Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church

Number of adherents

I see that the number of adherents is 225 - 300. That does seem wrong, perhaps it is meant to read 225 - 300 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.121.15 (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The numbers for adherents in Russia are overblown. Consult the CIA World Factbook, which estmates the number in 15-20 percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.138.215 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some official surveys in Russia which estimate the number of adherents is well over 70%. The total number of Orthdox Christians is belived to be between 250-300 million worldwide. Andreyx109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

The introduction to the article includes Croatia in the list of dominantly Orthodox countries, yet Croatia's demographics page indicates that well over 80% of Croats are Roman Catholic. Unless that census figure is wildly inaccurate, Croatia ought to be removed from the list of dominantly Orthodox nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.93.118.41 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed this, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is predominantly Muslim. Elizium23 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Eastern European calendar: Naming proposal

On this glorious Easter Tuesday, united around the world, here is an update on the progress of the ballot.

Option 1 - Meletian calendar - 1 vote (recommended option)

Option 2 - New calendar (Eastern churches) - no votes (this option is not recommended)

Option 3 - No change - 2 votes (this option is not recommended)

Option 4 - "Revised" Julian calendar - no votes (this option is not recommended)

To vote by proxy, write QUICKVOTE and sign with four tildes. If you want your proxy to vote in a particular way, add the option number in brackets. Thus QUICKVOTE (1) means your vote will be cast in favour of Option 1.

The tilde is the wavy line ~ sometimes placed above n (in Spanish) or a or o in Portuguese where, following the medieval Latin copyists, it marks the omission of a following letter n.

This is not the place to vote. Click on this link Talk:Revised Julian calendar#Proposal to change article name, read the manifestos and then add your vote underneath the others.

Uma Paschoa feliz a todos. O povo unido ja mais sera vencido. 212.85.12.219 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross

Please be careful when you refer to the three-bar cross with the slanted bar. This is used only by Russians and for this reason it should not be called "the Orthodox" Cross. Romanians, Greeks, Arabs, Serbians, Albanians and so forth, are no less Orthodox!j

umm... this is not simply Russian. All Orthodox churches I know have the cross.

Ummm... no. As a Greek Orthodox, I've always identified that cross as Russian or Slavic. 203.15.18.20 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not write what you just think is true without checking first. Only Russians use this cross. You can see plenty of photographs from Greece, Cyprus, Jordan, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Albania or wherever else there are Orthodox Christians. With very few exceptions (such as a gift from a Russian!), this cross is only Russian and should not be called Orthodox Cross, nor should it be in a separate section in Orthodoxy - add it in the Russian tradition page if you wish. Besides, its theology is wrong - or, to be more precise, it is not consistent with Orthodox theology, either as a reference to the moment of Christ's death (because it draws attention to death as defeat, whereas the theology of the death of Christ is triumphant - or because symbolism in Orthodoxy does not have a historical character but an eschatological one, and for the same reason INRI is not very good either), or as a reference to the condemnation of the unrepentant thief (because it implies that the cross is an instrument of judgement instead of life - something consistent with several Protestant pietist circles, but not with Orthodox theology). The earliest versions of the slanted footstool in Jerusalem have the footstool pointing upwards rather than downwards, giving the message that the Cross of Christ saves. The downward movement is a later development, that we could very well get rid of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.200.1 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see it called "the Orthodox cross" anywhere in that section. It is termed "a depiction ... within the Orthodox church" and "the Tri-Bar Cross". I have no problem with adding some verbiage to say that it is specifically Russian, but it is a significant design that is identified universally with Orthodoxy - just do a Google search of "orthodox cross" to see what comes up - and as a significant image it should not be entirely omitted from this article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the unsigned user above states "Please do not write what you just think is true without checking first." And then proceeds to state "Only Russians use this cross." I have photographed considerable Eastern Rite churches throughout Canada. I have photographed over 450 so far and expect to double that number by time My project is complete.

My conclusion is that the three-bar cross can be used by anybody who wishes to use it. Generally, Greeks, Lebanese, and other Mediterranean churches do not use the 3-bar cross. Although, I did see a large 3-bar cross in a Greek Orthodox Monastery near Montréal. Regardless of whether another Orthodox group put it there or not, it has been there for several years and the Greek Orthodox nuns there do not have any difficulty with it being there.

My photographs attest to the fact that, in Canada, the 3-bar cross is almost always on top of the roofs or domes of Russian, Ukrainian, and Romanian churches. I also have some rare examples of the 3-bar cross being on the top of Greek Catholic churches. While this type of cross is mostly used by Slavic churches, I am not certain that Romanians consider themselves Slavs. Certainly their language is Latin based and not based on Slavonic as are all Slavic languages. And please, please, stop using the word “Russian” to mean all things Slavic. As somebody who is ethnically Ukrainian, I take as much offence at being called “Russian” as would a Pakistani person take offence at being called “Indian”. If you don't know the difference between these ethnic groups then don't express an opinion about them. S. Demchinsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling glenn (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

-Be that as it may, the examples you cite come from the New World, where a certain syncretism has taken place. Serbian churches in Serbia, Romanian churches in Romania (Romanians are certainly not Slavs by the way, I don't even know who suggested this!), Greek churches in Greece and so on, do not use the 3-bar cross. And at any rate, since not all Orthodox use this type, not even all Slavic Orthodox, it cannot be termed 'the Orthodox Cross'. As far as anyone knows its use is neither embraced by ALL the Orthodox, and there has not been a Pan-Orthodox Council that recommended it. Until any of this happens, it remains a cross that is used by some groups, Russian or Ukrainian, but not by all. To say otherwise suggests an imperialist perspective that implies that 'whatever is Russian is also Orthodox'. Thank you very much, I am not interested! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.200.1 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a pretty sight. It is not THE Orthodox Cross, it is AN Orthodox Cross, specifically Slavonic or Russian and the distinction, while important, is not worth spending any more time over. Traditions bring slightly different configurations. Georgia uses, amongst others, St. Nina's which was made from grape vines. If you go to their website you will see the clergy wearing a number of different crosses and not a single Slavonic amongst them. Right here is the Armenian and the Georgian and neither are using the lower cross-bar [1]. That is the Georgian Patriarch in back. The Armenians and the Georgians were the first two of the ancient world to promulgate Christianity as the national religion by the way. Malangthon (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the cross that we used at my Greek parish in Norway, and at my current OCA parish in Louisiana, USA. The only difference is the slavonic one is slanted. But the number of bars is the same. Danielmikaelson (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Americans?

Are orthodox churches like the russian anf greek exclusive to that ethnic group or can anyone join? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.65.69 (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can join. For example, Russia basically converted to Greek Orthodoxy in the 10th century, and so now it is simply called Russian Orthodox. The ethnic adjectives usually reflect the language, chanting style, and episcopal jurisdiction of the church. Russian, Greek, Georgian, Serbian, etc Orthodox are not separate denominations, they're just separate jurisdictions within Eastern Orthodoxy.

Most Orthodox churches in America use English too.

Orthodox Church in America

UeArtemis (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Eastern Orthodox Church. By my best judgment, this was the outcome made by rough consensus. However, absolutely no prejudice to further move discussions, especially for "Orthodox Catholic Church" and the like. Regards to all, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Orthodox Church → Eastern Orthodox Church — I do not understand why the title was changed from "Eastern Orthodox Church" to "Orthodox Church." This was an extremely bad scholarly decision. The change implies that the Oriental Orthodox Churches are not Orthodox Churches. The distinction between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox is useful and should be retained. Certainly, the term Orthodox should not be commandeered by half the adherents (Eastern Orthodox) to erase the other half (Oriental Orthodox). Please change the title of this to Eastern Orthodox. If you want a separate category on Orthodox Churches that discusses all branches equally, okay, but there should not be an Oriental Orthodox category without an Eastern Orthodox category. |Relisted. billinghurst sDrewth 16:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)|—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.70.102 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, the term "Orthodox Catholic Church" is given in the introduction as an "official term" when most Eastern Orthodox Churches do not use the term. This article should be moved to "Eastern Orthodox Church." Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The title "Orthodox Catholic Church" as an official name (of the entire Church, not just of an autocephalous Church) is supported by a considerable number of sources,[2][3],[4][5][6][7][8],[9][10][11][12][13][14][15],[16],[17],[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. The renamig of this article to "Orthodox Church" was discussed here, it was decided there to also mention "Orthodox Catholic Church" in the lead of this article. It is true that the non-chalcedonians also call themselves "Orthodox Church", however "eastern" and "oriental" are synonyms, so "Eastern Orthodox Church" doesn't really fix this problem too much (and there is also Western Rite Orthodoxy which is also part of this Church). In my opinion, I think the title of this article should be "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church" (the full official title, and as far as I see, the non-chalcedonians don't seem to use this exact name in english, and currently I don't know any other organization which uses this exact title) or "Orthodox Catholic Church" (the shorter official title). According to the Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, "Orthodox Catolic Church" is one of the ways Orthodox Christians often call their Church, the following encyclopedia also claims that the title "Orthodox, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ" is commonly used for the Orthodox Catholic Church. However, if "Eastern" is added (although it cannot really distinguish between eastern and oriental), I think the article title should be "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)", "Orthodox Christian Church (Eastern)" or "Orthodox Church (Eastern)". (Also, I think the article "Catholic Church" also needs to be renamed to something more neutral, especially if we add "Eastern" here.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You may find some sources which use the term "Orthodox Catholic" but they do not reflect the most common usage in the English language. Most scholarly sources refer to the Church as the "Eastern Orthodox" Church (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9). Catholicity is one of the four marks of the Church and therefore all denominations who profess the Nicene Creed claim this mark, such as the Methodist Church: "The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles' Creed. In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior" (source). Nevertheless, we do not usually call that denomination "Methodist Catholic." Even though "Oriental" and "Eastern" are synonyms, the former term, when juxtaposed with the words "Orthodox," always refers to Non-Chalcedonians & Miaphysites. In light of this evidence, if you are still unwilling to support the name change to "Eastern Orthodox Church," I will accept your compromise of renaming the article "Orthodox Church (Eastern)." I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My first choices as a title for this article remain "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church" and "Orthodox Catholic Church" (for the reasons explained earlier, and it should also be noted that most (if not all) "google books" results about books titled with "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church" refer to the Church discussed in this article, so this means it is not ambiguous, and we can use more official names when they are less ambiguous, I'm not claiming that the miaphysites don't also consider themselves "Catholic", however they don't seem to use in English the exact form "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church"). But, as I also said earlier, in my opinion "Orthodox Church (Eastern)" can also be an acceptable article title (and I agree that it is somewhat less ambiguous than simply "Orthodox Church", despite the fact that "eastern" and "oriental" are synonyms), however, I believe that "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" or "Orthodox Christian Church (Eastern)" could be even better than "Orthodox Church (Eastern)" as an article title (especially since according to the "Frequently Asked Questions about the Orthodox Church" here people in the west have sometimes confused Orthodox Christians with jews). Regarding the introduction of the article, it should be left largely unchanged (and the mention there of "Orthodox Catholic Church" as an official name, is obviously supported by enough sources). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But "Eastern Orthodox Church" is not the name of any Church. It is a convenience cover-all term, coined by certain people in the west. The worldwide spread of the church also makes it inaccurate. The term "Oriental Orthodox Churches" adds to the confusion, since both are different ways of saying the same thing. "Orthodox Church (Eastern)," doesn't help a lot in solving these problems, and "Orthodox Catholic Church" is not commonly used. I would suggest keeping the current name with a stronger hatline saying something like, "This article is about the Orthodox Churches in communion with Constantinople. For other curches see...." This is the primary usage of "Orthodox Church", (the other churches are more popularly known as Coptic, Syriac etc.) so that should suffice. Xandar 23:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My question to you then, is why does the Eastern Orthodox Church get priority over the Oriental Orthodox Church? That article could very well be called the "Orthodox Church." I think Eastern Orthodox is the best term to use. I would accept using "Orthodox Church (Eastern)" and "Orthodox Church (Oriental)" however, with the terms in parenthesis being used to disambiguate the term "Orthodox Church." With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I support Anupam and must disagree with Xandar on a few points. The term "Eastern Orthodox Church" is used, as well as other names (including "Orthodox Church", "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", and "Catholic Church"), by the Church in question. If you wish, I will look again for sources within that Church that use "Eastern Orthodox Church". The very convenient Eastern/Oriental distinction, impossible in most if not all languages other than English, is in fact widely used in English. Finally, defining the EOC as "the Orthodox Churches in communion with Constantinople" is something that stirred up the ire of the representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church at a still recent meeting in Ravenna. They objected to it as making the Patriarch of Constantinople the EOC counterpart to the RCC Pope. Esoglou (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of the objection. The title of this article implies nothing whatsoever about the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It implies only that the name by which the subject of this article is commonly known in English is "The Orthodox Church". Please read the archived discussion. There is nothing new being said here. Mrhsj (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a general consensus to move the article to "Eastern Orthodox Church" or "Orthodox Church (Eastern)"? I look forward to hearing your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support the proposal (either form). Esoglou (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support the proposal (either form). Anupam^Talk 06:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - It was all extensively discussed here. You've said nothing new and I'm really tired of having such suggestions pass by just now and then. Such heavy and extensive discussions, given the fact that they have already been held at least once before, seem to be really counter-productive. We start resolving in circles (just like we're doing now) and nothing good comes out in the end. --Laveol ^T 07:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Laveol. Please read WP:NCON carefully. Note particularly: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." And "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". And "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is 'right' in a moral or political sense." And finally, note that this page is not the place to decide on renaming; there is a process for renaming described in the naming policy page. Mrhsj (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support on the whole. Mrhsj is (partially) correct in quoting WP:AT, although there are other considerations (and this page is where to decide this question - again). Eastern Orthodox is the most common way of referring to this communion in English as a whole, largely because every Christian denomination considers itself orthodox; it is also, for the same reason, sufficiently precise to distinguish this communion from the Syrian Orthodox and other claimants to the unadorned adjective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• I oppose renaming to "Eastern Orthodox Church", in my opinion having "Eastern" (at least, without parentheses) seems to ignore too much the Western Orthodox Churches, however, I'm not against "Orthodox Church (Eastern)", since I have to admit that, as an article title, it could be less ambiguous in English than the current (although, the "eastern"/"oriental" ditstinction is not very good). I support renaming to "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church", or to "Orthodox Catholic Church". Most (but, probably all) "Google Books" results about "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church" refer to the Church discussed in this article (and as far as I know, the non-Chalcedonians don't use this exact term in English), this means that it is not "uncommon" and it is not ambiguous as an article title (since its common use in English, is for the Church discussed in this article), and we can use official names when they can be less ambiguous (for example, "China" is ambiguous as an article title for the PRC, so they called the article about the PRC using its full official name, respectively "People's Republic of China", a similar case is also with the article about the "Republic of Macedonia", and in my opinion, we could also use here the full official name of the Church). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support The reference to China is not really helpful or relevant to this discussion. There was a need to disambiguate in that case, which led to articles titled China, People's Republic of China and Republic of China. If there had not been two countries claiming to be China, there would have been no problem. The problem with Macedonia is similar. There is a country, the Republic of Macedonia, claiming the name, as well as a region of Greece, Macedonia (Greece). Not to mention Macedonia (region), five other entities, nine settlements, a fruit salad and a comic book. Again, it is necessary to disambiguate. It isn't simply a case of China being an ambiguous term for People's Republic of China and therefore having to find a more official title. The argument in this case appears to be that Eastern Orthodox Church is not the official name or best description, not that there are other entities claiming the name. Put simply, it doesn't matter whether it is the "best description" or the "official name" as on Wikipedia we use the most common term in reliable English sources to determine article titles. The most common term is undoubtedly Eastern Orthodox Church. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support both for disambiguation purposes (there are other orthodox churches) and because "Eastern Orthodox Church" is the most common name for the institution in English. And please, can we at long last get off this hobbyhorse about calling it "Catholic"? As I showed precisely a year ago, whatever such-and-such may say is the Church's "official name" (and they may very well be right), in current English, usage overwhelmingly favors "[Eastern] Orthodox Church". - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • And obviously official names (in English) should be ignored in favour of terms used out of convenience by most sources. Mentioning that it's also referred to as Eastern Orthodox should really be enough. Ciobanica (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure, just like we "ignore" the official names of our article titles Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich and Fob James, but mention them in the body of the text, so too should our title here reflect what sources actually use, rather than the purported official name. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, someone should fix that too. At least the official name is the first thing in the articles. Of course sources are another thing, my problem was with your assertion that a majority overwrites official names. That's what redirects are for. Ciobanica (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
        • There's nothing to "fix"; read WP:UCN first and seek consensus to change that policy if you wish to impose a new standard. And it's not simply "my assertion" that usage decides. Again the policy: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article". Not the official name, the most common name. If you disagree, the policy can be changed. But so long as it is policy, there's no reason not to follow it in this case. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Ahem: "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate Tidal wave." And i was being funny asking for a fix. Having the official name as the first thing in the article works well enough. Ciobanica (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, I have to say, that I cannot really understand why "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church" (or "Orthodox Catholic Church") would be so problematic as an article title ("commonality" is not the only criterion we have), and I doubt that it can really be more ambiguous than "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church". However, as I already said earlier, I don't have any problem with renaming this article to "Orthodox Church (Eastern)" (and I actually even agree that it is somewhat less ambiguous than the current, although still not the best choice in my opinion), and it also seems a reasonable compromise between "Orthodox Church" and "Eastern Orthodox Church". Cody7777777 (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A problem with World Eastern Orthodox population map

I have a problem with this map for these reasons

• According to the map there's 0-1% orthodox in Egypt, but according to the lowest estimates christians in egypt are 6% which are mostly orthodox!
• According to the map there's 5-25% orthdox in Lebanon, orthodox in Lebanon makes 5% of christians in lebanon, christians in lebanon according to the highest estimates are half the population!

which makes me ask about the sources which have been used in this map! thank you --Proud coptic (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be misinterpreting the map. It shows separate legends for both eastern Orthodox and for Oriental Orthodox. Majoreditor (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

oh ok i'm sorry --Proud coptic (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that map is good to use in this article. I'd rather use a map where it only shows the demography of the Eastern Orthodox Church since this article is about Eastern ortodox church, not the Oriental Church and use annother map in the Oriental Church's article showing theirs demography.

--Byzantios (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Mrhsj (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Orthodox Church (Chalcedonian) → Eastern Orthodox Church — Page move had no consensus and no discussion whatsoever. Let's move it back, and then we can talk. Elizium23 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Mrhsj (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - the parenthesized designation in the article title implies that it is disambiguating between other Orthodox Churches. Ija10388 (talk · contribs) has not addressed the naming of other articles such as Oriental Orthodox Church. What do you want to do with this one, name it Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian)? Or (miaphysite)? Per WP:COMMONNAME this article should remain at Eastern Orthodox Church. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed misleading info

Unreliable sourced info about a convertion of ethnic Macedonians in the 11 cent. was removed. It is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later and the existence of a discernible Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed. Modern ethnographers consider that, until the early 20th century, the Slavic speaking majority in the Region of Macedonia were by and large Bulgarian. For the first time the Macedonian Orthodox church gained autonomy in 1959. By the way, Slavic tribes in Kutmichevitsa (present Macedonia) were baptised under Boris I of Bulgaria in the 9th. century. Jingby (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why removing a statement that is sourced. And btw a lot of these source is used for progressing your pro-Bulgarian idea. Tomica1111 (talk) revert

Apart from the fact that tertiary sources should be avoided in Wikipedia, it's rather bizarre to claim that the Macedonians were converted during the Serbian Empire, considering that Macedonians are especially proud of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, founded in 1019. Kostja (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If Macedonians are going to be mentioned in that section, it should be made clear that it is Slav Macedonians that are being referred to. Earlier Macedonians were converted during the Roman Empire.--Ptolion (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As per Macedonian scientist Prof. Mikulchik, during the 9th.-10th century this Slavs have adopted the ethnonym Bulgarians, i.e. the Slavic tribes have disappeared. Jingby (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't see source about that, It's about how the Bulgarians want to view the history? And Kostja clearly says ethnic Macedonians. Tomica1111 (talk)

I clearly meant the people who identify as Macedonians today. And please stop this absurd insertion of obviously incorrect information. Kostja (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ...Откако биле освоени граничните византиски земји, од времето на Симеон е изменета и воената концепција. Извршена е симбиоза помеѓу малубројните азиски Прабугари и бројните словенски племиња кои на широкиот простор од Дунав на север, до Егеја на југ и од Јадран на запад, до Црното Море на исток го прифатиле заедничкиот етникон „Бугари”. Словенскиот јазик станал заеднички за сите жители на тој простор. Протобугарите се претопиле и исчезнале во словенските маси, а со нив и моделот на номадските воени хорди кои што живеат во аули... Jingby (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

The opening paragraph states baldly "The Orthodox Church...is considered to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...". By whom? Roman Catholics believe exactly the same thing about the Church of Rome. I make no comment on the validity of either claim but the opening paragraph should not use language like "is considered to be" without making it clear by whom and nor should it make such a bold claim without any reference to the fact that this is disputed by very many people.

Would it not be more appropriate to say something along the lines of "Its adherents believe it to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church..."? Lotus49 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a little more complicated than that. There is a mutual regard between Catholics and Orthodox in this matter. The official position of the Catholic Church is that Orthodox apostolic succession is intact, the priesthood is valid, and thus the sacraments are real and valid. The Orthodox are a bit more diverse in their regard of the Catholic Church, but general opinion is that Catholics have valid apostolic succession as well. So in a way, both sides of the division share in the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" claim. Now, would other Christians validate this? Well, mainstream Protestants might recognize their apostolic succession, but groups like the Latter-day Saints would say that the Orthodox apostatized in the Apostolic Age and have no valid claim to the priesthood or the Church. So in the interest of NPOV, it would be best to go with your suggestion and clarify just who considers that claim valid. My explanation could be better treated in the "Definition" section directly below the lede. Elizium23 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this definitely needs adjustment. It is way too POV-y for the first sentence of the article. The statement that immediately follows seems very out of place as well: "In other words, the Faith and practices of the Church have continued to this day virtually unchanged since apostolic times." Do they truly believe such to be the case, that the "faith and practices" are "virtually unchanged"? If so, I'd like to see a ref from the Eastern Orthodox Church making that statement. I searched the article for the word "unchanged", and the only other place I found it was in this statement: "The service of baptism used in Orthodox churches has remained largely unchanged for over 1500 years." That seems to suggest that it changed about 1500 years ago, in other words, this practice *did* change since apostolic times (~1900 years ago). ...comments? ~BFizz 04:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The POV language was introduced via anonymous edit on Feb 20 without explanation or discussion. Undid that part of that edit. Mrhsj (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Much better. I've added a brief sentence about the church's size in the first paragraph, drawn from the info in the body of the article. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think this is a big improvement both in that it avoids the phrase "it is considered" which should never be used without at least saying by whom, but also because the "In other words..." sentence has been removed. As was pointed out above, not only was it not true but it also did not summarise the previous paragraph as its initial phrase implied.Lotus49 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Seniority of the Churches

Please explain the text about the seniority of the churches, where is the reference for this seniority? Nothing is explained why this is the seniority.

This is really strange as the seniority in the Orthodox world is based on the time when a Church is founded and recognized by the Tsarigrad's (Constantinople) Church. So, please explain from what sources you have the shown seniority? I really expect an answer are this info that is provided on the page is misleading. Here the the sequence of the Churches sorted by their foundation and recognition:

- Tsarigrad (Constantinople) Orthodox church - Alexandria Orthodox church - Аntioch Orthodox church - Jerusalem Orthodox church - Bulgarian Orthodox church - Russian Orthodox church - Georgian Orthodox church - Serbian Orthodox church - Romanian Orthodox church - Cyprus Orthodox church - Greek Orthodox church - Albanian Orthodox church - Polish Orthodox church - Czech and Slovak Orthodox church - American Orthodox church (recognized only by some of the above) terca (talk)

Just as an addition would like to mention that the word seniority is a little bit Not properly used as the patriarchs are all equal and only the Constantinople's patriarch is first among equals. So once again, please provide with a reference about the used seniority order!!!

terca (talk)

Hi- you will find this is the order of commemoration in all Orthodox services on those occasions where they do commemorate each other. The only exception is that in Cyprus, their own Archbishop is commemorated ahead of the Russian church therefore immediately after the ancient Patriarchates. BTW in your list Bulgaria is a lot lower...Russia is of course the first of the later Patriarchates.Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox Church under Communist rule

There seems to be a discrepancy in regards to the number of clergy killed in Russia during the Soviet Period. One paragraph states, "Between 1917 and 1935, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. Of these, 95,000 were put to death, executed by firing squad." The next paragraph states, "It is estimated that 50,000 clergy had been executed between the revolution and the end of the Khrushchev era.".

From the revolution to the end of the Khrushchev era would encompass "1917 to 1935" and then some (more time). If 95,000 were put to death from 1917 to 1935 then it would follow that more than 95,000 would have been put to death between the revolution and the end of the Khrushchev era and not just 50,000.

Please clarify.

Thank you. 74.226.92.244 (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Canonically irregular churches vs. "Episcopi Vagantes"

It is not appropriate to use the pejorative "episcopi vagantes" to refer to the bishops of these irregular churches. As noted in the Wikipedia article of that title, "episcopi vagantes" refers to “wandering bishops” with no real flock. The jurisdictions in this section have actual functioning congregations and care of souls, even if they are unrecognized by the mainstream of Orthodoxy. Some are very small, but some (Macedonian Orthodox Church, Montenegrin Orthodox Church, Ukrainian Orthodox Kiev Patriarchate) retain the loyalty of most of the clergy and faithful in parts of their core territory. Zipcedric (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You should still make an effort to link to this other article from that text, because it contains valuable information about those groups. Your edit has made the article less useful. Elizium23 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Population of the Church

According to different sources, I have heard different extimates of how many people are adherents of the Eastern Orthodox Faith. I have heard 200 million, 250 million, and 300 million. Which number is correct? Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesome444a444 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Orthodox Church -- Defunct?

What is the rationale for listing the Chinese Orthodox Church as "defunct?" The article on the Chinese Orthodox Church says "Several Orthodox congregations continue to meet in Beijing, in northeast China (in Heilongjiang and elsewhere) and in western China (Xinjiang - Urumqi and Ghulja) with, apparently, the tacit consent of the government. There are also Orthodox parishes in Shanghai, Province of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Taiwan." It seems premature to call it defunct, but as I am not an expert I will leave it to others to decide to make the change. Wickedjacob (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic

The Orthodox Church is NOT Catholic with the exception of the Latin Rites somebody keeps putting in that it is. I used to think it was but its not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.166.220 (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume you have not checked the sources mentioned already in the article. The following article from an Eastern Orthodox diocese states clearly enough "The official designation of the church in its liturgical and canonical texts is "the Orthodox Catholic Church"". The following book, speaking about the Eastern Orthodox Church, also explicitly states "Orthodoxy does not give up the title catholic. It regards itself as the catholic church (the marks of the church are to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic)". Orthodox Saint Raphael of Brooklyn also stated "The (Orthodox) Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document". The Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem from 1672 also often refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church as the "Catholic Church". There is also the "The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church" by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. And there is of course the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (used in the Eastern Orthodox Church) which describes the Church as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". There are enough sources supporting that statement, please do not remove it. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Orthodox CATHOLIC Church?!?

Ok I used to believe myself that the Orthodox Church called itself Catholic. I'm telling the truth I myself thought this. And I told one of my friends called Tim Callow this and he said I was wrong and he said "why are you so obsessed with getting me to admit that the Orthodox Church is Catholic" and he showed that no literature discussing it ever calls the Orthodox Church Catholic except for the Apostolic Creed where one talks about the Holy Catholic Universal Church but even Protestant churches such as the Presbyterians do this, no one would ever call Presbyterians Catholics. So I'm pretty sure the Orthodox Church is not really Catholic and I think it misleads readers to refer to it as such in the introduction. --99.162.62.208 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)— 99.162.62.208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The sources seem to disagree with you. Here, have some: [29][30],[31][32][33][34][35],[36][37][38][39][40][41][42],[43],[44],[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] Elizium23 (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes but Tim might argue that those sources are just referring to the Orthodox Church as Catholic in passing, the same way that Presbyterians sometimes call themselves Catholics in passing, that does not mean that the Orthodox Church is Catholic. --99.162.62.208 (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Your friend Tim is not a reliable source, then, is he? And here is the exact quote so you can read it: The official designation of the church in its liturgical and canonical texts is "the Orthodox Catholic Church" (gr. catholicos = universal). Official designation in texts, not 'by the way, we're Catholic'. Elizium23 (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fine agreed. But I think it should still be pointed out that most people do not refer to the Orthodox Church as Catholic. It technically calls itself Catholic but its not common for people to refer to it as such so I think that should be changed. --99.172.130.196 (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone POV pushing on this article about this point AGAIN. How is it that the word Catholic is a Greek word (and now Greeks can't call themselves their own words?) and that the Latin word for the same thing is Universa and yet the Western non-Greek church calls itself and now wants to be named or called exclusively "catholic"?

What people are "common" people enough to dictate that the Greek should stop using that word to describe themselves? The English word for catholic is universal. Not one Orthodox Christian would even peep if some stated that they believe that they where the true Universal church. No one would care, why do people have to take away the Greek word though? Why can people not get that, they are actually forcing the Greek church to give up it's name for itself not only in other languages but to give up it's name in it's own language? Since when is it that the very people themselves can not actually speak for themselves and have their own identity? Since when is the stealing of people's identity become OK by way of begging the question. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

But this article isn't written in Greek its written in English. --99.172.130.196 (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Non sequitur as neither is the article on the Roman Catholic church written in Greek, go change the name of that article to the Roman Universal Church. They will tell you they don't call themselves that and change it back to their own term. You can't seem to grasp that the Orthodox officially called (and calls) themselves "catholic" (in every liturgy and that's in English and Greek that in the Creed the Greek word catholic is used). Neologisms are not a valid or accepted way to validate an argument like this. Your posting fallacies of logic and saying that people should use these as justification to now take away people's own self identification. As common people of a given country what are you referring to? Greece, Jerusalem (Israel) the United States? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You are deliberately, perhaps gratuitously, failing to understand the difference between official documents use of language and common use. I think the point that the Orthodox Church is not commonly referred to as Catholic should be made in order to avoid confusion with the Roman Church. --99.172.130.196 (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And you are failing to grasp the simple fact that this article's introduction clearly makes the distinction between common name ("Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church") and official name ("Orthodox Catholic Church"). Why is this distinction so difficult for you to understand? Anglicanus (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I DO understand the distinction now. I used to not understand it. I used to believe Orthodoxy was commonly called Catholic, until Tim Callow set me straight. I know now that Orthodoxy is not Catholic. I just want it pointed out in the introduction that it is rare for the Orthodox Church to be called Catholic. The introduction says the Orthodox Church calls itself the Orthodox Catholic Church that is not true.--99.172.130.196 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you have two different editors whom see that you are just here with an agenda. And that you are engaging in WP:original research in an attempt to have the article not say what it says.. As was pointed out to you and you have ignored the article's first lines make the distinction you have posted here that it isn't making..

"The Orthodox Church, also officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church [note 1] and commonly referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church."

It appears you think that what you believe and or want is more important that what can be validated by verifiable sources and or valid sources by the criteria set by Wikipedia policy (WP:verifiability). If what you say is common and well known and or a "common thing" then scholars will speak of it as such and will be able to be quoted by you. So post here scholars whom stated that the Orthodox Catholic church can not call itself that because some people might become confused. Your position does not belong here on Wikipedia if it can not be verified by scholarly sources. If it is common then scholarly sources will be plenteous. So please post some here for discussion that state that it is rare for the Orthodox Church to be called Catholic. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not always easy to find scholarly sources stating what they consider to be the obvious. I have the impression that Christians in union with the Patriarch of Constantinople but in schism with the Pope of Rome commonly refer to their churches as "the Orthodox Church" or 'the ___ Orthodox Church" (with some geographic or cultural modifier in the blank) and do not commonly refer to them as "the Catholic Church" or 'the ___ Catholic Church'. Assume for the moment that this is true. Scholars writing about Church doctrine, structure, and history aren't necessarily going to be interested in documenting this fact. It will be familiar and unremarkable to their target audience. So it will be hard to find. Now, I don't know if it's true or not. But if the consensus of knowledgeable editors is that it is, then we can be presume that some reliable source somewhere has noted it. Ideally, we would find that source, but uncontroversial assertions can remain in articles without citation.

As far as I can see, "trying to dictate what they can call themselves" is a straw man. It's a question of what they do routinely call themselves. We know the official name is "Orthodox Catholic Church". That fact is well-verified and should obviously remain in the article. If the usual designation in English is "Orthodox", not "Catholic", the article should say that, too. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been under discussion for years now, see Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive6. And it seems to me that the lede paragraph satisfies your request. It clearly says what the church is officially called and it says what it is commonly called. Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'm pretty sure the Orthodox Church has NOTHING, not one iota to do with Catholicism. Not only Tim Callow thinks this everyone I've talked to says this. On yahoo answers when I asked that was the response I got also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.164.245 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My good sir, Calling the Orthodox Church "The Orthodox Catholic Church" does not mean that it has anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church. The Greek word Catholicos means "Universal", and both church bodies claim that title independently. Do you understand? 50.46.159.141 (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess now that I thought about it I was wrong and this thread should just be deleted by mutual agreement. --99.162.50.219 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I really would like to delete this section. Can we please just delete it by mutual agreement. I'm the one who started and I'm admitting I was wrong. --99.162.50.219 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sections are NOT deleted. After time passes without any new comment, they are archived and kept for historical purposes.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do the Latins get their page called the "Roman Catholic Church" and we get "Eastern Orthodox Church"? That sounds a little biased. The official name of the church is the "Orthodox Catholic Church". I hope you change it now, to be fair. Danielmikaelson (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that the article on any thing should have the most common name used in English for that thing. Not the official name, but the common name. The official name should be mentioned, of course, but the common name should be the name of the article. That is why this article is called Eastern Orthodox Church (common English name), but the introduction also mentions the title Orthodox Catholic Church (official English name). Ohff (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You will see a lot of articles beginning with a sentence like this: "The [name of article], officially called the [official name for it], is..." Ohff (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Transubstantiation considered heresy?

Anon IP editor 178.223.9.11 recently added text asserting that "transubstantiation" is considered heresy by the Orthodox Church. I have seen one quote that suggests that the Orthodox Church uses the term but with a different meaning from that of the Catholic Church. I have added text copied from Transubstantiation to clarify what the Orthodox Church's stance is toward the term. I notice that this text is unsupported by a reference. It would be good if someone could find a reliable source to support this text. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This link: Orthodoxy and Transubstantiation - seems to be a rich source of references. Elizium23 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear lord Richard and Esoglou are back on an Eastern Orthodox article posting confusing statements and undermining Eastern Orthodox metaphysics again? At what point is this going to stop and both of these editors actually sit down and read Eastern Orthodox theologians, sources and stop coming here pushing people to give them answers ad-hoc? Richard (and his little buddy and POV pushing, editing warring Esoglou) need to leave these articles alone and go do some reading first? As this is from Roman Catholic POV editors whom wrote articles about E/O subjects from that Roman Catholic POV, articles about E/O not Roman Catholic theologians like Gregory Palamas (the article Palamism for example) the whole while saying they where uninformed and fighting over that saints works and teachings.[56] Who've completely screwed up the theoria theological article making it a confusing clone of the contemplation article for no other reason than they don't like what it stands for or says. They have a list started and I would hope that someone would stop them from doing any further damage to other Eastern Orthodox articles. Roman Catholic substance theory by way of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (scholasticism) is inconclusive, confusing and down right Aristotle. It is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy. There is only one theology and that theology is Orthodox. All is not for a (human) reason. All is for the Glory of God.

Eastern Orthodox substance theory is that everything comes from the tabor light i.e. the energies of God. Eastern Orthodoxy is mystic (orthodox gnosiology), not rational (meaning the truth in Orthodoxy is validated by the mystical knowledge of the light, not reason or human reason specifically). This has been said to these two and reaffirmed with Eastern Orthodox sources (and Roman Catholic sources and Western sources) time and time again. There is no one saying people can't post here. What they are saying is un-informed and edit-warring editors whom refuse to read sources related to those subject are not welcome. Go to an Orthodox church and pick up a pamphlet or two. Even better visit a bookstore and buy some V. Lossky or Dumitru Stăniloae. As for John S. Romanides he's for free and online.[57] There is no excuse for the upheaval that Richard by way of Esoglou has done to Eastern Orthodox subjects here on Wikipedia. I have not went to Roman Catholic articles and done anything like this. At some point I would hope that this would become WP:Office if this continues. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IWNBI those posting here would discuss the topic of the section viz. whether the Orthodox Church considers transubstantiation a heresy or not. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a google search Richard. Why is it OK to come onto Eastern Orthodox articles and hi jack them misdirect them and misinform them? As if Eastern Orthodox editors have no business pointing this out? As the answer is the same ol same ol... Some do, some don't. There is no official dogmatic statement as such, other than it is alien to the EO church body to speak of the Eucharist as a mechanical, scholastic event. Your direction is a misdirection and will lead people to have a complete misconception of what the whole position of the Orthodox have on this subject (just like other subjects that you and Esoglou have bunked up relating to the Eastern Orthodox community). You come to these articles and push a Roman Catholic POV on them. Why can't you understand that? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So, which of these three versions would you endorse?

1. Elizium23 06:54, July 13, 2011
2. 178.223.9.11 06:34, July 20, 2011 (asserts that the Orthodox Church considers transubstantiation a heresy) or

1. 69.236.183.247 10:35, July 20, 2011 (removes the assertion that transubstantiation is a heresy and adds explanatory text from Transubstantiation).

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think that the topic of Transubstantiation needs to be mentioned in this article. The article should focus on the Orthodox Church rather than on how Orthodoxy differs from Roman Catholicism. The article is bulky enough as it is; why not trim the material on Transubstantiation and instead place it in an appropriate branch article? Majoreditor (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Majoreditor.. The meat of it is the difference between scholasticism based theology and ascetic or mystic (charismatic in the Eastern meaning) based theology and this symptom is one of many that such a distinction creates. Also in some of the EO theology articles it would be good to include the ongoing internal conflicts between the clergy and charismatics as Marcus Plested's "The Macarian Legacy" book kinda covered. LoveMonkey (talk)

"Republic of Macedonia" vs. "FYROM"

Regarding the name of the Republic of Macedonia (as highlighted by this recent edit), I think WP:MOSMAC2#Other articles might encourage using simply "Macedonia", rather than "the Republic of Macedonia". In any case, people should note that the name/abbreviation "FYROM" is not generally to be used in Wikipedia articles, per WP:MOSMAC2. Additionally, per a 2009 decision by the Arbitration Committee (WP:ARBMAC2), all articles related to Macedonia are subject to a "one-revert rule" (WP:1RR) whenever a dispute over naming of Macedonia is concerned — a restriction which is subject to Arbitration Enforcement (WP:AE) involving blocks of offenders. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

English variant to use in article?

The time has come for us to decide which English variant to use in this article. WP:ENGVAR governs this decision. Since Orthodoxy has no particular national ties to one English-speaking nation in particular, we should use the predominate English variant in the article, which seems to be American English. But there is also some British-style usage as has recently been changed, so I will leave it up for discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to no objections and no strong national WP:TIES to any particular country, I have tagged this article with {{Use American English}}. Please conform future edits to this English variety per WP:ENGVAR. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Orthodox Church template

Has anyone ever considered making a template for the Orthodox Church, one along the lines of Template:Roman Catholicism and Template:Anglicanism? I think this would benefit the article a great deal, as the current one on Eastern Christianity both includes a substantial amount of non-Orthodox information and excludes information that is relevant to the Orthodox Church specifically. Aside from that, one of the Christian world's major branches should have its own template at the start of its article. I'll get started on this unless anybody has any objections. ZuKlubm (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No objections here, I think that's a great idea. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it had better be "Eastern Orthodox Church", to avoid insertion of outside information and insufficient specific information. Esoglou (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is a very good idea. I note that at Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard I have recently gotten together a listing of Christianity related articles which appear in the very highly regarded Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, and I assume the articles in that list which directly relate to the EOC might well be included in such a template. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

I have started organizing the pictures in the article. Also, there the article should be reorganized/ rewritten because several sections need referencing. Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Orthodox Catholic Church" — again

I added three sources which appear to substantiate the claim that the name Orthodox Catholic Church is, or has been in the past, used to identify the Eastern Orthodox Church. I would also suggest that someone might go through the huge footnote (currently #6 after I added my three new sources) and remove or repurpose any of these sources which do not literally, explicitly back up the assertion regarding the name "Orthodox Catholic Church". Where sources do substantiate the use of this name, I would recommend including reasonably short quotations from the sources to illustrate this. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been a couple of years since the last flame war on this subject. I'm not going to fight it again, but for anyone who's interested, I think the only problem with "Orthodox Catholic Church" is the prominence it's given in the lead. It isn't notable enough to get that much weight. It is true that this name is occasionally used in formal documents. But it is also often not used. It's just one of several names occasionally used in such contexts. Read any good general introduction to the Orthodox Church and you will not find this particular name given very much prominence. See for example http://oca.org/questions/teaching/what-is-the-proper-name-for-the-orthodox-church "Orthodox Catholic Church" is listed as one of six names for the same church, and not given any special emphasis. This is typical. Mrhsj (talk)

Agreed. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that esoteric names - even if official - shouldn't be given undue weight. Majoreditor (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Can Majoroeditor source where Orthodox Catholic Church is called an esoteric name? As for Mrhsj's comment this article is not just about the OCA or the Orthodox Church of America Or the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church of America. By your standard we should now rename the article SCOBA as SCOBA includes the OCA and other Orthodox groups. Since when is the OCA saying that the proper name for the entire church world wide is not the one added and sourced in the article? Its not however Roman Catholics want the Greek word Catholic all to themselves. Thats bias. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have wondered what explanation would the Roman Catholic church have for the Latin Patriarch of Antioch under the very understanding of the term Catholicos. It seems to me that the Roman and Latin church has the word "universalis" true to the Latin language and that Latin incorporated the Greek term καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal" and now wants to have the Greeks stop using the Greek word katholikos from their own language to describe themselves. Since I mean Roman Catholics don't like the Greeks using their own words. I wonder what word the Roman Catholics would like the Greeks to use in place of the word katholikos within their language now that the Roman Catholic church is claiming ownership over that word in the name of modernist logic that deprive people of their own words and culture. But that is Christians doing the work of God in the name of Jesus Christ. Oh for the Pope, too. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic Church again again

The catholic part is nonexistence in practice or general usage. Google it up and - not there! Or go to most official Orthodox webpages and the word 'catholic' will definitely not discernibly stare you in the face. Go to any normal general or respected theological encyclopedia and the same will apply there. Even if the orthodox "catholicism" is truthfully some where out there in God's time and space it is just not here among present, authoritative scholarship . We go by encyclopedic standard and WP:RNPOV and not "what it hopefully should be". (WP:NOTOPINION ,WP:FRINGE or in worst case WP:OR by driven by advocacy fringe groups). --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The key question is whether there is any evidence that Orthodox Catholic Church is the common name in reliable English sources. If there is no such evidence, then a renaming hasn't got a chance at Wikipedia:Requested moves. As for mentioning in the introduction, that is fine provided that all the other names used officially are also given. It might be an idea to remove the reference from the introduction, and instead add a section on Etymology (or Toponomy), discussing the names used (including those in the main languages of the church). Skinsmoke (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As a non-Orthodox / non-Catholic, my own generic understanding is that the entity in question is known by pretty much all English-speaking people as the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Orthodox Church, or (if talking about a specific national branch thereof) the (respective demonym) Orthodox Church. My friends in various Eastern European countries generally identify themselves on their Facebook profiles as "Orthodox Christian" (or equivalent in their native language). I'm not proposing to cite any of this as a reliable source, of course, but it strongly suggests to me that any prominence given in this article to the name Orthodox Catholic Church may fall into the category of an exceptional claim that requires exceptional evidence to back it up.

I would be inclined, at the moment, to suggest that the opening sentence of the article should use only the name Eastern Orthodox Church — with discussion of the various other names (including the names of the national churches) outside the lead section later in the article. I do realize numerous sources have been presented (some by me!) which are said to substantiate the use of the term "Catholic" in reference to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and I'll need to look at these sources to see exactly what they say and how they say it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing exceptional to discern here. The official name of the church is "Orthodox Catholic Church". What the laypeople call it is irrelevant. This is the official name of the Church as it is attested in the Eastern Orthodox liturgical or canonical texts. It is also verified by Encyclopaedia Britannica. This information belongs in the lead because it is the Church's official name. Quotation from Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Eastern Orthodoxy, official name Orthodox Catholic Church, one of the three major doctrinal and jurisdictional groups of Christianity.

Does that look fringe to anyone? And this is the lead section of Britannica. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME (a section of the Article Titles policy): Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. What the laypeople call it is indeed relevant for our purposes here (both in terms of the article's title, and also for the opening sentence of the lead, which will normally feature the article's title). I acknowledge that the Encyclopaedia Britannica says "Orthodox Catholic Church" is the official name, but I am not convinced that this is the name most frequently used in reliable sources. Per WP:COMMONNAME as I understand it, we don't need to diss a name per WP:FRINGE in order to downplay it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think there is a misunderstanding here. I never doubted that the common name of the article is indeed the present one and I would be happy if the title remained at the present name. Indeed I am quite familiar with the WP:COMMONNAME convention. I am only referring to the latest bout of reversals where attempts were made to remove "Orthodox Catholic Church" from the lead with the explanation it was a "fringe name". I never doubted that the common name was "Orthodox Church" or some similar combination. In fact I even agree with you that "Orthodox Catholic Church" may very well not be the WP:COMMONNAME. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are two of the most official internet pages of the Eastern Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate here and Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople here . The word ORTHODOX is everywhere but the word catholic does not in any in any sense of the word jump in your face .--Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This is your own original research. But certainly it does not tramp Encyclopaedia Britannica, which I quoted above. Please check also WP:RS. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What!? Have you ever heard of common sense? Trump this and that...So if the Church of England puts officially it's catholicity on paper and starts behind corners calling itself the English Orthodox Catholic Church thats that then. I'm sure if the "firm" would change it's name behind official closed doors the Encyclopaedia Britannica would say that Church of England of course officially calls itself the most right reverend English Orthodox Catholic Church. Of course Encyclopaedia Britannica would comply- It is after all the right of a religious community to call itself 'officially' whatever it wants. The Liberal Catholic Church http://www.thelccusa.org/.--Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The common name is the present title: I think that's been quite clearly established. As far as the official name, insofar as we can speak of one (the Orthodox Church actually being over a dozen independent bodies), it does seem the term "catholic" figures in. There's the Britannica, as Dr.K. points out, as well as at least a couple of other encyclopedia-type works, here and here. Personally, I don't see a problem with the stable version of the lead: "Eastern Orthodox Church" followed by "Orthodox Catholic Church" followed by "Orthodox Church". All three are significant enough to warrant inclusion at the beginning. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Extremely far from being quite clearly established. This is English Wikipedia not Greek or Romania --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Biruitorul for your excellent references. I added them to the article giving you proper credit in the edit-summaries. Don't concern yourself with ignorant and ungrammatical remarks by others. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

GOOGLE this "orthodox catholic church" and you get absolutely NOTHING! Sorry my mistake you get Orthodox-Catholic Church of America, http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurch.org, http://www.theorthodoxromancatholic.com. Sorry but the name is already taken!

That's that for a misguiding, practically and totally useless term. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) Please keep your country-of-origin-based remarks to yourself. Especially since you don't seem to understand what is going on. This is the official name of the church in the English language as attested by top-of-the-line English sources. It is of primary importance in this article because it is the official name of the Church. Nice form too. Not. First you canvass Biruitorul to give his opinion then you mention his country of origin when you don't agree with him. As far as getting nothing from a Google search, please read the article again. It has three encyclopaedic dictionaries using that very same term. You may not be able to Google them yourself but I trust you can read them in the article. And the official name of the church is not ... a misguiding, practically and totally useless term. This is just your uninformed opinion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr.K., I'm glad to have been of assistance; thank you for your additions and for maintaining a high standard on this high-traffic article.

Septimus Wilkinson, are you here to discuss an issue constructively or to hurl insults at other editors? Who said anything about sources in Greek or in Romanian? And have you, by any chance, reviewed WP:GHITS? Google searches, while potentially useful, are not a bulletproof method of research. They need to be combined with common sense and with actual analysis of the sources being unearthed. Please try to be more cooperative, to leave behind your preconceptions, and to listen to what others are saying before throwing out more nonsensical attacks. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Biruitorul for your kind words, although you supplied the majority of the encyclopaedic sources, so you deserve most of the credit. :) In any case, anyone who can mistake Encyclopaedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions and The Encyclopedia of World Religions for Greek or Romanian encyclopaedias needs to seriously reexamine their contributions here. And I have not even considered the intent of the stupid references to the country of origin of other editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at several of the cited sources and agree that some of them do use the name Orthodox Catholic Church in an official way. I am still uneasy with giving this name "official" second billing in the opening sentence of the article, because I remain unconvinced that this name is widely used in sources directed at the general English-speaking population. And for this reason, I don't see much likelihood of a consensus forming in support of the current wording. As a possible compromise in the interests of achieving a wider consensus, I would like to propose the following (with the existing source citations): The Eastern Orthodox Church, also known as the Orthodox Church, and referred to in various official documents as the Orthodox Catholic Church.... Comments on this? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The three encyclopaedias are unequivocal in that this is the official name of the Church. The official name does not have to be a popular name. Being the official name is only uttered much less frequently, but that does not make it any less official. This compromise in the face of the evidence provided by three encyclopaedias and more reliable sources in the article, is simply OR. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so we don't forget. Here is the evidence:

Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Eastern Orthodoxy". Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Eastern Orthodoxy, official name Orthodox Catholic Church, one of the three major doctrinal and jurisdictional groups of Christianity. The official designation of the church in Eastern Orthodox liturgical or canonical texts is “the Orthodox Catholic Church.” Because of the historical links of Eastern Orthodoxy with the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantium (Constantinople), however, in English usage it is referred to as the “Eastern” or “Greek Orthodox” Church. These terms are sometimes misleading, especially when applied to Russian or Slavic churches and to the Orthodox communities in western Europe and America."

^ Wendy Doninger (1999). Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions. Merriam-Webster. p. 309. ISBN 978-0-87779-044-0. Retrieved 2 April 2013. "The official designation of the church in Eastern Orthodox liturgical or canonical texts is "the Orthodox CATHOLIC Church.""

^ Robert S. Ellwood; Gregory D. Alles (2007). The Encyclopedia of World Religions. Infobase Publishing. p. 128. ISBN 978-1-4381-1038-7. Retrieved 2 April 2013. "The Eastern Orthodox Churches are properly known as the "Orthodox Catholic Church"

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is about all I can do here. If anyone else wants to pursue this matter further, I would advise you to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN), refer to this discussion, and ask for opinions on whether the above three sources are reliable for the specific purpose of supporting the current phrasing of the first sentence of the article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Some encyclopedias do make this assertion, and as tertiary sources they are acceptable, though not ideal, sources. The main counter-argument to the prominence currently given to "Orthodox Catholic Church" is the relative silence of most relevant primary and secondary sources. Weighing the significance of silence is generally hard. But in this case the silence seems deafening. For primary sources, check the official websites of the major English language Orthodox Churches (goarch.org, oca.org, antiochian.org). None gives much prominence to the name, if they mention it at all. For secondary sources, see any of the standard texts on the church. For example Kallistons Ware's "The Orthodox Church" - a Google Books search finds only one occurrence of "Orthodox Catholic Church" in the body text of the book, and that is just quoting a particular liturgical text that uses the phrase. I can find no matches in John Meyendorff's book of the same title. I agree with User:Richwales's proposal to de-emphasize the name. The quality secondary sources do not support the degree of emphasis it gets. Mrhsj (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is about the title, which is NOT "Orthodox Catholic Church," it is not about the lead. Hence, this article perfectly meets WP:COMMONNAME. The Church's official name is "Orthodox Catholic Church." This is supported by a number official documents of the Orthodox Church, as well as some (few, but some) secondary sources and plenty of tertiary sources. There is no need to "de-emphasize," since there is no better place for the "Official" name than the lead. I will not repost sources, since a good look at the archives will provide sources (primary, secondary, tertiary) that states the official name.

As for the "Google search" (although that type of arguments are not valid in Wikipedia discussions as you all know), here are several websites (I've only included ten since I don't have the whole day), all sharing the same sentence in one way or another "The official designation of the church in its liturgical and canonical texts is “the Orthodox Catholic Church” (gr. catholicos = universal)."

- Orthodox Dioceses of Eastern Pensylvania - [58]

- Delmarva Orthodox Mission - [59]

- Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Church - [60]

- Holy Wisdom Orthodox Church - [61]

- Most Holy Mother of God (Orthodox ) Parish, which quotes Britannica - [62]

- Holy Ascencion Orthodox Church - [63]

- Info-Service - Serbian Orthodox Church - [64]

- St. Paul Greek Orthodox Church - [65].

- Orthodox Christian Church in Thailand (Russian Patriarcate) - [66]

- (Orthodox Church oriented) bookstore - [67]

If an WP:RSN is to be started, then there are plenty of references in this discussion page as well as many of its archives that support the accuracy of the "Orthodox Catholic Church" as the official name. They should also be taken into consideration, and not only the three encyclopedia entries.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was pointed to this discussion by Septimus Wilkinson. As far as I can tell, the term "Orthodox Catholic Church" is reliably sourced, and in Greek at least, indeed appears to be used as the formal name of the Church in such things as dogmatical decisions by the Synod of the Church of Greece, theological treatises, as well as a host of other Orthodox publications. I cannot say as to how widespread this use is in the Slavic churches, or whether it is indeed the formal name (I always thought that formally, the OC identified itself simply as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" per the Nicene Creed) or just one among many. I would certainly prefer a more direct evidence rather than the testimony of tertiary sources, but the notability of the naming is sufficiently established even so, and there is no real reason to doubt Britannica's veracity on this. Constantine ✍ 08:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Kostas and Coquidragon for your analysis and the exposition of more sources which further prove the use of the term. These additional sources, added to the reliable reference of Britannica and the two encyclopaedias of religion, form a decisive set of reliable evidence which cannot be refuted. From the reliable sources provided by Coquidragon, the Most Holy Mother of God Parish at Dover, Florida makes direct reference to Britannica and the name of the Church as Orthodox Catholic Church which is emphasised by the church by italicising the descriptor "official name" and using bolded italics for "Orthodox Catholic Church". It doesn't get any more emphatic than that. Here it is: Most Holy Mother of God Parish, Dover FL:

Here is a basic entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica for the Orthodox Church: "official name Orthodox Catholic Church one of the three major doctrinal and jurisdictional groups of Christianity.

This is a most interesting source from an Orthodox church, which shows that everyday practitioners of Orthodoxy make use of the reliable reference of Britannica when they want to highlight their heritage. The same source also gives prominence and emphasis to the name Orthodox Catholic Church by bolding it, italicising it and emphasising its introduction. I could go on and on analysing all the other sources but I need not. The triangulation of all this evidence is strong and unmistakable and points to only one direction: The importance and wide usage of the official name of the Church. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Challenge to Claim to Continuity with the Early Church

Below is the new paragraph based on a newly published academic article from a peer reviewed journal. This page is lengthy, this paragraph is not and is, I believe, the only alternative interpretation of it's claimed history here.Yeoberry (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims to have inherited it's traditions from the Apostolic Church. John B. Carpenter has challenged that claim by trying to show that icons (see below) were not originally accepted in the Christian Church. He claims that the early church appears to have inherited the opposition to icons from second temple, Talmudic Judaism. Hence, early Christians were accused of being "atheists" by Romans who assumed the absence of images meant the absence of belief in gods. Origen (184-254) responded to the charge of "atheism" by admitting that Christians did not use images in worship, following the Second Commandment. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira (c. 305) states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” About the year 327 the early church historian Eusebius (c. AD 263 – 339) wrote, "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." Epiphanius (inter 310–320 – 403), bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus wrote, in Letter 51 (c. 394), to John, Bishop of Jerusalem about an incident of finding an image in a church in his jurisdiction: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” Carpenter concludes that the issue of icons arose some time after the fourth century and they were originally opposed, only being accepted by the second "Seventh Ecumenical Council" (787) which he says constitutes the true beginning of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Yeoberry (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor User:Yeoberry has added the same information to a couple of Wikipedia articles.

• 1.[68]
• 2.[69]
• 3.[70]

Wikipedia is not the place to break new research per se. And even so this a bunch of vios. One its WP:undue weight as the section is bigger than say the Trinity section in the article which is a topic that covers well over at least 1700 years of information. Why has this not been treated as a sentence at the end of the icon section for example? I mean there are plenty of critics against the Orthodox and they have more historical significances (Celsus, Porphryr) that this person I have never heard of. But again add it according to policy to the article if its valid criticism as long as it is contextualized properly so be it. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is secondary source, an academic article from a peer reviewed journal. You're welcome to make some needed editorial changes but a complete deletion is unwarranted given this meets the guidelines for a source. By the way, Celsus was a pagan critic of Christianity per se. Citing Porphyry would probably be original research, primary source, and so not acceptable. Wikipedia is a tertiary source dependent on peer reviewed secondary sources, that this is.Yeoberry (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The view of a single person gaining so much prominence in the article is a clear case of WP:UNDUE. It wider acceptance by the academic and theological community is unknown. Until it gains wide traction in academic circles it does not belong in this article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a peer reviewed, academic article. It's not lengthy given the length of this article and the only alternative history provided. Much of the length is from quotations of primary sources.Yeoberry (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The views of a single author going against the prevalent wide and mainstream academic and theological consensus are a clear case of WP:UNDUE. They clearly do not belong in the main article of the church. These views do not belong in the article of the history of the church either but I will consider this matter separately later on. Δρ.Κ. ^λόγος

Do you have any evidence that "the prevalent wide and mainstream academic and theological consensus" is anything other than what is represented in this article? That is, you seem to be assuming that the "prevalent wide and mainstream academic and theological consensus" is equivalent to the EOC view. Any foundation for that? Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

πράξις 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not..

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning
• Advertising
• to promote new ideas without context

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry has, I believe, a COI in relationship to John Carpenter. When asked on his talk page his answer is to delete the question. He created an article on the church where Carpenter is pastor (deleted by AfD) and one on Carpenter himself with the edit summary "curriculum vita of Dr. John B. Carpenter". That one was speedy deleted (twice). That's in addition to the fact that this is WP:UNDUE, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you very much Doug. And to think he was accusing me of COI in his edit-summary. This so-called International Society of Christian Apologetics is almost non-existent on Google Scholar and it gets only 14 hits. Its journal gets only one hit. This is clearly not a mainstream theological journal. Meanwhile there is no mention of John B. Carpenter's paper on Google Scholar on which it gets precisely zero hits: [71]. And John. B. Carpenter is also non-existent on Google Scholar. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're interested in the organization and journal, see: http://www.isca-apologetics.org/jisca. Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)This is very far from being "new research", being very well-worn and unoriginal stuff from Reformation polemics and their long continuation. More balanced sources should be used, and not cherry-picked. It is also too long for this article. I hesitate to point this out, but Aniconism in Christianity is the place for full consideration of this issue. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, relying on well-edited secondary sources, not primary ("new research"). The article is new, published in the April edition of the JISCA.Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Most excellent Doug.. As always it is an honor to see you and your comments Dr K. So another editor comes and starts an editwar. YAH! It seems that what is lost often in these little hit and runs is that heresy means that there is nothing orthodox that there is no orthodox position (what heterodox is). I can say just from what was posted that I would wonder how valid the peer-review is since there are very obvious mistakes in what was being presented by this John Carpenter person. I mean that in a historical evidence kind of way (see for example the Catacombs of Rome and the early Christian paints, images there in (yes just because it is said by someone does not make it true there is actually Christian art before 300AD that can be validated by archeology). As to the rehashing of iconoclasm this person and or the one whom wrote this would do better to address their point in the context of the iconoclast councils. It is a shame that people do this kinda stuff. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record I wonder how this could tie in with an article about this information.

"In 2005 Israeli archaeologists claimed to have found the earliest Christian church when they uncovered a floor mosaic dating from the first part of the third century."[72]

Hey but who knows right? This site, article is dating the mosaic to around 200AD? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Art is not necessarily icons. Contact the International Society for Christian Apologetics, read the article, etc. Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you very much LoveMonkey for your kind words. I reciprocate the honour. :) It is also an honour for me talking to a respected editor such as yourself. Thank you also for your well-made comments on the historical background of this dispute. Regarding the proposed addition of the Carpenter paper, I think it is clear that this work is not notable and fails by any possible metric of Google Scholar analytics. The paper does not appear, ditto for the author, the journal is only referred to in only one publication and the society gets only 14 hits. Clearly not a viable paper academically or theologically. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry has added it to Icon, Iconography, Epiphanius of Salamis and History of the Orthodox Church and has added something else by John Carpenter here[73] - most of that was removed by Carpenter is still in the article. Time for WP:COIN? Note that COI editors can edit, but they certainly should not be reverting to keep any material that they are related to somehow in an article. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I will revert these additions because the reference is not reliable. However I am not familiar with COIN or the specific details of this particular editor's COI. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The bit about Epiphanius of Salamis was already in the article, with more context (ref Catholic Encyclopedia). Perhaps some of the quotes can be used, as the passage is covered in many sources. I have done Icon & Iconography. Family integrated church is at least on Carpenter's home ground, & I think local editors can be left to handle it. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you John. No problem. I think I will be filing a COIN report soon. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Per Doug's advice I have created a report at COIN: Multiple religious articles related to Eastern Orthodoxy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)