FANDOM


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Imperial Chantry article.
  • General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~)
  • Do not edit another editor's comment.

Can anybody say "Pope and Anti-Pope"? --The Accountless Avenger

Chantry = Roman Catholic, Imperial Chantry = Eastern Orthodox... just a theory... Jackimole 00:51, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia Reference Edit

Unless the comparison between the Greek Orthodox Church of the Byzantine Empire to the Imperial Chantry in the Tevinter Imperium can be substantiated, I suggest its removal. EzzyD (talk) 07:14, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

The same piece of "trivia" was attempted to be added to the page without any substance to prove it. It has been removed to prevent undue weight, or untrue/unproven be displayed upon the page. EzzyD (talk) 20:46, November 23, 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, what's wrong with that one? Imho it's pretty obvious that the Andrastian and the Imperial Chantries and their split are inspired by the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches and their split, respectively. David Gaider confirmed that Tevinter is loosely based on Byzantium, after all. See trivia on this page. I'd restore the edit. Asherinka (talk) 23:50, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, if the edit is made again, I won't revert it. EzzyD (talk) 02:03, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Re trivia. I believe the current reference to the Church of England is completely wrong for the reasons stated above (see our previous discussion with EzzyD). According to DG Tevinter is loosely based on Bysantium and the Exalted Marches - on the Crusades (including the 4th Crusade against Bysantium ~ the Exalted March against the Imperial Chantry). Although it was not stated directly by the writers, it is obvious that the Imperial Chantry in this case would be the Orthodox Church (the Church of Bysantium), the split of the Chantries - the Great Schism, "Magic must serve man, not rule over him" - filioque etc. The western church being more independent of the state and the eastern church being more supportive of it also matches the Andrastian vs Imperial Chantries well. I would remove the current trivia and restore the old edit by the unnamed user. Opinions? Asherinka (talk) 12:00, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Information overlapEdit

Some of the information on this page overlaps; it's kind of repetitive. Specifically where it mentions the Imperial Chantry's interpretation of the Chant, and its repercussions (under "background" and "teachings"). I also don't think the heading "teachings" really fits, since some of the info involves a religious holiday, and how the Eternal Flame is renewed, etc. I don't trust myself to actually improve what's there, so if anyone more suited cared to give it a shot that'd be great. Norqi (talk) 17:31, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Cult of Andraste PageEdit

The page calls the Imperial Chantry a denomination of the Chantry, but it would be more accurate to call it a denomination of the Cult of Andraste, but there's no link to it. I suggest an additional page put together that describes that lists in short summary the history of the religion and brief descriptions of known denomination, like the Chantry of Andraste, the Imperial Chantry, and even those dragon worshippers from Haven. Ravenfirelight (talk) 00:33, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Imperial Chantry darkspawn origin dispute Edit

This is hopefully an acceptable compromise; Codex entry: In Hushed Whispers does indeed not mention that Tevinter holds Darkspawn to be preexistent, that is in fact a belief of some Dwarves, but it actually does mention a difference in blame for the Second Sin which I have kept. Please discuss the changes here & reach consensus before edit warring any further, thank you.
UrsuulTalkAdminDate3:17 PM Thursday, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you; I still disagree with the compromise portion, however. The codex refers to a portion of the Chant of Light as used by the southern Chantry, notes a contradictory perspective, and speculates the author to be Tevinter (perhaps Hessarian). This doesn't necessarily follow that the modern Imperial Chantry (simply because they are also Tevinter) subscribes to a markedly different interpretation of the text as a whole from the southern Chantry. This codex entry seems to be based on how real world religious scriptures often have portions written by different authors with seemingly contradictory interpretations and viewpoints. (The Pentateuch - the first five books of the Bible - have been identified by scholars as being a fusion of no less than four different literary traditions, each with different views and interpretations on certain subjects). A scholar suggesting, say, that a portion of the New Testament was an interpolation by a later Greek writer doesn't necessarily follow that "the Greek Orthodox Church has a doctrinal disagreement with Western Christianity on this point".76.179.165.166 (talk) 18:08, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
That is a fair argument, although I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to assume that the Imperial Chantry adopted this because at the time Archons served as the head of the Imperial Chantry, ergo Hessarian would literally have been their "Divine" (before it became called Divine) at the time and so if he is the one making this edit it stands to reason that he would disseminate that to his underlings. Even so, I do acknowledge that it is a presumption, even if it is a logical one, so I’d be happy to let others weigh in & come to their own group conclusion. Feel free to reach out to other active editors to ask for comment.
UrsuulTalkAdminDate6:48 PM Thursday, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
I'm not personally involved, a mere lurker. However I do think Virrac should have some form of warning for removing messages from his talk page, not only is it insulting to the individual who took their time to actually explain the reasoning, it not only looks childish but unnecessarily complicates the situation at hand. 2A00:23C5:7306:7600:D09B:5DB1:52E1:278A (talk) 22:49, June 29, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.