This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
OK, I sent you an email about this, but you prefer this page instead.
Which is better? This:
or this:
?
A centenarian is notaterm; a centenarian is a person. (Believe it or not, the article titled centenarian actually did at one time begin by saying a "centenarian is a term that refers to ...".)
Other than that issue, I think if you want to explain what Oriental Orthodoxy is, it is better to mention the schism of AD 451 than to say the Oriental Orthodox churches are older than the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, since that is not true. -- Mike Hardy
(Occasionally, of course, it is appropriate to say a certain word is a term that refers to something. In those cases, since one is referring to the term, rather than using the term to refer to something else, one should italicize it, saying "Oriental Orthodoxy" refers to ...".)
Sorry: I didn't get any e-mails. I don't provide an e-mail to Wikipedia, so it would be better if the site didn't offer to let you reach me that way. I take your point about reference to the thing versus the term for the thing, but as you point out, I didn't add the word "term" to my choice of phrasing, so obviously it's easier for me to accommodate your reasonable point about italics. The age controversy is one I hadn't thought of. I was thinking, and I think I'm still thinking, that the problem doesn't come up with proper wording. I mean I presume the "Roman Catholic Church" does aquiesce to the name "Roman Catholic Church," even if it likes to say "the Church" in in-house documents. When did the need for such a name arise? Later than the need for "Armenian Apostolic," that is for sure. I think if we were to go all the way to accommodate your deference to the beliefs of practitioners, we might not even want to say the Armenian Church was created ever. I mean, the first Armenian christians no doubt thought of themselves as Christians, not Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Christians. Same goes for fundamentalists, I suppose. I'll look at the wording again. I suspect we can call some churches older without being inflammatory, but maybe I'll side with you and want just to talk about the time of divergence, which is what one has to do with species in biology. 168... 02:22 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I looked at my version again. I remember now I went with "refers" because there is no easy-to-describe single thing that is "Oriental Orthodoxy." Also, the earlier version misused "comprise." Although I concede your age issue, when I look at the particular phrasing I used, I don't see it as raising the problem. It's understood that all Christian traditions go back to Christ and so in that sense they're all equally old. I think it's also understood that no sect is practicing christianity like Peter or even exactly as Constantine practiced it, and that all the traditions have made changes many times. I think readers will understand that the age in question is the age of the necessity of the concept of the thing (e.g. the "Roman Catholic Church"). Of course, that's just my opinion. 168... 02:42 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm glad to learn of the term "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church," which I hadn't known. As I wrote above, I assumed they would each talk about themselves as "the Church." But my analysis isn't changed just because there exists a longer version of that title that they both lay claim to. I agree it complicates matters. I just don't think it makes it impossible to clearly address age. Meanwhile, I don't understand what point you are trying to argue, if you are trying to argue one, with the info about Armenia. Finally, I think it's a little problematic to write, with the particular the words you used in your last edit to the article and those in your post above, that the O.O. churches separated from the One Church in 451. If all the churches now classified as OO existed in 451 (did they?), then that language is not so misleading (i.e. provided all of the OOs had representatives at the council to return and tell them afterwards that henceforth they were on their own); but even so, isn't the situation that the churches with OO beliefs were kicked out of the Church? i.e. rather than that all parties agreed to separate?168... 21:13 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Is that all of the current OO's? Did they all hear the results of the council in a timely fashion?168... 22:43 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
131, note that despite the concern you express about obscuring that both the Eastern and the Western churches consider themselves in some sense the "original" and the "oldest" church, nevertheless the language you chose for the current version of the article suggests that neither considers itself the One Church: "the then-still-unified vast communion that called itself the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church... separated into the "Western Church" (Roman Catholicism) and the Eastern Orthodox church." I take the fact that this didn't trouble you (and it doesn't trouble me either) as a demonstration that we can expect readers to know what we mean when we talk about the "age" of the churches and their "separation" and that we aren't in great danger of slandering a denomination. 168... 22:43 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I don't see what's so unusual about the fact that "Oriental Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodox" are different even though "Oriental" and "Eastern" are similar. After all, "catholic" means "universal", and nobody is confusing the Catholics and the Universalists. It seems to me the article should note the fact, but not make a big "infelicitous" deal of it. --FOo 22:16 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
User:168... - a reversion isn't a 'minor' edit. - David Gerard 00:32, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
I deleted the assertion that Western writers do not distinguish between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, lumping them together as "Eastern churches." I think that when Western writers write, for example, that in "Eastern churches, the parish priest chrismates infants immediately after baptizing them," they mean not only Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, but also Eastern-rite Catholic churches in full communion with the Roman Catholic church, and this is not because of any unawareness of the differences between those Eastern churches, which therefore get "lumped together." Rather, such a statement is only saying that certain traditional practices are used in Eastern churches. In other words, the statement seemed very misleading. Michael Hardy 19:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Would it be useful to have an article titled 'Eastern Christianity'? Granted that this is a term from a western perspective, it is used by the 'Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity', and it might be able to deal with an overview of the complex relation between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.
Whoops! How silly must I look? I went back to the article and followed the link straight to the page I'm suggesting. It is not at all about lumping traditions together: their shared history already weaves them close enough. Perhaps the small article on Eastern Christianity might be expanded to make this article read a little more easily.
There is already something said about the confusingness of "Oriental," but I wonder if we should discuss the confusingness of the term "Orthodoxy." Because by the standards of the Churches normally called orthodox - the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches - the Oriental Orthodox were decidedly heterodox. It seems to be a relic of the Great Schism, when the terms "Catholic" and "Orthodox" separated in meaning, with the latter term referring to the eastern variant, that leaves these monophysite (more or less) churches referred to as "Orthodox" - that is, a western idea that "Orthodox" essentially means "Eastern." Or perhaps a relic of the creation of eastern rite churches in the near East - the branch that didn't become "Syrian Catholic" or "Armenian Catholic" must, of course, be Orthodox. At any rate, the confusingness of this seems worth noting. john k 00:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is to say, I think the article ought to make clear that referring to this group as "Orthodox" is kind of weird and confusing, in the same way that it makes clear that the Eastern/Oriental distinction is weird and confusing. john k 05:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I concur that we should not say that they are "not really Orthodox." But we should say that the Eastern Orthodox (and other Chalcedonians Christians) do not consider the Oriental Orthodox to be Orthodox, and that likewise the Oriental Orthodox view the Eastern Orthodox (and other Chalcedonians) as heterodox. We should also note that the term "Orthodox" was, until recently, applied almost exclusively to Chalcedonians specifically in order to contrast with supposedly "Heterodox" churches like those now calling themselves "Oriental Orthodox", and that the term "Oriental Orthodox" itself is of relatively recent origin, those churches having previously referred to themselves as Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, and so forth. We should try to be careful in doing this so as not to take sides. But I do think it is important to note that the original usage of the term "Orthodox" was specifically meant to exclude the Oriental Orthodox, but to include Catholics, and that now the whole thing is reversed. Anyway, I certainly agree that this needs to be done carefully, but I think it's important to mention this stuff in some way. john k 15:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can a sentence or two be added on the various areas at Women as theological figures. (Interfaith could also be updated.)
I dont think it is correct to say that this tradition "left the Catholic and Apostolic Church". First of all they use themselves the same adjectives for themselves. Then you cannot say this in view of history.
The Church in The East grew outside the Roman Empire in what was then the Sassanid Persian areas. When after Constantine church unity was influenced or forced by Roman state influence this had no bearing on the church in the east. They were different all along - I heard of only one of their Bishops toparticipate in Nicea - but they had their own synod earlier already.
They never debated in Greek - the language of all doctrinal talk in the Roman empire. Ever tried to follow the early doctrinal debate on Christology and found it difficult? It is difficult to follow this Greek debate in English -although Greek and English are both Indoeuropean languages with some similarity in structure. Imagine following this debate from a very different semitic language base like Aramaeic.
As the Eastern Church never was under any Western jurisdiction it simply could not split. --Kipala 22:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested to know where the term "Oriental Orthodoxy" comes from (i.e., who is to be blamed for it), so it would be neat if someone could add something about that to the article. Is this term a recent neologism? Who uses it? It appears to have been unknown to the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia (who did, by the way, mention with mild dismay that the Jacobites had started to be referred to sometimes as "orthodox"). The article currently says, "The Oriental Orthodox Communion is a group of churches within Oriental Orthodoxy which are in full communion with each other", which implies but does not state that there is some kind of organisation which calls itself "the Oriental Orthodox Communion"—we should clarify that. The question of the term's provenance is of additional importance, because it's not clear to me that we should categorically state that it is incorrect to include the Assyrian Church under the rubric of "Oriental Orthodox"—if, in fact, people normally use it that way, then it's perforce not incorrect, even if it is illogical. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the Supreme court of India, Indian orthodox church is a part of Syriac orthodox church and Patriarch of Antioch is Spiritually the head of Indian Orthodox church.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdas07 (talk • contribs) .
^How does the Supreme Court of India determine whether one church can be part of another church? That's like saying America declares Baptists as being Catholic now. Indian Orthodox Church has been excommunicated by the Patriarch of Antioch couple of decades ago. Nat, the guy above is trying to justify the Indian Orthodox church as still being in communion with the rest of the churches but they're not. Over politically derived differences they appointed a new Catholicos (bishop of India) w/o approval from the Patriarch. They refused to comply w/ the Patriarch and they've been excommunicated since. I know because I go to a Malankara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church and we are definetely not in communion with the Indian Orthodox Church. 128.194.45.219 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)#1stunner
—There is no "Indian Orthodox Church" our church name is Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Our constitution says, "The Malankara Church is a division of Orthodox Syrian Church. The primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch." It also says, "The ancient and the real name of the Malankara Church is The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, although it is also wrongly called 'The Jacobite Church', for the same reasons for which the Orthodox Syrian Church has been also called so." The great scholar Dr. Paulose Mar Gregoriose records that we are an autonomous church. So please, stop changing our status to Indian Orthodox Church. It is not recognized by our constitution. There are two factions in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, one who is more traditional and goes back to Mar Thomas Sleeha and the other who wants to make a new Indian Orthodox Church with no ties to anything that is not from India. So, it is not the case. If someday we do split and have one Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and another Indian Orthodox Church then you should change the listing. Until then, please honor our church constitution and stop editing our holy autonomous status! Paulosethomas 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-The person above is right is distinguishing that the "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church" is the official name. What he does not say, is that the Malankara Orthodox church is not in full Communion with the Syriac Orthodox Church or any of the other "Oriental Orthodox Churches." The Malankara Orthodox church started by rejecting Syriac authority. The person 2 above is correct in stating that the Syriac Orthodox Church has excommunicated the Malankara Orthodox church; probably better phrased as severing ties. The two are no longer connected, and the other Oriental Orthodox churches have sided with the Syriac Orthodox church and are not in full communion with the Malankara Orthodox Church. The Malankara Orthodox church should be removed entirely from this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.125.206.227 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I find Oriental Orthodox to be a confusing name for this article, and I know that I am not the only one. I have always know this group as either anti-Chalcedonian or Monophysites; though, I understand the distinction between Eutychian Monophysitism and this group, which accepted the Alexandrian union, was basically in accord with established orthodoxy, and only really butted heads with Sophronius at first. So I understand not using monophysite, and I also understand that anti-Chalcedonian might be awkward as a name. But the confusion is that Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy are, on the surface, synonyms – and I really cannot imagine that Oriental Orthodoxy call themselves such, since this kind of fine distinction is only really possible in English (a language perhaps only spoken by a few Oriental Orthodox as a native tongue). Does anyone more learned in this know what the Oriental Orthodox call themselves? Lostcaesar 09:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is going to use what they are properly known by in English, which is "Oriental Orthodox" - not something like "Church of the Three Councils" that contributors have concocted on the spot for possibly contentious purposes. Miaphysite describes the doctrine, not the denomination; that's another article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd think "Non-Chalcedonian" is the term used in English that corresponds in meaning to the French "Churches of the Three Councils." I agree with Codex that we can't use a term not used in English. Apparently the German and French wikipedias just call the Eastern Orthodox church the "Orthodox Church" (in the former case) or "Orthodoxy" (in the latter). As noted before, I think that the German and French wikipedias are probably the only ones that are sufficiently worked on to really be considered as actually representing anything real in terms of usage. john k 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In other contexts I have used "tricounciliar" (vs. "septocounciliar"), but again, I think, despite its inadequacies, "Oriental Orthodox" is the most commonly accepted term in English at this time, across all lines of opinion. --Midnite Critic 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Although it's an incredibly awkward and confusing term, I think I am reluctantly forced to agree. Certainly nobody has come up with anything better. john k 20:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
At the Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches, Friday, January 15, 1965 held in Addis Ababa, His Majesty Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia gave a very inspiring speech on the Unity of the Churches in Christ thatenabled them to put aside their differences. This is one of my favorite speeches and is an excellent primary source.
Some excerpts:
The speech can be read in its entirety in several places on the web; for example, here.
ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I came to this page out of curiosity. One thing I was curious about that isn't addressed: how many people are members of the Oriental Orthodox Church? Obviously, breaking it down by nation would be even better. CarlFink 16:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Francesco Mazzocotelli has objection in identifying the Oriental Orthodox Comunion or Group as having the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria as the Spiritual Leader of the Group. Here is my response to this objection:
1) Spiritual Leadership in this Group is not an official organized distinction that reflects a certain perogative or jurisdiction or authority from one church over another from the group. This definition is rather an allegorigal representation in the honorific position of the precedence of Apostolic Thrones based on the model established in the early church for the Pentarchy in the following sense:
2) Spiritual leadership in this group is not defined or understood as it is implemented in the Eastern Orthodox Church, giving the Church of Constantinople certain prerogatives based on Canon Law definitions identifying rights of appeal of ecclesiastical courts, extending jurisdiction in barbaric lands according to ancient definitions or even the right to preside in honor as first among equals in consideration of being the Imperial Capital.
It is however, because of the above mentioned that collectively the Oriental Orthodox Churches do give a certain respect for the elder sister church that, given the historical background, enjoys the privilege of being, if you want to term it in layman language, "the big brother' but in a loving and respectful manner, nothing more or less. There is no rights of presedence or jursidiction or canon law based privileges. It is in the spirit of a courtesy of respect. And this respectful courtesy is actually implemented in any meetings at any level, in the precedence in the terming the wordings of any official declarations, in seating arrangements when in a meeting or concelebrating, when signing documents or even presendence of the speaches, according to the hosting party of course, among the Hierarchs of these respective churches in a conciliar manner.
This spiritual leadership does not diminsh any prestige of any of the Churches within this group, it does not belittle or affect any aspect of the autocephalous status of each church of the group, or even overshadows any self gained privilege.
This is what is meant by the spiritual leadership in the Oriental Orthodox Church. I hope that apart finding a suitable NPOV as you are labeling yourself, you will gracefully and intellectually understand and accept this description in a good fraternal spirit.
Orthopraxia, 09:27 PM pacific time, December 28th, 2006
I can still see in your kind and fraternal response that you have missed the explanation I gave about the meaning of the extended spiritual leadership in the Oriental Orthodox Communion to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.
The reason I am saying so is your statement of "superior rank" which was never mentioned and "primus enter pares" which is , although I did not write it and does not apply to the Oriental Orthodox Churches, what I reffered to as what is understood in the Eastern Orthodox Church Communion. This is also not what I said. I said, "certain respect" and "the big brother" "but in a loving and respectful manner, nothing more or less". "There is no rights of presedence or jursidiction or canon law based privileges". "It is in the spirit of a courtesy of respect."
As to how to prove what I claim, you can easily search and view pictures, read wording of the several joint declarations made at several times when meetings of the heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches meet whether in Cairo, Egypt, Wadi Natroun's Monastery of Saint Bishoy, at Beirut, Lebanon, whether at Antelias, or other Patriarchal centers, or even in Damascus, Syria.
These pictures and documents of the joint declarations are available on all offical websites of the respective Patriarchates,and also on wikipedia. In the pictures you will see that always the center position among the Hierarchs is given to the Pope of Alexandria anywhere, and when meeting with Government positions, like in Lebanon (President of Lebanon and others), the Pope of Alexandria is seated according, most probably too, to the aproved protocol of seniority implemented in the diplomatic arena, nearest to the Official followed by the other Patriarchs and always in the following sequense: Alexandria, Antioch, Antelias or Etchemiazin, Axum and Malankara. The Pope of Alexandria is also given the Center position on the Cathedra when seated in the Patriarchal Cathedral of the receiving Patriarch (Syriac or Armenian), this honor is not usually extended to any other Hierarch visiting another Hierarch in their Patriarchal Cathedral.
As for the documents (Common Declarations) wording, it always start with the Pope of Alexandria, followed by the Patriarch of Antioch, then the Catholicos of the House Cilicia or the Catholicos of the All Armenians (whoever is attending).
Now again this does not give any perogatives to Alexandria or higher status or jursidiction or even distinction in, if you want to label it as, an appartidal way (if this word exist). It is just an extended respect mutually acknowledged among the churches.
I will add as per your sugestion a clause that states that the Spiritual leadership in the Oriental Orthodox Churches is in a different understanding and in a different spirit than the one granted in the Eastern Orthodox Churches to avoid any misconception. I hope that this would be satisfactory.
In Christ, Orthopraxia, 1:13 AM Pacific Time, January 8th, 2007
Please see Talk:Liturgy_of_the_hours#Requested_move for details. --Espoo 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The Oriental Orthodox Church is at this point probably the only branch of orthodoxy which does not have a specific project dealing with it. On that basis, I have proposed a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oriental Orthodoxy. Any individuals interested in seeing such a project develop should indicate their interest there. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Syriac and Indian ecclesiastical jurisdictions" removed.
—There is no "Indian Orthodox Church" our church name is Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Our constitution says, "The Malankara Church is a division of Orthodox Syrian Church. The primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch." It also says, "The ancient and the real name of the Malankara Church is The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, although it is also wrongly called 'The Jacobite Church', for the same reasons for which the Orthodox Syrian Church has been also called so." The great scholar Dr. Paulose Mar Gregoriose records that we are an autonomous church. So please, stop changing our status to Indian Orthodox Church. It is not recognized by our constitution. There are two factions in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, one who is more traditional and goes back to Mar Thomas Sleeha and the other who wants to make a new Indian Orthodox Church with no ties to anything that is not from India. So, it is not the case. If someday we do split and have one Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and another Indian Orthodox Church then you should change the listing. Until then, please honor our church constitution and stop editing our holy autonomous status! Paulosethomas 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
In response to your justification of the name and autonomy of the Church, it is quite obvious that you are a member of the Malankara Syrian Jacobite Church, which is in fact an autonomous church, whose Catholicos is the Catholicos of India, and is fact under the Patriachate of Antioch, and this church is already mentioned in the lineage of the Oriental Orthodox group/Communion. But, it is an established fact, whether I or you like it of not that the Indian Orthodox Church Church exist and is Autocephalous (independent) and whose Catholicos is the Catholicos of the East and the malankara Metropolitan. They have their church, their website, their Page, as it is referenced in Wikipedia and there is nothing that will change this fact. Your opinion and mine for that sake is irrelevant.
If your sentiment is towards that they should be one united church as before, then we all pray for that, but until this happens, neither I or you or anyone has the right to change the fact, and by eliminating what you removed from the page or by putting the name of the Church under the Church of Antioch will not change anything.
I am sorry if I sound blunt, but you have to deal with certain realies, even at your dissatisfaction. I will revert what you have done and I will always do that, and I have to, I will report your tampering of the page to Wikipedia administrator.
You have the right, if you want to create a Page to discuss you opinion, you may add the link to the Oriental Orthodoxy Page if you wish, although the ongoing rift within the Churches in India is already well documented from both factions and it does not need further elaboration. I would appreciate that you take heed of this issue and abide by it respectfully.
I would like to add that I am not a memeber of either churches, if this is your concern and I am not advacating one over the other. This is an encyclopedia of information and information should be correctly documented without bias and based on established facts whether we like it or not. Orthopraxia 09:28 am Pacific Time, January 23, 2007
— I am sorry to sound blunt also, but you need to deal with certain realities, even if it does not give you pleasure. There are two groups of Orthodox in India, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, which goes back to our first Patriarch St. Thomas Sleeha, and Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church. I am part of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, not Jacobite Syrian Church. Let it be clear to you. Inside Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church are two factions, one who is ancient faction that respects our 1934 Constitution and one who wants to make a new constitution and change our name to Indian Orthodox Church. I am part of ancient faction of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. You are so quick to make assumptions and it shows you don't know what you're talking about. So go ahead an report your false information. I have evidence to back the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. If you even click on the link called "Indian Orthodox" you can view many websites in links sections. All of these prove that you are wrong. Let's list them please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Orthodox_Church#External_links
Now click the first link: Official site of the Indian Orthodox Church - Then on left menu, click "Church Constitution." What you will see in the top? Everything I quoted above. Right in front of your face.
Now click on the second link: St. Gregorios Indian Orthodox Church, UK - This is a parish website, not official, but still it is clear. Then on left menu, click "historical." You can read about the history. From this page it clearly says "The Indian Church was autonomous then, and is now, like all Orthodox Churches."
Now click on this link: The website of the Malankara Orthodox Church - On top left, click "History." You will read many pages and at the end it says "Orthodox Church is an Ancient, Autonomous, Independent, Indian Church whose Supreme Head is His Holiness The Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan, with headquarters at Catholicate Aramana, Devalokam, Kottayam, Kerala. " http://www.orthodoxsyrianchurch.com/html/history/moc7.htm
Now click on official American diocese site and click catholicose then history: http://www.indianorthodoxchurch.org/history.html What does it say? "The Indian Orthodox Church is autonomous, but belongs to the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and to the wider group of the world's Orthodox Churches, which have a membership of about one hundred and twenty five million."
I will be nice to you because you are not in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church so you don't understand. We are autonomous and this is the law. It is in our 1934 constitution. If some want to change it to autocephaly, they cannot do it. This would break the constitution and we would have to forfit our churches that belong to us! I have given you official evidences and even not official evidences. So if you are not part of this Church, please quit your behavior or I will report you as well. Paulosethomas 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
can someone give some more information about this, specifically the word 'Old'? a) I've never heard it before, b) I can't find anything about it other than this information copied elsewhere, and c) I can't find any 'New Oriental Churches'. Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I made an alteration in the text where it describes the conflict as having caused a schism between the Oriental Orthodox churches and "what would later become the roman catholic and eastern orthodox churches". The alteration I made was to change that phrase to "the mainstream of the Christian Church", which is more historically accurate, although it was, unfortunately, reverted immediately. The phrasing as it stands is at best overly simplistic and under-informed, and is at worst a potential NPOV violation. If we are to be fully accurate in these terms, it would be ideal to alter the the text to say "what would later become the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc...". What do people think? S0343463 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Sam Korn, in both seeing your point and tending to disagree. The word 'mainstream' is not too helpful, to me (nor would 'main body' or 'larger part' be either). But I don't think saying 'the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches' is NPOV so much as anachronistic (when did the Roman Catholic Church start using the word 'roman' to describe itself as a whole entity?). How about 'the rest of the Christian Church'? It is simple, true, but the wordier explanation can come later in the article. Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem, Richardson, with your proposed phrasing is that what is now called the Catholic Apostolic Assyrian Church of the East, aka the "Nestorians," had already separated in the wake of Council of Ephesus. Your concern about anachronism is well-taken, but look closely at the wording: "what would become the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches." I think this wording is adequate, non-anachronistic, NPOV, and possibly the best available.--Midnite Critic (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Not only misleading but incorrect. The OO, by definition, accept the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus as being ecumenical and binding. The Assyrian Church accepts only the Councils of Nicea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381) as ecumenical. The tradition of the Assyrian Church is usually termed "East Syrian," as opposed to the "West Syrian" tradition of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syriac Rite Church in communion with Rome, and the Maronites, also in communion with Rome and West Syrian, but whose tradition is a variant. --Midnite Critic (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
To further clarify: the terminology can be confusing, especially in Iraq, since many people who consider themselves "Assyrian" by ethnicity are members of the Syriac Orthodox Church. --Midnite Critic (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What kind of phrasing is that? Roman Catholics would not agree to it. To them the Chalcedonian Church was identical to the Roman Catholic Church to the exclusion of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore a traditional Roman Catholic would only agree to the phrasing "what would later become the Roman Catholic Church". The Eastern Orthodox would say the very same about themselves. And for those who adhere to branch theory, they would extend that reality beyond the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. So I don't see how this phrase really represents the opinion of any major ecclesiastical group in Christianity. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
..."This was not because Chalcedon stated that Christ has two natures, but because the council's declaration did not confess the two natures as inseparable and united." is absolutely fallacious on both counts. The traditional Oriental Orthodox who object to Chalcedonian Christology DO object to the formula "to be acknowledged in two natures". Secondly, the Chalcedonian Creed most certainly does confess the two natures as united inseparably. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Referring to the link at the bottom of the page. Aside from the fact that this is a faulty link, I am curious as to why the Georgian Orthodox Church is linked in an article about Oriental Orthodoxy? The Georgian Orthodox Church, to my knowledge, is an Eastern Orthodox church, not an Oriental Orthodox church. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"These six churches, while being in communion with each other are completely independent hierarchically and have no equivalent of the Bishop of Rome or Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople."
What's that supposed to mean? This makes it seem as if the Patriarch in Constantinople is the same as the Pope in authority. While the Oriental Orthodox may have no First among Equals, this is a misleading comparison that can draw false conclusions on Eastern Orthodox hierarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.187.190 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not? Ancient Canons before the church split says that the Ecumenical Patriarch was having the highest authority. Pope was only having an honarary post since he was the Patriarch of old capital of the empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.131.64 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
"While the Oriental Orthodox may have no First among Equals,". The Oriental Orthodox most certainly do have a first among equals within their communion. The Coptic Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is regarded as the first in honorary rank among the Oriental Orthodox bishops. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The situation of the Orthodox Church in India is similar to that of the church in Ukraine. The followers of Patriarch of Antioch and Catholicos of East are fighting in the streets to get possession of the assets of the church.
The Patriarch fraction is known as Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, and the Catholicos fraction as Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. An Independent Orthodox Church body also exists since 1772 AD by name, Malabar Independent Syrian Church, which is not in communion either with the Patriarch or Catholicos.
Majority of the Orthodox christians in India,including me, accept the Patriarch of Antioch as the Spiritual leader, and Catholicos of East as the autocephelous head. Similar to the situation in Georgia, where Georgians accept the Catholicos of Georgia as their autocephelous head and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as the Spiritual head.
So, we christians dont know which church we actually belong, since we need both the Patriarch and the Catholicos.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulangattil (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
So, more and more I am becoming very confused as to which particular churches actually constitute the mainstream Oriental Orthodox communion and maintain full communion. It seems pretty clear that the Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopian (under Abuna Paulos) churches maintain full communion and are legitimate parts of this Church. I'm not sure about the Eritrean church. However, I have heard from a number of insiders that supposedly the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church is actually not in full communion and thus not part of the mainstream Oriental Orthodox Church. On top of this, I recently read an odd statement in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church that: "Owing to the wars in which they were involved, the Armenian were not represented at the Council of Chalcedon, but in 555 the Armenian Church definitively repudiated that Council and the schism has not been healed. The decision seems to have been partly motivated by fear of domination by Constantinople, and the Armenians never entered into full communion with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches". So I am confused also about the Armenian church.
Can some individual informed about Oriental Orthodoxy clarify which churches actually maintain full communion and which do not? Deusveritasest (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |