[fraytormenta]

Friend, I'll answer to your last point because it is the most misguided. The Church of the East had its own course independent of the Catholic Church. By the early 13th century they lived under Islam and outnumbered Catholics. Nothing that the Catholic Church did carried any kind of weight East of Antioch. Please read up on Jacobite churches and Timothy I, patriarch of Baghdad. It is good for Westerners to study the history of the Eastern hemisphere - its center was Baghdad, not Rome.

[pastProlog]

This is a straw man argument like the article.

My last point is that the Catholic church was not able to change any texts (or creeds or customs) in the east. It just ignored them.

Somehow you read those words and somehow divined that somewhere between the lines I said that the Catholic church had a major influence on churches in the east. Then you say how misguided this view is.

Where did I say this? I said the Catholic church did not change eastern texts and ignored the east. You rearrange this to me saying the Catholic church had a major influence over the east, which is contrary to what I said. Then you say how misguided this view which you attribute to me, but which I said nowhere, is.

[fraytormenta]

Hey thanks for clarifying. You didn't say this directly, but I think I was misled by this convoluted statement: "The Catholic church didn't have to rewrite all documents everywhere, it just ignored the ones it didn't like and made canon what it did like." If this is true, why is the Assyrian canon smaller?