Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

What's the reason for the recent image changing?

Reasons are supposed to be given on the edit lines for changes made, and there's been trouble with the placement of the photo of Voronezh Cathedral since it was introduced during other contentious editing. (1) The picture that user Lialiss insists on is not really of the cathedral proper, but of statuary outside it. I suspect the caption is inaccurate, and insist that a proper description be made. In addition, there should be justification of why this user insists on its location in the Church Councils section when it has no apparent connection to that subject. Lialiss, make it clear what the point is, and why it belongs where you put it. (2) User Insider replaced said photo in a more appropriate location with another view, this time of the cathedral itself. To me, this appears to be a good faith edit, bringing the photo into alignment with the caption. User Lialiss has reverted this change and returned the photo to the Church Councils section without explanation. Again, why?

I was the one who moved the original photo from Church Councils to Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union (1917-1991) - not a perfect location, but an improvement, I thought. I do not insist I have found the solution here that best suits the article, but I do insist that some reasons need to be stated for changes so that some rational evaluation of edits can be made. In addition, the article deserves to be retained in its prior agreed state unless and until edits and their reasons are reviewed and approved by the editing community. I will refrain from changes to these photo edits for about 24 hours to allow time for some response on this talk page. I am not saying that the edits themselves cannot be justified, only that they have not yet been justified. I would be less insistent if I had not seen the word "VANDAL" written into an edit comment. The article also deserves protection from disruptive editing.

As an aside, was it an error that put IP protection in place that expired as soon as it took effect? Evensteven (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just found the sockpuppet investigation that has been opened on user Lialiss. I have decided not to await developments here, and will edit the article to a state I consider to be stable and defensible, which will involve reverting Lialiss's last edits. Let that be the starting point for any discussion that's needed later.

Never mind. I find that an administrator checking into the sockpuppetry did what I would have. Evensteven (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Never mind about the IP protection comment above either. Despite a careful check, I still managed to misread the notice. Evensteven (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I forgot to inform you of the investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liallis. Too busy I guess investigating the cross-wiki disruption of the WP:DUCKs of Liallis. :) Take care Evensteven. Nice talking to you after such a long time. Keep up the excellent work. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure for me to talk to you too. Thanks for opening that investigation, DrK. I was treading tentatively in some disciplinary direction, but I am not really versed in the mechanics and support of such reports, so I was very glad of your help. It was, of course, my visit to Liallis' talk page that tipped me off about the investigation and your involvement. I'm glad you were able to spot the puppetry angle, which I did not (beyond the association with the immediate IPs on this article). I suppose I really will have to become more adept at this stuff myself, but what an obnoxious task these disruptive activities foist upon us! I have taken notes from your deft presentation and efficient model. Swift, definitive, and irrefutable: a great combination for disposing of trash. An admirable job, sir. My arsenal grows under your tutelage. Evensteven (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Evensteven for your eloquent praise, which although I am doubtful if I fully deserve, I acknowledge as an honour. I am glad that you are examining the possibility of getting involved in this business. I am sure your acumen will be very helpful in any sockpuppet investigation. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, building an encyclopedia is not easy amidst all the continuing disruption caused by so many socks and other interlopers. In any case, I got the idea of the SPI after I saw your valiant efforts at managing the IP disruption and I thought I had to help out. I am glad I did. By the way, if you ever need any assistance involving sock control just let me know. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much for the advance permission, which I figured I would ask for if/when the occasion arose. I really don't want to become involved "in this business" as a regular activity, but I do want to be able to act decisively if it's needed. I've always figured that when other editors show no initial interest in talking, that I should take the initiative. I like to have a demonstrated history of good faith behind me when I oppose disruption. It kind of makes things clear when anyone wants to take a look. And in this case, it was clear that this "Catholic" thing has been the subject of much run-around in the past. I don't mind at all leaving a strong calling card on the talk page to give the sincere doubter something to think about. There are regions where there's still a lot of bad, hot blood, even recently shed, over RC/Orthodox collisions, so I can understand how naming misconceptions and antipathies arise, but a push toward rationality can sometimes temper the temper, which is better all the way around. So, I appreciate the thought of "valiant efforts", but I was actually looking in several directions at once and trying to fill holes. The technique I like best for handling trouble lies in containment and dissolution where possible. Evensteven (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good approach. Unfortunately my experience in this area indicates that once someone has undertaken the use of socks, it is often difficult for them to reform. Case in point: I go to Liallis's talk the day before to tell him/her not to use IP sockpuppets because I may be forced to open an SPI. Next thing he does s/he creates the sock OneLittlM0use and starts edit-warring on Voronezh against actual user OneLittleMouse, whom he also personally attacked twice. So much for prevention. It is also the case that creation of socks in hot-button areas such as religious and ethnic articles is endemic and recurring and is often accompanied by intense edit-warring, heavy incivility and other disruption. Talkpage discussion, or other good-faith initiatives, are of very limited use in such cases. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just saw your response, and I quite agree. At the time I was doing the other, though, I didn't yet realize about the socks. Mostly, I wanted to be discouraging to any who were willing to be discouraged by reason. I may wish to be restrained as long and as far as I can, but when it comes to any who prove themselves to be unconstructive, I am quite willing to use as much brute force as I have at my command. Which is again why I thank you for your help, as it has supplied me with a few more tools with which to annihilate misdeeds and subdue the misbehaving. I believe in peaceability always, but pacifism only when it serves the purpose. I don't like fighting, which is why I tend to be relentless against attackers, disruptors, and the incivil. That kind of thing simply needs to be stifled, and the peace sometimes needs to be won. Evensteven (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Demographic maps of adherents

A new one was recently added to the article, so we now have these characterizations in terms of absolute numbers and of percentages. It will be necessary to keep an eye on their accuracy. In fact, I think both are already out of date when it comes to Guatemala. Total figures there may be hard to come by, but they certainly exceed 1% at this time, and at current growth rates could exceed 5% (and even 1 million) soon. Growth is also fast in Ireland, where it is approaching 1% of the population. Does anyone here know how to edit these maps when the time comes? Evensteven (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Order of precedence

According to the order at http://www.ec-patr.org/dioceses.php?lang=en&id=99, the Church of Georgia is ranked after Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian Church. I think this article should follow the same order of seniority. --N Jordan (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The ordering on the website page is not titled or described, but it does otherwise appear to be in order of precedence. However, I think only the ancient patriarchates have official standing regarding that order, because I think it takes an Ecumenical Council to establish it, and we haven't had one of those for a while. So I can't guarantee how official the ordering really is. But I did make the requested change in the article. Evensteven (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I have reconsidered and reverted myself. Georgia has a very long Christian history, much longer I think than Russia. I just don't claim sufficient knowledge, and this may end up being controversial. Evensteven (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The Orthodoxy in Georgia is indeed older than in Russia or at the Balkans. However, the order of seniority is based on date restoration of modern church, not on history. Otherwise, the church in Bulgaria and Serbia is older than the church of Russia. Also, Jerusalem is for sure older than Constantinople. I am aware that Russian Church internally rank the Church of Georgia above the Church of Serbia, but at pan-orthodox events, the order of seniority is based on δίπτυχο of the ecumenical patriarch. --N Jordan (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. There is an entire short paragraph after the listing that describe the difference in ranking: Note, that the Russian Church recognized a different order of seniority, in which the Georgian church comes after the Church of Russia and the Albanian Church – after the Church of Greece. The Church of Cyprus also has a different list featuring herself immediately after the ancient Patriarchates and before that of Moscow. This is the reason I changed ranking to match the diptych of Church of Constantinople. If anybody wants to move Georgia to #6, please replace quoted paragraph with a new one that would explain difference in ranking. BTW, the diptych of Constantinople is also followed by other 3 historical churches. --N Jordan (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Order of precedence cannot be based on seniority, a word whose presence in the article I had missed earlier. If it were, Jerusalem would have to come first, with Antioch a likely second. I am taking "precedence" to mean the hierarchy of honor observed among the patriarchates, of which Rome was the first from the time there was any thought of precedence of honor or of patriarchates themselves. Alexandria came second until the founding of Constantinople, whose place as capital of the eastern empire was considered reason enough to give it precedence, without consideration of "seniority". Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that it is an ecumenical council that set the early order and technically it requires another for an official reset. In the mean time, I believe that pan-Orthodox synods with the involvement of the Ecumenical Patriarch have provided the current working list since the last ecumenical council, and continue to maintain it for the purpose of the smooth running of such synods until the next ecumenical council. So the list from Constantinople would appear to be the most authoritative current thing that exists for all the many patriarchates that have been created in the last 1000 years or more, including Russia. Georgia is indeed quite ancient, but less so than Jerusalem or Antioch, so seniority simply cannot be the measure. Evensteven (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The order of precedence for all other churches except old patriarchates is based on seniority. The modern Church of Bulgaria received tomos of autocephaly after Church of Romania. It was restored in 1953. so the order doesn't consider a historic Church of Bulgaria established in 987. Since we didn't have an ecumenical council to discuss order of precedence, that is the only possible logical way at this moment. --N Jordan (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept that, though I have seen no official confirmation that seniority is the way that's been done. But I would agree that the Ecumenical Patriarchate would have to be the best possible official source for whatever list we report here. Evensteven (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I remember the Georgian church is negotiating with the Patriarchate of Constantinople about this issue and the Georgian church asks Constantinople 5th or 6th place in the list of precedence due to its ancient position. Jaqeli 20:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox is not Catholic in any sense

Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches in no sense consider themselves catholic. The Introduction must be changed completely. 71.99.234.66 (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia makes no mention anywhere of Greek or Russian Orthodox Churches being called catholic in any sense. 71.99.234.66 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The name is well referenced and it is the product of long discussions and consensus. Read the Discussion page. --Coquidragon (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in Greek or Russian official doctrine is it stated, nowhere, that they are catholic, nowhere. 71.99.234.66 (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the documents of Orthodoxy again. This statement is well supported by references, has long been discussed, and it was agreed by consensus of many editors. Please stop your changes.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote for me just one passage, just one, where Greek or Russian churches today call themselves catholic and I will desist. You have not one single passage to cite. 71.99.234.66 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I don't undo your edit is because of WP 3RR rule. Please take your time to read this discussion page. Plenty of references to official documents of Orthodoxy are cited here. I am not going to do your job. If you continue to delete wording approved by consensus of editors, WP has strict rules about this type of editing. Please, refrain from continuing to do so. If you want it change the wording, wait until a consensus is reach to change it. I'll be back in 24 hours and undo your edit. Please, read, read, read.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

When you come back, bring me one passage, just one, where Greek or Russian official doctrine of today states that they are catholic. Bring me just one. 71.99.234.66 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The passage reads:

...officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church,[4][5][6][7][8][9][note 1]

The things in the brackets ([4][5][6][7][8][9][note 1]) are called references and they are all from reliable sources and they are all verifiable so they satisfy Wikipedia's criteria of inclusion. Please stop your unsupported changes to the article by edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The term catholic (originally meaning "universal") has a wider historical usage, not necessarily referring exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. See History of the term "Catholic", as well as Catholicism#Divergent interpretations. As Dr.K. has pointed out, we have numerous reliable sources supporting the assertion that the Eastern Orthodox Church has, in certain cases, used the term catholic to refer to itself. It is not by any means surprising that the Catholic Encyclopedia (a publication geared toward Roman Catholics) would not agree to call the Eastern Orthodox Church "catholic", but the point here is not what others call the Eastern Orthodox Church, but what the Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself. For what little it may be worth, I too was skeptical when I first saw this claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church officially called itself "Catholic", but I conceded the point after examining the cited sources which show that some Eastern Orthodox theologians and scholars have in fact used this terminology. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Tell me please, do you ever recite the Nicene Creed during liturgy? What does the Church call herself in that Creed? Elizium23 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." --24.53.253.165 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow... a mountain out of molehill. "catholic" in the Nicene Creed simply is another word for universal. It does not specifically mean Roman Catholic. Orthodox Christians aren't Roman Catholics, but we are catholic, i.e. universal, open to everyone, and we happen to share some theological common ground with the Roman Catholics. Tpkatsa (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey OP, you shouldn't try to talk about a topic when you have no idea what you are talking about. --24.53.253.165 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

See the new article section Eastern Orthodox Church#Catholicity of the Orthodox Church where all those 33 refs to reliable sources have been moved, and where the whole topic is addressed in more detail. Most of the refs are from Orthodox sources, and many of those are not only reliable but official. I get it: some people don't like the word because it sounds like it's connected to the Roman Catholic Church (which it is), but it is just as firmly (and oppositionally) connected to the Orthodox faith. Here's something else that is deprecated in the Orthodox faith: idle talk. Evensteven (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In response to user 99.50.94.158's recent editing: you mistake lack of centralization for lack of authority. Authority does not operate within the Orthodox Church in the same manner as the Roman Catholic Church (for example), nor as in most western institutions. The fact that the Patriarchates are autocephalous does not imply that nothing "official" can exist within Orthodoxy as a whole. There is universal agreement (in Orthodoxy) that the Orthodox Church is catholic, and the term is used repeatedly to describe the Church in official documents and pronouncements throughout, as evidenced by the RS supplied. You are not at liberty to define what is officially Orthodox by means of common usage as it may exist elsewhere. "Catholic" is official Orthodox usage, as evidenced by the highest Orthodox Church bodies and administrators: the Patriarchs, and even Ecumenical Councils (see the Nicene creed). Evensteven (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"The fact that the Patriarchates are autocephalous does not imply that nothing "official" can exist within Orthodoxy as a whole." Yes, it does. Look up the definition of 'official'. There is no authority of any kind that can claim to be able to determine what the 'official' name of the church is. It is not copyrighted, it is not registered with any political authority. "There is universal agreement (in Orthodoxy) that the Orthodox Church is catholic..." That does not matter in the least. It's not an official name. You need to cite what official authority named the church. You need to cite a legally competent authority that has adopted that as a name. You cannot do that, because there is no such official authority. 129.133.125.225 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No. You are demanding that a definition of "official" be applied that is not itself accepted within Orthodoxy. And as for catholicity, it is not merely a matter of officialdom. Within Orthodoxy, it is a matter of doctrine, which is an expression of the faith, which is held in common, which is not only expressed, but is believed, and not only believed but is prayed and lived as a part of Holy Tradition. Looked at from within Orthodoxy, the "authority" you are demanding is thin, fragile, temporary, artificial, and legalistic compared to the authority of the Church which upholds "Catholic" as a definitive pillar of its structure. The actual authority here is far beyond anything you have imagined. Evensteven (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This : "You are demanding that a definition of "official" be applied that is not itself accepted within Orthodoxy. And as for catholicity, it is not merely a matter of officialdom. Within Orthodoxy, it is a matter of doctrine, which is an expression of the faith, which is held in common, which is not only expressed, but is believed, and not only believed but is prayed and lived as a part of Holy Tradition." is utter myth.

There is nothing in the world named the 'Orthodox Catholic Church'. There is no organization. There is no entity. There is no institution. The Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople heads no such organization. If you claim that there is such a thing, you are lying. ---All you have to do is cite a valid reference to anything to back up your claim. You've been challenged by me previously to do so, and you cannot. And there is no consensus that there is such a thing. You have simply been more aggressive in attacking every critic of your position that comes along. Why do you insist on lying about the Orthodox Church?129.133.125.225 (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For daring to make an obvious correction, I have been sent threatening messages by more than one person. Because people cannot provide support for their positions, they attack me personally and threaten to have me blocked. This kind of behavior is hostile and an abuse of the Wikipedia guidelines. I think Evensteven is being ridiculous, but I did not try to bully him out of Wikipedia.129.133.125.225 (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"You are lying"? I refer you to WP:CIVIL and WP:IDHT. You know the policies. You know how enforcement works. What's left to say? Evensteven (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Please read WP:V. Thoroughly! And then come back when you're willing to work collegially to build an encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I must say this seems to be one of the more pointless arguments on Wikipedia. The reality is quite clear: 1) The Eastern Orthodox Church in various official and church-approved documents applies the word Catholic to itself, and 2) in common usage, the use of the word Catholic to refer to a religion is understood to refer to the Roman Catholic church. The current article reflects this reality perfectly well. Incidentally, a pretty precisely parallel situation obtains in regard to The Church of England and the Episcopal Church, both of which call themselves Catholic, as is stated on their Wikipedia pages, and no one seems to be arguing about this on the associated Talk pages. Littlewindow (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Littlewindow. The only point is that there is continual irrational assault upon this very point, with people edit-warring to change the article inappropriately. It has even had to be admin-protected from such activity in the past. Evensteven (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is Satan?

There is no mention of the devil here. I got a very positive impression of Eastern Orthodox Christianity from reading the article, but I wonder how many other potentially unflattering bits of theology might have been omitted in order to give it such a lovely aura of sophistication.

For what it's worth (being American), the Orthodox Church in America has this to say on its website: "The devil is a fallen bodiless spirit, an angel created by God for His service and praise. Together with the devil are his hosts of wicked angelic powers who have rebelled against the goodness of God and seek to pervert and destroy God’s good creation. ... Christ has destroyed the power of the devil. He came into the world precisely for this reason. If one is 'in Christ' he is led out of temptation and delivered from the evil one. ... To be victorious over the alluring and deceiving temptations of the devil is the goal of spiritual life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat262 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the OCA website quote provides a broad basic summary of the Orthodox doctrine of the demons. I don't think the Orthodox would find that unflattering in any way, if that is your question. We recognize demonic influence in temptation, and do indeed call the constant spiritual struggle against evil in all its forms a "spiritual warfare", about which continuous vigilance is required in the spiritual life. But we also do not focus specifically on Satan or the demons themselves, being warned that that is a path that distracts from our divine help in Christ and can lead to deception and destruction. It is very clear that the devil has no part in Orthodox Christianity itself; Satan is sometimes described as the "great adversary". So it is not surprising that little mention is made in this article, which is about the Church. The focus is on spiritual struggle and the Christian life, and the demons are peripheral (until the end of the age), and cast out and destroyed at the final judgment, forever to be forgotten. Evensteven (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting distinction you made between Church and religion-- practice as distinct from theology, I take it. I was about to suggest that if Satan is important enough to be called 'the great adversary', perhaps he should be described in some detail somewhere, whether or not he is doomed to be destroyed. I was going to ask if perhaps Eastern Orthodox Christian theology is the right place for it, given that there is likewise no mention of him there (not even in the Hell section, unless you count footnotes). But... alas, now I see that the winds of consensus are blowing hard against me, as there is also no mention of 'Satan' or 'devil' in Christianity (which has a section specific to the Middle Ages) or even Protestantism, which I thought had a history of fairly obsessive interest in the devil. The Christian theology article has a bit, and of course there is the Satan article itself, but if someone comes to Wikipedia to learn about Christianity from scratch they aren't likely to think that the devil ever figured into it at all. Times be changing, I guess. DesertRat262 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to draw such distinctions, and none made by me. I'm not saying that description of this teaching is inappropriate for the article, just that the article would need to reflect the nature of the focus I described. There is a definite matter of balance and weight also. It would be inaccurate for there to be an overemphasis, because while the Orthodox teaching is definite and explicit, it does not dwell there. This article has a very considerable substance to try to cover, especially as so many points are unfamiliar to so many readers of English, so this is not the place for full detail, nor is it in Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. My point is that Satan does not figure large in Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy makes a point of not attending to him; he is outcast, unworthy of consideration. "Great adversary" he is, but there is no greatness about him - only a reminder that he is beyond human power to overcome - for that we need Christ. Notice Matthew 4:1–11. Every one of Christ's own replies to temptation focusses on God, not on Satan, and not even on the temptation itself. There is the wellspring of Orthodox theology on this topic. Where indeed is Satan? Rejected, unconsidered, forgotten. Evensteven (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Aren't those remarks about Old You Know Who pretty much just standard traditional Christian theology rather than being particularly characteristic of Orthodoxy? If so, there's not much point in highlighting them in this article. Littlewindow (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that on this topic Orthodoxy shares a large amount in common with other branches of Christianity. But imo, its very active disregard for Satan and the demons, overt refusal to confront or argue externally, purposeful shunting-aside of temptation as a rejection of engagement or focus on it, insistence on prayerful inward focus on God and His ever-present help as opposed to outward defiance of evil, all these as a matter of spiritual discipline emphasized repeatedly over the centuries in its spiritual writings and advice and traditions and teachings, these things I find to be particularly explicit, direct, stressed in teaching and example, and held up as signposts for the faithful within Orthodoxy in a way that I don't find it elsewhere. Nevertheless, I know that many of those things would be (are found to be) equally helpful among many varieties of Christians who come upon them, not having experienced them in such concentrated doses before. It's a good example of Orthodox theology: spiritual direction coupled with the Christian life, expressed in action rather than words, in attitude rather than concepts. It is not a dry scholastic theology, simply an activity of the mind, but rather of each whole person, and the Church in communion. It can't truly be expressed in words, but only in the living. This is a characteristically Orthodox way of teaching it, and is perhaps more explicit and complete in its expression than you might get elsewhere. But the context always goes far beyond Old You Know Who himself. Cheers. Evensteven (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Byzantine naming processes

Come on now -- Byzantine Empire is the standard and universal name for it in common usage, and even in scholarly usage Eastern Roman Empire tends to be used only when the focus is on the process of the separation. (A pominent scholarly jounalis called Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies.) Why not just say Byzantine? In fact, I would suuggest, "In the Byzantine Empire Greek was the most prevalent shared language, and ethnic Greeks were widely dispersed geographically throughout. For this reason, the eastern churches were sometimes identified as "Greek" (in contrast to "Roman"), even before the great schism. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlewindow (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend not to like user 86.169.106.38's recent edit myself: I don't think it fixes anything, even what it tried to address, but just makes the wording more clumsy. Not that it wasn't already a bit clumsy. But the intent here is a focus on continuation over time, that the Church existed in the time of the Roman Empire, and continued through the time of the Byzantine Empire. Contrary to 86.169.106.38, the ERE did basically "turn into" the BE, not just in name, but in becoming independent of Rome, which had been conquered. And the Church continued throughout all of it, but undivided (unlike the empires). This has been a point of contention in some discussions on WP related to Orthodoxy, which illustrates how there is (in real life) a mistaken notion about the early church that often needs to be corrected, something an encyclopedia article does well to address. How that is to be addressed here is one thing, and maybe we can find a better way (I intend to give it a shot momentarily). But it is that point about the Church that is the issue, not how the development (and naming) of the empires occurred. Evensteven (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

British, Saxon, and Celtic peoples?

The article currently states (emphasis added):

In non-doctrinal, non-liturgical matters the church has always shared in local cultures, adopting or adapting (conventional) traditions from among practices it found to be compatible with the Christian life, and in turn shaping the cultural development of the nations around it, including Greek, Slavic, Romanian, Middle Eastern, North African, British, Saxon, and Celtic peoples. (For an example, see Yule log).

That northern European connection intrigued me and I was curious what influence the Eastern Orthodox Church had on the tradition of the Yule Log. But the Yule Log article doesn't describe any connection. It mentions a Balkan version of the Yule Log, but ties it to pre-Christian religion rather than Orthodox Christianity. The word “Orthodox” doesn't even appear in the article.

If the Eastern Orthodox Church has really had a notable influence on the British, Saxon, and Celtic peoples, it would be interesting to see it accurately described. As the article stands now, I'm doubting there's really much there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.26.108 (talk)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this kind of comment simply an artefact of regarding the entirety of the undivided Church of the first millenium as "Orthodox" within this article (in keeping with its self-understanding) just as the article on the Catholic Church similarly regards eastern Christianity in the first millenium as part of the Catholic Church. I think this is perfectly appropriate, though perhaps it indicates a need for clarification about the self-understanding of the EO Church. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The understanding of the EO Church is that Christianity was not divided east-west until 1054. Yes, there were smaller breaks earlier, especially with the non-Chalcedoneans following the fourth council. But the primary matter is that Rome and Constantinople were in communion with each other until 1054, and so were all levels of dioceses, archdioceses, and patriarchates who were in communion with them. It was all one church. The EO church thus claims Christian kinship with Rome and all its subsidiaries until that time, and its view is that it is entirely appropriate for Rome to claim Christian kinship with Orthodoxy until then. Obviously, there were differences which led (over several centuries) to the east-west schism, but for Orthodoxy (and I think also for Roman Catholicism), it was communion which kept them joined despite differences until then, and when they no longer had that, the difference then became a separation between churches, no longer an internal matter. For all that, both Rome and Constantinople sought reconciliation for more than 150 years after 1054 upon multiple occasions, even through war and mutual enmity occurring throughout the same period. The separation took quite some time to become "final". Even now, both churches seem to desire and pursue reconciliation, though settling the matters that divide, now grown wider, presents real difficulty.

So, to say historically that the EOC had influence on British, Saxon, and Celtic peoples is not untrue, it's simply something of a misnomer. At the time, there was no EOC (as such), and there was no Roman Catholic Church (as such); what there was, was simply the Christian Church. It was the Christian Church which had influence, and a great deal of the influence at that time lay in the conversion of many of those peoples to Christianity. But both RC and EOC share this part of their joint history, and hence that Christianizing influence. Jurisdictionally, the northern islands fell broadly under the umbrella of Rome, where they stayed after the schism. But a vast array of saints involved in the Christianizing, and others born, raised, and active in those regions, are all recognized and celebrated as saints within both the EOC and Roman churches, as they always have been. These saints include Pope Gregory I, Augustine, Patrick, Bede, Alban, Columba, King Oswy, and Brendan, to name a very few.

As for the Yule log, I haven't yet found time to edit that article, though I have my eye on it. That whole topic is rather a footnote to the much larger scale I outlined above. But it is a representative example of how a tradition originating outside of Christianity, in a culture of people who were converted to Christianity in large numbers, and whose culture thus was widely influenced by it, also found Christian adoption of the tradition, in whatsoever manner separated it from the practice of pagan religion, but found a meaningful acceptance within a new Christian context. Such cross-influences have always been recognized and accepted in Orthodoxy (including Rome at the time), although they have receded from memory among many westerners as the schism separated east from west over time. One thing the EOC has done is to preserve the tradition (including its memory). Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Aren't they just saying that some EO people use Yule logs? The influence is the other way round, no (as the first part of the sentence describes)? Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The influence can go both ways, insofar as the culture or cultural practice is not in direct conflict with Christianity. So, EO people who use Yule logs use them in remembrance of Christmas, another joyful thing to help celebrate with. But they don't use them to remember pagan rituals. The point is also partly to describe how a people or nation that is largely Orthodox Christian creates a culture that is prominently Christian, and a flavor of Christianity that is culturally specific. The cultural aspect is not really (technically) part of the religion, but the religion celebrates its part in the culture and participates in it. The more prominent Orthodoxy is within the culture, the more deeply they share. Evensteven (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Claims

The problem with the edit at Catholic Church was that it was 'Information about what the other churches think about the Catholic Church's claims'. The assertion here on this article is about claims which other Churches make about themselves. Here it is a comparison of belief, a very germane one and one which is likely to explain, to the English-speaking world which reads Wikipedia, composed of people very familiar with Catholic and Anglican churches, that the less-familiar Orthodox have the same belief of apostolic succession. Also, decisions and consensus on one article do not necessarily affect decisions on another article. Run an RFC in a centralized location if you want to make such a sweeping decision. Elizium23 (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion; I will initiate an RfC. It seems clear to me that a consistent standard should be applied to the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church articles. Other church's claims to be One true church seem equally relevant to both articles, and I don't see why such competing claims by these other churches about themselves would be presented in one article (Eastern Orthodox) and not the other (Catholic). The Catholic Church edits also referenced other churches claims about themselves. It was the editor who deleted them who stated that those edits presented 'Information about what the other churches think about the Catholic Church's claims.' Such information is only by implication (e.g. if a different church says it is the true church, then by implication the Catholic is not), which argument applies identically here. Piledhighandeep (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you say, "the English-speaking world which reads Wikipedia, composed of people very familiar with Catholic and Anglican churches," is "less-familiar Orthodox have the same belief of apostolic succession" then it seems it is more important to place that section on the English Catholic Church page (whose readers will be unaware of the Eastern Orthodox church's claims) than to place it on the English Eastern Orthodox page (whose readers are, you think, already likely to know that the Catholic Church makes similar claims). Piledhighandeep (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm no theologian, but I do know what apostolic succession is and basically what role it plays in the history of some major churches, and it seems to me that the statement which was removed, "Like the Catholic Church, Anglican Communion, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy and some other churches, Orthodox bishops trace their lineage back to the apostles through the process of apostolic succession," is a straightforward and accurate though simplified statement of doctrine. I don't see any implications of competing claims in it. Incidentally, the assumption that Anglicans "will be unaware of the Eastern Orthodox church's claims" would have come as a surprise to the Anglican priest who explained this to me. Littlewindow (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an issue of knowledge. I say that because apostolic succession does not mean the same thing between communities. Anyone that knows the history of Ephesus or about the history of the Island of Patmos knows that the other communities mentioned don't have the archaeology to back up their statement let alone the history. There is nothing the RC have that encapsulates the history St Saint Catherine's Monastery and the bible. There is no Protestant church nor the Church of England that can say they can show like St Catherine's that their community generated the bible and was part of the Jewish and Early Christian communitees and was a location of authenticate history and authority. There is more to this claim than just making it. From an Eastern POV look for example at the Patriarch of Antioch no Protestant claims this historical establishment (as once theirs and taken away or ever theirs to begin with) nor the people whom populated the position of Patriarch do Protestants claim. They have no history to such a place nor to any people with any lineage to the location or church as it is in the Middle East nor the languages or cultures that Christianity was founded in and fostered by. As for the schism churches they do not claim all of the Patriarchy locations only the one that was part of their community as only the Eastern Orthodox can claim the language, the bible and all of the original Apostles and the respective communities that they established. There is no history at all of any Protestant churches in the Middle East until recent. As for the RC they never have, because if that were true, they would not have had to go and by force establish their own on top of what has been there all along (as their claims are usually debunk by historical facts like the establishment of the Latin Empire. There is no history of anyone in the East saying that the Roman Church had ultimate authority over them or Christianity as a whole, there is ample church history and doctrine and none of it ever stated that the Church in Italy was considered a de-facto head over any other church let alone all of the churches. As for the language as such Rome provided protection to Christians until it turned on the Eastern Church as things like the mass murder committed against Eastern Christians in the name of Rome historically can attest (for example the Battle on the Ice and the sacking of Novgorodor the Times of Troubles or the Sack of Constantinople or the Sack of Thessalonica (1185) or the Byzantine–Norman wars or the Byzantine–Genoese War (1348–49) or the Crimean War. There is more but it get redundant. LoveMonkey 20:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see the relevance of all that. The statement in question (which was deleted from the article) was simply a statement of what the EO and some other churches believe. It was, so far as I can see, an accurate statement of those beliefs, so it belongs in the article. The article isn't the place to argue about the validity of the beliefs, including omitting the statement because not everyone agrees with the beliefs. Littlewindow (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To briefly summarize this issue (at least why I brought it up), you need to compare this page to the symmetrical situation on the Catholic Church page. On the Catholic article it was decided that it is inappropriate to mention that other churches also claim apostolic succession and that such claims are properly located only on those other churches' own pages. This Orthodox Church article reflected the opposite editorial choice, listing all other churches claiming apostolic succession. I believe the two articles (Catholic and Orthodox) need to deal with this issue in the same evenhanded manner, one way or the other. I believe the fear on both articles, for adherents to each article's faith, is that mentioning counterclaims to apostolic succession by other churches in their own church's article subtly delegitimizes their church's claims. This concern, however, applies equally to the Catholic and Orthodox articles. The two should be treated the same, I think. Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Piledhighandeep. This is the article on the Eastern Orthodox Church, not on the rest of the other churches which were mentioned in the now removed sentence. This is not an article on comparative dogmas. It is POV and devalues the dogma of the Eastern Orthodox Church to mention all the other churches in the same sentence. It fits the meme: "Like everybody else this church also claims apostolic succession". This distorts the historical importance of the Eastern Orthodox Church, because only the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches were the successors of the Early Church. Putting them all in one basket is ahistorical and POV. I especially liked the phrase "and some other churches". Can anyone get any more weasel than that? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well Dr K I too am in agreement with this position as I have brought up before to Esoglou that the Eastern Churches tradition was that St James was the head of the early Christians as Jerusalem is considered the Mother Church, before any such history of Peter, Peter was the Bishop of Antioch and then after Pope Linus (the first Bishop of Rome according to Orthodox tradition, Irenaeus) the 2nd Bishop of Rome. It is also true that me and several other editors have tried to point these things out (User:Cody7777777, User:Montalban, User:Rscole) in articles like the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. We get sanctioned or banned our contributions removed before any discussion and not restored. I just hope that any editors inform themselves of this kind of thing before they walk into it or get entangled as NPOV is very subjective and pretty much defined at the discretion of whatever administrator at the moment sees fit to define it. I hope they stay out of trouble as I can still remember the horrible treatment here that I got on the Filioque article and the theological article (Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences) for pointing out that the incomprehensible essence of God is personified by the Father hypostasis and not something onto itself as the Roman Catholic church treats the word God (in Trinity), in its theology and then decries Palamas as making unfounded distinctions in God (the essence and energy distinction) as they themselves caused those by making such a distinction through the filioque in the first place. Anyway I agree with you and the other editor so I am bowing out. LoveMonkey 13:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Small addendum the Apostolic Constitutions which is pretty much what the East follows (as I have understanding) says that St Linus was the first Bishop of Rome and that the church that Linus headed was founded by St Paul not St Peter. As from what I understand (and could possibly be misinformed) Paul founded the church of Rome and Paul and Peter are attached to Rome because both were executed there. As Rome was part of Paul's ministry and Peter was almost exclusive to Antioch. Also the teaching that God is the essence of God (uncreated)the economy of God (energies) and the Trinity (hypostasis) is Palamas, however the teaching that God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit and essence is a quadri-trian teaching since in the East God the Father is the incomprehensibility of God in hypostasis [1]. LoveMonkey 14:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

[intervening edit conflict] The Apostolic Constitutions is a set of early (3rd century?) writings, primarily about church governance and teaching: canons, clerical duties and relationships, liturgical practices, and the like. I am unsure about their containing historical information, except perhaps by allusion. However, I too have understood St Linus to be the first bishop of Rome, because both Peter and Paul were apostles, not strictly bishops, although the distinction may not have been tightly drawn in the lifetimes of the apostles. (An apostle is "sent out" to the whole church, having all authority, for the "laying on of hands" (ordination) in particular, but is not yoked to a specific community, but rather to the church as a whole. A bishop is given identical authority, but in order to lead a specific community, thus being associated with the growth of the church from a particular station or "see".) While it is true that St Peter was highly associated with Antioch, no apostolic office could be said to be restrictive. In my understanding, St Paul was more intimately connected with the founding of the church at Rome, but St Peter was not absent, and both were faithful in their desire to see the church grow, wherever they had been sent. No doubt, you are referring to RC claims with regards to the papacy as the "throne of Peter". While the Orthodox might see some of those claims as needlessly inflated, even fussy, I have not understood there to be any fundamental disagreement that St Peter was involved in the Roman church's formation. In the light of the subsequent schism, and various papal claims before and since, the RC church can easily make itself suspect to Orthodox eyes by overstressing particulars that are not really firmly understood, or especially significant. For the Orthodox, I think the key is that the Roman church was founded apostolically, and very soon a bishop was appointed as pastor over it. That bishop (Linus) then represented, by virtue of his office, the presence of the whole Church, now fully established in Rome, just as each other bishop likewise represents the whole Church in the location of his office. And personally, that is why I think the Orthodox do not regard St Peter as a bishop of Rome, for as an apostle, he represented the whole Church wherever he was, not just in Rome. Apostleship is not exclusive to a location.

At its root, I see this as an example of why it is best to leave statements of the claims of each church to be made in their respective articles. It is too easy to oversimplify or misstate such a position in another context, wrongly attempting too great a brevity. Besides, dealing with cross-claims or counter-claims is not only messy and space-consuming, but also disrupts the focus of each article. Evensteven (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of Orthodox, especially "doxa"

@Esoglou, this matter has received attention before on this article. The use of the root word "doxa" in building the word "orthodox" does not employ the more commonplace meaning of doxa, which is often translated "belief" or "opinion". That, of course, is the meaning you are picking up on in the dictionary. It is this general secular use of the word that most dictionaries pick up on and that cause them to mistranslate in this case. But Bishop Kallistos in "The Orthodox Church" makes clear that there is an additional meaning to the Greek doxa, and that that meaning is the one employed in creating the word orthodox (in the ecclesiastical sense). That meaning is "glory", and it refers to the glorification of God in correct worship in Orthodox church services. This is a specific teaching of the church about its own use of the word and its significance, and it is in contrast to the secular usage and meaning which one finds so often listed in general-purpose dictionaries who are defining the usual meaning of orthodox for secular purposes, and are unaware of Orthodox Church teachings. All this is less of a mystery to native speakers of Greek, who understand both senses, both because it is their native language and because they are often aware of Orthodox teaching as well. This is why I have reverted your edits. Evensteven (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is supported by the calques in the Slavic languages, which translate literally as "Right Glory/Praise", as well as the word "Doxology", which means "Word of Praise". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn, Evensteven, to what you have addressed to me here. May I be permitted to say that Bishop Kallistos does not agree with what you put in the article. According to you, the word "Orthodox" is "a union of Greek orthos ('straight' 'correct' 'true' 'right') and doxa ('glory' as in Doxa Patri, 'Glory to the Father')". Bishop Kallistos says that the Greek word δόξα means more than that: according to him, and I quote, the word "Orthodoxy" has the double meaning of "right belief" and "right glory" (or "right worship"). Authoritative sources to which I gave links also disagree with what you say is the meaning of the -doxy part of the English word, and you know well that this is the English Wikipedia.

The question of the meaning of Православие, whose literal meaning I know, and which doubtless underlies Bishop Kallistos's second interpretation, is irrelevant. The English word "Orthodoxy", which we're talking about, is not derived from that.

There might be some point in considering the meaning of Ὀρθοδοξία, from which the English word is derived. You rightly say, "All this is less of a mystery to native speakers of Greek, who understand both senses, both because it is their native language and because they are often aware of Orthodox teaching as well." (Και δεν ήξερας ότι μιλώ ελληνικά; = Didn't you know I speak Greek?) If you want your view to appear in the Greek Wikipedia, you may be able to change it from what it says at present: Η λέξη ορθοδοξία παράγεται από το ορθός (σωστός) και δόξα (σκέψη, πίστη, διδασκαλία) = "The word ορθοδοξία is derived from ορθός (right) and δόξα (thought, belief, doctrine)". But you won't be able to change what I find in my printed dictionary: προέρχεται από το επιθ. ὀρθός και το ουσ. δόξα στην αρχική σημασία «γνώμη, άποψη» (it comes from the adjective ὀρθός and the noun δόξα in the original meaning "opinion, view"). Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If those with a particular interest in this article want it to continue to say what you make it say, I won't interfere. If you want me to continue to discuss it, ping me or leave me a message on my Talk page. I have no plans to return any time soon. Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Esoglou, my apologies if I have offended. No, I didn't know you spoke Greek. I do not. I took what I have from Bishop Kallistos, confirmed by others who do. I grant your strong points, and they make me want to reconsider, at least in part. Bishop Kallistos does, after all, speak of the double meaning, and he is not the only Orthodox teacher I have heard who does so. My trouble with "belief" here is that I have seen others (not you) try to use this meaning to imply "only belief and nothing but belief". That is clearly contrary to the teaching of the church, whether Bishop Kallistos gives it or not. Therefore, it is not appropriate to substitute one for the other. I would propose a merging of some sort. However, I remember trying to formulate one in the past and found it so cumbersome that it would have ended up to the detriment of the article (imo). Maybe with your help we could construct something workable. I could certainly have overlooked a solution in the past. Evensteven (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not at all offended me, and I apologize for using language that gave you that impression. My strong expressions were not intended for you personally but in defence of reporting what reliable sources explicitly say and against replacing that with an interpretation based unsourcedly on a less basic meaning of the word δόξα/doxa. Merging would be indeed good. Say what the sources, all of them, including Bishop Kallistos, say, rather than build an argument on the meaning of δόξα in unrelated phrases such as "Δόξα Πατρὶ καὶ ..." (Glory be to the Father and ...).

I prefer not to have this article on my watchlist, although I think it now no longer suffers from the defect of talking not so much about what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches as about what other Churches supposedly teach. It was not in keeping with the dignity of the Orthodox Church to present it as a body that exists to protest against others and that is annoyed if any other group dares to say it agrees with what the Orthodox Church positively teaches – in line with Karl Barth's phrase (as reported by Hans Küng), "das verdammte katholische Und" (the damned Catholic "and"). I visited this article recently only because I had met, inserted elsewhere for the first time, that same inventive explanation of the origin of the word "Orthodox", and I thought it might also be here. Esoglou (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm very glad there was no irritation. I'm trying to slough off the effects of having participated where there is virulent strife on WP, and have perhaps become too ready to see the possibility. I certainly share your stated goals: reflecting all the sources, and Orthodox teaching. I'll take another look at how to accomplish a merge (unless you want to give it another try - I find your editing in general well-researched and well stated - it really made me hesitate to revert). If you want to drop this article from your watchlist, I will nevertheless ping you with my edit, for I'd like you to pass on it as it enters the article. It may be worth saying again, though, that what "Orthodox" means to the church is not the same as what it means in general usage. And it's not so much that it has a separate particular meaning or a less basic meaning, but that it has a more comprehensive, inclusive one: not just "belief", but also "glory". From what I understand, the former constitutes the general meaning in Greek as well, while the dual meaning constitutes the ecclesiastical meaning. One Greek word for two meanings, a common enough occurrence in English as well, except that the second Greek meaning is attached to the church's teaching (naturally, in an Orthodox nation), whereas only the first transferred readily to English (naturally, in a non-Orthodox nation). It's that fussy etymology that I want to prevent from becoming cumbersome in the article. And just to be more fully clear, "belief" itself is only something of an approximation as to the first meaning also - not that doxa truly denotes something else, but that it subtly connotes a more deeply-held or deeply-formed entity within a person than is always implied in English use. In the case of the church teaching, belief itself is held to require depth of purpose and acceptance, and cannot be superficial and still be "belief". The dual ecclesiastical meaning of doxa represents an extenuation of that depth of purpose and acceptance beyond simple belief, into glory, and how glorification is expressed in worship, as in "Glory to the Father and ...", so you see, it's not all really unrelated. There's more to this teaching than simple etymology, but the word doxa (or, rather, Orthodox) is used to pack it into a single expression. Dictionaries are just not going to go into such depth in providing a definition. And somehow, encyclopedias still need to be brief. Evensteven (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the meaning of doxa going all the way back to ancient Greek that underlies all the diverse meanings is "recognition," though that word is too pallid for what is meant. It's something that necessarily deserves to be recognized. Littlewindow (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Could be; that's not something I have heard. But we do need to remember here that it's the word "Orthodox" that we are trying to give the meaning for, in the sense that the church uses it, and "doxa" is only contributory, and that not in a complete manner. Evensteven (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't start a war

Peple please don't edit these article based on the principle that you find some info in catholic or orthodox sources. Because catholic sources express catholic point of view (usually all info in english, latin, italian, spanish) Because orthodox express orthodox point of view (usually all info in greek and russian)

Look at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism as a source This conflict is very old, almost 1000 years old.

Both churches consider themselves better than each other.

So a few things:

1) Orthodox are not catholics 2) Orthodox name themselves just Christian 3) Some people mistakenly name greek catholics as orthodox. 4) The official name of orthodox is "Christian Church", alternative is "Eastern Ortodox Christian Church"

official site is : http://www.patriarchate.org/index https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarchate_of_Constantinople

p.s: I deleted a racist interpretation, from a catholic source about the name 'Eastern Ortodox Catholic Church'

Simply it doesn't make sense, and clearly some religios fanatic did this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necromantiarian (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been gone into at length above, under the heading Orthodox is not Catholic. Please see that discussion. I'd point in particular to my own remark there, that "I must say this seems to be one of the more pointless arguments on Wikipedia. The reality is quite clear: 1) The Eastern Orthodox Church in various official and church-approved documents applies the word Catholic to itself, and 2) in common usage, the use of the word Catholic to refer to a religion is understood to refer to the Roman Catholic church. The current article reflects this reality perfectly well. Incidentally, a pretty precisely parallel situation obtains in regard to The Church of England and the Episcopal Church, both of which call themselves Catholic, as is stated on their Wikipedia pages, and no one seems to be arguing about this on the associated Talk pages." Littlewindow (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OK so let me see if I understand correctly the point Necromantiarian is making. To use the word catholic ("katholikos") as is used IN the Greek language right now TODAY and it is used to mean universal as well as the official name of the Greek church. To say this is racist? [2] The word catholic is not native to any other language per se but Greek it is taken from the Greek language and just spoken as it is used in the Greek language. It's not translated into the equivalent word in whatever alternate language outside of Greek one might be using. That practice is not the Greeks' fault. But now Greeks can't use their own words to describe themselves and their church?

As the same general meaning for the catholic is universal and the Latin term for Universial is the Latin word Universa but the Latin and Western Christian churches refuses to use whatever word for Universal happens to be given in the language being used and therefore the Greeks can't use their own words. Why can't the Latin church use Latin why does it have to use Greek? Since it has been warring on the Greek since the Great Schism why would it use the Greek culture it so much finds to be wrong? So now because people don't care to read or learn, the Greeks must now give up the word Catholic from their language and culture, because Rome has claimed ownership of the Greek word? Because the Western churches don't want to use Universa or Universal to name themselves no they want the Greek word catholic all to themselves and to make sure the Greeks can't use their own words to describe themselves. Does anyone see how absolutely wrong that sounds? There is no difference in the non-sequitor internal logic of this and the reasons used to say that Latin language has to use the filioque (even though the original Creed in Latin did not have it and it got ADDED) and the idea that once it was in there in Latin that the filiqoue should be in every language. Because it is needed in Latin? It is an impossible logic as it really is not logical at all. This is impossible and I am going to work on other things here that are not open to this kind of outrageous logical gymnastics.. LoveMonkey 19:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, this is pointless. The Episcopal (American Anglican) Book of Common prayer calls the Episcopal Church "Catholic" in about three dozen places, including in the Creed which is usually repeated aloud by every member every Sunday. I believe the British and other Anglican versions of the book have similar language. Is anyone going to go over to the Anglican talk pages and start screaming about this? Littlewindow (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Iraq

On 3 March, an IP introduced Iraq into the list of nations having significant minority Christian populations, which is certainly true when one considers all branches of Christianity. However, does it contain significant numbers of Eastern Orthodox? I have been under the impression that most were Monophysites or other Oriental Orthodox not in communion with Eastern Orthodox. I don't know the answer, but can anyone verify? We should not list Iraq here unless there are Eastern Orthodox Christians there. Evensteven (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

I think someone knowledgeable should revise this article to clarify the distinction between Eastern Orthodox and other Orthodox churches. It's true, the article begins "Not to be confused with Eastern Catholic Churches, Oriental Orthodoxy, or Eastern Christianity," but then it immediately starts using "Orthodox" to mean "Eastern Orthodox," probably to the confusion of many non-expert readers. Maybe there should either be a clear statement at the beginning that in this article, "Orthodox" unqualified means "Eastern Orthodox," or else the article should never use the term "Orthodox" unqualified at all. Littlewindow (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the lead that I hope will clarify this matter, giving clues that there are varieties of application of the word "Orthodox". Along with the topic descriptions above the lead, I think we have adequate pointers to further information also. I think a deep resolution of the complexities does not belong in the lead, but now the reader is properly forewarned and may explore as far as s/he wants. Commonest use is commonest, after all, and this is the Eastern Orthodox Church article. I only hope that a few editors who want to contribute material about Oriental Orthodoxy may find their way to the right article a little more often. Evensteven (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Confusing sentence.

"is the second largest Christian church in the world and the third largest branch of Christianity, after Catholicism and Protestantism" It's hard to see what "second largest" means if it is third after Catholicism and Protestantism. I think the implication is that the latter two are grouped together as one because Protestantism was a breakaway from Roman Catholicism, but this should be made clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.8.72 (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to clarify this in the lead paragraph. Evensteven (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "While Protestantism counts a larger number of members, it is considered a "branch" of Christianity, since it is composed of many separate churches of diverse beliefs." should, I believe, be made into a note — it really doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. And in any case, I'm uncomfortable with handling Protestantism as if it were a single entity; there are innumerable kinds of Protestants, and they are not all in "full communion" with one another. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I agree about "single entity", and why. That's what the distinction between "church" and "branch" is supposed to identify, and it's used elsewhere in Christianity articles, I think. But it's a distinction that seems to need explaining all the time, or readers get confused. The wording we had before my edit was shorter, avoiding the explanation, and here's the comment above to show the result. If we drop the explanation into a note, then I expect it will be missed by many readers, leaving them equally confused. And, if we were to use a note, then I think the previous wording of the article probably works as well as anything. So I guess it comes down to editors' choice about how to handle it, and there's no clear wording winner, as each has its virtues and drawbacks. I'm ok with simply reverting back (with or without note), if you think that's superior. Or we could keep searching for a better way. I've looked a bit at how to incorporate your suggestion without just reverting, and for the present am not seeing something I would recommend over those two options. Would you like to give it a try? Evensteven (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's too confusing, and the lead is anyway too long. Does anyone think there is a single Protestant church? Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"The lead is anyway too long" is a good point. I've never really considered the membership count and its relation to other churches to be the most significant thing about the church either. It's just one of those things I never handled earlier when I was concentrating on other matters in the article. But now that you bring it up, I may take another shot at the whole lead, perhaps removing membership count down to the section that handles it primarily, or at least abbreviating it significantly in the lead. So, unless someone else wants to leap in, expect something from me before long. Evensteven (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Agree re the "league table" bit. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

World map of Orthodox Christians by country and relevant claims in the text should be removed from the article

This is obviously wrong. Or put in another way, the definition of Orthodoxy pictured on the map (and intentionally or unintentionally used in its source, the Pew Report) is one including both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy; to see this just take a look at e.g. Aethiopia.
Amazingly there is also this "Ethiopia and Ukraine are each home to more than 10% of the world's Orthodox Christians.[70]" (emphasis mine) and this Addis Abeba Oriental Orthodox Cathedral in Ethiopia image at the gallery.
All these must be promptly removed. Does anyone disagree??? Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspected additional problems so I selected an easy target:
Just taken a look at the source on Ukraine (CIA factbook; for's god's sake!!); the definition of Orthodoxy used therein includes the Uniates/Greek-Catholics! Seriously, people, this article requires much more attention from us... Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No argument from me. I was already aware that Oriental facts keep seeping into here by the way people add countries to the lists of majority-EO nations. So hack away, I will support it. Elizium23 (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the more evidently ...problematic parts; also added a tag requesting more/better sources and more comments in the code. Thanatos|talk|contributions 14:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's easy to criticize - not that some of the objections are without merit. But the way to improve the article is to get sources that are more reliable. Therein lies the problem. To date, the ones supplied are the best to be found. We cannot improve upon what is available. What's more, there are (by my count) 15 separate sources cited in this section alone. The tag thus appears to be somewhat superfluous, and has been removed.

More (and better) citations are always desirable, and certainly here too. I understand the tendency for some to supply this article with inappropriate material related to Oriental Orthodoxy, and the like. But there is also a tendency for some people (like a certain author published by Intervarsity) to challenge numbers out of a desire to minimize Orthodoxy, or out of a sense of competition. Unfortunately, some sources are subject to those discrepancies also, so let's not introduce a bunch of extraneous viewpoint-type sources, but find those that do their best to provide some numbers that are unburdened by religious agendas. Evensteven (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"...there are (by my count) 15 separate sources cited in this section alone"
Well by a fast count of mine, at the Number of adherents section there are 35 refs out of which 18 are to the CIA factbook (i.e. presently ref n. 70); the latter as I've said:
"Taking the CIA factbook reference, a ref that's being cited manyatime, as the representative example of the problem: This reference is in a dire need of country by country verification check for details and subsequent clarification/corrections in the text because it uses a more general definition of Orthodoxy; case in point the Ukraine, where the Uniate Church, the Greek Catholics, are included in the people counting as Orthodox Christians."
This is hardly a minor issue; including Uniates (or Orientals as it had been before evidently) or whomever else is wrong. Excluding others (be it herein present now or present in the past or hypothetical), something done by the people you allude to, would also be wrong. But the one wrong does negate or justify the other... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thanatos666: I ask pardon for overlooking your prior comment. But what is your suggestion for improvement? Please read the last comment in this section and tell me how you propose to find a highly accurate and unbiased count for Russia, for example. It's hardly the direst example. Consider Syria. Dangers to Christians worldwide, particularly Orthodox Christians, are widespread, and hamper counting all over the place. The CIA at least has the virtue of being unbiased towards one Christian group over another (I would suppose), and would presumably have as much chance as anyone to be accurate, as well as motive to be accurate. If a source doesn't collate or group as you would wish, you are free to choose another, if you can find one. WP editors do not make the choices about groupings. We depend on what the sources have done. And a source can be a reliable source without being able to produce a "reliable" count - that is, one within an individual's margin of "acceptability". I think your goal is fine. But we are too accustomed to thinking that statistics are something we just have to go find, and can't seem to understand they're not just automatically available and certain. Let's please focus not on the flaws, which are obvious, but on the solutions, which are not. For myself, anyway, it will take more than recognizing flaws to convince me where to turn for better numbers. Evensteven (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a better source or a solution; but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least warn readers and editors and explain that the source(s) and hence the quoted figures are evidently problematic; perhaps for example, some other editor/reader who does, will appear and fix the problem(s).
PS No need for apologies.
Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea. In fact, there might even be sources that describe some of the problems, which can help readers put what numbers we have into perspective. Evensteven (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No it's not a nice idea because it's...not an idea, at least not a novel one. :) I was simply referring to the more/better sources needed tag I had added into the section etc. which subsequently you had removed but OK, anyway... Thanatos|talk|contributions 12:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I don't think the nice idea is the tag. It's not a particularly helpful warning. We can do better with a bit of editing. That, I think, is where the nice idea lies. Evensteven (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Thanatos666:, @Elizium23: Do my changes to the "adherents" section today, providing a notice as to the precision of membership counts, address your concerns laid out in the section? Or perhaps I should ask, is there more that you would suggest is needed? Specifically, Thanatos, do you still feel the need for that tag? Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Symbolism

Not sure I used the right citation tag, but the point is that this section is informative and seems accurate but has no citations (the one citation given seems just to apply to the isolated point made in the last sentence.) Littlewindow (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The last sentence also seems misplaced in the article. The remainder also looks highly accurate to me, and informative, but as you say, citation for verification would be helpful. Evensteven (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Membership counts and distributions and status of member churches

To all the community: I have been unable to keep up with all the details in recent editing regarding these two subjects, and will soon be away from WP for a while. I can give no assurances that all these changes are better than what we had on July 6, but the only way I know to restore the article to its prior state would be to revert to that date. And there have been useful edits since then also. So I do not propose to do more reverting at this point, but I want to say that the article's stability is in some question and it would be good for these two topics at least to be checked on. I expect that there are a number of useful updates also among the changes. But other structural improvements to the article will now have to wait, at least as far as I'm concerned - out of time. Evensteven (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)