Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eastern Orthodoxy for the subpage mentioned above

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

Countries in second paragraph

The sentence currently reads: Eastern Orthodoxy is the largest single religious denomination in many nations in Eastern Europe, but there are also large Orthodox communities in Africa, Asia, North America and Australia.

I had tried to revise it so that it read as follows (but my edit got reverted for no justifiable reason): ''Eastern Orthodoxy is the largest single religious denomination in Greece, Cyprus and Georgia and in many nations in Eastern Europe, but there are also large Orthodox communities in Africa, Asia, North America and Australia. The reason I did this is that it's rather silly to stress Eastern Europe while a major Eastern Orthodox nation such as Greece is not mentioned. Greece is not in "Eastern Europe" but it is just as recognizable to a reader of Wikipedia as an Eastern Orthodox nation as various Eastern European nations.

I liked it the way it read a couple of weeks ago. For example, on June 10th, it read: The present-day influence of the Eastern Orthodox Church encompasses the territories associated with the former Byzantine and Russian empires: Eastern Europe, Asia (Russia/Siberia), and parts of the Middle East and Africa. Today, although Eastern Orthodoxy's strongest influence can be seen in Greece, Cyprus, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Montenegro, Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania, Republic of Moldova, Bulgaria, and Georgia, the Orthodox Church has a presence in a great many other countries largely because of the emigration of Eastern Orthodox peoples, with large communities in the USA, Canada and Australia.

I propose one of the following:

• go back to what it was on June 10th.
• restore it back to how I edited it today.

--Aquarius Rising 00:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the sentence: Eastern Orthodoxy is the largest single religious denomination in Greece, Cyprus and Georgia and in many nations in Eastern Europe, but there are also large Orthodox communities in Africa, Asia, North America and Australia.

Greece is not Eastern Europe (and she is one of the most important Orthodox countries). Georgia's geographical position also is disputed between Eurasia and Europe. Cyprus is not Eastern European country. I think Aquarius made a correct editing and fixed that misunderstanding. Ldingley 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The cross on the page

I should note the cross on the page is typically only used by the Slavs. Shouldn't it be the "Slavic Orthodox Cross" becuase the Greeks don't typically use it.--68.45.161.241 21:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that we should call it the "Slavic Orthodox Cross," or that it's typically only used by the Slavs- It's all over my church, and we're Antiochian, with a mostly Arabic congregation. Does it have Slavic origins? Themill 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Name for the creed

Orthodox doctrine regarding the Holy Trinity is summarized in the Symbol of Faith (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed).

Is the term "Symbol of Faith" used in the eastern orthodox tradition? I was under the impression that this was an RC term. If that is the case I would suggest changing to simply "summarized in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed".

TomViza 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed. In my copy of the Greek Archdiocese of America's Divine Liturgy book, on the English side it simply reads "The Creed," but the Greek side clearly says Symbolon tis Pisteos ("Symbol of Faith"). —Preost ^{talk contribs} 01:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Coming from a traditional Greek Orthodox background I have always heard it called, "The Symbol of Faith".--Phiddipus 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If anything, it's "creed" that's a RC term; it's from the Latin "credo", which is its first word in that language. "Symbol" is of Greek origin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "Symbol of Faith" has gained currency in the academic circles of Catholic liturgists, which would explain why some might believe it to be a term of Catholic origin. Creed simply follows the Latin naming pattern of using the first word (usually first two words) such as the "Our Father," the "Hail Mary," or "Veritatis Splendor." --Vaquero100 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Theotokos

Just out of curiosity, if Orthodox believes that Mary remained a virgin, how do they reconcile the fact that Jesus had siblings, like James. Any help would be appreciated. 129.252.69.19 23:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It has always been understood by the Orthodox that the Theotokos, Mary was dedicated as a temple virgin around the age of 3. She lived and served in the temple until 12 at which time she was required to marry. However, she wished to remain forever a virgin in service to the temple. So in order to accommodate her she was married to a relative, most likely an older, widowed uncle also of the line of David. This uncle was St. Joseph. He was required by law to take care of her, but he could never have sex with her because they were related. He was a widower and had children from his previous marriage. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, was Christ’s “brother” (i.e. one of Joseph’s children). Also, it is normal in the Greek language to refer to any kinsman as ones brothers (adelphoi) not necessarily an actual brother. Much of this is drawn from church traditions. One supporting text is the apocryphal: “The Nativity of Mary” which despite not being accepted as part of scripture, is still considered to be accurate in its description of events.--Phiddipus 05:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nai etc einai ^

There is no separation from God

There is no separation from God. The idea is ridiculous and limits God. If anything, hell is eternal existence within the burning love of the infinite and all-loving God by those that despise the originator of that love. There is no place where God is not all-present, including hell.--Phiddipus 07:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I generally agree with you, but separation from God is not ridiculous because it limits God; human free will also limits God in a certain way, because it means that not all things are directly effected (note the "e") by God. Tix 04:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

God is described as omnipresent - in all places. This aspect cannot be limited. There is no action caused by human free will that is not observed by God. At the same time, we do not call God all-controlling, imagining that our actions are controlled by God. The fact that God does not control us does not limit him because potentially he could if he chose to do so.--Phiddipus 05:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Followers

I read that the Eastern Orthodox Church has approx. 300 million followers an increase from the 250 million believed in 2000. There is no hard stone exact number since many former communist countries are having people return to the church. Just something I would like to point out :) --Happyman22 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox Churches

I am a Catholic, so I am unfamiliar with the way or ways Orthodox Christians self-identify. However you do self-identify, I want to respect. So please correct me if I am wrong.

Two points I am wondering about:

1) Do Orthodox Christians use the modifier "Eastern." That seems to me to be a Western POV. I could be wrong, but I understand that the term "Orthodox" is used alone without a modifier.

2) I made a couple of changes on the page from "Church" to "Churches." Is it not more proper to refer to Churches in the plural than the singular, Church? How do Orthodox Christians self-identify theier Church/Churches?

If my perceptions are correct, then should not the title of this article be "Orthodox Churches" or "Orthodox Christianity?"

Thank you for your thoughts. --Vaquero100 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1) No, not usually among ourselves. It's normally the "Orthodox Church". "Eastern" is there because others seem to expect some kind of qualifier, as "Russian", "Greek", etc. "Eastern" fills that expectation in the general case. It also distinguishes us from the non-Chalcedonians, who are conventionally called "Oriental Orthodox" even though "Eastern" and "Oriental" are synonyms.

2) As a communion, we conceive of ourselves as one Church, regardless of administrative divisions. The singular is correct when applied to the whole body.

The name of the article was formerly "Eastern Orthodoxy", and was changed to "Eastern Orthodox Church" after some discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Csernica on both points, especially in understanding that what unites the various Orthodox nationalities is a fundemental agreement on beliefs, and while there may be slight cultural differences in the way we do things, the commonality of our beliefs remains the same. There is One Body and One Head; Christ is the Head and the Church is His Body.--68.190.207.210 04:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. I understood about the commonality of beliefs, but was uncertain whether the independent nature made it a singular or plural, grammatically. --Vaquero100 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I answered, I think, the question Vaquero raised about the term "Eastern". I also used "she" in the first few paragraphs. Although that need not be done always and everywhere, I think we can't take very seriously the teaching that Church is the Bride of Christ if we don't use it some, and prominently. --Palmleaf

This article must respect Wikipedia stylistic norms, regardless of the personal religious beliefs of editors. Do you have any citations from the WP policy pages that you think would make "she" appropriate here? CRCulver 03:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the Wikipedia article "Bride" and found that "she" was used, and no explanation was thought necessary (no surprise there). For the same reason, I didn't think any was necessary in a paragraph dealing with the Orthodox Church's identity as the Bride of Christ. I might add that in the Greek language of the Bible and the Fathers, both "Church" and "Bride" are feminine words, and so these two words are regularly referred to as "she" in the language of theology, including but not limited to biblical, patristic, and liturgical texts. Often this is lost in English, but it is good to bring it out on occasion. When speaking of the Church as Bride of Christ, probably no one ever used "he" in English, and seldom, if ever, has anyone used "it" in that context; both usages would be rather strange. On the other hand, "Church" is often referred to in English as an "it" by Orthodox writers but sometimes as a "she", and by some authors always as "she." How much that needs to be stressed probably depends on the context. The identity of the Church as Bride of Christ grows out of the same image used of Israel in the Old Covenant. Thus, an article treating Israel's unfaithfulness to God would be more likely to speak of the Church as a "she." When speaking of the Church in terms of other images, e.g. body of Christ, ark of salvation, house of God, the feminine gender may not apply even in Greek; for example "body" is a neuter word in that language. --Palmleaf 5 August 2006

In the section on the early church (which is a bit of a misnomer, as it goes right up to the present -- I suggest that the last paragraph be moved to the top of the article) I changed "jurisdictions" to "churches".

Using "jurisdiction" as a countable noun is a neologism, and should be avoided unless one is prepared to give an explanation. As far as I am aware, its use as a countable noun is mainly north American. SteveH 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem regarding church/churches is that both are correct given a context. In my own usage I find that I use "The Orthodox Church" when I'm talking about the philosophy, theology and certain universal traditions (eg, "The Orthodox Church believes that the goal of man is deification."), but "The Eastern Orthodox Churches" when I'm talking about politics and history (eg, "Eastern Orthodox Churches have, in general, had turbulent histories of persecution.") But even then I'm not sure that I'm totally consistent. The problem with a title is that it has to cover all these areas. When in doubt I would normally use the singular and as, in my opinion the theological side is the more important, this works well for me. A somewhat similar situation, by the way, exists in British English where the word government can be a singular or a plural depending only on context, but in lists of words it is normally assumed to be a singular with, perhaps, a note indicating its possible usage as a plural.

In a different vein, I think that a better word in many ways would be "Communion" as in "The Eastern Orthodox Communion", but this is so untraditional that it would confuse rather than enlighten. Dorotheus 09:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the fasting Section

It is so very sad to see the degeneration of such positive and uplifting holy traditions such as fasting turned into a self inflicted punishment and struggle, even if that struggle is against the “passions”. Converts to Orthodoxy always see fasts as hardship. The concentration in this direction is why our fasts are slowly but surely going the way of Roman Catholic fasting which today pretty much amounts to nothing. Maybe I am angry that people can be so self damaging as to think this way, maybe they can’t see the truth through all the clutter. When people convert to Orthodoxy they usually only half convert; they carry a lot of their old Roman Catholic baggage with them. Eventually you get enough of them talking and people begin to start forgetting their old Orthodox ideas and start thinking that this new stuff they are hearing IS Orthodox. Eventually it deteriorates the traditions of the Church.

The reason we fast is rooted in our purpose in life, to attain theosis, to become like God, or to at least become as God intended us to be when he created us. Adam before the fall ate no animal products; he ate from the plants and trees. He also had no sexual relations. To fast is to return to paradise, to recapture purity within ourselves. We fast to help open our eyes to spiritual things. Christ tells us that when we fast we should anoint ourselves and go forth with pleasant expressions, not sad with sunken cheeks. I doubt he cares about how we dress, but rather our attitude. I seriously think the segment on ‘Fasting” should be rewritten. As it is it sounds like it was written by a Roman Catholic or an ex-Roman Catholic with baggage. No offence to such, I would not presume to write on Roman Catholicism.--Phiddipus 01:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There may be a bit of linguistic confusion here. The time of fasts, especially Great Lent, are times of spiritual struggle. This can easily be misunderstood that fasting itself is a struggle. I have no idea how common this misunderstanding actually is, so I wouldn't be so bold as to assume it's as common as you say -- nor is it my experience that fasting is going by the wayside -- but I agree that it seems to be reflected in the article as written.

Other than that one point though, it seems to me that the Fasting section reflects what you're saying here fairly well. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, though, don't be so rough on us converts. We're trying! Themill 11:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox or Christian Orthodox

Hi. I am Georgian and I would like to suggest something about the title of the article. I am not an expert in theology or linguistic studies, but I would like to discuss the word "eastern" in the article. Normally, if I wrote an article I would write Christian Orthodox Church than using the word "eastern". I don't believe that Geography has to be involved in the article. For example, when people talk about the Catholic Church, they don't say Western Catholic Church or something like that since most of the Catholic Churches are located in Western Europe and the Americas. However, I have noticed in the United States and in English speaking world in general there is a tendency of addressing Christian Orthodox Church as Eastern Orthodox Church. My suggestion is to make the title Christian Orthodox Church. However, I am not an expert in Religious Studies.Sosomk 19:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards require editors to use the name most commonly used in English-language scholarship, whether they think it is ideal or not. To use a different term would be Original Research, which Wikipedia does not permit. See WP:NOR. Because "Eastern Orthodox" is the traditional term in English-language scholarship, we must use it. CRCulver 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The more common word order in English would also be "Orthodox Christian". Your point is valid. But "Eastern Orthodox" is, as CRCulver says, the most recognizable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, when people talk about the Catholic Church, they don't say Western Catholic Church or something like that. No, but many of them say "Roman Catholic Church", which strikes many Catholics as inaccurate or strange. Slac speak up! 09:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Eastern" qualifier also helps distinguish us from the non-Chalcedonians, who are called "Oriental Orthodox" in standard English. Themill 12:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

North America?

The section on North America is only about the US, and barely mentions Canada. It think some content from the article of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada (among others) should be merged in.Kevlar67 07:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kevlar, we should mention Orthodox Church in Canada. There is a huge Ukrainian community which maintains its Orthodox heritage. Ldingley 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This article, and the one on John Ireland (archbishop) say that "Ireland is sometimes ironically remembered as the "Father of the Orthodox Church in America." Can someone cite a reference for that? I recall a similar thing being said about St. Alexis Toth, not Abp. Ireland. Palmleaf 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

templates

I made Template talk:Eastern Christianity/rework in order to replace the clunky Template:Eastern Christianity (which should probably be placed on talk if used at all). I was wondering if my proposed template is something that could be helpful for this and similar article, and if so, are there any changes that should be made? Feel free to edit the rework.--Andrew c 20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Its great, good job! Ldingley 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject begun

A WikiProject has been formed for articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. You've probably noticed links to it put up in various places. As of now, its organization is very much up for consensus, and a basic skeleton has been put in place. Please come help form the WikiProject so that articles on the Church may be of higher quality. You can see existing well-organized projects on similar subjects here: WikiProject Anglicanism, WikiProject Catholicism.

Take a look at WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, and if you choose to join the project, please add your name to the list of members and consider placing {{User WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy}} on your userpage.

Thanks for your consideration! —Preost ^{talk contribs} 16:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox Map

On the map, why does it exclude Ethiopia, which is anywhere from 35-60% Orthodox Christian, from the list? Is it because Ethiopia is considered Oriental Orthodox, rather than Eastern Orthodox? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonas Salk (talk • contribs) 03:58, July 29, 2006 (UTC).

Yes, that's correct. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches. I am surprised, though, that Syria isn't highlighted on this map, since Eastern Orthodox there make up at least 10% of the population. —Preost ^{talk contribs} 13:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Horos

I see this quote: "during certain significant moments of the service, it is swung to symbolically represent the universal participation of the church on earth and the church in heaven." I've never seen this. My priest hasn't heard of it. Can we get this cited or cut?

You'll see it on the Holy Mountain, for example, as well as some other places. I have no idea where to find a cite for it though; it's just what I've heard from those who have seen it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, in general, it's safe to say it doesn't occur frequently-- the passage makes it appear that it does. "I've heard it happens" isn't enough for Wikipedia, no?

I don't know how frequently; it happens in monasteries where they actually have a horos. You're right about the standard for inclusion, but this article is practically unreferenced anyway. But if you want to cut it, I for one won't squawk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox or Orthodox Christian

The Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church. The use of Eastern Orthodox is quite offensive since it is not used by us. I suppose if we are Eastern Orthodox then the only fair thing would be to call the Roman Catholic Church the Western Catholic Church. At least explain the reason for the use of EASTern in the Article otherwise this is very POV.--210.84.20.27 15:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For article titles, Wikipedia must use the name considered standard in English-language scholarship. And whether some Orthodox Christians think it fair or not, "Eastern Orthodox" is the standard term. CRCulver 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Gigantic, bloated, etc.

Is anyone interested in a total rewrite of this article, perhaps to be organized under WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy? It seems to me that most sections are far too large and could be apportioned off into separate articles, such as:

• History of the Eastern Orthodox Church
• Eastern Orthodox theology
• Eastern Orthodox worship
• Eastern Orthodox architecture
• Eastern Orthodox monasticism

Summaries for each section could replace the current versions and include links at the beginning of each section to the main articles. Since this would involve the creation of multiple new articles, it would perhaps be easiest to organize over at the WikiProject.

The article as it stands now is, IMO, very piecemeal and often badly written. It also is almost completely lacking in references. If no one else is interested in this, I will probably begin to do it myself unless there is a large outcry. —Preost ^{talk contribs} 12:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done one part and exported the original to Eastern Orthodox theology. Have at it. —Preost ^{talk contribs} 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comprise/compose

For some reason I typed the edit summary to say it sideways, but the edit was correct. We can say, "The Eastern Orthdox Church (singular) comprises a number of autocephalous (that is, self-governing) organizations..." or, as it now stands, "The Eastern Orthdox Church (singular) is composed of a number of autocephalous (that is, self-governing) organizations...." "...[I]s comprised of" is incorrect usage. See [1]. It may be correct someday, but right now it's still simply a common error. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This was a simple error on my behalf and I apologise. Slac speak up! 06:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to pick on you, but I screwed up the edit summary and had to make sense of it somewhere. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cerkiew

This article was long missing. Not sure if the name is all right, and perhaps material from 'Church buildings' section can be moved there?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This word doesn't denote a particular style of church building; it's just the usual word for a church building in the local language. I see no reason for this article to exist on its own. I say this as someone who deeply loves those wooden churches -- but really, if you're going to have this you might as well have an article Naos for Greek churches, or Khram for Russian cathedrals and so forth. (There is an article for "naos", but for its classical meaning.) If we're going to have a page on Orthodox church architecture, I think it ought to be merged in. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Words for specific types of church building exist in various languages, if English has no specific word for an Eastern Orthodox Church, the only question to discuss is which translation should we use (I'd suggest Russian, not Polish).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reasoning from the Russian without having researched it closely, and I strongly suspect this peculiar usage is due to Russian influence. Probably because Eastern Christianity is associated there especially with Russia. The related Russian word is церковь, "tserkov", but that simply means "church". If it were a Baptist church it would still be "церковь". It's descended from the same Greek word as Scots "kirk", English "church" and so forth: kyriakon.

Since it's therefore about a particular regional style of church and not Orthodox churches in general, I think that article should focus on those churches' characteristic features, and leave Orthodox church architecture in general to another article. This would naturally become the main article on the subject, with Cerkiew as a sub-article for this type only. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Official name

Regarding the request for citation that the name of the church is the "Orthodox Catholic Church", I appeal to common knowledge, but if you want something a bit more official looking, we could look to the Encyclopaedia Britanica:

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9363331/Eastern-Orthodoxy

"Eastern Orthodoxy: officially Orthodox Catholic Church"

In fact, I think this article should be moved there, because does Orthodoxy really want to remain relagated to the "East"? You can always redirect Eastern Orthodoxy there. Okay, that's my opinion, but I'm not going to be the one to move it. 203.32.87.174 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I'm the one who placed the tag. It's not that I disagree with the statement, at least theologically; far from it. The problem is that I've never seen an official statement anywhere from a reputable official source that this is the Church's official name. The Britannica is a very poor reference. It's bad practice in general to cite another encyclopedia since it will have been through an even more severe summarization process than Wikipedia. At best, it's a tertiary source. It is also itself not as well-referenced as Wikipedia's featured articles. I think we need something from an Orthodox source here. We may not appeal to common knowledge in an area thay may become contentious. I am therefore replacing the tag. I hope it's clear that the tag does not mean the statement is wrong, just that there ought to be something to support it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

203.32.87.174 10:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Well, perhaps official is the wrong word, the Brittanica expression of "formally" might be more apt. Although the Russian Orthodox wiki says "also known as the Orthodox Catholic Church of Russia", perhaps "also known as" would be acceptable? One thing the church is NOT officially known as (as far as I know) is the "Eastern Orthodox Church", although I understand why that expression is especially unambiguous.

If documentation is required that Orthodoxy refers to itself thus, I offer the following from the major patriarchates:

Antioch: http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite many traditional Catholic Christians of both the Roman and Anglican backgrounds are turning to the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Russia: http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enart_lardastalkmp.html

For two hundred years the Church of Georgia was out of communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Greek: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7053.asp the Orthodox church has never claimed to be anything less than the universal Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ. http://www.goarch.org/en/Chapel/saints.asp?contentid=388 From this the Orthodox Catholic Church has learned to show reverence and piety not only to the relics of their bodies, but also in the clothing of God's Saints.

By all means do, and provide cites using these websites. It's high time we started footnoting this article using <ref> tags as is usual in the better Wikipedia articles anyway. You can be the one to start. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that the Orthodox Church has been around for nearly 2000 years and has been adopted by numerous nationalities speaking various languages, each governed by its own autocephalous hierarchy, I think it is a specious argument that the church has one "Official" name. It is quite sufficient to realize that the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, etc, are all one and the same church. While I know that the Orthodox consider themselves Catholic, I think it leads to confusion to say so in English, where Catholic means Roman Catholic, not universal. I have heard Eastern Orthodox and the various national references all my life and seen them in thousands of articles. I have never seen "Orthodox Catholic" used commonly.--Phiddipus 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Church has historically been known as the Catholic Church, period. It was always the faith that was described as "Orthodox". "Orthodox" as a description of the Church is a relative neologism. (It might be centuries old, but then so is the New Calendar.) That does not change her proper name. "Eastern Orthodox Church" is the most commonly known general name in English, and that's why the article is located where it is, but that's no reason to conceal her proper name in the text. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

203.32.87.174 14:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC) I see a lot of orthodox people referring to themselves as Orthodox Catholic. Possibly they are being overly formal to make a point, but I don't think Orthodoxy should reliquish the "Catholic" nomenclature just because some folks look a bit puzzled. Let them be confused and ask pertinent questions. Anyway, I'm going to add it back to the text, I don't know how to cite things as the previous writer asked. I'm going to reword it to mention that Orthodoxy claims to be the Catholic Church (against Rome's claims) because that seems to me to be an important thing to mention, and I don't see it anywhere else in the article. I also think it's important to state clearly that the most common title the Church uses of itself is "The Orthodox Church". Even though the article switches to that nominclature half way through, this could be taken to be lazyness rather than what it is. Goodness knows naming is confusing enough as it is, I think this needs spelling out. If somebody removes it this time, I'm not going to add it again, it will be for you folks to sort out.

203.32.87.174 14:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it should also be said here that there are many "possibly" non orthodox groups who claim to be orthodox. In fact, The so called Orthodox Catholic Church of America may in fact be one of these non-canonical "Orthodox" churches. Its leader claims the title Metropolitan Archbishop...something I have never heard of before. There are numerous "wanna be" churches around sometimes run by well meaning individuals and sometimes by shysters. Just because you may have heard the term Orthodox Catholic, doesn't mean it’s common. Eastern Orthodox is the most common English expression used, followed by Greek or Russian Orthodox.--Phiddipus 00:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right about this. Non-canonical groups very carefully choose their names so as to appear legitimate. One would hardly expect otherwise even absent the experience, and there appear to be many that have incorporated "Orthodox Catholic Church" into their names. Many of them also use "Eastern Orthodox," "Greek Orthodox", etc. But are we therefore not to call the Church "Eastern Orthodox" either? Why should the Church give up any of her proper names just because someone else has co-opted them? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, there are a lot of books in the library of St. Vladimir's Seminary from around the 80's arguing that the Orthodox ought to reclaim the term "Orthodox Catholic Church." Maybe someone with access can expand on that bit in the article? --Xiaopo (Talk) 08:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Government

10/6/06 this page could use some information on the governing of the Orthodox church.

It practically isn't. Certainly not on a worldwide level, by any earthly authority. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox indulgence

I found in a Romanian history book a facsimile of an 18th century indulgence, with the text Indulgence granted by the patriarch Abraham of Jerusalem, sold by Greek monks for the "forgiving of the sins". I wonder if anyone here can read the text and tell us what it says. (at least the heading, if the small text is too small) :-) bogdan 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I was thinking that we can add an chapter for orthodox miracles:

- Holy Light - anualy at Jerusalem , in the Holy Sepulcre Church, a Light comes from the sky - Jordan river moving back - When Jesus entered Jordan river to be baptized, the river started moving backward. Every year when an orthodox ceremony takes place commemorating the baptisal of Jesus, Jordan river moves back fro several minutes - Cloud on Tabor Mountain - When the transfiguration took place, a cloud come on Mount Tabor signifying that Jesus is the way from Earth to Heaven. Anually a cloud comes to Mount Tabor. - Santctified water - normally water mollecules have a Brownian disordely movement. When the water is sanctified by an orthodox priest, the molecules start moving in order and the water becomes unaltered for years, it is fresh even after 1 year compared with being fresh only one week. www.orthodoxphotos.com has some miracles for orthodox church. Many others. --Adrian

Women's ordination

An unregistered user added material to the Holy Orders section about the past history of ordination of deaconesses. The material was poorly written, poorly spelled, and inappropriately joined into the main paragraph about Orders. It provides a source, but the source is (I believe) regarded as controversial. I think if material on this subject is to be added it should be in a separate subsection and written from a more NPOV. Mrhsj 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

does anyone support my view?

i think that at least 20% of christian orthodox are in fact atheists and only christians by name or in ID's , when i been in moscow in 2003 i remember a big advertisment poster in public street againt the "cross" , i didnt understand it very well but i feel that alot of youth russians dont believe in god at all , does anyone agree ? Ammar 13:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

At least in here, in Romania, the religion is often assimilated with the ethnicity. 99% of the people belong to a religion, but only 52% believe in afterlife and only 26% attend church weekly. I was registered as a Christian Orthodox in the last census, but I'm an atheist. :-) bogdan 13:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To some extent this applies to Greece as well, to my knowledge also in Bulgaria and Serbia, and, i guess in Russia and Romania as stated above. Being Orthodox does not mean going to the Church every Sunday, not only believing in afterlife and not only making the distinction between 'good and evil'... Maybe there are varying degrees of "believing". Also, we should not forget that the people of these countries are raised up as Orthodox, have Orthodox names and, more or less, Orthodox values. In the pretext mentioned above, we should say that a same ammount of Catholics are not Catholics either, not to mention a same or larger ammount of Muslims who are not Muslims at all (communists, atheists, etc). IMO, the only way to come up with a number, is to count those who register as belonging to one religion (as it happens in most European countries, where people decide whether they belong to a religion or not), and not numbers coming from state officials, without censuses conducted and for obvious reasons. Hectorian 13:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

you could be write but what i think that youth russians (specially) are some kind of.. proud to be atheists but they keep the orthodox ID's for some reason , but its really hard to find a catholic or a muslim who is a non-believer . Ammar 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Muslims from the Balkans (Albanians and Bosniaks) are not very pious, either. :-) bogdan 14:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree, Ammar, the atheists in the Orthodox countries are not much different than the atheists in other countries. the young russians can change their IDs if they want to (have in mind that in Russia there are people who are officially atheists). so, maybe those who do not change their IDs, are indeed Orthodox, no matter some atheistic ideas that they may have. and as bogdan said, the Albanians and the Bosniaks are not very pious... i doubt if they follow any of the muslim customs, concerning their clothes, laws and traditional customs... What i can say for sure is that all the Greeks (i am not exagerrating on that) no matter if they are atheists or Orthodox, go to the church every year at 12 o'clock in the night of Holy Saturday, all of them baptise their children and follow the Orthodox customs. I bet that somehow similar is the position of the other Orthodox people. as for the Russian youth, have in mind that Orthodoxy has experienced a rennaisance in Russia after the fall of communism... Hectorian 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright Gentelmen :) thanx for sharing ideas :) i didnt know that they can be offically atheists , fear from general opinion or their families maybe :) thanx again friends Ammar 19:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome;-) and thank you too. Hectorian 19:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)