Template talk:Orthodoxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recognized/non-recognized[edit]

Could someone elaborate on those asterisks? For instance, please point out, what other established Churches do not recognize the autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

I realize that such info should be self-evident from the articles, but as the articles are currently so incomplete, we need to figure this out within the discussion of the template. TIA, --Irpen 08:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the EP does not recognize the autonomy of the UOC (MP). It's hard to find this kind of information, though, especially since the categories of autonomy and autocephaly are not really canonically defined in a consistent, universal way. —Preost talk contribs 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If you do not mind, but I removed that, EP does not recognise the transfer of the Kievan Metropolia to MP in mid 17th century, but on Ukraine itself it only recognises MP. Hence my removal. Also I removed KP, as NOBODY recognises them, otherwise you must include thousands of other self-proclaimed Eastern Orthodox Churches...--Kuban Cossack 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the lack of canonicity with the lack of recognition of the Autonomous (Autocephalous) status. For instance, no one doubts the canonical stabding of the UOC(MP) or OCA but some churches, mainly Constantinople, tend to not recognize autonomy or autocephaly of any church unless such status is received from Constantinople itself. As per this the UOC (or the OCA) remains a fully canonical church body but those that do not recognize their autonomous (Autocephalous) status, simply consider them part of ROC.

At the same time, the non-canonical churches, like UOC-KP, UAOC, Bessarabia, ROCOR (going to restore its status this May but not yet) cannot be universally called "Orthodox" no matter how they call themselves since lack of canonical standing is incompatible with the status of the body to call itself "the Orthodox church". This does not make them illegitimate since they are all properly registered with the civil authorities, but only bodies that can be unquestionably called "an Orthodox Church" can be listed in the {{Orthodoxy}}. Others still deserve their articles and controversies can be mentioned to be sure. Whatever grievances there are against ROC, they also can be covered, but we cannot list those in the table because calling these churches "Orthodox" is a POV. To take this analogy one step further, if several of us organize the Ortodox Church of Wikipedians" and register it a non-profit in Florida, the state of WMF, this would also be an organization with "orthodox" in the name. It would not qualify to be listed here even as "not universally recognized". --Irpen 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted the template to be more informative, to help navigate. I think that it should:
  • list all churches in the world that (these are very few, because most are subordinated to mother churches, and do not have and do not claim autonomy)
    • claim to be orthodox
    • have or claim autonomuous status
    • have some significant presence in some community, or, if not, have some historical significance (e.g. China)
  • be clear about their status
  • for the autonomuous ones indicate under whose subordination are they
Basically, it should make easier to navigate. Example: the "church" you suggest we found in Florida :-), in order to be listed here, should claim autonomy (which I am not going to and will leave it if you do), and should be sufficiently established in some community (will never happen). But if we succed in doing this, then it should be listed somewhere.
1) So, as I understand you, you want to list separately everything with * ?:Dc76 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2) What do you call "non-canonical"? My understanding of the word is: any church not in communion with any of the partriarchates. In that case, Bessarabia is canonical, for it is directly subordinated to the Romanian patriarchate. We would not list it here if it would not also claim autonomy. But it does, and only since 1992 (it was not autonomous before WWII). However its terriorial jurisdiction is not recognized by another partiarchate (Russia), which as consequence aslo did not recognize its autonomy, or rather contested it (for what is recognized by one patriarchate and uncontested by another is assumed recognized by the latter), hence the *. I know a little bit about ROCOR, and almost nothing a bout UOC-KP, UAOC. So, could you care to explain what is non-canonical according to you. You can exemplify by these or any case that fits. You surely do not mean by canonical recognised by every patriarchate, for then there would be noone with *.:Dc76 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
3) How about the church of Macedonia? You list Ohrid, which is a subordinate of Macedonia, but not Macedonia! I disagree that calling it orthodox would be POV. I disagree that calling anyone Orthodox is POV. What you should say is calling it canonical is POV. I don't know enough about Macedonia to say whether it is canonical or not (according to my definition above, at least for the fact that I do not have another definition).:Dc76 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
4) Don't you think it should be possible to find the Kiev patriarchate in some subcategory of orthodox churches? Maybe it makes sense to create a separate template for all self-proclaimed orthodox churches, which are not part of any patriarchate?:Dc76 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)