Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 5

Fasting

Given what I've read on Orthodox fasting this section seems short and should probably be given its own article with the existing section cleaned up into a shorter and more readable summary. It also seems wrong from what I've read so far. While fasting is personal going without fast without reason has punishments associated with it, yes? Even if not generally enforced? 68.126.152.20 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fasting is like an exercise that builds spiritual muscles. There is no punishment for not fasting, but then there is no gain either.--Phiddipus 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To add to this: We Orthodox do not think of our beliefs simply as theological precepts and philosophy, rather we actuate these beliefs in our daily lives. Too often you find the Christian who thinks about God on Sundays and the rest of the week he does whatever he wants. The traditions of the Church are meant to completely change the structure of our lives, not just on Sunday but every day. Our philosophy is not just academic; we live our philosophy. To not fast would be to fail in living an Orthodox lifestyle; it is its own punishment.--Phiddipus (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Percentages

It's not clear what the list of percentages in the "number of adherents" section is referring to - are these percentages of total population following Orthodoxy? Or percentages of those who are religious following Orthodoxy? Or percentages of those who are christian following Orthodoxy? A percentage means nothing if one isn't told what it's a percentage of.128.232.248.162 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Schism

It seems to me that the discussion of the Great Schism is a bit limited. It doesn't even give the year 1054 as a date (it simply says 11th cent.) and I think I'm right in saying that's the traditional date attributed to it...right? There's the whole story of the papal legates in St. Sophia....I know there were countless othe factors, but surely this should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edinbork (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I added {{main}} to point the reader clearly to the main article, even though it was wikilinked in the first sentence. The 1054 date is conventional, yes, but it's also something of a canard. Otherwise, I don't think any more detail is necessary here than is already present. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the last edit

Because I think it's better-worded, more succinct and more encyclopedic in tone. Can objectors please argue to me why it isn't? Slac speak up! 02:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because giving good important information is more important than nebulous "encyclopedic tone". If you can provide the same information with the tone you like, be my guest.

Alcohol

If anyone could provide some Orthodox input over at Christianity and alcohol (or Talk:Christianity and alcohol), I'd appreciate it! --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move of interest

In case anyone here wants to weigh in, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic Churches: See Talk:Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Fishhead64 07:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The relationshp between Orthodox and non-Orthodox and the rejection of non-orthodox mysteries

It’s a terrible thing when the exception becomes the norm and logic flies out the window. We Orthodox are reluctant, now-a-days to assert what we believe thanks to our desire to fit in with the rest of the world. Martyrs died rather than compromise one iota of their beliefs. Here are the facts, like them or not:

The Orthodox Church is the only true Church. The Orthodox Church is the only church with Grace. The mysteries performed by our clergy are the only valid mysteries. The baptisms of non-Orthodox are not baptisms recognized by the Church. Nor is communion or marriage or any other Mystery. Non- Orthodox converts should be baptized…whatever their non-Orthodox priests did to them as children does not count as their priests are without grace and validity. Just because one bishop allows a certain practice out of economia does not make it a liberty for others to do so.

In fact, the Orthodox Church makes no judgment concerning the "validity" of mysteries performed by non-Orthodox churches or the grace possessed by them; nor can she, since Christ has revealed to her nothing concerning this (although He does tell us that we will "know them by their fruits," and we often do find some of the fruits of faith among the heterodox). However, as a practical matter, she has to treat them as having no validity. This does not mean that all mysteries performed outside the Orthodox Church are "repeated" when a non-Orthodox person becomes Orthodox; rather, it means that it is necessary to supply whatever was missing. In each case, what that is, is decided ultimately by the bishop. The assertion "[All] non-Orthdox converts [to Orthodoxy] should be baptized" is contrary to the plainly stated canons of the Ecumenical Councils, the practice of the Church for hundreds of years, and the views of acknowledged champions of Orthodoxy such as St. Mark of Ephesus, who (for instance) accepted as quite normal that certain heretics are received into Orthodoxy through holy chrismation. Palmleaf (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This does not mean that Orthodox are the only ones saved. God is merciful to all. It doesn’t even mean that non-Orthodox are less likely to be saved. This is God’s prerogative. But the fact is Non-Orthodox are not Orthodox and do not belong to the true church. --Phiddipus 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And that attitude has probably kept millions of disaffected Roman Catholics from joining. Whenever I wonder why I haven't, that's why. Carlo 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us hope, Carlo, that you would join the church because it is considered by you to be the true church, not because you like the music and incense. Let us hope you are more interested in a commitment to the Truth, than in socializing with ethnics. It would seem that your criterion for an acceptable belief is that it denies itself. You speak about attitude, there is no attitude involved. It is our firm belief that we are the True Church. What else are we supposed to believe? We also believe that God loves everyone and that Christians of every denomination will go to heaven. We even believe that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, even atheists may go to heaven. But are they the True Church? We would have to say no. Are their clergy endowed with the Grace of God as ours are through Apostolic Succession? We would have to say no. Otherwise we deny ourselves. You can make whatever choices in life you want to; you may be far more comfortable in a church which caters to your weaknesses, supports compromise. If you are a good person then there will be nothing to separate you from God’s love, wherever you are. But don’t ask us to deny who we are or what we believe because it makes you uncomfortable.--Phiddipus 04:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to say that you are the Church. It is another to say that others AREN'T. Claiming exclusivity IS a weakness - it's an appeal to human vanity. "Aren't WE the special ones? THEY aren't - WE are!" Carlo 16:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really make any sense. If they are the Church, then it logically follows that other religious bodies aren't. Additionally, I'm finding Ecumenicism increasingly troubling- I once held to that viewpoint, but the more I ponder and read about it, the more it becomes nonsensical; a mere decapitation of religious ideas for human interests. There is a difference between being vain and being correct; considering the arguments presented by the Church for such claims of exclusivity, it seems an accusation of vanity is unfounded.--C.Logan 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. This really isn't the place. For those of us Byzantines, isn't it a bit early for the fasting to make us irritable and snappy? InfernoXV 16:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Carlo, You are hearing something that I am not saying. There are many kinds of cars on the market today. In 1908 Ford produced his first Model T. The Model T had certain features that made it a highly successful automobile. In 1926 Ford began producing the Model A. Since that time there have been thousands of different models of car on the market. But I tell you this, no car on the market has the same exact qualities as the Model T. I am not saying that all the other models aren’t good. I am not saying that they don’t have an easier rider, or are more comfortable. All I am saying is that they aren’t Model Ts. It would, in fact, be silly for me to try and convince you that a car produced by Mercedes Benz is a Ford Model-T. It simply isn’t. The Orthodox Church is believed by us to be the original Church. That God endowed it with certain features that made it what it was. All other “denominations” are breakaways from the original, or breakaways from breakaways. This simply means that they are no longer Orthodox. Like cars, those other models can still get you from here to there, even if they do not have the exact qualities of the Model T. We Orthodox have learned that the Church is special and unique and worthy of preservation, even at the cost of our own lives. When we recite the “Symbol of Faith” it is not just empty words. It is what makes us who we are. It is unreasonable for you to expect us to be anything less. As a member of the Church, I do not think of myself as special; in fact I think of myself as the same as all of mankind. There is only one race, the human race. Do I think I am right and you are wrong, No; I think I am Orthodox and you are not, in the same way I think that I am me and you are you. I don’t even feel any special need for you to convert. Orthodox do not think we are exclusive, we do not try and convert the world, we do not feel the need.--Phiddipus 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone can see how this sounds.

It’s a terrible thing when the exception becomes the norm and logic flies out the window. We Catholics are reluctant, now-a-days to assert what we believe thanks to our desire to fit in with the rest of the world. Martyrs died rather than compromise one iota of their beliefs. Here are the facts, like them or not:

The Catholic Church is the only true Church. The Catholic Church is the only church with Grace. The mysteries performed by our clergy are the only valid mysteries. The baptisms of non-Catholic are not baptisms recognized by the Church and require a further act of faith in order to become so. Nor is communion or marriage or any other Mystery since other so called churches do not hold an accurate teaching about these sacraments. Non- Catholic converts should be baptized…whatever their non-Catholic priests did to them as children does not count as their priests are without grace and validity. Just because one bishop allows a certain practice out of economia does not make it a liberty for others to do so.

This does not mean that Catholics are the only ones saved. God is merciful to all. It doesn’t even mean that non-Catholics are less likely to be saved. This is God’s prerogative. But the fact is Non-Catholics are not Catholic or orthodox and do not belong to the true church. If they are deemed by God to enter heaven, then by default they become Catholic since only the Catholic Church is in Communion with the Saints in Heaven.

Ok, now I am sure that after putting this some of you are already planning to track me down and kill me. I did not want to start an arguement but just wanted to point out the cras nature of the original post which in fact is not even in line with accepted Orthodox theology as proclaimed by Orthodox Bishops, who according to Orthodox theology are the ones in authority over the faithful. Plus, it has been acknowledged that a lot of the schism between the church was the result of Blind Racist Hatred. As such, it is incompatible with the message of Christ. It is not only Greeks that can be members of the the One True Church. The Catholic Church has realized this but the Greek Church still insist that only Ethnic Creeks are smart enough to become Bishops. user unsigned 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hunt you down and kill you? You still don’t understand. I would applaud you if you held so true to your beliefs. In truth, copying my statements and replacing Orthodox with Catholic makes it even more obvious how far from Orthodoxy the Roman church has moved, because most of those statements are not supported by the official Roman Catholic position.--Phiddipus (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And of course Orthodoxy IS the Catholic Church... My Bishop in my Greek jurisdiction is an ethnic Scottish-Jew by the way Benjaminw1 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, the bishops within our synod are representatives of Greek, American, English, Sardinian, Italian, Kenyan (Africa) Russian, German, Swedish, and Dutch. Please, there is no racism here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phiddipus (talk • contribs) 06:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

in fact the position stated so clearly at the top of this section is not the universal Orthodox position, nor is the paragraph that follows it. Orthodoxy has in fact recognized the validity of Catholic Sacraments on several occasions, most notably the last several hundred years of Russian Orthodoxy. Fr Alexis Toth was received as a priest into Orthodoxy by vesting in the Altar, with no Baptism, no Chrismation, no Cheirotonia. Patriarch Athenagoras recognized the Priesthood of Pope Paul VII, etc. The point here is not to argue whether non-Orthodox Sacraments are real, or valid, etc, but to discuss the beliefs and practices of Orthodoxy. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Temple

I am not sure if it is one of the tenants of the Wikipedia to clear up the confusion that sometimes results when differences in terminology manifest themselves. Even so, we have the opportunity to set certain presidents and have them become effective by choosing which terms are best suited to the English language and most importantly to the ideas these words convey within the context of the Eastern Orthodox Church. One thing that needs to be avoided is affectation, especially when it serves no other purpose than to sound pretty and add to the confusion. An example that has been discussed previously is Icon painting vs. Icon writing. Icon “writing” sounds pretty, but in English, when it comes down to it, is just illiterate. Just because the suffix “graphy” is part of the word does not mean it is written. Photography literally means to write with light, but we do not write photographs. In English, when we use paints and brushes and color on wood or canvas it is called painting. The reason I point this out is because of the word “Temple” used in describing the church building. On the one hand, if we look at the definition of the word alone, there is probably no reason not to use it. But the images conjured in the mind of English speakers when they hear “Temple” are either of the Jewish Temple, The Mormon Temple, or various Pagan Temples. In English, for centuries, we have almost exclusively used the term “Church”. Likewise, the Greeks have always used the term “Ecclesia” instead of “Naos” because the church wanted a very specific difference established between the pagan Temple and the Christian Church. In the end, what I am proposing, for the sake of clarity and in making the contrast between pagan and Christian more apparent, the use of the term “Church” as opposed to “Temple”. --Phiddipus 17:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's unusual. In catechismal instruction, I was emphatically told that icons were not painted, but were written. Are you certain that the terminology used is due simply to the translation of the term? These were not the reasons I was given for the terminology used, but rather because the images were considered holy scripture for the illiterate, and were bound in their conveyance of scriptural truths (i.e. they were allowed limited creativity in presentation so long as it was to teach the "reader").--C.Logan 03:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, your catechist was propagating an affectation. The reason that, in Greek, one speaks of 'writing icons' and not 'painting icons' has to do with the way the language works. 'Painting' in Greek refers to holding a paintbrush in the manner of painting one's wall, whereas 'writing' covers the act of holding a paintbrush in the writing position. Since obviously nobody creates icons with a hand position used for painting the wall, 'write' is used in Greek. This affectation in English is a simple translation of the term. InfernoXV 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm noting that the multiple priests and deacons that I've spoken to not only use this simple affectation, but provide a thorough explanation of why the usage of another terminology is less proper. It does not seem to stem from any sort of translation issue or from how the action itself is performed, but in the purpose of the development of icons and with a relation to the iconoclastic controversy. This is just how I've been taught, in multiple vacuum scenarios. You may see it clearly as a simple affectation, but I was compelled to believe that the usage of a term had a more important basis. Additionally, I disagree that using such terminology confuses the matter. Any individual who is learning about the theological nature of icons should have no trouble grasping either the simple use of an affectation or the reasoning behind the usage of said affectation. In the introduction to a new concept, we are reasonably given a "box of tools" to work with. Certain subjects may use familiar terms in unusual ways (certainly more-so in the English language). If a note is made concerning the usage of such a term, then it confuses no one except for those who like to skip over large sections of text... so I don't see what the issue is. In any case, it seems that it would at least be appropriate to note (as "painted" may still likely be the primary terminology used in the article) that some (many?) individuals use the term "write/written" for one or more reasons.--C.Logan 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The language in which we are writing is English. There is no reason theologically or practically why you can’t say icons are painted. Calling it writing simply confuses the matter. Theology can be presented symbolically with ink on paper in the form of text or graphically in the form of paint on wood. Writing refers to stringing together symbols to form words and phrases, and is written. Painting refers to creating images with paint on a surface such as wood, canvas, or plaster. The problem, like the one above (See Temple) is a tendency to be enamored of the beauty of the Orthodox Church and thus to attempt to use some elevated form of language to describe it. While, in general, this is actually a good thing and represents a pious approach to sacred space, there comes a point where it goes too far, or rather, when done by those with a limited grasp of the English language it presents itself as illiterate. The King James version of the bible, for all its bad translations and missing books, never-the-less uses English masterfully and should be looked to as a model for constructions in English if one wishes to use elevated language.--Phiddipus 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The KJV is not a good model of elevated language in most contexts. It's written in Early Modern English, archaic enough that it strikes the modern ear as elevated even when it is not, while still being mostly comprehensible. (Although even for the time the KJV contained some deliberate archaisms and artificially elevated language.) In that sense it can function much like the koine Greek or Church Slavonic. That's is fine for a liturgical language, but for English speakers it just doesn't work for theology, catechesis, sermons, or formal writing or speech in secular contexts.

When it comes to "writing" versus "painting" icons, there is indeed a theological issue which may or may not presently apply in Greek but does elsewhere. At least it does in English. You may paint for decoration, but you cannot write for decoration. Even with calligraphy, where the letters are formed in a decorative way, the purpose of something written is to convey meaning. Whether or not there was originally a distinction to be made in Greek, there has come to be one in English, and since this is (as you point out) an English-language resource omitting it would be incomplete.

As far as "temple" goes, it depends on the emphasis one wishes to draw in a given context. "Naos" in Greek is not incorrect even if "ecclesia" is more common. Even in Orthodox usage "Church" is far more common than "temple", but you use "temple" when you want to be clear you're talking about the physical building and want to emphasize its correspondences with the Temple at Jerusalem. "Ecclesia", after all, does not mean a building except by association, but an assembly. Protestant Americans are so used to the idea that there's no such thing as a sacred building -- and even Catholics have, to a degree, become accustomed to the secularization of church buildings -- that using an out-of-the-ordinary term conveys the sacred nature of the place far more unambiguously than the normal one can.

In any event, someone speaking on the subject in Russian will make the distinction automatically, so it's not surprising that it's made in English by Orthodox in the Russian tradition. Church in the sense of the institution or assembly is "церковь". It can also mean the building, but the building is far more often called "храм" (temple: Christian, Israelite, or pagan temples) or "собор" (cathedral, but also translates "σύνοδος"). TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are unfamiliar with Byzantine and Russian calligraphic ornamentation all of which is created using the same writing instrument as the text. It has no other purpose than to be decorative. You also seem to be unfamiliar with illuminated manuscript which is also created to decorate the page, not necessarily the text itself. You might try and create any justification you like for using an affected word, but you are not clarifying but confusing the issue in doing so. I might also point out that a great deal of the work done on the interior of churches and in the icons themselves is for decoration as well. I think your distinction is specious.--Phiddipus 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

-- There also seems to be a number of errors in the diagram of the church, which is rather confusing to begin with, such as the placement of the Royal Doors.

It is not an error. The Royal doors separate the Narthex from the Nave while the Beautiful Gates separate the Altar from the Nave. Unfortunately, owing to some misunderstanding along the way, the Beautiful Gates are often referred to as the Royal Doors. --Phiddipus 00:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Theotokos

I removed the following phrase from the text:

She did not give birth to his divinity, but rather to one person whose two natures were united at his miraculous virgin conception.

I think I know what the person is trying to say, but it seems a little dangerous, a little to close to Nestorianism. We do call the Virgin Mary "Theotokos". It is a mystery; but she did give birth to God. It is proper to say she is God's Mother.--Phiddipus 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang on. This is an encyclopedia. If I went around this site tidying up everything I didn't agree with it would be a very different site.

It might be better to say that Christs' divine nature did not originate with the Theotokos, in other words, Christ God existed before His Incarnation.

In the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America, we translate it as "Birth-giver of God"; this sounds more like the Church's theology regarding the Theotokos and the incarnation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.32.72 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an extremely awkward rendering in English, and as it stands, there is really no endorsed rendering. In English, it should be noted, "Mother of" and "Birth-giver of" are synonymous, so explanation would really be needed as to the preferred choice in terminology anyway. Hence, the Greek Orthodox Church prefers to leave the term untranslated. Translation, it seems, is a tricky thing.--C.Logan 23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for an endorsed translation if one understands the theology. Calling the Theotokos Mother or Birthgiver of God clearly conveys the mystery that Christ was both God and Man from conception onward, that he did not become God later or that Mary gave birth only to the Human part of Christ. --Phiddipus 03:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Was that in reply to me as well (no indentation)? I'm simply saying that "Theotokos" is untranslated because of the awkwardness in English. "Birther" is not a word, and the necessity of a compound form ("Birth-giver"- and really, an unusual term for which we typically substitute "Mother") denotes the fact that this is one of those words that's better explained once, and left untranslated otherwise. As for the rest of the discussion, my comment was not in reference to it, but only to the anonymous post directly above mine concerning "translations", and was not in reference to any theological implications.--C.Logan 03:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

changes

What is better:

• Karamanli Turkish Orthodox Church or Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate ?
• Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese in the USA or American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese ?
• Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in America or Orthodox Church in America Romanian Episcopate ?
• Metropolis of Bessarabia with or without
  • Archpriestship in Russia
  • parishes in USA ?

In the first three cases, the WP article is titled not as it perhaps sould be, i.e. with the official name. In the last case, the idea is to list all jurisdictions outside a church's canonical territory, so since we keep Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe with Episcopal Vicariate of Great Britain and Ireland, it won't be logical to erase this one. Maybe we should erase both, I don't know, therefore I am asking.:Dc76 13:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No church that merely establishes "parishes" in an area can really be said to have jurisdiction there in any sense of the word. It's the presence of a bishop that genuinely establishes a church in a territory.TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. I put those in short and in paranthesis, but if you think that even that is too much, feel free to erase completely.:Dc76 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "archpriestship". There is nothing in terms of the grace of the Catholic Church to distinguish an archpriest from any other priest.TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I found in whatever WP article or sourse within contained info about that church. I am not a cleric, so I don't know. Anyway, I erased the word, so it's not an issue now.:Dc76 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my general idea was to keep the nomenclature consistent. If there's an official name for a church other than the article titles, then the articles should be moved and the links updated accordingly.TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly agree, but I don't feel too comfortable to be bold in changing 3-4 names of the articles of some church bodies, therefore I started here to see the reaction, and change together with other editors.:Dc76 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is, by the way, certainly better to list the various Old Believer groups than to lump them all together. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

agree in principle, but I don't understand what is your suggestion specifically: go ahead and do it - if I would disagree (which i doubt, since I know little about old believers) I would tell. It is quite hard to find lists of church bodies not in communion - the list in the article is incoplete, maybe even always will be so.:Dc76 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the present conditions within Western Europe and the USA (that is to say the overlapping of ecclesiastical boundaries and the organization of them into ethnic groups, i.e. Phyletism/Tribalism) are in direct violation to the cannons of the Orthodox Church, specifically those cannons set forth in the council of Constantinople in 1872--Phiddipus 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinity

It is said Christ "came back to the living as man and God". Does that mean that in Orthodox belief, Jesus Chirst was not both man and God until after the resurrection? I am a Protestant Christian interested in non-Protestant denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.92.24 (talk • contribs)

The opposite, rather. It's to emphasize that his human nature was raised to life along with the divine, and that in his Resurrection, which by his divine nature was inevitable, he is nevertheless just as human as he was before the Crucifixion. His Resurrection was therefore just as human an event as it was divine, and the entire nature of humankind was therefore raised as well. Our historical experience with heresies is that one of the two natures tends to receive attention at the cost of the other, which is why we almost reflexively anticipate questions along those lines. It could certainly be phrased better, though. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sin and Salvation

When I was reading through this article, I noticed that it said that "Orthodox Christians believe that people before Christ went to Hell or Limbo." I removed the Limbo part; because, only Catholics believe that there is a so called "realm" between Heaven and Hell, it isn't part of Orthodox Theology. I am 100% sure that the Orthodox do not believe in Limbo, but is it true that the Orthodox believe that all people went to Hell before Christ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.130.248 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

From my understanding, Orthodox would generally say that people went to "Hades" before Christ, not Hell in the sense of where people are after Judgemnet Day, "Hades" meaning the place of the dead. But yes, since everyone went to the place of the dead, one could probably say they went to some form of Hell, since I don't think the differnet places of dead people are all that well defined by anyone, at least not in Orthodoxy. Tix 17:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the usually terminology is "Hades" and "Paradise", the latter being inaccessible generally before the Resurrection.

I believe that using the word "Hell" is misleading. The better word for where the dead go is "Hades"; the place generally though of in connection with the word "Hell" is Sheol. Also, we don't go to Paradise; we were cast out of paradise. We go to the Kingdom of Heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.32.72 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

wikifying

I added the {{wikify}} tag to the article, mostly because there are a lot of Christian-specific terms that aren't wikilinked. For example, I wikilinked see in the second paragraph since its usual meaning isn't the same as its religious one. There are other such terms throughout, if someone feels the urge to start adding wikilinks. I think it makes an article like this more readable. Esrever 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Eschatology

The article says the following: "The Orthodox ... tend to ignore most speculation concerning the “End of the World” as meaningless to one's own current spiritual state, and in fact, the Apocalypse (Revelation) is the only biblical text never read in church. However there are several orthodox teams, mainly fundamentalist and Old Calendarist (ELKIS etc) that advocate these views and warn about the prophecies, outside the mainstream Church." This is really not accurate. Orthodox do not consider eschatology as meaningless (though they would warn against unfounded speculation). The statement seems to leave the impression that the Apocalypse is a derided or forgotten book for the Orthodox; it would have been better to explain why the Apocalypse is not read publicly--because it would be easy for an uninstructed individual to get the wrong impression of the prophesies or speculate unguardedly. The Apocalypse is certainly important to Orthodox theology, and traditionally is represented in detail on the western wall of the church building. By the way, what on earth is an Orthodox "team"? (I will presume that the lower case "o" in the preceding word was a typo on the part of the author, and not intentional.) The term "fundamentalist" is also inappropriate; fundamentalism describes a specific Calvinistic theological position (despite uneducated misuse of the term by the media). Commonly, the word is used as an emotive, pejorative term, and seems to represent the prejudices of the author rather than NPOV. Also, "ELKIS" is not defined. I would like to rework the Eschatology section of the article, but would appreciate input from knowledgeable members first. MishaPan 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Misha, what the article says is that unlike dispensationalists (who spend great amounts of time wildly speculating about the end of the world and using it as a means to strike fear into and manipulate their congregations) The Orthodox tend to ignore such pursuits. The stuff about Old Calendarists was added and confused the paragraph, so I removed it. I myself am an Old Calendarist and have never known them to wildly speculate about anything.--Phiddipus 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

identity

It is surely cute to suggest that Greek orthodoxy is the same as Russian orthodoxy which is the same as all orthodoxy. They may share doctrine but they have very distinct identities. sign, please

Exactly, they are "legally" sister churches, each one being a national church. They are part of the one and only spiritual church. where in the article is it expressed differently? if it indeed is, please be bold and edit. Just give it a good thought before, to be sure you did not misunderstand the meaning of the sentences you edit.:Dc76 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

They are, however, in Communion, and are, in that way, one Church.

They are one and the same Church. Members may freely commune in any of them. Their clergy often celebrate at the same altar. The only division among them is administrative, but this is true even within a single jurisdiction. All bishops function independently of one another as well as in councils. They are not sister churches. You talk about "very distinct identities"; I am sorry but they have exactly the same identity; the slight differences in style are all variations within the whole. You will find variation everywhere within the church - this is normal and perfectly acceptable canonically.--Phiddipus 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Orthodox doctrine, tradition, and practice, it is correct to speak of the Orthodox Church(es) both in the singular (this is on the theological plane, as expressed, for example in the Creed: "one, holy...") and in the plural (this is on the administrative plane). In the latter case, the Orthodox Churches are "sister Churches." St. John of Damascus, incidentally, uses the plural: he calls Jerusalem the "mother of the churches" (Octoechos, Tone 8, Saturday evening). Palmleaf (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to consider that this is the 21st century and St. John of Damascus wrote in the 7th; , That the world of today is filled with thousands of Christian denomination that have nothing to do with Orthodoxy; That the majority of readers of this article are Non-Orthodox seeking to understand a bit about our Church. These readers have a strong sense that “Sister” churches are simply friendly toward one another but usually believe differently on many points. While there are many and diverse nationalities within the Orthodox Church, while there are different practices and traditions, there is fundamentally no difference whatsoever between Russian, Greek, Serbian, Arab, Romanian, or any other Orthodox. It is more helpful to say we are One Church rather than numerous “sister” churches. In St Johns day there would have been no confusion that all these churches were in fact one Church. But today, to the un-Orthodox, such an assumption would not be clear at all.--Phiddipus (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Consensus of the Fathers

Here is some text that I removed from History of the Eastern Orthodox Church that more properly belongs in this article. However, I'm not quite sure how best to integerate it into this article so I am depositing it here in the hopes that someone, who is more knowledgeable than I, will figure out how to integerate smoothly into this article.

Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses; the consensus of the Holy Fathers and Mothers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through the nous, or mind of the Church (see Phronema), which is believed to be the Mind of Christ; but also in typography, hymnology and iconography. The consensus of the Church over time defines its catholicity—that (see sobornost), which is believed at all times by the entire Church. Those who disagreed with what came to be considered the consensus are not accepted as authentic "Fathers." All theological concepts must be in agreement with that consensus. Even those considered to be authentic "Fathers" may have some theological opinions that are not universally shared, but are not actually heretical. Thus an Orthodox Christian is not bound to agree with every opinion of every Father, but rather with the overall consensus of the Fathers, and then only on those matters about which the church is dogmatic (see the Ecumenical council). If an opinion is not expressly clarified within the dogma of the church but is rejected it may not be rejected on dogmatic grounds but rather as teachings which is inconsistent with the principle of faith.

--Richard 19:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems to cover the same ground as the subsection titled "Bible, holy tradition, and the patristic consensus." It should probably be merged in there, though the style of the existing text in the article is probably a little more readable. Wesley 17:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Giving up

This article is not a scholarly description of Orthodoxy suitable for a general audience; rather, it's a theological mishmash that looks like it was written by a random assembly of seminarians. It's opaque and inaccesible to the casual lay reader; it's redolent with terms of self-definition at the expense of outside views, and overall it's quite out of keeping with encyclopedic tone and description. I had thought this could be changed; but it seems that misguided devotion of Orthodox followers has hindered this a great deal. I'm removing it from my watchlist, but not without a great deal of disappointment that the overall quality of this article could not be raised for such a worthy and important topic. Slac speak up! 08:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you ever imagined Wikipedia to be anything more than the combined opinions of countless half-educated boobs like me. I hope that you now realize that no matter how far above the rest of us you think you are, we figured out the inherent flaws of the Wikipedia along time ago. Wikipedia is a "pastime" not a scholarly reviewed encyclopedia - no matter how hard it tries to be one.--Phiddipus 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you miss the point that this article as well as the one on the Roman Catholic Church is too dominated by well-entrenched believers who are more interested in providing a description of the church from the POV of the church rather than an objective viewpoint from the POV of an outsider. I agree with Slac. Wikipedia may not be a scholarly-reviewed encyclopedia but it can achieve a high-quality article if the editors of a particular article are truly willing to adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V.

--Richard 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that is truly funny. I suppose you would prefer the article on physics to be written by non-physicists. An outsider couldn't possibly grasp the subtle complexity; he would have no basis for which words to choose to best convey an idea or concept. Please!--Phiddipus 07:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, experts on Orthodoxy should have a strong influence on the article. The only problem is that they might become too partisan or too enamored of the subtle, fine points and thus create an article which is only comprehensible to those who are knowledgeable and/or interested in those fine points. I read part of Slac's criticism as saying that there is too much of the theological fine points being presented thus providing accuracy at the cost of readability.

Do you believe that articles on Communism or Nazism should only be written by Communists or Nazis? (Please don't take offense at the possible comparison of Orthodoxy to Communism or Nazism. That is not intended at all. I'm just making the point that people outside a faith system can perhaps write more objectively than people inside the faith system.)

And yes, there is a lot of "popular science" which is the writing of non-physicists about physics for consumption by the general public. A general article like Eastern Orthodox Church should be readable by the average reader. More specific articles can go into the fine points of theology.

--Richard 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Richard I agree with most of what you say. The problem is the differences between Orthodox and many other Christian denomination is wholly in the subtle details. Often a person will say to me (as small talk) "So what’s the difference between Orthodoxy and other religions?" and because they are just mildly curious I will say we are like Roman Catholics without the Pope; That we were once one church but split about 1000 years ago. Such an answer is sufficient for the mildly curious. If, however, they are doing research - which I can assume those looking for information in the Wikipedia are - Then they need a better answer. And if the real answer is in the details, that is what we have to present. My response above, however, had more to do with the fact that most contribution to the Wikipedia, especially to the Eastern Orthodox article is done by people who barely understand what they are talking about - any real scholar would avoid the Wikipedia as a true source of information on this subject. I don't think it is possible in this venue to present the truth - its all pure POV.--Phiddipus 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But why should the differences even be a concern? We've been at some pains to remove overt comparisons to Catholicism from the article, so why should there be any comparisons at all? Simply describe the Church, and leave comparisons up to the reader. It's so easy to get bogged down in minutiae that the article ceases to be interesting, or even readable.

If an article is properly referenced, then there should be no problem in terms of editors knowing what they're talking about. The problem arises when editors write primarily out of their own experiences. This one is very poorly referenced for its length. It's shameful.

The other problem about minutiae is that's where all the controversies are. On matters of faith and praxis there is broad agreement throughout all of Orthodoxy. These areas are where the article should be focused. If we really must report on controversial subjects, they can be in sub-articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should report on controversial articles... on each and every one if they are notable controversies. However, there are times when it's better to just summarize the controversy and leave the detailed discussion to a subsidiary article. Also, this article should be a summary article about the Eastern Orthodox Church with high-level overviews about theology, practice and history. By getting into too much detail, we run the risk of discouraging the casual reader who just came by to browse. If someone really wants to know more, point him/her at the relevant subsidiary article.

You want to know more about the history of the church? Read History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. About the Russian Orthodox Church? Read History of the Russian Orthodox Church. About persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church? Read Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union.

The operative principle here is "less is more". It is paradoxical but the reader can sometimes get more value out of less content. The job of an editor is to figure out what to keep and what to get rid of or, at least, move to another article.

--Richard 21:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was trying to say; you expressed it better and more completely. I have a very bad habit of elliptical expression when I should be explicit. But it's not "paradoxical" that less is more, it's just that most readers don't want to delve into a highly technical discussion of theological fine points and quibbles when reading a general encyclopedia article.

The differences are not a concern for the writer, but they are very often a concern for the reader. I agree it is best not to make comparisons in the writing, but that’s not what we are talking about. It has been suggested that we pare down the detail; my argument is that the differences are in the details. If I want to know the difference between the Amish and the Mennonites, it’s in the details. This is an answer to why there is so much content.

Citation does not necessarily mean much in the case of articles like the Eastern Orthodox Church. For one thing there are numerous acceptable traditions from different ethnic bases which are often perceived as conflicts or arguments when, in fact, they are both acceptable. Second, most of the citations in the Orthodox article are drawn from modern works by Bishop Ware and others. One would think that we Orthodox should be citing those Patristic Fathers of the Church we keep talking about. You know as well as anyone that people like Meyendorff are regarded by a large part of the church as warmed over Roman Catholics. What I would like to see is real Orthodox Patristic citation – not the POV of Modernists. Third, The Church is not an abstract, human invention. It was not planned and executed by men. Yet people are a living part of the body of Christ and it is through their perceptions that the traditions of the church are preserved and protected. I think that if a writer here says something like, “I like the Russian music better than the Greek” then it is POV. But if he says that in his experience in Traditional churches there are no pews, he is, in fact, expressing the truth backed up by thousands of Orthodox examples. He does not need a citation.--Phiddipus 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of the problem. Cite patristic works? That's fine, except that in this context they constitute primary sources and therefore must be used with caution, especially if there's more than one way to interpret them. The purpose of citing secondary sources is to prevent original research as Wikipedia uses the term, and injection of an editor's own POV.

Actually, I don't know how "people like Myendorff" are regarded by "a large part of the church". I know how he's regarded by a certain small but vocal segment of the church, but he's otherwise well-regarded, especially when he's writing reference materials or textbooks and not original theological thought. I don't think anyone wants to cite recent "developments" along those lines anyway. Surely Myendorff has written dozens and dozens of uncontroversial things that can be cited without controversy. He's also regarded as a reliable source by the scholarly community at large, which means that by citing him and Ware (who is similarly regarded) the article becomes credible. (Mind you, if we were talking about Hopko it would be a different story.)

Writing something our of our own personal experience is also original research. Anyone can go to a library and consult a text, but a personal experience can't necessarily be duplicated for verifiability. If you can't cite it, don't write it. Should push come to shove and mediation occurs on one issue or another, which side would prevail? The side with citations to back up their text.

But frankly, I gave up on this article a long time ago. I got tired of having this fight, and dealing with these malicious labels you use to smear anyone who disagrees with you. By forcing the article into its present incoherent state -- and its present state is largely your doing -- you harm no one but the encyclopedia as a whole, and the image of the Church in the eyes of researchers. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. The mangling of this article by the niggling of the sort Phiddipus prefers honestly has made this article unusable and often almost unreadable. I'm an Orthodox priest, and I would never recommend this article to anyone, having watched it and contributed to it for almost three years. 72.65.128.89 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Article is too long

This article is too long by the guidelines put forth in WP:SIZE. Excluding footnotes, long lists and other text that are not counted in article size, this article is 72kb long.

Having worked with several long articles, my personal philosophy is that articles on topics of great scope must be long and that the guidelines in WP:SIZE give an approximate idea of appropriate length rather than setting hard limits.

Nonetheless, I think there are portions of text in this article that could be moved to a subsidiary article thus providing less detail and making the article more readable to the average reader, especially one who is not steeped in Christian theology.

--Richard 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Iconostasis/templon

As a first step towards shortening this article to meet the guidelines of WP:SIZE, I propose moving the following text from the "Iconostasis" section to the Iconostasis article. I have already copied the text below to the Iconostasis article. If no one objects, I will remove it from this article shortly.

Archaeological evidence from the Hagia Ioannes Studios in Constantinople suggests that the Iconostasis evolved from the early templon. A basilica dedicated to John the Baptist, built in 463AD. In it the chancel barrier surrounded the altar in a π shape, with one large door facing the nave and two smaller doors on the other sides. Twelve piers held chancel slabs of about 1.6 meters in length. The height of the slabs is not known. The chancel barrier was not merely a low parapet (a short wall); remains of colonnettes have been found, suggesting that the barrier carried an architrave on top of the columns.

The templon gradually replaced all other forms of chancel barriers in Byzantine churches in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries except in Cappadocia. As late as the 10th century, a simple wooden chancel barrier separated the apse from the nave in the rock-cut churches, though by the late 11th century, the templon had become standard. This may have been because of the veneration and imitation of the Great Church Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, though the columnar form of chancel barrier does predate Hagia Sophia.

IMO, this text is excessive detail that is primarily historical in nature and is not needed in this article which should be providing a broad overview of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

--Richard 14:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this level of details is more appropriate in the iconostasis article. Good work. Wesley 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"our" veneration?

From the section on veneration of icons...

As Saint Basil famously proclaimed, honor or veneration of the icon always passes to its archetype. Following this reasoning through, our veneration of the glorified human Saint made in God's image, is always a veneration of the divine image, and hence God as foundational archetype.

I am concerned about the word "our" in the above text. This kind of wording would make sense in an Orthodox publication written by Orthodox for an Orthodox audience. However, in Wikipedia which is presumably secular, with both an Orthodox and non-Orthodox audience, I would think that the use of the word "our" is inappropriate. Despite comments above to the contrary, not all the editors of this article are Orthodox and certainly not all the readers will be Orthodox.

To be encyclopedic, all articles need to take the tone of an objective outsider even if the details are illuminated by the special expertise of insiders.

--Richard 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It boils down to using third person consistently. I tried to address it there, and one other place I saw it. Wesley 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Propose moving "History" section lower in article

As a major contributor to History of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I have an interest in this topic. However, I think that this article should focus more on what the Eastern Orthodox Church is and believes than on its history. For this reason, I propose to move the "History" section down to just before the "Church today" section. That allows for a better flow from "past" to "present" and also emphasizes the description of the church rather than overly emphasizing its past history.

--Richard 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. First of all, just recently the history section was the last part of this article. Though its history is important it is secondary to "What" Orthodoxy is.--Phiddipus 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Claims portraited as facts

When at the beginning of the article someone writes:

"The Church which has never fallen into error nor deviated from the beliefs and traditions of the original Christian body"

I think this is probably a claim of the church, and should be stated as it, but saying that a religion has "never fallen into error" is way beyond the appropriate content of an encyclopedia.

The article seems quite biased, wich makes it hard to be read. Mostly it gives the appearance of being propaganda.

It is stated as a claim of the church. Please read the text just before the beginning of that list more carefully. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Denying the Reality of a Mystery

There are many things we Orthodox do that could be considered symbolic, but it should always be understood that Orthodox symbolism represents absolute spiritual reality. The reason one is given a new name at baptism is because the old man dies and is reborn into Christ. When this occurs, everything prior to baptism is washed away including the old identity. When communing, one is taking into oneself the actual Body and Blood of Christ God. In many Orthodox jurisdictions this understanding is being lost. The new name given is treated like an addition – a name used at communion – a church name. This, of course, denies the reality of the mystery of baptism since the person insists on retaining the old man. Many who commune do strange things like kissing the chalice with their lips still wet with Christ’s Body and Blood; or worse, smoke, chew gum, or spit. The attitude that “That’s the way people do it at my church” is no excuse, in fact it is a direct admission of guilt that one is careless with sacred things. --Phiddipus 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Which part(s) of the article do they concern? Wesley 16:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of Adherents

The number of adherents previously stated seemes quite inflated to me. After looking at various statistical sites, i have edited that section. JamesFox 12:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree the number of adherents was overated, also Republic o fGeorgias only 84% makes orthodox population but the whole christian population is 89%, so another little mistake Njnikusha 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Armenia

Armenians are Orthodox Christians are they not? The map needs to be updated to include Armenia--Waterfall999 07:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not quite. The national Church of Armenia is the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is Non-Chalcedonian (i.e. Oriental Orthodox). There is, of course, an Eastern Orthodox Communion in Armenia as well, just as there is in Egypt and many other Oriental Orthodox areas. These, however, form the minority, and it would be akin to considering Greece a "Protestant nation".--C.Logan 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Armenian Apostolic Church is also referred to as the Orthodox Church. Since 94% of Armenians belong to that church, then it is obvious that Armenians are orthodox. Also, Armenians were the first believers of Christ. They were the first nation to adopt Christianity as their National faith in 300 CE. Therefore, how could Armenian not be Orthodox.(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.49.157 (talk)

The Armenian Church is self-defined as "Orthodox", and is regarded by Westerners as an "Orthodox Church"; BUT it is not a part of what is known in English as "the Eastern Orthodox Church", which is what this article is about. That designation is given to the Greco-Russian Church and those in communion with it. Several major Eastern churches, including those of Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and some of the Syrian churches, are traditionally called in English "the Oriental Orthodox Churches", to distinguish them from the Greco-Russian Church. I shall added a clarification. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Romania mentioned as a country with orthodox majority?

As a matter of fact, in Romania,the Orthodox belief makes up 86.7% of the population according to the 2002 census. This information isn't on the article. May I know the reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraishte (talk • contribs) 13:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I.E. vs. E.G.

Translated, “e.g. – exempli gratia” is translated “for example” while “i.e. – id est” is “that is to say”. While it may seem at first that Greek and Russian Orthodox are examples of two of the churches belonging to the all-inclusive Eastern Orthodox title, such a concept implies that there are multiple different entities belonging to another entity. This is not the case. What is being given here is a clarification that Eastern Orthodox is sometimes referred to as Greek, Russian, or otherwise Orthodox but that they are all the same thing.

Here are two examples of correct useage:

The Protestant churches (e.g. Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, etc) – these are examples of protestant churches.

The Church of Latter Day Saints (i.e. the Mormons, the followers of Joseph Smith) – clarifications, other names for the same thing.

Here are explanations of the difference online:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ie-eg-oh-my.aspx

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f/ievseg.htm

--Phiddipus 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

All true, but much better to rephrase the whole thing. Johnbod 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased it. The wording was not inaccurate as such, but it was effectively pushing an idealistic Orthodox POV. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is estimated that 50,000 clergy were executed by the end of the Khrushchev era

The statement apparently refers to the total number of those killed during the communist period (?), but it sounds as if it is a number killed under Khrushchev, which would be obviously wrong.Muscovite99 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It does refer to the total killed during the Soviet era by the end of Khrushchev. It doesn't seem that ambiguous to me, but you should probably clarify it. In the future, you can use , which is inserted as {{clarifyme}}.--C.Logan 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So isn't that 50,000 clergy with the total of 9 million Orthodox killed during the communist/soviet era? --KCMODevin 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Popes Primacy

The article in question: [1]

The Pope was named “First among Equals” at the 2nd ecumenical council, no Orthodox Christian would deny that, however, the Pope is no longer part of the Orthodox Church and therefore has no position within the church. (In fact many within the church refer to him as Papa Antichrist). If you read the article in question you will realize that nothing new was resolved, the same problem we have always had with the Pope remains, and their publishing this with a headline stating that orthodox agree that the Pope is the leader of the church is purposely misleading. There could, in fact, be written an article on the numerous times the Papacy has tried to mislead our faithful and caused us innumerable problems.--Phiddipus (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are really trying to damage the recent about of good faith that is occuring between the Bishops of the Latin Chruch and the Bishops of the Eastern Churches. Do you not realize that the Bishop is the one appointed by God in authority of over the faithful? You make it seem like your only with is for the destruction of the Catholic Church and to force all Catholics to go to a Greek mass and get served Eucharist with a spoon.

The very idea that you would refer to someone who is trying to honestly lead the faithful in the Way of Christ as Papa Antichrist) is very determental to your credibility. You claim an entire article could be written, then please write it by all means. What is more probably, is that since the Pope is entrusted with the care of all the faithful the world over, he is doing his best to care for the Easter Churches that Latin consider Heterodox and the Eastern Churches are acting like rebels just because the Pope is of a different Ethnic group. There are in fact serious theological issues that seperate the Church but most of the imagined issues of the people melt away when Bishops sit down together and discuss seriously and with charity. Catholics would certainly take great exeption to the idea that only Greeks can be Bishops or the large amount of Pagan Greek philosophia that has entered the Greek Church. There were some of your monks that decided that they would not worship God anymore but only his Name. This was a sin but then some other monks killed them, which was also a sin. Where did the Pope stand in all of this, he was telling them not to sin which is the only message compatible with Christianity in the entire affair.

In regards to the other statement, that only Eastern Greek sacraments are valid. You have begun with the assumption that Catholic sacraments are not valid without ever thinking about what you were saying seriously. From the Catholic point of view, we know that our sacraments are valid because we have retained them from the original way taught to the apostles. Our sacraments do not become invalid just because of a basoleus who wanted to usurp Ecclesiastical authority that was not his to take. Catholic sacraments do not become invalid just because some Greek think that only Greek can be Christians or men. When Catholic examine the rites of others to determine if they have recieved a valid sacrament or not, we take our time and look at facts and not just use prejudice. It was exactly this kind of process that lead the Catholic church to correctly say that the Church of England does not have valid sacraments but to say that the Greek Church does.

What are Catholics then to think of this very theologically incorrect statement of yours that only Orthodox baptism are valid. We know that Catholic Baptisms are valid. We then have to wonder at what would cause you to think a valid Baptizm to be invalid. I will forgo the thought that it really is just blind racist hatred and think that perhaps you thought about it and have a reason. Then I must think that you have some reason in your mind that you regard what in reality is a valid baptism as invalid. As such I must conclude that this reason is a false teaching about baptism that Christians are warned about in almost all of the episles of the New Testament. Therefore, the teachings about this sacrament in your Church must be deficient and incorrect and not Right Thinking in the least. Since you do not have the correct teachings about Baptism, I must therefore conclude that Baptism in the Eastern Church are not real Baptism because of this deficiency. Therefore, Baptism in the Greek Church are not valid. Since we know that an unBaptized person can not recieve or administer the other sacraments, it puts all other sacraments into seriously questionable ground.

As such I hope that you can see from this why some Catholics regard the so called orthodox as not just better then the average protestant. If the Church, (the Catholic Church established by Jesus) were to actually view and evaluate all of the protestant baptism, we would find that very few are actually baptized. The one that really are eventually join the Catholic Church. We know that in order to perform a valid baptism a certain amount of valid intent is needed. Protestants do not get validly baptized bacause of the protestant minister but despite the protestant being in error. Jesus know who really is trying to become a Christian and who is just trying to fit in or have some other motive. We Catholics know who really did become Baptized because those protestants that really did recieve baptism have the Holy Spirit upon them and with His guidance, they eventually come to see the error of protestantism and come home to the Catholic Church. I think what the Greek just can not stand is that fact that some of you get valid baptisms as well and join up. Some how you think that you own your fellow Greeks and that they can not decide to do as God wants of them, to be members of the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.40.84 (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This comment appears to be filled with several factual errors concerning Greek Orthodoxy; simultaneously, it appears to finger Orthodoxy for "actions" that Roman Catholicism is itself is frequently charged with committing- for example, the fact that this user points to the Greek Church alone for pagan influence is extremely troubling (nevermind the fact that neither GO or RC considers the baptism of pagan rites and celebrations to be inherently bad). While I can't excuse ignorance by some Greeks, this comment is totally off the wall, and this person has no place in criticizing the derisive terminology used by some when he/she him/herself is apparently ignorant to the practices, beliefs and history of Greek Orthodoxy. An entire third of it is invalidated by the fact that Orthodoxy accepts any baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, whether Orthodox, Catholic or even Protestant (although some areas are much stricter in the matter). Additionally, it appears to open with a rather inflammatory statement towards Phiddipus over a comment that he was citing to others.--C.Logan (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your various points:

“Do you not realize that the Bishop is the one appointed by God in authority of over the faithful?” (sic)

Bishops have authority when they preserve the faith and hold true to church teachings, when they depart from that path they must be rejected. Bishops do not have the authority to compromise the faith for the sake of friendship with other religions.

“You make it seem like your only with is for the destruction of the Catholic Church and to force all Catholics to go to a Greek mass and get served Eucharist with a spoon.” (sic)

We have never expressed a necessity for the conversion of other faithful to our church. All we have ever said is that if you wish to belong to the original historical Christian Church, here we are, come and learn. We have never said that those outside Orthodoxy cannot go to heaven.

“The very idea that you would refer to someone who is trying to honestly lead the faithful in the Way of Christ as Papa Antichrist) is very determental (sic) to your credibility.” (sic)

The term Antichrist refers to those who fancy themselves acting in place of Christ. The Pope calls himself the Vicar of Christ, he claims to speak infallibly in matters of faith, he claims to be God’s representative on Earth.

“the Pope is entrusted with the care of all the faithful the world over”

According to the ecumenical councils of the church no bishop is allowed to interfere in any other bishop’s territory. The Pope has never had authority over the world as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned. This is one of the major disagreements with the Roman Church; one that was not resolved by the dialogues in question within this topic.

“the Eastern Churches are acting like rebels just because the Pope is of a different Ethnic group”

The Orthodox Church is found in every country and is composed of every ethnic group including a rather substantial German following. We are not in the least concerned with ethnic traditions, but rather with Orthodox Christian traditions.

Concerning your statements about paganism and the Pope’s views on some monks quite honestly I don’t know what you are talking about, my guess is you don’t either.

“What are Catholics then to think of this very theologically incorrect statement of yours that only Orthodox baptism are valid. We know that Catholic Baptisms are valid. We then have to wonder at what would cause you to think a valid Baptizm (sic) to be invalid.”

Concerning the mysteries of the Orthodox Church, I am quite validated in believing that the rituals and practices of non-orthodox clergy have no meaning to the Orthodox. The Pope and all the clergy of the Catholic Church are not Orthodox and therefore we do not recognize their authority to perform the “Sacraments”. We believe that our bishops are given the Grace of God which is given to them through apostolic succession. The Catholics also had this Grace, but it was withdrawn when the Pope broke from the Church. The form, while important, is meaningless without the Grace. Any instance you may site were an Orthodox clergyman accepts a non-Orthodox baptism is misunderstood. Our clergy do have the authority, under certain conditions, to accept the form and subsequently fill it with Grace.

“What are Catholics then to think of this very theologically incorrect statement of yours … We know that Catholic Baptisms are valid … I must conclude that this reason is a false teaching about baptism …Therefore, the teachings about this sacrament in your Church must be deficient and incorrect and not Right Thinking in the least.”

It is assumptions like yours that illustrate your firm belief that those who do not follow you are damned. Quite simply, you have to be Orthodox to perform an Orthodox baptism – the only kind we recognize as valid within our Church. I don’t think that is unreasonable. --Phiddipus (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Any instance you may site were an Orthodox clergyman accepts a non-Orthodox baptism is misunderstood. Our clergy do have the authority, under certain conditions, to accept the form and subsequently fill it with Grace.

I think it's important to clarify this point. At least in America, the viewpoint appears to be that "there is only one baptism"- that is to say, a convert is not re-baptized as long as the baptism was Trinitarian in nature. In catechismal study, it was explained to me that requests for baptisms by individuals who had already been baptized in this manner were denied.

Of course, this is solely the case for baptism, as all other sacraments are seen as invalid for the above stated reasons (only chrismation is performed to validate the convert in such a case). I understand that this practice differs in many dioceses, but it is at least true in the case of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. I agree with your other responses, obviously, but this confuses me- it would be appreciated if you could clarify this position in relation to your statement.--C.Logan (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This may simply be an example of ecumenism among the modernist Greek Church. It, of course, does not set precedence among all Orthodox. More traditionalist groups insist on a full baptism for all converts. Both cases are acceptable since it is ultimately an Orthodox clergyman who performs the mystery. The traditionalists only argue that forgoing a full and complete baptism should be the exception, not the norm.--Phiddipus (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: There have been many instances were converts to Orthodoxy have been accepted by Chrismation. Such an act is an act of economia. In each individual case, because such an act is approved by a bishop, it is filled with grace even though technically the Orthodox form of baptism was not used. On the other hand, there have been cases were an Orthodox was baptized by an Orthodox priest who was in fact badly trained and failed to follow the form correctly. In such cases it is not unusual for the person, at a later date, with the blessings of his bishop, to be correctly baptized following the complete form. This does not mean he is receiving a second baptism, nor that he was not really Orthodox already, It simply corrects a mistake made by the original priest. Bishops have the right to do what they feel is necessary with their entrusted flock. It does not set a precedent for other bishops to follow and it should not be judged wrong by other clergy. The rule of thumb is that anyone converting to Orthodoxy is to be Baptized and Chrismated. If a bishop chooses to exercise economia (make an exception in a particular case), that is his privilege and such an act is perfectly acceptable in Orthodoxy. But to imagine that the exception is the rule is a mistake.--Phiddipus (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The article in question: [2]--Phiddipus (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

First let me say that I am glad you took the time to respond. In case you have not figured it out, I did not come here to bash the (Orthodox) Church, though I believe that only Catholics are truely Orthodox in a difinitive sense. My point of the response to your earlier statement was really poking a finger at the very Anti-Catholic attitude. Certainly you are free to beleive whatever you want but you come here with quite a lot of ill will and prop that up as undeniable empirical fact. Even among the Catholics there are those that do not want the schism to end. They are so strict and angry over any divergence of the Latin rite that they have begun to say that fellow Catholics just are not Catholic enough and some even say the Pope is not Catholic. They would refuse to accept the (Orthodox) Church back into the Catholic Church as a whole and require that individual members renounce Eastern teachings and accept Catholicism. This idea that they hold, that the other church must be broken and stop existing I see in just about every comment you put here. You are their mirror image. I see in your words that you hold the point of view that Catholics and (Orthodox) can not reconcile and that only when Catholic capitulate and submit to you and say that Greeks are better then everyone else will there ever be peace between us. That is what you are saying is it not? My faith teaches me that if anyone want do know about true, original, 100% orthodox Christianity then they need to come to the Catholic church and recieve instruction. We are not going to agree on this matter obviously but it seems to me that you need reminding that other do not think as you do and have just as many arguements to back up our faith. Personally, I do have some issues with the (Orthodox) that would make some things of your religous practices difficult to accept. However, instead of then taking those issues and assuming that the Easterns are not fully Christian anymore or get angry when the Pope and the Patriarch meet I find it very hopeful. I am not hopeful that you will renounce the Eastern Church but I am hopeful that we can understand each other so that only the real and important differences need to be at issue. Should the day come when the Catholic Church and the (Orthodox) church reach an agreement that says that the Churches really are one I will not fight it. There will be Catholics that will want to fight it and I assume also some of the Greeks.

The real point of all of this though lays in the very hateful tone of your words. Should the Pope and the Patriarch just not talk at all? Should we just write each other off? If that is your attitude then my conscience is certainly poking me to claim that you have lapsed so far that you are not a Christian. Ever time one of these meeting between Catholic and Orthodox takes place there is a storm of interest on the net with people always talking about he issues that the Orthodox have with Catholics. They seem to all be completely ignorant of the issues that the Catholics have with the orthodox. Catholic tradition holds that Peter brought the Mass to Rome and that the original Mass of the first Christians was with unleavened bread. We beleive that the Mass using leavened bread was an inovation. As such, we will not stop you from conduction your mass the way you want to but you certainly can not tell us that our Mass with unleavened bread is not valid. That is not the only issue of course but when the Greeks respond to things like this it often comes accross to us as jumping through hoops and over hurtles to not be wrong instead of discussing in honesty. When the Catholics and the Orthodox were finally able to hammer it out with reason and mutual love and respect was the understanding finally reached that both are valid and one should not be imposed on those that practice another. The ultimate form of this comes to the understanding of the Virgin Mary. Those Greeks that I know in real life (not on the net) will readily tell me that the beliefs about Mary in the Catholic Church and the Greek church are identical. However, on the net Greeks have taken to telling me that when a Catholic say that Mary went Body and Soul into heaven some how we are wrong. Then they tell me that only when a Greek says the exact same thing, that Mary went to heaven Body and Soul is it correct.

On a side note, dispite your apearant hatred for us Catholics, I do still hold great hope for the future of talks between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. The Pope and the representatives of your Church are doing their job and they certainly are not rushing into anything by any means. If the Churches ever become one again I will likely be a very old man. I actually thought that Greeks would be very happy about the talks in that you are getting your meassage into the ears of the Catholic leadership and cosequently sparking great interest among lay Catholic in your Church. A lot of us Latin litterate Catholics have taken up the study of Greek over this and looked with all seriousness in your direciton to see what this union, if it ever happens would mean. A lot of Catholics have been very disapointed by what they found in your church as I mentioned earlier. From my view, that means we need to talk a lot more before we do anything.

By the way, the incident I mentioned about some Greeks worshiping the Name of God instead of God, Wikipedia actually has an article about it if you care to look it up.

I certainly hope that you take this as an ivitation to peace, which it is meant to be. I do not doubt that you have your own beliefs as well as I have mine. I am sure that Greeks do not want to be forced to celebrate according to the Latin rite but we do not want to be forced into your rite either. The Pope is acting with peace love and charity to the Orthodox and your leaders in general are responding with the same. I say let them do their job which they feel they need to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify a point as an Orthodox Christian, we do not in any way harbor any kind of ill will toward your church or its members. All we ask is that you stop trying to tell us what we should believe or how we should act…quite honestly, it’s none of your business. I can see by what you write that you believe yourself to be the true church and that you feel it necessary to convert the world; but you are mistaken if you imagine we think that way. As an Orthodox Christian all I would ever hope is that all men should act with love towards one another, that they should tolerate each others differences, that they should be friends, and that they should not engage in proselytism. We do not believe you have to be Orthodox to go to heaven; because such things are in God’s hands, not man’s. Therefore it is not our desire to be reunited with the Roman Catholics simply because it is unnecessary. But what you are asking us to do is tantamount to denying the efficacy of our beliefs – it’s a very clever trick. In previous centuries our people were often faced with this dilemma – pretend to worship the pagan gods or die in the flames – just call him Allah and worship Christ in secret or loose your head – Just renounce Christ and accept communism and then secretly remain Christian or be tortured to death, or be thrown in the Gulag. In all these cases, the best among us chose death rather than compromise because compromise meant to deny our faith. You ask me to deny my faith and accept that yours is just as good – I’ll die first! – I would never ask you to do the same.

Many of your points lack credibility. You say:

"We beleive (sic) that the Mass using leavened bread was an inovation (sic)."

Nonsense! For a thousand years our churches were one church. We have always used leavened bread, you have always used unleavened; these differences have never mattered to us (and I might point out that your so called Eastern Catholics use leavened bread). The Eastern Church has always had a married priesthood, the Catholics an unmarried priesthood; once again both were acceptable differences when we were one church. And as concerns the Virgin Mary there are those among the Roman Catholics that would elevate her almost to the level of co-redemtrix which we could never accept. On the other hand, we have always accepted that she was taken into heaven body and soul, we simply call this an unexplained mystery, not an absolute doctrine. It is my hope that there will always be dialogue between the hierarchs of our churches, that they should always consider each other friends, that we should discuss our differences and tolerate them. Stop trying to convert us. Stop trying to make us deny our faith.

Also, sign in...you seem very keen on remaining in the shadows. --Phiddipus 13:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick response to as to continue communication. This topic having gone beyond the scope of the article into an almost private discussion between just us I will try to to limit what I have to say. Let me first tell you that I am very glad that you have acknowledged that I do feel and believe as a matter of faith that my Church is the One True Church. In doing so I very much hope that you can see just how disrespectful it is to call the Pope something like papa anti Christ since the Pope is very sincere in his faith and even the Orthodox leaders can see that. You would not want Catholics to say disparaging remarks about your leaders who are leading the orthodox flock in good faith to the Gospels. You mention that some Catholics want to elevate Mary to the point of Co Redemtrix, however the vast majority of Catholic would reject that out of hand. That is not part of the Catholic faith and only the sedevacantist advocate such a possition. This also clearly shows that the human mind is a very powerful tool for inventing things in thought that do not exist in reality. Dan Brown is another example of that as well a his new best friend Tom Hanks. This is certainly a clear reason why we need our Bishops and the priests to hold fast to tradition and teach the Laity and why the laity should listen and obey. As to the mention of the Eucharist, it is indeed the feeling among many Catholics of the Latin rite that leavened bread was an inovation. Some Priest even go so far as to say that there is very strong historical evidence for the possition. At the same time, you are very correct in saying that it does not matter. Before the schism the Church had both and today the Catholic Church still has both. The Orthodox to not have unleavened bread to my understanding but do acknowledge that it is valid. What was once the main issue seperating our Churches was done away with after our leaders held dialogue in faith, honesty, love and Charity.

As to the issue of trying to convert orthodox to Catholicism, we actually are not allowed to do that. I would not try to convert you first becase I respect the orthodox faithfull and see very little different in our spiritual lives but also because the Catholic Church does not allow it. I remember very clearly the situation of a Russian woman who asked to convert to the Catholic Church and she was told that she had to get permission from her Russian orthodox priest. After some time, when no permission was forthcoming, she made an appeal to the Bishop. The Bishop sent a letter to the nearest orthodox clergy, 500 miles away, and the response was that there would be no permission but no objection either since it was clearly the personal desire of the individual. She spend a year in confirmation class, at the age of 28, and was confirmed in to the Catholic Church. I remember so well the fact that she would bow when recieving the Eucharist. I thought it was so funny at the time but now I go to a Latin rite Church where everyone does this.

I am not entirly sure where most of the Bishops from you side and my own stand but it seem to me from comments made by both sides that they really are not opposed to one another. If the laity would go along with it, it seems that many Bishops would be quite eager to see unity. There then seems to be the real path if it is to ever happen. If the general feeling of distrust and anger could be replaced with love and understanding then we would be a huge step closer and then only those really important issues that need to be worked out would remain, but not the anger of the people which we should not foster or encourage. There does seem to be the world academia that can arbatraraly class people but a lot of times reality contradicts it. My conversion to Christianity cost me a lot, more then you could imagine. My body carries the visible scares of what was done to me to prevent my conversion. In many ways I think of them as my pride. For six years I studied, attended Mass in secret and faced the physical attacks of those that wanted to stop me before I was allowed to be Baptized. My family is courtious to me now but the rift that seperates me from them is very wide. I get pictures of family gatherings but never an invitation. You say that you would die before converting to Catholicism. I certainly would not put you to that kind of test. I can tell you as well that I would die before converting away from Catholicism. The issue of trying to convert the other is not what will bring unity to the Church. If we really do carry in our hearts the same faith, just expressed a different way, then we need to understand each other so that we can come to realize that we really have remained the same Church after all of his time. If we do not carry the same faith in our hearts it seems very difficult to come to unity unless a new understanding is reached.

It may be that in modern Catholicism there has been a little bit of iconoclasm. I remember the funeral of John Paul the Great and seeing the Patriarchs of the East there. Near the end, they gathered around the coffin and sang acapella in Greek and I thought it was really great. Their vestments from the crown to the over all style really struck me. The Eastern Churches have a lot to offer Catholicism in the way of holding to our traditions and our culture.

At any rate, I hope that I have impressed upon you that Catholics have a genuine faith in Christ and most hold firm to our traditions. We do not disrespect the Orthodox Church and our leaders with of course the notable exception of Alexi of Russia show the most earnest fraternal bonds of love to one another. I do not know if a true unity will ever happen or if it is even possible but if it does happen it will not be a matter of converting one to the other. Very recently I heard a rumor that the Pope intended to put all of the Catholic Churches of Byzintine rite under the care of the Patriarch of Constantinople provided that they would be properly cared for and not asked to go into schism with the Pope. I heard that the idea died when the Eastern Catholic expressed a feeling that they were being given away or not wanted. I do not know how true the tale was but that it is being talked about should give you an insight into how much Catholics are thinking about his issue. I can certainly feel for you possition of protecting the name of Christian against those that would want to claim it for themselves improperly, like many of the protestants that no longer even believe in God or Jesus but instead hold faith in a thing called elohiem and say that Jesus was only a mortal man who had three wives. There is an objective reality no matter what someone may say they believe to be true.

So with that, I have written far too much already and I will say peace to you and God stay with you. Let the sun not set on our anger. You are welcome to contact me any time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.40.84 (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The main article under which this “Talk” page is listed is concerned with the Eastern Orthodox Church and its beliefs. We believe we are the true church. We believe we have “Grace”. We believe our priests and bishops, our mysteries (Sacraments) are filled with this Grace. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the progress of our Church through time and space. Consequently we have to believe that those groups which have broken from us or been declared heretics, whose teachings are not in line with our own are devoid of this Grace.

Now, that being said, we believe that God is All-loving and All-merciful; that being part of the true church or even knowing of its existence is not necessary to salvation – not because it doesn’t matter, but because God easily forgives such mistakes. We believe that our beliefs are real; as real as a tree or a mountain; they therefore have effects on every aspect of our lives. We cannot treat them as trivial. To us there is logic to it. Either you are Orthodox or you aren’t. If you are Orthodox then you are the Church's concern; if you are not Orthodox then you are in God’s hands – we do not have the right to interfere in your lives, we do not impose on your way of life.

This particular discussion began because I strongly objected to an article published in a Roman Catholic periodical stating that the Orthodox Church recognizes the primacy of the Pope.(The article in question: [3]) This is, as I then stated, one of many attempts to mislead our faithful, to trick them, and that the Roman Catholics have done this numerous times before. Not too long ago the Catholics declared that the Orthodox Church was to be considered a sister church and that her sacraments were valid for Catholics to participate in, this was done in the spirit of ecumenism and friendship. What the Catholics failed to do was discuss it with us. We suddenly had large groups of Catholics showing up on Sunday in our Church trying to commune and we were forced to turn them away. The Catholics then turned the tables and said we were so unfriendly because we turned them away. What you might see as a spirit of friendship and the hope for unity we see as a nasty trick aimed, not at friendship, but at invasion. You criticize me for calling your Pope the antichrist…but what you see as a warm embrace we see as another dirty nasty trick; one that ends with Catholic hands around Orthodox throats. Too many Orthodox have died at the hands of Roman Catholics for us to trust you again.

Finally, I have searched high and low for any reference to Greek monks killing each other over worshiping God’s name. Is this some other trick?

If you love us, leave us alone.--Phiddipus (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We if you want me to leave you personally alone then I will. I have no problem with that. I do not know of any Orthodox that were ever killed by any Catholics that were doing as the Church says they should do. Your distrust is unfounded but you are free to it. I do however know of Venicians having a lot of anger twards the Greeks and from what I hear they have very good reason. All of this in itself is not my fight. I would never go into an Orthodox Church though you will have to forgive me for seeing very good traditions being followed. This attitude of yours brings us full circle again though. No matter how friendly our leaders are or how much identical our faiths are it is still the Orthodox jumping through hoops to keep everyone out. That is fine from my perspective if that is what you want for yourself. As for me, I know that the Catholic Church is lead by the Holy, thus it is filled with Grace and as such it represents the fullness and completeness of the Evengelium. I worked very hard to recieve my baptizm and I will full disagree with anyone that tells me that it was not valid and take it as an insult to the Holy Spirit. We are not going to agree on this so let us part ways knowing that for us we are not reconcilable.

Oh, and I at least would never try to trick you and I certainly take offence that you would imply that. Catholic speak the truth and don't need to trick anyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imiaslavie I certainly appreciate that the Orthodox put an end to this heresy but their methods were certainly not inline with Catholic Doctrine or the message of the Pope. As to the issue of the article, you are actually right, we don't want to misrepresent anything here and this new development is a work in progress. Mention of the dialouge would be good enough since nothing is really final. The follow up conference is not for a while as both sides take time to look over the document and digest it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.221.205.10 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Catholicism has indeed enacted many misdeeds against Orthodox Christians throughout history. In several cases, such as in the Fourth Crusade (steered by debts owed to the Venetians, whose actions and sentiment are hardly justified by any measure), the perpetrators themselves had wished to cease because of moral concerns, but were egged on by the papal representatives themselves. Were the actions of history in line with the official decrees of the Catholic Church? This is debatable- not every Pope has been so benevolent in his actions, and many were men of the times, justifying actions which today might seem unjustifiable. The stings of Catholic invasion are apparently still being felt today in areas such as Russia, where the growth of Catholic missions is seen as an insult by the Russian Orthodox who are trying to rebuild and reconvert the nation after decades of oppressive communist rule.

Concerning the perceived errors of the Catholic Church, I truly doubt that there is any greater problem than the issue of papal supremacy and the events it has inspired (and the changes that have been instilled by the rule of the individual) throughout history. The bishop of Rome is indeed due primacy, but many individuals ignorantly confuse this concept with supremacy. As far as I am aware, the role of the Pope (concerning primacy) is as that of an honored guest at a banquet. He is due great honor and his opinion is very considerable, but the line is drawn there. He does not dictate the actions of the attendees. He does not overrule the opinions and desires of those present. These later actions delve into the realm of supremacy. As I have noted, nearly all of the other issues possess at least a distant possibility of being resolved (though some elements of theology are very difficult to reconcile; the Churches have become two entirely different worlds, it seems).

Be reasonable- no religion has remained pure throughout its history; the corrupt nature of its adherents are an easy enough reasoning for that. Catholics have used deception, they have committed grave errors and have greatly harmed others. They have also done a great amount of good for the world. However, one must be mindful that the Orthodox have often been on the receiving end of the aforementioned negative actions many times. There are many actions still taken by Catholics which seem entirely incognizant of the insult or damage caused. Phiddipus mentions a few examples. It is difficult to understand whether acts such as this are due to innocent ignorance of the reality of beliefs and cultures or due to a direct, deceptive cause. The kindest thing a Catholic could do for an Orthodox Christian would be to understand their views and to respect them. Playing by Catholic rules in an Orthodox setting won't win any fans, and is just a little extra bit of nonsense that incenses opinions further.

Forgive me if there are errors in the above text. It is, after all, very late (or early, rather). I do understand the sincerity of the anonymous user in his or her belief. It would indeed by a nice dream to see the Churches united; however, things don't seem to be going as smoothly as some would like to imagine. The Orthodox will never, ever except the Pope as being supreme in authority. All other issues, as far as I am aware, are up for discussion and reconciliation. Unfortunately, that one point seems to be the greatest wrench in the gears. Good night (morning).--C.Logan (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I will admit I was unaware of the history of the Imiaslavie dispute. Having read the article you directed me to I have still failed to find anything about Greek monks killing other Greek monks. I do see where the Czarist government sent military troops to oust the Imiaslavie from the Russian monastery of St Panteleimon on the Holy Mountain, and that 4 monks were killed and others hospitalized – this is what happens when you have a religion backed by a government – religious disputes have secular reactions. The same sort of thing can be found concerning the Greek New Calendarist treatment of the Old Calendarists. But these are hotly debated religious issues that have spilled over into political issues. I am sure the Pope comments on everything, but I fail to see any reference to his comments concerning the Imiaslavie dispute.--Phiddipus (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Much of these above criticisms are based off of common stereotypes of Orthodox that we see in America. Many people automatically see Orthodox as being just a bunch of schismatic Catholics, who mainly go to church for ethnicity. In fact, the person above made it sound as if you have to be Greek to be Orthodox! That is sickening! Another thing they said was if one accepts Orthodoxy then one must also accept Greeks are the best race in the world! The person also called our church Greek, instead of Orthodox! What about Russians, Romanians, Ukrainians, and just about every other country in the world? This is very insulting. In fact, Roman Catholics could have been considered Latin Orthodox, if that title ever came around. One could argue that the Orthodox were more "racially tolerant" because we allowed other languages besides Latin in our liturgy. And where did this idea that only Greeks can be bishops come from, or that we worship God's name? I know by Turkish law the ecumenical patriarch has to be Greek, but can we help that? And what's this pagan influence we supposedly have? That's a common stereotype I here that a lot from other denominations. Since Greece is very famous for its ancient pagan philosophy, than the Greek church MUST have been influence by pagans (but how?). I have a feeling the above (far above) critic of Orthodoxy has seen My Big Fat Greek Wedding a few too many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.183.114 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the more common tactics of debate, albeit a completely unscrupulous one, is the art of misdirection. One would like to make us believe this to be an argument based in ethnicity, which it isn’t. In fact I am constantly surprised when the accusations come that we claim you have to be Greek to be anything. In Orthodoxy, there is no distinction between races. An Orthodox who happens to be Greek is just as orthodox as one who happens to be Kenyan or Japanese. Russians are not superior to Serbs nor are Californians to Ugandi. The only argument that has been made in this section is that Orthodox are not Roman Catholics and do not recognize Roman Catholics as part of the One True Church. They are schismatics and outside the Orthodox fold. I do not see why this should cause any controversy. This is not name-calling; its simple fact. I will expand by making a few more statements that are true: Members of the Coptic Church are not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, nor are the Assyrians. Baptists and Presbyterians are not Orthodox. Hindus and Buddhists are not Orthodox. Nestorians and Arians are not Orthodox. Jews are not part of the EOC. Muslims are defiantly not Orthodox. Zoroastrians are not Orthodox.

That being said let me add this: God loves everyone. You do not have to be part of the EOC to go to heaven. All of the above religions have good people who will go to heaven. God loves them all. Even a few Roman Catholics might make it to heaven. But they are still not Orthodox.--Phiddipus (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are Orthodox groups within the church that barely qualify as Orthodox since they have dismissed, ignored, and forgotten nearly everything that made them Orthodox (Correct believing), likewise if the Latins returned to the Church then a term such as "Latin" Orthodox might pop up. Of course, the racial epithet has more to do with the language spoken by the people within that congregation and since Latin is a dead language (no country speaks it) and latin is not a country then why use such a term. The above parragraphs tend to use Roman Catholic as if it were a nationality or race, which it isn't. If all Churches were united as one, if they all returned to the original teachings and followed the original path then there would be no need for any names or titles other than Christian, which is first and formost what we are.--Phiddipus (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholicism

This is an issue that I've come across many times. I probably sound quite ignorant, being Jewish, but I was wondering if someone could mention in this article the difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Church. I know that there's an obvious difference between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism, but is Eastern Orthodox Protestant or Catholic? Or is Eastern Orthodox a Catholic denomination? I know there are different types of Catholicism other than Roman Catholicism, like Irish Catholic, French Catholic, Spanish Catholic, German Catholic (which is probably rare, since they're mostly Lutheran), etc. But are Eastern Orthodox churches (i.e. Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox) just Catholic? And if not, why, and what is the difference between using the term "orthodox" and "catholic"? I mean, when people talk about Christianity (at least, in the West), you're either Protestant or Catholic. Is being "Orthodox Christian" different from the two? I've looked up some about this and since there was some sort of schism between Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy, that there should be some mention of it in the article. Sorry, I'm just curious and I don't understand. ForestAngel (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox is neither Catholic nor Protestant. Whereas Eastern Catholic is Roman Catholic. Originally you had one church, with five main heads, the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria and Rome. However 1000 years ago, the Church of Rome (under it's Patriarch called the Pope) began teaching things that were considered heresies, and the Pope began exercising more authority over the Church of Rome. They also taught that the Pope had authority over the four other patriarchs. So eventually, this led to the split between the Church of Rome, and the four other churches. Hence Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

Eastern Orthodox believe they have continued the tradition of the church and are in fact the original church. Whereas Roman Catholics believe they are the true church because of the Pope and his perceived primary authority.

Protestants came much later, breaking off of the Roman Catholics in a movement that was at first, very "orthodox" in its teachings, but eventually strayed away.

I hope someone else who can explain it better can come along and do so. I only know a little about the history, but I tried to explain it as best I could. The Eastern Orthodox is the church that has continued the traditions and beliefs of the earliest Christians (since Pentacost 2000 years ago), whereas Catholics had broken off from the original church a thousand years ago.

This timeline is a good illustration of what I have just explained: Timeline of the Eastern Orthodox Church --KCMODevin (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, yes, "Orthodox" is a category distinct from both Catholic and Protestant. [From the Orth point of view, asking whether they are Prot or Cath is perhaps a little bit like asking if Orthodox Jews are Liberal or Reform...?] It might be worth adding that the Eastern Rite Catholics, i.e. giving allegiance to the Pope but using Eastern/Byzantine not Western/Latin forms of worship, are sometimes (especially in the Holy Land) called 'Greek Catholic' to distinguish them from the 'Latin' Catholics. (The Orthodox disparagingly call them Uniates.)

There are a very small number of "Western Orthodox", using Catholic or Anglican forms but giving allegiance to an Orthodox patriarch. Other churches of course do not accept the Orthodox claim to represent the most historically 'authentic' form of the faith. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be best for you to look at Orthodoxy in and of itself. If you need a type of distinction then you could look for a seperation between liturgical and ancient churches being far more similar (yet still not the same) to each other then those that are not liturgical. They are not denomonations of one another, they in theory represent a different school of theology. The 4 (four) big schools of theology are Armenian, Egyptian, Greco-Russian, and Latin. All of these have their splinter groups of course but the Latins have the largest splinter group in the Protestants. Each one of these schools of theology were originally part of One united Chritianity. As schisms and politicking got out of control they then each represent one break away after another from that one Christianity. In theory, they each claim to be the contunuation of original unaltered Christianinty and today have grown into the world wide Churches of the Armenians, Oriental Orthodoxcy, Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism. Again in theory, these churches could reconcile and once again form one united Christiantiy again in the future but if that ever happens it will be a long way off. Splinter groups like the protestants represent not a break or a misunderstanding within Christianity but a rejection of core tennants of Christianity. The statement above that says that protestants were origianally an orthodox movement against that pope is inaccurate and misrepresents both protestants and Orthodoxy. If you want to know about Eastern Orthodox, then you should take then at face value, treat them in and of themselves and their own traditions as completely seperate from any other movement. The same should be done if you want to study about the other movements. This is different from how you might study protestantism which exist almost purly as a protest movement of hostility to Catholicism and therefore can only be understood in context of where they disagree with Catholicism. The word protestant was originally coined by the way when a Protest document was sent to the government of Worms to protest the religous freedom act of what was then Germany. In it, the "reformers" got a new name of "protestants" because the wanted to protest the new religious freedom law as they did not want to tolerate Catholic in their territory but instead wanted to kill them on site. History can be so funny and informative like that at times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.194.188 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Calendar

The Old Calendarist position is simply this: that the Church established an order of events which was laid out on the “Julian” calendar. It established feast days and ascribed the celebration of various saints to particular days. It created continuity. This was established for East and West together and the Church has followed this order for nearly 1700 years. Sometime after the “Split” with Rome, Pope Gregory endorsed a change to the calendar in order to correct an asynchronicity between the calendar and the seasons. It was reasoned that eventually Christmas would be in summer and Easter (Pascha) in winter. Eleven days were cut from the calendar. This new Gregorian calendar was slowly adopted by most of the rest of the world. In the mid 1900s the Patriarch of Constantinople, without convening a general synod of bishops, perhaps with a misguided idea of bringing the Church up-to-date, adopted the Gregorian calendar thus skipping over 14 days on the Church calendar. Such an action was seen by a large portion of the Church as totally unacceptable. The Church calendar dose not have to be astrologically correct – it is an artificial construct anyway; but it does have to have continuity, which was damaged by the Patriarch’s actions. This was the beginning of the Calendar controversy within the Orthodox Church, one that is as yet unresolved. --Phiddipus (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem with it. But is has to be marked as the Old Calendarist position, not as the common Eastern Orthodox position. The phrase "traditional ecclesiastical calendar" should be reserved only for the Old Calendarists. —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 10:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish to add following: In pagan Gaius Iulius Caesar days, days were not numbered in months, this is a Jewish invention. Feast days and Saints are the same in both calendars, for instance 25 December is Christ's birth.

Pope Gregory endorsed a change to the calendar in order to correct an asynchronicity between the calendar and the seasons. No, the reason was quite different. He wished to have Easter in the same day as it was during the First ecumenical council in 325.

Eleven days were cut from the calendar. Just ten.

In the mid 1900s the Patriarch of Constantinople, without convening a general synod of bishops, perhaps with a misguided idea of bringing the Church up-to-date, adopted the Gregorian calendar thus skipping over 14 days on the Church calendar. Actually it was the whole Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece in 1924.

but it does have to have continuity With pagan computing of time, which is incorrect? —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 10:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Old Calendarist position is the position of the Orthodox Church for the past 1700 years. The Orthodox Church calls itself the preservers of tradition. If some churches in the last few decades have broken from that tradition it does not change the traditional Orthodox position. Eventually the New Calendarist will return to their traditions.

The Julian calendar was established by a pagan, but the Church officially created an Ecclesiastical calendar that superimposed the pagan traditions – purposefully. This Christian calendar was embraced by the Church for 1700 years and is still embraced by it.

The dates on both calendars retain the same names for the days, true, but the Gregorian broke the continuity by eliminating days. What the Gregorian calendar calls Dec. 25th the Church calls Dec. 12th. Once again the point is: what about the saints celebrated on the missing days. Pope Gregory just skipped over them as if the calendar and its feasts were ineffectual. If one believes that the Church is based in the Truth, that it is the Body of Christ, that its guidance is Real, not just some abstract mechanism; then it immediately becomes apparent why such treatment of the calendar is unacceptable. It makes the Church a dead thing, a lifeless tool.

The date for celebrating Pascha is based on three things that have nothing to do with the fixed dates of the calendar, the full moon, spring equinox, and the Jewish Passover. Because of this no matter what calendar used, no matter what year celebrated, the date for Pascha will always be the same day. It would mean that eventually we would be celebrating Pascha and Christmas around the same time – so what.

Even an Ecumenical Council of all bishops could not change the calendar; all they could do was support it. Eventually this will happen.

Continuity – one day follows another, nothing gets skipped. The fact that the date drifts was known to the ancient pagans; they tried to compensate with leap-years. Pope Gregory tried to fix this drift by recalculating and adding rules to the calculation. Unfortunately the Gregorian calendar also drifts – he did not solve the problem. In fact, the problem cannot be solved if only for the fact that the Earths rotation is slowing down. Computers and observation makes it possible to constantly correct this drift. It is very important for some fields of industry and science that time be kept accurately, that everyone be on the same clock/calendar. But not ecclesiastically. The Ecclesiastical calendar is based on 365 days and a leap day every 4 years. One group of saints is celebrated the day after the last group of saints – no skipping. Any drift is irrelevant as long as continuity is maintained.--Phiddipus (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

ad 1. This is simply untrue. Before 1054 there was no Eastern Orthodox Church, that's why no calender can be called Orthodox. No Christian calendar is used for 1700 years, since it was only in 525 AD when the new epoch – Christ's birth – began to be used. It was the Western invention the same way as Gregorian Calendar.

I guess those early Christians missed a lot of Christmases

ad 2. The dates on both calendars retain the same names for the days, true, but the Gregorian broke the continuity by eliminating days. Actually, they are the Old Calendarists who include more days in the calendar than it is needed by God's command. The Equinox shall be always on the same day, not all the time earlier.

I guess the fact that the Equinox and Solstice move each year means nothing to you.

What the Gregorian calendar calls Dec. 25th the Church calls Dec. 12th. Yes, beacuse it is 12th December 2007 of pagan Julian era when Christ's birth shall be celebrated. If you celebrate it 7th January 2008 of Christian Gregorian era, you will be 13 days behind.

Self justifying argument.

Once again the point is: what about the saints celebrated on the missing days. There are no missing days, since both the calendars has 365 days.

The days the Pope skipped were missing from that year.

Pope Gregory just skipped over them as if the calendar and its feasts were ineffectual. Yes, but they were not celebrated only once in the whole history. Is this such a problem, when these saints were just minor ones?

Minor Saints? How high up the totem pole are you? I guess you are saying is that the sacrifice and dedication of some saints is just not worthy of your attention.

It makes the Church a dead thing, a lifeless tool. I cannot accept that taking the pagan incorrect computing of time instead of Christian correct one is the matter of faith.

The Christian computing of time is just as incorrect as any computing of time. The pope didn't have computers. You keep calling the old calendar pagan...The pope didn’t' do anything with the calendar until the 16th century and most of the world didn't accept it until the 18th...What were Christians using before that...I don't think a pagan calendar has any reference to Pascha, Christmas, or any of the other numerous saint's feast days on it...If it wasn't a Christian Calendar, what was it?

Because of this no matter what calendar used, no matter what year celebrated, the date for Pascha will always be the same day. I agree, but for instance in December or September. Do you think, it is good to call December or September the months of Christ's resurrection?

Christ was born in the springtime...We celebrate it in December on a fixed date. The Ecclesiastical Calendar is an artificial construct made by the Church to put the events in Christ's life in a fixed Order with the exception of Pascha which occurs in a timeless state...the date on the calendar for Pascha Changes every year...it always will.

It would mean that eventually we would be celebrating Pascha and Christmas around the same time – so what. If you don't care, it is your problem, I care. In my view celebration of Christ's birth should always be before celebration of His resurrection, not in the same time or even after.

Apparently the Church disagrees with you otherwise it would have fixed the date of Pascha.

Even an Ecumenical Council of all bishops could not change the calendar; all they could do was support it. Eventually this will happen. ???

I forget, your pope can change anything he wants in your church - truth is changeable for you.

Continuity – one day follows another, nothing gets skipped. You know that before modern computing of time there were intercalary days, very irregular. There was no 7-day week, but only Kalendae, Nonae & Idūs. Your hero, pagan Julius Caesar, actually added a day to September.

The Church springs from Jewish tradition...there has always been 7 days in a week for us and you.

Unfortunately the Gregorian calendar also drifts – he did not solve the problem. Only 26 seconds per year. This constitues one day only in 3300 years. The solution was already proposed by John Herschel: to drop one leap day, for instance in 4000 AD.

Imperfect is still imperfect.

In fact, the problem cannot be solved if only for the fact that the Earths rotation is slowing down. Only 23 μs per year. Leap seconds are already used, even by Old Calendarists. :-)

Irrelevant is still irrelevant

The Ecclesiastical calendar is based on 365 days and a leap day every 4 years. No, this is a pagan calendar. Most Christians use 365 days and a leap day every 4 years, except for 00 not totally divided by 4.

a-hem

One group of saints is celebrated the day after the last group of saints – no skipping. It is not important when the saints are celebrated, but that they are celebrated. Many saints during the years got worsened their statuses to lesser ones.

Oh my!

Any drift is irrelevant as long as continuity is maintained. For instance accepting AD instead of AM was huge discontinuity.

I use CE personally.

—V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 10:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have nothing to say, you sure told me!!!--Phiddipus (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Random observations from a layman using the "New Calendar:" the seasonal weather that a given feast falls on doesn't matter much for the most part. Some local traditions associate certain ecclesial calendar dates with the first harvest or some such, but those traditions can be adjusted as needed without much trouble. But the fact that the fast of saints Peter and Paul can be very short, and sometimes not take place at all under the New Calendar, is a bit troubling. We sinners need our fasts. And of course under the New Calendar, Pascha can never fall on the same date as the Annunciation, which is at least a shame, though probably less of a problem than sometimes skipping a major fast. Oh, there's also not that much problem with using one calendar for church and another for civil events. It might mean having to use vacation or holiday time in order to worship in church on some feast days, but that's always been a hazard of being a Christian. Wesley (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicely said. The truth is that the calendar issue could have been easily solved without any disruption to the continuity of the Church’s spiritual life. Such things as: which calendar you function on when dealing with the rest of the world are unimportant and easily ignored; what is not so easily ignored is the sometimes violent disruption such things cause. This is not a conflict that needed to happen. The spirit in which the calendar change was effected did not spring from Orthodox Tradition but rather from a desire to conform with the world; and while this might seem admirable when talking politics, the fact is that the Orthodox Church, and especially her Saints and Martyrs have never sought to belong to the world – we belong to Christ God.--Phiddipus (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I care or that this has anything to do with me or this article but would the old calendarist accept just not using leap days at all until the calendar was put in the same place it was in back during the First Council? I know that a lot of people don't want to have things forced onto them but as Christians shouldn't everyone be trying to have peace in the spirit of the Gospel? I certainly am not trying to tell you what to do but it just seems like a way out of what seems like very unnessesery fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.194.188 (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would mean skipping the Saints celebrated on February 29th, as you can see above, this is something traditional Orthodox would not be willing to do. The easiest solution is to use two overlapping calendars and celebrate the Orthodox feasts on their traditional days. Basically the same as we already do.

As far as peace, well, we were quite content before some non-orthodox suggested to one rather liberal Orthodox Patriarch back in the 1920s that we should conform to the rest of the non-orthodox world. The conflict was caused by, and is perpetuated by the New Calendarists.--Phiddipus (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

These three abide: Faith, Hope, and Love; but greater than these is Tradition. Ming the Merciless (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Without tradition you wouldn't even be aware that St. Paul said those words. He also said in his 2nd epistle to the Thessolonians (Chapter 2, verse 15) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.--Phiddipus (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the spirit of Orthodoxy, it would be deeply insulting to suggest that any compromise be made to the religion in the interest of appeasement. As it is viewed, it is the Catholic Church which has gone beyond its boundaries (in general, although this whole thing is just one straw in the haystack). Therefore, it is inconceivable that Orthodoxy should change to accommodate the beliefs of those that they believe to be strongly misguided in several respects. Peace would be nice, but it is only done rightfully with the return of Catholicism to the correct path. There is no sense in achieving any sort of peace by the perversion of religious truths. If Christianity was a religion so open to such ideas, it would not exist at all- at least in any distinct form. This is, as far as I can assume, the Orthodox sensibility on the issue. I am not, however, greatly familiar with all aspects of the belief, and therefore I could be out of step myself. In all honesty, however, working off what I have read on the subject, I believe that my explanation is a very fair one, if somewhat general.--C.Logan (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an allegory – The Curator of a museum purposefully defaces a work of art. Fortunately there are experts with intimate knowledge of this particular piece of art, so it could be easily restored to its original quality; but rather than restore the artwork the other curators decide they would rather deface it some more and pretend like it always looked like that. Then, to top it off, they try to get rid of the experts. So the experts seclude themselves knowing that the curators will eventually change their minds. Even if it takes centuries, the experts will always be ready and willing to restore the artwork to its original condition.--Phiddipus (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Founder

While the church was introduced to the East by the Apostles, it was founded by Jesus. The article does not reflect this. There is no info box as there is for Roman Catholic Church and other religions. (Perhaps it doesn't work here).Student7 (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An infobox should be included. --George D. Božović (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article does have this information. The very first bullet point following the intro paragraph says: "* The original Christian Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles." (of course stating what the church's adherents believe about it. This is repeated in the section about the Bible and Tradition. I know the article is long, but surely someone could read the first set of bullet points for quick facts about the Orthodox Church? Wesley (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox Church was not founded by Jesus; the EO split off from the Catholics, not the other way around. If you want to trace it back to the original founder, you could say that the Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by Abraham. For the sake of rational articles, the founder should be listed as Orthodox bishops in Constantinople. 96.231.151.191 (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The statment above is wrong. roman catholism split from eastern orthodoxy because pope nicholas 1 said that he was equal to jesus christ, but when the eastern orthodox church refused to recognize this incredibly stupid act, he split off. and if roman catholism is the true faith, how can you explain that the roman catholic popes are all corrupt, and that they are whoreing among the roman catholic church, that its bishops are communists and nazis, i mean one pope said "exterminate the poles", and another said "hiel hitler", and the roman catholic bishop of warsaw is a communist.

You are wrong on all three points. In all fairness, it would be fairer to say that both branches split from each other; both claim apostolic succession with validity, and the Catholic books which I've read on the subject of the Orthodox Church recognize this validity. The Orthodox Church maintains a stricter stance on most of the issues between the churches- for example, the practices surrounding Holy Communion.

It is generally understood that the Pope, acting outside of ecumenical moderation, began to view himself as being supreme in judgment and having the power to overrule the decisions of other Patriarchs and Bishops. From that point, the rule of a single man allowed the Church to progress in large sweeps (for better or worse, depending on how you view it). As such, we now see many practices and doctrine which may not have passed an actual ecumenical vote. Because of this, there is at least a justifiable reasons for pinpointing them as schismatics, as one branch broke off to progress beyond the limitations of the prior body of believers.

Concerning your second statement: What? I'm unsure if this is meant to be humorous. In any case, the concept of Apostolic Succession is where particular churches lay claim to their validity. It seems clear to me that both Catholic and Orthodox churches can claim this succession with confidence, and each priest can presumably trace his ordination back through history to one of the original apostles. The same cannot be said for Protestant churches.

Finally, I'm curious as to what "Orthodox Bishops" you'd like to pinpoint. The issue of the Great Schism is dramatically complex, and it is doubtful that anyone could pinpoint an individual character as being the initiating factor. Some point out 1054, but again, there is equal blame to be placed upon the Papal Legates and the Patriarch. Even after that, things weren't official. Some state that the Sack of Constantinople was the killing blow, and I wouldn't be inclined to disagree, although it does not necessarily make it the cause. Again, there are too many characters involved to pinpoint a single, or even a group, of pioneers. The same, again, cannot be said for Lutheranism, or Calvinism, or Anglicanism, for although this too is a simplification, heavy weight was borne by individuals in forming these movements.--C.Logan (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, saying the Orthodox Church was founded by the Patriarch of Constantinople does not work at all. In fact, one could even argue that Cardinal Humbert actually founded the Orthodox Church by excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople. It's just not that simple. It's not like Protestant Churches where each one was founded by some particular person. The same goes for the Roman Catholic Church. One could argue Pope Leo formed the Roman Catholic Church, or one could even argue the 4th crusade was founder (as it being the final blow to the Schism). Catholics can argue that the Pope was always head of the Church while Orthodox can argue that all 5 patriarchs had equal power over their own jurisdictions. History on the pope's primacy before 1054 is very fuzzy and ambiguous, so to be fair, one must say the Catholic and Orthodox Church split from each other and then explain both points of view. Both churches have legitimate claim to apostolic succession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.181.54 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If one has to choose a criterion to decide who split from who then there is only one and it remains today; The Roman branch changed, it was rejected by the eastern branch because it changed. The Roman Church claims to be the original yet it has changed very considerably from that original; the Orthodox claim to be the original and hold to the exact same position as the original. This isn’t magic. The Orthodox is the Original and remains the Original Church. The Romans broke away from the original and refused to stop their innovations. The perfect evidence for this is what we Orthodox have always proposed to the RC: If you wish to reunite with us then throw out all the innovations and return to the way the church was in the 9th century, you will find us there waiting for you.--Phiddipus (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever virginity of Mary

I know that Orthodox believe that Mary is eternally virgin (that is, she slept with no one, ever.). Even after giving birth to Jesus she never slept with Joseph or anyone for that matter. However, what is the source for the claim that Orthodox believe that "she was not harmed, that she felt no pain..." Why would she feel no pain? Jesus probably cried as a newborn, being 100% human, did He not? So why would Mary, who is only human, not feel the normal pain of childbirth? I know some might say that Mary, the "new Eve," through giving birth to the "new Adam," could be reversing the pain of childbirth that was imputed to women after the Fall. However, I would like to see a reputable source for that, since I had never heard that (and I'm a lifelong Orthodox Christian), and it seems somewhat implausible (though possible). Men were condemned to working the fields by the sweat of the brow or whatever, and I don't think Jesus' life was sweatless or workless or painless in any way, so I'm not sure why Mary's birthgiving would be painless. Also, as for "she was not harmed," does that mean (something I've heard of before) that her hymen was not broken in childbirth? If so, I'd like to know the source for that too, because it also seems implausible. There is absolutely no reason Mary could not have had her hymen broken in childbirth, and yet still remained ever-virgin. Surely virginity is not dependent on the state of her hymen, is it? If there is a well-sourced Orthodox belief in this, then I have no problem with it being in the article, but I'm a bit dubious at this point. Tix (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the first issue that you've raised, but the latter is, in fact, was is believed. The traditional triple-star element found within many icons of Mary is representative of this belief: virgin before, during, and afterward. I'm unsure if the medical particulars are drastically important, but it may be possible that this was reinforced in response to accusations against her virginity because of the childbirth situation (who knows). It's certainly not dubious- I'll look for a source after work.--C.Logan (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

According to tradition (and this is reflected in many icons of the nativity) there were a number of midwives present to assist in the birth of Christ. One of them, the elder, was surprised by the Virgin’s lack of pain in childbirth, it was suggested to her that indeed the Virgin Mary’s hymen was unbroken. She refused to believe this and decided to check for herself. (this sounds rather gruesome today, but she was a midwife) She confirmed that the Virgin was still intact. Some traditions continue the story and say that when she touched the Virgin in this inappropriate way that her hand withered and became useless. She immediately repented, asked forgiveness, and when she took the Christ child into her arms her hand was healed. She is often shown in icons holding or washing Christ while the Virgin reclines.--Phiddipus (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Double Headed Eagle

The double headed eagle is an extension of the Roman Standard with Christian overtones. The two heads represent in one case the union of Church and State within the imperial government wether Roman, Byzantine, or Russian, and in the other case the two heads represent the two natures of Christ, human and divine united in one body. The double headed eagle is still used extensively by the various Orthodox nationalities even though the Byzantine and Russian empires no longer exist. So it seems an appropriate symbol of the Orthodox church through the centuries. It has been removed...comments before I restore it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phiddipus (talk • contribs) 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Organization

Someone PLEASE take pity on this poor article, and edit it into paragraphs, or something? As it is, it's a big blob of text, hard to read, and in definite need of editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgranzeau (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the History section: Early Church

A large portion of the text is Roman Catholic POV. First there are the dreaded comparisons between RC and EO that we try and avoid. Most of what it says does not reflect Orthodox teachings at all. Even being highly objective one can see a Roman Catholic wrote most of it. --Phiddipus (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your argument with examples if possible? I don't quite see what the issue is, although the amount of comparison given is somewhat excessive.--C.Logan (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, for instance:

“Like Roman Catholics, the Orthodox believe that Jesus established an Apostolic Succession, Christ's authority in the hands of the Church, passed down from priest to priest.[31] However, they differ in viewing the Bishop of Rome as but one co-equal Bishop having no greater authority than was held by the Bishop of Jerusalem or the Bishop of Constantinople.”

Besides the first obvious and unnecessary comparison statement, the Orthodox view the Pope as having been equal to all other bishops, not just patriarchs. The Pope’s position carries some prestige with it because his city was the old Roman capitol, just as our patriarchs carry a similar prestige because of their sees, but they are forbidden by the canons of the church to interfere in each others business – there is no exception for the Pope. I guess what I don’t like about the above statement is the implication that the Orthodox had leaders (the patriarchs) who were somehow vying for power and who considered themselves above other bishops. This is further reinforced by the following statement that:

“Roman Catholics recognize only one line of Apostolic Succession from Peter based in Rome, whereas the Orthodox Church holds that five (5) equal Bishops were established in the early Christian Church, Rome being only one of the five.”

actually patriarchs are representitives of the church, and they are also bishops, but they watch a bigger diocese than normal bishops. They meet in a synod with the other patriarchs to discuss important matters in the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.105.91 (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the last added statement is completely wrong. Patriarchs do not represent the Church any more than any other bishop. Patriarchs do not necessarily have a large diocese - The Patriarch of Jerusalem has a small diocese compared to the Archbishop of Greece. It is the historical and political prestige of the city that allows for the naming of a Patriarch. Byzantium had an archbishop until Constantine the Great made it the capitol. Lastly, I know of no occasion in which the patriarchs meet for a synod together. They meet with the other bishops of their own synods, but other than an ecumenical council, they do not meet with each other.--Phiddipus (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To continue:

“In the Roman Catholic view, all churches were originally one church called the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, based in Rome, and the Oriental Orthodox broke from this Catholic Church following the 4th Ecumenical Council or Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, declaring Constantinople to be the New Rome.”

Because the RCPOV is clearly stated it implies that we somehow differ, that we don’t believe we were all one church and that somehow we are associated with the non-Caledonian churches. And then there is this statement:

“Yet the Church in Rome continued good relations and sought reconciliation, until the Roman and Orthodox Churches finally broke completely and ex-communicated one another in 1054 AD”

The split was initiated and sustained by the Pope and his minions. What the Roman church now calls some of the early councils attempting a reconciliation the Orthodox see as treacherous events with the Pope attempting to coerce the Orthodox delegates into submission.

“They do not recognize any special role of the Bishop of Rome or accept arguments for such a role, such as Peter allegedly having transferred the center of the early Christian Church from Jerusalem to Rome, or Peter having endorsed the supremacy of the Roman Bishop or any other single leader.”

Sounds like we are spoiled children plugging our ears. We do not accept their “Arguments” because they are based on a completely wrong and self-serving misinterpretation of the Greek text of scripture.

I could go on but dinner is ready…But my final comment is: what is all this stuff doing under the title “Early Church”--Phiddipus (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agrypnia - All night vigil

In my experience, having traveled widely, and being familiar with many traditions both Greek and Russian I am curious if the following statement, contained in the paragraph concerning Orthodox services, is true:

On certain Great Feasts (and, according to some traditions, every Sunday) a special All-Night Vigil (Agrypnia) will be celebrated from late at night on the eve of the feast until early the next morning.

I am curious to know who and where they celebrate an agrypnia every Sunday.--Phiddipus (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is more common in the Slavic tradition. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe?

What are the Oriental Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe? I've read the description in the article on Oriental Orthodoxy, but couldn't find a single European country there. It almost looks as if all major Eastern Orthodox churches are the European Orthodox ones (except Georgia), while Oriental Orthodoxy is comprised of non-European Orthodox Christian churches. --Humanophage (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What you've noticed is correct. All Eastern churches in Europe are Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonian). There aren't Oriental Orthodox (not Chalcedonian) churches in Europe. Excepting Georgia.

It is to be noted that even Eastern Orthodox churches appear to be national churches (and sometimes there are territorial disputes on this basis), they are actually defined regarding a territory, not a nation (e.g. Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem). See Territorial Jurisdiction According to Orthodox Canon Law. The Phenomenon of Ethnophyletism in Recent Years on the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople website. adriatikus | talk 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Baptism Outside the Orthodox Church

There is an ongoing misunderstanding about the mysteries of the Church and the transmission of Grace. From an Orthodox perspective in order for a mystery to be valid it has to have Grace. Grace is passed down to us physically through Apostolic Succession. Bishops administer this Grace to the faithful through the Mysteries. If there is any question about the validity of an Orthodox bishop’s state within the Church; if he is acting outside the boundaries that the Church sets for him; if he is teaching heresy; the Church requires that Orthodox Christians refrain from receiving the Mysteries from such an individual. An Orthodox Christian would not, for instance, consider the heretics Arius or Nestorius as valid administers of Grace. If the cleric is vindicated then he returns to his former state. If he is defrocked or expelled from the Church he no longer administers the Grace of God and his Mysteries are considered invalid. This is within the boundaries of control of the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church does not recognize Grace outside of its boundaries. That does not mean that God does not love and care for all people, nor does it mean that God does not act within other religions; It means that the Orthodox Church is not in charge of non-Orthodox and we have no way of knowing how God interacts with them. The Church administers to Orthodox Christians exclusively. Its Mysteries are for Orthodox Christians. It does not commune non-Orthodox, or marry them, or confess them. Likewise Orthodox Christians do not go to non-Orthodox for the Mysteries since they do not have Grace.

As far as Orthodox Christians are concerned, there is no valid Mystery outside the Church. The baptism of heretics and schismatics is not Valid and carries no Grace. So why do we sometimes accept converts to the Orthodox Church without a formal baptism? It is because our clergy do have Grace and can fill the empty form of the ritual done by outsiders. Our clergy have the ability to exercise “economia” (discretion) in special cases. If an Orthodox cleric chooses because of special circumstances to receive a convert via Chrismation alone this does not mean that he recognized the validity of their previous non-Orthodox baptism, but rather that he has filled the empty form with Grace. Orthodox do not recognize any mysteries, even baptism, outside the Orthodox Church.; and in general, economia is only resorted to in special cases.

In these modern times and because of our global communications we Orthodox have tried to fit in to the world’s religious community. It is often the case where we will emphasize our similarities to other churches in order to attract new members and in the process have perpetuated misunderstandings even among our own people. The Church is currently divided on issues of ecumenism brought on by this desire to “fit in” with the world. We justify our position saying “love thy neighbor” and “can’t we all just get along”. And while Love should guide us in all things, it should not lead us to compromise our position. In our modern world there is nothing wrong with loving and communicating with our non-Orthodox brothers. We should all foster an environment of tolerance for one another. But the misleading ecumenism should stop. It does not help.--Phiddipus (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC

don't you think that even if you disagree with the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarch of Constantinople, their opinion and practice should be at least mentioned and recognized as having some authority for some Orthodox?Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The article should simply and accurately document the facts of how the Orthodox Church receives converts. Currently it says converts are "usually" received by baptism. This statement is vague and unverifiable. Better would be to simply state the practices of the major jurisidictions for which documentation of their practices can be found. If you can find good sources that support assertions of that kind it would be great. Mrhsj (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-defining Orthodoxy

The opening passage needs some rework. There seems to be an attempt to define the Orthodox Church along the lines of communication between Sees; this is incorrect. There have been many times when controversy assaults the church, when one or more Episcopal Sees withhold communion from one another. This is, in fact, prescribed in the canons as a valid method of protest. Until an Oecumenical Council decides one way or another that a particular faction is in error, or rather committing heresy, the protesting group remains within the Church.

Correctly, what defines an Orthodox Bishop is that:

A. He has Apostolic Succession

B. His beliefs are Orthodox - He is in perfect agreement with the teachings (canons, consensus of the Fathers) of the Church - He is Not a heretic

Disobedience does not remove a bishop from his position when his position is the defense of Orthodoxy. The most commonly sited example of this situation is Saint Maximos the Confessor. There are a number of sees within the Church today that are validly in protest. They have followed canon law in their methods of protest and cannot validly be labeled as outside the Church. There are others who have broken from the Church using invalid means – we are not speaking of them. If we are to speak of the Old Calendarists we must divide them into two groups:

A. Those who have correctly followed the canons and walled themselves off from the sees they perceive to be in error, but continue to recognize their Orthodoxy and await a valid Oecumenical Council.

B. Those who have broken ties with the rest of Orthodoxy declaring themselves to be the only Orthodox left in the world, and have done so without an Oecumenical Council.

The first group cannot be labeled as non-Orthodox because they are in perfect agreement with the teachings and practices of the Church – there is nothing within their theology which can be called heresy, and they have never acted outside of canon law in their protest.

The second group has, in fact, broken from Orthodoxy by declaring that the Grace of God no longer flows through the rest of the Church. They have not followed canon law in their methods of protest.

As long as the first group or any group like them exists then you cannot define validity in Orthodoxy as intercommunion between Sees.--Phiddipus (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that temporary breaks in communion have occurred in Church history, it would be incorrect to remove the idea of intercommunion from the definition of what constitutes the Orthodox Church. I may hold my breath for a minute or two, but living people breath -- likewise, communion may be broken for a time, but at some point, just as a person who stops breathing long enough will die, likewise, a break in communion that lasts long enough ultimately results in one part of the Church becoming a severed branch that is no longer part of the Church. The nuance you are trying to get to would be better hashed out in the body of the article, rather than in the introduction. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Evlogite! The opening statement should be simple and encyclopedic. While I agree that intercommunion between the various “jurisdictions” is a fact; I don’t think that it should be used to define Orthodoxy within the opening statement. Wikipedia is a publicly viewed forum where people interested in a subject, such as Orthodoxy, might look for definitions. Such people look for how our church differs from other churches and what are its demographics. We contributors try to state as clearly as possible an Orthodox understanding without confusing the issue. To state that all true Orthodox are in total communion with one another makes it very easy for the ecumenists to dismiss forthwith the Old Calendarists and their very valid argument. --Phiddipus (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian Orthodox Church

The Macedonian Orthodox church is neither recognised nor accepted as part of the eastern orthodox communion by any of the eastern orthodox churches. It is a completely separate body and it must be treated as such, thats why I ommited the references related to the republic of macedonia for puproses of accuracy and clarity.194.219.26.65 (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Membership figures

I found this sentence in the section about membership figures: "In addition, there are also significant Orthodox communities in Western Europe (solely the transplanted Romanian, Serbian, Albanian, Greek and Armenian communities)". Though the status of the Armenians as Orthodox may be debated, this happens to be an article particularly about the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church. In this context, the Armenians are not Eastern Orthodox and probably should not be mentioned in the article in this way. Deusveritasest (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholics - Please leave your POV out of our article!

I would just like to say that I am getting tired of fixing all the RC edits to our Orthodox article. Its plain rude. You don't get us editing the RC article and telling you why you are wrong. Stop it please.--Phiddipus (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Finland is missing

Please add into main article; Finland. Of the total population of little more than five million, about half a million Finns are Greek Orthodox Believers, have been since 1200´s or even before, specially in Eastern Finland. Greek Orthodoxy is the second offical state religion. The Finland´s Orthodox Church (just like the Estonian one) is direct under Patriach of Constantinople, not under Patriach of Moskova. This situation was also up to 1809. During the days of The Grand Duchy of Finland in 1809 - 1917 the Orthodox Church in Finland was placed under the Patriach of Moskova, but after the independence of Finland in 1917 the Orthodox Church took away to separate it from Moscow. This happened offically in 1923 when both Estonian and Finnish Orthodox Churches returned to Greek Orthodox Patriachy in Constantinople. Since 1992 when the Finnish origin Ingermanlanders were allowed to move into Finland from Ingermanland and from elsewhere in Russia, about 50.000 Russian language speakers have returned. Most of them were Russian Orthodox Believers, but most of them which felt themselves as Finns or Estonians have also joined to Finnish Orthodox Church. But about 13.000 of whose only one maternal or paternal grand perents being ethic Finn have not decided upon their transfer and are the members of Moskova Patriachy. The Moscow Patriachy decided to found its own church in Helsinki in 2005 (opened in 2007). Thus there are now two kind of Orthodox Churches in Finland. The same situation is also in Estonia, where those of Russian ethnic backround (a memory of Soviet occupation 1944 - 1991) are members of Moscow Petriarchy but Ethnic Estonians are the members of Estonian Greek Orthodox Church under the Patriach of Contanstinope. Strange situation indeed. Most of the Lutherian fate Finns are very suspecious of the aims of this new attempt of Moskova oriented rivailing Orthodox Church suspecting it has also some polical motives to made appearence to Finland after a break of 99 years because there are one offical Greek Orthodox Church already in the country. Many elder Finns consider still Moskova lead Orthodox Church with direct link to Moskova only as an political instrument of Moskova´s attempts to expansion in the expense of cover of its Moskova Patriachy which bring still bad memories of its past present in Finland, as an instrument of Russification.

The offical reason of its appearence was its claim that Finnish Orthodox Church could not held its church services in proper Russian language. This has been rejected by the Finnish Orthodox Church offering services in Finnish and also in Russian languages. Battle of souls of Orthodox Believers. May I make myself clear; I do not belong offically to any church, but I believe as well as nearly all peoples despite being a member to any particular Christian opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.201.128 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)