Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 171.48.29.171 (talk) at 00:41, 8 May 2017 (→‎Oriental Orthodoxy is a communion of some Churches?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

"Catholic Church"

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

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

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

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

I'm still waiting for comment on this. My understanding is that there have been schisms between the head of the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Malankara Orthodox Church, the most recent in the 60's being over the autocephaly of the Malankara Church, and that this schism persists today with the Syriac Patriarch even creating a parallel jurisdiction in Kerala alongside the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry of the late reply. However your are correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.99.15 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait for further input here before making changes to address the POV that is evident in sections edited on 2 Dec 2014 by user 71.21.95.105. While those edits contain POV, it is clear that the preceding text also contains a POV. The POVs together show the viewpoints of the two sides of the excommunication mentioned in the first comment in this section some six years ago. I believe a resolution needs to be made in a neutral manner, and that perhaps both views need some visibility in the article, lest further edits flip from one view to the other as this one has done. Suggestions and information are welcome from the editing community, as I am not as qualified as I would like to be in this area. But I alone can do better than what is there now, and will proceed alone within a week unless there is some input. It seems little attention has been given over six years, so this is a request for comment by interested persons. Evensteven (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... that is a sticky wicket indeed. I would suggest removing the edit since it is unsourced, but do think the section needs some work in general and needs to reflect the excommunication. I wish I had more time to devote to this, but unfortunately I am unable to do much more than comment. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the "Malankara Syriac Church" listed as one of the six members of the Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches here, and I think(?) it is, I would assume that it is reasonable and legitimate to classify it as an Oriental Orthodox church. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you. Both items were in my thoughts also. And the prior article text was unsourced as well, so I don't give much preference to either viewpoint. I think a minimum of two sources would be good, at least one from each view. The classification as Oriental Orthodox seems certain, as its origins and full history are clearly there. Evensteven (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

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

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) Deusveritasest (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Orthodoxy navigation template

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

An ecumenism issue

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

Theoria and hesychasm

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

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

The Nature of Christ

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

WikiProjects

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

Removal of Chart Showing relationship of Indian Christians

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

Better Picture

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

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

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

Distinguishing Oriental Orthodoxy from Non-Chalcedonianism

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

I'm no expert on the subject, but apparently Non-Chalcedonianism seems to deal with the split itself and its immediate consequences while Oriental Orthodoxy deals with the (most important?) parts of the church rejecting Chalcedon including those parts of their history and organization not directly related to the split. Non-Chalcedonianism claims that there are other non-Chalcedonian churches besides the Oriental Orthodox ones; if that's the case, we should definitely keep both articles. Non-Chalcedonianism could possibly be renamed Chalcedonian Schism (similar to Nestorian Schism) or something like that without any change to that article, but I can't tell whether that's the correct name for the event. If a merger is appropriate, I'd suggest merging into this article; it's by far larger, better sourced, and the name seems both more appropriate and used more often (it beats Non-Chalcedonian 3-2 on Google Scholar and 2-1 on Google Books). Huon (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Perhaps we could leave both articles but put some sort of dab or see-also tag at the top that clarifies their differences? That would certainly be simpler than merging. Meanwhile, the Non-C. article could use more information regarding the non-oriental-orthodox churches. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it like how we have both Catholicism and Catholic Church, or Nazism and Nazi Party? john k (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. How do we determine when to link to one or the other? For instance, which of the pages that link to Non-Chalcedonianism would be better served by linking to the Oriental Orthodoxy article? Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have time to go through the list right now, but I'd say that references dealing with the ecclesiastical institutions should link here, while ones dealing with the theology should link there. john k (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but unfortunately Non-Chalcedonianism doesn't actually cover the theology at all, though it probably should. While I'm neither knowledgeable enough nor motivated enough (read: too lazy) to do so myself, I'd suggest moving the current Non-Chalcedonianism article to something like Chalcedonian Schism and writing a new article under that name that actually covers the theology of the non-Chalcedonian churches. Huon (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Chalcedonianism is indeed terrible. Perhaps it should just be merged with something else. 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Non-Chalcedonian is a lable that covers more than just "Oriental Orthodoxy" or "Monophysitism". It is also used to refer to groups like the Church of the East (it split before Chalcedon), and in theory, applies to any of the many groups that are not Chalcedonian-- like the LDS. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly never used for groups like LDS. As far as I'm aware, it normally refers to groups that accept the first three ecumenical councils but reject the fourth one - so that the Church of the East, which is Nestorian, and thus rejects the third ecumenical council, is not included, nor are, say, the Arians, who rejected all the ecumenical councils. Can you provide examples of the use of "non-Chalcedonian" in reliable sources to refer to groups other than Monophysitish ones? john k (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration

The following paragraph is misleading:

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

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

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

Defunct Oriental Orthodox churches

I definitely remember having see some listings of the bodies included in the broad field of "Oriental Orthodoxy" which have since apparently gone defunct, but I see no reference in the article to these groups. Is there any particularly good reason why? John Carter (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Removed Link to Protestant Polemic from External Links

Somehow, an anti-Orthodox polemic written from an Evangelical Protestant perspective appeared in the external inks section. I've removed it. TruthfulPrince

I have added that link because even if it is a very critical article I regard it as sensible to have also such an approach in this section to the understanding of "orthodoxy". It really contains "strong" expressions but I would not call it polemic. I think that criticism (almost) always serves objectivity and every criticism can be disproved. Others can say whether they see it good to include here also critical websites. Nikil44 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only reliable sources or important primary sources should be external links. This is just some obscure evangelical website. And it has nothing to do with Oriental Orthodoxy, specifically. It seems to be an attack on the Eastern Orthodox Church, if anything. john k (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with john k that this website is not a reliable source; adding it to the article would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Besides, I'm rather skeptical of the "discussed from a Biblical perspective" title, which suggests that other perspectives aren't Biblical (including the Orthodox perspective itself); I'd call that non-neutral. Huon (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin I

I have moved this conversation from User talk:Elizium23 to the article talk where it belongs; further comment from experienced editors is welcome. Elizium23 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used this talk page before-I do not know if I am doing it correctly. At any rate, a quote from Oriental Orthodoxy page: "In the years following Chalcedon the patriarchs of Constantinople intermittently remained in communion with the non-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (see Henotikon), while Rome remained out of communion with the latter and in unstable communion with Constantinople. It was not until 518 that the new Byzantine Emperor, Justin I (who accepted Chalcedon), demanded that the Church in the Roman Empire accept the Council's decisions.[5]" -- When you say Justin demanded that the Church in the Roman Empire accept the Council's decisions - it sounds like you are saying that he demanded the Roman Catholic Church accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, which the Roman Catholic Church did. Please clarify your statement. 74.203.63.50 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC) A. [reply]

The article goes on to say, "Justin ordered the replacement of all non-Chalcedonian bishops, including the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.". Antioch and Alexandria were both firmly within the (Eastern) Roman Empire at this time of history. I don't understand how Justin could demand that anyone outside of his jurisdiction should accept anything. I am not so sure that the Catholic Encyclopedia article is clear on this point, but you propose to reverse the meaning of this sentence into something that no longer makes sense. How do you justify doing so? Elizium23 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I misunderstood your initial meaning. However, it sounds in your article as if you are accusing the Roman Catholic Church of not accepting the Council of Chalcedon, but it was not the Roman Catholic Church who did not accept it. If one person thinks that what you are saying, there are likely many others who also interpret it that way. So perhaps you could clarify your statement. The point of wikipedia is to enlighten people who know little or nothing about the topic, is it not? Therefore should you not be clear in what you say? Expanding your statement to be more specific as to whom he demanded accept it could not hurt anything. I do not propose specific changes, merely clarifications. I'm sure you know that there are few people today who understand what exactly comprised the Roman Empire at this time in history, or at which point in history the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire ruled by the Pope's. All I'm saying is that a little clarification could go a long way. 74.203.63.50 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)A[reply]
First of all, this was in the sixth century; there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Oriental Orthodox Church. Secondly, I think it is clear in the quote I offered in my last comment. There were non-Chalcedonian bishops scattered throughout the territory of the Empire, including the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. By non-Chalcedonian we mean bishops who did not accept the Council. The article also says that Rome was out of communion with "the latter" - it is unclear if that term means only the patriarch of Jerusalem or the three non-Chalcedonian patriarchs. So it seems that the article as it is implies that Rome did accept the Council. I do not see how it can be interpreted otherwise. I also do not see how your introduction of the word "not" solves anything. Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well - I am merely trying to point out to you that this article can be easily misunderstood by people, other than you, but since you do not agree and seem to only be interested in arguing, then the conversation is apparently over. The point of wikipedia is to inform the uneducated masses, not to tell the educated masses what they already know. Informative articles ought to be clear. This one is not. 74.203.63.50 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics!

Nowhere in the article is the total number of Oriental Orthodox Christians discussed! This should be corrected immediately. Even if per chance I missed this number, it should be placed in a prominent location, such as the lead section or in the "geographical distribution" section. --Zfish118 (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um ...

The introduction tells us the following: "The Oriental Orthodox communion comprises six churches: Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac and Armenian Apostolic churches". Is it just me or are there only five churches in that list? Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! No idea why the sixth was missing, I added it. Jeppiz (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Biblical Canon" Section Proposal

I am proposing that a section of this article should be devoted to canon lists of the Oriental Orthodox churches. There is a great opportunity to expand this article in this area. Does anyone agree or disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syriac Syrian (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be of interest in this article. You may want to start at Biblical canon#Eastern Church where there is a little bit of information and some citations. Please make sure that all information is verifiable by Wikipedia policies and can be found in reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction Talk Section

So I have decided I am going to devote my life (in the near foreseeable future) to the Introduction of this article and so decided to create a talk section just for it. This is going to require some collaborative effort, so a talk section devoted entirely to it is just what this article needs.

First item of business (for me) is the comparison between Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy somewhere in the middle. I suggest we locate a paragraph near the end of the Intro entirely devoted to comparing and contrasting Oriental Orthodoxy from other church bodies with similar names (e.g. Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of the East, Eastern Catholic churches, and so on). While I do not object to having mention of reunification efforts in the Intro, such a subject may require its own paragraph, again with the focus being on Oriental Orthodoxy's reunification efforts with the rest of ALL OTHER Christian bodies.

The goal should be to have a comprehensive SUMMARY of Oriental Orthodoxy, informing readers of what to expect from the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syriac Syrian (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar of the first sentence must be addressed in the Talk Page since User Elizium23 maintained a persistent disagreement with me on verbal agreement in the English language. Most specifically, the instance of subject-verb grammatical conjugation of "communion" (sing.) with "recognize" (pl. when conjugated with plural nouns) in the sentence, "Oriental Orthodoxy is the communion of churches in Eastern Christianity which recognize only the first three ecumenical councils . . ." I maintain that the verb must read as "recognizes" in grammatical verbal agreement with "communion" whereas my fellow editor maintains that the verb must read as "recognize" in perceived grammatical verbal agreement with the noun "churches." His argument has been "the Churches recognize the Councils," posted 01:08, 23 February 2016‎ in the Revision history.
I understand that there exists an adjectival prepositional phrase located in between the noun and verb at question here, but this is irrelevant in English grammar. The adjectival prepositional phrase at question here is "of churches in Eastern Christianity." This adjectival prepositional phrase modifies the noun communion. The following verb recognize relates to the noun communion as well. This is the only thing they share in common.
Since I have displayed my grammatical argument here, I am going to adjust the verb in question to the appropriate grammatical conjugation. In response to any further questions, comments, or concerns regarding this grammatical edit, I will refer to this section of the Talk Page. Thank you, Elizium23, for your continued contributions to the Eastern Christianity portal.Syriac Syrian (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Oriental Orthodoxy is the communion of churches in Eastern Christianity that recognizes only the first three ecumenical councils". "Communion" is the subject; it should be "that recognises", not **which recognise". Ogress 03:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to such an edit.Syriac Syrian (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am uploading a revised Introduction section. This sudden and drastic change includes the following features: concise, relevant facts with as many verifiable sources I could locate (more sources are always desired, the more the BETTER) while keeping as much relevant content as possible from previous contributions. If I have left something(s) out that you feel belong(s) in this section, this is the place to discuss it. Please keep in mind, however, that much information relevant to Oriental Orthodoxy ought to find a home somewhere in the article's body instead. Please take my revision kindly and no information is ever permanently lost; anything and everything can be deleted, revised, and updated as we please. Just please discuss it here. Since I have been announcing a change to the Introduction, I believe that there is no other way to approach this problem other then a complete revision. Again, all comments and suggestions will be considered if kindness in tone and helpfulness in spirit are offered. Let us continue to work together to introduce the world to Oriental Orthodoxy. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syriac Syrian (talk • contribs) 02:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that far too much of the new introduction is devoted to... lists. The introduction lists all the alternative names for Oriental Orthodoxy (instead of placing them in a note). Then it lists the first three Ecumenical Councils with their full names. Then it lists the churches that are part of Oriental Orthodoxy (also with their full names). Then later, in the second paragraph, it lists the full names and years of the Councils that Oriental Orthodoxy rejects! There is very little information left about Oriental Orthodox beliefs, or organization, or much else.
I understand you wanted to improve the introduction, and I thank you for your effort, but I think the information you removed was actually more important than the information you kept and expanded. It is more important to tell people what Oriental Orthodoxy believes (i.e. to briefly explain miaphysitism in the introduction, and its opposition to Nestorianism and relationship with monophysitism), rather than to list in detail what historical Councils are accepted or rejected by Oriental Orthodoxy. Ohff (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no comment on this for several months, I will proceed to restore parts of the old introduction, and try to merge them with the current introduction, while trimming the lists. Ohff (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ohff (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Oriental Orthodoxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Wikipedia on groupings of Christian denominations

I opened a discussion on groupings in Christianity, of which there currently seems to lack a consensus on Wikipedia. The discussion might be of interest for followers of this talk page. Please see: Talk:Christianity#Denominations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the premise is flawed. Many Christians, belonging to the largest groups, don't use the word "denomination" to describe themselves, and so using the term is imposing a foreign paradigm more suitable to American Protestantism. The opening line of this article is problematic in part because of this. "Oriental Orthodoxy, also known by several other names,is a Christian denomination in Eastern Christianity ...." a) no, it is not a denomination. The Wiki article on the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria says "The Coptic Orthodox Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches, which has been a distinct Christian body". "Family" and "body" are much better b) it is not a denomination "in Eastern Christianity". That is just confusing. We distinguish between Eastern and Oriental Christianity/Orthodoxy. One is not a subset of the other. c) "also known by several other names". "Oriental Christianity" is a catch-all, a phrase used to delimit to a group of Churches who only accept the first 3 councils. These are not names but descriptors. For example the Church of Egypt is --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

There is a discussion concerning this article at Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church#Infobox. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Orthodoxy is a communion of some Churches?

I am curious know whether Oriental Orthodoxy is a communion of few churches or it encompasses all churches that follows Oriental Orthodox faith (miaphysite) in the world? ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki Admins & Editors, already a discussion on this topic is in progress here: Oriental Orthodox sidebar talk. Please provide your opinion there. Thanks - --171.48.29.171 (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is related to this article and should stick to this page.

What is my opinion is Oriental Orthodoxy is a Christology like Nestorian or Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. It is not just about communion of some churches that follow that Christology. The communion or ecumenical relationship only developed recently. Oriental Orthodoxy is a branch of Christianity (separated from the main branch after the Council of Chalcedon in 451).Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Orthodoxy= a communion of 6 autocephalous churches which follow Oriental Orthodox faith? OR

Oriental Orthodoxy= a chirstological belief of churches separated in Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE?

What is the difference between Oriental Orthodox & Oriental Orthodoxy? ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The christological belief of Churches that separated after the Council of Chalcedon already has its own article: Miaphysitism. This page is about the communion. Miaphysitism is about the belief. Ohff (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is my opinion is that:

If this article is about some 6 churches which are in communion, What about the other churches who follows this Chistology? Do we need another Wikipedia article to encompass them? Oriental Orthodoxy is a synonym for Miaphysitism. Also I would like to ask another question. What is this Oriental Orthodoxy? For me it is nothing but a a synonym for Oriental Orthodox.And Orienatal Orthodox is a synonym for Miaphsite Christology.Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Orthodox is a geo-locatory classification. Miaphysite is the christological classificaton. ThankMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Oriental Orthodox is a geo-locatory classification." Who said its a geo-locatory classification. A Church is referred as Miaphysite or Monophysite only when we talk about the Christology only, otherwise it is referred as Eastern Orthodox,Oriental Orthodox etc. ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A classification based on Chistology is the valid one. As per this the recognition, these churches are Monophysite/Miaphysite. Please go through valid published resources. ThankaMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the valid published resource references? First present them and give time for other users to validate and if that correct pls change every Eastern and Oriental Orthodox article, not just in two articles. Until then we need to keep the original form---171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia article about Miaphysite. This is the Christological formula/theory / belief followed by these churches. When you may go through this article you could see many references. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kokkarani, pls note the Wikipedia policy, one Wikipedia article can not be used as reference for another Wikipedia Article - --171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the references we need to take from Miaphysite article to validate your argument? ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also please present references for your remark "Oriental Orthodox is a geo-locatory classification." ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me any earliest reference calling these Monophysite/Miaphysite Churches as Oriental Orthodox Churches? I am just curious to know when people started calling this Monophysite/Miaphysite church as Oriental Orthodox Churches. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For about geo-locatory classification, the term oriental is geo-locatory. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your first question - Oriental Orthodoxy is a communion of some Churches? YES. Please read this from Encyclopædia Britannica : The other main branch of Orthodoxy is constituted by the six national churches of the Oriental Orthodox communion: the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Malankara (Indian) Syrian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Link- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology/Eastern-Orthodox-Christology#ref1228673 .
Another reference from New Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/orthodox-and-oriental-orthodox-churches . Thanks - --171.48.29.171 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What ever you say is about communion of some churches. While I am talking about the Christology- Oriental Orthodox-Miaphysite/Monophysite. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These ecumenical communion occured recently, while Monophysite/Miaphysite christolgy emerged in AD 451.ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true. After AD 451, it took some time to form as a Christological formula. OO Churches are referring their Christology as Miaphysite. Catholic Church and Eastern Churches used to refer OO churches as Monophysite churches ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oriental_Orthodox_Churches&oldid=779273675"