Just a thought. A.Cython (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I added the note. It is not perfect, but makes sense. Let's hope that this would resolve the issue. A.Cython (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Since Constantine XI was part of the Greek Orthodox Church and he neither repudiate the Greek Orthodox Church nor did the Greek Orthodox Church ex-communicated him, the case of him becoming an Eastern Catholic is not very strong. Nxavar (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If Constantine XI died in communion with Rome, then he died an Eastern Catholic. All the evidence presented only appears to confirm that indeed he was an EC uniate. It is a political distinction. It doesn't matter why he was in communion with Rome, nor is Wikipedia the place for wild speculation about a historical figure's inner spiritual beliefs and motivations. Inqvisitor (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have sources to support your opinion. If not then all did was provide a speculation based on your WP:POV.

1. Theologically speaking, communion without baptism does not count. This is why even today to have communion you need to go through baptism first.
2. The sources are not saying for certain that he had communion by a Catholic priest. This is because of the unreliability of the primary sources.
3. Given that there is considerable nuances on this topic an explanatory note serves to explain the literature more faithfully. Removing this note without good reason, i.e., providing sources, is construed as non-constructive behavior.
4. The agreement was effective nullified because the Latins did not hold their part of the agreement, i.e., ensure that Constantinople not fall on the hands of the Ottomans. But also there was no time for the Byzantines to do anything about it as they were frantically focusing on the defenses of the city. Given that Byzantine Empire does not exist and Orthodox Church is still independent, this agreement was voided. A.Cython (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You already conceded that Constantine XI was in communion with Rome, hence an Eastern Catholic uniate, both here on this talk page and in that partisan POV-pushing note—wherein you argue against the evidence, in a dispute of your own creation, needlessly complicating and confusing the topic for readers—the opposite of what an explanatory note is supposed to do.

You write that: “he could not receive the traditional coronation, as this would force him publicly to defend Orthodoxy, nullifying the agreement with Catholic states…In the final days, Constantine presumably received communion from a Catholic priest…” According to your own information, Constantine XI was such a committed Eastern Catholic that he would not publicly defend Orthodoxy even at the expense of his own coronation, and he took his final communion from a Catholic priest, not Orthodox. So he was an Eastern Catholic. Case closed.

You have speculated with theories as to why, e.g. you claim “Constantine had a gun on his head (the Turks) and he would say/do anything to get the help from Western states”—but regardless, it is not even really up for dispute that Constantine was, in fact, Eastern Catholic. The evidence is so overwhelming that you're forced to argue against the sourced facts that you yourself concede, trying to explain it away with personal opinions about baptism or whatnot. It seems you're not even trying to be a NPOV contributor but instead seeking to push a particular POV driven by emotion, and will find any way to arrive at a desired conclusion. But this is an encyclopedia which is supposed to present unbiased information from a neutral POV, based on facts and sources (independent of what Wikipedia editors think), not a place for editors to insert their own sectarian religious views—trying to rewrite history to make it fit biased modern narratives. Your argument would perhaps befit a theology debate forum; but definitely not an encyclopedia article. Inqvisitor (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

First, I would suggest to tone down. Second, do you have sources to share to help us improve, yes or no. Second, the explanatory note serves to explain the complex situation as it is not as clear cut as you express. You imply that having a communion immediately signal a change of faith. This is not the same thing based on the sources provided. The explanatory note does mention explicitly state that had communion from a Catholic priest, so there is no advancing WP:POV pushing. So I will ask you again do you have sources to help us improve, because otherwise all I keep hearing is a personal opinion. A.Cython (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Also note that on of the sources noted that the primary sources of that time are questionable meaning that whether he indeed had communion is not something that we are certain. Clearly this is not a clear cut case as you presented. A.Cython (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

One more thing. There was a continual back and forth before the explanatory note. One side said Orthodox and the other Eastern Catholic. I commented above that this was not a clear cut case because of the political dimension. Then I spend several hours to understand where the literature stands on the issue and what the authors mean and so I wrote the particular explanation. Is it perfect, well who knows, but it provides necessary context to better understand what happened.

Nicol simply said that he had communion, but at the infobox we say that he changed religion. These two things are not the same thing. I can go tomorrow and sneak into a Catholic Church and have communion, now have I changed my faith? The source that provided says that to change religion requires the theological ceremony of baptism. So yes maybe he had communion but it does not automatically mean he changed faith due to no evidence of baptism. If you have sources to challenge this, please share here so that we make a more informative explanation. A.Cython (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Being in communion with Rome would make Constantine XI an Eastern Catholic. Eastern Orthodox who reenter communion with the Western Church become Eastern Catholic. That's what an EC uniate is. An Eastern Catholic believes essentially all the same things as Eastern Orthodox (which, FTR, includes sharing the same Nicene Christian doctrine “one baptism for the remission of sins”); the EO/EC distinction is determined by communion with Rome and the Western Church—to which Constantine XI was clearly committed, according to all academic sources.

The only people who even question his EC status appear to be modern-day EO extremists motivated by personal feelings and sectarian bias. Wikipedia articles about historical figures cannot be subject to the whims of religious zealots who are not at all interested in maintaining WP:NPOV standards of an encyclopedia. I note you have not even attempted to defend your edits as being WP:IMPARTIAL NPOV, instead trying to drag me down into your own sectarian theology debate, when Wikipedia is not the place for that. No editors should be injecting their own partisan POV arguments into an article, as your misleading “explanatory note” does (attempting to explain away what the actual sourced facts say…) Inqvisitor (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

There are several assumptions on your opinion. For example, communion means automatically change of faith. Only baptism constitute this change, not communion theologically speaking. Do you have any sources to back them your claims? This is the third time I am asking. If we do not read these sources, all you do is expressing your opinion. A.Cython (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Communion in this case refers to Eastern Christians accepting the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the Western Church—the union of churches, as Constantine XI tried to implement (unto his death, according to even your own sources). Accepting the authority of the Pope is what distinguishes an Eastern Catholic from Eastern Orthodox. It's nothing to do with baptism. As aforesaid, both Catholic and Orthodox accept the same one baptism of Nicene Christianity. EO and EC perform the same rites and liturgies. 23 Eastern Rites of Catholicism to this day perform virtually the exact same rituals as EO. You don't get rebaptized if you change from EO to EC, reentering communion with another patriarchate—which is primarily about ecclesial structure, political unity, and authority. Inqvisitor (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, do you have sources to confirm this? Yes or no? If not you are just wasting everyone's time. I strongly encourage you to provide these sources (book title, page numbers, etc) now or you will be reverted again. A.Cython (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The question is not about the union of the churches but whether Palaiologos actually did had communion with a catholic priest. Again even if he did this is constitute a change of faith. There are no clear cut answers on this as the validity of the primary sources is questioned. For example,

• The Fall of Constantinople 1453 by Steven Runciman 1965 p.131 does not explicitly state that he did

Priests who held union with Rome to be a mortal sin now came to the altar to serve with their Unionist brothers. The Cardinal was there, and beside him bishops who would never acknowledge his authority; and all the people came to make confession and take communion, not caring whether Orthodox or Catholic administered it. There were Italians and Catalans along with the Greeks. The golden mosaics, studded with the images of Christ and His Saints and the Emperors and Empresses of Byzantium, glimmered in the light of a thousand lamps and candles; and beneath them for the last time the priests in their splendid vestments moved in the solemn rhythm of the Liturgy. At this moment there was union in the Church of Constantinople.
When the Emperor's Council was dismissed the ministers and commanders rode through the city to join in the worship. After confessing and taking communion each then went to his station, resolved to conquer or to die. Why would he fail explicitly mention that the emperor had communion with a Catholic priest?

• Philippides, M., 2018. Constantine XI Dragaš Palaeologus (1404–1453): the last emperor of Byzantium. Routledge. p.307

If we are to believe some testimonies, the emperor, his lieutenants, and members of the court had visited the church of Santa Sophia earlier that evening and had attended the last Christian celebration, a joined Catholic mass and Orthodox liturgy. After services Constantine returned to his palace, addressed his Venetian and Genoese allies and comrades in arms, and urged them to be brave, since they all knew that the assault was about to begin. [...] Yet the historian may inquire as to their accuracy. Was there in fact a last celebration attended by the emperor, the Catholics, and the Orthodox in Santa Sophia? Did the emperor actually address his Constantinopolitan and Italian barons in his palace before the general assault? Was there really an opportunity for such speeches? Aside from Leonardo, who has a flair for the dramatic, other eyewitnesses fail to mention such touching scenes. There is every reason to conclude that Leonardo has provided his own free embellishment of the situation. The speech that he reports and attributes to the emperor may be the bishop’s own invention and his personal effort to color and flavor, with additional pathos and dignity, his narrative that is about to reach its climactic point. Leonardo is paraphrased by Pseudo-Sphrantzes,22 who produces an even longer speech through mere rhetorical amplificatio.23 The chances are that, in the hours preceding the general assault, there was no time for a celebration in Santa Sophia, at least as far as the active defenders were concerned. Such services for commanders and troops must have been held, if they took place at all, in the vicinity of the walls, where the main attack was expected, perhaps in the church of Saint Savior in Khora (present day Kariye Camii), which had been functioning as the imperial chapel for a number of years prior to the siege. It is inconceivable that the emperor and all his important commanders, native, Venetian, and Genoese, left their posts, moved in a procession all the way from the western critical sector in the Sulu Kule area already under direct attack to Santa Sophia by the Golden Horn, then made their way to the “palace,” where Constantine delivered a leisurely speech and only then, after this long absence from the walls, did they take their assigned places on the fortifications, just moments before the commencement of hostilities. The plain fact is that Constantine had abandoned his imperial quarters at the palace, which had been turned over to the Venetian bailo, and his troops during most of the siege. If understand correct Nicol's statement is based on an anonymous medieval German poet, which is hardly solid historical evidence. Evidently, scholarship (secondary sources presented above) show that this is not as clear cut and it is appreciated to keep it WP:CIVIL. Now, this does not mean that this is end of the story, I lost counting on how many times I asked for sources, but you need to provide sources to assess your position and we make the appropriate changes. A.Cython (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

No original research WP:NOR… That goes even for real good faith research. But especially given that you are apparently digging through sources trying to draw out false conclusions from material that doesn't even say what you claim, to try to piece together your own argument, when your own argument doesn't belong in an WP:IMPARTIAL Wiki article describing facts in the first place…

FYI the fact that Constantine XI Palaiologos was an Eastern Catholic uniate in communion with the Western Church (as per historical consensus) is indeed about the union of churches. That's what being in communion means. Constantine XI was committed to keeping Constantinople in communion with Rome.

It is not about the sacrament of the Eucharist which is sometimes called 'Holy Communion'. I don't know if it's an honest language issue or if you're playing disingenuous word games, but that is not what communion means in this context. Speculating about his personal faith is futile. More over, again: EO and EC believe virtually the same faith, and practice almost the exact same liturgical rites in the same languages. The only clear distinguishing feature is that Eastern Orthodox are in schism from Rome and the Western Church, whereas Eastern Catholics are in union with Rome and the Western Church (historically sometimes called uniates). Constantine XI died committed to said union, hence he is called Eastern Catholic. Inqvisitor (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You still refuse to provide sources. I presented quotes that even dispute whether the communion even happen. Again, noone is disputing whether he tried to save Constantinople by accepting this union for political reasons, but primary sources are in question whether even he took communion thus we need to be cautious in how we present his faith and so what was his personal faith/religion is a different question. This was the whole point of the explanatory note to give context based on WP:RS. Given that I have asked multiple times to provide sources, it means that you do not have any and you only advance WP:POV by continuously speculating. Again do you have any sources? A.Cython (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Does it even make sense to speak of somebody being an "Eastern Catholic" before any organized Eastern Catholic churches and communities existed as they do today? It seems quite counter-intuitive to me – quite independently of the question of whether this person individually accepted or practiced union with Rome. The all-important question here is: do reliable sources ever do this? i.e.: Is any of our sources actually calling him an "Eastern Catholic"? I don't see any of them doing that in what is quoted in the discussion above. Some are calling him a "unionist", apparently, but that's clearly not the same thing. The conclusion that being a "unionist" automatically qualifies him as an "Eastern Catholic" avant la lettre seems to be a classic case of "original research".

Unfortunately, the extra note in the infobox currently being edit-warred over (as in this version), arguing as it does about how he was actually not an Eastern Catholic, is no less "original research" than the contrary position, or even more so. That whole argument clearly seems to have been created as such exclusively for Wikipedia. People, we don't do that kind of argument in Wikipedia. Now, A.Cython will of course already know the solution I'm about to propose next: If your infobox offends thee, cut it out and cast it off thee. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If this policy solves future edit warring, so be it, but I doubt it since at some point someone with add it and the cycle continues. I only added the explanatory note to provide context as faithfully as possible to the literature. I do not see this as WP:POV since it articulates what secondary authors actually say and tried to be inclusive of both sides. As I said when I added the note, it is not perfect and by constructive editing it could improved further. However, there is some wisdom on the If your infobox offends thee, cut it out and cast it off thee since there won't be any improvement so long people resort to disruptive behavior to advance particular WP:POV without WP:RS and so it better not to have anything for them to disrupt. Thus, go ahead and remove it from the infobox. I am done with this article. A.Cython (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise One last note, I object on the characterization that I tried to say he was actually not an Eastern Catholic. I preserved the original source by one side and then provided a WP:RS that questions whether the communion even happened. This was directly related to the communion aspect of it as a historical event irrespective of religious faith. Did it happen or not? How on earth people write article here in WP? The rest of the statements were provided to capture the complexity (motivations etc) of the particular issue to be helpful to the reader. I understand you want to look fair to both sides, but sometimes not all sides are equally wrong, some of us provide sources/evidence. Enjoy the rest of the day. A.Cython (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I still struggle to understand. If by Future Perfect at Sunrise's logic, Constantine was not Eastern Catholic, then the only thing that remains is the he was Christian Orthodox, just as I had with an explanatory note that provided context and covering the various nuances. However, since the explanatory note is also an issue (providing evidence offends people) then we just remove the explanatory note. No the policy is to remove everything, implying that he was an atheist or a Muslim based on infobox information alone. Great, how is this not a WP:POV? No need to reply, I was just thinking aloud and I apologize in advance if this places people in uncomfortable positions. A.Cython (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

His Burial Place

Where is it? I have heard very conflicting facts. ~2026-54542-2 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)