Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold text

This article may be more technical than it needs to be. Please help improve the article by making the article accessible to the widest possible audience.

	Eastern Orthodox Church is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
December 6, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted

ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:ChristianityWikiProjectChristianity articles	WikiProject Christianity / Core / Eastern	(Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
	Eastern Christianity portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Core topics work group (marked as Unknown-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Unknown-importance). This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it.

Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article.

Archives
Archive 1: ??? - Aug. 2003 Archive 2: Mar. 2004 - Apr. 2005 Archive 3: June 2005 - March 2006 Archive 4: Aug. 2006 - Jan. 2007 Archive 5: Feb. 2007 - Aug. 2008

Contents 1 Oecumenical Councils 2 Image copyright problem with Image:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg 3 "Eastern Orthodox Church" 4 Orthodox Church of Canada 5 The Orthodox Church Was NOT Founded By Christ and His Apostles Nearly 2000 Years Ago! 6 Leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarch 7 On Marriage 8 Explaining the role of the Great Schism in "founding" the Eastern Orthodox Church 9 Length 10 Orthodox Catholic 11 Virginity 12 Albania 13 relations to other Christians 14 Lede needs to be bigger 15 Thirty-nine Article version of the Nicene Creed 16 Repentance 17 Mystery 18 is this a scholarly source? 19 Request feedback on East-West Schism 20 Theosis 21 Evgenios, 'Dave', and hostility towards LoveMonkey 22 Meaning of "orthodox" 23 Your opinion requested for an RFC on East-West Schism 24 Oriental Orthodoxy and the nature of Christ 25 Typica - a singular or plural noun? 26 Armenian creed 27 Spelling errors

[edit] Oecumenical Councils

Within the article the following statement is made:

Some Orthodox consider two additional councils to be ecumenical, although this is not universally agreed upon (especially the ninth, which occurred after the East-West Schism)

My question is this: Who among the Orthodox does not accept the 8th and 9th ecumenical councils? As far as I know everyone in the Church accepts these. This passage also seems to imply that without Rome the council would not be ecumenical. This is, of course, nonsense since Rome was no longer a member of the Church. The Church does not require inviting former heretical members to participate in a council.--Phiddipus (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This statement should go.--Michael X the White (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wandered by and took a look at the list of Ecumenical councils. I, for one, was unaware that the Orthodox recognized more than seven, so I took a look at the main articles for the 8th and 9th. Lo and behold, both mention that they are not recognized as ecumenical by all Orthodox Christians. I'm going to restore some similar language to that objected in above. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Who among Orthodox do not accept these councils? Its not a true statement. All Orthodox accept these councils as valid.--Phiddipus (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Find a reference that they are universally or near-universally accepted. Take a look at the articles on the 8th and 9th councils- they say they are disputed. Orthowiki likewise says they are disputed. Other pages on Wikipedia reflect the view that they are disputed. Given this, I'm reverting. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the correct answer is, but I'd suggest that editors support their positions by referencing reliable sources. For example, the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (2001 edition; ISBN: 0-631-18966-1) says that only the first seven are acknowledged as ecumentical (see pages 169 and 171-172.) Perhaps it's incorrect, but it's generally known as reliable. I'd like to know what other sources say on the matter.Majoreditor (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This page: http://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/calendar/los/Epiphany/e10121-SeventhEcumenicalCouncil.htm from a Moscow Patriarchate parish quotes the Synaxarion as stating, "The second Council of Nicaea is the seventh and last Ecumenical Council recognized by the Orthodox Church." I don't have a copy of the Synaxarion but perhaps someone who does could look up the quote and verify it. Googling the phrase "seventh and last ecumenical council" also produces legions of hits, many from Orthodox sources, though I couldn't find one that was unambiguously authoritative. It's perhaps worth noting that there are feast days for the Fathers of each of the (first) seven ecumenical councils, but none for the other two afaik. Mrhsj (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 lists the Synod of Constantinople of 879/880 as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod and the Synods of Constantinople of the years 1341, 1347, and 1351 as the 9th. The pronouncements of these councils are dogmatic and absolutely accepted by the entire Orthodox Church. This alone makes them ecumenical. If your argument is that the Roman Catholics were not a part of the deliberation then I would remind you that their presence was not required since they were no longer a part of the church. They were also not the first to break from the Church, you might as well argue that no council was ecumenical after Chalcedon since the monophysites were not invited to any council after that. I really don't see why this is an issue? There are some things that just don't need backing up with the opinion of someone who happened to write it down. Are these councils universally accepted by the EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH, yes!. Are they Dogmatic? Yes!, then they are ecumenical by definition. If you want to know why so many Orthodox sources list only seven councils, well, I would say that whatever text they were referencing was probably written in the spirit of comparing our Church to others, specifically the Roman church; to point out similarities. In other words, it was dumbed down for the masses. You can find a lot of pseudo-scholarly work like this. Either that or it was written by a scholar outside the Orthodox Church who chose, for academic reasons to adopt an impartial point of view and look to western history books for his information; which gave him only one perspective (writing about the Eastern Orthodox Church from a Roman Catholic POV). Well, lets try getting our information from the horses mouth instead.

I see where the Encyclical speaks of the "eighth ecumenical council," in two places, thank you. I am afraid I am unable to locate where it speaks of the ninth; could you please provide direct quotes and section numbers? As to the rest of your comment I don't know what to make of it; who is the "you" you are addressing? Four editors besides you have contributed to this section, but none has said anything about Roman anything except you. Mrhsj (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The reality of the situation, to me, seems to be clearly between the two opposing sides of this conversation. Yes, it is entirely true that the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs labels the constantinopolitan council of 879 as the "Eighth Ecumenical Council". This is a document of great authority in the EOC, and as such I think that council should be identified as the Eighth Ecumenical Council. However, while the Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341) is accepted doctrinally by the whole Church, its status as the Ninth Ecumenical Council is much less established and is only championed by a few outspoken clergymen in the modern Church. I may personally agree with them, but I don't think it's anywhere near as evident that it is the mind of the ecumenical Church that the Fifth Council of Constantinople is the Ninth Ecumenical Council. Deusveritasest (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The point here is academic. There have been numerous councils held by the Church. At any given point in history, when these councils were held, the Church was invited to participate. Who belongs to the Church has a direct bearing on who was invited. If, after the Great Schism, it was the opinion of the Orthodox Church that Rome was no longer part of the Church then it was not necessary to invite them. If the council was convened and included bishops from around the world, if their pronouncements were dogmatic and affected our understanding of God and His Church, and if the entire Church has accepted these pronouncements then it cannot be denied that the Holy Spirit is at work here. It does not matter really how you number them. Numbering them is an abstract for historical records. All of these councils are accepted without question by the Orthodox Church. Should history scholars choose to label them ecumenical is irrelevant.--Phiddipus (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the point is merely academic. The fact is that in contemporary Orthodox literature, the number of ecumenical councils is commonly given as seven, and while every parish in the world commemorates the Seven Ecumenical Councils liturgically, no eighth or ninth is so commemorated. This article should explain, neutrally, what the Orthodox Church actually says about the councils. It is not whether "history scholars" call them ecumenical, but whether the Church does. If we simply say there are eight or nine, without further explanation, readers will be left confused. I believe the fact is: the seven are universally accepted as ecumenical and universally called by the name "Ecumenical". The other two are accepted as having a similar level of authority, but the use of the word "Ecumenical" as a way of referring to those councils has not come into universal use. (Whether they *ought* to be called Ecumenical is a matter of opinion that I don't think needs to be discussed in the article.) Mrhsj (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually guys, this is something I've never really understood, and I'd appreciate some input here. I always thought an ecumenical council basically requires each and every bishop to be present. The original one was actually No. 0, given it was the day of Pentecost itself, that had all the apostles together. If the Copt bishops were at Chalcedon, how did they decide on it without them; I thought they operate on unanimity. So my understanding is the monophysites are non-chalcedonian because at Chalcedon they didn't accept all the findings. So how come anything was decided then ?? Please someone try and explain, I'm sure I've missed something again ! :S Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You may ask every bishop and every priest in Russian Orthodox Church: all of them will tell you, that there are 7 ecumenical councils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.147.138.239 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg

The image Image:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Eastern Orthodox Church"

This church does not call itself the Eastern Orthodox Church either in verbal or in written use, e.g. documents or liturgy. That name is somewhat archaic and is a name applied to it from others. It dates from a time when the Orthodox Church was primarily eastern, but that is no longer the case, since it exists all over the world. Even if one thinks (incorrectly) that Orthodox Christianity continues to exist only in places like Greece, Russia, etc. these areas are considered part of the Western world, not the Eastern world. The name also conflicts with Orthodox theology. According to Orthodox theology, the church is not eastern, but catholic. The usual name for the church today is the Orthodox Church. This is an acceptable name. In older usage, and still today in liturgical usage, it calls itself the Catholic Church (whose faith is the Orthodox faith), but to avoid confusion with the Roman Catholic Church (which also uses the name "Catholic Church" and considers its doctrine to be "Orthodox") most Orthodox sources by convention use the name "Orthodox Church." Since the name "Orthodox Church" is pretty well known in the West, there is really no reason for this article to be titled "Eastern Orthodox Church." Limepeel (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at a Google News search for Eastern Orthodox Chuch. The issue here is very similar to "Catholic Church" vs "Roman Catholic Church". The church those names refer to always uses the first, never the second, to refer to itself. But neutral sources prefer the second. Like it or not, "Eastern Orthodox Church" is in fact how neutral English language sources most commonly refer to the church we are talking about here. Mrhsj (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so. Of course, if you google "Eastern Orthodox Church" you're going to find only articles with that phrase. Try googling news articles with Orthodox Church -- without a date range -- and you'll find that articles without "Eastern" easily predominate. Furthermore, news sources are far from the most authoritative source. Books and religion articles are more likely to be authoritative, and if you look at books by Roman Catholics or Protestants (as well as by the Orthodox themselves), here too they are more likely to refer to "the Orthodox Church" rather than "the Eastern Orthodox Church." And this has been so for decades. And they are more likely to refer to "the Orthodox" rather than "the Eastern Orthodox." Limepeel (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Please, note that the church is called in most of the countries where this religion is dominant not under the name "Eastern Orthodox Church" but for example in Russia - Православие, in Poland - Prawoslawie etc. which means "The Law preacher". We should include it in the article as a "Pravoslavie" or something similar(name in the latin alphabet). No one calls it in Eastern Europe "Eastern Orthodox Church"...

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Pravoslavni is a direct Slavonic translation of the Greek word orthodoxe, meaning 'right belief' or 'right glory.' JALatimer (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the official name of the Church is the "Orthodox Catholic Church", however this does not seem to be made clear enough in the article. Also, shouldn't the article Orthodox Catholic Church become a redirect here? (http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&sa=N&start=10) Cody7777777 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The name "Orthodox Catholic Church" as a synonym for "Orthodox Church" is occasionally used, but I don't believe the usage is common or official. One popular book on world religions does call it "official" as you say but I don't think that is borne out by other sources. Since the Orthodox Church has no central administration it has no one official name. One of the most recent documents that could be considered an official one on behalf of the church, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, initially calls the church simply, "the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". Later it calls it simply the Catholic church. I think this mention should be removed from the lead per WP:UNDUE but feel free to add some discussion under the Nomenclature section. Mrhsj (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, "officially" should not be used, but I still think this name is important (also "Eastern" is not used too much in most orthodox countries). Cody7777777 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Eastern Orthodox Church" is how the church is commonly referred to in English, and it is the right name to use in the title and Lead. I believe this was discussed extensively on this Talk page before it got archived. Yes, there are many other names, it is fine to discuss any important ones under Nomenclature. Mrhsj (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mrhsj. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(I wasn't suggesting a change of the title.) I believe there are enough sources here http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&sa=N&start=0 (most of the mentions in the sources here refer to the (Eastern) Orthodox Church) to justify the mention of this name ("Orthodox Catholic Church") in the lead. I cannot understand why someone would want to hide this alternate name, and the Orthodox wiki also mentions this name http://orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodox_Church. (Also, there are enough articles with multiple names in the lead on wikipedia.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That search actually proves my point, I think. If you look closely through those search results, you will see that those texts that use "Orthodox Catholic Church" as a synonym for Eastern Orthodox Church are all quite old. Most are from the 1960s. The sources from the past decade or so clearly use the name in an historical context or in describing splinter sects. So this search bears out that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is an archaic name, not in current widespread use. Take a look at any current publications from Orthodox sources: the official websites of the OCA and GOA, recent books by Ware, McGuckin and the like. You will not find OCC used as a common name in any of them. Contemporary Orthodox call the church either "The Orthodox Church" or "The Eastern Orthodox Church". I still maintain that mention of this name belongs under Nomenclature and not in the lead. Mrhsj (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not all of them are very old. The following are from the period 1999-2008: http://books.google.com/books?id=j7PtB2ehqKgC&pg=PA1&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= , http://books.google.com/books?id=ARbQ8I7ZOjkC&pg=PA79&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= , http://books.google.com/books?id=OT33-JOkEr4C&pg=PA161&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA161,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=YW0RRBX1TAgC&pg=PA71&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA71,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=ExySMgw4J58C&pg=PA176&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= , http://books.google.com/books?id=i4pjCJJGzk8C&pg=PA51&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA51,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA309&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=. Also, has the Orthodox Church ever renounced its claim to be the True Catholic Church? Cody7777777 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It calls it Eastern at the start of the Greek Constitution Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Orthodox Church has one official title. It can have to many titles: Pauline Christianity, Nicean Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox Catholic Christianity, Chalcedonian Christianity, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Pravoslavne, etc.

[edit] Orthodox Church of Canada

I know that there is an Orthodox Chuch of Canada because I attended a wedding at one of their church buildings. There is no mention of it in this article, nor does it have its own article that I can find. They have a web site at http://www.orthodoxchurchofcanada.org . Ronstew (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know the various Orthodox congregations within Canada belong to jurisdictions based outside of Canada. Any group professing to be the "Orthodox Church of Canada" or the "Canadian Orthodox Church" is probably not legitamate.--Phiddipus (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Orthodox Church Was NOT Founded By Christ and His Apostles Nearly 2000 Years Ago!

There is a major error right in the first paragraph of the article. It states that the Orthodox Church was founded by Christ and His apostles nearly 2000 years ago. This is blatantly wrong. The Orthodox Church was founded in the 11th century after the Great Schism. --PaladinWriter (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Both the claim with which you disagree and your own claim are equally POV. JALatimer (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It states that the Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles. Phrased that way, it is clearly not POV, unless for some reason you disagree that this is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Further, where do you get the idea that it is a proven fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not the original Church of Christ? This appears to me to be an unsubstantiated POV. Deusveritasest (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that even Roman Catholic scholars would disagree to the opening statement. The Orthodox and the Roman Catholics were the same Church for the first thousand years of Christianity though there were fairly clear distinctions between the East and West. Both sides (after the Great Schism) consider themselves to be the continuation of that original church and consequently the other side to be in error. This is that churches POV. This article is about the Orthodox Church and so, their POV is expressed here. It is from that perspective that while the Orthodox Church has continued to preserve the traditions and teaching of the apostles and the patristic fathers, the Roman Catholics have radically changed from that original path. I realize that your perspective is probably the opposite. To debate this issue is pointless.--Phiddipus (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Orthodox Church was founded in the 11th century"

Founded by who? In order to say that, you have to agree that Cardinal Humbert founded the Orthodox Church by "excommunicating" 1 patriarch. The whole issue is too complex and to keep this article neutral, we must say the churches split from each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.172.76 (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were part of a (roughly) unified church for the first several centuries of Christianity. The vast majority of Roman Catholic scholars would consider that the Orthodox church wasn't "founded" in the 11th century, but was established in Apostolic times. Majoreditor (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This all based in the idea that there were actually two distinct dogmatic traditions present within the Pre-Schism Church? Deusveritasest (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. There was more or less unity on dogma during and for some period following the Patristic era. For example, both East and West embraced Gregory the Theologian's views on Trinity. Majoreditor (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of dogmatic traditions upon which the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church have disagreed upon, even going back before 1054. And if we believe that the Church can only be one in its dogmatic tradition, then this means that the first millenium Church was either one with the Roman Catholic Tradition or the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. And depending on the answer to that problem, the first millenium Church is either identified as Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. To suggest that the pre-Schism Church was somehow a combination of both what we understand today to be Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy seems a little naive. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Church of the first millenium was a combination of various traditions, united by not only by general agreement in dogma but also through mutual respect. Note that both the East and the West participated in seven euchumenical councils, up through Nicea II in 787. Sure, there were differneces in dogma and politics which grew more pronounced over time, particularly from thre eighth century onward. Majoreditor (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If then, you admit that the early Church was united in dogma, and if you recognize that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy represent two distinct dogmatic traditions, then it logically cannot be proclaimed that the early Church consisted both of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're right (and I think you are), the question becomes: which group, Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, has faithfully carried on the dogmatic tradition of united Church? However, this article, which intends to be a neutral, factual entry describing the Orthodox Church, is not the place to answer that question. JALatimer (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the question of which one is "correct" isn't going to be answered in Wikipedia. Majoreditor (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You have simply restated what was already stated, that both sides claim to remain the original church. We have had this discussion many times here over the years; the best course of action seems to be to avoid making comparisons between the two churches. As far a dogmatic unity you have to bear in mind the historical context: you have an empire that stretches thousands of miles with hundreds of cities and no mass communication. As Eastern and Western Christianity developed differences arose. Most of these were dealt with and resolved in ecumenical councils, but it took hundreds of years to resolve them. Plus you had wars and invasions that cut off the scholars east from West for centuries. And finally you must understand that it is in the last thousand years that the Eastern and Western Churches have grown so far apart, my guess that in the 11th and 12th century the differences were almost invisible to the average Christian.--Phiddipus (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think Wikipedia is here to answer which of the two bodies is the dogmatic continuation of the 1st millenium Church. The point that I was trying to make was simply counter the statement that the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church were two equal parts of the 1st millenium Church and that the Schism simply involved the sundering of those two parts. On the level of dogmatic theology, such a statement doesn't really make sense. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That’s just it; the addition to the creed of the filioque clause by the Roman Catholics is considered by Orthodox theologians to be a major difference. It is also directly related to the papal issue. It changes the relationship of the Trinity creating a hierarchy of being which lends itself to the concept of papal authority; the other major problem. These two major problems lead to the breach.--Phiddipus (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We're agreeing, right? Deusveritasest (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Prior to the split, because of wars and lack of communication, because the level of scholarship sank very low in the West, a few new-fangled ideas crept into Western thinking. As communication resumed between the two sides the differences became more pronounced and ultimately lead to a split; but it was hardly a 50/50 split. It was a handful of bishops from the West who split from the vast majority of bishops associated with the East. And it is only in the last hundred years that the RC has become larger than the Orthodox (mainly because of communism). --Phiddipus (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say largely also because much of the colonial imperialism that has been going on in the past 500 years has been on the part of Roman Catholic societies and barely at all by Orthodox societies. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarch

There was a recent edit done on the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The current revision reads: "Later, in the 11th century, because of the split with Rome (the great East-West Schism), the honour of presiding over general councils was transferred to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and he was given the title primus inter pares (first among equals), reflecting his administrative leadership and his spiritual equality." The phrase in bold to me sounds a little bit like papal supremacy, and I'm wondering what others here think of it? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Ecumenical Patriarch has no administrative authority over the other patriarchates. JALatimer (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is misleading, I think it should've rather been "...reflecting his spiritual leadership and his administrative equality." Cody7777777 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Correctly stated, the Patriarch, when performing his administrative duty acts as the leader of an ecumenical council composed of all bishops; while spiritually he has no more authority than any other bishop, even the lowliest bishop. No bishop can override another bishop on spiritual matters. So correctly stated the Patriarch has administrative authority and spiritual equality. There is a famous story from the desert fathers that a man, for committing some minor sin was told by his bishop that he could eat only bread and water until the bishop said otherwise. But before the bishop could release the man from his penance the bishop died. The man, in distress, asked another bishop for release, but was told that he could not override the previous bishop’s punishment. So the man went all the way to the patriarch and asked him for release. The patriarch held council with a number of other bishops but in the end told the poor man that unfortunately he would be eating bread and water for the rest of his life because they simply did not have the authority to override the bishop’s instructions. The Pope of Rome however is considered to be spiritually superior haveing authority of all Roman Catholics even other bishops and cardinals. --Phiddipus (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications about his spiritual role, but I still think that the part about his administrative role should be changed a bit (it can cause misunderstanding), maybe this way "...reflecting his administrative duty as president of a council and his spiritual equality."? Cody7777777 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your objection. The only way to clarify something is to state it correctly. You are correct that the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope who leads the Church in spiritual matters. As far as spiritual leadership every bishop leads his designated see. But if the question is who ranks first in the administration of the Orthodox Church then the answer is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. When it comes down to it admnistratively the other patriarchs would defer to the See of Constantinople. This arrangement is prescribed by cannons 2 and 3 of the 2nd ecumenical council.--Phiddipus (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to administration of their particular dioceses, the Patriarchs need not defer to anyone else. Even at the level of their Patriarchate, the Patriarch still has hierarchical authority, but usually he will defer to the Synod of the Patriarchate to make decisions on the level of the autocephalous Church. On the level of the Church ecumenical, no particular bishop is looked to to make decisions, but rather they are make collectively by a synod of the Church. So I don't understand where you are coming from in saying "when it comes down to it administratively the other patriarchs would defer to the See of Constantinople". Furthermore, the Patriarch of Constantinople is frequently referred to as the "spiritual father" of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In being the first among equals and the Ecumenical bishop, Orthodox writers seem to infer that the Bishop of Constantinople plays a symbolic spiritual role for all the Church. Deusveritasest (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing administration with spiritual direction. There are two sides to the structure of the Church; one that deals with the preservation and spiritual direction of the Body of Christ, and one that deals with records, meetings, paperwork, finances, and overall administration of the Church. One is spiritual while the other is mundane. The mundane structure of the church is basically laymen, monastics, and the priesthood. Within the priesthood there are deacons, presbyters, and bishops. Amongst bishops there are retired bishops, acting bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, and Patriarchs. There is also a hierarchy among patriarchs with Constantinople on top (originally Rome, but they are out). When it comes to mundane things there is an overall etiquette that less important bishops defer to more prominent ones. In any particular synod most will defer to their president – of course they may decide mundane things by vote but we are talking about when they don’t. The same goes for the ultimate situation of an ecumenical council, the same etiquette applies for mundane things - all would defer to Constantinople. When it comes to dealing with spiritual matters all bishops are equal. Spiritually the Patriarch and a lowly bishop are on the same level. In council each has one vote and the opinion of the one has the same weight as the other. They do not defer to anyone in spiritual matters. If the Patriarch wanted to condemn a particular heresy he could not do it alone nor would his opinion carry any more weight than any other bishops. Yes, Constantinople is often referred to as the “spiritual father” of the Church but this, once again is etiquette. I doubt anyone would consider the heretic Nestorios to have been a “Spiritual Father” of the Church.--Phiddipus (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Marriage

The central confusion on the Orthodox position is between the condition of a person (currently thought of in terms of "gay" and "straight") and the commission of the sexual act. The Orthodox position on marriage and homosexuality is frequently misunderstood as a condemnation of the person, rather than the act. Furthermore, it IS POV to attempt to hide this fact in a partisan effort to make the Church look bigoted. There is nothing "POV" about making a clarification of the position and citing references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read your source (http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26), but I don't see where it writes that "only the act (not the desire) is condemned". In Orthodoxy, sin is considered usually to be more a spiritual disease (which appeared when man separated himself from God), rather than a judiciary/legalistic act. So, it can be said, that the desire for doing things against God's will, is a result of sin (not sin a result of the act alone). So, as long as they don't stop the sinful desire, they won't be able to heal themselves (and they'll continue in sin and do sinful acts). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is close, but not a correct understanding of Orthodoxy. We CAN'T "stop our desires". We can only choose to act on them or not. You can get confirmation by e-mailing Fr John Matusiak at oca.org (the e-mail link is on the website)- he'll cheerfully answer your questions better than I can - but it is critical to understand that Orthodoxy sees EVERYONE as "broken" - just in different ways. We are all condemned by sin - and saved by Christ. This includes alcoholics, homosexuals, and me. We have to repent and fight the temptation to sin. The cross of same-sex attraction is considered a particularly difficult one to bear, imo, but the sin is in giving into the temptation, not in experiencing it. This distinction is critical for understanding that the Orthodox Church welcomes ALL and treats no one different, no matter what they are suffering from - but neither does it try to pretend that they are "all right" and not suffering from anything, and in Orthodoxy, same-sex attraction is an initially good desire bent the wrong way.

The article is specific that it is only the act condemned and that people suffering from the desire are to be treated with mercy and compassion.

[quote]Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings.

People with homosexual tendencies are to be helped to admit these feelings to themselves and to others who will not reject or harm them. They are to seek assistance in discovering the specific causes of their homosexual orientation, and to work toward overcoming its harmful effects in their lives.

Persons struggling with homosexuality who accept the Orthodox faith and strive to fulfill the Orthodox way of life may be communicants of the Church with everyone else who believes and struggles. Those instructed and counselled in Orthodox Christian doctrine and ascetical life who still want to justify their behavior may not participate in the Church’s sacramental mysteries, since to do so would not help, but harm them.[/quote] I'll ask that, as I have provided the references and that they do specify this important point, that you leave it be. There is enough here to establish NPOV; and to erase it indicates a partisan POV. Rusmeister (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are other users more experienced than me to answer this question, but as far as I see the question here is, if the sinful desire is condemned or not. People with sinful desires are, of course, to be treated with understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy, but that doesn't mean that their sinful desires are also accepted (if those desires would be accepted, then there won't be any reason to fight against them). There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Also, to stop (or to weaken) our sinful desires, we must replace our sinful desires, with the desire to love and obey God. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The OCA =/= the Eastern Orthodox Church, and therefore citing the teaching of the OCA does not qualify as a satisfactory proof of the teaching of the EOC ecumenical. Secondly, to bring up the subject of homosexuality all of a sudden right in the midst of a section about marriage certainly does appear to be straying from the topic. Perhaps if the subject were generally about sexuality it would work, but this is not the case. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This subject is inappropriate here. It is thoroughly delt with in an article entitles the Orthodox view of sin.--Phiddipus (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that one of the chief topics in the news these days IS the establishment of homosexual marriage. As such, it is entirely relevant to marriage. Why you should have such a strong interest in hiding that connection is beyond me. It is related to both sin and marriage, and as such is relevant to both topics. Deusveritas - you need to identify what precisely you mean by "EOC Ecumenical". Evidently you misinterpret the idea of the unity of Orthodox dogma as the idea that there is a central body, similar to the Vatican that posts internet references binding on all. This is not the case for Orthodoxy. We share common dogma, and the OCA conveniently posts it in English. if this is insufficient, I can post Russian, Greek and other references, but you probably won't be able to read them. As a courtesy to English readers on the English wikipedia I post from the most authoritative sources available in English. There IS no English speaking body more authoritative than the OCA. It is the final court of authority for the Orthodox position and is identical to the position held by Orthodox Churches worldwide.

Since on this issue I evidently have to satisfy you personally, and expect that there is nothing within the framework of what is that will ever satisfy you, we are at an impasse. Rusmeister (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Phippidus, claiming that the Orthodox view (which I have referenced - SCOBA is a highly authoritative body, and the statement is a pan-Orthodox statement) as "reactionary" is very POV, and your claim of "inappropriate" is unsubstantiated. Since it IS the understanding of that definition that is being challenged, it is appropriate to inform the public exactly what the Orthodox understanding is. Rusmeister (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved the mention of Same-Sex Marriage to the end of the marriage section, and added another relevant citation. The Orthodox Church does take stands on political and social issues, and on this one the position is pretty clear and unequivocal. In light of recent political events there is intense public interest in where religious bodies stand on this issue, so it is notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in the article. But the main focus of the Marriage section should be what the Orthodox Church teaches about Orthodox marriage. If the article weren't already too long I might suggest a section specifically devoted to where the church stands on contemporary social issues, but for now a mention of this in the Marriage section seems like the best solution. Mrhsj (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining the role of the Great Schism in "founding" the Eastern Orthodox Church

OK... before everybody jumps on me, I am not going to argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church was founded in the 11th century by the Great Schism. However, after reading the "EOC was NOT founded by JC and the apostles" section above, I realized that this article does a poor job of presenting this important point about the EOC. We fail here by only presenting the POV of the EOC and not that of the Western Church as well.

I'm not sure what the EOC believes about the Western church but I will tell you that most of the Western church sees the Eastern church as being schismatic rather than heretical. That is, the Western church (Roman, Anglican and mainstream Protestants) do not see insupreable difficulties in dogma and see the differences as being primarily about church leadership. Thus, the West would NOT argue that it is the only true church and that the East is dogmatically "wrong". The Romans would argue that the East is part of the true church but that its leadership are unwilling to accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. (yes, this is a gross oversimplification but I believe it is the essence of the Western position). Yes, there are doctrinal differences such as the "Filioque" but at least some Romans see these as resolvable.

I believe that we should not limit ourselves to expressing the EOC's POV in this article but also those of the Christian community as a whole. Clearly, the focus of the article must be the EOC. However, failing to describe the historical context of the Great schism and the EOC's relationship with the Western church today gives the reader an unbalanced understanding.

There is a tendency to assert "this article is about the EOC and therefore should be written from the EOC's POV". This is not in keeping with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. NPOV suggests that we should write about the EOC from an neutral POV, not from the EOC's POV. Of course, a neutral POV would include a description of the EOC's POV but it should also include the POV's of others including the Western church.

Most people consider that there was one church founded by JC and the apostles. (Well, some people assert that the early church consisted of a plurality of competing traditions but we can leave that alone for now.) Most of today's churches claim to have inherited the mantle from that original church. Are all those churches dogmatically "correct"? Hard to see how that could be so but, as said by others, it is not Wikipedia's role to determine which church has the correct dogma.

I think that the article East-West Schism gives a passable explanation of the origins of the Great Schism (that is, that the one church started to grow apart with the fall of the Western Empire at the end of the 5th century). Does a marriage end when the divorce is final? No. The marriage starts to fall apart much earlier but those seeds of divorce can only be recognized as such when the divorce becomes inevitable.

I think these points need to be made in the lead so as to make it clearer that, while the EOC claims to be the continuation of the original church, it is not the only church to make that claim. And, while the EOC may be the continuation of the original church founded by JC and the apostles, it was certainly not called the "Eastern Orthodox Church" in the apostolic era so it might be useful to explain when that name came to be used.

--Richard (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard, This topic has been discussed numerous times in the past. If you were to review the article from, let us say, two years ago it would seem like the Orthodox Church defines itself by what the Roman Catholic church is not. Every line was a comparison of the two Churches. The relative truth is that the two Churches are now 1000 years apart. In the end the article became laborious to read (more laborious than it is with just the Orthodox viewpoint). What was ultimately decided was that this is an encyclopedia. The article on Eastern Orthodoxy should be about that subject and the article about the Roman Catholics should be about that subject. Let the reader make his own comparisons and contrasts.

Now, as concerns a more detailed explanation of the Great Schism the problem is that both sides see it completely differently and both sides can site numerous texts to back up their POV, but when it comes down to it it becomes a far greater subject than could be discussed here in this encyclopedia, so, once again we stick to the viewpoint at hand and ignore comparisons. Let the reader, if he is really interested, do his own research and comparison.--Phiddipus (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between presenting a neutral point of view and presenting all points of view. The former, not the latter is what Wikipedia requires. The article needs to state how the EOC understands itself, without appearing to take sides on whether that understanding is correct, and that is what it does. It is not necessary to state how the Coptic Church views the EOC, how the Armenian Church views the EOC, how the Old Believers view the EOC, how the Jews view the EOC, how atheists view the EOC, how Muslims view the EOC, how the Catholic Church view the EOC, how the Baptists view the EOC, and so ad infinitum. You appear to be suggesting that of all the opinions in the world about the EOC, the Catholic one is so important that it requires mentioning in the lead. I don't see why that particular POV should have that privilege. (Does the lead for the article on the Catholic Church say anything about what the EOC thinks of the CC?) I think the lead is sufficiently NPOV as it stands. Mrhsj (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with bot Mrhsj and Phiddipus on this matter. I don't think the opinion of the RCC on the status of the EOC is really a subject matter that coincides with the discussion of the EOC itself. It might be OK for it to be present here. But I don't think there has been sufficient reason provided for us to push for it to be here. Deusveritasest (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Mrhsj, Phiddipus and Deusveritasest. The articles about other religions don't mention the (Eastern) Orthodox opinion about their religions. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length

I really do think that this article is a little long winded at this point and that we should start discussing what content should be moved to another related article or simply dropped. Deusveritasest (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've considered killing two birds with one stone: just going through and removing every paragraph that has no citations. But I'm not quite that bold. Mrhsj (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is how to explain what Orthodoxy is without making comparisons yet giving enough information to distinguish it from other Christian Churches. On almost every point Orthodoxy differes in some way from the rest of Christianity. I think we have tried to limit what we say here, but we have a lot to say. Removing paragraphs that have no citations would not be fair. Orthodoxy grew organically from its foundations, it was not constructed by scholars. It was rarely reactionary, rather others reacted to it. Also, scholarship in English is very limited and of a fairly low quality, at the same time the writers here are not schooled in Greek , Syriac, and Slavonic. Most of what is written here is by mutual agreement of the Orthodox readers.--Phiddipus (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd phrase it another way. It's harder to acquire scholarly books and articles on Orthodoxy than it is on Western Christianity, at least in the English-speaking world. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a fair amount of high-quality works written in English. Take, for example, the excellent books published by St. Vladimir's Seminar Press. Unfortunately, you're not likely to be exposed to them or other fine works on Orthodoxy unless you happen to visit a one of the better academic libraries. For those who are fortunate enough to be able to do so, there are real treasures on the shelves.

Back to the question of what to do with the article length. I don't recommend wholesale deletion of uncited paragraphs. Wikipedia policy doesn't require a citation for each paragraph; rather, citations are required for quotations, statistics, controversial statements, etc. And of course, adding citations is a great way to improve the article. I did just that with Gregory the Theologian and got it from Start-class to FA-class.

Perhaps the best way to skinny down this article is to spin off hefty sections into daughter articles. That way we preserve content, create more articles on Orthodoxy (linked back to the parent article, of course), and reduce this article's length. Does someone want to give it a go? Majoreditor (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a great strategy. I don't know if I could personally put a lot of work into it though, no. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We have done this before, in fact I spearheaded the effort a couple years ago. You have to ask yourself which essential points about Orthodoxy define who we are, what we believe, and what we practice. You end up with our basic beliefs about The Trinity, Christ, the Theotokos, Saints, The next life, human nature, sin, heaven, and hell. Our practices, Services, hierarchical structure, Mysteries, Icons, Church Architecture, Chanting, incense, and the calendar. Then there is our history, you have the early Church, the Golden Byzantine age, the ecumenical councils, The fall of empires, the rise of others, communism, and finally the church today. Then ask yourself what can I cut without leaving a gaping hole. The article used to be crazy disorganized and much longer. If you feel you can consolidate without opening the path to gross misinterpretations of what the Orthodox believe and practice, by all means do so.--Phiddipus (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Catholic

Occasionally someone tries to insert the term Orthodox Catholic into this article as a valid and common name for the Eastern Orthodox Church. While technically The EOC is Catholic (in the sense that it is universal) and, in fact uses this term formally as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, it has publically never used the term to avoid confusion with the Roman Catholic Church. There are a number of illegitimate churches calling themselves Orthodox Catholic, but they are not in any way affiliated with the EOC. See: Orthodox_Catholic_Church. Also, there are alternate names for the EOC that are common, namely the Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox Church. These names are highly familiar even to non Orthodox. We originally had a number of these names in the opening description but just as the section entitled (number of adherents" has grown to ridiculous proportions so did every group of Orthodox want their name listed in the first sentence. It was decided to drop the reference and add an explanation later in the article.--Phiddipus (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had already posted in an above section called "Eastern Orthodox Church" the following sources http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&sa=N&start=0 (most of the mentions in the sources here refer to the (Eastern) Orthodox Church), the following are from the period 1999-2008: http://books.google.com/books?id=j7PtB2ehqKgC&pg=PA1&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= , http://books.google.com/books?id=ARbQ8I7ZOjkC&pg=PA79&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= , http://books.google.com/books?id=OT33-JOkEr4C&pg=PA161&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA161,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=YW0RRBX1TAgC&pg=PA71&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA71,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=ExySMgw4J58C&pg=PA176&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= , http://books.google.com/books?id=i4pjCJJGzk8C&pg=PA51&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA51,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA309&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= (and there are also others). The Orthodox wiki also mentions this name somewhere in the lead http://orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodox_Church. To me it seems clear that this term is used most of the time to refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church, so I can't see what is wrong to mention this name as an alternate in the lead. Also, the article Orthodox Catholic Church should become a redirect here. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Your first source is a modern reprint of a book first published in 1866, so it is of no value as a modern source. The second is a broad survey book of major world religions and is not a high quality source about Orthodoxy; it simply asserts without evidence that OCC is the "official" name -- an assertion that may well have simply been lifted from Britannica or some such older work. The third simply states "The Orthodox Church also sometimes calls itself 'The Orthodox Catholic Chuch'" -- that statement supports mentioning this as a detail in the Nomenclature section. The fourth does not use directly OCC as a name for the church but simply quotes an old liturgical text that does. The fifth does not use "Orthodox Catholic Church" as a name for the church at all but rather uses "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" as the name (shall we add that one to the lead too?). The sixth likewise does not use the name OCC as a synonym for EOC but only contains the name "Russian Orthodox Catholic Church in America". Then finally we have an "Encyclopedia of World Religions" -- not very good as a primary source about Orthodoxy. Mrhsj (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first source, since it is a reprint, it means it is still read today. The sources shown prove that in english the name "Orthodox Catholic Church" usually refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church, english readers should be informed about this in the article. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare is still read today; that doesn't mean that his works are a good guide to contemporary English usage. I agree that the name "Orthodox Catholic Church" usually refers to the EOC and that this should be mentioned in the article. I just observe that it isn't used all that often and doesn't need mentioning in the opening of the article. We appear to have consensus on this so can we close this discussion now? Mrhsj (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There were other sources more newer than Overbeck in the link above, but I agree that it isn't used often. Cody7777777 (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a few questions and comments on this topic:
1. Why is it important in the first place for this statement to be present in the lead or even the article in general?
2. If you read some of the catechisms of the Church and also some of the synods and encyclicals of the past 500 years, there are quite a number of references to the Eastern Orthodox Church as the "(One), Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", the "Catholic Church", the "Holy Catholic Church", and even the "Orthodox Catholic Church". I don't think you can really make an argument against proclaiming such as illegitimate. And yes, some of the highest authorities have used these names publicly, for example in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.
3. Perhaps some of more recent leaders within the Church have avoided referring to the EOC as Catholic because of ecumenist sensitivities, but such a trend does not override the Tradition of the Church. If someone proclaims the EOC as the Catholic Church, we most certainly cannot cast out their statement as if it were incorrect.
4. So, if calling the EOC the Orthodox Catholic Church is not lacking in truth or authoritative validation, then what is the motivation behind denying it as a part of the article? Deusveritasest (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding question 1, if the article Orthodox Catholic Church is turned into a redirect here, then it would be preferable for this name to be mentioned in the lead as an alternate. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave question 1 to advocates for the current text. Questions 2-4 are strawmen. No one has disputed that OCC is one of the legitimate names for the church or objected to mentioning it in the article. I just believe it is not important enough to deserve the prominent placement it has now. Mrhsj (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that it's not important enough to appear in the lead, but can be mentioned in the Nomeclature section. Take a look at the Wikipedia site traffice reports and you'll find that "Orthodox Catholic Church" gets few hits. I'd also suggest using a more up to date, scholarly reference than Overbeck. Majoreditor (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The source used was a reprint from the year 2008, proving that Overbeck is still read today (but, of course, other sources could be found). I don't think the name "Eastern Orthodox Church" should be left alone in the lead (while it may be in common usage, it cannot describe the Orthodox (Catholic) Church in the best way), maybe it should be mentioned in the lead that the Church considers itself as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". Also, since the article Orthodox Catholic Church is now a redirect here, there should be some mentions of the name (I believe it would've make more sense to show this in the lead). (Also, (although it probably isn't important) the article Assyrian Church of the East has in the lead the name "Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East", and I doubt that it is a very common name, so why shouldn't this article also have in the lead a less common name?) Cody7777777 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In any way, all christian churches claim catholicity and all apply to themselves the terms "One, Holy, Catholic". The Orthodox church is catholic in the sense that it is accepted as being of the major christian dogmas on the planet. s much as I know, both Western Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches have in their official documents references to their catholicity, but only the Western Roman Church uses it as a title. The Eastern Orthodox church has never used it as an official title, at least not as "Orthodox Catholic".--Michael X the White (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, the Orthodox Church doesn't use "eastern" too much as an official title either. So, this name should not be left alone in the lead, I believe it should be mentioned in the lead the the Orthodox Church, considers itself to be the true "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" (I preferred "Orthodox Catholic Church" since in contained the word "Orthodox" too). It was already mentioned by other users above, that this name ("Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church") appears in the "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848" (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html), more than this, it is the name mentioned in the Creed (and I can't find a more official document) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use#In_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Churches), so this should be mentioned in the lead. Cody7777777 (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with Cody's recent edit [1]. Nice work, Cody. Majoreditor (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I don't think my edit was special in any way. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you speak Greek?? If you do, read this:verdict of the 9th Panorthodox Synod (site of the Church of Greece). The first paragraph (verdict 1) says: "The teaching of the Orthodox Church is the teaching of Christ. The Christ has given it and the Church has received it. The teaching of Christ is ONE. The faith of the Church is ONE. And the Church is ONE. The Church is "the pillar and the base of truth" (A' Tim. 3,15). This is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, so the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church's truth is self-guarded within the unbreakable apostolic succession of the clergy and the faith.".--Michael X the White (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Greek, but I'll trust your translation. Thank you, for informing me. But, as far as I know, Orthodox Christians usually call it as the "Orthodox Church" or the "Orthodox Christian Church", "Eastern Orthodox" is more used in the west. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virginity

I have issues with this statement: "Virginity, however, is seen as a higher state since one participates in the immediate relationship with God and is not distracted by having to serve a wife or husband (1 Corith:7 esp.32-33)". For one, it doesn't really appear that the cited passage exactly vindicates the opinion that virginity/celibacy is a "higher state" than marriage. Especially if you read a few more passages in, Paul says that he is addressing this to in no way hinder those in the married life. Secondly, I've seen this issue addressed a few times by Orthodox authorities, and from what I can remember it was mostly condemned as a form of anti-Sacramentalist pseudo-Gnosticism. I would prefer to simply drop the phrase, but would like to get others' opinions first. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Orthodoxy has always maintained that ones relationship with God is by far more important that one’s relationship with other people. That is not to say that our relationships with one another are unimportant but rather that ultimately God will have us all to himself. St Paul makes it quite clear that although it is not a sin to get married and thus have relations with one’s spouse, it would be better if one kept his virginity and devoted his life to God. The very fact that we Orthodox have such a strong and vibrant monastic branch indicates its high regard for virginity. And since the monastic calling and virginity are by far more difficult to maintain and because their rewards are more sublime I think it is quite valid to call it a "higher" state.--Phiddipus (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albania

Hello, an editor recently added this sentence to the section on adherents:

In Albania the adherents number around 15% out of a 25% Christian population, the other beign Christian Catholic.

I am not entirely sure what the sentence is supposed to convey, but it seems to contradict the Religion in Albania article's description of most Albanians as being atheist or agnostic. Does anybody know what the actual facts are? Thank you, LovesMacs (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally Albania had been, before the athiest rule of Enver Hoxha, 70% Moslem Bektashi, 20% (Greek) Orthodox. and 10% Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholics were in the north and the Orthodox in the south. People in Greece often presume that all the Albanian Orthodox are Greek in blood and origin but this is not necessarily the case, even where they speak the language, though I won't speculate on details. It is true that Albania is the only country to have ever been officially athiest, though of course this does not mean people were all truly non-believers. The reason why we could perhaps go back to the traditionally reckoned figures is partly to do with people identifying with a religion as part of their clan background, which is strong in that country. Since freedom was restored many have openly gone back to the faiths of their forefathers. Eugene-elgato (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, John Belushi comes to mind. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] relations to other Christians

I added this section. Folks steeped in Western Christianity or just Western culture in general are largely ignorant of Eastern Orthodoxy. For those readers who are more familiar with Western Christianity than Eastern, a modest section of this sort is a big help. Platia removed my reference to RCC elements coming specifically from Rome: legalism, political orientation, and veneration of statues. I think it's important to let the reader know that it's now just a coincidence that Roman Catholicism has these elements, as they derived them from Roman culture. Leadwind (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you folks are sick of defending EO against POV attackers, as seems to be the case given the defensive editing we've seen, you should know that I'm a mostly sympathetic bystander in the big schism between East and West. I'd like people to know more about EO, so I'm trying to make this article more informative. Leadwind (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There's some good material here, but the entire section is unsourced. Most significant are the mentions of "legalism" which seem rather POV -- do western writers agree that Orthodoxy is "less legalistic" than Western Christianity? If you'd cite your sources we'd know. Mrhsj (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Legalism in the EO is kinda somewhat covered as a topic in Orthodox theology. Why does such a thing need to have a Western writer? Just curious. Heres a brief outine of legalism from Aleksey Khomyakov.<quote>

The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not superrational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of transferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house. Roman Catholicism rationalizes even the sacrament of the Eucharist: it interprets spiritual action as purely material and debases the sacrament to such an extent that it becomes in its view a kind of atomistic miracle. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there is no need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that "every thing, without in the least changing its physical substance" could become His Body. "Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not physical flesh." The rationalism of Catholicism which established unity without freedom gave rise, as a reaction against it, to another form of rationalism -Protestantism which realizes freedom without unity. The Bible, in itself a lifeless book, subjectively interpreted by every individual believer, is the basis of the Protestants' religious life. This is the reason why "Protestants have not that serenity, that perfect certainty of posessing the word of God which is given by faith alone." It attaches too much importance to the historical study of the Scriptures. It is a matter of vital importance to them whether the Epistle to the Romans was written by Paul or not. This means that Protestantism regards the Scriptures as an infallible authority, and at the same time as an authority external to man. The attitude of the Orthodox Church to the Scriptures is different. "It regards the Scriptures as its own testimony and looks upon them as an inward fact in its own life." "Suppose it were proved today that the Epistle to the Romans was not written by Paul; the Church would say 'it is from me' and the very next day the epistle would be read aloud in all the churches as before, and the Christians would listen to it with the joyful attention of faith; for we know whose testimony alone is incontrovertible."

<quote/>

I was referring to two specific statements currently in the article: (1) "Compared to Western Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy is more mystical and less legalistic." and (2) "Unlike Roman Catholicism, however, Eastern Orthodoxy has less legalism." These statements assert that Western Christianity in general, and and Roman Catholicism in particular, are "legalistic". I do not think western Christians, including Catholics, would generally agree with that assertion. Therefore these statements represent a specifically Eastern Orthodox point of view rather than a neutral one. If I am wrong, neutral sources must be cited in support of these claims. Orthodox sources alone could support a statement such as "the Eastern Orthodox Church regards Western Christianity (or Roman Catholicism) as legalistic," but not "WC / RC is legalistic." Mrhsj (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify if this is what you mean by the term legalism or if you mean in relation to Antinomianism. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I put in the stuff about legalism. I thought that was common knowledge and might not need a citation. It's certainly not the EO opinion, however. It comes from a neutral history of civilization by Will Durant. The split started early, with Western Christianity adopting the rule-oriented discipline for which Romans were known. Does anyone really dispute this assessment? EO doesn't have seven clearly defined sacraments, a qualitative distinction between venial and mortal sins, celibacy for priests, indulgences tapping into a storehouse of merit whose keys are held by the pope, purgatory as a distinct afterlife dimension, or anyone who can speak infallibly. Does the EO have the interdict? Does it have special stamps indicating the degree to which a written work conforms with church teaching, with the power to silence clergy who say the wrong thing? RCC is way more legalistic than EO. I can hunt for some references, but the point isn't in dispute, is it? Leadwind (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mrhsj, the material in the section needs to be cited. Majoreditor (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for the citation. Durant repeatedly treats the theme that Western Christianity was influenced by the Roman character, born and bred to rule. Purgatory, statues of the divine dead, and pontifex maximus, all predate Christianity in Rome, and they are features of Western Christianity, not Eastern. More generally, Romans saw themselves as ideally suited to rule. Unfortunately, Durant doesn't have "legalism" in the index, so it might take a while. In the mean time, can someone say with a straight face that RCC is no more legalistic than EO? Anyone? Doesn't RCC have a weekly obligation to attend Mass and a yearly obligation to take the Eucharist? Does EO have anything that specific? Leadwind (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Durant: 2nd century. "Greek Christianity was theological, metaphysical, mystical. Tertullian made Latin Christianity ethical, juristic, practical." I think there's more, but it's hard to find. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church isn't much help. It says that much of EO belief is never explicitly defined but is implicit in the liturgy, whereas RCC has an elaborate sacramental theology. We could always go for a softer statement, such as, "Compared to Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox see themselves as less legalistic." Meanwhile, still waiting for someone to state that RCC is no more legalistic than EO. Leadwind (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here Leadwind. [2] This is standard par for the EO even though it is ROCOR. I still dont see why Aleksey Khomyakov's comments are not a validation. But I agree with Mrhsj if he is shooting for something else.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lede needs to be bigger

This article's lede, like many articles on WP, is too spare. A lede should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic, but this lede is more like a definition of the topic. For a major topic such as this, we should have a four-paragraph lede summarizing history, theology, geography, etc. I might work on the lede, but I'd welcome help. Folks who want to understand what makes a good lede are welcome to review WP:LEDE. Leadwind (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thirty-nine Article version of the Nicene Creed

What is the "Thirty-nine Article version of the Nicene Creed", reference to which has just been inserted into the article? Surely it is not a reference to Queen Elizabeth's Thirty Nine Articles for the Anglican Church. The Creed used by the Orthodox Church long predates that. Platia (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I was taking material from Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church and read too fast. Leadwind (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Repentance

I would like to stress that the Mystery of repentance and confession is not found in seeing the priest. There is no obligation to confess one's sins to the priest. There is no obligation to confess one's sins to anybody but God. The priest does not have the power to forgive, and neither is forgiveness facilitated through the priest. Forgiveness happens at the moment at which someone has resolved in themselves and to God that they will not committ the sin again. It does not matter that they are almost inevitably doomed to failure just because we are falliable human beings; they must sincerely believe at a momement in time that they will not committ the sin again, and resolve to not do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.217.136 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK then you are now going against established dogma-[3]...So post here where Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky got it wrong. I am wondering where this above is coming from within the Orthodox community, just asking.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

oh really? I thought Orthodoxy was not dogmatic, only doctrinal? It's something called logic. it doesn't make sense to say that someone is forgiven because they have been to see their priest, though I know that most Orthodox have a peasant's understanding of their faith, specially in Greece. The culture has become one where people will go to confession frequently as a licence to sin as much as they like, rather like with Roman catholics. We are not Roman Catholics, we are Orthodox, so our faith is logic based. You cannot go on sinning, making the same excuses that it's OK because you've gone to confession. Repentance can only be where someone is truly sorry for something, which necessitates the sincere resolution they will not do it again; e.g. from the saints, Mary of Egypt repenting at the doors of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, up until which point she was a prostitute. People who think that they have a valid excuse because they are "weak" and "only human" and not saint material, to sin again, are charlatans. It is true that we all acknowldge we must be the first of all sinners, but precisely because, not in spite, of the fact that we have no excuse to not vow to not commit the sin again.

I thought that the churches printed books with appropriate titles and we had faith in what the church did (but then I really don't have to think about that at all do I). Rather then post as if we know everything about Orthodoxy and then not actually quote the church but what appears as opinion. God is mercy, if people could not sin then they wouldn't and then they really won't need the church or God or Christ then would they? What perfection is in the pagan idea of man-God(bad idea that we can do things by ourselves, and definitely not Orthodox which is God-man based). Saint Mary by the grace of God was saved, and by the grace of God over came her passions. Firm resolve will only cause bitterness (which is obvious from your postings) the only way to obtain theosis is "with God" not by ourselves. There are just too many desert saints telling us that they need humility and God to over come the passions, not opinion. Our God is love, where is the love in your words, (maybe for yourself, for your opinion?), but what about for your brothers? Speaking so bitter and ridiculing the ones you are supposed to love. But I'll take Father Michael Pomazansky over an anonymous poster any day. Also what you say is completely outside Church dogma (note the title of the book I used as source) again, not my opinion. But if you have phronema well then you won't "think". You'll post dogma, doctrine whatever you understand it as, not opinion. Thanks for defaming Father Michael Pomazansky, that works real well for unity, so much for sobornost, for the mind of the church.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"if people could not sin then they wouldn't " actually "LoveMonkey" whoever that is, I think your quote here says it all. it demonstrates how confused you are. Each and every person actually could choose not to sin, and if it were otherwise then it would not be sin because we'd have an excuse. Once again, it's something called LOGIC and not being an animal. For your information, my name is Evgenios, and if you would like to enquire further, each thing that I have to say has the backing of HG KALLISTOS of Diokleia. Why don't you email the guy and ask on this subject, he will probably be happy to confirm we have no obligations to see a priest when confessing our sins. 147.188.244.32 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

http://victorycross.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/a-conversation-with-metropolitan-kallistos-ware-on-the-sacramental-life-part-i/

Kallistos basically says that it may well be a great thing to go to confession, but this is incidental to God's forgiveness. I have to agree with Evgenios here, that we have indication from arguably the most knowledgable EO theologian of our day, (and I may add I have never heard of Pomazansky until now) who says that going to confession is a good idea because it brings home to the penitent more forcefully what the nature of that sin is, precisely so as to be able to resolve to be sorry and to not reoffend. Additionally the priest may represent the community, although I find this rather weak; not in substance but in form that actually, it would be better altogether if we have to say our sins to people to say them in front of all. Notwithstanding personal details, e.g. fornication would not necessitate with whom you did it, but just say that you did. The humiliation may be needed by some people to be truly sorry for what they did; others have sufficient scruples to be sorry before God whether they've told anyone, whether it's a priest or your mom, or noone. 147.188.228.121 (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (Dave)

http://catholicsensibility.blogspot.com/2006/02/even-more-on-reconciliation-confession.html

Once again, Kallistos says that you don't have to have gone to confession. IT IS HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED to DO SO BUT NO COMPULSION which i believe is what Evgenios originally said. 147.188.228.121 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (Dave)

Sad, posters coming here attacking theosis..Stating they are Orthodox and attacking the community. Confession and all of the sacraments are Orthodoxy. Confession is a sacrament.[4] Theosis is intrinsic to Orthodoxy. Thats what the Hesychasm controversy was all about. The first stage of theosis is catharsis. One can not cleanse their sins if one does not confess them. Kallistos is human and makes mistakes. He is still loved by us Orthodox even if and after he makes mistakes. This is just one more attempt to attack Orthodoxy. This tactic is called divide and conquer use us against us. As can be seen further down the talkpage where you have already attacked theosis. These attacks are very similar to ones used by Uniate and Roman Catholics. They are nothing new. Next you'll be posting how you don't trust the Priest and how he should face the Congregation while performing mass, so that we can see what he is doing. The history and words of Orthodoxy stands you are introducing innovation. It is the devil that spreads deceit and slanders.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand just what point you are trying to make here, firstly about Kallistos being mistaken even though you are unequivocal about Pomazansky's position; and secondly what exactly you mean by me not trusting the priest? I urge you once more, and then I shall give up, to actually listen to what is being said here: 1) Only God can forgive man's sins; 2) We are all capable of NOT sinning, otherwise there's be nothing wrong with sin. A person with a retarded IQ cannot be said to be blameworthy for his lack of cognition, and anyone that is capable of recognizing sin is capable of avaoiding it. If one were compelled to commit fornication and not know what is wrong about it, wouldn't be sinning; 3) The priest is a man who does not forgive; 4) Forgiveness therefore must be a direct communication to God from man's heart asking for it. Furthermore logically this must necessitate being truly sorry, which means that you have resolved at that instance of redemption that you will not reoffend; 5) Kallistos is as much a guardian of the faith as anyone else, and his knowledge and understanding if nothing else are superior to that of LoveMonkey and Pomazansky. Finally could you not accuse me of this divide thing please. It is precisely what the devil wants in you saying stuff like that; it is a self-fulfilling prophecy where it is precisely the kind of thing you are trying to do, accusing me of devilry, which actually introduced devilry into it. I hope I have made myself clear. Again, if you have any issues with this, why don't you try and level them at Kallistos and see where you stand. 147.188.248.182 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's right Evgenios. http://www.antiochian.org/node/17369 There isn't a point in making the words to the priest if one doesn't mean them. Yet precisely meaning it is sufficient for forgiveness. On the other hand, it seems more and more likely Theosis truly is an element of the Orthodox theology. 147.188.228.141 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (Dave)

[edit] Mystery

I would like to stress the centrality of the Mystery of Mysteries in Orthodoxy. The Body and Blood of Christ is the sole reason for the existance of the church, whether by this we mean the temple itself, or the worldwide communion, or the hierarchy and priesthood; these are all there for one thing alone and the facility of the Mystery. There is no other reason to go to church, or to accept the ordination of priests and bishops. This Mystery is what makes us Christians, because we believe that the way the fallen cosmos and man are, the only thing that will internalize this twistedness of flesh and mortality is the very blood of He Who Is. All other Mysteries are peripheral to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.217.136 (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Find us a scholarly citation and we'll show you how to add it, or maybe add it myself. Leadwind (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know; I'm new to this and have generally been providing what is a normative analysis, so that's why I've put it in the discussion, so that if people want to do a bit more reading on Wikipedia before they do go to the scholarly sources themselves, they can see how Orthodox themselves have made sense of their faith.82.36.217.136 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

http://incommunion.org/articles/older-issues/communion-and-otherness

A quite a good article from an outstanding theologian and professor at KCL. Confirms the centrality of eucharist; clearly that's obvious but just wanted to show just how it is stressed that without it being done correctly all other aspects to the church will be invalidated. See specially faith in the Church. Eugene-elgato (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.exarchate-uk.org/Exarchate/Local_church.html

An even better article that says about the purpose of the church in producing the eucharist. Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] is this a scholarly source?

An editor has used this church's web site (link) as a scholarly source. I don't think it counts, but I'm willing to hear arguments in its favor. Leadwind (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Um... who used it a source, for what, where? Generally Wikipedia sources have to be "reliable" which isn't the same as "scholarly". So it depends what the source is being used for. I can't find any reference to it in this article. Mrhsj (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the referenced material. The web site in question is not reliable for any information on this topic, is it? The best you can use a self-produced web site for is to describe the topic of the web site (e.g., this church). Leadwind (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request feedback on East-West Schism

Please look at my comment on Talk:East-West Schism titled "Theological Issues". I propose a new article Theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church to factor out the lengthy theological discussion which is now dominating the article. I recognize that the proposed article title is excessively long and that comparison articles in general are tricky to manage. That's why I'm looking for feedback to see if there are other solutions. --Richard (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Theosis

"They teach the doctrine of theosis (deification), by which Christ makes it possible to partake of the divine, a teaching less prominent in the Western Church"

I do not believe this to be correct; this is something of an obscurity emanating from the asectic lives of the holy mountain, and cannot be regarded as doctrine. 82.36.217.136 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just find a reliable source that says EOs don't talk about deification much, either. Leadwind (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement is adequately sourced. I could find a dozen more without much effort; I've read numerous overviews of Orthodox doctrine and never seen one that didn't discuss theosis. Mrhsj (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed, there are many sources which show that theosis is Orthodox doctrine. Here's one of several sources - The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Parry et. al, 2001). It says "Together with apophaticism, deification [theosis] became a central pillar of Byzantine theology ... in Eastern tradition deification is understood as eucharistic and ecclesial as well as a matter of personal, moral and spiritual life." (p. 159) See also G.I. Mantzaridis' The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition (1984, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press). Majoreditor (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

About theoria and its completion called theosis and what it means to the Orthodox church Father John Romanides states.

"The criteria used for the reunion of divided Christians cannot be different from those used for the union of associations of scientists. Astronomers would be shocked at the idea that they would unite with astrologers. Members of a modern medial association would be shocked at the suggestion that they should become one with an association of quack doctors and tribal medicine men. In the same way, the Fathers would be shocked at the idea of a union between Orthodoxy and religious superstitions which has not the slightest idea about the production of authentic holy relics. Avoiding this issue by claiming that such a theology is for monks only, is like claiming that the cure of cancer is for doctors only." [5]LoveMonkey (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly however there must be some caution exercised here for the Orthodox. There is always a danger that lay persons get caught up in something that they do not understand, and end up causing harm and spreading strange notions amongst those who haven't a clue. Examples are where monks have mystical experiences and then tell a few people, or they write about them in their codices, and the stories start circulating leading to somewhat bizarre beliefs. Firstly I can point to the Apocalypse here. This book is not read publicly in the Orthodox Church, and we don't even know for certain who wrote it. I doubt many people on the planet truly understand the meaning in this book, and if they do, it is likely they live on the Holy Mountain. Elder Paisios of blessed memory also apparently was the source of strange stories about eschatology, which mean very little to ordinary Christians living Christian lives, and become the source of dangerous hype and speculation. Theosis may be a part of Tradition, but it is in fact a highly sophisticated area of theology, and means very little in practice to secular (that word means married) Christians. 82.36.217.136 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and LoveMonkey......you know Pomazansky died before ROCOR was reconciled with Moscow, don't you? So basically, that makes him NON canonical or apostolic. Interesting. 82.36.217.136 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh 82.36.217.136 Father John Maximovich is a saint, your comments on ROCOR are meaningless. ROCOR are our brothers and we love them.

LoveMonkey (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that doctrine means little to the daily lives of Christians. I mean, Jesus having two wills, one human and the other divine, both always willing the same thing? That's orthodox doctrine East and West, but it makes practically no daily difference to regular old Christians. Sounds like theosis is like that. Still, we stick to reliable sources and cite them. See if you can find a reliable source that says that theosis is basically a mystic idea for monks to ponder. Leadwind (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm no theosis is every moment seeking through constant prayer to make yourself more humble more beautiful like the saints and kind like the mother of God. Closer to God. Glory to Glory. Gnosiology shows the limits of human reason on trying to contain or possess "now". We must seek gnosis about the Good, the beautiful the beloved. Theosis is driven by theophilos. Paganism is driven by a love of man and man as God. This will to power is hatred of God. This sophistry is like sucking your own blood for sustenance. We are created and finite, God is uncreated and infinite. If we have union with God we too become good (hence "like God"). "Our God is fire" or rather here's Milk"? Instead of meat. Theosis is the process of preparation of being in the presents of God, as we all shall be. Orthodoxy is the way one prepares themselves for being with God. My God is light, fire and spirit, these reflect God as noetically one thing- kindness (and that word does not come even close to him). LoveMonkey (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, me and Evgenios are going to stop here all discussion with LoveMonkey, because these latest revelations that she (?) believes in Gnosticism and supports schismatics who are not in communion with Constantinople, seem to explain a lot, but are worrying. We are not in dialogue with schismatics. Leadwind, if I can I'll still try and find some scholarly sources regarding Theosis applying mainly to the mystics. Thanks guys. 147.188.244.36 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC) (Dave)

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/lossky_intro.aspx

"The theological doctrines which have been elaborated in the course of these struggles can be treated in the most direct relation to the vital end—that of union with God to the attainment of which they are subservient. Thus they appear as the foundations of Christian spirituality. It is this that we shall understand in speaking of 'mystical theology'; not mysticism properly so-called, the personal experiences of different masters of the spiritual life. Such experiences, for that matter, more often than not remain inaccessible to us..."

So basically theosis properly construed by spiritual masters can be very refreshing for us, but be careful of some of the experiences of Elders, because they may not hold meaning for us, if we try to find meaning we will be dissapointed or suffer something worse, and we must always discern the two. 147.188.228.122 (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC) (Dave)

Gnosticism. LOL. I am no pagan. Please. [6] Henosis is nothing to nothing (Tabula rasa ). Theosis is ex nihilo to finite to infinity. We as Orthodox do not vilify the nous, we do not vilify existence material or spiritual. I am Orthodox not pagan. Most certainly you are not calling St John Maximovich a schismatic and therefore not a saint [7]? Are you saying that Patriarch Alexi II (In God Rest his beautiful soul) was mistaken? Meaningless. You have accused me of a vary grievious thing, in accusing me of being a follower of gnosticism. Since gnosticism teaches that our God (Yahweh) is a evil and false. It teaches that the material world and existence as such is evil and a prison. It teaches that the human body is evil. It teaches that the Orthodox church is the church of satan. I think you are very poorly informed and greatly mistaken.

The worse of it is I was quoting Vladimir Lossky i.e. and his book the Mysticial Theology of the East Church.pg 202 pg 207 when I posted "We must seek gnosis about the Good, the beautiful the beloved". And now you are posting Vladimir Lossky to validate calling me a gnostic sectarian. Gnostic as the Ancient Fathers used it meant what we call today, Mystic.

If you read the fathers ancient and some modern they still use the word "gnostic" to even describe themselves. Mystic used to mean someone who was pagan and initated into the Mystery Cults and who was amorally attacking the Jews and then the Christians by slandering, lying fabricating religious text etc. etc. I mean a modern (perfect example) of what gnosticism is would be the outragious lies of The Burning Times. V Lossky very clearly states what the gnostics are in his works. Look at how he translates Irenaeus work against them in his book the Vision of God. He states Irenaeus called them "teachers of false knowledge so called". The pagans used slander and propaganda (false knowledge so called) to mislead and guide people away from Yahweh and his son and instead to their pagan philosophical-religious systems. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Evgenios, 'Dave', and hostility towards LoveMonkey

Dear all, this is a public confession that I am Evgenios, but not 'Dave', who is a character that doesn't exist. Dave was my alterego, a device I employed for the purposes of running a strangely construed debate with LoveMonkey. I am new to Wikipedia and was more agressive than was necessary, for which I unreservedly apologize. LoveMonkey is indeed a very worthy editor for the Eastern Orthodox articles, and has much valuable input. To be sure, I maintain that according to reliable sources, e.g. HG Kallistos of Diokleia, and Father John Nankivell, a priest also under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in Walsall, West Midlands, the rite of confession is not an absolute requirement for the remission of sins, and one's repentance. However, to all intents and purposes, it is clear that it almost may be treated as such, given the practicalities and the weaknesses of most men. To be frank, most people's scruples just aren't up to the task of going straight to God, so we do make use of the priests for the purpose of declaring our sins to a representative of the church, and another human being. Furthermore I shall abide by the recommendations that more experienced Wikipedians can give me, and the general etiquette. This doesn't just mean not being rude to LoveMonkey and all the others, but like Leadwind consistently points out, there must be referencing to reliable and academic/scholarly/other authoritative resources for all edits and discussions. Thank you all, I hope you can welcome me into this community and look forward to some decent progression with the entire Eastern Orthodox project yours in Christ Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey no harm no fowl.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent :D Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also (for the sake of Dave)-male.

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC) LOL. OK, Dave gets the picture now, fully :$ Eugene-elgato (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of "orthodox"

The final part of the word is related to "doxa" in the sense of "opinion".(Pamour (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)). Does it? I thought Or8odo3ia comes from or8os, which means correct, and do3ia, which means worship? E.g. "do3a ton Kurion" means "Glory the Master" Eugene-elgato (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion requested for an RFC on East-West Schism

There is a newly-opened request for comment over on Talk:East-West Schism.

The specific locus of the current dispute is the section titled "The Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty".

However, on a grander scale, this long-running dispute is over the amount of detailed theological treatment that is appropriate for the topic. The proposal is that East-West Schism be limited primarily to a high level historical narrative aimed at a general audience (high school / college level education without theological training) and that the detailed theological treatment be reserved for the article on Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. Your feedback is solicited.

--Richard (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oriental Orthodoxy and the nature of Christ

I don't know that the statement: "They differ from Oriental Orthodoxy in holding that the Son has two distinct and complete natures: one divine and one human." is entirely accurate. The Oriental Orthodox have always confessed that Jesus Christ is "of/from two natures after the union". They have objected to "in two natures after the union" only because it seemed to be suggesting that there are two realities in which Jesus subsists after the "union", such an idea not amounting to a real hypostatic union. Given this, I don't know it is accurate to say that the Oriental Orthodox do not believe "that the Son has two distinct and complete natures: one divine and one human". Deusveritasest (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Woof that's kinda a tough one. The reason is that our ecumenism has finally sorta got that ironed out. I think that the issue is not really framed that way properly. It really boils down to two things. One is language in that one Group is Egyptian and the other being primarly Greek. The issue resolves itself in English and French better then the older languages. The second is that the Oriental use the phrase "and Christ's human nature was lost in the divine and infinite nature of his being" or something to that effect. This has traditionally been taken by the Greek faction to mean that Christ has no valid human and or free will. That Christ as not having a true and complete separated from human will therefore did not have a free will.

It kinda means that if Christ were God and his human will was lost in the giant sea of his divinity then he did not truly suffer he did not truly know the pain, doubt, emptiness and angush of what a real human being faces. It means that God as Christ kinda put on a show for us and by being strictly divine already knew the truth and therefore was not really challenged, did not do his works and live his life by faith. Now that this has kinda been clarified (my use of kinda, sorta, etc is that it is still a nebulious political mess)- the Oriental Church most clearer does not teach that Christ was anything of the sort but that he did suffer and lived and thought and existented just like the rest of us. Something to consider also is that Christ dying for our sins not as a payment to the devil. Christ dying for our sins is payment to us (our lives as objective things) as mankind to fix the murder and destruction that mankind by sinning as cast out into the material world. God forgives and does not seek restitution per se. We have to let go of our sicknesses which are called the world and embrace the God. God which is kindness and love. Here is an apology which tries to kinda explain the issue after most of the ecumenism between the EO and the OO [8]. Here is the complete article that is being discussed [9]. We the EO believe that Christ was both Uncreated (ousia) and Created (ousia) in his hypostasis (one was not swallowed up by the other they remained and remained separate and unconfused/mixed). Which is to say two physite in one existence. Nestorian believed that there where two physite in two existences. The Non-Chaldean believe in one physite in one existence. And this is drastically falling short of what the issue was. Also God is not a tyrant. Until the Western christianity stops teaching this the EO will not complete ecumenism. [10] Sorry, but Deusveritasest your Orthodox you already know all of this. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"The second is that the Oriental use the phrase "and Christ's human nature was lost in the divine and infinite nature of his being" or something to that effect." I have a moderate amount of connection with the Orientals and I read from their theologians a significant amount. I've never heard them say something to this effect. The only figure who I can think of who said anything like that was Eutyches and he was officially condemned as a heretic numerous times by the OOC.

"We the "EO" believe that Christ was both Uncreated (ousia) and Created (ousia) in his hypostasis (one was not swallowed up by the other they remained and remained separate and unconfused/mixed). Which is to say two physite in one existence. Nestorian believed that there where two physite in two existences. The Non-Chaldean believe in one physite in one existence." The Oriental Orthodox as well believe that Christ, after the union, is both of an uncreated divine essence and a created human essence. There is no difference in our understanding of the composition of Christ. The only heretical movements that may have confused the composition of Christ in the past are now dead and gone. As to the numbering of physis and hypostasis, you must remember that physis did not have a fixed meaning in the early Church when these controversies developed. The prominent Alexandrian theologians (Alexander, Athanasius, Apollinaris, Cyril, Dioscorus, Timothy, et al) tended to take physis to mean hypostasis, wheras the Antiochene theologians (Gregory Nazienzene, Gregry Nyssene, Basil the Great, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Theodoret of Cyrrus, Ibas of Edessa, Babai the Great, et al) tended to understand physis to mean ousia. Thus, when Antiochene theologians speak of Christ being of two natures they are speaking of His composition, whereas when Alexandrian theologians speak of Christ being one composite nature they are referring to his existence/subsistence. Thus, if we are to take the Antiochene understanding of physis, it would actually be true to say that the Non-Chalcedonians believe Christ to be of two physis and in one existence, as you say the Chalcedonians also believe.

As such, I still do not see how it is appropriate for this article to say that the Eastern Orthodox believe that Christ has two complete natures, divine and human, unlike the Oriental Orthodox. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Where can I get on the Internet the text of the 1990 Chambésy agreement between representatives of the EO and OO Churches? This agreement is much more difficult to trace than the easy-to-find earlier agreements between theologians of the OO and RC Churches:

We believe that our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is God the Son Incarnate; perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity. His divinity was not separated from his humanity for a single moment, not for the twinkling of an eye. His humanity is one with his divinity without commixtion, without confusion, without division, without separation. We in our common faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ, regard his mystery inexhaustible and ineffable and for the human mind never fully comprehensible or expressible. (1971 meeting)

We recognize the limits of every philosophical and theological attempt to grasp the mystery in concept or express it in words. If the formulas coined by the fathers and doctors of the Churches have enabled us to obtain an authentic glimpse of the divine truth, we recognize that every formula that we can devise needs further interpretation. We saw that what appears to be the right formulation can be wrongly understood, and also how even behind an apparently wrong formulation there can be a right understanding. We understand that when our common father in Christ, St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks of the one Incarnate nature of God's Word, he does not deny but rather expresses the full and perfect humanity of Christ. We believe also, that the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, rightly understood today, affirms the unity of the person and the indissoluble union of Godhead and Manhood in Christ despite the phrase "in two natures". We all agree that our Lord, Jesus Christ, who is consubstantial with the Father unites in Himself perfect Godhead with perfect Manhood without division, without separation, without change, without commixture. The flesh possessing a rational soul did not exist before the union. The flesh remained flesh even after the God-befitting resurrection and ascension. Though the body of God, it has not been changed into the Godhead. We are partaking in the Holy Eucharist the Life-giving Flesh of the Lord which He united with His Divinity. (1973 meeting) —Platia (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this page. It appears to have everything from 1989 onward: Orthodox Unity Deusveritasest (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the page from which I took the above quotations, which only concern agreements between OO and RC theologians. It doesn't seem to have the Chambésy document, which is the one that would let us see precisely on what the OO and EO theologians (not yet the Churches) have agreed. Platia (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're rather confused. Read the article labeled "Second Agreed Statement". There is absolutely no indication that this is between Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox, and almost absolute identification of it being between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Further, this statement is derived from the exact same year, 1990, as the Chambesy Agreement. Finally, the website I derived the link from is all about the ecumenical commission between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Even beyond this, I don't think the statement you cited is even on the page I cited. Thus, I think it's quite clear that the page I cited is of the EO and OO and includes the Chambesy Agreement. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This cannot turn into an edit war and it seems quite clear to me that the terminology currently used in the article is erroneous. Have you even read the acts of the Council of Chalcedon? Dioscorus himself, the supposed heretic, said that he was willing to submit to the formula "of two natures after the union", yet would not submit to "in two natures" because of its Nestorian implications. While it is clear that there are ambiguities in our Christological agreement (I never suggested otherwise), it is simply erroneous and slanderous to claim that the Oriental Orthodox do not believe that "Christ has two complete natures". It might be accurate to say that they do not believe that "Christ is in two complete natures". But as it is phrased now, the OO have already clearly accepted such a formula. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the "Second Agreed Statement". (When I spoke of two OO-RC agreements to which I found links in the page that you quoted, I was referring to the two that I quoted above, not to this document.) I think this must indeed be the Chambésy document that I was looking for, and so I am very grateful to you for enabling me to study this Agreement of the "Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches".

If the Wikipedia article says that the OO "hold that the Son has two distinct and complete natures", should it perhaps also say that the EO hold that there is "one nature of the incarnate Word"? How do you think we should phrase the long-standing Christological divergence that the Chambésy document, which was not a simple surrender by one side to the other, says can be overcome? Only when and if the document is ratified by the Churches concerned and communion between them is established can we say that the divergence no longer exists. Platia (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Platia. Sorry if I was getting slightly testy earlier. Anyway, on to terminology.

My problem with the current Wikipedia article is that it says that the OO do not hold that the Son has two distinct and complete natures and that only the EO hold this. I think that it has been evidenced that the Non-Chalcedonians do hold that Christ has two complete natures of humanity and divinity. This tradition began with Cyril in the Formula of Reunion with John of Antioch in 433 when Cyril admitted to the formula "ek duo physis", meaning of or from two natures. Dioscorus continued to hold to this formula and at the Council of Chalcedon even went so far as to say "of two natures after the union". Severus of Antioch also held to this tradition when he said that the hypostatic union was composed of an individuated humanity and and individuated divinity. Even today the Non-Chalcedonians will submit to "of two natures" and will clearly teach that Christ is composed of full humanity and full divinity. I don't think it's terribly important that we state this in an article about Eastern Orthodoxy, however I do think it is important that we not slander the Orientals by stating that they do not hold that Christ has two complete natures.

As to "one nature of God the Word Incarnate", I do think that it should be stated that the EO Tradition holds to this. Said formula was the primary formula of Cyril of Alexandria and it reached a level of dogma in the vindication of Cyril by the First Council of Ephesus. This formula, if we understand "nature" to mean hypostasis rather than ousia, is clearly orthodox and is simply a particular way of phrasing the hypostatic union. The phrase was even defined in the post-Chalcedonian tradition. If you read the anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople, one of them mentions the formula and anathematizes those who use it to mean it in a particular way (that being confusion or mixture of humanity and divinity) while not anathematizing the formula in general as if the council understood a particular understanding of it to be orthodox. Finally, the very basis of our agreements in faith with the Orientals has been Cyril's Miaphysite formula. So I definitely think it would be appropriate to say that the EO Tradition has, to a certain extent, owned Cyril's formula as its own.

As to our substantial divergence, it's not as if I believe that such a divergence no longer exists. There are a few issues remaining. First of all, I don't think it's been made clear that we have agreement on all fundamental doctrinal developments beyond the Council of Chalcedon. Both icons and the filioque have been treated, but I have not yet seen any treatment of Gregory Palamas, Hesychasm, and the Essence-Energies distinction. I personally view this as a very important part of the EO Tradition that I would like to see the Orientals affirm before they are reunited to us. On the other hand, I do have some criticisms of the EO Tradition itself. While our official tradition seemingly has fully rejected the heresy of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his followers (often called Nestorianism), I can yet see significant strands of his thinking in some of our fathers, Pope Leo I and Maximus the Confessor among them. I would like to see such Nestorian inclinations finally rooted out from our Church before a reunion with a body that is even more anti-Nestorian than we are. However, there are some issues beyond even theology. We have a hagiographical dissonance between the OOC and EOC. The EOC venerates Pope Leo I, yet the OOC condemns him as a Nestorian heretic. The OOC venerates Severus of Antioch, yet the EOC has condemned him as "hated of God". These anathemas need to be worked out before we are reunited, whether that be through lifting of all anathemas or agreement upon some of them. Lastly, there is also a dissonance of ecclesiastical organization. We both claim to have the Patriarchal successor of the See of Alexandria. What are we going to do about that? The same is the case with Antioch. And even the Armenians have a bishop of Constantinople. Such a thing could not remain. So there are still a number of issues left to be dealt with before a perfect rapprochement could be met. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking now at the edit you made of the article, I still have issues. It reads: "Efforts are under way to heal the division that since the Council of Chalcedon (451) exists between them and Oriental Orthodoxy on the terminological question, "two natures (one human and one divine) of Christ" or "the one nature of the incarnate Word"." This isn't really the terminological question. The Oriental Orthodox ultimately submit to both of these formulas. They say that there are "two natures of Christ" or "Christ is of two natures" and also that "Christ is one nature of the Incarnate Word". So they really have no point of disagreement on either of those formulas. What the Orientals have had issues with is "Christ is two natures after the union", "Christ subsists in two natures", "Christ is recognized to be in two natures", "there are two wills in Christ", "there are two principles of action in Christ", "the humanity wills what is respective to it and the divinity what is respective to it", and other seemingly divisive formulas. The EO don't really take issue all that much with either of the formulas you listed either. "Of two natures" is viewed as a perfectly acceptable expression of the composition of Christ. "One nature of God the Word Incarnate", when understood to refer to the hypostatic nature of Christ, is also viewed as an agreeable doctrine. What the EO generally have a problem with with the Oriental Orthodox is simply that they will not go further in accepting the other formulas listed above, something that has been traditionally viewed as their dissolving of the distinction of the two natures. I don't really know that the OO really even need to be mentioned in this article at all, but saying that the disagreement is over the EO saying "of two natures" and the OO saying "one Incarnate nature" is simply not true. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So what shall we say? There would be no difficulty if the paragraph in question were not speaking of points such as Filioque that distinguish the Eastern Orthodox Church from other Christians. Should we divide the paragraph into two, reserving for the second paragraph points of Eastern Orthodox belief that distinguish them from other Christians, and leaving in the first those points on which there is no really significant difference, such as belief in the humanity and divinity of Christ? Or, if the paragraph remains undivided, should we mention one or more of the more subtle differences of which you speak that divide EO from OO? I found it strange that, while there are three mentions of RC, the OO are not explicitly mentioned at all. They are only alluded to (in the preceding paragraph) extremely indirectly with the plural word "schisms", which most likely refers in reality to that one Chalcedon-linked schism: "internal schisms and the advance of Islam reduced Eastern Orthodox territory". So what should we do? And apologies for not having succeeded, I think, in stating my difficulty as clearly as I should. Please have patience with me. Platia (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Typica - a singular or plural noun?

"typica" are "local customs" and therefore it would appear that "typica" is a plural noun. What is the singular "typikon"?

The reason this is important is that the "Nomenclature" section says "which typica is followed by a local congregation". I think this should read "which typica are followed by a local congregation".

--Richard (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually either of your sentences is correct in English. Your sentences might read:

Which (set of local customs) is followed...... or Which (local customs) are followed...

--Phiddipus (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian creed

"They use the Nicene Creed as endorsed at the First Council of Constantinople (381),[2] and reject the Western addition to it of "Filioque",[3] and the many additions used by the Armenian Apostolic Church in the East.[4]" Where did the author get the idea that the EOC "rejects" the many additions of the Armenian church? Sure, they do not adopt them as their own. But that does not necessarily mean that they reject them as they do the filioque clause. And the reference simply links to the Armenian creed without showing any evidence that the EOC rejects them. As a matter of fact, these additions were recently addressed on the monachos.net discussion community and most people found them agreeable to the EO faith. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling errors

There are a number of spelling and grammatical errors in the section on incense. The word "incense" itself is misspelled at least once.

"From the moment Christ commissioned the generations of apostles the Church (εκκλεσία - ekklesia) began " yeh and people can't spell greek. ekklhsia is spelt: epsilon-kappa-kappa-lamvda-hta-sigma-iota-alfa

hence change the second purported epsilon into and hta82.36.217.136 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)