Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:56, 27 July 2004

/Archive 1

Why is it still being alleged that Rome, a schismatic and heretodox group, is some sort of "Western Orthodoxy"? They are not "Orthodox" in that they do not adhere to correct doctrine. To call them "Western Orthodox" in an article on "Eastern Orthodoxy" is to give the utterly FALSE impression that the Orthodox somehow consider the Roman Catholics to be some sort of "Orthodox". They are not Orthodox. They are heterodox--which is the opposite of orthodox. Why is anti-Orthodox doctrine being promulgated on a page on Orthodoxy? Protestants consider themselves to be "orthodox", after all. Therefore, the page should also maintain as a 100% FACTUAL statement that Protestants are "Western Orthodox" exactly as it purports as a 100% FACTUAL statement that Rome is "Western Orthodox"--a term that is not even used except by those who would seek to undermine Orthodoxy in favor of the Vatican.

The sentence said only that the modern Catholic Church is "heir" to "'Western Orthodox' traditions," not that it claimed orthodoxy or is orthodox, and it put "Western Orthodox" in quotes to signal that this is just a manner of speaking. Now I've changed the sentence to make even clearer that this is just a manner of speaking and that the RCC has evolved since the schism (and evolution implies deviation from orthodoxy). Even if the signals are ignored and the sentence is read as an assertion about orthodoxy, I think strictly all it implies is that some of the Western patriarchates incorporated under the RCC at time of schism had some orthodox beliefs and practices that became part of the RCC. Also, there was a discussion here before in which the conclusion was that the RCC may indeed regard themselves as "orthodox" with regard to that filo-whatsit clause, which is often cited as the impetus for the schism. If so, the immediate post-schism historical RCC may indeed have claimed to have been orthodox. Anyway, this is beside the point, because the sentence makes no such claim. 168... 22:20, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Seems reasonable now. The sentence later in the paragraph about the Eastern Church additionally claiming orthodoxy clarifies any lingering confusion as well, pointing out the different emphases in the two churches. --Delirium 04:57, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

No,, the Catholic Church is not "heir" to "Western Orthodox" traditions. The closest thing to a "Western Orthodox" tradition before the Reformation would be the Celtic Christianity that was found in the British Isles, and which got mostly stamped out by the Roman Catholics within a very few centuries after the Great Schism; the Catholics are not heirs to Celtic Christianity or any other "Western Orthodoxy", they rejected such that there was. The Celts' theology was largely in harmony with the Byzantine Empire, while also having a Celtic flavour to it. It is quite different from the Western theology that is dominated by Aristotle and Augustine. Today, there are Orthodox believers in the West, including the Orthodox Church in America as well as many Greek, Syrian, Russian etc. in the Americas and Europe, along with many converts to Orthodoxy who are native to the Americas or Europe. These are truly Western Orthodox in that they are Western in culture, but Orthodox in that they gladly receive the teachings and practices that were once held by the Celtic and Byzantine Christians alike and have since been handed down by the "Eastern Orthodoxy".

At the very least, the "O" in "Western Orthodox" should be lower case. Wesley 05:14, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why is the small "o" OK or more acceptable? e.g. Is it that you regard the big O as something akin to a tradename that should only refer to what Easterns consider orthodox?168... 06:22, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, more or less. If it's just an adjective, it should be lower case, like any other adjective in the English language. If it's naming a specific entity, it should be upper case because then it's a proper noun, or part of a proper noun. Why would you capitalize a word like "Catholic" or "Orthodox" unless they were part of a proper noun? Another way to address this might be to say that the Roman Catholic Church is heir to the same tradition to which Eastern Orthodoxy is heir; I think most people on both sides would acknowledge that the other has at least genuine historical continuity. If you look at it that way, then you're looking at a common shared tradition, not separate Western and Eastern ones. And of course each would say that the other has in some way deviated from that original shared tradition. That I think is the symmetry you're looking for. Wesley 06:34, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, to me and I would have thought that to most people the quotes around "Western Orthodox" signals that we don't mean Orthodox and the text later in the same paragraph makes the Orthodoxy issue clear. But it seems like you'd prefer and would be O.K. with "might be said to be descended from the Western orthodox tradition"; i.e. no quotation marks and a small o. S'alright by me.168... 07:16, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Proof of the existence of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church:

OK Efghij, what about shrines, where in the world do they have an actual Montenegrin Orthodox Church, a shrine in which preferably someone holds a service of some sort, supposedly Orthodox? What about the Croat Catholic Church? Today in ORthodoxy there is ample ground for manipulations, there are pretenders who claim to be 'patriarchs' or priests of some MOntenegrin or even Italian Orthodox Church but none of those have any actual shrines, they are either completely anonymous agents provocateurs or just defrocked priests. I too can claim to be a representative of some autocephalous Wikipedian Orthodox Church, would you write a text on that too?--Igor, 8:02, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As it says in the CNN article, there are Montenegrin Orthodox priests who hold services. Wikipedia can't disqualify them as a religous group because these services don't take place in a "shrine". In many countries, Baha'is hold services exclusively in each other's living rooms; does that mean they aren't really a religous group either? What about neo-Pagans who only perform cerimonies outdoors? - Efghij 01:05, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)

Efghij, is there a link on this page (about Orthodox Christiannity) to the Neo-Pagans and the Bahai? I agree that the so-called group can be considered religious I just object to their being classified as Christian Orthodox as they obviously are not. -- Igor 23:08, Sep 27, 2003 (UTC)

Based on a few of the leading articles from the above Google search, it appears that the Montenegrin Orthodox Church controls about 20 or so churches, and has a metropolitan and other clergy.

What are those churches? The religious situation in Montenegro is quite familiar to me and I have yet to hear which churches this group happens to 'hold'? Haven't had the time to read all of the articles above but I can assure you that their presence is not noted in one single shrine. From time to time they go around breaking locks on the shrines of the Serbian Orthodox Church, invade them for a short period before a group of faithful gathers around to protest. The two groups are separated by police, eventually the invaders disperse and go home, following that a real priest has to resanctify the church because it was penetrated by an unholy presence and a new lock is placed on the church. However, given the political picture of Montenegro lately, the incidents have been very few in the past years, perhaps just one or two.

So they don't appear to be a "vapor" group; when they had no buildings they apparently did meet outdoors for a while. They are asking the Serbian Orthodox Church to return about 650 churches and monasteries to them, which it claims were taken or usurped around 1920.

There are bout 650 Orthodox churches in Montenegro, all Serbian Orthodox. Nothing was taken from 'them' in 1920 as they were first registered as a non-profit organization around the late 1990's.

It looks to me as though the conflict is at least partly political, and is just one more part of the fallout of several decades of communism in Eastern Europe.

Entirely political but unlike anything in Eastern Europe.

They should probably be listed where they are for now; I wasn't able to find what I would consider a truly reliable source to confirm or deny their autocephalous status. Truth is it's a mess, and it will probably get sorted out in time.

They are not autocephalous, never were (as there was no tomos) and should not be listed in a page that concerns Orthodox Christiannity, Efghij mentioned Neo-Pagans and the Bahai, I can not speak for them, perhaps they wouldn't mind?

Igor, if you feel like researching them further, a small article on their history, background, relationships or lack of relationships with other Orthodox churches, etc. might not be a bad idea. Wesley 15:38, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Their relationship with other groups is non-existant as they do not exist per say. The Macedonians for example have a splinter groups made up of priests, the Ukrainians I gather as well, this group is made up entirely of renegade defrocked priests. The original mock-metropolitan/patriarch of the group was Antonije Abramovic from MOntreal, Canada, a former priest of the non-recognized Border Russian Orthodox Church (Zagradska Russkaya itd.), following a scandal involving pedophilia, he was forbidden to hold services. He then joined the group in 1993, he died in 1996 and was replaced by Miras Dedeic in 1997 who had just had an anathema thrown on him by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople for having forsaken his monastic vow of celibacy. He is joined by three other priests of the Serbian Orthodox Church who have been expulsed for different reasons ranging from theft of church property to falsifying a church document to the very same violation of the monastic vow of celibacy by the young Milutin Cvijic, a monk in Ostrog monastery who now actually has a wife and child. --Igor 23:33, Sep 27, 2003 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify about Montenegrin Orthodox Church: yes, there is a group of people that call themselves Montenegrin Orthodox church; and while they might be Montenegrin, they are neither Orthodox nor church. Current Montenegrin government is using them to stir up relations with Serbian Orthodox Church and strengthen their call for separation from Serbia, which includes usurping of SOC temples by the government of Montenegro. Serbian Orthodox Church could not have usurped its own temples in Montenegro (that belong to Archbishopy of Montenegro and seaside). Nikola 21:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nikola, that is the whole issue, Miras Dedeic was born in Zavidovici (now Bosnia), Milutin Cvijic in Teslic (now Republika Srpska, part of Bosnia as well), Zivorad Pavlovic is from Smederevo in Serbia, Jelisej Lalatovic was born in Montenegro but he is the only one, that's one out of four, 25%. They are not Orthodox as none of these individuals holds any rank in any particualar Orthodox church, they once did but wery stripped of them PRIOR to their joining this group. Groups such as the Ukrainians and Slavic Macedonians are made up of priests who are in conflict with the Orthodox Churches over the question of jurisdiction, because they are not made up of defrocked priests they keep as clear as possible from this group although they might be solidary between themselves (i.e. Ukrainians and Slavic Macedonians). I might object to the claims made by the Slavic Macedonians about autocephaly (I know very little of the Ukrainians' issue) but I believe that their place is rightfully there, they are non-recognized whereas this group annually holds meetings outdoors where it gathers its supporters from the world including a certain 'monsignor Antonio de Rossi', self-styled metropolitan of some 'Italian Orthodox Church' and a certain 'archbishop Andrei' of some 'Real Russian Orthodox Church'. Good luck finding anything on those two. --Igor 0:04, Sep 28, 2003 (UTC)

Igor and Nikola, it sounds like you two are much more familiar with the situation in Montenegro. Perhaps Google is not the One True Fount of Knowledge after all. ;-) I would now like to express my agreement with you. Thanks very much for taking the time to inform the rest of us. Peace, Wesley 16:29, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Google is not bad except that some things still cannot be found on the internet, not in English at least. Regards -- Igor 4:35, Sep 29 2003 (UTC)

I didn't mean to mark that last edit 'minor'. It wasn't minor. Mkmcconn 14:29, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

While I understand your edit User:168..., I do not think that it is an improvement. All recent popes make a point of emphasizing that the Pope does not rule on his own. The bishops in communion with him (uniquely the earthly head of the church, Vicar of Christ, in a class by himself) are the overseers of the church. So, I'm inclined to revert your edit to make this detail explicit. I'll hope for your comments, first. Mkmcconn 02:35, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To me, the point that you say the popes emphasize is better expressed by saying only "Roman church leaders" or "church leaders in Rome," and leaving the pope to stand unlabeled as just one tree in that forest. Perhaps you understand the words "in communion" to convey something in that context that they are not conveying to me. If that's the case, you might consider there will be others to whom the meaning won't be conveyed either. 168... 02:52, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The bishops are not all "in Rome", but rather, in the Church. The Pope is in Rome, and as the Bishop of Rome is the supreme pontiff of the whole Roman Catholic Church. Only those bishops who are "in communion" with him (not separated from his jurisdiction) have authority in the Roman Catholic Church. But, in recent times the Popes have emphasized that the Pope does not shepherd the church by himself: all of the bishops are the shepherds of the church (in communion with the Pope). These are details of precision that Roman Catholics seem to be sensitive to. Mkmcconn 03:47, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

O.K..I think I see where you are coming from now. I read the sentence differently than you meant it to be read, I think, because of the commas, which made the "in communion with" descriptor into a separate clause. I edited the sentence back to something close to the way you had it, but without the commas (I used "in communion with Rome" because I think the sentence gets too gangly with "Pope in Rome" or "Roman Pope", which is why I think you resorted to commas). On the other hand, to me it seems like "Roman church leaders" ought to cover the Catholic bishops who are not in Rome, because I read it as "leaders of the Roman church, a.k.a the Roman Catholic Church."168... 04:10, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't view it as a truly glaring redundancy though. So I'm not going to fight over it. (But I do think the "Rome" or "Roman" has to appear in the first clause to establish context.) 168... 02:59, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

the new edit works for me. Mkmcconn 04:05, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

copied this text from the page.

(scattered notes to be fleshed out later, help welcome)

In the sixteenth century, Pope Gregory I called for a switch to the Gregorian calendar. However, like the Protestants of that time (and till the mid eighteenth century in England), the Orthodox rejected this call, and so remained on the Julian calendar. By far the majority of Orthodox worldwide remain on the Julian Calendar. However, today, many Orthodox, particularly in the West, have switched to a Revised Julian Calendar, which mostly matches the Gregorian Calendar, but places Easter and related feast days (e.g., Ascension, Pentecost) on the same day as does the Julian Calendar. The actual algorithms for calculating the date of Easter used by both calendars are quite complex, as are the algorithms for calculating the Jewish date of Passover. See the external link concerning the calendar for further details.

The Orthodox never rejected the call. They never RECEIVED the call, as far as I can tell. Likewise, it was Gregory XIII who ordered the calendar reform. Dogface 19:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that whether or not a Church is in communion with Constantinople is not a useful method of categorization. It gives the false impression to non-Orthodox readers that Constantinople is the principle of Orthodox unity, and isn't always true even for the Churches listed. (For example, the Church of Russia briefly severed communion with Constantinpole a few years ago over C's uncanonical interference in Latvia.) A more appropriate method might make mention of general canonical acceptance. The OCA should be "asterisked" in the list of Autocephalous Churches in any event, since its autocephaly is not universally recognized.

It also seems to me that the size of the section on Orthodoxy in North America is disproportionate to the actual Orthodox population here and is perhaps America-centric. Unless, of course, the plan is to include sections on the histories of every geographical region where Orthodoxy is found and this is simply the first to be written because it's the one the author was familiar with. Csernica 01:42, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

These are all good suggestions. I haven't been entirely comfortable with the list of who's in communion with Constantinople, but haven't thought of a better idea yet. Do you have a specific suggestion? Regarding the attention given to North America, it is just as you guessed; hopefully we'll get more contributors familiar with other areas who can give those areas more attention. I'll go ahead and "asterisk" the OCA's listing as you suggest. Wesley 17:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I propose the following regions:

Eastern Mediterranean ("home of Orthodoxy"), including modern-day Greece, Slavic Balkan states, Romania, Turkey, and the "Middle East" (to Egypt).
Northern Slavia (needs a better name), including modern Russia, Baltic States, Chechia, Slovakia, Poland, and possibly Finland, given the Russian connection for Orthodoxy in Finland.
Western Europe, including Germany, Italy, France, UK, Ireland, Scandinavia, etc.
Americas (Put North and South together).
Africa sans Egypt (although Ethiopia is a large part of the Oriental Communion, it has always been hinterland for the Eastern Orthodox).
India and East Asia
Oceania (incl. Australia and New Zealand).

India? I hear about India first. On Korea, I heard they are very active(Is there anyone who attended in Symmonides 2002 near to Seoul?). I have recently heard the Russian Orthodox Church settled their synod in North Korea. (Just a rumor? I don't know.) The Indian are not so many in Japan and I haven't seen them in our Cathedral ... well, I should go out. It is already eight thirty.

A Greeting from Japan

Should Oriental Orthodoxy be separated out? It's presently a quite distinct article. And Oriental Orthodoxy is not in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy any more than Roman Catholicism is.

Also, Eastern Orthodox Church is largely redundant with this article. - David Gerard 15:04, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Oriental Orthodoxy is quite distinct from Eastern Orthodoxy; a better term to encompass both might be Eastern Christianity, analogous to Western Christianity to encompass Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Would it be best to merge the content from Eastern Orthodox Church with this article and then make Eastern Orthodox Church a redirect to Eastern Orthodoxy? Wesley 18:04, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Possibly Eastern Orthodox Church could be moved to Eastern Orthodox Church organization (small "o" in that last word), i.e., it's about how it's organized rather than about doctrines, traditions, practices, etc. Michael Hardy 01:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Csernica wrote above: "The OCA should be 'asterisked' in the list of Autocephalous Churches in any event, since its autocephaly is not universally recognized." What's the story behind that? Why is it not universally recognized? Who recognizes it and who doesn't? Is it recognized by the Constantinopolitan Orthodox Church? Would one of its members attending a liturgy at a Greek Orthodox church in the USA that reports ultimately to the Patriarch of Constantinople be excluded from the Eucharist? Michael Hardy 03:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Its autocephaly is not recognized by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese specifically because the Patriarch of Constantinople does not want to give up control over the Greek Orthodox parishes in the USA. If any distinctly native jurisdiction is generally recognized as autocephalous, then any and all Orthodox parishes, by Orthodox canon, in the territory of that jurisdiction, must be within that jurisdiction. The Church of Greece cannot run dozens of parishes in Russia (although an exception for one or two, but no more, might be granted). So long as the Patriarch of Constantinople refuses to recognize autocephaly, everybody else is free to ignore it. Motive is a matter of speculation. Constantinople maintains that it is because it was given jurisdiction over all lands of the barbarians (any lands not in the old Empire). Those in opposition to Constantinople point out that the specific canon in question was rather explicit to areas bordering two imperial provinces. Likewise, Constantinople does not claim jurisdiction over Russia. Constantinople's opponents point out that most of the parishes around the world that send money to the Phanar are in the USA, which also sends the largest amount of money. If Constantinople were to recognize OCA's autocephaly, it would lose those parishes and their money, except perhaps for a token parish in New York. So, as far as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is concerned, the OCA is merely a metropolitanate of the Church of Russsia, and since Constantinople and Russia are in full communion, and Moscow has not pronounced these Americans with their funny ideas to be schismatic, Constantinople maintains communion with the OCA while simultaneously denying that the OCA actually exists. For most Orthodox, the entire situation is hardly worth more than a shrug--there are far more salty fish yet to be fried. Are you familiar with the term "Byzantine politics"? The Greek Archdiocese a few years ago saw the replacement of an Archbishop whom the Patriarch vowed would be at the office for life. More recently, the Bishops of the Archdiocese were all promoted to Metropolitans, a move that reduced their authority significantly. The thing is that all of these matters are matters of mere administration. For the Orthodox, the status of Bishops, Metropolitans, Archbishops, and Patriarchs is nothing at all to form a schism over. Schism has to wait for important things, like whether one crosses with two fingers or three or whether or not one permits pews in the nave.

And don't get us started on strong coffee vs. samovar tea. Dogface 19:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

- Thank you -- that's the only clear statement I've seen concerning this. Michael Hardy 21:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

A few more details: There is no such thing as a "Constantinopolitan Orthodox Church". There is the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. This Patriarchate has jurisdiction over various dioceses, eparchies, autonomous churches, etc. However, as an organization, it actually has no specific name. Instead, we refer to those groups under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople as "Those groups under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople". It really isn't called a "Church of <foo>" or "<foo> Orthodox Church" by anyone within Orthodoxy. Dogface 19:53, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good explanation, Dogface. I would only add that in general, the Greek Orthodox Church doesn't mind recognizing that OCA parishes and members are Orthodox; it's just their autocephaly that is in question. Many members of our OCA parish have received the Eucharist from the local Greek Orthodox priest, with his full awareness. Our two parishes typically sponsor a joint Vacation Church School each summer for the children of both parishes, with assistance from adults at both parishes. I'm sure that someone could find warmer or cooler Greek-OCA parish relationships in different areas. Wesley 16:34, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Patriarchs

Who decides, and how, which of the autocephalous churches are headed by bishops bearing the title of Patriarch and which are headed by Metropolitans or other bishops with less exalted titles than Patriarch? (E.g., the head of the autocephalous Church of Cyprus is a mere Archbishop.) Is it in fact held that the decisions of an ecumenical council require the assent of all Patriarchs? Does that mean the assent of a bishop holding the title of Metropolitan who heads an autocephalous church, is not needed for validity of a council's decisions, but the assent of some other heads of autocephalous churches, bearing the title of Patriarch, is needed? Michael Hardy 00:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy of bishops and of widowed priests and deacons

The article titled clerical celibacy has a lot about Roman Catholic views and only a little bit about Eastern Orthodox views. Maybe someone among those who have worked on this page can add something? Michael Hardy 21:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

Come and join a new WikiProject: Saints. --Kpalion 10:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)Come and join a new WikiProject: Saints. --Kpalion 10:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Syrian Orthodox Church

Shouldn't the Syrian Orthodox Church/Antiochian Orthodox Church issue be mentioned? The Syrian church isn't mentioned at all in this article.. Rhymeless 16:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't that just one instance of the split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, which is mentioned? You see something similar with the two churches in Egypt, each with a pope in Alexandria. Wesley 04:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Italicised title?

Why italics should be used in Eastern Orthodoxy as now written

I think you made a mistake. When one writes about a word of phrase rather than using the word or phrase to write about what it refers to, one should italicize it. Thus:

A dog is an animal that barks.

(Not italicized, since one is writing about dogs, and not about the word dog.)

Dog refers to either of two things: an animal that barks, or a kind of robot invented in AD 2024.

(Italicized, since one is writing about the word rather than about the animal.)

When refers to is used, then one is writing about the word, not about the thing!

Why they shouldn't

The words aren't the title of a work - they aren't always italicised in common usage, so shouldn't be in the header.

Furthermore, italicising them here does constitute overemphasis compared to conventional use on the rest of Wikipedia - David Gerard 22:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong about the Style Manual and wrong about the rest of Wikipedia

The style manual clearly says this should be in italics when used in the way in which the term is used here. Here is what the Style Manual says:

Italicize words when they are being referenced in a sentence, rather than used normally. Similarly for letters.

- The term panning is derived from panorama, a word originally coined in 1787
  - The term panning is derived from panorama, a word originally coined in 1787
- The letter E is the most common letter in English.

So if the article begins with

Eastern Orthodoxy comprises the religious traditions of Eastern Europe and ....

then it should not be italicized, because it's not writing about the term Eastern Orthodoxy but rather about the religious tradition that the term refers to. On the other hand, if it says

Eastern Orthodoxy is the name of ...

then it should be italicized, because it's about the term rather than about the thing that the term refers to. Michael Hardy 22:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)