Talk:Patriarchal cross

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Eastern O. Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Mid-importance).

"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)

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)

Listen dear people , i have heard that the diagonal beam on the Slavonic cross comes from the cross of St. Andrew , brother of St. Peter . St. Andrew was killed crucified on an X shaped cross . St. Andrew is a special patron of Eastern Churches and therefor the diagonal beam has bean added as a symbol of care that St. Andrew gives from heaven to Eastern ( Orthodox ) Churches ( sorry for the grammar here ) . If someone could confirm this information then it should be added to the article . (who wrote this???)

The diagonal beam does come from St. Andrew's Cross, as it's reported that St. Andrew brought Christianity to Russia. Additionally, although the other explanation of the slanted bar is true, regarding the theives; it should only be mentioned in the Slavonic cross, not in the description of the actual Patriarchal cross. A true Patriarchal cross doesn't have the additional slanted bar in it, as that would make it a Slavonic cross instead of a Patriarchal. Dulcimerist 22:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is not historically verifiable. First, the slanted version does not look very clearly like St. Andrew's Cross at all, whereas it would have been easy to make a combination of the two with two slanted beams, if this were the intent. There is an early version of the three-beam cross where the bottom bar is slanted, in Jerusalem and Constantinople. However, in this version the bottom bar is always slanted upwards, and the meaning therefore is very different: as an upward movement (upward because we read from left to right) it connects the Crucifixion with the Resurrection and the salvation through the cross. That was modified in the Russian tradition when they wanted to find a particularly Russian - rather than Orthodox - symbol. So, please do not refer to the Cross with the downward bar as 'the Orthodox Cross'. Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Albanians and Arabs do not use it, and they are no less Orthodox than Russians! - AA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.200.1 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Latin word for cross derive from the word for torture, or is it the other way around? I thought "excruciate" meant "out of the cross", not that "crux" was from the word for torture.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)User:Gidonka181[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]