Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 4

Countries in second paragraph

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

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

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

I propose one of the following:

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

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

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

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

The cross on the page

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

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

Having been to Greece and Constantinople I have seen the tri-bar cross everywhere. It is not Slavic at all, if anything it is Byzantine. As a side note, the so-called celtic cross with all the knots is also very Byzantine, you can find these crosses everywhere in what was once the Byzantine empire.--Phiddipus 16:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine seems proper, (see: Patriarchal cross)--Calak 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we must. I suppose it's better than "Orthodox Cross" or "St. Andrew's Cross", but I dislike the adjective in general. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no universally accepted name, though the most common would probably be the St. Andrew's Cross (though other crosses may go by the same name). It is most commonly associated with Slavic orthodox churches but by no means universally. It should probably be labeled the "St. Andrews Cross," and perhaps in parenthesis note (or the three-bar cross) as it is often refered to, especially outside the orthodox community. One story I saw was that St. Andrew was the first missionary to Russia and he used a three-bar cross in his preaching- which originally had a parallel bar on the bottom (as noted in the article) and St. Andrew would tilt the bar as sort of a visual when he spoke about the thieves and how one repented while the other did not. For the time being I will change the title on the image, but by all means if someone finds something more suitable please do so. It is incorrect though to refer to it as "the" Orthodox cross as you pointed out, because there are several different crosses associated with Orthodoxy including this one, more "standard" crosses seen today, budded designs, etc. --JaymzRR 05:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cross is never called "St. Andrew's Cross", and without a reference it should not be called that in the article. The cross that goes by that name is the X-shaped cross such as that which appears as the saltire on the flag of Scotland, since this is the kind of cross on which St. Andrew was martyred. Of note is that a three-barred cross with a horizontal bottom crossbeam (representing the footrest) is of extreme antiquity, dating to long before the conversion of the Slavs. The question is, how did it come to be slanted?

The exact reason has been forgotten. Several stories to explain it exist, and the one you heard is among them. However, it is not always mentioned that the symbolism was devised by St. Andrew himself -- if it did, then we would find slanted crossbeams all the way back to the 1st century. It is also said that it was slanted in in order to recall St. Andrew's cross, to honor him as the first to preach in Slavic lands. Perhaps the association of the "two thieves" story with the saint is the result of confusion between the two stories at some point.

Yet another story is that it was slanted as a response to a heresy called aphthartodocetism, which held that Christ's body was divine by nature, that it was therefore impossible for it to truly suffer, and that his sufferings were therefore mere appearance. The crossbeam was therefore slanted to represent an involuntary jerk of the leg as the nail was driven through the foot as a sign of genuine suffering.

Finally, it's entirely possible that the slant arose as an exaggeration of the reverse perspective used in iconography. You can see where it might have come from in an icon of the Crucifixion, where the footrest is usually shown with angled sides. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it called the St. Andrews cross multiple times both online and in the Orthodox Church. Though I would agree at second glance I do not see any documentary/fact-sources I can trace referring to it as such. I do know though that the St. Andrews cross (as on the Scottish flag) also exists. Perhaps we should resort to simply calling it the three-bar cross? I have also seen it called the St. Olga's cross, but to my recollection every time I see it labeled as such the three-bar cross is part of a budded design. Though hardly a documentary reference I did find this quickly, [1] to prove I am not crazy! Everytime I have seen the three-bar cross discussed, including on official diocese sites, they use the representation of (for the slant) the thieves. I know are in good position to know, I am just speaking from my experience (though I didn't promote that as part of the article just provided it as an explanation to part of the discussion on the title).--JaymzRR 06:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article to take out the reference to the St. Andrew's cross and instead used three-bar cross.--JaymzRR 06:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name for the creed

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

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

TomViza 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Theotokos

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

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

Nai etc einai ^

There is no separation from God

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

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

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

Followers

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

Orthodox Churches

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

Two points I am wondering about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with the fasting Section

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

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

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

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

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

Eastern Orthodox or Christian Orthodox

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

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

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

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

Google gives 1,430,000 on Orthodox Christian and 1,360,000 on Eastern Orthodox --Sena 15:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The use of the term "Eastern Orthodox" is quite wrong, in my opinion, as it merely uses Europe as the central point of geographic reference; and the Orthodox Church today, as stated in this project, consists of numerous autocephalous jurisdictions not only from Europe but also from the Middle-East, USA, Australia and New Zealand, and many other countries and regions of the world that would be classified as "Southern" or "Western," and most importantly non-European. I do think we should utilise the collective term "Orthodox Christian" and it would eventually become a recognised term by popular usage in the English-language scholarship, following the method in which most words become "classified as real" these days. Our Church need not be confused with the Oriental Orthodox Church, as long as we point out the difference, as we have already done and continually do. I understand that it is a plausible mistake, but we should make a change, and no longer use a geographically inaccurate term to classify our religion. Yanadanana 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yanadanna, "We" are Wikipedia editors, not Orthodox Christians! Orthodox believers are entitled to call themselves whatever they feel appropriate in acts of belief, but this is an encyclopedia that has set policies about adhering to common norms of scholarship. For example, we are not at liberty to take a certain usage and promote it in the hope that it will catch on and spread: this advocacy would constitute a violation of Wikipedia's chief founding principle, the Neutral Point of View policy. Again, rightly or wrongly, "Eastern Orthodox" is the most commonly used and accepted English language term to describe this church, and therefore it must be the usage that Wikipedia adopts. Slac speak up! 08:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, if we're going to be departing from common norms, the correct name of the church is "Orthodox Catholic". TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

slac, u seem pretty cut by my raising a valid point, and you seem to have completely contradicted yourself from your previous entry in this discussion. Although u also raise a valid point with regards to the wikipedia neutral point of view; I'm not calling for a revolution to change the term "Eastern Orthodox Church" to just plain "Orthodox Church." I am merely pointing out that it is an outdated term that should be (and will be in time) replaced by another, especially seeeing that it no longer suits the sociopolitical arena anymore. yanadanana

Hi, Yanadanana! I'm certainly not cut - sorry if I came across that way. I'm not sure how I seem to have contradicted myself, but that's okay so long as we're agreed that what is important is the adherence of this article to Wikipedia policies. Cheers, Slac speak up! 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What’s in a name, that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so the Orthodox Church would were it not the Orthodox Church called? Use the most common current name in English – Eastern Orthodox, or list all variations; it all means the same thing. This should not be a point of contention.--Phiddipus 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North America?

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

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

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

St Alexis Toth is certainly the Father of the OCA, but he was driven to that action by Ireland. Hence the article states "ironically remembered" - emphasis on ironically. As for references, go ask any OCA priest of sufficient age to remember the Glorification of St Alexis Toth. InfernoXV 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ask anybody" doesn't cut it as a Wikipedia citation. Has none of those anybodys found it to be worth his time to write this fact down somewhere reliable? If not, then there is no reason Wikipedia should be the first place to write it down. WP:NOR Mrhsj 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first place where it's been written down - check the proceedings of the Orientale Lumen Conference in Birmingham in December 2002, specifically the talk given by Fr Serge Keleher of Dublin. That Bishop Ireland was the true 'Father of the OCA' is the sort of snide (but true) observation that, for oecumenical reasons, rarely gets put into print, but goes around verbally. InfernoXV 12:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

templates

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

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

WikiProject begun

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

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

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

Orthodox Map

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

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

I agree...the map should include Ethiopia and Eritrea as majority Orthodox countries in red, and there should be spot of yellow for Syria and Lebanon. Le Anh-Huy 07:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not include Ethiopia and Eritrea. The correct article for those countries is Oriental Orthodoxy, not this one. Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are not in communion with each other. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horos

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

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

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

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

Oddly enough I have never been in a church (except perhaps a missionary church or small chapel) that didn’t have one. In my own church it consists of a ring of twelve hinged gold plates with icons of the Apostles in the center of each and candle holders on top. It hangs from the perimeter of the dome. Most commonly it is set in motion by the priest or bishop with a light touch during the most joyous points in services (i.e. Axion Estin”, during the Liturgy) and during the Troparion for Feast days. The effect is quite astonishing especially if the church is fairly dark and only lit by candles. It is as if all the icon covered walls were alive and dancing. It represents the participation of the heavenly realm in the celebration.--Phiddipus 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say (because it usually offends someone) that many of our “Orthodox” churches in the USA follow either a Roman Catholic or Protestant mindset. Just because your Americanized church chooses to treat the traditions of the church as unnecessary doesn’t mean it is OK to do so. We have forgotten our traditional Orthodox background, dismissing it as “old fashioned” or Ethnic. Such subtle and beautiful traditions as how to properly furnish an Orthodox Church are being lost. I’ll bet that many of those churches who have “left out” the Horos, have beardless priests who wear street clothes or roman collars and have happily added Pews, Organs, Stained Glass, Electric candles, Donation Plates, Votive lights, choir robes, and many other non-Orthodox things to their church. It seems oddly diabolical that the simple traditional things that have deep symbolic meaning and lead to intuitive understanding of things divine, have been replaced by things foreign, things that lead to impiousness and contempt for sacred space. Even more distressing is how many will vehemently justify their position claiming “I’ve never heard of or seen that”; justifying their position while belonging to the most liberal jurisdictions and quoting from the most modern barely Orthodox writers whose degrees are marvelously tied to the most liberal and modern seminaries.

If you are Orthodox and reading this, you are called to do a little more research into what your church should be doing. You might not think you have the authority to question your church, but you do. In fact, anyone, priest or bishop, that tries to stop you from seeking the truth is not being honest with you. If your jurisdiction does not respond properly then switch jurisdictions. As Orthodox you are not in any way tied to a jurisdiction. The Orthodox Church and its traditions are old, not centuries, but millennia. Don’t look at what you have, look at what you are loosing. Anyone who actually traveled to Greece or Russia could see a thousand examples of churches without pews, of bearded and robed priests, and properly appointed churches.--Phiddipus 01:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How things ought to be isn't really relevant here. For an encyclopedia article we should be describing what is. If this practice is rare, then the article should say it is rare. If it is common, it should say it is common. If it is common in eastern Europe and rare in the US it should say that. Whatever it says, it should cite a reputable source for the fact. Mrhsj 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually believe it is rare, but perhaps that there are certain geographical areas to which it has never spread. I don't think Russian churches do this, for example, but I am perfectly prepared to believe that it's common in Greek churches. I know for a fact that it's done in the American monasteries founded by Elder Ephrem of Philotheou. I don't know about Eastern Europe in general -- and neither, I think, does Phiddipus, which is why I think we should at least have a cite here.

Most of the practices Phiddipus bemoans are mainly found in the American Greek Archdiocese. Organs, pews, votive lights, etc. are common there, but not in Greece itself or elsewhere in the Orthodox world. One frequently encounters pews in the Antiochian Archdiocese, but not organs. OCA parishes are more likely to have pews the further to the northeast you go; in my own diocese I've never seen any, and they never have organs. The only unbearded priest I know is an Air Force chaplain who is required to shave by regulation, and most priests I know wear the traditional street clothing. I say this not to "justify a position", but to point out there are many Orthodox in the US for whom these complaints do not resonate -- not because they're desensitized to them, but because they're outside their experience of the Church. For such people, the latest liberal theological paper means far less than the Fathers.

However, I do think Phiddipus has fallen prey to the illusion the Orthodox Church often projects of extreme antiquity in all its aspects, when some traditions are actually of quite recent origin. If so visible a feature as the bishop's vestments can change so radically (and so recently) after having been the same for over 1,000 years with no visible damage to the Faith, then we have a clue that we need to be discerning about what we get all worked up about. Most traditional church architecture leaves no room for stained glass, but in the cases where there is I don't see why we should have a problem with it as long as it's not distracting. I personally don't like votive lights, but the theory of what you're doing with them is exactly the same as the normal way to light candles, and I can conceive of instances where one might have a good reason to use them instead. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to know what changes to the bishop's vestments have occured recently--Phiddipus 06:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively recently and most notably, the universal adoption of the sakkos in place of the phelonion, where in former times it had been the privilege of only the patriarchs, who themselves had it by permission of the emperor to whom it was originally reserved as imperial regalia. I have an engraving from the 18th century illustrating the various "habits" of Russian bishops, and when shown fully vested he is wearing the phelonion. (Bishops may still vest this way, but they generally do not even when serving as priests.) Among those Russian Old Believers who have a hierarchy, their bishops still have not adopted the sakkos.

There is furthermore the increase in the use of the small omophorion. It is now common for "junior" bishops to wear only this throughout the Liturgy when concelebrating, reserving the great omophorion for the chief celebrant, but this was not common in the past. There is also the modern Greek custom of "junior" bishops wearing the klobuk (kamilavka with epanokamilavka) when concelebrating with only the chief celebrant using the mitre. As a vestment, the mitre itself dates only from the fall of the City; previously bishops served bareheaded as can be seen in many icons. (My guess about the origin of the small omophorion is that it was originally the great omophorion doubled over and draped around the shoulders; and that this practice arose when the hierarchical rubrics developed that called for it to be put on and removed frequently, it being too difficult to put on the great omophorion quickly the normal way, especially once it grew to its present width and elaborated decoration.)

I should say that I misspoke with "illusion" above. The sense of timelessness in the Church is quite real, but to us who only know how to live in time this brush with the Eternal can give the impression that as things are now, so they have ever been. This impression is what is illusory, but it is generated by our own minds and not the Church. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. My Bishop tells me that technically, a bishop cannot attend church services unless he is serving. Since many bishops reside in monasteries and there are daily services, one way around this is for him to attend as a Monk. He still stands in his thronos, but usually defers blessings to the priest. When bishops travel, once again technically they cannot serve in another bishops church (unless invited) however, they are usually invited to stand in the altar and occasionally say part of the service as a priest. Also, when serving as Bishop, most of the service is done without the mitre. Bishops can still use the phelonion if they wish, the transition to the Sakkos is, as you said, a fairly modern development, but the reason for wearing it is the same reason the emperor wore it, as a sign of Christ’s true sovereignty.

I might add that this change in no way lessons the spiritual symbolism of the traditions of the church, if anything it adds to them. This cannot really compare to the items I listed previously. --Phiddipus 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what your bishop thinks of Vespers, since a bishop traditionally does not serve it. The only differences between a Vespers where a bishop is present and one where he is not is that in the former case the priest (who always serves it if one is available) does not bless with the hand, and at the end the choir sings, "Master, bless" and after the dismissal the bishop bestows the archpastoral blessing with the response, "Eis polla...." And at least in the Russian tradition, a priest may not bless at all in the presence of a bishop whether a service is happening at the time or not, inside a temple or outside one.

One might make the argument that substituting the sakkos for the phelonion obscures the high priestly role of the bishop, as well as disturbs the progression of rank that's supposed to be represented by the successive vestments. (We start as acolytes or readers with the sticharion. A subdeacon adds the orarion. A deacon shifts the orarion to his shoulder and adds the cuffs. A priest -- in theory -- drapes the orarion around his neck, fastening it up the middle; and adds the phelonion, his sticharion being just a lightweight version of that worn by the lower offices, and his epitrachelion an orarion tailored so as to better fit around the neck. A bishop adds the epigonation and pectoral cross if he does not already have them, the engolpion, and the omophorion.) This can easily be read as a lessening of the vestments' spiritual symbolism. And the modern custom of the chief celebrant at hierarchical liturgies being vested differently from his concelebrating bishops (who may be of lesser seniority, but are often ruling bishops themselves and not suffragans of the chief celebrant) can also obscure the equality of the Apostolic grace bestowed on them all.

As for the mitre, my own bishop, although forbidden by our Holy Synod to award it to protopriests as the Russian tradition allows, has always insisted that there's nothing particularly episcopal about it. It is, like the sakkos, another piece of imperial regalia that has attached to the bishop. He might not wear it for most of the Divine Liturgy -- although I actually think he wears it for at least half; in the Liturgy of the Faithful he almost always wears it when not wearing the ompohorion -- but he does wear it when fully vested otherwise. (As, say, during Matins following the Hexapsalmos.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox or Orthodox Christian

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

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

I doubt Orthodox are so offended. Ultimatly the "Name" is meaningless, its just a word. We believe we are the one true church founded by Christ God nearly 2000 years ago. You can call us whatever you want. Why not be bold and call ourselves the One True Unified Transcendant Cosmopolitan Grace Filled Preservers and followers of the Teachings of Christ God and the Holy Spirit through the Traditions of the Church! ( The OTUTCGFPFTCGHSTTC)

The use of the term "Eastern Orthodox" is quite wrong, in my opinion, as it merely uses Europe as the central point of geographic reference; and the Orthodox Church today, as stated in this project, consists of numerous autocephalous jurisdictions not only from Europe but also from the Middle-East, USA, Australia and New Zealand, and many other countries and regions of the world that would be classified as "Southern" or "Western," and most importantly non-European. I do think we should utilise the collective term "Orthodox Christian" and it would eventually become a recognised term by popular usage in the English-language scholarship, following the method in which most words become "classified as real" these days. Our Church need not be confused with the Oriental Orthodox Church, as long as we point out the difference, as we have already done and continually do. I understand that it is a plausible mistake, but we should make a change, and no longer use a geographically inaccurate term to classify our religion.

Gigantic, bloated, etc.

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

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

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

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

Comprise/compose

For some reason I typed the edit summary to say it sideways, but the edit was correct. We can say, "The Eastern Orthdox Church (singular) comprises a number of autocephalous (that is, self-governing) organizations..." or, as it now stands, "The Eastern Orthdox Church (singular) is composed of a number of autocephalous (that is, self-governing) organizations...." "...[I]s comprised of" is incorrect usage. See [2]. It may be correct someday, but right now it's still simply a common error. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cerkiew

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

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

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

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

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

Official name

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

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

"Eastern Orthodoxy: officially Orthodox Catholic Church"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

203.32.87.174 14:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Government

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

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

Orthodox indulgence

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

Hi,

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

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

Women's ordination

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

does anyone support my view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statues and the Orthodox Church

The statement made (which was removed) was:

The rejection of statues by the Orthodox Church is also the result of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches: Byzantium wanted to separate itself as much as possible from the Christianity of the West.

This is nonsence. Statuary was never the norm in the east nor are icons exclusive to the east. To imply that statues were rejected to make the distinction clearer between the west and east has no basis in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phiddipus (talk • contribs)

It's not nonsense; I understand exactly what it means, and I have encountered this opinion before. But it is just opinion, and I agree you were right to delete it. It could go in with suitable qualifications, along the lines of "some scholars think..." with suitable citations. (Above comment is unsigned but appears to come from User:Phiddipus.) Mrhsj 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense" meaning egregiously false. I don't think any scholars believe this. As far as I know it's a polemical belief held by certain radically anti-Western factions or individuals. As Phiddipus says, it has no historical foundation whatsoever. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is very little archeological evidence of statues in Byzantine churches. They may have had icons in relief, but that's always been easily accepted.

Problem with opening sentence

"The Eastern Orthodox Church is a religious organization which claims to be the continuation of the original Christian body, founded by Jesus and his Twelve Apostles." This phrasing implies that this claim is the key defining feature of Eastern Orthodoxy. Aren't there many other religions--major and minor--that make this same claim?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "many," no. The Roman Catholic Church certainly makes the exact same claim, and I believe the Oriental Orthodox Churches do too. But I can't think of any others that would describe themselves that way. Mrhsj 23:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that the reason these other churches can also claim this is because they were once part of the same church. However, what the Orthodox are claiming is to have remained in perfect agreement with the original teachings of the church, and to have held fast to early tradition (that if you went back and observed the beliefs and practices of the church from the time of Christ onward, there would be no conflict with what the church teaches and practices today, there would simply be more development and clarity. The very reason the Roman Catholics are no longer part of the church is because of their departure from the traditional structure of the church, and their adoption of certain beliefs that are in conflict with earlier pronouncements by the church. Likewise the Oriental Orthodox have beliefs that strongly conflict with the churches beliefs on the nature of Jesus Christ as expressed in the council of Chalcedon and earlier councils.--Phiddipus 01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Mrhsj, I would say that, for starters, most or all restorationist groups believe their organization is a "continuation of the original Christian body, founded by Jesus and his Twelve Apostles." Phiddipus's response provides some clarity to the matter--but none of that nuance is captured in this article's opening sentence. Basically, I'm not sure the lead sentence as it stands is strong enough to set Eastern Orthodoxy apart from other churches.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it doesn't necessarily set it apart, but this is something that has to be mentioned because it's one of the main claims of the followers (it's part of the name of the Church too) -- at least this gives an idea to readers what are the claims and "feeling" of the Church. Roman Catholic Church has this text in the introduction "It traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus, with its traditions first established by the Twelve Apostles and maintained through unbroken Apostolic Succession." maybe the introduction can be changed to something like that. -- AdrianTM 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beards

Beards: who said beards are considered a sign of piety for laymen? Actually it is only for the priests who follow some of the Levitical rules, and for monks who are supposed to be mystics and ascetics.

New threads on the bottom, please.

Historically this may have been the case. Certainly in the east, beards were fashionable in a way they were not in the west. This was mainly cultural, but as with any ingrained cultural tradition it became tied to other things. In the east, beards were therefore seen as an aspect of masculinity that God intended by design, and to shave was contrary to that design. I don't know that this ever ascended to the level of formal theological thought.

The history of clerical hair styles is rather more complex than simply following the Levitical rules. Association with the unshorn hair and beards occurred after the fact. While it is now unquestionably the tradition for priests and monks, this was not always the case. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Citations

This article was recently tagged as needing citations. The tag was entirely correct IMO. Most of the article is entirely uncontroversial but needs sourcing anyway. So I added Ware's The Orthodox Church as a source and have begun adding citations to it on parts that can easily be substantiated from that text. I know this isn't the only source in the world but one has to start somewhere. Mrhsj 05:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory

There's a dispute on the Purgatory page about whether the Eastern Orthodox Christians believe essentially the same thing as Roman Catholics do about the afterlife. I can't find anything much about the afterlife in the "Beliefs" section here. Is there an article on Wikipedia we can consult? Or could an expert pay a welcome visit to the Purgatory page and straightn us out? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet 02:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm by no means an expert, I think though that Purgatory is pretty much a Catholic invention. -- AdrianTM 02:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, as you might imagine, it's hard to get a Catholic to accept that interpretation. But if someone can speak authoritatively about EO beliefs regarding the state of the soul between death and resurrection, that would be a blessing. In fact, a good reference showing that EO theologians regard Purgatory as a Catholic invention, or accept it as essentially identical to their own beliefs, that would be useable, too. Jonathan Tweet

Simply put, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the concept of Purgatory. The idea cannot really be called a Roman Catholic invention but rather a different interpretation of some of the words used by St Augustine (Who is also an Orthodox Saint). Saints in the Orthodox Church are considered to be Holy, but not necessarily perfect while they lived. While St Augustine’s writings are highly regarded by Roman Catholics, many of the ideas expressed in them, like purgatory, are disregarded by the Orthodox as not part of the “Consensus of the Fathers”. The Orthodox impression of St Augustine is that he went a little too far in trying to dissect things better left as mysteries.--Phiddipus 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disputed statement in baptism section

On 26 Nov 2006 I tagged the following statement with {{fact}}: "Because it is believed this is a new person and all previous commitments are void; if the person was formerly married, they must now be married again." Ten days later no cite has been provided but we have had a revert conflict over attempted removal of the tag, with the person attempting the removal saying "no citation is needed". Per WP:V there is no such thing as article material that does not need citations:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

In accordance with Wikipedia policy I have deleted the unsourced disputed statement. Reasonable time has been provided for a source to be found. If the statement in question is true it should not be hard to find a reliable source that supports it. Mrhsj 06:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Theotokos"

I like most of the recent cleanup to headings but I think "Theotokos" must be prefixed with "The"; when used as a noun the word is always used with the definite article. I muffed my comment on the change itself; please disregard. Mrhsj 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section

I have changed the lead section in line with wikipedia:Lead section.

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

The former lead section did not do this:

The Eastern Orthodox Church is a religious organization which claims to be the direct continuation of the original Christian body, founded by Jesus and his Twelve Apostles. Its bishops trace a direct physical and historically verifiable path directly back to the apostles through the process described in the Bible as the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17, 2 Timothy 1:6, Hebrews 6:2) otherwise referred to as Apostolic Succession.

This can also be siad for Catholicism, so is not an overview of Orthodoxy, since it offers no distinction from Catholicism.

The church keeps strict records of these Episcopal pedigrees for each of its bishops (example: see List of Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople). It also claims to have preserved the sacred traditions given to the members of the Church through letter and word of mouth from the apostles themselves.

Again, the same as Catholicism.

The previous lead was not an explanation of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but a (quite detailed) discussion of Apostolic succession

My replacement lead is clearer and actually fufils the role of a lead section. It starts briefly by saying what the Eastern Orthodoxy Church is: A major Christian denomination. (This is the most basic level of context).

It then defines it, necessarliy in contrast to other branches of Christianity: in contrast it to Catholicism, (by refering to the Patriarchate of Constantinople), and in contrast to Protestantism (by emphasising the basis of its teaching: both Scripture and Traditon, unlike protestant reliance on Scripture.) Additionally, the basis of its teaching (Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition) is necessary for the lead to be "a concise overview of the article".

129.12.200.49 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change a lead paragraph which has remained for at least a year now, and replace it with something that has never been acceptable to the group here, you need to make your case on the Talk page first. Do not change without consensus. CRCulver 18:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make some valid points. I agree that the introduction could be improved. In particular I agree that diving into the details of apostolic succession in the lead is premature. Nevertheless the replacement version is far from being an improvement. The term "denomination" is POV and controversial. Also the claim that the church is "defined" by communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople is also POV and controversial. I agree with CRCulver - a revision of such scope needs consensus here first. Mrhsj 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, editor 129.12.200.49 is not the only one who's raised concern about the lead paragraph. Discussion has already taken place; see the section above. New editors and veterans are encouraged to be bold; so let's work together to improve the opening paragaph (yes, the one that's remained for at least a year).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is mainly in terms of adding new content, not altering material that has stayed for a long time due to community consensus. Remember, removing consensus-based or cited material can be considered vandalism. CRCulver 18:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I am finding little recent evidence of the consensus you refer to. I think a lot of people want the first paragraph changed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not at all vandalism. Please read wikipedia:vandalism before you make accusations, CRCulver: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." 129.12.200.49 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section above that you cite is an excellent example of good process. There was an edit war for a while over "claims to be" vs "is". It was agreed to leave "claims to be" intact until a new consensus could emerge here. Eventually a new consensus emerged: "sees itself as". Now everybody's reasonably happy and the edit wars have stopped. As noted, I agree that stylistically the lead could stand improvement. I just ask that you put a proposed new lead here for discussion. Mrhsj 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried this version of the lead section, which I hope will be considered better than my previous attempt:

The Eastern Orthodox Church is a major church of Christianity of perhaps 200 million adherents.

The Eastern Othodox Church is one of the churches to claim, by a direct physical and historically verifiable path of laying on of hands, to be the direct continuation of the original Christian body founded by Jesus and his Twelve Apostles (apostolic succession).

The Eastern Othodox Church recognises the symbolic leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople as Primus inter pares.

The Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to have preserved the sacred traditions given to the members of the Church through letter and word of mouth from the apostles themselves. The teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is based on this concept of Holy Tradition and on the Bible (Holy Scripture).

I would welcome comments... 129.12.200.49 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no religious expertise, so I cannot comment about the content; stylistically, however, it's a disaster. It's too repetitious; every sentence begins with the same phrase, so that it sounds like a child's poem or a Wesley Willis song.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Statements - words are chosen carefully

What we are trying to do with our opening section is to differenciate between Orthodox and other Christian Churches. In some cases such differences are obvious, but the farther back in history you go, the more subtle the differences. This is why words must be used carefully and with reasoning behind them. The Eastern Orthodox Church claims to be the direct continuation of the original Christian Church. This claim is historically verifiable and is not disputed by anyone. It does, however, also apply to the Roman Catholics, and the Oriental Orthodox because all three groups were once the same church. The EOC claims that it has never fallen into error and that it has never changed the doctrines defined by the 7 ecumenical councils. Roman Catholics might believe themselves to be the True church, but they do not claim never to have changed their doctrines or added to them (the changes are part of history itself). The Oriental Orthodox do not accept the pronouncements of all 7 ecumenical councils. The EOC do not believe the church could ever fall into error as it is guided directly by the Holy Spirit. All other Christian churches believe that the church, at some point in its history became corrupt, and their church managed to recapture the true church. In all these cases a church with such a notion that the church became corrupt and needed fixing cannot claim to be the unbroken historical continuation of the original.

None of this is POV even if it seems to be. The terminology is carefully chosen. You may find that people will dispute the Orthodox claims offhand, but when pressed to explain themselves they have misunderstood what is being claimed. It is reasonable to assume that all Christian denominations think of themselves as being the "true" church, or the "real" Christians. Such claims are not what is being discussed here. --Phiddipus 09:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The viewpoint that it is historical fact that the Orthodox have never changed doctrine while the Catholic have is rejected by, among others, the Catholic Church itself. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church claims to fully preserve original authentic doctrine as much as the Orthodox community does. Petrine supremacy springs to mind as one area where the See of Rome would maintain its original continuation of the apostolic faith as being ahead of that of the Eastern Orthodox. The double procession of the Holy Spirit is another since, in the Catholic view, it has always been part of the original faith, but simply not manifested in the Nicene Creed as such. So in short, I believe that the previous form of words chosen in the opening did not adhere to NPOV. Slac speak up! 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, I changed back to the old intro because the intro should be relatively short, clearly written, and easy enough for a layperson not necessarily knowledgeable in the subject to read. Subtle details can and should be explained in greater length later in the article or in its sub-articles, but the intro shouldn't be a theological treatise, or else someone who just wants to know what the Eastern Orthodox Church is in a general overview sense will come away lost. --Delirium 05:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed article?

This article talks about a "set of Orthodox bodies" and represents it as a single religious entity which has existed since antiquity. It doesn't mention anywhere that some 600 years ago only one of those bodies was in existence and called itself "Eastern Orthodoxy". What the article refers to as "Eastern Orthodoxy" is different to what "Eastern Orthodoxy" meant in the middle ages, i.e. before the creation of the autocephalous Orthodox bodies. In the middle ages "Eastern Orthodoxy" was explicitely used to refer to the religious body headed by the patriarch of Constantinople, the one that has been known since Justinian's days as the "Greek Church". All the Orthodox bodies that became autocephalus from the Ecumenical Patriarchate were the direct offsprings of the Greek Church, and the Greek Church today is in fact the authentic, mother-branch of all Eastern Orthodox bodies. By "Greek Church" of course it is meant the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its branches listed under Greek Orthodox Church, and the articles of religious encyclopedias. I'm not saying that the other Orthodox bodies should stop calling themselves "Eastern Orthodox", but it could be at least mentioned, explained and acknowledged in this article that the original "Eastern Orthodox" body is the Greek Orthodox Church, and that the other Churches are its direct offsprings. It's ridiculous to claim that all those bodies were just created out of the blue one day and ignore their historical backgrounds, especially when this is mentioned in literally every source on the subject outside wikipedia. This doesn't intend to bring out a "my Church is better than yours"-attitude, but to merely provide a fundamental historican background on the religion, a background which wikipedia is almost trying to hide. Miskin 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a serious flaw in this kind of thinking. The Church is a system of beliefs that grow and spread from one nation to another but always remain the same. The Greek Church is the same as the Russian and Romanian and American, etc. If you want to address the “History of the Spread of Orthodoxy” that is fine. But nothing sprang from anything else…such language implies differences that simply do not exist.

Also, The Patriarch of Constantinople has never been the head of the church, In fact if you check your dates there was no “Patriarch” of Constantinople before 451AD. Saint Stachys was first "Bishop" of Byzantium after St Andrew the Apostle. After Saint Constantine relocated the "Roman" Capitol to Byzantium, and from that time until quite modern times the Church referred to itself as the "Roman" Church (not to be confused with the Roman Catholics), since we were part of the "Roman" Empire. No one used the term "Byzantine Empire" or even less "Greek Church" at that time. You are also forgetting the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome all of which have always been autocephalous.

All autocephalous means is self governing. Given time, any national group of Orthodox believes becomes too large to be effectively governed by a single synod. When this happens it should become autocephalous. This would be a problem if Bishops had the power to change things, but they don’t. Quite honestly, even ecumenical councils cannot “Change” things. All of these things are church politics. While the church and its administration deal in politics (out of necessity), such things have nothing to do with what it is to be Orthodox, and this article should be about what Orthodoxy is.--Phiddipus 07:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I'm not trying to bring out hostilities between the Churches, nor point out differences between the faiths (as they don't really exist). I'm only stating how the historical origin and evolution of today's Orthodox bodies is not at all treated, and hence the role of the Greek Church has been seriously neglected. The "Greek Church" is not a modern term, it's been used by Latins since its foundation in the 5th century, and later also by Slavs. The Greek Church has always recognised itself as the "Eastern Orthodox Church", nothing more and nothing less, i.e. what this article is supposed to be treating but hardly even mentions. Eventhough Greek-speakers called themselves Romans in Greek, they never called the Orthodox Church "Roman Church", such an act would be a great insult and subject to punishment (see the fate of Maximus the Confessor). All of the above can be easily sourced. Furthermore the Orthodox Churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem, though typically autocephalus, they have always recognised the Ecumenical Patriarch as the "first among equals" and this is why they have retained a Greek name, liturgy and clergy to the present day. Those patriarchates along with newer churches in Greece, Crete, Cyprus etc, constitute the "Greek Church", i.e. the founding body of Eastern Orthodoxy. Some people prefer to ignore this and others are not even aware of it (they think that 'Greek Church' means Church of Greece). If you want to be fair to Orthodoxy then you need to clearly explain its historical background, i.e. how did the term "Eastern Orthodox Church" evolve; first by being the official name of the "Greek Church" alone, and later by encompassing all other Patriarchates that gruadually obtained an independent status (via recognition by the Greek Church). Miskin 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said...This might make a good article about the spread of Orthodoxy and/or the terminology used by the church; but it has little to do with what Orthooxy is. Some of your info, however, needs some citation. From what I understand up until the 4th ecumenical council Rome had preeminence followed by Alexandria and Antioch. The Patriarch of Constantinople did not preside over the first three ecumenical councils. Therefore what you said is wrong unless you meant it in some other way. You said:

"the Orthodox Churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem, though typically autocephalus, they have always recognised the Ecumenical Patriarch as the 'first among equals'"

I would also like to see some citations where the Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself "Orthodox" prior to the great schism --Phiddipus 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia

Why isn't Ethiopia on the map? It's an Orthodox country (or at list by great part). --PaxEquilibrium 13:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Ethiopia is Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox. They're in communion with the Coptic Church and like them do not accept any Ecumenical Councils from Chalcedon on. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A portion under the section on marriage is opinion-based (the section about which hand the wedding ring goes on). The sentence written about it is very judgmental: it assumes that the right hand is the only hand on which the wedding ring should be worn and states that left-hand ring wearers have been "unfortunate" in falling prey to left-over superstition from Western Europe. This sentence should be removed or rewritten.

Last edited at 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)