Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 2

At the end of the introduction to the first section, a note is made that the church is not really divided. I was under the impression that it was. I have never done research on the Orthodox Church, but am now doing research on the history of the Catholic Church (including the Orthodox Church, as I am looking at its origin in ancient Rome). I had "heard" that the various national churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church were fairly well cut-off, though still extremely close (identical?) in form/tradition, because of the poor stability of eastern political systems, including but not limited to the communist crusade against G-d. Does anyone have any information about their integration? Do the bishops all meet together and decide policy that effects all churches, but manage their own at home? Is it all integrated, only without the figure-head that is the pope to the Roman Catholics? thanx, JP GaelicWizard 04:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In responce to GaelicWizard - There are two ways one can look at the Orthodox/Catholic situation. Many people choose to see the similarities between the two, others see the differences. If a person has it in mind to notice the similarities then that person may draw the conclusion that the differences are small enough to reunite the church. But if one understands the differences clearly, then it becomes obvious that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are light years apart, especially after 1000 years of schism. To sum up an answer to the questions you may have; the very structure of the two churches diverged about 1300 years ago. The West developed the idea of a universal pontiff, while the east remained concicular, with all bishops holding equal status and desisions being made by democratic vote. The Orthodox church retains this democratic structure, however, a general council has not been needed since 787AD to deside policy. Smaller councils are held to solve minor problems, but other than that the Orthodox church does not have any need to hold councils. Our bishops uphold the dictates of the 7 ecumenical councils and nothing else major has ever been needed. Phiddipus

To augment Phiddipus' answer somewhat, the question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the organization of the Orthodox Church so it's not impossible the article is insufficiently clear on this point. The kind of monolithic integration you seem to be expecting is neither typical nor desireable for Orthodoxy. Except for certain anomalous historical situations where something along these lines was imposed by some hostile political power, the Orthodox Church has never been organized this way. Each Church functions as an independent administrative unit, and there are no "policy" decisions to make overall. The only questions of sufficient seriousness to require a unified answer from the entire Church are questions of dogma, but none have come up over the past 1200 years or so that have not been answered by a more organic process than that of an Ecumenical Council. (For example, the question might be addressed by a respected theologian or local council, and the answers thus reached have been adopted by all the Churches by informal consensus.)

So whether one autocephalous Church is cut off from another administratively or because lines of communication were closed off really doesn't signify. The unity of the Church is a unity in Spirit and in Truth. If there's a visible sign of this, it's in the intercommunion between the various Churches which, even if mainly theoretical, is always given tangible expression when a Primate of an autocephalus Church celebrated the Divine Liturgy and the diptychs are read naming the heads of all the other Churches with which he considers himself to be in communion. But the unity is there regardless of whether it's visible at any particular moment. Csernica 09:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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:

• from the BBC
• from CNN
• from the Christian Science Monitor
• and 8907 other websites

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)

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)

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)

Originally, it was a matter of an Ecumenical Council to determine, such as Constantinople's promotion to Patriarchical status. However, as we have seen for the Slavs, it seems to be a matter of how the parent jurisdiction sees fit to name things, with an assumed but never stated provision that only a Patriarch could theoretically "recognize" a new Patriarchate. Russia has a Patriarch, with no Ecumenical Council behind this rank. Therefore, no Ecumenical Council is absolutely necessary for a Church to have a Patriarch. Also, there is nothing at all "mere" about the Archbishop of Cyprus vs. the Metropolican of the OCA, for example. The Archbishop of Cyprus still "outranks" the Metropolitan of the OCA because Cyprus's autocephaly is of far older vintage thant the OCA. Only an Ecumenical Council has ever changed this order of precedence. Dogface 18:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. (I see on the web site of the Church of Greece -- autocephalous since some time in the first half of the 19th century, if I recall correctly -- that the head of that church is also called the Archbishop; I'd have guessed he'd be a Metropolitan). Michael Hardy 21:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Slavs prefer to use Metropolitan, Greeks prefer Archbishop. In the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (USA) the various Metropolitans have an Archbishop as their immediate chief, although all report to the Patriarch of Constantinople. In Orthodoxy, the "ranking" is something on the order of Priest, Bishop, Higher than Bishop. Dogface 03:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Really, they're all Bishops. The only meaningful distinction among Bishops is between Ruling and Auxiliary Bishops. Auxiliary, or Vicar Bishops function much like the old chorespiscopi, and much of what they do can only be done with the blessing of the Ruling Bishop of the diocese. As for the rest -- Archbishop, Metropolitan, Patriarch, Pope in whatever order the local Church places them -- they're really nothing but differences in honor or precedence. --Csernica 02:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hit 'Random page' a pile of times and see what is and isn't conventional usage on Wikpedia. When it's a term, I've seen it preceded 'the term'. Your usage is completely idiosyncratic - David Gerard 23:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. I am not the author of that clause in the style manual, and far from the only person to apply it, nor is Wikipedia the only place that prescribes that usage. Michael Hardy 23:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jurisdiction of bishops and other matters

That new bit on the limitations of episcopal jurisdiction was simply awful, with numerous instances of bad phrasing and misspellings and some information that's just flat wrong. Perhaps the subject needs to be addressed. If so I can add it later, but my head's not in the right place for it at the moment so I just cut it.

I rephrased the bit about deaconesses. Deacons don't "exercise jurisdiction" in any way I can make sense of the phrase -- it's not normally used in Orthodoxy -- so there's no reason to mention it in the context of deaconesses.

On the celibacy of bishops: They're celibate not only because they're drawn from the ranks of the monks, but also because they 'remain' monks as their street clothing reflects. Monks are by definition celibate. It's not clerical celibacy because most Orthodox monks aren't clergy, but I don't know if there's a different article that makes more sense as a reference. --Csernica 00:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the information about episcopal jurisdiction is good to include in the article. Hope you can find time to add it later. I imagine you're right about deacons not 'exercising jurisdiction'. Wesley 03:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if it's better to put it here or under bishop. --Csernica 00:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, the celibacy of Orthodox bishops is not "clerical" celibacy, but "monastic" celibacy; i.e., they're celibate not because they are bishops but because they are monks. But if I understand correctly, if the wife of an Orthodox priest or deacon dies while he still lives, he may not remarry. So would it be correct to call that "clerical" celibacy? Michael Hardy 01:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but contra Clerical celibacy there's no vow in this case as far as I know. There may well be one -- I've never had the opportunity to examine the certificate a priest or deacon must sign on his ordination -- but it's unnecessary in any case since it's canonically forbidden. Orthodoxy tolerates (but does not condone) second and third marriages for the laity, but clergy are held to the ideal standard of at most one marriage. Coupled with the prohibition against marriage after ordination, this places a (generally) insuperable obstacle even absent a vow. I add the parenthetical note because there was a very controversial case not long ago where Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Archdiocese blessed one of his priests, a widower, to remarry. My own bishop has forbidden his priests to concelebrate if he's present in the altar.

I ought to mention that I've never seen any authoritative source giving the reasoning behind this rule forbidding post-ordination marriages, but it's very ancient and dates no later than the Apostolic Canons.

Celibacy is celibacy of course, regardless of the reasons for its practice, and the celibacy of a monk isn't so different from that of an unmarried or widowed priest or deacon. This is probably nothing more than a fairly meaningless quibble on my part. Csernica 04:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So it sounds as if clerical celibacy needs some editing. (I first heard of the rule against widowed priests remarrying when I read the first several chapters (but no more, so far) of Oliver Goldsmith's novel The Vicar of Wakefield, in which two Anglican priests argued about whether the Church of England had such a rule.) Was Metropolitan Philip's decision considered a case of "church economy"? Michael Hardy 19:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps an edit is called for, but I'm sufficiently uncertain about whether or not vows happen in Orthodoxy (redundant or not) to refrain from sending out a clarion call for one.

Yes, that was economy. I'd go so far as to call it extreme economy that ought not to have been exercised. The situation was acutally worse than I'm saying here, but since everything I know about it is hearsay I don't want to repeat it in public and further spread what may be mere rumor.

For my own part, I didn't know Anglican clergy could marry even once after ordination until I read Pride and Prejudice. Csernica 22:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Metropolitan Archbishop

How come I see entries for the preist, deacon, bishop, and metropolitan, but not the Metropolitan Archbishop? Was this an oversight, was it moved, or do people not know that such a rank exists? TomStar81 23:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deacon, priest, and bishop are orders to which a man is ordained; archbishop, metropolitan, and patriarch are ranks of bishops; not positions to which anyone gets ordained. That should remain clear, whatever discussion of the latter group of positions is added. Michael Hardy 00:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are in the Orthodox Church actually only 3 ranks to the priesthood. Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. All other titles are honorary based sometimes on the length of service of the priest, and sometimes the prominance of his territory (See). The various jurisdictions within the church have different traditions as to how they dispence these titles. In the Greek tradition any bishop who holds an ancient See is called Metropolitan even if that see is a small villiage. Archbishop is usually reserved for the lead bishop in a national church unless it happens to be Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Russia, or Antioch; in which case its Patriarch (Or Pope). I have never heard of a Metropolitan Archbishop though its perfectly possible one of the jurisdictions provide this position. In any case, the most ancient patriarch, Metropolitan, or Archbishop are still equal in rank to the lowliest bishop over the smallest congregation except perhaps in adminstrative duties. Phiddipus 10:03, 6 Nov 2004 (PST)

Churches in Resistance / Old Calendarists

Dogface, knock it off. These churches are long-established groups who have a well-defined philosophy of walling themselves off until the perceived errors of modernism and ecumenism within Orthodoxy as a whole have been resolved. They may be considered schismatics by some, but this is not an objective opinion; they consider themselves to be "walled off" from heresy in the mainstream churches, while still maintaining the legitimacy of those churches for the time being. Listing them as churches in resistance to modernism is not propaganda, it's how they describe themselves. They have maintained the faith, have legitimate episcopal succession, and historical continuity with multigenerational groups of believers: they are Orthodox, even if you don't like it. YBeayf 05:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Approach to Accurately Relaying What the Orthodox Church Believes

In order to validate any point in regards to the Orthodox Church one must ask the question “What has the church believed all along”. It may be, that any given jurisdiction may find themselves given to ideas not originally Orthodox, but more akin to modern western philosophy, and these ideas may now be temporarily rooted by two or three generations of believers. But one must look farther back to understand the Orthodox perspective.

The very foundations of the Orthodox Church are based in the history of its practices and their preservation for future generations. This is a point that must be understood even by non-orthodox when one is considering what to believe and what to disregard when one is discussing what it is to be Orthodox. The canons of the church are very clear in this matter and it can be said that if one disregards the canons, then one is no longer Orthodox. A disregard for tradition and changes in the already existing structure of the church is what got the Roman Catholics labeled as heretics. Those changes that were so prominent in 1054 AD were nearly non-existent just 200 years earlier.

The Orthodox have always relied on the Golden thread that runs through its history; the consensus of the fathers. Thus it is said: “Those who, moved by divine zeal, always concur with the fathers and the traditional ordinances of the Church, should flee from all who hold contrary opinions, as though from enemies” (Seventh Ecumenical Synod, Session 6) The Church always judges the present by the past - not the recent past; but the entire past. In this way she has always been triumphant over the machinations of Hell. “…upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt 16:18)

Now we find ourselves in an age where many people have heard of the Orthodox Church and some are interested in learning what it means to be Orthodox. We have converts from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Unfortunately what often happens is that, although they convert, they bring new and often heretical ideas along with them. They don’t realize that they need to let go of these ideas. Because the Orthodox Church developed in the East many of the philosophical presuppositions of Western thinking do not really apply. Terms like Salvation, Human Nature, Repentance, Love, Faith, Truth, and Sin have subtle differences between western and eastern thinking at their beginnings, and profound differences when developed by the rational of the Church. Confusion is inevitable when mixing the two. Ultimately, the only end to confusion is to reject the modern stream of philosophy for the original consensus of the Fathers.

And so, the only way to accurately report on what the Orthodox Church believes is to look to its history and independently verify, from numerous sources, the subject at hand. To rely on some modern writer, however prestigious, who seeks answers outside of the consensus of the Fathers, is to receive a filtered version of the truth. A very obvious POV, as you call it. The Orthodox Church has only one point of view – its historical consensus. Any opinion as to what it believes without this historical consensus is a filtered point of view. I might also add, that this process has always been there. There have been times of confusion in the past. There have been times when the Majority of Orthodox have fallen away. But the core remains always steadfast, and eventually the rest of the body returns to its foundation in tradition.Phiddipus 13:13, 11 Nov 2004 (PST)

Church Architecture

While it is true than in the USA we have taken to calling it an Iconostasis this really is incorrect. In church architecture this division between the Altar and the Nave is called the Templon. It is more significant that the altar is within the “Temple” area of the church as harkens back to the Jewish temple with the “Holy of Holies” as central focus, rather than just saying the Altar is behind a “Stand for Icons” (Iconostasis).

I think I will soon add a section describing in detail church architecture.

Phiddipus 17:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Iconostasis" is not an Americanism. I know for a fact that at least in the Slavic countries it's the standard name for this feature. Unless you're going to say the entire Russian Orthodox Church has its terminology wrong, you can't say "iconostasis" is incorrect.

Nor have I ever encountered any Greeks who insisted on "templon" no matter how fresh off the boat they were. Even Greek Archdiocese's website calls it "iconostasis" and then mentions "templon" as a synonym. There's no reason to insist, exclusively, on "templon" here.

And actually, it would be better to fix the serious misstatement as to the purpose of the iconostasis as well as some of the more problematic incorrect phrasings. (The templon was never a curtain, which is a distinct but related feature.) Csernica 11:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I checked with both the priest and an Greek Yia-yia at church today. The Yia-yia understood the "templon" as a synonym for "iconostasion" but was very surprised that anyone would insist that's what it must be called. The priest confirmed my opinion that "templon" was the name for this particular architectural feature in general, with or without icons -- it lacked them in its earliest form, when it was just a barrier to prevent the press of people from crowding the altar. With icons it's universally known in the Orthodox world as an iconostasis.

Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy for your particular point of view. Whether or not you'd rather everyone called the iconostasis a templon, the fact is that the former is by far the most common usage. We should therefore report that, in an NPOV way regardless of our personal opinions.

An interesting development is that since some liturgical action now takes place in front of the iconostasis, some larger churches now have the same problem that prompted the development of the templon in the first place. These churches usually install brass railings between the main part of the nave and the soleas. I wonder what will come of this in another 400 years. Csernica 05:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the scheme of things such details as this are perhaps unimportant. This however is an encyclopedia, is it not? In the Orthodox Church, every part has a symbolic meaning, there are no mundane reasons for things. You might call the big brass candleholders “Candleholders” and think they have no more meaning than simply holding candles; but the symbolism is there nevertheless. You might also think in practical terms that the Templon developed to keep the press of the people back from the altar and completely miss its symbolism as a replacement for the Temple in Jerusalem and the Holy of Holies, but this is the symbolism. And in this case, the symbolism is inherent in its name. It is very true that in a very wide circle the term Iconostasis is used, but the symbol is lost and becomes empty. I do not insist on calling it anything, but one preserves the symbol and one looses it.

Liturgical practices have always taken place inside and outside of the altar area. The development in modern times of a railing is most likely another Roman Catholic innovation as is the use of pews, kneelers, and organs in church.

Oh, The big brass candleholders (Manalia) represent the pillars of fire that went before Moses and the Hebrews.

Phiddipus 16:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is a relatively unimportant detail, so I wonder at your energy in persuing it. This is indeed an encyclopedia, so if you want to mention "Templon" and the symbolism associated with it, knock yourself out. But that also means we must be accurate. "Iconostasis" is the most common word for this structure throughout the Orthodox world whether you like it or not. You are flat-out wrong to call it a misnomer and an Americanism.

Of course "liturgical practices have always taken place inside and outside of the altar area.". So what? There were also railings to keep the people off the soleas back when that word denoted the walkway connecting the altar to the amvon which at the time was a raised platform in the middle of the church, so that the clergy could move freely back and forth when necessary. This is the standard solution to dealing with large crowds when some open space is needed for liturgical movement. Your assertion about the railings in Russian churches, which use neither pews nor kneelers nor organs, is just plain ignorant. (Let me guess. You're with some flaky Greek old-calendarist jurisdiction, aren't you?) You've obviously never seen how packed a Russian church can get, especially on big feast days. My parish priest once went to Holy Trinity-Sergius Lavra in Moscow on St. Sergius' feast day. The church was so crowded that when his feet got tired at one point he simply lifted them off the floor, and was held suspended off the ground by the surrounding pressure. Yes, you need railings to keep the soleas open for the Entrances under such circumstances. Csernica 23:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You seem hell-bent on arguing in favor of innovation rather than tradition. Here is a very nice website depicting the Holy Trinity-St. Sergiy Lavra.

http://www.russia-in-us.com/Lavra/

Please note the traditional architecture of the 17th century Church of St Sergiy. Then note the obvious Italian renaissance influence of the 18th century Smolensk church. Then lastly the fairly modern Church of the Intercession of the Holy Virgin from 1870 – hey there are those railings.

You make the mistake of thinking me a novice. But if you had re-read the passage concerning the Templon you would have seen another revision to make it more PC. Not to contradict your parish priest, but I have heard that story from just about every Russian I have ever met. I think you confused a joke for reality. Packing them into the church is nothing new or spectacular. I have seen the same thing in Greece. It’s amazing to see a few thousand people crowded into a small church and indeed the press of the crowd can be overwhelming, but the priests seem to manage without railings.

On another subject; it truly amazes me that you speak with such contempt towards people whose only concern is the preservation of church tradition. Did your priest teach you that? Numerous saints and indeed the very canons of the church support and commend the championing of tradition. There is a malevolent spirit behind such attacks that cannot be denied. Phiddipus 03:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um... Why did you post that link? It doesn't support your point at all. Look again. The captions are above the pictures. The picture of the Smolensk church iconostasis is a closeup, and you can't see a railing. The picutre of St. Sergius' church is from more distance, and the railing is there. (It's not too easy to see because it's brass and nearly the same color as the gold-leafed iconostasis behind it. But it is there.) [Both] [churches] are actually built in the Italianate baroque style you seem to despise, which more assiduous research on your part would have revealed. The 15th Century Holy Trinity Cathedral is probably the traditionally built church you were thinking of. Had you been able to locate a picture of the [interior], you'd have seen it also has the railings. Fact is, you find them in nearly all large Russian churches no matter how old they are. There are no pews, kneelers or organs in any of these places. They're there for a practical reason, and your speculation about their origin is absurd to the point of silliness.

My priest indeed likes telling a funny story, but he's never told a false one. Although he told this one with a smile on his face he was being absolutely truthful. The fact that others have had this experience doesn't make it any less so. He's also not Russian. Incidentally, adding the better part of a paragraph of new material to a post isn't a minor edit. Minor edits are spelling and punctuation corrections, or fixing a mistyped link and such. Marking a major edit as minor is a big-time faux pas on Wikipedia, even moreso in an article than on a talk page. Just don't.

I have nothing but honor for anyone seeking to preserve the Traditions of the Church. I reserve my contempt for people who insist on having their own way regardless of the facts. Csernica 00:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All things considered I must confess I have far less experience with Russian churches. I am aware that the traditional Russian church, like all traditional Orthodox churches has no pews, organs, or kneelers. While I have traveled extensively in Greece, the Holy Mountain, Romania, and the Holy Land, I somehow have never encountered a railing such as this. That, of course, does not invalidate your point, and I apologize for my error. In my travels, what I have seen, especially in the USA, is innovation. Having friends who are Roman Catholic, I have seen many of their church interiors and find a striking tendency in modern Orthodox churches to adopt the various things I mentioned above. I find this also true among New Calendarists in any country I have visited, including the Holy Mountain (Simonapetra seemed like a hotel rather than a monastery and the priest did things during the Divine Liturgy right out of the Latin Mass). Every hundred years, or so, there is a whole new set of people on this planet. If we do not seek to preserve the traditions of the church, in one or two generations they will be lost and no one will be left alive to teach us.

As to the editing, what most likely happened is I posted a regular edit, then a few minutes later saw a misspelling and went back and did a minor one. That’s why it shows minor. Phiddipus 02:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seeking Theosis

The text refers to 4 main actions where-by the believer seeks Theosis: Confession, Communion, Fasting and Almsgiving. Added to this should be Prayer, Obedience, Selflessness, and the acquisition of Virtues Phiddipus 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concerning a recent re-edit of the preparation for communion

I think the re-editor missed the point in the original text. His or Her re-edit caused this point to be lost. So I have restated the original point, which is this: Communion is the most profound of mysteries and it is not taken lightly (Or it certainly should not be taken lightly). Orthodox prepare by recapturing paradise in their lives; in other words, they eat what Adam and Eve would have eaten before the fall (No Animal Products), they completely fast from the night before, They refrain from sexual relations, They have their confession heard. This is so that they can present themselves for this mystery in the best possible spiritual state, to do otherwise would cause them spiritual harm. BUT, because all of this preparation is impractical for the average layperson to do every week, he refrains from communing but once a month or so, when he can properly prepare. Monks, on the other hand commune every day because they are always prepared by their lifestyle. Phiddipus 17:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope you like what I've done to the article - mostly the addition of headings in the first few paragraphs, and a little bit of grammar and readability. If you don't like it, there's always the edit button. However, the addition of headings moves the 'contents box' to the top of the article, where I believe it will help readers. It also gives some sense of structure to the first few paragraphs, which are certainly more than introductory material. If anything, I feel this article needs pruning, and some of its material moved elsewhere. Any thoughts?

Gareth Hughes 01:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current revision 12/20/04 evening PST - opening statement is very misleading

Here is how it now reads:

Eastern Orthodox Christianity (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox) is the modern name for one of the three major types of Christianity (the other two being Catholicism and Protestantism). With roots in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, Eastern Orthodoxy is a worldwide communion of churches which share a treasured faith tradition.

First off, that there are three major "types" of Christianity is debatable and also irrelevant to this subject especially as an opening remark.

Second: The statement “With roots in the Middle East and Eastern Europe” emplies that it was developed out of those cultures when in fact it is the historical Original Christian Church..its roots being Judahism.

And Third: the last line implies more than one church…there is only One Orthodox Church…nationality is irrelevant to its internal structure.Phiddipus 04:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Phiddipus. I hope that you are happier with the structure than you are with the content. I have actually changed very little of the text. I, and a few others just after me, sorted out a few little bits of grammar. I only added the last sentence of the new opening paragraph; the 'three types' statement was already in place. I believe that the opening paragraph should be a short, non-controversial and factual introduction to the article. I hold with you the belief that dividing up Christendom into three sections - Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic - is misleading. I am an Anglican priest who has worked in cooperation with Oriental Orthodox churches, and so can see two traditions of Christian faith that find the definition unhelpful. However, I hope you can see too that statements about the 'Original Christian Church' are equally unhelpful. The body of the article does talk about the constant tradition of Orthodoxy that reaches back to the beginnings of faith, and Orthodox claims to represent that more faithfully than others. The opening paragraph has to be factual and neutral. It is a fact that Eastern Europe and the Middle East are central areas to Eastern Orthodoxy, and that the church has spread throughout the world. The last line actually speaks of the benefits of autocephaly, that a church shares a rich tradition that is represented in different cultures and languages. So, the opening paragraph could do with a good, straightforward rewrite, but let's keep it factual.

Gareth Hughes 12:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Women in the Altar area -

In the section entitled Bishops Priests and Deacons there is an incorrect Statement:

‘‘Deacons must serve behind the "iconostasis" or icon stand (a wall of icons). In most modern Orthodox churches, women are not allowed behind the iconostasis

This is an unfortunate Roman Catholic idea that has crept into the Orthodox Church. The Correct concept that needs to be understood is that “No One” is allowed to enter the Altar area without a blessing from the Bishop. In this sense Altar Boys, and Sub Deacons need to be Blessed to serve as well. Women also and often receive this blessing; not to serve during Liturgy, but to clean and maintain the area. Traditionally all Presbyteras and Diakonissas are given this blessing. Nuns are often given this blessing. The Western subjugation of women is inappropriate in the Orthodox Church. The greatest Saint who ever lived was a woman, The Virgin Theotokos, and when she was presented in the temple She was taken into the Holy of Holies. Phiddipus 04:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Phiddipus, while I understand and support your re-establishing the truth about women being allowed to access the Altar area on the same conditions as men, I am not quite convinced you have a point in saying the opposite is an "infortunate" Roman catholic idea or that the subjugation of women is, by contrast, "inappropriate in the Orthodox Church". In Roman catholicism men and women are allowed to access the Altar area on the same conditions, too. Women are just not allowed to be priests and celebrate mass. Cleaning and maintaining are perfectly respectable tasks may women and indeed men accomplish with great personal dedication. But I personnaly fail to see how women being allowed to enter the Altar area with the Bishop's blessing to "clean and maintain" and no right to serve during Liturgy doesn't qualify as "subjugation" on the same terms as the Catholic's exclusion of women from priesthood. Philippe Magnabosco 13:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of the Opening Statement

As it read: "celebrates a tradition of Christian faith that stretches back over two thousand years."

Obviously Christianity did not exsist "over" 2000 years ago, having not been established until Pentecost which would have happened in Christ's 33rd or 34th year.

Also, "Celebrates" and "a Tradition of Christian Faith" are somewhat affected sounding nice, but not really conveying any meaning.

Christianity was created by Christ and the Apostles, its structure was established and most importantly preserved by Orthodoxy. This is what distinguishes it from the Roman Catholic Church, who technically can claim the same origins. Phiddipus 22:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the "over two thousand years" bit, I don't think it was meant to suggest "over two thousand years ago," but rather to mean "stretches across 2000 years." In any event, given your response, the wording was potentially confusing, but I didn't take it to mean what you took it to mean. It's moot now, though, given the current state of the intro. --Preost 18:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the majority is not always right - Churches in Resistance

The opinion, even of the majority of Orthodox, is not relevant to this position. In order to declare a group of Orthodox non-canonical it must be shown that they are no longer within the boundaries of the canons. In the case of the Synods in Resistance, having unbroken apostolic succession and functioning within the boundaries of the Church which does allow the withholding of communion and the refusal to concelebrate the Liturgy with those who themselves may be in violation of the canons, there is no precedent for imagining them to be outside the church. Phiddipus 19:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fact that many Orthodox do regard the Churches in Resistance as having broken from the Church is worthy of mention in the article. Let's keep it NPOV, representing the claims of the various sides of the dispute, without entering into the dispute here ourselves. As it was before my edit this morning, the section represented the views of the CiR but not of their critics. --Preost 16:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A.S., I think that's exactly the right approach to take. Well said. Wesley 17:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You insist on adding the POV of the opposing side in this debate to the listing for the Churches in Resistance, however, you don’t seem too keen on adding the opposing POV to all the other church descriptions. My request is that you reconsider your addition as a rather obvious POV. The heart and soul of Orthodoxy is our adherence to tradition, and the safeguarding of tradition is the duty of the clergy and the people. There have always been two sides to this struggle in the Orthodox Church; it is a struggle that ends (perhaps after centuries) with a return to tradition; never the adoption of new ideas. Phiddipus 18:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I certainly understand your arguments and agree with them to some extent. However, I stand by my assertion that the section was entirely stilted in favor of the POV of the Churches in Resistance and ought to make note of the majority view (even if it is wrong).

The reason why I did not add the POV of the CiR to the rest of the article is that that section is the locus, as it were, of the dispute. Given the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, from the POV of scholarship, at least, it would be redundant, ineffecient and unnecessary to note "But the CiR think that this is wrong" on numerous other assertions throughout the article. Doing so would also require expressing that disapproval from every other opposition group, which would again, be unnecessary and redundant. It is enough, it seems to me, to characterize the dispute in the section regarding the particular group in question.

Also, as a point of fact, I used the term "mainstream," not "mainline" (which you included in your personal note to me and which has certain Protestant connotations), and you and I both know that this is simply a descriptive term referring to the majority of modern-day Orthodox Christians. It is not meant to be a POV judgment on the correctness or Orthodoxy of that majority, just simply an expression of their being the majority. This is by no means a statement on the rightness or wrongness of the majority, just simply that they exist and tend to have certain views.

--Preost 18:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki

Hi, folks. Work continues apace over at OrthodoxWiki. We'd love it if you would like to come over and give us a hand. --Preost 18:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moderate Old Calendarists - Churches in resistance

In all fairness, it has already been stated than the majority of the church considers the Moderate Old Calendarists to be Schismatic; its repeated usage constitutes a strong POV if not an outright attack. Nothing happens automatically; just because a part of the church disagrees with another part does not constitute a schism. If that were true then there would never have been a need for an ecumenical council. As to terminology, I think it can be assumed that since the term modernist only appears in the section concerning the Old Calendarists that it is terminology they use. And in questions concerning the Calendar issue, whether written by Old or New Calendarists the terminology is used. Phiddipus 16:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Claims of the Orthodox

Concerning your recent edit of the Eastern Orthodox. The statement was made that:

Its claims of originality are easily verifiable and are generally not disputed by any other major Christian group including the Roman Catholics.

You have said that the Roman Catholics do dispute it. This is incorrect. I quote directly from the decrees of the Vatican Council II concerning the Eastern Orthodox Churches:

1. The Catholic Church reveres these Eastern Churches, which are "living witnesses to the tradition which has been handed down from the apostles through the Fathers..."

3. ...Similarly, the Council recognizes the validity of Holy Orders conferred in the Eastern Churches...The Eastern patriarchs ranks as cardinal bishops.

Phiddipus 18:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey,

Yes, indeed, the RCC acknowledges that the Eastern Orthodox churches are witnesses to the traditions of the apostles. However, the paragraph, as you had written it, contained many statements that the RCC would certainly not agree to.. Saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is the modern name for the church established by the apostles is certainly not going to fly with Catholics. As the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium states, "This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth'."

From the Catholic perspective, the RCC is the modern name for the Church established by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, and the Orthodox are schismatics—certainly their patriarchates may go back to the time of the Apostles, but they have separated from the Church.

No doubt you disagree with this all. :P But Eastern Orthodox Christianity (also called Greek Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodoxy) is the modern name for the historical church founded by Christ Jesus and the Apostles nearly 2000 years ago.' is certainly not something a Catholic would agree to either.

An addendum

Sorry, I forgot to note this earlier. It looks like you're getting your information on Vatican II from this website. What might not be entirely clear from that website, though, is that the decree in question—The Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite deals with the Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome, not Eastern Orthodoxy. When it refers to the Eastern patriarchs as being cardinal-bishops, it refers not, for instance, to Ignatius IV, but rather to Ignace Pierre VIII Abdel-Ahad.

The RCC certainly does recognize EO orders, but this doesn't really mean much. Old Catholic orders are also recognized, but certainly no one believes they're the original church! The RCC holds to the Augustinian view of sacramental validity, not the Cyprianic.

I have also posted this to Talk:Eastern Orthodoxy, as other people may want to voice their opinions on this. Maybe we should hold our entire discussion there.

--Xiaopo ℑ 00:00, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

The previous introduction was good, except it (1) Began the article with a discussion of history, rather than a sentence on what Eastern Orthodoxy is and (2) Appeared to espouse some version of branch theory, which is heavily disputed (in fact, I had thought that it was only held by a few diehard Anglo-Catholics...) Is this intro any better?

Also, should we refer to Christ Jesus or Jesus? Certainly the former might be the preffered usage from an Orthodox point of view, but this article isn't to be written from an Orthodox point of view. --Xiaopo ℑ 06:39, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Views on Sin

Hello everybody. A virtual essay was present at Christian views of homosexuality, in a space where there should have merely been a bite-sized synopsis. A great deal was background information on what sin is in the Eastern Orthodox church, as well as sexuality.

In order to keep that page on topic, I moved the vast majority of the essay to Eastern Orthodox view of sin. However, that article was concerned almost exclusively with sexuality and homosexuality, so I'm hoping that you all can contribute to the new topic. I myself, a poor sinner, am completely ignorant about Eastern Orthodox beliefs, so I do not personally feel authorized to add more to this article than Phiddipus has.

I was hoping that you all could help out?

--Drostie 07:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Individual to laity

I made the change in 'Internal Divisions' from individual to laity. I thought it was more precise and clarified - bishop/laity seems a more appropriate contrast than bishop/individual.

I'll leave it as it stands, but I think the comparison was between those with Authority (Bishops, who govern the church, and everyone else including other members of the clergy, not just the laity. But also to show that we Orthodox do not have to be "Sheep" but rather we must be clear-headed and watchful, not just blindly accepting.Phiddipus 16:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stop the Comparisons

I am honestly considering re-writing this entire article. The Orthodox Church is not defined by how they compare with Roman Catholics. If you look at the article on RC the Orthodox are barely mentioned. I see no reason to defend the Church against the RC by making constant comparisons. We as Orthodox have the rite to explain what the Orthodox Church believes from and Orthodox point of view. To many Catholics are changing our article because they don't agree with what we claim...well too bad! When you get down to it, the Orthodox opinion of the RC is that they are Heretics who have no grace and have gone to great lengths to cover their track, even so far as to rewrite western history to suit their own ends. One finds a completely different story if one studies Byzantine history from the Greek side. What all this boils down to is the Orthodox rite to explain what we believe without RC interference or the necessity to constantly compare one church with another. I have no real animosity toward Catholics or any other devoted religious group, but I do have a problem when they, who are not Orthodox, insist that their opinion be expressed in our article. Phiddipus

I agree that this article could do with a complete overhaul, and that a definition of Eastern Orthodoxy as not being Roman Catholic is inadequate and biased. However, all articles on Wikipedia belong to the community as a whole. Wikipedia articles are not written by experts and insiders, but by various members of the community. Experts and insiders give valuable contributions, but others are needed to encourage readability and lack of bias. An article on Eastern Orthodoxy that is written by both members and non-members of Eastern Orthodox churches will be better than an article written only by non-members, or that written only by members. I am an Anglican priest, and I would love to work with others to get this article to featured status. Gareth Hughes 17:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my view a very large part of the problems with this article stem from the very voluminous contributions from a small number of "insiders" who insist on their minority or idiosyncratic usages, and who also happen to be "stylistically challenged" writers. This has a lot to do with why I no longer contribute to it.

Consider, for example, the section "The Eastern Orthodox approach" and its absurd insisence on "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ". It presents the former as standard Orthodox usage to the exclusion of the other. That's simply not true as anyone familiar with the Slavic greeting, "Slava Isusu Christu!" -- or for that matter, anyone who's read a standard Orthodox prayerbook -- can attest. Or consider this statement from the section on the Eucharist: "Also, a complete fast (no food or drink) should be kept from sundown Saturday until after communing on Sunday." This is untrue as a general rule and no one I know fasts like this, even the most pious and traditional. The normal fast is from midnight on, not sunset, becuase fasting days do not follow liturgical time. By this logic you could eat meat after sundown on Wednesdays, but this isn't done. These are relatively minor misstatements, but there are so many of them and they are so badly written that the effect on the article as a whole is extremely deleterious.

It's true that anyone who wants can change it back, but it's simply not possible, for me anyway, to keep up with dedicated contributors with an agenda and apparently unlimited free time, especially if one of them takes it upon himself to rewrite the entire article.

This notwithstanding, Phiddipus' basic point here is a good one. Comparisons with the Latins are entirely too prominent and there are too many of them. The Church ought to be discussed on its own terms. From its positioning in the article a reader could easily get the impression that we define ourselves in terms of the Great Schism. This is entirely incorrect. Csernica 20:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at this article in quite a while, I'm sorry to say. I'll see what I can do in terms of copyedits and other cleanups, as suggested. I'd like to help bring this article up to snuff so it can be resubmitted for Featured Article status. Wesley 03:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of various words

I removed the capitalization of some words in the article, and (not to my surprise), it was immediately reverted. However, I still think there are too many capitals in the text. It is an encyclopedic text, not a religious text, so the non-standard capitalizations commonly used in religious texts should not be followed. However, proper names should of course be capitalized. Here are a few lines from the article, with dubious capitals underlined, and some comments of mine {italicized in braces}:

The Eastern Orthodox approach

Eastern Orthodoxy is in general, "Christocentric", viewing Christ Jesus {I'd say "Jesus", "Christ", or "Jesus Christ", but if orthodox Christians say "Christ Jesus", it's of course OK here} as the head of the Church {in my opinion, either "the church" or "the Ortodox Church"}, and the Church as his body; with authority derived directly from this relationship. Eastern Orthodoxy {this particular capital O has been discussed previously in this discussion; I guess the capital is OK, although it is not the name of an institution, a book, or the like} has an extensive oral tradition that predates the actual texts of the New Testament, hence, it does not consider itself to be "bibliocentric" {the editor reverting my change did not revert here!}; which is the case with most forms of Protestantism {here, as in the word Christian, Google hits clearly indicate that capitals are the norm}.

--Niels Ø 17:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Capitalizing the word church is a common convention among both Orthodox and Catholics to distinguish the universal Church from a particular church or church building. "The church" == "some random church", but "The Church" == "the universal, mystical theanthropic organization, etc." Similarly, Orthodoxy (with a capital O) is the proper term for the belief system of the Eastern Orthodox Church, just as Catholicism is for the Roman Catholic Church. YBeayf 22:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point is that the wikipedia is more bound by common academic usage and its own manual of style than by common convention among Orthodox and Catholics. However, capitalizing Church may still make sense from the following point of view: Writing an article about the Coca Cola Company, say, one may refer to it (i) as "the Coca Cola Company", (ii) by the abbreviation "the Company", (iii) as "the company", or (iv) as "it" - depending on how clear it is what is referred to. So I'm not really sure.--Niels Ø 06:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't especially mind lowercasing words like christocentric or christology, but I think Eastern Orthodoxy is perfectly proper as it is the name of a body of Christians. Captitalizing "Bibliocentric" I think makes it more clear that we mean "Bible centred" rather than "book centred;" perhaps replacing the word with "Bible centered" would be an improvement. Generally, "Church" means the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" referred to in the Creed (by which is meant the Nicene Creed of course in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy); "church" generally doesn't carry that meaning or weight. In general, if these capitalizations are removed, then we also need to make sure the resulting text still carries the meaning that was intended by the capitalizations in the first place. Wesley 16:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Churches

I added a couple paragraphs on Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. I think it is importatant to have a few words said about Eastern Catholics in the Eastern Orthodox article in order to help readers understand what Eastern Catholicism is, and the big difference between Eastern Orthodox Churches and Eastern Rite Churches. (They're loyal to Rome and the Pope.) I also identified Eastern Rite Churches in this section.
JesseG 23:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I am swapping the two paragraphs you mention above for the sake of clarity. I think it is useful to state that there are Oriental Othodox Churches first, then to explain that the Eastern Rite Churches usually originate in either the Eastern Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Philippe Magnabosco 13:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Christ Jesus" is not the standard terminology

Not only is "Christ Jesus" not standard English-language terminology, it is not even standard Orthodox terminology. If you peruse the website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, for example, you will find the term "Jesus Christ" used far more often than "Christ Jesus". A huge proportion of Byzantine icons contain the abbreviation "IC XP", the Greek abbreviation for "Jesus Christ" (in that word order). An unadorned "Christ" is also commonly used, but "Christ Jesus" only rarely. --Delirium 01:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

That was as I suspected (see above), but I never got around to changing it. Incidentally, it's "IC XC" (for Iêsous Christos). --Xiaopo ℑ 02:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When "Christ Jesus" is seen, it feels more like a poetic inversion than anything else, and is correspondingly rare. But IMO this is the least of the problems with this article. I mentioned it above only as a brief, glaringly obvious example. Csernica 04:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, the poetic inversion makes sense, which would also explain why it's never seen in Greek (the corresponding inversion is just weird-sounding in Greek, not poetic). But yeah—on the whole, I get the impression that a large percentage of this article is written from the idiosyncratic perspective characteristic of some relatively small groups of former American Protestants who have converted to Orthodoxy, and who tend to emphasize things like "Christ Jesus" and the universality of the Church and so on. Such concerns are much less important to the more tradition-oriented "Old World" churches that form the bulk of the faith's adherents. In any case, the article should be written more from the tone of a neutral third-party observer, and certainly less from the tone of "this is why Orthodoxy is not Catholicism". --Delirium 18:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

But it is seen in Greek. See Rom 8:1, Rom 16:3, 1 Cor 1:30, etc. --Xiaopo ℑ 02:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, I meant in modern Greek. It is seen in koine Greek (the Greek spoken 2000 years ago). --Delirium 07:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Rename to "Eastern Orthodox Church"?

Should the article be renamed to "Eastern Orthodox Church"? Roman Catholic Church, for instance, is used in place of Roman Catholicism, and this title would fit better with the introduction as well.

(Incidentally, I made a few changes to the introduction, mainly because I thought that the average reader would prefer an introduction that starts off with what the church indisputably is, rather than one of several things it claims to be. And also because referencing tradition and the laying on of hands in scripture should be within those respective articles, and not in the introductory paragraph of this one.) --Xiaopo ℑ 04:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's possible, but I think Eastern Orthodoxy fits better. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, there is no unified Church in the sense of a hierarchy, but instead many autocephalous Churches in communion with each other. The term "Eastern Orthodox Church", or more commonly just "the Church", has more of a figurative meaning than it does in Roman Catholicism. --Delirium 07:42, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

And yet on a spiritual level I have heard every possible twist to the belief system of the Roman Catholics. While their worldly organization unites itself under a single worldly leader (i.e. The Pope) you may find that there are tremendous differences in what catholic practitioners believe. On the other hand, the Orthodox feel it necessary to develop a strong interpersonal relationship with those directly in ones circle. Therefore it would be impossible for a single pastor to watch over tens of millions of believers. For proper care and instruction the Orthodox needs a personal spiritual guide, a pastor who “Knows” him and his personal set of problems. On a larger scale this requires that each Episcopal See be fairly small and independent, as each pastor must Guide his flock Personally. All of this, however, only amounts to a superficial division in the administration of the Church, not any division in Beliefs. Orthodox hold to the beliefs handed down to us from Christ and the Apostles and supported and clarified by the ecumenical councils; and we will never ever change those beliefs. This unity of belief is more substantial than any worldly unity; after all, it is our beliefs that define our religion, not our hierarchical structure.Phiddipus 20:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the article for the RCC notes, it's also a communion of sui iuris churches. The Melkites, after all, elect their patriarch and appoint bishops themselves. --Xiaopo ℑ 22:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed it back because I think you may have missed the point. Orthodox and Catholic can both correctly view themselves as the continuation of the original church. The Orthodox is one of this group of churches. What distinguishes the Orthodox claim is their adherence to tradition and their apostolic succession. These are absolutely linked to this claim. You speak of what “Indisputably is” but the facts you call indisputable are disputed by the Catholics and Oriental Orthodox. Phiddipus 18:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By "indisputably is", I was referring to the fact that it's a Christian body whose adherents are largely found in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. I realize that the adherence to tradition and apostolic succession is important, which is why I left it in the introduction. (Incidentally, it doesn't distinguish the Orthodox claim insofar as others claim apostolic succession -- again, as the introduction notes).

I don't think this sort of primer on apostolic succession and Orthodox claims belongs in the introduction. If you look at most major encyclopedias, you'll see that their editors feel similarly. --Xiaopo ℑ 22:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it is to be moved, I think Eastern Orthodox Christianity would be a better title than Eastern Orthodox Church, in part because of the various churches in that communion are autocephalous. Michael Hardy 19:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not so sure that the implications of such a statement convey the unity of the church. There is, in the opinion of the Eastern Orthodox, only one church. That fact that each jurisdiction functions independently on an administrative level does not mean that the church is not unified in its beliefs. The word Catholic is meant to imply that all Orthodox who continue to be linked to the original church are part of one single body of Christ (How can Christ be divided) even if superficially there seems to be some division.Phiddipus 20:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was added simultaneously with Phiddipus' most recent edit above, and it hasn't been adjusted to take it into acount.

First, I have to side with Phiddipus on the introduction. Although it could use some work as it stands, the replacement was even less satisfactory. Parts of it were factually incorrect. I'd rather have awkward.

Second, to not call it the "Eastern Orthodox Church" is to miss the point of its essential unity. On the most basic level, a "local Church" isn't a national organization or synod, but the bishop of a city surrounded by his presbyters, attended by his deacons, in the midst of the faithful. What makes them all one Church is the Catholicity of the faith, and this is true no matter how the bishops organize themselves. Even within a single autocephalous Church, two bishops aren't in communion simply becuase of their administrative relationship, but because they both acknowledge each other as bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as the Nicene Creed puts it. To deny its unity is to deny its Catholicity, which is really to deny that it's the Christian Church at all. Csernica 20:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, which parts were factually incorrect? --Xiaopo ℑ 22:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you describe is actually pretty similar to the most commonly held understanding of church amongs evangelicals. Church is the local fellowship of believers, independent in organisation but linked in fellowship and united in faith with other evangelical churches around regionally, nationally and internationally. Refdoc 21:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm speaking of the diocese, which is to say the jurisdiction of a single bishop, not an individual parish or "congregation". And I daresay Orthodoxy makes the relationship in faith more explicitly than do evangelicals. A bishop acknowledges his peers by his membership in and/or subjection to the synod of his autocephalous Church and by concelebrating the Eucharist with them. The autocephalous Churches acknowledge each other in mutual representations, concelebrations, and the diptychs read during a hierarchical divine liturgy celebrated by the primates.

So a local Church isn't really independent in organization. Every local Church is part of something larger, and at the "top level" all the Churches are united. A single church isolated unto itself is no church at all. It borders on the absurd to avoid calling Orthodoxy collectively a "church" just because there's no monolithic administrative organization or single "top-down" hierarchy. Csernica 21:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But at the "top level" they are separate autocephalous Churches (note the plural), only a single Church in a figurative sense. Indeed, they are not even all in communion with one another: the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, for example, is in communion with some but not all other Eastern Orthodox Churches.

In any case, from the more relevant perspective of the English language, the term "Eastern Orthodoxy" better conveys what the article is about. --Delirium 02:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Introduction

I thought perhaps we should separate out the discussion on this, as it seems to have turned out to be the more controversial part of my last comment.

Maybe I was unclear, but I didn't oppose the mention of tradition (or actually capital-T Tradition) in the introduction -- and in fact, my edit left it there. I did remove the references to scripture, as this is the introduction to the article on Eastern Orthodoxy, not an apologetics manual or an article on Apostolic Succession.

Furthermore, I think the first sentence ought to deal with what Eastern Orthodoxy is, rather than what it claims to be. It is a Christian body whose adherents are largely based in Eastern Europe and the Middle East (does anyone really dispute this?). You can see that most other relevant articles choose the same tack:

• Roman Catholic Church: "The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church, with over one billion members."
• Islam: "Islam (Arabic al-islām الإسلام, "the submission to God") is a monotheistic faith and the world's second-largest religion."
• Shinto: "Shintō (Japanese: 神道) is the native religion of Japan."

The introduction to this article shouldn't be the place to go into who does and does not claim apostolic succession, partly because I could add a lot more to the list (the Anglican Communion, the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, Old Catholics, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Polish National Catholic Church, etc. etc.) The introduction should describe Eastern Orthodoxy, and briefly detail what differentiates it from other religions (and that, of course, includes traditional and apostolic succession, which again, I didnt remove during my edit.

Incidentally, (to Phiddipus), I don't see where my introduction denied any of the claims of the RCC or OOxy. In fact, as I recall, it was I who convinced you that the RCC claims to be the continuation of the apostolic church and denies the EOx claim to this. --Xiaopo ℑ 22:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I withdraw part of my objection because I failed to notice that one of the facts I thought incorrect was taken from the previous (now current) rev. This is the equation of Apostolic Succession with the laying on of hands. (They're only identical in the same sense that an automobile is identical with a full tank of gasoline.) I will, however, contend that "Apostolic Succession" ought to be capitalized. It's a technical term that's always capitalized in ordinary usage. Same for the adjective "Apostolic" when it occurs. The reference is to a specific group of apostles, not apostles in general. See the dictionary for capitalization in this context.

The "more official" name for the Orthodox Church isn't the "Orthodox Catholic Church", it's the "Catholic Church". Properly speaking, individual believers are Orthodox in their faith; the Church is Catholic. Part of being Catholic is teaching the Orthodox faith. "Orthodox" got attached as a label of the Church when it became necessary to distinguish it from Roman Catholicism, which had successfully co-opted the adjective.

It's true that it would be better not to start off by comparing the Orthodox Church to other bodies, but at the same time wouldn't it be better to define it in its own terms? Your proposed rev doesn't do that, at least not primarily. Is geography to be the defining characteristic of this Church? I suppose it is if we're going to call it "Eastern Orthodoxy" -- but again, this is a case where the Church has adopted a label for clarity. It doesn't really reflect what it thinks of itself.

I would also disagree that the national Churches comprise a distinctive feature. In many ways they're an anomaly brought on by the current world political situation. There was an Orthodox Church long before national Churches existed -- or even nation-states, for that matter. Historically they're a development from the old Roman provincial system, where the bishop of a province's chief city, the Metropolitan, would preside over that province's local synod. It's the synodal, or conciliar, element of Church government, with no single visible head on Earth, that's really the distinctive organizational feature. (But that's mainly in contrast to the modern Papacy. The Church in the West used to be orgainized this way too.)

I suppose the "Byzantine rite" -- a development of the Antiochian liturgy -- might be a distinctive feature. It's now universally used even though no one ever formally imposed it. But this is not really exclusive to Orthodoxy even if we like to think it ought to be. I'm not sure what you mean by "sacraments" as a "distinctive" though. Csernica 23:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There were parts of the introduction I didn't agree with, but kept, and the equation of apostolic succession with the "laying on of hands" was one of them. But I changed it to lower case because that's how it was used in that article.

I have read (most recently in a book by John Meyendorff) that what you say is true, but I've also read in several places, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica, OrthodoxWiki, etc. that the "Orthodox Catholic Church" is legitimate as well. There are a lot of books dating from the 70's in St. Vladimir's Seminary library that argue that the church should reclaim the title.

Where has the church adopted the title "Eastern Orthodoxy"? I really don't see why it should be defined on its own terms, and none of the other articles on religious bodies seem to do so either (e.g., I don't see "Islam claims to be the religion revealed by God through Muhammad, last of a long line of prophets."). In any case, I thought about other ways to introduce the article, and I couldn't come up with any.

By distinctive features, I didn't mean "unique", but rather "distinguishing" or "characteristic", etc. This, as far as I know, is the most common definition. I'm quite aware that the Melkites, for instance, use the Byzantine rite, and that the sacraments aren't a unique feature of Orthodoxy.

As for the territorial churches, according to the Meyendorff book I mentioned (The Orthodox Church or something similar, I think), they were originally organized around Roman provinces. Regardless of that, they do seem to form a distinguishing feature of Orthodoxy today, though I wouldn't mind your proposal. I also think the ecumenical councils should be mentioned, but I can't think of a good way of adding it in... please do so if you can.

In any case, I'll change it back, taking your comments into consideration until we reach a consensus. Thanks! --Xiaopo ℑ 23:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Orthodox Catholic Church" is legitimate. It's just not all that official. "Eastern Orthodox" is an attempt to generalize "Greek Orthodox", "Russian Orthodox" and so forth. It's not official either. Csernica 01:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that it claimed "Orthodox Catholic Church" was the "official name" (check out the EB article yourself). And Eastern Orthodox isn't an attempt to generalize "Greek", "Russian", etc. Orthodox, I think. I don't have the OED with me now, but I remember it mentioning that it dates from the 16th century, and was by analogy with Eastern Roman Empire, etc. (indeed, thence comes the odd practice of Western Europeans describing themselves as the West: 1586 [? J. CASE] Praise Mus. ix. 94 Look vpon the East and the West, the Greeke and Latine Churches, and you shall finde this to be true.). --Xiaopo ℑ 01:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have the OED with me now, and there we have "Eastern Church", not "Eastern Orthodox Church": "That great communion otherwise called the Greek Church." This is in relation to a fairly general definition of "Eastern" given as: "1. Of or pertaining to the east side of the world, to the countries in the East, or to the empire of the East; dwelling in the East; Oriental." The supporting quote is: "1593: HOOKER Eccl. Pol. IV, xi, His desire was that of the two the Easterne Church should rather yield." One is thus left to guess for oneself which of the senses of "eastern" all subsumed under the one definition is meant in "Eastern Church". No explicit parallel with the Eastern Empire is drawn at all. (But what's so odd about those in the West describing themselves as Western? It seems perfectly natural to me.)

The EB can make all the claims it wants. There is no "official" body governing all "official" usage for the whole Orthodox Church other than the Ecumenical Councils, and the Ecumenical Councils never called the Church anything but Catholic. Yes, "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" is the full credal formula -- but when the Church needed to be distinguished from some schismatic or heretical body, it was called the Catholic Church. Otherwise it was just the Church. Never the "Orthodox Church", since "Orthodox" described the faith the Catholic Church teaches. Look up the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils at The Christian Classics Ethereal Library -- but if you don't feel like it I'll try to come up with some references later in the weekend. The problem now is that the schismatic body we need to distinguish ourselves from calls itself Catholic, so we're bound to be misunderstood unless we qualify it some other way. Csernica 06:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sub-division?

Should this page be broken down into relevant sub-pages by category/section? ~ Dpr 06:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(T)OCA status

First, I made the change from "the Orthodox Church in America (OCA)" to "The Orthodox Church in America (TOCA)" following a directive issued by my bishop, Tikhon of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the West, as a result of decisions reached at the spring session of the (T)OCA Holy Synod. According to him this is an official change, but not one so urgent that all materials from the national organization are likely to be updated immediately.

Second, TOCA's status is not irregular as the term is applied here. ROCOR is in "semi-communion" with the canonical Orthodox Churches, and that's why it was placed there. Their situation remains fairly complex even as they move toward reunion with Moscow. TOCA's autocephaly is questioned by some juristictions -- contra the change that was made, it's recognized by more than just Moscow -- but its status as a canonical Church is not. The reasons for questioning its autocephaly are political and financial, not canonical. Csernica 07:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many actually do argue that the granting of autocephaly by Moscow was indeed an uncanonical act, since it ignored the majority of Orthodox Christians in the territory the OCA was thus staking a claim in, and it was done without the consent of the rest of the autocephalous churches. Certainly, one may disagree with that argument, but it is one that is made consistently and on canonical grounds. --Preost 12:38, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

On canonical grounds no other Church has rights to North America at all. It was Russia that planted the Church there, it was Russia that actually had a bishop in place with canonical jurisdiction over the entire region that went unquestioned by anyone else until they saw an opportunity to move in without permission. Any objection to TOCA's autocephaly on canonical grounds are therefore on very thin ice. (Besides, show me one canon that says that a mother Church requires the permission of some others in order to grant autocephaly to one of her daughter Churches, or that a majority vote needs to be taken of anyone possibly affected.)

Which is besides the point. TOCA, unlike ROCOR, is in communion with all of the rest of canonical Orthodoxy. Csernica 00:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I won't enter into the debate here, but suffice it to say that the OCA's arguments regarding itself (which are what you present here) are not agreed upon by all Orthodox in America. After all, if it were, then the overwhelming majority of American Orthodoxy wouldn't continue to remain outside the OCA's jurisdiction.

BTW, "in communion" and "canonical" are not synonyms. (Greece and Constantinople, for instance, recently broke communion but were presumably still both "canonical.")

In any event, ROCOR has actually never broken communion with the mainstream churches. There was only a suspension of concelebration with some of them, which is not the same thing. See: http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR

I'm not arguing that the OCA should be listed as of "ambiguous status" in the same sense that ROCOR is, but its status is ambiguous, though simply in other ways. Right or wrong, it is a fact that many autocephalous Orthodox churches do not recognize the OCA's autocephaly, and even some that do continue to maintain parishes of their own in the OCA's claimed territory.

Regarding the canons and autocephaly in general, there actually is very little in them. The modern notion of autocephaly is still relatively recent (within the past 200 years or so) and thus postdates the formation of most Orthodox canonical tradition. While there aren't canons saying that a mother church requires permission to grant autocephaly or that all those affected must be consulted, there also aren't canons which state that a mother church has the right to grant such a status, a status which traditionally is indeed something which needs to be universally recognized. The history of autocephaly is a bit weird in this regard—the overwhelming number of incidences of its declaration have not been in terms of a grant from a mother church, but rather in terms of a fairly contested break. See: http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Autocephaly --Preost 01:24, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Of course the arguments pro autocephaly aren't "agreed to". However, the history of the Orthodox Church in North America is fairly clear. To be brutally honest, I can see no reason not impelled by ulterior motives for arguing that the normal canonical rules concerning respect for a bishop's territory should not apply.

You also must know that when I speak of communion I'm not talking about temporary severance for one reason or another that occasionally happens, but the normal state of affairs. The litmus test for the Orthodoxy of any bishop is whether or not he's in communion with other Orthodox bishops.

You are mistaken about ROCOR. Whether or not to commune Orthodox of other jurisdictions has always been at the discretion of the local bishop. For example, in San Francisco under Apb. Anthony of blessed memory, it was not uncommon for TOCA faithful to be allowed the Mysteries. Last I heard, Abp. Kyrill did not.

I'm well aware of the history of autocephaly. Given what has gone one in the past you'd think that when it actually occurs with the blessing of the mother Church for a change it would be commonly recognized.

In any event, it was at least incorrectly asserted before that only Moscow recognized it. It didn't used to say that, so at some point someone changed it to be incorrect. I wonder why. But since you seem to think that numbers count, I should point out that those jurisdictions that do recognize it constitute a majority of Orthodox Christians worldwide, and therefore by that standard it ought to be recognized universally. Csernica 03:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You say: the history of the Orthodox Church in North America is fairly clear. If there's anything I've learned in my study of American Orthodox history while at seminary, it's that that statement is simply not true. There is a vast historiography problem in American Orthodoxy, and it seems to be getting worse all the time. There are multiple, conflicting versions of the events particularly of the first 50 years of the 20th century, and the conflict gets worse and worse as various groups put forward their own versions. It's an historian's nightmare.

You also write: The litmus test for the Orthodoxy of any bishop is whether or not he's in communion with other Orthodox bishops. Tell that to Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, John Chrysostom, etc. All these are men who got excommunicated, often for lengthy periods (such that it became "normal"), yet the Orthodox Church regards them as having been Orthodox and their detractors as not. I've never seen a proposed "litmus test for Orthodoxy" that actually holds up under scrutiny against the record of the saints, the people whom Orthodox Christian supposedly regard as the truly Orthodox. Besides that, until 1970, the Metropolia was out of communion with its mother church and generally avoided by the others -- was its Orthodoxy questionable for all those decades of eucharistic isolation?

Your paragraph about ROCOR is confusing for me, because it's exactly what I'm asserting. There has never been an official break in communion coming from ROCOR, and intercommunion continues on a varied basis in different dioceses. Of course, as things stand now, it seems that ROCOR is about to regularize relations with Moscow any day now. Will they suddenly become Orthodox then?

The rest, I'm not going to address, mainly because it's essentially a rehash of what was written above, and it's also an issue of advocacy rather than of description. I certainly hope that this article doesn't become a ground for the pushing of one group's agenda or historical interpretation of American Orthodoxy over others'. --Preost 11:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Better here than the article for an argument. But I'm almost tempted to ask why not? This article is so much about pushing one group or another's agenda that it's practically useless as a reference already.

I really do think you're deliberately misconstruing my words though. Nothing I wrote about communion can be interpreted to mean that every bishop must be in communion with every other bishop at all times. Nor did I ever, ever suggest that ROCOR wasn't Orthodox. That's ridiculous.

Of course the first few decades of the 20th Century are a historiographical mess. They were confusing at the time. That's how we ended up in the modern situation. But the Russian presence in North America long predates it. Is the 19th Century problematic? Why or why not? Csernica 20:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)