Talk:Oriental Orthodoxy

"Catholic Church"

A recent change was just made in the article from the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church". Is it really appropriate to be identifying the Roman Church as simply "the Catholic Church" in the midst of speaking about a church that identifies itself as the Catholic Church and denies Rome's claim to be the Catholic Church? Deusveritasest (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Now someone removed the entire paragraph where that phrase was even found. I wish people would post in the discussion area what the hell they're doing in the article. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

Is it really correct to be saying that this body is in communion with the rest of the Oriental Orthodox when it has been officially excommunicated by the Patriarch of Antioch? Deusveritasest (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for comment on this. My understanding is that there have been schisms between the head of the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Malankara Orthodox Church, the most recent in the 60's being over the autocephaly of the Malankara Church, and that this schism persists today with the Syriac Patriarch even creating a parallel jurisdiction in Kerala alongside the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry of the late reply. However your are correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.99.15 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

There needs to be some archiving done on this discussion page. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) Deusveritasest (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy navigation template

I am in the process of trying to create navigation templates for each of the core articles of the Christianity WikiProject. One such template has recently been created for this topic at Template:Oriental Orthodoxy2. If anyone has any suggestions for how to change the template, they are more than welcome. I personally think they would most easily be seen if added below the link to the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates, and would request that the comments be made on that page below the template. Please feel free to make any comments you see fit on any of the other templates on that page as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

An ecumenism issue

"Recent declarations indicate that the Holy See now regards itself as being in a state of partial communion with the other patriarchates; while full communion has not been restored, the mutual excommunications between Constantinople and Rome were lifted by Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I when they met in Jerusalem in 1964." I fail to see how a reference to the Balamand Agreement, exclusively between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox parties, belongs in an article about Oriental Orthodoxy. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Theoria and hesychasm

The article should maybe mention whether Eastern Orthodox notions such as theoria and hesychasm are also included in Oriental Orthodox doctrine. ADM (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Unfortunately I've never gotten a straight answer as to how the Orientals relate to the Hesychastic definitions of the Byzantine Church of the 14th century. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Nature of Christ

Why exactly is it necessary for this document to be quoted in the article? It seems a little long winded. It increased the size of the article by about 50%. I would just as well drop it. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Regular editors of this article may be interested in the discussion about whether or not to merge WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy and WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. Feel free to add your comments on the discussion page. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Chart Showing relationship of Indian Christians

The chart which is depicted here is erroneous and was pasted here without any discussion. Requested in Wiki Commons to have this chart to be deleted. See the discussions in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Nasrani_Evolution.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.95.201 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Better Picture

The picture of Kadamattom Church, India, do look not look so attractive. The church is not painted. If a better picture of another church is required, please let me know. Fyodor7 (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please find the new pic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kottayam_Orthodox.jpg, details in http://www.cheriapally.com/home/home.html. Fyodor7 (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed the Kadamattam Orthodox Church pic , with Kottayam Orthodox Church.. Just because this pic looks much better. Thanks Fyodor7 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing Oriental Orthodoxy from Non-Chalcedonianism

I notice that some articles link "non-Chalcedonian" to Non-Chalcedonianism whereas others link to this article. But I'm wondering if those two are different enough to be separate articles? If they are significantly different, what criteria could we develop to determine when to link to each? Case in point: I created a redirect page for "non-Chalcedonian Christianity" and linked it here, but only because that's where "non-Chalcedonian Churches" links--but I wondered if both those should be redirected to "non-Chalcedonianism" instead. Or if the two existing articles should be merged. Help, please? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, but apparently Non-Chalcedonianism seems to deal with the split itself and its immediate consequences while Oriental Orthodoxy deals with the (most important?) parts of the church rejecting Chalcedon including those parts of their history and organization not directly related to the split. Non-Chalcedonianism claims that there are other non-Chalcedonian churches besides the Oriental Orthodox ones; if that's the case, we should definitely keep both articles. Non-Chalcedonianism could possibly be renamed Chalcedonian Schism (similar to Nestorian Schism) or something like that without any change to that article, but I can't tell whether that's the correct name for the event. If a merger is appropriate, I'd suggest merging into this article; it's by far larger, better sourced, and the name seems both more appropriate and used more often (it beats Non-Chalcedonian 3-2 on Google Scholar and 2-1 on Google Books). Huon (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps we could leave both articles but put some sort of dab or see-also tag at the top that clarifies their differences? That would certainly be simpler than merging. Meanwhile, the Non-C. article could use more information regarding the non-oriental-orthodox churches. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it like how we have both Catholicism and Catholic Church, or Nazism and Nazi Party? john k (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. How do we determine when to link to one or the other? For instance, which of the pages that link to Non-Chalcedonianism would be better served by linking to the Oriental Orthodoxy article? Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't have time to go through the list right now, but I'd say that references dealing with the ecclesiastical institutions should link here, while ones dealing with the theology should link there. john k (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, but unfortunately Non-Chalcedonianism doesn't actually cover the theology at all, though it probably should. While I'm neither knowledgeable enough nor motivated enough (read: too lazy) to do so myself, I'd suggest moving the current Non-Chalcedonianism article to something like Chalcedonian Schism and writing a new article under that name that actually covers the theology of the non-Chalcedonian churches. Huon (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-Chalcedonianism is indeed terrible. Perhaps it should just be merged with something else. 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I placed the {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag on the article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-Chalcedonian is a lable that covers more than just "Oriental Orthodoxy" or "Monophysitism". It is also used to refer to groups like the Church of the East (it split before Chalcedon), and in theory, applies to any of the many groups that are not Chalcedonian-- like the LDS. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)}

It is certainly never used for groups like LDS. As far as I'm aware, it normally refers to groups that accept the first three ecumenical councils but reject the fourth one - so that the Church of the East, which is Nestorian, and thus rejects the third ecumenical council, is not included, nor are, say, the Arians, who rejected all the ecumenical councils. Can you provide examples of the use of "non-Chalcedonian" in reliable sources to refer to groups other than Monophysitish ones? john k (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

About the Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration

The following paragraph is misleading:

In 2001, certain theologians of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox traditions concluded that they had always believed in the same Christology, but differed over how this was to be formulated. This conclusion became the basis for healing the schism between them, and the two groups jointly issued a "Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration."

If one reads the link provided at the end of the paragraph, one realizes that the phrase "the two groups jointly issued" is wrong. The "Common Declaration" is a declaration of the member churches of the Oriental Orthodoxy alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaskitis (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Even worse, the Common Declaration doesn't compare Christologies at all. The entire paragraph wasn't supported by the given source; I have removed it. Even if a better source substantiating that paragraph could be found, it should arguably not be part of the introduction anyway. Huon (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)