Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Ukrainian "unified" church

Until now, only the Patriarchate of Constantinople has officially endorsed this new structure, whereas other primates have strongly vouched their support to the metropolitan bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate, Bishop Onuphry. Any mention of this new church must make it clear that it is not widely recognised, and in fact some primates who oppose it have asked for a reunion of hierarchs to give the Church's official and unified stance on this. Asking this is not, as I have read, producing "Russian apologetic cr*p". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affeninsel (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

First, this list is not the place for this kind of detail. Having it for only one, but not the others is not neutral. Second, the current comment (see Note) reads:

Entered into full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in October 2018 as Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate[199][199][197] and later merged alongside with Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church into unified Orthodox Church of Ukraine in December 2018 and recognized by Constantinople as independent from the Russian Orthodox Church with the promise of a tomos of autocephaly on January 6, 2019. Its status not recognized by other Canonical Orthodox churches at this point including the Russian Orthodox Church which regards it as 'schismatic.

There is no need to go into further detail. The same idea is communicated in a more neutral language.--Coquidragon (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• There is a short explanatory note regarding all of the other churches listed in this subsection. It is odd to say the least that there is none with this entry. I think this needs to be remedied. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Yet, the tomos is yet to be granted, so not yet fully Autocephalous. After January 6th, it could say: Autocephaly is recognised only by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and strongly opposed by the Russian Patriarchate. Just as the OCA, which also has no description, the detail is in the note F.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The OCA should definitely have a short note added. As for this new church, I would not even list it here until the EP issues their document and we get a clear understanding of what exactly they are claiming to be. I may be in error but what I have read is that this new church is not going to be autocephalous, but rather an exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, fully under the jurisdiction of the EP and its Holy Synod. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think this going like that result as exarchate since in [Eastern Orthodox-based] religious level that’s only for smallest followers who isn’t ready to be autonomous Church yet as from other time with ROC severe communication with EOC, 22 years ago in Estonia was over its followership which resulted EOC recognition both Estonian Orthodox Churches as separately autonomous for both Autocephalous Churches. Especially this time that unlike previous schism was due of authority control, This schism was more political as most of Orthodox Ukrainian population were members of these formerly Noncanonical Churches prior to merging into OCU due of Russia has beginning made Ukrainians abandon the now majority canonical UOC–MP to join these Churches in first place. And kick all this new schism was in Russia's part not EOC if don't learn their history that without EOC's sending missionaries into Slavic region, whould be remain pagan or be part of Christianity (Catholic or some Eastern Christian sect) or Islam and judging from recent events and evidence wise, I still don’t really think Exarchate shouldn’t fit their anyway. Chad The Goatman (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that unlike for the OCA it is not only the autocephaly of the church that is not recognised by other churches, but its canonical status, as it has been founded by a jurisdiction whose right to do so is debatable and by receiving in the Church schismatics who had not repented. As a result, all other churches simply still consider them as schismatics. In that respect, this "Ukrainian church" could arguably be placed in the list of churches "not in communion", as its case resembles that of Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affeninsel (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

??? Yea, despite the recent events and clarified evidence of what's happening in last few years within region (both religious and secular), Seems proving my point that you sounded of have blatant favoritism to ROC without explaining why the native Orthodox Ukrainians jumping ship into these two formerly non-canonical to mildly canonical 'Autocephalous' Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in first place, prior of them being merging with some "traitorous" UOC–MP members did attend the Unification council event in December 15th. Chad The Goatman (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Reasons to join one jurisidictions or another are irrelevant here. I actually understand these people's reasons for joining non Moscow Patriarchate churches, so you can stop calling me biased or other stuff. This does not alter the fact that this Ukrainian church has been created in ways that not canonical at many levels, and that for those reasons among others, all other autocephalous have refused to recognise this new church as part of their communion. If you want to make it known why some Ukrainians are fed up with the Patriarchate of Moscow, there are articles where you can do it, I for one won't hold you back. But the facts that concern this article are what they are, whether you appreciate them or not.Affeninsel (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

all other autocephalous have refused to recognise this new church - sources? Not statements from Moscow, but statements from the churches themselves (all of them).--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources are included in the main article itself. And anyway, anyone who doesn't know that all those churches have refused to recognised the new Ukrainian church is utterly unqualified to make corrections on that subject. Otherwise it's just "NATO apologetic bullcr*p".Affeninsel (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So, you have no sources confirming your claim, thanks.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Here, you could have read the article: "Highly-revered Patriarch of Georgia strongly opposes Constantinople intervention in Ukraine". OrthoChristian.Com. Retrieved 2018-12-29. Cazabonne, Emma (2018-08-31). "Patriarch Irinej of Serbia addressed a letter of protest to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople about the Ukrainian "autocephaly" and other similar schismatic entities ⋆ Orthodoxie.com". Orthodoxie.com. Retrieved 2018-12-29. "Statement by bishops of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church on Ukrainian issue". spzh.news. Retrieved 2018-12-29. "Patriarch John of Antioch supports canonical Ukrainian Church". OrthoChristian.Com. Retrieved 2018-12-29.Affeninsel (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not need Moscow-backed sites. We need official statements of "ALL other autocephalous churches" that they did not recognize the new church. Communique on their official websites or, at worst, public speaking. As far as I know, about 5 out of 15 churches are leaning towards Moscow in this conflict, but none of them spoke openly against the new church. All your links are older than November, i.e. you are making a forgery - they are not related to the new church established on December 15th.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, don't be obtuse. If any canonical church was entering into communion with them it would be trumpeted all over the place by the EP. Sources that support the ROC's position are not ipso-facto unreliable anymore than websites that support the EP. If you believe they are making false statements that should make them non- RS then please provide evidence. Multiple sources have stated that no other canonical church has recognized this new entity. Until/unless evidence to the contrary is produced that's what we should be going with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources have stated that no other canonical church has recognized this new entity. - As I said, bring these sources. But not articles from June and August on pro-Moscow sites, don't be obtuse. If the position of ALL Orthodox Churches is really as you claim, you can easily find their official statements, isn’t it?--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary to update sources if nothing has changed. If you have evidence that any canonical church other than the EP has entered into communion I am sure you will find it, though of course we both know that is not the case. Until/unless that changes nothing more needs to be done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary to update sources if nothing has changed. Don't be obtuse. Since October the Moscow's lie that the EP recognizes two Ukrainian schismatic churches to be canonical simultaneously - has been debunked. If you have the actual statements of ALL Orthodox Churches that they refused to recognize the new church proclaimed on 15 December - submit them, I ask only this. Obviously, you have no sources to support these statements.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Yet again, multiple sources have been cited declaring that no canonical church outside of the EP currently recognizes this new entity. If you are unhappy with those sources, WP:RSN is that way. As a rule we prefer secondary sources, not primary, which you should be well aware of. Until you can provide RS sources that contradict those cited this is going nowhere. And I have to agree with Affeninsel that your behavior here raises questions either of basic competency or deliberately tendentious editing based on a WP:BIAS. The preceding comment in particular. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Yet again, multiple sources have been cited declaring that no canonical church outside of the EP currently recognizes this new entity. - submit them, but not the articles from June or August.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources don't have expiration dates on them. If you have RS sources contradicting what has been cited I will be very happy to review them. Until then... have a blessed new year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources should confirm what is said in the article. The "expiration dates" is not our case. After the unification council of 15 December, the situation changed. If you claim that "all other autocephalous have refused to recognise this new church", you need sources AFTER 15 December. Until then... have a blessed new year.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's just wait for the tomos. Things will happen rapidly after that. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps they will not be too fast. I have read an interview with a member of the Unification Council Dr. Alexander Sagan. According to him, the procedure will be as follows (my translation):

- After receiving the tomos, the head of our autocephalous local church will write the so-called letters of the peace, where he will inform his colleagues, the heads of other local churches, that there is such a church. Each primate will receive a personal appeal, a copy of the tomos and a proposal to establish Eucharistic communion. He will make this appeal to the Synod, then to the bishops' council. If they make a positive decision there, in the case of an exchange of delegations, there will be no obstacles to common worship and communion.

- Patriarch Kirill of Moscow will surely send this letter back, as the bishops of the UOC-MP headed by Onufriy did - they defiantly sent back Bartholomew's invitation to the Council.

- Patriarch Kirill will receive a letter from Epiphaniy, and what will be done to him is his right. The Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Antiochian Orthodox churches may become the last to recognize the Ukrainian local church. Moscow will definitely be the last. And not with this patriarch.[1]

It looks like a rather slow procedure that can last for decades.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You can write in the article, for example, that "a number of Orthodox Churches disapprovingly responded to the plans of the EP to provide the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine". Or another wording reflecting the actual situation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You are aware, I hope, that the problem arose this summer. The churches that reacted did it at first, stating their position, however temporary they were. December 15 may have changed things according to you, but since those churches have NOT seen fit to change their position because of it, then it means that this event has not changed things according to them. So all in all your nitpicking is pointless. If you want, you can change the article and state that other churches have declared their opposition to what the EP has done and have not changed their position after Dec 15, but there's little more to it.Affeninsel (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The position expressed before December 15 was based on false rumors spread out by Moscow. On December 15, the Unification Council of the new church successfully took place, which until November was not even announced. Therefore, issuing the October articles as evidence of a “non-recognition” of the new church formed on 15 December is a rude forgery on your part.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that's right. There is not a single official statement from any Synod of the Orthodox Church that the new church of Ukraine is “non-recognition”. Let me remind you that the official position of any Orthodox Church is expressed only by its Synod or Council.Wlbw68 (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's just wait for the tomos. Truce until then please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Tomos for OCU has officially decree today not tomorrow. Chad The Goatman (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• First, might I recommend everyone take a deep breath? :) Next, I want to caution against WP:OR on either side. We know the position of Constantinople and Moscow. Most other Orthodox churches have been rather diplomatic. I can find no recent reliable source saying that any other patriarchate recognizes nor explicitly refuses to recognize. As such, in line with WP:NPOV, it's not for us to interpret their positions. Furthermore, the arguments about canonical status are moot, they have no place here. That is a theological argument that is, quite frankly, of no interest to Wikipedia. Once a position has become dominant on that matter, we will report it here. Now is not the time for that, one way or another. Last but not least, keep in mind WP:RS. Most sources invoked above are far from RS. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm fully agreee.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In order to keep the list of churches with canonical disputes a list, I took out the detail and put it in a note. I think it should go on the main body, and so should the detail included in the note for OCA. Still I just followed what was done for OCA. Nevertheless, no detail is provided for the other disputes in this list. Let's keep it consistent for all.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Should the Orthodox Church of Ukraine be listed as part of the main communion and autocephalous?

Question: The newly minted church is currently recognized by only one of the 14(15) generally accepted canonical and autocephalous churches, that being the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Is that sufficient to list the church among the autocephalous churches? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• No To be listed as part of the main communion I think a church should be required to be recognized, or at least in communion with, a majority of the others. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes There are no majority requirements I'm aware of. Although nothing like the Pope in the Catholic church, the Ecumenical Patriarch is still usually seen as the most important Orthodox church leader. Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• No As per the argumentation of Ad Orientem.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC))
• Indifferent Until the other remaining Orthodox churches who still loyal to official spiritual leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church as Jeppiz was referring at and not loyally to now ironically rogue schismatic Russian Patriarchate words to either to support Orthodox Church of Ukraine's recently autocephaly overtime or not without having good relations nor biases for ROC's unofficial spiritual leader 'guidance', if they pleased to do so. Chad The Goatman (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• This is not an isolated issue for the OCU, since there are other churches with canonical disputes (OCA, Bessarabia, Estonia) that are not listed in the main list, though still listed under the Main Communion heading.
  • Yes if all churches with canonical status are listed as well (and I vote also Yes for this)
  • No if only OCU, while leaving the others out.--Coquidragon (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes We have in this list the Orthodox Church in America, which for 50 years less than half of other churches have recognized and the Ecumenical Patriarchate refused to recognize. A strange hypocrisy is to exclude the Orthodox Church of Ukraine from this list only because it was not recognized by all other churches within a week after the provision of Tomos. One can agree with this only if one really considers the Moscow Patriarch a real Orthodox Pope.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The OCA is recognized as fully canonical and is in communion with all of the other canonical local churches including the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The only question is whether it is autocephalous or a self governing church properly under the omiphorion of the Russians. There is no comparison with the OCU which is not in communion with anyone other than the EP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I meant that there is already a serious opposition to the question of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America, specifically expressed and not resolved for 50 years. However, it remains on the lists, albeit with reservations. So far, there are no official statements by the synods of other Orthodox churches that they do not recognize the new Ukrainian church, and the recognition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate already exists.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that this question should be raised to a higher level, in order to reach some common conclusions and solutions that would be applicable for all such situations. The main question that should be dealt here, regarding the list of main autocephalous churches, is quite simple: what would be the main criteria for enlisting? There are three possible solutions: to enlist all churches who claim autocephaly, to enlist churches that are fully or partially recognized as autocephalous (including both OCA and OCU), and finally - to enlist only those churches whose autocephaly is fully recognized by all other autocephalous churches. In my opinion, first solution is to wide and quite pointless, second solution would be the source of constant disputes, while third solution would provide some core structure, but in that case same criteria for exclusion from the main list should be applied to OCA and OCU. Sorabino (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional note: Same situation also exist now in Template:Eastern Orthodox Church sidebar, under the entry "Autocephalous jurisdictions". Both OCA and OCU are listed there, along with universally recognized autocephalous churches. Some kind of "note" should be formulated, and used for OCA and OCU, stating that their autocephaly is not fully recognized, or that it is only partially recognized. Sorabino (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Could we at least wait one month before having this discussion? Hopefully, by then some Orthodox churches will have given their opinion about the OCU. I agree that the criteria of a majority is a bit irrelevant as being recognized by other Orthodox churches is not a proof of a church's canonicity (I am no theologian so I may be wrong). However, there is no canonical consensus in Orthodoxy, e.g. is the Ecumenical Patriarchate the only church which has the right to proclaim autocephaly? According to the EP, yes; according to others (Moscow Patriarchate included), no. Therefore, the only way to sort things out is by an arbitrary criteria, which means that it will not be perfect and generate some incomprehension, probably even anger, among those who do not agree with it. I see no solution as for now. Veverve (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• EDIT: Yes, but ad hoc, as it is recognized by the EP. Veverve (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure waiting serves the readers. Not that we may not change any temporary ad hoc solution when the situation seems more clear to determinate. PPEMES (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Move "Main communion" to Eastern Orthodox Church organization

I think moving this section to Eastern Orthodox Church organization would make the article shorter. What do you think about it? Veverve (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It's important part of the article and this part isn't too long now, as for me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree. It looks very strange tp have a list of all the tiny schismatic churces but not the main communion. Jeppiz (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with its move, in addition to every other category and the whole section of the Present area.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

As a point of order, I remind users of WP:BRD. Especially TheTexasNationalist99 would benefit from reading it. A move gas been proposed and opposed. Now is the time to discuss and gain a consensus before deleting content again. Jeppiz (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Pope of Rome

In the lead we have reference to the 'Pope of Rome'. I have never heard this particular description. Is it peculiar to the Eastern church? Should this not just be 'Pope', given that there is no equivalent, and possible confusion, with a figure in the Eastern church? Silas Stoat (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The Coptic Church also has a Pope. Unlikely that there would be much confusion, true, but I see no problem in saying Pope of Rome. Besides, even though the Patriarchs do not use the title Pope, keep in mind that the Orthodox (in Orthodox view) never separated - Rome, and Rome alone, separated from all the other Patriarchal Sees, who all remained Orthodox. So yes, it's partly Orthodox usage. Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Point noted about the Coptic Pope. My only concern is that the way it's currently phrased makes it look as though 'Pope of Rome' is an official title. Maybe 'Pope of the Western church' (perhaps a bit long winded), 'Pope in Rome', 'Pope, Bishop of Rome' or something similar could be used? Silas Stoat (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed it to 'Roman Catholic pope'. To me, this sounds better and is arguably more accurate. However, feel free to revert and continue the discussion here, if need be. Silas Stoat (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds clunky and we are going from the usage commonly employed by the Orthodox Church to one that is employed by pretty much nobody. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Pope is not a title, it is a pronominal honorific, not an office or a title, meaning "Father" (the common honorific for all clergy). The title is “Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the Latin Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.“ "Pope" is still a common form of address for clergy in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, and is the style of the Bishop of Alexandria. - see Hierarchy of the Catholic Church. (MiltenR (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

Infobox

Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East, and more have infoboxes. I'd say all prominent Christian denominations have. So why not Eastern Orthodox Church? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I honest don't know why not. Chad The Goatman (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chad The Goatman: Would you mind implementing one here then? Ad Orientem, do you mind? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I did it. Veverve (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Do know what, It’s now already technically ruin even some information are right but it’s literally against what’s the page stand for nor denomination’s identity, history and function and it cause me to object of want to seeing deleting it for now because one examples like of majority official names except few them who it’s are pathetically to “Church of [region/nation]” despite its not their official name of churches. Sigh Chad The Goatman (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Given how Catholic Church indicates Particular churches sui iuris in its infobox, ought not also the Eastern Orthodox Church indicate something similar about autocephalous and autonomous churches in its infobox, if only in a minimal line? PPEMES (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Main classification approval of "Catholic"

For a little while the main classification of the Orthodox Church in the infobox was Catholic (term). This is the main classification because like those of the Baptist classification or any other, the Orthodox Church claims Catholicity. It isn't that hard to understand, and yet ignorance or pure incompetence keeps removing it. I am quite tired of the stupidity of those who deliberately remove this classification without studying, and it has pissed me off this far; therefore I start this consensus discussion to re-add it back, because it seems stupidity in the West doesn't understand classifications. And I will not apologize for my anger, because it is a no brainer. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not stupid at all, & you can lay off these insulting edit summaries! As you yourself say, the great majority of churches claim to be "Catholic" in that sense, making it not a very useful distinguishing characteristic. In addition, this is actually somewhat "hard to understand", using "catholic" in a particular sense that is unfamiliar to most people, & needs explaining for any general reader, which an infobox can't do. These two facts make this line completely inappropriate for an infobox, where the information needs to be clear, unambiguous, important and succinct. It (& a lot of other badly-linked stuff) needs to stay out of the infobox, which should not attempt to summarize the entire article. You need to calm right down. Johnbod (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It claims to be Christian, Holy, and Apostolic too. So does Catholic Church and more. Notwithstanding, I can't see convincing arguments for why all Christian denominations infoboxes have to include all adjectives associated, whether claimed or attributed. I would say the adjective(s) clearly associated with what has been accepted for article title per WP:ARTICLETITLE criteria (WP:COMMONNAME etc.) should determine that variable in the limited space of the infobox, and/or a secondary, most describing, distinguishing adjective to help readers distinguish. Thus 1) "Eastern Orthodox", 2) "Eastern Christian", or possibly both. PPEMES (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If they don't have the understanding, thats why the term article is LINKED to it...people tend to click on what they don't understand to better grasp it. Hence, why articles exist!!! It isn't that hard to understand. You, mister Chichbyaccident, have a horrible argument with the claims by the way. A very, very horrible argument...lacking basis.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I am following. Isn't WP:BURDEN on Mr, though? PPEMES (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This is simply not what the parameter is for. Template:Infobox Christian denomination#Parameters says, although briefly : 10. main_classification = (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc.)

This leaves no doubt that this parameter is expected to describe the major branch of Christianity to which the subject of the article belongs, not a judgement of "catholicity" in the meaning of being universal (which would be basically synonymous with "Church" and be of very little interest). Note for instance that the Maronite Church is classified as Eastern Catholic, the Armenian Apostolic Church as Oriental Orthodox, the Reformed Church of France as Protestant with Reformed orientation etc. Place Clichy (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia

this article in the Section Roman/Byzantine_Empire declares that "Hagia Sophia, the largest church in the world and patriarchal basilica of Constantinople for nearly a thousand years, later converted into a mosque, now a museum", this is almost 100% Wrong and contradicts the List of largest church buildings Article (Mundo Elevado (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC))

So, the Wikipedia article you site treats current largest churches, while the sentence you quoted ranks the Hagia Sophia's historical status, from its completion in AD 537 until 1520. It is totally correct for that time-frame. Elizium23 (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Indonesian Orthodox Church"

Read the sources of the article. Read the debate on the deletion proposal. The "Indonesian Orthodox Church" is simply a ROCOR deanery going around by a strange name. Why would a deanery be recognised by anyone but their own hierarch? Where is any source that claims it is "recognised as semi-canonical"? There seems to be just an awful lot of invention in Wikipedia regarding this jurisdiction. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made the relevant changes to the article. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 18:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Exorcism and exorcists?

I respectfully request someone competent add to the Wiki articles "Exorcism" and "Exorcist" information about the Orthodox church's beliefs and practices. Phantom in ca (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Orthodox Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Orthodox Church. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 22#Orthodox Church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Second-largest

The EOC is the second-largest church in the world, according to List of Christian denominations by number of members. The second-largest "grouping", Protestantism, is neither a church nor a communion, and doesn't count. The Catholic Church is #1 as a cohesive whole and EOC is right behind her. Elizium23 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The first insertion of "third-largest" was in April by an IP as his only contribution. Not constructive. Please observe the facts and revert.

I think this has already been discussed. Indeed, the second-largest Church, but the third denomination ((if you group Protestants in one branch).--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I mistook "church" for "denomination". Veverve (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Protestantism" is not a denomination either, I'd want to see WP:RS to that effect; Protestantism is a family, and an ill-defined one at that. (Anglicans might tell you they don't belong in it.) Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Protestantism" is just a catch all term for around a thousand different denominations that either directly broke from the Roman Church or are descended from a denomination that broke from Rome. It is neither a "church" nor a "denomination." This has been discussed many times in the past. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And what, in your opinion, is the correct term? If we want to name Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism at the same time?--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Not to mention, you used a term "Orthodoxy" that is ambiguous: used by many EO to refer to themselves, but also (on Wikipedia) refers to Oriental Orthdoxy, which is definitely not in communion with EO. Elizium23 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the word "Protestantism" should be used in terms of comparison with specific churches and denominations. My understanding is the world's third largest church is the worldwide Anglican Communion (composed of autonomous churches but mostly in communion with one another). Anglicans are almost universally recognized as one of the myriad denominations within the term Protestantism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

According to List of Christian denominations by number of members, the Anglican Communion and Oriential Orthodox Communion are neck-and-neck at 80 million apiece. The Continuing Anglicans would tip the balance if they were not out of communion with the rest of them. Then again, the OO have 70,000 members by that description as well. Elizium23 (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

What's the conclusion here, because it seems... wrong? At the very list the link is to the wrong page surely? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Not longstanding consensus

The infobox was changed a mere 7 days ago by @TheTexasNationalist99:. So I don't see how claims of long-standing consensus hold any water. I believe the infobox should be reverted to "Eastern Orthodox Church" as this is the WP:COMMONNAME of the church and that which it is known by all the world except those who attend Divine Liturgy and hear it called the "Orthodox Catholic Church". I have no prejudice against acknowledging this official name everywhere else it is appropriate, but the infobox should have the WP:COMMONNAME displayed prominently, and not some pedantic view of what the EOC calls herself. Elizium23 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Great Commission

It seems important, when discussing Early Church development, to mention Jesus and the Great Commission for continuity, rather than jumping in with St. Paul of Tarsus. Why is St. Paul doing this? Where did his authority come from? Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Then it needs to be worded in a way that makes it clear that is a belief. From the perspective of historians and non-Christians, the Great Commission is not a thing that actually happened. I also don't know that it's accurate to say (as was in the sentence I deleted) that Christianity "spread rapidly" right from the start. Christianity originated as a small sect within Judaism. We need references for how quickly it spread. M.Clay1 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't get how your denial of historicity should lead to a deletion of the passage. Frame it as a belief if you want, but deleting the whole beginning context of the Eastern Orthodox Church is more like vandalism, if you ask me. Elizium23 (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The number of adherents, again

I have just added the following commented out not: "This number (220 million) has been changed countless times in what can only be seen as a bout of pride from one or more anonymous users. Any changes you make here without proper sourcing will be reverted with expedience." --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Orthodox Christianity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was NO MERGE. Omnipaedista (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

---

1. Why bother merging, when Orthodox Christianity was merely a redirect as of a couple days ago? I move to restore that status.
2. "Orthodox Christanity" is an ambiguous phrase. It does not correlate directly to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Churches all claim Orthodoxy for themselves. So this is not a straightforward merge. Elizium23 (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@MarcusTraianus: The recent edit to Orthodox Christianity ‎was in clear violation of WP:CFORK (duplicating content found in Eastern Orthodox Church) and WP:POV (ignoring the fact that Oriental Orthodoxy also claims Orthodoxy for itself). --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The article itself does not make any proper distinctions because you use sources about Eastern Orthodox Church to back up claims about Eastern Orthodoxy in general; this practice is also in violation of WP:INTEGRITY. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Unclear what all this is about, but any recent undiscussed changes should be reverted/restored. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23 and Omnipaedista:. Thank you for starting a discussion.

>Why bother merging, when Orthodox Christianity was merely a redirect as of a couple days ago? I move to restore that status.

Well, it's not an argument. We redirect or leave pages after discussion about its importance, not because it was (or is) a redirect.

>"Orthodox Christanity" is an ambiguous phrase. It does not correlate directly to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Churches all claim Orthodoxy for themselves. So this is not a straightforward merge.

I cannot agree. It's a self-name of a denomination, and if we want to decolonize the vocabular of our encyclodepia, we need to acept that name. Moreover, it's an academic word. Second of all, how can you translate word Russian: Православие, Pravoslaviye in English? It's not Russian: Восточное Православие, Vostochnoye Pravoslaviye that would correlate with the term "Eastern Orthodoxy".

Third moment. I cannot agree to merge the Orthodox Christianity and the Orthodox Church articles, because:

1. It's not homogenous (e. g. Old Believers, Old Calendarists, True Orthodoxy), that covers Orthodox Christanity article;
2. Orthodox Christanity article covers such topic as a rivalry between Moscow and Constantinople Orthodox systems.

Again: I'm not against the Eastern Orthodox Church article. It's an important article too. But merging them would be the same as merging Christianity and Christian Church articles. We have a Protestantism article, we can't we have an Orthodox Christianity article? And most of all, there is an item in Wikidata, that must have an article in English. No need to note that we have this article in 41 languages. MarcusTraianus (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity in English means "Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy", while Eastern Orthodoxy in English means "Eastern Orthodox Church" (see [2]). Please read WP:CFORK and WP:SYNTH. You have to provide sources to back up your claims above, not just cite Russian usages of those terms. This is the English Wikipedia. Please also see WP:BRD and WP:WEIGHT. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: But Orthodox Christianity article covered both Eastern and Oriental traditions, you can check it. That's why we need that article. Without any doubt, Wikipedians can challenge, remove or debate on the content of the article, but we need to have such. MarcusTraianus (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that an article about Orthodox Christianity might be a good idea in principle. However, there arise immense problems if one tries to actually create such an article. The main problem is that the use of the term in English is a recent development. [3] This means that if you try to write an article on the subject you have to search for quite recent English-speaking sources. The few sources written before the 2010s which mention Orthodox Christianity, will most likely use the term to refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church. How can you then make sure that your claims are verifiable if you use a source implicitly referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church while you are writing about Orthodox Christianity in general? I will give a very simple example: you wrote that Orthodox Christianity in the general sense is followed by 300 million people but you cite a book about Eastern Orthodox Christianity to back up your claim (which is unreliable anyway). Do you expect fellow editors to go through all your 130 citations to double check that you are not violating WP:SYNTH and WP:INTEGRITY? I am afraid that unless you can prove that there is literature about Orthodox Christianity in the general sense which does not equate Orthodox Christianity with Eastern Orthodox Christianity, your project of creating a POV-free article about Orthodox Christianity is doomed to fail. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@MarcusTraianus: That is basically false. Although there was a short section about "Non-Chalcedonian_Churches", everything else in the article concerned only Eastern Orthodoxy, e.g., the map "The spread of Orthodox Christianity in the world", stating "the almost exclusive use of the Byzantine Rite", the councils listed in "History of the formulation of the doctrine", the list of "Local autocephalous and autonomous churches", and so on. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to have a separate article with an ambiguous name. We have articles on Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Church of the East. They're all different articles. They can be solved with a disambiguation page if necessary, not a 90K rambling article. Elizium23 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23 and Omnipaedista: if it will be a disambiguation page, then let it be so. I can agree here. But Orthodox Christianity definitely shouldn't be a redirect. MarcusTraianus (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not? What is wrong with Orthodoxy#Christianity? It features both a disambiguation hatnote and a brief explanation of what Orthodoxy means in a Christian context. Regarding Wikidata, please see this. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this whole thing sounds like you want to dissociate the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the history of the Russian Orthodox Church via content forking and original synthesis. In the process you effectively end up promoting the idea that the Russian usage of the term "Orthodox Christianity" is somehow more important than other usages. What does this have to do with building a neutral encyclopedia? --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: Redirect to Orthodoxy is not sufficient. You see, Russian: Православие, Pravoslaviye (Orthodox Christianity) and Russian: Ортодоксия, Ortodoksiya (Orthodoxy) are different things. There is an Orthodox Marxism and Orthodox Judaism. There are other things that can be "Orthodox" or can be described as an "Orthodoxy". Disambiguation page from the Orthodox Christianity page would be the best way to resolve it. No need to mention that there is an Proto-orthodox Christianity, yet no Orthodox Christianity article. Yet I am standing on a more modest way to solve that: disambiguation page. MarcusTraianus (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a reason for this asymmetry: "Proto-orthodox Christianity" and "Orthodox Judaism" are not controversial terms in English-speaking bibliography on religion; "Orthodox Christianity" is a controversial term in English-speaking bibliography on religion. Please see WP:ENGLISH. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: I still cannot understand what controversial about term "Orthodox Christianity". All Eastern Churches of Byzantine rite name themselves "Orthodox". We surely can say that there is a cultural and historial phenimenon as "Orthodox Christianity". Or I can make article named "Pravoslaviye" and fill it with what I have written. It will be better. MarcusTraianus (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me repeat the very first thing I wrote above then: "Orthodox Christianity in English means 'Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy' [4]". The link is to the Pew Research Center, one of the most well-known public research centers around and especially renowned for their religious polling operations. Older English-speaking sources used to perpetuate the Eastern Orthodoxy bias against Oriental Orthodoxy, but contemporary English-speaking sources have rectified this. I have no strong opinions on the "dab page vs. redirect page" issue. I am just saying that whatever we do, we have to make sure that our edits reflect what the contemporary English-speaking bibliography on religion says about the matter (as per WP:SYNTH) and avoid content forking (as per WP:CFORK). --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: Then it would be wise to delete controversial or debatable content, not to delete the entire article. I am not against Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy articles, but Orthodox Christianity article should be general article for 'Eastern Orthodoxy' + 'Oriental Orthodoxy' + 'Nestorian Churches' articles. Because that's a common religious tradition. MarcusTraianus (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion is the only option here because your article fails to comply with WP:INTEGRITY and WP:SYNTH. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: As I can see, there is no original research nor problems with integrity. Every note is written in English, so reader can check information. If there will be problems, then it can be deleted or challenged. MarcusTraianus (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

4 editors here plus 1 nominator are not convinced. No one is in favor of your article. Everyone agrees that your article violates core Wikipedia policies in one way or another, you have not backed up your claims here with any reliable sources, you have not addressed any of the issues raised here in a convincing way. At this point this discussion is running in circles. I can only refer you to Help:Userspace draft. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

My WP:AGF just exploded. Elizium23 (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Russian terminology doesn't map onto English one to one. An article on the term Pravoslaviye would be okay. Srnec (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "orthodox Christianity" will mean different things to different people. To Protestants and Catholics the term is not necessarily synonymous with the Orthodox Church just as the term "catholic" is not universally employed in reference to those in communion with the Pope of Rome. This is not adequately reflected in the article section under discussion for possible merger. That needs to be fixed but is not an argument for ignoring the obvious multiple meanings. I would also note as an aside that when using the term orthodox Christianity in reference to anything other than the Orthodox Church, the word 'orthodox' is not typically capitalized unless it is the first word in a sentence. Whereas when referring to the Church and its beliefs/adherents, it is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

For the past one week (see WP:MERGECLOSE), all the discussion posts have been against merging and no arguments in favor have been raised. Everyone agrees that "Eastern Orthodox Church" and "Christian Orthodoxy/Orthodox Christianity" have different referents. The proposal to convert the page "Orthodox Christianity" from a redirect to a dab page (or to convert it to a proper article) has also been discussed but no consensus was reached and status quo ante was restored. Omnipaedista (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hardon (1981), p. 217

I was going to come here to complain about a direct quote being de-capitalized, but I can see it is not a direct quote of Hardon p.217, in fact it is not in the cited source at all. Therefore, we need a new source. Elizium23 (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Just fixed it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:EDITORINTEGRITY constant violations by a few editors

We're talking here about [Roughly half of Eastern Orthodox Christians live in the territory of the former Soviet Union, most of those living in Russia] phrase used in the article — which is WP:NOR violation; original referred source ain't contain such phrase in any form of concept. So pushing this phrase or concept in any form to the article is misleading, deceitful and constitute an original research. Original phrase that was used in a referred link is [The Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church has at least 150 million followers — more than half the total of Orthodox Christians] and it was applied into article in the form [Roughly half of Eastern Orthodox Christians are parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church] which is completely suitable, correct and fits Wikipedia's rules and pencraft in absolutely all aspects.

But some users didn't like a concept of — i would especially quote this part of discussion: «attempting to glorify a single church which shall not be named».

OKAY, so you hate Russian Church, we got it — but who cares? This is Wikipedia, WP:NPOV rule is applied here, so why you bothering us with your totally biased edits, prejudiced against Russian Church? Wikipedia editors must follow WP:EDITORINTEGRITY rule, which specifically require «presenting appropriate citations», but sadly, what we're seeing here is complete lack of respect to the Wikipedia rules.

According to WP:NPOV «All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic»; so, why then few users reject a legitimate edits just because of their hatred towards Russian Church? Is that some form of american nationalism? I want administrators of Wikipedia, preferably not american nationalists, to discuss this topic and take most strict actions against this totally biased wikipedia editors.

--ZXBOI (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that two most active users which are completely biased against Russian Orthodox Church have a lot of warnings for Disruptive Editing, Edit Wars and also other multiple violations of Wikipedia's rules — whilst both allowed to edit this so-called "protected" article. --ZXBOI (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I did not mean any disrespect, and you cannot merely place such blame on me as I am not the originator of that statement. I merely restored it, especially upon reviewing the intentions of your contributions on your banned user account, through various editions of Wikipedia in multiple languages. I understand you are passionate about the Moscow Patriarchate, however I respectfully have to remind you that in claiming accusations of bias, that, according to your edit history you remain with as little bias as possible too. I also respectfully remind you to not come onto me and other contributors talk pages, attacking us and harassing us, demeaning us as children of Satan himself. That is fundamentalist religious thinking, and if you cannot discuss with civility, you are wasting your breath when you could be doing so many more productive things with your life (online and offline). Instead of providing aggressive edit summaries, which are not welcome, in addition to losing civility it would have been better to take this to the talk page; yet alas, by numerous warnings even on the Russian Wikipedia by seemingly other Orthodox Christian staff and non-Orthodox Christian staff, even in Russia and the Eastern European region, you forwent those warnings with a desire to spread your perspective. Concluding, I ask you to create your own competitor to Wikipedia and transfer this energy to something more meaningful in life according to your personal worldview.

As a member of the daughter of the Russian Orthodox Church (the Orthodox Church in America), I do not despise them whatsoever. Because of the Russian Orthodox, Orthodox Catholicism spread to the North American region as a hidden gem, being discovered only recently in the mainstream due to the mass influx of Greeks and Syrians within the Antiochian Archdiocese and Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The administrators handled the matter by blocking your account, and restricting your access to contributing to this article in particular as a precautionary measure.

Regarding my contributions, I have always left the ANI noticeboard without a restriction to my account. The only warning I had was on the P'ent'ay-related articles until the administration found my innocence due to another contributor utilizing their energy for similar antics such as this. Every discussion on my talk page has been civil, until you harassed me with an anonymous IP address. Please, leave me be and do something productive. You'll stress yourself out and look at the time wasted in life fighting over an internet article on an encyclopedia (in multiple languages), with which you've had grievances with administrators and non-administrators. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chad The Goatman, Vif12vf, and TheLionHasSeen: What's going on here? Why are you constantly reverting to the "Soviet Union" edit that is not supported by the cited source. ZXBOI at least tried to explain his view (albeit with a lot of unnecessary accusations). You are just reverting without any explanation. This has to stop. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, Vanjagenije, I reverted the contribution because prior to them utilizing this, they attempted to remove "Soviet Union" and say "Commonwealth of Independent States" members. I browsed through that article, and upon searching where it mentioned ex-Soviets I sought the Pew Research Center for verification which stated most in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly Russia. The citation states: "Indeed, nearly four-in-ten of the world’s Orthodox Christians live in a single country – Russia. During the Soviet era, millions of Russian Orthodox Christians moved to other parts of the Soviet Union, including Kazakhstan, Ukraine and the Baltic States, and many remain there today. Ukraine has both a substantial Russian Orthodox population and many members of its own self-governing Ukrainian Orthodox Church, with an estimated 35 million Orthodox Christians in total." Here is the additional citation I added to support that: https://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/08/orthodox-christianitys-geographic-center-remains-in-central-and-eastern-europe/. I hope this helps! PS: May we seek intervention from an impartial, non-Orthodox Christian administrator as well? Particularly not from such a region in the territory of the former Soviet Union? Just for neutrality sake, and also out of a personal fear pertaining to physical retaliation? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is the edit history where they added the CIS in place of the SU, which was not mentioned in the initial citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Orthodox_Church&diff=992697217&oldid=992598879&diffmode=source. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Gross violation of WP:INTEGRITY also occurred here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

TheLionHasSeen, May we seek intervention from an impartial, non-Orthodox Christian administrator as well? NO, we do not practice discrimination like this! Please never ask for this kind of thing again! Elizium23 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 and Vanjagenije, please forgive my ignorance. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Omnipaedista, how did I miss that one? Thanks! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Number of adherents

This is the third largest christian church not the second. Can't edit for some reason. Gririnen (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you checked what the first note of the article says? It says "Protestantism, as a whole, is not formally a church." --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

Spelling error in region (right side of page) section: word lagre should be large. 71.114.79.153 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

2018 schism not addressed at all in article

The 2018 schism (see 2018_Moscow–Constantinople schism) is practically not addressed at all, despite the deep seated ramifications. This needs to be addressed. AprilHare (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Orthodox Bible

Should we work on creating an Orthodox Bible page? One in a similar vain of Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible. Doremon764 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

See my answer here. Veverve (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Founder

I added Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus Christ- as per Eastern Orthodox tradition in the info box to maintain neutrality because saying that eastern orthodox Church was founded by Jesus Christ will be biased as Catholics also believe the same for their church. Subhobrata Chakravorti (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 14:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Eastern Orthodox Church → Eastern Orthodox Christianity – There is no one church in Eastern Orthodox world, but instead there are various autocephalous and autonomous churches. Yes, most of them are in full communion with one another, but there are also many Eastern Orthodox Churches not in communion with other churches, for example Traditionalist groups like Old Believers and True Orthodox churches and many others. Also a schism between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople began in 2018. If someone is against the title "Eastern Orthodox Christianity" then we can consider "Eastern Orthodoxy" as the new title. Delasse (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Delasse (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I have to disagree with you.

For years, this way of thinking was adopted on the French Wikipedia, were a decision such as yours was implemented for a decade and then abolished recently, and it only lead to more confusion: changing the title to try to include marginal or excommunicated groups never helps WP being organised, on top of being seldom supported by sources. By the same token, why not rename Catholic Church to "Catholicism", since there is already Old Catholics, the SSPX, Sedevacantists, the Palmarian Catholic Church and other groups not in communion with Pope Francis?

Break of communions happen sometimes among EOs, from what I understand, so the current schism does not seem to be very important. Moreover, if you personally feel this 2018 schism means one is compelled to redefine what is Eastern Orthodoxy, that does not mean other people and RSs do.

Even if you were to rename the article, what are you going to call the group composed of those churches if those churches are not the standard for Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but only a part of it?

I do not care for who or what is following the "right and True Orthodoxy of the Church Fathers" or whatnot. I only care about what reliable sources state, and you did not provide any despite it being a move request for a level-3 vital article. The 17 autocephalous churches currently have the influence to define what is or is not mainstream Eastern Orthodoxy, not the marginal groups; I understand that it is circular (they have the influence, thus define themselves as the only legitimate churches, thus gain more influence), but WP is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Veverve (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose.

Regarding the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism, note that nearly all E.O. autocephalous churches remain in communion with both Constantinople and Moscow. As Bishop Kallistos Ware notes in "The Orthodox Church", "Each Patriarchate or autocephalous Church, while independent, is in full agreement with the rest on all matters of doctrine, and between them all there is in principle full sacramental communion." Here note "in principle"; when written, the outlier was ROCOR, which (through most of her existence) remained in communion with all other churches except Moscow.

As for Old Believers, they are a mixture of clearly schismatic groups, mostly lacking Apostolic Succession with many entirely rejecting the priesthood, contending that no orthodox bishops remained after the reforms of Nikon and, so, the priesthood ceased to exist with the death of the last Old Believer presbyter.Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Opposee, as according to all the autocephalous and autonomous churches (canonical, and canonically disputed) all acknowledge there is one Eastern Orthodox Church, or Orthodox Catholic Church. From the appearance of this, it would be better to create a separate article titled, Independent Orthodoxy, as there is one for Independent Catholicism. The schism as well, is not as major as there is no permanent effect. Besides this, there are various churches in apparent temporal schism over ecclesiastical territory. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve @Lipsio @Johnbod @TheLionHasSeen Let us compare with a similar branch of Christianity - Lutheranism. Yes, in German wikipedia exist two articles: de:Luthertum and de:Evangelisch-lutherische Kirchen. But here in English wikipedia there is only one article Lutheranism and it is named as Lutheranism and not as Lutheran Church (which is a redirect with possibilities from a title that potentially could be expanded into a new article). In case of the Catholic Church it is actually one church and not a collection of autocephalous and autonomous churches as in cases of Eastern Orthodox Christianity or Oriental Orthodox Christianity (the latter article also should be moved to Oriental Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodox Christianity) as there is no great difference with the Eastern Orthodox case. Delasse (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Those things are to be decided on a case-by-case basis. You claim that because numerous churches are autocephalous, then one cannot speak on one Church. However, it is not up to you to decide those kind of conventions. Again, you did not provide any RS to explain why your proposal is more widely used or why the use of "Eastern Orthodox Church" would be strongly disadvised. Veverve (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve When I do search in google scholar for Eastern Orthodox Christianity I got about 500K results. And for Eastern Orthodox Churches - about 400K. Comparable results, thus we can choose both titles. And I explained why I prefer Eastern Orthodox Christianity Delasse (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The exact expression "Eastern Orthodox Church" has 12 600 results. "Eastern Orthodox Churches" has 6.030 results. The exact expression "Eastern Orthodox Christianity" has 3 840 results. Veverve (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me rebut you simply with this following statement: Lutheranism is a single movement, however the Evangelical-Lutheran Church article is separate as Lutheranism is a traditional movement or branch. As for the Catholic Church, it is one, but also in its oneness a communion of those autocephalous and autonomous churches as in the cases of the Eastern Orthodox Church. How? The Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches have independence, while eparchies within those eastern churches in the [Roman] Catholic Church are autonomous. The article Oriental Orthodox Churches refers to the group, as the discussion was previously held stating they are united as the Oriental Orthodox Churches. These attempts, in my humble opinion, are...politely writing...lacking at best. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

And for good measure, let me add, "Eastern Orthodox Churches" from Google Scholar appears to mainly result from titling of documents referring to the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches, as in, both of the institutions, not the attempt you are going with in this discussion. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Probably you are right. Thank you everyone for an explanation. This requested move can be closed as not moved. Instead I think that we need to create new articles Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism which would focus on religions (like French fr:Catholicisme and fr:Christianisme orthodoxe) and not on denominations. --Delasse (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per what everybody else has said. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per what every else has said too, but also not meant to confused with the other few (ancient to modern day) Eastern Christian denominations who just happens that they officially calling themselves by using the Orthodox word, depending what language formatting you using. Chad The Goatman (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove the word "Catholic" from the first sentence

Perhaps the term "Orthodox Catholic Church" in the first sentence should be removed because including it so early confuses the distinction between the "Eastern Orthodox", "Catholic", and "Eastern Catholic" churches for newcomers to the page. A reference to "Orthodox Catholic Church" could be included later.

The suggestion is to replace the following sentence:

"The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church, is the second-largest Christian church..."

with

"The Eastern Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian church..." --Tgianit (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, either of those would be better, but this has been a regular battleground.... Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there an appeal process? I am new to editing (this is my first discussion thread) --Tgianit (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Can there be some clarification on this? This is not a theological issue, it is just a minor change in phrasing at the beginning so that newcomers are not confused. It is conceivable for someone who visited this page to think to themselves "I guess they are basically Catholic" and be more confused than they were when they started. Tgianit (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tgianit: it seems nobody opposes your proposed change in the wording of the lede. Veverve (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic"

The reference in the intro to the Catholic Church is currently worded as "Roman Catholic Church" (a mostly colloquial designation) and points to a link which, for related reasons, is not currently an actual Wikipedia article.

For the latter reason alone, I think the wording should not refer to "Roman" anything, but multiple editors have reverted my edits and restored the dead(ish) link. I think the wording should just read as "Catholic Church" and readers can make the distinction between that and the colloquially unused "Orthodox Catholic Church" title for Eastern Orthodoxy. natemup (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Natemup: I think we should help the readers as much as we can, and that includes carefully choosing the wording. I think the wording "Roman Catholic Church" helps the most.

The link is not dead, it normally redirects to Catholic Church, but the redirect is currently in a RFD. Veverve (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Natemup: The users who reverted you are correct. First of all, the link "Roman Catholic Church" is a WP:REDIRECT which is perfectly fine. "Catholic Church" is the title that is used for the corresponding article because it is common and precise in general terms. But, since the lead section of this article also mentions the "Orthodox Catholic Church", calling the other church just "Catholic" would not be precise enough. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"Orthodox civilization" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Orthodox civilization and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Orthodox civilization until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Orthodox Church of Byzantium" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Orthodox Church of Byzantium and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Orthodox Church of Byzantium until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"East Orthodox" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect East Orthodox and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#East Orthodox until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal into articles titled Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodoxy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split. Yes, we probably need to rename some articles, but I think the separate WP:RMs should be created for every page. Heanor (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose that sections Theology, Liturgy, Traditions and Holy mysteries be split into a separate page called Eastern Orthodoxy. These sections are large enough to make their own page. The same as we have two pages for Anglican Communion and Anglicanism it is worth to have two pages for the structures of the Orthodox Church as an institution and the religion and its doctrine like in French fr:Église orthodoxe and fr:Christianisme orthodoxe, in Russian ru:Православная церковь and ru:Православие, in Greek el:Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία and el:Ορθόδοξοι, in Turkish tr:Doğu Ortodoks Kilisesi and tr:Doğu ortodoksluk etc. Heanor (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

In English-speaking literature, Eastern Orthodox Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Eastern Orthodox Church seem to be different names for the same thing – while Anglican Communion and Anglicanism do not refer to the same thing in English. Can you prove otherwise? Citing other wikis is not particularly helpful. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Omnipaedista, the Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian communion. Anglicanism is a tradition, a doctrine of the Anglican Communion. Eastern Orthodox Church (Eastern Orthodox Communion) is the second largest Christian communion. Eastern Orthodoxy is a tradition, a doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church. These can not be different names for the same thing. Church is not the same as a tradition, a doctrine of this church. --Heanor (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a fine logical analysis but ultimately meaning is use. If reliable English-speaking sources do not make a distinction between Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodoxy, then the whole discussion is pointless per WP:NOR. We need sources to back up the claim that the distinction is meaningful in English-speaking scholarly literature. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The Continuing Anglican movement is not part of the Anglican Communion. Likewise, the Montenegrin Orthodox Church is not part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion. The only difference is that there is ample literature on the internal dynamics of the Anglican Communion but very few resources on the internal dynamics of the Eastern Orthodox Communion. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that there is very few resources on the internal dynamics of the Eastern Orthodox Communion? [5], [6] for instance. --Heanor (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of more focused works dealing with particular aspects of the internal dynamics a given Christian communion like Anglican Communion in Crisis: How Episcopal Dissidents and Their African Allies Are Reshaping Anglicanism. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Support, I think this will improve readability and avoid confusion between the religion itself and the institution. --Glennznl (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Support. One is institutional and the other is a living Christian tradition. —Caorongjin 💬 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Strong support per nom and others. Super Ψ Dro 19:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way, if the article is split, we will probably have to rename some articles such as Marriage in the Eastern Orthodox Church to Marriage in Eastern Orthodoxy. Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reassessment note

Elizium23, with respect to the B-Class criteria, criterion 1 said The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Here are a few paragraphs that does not have any citations at all, which in my opinion does contain important material:

• A number of other Christian churches also...
• The church in Egypt (Patriarchate of Alexandria) split into two groups...
• The Byzantine Empire never fully recovered from the sack of Constantinople in...
• Under the Ottomans, the Greek Orthodox Church acquired substantial power...
• By the time most Orthodox communities came under Muslim rule...
• Other councils have helped to define the Eastern Orthodox position...
• The Eastern Orthodox Church understands the death and resurrection of Jesus to be real historical events, as described in the gospels of the New Testament.
• The Eastern Orthodox Church believes death...
• This does not "make" the person a saint; it merely...
• etc.

This level of uncited material is utterly unacceptable for an article of this importance. Additionally, the article is also missing a lot of important content at section "Art and architecture", "Church services", "Resurrection of Christ", "1996 and 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schisms", "Repentance (Confession)", etc. According to the B-Class criteria criterion 2, The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. I don't see that's the case. I do agree that just changing the assessment level does not help improve the article much. Rather, I think we should collaborate, start cleaning out the article of junk and add reliable sources to the aforementioned paragraphs. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Demoting from B-class to C-class is probably fine (I don't think that article classes matter much outside of FA and GA anyway). However, sticking a 'more citations needed' banner at the top of an article with over 200 citations, where the majority of the material is sourced, is extremely vague and unhelpful. Statements or sections that require citations can be tagged specifically. Spicy (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is an conspiracy theorist islamphobe like Bat Ye'or used as a source ?

She should be removed 188.236.202.245 (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

section labeled "Orthodoxy"

This follows the name section. In this several churches are listed as tracing their heritage/origin back to the beginning, but an important one is missing: Lutheran. Lutherans' official position is that they are the Western Catholic Church, which means they see an uninterrupted line back to the Apostles. For that matter, the Methodists ought to be included as well since John Wesley was careful to make sure that Methodist bishops were in the same unbroken line as the Anglicans from whom they were derived. I'll be looking for sources but if anyone stumbles across this and knows/finds one in the interim, go ahead and edit! Dismalscholar (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Difference between a metropolis and a diocese (eparchy)

In the Catholic Church, an archbishop is the metropolitan bishop of a wide archdiocese. He has suffragan dioceses. He exercised a limited oversight of his suffragan bishops. I'm not sure if the same in true in Eastern Orthodoxy. The Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus' definitely feels like it is similar to an ecclesiastical province. On the other hand, the Metropolis of Chalcedon just feels like a diocese. Can someone explain the difference to me please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: In the Eastern Orthodoxy, it is not uniform. Different autocephalous churches follow different tradition. There is more info at Metropolitan_bishop#Eastern_Orthodox_Church. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Macedonians should be added ; as they were part of a genocide during the Ottoman Empire for over 500 years

Macedonians should be added ; as they were part of a genocide during the Ottoman Empire for over 500 years. 124.170.170.72 (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Should be added where? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A problem with numbers

What is with this 260 million that I hear about lately. I went to check the citation and it doesn't verify. Also, everywhere i go i see 220. Now that might be outdated, but everywhere it shows that the Orthodox Church is in overall decline in membership, not rising. How then does it go up by 40 million? In adition to this, if you add up all the members of the autocephalous churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church you end up with only about 200 million (including the orthodox Church of Ukraine and the newly accepted Macedonian Orthodox Church). Can someone explain? Barumbarumba (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The only source i could find for this 260 millions number was the Pew Research Center report from 2017, however it also includes Oriental Orthodox in the counting of "Orthodox Christians" : https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/08/orthodox-christianitys-geographic-center-remains-in-central-and-eastern-europe/

This is probably the origin of the confusion. When you take away the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodoxy account for 220 million faithfuls worldwide. PMbro (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox Churches have about 60 million members, so if we add Orential to Eastern Orthodox then we would have 280 million, or remove it and have 220 million, not 260 million. The numbers don't add up. I think we should stick with the most sourced number, if that's 220 million then we should leave it! Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Parish

The article parish has nothing about Orthodox parishes. Would anyone like to add something? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Moscow-Constantinople schism

@Scu ba: After I reverted this edit of yours, asking for a reliable source, you re-added the claim that the Russian Orthodox Church has "split" from the Eastern Orthodox Church [7]. The source you cite does not say that the Russian Church has split. It only says that the Russian Church "finds it impossible to continue Eucharistic community with" the Church of Constantinople. Only with Constantinople. Russian Church continues fill communion with most other Orthodox churched, like the Church of Serbia and the Church of Jerusalem. So, can you, please, revert your edit as it is not verifiable? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

what do you think being "impossible to continue Eucharistic community" with the orthodox church means for their membership in the orthodox church. Scu ba (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Scu ba: No, they do not say that it is "impossible to continue Eucharistic community" with the orthodox church. They say that it is impossible to continue Eucharistic community with one particular Orthodox church, being the Church of Constantinople. They are still in the eucharistic communion with most other particular churches. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ecumenical Patriarch is the Primus inter pares, breaking with them is breaking with the orthodox church. Scu ba (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

As the article tells us, EOC "operates as a communion of autocephalous churches, each governed by its bishops via local synods". My understanding is that if church A breaks with B, churches C, D etc can remain in communion with both if they choose to. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

yes on paper the Patriarchs are equal. however, since the creation of the orthodox church, the Ecumenical Patriarch is the First Among Equals, the Primus inter pares, the leader of the orthodox church. they determine canon, they determine autocephalous status. breaking with them is breaking with the orthodox church. The Russian church is currently operating outside of the EOC, totally independently, since they have severed all communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Scu ba (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Scu ba: Since you are the only one here with such understanding, you should revert your edit, and then seek consensus for its reinstatement (see WP:BRD). Vanjagenije (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like original research, with only a primary source used. If they do not self-revert or respond I will revert this. Mellk (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

How is this original research, patriarch Kirill has directly stated, in plain black and white text, that the Russian Church is no longer affiliated with the Ecumenical Patriarch and is now independent of the Orthodox Church and its structure. Scu ba (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No, he did not say that Russian Church [...] is now independent of the Orthodox Church and its structure. That is your original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Rejecting the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarch is rejecting the structure of the Orthodox church as a whole, but seeing as how contentious this is ill revert the edit until a consensus can be reached. Scu ba (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There is not a single reliable source that says the Ecumenical Patriarch is the “leader” of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Canonical breaks of communion are not new to the Eastern Orthodox Church and it has happened before in 1996 between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Constantinople This does not nor has it ever meant that the Churches that break away from the Ecumenical Patriarchate suddenly are their own, new Church.

During the Photian schism, the Patriarchate of Rome broke away from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, yet, there is not a single Church historian who claims that this was a breaking away of the Patriarchates or that Rome was now a new Church.

There was a similar schism between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 15th and 16th centuries, yet again, no one considered the Moscow Patriarchate to suddenly be a new Church. Keep in mind this was at a time when communication was limited, and there was no formal (that is, nothing written down) document that amended the schism, it was reconciled 100 years later by Constantinople recognizing the Patriarchate status of the Metropolitan of Moscow, yet the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople were both considered to be “in communion” after 1560.

Church history and Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology is an especially complex matter and making assumptions based off of a non-Orthodox source that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the “leader” of the whole Church and breaking communion with them means you’re no longer Eastern Orthodox only hurts Wikipedia’s reputation.

Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Oogalee Boogalee