Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church

Template:WP1.0

Fasting

Given what I've read on Orthodox fasting this section seems short and should probably be given its own article with the existing section cleaned up into a shorter and more readable summary. It also seems wrong from what I've read so far. While fasting is personal going without fast without reason has punishments associated with it, yes? Even if not generally enforced? 68.126.152.20 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fasting is like an exercise that builds spiritual muscles. There is no punishment for not fasting, but then there is no gain either.--Phiddipus 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Percentages

It's not clear what the list of percentages in the "number of adherents" section is referring to - are these percentages of total population following Orthodoxy? Or percentages of those who are religious following Orthodoxy? Or percentages of those who are christian following Orthodoxy? A percentage means nothing if one isn't told what it's a percentage of.128.232.248.162 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Schism

It seems to me that the discussion of the Great Schism is a bit limited. It doesn't even give the year 1054 as a date (it simply says 11th cent.) and I think I'm right in saying that's the traditional date attributed to it...right? There's the whole story of the papal legates in St. Sophia....I know there were countless othe factors, but surely this should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edinbork (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I added {{main}} to point the reader clearly to the main article, even though it was wikilinked in the first sentence. The 1054 date is conventional, yes, but it's also something of a canard. Otherwise, I don't think any more detail is necessary here than is already present. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the last edit

Because I think it's better-worded, more succinct and more encyclopedic in tone. Can objectors please argue to me why it isn't? Slac speak up! 02:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because giving good important information is more important than nebulous "encyclopedic tone". If you can provide the same information with the tone you like, be my guest.

Alcohol

If anyone could provide some Orthodox input over at Christianity and alcohol (or Talk:Christianity and alcohol), I'd appreciate it! --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move of interest

In case anyone here wants to weigh in, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic Churches: See Talk:Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Fishhead64 07:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The relationshp between Orthodox and non-Orthodox and the rejection of non-orthodox mysteries

It’s a terrible thing when the exception becomes the norm and logic flies out the window. We Orthodox are reluctant, now-a-days to assert what we believe thanks to our desire to fit in with the rest of the world. Martyrs died rather than compromise one iota of their beliefs. Here are the facts, like them or not:

The Orthodox Church is the only true Church. The Orthodox Church is the only church with Grace. The mysteries performed by our clergy are the only valid mysteries. The baptisms of non-Orthodox are not baptisms recognized by the Church. Nor is communion or marriage or any other Mystery. Non- Orthodox converts should be baptized…whatever their non-Orthodox priests did to them as children does not count as their priests are without grace and validity. Just because one bishop allows a certain practice out of economia does not make it a liberty for others to do so.

This does not mean that Orthodox are the only ones saved. God is merciful to all. It doesn’t even mean that non-Orthodox are less likely to be saved. This is God’s prerogative. But the fact is Non-Orthodox are not Orthodox and do not belong to the true church. --Phiddipus 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And that attitude has probably kept millions of disaffected Roman Catholics from joining. Whenever I wonder why I haven't, that's why. Carlo 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us hope, Carlo, that you would join the church because it is considered by you to be the true church, not because you like the music and incense. Let us hope you are more interested in a commitment to the Truth, than in socializing with ethnics. It would seem that your criterion for an acceptable belief is that it denies itself. You speak about attitude, there is no attitude involved. It is our firm belief that we are the True Church. What else are we supposed to believe? We also believe that God loves everyone and that Christians of every denomination will go to heaven. We even believe that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, even atheists may go to heaven. But are they the True Church? We would have to say no. Are their clergy endowed with the Grace of God as ours are through Apostolic Succession? We would have to say no. Otherwise we deny ourselves. You can make whatever choices in life you want to; you may be far more comfortable in a church which caters to your weaknesses, supports compromise. If you are a good person then there will be nothing to separate you from God’s love, wherever you are. But don’t ask us to deny who we are or what we believe because it makes you uncomfortable.--Phiddipus 04:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to say that you are the Church. It is another to say that others AREN'T. Claiming exclusivity IS a weakness - it's an appeal to human vanity. "Aren't WE the special ones? THEY aren't - WE are!" Carlo 16:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really make any sense. If they are the Church, then it logically follows that other religious bodies aren't. Additionally, I'm finding Ecumenicism increasingly troubling- I once held to that viewpoint, but the more I ponder and read about it, the more it becomes nonsensical; a mere decapitation of religious ideas for human interests. There is a difference between being vain and being correct; considering the arguments presented by the Church for such claims of exclusivity, it seems an accusation of vanity is unfounded.--C.Logan 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. This really isn't the place. For those of us Byzantines, isn't it a bit early for the fasting to make us irritable and snappy? InfernoXV 16:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Carlo, You are hearing something that I am not saying. There are many kinds of cars on the market today. In 1908 Ford produced his first Model T. The Model T had certain features that made it a highly successful automobile. In 1926 Ford began producing the Model A. Since that time there have been thousands of different models of car on the market. But I tell you this, no car on the market has the same exact qualities as the Model T. I am not saying that all the other models aren’t good. I am not saying that they don’t have an easier rider, or are more comfortable. All I am saying is that they aren’t Model Ts. It would, in fact, be silly for me to try and convince you that a car produced by Mercedes Benz is a Ford Model-T. It simply isn’t. The Orthodox Church is believed by us to be the original Church. That God endowed it with certain features that made it what it was. All other “denominations” are breakaways from the original, or breakaways from breakaways. This simply means that they are no longer Orthodox. Like cars, those other models can still get you from here to there, even if they do not have the exact qualities of the Model T. We Orthodox have learned that the Church is special and unique and worthy of preservation, even at the cost of our own lives. When we recite the “Symbol of Faith” it is not just empty words. It is what makes us who we are. It is unreasonable for you to expect us to be anything less. As a member of the Church, I do not think of myself as special; in fact I think of myself as the same as all of mankind. There is only one race, the human race. Do I think I am right and you are wrong, No; I think I am Orthodox and you are not, in the same way I think that I am me and you are you. I don’t even feel any special need for you to convert. Orthodox do not think we are exclusive, we do not try and convert the world, we do not feel the need.--Phiddipus 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone can see how this sounds.

It’s a terrible thing when the exception becomes the norm and logic flies out the window. We Catholics are reluctant, now-a-days to assert what we believe thanks to our desire to fit in with the rest of the world. Martyrs died rather than compromise one iota of their beliefs. Here are the facts, like them or not:

The Catholic Church is the only true Church. The Catholic Church is the only church with Grace. The mysteries performed by our clergy are the only valid mysteries. The baptisms of non-Catholic are not baptisms recognized by the Church and require a further act of faith in order to become so. Nor is communion or marriage or any other Mystery since other so called churches do not hold an accurate teaching about these sacraments. Non- Catholic converts should be baptized…whatever their non-Catholic priests did to them as children does not count as their priests are without grace and validity. Just because one bishop allows a certain practice out of economia does not make it a liberty for others to do so.

This does not mean that Catholics are the only ones saved. God is merciful to all. It doesn’t even mean that non-Catholics are less likely to be saved. This is God’s prerogative. But the fact is Non-Catholics are not Catholic or orthodox and do not belong to the true church. If they are deemed by God to enter heaven, then by default they become Catholic since only the Catholic Church is in Communion with the Saints in Heaven.

Ok, now I am sure that after putting this some of you are already planning to track me down and kill me. I did not want to start an arguement but just wanted to point out the cras nature of the original post which in fact is not even in line with accepted Orthodox theology as proclaimed by Orthodox Bishops, who according to Orthodox theology are the ones in authority over the faithful. Plus, it has been acknowledged that a lot of the schism between the church was the result of Blind Racist Hatred. As such, it is incompatible with the message of Christ. It is not only Greeks that can be members of the the One True Church. The Catholic Church has realized this but the Greek Church still insist that only Ethnic Creeks are smart enough to become Bishops.

Temple

I am not sure if it is one of the tenants of the Wikipedia to clear up the confusion that sometimes results when differences in terminology manifest themselves. Even so, we have the opportunity to set certain presidents and have them become effective by choosing which terms are best suited to the English language and most importantly to the ideas these words convey within the context of the Eastern Orthodox Church. One thing that needs to be avoided is affectation, especially when it serves no other purpose than to sound pretty and add to the confusion. An example that has been discussed previously is Icon painting vs. Icon writing. Icon “writing” sounds pretty, but in English, when it comes down to it, is just illiterate. Just because the suffix “graphy” is part of the word does not mean it is written. Photography literally means to write with light, but we do not write photographs. In English, when we use paints and brushes and color on wood or canvas it is called painting. The reason I point this out is because of the word “Temple” used in describing the church building. On the one hand, if we look at the definition of the word alone, there is probably no reason not to use it. But the images conjured in the mind of English speakers when they hear “Temple” are either of the Jewish Temple, The Mormon Temple, or various Pagan Temples. In English, for centuries, we have almost exclusively used the term “Church”. Likewise, the Greeks have always used the term “Ecclesia” instead of “Naos” because the church wanted a very specific difference established between the pagan Temple and the Christian Church. In the end, what I am proposing, for the sake of clarity and in making the contrast between pagan and Christian more apparent, the use of the term “Church” as opposed to “Temple”. --Phiddipus 17:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's unusual. In catechismal instruction, I was emphatically told that icons were not painted, but were written. Are you certain that the terminology used is due simply to the translation of the term? These were not the reasons I was given for the terminology used, but rather because the images were considered holy scripture for the illiterate, and were bound in their conveyance of scriptural truths (i.e. they were allowed limited creativity in presentation so long as it was to teach the "reader").--C.Logan 03:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, your catechist was propagating an affectation. The reason that, in Greek, one speaks of 'writing icons' and not 'painting icons' has to do with the way the language works. 'Painting' in Greek refers to holding a paintbrush in the manner of painting one's wall, whereas 'writing' covers the act of holding a paintbrush in the writing position. Since obviously nobody creates icons with a hand position used for painting the wall, 'write' is used in Greek. This affectation in English is a simple translation of the term. InfernoXV 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm noting that the multiple priests and deacons that I've spoken to not only use this simple affectation, but provide a thorough explanation of why the usage of another terminology is less proper. It does not seem to stem from any sort of translation issue or from how the action itself is performed, but in the purpose of the development of icons and with a relation to the iconoclastic controversy. This is just how I've been taught, in multiple vacuum scenarios. You may see it clearly as a simple affectation, but I was compelled to believe that the usage of a term had a more important basis. Additionally, I disagree that using such terminology confuses the matter. Any individual who is learning about the theological nature of icons should have no trouble grasping either the simple use of an affectation or the reasoning behind the usage of said affectation. In the introduction to a new concept, we are reasonably given a "box of tools" to work with. Certain subjects may use familiar terms in unusual ways (certainly more-so in the English language). If a note is made concerning the usage of such a term, then it confuses no one except for those who like to skip over large sections of text... so I don't see what the issue is. In any case, it seems that it would at least be appropriate to note (as "painted" may still likely be the primary terminology used in the article) that some (many?) individuals use the term "write/written" for one or more reasons.--C.Logan 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The language in which we are writing is English. There is no reason theologically or practically why you can’t say icons are painted. Calling it writing simply confuses the matter. Theology can be presented symbolically with ink on paper in the form of text or graphically in the form of paint on wood. Writing refers to stringing together symbols to form words and phrases, and is written. Painting refers to creating images with paint on a surface such as wood, canvas, or plaster. The problem, like the one above (See Temple) is a tendency to be enamored of the beauty of the Orthodox Church and thus to attempt to use some elevated form of language to describe it. While, in general, this is actually a good thing and represents a pious approach to sacred space, there comes a point where it goes too far, or rather, when done by those with a limited grasp of the English language it presents itself as illiterate. The King James version of the bible, for all its bad translations and missing books, never-the-less uses English masterfully and should be looked to as a model for constructions in English if one wishes to use elevated language.--Phiddipus 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The KJV is not a good model of elevated language in most contexts. It's written in Early Modern English, archaic enough that it strikes the modern ear as elevated even when it is not, while still being mostly comprehensible. (Although even for the time the KJV contained some deliberate archaisms and artificially elevated language.) In that sense it can function much like the koine Greek or Church Slavonic. That's is fine for a liturgical language, but for English speakers it just doesn't work for theology, catechesis, sermons, or formal writing or speech in secular contexts.

When it comes to "writing" versus "painting" icons, there is indeed a theological issue which may or may not presently apply in Greek but does elsewhere. At least it does in English. You may paint for decoration, but you cannot write for decoration. Even with calligraphy, where the letters are formed in a decorative way, the purpose of something written is to convey meaning. Whether or not there was originally a distinction to be made in Greek, there has come to be one in English, and since this is (as you point out) an English-language resource omitting it would be incomplete.

As far as "temple" goes, it depends on the emphasis one wishes to draw in a given context. "Naos" in Greek is not incorrect even if "ecclesia" is more common. Even in Orthodox usage "Church" is far more common than "temple", but you use "temple" when you want to be clear you're talking about the physical building and want to emphasize its correspondences with the Temple at Jerusalem. "Ecclesia", after all, does not mean a building except by association, but an assembly. Protestant Americans are so used to the idea that there's no such thing as a sacred building -- and even Catholics have, to a degree, become accustomed to the secularization of church buildings -- that using an out-of-the-ordinary term conveys the sacred nature of the place far more unambiguously than the normal one can.

In any event, someone speaking on the subject in Russian will make the distinction automatically, so it's not surprising that it's made in English by Orthodox in the Russian tradition. Church in the sense of the institution or assembly is "церковь". It can also mean the building, but the building is far more often called "храм" (temple: Christian, Israelite, or pagan temples) or "собор" (cathedral, but also translates "σύνοδος"). TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are unfamiliar with Byzantine and Russian calligraphic ornamentation all of which is created using the same writing instrument as the text. It has no other purpose than to be decorative. You also seem to be unfamiliar with illuminated manuscript which is also created to decorate the page, not necessarily the text itself. You might try and create any justification you like for using an affected word, but you are not clarifying but confusing the issue in doing so. I might also point out that a great deal of the work done on the interior of churches and in the icons themselves is for decoration as well. I think your distinction is specious.--Phiddipus 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

-- There also seems to be a number of errors in the diagram of the church, which is rather confusing to begin with, such as the placement of the Royal Doors.

It is not an error. The Royal doors separate the Narthex from the Nave while the Beautiful Gates separate the Altar from the Nave. Unfortunately, owing to some misunderstanding along the way, the Beautiful Gates are often referred to as the Royal Doors. --Phiddipus 00:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Theotokos

I removed the following phrase from the text:

She did not give birth to his divinity, but rather to one person whose two natures were united at his miraculous virgin conception.

I think I know what the person is trying to say, but it seems a little dangerous, a little to close to Nestorianism. We do call the Virgin Mary "Theotokos". It is a mystery; but she did give birth to God. It is proper to say she is God's Mother.--Phiddipus 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang on. This is an encyclopedia. If I went around this site tidying up everything I didn't agree with it would be a very different site.

It might be better to say that Christs' divine nature did not originate with the Theotokos, in other words, Christ God existed before His Incarnation.

In the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America, we translate it as "Birth-giver of God"; this sounds more like the Church's theology regarding the Theotokos and the incarnation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.32.72 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an extremely awkward rendering in English, and as it stands, there is really no endorsed rendering. In English, it should be noted, "Mother of" and "Birth-giver of" are synonymous, so explanation would really be needed as to the preferred choice in terminology anyway. Hence, the Greek Orthodox Church prefers to leave the term untranslated. Translation, it seems, is a tricky thing.--C.Logan 23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for an endorsed translation if one understands the theology. Calling the Theotokos Mother or Birthgiver of God clearly conveys the mystery that Christ was both God and Man from conception onward, that he did not become God later or that Mary gave birth only to the Human part of Christ. --Phiddipus 03:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Was that in reply to me as well (no indentation)? I'm simply saying that "Theotokos" is untranslated because of the awkwardness in English. "Birther" is not a word, and the necessity of a compound form ("Birth-giver"- and really, an unusual term for which we typically substitute "Mother") denotes the fact that this is one of those words that's better explained once, and left untranslated otherwise. As for the rest of the discussion, my comment was not in reference to it, but only to the anonymous post directly above mine concerning "translations", and was not in reference to any theological implications.--C.Logan 03:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

changes

What is better:

• Karamanli Turkish Orthodox Church or Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate ?
• Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese in the USA or American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese ?
• Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in America or Orthodox Church in America Romanian Episcopate ?
• Metropolis of Bessarabia with or without
  • Archpriestship in Russia
  • parishes in USA ?

In the first three cases, the WP article is titled not as it perhaps sould be, i.e. with the official name. In the last case, the idea is to list all jurisdictions outside a church's canonical territory, so since we keep Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe with Episcopal Vicariate of Great Britain and Ireland, it won't be logical to erase this one. Maybe we should erase both, I don't know, therefore I am asking.:Dc76 13:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No church that merely establishes "parishes" in an area can really be said to have jurisdiction there in any sense of the word. It's the presence of a bishop that genuinely establishes a church in a territory.TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. I put those in short and in paranthesis, but if you think that even that is too much, feel free to erase completely.:Dc76 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "archpriestship". There is nothing in terms of the grace of the Catholic Church to distinguish an archpriest from any other priest.TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I found in whatever WP article or sourse within contained info about that church. I am not a cleric, so I don't know. Anyway, I erased the word, so it's not an issue now.:Dc76 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my general idea was to keep the nomenclature consistent. If there's an official name for a church other than the article titles, then the articles should be moved and the links updated accordingly.TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly agree, but I don't feel too comfortable to be bold in changing 3-4 names of the articles of some church bodies, therefore I started here to see the reaction, and change together with other editors.:Dc76 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is, by the way, certainly better to list the various Old Believer groups than to lump them all together. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

agree in principle, but I don't understand what is your suggestion specifically: go ahead and do it - if I would disagree (which i doubt, since I know little about old believers) I would tell. It is quite hard to find lists of church bodies not in communion - the list in the article is incoplete, maybe even always will be so.:Dc76 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the present conditions within Western Europe and the USA (that is to say the overlapping of ecclesiastical boundaries and the organization of them into ethnic groups, i.e. Phyletism/Tribalism) are in direct violation to the cannons of the Orthodox Church, specifically those cannons set forth in the council of Constantinople in 1872--Phiddipus 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinity

It is said Christ "came back to the living as man and God". Does that mean that in Orthodox belief, Jesus Chirst was not both man and God until after the resurrection? I am a Protestant Christian interested in non-Protestant denominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.92.24 (talk • contribs)

The opposite, rather. It's to emphasize that his human nature was raised to life along with the divine, and that in his Resurrection, which by his divine nature was inevitable, he is nevertheless just as human as he was before the Crucifixion. His Resurrection was therefore just as human an event as it was divine, and the entire nature of humankind was therefore raised as well. Our historical experience with heresies is that one of the two natures tends to receive attention at the cost of the other, which is why we almost reflexively anticipate questions along those lines. It could certainly be phrased better, though. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sin and Salvation

When I was reading through this article, I noticed that it said that "Orthodox Christians believe that people before Christ went to Hell or Limbo." I removed the Limbo part; because, only Catholics believe that there is a so called "realm" between Heaven and Hell, it isn't part of Orthodox Theology. I am 100% sure that the Orthodox do not believe in Limbo, but is it true that the Orthodox believe that all people went to Hell before Christ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.130.248 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

From my understanding, Orthodox would generally say that people went to "Hades" before Christ, not Hell in the sense of where people are after Judgemnet Day, "Hades" meaning the place of the dead. But yes, since everyone went to the place of the dead, one could probably say they went to some form of Hell, since I don't think the differnet places of dead people are all that well defined by anyone, at least not in Orthodoxy. Tix 17:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the usually terminology is "Hades" and "Paradise", the latter being inaccessible generally before the Resurrection.

I believe that using the word "Hell" is misleading. The better word for where the dead go is "Hades"; the place generally though of in connection with the word "Hell" is Sheol. Also, we don't go to Paradise; we were cast out of paradise. We go to the Kingdom of Heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.32.72 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

wikifying

I added the {{wikify}} tag to the article, mostly because there are a lot of Christian-specific terms that aren't wikilinked. For example, I wikilinked see in the second paragraph since its usual meaning isn't the same as its religious one. There are other such terms throughout, if someone feels the urge to start adding wikilinks. I think it makes an article like this more readable. Esrever 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Eschatology

The article says the following: "The Orthodox ... tend to ignore most speculation concerning the “End of the World” as meaningless to one's own current spiritual state, and in fact, the Apocalypse (Revelation) is the only biblical text never read in church. However there are several orthodox teams, mainly fundamentalist and Old Calendarist (ELKIS etc) that advocate these views and warn about the prophecies, outside the mainstream Church." This is really not accurate. Orthodox do not consider eschatology as meaningless (though they would warn against unfounded speculation). The statement seems to leave the impression that the Apocalypse is a derided or forgotten book for the Orthodox; it would have been better to explain why the Apocalypse is not read publicly--because it would be easy for an uninstructed individual to get the wrong impression of the prophesies or speculate unguardedly. The Apocalypse is certainly important to Orthodox theology, and traditionally is represented in detail on the western wall of the church building. By the way, what on earth is an Orthodox "team"? (I will presume that the lower case "o" in the preceding word was a typo on the part of the author, and not intentional.) The term "fundamentalist" is also inappropriate; fundamentalism describes a specific Calvinistic theological position (despite uneducated misuse of the term by the media). Commonly, the word is used as an emotive, pejorative term, and seems to represent the prejudices of the author rather than NPOV. Also, "ELKIS" is not defined. I would like to rework the Eschatology section of the article, but would appreciate input from knowledgeable members first. MishaPan 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Misha, what the article says is that unlike dispensationalists (who spend great amounts of time wildly speculating about the end of the world and using it as a means to strike fear into and manipulate their congregations) The Orthodox tend to ignore such pursuits. The stuff about Old Calendarists was added and confused the paragraph, so I removed it. I myself am an Old Calendarist and have never known them to wildly speculate about anything.--Phiddipus 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

identity

It is surely cute to suggest that Greek orthodoxy is the same as Russian orthodoxy which is the same as all orthodoxy. They may share doctrine but they have very distinct identities. sign, please

Exactly, they are "legally" sister churches, each one being a national church. They are part of the one and only spiritual church. where in the article is it expressed differently? if it indeed is, please be bold and edit. Just give it a good thought before, to be sure you did not misunderstand the meaning of the sentences you edit.:Dc76 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

They are, however, in Communion, and are, in that way, one Church.

They are one and the same Church. Members may freely commune in any of them. Their clergy often celebrate at the same altar. The only division among them is administrative, but this is true even within a single jurisdiction. All bishops function independently of one another as well as in councils. They are not sister churches. You talk about "very distinct identities"; I am sorry but they have exactly the same identity; the slight differences in style are all variations within the whole. You will find variation everywhere within the church - this is normal and perfectly acceptable canonically.--Phiddipus 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Consensus of the Fathers

Here is some text that I removed from History of the Eastern Orthodox Church that more properly belongs in this article. However, I'm not quite sure how best to integerate it into this article so I am depositing it here in the hopes that someone, who is more knowledgeable than I, will figure out how to integerate smoothly into this article.

Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses; the consensus of the Holy Fathers and Mothers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through the nous, or mind of the Church (see Phronema), which is believed to be the Mind of Christ; but also in typography, hymnology and iconography. The consensus of the Church over time defines its catholicity—that (see sobornost), which is believed at all times by the entire Church. Those who disagreed with what came to be considered the consensus are not accepted as authentic "Fathers." All theological concepts must be in agreement with that consensus. Even those considered to be authentic "Fathers" may have some theological opinions that are not universally shared, but are not actually heretical. Thus an Orthodox Christian is not bound to agree with every opinion of every Father, but rather with the overall consensus of the Fathers, and then only on those matters about which the church is dogmatic (see the Ecumenical council). If an opinion is not expressly clarified within the dogma of the church but is rejected it may not be rejected on dogmatic grounds but rather as teachings which is inconsistent with the principle of faith.

--Richard 19:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems to cover the same ground as the subsection titled "Bible, holy tradition, and the patristic consensus." It should probably be merged in there, though the style of the existing text in the article is probably a little more readable. Wesley 17:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Giving up

This article is not a scholarly description of Orthodoxy suitable for a general audience; rather, it's a theological mishmash that looks like it was written by a random assembly of seminarians. It's opaque and inaccesible to the casual lay reader; it's redolent with terms of self-definition at the expense of outside views, and overall it's quite out of keeping with encyclopedic tone and description. I had thought this could be changed; but it seems that misguided devotion of Orthodox followers has hindered this a great deal. I'm removing it from my watchlist, but not without a great deal of disappointment that the overall quality of this article could not be raised for such a worthy and important topic. Slac speak up! 08:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you ever imagined Wikipedia to be anything more than the combined opinions of countless half-educated boobs like me. I hope that you now realize that no matter how far above the rest of us you think you are, we figured out the inherent flaws of the Wikipedia along time ago. Wikipedia is a "pastime" not a scholarly reviewed encyclopedia - no matter how hard it tries to be one.--Phiddipus 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you miss the point that this article as well as the one on the Roman Catholic Church is too dominated by well-entrenched believers who are more interested in providing a description of the church from the POV of the church rather than an objective viewpoint from the POV of an outsider. I agree with Slac. Wikipedia may not be a scholarly-reviewed encyclopedia but it can achieve a high-quality article if the editors of a particular article are truly willing to adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V.

--Richard 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that is truly funny. I suppose you would prefer the article on physics to be written by non-physicists. An outsider couldn't possibly grasp the subtle complexity; he would have no basis for which words to choose to best convey an idea or concept. Please!--Phiddipus 07:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, experts on Orthodoxy should have a strong influence on the article. The only problem is that they might become too partisan or too enamored of the subtle, fine points and thus create an article which is only comprehensible to those who are knowledgeable and/or interested in those fine points. I read part of Slac's criticism as saying that there is too much of the theological fine points being presented thus providing accuracy at the cost of readability.

Do you believe that articles on Communism or Nazism should only be written by Communists or Nazis? (Please don't take offense at the possible comparison of Orthodoxy to Communism or Nazism. That is not intended at all. I'm just making the point that people outside a faith system can perhaps write more objectively than people inside the faith system.)

And yes, there is a lot of "popular science" which is the writing of non-physicists about physics for consumption by the general public. A general article like Eastern Orthodox Church should be readable by the average reader. More specific articles can go into the fine points of theology.

--Richard 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Richard I agree with most of what you say. The problem is the differences between Orthodox and many other Christian denomination is wholly in the subtle details. Often a person will say to me (as small talk) "So what’s the difference between Orthodoxy and other religions?" and because they are just mildly curious I will say we are like Roman Catholics without the Pope; That we were once one church but split about 1000 years ago. Such an answer is sufficient for the mildly curious. If, however, they are doing research - which I can assume those looking for information in the Wikipedia are - Then they need a better answer. And if the real answer is in the details, that is what we have to present. My response above, however, had more to do with the fact that most contribution to the Wikipedia, especially to the Eastern Orthodox article is done by people who barely understand what they are talking about - any real scholar would avoid the Wikipedia as a true source of information on this subject. I don't think it is possible in this venue to present the truth - its all pure POV.--Phiddipus 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But why should the differences even be a concern? We've been at some pains to remove overt comparisons to Catholicism from the article, so why should there be any comparisons at all? Simply describe the Church, and leave comparisons up to the reader. It's so easy to get bogged down in minutiae that the article ceases to be interesting, or even readable.

If an article is properly referenced, then there should be no problem in terms of editors knowing what they're talking about. The problem arises when editors write primarily out of their own experiences. This one is very poorly referenced for its length. It's shameful.

The other problem about minutiae is that's where all the controversies are. On matters of faith and praxis there is broad agreement throughout all of Orthodoxy. These areas are where the article should be focused. If we really must report on controversial subjects, they can be in sub-articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should report on controversial articles... on each and every one if they are notable controversies. However, there are times when it's better to just summarize the controversy and leave the detailed discussion to a subsidiary article. Also, this article should be a summary article about the Eastern Orthodox Church with high-level overviews about theology, practice and history. By getting into too much detail, we run the risk of discouraging the casual reader who just came by to browse. If someone really wants to know more, point him/her at the relevant subsidiary article.

You want to know more about the history of the church? Read History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. About the Russian Orthodox Church? Read History of the Russian Orthodox Church. About persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church? Read Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union.

The operative principle here is "less is more". It is paradoxical but the reader can sometimes get more value out of less content. The job of an editor is to figure out what to keep and what to get rid of or, at least, move to another article.

--Richard 21:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was trying to say; you expressed it better and more completely. I have a very bad habit of elliptical expression when I should be explicit. But it's not "paradoxical" that less is more, it's just that most readers don't want to delve into a highly technical discussion of theological fine points and quibbles when reading a general encyclopedia article.

The differences are not a concern for the writer, but they are very often a concern for the reader. I agree it is best not to make comparisons in the writing, but that’s not what we are talking about. It has been suggested that we pare down the detail; my argument is that the differences are in the details. If I want to know the difference between the Amish and the Mennonites, it’s in the details. This is an answer to why there is so much content.

Citation does not necessarily mean much in the case of articles like the Eastern Orthodox Church. For one thing there are numerous acceptable traditions from different ethnic bases which are often perceived as conflicts or arguments when, in fact, they are both acceptable. Second, most of the citations in the Orthodox article are drawn from modern works by Bishop Ware and others. One would think that we Orthodox should be citing those Patristic Fathers of the Church we keep talking about. You know as well as anyone that people like Meyendorff are regarded by a large part of the church as warmed over Roman Catholics. What I would like to see is real Orthodox Patristic citation – not the POV of Modernists. Third, The Church is not an abstract, human invention. It was not planned and executed by men. Yet people are a living part of the body of Christ and it is through their perceptions that the traditions of the church are preserved and protected. I think that if a writer here says something like, “I like the Russian music better than the Greek” then it is POV. But if he says that in his experience in Traditional churches there are no pews, he is, in fact, expressing the truth backed up by thousands of Orthodox examples. He does not need a citation.--Phiddipus 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of the problem. Cite patristic works? That's fine, except that in this context they constitute primary sources and therefore must be used with caution, especially if there's more than one way to interpret them. The purpose of citing secondary sources is to prevent original research as Wikipedia uses the term, and injection of an editor's own POV.

Actually, I don't know how "people like Myendorff" are regarded by "a large part of the church". I know how he's regarded by a certain small but vocal segment of the church, but he's otherwise well-regarded, especially when he's writing reference materials or textbooks and not original theological thought. I don't think anyone wants to cite recent "developments" along those lines anyway. Surely Myendorff has written dozens and dozens of uncontroversial things that can be cited without controversy. He's also regarded as a reliable source by the scholarly community at large, which means that by citing him and Ware (who is similarly regarded) the article becomes credible. (Mind you, if we were talking about Hopko it would be a different story.)

Writing something our of our own personal experience is also original research. Anyone can go to a library and consult a text, but a personal experience can't necessarily be duplicated for verifiability. If you can't cite it, don't write it. Should push come to shove and mediation occurs on one issue or another, which side would prevail? The side with citations to back up their text.

But frankly, I gave up on this article a long time ago. I got tired of having this fight, and dealing with these malicious labels you use to smear anyone who disagrees with you. By forcing the article into its present incoherent state -- and its present state is largely your doing -- you harm no one but the encyclopedia as a whole, and the image of the Church in the eyes of researchers. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. The mangling of this article by the niggling of the sort Phiddipus prefers honestly has made this article unusable and often almost unreadable. I'm an Orthodox priest, and I would never recommend this article to anyone, having watched it and contributed to it for almost three years. 72.65.128.89 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Article is too long

This article is too long by the guidelines put forth in WP:SIZE. Excluding footnotes, long lists and other text that are not counted in article size, this article is 72kb long.

Having worked with several long articles, my personal philosophy is that articles on topics of great scope must be long and that the guidelines in WP:SIZE give an approximate idea of appropriate length rather than setting hard limits.

Nonetheless, I think there are portions of text in this article that could be moved to a subsidiary article thus providing less detail and making the article more readable to the average reader, especially one who is not steeped in Christian theology.

--Richard 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Iconostasis/templon

As a first step towards shortening this article to meet the guidelines of WP:SIZE, I propose moving the following text from the "Iconostasis" section to the Iconostasis article. I have already copied the text below to the Iconostasis article. If no one objects, I will remove it from this article shortly.

Archaeological evidence from the Hagia Ioannes Studios in Constantinople suggests that the Iconostasis evolved from the early templon. A basilica dedicated to John the Baptist, built in 463AD. In it the chancel barrier surrounded the altar in a π shape, with one large door facing the nave and two smaller doors on the other sides. Twelve piers held chancel slabs of about 1.6 meters in length. The height of the slabs is not known. The chancel barrier was not merely a low parapet (a short wall); remains of colonnettes have been found, suggesting that the barrier carried an architrave on top of the columns.

The templon gradually replaced all other forms of chancel barriers in Byzantine churches in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries except in Cappadocia. As late as the 10th century, a simple wooden chancel barrier separated the apse from the nave in the rock-cut churches, though by the late 11th century, the templon had become standard. This may have been because of the veneration and imitation of the Great Church Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, though the columnar form of chancel barrier does predate Hagia Sophia.

IMO, this text is excessive detail that is primarily historical in nature and is not needed in this article which should be providing a broad overview of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

--Richard 14:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this level of details is more appropriate in the iconostasis article. Good work. Wesley 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"our" veneration?

From the section on veneration of icons...

As Saint Basil famously proclaimed, honor or veneration of the icon always passes to its archetype. Following this reasoning through, our veneration of the glorified human Saint made in God's image, is always a veneration of the divine image, and hence God as foundational archetype.

I am concerned about the word "our" in the above text. This kind of wording would make sense in an Orthodox publication written by Orthodox for an Orthodox audience. However, in Wikipedia which is presumably secular, with both an Orthodox and non-Orthodox audience, I would think that the use of the word "our" is inappropriate. Despite comments above to the contrary, not all the editors of this article are Orthodox and certainly not all the readers will be Orthodox.

To be encyclopedic, all articles need to take the tone of an objective outsider even if the details are illuminated by the special expertise of insiders.

--Richard 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It boils down to using third person consistently. I tried to address it there, and one other place I saw it. Wesley 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Propose moving "History" section lower in article

As a major contributor to History of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I have an interest in this topic. However, I think that this article should focus more on what the Eastern Orthodox Church is and believes than on its history. For this reason, I propose to move the "History" section down to just before the "Church today" section. That allows for a better flow from "past" to "present" and also emphasizes the description of the church rather than overly emphasizing its past history.

--Richard 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. First of all, just recently the history section was the last part of this article. Though its history is important it is secondary to "What" Orthodoxy is.--Phiddipus 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Claims portraited as facts

When at the beginning of the article someone writes:

"The Church which has never fallen into error nor deviated from the beliefs and traditions of the original Christian body"

I think this is probably a claim of the church, and should be stated as it, but saying that a religion has "never fallen into error" is way beyond the appropriate content of an encyclopedia.

The article seems quite biased, wich makes it hard to be read. Mostly it gives the appearance of being propaganda.

It is stated as a claim of the church. Please read the text just before the beginning of that list more carefully. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Denying the Reality of a Mystery

There are many things we Orthodox do that could be considered symbolic, but it should always be understood that Orthodox symbolism represents absolute spiritual reality. The reason one is given a new name at baptism is because the old man dies and is reborn into Christ. When this occurs, everything prior to baptism is washed away including the old identity. When communing, one is taking into oneself the actual Body and Blood of Christ God. In many Orthodox jurisdictions this understanding is being lost. The new name given is treated like an addition – a name used at communion – a church name. This, of course, denies the reality of the mystery of baptism since the person insists on retaining the old man. Many who commune do strange things like kissing the chalice with their lips still wet with Christ’s Body and Blood; or worse, smoke, chew gum, or spit. The attitude that “That’s the way people do it at my church” is no excuse, in fact it is a direct admission of guilt that one is careless with sacred things. --Phiddipus 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Which part(s) of the article do they concern? Wesley 16:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of Adherents

The number of adherents previously stated seemes quite inflated to me. After looking at various statistical sites, i have edited that section. JamesFox 12:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree the number of adherents was overated, also Republic o fGeorgias only 84% makes orthodox population but the whole christian population is 89%, so another little mistake Njnikusha 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Armenia

Armenians are Orthodox Christians are they not? The map needs to be updated to include Armenia--Waterfall999 07:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not quite. The national Church of Armenia is the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is Non-Chalcedonian (i.e. Oriental Orthodox). There is, of course, an Eastern Orthodox Communion in Armenia as well, just as there is in Egypt and many other Oriental Orthodox areas. These, however, form the minority, and it would be akin to considering Greece a "Protestant nation".--C.Logan 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Armenian Apostolic Church is also referred to as the Orthodox Church. Since 94% of Armenians belong to that church, then it is obvious that Armenians are orthodox. Also, Armenians were the first believers of Christ. They were the first nation to adopt Christianity as their National faith in 300 CE. Therefore, how could Armenian not be Orthodox.(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.49.157 (talk)

The Armenian Church is self-defined as "Orthodox", and is regarded by Westerners as an "Orthodox Church"; BUT it is not a part of what is known in English as "the Eastern Orthodox Church", which is what this article is about. That designation is given to the Greco-Russian Church and those in communion with it. Several major Eastern churches, including those of Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and some of the Syrian churches, are traditionally called in English "the Oriental Orthodox Churches", to distinguish them from the Greco-Russian Church. I shall added a clarification. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Romania mentioned as a country with orthodox majority?

As a matter of fact, in Romania,the Orthodox belief makes up 86.7% of the population according to the 2002 census. This information isn't on the article. May I know the reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraishte (talk • contribs) 13:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I.E. vs. E.G.

Translated, “e.g. – exempli gratia” is translated “for example” while “i.e. – id est” is “that is to say”. While it may seem at first that Greek and Russian Orthodox are examples of two of the churches belonging to the all-inclusive Eastern Orthodox title, such a concept implies that there are multiple different entities belonging to another entity. This is not the case. What is being given here is a clarification that Eastern Orthodox is sometimes referred to as Greek, Russian, or otherwise Orthodox but that they are all the same thing.

Here are two examples of correct useage:

The Protestant churches (e.g. Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, etc) – these are examples of protestant churches.

The Church of Latter Day Saints (i.e. the Mormons, the followers of Joseph Smith) – clarifications, other names for the same thing.

Here are explanations of the difference online:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ie-eg-oh-my.aspx

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f/ievseg.htm

http://hubpages.com/hub/Grammar_Mishaps__ie_ve_eg

--Phiddipus 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

All true, but much better to rephrase the whole thing. Johnbod 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased it. The wording was not inaccurate as such, but it was effectively pushing an idealistic Orthodox POV. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is estimated that 50,000 clergy were executed by the end of the Khrushchev era

The statement apparently refers to the total number of those killed during the communist period (?), but it sounds as if it is a number killed under Khrushchev, which would be obviously wrong.Muscovite99 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It does refer to the total killed during the Soviet era by the end of Khrushchev. It doesn't seem that ambiguous to me, but you should probably clarify it. In the future, you can use , which is inserted as {{clarifyme}}.--C.Logan 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So isn't that 50,000 clergy with the total of 9 million Orthodox killed during the communist/soviet era? --KCMODevin 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Popes Primacy

The Pope was named “First among Equals” at the 2nd ecumenical council, no Orthodox Christian would deny that, however, the Pope is no longer part of the Orthodox Church and therefore has no position within the church. (In fact many within the church refer to him as Papa Antichrist). If you read the article in question you will realize that nothing new was resolved, the same problem we have always had with the Pope remains, and their publishing this with a headline stating that orthodox agree that the Pope is the leader of the church is purposely misleading. There could, in fact, be written an article on the numerous times the Papacy has tried to mislead our faithful and caused us innumerable problems.--Phiddipus (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are really trying to damage the recent about of good faith that is occuring between the Bishops of the Latin Chruch and the Bishops of the Eastern Churches. Do you not realize that the Bishop is the one appointed by God in authority of over the faithful? You make it seem like your only with is for the destruction of the Catholic Church and to force all Catholics to go to a Greek mass and get served Eucharist with a spoon.

The very idea that you would refer to someone who is trying to honestly lead the faithful in the Way of Christ as Papa Antichrist) is very determental to your credibility. You claim an entire article could be written, then please write it by all means. What is more probably, is that since the Pope is entrusted with the care of all the faithful the world over, he is doing his best to care for the Easter Churches that Latin consider Heterodox and the Eastern Churches are acting like rebels just because the Pope is of a different Ethnic group. There are in fact serious theological issues that seperate the Church but most of the imagined issues of the people melt away when Bishops sit down together and discuss seriously and with charity. Catholics would certainly take great exeption to the idea that only Greeks can be Bishops or the large amount of Pagan Greek philosophia that has entered the Greek Church. There were some of your monks that decided that they would not worship God anymore but only his Name. This was a sin but then some other monks killed them, which was also a sin. Where did the Pope stand in all of this, he was telling them not to sin which is the only message compatible with Christianity in the entire affair.

In regards to the other statement, that only Eastern Greek sacraments are valid. You have begun with the assumption that Catholic sacraments are not valid without ever thinking about what you were saying seriously. From the Catholic point of view, we know that our sacraments are valid because we have retained them from the original way taught to the apostles. Our sacraments do not become invalid just because of a basoleus who wanted to usurp Ecclesiastical authority that was not his to take. Catholic sacraments do not become invalid just because some Greek think that only Greek can be Christians or men. When Catholic examine the rites of others to determine if they have recieved a valid sacrament or not, we take our time and look at facts and not just use prejudice. It was exactly this kind of process that lead the Catholic church to correctly say that the Church of England does not have valid sacraments but to say that the Greek Church does.

What are Catholics then to think of this very theologically incorrect statement of yours that only Orthodox baptism are valid. We know that Catholic Baptisms are valid. We then have to wonder at what would cause you to think a valid Baptizm to be invalid. I will forgo the thought that it really is just blind racist hatred and think that perhaps you thought about it and have a reason. Then I must think that you have some reason in your mind that you regard what in reality is a valid baptism as invalid. As such I must conclude that this reason is a false teaching about baptism that Christians are warned about in almost all of the episles of the New Testament. Therefore, the teachings about this sacrament in your Church must be deficient and incorrect and not Right Thinking in the least. Since you do not have the correct teachings about Baptism, I must therefore conclude that Baptism in the Eastern Church are not real Baptism because of this deficiency. Therefore, Baptism in the Greek Church are not valid. Since we know that an unBaptized person can not recieve or administer the other sacraments, it puts all other sacraments into seriously questionable ground.

As such I hope that you can see from this why some Catholics regard the so called orthodox as not just better then the average protestant. If the Church, (the Catholic Church established by Jesus) were to actually view and evaluate all of the protestant baptism, we would find that very few are actually baptized. The one that really are eventually join the Catholic Church. We know that in order to perform a valid baptism a certain amount of valid intent is needed. Protestants do not get validly baptized bacause of the protestant minister but despite the protestant being in error. Jesus know who really is trying to become a Christian and who is just trying to fit in or have some other motive. We Catholics know who really did become Baptized because those protestants that really did recieve baptism have the Holy Spirit upon them and with His guidance, they eventually come to see the error of protestantism and come home to the Catholic Church. I think what the Greek just can not stand is that fact that some of you get valid baptisms as well and join up. Some how you think that you own your fellow Greeks and that they can not decide to do as God wants of them, to be members of the Catholic Church.