Talk:Orthodox Church organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Eastern (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Top-importance).

I heroically restrained myself from jocularly stating in the article that Eastern Orthodox theologians cannot write a paragraph without using the word "canonical" four or five times. (Mathematicians also frequently use that word, but not as often as Eastern clergy.) Michael Hardy 02:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article is largely redundant with Eastern Orthodoxy and should be folded in insofar as possible. Maybe as a summary at the beginning? - David Gerard 14:59, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think perhaps this page could be moved to Eastern Orthodox Church organization, or something like that, since it's about how the church is organized, rather than about other aspects. Michael Hardy 02:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed Michael, it was heroic!, we do have a difficult time restraining from using the word " canonical" since , at the core, it is what the Orthodox Church is, it is ( or so we claim) the canonical Church. The Church that conforms to the Holy Canons. Though I will do what I can to restrain myself .

--Frmaximos 22:18, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know who the right people to contact are, but a chart of this would be lovely. User:Erik Zachte, perhaps? --IvanP/(болтай) 03:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

why is Georgia ranked so low in the list?[edit]

when its church is so old?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

merger tag[edit]

Only 2 or 3 paragraphs of this article add information not already present in the main article and in the History article. So I am wondering whether this article has a solid reason to exist. Maybe just copy the relevant information where necesary, and merge. : 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is essentially a list of Eastern Orthodox churches and merging it would just make the already very long article even longer. I am strongly against the merge. Nikola 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I also am against merging it, since other language versions are keeping list and article apart as well. (interwiki performance). -- 17:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not essentially a list; it's also an explanation, for those (most people!) not familiar with the fact, that on the one hand there are different organizations, but on the other hand there is a unified communion, and an account of how and why that came about. Eastern Orhodoxy seems like too big a topic to cram it all into just one article. Michael Hardy 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm against merging it. It is a essential article about the Orthodox Churches. Too important to be deleted (or merging) The merger tag must be remove. Arthasfleo 10:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox POV?[edit]

I suppose this is not terribly surprising, but this statement

There would have been five ancient patriarchates had the Church of Rome not broken off during the great schism in the 1054.

is pretty blatantly POV. According to the Catholic perspective, it is the four eastern churches which broke away from the Pope. I'm sure this can be rephrased to be not POV. john k 17:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly is wrong with expressing the Orthodox POV on an Orthodox encyclopedia? Deusveritasest (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the so-called Catholic Church can claim the Orthodox Church broke from them, when it is an obvious historical FACT that up until the time the Bishop of Rome(the Pope)claimed supremacy over the other Patriarchs ("equal brothers") we were one Church. The Pope is the one who claimed his superiority. The Bishops of Rome before him never did so. It should be obvious who broke from who. Also, both Orthodox and Catholics recognize one another as the original Church; just unfortunately separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 (talkcontribs) 00:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of POV in the comment by Nikoz78; certainly many Catholics would identify numerous occasions long before the schism where the Pope of Rome asserted a primacy over the entire Church; and would also point to passages in the patristic fathers which identify the same primacy. Nor is Wikipedia an Orthodox encyclopaedia, contra Deusveritasest. Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Finnish and Estonian orthodox: autonomous or not?[edit]

These two churches are listed both under "autonomous churches" and "churches without autonomy". Which is it? john k 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Finnish Orthodox Church is universally recognized as autonomous whereas the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church is not. So the Finnish Orthodox Church should be taken off of the "churches without autonomy" section. Deusveritasest (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Western Europe?[edit]

I am not aware that anyone considers Western Europe to be an autonomous church. There was a proposal to that effect a few years ago from the Patriarch of Moscow, but that was contingent on all three of the Russian churches (Moscow, ROCOR, and Rue Daru) merging together. The entry under Moscow for Metropolis of Western Europe actually links to the Rue Daru group of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Unless there is any viewpoint to the contrary, I propose to remove the entry from the list and from the template.Paterakis (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America[edit]

This jurisdiction was listed under churches without autonomy, which is clearly not true. Its autonomy is universally recognized. I moved it to the category of churches with autonomy. Deusveritasest (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Seniority - Albania or Poland?[edit]

As far as i know Albanian church is right after greek church and senior towards poland church. it is created in 1924, so we should rerank the churches. Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree . The Albanian church was created in 1922, the Polish one in 1924, so the Albanian church has a seniority on the Polish church. user:sulmues --Sulmues 19:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Church of Cyprus[edit]

This list is according to the Slavic reckoning, whereby Cyprus has been relegated and Russia takes her position. In the tradional southern, Greek and Arab understanding of the hierarchy of the Church, Cyprus has the honorable position of being placed immediately after the ancient Patriarchates, above Russia. This stems from the fact that she was not subsumed into the Patriarchate of Antioch, and was allowed to be the first Autonomous jurisdiction, and in fact first autocephalous church, when the tomb of Barnabus was discovered, following a dream of a monk as to its wherabouts. The honors that are entitled to the Archbishop of Cyprus are to carry a stick with the double headed serpent to signify knowledge, and to sign his name in red ink. (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus doesn't ever appear before any of the Patriarchates in the hierarchy, even the non ancient ones. Cyprus is the highest of the autocephalous churches, but remains just that. She is always of course above Greece Eugene-elgato (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, she can be placed immediately AFTER Moscow[dead link] Eugene-elgato (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Coptic orthodoxy[edit]

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria isn't mentioned here - I can't see why. It is mentioned in Oriental Orthodoxy. Now I see the Armenian Orthodex Church isn't mentioned either. There may be a reason that they're not included here, but it should be made clear. --Chriswaterguy talk 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy They aren't Eastern Orthodox, but Oriental Orthodox. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Autonomy "not universally recognized"[edit]

There are several churches marked as autonomous under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, yet "not universally recognized." Could someone with more knowledge about this area clarify this in the entry? It doesn't seem readily clear to a non-expert who is recognizing and who is not these churches. Does the Patriarchate of Constantinople not recognize some as autonomous? -- (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Should the OCA fall under "Autocephalous Churches" or "Autonomous Churches"? I think the OCA claims autocephaly, but this is not universally recognized. Is this incorrect? Fralupo (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That is actually correct. It is not recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, however, as stated in the Orthodox Church of America article, the apologysts remind the reader that the independence proclaimed in 1970 will sooner or later recognized by the Patriarchate. Since the dates of seniority are those of establishment (i.e. when the Churches proclaimed their independence), and not when they were recognized, I will make a change by including the OCA in the list of the Autocephalous churches. If this will raise ANY eyebrows, please drop a line on my talk page. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 20:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Order of seniority[edit]

Here, the church are ranked "in order of seniority, as per year of independence (autocephaly)". But the seniority is not the same thing as year of independence. Russian Orthodox Church is, for example, much younger than Church of Cyprus, but is more senior because Russian Church has the rank of patriarchy and the Cypriot church has the rank of archeparchy. We should rank the churches in the order of seniority or by the year established, but as it is written here in the article, it is not clear which of these two criteria is used. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai[edit]

What about the "The Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai"? It is listed here as both autocephalous and autonomous, but there are no sources to prove either of this. The link is just the redirect to Saint Catherine's Monastery article, which gives some facts on this topic. It states that:

The exact administrative status of the church within Eastern Orthodoxy is ambiguous: by some, including the church itself, it is considered autocephalous, by others an autonomous church under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. The archbishop is traditionally consecrated by the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem;

Should it be included int he autocephalous or autonomous churches? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There can't be an autocephalous Orthodox Church without a Synod; Sinai has not got one, so it is autonomous (at best). Rhodion (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Autonomous or not?[edit]

  • The Korean church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate is a diocese. It's not autonomous.
  • The Estonian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate is a Metropolis. I can't see how it can be autonomous.
  • The Archbishopric of Ohrid is also recognised by the Church of Greece. The Holy Synod of Greece has decided to accept people coming from the FYROM as Orthodox, only if their baptism has been validated by the Autonomous Archbishopric. Moreover, I can't find an official statement from any of the Orthodox Churches disapproving the autonomous status of the archbishopric. Rhodion (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Order of seniority[edit]

It should follow order of Ecumenical Patriarchate, The autocephaly of the modern Georgian Orthodox Church was approved in 1990. So, it's ranked after Serbian, Bulgarian and Romanian Church. The reference to the year 478 is dubious. According to, "until the 740s" the election of new bishops "had to be confirmed by the synod of the Church of Antioch". Sorry, but that is autonomy - not autocephaly. If we decide to go back to history and recognize Georgian Patriarchate from 1010 - we should also recognize that the first autocephalous churches of Georgia, Bulgaria, and Serbia are older than Russian Patriarchate. --N Jordan (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Churches self-styled as Orthodox"[edit]

Is there any objective basis for the distinction made here between "Churches that are unrecognized" and "Churches self-styled as Orthodox, unrecognized as such"? Should these categories be merged? Obiara (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me, but the first category appears to include groups that recognise the Orthodoxy of the canonical churches; the latter category may include churches that do not. But that's definitely not determinative. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Since there's no evidence supporting this unexplained distinction, I'm going to combine the categories.Obiara (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

See Also[edit]

@Cyphoidbomb: The "See Also" section is indeed new, and thus is new content in the article. Yes, I know that it's for links to tangential subjects. What I can't see is what lists of Catholic and Lutheran dioceses have to do with the organization of the Orthodox Church, even tangentially. Ought we to list all the organizational pieces of all Christian churches here, or even of all religions? I guess I would ask, where should it stop? And so, of course, it's also proper to ask where it should start, if at all. A tangential topic ought to have some connection with the article topic, and I can't see any at all here. What's the justification? Evensteven (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Evensteven, I think Fastifex, the editor who added the links, might be the person best suited to explain. However, if this is an article about how some Orthodox churches are organized, including links to other organized lists seems to make some sense to me. The connections to the article topic are Christianity, Churches, organization. The tangent is that they are different forms of Christianity. So they are related, but not directly. Anyhow, I'm certainly not going to fight to the grave on this. I am curious to hear Fastifex's explanation. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Fastifex:, Cyphoidbomb, sure what you say is true. And rest assured I'm not going to "fight" anyone. My point is based on the observation that the way one church organizes itself is not affected by and does not affect how other churches organize themselves. At least, not so much. And in Orthodoxy's case, influence would have to run outward from Orthodoxy, not in towards it, since it was organized way before Protestants existed, and since organizational differences with the RC would have developed after the East-West schism. In any case though, I do see your point, and will not oppose it. Still, I would observe that the mere lists of dioceses are also not really topically parallel to church organization - rather, they are the result of church organization. I would think that someone wanting to look at how other churches organize would need to look at articles on those topics instead of just having a single clue. Wouldn't there be a better set of links to put in place in that case? I think it's a weak edit as it stands. Evensteven (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I also fail to see any significant relevance for these links. As Evensteven noted, the list of links could go on endlessly to include the organizational structure of every religion in existence. Additionally, I looked around and haven't seen any sort of precedence on Wikipedia for such links in other articles related to religion. Unless there is a consensus here to keep the links in a week or so, I may be bold and remove them. I left Fastifex a message about this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Topics that are related to the subject might presumably already be linked in the article. Quoting from WP:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." That said, this is not a significant issue for me, (I've got vandals to whack) so I'm yielding on the matter. Seems like this would be Fastifex's beef anyway. Regards to all, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Orthodox Church of Greece (Holy Synod in Resistence) now defunct.[edit]

The above mentioned ceased to function in 2014 with the passing of the last president of the association. I believe it is now defunct. This could be updated with the appropriate ref in the future. Dr.khatmando (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)